Would you support a pro-choice liberty candidate?

[eduardo89]

edit; Also, if Roe v Wade were overturned, the number of States allowing abortion would be small in my opinion.

In number, maybe. But in terms of population it still would be huge.

California - 38 million
New York - 20 million
Illinois - 13 million
New Jersey - 9 million
Washington - 7 million
Massachusetts - 6.5 million
Maryland - 6 million
Minnesota - 5.5 million
Colorado - 5 million
Oregon - 4 million
Connecticut - 3.5 million
Iowa - 3 million
New Mexico - 2 million
Hawaii - 1.5 million
+ smaller 'blue' states such as Vermont, Rhode Island, New Hampshire.

That's about 120 million in population!

It would probably also remain legal in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio which have a combined population of about 55 million.

So I'd say that states that make up about 180 million people would still have legal abortion were it decided on a state level. That's a majority of where Americans live.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Why is it so hard to legally (scientifically) prove that life begins at conception? And once that's proven, that such life deserves the same protection as those of us who have already been born?

 

[eduardo89]

Why is it so hard to legally (scientifically) prove that life begins at conception? And once that's proven, that such life deserves the same protection as those of us who have already been born?

It's not hard, it could (and should) have been done in the 6 years the GOP controlled the Presidency, Senate, and House. All it takes is a bill saying that we are persons from the moment of conception and Roe v Wade would have been nullified. In Roe v Wade the majority of the court said that when personhood begins is a matter for Congress to decide and if they decide it begins at conception then abortion could be banned.

 

[Christian Liberty]

SCOTUS was wrong. There is no sense in which this should be Congress' decision.

Morally, God already decided. Legally, its a state issue. In neither case should congress be involved.

 

[Origanalist]

In number, maybe. But in terms of population it still would be huge.

California - 38 million
New York - 20 million
Illinois - 13 million
New Jersey - 9 million
Washington - 7 million
Massachusetts - 6.5 million
Maryland - 6 million
Minnesota - 5.5 million
Colorado - 5 million
Oregon - 4 million
Connecticut - 3.5 million
Iowa - 3 million
New Mexico - 2 million
Hawaii - 1.5 million
+ smaller 'blue' states such as Vermont, Rhode Island, New Hampshire.

That's about 120 million in population!

It would probably also remain legal in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio which have a combined population of about 55 million.

So I'd say that states that make up about 180 million people would still have legal abortion were it decided on a state level. That's a majority of where Americans live.

I'm going to disagree with that. I think once federal enforcement was no longer in play many States would be more pro life than you think. The pendulum is swinging back toward life and the whores in office would have to stand on their own.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

Illinois - 13 million

Apparently there is a law in Illinois passed during a time when Republicans controlled the legislature that would make abortion automatically illegal if Roe v. Wade is overturned. But in that situation it likely won't last long.

 

[cajuncocoa]

It's not hard, it could (and should) have been done in the 6 years the GOP controlled the Presidency, Senate, and House. All it takes is a bill saying that we are persons from the moment of conception and Roe v Wade would have been nullified. In Roe v Wade the majority of the court said that when personhood begins is a matter for Congress to decide and if they decide it begins at conception then abortion could be banned.

And don't forget, the SCOTUS too. I agree with you there, and it's a point I always bring up with my neocon in-laws....Bush was more interested in starting wars (killing) than in doing anything about the abortion issue. To be honest, I was more pro-choice in those days (despite being Catholic)... Ron Paul helped me to see the light on this issue.

 

[eduardo89]

I'm going to disagree with that. I think once federal enforcement was no longer in play many States would be more pro life than you think. The pendulum is swinging back toward life and the whores in office would have to stand on their own.

I sure hope so. The one thing I could see happening is that once Roe v Wade is overturned/nullified by Congressional action (LOL at the latter), that the pro-life politicians at state level will be forced to actually take a stand and pass meaningful pro-life legislation, instead of pretending to be pro-life and using Roe v Wade as an excuse for their inaction.

