Winning the Libertarian vote

[buckstopshere]

Again, without streamlining the adoption process what will happen to those babies who may be unwanted/grow up in broken homes? Everybody likes to say "What if that's the next Einstein, what if the child would have grown up to find the cure for cancer." Well, what if that child was the next Hitler? What if that child who wasn't wanted goes to a life of crime and slaughters some family? There's always a flip side to every argument, and as much as want abortion to go away, making it illegal isn't going to change anything. In fact, I will say it make government intrusion worse and WON'T have an impact, because in this day and age, social media will allow people to find doctors who will perform the procedure in their house if necessary, and the only way for the government to fight that is through more eavesdropping.



If a woman gets raped and DOESN'T want the child should it still be illegal? If two people get pregnant, then the guy decides he's going to bail and be a deadbeat, should the woman be forbidden from even having the choice to keep the baby or not? Blanket illegality is NOT the answer. Again, if you want to work to really reduce it, strive to streamline the adoption process so a woman can know that if she does carry it to term, someone else will take care of it.



Some women don't choose to get pregnant. Condoms break, there's still a VERY small chance birth control pills won't work, there's rape, etc. Unless you're going to ban sex unless for procreation (good luck making that work), there are always going to be cases where it wasn't a choice. People don't choose to be in car accidents, but you can't control other drivers. Someone going the other way may have a heart attack. I'm betting nobody chooses to have their house burn down, you can take all the precautions in the world, but if someone else comes into your house and leaves their curling iron plugged in, it might happen anyway.

The reason it's complicated has nothing to do with entitlement, it's just a complex issue. Do you define live as starting at the moment of conception, when it's basically one cell? There's no brain, heart, bones, etc. at that time. Is it at the point when it develops these organs and resembles a human being? Is at the point when the fetus can survive on its own without medical assistance? Should these determinations be made on a religious or scientific basis? What if the sex wasn't consensual? What if you took precautions and they didn't work? What if the father decides HE doesn't want it and leaves/refuses to pay child support? There's a million different scenarios, all with different justifications for and against.

And all of those issues start with a choice. When my wife and I didn't want a baby before we were married, she was on the pill and I wrapped it up. Like fort knox. The best way would've been to abstain. Had our precautions not worked, then we would have taken the responsibility of being parents.

If you're in a car accident, there's level of accountability and personal responsibility. If its your fault, your insurance company, or you, will be paying for repairs and medical bills. Your insurance premiums go up or you get dropped. Accidents do happen for sure but what accident is there where you still have no personal responsibility to fix it?

Definitely agree with the adoption process being streamlined. No argument there.

I believe life starts at conception.

Rape is definitely a tough one as the child pays the price for the sins of the father and they pay the ultimate price for doing nothing wrong.

I disagree with your assessment. I believe the fact that abortions are so easily attainable they are treated as a form of birth control. If they were not as easily attainable, more people would take the appropriate precautions.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

There are consequences for nearly everything we do in life, why should procreation - as fun as it is to initiate - be devoid of consequence to either party? Require the father to support the child he has helped create; paternity has been a fact able to be established since long before DNA testing was available.

In a larger sense, most of our problems as a society today can be traced back to the idea that actions need not necessarily have bad consequences, whether it be "unsafe sex", murder, robbery, shoplifting, driving without a license, DUI, DWI, smoking, obesity, alcoholism, drug use, or corruption in politics.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

There are consequences for nearly everything we do in life, why should procreation - as fun as it is to initiate - be devoid of consequence to either party? Require the father to support the child he has helped create; paternity has been a fact able to be established since long before DNA testing was available.

In a larger sense, most of our problems as a society today can be traced back to the idea that actions need not necessarily have bad consequences, whether it be "unsafe sex", murder, robbery, shoplifting, driving without a license, DUI, DWI, smoking, obesity, alcoholism, drug use, or corruption in politics.

I'd say that if people were allowed to suffer for their own miscalculations and feel real dis-comfort in their current situation there would be substantially less need for laws for all these "moral" issues. Similarly, if the responsibility was restored first, there we probably be less of a call to repeal the laws so many find repugnant.

 

[hacksawfg]

And all of those issues start with a choice. When my wife and I didn't want a baby before we were married, she was on the pill and I wrapped it up. Like fort knox. The best way would've been to abstain. Had our precautions not worked, then we would have taken the responsibility of being parents.

