What is your main issue?

[erowe1]

While I lean pro-life, my main issue is this:

How are you going to enforce any ban on abortions? What's stopping a black market that cater to the demand that some will continue to have for abortions?

I don't think it can completely be stopped. The same is true of any other crime.

 

[ClayTrainor]

While I lean pro-life, my main issue is this:

How are you going to enforce any ban on abortions? What's stopping a black market that cater to the demand that some will continue to have for abortions?

+1

 

[ChaosControl]

While I lean pro-life, my main issue is this:

How are you going to enforce any ban on abortions? What's stopping a black market that cater to the demand that some will continue to have for abortions?

You can't end it completely, but you can cut down on the number by preventing hospitals and clinics from being able to offer the procedure. Less will be willing to perform it or have it done if there is a greater risk involved.

Banning it, doing more for people who are pregnant, etc, all are things we need to do, not just one thing.

 

[osan]

I believe all of these things are symptoms of a greater disease which ails this country and this world. We have no moral compass or respect for self-reliance and thus self-governing. Our government whom we elect is nothing more than a bunch of sociopaths who play off of the people's unconscious fears in exchange for more power. I do not see a shift happening in government unless there is first a shift in the consciousness of the citizens who put these people in positions of authority.

Very well stated. On the money.

 

[Vessol]

You can't end it completely, but you can cut down on the number by preventing hospitals and clinics from being able to offer the procedure. Less will be willing to perform it or have it done if there is a greater risk involved.

Banning it, doing more for people who are pregnant, etc, all are things we need to do, not just one thing.

But this is the same argument made for prohibition, and that obviously hasn't worked.

You can't end drug use completely, but you can cut down on the number by preventing stores and markets from being able to offer the drug. Less will be willing to sell it or use it if there is a greater risk involved.

Banning it, doing more for people who are addicted, etc, all are things we need to do, not just one thing.

What I'm trying to say is this: Perhaps the pro-life crowd is looking at it the wrong way. Instead of looking to the State to fix the problem, they themselves should go forth and try to share their ideas and try to change the consciousness of society. Using the government to solve any problem never works and it always has unintended consequences.

 

[ClayTrainor]

You can't end it completely, but you can cut down on the number by preventing hospitals and clinics the market from being able to offer the procedure drugs. Less will be willing to perform it sell or do drugs if there is a greater risk involved.

Prohibition doesnt work, sorry.

 

[LibertyEagle]

That's fine, and I'm making the point that it's important to think things through yourself, before coming to a conclusion because of someone elses opinion.

I agree with that.

 

[erowe1]

Prohibition doesnt work, sorry.

Not even the prohibition of murder?

 

[ChaosControl]

But this is the same argument made for prohibition, and that obviously hasn't worked.

What I'm trying to say is this: Perhaps the pro-life crowd is looking at it the wrong way. Instead of looking to the State to fix the problem, they themselves should go forth and try to share their ideas and try to change the consciousness of society. Using the government to solve any problem never works and it always has unintended consequences.

I agree that there is a need beyond law to address this issue. However, I think law also plays a role. No, we cannot stop the activity 100% with law. But you stop the clinics and hospitals from offering a "safe, legal" place to get it done, more are going to think twice about it. The difference I think in things like prohibition is other than getting caught by the cops, there isn't really a difference of much in risk. While there is a pretty difference risk in having a surgery done.

 

[Vessol]

Not even the prohibition of murder?

No, murders still occur.

Laws against murder don't prevent it from happening.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Prohibition doesnt work, sorry.

That's not a good analogy. Drinking does not infringe on another's liberty. Abortion does.

Clay, last time I checked, murder was against the law. That doesn't mean that murders still don't happen every day. The fact that they still happen, does not mean that we should remove all laws against murder. The same would be true for abortion.

But, my stance is that first, I want to remove Roe v. Wade and all federal government funding for abortion. It should be each state's decision as to how to handle abortion, just as it is their decision of how to deal with most every other murder.

 

[erowe1]

No, murders still occur.

Laws against murder don't prevent it from happening.

Do you think they don't decrease its rate of incidence?

 

[Vessol]

Do you think they don't decrease its rate of incidence?

Not particularly. There are no sources to cite from either argument, but I don't really think that the boys in blue are making people stop and think "Wait, maybe I shouldn't murder". Rather they just find more elaborate ways to kill someone instead of just walking up to them and shooting them in the head.

