Abortion, a slimebag’s best friend

[PaleoPaul]

Some comments are too stupid to even respond to.

Do you believe that if guns were made illegal in the US, everyone would give up their guns and nobody would obtain them illegally?

 

[tod evans]

It's in the woman's body, not the man's. The woman ultimately decides, since it's her body, but in this case, she was assaulted. Pregnant or not, you don't trick people into taking medication they weren't prescribed or chose to take. You can't force a person to do something to their body by force; it's the person who decides what they do with their own body, as should be the case for all pregnant women.

But you fail to address the fact that "it" is "theirs"..

You also fail to address that murder charges can't be levied against an appendage or even a "growth" so "it" is not appropriately descriptive of the life they both created.

The father of the fetus simply took it upon himself to exercise the same "right" relevant to the life they both created that mothers can exercise free from constraint.

Try really hard to avoid the "tricking to take drugs" argument and focus on why one parent of a fetus can kill the fetus at will, yet the other parent can't..

 

[Sola_Fide]

Sorry I don't agree with the majority of the board. I'm pro-choice, and that stance is not changing.

It's fine that you're here and you're not a libertarian. But don't mistake the fact that libertarianism is pro-life only.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Do you believe that if guns were made illegal in the US, everyone would give up their guns and nobody would obtain them illegally?

Nope. And we don't think if abortion was banned nobody would get them illegally either. Whether people will follow a law is really irrelevant to whether it should exist. Granted, the "People will still buy guns" argument is valid when a progressive makes a pragmatic argument against gun ownership (Which is usually the flavor that these sorts of arguments take). Libertarians, however, do not generally view the world in pragmatic terms. The question is whether an action is an act of aggression against other people. Granted, abortion is tricky and there are libertarians on both sides. But this sort of pragmatism shouldn't really enter into it.

Yes, people would still have abortions if abortion was illegal. Yes, people currently do commit murder even if murder is illegal. I wish it was illegal for the government to commit murder, but even if it were, people would still commit murder.

Guns are a completely different issue, there's no violation of anyone's rights through owning a gun, so owning guns should clearly be legal.

The difference there is that you'd kill a person in your cancer instance, even if someone believes a fetus is a human being that should be protected, they are not (and have never been) legally persons. So it's not similar.

Libertarians are not legal positivists.

It wasn't meant to be an argument for or against (although it's a reason to be against a ban on a federal level), just a snarky comment for the most part. Since I don't believe abortion should be illegal or that it's murder, I view back room abortions as making a potentially bad situation worse. I would rather women have the option to safely abort than resort to unsafe practices out of desperation. Personal responsibility and avoiding having to even think about abortion is of course best, but if a woman truly wanted to have an abortion and it was before or around the third trimester, I don't see what the issue is because I don't yet consider it to be life, just potential. Past that, I haven't made up my mind. I don't view abortion in absolutes, though. I find Rothbard's case on evictionism to be fascinating.

Did Rothbard ever go that far? I thought Block invented evictionism, while Rothbard was just straight up pro-choice. I'm not positive though. In any case, Block's evictionism argument is the pro-choice argument I have the most respect for, but I still reject it. I don't believe your property rights give you the right to kill an innocent human being who never chose to be in that location anyway. If it was rape, the rapist is a tresspasser and should have to pay whatever costs the court deem fair for nine months of the invasion of the mother's womb (I assume that would be a rather high price, at least IMO), while in consensual sex cases, the mother invited the fetus into her womb, so no tresspassing occurs at all. I only believe abortion can be in any way justified if the mother is likely to die from doing anything different.

 

[Christian Liberty]

It's fine that you're here and you're not a libertarian. But don't mistake the fact that libertarianism is pro-life only.

As much as I'd like to agree with this... aren't most libertarian theorists pro-choice?


@Antischism- I forgot to mention, I don't support a Federal law either, but that's only because of the US constitution. I'm absolutely in favor of either the death penalty or life imprisonment for murder, which includes abortion, at the state level.

 

[Smart3]

It's fine that you're here and you're not a libertarian. But don't mistake the fact that paleoconservatism is pro-life only.

Corrected.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Corrected.

Paleoconservatism, if I understand, differs from standard libertarianism on more than just abortion.

Libertarianism is the view that you can do whatever you want except aggress against another human being.

The unborn is clearly another human being. The real question is how you deal with tresspassing. I'm pretty sure virtually every libertarian theorist, even the pro-choice ones, agree that life begins at conception.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Corrected.

Abortion is an initiation of force. There is no way around it. This has to do with libertarianism.

 

[Warlord]

Eye for an Eye..

Electricity Shall Pass Through Your Body

 

[Carson]

 

[jmdrake]

Do you believe that if guns were made illegal in the US, everyone would give up their guns and nobody would obtain them illegally?

Another comment too stupid to reply to, but I will. Your analogy doesn't fit the retarded "point" I was replying to. If you wanted to word your analogy at least partially correct you would say "Don't you believe that if guns were made illegal there would be more guns?" That would still be stupid though. Here's why. This isn't a case of a "back alley" abortion. Do you really believe that if abortion was illegal, this slime would have been able to con his girlfriend into going into a back alley and getting an abortion with a coathanger? He was able to pull of this trick precisely because abortion was illegal. Think about it. If abortion were illegal then the abortion drug would be illegal. Oh...some people would smuggle them in. But just like other illegal drugs they would be "cut" and of lower potency and probably fake altogether. Really, I don't know what's going on in this forum, but there's been a rash of poor logic lately. Have whatever opinion you want. But please be able to intelligently articulate it.

