Abortion and Liberty?

[Wesker1982]

Why does it matter what Ron Paul thinks about abortion? It is not like he is going to try to nationwide ban it.

The abortion issue is too divided to try to enforce a one-size-fits-all solution.

"Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms." - Ron Paul

This is a post from a few months ago:

imo, it can be concluded that the reasoning Ron Paul uses to advocate this as a states issue would naturally conclude him to advocate it as a community issue, or as local as possible.

This issue cannot be dealt with by centralized authority. I think Ron Paul knows this and advocates it to be dealt with on a state level only as opposed to a federal level. I think he would support the issue to be dealt with as locally as possible, like on a community level etc. The state is an arbitrary cutoff point, whatever reason one uses to support problems to be dealt with at a state vs federal level can be used to advocate problems to be dealt with at a community level vs state etc.

The issue is similar to policing the world. Once we quit thinking of everything in terms of states, it becomes easier to understand. Even though there are injustices all over the world, it is unrealistic to think it is possible to change peoples values and customs by force. The logic is similar for why we shouldn't search the Amazon Jungle for injustices to prevent or punish. Let people live where their customs and values are common and understand that you can't change people's values by force.

In before: "so murder on a local level is ok?!"

The difference between abortion and murder in this sense is that the vast majority of the human population views outright murder (as in shooting someone in the head for fun) as immoral and wrong. There wouldn't be very many communities where murder is ok. For one, their population would dwindle pretty fast, and secondly only crazy people would live there so who cares. Also, this sociopathic community would be economically ostracized from the rest of civilization, it would not last.

The abortion issue is not so clear cut, people are so divided on it that it makes any attempt to deal with it on a central level futile.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Why does it matter what Ron Paul thinks about abortion? It is not like he is going to try to nationwide ban it.

The abortion issue is too divided to try to enforce a one-size-fits-all solution.

"Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms." - Ron Paul

This is a post from a few months ago:

I agree. In fact, EVERY issue is too complex for a one-size-fits-all solution. Hence the need to gradually dissolve centralized government.

 

[robert68]

Fair enough.

So coathangers and black market abortions ftw, then?

The point I made doesn't suggest or imply whether or not, or when, it should be illegal for a doctor to perform an abortion.

 

[Sentient Void]

Excellent counterpoint. However, people who take Robert's position typically riposte with carrying the baby to term and giving it up for adoption(not to put words in his mouth, of course). What say you?

I would say that it is one thing to talk about what people 'should do' and another to talk about what people 'will do'.

In an environment where abortion is Outlawed / prohibited - there will of course be self-attempted abortions and black market abortions, surrounded by highs prices, lower quality, and violent crime.

I would personally favor women carrying the child to term and putting it up for adoption as opposed to aborting it - but the reality is that thy don't because there is not a whole lot of incentive for most of these mothers to do this, not to mention the great disincentive created by the social stigma of putting your child up for adoption / giving up one's child. There needs to be sufficient incentive to compensate for this disincentive, and then some. Being that there is a strong demand for adopting children, especially from wealthy couples, gay couples, et al - the market would handle this very well and lower the rate of abortion.

Of course, if we (further) got government out of the way and the market were allowed to conduct private, business and for profit brokering of setting up these mothers with others who wish to be parents and want to adopt, you will greatly increase the incentive for babies to be carried to term and put into good families, probably often wealthy ones even. These mothers would be paid good sums o money to not abort their child (due to such high demand for adoption), and to take especially good care of themselves during pregnancy in such a market.

All in all, the answer to all socioeconomic problems is IMO always more freedom, and less government.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I would say that it is one thing to talk about what people 'should do' and another to talk about what people 'will do'.

In an environment where abortion is Outlawed / prohibited - there will of course be self-attempted abortions and black market abortions, surrounded by highs prices, lower quality, and violent crime.

I would personally favor women carrying the child to term and putting it up for adoption as opposed to aborting it - but the reality is that thy don't because there is not a whole lot of incentive for most of these mothers to do this, not to mention the great disincentive created by the social stigma of putting your child up for adoption / giving up one's child.

Of course, if we (further) got government out of the way and the market were allowed to conduct private, business and for profit brokering of setting up these mothers with others who wish to be parents and want to adopt, you will greatly increase the incentive for babies to be carried to term and put into good families, probably often wealthy ones even. These mothers would be paid good sums o money to not abort their child (due to such high demand for adoption), and to take especially good care of themselves during pregnancy in such a market.

All in all, the answer to all socioeconomic problems is IMO always more freedom, and less government.

Well said. I agree 100%

 

[Travlyr]

Hey dumbass Conza - take that stupid shit out of your signature

 

[Cake]

I think the question of whether and when/at what point a fetus, or cells, or whatever becomes a person is irrelevant.

IMO, it comes down to property rights. Does a woman own herself and have full dominion over her body? Or not? Even if a fetus is a fully self-owning person, and one does not have the right to aggress against it like any human - the issue is a property rights issue, because *if the mother deems it so*, the fetus is invading her body, and violating her. She has every right to expel it, otherwise you are making her a slave.

Interesting.

Very sound logic.

This of course means removal and not termination of life.

I have a difficult time with this on a personal level, but it does seem legally sound. Some questions about 42 USC 1395) do come to mind, however. I wonder how this would apply in terms of hospitals being required to provide treatment. One should consider a certain level of liability to a woman that simply decides she no longer wants to carry the [insert preference] knowing that medical science and the capabilities of the hospital may still bring it to term. As medical science advances, hospitals will likely have the technology to save life earlier and earlier in the stages of development.

If we examine this in comparison with current parental responsibilities, we are left with some questions. If the hospital is required to treat cases of emergency (42 USC 1395), does neglect on the woman's behalf then become the issue if the [insert preference] is brought to term? If, or I should say when, medical science becomes advanced enough to bring a [insert preference] to term from virtually any stage, where then could we draw the line?