Robin Koerner Trumps Anti-Abortion Dogmatists at WA Liberty Caucus

[Christian Liberty]

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.

I'm all for punishing state actors when they are wrong (Although there's a limit to how far down I'd go, for instance, punishing every single soldier who went into Iraq seems unnecessary, punishing Bush, Cheney, and the other leaders makes way more sense) but "Self-autonomy" is no excuse to commit murder, and the jailer wouldn't be wrong in that case.

seems to me that could as easily cut both ways.

At the very least in a consensual sexual situation a mother does consent to pregnancy by having sex. Even if contraception is used, there's still a chance of failure and that fact is common knowledge.

Rape is trickier. Its late so I don't want to go too far into that, but the short answer for me is this. My line of thinking is that in rape a woman's body truly is tresspassed against, and doubly so if she has to carry a baby because of it, but the tresspasser is still the rapist, not the fetus who is currently incapable of intellectual thought (I will note that for me intelligence is completely irrelevant to personhood, as I think every libertarian ought to agree, but I'll defend this tomorrow if it is challenged). The rapist, in addition to his criminal punishment, should have to pay damages for the inconveniences caused. He should also have no parental rights whatseoever. But the innocent child still should not be killed. I'd cut the mother some slack if she primarily acted on emotion in this case, but I can't give the same courtesy to the doctor, and even if we cut the mother some slack, we're still talking about manslaughter.

I should note that by rapist I mean someone forces someone else to have sex. I don't mean an 18 year old that consensually has sex with a 15 year old which, even if uncomfortable, isn't rape.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

seems to me that could as easily cut both ways.

A fetus has no personal autonomy. It is a life, but the right to said life does not dictate behavioral choices to the entity it occupies. That covers the spectrum from a conscientious pregnant woman that wants to have the healthiest baby possible, to a crack addict, to someone that gets an abortion. Abortion is a societal problem endemic to a sick population that doesn't sufficiently care for their fellow man. When the State is the "cure", you know it isn't an actual solution to the problem.

Getting pregnant does not sacrifice the woman's personal autonomy, an autonomy which is already clearly defined prior to the fertilization of her egg. It is, ultimately, her choice what to do with her body, and the effects must be born by whatever occupies it. That includes a fetus.

Our job is to help our fellow man to such a degree that abortion is not viewed as a viable solution to their circumstances. Jailing these women isn't the solution.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

I'm all for punishing state actors when they are wrong (Although there's a limit to how far down I'd go, for instance, punishing every single soldier who went into Iraq seems unnecessary, punishing Bush, Cheney, and the other leaders makes way more sense) but "Self-autonomy" is no excuse to commit murder, and the jailer wouldn't be wrong in that case.

The jailer would be wholly wrong for jailing someone for exercising their self-ownership. Period. You don't even realize the door you are opening for State intervention by doing this, namely the door that says, "The State can tell you what you can do with your body."

Personal autonomy fully justifies the ability of the individual to do whatever they want to with what is inside their body. Full stop. Anything else is an open invitation for tyranny under the guise of noble intentions.

Part of freedom is recognizing that people are at liberty to do outrageously stupid things to themselves. That there is another occupant does not give other people the right to dictate what is proper for them. You can appeal to their reason and attempt to explain why it's a bad idea, but you do not control them. Any notion that you can control them should be rightly rejected.

 

[Origanalist]

A fetus has no personal autonomy. It is a life, but the right to said life does not dictate behavioral choices to the entity it occupies. That covers the spectrum from a conscientious pregnant woman that wants to have the healthiest baby possible, to a crack addict, to someone that gets an abortion. Abortion is a societal problem endemic to a sick population that doesn't sufficiently care for their fellow man. When the State is the "cure", you know it isn't an actual solution to the problem.

Getting pregnant does not sacrifice the woman's personal autonomy, an autonomy which is already clearly defined prior to the fertilization of her egg. It is, ultimately, her choice what to do with her body, and the effects must be born by whatever occupies it. That includes a fetus.

Our job is to help our fellow man to such a degree that abortion is not viewed as a viable solution to their circumstances. Jailing these women isn't the solution.

Blarg, blarg, blarg. Who are you to determine these things? You speak as lord and master of the universe. Who says "Getting pregnant does not sacrifice the woman's personal autonomy"? What gives them the authority to say so? Where does this fucked up idea even come from? By her own actions she has created a life, but now she has no responsibility for it? What a fucked up world view.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The jailer would be wholly wrong for jailing someone for exercising their self-ownership. Period. You don't even realize the door you are opening for State intervention by doing this, namely the door that says, "The State can tell you what you can do with your body."

