Pro Life v.s. Anti Abortion...
I had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine on this topic. The ND protests got me thinking about this. I have been a staunch defender of the rights of an unborn child and deeply opposed to abortion for quite sometime. One I heard my child's heart beat when my wife was 10 weeks pregnant that sealed the deal for me.
Over the last few years, my views have grown to not just being about abortion. If I am going to be truly "pro-life" I have to be against the death penalty and anti war. That would be my new definition of pro life and not just anti abortion. I think alot of pro lifers lose sight of this as their sole focus is on abortion. If someone is truly pro life they should be for protecting all life no matter what right? I don't have the answer to this, just my opinion.
Does anyone agree or disagree, care to add on? Maybe someone feels that these issues don't even have anything to do with the liberty movement.
Truth be told, my friend and I had a few pitchers and a good conversation about it, and I'm not quite ready for the discussion to end :) I would dig hearing any of your thoughts. Peace...
Yes! And I get sooo angry when I hear 'supposed' Christians
chant, "We must kill them over there so they don't kill us here!" What a horribly backwards Christian view.. They support preemptive war, and invasions that kill millions of innocent people.. yet they have the AUDACITY to protest and argue for unborn children? WTF?
Mathew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
In a Free-Market there will be solutions to Abortion
They will be able to extract babies at earlier and earlier stages.
Also, without abortion welfarized they will come up with nearly 100% pregnancy prevention methods.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Abortion Question very simple for RPers and Individualists
So, it's pretty simple for Ron Paulians
-- You must fight against abortion as a welfarist institution - that's #1.
-- If you are in favor of a parent having the right to determine the medical treatment of their own child -- Then you must fight for the parents right to choose in regard to abortion -- Can't have it both ways - it's a medical procedure - that's #2
-- RP says it is a State issue - constitutionally. As Constitutional Republicans you must fight for this as well -- so the decision never begins at the fed again - that's #3
-- RP is against the death penalty (it's a welfarist institution) - it is the correct individualist position -- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For the tadpol and the prisoner. "Pursuit" is future-tense -- "Life" is present-tense -- "Liberty" is present-and-future-tense - that's #4
The last argument is a little fallacious -- but the three before are 100% sound from an individualist perspective -- which, all RP supporters should be.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
I was afraid you were going to
Bifricate based on the individualist / collectivist polarity. The same false choice the 2 party system offers.
I'm suprised that Obama gets it but many DP'rs don't.
"The spirit beyond the letter of the law" ... What everyone wants is less unwanted pregnancy.
Abortion is a Red Herring Politically anyway. What in the hopes that a the right number of judges will die and the person can appoint judges who will tweek the law for morality. Their are better odds playing power ball lottery than that happening.
#1 ) is a non-sequitor... Because some or many abortions are paid for by welfare does not mean that I must morally stand against all abortions.
Even abortions being a "sin" or immoral does not mean that I must stand against ALL abortion either. That is the same argument that because drugs are harmful I must stand against all drugs in all cases. It's a syllogistic absurdity.
Their may be a case where not giving an abortion would violate a higher law or the spirit of behind the letter of the law, which is life. A known life is more valuable than a potential life and in case of the mothers life being threatened is one case.
Unfortunately Religion to Control people heavily bifricates arguments into strong polarities with strong emotions attached. ZERO TOLLERANCE = ZERO COMMON SENSE.
As I've stated in another thread. Rabbinical interpretations of Torah state that the fetus is not a person "made in the image of God" until after 40 days when the Placenta Attaches and the Fetus Differentiates into a male / female. This is based on interpretations of Leviticus ?
The 2nd century CE legal texts describe a partial birth abortion being permissible when the womans life is in danger. So Abortion was an issue at the time of Jesus, something he may have discussed with the Rabbi's.
This is a interesting Biblical / Legal discussion of Abortion in the first and 2nd century and has information to build a groundwork for a more intelligent and less polarized discussion. No one is Pro Abortion, everyone wants less unwanted pregnancy.
The trick is to seek the highest law and the spirit beyond the letter of the law in each individual case.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm
Really as an individualist I must be pro choice and would work to help people chose life.
