What is your position on abortion?

[Brett85]

With my legs firmly closed.

 

[erowe1]

Your first statement is pretty garbled grammatically

It's actually not. If you're having trouble with it, you might try diagramming it.

No one is saying that will be frequent or the norm, just that you have no right to interfere

Given that it is the equivalent of abortion, yes it is frequent, since abortion is frequent. But that's irrelevant anyway. The point remains that if you recognize that parents have no right to do that, then you also recognize that Rothbard's pro-abortion argument is invalid.

 

[The Free Hornet]

 

[Brett85]

Yeah, it's just that she didn't finish her sentence. Was she saying "with my legs firmly closed I won't ever have to get an abortion?"

 

[MelissaWV]

Yeah, it's just that she didn't finish her sentence. Was she saying "with my legs firmly closed I won't ever have to get an abortion?"

Double entendre. You also aren't forced to get an abortion. My personal position on abortion is that, even if I found myself in a situation where it would theoretically be an option, I would not get one. One would not be done on me. If we're speaking purely personally, I would not even care if it was a "life of the mother" situation.

From a legislative standpoint things get far blurrier.

 

[I<3Liberty]

24 pages? I can't believe this thread is still going.

I haven't seen Ron Paul's view on abortion posted in this thread yet. Everyone here should read and understand this:

Pages and pages ago, I went on a rant similar to Ron Paul's regarding the solution to approaching abortion. He has mentioned several times that it should be left to the states and that it is an issue that requires much more complex solutions legislation cannot fix. I agree. Ron Paul's plan and rhetoric, however, are somewhat poor and undeveloped.

He'll often mention that he delivered X number of babies and that he witnessed a late term abortion and how disturbing it was and how he cares about protecting the unborn. He focuses too much on the unborn and lacks a developed libertarian solution beyond "leaving it to the states" and that legislation can't fix the problem. This makes both the anti-abortion and abortion rights extremes dislike him because the anti-abortion folks see him as apathetic to the severity of this issue while the abortions rights people are uncomfortable with the fact that states could put restrictions or bans on what they believe should be a nationwide right.

We would virtually end abortion without compromising either the woman's liberty or unborn's right to life if we implemented the IMO most libertarian solution I outlined in bold text.

As this thread reaches 16 pages, the arguments here reflect the very problem with this debate. People are just arguing why their opinion is correct and another person is wrong. I don't mean to sound stuck up or anything, but could we consider the rant I went on towards the beginning of the thread? If you've read it on this thread or any of the other lengthy abortion debate threads, you know I'm not fond of siding with either extreme for many reasons. One being the fact that we often make ethical issues into dilemmas instead of recognizing that there are multiple other solutions to the problem at hand. Secondly, both fail to do/agree with any of the following. --> Can't we agree that both sides have their flaws, as well as legitimate concerns? Could we even look at this issue from a libertarian perspective and agree that legislation will not and can not solve this problem. Elective abortion has been going on far before it was even legalized.

Embryonic stem cell research is a great example of the need for non-legislative solutions. The George W. Bush administration put restrictions on existing embryonic stem cell lines. This didn't stop it -- research was simply taken elsewhere where it could be done legally. What did discourage it? A moral alternative! Better understanding of kinase inhibitors and the iPS method allowed for use of adult stem cells that (thanks to the iPS method) were reverted back to a less differentiated stage much like an embryonic stem cell.

A moral alternative like 100% effective contraception would not only virtually eradicate abortion, it would also establish true liberation for women. I never understood why so many extremes feel like a painful, risky, and morally questionable surgical procedure is liberating? Ideally, you'd want this choice far before pregnancy to both avoid the moral issues of abortion while giving women full control over pregnancy rather than a way to terminate it.

 

[robert68]

I haven't seen Ron Paul's view on abortion posted in this thread yet. Everyone here should read and understand this:

I recall you always being ardently if favor of the state outlawing abortion. Then I recently came across these words of yours, in another thread:

... I am not arguing for state coercion. When I say "abortion is murder", I am arguing about the morality of the situation, not any legislation about the situation...

Why the change?

 

[robert68]

Good idea. When they read it they'll see that Rothbard recognized that his position entailed mothers having the right to abandon to the elements their already born babies if they didn't want to take care of them.

Conversely, those of us who recognize that the latter is a clear violation of natural law must also reject his argument for being pro-abortion.

Is an expectation that parents no longer willing to support their child, will not notify anyone (such as an adoption agency) of their intention, part of what bothers you?

