The Libertarian Party and Abortion

Oh get real. Show me the definition that has the "potential for growth and development?" Webster states that viable means CAPABLE of growing and developing- that's a BIG difference from potential. We all have the potential to be a rocket scientists but not all of us are capable. 5 seconds and Google. That's all it takes. Webster's vi·a·ble adj \ˈvī-ə-bəl\ 1: capable of living; especially : having attained such form and development as to be normally capable of surviving outside the mother's womb <a viable fetus> 2: capable of growing or developing <viable seeds> <viable eggs> 3 a : capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately <viable alternatives> b : capable of existence and development as an independent unit <the colony is now a viable state> c (1) : having a reasonable chance of succeeding <a viable candidate> (2) : financially sustainable <a viable enterprise> Dictionary.com vi·a·ble [vahy-uh-buhl] Show IPA adjective 1.capable of living. 2.Physiology . a.physically fitted to live. b.(of a fetus) having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus. 3.Botany . able to live and grow. 4.vivid; real; stimulating, as to the intellect, imagination, or senses: a period of history that few teachers can make viable for students. 5.practicable; workable: a viable alternative. American Heritage Dictionary: vi·a·ble (vī'ə-bəl) adj. Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions. Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn. Capable of success or continuing effectiveness; practicable: a viable plan; a viable national economy. See synonyms at possible.

Shannon Drinkwine Covel

i found this definition in a dictionary a couple years ago. it was an old one we had in our classroom at work, but i don't remember the brand. i didn't realize the definition had been revised to specifically address the pro choice stance on fetal viability. this is the age we live in, where the truth gets muddled so badly no one can see straight. at least one thing hasn't changed. they still can't rely on the full definition of "viable" and that was my original point. capable of living, capable of growth, and capable of developing are all attributes of a fertilized egg, making them just as legitimately viable, by definition, of a fetus or baby that is capable of these things outside the womb. the fact that the pro choice side, even while attempting to fix the inconsistencies, remains inconsistent, says a lot about the shady nature of abortion, and what they think about the sheeple who believe them. thank you for your very insightful input.

Sonja Porter

I also find some "pro-life" stances to be inconsistent. Pro-lifers who make exceptions for rape or incest, I don't get. If life is precious, if a fetus is a person, then it should not matter how that fetus got there. Either it is a life that should be protected and given the right to live or it is not. If I believed a fetus or zygote to be a person, no trauma that I could undergo could justify taking that innocent life to spare me more trauma.

Shannon Drinkwine Covel

very well played. i fully agree with that and work hard to call people out on it. one of my friends who is pro life expressed that she doesn't believe it is a life until the heart beats. i did my best to explain it to her, but she never expressed whether she changed hew view or not. note my comment below, "after conception, there are only varying degrees of pro-choiceness." that is the truth i stand by, and no true pro life person would make such exceptions

Sonja Porter

I'm going to butt in here and say just because a person is inconsistent with his/her views does not make the views themselves wrong. And arguing over what's in the dictionary (language is always fluctuating according to society's whims and has no objective standing) to determine who lives or dies isn't a good way to determine the morality on the topic. The fact of the matter is that abortion wherever you stand on it, like many moral issues (incest, rape, and more hotly debated things like gay marriage) is that it is either morally permissible, or it is morally abhorrent; not much wiggle room here. If it is part of a woman's body, then of course she has control of it. If it is a human person with a right to life, then she cannot terminate it out of simple convenience of avoiding pregnancy, just like a mother cannot terminate her 3-month old baby if the burdens of care and breastfeeding are too great in her eyes. (in the case of the life of the mother being at risk, the fetus will die anyway if nothing is done, so this is saving a life, sort of similar as well to killing in self-defense) Abortion is either killing, or not killing. There can be no degrees of "life" when it comes to human persons. Blurring the moral distinction of killing an 8-month old fetus versus a seven-month preemie on the prerequisite of location or viability is not the way to go. The issue is pretty black and white Mr. Johnson is a fool if he thinks that compromise will please both sides.

Suzanne Nelson

I'm not sure that's correct Suzanne. I feel somewhat as Johnson does, but honestly have no strong feelings either way. I believe abortion is a tragedy because anytime the potential for life is ended, that is tragic, however I also do not really believe that a zygote/fetus is a fully protected human being. It's just not as black and white as you would like to think. I am pro-choice, however, I would not have an abortion myself- that has nothing to do with if I believe it is a life or not but rather I am responsible for my actions and my consequences. We should be focusing less on if abortion should be allowed (people will never agree) and more on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions entirely (which I believe most people could agree with).

