More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time

[Fletch]

What about the percentage of Americans who just don't f*cking give a d*mn?

I'm sure it's much higher than either side would care to admit.

 

[jeremy]

I'm sure it's much higher than either side would care to admit.

I am pretty sure of that also. I also am expecting to get quite a few neg rep points for asking it. Plus getting flamed up in here. Oh well...

 

[IUGradStudent]

I am pretty sure of that also. I also am expecting to get quite a few neg rep points for asking it. Plus getting flamed up in here. Oh well...

Don't flame me, bro!!! I ain't gonna flame you. I know most people don't care. Whether they should or not....

Oh?

This reads to me as a contradiction of the above.

All government, in the form of monopolistic enforcement of social contract, is based on threats or acts of violence. The root word of "law enforcement" is "force". This violence is threatened or performed precisely to impose the will of others onto the individual against whom it is being employed. Without violence and without conflict of wills, there is no government in the form to which we colloquially refer.

I agree with everything you said, but I don't think I'm contradicting myself. What I said was in response to leftsock. He said "Let's leave the "authorities" out of this; all they do is push someone else's belief and will." So, Leftsock was saying that all they do is push someone else's belief and will. I was concerned he might be thinking that all use of power is arbitrary and there is no way to justify its use beyond the level of invididuals' beliefs and desires. All I wanted to say is that there are legitimate functions of government -- functions which aren't based upon my will or yours. They are things that are right for the government to do apart from what anyone wills (and by government I mean whoever has power, whether democracy, aristocracy, or monarchy). If you think that government is merely pushing people around and there is no legitimate way to appeal to anything beyond individuals' beliefs and desires in directing it, then I think we have a major disagreement. Libertarians think there are legitimate state functions. Among them is the preservation of life, liberty, and property.

If we were talking about murder then none of us would say "Whoa, hold on, let's leave the state and authorities out of it. They just push someone else's beliefs and will."

So, the point I'm wanting to get around to is that to say that the government should let abortion remain legal because the government should maximize personal liberty (lest we "push someone else's beliefs and will") is simply to beg the question against the pro-life position. We all think the state has legitimate functions. You have to deal with the pro-life argument that protecting the lives of tiny, unborn human beings is part of the normal legitimate state function of protecting life.

Who are these "authorities" you keep referring to?

Wouldn't you consider yourself to be the authority in your life?

The authorities I've been talking about are the government. Though, there are many different authorities. I am an authority in my home. Everyone is an authority over their own person. God is the ultimate authority from whom all other authority is delegated. Authorities are a nested hierarchy and each one has its proper sphere.

Again, presumably we all think the state has legitimate functions. Pro-lifers are arguing that protecting innocent human life is part of that function, and hence abortion should be illegal. That is the argument on the table. Disputing about Libertarian vs. Republican or even Monarchy vs. Democracy wouldn't change that fundamental question.

 

[Fletch]

Libertarians think there are legitimate state functions. Among them is the preservation of life, liberty, and property.

Libertarians believe these are legitimate things for somebody to enforce. Whether it is necessarily the geopolitical monopoly of coercion that we know colloquially as "government" is left open for debate. Anarcho-capitalists would say such enforcement should come from voluntary contract and private law enforcement. I tend to agree with them, though I believe I might also be happy with a minarchy.

Beyond that small quibble, I think I understand what you're saying a little better.

 

[CarmelHP]

Come on CarmelHP, quit trying to be manipulative. Your comparison is disgusting and uncalled for. If you're going to talk about the use of children for sexual gratification, there are probably plenty of pedophile boards out there for you.

These posts are an attempt to ask "how much government do we want in our lives?" I would suspect that the general response would be "less," yet forcing abortion to be illegal would seem to be a contradiction of that. Also, forcing doctors to perform abortions with the threat of lawsuits would be an invasion of their personal choice. Some things are morally wrong, like removing an individual's choice.

If we want less gov. control in our lives, let's have it that way and stop saying "less government control in our lives, unless we disagree with another's choice, and then there needs to be immediate intervention by the authorities."

