http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs...choice-candidate-is-never-asked-by-the-media/ I would add, if/when a gay gene is discovered, should the mother have the right to abort after being told their child will be gay?
1-Restrictions properly balanced with regards to state interest, empirical results, and the individual rights of the woman, the ideal confluence of which are the provenance of contraceptives...which, HEY! isn't actually a heavy-handed state restriction. whodathunk it. 2-One would hope to recognize the very anti-thesis of the misogynist thought process that brings forward gendercide in allowing women to have control over their own bodies. How can you "ban" gendercide effectively? People will try to value boys over girls no matter what, and if you somehow install a Maoist system throughout the developing world to stamp out the killings, you haven't addressed the root cause of such thoughts in the first place, and the suffering that will result (if not death). Letting women know they control their own bodies over the objections of men is a powerful step towards erasing the male-biased views that lead to such crimes in the first place (of course, eliminating the recessive paternalistic parts of some ideologies might be cool too---here's looking at you Abrahamic religions!) That's two questions from the cookie-cutter template. Here's one of mine that I always lob at "pro-life" libertarians. The whole reason for your political existence is the absolute belief that government is terrible at regulating or setting out to do whatever it wants to do. What makes you think it is any different with regards to regulating abortions?
Ok but define those restrictions. ban abortion Protecting individual rights is a legitimate function of government. You are confusing libertarians with anarchists.
1) I think right now it's at two-thirds, so the woman gets a majority of the time. That's probably a fair enough deal. 2) No problem with the mother aborting based on gender, if she's discrete enough we shouldn't be able to tell on a case-by-case basis. 3) Not until we're handing out condoms, BCPs and RU-486 at school; and giving sex ed at the same time they started doing anti-drug stuff (elementary). 4) Never, that's pretty much the crux of the matter. I guess cause I'm an atheist and a virgin, I don't spend a lot of time sanctifying sex or looking for life after death or before birth. 5) Eugenics was about scientifically rationalizing racial bigotry. Religious and conservative views on sex, marriage and childbirth are about rationalizing misogyny. Conservative views on healthcare and welfare funding are about weeding out the unfit. 6) Yes. 7) No need to mention the niece as a black, baptist preacher from Georgia in the '60s probably opposed abortion in his own right. But he would have also known that the bigger crime is that minority saturated inner-cities were created in the first place and continue to exist for the same insidious reasons. 8) It's tragic in the same way that a cop views a shooting. Necessary but probably avoidable with enough time, resources, experience, foresight, compassion and common sense by all involved. 9) I'm not sure how you prove an unborn fetus can live outside the womb. 10) Yes, for the exact same reasons I fully support abortion rights.
Defined restrictions; for the moment, I'll kindly refer you to the Roe v. Wade line of viability that is the law of the land, since I believe that is a proper compromise (as I don't like it, and you probably don't either). Yeah, because banning alcohol, and banning drugs has worked so well. Of course the easiest way to ban gendercide is to ban abortion, just like the easiest way score on Kobe is to put the ball in the basket. Enforcement? Empirical results? Maternal health? no no. Let's just---ban it. see, I said ban, so abortion ceases to exist! Seriously, protecting individual rights of the baby is all cool and good, but you forgot about the individual rights of the mother. What makes you think government can balance those properly, considering most libertarians don't believe government can balance much of anything? (hence why the libertarianism)
Yes, I believe viability is the appropriate standard, even if it's hard to pinpoint. I support a restriction probably after the first trimester in some cases, or sometime early in the second. 2 things. 1) I believe in a policy of not revealing the gender of the child in the third world. It carries very little practical value and it leads to gender imbalance, which is very dangerous (restless young men's syndrome, abuse etc.). 2) I still do believe it should be legal absent such a policy, because abortions go underground. Many men abuse their spouses to force a miscarriage or force their wives to have an underground abortion in order to terminate the female fetus. This is bad for the health of the mother. I think that parental notification MIGHT be okay, but not parental authorization. I also think a teenager ought be able to get aspirin. Just because a policy is inconsistent, doesn't mean it's bad. I'd rather have a policy that's half good and half bad that's contradictory, than one that is all bad. This is a very difficult question to answer, but I don't think it matters. Whenever viability is, is when I think rights are attributed to it. So see my response to question 1. I also turn around this question, why is masturbation different? If using the potentiality standard, the killed sperm cells are also rights violation, as are unused IVF eggs. I personally find this practice to be terrible, but I don't think we should legislate against it, only because there's no way to. I think the viability standard should still apply here. Yes, they ought be required to provide it. If I'm an anarchist and don't believe that the government ought exist, I am still required to pay taxes. If I am morally abhorred by the Iraq war, my tax dollars still go to fund it. You ought be required to provide funding irregardless of your beliefs. There is no meaningful rights claim here. 1. Appeal to authority logical fallacy. I don't care who says what. 2. I think that inner cities would be worse off without abortion, because it would sink more parents into poverty who can't financially care for their children. Education about condoms and contraceptives (getting rid of the archaic practice of abstinence-only education) is the first step. It's also tragic to have open heart surgery and chemotherapy. I feel like it's a hard process to go through and we should do everything we can to prevent abortions from happening, not because it's morally bad but because it's an emotional experience for all involved. It's a tragic experience. No. Yes, and here's why. I think that at the point in time in which you DECIDE TO HAVE THE CHILD, then the child is therefore going to be viable by your choice and ought have rights. So because the child is GOING to be a life through not choosing abortion, it therefore ought be treated differently. Sure there are cases where the mother is considering abortion, then killed might be a close call, but I see this as an exception rather than a rule. Because the mother intended to have the child, the emotional harm to the family is greater and thus the impact of the crime is greater, and it deserves a harsher punishment. Re: the gay gene question: it's the same question as the Down's Syndrome question. On a sidenote: this is a fail list of questions reliant on logical fallacies and emotional appeals.
