What does weight have to do with anything?

@JacksonNought

That's your response? lol

@w0tn0t I am asking what that has to do with the argument? Trump was obese, do you bring up his weight every time you discuss his politics?

@JacksonNought

Both in the image are democrat morons spewing bullshit ..... yet your response was about that obese thing

@w0tn0t

Trevor Noah & that obese thing

Your words. Defend your words.

@JacksonNought

She is obese - there, defended

@w0tn0t ok, now explain why that is relevant to the topic at hand.

@JacksonNought I wouldn't approve the more but it would be legal according to the Constitution. I would then do all in my power to see that those who endorsed the action lost their next election, which is also a right in our Constitutional Republic.

Your sentiments are, no doubt well placed. However, consider the explosive obverse of this:

"I don't like abortion, but I'm libertarian enough to believe that someone else's life is not mine to live."

Are you libertarian enough to believe that someone else's life is not yours (or anyone's) to take?

@Terence57

As with most things, there are no perfect opposing complements; which is to say, acknowledging someone's right to live without outside interference is not the same as saying they can do whatever they please without consequence.

If you accept - for the sake of simplicity - that the libertarian philosophy is to enjoy the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness (LLH) without outside interference, then it holds that you also accept that other people have this right as well, without your outside interference.

But context is key. In most situations, we can hopefully find a way to make those principles work for us. We can work through the small disagreements and hopefully find common ground that we can both live with, when we come into conflict. That is, so long as we live and respect the principle that we each have the right to LLH and that we wish to preserve that right for both ourselves and others.

Which takes me to your point: am I libertarian enough to believe someone else's life is not mine to take? (I'll get to your "anyone's" aside in a moment)

And the answer is, of course not. I'm not going stand idly by while someone enters my home with the intention of killing me and my loved ones. That would be foolish. Libertarianism is a principle, not a natural law. If you have chosen to do harm to me or my loved ones - if you have chosen to interfere with my LLH in the most direct way possible - then we have come into non-negotiable conflict and regrettably, one of us has to go, up to and including the ending of life as the last possible resort for resolving the conflict. But again, I would hope that this is the last solution two parties would pursue and not the first.

So now, to your aside. As much as I loathe the concept of abortion, I believe there are situations where it has validity. If a pregnancy must be terminated because it will kill the mother with no chance of the fetus surviving, I think to claim that abortion should be illegal and immoral in this case is no different than sentencing a woman to die over a spiritual belief. God's will is open to interpretation, but I have a very difficult time imagining that He wants us to be so committed to a course of action that we endure any evil that comes from it. There is not justice without mercy, after all.

Let's take it to another level: if we can agree that there are some cases where abortion is regrettably necessary, who then gets to make the moral decision as to whether an individual case is necessary? You? Me? Some guy living in Washington DC? Another guy living in Rome? Who gets to decide that?

From a libertarian perspective, the answer is obvious: the mother. She has both the most to risk and the most to lose. I may not like her decision. I may loathe her decision. I may feel that it is a betrayal of my own ethics to stand idly by and at least not say SOMETHING to her. That's all well and good. But I do not have the RIGHT to force her to obey my beliefs. Period.

We rail all the time about lawmakers passing legislation that robs us of our inalienable rights. And what do they tell us? "It's for the greater good that we do this." But we do not accept it because taking away our rights when we aren't harming anyone runs counter to our beliefs in a free society. Saying to a woman, I am going to take away your right to decide because my belief that abortion is murder is more important than your belief that you have the right to decide for yourself, is antithetical to libertarianism. It is authoritarianism. It is forcing others to cave to our worldview.

I wish I had more time to speak on this, but I must regrettably run. Hopefully I've said enough to convey my beliefs.

@Alysandir
You are generous in your expansion on this. Exactly what I was hoping for. Thanks. T

The Hyde Amendment already exists, tax dollars cannot go to abortion.

However, tax dollars do go to religious institutions, violating the First Amendment rights of many tax payers. The Catholic Church received $3.5 billion in COVID relief last year. Military missionaries get their government salaries paid for by taxpayers. Public money grants can go to religious schools. As I said previously on this comment thread, the Catholic Church in Philadelphia receives millions of dollars in taxpayer funding to run adoption agencies, and yet discriminates on who can adopt. If only we had a type of Hyde Amendment for religion... I guess the First Amendment isn't good enough.

@JacksonNought Here you go. There's always a way to work it.

[washingtontimes.com]

@Terence57 yeah, well, as I already said, our tax dollars fund quite a bit that we don't specifically endorse. You don't like funding PP cause it can indirectly go to abortion, I don't like funding school vouchers which can go to religion indoctrination centers.

@JacksonNought the Constitution says Congress shall not pass any laws regarding the establishment of a religion or impede the exercise there of, nothing says religious institutions can't receive financial support given out based on non-religious criteria.

@GlenGardner20 just remember that for when the government ends up granting public funds to The Satanic Temple.

@JacksonNought Well...This is what you said. Yes?

"The Hyde Amendment already exists, tax dollars cannot go to abortion."

Are we shifting gears now about what we like to fund and what we don't like to fund?

We might actually find some common ground in that discussion, like, maybe we shouldn't be funding lots of things...

@Terence57 yes. Tracy said she didn't want to pay, and I said the Hyde Amendment meant she wouldn't have to.. You then said it funds them indirectly. I am saying religions are given direct funding. In either case, yes I would love for taxpayers to be able to pick and choose what their dollars fund. I would choose not to fund any religions or presidential golf trips, or any meaningless wars.

@JacksonNought or madrassas. Generally, religious schools have to meet certain educational standards also - so the Satanists and madrassas don't generally qualify. And just like PP gets federal funding (and state funding in most cases) that covers other 'public good' things like health care, schools provide general education. As long as it is indirect and not focused, then both the schools and PP get around the prohibitions.

I don't frankly care. The public school system in many places is corrupt and useless, abortion tends to be as destructive. Society is tattered and torn, and the meme you posted lacks the basic foundation of being at least partially right in a snarky way. It is divisive and wrong. But I am sure that there are people that cheered it and agreed.

Without thinking.

again.

Why 24 weeks? Italy, France and Spain have unrestricted abortion from 90 days to 14 weeks.

Why 2/3 of the gestation period?

Why is it that, under virtually any other circumstance I don't look to Europe for guidance, but on this I think, "they so don't have their heads as far up their asses?"

A cancer diagnosis would be answered in one way or another well before 24 weeks in the U.S.

At the very least, can we Kill before we Murder?

@Terence57 Historically it is the point of viability. We have advanced medically in such a way as to push that back to 21-22 weeks, but I personally have 20 weeks as my cut-off.

Viability means the baby COULD live on it's own and at that point I believe 'rights' attach. You have two competing sets of rights at that point: the mother and her body, and the baby and it's life.

@tracycoyle
I appreciate the explanation, but I don't follow.

Viability is the legal standard that was set at a time when less was known. I won't go further except to say that now more is known.

The issue has always been Elective Abortion.

If I were to make an offer to buy a house, I'd have so many days to complete the transaction. 3 months is considered a long time allowance for a decision which may affect where I live the rest of my life. Why is 90 or 120 days not enough time in the case of Elective Abortion? Why is it important to allow the baby to develop further? Besides, each day is a greater inconvenience for the mother.

@Terence57 Believe it or not, sometimes it can take 2-3 MONTHS for a woman to realize she is pregnant. Granted, it happens sooner for most. But the decision is extremely difficult for almost any woman. Some have to come to a decision, and then figure out how to do it...and talk to whomever the father is and discuss.

Viability is still a valid criteria, the only difference is we can medically support specific fetal development processes to support them.

@tracycoyle
Father of 2, here and I appreciate the vagaries of each woman's biology.

However, on some level, if a woman has any responsibility at all, she knows if she's had sex. That being the case, she'll know within 45 to 60 days whether or not she's pregnant if she cares to find out. If she has an active sex life, simply monitoring "where she is" once a month would do the trick. Nonetheless, even the least mindful would have another 60 days to end the pregnancy. This is not a hurdle.

I'm working within certain parameters, here, relative to your earlier comment. Our discussion isn't where I'm going to lay down a pro-choice/pro-life marker

The thrust of this part of the puzzle is, we're literally the only fully industrialized nation that allows Abortion On Demand up until seconds before birth---and beyond. We have notables on the record and we have substantial numbers of cases available to confirm that.

Appreciate your input. T

@Terence57 I agree that there needs to be a restriction. Although more than 96% of abortions happen before the 24th week.

