Is the Personhood Movement Really Pro Life?

[Pauling]

You assume that there are only 2 alternatives : (I) arbitrarily choose who lives, or everybody is forced to live. Genius!

I'm not against voluntary sterilization, but why are you against voluntary abortion? It's another thing if you're willing to pay for the child's expenses(and I know you are not), but I'm willing to pay for either abortion or prevention of pregnancy.

This is exactly what I mean about pro-lifers being like liberals, it's all about their opponents paying. If somebody wants an abortion, pro-lifers not only wouldn't pay for it, but wouldn't help prevent it. If somebody is forced to have the baby as an alternative, pro-lifers again wouldn't pay for the child. They want to force people to do something, but not willing to pay for it.

As a father of two adopted children, I can assure you that there are plenty of pro-lifers who are willing to "pay for the child"

If it's impossible for her to chase him down, yes. Because it was her right to abort the baby in the first place. If she only was willing to have the baby relying on his promise (and he better show some reason it's believable), she shouldn't continue to do something she either didn't want to do, or cannot afford.

I pretty much believe the mother always has a right to abort a baby, unless she had some legal obligation or contract saying otherwise.

And here we have a clear view of the moral depravity of pro-abortionists.

 

[liberdom]

Irrelevant. In post 15 you admitted you are okay with allowing the murder of toddlers cause otherwise we're "socialists".

He asked, I was just responding.

And yes, only socialists want to force a parent to do what they want with their child, only socialists believe that my child is your business, or the state's obligation. I can see you are not even denying that pro-lifers want people to waste money against their will, you just try to mask it as "moral" to silence the obvious financial and social implications. You are blinded by your faith in equality and life, which is exactly what socialism depends on, inability to assess costs and benefits.

 

[liberdom]

As a father of two adopted children, I can assure you that there are plenty of pro-lifers who are willing to "pay for the child"

Plenty, just not enough, when there are actual shortage of children, will change my mind. Otherwise I think we can agree there is a demand for good parents and over supply of children.

And here we have a clear view of the moral depravity of pro-abortionists.

I apologize that I didn't originally see you say "have the baby", so I was thinking still of abortion. After birth, we don't call it abortion, but that is a legal distinction. I agree with pro-lifers that life begins at conception. All lines on where and when it is acceptable to kill the life are completely artificial.

 

[Pauling]

Where do you draw the line? Should I be able to "abort" my 6 year old?

 

[liberdom]

Where do you draw the line? Should I be able to "abort" my 6 year old?

Wherever I draw the line, I admit it is my personal opinion.
This line is no different than making 18 the age of consent and 21 the age for drinking.

I would say as soon as a child can speak, I feel obligated to protect his life, and I have no problem with anybody using force to achieve that. However, I realize that unless I am willing to pay for the cost of protecting and keeping the child, I can't force or obligate somebody else to do what I can't provide. Does that answer you?

 

[jmdrake]

That's exactly why this movement doesn't get off the ground, I am speaking of the pro-life movement, not liberty/patriot/militia movement. The pro-life movement is exactly how you just said it, you are not willing to pay for another person's child, yet you feel qualified to tell a person to keep their child. When a person realizes his/her mistake and wants to abort their child, which saves himself money, and society trouble, you choose to punish him at tax payer's expense. If you don't want to call this liberal, I'd like to see you call this "fiscal responsibility".

Sorry, but if you believe it should be okay to kill toddlers then you aren't part of the liberty/patriot/militia movement.

 

[Pauling]

Plenty, just not enough, when there are actual shortage of children, will change my mind. Otherwise I think we can agree there is a demand for good parents and over supply of children.

Actually, I think there are enough. It's just that our society makes it too difficult to adopt and too easy too abort.

 

[liberdom]

Sorry, but if you believe it should be okay to kill toddlers then you aren't part of the liberty/patriot/militia movement.

Sorry, if you believe it's ok to force a parent to bear the cost of a child they had a chance to avoid, and force somebody to do something at their own cost against their will, you are not part of the anti-socialist movement.

 

[liberdom]

Actually, I think there are enough. It's just that our society makes it too difficult to adopt and too easy too abort.

Ok, I think then we can agree, that we should make this process easier (I have no problem admitting that I am totally socialist on encouraging and facilitating adoption). I don't think it's a concerted effort to make adoption hard AND abortion easy. I think (personally, please correct me), that abortion is frequent, because it is easy, and encouraged, because adoption is hard.

