What is your position on abortion?

[The Free Hornet]

I believe Dianne was the one I quoted. bolil, brandon, BSWPaulsen, BW2112, CMoore, Contumacious, DamianTV, Dary, economics102, FallOfTheWest, Fredom101, JCDenton0451, juleswin, Qdog, sgt150, Smart3, surf, The Free Hornet, wetroof all voted that it should be legal with no restrictions.

Edited because I left out a word.

WHO CAME OUT IN SUPPORT OF KILLING BABIES?!

Where do you get off using that list?

To repeat:

Who - on this thread specifically - has come out in favor of killing unborn babies? This is about whether or not you want to increase the size and scope of the government. I do not.

More so, I'm not among the 40 posters who supported abortions for the "[LIFE] of the mother" (ooooh I'm so scared!) or the 16 who found extra reasons for abortion ("rape, incest").

To repeat:

- I do not support the death penalty
- I do not support killing babies for reasons of rape/incest
- I do not support not taking a risk in pregnancy ("life of the mother")
- I do not support killing healthy, viable babies

What part of this are people here too stupid to understand?

You and TC are among those who GAVE A REASON TO ABORT:

It should be illegal with an exception for the life of the mother. 41 31.54%

69360,
AlexAmore,
BamaAla,
Beorn,
buck000,
catfeathers,
compromise,
Cutlerzzz,
Darguth,
dinosaur,
EBounding,
erowe1,
Fox McCloud,
FreedomFanatic,
georgiaboy,
gwax23,
helmuth_hubener,
IBleedNavyAndOrange,
jmdrake,
July,
kahless,
KEEF,
klamath,
Legend1104,
MaxPower,
Melissa,
Pisces,
PSYOP,
Rocco,
Roxi,
Scrapmo,
SludgeFactory,
specsaregood,
supermario21,
TaftFan,
Traditional Conservative,
VanBummel,
willwash,
wormyguy,
Xenliad,
youngbuck

I was very charitable to TC and prefaced my vote (as he pleaded for us all to vote):

I voted this way to "play nice" with your poll. A more accurate view would be "get the government out of our lives!".

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-on-abortion&p=5137234&viewfull=1#post5137234

If you think a position consistent with "get the government out of our lives!" is support of killing babies, then you simply do not belong here.

FYI, I've opposed the drug war for three decades without once ever in my life using an illegal drug. I don't look to your stupid nanny state for guidance in how to live a moral life.

 

[Brett85]

So the guy who thinks that abortion should be legal with no restrictions doen't support killing babies, but yet those of us who support ending 99% of legal abortions and having a narrow exception for the life of the mother somehow support killing babies in certain situations? Who can argue with that logic?

 

[The Free Hornet]

So the guy who thinks that abortion should be legal with no restrictions doen't support killing babies, but yet those of us who support ending 99% of legal abortions and having a narrow exception for the life of the mother somehow support killing babies in certain situations? Who can argue with that logic?

I very clearly prefaced my vote, "get the government out of our lives!". You, "Traditional Conservative", are the pro abortionist ("with an exception for the life of the mother") who wrote this dumb-ass poll. I've requested my contribution to poll removed because you are now very clearly abusing the results after pleading for participation (#9, #28).

I did not state "abortion should be legal" and only a lying-ass motherfucker would twist the results. You wrote the poll and have no excuse as to where your vote landed.

More so, in thread after thread, I've been very clear about my opinion:

the majority of people (protesting pro-lifers, politicians, priests) don't want abortion mothers punished as murderers making the entire exercise of its outlaw a regulatory capture of healthcare

 

[Brett85]

You're just saying what all the pro choice people say, which is that you want abortion to be legal, but that you would prefer that women "choose" not to get abortions. I understand your position. It's no different from President Obama and Nancy Pelosi's position.

