Abortion and Freedom

[Overcast]

OK, well, lets move the discussion on, for all those pro-lifers, and, morally speaking, I'm with you, but just have a different approach to the solution, what punishment would you give for the crime? How do you want women treated if they decide to have an abortion?

Perhaps it shouldn't be a crime, but should it be endorsed by the government? Maybe they should just keep their nose out of it altogether. Why do they have to be involved? Why do public tax dollars have to deal with it one way or the other?

After all; that 'fetus' does in fact have *human DNA* - what does that make it?

I think the government should step away from it altogether, don't prosecute those who do it; but don't spend one single cent of taxpayer dollars on progressing the agenda of it ether. If some doctor wants to take cash for abortions; and the mother wants to terminate the fetus with human DNA in her, it's between them and God.

But to that; the government shouldn't have to pay for mistakes either. Purely "at your own risk".

[Puff1]

One doesn't have to look very far to see why this is a problem.  Sex sells and it always has.  Take a look at the people who are idolized in this society.  Look at what's glamourized on hellivision and from every other possible venue in society (sex, crime, murder, materialism, gluttony, etc...)  What about those who evoke spirits of seduction via the smutty wares that they're trying to sell?  Is there no blood on their hands?  These things are for the most part reinforced in the school system now.  Take a look at the way even little school aged girls are dressed - like little whores and gangsters.  It's sickening.  The roles of men and women have also changed to the point that fewer men know what it means to be a man and the same for some women. 

I would venture to say that very few here could honestly say (without lying) that they never succoured to the temptation of lust or had sex before marriage.  It's only by the grace of God that many of us never found ourselves in the same position as that pregnant girl.  For the most part it's because there has been a great falling away from the truth and basic moral principals in society in general, many times regardless of what kind of family upbringing you had.  The temptations are all around, and society is polluted with them.  Even the churches are one with the ways of the world for the most part.  How many warnings were we given by God about the spirit of Jezebel and whoredom?  He hates it because one thing leads to another, even to the point of bloodlust and murder.  On the other hand, society glamourizes, promotes and rewards these things.

Jesus told the whores and publicans that they would enter into the Kingdom of Heaven before the hippocrites would.  They were more repentant and open to receiving him and his teachings.  The thief on the cross was repentant, and forgiven.  God hates sin - but sinners can be forgiven, if they are repentant.  The hippocrites are whores and murderers of another kind.

I don't put all the blame on the girl who is in this position.  Abortion is not a right decision in the eyes of God and when it's done just because a child is unwanted, there is no way the decision can be justifed as right, although the girl can be forgiven through Christ.  But the blood is on a lot of hands as far as I'm concerned.  What about the man (or boy) that played his part, then wanted to take no responsibility?  And in this day and age, why would he when he just wanted sex in the first place and could get it just about anywhere.  It's not as if society teaches right and wrong anymore.  This is the "you each have your own truth," "the truth lies within," and "there are no absolutes" generation.  Oh - you can have sex, but just be "responsible" about it.  Be responsible about how you carry out sin?  It's okay because both parties consented to sex?  It still resulted in death, did it not?  There is no justification - that's why God hates sin no matter of what sort it is - it gains a foothold, then a foothold turns into a stronghold.  So I guess that makes the boy just as much of a whore as the girl, does it not.  What about the whores who feed off the spirits of greed and lust, and profit off of the blood and sweat of others:  the bankers, the warmongers and the corporate heads, the purveyers of poisons and death.  They're just as much murderers as that girl is, even if it is more indirect and "socially acceptable."     

This society thrives, profits from, and feeds off of sin.  Some may hate that word, but sorry -let's just call it what it is.  The land is filled to the brim with whoredoms, hippocrites and profiteers of blood.  Society thrives on it and the world delights in and loves these things. 

[φυδγε]

This is the "you each have your own truth," "the truth lies within," and "there are no absolutes" generation.  Oh - you can have sex, but just be "responsible" about it. 

