# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  What is your position on abortion?

## Brett85

I know that people are probably tired of debating the abortion issue, and I'm not posting this poll for the purpose of starting another debate about abortion.  I'm posting this poll because Keith and Stuff and I were having a discussion about the percentage of members here who are pro life and the percentage who are pro choice.  So I'm going to post this poll and include options that are more specific, rather than just using labels like "pro life" and "pro choice."

Also, forget about the federal vs. state debate and just answer the question as if we're discussing what abortion policy should be at the state level.

----------


## eduardo89

I'm 100% pro-life. 

Abortion is wrong in every single case and should be illegal.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Should be illegal in every case except for the life of the mother.

Should be dealt with at the state level.  So I oppose every single Federal law against abortion.

----------


## Christian Liberty

You needed some options related to Federalism as well as the options you gave...

----------


## Brett85

> You needed some options related to Federalism as well as the options you gave...


I edited my first post.  Just answer the question as to what the policy should be at the state level.

----------


## bolil

I disagree with it in all cases, but don't give a $#@! if anyone wants to slay a baby just don't expect me to pay for it and don't expect me to give you business or friendship.

Actually, that is me as I wish to be, in reality I am much more compromising.  For better or worse, i SUPPOSE.

----------


## Brett85

I think that abortion is only justified when the woman needs to get one to save her own life, since the government should care about both the life of the mother and the life of the baby.

----------


## surf

as Harry Browne used to say (paraphrasing), "with the government so involved in abortion, it's a wonder I haven't needed one."

----------


## Brett85

> I disagree with it in all cases, but don't give a $#@! if anyone wants to slay a baby just don't expect me to pay for it and don't expect me to give you business or friendship.


Then you should vote for the option "It should be legal with no restrictions."

Edit:  You did that, good.  I want everyone to vote so that we'll get an accurate sample.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I edited my first post.  Just answer the question as to what the policy should be at the state level.


OK then:

Banned except in cases where the life of the mother is in danger.  Punished exactly the same as murder when done on demand...

Rape is trickier in that the woman has probably been punished enough.  The doctor on the other hand...

----------


## Christian Liberty

I'm curious if the "No restrictions" people really understand what that means.  That goes way further than Roe v Wade did...

----------


## eduardo89

> I disagree with it in all cases, but don't give a $#@! if anyone wants to slay a baby just don't expect me to pay for it and don't expect me to give you business or friendship.


Do you also not give a $#@! if someone kills their newborn?

----------


## bolil

> Then you should vote for the option "It should be legal with no restrictions."


Errrr, duh?

----------


## bolil

> Do you also not give a $#@! if someone kills their newborn?


Cannot, don't recognize the difference.  Would, if and when I can, administer my own brand of justice outside the bounds of law.

My opinion should be known by those who frequent this forum.  I consider abortion infanticide, others don't.  Who am I to impress upon them my opinion of a very complicated thing...?  Though I don't think it is complex, others do.  It is a $#@!ed up world, welcome to it, best I can do is maintain what semblance of innocence I still have.  Ironic, because who is more innocent than the unborn???  Anyone that gets an abortion due to consensual behavior I consider an $#@!, I understand abortion in regards to rape though.  I am not a woman, but if I were I dont think I could love a rape child like a consensual one.  Even if that were possible, as it would be regarding a being greater than myself... what if the kid found out...?  The self torture that would stem from that.  I don't much like this world and hope I am not long of it.

Perfect world?  Rapist, those that are beyond all doubt rapist, would be tortured.  Their organs harvested and the marrow sucked from their living bones.

----------


## Brett85

> Errrr, duh?


You hadn't voted when I made that comment.  Thanks for voting.

----------


## eduardo89

> Cannot, don't recognize the difference.  Would, if and when I can, administer my own brand of justice outside the bounds of law.


So at what point do you give a $#@! if someone is murdered and think it should be illegal? If not in the womb, and not as a newborn, then when do you have a right to life? 6 months? 18 months? 6 years? 18 years? Never, murder should also be legal?

----------


## gwax23

It should be illegal with an exception for the life of the mother.

----------


## Philhelm

I didn't see the option, "Babies should be thrown into wood-chippers."

----------


## green73

Got to love Mr. Divisive, TC, and his public polls in GP.

----------


## bolil

> So at what point do you give a $#@! if someone is murdered and think it should be illegal? If not in the womb, and not as a newborn, then when do you have a right to life? 6 months? 18 months? 6 years? 18 years? Never, murder should also be legal?


As far as I am concerned you have a right to life as soon as conceived.  This is why I do not engage in acts that might spawn life.  Again, my personal belief on this issue should be clear, clear as an open night sky.  I cannot, however strongly I believe a thing to be antithetical to liberty on its face, deny another person of another gender which I know nothing about their opinion.  Yet, not all opinion result in the death of innocent.  I will fight the MIC before I get involved in abortion,  if the world were a better place perhaps it would cease to be an issue.  

We need to forge a better world, and then abortion or population control, or the rest of the sophistry justifying what I see as murder will be seen as the nonsense I believe it to be. 

How to go about a better world?  Well, isn;t that the common thread of these forums...

----------


## WhistlinDave

I would recommend a do-over where the poll results are not public.  Some people may not feel comfortable answering if they feel they might be attacked by others for taking the view they do.  You might get skewed results and a smaller sample of respondents by doing it public like this.  (I think it's safe to say this is the single most polarizing issue libertarians disagree on.)

----------


## bolil

> I would recommend a do-over where the poll results are not public.  Some people may not feel comfortable answering if they feel they might be attacked by others for taking the view they do.  You might get skewed results and a smaller sample of respondents by doing it public like this.  (I think it's safe to say this is the single most polarizing issue libertarians disagree on.)


$#@! that, take your stand wherever your conscience places its feet!

----------


## Origanalist

> I would recommend a do-over where the poll results are not public.  Some people may not feel comfortable answering if they feel they might be attacked by others for taking the view they do.  You might get skewed results and a smaller sample of respondents by doing it public like this.  (I think it's safe to say this is the single most polarizing issue libertarians disagree on.)


I don't hide my position, I think abortion is murder. Consider this my vote.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> $#@! that, take your stand wherever your conscience places its feet!


I voted; I wasn't speaking for myself.  But anyone who truly wants accurate results on such a controversial and inflammatory topic is foolhardy to do this as a public poll.  (Unless the goal isn't really getting an accurate sample of people's positions on this forum.)

My opinion on this can be found here for anyone who cares where my feet stand.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4461720

----------


## WhistlinDave

//

----------


## Fredom101

I'm a libertarian so, even if I don't agree with abortion, I'm not in favor of having laws to try to prevent it.

----------


## bolil

> I voted; I wasn't speaking for myself.  But anyone who truly wants accurate results on such a controversial and inflammatory topic is foolhardy to do this as a public poll.  (Unless the goal isn't really getting an accurate sample of people's positions on this forum.)
> 
> My opinion on this can be found here for anyone who cares where my feet stand.
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4461720


I apologize for seeming so aggressive, I could have put that better.

----------


## Brett85

> I don't hide my position, I think abortion is murder. Consider this my vote.


Then why not vote in the poll?

----------


## Brett85

> I would recommend a do-over where the poll results are not public.  Some people may not feel comfortable answering if they feel they might be attacked by others for taking the view they do.  You might get skewed results and a smaller sample of respondents by doing it public like this.  (I think it's safe to say this is the single most polarizing issue libertarians disagree on.)


Maybe I'll do another poll sometime that isn't public.  I just thought it would be interesting to see where individual members stand on this issue.

----------


## bolil

Poll<Written words.

This is the greatest schism, and as a community or whatever this is we should be able to converse about it without reservations, which is another way of saying, "without equivocation."

----------


## eduardo89

> I'm a libertarian so, even if I don't agree with abortionmurder, I'm not in favor of having laws to try to prevent it.


Ftfy

Libertarians believe in laws that punish violations of others' rights, with the most important right being the right to life. Without the right to life all other rights are meaningless.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> I apologize for seeming so aggressive, I could have put that better.


LOL  No worries; I didn't take any offense at that.

I think it should be illegal once a baby has conscious awareness and is able to feel pain and suffering, and after that point, only legal in cases of rape/incest or when the mother's life and/or long term health are at risk.  Of course I have no good way of determining at what age that occurs so I don't know if I have an exact answer.  It's more of a conceptual/philosophical one.  Not close enough to actually run for political office and state an exact policy platform on it.  But it's close enough for me to answer the poll, anyway.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> Maybe I'll do another poll sometime that isn't public.  I just thought it would be interesting to see where individual members stand on this issue.


I apologize for using the word "foolhardy;" I didn't mean to imply you were foolish.  I should've found a better way to say that.  Sorry TC!!

----------


## Scrapmo

/Wonders into another Libertarian abortion thread:

----------


## bolil

> /Wonders into another Libertarian abortion thread:


Well, all levity aside, why make a serious thing light with a disney corruption?

----------


## PSYOP

Abortion ONLY in the case that the life of the mother is in danger.

----------


## Fredom101

> Ftfy
> 
> Libertarians believe in laws that punish violations of others' rights, with the most important right being the right to life. Without the right to life all other rights are meaningless.


Maybe I should clarify. I'm a libertarian-anarchist, so I don't believe that laws are necessary in society. You can't change people's minds by forcing them to behave a certain way at gunpoint.

----------


## eduardo89

> Maybe I should clarify. I'm a libertarian-anarchist, so I don't believe that laws are necessary in society. You can't change people's minds by forcing them to behave a certain way at gunpoint.


Anarchists don't believe in an absence of laws, but in eliminating the government's monopoly on force.

----------


## bolil

> Anarchists don't believe in an absence of laws, but in eliminating the government's monopoly on force.


This is a thing everyone here agrees upon, and as such and being common ground is the fight to fight.  If anyone takes my meaning.

----------


## Scrapmo

> Well, all levity aside, why make a serious thing light with a disney corruption?



Just a joke. Carry on.

----------


## Contumacious

> What is your position on abortion? .


I am 1000% ProLife....the women.

.

----------


## eduardo89

> I am 1000% ProLife....the women.


So you only support abortion make babies, but think it should be illegal to abort female babies?

That's a very strange position to take.

----------


## Brett85

> I am 1000% ProLife....the women.
> 
> .


Why should it be illegal to abort female babies but legal to abort male babies?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Why should it be illegal to abort female babies but legal to abort male babies?






> Ftfy
> 
> Libertarians believe in laws that punish violations of others' rights, with the most important right being the right to life. Without the right to life all other rights are meaningless.





> LOL  No worries; I didn't take any offense at that.
> 
> I think it should be illegal once a baby has conscious awareness and is able to feel pain and suffering, and after that point, only legal in cases of rape/incest or when the mother's life and/or long term health are at risk.  Of course I have no good way of determining at what age that occurs so I don't know if I have an exact answer.  It's more of a conceptual/philosophical one.  Not close enough to actually run for political office and state an exact policy platform on it.  But it's close enough for me to answer the poll, anyway.


Why should rape be an exception there?  Even disregarding the issues with consent, why couldn't a woman who was raped get the abortion earlier than that point, if that's really when you believe human life should be protected?



> Got to love Mr. Divisive, TC, and his public polls in GP.


Who cares?

----------


## Brett85

> Got to love Mr. Divisive, TC, and his public polls in GP.


If people complain about public polls so much, why don't the mods simply do away with the option of making the polls public?

----------


## bolil

I think the includer of the ellipsis should fill in the ...   .

A public poll is the only poll worth a damn, if you ask me.

----------


## emazur

> I'm curious if the "No restrictions" people really understand what that means.  That goes way further than Roe v Wade did...


I was tempted for a moment to choose that but had to consider the "informed consent" side of things. There are laws against things like child pornography, children drinking alcohol, or children signing contracts b/c "we" (as in most people and I think that includes most libertarians) think you need to be old enough to understand the ramifications of your actions before acting on your own.  I think having an abortion can be put into the category of something a 13 year old isn't really prepared to understand, so I'm OK with saying minors can have abortions but require the consent of parents/guardians.  But it's not like I'm eager to use government force against the 13 year old who decides to have one anyway or the doctor who performs it. So I'm thinking that if the underage girl can clearly demonstrate she understands the ramifications (no, I don't feel like writing up such criteria), she can decide to have an abortion on her own. But yes, I'm putting some restrictions here

----------


## Matthew5

"..in case of the life of the mother" might be misleading. My understanding is that this is really a misnomer of what threatens the mother. Most life-threatening situations involve the embryo being outside or improperly planted in the uterus and therefore have no chance at development anyhow. Seems to be the rape/incest exemption would be the only next logical step after no exceptions.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> Why should rape be an exception there?  Even disregarding the issues with consent, why couldn't a woman who was raped get the abortion earlier than that point, if that's really when you believe human life should be protected?


Well I would hope she would make that decision before the baby is old enough to be more than a  non-sentient collection of cells and tissues.  But believe it or not, there are many cases of women not even realizing they are pregnant for several months, and in a few rare cases, even right up to the point where her water breaks.  (In some cases they can even continue to menstruate a little bit; enough to not realize they are pregnant.)  

If someone didn't even know she was pregnant until four months later, or six months later, and the baby is the child of her rapist, and now she feels she has a monstrosity living inside her that she did not plan for, did not consent to, does not want, and feels she could never love or care for, I am simply not comfortable imposing my own moral standard upon her in that situation and deem to tell her what is right and wrong.  I can't even begin to imagine what that would be like.

Besides that though, maybe someone changes her mind later?  Maybe at first she is trying hard to be forgiving, and really wants to see the baby through to either raise herself or give away for adoption, and then a month or two or three later, as the criminal case proceeds, and as she has more time to reflect, maybe she changes her mind.  Now she just wants "it" out of her.  I would hope she would make the decision and stick to it, before the baby has any awareness, but if she doesn't, who am I to tell her what to do?  I have no idea what it's like to be raped nor to be pregnant with the baby of a monster.

And this reminds me:  I forgot to mention one of my strongest beliefs on the topic of abortion.  And that is, we men can discuss it all we want but I don't think people like us, who do not possess a uterus, should actually get a vote on the matter.  (I mean if it was up for a vote.)  It isn't something any of us will personally ever have to make the choice to do or not do.  At best I can recommend what I think is right.  But I don't think I'm in a position to dictate to anyone.

----------


## Matthew5

> And this reminds me:  I forgot to mention one of my strongest beliefs on the topic of abortion.  And that is, we men can discuss it all we want but I don't think people like us, who do not possess a uterus, should actually get a vote on the matter.  (I mean if it was up for a vote.)  It isn't something any of us will personally ever have to make the choice to do or not do.  At best I can recommend what I think is right.  But I don't think I'm in a position to dictate to anyone.


Don't drink the feminist kool-aid, Dave.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> If people complain about public polls so much, why don't the mods simply do away with the option of making the polls public?


I don't know how many there are, but human nature dictates surely there must be some people who would choose not to participate in a poll on a controversial subject if they knew everyone could see their answer and then might ask or demand to know why they voted the way they did.  I don't personally have a problem with public polls; everyone is free to vote how they want, or not vote at all.  I simply wouldn't use one myself if I wanted to get the largest response possible on a topic that people tend to argue over.  (That's all I was trying to say earlier.)

----------


## eduardo89

> And this reminds me: I forgot to mention one of my strongest beliefs on the topic of abortion. And that is, we men can discuss it all we want but I don't think people like us, who do not possess a uterus, should actually get a vote on the matter. (I mean if it was up for a vote.) It isn't something any of us will personally ever have to make the choice to do or not do. At best I can recommend what I think is right. But I don't think I'm in a position to dictate to anyone.


Sorry, but that is absolutely bull$#@!.

----------


## Carlybee

What if all men had to get vasectomies?  Would solve the abortion problem.  That's about how I feel about government being involved in the issue.  Put them in charge of wombs and someday they will also be in charge of testicles.

Other than that, I choose the option you don't have listed:  None of your business

----------


## WhistlinDave

> Don't drink the feminist kool-aid, Dave.


LOL  I don't think that's a feminist position; I just don't think I'm inherently qualified to decide anything on the topic.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> Sorry, but that is absolutely bull$#@!.


Why?  Carlybee beat me to it, but do you think women should be allowed a vote on what age all males are required to get vasectomies at?  Or on a law outlawing vasectomies?  I don't want them telling me what I'm allowed to do with my dick and balls any more than I think I'm qualified to dictate to them what they're allowed to do with their equipment.  I have never been in that position in this lifetime and never will.  So...  How is that bull$#@!?

----------


## Origanalist

> LOL  I don't think that's a feminist position; I just don't think I'm inherently qualified to decide anything on the topic.


Even if it's your child?

----------


## eduardo89

> What if all men had to get vasectomies?  Would solve the abortion problem.  That's about how I feel about government being involved in the issue.  Put them in charge of wombs and someday they will also be in charge of testicles.
> 
> Other than that, I choose the option you don't have listed:  None of your business


How is a vasectomy at all comparable to murdering an unborn child?

----------


## WhistlinDave

> Even if it's your child?


Well now, that's kind of another topic entirely.  In the event abortion is legal (which it currently is), I do think the father should have some say in the decision.

But I wasn't talking about individual instances; I was talking about the subject of legality or illegality of it.  Which is why I didn't really "go there" in my mind.  (Well that and the fact that I had a vasectomy so many years ago I don't even think in those terms any more.)

----------


## Matthew5

> LOL  I don't think that's a feminist position; I just don't think I'm inherently qualified to decide anything on the topic.


That's what they want you to believe. But it takes a male to create that child in the womb of the woman, and that automatically gives men a seat at the table.

----------


## bolil

> That's what they want you to believe. But it takes a male to create that child in the womb of the woman, and that automatically gives men a seat at the table.


A fair point.  But, say you have a bottle and I fill it with water... is the water yours or mine?

----------


## eduardo89

> A fair point.  But, say you have a bottle and I fill it with water... is the water yours or mine?


Neither the bottle nor the water is a human being with the right to life. You can throw out the water and you can throw out the bottle, but you have no right to kill an innocent human being.

----------


## Origanalist

> Well now, that's kind of another topic entirely.  In the event abortion is legal (which it currently is), I do think the father should have some say in the decision.
> 
> But I wasn't talking about individual instances; I was talking about the subject of legality or illegality of it.  Which is why I didn't really "go there" in my mind.  (Well that and the fact that I had a vasectomy so many years ago I don't even think in those terms any more.)


The legality issue is why I didn't vote. But the fact that you had a vasectomy years ago doesn't give you the right to say men are inherently unqualified to decide anything on the issue. Somebody besides the woman is involved here, two people to be precise.

----------


## gwax23

> Ftfy
> 
> Libertarians believe in laws that punish violations of others' rights, with the most important right being the right to life. Without the right to life all other rights are meaningless.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to eduardo89 again.

----------


## bolil

> Neither the bottle nor the water is a human being with the right to life. You can throw out the water and you can throw out the bottle, but you have no right to kill an innocent human being.


A shallow metaphor, no doubt.  A point well taken.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> The legality issue is why I didn't vote. But the fact that you had a vasectomy years ago doesn't give you the right to say men are inherently unqualified to decide anything on the issue.


That isn't at all what I was saying.  I was explaining part of why I didn't consider the question of "What if the child is my own" until you asked it.

As to why I feel unqualified on deciding legality or illegality, it's because I don't have a uterus and have never been pregnant in this lifetime and never will.

And again, I do think it's killing a person, once the baby becomes a person.  I think that happens at the point when the baby becomes aware, i.e. has sentience or conscious awareness.  And I don't think people should kill people.  I think an abortion is not killing a person when it occurs prior to the point when the clump of cells becomes a person.

But again, I don't feel that I have the right to dictate my beliefs to others on this particular topic because it's a complicated issue.  The best I can hope to do is convince others why it's wrong.  And if drug prohibition has taught us anything, it's that prohibiting something does not stop people from doing it.  The only real solution is to end the desire to do it and I can't do that through laws.

----------


## TER

If I was a pregnant women and it was my life versus the life of the baby, I have a good idea I know what I would choose.  But just because I can fantasize about it and take a guess doesn't actually mean $#@!.  No one does more soul searching and contemplation then those who are actually facing such a terrible choice.  It is easy for us to judge what is morally right and wrong, but no one can speak for the experiences of another.  We as a Christian society must seek to have a common goal of easing the suffering of one another, showing fairness, justice and mercy (above all, mercy) while not putting more burdens on others.  In the Kindgom, there will not need to be such laws, for there it will eternally live in such divinity, but for us on earth, it is the Christian life of self-sacrifice, selfless giving and fidelity to Christ whereby we find true life, not here in this world which is temporary and fading away, but before His everlasting Presence in the Kingdom of Heaven, in the many rooms He has reserved for those who love Him.

To allow young girls to risk imprisonment for aborting a child produced during a rape is tyrannical.  The risks of infection, sterilization, and death in young women would exceed those occurring during childbirth.  

It is up to the families, the communities, indeed the cities and nations to extol the sanctity of life. 

That is why there is _economia_.  Why _economia_ exists.

----------


## Smart3

People already know my view on this issue.

"One method of destroying a concept is by diluting its meaning. Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists *obliterate* the rights of the living." - Ayn Rand

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Anarchists don't believe in an absence of laws,  but in eliminating the government's monopoly on force.


Thank you. It is a shame that a non-anarchist such as yourself has to explain this sort of thing to a self-proclaimed anarchist. SMH ...

----------


## Carlybee

> How is a vasectomy at all comparable to murdering an unborn child?


It would prevent the murder of unborn children, no?   But my comment was about giving the government an inch and it taking a mile, but I don't expect you to get that.   I mean who _would ever have thought_ we would have TSA people in airports molesting children?  Or healthcare being forced down our throats?  Or having to have rfid chips on our driver's licenses, or black boxes in cars, or being profiled as a possible homegrown terrorist because you support liberty, or being told how much soda you can drink, how much rainwater you can collect, or the NSA monitoring the population, etc etc ad nauseum.  Maybe you'll get it when someday we have an ultra liberal in charge of everything who decides it's just easier to sterilize the male population than ban abortions.  Not to mention the fact that banning abortion will not prevent abortion.  It will just prevent legal abortion. It won't make people make wiser decisions.  It won't make people stop having indiscriminate sex.  It may make those who wish it to be so be able to sleep better at night knowing they support a pipe dream. The only thing that will stop abortion is 100% effective birth control, or 100% abstinence from sex or possibly chasitity belts or possible men keeping their penises in their trousers. When you figure out how to make that happen then you can say you've found a possible way to prevent abortion.  Murder is illegal, doesn't stop murder.  Stealing is illegal, doesn't stop stealing. Those are facts...not conjecture.

----------


## Bman

My personal thought is that I'd give up to the 8 week mark for an abortion and then afterwards only mother's life would be an exception.  At the point the baby is viable there would be no exception besides early birth.

----------


## economics102

My view is that the fetus is a human life, but it is also...I think the scientific term would be a "parasite." If a woman owns her body, then she cannot be legally compelled to play host to this parasite we call the fetus.

Therefore, I vote for "legal with no restrictions."

----------


## TER

I just want to add that many Orthodox Christians would disagree with me on my vote, and I first of all confess that my opinion on this matter is my own. 

My reasoning?  Each and every circumstance is different, and much spiritual guidance and love should be shown to _all_ those who suffer through such decisions.  Such a strict and severe law as total abolishment might cause greater harm and develop even greater resistance from many in society, fomenting discord and discontent and suspicion and malice.   A place not pleasant at all to live in. 

Christ showed mercy, we should as well.  Our fight to end abortions makes real headway in decreasing the numbers by fighting for attainable goals and praying for the nation to grow morally and righteously.  Fighting for an impossible dream is for daydreamers.  If we fight, we fight for what is real and attainable in our lifetime and thus make progress, and put our trust in God for the future.

----------


## TER

One great way to start is to STOP federal funding.

----------


## TER

Just as the libertarian argument is that making drugs illegal does not eliminate drug usage but creates an underground and dangerous economy, likewise making all abortions illegal will not stop abortions from taking place.  Our goal is to instill morality through our lives and our communities, starting with our families.  If the family is destroyed in society (which it is by the BS on TV and being taught in schools), then no amount of government laws and force will stop the collapse.  For the sickness is not the abortion but rather abortions are proof of the sickness which is already spread throughout. This sickness is the immorality and corruption within a nation.  The godlessness and emptiness which seeks to destroy.  Unless we change the morality of the people, then all our attempts at political change to a more peaceful and Christian society will be for nought.  Ron Paul says this, and greater men before him as well.

----------


## BSWPaulsen

Destruction of the fetus can be wrought by indirect means, consciously or otherwise, rendering any interpretation of laws in that area hopeless and subjective. Instead of doctors, women will make it a point to miscarry, or otherwise damage the fetus beyond viability, and would possess reasonable plausible deniability as to their ultimate intention. Asserting a legal issue over abortion necessitates pregnant women be treated as owned property; either she responsibly carries the child to term as per the current opinion on what _responsibly_ constitutes, or risk prosecution. The road to statist tyranny is paved with noble intentions, and I believe that remains particularly relevant here.

That it's a disgusting and barbaric practice is beyond dispute, but the only way to actually get at the root of the problem is to fix our communities so that this isn't the most appealing option, ever. Legalism solves nothing in this area. 

As an aside, I wonder if those that would make abortion illegal would also charge pregnant women engaging in risky/dangerous behavior with manslaughter when they miscarry.

----------


## TER

The more frightening part is the large percentage of people who believe abortion should be legal in every situation.  That should be sobering for anyone who values the sanctity of life and who wish that abortions would become a thing of the past.  We as a movement who preach liberty for every individual have enough work to do within our own community.

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> The more frightening part is the large percentage of people who believe abortion should be legal in every situation.  That should be sobering for anyone who values the sanctity of life and who wish that abortions would become a thing of the past.  *We as a movement who preach liberty for every individual have enough work to do within our own community.*


Definitely.

----------


## oyarde

I have nine children , eleven grandchildren, I find this practice barbaric as it is used as birth control .The Fed govt has no role. I also see what kind of world I live in where so many people feel this is such a good idea that others feel the need to legislate it.People are depraved, the govt is in debt that it cannot pay, the weirdo socialists think using abortion for birth control is ok , but  they do not comprehend there will not be enough tax payers soon to pay for this for them.Soon , God may forsake us. Would these people like someone to snip the spinal cord that belongs to them ?

----------


## Smart3

> My personal thought is that I'd give up to the *8 week mark* for an abortion and then afterwards only mother's life would be an exception.  *At the point the baby is viable* there would be no exception besides early birth.


Viability at the very earliest is 20-22 weeks. I'm not sure why you're ok aborting embryos but not fetuses, that seems ridiculously hypocritical. 

Not all women know they're pregnant by 8 weeks, what about them?

----------


## I<3Liberty

My opinion isn't exactly represented in this poll or I'm not sure how to best condense it into one of these categories.

I also refuse to associate with either extreme of the "pro-life/choice" (both are misnomers, but that's a debate for different thread.)

Our main stakeholders in this issue are 1) the mother and 2) the unborn person. 

I've said (on countless threads) that legislation isn't the answer -- in fact, elective abortion has been going on far before it was legalized. I've also said that this isn't exclusively a societal moral issue like some suggest. Rather, it is a moral issue that borders both science and technology. We have a technology (elective abortion) that enables a woman to terminate the pregnancy, but at the cost of the fetus. The solution ought to be a another form of technology that does not The first reversible 100% effective raise the moral concerns abortion does. 100% effective contraceptive is expected to make its way to the American market in a year or two and I believe it, as well as other more reliable modern forms of contraception, are essential tools for conquering elective abortion without compromising either stakeholder's life or liberty. Ectogenesis would make it possible for non-viable fetuses (those pre-24-ish weeks) to survive outside of the mother. With these technologies, there will be no need for abortion. Even premature infants born too early for whatever reason, would have a chance at life thanks to ectogenesis. 

Before those technologies are made readily available, many say we should make exceptions for the life of the woman and victims of sexual assault. I agree with the first, but have questioned how realistic it actually is. If the mother needs immediate medical attention, you should obviously treat her and not wait to do an abortion (which does take awhile and is quite invasive.) Certain treatments will result in death of the fetus (like some chemotherapy agents and the side effects of chemo), but I'd make the Kantian argument that the intentions were moral (save both lives) -- this was unattainable. Again, ectogenesis would allow for preservation of a non-viable fetus while the mother is treated. Until then, saving the mother should be the priority because it's essential for survival of both stakeholders (if she dies and the fetus isn't viable, it also dies.) 

Sexual assault is another major issue and we need to focus on ending it while helping victims. How can we tell a victim what to do when we did nothing to protect them in the first place? That just sounds terrible to me. Look at some of the high profile cases -- some of those creeps went YEARS without being locked up. These people go after very vulnerable individuals (the very young, very old, smaller people, etc.) it's up to the rest of the world to help stand up for them and report any abuse we may witness or suspect. In addition, we need to better equip ERs to deal with such abuse, so victims are more comfortable with coming forward. I'd hope they would get help STAT, as they could be given the morning after pill or a hormone injection to prevent pregnancy and tested for things like HIV and have any other injuries treated. Coming forward right after the incident also allows for DNA sampling, so it's easier to identify the attacker and get these creeps off the streets.

----------


## Warlord

does it make me soulless if ambivalent on this question?

I used to think long and hard sbout rape, incest exceptions but it's hard to make sense because jmdrake has repeatedly pointed out to me any woman can claim to have been raped to obtain the abortion. They can also claim mental health problems to save the life i.e im going to be suicidal if I have this baby. So it's essentially tricky.  I'm thinking it should be legal up to 60 or so days or whenever medical professionals suggest it is sustainable.

There are also the real dangers of backstreet abortions and you have to think about this as well when thinking about restrictions. The hardcore approach will  no doubt lead to an increase in health problems if unskilled people are carrying them out to their own risk. 

Potentially the ban it mentality could lead to Gosnell clinics in every undesirable part of town with local officials looking the other way. Think about that.

I prefer an educative approach but i'm for certain restrictions to protect a viable life whether that's 30 days, 60 days, 90 days I am not qualified to tell you.  

Abortions should not be as casual as they seem to be today. That's my only frustration but i don't spend a lot of time worrying about it.

----------


## Warlord

> One great way to start is to STOP federal funding.


I would agree here. The GOP can do it tomorrow and it's completely justified. How Boehner can claim to be a Catholic while repeatedly voting for the debt ceiling to increase to shovel more money to abortion clinics is absurd. 

Someone needs to remind Boehner he's not some facilitator for the president's debt machine. He holds the power of the purse and can zero out the Federal funding for abortions and dare the president not to sign it

----------


## Warlord

> I have nine children , eleven grandchildren, I find this practice barbaric as it is used as birth control .The Fed govt has no role. I also see what kind of world I live in where so many people feel this is such a good idea that others feel the need to legislate it.People are depraved, the govt is in debt that it cannot pay, the weirdo socialists think using abortion for birth control is ok , but  they do not comprehend there will not be enough tax payers soon to pay for this for them.Soon , God may forsake us. Would these people like someone to snip the spinal cord that belongs to them ?


There will likely be more snipping of cords if the practice is driven underground with a complete ban. It never worked with alcohol and drugs. Their could be more abortions than ever before and a lot more health problems

----------


## Nobexliberty

People who had an abortion should be treated like a cold blooded murderers, because that is exactly what they are.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

I despise the double standard surrounding it. If anyone other than a doctor kills the fetus, it's murder. If a doctor kills it, it's legal murder (an abortion) Make up your damn minds already. How can you let a huge group of people kill their unwanted children, yet if someone ends up hitting a mother, whether accidental or on purpose, and the fetus dies, then it's a homicide.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> does it make me soulless if ambivalent on this question?
> 
> I used to think long and hard sbout rape, incest exceptions but it's hard to make sense because jmdrake has repeatedly pointed out to me any woman can claim to have been raped to obtain the abortion. They can also claim mental health problems to save the life i.e im going to be suicidal if I have this baby. So it's essentially tricky.  I'm thinking it should be legal up to 60 or so days or whenever medical professionals suggest it is sustainable.
> 
> *There are also the real dangers of backstreet abortions and you have to think about this as well when thinking about restrictions. The hardcore approach will  no doubt lead to an increase in health problems if unskilled people are carrying them out to their own risk.* 
> 
> Potentially the ban it mentality could lead to Gosnell clinics in every undesirable part of town with local officials looking the other way. Think about that.
> 
> I prefer an educative approach but i'm for certain restrictions to protect a viable life whether that's 30 days, 60 days, 90 days I am not qualified to tell you.  
> ...


 A backstreet abortion is no less killing then an abortion in a clinic. A women who has an abortion should be treated just like a cold blooded murderer and we do not make murder legal to protect the health of murderers do we?

----------


## DamianTV

There are people out there that really should have had abortions and didnt.  For example: Mitt Romneys Mother.

----------


## tod evans

Moral/ethical positions often conflict with legal rational.

Especially when discussing abortion.

Against my better judgement I'm going to pose a few questions...

What about fathers rights?

What about mothers rights?

What about fetal rights?

What about tax-payer rights?


Seems like 90% or more of all the abortion threads and the associated opinions focus on mothers and babies while the elephant in the room remains unaddressed.

Carry on, I'm done..

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

> Moral/ethical positions often conflict with legal rational.
> 
> Especially when discussing abortion.
> 
> Against my better judgement I'm going to pose a few questions...
> 
> What about fathers rights?
> 
> What about mothers rights?
> ...


the father has no rights dummy, it's her body, her choice! Don't like that? It's your sperm!  The woman wants the responsibility of if it lives or dies, but she wants you to have the responsibility of financing both of them.

----------


## Keith and stuff

So far it looks like the creator of this poll and about 85% of voters here don't think abortion should always be illegal. That's not quite to the level where I live but pretty close.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That isn't at all what I was saying.  I was explaining part of why I didn't consider the question of "What if the child is my own" until you asked it.
> 
> As to why I feel unqualified on deciding legality or illegality, it's because I don't have a uterus and have never been pregnant in this lifetime and never will.
> 
> And again, I do think it's killing a person, once the baby becomes a person.  I think that happens at the point when the baby becomes aware, i.e. has sentience or conscious awareness.  And I don't think people should kill people.  I think an abortion is not killing a person when it occurs prior to the point when the clump of cells becomes a person.
> 
> But again, I don't feel that I have the right to dictate my beliefs to others on this particular topic because it's a complicated issue.  The best I can hope to do is convince others why it's wrong.  And if drug prohibition has taught us anything, it's that prohibiting something does not stop people from doing it.  The only real solution is to end the desire to do it and I can't do that through laws.


I don't disagree with you that it won't solve the problem, but that doesn't matter to me.

Anti-murder laws will never erradicate murder, but I still believe murder should be banned. Abortion is the same to me.




> A backstreet abortion is no less killing then an abortion in a clinic. A women who has an abortion should be treated just like a cold blooded murderer and we do not make murder legal to protect the health of murderers do we?


Amen.



> There are people out there that really should have had abortions and didnt.  For example: Mitt Romneys Mother.


But Mitt Romney was innocent when he was in the womb.  So I totally disagree with this.  He deserves execution now, sure, but he didn't when he was in his mother's womb.



> Moral/ethical positions often conflict with legal rational.
> 
> Especially when discussing abortion.
> 
> Against my better judgement I'm going to pose a few questions...
> 
> What about fathers rights?
> 
> What about mothers rights?
> ...


Not sure how the father would truly have any rights in this case: if the fetus were really just "Part of the mother's body" than the father's opinion would not matter.

Regarding taxpayers: I don't see how its relevant.  You can have laws against murdering a five year old child without having welfare laws.  I don't see the difference  between this and the unborn, honestly.



> So far it looks like the creator of this poll and about 85% of voters here don't think abortion should always be illegal. That's not quite to the level where I live but pretty close.


Well, the first three options are clearly pro-life options, to differing degrees.   Over 50% of voters fit within one of those three.

The fourth option is kind of vague, while the fifth option is one we all know is barbaric.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> So far it looks like the creator of this poll and about 85% of voters here don't think abortion should always be illegal. That's not quite to the level where I live but pretty close.


This is pretty much in line with the nationwide polls on abortion, and that surprises me to be honest. Of course, there are only two positions on abortion, which are consistent and logical: 

*a.* no abortion at all
*b.* abortion rights with no restrictions

If you take a position that a fetus has right to life, then why are you willing ditch this 'right to life' if a women has been raped? How can you compromise on your morality?

If you think that abortion should be legal becuse a woman is entitled to control over her own body, then perceived "rights" or potential of the fetus are irrelevant. How would you react if somebody asked to borrow you kidney? But this is what the fetus does effectively...

----------


## tod evans

> Not sure how the father would truly have any rights in this case: if the fetus were really just "Part of the mother's body" than the father's opinion would not matter.
> 
> Regarding taxpayers: I don't see how its relevant.  You can have laws against murdering a five year old child without having welfare laws.  I don't see the difference  between this and the unborn, honestly.


Part-n-parcel of the 90% I mentioned...

Think about the issue in its entirety.

----------


## willwash

Here's a question I've been meaning to ask pro choice types about the whole property interest argument for the pro choice side.  I'm not trying to pick a fight but really looking for a reasoned response.  If I have kids who depend on me living in my house (my property) and I flood my house with nerve gas which kills them, how is that different from having a child who depends on me living in my body (my property) and I intentionally flood my body with toxins which kills the child?  

I know it looks like I'm trying to use shock tactics to pick a fight but I reiterate that I am not.  What is the response to this?

----------


## Brett85

> So far it looks like the creator of this poll and about 85% of voters here don't think abortion should always be illegal. That's not quite to the level where I live but pretty close.


My position of banning abortion with a narrow exception for the life of the mother is a pretty hardcore pro life position as well.  That would put an end to 99% of abortions.  You're twisting the numbers somehow try to claim that most members here are pro choice.  The argument we were having was over the percentage of libertarians who are pro life vs. the percentage who are pro choice.  In my poll, the first three responses are the pro life responses, while the last two responses are the pro choice responses.  Right now the pro life responses are at 59% and the pro choice responses are at 41%.  That's a larger percentage of pro life responses than you would see in the general public.  This poll shows that the libertarians who post here are more pro life than the general public.

----------


## Brett85

> This is pretty much in line with the nationwide polls on abortion, and that surprises me to be honest. Of course, there are only two positions on abortion, which are consistent and logical: 
> 
> *a.* no abortion at all
> *b.* abortion rights with no restrictions
> 
> If you take a position that a fetus has right to life, then why are you willing ditch this 'right to life' if a women has been raped? How can you compromise on your morality?
> 
> If you think that abortion should be legal becuse a woman is entitled to control over her own body, then perceived "rights" or potential of the fetus are irrelevant. How would you react if somebody asked to borrow you kidney? But this is what the fetus does effectively...


I think it's a consistently pro life position to say that it should be banned with an exception for the life of the mother.  In a situation where there was a good chance that the woman could die from going through with the pregnancy, and she wasn't allowed to get an abortion, it's likely that both the mother and the baby would die and two lives would be lost.  I would think that the pro life position would be to try to save at least one of those lives.  Although I certainly respect the position of the 8 members who said that abortion should be banned with no exceptions at all.  It's surprising that 8 members here are even more hardcore anti abortion than I am.

----------


## willwash

I really don't think abortion is a political issue but a philosophical one.  No one believes outright murder should be legal.  The question is a philosophical one based on whether abortion constitutes murder which in turn hinges on at what point a human's right to life becomes inalienable.

----------


## Brett85

> There will likely be more snipping of cords if the practice is driven underground with a complete ban. It never worked with alcohol and drugs. Their could be more abortions than ever before and a lot more health problems


Laws against murder don't totally eradicate murder, but as a civilized society we still have to have laws against murder.  If we have laws providing legal protections to those who have been born, then it's entirely inconsistent to not provide legal protections to the unborn.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> My position of banning abortion with a narrow exception for the life of the mother is a pretty hardcore pro life position as well.  That would put an end to 99% of abortions.  You're twisting the numbers somehow try to claim that most members here are pro choice.  The argument we were having was over the percentage of libertarians who are pro life vs. the percentage who are pro choice.  In my poll, the first three responses are the pro life responses, while the last two responses are the pro choice responses.  Right now the pro life responses are at 59% and the pro choice responses are at 41%.  That's a larger percentage of pro life responses than you would see in the general public.  This poll shows that the libertarians who post here are more pro life than the general public.


The average person wants abortion to be legal in the 1st trimester and illegal in the 2nd.  From a humanistic worldview, that makes sense, from a Christian or even freedom-oriented one, not so much, but that's where people stand.




> I think it's a consistently pro life position to say that it should be banned with an exception for the life of the mother.  In a situation where there was a good chance that the woman could die from going through with the pregnancy, and she wasn't allowed to get an abortion, it's likely that both the mother and the baby would die and two lives would be lost.  I would think that the pro life position would be to try to save at least one of those lives.  Although I certainly respect the position of the 8 members who said that abortion should be banned with no exceptions at all.  It's surprising that 8 members here are even more hardcore anti abortion than I am.


That was the position I held when I was very young.  But I'm not sure how any libertarian can hold to it. You're pretty much talking about self-defense at that point.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I really don't think abortion is a political issue but a philosophical one.  No one believes outright murder should be legal.  The question is a philosophical one based on whether abortion constitutes murder which in turn hinges on at what point a human's right to life becomes inalienable.


The thing is though, most of the pro-choice advocates here aren't saying that.  They're using arguments along the lines of "Banning abortion won't stop abortion" not "The unborn aren't people and therefore abortion is OK."

----------


## georgiaboy

51 RPF voters --  58.82% illegal, 41.18% legal

56 RPF voters -- 60.71% illegal, 39.29% legal

61 RPF voters -- 60.66% illegal, 39.34% legal

75 RPF voters -- 60.00% illegal, 40.00% legal

87 RPF voters -- 60.92% illegal, 39.08% legal

115 RPF voters -- 60.87% illegal, 39.13% legal

----------


## Carlybee

I would be curious to know how many pro life people also support the death penalty.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> I think it's a consistently pro life position to say that it should be banned with an exception for the life of the mother.  In a situation where there was a good chance that the woman could die from going through with the pregnancy, and she wasn't allowed to get an abortion, it's likely that both the mother and the baby would die and two lives would be lost.  I would think that the pro life position would be to try to save at least one of those lives.  *Although I certainly respect the position of the 8 members who said that abortion should be banned with no exceptions at all.  It's surprising that 8 members here are even more hardcore anti abortion than I am.*


I think they take a Christian view that it's not up to us, mere mortals to decide who live and who will die. They would have a woman carry on with the pregnancy and let God sort them out.

There is nothing to respect here, it's plain dumb.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> I would be curious to know how many pro life people also support the death penalty.


From my experience it's 100%. Why? Because Christian God supports death penalty, that's why.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I would be curious to know how many pro life people also support the death penalty.


As a theoretical matter, at the very least, I do.  I get the pragmatic issues though, both in false convictions and in cost, so in reality: I don't know.  I think there are definitely a lot of people in DC who definitely deserve such a penalty.

My reasons for opposing abortion have little to do with killing always being wrong, and a lot to do with the fact that killing innocent people is an act of aggression against them.

----------


## Brett85

> I would be curious to know how many pro life people also support the death penalty.


It depends on what you're talking about.  I support the death penalty as long as the person getting the death penalty has received due process in a court of law.  I don't support the death penalty in the form of drone bombs with no due process at all.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> As a theoretical matter, at the very least, I do.  I get the pragmatic issues though, both in false convictions and in cost, so in reality: I don't know.  I think there are definitely a lot of people in DC who definitely deserve such a penalty.
> 
> My reasons for opposing abortion have little to do with killing always being wrong, and a lot to do with the fact that killing innocent people is an act of aggression against them.


You do realise that death penalty sometimes results in innocent people being killed?

----------


## willwash

> As a theoretical matter, at the very least, I do.  I get the pragmatic issues though, both in false convictions and in cost, so in reality: I don't know.  I think there are definitely a lot of people in DC who definitely deserve such a penalty.
> 
> My reasons for opposing abortion have little to do with killing always being wrong, and a lot to do with the fact that killing innocent people is an act of aggression against them.


That's debatable: the bible on capital punishment

Thou shalt not kill.
Let him who is without sin throw the first stone
Judge not lest ye be judged.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thine eye but considerest not the beam in thine own eye

I'm not saying its a slam dunk, but there is Christian biblical support on both sides of capital punishment

----------


## willwash

Sorry FF I meant to quote the post above yours

----------


## Brett85

> You do realise that death penalty sometimes results in innocent people being killed?


You do realize that abortion *always* results in innocent people being killed?

----------


## Brett85

> That's debatable: the bible on capital punishment
> 
> Thou shalt not kill.
> Let him who is without sin throw the first stone
> Judge not lest ye be judged.
> And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thine eye but considerest not the beam in thine own eye
> 
> I'm not saying its a slam dunk, but there is Christian biblical support on both sides of capital punishment


The phrase "thou shalt not kill" was originally translated "thou shalt not murder."  It became "thou shalt not kill" after multiple translations.  Obviously, the Bible doesn't say that it's wrong for people to kill in self defense; the Bible doesn't say that killing is always wrong in every single circumstance.  There are all kinds of verses in the Bible that make it clear that people have the right to self defense and that "killing" is sometimes justified.  It's murder that the Bible prohibits, the killing of innocent people.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> You do realize that abortion *always* results in innocent people being killed?


 Agree, soon you are a member of the beyond repute club

----------


## Carlybee

Interesting. I actually do believe in the death penalty but I also think its hypocritical to call ones self pro life yet be pro death at the same time. I also think if I were the one giving the injection to end someones life, that would make me a murderer. I dont necessarily feel its my place to be God's avenging angel on Earth just as I don't believe anyone knows exactly what original scripture was given centuries of revision and misinterpretation by men.

----------


## Brett85

> Interesting. I actually do believe in the death penalty but I also think its hypocritical to call ones self pro life yet be pro death at the same time.


Why?  Being pro life doesn't mean being "anti killing" in all circumstances, it means being anti murder; opposing the taking of innocent life.  You can certainly be pro life and not think that killing is wrong in every single circumstance.

----------


## Carlybee

> Why?  Being pro life doesn't mean being "anti killing" in all circumstances, it means being anti murder; opposing the taking of innocent life.  You can certainly be pro life and not think that killing is wrong in every single circumstance.


I've always thought killing someone because they killed someone in an effort to punish or deter was basically a circle jerk. Sort of like bombing for peace. All it really is is vengeance carried out by mortals.

----------


## Brett85

I don't really see how it's a worse penalty than sitting behind bars your entire life.  Some people may actually prefer death to sitting in a cage until they die.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> I've always thought killing someone because they killed someone in an effort to punish or deter was basically a circle jerk. Sort of like bombing for peace. All it really is is vengeance carried out by mortals.


The reason the death penelty is not deterrant is because who is scared of getting a needle after more then a decade in death row. The death penelty only works if it is carried out publicly and is painful, public shortdrop hangings is the way to go. And it is not vengeance if it is for justice.

----------


## Carlybee

> I don't really see how it's a worse penalty than sitting behind bars your entire life.  Some people may actually prefer death to sitting in a cage until they die.


And that person may wish to have never been born. Is it really our call?  WWJD?

----------


## Carlybee

> The reason the death penelty is not deterrant is because who is scared of getting a needle after more then a decade in death row. The death penelty only works if it is carried out publicly and is painful, public shortdrop hangings is the way to go. And it is not vengeance if it is for justice.


How about just beheading them while we're at it?

----------


## willwash

Life imprisonment is the death penalty.  Death by time.

----------


## juleswin

> I've always thought killing someone because they killed someone in an effort to punish or deter was basically a circle jerk. Sort of like bombing for peace. All it really is is vengeance carried out by mortals.


I have never understood that logic. As a kid I always wondered why an "eye for an eye would make the whole world go blind" made any sense. See, you are only plucking the eyes from the people that took other innocent people's eye, not the people administering the punishment. Same with death penalty for murders, you only kill the criminals and not the executioners. This way the circle is cut off when the executioner goes about living his/her life after the execution of the attacker.

Btw, I do not support the death penalty in this system we have now but I disagree that having the death penalty would turn into a circular anything

----------


## Brett85

> And that person may wish to have never been born. Is it really our call?  WWJD?


Why not let the family members of the victim decide what his punishment should be?  If you have a serial killer who killed 50 people, and the family members of these people want him to be put to death, why should these people be denied their wish and be forced to send their tax dollars to this man who brutually murdered their family members?  The anti death penalty position would force the families of the victims to send their money to the killer for food, shelter, and health care the rest of his adult life.  How is that libertarian?

----------


## Carlybee

Another question is, given that the US taxpayers are made up of people from all religious denominations, why should say someone who is agnostic or atheist feel that they are bound by Christian doctrine? If they help pay for the government and they are pro choice, do they not have a say in anything just because the pro lifers tell them they must subscribe to laws based on a religion they don't subscribe to? How does it fit in with separation of church and state?

