How is abortion a states rights issue?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

To me that's like saying no one should be prosecuted for drunk driving because their freedom to make decisions was impaired.

I don't see what this has to do with what I said, but to answer you - if said drunk driver caused no bodily harm or property damage, then IMO no crime has occurred.

But that's just my libertarian --> ACist sensibility talking. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

My libertarian --> ACist sensibility says you're batshit insane. Taking risks with other people's lives is most definitely an initiation of force.

[/ QUOTE ]


And here is the crux of why I dont understand why more libertarians arent opposed to abortion. I get the fact that there is considerable debate of the personhood of a developing fetus. I obviously happen to think the argument is stronger to support oppositiont to abortion. That said, given that there really isnt a way to determine the personhood of a developing fetus, shouldnt we err on the side of caution and say "Hey there is a fair chance that abortion is the initiation of force against an individual, lets take the conservative route (no pun intended) and not allow abortion on demand"?

As an aside, the Libertarians for Life website is excellent if anyone is interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I wont speak for most libertarians but I do not consider abortion to be an initiation of force against anyone. It is a denial of support/resources. That this inevitably leads to termination/death is unfortunate but irrelevant.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

To me that's like saying no one should be prosecuted for drunk driving because their freedom to make decisions was impaired.

I don't see what this has to do with what I said, but to answer you - if said drunk driver caused no bodily harm or property damage, then IMO no crime has occurred.

But that's just my libertarian --> ACist sensibility talking. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

My libertarian --> ACist sensibility says you're batshit insane. Taking risks with other people's lives is most definitely an initiation of force.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's not insane, just extremely results-oriented.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

To me that's like saying no one should be prosecuted for drunk driving because their freedom to make decisions was impaired.

I don't see what this has to do with what I said, but to answer you - if said drunk driver caused no bodily harm or property damage, then IMO no crime has occurred.

But that's just my libertarian --> ACist sensibility talking. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

My libertarian --> ACist sensibility says you're batshit insane. Taking risks with other people's lives is most definitely an initiation of force.

[/ QUOTE ]


And here is the crux of why I dont understand why more libertarians arent opposed to abortion. I get the fact that there is considerable debate of the personhood of a developing fetus. I obviously happen to think the argument is stronger to support oppositiont to abortion. That said, given that there really isnt a way to determine the personhood of a developing fetus, shouldnt we err on the side of caution and say "Hey there is a fair chance that abortion is the initiation of force against an individual, lets take the conservative route (no pun intended) and not allow abortion on demand"?

As an aside, the Libertarians for Life website is excellent if anyone is interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I wont speak for most libertarians but I do not consider abortion to be an initiation of force against anyone. It is a denial of support/resources. That this inevitably leads to termination/death is unfortunate but irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are using a very fine semantical twist to justify the possible initiation of force against another person.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

To me that's like saying no one should be prosecuted for drunk driving because their freedom to make decisions was impaired.

I don't see what this has to do with what I said, but to answer you - if said drunk driver caused no bodily harm or property damage, then IMO no crime has occurred.

But that's just my libertarian --> ACist sensibility talking. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

My libertarian --> ACist sensibility says you're batshit insane. Taking risks with other people's lives is most definitely an initiation of force.

[/ QUOTE ]


And here is the crux of why I dont understand why more libertarians arent opposed to abortion. I get the fact that there is considerable debate of the personhood of a developing fetus. I obviously happen to think the argument is stronger to support oppositiont to abortion. That said, given that there really isnt a way to determine the personhood of a developing fetus, shouldnt we err on the side of caution and say "Hey there is a fair chance that abortion is the initiation of force against an individual, lets take the conservative route (no pun intended) and not allow abortion on demand"?

As an aside, the Libertarians for Life website is excellent if anyone is interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I wont speak for most libertarians but I do not consider abortion to be an initiation of force against anyone. It is a denial of support/resources. That this inevitably leads to termination/death is unfortunate but irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are using a very fine semantical twist to justify the possible initiation of force against another person.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this like "semantics meaning I think you are a nit and it doesnt matter at all" or "semantics meaning the definition of incredibly important terms and making fine distinctions that have profound moral implications?" Because if its the second one, I agree with you.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

To me that's like saying no one should be prosecuted for drunk driving because their freedom to make decisions was impaired.

I don't see what this has to do with what I said, but to answer you - if said drunk driver caused no bodily harm or property damage, then IMO no crime has occurred.

But that's just my libertarian --> ACist sensibility talking. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

My libertarian --> ACist sensibility says you're batshit insane. Taking risks with other people's lives is most definitely an initiation of force.

[/ QUOTE ]


And here is the crux of why I dont understand why more libertarians arent opposed to abortion. I get the fact that there is considerable debate of the personhood of a developing fetus. I obviously happen to think the argument is stronger to support oppositiont to abortion. That said, given that there really isnt a way to determine the personhood of a developing fetus, shouldnt we err on the side of caution and say "Hey there is a fair chance that abortion is the initiation of force against an individual, lets take the conservative route (no pun intended) and not allow abortion on demand"?

As an aside, the Libertarians for Life website is excellent if anyone is interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having been active in the MA LP for a while before moving to RI, I can tell you that libertarians who oppose abortion in about the same ratio as people in the general population.

I recall at the State LP convention in 2000, Harry Browne said that if peer-reviewed evidence ever came to light that proved prenatal sentience, he would support laws banning abortion, but absent of that he was not comfortable imposing his own morality through the force of law.

To some, this is moral relativism. It is what drove Ron Paul from the LP.

To me, it shows the strength of the LP. Not allowing potentially divisive issues to degenerate into name calling.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First, I never said EITHER were ok, I just stated they are not the same thing. Dropping bricks from your apartment is similar to discharging a gun. I would say that has a greater chance of endangering someone than drunk driving (under the .08% law), but it depends where you live.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you started out by saying that your libertarian views basically meant that willingly and knowingly engaging in dangerous actions that dramatically endanger the lives and safety of others should not be illegal unless (or until) it results in a victim.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that was Kurn son of Mogh. Learn to look to the left of the posts to see who authors them.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

First, I never said EITHER were ok, I just stated they are not the same thing. Dropping bricks from your apartment is similar to discharging a gun. I would say that has a greater chance of endangering someone than drunk driving (under the .08% law), but it depends where you live.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're truly able to function at .08, you'll pass the field test and won't be issued a BAC test, so it doesn't apply to you.

If you can't pass the field test, and get the BAC, guess that just makes you a pussy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe in "nojackasscopville", but not in reality. Cops will hassle anyone who has a hint of alcohol to make a big bust. The field test is a scam where if you smell of any alcohol, you will be tested and tested and tested until you fail.

I forget the study so don't quote these results, but I remember hearing something about the amount of crashes involving alcohol where someone over .15 was 95% of the cases, and .08-.14 was 5% or so. The .08 law was changed from .10 thanks to the Nazi MADD organization who went from trying to save lives to trying to bring us back to prohibition.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

To me that's like saying no one should be prosecuted for drunk driving because their freedom to make decisions was impaired.

I don't see what this has to do with what I said, but to answer you - if said drunk driver caused no bodily harm or property damage, then IMO no crime has occurred.

But that's just my libertarian --> ACist sensibility talking. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

My libertarian --> ACist sensibility says you're batshit insane. Taking risks with other people's lives is most definitely an initiation of force.

[/ QUOTE ]


And here is the crux of why I dont understand why more libertarians arent opposed to abortion. I get the fact that there is considerable debate of the personhood of a developing fetus. I obviously happen to think the argument is stronger to support oppositiont to abortion. That said, given that there really isnt a way to determine the personhood of a developing fetus, shouldnt we err on the side of caution and say "Hey there is a fair chance that abortion is the initiation of force against an individual, lets take the conservative route (no pun intended) and not allow abortion on demand"?

As an aside, the Libertarians for Life website is excellent if anyone is interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I wont speak for most libertarians but I do not consider abortion to be an initiation of force against anyone. It is a denial of support/resources. That this inevitably leads to termination/death is unfortunate but irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are using a very fine semantical twist to justify the possible initiation of force against another person.

[/ QUOTE ]

When a fetus becomes a person (from the government's perspective) is the crucial element. If indeed a fetus is a person from conception, does the government have the right to enforce behavior and dietary standards on a pregnant woman? Where does the State's interference in the very private act of reproduction begin and end? If the fetus is a person at conception, are IUD's now illegal?

I just prefer to err on the side of less government interference.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

To me that's like saying no one should be prosecuted for drunk driving because their freedom to make decisions was impaired.

I don't see what this has to do with what I said, but to answer you - if said drunk driver caused no bodily harm or property damage, then IMO no crime has occurred.

But that's just my libertarian --> ACist sensibility talking. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

My libertarian --> ACist sensibility says you're batshit insane. Taking risks with other people's lives is most definitely an initiation of force.

[/ QUOTE ]


And here is the crux of why I dont understand why more libertarians arent opposed to abortion. I get the fact that there is considerable debate of the personhood of a developing fetus. I obviously happen to think the argument is stronger to support oppositiont to abortion. That said, given that there really isnt a way to determine the personhood of a developing fetus, shouldnt we err on the side of caution and say "Hey there is a fair chance that abortion is the initiation of force against an individual, lets take the conservative route (no pun intended) and not allow abortion on demand"?

As an aside, the Libertarians for Life website is excellent if anyone is interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the "conservative" route is to not get involved.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First, I never said EITHER were ok, I just stated they are not the same thing. Dropping bricks from your apartment is similar to discharging a gun. I would say that has a greater chance of endangering someone than drunk driving (under the .08% law), but it depends where you live.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you started out by saying that your libertarian views basically meant that willingly and knowingly engaging in dangerous actions that dramatically endanger the lives and safety of others should not be illegal unless (or until) it results in a victim.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I was the one who said that. (And I now accept accolades for being able to turn an abortion debate into a drunk-driving debate [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]).

The point is to ask the question whether or not, in a free society, it is reasonable to charge someone with a crime when there is no victim, rather just statistics showing that there might be.