Ppl have been having sex for so long.  Every society has its rules about it, but really every generation has had its abundance of sex.

First off these sentiments are ancient not recent.  Since day one ppl have thought that the world was going to "hell in a hand basket".  The human race has been "feel good" since day one.  There's always social critics and moralists who say everything is wrong.  I can't think of a single generation that didn't have it's moralists saying "you only do what feels good".

Relativism was not invented yesterday nor was it made popular this decade, it's been a sentiment amongst people for a long time.

Second off which golden age are you from - The 90's with the West Memphis Three, the moral majority of Reagan in the 80's, Mkultra and Easy Rider in the 60's, McCarthyism and Cointelpro from the 40 and 50's, or how about the murder of Sacco and Vanzetti the famous anarchists in the 20's.  Are you from the golden age of the days of slavery or perhaps the puritan witch hunts of early America?

Which age had morals and moral sex and no bad people?

Nothing against you Puff.  I've heard many write/say the same sentiment, but I'm curious all the same, when was that golden age?

[Puff1]

The 'golden age' is a fantasy term, and quite obviously a figment of somebody's overactive imagination.   

[Dok]

Nothing against you Puff.  I've heard many write/say the same sentiment, but I'm curious all the same, when was that golden age?

About 6000 years ago, right before God put Adam to sleep to make a present for him. 

[φυδγε]

About 6000 years ago, right before God put Adam to sleep to make a present for him. 

Fine then, my post applies to everything after that point. 

[Puff1]

LOL - it certainly didn't last for much longer after that.  

[Dok]

LOL - it certainly didn't last for much longer after that.  

Just long enough to have a snack. 

[Puff1]

Just long enough to have a snack. 

[planning4acrash]

Hows about a progressive approach?
1) Fight for achieving a society where women can take time and money to nurture
2) Get rid of any state sponsorship/encouragement/ of abortion, and central planning, i.e. targets for it.

3) Once we've got there, then discuss about whether women should be criminalized. The point is, the problem then would be so small that it wouldn't be an issue, IMHO, and charities and local support networks helping out, and finding foster solutions/support for families should be enough, without need for big government tyranny to put a boot in the face of the women of the country, who, have a dilemma here that men cannot admit to contemplate objectively.

[Dok]

Hows about a progressive approach?
1) Fight for achieving a society where women can take time and money to nurture
2) Get rid of any state sponsorship/encouragement/ of abortion, and central planning, i.e. targets for it.

3) Once we've got there, then discuss about whether women should be criminalized. The point is, the problem then would be so small that it wouldn't be an issue, IMHO, and charities and local support networks helping out, and finding foster solutions/support for families should be enough, without need for big government tyranny to put a boot in the face of the women of the country, who, have a dilemma here that men cannot admit to contemplate objectively.

How about just waiting until your married to have sex. Its really just that simple. As soon as they both agree to sex then they are both accountable for the outcome. The baby didn't make them do it, so why blame the baby. It really sounds like your just trying to justify abortion. Thats just like trying to justify murder. Not accidental murder but pure premeditated murder.

[Pheonix Renewed]

I think you need to get used to the idea that women can be just as much criminals as men can.

Should a murderer be "criminalized"? Yes.

Even if the murderer is a woman who doesn't want to take responsibility for the fact that she CHOSE to have sex and risk a pregnancy? Yes.

Once the woman has chosen to have sex, does the child's right to life take priority over her desire to choose not to face the physical consequences of THE CHOICE SHE ALREADY MADE? Yes.

In the meantime, should we support families, and care for the children of mothers (and the mothers themselves) who have made mistakes but stepped up to the plate and chosen to take responsibility once the choice was made? YES!

Should there be a reasonable limitation on that care? Yes.

Is the current system reasonable? NO!

