Robin Koerner Trumps Anti-Abortion Dogmatists at WA Liberty Caucus

[PierzStyx]

That's a whole lot of loaded phrases to justify a shallow response. What kind of a puppet show would it take to get the point across -- that every time you say killing babies you're making a logical leap past the issue, while incidentally demonizing those who disagree as "pro baby killing." NOT. EVERYONE. AGREES. THAT. A. BRAND. NEW. EMBRYO. IS. A. BABY!!!!!!! Some of us think it's a...wait for it...a brand new embryo.

And. They. Would. Be. Wrong. Every embryo implanted in a woman is growing human being. Whether it is a "thinking" being is irrelevant. All life is just "an amalgamation of living cells and tissue" no matter whether its an embryo or 90 year old. A human embryo is merely the youngest version of a human possible. Scientifically all of its genetic material is human from the get go. It bears all the same genetics a full grown person does. The only difference between an embryo and a human being fully formed is just age and growth. The law even recognizes this fact. To quote Doctor Ron Paul:

“As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there’s a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there’s an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it.”

As a human being, abortion is morally repugnant. As a libertarian abortion is the greatest violation of the Non-Aggression Principle against the most defenseless being possible.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Looking belatedly at this thread, have to say Koerner is NOT being reasonable and is being rather deceptive in the rhetoric. The true "principled" position is the one that addresses a principle, and not one that conjures up hyper-perfectionist criteria for carrying it out. Koerner is addressing secondary matters, and treating those that don't go a long as 'dogmatists' is a mis-characterization. The principle pertains to a "what"---that innocent human life requires legal protection, or protection from aggression---NOT that the "how" of protecting it requires uniformity.

There were 50 different legal approaches to restricting abortion across the different states, not counting different systems around the world. One does NOT have to imprison mother in order to be consistent in opposing abortion, you just have to be consistent in finding abortion or legalized killing repugnant, regardless of the method of legally discouraging it. To emphasize the secondary latter issue ignores the violation of principle on the main issue, and deceptively shifts the logistical burden of the issue onto those producing the least harm, and away from those causing or supporting the most harm by accepting the initiation of coercion/force against the innocent.

 

[Tod]

"The word of the Lord came to me [Jeremiah], saying:
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you."

Jeremiah 1:4-5

 

[KurtBoyer25L]

Looking belatedly at this thread, have to say Koerner is NOT being reasonable and is being rather deceptive in the rhetoric. The true "principled" position is the one that addresses a principle, and not one that conjures up hyper-perfectionist criteria for carrying it out. Koerner is addressing secondary matters, and treating those that don't go a long as 'dogmatists' is a mis-characterization. The principle pertains to a "what"---that innocent human life requires legal protection, or protection from aggression---NOT that the "how" of protecting it requires uniformity.

There were 50 different legal approaches to restricting abortion across the different states, not counting different systems around the world. One does NOT have to imprison mother in order to be consistent in opposing abortion, you just have to be consistent in finding abortion or legalized killing repugnant, regardless of the method of legally discouraging it. To emphasize the secondary latter issue ignores the violation of principle on the main issue, and deceptively shifts the logistical burden of the issue onto those producing the least harm, and away from those causing or supporting the most harm by accepting the initiation of coercion/force against the innocent.

That is one of the most intelligent criticisms of Robin's position that I have heard. Still, I think you're ignoring a few salient points. How do you address his thought experiment? A thought experiment *forces* us to make a stance on carrying out our principles. If abortion of a one-day-old embryo is *murder* then why shouldn't there be at least as much "uniformity" in punishing it as there is for murder?

I don't think anyone, Robin included, would claim that abortion is a "good" thing or that they enjoy hearing about abortions. But finding something repugnant, and making it illegal, are of course two different animals.

Finally, wouldn't we say that the failure of the Republican party over the last xyz years is related to their *addressing* principles yet not following through on them? Sure, they might say, people should have the right to keep what the earn, but...they "address" that principle (mostly in speeches) while compromising & hem-hawing in policy to the point where they don't lower actual taxes any more than Democrats do.

 

[jmdrake]

I don't think it's that late, actually. I think the 'eviction' argument is repulsive.

Do you find pre-natal adoption repulsive? Because all the way back to the beginning of in vitro fertilization, taking an embryo from one woman and successfully implanting it into another was a possibility. In fact it actually happened. I think Walter Block attached a terrible term to what isn't a bad idea.

 

[jmdrake]

"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."

Regardless of what you think of his position ^that is a stupid argument. Maybe toddlers die, especially in developing countries. And? Does that mean that they are "all sent to limbo?" I do agree that the earlier you get in the pregnancy, the harder it is to justify a hard "line in the sand" on abortion as early on (the first couple of weeks), there's no heartbeat, nervous system of any kind etc. But but the end of the first month you're starting to see all of that.

 

[KurtBoyer25L]

Regardless of what you think of his position ^that is a stupid argument. Maybe toddlers die, especially in developing countries. And? Does that mean that they are "all sent to limbo?" I do agree that the earlier you get in the pregnancy, the harder it is to justify a hard "line in the sand" on abortion as early on (the first couple of weeks), there's no heartbeat, nervous system of any kind etc. But but the end of the first month you're starting to see all of that.

It isn't stupid, it's a simple logical deduction. If a one-week-old embryo is a human being w/ a consciousness and a soul, and God creates them only to kill 3 out of 4 of them immediately, that would mean God has double standards for His right to kill innocent human beings vs. our right to do so. Sure, if God is God then he has the right to do whatever he wants, but the corollary would be that Jesus would have gotten drunk, played poker & beat up women His entire time on Earth while telling everyone else it's wrong to do so.

 

[Rocco]

It has nothing to do with god, it has to do with natural processes vs deliberate termination. Nobody in history has ever deemed it illegal to die of natural causes, but it HAS been deemed illegal to intentionally terminate a life historically, so to create that parallel is absurd.

It isn't stupid, it's a simple logical deduction. If a one-week-old embryo is a human being w/ a consciousness and a soul, and God creates them only to kill 3 out of 4 of them immediately, that would mean God has double standards for His right to kill innocent human beings vs. our right to do so. Sure, if God is God then he has the right to do whatever he wants, but the corollary would be that Jesus would have gotten drunk, played poker & beat up women His entire time on Earth while telling everyone else it's wrong to do so.