----------


## 69360

I voted illegal except life of the mother. Life of the mother does NOT include mental health issues, such as "I'll kill myself if I don't get an abortion". That is treatable without killing the child. There would need to be a very high standard for life of the mother exceptions including multiple medical opinions. I'm not a woman but personally, I would die if my child could live.

----------


## Carlybee

> Why not let the family members of the victim decide what his punishment should be?  If you have a serial killer who killed 50 people, and the family members of these people want him to be put to death, why should these people be denied their wish and be forced to send their tax dollars to this man who brutually murdered their family members?  The anti death penalty position would force the families of the victims to send their money to the killer for food, shelter, and health care the rest of his adult life.  How is that libertarian?


I have read that due to numerous appeals process its actually less expensive to house someone for life than putting them to death. Personally if someone killed my loved one they better hope I can't get access to them, but I am imperfect that way.

----------


## Brett85

> Another question is, given that the US taxpayers are made up of people from all religious denominations, why should say someone who is agnostic or atheist feel that they are bound by Christian doctrine? If they help pay for the government and they are pro choice, do they not have a say in anything just because the pro lifers tell them they must subscribe to laws based on a religion they don't subscribe to? How does it fit in with separation of church and state?


Why does being anti murder have to do with "religion?"

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Another question is, given that the US taxpayers are made up of people from all religious denominations, why should say someone who is agnostic or atheist feel that they are bound by Christian doctrine? If they help pay for the government and they are pro choice, do they not have a say in anything just because the pro lifers tell them they must subscribe to laws based on a religion they don't subscribe to? How does it fit in with separation of church and state?


 The constitution does not prohibit the goverment doing something because of a religion, only prohibits it from making one illegal or annucing one as a state religion(for the federal goveremnt atleast). America was founded on Christianity despte the first amendment.

----------


## Carlybee

> Why does being anti murder have to do with "religion?"
> 
> http://www.godlessprolifers.org/


Because our laws are based on Thou Shalt not Kill..no?  Where does morality come from?

----------


## Nobexliberty

> I have read that due to numerous appeals process its actually less expensive to house someone for life than putting them to death. Personally if someone killed my loved one they better hope I can't get access to them, but I am imperfect that way.


 Then something really has to change.

----------


## TER

FYI

There are six countries where all abortions are illegal (even if the mother's health or life is at stake):

Chile, Dominican Republic, Vatican/Malta, El Salvador, and Nicaragua.

----------


## Carlybee

> FYI
> 
> There are six countries where all abortions are illegal (even if the mother's health or life is at stake):
> 
> Chile, Dominican Republic, Vatican/Malta, El Salvador, and Nicaragua.


Not surprising..they are most likely predominately Roman Catholic.

----------


## TER

> Not surprising..they are most likely predominately Roman Catholic.


The next most strict country with regards to abortion laws is the Philippines, which is also Roman Catholic majority.

----------


## Nobexliberty

Self delete until I want to post something.

----------


## July

This is a hard question for me to answer, because I think the prolife movement also has a lot to do with advocating a moral/ethical position, and not just a legal one, though admittedly not everyone sees the difference. But I picked the second option, because I consider an unborn fetus to be a person (with all that entails), therefore I identify with prolife. I see life of the mother, ethically, as an exception, due to self defense. Whether the state or federal government can be entrusted with enforcement or determining/defining what constitutes "life of the mother" is up for debate, IMO. This might make me technically pro choice in a legal sense, but I generally do not agree with the moral or ethical message the prochoice movement advocates so I tend not to identity myself that way. I think, just because there might be an exception in a rare or extreme case scenario, doesn't mean you necessarily abandon the principle that you are dealing with a human being, and all the ethical implications that implies. But the question of how the government would go about enforcing it, is an issue I give a lot of thought to also.

----------


## Brett85

> Because our laws are based on Thou Shalt not Kill..no?  Where does morality come from?


Are you saying that atheists can't be moral people?

----------


## Carlybee

> Are you saying that atheists can't be moral people?


Not at all. I am saying they don't generally hold the bible up as the how to manual for everything. Morality may be based on centuries of being told what is right and what is wrong, but some believe man is inherently decent. I am not an expert on it however. I just know THEY don't think their morality comes from God.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Why not let the family members of the victim decide what his punishment should be?  If you have a serial killer who killed 50 people, and the family members of these people want him to be put to death, why should these people be denied their wish and be forced to send their tax dollars to this man who brutually murdered their family members?  The anti death penalty position would force the families of the victims to send their money to the killer for food, shelter, and health care the rest of his adult life.  How is that libertarian?


I agree with  you, again, at least in theory.  We need a better justice system though.




> Another question is, given that the US taxpayers are made up of people from all religious denominations, why should say someone who is agnostic or atheist feel that they are bound by Christian doctrine? If they help pay for the government and they are pro choice, do they not have a say in anything just because the pro lifers tell them they must subscribe to laws based on a religion they don't subscribe to? How does it fit in with separation of church and state?


I don't support theocracy.  I support your right to worship whatever you want (Or nothing) put whatever food, or drugs, into your body that you want, or not, to commit suicide without threat of legal punishment, to engage in prostitution, and so on.

But when you want to kill an innocent human being, I say no, and I say that force should be used to prevent you from doing that. Regardless of whether you personally believe that human being is human or not.



> Why does being anti murder have to do with "religion?"
> 
> http://www.godlessprolifers.org/


This.



> It depends on what you're talking about.  I support the death penalty as long as the person getting the death penalty has received due process in a court of law.  I don't support the death penalty in the form of drone bombs with no due process at all.


I don't consider the latter to be a death penalty so much as just being murder in and of itself.




> You do realise that death penalty sometimes results in innocent people being killed?


Yes, hence the "In theory" part of it.   In practice, its trickier.  I want a better justice system that makes this happen less often, but I know its a given that some people will slip through the cracks with any punishment.  That's not "OK" but it is unavoidable.  



> That's debatable: the bible on capital punishment
> 
> Thou shalt not kill.
> Let him who is without sin throw the first stone
> Judge not lest ye be judged.
> And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thine eye but considerest not the beam in thine own eye
> 
> I'm not saying its a slam dunk, but there is Christian biblical support on both sides of capital punishment


'
None of those verses have anything to do with capital punishment.

There's nothing in the Bible that prohibits capital punishment.   I generally only use the Bible in political debates with other Christians seeing as I don't believe in theocracy, but the Bible is clearly pro-death penalty.




> Interesting. I actually do believe in the death penalty but I also think its hypocritical to call ones self pro life yet be pro death at the same time. I also think if I were the one giving the injection to end someones life, that would make me a murderer. I dont necessarily feel its my place to be God's avenging angel on Earth just as I don't believe anyone knows exactly what original scripture was given centuries of revision and misinterpretation by men.


I'm not "Pro-death."  I believe it is acceptable to kill people who are proven guilty of murder or other heinous crimes.  I don't believe its acceptable to kill people that are innocent.




> I've always thought killing someone because they killed someone in an effort to punish or deter was basically a circle jerk. Sort of like bombing for peace. All it really is is vengeance carried out by mortals.


Bombing kills innocent people by design.  Capital Punishment does not.




> I don't really see how it's a worse penalty than sitting behind bars your entire life.  Some people may actually prefer death to sitting in a cage until they die.

----------


## Brett85

> Not at all. I am saying they don't generally hold the bible up as the how to manual for everything. Morality may be based on centuries of being told what is right and what is wrong, but some believe man is inherently decent. I am not an expert on it however. I just know THEY don't think their morality comes from God.


I think that basically every single person on the face of the earth at least has some morals, unless they're simply insane.  I certainly think it's possible for an atheist to have certain morals that make them believe that murder is wrong, and their understanding of technology leads them to believe that life begins at conception.  Thus, they would believe that abortion is morally wrong and should be against the law.  I don't buy the argument that opposition to legal abortion has to be based on religion.

----------


## Danan

> That's debatable: the bible on capital punishment
> 
> Thou shalt not kill.
> Let him who is without sin throw the first stone
> Judge not lest ye be judged.
> And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thine eye but considerest not the beam in thine own eye
> 
> I'm not saying its a slam dunk, but there is Christian biblical support on both sides of capital punishment


How convenient!

----------


## The Free Hornet

> Libertarians believe in laws that punish violations of others' rights, with the most important right being the right to life. Without the right to life all other rights are meaningless.


1) You don't know what all "Libertarians believe".  This is no basis for argument.

2) Nor do they necessarily "believe in laws that punish violations of others' rights".  For that matter, pro-lifers don't believe in that punishment (link to protestors who want ZERO "punish"ment for aborting mothers).  I do believe in the non-agression principle and I'd like to see it approached with the lightest touch.  Also, "punish" is the wrong word.  Punishment is expensive ($30,000/year/punishee), it doesn't restitute the victim and in the event we are wrong (like 10% of the time) we ought to compensate ($100,000+++/year) at a rate that raises the cost to society and - by your logic - punish the jury/judge/prosecutor for $#@!ing up.  Punishment doesn't focus on rehabilitation either - not that I'd necessarily focus on rehab as that is an individual motive.

3) This reads like UN logic, legislate the desired outcome: "with the most important right being the right to life".  More like the right to be left alone is more important.  It is *my* responsibility to protect my rights, my life and that burden ought not be offloaded to the state.

4) Clearly you are not speaking for libertarians: "Without the right to life all other rights are meaningless."  You might as well mandate rights to food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, and all the other "life"-sustaining BS.  Though I don't wish it, most of us will die a natural death someday.  Was our right violated at that moment?  No.  Not even close.  More so, if you eliminated laws against murder, the laws against thievery would still be in place.  In fact, I suspect people would be very, very, very careful to make it obvious to everyone that _they_ are not a thief, rapist, or a murderer.

5) Constitution: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech".  Congress is the one restricted.  C-o-n-g-r-e-s-s.  I'm free to tell you to STFU!


************************




> Then you should vote for the option "It should be legal with no restrictions."
> 
> Edit:  You did that, good.  I want everyone to vote so that we'll get an accurate sample.


I voted this way to "play nice" with your poll.  A more accurate view would be "get the government out of our lives!".

FWIW, I'm sort of in a similar place as those protesting "pro-lifers" who want NO PUNISHMENT for the aborting mothers share the same god-damn-motherfucking viewpoint:






Here is a poll to put up next time:

a) I realize that the majority of people (protesting pro-lifers, politicians, priests) don't want abortion mothers punished as murderers making the entire exercise of its outlaw a regulatory capture of healthcare, not a punishment for murder, and none-the-less, I cast myself with the "outlaw abortion" crowd and support its lip-service/line-toting politicians and the resulting expansion of mandated state healthcare ("Under the new Texas law, Griffin would have had to take his wife to an ambulatory surgical center twice in two days to take the pills in the presence of a doctor, exposing their broken hearts and raw nerves to a clinical environment. A Texas husband is now powerless to protect his wife from enduring in public what is best handled at home in private." -link).

b) I'm not that $#@!ing stupid

----------


## Brett85

Having a law that punishes doctors for performing abortions would be good enough to cause a massive decrease in the number of abortions in this country.  Including a punishment for the woman isn't necessary and is politically impossible to do.  Such a bill could never pass, and it would hurt the pro life movement to actually support throwing women in jail for getting an abortion.  The person who actually commits the act of murdering the baby should be prosecuted.

----------


## Carlybee

> I think that basically every single person on the face of the earth at least has some morals, unless they're simply insane.  I certainly think it's possible for an atheist to have certain morals that make them believe that murder is wrong, and their understanding of technology leads them to believe that life begins at conception.  Thus, they would believe that abortion is morally wrong and should be against the law.  I don't buy the argument that opposition to legal abortion has to be based on religion.


Except that many pro lifers DO use religion and the ten commandments and various other scripture to support their beliefs that it is murder.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> Having a law that punishes doctors for performing abortions would be good enough to cause a massive decrease in the number of abortions in this country.  Including a punishment for the woman isn't necessary and is politically impossible to do.  Such a bill could never pass, and it would hurt the pro life movement to actually support throwing women in jail for getting an abortion.  The person who actually commits the act of murdering the baby should be prosecuted.


The state shouldn't decide who is or is not a doctor.  XYP: Examine your premises.  Tim Pawlenty doesn't want the doctor punished either.  At best, you make the process more dangerous, less accountable.  Much like the religious jihad that opposes birth control, but that's kind of the point, eh?

Also, your logic is a 100% reversal of how contract killing is approached:




> *Man convicted in wife's contract killing is sentenced to death*
> James Fayed, found guilty of hiring men to kill his estranged wife in a Century City parking garage in 2008, gets the death penalty, with the judge calling him "one cold, calculating human being."
> 
> http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov...nalty-20111118


Also, (but attempted murder), "solicitation to commit first-degree murder": http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/05/13/...man/index.html

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Having a law that punishes doctors for performing abortions would be good enough to cause a massive decrease in the number of abortions in this country.  Including a punishment for the woman isn't necessary and is politically impossible to do.  Such a bill could never pass, and it would hurt the pro life movement to actually support throwing women in jail for getting an abortion.  The person who actually commits the act of murdering the baby should be prosecuted.


 Political correctness aside there is one punishment people who kill innocent babies deserve.

----------


## Brett85

It's exactly 60% pro life to 40% pro choice at the moment.  (I consider a position of banning abortion with exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother to be a pro life position since it would end about 95% of legal abortions.  Others may disagree)

----------


## EBounding



----------


## Nobexliberty

> And increase illegal abortions...by what % I do not know.  I wonder if government got out of it and public & peer pressure took over if it would be like smoking..30 years ago a lot more people smoked...30 years ago a lot more people littered...etc...raising the collective consciousness?  Or what if there was no federal funding and an abortion cost $5000?  Just thinking out loud here.


Getting goverment out of abortionmurder is not going to decrease it, if stealing was legal it would increase.

----------


## Brett85

I'm in favor of saving the unborn from being murdered, and in my opinion having extremely tough laws against the person who actually commits the act of murdering the baby would go a long ways toward protecting the unborn in this country.  If the woman actually murders the baby by herself without a doctor involved, then in that situation I think the woman should be prosecuted since she committed the physical act of murdering the baby.  I don't necessarily think that laws against abortion have to be exactly the same as all other murder laws in terms of being complicit in a murder.  I don't see why it would be necessary to make abortion laws exactly like murder laws in every single way.  There's no rule that says it has to be that way.

----------


## Brett85

> And increase illegal abortions...by what % I do not know.  I wonder if government got out of it and public & peer pressure took over if it would be like smoking..30 years ago a lot more people smoked...30 years ago a lot more people littered...etc...raising the collective consciousness?  Or what if there was no federal funding and an abortion cost $5000?  Just thinking out loud here.


Right, just like legalizing murder would decrease the amount of illegal murders.  I certainly don't see how that would be an argument for legalizing murder.

----------


## supermario21

I voted to include a life of the mother exception because I think an ectopic pregnancy would fall under that category. The baby isn't going to survive and the mother could easily be killed as well. That would be my only exemption.

----------


## TER

> And increase illegal abortions...by what % I do not know.  I wonder if government got out of it and public & peer pressure took over if it would be like smoking..30 years ago a lot more people smoked...30 years ago a lot more people littered...etc...raising the collective consciousness?  Or what if there was no federal funding and an abortion cost $5000?  Just thinking out loud here.


Good points.  Choice 3 IMO (along with no Federal funding- which should be our first step) will eliminate the vast majority of legal abortions (of course illegal abortions will always exist, no matter what the legal punishment is).  It is also much more feasible to get passed (as it has in many countries), that's why I picked it.  I keep trying to justify it because I am vehemently opposed to all abortions and uncomfortable having to pick that choice, but if it is the best chance at stopping millions upon millions of abortions, I think it is the step we should be pursuing.

----------


## TER

> Getting goverment out of abortionmurder is not going to decrease it, if stealing was legal it would increase.


It sure would decrease it.

----------


## Carlybee

> Getting goverment out of abortionmurder is not going to decrease it, if stealing was legal it would increase.



You are a 13 year old extremist who lives in Europe.  Why should I care what you think about what goes on in this country?  Sorry but after you telling us women should wear burka swimsuits, I have to take anything you say with a grain of salt, and take your age and inexperience into consideration for all discussions.

----------


## Carlybee

> Right, just like legalizing murder would decrease the amount of illegal murders.  I certainly don't see how that would be an argument for legalizing murder.


Except that there are no laws calling abortion murder. If there were, it wouldn't be legal...it would be illegal.  Even here in Texas the new ban allows abortion up to 20 weeks, so it's not illegal here either.  BTW...I am old enough to remember when it was illegal in Texas, and girls just went over the border to Mexico or New Mexico to get them.

----------


## Carlybee

> Good points.  Choice 3 IMO (along with no Federal funding- which should be our first step) will eliminate the vast majority of legal abortions (of course illegal abortions will always exist, no matter what the legal punishment is).  It is also much more feasible to get passed (as it has in many countries), that's why I picked it.  I keep trying to justify it because I am vehemently opposed to all abortions and uncomfortable having to pick that choice, but if it is the best chance at stopping millions upon millions of abortions, I think it is the step we should be pursuing.


Except that half the country does not believe it should be illegal..and that half also votes.  I wonder if the alternatives I spoke of would take the political ramifications out of it.  There is no way anyone can really justify federal funding and making it super expensive might make people think twice about doing it. Or it could just open up another black market.  Food for thought.

----------


## Brett85

> Except that there are no laws calling abortion murder. If there were, it wouldn't be legal...it would be illegal.  Even here in Texas the new ban allows abortion up to 20 weeks, so it's not illegal here either.  BTW...I am old enough to remember when it was illegal in Texas, and girls just went over the border to Mexico or New Mexico to get them.


The Roe v. Wade decision prohibits any state from banning abortion, otherwise a state like Texas would ban abortion outright.  Even a lot of pro choice libertarians object to the Roe v. Wade decision since it federalized the issue and was a big blow to states' rights.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> I don't see why it would be necessary to make abortion laws exactly like murder laws in every single way.  There's no rule that says it has to be that way.


Except there kind of is.  Do you support separate drinking fountains for fetuses?

Either it is an unlawful killing of a human being or ... it isn't.  Your approach is like letting Zimmerman walk and fining Kel-Tec CNC (the weapon provider).  Zimmerman is the _potentially_ culpable party, not the gun.

Like the gun control crowd, you think if you eliminate a tool, you'll eliminate the problem.  No, you won't.  You'll make it worse.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Except that half the country does not believe it should be illegal..and that half also votes.  I wonder if the alternatives I spoke of would take the political ramifications out of it.  There is no way anyone can really justify federal funding and making it super expensive might make people think twice about doing it. *Or it could just open up another black market*.  Food for thought.


 Then the ones taking part in it should be executed, or atleast never step outside a prison again! That includes the women doing it, hang em!

----------


## TER

> Except that half the country does not believe it should be illegal..and that half also votes.  I wonder if the alternatives I spoke of would take the political ramifications out of it.  There is no way anyone can really justify federal funding and making it super expensive might make people think twice about doing it. Or it could just open up another black market.  Food for thought.


That is the main problem, that half the country do not believe it should be illegal.   It comes back to the morality (or lack of) of this nation.  The alternatives you suggest I think are good starting steps - defund and strictly limit to the first term and only is severe cases such as the life of the mother being at great risk.  Meanwhile, we as citizens must help change the morality of our neighbors and this must first start with improving ourselves and choosing virtue.

----------


## Carlybee

> The Roe v. Wade decision prohibits any state from banning abortion, otherwise a state like Texas would ban abortion outright.  Even a lot of pro choice libertarians object to the Roe v. Wade decision since it federalized the issue and was a big blow to states' rights.



I am aware, but are there any laws declaring an embryo a human life and specifically calling abortion murder?

----------


## Carlybee

> Then the ones taking part in it should be exucuted, or atleast never step outside a prison again! That includes the women doing it, hang em!


Or we could behead them.

----------


## TER

> Then the ones taking part in it should be exucuted, or atleast never step outside a prison again! That includes the women doing it, hang em!


And let's say you had a daughter who was raped by her uncle and is having an ectopic pregnancy that would lead to a nonviable pregnancy and could possibly kill her.  If she aborted the fetus, you would choose to hang her?

----------


## Brett85

> I am aware, but are there any laws declaring an embryo a human life and specifically calling abortion murder?


I don't believe so.  If any law declared an embryo human life it would in effect give legal protections to all unborn children, which would violate the Roe v. Wade decision.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Or we could behead them.


 Not deterring enough, we must hang them publicly to show what happens when you kill an innocent baby. Or atleast make sure they never step outside prison.

----------


## TER

> Not deterring enough, we must hang them publicly to show what happens when you kill an innocent baby. Or atleast make sure they never step outside prison.


So beheading your daughter in my above example would be too merciful?  Okay.  Got it.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> You are a 13 year old extremist who lives in Europe.  Why should I care what you think about what goes on in this country?  Sorry but after you telling us women should wear burka swimsuits, I have to take anything you say with a grain of salt, and take your age and inexperience into consideration for all discussions.


 I never said women should wear burka swimsuits, just modest. And we are all extremist on this site so I do not know how that changes everthing, the fact the my views are "extremist" does not make them less right or more wrong.




> So beheading your daughter in my above example would be too merciful? Okay. Got it.


 Beheadings are usally quick unless you use a saw to do it. While hanging is painfull and long and deterrant. Public hanging is the only form of execution that works so without it it's best to just keep em locked up.

----------


## Keith and stuff

So at most, only around 20% of the people that opted were want to live in an anarchcapitalists, voluntaryists or anarchist society?

----------


## TER

> Beheadings are usally quick unless you use a saw to do it. While hanging is painfull and long and deterrant. Public hanging is the only form of execution that works so without it it's best to just keep em locked up.


That's interesting.  Now, can you answer the question or will you continue to avoid it?

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Or it could just open up another black market.  Food for thought.


As long as 1 country in the would allows abortions, people can just travel there to have the abortion.

----------


## jmdrake

Glad I'm being properly accused of making people think.    Okay, I'll muddy the waters a bit.  I looked up Norma Rae's story (the "Jane Roe" of "Roe vs Wade") and she was denied an abortion even though she claimed rape and Texas had a rape exception because the doctor cited that there was no rape report.  Still, some women don't make a rape report until sometime after the rape.  (And in some of those cases the report turns out to be false, but people have been prosecuted from late rape reports).

Anyway, I think your idea of looking at time into the pregnancy rather than circumstances of the pregnancy has merit.  If you've been raped, 60 days should be long enough to figure our that you are pregnant and that you don't want to carry the rapists' baby.  And if you just had sex with some deadbeat and the condom broke, 60 days should be long enough to figure out that you are pregnant and that you don't want to carry the deadbeat's baby.  And 60 days is just 3 days short of the "10 gram rule" proposed by RPFer "presence".  I don't think such common sense ideas have much traction because most of the vocal people on either side of the abortion debate are absolutists.  And the "rape/incest" argument is potent because, no matter how old a fetus / "rape baby" gets, he/she will always be a "rape baby."

Also I believe adoption of the new male birth control injection (apparently easily reversible unlike a vasectomy) could work to greatly reduce the chances of pregnancy.






> does it make me soulless if ambivalent on this question?
> 
> I used to think long and hard sbout rape, incest exceptions but it's hard to make sense because jmdrake has repeatedly pointed out to me any woman can claim to have been raped to obtain the abortion. They can also claim mental health problems to save the life i.e im going to be suicidal if I have this baby. So it's essentially tricky.  I'm thinking it should be legal up to 60 or so days or whenever medical professionals suggest it is sustainable.
> 
> There are also the real dangers of backstreet abortions and you have to think about this as well when thinking about restrictions. The hardcore approach will  no doubt lead to an increase in health problems if unskilled people are carrying them out to their own risk. 
> 
> Potentially the ban it mentality could lead to Gosnell clinics in every undesirable part of town with local officials looking the other way. Think about that.
> 
> I prefer an educative approach but i'm for certain restrictions to protect a viable life whether that's 30 days, 60 days, 90 days I am not qualified to tell you.  
> ...

----------


## The Free Hornet

> I don't believe so.  If any law declared an embryo human life it would in effect give legal protections to all unborn children, which would violate the Roe v. Wade decision.


It doesn't matter if it is declared human life!  It is human, not canine.  It is alive, not dead.  The issue is about natural personhood.

That said, granting personhood to a fetus with no brain (graphic pictures warning - wikipedia link), is not as braindead as the new Texas law.





> *Who Has an Abortion After 20 Weeks?*
> 
> Thats right when my patients find out about devastating fetal defects.
> 
> By Darshak Sanghavi|Posted Thursday, July 11, 2013, at 5:06 PM
> 
> ...
> A perinatal specialist might tell women that a major defect is possible, but the data would be unclear. What would such a woman do if told there is a strong chance of a major birth defect, and that confirmatory testing reliably cant be done in time to meet the 20-week deadline to elect termination? It is entirely possible that such a woman might not like the odds and abort a healthy baby.
> 
> ...


And FWIW, I don't support the early-term abortions.  IMO, aborting a would-be-healthy fetus at a few days is worse than a near-full-term anencephalic fetus.  But those are personal values that don't involve the government.

----------


## Carlybee

> Glad I'm being properly accused of making people think.    Okay, I'll muddy the waters a bit.  I looked up Norma Rae's story (the "Jane Roe" of "Roe vs Wade") and she was denied an abortion even though she claimed rape and Texas had a rape exception because the doctor cited that there was no rape report.  Still, some women don't make a rape report until sometime after the rape.  (And in some of those cases the report turns out to be false, but people have been prosecuted from late rape reports).
> 
> Anyway, I think your idea of looking at time into the pregnancy rather than circumstances of the pregnancy has merit.  If you've been raped, 60 days should be long enough to figure our that you are pregnant and that you don't want to carry the rapists' baby.  And if you just had sex with some deadbeat and the condom broke, 60 days should be long enough to figure out that you are pregnant and that you don't want to carry the deadbeat's baby.  And 60 days is just 3 days short of the "10 gram rule" proposed by RPFer "presence".  I don't think such common sense ideas have much traction because most of the vocal people on either side of the abortion debate are absolutists.  And the "rape/incest" argument is potent because, no matter how old a fetus / "rape baby" gets, he/she will always be a "rape baby."
> 
> Also I believe adoption of the new male birth control injection (apparently easily reversible unlike a vasectomy) could work to greatly reduce the chances of pregnancy.


What about like here in Houston where they have a backlog of 6000 rape kits and have admitted they cant get them done in any reasonable amount of time?

----------


## Nobexliberty

> That's interesting.  Now, can you answer the question or will you continue to avoid it?


 Sorry, bad mistake by me. My future children should not have any exeption and if they kill an innocent baby then there is no such thing as not merciful enough.

----------


## TER

can anyone make a poll asking about the death penalty?  I am not sure how to make such a thread and it might be interesting to see how it compares with the results of this poll.

----------


## eduardo89

> And let's say you had a daughter who was raped by her uncle and is having an ectopic pregnancy that would lead to a nonviable pregnancy and could possibly kill her.  If she aborted the fetus, you would choose to hang her?


There is a difference between aborting a child in an ectopic pregnancy and treating the ectopic pregnancy, which sadly due to current technological limitations, leads to the unfortunate death of the child. 




> Abortion is always murder. Abortion is the direct and intentional killing of the baby. The Church teaches abortion is *always and everywhere* wrong. It is murder.
> 
> In the case of ectopic pregnancy there are two treatments available. In one, the diseased tissue of the tube is removed. This is a medical procedure done to save the mother-- the *unintended consequence* is that the baby dies because we do not possess the technology to successfully move the baby to the uterus. The *intent* is not to kill the child. The result is that the child dies because we lack the ability to prevent it.
> 
> The second method is the adminstration of a drug that causes a chemical abortion-- it kills the baby and leaves the tube intact. This is never a morally acceptable option as the purpose is to kill the baby-- a direct action that is always wrong.

----------


## Carlybee

> Sorry, bad mistake by me. My future children should not have any exeption and if they kill an innocent baby then there is no such thing as not merciful enough.



And when does the male take any responsibility for not getting someone pregnant in the first place? Eggs dont fertilize themselves.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> can anyone make a poll asking about the death penalty?  I am not sure how to make such a thread and it might be interesting to see how it compares with the results of this poll.


 But they must add if justice system improves option too,and put it in the off topic or general politics because other wise it would be dead from the beginning..

----------


## presence

"Legal with restrictions"


Embryos NOT Foetuses; legal no more than 10 grams of embryonic weight nor beyond 10 weeks of development.  Mandatory ultrasound.  May be done for any reason.  

Legal as the only option to protect the mother's life at any time.  

Otherwise NO abortions with murder penalty; patient, doctor, and conspirator liability.

----------


## eduardo89

> Beheadings are usally quick unless you use a saw to do it. While hanging is painfull and long and deterrant. Public hanging is the only form of execution that works so without it it's best to just keep em locked up.


Which I am a strong proponent of the death penalty, and do believe that public hangings should be brought back, I don't think that women should be executed for having an abortion in most cases. 

There are cases where I do believe it could be warranted, such as in late term abortions of healthy unborn babies, I just don't think that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment in the vast majority of cases. 

I do, however, believe that abortionists should be executed.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> And when does the male take any responsibility for not getting someone pregnant in the first place? Eggs dont fertilize themselves.


 Men should naturally take responsibility of course and do whatever he can to prevent any abortion from happening and making sure the kid gets a proper childhood.

----------


## Carlybee

> Legal up to 10 grams of embryonic weight or 10 weeks of development.  Mandatory ultrasound.  May be done for any reason.  
> 
> Legal as the only option to protect the mother's life at any time.  
> 
> Otherwise NO abortions with murder penalty; patient, doctor, and conspirator liability.


Would the person who got them pregnant also be a conspirator?

----------


## eduardo89

> Would the person who got them pregnant also be a conspirator?


If they pressure the woman to get an abortion, absolutely.

----------


## Carlybee

Okay..hangings, public executions. I have now entered looney town. Said all I have to say on this topic.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Which I am a strong proponent of the death penalty, and do believe that public hangings should be brought back, I don't think that women should be executed for having an abortion in most cases. 
> 
> There are cases where I do believe it could be warranted, such as in late term abortions of healthy unborn babies, I just don't think that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment in the vast majority of cases. 
> 
> I do, however, believe that abortionists should be executed.


 Keeping them locked up for life and flogging them publicly every day at different places can serve as a great substitute. Different cases different punishments for both born and unborn murder.

----------


## TER

> There is a difference between aborting a child in an ectopic pregnancy and treating the ectopic pregnancy, which sadly due to current technological limitations, leads to the unfortunate death of the child.


The quote you provided is trying to justify abortion.  I get your drift, but 'treating' the ectopic pregnancy and 'aborting' the ectopic pregnancy leads to the same end, namely an aborted pregnancy and dead fetus.  

Are you now saying that you would allow surgical destruction of the fetus in cases of ectopic pregnancy?  If so, you should have voted number 2.

----------


## jmdrake

> What about like here in Houston where they have a backlog of 6000 rape kits and have admitted they cant get them done in any reasonable amount of time?


I'm not following you.  Are you saying that they can't even take the report without the kit?   And how many rapes are they having in Houston per year?  Anyway, that still leaves me with the same position regarding the idea that time should be the deciding factor instead of circumstances.  In fact it strengthens it.  If a woman can get a "morning after pill" (which almost always prevents fertilization after sex and in rare cases prevents implantation) and/or RU-486 (which can only induce abortion within the first 9 weeks of pregnancy) and that is uninhibited regardless of whether she is a rape victim, then why would the lack of rape kits even matter from the reproductive health point of view?

----------


## Carlybee

> If they pressure the woman to get an abortion, absolutely.


Oh I see..but no responsibility for causing the pregnancy. Got it.

----------


## Carlybee

> I'm not following you.  Are you saying that they can't even take the report without the kit?   And how many rapes are they having in Houston per year?  Anyway, that still leaves me with the same position regarding the idea that time should be the deciding factor instead of circumstances.  In fact it strengthens it.  If a woman can get a "morning after pill" (which almost always prevents fertilization after sex and in rare cases prevents implantation) and/or RU-486 (which can only induce abortion within the first 9 weeks of pregnancy) and that is uninhibited regardless of whether she is a rape victim, then why would the lack of rape kits even matter from the reproductive health point of view?


Would they not need a rape kit to prove it was rape?  And yes crime is bad here including rape.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Okay..hangings, public executions. I have now entered looney town. Said all I have to say on this topic.


 It is simple, effective and just. It is the best way to carry out the death penelty.

----------


## jmdrake

> And when does the male take any responsibility for not getting someone pregnant in the first place? Eggs dont fertilize themselves.


When he has to pay child support.  That's why you had the recent case of the son of an abortion doctor tricking his girlfriend into taking an abortion drug.  Oh yeah....and he's being charged with murder by the "abortion is not murder" Obama administration.  Go figure?

----------


## Carlybee

> It is simple, effective and just. It is the best way to carry out the death penelty.


The 17th century called...please go to loading dock A.

----------


## TER

> Keeping them locked up for life and flogging them publicly every day at different places can serve as a great substitute. Different cases different punishments for both born and unborn murder.


So instead of having your daughter beheaded for undergoing an abortion (because it is too merciful), you would rather she be hanged or locked up and flogged publicly every day at different places.  I know you are young and inexperienced, and that is why I cannot get angry at you for saying such things, but damn it is pretty sad to hear a young man claim to be a Christian and speak such hatred.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> The 17th century called...please go to loading dock A.


 No, public hangings is 20th century stuff.

----------


## Carlybee

> No public hangings is 20th century stuff.


Whatevah

----------


## jmdrake

> Would they not need a rape kit to prove it was rape?  And yes crime is bad here including rape.


I know of cases (one current) of men facing rape charges even though no rape kit was ever used because the woman waited too late for a rape kit to be effective.  Yes rape is harder to prove under such circumstances....but prosecutors have sometimes won such cases.  Besides, the woman having to "prove" it is rape is part of the problem with the rape exception and why I'm against it in favour of a strict time cut off where no abortions are allowed except for the life of the mother.  Think about it.  A woman claims she was raped by a stranger.  They do the rape kit and find DNA from seamen and male pubic hair.  But the DNA doesn't match any known criminals, she can't identify the perp (said he was wearing a mask or something) and the police clearly aren't going to be able to solve the case within the next 9 months if ever.  What then?  She can't get an abortion because they rape wasn't proven?  And say if they do catch someone and the DNA matches, but he has evidence that she was his girlfriend and says that it was consensual and she's just mad because he dumped her for someone else.  What now?  Do we speed up his trial so that she can "prove" she was raped soon enough to get an abortion?  Remember, it's not uncommon for such a high stakes trial not to go forward for a year or more.

----------


## jmdrake

> So instead of having your daughter beheaded for undergoing an abortion (because it is too merciful), you would rather she be hanged or locked up and flogged publicly every day at different places.  I know you are young and inexperienced, and that is why I cannot get angry at you for saying such things, but damn it is pretty sad to hear a young man claim to be a Christian and speak such hatred.


Not only sad, but counter-productive.  One of the reasons abortion remains legal is angst over what would happen to those convicted of having abortions.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> So instead of having your daughter beheaded for undergoing an abortion (because it is too merciful), you would rather she be hanged or locked up and flogged publicly every day at different places.  I know you are young and inexperienced, and that is why I cannot get angry at you for saying such things, but damn it is pretty sad to hear a young man claim to be a Christian and speak such hatred.


By biblical standards my suggestions are merciful.

----------


## jmdrake

> By biblical standards my suggestions are merciful.


Old Testament where people were stoned to death for picking up sticks on Sabbath?  Yes.  New Testament where Jesus said let him who is without sin cast the first stone?  No.  Counterproductive to the cause of ending abortion in today's America?  Absofreakinglutely.

----------


## erowe1

I answered the poll, but take issue with the wording.

The law is what it is. Human beings have no business saying what it should be. We don't have any say in the matter, except when it comes to the laws people make up, which are "laws" only as much as the rules of a game are.

Imagine a poll asking what people think the law of gravity ought to be.

----------


## dillo

> I'm 100% pro-life. 
> 
> Abortion is wrong in every single case and should be illegal.


So if the doctor tells the mother, theres a 50% chance you are going to die if you go through with this pregnancy than she is expected to have the child?

----------


## TER

> By biblical standards my suggestions are merciful.


Your Bible must not include the New Testament.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> So if the doctor tells the mother, theres a 50% chance you are going to die if you go through with this pregnancy than she is expected to have the child?


100% chance the baby dies.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Old Testament where people were stoned to death for picking up sticks on Sabbath?  Yes.  New Testament where Jesus said let him who is without sin cast the first stone?  No.  Counterproductive to the cause of ending abortion in today's America?  Absofreakinglutely.





> Your Bible must not include the New Testament.


Yes I am including the new testament but my bad to include religion so lets have that debate in the religius subforum, sorry.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Not only sad, but counter-productive.  One of the reasons abortion remains legal is angst over what would happen to those convicted of having abortions.


 That is like saying we should go soft on corrupted politicians who only care about self-interest because it will angst the majority.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I would be curious to know how many pro life people also support the death penalty.





> From my experience it's 100%. Why? Because Christian God supports death penalty, that's why.


Bull$#@!. I am "pro life" and I oppose the death penalty. And it hasn't got anything whatsoever to do with any "God" (Christian or otherwise).

Anyone who is anti-abortion on the basis of a "right to life" AND who also supports the death penalty is engaging in illogical nonsense.

The "pro right to life" and "pro death penalty" positions are simply NOT miscible without contradiction.

----------


## erowe1

> Yes I am including the new testament but my bad to include religion so lets have that debate in the religius subforum, sorry.


It's not your bad.

It's an inherently religious topic.

----------


## TER

> Bull$#@!. I am "pro life" and I oppose the death penalty. And it hasn't got anything whatsoever to do with any "God" (Christian or otherwise).
> 
> Anyone who is anti-abortion on the basis of a "right to life" AND who also supports the death penalty is engaging in illogical nonsense.
> 
> The "pro right to life" and "pro death penalty" positions are not miscible without contradiction.


Well said!

----------


## eduardo89

> Oh I see..but no responsibility for causing the pregnancy. Got it.


Why are you trying to paint pregnancy as some sort of crime where the man must be punished?

Of course the man has a responsibility when he gets a woman pregnant. He has a responsibility to care for her during pregnancy and to provide the child with all the necessities a child needs up until the point that child (then young adult) is self-sufficient: love, clothing, food, shelter, guidance, etc...

----------


## erowe1

> I would be curious to know how many pro life people also support the death penalty.


It's obviously a complicated question, since there is a range of different "pro-life" positions and a range of different anti-death penalty positions.

But I think about a third of those who are generally pro-life when it comes to abortion are also generally against the death penalty.

----------


## Nobexliberty

I might be wrong but judical review is not in the constitution, SCOTUS gave itself the right to judge what is constitutional and what is not. So this whole Roe v Wade decision should not decide what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional. But I might be wrong.

----------


## Brett85

> Bull$#@!. I am "pro life" and I oppose the death penalty. And it hasn't got anything whatsoever to do with any "God" (Christian or otherwise).


I'm not trying to be argumentative, but aren't you an anarchist?  If so, then wouldn't you be in favor of repealing all laws, which would include laws against abortion?

----------


## Carlybee

> Why are you trying to paint pregnancy as some sort of crime where the man must be punished?


It would probably prevent abortion.

----------


## Brett85

> Anyone who is anti-abortion on the basis of a "right to life" AND who also supports the death penalty is engaging in illogical nonsense.
> 
> The "pro right to life" and "pro death penalty" positions are simply NOT miscible without contradiction.


Then perhaps the term "right to life" isn't a good term.  Because that would imply that people have a "right" to their life under all circumstances.  That would mean that if you break into someone's home and hold them at gunpoint, the owner of the home doesn't have the right to take your life in self defense since you have a "right to life" that can't be taken away by anyone.  So let's be more clear about what I support.  I believe in protecting innocent life, protecting the lives of innocent people who have done no wrong and pose no threat to anyone else.  I'm opposed to *murder,* not killing.  Killing is justified in many situations.  Murder is never justified.

----------


## eduardo89

> It's obviously a complicated question, since there is a range of different "pro-life" positions and a range of different anti-death penalty positions.
> 
> But I think about a third of those who are generally pro-life when it comes to abortion are also generally against the death penalty.


The point of being pro-life is that we put the same high value of all life that God does, from the earliest pre-born baby to the last breath of an elderly, dying person. We derive our high value of life from the fact that every human being is made in the image of God. Thus, when someone takes the life of another in murder, they are treating the person they murdered as less important and valuable than they are. God instituted the death penalty Himself after the flood when He said, "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God, He made man." (Gen. 9:6)

The reason the death penalty is pro-life is that it puts the highest possible value on the life of the person murdered by exacting the life of the person who violated that value by murdering.

*Abortion is always an objective intrinsic evil. Capital punishment is not an objective intrinsic evil.*  All aborted children are innocent, that is not true of those convicted of crimes and sentenced to death. (yes, I'm assuming a perfect justice system for the same of philosophical arguments)

----------


## Carlybee

Actually there have been innocent people convicted and sentenced to die. And what about collateral damage in war? Is that okay as well?  Seems to me one is either against causing the death of others or one is not. And is it not God's place to judge? Or are we selective about that too?  Or are we just making up rules as we go along?

----------


## erowe1

> It would probably prevent abortion.


The relationship between permissiveness of abortion and men taking responsibility for pregnancies goes both ways.

Men would be more likely to take responsibility if they didn't see the decision to have a baby as 100% the woman's and 0% theirs, which is what the pro-choice position holds.

----------


## Brett85

> Actually there have been innocent people convicted and sentenced to die.


I'm not saying that the death penalty should be used on as much of a widespread basis as it's currently used.  I think it should basically be used in cases where there's absolutely no doubt that the defendant is guilty, such as the Colorado theater shooter or the Arizona shooter who shot Gabby Giffords.

----------


## erowe1

> The point of being pro-life is that we put the same high value of all life that God does, from the earliest pre-born baby to the last breath of an elderly, dying person. We derive our high value of life from the fact that every human being is made in the image of God. Thus, when someone takes the life of another in murder, they are treating the person they murdered as less important and valuable than they are. God instituted the death penalty Himself after the flood when He said, "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God, He made man." (Gen. 9:6)
> 
> The reason the death penalty is pro-life is that it puts the highest possible value on the life of the person murdered by exacting the life of the person who violated that value by murdering.
> 
> *Abortion is always an objective intrinsic evil. Capital punishment is not an objective intrinsic evil.*  All aborted children are innocent, that is not true of those convicted of crimes and sentenced to death. (yes, I'm assuming a perfect justice system for the same of philosophical arguments)


I definitely agree with the basic point that taking the life of a baby and taking the life of a murderer are not the same.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I'm not trying to be argumentative, but aren't you an anarchist?


Yes. I am.




> If so, then wouldn't you be in favor of repealing all laws, which would include laws against abortion?


No. This is a complete _non sequitur_. In fact, Eduardo already addressed this very issue earlier in this thread (and did a very good job of it):




> Anarchists don't believe in an absence of laws,  but in eliminating the government's monopoly on force.


Anarchy is NOT opposed the the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law is absolutely necessary for any stable & just social order.

Anarchists believe that it is neither necessary nor wise to invest a single institution with monopolistic authority to make, maintain & enforce laws or rules. That is all. It does NOT follow from this that anarchists believe that there should not be any laws or rules.

----------


## Brett85

Then who makes these laws and rules (in an anarchist society), and how would they be enforced?

----------


## Contumacious

> The point of being pro-life is that we put the same high value of all life that God does, from the earliest pre-born baby to the last breath of an elderly, dying person. We derive our high value of life from the fact that every human being is made in the image of God. s)


Shalom Vern.

Are Palestinian Arabs, the lawful owners of "Israel" , made in the image of god? If so, why don't the Zionists get the $#@! out of Palestine?!?!?!?!?!?

.

----------


## Carlybee

> The relationship between permissiveness of abortion and men taking responsibility for pregnancies goes both ways.
> 
> Men would be more likely to take responsibility if they didn't see the decision to have a baby as 100% the woman's and 0% theirs, which is what the pro-choice position holds.


If men had to give birth, abortion would be 100% legal.

----------


## Brett85

> If men had to give birth, abortion would be 100% legal.


Abortion is already 100% legal.

----------


## Brett85

And the polls show that men aren't any more pro life than women are.  Men and women have roughly the same views on abortion, according to the polls.

----------


## Carlybee

> Abortion is already 100% legal.


Okay change that to...we would not be having much debate.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Actually there have been innocent people convicted and sentenced to die. And what about collateral damage in war? Is that okay as well?  Seems to me one is either against causing the death of others or one is not. And is it not God's place to judge? Or are we selective about that too?  Or are we just making up rules as we go along?


I think there is a higher chance to spend your entire life in prison innocent then to be executed because of all the appeals and the fact that juries are more careful when the accused can be sentanced to death. Yes innocent people can be executed but spending your entire life in prison is not any better.

----------


## dannno

> Perfect world?  Rapist, those that are beyond all doubt rapist, would be tortured.  Their organs harvested and the marrow sucked from their living bones.


What if the people who received the organ and marrow transplants from the rapists started raping people?

----------


## eduardo89

> No. This is a complete _non sequitur_. In fact, Eduardo already addressed this very issue earlier in this thread (and did a very good job of it):
> 
> Anarchy is NOT opposed the the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law is absolutely necessary for any stable & just social order.
> 
> Anarchists believe that it is neither necessary nor wise to invest a single institution with monopolistic authority to make, maintain & enforce laws or rules. That is all. It does NOT follow from this that anarchists believe that there should not be any laws or rules.


The basic premise of anarchism is extremely simple and I don't understand why some people, especially on this forum, still don't understand it. I honestly can't tell sometimes if it's ignorance or done on purpose to distort what anarcho-capitalists actually believe.

----------


## TER

I can't understand how being for the death penalty is pro-life. 

 Cold-blooded execution is so antithetical to the teachings of Christ, I can't understand how so many Christians defend it.  Killing an innocent baby is the same as killing an innocent man which happens all too frequently with the death penalty.  *All killing is sinful*.  In fact, the holy canons are clear, that even those who have justly killed during battle (such as in war), there is a penance and  repentance is needed before being communed again.

----------


## Brett85

> I can't understand how being for the death penalty is pro-life. 
> 
>  Cold-blooded execution is so antithetical to the teachings of Christ, I can't understand how so many Christians defend it.  Killing the death of an innocent baby is the same as killing an innocent man which happens all too frequently with the death penalty.  In fact, the holy canons are clear, that even those who have justly killed during battle (such as in war), there is a penance and  repentance is needed before being communed again.


There are reasons to be opposed to the death penalty, but trying to say that the Bible condems the death penalty is ridiculous.  The Old Testament actually says that the death penalty is justified for things like adultery, let alone murder.

----------


## eduardo89

> I can't understand how being for the death penalty is pro-life. 
> 
>  Cold-blooded execution is so antithetical to the teachings of Christ, I can't understand how so many Christians defend it.  Killing an innocent baby is the same as killing an innocent man which happens all too frequently with the death penalty.  *All killing is sinful*.  In fact, the holy canons are clear, that even those who have justly killed during battle (such as in war), there is a penance and  repentance is needed before being communed again.


It has been the position of the Church since the earliest days that the death penalty is justifiable in certain circumstances, such as in the punishment of murderers and in cases in which there is no other way to keep the community safe.

----------


## TER

> There are reasons to be opposed to the death penalty, but trying to say that the Bible condems the death penalty is ridiculous.  The Old Testament actually says that the death penalty is justified for things like adultery, let alone murder.


The Old Testament laws of death penalty do not apply in the New Testament revealed by Christ.

----------


## TER

> It has been the position of the Church since the earliest days that the death penalty is justifiable in certain circumstances, such as in the punishment of murderers and in cases in which there is no other way to keep the community safe.


Eduardo, can you show me which Church Fathers teach this?

----------


## Brett85

> The Old Testament laws of death penalty do not apply in the New Testament revealed by Christ.


Ok, but when did Christ say that the death penalty as done by governments is wrong?

----------


## Nobexliberty

Make a death penelty thread in the religion sub forum and get back to topic.

----------


## eduardo89

> There are reasons to be opposed to the death penalty, but trying to say that the Bible condems the death penalty is ridiculous.  The Old Testament actually says that the death penalty is justified for things like adultery, let alone murder.


Even in the NT we have an example of people being put to death. In Acts 5 Ananias and Sapphira are killed by God himself for lying!

----------


## eduardo89

> Ok, but when did Christ say that the death penalty as done by governments is wrong?


No passage in the New Testament disapproves of the death penalty.

On the contrary, the New Testament not only recognizes the right of the State to exercise authority in the name of God, but enjoins obedience to the State in applying the laws of God to its citizens.

----------


## erowe1

> If men had to give birth, abortion would be 100% legal.


Then why do only 28% of women think abortion should be 100% legal?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162374/am...ell-trial.aspx

----------


## Carlybee

> Then why do only 28% of women think abortion should be 100% legal?
> 
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/162374/am...ell-trial.aspx


It was meant tongue in cheek

----------


## eduardo89

> Eduardo, can you show me which Church Fathers teach this?