The Creator knows what many leaders of Israel do in dark rooms.
I would suggest you study the issue a little further for yourself and not be led blindly by Rabbinical interpretations.
Many Rabbinical interpretations of the Torah are perverted, and those who claim that a fetus is not a person "made in the image of God" until after 40 days are not telling the truth. Certainly not based on scripture.
Even none religious scientists who deal only with material evidence recognize that life is from conception ad continuum until death.
And certainly true Christians do not fall for such foolishness.
Mary (a Jew) according to the Bible, was told that she was going to conceive and give birth to a son. She wasn't told that after 40 days from conception the baby would then be considered "made in the image of God" and then she would discover if it was a son.
Besides not all Jews agree with the perverted interpretations of 40 days to become a person, only perhaps those who are mislead by occult numerology or the such.
In Scriptual terms both in the Bible including the Torah, a child is made in the image of God even before conception, otherwise the words of all prophets would be wrong.
But setting Scripture aside, considering your arguement that a person does not exist except after their differentiation into male/female; this too is not what we discover from science, since eventhough it is true that a child's genes determines what sex they will be, sex doesn't determine whether or not someone is a person. Many times a baby is born with both male and female sexual organs, and I certainly consider them a person.
grant
You obviously don't (get it)
I'm not giving you one or more options -- This is an opinion forum.
Therefore I welcome your opinion. I never spoke from a "sin" stand point -- You are "reading into" my post because the religious argument annoys you -- you are imagining my reference point.
I created another post that deals with abortion without "God."
In fact I'm not making the God-Argument.
Individualism vs Collectivism is the correct approach for those who love individual-liberty or Ron Paul. He is pro-life (as a medical doctor), however, he wants the decision to be made at the state level.
Abortion is a huge issue because while the un-constitutional power lies with Fed Gov't tax payers who truly believe it's murder are being forced to pay for it -- Imagine if this war was paid for voluntarily (by donation - ZERO tax and ZERO fiat spending) -- how long would it have gone on?
Ron Paul is against Gov't Welfarism based on the philosophy of Individual-Liberty. This is a Ron Paul site -- My assumption is most folks here are Ron Paul supporters.
I don't care if there is abortion or not -- I want demand to be properly assessed.
Demand is always righteous -- Because it reflects the truth -- We need to see the truth in all things (that's biblical and scientific).
We defeat with love or logic but never violence -- The "authority" from which I speak on Daily Paul carries no weight -- I do not create choice nor do I limit it.
In a Free-Market abortion would become obsolete.
If you are fighting for a free-market (wherein we are no longer being tax slaves) then you are fighting an "increase" in the pro-life stance -- The right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
If a woman wants to kill her baby -- then I want her to pay the true free-market cost to do so. This is a good starting point.
We have 1.34M abortions per year -- I'd like to see that number get smaller.
Abortion is a Misnomer I agree 100%
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
OctoBox, this one puzzles me,
"If you are in favor of a parent having the right to determine the medical treatment of their own child -- Then you must fight for the parents right to choose in regard to abortion -- Can't have it both ways - it's a medical procedure - that's #2"
A parent should have the right to choose the medical treatment for their child, say rejecting shots or fluoride, that we agree on. What your suggesting is that a parent would have the right to kill their child in the name of a medical procedure. Is that what your suggesting? I'm sure your not, but you have no point on this one. There is no comparison. Killing is not a medical procedure unless someone is on death row.
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
-Alexis de Tocqueville
want_my..., Your last sentence reveals
your bias in a way perhaps you didn't intend. It seem extraordinary that a man who will never experience pregnancy is so opinionated as to state that abortion is not a medical procedure. Back to the coat hangar days, is that the plan? Why you imagine you should dictate who may or may not have medical procedures of their choice is beyond my understanding in a libertarian forum. It is only State intervention (pro or against) that is at issue here
I do appreciate you stating up front that you're arguing from personal bias. But it is rather a distraction from the point of promoting liberty, as Octobox above expressed well.
