Would you support a pro-choice liberty candidate?

[MichaelDavis]

Yes it is. You have a Democrat controlled House (which recently passed gun registration in a committee), a Democrat governor, both your Representatives are Democrats, one Senator is a Democrat and the other might as well be, and voted for Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008 and 2012.

This. The Free State Project is a miserable failure. It's been over ten years since New Hampshire was chosen and nothing has been accomplished.

In b4: "But... but the move!"

 

[Keith and stuff]

Yes it is. You have a Democrat controlled House (which recently passed gun registration in a committee), a Democrat governor, both your Representatives are Democrats, one Senator is a Democrat and the other might as well be, and voted for Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008 and 2012.

Kerry was a way better vote in 2004 than Bush. Surely we can all agree? LOL. Of course I voted Libertarian. Obama also seemed more interesting in 2008 than McCain. But it is cool if you are a McCain fan New Hampshire is a purples or gold if will state, as we all know. War is bad. Taxes are bad. It is conflicting for voters in NH.

 

[invisible]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Barry Goldwater. Often mentioned as an iconic conservative and Constitutionalist, he was both for "abortion rights" and he strongly disliked religious conservatism. He was quite arguably the best Senator we had for a LONG time until Rand came along. Of course, when he retired, his seat went to mccain.

 

[klamath]

Yes. If I figured that the overall out come of voting for them would be in a positive direction. Never for President though. Too much of a bully pulpit. It is why I might vote for someone that was less than a noninterventionist , like Cruz or Palin or any other number of good but interventionist republicans.

 

[compromise]

Maybe it is only 85% nationwide.

Nope.

I would only support a pro-choice liberty candidate if they were polling far ahead of all other potential Tea Party or liberty candidates or were in a solid blue state or district. I would vote for Gary Johnson or Richard Tisei. I'd much rather have a pro-lifer, though.

 

[compromise]

NH isn't a blue state. But yeah, 95% support legalize abortion which is way more than the average state of like 85%. I don't know if the majority of voters in any state is against all abortions. I know MS, the most religious state, recently voted in support of allowing abortions.

MS Initiative 26 would have passed if it included an exception for rape, incest and threat to the mother's life. The last part in particular is why it failed. Most Mississippians don't support the current relaxed abortion laws.

 

[FriedChicken]

If a candidate supports forcing states to keep abortion legal than I would never support them.
I'd prefer their personal opinion to be that the unborn child was a life with individual rights that shouldn't be legally violated (namely life).

However, if the candidate had a "pro-choice" opinion on the matter but wanted to leave it to the states to decide I could vote for them. That is the only practical way to combat the issue in our day.
I wouldn't be opposed to abortion being banned federally since I consider it murder in the same way I'm not apposed to [non-voluntary. Specified to keep the conversation on course] slavery being banned federally.

However that is not a winnable fight right now and having a "federal ban or nothing" attitude will only result in "nothing" being the result. Shifting the debate to the state level will result in a very healthy amount of education on the topic and people will finally have the freedom to live in states that don't allow, what is in their view (and mine), to be murder.



... back door abortions?
Yeah. Those will still be around. But bear in mind that there will always be "back door" murders as well. Just because something immoral and right violating exists and is unable to be completely eliminated doesn't mean we should legalize it.

It boils down to whether or not the unborn is an individual or not.
The "libertarian" arguments that try to justify it because their life requires the mother's body don't hold water in my opinion.

If it is an innocent individual than killing it is murder - that is my bottom line on the debate.

 

[69360]

I voted for Gary Johnson. But he wasn't going to win so it didn't really matter.

I'm not sure if I could vote for a baby killer who actually would effect policy.

 

[Keith and stuff]

MS Initiative 26 would have passed if it included an exception for rape, incest and threat to the mother's life. The last part in particular is why it failed. Most Mississippians don't support the current relaxed abortion laws.

So if it wasn't a pro-life bill it would have passed? Sorry, perhaps we just define the terms differently.

 

[gwax23]

If hes Pro Choice for the unborn then yes (edit* and if he supported states rights on the matter instead of federal mandate)

 

[Origanalist]

So if it wasn't a pro-life bill it would have passed? Sorry, perhaps we just define the terms differently.