Take St. Augustine, for example:




> Evovdius: If murder means taking the life of a man, this can sometimes happen without any sin. When a soldier slays the enemy, when a judge, or his deputy, executes a criminal, when, by chance, a deadly weapon leaves someone's hand unintentionally or thoughtlessly, I do not think that these are guilty of sin in killing a man.
> Augustine. I agree, but such men are not usually called murderers.
> 
> Dialogue in _On Free Choice of the Will_





> For what is fouler than the executioner? What is his cruel and barbarous purpose? But he has a necessary place within the well-ordered laws themselves of an orderly city. And though in his own person he does evil, the punishment of evildoers is not ascribed to him.
> 
> De Ordine, II.4.12.


St. Augustine recognizes that civil authorities have the God-given power to put a man justly to death for grave crimes, and that a Christian as a judge or magistrate, may exercise without penalty of sin that power in proper circumstances. However, that is not where he leaves the matter. Capital punishment is, for St. Augustine, not only a matter that must be looked at in the light of justice. It must also be looked at in the light of mercy. The light of mercy tempers the steel of justice to the point where capital punishment ought rarely be applied.




> It must be remembered that power was granted by God, and to avenge crime the sword was permitted; he who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister.
> 
> 405 AD

----------


## Carlybee

> No passage in the New Testament disapproves of the death penalty.



Did Jesus believe in the death penalty?  For the record not all Christians follow Catholic dogma.

----------


## erowe1

> Ok, but when did Christ say that the death penalty as done by governments is wrong?


Why did you include the line, "as done by governments"?

I can see biblical cases both for and against the death penalty. But I can't see any argument, whether based on words of Jesus or anything else in the Bible, for making it somehow ok for the government to do, but not for anyone else.

----------


## DamianTV

Why do people always think they have a right to tell someone else what to do with their lives?

----------


## erowe1

> Take St. Augustine, for example:


Not to interrupt, but I doubt TER considers Augustine a "church father."

----------


## erowe1

> Why do people always think they have a right to tell someone else what to do with their lives?


Are you telling us we don't?

----------


## erowe1

> It was meant tongue in cheek


Well, it's a line the pro-abortion crowd uses a lot. So if you didn't mean it, many do.

----------


## TER

> No passage in the New Testament disapproves of the death penalty.


Turn the other cheek?  Love your enemies?  Forgive those who trespass against you?  The fact that the Apostles were martyred without putting up a fight?  The fact that the early Church even dissuaded against military service strictly because they refused to draw blood on others?  

Christ didnt have to specifically have to speak about the topic of capital punishment.  And you are incorrect to say that the Early Church preached and practiced such killings.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> No passage in the New Testament disapproves of the death penalty.
> 
> On the contrary, the New Testament not only recognizes the right of the State to exercise authority in the name of God, but enjoins obedience to the State in applying the laws of God to its citizens.


And the let the one without sin cast the first stone is misinterperated.

----------


## Carlybee

> Why do people always think they have a right to tell someone else what to do with their lives?


Same reason they say abortion is not a religious issue yet it always comes back to religion. The same people who get bent out of shape over nanny-ists too.

----------


## TER

> Not to interrupt, but I doubt TER considers Augustine a "church father."


No, I wouldn't.  Anyone else in the Church to condone such killings?

----------


## Carlybee

> Well, it's a line the pro-abortion crowd uses a lot. So if you didn't mean it, many do.


Well if we're being honest it's probably true....I bet that % for men would change drastically if they were the ones getting pregnant because they don't have the mothering instinct. Not that obviously that would ever happen.

----------


## erowe1

> The fact that the Apostles were martyred without putting up a fight?


Wouldn't that be an argument FOR the death penalty?

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Turn the other cheek?  Love your enemies?  Forgive those who trespass against you?  The fact that the Apostles were martyred without putting up a fight?  The fact that the early Church even dissuaded against military service strictly because they refused to draw blood on others?  
> 
> Christ didnt have to specifically have to speak about the topic of capital punishment.  And you are incorrect to say that the Early Church preached and practiced such killings.


 Turn the other cheek is about revenge and not self defence or justice. And forgiveness does not mean letting them off without a punishment. And do not confuse love with everthing is okay, Jesus said we shall love our brother but not that he should not be executed if he is a murderer.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Royal baby! 

Attachment 892

----------


## TER

> Did Jesus believe in the death penalty?  For the record not all Christians follow Catholic dogma.


Jesus did not teach the death penalty, nor did the early Church, nor does the Orthodox Church.

----------


## TER

> Wouldn't that be an argument FOR the death penalty?


How so?

----------


## Fredom101

> Anarchists don't believe in an absence of laws, but in eliminating the government's monopoly on force.


Anarcho-capitalists do in fact believe in an absence of laws. Anarchy means "no ruler". No ruler means no laws dictating from a central authority. Now, does this mean "no rules"? No, absolutely not! It's just that these rules are not coming from central planners. If there is not legal system then there is no laws. At least, this is how I understand anarchy. Do you know it differently?

----------


## erowe1

> How so?


Because that's what their martyrdom was.

----------


## eduardo89

> Not to interrupt, but I doubt TER considers Augustine a "church father."





> No, I wouldn't.  Anyone else in the Church to condone such killings?


That is true, St. Augustine did not have the same influence in the Eastern Churches than he did in the Latin Church, but he is still a Saint in all churches. In the West, he is considered, along with St. Thomas Aquinas, as the most influential theologian to ever have lived. 

I will concede that capital punishment has never been universally accepted by all Christian, even in the times of the Church Fathers. Justin Martyr was against its use.

Edit: I added a quote by Pope Innocent I from 405 AD that also supports capital punishment to my previous post.

----------


## eduardo89

> Jesus did not teach the death penalty, nor did the early Church, nor does the Orthodox Church.


The Orthodox Church has never formally condemned the death penalty.

----------


## Nobexliberty

Stay on topic,I make a thread about this on the religion sub forum.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm not trying to be argumentative, but aren't you an anarchist?  If so, then wouldn't you be in favor of repealing all laws, which would include laws against abortion?


No. Seriously, come on.

We can debate the validity of the system altogther but we know "Abolish all laws" isn't it.



> Then perhaps the term "right to life" isn't a good term.  Because that would imply that people have a "right" to their life under all circumstances.  That would mean that if you break into someone's home and hold them at gunpoint, the owner of the home doesn't have the right to take your life in self defense since you have a "right to life" that can't be taken away by anyone.  So let's be more clear about what I support.  I believe in protecting innocent life, protecting the lives of innocent people who have done no wrong and pose no threat to anyone else.  I'm opposed to *murder,* not killing.  Killing is justified in many situations.  Murder is never justified.


Amen.  +1.




> Actually there have been innocent people convicted and sentenced to die. And what about collateral damage in war? Is that okay as well?  Seems to me one is either against causing the death of others or one is not. And is it not God's place to judge? Or are we selective about that too?  Or are we just making up rules as we go along?


Collateral Damage still deliberately accepts the death of the innocent.  The death penalty does not.

Its like saying: if you had to kidnap 4 people to make absolutely sure you got the one who actually killed a bunch of people, would you do it?  Of course not.  Does this make imprisonment inherently wrong?  No.




> Then who makes these laws and rules (in an anarchist society), and how would they be enforced?


They'd be enforced by private companies.  I'm not fully on board with this but that's how the theory goes.

As for who makes the laws, that I honestly don't know.  I know there's debate over how to define the NAP, so it wouldn't necessarily be immediately obvious
*
anarcho-capitalists- Who makes the laws?*



> The basic premise of anarchism is extremely simple and I don't understand why some people, especially on this forum, still don't understand it. I honestly can't tell sometimes if it's ignorance or done on purpose to distort what anarcho-capitalists actually believe.


This.




> I can't understand how being for the death penalty is pro-life. 
> 
>  Cold-blooded execution is so antithetical to the teachings of Christ, I can't understand how so many Christians defend it.  Killing an innocent baby is the same as killing an innocent man which happens all too frequently with the death penalty.  *All killing is sinful*.  In fact, the holy canons are clear, that even those who have justly killed during battle (such as in war), there is a penance and  repentance is needed before being communed again.


Not all killing is sinful.  The Bible is clear about this.




> There are reasons to be opposed to the death penalty, but trying to say that the Bible condems the death penalty is ridiculous.  The Old Testament actually says that the death penalty is justified for things like adultery, let alone murder.


OT law isn't applicable here.  Although I still believe the DP is sometimes justified, at least in theory.




> The Old Testament laws of death penalty do not apply in the New Testament revealed by Christ.


True, true.



> Even in the NT we have an example of people being put to death. In Acts 5 Ananias and Sapphira are killed by God himself for lying!


God can kill anyone he likes.  Irrelevant reasoning, IMO.

God sometimes told people to kill children, and did so himself (Tenth Egyptian plague), its still not OK for men to do this.



> Which I am a strong proponent of the death penalty, and do believe that public hangings should be brought back, I don't think that women should be executed for having an abortion in most cases. 
> 
> There are cases where I do believe it could be warranted, such as in late term abortions of healthy unborn babies, I just don't think that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment in the vast majority of cases. 
> 
> I do, however, believe that abortionists should be executed.


How is it not, assuming certainty of guilt?  Why does it matter what term the abortion is?  Late term and early term abortion are both equally murder, IMO.  Using RU-438 is just as serious as partial birth abortion to me.




> Okay..hangings, public executions. I have now entered looney town. Said all I have to say on this topic.


Dismissing an argument with "looney town" is unfitting for the smartest people on the planet, also known as "Ron Paul supporters" and "libertarians."  

I believe there are pragmatic problems with the death penalty, so I support exiling the murderers and the rapists to some sort of penal colony somewhere instead of the death penalty.  But that's a pragmatic term.  And I still support executing any agents of the state who do horrible things, and publicly at that, even though they theoretically might be "innocent" since I view them all as guilty anyway.  Also, for agents of the state this applies for any felony rather than only murder or rape like it theoretically would for a normal person.



> Keeping them locked up for life and flogging them publicly every day at different places can serve as a great substitute. Different cases different punishments for both born and unborn murder.


OK, now this is cruel and unusual.  I generally am in favor of flogging being used for violent crimes, but Biblically that was limited to a maximum of 40 times for a single crime.  To do it to someone every day is cruel and unusual.  For murder I support either execution (Theoretically) or exile to a penal colony (In practice.)



> Old Testament where people were stoned to death for picking up sticks on Sabbath?  Yes.  New Testament where Jesus said let him who is without sin cast the first stone?  No.  Counterproductive to the cause of ending abortion in today's America?  Absofreakinglutely.


Does it matter what politically works?  Nope.  We are men of principle, or at least it should be.

I maintain that anyone who has an abortion without any sort of mitigating factor should be sentenced to death.  Rape, emotional  trauma (Likely from rape), ignorance (Unlikely to be the case once the death penalty or exile were instituted as punishment for abortion), or other circumstances could possibly be mitigating factors.  A life of the mother case would of course be straight self-defense and should not be punished.



> So if the doctor tells the mother, theres a 50% chance you are going to die if you go through with this pregnancy than she is expected to have the child?


I think she should be expected to, culturally speaking, to at least try to save both lives and leave the results up to God.

That said, legally, if she wants to make sure she lives even if it means the baby dies, she does have a right to do that, IMO.



> Bull$#@!. I am "pro life" and I oppose the death penalty. And it hasn't got anything whatsoever to do with any "God" (Christian or otherwise).
> 
> Anyone who is anti-abortion on the basis of a "right to life" AND who also supports the death penalty is engaging in illogical nonsense.
> 
> The "pro right to life" and "pro death penalty" positions are simply NOT miscible without contradiction.

----------


## Nobexliberty

I just made a thread in the religion sub forum and bring the religius discussion there please

----------


## Fredom101

I don't get how you can be an anarchist who believes in laws. I'm not trying to be snarky. I'm an anarchist and see no point in any kind of central planning, including laws.

----------


## TER

> The Orthodox Church has never formally condemned the death penalty.


The Orthodox Church of America has.  The Greek Orthodox Chuch has.  Many of the jurisdictions have.  There is no universal statement likely because there hasn't been a Eucemnical Council in over a thousand years, and up until then, it was never an issue because everyone knew what the Church's position was.  If and when there is another Council, perhaps then it will be formally and universally proclaimed, because in such a concilliary council are such canons proclaimed and not by one person as in the Latin Church.

----------


## erowe1

> I don't get how you can be an anarchist who believes in laws. I'm not trying to be snarky. I'm an anarchist and see no point in any kind of central planning, including laws.


What does it mean for you to be an anarchist?

----------


## TER

> Even in the NT we have an example of people being put to death. In Acts 5 Ananias and Sapphira are killed by God himself for lying!


No one is disputing God's authority to end life.  This has to do with capital punishment carried out in cold blood by men.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Then perhaps the term "right to   life" isn't a good term.  Because that would imply that people have a   "right" to their life under all circumstances.  *That would mean   that if you break into someone's home and hold them at gunpoint, the   owner of the home doesn't have the right to take your life in self   defense since you have a "right to life" that can't be taken away by   anyone.*


No, it does NOT mean any such thing. I have already addressed this very issue with you in one of my posts in other another thread (a post to which you never responded or offered any rebuttal):




> Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative
> 
> 
> Then under what you're saying,  killing is always wrong, even in self defense.  Everyone has the right  to life, even if you threaten someone elses life or take someone elses  life.  That seems to be what you're saying, that in order to be  consistent all killing must be illegal under all circumstances.
> 
> 
> That is not the case. Under what I am saying, "violating" (i.e.,  deliberately  abrogating) someone's right to life is always wrong. But  not all  killing involves the deliberate abrogation of someone's right to life.  There are many kinds of killing (or homicide): murder, suicide,  accident, self-defense, abortion, etc.
> 
> Suppose I am driving my car. A dog runs out into the road. I swerve to  avoid it, and accidentally hit & kill a pedestrian on the sidewalk. I  have killed the pedestrian. I may perhaps be said to have "abrogated"  the pedestrian's right to life - and I may even be held tortiously  liable for having done so. But I have NOT in any reasonable sense of the  word "violated" (deliberately abrogated) the pedestrian's right to life.
> ...


I also addressed the same general issue with FreedomFanatic in this post: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4950670




> So let's be more clear about what I support.  I believe in protecting innocent life, protecting the lives of innocent people who have done no wrong and pose no threat to anyone else.  I'm opposed to *murder,* not killing.  Killing is justified in many situations.  Murder is never justified.


Neither innocence nor guilt have anything to do with it. If there is a "right to life" then everyone has it - regardless of innocence or guilt.

Otherwise, the "right to life" is NOT a "right" at all - it is a privelege contingent upon some factor (such as "innocence" or whatever).

If there is such a thing as the "right to life" then the most bloody-handed murderer in all of human history has it every bit as much as any newborn babe.




> I'm not saying that the death penalty should be used on as much of a widespread basis as it's currently used.  I think it should basically be used in cases where there's absolutely no doubt that the defendant is guilty, such as the Colorado theater shooter or the Arizona shooter who shot Gabby Giffords.


Setting aside the "dogmatic" approach (to wit, that the guilty must have just as much of a "right to life" - granting that such a thing exists - as the innocent do), I will address this aspect of the issue via the "pragmatic" approach ...

Given that entirely innocent people *have, in fact,* been convicted as guilty, how are we, as a purely practical matter, to go about correctly separating those "convicted of murder who are 'absolutely no doubt' guilty" from those "convicted of murder who are NOT 'absolutely no doubt' guilty"? Mustn't we consider everyone who is convicted of murder as being "absolutely no doubt" guilty - merely by virture of their having been convicted (and despite the incontrovertible fact that innocents are sometimes convicted as guilty)? But if not - how are we to go about making the distinction?

There is simply no way to do this. No matter what sort of "filter" we might devise, there will always be "edge cases" (as well as numerous other factors that "poison the well" - such as police & prosecutorial misconduct, slanted media reportage, "honest" human error & lack of omniscience, etc.). Therefore, the ONLY way to ensure that innocents are NOT erroneously executed (i.e., MURDERED) is to forbid execution as a criminal punishment - because (as a purely practical matter) the death penalty WILL result in the murder of innocents

----------


## eduardo89

TER, here are more examples of Church Fathers talking about capital punishment:





> If however a criminal falls into any incurable evil,when taken possession of, for example, by wrong or covetousness,it will be for his good if he is put to death


And Jerome in his commentary of Jeremiah 22:3



> To punish [with death] murderers and blasphemers and poisoners is not the shedding of blood but the administration of laws.


In the same commentary Jerome also says:



> He who slays cruel men is not cruel.


(JEROME, COMMENTARIORUM IN ISAIAM PROPHETAM)

Saint Ephraem of Syria argued that women who obtained abortions warranted the death penalty:




> Because she made the child in her body into a miscarriage, so that it would be buried in the darkness of the earth, it also makes her into a miscarriage, so that she must wander in outer darkness. This is the penalty for adulterers and adulteresses who take their childrens life: they are punished with death.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> I would be curious to know how many pro life people also support the death penalty.


It depends; I am opposed to the death penalty for any reason except as a penalty for things such as premeditated murder or malicious actions that result in the death of innocent people (as in treason during constitutionally declared war).

----------


## TER

> Not all killing is sinful.  The Bible is clear about this.


Not according to the Church.  Under the New Testament revealed by Christ, all killing is murder requires repentance, even if by accident or in self-defense.  This is not to compare sins (the establishment of mortal and venial sins is a Western doctrine and not found in the early Church) or that you will go to hell for accidentally killing someone or in self-defense.

----------


## Fredom101

> What does it mean for you to be an anarchist?


No rulers chosen for me.
Voluntary interactions in the marketplace.
I make decisions for myself.
No central planning.

----------


## presence

> Would the person who got them pregnant also be a conspirator?


Not unless they were involved in the unlawful abortion.

----------


## Fredom101

What if we completely freed up adoption? Get the government out of the business of adoption. Do you not think that abortion rates would plummet? Every government action leads to a $#@!tier world. Why is abortion any different? Like everything else, the more the gov't is involved, the worse things will be in this realm.

----------


## Carlybee

Can y'all please be specific when you say the Church?  I'm a Presbyterian for crying out loud. (Or was)..to me the Church sounds like you think its the only one that counts.

----------


## erowe1

> No rulers chosen for me.
> Voluntary interactions in the marketplace.
> I make decisions for myself.
> No central planning.


Are you saying that, as an anarchist, you believe that all those things are what ought to prevail?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Not according to the Church.  Under the New Testament revealed by Christ, all killing is murder requires repentance, even if by accident or in self-defense.  This is not to compare sins (the establishment of mortal and venial sins is a Western doctrine and not found in the early Church) or that you will go to hell for accidentally killing someone or in self-defense.


I'm Protestant.  So I only care what the Bible says.

The Bible does not anywhere teach that all killing is immoral.

As for mortal/venial sin, the Bible does indeed talk about mortal sin, but it says there is _A_ sin leading to death ("Mortal sin" if you will) not "Sins."  Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is a sin that always leads to death, everything else is a sin that does not NECESSARILY lead to death.

How does the Orthodox Church teach that it is decided who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell?  How does it work in Orthodoxy?  I've heard that opinions of that range from everyone outside the Orthodox Church going to Hell all the way to Universalism.

----------


## erowe1

> Can y'all please be specific when you say the Church?  I'm a Presbyterian for crying out loud. (Or was)..to me the Church sounds like you think its the only one that counts.


For the ones using the term in this discussion, that is what they think.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> I just made a thread in the religion sub forum and bring the religius discussion there please


Yes, for the love of FSM.  Take it outside!

This thread is about how we can use anti-abortion sentiment to increase the use of ultrasounds, sonograms, state-licensed councilors, clinic visits, doctor-written prescriptions (they hate that OTC $#@! - no cut $$$ for them), waiting periods (visit doctor/pay, wait..., visit doctor/pay), and inspections (make sure your murder mill has enough state-licensed peeps on staff).

And lawyers!  Rape/incest allegations - whether valid or not, statutory or not, if filed solely to get an abortion - will ensure they have steady work too!




> At current rates, nearly one-third of American women will have an abortion (AGI).
> 
> http://www.abort73.com/abortion_fact...on_statistics/


Technology might change that.  Your laws?  Nope.

----------


## jmdrake

> That is like saying we should go soft on corrupted politicians who only care about self-interest because it will angst the majority.


Not at all.  First everyone is against corrupt politicians, even the corrupt politicians themselves.  (Have you ever heard a politician run on a platform of more corruption)?  Second while someone might be against something, they might not agree with your penalty.  For example not everyone who is against drugs would support the death penalty for drugs.  I'm against drunk driving, though I am bothered by civil liberty abusing random checkpoints.  That said I wouldn't support the death penalty for drunk driving.  You clearly haven't thought this all the way through if you're going to make a poor analogy like that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What if we completely freed up adoption? Get the government out of the business of adoption. Do you not think that abortion rates would plummet? Every government action leads to a $#@!tier world. Why is abortion any different? Like everything else, the more the gov't is involved, the worse things will be in this realm.


Doesn't change the fact that murder should be illegal.

If I shot an abortion doctor, would you say I was a murderer or would you let me go free?

What if I shot a child?




> Can y'all please be specific when you say the Church?  I'm a Presbyterian for crying out loud. (Or was)..to me the Church sounds like you think its the only one that counts.


For me it means the body of all believers.  That may or may not include you, I don't know you and only God knows where your heart is.

Christians in the true Church can come from any denomination.

The Catholics and the Orthodox don't use this term the same way I do, they define it as dealing with the physical church.

----------


## Contumacious

> No one is disputing God's authority to end life.  This has to do with capital punishment carried out in cold blood by men.


Interesting.

Here we have a Zionist who claims that his "religious principles" prevent him from murdering other human beings. Nevertheless, he lives is in Palestine  in lands stolen from Palestinian Arabs who were murdered and maimed  by Zionists.

Go fig

.

----------


## TER

> Because that's what their martyrdom was.


The fact that they were murdered under capital punishment does not mean they endorsed such practices.

----------


## eduardo89

> Interesting.
> 
> Here we have a Zionist who claims that his "religious principles" prevent him from murdering other human beings. Nevertheless, he lives is in Palestine  in lands stolen from Palestinian Arabs who were murdered and maimed  by Zionists.
> 
> Go fig
> 
> .


I don't think TER is a Zionist and I'm almost 100% certain he does not live in Israel.

----------


## erowe1

> Interesting.
> 
> Here we have a Zionist who claims that his "religious principles" prevent him from murdering other human beings. Nevertheless, he lives is in Palestine  in lands stolen from Palestinian Arabs who were murdered and maimed  by Zionists.
> 
> Go fig
> 
> .


Who are you talking about?

And whoever it is, what are you getting at? Are you saying that to live in Israel is to be guilty of murdering Arabs?

----------


## Nobexliberty

There is a thread in the religion sub forum about this now please get back to topic.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't think TER is a Zionist and I'm almost 100% certain he does not live in Israel.


No kidding?  Is the "Zionist" moniker becoming an RPF version of Godwin's law?

----------


## Fredom101

> Are you saying that, as an anarchist, you believe that all those things are what ought to prevail?


The only way these things would prevail is if people were able to shake off the belief that some humans should be able to monopolize violence and rule over other humans by force. It's not an "ought" to me. It's really hard to say anyone "should" or "ought to" believe anything. For example, should the single mom with 3 kids living on section 8 government checks change her mind and be for anarchy? In the long run, of course she would be better off in a free world. However, to think that she is going to sacrifice her lifeblood for this belief is foolhardy. 

So anyway, I have a problem with "ought", but will say that we're talking about a shift in philosophy, which is very difficult when most have been indoctrinated by schools and media their whole lives.

----------


## TER

> Interesting.
> 
> Here we have a Zionist who claims that his "religious principles" prevent him from murdering other human beings. Nevertheless, he lives is in Palestine  in lands stolen from Palestinian Arabs who were murdered and maimed  by Zionists.
> 
> Go fig.


Are you calling me a Zionist?

----------


## erowe1

> The fact that they were murdered under capital punishment does not mean they endorsed such practices.


But you didn't just refer to the fact that they were put to death, but the fact that they didn't object to it.

At any rate, I don't see how whatever you were saying about it could have been an argument against the death penalty.

----------


## erowe1

> The only way these things would prevail is if people were able to shake off the belief that some humans should be able to monopolize violence and rule over other humans by force. It's not an "ought" to me. It's really hard to say anyone "should" or "ought to" believe anything. For example, should the single mom with 3 kids living on section 8 government checks change her mind and be for anarchy? In the long run, of course she would be better off in a free world. However, to think that she is going to sacrifice her lifeblood for this belief is foolhardy. 
> 
> So anyway, I have a problem with "ought", but will say that we're talking about a shift in philosophy, which is very difficult when most have been indoctrinated by schools and media their whole lives.


As I understand it, if it's not an "ought" to you, then you're not an anarchist.

On the other hand, if it were an "ought" then that would entail a belief in laws.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes, for the love of FSM.  Take it outside!
> 
> This thread is about how we can use anti-abortion sentiment to increase the use of ultrasounds, sonograms, state-licensed councilors, clinic visits, doctor-written prescriptions (they hate that OTC $#@! - no cut $$$ for them), waiting periods (visit doctor/pay, wait..., visit doctor/pay), and inspections (make sure your murder mill has enough state-licensed peeps on staff).
> 
> And lawyers!  Rape/incest allegations - whether valid or not, statutory or not, if filed solely to get an abortion - will ensure they have steady work too!
> 
> 
> 
> Technology might change that.  Your laws?  Nope.


First of all, I agree that laws will likely not solve the problem, although I think if the penalty had real teeth, such as death, life imprisonment, or exile, some people would think twice.  But I don't support the laws because I think it can solve the problem.  I support the laws because  murder should never be legal, period.  

As for the ultrasound laws and similar, I support them, but only in a limited sense.  Imagine there were a law that made it legal to kill five year olds.  Then there was an amendment proposed to that law that would require a person to wait 24 hours and fill out a bunch of stupid paperwork in order to kill a five year old.  I'd consider the amendment to be a joke, after all, I want people who kill five year olds to be executed, or at least incarcerated for life or exiled.  I don't merely want them to have to wait 24 hours and deal with paperwork in order to do so.  That said, while I'd oppose the law in question, and would consider the amendment to be a joke, I'd still support the amendment.  Because a law that allows you to kill five year olds without any restrictions allows for the killing of somewhat more five year olds than a law that allows you to do that with restrictions.   That doesn't mean I actually think the 24 hour rule or the paperwork are logically coherent restrictions.

Or to use a somewhat more realistic example that has nothing to do with murder...

Libertarians oppose eminent domain.  All libertarians agree on this.  And so any libertarian would support a law banning eminent domain for the purpose of giving to private companies.  Not because this is logically coherent (It isn't, stealing to give it to the government is no worse than doing so to give it to private developers) but because it restricts the extent to which the obvious evil of theft is legalized, which is better than not restricting it.

----------


## TER

> How does the Orthodox Church teach that it is decided who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell?  How does it work in Orthodoxy?  I've heard that opinions of that range from everyone outside the Orthodox Church going to Hell all the way to Universalism.


The Orthodox Church does not teach it decides who goes to Heaven and who goes to hell, for God alone is Judge.  We will all find out on the Last Day who He has chosen to enter the Kingdom.

----------


## erowe1

> The Orthodox Church does not teach it decides who goes to Heaven and who goes to hell, for God alone is Judge.  We will all find out on the Last Day who He has chosen to enter the Kingdom.


So, according to Orthodoxy, there's no way to know the way to eternal life until it's too late?

----------


## Fredom101

> Doesn't change the fact that murder should be illegal.
> 
> If I shot an abortion doctor, would you say I was a murderer or would you let me go free?
> 
> What if I shot a child?


Again, I'm an anarchist. Laws are made by central planners. I don't believe in that.

Let's think about this. 

What happens if you make drugs legal?
Do millions run out and start shooting up heroin immediately?
Or
Do a few people try drugs who wouldn't have, but millions of innocent people in jail go free and hundreds of thousands (or millions) of lives are saved by ending the drug war? And, do drugs go up in price or down if they are made legal? They go down, following simple economics, and therefore drug dealing becomes much less profitable.

Ok, now lets look at adoption.

Today, there are all kinds of regulations and restrictions on adoption by the government. It's VERY hard to adopt or to put a baby up for adoption.

Change this make it 100% legal to adopt or give up a child to adoption.

What happens? Do abortions then drop significantly, or stay the same?

Logic would say that it follows with every other free market principle. Abortion plummets if adoption is freed.

Therefore, freeing up adoption should be the focus for anyone wanting to cut down on abortions. You'll never cut it to 0, and you certainly won't have success using the guns of government. 

Killing doctors? Now that's just sick. How is that any different than saying let's kill republicans and democrats? Violence is not the answer.

----------


## eduardo89

> The Orthodox Church does not teach it decides who goes to Heaven and who goes to hell, for God alone is Judge.  We will all find out on the Last Day who He has chosen to enter the Kingdom.


I think he meant does the Orthodox Church believe in predestination. Which if I'm not wrong it does since it is clearly taught in Scripture, but it also teaches free will, which is also clearly taught in Scripture.




> So, according to Orthodoxy, there's no way to know the way to eternal life until it's too late?


If you die with unrepentant sin, you go to Hell.

----------


## Fredom101

> As I understand it, if it's not an "ought" to you, then you're not an anarchist.
> 
> On the other hand, if it were an "ought" then that would entail a belief in laws.


I'm not following you.
I WANT people to behave and think as I do.
However, in the current paradigm, I'm not able to say they OUGHT to.

So yes, I am an anarchist. 

Laws and anarchy cannot co-exist. If you believe in no rulers, where are your laws coming from?

----------


## TER

> So, according to Orthodoxy, there's no way to know the way to eternal life until it's too late?


I am not saying that the Kingdom of Heaven is not attainable here in this life, for it is and the saints are witness to this.

What I mean to say is that unlike you who already considers himself a shoe-in to heaven, this one life on this earth has been given to us for repentance and for sinners like me and you, will will not know until Judgment Day.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Killing doctors? Now that's just sick. How is that any different than saying let's kill republicans and democrats? Violence is not the answer.


You didn't understand my point.  I wasn't justifying that (At least not here.)  I was saying that if you want to oppose abortion laws because "Government can't solve the problem" you should logically agree that I should not be prosecuted if I killed an abortion doctor.  Otherwise the anti-government argument is really just silly: unless you really don't believe abortion is evil and murderous.

----------


## erowe1

> I think he meant does the Orthodox Church believe in predestination. Which if I'm not wrong it does since it is clearly taught in Scripture, but it also teaches free will, which is also clearly taught in Scripture.


Interesting. My impression of Eastern Orthodoxy is shaped a lot by what I've read from TER here. And from that it has always seemed to me like Scripture doesn't really matter to them.

----------


## eduardo89

> Laws and anarchy cannot co-exist.


Anarchy is not an absence of law! It is an absent of a monopoly on force.

Anomie is an absence of law.

----------


## erowe1

> I am not saying that the Kingdom of Heaven is not attainable here in this life, for it is and the saints are witness to this.
> 
> What I mean to say is that unlike you who already considers himself a shoe-in to heaven, this one life on this earth has been given to us for repentance and for sinners like me and you, will will not know until Judgment Day.


So the answer to the question, "What must I do to be saved?" is, "Wait and see."

----------


## TER

> But you didn't just refer to the fact that they were put to death, but the fact that they didn't object to it.
> 
> At any rate, I don't see how whatever you were saying about it could have been an argument against the death penalty.


My point about the martyrs fighting back was that they would rather die then kill the enemies who attacked them, just as St. Stephen the First Martyr did.

----------


## TER

> So the answer to the question, "What must I do to be saved?" is, "Wait and see."


No, and you should stop putting words in my mouth.  The answer is REPENT, just as Christ and every saint since Him has taught.

----------


## erowe1

> I'm not following you.
> I WANT people to behave and think as I do.
> However, in the current paradigm, I'm not able to say they OUGHT to.
> 
> So yes, I am an anarchist. 
> 
> Laws and anarchy cannot co-exist. If you believe in no rulers, where are your laws coming from?


I'm not following you either.

When you say you want people to think as you do, what does that include? If you don't believe in any "ought," then what is it that you want them to think?

I would say, anarchism depends on a law. Anarchism is the belief that the the state is a moral evil. For anything to be a moral evil, there must be a moral law. If there exists no moral law, then anarchism is necessarily wrong.

----------


## TER

> Interesting. My impression of Eastern Orthodoxy is shaped a lot by what I've read from TER here. And from that it has always seemed to me like Scripture doesn't really matter to them.


LOL.  Funny since it was the Church who wrote, compiled, defended and handed down those Scriptures!

----------


## eduardo89

> Interesting. My impression of Eastern Orthodoxy is shaped a lot by what I've read from TER here. And from that it has always seemed to me like Scripture doesn't really matter to them.


I think that's a very ignorant statement, and it's an accusation also pushed upon Catholics. Both Catholics and Orthodox view Scripture and Tradition as two forms of Revelation from the same God. One is not "better" than the other, neither can contradict the other.

Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God. 

Catholics and Orthodox, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.

----------


## erowe1

> No, and you should stop putting words in my mouth.  The answer is REPENT, just as Christ and every saint since Him has taught.


If I'm not putting words in your mouth, then wouldn't post 297 have been a good place for you to say what you say here?

----------


## TER

> I think that's a very ignorant statement, and it's an accusation also pushed upon Catholics. Both Catholics and Orthodox view Scripture and Tradition as two forms of Revelation from the same God. One is not "better" than the other, neither can contradict the other.


Thank you Eduardo.   Ironically, it is erowe who likes to ignore many lines and passages of Scripture in order to defend his innovative interpretation of the the Book.

----------


## TER

> If I'm not putting words in your mouth, then wouldn't post 297 have been a good place for you to say what you say here?


What is that you do not understand?  Do YOU know who is saved and will enter into the Kingdom?

----------


## erowe1

> I think that's a very ignorant statement, and it's an accusation also pushed upon Catholics. Both Catholics and Orthodox view Scripture and Tradition as two forms of Revelation from the same God. One is not "better" than the other, neither can contradict the other.


Again, as I said, for me it's just the impression I've gotten from discussions here. It may not be the official view of the Church. But the arguments TER makes pretty consistently do make tradition better than the Bible. The way to make it so that the two never contradict each other is to take whatever is supposedly the view of tradition and insist that the Bible must agree, even if it looks like it doesn't.

----------


## erowe1

> LOL.  Funny since it was the Church who wrote, compiled, defended and handed down those Scriptures!


I agree. And I belong to that Church. But that has nothing to do with Eastern Orthodoxy.

----------


## erowe1

> Do YOU know who is saved and will enter into the Kingdom?


Yes. I agree with the answer you gave in post 308.

----------


## eduardo89

> I agree. And I belong to that Church. But that has nothing to do with Eastern Orthodoxy.


You're Catholic?

----------


## TER

> Again, as I said, for me it's just the impression I've gotten from discussions here. It may not be the official view of the Church. But the arguments TER makes pretty consistently do make tradition better than the Bible. The way to make it so that the two never contradict each other is to take whatever is supposedly the view of tradition and insist that the Bible must agree, even if it looks like it doesn't.


Your first mistake is taking me as some sort of spokesmen for the Orthodox Church.  I am not worthy to speak for the Church.

Your second mistake is to believe in Sola Scriptura which is a progressive, innovative distortion of the faith which is not only historically illogical (there was no canon for hundreds of years!) but a teaching that has never been found in the writings of the Church.

----------


## TER

> I agree. And I belong to that Church. But that has nothing to do with Eastern Orthodoxy.


LOL, do you know those Saints who wrote the Scriptures partook in the Holy Eucharist?  That they ordained bishops?  Why do you reject these things when your Church taught and defended it?

----------


## erowe1

> My point about the martyrs fighting back was that they would rather die then kill the enemies who attacked them, just as St. Stephen the First Martyr did.


Right. And Jesus before him. But again, that's not an argument against the death penalty.

John 19:10-11



> Then Pilate said to Him, "Are You not speaking to me? Do You not know that I have power to crucify You, and power to release You?" Jesus answered, "You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin."


For obvious reasons, death penalty proponents often think that verse supports them. I don't happen to agree with them. I just don't think that what you said about martyrs supports the point you were making.

----------


## DamianTV

I'll try to change gears a little bit here...

*11-Year-Old Girl Speaks Out About Forced Marriage*



So what happens to this little girl when she is forced to marry and then forced to get pregnant?

A quote from one of the replies I found on VideoSift...




> *Religion is just a tool to justify the mistreatment of others*. The problem is the idea that women are worth less than men, their inferior. This isn't a problem specific to islamic countries. You see it in indian gang rapes, chinese gender selected abortion, israeli orthodox jews spitting on little girls and legitimate rape experts in US politics. 
> 
> This problem exists worldwide and you can see it on a daily basis, even in the comfort of your own home. In some places it's just less obvious. 
> 
> Personally, I hope this outspoken girl will help to change something in her part of the world and get away with it.


So thoughts on Forced Marriage and Forced Pregnancy?  Even then I imagine many people will say there should be no Right to Abortion...

----------


## erowe1

> LOL, do you know those Saints who wrote the Scriptures partook in the Holy Eucharist?  That they ordained bishops?  Why do you reject these things when your Church taught and defended it?


I don't reject them. I partake in communion and belong to a church that has elders (which the Bible also calls bishops).

It is those who distinguish elders from bishops who depart from the beliefs of the Church of the apostles.

----------


## eduardo89

> So thoughts on Forced Marriage and Forced Pregnancy?  Even then I imagine many people will say there should be no Right to Abortion...


I think it's immoral and absolutely despicable, but I do not think it justifies the murder of an innocent child who had no part whatsoever in the injustices committed against the young woman.

----------


## TER

> I don't reject them. I partake in communion and belong to a church that has elders (which the Bible also calls bishops).


Really, and do you believe it to be the real Body and Blood of Christ?  Do your 'elders' submit to the Councils of the Church and ordain presbyters by the laying of the hands?  Because, as you know, the writers of the Scriptures did and the early Church did.

----------


## eduardo89

> I don't reject them. I partake in communion and belong to a church that has elders (which the Bible also calls bishops).


Do you believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

----------


## eduardo89

> *Really, and do you believe it to be the real Body and Blood of Christ*?  Do your 'elders' submit to the Councils of the Church and ordain presbyters by the laying of the hands?  Because, as you know, the writers of the Scriptures did and the early Church did.


I love how we instantly both ask the same question

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'll try to change gears a little bit here...
> 
> *11-Year-Old Girl Speaks Out About Forced Marriage*
> 
> 
> 
> So what happens to this little girl when she is forced to marry and then forced to get pregnant?
> 
> A quote from one of the replies I found on VideoSift...
> ...





> I think it's immoral and absolutely despicable, but I do not think it justifies the murder of an innocent child who had no part whatsoever in the injustices committed against the young woman.


This...

Although apparently, according to Sola_Fide, that's a valid marriage....

----------


## TER

> I love how we instantly both ask the same question


That is because the common knowledge and worship of the Christian Church FROM THE BEGINNING has always been centered around the Holy Eucharist, and yet we have erowe here trying to say he follows the Scriptures correctly (over the Apostolic Churches who wrote and gave their lives handing down the written and oral traditions and can trace their teachings to the very beginning).  The ironic part is that all the while he is rejecting these fundamental teachings of Christ which are stated in the Scriptures themselves!

----------


## erowe1

> Really, and do you believe it to be the real Body and Blood of Christ?


Meaning what?




> Do your 'elders' submit to the Councils of the Church and ordain presbyters by the laying of the hands?  Because, as you know, the writers of the Scriptures did and the early Church did.


Yes, of course. As long as you don't mean to include all those later councils of human beings who departed from the teachings of the apostles while claiming to speak for the Church.

----------


## erowe1

> Do you believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?


Yes. Albeit I probably don't fill that phrase in with later innovative teachings like transubstantiation, like you may. But I do believe that He is present in it in some sense.

----------


## eduardo89

> That is because the common knowledge and worship of the Christian Church FROM THE BEGINNING has always been centered around the Holy Eucharist, and yet we have erowe here trying to say he follows the Scriptures correctly while he rejects these fundamental teachings of Christ.


The Eucharist is the center of our worship of God. The Eucharist is the most perfect and important act of worship offered to God or Father, because in the Eucharist it is Jesus Christ, our High Priest who is offering Himself to the Father. Jesus offers life to man through the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the eternal sacrifice of Christ made present to us sacramentally. 

When we celebrate Eucharist, we enter into the presence of God and we relive the mysteries of Our Lord’s Life, Crucifixion and resurrection. Throughout the Eucharist we grow in our awareness of our sinfulness and also of His healing Love. Only if we experience the living presence of Jesus at the altar can we pray and celebrate the Eucharist with faith. Otherwise the Eucharist makes not much meaning for us especially if we stand far away and astray, we will not be able to participate fully in the Eucharistic celebration. 

The Eucharist is the highest form of Prayer where we become aware of the living presence of God and where we receive His peace and healing. In this modern world, where we are misled or lead astray at every nook and corner, we the youth need the inner strength and power to fight the satanic temptations. This inner strength and power can be obtained only through holy Eucharist.

----------


## DamianTV

Yeah, the Church always knows best, and never serves its own self interests...

----------


## Nobexliberty

> *Religion is just a tool to justify the mistreatment of others.* The problem is the idea that women are worth less than men, their inferior. This isn't a problem specific to islamic countries. You see it in indian gang rapes, chinese gender selected abortion, israeli orthodox jews spitting on little girls and legitimate rape experts in US politics. 
> 
> This problem exists worldwide and you can see it on a daily basis, even in the comfort of your own home. In some places it's just less obvious. 
> 
> Personally, I hope this outspoken girl will help to change something in her part of the world and get away with it.


 Christianity does not put Women down, well maybe in a modern everyobdy is 100% equal society. But Women in both the old and new testament where highly regarded as great people, just different.

----------


## eduardo89

> Yes. Albeit I probably don't fill that phrase in with later innovative teachings like transubstantiation, like you may. But I do believe that He is present in it in some sense.


Transubstantiation is not modern or innovative, it is simply the name given to the change which occurs when bread and wine become Christ, completely in ever sense. He is truly present under both species. The bread and wine fully become His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. 

This is not an innovative teaching but what Christ Himself told the Apostles at the Last Supper. It has been the consistent teaching of the Church since the beginning. 

The innovative teaching is that He is not completely present in the Eucharist and that the bread and wine cease to be bread and wine but are instead His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, fully present.

----------


## erowe1

> Thank you Eduardo.   Ironically, it is erowe who likes to ignore many lines and passages of Scripture in order to defend his innovative interpretation of the the Book.


That's a strong claim.

Can you find any instances of you presenting me with lines from Scripture and me rejecting them?

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Yeah, the Church always knows best, and never serves its own self interests...


 That is why the Reformation happened

----------


## eduardo89

> Christianity does not put Women down, well maybe in a modern everyobdy is 100% equal society. But Women in both the old and new testament where highly regarded as great people, just different.


The greatest human to have ever lived apart from Jesus was a woman! A woman gave birth to our Lord and Savior. Every single Christian is eternally grateful to a woman! She is the only person, apart form Jesus, to have lived a completely sinless life! To say that Christians do not love and cherish women and their role in life is an absolute lie.

----------


## eduardo89

> That is why the Reformation happened


And the Reformation teaches "I know best," which always leads to moral relativism and atheism.

----------


## TER

> Meaning what?


You know exactly what I mean.  It is the same meaning Christ said when many of his disciples left Him because they couldn't accept that teaching to be literal.   It is the same meaning St. Paul said it was and every saint after him.  It is the same reason the early Christians were called cannibals and infanticiders.  You know very well what I mean, you just do believe it to be His Body and Blood.




> Do your 'elders' submit to the Councils of the Church and ordain presbyters by the laying of the hands? Because, as you know, the writers of the Scriptures did and the early Church did.





> Yes, of course. As long as you don't mean to include all those later councils of human beings who departed from the teachings of the apostles while claiming to speak for the Church.


And which councils then do you accept to be the correct teachings?

----------


## DamianTV

> I think it's immoral and absolutely despicable, but I do not think it justifies the murder of an innocent child who had no part whatsoever in the injustices committed against the young woman.


Dont take this personally, but do you think it is somehow your Right to take away her Rights because you dont morally agree with her actions?

----------


## erowe1

> Transubstantiation is not modern or innovative, it is simply the name given to the change which occurs when bread and wine become Christ, completely in ever sense. He is truly present under both species. The bread and wine fully become His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. 
> 
> This is not an innovative teaching but what Christ Himself told the Apostles at the Last Supper. It has been the consistent teaching of the Church since the beginning.


At the last supper Jesus said nothing about a "change which occurs when bread and wine become Christ, completely in every sense." Nor do any first century Christian writings. I'm not sure when the idea first appears. But I doubt that you can find anything like it until centuries after the apostles.

Those are the kind of innovative details I was referring to.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> And the Reformation teaches "I know best," which always leads to moral relativism and atheism.


 No it teaches the bible knows best.

----------


## erowe1

> Dont take this personally, but do you think it is somehow your Right to take away her Rights because you dont morally agree with her actions?


Are you saying someone has the right to kill an innocent child?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Then who makes these laws and rules (in an anarchist society), and how would they be enforced?


There are numerous sources for answers to this question that are far more articulate and detailed than I could ever be (especially in an Internet forum setting). If you genuinely want to know, start at mises.org and go from there ...




> Anarcho-capitalists do in fact believe in an absence of laws.


No they don't. I am an anarcho-capitalist - and I do NOT in fact "believe in an absence of laws" ... QED.




> Anarchy means "no ruler". No ruler means no laws dictating from a  central authority. Now, does this mean "no rules"? No, absolutely not!  It's just that these rules are not coming from central planners. If  there is not legal system then there is no laws. At least, this is how I  understand anarchy. Do you know it differently?


That is NOT a supportable or useful definition of the concept of "laws." It is like defining "cars" as "things that General Motors makes" - and then concluding that "things that Ford makes" are not "cars" because they don't fit your definition. Given the definition, the conclusion is, strictly speaking, "true" - but It's also a buch of useless nonsense that isn't going to do you any good in persuading people to your side of things in debates about "cars." Promoting the idea that anarchy is "lawless" just undermines the  advancement of the ideas & principles of anarchy. It feeds & encourages the notion  that "anarchy" means "bloody mayhem" because there are not any "laws"  ...

ANY stable & just social order will produce and enforce rules regarding what behaviors cannot be engaged in without justifiable interference or intervention from others. These are what is meant by the term "laws" - and any viable society WILL have them (including viable anarchic societies, if they are possible).




> I don't get how you can be an anarchist who believes in laws. I'm not trying to be snarky. I'm an anarchist and see no point in any kind of central planning, including laws.


See above. One of the basic tenets of anarcho-capitalism is that central planning is NOT necessary for the promulgation and enforcement of laws.

Anarcho-capitalism is NOT a rejection of "laws" - it is a rejection of the idea that "central planning" is necessary in order to have "laws" ...

----------


## Contumacious

> I don't think TER is a Zionist and I'm almost 100% certain he does not live in Israel.


Yo Ed,

You claim to be from "Israel". 

IS that a fact?

If so, are Palestinian Arabs Human beings?

.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Dont take this personally, but do you think it is somehow your Right to take away her Rights because you dont morally agree with her actions?


Welcome to planet earth.

----------


## erowe1

> And which councils then do you accept to be the correct teachings?



If you mean a council that speaks with apostolic authority, then the only one is the one described in Acts 15 and Galatians 2.

If you mean any council that happens to be correct in that what it says is true, then there are undoubtedly many groups of Christians who have gotten together over the centuries to come to agreement about what the Bible says concerning some issue or other and whose claims were correct. I won't pretend to know when or where such meetings have occurred.

Of course there have also been many that made claims that were incorrect.

----------


## eduardo89

> No it teaches the bible knows best.


Except the Bible does not teach that. The Bible nowhere teaches Sola Scriptura.

----------


## eduardo89

> Dont take this personally, but do you think it is somehow your Right to take away her Rights because you dont morally agree with her actions?


No one has the right to murder an innocent human being.

----------


## erowe1

> Yo Ed,
> 
> You claim to be from "Israel". 
> 
> IS that a fact?
> 
> If so, are Palestinian Arabs Human beings?
> 
> .


Oh for crying out loud.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> No one has the right to murder an innocent human being.


You don't have the right to take my money to stop her.  Man up and do it yourself if it matters so much to you.  If you're lucky, the real men will excuse your meddling.

----------


## DamianTV

> Christianity does not put Women down, well maybe in a modern everyobdy is 100% equal society. But Women in both the old and new testament where highly regarded as great people, just different.


Christianity may not, but People will use Christianity as an EXCUSE to put women down.  What is written and the behavior of people are very very different things.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Except the Bible does not teach that. The Bible nowhere teaches Sola Scriptura.


 Luke 1:1-4 , Romans 15:4 are clear. And Jesus also resisted temptaion and said clearly "it is written" to the devil according to Matthew 4:1-11. And Matthew 18:15-18 only says we shall listen to the church and not submit to it blindly.  Sola scripture is in the bible.