If you're in a car accident, there's level of accountability and personal responsibility. If its your fault, your insurance company, or you, will be paying for repairs and medical bills. Your insurance premiums go up or you get dropped. Accidents do happen for sure but what accident is there where you still have no personal responsibility to fix it?

Definitely agree with the adoption process being streamlined. No argument there.

I believe life starts at conception.

Rape is definitely a tough one as the child pays the price for the sins of the father and they pay the ultimate price for doing nothing wrong.

I disagree with your assessment. I believe the fact that abortions are so easily attainable they are treated as a form of birth control. If they were not as easily attainable, more people would take the appropriate precautions.

What is the level of accountability and responsibility the driver of the black convertible has in this case:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f95iO6fuF6s[/ame]

He didn't choose to get hit, but he got hit anyway.

If you think life begins at conception, and someone else believes that life begins when the baby can survive on its own, how do you reconcile the two definitions, or do we legislate our own morality over all others?

Out of the very few women I know who've had abortions, it was NOT an easy choice for them. None of them just said "Eh, I'm just going to drive to the clinic and get this taken care of." It's a tough decision, and it's a big decision, and they wrestled with it. At the end of the day they made the decision they felt was best in their situation. Most of them did discuss it with their significant others. That's not to say everybody is like that, but again, where do you draw the line? I'm not going to say I know when life officially begins, nor am I going to interject my beliefs in a difficult decision that is not mine to have a say in; I would hope the government would refrain from that responsibility as well.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

What is the level of accountability and responsibility the driver of the black convertible has in this case:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f95iO6fuF6s

He didn't choose to get hit, but he got hit anyway.

If you think life begins at conception, and someone else believes that life begins when the baby can survive on its own, how do you reconcile the two definitions, or do we legislate our own morality over all others?

Out of the very few women I know who've had abortions, it was NOT an easy choice for them. None of them just said "Eh, I'm just going to drive to the clinic and get this taken care of." It's a tough decision, and it's a big decision, and they wrestled with it. At the end of the day they made the decision they felt was best in their situation. Most of them did discuss it with their significant others. That's not to say everybody is like that, but again, where do you draw the line? I'm not going to say I know when life officially begins, nor am I going to interject my beliefs in a difficult decision that is not mine to have a say in; I would hope the government would refrain from that responsibility as well.

I guess anecdotal second-hand experience trumps statics and research every time.

 

[rambone]

For someone who opposes government sanctioned killing, I find your position hypocritical.

Murder laws belong at the state level. You'll notice that each state handles murder in its own way. The same standard should be held for abortion. Nothing good can come from having a sweeping Federal decision on the matter. That leads to decisions like Roe v. Wade, which I oppose.

 

[hornadylnl]

How many want to make it illegal for a poor woman to get an abortion and then ***** because she goes on Medicaid and welfare to pay for it?

I personally believe that life begins at conception. For those that want abortion illegal. Where lengths do we go to to protect the unborn? Mandated prenatal visits so we can then demean her for being a welfare queen? Drug tests to make sure she's not harming the baby? Daily breathylizers? Smoking bans for mothers? This slippery slope goes both ways.

 

[hacksawfg]

I guess anecdotal second-hand experience trumps statics and research every time.

Your right. Statistics say that 68% of murders, 42% of robberies, 22% of aggravated assaults were committed with a firearm. Screw what the Constitution says, it was based on the experiences of the founding fathers instead of statistics and research. BTW, here is the support for that statistic.

Bureau of Justice Statistics Crimes Committed with Firearms

Here is some research on benefits of ending the drug war:

The Budgetary Impact of Ending Drug Prohibition | Jeffrey A. Miron and Katherine Waldock | Cato Institute: White Paper

His study says between eliminating expenditures and gaining tax revenue, it could be a positive impact in the neighborhood of $80 billion/year. So using statistics and research and completely discounting anecdotal evidence, you would not only making abortion illegal, making guns illegal because others use them in crimes (no statistics were used in framing the Constitution I'm guessing), and ending the drug war tomorrow.