I think many people do.

 

[PierzStyx]

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.

None. You can't be for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if you allow for the wanton murdering of children. You can't be a liberty candidate if you don't support the liberty of all human life.

 

[MelissaWV]

I saw several posts that I'd agree with, but most of those seemed to stop at the state level. Abortion is unique in that, without all of the Government assistance (both explicit and implicit), your city, county, or other group, could make it harder for abortionists to have a place to practice.

I will use this as an example:

As of August 2006, at least 21 states and over 400 local governments had adopted sex offender residency restriction laws and ordinances, respectively, according to the California Research Bureau in an August 2006 report entitled The Impact of Residency Restrictions on Sex Offenders and Correctional Management Practices: A Literature Review. These laws are modeled after nuisance codes, creating sex offender-free zones like drug-free zones. They typically prohibit sex offenders from living, and sometimes working or loitering, within a specified distance of designated places where children congregate.

...

Danbury is the only city in this state known to have an ordinance restricting sex offenders' residency. The ordinance prohibits sex offenders from entering a public park, playground, recreation center, bathing beach, swimming pool, sports field, or sports facility.

(No, I am not derailing this thread to talk about sex offender registries.)

Localities already have zoning restrictions and the like. I would think that, if there were one business I really would not want near a school, it'd be an abortion clinic. I'd rather have kids walking past a strip club or a bar on the way to work any day. Obviously, churches are not likely to want abortion clinics near them. Abortion clinics overlooking a playground? Absurd. Of course, if you make it so you can't have an abortion clinic within a few thousand feet of any of these places, you will get a de facto ban on the clinics altogether. This would be at the community level. I'd have no problem with this at all. It's already been done in the past for other types of businesses (the aforementioned strip clubs, for instance).

* * *

As for the "at conception" idea, and it being a national thing, I disagree with it. I could see that leading to a ban on certain birth control methods that carry a slim chance of dislodging a fertilized egg, overzealous investigations of women having a natural miscarriage, and charges of manslaughter if you were drinking or smoking and had a miscarriage (even if you had no idea you were pregnant yet; I guess women of childbearing age should not indulge in any activity that might contribute to miscarriage or birth defects, just in case), and lastly mandates of fertile women having to constantly take the appropriate Government-approved prenatal vitamins lest they harm their potential children. It just opens too many doors, one of them in the most private of areas.

 

[pcosmar]

Personally or Politically?

I could tolerate someones personal opinion.. but not a political position.

I have no delusion of the Abortion Issue ever being more that a political football. But I would not vote for someone that was openly for killing the unborn.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

If addressed from an anti-government perspective, yes.

 

[Brett85]

So if it wasn't a pro-life bill it would have passed? Sorry, perhaps we just define the terms differently.

The personhood bills are problematic, because they don't include any exception for the life of the mother and could possibly ban common forms of birth control. These bills need to be amended to contain an exception for the life of the mother and make it clear that no forms of birth control would be impacted by the bill. The personhood bill in Mississippi would've passed if these changes had been made.

 

[Christian Liberty]

This. The Free State Project is a miserable failure. It's been over ten years since New Hampshire was chosen and nothing has been accomplished.

In b4: "But... but the move!"

Honestly, I like the idea of the FSP even if it doesn't "work", solely because I'd honestly rather live around people that respect our rights as human beings and the NAP as compared to people that don't. I'd like to live in a place where even a significant minority of the population will look down on you if you decide to betray your country and become a soldier or cop. I'd like to live in a place where I could regularly talk face to face with ideological libertarians. I'd like to live in a place where ,if the government tried to take our guns, the resistance might at least annoy them. And so on.

The personhood bills are problematic, because they don't include any exception for the life of the mother and could possibly ban common forms of birth control. These bills need to be amended to contain an exception for the life of the mother and make it clear that no forms of birth control would be impacted by the bill. The personhood bill in Mississippi would've passed if these changes had been made.

Shouldn't IUDs that rip the implanted eggs from the uterus count as abortions?

