-4 votes

An Attempt at an Unbiased & Libertarian Stance on Abortion

Seeing as us all being individuals with our own beliefs... no one has the right to define "life" as it's a subjective term. Polarizing that with your religious belief or lack of religious belief doesn't change the fact that there are libertarian principles on both sides of the argument (the liberty of the mother versus child in different circumstances) and no conclusive evidence to bring us to one defined "beginning of life".

Example: Science aside, one religion might define life at conception while another might define it at birth. As a libertarian you respect another person enough to not force your subjective beliefs on someone else.

Because of this, we can only use conclusive evidence to determine an "individual". It sounds cold, and I know this because I myself am pro-life in the sense that I wouldn't take the risk of killing an unborn "person" myself if I were pregnant, but at the scientific end regarding a woman's body... until viability... the unborn child is still a part of her as it wouldn't sustain life without her... the mother being a host to the child just as necessary organs are a "mother" of an appendage. An arm or leg wouldn't survive if you inserted an active brain into it and cut it off. Again I know it's cold, but conclusive evidence shows we're possibly just meat and flesh.

As an agnostic, someone that sees only supporting evidence on both sides of the theist/atheist argument of whether or not god exists, and no conclusive evidence in sight, I can only focus on trying to be a good person. This also allows me to be less biased regarding areas of belief.

(Yes, believing there is no god is still a belief with its own faith system. You can be an atheist your entire life, die, and find out there's a heaven... meaning you could find out you were wrong. If you could have been wrong in that situation in the future... then you can be wrong right now. You have faith that there isn't a god because all of your conclusive evidence of what IS proven is in itself your only supporting evidence to that which is not existent.)

In conclusion, my stance is that the most libertarian law regarding abortion would be that it were legal up till viability, even though I myself wouldn't do it if it were me. Your personal belief may disagree with that from either side of the pro-choice/pro-life stance, but as a libertarian, you can't impose your personal subjective beliefs and definitions of a word on others.

What do you think?

(This was originally going to be at the end of another post, but it became longer than the post itself so figured it deserved it's own topic for discussion and reference: http://www.dailypaul.com/262272/which-party-is-closer-to-lib... )



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I think this sub-discussion needs to be brought back to the fron

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2824839

I have an article on Margaret Sanger right here
Submitted by Susie 4 Liberty on Thu, 11/08/2012 - 09:36.

by my computer.

Was 'introduced' to her by a dear friend, a Nurse, when I was in my early twenties. If you do some serious reading about her, your 'attitude' toward this 'movement' m i g h t change.

Anyone a Eugenics promoter?
Anyone? Anyone?

Susie 4 Liberty

========

This is an excellent point.
Submitted by FBI_Exposer Ω™ on Thu, 11/08/2012 - 11:47. Permalink

It has been the agenda of the elites to dwindle the population for over 100 years now, with the most efficient way being for people of the masses to CHOOSE INDEPENDENTLY to eliminate THEIR OWN genetic lines.

Margaret Sanger, founder of planned parenthood, studied with NAZI eugenicists in the early 30s and wrote about it. She also wrote that she founded planned parenthood SPECIFICALLY so Jews and blacks would kill their own babies so she could rid society of "dysgenic" genetic stock.

They found it was actually more efficient to make this a civil rights issue.

People can be so gullible.

If you think about it in the REALLY, REALLY long run, the best way to defeat the elites is to reproduce your own genetic line as prolifically as possible. (Which interestingly is also what the bible and religion tells you to do too. Maybe they know something about evil and how to fight it?)

Walter Block on Evictionism

Walter Block believes he's found a philosophically consitent stance on abortion for libertarians, it's called evictionism.

Here's a link: http://youtu.be/QNTAmwUHcLM

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

video unavailable

hmm

The objections to his view make more sense than his rebuttals to them. but at least he doesn't argue that the unborn is not a person.

