What is your position on abortion?

[The Free Hornet]

I don't want to kill the pro life movement by taking the incredibly unpopular position of prosecuting women who get abortions, so I think it's wise for pro life groups to advocate laws that focus on punishing doctors who perform abortions. The Free Hornet brings up this issue because he wants the pro life movement to fail, and he knows that the pro life movement will fail if they take the position that women should be prosecuted for getting abortions, since most people are scared off by that position.

You poor, naive fool. The so-called pro-life movement was, is and always has been crafted by the AMA to further their own ends. If you value the live of the unborn, then you'll want a real pro libery (and pro life) movement to replace it.

The American Medical Association's crusade against abortion was partly a professional move, to establish the supremacy of "regular" physicians over midwives and homeopaths.

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/97may/abortion.htm

1873 Supported by the American Medical Association (AMA), the Comstock Act bans the dissemination by mail of information on abortion or artificial contraceptives.

http://studentsforlife.org/prolifefacts/history-of-abortion/

Thanks for proving that you don't give a flying fuck about babies. To you, this is about the "movement". Just like any other megalarge corrupt non-profit.

FYI, your "movement" didn't support Ron Paul and they never will support someone like him. It is about control of the medical industry!

 

[The Free Hornet]

Where did you ever say that there should be any laws against abortion? [Edit: I don't have to. You're makeing the assertion.] You've constantly argued here that abortion should be legal. [No, I'm constantly arguing to get the government out of our lives and that you are promoting a sham movement which is a front for the AMA] You've made it clear that you're personally opposed to it, but that it shouldn't be against the law.[No, I'm constantly arguing to get the government out of our lives and that you are promoting a sham movement which is a front for the AMA] That's the position that most pro choice people have.[No, I'm constantly arguing to get the government out of our lives and that you are promoting a sham movement which is a front for the AMA]

FIND THE LINKS!!! I'll edit them accordingly.

My positions actually do evolve over time. E.g., I agree that gubblemint should be out of the marriage issue and I'd rather promote that position than bitch and moan about who gets a license. Now - I have done both, but I have to cede the intellecutal superiority of the 'get government out of marriage' argument. I'm defenseless against it. Just as you will always be defenseless if prosecuting doctors while excusing mothers.

 

[Brett85]

FYI, your "movement" didn't support Ron Paul and they never will support someone like him. It is about control of the medical industry!

I supported Ron Paul, because he came closest to my positions on the issues overall. His position on this issue was at least good enough for me, since he supported overturning Roe v. Wade and opposed all federal funding of abortion. Overturning Roe v. Wade would at least be a huge step in the right direction since the states would have the legal authority to put legal protections in place for the unborn.

 

[Brett85]

FIND THE LINKS!!! I'll edit them accordingly.

My positions actually do evolve over time. E.g., I agree that gubblemint should be out of the marriage issue and I'd rather promote that position than bitch and moan about who gets a license. Now - I have done both, but I have to cede the intellecutal superiority of the 'get government out of marriage' argument. I'm defenseless against it. Just as you will always be defenseless if prosecuting doctors while excusing mothers.

Then explain what your actual position is regarding the legality of abortion. Should there be laws against abortion or not? It's a pretty simple question and should be pretty simple to answer.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not quite sure if you're fucked in the head with your promotion of vigilantes. I suspect it is something you'll out grow, but judging someone for not promoting your fucked up beliefs is redonkulous. AFAIK, I haven't taken a position on the issue beyond this:

You don't understand my point in bringing this up.

I'm not condoning anything.

What I'm saying is, if you really want murder of the unborn to be legal simply because you want less government, you should also believe that killing an abortion doctor to stop them from doing abortions should be legal. Otherwise, this isn't really about less government, but about using the force of law to protect the murder of the unborn. In essence, it is Nazism.

I'm not advocating the position I describe above. I want abortion to be illegal. But if your reason for wanting abortion to be legal is truly because of less government, you should support a true laissez faire policy of legalizing vigilantism against abortionists as well.

@Traditional Conservative- Is my point above making sense? I know he doesn't get it and he's not going to, is that my fault or his?

