Where is Liberty and freedom? Will it someday become extinct?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Who are you or anyone given the authority to deny life to a person, for any reason ?

The Supreme Court made the decision in 1973. They had the authority.

My only role here is to support it.

Who are any of us except people living in a pluralistic society who don't all share the same values, but still need to find a way to peacefully coexist?

Death is better than being alive ? Is there in death any opportunity for anything ? Millions and millions have survived bad homes, or adoption to become successful and productive people. You want to deny them that possibility by killing them ?

I've already stated my argument and told you how I feel about yours. Our values are not the same, nor do we frame the issue similarly. As you know, I see this as a pregnant woman versus state choice issue - who should make it. That is the issue that the Supreme Court decided, not the murder of babies. This is a matter for woman and her doctor to decide - a private matter. This is where the privacy enters.

I understand that you don't agree, and that you object. Perhaps you'll someday understand that that doesn't matter to others and address what they say does matter to them. You still steadfastly refuse to even acknowledge the issue as I've framed it. You simple want to keep returning to emotive language about humanity and killing babies that you've been told was deemed not relevant to the central issue of choice.

If you ever feel like discussing that, let me know.The murdered children argument has been played out. We're booth only repeating ourselves now.

Yet you speak of morality ?

Yes, and I'm quite comfortable with my position in this matter as well as with my ability to make sound moral judgments. I understand that there are competing interests at play. The rights of the pregnant woman trump your right and the right of the church to insist that she bring the baby to term against her will. You and the church would turn her into an incubator.

Those who support abortion sooner or later want to drag in religion to the discussion. They want to harp on the mean old Christians, and dominion BS, and forced confirmation to standards people don´t want, blah, blah, blah. this is where they want to attack, with bizarre ideas and conspiracy theory´s. I couldn´t care less

For starters, I am aware of nobody who supports abortion. For myself, I don't think that I would have had one had I been a woman with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy, but who knows. I would never have performed an abortion or assisted in one, and I would be very happy if no unwanted pregnancies ever occurred again, and no woman ever wanted one again.

But none of that matters. It's about the woman's right to choose. People like me are pro-choice, not pro-abortion.

As far as dragging religion into the argument, this argument is almost always with the religious. I think that @columbus is the only RF poster that takes your position that isn't of an Abrahamic faith. Apart from him, it's pretty much all Christians making the argument you're making. It isn't hard to figure out what's motivating them when they line up in front of Planned Parenthood clinics marching with Bibles and signs about sin and murdering babies. This is a religious issue in America, and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

The fact that this outrage clusters in the religious tells us that it is manufactured. Organic, grass roots outrage is distributed more evenly among people. Outrage at Martin Shkreli, the 9/11 attackers, and Jeffrey Dahmer cut across all demographics.

But this is mostly a Christian thing, meaning that it's being taught to Christians. They're being trained to think of abortion as baby murder in order to stoke the fires and artificially boost the outrage.

Likewise with that plot to depict Planned Parenthood as a clinic for harvesting baby parts for profit. They're playing with people's emotions in a way they cannot with the rest of us, so we remain at baseline absent the manufactured outrage. That's manipulation of those subject to it.

Pro abortionists despise the legal argument because there is no room for hyperbole or conspiracy theories.

Pro abortionists? What pro-choice people dislike are those with theocratic tendencies who would impose their religious preferences on others.

And notice how your harsh language really applies more to people like you than to people like me. You're the one that despises. You're the one with the obvious frustration. You're the one who just can't accept the society he lives in.

I have nothing in this matter to despise. I'm content with the status quo. This is not an emotional issue for me.

And I have no legal argument to make, nor one to consider.

Their debate claim that the fetus is already a legal person under the constitution also deserves a response, for it has no basis in positive law. In Roe v. Wade all nine justices agreed that the use of “person” in the Constitution always assumed a born person, and therefore that the 14th Amendment’s mention of person did not confer constitutional rights until after a live birth. In the years since Roe, when the make-up of the court has changed, no justice has ever disagreed with that conclusion, including those who would overturn Roe and Casey.

Fetal Personhood and the Constitution | Bill of Health

Oops! There goes the legal argument. There goes equal protection for fetuses.

Thanks for posting that.

I have a feeling that some of the people in this thread might be thinking of “freedom” in terms of constraints created by government specifically. Anyone: am I right?

Yes, I assumed political freedom. I realize that economics and health, for example, can affect other kinds of freedoms. Also, the times one lives in.and the technology available affect options.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes. It is easier to quantify when we are talking about government regulation. But you make a valid point. I think even looking at government regulation we find ourselves trying to weigh too many variables. If we talk about all possible "coercive restraints" the subject matter becomes exceedingly more broad.

I interpret it more broadly, because at the end of the day, I see freedom in terms of its impact on the individual.

If I want to, say, paint my house pink but my town has a by-law against it, I would not be freer in any practical sense if it was a home owner's association, condo board, or landlord that was stopping me from painting my house pink instead of the town.

Edit: if you have no "public square" besides the local mall, the mall owner's rules for what you can and can't say in the mall impact on your ability to say what you want in the public square. This represents a restriction of freedom for the individual, even if you accept that the mall owner's property rights make the restriction legitimate.

 

[Curious George]

I interpret it more broadly, because at the end of the day, I see freedom in terms of its impact on the individual.

If I want to, say, paint my house pink but my town has a by-law against it, I would not be freer in any practical sense if it was a home owner's association, condo board, or landlord that was stopping me from painting my house pink instead of the town.

Edit: if you have no "public square" besides the local mall, the mall owner's rules for what you can and can't say in the mall impact on your ability to say what you want in the public square. This represents a restriction of freedom for the individual, even if you accept that the mall owner's property rights make the restriction legitimate.

Yes but this isn't really about the HOA restricting your right to paint your house. You had freedom to contract and freedom to purchase in a different area. So we are then discussing your restriction to own a house in a specific location and then to paint that house pink. In effect, we are adding another layer and trying then to balance the interests at hand. If we prevent the HOA from existing or regulating through contract your right to paint your house we are also limiting freedom. It is a situation wherein either choice limits freedom. While this is similar to the government restrictions, we ultimately must return to the government's restrictions to decide the case. The same is true with the mall.

When we take the broader view most roads are going to lead back to what is legally permissible or what is not legally permissible.

 

[shmogie]

The Supreme Court made the decision in 1973. They had the authority.

My only role here is to support it.

Who are any of us except people living in a pluralistic society who don't all share the same values, but still need to find a way to peacefully coexist?



I've already stated my argument and told you how I feel about yours. Our values are not the same, nor do we frame the issue similarly. As you know, I see this as a pregnant woman versus state choice issue - who should make it. That is the issue that the Supreme Court decided, not the murder of babies. This is a matter for woman and her doctor to decide - a private matter. This is where the privacy enters.

I understand that you don't agree, and that you object. Perhaps you'll someday understand that that doesn't matter to others and address what they say does matter to them. You still steadfastly refuse to even acknowledge the issue as I've framed it. You simple want to keep returning to emotive language about humanity and killing babies that you've been told was deemed not relevant to the central issue of choice.

If you ever feel like discussing that, let me know.The murdered children argument has been played out. We're booth only repeating ourselves now.



Yes, and I'm quite comfortable with my position in this matter as well as with my ability to make sound moral judgments. I understand that there are competing interests at play. The rights of the pregnant woman trump your right and the right of the church to insist that she bring the baby to term against her will. You and the church would turn her into an incubator.



For starters, I am aware of nobody who supports abortion. For myself, I don't think that I would have had one had I been a woman with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy, but who knows. I would never have performed an abortion or assisted in one, and I would be very happy if no unwanted pregnancies ever occurred again, and no woman ever wanted one again.

But none of that matters. It's about the woman's right to choose. People like me are pro-choice, not pro-abortion.

As far as dragging religion into the argument, this argument is almost always with the religious. I think that @columbus is the only RF poster that takes your position that isn't of an Abrahamic faith. Apart from him, it's pretty much all Christians making the argument you're making. It isn't hard to figure out what's motivating them when they line up in front of Planned Parenthood clinics marching with Bibles and signs about sin and murdering babies. This is a religious issue in America, and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

The fact that this outrage clusters in the religious tells us that it is manufactured. Organic, grass roots outrage is distributed more evenly among people. Outrage at Martin Shkreli, the 9/11 attackers, and Jeffrey Dahmer cut across all demographics.

But this is mostly a Christian thing, meaning that it's being taught to Christians. They're being trained to think of abortion as baby murder in order to stoke the fires and artificially boost the outrage.

Likewise with that plot to depict Planned Parenthood as a clinic for harvesting baby parts for profit. They're playing with people's emotions in a way they cannot with the rest of us, so we remain at baseline absent the manufactured outrage. That's manipulation of those subject to it.



Pro abortionists? What pro-choice people dislike are those with theocratic tendencies who would impose their religious preferences on others.

And notice how your harsh language really applies more to people like you than to people like me. You're the one that despises. You're the one with the obvious frustration. You're the one who just can't accept the society he lives in.

I have nothing in this matter to despise. I'm content with the status quo. This is not an emotional issue for me.

And I have no legal argument to make, nor one to consider.



Oops! There goes the legal argument. There goes equal protection for fetuses.

Thanks for posting that.



Yes, I assumed political freedom. I realize that economics and health, for example, can affect other kinds of freedoms. Also, the times one lives in.and the technology available affect options.

We have reached the point where you begin using the "you" statements, and accusations about hate and judgements about how one is adjusted to society. That means the ad hominems are not far behind. The discussion is exhausted.

Yes, you are pro choice, the choice being killing and not killing, with the killing being acceptable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes but this isn't really about the HOA restricting your right to paint your house. You had freedom to contract and freedom to purchase in a different area.

I also had the freedom to purchase a home in a different town.

So we are then discussing your restriction to own a house in a specific location and then to paint that house pink. In effect, we are adding another layer and trying then to balance the interests at hand. If we prevent the HOA from existing or regulating through contract your right to paint your house we are also limiting freedom. It is a situation wherein either choice limits freedom.

Right: we have to balance people's rights and responsibilities in a way that maximizes freedom overall.

While this is similar to the government restrictions, we ultimately must return to the government's restrictions to decide the case. The same is true with the mall.

"We must?"

There are plenty of ways that the government limits the freedom of private entities to maximize freedom. Take "common carrier" rules: even though, say, Greyhound is a private company, the government has mandated that it's a common carrier that has to offer its service to all passengers equally. Under the law, the people's freedom of mobility trumps - to a certain extent - the desire of the company to do business exactly as it sees fit.

When we take the broader view most roads are going to lead back to what is legally permissible or what is not legally permissible.

To you, maybe. Most of the rest of us still see it as a problem if a private individual or organization is coercing us away from doing what we want to do.

 

[shmogie]

Conversely, preserving one particular "civil right" without thought for changes to societal context, while things get collectively worse despite, or even because of, it, is nonsensical.

For you I suspect, it depends upon the right. In the interest of identifying criminals and security, if a majority decided the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures showed be abandoned, would you agree ? How about freedom of speech ? what if society felt it best that you not speak in a negative way about the government, is that acceptable ? Since Southern society felt that separate but equal was acceptable, Jim Crow laws were acceptable ? I won't even go to slavery before the civil war.

Rights exist in the Constitution because they cannot be arbitrarily removed by the majority. Blacks have the civil rights guaranteed them by the Constitution, and enforced via the Civil Rights act, regardless of what society thought at the time.

There is a mechanism available to add or remove these rights, it is an extremely high bar, and no right has ever been removed, though a few have been added.

We do not live in a democracy where the majority can decide everything, No one is protected from anything.

We live in a Constitutional Republic, where ALL Constitutional rights are protected, that's the way it is.

For those who despise, say, the second amendment, there is a way to affect it. For those who despise the Republic, and want a democracy, that can be done through a Convention of the States.

I say this is the American way and those folks should go for it

 

[shmogie]

So if Black's Law is wrong in its LEGAL definition of what a 'person' is, then we are back to square one. You need to provide a LEGAL definition of 'person' if we are going to discuss the legality or illegality of abortion.

Also, I am not using the word 'thing' to describe an unborn fetus in ordinary, everyday usage, but as a LEGAL term, as described in the Black's Law definition I provided, If you also disagree with THAT definition, then you must provide one you think is correct.



Where does it say that in the Constitution?
*****

Fetal Personhood and the Constitution
By John A. Robertson
The Rubio-Huckabee claim that actual and legal personhood start at conception has drawn trenchant responses from Art Caplan on the medical uncertainty of such a claim and David Orentlicher, drawing on Judith Thomson’s famous article, that even if a fetus is a person, woman would not necessarily have a duty to keep it in her body.

Their debate claim that the fetus is already a legal person under the constitution also deserves a response, for it has no basis in positive law. In Roe v. Wade all nine justices agreed that the use of “person” in the Constitution always assumed a born person, and therefore that the 14th Amendment’s mention of person did not confer constitutional rights until after a live birth. In the years since Roe, when the make-up of the court has changed, no justice has ever disagreed with that conclusion, including those who would overturn Roe and Casey.

Fetal Personhood and the Constitution | Bill of Health

The legal standing of personhood, and the the status of human aren;t the same.

Using this definition, "personhood", I continue to point out the casualness of how this term is used. In a very specific and often used finding with a huge amount of case law to support it.

In most states, if not all, If I, plan to, then kill my pregnant wife, I will be charged with TWO murders. How is that possible if I didn't kill two people ? Why aren;'t all these double murder convictions overturned ?

Could it be that the definition of person ( and Blacks in in error, a newborn is a person, but cannot take up any responsibility) is strictly used ONLY for the purpose of abortion as was enumerated in Roe ?

I assure you it has been used as a defense in the double murder cases I cited, but those laws have never been found unConstitutional as far as I know.

 

[columbus]

The Supreme Court made the decision in 1973. They had the authority.

In 1857, the Supreme Court ruled that black people had no legal standing, and slave or free could not qualify as a US citizen.
I accept that the Supreme Court is the top legal authority in the USA. I don't accept them as a moral authority.
Tom

 

[shmogie]

No probs....... I look forward to your post.

From the standpoint of the accused The American Constitutional right against self incrimination is vastly superior to your system. The state must completely prove it';s case against me. I have no responsibility to aid them in any way. My defense is completely reserved for my trial.

From the standpoint of the investigating officer, I like your system. As one who has conducted criminal interrogations, you know that if you can get a suspect talking about anything, with skill you can keep them talking, and many inadvertently implicate themselves, your caution implies that it might be best to explain yourself to a point.

In our system, our warning is implicit, "you have the RIGHT to remain silent, you have the RIGHT to have an attorney present before answering any questions". If a suspect says the magic words, "I want an attorney", you may not ask another question, and you know you will never get any kind of answer from the suspect, his attorney will be present if you try, and counsel will advise him to saying nothing, remain silent. You don't bother.,

Every citizen is protected from badgering and repeated interrogation, from being broken down. Our Founders having lived under the British system of the time wanted to be sure the citizenry was protected from self incrimination, and that the state had to prove it's case entirely.

As to sentences, we are amazed at yours for serious crime. Murderers, what over here we call premeditated murderers, getting out after 10 years ? We hold the life of the murdered victim very highly, so when a sentence is given for life, it could very well mean life. In some states, the sentence could be death for multiple murders for particularly heinous killings. Justice in my view.

Our legal systems spring from the same root, British common law. They are adversarial systems, unlike law in most of Europe.,

 

[shmogie]

In 1857, the Supreme Court ruled that black people had no legal standing, and slave or free could not qualify as a US citizen.
I accept that the Supreme Court is the top legal authority in the USA. I don't accept them as a moral authority.
Tom

Excellent point Tom. They in fact threw the Constitution out the door in this decision.

We see the judiciary doing this on a routine basis today.

The concept of the so called "living Constitution" is code speak for being able to twist it and turn it at the will of who can exert the most pressure, or the will of the judge.

 

[columbus]

The legal standing of personhood, and the the status of human aren;t the same.

There are a couple of words I avoid using in a discussion about feticide, "person" and "murder". I try to stick to more precise and less emotional terms, like "human being" and "killing" and "homicide".
I think that everyone would be better off if no human being chose death for other human beings. Elementary biology can explain the difference between a human being and everything else under virtually all circumstances, and can describe the difference between life and death nearly as often.
So I try to stick to the moral premise "It's immoral for a human being to choose to kill another" and elementary science as the foundation of my Pro-Life stance. But it goes way beyond feticide. It includes everything from global monetary policies to environmental issues to weaponry development.

I don't find that most self described ProLifers are particularly Prolife. They're anti abortion, which is very different.
Tom

 

[shmogie]

The Supreme Court made the decision in 1973. They had the authority.

My only role here is to support it.

Who are any of us except people living in a pluralistic society who don't all share the same values, but still need to find a way to peacefully coexist?



I've already stated my argument and told you how I feel about yours. Our values are not the same, nor do we frame the issue similarly. As you know, I see this as a pregnant woman versus state choice issue - who should make it. That is the issue that the Supreme Court decided, not the murder of babies. This is a matter for woman and her doctor to decide - a private matter. This is where the privacy enters.

I understand that you don't agree, and that you object. Perhaps you'll someday understand that that doesn't matter to others and address what they say does matter to them. You still steadfastly refuse to even acknowledge the issue as I've framed it. You simple want to keep returning to emotive language about humanity and killing babies that you've been told was deemed not relevant to the central issue of choice.

If you ever feel like discussing that, let me know.The murdered children argument has been played out. We're booth only repeating ourselves now.



Yes, and I'm quite comfortable with my position in this matter as well as with my ability to make sound moral judgments. I understand that there are competing interests at play. The rights of the pregnant woman trump your right and the right of the church to insist that she bring the baby to term against her will. You and the church would turn her into an incubator.



For starters, I am aware of nobody who supports abortion. For myself, I don't think that I would have had one had I been a woman with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy, but who knows. I would never have performed an abortion or assisted in one, and I would be very happy if no unwanted pregnancies ever occurred again, and no woman ever wanted one again.

But none of that matters. It's about the woman's right to choose. People like me are pro-choice, not pro-abortion.

As far as dragging religion into the argument, this argument is almost always with the religious. I think that @columbus is the only RF poster that takes your position that isn't of an Abrahamic faith. Apart from him, it's pretty much all Christians making the argument you're making. It isn't hard to figure out what's motivating them when they line up in front of Planned Parenthood clinics marching with Bibles and signs about sin and murdering babies. This is a religious issue in America, and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

The fact that this outrage clusters in the religious tells us that it is manufactured. Organic, grass roots outrage is distributed more evenly among people. Outrage at Martin Shkreli, the 9/11 attackers, and Jeffrey Dahmer cut across all demographics.

But this is mostly a Christian thing, meaning that it's being taught to Christians. They're being trained to think of abortion as baby murder in order to stoke the fires and artificially boost the outrage.

Likewise with that plot to depict Planned Parenthood as a clinic for harvesting baby parts for profit. They're playing with people's emotions in a way they cannot with the rest of us, so we remain at baseline absent the manufactured outrage. That's manipulation of those subject to it.



Pro abortionists? What pro-choice people dislike are those with theocratic tendencies who would impose their religious preferences on others.

And notice how your harsh language really applies more to people like you than to people like me. You're the one that despises. You're the one with the obvious frustration. You're the one who just can't accept the society he lives in.

I have nothing in this matter to despise. I'm content with the status quo. This is not an emotional issue for me.

And I have no legal argument to make, nor one to consider.



Oops! There goes the legal argument. There goes equal protection for fetuses.

Thanks for posting that.



Yes, I assumed political freedom. I realize that economics and health, for example, can affect other kinds of freedoms. Also, the times one lives in.and the technology available affect options.

You stated you posted your comparison of Christianity and Islam, which was the topic of another conversation. I am sorry, but I can;'t find it. Would you be so kind as to give me a post # so I can respond ?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't find that most self described ProLifers are particularly Prolife. They're anti abortion, which is very different.

I don't even think they're that.

Measures that would reduce abortion while making things better for the woman seem to get very little traction in the movement. Typically, for an anti-abortion measure to get wide support among so-called "pro-lifers," it has to hurt or at least inconvenience the woman in some way.

And the movement often goes hand-in-hand with measures that increase unwanted pregnancy and with it abortion (e.g. abstinence-only sex ed or restricting access to contraception).

By their actions, they aren't anti-abortion; they're opposed to women's reproductive choice. That's it. Generally, they fight just as hard against, say, long job-protected maternity leave or taxpayer-funded child care as they do against an abortion clinic going up in their neighbourhood.

They aren't interested in any option that would involve a woman having non-procreative sex or a woman deciding not to have an abortion because carrying the pregnancy to term would work out awesomely.

 

[columbus]

I don't even think they're that.

Unfortunately, this is true.

Self styled Pro-Lifers seem to always be about punishment after the fact, while actively opposing evidence based efforts to actually reduce abortion.
I think that most ProLife leaders are actually in favor of abortion, because pretending to oppose it gets them wealth and power. If it really stopped happening they'd have to get real jobs.
Tom

 

[oldbadger]

That there was a time when a system was collectively 'worse' does not mean there were not times when aspects were individually better.

You want to look at the whole and say, "see, progress!" This notion ignores the question of whether erosion of civil liberties exist.

I reckon that our civil conditions here are amongst the best in the World.

If you don't like where you live, move on..........

 

[oldbadger]

From the standpoint of the accused The American Constitutional right against self incrimination is vastly superior to your system. The state must completely prove it';s case against me. I have no responsibility to aid them in any way. My defense is completely reserved for my trial.

From the standpoint of the investigating officer, I like your system. As one who has conducted criminal interrogations, you know that if you can get a suspect talking about anything, with skill you can keep them talking, and many inadvertently implicate themselves, your caution implies that it might be best to explain yourself to a point.

In our system, our warning is implicit, "you have the RIGHT to remain silent, you have the RIGHT to have an attorney present before answering any questions". If a suspect says the magic words, "I want an attorney", you may not ask another question, and you know you will never get any kind of answer from the suspect, his attorney will be present if you try, and counsel will advise him to saying nothing, remain silent. You don't bother.,

Every citizen is protected from badgering and repeated interrogation, from being broken down. Our Founders having lived under the British system of the time wanted to be sure the citizenry was protected from self incrimination, and that the state had to prove it's case entirely.

As to sentences, we are amazed at yours for serious crime. Murderers, what over here we call premeditated murderers, getting out after 10 years ? We hold the life of the murdered victim very highly, so when a sentence is given for life, it could very well mean life. In some states, the sentence could be death for multiple murders for particularly heinous killings. Justice in my view.

Our legal systems spring from the same root, British common law. They are adversarial systems, unlike law in most of Europe.,

Thankyou for your responding post.
I am going out this evening.
I can reply in about 5 hours from now.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It occurs to me that the people in this thread probably have a range of ideas about what “freedom” means. What did you have in mind when you wrote this?

Personally, as a broad definition, I like the one that the Human Freedom Index uses: they say that freedom is “the absence of coercive constraint.” I like how it reflects all infringements on freedom, not just laws and the actions of governments.

... however, I have a feeling that some of the people in this thread might be thinking of “freedom” in terms of constraints created by government specifically. Anyone: am I right?

To put it in simplest terms it's basically the things I used to be able to do that are no longer allowed under penalty. It definitely has an effect of feeling constrained.

I would love to find a well made chart or graph somewhere listing of all the comparative freedoms that people had from the fifties up to the present day.

Most of it granted deals with the encroachment of NaNNy-ISM that's probably what ticks me off the most personally but they're clearly are more egregious cases then issues over creature comforts or ones personal habits that need to be addressed.

It used to be there was very little government interference in people's private lives. Now it's getting to the point where the government wants to regulate everything and anything under the sun including what you can and cannot do with your own private property. It seems people are losing more and more control of what they personally own or do through things like heavy-handed legislation which the vast majority I blame squarely on Democrats although some Republicans are not really any better in some respects to be fair about it. Basically its things a person could comparatively do in the old days that you can no longer do today, that is bothersome which will very of course from state to state.

It bothers me because I think freedom is primarily a person's personal pursuit of happiness and unhindered free movement whereas he or she would be free to enjoy his or her own property or even ones own person without being told what to do with it.

Probably some of the best latest examples would be the stop and frisk policy, fast food and drinks smoking issues, or issues involving people who want to live off the grid by making their own electricity, or desire an alternate water source for themselves without having to rely on government or private utilities.

I view freedom in terms of individuality a little more than I do with societal freedom such as states rights, although I consider it all important.

 

[shmogie]

I don't even think they're that.

Measures that would reduce abortion while making things better for the woman seem to get very little traction in the movement. Typically, for an anti-abortion measure to get wide support among so-called "pro-lifers," it has to hurt or at least inconvenience the woman in some way.

And the movement often goes hand-in-hand with measures that increase unwanted pregnancy and with it abortion (e.g. abstinence-only sex ed or restricting access to contraception).

By their actions, they aren't anti-abortion; they're opposed to women's reproductive choice. That's it. Generally, they fight just as hard against, say, long job-protected maternity leave or taxpayer-funded child care as they do against an abortion clinic going up in their neighbourhood.

They aren't interested in any option that would involve a woman having non-procreative sex or a woman deciding not to have an abortion because carrying the pregnancy to term would work out awesomely.

Gads..............What a clutch of false opinions.

There is only one thing that links those who are pro life, a human life is the most valuable thing that can exist. This being so, the preservation of that life takes precedence over any other consideration, that's it. That life s more valuable than someone's inconvenience, and in one way or another that's what it is all about.

For those rare cases where severe physical threat to the mother, most pro lifers agree that the mother should be protected.

As to painting all pro lifers with the brush of supporting abstinence only sex education, it is simply an invalid conclusion. What we object to is sex education for young children, politically driven sex education, i.e. multiple genders, trans sexualism, etc., etc. Sex education should be about reproduction, and birth control for people old enough understand what is covered and what may be required.

As a father, maternity leave for my wife was appreciated and I have heard no one object to it. As a manager of a service working 24 hours a day, 7 days per week, it was sometimes difficult for me, but then I recognized what was best for my employee.

In the case of a low income working mother, I support tax assisted child care, rather than paying welfare.

None of these issues are part of the pro life movement, we have one goal, stop the killing of unborn humans, period.

People involved in some other issues may coincidentally be pro life, but to imply that we think consistently on a number of issues is simply not factual.

 

[shmogie]

There are a couple of words I avoid using in a discussion about feticide, "person" and "murder". I try to stick to more precise and less emotional terms, like "human being" and "killing" and "homicide".
I think that everyone would be better off if no human being chose death for other human beings. Elementary biology can explain the difference between a human being and everything else under virtually all circumstances, and can describe the difference between life and death nearly as often.
So I try to stick to the moral premise "It's immoral for a human being to choose to kill another" and elementary science as the foundation of my Pro-Life stance. But it goes way beyond feticide. It includes everything from global monetary policies to environmental issues to weaponry development.

I don't find that most self described ProLifers are particularly Prolife. They're anti abortion, which is very different.
Tom

Perhaps. It appears that your definition of pro life for yourself is noble. I am not sure how far it extends.

I carried a pistol as part of my work for a long time. I praise God I never had to use it. However, if faced with the situation where my life or someone else's was under immediate threat., I would eliminate that threat with my pistol. Does that mean I am not pro life ?

 

[shmogie]

To put it in simplest terms it's basically the things I used to be able to do that are no longer allowed under penalty. It definitely has an effect of feeling constrained.

I would love to find a well made chart or graph somewhere listing of all the comparative freedoms that people had from the fifties up to the present day.

Most of it granted deals with the encroachment of NaNNy-ISM that's probably what ticks me off the most personally but they're clearly are more egregious cases then issues over creature comforts or ones personal habits that need to be addressed.

It used to be there was very little government interference in people's private lives. Now it's getting to the point where the government wants to regulate everything and anything under the sun including what you can and cannot do with your own private property. It seems people are losing more and more control of what they personally own or do through things like heavy-handed legislation which the vast majority I blame squarely on Democrats although some Republicans are not really any better in some respects to be fair about it. Basically its things a person could comparatively do in the old days that you can no longer do today, that is bothersome which will very of course from state to state.

It bothers me because I think freedom is primarily a person's personal pursuit of happiness and unhindered free movement whereas he or she would be free to enjoy his or her own property or even ones own person without being told what to do with it.

Probably some of the best latest examples would be the stop and frisk policy, fast food and drinks smoking issues, or issues involving people who want to live off the grid by making their own electricity, or desire an alternate water source for themselves without having to rely on government or private utilities.

I view freedom in terms of individuality a little more than I do with societal freedom such as states rights, although I consider it all important.

You hit the nail squarely on the head. The idea that what is good for the majority supersedes the consideration of what the individual considers best for himself. This is a mainstay of the political thought of democrats/socialists/ communists. The difference being the degree to which the concept is applied.

Private property isn';t yours, you rent it from the government, stop paying the rent ( property taxes ) and they take it back. Eminent domain works the same way, your property is yours till the government gives someone the right to steal it from you.

I grew up in, and worked in a suburb near LA. When I could I left that mess for an extremely rural area of Arizona, where everybody does their thing and leaves the other guy to do his. I have been here a relatively long time. We adapted to the area and it's people and their ways.

Now, city folk are moving in, and they almost immediately start demanding what they had where they came from.

They want to restrict our freedom and raise our taxes for their own selfish reasons. They are finding this isn't so easy.

Anyway, I truly understand what you mean.