[Geolibertarian]

Except, of course, in the case of abortion. Suddenly premeditated murder is condoned

I have no objection to outlawing second and third trimester abortions (at the state level -- the federal government, IMHO, should have zero involvement), but I'm essentially "on the fence" when it comes to the first trimester.

Is there no fundamental difference, in your view, between aborting an eight week old fetus, on the one hand, and an eight month old fetus, on the other?

I'm not 100% convinced there's no fundamental difference, but I do lean in that direction.

[Pheonix Renewed]

I have no objection to outlawing second and third trimester abortions (at the state level -- the federal government, IMHO, should have zero involvement), but I'm essentially "on the fence" when it comes to the first trimester.

Is there no fundamental difference, in your view, between aborting an eight week old fetus, on the one hand, and an eight month old fetus, on the other?

I'm not 100% convinced there's no fundamental difference, but I do lean in that direction.

Well, this is the way that I see it. I may have doubts, but at the end of the day, would I rather err on the side of treating a chunk of cells like a human being with all rights of human beings... or would I rather err on the side of treating a human being like a worthless chunk of cells?

For me, the answer is clear. I would rather mistakenly treat cells like a human, than treat a human like worthless cells. The idea of making such an "error" is unthinkable.

Someone once asked me if I would save a thousand test-tube babies or a single living infant in case of a fire. My answer is simple, I would save the child. Why? Because I AM absolutely, 100% certain that this infant can feel pain and experience his/her death. I am NOT absolutely certain that the test tube babies would. But in the absence of such a "lose-lose" scenario, the answer is clear for me personally. I would rather err on the side of treating something I know will become a human, like a human.

Maybe it is just a clump of cells that experiences nothing. Maybe humans have no souls. Maybe the 'clump of cells' really is useless.

But until you can prove that to me, you leave me with the question I stated above... which error could I live with myself for having made?

Which error could you live with yourself for having made?

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

I agree that abortion is, or is often immoral, but, my point is, who should make the decision? Is banning of narcotics any different to the banning of abortion in effect and constitutionality? Here's a talk from the mises institute on the issue: http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=search&q=abortion

i reckon you know the answer to your question, at least for yourself anyway, but my penny's worth would be that it all boils down to right to life, that is where the decision originates, and that is from where it should be answered.

[Amd304912]

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=71271

can we get a merge?

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=71271

can we get a merge?

i can see where the two issues are linked, but i feel there is still too much of a distinction to merge the threads.

please feel free to make a further case for it (via pm), i will consider it.

[Wanted]

Again, moralizing, rather looking objectively at the issue of constitutionality and freedom from tyranny. Promiscuity wrong morally? I agree, but I NEVER want the government regulating sexual choices between consenting adults!

Okay so if abortion is soooooooo wrong you make it ilegal? SO HOW IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT INTERFERING!!!!!!!!!! HOW IS MAKING A CHOICE TO HAVE A BABY OR NOT, IS EVIL?

btw........it is sooo funny to see that men have such strong opinions about this issue...........

[Geolibertarian]

Well, this is the way that I see it. I may have doubts, but at the end of the day, would I rather err on the side of treating a chunk of cells like a human being with all rights of human beings... or would I rather err on the side of treating a human being like a worthless chunk of cells?

For me, the answer is clear. I would rather mistakenly treat cells like a human, than treat a human like worthless cells. The idea of making such an "error" is unthinkable.

Someone once asked me if I would save a thousand test-tube babies or a single living infant in case of a fire. My answer is simple, I would save the child. Why? Because I AM absolutely, 100% certain that this infant can feel pain and experience his/her death. I am NOT absolutely certain that the test tube babies would. But in the absence of such a "lose-lose" scenario, the answer is clear for me personally. I would rather err on the side of treating something I know will become a human, like a human.

Maybe it is just a clump of cells that experiences nothing. Maybe humans have no souls. Maybe the 'clump of cells' really is useless.

But until you can prove that to me, you leave me with the question I stated above... which error could I live with myself for having made?

Which error could you live with yourself for having made?

Those are thoughtful and compelling questions, and your point is well taken, but at the end of the day it's not up to just you or me, and unlike most if not all other issues, abortion is unique in the sense that people who otherwise agree on virtually all other issues very often have honest differences of opinion on this one. Thus, I would argue that, if we are ever to make progress on this issue (from a pro-life perspective), we must not let "the perfect" be "the enemy of the good."

That's why I advocate (a) repealing Roe vs. Wade (thereby returning the issue back over to the states where it belongs) and (b) outlawing second and third trimester abortions at the state level.

This would move the U.S. very much in a "pro-life" direction, but so much that the "pro-choice" half of the country resists to the point of keeping us stuck in the decades-old stalemate.

All that being said, I can't resist mentioning that, if we don't get certain economic reforms implemented (e.g., the Monetary Reform Act), the day is fast approaching when it simply won't matter what the government's policy on abortion is.

That's one of the reasons I want to defederalize this issue.

[Geolibertarian]

Okay so if abortion is soooooooo wrong you make it ilegal? SO HOW IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT INTERFERING!!!!!!!!!! HOW IS MAKING A CHOICE TO HAVE A BABY OR NOT, IS EVIL?

As far as priorities are concerned, abortion isn't even in my top ten list of political issues.

That said, I'll simply point out that, when you're dealing with life forms that look like this...



...the "choice" of whether to have a "baby" or not has already been made.

(The above pic is of second trimester triplets, by the way.)

[clearmyst]

The Constitution guarantees a right to life so that's basically how it ought to go.
You can do whatever you want to YOUR body(however the little one is not part of the mothers body, she/he is a product of both parents and a distinct individual after conception).

I don't even have a religious bias and I can clearly see this point through simple logic

[clearmyst]

Okay so if abortion is soooooooo wrong you make it ilegal? SO HOW IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT INTERFERING!!!!!!!!!! HOW IS MAKING A CHOICE TO HAVE A BABY OR NOT, IS EVIL?

btw........it is sooo funny to see that men have such strong opinions about this issue...........

Being that a baby is not uni-sexually created it is only fitting that the man have a legitimate co-role in this matter, whats hypocritical here is to claim the man has no say until the baby pops out, then its his job to start to care about it.
 

[skyfind]

As far as priorities are concerned, abortion isn't even in my top ten list of political issues.

That said, I'll simply point out that, when you're dealing with life forms that look like this...



...the "choice" of whether to have a "baby" or not has already been made.

(The above pic is of second trimester triplets, by the way.)

you don´t eat eggs and/or food made with eggs??

[Geolibertarian]

you don´t eat eggs and/or food made with eggs??

You've got to be shitting me! Do you honestly believe that chickens -- whether killed after they're hatched or beforehand -- can be morally equated with humans??

What kind of a sick-ass argument is that?

[skyfind]

You've got to be shitting me! Do you honestly believe that chickens -- whether killed after they're hatched or beforehand -- can be morally equated with humans??

What kind of a sick-ass argument is that?

that is your opinion, life is life

and the sick is eat something that has not born yet, a fetus

[φυδγε]

that is your opinion, life is life

and the sick is eat something that has not born yet, a fetus

A chicken egg is an un-fertilized egg.  A fetus comes from a fertilized egg.

So you're not eating a fetus, but an un-fertilized egg. 

While we're on the topic, people also eat slaughtered beef, i.e. a dead cow, and slaughtered lamb, i.e. a dead lamb, and live shrimp, lobster, and clams, i.e. while still alive.

I mean, come to think about it, people eat every day and multiple time per days.  Quite often they eat dead things and un-born things.

When you smoke the herb, you're smoking the female unfertilized pussy. 

Put that in your pipe and smoke it and I mean literally!!!

