Evictionism - Abortion and Libertarianism

[axiomata]

Ohhh sweet, so by then thanks to medical and technological advancements fetuses could evicted from the womb and still viable at any stage... so there is no problem. Great!

The whole premise is comically inept. If you're assuming we're 400 years into the future living in biodomes... it's entirely accurate to suggest that by then fetuses could be aborted at any stage and still be viable. So there is literally no problem.

If you take the trajectory of current medical advancements and timeline which Block points out in the short clip; it'd be possible by then if not sooner. In 2007 fetuses were evicted at 23 weeks and survive! Five years on essentially, who knows what it is? In another 400!? lol...

It's almost like you've never seen an ethical thought experiment before. A biodome in 2400 is the stage, the ethical dilemma is timeless. It just simply does not matter what the age of viability is in the year 2400 since thought experiment isn't addressing abortion directly. You wasted four paragraphs on nothing. I could have said it took place 70 years ago in a steam punk biodome and your rant would not apply.

Finally, you start criticizing the actual meat of the analogy...

Against their will? Right, so kidnapping... it's taking someone who already exists. When sexual intercourse happens, there is no fetus, no-one exists yet. Life begins at conception, yes... you are NOT putting the fetus in a worse position; you are IPSO FACTO putting it in a BETTER POSITION. Analogy fail. And so we continue..

I wrestled with the machine creating a person ex nihilio but in the end I figured justice is not dependent on past condition. If you give (not lend) a shivering homeless man a jacket and then come back the next day and try and take it back is he justified in resisting? Even if by taking it back you are simply returning him to the state he was in before you gave him the jacket in the first place? I think he is.

To answer your inane question / lifeboat scenario - you evict them in the most gentlest means possible. In this case, they have a positive obligation - because they literally pushed someone overboard (engaged in a criminal act, kidnapping them). They're not at all justified in drowning them.

To give a more ACCURATE analogy: picture a cruise liner or your home - when an invited guest, for whatever reason, becomes uninvited and asked to leave, if they refuse - they then become a trespasser. Removing them in the gentlest manner is the evictionist position. On a boat, be it stowaway, or uninvited guest, that means waiting to the next port. Throwing them overboard right then and there would be the Pro-Choice position. Forcing the property owner to take the stowaway the entire trip (9 months), is the Pro-Life position. The eminently reasonable and common sense position is to remove them at the next port of call. COMMON SENSE FTW!

Your cruise analogy is fine, but it is not more accurate. First, a cruise ship passenger can voluntarily leave and survive. He can either jump overboard or get off at the next port of call (usually the next day). A zygote/embryo/fetus does not have that luxury. Neither does someone 10,000 leagues under the see in a biodome.

Second, if you would like your analogy to be more accurate the owner of the ship would also be the captain, and would be the person, along with a male accomplice, who forced the guest on board. (The guest didn't object but it was not his choice.) The captain would have also have invited the guest for the full length of the trip (unless eviction was required to save the life of the captain.)

Also, the next port of call is not a night of cruising away, nor simply the equivalent age of potential viability for a fetus since potentiality implies that there is still a significant risk of death. At the very least evictionism requires a very high probability of survival and the mother and father would share liability for the medical costs required in order to ensure survival.

 

[specialK]

Actually, the soul is related to the breath, and just like oxygen, it is carried in the blood. This is also why the biblical prohibition against eating animals that have been strangled (soul cannot escape) or animals that still have their blood in them. This is also why the heart is so important and considered the 'seat' of the soul.

The way I see it, mother and child's souls co-mingle from the point that the fetus develops a blood supply until the umbilical cord is severed. Therefore, if you want to specify a date before which a fetus is not 'a living soul' that would more accurately be 14 days, after which the fetus has developed it's own blood supply, and thus carries a soul by the agency of it's mother.

"The soul is in the blood" is so perfectly described in the bible, but most Christians don't get it. The Hebrew word for soul 'nephesh' is also the Hebrew word for breath. It can also be used to refer (tangentially) to blood.

This is one of the concepts that is supposed to be fundamental to Christianity but remains generally unknown because of how the Church has abandoned it's Hebrew roots.

I've hear similar explanations from Jehovah's Witnesses. Are you against blood transfusions for the same reason?

