A question

[Colabomb]

BEFORE I GO ON, I SUPPORT ABORTION IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THERE IS MORTAL DANGER TO THE MOTHER.

Concerning the allowance of elective abortion, or abortion not done with the intention of saving a life, many throw up the principle of "the government should not tell me what I can and can't do with my body."


However, what many of those who use this not not acknowledge is that the Government often tells us what we can and cannot do with our bodies. Harmful Drugs are illegalized, Certain beneficial but risky drugs are only availiable with a prescription, Suicide is illegal, protistution is illegal, driving without a seatbelt is illegal.


The only consistant theory here is libertarianism. However most Abortion Rights supporters are not libertarians.


So, the logical question here, is should we limit abortion to strict circumstances, change the argument for open abortion, or legalize Crack and abolish the FDA?

[gtsecc]

BEFORE I GO ON, I SUPPORT ABORTION IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THERE IS MORTAL DANGER TO THE MOTHER.
I don't.

The only consistant theory here is libertarianism.
You are correct.

However most Abortion Rights supporters are not libertarians.
not Ron Paul.
Or do you ean what you typed?
Ron Paul is a libertarian and pro-Life

[PaladinValer]

I'm more "conservative" than the OP...I fully reject abortion.

[longhair75]

I understand that abortion is legal. I also understand that sometimes abortion is necessary, but I don't think it can be morally justified.

[TomUK]

The Government is irrelevant. We should act in accordance with God's law. The government should reflect that.

[ProdigalSeeker]

I support the opportunity for legal abortions for anyone who wants one - even if it's because they are just having a bad hair day. That being said, it wouldn't be right to abort my child (unless medical issues - you know my stance). It's not up to me to coerce my brothers and sisters (let ye who be without sin...) on an issue that doesn't affect me or anyone but them. If they want to kill themself, for example, that's sad- it's a crime against God but not against society. All crimes are against God but not all against society. Then again, I'm 100% libertarian and 85% Christianarchist.

[Colabomb]

I support the opportunity for legal abortions for anyone who wants one - even if it's because they are just having a bad hair day. That being said, it wouldn't be right to abort my child (unless medical issues - you know my stance). It's not up to me to coerce my brothers and sisters (let ye who be without sin...) on an issue that doesn't affect me or anyone but them. If they want to kill themself, for example, that's sad- it's a crime against God but not against society. All crimes are against God but not all against society. Then again, I'm 100% libertarian and 85% Christianarchist.

Everyone so far has missed the point of my post. I want to discuss one specific argument:

"Its my body".

[masuwerte]

BEFORE I GO ON, I SUPPORT ABORTION IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THERE IS MORTAL DANGER TO THE MOTHER.
Me too. The life of the mother is important. But such cases, where the fetus is viable, are rare.

[masuwerte]

So, the logical question here, is should we limit abortion to strict circumstances, change the argument for open abortion, or legalize Crack and abolish the FDA?

The former, IMHO.

I would add that there is no virtue where there is no choice.

[ProdigalSeeker]

Everyone so far has missed the point of my post. I want to discuss one specific argument:

"Its my body".
All due respect, Cola... but I was replying to "it's my body".
It's not up to me to coerce my brothers and sisters (let ye who be without sin...) on an issue that doesn't affect me or anyone but them.
It is their body... if it was my body the answer would be an emphatic "Heck No!" to abortion.

[Colabomb]

I support the opportunity for legal abortions for anyone who wants one - even if it's because they are just having a bad hair day. That being said, it wouldn't be right to abort my child (unless medical issues - you know my stance). It's not up to me to coerce my brothers and sisters (let ye who be without sin...) on an issue that doesn't affect me or anyone but them. If they want to kill themself, for example, that's sad- it's a crime against God but not against society. All crimes are against God but not all against society. Then again, I'm 100% libertarian and 85% Christianarchist.

So you would not condemn someone for murdering, as long as they did not murder you?

[Albion]

Concerning the allowance of elective abortion, or abortion not done with the intention of saving a life, many throw up the principle of "the government should not tell me what I can and can't do with my body."


However, what many of those who use this not not acknowledge is that the Government often tells us what we can and cannot do with our bodies. Harmful Drugs are illegalized, Certain beneficial but risky drugs are only availiable with a prescription, Suicide is illegal, protistution is illegal, driving without a seatbelt is illegal.

The only consistant theory here is libertarianism. However most Abortion Rights supporters are not libertarians.

That is true. Liberalism, to which we are indebted for the seeming hypocrisy you identify in this issue, both supports government telling us what to do with our bodies and telling us that no one can. Modern Liberalism's prime moral value is holding power for itself, being essentially a form of Socialism. This leads to the apparent inconsistency you mentioned.

One bizarre example IMO is that a fetus is not a person and so can be killed until half out of the mother, but if it is accidentally or intentionally killed by someone else, that is prosecuted as a crime against that same fetus.

So, the logical question here, is should we limit abortion to strict circumstances, change the argument for open abortion, or legalize Crack and abolish the FDA?

Well, the government exists to protect people from force and fraud. Even Libertarianism says that, not that there should be no government.

So if we apply this widely-held principle, abortion should be illegal and the other things not.

[Adammi]

BEFORE I GO ON, I SUPPORT ABORTION IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THERE IS MORTAL DANGER TO THE MOTHER.

Concerning the allowance of elective abortion, or abortion not done with the intention of saving a life, many throw up the principle of "the government should not tell me what I can and can't do with my body."


However, what many of those who use this not not acknowledge is that the Government often tells us what we can and cannot do with our bodies. Harmful Drugs are illegalized, Certain beneficial but risky drugs are only availiable with a prescription, Suicide is illegal, protistution is illegal, driving without a seatbelt is illegal.


The only consistant theory here is libertarianism. However most Abortion Rights supporters are not libertarians.


So, the logical question here, is should we limit abortion to strict circumstances, change the argument for open abortion, or legalize Crack and abolish the FDA?
That's why I'm a libertarian. I do agree with you though. To take any one peace out of the greater libertarian puzzle is baffling to me.

[ebia]

Everyone so far has missed the point of my post. I want to discuss one specific argument:

"Its my body".
I think perhaps that its an over simplification of their argument. Most of us recognise that governments have a strictly limited role in telling us what we can and can't do with our bodies.

The question is then whether or not this is a case where the government should step in - has it got the balance between restricting freedoms and preventing harm right. In this particular case that in turn can't really be considered until one has agreed on what the harm is happening. You can't really isolate this argument from the argument about whether the unborn are or are not entitled to protection as humans.

[norbie]

"Its my body".
No it's not. It's on loan from God. Everything we do and have is his - so are our bodys.
I believe the purpose of this thread is to answer in two ways: the government way in which abortion is legal ( but this is o.k. with me, because we can't force our believe on everyone), and the Christian way in which abortion is plain murder. No Christian can support abortion.
Just my thoughts,
Norbie

[ProdigalSeeker]

So you would not condemn someone for murdering, as long as they did not murder you?

This, IMHO, is apples and oranges. Did they murder me because their life was in danger? Was there malice behind it? Usually with murder there is malice... not so with most abortions.

Liberalism, to which we are indebted for the seeming hypocrisy you identify in this issue, both supports government telling us what to do with our bodies and telling us that no one can

Albion, I agree with what you said, but I believe he was talking about Libertarianism, not Liberalism.

Well, the government exists to protect people from force and fraud. Even Libertarianism says that, not that there should be no government.

So if we apply this widely-held principle, abortion should be illegal and the other things not.

Funny, I get the opposite-- abortion should be legal as it's not a question of protection from force.

[Colabomb]

So you would not condemn someone for murdering, as long as they did not murder you?

This, IMHO, is apples and oranges. Did they murder me because their life was in danger? Was there malice behind it? Usually with murder there is malice... not so with most abortions.



You can still murder without malice. Mob hits are often involve no other motivation than money. Thieves often kill wittnesses. These are both disgusting, neither are done with malice.

[Albion]

"Liberalism, to which we are indebted for the seeming hypocrisy you identify in this issue, both supports government telling us what to do with our bodies and telling us that no one can"

Albion, I agree with what you said, but I believe he was talking about Libertarianism, not Liberalism.

I believe he was talking about both. Libertarianism he thought the most consistent philosophy with regard to the state telling people what to do with their lives, but he also noted that Liberals are the ones who have made all these inconsistent laws.

Well, the government exists to protect people from force and fraud. Even Libertarianism says that, not that there should be no government.

So if we apply this widely-held principle, abortion should be illegal and the other things not.


Funny, I get the opposite-- abortion should be legal as it's not a question of protection from force.

It's a protection of SOMEONE from SOME force. It's protecting the person of the unborn child from the abortionist's force ending his life!

[Colabomb]

And also, just because I said libertarians were consistent, does not mean I was endorsing the philosophy.

I do believe in restricting abortion.

[PaladinValer]

I thought arguing politics had been recinded...

[Aymn27]

Dear Cola
I am a liberterian-leaning republican....I suggest you go to www.l4l.org (http://www.l4l.org) and read all they have to offer...it is an amazing site..particularly because the lady who sponsors it is an agnostic libertarian who is pro-life..

BTW Glen I am a Ron Paul Republican..are you? :)

Also, true "liberalism" is libertarianism...modern liberals are by and large feminist socialists, not true liberals (well, at least here in the US - the terms are not correctly used)...

Take a quiz here http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

I am 100% libertarian here...although this is a "quick and dirty" and not truly representative of the full scale...

[Aymn27]

There can be no argument that at the moment of conception there is a new person, complete with its own DNA and identity. Abortion is an act of violence against an individual - which the U S Constitution guarantees full rights and freedoms.

[DeoJuvante]

D
Also, true "liberalism" is libertarianism...modern liberals are by and large feminist socialists, not true liberals (well, at least here in the US - the terms are not correctly used)...


While I agree that you Americans just try to confuse every one else with your crazy usage of the words 'liberal' and 'conservative' ;), I don't agree that true liberalism is libertarianism. While there is no doubt that libertarianism originated in liberal thought, there are many different varieties of liberalism and many liberals (by which I mean not lefties but people who adhere to liberalism) do not consider libertarianism even to be a form of liberalism, let alone the true form of liberalism.

[Colabomb]

On most political maps I have seen it separated from Liberal and Coservative, but note, not in the center.

[ProdigalSeeker]

You can still murder without malice. Mob hits are often involve no other motivation than money. Thieves often kill wittnesses. These are both disgusting, neither are done with malice.
While I do agree with the last part of this statement, are we speaking of the same definition of malice?
malice (n.) A desire to harm others or to see others suffer; extreme ill will or spite.
malice (n.) The intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another.

but he also noted that Liberals are the ones who have made all these inconsistent laws.
That's true... liberals have.. libertarians didn't. It thought you were equating the two... sorry. Our modern definition of liberals is completely corrupt from the libertarian defintion of liberal.
It's a protection of SOMEONE from SOME force. It's protecting the person of the unborn child from the abortionist's force ending his life!
Debatable-- ha get it? Debatable (Thanks Capt. Obvious) yet we've debated this and I accept your right to your views.
"Its my body".
No it's not. It's on loan from God. Everything we do and have is his - so are our bodys.

Agree 100% However God gave people’s body to them to be under their jurisdiction. Not for me to have jurisidiction over. Which opens up the argument, if I condone people being prostitutes. No, but I tolerate it as one tolerates a screaming child on a bus or plane. Wish it was different. It’s not. I go on. Seriously I would like to tell people what to do and how to live their lives (the rest of CF shudders at the thought, I know :D ) but that’s not my role.

There can be no argument that at the moment of conception there is a new person, complete with its own DNA and identity. Abortion is an act of violence against an individual - which the U S Constitution guarantees full rights and freedoms.

The thing that separates humans from animals is our capacity to rationalize. When science can tell me that fetuses can rationalize, I will change my Point Of View. Until then,,, fetuses, definitely alive like all organic matter.

there are many different varieties of liberalism and many liberals (by which I mean not lefties but people who adhere to liberalism) do not consider libertarianism even to be a form of liberalism, let alone the true form of liberalism.

libertarian (n.) One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
libertarian (n.) One who believes in free will.
Libertarianism is Liberal and it is Conservative. It is the political school of thought that states “one approach does not work for all situations”. IMHO.

[PaladinValer]

Libertarianism, at least in the US, agrees with liberals on issues on social rights but agrees with conservatives in areas of economics.

However, again; when was the ban of discussing politics lifted?

[ProdigalSeeker]

Didn't get the "TPS Report" (office space - love that movie) on a political discussion ban. Sorry :sorry: . But I do believe 90% (can't back up that #) of moral issues are necessarily going to (d)evolve into political discussion. Just the nature of the beast.

