Would you support a pro-choice liberty candidate?

[Nirvikalpa]

It isn't real clear when exactly conception occurs, but for legal purposes I think it should be defined as occurring when the fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus. That way it would be clear that no forms of contraception would be banned. I thought you were just saying that you don't consider a baby in the womb to be a human being, so maybe I misunderstood you.

How would we know when a fertilized egg is implanted into the uterus, since it can happen on different days and within different times for different women? Day 3 of a fertilized egg in one woman can already be implanted, whereas in another woman it is still within the fallopian tube.

I'm not trying to pick on you (or anyone in this thread) specifically; just pointing out how complicated of a matter defining "conception" really is. I don't think it will ever be really clear.

 

[Brett85]

How would we know when a fertilized egg is implanted into the uterus, since it can happen on different days and within different times for different women? Day 3 of a fertilized egg in one woman can already be implanted, whereas in another woman it is still within the fallopian tube.

I'm not trying to pick on you (or anyone in this thread) specifically; just pointing out how complicated of a matter defining "conception" really is. I don't think it will ever be really clear.

By the time a woman discovers that she's pregnant and goes to get an abortion, conception has definitely occurred. The baby usually has a beating heart and is breathing by that time.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[klamath]

It doesn't matter if "I" would support such a candidate; it matters whether the majority of the voters would. Realistically, the voting public is neither pro-life nor pro-choice (the way the terms are bantered about on this message board - they're polar terms here: if a fertilized egg is a child at conception then abortion becomes child killing).

The vast majority of the voting public believe in granting an exception in the case of the mother's health - so they've already elevated the life of the mother over that of the unborn human organism. Almost as many are willing to grant an exception in the case of incest or rape. A candidate who doesn't support those exceptions has a high probability of losing any election except in the most socially-conservative of electoral districts.

Outside of the "green light go to abortion" cases listed above; the voting public begins to consider restrictions on abortion. In some cases the voter's decision is based on the unborn human organism too closely resembling a born baby. In some cases it's about the viability of the unborn human organism. In others it's about the mother having a "reasonable" amount of time to make a decision after she "should" have known she's pregnant. None of those restrictions are based upon "when life begins". The debate to them is about how far along the termination The majority of the voting public has no problem with terminating the life of an unborn human organism.may occur.

Candidates who support restrictions on abortion early in pregnancy are unlikely to get elected. There are exceptions to that rule. But as the portion of a legislative body becomes large enough to make abortion restrictions possible - the likelihood of additional like-minded candidates continuing to be elected diminishes (because, then, abortion becomes a real issue). The GOP loves to keep "legislating abortion away" in its platform,because it energizes a voting block that the GOP thinks it needs. If the liberty movement was smart it would back candidates willing to:
- Tell the voting public that he/she is personally opposed to abortion; but that, ultimately, it's a difficult decision to be made by the mother
- Tell the ardent anti-abortion voting block the pragmatic truth (that abortion is never going to be legislated out of existence)
- Begin a discussion on why so many abortions occur in a world in which so many options exist for preventing pregnancy in the first place
- Propose voluntary actions that can be taken by groups to reduce the number of abortions (early education, making birth control available, etc).

In this you are right. The American people DON'T have a problem with killing at all. Give them a small reason and they will support it hardily be it droning children of terrorists in the middle east to getting rid of the child that is going to cramp their sex life. Just maybe, that IS the reason that liberty never exists. If killing can be done so casually depriving people of every single liberty in the books then don't you think restricting Pot use is not a big problem for them.
liberty always comes second to life for without life there IS no liberty.
The "Liberty movement will FOREVER fail if it doesn't get a grip on the largest most important anti liberty position. No respect for life.
If the liberty movement can force me into not caring about Abortion I sure as hell would not have a problem with locking up every pot user and even hanging them.

 

[osan]

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.

Begin 1,037,201,953,673,158,306,734,769,503rd time-wasting abortion hamster-wheel thread in 5... 4... 3...

 

[klamath]

Begin 1,037,201,953,673,158,306,734,769,503rd time-wasting abortion, ban the FED, truther, drone attack, war crime, pot use, NSA, police shooting dog, hamster-wheel threads in 5... 4... 3...

I know you were tired of typing so I helped you finish..

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

It doesn't matter if "I" would support such a candidate; it matters whether the majority of the voters would. Realistically, the voting public is neither pro-life nor pro-choice (the way the terms are bantered about on this message board - they're polar terms here: if a fertilized egg is a child at conception then abortion becomes child killing).

It does matter if we ever got to the point where "Liberty candidates" were running in races as Democrats. We can already see from this thread that a good portion of our grassroots base would not support a "liberty candidate" who was pro-choice. I can understand why people wouldn't do this (just like I won't support a hawkish "liberty candidate" as some here believe Ted Cruz is) but some of these wedges issues like abortion are a big deal if we want to grow our movement because in some places being pro-choice is a non-starter for getting elected.

 

[Slutter McGee]

If you don't understand the issue of life it all it's simplicity, then, you cannot understand possibly understand liberty. That is why (I believe) that Ron Paul signs things For life and liberty -- something I use often now too!

