Excuse my ignorance Eric but what is post-birth abortion? Like, actually after a birth of a child? I've literally never heard that term before.

 

Here's the Wiki on the federal legislation. It basically says that if the abortionist fails to kill the child and the child is completely out of the woman's body then the abortionist can't kill it because it goes from not being a person with rights to being a person with rights in a split second.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born-Alive_...ection_Act

 

Abortionists have killed and/or discarded live babies in dumpsters, closets, trash cans, sinks...all kinds of macabre stuff. This law was designed to protect those babies and require they they be given adequate care instead of just being discarded with the other medical waste.

 

The mental gymnastics are astounding.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Yes. It is an ugly, ugly thing. But the number of women who seek them is not going to drop by shutting down clinics. If every Pro-Life person felt so strongly about the issue that they would raise, clothe, feed and educate all the unwanted children, it would be one thing. But it seems to me the most firm Pro-Life politicians (again.. I cannot stand how this issue has permeated the political arena) are the ones who want to cut every other program that unwanted child needs once it is out of the womb. Congrats kid! You are alive and we are giving you no chance. Assuming these unwanted kids all entered foster care.. have you seen foster care lately? Just yesterday I read 168 children were rescued from a sex trafficking operation and 2/3 of them were not reported missing. Many of these from the foster care system. I get the Pro-Life stance. I get the Pro-Choice stance too. It is not an easy decision for a woman to make, but it is her body and her choice.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

What Kermit Gosnell did is criminal and heinous. But I don't peronally agree with those who protest abortion clinics or do what TX did by shutting a lot of them down. Late term abortions are actually slightly upticking there now. All shutting them down does is drive that sort of procedure back to the alley ways which are far less humane for the mother or create an inconceivable abortion tourism industry. For Texans probably to Mexico. I am no fan of abortion. But I cannot imagine any pregnant woman decides to have one without thinking it through. There is enough mental anxiety going through her head which doesn't need to be amplified by a group of people publicly shaming her or worse. I loathe that the abortion card is used as a political bargaining chip as it has no bearing on how effective or honest a leader is. I know a woman who got pregnant at 13 and kept the baby. She went on to lead a productive life and her daughter is now a mom. But I also know most young women who get pregnant do not have the same support and discipline she had. While abortion is truly horrible to think about, if it isn't your body, I am of the opinion you should stay out of it. If you are pro-life, do not have an abortion. But you have no right to tell someone else they cannot.

The above approach is only acceptable if you neglect to acknowledge a life is taken.


What about the child's choice to live? Midterm and post term abortions at least you have to admit is a form of legalized murder. After the first trimester that child is living thinking individual.


I'm sorry but ill do everything in my power to protect the life of all children, the anxiety of a women be damned.

---

May I ask why you, as a libertarian, feel like a woman shouldn't have the right to terminate her prenatal pregnancy?

Because as a libertarian I believe that child has a right to live. Just like during slavery it was the government refusing to acknowledge the slaves rights as a human that allowed slavery to happen. Abortion is only legal on the grounds of not recognizing the child's right to live.


Government is established to protect life and property that child is a life not the mothers property.

---

The above approach is only acceptable if you neglect to acknowledge a life is taken.


What about the child's choice to live? Midterm and post term abortions at least you have to admit is a form of legalized murder. After the first trimester that child is living thinking individual.


I'm sorry but ill do everything in my power to protect the life of all children, the anxiety of a women be damned.

If that includes adopting and raising the child, I applaud you.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

A person has to pay for many things in order to function in life.  You have to pay for a driver's license, a fishing license, a hunting license, etc.  You must have some form of Government issued ID in order to board a plane, and I assume the same goes for boarding a train or a bus.

 

An ID is required to cash a check, open a bank account, get a job, etc.

 

It's not like anyone walking around that is of voting age can function without some sort of valid ID.  I just recently started a new job.  I have held a security clearance with our Government for well over 10 years.  In order to get the job, I had to do a urinalysis, and when I did so, I had to provide a valid photo ID.  Also, on my first day of employment, I had to provide either a valid State Issued ID (driver's license) AND a Social Security card OR a passport (I happen to have all of those).

 

I would tend to think that if somebody wanted a job they would posses some of that documentation.  I don't think that it's too much to ask that they present something like that to vote.

 

So the Constitution and Supreme Court be damned? The fact that there are other requirements for IDs is irrelevant, we're talking about voting, a protected and guaranteed right. It is a unique situation.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

If that includes adopting and raising the child, I applaud you.

 

So you support murder? (aborting a child in later development of pregnancy)

---

If that includes adopting and raising the child, I applaud you.

 

You're deflecting again, I was asked how as a Libertarian I can justify an anti-abortion stance. Simple protection of life and property are the two roles of government that child's life is protect it's not the mother's property to dispose of.

 

As for adoption, after I've raised my four I'm open to the idea of adoption. We actually came real close to adopting one of the foster children my wife's Aunt is taking care of.

---

So the Constitution and Supreme Court be damned? The fact that there are other requirements for IDs ir irrelevant, we're talking about voting, a protected and guaranteed right. It is a unique situation.

 

except it's not a right and the voting rights act only made previsions of specific discrimination being forbidden.

---

There isn't an absence of voter fraud.  There are numerous examples of voter fraud in recent elections.  The problem here is that none of it is being investigated because the justice department has made it clear that they will stand on race when it comes to this issue. Liberals love to use the term "widespread" as if that somehow diminishes voter fraud at any level.  Even in the article you posted, the good lib who wrote it used the term.  So, does that mean democrats are okay with a lot of fraud as long as it's not wide spread? 

 

I'm curious.  How is it a poll tax to charge for a state ID for minorities, but it's not if it's a white paying that same fee?  I'm pretty sure white folks are expected to pay for their IDs just like everyone else, right?  This notion that requiring IDs to cast a ballot is racist has other ramifications that liberals love to ignore.  You need an ID to get social security.  You need an ID to cash a check.  You need an ID to gain access to government facilities.  You need an ID for hundreds and thousands of tasks we perform on a daily basis.  Is all of that racist too? Or, is  it just when you talk about expecting someone to have an ID to vote?

 

If having an ID helps reduce voter fraud, no matter how rampant or not it is, then it makes election results more legitimate. 

 

As far as the technology goes, your lib writer evidently knows nothing about identity fraud that IS a rampant problem on the Internet.  He must have missed the many stories of systems being hacked and customer's personal information being stolen from retailers like Target among others.  Yes, billions of transactions take place over the interwebs on a daily basis.  It's reported that 1% of those transactions result in fraud.  Now, if 125 million votes are cast in a presidential election, and we use his dismissive comparison to Internet fraud, you're talking about 1.25 million fraudulent votes being cast in 2012.  Feel free to dismiss that.  I won't. 

 

I do agree that there are probably more efficient, effective ways to cast ballots in elections.  I just don't trust the government to be the architect for that system.

 

There were allegations of voter fraud on both sides after the 2000 election. How many actual cases were proven during that administration? The fact is that most irregularities that are proven are not with the voters themselves, it's with the administration  of the process.

 

Who said anything about anything being racist? It is a poll tax no matter who is required to pay it. as I stated, I have no issue with requiring an ID, I have issues with requiring payment to obtain said ID.


If you don't trust the government, are you naive enough to trust the private sector?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

There were allegations of voter fraud on both sides after the 2000 election. How many actual cases were proven during that administration? The fact is that most irregularities that are proven are not with the voters themselves, it's with the administration  of the process.

 

Who said anything about anything being racist? It is a poll tax no matter who is required to pay it. as I stated, I have no issue with requiring an ID, I have issues with requiring payment to obtain said ID.

If you don't trust the government, are you naive enough to trust the private sector?

 

requiring payment for the Id would make it illegal under the constitution.

---

except it's not a right and the voting rights act only made previsions of specific discrimination being forbidden.

 

"The right to vote" in mentioned 5 times in the U.S. Constitution, in varying forms of saying the right to vote shall not be abridged or denied, in all but one instance. If your argument is that it does not specifically say "every citizen has the right to vote", well then you also do not believe in the Constitutional right to bear arms, freedom of speech or protection for search or seizure, because the semantics are the same. None of those rights are explicitly guaranteed, but all are protected from denial or abridgment (even tough all have qualifications).

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

requiring payment for the Id would make it illegal under the constitution.