The implied contract argument could probably be better formulated by merging it with the positive obligation argument. If some woman chooses to play a game in which there is a possibility that some unviable hospitalized man would be physically attached to her so that removal or eviction of him would lead to his death, the woman chose to take the risk of the attachment, the man didn't choose the attachment. Once you plug the life support system into your remote house, you can't just unplug it on a whim.

he also seems to argue that it's better to be born for a few moments than to not have been conceived at all, and that is supposed to justify forcing a premature eviction of an unviable fetus. but even if a situation is better than another, that doesn't make it a moral thing to do. it might be better to have one hand chopped off than to be aborted, but that doesn't mean its ok for parents to chop off their kids hands on a whim.

bollocks

when the new strand of human DNA is created, we have another human being.
as for the life support the "host" gives, it's called responsability for your own actions.

.ro

I believe that every instant

From when (I'm going to be blunt here) the sperm meets the egg on is a critical stage in the development of a human life, or any life for that matter, & cannot be minimized with language that diminishes the precious gift that life is to this planet & every other life that it comes into contact with. I personally am not a mother & have never been pregnant. My boyfriend & I have been together for 10 years. Really, there are so many ways to prevent pregnancy these days, so if you do get pregnant & decide not to keep the baby, please put it up for adoption so someone who decides not to have child of their own has a choice, too. I think at least some mothers would even want to keep the baby just because motherhood is such a natural & beautiful thing. The war on women is this so-called "progressive" propaganda telling women to let their bodies become a temple for human sacrifice.

That being said, from a libertarian standpoint, it is not up to the government to decide this issue. The government reflects the people & when the morality of the people changes, this will no longer be a debate...It will be friggin' biology 101! Helloooo....

I Agree with OP and I look to the Bible

Most of the Bible talks about life in terms of breath or breathing. Spirit is air. I'm not saying I believe that strictly metaphysically, but I would say that I think human life (not biological life etc.) begins with and is coincident with breathing and breath. Not as a strict legal standard, but as a general and abstract ethical standard.

So this means that a child's first breath is the abstract beginning of its life. However, viability would imply the ability to take a first breath, so things like partial birth abortion represent 'cheating' and depriving the child of what would have inherently been life.

I do think a viable baby 'owns' the womb, not the mother - though she owns her body (so if she starved herself and the baby died it wouldn't be ethically wrong, but intentional intrusion into the womb with suction tubes and pincers would be - against the baby).

The mother does have a right, in a sense, to have the baby removed - but with all reasonable care taken to protect the life of the child. This means carrying to term if necessary.

On the other hand, a pregnancy in its first month or two is certainly NOT viable. The mother would have every right to have the embryo removed.

Because viability is hard to define and indeed can occur earlier and earlier in pregnancy, and because abortion itself walks such a thin ethical line I propose this legal solution for the issue:

CONCLUSION

A woman may obtain an abortion if she makes the decision upon first discovering pregnancy. Reasonable time is given for both discovery and arranging for the procedure, appx. 3 months. This window also represents a reasonable amount of time in which the embryo has not become viable. Abortion may therefore be an immediate reaction to pregnancy, but must be restricted beyond that. At some point the fetus becomes viable and implicitly will gain life at first breath, therefore its presence in the womb must be protected.

Anyway, that's my opinion. A woman has the minimum reasonable time after pregnancy to obtain an abortion, otherwise she elects to bring the child to term. I find that to be leaps and bounds healthier than some arbitrary trimester, or even those who claim abortion is 100% A-OK

In an anarcho society of course, only a father would have claim here, and ultimately there's little he could do. Also, God would ultimately be responsible for eternal moral type consequences and our laws are rather insignificant in that light.

I know I'm going to get HATE for this comment

Humans are so freaking arrogant at their own existence.

The same people who are so ProLife/AntiAbortion do not distinguish between human life and life in general.

This alone is absurd.

If a 'possibly' venomous spider approaches your child, you'll kill it without remorse or thought. Same for any number of species. Stomp, crunch, dead.

To hold the life of a human so far above any other life in existence is admirable, if you're human. Not so much for the other 'life'

Since when did the Golden Rule apply only to humans?

I'm not saying an unborn child is a threat to anyone. No fangs, venom or otherwise.

That's not my point.

If you're ProLife, you must be Pro ALL LIFE or you're a hypocrite.