I don't want to kill the pro life movement by taking the incredibly unpopular position of prosecuting women who get abortions, so I think it's wise for pro life groups to advocate laws that focus on punishing doctors who perform abortions. The Free Hornet brings up this issue because he wants the pro life movement to fail, and he knows that the pro life movement will fail if they take the position that women should be prosecuted for getting abortions, since most people are scared off by that position.

I know why he's bringing it up, but he's still correct. Its completely inconsistent to only support punishing the doctors. Like laughably so. Its literally as absurd as legalizing the practice of hiring hitmen. That's literally as much sense as it makes.

Now, would I sign the law that banned abortion and only punished the doctors? Of course I would. Punishing the murderer and not punishing the hitman is still better than not punishing either. But it doesn't make any sense, logically.

Personally, I want some principle from the pro-life movement. The pro-life movement should be willing to explain exactly why, and how seriously, this issue should be dealt with at the state level.

FreedomFanatic's criticism of my position on this issue is valid since he supports prosecuting both the doctor and the mother who gets the abortion. Since you don't support prosecuting either the woman or the doctor who performs the abortion, your criticism of my position is completely without merit.

I don't honestly understand his point.

Point of fact, I and very very very few others have been at the forefront of that opinion here from the 'equal justice' perspective. Before promoting or favoring what you discuss, I would like to see some sample legislation of what exactly it is you're talking about.

The 'personhood' amendment is close but it leaves some loose threads to suggest that states might not treat us as equal under the law. Such that a boyfriend who buys RU486 will get sent to jail but the girlfriend who swallows it (the RU486) willingly, will not.

I've posted several times the video of protestors who don't want punishments for the mothers - and I would love to see more examples of politicians beyond that Tim Pawlenty quote I've used twice.

The thing is - I'm a taxpayer (big time). So you can push laws and vigilante squads but I have to consider the effects of paying for your opinion.

Also, where many focus on rape/incest/life-of-the-mother, I would focus on the health of the baby. Can the state or a judgement mechanism prove that there was a healthy, viable fetus??? Where/what is exhibit A? I'm sure you know that conception is frought with peril and uncertainty. So the miscarriage issue ways extremely heavy on me and these laws. When somebody dies, there is an expectation that a 'cause of death' be documented. Often, not always, as laws will vary.

So I wonder about the wisdom of attaching "personhood" without a name and with only a 50:50 chance of survival. This would be before the detectable heartbeat stage.

Since you will be leading the vigilante squads, perhaps you can educate me on the issue!

Your talking about vigilantes is because you are missing the point I was trying to make.

I'll support any law, as long as its constitutional (In other words, state or local level, doesn't involve police state tactics to enforce, presumes innocence until guilt is proven, exc.) that restricts the practice of abortion. So yeah, I'd even vote for silly things like the Texas abortion law, just to slow the baby killers down a little bit.

But that doesn't mean those laws are actually intellectually coherent or that we should allow that to stand and stop fighting.

I will not consider the pro-life movement to have WON the issue until abortion is treated exactly the same way as murder, with prosecutions for both the woman and the doctor, with whatever sentence is in place for murder, whether that be death, life in prison, exile, whatever.

Where did you ever say that there should be any laws against abortion? You've constantly argued here that abortion should be legal. You've made it clear that you're personally opposed to it, but that it shouldn't be against the law. That's the position that most pro choice people have.

And it doesn't really make any sense

Then explain what your actual position is regarding the legality of abortion. Should there be laws against abortion or not? It's a pretty simple question and should be pretty simple to answer.

Should be.

I'll answer: Yes.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Then explain what your actual position is regarding the legality of abortion. Should there be laws against abortion or not? It's a pretty simple question and should be pretty simple to answer.

As I've stated - and sorry if this wasn't clear - the laws should be about people and murder. "Abortion" is the wrong word to use (and a synonym for miscarriage). I will not support the use of that word in legislation or amendments. And I gave the textbook example for a legal prosecution (a mother extorting her fetus for money on youtube). I'm not 1000% opposed to the application of laws against murder of fetuses. I support the prosecution of fetal murder.

I am pro life and I am against murder. I believe a fetus is a human life. Most of what you need is there. What you are missing, most try to fill with some moral crusade. This might be incorrect from the anarchist perspective.

One reason - but not the only reason - we prosecute murder with due process and as a society is because the alternative might be standing idly by as the Zimmermans and Martins of the world kill each other in vengeance. However, with an abortion or even the murder of a toddler (by its parents/family), who is going to fight for the victim? Who has standing? It could be other family members which is a very valid answer. It could be those who devoted their attention to the child in school.

