How is abortion a states rights issue?

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what to tell you. I really have no experience on the matter, since I've never driven drunk in my life.

Buy mints? Oh wait. DONT DRINK AND DRIVE.

Furthermore, what does any of this have to do with abortion being or not being a State's right?

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what to tell you. I really have no experience on the matter, since I've never driven drunk in my life.

Buy mints? Oh wait. DONT DRINK AND DRIVE.

Furthermore, what does any of this have to do with abortion being or not being a State's right?

[/ QUOTE ]

So since cops are jackasses, I shouldn't drink and drive? I guess if they pull me over for driving in a poor neighborhood thinking I might be buying drugs, you would tell me not to drive there. Or if I go to Vegas and bring $5k cash on me, and its confiscated, I shouldn't have brought that much money to begin with?

Brilliant!

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

The government can claim a fetus a person and still not enforce dietary standards. Newborns have sentience and personhood and we don't have dietary restrictions on nursing mothers. We allow all sorts of "technical" assaults on newborns and children because, well, because we are a relatively reasonable society.

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]

So since cops are jackasses, I shouldn't drink and drive? I guess if they pull me over for driving in a poor neighborhood thinking I might be buying drugs, you would tell me not to drive there. Or if I go to Vegas and bring $5k cash on me, and its confiscated, I shouldn't have brought that much money to begin with?

Brilliant!

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if they think you're drinking and driving, and you're not, no harm no foul.

If they think you're buying drugs, and your not, no harm no foul.

If they confiscate your money, you shouldn't have committed whatever activity you did. Cops don't confiscate peoples money for having too much. You watch too much tv.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So since cops are jackasses, I shouldn't drink and drive? I guess if they pull me over for driving in a poor neighborhood thinking I might be buying drugs, you would tell me not to drive there. Or if I go to Vegas and bring $5k cash on me, and its confiscated, I shouldn't have brought that much money to begin with?

Brilliant!

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if they think you're drinking and driving, and you're not, no harm no foul.

If they think you're buying drugs, and your not, no harm no foul.

If they confiscate your money, you shouldn't have committed whatever activity you did. Cops don't confiscate peoples money for having too much. You watch too much tv.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except there is a harm any time your personal liberties (freedom of movement, for example) are denied. While in the case of a traffic stop it is a relatively minor denial of liberty, it is a denial nonetheless and the "cost" of the denial of liberty should be weighed against the "benefit" of the stop.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, you seem to believe that the voluntary choice to have sex implies a voluntary choice to be a parent. I disagree, and no method of contraception is 100%.

[/ QUOTE ]

This supports my argument, not yours.

[bills217]

[ 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 ]

The analogy wasn't intended to go that far - I was just talking about accepting responsibility for the direct result of one's actions.

As for initiating force - what do you call cutting fetuses to pieces with knives/poisoning them? If you're fine with this, you have to also be fine with doing it to a 1-year-old, or you're not consistent. If you're fine with doing it to a 1-year-old (as hmk has said he is), then I can't take the argument much further, other than to say any distinction on when personhood rights are granted beyond conception is arbitrary, which should be obvious, and to me that is a pretty serious dilemma when you start saying cutting babies apart (not fetuses, actual 1-year-old BABIES) is ok.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you know what happens in >90% of abortions? The baby gets cut to pieces with a knife. Do you know how the doctor checks to make sure he got it all? He counts 2 arms, 2 legs, and a head. This practice is a little more than "denial of support/resources." It is initiation of force by definition, and a particularly brutal example of it at that. It is a selfish (on the part of all parties involved), barbarian practice that is a stain on our society, and I believe that is how it will be viewed in 200 years (once medical technology has exposed the real motives behind abortion).

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So since cops are jackasses, I shouldn't drink and drive? I guess if they pull me over for driving in a poor neighborhood thinking I might be buying drugs, you would tell me not to drive there. Or if I go to Vegas and bring $5k cash on me, and its confiscated, I shouldn't have brought that much money to begin with?

Brilliant!

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if they think you're drinking and driving, and you're not, no harm no foul.

If they think you're buying drugs, and your not, no harm no foul.

If they confiscate your money, you shouldn't have committed whatever activity you did. Cops don't confiscate peoples money for having too much. You watch too much tv.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except there is a harm any time your personal liberties (freedom of movement, for example) are denied. While in the case of a traffic stop it is a relatively minor denial of liberty, it is a denial nonetheless and the "cost" of the denial of liberty should be weighed against the "benefit" of the stop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a denial I'm willing to accept. 5-10 minutes of my time is worth the sacrifice of knowing that this officer working this particular road is lowering my chances of being killed by a drunk driver.

It only takes 5 minutes, if that, and the benefits directly reduce my risks of being involved in a crippling or fatal car accident.

[bills217]

[ 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 ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

This post (like most on your side of the debate) completely and totally ignores the crux of the entire issue.