-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... )

Comment viewing options

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

The unquestionable truth about RP

1. Paul assumes that he, a religion, or government has a right to determine when "life" starts... even though it's impossible to define a subjective term with varying personal beliefs.

His religion believes that life starts at conception, while another might say at birth.

Because we cannot define "life" with our subjective personal beliefs... we need to use something else to determine when the fetus can be considered its own person to in turn then have the "right to 'life'".

2. The only definitive and objective thing we can look at is the property rights of body parts and the relation between them.

The egg is part of a woman's body and turns itself into a zygote once it receives a new strand of DNA via the sperm. The sperm is a cell of a body that has a certain lifespan, and in so, can be equated to a patch live skin cells that are cut off of someone's body, no longer of being part of them as part of themselves, but instead their property. Once the man voluntarily gives up those cells to someone else, they are no longer his own and they are now property. The parts that make up this vessel for the strand of DNA decomposes into either waste or nutrients just as food is when we ingest it and even regarding the transference of nutrients and waste to and from the fetus.

In the transformation of the egg to zygote, it's still the ownership of the woman's body, as it never left the posession

3. Your usage of the word "right" is subjective as you're referring to your personal moral belief. Seeing as "Liberty" is not intertwined, but only related, to our personal beliefs... as one secures the other for us individually while the other if forced on others unsecures someone's liberty. That being the case, you can't use your personal morals/beliefs to define liberty.

Libertarian principle is at its core to do ANYTHING you want (real freedom) for the sake of securing your happiness as long as it doesn't impede on someone else's pursuit of the same.

Libertarian principle is NOT the adherence to what you or your religious belief believe is right or wrong and then enforcing those morals on others.

4. You would make a better Constitution party member than libertarian philosopher. They are well known for interpreting the Constitution to fit their personal beliefs so they can then enforce their beliefs on others... the very opposite of libertarian principle.

Just because Paul is an honest man who sticks to his principles of attempting to preserve what he thinks are others' liberties, doesn't make him the #1 expert on libertarian principle. I'm not claiming I'm an expert either, or that I have the willpower to act like a libertarian in every aspect of my life (as we are all human and are flawed). That doesn't mean I haven't made valid points and counter-arguments with sound logic and evidence that invalidate your positions and own arguments.

I doubt Paul himself would have a counter-argument to this aside from trying to express the "violence" of abortion as trying to set a religiously biased ("'life' at conception") example.

(And before you question how I feel about RP, please feel free to check out my car. Just because I support his message doesn't mean I think he's perfect. He's the first person to admit that he's not... even if it seems like he is by comparison to most.)

- https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=338951979457683&set=...
- https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=338952229457658&set=...)

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

You keep talking about the

You keep talking about the woman's body, but what if the fetus is a female? So you're choosing one female's rights over another's? Sounds like you're the one enforcing your 'religious' beliefs on others by attempting to redefine the natural and obvious. It's like your calling other people's observations 'religious' gets your brain off the hook somehow and makes you immune to falling into your own biased beliefs.

You seem to ignore that it is no longer only the mother's body, and conveniently overlook the body forming within her. She can't just will the other body to go away. Science can confirm it's not just her body anymore if you insist on twisting the obvious...she can't just tell herself 'hmmm, I want the nutrition in this food to ONLY go to me. Hmmm, I don't want to get fat, hmmm, I will just tell this entity in me to stop and go away naturally'. Won't happen. To rid the body inside her is to terminate a life. Heck, we might as well tell our leg that it's pissing us off and to just leave because it's violating our rights when it causes us to trip while we're at it, and that's on a much smaller scale since it doesn't have its own set of organs like a fetus does. The pro-choice logic is insular and leaks like a sieve.

Phxarcher87's picture

Your claims have been shown to be baseless and invalidate nothin

The claim that I give thanks to my mother for being a christian, Validates my life.
As for everyone else s mother who decided the opposite, well they really don't get a choice to.