 

[Conza88]

It's almost like you've never seen an ethical thought experiment before. A biodome in 2400 is the stage, the ethical dilemma is timeless. It just simply does not matter what the age of viability is in the year 2400 since thought experiment isn't addressing abortion directly. You wasted four paragraphs on nothing. I could have said it took place 70 years ago in a steam punk biodome and your rant would not apply.

Finally, you start criticizing the actual meat of the analogy...

Not a rant, a refutation of your flawed scenario given it's premises. It absolutely matters, and your dismissal does not change that. I completely addressed your ethical dilemma as an aside. In 400 years, given current medical advancements - this wouldn't even be a problem. Your inability to comprehend that is shameful.

I wrestled with the machine creating a person ex nihilio but in the end I figured justice is not dependent on past condition. If you give (not lend) a shivering homeless man a jacket and then come back the next day and try and take it back is he justified in resisting? Even if by taking it back you are simply returning him to the state he was in before you gave him the jacket in the first place? I think he is.

Justice is not dependent on past condition? Absurd. Yes, he is justified in resisting. If you gave it to hi, (transferred property titles) absolutely, if you stated it was conditional and you'd be back for it (then no).

You more than likely have absolutely no understanding of contract theory, and that wouldn't surprise me.

Your cruise analogy is fine, but it is not more accurate. First, a cruise ship passenger can voluntarily leave and survive. He can either jump overboard or get off at the next port of call (usually the next day). A zygote/embryo/fetus does not have that luxury. Neither does someone 10,000 leagues under the see in a biodome.

It is more accurate. In 400 years a zygote/embyro/fetus would be able to and 'have that luxury'. At 23 weeks they can - as of 5 years ago...

Second, if you would like your analogy to be more accurate the owner of the ship would also be the captain, and would be the person, along with a male accomplice, who forced the guest on board. (The guest didn't object but it was not his choice.) The captain would have also have invited the guest for the full length of the trip (unless eviction was required to save the life of the captain.)

There is no 'forcing' a passenger onboard. Force implies against ones will. The fetus/embyro/sperm would certainly CHOOSE TO BE IN THAT SITUATION, i.e be on the path to being BORN. They are PUT IN A BETTER POSITION. But speaking of "force" is retarded, because it is AGAINST ONES WILL. A fetus doesn't have a will to begin with, so fail on two accounts.

There is no contract at all - hence not invitation to speak off. It could be a result of a rap, or a mistaken pregnancy. Uninvited from the get go.

Also, the next port of call is not a night of cruising away, nor simply the equivalent age of potential viability for a fetus since potentiality implies that there is still a significant risk of death. At the very least evictionism requires a very high probability of survival and the mother and father would share liability for the medical costs required in order to ensure survival.

The age of viability is continually falling. The costs would come down, given medical advancements, given the free-market in medicine, no taxes, competition etc. The costs of sustaining life would also be reduced. Given the 400 years (lol). You don't even know what shit will be like in 5 years so, lolz to that notion of speaking comprehensibly about 400.

If someone dies whilst being evicted in the most gentlest means possible, i.e they have a heart attack on the plank leaving at the next port of call, whilst being wheel chaired out because they are fragile... that's a tragedy. And yet it is a continuation problem. Advancements - and an ACCEPTANCE OF EVICTIONISM WOULD SPEED THE WHOLE PROCESS UP OF THOSE ADVANCEMENTS.

Think about all the money spent lobbying FOR abortion, or AGAINST it... it's a joke, and then put that money from both sides into these advancements, it'd go a long way to save lives FOR BOTH SIDES.

 

[axiomata]

Not a rant, a refutation of your flawed scenario given it's premises. It absolutely matters, and your dismissal does not change that. I completely addressed your ethical dilemma as an aside. In 400 years, given current medical advancements - this wouldn't even be a problem. Your inability to comprehend that is shameful.

I'll leave it to other readers to realize the unimportance of the setting 400 years in the future. For you, who thinks its a key sticking point I'll change my analogy to a steam-punk 1930.

Justice is not dependent on past condition? Absurd. Yes, he is justified in resisting. If you gave it to hi, (transferred property titles) absolutely, if you stated it was conditional and you'd be back for it (then no).

You more than likely have absolutely no understanding of contract theory, and that wouldn't surprise me.

Your reading comprehension is sorely lacking. I clearly said that the jacket was given and not lent.

Your debate technique is juvenile. 1) Misread 2) Call misreading absurd 3) Insult. I'm done after this post.