Shannon Drinkwine Covel

my argument about the terminology is only to demonstrate the lies and half truths the pro choice side spews forth to keep people confused on the issue. it is necessary to point out so people can determine which side is based on morality. roe vs wade specifically stated that no viable baby would be terminated. they ignored an important part of the definition of this word, the part which would exclude all fertilized eggs from being aborted. this is a form of lying and needs to be discussed so people know the pro choice side seeks to deceive them. in cases of true medical significance, two or more doctors should be required to sign off on a procedure. this will keep all parties accountable. the life and cosideration for it would not be taken lightly. i compare it more to a fire fighter running into a burning building and realizing there is more than one life at stake. he will have to choose who lives or dies, but no one would condemn him for his choice because there really isn't one. whatever decision he would make would not be taken lightly, and he would in no way be accountable for those he couldn't save.

Sonja Porter

i definitely respect that you see the issue as people needing to take responsibilty for their actions. that is a huge part of what is wrong with humanity. i would like to add, however that it is everyone's responsibilty to uphold humanity. let's compare two recent and real life situations. i live on the second floor of our apartments, overlooking the parkinglot. we have three small children and were headed out the door one day. our one year old scooted through before i could catch him and i had bags and a carseat with another child in my arms. my one year old headed straight for the stairs. i started hollering for him to come back, and as i'm freaking out a group of people passed by. they see my child teetering on the stairs, see me freaking out trying to call him back, and walked past doing nothing. thankfully my husband got to him before anything happened. now for another story, my husband i our family were on our way home from church. we were on the busiest street of the city, when i spotted a toddler alone on the sidewalk. we drove down the block and turned around the first chance we had, praying we would make it back in time. she was still safe and sound and i took her back to her dad who was hanging out with his friends. we could've thought, "it would serve that jerk right if his daughter got run over," or better yet, "it's not our business if he lets his kid play on a busy street," but that wouldn't be very good for humanity, would it? also look up abortion survivors, who were subjected to the wills of their mothers before they had rights, but now that they have rights, have to live with permanent damage. your last statement i do agree with wholeheartedly. our third child was very unexpected and i had already decided i did not want anymore. talk about being scared and nervous for the better part of a year. she is seven months old now and the cutest thing you've ever seen. and we made our decision to not have anymore official this time, haha

Sonja Porter

Sonja, if you don't want an abortion, don't get one. It really is that simple. But your beliefs do NOT represent the beliefs of the American people. How early or late into the pregnancy an abortion is performed is up to the doctor and the mother, not you. Which means this whole argument is moot. The argument you meant to have is whether we should give out birth control.

Austin Kiger

actually, i don't agree with govt passing out birth control. i don't even agree with most forms of birth control because many of them are hormonal and could potentially prevent a fertilized egg from growing. in many cases, birth control does not limit irresponsible behavior, it increases it. in my case, my husband and i have three kids and don't want any more. i don't consider a monogomous relationship to be irresponsible, and getting my tubes tied does not mean i am out there screwing everything. my personal insurance paid for it, to boot. and just because a group of people believes something is ok, does not mean it is. if you had insider information about a danger that could wipe out a third of the population, even if no one believed you, wouldn't you still try to warn them? even if you only saved a few? i know i will not change everyone's mind, but i intend to at least save a few lives. and doctors don't have a say in when an abortion should be performed. they are governed by the laws in that state. a mother on the other hand, can go to any state to meet her baby killing needs. so, my basic arguments are these: personal resonsibilty, a fertilized egg is a living human being different from all others, it is wrong to kill a living human being, and the pro choice agenda is made up of lies, half truths, double standards, and outrageous excuses.

Sonja Porter

The libertarain position is clear. No one may initiate force against another. Individual libertarians part over when is a fetus human - an issue that the law and religion have struggled with for most of human existance - and during most of that time reached the same conclusion as Johnson.

dhlii

THE "BABY" DOESN'T WANT ANYTHING. IT. CAN'T. THINK!!!

Marcus Collins

LOOK UP ABORTION SURVIVORS!!!!!!

Sonja Porter

also, look up a video called the silent scream. i will admit it is difficult to determine the actual "scream" part, but you can clearly see a small fetus trying to escape and fend off the abortion. then you see it dismembered, truly disgusting.

Sonja Porter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silent_Scream#Medical_community The film is not medically accurate at all and that thrashing and escaping are the result of the film being sped up. Fetuses at 12 weeks cannot perceive pain. Anything that they do is a reflexive action. Sorry, try again.