 

[LibertyEagle]

No, murders still occur.

Laws against murder don't prevent it from happening.

No, but they certainly curtail it. Just as the threat of a lawsuit, curtails other activities. But, in the end, many in our country now suffer from a complete lack of morality and inability to see beyond their own selves. It's pretty sad. In fact, our Founders said quite a few things about this and told us that our form of government was only suited for a moral people.

Those whose intent has been to destroy our country have done a good job.

 

[ClayTrainor]

That's not a good analogy. Drinking does not infringe on another's liberty. Abortion does.

It's a perfect analogy. If you prohibit something there is demand for, you create a black market with heaps of unintended consequences.

Clay, last time I checked, murder was against the law. That doesn't mean that murders still don't happen every day. The fact that they still happen, does not mean that we should remove all laws against murder. The same would be true for abortion.

Do you think if there were no state laws for murder, that there would be no consequences to murder?

But, my stance is that first, I want to remove Roe v. Wade and all federal government funding for abortion.

That's a good start

It should be each state's decision as to how to handle abortion, just as it is their decision of how to deal with most every other murder.

There should be no monopolies dictating what "the law" is.

I don't think states handle murder charges very well, either. Those with political connections can literally get away with murder, at times, and police all too often incarcerate the wrong people for the sake of wrapping up a case, while the real criminals stay out on the streets.

In my opinion, the state (federal and state-level) are front organizations for organized crime. They should not be entrusted with moral decisions.

 

[Vessol]

No, but they certainly curtail it. Just as the threat of a lawsuit, curtails other activities.

I don't think what's stopping the vast majority of people from murdering someone is the law that makes it illegal.

There are far more punishments for murder than "the law".

If today, murder suddenly became legal, I highly doubt you'd have a sudden onrush of people who'd go "Well, now the law says its okay, so I'll go ahead and murder!"

It's kind of a Hobbesian view of humankind to say otherwise.

 

[erowe1]

There should be no monopolies dictating what "the law" is.

I don't think states handle murder charges very well, either. Those with political connections can literally get away with murder, at times, and police all too often incarcerate the wrong people for the sake of wrapping up a case, while the real criminals stay out on the streets.

In my opinion, the state (federal and state-level) are front organizations for organized crime. They should not be entrusted with moral decisions.

I agree with all that. Groups of people who come up with rules by their own whims and declare them the law have no authority for that. The only truly legitimate law is the one that comes from the creator. Whatever means is proper for a society to govern itself should be a means where the only law that reigns in the court and that is administered by whatever methods a society uses is that natural law.

Within this, the same prohibition of murder that natural law affords to the born, it also affords to the pre-born. So you might have good arguments against the state, but those arguments don't entail being pro-choice in abortion any more than they entail being pro-choice in other forms of murder.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

I agree with you on 2, but 1 will get you into a war with many. Attempting to force this upon people at this stage of the game is asking to get yourself killed, very literally. I will add that such force lies in diametric opposition to the principles of liberty. You may not like abortion - I don't much care for it, especially as a means of contraception (which I find utterly reprehensible), but it is an issue for the individual to decide each for herself. If you do not understand why this is so, then I would have to submit that you are not an advocate of liberty but of pretty slavery. Pretty to you, that is.

Hold your values on that issue close to your heart, live by the dictates of your conscience, and demand the world respect them. In return, the price you pay is the same respect of the decisions of others even when what they do fills you with horror. Neither you nor I not anyone else is to impose judgment upon others on such issues. The slope is sudden, slippery, and steep. Beware.

Exactly good post. In the last interview he did when he was asked about abortion he basically said government couldn't do anything to stop it, but he is pro-life. It's an acceptable position. I think he realizes abortion is a very polarizing issue. If he's in this thing to win this time, he can't come out swinging saying he'll make abortion illegal without losing a ton of support. After all, you can't really run a campaign on individual liberty for all except for pregnant women can you?

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

1. Monetary Policy
2. Foreign Policy

 

[Kludge]

http://www.steadyhealth.com/Home_abortion___success_or_failure_with_syringe_t101996.html

To answer the question -
1) Ending gov't wars
2) Dismantling gov't entirely or removing enough power from gov't so evading it is dramatically easier than currently (through anfasc means, ofc )