Miscarriage = baby; Abortion = "mass of cells"

[The Free Hornet]

So far I haven't seen you give one I haven't heard.

I'll try again:

6) JMDRAKE is an untrustworthy liar who should not be entrusted with power over other people's lives.

Anyway, it is nice to see you doubledown on the omniscience required to know EVERY ARGUMENT that is contrary to your own. You go from believing in an omniscient super being to claiming to actually be that being, or its emissary.

 

[otherone]

That said, the language of "not a baby, baby", is not restricted to a woman in a clinic. It's dishonest to claim that.

You're tilting at windmills.

 

[otherone]

"Social Conservatives" are HARPING on abortion, and it IS hurting the fractious Liberty Moovement.

Only so much as advocating for more government and less government at the same time.

 

[Christian Liberty]

That's a massive strawman. It just so happens that murder is sometimes legal right now. Just because I think you have a right to own a machine gun, or shoot heroin, or kill yourself, or work for any wage you want, or not be under insane tax regulations, or (Insert something here) doesn't mean I don't want murder completely and always banned.

Apparently Ron Paul was a big government guy under this BS standard.

 

[erowe1]

That's a massive strawman. It just so happens that murder is sometimes legal right now. Just because I think you have a right to own a machine gun, or shoot heroin, or kill yourself, or work for any wage you want, or not be under insane tax regulations, or (Insert something here) doesn't mean I don't want murder completely and always banned.

Apparently Ron Paul was a big government guy under this BS standard.

Do you think the regime in DC should send the military to take over China to make them outlaw abortion and other murders there?

I don't. I don't support them doing that to Massachusets either.

 

[otherone]

That's a massive strawman.

Not at all. You advocate for MORE intrusive government.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Hopefully the 12 y/o rape victim was given emergency contraception, in which case the doctor can honestly say "You probably haven't even conceived yet so this isn't technically an abortion." That said, the language of "not a baby, baby", is not restricted to a woman in a clinic. It's dishonest to claim that.

And hopefully this occured before conception not after and prior to implantation. That said, how playing russian roulette with a fetus elevates your moral stature is beyond my comprehension.

For you to say that shows you don't know what the term "strawmen" even means. I started the thread precisely to talk about the particular case of someone claiming that you had to be "religious" to believe life started at conception. That's not true. You want to talk about something else? Fine. But you are the one creating the strawmen. (Bringing up a point the other side didn't make in order to knock it down).

The strawman is yours from post #1: "... pretends the humanity of an unborn child depends on whether its 'wanted' or not. ... people falsely claim that if you believe an unborn child is a human being that must be because of 'religious reasons'. ... those who say that there is no reason, other than religion, to believe a fetus is actually a human being...".

Regardless, I'll try to be more respectful the next time your strawmen get uppity.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Do you think the regime in DC should send the military to take over China to make them outlaw abortion and other murders there?'

No. And so what? That doesn't mean it isn't murder. I do think murder should be banned though. I just don't believe in world government, period. I support decentralization. But whatever governments we do have should make laws against murder in their jurisdiction. I apply that to abortion as well.

I don't. I don't support them doing that to Massachusets either.

I don't either. The Federal government is way too big, and besides, there's no provision for it in the constitution. If it were up to me, I'd pass an amendment banning abortion (We shouldn't invade a state that refuses, but we should kick them out of the Union, if they insist on legalizing murder we should refuse to associate with them.) Realizing that this will not happen, in accordance with the 10th amendment, this is a state issue.

If, regardless of our personal views, we could agree that its a 10th amendment issue, and agree to make that the expected position for liberty candidates going forward, we could spend more time focusing on other issues since its impossible to really convince anyone of the abortion issue and the amendment will never happen.

Not at all. You advocate for MORE intrusive government.

So does Ron Paul... apparently...

 

[erowe1]

(We shouldn't invade a state that refuses, but we should kick them out of the Union, if they insist on legalizing murder we should refuse to associate with them.)

I'd be for that.

The problem is, kicking them out of the Union is practically a reward.

 

[cheapseats]

Not at all. You advocate for MORE intrusive government.

B-b-b-but, it's the RIGHT KIND of bigger, more intrusive government.

States Enact Record Number of Abortion Restrictions in 2011

January 5, 2012

By almost any measure, issues related to reproductive health and rights at the state level received unprecedented attention in 2011. In the 50 states combined, legislators introduced more than 1,100 reproductive health and rights-related provisions, a sharp increase from the 950 introduced in 2010. By year’s end, 135 of these provisions had been enacted in 36 states, an increase from the 89 enacted in 2010 and the 77 enacted in 2009. (Note: This analysis refers to reproductive health and rights-related “provisions,” rather than bills or laws, since bills introduced and eventually enacted in the states contain multiple relevant provisions.)

Fully 68% of these new provisions—92 in 24 states—-restrict access to abortion services, a striking increase from last year, when 26% of new provisions restricted abortion. The 92 new abortion restrictions enacted in 2011 shattered the previous record of 34 adopted in 2005...

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2012/01/05/endofyear.html

 

[otherone]

B-b-b-but, it's the RIGHT KIND of bigger, more intrusive government.

Some of us want to starve the beast, others want to occasionally slip it a little snack once in a while.

 

[jmdrake]

And hopefully this occured before conception not after and prior to implantation. That said, how playing russian roulette with a fetus elevates your moral stature is beyond my comprehension.

A lot seems beyond your comprehension. This isn't about elevating "moral status" either. As Nirva pointed out, miscarriages that happen this early aren't even noticed. And you don't typically see IVF mothers grieving over the embryos that didn't take. I'm talking about a consistent position.