If you don't understand the issue is incredibly fucking complex and both people have good arguments then you don't understand philosophy. Its cool to choose your side and argue for it. But to dismiss other beliefs as inconsistent with liberty means you have a shallow knowledge of the subject.

And yes, I fucking used the word fuck again.

Feel free to neg rep me again,

Slutter McGee

 

[DamianTV]

Its a step in the right direction, however, changes wont happen overnight. They wouldnt have happened overnight either even if Ron Paul had been elected. The complexity of an issue and the number of people involved in that issue usually determine how quickly it can be resolved. "Have you seen my car keys?", then a reply "Kitchen sink under the newspaper". Problem solved, quickly. "Hey, the Economy crashed!", then a reply "So how do we fix it?" Thats gonna be a topic that carries on for a very long time.

The time it takes, even for Scientific advancements takes Years. Big Bang theory was preceeded that the "Universe had always been here". It took years for the Big Bang Theory to be communicated, then challenged, then tweaked, then accepted. Flat Earth, same thing. Earth moves around the sun, also, same thing.

Both Liberty and Tyranny are measured in Generations.

 

[twomp]

If abortion were illegal, how would the government enforce it? Randomly check every woman's medical record? Have people rat on their neighbors? IF you see something, say something? Women were having abortions long before it was legal. I don't see how those of you here trying to make it illegal would enforce it without growing the government.

 

[klamath]

If abortion were illegal, how would the government enforce it? Randomly check every woman's medical record? Have people rat on their neighbors? IF you see something, say something? Women were having abortions long before it was legal. I don't see how those of you here trying to make it illegal would enforce it without growing the government.

How about prosecuting the persons actually doing the killing. The doctors. Yes some women will always manage to kill their offspring and then again there will always be murder rape and war. But I don't fall into the all or nothing camp. If you can't stop all wars then give up and let the wars continue at the same rate. If you can't save everybody don't try to save ANY.
The abortion rate would fall tremendously just by the fact that US society wasn't telling young girls that all they are doing in evicting an unviable tissue mass.

 

[Brett85]

If abortion were illegal, how would the government enforce it? Randomly check every woman's medical record? Have people rat on their neighbors? IF you see something, say something? Women were having abortions long before it was legal. I don't see how those of you here trying to make it illegal would enforce it without growing the government.

The main thing would simply be to close down public abortion clinics and prosecute doctors who perform abortions. That wouldn't stop every single abortion, but it would make an enormous dent in the number of abortions.

 

[eduardo89]

The main thing would simply be to close down public abortion clinics and prosecute doctors who perform abortions. That wouldn't stop every single abortion, but it would make an enormous dent in the number of abortions.

But millions of women would just die in back alley abortions!!

 

[Christian Liberty]

But millions of women would just die in back alley abortions!!

My standard response to this is that I don't really care if someone dies while trying to commit murder, and that if it happens they get what they deserve. That's too harsh for most people though.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[fr33]

But millions of women would just die in back alley abortions!!

Honestly I think the back alley is where it belongs but I doubt there would be as many deaths of pregnant women per capita from it today as in the past. Especially since it's been legal for so long and so much research and training has gone into the practice.

 

[Neil Desmond]

Honestly I think the back alley is where it belongs but I doubt there would be as many deaths of pregnant women per capita from it today as in the past. Especially since it's been legal for so long and so much research and training has gone into the practice.

What does "back alley" really mean, anyways? I understand the sentiment it's supposed to convey; but when has anyone ever really literally gone to some back alley to get an abortion? Is this reference to going through some so-called back alley to get to an entrance to a black market abortion mill, or what?

 

[fr33]

What does "back alley" really mean, anyways? I understand the sentiment it's supposed to convey; but when has anyone ever really literally gone to some back alley to get an abortion? Is this reference to going through some so-called back alley to get to an entrance to a black market abortion mill, or what?

It's an argument pro-abortion folks use. Back before it was legal, some women would use the black market to get abortions. It was not really a safe practice. Progressives like to bring up the "back alley" abortions and "wire coat hangers" used to perform the task.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[klamath]

Why is it that the pregnant women seeking abortions always seem to be excluded from prosecution in these scenarios? Isn't it their decisions and actions that form the precipitating event in all of this. The logically consistent pro-life position, based upon the "baby killing" rhetoric, would be be to advocate manslaughter (if not outright murder) prosecutions for women who had aborted their "unborn babies". Due to the premeditated nature of the act, it would logically be be murder rather than manslaughter - but seldom do I see even manslaughter being advocated.

Because in my case I want to see the moral acceptance changed. Just like I don't support prosecuting every soldier that killed in a unjust war because OUR society has made it acceptable and they believe they are doing right. I do not believe war and abortion will ever be eradicated but I think it can be vastly reduced just by making it not legal, acceptable and a easy cash cow for abortion doctors.
I don't talk about prosecuting the women because it is going to take decades upon decades to change the moral belief that it is an unviable tissue mass. If the people that believe it is killing lose this moral struggle on who is a viable tissue mass then the world will also see eugenics make a mighty comeback and every person better hope they and their family is considered productive by those in power.
So no I won't play into the proabortion camps hands and allow them to create those "War on women" campaign slogans.