Marcus Collins

i saw my own children on ultrasound, moving in real time, and it was about the same speed as this video. my first was the size and shape of a lima bean, and she was all over the screen. as far as when it feels pain, there are widely differing opinions, all professional. some scientists conclude that all neccessary components of the nervous system are present by eight weeks, and some say they can't feel a thing until 28 weeks. a 20 week gap is significant. in any event, should we risk that a 15 week old fetus might be able to feel something? also, keep in mind that a person's lack of capacity to feel physical pain does not affect personhood. any one of us could be paralyzed at any time, this does not define our personhood. you try again.

Sonja Porter

He believes in the sanctity of human life, but also believes that the government shouldnt be involved in such things. Abortion is a gray area. Im pro-life but I dont believe I have the to tell a 12 year old girl that was raped by her father that she has to have the baby. I believe it should be the last resort and that the mother should be informed of her options. But Im not involved in every case and realize there are some things I have no right to dictate.

Adam Gibson

he only sanctions life after it has been growing five months. it doesn't make any sense to say a woman could have killed her baby last week or yesterday, but not today. in the case of young girls and rape cases, etc, too many times they "choose" to abort because they really feel like they don't have a choice. society needs to focus more on helping these girls understand all available options, getting them out of abusive relationships, support groups for being raped and support with a decision to deliver and or raise the baby. in a case you described, the abusive father would take her to the clinic himsrlf, and continue abvusing her afterward.

Sonja Porter

Most Americans still more or less continue with the traditional Protestant view, that abortion is acceptable up until "quickening". Johnson simply reflects the views of MOST Americans, who don't want to force a woman to carry a child to term, but also aren't comfortable killing a fetus that is ALMOST a baby. Seeing as most people are not absolutists who believe a single cell is a person with full human rights, some line must be drawn between a fertilized egg and a newborn baby - and while there may be some disagreement about where this is, Johnson's view would be considered reasonable by most.

Alan Light

Also - as a practical matter, why are you insisting on an absolute you can never get, when you could make an actual difference by accepting something a little less? This is what is called Making the perfect the enemy of the good.

Alan Light

It is vitally important that libertarian politics be distinguished from libertarian morality: while the libertarian party was founded on the principle that modern-day american government is by and large out of the people's control, and as such libertarians are militant against further additions to legislative and executive power, libertarians generally are not anarchists. Indeed, the libertarian moralist knows that the end of government truly is the end of liberty. Liberty is a privilege that is too costly a thing for all men to afford on their own. Compound this with the fact that liberty is indeed most precious above all else, and a formula of envy results. Thus their will always be those who covet the liberty of others, and without a standard of justice and a forceful method for its execution, no man can hope to see his liberty preserved unto himself, but can only anticipate the day when his possessions, his freedoms, and his life are inevitably taken away. Mrs. Porter: I remember my father and mother telling me of their memories of my bearing, with similar accounts of the fulness of life they felt while I was still in the womb, and mark this as sufficient evidence that the life within the fetus is indeed more viable, more potent, and more significant than the life of a few sperm, or a few skin cells, which the living body sheds as nothing with regularity. Although I have no personal memories of my time in the womb, their reassurance of my worth in this way convinces me of the worth of their words, whether or not they were entirely correct in their perception, which leads me to similar convictions as yours. The "no stance" attitude as championed by the likes of Mr Riggins is troubling to me, as their appears to be a fine line these days between liberating our fellow man through tolerance, and standing by while our fellow man is robbed--mothers and the unborn included--for fear of being accused of robbing the robber. If we, who desire least to take a stance, do not do so, then it is left to those who desire most to take a stance, the thieves of liberty being chief among them. As such, I salute you, Sonja Porter, for your passionate defense of unborn life. There is nothing evil or discourteous about standing up for what you believe to be right, especially in the spirit of liberty.

Trevor Egan

i strongly disagree with "taking no stance." im def hardcore libertarian, and my view on the subject is that it's none of government's dam business. i personally disagree with abortion, but that doesnt mean im going to force my views on anyone else. that is an issue that should be dealt with by the individual and their family. they are the ones that have to answer for how they lived their life, not i.

Brandon Riggins

abortion really isn't an issue for the Federal Govt.

Fred Autonom

then help me convince ms. sonja porter in the comment above..haha

Brandon Riggins

protecting the lives and well-being of children IS a function of the govt. since there will be no convincing me an unborn baby is not human, not alive, and not unique, good luck trying to tell me the govt. has no place protecting them. the govt. would not be dictating if, how, when, by who she gets pregnant. the govt. is not impregnating women against their will. those things would be in direct violation of a woman's rights, but don't sit there and try to say not letting women kill their babies is a violation of their rights. this so called right was given in mistake, and the original woman who pushed for this so called right has retracted all her previous statements and fights to save babies. she has fought tooth and nail to take it all back. heaven forbid our govt admit to making a mistake so we can make it right again and move on. if anyone still has doubts about who needs more protecting, look up abortion survivors. i dare you

Sonja Porter

Thank you, Mr Nomasters. I am in agreement with this statement, especially the part which states that "there are pro-liberty arguments on both sides." By the way, is your name really Nomasters, or is that a pseudonym for No Masters? Just curious.

Trevor Egan

Oh, but Sonja Porter prohibition never works. Those that really want an abortion will find a way (even if it means going outside the US, a coat hanger in a dark alley, or other sketchy means.) If we truly want to end abortion, we must address the underlying issues that put women in the position where they consider abortion. The majority of abortions are done because contraception failed or was not used. A scientist in India has made a male-based contraceptive that is 100% effective and not abortive (it prevents fertilization rather than implantation)--let's work to get these options readily available. We also need to discourage casual sex (especially among teens.) Rape accounts for a fraction of a percent of all abortions. Let's encourage victims to get to the ER STAT--give them a shot of estrogen to prevent pregnancy, and collect DNA evidence so justice (an absolutely horrible punishment no one would ever want) may be done. If we take care of these issues that put women in that difficult spot where abortion is the only way out, we will end unnecessary abortions. There will always be a few done in the event the mother's life is it risk and the pregnancy cannot be terminated before 26 weeks (the stage where the baby is developed to the point where he/she could survive with the excellent technological advances in neonatal intensive care.)

Sarah Dills

Sarah Dills: "Prohibition never works." I have heard this argument before; one given by social, fiscal, and general libertarians quite a lot. My view is that, while ending injustice is indeed a glorious ideal, and one which any champion of liberty should hold dear, it seems to me to be irrelevant to your assertion. Yes, of course prohibitive laws will be broken, and any time a body of law enacts an ordinance of force, those who hate lawfulness will only become encouraged to be unlawful. This is not sufficient grounds, however, for denying the passing of a bill into law. If it were, then there should not any law be written, for either nobody will ever break the law, in which case the law is useless, or else someone will inevitably break the law, in which case the law fails; at least in the sense that laws should "end" injustice. Assuming these things to be an absurdity of law theory, which I do, then I would posit that laws serve a different, albeit related, purpose: not to end injustice, but simply to define it for what it is, and in turn to define what is justice itself, as well. This is to say that, while laws themselves have no enforcement value, and therefore no ability to protect justice, without the laws there would be no justice to protect, and the cause of liberty is but folly. Therefore, so long as we agree that it is unjust to abort the unborn under certain circumstances, then it stands to reason, in my mind, that a law declaring this token of justice should be passed. Now, I think that you yourself understand very well that what I mean by "law" is not always the same as what is at other times meant by "law." The actions that you describe in the post above would fall under a different category in my terms: namely, ordinances of enforcement. As long as we understand each other on this note, then I think you are quite right. Merely "prohibiting" an act does not imply obedience to that standard, and if justice is to be served, then laws that are enacted by lawful means--through the legislature-- should be enforced faithfully and consistently, and it is up to the executive branch of government to do so, in accordance with the US Constitution. I also recognize the problem that comes when the enforcement of a law cannot be reasonably administered without offending liberty. It is at these times when a very important question must be raised: if the will of the free dictates that an act is unjust, while this same will also recognizes that the establishment and restoration of this justice is unattainable without the gross offense of liberty, then what is to be done? Shall we offend justice, or liberty? To the libertarian, liberty is justice itself, unless it comes at the unwilling expense of a free person. In other words, I would almost certainly side with liberty. In the case of abortion, when the pregnancy is the natural consequence of free choice on the part of the mother, planned or unplanned, she should be held responsible for it, and justice demands recompense, offering no leniency. Allowing such a person to abort her child freely and without prosecution would be a punishment for the unborn, which is unjust, in my mind. Whether or not the unborn is "viable" or "human," I say even the hairs on our heads have life, and while the life of man is certainly more complex than the lives of the single-celled organisms that compose the man, each one of them has made contributions to the life of man, and their lives and deaths should not be counted as nothing, anymore than the lives and deaths of our fellow men should be. In the case of the forced pregnancy, the liberty of the mother has already been offended, before any abortion takes place. In this case, I think it may be permissible, though not obligatory, to take the life of the unborn child, so as to restore some liberty and health to the offended mother. Though the child may be killed this way, we already have laws which assume that children have fewer rights than the parents, even after birth, so this could be construed as the most fair way. In cases where the mother's life is at risk, again it seems permissible to me to save the life of the mother over the child, even though the risk of death is a natural consequence of pregnancy, because there is a fair argument to be made about the lesser rights of unborn children, living or not.