 

[Brett85]

And I believe that the pro life position is to defend both the life of the mother and the life of the baby. There are two lives involved in a pregnancy, and the government should consider both lives. I didn't say that I want women to get an abortion in every single situation in which they face a life threatening pregnancy. I just said that as far as the law is concerned, abortion should be an option for them in situations in which they could die if they don't get an abortion, because in my opinion the pro life position is to protect both the life of the mother and the life of the unborn baby. In certain situations where a woman could die from not getting an abortion, it's an ectopic pregnancy where the baby develops in the wrong place and has no chance of actually surviving and being born anyway. I don't exactly see how supporting such a narrow exception like that makes me in any way "pro choice." Such an assertion seems completely ridiculous coming from someone who believes there should be no restrictions on abortion whatsoever.

 

[The Free Hornet]

So the guy who thinks that abortion should be legal with no restrictions doen't support killing babies, but yet those of us who support ending 99% of legal abortions and having a narrow exception for the life of the mother somehow support killing babies in certain situations? Who can argue with that logic?

Yes, I think you are a pro-choice pro-abortionist and you have proven it with your own poll in your own words. You think a minor threat to life/health of the mother is a narrow exception? More so, that it is more heart-wrenching than those who have to consider the life/health of the baby?

There is a culture that will get abortion after abortion without regard to the morality of the situation. That wasn't what we were talking about, AFAIK. For some reason, you and the pro-abortionist catfeathers, started to assume that those below you on the poll were in favor of killing babies and that those at your level or above, were not. Very convenient, baby killer!

It is very odd that you, Traditional Conservative and catfeathers, give a reason to kill babies and then label others - who gave no such reasons - the same.

You're just saying what all the pro choice people say, which is that you want abortion to be legal, but that you would prefer that women "choose" not to get abortions. I understand your position. It's no different from President Obama and Nancy Pelosi's position.

Not quite. Stop your lying.

I'm not in favor of killing, legalizing the killing, or excusing the killing. To repeat for the umpteenth time, I do not support "legalization". I *will* consider regarding abortions of healthy, viable fetuses as murder, when and if the motherfucking hypocrites of this movement will start to do the same and cease their god-damn regulation of the medical industry. You cannot excuse the mother and win this on a moral level.

I can't come up with clever excuses to kill a baby. "Oh no it is rape/incest baby and I might die!!!!!!". That said, I know of greater danger to all life, the out of control state and organizations like the AMA who have lobbied - with YOUR considerable help - to put us under its thumb.

 

[The Free Hornet]

And I believe that the pro life position is to .... blah blah blah

You, Traditional Conservative, are PRO CHOICE in the most sick and twisted way imaginable. I know of no rational person that prosecutes the hitman and excuses the person who paid them AND gave the order:

I'm in favor of saving the unborn from being murdered, and in my opinion having extremely tough laws against the person who actually commits the act of murdering the baby would go a long ways toward protecting the unborn in this country. If the woman actually murders the baby by herself without a doctor involved, then in that situation I think the woman should be prosecuted since she committed the physical act of murdering the baby. I don't necessarily think that laws against abortion have to be exactly the same as all other murder laws in terms of being complicit in a murder. I don't see why it would be necessary to make abortion laws exactly like murder laws in every single way. There's no rule that says it has to be that way.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Anarchists are opposed to laws [...]

Nonsense. Do some reading.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy?s=t
Anarchy, definition # 1: a state of society without government or law.

There, I did some reading. What are you talking about "nonsense"?

No government = anarchy
No law = anomie

Get it? Got it? Good.

LOL! Even though I cited the ultimate authority on definitions on words, da dictionary (online version)?

THIS is what robert68 "was talking about 'nonsense'" ...

From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

Anarchy has more than one definition. Some use the term "anarchy" to refer to a society without a publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority. When used in this sense, anarchy may or may not be intended to imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society.

From a google query using the terms "define anarchy":

an·ar·chy /ˈanərkē/ Noun
2. Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

From the American Heritage Dictionary: http://www.answers.com/topic/anarchy

(ăn'ər-kē) n., pl., -chies.
1. Absence of any form of political authority.

From Merriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy

an·ar·chy - noun \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\
1a: absence of government

There is nothing about the absence of or opposition to laws in any of the particular dictionary-definition entries I have just cited. But dictionaries are authoritative (if at all) in only a descriptive (not a prescriptive) sense. They are also highly condensed and over-simplified. (They can also simply be wrong.)