Recognize at least that there are two sides to every issue, you can supply data to support or contradict anything. The biggest question is on what basis do you determine whether or not something should be illegal, are your statistics/evidence ABSOLUTELY 100% IRREFUTABLE, and are you willing to impose more government on others? Banning guns would probably reduce some crimes and lead to increases in others. We don't call for restricting the rights of all gun owners based on actions of those who act irresponsibly, why should we make ALL abortion illegal based solely on the actions of those who act irresponsibly? I'm saying that most people try to protect themselves and only go though abortion as a last resort. If it's all about statistics or it's so much more convenient, find me an example of someone who has the viewpoint "I have sex without using condoms or birth control because it's just so much easier and more convenient to spend a day in the clinic and have an abortion."

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Your right. Statistics say that 68% of murders, 42% of robberies, 22% of aggravated assaults were committed with a firearm. Screw what the Constitution says, it was based on the experiences of the founding fathers instead of statistics and research. BTW, here is the support for that statistic.

Bureau of Justice Statistics Crimes Committed with Firearms

Here is some research on benefits of ending the drug war:

The Budgetary Impact of Ending Drug Prohibition | Jeffrey A. Miron and Katherine Waldock | Cato Institute: White Paper

His study says between eliminating expenditures and gaining tax revenue, it could be a positive impact in the neighborhood of $80 billion/year. So using statistics and research and completely discounting anecdotal evidence, you would not only making abortion illegal, making guns illegal because others use them in crimes (no statistics were used in framing the Constitution I'm guessing), and ending the drug war tomorrow.

Recognize at least that there are two sides to every issue, you can supply data to support or contradict anything. The biggest question is on what basis do you determine whether or not something should be illegal, are your statistics/evidence ABSOLUTELY 100% IRREFUTABLE, and are you willing to impose more government on others? Banning guns would probably reduce some crimes and lead to increases in others. We don't call for restricting the rights of all gun owners based on actions of those who act irresponsibly, why should we make ALL abortion illegal based solely on the actions of those who act irresponsibly? I'm saying that most people try to protect themselves and only go though abortion as a last resort. If it's all about statistics or it's so much more convenient, find me an example of someone who has the viewpoint "I have sex without using condoms or birth control because it's just so much easier and more convenient to spend a day in the clinic and have an abortion."

I suppose the question of abortion rights hinges on whether or not you consider an unborn fetus (a dehumanizing term popularized by pro-choice advocates) a human being with separate rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. For every woman who has a child raped into her womb, there are a million women who just find it inconvenient to have a baby; who either don't or won't take responsibility for the act which created the baby; who either didn't have the judgment or didn't take the time to vet the prospective sperm donor before she spread her legs and said "yes", or just wanted to have fun because if she conceived she could go to Planned Parenthood, who will assure her that it's not really a baby, right up until after they've killed it.

When abortion was a 'back alley' procedure, at least women gave some serious thought to the consequences of having intercourse out of wedlock and men were generally held to account if they got a woman pregnant, and communities tended to discourage both sorts of people. People used to recognize that they were responsible for the consequences of their actions; they also used to realize that bad things happen to people whether it is their fault or not, and, believe it or not, most people used to be able to recognize the difference without the intervention of a lawyer or the courts.

 

[buckstopshere]

What is the level of accountability and responsibility the driver of the black convertible has in this case:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f95iO6fuF6s

He didn't choose to get hit, but he got hit anyway.

If you think life begins at conception, and someone else believes that life begins when the baby can survive on its own, how do you reconcile the two definitions, or do we legislate our own morality over all others?

Out of the very few women I know who've had abortions, it was NOT an easy choice for them. None of them just said "Eh, I'm just going to drive to the clinic and get this taken care of." It's a tough decision, and it's a big decision, and they wrestled with it. At the end of the day they made the decision they felt was best in their situation. Most of them did discuss it with their significant others. That's not to say everybody is like that, but again, where do you draw the line? I'm not going to say I know when life officially begins, nor am I going to interject my beliefs in a difficult decision that is not mine to have a say in; I would hope the government would refrain from that responsibility as well.

The black convertible had none but that's not the spirit of the discussion. Perhaps you could use that clip for someone pregnant from rape as the black convertible was certainly not a willing participant.

Had the black convertible been drag racing another car, that would be a more appropriate comparison.

I do know several women who have had abortions that didn't give it a second thought although I'm sure there are women who struggled and regretted it later.

