Abortion

[Yeahman]

There's a lot of things that aren't explicitly in the Constitution. Do you honestly believe that the government should be in charge of a person's body? Should the gov't have a say over my own uterus, kidney, etc? Do you honestly believe that a person should not have any responsibility or say over what happens to their own bodies?

That's a surprising denial of civil liberties for someone who is such a libertarian.

Incidentally, the Constitution also doesn't say that every foetus has the right to be born.
That is why it makes no sense for people like Kerry to say that abortion is a Constitutional right and so deserves federal funding.
And yes the government can take away your liberties for attempted murder.

Except that it's still YOUR definition of murder, not mine. YOUR definition of life, not mine. So you really can't say that any of these are good excuses for murder, because I'm arguing that they are options that must be considered for abortion... not murder. Your sweeping definitions are not absolutes in this debate, and to act like they are is to illustrate the very idiocy of your side of the argument -- that you are forcing your, unsupported, arbitrary definition of life onto others -- which is my FUNDAMENTAL problem...
You're forcing your unsupported arbitrary definitions onto the babies! How can you not see that hypocracy?
I know that my views on abortion are my own. Duh! But you don't seem to understand that your definitions are your own.

the fact that you can't see how a woman's choice might be complicated is really secondary on my priority list. Fundamentally, what makes you think you know better for a woman than she does?
I never said I know what's better for a woman. It may be better for the woman to murder. But all I'm saying is that murder is wrong. The woman can do whatever she wants but she cannot murder.

Again, a foetus is not defined as a person, nor an 'innocent person'. And stop playing the martyr. To me, a fertilized egg is just a nonspecific diploid cell, obviously to you it's different. What's so difficult in respecting a diversity of opinion, Mr. Libertarian?
I have no such difficulty. It's when you try to force your opinion onto what I believe to be a human being, that I have a problem.

Again, it's not legally defined as a human, or a baby. And shouldn't have the right over their own body parts? By the same logic, should the gov't not also force all people to give up one of their kidneys to save all those people who are dying due to lack of kidney transplants? After all, if the gov't knows better about your own body than you do, they could save a LOT of lives by allocating the ones that you're not using, and you really only need (a third of) one kidney to function at full efficiency. Lemme see your organ donor card, yell0.
There's a difference between those who are dying and those who are murdered. Surely even you can see the difference.

No you don't. The vast majority of pro-lifers DIFFER on this position -- while some do agree that abortion should be considered viable if the mother's life is at stake, enough didn't think that the case to include it in the partial-birth abortion ban. Fundamentally, I don't speak for all pro-choicers, so stop painting yourself as the messiah of the anti-choice side.
Dead wrong. You'd be hard pressed to find me one pro-lifer that believes that the unfortunate result of the unborn's death in the process of saving the mother's life is not permissible.
The partial-birth abortion ban does include the exception of saving the mother's life. But because the ban was so popular, people like Kerry had to come up with some excuse to oppose it. So they mislead the American people.

If you honestly can't understand my further clarifications, than heaven help you because logic sure as hell can't.

And that stat about half the women in America has, I believe, been debunked by Andy. You've been charged to find a new study, if I recall correctly. One that is dated post this summer.
You said that pro-lifers are anti-women. About half of the women in America are pro-life as Andy has proven. So the implication is clear. Or do you wish to retract your statement?

Actually, you're proving that you have NO fundamental respect for differing opinion. I find it so ironic that you're such a libertarian and yet a basic right to religious freedom, no imposition of religious beliefs of one sect of the population onto another, could so elude you. Your definition of life, again, is a) unsupported by science so doesn't particularly convince me... (yet you think if you call abortion murder enough times, you'll somehow make it true) and b) until that time should not be forced upon me.

Now, the day when the gov't decides that a fertilized egg (which has a small probability, in nature, of successfully implanting and becoming a foetus, btw) has the same rights to own property, personal freedom and free speech that the Constitution gives to the woman carrying it, then you'll have something to say. Until then, it's just my definition vs. your definition and one side (yours) who wants to force their definition onto the other (mine).
You are forcing your unsupported definition upon the babies!
Let's clear this up.
IF life begins at conception then abortion is murder and should be banned. The mother has no right to an abortion.
IF life beings at some other point, abortion is permissible up to that point and the mother has a right to an abortion until that point.
You are picking some arbitrary point and wanting to make everyone else abide by it. How is that any different from my position?
This has nothing to do with religious freedom. If I'm trying to force you to accept a religious position then you are doing the same.