I am not biased, and killing innocent life can be done via
medical procedure so that part is correct, but it is still killing. I stated my opinion earlier in regards to my views on abortion. I am not in favor of the coat hanger days as you put it. When the heart starts beating, abortion should no longer be an option. That is around week six or so from what I understand. I also think the morning after pill should be made available over the counter. I am a man and will never experience pregnancy, but that doesn't change that fact that abortion takes a life. Are we not allowed to have opinions on things we cannot directly experience? As a lover of freedom and liberty I will promote the protection of life.
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
-Alexis de Tocqueville
No - You misinterpreted me
#2 -- Gives Pro-Life parents the right to say no to any Medical Procedure. We had this debate in another thread. It would give Pro-Choice parents the right to force an abortion except #1, 3, and 4 block that option.
This is an pro-life argument that should resolve the issue for Individualist and RP supporters -- Collectivist are very confused in their quasi-support for liberty. Quasi-Support gives you Corporatism (owing to abdication to authority -- the welfare state).
Think of my agument as a "4 laws" argument for Individualists.
#1 -- Is the Anti-Welfarist Argument
#2 -- Is the Parental Medical Directive Argument -- It is also the Age of Consent and Contract Law Argument (there is a trasnfer of valuable commodity contract between minor and abortionist -- given the commodity is sold afterward -- minors cannot enter into signed or implied contracts)
#3 -- Is the State Rights over Federal Rights Argument (the Constitutional Argument)
#4 -- Is the Preamble Argument -- The right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. There is no right to relief from responsibility clause. This is for the tadpol and the prisoner.
Again these arguments (as fallacious as they may be) are for DPers who are still riding the fence on this issue.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
thanks for the clarification...
Peace.
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
-Alexis de Tocqueville
It' is easy for me. I will
It' is easy for me. I will fight for the right of the unborn child to live. The unborn child can't fight for himself, since he is helpless. I hope there is someone who will fight for him.
Terminating a pregnancy for inconvenience, which is the reason offered in 93% of the 45 million abortions performed, may be a medical procedure to you, but to me, it is taking the life of an innocent unborn child. In 7% of the cases, the reasons given are, the health of the woman or the fetus, and rape or incest.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
Here is Ron Paul's statement on the Right to Life:
"As a pro-life obstetrician-gynecologist, I am steadfastly opposed to abortion. I strongly believe that a fetus is a human life, and that a fetus deserves the same legal protections afforded to all Americans. I also believe that the Roe v. Wade decision will prove to be the most flawed Supreme Court ruling of the 20th century. There is no real or imagined "right to abortion" in the Constitution under any serious interpretation of that document. The Supreme Court simply created a nonexistent constitutional right out of thin air to serve the political agenda of the justices.
Thirty years later, the pro-life fight goes on. Well-intentioned pro-life advocates supported a bill in Congress last week called the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, believing it represented a step toward restoring respect for unborn life. Unfortunately, the bill does not accord any human or legal status to fetuses, but rather creates a new federal penalty for harming the mother of a fetus. The reasoning is deeply flawed: if there is to be a greater penalty for harming a pregnant woman than an ordinary woman, it must be based on the harm to the unborn child. In other words, the enhanced penalty must be for the second offense to the second human life. Yet the legislation evades this fundamental truth by refusing to recognize the fetus as a human person. So the Act is seriously flawed and will not engender new respect for unborn life."
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=198
Now you're really beginning to annoy me.
What the heck are you saying? You'll "fight" pregnant women, jail them, hold them down, tase them, force your religio-medical views on them, make them slaves to your will, all with the assistance of the magical Police State that rights all wrongs?
You seriously have a lot more thinking to do is you consider yourself a freedom advocate.
Ridiculous.
Why do you automatically assume that those who are Pro-Life are in favor of a Police State, I would argue that the opposite is true, Pro-Life people are not in favor of a Police State.
I know women who work with women who have suffered from post-abortion trauma. It is a serious issue. Many women attempt or commit suicide because of it.
There are many people who work to prevent abortions by counseling women and offering a helping hand. My question is why is this necessary? Why aren't families supporting their daughters when they get pregnant? Where does the idea of unwanted pregnancy come from? Isn't it because killing a child is easier than taking care of a child. What a sick and perverted idea.