 

[Amd304912]

aborted chicken and bacon omelets.... how about a monkey measles shot with fetus technology, cure some eggplant eating eggplant syndrome..

how about the people decide whats murder, whats not and whats a "think tank" concept-ion.

[Dok]

Okay so if abortion is soooooooo wrong you make it ilegal? SO HOW IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT INTERFERING!!!!!!!!!! HOW IS MAKING A CHOICE TO HAVE A BABY OR NOT, IS EVIL?

btw........it is sooo funny to see that men have such strong opinions about this issue...........

Why would that be funny? Do you find murder funny? The child is as much of the mans as the womans. It takes two to make a baby. A man and a woman. It is equally both of their responcibilities. Men are given no say in this matter and that is just as equaly wrong. Abortion is a pre-planned murder, you cannot call it anything else.

[Pheonix Renewed]

Okay so if abortion is soooooooo wrong you make it ilegal? SO HOW IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT INTERFERING!!!!!!!!!! HOW IS MAKING A CHOICE TO HAVE A BABY OR NOT, IS EVIL?

btw........it is sooo funny to see that men have such strong opinions about this issue...........

It's not funny at all. In fact, it's very, very important.

It goes to remind us that there are still men who actually care about, and for, their offspring. Every one of these men that still care, and who do actually care about that child- unborn or not- are to be commended. Upon them, the future of families rests. These are the men who teach their boys how important family is, to stick by their children and not run off. These are the men that teach their boys sexual responsibility, and parental responsibility.

We are very fortunate to still have men in our society who care about their children, and I would think it should be a very good idea to support them, rather than denigrate and mock them.

The men who see it your way, and brush it off as a "female issue," are the same ones that often turn out to be deadbeat dads.

Because, really, we've been lied to by our society. The men who brush this off as a "female issue," are also the most sexist men alive. To say that human offspring is "a female issue," is to say that parenting is "a woman's job," and that men have better things to worry about.

Is that really what we want from the men in our society??

I don't.


Oh, and ONCE YOU HAVE SEX AND GET PREGNANT, the choice of WHETHER TO HAVE A BABY OR NOT has already been made, unless you were raped or coerced by an adult that you love (incest).

[Pheonix Renewed]

Those are thoughtful and compelling questions, and your point is well taken, but at the end of the day it's not up to just you or me, and unlike most if not all other issues, abortion is unique in the sense that people who otherwise agree on virtually all other issues very often have honest differences of opinion on this one. Thus, I would argue that, if we are ever to make progress on this issue (from a pro-life perspective), we must not let "the perfect" be "the enemy of the good."

That's why I advocate (a) repealing Roe vs. Wade (thereby returning the issue back over to the states where it belongs) and (b) outlawing second and third trimester abortions at the state level.

This would move the U.S. very much in a "pro-life" direction, but so much that the "pro-choice" half of the country resists to the point of keeping us stuck in the decades-old stalemate.

All that being said, I can't resist mentioning that, if we don't get certain economic reforms implemented (e.g., the Monetary Reform Act), the day is fast approaching when it simply won't matter what the government's policy on abortion is.

That's one of the reasons I want to defederalize this issue.

Well, here's my problem with that deal. Would you advocate making euthanizing handicapped people a decision of the states, so that those who don't want to live their entire lives strapped to a handicapped person, caring for them; could get out of the inconvenience?

Most people would not. Why not? BECAUSE IT'S A PERSON and killing them IS MURDER.

So you are saying to me, basically, that I ought to be content with tolerating the murder of X class of people, in order to move on with "more important" issues.

Yet, this is an age-old argument that pretends that people are all only able to consider one argument at a time. That we must refuse to look at ALL the issues, and instead focus on what "is really important." Of course, humans are able to focus on many issues at one time, we're fantastic creatures that way. I don't accept that I have to dismiss mass murder in order to focus on "the more important issue" of fiscal responsibility.

Isn't that what many of the German people did?

[Geolibertarian]

Well, here's my problem with that deal. Would you advocate making euthanizing handicapped people a decision of the states, so that those who don't want to live their entire lives strapped to a handicapped person, caring for them; could get out of the inconvenience?

How on earth does that follow from what I said? What I meant was: since we already trust state governments to protect the lives of six-month-old infants from would-be murderers, it only makes sense to trust those same state governments to protect the lives of six-month-old fetuses.

This makes even more sense when you consider how much innocent blood the eugenicist-dominated federal government has on its hands.

• http://www.counterpunch.org/tinycoffins.html
• http://www.robert-fisk.com/war_victims_pictures.htm

So you are saying to me, basically, that I ought to be content with tolerating the murder of X class of people, in order to move on with "more important" issues.

You're reading into what I'm saying instead of simply reading it. What I clearly said was: in view of how uniquely divisive this issue is even among people who otherwise agree on virtually everything else, we can save a lot more lives by taking the state-based approach I suggested than by insisting on the all-or-nothing, top-down approach of hardcore "pro-lifers."  I mean for crying out loud: did I not call for the repeal of Roe vs. Wade? How does that translate to me wanting you to be "content" with the "murder" of anyone? You make it sound as though I'm a hardcore "pro-choicer," when it should be glaringly obvious to everyone by now that I'm anything but.

Yet, this is an age-old argument that pretends that people are all only able to consider one argument at a time. That we must refuse to look at ALL the issues, and instead focus on what "is really important." Of course, humans are able to focus on many issues at one time, we're fantastic creatures that way. I don't accept that I have to dismiss mass murder in order to focus on "the more important issue" of fiscal responsibility.

Isn't that what many of the German people did?

You are again twisting what I said. I never even implied that you should "accept" the murder of anyone. My only point was that, if we don't get urgently-needed economic reforms implemented soon, then as any regular listener of Alex's show knows, within two to three years (if not sooner!) there will be countless infants, toddlers and small children dying from depression-caused starvation in addition to all of the unborn children presently dying from abortion.

I'm trying to minimize the death of innocent children, not encourage people to "tolerate" it.

[Pheonix Renewed]

How on earth does that follow from what I said? What I meant was: since we already trust state governments to protect the lives of six-month-old infants from would-be murderers, it only makes sense to trust those same state governments to protect the lives of six-month-old fetuses.

This makes even more sense when you consider how much innocent blood the eugenicist-dominated federal government has on its hands.

• http://www.counterpunch.org/tinycoffins.html
• http://www.robert-fisk.com/war_victims_pictures.htm

I'm sorry, I don't think that it's okay to delegate protection of the constitutional rights to states alone. It's pretty clear that a lot of states don't have any more respect for the Constitutional right to live than the fed does.

The over-all problem is that government, period, is corrupt.

You're reading into what I'm saying instead of simply reading it. What I clearly said was: in view of how uniquely divisive this issue is even among people who otherwise agree on virtually everything else, we can save a lot more lives by taking the state-based approach I suggested than by insisting on the all-or-nothing, top-down approach of hardcore "pro-lifers."  I mean for crying out loud: did I not call for the repeal of Roe vs. Wade? How does that translate to me wanting you to be "content" with the "murder" of anyone? You make it sound as though I'm a hardcore "pro-choicer," when it should be glaringly obvious to everyone by now that I'm anything but.

Unless you can prove to me that the first trimester unborn is not a human being, then we will continue to disagree. You contend that pre-3rd trimester, before the mother can feel the baby move, apparently, it simply doesn't exist. This idea is absurd on its face. Of course it exists, even if the mother can't yet feel the baby moving around ("quickening"). This is the reason why so many ancient cultures think that life enters the fetus at the second trimester- quickening. Yet before that, the fetus is clearly alive. The other choice is that it is dead. Is a fetus dead before it quickens? No, so therefor the question arises, as I stated before. Mistakenly treat it as a person, or mistakenly treat a person as if he or she is not alive?