I think most "pro-life" libertarians consider a fetus to be a human being. Regulating abortion is therefore no more inconsistent with their principles than regulating murder, and I've certainly never heard any libertarian say that the government needs to get itself out of the business of regulating homicide.
Doesn't answer the question unless you think the enforcement of regulation of murder is exactly the same as the enforcement of regulation of abortion will be. On pure scope alone, that is clearly not the case. What makes you think the government will do so well in this case, when other regulations more akin to how the enforcement mechanism will be implemented (drug laws) have fared so well in the libertarian mind?
Just for the sake of specificity, I'll clarify that I would convict a killer of a pregnant woman for double murder if only her pregnancy was visibly apparent, or just if the killer knew, could reasonably infer or had been told the woman was pregnant. And obviously not if it was part of a consensual medical procedure.
I agree with SC1211 that this is a fail list of questions reliant on logical fallacies and emotional appeals. In the interests of having a discussion I will answer the questions though. 1. You say you support a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices in regards to abortion and contraception. Are there any restrictions you would approve of? I am on record that I would support restrictions on abortions beyond the first trimester with the exception of rape, incest, and health of the mother. My view on this is less informed by ideology but more by the law, Roe V. Wade did leave open restrictions, and also that I believe that an absolutist abortion on demand at anytime position is not politically tenable and only hardens positions. I don't think the majority of the country supports an absolutist position either way and there are many other issues regarding health and reproduction that bogged down by this issue. 2. In 2010, The Economist featured a cover story on “the war on girls” and the growth of “gendercide” in the world – abortion based solely on the sex of the baby. Does this phenomenon pose a problem for you or do you believe in the absolute right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy because the unborn fetus is female? Sure it poses a problem in regard that woman are forced to abort. In those cases it isn't a pro-choice position. It also poses a problem due to the gender imbalances as other posters have pointed out. Banning abortion though on the basis of that though seems like a blunt approach to a complex solution. It is the equivalent of saying that since alcoholism is a major problem in several countries then we should ban alcohol everywhere. Anyway the fallacy in this argument is that if aborting female fetuses is a problem the most direct solution then would be that we restrict abortion only in the case of female fetuses.. 3. In many states, a teenager can have an abortion without her parents’ consent or knowledge but cannot get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental authorization. Do you support any restrictions or parental notification regarding abortion access for minors? This might be where I differ from some other pro-choice people in that I would agree to parental notification and restrictions on the basis that the law has established that parents have a broad range of control over the rights of minors. The only exception I would consider is regarding the health of the child, for example if an 11 year old got pregnant from a rape such a young pregnancy could very likely lead to severe complications. If the parents of that child were adamant against getting an abortion I would allow it without their consent. 4. If you do not believe that human life begins at conception, when do you believe it begins? At what stage of development should an unborn child have human rights? I believe human life begins at sentience and when that is I don't know for sure. I definitely don't consider an embryo sentient anymore than the mole on my chin is but at some point it happens. That is one reason I would be willing to agree to a restriction after the first trimester. As far as the second part of the question rights are established at birth and it would cause many problems if they were established earlier. For example would you, Commodore, agree to grant citizenship rights at conception? 5. Currently, when genetic testing reveals an unborn child has Down Syndrome, most women choose to abort. How do you answer the charge that this phenomenon resembles the “eugenics” movement a century ago – the slow, but deliberate “weeding out” of those our society would deem “unfit” to live? First off I don't have to answer the charge as believing abortion should be legal, to some extent, and supporting that particular practice aren't one and the same. 6. Do you believe an employer should be forced to violate his or her religious conscience by providing access to abortifacient drugs and contraception to employees? That depends on what type of organization that employer is working for. If it is a religious institution no I don't think they should be forced to do something that violates their beliefs under the principle of separation of church and state. If it isn't a religious institution they should abide by the law. The problem with employers claiming religious exemptions can open up a whole can of worms. For example what if a restauranteur says that their religion forbids the use of modern disinfects should they be exempted from sanitary codes? 7. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. has said that “abortion is the white supremacist’s best friend,” pointing to the fact that Black and Latinos represent 25% of our population but account for 59% of all abortions. How do you respond to the charge that the majority of abortion clinics are found in inner-city areas with large numbers of minorities? Once again there are some fallacies in that argument. While Blacks and Latinos may have more abortions than others the Pro-Choice argument is about choice. White Supremacy isn't about choice since skin color isn't a choice. If Blacks and Latinos are being forced to have more abortions that is a problem but again that isn't choice. 8. You describe abortion as a “tragic choice.” If abortion is not morally objectionable, then why is it tragic? Does this mean there is something about abortion that is different than other standard surgical procedures? First off every surgical procedure has the possibility for trauma. Second though is that abortion might be more tragic than other procedures because their usually aren't protestors outside liposuction clinics calling the doctors and clients "Murderers!" To that extent the Pro-Life side is themselves responsible for the tragedy. Anyway the decision to have an abortion is often made at a time of other difficult situations regarding a relationship not going well, problems with finances, problems with family and etc.. so it isn't like it is a happy time to begin with. 9. Do you believe abortion should be legal once the unborn fetus is viable – able to survive outside the womb? I would be fine with banning abortion at viability, that said that isn't clear cut. I would still temper that with cases of rape, incest, and health of the mother. 10. If a pregnant woman and her unborn child are murdered, do you believe the criminal should face two counts of murder and serve a harsher sentence? I like SC1211's answer but personally I don't think that should count as two counts of murder. I think to the extent that we don't grant rights to the unborn then we shouldn't count the killing of one as murder. To head off the inevitable saying I am soft on crime I think we can consider it an aggravating circumstance in sentencing. I would add, if/when a gay gene is discovered, should the mother have the right to abort after being told their child will be gay? With the same restrictions as above but anyway that falls under the same logical fallacy as the question about Down's Syndrome and aborting for gender selection.
From SC12's and rocketsjudoka's responses, it sounds like you believe that there is nothing wrong with abortion per se, but there is something wrong (or perhaps "unsettling" is preferred) with aborting a pregnancy because it is learned that the unborn has Down Syndrome. But if we grant that there is nothing wrong with abortion itself and women should have full control over their own bodies and the unborn (before viability) does not have moral rights, why is the practice of aborting in that case objectionable to any degree?
I think you need to differentiate a few things here. While my position is that abortion should be legal with few restrictions in the first trimester doesn't mean that I think we should be having more abortions for whatever reason. The argument that there is a moral conflict regarding people aborting Down Syndrome fetuses and abortion in general is based upon the premise that you just because you agree that abortion should be legal you morally agree with every situation that abortion is used for. That would be like saying that just because you think that guns should be legal then you are OK with every use of guns.
I'm probably in the very small minority here, but I'm pro-life in theory, pro-choice for practicality. In a perfect world, IMO, every pregnancy would be brought to term, with mothers that cannot afford it be given full government help during pregnancy and delivery. Then the babies are either all given either proper adoption or fully-funded orphanage that allows for each unwanted child to be given a good chance at life. My main problem with pro-life people is that most of them also want small government, slash funding to healthcare, education, etc. that run opposite to the spirit of pro-life. Which is that all lives are precious, and we should not be letting these babies be castoffs of society without given a chance. But until America becomes a more socialist country where we share our bounties with those less fortunate, and there are few less fortunate than unwanted children, abortion simply is the practical alternative. It sickens me that we can spend a trillion dollars starting a war that posed no real threat to us, but can't even allocate even a tiny fraction of that to help these babies.
But I've never seen this debate being discussed as a practical issue rather than a moral one. I see no moral argument here. I dislike abortion as much as people dying of starvation, dying of lack of healthcare, dying of violence, etc. But there are limited resources being shared I our society. Something's gotta give
Many needing abortion are teenager girls. That's where the so called moralistism doesn't hold it's water.
