Robin Koerner Trumps Anti-Abortion Dogmatists at WA Liberty Caucus

[KurtBoyer25L]

Robin Koerner, founder of the Blue Republican movement for classical liberals, spoke last weekend at the Washington (state) Republican Liberty Caucus about early-term abortions, as a motion for an anti-abortion resolution was up for debate. He defended first-month abortion rights in striking fashion, quoting from the Bible, drawing from his experience in physiology and pleading for common ground (and sense) among the Caucus members.

Notable quotes:

"I can read the same Bible, and I can relate to the same God. I was told if I did not share the (anti-abortion in all cases) position, I was unprincipled, and I would not be with God."

"75% of all fertilized embryos are ejected from a woman's body by the fourth week (of pregnancy)...my God is not so ugly that he creates these souls, and then sends three out of four of them straight into limbo. My God is much more beautiful than that."

"If you're going to be principled on this issue, and those who disagree with you are not, then put the mother who has an abortion after two weeks -- two weeks -- put her in prison for murder. That's principle."

"If you're in a laboratory, on fire, and by one door there's a crying baby, and ten one-day-old embryos by the other door...if you tell me you are principled, and I'm not, you better go pick up those ten embryos and leave that baby to die there."

The latter half of the speech also includes some noteworthy argument vs. both the Libertarian & Christian conservative orthodoxy.

The anti-abortion resolution was voted down.

 

[sailingaway]

The man has a way with words.

Don't know that I agree with the requirement of no souls based on God's beauty, since they'd just be with him again, and I don't think God sees temporal life quite the way we do, but the man does have a way with words. This is an area where people of sincere conviction can disagree.

 

[Christian Liberty]

"If you're going to be principled on this issue, and those who disagree with you are not, then put the mother who has an abortion after two weeks -- two weeks -- put her in prison for murder. That's principle."

I would....

 

[KurtBoyer25L]

I would....

Of course. I'm only trying to reach the reachable people here.

That said, how would you handle the 10 embryos vs. baby thought experiment? And did you listen to the speech?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Of course. I'm only trying to reach the reachable people here.

I'll admit that I'm really not on this particular issue. Heck, I was pro-life long before I was in the liberty movement.

That said, how would you handle the 10 embryos vs. baby thought experiment? And did you listen to the speech?

Man, that's tough.... In real life I'd save the baby without a thought, but that doesn't mean that that's intellectually the right choice.

Hmmm.... it might be fun to ask some fellow pro-lifers this one...

I'll try and listen to the speech. I have a really hard time approaching this particular topic logically.

 

[sailingaway]

I would....

It doesn't bring anyone back, and there ARE equities on both sides. It is the only situation where we require a person to have their body used to sustain another. We don't require people to go to hospitals and plug their kidneys up to work for those whose kidneys' don't work. The mother does have a different position than any of the other actors in it. I'm not even 100% comfortable with law here, until the baby is viable (and I don't know when that would be. Heartbeat?), but that doesn't mean I think it is 'choice', just that I have a hard time judging for others despite my own views. I recognize people who are sincere. I don't recognize the notion that a fetus is like a nail clipping, and as disposable.

 

[KurtBoyer25L]

I'll admit that I'm really not on this particular issue. Heck, I was pro-life long before I was in the liberty movement.

Man, that's tough.... In real life I'd save the baby without a thought, but that doesn't mean that that's intellectually the right choice.

Hmmm.... it might be fun to ask some fellow pro-lifers this one...

I'll try and listen to the speech. I have a really hard time approaching this particular topic logically.

Dear sir, I think you & I have taken our first steps toward respectful disagreement on this issue.

You need to understand that I have equally as big of a problem with dogmatic pro-choice activists. I find it foolish that so often, whichever side people take, they attempt to describe abortion as a simple issue & explain away a militant view in two sentences. It's not a simple issue. In fact, it's so complex & philosophically involved that it messes with your head.

But I posted Robin's speech to spark discussion, not to expound my own views w/ one post after another. The floor is yours.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Robin should get American citizenship and run for something. He'd be a great liberty ally from Washington state.

 

[erowe1]

People like that are the reason the Republican Liberty Caucus is irrelevant.

 

[sailingaway]

Robin should get American citizenship and run for something. He'd be a great liberty ally from Washington state.

He's working on citizenship. He's a permanent resident and putting in the necessary time.

 

[sailingaway]

He's working on citizenship. He's a permanent resident and putting in the necessary time.

He sure knows more about our Constitution than many citizens. He wrote the words to this:

 

[Christian Liberty]

It doesn't bring anyone back, and there ARE equities on both sides. It is the only situation where we require a person to have their body used to sustain another. We don't require people to go to hospitals and plug their kidneys up to work for those whose kidneys' don't work. The mother does have a different position than any of the other actors in it. I'm not even 100% comfortable with law here, until the baby is viable (and I don't know when that would be. Heartbeat?), but that doesn't mean I think it is 'choice', just that I have a hard time judging for others despite my own views. I recognize people who are sincere. I don't recognize the notion that a fetus is like a nail clipping, and as disposable.

Right now liability is at roughly 5 1/2 to 6 months IIRC. That is critical to the eviction argument, but I reject it for the same reasons I wouldn't allow someone to throw a five year old that stumbled onto their doorstep outside into a blizzard that they knew would immediately lead to their death.

In fact, its even worse than that because in most pregnancy cases the woman did in fact consent to it, even if indirectly. You don't actually consent to having a five year old stumble on your doorstep during a blizzard. Even then, to simply throw them out into the freezing cold to die.

Regarding the issue, I can see why its complex for libertarians (A category I include myself in.) It baffles my mind that its in any way complicated for anyone else.