Just like a Sgt has never met an Atheist in a Foxhole, I've never met a ProLifer in the middle of a Venomous Snakepit

One day, I'm gonna' change my name to Dale Lee Paul

this is a joke right?

this is a joke right?

Do you not eat vegetables? or do you think it's just ok to kill anything as if it's a mosquito?

Agree to disagree.

That is the best that can ever come of this discussion.
I suggest men get written consent to bear and raise children from any and all women they have sex with every time they have sex with them. That would cut way down on abortions without getting the government involved. And it puts you in control of YOUR sperm, which is really the only sperm you have to worry about.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

if viability determines

If viability determines the right to live, we would have to apply it across the board.. no more life support systems for old people or post accident people who want to live.. they would be just as out of luck as the unborn.

It's not the same.

LIFE itself, above anything else, determines right to life! Nothing would trump that. And once you are BORN, there is no question you are alive. It's a fact. On the other hand, a definition of "life" for the UNBORN is subjective. Depending on one's personal opinion it might be defined differently: at conception, when viable, upon one's first breath, or some other parameter. There might be valid issues concerning life support, but there is no reason why a subjective parameter pertaining to the unborn would need to apply to any other life stage or personal circumstance.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

um

'Life' is not in question; nobody argues that the growing organism inside the mother with its own unique DNA is not alive. It has it's own living tissue. Personhood is the thing that some people fudge with, not life. The problem is that the criteria used to dehumanize the unborn needs to be consistent. Consistency is the foundation of any logical argument. You can't say viability determines personhood with the unborn but not with the born. You'd be begging the question, presupposing that the unborn is less of a person before you even address the question, a logical fallacy, completely unreasonable approach. With breath, what if the baby is fully born at a water birthing center, and is swimming around still attached by the umbilical cord; you are saying it would be ok to kill the swimming baby (which is already born and is outside of the mother, looking around) because it hasn't had it's cord cut yet and isn't breathing air yet? If breathing is a requirement for personhood, then iron lungs shouldn't be made, and CPR would be an unnecessary practice. People would be allowed to kill you when you're holding your breath while swimming underwater. Size and location are other failed criteria which don't negate personhood from other stages of human life. If there is any doubt about if the unborn baby is a person or not, we should act on the side of caution. We don't demolish buildings if there are some doubts about all of the people having vacated it.

Yes, yes, I know that "life"

is not in question. By "life" I meant "life as a person," i.e., personhood, what's implied in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." I'll grant you an interesting argument as to demolition of a building, although as you admit, it hinges on "people" possibly still being inside. And so, it goes back to... what defines a person. (P.S. Thank you for using the phrase "begging the question" correctly! :)) However, it is NOT that I am presupposing that the unborn is "less of a person" before the question is even addressed, but acknowledging that before one is born the issue of what defines life/personhood is *subjective*. As to your example of the water birthing center, a baby swimming around still attached by the umbilical cord, (and by the way, *I* am not saying anything, but), yes, IF someone believed that there was a salient aspect of our humanness dependent on whether we'd taken our first breath ~ which some believe is related to the spirit, as in body, soul, & spirit (etymology can be illuminating) then that believed-to-be breathless/spiritless soul would not be defined as a full-fledged person. (It's that first breath that would infuse the spirit that is important.) I don't claim to have the answer, the right definition. But what I can appreciate is that it is SUBJECTIVE, an opinion, of which there are several different opinions. And it's something that is not likely to be proven, as the parameters themselves are subjective. What is accepted by all as fact, despite your various examples of extenuating circumstances, is that you are, at the very least, a bona fide person once you are BORN. Going back to ancient times, we've dated a person's LIFE from birth. The Jews circumcised on the eighth day from birth, not viability, not the development of a brain or spinal cord, not from gestation. And so, given that beyond that it amounts to one's opinion, I see no reason why my opinion should force a decision on your perhaps differing opinion and belief system and visa versa. IF some people feel it is murder or for some other reason immoral to have an abortion, the onus would be on those people to try to convince others to *choose* not to have an abortion. Personally, I'm far more concerned with the plight of so many BORN children living in poverty and other unfortunate circumstances, beginning right here in America, than I am about the unborn and abortion issue. I realize that the two are not mutually exclusive, but we do have our priorities. See Don't Mock The Lady. http://www.dailypaul.com/256728/dont-mock-the-lady-obama-sup...