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" - Mark Twain

Twisting the obvious meaning of words and fallacies...

1. My "baseless claims" comment was clearly not referring to whether or not you're thankful for the consequences of circumstance regarding someone's religion that they were capable of following the rules of even though many "Christians" still get abortions. Be thankful that your mother didn't "sin" in the eyes of your personal subjective beliefs... but what's a "sin" in your eyes isn't in everyone's. You don't need to respect the action, but as a libertarian you need to respect the other person's different belief as neither of them my be fact.

Real "faith" is knowing something might not be true and still believing it anyway. That's an objective definition. Out of 5000+ religions... yours might not be true in its claims if any even are. All religion tries passing off supporting evidence as conclusive.

2. It is impossible to define a term with subjective personal beliefs regarding a person's rights when the only objective thing we can determine is what is part of the woman's body and we all have different personal beliefs. You may be able to come to a conclusion or reasoning that gives you meaning to your own life or your (possibly mis)understanding of the world and how it works... but that again is subjective and doesn't belong in laws to be forced upon others.

3. I myself am pro-life, but I don't fall for the over polarization of the issue that many people find them desperate to preserve... when that polarization actually detracts from a libertarian policy on the issue.

4. Bringing up those that aren't around to thank their mothers for not being aborted can be equated to a theist not being able to be bummed out if there isn't a heaven. Both you and atheists could be wrong. Think about it. Something tells me you won't though.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Phxarcher87's picture

I guess im truly wondering?

I mean if we are all just star dust ultimately bouncing around with no ultimate purpose, what would make you want me to think about this more?

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" - Mark Twain

There are a lot of people,

There are a lot of people, atheist, agnostic, and what not who believe very strongly that reality is consitent. Believing that their idea of reality is right (that their morality is logically correct because their premise is right), they typically make moral statements on either side of this issue.

This isn't an issue of fact. This isn't an issue where you can have 99% certainty over.

It is true that practically every issue boils down to this...after all, why is murder wrong? Why is theft wrong? Can you prove with 99% certainty that those things are "wrong/bad"?

So for me, personally, I have no problem forcing individuals into my paradigm of a society where murder is wrong, and theft is wrong, etc. etc. Because although I can't PROVE it, it is what I believe strongly based on my own moral foundations that could also be completely wrong. And I would allow those who believe differently to leave, and I myself would seek to live in societies that value those things. Moreover, I am OK with the consequences of such a society.

But I am not as confident forcing individuals into a paradigm of a society where abortion is banned or permitted. I do lean pro-life...again, based on my own moral foundations that are not only quite possibly logically tangled up, but also at their root quite possibly completely wrong (after all, I feel that we have a right to life; that could be completely bunk. Who knows?). But I am definitely not as confident. I am not comfortable with the consequences of either society.

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

Libertarian Philosophy VS Personal Belief and Morals

This isn't about morals and trying to get others to accept them as facts as you're trying to imply it is and then argue against.

This is about the basic philosophy of being able to do what you want to pursue your happiness while not imposing on others' pursuits or having yours impeded on. It's about liberty at its simplest and then fine-tuning the constructs of our society to protect everyone's liberty.

You can prove that murder and theft impede on someone's liberty. That is what justifies the laws being there... not a person's personal morals whether they coincide or not.

The natural feeling of longing for personal liberty and expressing the positive effects for the sake creating harmony between each other is the feeling that creates the ends people want, and the morals they create at the means.

Just like with big government liberalism or big-military conservatism, as well as a million other examples of counter-productive policies... morals can be just as counter-productive to their ends as opposing morals (or policies) can be.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

I agree 100%.

"This is about the basic philosophy of being able to do what you want to pursue your happiness while not imposing on others' pursuits or having yours impeded on. It's about liberty at its simplest and then fine-tuning the constructs of our society to protect everyone's liberty."

