Miscarriage = baby; Abortion = "mass of cells"

[Christian Liberty]

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

I assume your being legalistic here? Abortion is every bit as evil as any other form of unjustified killing, and yet its legal. I hate the government a lot, but not enough to allow that to remain legal if I have a chance to vote on it.

Not at all. You advocate for MORE intrusive government.

Again, so does Ron Paul, by this BS standard.

Its not even true though. Even if I'm completely wrong on this issue, I'm supporting more government intervention on one issue, and less on probably a thousand issues (Number for effect, I don't know the exact number, but I support MUCH less government on everything except this). Overall, therefore, I'm supporting repealing more than enough government that I'm still supporting a far more libertarian situation than the status quo even as I advocate more state-level intervention on this one issue.

I'd be for that.

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

Well, true. Its not so much a punishment as it is a "If you aren't willing to ban murder, we aren't associating with you in any way, good luck." Personally, if I were the governor of one of the, say, 30 states that had laws against this child murder, I wouldn't want to put any resources into helping defend the other 20 states that would not. That doesn't mean I want to declare war on them, but it does mean I would basically be saying "Screw them" if someone did. So I guess it is a type of incentive in a way, but not exactly... I guess. We don't think it should be illegal to discriminate against black people, but we would refuse to associate with someone who did. I don't think the Federal government should intrude on state laws, but I do think we should refuse to associate with groups that won't protect the unborn.

Then again, I understand that that could theoretically go down forever. If you can go down to the state level, you can go down to the county level, city level, or even individual level. And going to the individual level for murder (For the sake of argument, let's assume we mean murder of the actually born) is clearly insane. So why do I draw the line at state? I don't know, constitutionally the states have authority here and the Federal government does not. To give it to them without an impossible amendment is to condone power overreach, which is clearly not good.

Of course, for this to work in any way, voluntary secession would have to also be legal, which it should be. It actually is, but the guys with guns will kill people in a state that tries anyway.

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

I'm proud to say that I support government abolition of murder. Would you have made this stupid comment if you had lived when slavery* was legal? If not, your issue is that you don't agree with me that an act of aggression is committed with abortion. Not that you question the concept of government banning acts of aggression, even if they happen to already be legal.





*Yes, I know Block and Nozick supported the right to sell yourself into slavery. While I disagree, I am not referring to this more controversial point here, but the obvious point of coercive slavery.

 

[The Free Hornet]

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

Regarding, "Only now it's not the AMA trying to ban it.".

You are 100% incorrect. It *****WAS******* the AMA like 100-200 years ago. The AMA has flip-flopped, gotten the control they want, and will happily provide this doctor-required medical procedure:

Opinion 2.01 - Abortion

The Principles of Medical Ethics of the AMA do not prohibit a physician from performing an abortion in accordance with good medical practice and under circumstances that do not violate the law. (III, IV)

www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/opinion201.page

You thought this abortion issue was about abortion? How foolish!

 

[otherone]

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.

Why should I believe what you claim "many people say" when you can't even understand what I'M saying? When did I mention RvW? I believe abortion laws should be determined at the state level, and I am dead set against any constitutional amendment claiming when personhood begins. The federal government needs to stay the fuck out of people's uterii.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Would you have made this stupid comment if you had lived when slavery* was legal?

I might have been inclined to support repeal of the 'fugitive slave cause' as a first measure:

No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Clause

[This clause is presumably moot but still in effect. If your community service or conscription is not defined as slavery...]

 

[jmdrake]

Why should I believe what you claim "many people say" when you can't even understand what I'M saying? When did I mention RvW? I believe abortion laws should be determined at the state level, and I am dead set against any constitutional amendment claiming when personhood begins. The federal government needs to stay the fuck out of people's uterii.

Part of the "logic" under girding Roe v. Wade is that states don't have a compelling interest in protecting the fetus because the fetus isn't a person. That's the point of Rand's personhood bill and the one Ron proposed before it.

 

[otherone]

Part of the "logic" under girding Roe v. Wade is that states don't have a compelling interest in protecting the fetus because the fetus isn't a person. That's the point of Rand's personhood bill and the one Ron proposed before it.

A SSN application with every pregnancy test. brilliant. Like I said....it's a state issue, not a federal one.

 

[jmdrake]

A SSN application with every pregnancy test. brilliant. Like I said....it's a state issue, not a federal one.

You aren't required to do an SSN application even after every birth right now, so obviously one isn't required after every pregnancy test. But again, Rand (and Ron's) approach to abortion was not and is not the point of this thread. That said, if you have a better idea on how to get Roe v Wade overturned by all means pitch it.