It is much much harder to find that standing the closer you get to conception. And yes, I do believe we have dominion over our own bodies and this can create a conflict of interest between the mother/fetus. I can't rightly say the fetus is a part of her since it is biologically distinct with its own central nervous system. I can't say it is a possession of hers unless I agree to either slavery or claim that she dispossesses the fetus upon birth (a possibility). It is in some ways not unlike the concept of limbo.

The word that describes my position is actually a word I truly loath: agnostic. Not agnostic in that I'm OK with the choice to murder. I'm not. It is agnostic in the sense that I don't know what to believe beyond knowing that the person who has the utmost responsibility and moral standing on the issue is the obvious one. The mother. So when people try to tell me I'm not pro life while they excuse the mother for the sake of some "movement".... what I know is the hatred I feel for you and you're anti-life, anti-liberty movement. You have taken what ought to be a sacred responsibility and shat all over it for the sake of regulating (aka controlling) medical industry.

My position is that I loath you and your movement. You're patsies for the medical establishment dressed up in a moral panic costume. You can't even play it right because you care so deeply for the movement, you excuse the very murders you claim to oppose.

Growing up, I was one of those children dragged to pro life rallies. My family assisted many pregnant mothers in need (or rather my mother led that charge) as the best alternative to abortion (for those who don't want to give the baby up). I can't ask my mother - who was the most 100% pro life person I know - whether or not she would be like those ladies who protested abortion but don't want the mothers prosecuted as murderers. I suspect she would NOT want those prosecutions. So how do I reconcile the fact that the most 100% pro life person I have ever known in my entire life, is not.... by any stretch of the imagination, pro life in the sense of wanting to take away the mother's choice? [Sure take away the doctor's choice, but it doesn't affect the mother's choice.]

You have tried to beat me over the head with the notion that my position is just like the Pelosi/Obama/"prochoice" one. But that is YOUR position as it was my mother's with respect to the aborting mothers. You are literally fighting for the mother's choice to have an abortion. You do this for the sake of some "movement", but that is what you do.

Clearly, I won't follow you on that mission. With a private medical system and our fourth amendment rights ('secure in our papers'), I'm not sure how you would go about making a dent in the problem or - per the arguments of 'standing' above - how the government is motivated to intervene.

And I sure as fuck don't want to promote more government. All that said, if there is a societal mechanism to prosecute murder by those with standing (by argument of friendship, relationship, business, local sovereignty, family, or whatnot), I will not bust a nut if some of those murder victims happen not to have been born yet. I think the burden of proof is greater (prove this was a viable/healthy human, e.g.) and it may be on shakier ground than the murder of an adult, but I'm not excluding the possibility.

If you're asking me for a framework however, you are asking the wrong person. I reject stoning and moral crusades which is how similar issues have often been approached. Let's be honest, the pro-life movement is so morally and intellectually bankrupt that we have to start from scratch.

Or....

It's a pretty simple question and should be pretty simple to answer.

It's not simple which is why you have 5 poll options and still don't cover half the likely beliefs out there.

 

[Brett85]

Does anyone understand what his actual position is yet?

 

[Brett85]

I'm not in favor of there being a "choice" in any situation that involves killing a baby in a womb, except when the life of the mother is in danger. The fact that I focus on punishing the person who actually murders the baby (which in some cases actually is the woman) doesn't mean that I'm "pro choice" in any situation except for when the life of the mother is in danger. I believe that when an abortion occurs, someone should be punished for that, and punished strongly. I support the death penalty for any doctor who performs an abortion. A policy like that would put a pretty huge dent in the number of abortions in our country.

 

[Origanalist]

Point of fact, I and very very very few others have been at the forefront of that opinion here from the 'equal justice' perspective. Before promoting or favoring what you discuss, I would like to see some sample legislation of what exactly it is you're talking about.

The 'personhood' amendment is close but it leaves some loose threads to suggest that states might not treat us as equal under the law. Such that a boyfriend who buys RU486 will get sent to jail but the girlfriend who swallows it (the RU486) willingly, will not.

I've posted several times the video of protestors who don't want punishments for the mothers - and I would love to see more examples of politicians beyond that Tim Pawlenty quote I've used twice.

