Ron Paul ignored.

[Tiberius]

no it isnt. It is the LEAST authoritarian position out of the choices available. Big difference.

A "least" authoritarian position is still an authoritarian position, by definition. I disagree that it is the "least" authoritarian one though, since it results in the death of humans at the hands of other humans.

LMFAO, now you are pushing it, grasping for straws. Unborn children ARE human, the mother owns the womb. Its crystal clear.

Right...so an abortion is what, some kind of eviction? Just because the mother owns the womb doesn't mean she gets to kill anything that is in it, especially if that life belongs to a human child. People have committed murder in places they own before, but it doesn't suddenly make it legal to do so.

LMFAO, try and tell your parents you dont want to go to church when they force their religion on you...come back to me later once you find those rights for children you keep dragging on about.

Not sure I understand this point. A parent is a legal guardian; we understand that children cannot always make decisions in their best interests, so adults have to make some for them. That fact doesn't suddenly make it ok for adults to murder children in their care.

Mother owns the womb, and the nutrients, and the umbilical...and the baby!.

But you've just said that unborn children are human, which means you are now endorsing slavery by saying that the mother "owns" the baby. What is clear from this conversation is that you haven't thought this through at all; you are perfectly fine with the killing of unborn humans, and the ownership of those humans, despite the fact that if it happened to anyone outside of the womb, you'd object.

The consequences of my beliefs on this topic are the minimal possible consequences. By allowing abortion, and (hopefully) having a good education, abortion will be few and rare. Your option has consequences as well, but the freedoms of the citizen are removed. Not to mention your option allows the foot in the door for others to come in with even more wild legislations and authoritative commands upon the womans womb.

By allowing abortion under certain circumstances, abortion will also be few and rare. Our outcomes are the same, but in my world, there are more humans alive because of it. I disagree that the freedoms of the citizen are removed; we are dealing with two humans here, not one. A conflict of rights. If we hold that the right to life is the most important (as I do), then the best solution is the one where the right to life is not overruled by another right. I also disagree that this in any way allows for other legislations on a woman's womb; we are talking about conflicts of rights here, nothing else.

Where do I draw the line? Your rights start when your mother decides to extend them to the unborn in her womb. That is HER allowing the unborn baby to have rights. It is HER womb, it is HER body, it is HER rights that she can extend or retract from the unborn. Once the baby becomes an INDIVIDUAL, who no longer requires life support from mommas womb, then he or she will have their own rights.

So you'd be fine with the abortion of a baby a day before it was due? Or when you say "no longer requires life support" do you mean the moment when the baby can survive outside the womb (which varies in estimates upwards from 5 months).

By the gods! So if a handful of women use birth control as, well, birth control, then it is a horrible crime! So naturally, we need to tell these woman "sorry, but we are taking charge of your womb. You're having this baby wether you want it or not." Last I checked it took two to tango. What will be done to the man who produces future abortion victims?

Birth control prevents pregnancy. It prevents the formation of a human inside the womb. Preventing life from emerging is not the same as taking life away.

Well, I dont know about your country, but our country is pretty cut and dry on who has rights and who doesnt.

All personsborn or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Plain and simple in our country. You cant have rights unless you are at least born.

Those are citizenship rights, not human rights.

#1 - ALL rights are voted on. Every single right that we have in our constitution was voted upon. Maybe you are saying that rights arent voted on because some king or queen ordered them upon people, I dont know, but where I come from all rights are voted for.

Natural rights are not voted on. We are talking about human rights here; which are natural rights.

Easy now R. What about all of those rights you were just arguing about? My country voted in Freedom of speech as the second most important right a human can have.

Having the right to say whatever you like doesn't mean it isn't rude to ignore the standards of debate.

Clearly you have not made up your mind about how rights are handled on this subject. You even go so far as saying a judge, or the voting public ( I assume) should decide who has rights in the case of abortion; the mother or the unborn baby.

I have made up my mind on the subject. You are the one who keeps insisting I haven't, even though I've been entirely consistent this entire time. Clarifying and explaining things further doesn't mean one hasn't made up their mind, but that one didn't explain well enough, or left out important details.

So if a condom busts, the rights of the mother are ignored in favor of the product of the accident. If the mother is raped (is spousal rape included? Many fundies here consider no such thing as "rape" in the marriage bed) then the babies rights are ignored in favor of the mother.

By "accident" I meant in a case where protection wasn't used. Spousal rape is rape, so yes, abortion would be fine in that case.

This is what is called "flip flopping". One minute you are screaming about how babies are innocent and deserve rights, the next minute you are going on about how those rights can be ignored.

No, flip flopping is where you back one thing, and then later back the complete opposite. I haven't done that. All I've done is clarified and explained further when it was needed. What I've said is that babies are innocent and deserve rights, but in the instance of a conflict of rights those rights can be ignored (as can the mothers, depending on the circumstances).

What is rape? Sex that a woman doesnt want. The product of that rape is an unwanted baby. That baby has no rights in your view.

No, the baby has rights in my view. The woman's rights overrule the baby's rights since the baby is a product of a violation of rights in the first place (the rape). I've been over this several times now; how you aren't getting this very simple point is beyond me.

What is accidental pregnancy? Sex that a woman wants, but intends not to get pregnant from. The product of that sex is an unwanted baby. That baby has rights in your view.

As with the first baby. Whether the mother actively tried to prevent the pregnancy, or just got lazy will affect the outcome in this case.

If babies had rights, then any pregnant woman who sets foot on our soil instantly makes that unborn baby a citizen.

How? I'm English, but if I set foot in America I don't become an American. If the pregnant woman isn't American, then (as far as I'm aware) the baby is only an American if it is born there. The baby still has human rights, just not citizenship rights.

Slippery slope giving unborn babies rights. Not to mention it turns the government into a nanny state, something Libertarians are supposed to be opposed to.

As opposed to a government which authorises the killing of innocent humans? It's the choice between a nanny state (in some circumstances) or a mass-murdering state (in some circumstances). I know which one I'd pick.