Pregnancy is not a disease that needs medical treatment. Sure, there are cases of intra-tubular pregnacies that require medical treatment, since the mother is sure to die and so will the baby if the baby isn't removed. But there are also medical proceedures to relocate the baby to the proper location in the womb. So to say there are no solutions is a lie.
Of course a patient should not be denied medical treatment, but to kill for no reason other than just to get rid of an unwanted person, or because it is the easiest thing to do, should not be allow in a State regulated medical system.
Or do you propose deregulating all medical proceedures? Which is a whole other issue for which if it doesn't require taxpayer funding I would gladly support and seek out doctors wanting to save lives...
grant
I do not think the government should be
involved in the health industry. Of course that includes no funding for abortion clinics or any clinics, though I understand the practical need Dr. Paul has pointed out to pay off existing obligations to people who bought into the current system.
And I don't personally advocate abortion. But neither can I support someone being forced to undergo pregnancy. In a large, open free society there would be people doing things others will strongly disagree with.
NO!!!!!
I will fight for the right of the unborn child to live. I said nothing about jailing, tazing, holding down a woman for having an abortion. Your statement was over the top and you know it. I don't believe any woman should be punished for having an abortion and neither does Ron Paul. By fighting for the lives of the unborn, I am supporting all of Ron Paul's legislation that he has written to define life as beginning at conception. I am opposed to Roe v. Wade and would like to see it overturned. In fact I support everything Ron Paul has written in regard to abortion. Check out his library. There is page after page on this topic.
I stand by my belief that the unborn have rights. Nothing you say can change that no matter how much you try to insinuate that I don't believe in freedom. You have your beliefs and I have mine. :-)
I did intentionally overstate your position,
to make the point very clearly. There simply is no way to eliminate abortion in a free society. People are imperfect, and some who don't want kids will still become pregnant.
I don't know how you will "fight" for the "right" of the unborn without violating others' rights. I'm sure you've read Dr. Paul's policies on this subject more thoroughly than I, since it is not one of the biggest issues to me. I would expect his ideas to be humane and sympathetic to all parties involved.
On this and similar issues, he is a strong advocate of charitable humanity. I believe he would advocate that people deeply offended by abortion find positive voluntary ways to support those unhappy with pregnancy. With community/family support and caring, no doubt there would be fewer abortions.
Of course sympathetic.
I agree, there is no way to eliminate abortion in a free society, but this is true of any wrong doing. There is no way of preventing people in a free society or even in a Police State from killing, but as an advocate of a free society and would be member of a free society, it is still necessary to prevent killing. And one of the best ways of doing so is through education, whether it be public or private. That doesn't mean I am in favor of killing or arresting people who have already committed abortion, but educate them that it is wrong and that it needs to stop, yes. Even in a free society there is a difference between right and wrong, and abortion is wrong.
grant
I'm making a right-to-life -- Anti-Welfarist Argument
I'm not saying whether abortion would exist in a free-society or not.
I'm saying why all DPers and Individualist must fight to end the current form of abortion -- "tax theft welfarist abortion" and must fight to gain a "parents right" (medically) over their minor child.
I'm not saying an adult woman cannot have an abortion -- no value judgement on that.
I want the woman to pay full-market price for the abortion
I want women to know the value of the fetus as a sold comodity rather than a cost to abort.
I feel that when women understand these two things and in a free-market the cost to pay-to-kill or the cost to buy a dead fetus would be extremely high.
---Either the minor or woman would not be able to afford it, or
---The woman would place a value on it and "sell" it -- Driving the cost to the Cosmetic Lab or Stem Cell Team (from free to astronomical)
Artificially holding the abortion at $900 and "free" to the woman/child is a transferrence of weath and un-constitutional.
Of course in a free-society there will be abortions.
But the number per year would be in the 1000's and not in the millions.
Likely women and children would go to Canada or Mexico.
I'm not saying the police state should force it one way or the other.
I'm anti-police state
My argument is RPs argument and the Individualist position.
The collectivist position is to welfarise abortion (to transfer wealth)
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
RealDeal: I think you misunderstood me
I made the pro-life argument
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
You're right Octobox
I was reading selectively.
Define #2
#2
Includes the right of a parent to prevent a doctor from killing the baby of their minor child, correct?
grant
iehuvihs: Yes!
#2 (as seen in my above posts) refers back to the post made by Lacandy
----http://www.dailypaul.com/node/93599
It seemed nearly 100% of DPers came to the correct RP and Individualist position of parental authority.
and thus #2 above.
Parents have authority over their "minor" child (under 18) from killing their fetus - grandchild.
Wow! -- This is awesome -- All of DP are now Pro-Life by their very support of Dr. Paul and Individualism, hahahaha.
It is irrefuteable -- hahahahaha
Makes sense though -- The God argument is flawed -- However, the Individualist argument wins the day!!!
*throws confetti*
Happy Days
I'm kidding -- I know on DP that logic and individualism rarely rules the day, smile.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
I find it funny...
that Americans can debate for years over the life of an unborn child, yet they cannot even take control over thier own lives. After all, if we were in control, we wouldn't be in the mess that we are in now.
Pro or Anti, it is still bashing away at a SYMPTOM. Not the real problem, which is that none of us have ever learned to take responsibility for our own lives in the first place. Yet you all want to battle about society's role in the life of an unborn.
If we all fixed our own damn houses first and cleaned up the mess we are in, this issue would be a non-issue for the most part. Because a whole lot more people would be responsible for THIER OWN actions.
Personal Liberty means personal responsibility, remember... ;)
~Live life to its fullest, with an open heart, open arms and most important... an open mind~
Well said Devon!
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
1 in 100,000 or maybe 1 in 1,000,000?
Is it 1 in 100,000 babies will have the potential to be an Einstein or is 1 in 1,000,000.
We kill (by gov't subsidization) 1.34M babies per year.
Abortion and Prison Slavery have worked well as negative eugencis on the African-American population.
From 40M to 30M in 20 years -- not bad.
Negative Eugenics has worked even better on the American Indian
From 15M to 2M in 100years
and
From 2M to under 1.8M in 20 years -- again not bad.
Individual-Liberty begins at conception -- It has nothing to do with God.
Each year or so we are able to extract a baby from a mother at earlier and earlier ages -- We've already dipped below the age at which even pro-choice people believe life starts more than 5 times. Eventually it will be at conception.
The problem is the Gov't Subsidized abortion racket cost 100's of millions and gives nearly pure profits in the billions per year.
#1 The savings to the cosmetic industry
#2 Cost savings to the stem cell folks (welfarists)
#3 The profit made by abortion doctors ($900 per abortion -- 900 X 1.34M is over 1,000,000,000) -- *Dr. Evil pinky point*
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
I completely agree. The only
I completely agree.
The only thing I'm not sure I would include would be assisted suicide... Even though I think suicide is wrong and we should try to help those who are troubled, the decision over your own life should ultimately belong to you... even if it means you're going to end it.... and if someone is willing to help you, then that's their business I suppose. I still think it's wrong, but it shouldn't necessarily be illegal... but I would be satisfied with leaving the decision of assisted suicide up to the states.
BIg issue.
Here is another example of how the minds of people are perverted by twisted words.
There is no such thing as assisted suicide. There is the case where a person commits suicide, obviously alone; and there is another case when another person commits homocide with the consent of the person wanting to die.
When it comes to making it legal, there are no laws being debated, such that will give you the right to kill your loved one if they request you to do so.
The real issue we face politically is that some people want the State to give them the right to kill another person as a profession; and then for the State to decide when it is justified.
grant
What Does God Say?
He says he is the giver of life. Where did He start?
TheKingIsComing
God
really put that poor little virgin Mary in a pickle. Making her pregnant without even having sex. Let some poor child try to convince her parents or society of that one these days. Even the hard core christians would never believe a modern day pregnant virgin. How did she get by without getting stoned in those days. Wasn't that the normal practice for unwed mothers? Hmm guess that was thier form of abortion. They were neither pro life or pro choice.
These days women or young girls are judged for having a child they didn't want or having an abortion. Many young women have abortions for fear of what a parent might do if they found out they got pregnant. I know my father would have beat me to death and if i lived he would probably have made me have an abortion not to shame him. I will say it one last time. It is not as easy as black and white.