The argument over when life begins ends up being a spiritual one which creates room for debate. What isn't debatable, barring unwilling participation, is two people made a choice to have sex knowing that it could lead to pregnancy. Their direct actions led to the pregnancy. Someone else has to pay for their mistake?

Again, I say that people don't have a problem with making it illegal to have an abortion a week before the due date so it's not an issue of what the .gov can mandate what we can and can't do with our bodies, it's just the timing of it.

Besides, take the emotion out of it and abortion plays right into the agenda of those who support eugenics.

I should add that I'm with Rambone on the fact that it should be a state issue, not a federal one. If that were true, I'm sure the majority of states, including Indiana, would outlaw them. Other states wouldn't like California and Illinois. That would at least make it harder to get one and would hopefully give more pause to men and women about their actions.

 

[buckstopshere]

I suppose the question of abortion rights hinges on whether or not you consider an unborn fetus (a dehumanizing term popularized by pro-choice advocates) a human being with separate rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. For every woman who has a child raped into her womb, there are a million women who just find it inconvenient to have a baby; who either don't or won't take responsibility for the act which created the baby; who either didn't have the judgment or didn't take the time to vet the prospective sperm donor before she spread her legs and said "yes", or just wanted to have fun because if she conceived she could go to Planned Parenthood, who will assure her that it's not really a baby, right up until after they've killed it.

When abortion was a 'back alley' procedure, at least women gave some serious thought to the consequences of having intercourse out of wedlock and men were generally held to account if they got a woman pregnant, and communities tended to discourage both sorts of people. People used to recognize that they were responsible for the consequences of their actions; they also used to realize that bad things happen to people whether it is their fault or not, and, believe it or not, most people used to be able to recognize the difference without the intervention of a lawyer or the courts.

I think my wife says it well. She says that she is very pro-choice. You can choose a condom, the pill, the shot, the sponge, a spermicide, or abstinence. Your choice is before, not after.

 

[hacksawfg]

The black convertible had none but that's not the spirit of the discussion. Perhaps you could use that clip for someone pregnant from rape as the black convertible was certainly not a willing participant.

Had the black convertible been drag racing another car, that would be a more appropriate comparison.

I do know several women who have had abortions that didn't give it a second thought although I'm sure there are women who struggled and regretted it later.

The argument over when life begins ends up being a spiritual one which creates room for debate. What isn't debatable, barring unwilling participation, is two people made a choice to have sex knowing that it could lead to pregnancy. Their direct actions led to the pregnancy. Someone else has to pay for their mistake?

Again, I say that people don't have a problem with making it illegal to have an abortion a week before the due date so it's not an issue of what the .gov can mandate what we can and can't do with our bodies, it's just the timing of it.

Besides, take the emotion out of it and abortion plays right into the agenda of those who support eugenics.

I should add that I'm with Rambone on the fact that it should be a state issue, not a federal one. If that were true, I'm sure the majority of states, including Indiana, would outlaw them. Other states wouldn't like California and Illinois. That would at least make it harder to get one and would hopefully give more pause to men and women about their actions.

Only put the car crash to illustrate that it's not always a willing or irresponsible person who can have bad things happen.

I completely agree with the spiritual nature of determining when life actually begins. I'm a spiritual person myself. I really don't have a clue when life actually begins, because I can see both sides of the argument.

Do we have a soul before we have a brain? Can we say that a human not yet born WANTS to live if it doesn't know what a want is? In a country with freedom of religion (or to not practice religion), can we make things illegal based upon only ONE interpretation of when life begins? It's a hard question, and one that the federal government has no business even trying to define. There are better uses of their time and taxpayer funded salaries. I could live with leaving it up to the states to decide, if it meant the federal government got out of the argument forever.

 

[foszoe]

Murder laws belong at the state level. You'll notice that each state handles murder in its own way. The same standard should be held for abortion. Nothing good can come from having a sweeping Federal decision on the matter. That leads to decisions like Roe v. Wade, which I oppose.

So if a state population outlaws abortion and equates it with murder as you have done there is no issue for you?

Is the right to life preserved by state or federal constitutions or both?

 

[foszoe]

How many want to make it illegal for a poor woman to get an abortion and then ***** because she goes on Medicaid and welfare to pay for it?

I personally believe that life begins at conception. For those that want abortion illegal. Where lengths do we go to to protect the unborn? Mandated prenatal visits so we can then demean her for being a welfare queen? Drug tests to make sure she's not harming the baby? Daily breathylizers? Smoking bans for mothers? This slippery slope goes both ways.