From your apparent perspective on fetal development, if a baby is not viable outside the womb of his mother, killing him is not imposing on him since he is dependent on his mother and cannot survive outside the womb. Therefore, if his existence in her womb prevents her from pursuing happiness, it should be legal for her to pay or have someone else pay a M.D. to kill him for her. As cold-hearted as that may sound, it makes perfect sense if the baby is not a live human being before viability, but, only a POTENTIAL human being.

However, I believe science proves that a baby inside his mother's womb becomes a live human being long before viability. According to Dr. Gail Pearson, a board certified pediatric cardiologist with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, "the heart is among the earliest organs to develop, and a primitive version is already beating and pumping blood to the developing fetus by 7 weeks' gestation."

http://www.babyzone.com/pregnancy/fetal-development/fetal-he...

It's kind of hard to make the argument that a baby is nothing but a clump of cells (technically you and I are too) when that baby has his/her own heart pumping blood through his/her own body.

Great to See a discussion... Maturity instead of slinging mud!

I never have good success but I believe it is best to STRIKE the ROOT!
Argument #1 )) the mother egg which received the father's sperm while she accepts as a gift uniting as a zygote in HER womb which she owns (or she has authority over). It is her right as a self owner to do what she wants with it.
For me this is the best pro choice argument.
Of course at what time does the group (forget the state) the community or any outsider have the right or obligation to intervene ..enough of this property rights madness!? When does it become infanticide?
I know all this so I tired duck by going to argument #2

Argument 2)) It is not the states business. The State can not make decisions for the mother. The parents must be left to make the decision. Yes this seems to be a utilitarian argument. This answer ducks the anticipated painting the liberty lover as a ruthless cold libertarian in the clouds and infact a Baby killer. But again a persistent question might ask well so at what point can an outsider intervene. So the answer?...

When if ever is an outsider allowed to intervene? I can duct this my saying that when a fetus is fully formed in the womb it is life (~16 weeks). There is the property rights point of view though that the mother has authority over her womb and later on her child. PEOPLE WILL NEVER ACCEPT THIS AND WHEN THEY DO NOT ACCEPT IT then we can give the second most loving arguments. It is our duty as individuals to intervene like we always do as humans due. How?

shisaracyndi

Conception defined...

It becoming a zygote (cell with unique DNA) doesn't change the fact that the egg turned zygote is still part of the woman's body. The father's sperm can be equated to a sliver of skin cut off in the sense that it's no longer part of his (or her) body and will eventually die or no longer exist once its parts aside from a strand of DNA are decomposed. The egg transforms, but stays in the woman's possession.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

No

He/she is no longer an extension of the woman's body only. He/she is a new being merely housed in the mother's womb. From the time he/she comes into existence, all that is added is nourishment. What difference if that nourishment comes through an umbilical cord inside the womb, or the mother's breast once outside? The only difference is one of size. I suppose the term "zygote" makes whom you are talking about seem less human to you, but it is only a term for a particular stage of development, just like infant also refers to a stage in development, or toddler, or adolescent, or adult.

Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle. Mary, Our Mother, protect us under your mantle.

How about this for you. In

How about this for you.

In your own house, your own property, you make bombs. You savagely use these bombs to kill other people.

A couple of neighbors report that they suspect you as the killer, and the government comes into your house, with a warrant, and arrests you. They put you to trial, find you guilty, and kill or jail you.

In the process of doing all thise, they have VIOLATED your property. Without question.

But I think most people would agree that at that point, you've given up your property rights.