----------


## eduardo89

> Yo Ed,
> 
> You claim to be from "Israel".  IS that a fact?


I am a citizen of Israel according to Ephesians 2:19




> Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household





> If so, are Palestinian Arabs Human beings?


I think so. But I have not checked the DNA of every single on to be completely sure.

----------


## TER

> At the last supper Jesus said nothing about a "change which occurs when bread and wine become Christ, completely in every sense." Nor do any first century Christian writings. I'm not sure when the idea first appears. But I doubt that you can find anything like it until centuries after the apostles.
> 
> Those are the kind of innovative details I was referring to.


We can start with the obvious statements in the New Testament made by Christ and St. Paul (sorry it is not so obvious to you, I'm sure it has alot to do with you being preconditioned to believe what He means, even if it goes squarely against historical record and makes a liar of every saint in history).

Here are some other ones you choose to ignore:

Didache (the Apostles were still alive):

_"Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: 'Do not give to dogs what is sacred'"._

_"On the Lord's own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: 'In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.'"_ 

St. Ignatius (disciple of St. John):

_"Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ." 

"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."_ 

Here are just a few of the earlier ones, but you will deny them anyway because apparently they were innovative and you aren't!

----------


## eduardo89

> Luke 1:1-4 , Romans 15:4 are clear. And Jesus also resisted temptaion and said clearly "it is written" to the devil according to Matthew 4:1-11. And Matthew 18:15-18 only says we shall listen to the church and not submit to it blindly.  Sola scripture is in the bible.


Luke 1:1-4 does not teach Sola Scriputura at all.




> 1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.


Neither does Romans 15:4




> 4 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope.


In neither of those passages does it say Scripture is the sole authority. 

I just want to ask, how do you account for the fact that the Biblical Canon was not settled until 400 years after Jesus's death and resurrection?

How do you account for the fact that Protestants do not even abide by the Canon universally recognized by Christianity for over 1000 years?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Do you believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?


No.  At least not in the sense that you describe it.




> This...
> 
> Although apparently, according to Sola_Fide, that's a valid marriage....


For the record, I do not agree with this....

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Do you believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?





> We can start with the obvious statements in the New Testament made by Christ and St. Paul (sorry it is not so obvious to you, I'm sure it has alot to do with you being preconditioned to believe what He means, even if it goes squarely against historical record and makes a liar of every saint in history).
> 
> Here are some other ones you choose to ignore:
> 
> Didache (the Apostles were still alive):
> 
> _"Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: 'Do not give to dogs what is sacred'"._
> 
> _"On the Lord's own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: 'In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.'"_ 
> ...


The Didache doesn't say anything about God's presence in the Eucharist.  

Ignatius does, but he isn't necessarily talking about Transusbstantiation.  I guess it doesn't matter since he's wrong anyway, but I'm guessing he's referring to more of a spiritual presence.

----------


## eduardo89

> No.  At least not in the sense that you describe it.


Then you are rejecting what the Bible declares in 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71. 

You are rejecting what was taught by all the Church Fathers and was universally accepted by Christians for 1500 years.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Luke 1:1-4 does not teach Sola Scriputura at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither does Romans 15:4
> 
> 
> 
> In neither of those passages does it say Scripture is the sole authority. 
> ...


 Time of purgatory for twitter comments, do I need to say more? The reformation got rid of this and followed the word of God and not some corrupt Church who loves to pervert it for their own profit. And Mary was a sinner like us. 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...francis-tweets

----------


## eduardo89

> The Didache doesn't say anything about God's presence in the Eucharist.


"Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: 'Do not give to dogs what is sacred'".

-Ch. 9:5

"On the Lord's own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: 'In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.'"

-Ch 14





> Ignatius does, but he isn't necessarily talking about Transusbstantiation.  I guess it doesn't matter since he's wrong anyway, but I'm guessing he's referring to more of a spiritual presence.


Ignatius is not talking about a mere spiritual presense and if he were he would have been called out as a heretic.

----------


## eduardo89

> Time of purgatory for twitter comments, do I need to say more? The reformation got rid of this and followed the word of God and not some corrupt Church who loves to pervert it for their own profit. 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...francis-tweets


Except that is not what the indulgence will be granted for. But hey, what better way to distract from the fact that your argument on Sola Scriptura completely fell apart in one post than by attacking the Church for something completely unrelated, and in a way that completely distorts what the Church is doing. 




> And Mary was a sinner like us.


So you are saying our Lord and Savior was brought into this world by a sinner? Not even Luther believed this.

----------


## JK/SEA

The question should be, if you believe abortion is ok at ANY level, could you perform the procedure yourself. I mean, how tough can it be to stick a vacuum hose into the vagina?....or would it be easier to yank it out still attached to the cord and take a hammer to the skull?

anyone?


hell, maybe you'd get lucky and the baby would cry out as it was being killed....fun stuff right there eh?

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Except that is not what the indulgence will be granted for. But hey, what better way to distract from the fact that your argument on Sola Scriptura completely fell apart in one post than by attacking the Church for something completely unrelated, and in a way that completely distorts what the Church is doing. 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying our Lord and Savior was brought into this world by a sinner? Not even Luther believed this.


 Yes I am saying he was brought into this world by a sinner, but original sin is passed from the father so he lacked it. But Mary was a sinner just like us and this worship of her by the catholic church has gone to far!

----------


## eduardo89

> Yes I am saying he was brought into this world by a sinner, but original sin is passed from the father so he lacked it. But Mary was a sinner just like us and this worship of her by the catholic church has gone to far!


Your belief that Mary was a sinner is innovative and not taught by any of the Church father. Even the father of the reformation Luther rejected what you are claiming. 

Catholics do not worship Mary. We only worship God. And the veneration of Mary is as old as the Church.

But this is not what we were discussing, we were discussing another one of your innovative distortions of Christianity, namely Sola Scriptura.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Your belief that Mary was a sinner is innovative and not taught by any of the Church father. Even the father of the reformation Luther rejected what you are claiming. 
> 
> Catholics do not worship Mary. We only worship God. And the veneration of Mary is as old as the Church.
> 
> But this is not what we were discussing, we were discussing another one of your innovative distortions of Christianity, namely Sola Scriptura.


I am not saying that Mary was not important but saying that she was completely free from sin is a lie. Romans 15:4 states that the scripture was written for our instructions. Revelation 20:12 also says it is according to the scripture we will be judged.

----------


## eduardo89

> I am not saying that Mary was not important but saying that she was completely free from sin is a lie.


And that is a teaching denounced as heretical universally for the first 1500 years of Christianity. It is a heresy that even Martin Luther and Huldrych Zwingli refused to believe. 




> Romans 15:4 states that the scripture was written for our instructions.


And where does it say that Scripture alone is the source of Truth?




> Revelation 20:12 also says it is according to the scripture we will be judged.


Indeed we will be judged by how we lived by Christ's two Commandments. But again, where does it say that Scripture is the sole source of Revelation?

----------


## Christian Liberty

@eduardo89- I still don't see where it says the bread is the body of Christ in the actual text of the Didache.  I don't see where you're drawing it from.

Question: Am I going to Hell according to the Catholic Church, because I reject this?

----------


## DamianTV

Good Grief.

This whole thread has devolved into handing a bunch of Lawyers the Bible and expecting them to interpret in a way that doesnt benefit anyone else but themselves.  Not gonna happen.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Your belief that Mary was a sinner is innovative and not taught by any of the Church father. Even the father of the reformation Luther rejected what you are claiming. 
> 
> Catholics do not worship Mary. We only worship God. And the veneration of Mary is as old as the Church.
> 
> But this is not what we were discussing, we were discussing another one of your innovative distortions of Christianity, namely Sola Scriptura.


Romans 3:23.

As for the church fathers, most of them denied Mary's perfection, or at least doubted it.

----------


## DamianTV

I think that if ALL of my Rights were subject to the whims of any Religious group, I would end up having absolutely no rights what so ever.

Give a Lawyer a Law, and they rip it to shreds.  Give a Lawyer a Bible, what do you think is gonna happen?  Something good?

Too damn much Lawyerism going on in this thread.

/abandons thread

----------


## Nobexliberty

> And that is a teaching denounced as heretical universally for the first 1500 years of Christianity. It is a heresy that even Martin Luther and Huldrych Zwingli refused to believe. 
> 
> 
> 
> And where does it say that Scripture alone is the source of Truth?
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed we will be judged by how we lived by Christ's two Commandments. But again, where does it say that Scripture is the sole source of Revelation?


 Because Jesus never refered to oral traditions it but to the scripture he did, the scripture were written for the final determination of truth. 1 Corinthians 4:6.


And Luther only believed she was protected and freed from sin only to make Jesus a pure child and that she was born with sin. After Jesus was born she was as sinful as the rest of us.

----------


## eduardo89

> As for the church fathers, most of them denied Mary's perfection, or at least doubted it.


Not true.

*St. Athanasius* 
"Ever pure and unstained Virgin" (On the Incarnation of the Word, 8)

O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides. (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin)

*St. Ephraem*
Mary and Eve, two people without guilt, two simple people, were identical. Later, however, one became the cause of our death, the other the cause of our life (Op. syr. II, 327)

Thou and thy mother are the only ones who are totally beautiful in every respect; for in thee, O Lord, there is no spot, and in thy Mother no stain. (Nisibene Hymns)

"free from every stain, like her son" (Nisibene Hymns)

*St. Cyril of Jerusalem*
Pure and spotless is this birth. For where the Holy Spirit breathes, all pollution is taken away, so that the human birth of the Only-begotten from the ever Virgin is undefiled. (Catechetical Lectures, XII, 31-32)

*St. Gregory Nazianzen*
He was conceived by the Virgin, who had first been purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor. (Sermon 38)

*St. Gregory of Nyssa*
It was, to divulge by the manner of His Incarnation this great secret; that purity is the only complete indication of the presence of God and of His coming, and that no one can in reality secure this for himself, unless he has altogether estranged himself from the passions of the flesh. What happened in the stainless Mary when the fulness of the Godhead which was in Christ shone out through her, that happens in every soul that leads by rule the virgin life. (On Virginity)

The power of the Most High, through the Holy Spirit, overshadowed the human nature and was formed therein; that is to say, the portion of flesh was formed in the immaculate Virgin. (Against Apollinaris)

*St. Ambrose*
. . . Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin. (Commentary on Psalm 118)

What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose? What more chaste than she who bore a body without contact with another body? (Virginity)

*St. Epiphanius*
Mary, the holy Virgin, is truly great before God and men. For how shall we not proclaim her great, who held within her the uncontainable One, whom neither heaven nor earth can contain? (Panarion)

*St. Jerome*
'There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a flower shall grow out of his roots.' The rod is the mother of the Lord--simple, pure, unsullied; drawing no germ of life from without but fruitful in singleness like God Himself... Set before you the blessed Mary, whose surpassing purity made her meet to be the mother of the Lord. (Letter XXII. To Eustochium)

“whose purity was so great that she merited to be the Mother of the Lord” (Letter XXII. To Eustochium)

Indeed how inferior they are, in terms of holiness, to blessed Mary, Mother of the Lord! (Contra Pelagianos)

*St. Augustine*
We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin. Well, then, if, with this exception of the Virgin, we could only assemble together all the forementioned holy men and women, and ask them whether they lived without sin whilst they were in this life, what can we suppose would be their answer? (A Treatise on Nature and Grace, chapter 42)

We do not deliver Mary to the devil by the condition of her birth; but for this reason, because this very condition is resolved by the grace of rebirth. (Opus Imperf. Contra Julianum)

And so he created a Virgin, whom he had chosen to be his Mother . . . she, with pious faith, merited to receive the holy seed within her. He chose her, to be created from her. (De peccatorum meritis et remissione)

*St. Cyril of Alexandria*
Hail, Mary Theotokos, Virgin-Mother, lightbearer, uncorrupt vessel . . . Hail Mary, you are the most precious creature in the whole world; hail, Mary, uncorrupt dove; hail, Mary, inextinguishable lamp; for from you was born the Sun of justice . . . Through you, every faithful soul achieves salvation. (Homily 11 at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus)

I see the assembly of the saints, all zealously gathered together, invited by the holy Mother of God, Mary, ever-virgin . . . We hail you, O Mary Mother of God, venerable treasure of the entire world, inextinguishable lamp, crown of virginity, scepter of orthodoxy, imperishable temple, container of him who cannot be contained . . . Through you, the Holy Trinity is glorified; the precious Cross is celebrated and adored throughout the world; heaven exults, the angels and archangels rejoice, the demons are put to flight, the devil, the tempter, falls from heaven, the fallen creation is brought back to paradise, all creatures trapped in idolatry come to know of the truth. (Homily IV Preached at Ephesus Against Nestorius)

*Theodotus*
"Hail, O full of grace, the Lord is with you, you are blessed" (Lk 1:28), O most beautiful and most noble among women. The Lord is with you, O all-holy one, glorious and good. The Lord is with you, O worthy of praise, O incomparable, O more than glorious, all splendor, worthy of God, worthy of all blessedness . . . spouse of God, divinely nourished treasure. To you I announce neither a conception in wickedness nor a birth in sin; instead, I bring the joy that puts an end to Eve's sorrow. To you I proclaim neither a trying pregnancy nor a painful delivery . . . Through you, Eve's odious condition is ended; through you, abjection has been destroyed; through you, error is dissolved; through you, sorrow is abolished; through you, condemnation has been erased. Through you, Eve has been redeemed. (On the Mother of God and the Nativity)

A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns. (Homily VI)

If iron, once joined to fire, immediately expels the impurities extraneous to its nature and swiftly acquires a likeness to the powerful flame that heats it, . . . how much more, in a superior way, did the Virgin burn when the divine fire (the Holy Spirit) rushed in? She was purified from earthly impurities, and from whatever might be against her nature, and was restored to her original beauty, so as to become inaccessible, untouchable, and irreconcilable to carnal things. (Homily 4)

Innocent virgin, spotless, without defect, untouched, unstained, holy in body and in soul, like a lily-flower sprung among thorns, unschooled in the wickedness of Eve . . . clothed with divine grace as with a cloak . . . (Homily 6)

*Pope St. Leo the Great*
For the uncorrupt nature of Him that was born had to guard the primal virginity of the Mother, and the infused power of the Divine Spirit had to preserve in spotlessness and holiness that sanctuary which He had chosen for Himself . . . (Sermon XXII: On the Feast of the Nativity, Part II)

*St. Sophronius*
Others before you have flourished with outstanding holiness. But to none as to you has the fullness of grace been given. None has been endowed with happiness as you, none adorned with holiness like yours, none brought to such great magnificence as yours; no one was ever possessed beforehand by purifying grace as were you . . . And this deservedly, for no one came as close to God as you did; no one was enriched with God's gifts as you were; no one shared God's grace as you did. (In SS Deip. Annunt. 22)

*St. Andrew of Crete*
Today humanity, in all the radiance of her immaculate nobility, receives its ancient beauty. The shame of sin had darkened the splendour and attraction of human nature; but when the Mother of the Fair One par excellence is born, this nature regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God. . . . The reform of our nature begins today and the aged world, subjected to a wholly divine transformation, receives the first fruits of the second creation. (Homily 1 on Mary’s Nativity)

. . . alone wholly without stain . . . (Canon for the Conception of Anne)

*St. John Damascene*
 O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew. (Homily I on the Nativity of Mary)

So according to John of Damascus, even the “active” conception of Mary was completely without stain, panamomos – a view which goes far beyond the terms of the later definition of the doctrine and was open to the objections raised against it by the schoolmen.

She is all beautiful, all near to God. For she, surpassing the cherubim, exalted beyond the seraphim, is placed near to God. (Homily on the Nativity)


*It is evidently clear that since the early days of the Church Mary being free from sin was preached and accepted.*

----------


## eduardo89

> Because Jesus never refered to oral traditions it but to the scripture he did, the scripture were written for the final determination of truth. 1 Corinthians 4:6.


Neither Jesus nor the Apostles nor the Bible at any point claim that Scripture is the sole source of Revelation. In fact, that belief is clearly rejected and was not a part of Christianity until 1500 years later. 

"Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." (Luke 10:16)

That means, that whatever the apostles say, is Jesus' teaching. Then we can take Paul's words to the Thessalonians in chapter 2 verse 15:

"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." (NIV)

This is saying to hold to the scriptures and oral teaching. 




> And Luther only believed she was protected and freed from sin only to make Jesus a pure child and that she was born with sin. After Jesus was born she was as sinful as the rest of us.


That is not true. Luther believed till his death in not only Mary's Perpetual Virginity, sinless life, but also in her Immaculate Conception. He believed in Her Immaculate Conception 300 years before the Catholic Church declared it a Dogma of the Faith!




> Mother Mary, like us, was born in sin of sinful parents, but the Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood. The Holy Spirit permitted the Virgin Mary to remain a true, natural human being of flesh and blood, just as we. However, he warded off sin from her flesh and blood so that she became the mother of a pure child, not poisoned by sin as we are. For in that moment when she conceived, she was a holy mother filled with the Holy Spirit and her fruit is a holy pure fruit, at once God and truly man, in one person.

----------


## Brett85

Man this thread has really gone off the rails.

----------


## erowe1

> *It is evidently clear that since the early days of the Church Mary being free from sin was preached and accepted.*


If that's true, then why in that entire list were you unable to come up with one single early example?

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Man this thread has really gone off the rails.


 Welcome to the forum.

----------


## erowe1

> Because Jesus never refered to oral traditions it but to the scripture he did, the scripture were written for the final determination of truth. 1 Corinthians 4:6.
> 
> 
> And Luther only believed she was protected and freed from sin only to make Jesus a pure child and that she was born with sin. After Jesus was born she was as sinful as the rest of us.


Jesus did refer to oral traditions in Mark 7 and Matthew 15.

----------


## erowe1

> That means, that whatever the apostles say, is Jesus' teaching.


I pretty much agree with this, with the caveat that it wasn't every single thing they ever said, but the things they taught on his authority.

The problem with elevating traditions too highly isn't with the ones that come from the apostles, it's the ones that don't come from them.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Neither Jesus nor the Apostles nor the Bible at any point claim that Scripture is the sole source of Revelation. In fact, that belief is clearly rejected and was not a part of Christianity until 1500 years later. 
> 
> "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." (Luke 10:16)
> 
> That means, that whatever the apostles say, is Jesus' teaching. Then we can take Paul's words to the Thessalonians in chapter 2 verse 15:
> 
> "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." (NIV)
> 
> This is saying to hold to the scriptures and oral teaching. 
> ...


 I was wrong about the luther Mary thing but it does not change the fact that Catholics worship her like a god no matter what you call it. And where in the scripture is the Catholic Church accepted as the one and only church? It is like pigeon chess, you do not have any chance of changing my mind!

----------


## eduardo89

> If that's true, then why in that entire list were you unable to come up with one single early example?


Almost all Christian writings from before the 4th century have been lost. 

This list ranges from the late 2nd to 6th centuries. It is clear that the teaching that Mary was free of sin was well established by the 300s as most from this list are from that century. Show me a single early Christian (or even in the first 1500 years of Christianity) that claims that Mary was not free from sin and was not denounced universally as a heretic.

And if you reject this teaching based on not finding evidence from even earlier times, then why do Protestants accept teachings that were formulated much later, such as:

1) The canon of Scripture: not finalized till 397, and it included the Deuterocanon, which Protestants (inconsistently) reject.

2) The Two Natures of Christ: dogmatized in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon. Further controversies over whether Christ had one of two wills (Monothelitism; the orthodox doctrine holds that He had two wills) went on for a few centuries more.

3) Original sin: this was finalized in dogma so late that it wasn't part of the Nicene Creed. 

4) Sola Scriptura: one of the two pillars of the "Reformation" is virtually absent from the fathers. This doesn't seem to give Protestants any pause, yet the Marian doctrines with regard to the fathers does. Why?

5) Sola fide (faith alone): also nonexistent in the fathers, as Protestant scholars such as Geisler and McGrath have admitted.

----------


## Carlybee

> I think that if ALL of my Rights were subject to the whims of any Religious group, I would end up having absolutely no rights what so ever.
> 
> Give a Lawyer a Law, and they rip it to shreds.  Give a Lawyer a Bible, what do you think is gonna happen?  Something good?
> 
> Too damn much Lawyerism going on in this thread.
> 
> /abandons thread


That makes two of us

----------


## eduardo89

> I was wrong about the luther Mary thing but it does not change the fact that Catholics worship her like a god no matter what you call it.


No, we never worship Mary like a god. There is only one God and He is the only thing that is worshipped by Catholics.




> And where in the scripture is the Catholic Church accepted as the one and only church? It is like pigeon chess, you do not have any chance of changing my mind!


How many Churches did Christ found? One. 
Which Church can trace its lineage back to Christ and the Apostles? The Catholic Church.
Who did Christ appoint as the head of His Church on earth? Peter.
Who is the only Bishop who has an unbroken succession from Peter? The Bishop of Rome.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> No, we never worship Mary like a god. There is only one God and He is the only thing that is worshipped by Catholics.


 What you name it does not matter, what you does matter!

----------


## eduardo89

> What you name it does not matter, what you does matter!


And what we do is not worship but veneration, just as Martin Luther did.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> And what we do is not worship but veneration, just as Martin Luther did.


It is way passed veneration in the Catholic church.

----------


## eduardo89

> It is way passed veneration in the Catholic church.


It's not, but you wouldn't know because you're not Catholic and I doubt you have ever been to Catholic Mass.

You're just spitting out Protestant talking points.

And if you read Luther's writings on Mary you'll probably think he's a Catholic.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> It's not, but you wouldn't know because you're not Catholic and I doubt you have ever been to Catholic Mass.
> 
> You're just spitting out Protestant talking points.
> 
> And if you read Luther's writings on Mary you'll probably think he's a Catholic.


I was at a catholic church in paris and a cathedral in Germany, what I saw was Mary being a substitute for Jesus.

----------


## eduardo89

> I was at a catholic church in paris and a cathedral in Germany, what I saw was Mary being a substitute for Jesus.


You saw wrong. *Mary is never, has never, and never will be considered a substitute for Jesus Christ in Catholic theology.* The Catholic Church has never taught that. Catholics do not believe that.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> You saw wrong. *Mary is never, has never, and never will be considered a substitute for Jesus Christ in Catholic theology.* The Catholic Church has never taught that. Catholics do not believe that.


 You better teach the Cathedral in Cologne that.

----------


## eduardo89

> You better teach the Cathedral in Cologne that.


I've been to the Cathedral in Köln many times and I have never seen Mary on the Cross on the altar...



I've attended Mass there twice and when receiving the Eucharist the priests never said "the body of Mary" to me...

The Cathedral isn't even dedicated to Mary, but to St. Peter.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> I've been to the Cathedral in Köln many times and I have never seen Mary on the Cross on the altar...
> 
> 
> 
> The Cathedral isn't even dedicated to Mary, but to St. Peter.


 I know, but it was not the Cathedral itself that scared me, but what was going on inside. I heard several times people and a priest say praise mary several times but never anything about god.

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

I think it's fine until the baby is viable, or obviously if the mother's life is endangered or a woman is raped.

----------


## eduardo89

> I know, but it was not the Cathedral itself that scared me, but what was going on inside. I heard several times people and a priest say praise mary several times but never anything about god.


You obviously weren't listening very long and you obviously weren't at Mass.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> You obviously weren't listening very long and you obviously weren't at Mass.


 No , before that I fell down some stairs they refuse to make safe for some reason.

----------


## TER

Quotes from the Early Church Fathers regarding abortion:

From the *Letter to Diognetus*:
(speaking of what distinguishes Christians from pagans) "They marry, as do all others; they beget children but they do not destroy their offspring" (literally, "cast away fetuses").

From the *Didache*:
"You shall not slay the child by abortions."

From the *Letter of Barnabus*:
"You shall not destroy your conceptions before they are brought forth; nor kill them after they are born."

From *St. Clement*:
"Those who use abortifacients commit homicide."

From *Tertullian*:
"The mold in the womb may not be destroyed."

From *St. Basil the Great*:
"The woman who purposely destroys her unborn child is guilty of murder. The hair-splitting difference between formed and unformed makes no difference to us."

From *St. Augustine*:
"Sometimes their sadistic licentiousness goes so far that they procure poison to produce infertility, and when this is of no avail, they find one means or another to destroy the unborn and flush it from the mother's womb. For they desire to see their offspring perish before it is alive or, if it has already been granted life, they seek to kill it within the mother's body before it is born."

From *St. John Chrysostom*:
"Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit? Where there are medicines of sterility? Where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well. Indeed, it is something worse than murder and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gifts of God, and fight with His laws? What is a curse you seek as though it were a blessing. Do you make the anteroom of slaughter? Do you teach the women who are given to you for a procreation of offspring to perpetuate killing?"

*Canon XCI*:
As for women who furnish drugs for the purpose of procuring abortions, and those who take fetus-killing poisons, they are made subject to penalty for murderers.

*Canon II*:
"A woman who aborts deliberately is liable to trial as a murderess. This is not a precise assertion of some figurative and inexpressible conception that passes current among us. For here there is involved the queston of providing for the infants to be born, but also for the woman who has plotted against her own self. For in most cases the women die in the course of such operations, But besides this there is to be noted the fact that the destruction of the embryo constitutes another murder.... It behooves us, however, not to extend their confessions to the extreme limit of death, but to admit them at the end of the moderate period of ten years, without specifying a definite time, but adjusting the cure to the manner of penitence."

*Canon XXI*:
"Regarding women who become prostitutes and kill their babies, and who make it their business to concoct abortives, the former rule barred them for life from communion, and they are left without resource. But having found a more philanthropic alternative, we have fixed the penalty at ten years, in accordance with the fixed degrees. ..."

"As for women who destroy embryos professionally, and those (non-prostitutes) who give or take poisons with the object of aborting babies and dropping them prematurely, we prescribe the rule that they, by economy, be treated up to five years at most."

----------


## eduardo89

> No , before that I fell down some stairs they refuse to make safe for some reason.


The ones up the tower? Yeah those are incredibly unsafe, but what do you expect in an 800 year old building!? Lol

----------


## Nobexliberty

> The ones up the tower? Yeah those are incredibly unsafe, but what do you expect in an 800 year old building!? Lol


 They should atleast improve it. The bible does not say "thou shall not prevent daily stair injury".

----------


## Feelgood

My opinion is simply, I'm glad my mother did not have one.

----------


## eduardo89

> My opinion is simply, I'm glad my mother did not have one.


Sadly 55 million innocent children since 1973 in the US never had the chance to be glad to have been born. Over 600,000 this year alone. 3000 today.

----------


## jmdrake

> Man this thread has really gone off the rails.

----------


## Theocrat

Abortion is murder. If you don't believe me, then click on this link (*graphic material*). Substitute the word "abortion" with "murder," and then try to answer the original question. I think some of your answers would change.

----------


## Matthew5

> Man this thread has really gone off the rails.


So what did you think was going to happen with an abortion thread on RPF, especially one that asks for people's opinions?   lol

----------


## Neil Desmond

> Abortion is murder. If you don't believe me, then click on this link (*graphic material*). Substitute the word "abortion" with "murder," and then try to answer the original question. I think some of your answers would change.


I think that murder is not ok, so basically as a result I think that abortion is not ok.  When it comes to people whose position is that abortion should always be allowed, I wonder if it makes them change their position on murder - that is, assuming they don't already think that murder's ok.

----------


## Fredom101

> Anarchy is not an absence of law! It is an absent of a monopoly on force.
> 
> Anomie is an absence of law.


Ok, you've said this but...where are the laws coming from in an anarchist society? Again, I'm making a distinction between laws and rules. An example of a rule in an anarchist society that use to be a law: Let's say some company owns a section of the beach. Or some hotel. Whatever. They may say "You cannot smoke on our beach. If you light up on our beach, you get a warning, then we kick you out if you do it again." This is voluntarism. You don't like this rule? Don't go to their beach. In our current system, if there's a law against smoking on the beach you get a $300 fine if you get caught. Not voluntary, because the gov't monopolizes the whole beach and there's no where you can go.

Anyway my point is laws and rules are different, anarchists who say they believe in laws actually are talking about rules which don't come from a central authority.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> Abortion is murder. If you don't believe me, then click on this link (*graphic material*). Substitute the word "abortion" with "murder," and then try to answer the original question. I think some of your answers would change.





> I think that murder is not ok, so basically as a result I think that abortion is not ok.  When it comes to people whose position is that abortion should always be allowed, I wonder if it makes them change their position on murder - that is, assuming they don't already think that murder's ok.


It cannot be emphasized enough how badly TC worded the poll choices.  More so - and why the denial on this is so strong is a mystery - the very protesters themselves are $#@!ing pro-choice (per the definition of the mother suffering little-to-no legal penalty).

So clueless morons argue about which box of artificiality you exist in.  Then sanctimonious pricks think posting gruesome pictures of aborted babies will change my opinion.  Have your SO squeeze out one of these, keep it alive long enough for your family x-mas card photo, and then I'll look at any other pics you have.

I'm not OK with a taxpayer funded circle jerk that adds to medical expenses especially when I'm expected to fund more of them (as a single male, it is my job per Romneycare).

The showboating legislation won't do much to change Texas abortion rates.  Abortion clinics will adjust to the law (they even have a year to do so).  The vast, vast bulk of abortions were within the 20 weeks anyway.  The tough, edge cases of birth defects/mothers heath will be worked around inside or outside of Texas.

Mainly it is a win for increasing the dollars to the medical industry.

*Now, what the $#@! is going to change my mind?*  What will make me want a bigger state?  I have no interest in regulating the "doctors".  In fact, if the word doctor disappeared from our legal/regulatory frameworks, that would be fine with me.

I am not pro abortion (nor do I claim a right to murder human life in cold blood) and I am pro life.  Neither opinion endears me more so to the state.

Yet I'm a $#@!ing monster for not supporting the allegedly "pro-life" pols (spurned on by the AMA) and I won't join the crowd of useful idiots here that give them power:




> *AMAs Outlaw Attempt*
> 
> A campaign to outlaw abortion began in the 1850s, led by the newly formed American Medical Association (AMA), and made reproductive rights a political issue. Doctors, politicians, and religious leaders sought to restrict reproductive rights for various reasons:
> Members of the AMA sought to professionalize medicine. They used legislation to put midwives, herbalists, and healers out of business.Some members of the government felt that outlawing contraceptives would lead to a decrease in immoral activity. The Comstock Act, passed in 1873, made it illegal to send anything related to birth control or abortion through the mail.Some Protestant leaders feared losing control of the government to Catholic immigrants. Protestant women were having far fewer children than their Catholic counterparts. This alarmed some legislators and led to the passage of laws outlawing contraceptives and abortion. Between 1860 and 1880, 40 states and territories passed anti-abortion laws. By 1899, contraceptives and abortion were illegal nationwide.
> www.dosomething.org/actnow/tipsandtools/background-reproductive-rights

----------


## erowe1

> Almost all Christian writings from before the 4th century have been lost.


The Ante-Nicene Fathers English translation from the late 19th century is 10 huge volumes with very small print, and it doesn't contain nearly all of what we do have from the fathers of that period.

Not one of the people on your list was Ante-Nicene.

----------


## erowe1

> I think that if ALL of my Rights were subject to the whims of any Religious group, I would end up having absolutely no rights what so ever.
> 
> Give a Lawyer a Law, and they rip it to shreds.  Give a Lawyer a Bible, what do you think is gonna happen?  Something good?
> 
> Too damn much Lawyerism going on in this thread.
> 
> /abandons thread


To say that you have any rights is to say something religious.

----------


## erowe1

> We can start with the obvious statements in the New Testament made by Christ and St. Paul (sorry it is not so obvious to you, I'm sure it has alot to do with you being preconditioned to believe what He means, even if it goes squarely against historical record and makes a liar of every saint in history).
> 
> Here are some other ones you choose to ignore:
> 
> Didache (the Apostles were still alive):
> 
> _"Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: 'Do not give to dogs what is sacred'"._
> 
> _"On the Lord's own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: 'In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.'"_ 
> ...


This post is a good illustration of what I said earlier.

You invoke Jesus and Paul, without giving any attention to what they do and don't actually say, confidently assuming that whatever it is, it must be the same as what the human beings you consider "the Church" say. And then you go on to quote some of those human beings.

Furthermore, even those sources you use tendentiously. It's very unlikely that the Didache, as we have it, comes from when the apostles were alive. But even if it does, neither it nor Ignatius say anything specific about in what sense Jesus is present in the eucharist.

To be sure, Ignatius does teach a lot of innovative things that clearly depart from what the apostles themselves taught, including when it comes to the eucharist. But I see nothing about the words you bolded that I couldn't say. I certainly don't belong to a camp like the heterodox that he describes who did not partake in it.

----------


## jkob

I think it should be illegal with exception for rape, incest, and the life of the mother.

----------


## TER

I learned a lot today discussing such important topics such as abortion and capital punishment.  It has stirred me to study and research things I did not know, yet in my presumptuousness and vainglory, thought I did.  I ask for forgiveness from all of you. 

I have learned that the reason there is no official declaration in the Orthodox Church regarding capital punishment is because the Church (in her wisdom) has relegated that authority to the State.  In other words, the Church (the Body of Christ) has allowed the State the authority to create the civil laws governing the people.  The things rendered unto Caesar.  Of course, we as sojourners in this world, should not follow them if it leads us to unjust violence against another or pits us squarely against our most treasured Christian beliefs, - even if it means imprisonment and execution (a replay basically of the first 300 years of the Church).

And we live in a society full of many other people, and the social moors of a people change as it will, according to the faith of the people.  Through time, in years and centuries, a nation's morality changes and what was illegal and taboo at one time is not considered so in other times.

Often times such changes were on account of what specific dangers the people were facing as a nation, or what particular difficulties and enemies they struggle against. As a result, the laws could be better or worse, more appropriate or less appropriate, liberating or more tyrannical.  In a nutshell, laws change just as the society and the culture changes, affected mostly by changes in morality.

The Church, however, which is from _outside_ the world even as it is in it, and is the spiritual hospital for the faithful.  Its doctrines and fundamental beliefs never change.  Societies, however, change all the time, and the laws of the nation are different according to the circumstances the nation is.  Since this is a work of the nation, then let the nation own it.  

  In addition, the weight and the sentence of the punishment, too, would reside in the State.  For the State is a reflection of the citizenry.  The State is made up of people whose actions and words create it.  It is a reality in the real life for all people, and in it's deepest and most mystical parts, the fruit we offer back to God in worship together as a nation.  The morality of a nation is reflected in the laws we as a nation allow to be lorded over us.  We get the government we deserve because _we_ created it.  If that includes such things as the capital punishment or state-sponsored abortion, then that is just another proof that we are still outside the Kingdom and remain in this temporal and corrupted world in which death, sadly, reigns.

However, the joy of this world and all of creation is in the knowledge of Jesus Christ, for through Him we find peace and overcome the world and death itself.  For God in His great mercy and lovingkindness condescended Himself,, came down into the world which had separated itself from Him, and became incarnate.  Where we could not reach up to Him (neither by sacrifice, words or deeds), He came down so that we might be lifted up and enjoy our gift of adopted sonship as co-heir of the Kingdom of Heaven.  

He became as one of us, and sanctified our nature for eternity.  He united the Uncreated with the created, the Creator with the creation, the spiritual and the flesh, the divine and the human, as foretold by the prophets and shown in symbols and revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ, the Annointed Son of David and Messiah come to save the people Israel!  The One Who would step on the head of the serpent and destroy the curse of Adam!  The One present in the furnace with the three youths!  The Suffering Servant born of a Virgin, persecuted and mocked and called a liar, finally tortured and lifted upon a Cross to die via State-run execution.  And doing so, that is, _by His great love_, destroyed death by His divinity and vanquished darkness with His light.  He saved the world and restored our loving communion with our Father in Heaven in a New Covenant of friendship and loving communion.   A promise for _all_ people, Gentile and Jew.  And this covenant of love is realized through our lives in virtue and in the right and holy worship of God.  This was the Way of the early Church and continues to be the Way.  

By His sinless offering to the Father and perfect sacrifice of divine love, death has been overcome and the gates of Hades smashed open.  And all the souls in Hades, all who ever lived before His arrival (from St. John the Baptist to our Forefather Adam) encountered Christ and heard the gospel news so that they too might be redeemed and follow Him out and unto eternal life.  

And after preaching for three days, He rose from the dead and the world would never be the same.  And for this we offer glory, worship and thanksgiving, to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

----------


## Occam's Banana

What is the difference between:
- "It should be illegal with an exception for the life of the mother."
- "It should be illegal with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother."
- "It should be legal, but with some restrictions."

Don't the first two of these reduce to the third?

If you allow exceptions for rape, incest and/or the life of the mother, isn't that (essentially) the same thing as "legal, but with some restrictions" ... ?

Also, why should incest be considered as an exception, in any case? If we are talking about forcible incest, then that is the same as rape. But if we are talking about consensual incest, how is that different from consensual non-incestuous sex? (It can't be because of the likelyhood of genetic defect - because the same would apply to non-incestuous couples in which both members carry genes for some particular genetic malady. IOW: If you are going to allow an exception for consensual incest on the basis of possible genetic malady, then it would seem that you would also have to allow an exception for consensual non-incest on the basis of possible genetic malady.)

----------


## Neil Desmond

> I think it should be illegal with exception for rape, incest, and the life of the mother.


What's the point in making it illegal if there can be exceptions?  If there can be exceptions for some cases, then why not just make exceptions for all cases?

----------


## TER

> This post is a good illustration of what I said earlier.
> 
> You invoke Jesus and Paul, without giving any attention to what they do and don't actually say, confidently assuming that whatever it is, it must be the same as what the human beings you consider "the Church" say. And then you go on to quote some of those human beings.
> 
> Furthermore, even those sources you use tendentiously. It's very unlikely that the Didache, as we have it, comes from when the apostles were alive. But even if it does, neither it nor Ignatius say anything specific about in what sense Jesus is present in the eucharist.
> 
> To be sure, Ignatius does teach a lot of innovative things that clearly depart from what the apostles themselves taught, including when it comes to the eucharist. But I see nothing about the words you bolded that I couldn't say. I certainly don't belong to a camp like the heterodox that he describes who did not partake in it.


An argument of silence is not an argument at all.  It proves nothing.  Yet you still deny the possibility that such a teaching and practice (namely, the Holy Eucharist) could not have been passed on from generation to generation.  Why do you doubt the power of God?  Whatever little fragments of writings we have is rather clear, that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, starting with the words of Christ Himself in the Holy Scriptures.  Christ said it with His own lips and His followers have followed it ever since.   Why do you doubt such a thing can happen?  Christ rose from the dead and here you find it hard to believe that such a teaching as fundamental as this could be faithfully handed down by the Apostles?  We should not selectively blind ourselves from the evidence that exists and then claim that there is not enough evidence when you have shown NO evidence that the belief was anything but what the Church Fathers teach.  

St. Ignatius did not become a Bishop because he preached things against the teachings of his teachers, but because he held steadfast to the already spread and accepted doctrines of the Church of Christ spread throughout Christendom.  Among these teachings was the sanctity and holiness of the Holy Eucharist.   

You see, you seem to think that a Bishop in the Church is made a Saint on account of his innovative beliefs, but it is the exact opposite.  It is his adherence to the faith handed once down to the saints which puts him in their company.

----------


## TER

> What is the difference between:
> - "It should be illegal with an exception for the life of the mother."
> - "It should be illegal with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother."
> - "It should be legal, but with some restrictions."
> 
> Don't the first two of these reduce to the third?


I thought that too.  But while semantically it appears similar, the end results are much different.

"It should be legal, but with some restriction" I think implies that you are free to get it anytime you want, but there are a _few_ exceptions. = Many abortions.

While the other one says it is against the law, except for a _few_ exceptions. = Few abortions.

It is like mirror image of the other in wording, except the latter one will prevent many more abortions.

----------


## dillo

> What's the point in making it illegal if there can be exceptions?  If there can be exceptions for some cases, then why not just make exceptions for all cases?


theres exceptions for murder, do you want to get rid of those to?

----------


## Neil Desmond

> theres exceptions for murder, do you want to get rid of those to?


Wait, I'm confused; what do you mean that there are exceptions for murder?  How can there even be any exceptions for murder?  I've never heard of such a thing, but given that people seem to want abortion to be illegal with some exceptions I suppose that this claim shouldn't be a surprise to me.  Can you explain, though?  Please give me an example of an exception for murder.  To answer your question, I'd have to say yes; if there are any exceptions for murder then I think that we ought to get rid of them.

For this poll, what I chose for my position on abortion is that it should always be illegal.  My question is what's the point in making abortion legal in some cases, and illegal in other cases?  If there's even one exception for abortion, then what's the foundation or basis for outlawing abortion in all other cases?  It seems arbitrary and unfair to have an arrangement where some women get to have an abortion, but others don't.

Same with murder; if there's exceptions for murder, then what's the point in making it legal in some cases, and illegal in other cases?  If there's even one exception for murder, then what's the foundation or basis for outlawing murder in all other cases?  It seems arbitrary and unfair to have an arrangement where some people get to murder, but others don't.

----------


## DamianTV

> To say that you have any rights is to say something religious.


What do Rights have to do with Religion?  Im talking about the bickering of Religious People taking away the Rights from groups of People until there are no Rights left for anyone.  The video I posted earlier in this thread was intended to prove exactly that.  Religious People have no regard for those that suffer by their hands.

---

I have Rights because I exist.  If someone else wants to believe that Rights are granted to them by some magnificent spaghetti noodle monster in the sky they call God / Zeus / Bahamut / whatever, fine.  We cant prove their existence, but we are right here right now, which is proof positive that we exist.  We exist, therefore we have Rights.

But of course, as usual, when a bunch of people get together and start deciding things, one of the first things they end up deciding is how people NOT in their little click of people shouldnt have their Rights recognized.  Oh look, she is a woman (Muslim), thus she has NO RIGHT to refuse Sex or Marriage, and if she wants to have an Abortion, then she is the one that committed the crime.

These are called Exclusive Rights.  The word Exclusive is especially important because it EXCLUDES certain groups of people from having their Rights recognized.  They still have Rights, they just arent recognized.  Just like our own Govt does to us each and every day.  Exclusive Rights can only be granted by another Person or a Group.  Give that group a label and you end up with Congress, or such and such Church.  Now for the kicker.  Because these "Rights" are granted by another Person or Group, it isnt really a Right at all, it is a Permission.  And Permissions can just as easily be revoked by the same Person or Group that granted such authority in the first place.  Thing is, they dont have the Authority.  They never did.

I dont believe in God.  And I strongly believe the Church has ZERO $#@!ING AUTHORITY over what I choose to do with myself or any other person on this planet.  If there is a God and I somehow find out I am totally in the wrong about disbelieving their existence, then that will be an issue between me and whatever God turns out to actually be, but I will NOT answer to any group that tries to claim that they have Religious Authority over me or my actions.

Then we get back to Abortions.  Religions are created by Man and thus have ZERO AUTHORITY over man.  A God (if he / she / it / they even exist) would probably be most displeased by the way that MAN has purposefully misinterpreted any words provided by said God(s) to benefit only those that misinterpret said words to begin with.  As such, Religions believe they have the Right / Authority / Power to violate the true Nautral Rights of whoever they feel like violating that day.  In turn, Religious People think they also have the sole authority to deny the Right of any other Person the Right to deny another persons actions unto themselves.

The maximum extent of any mans Natural Rights are those limits drawn by the Equal Natural Rights of others.

Let me clarify that.  I want to get a Prince Albert.  For those not in the know, that is a piercing for ones dick.  Many would demand that I should not have the Right because that is self-mutilation.  Guess what, that violates MY right because the end of YOUR Rights are drawn by me having Equal Rights as you.  I dont get to arbitrarily demand that you will work for me for the rest of your life.  Thus, if anyone claims they have the Right to deny MY Right to get a $#@!ing Prince Albert, it extends beyond what a Right actually is and is not a Right at all.

So if I get a Prince Albert, what are you gonna do about it?  You do anything and you better run and hide.

Likewise, a woman has an abortion, do you think it is really your Right to do anything about it?  Abortion is between the Mother, the Father, and maybe a Doctor for providing medical advice.  If (big IF) God even exists, then the Crime will be handled by God, NOT YOU OR ME.  If either of us were to do anything about it, that would be called MURDER.  Leave $#@! like this up to your Gods to punish the guilty.  And if it does so turn out that there really isnt a God, well I guess there is no God to call Abortion Murder.  Thus, dead is dead, but the universe has this strange way of recycling all life into some new form of life.

Jesus wasnt a dick, so why do so many people think that he exists inside womens vaginas?

/rant

----------


## Neil Desmond

> What do Rights have to do with Religion?  Im talking about the bickering of Religious People taking away the Rights from groups of People until there are no Rights left for anyone.  The video I posted earlier in this thread was intended to prove exactly that.  Religious People have no regard for those that suffer by their hands.
> 
> ---
> 
> I have Rights because I exist.  If someone else wants to believe that Rights are granted to them by some magnificent spaghetti noodle monster in the sky they call God / Zeus / Bahamut / whatever, fine.  We cant prove their existence, but we are right here right now, which is proof positive that we exist.  We exist, therefore we have Rights.
> 
> But of course, as usual, when a bunch of people get together and start deciding things, one of the first things they end up deciding is how people NOT in their little click of people shouldnt have their Rights recognized.  Oh look, she is a woman (Muslim), thus she has NO RIGHT to refuse Sex or Marriage, and if she wants to have an Abortion, then she is the one that committed the crime.
> 
> These are called Exclusive Rights.  The word Exclusive is especially important because it EXCLUDES certain groups of people from having their Rights recognized.  They still have Rights, they just arent recognized.  Just like our own Govt does to us each and every day.  Exclusive Rights can only be granted by another Person or a Group.  Give that group a label and you end up with Congress, or such and such Church.  Now for the kicker.  Because these "Rights" are granted by another Person or Group, it isnt really a Right at all, it is a Permission.  And Permissions can just as easily be revoked by the same Person or Group that granted such authority in the first place.  Thing is, they dont have the Authority.  They never did.
> ...


You're saying that you have rights because you exist.  Ok; well what about these children who haven't been born, yet?  Don't they also have rights because they exist, too?

----------


## DamianTV

> You're saying that you have rights because you exist.  Ok; well what about these children who haven't been born, yet?  Don't they also have rights because they exist, too?


Up to their parents.

The biggest problem here is that people that arent involved in the whole baby making process trying to decree whether or not the people that were involved in making that baby have the right to unmake that baby.  It aint anyone elses baby but the two people that made the baby to begin with.

Im just waiting for someone stupid enough to bring up the topic of "life begins before conception" garbage.

----------


## Dianne

What I have always found perplexing re the right to lifers is the deep concern many have for the fetus.   Yet when babies are born, many do not care what happens to them from that point on.   Several, if not most, in  this forum object to federal handouts; i.e., free lunches, food stamps, welfare, etc.   So for the millions of Americans living in poverty,  how far does the right to life extend; i.e., from conception to birth, or from conception to one year old, from conception to five years, from cradle to grave?

----------


## eduardo89

> What I have always found perplexing re the right to lifers is the deep concern many have for the fetus.   Yet when babies are born, many do not care what happens to them from that point on.   Several, if not most, in  this forum object to federal handouts; i.e., free lunches, food stamps, welfare, etc.   So for the millions of Americans living in poverty,  how far does the right to life extend; i.e., from conception to birth, or from conception to one year old, from conception to five years, from cradle to grave?


Wait a second...you're seriously criticizing pro-lifers on this forum for not supporting government handouts?

----------


## JCDenton0451

> What I have always found perplexing re the right to lifers is the deep concern many have for the fetus.   Yet when babies are born, many do not care what happens to them from that point on.   Several, if not most, in  this forum object to federal handouts; i.e., free lunches, food stamps, welfare, etc.   So for the millions of Americans living in poverty,  how far does the right to life extend; i.e., from conception to birth, or from conception to one year old, from conception to five years, from cradle to grave?


It's not about compassion for these people. It's about Christianity. Christian god commands that a baby must be born, so they want to force a woman to carry it to term. What happens afterwards is none of god's concern.

----------


## Brett85

> It's not about compassion for these people. It's about Christianity. Christian god commands that a baby must be born, so they want to force a woman to carry it to term. What happens afterwards is none of god's concern.


Once again...

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

----------


## JCDenton0451

> Once again...
> 
> http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html


Don't be ridiculous! Atheists and Jews are the most pro-choice groups in the US. 'Pro-choice' is the natural position to take once you get Christianity out of the picture.

----------


## Brett85

> Don't be ridiculous! Atheists and Jews are the most pro-choice groups in the US. 'Pro-choice' is the natural position to take once you get Christianity out of the picture.


I'm sure that atheists are more pro choice than Christians are, but I'm just stating the fact that not all pro life people are Christians.  There are some atheists and agnostics who are pro life, and obviously they don't base their opposition to abortion on religion.