Personal autonomy fully justifies the ability of the individual to do whatever they want to with what is inside their body. Full stop. Anything else is an open invitation for tyranny under the guise of noble intentions.

Part of freedom is recognizing that people are at liberty to do outrageously stupid things to themselves. That there is another occupant does not give other people the right to dictate what is proper for them. You can appeal to their reason and attempt to explain why it's a bad idea, but you do not control them. Any notion that you can control them should be rightly rejected.

I agree completely that any adult (At the risk of annoying some extreme libertarians, I do distinguish between adults and minors in this regard) has the right to do anything in order to harm himself that he wants. If you want to shoot heroin, smoke crack, hire a prostitute, or even shoot yourself in the head, you should have a legal right to do any of those things. I don't morally approve of any of them, but legally you should have a right to screw yourself over.

The same is true for a consenting party. If you want to start a death cult where you have human sacrifices, and you actually manage to get volunteers, assuming these volunteers are old enough to consent and willingly do so, again, great. I don't like it, I'd morally oppose you, but you have the right to do it in a free society.

The rules change when you throw an innocent bystander into it. I can inject heroin into my own arm, but not my neighbor's, I can shoot myself in the head, but not my friend, I can hire a prostitute but I cannot force her to have sex with me.

I don't believe you should have the right to destroy your own child either, wherever they may be physically located, unless they are threatening your life.

Admittedly, I have no respect for those "libertarians" who want to legalize child neglect, so if you're in that boat I suspect abortion would be a reasonable thing to legalize as well. If not, it doesn't make sense.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

Blarg, blarg, blarg. Who are you to determine these things? You speak as lord and master of the universe. Who says "Getting pregnant does not sacrifice the woman's personal autonomy"? What gives them the authority to say so? Where does this fucked up idea even come from? By her own actions she has created a life, but now she has no responsibility for it? What a fucked up world view.

I'm the same as any other man that enjoys personal autonomy, and recognizes the autonomy of other individuals. You never assume an authority that lets you subvert another individual's autonomy due to the recognition that they would be empowered to do the same to you.

The fucked up world view is the one that asserts you can legislate behavior concerning what an individual does with their own body. Statist much?

 

[Origanalist]

I'm the same as any other man that enjoys personal autonomy, and recognizes the autonomy of other individuals. You never assume an authority that lets you subvert another individual's autonomy due to the recognition that they would be empowered to do the same to you.

The fucked up world view is the one that asserts you can legislate behavior concerning what an individual does with their own body. Statist much?

I'm glad you're enjoying personal autonomy, I'm not finding much these days.

The fucked up world view is the one that asserts you can legislate behavior concerning what an individual does with their own body. Statist much?

That's weak, you're leaving out the fact that another life is involved, one that was directly created by the person carrying it.
"Statist much?" Really? Why don't you take a hard look at the supporters of abortion on demand and see how many statists are in that bunch.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

I don't believe you should have the right to destroy your own child either, wherever they may be physically located, unless they are threatening your life.

An individual has the right to do whatever they want to their body that they so desire. Having an occupant inside does not negate that. Here's the reality with abortion: they can achieve it by abusing themselves. It's not like a clinic is the only option, so let's be honest here.

A female fitness competitor gets pregnant, and she supplements her training with testosterone injections, thus increasing the likelihood of a miscarriage. She miscarries. Your solution is prison. Good God. Freedom for everyone except pregnant women.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

That's weak, you're leaving out the fact that another life is involved, one that was directly created by the person carrying it.
"Statist much?" Really? Why don't you take a hard look at the supporters of abortion on demand and see how many statists are in that bunch.

That life does not subvert the autonomy of the individual it occupies. That there is a child inside of them does not mean they must start behaving in a specific manner.

Only a Statist would think it acceptable to tell a group of people what they can and cannot do to their own bodies. If you haven't noticed, they come in all stripes. Democrats want to tell you what you can do with your resources, and Republicans want to tell you what you can do with your body. Statists, the lot of them.

 

[Origanalist]

That there is a child inside of them does not mean they must start behaving in a specific manner.

Of course it does, they are pregnant. And they are responsible for that pregnancy whether you want to think so or not. Your stating that a woman has no responsibility for the life she created doesn't make it so.

Only a Statist would think it acceptable to tell a group of people what they can and cannot do to their own bodies.