It sounded like you "I can anything I want with my kids" were trying to turn this into a pedophile board. What a whacko you are. You don't own anyone, chattel slavery is dead, and people who think like you are the ones who turn out to be abusers. Forcing parents not to abuse their or child would also be "removing an individual's choice." If you don't like the logical conclusion of where your idiotic ramblings lead then perhaps you should re-examine your opinions.

 

[edsinger]

Well at least 51% are not, they say so with their vote....

 

[Annie Oakley]

I have a solution to this. Everyone who is "pro-life" registers with the government. All abortions are stopped. Every unwanted baby goes to the person on the top of the registry along with all the costs involved with the pregnancy and birth. You don't have a choice of what baby you get or when you get it. Once you have gotten the child you go to the end of the list.

As long as men and women have casual sex, or there are rapes, or babies are diagnosed in the early stages of development with unbelievably terrible defects that make a parent choose between a short agonizing life for the baby or ending the pregnancy there will be abortions, legal or not. I would rather see a fetus aborted than to have a child live with abuse or knowing that they were not wanted and are not valued.

I have always marveled at the number of men who are so anti-choice but don't want to support their children after a divorce or aren't married to the mother and exit stage left as soon as they find out that she is pregnant. I do know that there are many who are truly responsible and would care for children of theirs no matter the situation so this isn't in any way bashing you guys.....heck, I really like men.

Over all I think there need to be limits on when the abortion is done but I also truly believe that it is a necessary evil. If someone doesn't want to preform them they shouldn't have to but they also shouldn't abuse the woman seeking one verbally.

OK, bring it on.

 

[IUGradStudent]

Libertarians believe these are legitimate things for somebody to enforce. Whether it is necessarily the geopolitical monopoly of coercion that we know colloquially as "government" is left open for debate. Anarcho-capitalists would say such enforcement should come from voluntary contract and private law enforcement. I tend to agree with them, though I believe I might also be happy with a minarchy.

Beyond that small quibble, I think I understand what you're saying a little better.

Yeah Anarchists are a different story -- which is why I stopped at Libertarian .

It sounded like you "I can anything I want with my kids" were trying to turn this into a pedophile board. What a whacko you are. You don't own anyone, chattel slavery is dead, and people who think like you are the ones who turn out to be abusers. Forcing parents not to abuse their or child would also be "removing an individual's choice." If you don't like the logical conclusion of where your idiotic ramblings lead then perhaps you should re-examine your opinions.

Ease up, bro--you ain't making friends and winning minds He started it but you don't have to finish it

I have a solution to this. Everyone who is "pro-life" registers with the government. All abortions are stopped. Every unwanted baby goes to the person on the top of the registry along with all the costs involved with the pregnancy and birth. You don't have a choice of what baby you get or when you get it. Once you have gotten the child you go to the end of the list.

I think this would be an improvement, but....

As long as men and women have casual sex, or there are rapes, or babies are diagnosed in the early stages of development with unbelievably terrible defects that make a parent choose between a short agonizing life for the baby or ending the pregnancy there will be abortions, legal or not.

I don't buy this argument because it seems like it would work for any crime. I mean, you're right, regardless of what laws are enacted there will probably be some abortions. But, that's true in general: regardless of what laws are enacted against crime X, there will still be some of that crime around.

I would rather see a fetus aborted than to have a child live with abuse or knowing that they were not wanted and are not valued.

But, we don't say this for babies after birth -- why would we say it for them before birth? Perhaps because they haven't "experienced" as much so they won't suffer as much loss--but you need to tread carefully here, birth doesn't seem like a significant marker in terms of conscious experiencing.

I have always marveled at the number of men who are so anti-choice but don't want to support their children after a divorce or aren't married to the mother and exit stage left as soon as they find out that she is pregnant. I do know that there are many who are truly responsible and would care for children of theirs no matter the situation so this isn't in any way bashing you guys.....heck, I really like men.