All this stuff also got me thinking. If a foetus is to be characterized as a human life deserving of better rights than the woman carrying it, than what's to prevent laws being enacted that place a woman liable for endangering a foetus? Given that almost ANY physical activity can lead to miscarriage, including but not limited to... walking, running (in cases of women with reproductive issues, any upright activity can lead to a miscarriage), sky-diving, smoking, and drinking -- wouldn't your logic demand that the government also outlaw these acts for pregnant women in that it might be 'recklassly endangering' the person inside of her? Should a woman be jailed for smoking, if it leads to a miscarriage, because she committed 'pre-natal homicide'? Should she be charged with 'accidental manslaughter' if she has a miscarriage while doing something reckless like running after her other children, and falling?
You went back and forth in your examples from accidents to reckless endangerment. Reckless endangerment of the unborn should be punishable. That includes excessive drinking and drug use. It does not include "falling."

Hell, why not just forcefully hospitalize women during the entire nine months, and keep them lying in beds, to provide the optimal growing conditions for the baby?

It's just a (I recognize, somewhat absurd) thought, here.
Yes it is absurd. Why not require that the mother stay at home AFTER birth to provide the optimal growing condition? Mother's can do whatever they want so long as they don't recklessly endanger the welfare of their child, born or unborn.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

but as i've been saying again and again, the difference is that personal beliefs are being imposed on others who don't share them when you ban something like abortion. it would basically mean that a specific religious or personal belief system is being made into law and all citizens must abide by it, too, when you use the basis of "life at conception" to ban abortion - because many people do not share the view that life begins at conception.

and similarly, there are other things that are socially restrictive in our legal system that i do not like. for example, the fact that smoking or owning weed is illegal.

I still do not understand. You say the difference is that personal beliefs are imposed on others who don't share them when you ban something like abortion. When I make a decision for a group based on my beliefs, are my beliefs not all personal beliefs that everyone may or may not agree with? When I decide on something, I'm going to go off of what I believe is ultimately right or moral (even if I take the opinions of the masses into consideration). The fact that other people may not share my beliefs or idea of morality/immorality is a given.

what?

firstly when we talk about individual freedoms we are talking about what we can do with our own lives, and not what we can do to other people's lives, especially when your actions imposes upon other people's rights.

But do the elements and what we do with our own lives not affect everybody else? That aside, everyone has an idea of what a society should be like and how to best run things (for lack of a better phrase), what people should and should not do, etc. etc. whether it be for the good of society, for progress, for God, etc. I see no difference in deciding that everyone should have the freedom of speech vs. deciding that everyone should not be able to do __________. It makes no sense to say, when appealing to our own conscience while making decisions, that we should be more harsh or critical when dealing with policy that may restrict people from doing certain things and be more liberal and lenient when dealing with policy that promotes, maintains, or reinforces what people CAN do.

secondly, you can legally condemn people for simply talking, that is your freedom of speech. and then those people have the freedom to either shut up or keep talking. anybody can tell anybody else to shut the hell up in a public arena without facing legal prosecution.

I was a bit unclear on this part. Forget the analogy. What I mean is ultimately, no matter what the policy or law, your freedom to exercise your free will always becomes limited. If there were no limits involved, why would they need to pass the policy or law in the first place? Basically to tell people what they CAN or CANNOT do, and to force everyone else to agree that everyone SHOULD BE ABLE TO do ________, and whoever denies someone of these so-called 'freedoms' will face legal consequences. Again, from a secular position, who decides what should be a 'natural right' and what makes you any more qualified to decide what should be a 'freedom' and what shouldn't?

[Shuriken]

This is more appropriate: starting an abortion thread instead of making long posts about abortion as a side issue on other threads.

I'm afraid, however, that the contributors will end up talking past each other. Opponents of abortion firmly believe that life begins at conception, and I doubt that any kind of persuasion will shake this core belief. I believe that what a woman does with her own body is her choice, not the government's, and nothing so far has convinced me otherwise.

This thread may be good for getting members to put their thoughts together about the subject and air their views. Just don't expect it to change anyone's mind.

[achtungbaby]

Closing. I don't see how this discussion is going to be constructive.