The Idea that we need to have abortion on demand in the last trimester is abhorrent to me, you and millions of others. I wish we could walk them off the ledge they seem to relish being on...

@tracycoyle
I know. I hear you.

@tracycoyle Hey---

Just came across this. All too rarely, I stumble upon a tidbit of self awareness ( that would be MY self awareness --I think the last time was about 10 years ago...) Anyway...

The tidbit I'm referring to is that even though I'm an individual, I'm "Average." More on that at a later date if you're interested. But pursuant to our fruitful exchange, dated today:

[thefederalist.com]

@Terence57 I tend to reject the 'feeling pain' argument because autonomic responses are hard to quantify even when you have conscious adults able to give responses. That said...I don't know that I would have a problem with 15 weeks. 15-20 weeks is going to be the range where viability comes into play over the next 100 yrs. I think anything between 12 and 24 weeks is going to be a moving target. For simplicity sake, 4 months. 16-18 weeks.

The poll you referenced is not much different than I've seen since the 80s. A majority want a restriction on abortion AT LEAST after the end of the 2nd trimester. That has been unchanging over the last 40 years.

@tracycoyle Indeed, Tracy--

The gist of my post is less about the 'proving pain' argument---although it's impossible to ignore that component--- I mean to illustrate how really unremarkable my sentiments are.
T

So your Socialism fear-mongering is more important to you than stopping abortion? Just want to make sure I know what your ethics are.

No, not only. But it is saying the Conservative politicians who want to ban abortion will still get them, as seen time and time again when rabid anti-abortion right-wing politicians have been caught forcing their mistresses or children to get abortions. They'll just take a "vacation" to some other country where they can easily get one. Those in poverty will suffer from the actions of those who do not follow their own rules.

@Q3ZLKGR

@Q3ZLKGR what would you do to end abortion? How important is it to you?

Would you advocate for comprehensive sexual education to be mandated in public school? It has been scientifically proven that comprehensive, fact-based sexual education reduces the rates of unwanted pregnancy and abortion. Abstinence-only programs do not work, just look at some of the most rabid Evangelical abstinence-only people, like Bristol Palin. Several states in the US have zero requirements for sex-ed curriculum, and some states literally teach that condoms cause cancer. One-third of public school sex-ed funding (that means tax-payer funded) goes towards these abstinence-only programs. So, do you advocate for full sex-ed, and removing abstinence-only programs?

Would you advocate for expanded social safety nets for women in poverty, offering free birth-control to prevent abortion? Allowing free programs for pre-natal vitamins and formula to feed kids? Having the state step-in to sponsor unwanted children, so that the reluctant parent does not have to pay for medical bills they would not have if they chose abortion? Would you petition for the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision to be reversed, so that all employers must cover birth control?

Would you advocate for foster care services to no longer discriminate against same-sex and single-parent households? Right now there are religious institutions which run a broken foster care system rife with abuse, and they would rather children suffer instead of going to loving homes because of their prejudice. Even now, a Catholic foster care service in Philadelphia is suing the city to force them to grant a contract to run the city's adoption services, despite the fact that they violate the city's discrimination rules. So, would you petition for all adoption agencies to be free of discrimination, making adoption a more viable route over abortion?

@JacksonNought The guy in that comic strip is an idiot. The baby already has a really good raincoat in the form of its mother.

As for what I would do to end abortion? It's not on me to prevent other people's heinous acts - it's on them.

There have been plenty of societies in the past in which it was seen as an advantage to have plenty of children, whereas it seems to have become more of a burden nowadays. This change seems to correlate with the move towards more "progressive" lifestyles, left-wing ideologies, and widespread social welfare programs. Families used to look after each other, rather than rely on money and resources the government has taken from strangers. If children were still seen as the blessing (even the investment) they used to be seen as, rather than the burden they have come to be seen as, the rate at which people seek abortions would likely be lower. Culture is often a more effective solution to social ills than government could ever be!

With all of that said, better sex education could be a good way to reduce the occurrence of unplanned pregnancy. I'm not sure whether you and I would agree on exactly what that would look like, but I think I could support the basic concept.

As for the vasectomy thing... I personally know a guy whose doctor warned him that the reversal of his vasectomy may not be successful because of the length of time that had passed since the operation. Sure, he got lucky, but the fact that his doctor gave him the warning suggests that there's more nuance to it than having all men have vasectomies at all times when they don't want kids, then just getting it reversed when they do.