You may wish to argue that the absense of a single agency with a monopoly on the creation and enforcement of rules called "laws" would necessarily result in the absence of (creation and enforcement) of any rules called "laws." If so, there is a very great deal that has been written in rebuttal of such assertions. So if you want to refute those rebuttals, you need to do exactly what robert68 told you to do - namely, you need to "do some reading." But by all means, if that is too much for you to handle, please carry on with obtusely pretending that people don't actually mean what they say they mean merely because you can "cherry-pick" your preferred "ultimate authority" dictionary definition (as if such semantic quibbling could constitute a substantive refutation).

 

[Occam's Banana]

Who will enforce the law then?

"Without the State, who will enforce the law?"
"Without the Slave, who will pick the cotton?"

 

[Nobexliberty]

"Without the State, who will enforce the law?"

The Mob if there is any enforcement.

"Without the Slave, who will pick the cotton?"

A sharecropper.

 

[Occam's Banana]

The Mob if there is any enforcement.

A sharecropper.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCy8MpT45gk

 

[eduardo89]

The Mob if there is any enforcement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization

 

[Neil Desmond]

THIS is what robert68 "was talking about 'nonsense'" ...

From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy


From a google query using the terms "define anarchy":


From the American Heritage Dictionary: http://www.answers.com/topic/anarchy


From Merriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy


There is nothing about the absence of or opposition to laws in any of the particular dictionary-definition entries I have just cited. But dictionaries are authoritative (if at all) in only a descriptive (not a prescriptive) sense. They are also highly condensed and over-simplified. (They can also simply be wrong.)

You may wish to argue that the absense of a single agency with a monopoly on the creation and enforcement of rules called "laws" would necessarily result in the absence of (creation and enforcement) of any rules called "laws." If so, there is a very great deal that has been written in rebuttal of such assertions. So if you want to refute those rebuttals, you need to do exactly what robert68 told you to do - namely, you need to "do some reading." But by all means, if that is too much for you to handle, please carry on with obtusely pretending that people don't actually mean what they say they mean merely because you can "cherry-pick" your preferred "ultimate authority" dictionary definition (as if such semantic quibbling could constitute a substantive refutation).

I don't need to read anything, for the purpose of what was discussed here. This thread isn't about this topic, it's about abortion. In this thread and for the purpose of making my point, I'm the one who used the word in a post and explained what I was talking about:

This forum has some libertarians, far from all; and the libertarians here, by and large, are not the ones in support of outlawing abortion, even if many of them consider having an abortion to be immoral.

That would be anarchists, not libertarians. Anarchists are opposed to laws, state, government, etc., even if there is a victim. Basically, libertarian are not opposed to having laws, state, government, etc. if there are victims.

I get to define what I mean by it, not you; or, do you want to try to claim authority over me as someone who can tell me what I mean when I use a word, despite me having cited an existing definition for it? Anyways, as far as I'm concerned this issue was already resolved:

LOL! Even though I cited the ultimate authority on definitions on words, da dictionary (online version)? Ok, fine; whatever you say. My point is about libertarians not being opposed to laws for protecting victims.

If you want to talk about or debate the definitions, encyclopedic entries, philosophy, etc. about anarchy, fine; I suggest you create a thread for that & you're welcome to ask me to participate in it, if you wish. I, and I would imagine everyone else reading this thread, would appreciate it if you would refrain from trying to sidetrack my discussion just because you don't like the way I am, or was, using a word.