 

[Brett85]

Only if the candidate was at least in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade and allowing the states to ban abortion, like Peter Schiff. But the most I would do is simply vote for him, not donate money to him. I would never vote for a candidate who supports upholding Roe v. Wade.

 

[Origanalist]

SCOTUS was wrong. There is no sense in which this should be Congress' decision.

Morally, God already decided. Legally, its a state issue. In neither case should congress be involved.

SCOTUS was completely wrong. And no one with a ounce of honesty can say otherwise.

 

[eduardo89]

And don't forget, the SCOTUS too.

Don't even get me started on "Catholic" Anthony Kennedy.

 

[Keith and stuff]

I'm just curious to hear your opinions on this. Assuming the candidate was pro-choice but good on every other issue, like a Ron Paul or Thomas Massie. What would be your level of support?

Also the same criteria except add on non-religious background.

In NH 95% or so of people are pro-choice. Maybe it is only 85% nationwide. But yeah, of course I would. I look at the candidate as whole. 1 or 2 issues never gets in the way. And when it comes to voting, I just vote for the least bad. So I vote for anti-liberty candidates sometimes

 

[Origanalist]

I sure hope so. The one thing I could see happening is that once Roe v Wade is overturned/nullified by Congressional action (LOL at the latter), that the pro-life politicians at state level will be forced to actually take a stand and pass meaningful pro-life legislation, instead of pretending to be pro-life and using Roe v Wade as an excuse for their inaction.

Absolutely, none of them would be able to hide behind a grotesquely twisted court decision anymore. On either side.

 

[eduardo89]

SCOTUS was wrong. There is no sense in which this should be Congress' decision.

Morally, God already decided. Legally, its a state issue. In neither case should congress be involved.

I disagree, it certainly is within Congress' powers to determine that citizenship, and therefore personhood, begins at conception which would therefore make abortion illegal. The Supreme Court recognized the power of personhood and that legal abortion would be impossible if personhood was applied to the unborn.

 

[Christian Liberty]

@Keith and Stuff- Are pro-lifers banned from the FSP?

 

[Christian Liberty]

I disagree, it certainly is within Congress' powers to determine that citizenship, and therefore personhood, begins at conception which would therefore make abortion illegal. The Supreme Court recognized the power of personhood and that legal abortion would be impossible if personhood was applied to the unborn.

No, the 14th amendment (ignoring for the moment that the 14th amendnment is crap and should be destroyed) only refers to "persons born or naturalized in the United States." While I will wholeheartedly agree with you that unborn children are indeed persons, they haven't been born or naturalized in the United States. Thus, the 14th amendment does not apply to them.

I've had this argument before on another forum, as well as here at one point. I still do not get the argument that the 14th amendment applies to the unborn.

I also, frankly, don't want to see Washington DC involved in this, they'd likely use it as an excuse to trick gullible Republicans into supporting even more police statism.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Yes. Abortion is pretty much the last issue I have any concern for.

It's an emotionally charged red herring, that continues the false left/right paradigm.

There are many ethical questions in the medical profession, this is but one of them.

 

[Neil Desmond]

No, the 14th amendment (ignoring for the moment that the 14th amendnment is crap and should be destroyed) only refers to "persons born or naturalized in the United States." While I will wholeheartedly agree with you that unborn children are indeed persons, they haven't been born or naturalized in the United States. Thus, the 14th amendment does not apply to them.

I've had this argument before on another forum, as well as here at one point. I still do not get the argument that the 14th amendment applies to the unborn.

I also, frankly, don't want to see Washington DC involved in this, they'd likely use it as an excuse to trick gullible Republicans into supporting even more police statism.

Naturalized excluded conceived? Has this been proven?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Naturalized excluded conceived? Has this been proven?

Huh?

I'm pretty sure "naturalized" means being born outside the United States but being made a citizen anyway. Which would, once again, preclude the unborn.

 

[Origanalist]

In NH 95% or so of people are pro-choice. Maybe it is only 85% nationwide. But yeah, of course I would. I look at the candidate as whole. 1 or 2 issues never gets in the way. And when it comes to voting, I just vote for the least bad. So I vote for anti-liberty candidates sometimes

Please back those numbers up.