Quote:Now you're just being vague for dramatic effect. Clearly we are talking about human life and how we afforded constitutional rights. A lima bean has no rights, so let's just keep the drama in check.
I'm pretty consistent on when I advocate government interference, when it comes to violating the rights of others property or life. Otherwise I'd just embrace anarchy.
I was referring to a lima bean as in that's what the baby looks like. I'm not talking about an actual lima bean.
Quote:
I was a Democrat by default for over a decade until I found the Libertarian party because I didn't know any better.
This is the issue a lot of people have. They were "born into" (for lack of better words) a party and never really thought about what they believe which could be different than what their parents believe.
I did not grow up in a political household though my parents have always voted. I've almost always voted for the person in the 2 party system whose policies were most in line with where I was personally at the time. Things I thought were SO IMPORTANT in my 20's and even into my 30's are not as significant in my mid-40's. Life experience, social changes, and just plain getting older can change your outlook on things.
I've known I am Libertarian for 10+ years now but never really understood what that meant until the last 4 years or so and I'm still learning how to marry that with personal beliefs- meaning the law/government and personal beliefs are not always going to hold hands. Example: I don't personally agree with abortion. I would never make that choice, but I don't believe the government should make that decision either.
Quote:How can one think this is human? It's clearly just a blob not yet human. Can only be human when it comes out. So the few seconds before it comes out, not human. Comes out, human. There is a supernatural transformation in those few seconds. This is science.
![[Image: f5dd50c70a8f478f968b6f64fe49d227.jpg]](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f5/dd/50/f5dd50c70a8f478f968b6f64fe49d227.jpg)
It's a kid you idiots.
I read it is between 24-26 weeks with some states banning at 22 weeks. If so then that is not right before it comes out.
Quote:Shouldn't choices about a person's body be the thing you wouldn't want the state to interfere in? "You can tell my girlfriend what to do with her body, but don't you ever - EVER - tell me where my money should go!" Yeah, that just doesn't sound right to me.
And that's where his political beliefs implode. Once you start saying Government needs to stay out of my business unless it is this then you open up a fan of worms where other people go, well this too and this and this...
Quote:The whole "telling a woman what she can and can't do with her body" is pure leftist spin.
The proposed abortion laws specify what some else can't do to a woman's body. The woman herself is usually not criminalized, only an abortionist if one is involved, and that seems to be the position taken by most politicians who oppose abortion.
And one could argue that the baby inside is not part of the woman's body either, it's the body of a separate person. The real question is whether or not a fetus is a person. That should have been decided by the public at large, not by five of nine elitists.
So, essentially taking away access to a service doesn't interfere with a woman's control over her own body? Oh, okay, so if the government decided to pass a law outlawing any and all sale of guns, with the seller criminalized but not the purchaser, then people would be cool with that? That's pure B.S. and that's that. Moving on.
Quote:The whole "telling a woman what she can and can't do with her body" is pure leftist spin.
The proposed abortion laws specify what some else can't do to a woman's body. The woman herself is usually not criminalized, only an abortionist if one is involved, and that seems to be the position taken by most politicians who oppose abortion.
So are you saying that if a woman performed her own abortion it would be okay? As long as it's not some one else doing it?
If you hire someone to murder someone else, are you not guilty of murder? If abortion is murder, as some allege, why is the woman not criminalized? Didn't she hire someone to commit a murder?
Quote:"Enumerated"
Not meant to be proposing a constitutional reality, if that's what you're implying. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of people who are cool with the government limiting other people's rights and powers, so long as their cherished values are undisturbed.
Quote:So are you saying that if a woman performed her own abortion it would be okay? As long as it's not some one else doing it?
If you hire someone to murder someone else, are you not guilty of murder? If abortion is murder, as some allege, why is the woman not criminalized? Didn't she hire someone to commit a murder?
Correct the women should also be criminalized that's my stance at least.
Quote:Not meant to be proposing a constitutional reality, if that's what you're implying. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of people who are cool with the government limiting other people's rights and powers, so long as their cherished values are undisturbed.
Has nothing to do with values has to do with the core principle of why government exist to protect property and life. That's why theft, murder, fraud are illegal acts.
Quote:I was referring to a lima bean as in that's what the baby looks like. I'm not talking about an actual lima bean.
After the first trimester it doesn't look like a Lima bean so at that point you agree it's ending a viable life?
Quote:After the first trimester it doesn't look like a Lima bean so at that point you agree it's ending a viable life?
Quote:Correct the women should also be criminalized that's my stance at least.
So we should have government spend money to maybe wiretap all households containing females under 30 to crack down on plans to self-abort I guess? Then send in swat teams as the act is occuring? Not sure how else you police the self-help measures that would inevitably occur when doctors acts are criminalized. Should we also ban the sales of contraceptives as well? I wonder how big business would respond to that. Not very libertarian. Actually, the amount of government power required for this grand plan is decidedly un-libertarian. It draws comparisons to, well, use your imagination.
Full of noble ideas, but when the plan is actually looked at practically, you strangely sound a lot like my bleeding heart teenage cousin.
Quote:So we should have government spend money to maybe wiretap all households containing females under 30 to crack down on plans to self-abort I guess? Then send in swat teams as the act is occuring? Not sure how else you police the self-help measures that would inevitably occur when doctors acts are criminalized.
The safe and rare argument fell apart when the death toll ran into the tens of millions.
Should we also ban the sales of contraceptives as well?
Has nothing to do with the legal argument.
I wonder how big business would respond to that. Not very libertarian. Actually, the amount of government power required for this grand plan is decidedly un-libertarian. It draws comparisons to, well, use your imagination.
Full of noble ideas, but when the plan is actually looked at practically, you strangely sound a lot like my bleeding heart teenage cousin.
Even roe v. wade recognizes that circumstances can exist where the state has a compelling interest in the protection of an unborn child. Recognizing the right of the unborn to exist is not going to spark a fascist armageddon or spike sales in clothes hangers.
Quote:Even roe v. wade recognizes that circumstances can exist where the state has a compelling interest in the protection of an unborn child. Recognizing the right of the unborn to exist is not going to spark a fascist armageddon or spike sales in clothes hangers.
I don't pretend to have a J.D. from Harvard, so I'm not even going to pretend to know what you mean by that comment (along with the others which appear inside the body of my post - in the future, format it better for people of limited intelligence, like me, to understand). I keep my arguments simple and to the point. Point being, if you want to criminalize doctors providing abortions and women who will have to find other means to provide them, and who surely will (you mean abortions existed prior to 1973?! Ya don't say!), then you have to come up with a framework to police the "crime". If the zygote, or embryo, or fully-fledged and functioning person, or whatever terms you want to describe them, is the main concern, then bless your heart and go the extra mile and address all ways the atrocity can be enacted, including condoms. It's up to those proposing it to actually come up with a system that works. So stop using big words and go do it. Or just take yourself down to Massachusetts Avenue and throw around more legal arguments. Don't matter to me.
I think any sane women should be allowed terminate a pregnancy if they wish.Nobody should have the authority to force a women to keep a baby inside of her that she doesn't want
Should be an abortion support system in place ,with doctors,midwifes and counsellors/psychologists guiding them through each stage. If the one of them has a problem with it they can discuss amongst themselves how best to do it,but the ultimate decison should come down to the woman.
Quote:So we should have government spend money to maybe wiretap all households containing females under 30 to crack down on plans to self-abort I guess? Then send in swat teams as the act is occuring? Not sure how else you police the self-help measures that would inevitably occur when doctors acts are criminalized. Should we also ban the sales of contraceptives as well? I wonder how big business would respond to that. Not very libertarian. Actually, the amount of government power required for this grand plan is decidedly un-libertarian. It draws comparisons to, well, use your imagination.
Full of noble ideas, but when the plan is actually looked at practically, you strangely sound a lot like my bleeding heart teenage cousin.
hyperbole is fun, show me anywhere in this form where contraception has been talked about the same as abortion. one is preventing a pregnancy the other is ending a pregnancy.
self-help measures should be treated like any other self-help measure that ends another's life. murder is murder is murder, regardless of how you categorize it, ending the life of another without justifiable cause is against the law.
again you talk about a philosophy you know nothing about, libertarian-ism stems from a decentralized government that exist to protect property and life. Another pillar is the non-aggression pillar which is why the party opposes foreign intervention.
Quote:I think any sane women should be allowed terminate a pregnancy if they wish.
That's a biological contradiction...
Quote:hyperbole is fun, show me anywhere in this form where contraception has been talked about the same as abortion. one is preventing a pregnancy the other is ending a pregnancy.
self-help measures should be treated like any other self-help measure that ends another's life. murder is murder is murder, regardless of how you categorize it, ending the life of another without justifiable cause is against the law.
again you talk about a philosophy you know nothing about, libertarian-ism stems from a decentralized government that exist to protect property and life. Another pillar is the non-aggression pillar which is why the party opposes foreign intervention.
You're proposing a system that is almost impossible to put into practice, and which puts womens' lives at risk. Agree to disagree on when personhood begins. Meh, political debate is pointless.
Quote:That's a biological contradiction...
Suppose it depends on your definition of sanity.
Quote:I don't pretend to have a J.D. from Harvard, so I'm not even going to pretend to know what you mean by that comment (along with the others which appear inside the body of my post - in the future, format it better for people of limited intelligence, like me, to understand). I keep my arguments simple and to the point. Point being, if you want to criminalize doctors providing abortions and women who will have to find other means to provide them, and who surely will (you mean abortions existed prior to 1973?! Ya don't say!),
The argument that you are making is the same argument that was made prior to 1973. In other words, some women will try to self abort and as a result pose great risk to their own safety. This lead to the argument for making abortion SAFE, but at the same time there was a concern that by legalizing the procedure that you would have an exponential increase in occurance so the argument was also made that it would be RARE. SAFE BUT RARE. In actual practice this has just fallen flat on its face. since the passage of Roe V. Wade we are looking at some 40 million plus abortions... that's over 1/8th of the population. There is no conceivable model that would put the number of hanger incidents that high had Roe never been decided.
then you have to come up with a framework to police the "crime". If the zygote, or embryo, or fully-fledged and functioning person, or whatever terms you want to describe them, is the main concern, then bless your heart and go the extra mile and address all ways the atrocity can be enacted, including condoms.
You keep intermingling contraception into the discussion. Genetic material that is the direct result of cellular meiosis in sexual organisms is a wholly different biological entity that a gestating organism capable of cellular mitosis (the fundamental biological definition of life), or to make it simpler we aren't making the argument to micromanage sperm. We're not talking about trying to micromanage every fertilization, we're simply advocating that in the calculus of medical decisions that the human life be recognized as such.
It's up to those proposing it to actually come up with a system that works. So stop using big words and go do it. Or just take yourself down to Massachusetts Avenue and throw around more legal arguments. Don't matter to me.
there are several legal frameworks for recognizing the life of the child beginning at conception.