Trevor Egan

i want to start off by saying how much i appreciate you taking the time and effort to make this amazing post. the in depth quality is unmatched on this thread, even by me. it is everything i wish i knew how to say. there is one issue that i feel needs attention, though. in a case of rape, the baby is still an innocent victim and no more deserves to die than you would if your father committed a crime or your mother was the victim of a crime. my solution to the rape argument is that society needs to focus on postive outcomes for everyone involved: justice for the perpetrator, emotional help for the mother, and life and financial support for the baby. a few months of carrying a child will outweigh a lifetime of guilt, even if the woman in question truly was violated. in the very rare instances where the mother's life is at risk, the decision should be accompanied by doctor recommendations. again, wow.

Sonja Porter

to say you are not going to force your views on someone else sounds like a great thing to say, until you realize how many horrific crimes could have been stopped by an outside party who instead stood by and did nothing. this is a special argument reserved for people like you. look up abortion survivors and ask yourself how right it is for a mother to force her own view on her unborn child. a little girl had her arm torn off, but you say you would not step in and force anyone to stop. another little girl was permanently blinded, and died when she was five, from the lasting complications from her life changing experience. another girl, who is now a woman, suffered permanent brain damage after she was born alive and left on a table to die. there is an audio clip of an abortion "doctor" laughing maniacally while a baby born alive during an abortion struggles to breathe. do you still proudly stand by your original statement? real lives are at stake, and too many people who know it is intrinsically wrong refuse to join the fight. stop copping out and DO SOMETHING!!!!!!

Sonja Porter

of course i still PROUDLY stand by my position. "people like me" believe its an individuals choice on how they want to live their life, one that i dont have to personally answer for. my fight isnt with abortion, but on the proper role of government. no where in my statement did i say that by keeping government out of abortion does it make it right. i firmly believe it's wrong, but i also believe that you cannot instill morals through law, nor can you force someone to PROPERLY and LOVINGLY raise a child that they didnt want in the first place. i know the facts of abortion. you dont have to lecture me, i promise. as i said, if you were truly listening (or reading) instead of prepping for a rant, I PERSONALLY DO NOT AGREE WITH ABORTIONS, AND IF A WOMAN WERE PREGNANT WITH MY CHILD AND DIDNT WANT IT THEN I WOULD TELL HER TO HAVE THE CHILD AND LET ME RAISE IT. i also stated how i STRONGLY disagree with late term abortions. this is where i believe government has the power to step in, as then it becomes murder. its that simple. i would argue that its more cruel to raise a child in a home where it is unwanted and unloved rather than to let the woman, someone we have no concern of, decide to abort.

Brandon Riggins

I'm personally opposed to ethnic cleansing and criminal assault, but I don't want to impose my views on others through government. Nonsense. The issue is whether the fetus is a human being. If it is, it's worthy of protection as being a unique human being, not as an imposition of your views on someone else. Views that protect innocent human beings are supposed to be imposed upon others. That's what we call "civilization."

James Layne

Brandon Riggins If something I do only affects me, then other government should not intervene in it. However, the second I involve somebody else in my decisions, it is the right and responsibility of government to get involved. Iit is pretty clear that a fetus is a human and therefore it is the right of government to intervene in the issue of abortion.

Stephen Morris

I have to agree with Brandon on this one. I feel the same about abortions, they are indeed immoral in my eyes. But I also believe it is wrong to force someone to give birth. Fetal viability is a good middle ground. When you force a woman to have a child and she dies during birth, what do you think then? Life and liberty were just taken away from that woman. Anyway, the black market will find a way, a coat hanger worked fine in dirty dancing huh?

Corey Ragas

Corey- Unless a woman is raped, she willingly choose to put herself in a position where it was extremely likely she would become pregnant. Abortion really boils down to a simple question: Is the fetus a human being ? If the fetus is a human being, she does not have the right to abortion at any point. If the fetus is not a human being she has the right to abortion at any point.

Stephen Morris

Stephen Morris, this is why he said fetal viability is a good middle ground, which i completely agree with. again, i disagree with abortion, but the sentiment is so strong for the other side, too, that i believe a middle ground must be met.

Brandon Riggins

Brandon Riggins the sentiment was strong on both sides of the slavery debate too, that didn't mean it was OK to find a middle ground there. There is no difference between a fetus the day before viability and a fetus the day after viability and therefore there should be no legal distinction. That being said, we may not agree on this issue but I expect we can agree on returning the issue to the states and overturning Roe v. Wade, the disastrous decision that created the "right" to abortion out of thin air.

Stephen Morris

Stephen, I think if the issue is returned to the states it has to be for practical reasons - to save babies by the fact that SOME states would outlaw it. That would be better than our current situation in which the federal government presumes to force it upon the states. However, what would be ideal is a realization at all levels of government and by all people that no government, of any level, and no vote of the people or decision of a court, and truly, no human power whatsoever, can condone what is the taking of an innocent human life. If that takes federal power to accomplish, as it did to end slavery, so be it. If it can only be accomplished piecemeal by some of the states, so be it. That's better than the status quo.

James Layne

@Stephen. Is the fetus a human being, that is the main question. I think that's why viability was even brought up in the first place. Mr Johnson says 5 months, which is where the survival %, if the fetus were to be born, start to go up. At 6 months its 20% then goes up to 50% half way through the month, the %'s do vary from pregnancy to pregnancy. Some people think that right after conception it is a child, absurd in my eyes. Anyway don't bring slavery into this, that is rather silly. If you want I could say forcing a woman to do something with her body that she is not willing to do and could indeed take her life is, slavery.

Corey Ragas

Should human rights be dependent on human technology? (i.e. "viability" is not an existential milestone, but a temporal point determined by the current state of technology and effort) I think not. Thanks for taking a stand, James.

Lillian Vogl

Remember that Romney was a strong pro-choice person until he decided to run for President. If you are looking for a true pro-life candidate in this election you wont find one

Adam Gibson

Lillian Vogl; Do you have an absolute standard that you can establish to EVERYONE's satisfaction that would work better ?

dhlii

Adam Gibson ...What do you call a "true pro-life candidate...and why would you not acknowledge Ron Paul as such a candidate?

Andrew Merrill

Not to be off topic but... Our country murders people every day. weather it be the capital punishment or defending democracy in other nations. No one candidate is going to be perfect for you or me. But to say you will not support him because of this one issue, and then calling him names, does not sound like an educated voter. Its a tough political issue and it is a shame that it happens. I believe we should protect human rights, especially the unborn. On the Other hand, when government steps in to make something illegal we create crime and a black market. I'm not going to let this one issue decide who my candidate is. We sacrifice some of our beliefs every time we have to choose. With the other two parties I sacrifice more.

Dean Linney

He doesn't support it. He even said that more needs to be done to confront this issue. Both Gary Johnson and Ron Paul mentioned that prohibition isn't going to solve the problem. (See my post about what will solve the problem much more effectively.) Obama and Romney are both supporters of war--this is far from pro-life. Soldiers and civilians are blow to bits, shot to death, etc. it's a horrific reality that needs to end. Gary Johnson and Ron Paul are against war and both agree more needs to be done to end abortion and that the death penalty should not exist--they are both more pro-life than the other candidates.

Sarah Dills

Agreed. Possibly the greatest encouragement of abortion is a society that shames young women into having one they don't want. There are some indications that abortion was MORE common BEFORE Roe v. Wade than afterwards. Certainly, the abortion rate declined every year from 1973 until Bush the younger became president.

Alan Light

@Em Ive talked to a lot of old people and from what I gather there was a lot of multiple partners and other sexual things going on in the 20's, 30's to now. Maybe people are more open about it now, but it happened back then too. I lived my life my own way and havent had multiple partners or anything gay in my life. I am married, faithful and support anyone with different views. Gay rights wont make everyone gay and might even stop some divorces from happening, since gay people might not try to be straight and get into a failed marriage.

Adam Gibson

point one: fully agree. i exercised this right once and for all when i had my tubes tied. point three: disagree. in 98+ % of all abortions, the women compromised their own uteruses. they chose to do what they knew could get them pregnant, and now have a responsibilty to that child at least until it is born safely, at which point, point two will be accepted point four: agreed. this is why most pregnant women stop smoking, drinking, riding rollercoasters, etc. point five: contradiction. thank you for the insight on this.