Again, we're not talking about just their bodies, we're talking about whether they can violently murder their child for convenience.

 

[sailingaway]

An individual has the right to do whatever they want to their body that they so desire. Having an occupant inside does not negate that. Here's the reality with abortion: they can achieve it by abusing themselves. It's not like a clinic is the only option, so let's be honest here.

A female fitness competitor gets pregnant, and she supplements her training with testosterone injections, thus increasing the likelihood of a miscarriage. She miscarries. Your solution is prison. Good God. Freedom for everyone except pregnant women.

but for you it's freedom for all but unborn babies who are subject to death at a whim.

And abortion is an act of aggression.

It ISN'T an easy issue.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

Of course it does, they are pregnant. And they are responsible for that pregnancy whether you want to think so or not. Your stating that a woman has no responsibility for the life she created doesn't make it so.

Again, we're not talking about just their bodies, we're talking about whether they can violently murder their child for convenience.

She is responsible for her body. If her body happens to be pregnant, then it is her responsibility to do with it what she sees fit. Her self-ownership is not subverted due to the condition of her body. Also, stop pretending the fetus can only be killed by acts of overt aggression against it alone - the woman can kill it by abusing herself, and without directly giving it a coat hangar treatment.

 

[Origanalist]

She is responsible for her body. If her body happens to be pregnant, then it is her responsibility to do with it what she sees fit. Her self-ownership is not subverted due to the condition of her body. Also, stop pretending the fetus can only be killed by acts of overt aggression against it alone - the woman can kill it by abusing herself, and without directly giving it a coat hangar treatment.

Of course she can, how is that any different or better?

 

[BSWPaulsen]

but for you it's freedom for all but unborn babies who are subject to death at a whim.

And abortion is an act of aggression.

It ISN'T an easy issue.

It's an easy issue. Does the State have the right to tell people what to do with their bodies? Unborn children are at the mercy of the woman who carries them. Smokes? Shoots testosterone? Drugs? Drinks? Bad diet? Couch potato? All of those qualify as an act of aggression against one's person. A fetus does not negate the right of a person to do stupid things others view as damaging, unless you believe you own that person. As stated previously, prison is not the solution. Tell me you think the State has a right to tell pregnant women what to do, and I will cede to the principled, if Statist, stance.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

Of course she can, how is that any different or better?

If the fetus can be killed without directly targeting it, then sufficient question is raised as to whether blunt-force abortion is a particularly special act of aggression. The end result is the same. Abortions are barbaric and disgusting by any means, and there is no perfect solution. Imprison women and invite tyranny through good intentions, or do your best to discourage abortions and encourage birth and healthful behavior. I opt for the second. What do you want to see happen?

 

[Rocco]

That's a straw man argument that completely ignores intent. Just like if my grandmother is old and needs medical treatment, I have no obligation to provide that treatment, but I also can't go in there and suffocate her to death. It's a BS argument to compare smoking and doing drugs to literally physically dismembering the child. Your pro choice argument has virtually the same problem as all pro choice arguments; you have taken the rights of one into consideration without taking the rights of the other into consideration. Am I a "statist" when it comes to murder? Yes, I believe that if an individuals rights are being violated by another individual it is the OBLIGATION of the state to stop that violation of individual freedoms from occurring. The right to life is THE freedom, there is no other freedom that can be attained without it. That idea is the foundation of our constitutional republic.

Ron Paul was 100% correct when he compared abortion to slavery. You take an entire class of people, deem they aren't people or are lesser people, and use that as a pretext to treat them as if they are subhuman. Then what you end up getting is these arguments that seem libertarian in theory, but are reminiscent of the Dredd Scott argument "blacks aren't people".

It's an easy issue. Does the State have the right to tell people what to do with their bodies? Unborn children are at the mercy of the woman who carries them. Smokes? Shoots testosterone? Drugs? Drinks? Bad diet? Couch potato? All of those qualify as an act of aggression against one's person. A fetus does not negate the right of a person to do stupid things others view as damaging, unless you believe you own that person. As stated previously, prison is not the solution. Tell me you think the State has a right to tell pregnant women what to do, and I will cede to the principled, if Statist, stance.

 

[Origanalist]

If the fetus can be killed without directly targeting it, then sufficient question is raised as to whether blunt-force abortion is a particularly special act of aggression. The end result is the same. Abortions are barbaric and disgusting by any means, and there is no perfect solution. Imprison women and invite tyranny through good intentions, or do your best to discourage abortions and encourage birth and healthful behavior. I opt for the second. What do you want to see happen?