 

[jmdrake]

Corrected.

Not really. If someone believes that a fetus is an individual person, than the pro choice position is not libertarian. Evictionism, depending on how it's implemented, possibly is, though I prefer the term "pre-natal adoption". Admittedly people disagree on the personhood of the fetus.

 

[jmdrake]

Yes, that's true. But my comment wasn't strictly regarding the story, rather this notion that all abortions are murder and should be illegal, which I don't agree with. Based on my stance on the abortion issue, back room abortions would be an awful effect of making it illegal to abort something that isn't alive, thus infringing on the rights of the host to do what they please with their body.

I'm not sure if you are claiming that bans on abortions would prevent the removal of a stillborn fetus or if you don't believe a fetus is "alive" until it is born, but either position is ridiculous.

 

[jmdrake]

As much as I'd like to agree with this... aren't most libertarian theorists pro-choice?

I've never seen a poll on that, but that's not important anyway. Most economists may be Keynesian, but that doesn't mean much. There is a consistent libertarian argument for pro life.

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/04/08/the-libertarian-pro-life-case-against-abortion/

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Is it not true that if abortion were illegal, it would lead to more "back room" abortions?

Who cares? When the gun crime debate was on-going, all we were told by the media is you can't use "the law won't be obeyed" as a reason to oppose something.

People break laws all the time, for everything. If you want to use "well, people will still do it" as a reason for opposition, there wouldn't be a law against anything.

 

[Sola_Fide]

The difference there is that you'd kill a person in your cancer instance, even if someone believes a fetus is a human being that should be protected, they are not (and have never been) legally persons. So it's not similar.

Fetuses have always been considered legal persons.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

they are not (and have never been) legally persons. So it's not similar.

The law on murder says you can only be charged it for killing a living human, and nothing else (no murder charges for killing animals, businesses, already-dead bodies, etc.)

And this guy is being charged with what? Murder.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I've never seen a poll on that, but that's not important anyway. Most economists may be Keynesian, but that doesn't mean much. There is a consistent libertarian argument for pro life.

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/04/08/the-libertarian-pro-life-case-against-abortion/

I need to read that article, but you missed my point. I completely believe that its possible to be a pro-life libertarian. Heck, I AM a pro-life libertarian. Sola_Fide said that it is NOT possible to be a pro-choice libertarian, and that's what I was questioning. That would mean Rothbard wasn't a libertarian, which, considering he all but invented the ideology in the modern era, would be odd.

Regarding evictionism, the Blockean view of evictionism would allow eviction even if the eviction will lead to death. That's where I disagree with it. I don't think anyone would have a problem with evictionism that does NOT lead to death (Or at least serious injury.)

Abortion is an initiation of force. There is no way around it. This has to do with libertarianism.

I don't really want to Devil's Advocate the tresspassing argument, since I really don't agree with it, but it does exist.

 

[Carson]

I suppose it really shouldn't matter to me which side of the argument your on in regards to abortion.

I do think I should have a say in how abortion effects me and mine.

I certainly don't like the government's religion on the topic hoisted on me with my own tax money. I thought we were going to have a separation of such things.



The Unacknowledged Holocaust

Back in the 60’s the Federal Government came into the public schools and brainwashed us as little children with the message that the children we were about to have were unwanted because the population was rising so fast. They said the resources would be stressed. They launched a program called, “Zero Population Growth”. They pushed Family Planning and birth control pills. I think you and I now both know that you only have to trick people for their few child bearing years and there is no going back.

Many of us never had a say in the future of our unborn.

I am the result of two living cells. One from each of my parents. They are the result of two living cells, one from each of their parents. I wasn't just born. I am a continuation of life. I am a living thing that reaches back into time perhaps 400 million years and the result of billions of joining of pairs of cells. It is possible that if you were to follow my cells back to my parent’s cells and beyond that my family tree touches every living thing here on earth. That is if we limit ourselves to believing life was created here on earth. If it rained down from the immensity of the universe it could reach back into that immensity of time and space, and who knows what relationships and who knows what species.

My family line succeeded, at least until I came up against the Federal Government and their plan to control the population.

I have seen the Federal Government do little else to control the population.

The open border, United States laws only apply to some, is a serious slap in the face. No, not a slap in the face, it reaches well beyond that. Maybe back to the beginning of time and stretch to the bounds of the universe.

 

[jmdrake]

I need to read that article, but you missed my point. I completely believe that its possible to be a pro-life libertarian. Heck, I AM a pro-life libertarian. Sola_Fide said that it is NOT possible to be a pro-choice libertarian, and that's what I was questioning. That would mean Rothbard wasn't a libertarian, which, considering he all but invented the ideology in the modern era, would be odd.

Ah. I get it. My bad. Yeah, you can be a libertarian and be pro-choice, but IMO only by denying the individuality of the fetus. (And then there are those that literally don't believe there should be laws against murder).

Regarding evictionism, the Blockean view of evictionism would allow eviction even if the eviction will lead to death. That's where I disagree with it. I don't think anyone would have a problem with evictionism that does NOT lead to death (Or at least serious injury.)

Well some might not like the idea of artificial wombs. In fact I know Rev9 didn't like it.

I don't really want to Devil's Advocate the tresspassing argument, since I really don't agree with it, but it does exist.

Yeah. But I don't think it fits. Tresspassers aren't invitees.