Question for those amongst the "Abortion should be legal" crowd

No. I think local governments should the ones to decide. If your community wants it legal and you want it illegal, you can move a county over. We certainly need some form of government to keep me from standing on the porch naked shooting at the cars that go up and down the road because I am bored, so local control is the least offensive form of policy-making. I mean you are not even allowed to ride a horse up and down the road in my city, making the Amish effectively illegal here. As long as the Amish have somewhere else to be Amish, then all is good.

 

Nope, a female American citizen should have the same BASIC rights in any state of the union as everyone else.
. American women can't be singled out for less rights from state to state.

 

Right, same difference.

I've encountered this before. "Libertarians" who basically find a COP-OUT way ot supporting the Theocrats (and the Racists) on the Right.

"I don't care if abortion is legal or illegal...I want the local government to decide." In other words, the EXACT SAME position as the "pro-lifers"...who think it'll be easy to ban it on a local level.

But the Libertarian uses their "libertarianism" to not anger...in fact, to SUPPORT the position of the "pro-lifers".

Same deal on civil rights...."I don't support discrimination....but I want local government to decide"...

which was used by "libertarians" to justify Jim Crow laws, while pretending they were not on the side of the segregationists.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a cop-out, Fox. A way for somebody who supports the Theocratic or Racist agenda to pretend they are not a part of it, but are "libertarian".

It's cowardly...but not uncommon. It's like how Rand Paul was opposed to the Civil Rights Act....but said he "abhors any form of discrimination." More libertarian bulls**t.

 

Because there is no liberty without life.

Well, actually abortion is an issue that has the Libertarian camp divided.

I think Stossel explains it best:

[video=youtube;JrsNGSCC6aI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrsNGSCC6aI[/video]

How is this so different from the pro-choice argument? Pro-choicers say "You may believe it's wrong but it should still be my right to decide".

 

It's not a debate....a TRUE libertarian would support the individual having sovereignty over their own body.

PHONY libertarians try to figure out ways to allow the Social Conservative agenda to still come to pass....while dishonestly claiming they don't support the Social Conservative agenda.

Or, as I noted, the Racist agenda......Barry Goldwater declared his opposition to the Civil Rights Act on "libertarian grounds" while claiming he "opposed all forms of discrimination"......

yet "oddly", he was very popular with anti-desegregation, pro-Jim Crow Southern whites.

Funny that...huh?

 

Bingo!



Nailed it!

Libertarianism can never work because it is impossible for them to practice what they preach in reality.

 

But there can be no choice, no Liberty without the most fundamental right of all—the right to Life.
Or rather, to be more precise, the right not to have one's life unjustly taken by someone else.

This is the underlying irony of the "pro-choice" movement.

 

I did not say that they thought women should be punished, just that they thought the women deserved it. There is a subtle but clear difference between the two.

Let me try to explain it this way: They are not in favor of punishing women. But if, hypothetically, abortion were made illegal and the women who offended the law punished, the objection would not be because they thought these women were innocent, their concern would not be for the women who were being punished.

It's kind of like the U.S. assassinations of terrorists carried out other countries. Many people have strong objections to this, but it's not because they don't believe terrorists trying to kill innocent American civilians don't deserve to die. There are some people who oppose the criminalization of drugs only because it is costing the taxpayers too much money, but if it were not for the issue of money they would love to put drug dealers behind bars for as long as possible. That's the best analogy I can think of.

Does that make sense?

You can believe that something is evil, but nevertheless find the actions being carried out by another individual convenient towards your own desired ends, and so you step back and do not interfere. Basically the rational is "Killing babies is evil, but if someone else is willing to do the dirty work then so much the better, there will be fewer unwanted people in the world".

I see someone else doing something bad that is benefiting me, and so I do not complain, even though I would have no problem if that person were caught and punished.

 

The right to life does not pass to brain dead fetuses and brain dead patients

 

What if you try viewing it this way: The fetus is in a coma and will wake up in a few months.

Who's to say what a "functioning brain" is? What if the brain is there but just hasn't been turned all the way on yet? Does that make it ok to kill? The way I see it, the only difference between the brain of a fetus and the brain of a hospital patient in a medically induced coma is that the brain of the hospital patient was turned on before. Now it's turned off, but it will probably be turned back on again in the future (if the patient makes a recovery).

 

Anything brain dead inside another person can be flushed like last night's dinner

 

If it's moving, it's not brain dead.

 

Again wrong. Brain dead patients have reflex movement too

 

No, that is not good. The Amish can be Amish anywhere in this country, and followers of any other religion can be what they are anywhere in this country. The freedom of religion that is guaranteed by the BofR extends to the whole of the USA and to any religion, including Amish, Islam, Evangelical Christian, or any other. Thoughts and beliefs are free, behavior must be regulated to maintain order and your example of shooting at people is a prime example of destroying order. Those acting on their beliefs about the appropriateness of abortion in no way interfere with order and it is therefore not the concern of government at any level.

 

The underlying LIE of the "pro-life" movement is....that "We don't want to control women."


Everything about it, is clearly focused on that. It becomes MORE evident with male "pro-lifers", typically single (or divorced) who support THE most draconian and totalitarian forms of misogyny when they imagine HOW they would enforce a ban on abortion.

No names needed.

 

Except of course that you like all pro-lifers have failed to even give a semblance of proof that abortion is unjustly taking a life, would you like to try or will you yet again ignore and evade.

 

I'm betting on the usual ignore and evade.....

 

I wouldn't even give you odds on that

 

The difference between a fetus and a coma patient is that the coma patient has been born, so we all agree that this body has been inhabited by a sentient person before the coma. You are operating on a flawed premise that there is a sentient person (or spirit, or soul) inhabiting the zygote/embryo/fetus from the moment of conception. Do you have any evidence to support this premise?

 

I can only speak for myself. I believe abortion should be legal and the women who get abortions do not deserve to be punished by government or by society.

 

There is not a single state in the USA that does not have some form of restriction on late-term abortion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ll-50-states-stand-on-abortion-in-two-charts/

UK abortion law in the USA would in fact reduce the number of restrictions imposed onto women, which by the way actual cause an increase in abortions being performed later in pregnancy which make them less safe for the female and as such makes the pro-life mantra of making abortion safer for the woman a joke.

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a54536/how-politicians-are-making-abortion-less-safe/