It is more accurate. In 400 years a zygote/embyro/fetus would be able to and 'have that luxury'. At 23 weeks they can - as of 5 years ago...

You think a 23 week old fetus can voluntarily choose to leave a womb?

There is no 'forcing' a passenger onboard. Force implies against ones will. The fetus/embyro/sperm would certainly CHOOSE TO BE IN THAT SITUATION, i.e be on the path to being BORN. They are PUT IN A BETTER POSITION. But speaking of "force" is retarded, because it is AGAINST ONES WILL. A fetus doesn't have a will to begin with, so fail on two accounts.

It matters not that could a fetus choose and act on that choice, it would likely choose to be in that situation. I have no interest in forcing you to take your medicine even though my intervention objectively puts you in a better position. A fetus a day before birth and a baby a day after both have no meaningful free will as in an adult's reasoning, choosing, and acting. They both may "choose" to suck their thumb but its animalistic. But to say that forcably removing said thumb from the mouth is not "force" is silly. You can be forced to do something against your will or without your consent.

There is no contract at all - hence not invitation to speak off. It could be a result of a rap, or a mistaken pregnancy. Uninvited from the get go.

I believe voluntary sex between competant adults is an implied contract. In my original post I accepted the rationale for eviction in the case of rape.

... to bored to go on.

 

[crhoades]

If you havent read it yet, check out Paul's book: Abortion and Liberty
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...online-in-.pdf&p=727717&viewfull=1#post727717

 

[bolil]

This evictionism is splitting hairs... seriously ridiculous. By eviction, as in the case of baby and mother, one does kill. Personally, I could care less whether anyone has an abortion, by eviction or clothes hanger, I just don't want to be made "implicit" by my tax dollars. Wow.... 7 pages on this. Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Seriously, the rape case is the strongest pro-abortion argument that can be made. I wonder, statistically, how many abortions are provided via tax dollars in cases not involving rape. Simple way to avoid abortion... don't fuck. If you choose to fuck you have exercised your personal liberty to copulate. If you become pregnant as a result of your own personal choices, then best of luck... don't take my money to murder your baby. Thanks. In the case of a "successful eviction" (LOLOLOLLOLOLLOLOLLLOLOLOL) one that even promises preserve the babies liberty and life, who pays for that? Don't want a baby? don't stick it in or receive it. Simple, pure, logic.

 

[Conza88]

Your entire post is guilty of the argumentum ad nauseam fallacy. Repeated, didn't address jack squat.

I'll leave it to other readers to realize the unimportance of the setting 400 years in the future. For you, who thinks its a key sticking point I'll change my analogy to a steam-punk 1930.

You're leaving them to laugh at your position. It shatters your premises, and yet I go on to refute them even if taken as granted. A

Your reading comprehension is sorely lacking. I clearly said that the jacket was given and not lent.

Your debate technique is juvenile. 1) Misread 2) Call misreading absurd 3) Insult. I'm done after this post.

Sweet ad hominem's dude. I respond with the level of respect ones position deserves. Do you play wilfully ignorant often? This is what I said:

"Justice is not dependent on past condition? Absurd. Yes, he is justified in resisting. If you gave it to him (transferred property titles) absolutely, if you stated it was conditional and you'd be back for it (then no).

You more than likely have absolutely no understanding of contract theory, and that wouldn't surprise me."​

Right, so you asked a question. I answered it beyond clearly... and you failed to keep the follow up on track. What? Did you think I was going to provide you with something to attack? But now you can't, because you figured wrong?

Thought so.

You think a 23 week old fetus can voluntarily choose to leave a womb?

You think a fetus however old has a will? It choosing is immaterial. A stowaway doesn't want to leave. An uninvited guest doesn't want to leave. If asked and they refuse they become a trespasser. So go "ask" a fetus to leave... and when it doesn't acknowledge you, then it is time to evict in the most gentlest means possible - as you'd do for the stowaway and uninvited guest.

What is so hard to understand?

It matters not that could a fetus choose and act on that choice, it would likely choose to be in that situation. I have no interest in forcing you to take your medicine even though my intervention objectively puts you in a better position. A fetus a day before birth and a baby a day after both have no meaningful free will as in an adult's reasoning, choosing, and acting. They both may "choose" to suck their thumb but its animalistic. But to say that forcably removing said thumb from the mouth is not "force" is silly. You can be forced to do something against your will or without your consent.

