• Welcome to our new home!

    Please share any thoughts or issues here.


Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

  • Pro-Life

    Votes: 79 54.1%
  • Pro-Choice

    Votes: 49 33.6%
  • I obstinately refuse to answer, or I have no opinion.

    Votes: 18 12.3%

  • Total voters
    146
  • Poll closed .

Spider-Man

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
878
I got the idea for this poll from the LP.org website, which is running a basically identical poll on their front page today.

The basic question is, would you describe yourself as pro-life or pro-choice? Feel free to add any thoughts on the subject.
 
Okay, but, at the state level, would you describe yourself as pro-life or pro-choice?

Or do you only concern yourself with national politics?

We always have a choice, whether something is legal or not....

But, I would consider myself prolife. However, I think we ought to focus on the real issue, which is unwanted pregnancy, sex education (in school and by parents), birthcontrol (which I support), and effective parenting.
 
I am absolutely Pro Choice.

Im sure we can all get into some extreme circumstances about why an abortion might be needed, but we shouldnt need to go to extremes. I believe that in the Spirit of the Constitution we are supposed to respect each others choice. And this is no different. I should not be able to tell anyone they cant do something with their body as long as they are not trying to tell me what I can and cant do with mine.

To me, the Spirit of the Constitution is more important than this single highly contraversial issue.

Now, there is something that Obama said that I absolutely agree with. In essence about preventing the unwanted pregnancy to begin with instead of dealing with the aftermath and politics of abortion. Its just easier to think that rubbers should be given out at schools over kids dropping out cuz their pregnant.

Ounce of prevention is equal to a pound of cure. I'll take the ounce of prevention. Wear a Jimmy Hat!

Oh, and it should be at the STATE level, not Federal.
 
There is a third choice. The best of both choices. Walter Block's got audio on it.
But I'd tend to go with Rothbards.... if you subscribe full property rights to the baby.. if you say it if life and has full human rights... how can it possibly have a right to someone elses property? :confused:

;)
 
Slightly off topic, hypothetical situation. I, knowing what I know now, was going to be born with some form of severely dipilitating disease, like both blind and deaf, and add a high probability of mental retardation, I personally would ask to be aborted than to have to live like that. Thats just me. Or, if my birth would kill my mother, abort me. I could come up with a LOT of reasons why I would rather be aborted than have been born.

(Not trying to get into a paradox, or any of that, Im just trying to look at it from the 'about to be aborted / killed' unborn babies point of view)

I'll go back to my earlier statement, I think the spirit is about everyone having a choice and a right to their bodies and I cant tell you so you dont tell me what we can and cant do by ourselves.

Another point is just because it is made illegal will NOT stop abortions. They will just go back to being life threatening wire clothes hanger procedures IF abortion is made illegal.

So, whats best for everyone from the point of view of the law? Make abortion illegal and put the mothers of the unwanted pregnancies in serious life threatening risk of self abortion where illegally abort their pregnancies in a back alley, or keep them legal even if you dont agree with them on a moral perspective to allow those mothers access to the much safer doctor performed abortions?
 
regressive_bs.jpg
 
Personally pro-life, politically pro-choice.

Politically speaking...setting aside the beliefs and convictions and "certitudes" and opinions of individuals, accommodation of all of which is impossible on its face...a true Libertarian could only hold that this is not a matter in which the government should be meddling at all, state or federal.

Society may wish to provide ready options for the person for whom parenthood is not an option and abortion is a conflict, but prescribe her fate?

Hell, manufacture and sell the little tykes...we'll be needing more canon fodder. But otherwise, to get government and public opinion up inside a person's body? Outrageous. Literally, Government knows no boundaries. But observe the Libertarian-which-is-to-say-human tendency to cherry pick on the regulation thing.
 
I am absolutely Pro Choice.

Im sure we can all get into some extreme circumstances about why an abortion might be needed, but we shouldnt need to go to extremes. I believe that in the Spirit of the Constitution we are supposed to respect each others choice. And this is no different. I should not be able to tell anyone they cant do something with their body as long as they are not trying to tell me what I can and cant do with mine.

The problem is, with abortion you are dealing with two bodies and directly taking an action that is intended to terminate the life of another human being. To me, that's murder any way you look at it.
 
Politically speaking...setting aside the beliefs and convictions and "certitudes" and opinions of individuals, accommodation of all of which is impossible on its face...a true Libertarian could only hold that this is not a matter in which the government should be meddling at all, state or federal.

Society may wish to provide ready options for the person for whom parenthood is not an option and abortion is a conflict, but prescribe her fate?

Hell, manufacture and sell the little tykes...we'll be needing more canon fodder. But otherwise, to get government and public opinion up inside a person's body? Outrageous. Literally, Government knows no boundaries. But observe the Libertarian-which-is-to-say-human tendency to cherry pick on the regulation thing.

In that case, consider me not a "true libertarian." I believe it is the government's rightful purpose to protect against invasions of life, and that includes abortion.
 
Slightly off topic, hypothetical situation. I, knowing what I know now, was going to be born with some form of severely dipilitating disease, like both blind and deaf, and add a high probability of mental retardation, I personally would ask to be aborted than to have to live like that. Thats just me. Or, if my birth would kill my mother, abort me. I could come up with a LOT of reasons why I would rather be aborted than have been born.

(Not trying to get into a paradox, or any of that, Im just trying to look at it from the 'about to be aborted / killed' unborn babies point of view)

I'll go back to my earlier statement, I think the spirit is about everyone having a choice and a right to their bodies and I cant tell you so you dont tell me what we can and cant do by ourselves.

Another point is just because it is made illegal will NOT stop abortions. They will just go back to being life threatening wire clothes hanger procedures IF abortion is made illegal.

So, whats best for everyone from the point of view of the law? Make abortion illegal and put the mothers of the unwanted pregnancies in serious life threatening risk of self abortion where illegally abort their pregnancies in a back alley, or keep them legal even if you dont agree with them on a moral perspective to allow those mothers access to the much safer doctor performed abortions?

If anything is illegal, it won't stop. The fact that murdering someone is illegal doesn't mean that we stop murders from happening. So that proves nothing, unless you are one of those crazy anarchos.
 
I am against making medical abortions illegal, I am for making them obsolete.

They are expensive and unnecessary.

There are plenty of natural alternative abortive remedies that can be used in the early stages, very cheap. A lot of women wait to get their abortions because they are in denial, often due to financial circumstances. They can't afford an abortion. Imagine if abortions only cost $5, but there was no knife necessary? Then abortions would only need to be performed in those emergency situations where the woman's life is in danger or whatever..
 
The Non-Aggression Principle

To paraphrase, the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is usually stated as "do not initiate force or fraud", or "if it harms none, do what you will", or "treat others as you'd like to be treated", or "live and let live". In more detail, “Do not initiate force or fraud against anyone else’s person or property. In other words, except for self-defense, don’t harm others, don’t harm or steal their property, don’t break your word, don’t try to coerce anyone by threatening to do any of these things, and don’t delegate or encourage anyone to do any of these things.”

Liberty is the state of freedom achieved when everyone abides by NAP. It's a fundamental right of all individual persons, not something granted by a government or constitution. Liberty is inherently ours by birthright, regardless of whether one believes it comes from God, Nature, the Universe, or the simple fact that we're sentient beings with free will. Logic and necessity demand that we respect each other's rights, or else we revert to the law of the jungle. That is why NAP is the civilized version of:

Natural Law


 
Last edited:
Back
Top