The question applies... shall we let states determine who it is acceptable to murder, or shouldn't we? There is no difference between the handicapped person, who by their inability to care for themselves is a parasite as much as an unborn or newborn infant, and the "parasite" that lives in the womb- except one you can see, one you can't. Therefor, one is easily justified as an "acceptable loss," and one is not.

You are again twisting what I said. I never even implied that you should "accept" the murder of anyone. My only point was that, if we don't get urgently-needed economic reforms implemented soon, then as any regular listener of Alex's show knows, within two to three years (if not sooner!) there will be countless infants, toddlers and small children dying from depression-caused starvation in addition to all of the unborn children presently dying from abortion.

You do clearly expect me to accept the idea that states should be allowed to determine whether or not people can murder, wholesale, infants. My answer to that, is yes if they are actually going to do so... but no, if they aren't. Murder and inhumanity towards people is an issue for us all. Every one of us. If any state takes it upon themselves to determine that murder is acceptable, then yes, someone must step in.

You make the decision that we must separate the two issues, and decide upon acceptable losses. No losses are acceptable, not from starvation, or from murder. When you start telling me that I have to choose where the acceptable losses are, you tell me that we as human beings are incapable of solutions that eliminate both. I will never be able to agree with that assessment.

No losses are acceptable. Murder through financial genocide is not acceptable losses. Murder through abortion is not acceptable losses. I will not trade the lives of these to buy the lives of those, when all have the right to live. A solution to both situations must be found. It's just that simple.

I'm trying to minimize the death of innocent children, not encourage people to "tolerate" it.

Minimizing is not enough. These are lives. These are children. No compromises, no deals, no bets. They all have the right to live, to thrive, and to the pursuit of happiness. Anything less is not good enough.

[peepnklown]

The state has no business in a female’s personal medical dealing. 
You have no business in the same female’s personal medical dealings.

[Dok]

The state has no business in a female’s personal medical dealing. 
You have no business in the same female’s personal medical dealings.

I guess we need to let all the convicted murderers go then.

[Pheonix Renewed]

The state has no business in a female’s personal medical dealing. 
You have no business in the same female’s personal medical dealings.

The state has every business protecting children, though, especially from murder.

[Amd304912]

a shock would be letting people (women) decide when and where to create life, not be condemned to a caged false existence.

The state has every business protecting children, though, especially from murder.

the state has a lucrative industry in regulation and invasion of personal (private) space, look at the drug/prison(gov/private) industrial complex. they have many concepts under complicit control.

as always the label of "societies scum" pops up, but that label goes both ways.

[Amd304912]

The state has no business in a female’s personal medical dealing. 
You have no business in the same female’s personal medical dealings.

that is the same reason why drug addicts stay being jailed feeding the system (hint). they will never allow others to lead their own life, they believe they know best even if it does not pertain to them.

abortion is a hinder issue, allowing one to hinder another.

its also a power issue, allowing people to be powerless over their own issues, because others usurp that power foolishly of course.

[Geolibertarian]

that is the same reason why drug addicts stay being jailed feeding the system (hint). they will never allow others to lead their own life

Huh?? Drug use by definition is a victimless crime, and has nothing to do with abortion. It is absurd to equate the two.

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEyKAzXqVkA
• http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/toc.htm
• http://www.lysanderspooner.org/VicesAreNotCrimes.htm

[Amd304912]

Huh?? Drug use by definition is a victimless crime, and has nothing to do with abortion. It is absurd to equate the two.

• http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/toc.htm
• http://www.lysanderspooner.org/VicesAreNotCrimes.htm

oh but the government does invade a person in the equated, regardless of definition.

hence the hint.

[Geolibertarian]

oh but the government does invade a person in the equated, regardless of definition.

If you mean the government "invades" by locking people up for using drugs the government itself ships in, then I agree. Otherwise I disagree.