Sonja Porter

Here we need to step back one step prior to the issues you're raising and ask what is a "right"? A right, I believe, is not some self-subsisting reality floating around. It is always accompanied by a duty. When people have a duty to do something, they have a right to do it. Pregnancy, I believe, carries with it a duty. Just as we have a duty to care for the hungry and poor, we have a duty to care for and provide for innocent children who cannot protect themselves. Every person has a "right" to life (as is stated in the Declaration) and that corresponds with a duty on the part of every person to respect and protect that life. This is a duty for everyone, but in a special way additional and more direct duties are inherent in motherhood and fatherhood to care for the life created by them. Law cannot enforce every duty or protect every right. Some rights are de minimis. I may have a "right" to have my spouse tell me the truth because of the nature of the marital covenant, but law can't enforce this. But law does have an obligation to intervene when rights are at stake of such a magnitude that a life is in danger. It makes no sense to say "I think it's a human being and that abortion is wrong, but I won't impose that on others." That is the biggest cop out of all. If it's a human life, and if you believe human life is important and to be valued above other life (such as animals), then the law should protect that life. The question then becomes whether what is inside the woman is a human life or just "life" in general. As a philosophical matter, this isn't really that hard. First, that life is present is absolutely clear. Life is the animating principle by which the fetus forms. If it were mere dead matter, it would have no potential for growth, cell division, and forming/shaping into what is clearly of the human species. There is no such thing as a mere living thing. We live in a material universe, and things are classified into genus and species. There is no generic being. An unborn cat is feline. It's not a "generic living thing." Likewise, an unborn child is a human. Being in this species allows it to form, develop two legs and two arms, develop into a rational creature, etc. Without the human species and nature, it could not develop fully into what will eventually be an adult. In other words, we don't have to guess if it's human. The very fact that it develops as a human is proof that humanity must be present. Science increasingly is recognizing the very early and remarkable development of the fetus, in ways little understood when the Roe decision was issued. We should, as a nation, come together and stop this loss of innocent life in every way that we can. It is the duty of every person to respect and safeguard human life!

James Layne

This is what everyone seems to be missing. Well done.

Shane McGuffin Jr

it is a misconception that protecting lives is a religious debate. many atheists agree it is wrong to kill a child. the argument is about the double standards that say it is ok to kill this child, but not this one. or that you can kill your child today, but not tomorrow. or that it's ok before they can live outside the mother when many people at various times in their lives need life support. the list of double standards goes on. you say that the opinion of what constitutes a human is based on religion. it is really a scientific fact. anyone who believes "it is just part of the mother" "it just a clump of cells, blob of tissue, etc" "it's a parasite similar to cancer" "the mom can always have another one" is completely out of touch with science.

Sonja Porter

Theresa, with all due respect, the abortion issue is NOT simply a religious issue. It does not take the Bible to know that an unborn child is a human being. That's basic biology 101 along with a little logic. Being born, that is the organism's location, cannot make it a human being. What if you placed the child back in the womb after it was born? Would it become un-human because it is moved a few inches? Nonsense. So then the question is when within the mother it is a human organism. That's just not a hard question. It must be a human from the very beginning. If it doesn't have a human nature, it can't develop in the shape/form of a member of the human species. There is no point in the organism's development where it doesn't have a human nature, which grows and develops by that nature. Squirrels and cats grow within the womb as squirrels and cats because they have those natures. Humans grow and develop the way they do because they have the genetic make up/nature that empowers them to do so. The organism that is present at conception is the same organism that is present as a 20 year old adult or a month old baby. When and where would you put the point that it became a member of the human species, if not at the very first moment? There is simply no reasonable principle for putting it somewhere later than conception. Yes, religion has something to say about when the human "soul" enters the organism. But what if you don't believe we have a "soul"? That doesn't prevent you from knowing, with great certainty, that the organism is human. If it grows and develops as a human, it must have a nature/genetic code by which it does so, and that makes it a member of the human species. And as humans, we have always believed that human life is worthy of special protection. If Libertarianism denies that protection to the weakest members of the human family, its philosophy is incomplete and flawed.

James Layne

Theresa, thank you for your civil reply and your thoughts on the matter. I actually once held the exact position you expound. I now believe it is seriously flawed. One type of argument used in logic is the reductio ad absurdum. You take a premise and follow it to its logical conclusion, and if those conclusions are flawed, you know that your premises are flawed. If we apply this to your argument, we would have to admit that those in a coma, on life support, who are suffering from serious dementia or senility, etc would not be worthy of legal protection, even after birth. The reason I think this approach is flawed is that nature is a far more important factor than the things that happen to follow from that nature. What is essential to human nature is reason. But babies can't reason, and the "age of reason" is often fixed at six or seven years old. Many animals can think, but humans uniquely are able to reason, and to follow arguments from premises to conclusions. That's what makes us human. As Aristotle and other philosophers have said, man is distinguished in his species from other animals by this power to reason. But a power is not always in actuality (being exercised). When you are asleep, you are not capable of reasoning in full actuality, but you don't cease to be a human being. When you are born, you have senses that you can use to develop some knowledge of the world around you, but you can't reason, argue, move from premises to conclusions discursively. Nevertheless, a child has this power as part of his or her NATURE. This is the key. If allowed to develop and with proper nurture, the baby, born or unborn, will develop the actuality of the rationality that distinguishes them from other animals. The law does not protect other animals the way it protects human beings. And mere "cognitive ability" (definied in its minimal sense of "consciousness") does not distinguish humans from animals, who also are able to have some degree of "cognition." It is the nature that entitles one to protection. Human nature is unique and worthy of protection, not because it is capable at that moment of some sort of consciousness or sensation, but because it has the unique rational nature that makes it capable of knowing and loving, of experiencing beauty, of appreciating art and contributing to human knowledge. As a Catholic, I would say it has this because it is in the Image of God, who knows all things. But I don't need that principle to get to my conclusion. I simply need to follow the argument to its logical conclusion and see that the results of such a position would be unacceptable, since it would deny protection to those unable to exercise cognition even after birth.