 

[Occam's Banana]

[snip]

Or, robert68 disputed what might have been perceived as an assertion, as you are doing now. I responded by pointing out which definition I'm using, and as far as I'm aware, robert68 is content with my response. If robert68 isn't satified, then robert68 can speak for himself.

[snip]

*shrug* robert68 +repped my post (#639) - so there must have been something about it that he appreciated. Perhaps he merely (and wisely) is more able than I am to refrain from wasting time and effort engaging with someone such as yourself who (deliberately or unwittingly) misunderstands and/or (blatantly and brazenly) warps & distorts what others have said (as you did with respect to the syllogism I offered as QED - to cite just one example).

As for all the rest of your "using of words" - I will not call them "arguments" or "assertions," given the bizarre exception you seem to take at others saying that you have made any such averrals - I shall be content simply to leave it to those who are interested in doing so to (re)read our exchange and decide for themselves which of us is or is not talking "nonsense," "(ab)using words," etc., etc.

 

[Brett85]

I recall you always being ardently if favor of the state outlawing abortion. Then I recently came across these words of yours, in another thread:



Why the change?

A lot of people claim to be pro life, but in reality they aren't. Anyone who believes that abortion should remain legal is not pro life.

 

[Contumacious]

A lot of people claim to be pro life, but in reality they aren't. Anyone who believes that abortion should remain legal is not pro life.

I am pro life......the woman's.

.

 

[eduardo89]

I am pro life......the woman's.

I'm confused.

You only support aborting male babies?
Or you only support abortion in cases in which the mother's life is at risk?

 

[Origanalist]

I am pro life......the woman's.

.

What if the unborn child is also a woman?

 

[Christian Liberty]

A lot of people claim to be pro life, but in reality they aren't. Anyone who believes that abortion should remain legal is not pro life.

Would you agree that someone who wants to criminalize abortion at the state level, but not the Federal level, is pro-life?

I am pro life......the woman's.

.

-rep for deliberately obscuring the meaning of terms.

Yes, "Pro-life" is a propaganda term, and so is "Pro-choice." I'm in favor of the choice to do almost anything, but since I do not support the right to choose to murder the unborn, I would not claim to be "Pro-choice."

You support the right of most people to live, but since you don't support the right of the unborn to live, you shouldn't be claiming to be "Pro-life."

Yeah, they're propaganda terms, deal with it.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm confused.

You only support aborting male babies?
Or you only support abortion in cases in which the mother's life is at risk?

He means the adult woman's life.

Which, as you said, only makes sense when the mother's life is at risk, but that's not what he means. He's being obtuse. Hence why I subtracted points from his rep.

 

[eduardo89]

Would you agree that someone who wants to criminalize abortion at the state level, but not the Federal level, is pro-life?

Yes. But I also support criminalizing it at the federal level.

 

[Brett85]

Would you agree that someone who wants to criminalize abortion at the state level, but not the Federal level, is pro-life?

Yes, but I would think that a pro lifer who opposes a federal law banning abortion for 10th amendment reasons would at least support a Constitutional amendment banning abortion, which you've said that you support.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Yes, but I would think that a pro lifer who opposes a federal law banning abortion for 10th amendment reasons would at least support a Constitutional amendment banning abortion, which you've said that you support.

In theory, yes. But I'd support everything being done correctly, everywhere, in theory. Then again, in theory I wish we could exist without any government.

In practice, I don't trust the Federal Government as far as I could throw them, and I'm almost certain giving them any enforcement powers here would lead to more of a police state than we already have. Not that I necessarily trust the state governments, but I trust them more than the Feds.

I don't think about it too much since its clearly certain not to happen.

 

[Brett85]

In theory, yes. But I'd support everything being done correctly, everywhere, in theory. Then again, in theory I wish we could exist without any government.

In practice, I don't trust the Federal Government as far as I could throw them, and I'm almost certain giving them any enforcement powers here would lead to more of a police state than we already have. Not that I necessarily trust the state governments, but I trust them more than the Feds.

I don't think about it too much since its clearly certain not to happen.

I think a Constitutional amendment banning abortion would basically define life as beginning at conception and force the states to protect the unborn, but would also leave police powers and enforcement powers to the states.

 

[Theocrat]

A Great Debate on Abortion

The pro-life advocate in the debate does a great job of arguing his case, by getting down to the scientific and philosophical ramifications of what an abortion actually is. This is a must-see for all members here: