Ron Paul ignored.

[reverendjeremiah]

A "least" authoritarian position is still an authoritarian position, by definition.

True, but the authority in my opinion goes to the woman deciding what to do with her own body, unless, of course, you are successful in legislating otherwise. In that situation I would still argue that the woman should have freedom to choose what she wishes with her own womb.

I disagree that it is the "least" authoritarian one though, since it results in the death of humans at the hands of other humans.

Then I deduce that your weighing of the options is skewed. Allowing a woman to have personal choice over her pregnancy compared to several elected figures telling her what she can and cant do is the very property of "least authoritarian", and I would even go so far as to claim it NOT authoritarian.
Authoritarian has nothing to do with death of humans in its definition. It has everything to do with one or more people dominating others and suppressing individual freedoms, which is EXACTLY what you are promoting.
AUTHORITARIAN
1.
favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.
2.
of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.
3.
exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others: an authoritarian parent.
===
I argue that a baby is not an individual while in the womb of its mother, nor is it even capable of individual freedom. I also argue that since you are petitioning that a womans freedoms be curbed through legislation that you are very much being authoritarian. The only authority I am arguing is the womans authority over her own body, which really isnt authority according to this definition.

I now withdraw my comment of "least authoritative" and replace it with "NOT authoritative" and point to this definition as my source. I was using the definition of "authority" incorrectly when I stated that earlier.

The position you are defending is not something that a Libertarian or an Anarchist should hold, as it is authoritarian and curbs individual freedom. I argue that my position is what a Libertarian and Anarchist should hold.

Right...so an abortion is what, some kind of eviction?

LOL, I've never heard it described that way before.
EVICT
1
a: to recover (property) from a person by legal process b: to put (a tenant) out by legal process
2
: to force out : expel
So yeah, since the woman is expelling the unwanted baby from her womb, I suppose you are justified in suggesting it be an eviction. Usually people think of definition #1 when that word is used...LOL.

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.

It is authoritarian of you to suggest otherwise. That unborn life is the mothers life, connected directly to her biologically and supported solely by her body.

People have committed murder in places they own before, but it doesn't suddenly make it legal to do so.

Any law can be written or removed. Murder according to Websters is "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought." I therefore argue that if abortion is legal, then it is not considered murder. Its is a death and killing regardless, but "murder" specifically suggest legislations being broken.

Not sure I understand this point.

My point was suggesting that, if you are correct that children have rights, then clearly a mother and father could not force their religious beliefs upon children without the childs prior approval first. If you honestly believe that children have rights, then you should fully support a childs right not to be taken to church.
According to your next posting I think you pretty much got what I was intending.

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.

I agree. A parent should be allowed to make choices for their offspring, just the same as a woman should be allowed to make choices for her womb.
Isnt it funny how these "rights" tend to flip flop, and I am not saying that you specifically are flip flopping, but how some people feel that a child has a right to life in the womb, but as soon as the baby is born that feeling of "baby's rights" quickly diminish as it is considered "bad parenting" if a parent allows her children so many rights.

It was merely an observation of modern society.

That fact doesn't suddenly make it ok for adults to murder children in their care.

What? LOL. It is illegal to kill a born child in America. It is NOT illegal to have an abortion. Therefore comparing abortion to murder is wrong unless there is specifically a law governing against abortion, in which case it will then fit the properties of murder.

Also, I feel that you are stretching this a bit. Comparing a woman voiding her womb and a woman sticking a steak knife in her 7 year old sons heart are not the same, both legally and socially. Sure, both involve death between a mother and her child, but that is ALL that is comparable to each.

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.

Illogical. Nor was I endorsing slavery. A woman having control over the contents of her womb is not even a close comparison to slavery. Unborn babies are not individuals. Slaves are. A woman very much owns the contents of her body, biologically speaking, and to argue otherwise is a very slippery slope indeed.

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.

Completely untrue. A decade ago I was moderator of one of Virginia's largest Atheist and Freethought groups. We did online campaigns frequently, with my specialities being UFO's and abortion. I have, in the last decade, converted several pro-lifers to pro-choice. I am very aware of both sides of the argument and the current American laws dealing with them.

I am NOT perfectly fine with killing unborn babies, as I have posted several times that I am personally opposed to abortion. I find it to be a bit disgusting as a birth control choice. The woman owns whatever is growing in or on her body. A baby is growing in her body. She owns it. It is hers to do as she pleases. I would object to these concepts placed upon anyone outside of the womb because they are INDIVIDUALS. This is were I draw my line on this topic. Being an anarchist and libertarian of the left I hold individuality to be the most important factor in everything.
INDIVIDUAL
1
obsolete: inseparable
2
a: of, relating to, or distinctively associated with an individual <an individual effort> b: being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole c: intended for one person <an individual serving>
3
: existing as a distinct entity : separate
===
An unborn baby does not exist as a distinct entity. It is very much a part of its mothers body.

Also, I must admit, I never thought I would be explaining the importance of individuality to someone who claims to be an anarchist and libertarian. Individuality is the core of both of these philosophies.

By allowing abortion under certain circumstances, abortion will also be few and rare.

True

Our outcomes are the same

Not exactly. Yours would be a forced rarity. Mine would be a willing rarity. The difference is in the approach.

but in my world, there are more humans alive because of it.