No you don't. If you did you would also be arguing for murderer laws to be repealed.
a law against murder is enough. Its not very libertarian to want more than what is already on the books.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I think we have come to the conclusion that you will not woo the Libertarian vote by enacting more criminal laws.

Authoritarianism is the opposite side of the spectrum, and is a conflicting philosophy.

 

[hacksawfg]

So if a state population outlaws abortion and equates it with murderer as you have done their is no issue for you?

Is the right to life preserved by state or federal constitutions or both?

I believe murders are prosecuted by the state, although the state can cede power to the government if a resident of one state commits a murder in another state. Otherwise the federal gov't only prosecutes if the crime is committed on Federal government property, against a Federal employee, etc.

If a state wants to outlaw abortion that's of their choosing. As it is not stated in the Constitution as a power given to the government, it is the states responsibility to decide. Again, the complicated issue of determining when LIFE actually begins (to which there isn't one absolutely irrefutable answer short of birth) makes it impossible to say if it's murder or not. If you believe that life starts at conception, it's murder. If you believe life starts when the baby can survive on its own WITH medical assistance, then before that time under that definition it wouldn't be taking a life.

Nobody can have a 100% right answer to a question based on beliefs.

 

[hornadylnl]

No you don't. If you did you would also be arguing for murderer laws to be repealed.
a law against murder is enough. Its not very libertarian to want more than what is already on the books.

What does this have to do with my post you quoted?

 

[Cerberus]

Yes, I see now. Passing laws prohibiting something actually makes it worse. I'm converted. In the spirit of true libertarianism, let's repeal all the laws. People will be less likely to murder, rape, and pillage without Big Brother telling him he shouldn't.

Murders happen every day, rapes happen every day, pillaging happens every day (in some part of the world or another) and I can tell you there is not a single place on the planet that all the above are not outlawed, yet they still happen. So just how the hell have any of those wonderful laws helped? Like I've said millions of times, we can't even get the 6 commandments that deal with relations with our neighbors right, so just how will adding lots more help?

The Romans and Greeks were arguing these same points thousands of years ago, and we still haven't learned this one simple fact; MORE LAWS=LESS JUSTICE!!!!!!!

 

[BrianJacobsen]

Prohibitions have never worked, never. They often have the opposite effect.

That's a little simplistic, by your lights there should be no prohibition on murder, right? As you say, no prohibitions work after all.

I would suggest you acquaint yourself with the phrase 'malim in se.'

Also, the reason I am not a Libertarian is because I believe in ordered liberty. I believe there is an implicit understanding in every society undergirding all the rights and laws. IMHO the reason Libertarianism has such a tough time gaining traction is an unwillingness to recognize this fundamental constant of human nature.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I believe murders are prosecuted by the state, although the state can cede power to the government if a resident of one state commits a murder in another state. Otherwise the federal gov't only prosecutes if the crime is committed on Federal government property, against a Federal employee, etc.

If a state wants to outlaw abortion that's of their choosing. As it is not stated in the Constitution as a power given to the government, it is the states responsibility to decide. Again, the complicated issue of determining when LIFE actually begins (to which there isn't one absolutely irrefutable answer short of birth) makes it impossible to say if it's murder or not. If you believe that life starts at conception, it's murder. If you believe life starts when the baby can survive on its own WITH medical assistance, then before that time under that definition it wouldn't be taking a life.

Nobody can have a 100% right answer to a question based on beliefs.

The bolded section seems to me to be the central issue. If it is not alive, it cannot be "murdered". We cannot define a single, objective point at which the fetus is or is not alive. Some believe at conception; for that matter, some seem to believe that even interfering with that conception is the equivalent of murder. Others say that birth is the defining point, but honestly, what is the difference between a fetus at 9:59 AM and a baby at 10:00 AM? Can we, with any level of integrity, say that that one minute makes such a objective difference? If we can, at what point during gestation is the right "one minute"? Can we truly say that the point life begins is the moment before he (the prospective father) puts on a condom?

It all comes down to belief. I don't want laws that conform to nor restrict my life based on the beliefs of any one person or group of people. I want laws that exist to be based in objective fact, not subjective opinion.



Blessings,
Bill