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

Sorry my comment was not completed or edited

I realize that authority which the Mother clearly has does not confer rights. The fetus is not a computer. But an almost viable life.
I do not have the answer to when anyone should intervene in behalf of the unborn. I believe we should be supportive to the mom. We should try to build a society where people do not make depraved choices with regard to their unborn children.
What kind of law do you suggest and when is intervention smart? You can say I am heartless but it is the Mothers choice until birth. I think at 16 weeks, if she goes through an abortion, it is revolting. As a doctor I would not terminate a 16 week pregnancy. The only exception is if the life of the mother is truly endangered.
When in the first paragraph I used the word should I meant it. It is in my opinion bordering on vulgar libertarianism to use formularistic solutions based on rules such as the right to intervene or rights. Regardless if it is legally right sometimes it is correct to intervene. For example, I might believe that we legally have the right to commit suicide. That does not mean that I will not intervene if my son is hitting his head against the wall.
There is a lot of support showing the mother has authority over her unborn child of which I did not talk about in my original post. For example, it is solely her mitochondrial DNA which is in her child. But authority over I repeat does not necessarily grant rights. So I ask you for thoughts. How would you handle the mom legally?
The mother has a property right over her womb. It is her decision when is between her and God. No?

shisaracyndi

I always use this recent

I always use this recent example. When they banned the large sodas in New York, conservatives and libertarians were outraged because "someone else drinking a big soda doesn't affect anyone else".

Except that it does. Because when you eat horribly and get sick, you go to the doctor and get treatment, and the health insurance premiums for everyone goes up.

But I say, forget it, buy your soda. It is worth it to get the government the hell out of my life.

In the case of abortion, what is the alternative if we ban abortion? Is it worth it? That is the question we have to ask. If we ban abortion, I don't think it will change anything. People will get it in some back alley....moreover, how will the government check if someone had an abortion or not? Do they get to see our medical records? Forced exams to determine if a woman had been pregnant? Will the government stop a woman from going to Canada to get it done? Will we have government checkpoints at the borders between nations and/or states?

And I don't take this stance on every issue. Many anti-tobacco laws are ridiculously anti-libertarian. Illegal to sell to minors, around schools; illegal to advertise. But even though those are violations of the rights of tobacco sellers, I am OK with it. Because it prevents tobacco companies from using propaganda against the youth.

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

Duplicate

Whoops

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

On this subject...

I want to dispell this myth that abortion is okay because "it's my body, and I have a right to choose."

Anyone who espouses this myth, I ask them, "So, you support prostitution then? Isn't it a woman's right to do with her body as she chooses?" They usually grimace and say, "No, of course not!" I ask them, "Then you don't support a woman's right to choose what they do with their body?" The conversation normally either ends here, or degenerates into namecalling. Typical liberal response to being attacked with logic and reason.

The real reason liberal's support abortion is the "Equality of Irresponsibility". There is an inequality in nature in regards to pregnancy. Men are free to be "irresponsible" and abandon a pregnant woman. Whereas woman don't have that same freedom, they have to carry the child and face the consequences of unintended pregnancy.

Abortion eliminates this inequality, allowing both men and women the freedom to be equally irresponsible in regards to pregnancy. It makes the world more "fair". None of them will admit this, even to themselves.

Great psychoanalysis, except

Great psychoanalysis, except that many liberals would say that prostitution IS OK....

It isn't about equality of irresponsibility. It is simply the freedom to make a mistake and not suffer 18+ years for it.

For me, it is just the fear of the alternative, meaning the government being very intrusive, is not acceptable.

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

Thoughts

Most pro-lifers on this board are unlikely to bat an eye at legalizing prostitution, but your point about equality of irresponsibility is spot on. I would point out, however, that pro-choice rhetoric doesn't entirely avoid this reality. Abortion "rights" are often couched in terms of women's equality, especially economic equality, where the implication is that abortions allow women's lives to go as uninterrupted as the lives of the men who impregnated them.

For my part, I am adamantly against abortion at any stage. However, I simply do not see a political solution on the horizon. The pragmatist in me (gasp!) thinks that for the moment the best way forward is to remove the question from federal jurisdiction and, in areas that allow abortion, support private initiatives targeted at discouraging abortions and assisting those with unwanted pregnancies in bringing their babies to term.