Your definition of "force" here is comical. Yes and the question is whether it is JUSTIFIED OR NOT. Trespassing makes it so. The woman owns her womb, it is her body, her property. And yet the baby, fetus also owns his body as well!

I believe voluntary sex between competant adults is an implied contract. In my original post I accepted the rationale for eviction in the case of rape.

... to bored to go on.

Right, you have no idea of contract theory. Implied contracts exist due to explicit ones. Furthermore, voluntary sex - doesn't translate into pregnancy at all ipso facto.

 

[Conza88]

This evictionism is splitting hairs... seriously ridiculous. By eviction, as in the case of baby and mother, one does kill.

So a festus/baby is evicted "removed from the womb in the most gentlest means possible", it survives and grows up to be a fully fledged human being with self ownership. THAT IS KILLING? Huh?

Personally, I could care less whether anyone has an abortion, by eviction or clothes hanger, I just don't want to be made "implicit" by my tax dollars. Wow.... 7 pages on this. Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Seriously, the rape case is the strongest pro-abortion argument that can be made. I wonder, statistically, how many abortions are provided via tax dollars in cases not involving rape. Simple way to avoid abortion... don't fuck. If you choose to fuck you have exercised your personal liberty to copulate. If you become pregnant as a result of your own personal choices, then best of luck... don't take my money to murder your baby. Thanks. In the case of a "successful eviction" (LOLOLOLLOLOLLOLOLLLOLOLOL) one that even promises preserve the babies liberty and life, who pays for that? Don't want a baby? don't stick it in or receive it. Simple, pure, logic.

Sex doesn't ipso facto imply pregnancy. Do you not know about the 'birds and the bees'?

Did you miss Hans-Hermann Hoppe's video on the subject? That the state has absolutely no role? Your questions are answered.

 

[Krugerrand]

I think Block's arguments make a great basis for starting a discussion. I don't go along with the entire premise, but it's a great starting point. Deep in my postings you can find a number of times when I've referenced him.

Things to keep in mind in the discussion.... don't get bogged down with things like 'morality' 'faith' 'person' and other buzz words. There are lots of atheists out there who are pro-life; do not paint all pro-lifers as fighting for some religious dogma. "Person" is a word of convenience. People try way too hard to put more meaning into it. Think 7th grade biology. It's pretty simple to identify when a new human organism enters into existence. It's also just as easy to identify when a new chicken organism enters into existence. Both happen when the egg is fertilized. It's mighty dangerous when we allow people of power to decide when some human organisms are not 'people.'

Of course, that's separate from Block's point ... which is why I consider his approach worth discussing.

AND - a great PRACTICAL way to deter abortion is to allow mothers to profit from turning their children over for adoption. There are lots of other people making a living out of the adoption process ... yet the one who has the hardest part of the process gets (virtually) nothing. It's crazy that we have people on long waiting lists for adoptions while we have people paying tons of money for intensive fertility treatments while we have other people aborting their children. A little bit of free-markets injected into that mix would mean a huge decrease in abortions. Drop the number of abortions, and you'll see the profit sucked out of the industry. Take out the profit (and of course the government funding) and the industry would go away pretty quickly.

 

[bolil]

So a festus/baby is evicted "removed from the womb in the most gentlest means possible", it survives and grows up to be a fully fledged human being with self ownership. THAT IS KILLING? Huh?



Sex doesn't ipso facto imply pregnancy. Do you not know about the 'birds and the bees'?

Did you miss Hans-Hermann Hoppe's video on the subject? That the state has absolutely no role? Your questions are answered.

As soon as you provide me with evidence that "eviction" does not kill/harm (possibly including a wide range of negative psychological effects) the baby, I will cease to consider it ridiculous. The sex act may not, ipso facto, cause pregnancy but pregnancy IS, ipso facto, caused by sex (To appease your fiery and observant intellect you can substitute "sex" with "penetration" as would be the case invitro). How much money would it require for technology to effectively and efficiently mimic the natural growth of a fetus in the womb? More than you have to fund it. Even if you were Bill Gates you could not buy natures methods. Time and again nature has reduced our attempts to mimic her into foul, vulgar, mockeries (like Dolly, the cloned lamb).