 

[Brett85]

I'm not sure if this thread is even worth posting in anymore, but I guess I will anyway. The position of banning abortion with an exception for the life of the mother is the position taken by a majority of pro lifers. It's a position that would put an end to over 99% of legal abortions in our country. It is extremely rare for a woman to face a life threatening pregnancy. This is not something that happens on a regular basis in America. But, even the most staunch pro lifers and social conservatives I know support an exception for the life of the mother. I'm also not criticizing those who support no exceptions at all, but there's absolutely nothing about my position that makes me "pro choice." The only time I support legal abortion is when it's an example of killing in self defense, when a woman has to get one in order to survive. It's absolutely ridiculous to get labeled as "pro choice" by someone who supports legal abortion for any reason with no restrictions, and who comes to this forum to argue for legal abortion in at least 90% of his posts. The Free Hornet is a one issue obsessed voter. I never see him post in any of the other threads regarding the liberty candidates in Congress, votes currently going on such as the Amash amendment, etc. He simply comes here to talk about either abortion or gay marriage. He's given no indication that he's even part of this movement in terms of supporting liberty candidates and supporting a liberty agenda across the board.

 

[otherone]

This particular issue, like immigration, is a scab on the Liberty Movement that for whatever reason, some people enjoy tearing off. Maybe abortion needs it's own sub-forum.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not sure if this thread is even worth posting in anymore, but I guess I will anyway. The position of banning abortion with an exception for the life of the mother is the position taken by a majority of pro lifers. It's a position that would put an end to over 99% of legal abortions in our country. It is extremely rare for a woman to face a life threatening pregnancy. This is not something that happens on a regular basis in America. But, even the most staunch pro lifers and social conservatives I know support an exception for the life of the mother. I'm also not criticizing those who support no exceptions at all, but there's absolutely nothing about my position that makes me "pro choice." The only time I support legal abortion is when it's an example of killing in self defense, when a woman has to get one in order to survive. It's absolutely ridiculous to get labeled as "pro choice" by someone who supports legal abortion for any reason with no restrictions, and who comes to this forum to argue for legal abortion in at least 90% of his posts. The Free Hornet is a one issue obsessed voter. I never see him post in any of the other threads regarding the liberty candidates in Congress, votes currently going on such as the Amash amendment, etc. He simply comes here to talk about either abortion or gay marriage. He's given no indication that he's even part of this movement in terms of supporting liberty candidates and supporting a liberty agenda across the board.

I think he is but he's clearly obsessed over this one issue. I'm surprised he supports Ron Paul considering Paul is pro-life.

This particular issue, like immigration, is a scab on the Liberty Movement that for whatever reason, some people enjoy tearing off. Maybe abortion needs it's own sub-forum.

Well, like immigration, abortion is an issue libertarians disagree with each other on.

It's pretty clear that I have. I've said that it shouldn't be a crime for people to engage in an activity like using drugs, since people who engage in that activity are only hurting themselves and aren't aggressing against anyone else. On the other hand, abortion should be illegal since someone who gets an abortion is infringing on the rights of another human being to live. That's a pretty clear illustration of how I believe that aggression against others should be punished while victimless crimes shouldn't be punished.

Nonsense.

Your argument provides fodder for the supporters of the welfare/warfare state.

How the fuck can you oppose wealth redistribution when your failure or refusal to provide to another human being will cause him/her to die or suffer.

How can we oppose to aid to the Syrian opposition. They are human beings. Your failure or refusal to help will cause death and suffering.....

Ad nauseam

.

There's a difference between inaction which leads to death, and deliberately causing death.

Its one thing to smoke or drink while pregnant. Its another thing to deliberately kill the child in the womb.

Are you in favor of laws against murder for those who have already been born? If so, I could make the same argument against your position that you just made against mine.

You're such a statist, you won't allow parents to kill their babies! I mean, once the baby has a birthday you might have a point, but until then, a parent should obviously have a right to kill their child. And if you don't support that, you obviously support the government redistributing money at gunpoint to help AIDS victims in Africa. We need to legalize infanticide NOW!

(/sarc)

Well, if that's the case, then of course you support the exact same thing. Unless you're saying that you do indeed support repealing all laws against murder and providing no legal protections for anyone. That would at least be a consistent position.

That would actually be better, honestly...

Then the "doctors" wouldn't get legal protection.

I'm not even sure if it's worth responding to you. I don't want to "regulate sexual intercourse." Women can have all the sex they want and use all of the contraception they want. I just support laws that provide the same legal protections to the unborn that all other individuals have. You still won't even answer my question about whether you're in favor of laws against murder.