Not necessarily. In your world, you have left abortion in the hands of the fickle masses to legislate. Your number of abortions will rise and fall with the tides of current social views just as much as my option would. My world allows the choice to the individuals, but may have the same exact outcome as yours. Because of this, I argue that government intrusion is not necessary unless the goal is to ban ALL abortions. Banning bits an peices of abortion choices does nothing but inflate government even more, complicates freedom by wrapping beurocratic red tape around a womans womb, and ultimately shows a hypocrisy of legislation on a whim.

I disagree that the freedoms of the citizen are removed; we are dealing with two humans here, not one.

Yes, the freedoms of the woman to have control over her womb are being removed. Of course we are dealing with humans here, if you wish to speak only of genetics. The pregnant woman is an indivdual, the unborn baby is not an individual. That is where the line is drawn.

A conflict of rights.

You speak of rights, I speak of freedom. Rights can be voted in or out and freedom can be allowed or removed. I do not see where this is a conflict of rights, seeing as our bill of rights is clear on this situation.

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.

In America the constitution is clear on who has rights and who does not.

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).

Personally? No. I am not fine with abortion at all. I find it to be a disgusting choice, and prevention would have been a better choice.

A day before it was due? Honestly, what are the chances of a pregnant woman making that choice?

..and yes. I would have to support it even though I find it vile. It is the mothers womb, she decides what she wishes to do with it.

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.

Wrong. Birth control is having personal control over a pregnancy, incuding preventing pregnancies, aborting pregnancies, or going through the birth process willingly. You have misunderstood "birth control" for pregnancy prevention. Pregnancy prevention is merely one of many facets tied to birth control. Preventing life from emerging is yet another facet of birth control.

Those are citizenship rights, not human rights.

Do my eyes deceive me? Someone who claims to be a "moral nihilist" speaking of some idealistic "human rights"? Humans, nor anything else for that matter, do not have inherent rights. This universe is purposeless, as you should know since you claim to be a nihilist.
I, on the other hand, am an absurdist. I admit that the universe has no inherent purpose, but I also argue that personal temporary purpose (or intent) can be found in the moment. One of my personal purposes is that freedom should be maximised for all humans. I am fully aware that there is no universally inherent argument for individual freedom, yet I stand for it in the clear face of absurdity...
...nor would I drag on about some nebulous "human rights" either. Especially if I labeled myself a nihilist.

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

A nihilist who speaks of "natural rights"? Are you a nihilist or are you an idealist?

Also, since you made the mistake of claiming these rights are "natural", I now insist on you placing clear evidence before me that this right is "natural". The natural world is testable and provable. I deduce that these "natural rights" you speak of are merely nothing more than your current opinion of the situation which can be subject to change.

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

Im not sure which standard you speak of, but I promise that in no way am I trying to be malevolent during this conversation.

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.

You claim that babies from an accidental busting of a condom have rights, but a baby from a rape doesnt. You clearly havent made up your mind if unborn babies have rights or not since you flip flop so much on how these rights are to be applied. Either unborn babies have rights or they dont.

Make up your mind... do unborn babies have rights or not?

Spousal rape is rape, so yes, abortion would be fine in that case.

So if spousal rape is involved, then unborn babies do not have rights.

No, flip flopping is where you back one thing, and then later back the complete opposite.

Example:
R - "unborn babies have human rights"
Me - "you are going to force rape victims to keep their baby?"
R - "No, that baby can be aborted."
So..on one hand you argue that babies have rights, on the other hand you argue that they dont.

This very much is a flip flop.

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

So rape babies are not innocent? I ask that you reconsider this inconsistency in your views. I will argue that all unborn babies are innocent in this context.

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.

So if a woman is lazy, you want to force her to have a child? How is this any different than the fundies saying "She spread her legs. She pays the price!" You have turned pregnancy and childbirth into a punishment because of this mentality.

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.

There we go with that human rights thing again. Are you sure you are a nihilist?

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.

Yet you will authorize the government to kill innocent humans if they are a product of rape or incest. Flip flop down the slippery slope.

[Minimalist]

Um.... I hope you guys know that this thread has become unreadable because of the multiple quotes.

To hell with Ron Paul, though.

[Autumnlicious]

Rev Jem versus Tiberius, debate forum "Abortion"! Go!

[reverendjeremiah]

Rev Jem versus Tiberius, debate forum "Abortion"! Go!

Could you like..snip...this post where we start talking abortion and move it to abortion topic?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19TBzy81Mac

FINALLY, me and R are having a civil yet heated argument on a good topic.

[Minimalist]

Now this is amusing.....


A well-known right-wing rag is going after Ron Paul!

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/c...13474.html

In January 2008, the New Republic ran my story reporting the contents of monthly newsletters that Paul published throughout the 1980s and 1990s. While a handful of controversial passages from these bulletins had been quoted previously, I was able to track down nearly the entire archive, scattered between the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society (both of which housed the newsletters in collections of extreme right-wing American political literature). Though particular articles rarely carried a byline, the vast majority were written in the first person, while the title of the newsletter, in its various iterations, always featured Paul’s name: Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Political Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report, and the Ron Paul Investment Letter. What I found was unpleasant.

“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks,” read a typical article from the June 1992 “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism,” a supplement to the Ron Paul Political Report. Racial apocalypse was the most persistent theme of the newsletters; a 1990 issue warned of “The Coming Race War,” and an article the following year about disturbances in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C., was entitled “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” Paul alleged that Martin Luther King Jr., “the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” had also “seduced underage girls and boys.” The man who would later proclaim King a “hero” attacked Ronald Reagan for signing legislation creating the federal holiday in his name, complaining, “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”

[Autumnlicious]

Hello there, Ron Paul's racism.

[reverendjeremiah]

Well well well...and its recent too