 

[Keith and stuff]

The Free State Project is a miserable failure.

According to this blog post, this might be the best Anti-NDAA bill ever written!
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.co...imously-approves-anti-ndaa-bill/#.Uvf5d7SmM3x

A Free State Project early mover is someone that joins the Free State Project and moves to New Hampshire before the FSP has 20,000 participants. The idea of the FSP is for 20,000 liberty activists to sign the FSP statement of intent. Once that happens, a trigger is reached and all 20,000 participants have 5 years to move to New Hampshire. Some people don't want to wait until the FSP has 20,000 participants and move early. The sponsor of this bill is 1 of those people.

 

[MelissaWV]

Shouldn't IUDs that rip the implanted eggs from the uterus count as abortions?

I don't really think that's what the previous poster was referring to, although ... nvm I'm going to just pass that by.

The most common issue with the "at conception" argument and birth control is that many kinds of birth control can dislodge a fertilized egg in the process. The woman would not know she was doing that, just of the potential. Since this has a potential to be an abortion under that definition, one would assume it would be federally outlawed. That's going to be a problem for a variety of reasons.

 

[I<3Liberty]

Yes, I support Gary Johnson.

Gary and Jim Gray actually supported a federal ban on post quickening abortions.

Shouldn't IUDs that rip the implanted eggs from the uterus count as abortions?

They don't. The pro-lifers that write this typically have no understanding of science because 1) they're afraid of it and 2) they got some liberal arts/religious studies degree with no science requirements beyond watered down basket weaving 101 biology.

About 50% of all fertilized eggs never implant. This can be due to everything from the mother's hormones being off from stress, being very under or overweight, dietary reasons (fats are precursors to certain hormones), genetic abnormalities in the zygote, various immunologic issues and other reasons unknown. Contraceptives like the pill make ovulation very, very unlikely and the IUD makes fertilization extremely rare. In the unlikely event ovulation and fertilization does occur sure the zygote probably isn't going to implant, but this happens 50% of the time without contraceptives. If people were truly concerned about zygotes not implanting, they'd actually be for contraceptive use since it makes it extremely rare whereas without contraceptives, it happens on a regular basis. Of course, these people (mostly extremist Catholics and Mormons) are inconsistent which shows they are actually anti-contraceptive rather than concerned about zygotes. Another way you can tell this is by asking them "If you don't like the current methods, why don't you write a check to a lab working on other forms of contraception that work to prevent fertilization 100% of the time?" Chances are, they'll refuse.

The personhood bills are problematic, because they don't include any exception for the life of the mother and could possibly ban common forms of birth control. These bills need to be amended to contain an exception for the life of the mother and make it clear that no forms of birth control would be impacted by the bill. The personhood bill in Mississippi would've passed if these changes had been made.

Yes, yes, yes! I'm a very mild person, but that bill made my blood boil. If those two amendments were made, the bill would have been legitimately pro-life (not just some misogynist pro-unborn crap), people on both sides would have supported it, and it would have passed. The nutty pro-lifers are their own worst enemies.

---

I don't like the pro-choice and pro-life labels because there are so many pro-lifers that really aren't (i.e. they still support war or they support and get campaign funds from big corporations like DOW and Monsanto that are aren't helping the war against cancer and genetic defects.) They also tend to want gov intervention that isn't going to be effective. I like to recommend this for further reading http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/10/30/how-i-lost-faith-in-“pro-life”-movement-1/ and provide a blatant example of how pro-life legislation failed during the Bush administration. They thought banning further work one siting stem cell lines would protect all the precious embryos, but labs just took their work outside of the US where there was more freedom. Prohibition doesn't work. What helped lessen the use of embryonic stem cells was the advent of the iPS method to make adult stem cells less differentiated. I wholeheartedly believe innovation got you there so innovation is the only way out; you must find a moral alternative for an immoral technology.

I don't like the leftists pro-choicers that push for gov funding of Planned Parenthood and more legislation to protect abortion clinics because they too are too reactive instead of proactive. Why aren't they pushing for 100% effective contraception funding and helping educate teens about proper contraceptive use?