 

[Conza88]

As soon as you provide me with evidence that "eviction" does not kill/harm (possibly including a wide range of negative psychological effects) the baby, I will cease to consider it ridiculous. The sex act may not, ipso facto, cause pregnancy but pregnancy IS, ipso facto, caused by sex (To appease your fiery and observant intellect you can substitute "sex" with "penetration" as would be the case invitro). How much money would it require for technology to effectively and efficiently mimic the natural growth of a fetus in the womb? More than you have to fund it. Even if you were Bill Gates you could not buy natures methods. Time and again nature has reduced our attempts to mimic her into foul, vulgar, mockeries (like Dolly, the cloned lamb).

The burden of proof rests with you. You're the one supporting unjustified use of force.

But really how about you actually read the friggin' journal article document. The whole thing. But since you won't, go look at *Pg 27 - VII. Pragmatic Issues*.

 

[bolil]

The burden of proof rests with you. You're the one supporting unjustified use of force.

But really how about you actually read the friggin' journal article document. The whole thing. But since you won't, go look at *Pg 27 - VII. Pragmatic Issues*.

I read it, don't make an ass of you and me. However, it is my contention that, the technology necessary to properly abandon a baby via "eviction" is impractical at the least. One might say, "The machines that keep premature babies alive is proof that the technology necessary for eviction exists and, as evidenced by the increase in premature survival, the technology has been developed in a way that is compliant with libertarian views (that is out of necessity to preserve life, and therefore individual liberty)." Yet this technology still does not have a very promising success rate (h tt p://www.preemiesurvival.org/info/index.html). The mother, being owner of the fetus, has a responsibility, if not the natural inclination, to improve that fetus; as is the case with land ownership, a loose parallel drawn in the article. Should she fail in this out of no fault of her own, as would be the case in accidental or third party trauma, miscarriage, et al then she has upheld her responsibility to the best of her ability. Should she CHOOSE to fail in this and opt for an "eviction" and the result of that eviction, as is likely, is death or developmental harm then she is responsible for the death or harm as her chosen course of action ensured it. The burden of proof rests with me? See the former website for some. Where in the above do I promote the unjust use of force?

 

[Jessie Clyde]

Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life" and "an unshakable foe of
abortion."However, he believes regulation of medical decisions about maternal or
fetal health is "best handled at the state level." He believes that, for the
most part, states should retain jurisdiction, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

Paul refers to his background as an obstetrician as being influential on his view,
recalling inadvertently witnessing a late-term abortion performed by one of his
instructors during his residency, It was pretty dramatic for me to see a
two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket. During a
May 15, 2007, appearance on the Fox News talk show Hannity and Colmes, Paul argued that
his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values, asking, "If you
can't protect life then how can you protect liberty?" Furthermore, Paul argued in
this appearance that since he believes libertarians support non-aggression, libertarians
should oppose abortion because abortion is "an act of aggression" against a
fetus, which is alive, human, and he believes possesses legal rights.

Paul has said that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant
the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion, stating that "the
federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue.

More about Ron Paul and the abortion issues:
http://www.ronpaulgrassrootshq.com/ron_paul_on_pro_life_and_abortion.html

See how Ron Paul defines abortion
http://wholeworldinhishands.com/world/definition_of_abortion.html

 

[Conza88]

I read it, don't make an ass of you and me.

Then stop acting as if you haven't. Did you read the footnotes as well then? That specifically refer to others about this exact medical issue and the research that is going on. You exude ignorance.

However, it is my contention that, the technology necessary to properly abandon a baby via "eviction" is impractical at the least. One might say, "The machines that keep premature babies alive is proof that the technology necessary for eviction exists and, as evidenced by the increase in premature survival, the technology has been developed in a way that is compliant with libertarian views (that is out of necessity to preserve life, and therefore individual liberty)." Yet this technology still does not have a very promising success rate (h tt p://www.preemiesurvival.org/info/index.html).

Arguments against the technology, not legal position. Survival is survival. The risks/chance of success will always change. To point to some rate now, is irrelevant given in the future it will be different. The principle remains the same. In fact, if you want the success rate to increase - you should be adopting the evictionist position (for the numerous reasons outlined by Block in the article - you've said you have read).

The mother, being owner of the fetus, has a responsibility, if not the natural inclination, to improve that fetus; as is the case with land ownership, a loose parallel drawn in the article. Should she fail in this out of no fault of her own, as would be the case in accidental or third party trauma, miscarriage, et al then she has upheld her responsibility to the best of her ability. Should she CHOOSE to fail in this and opt for an "eviction" and the result of that eviction, as is likely, is death or developmental harm then she is responsible for the death or harm as her chosen course of action ensured it. The burden of proof rests with me? See the former website for some. Where in the above do I promote the unjust use of force?