Irrelevant Tangent #Fail

The issue you're bringing up is the contradictions people make regarding their principles. A person might be the exact opposite way on prostitution versus abortion... okay with prostitution because it's their body and against abortion because of their religious beliefs.

Your "real reason" is an exaggerated and assumed reason.

The position and all supporting logic and evidence in this post has so far been unquestioned and completely sound.

You bringing up a circumstantial and fallacious argument you've dealt with that is only related to abortion in the sense that it's part of a contradiction you've witnessed is an attempt to fabricate ammo to use against the opposition of your own position.

Your storytelling and grave assumptions (rational to theorize or not) that you overgeneralize and imply are 100% fact do not invalidate anything that has been said.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

There is no assumption

There are plenty examples that attempt to correct this natural inequality between men and women: (Note, I'm not critisizing these things, just using them to illustrate my point)

-Child support payments, generally by men but not always, to the person caring for their child with punitive consequences.
-Contraception (now "free" contraception)
-Abortion
-Vasectomy's and tube-tying

All of these things are meant to correct the natural inequality inherrent in pregnancy by preventing a woman from becoming pregnant/giving birth or forcing an irresponsible man to accept the responsibility the woman has no choice but to accept.

And the hypothetical conversation I used is to illustrate the hypocracy of the arguement espoused by most pro-choice proponents. If they DO support prostitution, then they are not hypocrits, only wrong.

I understand that this isn't the subject of the thread, but I read other's comments who discussed it, so I had to respond.

Balance and consistency

In keeping with the self-ownership principle, the woman has the the right to terminate the pregnancy (removal from the womb) with no restrictions. In keeping with the non-aggression principle, she does not have the right to terminate the life unless the child's presence becomes an immediate threat to her survival or well-being (self-preservation). *Also, see Walter Block's position concerning "evictionism."

"The rich man writes the book of laws the poor man must defend, but the highest laws are written on the hearts of honest men."

Conflicting Principles

This conflict of principles is easily rectified by the stance of "until viability" in the fact that with a scientifically unbiased perspective, aborting before viability would be as much "aggression" as chopping your own arm off to become unstuck between a rock and wall. It's aggression to oneself for preservation of one's own pursuit of happiness according to their own personal beliefs which doesn't impede on someone else's pursuit.

There is no aggression to anyone else as the fetus is scientifically still just an appendage dependent on the rest of the body made up of another organic system.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

I don't see a conflict

Neither principle is compromised. Maybe I didn't explain my position considering all conditions. When I refer to termination of life, I mean during the delivery process. Once the child leaves the womb, she has no authority if she has evicted. My first point, termination of the pregnancy, is her right without restriction (regardless of conditions).

"The rich man writes the book of laws the poor man must defend, but the highest laws are written on the hearts of honest men."

The problem I see with that analogy is

that if you leave your arm alone between a rock and a wall, it will not turn into a separate, viable, human being in a month or two and become unstuck on its own a few months after becoming a viable, human being. The argument could be made then that if having your arm stuck between a rock and a wall endangers your life or health, it should be removed regardless of whether or not it could sprout into a viable, human being between the rock and wall and eventually leave your body on its own. I would agree with that statement and liken it to a pregnancy which endangers the health of the mother. Certainly, a mother has the right to kill her baby for self-preservation whether her baby is viable or not. But, if her health and/or life is not at risk, there is no arguable justification for it being legal for her to kill her baby when that baby if left alone will become viable within a short period of time.

I disagree with your premise.

The issue is not: When does life begin?

The issue is: When do rights begin?

Life begins at conception. There can be no argument that, absent abortion or miscarriage, a fertilized egg will evolve into a baby.

But to me, that is not the issue. The issue is about rights, because it is rights that are being enforced.

I hope one thing we can all agree on in this forum is that the Constitution does not address abortion. It is, therefore, not a federal issue. It is a state issue.