----------


## Carlybee

What annoys me are the claims that people are lining up to adopt unwanted babies. If that were the case there wouldn't be so many children stuck in foster care system many times with foster parents only interested in getting money and benefits from the government. I don't see many lining up to adopt babies from crack addicted mothers or babies born with AIDS or other diseases. If this were the case there wouldn't be so many stuck in the system where doubtfully they will thrive. I am not saying they didn't have the right to be born but hardcore prolifers need to either put their money where their mouth is or at least start being honest about what happens to real unwanted babies. People are lined up to adopt....healthy babies.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> I'm sure that atheists are more pro choice than Christians are, but I'm just stating the fact that not all pro life people are Christians.  There are some atheists and agnostics who are pro life, and obviously they don't base their opposition to abortion on religion.


Without fundamentalist Christians there is no "pro-life" movement. That's the important part.

----------


## tod evans

> Without fundamentalist Christians there is no "pro-life" movement. That's the important part.


Well there ya' have it!

Kill the Christians and the babies...

----------


## JCDenton0451

> Well there ya' have it!
> 
> Kill the Christians and the babies...


What makes you think that Christians care about the babies?

----------


## georgiaboy

> 51 RPF voters --  58.82% illegal, 41.18% legal
> 
> 56 RPF voters -- 60.71% illegal, 39.29% legal
> 
> 61 RPF voters -- 60.66% illegal, 39.34% legal
> 
> 75 RPF voters -- 60.00% illegal, 40.00% legal
> 
> 87 RPF voters -- 60.92% illegal, 39.08% legal
> ...


//

----------


## JCDenton0451

This is rather extraordinary statistic! Lots of pro-choice people on this site, why don't they speak up more often?

----------


## JK/SEA

> I think it should be illegal with exception for rape, incest, and the life of the mother.


why?

i should note that i do not subscribe to organized religions, but i am 'some what' spiritual.

My gut instinct tells me aborting a human fetus is murder no matter the circumstances of how the fetus was created, including rape.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> This is rather extraordinary statistic! Lots of pro-choice people on this site, why don't they speak up more often?


You really don't pay very much attention to things, do you? Oh, wait, you've only been here since May ...

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

This question is totally wrong.  It should be whether abortion is moral (it isn't).  It's always immoral to take the life of someone who is not threatening you.  That said, I guess you could say the fetus is "threatening" the mother if her health is failing and she may die.  That said, most every OB/gyn I've ever heard on this subject (including Dr. Paul) has said they have NEVER seen such a case. 

Then the follow-up question would have to be do you support laws to enforce morality...

Then the follow-up to the follow-up would have to be whether you believe there should be laws...  (I don't...)

----------


## jkob

> why?
> 
> i should note that i do not subscribe to organized religions, but i am 'some what' spiritual.
> 
> My gut instinct tells me aborting a human fetus is murder no matter the circumstances of how the fetus was created, including rape.


Do you need to explanation for the life of the mother? As I understand it, I believe that is pretty uncommon circumstances anyways. The reason I believe rape and incest(which I imply as rape generally) should be exceptions is since the mother did not choose to have sex and become pregnant. I'd prefer no abortions under any circumstances except the life of the mother but I think that's a hard thing to ask of someone that was forced into the situation.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Do you need to explanation for the life of the mother? As I understand it, I believe that is pretty uncommon circumstances anyways. The reason I believe rape and incest(which I imply as rape generally) should be exceptions is since the mother did not choose to have sex and become pregnant. I'd prefer no abortions under any circumstances except the life of the mother but I think that's a hard thing to ask of someone that was forced into the situation.


I obviously have come to the conclusion...i'm 61 btw, that as I got older, i gained a certain wisdom about life. I realize many pro baby killers don't accept a fetus as an innocent human with potential yet to be realized, whereas a female human capable of producing a child has had a chance to realize what life is about due to the fact they were ALLOWED to be born whole. 

I had been on the side of abortion being ok for rape. No more. There has to be a better way to address un-wanted pregnancy. Until then, it should be treated as murder. Period.

----------


## DamianTV

... and again returns to Back Alley Abortions ...

----------


## JK/SEA

> ... and again returns to Back Alley Abortions ...


don't get caught.

----------


## DamianTV

> don't get caught.


Simple enough.  Just go to Mexico to get it done.  Or any other country where it isnt illegal.

----------


## bunklocoempire

Nothing says individual liberty like sacrificing a weaker life for my own life.

----------


## robert68

> Nothing says individual liberty like sacrificing a weaker life for my own life.


Is there a country with abortion outlawed thats a bastion for individual liberty?

----------


## otherone

> This is rather extraordinary statistic! Lots of pro-choice people on this site, why don't they speak up more often?


Because the debate generally devolves into an unabashed appeal to emotion.  Pointless, really.

----------


## catfeathers

> What annoys me are the claims that people are lining up to adopt unwanted babies. If that were the case there wouldn't be so many children stuck in foster care system many times with foster parents only interested in getting money and benefits from the government. I don't see many lining up to adopt babies from crack addicted mothers or babies born with AIDS or other diseases. If this were the case there wouldn't be so many stuck in the system where doubtfully they will thrive. I am not saying they didn't have the right to be born but hardcore prolifers need to either put their money where their mouth is or at least start being honest about what happens to real unwanted babies. People are lined up to adopt....healthy babies.


Seriously? Do you know how many of those foster babies keep getting sent back to their parents even if they're removed in the first place? Many of them get sent back and removed again and again until they're unable to form attachments and become older children with so many problems they become unadoptable. Even then the children might not BE unwanted, they just have parents who because of the drugs can't take care of them properly.

I hope to do foster care in a year or two and maybe adopt if we're able to be placed with the right children. We're not doing it right now because of our house being a fixer upper and not really safe for small children to be around while we're working on it. 

There really isn't much money in fostering in a lot of states and even if there is what is wrong with doing it for money if you're taking good care of the children? Nobody complains if daycares take care of children for money.

By the way I have 4 nieces adopted from foster care. One was born drug addicted and screamed almost constantly for about 6 months. She's a beautiful, smart little girl and I'm sure her parents are glad she wasn't aborted. Two of the others were adopted as older children but luckily they weren't moved around a lot and were able to attach to their adoptive parents.

----------


## Carlybee

> Because the debate generally devolves into an unabashed appeal to emotion.  Pointless, really.


And a religious pissing contest ie "My bible is better than your bible".

----------


## bunklocoempire

> Is there a country with abortion outlawed thats a bastion for individual liberty?


Maybe there is or maybe there isn't.  The point I'm trying to make is I don't see the necessity of sacrificing a weaker life for my own comfort.  I myself don't need government to convince me or force me _not_ to sacrifice a life that I had a part in helping bring into existence.

To me it's a consistent belief in personal responsibility and respect for an individual's life.

I believe a "bastion for individual" liberty first starts with me.  It'd be great if a central government could promote individual liberty but *force* _promoting_ individual liberty is a pipe dream.  

Can government even _protect_ individual liberty?  It seems to _end up_ doing so only selectively -so no.  Again, individual liberty _starts with me_.

----------


## Carlybee

> Seriously? Do you know how many of those foster babies keep getting sent back to their parents even if they're removed in the first place? Many of them get sent back and removed again and again until they're unable to form attachments and become older children with so many problems they become unadoptable. Even then the children might not BE unwanted, they just have parents who because of the drugs can't take care of them properly.
> 
> I hope to do foster care in a year or two and maybe adopt if we're able to be placed with the right children. We're not doing it right now because of our house being a fixer upper and not really safe for small children to be around while we're working on it. 
> 
> There really isn't much money in fostering in a lot of states and even if there is what is wrong with doing it for money if you're taking good care of the children? Nobody complains if daycares take care of children for money.
> 
> By the way I have 4 nieces adopted from foster care. One was born drug addicted and screamed almost constantly for about 6 months. She's a beautiful, smart little girl and I'm sure her parents are glad she wasn't aborted. Two of the others were adopted as older children but luckily they weren't moved around a lot and were able to attach to their adoptive parents.


I've no doubt there are some altruistic souls out there but by and large people looking to adopt want pretty, healthy babies...they will adopt a white baby from Russia before they will adopt a minority baby with health issues.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Is there a country with abortion outlawed thats a bastion for individual liberty?


 America in the past

----------


## robert68

> America in the past


Tell that to African Americans.

----------


## pcosmar

It is my opinion that it is wrong. Killing a human.
However I do not believe that it will be changed by law,, But is nothing more than a divisive distraction.

Not a poll option.
Regardless of legality (or illegality) I recommend against abortion.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Because the debate generally devolves into an unabashed appeal to emotion.  Pointless, really.


fer sure. Hard to believe murdering an unborn human would cause emotion. Where's Commander Spock when ya need him?

----------


## The Free Hornet

> Wait a second...you're seriously criticizing pro-lifers on this forum for not supporting government handouts?


I think some are - or might be - criticized for the 'right to life' language which seems to end at birth and isn't extended to

- foreigners
- Americans abroad
- capital cases of the just-us system
- drug war victims / war on terror victims
- suspected terrorists
- death by cop

If our religious institutions were worth a damn, AF's postings would be starter material for every sermon, every week, in every god-damn church, synagogue, or temple.

The wording, 'right to life', has me concerned that it might to easily be construed as a positive right even though others (notably Ayn Rand), have clearly used it in the negative sense.

Anyway, as I'm trying to lean more anarcho, it is interesting to consider the notion that there is no right to life, just the right to be left alone.  More so, the 'right to life' language invokes an activist state.  More so, the so-called pro-lifers, and here is no exception, do not engage with the anti-abortion legislation but accept whatever tripe is served before them.  If you're curious as to how the neocons think of Israel, drugs, terrorism, or porn, it is the same thing.  Just pick one of those 4 topics and your base of support is guaranteed.

The Texas bill is a medical-industry give away that won't stop abortions, just funnel more money to the AMA affiliated (99% of abortions are before 20 weeks, so the 'meat and potatos' of this bill is further regulatory capture of that industry - it will do jack-diddly-squat to stop abortions so I can't imagine why the support for it, except among TPTB):




> These measures include a ban on abortion at 20 weeks post-fertilization and recognize that the state has a compelling interest to protect fetuses from pain.[1] The bill would mandate that a doctor who performs abortions have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, and to require that clinics meet the same standards as other surgical health-care facilities in the state.[2][3][4][5] Another provision would require oversight of women taking abortion-inducing drugs such as RU-486.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Senate_Bill_5


I didn't see here where there was an issue among RPF posters with the regulatory capture or state-supervision ENSURING abortions thru 20 weeks:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...live-stream%29

Some people seemed in favor of the regulation (concern for the mother).  Perhaps anti-abortionists supported it because they know or think government will screw up the industry???  Of course, after mandates, you will be paying for these abortions it is just a matter of time.  Having elected to regulate the industry, you won't have much argument against not financially supporting it.

----------


## Nobexliberty



----------


## catfeathers

> I've no doubt there are some altruistic souls out there but by and large people looking to adopt want pretty, healthy babies...they will adopt a white baby from Russia before they will adopt a minority baby with health issues.


Sure most people want children that look like them but how do you explain the Chinese and Guatemalan and other babies that people adopt from other countries that are not white? It's very expensive to adopt a baby in this country, even minority babies. A lot of people that would adopt but don't have the money are not willing to take the risk of fostering and getting attached to a child that may go back to their parents or other family members.

----------


## Carlybee

> Sure most people want children that look like them but how do you explain the Chinese and Guatemalan and other babies that people adopt from other countries that are not white? It's very expensive to adopt a baby in this country, even minority babies. A lot of people that would adopt but don't have the money are not willing to take the risk of fostering and getting attached to a child that may go back to their parents or other family members.


I agree the adoption process should be easier. I still think there would be a dearth of children with medical problems that would be last in line.

----------


## Fredom101

Getting the gov't out of adoption is the free market answer. We will NEVER get to the point of 0 abortions, just like we will always have people that get hooked on heroin. But the more government involvement in either case, the worse the problem becomes.

Why would any self proclaimed libertarian want more government in any scenario?

Drop the adoption regulations, solve 90% of the problem. Got a better idea?

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Getting the gov't out of adoption is the free market answer. We will NEVER get to the point of 0 abortions, just like we will always have people that get hooked on heroin. But the more government involvement in either case, the worse the problem becomes.
> 
> Why would any self proclaimed libertarian want more government in any scenario?
> 
> Drop the adoption regulations, solve 90% of the problem. Got a better idea?


 Would you support making stealing legal too, it would decrease the number of illegal stealings by 100%.

----------


## DamianTV

> Getting the gov't out of adoption is the free market answer. We will NEVER get to the point of 0 abortions, just like we will always have people that get hooked on heroin. But the more government involvement in either case, the worse the problem becomes.
> 
> Why would any self proclaimed libertarian want more government in any scenario?
> 
> Drop the adoption regulations, solve 90% of the problem. Got a better idea?


Outlaw Government?

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Outlaw Government?


 No goverment is worse then big goverment.

----------


## catfeathers

I frequently lurk on foster and adoption forums and believe it or not there are people out there looking for children with certain medical problems or disabilities. Usually they already have one child with a certain medical problem and want to help a child with similar problems. They're special people and probably not enough of them to go around but they're not unicorns.

I don't have any experience with medical problems but I have a child that has dyslexia and I wouldn't mind another one since I have enjoyed helping him learn to deal with his dyslexia.

----------


## DamianTV

> No goverment is worse then big goverment.


Its a Paradox.  Who is going to enforce the Prohibition of Government?

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Its a Paradox.  Who is going to enforce the Prohibition of Government?


 A civil war with millions of dead people resulting in tyranny and the US disappearing. Other countries would not stand by and watch as millions of acres of fertile farmland and many other resources have no goverment to protect them, it would be scramble for Africa part 2 but with America.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> No goverment is worse then big goverment.


And your evidence for this is ... what, exactly?




> Its a Paradox.  Who is going to enforce the Prohibition of Government?


Not a paradox. The people who would enforce "prohibition of government" are simply "the people" - i.e., the same people who are expected to enforce prohibitions upon government under statist systems.

----------


## DamianTV

> A civil war with millions of dead people resulting in tyranny and the US disappearing. Other countries would not stand by and watch as millions of acres of fertile farmland and many other resources have no goverment to protect them, it would be scramble for Africa part 2 but with America.


I was being facetious.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> And your evidence for this is ... what, exactly?


 Imangine if all goverment services just stopped now and are turned off.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> I was being facetious.


 I know that

----------


## AuH20

I just saw this photo. Ridiculous. Kids holding up hanger propaganda? Kids in support of kid killing? That's like cows holding up signs stating "Eat Beef."

----------


## Nobexliberty

> I just saw this photo. Ridiculous. Kids holding up hanger propaganda? Kids in support of kid killing? That's like cows holding up signs stating "Eat Beef."


Using kids to kill kids is bad, modern society.

----------


## AuH20

If we had a moral, self-respecting people (see Ben Franklin's telling quote), we wouldn't need abortion laws or be facing a dystopian future. I  think this problem goes far beyond legislation. Americans are generally dumb, impulsive and selfish, which also explains why the police state has roared out of control. Engineer savagery & wanton hedonism within the population so you can implement and justify a strict control grid. That's what occurring in realtime.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Imangine if all goverment services just stopped now and are turned off.


I asked for evidence. Imagination is not evidence. (Especially not imaginations that have nothing at all to do with the premise you asserted.)

----------


## Nobexliberty

> I asked for evidence. Imagination is not evidence. (Especially not imaginations that have nothing at all to do with the premise you asserted.)


 Never in the history of mankind has a civilisation lacked a goverment, even barbarians had some form of leadership system in place. Humans need some form of goverment to function in large numbers and history shows that.

----------


## robert68

> Sadly 55 million innocent children since 1973 in the US never had the chance to be glad to have been born. Over 600,000 this year alone. 3000 today.


Assuming your numbers and premise that theyre all souls and victims of an injustice, their Almighty God can simply fast track them to Heaven or give them another chance to be born, this time with a willing mother in a better circumstance.

----------


## AuH20

> Assuming your numbers and premise that they’re all souls and victims of an injustice, their Almighty God can simply fast track them to Heaven or give them another chance to be born, this time with a willing mother in a better circumstance.


What if there is no afterlife? That's 55 million that were eliminated from existence to never return. I personally wouldn't want to be held responsible for the karma associated with those acts. What is Newton's third law of motion? To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction. I think this law can be applied to the entire universe, as opposed to just objects in motion.

----------


## Contumacious

> Assuming your numbers and premise that they’re all souls and victims of an injustice, their Almighty God can simply fast track them to Heaven or give them another chance to be born, this time with a willing mother in a better circumstance.


True.

But they don't even believe their own dogma.


Their concern for the "babies" is merely a subterfuge used to conceal their Victorian sexually-repressed prudishness.

.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Never in the history of mankind has a civilisation lacked a goverment, even barbarians had some form of leadership system in place. Humans need some form of goverment to function in large numbers and history shows that.


leadership system =/= government.  Most any church or business you visit will have a hierarchy of power.  Such organizations are legitimate because they are formed voluntarily and without coercion, unlike governments.  I don't think you'll find anyone, anarchist or not, who is opposed to systems of leadership in the broadest sense.  (See also "Boundaries Of Order" by Butler Schaffer)

----------


## I<3Liberty

As this thread reaches 16 pages, the arguments here reflect the very problem with this debate. People are just arguing why their opinion is correct and another person is wrong. I don't mean to sound stuck up or anything, but could we consider the rant I went on towards the beginning of the thread? If you've read it on this thread or any of the other lengthy abortion debate threads, you know I'm not fond of siding with either extreme for many reasons. One being the fact that we often make ethical issues into dilemmas instead of recognizing that there are multiple other solutions to the problem at hand. Secondly, both fail to do/agree with any of the following. --> Can't we agree that both sides have their flaws, as well as legitimate concerns? Could we even look at this issue from a libertarian perspective and agree that legislation will not and can not solve this problem. Elective abortion has been going on far before it was even legalized. 

Embryonic stem cell research is a great example of the need for non-legislative solutions. The George W. Bush administration put restrictions on existing embryonic stem cell lines. This didn't stop it -- research was simply taken elsewhere where it could be done legally. What did discourage it? A moral alternative! Better understanding of kinase inhibitors and the iPS method allowed for use of adult stem cells that (thanks to the iPS method) were reverted back to a less differentiated stage much like an embryonic stem cell. 

A moral alternative like 100% effective contraception would not only virtually eradicate abortion, it would also establish true liberation for women. I never understood why so many extremes feel like a painful, risky, and morally questionable surgical procedure is liberating? Ideally, you'd want this choice far before pregnancy to both avoid the moral issues of abortion while giving women full control over pregnancy rather than a way to terminate it.

----------


## AuH20

> True.
> 
> But they don't even believe their own dogma.
> 
> 
> Their concern for the "babies" is merely a subterfuge to conceal their Victorian sexually-repressed prudishness.
> 
> .


Do you have any kids? Let's do an exercise. I have a 2 year old nephew. I'm imagining him with a pair of scissors pierced through the back of the skull, screaming in silence. Yes, it's all about Victorian age sexual repression. 

Hell, let's just start setting up wood chippers in front of nursery schools that are overcrowded. What's a few months?? Parents need more time to $#@! as opposed to tending to the needs of their children. BTW Do you hang out with David Rockefeller?

----------


## Nobexliberty

> leadership system =/= government.  Most any church or business you visit will have a hierarchy of power.  Such organizations are legitimate because they are formed voluntarily and without coercion, unlike governments.  I don't think you'll find anyone, anarchist or not, who is opposed to systems of leadership in the broadest sense.  (See also "Boundaries Of Order" by Butler Schaffer)


 The difference is that voluntary leadership systems and the goverment is that one is voluntery, no enforcement of laws if they are voluntery.

----------


## otherone

> Do you have any kids? Let's do an exercise. I have a 2 year old nephew.


So, then, for the purpose of this exercise, you have 0?

----------


## Contumacious

> Do you have any kids? Let's do an exercise. I have a 2 year old nephew. I'm imagining him with a scissors pierced through the back of the skull. Yes, it's all about Victorian age sexual repression. 
> 
> Hell, let's just start setting up wood chippers in front of nursery schools that are overcrowded. What's a few months?? BTW Do you hang out with David Rockefeller?


Intereting.

I was imagining my 17 y/o granddaughter being forced to deal with a child who she was not either emotionally or financially ready to care for.

.

.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Intereting.
> 
> I was imagining my 17 y/o granddaughter being forced to deal with a child who she was not either emotionally or financially ready to care for.
> 
> .
> 
> .


And what about your great-grandchild? Extended families were common in history for many reasons.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Intereting.
> 
> I was imagining my 17 y/o granddaughter being forced to deal with a child who she was not either emotionally or financially ready to care for.
> 
> .
> 
> .



sorry. not an excuse for murder. Try again.

----------


## AuH20

> Intereting.
> 
> I was imagining my 17 y/o granddaughter being forced to deal with a child who she was not either emotionally or financially ready to care for.
> 
> .
> 
> .


How many lives are you willing to risk for the poor decision making of an impulsive 17 year old? We need to get to these kids way before that. I'm not saying to be fearful of sex, but be highly respectful of the processes at work. 

Mankind must be aware of it's limitations. And that's applies to anything. Nuclear stockpiles. Genetically engineered viruses. Cybernetics. I'm not a very religious person, but I'm shocked with the amount of people walking around as their own self-appointed deities in their little spheres, discounting questions that have plagued far greater men. The logical course of action is to proceed with caution as opposed to rationalizing something that will benefit the individual in the_ short-term_.

----------


## robert68

> What if there is no afterlife? That's 55 million that were eliminated from existence to never return. I personally wouldn't want to be held responsible for the karma associated with those acts. What is Newton's third law of motion? To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction. I think this law can be applied to the entire universe, as opposed to just objects in motion.


If you don’t perform them or help bring them about, you “personally aren’t responsible”, so what’s the worry, if that would bring bad karma? 

Without reincarnation or some kind of afterlife, karma doesn’t provide justice that well. In short, in this life many good people have to live harsh lives, and many bad people are able to live privileged ones.  

Also, my understanding is that Edwardo89, whose post I replied to, is Catholic.

----------


## AuH20

> If you don’t perform them or help bring them about, you “personally aren’t responsible”, so what’s the worry, if that would bring bad karma? 
> 
> *Without reincarnation or some kind of afterlife, karma doesn’t provide justice that well.* In short, in this life many good people have to live harsh lives, and many bad people are able to live privileged ones.  
> 
> Also, my understanding is that Edwardo89, whose post I replied to, is Catholic.


Karma can still occur on the living plane.

----------


## Contumacious

> How many lives are you willing to risk for the poor decision making of an impulsive 17 year old? We need to get to these kids way before that. I'm not saying to be fearful of sex, but be highly respectful of the processes at work. 
> 
> Mankind must be aware of it's limitations. I].


OK, she goes to a party , smells the hamburgers and FF and IMPULSIVELY decides to partake. She gained weight, goes to the gym loses the weight.

But if she meets a boy she likes, IMPULSIVELY decides to partake, she gains weight but now you claim that she is stuck because sex is ---somehow---a limitation.

Bull$#@!.

.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> OK, she goes to a party , smells the hamburgers and FF and IMPULSIVELY decides to partake. She gained weight, goes to the gym loses the weight.
> 
> But if she meets a boy she likes, IMPULSIVELY decides to partake, she gains weight but now you claim that she is stuck because sex is ---somehow---a limitation.
> 
> Bull$#@!.
> 
> .


 Because murder should not be legalised to protect whoring that leads to std epidemics.

----------


## AuH20

I'm trying to view abortion through the perspective of a woman. So an economic and time occupying burden is removed. Beyond that, I'm focused on the fate of the premature baby.  The following questions keep arising:

_Did the baby suffer?
Where does it go? Limbo? Or does it's spiritual essence just vanish away?
What sin did the baby commit to be exterminated?_

I'm starting to think that "Reproductive freedom" are just code words for remorseless convenience (Might makes right....that sounds familiar). Let's just cut through the bull$#@!. Weighing the pros versus cons, I don't know how Convenience can surpass torturous, violent extermination of an innocent human being. I've thought about this logically for some time. Time and time again, I keep reaching the same conclusion. It's wrong.

----------


## otherone

> Because murder should not be legalised to protect whoring that leads to std epidemics.


I'm sorry...how old are you?  
Live a little, my friend, before you pronounce judgement on your fellow man.  We are ALL whores, in a manner of speaking.

----------


## AuH20

> OK, she goes to a party , smells the hamburgers and FF and IMPULSIVELY decides to partake. She gained weight, goes to the gym loses the weight.
> 
> But if she meets a boy she likes, IMPULSIVELY decides to partake, she gains weight but now you claim that she is stuck because sex is ---somehow---a limitation.
> 
> Bull$#@!.
> 
> .


Sex isn't a limitation. But a woman's body is genetically designed to create and house life. I don't think Mother Nature is an egalitarian. Being a female isn't easy (see the higher probability of death during childbirth before the age of modern medicine). But killing your own children isn't the answer. Lower species kill their young.

----------


## bunklocoempire

_Quality of life_ for others who can actually help themselves seems to be a bigger concern than actual_ life_ for the weak and defenseless.  

What an excellent path to take for promoting individual liberty.  What could possibly go wrong promoting fear and things over courage and a person's pulse?
Oh yeah, we're living it.  

If life is too hard feel free to check _yourself_ out -but don't encourage murdering those who are here as a result of someone else's actions.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> I'm sorry...how old are you?  
> Live a little, my friend, before you pronounce judgement on your fellow man.  We are ALL whores, in a manner of speaking.


 Being imperfect does not mean we should embrace it.

----------


## otherone

> Being imperfect does not mean we should embrace it.


Do not embrace it in yourself, brother.
_Matthew 7:3
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
_

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Do not embrace it in yourself, brother.
> _Matthew 7:3
> And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
> _


 That means we should not judge unfairly, not that we should not judge.

----------


## Nobexliberty

I am going to make a judging thread in the religion sub forum before this thread derails.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Never in the history of mankind has a civilisation lacked a goverment, even barbarians had some form of leadership system in place. Humans need some form of goverment to function in large numbers and history shows that.


What heavenlyboy34 said in post #476.

Furthermore, history does not "show" anything except what happened at a particular place & time under some particular set of circumstances. Socio-historical events are unrepeatable and entirely contingent. In the realm of human action, they serve as evidence or "proof" of nothing. At best, such historical events can serve as illustrations or examples of socio-political possibilities - but never as evidence or "proof" of them.

I originally asked you for evidence of your assertion that "no government is worse than big government." I did so for the very purpose of emphasizing the point that such assertions cannot (socio-historically speaking) be "proven" (and you indirectly confirmed this when you offered an "imagined" rather than an "historical" scenario as "evidence").




> The difference is that voluntary leadership systems and the goverment is that one is voluntery, no enforcement of laws if they are voluntery.


That is a _non sequitur_. Were people to participate only in "voluntary leadership system(s)" this would in no way imply, indicate or necessitate that "enforcement of laws" would not or could not occur. There is nothing about "enforcing laws" that makes it (inherently or fundamentally) any different from "providing health care" or "building houses" or "raising crops" or "programming computers" or [fill in the blank] ...

----------


## robert68

> Being imperfect does not mean we should embrace it.


Liberty isnt about outlawing imperfection or its results, as you favor.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> What heavenlyboy34 said in post #476.
> 
> Furthermore, history does not "show" anything except what happened at a particular place & time under some particular set of circumstances. Socio-historical events are unrepeatable and entirely contingent. In the realm of human action, they serve as evidence or "proof" of nothing. At best, historical events can serve as illustrations or examples of socio-political possibilities - but never as evidence or "proof" of them.
> 
> I originally asked you for evidence of your assertion that "no government is worse than big government." I did so for the very purpose of emphasizing the point that such assertions cannot be "proven" (and you confirmed this when you offered an "imagined" scenario as "evidence").
> 
> 
> 
> That is a _non sequitur_. Were people to participate only in "voluntary leadership system(s)" this would in no way imply, indicate or necessitate that "enforcement of laws" would not or could not occur. There is nothing about "enforcing laws" that makes it (inherently or fundamentally) any different from "providing health care" or "building houses" or "raising crops" or "programming computers" or [fill in the blank] ...


Depends on what you think is worse, no goverment or bad goverment. My opinion was simply it is better to have to much goverment.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Liberty isn’t about outlawing “imperfection” or its results, as you favor.


 When did I say that?

----------


## AuH20

I apologize for attacking Contumacious, but I advise him to start looking at the big picture. Abortion isn't safe, legal and rare anymore and the death toll is piling up. Nobody needs that type of burden on their conscience and we as knowledge seeking human beings are so much better than that. I will gracefully leave this thread. LOL

----------


## otherone

> That means we should not judge unfairly, not that we should not judge.


 _people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones_.  It's very similar to those who believe they are righteous when they've never experienced temptation...like, for instance, a 13 year old.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> _people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones_.  It's very similar to those who believe they are righteous when they've never experienced temptation...like, for instance, a 13 year old.


 Derailing warning, lets take this to the religion sub forum.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> _people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones_.  It's very similar to those who believe they are righteous when they've never experienced temptation...like, for instance, a 13 year old.


 And if it does not have anything to do with religion I can tell you that most 13 year old boys including me have hit puberty, ever since the sixties has the average been below 13 in an educated guess.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> What heavenlyboy34 said in post #476.
> 
> Furthermore, history does not "show" anything except what happened at a particular place & time under some particular set of circumstances. Socio-historical events are unrepeatable and entirely contingent. In the realm of human action, they serve as evidence or "proof" of nothing. At best, such historical events can serve as illustrations or examples of socio-political possibilities - but never as evidence or "proof" of them.
> 
> I originally asked you for evidence of your assertion that "no government is worse than big government." I did so for the very purpose of emphasizing the point that such assertions cannot (socio-historically speaking) be "proven" (and you indirectly confirmed this when you offered an "imagined" rather than an "historical" scenario as "evidence").
> 
> 
> 
> That is a _non sequitur_. Were people to participate only in "voluntary leadership system(s)" this would in no way imply, indicate or necessitate that "enforcement of laws" would not or could not occur. There is nothing about "enforcing laws" that makes it (inherently or fundamentally) any different from "providing health care" or "building houses" or "raising crops" or "programming computers" or [fill in the blank] ...


And do not forget that humans have a nasty tendancy to lose any decency when there is no goverment to enforce so form of it. More like monkeys who have invented pizzas and iPhones then humans.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Depends on what you think is worse, no goverment or bad goverment. My opinion was simply it is better to have to much goverment.


*shrug* Since your opinion is based on fallacies (such as "no enforcement of laws in voluntary systems" or "history shows proofs of things"), it is wrong.




> And do not forget that humans have a nasty  tendancy to lose any decency when there is no goverment to enforce so  form of it. More like monkeys who have invented pizzas and iPhones then  humans.


Yeah, right. Go tell it to the unfortunate denizens of Dachau and Gulag Archipelago ...

----------


## Nobexliberty

> *shrug* Since your opinion is based on fallacies (such as "no enforcement of laws in voluntary systems" or "history shows proofs of things"), it is wrong.


 Voluntery systems end up as involuntery ones quickly because of human nature, all it brings is useless civil wars that end up in tyranny.




> Yeah, right. Go tell it to the unfortunate denizens of Dachau and Gulag Archipelago ...


 Absolute power also leads to loss of decency, that is why we have a middle ground named limited goverment the politican this forum is dedicated to believes in.

----------


## otherone

> And do not forget that humans have a nasty tendancy to lose any decency when there is no goverment to enforce so form of it. More like monkeys who have invented pizzas and iPhones then humans.


You believe you need government to keep you in line?

----------


## Nobexliberty

> You believe you need government to keep you in line?


 Goverment to keeps the people in line, while the people keeps the goverment in line.

----------


## Fredom101

> Would you support making stealing legal too, it would decrease the number of illegal stealings by 100%.


Currently, stealing is only legal if the government does it. So yes, I would support stealing being legal, and that means we can take our hard earned money back. 

Do you think ending the war on drugs and making drugs legal would result in chaos?

----------


## Fredom101

Making laws for things does not change people's philosophy, ideas, wants, needs or desires.

Humans do not naturally respond well to force. 

That's why government fails, government is simply violent force.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Currently, stealing is only legal if the government does it. So yes, I would support stealing being legal, and that means we can take our hard earned money back. 
> 
> Do you think ending the war on drugs and making drugs legal would result in chaos?


 There is a big difference between stealing and drugs, I support stealing being illegal for goverments too.

----------


## Fredom101

> Goverment to keeps the people in line, while the people keeps the goverment in line.


And who is government? Aren't they just people? What if so-called government people are out of line? What happens to them?

----------


## Fredom101

> There is a big difference between stealing and drugs, I support stealing being illegal for goverments too.


Ok, then you support a voluntary society? If governments are prohibited from stealing, they can't tax or create money from thin air, and their way of life disappears.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Making laws for things does not change people's philosophy, ideas, wants, needs or desires.
> 
> Humans do not naturally respond well to force. 
> 
> That's why government fails, government is simply violent force.


 Goverment is also needed in a civilised society, a small one works the best

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Ok, then you support a voluntary society? If governments are prohibited from stealing, they can't tax or create money from thin air, and their way of life disappears.


 Putting a thief in jail is using force, commanding someone to work on a jury is force. But both are necessary in a libertarian society.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> And who is government? Aren't they just people? What if so-called government people are out of line? What happens to them?


 The goverment is what people accept it to be, like rights it is not set in stone but changes depending on what people see it as.

----------


## Dianne

> Wait a second...you're seriously criticizing pro-lifers on this forum for not supporting government handouts?


No, what I am asking you is .... why do you fight to protect the life of a fetus... but yet do not give a damn after the baby is born.

Is there something I am not aware of .....   that causes us to wish the death of a 7 month old, or 5 month old due to starvation; yet .... by GOD ... don't let the fetus die!!!

This forum, as I, is very anti welfare ...   so I am wondering why you wish more children to enter this world upon starvation ...  because you are not willing to help feed them.............    but yet you wish them to enter this world to starve to death.

I'm just having a constant struggle with these answers myself..

This forum, being libertarians (as I am) .... does not wish government intervention in anything we do.     Yet we want the Government to intervene in forcing people to bring a pregnancy to full term..     Yet we don't want to help provide food and water for the full term pregnancy  .... once it is delivered.      We want to cut off all life support to babies once they are delivered if the parent has no means to take care of the child.

Just wondering guys .... just wondering.

----------


## Dianne

> sorry. not an excuse for murder. Try again.


Murder would be cutting off of aide to families in poverty ....    That is murder...   Yet, you wish and demand the GOVERNMENT force people to carry pregnancies to full term ...  Yet, you wish and demand that GOVERNMENT cease all funding to feed that child the parents can't.

Who is the true Murderer?

----------


## Nobexliberty

> No, what I am asking you is .... why do you fight to protect the life of a fetus... but yet do not give a damn after the baby is born.
> 
> Is there something I am not aware of .....   that causes us to wish the death of a 7 month old, or 5 month old due to starvation; yet .... by GOD ... don't let the fetus die!!!
> 
> This forum, as I, is very anti welfare ...   so I am wondering why you wish more children to enter this world upon starvation ...  because you are not willing to help feed them.............    but yet you wish them to enter this world to starve to death.
> 
> I'm just having a constant struggle with these answers myself..
> 
> This forum, being libertarians (as I am) .... does not wish government intervention in anything we do.     Yet we want the Government to intervene in forcing people to bring a pregnancy to full term..     Yet we don't want to help provide food and water for the full term pregnancy  .... once it is delivered.      We want to cut off all life support to babies once they are delivered if the parent has no means to take care of the child.
> ...


 America needs to go back to Christian morals.*Matthew 25:34-36*King James Version (KJV)

*34* Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
*35* For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
*36* Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Murder would be cutting off of aide to families in poverty ....    That is murder...   Yet, you wish and demand the GOVERNMENT force people to carry pregnancies to full term ...  Yet, you wish and demand that GOVERNMENT cease all funding to feed that child the parents can't.
> 
> Who is the true Murderer?


Poverty in America, who are you kidding. If people did not have to pay so many taxes charity would replace welfare to keep the needy fed and sheltered. America is rich in farmland and food is very cheap so no problems with the cost if taxes are reduced.

----------


## Dianne

Sorry guys... we will have to agree to disagree...     I have stated from the time I joined this forum in 2007; that I have basic leanings towards the democratic party ...   That was before I knew there is no difference between the democratic party and the republican party.

I have always been pro choice ....   I choose to disagree with Dr. Paul on this issue because I find a fundamental error in the principal that we must force women to carry a pregnancy, and deliver a baby that will ultimately starve to death.... because we as libertarians don't want food stamps ... welfare, etc... to save the baby's life once it is here.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Voluntery systems end up as involuntery ones quickly because of human nature, all it brings is useless civil wars that end up in tyranny.


Sorry, but making the same kinds of unproven (and unprovable) assertions over and over and over again will not make them true.

The fundamental and inescapable nature of the State is that it forcibly asserts a monopoly on the making and enforcement of rules. The fundamental and inescapable nature of sociopaths, parasites and the like is that they will be inexorably drawn to the State as a means of achieving their morally corrupt desires. The essential and inescapable nature of peaceful, productive people is that they neither want nor seek power over others. Hence, the State, by its nature, in all times and all places, is a booby-trap - it is a bomb waiting to go off (and although the fuse may burn quickly or slowly, it will eventually "go off" - one way or another).

You can go on all you like about "voluntary systems quickly ending up as involuntary ones" and "always bringing civil wars" and so forth, as if you were pronouncing some kind of eternal & immutable "historical" law. But this is a load of buncombe. Such assertions are (1) demonstrably unhistorical, and (2) would not serve as evidence or proof of anything even if they were historical (as I explained to you before).




> Absolute power also leads to loss of decency, that is why we have a middle ground named limited goverment the politican this forum is dedicated to believes in.


We have "limited government" ... ? That's news to me ...

LImited government (whenever and wherever it might occur) is an inherently unstable equilibrium - it will not and cannot last (due to the essential & defining nature of the State and due to the essential & defining nature of those who are inevitably & overwhelmingly drawn to it (e.g., sociopaths, parasites, moochers, etc.) as a consequence of their natures.

Involuntary systems are guilty "in spades" of every charge you have levelled at voluntary systems.




> If people did not have to pay so many taxes  charity would replace welfare to keep the needy fed and  sheltered.


Now, that's ironic ...
... feeding & sheltering people via charity is (part of) a "voluntary system" ...
... feeding & sheltering people via taxes/welfare is (part of) an "involuntary system" ...
... yet you seem to think the former is superior to the latter ...

----------


## AuH20

> No, what I am asking you is .... why do you fight to protect the life of a fetus... but yet do not give a damn after the baby is born.
> 
> Is there something I am not aware of .....   that causes us to wish the death of a 7 month old, or 5 month old due to starvation; yet .... by GOD ... don't let the fetus die!!!
> 
> This forum, as I, is very anti welfare ...   so I am wondering why you wish more children to enter this world upon starvation ...  because you are not willing to help feed them.............    but yet you wish them to enter this world to starve to death.
> 
> I'm just having a constant struggle with these answers myself..
> 
> This forum, being libertarians (as I am) .... does not wish government intervention in anything we do.     Yet we want the Government to intervene in forcing people to bring a pregnancy to full term..     Yet we don't want to help provide food and water for the full term pregnancy  .... once it is delivered.      We want to cut off all life support to babies once they are delivered if the parent has no means to take care of the child.
> ...


Every life deserves a chance to hack it in the real world. No one should be judge, jury and executioner on an innocent being. Secondly, you're insinuating that there is rampant starvation in the U.S. when we throw away small feasts on a daily basis and the "homeless" are sometimes overly obese to say the least. Unless you're developmentally disabled or seriously afflicted with some type of life altering condition, you probably shouldn't be applicable for welfare.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Sorry, but making the same kinds of unproven (and unprovable) assertions over and over and over again will not make them true.
> 
> The fundamental and inescapable nature of the State is that it forcibly asserts a monopoly on the making and enforcement of rules. The fundamental and inescapable nature of sociopaths, parasites and the like is that they will be inexorably drawn to the State as a means of achieving their morally corrupt desires. The essential and inescapable nature of peaceful, productive people is that they neither want nor seek power over others. Hence, the State, by its nature, in all times and all places, is a booby-trap - it is a bomb waiting to go off (and although the fuse may burn quickly or slowly, it will eventually "go off").
> 
> You can go on all you like about "voluntary systems quickly ending up as involuntary ones" and "always bringing civil wars" and so forth, as if you were pronouncing some kind of eternal & immutable "historical" law. But it is a lot of buncombe. Such assertions are (1) demonstrably unhistorical, and (2) would not serve as evidence or proof of anything even if they were historical (as I explained to you before).
> 
> 
> 
> We have "limited government" ... ? That's news to me ...
> ...


Do you know what, lets spin the table. You prove to me why your anarchy works. Anarchy is the new kid at school, not the goverment.

----------


## Dianne

Sorry guys... we will have to agree to disagree...     I have stated from the time I joined this forum in 2007; that I have basic leanings towards the democratic party ...   That was before I knew there is no different between the democratic party and the republican party.

I have always been pro choice ....   I choose to disagree with Dr. Paul on this issue because I find a fundamental error in the principal that we must force women to carry a pregnancy, and deliver a baby that will ultimately starve to death.... because we as libertarians don't want food stamps ... welfare, etc... to save the baby's life once it is here.

I don't believe the federal government.... nor you.............. nor me.............. should make the decision for any family.... whether abortion is right or wrong...    and whether they can sustain the life of another child in their family .....    given under a perfect world there is no charity... no welfare... no food stamps, etc.

Why is it, many on this forums want millions more mouths to feed; without feeding those mouths?

----------


## Dianne

> Every life deserves a chance to hack it in the real world. No one should be judge, jury and executioner on an innocent being. Secondly, you're insinuating that there is rampant starvation in the U.S. when we throw away small feasts on a daily basis and the "homeless" are sometimes overly obese to say the least. Unless you're developmentally disabled or seriously afflicted with some type of life altering condition, you probably shouldn't be applicable for welfare.


Well, I was leaning towards the 28% unemployment of African Americans ...     Media says 17%, but true stats say 25 to 28% ...    Where do the unemployed find the means of feeding their kids?

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Well, I was leaning towards the 28% unemployment of African Americans ...     Media says 17%, but true stats say 25 to 28% ...    Where do the unemployed find the means of feeding their kids?


Because many African Americans seem to be unable to write or speak proper english, ebonics is not english.

----------


## eduardo89

> Sorry guys... we will have to agree to disagree...     I have stated from the time I joined this forum in 2007; that I have basic leanings towards the democratic party ...   That was before I knew there is no difference between the democratic party and the republican party.
> 
> I have always been pro choice ....   I choose to disagree with Dr. Paul on this issue because I find a fundamental error in the principal that we must force women to carry a pregnancy, and deliver a baby that will ultimately starve to death.... because we as libertarians don't want food stamps ... welfare, etc... to save the baby's life once it is here.


How many people starved to death in the US last year?

People weren't starving before food stamps existed.

----------


## liveandletlive

> Sorry guys... we will have to agree to disagree...     I have stated from the time I joined this forum in 2007; that I have basic leanings towards the democratic party ...   That was before I knew there is no different between the democratic party and the republican party.
> 
> I have always been pro choice ....   I choose to disagree with Dr. Paul on this issue because I find a fundamental error in the principal that we must force women to carry a pregnancy, and deliver a baby that will ultimately starve to death.... because we as libertarians don't want food stamps ... welfare, etc... to save the baby's life once it is here.
> 
> I don't believe the federal government.... nor you.............. nor me.............. should make the decision for any family.... whether abortion is right or wrong...    and whether they can sustain the life of another child in their family .....    given under a perfect world there is no charity... no welfare... no food stamps, etc.
> 
> Why is it, many on this forums want millions more mouths to feed; without feeding those mouths?


i'm with ya...i use to be vehemently pro life but now realized its a futile stance with no end game. Women are gonna get it done no matter what we say or think. We're just shoveling sand against the tide. It's kind of like the war on drugs to be honest. 

It really shouldnt even get to that point anyway, just use a condom. Many third world countries are in fact remaining third world due to the stronghold of the Catholic Church's dogma against contraception, condoms, abortion, etc...

----------


## AuH20

> Well, I was leaning towards the 28% unemployment of African Americans ...     Media says 17%, but true stats say 25 to 28% ...    Where do the unemployed find the means of feeding their kids?


If there was no welfare, they would be forced into jobs they feel "were beneath" them. The system is enabling and increasing the welfare rolls. The crutches need to go so the victim can finally walk. Secondly, we need to curb the excesses of the Federal Reserve so the costs of living aren't strangling working class people to death. The current wage isn't necessarily bad, but the rigged CPI is the real enemy.

----------


## Dianne

> i'm with ya...i use to be vehemently pro life but now realized its a futile stance with no end game. Women are gonna get it done no matter what we say or think. We're just shoveling sand against the tide. It's kind of like the war on drugs to be honest. 
> 
> It really shouldnt even get to that point anyway, just use a condom. Many third world countries are in fact remaining third world due to the stronghold of the Catholic Church's dogma against contraception, condoms, abortion, etc...


I agree !!!!    Many on this board won't even authorize the use of condoms being supplied to youth; yet they want their pregnancies to go full term...  yet they don't want to pay for the baby when it gets here.

Would rather see a 16 year old mother and her baby starve to death .....   but damn let that fetus develop.

Too much FOX NEWS on this forum ...   too many peeps not thinking, and letting their Hannities rock their world.

----------


## AuH20

> i'm with ya...i use to be vehemently pro life but now realized its a futile stance with no end game. Women are gonna get it done no matter what we say or think. We're just shoveling sand against the tide. It's kind of like the war on drugs to be honest. 
> 
> It really shouldnt even get to that point anyway, just use a condom. Many third world countries are in fact remaining third world due to the stronghold of the Catholic Church's dogma against contraception, condoms, abortion, etc...


True, but still doesn't mean that certain segments of society should remain silent. Deep down no one likes to be shamed. But hey if you want to kill your kid, wear the label proudly. The pro-choice people seem to want it both ways. They want the respect to go along with abhorrent behavior, but it doesn't work that way.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Because many African Americans seem to be unable to write or speak proper english, ebonics is not english.

----------


## AuH20

> I agree !!!!    Many on this board won't even authorize the use of condoms being supplied to youth; yet they want their pregnancies to go full term...  yet they don't want to pay for the baby when it gets here.
> 
> Would rather see a 16 year old mother and her baby starve to death .....   but damn let that fetus develop.
> 
> Too much FOX NEWS on this forum ...   too many peeps not thinking, and letting their Hannities rock their world.


How much are condoms? You're talking about these kids like they have Downs Syndrome and are incapable of logical decision making? 

Looky here. A 48 pack for 30 bucks. That's really a crunch on the wallet. What is that? 3 packs of cigarettes in some cities?: 
http://www.amazon.com/Durex-Variety-.../dp/B000BVE3NI

----------


## catfeathers

Nobody will adopt "unwanted" babies and they'll starve to death? Any other reasons for ending a life before it even has a chance to get started?

----------


## Nobexliberty

> I agree !!!!    Many on this board won't even authorize the use of condoms being supplied to youth; yet they want their pregnancies to go full term...  yet they don't want to pay for the baby when it gets here.
> 
> Would rather see a 16 year old mother and her baby starve to death .....   but damn let that fetus develop.
> 
> Too much FOX NEWS on this forum ...   too many peeps not thinking, and letting their Hannities rock their world.


 Condoms are cheap, and expecting some self control will benefit society in the long turn.

----------


## eduardo89

> How much are condoms? You're talking about these kids like they have Downs Syndrome and are incapable of logical decision making? 
> 
> Looky here. A 48 pack for 30 bucks. That's really a crunch on the wallet. What is that? 3 packs of cigarettes in some cities?: 
> http://www.amazon.com/Durex-Variety-.../dp/B000BVE3NI


You know what's even cheaper? Only having sex if you're ready to accept the consequences of those actions. Wow, what a novel idea, taking responsibility for your actions and not engaging in actions in which you can't take responsibility for the potential result.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> You know what's even cheaper? Only having sex if you're ready to accept the consequences of those actions. Wow, what a novel idea, taking responsibility for your actions and not engaging in actions in which you can't take responsibility for the potential result.


 I like it better when we agree like now

----------


## AuH20

> You know what's even cheaper? Only having sex if you're ready to accept the consequences of those actions. Wow, what a novel idea, taking responsibility for your actions and not engaging in actions in which you can't take responsibility for the potential result.


But responsibility is not popular in US of A. Victimization is the 3rd largest industry in the country. LOL

----------


## eduardo89

> Nobody will adopt "unwanted" babies and they'll starve to death? Any other reasons for ending a life before it even has a chance to get started?


Unless we have the benevolent government steal money from the productive in society and give the unproductive free food, housing, healthcare, cash, contraceptives, etc all these babies are going to starve to death. 

Might as well just kill them. But wait, why stop there? Why not kill all poor people! That way they can't starve to death and we can feel better about ourselves for not letting anyone starve!

----------


## AuH20

> You know what's even cheaper? Only having sex if you're ready to accept the consequences of those actions. Wow, what a novel idea, taking responsibility for your actions and not engaging in actions in which you can't take responsibility for the potential result.


We ignore & treat them like animals and then act surprised when they behave as such. The zoo trainer societal model obviously is not working.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Do you know what, lets spin the table. You prove to me why your anarchy works. Anarchy is the new kid at school, not the goverment.


*sigh* I have already told you (more than once, at this point) that such things cannot be "proven" (regardless of whether you take the Statist side or the Anarchist side) - and I have told you why ...

Nevertheless, you persist in trying to invoke bogus "historical" proof(s) - this time by asserting that "Anarchy is the new kid at school" (thereby implying that some kind of "historical" evidence or proof(s) countervail against "new" anarchist premises). So yet again, I point out that your (implicit) premise is both (1) demonstrably unhistorical (since stateless human society necessarily existed prior to the first State - in other words, anarchy is NOT the new kid at school - it is in fact the "school's" oldest graduate - and this is just the most basic and obvious among many historical counter-illustrations), and (2) even if it were historically accurate, it still would not "prove"- or even serve as evidence for - your position (namely, that anarchy is not at all possible and could not possibly "work").

More fundamentally, YOU are the one making sweeping assertions about what cannot possibly happen or what absolutely must happen under such-and-such circumstances. Hence, any burden of proof is on YOU - not I. I have merely pointed out the fallacies and flaws of your statements. The only point at which I have attempted to support a positive claim of my own was in my previous post - and my argument in that case rested not on historical contingencies but on existential necessities.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> *sigh* I have already told you (more than once, at this point) that such things cannot be "proven" (regardless whether you take the Statist side or the Anarchist side) - and I have told you why ...
> 
> Nevertheless, you persist in trying to invoke bogus "historical" proof(s) - this time by asserting that "Anarchy is the new kid at school" (thereby implying that some kind of "historical" evidence or proof(s) countervail against "new" anarchist premises). So yet again, I point out that your (implicit) premise is both (1) demonstrably unhistorical (since stateless human society necessarily existed prior to the first State - in other words, anarchy is NOT the new kid at school - it is in fact the "shcool's" oldest graduate - and this is just the most basic and obvious among many historical counter-illustrations), and (2) even if it were historically accurate, it still would not "prove" (or even serve as evidence) for your position.
> 
> More fundamentally, YOU are the one making sweeping assertions about what cannot possibly happen or what absolutely must happen under such-and-such circumstances. Hence, any burden of proof is on YOU - not I. I have merely pointed out the fallacies and flaws of your statements. The only point at which I have attempted to support a positive claim of my own was in my previous post - and my argument in that case rested not on historical contingencies but on existential necessities.


 Can I prove something,no. But I can make statements that make sense. History is a great place to learn what works and what does not work even if it does not act like proof. State has not been the "state" since agriculture but we have always had goverment like leadership to rule or govern us. It does not in any way prove anything but it can help us make choices in the future. It is agree able when goverments do not do justice then mobs will do what they think justice is, history can shows us that. And what prevented for example interracial marriage was not only social disgust for it but laws too. They may not always work but they do lower the activity they ban.

The goverments duty is to help people protect themself from criminals and defend their basic rights. That requires force and not just voluntary invlement. Everthing from locking up a thief to forcing people to serve on jury duty is force but still essential for liberty. Liberty is not abscene of goverment force but what it does with it. All laws are enforced by force and under the threat of legal punishemnt. Goverment without force is worthless and weak. A strong goverment is the most important part of liberty, strong does NOT mean big. Goverment is non-consentual force and there is not such thing as a voluntery goverment. Goverment must be able to force people to do things they do not want to. Even unpopular abortion laws if they protect the rights of innocent babies. Or making welfare cuts.

The sum it up I mean that the Goverment is force and nothing else!

----------


## robert68

> Karma can still occur on the living plane.


That's not a response to anything I wrote.

----------


## otherone

> People weren't starving before food stamps existed.


IIRC, some 7 million died of starvation during the Dust Bowl alone.  FDR dispatched soldiers to curb civil unrest.

----------


## eduardo89

> IIRC, some 7 million died of starvation during the Dust Bowl alone.  FDR dispatched soldiers to curb civil unrest.


7 million Americans died of starvation? That would have been 10% of the population and one of the largest losses of lives outside of war in the history of the world.

That number is absurd, it's as if someone took the number of starvations from Holdomor and decided to use it for the Great Depression. Just looking at census data the population managed to still grow by nearly 10,000,000 between 1930 and 1940, with barely any immigration.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> IIRC, some 7 million died of starvation during the Dust Bowl alone.  FDR dispatched soldiers to curb civil unrest.


 The Agricultural Adjustment Act payed Farmers subsidies to kill excessive lifestock and reduce planting area to prevent prices of food falling down so farmers can achieve stability. So many poor people starved because the fed prevent food from becoming cheaper.

----------


## Fredom101

> The goverment is what people accept it to be, like rights it is not set in stone but changes depending on what people see it as.


So government is arbitrary and it's whatever people view it to be at the time? So if some people decide to have an election and they rig it to their favor and say "51% voted on it, majority rules!" you think that's a good system?

Again, if some humans have power over others, who keeps those in power in check?

----------


## Fredom101

> Goverment is also needed in a civilised society, a small one works the best


You just said you opposed theft. How can we have a government without sanctioned theft of the people? What if I don't agree that government is needed? I'm okay if you want to appoint leaders for you and whoever else, but what happens when I disagree?

----------


## Carlybee

> Because many African Americans seem to be unable to write or speak proper english, ebonics is not english.


Wow. Talk about stereotyping. Newsflash...there are a bunch of whites who can't spell or use proper grammar. People raised in poverty are many times undereducated but poverty does not affect just one race. Not everyone has what it takes to overcome the set of circumstances they were born under.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Again, if some humans have power over others, who keeps those in power in check?


 Balance is needed, you know gun control is bad and all.




> You just said you opposed theft. How can we have a government without sanctioned theft of the people? What if I don't agree that government is needed? I'm okay if you want to appoint leaders for you and whoever else, but what happens when I disagree?


 Taxes should be kept to a minimum but a little taxes is often needed to raise money. I include all types of taxes from property tax and income tax to tariffs and sales taxes.





> So government is arbitrary and it's whatever people view it to be at the time? So if some people decide to have an election and they rig it to their favor and say "51% voted on it, majority rules!" you think that's a good system?


 I do not think it is good, but that it often how it happens. Most voters voted for the same politicans that people in this forum dislike but the politicans still rule the people on this forum.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Wow. Talk about stereotyping. Newsflash...there are a bunch of whites who can't spell or use proper grammar. People raised in poverty are many times undereducated but poverty does not affect just one race. Not everyone has what it takes to overcome the set of circumstances they were born under.


 Yes but it mostly afffects african americans, at an educated guess.

----------


## Carlybee

> Yes but it mostly afffects african americans, at an educated guess.


Guess is right because you just threw that out there. I would imagine there are many immigrants in this country for whom English is a second language and who can't spell or use proper grammar.

----------


## erowe1

> IIRC, some 7 million died of starvation during the Dust Bowl alone.


Your IIRC is not a very reliable source.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Guess is right because you just threw that out there. I would imagine there are many immigrants in this country for whom English is a second language and who can't spell or use proper grammar.


 Most legal immigrants will learn proper grammer if they want to after a while.

----------


## Fredom101

> Balance is needed, you know gun control is bad and all.


You dodged my question. Once someone is in power, who keeps them in check? Who watches the watchers? Clearly, voting every 2 or 4 years is a failed method.




> Taxes should be kept to a minimum but a little taxes is often needed to raise money. I include all types of taxes from property tax and income tax to tariffs and sales taxes.


You just said you were opposed to theft. But now you're saying it's okay to steal as long as you're with the government? How does this pass the logic test? Even tariffs are simply extortion money. This is certainly not libertarian!






> I do not think it is good, but that it often how it happens. Most voters voted for the same politicans that people in this forum dislike but the politicans still rule the people on this forum.


Ok so we agree the system is broken, because the majority are getting their rights violated. So, instead of accepting the current paradigm, why not try something else? Take the ideas of the founding fathers to their logical conclusion, and disband of the idea that some humans are equipped and should rule over others. Domination thinking is the problem here and must change if we are to have a better world.

----------


## erowe1

> Taxes should be kept to a minimum but a little taxes is often needed to raise money. I include all types of taxes from property tax and income tax to tariffs and sales taxes.


What do you consider the right tax rate, where if taxes got any lower you would say they were too low and needed to go back up?

----------


## Nobexliberty

> You dodged my question. Once someone is in power, who keeps them in check? Who watches the watchers? Clearly, voting every 2 or 4 years is a failed method.


 Who keeps them in check should be the people with guns.

Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword obviously never encountered automatic weapons." -- Douglas MacArthur




> You just said you were opposed to theft. But now you're saying it's okay to steal as long as you're with the government? How does this pass the logic test? Even tariffs are simply extortion money. This is certainly not libertarian!


 The best way to get rid of taxes is to find another way to raise money. 




> Ok so we agree the system is broken, because the majority are getting their rights violated. So, instead of accepting the current paradigm, why not try something else? Take the ideas of the founding fathers to their logical conclusion, and disband of the idea that some humans are equipped and should rule over others. Domination thinking is the problem here and must change if we are to have a better world.


 America needs is a people with some courage to stand up to the goverment and use some common sense. Even if America get rid of tyranical goverment it will grow back quickly because the people does not learn from it. The American people must want rights for the minority and a small goverment. A liposuction is a temporary solution most of the time simply because what lead to the fat is unchecked. And what made the federal goverment get fat was lack of enforcement of the people, that is the nuber one priority to make people want liberty.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> What do you consider the right tax rate, where if taxes got any lower you would say they were too low and needed to go back up?


 Should depend entirely on circumstances. Now it should be lower.

----------


## robert68

> Should depend entirely on circumstances. Now it should be lower.


Are you a teenager?

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Are you a teenager?


Yes.

----------


## Contumacious

> America needs is a people with some courage to stand up to the goverment and use some common sense. Even if America get rid of tyranical goverment it will grow back quickly because the people does not learn from it.


Every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later. . . . Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an almost superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property and mind in its clutches from infancy. An octopus would sooner release its prey. *A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state.*

 –Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine (1943

----------


## JK/SEA

So that fetus you killed might be the next Albert Einstein, but you decided to kill it because it might starve to death?.....geeez...

I was a full blown democrat liberal who has a real hard on for BS wars. Then i found Ron Paul. The red pill has been swallowed. No looking back now.

Abortion is murder. We can do better. We have to.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What do you consider the right tax rate, where if taxes got any lower you would say they were too low and needed to go back up?


When the government cannot protect the innocent, ensure that those who are victimized receive restitution, and defend the country from foreign attack.

A government that can do those three things is big enough, add anything else and its too much.




> Putting a thief in jail is using force, commanding someone to work on a jury is force. But both are necessary in a libertarian society.


No, neither of those things are necessary in a libertarian society.




> I agree !!!!    Many on this board won't even authorize the use of condoms being supplied to youth; yet they want their pregnancies to go full term...  yet they don't want to pay for the baby when it gets here.
> 
> Would rather see a 16 year old mother and her baby starve to death .....   but damn let that fetus develop.
> 
> Too much FOX NEWS on this forum ...   too many peeps not thinking, and letting their Hannities rock their world.




Being pro-life does not automatically mean being a Fox News drone.  The fact that you are even here means you should know better than this.




> You know what's even cheaper? Only having sex if you're ready to accept the consequences of those actions. Wow, what a novel idea, taking responsibility for your actions and not engaging in actions in which you can't take responsibility for the potential result.


But do you support making condoms illegal?

I don't support the government giving out birth control, most importantly because to do so is theft.

My belief is that life begins at conception, and so there are certain kinds of birth control that I ethically oppose for this reason, however, in real life I think life beginning at implantation is really the best you can actually enforce with laws.  To my knowledge there's no way to deliberately have an abortion before that point, although birth control pills and such sometimes cause abortions by mistake.  I don't think that's the sort of thing the government can  or should really try to combat at that point, the degree of privacy violations that would be required for that would be too numerous and besides: There is a difference between deliberately killing a child and taking an action that might possibly lead to the death of a child that does not actually exist at the time the action is taken.

----------


## Contumacious

> So that fetus you killed might be the next Albert Einstein, .


So that female that you PERSECUTED and completely traumatized because of your prudish, sexually-repressed Victorian tendencies could have been another Bill Gates. Steve Jobs or someone who could find a cure for cancer.

.

----------


## eduardo89

> But do you support making condoms illegal?


No, but I consider them immoral just as all other forms of contraception.

----------


## erowe1

> When the government cannot protect the innocent, ensure that those who are victimized receive restitution, and defend the country from foreign attack.
> 
> A government that can do those three things is big enough, add anything else and its too much.


If the amount they can steal is determined by their ability to afford to stave off some future hypothetical attack, then it's effectively limited only by the imagination of those whose power depends on that theft.

----------


## JK/SEA

> So that female that you PERSECUTED and completely traumatized because of your prudish, sexually-repressed Victorian tendencies could have been another Bill Gates. Steve Jobs or someone who could find a cure for cancer.
> 
> .


fail.

btw..i am not some freaking religious type. I am CONSISTANT in my belief of right to life, that includes soldiers who get sent to $#@!in un-constitutional military adventures.

A woman who gets pregnant by whatever means, morally should carry to term if possible. I believe that woman is in fact already alive, has a future beyond babies, but the fetus thats murdered obviously has lost all options due to a selfish state of mind.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> No, neither of those things are necessary in a libertarian society.


 A goverment that gives criminals legal punishment is necessary.

----------


## Contumacious

> fail.
> 
> btw..i am not some freaking religious type. I am CONSISTANT in my belief of right to life, that includes soldiers who get sent to $#@!in un-constitutional military adventures.
> 
> A woman who gets pregnant by whatever means,* morally* should carry to term if possible. I believe that woman is in fact already alive, has a future beyond babies, but the fetus thats murdered obviously has lost all options due to a selfish state of mind.


So long as you do not try to use the so-called state police powers to enforce your "morality" then I have no problem with her listening to your spiel if she so chooses.

.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> Up to their parents.


You're contradicting yourself or you're trying to have a double standard.  Let's stick to what you claimed earlier: you have rights because you exist.




> The biggest problem here is that people that arent involved in the whole baby making process trying to decree whether or not the people that were involved in making that baby have the right to unmake that baby.


If you're "unmaking a baby" then you'd be killing it.  Going back to what you said: if you have rights because you exist, then killing a baby violates its rights because it exists.




> It aint anyone elses baby but the two people that made the baby to begin with.


Are you saying that a baby is the property of the two people that made it?  That a human being can be owned by other human beings?  That sounds like something else that violates its rights because it exists.




> Im just waiting for someone stupid enough to bring up the topic of "life begins before conception" garbage.


Actually that's exactly what the situation is.  Life began millions of years ago (or thousands of years ago in religionspeak, I suppose).  Conception is not life beginning at all, actually; it's just another generation of life, a new individual organism, branching off of its parents.  Again, based on your own claim, it exists, so it has rights.

----------


## catfeathers

> So that female that you PERSECUTED and completely traumatized because of your prudish, sexually-repressed Victorian tendencies could have been another Bill Gates. Steve Jobs or someone who could find a cure for cancer.
> 
> .


Do you think an abortion isn't traumatizing? Maybe having a baby could be an incentive to better herself if she has some help from family or friends. Or she could let the baby be adopted, open adoptions aren't all that uncommon and she could keep in touch with the child. Sometimes a little adversity helps us grow. An abortion could be so traumatizing to some women that they would fall into depression, maybe drug abuse and never have a reason to live up to their potential.

----------


## Contumacious

> Do you think an abortion isn't traumatizing? .


I am sure it is. 

But it is the woman's decision -  and ONLY the woman - to decide what is the best option for her.

.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> I am sure it is. 
> 
> But it is the woman's decision -  and ONLY the woman - to decide what is the best option for her.
> 
> .


 And serial killers decision to kill is theirs and nobody else

----------


## Contumacious

> And serial killers decision to kill is theirs and nobody else


And don't forget the religious nuts,  who in the name of their god , take upon themselves to dictate, tyrannize and persecute.

*Christian Crusades* were religious conflicts in the High Middle Ages through to the end of the Late Middle Ages conducted by Catholic Europe against Muslims, pagans, heretics, and peoples under the ban of excommunication. The geographic spread included the Near East, Al-Andalus, Ifriqiya, Egypt and Eastern Europe. They are most popularly associated with campaigns in the Holy Land to establish control of religious sites but also cover other campaigns for different religious, economic, and political reasons such as the Albigensian Crusade, the Aragonese Crusade, the Reconquista and the Northern Crusades..

----------


## Nobexliberty

> And don't forget the religious nuts,  who in the name of their god , take upon themselves to dictate, tyrannize and persecute.
> 
> *Christian Crusades* were religious conflicts in the High Middle Ages through to the end of the Late Middle Ages conducted by Catholic Europe against Muslims, pagans, heretics, and peoples under the ban of excommunication. The geographic spread included the Near East, Al-Andalus, Ifriqiya, Egypt and Eastern Europe. They are most popularly associated with campaigns in the Holy Land to establish control of religious sites but also cover other campaigns for different religious, economic, and political reasons such as the Albigensian Crusade, the Aragonese Crusade, the Reconquista and the Northern Crusades..


 Off-topic?

----------


## Nobexliberty

> So long as you do not try to use the so-called state police powers to enforce your "morality" then I have no problem with her listening to your spiel if she so chooses.
> 
> .


Do not steal is also morally wrong.

----------


## JK/SEA

Abortion really has nothing at all to do with 'religion'.

I don't steal. Why? I don't need a God or 'religion' to tell me to do the right thing, and if you're telling me abortion is the 'right' thing to do, then i don't know what to tell you at this point.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Abortion really has nothing at all to do with 'religion'.
> 
> I don't steal. Why? I don't need a God or 'religion' to tell me to do the right thing, and if you're telling me abortion is the 'right' thing to do, then i don't know what to tell you at this point.


 The point I was trying to make to Contumacious is that just because something is morally wrong does not mean it should be legal.

----------


## JK/SEA

> To point I was trying to make to Contumacious is that just because something is morally wrong does not mean it should be legal.


cool. Yeah, my comment was directed at our liberal friend from Puerto Rico.

----------


## Dianne

This will be my last post on this subject.    I am a female, so my opinion reigns supreme on this matter, along with other femals on this board.

I do not want some coked out Congressman, or Senator dictating what I do with my life .....    I know these drugged up senators and congressmen and presidents, and attorney generals make great money for their "look in other direction" movements...

But no one in this entire hell hole place, we once called America... can ever tell me what to do with my body ...

You can never right to life me, until you are ready, willing, and able to throw your arms into anti drones... where obama kills thousands of kids every day.

Don't preach to me about right to life... until you're ready to throw down your life to protect the kids Obama kills on a daily bais...

----------


## eduardo89

> This will be my last post on this subject.    I am a female, so my opinion reigns supreme on this matter, along with other femals on this board.


Uhhh...no it doesn't.

----------


## Dianne

And as the last postcript ... I suffer from PTSD, and my worst fear in life is that I will get pregnant ... Sooooooooooooooooo ... I abstain from sex completely ...    I will never bring another child into this world, suffering from the same mental illness I have... but what if ?????

I'm actually sickened, this forum judges... when we are libertarians ...    Judge, jury, executioners ...    

I'm only asking that you who Judge... be prepared to judge yourself ...     When you are a female, you can weigh in or abortion... if you are a male...  get the f out of the discussion.

Abortion is not a decision weighed lightly ..... by most females.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> This will be my last post on this subject.    I am a female, so my opinion reigns supreme on this matter, along with other femals on this board.
> 
> I do not want some coked out Congressman, or Senator dictating what I do with my life .....    I know these drugged up senators and congressmen and presidents, and attorney generals make great money for their "look in other direction" movements...
> 
> But no one in this entire hell hole place, we once called America... can ever tell me what to do with my body ...
> 
> You can never right to life me, until you are ready, willing, and able to throw your arms into anti drones... where obama kills thousands of kids every day.
> 
> Don't preach to me about right to life... until you're ready to throw down your life to protect the kids Obama kills on a daily bais...





> And as the last postcript ... I suffer from PTSD, and my worst fear in life is that I will get pregnant ... Sooooooooooooooooo ... I abstain from sex completely ...    I will never bring another child into this world, suffering from the same mental illness I have... but what if ?????
> 
> I'm actually sickened, this forum judges... when we are libertarians ...    Judge, jury, executioners ...    
> 
> I'm only asking that you who Judge... be prepared to judge yourself ...     When you are a female, you can weigh in or abortion... if you are a male...  get the f out of the discussion.
> 
> Abortion is not a decision weighed lightly ..... by most females.


 A baby is no less of a baby because you are a female.

----------


## catfeathers

> This will be my last post on this subject.    I am a female, so my opinion reigns supreme on this matter, along with other femals on this board.


Hey, sorry there Dianne, I'm female and probably older than you so... I win!

----------


## Neil Desmond

> Hey, sorry there Dianne, I'm female and probably older than you so... I win!


Our new undisputed champion for...featherweight class?

----------


## catfeathers

> Our new undisputed champion for...featherweight class?


Uhh, a little more than featherweight  ... but I'll take it!

----------


## robert68

> ...
> 
> I'm actually sickened, this forum judges... when we are libertarians ...    Judge, jury, executioners ...


This forum has some libertarians, far from all; and the libertarians here, by and large, are not the ones in support of outlawing abortion, even if many of them consider having an abortion to be immoral.

----------


## catfeathers

> I'm actually sickened, this forum judges... when we are libertarians ...    Judge, jury, executioners ...


Wait a second! How did I miss that? *Executioners*? How ironic!

----------


## TwoGuard

Thanks for posting this...this is probably the most divisive issue among libertarians and I've been wondering where people fell along this continuum.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> This forum has some libertarians, far from all; and the libertarians here, by and large, are not the ones in support of outlawing abortion, even if many of them consider having an abortion to be immoral.


That would be anarchists, not libertarians.  Anarchists are opposed to laws, state, government, etc., even if there is a victim.  Basically, libertarian are not opposed to having laws, state, government, etc. if there are victims.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> Wait a second! How did I miss that? *Executioners*? How ironic!


"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to catfeathers again."

Oh, well.

----------


## Brett85

> This forum has some libertarians, far from all; and the libertarians here, by and large, are not the ones in support of outlawing abortion, even if many of them consider having an abortion to be immoral.


I think everyone who posts here is probably a libertarian to some extent.  For example, no one who posts here is going to argue against Justin Amash's amendment to limit the NSA's surveillance powers.  I don't think that anyone who posts here is really a "conventional conservative" or a "conventional Republican."  It's just that we all support liberty in various degrees.  I mean I label myself a "conservative" in my user name, but if you read my signature, you have to acknowledge that I have pretty hardcore libertarian views overall.

----------


## robert68

> .. Anarchists are opposed to laws,
> ...


Nonsense. Do some reading.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> Nonsense. Do some reading.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy?s=t
Anarchy, definition # 1: a state of society without government or law.

There, I did some reading.  What are you talking about "nonsense"?

----------


## eduardo89

> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy?s=t
> Anarchy, definition # 1: a state of society without government or law.
> 
> There, I did some reading.  What are you talking about "nonsense"?


No government = anarchy
No law = anomie

Get it? Got it? Good.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> No government = anarchy
> No law = anomie
> 
> Get it? Got it? Good.


LOL!  Even though I cited the ultimate authority on definitions on words, da dictionary (online version)?  Ok, fine; whatever you say.  My point is about libertarians not being opposed to laws for protecting victims.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> No government = anarchy
> No law = anomie
> 
> Get it? Got it? Good.


  Who will enforce the law then?

----------


## The Free Hornet

> Wait a second! How did I miss that? *Executioners*? How ironic!


There is no irony.  The secular have fewer abortions.  Whether this is a result of better education or values, I do not know.  Undoubtably, many of the religious prefer a private abortion to a public pregnancy.  Given who they associate with, it is hard to blame them.

The so-called relgious values they impart keep people ashamed and in the dark.  Imagine all the $#@!s on this thread blithely speaking of executing abortionists (and taking your tax dollars to fund this police state).  Imagine they are your neighbors and they are armed to the teeth.

Some of us who don't fall for the neocon/so-called-pro-life tactics also know that abortion rates are higher where it is outlawed.  Sadly, some here think the law of unintended consequences doesn't apply to them and that the road to hell isn't paved with _their_ good intentions.  Must be someone else to blame...

It will not surprise me in the least when the abortion rate rises in Texas.  Use-it-or-lose-it type laws can have that affect.

----------


## Brett85

Anyone who claims that abortion is more common in countries where it is outlawed is simply citing bogus statistics.  Illegal abortions by definition can't be documented, since there is no way to document an undocumented abortion.  If a woman gets an illegal abortion, she's not going to call up an agency on the phone and say, "I just got an illegal abortion."  She's going to keep it a secret and off the record so that she won't get prosecuted for it.  No one knows for sure how many illegal abortions take place in countries where abortion is illegal.  There is absolutely no way to document that or measure that.

----------


## robert68

> I think everyone who posts here is probably a libertarian to some extent.  For example, no one who posts here is going to argue against Justin Amash's amendment to limit the NSA's surveillance powers.  I don't think that anyone who posts here is really a "conventional conservative" or a "conventional Republican."  It's just that we all support liberty in various degrees.  I mean I label myself a "conservative" in my user name, but if you read my signature, you have to acknowledge that I have pretty hardcore libertarian views overall.


That can be said about all sorts of people, left, right, and elsewhere on the spectrum (Ralf Nader, Ross Perot etc.), particularly most conservative Republicans and many liberal Democrats of the 1980’s and 90’s. The latter because with the neocon takeover of the Republican Party in recent times, and the further growth and intrusiveness of the US government at home and abroad, “conservatism” moved further away from libertarianism than it already was, and the term "libertarian" now is often applied to what “conservative” was 2-3 decades ago. 

The central principle of libertarianism is the NAP, or if you prefer, individual (negative) rights. I’ve never seen you base your stances on either.

----------


## Brett85

> The central principle of libertarianism is the NAP, or if you prefer, individual (negative) rights. I’ve never seen you base your stances on either.


It's pretty clear that I have.  I've said that it shouldn't be a crime for people to engage in an activity like using drugs, since people who engage in that activity are only hurting themselves and aren't aggressing against anyone else.  On the other hand, abortion should be illegal since someone who gets an abortion is infringing on the rights of another human being to live.  That's a pretty clear illustration of how I believe that aggression against others should be punished while victimless crimes shouldn't be punished.

----------


## catfeathers

> There is no irony.  The secular have fewer abortions.


If you read the article you posted the link to you will notice this is worldwide. In one of the comments following the article I found this link: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/poli...tesabrate.html It shows abortions by state for the US where most of us on these forums live. 

I still think that someone who is in favor of killing unborn babies calling people who are pro-life "executioners" is ironic.

----------


## Neil Desmond

A claim that something still happens even when it is outlawed is not an argument for legalizing it.  If that were the case, might as well legalize murder, rape, armed robbery, etc., because these things also happen when they're illegal.

----------


## Contumacious

> It's pretty clear that I have.  I've said that it shouldn't be a crime for people to engage in an activity like using drugs, since people who engage in that activity are only hurting themselves and aren't aggressing against anyone else.  On the other hand, abortion should be illegal since someone who gets an abortion is infringing on the rights of another human being to live.  That's a pretty clear illustration of how I believe that aggression against others should be punished while victimless crimes shouldn't be punished.


Nonsense.

Your argument provides fodder for the supporters of the welfare/warfare state.

How the $#@! can you oppose wealth redistribution when your failure or refusal to provide to another human being will cause him/her to die or suffer.

How can we oppose to aid to the Syrian opposition. They are human beings. Your failure or refusal to help will cause death and suffering.....

Ad nauseam

.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> Anyone who claims that abortion is more common in countries where it is outlawed is simply citing bogus statistics.  Illegal abortions by definition can't be documented, since there is no way to document an undocumented abortion.  If a woman gets an illegal abortion, she's not going to call up an agency on the phone and say, "I just got an illegal abortion."  She's going to keep it a secret and off the record so that she won't get prosecuted for it.  No one knows for sure how many illegal abortions take place in countries where abortion is illegal.  There is absolutely no way to document that or measure that.


The same is true for the US where abortion is semi-legal.  So if you have a point, it isn't restricted to nations where it is illegal:




> Because reporting of abortions is not mandatory, statistics are of varying reliability.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortio...tes#Statistics


You had no trouble counting illegal things here:




> At least Drudge calls it a "path to citizenship," which is probably accurate.  The free republic idiots think that anything short of deporting 11 million illegal immigrants is "amnesty."
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4932240


Nor did you mention your counting problem on those threads.  But when it comes to your fellow church goers and abortions, suddenly you don't count so good.

----------


## Brett85

> Nonsense.
> 
> Your argument provides fodder for the supporters of the welfare/warfare state.
> 
> How the $#@! can you oppose wealth redistribution when your failure or refusal to provide to another human being will cause him/her to die or suffer.
> 
> How can we oppose to aid to the Syrian opposition. They are human beings. Your failure or refusal to help will cause death and suffering.....
> 
> Ad nauseam
> ...


Are you in favor of laws against murder for those who have already been born?  If so, I could make the same argument against your position that you just made against mine.

----------


## Brett85

> Nor did you mention your counting problem on those threads.  But when it comes to your fellow church goers and abortions, suddenly you don't count so good.


I have absolutely no idea what you're taking about.  I'm pretty sure you don't either.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> I still think that someone who is in favor of killing unborn babies calling people who are pro-life "executioners" is ironic.


Who - on this thread specifically - has come out in favor of killing unborn babies?  This is about whether or not you want to increase the size and scope of the government.  I do not.

More so, I'm not among the 40 posters who supported abortions for the "health of the mother" (ooooh I'm so scared!) or the 16 who found extra reasons for abortion ("rape, incest").

I'm among the vanguard who see government doing more harm than good here.

----------


## Brett85

"The health of the mother" wasn't one of the exceptions included in the poll.  No one chose that when it wasn't an option.

----------


## Contumacious

> Are you in favor of laws against murder for t*hose who have already been bor*n?  If so, I could make the same argument against your position that you just made against mine.


OK then , just come out and proclaim that you support a gargantuan government who will control all our movements in the name of helping human beings.

.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> A claim that something still happens even when it is outlawed is not an argument for legalizing it.  If that were the case, might as well legalize murder, rape, armed robbery, etc., because these things also happen when they're illegal.


The claim is not that it still happens but that it happens at an even greater rate.  Unintended consequences ought to be common knowledge here.

If laws against "murder, rape, armed robbery, etc." led to MORE "murder, rape, armed robbery, etc.", then you'd be a fool to not at least consider the possibility.

----------


## Brett85

> OK then , just come out and proclaim that you support a gargantuan government who will control all our movements in the name of helping human beings.
> 
> .


Well, if that's the case, then of course you support the exact same thing.  Unless you're saying that you do indeed support repealing all laws against murder and providing no legal protections for anyone.  That would at least be a consistent position.

----------


## Brett85

> The claim is not that it still happens but that it happens at an even greater rate.  Unintended consequences ought to be common knowledge here.
> 
> If laws against "murder, rape, armed robbery, etc." led to MORE "murder, rape, armed robbery, etc.", then you'd be a fool to not at least consider the possibility.


We don't know whether laws against murder, rape, and armed robbery leads to these things happening at a greater rate or not, since it's not legal to do these things in any country.  We do know that only 3% of reported rape cases end in a conviction.  I suppose that must be an argument for legalizing rape.

----------


## catfeathers

> Who - on this thread specifically - has come out in favor of killing unborn babies?


I believe Dianne was the one I quoted. bolil,  brandon,  BSWPaulsen,  BW2112,  CMoore,  Contumacious,  DamianTV,  Dary,  economics102,  FallOfTheWest,  Fredom101,  JCDenton0451,  juleswin, Qdog,  sgt150,  Smart3,  surf,  The Free Hornet,  wetroof all voted that it should be legal with no restrictions.

Edited because I left out a word.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> We don't know whether laws against murder, rape, and armed robbery leads to these things happening at a greater rate or not, since it's not legal to do these things in any country.  We do know that only 3% of reported rape cases end in a conviction.  I suppose that must be an argument for legalizing rape.


I'm not stopping you from making that argument.  This was about abortion rates being higher among the religious and in countries where it is outlawed.  That you now want rape legalized is your own twisted interpretation.

If you can find the data to support it, that we'll have less rape, and more respect for each other and ourselves, then I'll support you.

This argument has never been about what practices we support, rather which practices for which we wish to forcibly extract money to stop.

What I've seen from your anti-abortion efforts is that you keep passing bills that put more money in the medical industry's pockets and that have little to do with abortion aside from normalizing 99% of them.

----------


## Contumacious

> Well, if that's the case, then of course you support the exact same thing.  Unless you're saying that you do indeed support repealing all laws against murder and providing no legal protections for anyone.  That would at least be a consistent position.


Of course I have stated no such thing. You have.

It is unbelievable that in your quest to regulate sexual intercourse and punish women who won't give you the time of the day you support nazism.

,

----------


## Brett85

> Of course I have stated no such thing. You have.
> 
> It is unbelievable that in your quest to regulate sexual intercourse and punish women who won't give you the time of the day you support nazism.
> 
> ,


I'm not even sure if it's worth responding to you.  I don't want to "regulate sexual intercourse."  Women can have all the sex they want and use all of the contraception they want.  I just support laws that provide the same legal protections to the unborn that all other individuals have.  You still won't even answer my question about whether you're in favor of laws against murder.

----------


## Brett85

> I'm not stopping you from making that argument.  This was about abortion rates being higher among the religious and in countries where it is outlawed.  That you now want rape legalized is your own twisted interpretation.
> 
> If you can find the data to support it, that we'll have less rape, and more respect for each other and ourselves, then I'll support you.
> 
> This argument has never been about what practices we support, rather which practices for which we wish to forcibly extract money to stop.
> 
> What I've seen from your anti-abortion efforts is that you keep passing bills that put more money in the medical industry's pockets and that have little to do with abortion aside from normalizing 99% of them.


That's a ridiculous spin on what I said.  I'm definitely not in favor of legalizing rape.  I was just pointing out that if you're going to argue that abortion should be legal since laws against abortion aren't going to stop all abortions, then the logical extension of your argument would be to legalize rape as well, since laws against rape have proven to only be effective 3% of the time.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> I believe Dianne was the one I quoted. bolil,  brandon,  BSWPaulsen,  BW2112,  CMoore,  Contumacious,  DamianTV,  Dary,  economics102,  FallOfTheWest,  Fredom101,  JCDenton0451,  juleswin, Qdog,  sgt150,  Smart3,  surf,  The Free Hornet,  wetroof all voted that it should be legal with no restrictions.
> 
> Edited because I left out a word.


*WHO CAME OUT IN SUPPORT OF KILLING BABIES?!*

Where do you get off using that list?

To repeat:




> Who - on this thread specifically - has come out in favor of killing unborn babies?  This is about whether or not you want to increase the size and scope of the government.  I do not.
> 
> More so, I'm not among the 40 posters who supported abortions for the "*[LIFE]* of the mother" (ooooh I'm so scared!) or the 16 who found extra reasons for abortion ("rape, incest").


To repeat:

*- I do not support the death penalty
- I do not support killing babies for reasons of rape/incest
- I do not support not taking a risk in pregnancy ("life of the mother")
- I do not support killing healthy, viable babies*

What part of this are people here too stupid to understand?

You and TC are among those who GAVE A REASON TO ABORT:




> It should be illegal with an exception for the life of the mother.   41	31.54%
> 
>     69360,
>     AlexAmore,
>     BamaAla,
>     Beorn,
>     buck000,
>     catfeathers,
>     compromise,
> ...


I was very charitable to TC and prefaced my vote (as he pleaded for us all to vote):




> I voted this way to "play nice" with your poll. A more accurate view would be "get the government out of our lives!".
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5137234


If you think a position consistent with "get the government out of our lives!" is support of killing babies, then you simply do not belong here.

FYI, I've opposed the drug war for three decades without once ever in my life using an illegal drug.  I don't look to your stupid nanny state for guidance in how to live a moral life.

----------


## Brett85

So the guy who thinks that abortion should be legal with no restrictions doen't support killing babies, but yet those of us who support ending 99% of legal abortions and having a narrow exception for the life of the mother somehow support killing babies in certain situations?  Who can argue with that logic?

----------


## The Free Hornet

> So the guy who thinks that abortion should be legal with no restrictions doen't support killing babies, but yet those of us who support ending 99% of legal abortions and having a narrow exception for the life of the mother somehow support killing babies in certain situations?  Who can argue with that logic?


I very clearly prefaced my vote, "get the government out of our lives!".  You, "Traditional Conservative", are the pro abortionist ("with an exception for the life of the mother") who wrote this dumb-ass poll.  I've requested my contribution to poll removed because you are now very clearly abusing the results after pleading for participation (#9, #28).

I did not state "abortion should be legal" and only a lying-ass motherfucker would twist the results.  You wrote the poll and have no excuse as to where your vote landed.

More so, in thread after thread, I've been very clear about my opinion:




> the majority of people (protesting pro-lifers, politicians, priests) don't want abortion mothers punished as murderers *making the entire exercise of its outlaw a regulatory capture of healthcare*

----------


## Brett85

You're just saying what all the pro choice people say, which is that you want abortion to be legal, but that you would prefer that women "choose" not to get abortions.  I understand your position.  It's no different from President Obama and Nancy Pelosi's position.

----------


## Brett85

And I believe that the pro life position is to defend both the life of the mother and the life of the baby.  There are two lives involved in a pregnancy, and the government should consider both lives.  I didn't say that I want women to get an abortion in every single situation in which they face a life threatening pregnancy.  I just said that as far as the law is concerned, abortion should be an option for them in situations in which they could die if they don't get an abortion, because in my opinion the pro life position is to protect both the life of the mother and the life of the unborn baby.  In certain situations where a woman could die from not getting an abortion, it's an ectopic pregnancy where the baby develops in the wrong place and has no chance of actually surviving and being born anyway.  I don't exactly see how supporting such a narrow exception like that makes me in any way "pro choice."  Such an assertion seems completely ridiculous coming from someone who believes there should be no restrictions on abortion whatsoever.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> So the guy who thinks that abortion should be legal with no restrictions doen't support killing babies, but yet those of us who support ending 99% of legal abortions and having a narrow exception for the life of the mother somehow support killing babies in certain situations?  Who can argue with that logic?


Yes, I think you are a pro-choice pro-abortionist and you have proven it with your own poll in your own words.  You think a minor threat to life/health of the mother is a narrow exception?  More so, that it is more heart-wrenching than those who have to consider the life/health of the baby?

There is a culture that will get abortion after abortion without regard to the morality of the situation.  That wasn't what we were talking about, AFAIK.  For some reason, you and the pro-abortionist catfeathers, started to assume that those below you on the poll were in favor of killing babies and that those at your level or above, were not.  Very convenient, baby killer!

It is very odd that you, Traditional Conservative and catfeathers, give a reason to kill babies and then label others - who gave no such reasons - the same.




> You're just saying what all the pro choice people say, which is that you want abortion to be legal, but that you would prefer that women "choose" not to get abortions.  I understand your position.  It's no different from President Obama and Nancy Pelosi's position.


Not quite.  Stop your lying.

I'm not in favor of killing, legalizing the killing, or excusing the killing.  To repeat for the umpteenth time, I do not support "legalization".  *I *will* consider regarding abortions of healthy, viable fetuses as murder, when and if the motherfucking hypocrites of this movement will start to do the same and cease their god-damn regulation of the medical industry.*  You cannot excuse the mother and win this on a moral level.

I can't come up with clever excuses to kill a baby.  "Oh no it is rape/incest baby and I might die!!!!!!".  That said, I know of greater danger to all life, the out of control state and organizations like the AMA who have lobbied - with YOUR considerable help - to put us under its thumb.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> And I believe that the pro life position is to .... blah blah blah


You, Traditional Conservative, are PRO CHOICE in the most sick and twisted way imaginable.  I know of no rational person that prosecutes the hitman and excuses the person who paid them AND gave the order:




> I'm in favor of saving the unborn from being murdered, and in my opinion having extremely tough laws against the person who actually commits the act of murdering the baby would go a long ways toward protecting the unborn in this country.  If the woman actually murders the baby by herself without a doctor involved, then in that situation I think the woman should be prosecuted since she committed the physical act of murdering the baby.  I don't necessarily think that laws against abortion have to be exactly the same as all other murder laws in terms of being complicit in a murder.  I don't see why it would be necessary to make abortion laws exactly like murder laws in every single way.  There's no rule that says it has to be that way.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Anarchists are  opposed to laws [...]





> Nonsense. Do some reading.





> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy?s=t
> Anarchy, definition # 1: a state of society without government or law.
> 
> There, I did some reading.  What are you talking about "nonsense"?





> No government = anarchy
> No law = anomie
> 
> Get it? Got it? Good.





> LOL!  Even though I cited the ultimate authority on definitions on words, da dictionary (online version)?


THIS is what robert68 "was talking about 'nonsense'" ...

From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy



> *Anarchy* has more than one definition. Some use the term "anarchy"  to refer to a society without a publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority. When used in this sense, anarchy may *or may not* be intended to imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society.


From a google query using the terms "define anarchy":



> an·ar·chy  /ˈanərkē/ Noun
> 2. *Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.*


From the American Heritage Dictionary: http://www.answers.com/topic/anarchy



> (ăn'ər-kē) n., pl., -chies.
> 1. *Absence of any form of political authority.*


From Merriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy



> an·ar·chy - noun \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\
> 1a: *absence of government*


There is nothing about the absence of or opposition to laws in any of the particular dictionary-definition entries I have just cited. But dictionaries are authoritative (if at all) in only a descriptive (not a prescriptive) sense. They are also highly condensed and over-simplified. (They can also simply be wrong.)

You may wish to argue that the absense of a single agency with a monopoly on the creation and enforcement of rules called "laws" would necessarily result in the absence of (creation and enforcement) of any rules called "laws." If so, there is a very great deal that has been written in rebuttal of such assertions. So if you want to refute those rebuttals, you need to do exactly what robert68 told you to do - namely, you need to "do some reading." But by all means, if that is too much for you to handle, please carry on with obtusely pretending that people don't actually   mean what they say they mean merely because you can "cherry-pick" your preferred  "ultimate authority" dictionary definition (as if such semantic quibbling could constitute a substantive refutation).

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Who will enforce the law then?


"Without the State, who will enforce the law?"
"Without the Slave, who will pick the cotton?"

----------


## Nobexliberty

> "Without the State, who will enforce the law?"


 The Mob if there is any enforcement.




> "Without the Slave, who will pick the cotton?"


 A sharecropper.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> The Mob if there is any enforcement.
> 
>  A sharecropper.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCy8MpT45gk

----------


## eduardo89

> The Mob if there is any enforcement.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute...n_organization

----------


## Neil Desmond

> THIS is what robert68 "was talking about 'nonsense'" ...
> 
> From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy
> 
> 
> From a google query using the terms "define anarchy":
> 
> 
> From the American Heritage Dictionary: http://www.answers.com/topic/anarchy
> ...


I don't need to read anything, for the purpose of what was discussed here.  This thread isn't about this topic, it's about abortion.  In this thread and for the purpose of making my point, I'm the one who used the word in a post and explained what I was talking about**:




> Originally Posted by robert68
> 
> 
> This forum has some libertarians, far from all; and the libertarians here, by and large, are not the ones in support of outlawing abortion, even if many of them consider having an abortion to be immoral.
> 
> 
> That would be anarchists, not libertarians.  Anarchists are opposed to laws, state, government, etc., even if there is a victim.  Basically, libertarian are not opposed to having laws, state, government, etc. if there are victims.


I get to define what I mean by it, not you; or, do you want to try to claim authority over me as someone who can tell me what I mean when I use a word, despite me having cited an existing definition for it?  Anyways, as far as I'm concerned this issue was already resolved:




> LOL!  Even though I cited the ultimate authority on definitions on words, da dictionary (online version)?  *Ok, fine; whatever you say.  My point is about libertarians not being opposed to laws for protecting victims.*


If you want to talk about or debate the definitions, encyclopedic entries, philosophy, etc. about anarchy, fine; I suggest you create a thread for that & you're welcome to ask me to participate in it, if you wish.  I, and I would imagine everyone else reading this thread, would appreciate it if you would refrain from trying to sidetrack my discussion just because you don't like the way I am, or was, using a word.

----------


## Brett85

I'm not sure if this thread is even worth posting in anymore, but I guess I will anyway.  The position of banning abortion with an exception for the life of the mother is the position taken by a majority of pro lifers.  It's a position that would put an end to over 99% of legal abortions in our country.  It is extremely rare for a woman to face a life threatening pregnancy.  This is not something that happens on a regular basis in America.  But, even the most staunch pro lifers and social conservatives I know support an exception for the life of the mother.  I'm also not criticizing those who support no exceptions at all, but there's absolutely nothing about my position that makes me "pro choice."  The only time I support legal abortion is when it's an example of killing in self defense, when a woman has to get one in order to survive.  It's absolutely ridiculous to get labeled as "pro choice" by someone who supports legal abortion for any reason with no restrictions, and who comes to this forum to argue for legal abortion in at least 90% of his posts.  The Free Hornet is a one issue obsessed voter.  I never see him post in any of the other threads regarding the liberty candidates in Congress, votes currently going on such as the Amash amendment, etc.  He simply comes here to talk about either abortion or gay marriage.  He's given no indication that he's even part of this movement in terms of supporting liberty candidates and supporting a liberty agenda across the board.

----------


## otherone

This particular issue, like immigration, is a scab on the Liberty Movement that for whatever reason, some people enjoy tearing off.  Maybe abortion needs it's own sub-forum.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm not sure if this thread is even worth posting in anymore, but I guess I will anyway.  The position of banning abortion with an exception for the life of the mother is the position taken by a majority of pro lifers.  It's a position that would put an end to over 99% of legal abortions in our country.  It is extremely rare for a woman to face a life threatening pregnancy.  This is not something that happens on a regular basis in America.  But, even the most staunch pro lifers and social conservatives I know support an exception for the life of the mother.  I'm also not criticizing those who support no exceptions at all, but there's absolutely nothing about my position that makes me "pro choice."  The only time I support legal abortion is when it's an example of killing in self defense, when a woman has to get one in order to survive.  It's absolutely ridiculous to get labeled as "pro choice" by someone who supports legal abortion for any reason with no restrictions, and who comes to this forum to argue for legal abortion in at least 90% of his posts.  The Free Hornet is a one issue obsessed voter.  I never see him post in any of the other threads regarding the liberty candidates in Congress, votes currently going on such as the Amash amendment, etc.  He simply comes here to talk about either abortion or gay marriage.  He's given no indication that he's even part of this movement in terms of supporting liberty candidates and supporting a liberty agenda across the board.


I think he is but he's clearly obsessed over this one issue.  I'm surprised he supports Ron Paul considering Paul is pro-life.




> This particular issue, like immigration, is a scab on the Liberty Movement that for whatever reason, some people enjoy tearing off.  Maybe abortion needs it's own sub-forum.


Well, like immigration, abortion is an issue libertarians disagree with each other on.



> It's pretty clear that I have.  I've said that it shouldn't be a crime for people to engage in an activity like using drugs, since people who engage in that activity are only hurting themselves and aren't aggressing against anyone else.  On the other hand, abortion should be illegal since someone who gets an abortion is infringing on the rights of another human being to live.  That's a pretty clear illustration of how I believe that aggression against others should be punished while victimless crimes shouldn't be punished.







> Nonsense.
> 
> Your argument provides fodder for the supporters of the welfare/warfare state.
> 
> How the $#@! can you oppose wealth redistribution when your failure or refusal to provide to another human being will cause him/her to die or suffer.
> 
> How can we oppose to aid to the Syrian opposition. They are human beings. Your failure or refusal to help will cause death and suffering.....
> 
> Ad nauseam
> ...


There's a difference between inaction which leads to death, and deliberately causing death.

Its one thing to smoke or drink while pregnant.  Its another thing to deliberately kill the child in the womb.




> Are you in favor of laws against murder for those who have already been born?  If so, I could make the same argument against your position that you just made against mine.


You're such a statist, you won't allow parents to kill their babies!  I mean, once the baby has a birthday you might have a point, but until then, a parent should obviously have a right to kill their child.  And if you don't support that, you obviously support the government redistributing money at gunpoint to help AIDS victims in Africa.  We need to legalize infanticide NOW!

(/sarc)




> Well, if that's the case, then of course you support the exact same thing.  Unless you're saying that you do indeed support repealing all laws against murder and providing no legal protections for anyone.  That would at least be a consistent position.


That would actually be better, honestly...

Then the "doctors" wouldn't get legal protection.