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

um....

You say: "I'll grant you an interesting argument as to demolition of a building, although as you admit, it hinges on "people" possibly still being inside. And so, it goes back to... what defines a person."

You miss the point. The argument is that if there is any "doubt" about a person being in the building, the demolition doesn't happen. If there is an ongoing debate about what defines a person, or about whether or not people are in the building, the demolition doesn't happen. You can't say: "Well some people think there are people in the house and others don't, so we cant tell the demolisher to stop". The controversy alone should be reason enough to stop. because of what is at stake. If the unborn is not a person and its ok to kill them, then nothing is wrong with celebrating it and making game shows about having the most freaky abortions, but if the unborn is a person, playing semantic games to try to allow its death is an immoral form of dehumanization.

Where do you get the idea that some arbitrary view of personhood is implied in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? If we are all "created" equal, The point of creation seems significant, and it seems that it would have to be recognized as when a unique life form was brought into existence. You can't say that the living organism in the womb doesn't exist.

Since you bring up the bible, why is there a penalty for harming an unborn child in the old testament? also consider this: Luke 1:44 "For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy." This demonstrates personality of the baby in the womb prior to breathing through the face. I remember feeling my baby move in my wifes womb when the baby had hiccups. after the baby was born, she would still get the same hiccups. A baby in the womb is the same baby when it is moved outside of the womb.. in the womb, they get oxygen through the umbilical cord, after the cord is cut, the only thing that changes is the source of the oxygen. have you seen those videos of babies in the womb smiling and stuff?

At one point you acknowledge the water birth scenario but mention the first breath taken without the umbilical cord would have some mystical significance in defining personhood, but then you say it is a fact that you are "...a bona fide person once you are BORN". However, the water birth scenario included a baby who was born, but hadn't had it's cord cut yet. So personhood is not contingent upon breathing.

You say: "I'm far more concerned with the plight of so many BORN children living in poverty"
So do you view poverty as more serious of an offense than taking someone's life?

It's proving too difficult a venue

to be discussing the issue. What should be a philosophical discussion only gets reduced to one of semantics. The point I was making was, there is surely SOME point that we can all agree on (*we* meaning reasonable, sane adults) such that there is no question that, as of that point, a baby is a full-fledged human being in its own right. You want to throw in these extenuating circumstances as if "exceptions." All they are doing is helping to *locate* that point. I think you're being picayune to argue what it even means to be BORN. But okay. For the purpose of argument, so as include your water-birthing example, I'll clarify that I'm talking about 1) being separated from the mother, and 2) taking a first breath. (Feel free to offer some other salient agreed-upon *stage* instead.) I THINK that, regardless of different opinions as to abortion, all would agree that a baby that has been separated from its mother and taken its first breath has LIFE and PERSONHOOD. If it's so weak it only remained alive for two minutes, it nonetheless had a life on this earth. Whatever that *earliest* stage is that all reasonable people understand to be FACT that a baby is a person and bona fide member of the human race (and it is what it is), in my opinion, it is that point at which a deliberate act to kill the individual, i.e., take away its life, would be considered "murder." Earlier than that, it would remain *subjective*.

You said, "Where do you get the idea that some arbitrary view of personhood is implied in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?"" I wouldn't use the word "arbitrary" myself, as that implies "randomness" ~ as opposed to "with reason." But seeing as those terms are not defined, they are left open to interpretation. And, reasonable people can disagree as to their definition. I don't see that your raising the issue that we are all "created equal" is appropos to this argument. The operative word there is "equal." The "we" who are created refers to "persons," which is at issue, the whole point of this discussion.

And that "doubt" about a person being alive in a building about to be demolished might be doubt in *your* mind. To someone else there may no doubt whatsoever that NO one alive is in the building. What you are saying is that because some people have doubt, then their doubts should set the rule, indeed the law, for all. I disagree. I say the onus of responsibility is on the one who is (so-called by you, in choosing this analogy) doing the "demolishing," i.e., the mother. And if *that* person has doubts, I'd say that that person should act accordingly. Or potentially, at least in his own eyes, be guilty of murder.