 

[Pauling]

Ok, I think I'm done here. I'm having a hard time believing that you're for real.

 

[liberdom]

Ok, I think I'm done here. I'm having a hard time believing that you're for real.

Right after I said I found common ground? Ok then.

 

[Pauling]

Right after I said I found common ground? Ok then.

Apologies. I didn't see that last post. I am glad that we could agree on something.

 

[jmdrake]

Sorry, if you believe it's ok to force a parent to bear the cost of a child they had a chance to avoid, and force somebody to do something at their own cost against their will, you are not part of the anti-socialist movement.

I'm not trying to be part of your fake definition of the "anti-socialist movement". Mussolini came to power on a platform of "fighting socialism". So did Pinochet. I suppose you think Ron Paul is not part of the "anti-socialist movement" as well.

 

[liberdom]

I'm not trying to be part of your fake definition of the "anti-socialist movement". Mussolini came to power on a platform of "fighting socialism". So did Pinochet. I suppose you think Ron Paul is not part of the "anti-socialist movement" as well.

I prefer to ask him myself the specifics. I understand that most pro-life people don't think or don't want to think about the financial consequences, so I take the time ask them, like I did to you.

 

[liberdom]

Apologies. I didn't see that last post. I am glad that we could agree on something.

No problem. Thanks for making me think about my position.

 

[jmdrake]

I prefer to ask him myself the specifics. I understand that most pro-life people don't think or don't want to think about the financial consequences, so I take the time ask them, like I did to you.

People should think about the financial consequences of their choice to have sex. And yes there is the possibility of rape. A woman has the choice (which Ron Paul respects) of getting emergency contraception which stops a pregnancy before implantation. I don't think you will find many in the liberty movement, even those that are pro choice, that will take the extremist position that even the murder of a toddler should be allowed as long as it is financially justified.

 

[liberdom]

People should think about the financial consequences of their choice to have sex. And yes there is the possibility of rape. A woman has the choice (which Ron Paul respects) of getting emergency contraception which stops a pregnancy before implantation.

How does that work? How soon do you need to do it? Does Ron Paul support letting every American know about it as a way of reducing both abortions and pregnancies?

Yes, I agree people should think about consequences before having sex, but I also believe when people make mistakes, we should allow them to fix it if the consequences are great enough.

I don't think you will find many in the liberty movement, even those that are pro choice, that will take the extremist position that even the murder of a toddler should be allowed as long as it is financially justified.

That's fine. But then they cannot criticize liberals for being financially stupid.

 

[PierzStyx]

That's what most pro-lifers are, extremists, otherwise they are "talkers only".

But it's about time people realize that pro-life is ultimately a socialist and liberal position, based on equality and absolutism rather than fiscal conservative responsibility.

Morality isn't liberalism. the protection of life is the guarantee of one of the three great liberties, you know every person has the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." You know THOSE unalienable rights we all believe in? Socialists and liberals support free and unregulated abortions, or have you not been paying attention to the Democrats lately?

 

[liberdom]

Morality isn't liberalism. the protection of life is the guarantee of one of the three great liberties, you know every person has the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." You know THOSE unalienable rights we all believe in? Socialists and liberals support free and unregulated abortions, or have you not been paying attention to the Democrats lately?

morality isn't per se liberalism, but failure to think about costs and insisting on your ideals is a unique characteristic of liberals and socialists.

Liberals support free and unregulated abortions for those who want them, they don't want to kill babies against parents' will, do they?

Do the "3 great liberties" end at the national border?

When a child is born, liberals fight to have these children, fed, clothed, drugged, educated...etc, against the will of either parents or taxpayers. All of these cost more than abortions. Liberals are fiscally irresponsible, so if somebody wants to be fiscally irresponsible, what should we call them? are they any better than liberals?

 

[jmdrake]

How does that work? How soon do you need to do it? Does Ron Paul support letting every American know about it as a way of reducing both abortions and pregnancies?

Yes, I agree people should think about consequences before having sex, but I also believe when people make mistakes, we should allow them to fix it if the consequences are great enough.

That's fine. But then they cannot criticize liberals for being financially stupid.

Yes. Because the economy has so vastly improved since Roe v. Wade.