The thing is - I'm a taxpayer (big time). So you can push laws and vigilante squads but I have to consider the effects of paying for your opinion.

Also, where many focus on rape/incest/life-of-the-mother, I would focus on the health of the baby. Can the state or a judgement mechanism prove that there was a healthy, viable fetus??? Where/what is exhibit A? I'm sure you know that conception is frought with peril and uncertainty. So the miscarriage issue ways extremely heavy on me and these laws. When somebody dies, there is an expectation that a 'cause of death' be documented. Often, not always, as laws will vary.

So I wonder about the wisdom of attaching "personhood" without a name and with only a 50:50 chance of survival. This would be before the detectable heartbeat stage.

Since you will be leading the vigilante squads, perhaps you can educate me on the issue!

I think that would be extremely problematic considering the brutality and destruction caused by the murder itself.

 

[The Free Hornet]

But if your reason for wanting abortion to be legal is truly because of less government, you should support a true laissez faire policy of legalizing vigilantism against abortionists as well.

Laissez-faire is "hands off"/(also "let it be" or "let [them] do" per wikipedia). It has zero to do with your juvenile vigilante fantasies. I.e., it is more 'live and let live', not 'live and let die' (James Bond).

More so, "legalizing vigilantism" is a non sequitor as anything classified as such would cease to be vigilantism:

vigilantism vig·i·lan·te [vij-uh-lan-tee] noun
1. a member of a vigilance committee.
2. any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.
adjective
3. done violently and summarily, without recourse to lawful procedures: vigilante justice.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Vigilantism?s=t

Further promotions of violence from you might be reported (here at rpf) as acts of an agent provocateur. More so if you are responding to me or asking me questions that contain this theme or imploring that I accept the same.

I oppose the death penalty not because it is unjust - though often it is - but it is too costly to society. I do not harbor the fantasy that privatizing it will make it any cheaper. Rather the costs, including countermeasures (including counter-vigilante vigilante actions), may actually increase.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Does anyone understand what his actual position is yet?

Murder is bad, mmm'k?

Seriously, you're like an illiberal statist spouting off about thousands killed by "handgun shootings". You want my "handgun shootings" position. Guess what, statist, I don't have a "handgun shootings" position! My concern is with murder.

Your cognitive dissonance is the result of wanting to ban something! Your pro-life movement is nothing more than pro-state regulation of our lives. If it doesn't result in a ban or regulatory hurdle, you simply get confused as your quote proves.

 

[Brett85]

Murder is bad, mmm'k?

Seriously, you're like an illiberal statist spouting off about thousands killed by "handgun shootings". You want my "handgun shootings" position. Guess what, statist, I don't have a "handgun shootings" position! My concern is with murder.

Your cognitive dissonance is the result of wanting to ban something! Your pro-life movement is nothing more than pro-state regulation of our lives. If it doesn't result in a ban or regulatory hurdle, you simply get confused as your quote proves.

Ok, so you think both murder and abortion is wrong, but there shouldn't be laws against it. People should have the right to take the lives of innocent people if they feel like it. The non aggression principle doesn't apply.

 

[Origanalist]

Ok, so you think both murder and abortion is wrong, but there shouldn't be laws against it. People should have the right to take the lives of innocent people if they feel like it. The non aggression principle doesn't apply.

So there. Neaner...neaner.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Does anyone understand what his actual position is yet?

Nope.

Laissez-faire is "hands off"/(also "let it be" or "let [them] do" per wikipedia). It has zero to do with your juvenile vigilante fantasies. I.e., it is more 'live and let live', not 'live and let die' (James Bond).

More so, "legalizing vigilantism" is a non sequitor as anything classified as such would cease to be vigilantism:



Further promotions of violence from you might be reported (here at rpf) as acts of an agent provocateur. More so if you are responding to me or asking me questions that contain this theme or imploring that I accept the same.

I oppose the death penalty not because it is unjust - though often it is - but it is too costly to society. I do not harbor the fantasy that privatizing it will make it any cheaper. Rather the costs, including countermeasures (including counter-vigilante vigilante actions), may actually increase.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to do anything illegal.