Your premise is flawed. You don't own a fetus. If you did, then you can do whatever the hell you want with it - it's your property. You can blow up your house for all anyone cares, as long as you aren't going to collect insurance claim fraudulently, or it doesn't injure anyone else.. then there is no problem.

It is worth mentioning that the ownership right stemming from production finds its natural limitation only when, as in the case of children, the thing produced is itself another actor-producer. According to the natural theory of property, a child, once born, is just as much the owner of his own body as anyone else. Hence, not only can a child expect not to be physically aggressed against but as the owner of his body a child has the right, in particular, to abandon his parents once he is physically able to run away from them and say "no" to their possible attempts to recapture him. Parents only have special rights regarding their child - stemming from their unique status as the child's producers - insofar as they (and no one else) can rightfully claim to be the child's trustee as long as the child is physically unable to run away and say "no."[8] ~
Hoppe, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, n.9 to ch. 2, on p. 212; emphasis added.​

Yes the burden of proof rests with you, not me. When you use force (unjustified) against a woman to do something against their will. When you put the gun to the head of a captain of a ship, and force him to carry a stowaway the entire journey... when he can legitimately remove them at port.

 

[Conza88]

Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life" and "an unshakable foe of
abortion."However, he believes regulation of medical decisions about maternal or
fetal health is "best handled at the state level." He believes that, for the
most part, states should retain jurisdiction, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

Paul refers to his background as an obstetrician as being influential on his view,
recalling inadvertently witnessing a late-term abortion performed by one of his
instructors during his residency, It was pretty dramatic for me to see a
two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket. During a
May 15, 2007, appearance on the Fox News talk show Hannity and Colmes, Paul argued that
his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values, asking, "If you
can't protect life then how can you protect liberty?" Furthermore, Paul argued in
this appearance that since he believes libertarians support non-aggression, libertarians
should oppose abortion because abortion is "an act of aggression" against a
fetus, which is alive, human, and he believes possesses legal rights.

Paul has said that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant
the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion, stating that "the
federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue.

More about Ron Paul and the abortion issues:
http://www.ronpaulgrassrootshq.com/ron_paul_on_pro_life_and_abortion.html

See how Ron Paul defines abortion
http://wholeworldinhishands.com/world/definition_of_abortion.html

Congratulations, you have added absolutely nothing to the discussion. Sweet appeal to popularity fallacy as mentioned in OP.

 

[Working Poor]

I blog with many liberals and work really hard to get them to consider Ron Paul. His stand on abortion is the one thing that holds many people back from supporting him.The more vocal feminist viciously attack him on this. Saying he is for civil rights yet is against my civil right to have an abortion. When I am the only person countering this stand it makes me sound weak and silly to liberals.

 

[Conza88]

I blog with many liberals and work really hard to get them to consider Ron Paul. His stand on abortion is the one thing that holds many people back from supporting him.The more vocal feminist viciously attack him on this. Saying he is for civil rights yet is against my civil right to have an abortion. When I am the only person countering this stand it makes me sound weak and silly to liberals.

Indeed. This is a massive selling/draw card for liberty. If only Ron knew of the position. It accepts all his premises. Life begins at conception. Property rights. Non aggression.

(@General - And don't think that is why I've come to adopt and defend this position). It's because it's right. Which is why it should appeal to all. FREEDOM BRINGS PEOPLE TOGETHER.

Low and behold - those who want to kill fetuses, and those who want to hold guns to the heads of woman and tell them how to use their body object!

 

[Cutlerzzz]

Indeed. This is a massive selling/draw card for liberty. If only Ron knew of the position. It accepts all his premises. Life begins at conception. Property rights. Non aggression.

You don't think Ron has ever heard of it before?

 

[PierzStyx]

Property rights are superseded by rights to life. The fetus has a right to life as a developing human. Therefore its rights to life superseded the mother's privacy or property rights except in such a case where it would possibly mean her death. Since one can kill in self-defense then abortion can take place to preserve a mother's life. All other cases fall under the right to life issue.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Congratulations, you have added absolutely nothing to the discussion. Sweet appeal to popularity fallacy as mentioned in OP.

Oh yes he did. Since you have flat out lied about Paul's position, he was posting it for those who wanted to read Dr. Paul's own words. That's a good thing.