[Aymn27]

Libertarianism, at least in the US, agrees with liberals on issues on social rights but agrees with conservatives in areas of economics.

However, again; when was the ban of discussing politics lifted?
Nope..that is incorrect...libertarians DO NOT agree with quotas, minimum wage, hate crimes legislaton, minority rights, etc etc....and on the other side of the fence we don't like corporate welfare, foreign trade agreements, wars for oil, etc.

[Albion]

Nope..that is incorrect...libertarians DO NOT agree with quotas, minimum wage, hate crimes legislaton, minority rights, etc etc....and on the other side of the fence we don't like corporate welfare, foreign trade agreements, wars for oil, etc.

You are right about that. Libertarians don't. But neither do Conservatives, in case anyone makes that mistake.

[ProdigalSeeker]

and on the other side of the fence we don't like corporate welfare, foreign trade agreements, wars for oil, etc.Libertarians don't. But neither do Conservatives, in case anyone makes that mistake
Unless I am mistaken, wasn't it the republicans who gave McDonalds several hundred thousand to promote cheeseburgers in France? They also gave money to several other companies, and let's not forget the GYNORMUS bail out to the airline industry... this is totally off thread sorry.

[Albion]

and on the other side of the fence we don't like corporate welfare, foreign trade agreements, wars for oil, etc.Libertarians don't. But neither do Conservatives, in case anyone makes that mistake
Unless I am mistaken, wasn't it the republicans who gave McDonalds several hundred thousand to promote cheeseburgers in France? They also gave money to several other companies, and let's not forget the GYNORMUS bail out to the airline industry... this is totally off thread sorry.

Conservatism, like Liberalism and Libertarianism, is a political philosophy. An "ism."

The Republican Party and Republican members of Congress include people who represent a wide range of views.

If you consult one of the rating systems, such as the ACU or ADA or many other political organizations put out, you'll find very few members of Congress who are rated as 100% Conservative...or Liberal, for that matter.

[ProdigalSeeker]

The Republican Party and Republican members of Congress include people who represent a wide range of views.

If you consult one of the rating systems, such as the ACU or ADA or many other political organizations put out, you'll find very few members of Congress who are rated as 100% Conservative...or Liberal, for that matter.

You are correct of course-- as well as regarding Episcopalianism or Lutheranism. We can hardly define what would define 100% of either- how about terrorism?

Yet, its the action carried out under the banner of the 'ism that defines it.

[Albion]

Yet, its the action carried out under the banner of the 'ism that defines it.

If that were the case, maybe. But it usually is the case that the terms are applied very sloppily, generally by the other side pointing fingers at policies that they don't like and saying, "See--that's Conservatism/Liberalism for you!"

There's something wrong with holding that an enemy of either Ism is the right one to define its beliefs.

It may be said that the average 'man on the street' doesn't have a good idea of what true Liberalism or Conservatism stands for and is most likely to go for what a news service or some politician has said, frequently just to malign the cause they don't favor.

So, is there a standard that is not just what is thrown around in ignorance or to make political propaganda? Sure.

Just as Communism is studied and understood through the writings of Marx and Lenin -- not just going by what Hugo Chavez thought up yesterday -- so also Liberalism and Conservatism were defined by the writings of their spokesmen. Most educated and devoted fans of either Ism have read these people who defined their movements and are rightly sensitive to hearing it said that they stand for nothing more than what some editorialist chooses to blurt out without any real knowledge.

Now, you might be thinking that if opposition to confiscatory taxation is called conservative, and if the Republicans are mainly (but not totally) on that side, and if the Republican Party is at least somewhat more Conservative overall than the Democrats, then this makes the policy Conservative. But that's not why it is conervative. Conservatism has a track record going back to Edmund Burke and this is where the answer lies. It will also explain WHY the Conservative position is what it is. The same applies to Liberalism, of course.

If the editorialists or politicans call George Bush a fascist and a Nazi, that does not define him as one. If his policies line up with Mussolini, it could be so. If the editorialists call Hillary Clinton a Socialist, we cannot just say that if most people think that's the case then, that it is.

I think I feel too passionate about this point, but everyone demands accuracy when his own ox is gored, no matter what the issue, so why shouldn't we all recognize that there are longstanding bodies of thought that define these Isms, regardless of how poorly they are applied in everyday conversation?