The strawman is yours from post #1: "... pretends the humanity of an unborn child depends on whether its 'wanted' or not. ... people falsely claim that if you believe an unborn child is a human being that must be because of 'religious reasons'. ... those who say that there is no reason, other than religion, to believe a fetus is actually a human being...".

You can't slow enough to actually believe what you just wrote. This thread was started out of my responding to someone who said that if you believed an unborn child was human it must be because of religious reasons. So quit trying to claim I'm the one that started the straw man when I was responding to an actual argument. It is logically impossible to start a conversation with a strawman. Only someone ignorant about debate would even claim such a thing. A strawman argument is when you make up a position for someone you are already engaged in debate with.

Regardless, I'll try to be more respectful the next time your strawmen get uppity.

Again, you're just showing your ignorance. I care not if you are respectful.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

That's a massive strawman. It just so happens that murder is sometimes legal right now. Just because I think you have a right to own a machine gun, or shoot heroin, or kill yourself, or work for any wage you want, or not be under insane tax regulations, or (Insert something here) doesn't mean I don't want murder completely and always banned.

Apparently Ron Paul was a big government guy under this BS standard.

Murder is never legal. Manslaughter and certain cases of homicide are.

 

[jmdrake]

You're tilting at windmills.

You're dodging a valid point because it hurts your worldview.

 

[jmdrake]

Not at all. You advocate for MORE intrusive government.

Ah. So now we need an all powerful federal government to make sure that government is not intrusive. Mmmmm.....okay. Part of the reason federal elections have become the focus of the electorate, and by extension concentrating power in the hands of interest groups, is the "We need a federal rule for everything" mentality. Fights for/against abortion, gay marriage, prostitution, drugs etc should happen at the state level instead of the federal IMO.

 

[jmdrake]

I'll try again:

6) JMDRAKE is an untrustworthy liar who should not be entrusted with power over other people's lives.

Anyway, it is nice to see you doubledown on the omniscience required to know EVERY ARGUMENT that is contrary to your own. You go from believing in an omniscient super being to claiming to actually be that being, or its emissary.

Well you've proven yourself to be the liar in this thread, but whatever you want to believe. I'm not claiming to be an "omniscient super being." I'm just going from my own experience. And that is that I keep hearing the same arguments over and over again. And...you proved me right. Your "AMA" argument was just a play on the "Let's keep abortion legal because we can't trust the group that's trying to ban it" argument. Only now it's not the AMA trying to ban it. And the thread wasn't even about banning abortion. It was about countering a specific argument that I had recently heard. Rather than focus on that, you dishonestly tried to change the subject, then said I was the one making strawmen. Ummm...okay

 

[otherone]

You're dodging a valid point because it hurts your worldview.

Your valid point is that some people are hypocritical? I wouldn't suggest that as your doctorate thesis.

 

[The Free Hornet]

But whatever governments we do have should make laws against murder in their jurisdiction. I apply that to abortion as well.

To be clear then, you would oppose like 100% of the politicians and laws that are allegedly "pro-life" but do absolutely nothing of the sort you suggest. The pro-lifers (in power) do NOT treat abortion as murder. In fact, they have been adament in opposition to exactly what you suggest. They want lots of exceptions (rape, incest, health of mother) and have near zero appetite to punish the mother. Those are your fearless pro-life leaders.

If it were up to me, I'd pass an amendment banning abortion

When you say abortion, do you mean murdering a fetus or a medical procedure? If it is murder, then you simply want the Ron Paul personhood amendment so that you don't need to add superfluous laws (separate but equal, eh?). Pro-lifers opposed Ron Paul en masse partly because he doesn't support their intrusions. Also, as a medical procedure, extraction of the fetus can be performed on a non-live fetus (miscarriage) and this is not something most pro-lifers disagree with (AFAIK). Or perhaps you want a loved one to wait for the county medical examiner and a judge to get around to signing off on such.

People here should be wise enough not to propose laws.

I don't either. The Federal government is way too big, and besides, there's no provision for it in the constitution. If it were up to me, I'd pass an amendment banning abortion (We shouldn't invade a state that refuses, but we should kick them out of the Union, if they insist on legalizing murder we should refuse to associate with them.)

Any easy path to state independence and erasure of your share of debt: don't do what the feds want, get kicked out of the union.

If, regardless of our personal views, we could agree that its a 10th amendment issue, and agree to make that the expected position for liberty candidates going forward, we could spend more time focusing on other issues since its impossible to really convince anyone of the abortion issue and the amendment will never happen.

Huh? Since people will NOT agree we do not want to make any "expected position [on abortion] for liberty candidates going forward".

Abortion as an issue only works for two-party candidates. For liberty candidates, it is toxic.

Do not make abortion (pro, con, indifferent, mother chooses/state chooses) a litmus test!!!!!!

 

[jmdrake]

B-b-b-but, it's the RIGHT KIND of bigger, more intrusive government.

If abortions is soooooo popular among the public at large then it shouldn't be hard to find states where it's legal. And you should be able to vote out the legislators in the 36 states that voted to ban abortion. Also in the "free marketplace of ideas" you ought to be able to see whether or not the 36 states that put restrictions on abortion become oppressive anti-women backwaters.

 

[jmdrake]

Your valid point is that some people are hypocritical? I wouldn't suggest that as your doctorate thesis.

My valid point is that you don't have to be religious to recognize life at conception as many of the same people who say it doesn't start at conception turn around and say that it does without referring to religion. Now I leave you to your "the sky will fall if R v W is overturned" goal line stance on abortion rights.