There is already tyranny through "good intentions". The tyranny of so called "women's reproductive health" that really means state sanctioned infanticide.

 

[KurtBoyer25L]

That's a straw man argument that completely ignores intent. Just like if my grandmother is old and needs medical treatment, I have no obligation to provide that treatment, but I also can't go in there and suffocate her to death. It's a BS argument to compare smoking and doing drugs to literally physically dismembering the child. Your pro choice argument has virtually the same problem as all pro choice arguments; you have taken the rights of one into consideration without taking the rights of the other into consideration. Am I a "statist" when it comes to murder? Yes, I believe that if an individuals rights are being violated by another individual it is the OBLIGATION of the state to stop that violation of individual freedoms from occurring. The right to life is THE freedom, there is no other freedom that can be attained without it. That idea is the foundation of our constitutional republic.

Ron Paul was 100% correct when he compared abortion to slavery. You take an entire class of people, deem they aren't people or are lesser people, and use that as a pretext to treat them as if they are subhuman. Then what you end up getting is these arguments that seem libertarian in theory, but are reminiscent of the Dredd Scott argument "blacks aren't people".

Was Ron Paul also 100% correct when he said "force never works" in regard to criminalizing abortion? Or when he wrote in Liberty Defined that government policing of early-term abortion would be foolish if not impossible?

 

[KurtBoyer25L]

There is already tyranny through "good intentions". The tyranny of so called "women's reproductive health" that really means state sanctioned infanticide.

Round and round we go. The crucial issue is whether a 2-week-old mass of reproductive tissue is an "infant." As long as people disagree on that, the "it's killing babies!" argument is overly simple and goes nowhere.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

That's a straw man argument that completely ignores intent. Just like if my grandmother is old and needs medical treatment, I have no obligation to provide that treatment, but I also can't go in there and suffocate her to death. It's a BS argument to compare smoking and doing drugs to literally physically dismembering the child. Your pro choice argument has virtually the same problem as all pro choice arguments; you have taken the rights of one into consideration without taking the rights of the other into consideration. Am I a "statist" when it comes to murder? Yes, I believe that if an individuals rights are being violated by another individual it is the OBLIGATION of the state to stop that violation of individual freedoms from occurring. The right to life is THE freedom, there is no other freedom that can be attained without it. That idea is the foundation of our constitutional republic.

How would you determine intent when examining less-direct forms of abortion, ie: inducing a miscarriage? You can't. It's unenforceable, arbitrary, and an invitation to tyranny. You act like blunt-force abortions are the only way to kill a fetus, or that simply eliminating those versions will end the problem. It won't. Maybe it will make you sleep better at night, but that's about the only effectiveness such a diktat would have.

Do you want to charge women that do crack and get black-out drunk regularly during their pregnancy with assault on the fetus? Let's get down to brass tacks here - your entire position is an excuse to penalize women for anything that may be viewed as damaging to the fetus, not just death. Worse yet, you want the monopoly on force to carry it out. And yes, you are a Statist for thinking you have the right to control what pregnant women do with their body via the State. That you use a Constitutional Republic as your excuse doesn't make the end result any less tyrannical.

Rights stems from self-ownership, because you have no rights if you do not own yourself. That includes the right to life. The moment you accept that others do not own their bodies, for whatever reason, you have stripped them of their rights carte blanche.

Ron Paul was 100% correct when he compared abortion to slavery. You take an entire class of people, deem they aren't people or are lesser people, and use that as a pretext to treat them as if they are subhuman. Then what you end up getting is these arguments that seem libertarian in theory, but are reminiscent of the Dredd Scott argument "blacks aren't people".

You haven't read enough of what Ron Paul has said about abortion. Refer to KurtBoyer25L's post.

The unborn are people. Unfortunately for you, not one single living person on this Earth has the right to violate another's personal autonomy in order to live. Subversion of personal autonomy is the denial of self-ownership. In your concern for the unborn child, you are more than willing to enslave women. This is your position, just own it.

Note, by the way, that the unborn have zero personal autonomy. They are not an autonomous individual until they can be sustained outside of the womb. Recognizing this, don't try to pull the fallacy of equivocation that sentence two of the previous paragraph is likely to provoke given your position.

There is already tyranny through "good intentions". The tyranny of so called "women's reproductive health" that really means state sanctioned infanticide.

Which is precisely why the State shouldn't be involved in the matter. The fact you mentioned something State-sanctioned should have given away the tyranny.