> I'm not even sure if it's worth responding to you.  I don't want to "regulate sexual intercourse."  Women can have all the sex they want and use all of the contraception they want.  I just support laws that provide the same legal protections to the unborn that all other individuals have.  You still won't even answer my question about whether you're in favor of laws against murder.


Because they can't.




> *WHO CAME OUT IN SUPPORT OF KILLING BABIES?!*
> 
> Where do you get off using that list?
> 
> To repeat:
> 
> 
> 
> To repeat:
> ...





> So the guy who thinks that abortion should be legal with no restrictions doen't support killing babies, but yet those of us who support ending 99% of legal abortions and having a narrow exception for the life of the mother somehow support killing babies in certain situations?  Who can argue with that logic?


I support allowing the mother to have an abortion in self-defense if her life is in danger.  That does not mean I "Support" doing such.




> You're just saying what all the pro choice people say, which is that you want abortion to be legal, but that you would prefer that women "choose" not to get abortions.  I understand your position.  It's no different from President Obama and Nancy Pelosi's position.


Pretty much.




> You, Traditional Conservative, are PRO CHOICE in the most sick and twisted way imaginable.  I know of no rational person that prosecutes the hitman and excuses the person who paid them AND gave the order:


OK, Traditional Conservative, I don't condone the mean spirited nature of this post, but I have to admit I understand his point.  Why aren't the women being prosecuted again?  I guess in a rape case you might be able to say she's been punished enough, but other than that... I don't see why the woman shouldn't be tried for murder.

----------


## Brett85

I think it makes sense to prosecute the person who actually commits the act of murdering the baby, which is normally the doctor.  If the woman murders her baby herself and commits the actual act of aggression against the baby, then she should be prosecuted in that situation.  I think that prosecuting the person who commits the physical act of murdering the baby will serve as enough of a deterrent to put a significant dent in the number of abortions that occur in America.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think it makes sense to prosecute the person who actually commits the act of murdering the baby, which is normally the doctor.  If the woman murders her baby herself and commits the actual act of aggression against the baby, then she should be prosecuted in that situation.  I think that prosecuting the person who commits the physical act of murdering the baby will serve as enough of a deterrent to put a significant dent in the number of abortions that occur in America.


We are men of principle here.  "Deterrent" and other similar arguments should be left to the utilitarians and the statists (Or do I repeat myself?)

The bottom line is, paying someone to murder someone else should be illegal, and punished like murder.  Do you disagree with this?

I fail to see why abortion is any different.

This is part of the sort of thing that makes me so indifferent to the abortion issue as it exists in the US.  Nobody has the guts to do what is really justified.  Scott Roeder is sitting in jail right now for "Murdering" the murderous George Tiller.  No pro-lifers have the guts to criticize this.  To me what Roeder did is no different than killing an Nazi SS officer, which I wouldn't support prosecuting someone for either.

And nobody has the guts to say that, yes, the woman should be punished for her action.  Due to the difficulty of absolute proof in such cases, I wouldn't support the death penalty for it, but I would support life imprisonment or exile.

Most pro-lifers take the position you take, which absolutely makes no sense.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> This thread isn't about this topic, it's about abortion.


robert68's post was about abortion. Your reply to his post was not.




> In this thread and for the purpose of making my point, I'm the one who used the word in a post and explained what I was talking about**:


Your post was about what you think "anarchists" and "libertarians" are (or are not)  "opposed to." You claimed that "anarchists are opposed to laws." This is demonstrably false. I am an anarchist. I am not opposed to laws. Therefore, not all anarchists are opposed to laws. QED. (This is why robert68 called your claims "nonsense.")

In making your point, you offered a polemical assertion (not a definition). robert68 disputed that assertion. You    then replied by citing a cherry-picked dictionary definition while    ignoring the obvious fact that other defintions exist which simply do not support your    assertion. (Some of these other definitions exist precisely because of the QED supplied above.) Thus, your selective invocation of semantics is just an exercise in question-begging (as such invocations almost always are).




> I get to define what I mean by it, not you; or, do you want to try to claim authority over me as someone who can tell me what I mean when I use a word, despite me having cited an existing definition for it?


Yes - you get to define your terms. (And you can define "cat" as "an  elephant" for all I care.) But you do NOT get to pretend that your  definitions somehow obviate or negate the objections others have to any  erroneous conceptual denotations inherent in your definitions. (The previously stated QED is one such objection.)

And YOU are the one who has tried to "claim authority" over what a word means. (In fact ... what was the exact phrase you used? Ah, yes - "ultimate authority" - that's it!) You made an assertion about something. You didn't offer a definition for anything until after your assertion was challenged - at which point you cited a (conveniently    redacted) dictionary entry as if doing so was somehow sufficient to settle the matter.




> Anyways, as far as I'm concerned this issue was already resolved:


So your idea of resolving an issue is to (1) make assertions tangential to what someone else said, (2) selectively invoke dictionary-based semantics as an "ultimate authority" when someone disagrees with you about it, and    then (3) dismiss everything by claiming that none of it really matters anyway, since the part of what you said that is being disagreed with isn't really your point after all (even though you were the one who brought it up for some reason).

Okay. Got it. 




> If you want to talk about or debate the definitions, encyclopedic entries, philosophy, etc. about anarchy, fine; I suggest you create a thread for that & you're welcome to ask me to participate in it, if you wish.


YOU are the one who broached this instance of the subject of anarchy and "what it is" - so "... attend the beam in thine own."




> I, and I would imagine everyone else reading this thread, would appreciate it if you would refrain from trying to sidetrack my discussion just because you don't like the way I am, or was, using a word.


"Your" discussion? Well, _excusez-moi_! I was not aware that YOU are allowed to say off-topic things but that others are not allowed to respond to them.

This very issue (whether "anarchy = no laws") has already been addressed in numerous posts in this very thread - before YOU brought it up yet again. So perhaps you should go wag your finger in others' faces - starting with your own ...

----------


## Brett85

> We are men of principle here.  "Deterrent" and other similar arguments should be left to the utilitarians and the statists (Or do I repeat myself?)
> 
> The bottom line is, paying someone to murder someone else should be illegal, and punished like murder.  Do you disagree with this?
> 
> I fail to see why abortion is any different.
> 
> This is part of the sort of thing that makes me so indifferent to the abortion issue as it exists in the US.  Nobody has the guts to do what is really justified.  Scott Roeder is sitting in jail right now for "Murdering" the murderous George Tiller.  No pro-lifers have the guts to criticize this.  To me what Roeder did is no different than killing an Nazi SS officer, which I wouldn't support prosecuting someone for either.
> 
> And nobody has the guts to say that, yes, the woman should be punished for her action.  Due to the difficulty of absolute proof in such cases, I wouldn't support the death penalty for it, but I would support life imprisonment or exile.
> ...


My position is just more of a pragmatic position, realizing that the only way the pro life movement is going to have any success is if they focus their aim at abortion doctors and not the women who get them.  The common theme from Democrats who run against pro life Republicans is, "the Republicans want to criminalize women and their doctors."  This is an accusation that scares a lot of people, even people who are pro life.  Even a lot of people who hate abortion don't want to see women get thrown in prison who get an abortion.  Like you mentioned earlier, you could have a situation where a women gets raped and gets an abortion, and she would then get prosecuted and thrown in prison for getting an abortion after she was raped.  How do you think that would look politically if any Republican actually advocated that?  I want to actually save lives, not simply take political positions that are "100% pure" or whatever.  The best way to save lives is for the pro life movement to stay away from the position of throwing women in prison for getting abortions.  The focus should be on prosecuting the abortion doctors, who most people despise or at least are incredibly uneasy with.  I don't want the pro life movement to promote a position that's going to cause the pro abortion side to win the argument, win the political debate, and succeed in allowing abortion on demand in America for the indefinite future.

----------


## Christian Liberty

@Occam's Banana- Can anarchists support laws against abortion?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> My position is just more of a pragmatic position, realizing that the only way the pro life movement is going to have any success is if they focus their aim at abortion doctors and not the women who get them.  The common theme from Democrats who run against pro life Republicans is, "the Republicans want to criminalize women and their doctors."  This is an accusation that scares a lot of people, even people who are pro life.  Even a lot of people who hate abortion don't want to see women get thrown in prison who get an abortion.  Like you mentioned earlier, you could have a situation where a women gets raped and gets an abortion, and she would then get prosecuted and thrown in prison for getting an abortion after she was raped.  How do you think that would look politically if any Republican actually advocated that?  I want to actually save lives, not simply take political positions that are "100% pure" or whatever.  The best way to save lives is for the pro life movement to stay away from the position of throwing women in prison for getting abortions.  The focus should be on prosecuting the abortion doctors, who most people despise or at least are incredibly uneasy with.  I don't want the pro life movement to promote a position that's going to cause the pro abortion side to win the argument, win the political debate, and succeed in allowing abortion on demand in America for the indefinite future.


Well, my view is "politics be darned" so I don't really care about this, but if you're playing politics I can understand why you'd say this.

That said, I think we can debate principles here...

Ignoring the pragmatic/political arguments, why, ON PRINCIPLE, should women who pay doctors to murder their children not be prosecuted?

I'd support any law (At the state level, anyhow) that brought us closer to the ideal, but on  principle I will nonetheless say that women who pay doctors to kill their children deserve punishment (I'd say prison if I actually believed in prisons, but I don't) and that should be our ultimate goal.

----------


## pcosmar

> I'm not sure if this thread is even worth posting in anymore, but I guess I will anyway.


I thought that some time ago.

You are not going to make any difference through the political system. They use this as a way to push other agendas and will not give up that tool.

You would be far better off educating and assisting your men and women in your circle of influence.

----------


## Brett85

> Well, my view is "politics be darned" so I don't really care about this, but if you're playing politics I can understand why you'd say this.
> 
> That said, I think we can debate principles here...
> 
> Ignoring the pragmatic/political arguments, why, ON PRINCIPLE, should women who pay doctors to murder their children not be prosecuted?
> 
> I'd support any law (At the state level, anyhow) that brought us closer to the ideal, but on  principle I will nonetheless say that women who pay doctors to kill their children deserve punishment (I'd say prison if I actually believed in prisons, but I don't) and that should be our ultimate goal.


If you're looking at the issue purely based on principle, then the correct position would probably be to prosecute both the doctor and the woman who got the abortion.  But, like I said that position becomes very problematic when it's a situation where the woman was raped.  As a pragmatic, political issue it's not a good idea to focus on prosecuting women who get abortions, in my opinion.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If you're looking at the issue purely based on principle, then the correct position would probably be to prosecute both the doctor and the woman who got the abortion.  But, like I said that position becomes very problematic when it's a situation where the woman was raped.  As a pragmatic, political issue it's not a good idea to focus on prosecuting women who get abortions, in my opinion.


Politically, it doesn't actually  make sense to talk about this at all.

I'd honestly probably just refrain from doing so beyond saying "I'm personally against  this" and "the states have the right to decide how to handle it" if I ran for a Federal office.

----------


## Contumacious

> If you're looking at the issue purely based on principle, .


In you case , that would be from purely a FASCISTIC "principle"

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone.... "

*Benito Mussolini*

.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Is Dr. Paul a fascist?

Just out of curiosity, why do you support Dr. Paul if you believe the pro-life position to be fascism?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> @Occam's Banana- Can anarchists support laws against abortion?


Yes, we can - just as we can (and do) support laws against theft, murder, or any other violation of the NAP.

We would, of course, prefer that such laws be developed, promulgated and enforced outside the unitary mechanism of the State.

And note that for anarchists, "support" under conditions of Statism may mean "not actively oppose" rather than "actively lobby for" (for example, you probably won't find a lot of anarchists who get too bent out shape when the State metes out what seems to be a just punishment for a particular crime).

----------


## Brett85

> Is Dr. Paul a fascist?
> 
> Just out of curiosity, why do you support Dr. Paul if you believe the pro-life position to be fascism?


He won't answer any questions.  He still won't say whether he thinks there should be laws against murder or not.

----------


## Contumacious

> Is Dr. Paul a fascist?
> 
> Just out of curiosity, why do you support Dr. Paul if you believe the pro-life position to be fascism?





> Is Dr. Paul a fascist?
> 
> Just out of curiosity, why do you support Dr. Paul if you believe the pro-life position to be fascism?


I am not his clone.

I support 90% of his positions.

But I can not agree that because women have a uterus that they are second class citizens and the state bureaucrats get to define her rights?

Is a skin color also a disability which allow state bureaucrats to deprive them of "useless liberties"?


...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone.... "

Benito Mussolini

.

----------


## catfeathers

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Traditional Conservative again.

I agree with Traditional Conservative on this. I am not "Pro-Choice". The only time I would support a woman having an abortion is if there is NO CHOICE. In the very rare case that the mother is going to die if she doesn't have an abortion then she would have a justifiable reason for doing so.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> I'm not sure if this thread is even worth posting in anymore, but I guess I will anyway.  The position of banning abortion with an exception for the life of the mother is the position taken by a majority of pro lifers.  It's a position that would put an end to over 99% of legal abortions in our country.  It is extremely rare for a woman to face a life threatening pregnancy.  This is not something that happens on a regular basis in America.  But, even the most staunch pro lifers and social conservatives I know support an exception for the life of the mother.  I'm also not criticizing those who support no exceptions at all, but there's absolutely nothing about my position that makes me "pro choice."  The only time I support legal abortion is when it's an example of killing in self defense, when a woman has to get one in order to survive.  It's absolutely ridiculous to get labeled as "pro choice" by someone who supports legal abortion for any reason with no restrictions, and who comes to this forum to argue for legal abortion in at least 90% of his posts.  The Free Hornet is a one issue obsessed voter.  I never see him post in any of the other threads regarding the liberty candidates in Congress, votes currently going on such as the Amash amendment, etc.  He simply comes here to talk about either abortion or gay marriage.  He's given no indication that he's even part of this movement in terms of supporting liberty candidates and supporting a liberty agenda across the board.


First, I don't expect Ron Paul to mirror my views.  Nonetheless, he got my vote and my money!  How the $#@! you call me a "one issue obsessed voter" is a mystery.  I'm not like the $#@!s who refused to vote for Gary Johnson on the issue.  GJ like RP, is not perfect here.  Both of them got my vote.  RP in the primary, GJ in the general.  I can almost guarantee you WERE among those who didn't support GJ largely over this issue.  In no case, has a candidates pro life/choice position altered my vote.  *This is because the issue is ideologically dead on both sides.*  You fight over a tool/procedure/natural event AKA "abortion" not murder (which you continue to excuse).  The other side fights over the narrowist and often subsidized view of "choice". 

You fight to regulate abortion.  The other side fights to subsidize it.  I'm on neither side.

Second, to be mischaracterized by you the pro murderer (pro standing army too!) is a laugh.  You're delusional if you think your pro-abortion regulation position is going to end 99% of abortions.  The state is never that effective.  Your crusade to regulate abortion will end like the war on poverty, the war on drugs.  No reduction in the poverty or drugs, but plenty of state-employed or state-mandated workers to tinker in the field.

Third, what makes me pro life is what makes the 2nd amendment defenders (remember my Zimmerman posts too!) pro life.  You and the entire $#@!ed up so-called "pro-life" movement are a perfect analog for the gun control crowd:




> *What is your position on GUN OWNERSHIP?*
> 
> It should always be illegal.
> It should be legal with no restrictions.


Abortion - although a procedure - is not unlike a tool and it can be used to extract a dead fetus (arguably, that falls under "life of the mother" eventually).  That it may be the wrong tool 99% of the time is of little relevance.  Also, abortion is a synonym for (natural) miscarriage.  You may not mean it in that sense, but I fear confusion will lead to innocent victims of your war.

*What I oppose is murder.*  I oppose confiscation of my money to fight your wars too.  These are two pro life positions that you don't hold.

Fourth, you and the movement need to take a page from Ron Paul and *focus on the personhood issue*.  If abortion appears in the language of a bill, you likely $#@!ed up.  When a boyfriend delivers a fatal fetal blow to his pregnant girlfriend, he didn't just perform an abortion!  His murder/assault chargers are against two people.  Murder for the baby and assault on the girlfriend.  For *YOU* to excuse the girlfriend/mother and prosecute the doctor/assistant/pharmacist/friend is ANTI-LIFE.  So do not exclude the mother ever (if you want to focus on infanticide/manslaughter for "lesser cases", that is not out of line with a traditional interpretation AFAIK, but it must apply to ALL citizens equally, we are supposed to be equal under the law).

Fifth, Ron Paul is one to offer the "honest rape" exception.  Neither you nor I took that position.  In fairness, it is not exactly clear if a shot of estrogen or even RU486 is abortion, or what Ron Paul meant there.

Sixth, recall Ron Paul's reservations on the partial-birth abortion ban (as a potential evictionist, I don't like the concept of getting a healthy/viable baby part of the way out and killing it):




> Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system.
> 
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/r...-abortion-ban/


Details matter.  A sitting congressman might have to compromise, I do not.

Seventh, stop dropping context.




> I support legal abortion

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> Is Dr. Paul a fascist?
> 
> Just out of curiosity, why do you support Dr. Paul if you believe the pro-life position to be fascism?


I also support him despite his anti-euthanasia stance, and I absolutely believe physician-assisted suicide should be an option for those with debilitating diseases.
I am not against "family planning," nor against Planned Parenthood as much as others [here] may be, on moral ground at least.

I support all of these he signed against ($#@!ty wording in this statement, by the way):




> I oppose assisted suicide, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and procedures that intentionally destroy developing human beings.


Do you really believe everyone here agrees 100% with Dr. Paul?

I want the government and taxpayer money out of *everything*.

----------


## Brett85



----------


## The Free Hornet

> [very insightful post]


Seconds later...




> 


That's contempt of mod!  SWING THE HAMMER!!!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes, we can - just as we can (and do) support laws against theft, murder, or any other violation of the NAP.
> 
> We would, of course, prefer that such laws be developed, promulgated and enforced outside the unitary mechanism of the State.
> 
> And note that for anarchists, "support" under conditions of Statism may mean "not actively oppose" rather than "actively lobby for" (for example, you probably won't find a lot of anarchists who get too bent out shape when the State metes out what seems to be a just punishment for a particular crime).


Fair enough.




> He won't answer any questions.  He still won't say whether he thinks there should be laws against murder or not.


Whatever, I guess.




> I am not his clone.
> 
> I support 90% of his positions.
> 
> But I can not agree that because women have a uterus that they are second class citizens and the state bureaucrats get to define her rights?
> 
> Is a skin color also a disability which allow state bureaucrats to deprive them of "useless liberties"?
> 
> 
> ...


I should clarify.   Its one thing to disagree with Ron Paul.  Its another thing entirely to call a position of his "Fascistic."

I was questioning because of the fascist comment, not simply because you disagreed.




> First, I don't expect Ron Paul to mirror my views.  Nonetheless, he got my vote and my money!  How the $#@! you call me a "one issue obsessed voter" is a mystery.  I'm not like the $#@!s who refused to vote for Gary Johnson on the issue.  GJ like RP, is not perfect here.  Both of them got my vote.  RP in the primary, GJ in the general.  I can almost guarantee you WERE among those who didn't support GJ largely over this issue.  In no case, has a candidates pro life/choice position altered my vote.  *This is because the issue is ideologically dead on both sides.*  You fight over a tool/procedure/natural event AKA "abortion" not murder (which you continue to excuse).  The other side fights over the narrowist and often subsidized view of "choice".


I would have voted for Gary, even though he sucks on Federalism related issues.  Although, if Gary Johnson did not at  least support leaving the issue to the states, as he did, it would have been a harder decision.

I'd have a really hard  time voting for anyone who supported Roe v Wade.




> You fight to regulate abortion.  The other side fights to subsidize it.  I'm on neither side.


I don't support regulating abortion.  I support banning it, putting all "doctors" who have already done abortions on trial and sentencing them to death, pardoning any living person who has been incarcerated because of killing an abortion doctor, and passing a law that any future abortions will be punished by exile, life imprisonment, or death (The former in most cases, the latter in clear cut cases,  the middle option not preferred since I personally oppose prisons.)



> Second, to be mischaracterized by you the pro murderer (pro standing army too!) is a laugh.  You're delusional if you think your pro-abortion regulation position is going to end 99% of abortions.  The state is never that effective.  Your crusade to regulate abortion will end like the war on poverty, the war on drugs.  No reduction in the poverty or drugs, but plenty of state-employed or state-mandated workers to tinker in the field.


Not relevant.  Murder still happens but should still be illegal.  I honestly see zero difference here.



> Third, what makes me pro life is what makes the 2nd amendment defenders (remember my Zimmerman posts too!) pro life.  You and the entire $#@!ed up so-called "pro-life" movement are a perfect analog for the gun control crowd:


Not really.  Owning  a gun is not an act of aggression.  Killing a child is.




> Abortion - although a procedure - is not unlike a tool and it can be used to extract a dead fetus (arguably, that falls under "life of the mother" eventually).  That it may be the wrong tool 99% of the time is of little relevance.  Also, abortion is a synonym for (natural) miscarriage.  You may not mean it in that sense, but I fear confusion will lead to innocent victims of your war.


Unlikely, but the law could be written in such a way that wouldn't punish miscarriage cases.

In real life, the women would not likely be punished often.  That doesn't change the fact that those who kill the unborn should be punished.  At the very least, everyone who has already admitted to having an abortion should be prosecuted for it now.




> *What I oppose is murder.*  I oppose confiscation of my money to fight your wars too.  These are two pro life positions that you don't hold.


I don't think Trad Con supports war...



> Fourth, you and the movement need to take a page from Ron Paul and *focus on the personhood issue*.  If abortion appears in the language of a bill, you likely $#@!ed up.  When a boyfriend delivers a fatal fetal blow to his pregnant girlfriend, he didn't just perform an abortion!  His murder/assault chargers are against two people.  Murder for the baby and assault on the girlfriend.  For *YOU* to excuse the girlfriend/mother and prosecute the doctor/assistant/pharmacist/friend is ANTI-LIFE.  So do not exclude the mother ever (if you want to focus on infanticide/manslaughter for "lesser cases", that is not out of line with a traditional interpretation AFAIK, but it must apply to ALL citizens equally, we are supposed to be equal under the law).


Agreed.



> Fifth, Ron Paul is one to offer the "honest rape" exception.  Neither you nor I took that position.  In fairness, it is not exactly clear if a shot of estrogen or even RU486 is abortion, or what Ron Paul meant there.


I respectfully disagree with Dr. Paul.



> Sixth, recall Ron Paul's reservations on the partial-birth abortion ban (as a potential evictionist, I don't like the concept of getting a healthy/viable baby part of the way out and killing it):


I would have voted against that one personally, and I disagree with Dr. Paul.  Primarily since that was a Federal bill, and the 10th amendment clearly limits all crime and punishment related laws to the states.





> Details matter.  A sitting congressman might have to compromise, I do not.


True.





> I also support him despite his anti-euthanasia stance, and I absolutely believe physician-assisted suicide should be an option for those with debilitating diseases.
> I am not against "family planning," nor against Planned Parenthood as much as others [here] may be, on moral ground at least.
> 
> I support all of these he signed against ($#@!ty wording in this statement, by the way):
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe everyone here agrees 100% with Dr. Paul?
> 
> I want the government and taxpayer money out of *everything*.


I only questioned the "Fascist" comment, not the disagreement.  That said, I do disagree with Ron on euthanasia if he really does believe it should be illegal.  I don't like it but you have a right to consent to giving up your own life.  Just not somebody else's.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I can't believe Ron Paul still voted for that partial birth abortion bill after explaining that and why it was an  awful idea.

----------


## eduardo89

> I can't believe Ron Paul still voted for that partial birth abortion bill after explaining that and why it was an  awful idea.


I'm glad he voted for it.

----------


## Brett85

> I don't think Trad Con supports war...


You're right.  I missed where he said that.  I don't support the wars that we're currently in and don't support any additional preemptive wars.  He said so many dishonest things that I didn't really know what to respond to anyway.  So I just stuck with the "rolls eyes" symbol.

----------


## The Free Hornet

Quoted for posterity.  TC's defense of murder:




> My position is just more of a pragmatic position, realizing that the only way the pro life movement is going to have any success is if they focus their aim at abortion doctors and not the women who get them.  The common theme from Democrats who run against pro life Republicans is, "the Republicans want to criminalize women and their doctors."  This is an accusation that scares a lot of people, even people who are pro life.  Even a lot of people who hate abortion don't want to see women get thrown in prison who get an abortion.  Like you mentioned earlier, you could have a situation where a women gets raped and gets an abortion, and she would then get prosecuted and thrown in prison for getting an abortion after she was raped.  How do you think that would look politically if any Republican actually advocated that?  I want to actually save lives, not simply take political positions that are "100% pure" or whatever.  The best way to save lives is for the pro life movement to stay away from the position of throwing women in prison for getting abortions.  The focus should be on prosecuting the abortion doctors, who most people despise or at least are incredibly uneasy with.  I don't want the pro life movement to promote a position that's going to cause the pro abortion side to win the argument, win the political debate, and succeed in allowing abortion on demand in America for the indefinite future.


[Some of what I've written is tongue-in-cheek.  This is not.  These are drug-war tactics: excuse the user go after the provider.  It never works.  See Signapore - they punish both although they are harsher on the dealer.  Long-term imprisonment for users (mothers).  Death penalty for dealers (Doctors).  Does our society want to do that to end abortion?  I see little else making a dent on the numbers.  The so-called pro-life movement by taking long-term imprisonment of mothers off the table, they have proven themselves to not be concerned with murder.]

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You're right.  I missed where he said that.  I don't support the wars that we're currently in and don't support any additional preemptive wars.  He said so many dishonest things that I didn't really know what to respond to anyway.  So I just stuck with the "rolls eyes" symbol.


Actually, come to think of it, I thought you did support the War in Afghanistan.  Are you in favor of leaving now?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Quoted for posterity.  TC's defense of murder:
> 
> 
> 
> [Some of what I've written is tongue-in-cheek.  This is not.  These are drug-war tactics: excuse the user go after the provider.  It never works.  See Signapore - they punish both although they are harsher on the dealer.  Long-term imprisonment for users (mothers).  Death penalty for dealers (Doctors).  Does our society want to do that to end abortion?  I see little else making a dent on the numbers.  The so-called pro-life movement by taking long-term imprisonment of mothers off the table, they have proven themselves to not be concerned with murder.]


My economics teacher actually argued that  they should go after demand, rather than supply, of drugs for this reason.  I disagreed, of course, and supported legalization of all drugs.

You're right that the pro-life movement is mostly pathetic.  I'll take what I can get but I also fail to take my eye off the final goal.  Murderers should face death or exile to a penal colony for life, depending on just how certain we are of their guilt.  This should apply to women who have abortions,  and doctors who give abortions.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I don't think Traditional Conservative is defending murder though.  I think he's just trying to speak like a politician when he isn't even running for office.  Which I fail to see the point of.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm glad he voted for it.


Why?  It barely does anything, and besides, it is anti-10th amendment.  Ron Paul acted completely hypocritically on that vote.

And lest you think I say that because I'm pro-choice, read what I have said the states should do to people who have abortions AND their doctors in this thread.  You don't even go as far as I do about this.  I want nothing to do with the rape and murder of the US Constitution.

----------


## Brett85

> Actually, come to think of it, I thought you did support the War in Afghanistan.  Are you in favor of leaving now?


I've been in favor of leaving Afghanistan for quite some time.  I don't support nation building or endless war overseas.  What we're currently doing in Afghanistan has absolutely nothing to do with why we originally went there.  Osama Bin Laden is dead.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I've been in favor of leaving Afghanistan for quite some time.  I don't support nation building or endless war overseas.


+rep...

Any takers on the PBA ban?

----------


## Brett85

I think Ron just felt that partial birth abortion is such a terrible and hideous procedure that he voted to ban it, even though the law used the commerce clause as the justification for it's Constitutionality, and he didn't like that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think Ron just felt that partial birth abortion is such a terrible and hideous procedure that he voted to ban it, even though the law used the commerce clause as the justification for it's Constitutionality, and he didn't like that.


I almost find it hard to believe that Ron actually did this.  I mean obviously, its public record, he did it, but this is totally out of character for him.

I don't see how any of us in the peanut gallery can actually defend him on it.  This honestly seems obvious to me.  Only the states can ban abortion, period.  Everyone has their pet issue that's just so important that we have to rape and murder the constitution, and what do you know, everyone gets their pet law and the constitution dies.

Its not worth it, not for just one life, and not for fifty million lives.  NOTHING is worth giving up our constitutional birthright.  Slavery wasn't either.  And there will never be an issue that's worth that.

The STATES should prosecute and exile or execute every person who has an abortion and every doctor who provides one.  The Federal Government should do absolutely nothing about it.

Funny that some people in my family tried to tell me I was "Sort of" pro-choice

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think Ron just felt that partial birth abortion is such a terrible and hideous procedure that he voted to ban it, even though the law used the commerce clause as the justification for it's Constitutionality, and he didn't like that.


Ron Paul also undermined REAL pro-life principles by that vote.

Partial Birth Abortion is absolutely no worse than an abortion a month after conception, which is no different than  killing a five year old.  All of them are equally murder.  I don't see the slightest bit of difference other than cosmetics.

Come to think of it, I'm not sure that banning "Cosmetically unappealing" abortions is a good idea even at the state level.  It feels like all it does is foster the idea that abortion is "Safe" and "Clean."  I'm all for laws (state level) that criminalize the murder of some children, but just banning a particular procedure seems totally useless to me.

Our time would be far better spent lobbying to get people like Scott Roeder out of prison.  Now THAT would scare the murderous fanatics.

----------


## Brett85

Part of his reasoning was that since the Roe v. Wade decision federalized the abortion issue, banning late term abortions at the federal level is one way to offset the effects of the Roe v. Wade decision.

----------


## Brett85

Amash and Massie also voted for the bill that banned abortion after the first five months of pregnancy, so Ron isn't the only liberty person who has voted for some federal abortion laws.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Part of his reasoning was that since the Roe v. Wade decision federalized the abortion issue, banning late term abortions at the federal level is one way to offset the effects of the Roe v. Wade decision.


Which is just becoming like our enemies.

Ron Paul basically explained every good reason to vote against that failure of a bill, and then turned around and voted for it anyway.  That doesn't make any sense.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Amash and Massie also voted for the bill that banned abortion after the first five months of pregnancy, so Ron isn't the only liberty person who has voted for some federal abortion laws.


No, I'm aware.  Although I don't really expect better of Rand Paul or Amash (I honestly don't know how good Massie is, I know he's good but I'm not sure if he's more of a Rand Paul type or more of a  Ron Paul type.)  Both are solid, but neither are pure libertarians or constitutionalists.  Both obviously try to play the game.  Ron Paul generally does not.  Since Ron Paul generally doesn't do things like this for purely pragmatic or political reasons, I assume that isn't the case either.  Yet I don't see where Ron Paul's logic fails either.  His logic in that Rockwell  article is absolutely flawless.  He knows exactly what is wrong with the bill.  Yet he voted for it anyway.  That's what I find so confusing, this is out of character for Ron on so many levels.  He doesn't compromise, yet he clearly knows he can't  vote for this bill on principle.  Yet he does anyway.

I'm curious if Eduardo will actually explain to me why he's glad Ron made this vote.  I know you've basically said that you're going to play the 14th amendment because you're so against this, but I honestly don't see how this bill could possibly fit with the 14th amendment even under your logic, seeing as it only prohibits a procedure and doesn't actually ban the murder of the unborn itself.

I honestly find it extremely aggravating on so many levels that libertarians and constitutionalists cannot agree to leave this at the state level where it belongs.  The fact that so many people will make it a Federal issue leads to us fighting amongst ourselves and will likely lead to a split in the liberty movement at some point.  Which we don't want.

----------


## Contumacious

> I should clarify.   Its one thing to disagree with Ron Paul.  Its another thing entirely to call a position of his "Fascistic."
> 
> I was questioning because of the fascist comment, not simply because you disagreed.


Do that means that you agree with Mussolini - abortion is a "harmful freedom"?

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; t*he deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone.... "
*
Benito Mussolini

----------


## Brett85

> I'm curious if Eduardo will actually explain to me why he's glad Ron made this vote.  I know you've basically said that you're going to play the 14th amendment because you're so against this, but I honestly don't see how this bill could possibly fit with the 14th amendment even under your logic, seeing as it only prohibits a procedure and doesn't actually ban the murder of the unborn itself.


Well, you could actually say that the ban on partial birth abortion fits within the confines of the 14th amendment even if you don't believe that the 14th amendment protects babies in the womb, because partial birth abortion kills a baby while it's being born.  There's no debate about the fact that the 14th amendment *at least* protects babies who are outside of the womb, and the baby is at least partially outside of the womb during a partial birth abortion.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Do that means that you agree with Mussolini - abortion is a "harmful freedom"?
> 
> ...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone.... "
> 
> Benito Mussolini


I don't support the right to use your freedom to murder other people.




> Well, you could actually say that the ban on partial birth abortion fits within the confines of the 14th amendment even if you don't believe that the 14th amendment protects babies in the womb, because partial birth abortion kills a baby while it's being born.  There's no debate about the fact that the 14th amendment *at least* protects babies who are outside of the womb, and the baby is at least partially outside of the womb during a partial birth abortion.


I support leaving murder laws to the states as well, although I'm biased by the fact that I don't believe the 14th was legitimately passed.

That said,  I wouldn't say partially born would fall under "Born or naturalized in the United States" either.

----------


## eduardo89

> Why?  It barely does anything, and besides, it is anti-10th amendment.  Ron Paul acted completely hypocritically on that vote.
> 
> And lest you think I say that because I'm pro-choice, read what I have said the states should do to people who have abortions AND their doctors in this thread.  You don't even go as far as I do about this.  I want nothing to do with the rape and murder of the US Constitution.


I support all laws that restrict abortion, whether they're done on the federal, state, or local level.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I support all laws that restrict abortion, whether they're done on the federal, state, or local level.


So you don't care about the constitution?

----------


## Contumacious

> I don't support the right to use your freedom to murder other people.


I see.

So the bureaucrats should have the freedom to designate a clump of cells - a fetus - as a human being but the female -- a second class citizen - should not be allowed to remove the clump of cells? RIght?






> I support leaving murder laws to the states as well, although I'm biased by the fact that I don't believe the 14th was legitimately passed.
> .


No, of course it wasn't.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I see.
> 
> So the bureaucrats should have the freedom to designate a clump of cells - a fetus - as a human being but the female -- a second class citizen - should not be allowed to remove the clump of cells? RIght?


I support the rights of "A bunch of bureaucrats" or anyone else* to declare that a murder of a human being, however you choose to redefine it, is murder and punishable by death.

*Excluding the Federal Government, as per the 10th.




> No, of course it wasn't.


I know.  Which is one of several reasons why I oppose Federal anti-abortion laws despite being radically pro-life.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> I support all laws that restrict abortion, whether they're done on the federal, state, or local level.


And there are oodles of neocons, nanny statists, and illiberal progressives that have the exact same position on drugs/tobacco/guns.  Even if it is a bad law, they don't care, they support it.  Whether you're trolling or truly have this MADDness, I don't know.

BTW, did all of your sock puppets vote yet?  We need an honest representation of the forum here!

----------


## Fredom101

> I support all laws that restrict abortion, whether they're done on the federal, state, or local level.


Laws don't stop people from doing things. If that were true, drugs would have already been eradicated. Think about it. Making abortion illegal gives power to the government and means women will simply go underground to get the procedure done. Your politicians won't stop anything, they are not magic. These are the same folks who start wars in the middle east and steal money from you and me here. Why would you trust them to do anything right?

----------


## Neil Desmond

> robert68's post was about abortion. Your reply to his post was not.


Now here's a perfect example of nonsense.  They were both about the libertarian stance on abortion.  Both robert68's post and mine were equally about abortion; so either both were about abortion or neither was about abortion, not one was and the other wasn't.




> Your post was about what you think "anarchists" and "libertarians" are (or are not)  "opposed to." You claimed that "anarchists are opposed to laws." This is demonstrably false. I am an anarchist. I am not opposed to laws. Therefore, not all anarchists are opposed to laws. QED. (This is why robert68 called your claims "nonsense.")


No, not QED: You claim to be an anarchist.  You claim that you are not opposed to laws.  Therefore, not all who claim to be anarchists claim to be opposed to laws.




> In making your point, you offered a polemical assertion (not a definition).


See, this is where you are mistaken.  I wasn't making an argument or assertion.  I was merely using a word, and I provided an explanation & provided an existing definition for it (I didn't make it up, it was already there).




> robert68 disputed that assertion.


Or, robert68 disputed what might have been perceived as an assertion, as you are doing now.  I responded by pointing out which definition I'm using, and as far as I'm aware, robert68 is content with my response.  If robert68 isn't satified, then robert68 can speak for himself.




> You    then replied by citing a cherry-picked dictionary definition  while    ignoring the obvious fact that other defintions exist which simply do not support your    assertion. (Some of these other definitions exist precisely because of the QED supplied above.) Thus, your selective invocation of semantics is just an exercise in question-begging (as such invocations almost always are).


No, this is not a case of "cherry picking."  Cherry picking is what people do to support their argument by only using examples that support their argument and omitting examples that contradict their argument.  Citing a definition is not cherry-picking.  If it were, then communication wouldn't be feasible; it would be practically impossible.




> Yes - you get to define your terms. (And you can define "cat" as "an  elephant" for all I care.) But you do NOT get to pretend that your  definitions somehow obviate or negate the objections others have to any  erroneous conceptual denotations inherent in your definitions. (The previously stated QED is one such objection.)


All I'm trying to do is communicate.  All I'm trying to do is use an existing word with an existing definition for it.  I'm not trying to do something obnoxious like define cat as an elephant.  All you seem to be interested in is getting on my case for not using a word in a way that you approve.  You are relentlessly trying to be an authority over me.




> And YOU are the one who has tried to "claim authority" over what a word means. (In fact ... what was the exact phrase you used? Ah, yes - "ultimate authority" - that's it!) You made an assertion about something. You didn't offer a definition for anything until after your assertion was challenged - at which point you cited a (conveniently    redacted) dictionary entry as if doing so was somehow sufficient to settle the matter.


Yes, you're right; I did say "ultimate authority."  If you take the entire response into account, wherein I was expressing my intent to yield to or concede the point, then perhaps you would've noticed (if you had the wherewithal) that it was rather tongue-in-cheek or facetious.  Regardless, citing an outside source for definitions, specifically a dictionary, is the exact opposite of claiming authority.  I don't need to offer a definition for a word I use, when context should suffice.  I'm happy to cite a definition later on to clarify for whatever reason.  I don't see you defining every single word in every single sentence you write, and you are not obligated to do so, either.




> So your idea of resolving an issue is to (1) make assertions tangential to what someone else said, (2) selectively invoke dictionary-based semantics as an "ultimate authority" when someone disagrees with you about it, and    then (3) dismiss everything by claiming that none of it really matters anyway, since the part of what you said that is being disagreed with isn't really your point after all (even though you were the one who brought it up for some reason).
> 
> Okay. Got it.


No, that's your projection and portrayal of what you want people to think that this is what I'm doing.




> YOU are the one who broached this instance of the subject of anarchy and "what it is" - so "... attend the beam in thine own."


No, I'm not the one who started the claim about libertarians' positions on abortion; I was merely responding to it.




> "Your" discussion? Well, _excusez-moi_! I was not aware that YOU are allowed to say off-topic things but that others are not allowed to respond to them.


I was not off topic, I did allow others to respond to them, and I even let them have their way.




> This very issue (whether "anarchy = no laws") has already been addressed in numerous posts in this very thread - before YOU brought it up yet again. So perhaps you should go wag your finger in others' faces - starting with your own ...


However, you, on the other hand, are pouncing on me, trashing this thread, and trying to make it appear as though it's my fault.

----------


## robert68

> It's pretty clear that I have.  I've said that it shouldn't be a crime for people to engage in an activity like using drugs, since people who engage in that activity are only hurting themselves and aren't aggressing against anyone else.  On the other hand, abortion should be illegal since someone who gets an abortion is infringing on the rights of another human being to live.  That's a pretty clear illustration of how I believe that aggression against others should be punished while victimless crimes shouldn't be punished.


First of all, you want the federal government defining “human being” from conception on, and involved in outlawing abortions as much as “is necessary”.  This isn’t libertarian. 

Secondly, you have no regard for the rights of the pregnant girl/woman in your stance. Libertarian principle doesn’t hold that the protection of one person’s "rights" can come at the expense of another person rights, to the contrary. The implications of which go beyond the abortion issue, and justify any kind of aggression against one person, on behalf  of the rights or “right to live” of another person. Your stance on drugs legalization doesn’t negate that, it contradicts it. 

Also these items come to mind, 1) you believe the initial US invasion of Afghanistan was justified, 2) you want the troops brought home from abroad, and not deactivated, but lined up on the Canadian and Mexican borders, 3) you think every member of our military is a hero, 4) you’re very defensive about a particular creation and dependent of (especially US) western state intervention, that’s 7,000 miles away from the US, and predicated on denying individual rights to the natives of it’s land. 

There’s a difference between the way you see individual rights, the nature of the US federal government and its role in peoples lives, home and abroad, and the way a “hardcore libertarian” does.

----------


## Brett85

> First of all, you want the federal government defining “human being”, from conception on, and involved in outlawing abortions as much as “is necessary”.  This isn’t libertarian. 
> 
> Secondly, you have no regard for the rights of the mother in your stance. Libertarian principle doesn’t hold that the protection of one person’s "rights" can come at the expense of another person rights, to the contrary. The implications of which go beyond the abortion issue, and justify any kind of aggression against one person, on behalf  of the rights or “right to live” of another person. Your stance on drugs legalization doesn’t negate that, it contradicts it. 
> 
> Also these items come to mind, 1) you believe the initial US invasion of Afghanistan was justified, 2) you want the troops brought home from abroad, and not deactivated, but lined up on the Canadian and Mexican borders, 3) you think every member of our military is a hero, 4) you’re very defensive about a particular creation and dependent of (especially US) western state intervention, that’s 7,000 miles away from the US, and predicated on denying individual rights to the natives of it’s land. 
> 
> There’s a difference between the way you see individual rights, the nature of the US federal government and its role in peoples lives, home and abroad, and the way a “hardcore libertarian” does.


Well, then I guess that Rand, Ron, Amash, and about every other liberty candidate in Congress isn't actually a "libertarian" according to you, since they oppose abortion rights and don't want to abolish the military.  And my stance actually does consider the life of the mother, since I support an exception to a ban on abortion when the life of the mother is in danger.  You yourself simply don't understand the non aggression principle, since you believe that people should be allowed to use force to take the lives of innocent human beings.  Until you better understand the non aggression principle and come to understand that the government exists to stop people from infringing on the rights of others, it really isn't accurate for you to call yourself a "libertarian."

----------


## Brett85

And I'm not in favor of intervention overseas.  I argue against basically all U.S interventions overseas.  I support using military action after we get attacked, and we were attacked on 9-11, so I believe military action was justified after we were attacked.  I'm opposed to intervention in Syria, Libya, Iran, Egypt, etc.

And I don't necessarily think that all of the members of our military are "heroes."  I mean Timothy McVeigh was once a member of the military.  I just object to people making blanket statements that all of the members of our military are just a bunch of "mass murderers" and "tyrants" and whatever ridiculous term they want to use.

----------


## Murray N Rothbard

I encourage everyone to read the following chapter: http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp




> The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every mans absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that *every woman has the absolute right to her own body*, that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the fetus. Most fetuses are in the mothers womb because the mother consents to this situation, but the fetus is there by the mothers freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic invader of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as murder of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mothers body.[2] Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers.
> 
>      It has been objected that since the mother originally consented to the conception, the mother has therefore contracted its status with the fetus, and may not violate that contract by having an abortion. There are many problems with this doctrine, however. In the first place, as we shall see further below, a mere promise is not an enforceable contract: *contracts are only properly enforceable if their violation involves implicit thef*t, and clearly no such consideration can apply here. Secondly, *there is obviously no contract here*, since the fetus (fertilized ovum?) can hardly be considered a voluntarily and consciously contracting entity. And thirdly as we have seen above, a crucial point in libertarian theory is the inalienability of the will, and therefore the impermissibility of enforcing voluntary slave contracts. *Even if this had been a contract, then, it could not be enforced because a mothers will is inalienable, and she cannot legitimately be enslaved into carrying and having a baby against her will.*
> 
>      Another argument of the anti-abortionists is that the fetus is a living human being, and is therefore entitled to all of the rights of human beings. Very good; let us concede, for purposes of the discussion, that fetuses are human beingsor, more broadly, potential human beingsand are therefore entitled to full human rights. But what humans, we may ask, have the right to be coercive parasites within the body of an unwilling human host? Clearly no born humans have such a right, and therefore, a fortiori, the fetus can have no such right either.
> 
>      The anti-abortionists generally couch the preceding argument in terms of the fetuss, as well as the born humans, right to life. We have not used this concept hi this volume because of its ambiguity, and because any proper rights implied by its advocates are included in the concept of the right to self-ownershipthe right to have ones person free from aggression. Even Professor Judith Thomson, who, in her discussion of the abortion question, attempts inconsistently to retain the concept of right to life along with the right to own ones own body, lucidly demonstrates the pitfalls and errors of the right to life doctrine:
> 
>     In some views, having a right to life includes having a right to be given at least the bare minimum one needs for contin*ued life. But suppose that what in fact is the bare minimum a man needs for continued life is something he has no right at all to be given? If I am sick unto death, and the only thing that will save my life is the touch of Henry Fondas cool hand on my fevered brow, then all the same, I have no right to be given the touch of Henry Fondas cool hand on my fevered brow. It would be frightfully nice of him to fly in from the West Coast to provide it. . . . But I have no right at all against anybody that he should do this for me.
> *In short, it is impermissible to interpret the term right to life, to give one an enforceable claim to the action of someone else to sustain that life.* In our terminology, such a claim would be an impermissible viola*tion of the other persons right of self-ownership. Or, as Professor Thom*son cogently puts it, *having a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another persons bodyeven if one needs it for life itself.*[3]


It's also worth pointing out that the "abortion problem" as we know it would not be as much of an issue without government-created and enforced drug patents (birth control devices such as nuvaring which cost up to $100/month) and the many ways government has involved itself in exacerbating social issues that lead to unwanted pregnancies and subsequent abortions. In short, gov't should be out of the realm of abortion regulation, but I do not pretend that the result of that alone would be very pleasant unless it _gets out of every other invasive practice as well_. Only when gov't is out of public health care, public schools and welfare will fully legalized abortion be able to become less prevalent and less dangerous.

----------


## Contumacious

> First of all, you want the federal government defining human being, from conception on, and involved in outlawing abortions as much as is necessary. * This isnt libertarian.* 
> 
> Secondly, you have no regard for the rights of the mother in your stance. Libertarian principle doesnt hold that the protection of one persons "rights" can come at the expense of another person rights, to the contrary. The implications of which go beyond the abortion issue, and justify any kind of aggression against one person, on behalf  of the rights or right to live of another person. Your stance on drugs legalization doesnt negate that, it contradicts it. 
> 
> Also these items come to mind, 1) you believe the initial US invasion of Afghanistan was justified, 2) you want the troops brought home from abroad, and not deactivated, but lined up on the Canadian and Mexican borders, 3) you think every member of our military is a hero, 4) youre very defensive about a particular creation and dependent of (especially US) western state intervention, thats 7,000 miles away from the US, and predicated on denying individual rights to the natives of its land. 
> 
> Theres a difference between the way you see individual rights, the nature of the US federal government and its role in peoples lives, home and abroad, and the way a hardcore libertarian does.


Exactly.

Reason he calls himself a "traditional conservative" whatever the $#@!eth that means. Whatever its meaning, their dogma considers women 2nd class citizens and support a theocracy. 

But he has good intentions, in the name of the "babies" , but of course.

.

.

----------


## Brett85

> Exactly.
> 
> Reason he calls himself a "traditional conservative" whatever the $#@!eth that means. Whatever its meaning, their dogma considers women 2nd class citizens and support a theocracy. 
> 
> But he has good intentions, in the name of the "babies" , but of course.
> 
> .
> 
> .


So I guess you consider Ron Paul to be a conservative rather than a libertarian?

----------


## erowe1

> Do that means that you agree with Mussolini - abortion is a "harmful freedom"?


No. It's positively a harmful act in and of itself. The only freedom you have ever had only extends out from you up until it violates the rights of someone else, which abortion does.

----------


## robert68

> ...
> 
> And I don't necessarily think that all of the members of our military are "heroes."  I mean Timothy McVeigh was once a member of the military.  I just object to people making blanket statements that all of the members of our military are just a bunch of "mass murderers" and "tyrants" and whatever ridiculous term they want to use.


Maybe so, but in your words: 


> you can still be a libertarian even if you say that every member of the military is a hero. That has nothing to do with libertarianism or non interventionism.

----------


## erowe1

> I encourage everyone to read the following chapter: http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp


Good idea. When they read it they'll see that Rothbard recognized that his position entailed mothers having the right to abandon to the elements their already born babies if they didn't want to take care of them.