As to my reference to Jews and circumcision, I wasn't making a religious statement, but simply using that as a time frame I'm aware of. That is, for thousands of years, back to ancient times, we have dated a person's life from that person's birth, i.e., the day it was born. As to your New Testament reference, I don't claim to understand how things work. I maintain that, from a legal standpoint, parameters should regard what can be established through fact.

There is also the issue (here as elsewhere!) of conflicting rights ~ in this case, even if one did consider an unborn child a person of its own ~ the rights of the mother and rights of that unborn child. That's a whole different issue. But given that there is something of a parasitic relationship, the mother being the host, it's something else that needs to be considered. In that case, of course (depending on how one views the unborn child), one could say the unborn child didn't ask to be in that situation! But there is also the issue of simply one's body being one's own. Given that I do not believe it can be established that abortion is akin to murder, I do not believe that the government has a right to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her own body.

Because so much is subjective, I feel that the abortion issue is one that should be left to the individual. But given that there is disagreement among reasonable adults, under no circumstance should any government/collective funds be used to facilitate abortions; and under no circumstance should a doctor or nurse be forced to participate in an abortion.

You asked, "So do you view poverty as more serious of an offense than taking someone's life?" Your question is too general for me to feel comfortable giving a reply. (How are you defining life!) If you are asking which is worse ~ a six year old living in poverty or a six year killed in a drive-by, I consider the taking of the child's life to be the more serious offense. Other than that, I'll only repeat that the plight of children in this country living in poverty, children already born, is of far more concern to me than the unborn and the abortion issue.

As I said before, IF someone (or some religious organization) felt that abortion was immoral, no less akin to murder, then I think that person (or religious organization) would do well to try to persuade others to *choose* not to have an abortion. I think people like you and some others here would do better to try and change hearts ~ winning friends, if not souls, while alienating no one ~ than to try to change laws in line with your own beliefs to apply to all, alienating many while (even if successful) doing nothing to create a more moral society. You can create a society of law-abiders (think of those Pharisees, or Eastern Europe under communist rule); you cannot legislate morality. Morality is about making moral choices of one's free will. Love is the motivator, not the promise of reward nor avoidance of punishment.

And yes, I've seen some of those incredible images of babies in the womb. Here's a TED talk you might be interested to see. http://www.ted.com/talks/alexander_tsiaras_conception_to_bir...

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

my mom smoked when she was pregnant with some fetus I entered?

"If it's so weak it only remained alive for two minutes, it nonetheless had a life on this earth."

I'm reminded of Ron Paul seeing the aborted baby moving.

"Whatever that *earliest* stage is that all reasonable people understand to be FACT that a baby is a person and bona fide member of the human race (and it is what it is), in my opinion, it is that point at which a deliberate act to kill the individual, i.e., take away its life, would be considered "murder." Earlier than that, it would remain *subjective*."

Consensus doesn't equal truth. Ideally, we should follow the best argument rather than the most popular one. The fact that people have different opinions doesn't mean that all of those opinions are subjective points. Reality is not determined by peoples beliefs. The unborn is not a person with one parent and a non-person with another parent. Either the unborn is a person or it isn't, regardless of opinions.

"But seeing as those terms are not defined, they are left open to interpretation"

Words have meaning in and of themselves. Context is also very important, but I don't see where you exegete a distinction between life and personhood from that text. It seems more like you are doing eisegesis to me( that is importing a concept not found in the text itself). You can look at dictionaries from that era to see the meanings of words.

"I don't see that your raising the issue that we are all "created equal" is appropos to this argument."

My point was that it says the equality exists at creation, and existence implies the creation was completed, and you existed in your mothers womb.

"To someone else there may no doubt whatsoever that NO one alive is in the building. What you are saying is that because some people have doubt, then their doubts should set the rule, indeed the law, for all."