Because they can't.

WHO CAME OUT IN SUPPORT OF KILLING BABIES?!

Where do you get off using that list?

To repeat:



To repeat:

- I do not support the death penalty
- I do not support killing babies for reasons of rape/incest
- I do not support not taking a risk in pregnancy ("life of the mother")
- I do not support killing healthy, viable babies

What part of this are people here too stupid to understand?

You and TC are among those who GAVE A REASON TO ABORT:



I was very charitable to TC and prefaced my vote (as he pleaded for us all to vote):



If you think a position consistent with "get the government out of our lives!" is support of killing babies, then you simply do not belong here.

FYI, I've opposed the drug war for three decades without once ever in my life using an illegal drug. I don't look to your stupid nanny state for guidance in how to live a moral life.

So the guy who thinks that abortion should be legal with no restrictions doen't support killing babies, but yet those of us who support ending 99% of legal abortions and having a narrow exception for the life of the mother somehow support killing babies in certain situations? Who can argue with that logic?

I support allowing the mother to have an abortion in self-defense if her life is in danger. That does not mean I "Support" doing such.

You're just saying what all the pro choice people say, which is that you want abortion to be legal, but that you would prefer that women "choose" not to get abortions. I understand your position. It's no different from President Obama and Nancy Pelosi's position.

Pretty much.

You, Traditional Conservative, are PRO CHOICE in the most sick and twisted way imaginable. I know of no rational person that prosecutes the hitman and excuses the person who paid them AND gave the order:

OK, Traditional Conservative, I don't condone the mean spirited nature of this post, but I have to admit I understand his point. Why aren't the women being prosecuted again? I guess in a rape case you might be able to say she's been punished enough, but other than that... I don't see why the woman shouldn't be tried for murder.

 

[Brett85]

I think it makes sense to prosecute the person who actually commits the act of murdering the baby, which is normally the doctor. If the woman murders her baby herself and commits the actual act of aggression against the baby, then she should be prosecuted in that situation. I think that prosecuting the person who commits the physical act of murdering the baby will serve as enough of a deterrent to put a significant dent in the number of abortions that occur in America.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I think it makes sense to prosecute the person who actually commits the act of murdering the baby, which is normally the doctor. If the woman murders her baby herself and commits the actual act of aggression against the baby, then she should be prosecuted in that situation. I think that prosecuting the person who commits the physical act of murdering the baby will serve as enough of a deterrent to put a significant dent in the number of abortions that occur in America.

We are men of principle here. "Deterrent" and other similar arguments should be left to the utilitarians and the statists (Or do I repeat myself?)

The bottom line is, paying someone to murder someone else should be illegal, and punished like murder. Do you disagree with this?

I fail to see why abortion is any different.

This is part of the sort of thing that makes me so indifferent to the abortion issue as it exists in the US. Nobody has the guts to do what is really justified. Scott Roeder is sitting in jail right now for "Murdering" the murderous George Tiller. No pro-lifers have the guts to criticize this. To me what Roeder did is no different than killing an Nazi SS officer, which I wouldn't support prosecuting someone for either.

And nobody has the guts to say that, yes, the woman should be punished for her action. Due to the difficulty of absolute proof in such cases, I wouldn't support the death penalty for it, but I would support life imprisonment or exile.

Most pro-lifers take the position you take, which absolutely makes no sense.

 

[Occam's Banana]

This thread isn't about this topic, it's about abortion.

robert68's post was about abortion. Your reply to his post was not.

In this thread and for the purpose of making my point, I'm the one who used the word in a post and explained what I was talking about:

Your post was about what you think "anarchists" and "libertarians" are (or are not) "opposed to." You claimed that "anarchists are opposed to laws." This is demonstrably false. I am an anarchist. I am not opposed to laws. Therefore, not all anarchists are opposed to laws. QED. (This is why robert68 called your claims "nonsense.")