Pro-life, not anti-choice, please. But, I'm against irresponsible men same as you -- right on!. If the dad doesn't take care of the kid, odds are something is going to come out of everyone else's taxes to provide day care, after school programs, school lunches, health care, etc. You father a child, you take care of them or pay a lot of money. At the same time, a lot of good dads are getting screwed at divorce court--another side of things to keep in mind.

Over all I think there need to be limits on when the abortion is done but I also truly believe that it is a necessary evil. If someone doesn't want to preform them they shouldn't have to but they also shouldn't abuse the woman seeking one verbally.

OK, bring it on.

I understand this viewpoint, but I really don't think it is consistent. If you really think about the "evil" that you want to say is necessary, I think you have to conclude that it could never really be necessary (except when balanced against saving another life, like the life of the mother in a tubal pregnancy).

Part of all of this is we all hate to tell other people to man up (woman up?) and be responsible. We hate doing it because then they seem justified in doing it back. And then we have to be responsible -- and we know that we have our own issues so who are we to judge? Well, let's all just admit we've got issues and then all set about trying to fix our issues. And, abortion, when you look at what it is and the scale that it has reached in our country (1.3 million a year), is an issue.

 

[Soundslikejosh]

Part of the problem with this topic is reaching an agreement about when life starts. If you choose, you could discuss it as whether or not the fetus has rights. The two extremes will never agree.

I certainly don't claim to know when "life" starts, but I just cannot fathom how people can consider that terminating a living fetus isn't murder. Of course, there are those who believe that the circumstances are able to justify the action. I don't intend to vilify those who have to make tough choices- If you are in a spot where you have to consider abortion, you surely don't need any hatefulness from me.

My point is that we should call a spade a spade. If you can justify murder, that's your business. To say that abortion is something else, I cannot yet understand that. I am willing to listen to a well argued opinion.

I think the "Keep your laws off my body" bumper stickers are strange, because that statement to me seems to say "don't tell me what I can and cannot do". Clearly the gov't can and will tell you what to do. Just because you choose to harm your offspring does not mean you aren't harming someone. You can't euthanize your neighbor any more lawfully than you can euthanize your infant---- Oh wait, yes you can, this is the US of A. Wow.


Let me reiterate that this post is not designed or intended to **** people off. I just think there is too much denial on the "pro-choice" side about what abortion really is (in the criminal sense) and I think it is used to avoid the issue. Once again, I welcome an intelligent argument to the contrary.

 

[Fletch]

Yeah Anarchists are a different story -- which is why I stopped at Libertarian .

Anarcho-capitalists are libertarians of a particular stripe. It's not that they don't want government at all (which would be true anarchy), but that they want the functions provided by government to be provided by a free market mechanism, which is why I've been careful to speak of the geopolitical monopoly on coercion. Anarcho-capitalist societies would likely be very conservative and slow to change based on the fact that the agents of change would be restricted by the property rights of those already in the geosocial group.

 

[leftsock]

If you don't like the logical conclusion of where your idiotic ramblings lead then perhaps you should re-examine your opinions.

I want natural and common law to be the guiding forces in our lives. We all know right from wrong. We don't need the federal government sticking their fingers in our faces telling us what to do. One day it might be "you can't have an abortion," maybe the next day it will be "you *must* have an abortion."

And could you stop being a bully and giving me negative rep for every post because you don't agree? We are allowed to have differing opinions in the United States. I guess you can do and say what you want, but you're just coming across as a jerk. Perhaps disagreement isn't such a good idea around here?

 

[Soundslikejosh]

I want natural and common law to be the guiding forces in our lives. We all know right from wrong. We don't need the federal government sticking their fingers in our faces telling us what to do. One day it might be "you can't have an abortion," maybe the next day it will be "you *must* have an abortion."

And could you stop being a bully and giving me negative rep for every post because you don't agree? We are allowed to have differing opinions in the United States. I guess you can do and say what you want, but you're just coming across as a jerk. Perhaps disagreement isn't such a good idea around here?

Based on this thread so far, I am not convinced.