 

[otherone]

You aren't required to do an SSN application even after every birth right now, so obviously one isn't required after every pregnancy test. But again, Rand (and Ron's) approach to abortion was not and is not the point of this thread. That said, if you have a better idea on how to get Roe v Wade overturned by all means pitch it.

It was hyperbole. As far as overturning RvW, there is a long list of decisions I would love to see overturned. The scotus has failed us.

 

[Origanalist]

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.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jmdrake again.

 

[PattyFromTexas]

if one believes in a god then one must also believe that God chooses which fetuses survive and which do not. In your case, your first attempt resulted in failure - and it was God's will.

Religion has nothing to do with it. The libertarian philosophy is based on the non-violence principal. Hurting another human being is wrong unless it's in self defense. You know that. I know that. Everyone knows that, and taking a life is the ultimate hurt. A fetus isn't a human being you say? They have a beating heart at 1 month gestation, functioning ears at 5 months, they respond to their mothers voice, they startle at loud noises, they LOOK like babies as early as 12 weeks, before a woman even starts to show. Their personalities are showing long before they are born. My daughter was active all throughout my pregnancy and is still a very active girl. My son was so lazy I visited the doctor to make sure he was still ok at 6 months gestation, a characteristic he still exhibits today. When does a fetus become a human being? I don't know the answer to that, neither do you, neither does anyone else. I'm an atheist, but I know the difference between right and wrong, and taking someone else's life is wrong, because this life is all you get. There is no afterlife, there is no Heaven or Hell, there are no ghosts. In the famous worlds of Will Munny " It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have"

 

[cheapseats]

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

Would you have made this stupid comment if you had lived when slavery* was legal?

I do not equate WALKING TALKING COGNIZANT HUMAN BEINGS with zygotes, blastocysts and embryos.

 

[Neil Desmond]

Anti Abortion threads ABOUND. There are more threads on Abortion than on Afghanistan and Syria COMBINED. Y'know, where LIVING people are being killed.

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

Willfully killing innocent and defenseless human beings, or being in favor of it, has nothing to do with liberty or being part of the liberty movement.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I assume your being legalistic here? Abortion is every bit as evil as any other form of unjustified killing, and yet its legal. I hate the government a lot, but not enough to allow that to remain legal if I have a chance to vote on it.

Yes, I was being legalistic. I also agree that abortion is evil, though.

 

[cheapseats]

Willfully killing innocent and defenseless human beings, or being in favor of it, has nothing to do with liberty or being part of the liberty movement.

Once AGAIN, a "pro life" person asserts the very point under contention as a done-deal premise.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I do not equate WALKING TALKING COGNIZANT HUMAN BEINGS with zygotes, blastocysts and embryos.

So birthed babies with severe disabilities that prevent them from walking, talking, and being fully aware aren't human? Why or why not?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Once AGAIN, a "pro life" person asserts the very point under contention as a done-deal premise.

Your statement in post 71 has a similar prescriptive premise, though on the other side of the debate.

 

[cheapseats]

Your statement in post 71 has a similar prescriptive premise, though on the other side of the debate.

"I do not equate WALKING TALKING COGNIZANT HUMAN BEINGS with zygotes, blastocysts and embryos" is an assertion of MY belief/position.

"Willfully killing innocent and defenseless human beings, or being in favor of it" presumes LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION.

 

[cheapseats]

Originally Posted by cheapseats
I do not equate WALKING TALKING COGNIZANT HUMAN BEINGS with zygotes, blastocysts and embryos.

So birthed babies with severe disabilities that prevent them from walking, talking, and being fully aware aren't human? Why or why not?

Jeepers, no, heavenlyboy34. I was NOT implying that formed-but-handicapped humans outside of the womb are not human.

I am familiar with newly minted TEENAGERS mounting such "arguments".

 

[juleswin]

So birthed babies with severe disabilities that prevent them from walking, talking, and being fully aware aren't human? Why or why not?

I think there is a level of deformity/genetic mutation/birth defect that makes you eligible for euthanasia and since I support euthanasia, I think it is the parents call on that when the newborn cannot speak for him/herself. And I am not going to be that person that tells they parents that they have to raise such a being or inflict such a punishment on the newborn by forcing him/her to live in that way.

There are conditions far worse than death and in those rare rare occasions, I will support euthanasia authorized by the mother.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I am familiar with newly minted TEENAGERS mounting such "arguments".

Then you should have had an easy time with a response instead of a snarky remark, yes?