In making your point, you offered a polemical assertion (not a definition). robert68 disputed that assertion. You then replied by citing a cherry-picked dictionary definition while ignoring the obvious fact that other defintions exist which simply do not support your assertion. (Some of these other definitions exist precisely because of the QED supplied above.) Thus, your selective invocation of semantics is just an exercise in question-begging (as such invocations almost always are).

I get to define what I mean by it, not you; or, do you want to try to claim authority over me as someone who can tell me what I mean when I use a word, despite me having cited an existing definition for it?

Yes - you get to define your terms. (And you can define "cat" as "an elephant" for all I care.) But you do NOT get to pretend that your definitions somehow obviate or negate the objections others have to any erroneous conceptual denotations inherent in your definitions. (The previously stated QED is one such objection.)

And YOU are the one who has tried to "claim authority" over what a word means. (In fact ... what was the exact phrase you used? Ah, yes - "ultimate authority" - that's it!) You made an assertion about something. You didn't offer a definition for anything until after your assertion was challenged - at which point you cited a (conveniently redacted) dictionary entry as if doing so was somehow sufficient to settle the matter.

Anyways, as far as I'm concerned this issue was already resolved:

So your idea of resolving an issue is to (1) make assertions tangential to what someone else said, (2) selectively invoke dictionary-based semantics as an "ultimate authority" when someone disagrees with you about it, and then (3) dismiss everything by claiming that none of it really matters anyway, since the part of what you said that is being disagreed with isn't really your point after all (even though you were the one who brought it up for some reason).

Okay. Got it.

If you want to talk about or debate the definitions, encyclopedic entries, philosophy, etc. about anarchy, fine; I suggest you create a thread for that & you're welcome to ask me to participate in it, if you wish.

YOU are the one who broached this instance of the subject of anarchy and "what it is" - so "... attend the beam in thine own."

I, and I would imagine everyone else reading this thread, would appreciate it if you would refrain from trying to sidetrack my discussion just because you don't like the way I am, or was, using a word.

"Your" discussion? Well, excusez-moi! I was not aware that YOU are allowed to say off-topic things but that others are not allowed to respond to them.

This very issue (whether "anarchy = no laws") has already been addressed in numerous posts in this very thread - before YOU brought it up yet again. So perhaps you should go wag your finger in others' faces - starting with your own ...

 

[Brett85]

We are men of principle here. "Deterrent" and other similar arguments should be left to the utilitarians and the statists (Or do I repeat myself?)

The bottom line is, paying someone to murder someone else should be illegal, and punished like murder. Do you disagree with this?

I fail to see why abortion is any different.

This is part of the sort of thing that makes me so indifferent to the abortion issue as it exists in the US. Nobody has the guts to do what is really justified. Scott Roeder is sitting in jail right now for "Murdering" the murderous George Tiller. No pro-lifers have the guts to criticize this. To me what Roeder did is no different than killing an Nazi SS officer, which I wouldn't support prosecuting someone for either.

And nobody has the guts to say that, yes, the woman should be punished for her action. Due to the difficulty of absolute proof in such cases, I wouldn't support the death penalty for it, but I would support life imprisonment or exile.

Most pro-lifers take the position you take, which absolutely makes no sense.

My position is just more of a pragmatic position, realizing that the only way the pro life movement is going to have any success is if they focus their aim at abortion doctors and not the women who get them. The common theme from Democrats who run against pro life Republicans is, "the Republicans want to criminalize women and their doctors." This is an accusation that scares a lot of people, even people who are pro life. Even a lot of people who hate abortion don't want to see women get thrown in prison who get an abortion. Like you mentioned earlier, you could have a situation where a women gets raped and gets an abortion, and she would then get prosecuted and thrown in prison for getting an abortion after she was raped. How do you think that would look politically if any Republican actually advocated that? I want to actually save lives, not simply take political positions that are "100% pure" or whatever. The best way to save lives is for the pro life movement to stay away from the position of throwing women in prison for getting abortions. The focus should be on prosecuting the abortion doctors, who most people despise or at least are incredibly uneasy with. I don't want the pro life movement to promote a position that's going to cause the pro abortion side to win the argument, win the political debate, and succeed in allowing abortion on demand in America for the indefinite future.