If a demolition man thinks it's empty and someone else says, 'Hey, you've made a mistake, there is someone in there that you didn't notice', the demolition man 'should' stop. The point is, if the demolition man is wrong, there is a lot at stake, so it is best to be cautious. But The abortionist side of the argument doesn't usually say: "we know that there is no personhood", they say "We don't think personhood can be established".. you even said this: "I do not believe it can be established that abortion is akin to murder". It's like saying: "well, since we can't check if people are inside the building during a blackout at night, we just go ahead and demolish buildings during blackouts at night anyways." If there is some contention on the matter, they should make 'sure' no body is in there. I don't think personhood is something beyond comprehension, and I don't see justification for distinguishing it from human life. A living human being at any stage is a person. We might say, "my mom smoked when she was pregnant with 'me'". Identity doesn't change.. we don't say.. "my mom smoked when she was pregnant with some fetus that I later entered." or " I only have one hand because someone harmed some fetus that was in my mother, but that fetus wasn't me, even though I bear it's scars"

"I think people like you and some others here would do better to try and change hearts"

That is important, and that is what is being attempted here, but not everyone will change. And how could you apply that to people who like to murder adults? Morality is the only thing you can legislate. All laws have something to do with morality. The killing of human individuals at any stage is definitely something government should deal with. Of course, the states should deal with it rather than federal government.

Say what?

Biologically speaking, life begins at conception. According to biologist Scott Gilbert, a thing is always that certain thing regardless of the stage of life. “Traditional ways of classifying catalog animals according to their adult structure. But, as J. T. Bonner (1965) pointed out, this is a very artificial method, because what we consider an individual is usually just a brief slice of its life cycle. When we consider a dog, for instance, we usually picture an adult. But the dog is a “dog” from the moment of fertilization of a dog egg by a dog sperm. It remains a dog even as a senescent dying hound. Therefore, the dog is actually the entire life cycle of the animal, from fertilization through death.”
For instance, if Ping Ping the pregnant Panda's fetus were to die in the womb, it would be equivalent to a delivered baby panda bear dying, because it is the same baby but at an earlier stage in life.
Any libertarian who supports abortion is placing the rights of the mother above those of the child.

"The Yankee is compelled to toil to make the world go around."
-Admiral Raphael Semmes, CSN
http://standrewsnews.org

Here my libertarian stance

Here my libertarian stance FWIW.

1. Women of course have the right to choose.
2. But if she chooses to abort she is choosing to murder
3. Murder is infringing the right to life and against the law.

Transitioning to Octobox' Stance

Rather than putting my comment under an Octobox comment, I would first of all like to thank him and give a five year observation of many of his posts.

Octobox comes from a wide knowledge base and makes excellent arguments for a true Free Market society while pointing out what that would look like. He also through the years comes from his "Box" ...some, not me, might even call it a soap box. My observation is that he remains in that box in order to encourage people to think and he does it rather astutely. May not be his intention; however, it is for some the result.

Having said that, there obviously is a transition to Octobox thinking if he is correct. What is that transition? This thread went for a long period of time with "No" up or down-votes, which I believe indictes that it is an area where there is much division because few would agree that abortion is a "good" thing; however we are trying to discern where individual rights begin and end even if some might contain within them something that appears evil, often from a long held religious standpoint. I am not pro-abortion on religious/moral grounds. However, I am against my position being legislated at the federal level.

Isn't, then, the necessary transition to not allow the Federal Government to legislate morals, but rather, as Ron Paul, has advocated, allow local governments, States, to make this decision based upon the convictions of its residents.

It is much easier to debate the "sanctity of life" and become active in advocating it from a smaller majority/minority base. There is also more possibility that your voice/vote will be counted. In doing so, one is not saying they advocate "murder" or free choice in all areas, but rather acknowledging that there are areas where we are not advanced enough as a society for majority consensus. So we work toward consensus in the interim.

((Note to Octobox: LOL ...in the past I have acknowledged that I am not your intellectual equal and not a worthy sparing partner. I appreciate and learn from your posts. They make me think. I agree with your opinions on what a free market would look like, in fact, you are one of the few who has described it on the DP. I believe there has to be transitions or there would be chaos with many imposing their will upon others and little opportunity for evolvement in thinking.)

fonta

Even though I am staunchly pro-life.

The fact is that the constitution does NOT address the subject. Ron Paul has been clear on this matter as well.

If the constitution doesn't address it, it is not a federal matter, period end of story.

It is a matter for the states to decide for better or worse.

If you do not understand this, you do not understand the constitution nor Ron Paul and never did.

It is very possible that the founding fathers never had this issue in mind ever because the mere thought of it was so foreign and disgusting they could never IMAGINE that anyone ever would choose to kill an unborn child.

Nevertheless, if you start opening up constitutional meaning to things IT DOES NOT SAY, then anyone can for any reason. Hence, it's a state matter, not a federal matter based on the strict reading of the WORD of the constitution.

While I agree with this, the

While I agree with this, the policy will eventually have to be settled at a federal level. What happens when someone from Texas tries to cross the border into Mexico or New Mexico to get an abortion, and the Texas authorities try and stop her? Then it becomes a federal issue as it is a dispute between the states, and moreover probably a violation of many, many constitutional rights if the Texas government tries to prevent a girl from crossing the border. If she gets an abortion and they try and subpoena her medical records, then again it becomes a federal issue and a question of privacy.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

How is what you describe a dispute between states?

An individual state is also perfectly capable of regulating whether it can be done for in-staters or out-of-staters.

It is the person transiting not goods or services, hence not interstate commerce.

You make the assumption "it must be settled at the federal level."

No it mustn't, unless you hate the constitution and what it actually SAYS.

Look, don't put me into a position here to defend this. I abhor abortion and believe it is straight up murder.
That said I also abhor people who do not follow the strict BLACK AND WHITE word of the constitution.

But the constitution doesn't address murder either, which is CLEARLY a matter that states have legislated.

Not interstate commerce, but

Not interstate commerce, but what if Texas didn't want New Mexico to give an abortion to a resident of Texas who had moved over? What if New Mexico demanded Texas give an abortion to a New Mexican resident on vacation in Texas (she needed it to save her life)? What if states start demanding that other states share medical records of its residents? This can become disasterous.

There is something in the constitution about this: "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

Moreover, equal protection. Arguablym a state cannot outlaw murder against the born but then allow it against the unborn.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

A state can't regulate what people do outside of their own state

I can't even believe you bring this up as an example.

Again, please do not put me in the position of defending this as I abjectly abhor it.

But in terms of the strict words of the US constitution, I'm sorry it's just not in there. Again the constitution is meant to RESTRICT federal power not give "guidelines" for operation.

Anything not EXPLICITLY mentioned in the constitution as a federal power is out of scope for the federal government, if you believe in the constitution anyway.

Like I said, the Equal

Like I said, the Equal Protection Clause and the 14th amendment would explicity forbid states from allowing abortion.

I also quote the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Basic constituion understanding

The federal constitution does not bind the states. It binds the federal government.

There is 1 and only 1 proscription in there insofar as what the federal government may impose upon the states which is a guarantee of a republican form of government.

Seriously, guys, you call yourselves constitutionalists. Does anyone around here read?

1) The situation I am

1) The situation I am describing is an inevitability. You say that states have no rights over people that are not in their states; some people will not be happy with that. For example, if a Texan goes to NM to get an abortion, the people of Texas will presumably get angry and demand that NM not give abortions to Texas residents in NM.

2) Ridiculous. The 14th amendment specifically applies to the states, binding them to equal protection and not depriving their residents their rights without due process.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

You are not viable, the government will send a drone to bomb you

It has been determined that you are a worthless eater.

Your spouse is a worthless eater.

Your children are little piggies (aka, worthless eaters).

You parents are past retirement and are no longer paying enough taxes to cover their carbon credits and their methane output levels exceed their usefulness too.

Thus the execution van will be out searching for you all soon if the drone hits when you are not at home.

.

If you refuse to defend the innocent, don't expect to be defended yourself.

.

Ron Paul got it right

Go back to Ron Paul's story about the fetus crying in a bucket till it died (he was there). All the people that were there tried to pretend it wasn't there. All I can say that if it were you watching that scenario in person would your belief in the subjectivity of that baby's viability ease your aching heart?!

-Bloatedtoad