What is your main issue?

[Vessol]

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.

Excellent post, couldn't agree more. That's why I call myself pro-life

 

[newbitech]

I wonder if there is a long list of issues somewhere that I could leach. Anyone?

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

Then you aren't pro life at all. The term "pro life" refers to those who want the government to protect innocent human life. And why in the world do you use exclamation points after every single sentence?

A woman is a born person. There is no debate in that. You're saying it's okay for born person's to lose their liberty (even temporarily). If the born can't have liberty then no one can.

 

[Brett85]

What do you believe defines a human being? I'm not asking "when is it a human being?", but rather, what makes it a human being?

I think that any life form with human characteristics that is actually growing and devoloping is a human being. That would certainly include a fetus. That's probably the best definition I can come up with.

 

[Brett85]

So a chemical reaction between cells=life. Thank you for the clarification .

Yes. That's a good definition as well.

 

[erowe1]

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?

I doubt he said that. He might have said the federal government shouldn't do anything. But I'd be really surprised if he said no government should do anything.

I definitely wouldn't say no government should do anything to stop abortion either. But the kind of government that should do something should be a pure republic, built from the individual on up, with voluntary participation, and not one that rules its subjects by conquest.

 

[Brett85]

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

I don't see how you can compare drug use to abortion. People who use drugs are just harming themselves, while people who get or perform abortions are killing an innocent human being. That's why almost all libertarians support legalizing drugs, but a large number are also pro life.

 

[LibertyEagle]

A woman is a born person. There is no debate in that. You're saying it's okay for born person's to lose their liberty (even temporarily). If the born can't have liberty then no one can.

A woman has plenty of liberty.

She has the liberty to read a book to understand that intercourse produces babies. It is after all, a reproductive function.

She has the liberty to keep her legs closed, or use birth control, if she chooses to engage in sex and does not want to become pregnant.

If however, she chooses to have sex and pregnancy is the outcome of her chosen actions, she needs to be responsible for her choices and actions and give the unborn the chance to be born. If at that time, she wants to wash her hands of her spawn, then she can give it up for adoption.


And again, an individual's liberty only extends to the point where they infringe on another's liberty. Sucking a baby out of the mother's uterus, piece-by-piece, I'm thinkin' might be considered an infringement on that baby's liberty.

 

[Brett85]

A woman is a born person. There is no debate in that. You're saying it's okay for born person's to lose their liberty (even temporarily). If the born can't have liberty then no one can.

I don't think that preventing someone from committing murder takes away their liberty. Should an adult have the liberty to come into my house, take my belongings, and kill me? I'll never believe that murder is somehow a civil liberty that people should have.

 

[Vessol]

I don't see how you can compare drug use to abortion. People who use drugs are just harming themselves, while people who get or perform abortions are killing an innocent human being. That's why almost all libertarians support legalizing drugs, but a large number are also pro life.

Look on the past page and I was debating the fact that there is little evidence that making laws against murder actually prevent murder.

Saying otherwise is a very Hobbesian view of mankind, thinking that laws are the only thing that hold us back from being savages. Hobbes argued that the State must exist and have full control of the lives of humans because of this, this goes against Lockian theory which holds that humans are inherently good. Our nation was founded upon the Lockian viewpoint of humans.

I don't think that laws banning abortion will be effective and they will have many unintended consequences, like any law. Never trust the government to fix a problem, government IS the problem.
Those who are pro-life should focus rather on trying to teach why abortion is wrong and try to change societies view on it. Laws don't do that, but you can .

 

[ClayTrainor]

Look on the past page and I was debating the fact that there is little evidence that making laws against murder actually prevent murder.

Saying otherwise is a very Hobbesian view of mankind, thinking that laws are the only thing that hold us back from being savages. Hobbes argued that the State must exist and have full control of the lives of humans because of this, this goes against Lockian theory which holds that humans are inherently good. Our nation was founded upon the Lockian viewpoint of humans.

I don't think that laws banning abortion will be effective and they will have many unintended consequences, like any law. Never trust the government to fix a problem, government IS the problem.
Those who are pro-life should focus rather on trying to teach why abortion is wrong and try to change societies view on it. Laws don't do that, but you can .

+10000000000000000000000000000000

+rep when i have more ammo.

 

[Dr.3D]

+10000000000000000000000000000000

+rep when i have more ammo.

I gave him one too. That is a very good explanation as to why laws don't keep people from doing anything.

 

[LibertyEagle]

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

It's a poor analogy, because you equated it to something in which no one but the person engaging in the behavior was harmed. Abortion is very different. It is murder. As such, it absolutely goes against the non-aggression principle.

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

Define "state".

Actually, I am not in favor of mob rule or lynch mobs, but you can give it a try in Canada and tell us how it works out.