 

[techres]

Abortion is both murder and legal. It is both the ending of a potential life and the ultimate act of control over one's own body. It is both evil and at the same time necessary. It is a nexus point of religion and the state.
And it is a big ball of pain and sadness, surrounded by alot of angry yelling.

Personally, I cannot grant the same rights that I enjoy to a fertilized egg but at the same time I cannot see a fetus in the last month which is fully capable of life outside the womb as nothing more than soulless tissue matter.

Personally, I cannot bring myself to have the state tell a woman what to do with her body (pro or anti abortion) any more that I as a man can tell a woman what to do with hers.

Personally, I cannot stand with the screaming protesters at the clinics (one of whom once shoved my 3 year old brother into traffic while "protesting for life"). At the same time, I think that there cannot be a positive response to the choice of abortion. I know that some grieve, some change, and some do not. I cannot understand the latter.

Personally, I would like to see "day after" pills available easily, first term abortions available as well, but late abortions become near impossible. Yeah, the devil is in the details but you get the point.

Personally, I would like people to be moral and choose the hard road. But then again, I would like adulterer's prisons and in the end it is best that we all just agree to not let the state be the decider. I am a Libertarian in part because of the damage I would do if allowed to let my conservative desires have the force of law. It really is the best for all.

Personally, I think this is the most personal of all areas of law right now. It reaches into a woman's body and into a child's grave...

Personally, I think I need to go and pray for us all.

 

[Talonap]

First of all, +1 to tecres!

Now, just because something is, "Legal", does not mean it is, "Required". Owning a firearm is legal most places, but people still have a choice as to whether or not to own one. (Just an example, no, "It's not the same", please). No one is telling anyone that they, "Must Have", an abortion. Choice is freedom.

 

[Soundslikejosh]

Exceptionally well said Techres.

 

[Annie Oakley]

Techres post sort of says it all and is done very elegantly. Thank you, sir.

 

[Beware]

I cannot, in good conscience, agree to murder. I would not condone the killing of a three-month old child because his/her parents were being/already were abusive to the child, why then should a child conceived only a few months later be subject to death for such a reason?

 

[leftsock]

Choice is freedom.

Thank you!
+1

 

[paddling_man]

What techres said! There lies the conflicted middle ground where I *believe* most of the USA lives.

 

[techres]

I cannot, in good conscience, agree to murder. I would not condone the killing of a three-month old child because his/her parents were being/already were abusive to the child, why then should a child conceived only a few months later be subject to death for such a reason?

I fully understand your reasoning, and find it very persuasive. In a similar line of thinking I once was at a dinner discussion (loud debate) where someone was trying to justify homicide bombings and I asked him, "If you could stop all the violence and accomplish your goals at the cost of one child's life, would it be moral? Or better asked - If I could gaurantee you and end to the fighting if you took the small kid across the room here and took him into the front yard to be shot by your hand, would you be able to pull the trigger and murder a child - this child right here?"

It put the act into perspective and also put a pall on the dinner conversation. But you get the point: Is there ever a justification for murder, especially the murder of a child? A baby?

It is the crux question that is only matched by another - can the child live without the mother as host? If so, then perhaps no abortions in the last trimester but instead we do C sections and take them out early (not that this is good for the baby but it is better than death).

But before that point, when the fetus is still unable to exist without the host, that is when the competing right to one's own body must come into play. Otherwise the state gets to tell people how they have to live with their bodies, against their will, and with no recourse to end that state intervention. That level of state control over the individual is so fraught with danger that entire book series could be written on it.

Now, that is the question of the state. As for the question of individual morality and choices, that is between the individual and God. And I pray for anyone who has to, or has had to, make that choice. As a man, I will never have that awesome responsibility/curse/whatever to choose so I am careful to say what I would do. But I know what I would want to do, and what I could live with. I have been through an early stage miscarriage with my wife and know the feelings that arose, so I can only imagine what a later stage termination would mean.

As my wife is fond to say, "I was never as Pro-Choice as during my pregnancy. And I was never so Pro-Life as when they handed my baby to me in my arms."

I understand both positions.