James Layne

There are 'facts' and then there are 'facts.' what constitutes life is a matter of opinion, not fact.... sorry, but what YOU accept as 'scientific fact' is not sufficient to others... this has been the state of science for centuries. Your stating that a thing is so, does not make it so.

Dennis Jacques

Dennis, you are wrong, as a matter of science. It's simply true that "what constitutes life is a matter of opinion, not fact." Just because it's something mysterious to you doesn't mean it's a matter of opinion. Any biological textbook can explain what constitutes life. If the growing organism/fetus were found on Mars, scientists would trumpet that "Life has been found on Mars!" That which isn't alive can't grow and have cell division, etc. It certainly can't develop to the point that it has a heartbeat in just a little over two weeks from conception. That there is life is beyond question. The question is whether the life is human or not. And what you've said, Dennis, does not give any basis by which to differentiate between human and non-human life. Location is accidental. It is not what is essential to the human species.

James Layne

Correction: It's simply NOT true that "what constitutes life is a matter of opinion, not fact."

James Layne

Theresa Eisch Whether or not the prenatal human specimen is a human isn't a matter of religion or of opinion but of religious fact. If you asked a scientist whether I was a human or something else, that scientist could tell answer "yes," or "no," based on objective characteristics. They can do the same with unborn "children." The following video provides an extensive series of quotations and citations from legal and scientific sources as well as from some philosophers who have looked at this issue. Using these cited quotes, it shows that the scientific community has already answered this question. Now we simply have to determine whether we will comply with the established fact. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRuJ7BupDxk

Conner Alford

Bottom line... the fetus, viable or no, is INSIDE a (purportedly) intelligent being; this gives the mother sole decision making power. NO government interference should be permitted. The mother will have to live with her choice.... EOF.

Dennis Jacques

Dennis, that makes no sense. That the baby is inside the mother is so by nature. The mother's nature, biologically, nurtures the child. It turns the natural order on its head to say that the mother may kill the child that biology only enables her to nurture! That the child is inside of another human being is a warrant to kill the child? Nonsense. If so, you must logically support the most disgusting acts of infanticide, such as "partial birth abortion," where a baby as late as full-term is partially delivered and then killed. What kind of principle is it that says that human life is only worthy of protection if changes its location by a foot or two? The location of the child does not in any way change the nature of the child as an individual human being. You do not argue that it does. You just say, illogically, that because the child is within another human being, it has no right to life, whatever the child's nature. For you, human life apparently has no value just because it depends upon another! Logically, your position is absurd and wicked. Wicked - there's a word you don't hear used very often today. But I say wicked. Taken to its logical extreme, as if it could be any more extreme than it is, this could be used to support infanticide and euthanasia of elderly people who are no longer able to care for themselves, but rely upon others. Wicked.

James Layne

You have espoused an opinion, no more. It is, obviously, not in the nature of some 'mothers' to 'nurture' the life within them. It is without merit that this position is 'evil.' It has to be shown, rather than simply stated, that this position is 'illogical.' You apply emotion laden terms to push your point of view. The government has NO business in the decision of the mother, regardless how repellant it is to you.. or me for that matter.

Dennis Jacques

Dennis Jacques - you avoided commenting on the points I raised. Do you indeed support partial birth abortion? How do you justify a principle that grants legal privilege to a person merely because they have changed their location from inside to outside the mother? You accuse me of only giving an emotional argument, but these were valid points. You haven't answered them.

James Layne

Nor will I fund some liberal whore in college with free birth control, wine, or motel room! Yes, she is a whore and trash as we never should glorify a college girl having sex while in our colleges with anyone other than her husband! And that includes lesbians as well!

Michael A Dubin