I do think that people who break certain laws should be pardoned. This would obviously include drug users, prostitutes, exc. For me, it also includes people like Scott Roeder.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to use drugs, its a horrible idea, but nonetheless, if a cop arrests someone for using drugs, it is the cop who is the aggressor.

I'm not advocating that anyone kill an abortion doctor, but still, if they were to do that, it would not be a violation of the NAP because the abortion doctor is a murderer.

You claiming that I'm advocating it is being intellectually dishonest and is a failure to actually read what I'm posting.

If you believe that the unborn are human lives, and you believe that those who kill them should not be prosecuted, you should also believe that those who kill the killers should not be prosecuted, or otherwise admit to being a massive hypocrite.

That's what we're talking about. We're talking about laws, not ethics as such.

The morality of illegal violence is not something I'd even discuss on the forums. I limit my discussion to how we feel a libertarian legal framework should handle it.

Now, regarding the whole "Standing" concept, I don't see why it matters who has standing. If you kill somebody that nobody loves, its still murder. It simply doesn't matter if anyone cared about the victim or not.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Ok, so you think both murder and abortion is wrong, but there shouldn't be laws against it. People should have the right to take the lives of innocent people if they feel like it. The non aggression principle doesn't apply.

NO! Learn to read. I said murder is wrong. Abortion includes natural miscarriages so I'm not going to offer an opinion on its rightness or wrongness. The laws you support against abortion have likely only led to its increased usage. This is partly because you refuse to classify it as murder.

Agreeing there should be laws against murder and agreeing we should prosecute these laws in China are two different things. One is overreach. When exactly there is standing to prosecute - with proof - a murder case is beyond the scope here.

I can't give a reason why a healthy, viable full term baby can be aborted at the mother's discretion on the same day it could have been delivered safely. I would agree that is murder.

Where I part company is when the posers want to excuse the mother in exchange for TOTAL REGULATION OF THE MEDICAL INDUSTRY (what the AMA wanted and got).

You would excuse the mother of murder, I would not. Yet you still have the gall to repeatedly lie and distort my position. Hopefully, one day you'll get it. The movement you seek to protect is worthless to its core.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Where I part company is when the posers want to excuse the mother in exchange for TOTAL REGULATION OF THE MEDICAL INDUSTRY (what the AMA wanted and got).

Not all of us...

 

[Brett85]

You would excuse the mother of murder, I would not. Yet you still have the gall to repeatedly lie and distort my position. Hopefully, one day you'll get it. The movement you seek to protect is worthless to its core.

So you're saying that you would be in favor of a law that completely bans abortion as long as it prosecutes both the mother and the doctor who performs the abortion?

 

[Christian Liberty]

So you're saying that you would be in favor of a law that completely bans abortion as long as it prosecutes both the mother and the doctor who performs the abortion?

I'm guessing he wouldn't. But this is just going in circles...

He's not going to tell you what his actual position is

 

[EBounding]

I'm against this and anything else resembling this:

EDIT: I voted "with an exception for the life of the mother", but I have a hard time believing this is what they do if the Mother's life is in danger.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Nope.



I'm not trying to convince anyone to do anything illegal.

I do think that people who break certain laws should be pardoned. This would obviously include drug users, prostitutes, exc. For me, it also includes people like Scott Roeder.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to use drugs, its a horrible idea, but nonetheless, if a cop arrests someone for using drugs, it is the cop who is the aggressor.

I'm not advocating that anyone kill an abortion doctor, but still, if they were to do that, it would not be a violation of the NAP because the abortion doctor is a murderer.

You claiming that I'm advocating it is being intellectually dishonest and is a failure to actually read what I'm posting.

If you believe that the unborn are human lives, and you believe that those who kill them should not be prosecuted, you should also believe that those who kill the killers should not be prosecuted, or otherwise admit to being a massive hypocrite.

That's what we're talking about. We're talking about laws, not ethics as such.

The morality of illegal violence is not something I'd even discuss on the forums. I limit my discussion to how we feel a libertarian legal framework should handle it.

Now, regarding the whole "Standing" concept, I don't see why it matters who has standing. If you kill somebody that nobody loves, its still murder. It simply doesn't matter if anyone cared about the victim or not.

That absolutely would be a violation of NAP in libertarian legal framework. The doctor didn't cause harm to the murderer, so killing the doctor would be a violation of NAP, and the murderer would be subject to retaliation from the doctor's family.