Conversely, those of us who recognize that the latter is a clear violation of natural law must also reject his argument for being pro-abortion.

----------


## Murray N Rothbard

> Good idea. When they read it they'll see that Rothbard recognized that his position entailed mothers having the right to abandon to the elements their already born babies if they didn't want to take care of them.
> 
> Conversely, those of us who recognize that the latter is a clear violation of natural law must also reject his argument for being pro-abortion.


Your first statement is pretty garbled grammatically, but I think I understand it. Yes, the right to abandon a pregnancy also rests upon the same basis as the right to abandon motherhood/fatherhood after a child is born. No one is saying that will be frequent or the norm, just that you have no right to interfere. You or someone else obviously may accept the responsibility these parents are giving up by adopting or even paying to adopt from them.

----------


## Brett85

> Maybe so, but in your words:


Sure, you can be a libertarian and believe that every member of the military is a hero.  That doesn't mean that I think that every member of the military is a hero.

----------


## Sola_Fide

I haven't seen Ron Paul's view on abortion posted in this thread yet.  Everyone here should read and understand this:




> *Being Pro-Life Is Necessary To Defend Liberty* 
> 
> "Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty; and, to sever the mistaken connection in many minds between individual freedom and the "right" to extinguish individual*life.
> 
> Libertarians have a moral vision of a society that is just, because individuals are free. This vision is the only reason for libertarianism to exist. It offers an alternative to the forms of political thought that uphold the power of the State, or of persons within a society, to violate the freedom of others. If it loses that vision, then libertarianism becomes merely another ideology whose policies are oppressive, rather than liberating.
> 
> We expect most people to be inconsistent, because their beliefs are founded on false principles or on principles that are not clearly stated and understood. They cannot apply their beliefs consistently without contradictions becoming glaringly apparent. Thus, there are both liberals and conservatives who support conscription of young people, the redistribution of wealth, and the power of the majority to impose its will on the individual.
> 
> A libertarian's support for abortion is not merely a minor misapplication of principle, as if one held an incorrect belief about the Austrian theory of the business cycle. The issue of abortion is fundamental, and therefore an incorrect view of the issue strikes at the very foundations of all beliefs.
> ...

----------


## Contumacious

> So I guess you consider Ron Paul to be a conservative rather than a libertarian?


*
At the GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate on Sep 17, 2007, Ron Pau*l was asked what he will do to restore legal protection to the unborn:
*
    As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception*. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so theres a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if theres an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it.

Well, I disagree.

If LIFE is the standard  then, LIFE   begins as a sperm and an Ovum.

Which means that the government could prosecute someone whenever they masturbated or had the menstrual cycle.

Assuming , for argument's sake , that it was determined that a fetus becomes human at conception, then you would have two Human beings competing for the SAME RIGHTS with one claiming that it has a RIGHT to live within another human being. That is preposterous and anti-Libertarian.

.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *
> At the GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate on Sep 17, 2007, Ron Pau*l was asked what he will do to restore legal protection to the unborn:
> *
>     “As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception*. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there’s a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there’s an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it.”
> 
> Well, I disagree.
> 
> If LIFE is the standard  then, LIFE   begins as a sperm and an Ovum.
> 
> ...


You have no idea what you are talking about.  Your arguments are ridiculous.  You are on the wrong forum.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> And I'm not in favor of intervention overseas.  I argue against basically all U.S interventions overseas.  I support using military action after we get attacked, and we were attacked on 9-11, so I believe military action was justified after we were attacked.  I'm opposed to intervention in Syria, Libya, Iran, Egypt, etc.
> 
> And I don't necessarily think that all of the members of our military are "heroes."  I mean Timothy McVeigh was once a member of the military.  _I just object to people making blanket statements that all of the members of our military are just a bunch of "mass murderers" and "tyrants" and whatever ridiculous term they want to use_.


You know what...

If everybody hated the military, I might not say things like this.  As an 18 year old who has lived in an idoltarous society that worships Uncle Sam and his hired killers for his entire life, I am going to say things like this, because nobody else will.

I don't support Nuremberg Trials going down to the average soldier.  But according to God's Law, any soldier who has killed an innocent person,  whether a civilian or a soldier that was defending his own  country, is a murderer.   I'm not afraid to say that people like Chris Kyle who are happy about that got what they deserved.  I hope he ended up  coming to Christ of course, but I don't feel sorry for him other than that.

So I guess I sort of respectfully disagree with you on this.

I'd question the libertarian credentials of anyone who seriously thought everyone in the military was a hero (Note: I'm aware you didn't say this.)  That would logically mean they believed that those military members did heroic things.  Which is impossible for somebody who believes in the NAP and non-interventionism.

I've seen a lot of cognitive dissonance between people who don't generally support warmongering but still say the military are "Heroes" and that they "Defend our freedoms."  There's no way this line of thinking is philosophically libertarian.  Being libertarian generally requires more intelligence than that, intelligence which leads to logical consistency.

Of course, for politicians like Rand Paul, all bets are off I guess.  Even I wouldn't say what I really think of the military in a political debate.  But for the average libertarian on the street, they definitely  shouldn't say things like that.  At least not here.  I generally don't even discuss what I think of "the troops" with people who aren't already in agreement with me, or at least smart enough to understand, my views on foreign policy.  I once told a teacher that I support the troops so much that I support bringing them home.  There's more nuance to my position than that, but its a good way of selling your views to someone who's still caught in the Matrix.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I haven't seen Ron Paul's view on abortion posted in this thread yet.  Everyone here should read and understand this:


Amen brother.  +1.

----------


## MelissaWV

With my legs firmly closed.

----------


## Brett85

> With my legs firmly closed.

----------


## erowe1

> Your first statement is pretty garbled grammatically


It's actually not. If you're having trouble with it, you might try diagramming it.




> No one is saying that will be frequent or the norm, just that you have no right to interfere


Given that it is the equivalent of abortion, yes it is frequent, since abortion is frequent. But that's irrelevant anyway. The point remains that if you recognize that parents have no right to do that, then you also recognize that Rothbard's pro-abortion argument is invalid.

----------


## The Free Hornet

>

----------


## Brett85

> 


Yeah, it's just that she didn't finish her sentence.  Was she saying "with my legs firmly closed I won't ever have to get an abortion?"

----------


## MelissaWV

> Yeah, it's just that she didn't finish her sentence.  Was she saying "with my legs firmly closed I won't ever have to get an abortion?"


Double entendre.  You also aren't forced to get an abortion.  My personal position on abortion is that, even if I found myself in a situation where it would theoretically be an option, I would not get one.  One would not be done on me.  If we're speaking purely personally, I would not even care if it was a "life of the mother" situation.  

From a legislative standpoint things get far blurrier.

----------


## I<3Liberty

24 pages? I can't believe this thread is still going. 




> I haven't seen Ron Paul's view on abortion posted in this thread yet.  Everyone here should read and understand this:


Pages and pages ago, I went on a rant similar to Ron Paul's regarding the solution to approaching abortion. He has mentioned several times that it should be left to the states and that it is an issue that requires much more complex solutions legislation cannot fix. I agree. Ron Paul's plan and rhetoric, however, are somewhat poor and undeveloped. 

He'll often mention that he delivered X number of babies and that he witnessed a late term abortion and how disturbing it was and how he cares about protecting the unborn. He focuses too much on the unborn and lacks a developed libertarian solution beyond "leaving it to the states" and that legislation can't fix the problem. This makes both the anti-abortion and abortion rights extremes dislike him because the anti-abortion folks see him as apathetic to the severity of this issue while the abortions rights people are uncomfortable with the fact that states could put restrictions or bans on what they believe should be a nationwide right.

We would virtually end abortion without compromising either the woman's liberty or unborn's right to life if we implemented the IMO most libertarian solution I outlined in bold text. 




> As this thread reaches 16 pages, the arguments here reflect the very problem with this debate. People are just arguing why their opinion is correct and another person is wrong. I don't mean to sound stuck up or anything, but could we consider the rant I went on towards the beginning of the thread? If you've read it on this thread or any of the other lengthy abortion debate threads, you know I'm not fond of siding with either extreme for many reasons. One being the fact that we often make ethical issues into dilemmas instead of recognizing that there are multiple other solutions to the problem at hand. Secondly, both fail to do/agree with any of the following. --> Can't we agree that both sides have their flaws, as well as legitimate concerns? Could we even look at this issue from a libertarian perspective and agree that legislation will not and can not solve this problem. Elective abortion has been going on far before it was even legalized. 
> 
> *Embryonic stem cell research is a great example of the need for non-legislative solutions. The George W. Bush administration put restrictions on existing embryonic stem cell lines. This didn't stop it -- research was simply taken elsewhere where it could be done legally. What did discourage it? A moral alternative! Better understanding of kinase inhibitors and the iPS method allowed for use of adult stem cells that (thanks to the iPS method) were reverted back to a less differentiated stage much like an embryonic stem cell. 
> 
> A moral alternative like 100% effective contraception would not only virtually eradicate abortion, it would also establish true liberation for women. I never understood why so many extremes feel like a painful, risky, and morally questionable surgical procedure is liberating? Ideally, you'd want this choice far before pregnancy to both avoid the moral issues of abortion while giving women full control over pregnancy rather than a way to terminate it.*

----------


## robert68

> I haven't seen Ron Paul's view on abortion posted in this thread yet.  Everyone here should read and understand this:


I recall you always being ardently if favor of the state outlawing abortion. Then I recently came across these words of yours, in another thread: 




> ... I am not arguing for state coercion. When I say "abortion is murder", I am arguing about the morality of the situation, not any legislation about the situation...


Why the change?

----------


## robert68

> Good idea. When they read it they'll see that Rothbard recognized that his position entailed mothers having the right to abandon to the elements their already born babies if they didn't want to take care of them.
> 
> Conversely, those of us who recognize that the latter is a clear violation of natural law must also reject his argument for being pro-abortion.


Is an expectation that parents no longer willing to support their child, will not notify anyone (such as an adoption agency) of their intention, part of what bothers you?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> [snip]
> 
> Or, robert68 disputed what might have been perceived as an assertion, as you are doing now.  I responded by pointing out which definition I'm using, and as far as I'm aware, robert68 is content with my response.  If robert68 isn't satified, then robert68 can speak for himself.
> 
> [snip]


*shrug* robert68 +repped my post (#639) - so there must have been something about it that he appreciated. Perhaps he merely (and wisely) is more able than I am to refrain from wasting time and effort engaging with someone such as yourself who (deliberately or unwittingly) misunderstands and/or (blatantly and brazenly) warps & distorts what others have said (as you did with respect to the syllogism I offered as QED - to cite just one example).

As for all the rest of your "using of words" - I will not call them "arguments" or "assertions," given the bizarre exception you seem to take at others saying that you have made any such averrals - I shall be content simply to leave it to those who are interested in doing so to (re)read our exchange and decide for themselves which of us is or is not talking "nonsense," "(ab)using words," etc., etc.

----------


## Brett85

> I recall you always being ardently if favor of the state outlawing abortion. Then I recently came across these words of yours, in another thread: 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the change?


A lot of people claim to be pro life, but in reality they aren't.  Anyone who believes that abortion should remain legal is not pro life.

----------


## Contumacious

> A lot of people claim to be pro life, but in reality they aren't.  Anyone who believes that abortion should remain legal is not pro life.


I am pro life......the woman's.

.

----------


## eduardo89

> I am pro life......the woman's.


I'm confused. 

You only support aborting male babies?
Or you only support abortion in cases in which the mother's life is at risk?

----------


## Origanalist

> I am pro life......the woman's.
> 
> .


What if the unborn child is also a woman?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> A lot of people claim to be pro life, but in reality they aren't.  Anyone who believes that abortion should remain legal is not pro life.


Would you agree that someone who wants to criminalize abortion at the state level, but not the  Federal level, is pro-life?




> I am pro life......the woman's.
> 
> .


-rep for deliberately obscuring the meaning of terms.

Yes, "Pro-life" is a propaganda term, and so is "Pro-choice."  I'm in favor of the choice to do almost anything, but since I do not support the right to choose to murder the unborn, I would not claim to be "Pro-choice."

You support the right of most people to live, but since you don't support the right of the unborn to live, you shouldn't be claiming to be "Pro-life."

Yeah, they're propaganda terms, deal with it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm confused. 
> 
> You only support aborting male babies?
> Or you only support abortion in cases in which the mother's life is at risk?


He means the adult woman's life.

Which, as you said, only makes sense when the mother's life is at risk, but that's not what he means.  He's being obtuse.  Hence why I subtracted points from his rep.

----------


## eduardo89

> Would you agree that someone who wants to criminalize abortion at the state level, but not the  Federal level, is pro-life?


Yes. But I also support criminalizing it at the federal level.

----------


## Brett85

> Would you agree that someone who wants to criminalize abortion at the state level, but not the  Federal level, is pro-life?


Yes, but I would think that a pro lifer who opposes a federal law banning abortion for 10th amendment reasons would at least support a Constitutional amendment banning abortion, which you've said that you support.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes, but I would think that a pro lifer who opposes a federal law banning abortion for 10th amendment reasons would at least support a Constitutional amendment banning abortion, which you've said that you support.


In theory, yes.  But I'd support everything being done correctly, everywhere, in theory.  Then again, in theory I wish we could exist without any government.

In practice, I don't trust the Federal Government as far as I could throw them, and I'm almost certain giving them any enforcement powers here would lead to more of a police state than we already have.  Not that I necessarily trust the state governments, but I trust them more than the Feds.

I don't think about it too much since its clearly certain not to happen.

----------


## Brett85

> In theory, yes.  But I'd support everything being done correctly, everywhere, in theory.  Then again, in theory I wish we could exist without any government.
> 
> In practice, I don't trust the Federal Government as far as I could throw them, and I'm almost certain giving them any enforcement powers here would lead to more of a police state than we already have.  Not that I necessarily trust the state governments, but I trust them more than the Feds.
> 
> I don't think about it too much since its clearly certain not to happen.


I think a Constitutional amendment banning abortion would basically define life as beginning at conception and force the states to protect the unborn, but would also leave police powers and enforcement powers to the states.

----------


## Theocrat

The pro-life advocate in the debate does a great job of arguing his case, by getting down to the scientific and philosophical ramifications of what an abortion actually is. This is a must-see for all members here:

----------


## The Free Hornet

> The pro-life advocate in the debate does a great job of arguing his case, by getting down to the scientific and philosophical ramifications of what an abortion actually is. This is a must-see for all members here:


Why?  I don't support Traditional Conservative's pro-abortion policies.  I voted specifically to "get the government out of our lives".

What you need is a video showing successful government interventions into our lives.  You need to defend the AMA and state licensing which is all anti-abortion laws were ever intended to accomplish.  In 200 years, it hasn't done jack squat about abortions because that was never the intent, but reducing competition was.

I understand and appreciate your distaste with a medical procedure (or murder dressed up as one).  However, I am here to oppose the power structures that have led to loss of liberty in this nation.

Defending our lives and liberty is our job, not the local police!  When a scalpel is inches away, the police are miles away!!!  It is the values and principles - including the defense of life - of the liberty movement that need to be expanded, not the police state.

If ever you are serious about fetal murder, then you need to support prosecution of the mother for murder.  You cannot, like Traditional Conservative, give 100% exemptions to the mothers who finance and order the abortion!*  To do otherwise is to doom your drug-war style interventions.  Do you real think the mother cares if the doctor/pharmacist might go to jail?  Nobody drives down the street thinking, "I better not speed, somebody else might get a ticket!".


*When a state/municipality decides to not prosecute users of a particular drug, it is seen as being pro-drug.  However, when neocons decide not to prosecute users of abortion services, it is seen being against abortion!  Or is it bowing to political reality.  You can't prosecute woman because that would actually affect abortion rates.  Twenty weeks is selected in Texas because 98.5% abortions occur before then and this will encourage the stragglers to get it done sooner.  Looking at charts, even a 6-week ban may only affect 50% of abortions.

----------


## Theocrat

> Why?  I don't support Traditional Conservative's pro-abortion policies.  I voted specifically to "get the government out of our lives".
> 
> What you need is a video showing successful government interventions into our lives.  You need to defend the AMA and state licensing which is all anti-abortion laws were ever intended to accomplish.  In 200 years, it hasn't done jack squat about abortions because that was never the intent, but reducing competition was.
> 
> I understand and appreciate your distaste with a medical procedure (or murder dressed up as one).  However, I am here to oppose the power structures that have led to loss of liberty in this nation.
> 
> Defending our lives and liberty is our job, not the local police!  When a scalpel is inches away, the police are miles away!!!  It is the values and principles - including the defense of life - of the liberty movement that need to be expanded, not the police state.
> 
> If ever you are serious about fetal murder, then you need to support prosecution of the mother for murder.  You cannot, like Traditional Conservative, give 100% exemptions to the mothers who finance and order the abortion!*  To do otherwise is to doom your drug-war style interventions.  Do you real think the mother cares if the doctor/pharmacist might go to jail?  Nobody drives down the street thinking, "I better not speed, somebody else might get a ticket!".
> ...


Abortion is not a political problem, primarily. It is an ethical issue that transcends the civil government, and it comes down to the question of whether the unborn fetus is a human being or not. Once that question is answered, then we can answer other questions about whether the government should be involved, whether a person can destroy the unborn, etc.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> Abortion is not a political problem, primarily. It is an ethical issue that transcends the civil government, and it comes down to the question of whether the unborn fetus is a human being or not. Once that question is answered, then we can answer other questions about whether the government should be involved, whether a person can destroy the unborn, etc.


Of course it is a human being.  Did you think it was a cow?




> World English Dictionary
> human being
> 
> n
> 	a member of any of the races of **** sapiens; person; man, woman, or child


You or society's concern for a toddler doesn't give you the right to barge into a home without due cause.  "Once that question is answered", we are in the same spot we are now.

Now I agree the problem is societal but the issue is entirely political.  The so-called pro-life movement (really a pro murder and pro state movement) has as its 'raison d'être' the abolition of choice specifically by

a) state licensing medical professions
b) monitoring the doctor-patient relationship
c) outlawing every alternative

Anybody who isn't a part of the medical establishment, big pharma, or their "insurance" "products" (like we got a $#@!ing choice) is basically just a useful idiot for them to exploit.

----------


## Brett85

> Of course it is a human being.  Did you think it was a cow?


So you admit that an unborn fetus is a human being, but yet you still believe that the mass murder of these human beings should be legal?  That simply defies logic.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> So you admit that an unborn fetus is a human being, but yet you still believe that the mass murder of these human beings should be legal?  That simply defies logic.



*WHERE THE $#@! DID I SAY IT SHOULD BE LEGAL!?*

Do not reference your own stupid poll with retarded/'$#@! you Frank style' choices which are _your words_, not mine.  I gave you my words but not enough times to stick in whatever pea-sized brain your creator gave you: GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR LIVES!

----------


## Brett85

> Defending our lives and liberty is our job, not the local police!


And how exactly is an unborn baby supposed to defend itself again?  You should really stop and think before you post this kind of nonsense.

----------


## Brett85

> *WHERE THE $#@! DID I SAY IT SHOULD BE LEGAL!?*
> 
> Do not reference your own stupid poll with retarded/'$#@! you Frank style' choices which are _your words_, not mine.  I gave you my words but not enough times to stick in whatever pea-sized brain your creator gave you: GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR LIVES!


You spend 95% of your time on these forums arguing that abortion should be legal.  It's apparently the only issue you even care about.

----------


## Theocrat

> *WHERE THE $#@! DID I SAY IT SHOULD BE LEGAL!?*
> 
> Do not reference your own stupid poll with retarded/'$#@! you Frank style' choices which are _your words_, not mine.  I gave you my words but not enough times to stick in whatever pea-sized brain your creator gave you: GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR LIVES!


Dude, you need to calm down.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> And how exactly is an unborn baby supposed to defend itself again?  You should really stop and think before you post this kind of nonsense.


If he were in favor of pardoning anti-abortion  vigilantes, I might actually take his point seriously.

Otherwise the "Less government" in this case is really just codeword for "Well, I don't like killing babies but I'm not going to stop you..."

I sometimes flirt with my anarchist streak but even I acknowledge that you need laws to punish those who try to harm the unborn.

I do not, however, believe in laws that "Protect" the unborn.  Trying to protect people through the force of the law leads to a police state.  The only thing the law should do, as Laurence Vance points out, about abortion is to criminalize it and deal with it exactly like you would any other kind of murder.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You spend 95% of your time on these forums arguing that abortion should be legal.  It's apparently the only issue you even care about.


I thought it was more often than that

----------


## The Free Hornet

> So you admit that an unborn fetus is a human being, but yet you still believe that the mass murder of these human beings should be legal?  That simply defies logic.


And another thing, if there is an _applicable_ law against murder, I want it to apply to the actual murderers.  Not,

a) the gun manufacturers (the issue is murder, not medical procedures)
b) the bossman, not just the hitman (prosecute the mother just as you would a wife who hires a hitman)

You have repeatedly and without an ounce of ideological justification continued to excuse the mothers* who are at the forefront of what you call "MASS MURDER".

Is this the "Christian" view of woman?:




> How do you write women so well? I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability.
> ~ John Updike


Millions of dead and you give the whole damn group a god-damn pass.  What the $#@!, man!

You're not going to touch the demand side of the equation because that would mess with your game just like the drug warriors.  Our culture worships celebrity drug use and they're mostly untouchable unless they get behind the wheel.  The drug worship is necessary because to do otherwise might affect demand and the prison industry.

The idea of killing a child has zero appeal to me.  More so, I know of nobody who has done so.  No doubt, some in my life must have, but they kept that information from me or I blocked it out.


* I thought of a good reason why you might actually be able to excuse the mothers, but it has two drawbacks.  One, it applies to any doctors/providers as well.  Two, it might be beyond your comprehension.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> And another thing, if there is an _applicable_ law against murder, I want it to apply to the actual murderers.  Not,
> 
> a) the gun manufacturers (the issue is murder, not medical procedures)
> b) the bossman, not just the hitman (prosecute the mother just as you would a wife who hires a hitman)
> 
> You have repeatedly and without an ounce of ideological justification continued to excuse the mothers* who are at the forefront of what you call "MASS MURDER".
> 
> Is this the "Christian" view of woman?:
> 
> ...


I fail to see why he excuses the mothers.  And I fail to see why you excuse the mothers AND the doctors.  Both should be prosecuted.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> I fail to see why he excuses the mothers.  And I fail to see why you excuse the mothers AND the doctors.  Both should be prosecuted.


WHERE DID I EXCUSE THE MOTHERS OR THE DOCTORS?  You can't be this stupid.  Naive, yes.  Stupid, no.

In a manner of speaking, I'd like to promote a unified defense of life and liberty here.  What TC is promoting is piecemeal statism.  It doesn't attack the system, but what the system has resulted in.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> WHERE DID I EXCUSE THE MOTHERS OR THE DOCTORS?  You can't be this stupid.  Naive, yes.  Stupid, no.
> 
> In a manner of speaking, I'd like to promote a unified defense of life and liberty here.  What TC is promoting is piecemeal statism.  It doesn't attack the system, but what the system has resulted in.



Well, you're not in favor of charging them with murder and punishing them accordingly, so I question your sincerity here.  Would we be having this debate if infanticide was the issue at hand?  Or would we all agree that both the person paying the killer, AND the physical killer, should be charged?

This nonsense about breaking into people's homes without cause is besides the point, and would not be tolerated in a libertarian society anyway.  Some people will get away with murder, but that's not an excuse for legalizing murder.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> If he were in favor of pardoning anti-abortion  vigilantes, I might actually take his point seriously.


I'm not quite sure if you're $#@!ed in the head with your promotion of vigilantes.  I suspect it is something you'll out grow, but judging someone for *not promoting your $#@!ed up beliefs* is redonkulous.  AFAIK, I haven't taken a position on the issue beyond this:




> Originally Posted by eduardo89
> 
> 
> No one has the right to murder an innocent human being.
> 
> 
> You don't have the right to take my money to stop her.  Man up and do it yourself if it matters so much to you.  If you're lucky, the real men will excuse your meddling.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5138033


I.e., I present a neutral position on the idea but maybe my tone forecasts that I think it is a bad idea but with a possibility that such actions might be excused.  Encouraged, no.  Excused, maybe.





> Otherwise the "Less government" in this case is really just codeword for "Well, I don't like killing babies but I'm not going to stop you..."


Since, I've been (Aug 2011), find somebody else who has ripped on the AMA more than I.





> I sometimes flirt with my anarchist streak but even I acknowledge that you need laws to punish those who try to harm the unborn.


These laws exist but the exclude the mother.  How can you claim to care about the unborn and not know this?




> I do not, however, believe in laws that "Protect" the unborn.  Trying to protect people through the force of the law leads to a police state.  The only thing the law should do, as Laurence Vance points out, about abortion is to criminalize it and deal with it exactly like you would any other kind of murder.


And there are some key differentiators here.  If some octo-mom type started putting sonograms on youtube and saying she would abort an 8-month baby/fetus if she doesn't get (or the baby doesn't get) a million dollars to pay for care, feeding, clothing, schooling, housing, etc., then I would see that as a textbook example of a murder prosecution presuming she went through with the deed (and people were smart enough not to pay her).  I cannot reconcile that yet with an anarchist perspective but it is a clear case where the mother, primarily, ought to be prosecuted if we are classifying this act as murder.

----------


## Brett85

> I fail to see why he excuses the mothers.  And I fail to see why you excuse the mothers AND the doctors.  Both should be prosecuted.


I don't want to kill the pro life movement by taking the incredibly unpopular position of prosecuting women who get abortions, so I think it's wise for pro life groups to advocate laws that focus on punishing doctors who perform abortions.  The Free Hornet brings up this issue because he wants the pro life movement to fail, and he knows that the pro life movement will fail if they take the position that women should be prosecuted for getting abortions, since most people are scared off by that position.

----------


## Brett85

> And another thing, if there is an _applicable_ law against murder, I want it to apply to the actual murderers.  Not,
> 
> a) the gun manufacturers (the issue is murder, not medical procedures)
> b) the bossman, not just the hitman (prosecute the mother just as you would a wife who hires a hitman)
> 
> You have repeatedly and without an ounce of ideological justification continued to excuse the mothers* who are at the forefront of what you call "MASS MURDER".


FreedomFanatic's criticism of my position on this issue is valid since he supports prosecuting both the doctor and the mother who gets the abortion.  Since you don't support prosecuting either the woman or the doctor who performs the abortion, your criticism of my position is completely without merit.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> Well, you're not in favor of charging them with murder and punishing them accordingly...


Point of fact, I and very very very few others have been at the forefront of that opinion here from the 'equal justice' perspective.  Before promoting or favoring what you discuss, I would like to see some sample legislation of what exactly it is you're talking about.

The 'personhood' amendment is close but it leaves some loose threads to suggest that states might not treat us as equal under the law.  Such that a boyfriend who buys RU486 will get sent to jail but the girlfriend who swallows it (the RU486) willingly, will not.

I've posted several times the video of protestors who don't want punishments for the mothers - and I would love to see more examples of politicians beyond that Tim Pawlenty quote I've used twice.

The thing is - I'm a taxpayer (big time).  So you can push laws and vigilante squads but I have to consider the effects of paying for your opinion.

Also, where many focus on rape/incest/life-of-the-mother, I would focus on the health of the baby.  Can the state or a judgement mechanism prove that there was a healthy, viable fetus???  Where/what is exhibit A?  I'm sure you know that conception is frought with peril and uncertainty.  So the miscarriage issue ways extremely heavy on me and these laws.  When somebody dies, there is an expectation that a 'cause of death' be documented.  Often, not always, as laws will vary.

So I wonder about the wisdom of attaching "personhood" without a name and with only a 50:50 chance of survival.  This would be before the detectable heartbeat stage.

Since you will be leading the vigilante squads, perhaps you can educate me on the issue!

----------


## The Free Hornet

> Since you don't support prosecuting either the woman or the doctor who performs the abortion, your criticism of my position is completely without merit.


*WHERE THE $#@! DID I SAY THAT?*

_Closer_ to the truth is this, if *you're* not going to prosecute the mother, I will not even begin to humor your fool's errand.

----------


## Brett85

> *WHERE THE $#@! DID I SAY THAT?*
> 
> _Closer_ to the truth is this, if *you're* not going to prosecute the mother, I will not even begin to humor your fool's errand.


Where did you ever say that there should be any laws against abortion?  You've constantly argued here that abortion should be legal.  You've made it clear that you're personally opposed to it, but that it shouldn't be against the law.  That's the position that most pro choice people have.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> I don't want to kill the pro life movement by taking the incredibly unpopular position of prosecuting women who get abortions, so I think it's wise for pro life groups to advocate laws that focus on punishing doctors who perform abortions.  The Free Hornet brings up this issue because he wants the pro life movement to fail, and he knows that the pro life movement will fail if they take the position that women should be prosecuted for getting abortions, since most people are scared off by that position.


You poor, naive fool.  The so-called pro-life movement was, is and always has been crafted by the AMA to further their own ends.  If you value the live of the unborn, then you'll want a real pro libery (and pro life) movement to replace it.




> The American Medical Association's crusade against abortion was partly a professional move, to establish the supremacy of "regular" physicians over midwives and homeopaths.
> 
> http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs...y/abortion.htm





> 1873 Supported by the American Medical Association (AMA), the Comstock Act bans the dissemination by mail of information on abortion or artificial contraceptives.
> 
> http://studentsforlife.org/prolifefa...y-of-abortion/


Thanks for proving that you don't give a flying $#@! about babies.  To you, this is about the "movement".  Just like any other megalarge corrupt non-profit.

FYI, your "movement" didn't support Ron Paul and they never will support someone like him.  It is about control of the medical industry!

----------


## The Free Hornet

> Where did you ever say that there should be any laws against abortion? *[Edit: I don't have to.  You're makeing the assertion.]*  You've constantly argued here that abortion should be legal. *[No, I'm constantly arguing to get the government out of our lives and that you are promoting a sham movement which is a front for the AMA]*  You've made it clear that you're personally opposed to it, but that it shouldn't be against the law.*[No, I'm constantly arguing to get the government out of our lives and that you are promoting a sham movement which is a front for the AMA]*  That's the position that most pro choice people have.*[No, I'm constantly arguing to get the government out of our lives and that you are promoting a sham movement which is a front for the AMA]*


*FIND THE LINKS!!!*  I'll edit them accordingly.

My positions actually do evolve over time.  E.g., I agree that gubblemint should be out of the marriage issue and I'd rather promote that position than bitch and moan about who gets a license.  Now - I have done both, but I have to cede the intellecutal superiority of the 'get government out of marriage' argument.  I'm defenseless against it.  Just as you will always be defenseless if prosecuting doctors while excusing mothers.

----------


## Brett85

> FYI, your "movement" didn't support Ron Paul and they never will support someone like him.  It is about control of the medical industry!


I supported Ron Paul, because he came closest to my positions on the issues overall.  His position on this issue was at least good enough for me, since he supported overturning Roe v. Wade and opposed all federal funding of abortion.  Overturning Roe v. Wade would at least be a huge step in the right direction since the states would have the legal authority to put legal protections in place for the unborn.

----------


## Brett85

> *FIND THE LINKS!!!*  I'll edit them accordingly.
> 
> My positions actually do evolve over time.  E.g., I agree that gubblemint should be out of the marriage issue and I'd rather promote that position than bitch and moan about who gets a license.  Now - I have done both, but I have to cede the intellecutal superiority of the 'get government out of marriage' argument.  I'm defenseless against it.  Just as you will always be defenseless if prosecuting doctors while excusing mothers.


Then explain what your actual position is regarding the legality of abortion.  Should there be laws against abortion or not?  It's a pretty simple question and should be pretty simple to answer.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm not quite sure if you're $#@!ed in the head with your promotion of vigilantes. I suspect it is something you'll out grow, but judging someone for *not promoting your $#@!ed up beliefs is redonkulous. AFAIK, I haven't taken a position on the issue beyond this:
> *


You don't understand my point in bringing this up.

I'm not condoning anything.

What I'm saying is, if you really want murder of the unborn to be legal simply because you want less government, you should also believe that killing an abortion doctor to stop them from doing abortions should be legal.  Otherwise, this isn't really about less government, but about using the force of law to protect the murder of the unborn.  In essence, it is Nazism.

I'm not advocating the position I describe above.  I want abortion to be illegal.  But if your reason for wanting abortion to be legal  is truly because of less government, you should support a true laissez faire policy of legalizing vigilantism against abortionists as well.

@Traditional Conservative- Is my point above making sense?  I know he doesn't get it and he's not going to, is that my fault or his?



> I don't want to kill the pro life movement by taking the incredibly unpopular position of prosecuting women who get abortions, so I think it's wise for pro life groups to advocate laws that focus on punishing doctors who perform abortions.  The Free Hornet brings up this issue because he wants the pro life movement to fail, and he knows that the pro life movement will fail if they take the position that women should be prosecuted for getting abortions, since most people are scared off by that position.


I know why he's bringing it up, but he's still correct.  Its completely inconsistent to only support punishing the doctors.  Like laughably so.  Its literally as absurd as legalizing the practice of hiring hitmen.  That's literally as much sense as it makes.

Now, would I sign the law that banned abortion and only punished the doctors?  Of course I would.  Punishing the murderer and not punishing the hitman is still better than not punishing either.  But it doesn't make any sense, logically.

Personally, I want some principle from the pro-life movement.  The pro-life movement should be willing to explain exactly why, and how seriously, this issue should be dealt with at the state level.




> FreedomFanatic's criticism of my position on this issue is valid since he supports prosecuting both the doctor and the mother who gets the abortion.  Since you don't support prosecuting either the woman or the doctor who performs the abortion, your criticism of my position is completely without merit.


I don't honestly understand his point.




> Point of fact, I and very very very few others have been at the forefront of that opinion here from the 'equal justice' perspective.  Before promoting or favoring what you discuss, I would like to see some sample legislation of what exactly it is you're talking about.
> 
> The 'personhood' amendment is close but it leaves some loose threads to suggest that states might not treat us as equal under the law.  Such that a boyfriend who buys RU486 will get sent to jail but the girlfriend who swallows it (the RU486) willingly, will not.
> 
> I've posted several times the video of protestors who don't want punishments for the mothers - and I would love to see more examples of politicians beyond that Tim Pawlenty quote I've used twice.
> 
> The thing is - I'm a taxpayer (big time).  So you can push laws and vigilante squads but I have to consider the effects of paying for your opinion.
> 
> Also, where many focus on rape/incest/life-of-the-mother, I would focus on the health of the baby.  Can the state or a judgement mechanism prove that there was a healthy, viable fetus???  Where/what is exhibit A?  I'm sure you know that conception is frought with peril and uncertainty.  So the miscarriage issue ways extremely heavy on me and these laws.  When somebody dies, there is an expectation that a 'cause of death' be documented.  Often, not always, as laws will vary.
> ...


Your talking about vigilantes is because you are missing the point I was trying to make.

I'll support any law, as long as its constitutional (In other words, state or local level, doesn't involve police state tactics to enforce, presumes innocence until guilt is proven, exc.) that restricts the practice of abortion.  So yeah, I'd even vote for silly things like the Texas abortion law, just to slow the baby killers down a little bit.

But that doesn't mean those  laws are actually intellectually coherent or that we should allow that to stand and stop fighting.

I will not consider the pro-life movement to have WON the issue until abortion is treated exactly the same way as murder, with prosecutions for both the woman and the doctor, with whatever sentence is in place for murder, whether that be death, life in prison, exile,  whatever.




> Where did you ever say that there should be any laws against abortion?  You've constantly argued here that abortion should be legal.  You've made it clear that you're personally opposed to it, but that it shouldn't be against the law.  That's the position that most pro choice people have.


And it doesn't really make any sense




> Then explain what your actual position is regarding the legality of abortion.  Should there be laws against abortion or not?  It's a pretty simple question and should be pretty simple to answer.


Should be.

I'll answer: Yes.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> Then explain what your actual position is regarding the legality of abortion.  Should there be laws against abortion or not?  It's a pretty simple question and should be pretty simple to answer.


As I've stated - and sorry if this wasn't clear - the laws should be about people and murder.  "Abortion" is the wrong word to use (and a synonym for miscarriage).  I will not support the use of that word in legislation or amendments.  And I gave the textbook example for a legal prosecution (a mother extorting her fetus for money on youtube).  I'm not 1000% opposed to the application of laws against murder of fetuses.  I support the prosecution of fetal murder.

I am pro life and I am against murder.  I believe a fetus is a human life.  Most of what you need is there.  What you are missing, most try to fill with some moral crusade.  This might be incorrect from the anarchist perspective.

One reason - but not the only reason - we prosecute murder with due process and as a society is because the alternative _might_ be standing idly by as the Zimmermans and Martins of the world kill each other in vengeance.  However, with an abortion or even the murder of a toddler (by its parents/family), who is going to fight for the victim?  Who has standing?  It could be other family members which is a very valid answer.  It could be those who devoted their attention to the child in school.

It is much much harder to find that standing the closer you get to conception.  And yes, I do believe we have dominion over our own bodies and this can create a conflict of interest between the mother/fetus.  I can't rightly say the fetus is a part of her since it is biologically distinct with its own central nervous system.  I can't say it is a possession of hers unless I agree to either slavery or claim that she dispossesses the fetus upon birth (a possibility).  It is in some ways not unlike the concept of limbo.

The word that describes my position is actually a word I truly loath: agnostic.  Not agnostic in that I'm OK with the choice to murder.  I'm not.  It is agnostic in the sense that I don't know what to believe beyond knowing that the person who has the utmost responsibility and moral standing on the issue is the obvious one.  The mother.  So when people try to tell me I'm not pro life while they excuse the mother for the sake of some "movement".... what I know is the hatred I feel for you and you're anti-life, anti-liberty movement.  You have taken what ought to be a sacred responsibility and shat all over it for the sake of regulating (aka controlling) medical industry.

My position is that I loath you and your movement.  You're patsies for the medical establishment dressed up in a moral panic costume.  You can't even play it right because you care so deeply for the _movement_, you excuse the very murders you claim to oppose.

Growing up, I was one of those children dragged to pro life rallies.  My family assisted many pregnant mothers in need (or rather my mother led that charge) as the best alternative to abortion (for those who don't want to give the baby up).  I can't ask my mother - who was the most 100% pro life person I know - whether or not she would be like those ladies who protested abortion but don't want the mothers prosecuted as murderers.  I suspect she would NOT want those prosecutions.  So how do I reconcile the fact that the most 100% pro life person I have ever known in my entire life, is not.... by any stretch of the imagination, pro life in the sense of wanting to take away the _mother's_ choice?  [Sure take away the doctor's choice, but it doesn't affect the mother's choice.]

You have tried to beat me over the head with the notion that my position is just like the Pelosi/Obama/"prochoice" one.  But that is YOUR position as it was my mother's with respect to the aborting mothers.  You are literally fighting for the mother's choice to have an abortion.  You do this for the sake of some "movement", but that is what you do.

Clearly, I won't follow you on that mission.  With a private medical system and our fourth amendment rights ('secure in our papers'), I'm not sure how you would go about making a dent in the problem or - per the arguments of 'standing' above - how the government is motivated to intervene.

And I sure as $#@! don't want to promote _more government_.  All that said, if there is a societal mechanism to prosecute murder by those with standing (by argument of friendship, relationship, business, local sovereignty, family, or whatnot), I will not bust a nut if some of those murder victims happen not to have been born yet.  I think the burden of proof is greater (prove this was a viable/healthy human, e.g.) and it may be on shakier ground than the murder of an adult, but I'm not excluding the possibility.

If you're asking me for a framework however, you are asking the wrong person.  I reject stoning and moral crusades which is how similar issues have often been approached.  Let's be honest, the pro-life movement is so morally and intellectually bankrupt that we have to start from scratch.

Or....




> It's a pretty simple question and should be pretty simple to answer.


  It's not simple which is why you have 5 poll options and still don't cover half the likely beliefs out there.

----------


## Brett85

Does anyone understand what his actual position is yet?

----------


## Brett85

I'm not in favor of there being a "choice" in any situation that involves killing a baby in a womb, except when the life of the mother is in danger.  The fact that I focus on punishing the person who actually murders the baby (which in some cases actually is the woman) doesn't mean that I'm "pro choice" in any situation except for when the life of the mother is in danger.  I believe that when an abortion occurs, someone should be punished for that, and punished strongly.  I support the death penalty for any doctor who performs an abortion.  A policy like that would put a pretty huge dent in the number of abortions in our country.

----------


## Origanalist

> Point of fact, I and very very very few others have been at the forefront of that opinion here from the 'equal justice' perspective.  Before promoting or favoring what you discuss, I would like to see some sample legislation of what exactly it is you're talking about.
> 
> The 'personhood' amendment is close but it leaves some loose threads to suggest that states might not treat us as equal under the law.  Such that a boyfriend who buys RU486 will get sent to jail but the girlfriend who swallows it (the RU486) willingly, will not.
> 
> I've posted several times the video of protestors who don't want punishments for the mothers - and I would love to see more examples of politicians beyond that Tim Pawlenty quote I've used twice.
> 
> The thing is - I'm a taxpayer (big time).  So you can push laws and vigilante squads but I have to consider the effects of paying for your opinion.
> 
> Also, where many focus on rape/incest/life-of-the-mother, I would focus on the health of the baby.  *Can the state or a judgement mechanism prove that there was a healthy, viable fetus???*  Where/what is exhibit A?  I'm sure you know that conception is frought with peril and uncertainty.  So the miscarriage issue ways extremely heavy on me and these laws.  When somebody dies, there is an expectation that a 'cause of death' be documented.  Often, not always, as laws will vary.
> ...


I think that would be extremely problematic considering the brutality and destruction caused by the murder itself.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> But if your reason for wanting abortion to be legal  is truly because of less government, you should support a true laissez faire policy of legalizing vigilantism against abortionists as well.


Laissez-faire is "hands off"/(also "let it be" or "let [them] do" per wikipedia).  It has zero to do with your juvenile vigilante fantasies.  I.e., it is more 'live and let live', not 'live and let die' (James Bond).

More so, "legalizing vigilantism" is a non sequitor as anything classified as such would cease to be vigilantism:




> vigilantism vig·i·lan·te [vij-uh-lan-tee] noun
> 1. a member of a vigilance committee.
> 2. any person who takes the *law into his or her own hands*, as by avenging a crime.
> adjective
> 3. done violently and summarily, *without recourse to lawful procedures*: vigilante justice.
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Vigilantism?s=t


Further promotions of violence from you might be reported (here at rpf) as acts of an agent provocateur.  More so if you are responding to me or asking me questions that contain this theme or imploring that I accept the same.

I oppose the death penalty not because it is unjust - though often it is - but it is too costly to society.  *I do not harbor the fantasy that privatizing it will make it any cheaper.*  Rather the costs, including countermeasures (including counter-vigilante vigilante actions), may actually increase.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> Does anyone understand what his actual position is yet?


Murder is bad, mmm'k?

Seriously, you're like an illiberal statist spouting off about thousands killed by "handgun shootings".  You want my "handgun shootings" position.  Guess what, statist, I don't have a "handgun shootings" position!  My concern is with murder.

Your cognitive dissonance is the result of wanting to ban something!  Your pro-life movement is nothing more than pro-state regulation of our lives.  If it doesn't result in a ban or regulatory hurdle, you simply get confused as your quote proves.

----------


## Brett85

> Murder is bad, mmm'k?
> 
> Seriously, you're like an illiberal statist spouting off about thousands killed by "handgun shootings".  You want my "handgun shootings" position.  Guess what, statist, I don't have a "handgun shootings" position!  My concern is with murder.
> 
> Your cognitive dissonance is the result of wanting to ban something!  Your pro-life movement is nothing more than pro-state regulation of our lives.  If it doesn't result in a ban or regulatory hurdle, you simply get confused as your quote proves.


Ok, so you think both murder and abortion is wrong, but there shouldn't be laws against it.  People should have the right to take the lives of innocent people if they feel like it.  The non aggression principle doesn't apply.

----------


## Origanalist

> Ok, so you think both murder and abortion is wrong, but there shouldn't be laws against it.  People should have the right to take the lives of innocent people if they feel like it.  The non aggression principle doesn't apply.


So there. Neaner...neaner.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Does anyone understand what his actual position is yet?


Nope.




> Laissez-faire is "hands off"/(also "let it be" or "let [them] do" per wikipedia).  It has zero to do with your juvenile vigilante fantasies.  I.e., it is more 'live and let live', not 'live and let die' (James Bond).
> 
> More so, "legalizing vigilantism" is a non sequitor as anything classified as such would cease to be vigilantism:
> 
> 
> 
> Further promotions of violence from you might be reported (here at rpf) as acts of an agent provocateur.  More so if you are responding to me or asking me questions that contain this theme or imploring that I accept the same.
> 
> I oppose the death penalty not because it is unjust - though often it is - but it is too costly to society.  *I do not harbor the fantasy that privatizing it will make it any cheaper.*  Rather the costs, including countermeasures (including counter-vigilante vigilante actions), may actually increase.


I'm not trying to convince anyone to do anything illegal.

I do think that people who break certain laws should be pardoned.  This would obviously include drug users, prostitutes, exc.  For me, it also includes people like Scott Roeder.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to use drugs, its a horrible idea, but nonetheless, if a cop arrests someone for using drugs, it is the cop who is the aggressor.

I'm not advocating that anyone kill an abortion doctor, but still, if they were to do that, it would not be a violation of the NAP because the abortion doctor is a murderer.

You claiming that I'm advocating it is being intellectually dishonest and is a failure to actually read what I'm posting.

If you believe that the unborn are human lives, and you believe that those who kill them should not be prosecuted, you should also believe that those who kill the killers should not be prosecuted, or otherwise admit to being a massive hypocrite.

That's what we're talking about.  We're talking about laws, not ethics  as such.

The morality of illegal violence is not something I'd even discuss on the forums.  I limit my discussion to how we feel a libertarian legal framework should handle it.

Now, regarding the whole "Standing" concept, I don't see why it matters who has standing.  If you kill somebody that nobody loves, its still murder. It simply doesn't matter if anyone cared about the victim or not.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> Ok, so you think both murder and abortion is wrong, but there shouldn't be laws against it.  People should have the right to take the lives of innocent people if they feel like it.  The non aggression principle doesn't apply.


NO!  Learn to read.  I said murder is wrong.  Abortion includes natural miscarriages so I'm not going to offer an opinion on its rightness or wrongness.  The laws you support against abortion have likely only led to its increased usage.  This is partly because you refuse to classify it as murder.

Agreeing there should be laws against murder and agreeing we should prosecute these laws in China are two different things.  One is overreach.  When exactly there is standing to prosecute - with proof - a murder case is beyond the scope here.

I can't give a reason why a healthy, viable full term baby can be aborted at the mother's discretion on the same day it could have been delivered safely.  I would agree that is murder.

Where I part company is when the posers want to excuse the mother in exchange for TOTAL REGULATION OF THE MEDICAL INDUSTRY (what the AMA wanted and got).

You would excuse the mother of murder, I would not.  Yet you still have the gall to repeatedly lie and distort my position.  Hopefully, one day you'll get it.  The movement you seek to protect is worthless to its core.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Where I part company is when the posers want to_ excuse the mother_ in exchange for TOTAL REGULATION OF THE MEDICAL INDUSTRY (what the AMA wanted and got).


Not all of us...

----------


## Brett85

> You would excuse the mother of murder, I would not.  Yet you still have the gall to repeatedly lie and distort my position.  Hopefully, one day you'll get it.  The movement you seek to protect is worthless to its core.


So you're saying that you would be in favor of a law that completely bans abortion as long as it prosecutes both the mother and the doctor who performs the abortion?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So you're saying that you would be in favor of a law that completely bans abortion as long as it prosecutes both the mother and the doctor who performs the abortion?


I'm guessing he wouldn't.  But this is just going in circles...

He's not going to tell you what his actual position is

----------


## EBounding

I'm against this and anything else resembling this:



EDIT:  I voted "with an exception for the life of the mother", but I have a hard time believing this is what they do if the Mother's life is in danger.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Lol.


 You have a cute profile picture

----------


## EBounding

> So the countries most prone to invading other countries and killing millions allow the most abortions. Huh.


Abortion is legal in Israel (with some vague exceptions).  I did not know that. 




> A termination committee approves abortions, under sub-section 316a,[1] in the following circumstances:
> 
>     The woman is younger than seventeen (the legal marriage age in Israel) or older than forty.
>     The pregnancy was conceived under illegal circumstances (rape, statutory rape etc.), in an incestuous relationship, *or outside of marriage*.
>     The fetus may have a physical or mental birth defect.
>     Continued pregnancy may put the woman's life in risk, or damage her physically or mentally.

----------


## Contumacious

> Oh. So you're just a idiot. Never mind.


Have I touched a nerve?

Idiot, as used by those who use Orwellian doublespeak, means a defender of women's right. Guilty as charged.

.

----------