My take is that a woman has a right to not have an unwanted life inside her, just as I do. It is not pleasant. But each of us controls our own body or we do not. And if we do not, then what right does anyone claim to control their body for any other purpose?

Seems like viability is the best compromise and those who are anti-abortion should focus on influence by persuasion, not by gunpoint.

It is the anti-abortionists more than any other who keep otherwise small government political candidates out of office.

The Constitution...

What about the right to pursue life? Does't the baby have the right to pursue his life? We keep hearing about the woman's rights, but what about the baby's rights?

Abortion is just one step in the eugenics program.

First you allow the taking of life of the most innocent who can't fend for themselves, then you allow euthanasia and the elderly, sick, disabled can be murdered. Then other people groups will follow such as maybe gay people, Christian people, etc.

In the end it's all murder and who will be left to stand? The elite?

"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not." (Dr. Seuss)

Exactly

Thank you for being honest about the true basis of the argument. Even abortionists admit we are talking about a life right from conception. The argument is not about "Is it right?" but "What do we want?" Taking a life is taking a life, whether it happens right at the beginning or later. Viability has been pushed earlier and earlier into pregnancy through the years, hasn't it? It has not remained constant.

If a woman gets rid of her child before that child can exist outside the womb, she is causing harm to another. She is interfering with that person's rights - there is no way around that. Rights exist when life does.

Seems to me that when pro-lifers try to use persuasion (like sidewalk counseling, or crisis pregnancy centers offering free ultra-sound so the woman can see the life inside her), pro-abortionists do things like enact buffer zones and pass onerous regulations to shut down crisis pregnancy centers (while looking the other way when PP clinics violate regulations like reporting statutory rape). Maybe pro-abortionists should put down their own guns so that pro-lifers can do what you suggest.

Anyway, you can't have it both ways. Either rights are inalienable to every living human and not subject to the whims of lawmakers, or they're not. You can't divy up classes of humans and say "we'll protect the rights of this group, but not that group."

Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle. Mary, Our Mother, protect us under your mantle.

Abortionists are concerned with

the money they are making. They don't want any interference with that.

That's right...

always follow the $ trail.

"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not." (Dr. Seuss)

Circular Logic

1. Something that doesn't have "life"... a subjective term... can't have rights. That being the case, it's a valid question to determine whether something has rights or not.

2. "Life begins at conception", regardless of how hard you believe it's true, is your subjective personal belief. I've already explained how you, as a supposed libertarian, cannot force your subjective belief on others.

3. Observation of what happens consequently in scientific terms doesn't conclusively define when life begins... as it's a subjective term.

4. You're using circular logic.
-When do rights begin? When life begins!
-When does life begin? At conception!
-What protects the fetus at conception? Its rights!
REPEAT

Seeing as you cannot use a subjective personal belief or consequential observation about something that hasn't happened yet to define a subjective term, because we all can have different subjective personal beliefs that attempt to define the subjective term... "At conception!" is removed from your circular logic and therefore makes it illogical.

5. You're right, it's a state issue. At the state level though, if unbiased (not including your subjective personal beliefs) logic is found and it doesn't violate libertarian principle based on (unbiased) science alone... then it becomes the responsibility to adhere to it.

6. "Constitution/State Rights" doesn't change the fact that forcing a subjective personal belief on someone else is being "libertarian". This stance is built on sound logic and reasoning, not on "it's a gray issue so let's chalk it up to compromise" as you're implying.

7. You're then backwards on the "life inside" issue. If there is something with rights inside of you... whether you put it there or not... that gives you the right to violate those rights?

This begs the question about cases of rape. A responsible person that was raped, not only should tell someone, but should also have a pregnancy test. The person feeling in such a way where they choose to not do the responsible things doesn't excuse them from the risk involved in not doing it... as not doing the responsible thing is choosing to take the risk whether knowledgeable or not. They chose to not be careful after the fact. Being naive doesn't excuse it either. Viability would work in cases of rape/incest.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally