What is your position on abortion?

[Origanalist]

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.

But somehow this isn't.

 

[Brett85]

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.

If you were walking down the street and you saw a man hold a gun to a 3 year old's head and prepare to shoot her, and you decided to take out your gun and kill the man who was preparing to murder the 3 year old, would you be violating the non aggression principle in that situation?

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm against this and anything else resembling this:

I don't care what method is used to commit murder, its still murder.

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.

If you were walking down the street and you saw a man hold a gun to a 3 year old's head and prepare to shoot her, and you decided to take out your gun and kill the man who was preparing to murder the 3 year old, would you be violating the non aggression principle in that situation?

Apparently...

In reality, however, if a person shot and killed a three year old, you saw them do it, and then you killed them afterward, you STILL wouldn't be the violator of the NAP, they would.

Some people here really don't understand the NAP.

 

[The Free Hornet]

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?

A) I will entertain the applicability of laws concerning murder (infanticide, manslaughter might be acceptable down-charges on occasion) [more so in the context of a medically free society, no drug war, and a return of the fourth amendment]. Standing is still an issue. I will not support involuntary extraction of taxes for this purpose. Juries would be free to vote their conscience.

B) The word "abortion" need not and possibly ought not appear in any legislation

C) "B" above does not imply any legal status for abortion

D) Excusing the mother to get prosecutions will be viewed with the same contempt as any other drug war/thug state tactic (they love to pick and choose who they prosecute and hold absolute power over all of us)

Keep in mind that your movement doesn't care about abortions per se, they care about laws regulating abortions. Keep in mind that Plan B and RU-486 usage is increasing. Babies that might have had a chance... never will. AFAIK, Plan B works to prevent implantation, not conception (but not necessarily). Ergo, it is an abortifacient .

Anyway, I see governments nose in the birth issue as generally worse for babies. People are working around this intrusion by pro-actively never even getting to the sonogram stage.

Is that the victory you want? A sterile, barren populace well cared for by the AMA?

Governement, at its very best, can only ever hope to be a necessary evil. The bar is so low that their involvement can be worse than fetal murder. That is not to answer the issue one way or the other, but to inform you again of another truth you fail to recognize: the issue is complex.

Oh, and I can post lots of nasty pictures depicting what guns can do. The commonality is not that we outlaw guns, but that we prosecute murder. Giving the mother a pass just lets me know that your priorities are elsewhere. For you, it is the movement. All hail the glorious sign-waving fucktards!

 

[Brett85]

At this point I might just have to sit back and laugh and quit responding to your posts. Does anyone have any idea what his actual position is regarding the legalitity of abortion? He manages to continually write half page essays without saying what his actual position is on the legality of abortion. It's not complex, it's simple. Should abortion be legal or illegal?

 

[The Free Hornet]

At this point I might just have to sit back and laugh and quit responding to your posts. Does anyone have any idea what his actual position is regarding the legalitity of abortion? He manages to continually write half page essays without saying what his actual position is on the legality of abortion. It's not complex, it's simple. Should abortion be legal or illegal?

It's illegal to have a miscarriage? A miscarriage is an abortion. As would be removal of a dead human fetus. As is a vet when terminating a pet's or animal's pregnancy (also abortion). None of those are the premeditated killing of a human (murder - I'm leaving out "unlawful" as a qualifier because that is the issue under discussion).

Like guns and gun shootings, you have legit and non-legit uses. Because you don't care about LIFE, you care about the abortion issue, you want a simple proclamation that you refuse to give yourself:

You said it ought be legal to have an abortion if the mother's life is at risk. You might as well ask if gun shootings are legal or illegal. It depends on context. Anybody with an IQ over 85 should understand this.

Anyway the government doesn't exist to "legalize" things. That is statist thinking whereby we all have to ask for permission to speak up.

I've given you every inch of ground you would need to prosecute murderers, but you have to supply the rest:

a) principles: go after the mother too
b) money: get your own (hands off mine)
c) standing: I'm just suggesting you be careful and not waste a jury's time
d) proof: I suggest starting with subpoenas to get the sonagrams (ask around on your dime, not mine) [must prove a viable human was killed which is harder for someone without a valid HI birth certificate]

Enough with the stupid act asking the same question over and over again. I told you in one of my first posts that you are asking the wrong questions.

 

[Neil Desmond]

At this point I might just have to sit back and laugh and quit responding to your posts. Does anyone have any idea what his actual position is regarding the legalitity of abortion? He manages to continually write half page essays without saying what his actual position is on the legality of abortion. It's not complex, it's simple. Should abortion be legal or illegal?

If I understand The Free Hornet correctly, here's what he's trying to say: A miscarriage is an abortion. If you make abortion illegal, then you make miscarriages illegal. Because of this, we should not make abortion illegal.

I agree, we should not make abortion illegal if it makes miscarriages illegal. It's a semantics thing. I cannot imagine that there's a single person who says that abortion ought to be illegal who thinks that miscarriages should be illegal. I think that what people who say that abortion ought to be illegal mean is that only non-miscarriage, intentionally executed abortions ought to be illegal.

 

[Brett85]

It's illegal to have a miscarriage? A miscarriage is an abortion. As would be removal of a dead human fetus. As is a vet when terminating a pet's or animal's pregnancy (also abortion). None of those are the premeditated killing of a human (murder - I'm leaving out "unlawful" as a qualifier because that is the issue under discussion).

Like guns and gun shootings, you have legit and non-legit uses. Because you don't care about LIFE, you care about the abortion issue, you want a simple proclamation that you refuse to give yourself:

You said it ought be legal to have an abortion if the mother's life is at risk. You might as well ask if gun shootings are legal or illegal. It depends on context. Anybody with an IQ over 85 should understand this.

Anyway the government doesn't exist to "legalize" things. That is statist thinking whereby we all have to ask for permission to speak up.

I've given you every inch of ground you would need to prosecute murderers, but you have to supply the rest:

a) principles: go after the mother too
b) money: get your own (hands off mine)
c) standing: I'm just suggesting you be careful and not waste a jury's time
d) proof: I suggest starting with subpoenas to get the sonagrams (ask around on your dime, not mine) [must prove a viable human was killed which is harder for someone without a valid HI birth certificate]

Enough with the stupid act asking the same question over and over again. I told you in one of my first posts that you are asking the wrong questions.

You're simply playing a semantics game to avoid answering the actual question. Please answer this question: Should it be legal or illegal for abortion clinics to operate here in America?

My position is that there should be a law that closes down public abortion clinics. When the abortion procedure has to be done to save the mother's life, that would be done in a hospital. I don't believe it's necessary for public abortion clinics to ever be legal. And no one believes that miscarragies should be illegal.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

But somehow this isn't.

I didn't say that wasn't. I have a feeling that Walter Block's evictionism would probably be the lay of the land in a free society, and under evictionism theory this is murder (unless the mother's life is in danger and the baby cannot be extracted alive). I was responding in the context of a libertarian society, in which there is no district attorney to bring up charges on behalf of 'society'. In a free society, the victims would be the plantiffs, and since the victim's family in this instance isn't going to bring charges, the only justified option available is social ostracism.

If you were walking down the street and you saw a man hold a gun to a 3 year old's head and prepare to shoot her, and you decided to take out your gun and kill the man who was preparing to murder the 3 year old, would you be violating the non aggression principle in that situation?

If the situation is exactly as described, no. But the person doing the killing may very well be on the hook for restitution of some kind, especially if the family of the slain individual could somehow prove the shooting was done in bad faith or was unnecessary to stop the slain from shooting the girl.

I'm curious, however; what are your feelings on this? Since you believe in government, and thus a collective society, if you believe intervention is justified in this situation, how is this different than the government sending its military to a foreign country in order to stop a murderous dictator? Or a Joseph Kony type?

I don't care what method is used to commit murder, its still murder.





Apparently...

In reality, however, if a person shot and killed a three year old, you saw them do it, and then you killed them afterward, you STILL wouldn't be the violator of the NAP, they would.

Some people here really don't understand the NAP.

I pose the same question to you that I did to TC.

 

[Brett85]

I'm curious, however; what are your feelings on this? Since you believe in government, and thus a collective society, if you believe intervention is justified in this situation, how is this different than the government sending its military to a foreign country in order to stop a murderous dictator? Or a Joseph Kony type?

Our government has jurisdiction over the United States, not any other country. I think that the main reason to have a government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens. If a person in our country violates the rights of another person to life, liberty, or property, that person should be punished and put in prison where they will no longer be a threat to society. Even though I'm strongly opposed to abortion, I'm definitely not in favor of using our military to invade foreign countries and force them to pass laws protecting the unborn. That would obviously be counter productive as the invasion of a country for this purpose would likely cause millions of casualties, which would defeat the purpose of the hypothetical invasion.

 

[Contumacious]

My position is that there should be a law that closes down public abortion clinics. When the abortion procedure has to be done to save the mother's life, that would be done in a hospital. I don't believe it's necessary for public abortion clinics to ever be legal. And no one believes that miscarragies should be illegal.

21 year old female imprisoned in the Taliban controlled territory known as Northdakotatistan. She is being accused of having an illegal abortion and destroying government property ,ie, a fetus.

An ecclesiastical trial is scheduled for December 23rd before the Honorable Ayatollah Dalrymple

.

 

[familydog]

Poll question is confusing and ultimately meaningless. Based on the possible answers, the actual question should be "how much violence, or the threat thereof, are you willing to use against a woman that has an abortion?" We should follow that up with "are you willing to pull the trigger yourself, if that woman sufficiently resists your aggression?"

That's a little more accurate.

 

[Nobexliberty]

21 year old female imprisoned in the Taliban controlled territory known as Northdakotatistan. She is being accused of having an illegal abortion and destroying government property ,ie, a fetus.

An ecclesiastical trial is scheduled for December 23rd before the Honorable Ayatollah Dalrymple

.

What is wrong with that? If she gets a fair trial then the taliban do better justice then America, even if she gets the death penelty.

 

[robert68]

The Wikipedia colorized world map of countries according to legal restrictiveness of abortion. It speaks for itself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law

 

[Nobexliberty]

The Wikipedia colorized world map of countries according to legal restrictiveness of abortion. It speaks for itself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law

So historically uncivilised regions do a better job of protecting the innocent then the historically civilised ones, embarrasing.

 

[robert68]

So historically uncivilised regions do a better job of protecting the innocent then the historically civilised ones, embarrasing.

That defies the meaning of the term "civilized". Also, the map reflects current law.

 

[EBounding]

It should be illegal to rip the limbs off a baby and vacuum out the organs. The law could clarify that this applies to a fetus inside the womb. I don't see why that would be so complicated.

 

[Origanalist]

The Wikipedia colorized world map of countries according to legal restrictiveness of abortion. It speaks for itself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law

So the countries most prone to invading other countries and killing millions allow the most abortions. Huh.

 

[Nirvikalpa]

What is wrong with that? If she gets a fair trial then the taliban do better justice then America, even if she gets the death penelty.

Lol.

 

[Origanalist]

21 year old female imprisoned in the Taliban controlled territory known as Northdakotatistan. She is being accused of having an illegal abortion and destroying government property ,ie, a fetus.

An ecclesiastical trial is scheduled for December 23rd before the Honorable Ayatollah Dalrymple

.

Ya, my heart is breaking.