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

No one is desirous of a monopoly. The form of government in my country was intended to be representative. They were to represent us, within the boundaries of the Constitution.

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.

Please point out where anyone has argued for what our government has become. It is very far from the constitutional government it is supposed to be.

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

Abortion is not a moral decision, Clay. It is murder. Or do you consider murder a moral issue?

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

A woman has plenty of liberty.

She has the liberty to read a book to understand that intercourse produces babies. It is after all, a reproductive function.

She has the liberty to keep her legs closed, or use birth control, if she chooses to engage in sex and does not want to become pregnant.

If however, she chooses to have sex and pregnancy is the outcome of her chosen actions, she needs to be responsible for her choices and actions and give the unborn the chance to be born. If at that time, she wants to wash her hands of her spawn, then she can give it up for adoption.


And again, an individual's liberty only extends to the point where they infringe on another's liberty. Sucking a baby out of the mother's uterus, piece-by-piece, I'm thinkin' might be considered an infringement on that baby's liberty.

Responsible does not mean doing whatever you think is right. Birth Control fails sometimes. The bottom line is that it isn't your choice.

I wonder how many pro-lifers would actually get up and stop a woman from having an abortion? Would you be comfortable with that? Kind of like Osan said.

If you seriously want to ban it, you should seriously start thinking about real answers to confronting these women.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

I don't think that preventing someone from committing murder takes away their liberty. Should an adult have the liberty to come into my house, take my belongings, and kill me? I'll never believe that murder is somehow a civil liberty that people should have.

No an adult is entirely different from a fetus that is attached to the mother. Everything the mother goes through, the fetus does as well. That's not an individual entity (it's a human being, yes) but until it's able to survive without sucking off the mother's resources, it's the mother's choice.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Responsible does not mean doing whatever you think is right. Birth Control fails sometimes. The bottom line is that it isn't your choice.

Sure it is. Sex is a reproductive function. Babies are often the result. If one engages in a reproductive function and ends up reproducing, they shouldn't be shocked.

I wonder how many pro-lifers would actually get up and stop a woman from having an abortion? Would you be comfortable with that? Kind of like Osan said.

If you seriously want to ban it, you should seriously start thinking about real answers to confronting these women.

For right now, I want all federal funding of abortion to be stopped and Roe v. Wade to be tossed out. The battles should be fought at the state levels.

 

[LibertyEagle]

No an adult is entirely different from a fetus that is attached to the mother. Everything the mother goes through, the fetus does as well. That's not an individual entity (it's a human being, yes) but until it's able to survive without sucking off the mother's resources, it's the mother's choice.

How about a newborn? They can't survive on their own, either. Is it ok to murder them too?

This is a slippery slope, you know. To judge what life is worthy of living and which is not.

 

[realtonygoodwin]

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.

I would say only one who is opposed to liberty would advocate for the state to allow one to take an innocent human life.

Like it's been said, monetary policy and the Fed. End those and you end the state.

Is that your goal - to end the state?

Uh. A fetus not have a heart until about 3.9 months in and it does not have lungs till about 5 months into the pregnancy.

Until about 6 months there is no actual brain activity. At about this time the neurons in the brain are used for the first time and sentience and self-awareness happens. Because this is when neurons first actually start firing, this is the first time that the fetus can actually feel stimuli which would include pain.
...

I'm not going to debate abortion, but you should at least have your facts straight.

Interesting that my wife is 22 weeks pregnant currently, and is right now at the hospital listening to the heartbeat of our daughter. For probably the 4th time. I believe we heard it for the first time around 11 weeks. My research indicates it is detectable at 7 weeks. Gender is discernible at 15 weeks or so. So, make sure your facts are straight.
My personal opinion is that life begins at the time that the fertilized egg has unique human DNA (indicating it is human), and the cells split (indicating growth, and thus, life). I think the only valid reason for a woman to have an abortion is if the mother will die otherwise. The right to defend herself against an existential threat is not waived merely because she is pregnant.

To those that argue against being pro-life from a prohibition standpoint- that only works if you are an anarchist. If you are a Constitutionalist, then you understand that the proper role of the federal government is to protect people from having others infringe upon their rights.

Do you suggest that we make armed robbery "safe, legal, and rare"?

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

How about a newborn? They can't survive on their own, either. Is it ok to murder them too?

This is a slippery slope, you know. To judge what life is worthy of living and which is not.

Someone else can care for them. Until a woman can put a fetus in an artificial uterus, it's not even up for comparison.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

Sure it is. Sex is a reproductive function. Babies are often the result. If one engages in a reproductive function and ends up reproducing, they shouldn't be shocked.



For right now, I want all federal funding of abortion to be stopped and Roe v. Wade to be tossed out. The battles should be fought at the state levels.

So you're saying it's okay to murder babies if it the state decides it is allowed?