Would you support a proabortion candidate if the were for partial birth abortion, etc?

[Christian Liberty]

Translation?

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

 

[LibertyEagle]

As someone who was until recently completely pro choice (this board changed my mind on the issue. Things do change!), I probably would if the candidate agreed with the preponderance of my other views. I can understand the logic they are using, and I know that having that view does not make you bad by default. There are bigger issues at stake than just abortion.

There is? Partial-birth abortion is murdering a viable baby. How could there be a more important issue?

 

[jonhowe]

Your position sounds like Blockean Evictionism, at least in practice.

Now that a translation has been provided, I guess it does, but only in passing. I'm not saying it's a woman's right to evict the unborn baby. I'm saying if a woman wants to do so, she most likely will find a way, so we need to keep a legal and safe option open. Plus, we need to remove the negative feelings around adoption. The "I'm too poor to have a baby and raise it to adulthood" excuse loses a lot of its power when it is, instead, "I'm too poor to be really uncomfortable and moody for 9 months, give birth, and that's it".

 

[jonhowe]

There is? Partial-birth abortion is murdering a viable baby. How could there be a more important issue?

Because there is already a law against it. The president can't unilaterally change a law. At least not one I'd vote for.

 

[klamath]

99% percent of people who support abortion are not evil. They simply have framed the problem wrong in their heads. They see it as a women's rights issue. This is why most debates on the topic go nowhere; the two sides are having completely different discussions.

What got me to really reconsider was someone who asked if it would be ok to kill a baby born 4 months premature. At first I thought, "sure, that'd be silly. But there is a limit to how premature a baby can be born and still survive, so THAT should be the cutoff for abortion". Then I realized that with advances in science and medicine, that cutoff point would be continuously pushed back. That realization showed me that my logic was flawed. I'm still not 100% "pro life"; I think the safety of the mother should be taken into consideration (though this is quite rare these days. It happens, but it's rare), and I also think 1st trimester abortions should be legal, simply to avoid the black marketization of the procedure.

I also know that when I mentioned this change of heart to my female friends (in NYC, mind you) they were quite unhappy with me.

This is true hower the exact same argument can be applied to what people call pro war. The believe THEY are for fighting EVIL people that are trying to take their freedom and lives.

 

[rpfocus]

Because there is already a law against it. The president can't unilaterally change a law. At least not one I'd vote for.

Exactly, the problem is that only law GOP Conservatives are interesting in, is one completely banning abortion. The original post is flawed in that:

1) He has already admitted the issue isn't partial-birth abortion, but abortion in general.
2) Attributed claims to "a lot of libertarian candidates" yet is unable to actually name any to support his claims.

Here is the actual Libertarian stance on abortion, which I agree with:

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

 

[klamath]

Exactly, the problem is that only law GOP Conservatives are interesting in, is one completely banning abortion. The original post is flawed in that:

1) He has already admitted the issue isn't partial-birth abortion, but abortion in general.
2) Attributed claims to "a lot of libertarian candidates" yet is unable to actually name any to support his claims.

Learn to read. The OP wasn't limited to Partial birth

 

[Christian Liberty]

There is? Partial-birth abortion is murdering a viable baby. How could there be a more important issue?

I really, really don't see the difference between partial birth abortion and regular old abortion. One looks more gruesome but they're both murder. Saying PBA is worse than regular abortion is kind of like saying cutting up someone with a knife is worse than shooting them in the head.

 

[rpfocus]

Learn to read. The OP wasn't limited to Partial birth

That's what you referred to in the thread topic. Still waiting for you to tell us about all those many libertarian candidates that believe the garbage you attributed to them in your original post.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I really, really don't see the difference between partial birth abortion and regular old abortion. One looks more gruesome but they're both murder. Saying PBA is worse than regular abortion is kind of like saying cutting up someone with a knife is worse than shooting them in the head.

Partial birth abortion is done later in the pregnancy is my understanding.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Because there is already a law against it. The president can't unilaterally change a law. At least not one I'd vote for.

True, but we now have a precedent where the President writes an Executive Order to do about anything he wants to.

 

[Ender]

I really, really don't see the difference between partial birth abortion and regular old abortion. One looks more gruesome but they're both murder. Saying PBA is worse than regular abortion is kind of like saying cutting up someone with a knife is worse than shooting them in the head.

Wha?

Any rational being would take a shot in the head, rather than being cut up, piece by piece.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Partial birth abortion is done later in the pregnancy is my understanding.

I know. So what?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Wha?

Any rational being would take a shot in the head, rather than being cut up, piece by piece.

Yes, but my point is that both are still murder. One might be more gruesome, but they're both still murder.

 

[Ender]

Yes, but my point is that both are still murder. One might be more gruesome, but they're both still murder.

One is murder, outright- the other is slow excruciating torture, resulting in death and murder.

 

[jonhowe]

This is true hower the exact same argument can be applied to what people call pro war. The believe THEY are for fighting EVIL people that are trying to take their freedom and lives.

Which is why we need to keep cooler heads and explain how/why they are wrong in a civil manner.


(Note: While I try to, I do not always practice what I preach above).

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

True, but we now have a precedent where the President writes an Executive Order to do about anything he wants to.

'now'? Obama has written fewer EOs than most recent presidents. FDR set the precedent 80 years ago, not something I'd refer to as 'now'.

 

[klamath]

Exactly, the problem is that only law GOP Conservatives are interesting in, is one completely banning abortion. The original post is flawed in that:

1) He has already admitted the issue isn't partial-birth abortion, but abortion in general.
2) Attributed claims to "a lot of libertarian candidates" yet is unable to actually name any to support his claims.

Here is the actual Libertarian stance on abortion, which I agree with:

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.[/B]

Which translates into I can kill if I feel like it.

 

[klamath]

That's what you referred to in the thread topic. Still waiting for you to tell us about all those many libertarian candidates that believe the garbage you attributed to them in your original post.

Do you know what "Etc." means?
Your presidential candidate believed in the right to have sex with children but it had already been pointed out. But again that wasn't even the point of the thread as stated out earlier.

 

[69360]

Would you support a candidate that was good on every other issue but supported abortions all the way up to hours before term. Believed the world was over populated and used his office to encourage more abortions at all levels? Also believed that adult child sex was between them and people should stay the fuck out of their business including the parents. You know kind of like a lot of libertarian candidates believe.

No it would be a cold day in hell before I would.