 

[ItsTime]

Robin is awesome. He is doing wonders for the Liberty Movement. The tent keeps getting bigger.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I should clarify as well that I agree with Ron Paul that abortion is a state-level issue. I happen to think pretty darn strongly about it on the state level, but constitutionally murder is a state level issue. Same with abortion.

 

[sailingaway]

Right now liability is at roughly 5 1/2 to 6 months IIRC. That is critical to the eviction argument, but I reject it for the same reasons I wouldn't allow someone to throw a five year old that stumbled onto their doorstep outside into a blizzard that they knew would immediately lead to their death.

In fact, its even worse than that because in most pregnancy cases the woman did in fact consent to it, even if indirectly. You don't actually consent to having a five year old stumble on your doorstep during a blizzard. Even then, to simply throw them out into the freezing cold to die.

Regarding the issue, I can see why its complex for libertarians (A category I include myself in.) It baffles my mind that its in any way complicated for anyone else.

I don't think it's that late, actually. I think the 'eviction' argument is repulsive. I'm just wondering at what point, with medical intervention, we know a child could survive as more of a moral indicator. But I'm comfortable with Ron's view, you can't even tell in science if conception occurred in the first 2 weeks so an estrogen shot at that time in the event of rape or incest would be reasonable. Because you CAN'T TELL either way, I think it should not be used as one's primary means of birth control even then, though.

It is the same issue for everyone, when does life begin? Since you can't have a 'choice' to kill someone else. So it is as difficult for every thoughtful person who believes in life, not ethicists who look for excuses to kill off the less viable, of course.

 

[sailingaway]

I should clarify as well that I agree with Ron Paul that abortion is a state-level issue. I happen to think pretty darn strongly about it on the state level, but constitutionally murder is a state level issue. Same with abortion.

I agree with that, as well.

 

[WhistlinDave]

It is the same issue for everyone, when does life begin? Since you can't have a 'choice' to kill someone else. So it is as difficult for every thoughtful person who believes in life, not ethicists who look for excuses to kill off the less viable, of course.

I wonder if advances in neuroscience will ever enable us to tell for sure at what point the developing baby develops (or acquires) individual consciousness. At the point where he or she has awareness, and is able to feel pain and suffer, that's when I think it's a person. And I think that point is probably quite a bit earlier than 5 or 6 months, but certainly not as early as conception. (Others may argue it's a person from the moment of conception; I don't agree with that myself.)

 

[BSWPaulsen]

The lives of other individuals are not a sufficient argument to subvert one's self-ownership, and the prospect of involving a monopoly on force in matters concerning an autonomous individual's anatomy is downright terrifying. People don't even recognize the door they are opening by thinking the State should have a say in this matter, even if the cause is noble. That slippery slope can, and does, easily result in State-monitored pregnant women in the attempt to prevent them from acting recklessly (intentional negligence has the same end effect, and are you really going to jail women for manslaughter when they unintentionally do something that kills the fetus?). It gives power to the State in a matter that should be between individual and doctor.

Abortion is a disgusting practice, but your right to life ends where another individual's personal autonomy begins. That includes unborn children who have precisely zero personal autonomy, being sealed off in the womb as they are. Abortion will not cease to exist so long as it is believed that we own our persons, and that some people judge it to be in their best interest to abort. The best "cure" is to strengthen communities to the extent that carrying children to term, and putting them up for adoption is encouraged so that such a barbaric practice is limited. The best prophylactic is abstinence, but good luck fighting with cultivated human instinct over thousands of years.

Aborting after two weeks and jailing the mother is ridiculous, and should be grounds to have the jailer imprisoned for interfering with an individual's self-ownership under arbitrary grounds. Shun the mother if you like and make her life more difficult by collectivizing in protest, but prison is ridiculous.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I don't think it's that late, actually. I think the 'eviction' argument is repulsive. I'm just wondering at what point, with medical intervention, we know a child could survive as more of a moral indicator. But I'm comfortable with Ron's view, you can't even tell in science if conception occurred in the first 2 weeks so an estrogen shot at that time in the event of rape or incest would be reasonable. Because you CAN'T TELL either way, I think it should not be used as one's primary means of birth control even then, though.

It is the same issue for everyone, when does life begin? Since you can't have a 'choice' to kill someone else. So it is as difficult for every thoughtful person who believes in life, not ethicists who look for excuses to kill off the less viable, of course.

I've heard of a couple babies just under 22 weeks (I think the lowest was like 21 weeks and five days) actually surviving. I remember reading about the NHS murdering (Well, they call it "Refusing to help" which for a state-run healthcare system is really the same thing) a baby that was born at that same age (21 weeks, five days.) I may have missed a case though.

I'm not really sure what the morning after pill is supposed to do, but if its primarily a contraceptive, with abortion being sometimes an unintentional side effect, I'd tend to agree that should be legal. I think it would be morally wrong to use a pill like that, but I don't think you can truly have rights before you actually exist (As in, are conceived) and it would be impossible to regulate anyway. If, on the other hand, the PRIMARY function is abortion, than the law should allow for treating it identically to any other murder case. Granted, I understand with early term abortions prosecutions would likely be rare, and I would rather let a thousand murdering mothers go than to lock up one innocent one, but if there is essentially absolute proof in any case, our country should absolutely be willing and able to go forward with a murder charge. As in, lock them up (Woman AND doctor) and throw away the key.

I sometimes amaze people in that I'm radically pro-life even to that extent, but (Short of a constitutional amendment that ain't happening) would never support a Federal level ban.

 

[sailingaway]

Abortion is a disgusting practice, but your right to life ends where another individual's personal autonomy begins.

seems to me that could as easily cut both ways.