 

Isn't that what's happening now? As soon as a portion of the VRA was voided, conservative politicians in certain states rushed as if released from a cage starving and voter registration restrictions were a big T-bone steak. One of their first items of business was to require picture IDs which had to be purchased.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

"The right to vote" in mentioned 5 times in the U.S. Constitution, in varying forms of saying the right to vote shall not be abridged or denied, in all but one instance. If your argument is that it does not specifically say "every citizen has the right to vote", well then you also do not believe in the Constitutional right to bear arms, freedom of speech or protection for search or seizure, because the semantics are the same. None of those rights are explicitly guaranteed, but all are protected from denial or abridgment (even tough all have qualifications).

 

It mentions the right to vote shall not be denied for specific reasons, no where in the constitution does it say that voting itself is a right. It's why we've had to amend the voting laws so many times, from landowners exclusively all the way to women and minorities. However not a single one of those Amendments creates a universal right to vote, they simply place restrictions on what states can do to restrict voter access.

 

No one is denying that the constitution forbids restricting voter access based upon Race, Religions, Gender or Financial Status. That is however very different from the now normalized term of the "right to vote".

---

Isn't that what's happening now? As soon as a portion of the VRA was voided, conservative politicians in certain states rushed as if released from a cage starving and voter registration restrictions were a big T-bone steak. One of their first items of business was to require picture IDs which had to be purchased.

 

Correct and it won't stand up in court once it's challenged. The Voting Rights Act specifically prohibits Poll Taxes and it will be easily argued anyone forced to pay for an ID to vote is being forced to pay a polling tax.

---

The definition of child is "a person between birth and full growth". I realize using the word child helps your agenda, but it makes you look like a fool. The correct term is fetus. Also, what do you consider "living"? A visualized and recordable heart beat can be seen by 6 weeks. Lungs, however, don't start functioning until the 3rd trimester. There is a reason health care facilities don't assign medical record numbers to a fetus. The medical record is assigned at birth.

 

I wonder if "life starts at conception" people celebrate their kids first year alive 3 months after birth. "Happy alive-day!"

 

I'm well aware of the development of a child in the mother's womb. I know you have to call it a fetus to avoid mentally admitting what the process does, and no I won't change my terminology to appease your guilt. 

---

It mentions the right to vote shall not be denied for specific reasons, no where in the constitution does it say that voting itself is a right. It's why we've had to amend the voting laws so many times, from landowners exclusively all the way to women and minorities. However not a single one of those Amendments creates a universal right to vote, they simply place restrictions on what states can do to restrict voter access.

 

No one is denying that the constitution forbids restricting voter access based upon Race, Religions, Gender or Financial Status. That is however very different from the now normalized term of the "right to vote".

 

And not a single constitutional amendment explicitly establishes a right to bear arms or a right to freedom of speech. The constitutions authors use the same semantics you cite. It merely states "the right" cannot be denied or abridged. Does this mean you agree that they are also not specifically granted as universal rights, too?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

The definition of child is "a person between birth and full growth". I realize using the word child helps your agenda, but it makes you look like a fool. The correct term is fetus. Also, what do you consider "living"? A visualized and recordable heart beat can be seen by 6 weeks...

 

That sounds like "alive" to me... 

---

And not a single constitutional amendment explicitly establishes a right to bear arms or a right to freedom of speech. The constitutions authors use the same semantics you cite. It merely states "the right" cannot be denied or abridged. Does this mean you agree that they are also not specifically granted as universal rights, too?

 

correct nothing is universal.

 

If it was than there wouldn't be restrictions on where I can and can not carry my gun. There wouldn't be a requirement that I take a safety course and pay for a license to carry my gun. There wouldn't be a requirement that I pay for a background check before buying my gun.

---

So you support murder? (aborting a child in later development of pregnancy)

If a woman is going to have one, I would prefer it be done early on. But I don't make that choice. Again, I don't deny one's right to a Pro Life stance, but I also think it is convenient to not take into account who will raise and pay for that unwanted child. I can barely afford the one I have and I spend hours teaching her and loving her. What kind of life is this unwanted kid gonna have on their own or as a ward of the state? Our foster care system is terrifying. And some propose doing away with the Dept of Education. The odds keep getting stacked against them. Once the kids are out of the womb, the loudest Pro Life politicians vote against any program that would help these kids.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!