Ohio's heartbeat bill could upend Roe v. Wade. It started at a sleepover.

[We Never Know]

I checked your link.
The "right to be born" was an Irish court ruling.

You are proabortion, I'm not.
Are you progun? I am.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Many have repeat abortions. There are numerous birth control methods that are easily obtained. In my opinion abortions are being used as an answer to irresponsibility. Reasons given are already have children, race, education, etc. You can read more at the link.

Why do you care what other people are doing with their bodies? If they are truly using abortions as a means of birth control (something that is highly advised against), do you really want these women to be mothers?

 

[We Never Know]

Why do you care what other people are doing with their bodies? If they are truly using abortions as a means of birth control (something that is highly advised against), do you really want these women to be mothers?

I also don't want them killing (political correct speaking) potential children repeatedly either. They can put them up for adoption.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I also don't want them killing (political correct speaking) potential children repeatedly either. They can put them up for adoption.

There are already too many kids up for adoption who aren't getting adopted. It's why couples who can't/don't reproduce are a great thing, because they don't add to our over-population and if they want a child they end up giving a home to a child who needs one.

 

[We Never Know]

There are already too many kids up for adoption who aren't getting adopted. It's why couples who can't/don't reproduce are a great thing, because they don't add to our over-population and if they want a child they end up giving a home to a child who needs one.

Adoption. It is difficult to find reliable statistics to answer this question. Some sources estimate that there are about 2 million couples currently waiting to adopt in the United States — which means there are as many as 36 waiting families for every one child who is placed for adoption.

American Adoptions - How Many Couples Are Waiting to Adopt?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So do you have an answer as to when we can actually call something a human life worthy of conferring legal rights and protections under the law? Does a baby in the womb at or beyond the point of viability constitute a human life meriting legal rights and protections under the law?

But you are only asking about one of the characters in this drama. What about the person with the womb that the zygote/foetus/baby inhabits? Is she not also a "human life worthy of conferring legal rights and protections under the law?"

And what if those rights (the womb bearer and the womb inhabitant) are in conflict? How do you decide who wins?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Adoption. It is difficult to find reliable statistics to answer this question. Some sources estimate that there are about 2 million couples currently waiting to adopt in the United States — which means there are as many as 36 waiting families for every one child who is placed for adoption.

American Adoptions - How Many Couples Are Waiting to Adopt?

And yet I was never adopted, who wanted a family more than anything. And there are many, many others just like me.

See, one of the things to consider is this: the kid that is born to you naturally is the one you pretty much have to live with...even if it isn't quite what you wanted. But the kids who are adopted, well, you get to pick and choose, don't you? And the "suboptimal" ones then stand little chance.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Adoption. It is difficult to find reliable statistics to answer this question. Some sources estimate that there are about 2 million couples currently waiting to adopt in the United States — which means there are as many as 36 waiting families for every one child who is placed for adoption.

American Adoptions - How Many Couples Are Waiting to Adopt?

I see a lot of optimistic numbers there, such as where it claims up to 40% of Americans have considered it. Considering it isn't doing it. And of course families wanting to will necessarily be allowed to. Other numbers show about half of them get adopted, with 29% of them being in foster care for three years.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Most abortions aren't from being raped, they are from irresponsible unprotected sex. You're trying to compare apples to oranges.

But one should not, after all, forget the oranges.

 

[Revoltingest]

But hey I'm am part Irish

We all have our cross to bear.

 

[We Never Know]

We all have our cross to bear.

Yep. By my ancestors I'm Irish, German and Native American. What a mix. Lol

 

[Revoltingest]

You are proabortion, I'm not.
Are you progun? I am.

It has been said of us Libertarians that we're pro everything.
I am....
Pro gun
Pro abortion
Pro eating meat
Pro legalizing recreational drugs
Pro atheism
Pro religion
Pro porn
Pro prostitution
Pro free speech

 

[Revoltingest]

Yep. By my ancestors I'm Irish, German and Native American. What a mix. Lol

Dang...you could be at war with yourself.

 

[We Never Know]

It has been said of us Libertarians that we're pro everything.
I am....
Pro gun
Pro abortion
Pro eating meat
Pro legalizing recreational drugs
Pro atheism
Pro religion
Pro porn
Pro prostitution
Pro free speech

Good deal. I'm not proabortion though I do see times it's justified. And again forcible rape is not comparable to recreational sex.

 

[Revoltingest]

.....forcible rape is not comparable to recreational sex.

Truer words were never spoken.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It has been said of us Libertarians that we're pro everything.
I am....
Pro gun
Pro abortion
Pro eating meat
Pro legalizing recreational drugs
Pro atheism
Pro religion
Pro porn
Pro prostitution
Pro free speech

So, are you ...
Pro regulating corporate financial behaviour by financial institutions, or pro allowing them to do whatever they can get away with?
Pro allowing gun owners to use them any way they like, or pro putting in at least a few rules (like don't fire them into people around you)?

I don't mean to offend, and yes, that was way simplistic, but so is what I see of Libertarianism. Life for a complex social species that consists of individuals who can think and act for themselves is an excessively complex undertaking. I think we succeed best when we get the balance right.

You call yourself Libertarian. I call myself a classic Liberal. It sometimes seems to me that what makes us the same is our concern for the liberty and autonomy of each individual person, would you agree? And where we disagree is in how that individual liberty and autonomy must be circumscribed because we are, individuals all, members of a social group (species).

 

[Shiranui117]

But you are only asking about one of the characters in this drama. What about the person with the womb that the zygote/foetus/baby inhabits? Is she not also a "human life worthy of conferring legal rights and protections under the law?"

And what if those rights (the womb bearer and the womb inhabitant) are in conflict? How do you decide who wins?

We don't allow mothers to kill 5-year-old children, or 5-month-old babies, for any reason, regardless of what that child has done or what its origins were or the mother's inability to properly care for it. If we legally declare that unborn children are humans and legal persons, then the mother wouldn't be allowed to kill the baby in her womb which meets our statutory definitions of what constitutes a human person with legal rights and protections.

The pro-life crowd isn't anti-women's rights. They have no problem with women having autonomy over their own bodies. (Sure, you have Catholics who ban contraceptives for some reason, but they don't try and promote that as secular law to my knowledge.) However, unborn children are not a part of the mother's body. The mother's body is a shelter and source of nourishment for the baby as it grows. Pro-lifers view unborn children as living humans who deserve legal protections and rights, and that includes not letting them be murdered.

The pro-choice crowd, however, by and large doesn't even see the unborn child as "one of the characters in this drama". They mostly don't agree that unborn babies count as living creatures in their own right, or even if they are living creatures, they don't meet the pro-choice crowd's definition of "human". And this is why the pro-choice crowd consistently smears pro-lifers as "anti-women", because they see the pro-life crowd as arguing for the protection of the unborn and view it as just as arbitrary oppression against women and a denial of their bodily autonomy.

 

[Revoltingest]

So, are you ...
Pro regulating corporate financial behaviour by financial institutions, or pro allowing them to do whatever they can get away with?

I've held forth on this, & favor less but better regulation that we currently have.
Details are extensive, & beyond the scope of this thread.

Pro allowing gun owners to use them any way they like, or pro putting in at least a few rules (like don't fire them into people around you)?

Yet another issue I've blathered on & on about...
Same philosophy....less but better regulation.

I don't mean to offend, and yes, that was way simplistic, but so is what I see of Libertarianism. Life for a complex social species that consists of individuals who can think and act for themselves is an excessively complex undertaking. I think we succeed best when we get the balance right.

I prefer my simplistic views to the other simplistic views I see from Dems, Pubs, Greens, etc, etc.

You call yourself Libertarian. I call myself a classic Liberal.

I'm a classical liberal too, but I don't use the label here because under RF rules,
it's the same as conservative. I disagree with that. I'm definitely not a conservative,
so I use the term only IRL, where it has the advantage of causing confusion, which
generates questions (instead of knee jerk reactions).

It sometimes seems to me that what makes us the same is our concern for the liberty and autonomy of each individual person, would you agree? And where we disagree is in how that individual liberty and autonomy must be circumscribed because we are, individuals all, members of a social group (species).

Everyone (almost) is in favor of liberty & autonomy.
Where we differ is in the balances we strike, eg,
much less forcing people to do things.

 

[We Never Know]

And yet I was never adopted, who wanted a family more than anything. And there are many, many others just like me.

See, one of the things to consider is this: the kid that is born to you naturally is the one you pretty much have to live with...even if it isn't quite what you wanted. But the kids who are adopted, well, you get to pick and choose, don't you? And the "suboptimal" ones then stand little chance.

Sorry you were never adopted. It happens same as abortions happen. Many things are out our of control while other things are in our control.
If I child is adopted, the parents should treat and love them as their own. The same with step children. It's not the child's fault they are in the situation they are in and you can't blame the child. Again that's my opinion.

 

[We Never Know]

We don't allow mothers to kill 5-year-old children, or 5-month-old babies, for any reason, regardless of what that child has done or what its origins were or the mother's inability to properly care for it. If we legally declare that unborn children are humans and legal persons, then the mother wouldn't be allowed to kill the baby in her womb which meets our statutory definitions of what constitutes a human person with legal rights and protections.

The pro-life crowd isn't anti-women's rights. They have no problem with women having autonomy over their own bodies. (Sure, you have Catholics who ban contraceptives for some reason, but they don't try and promote that as secular law to my knowledge.) However, unborn children are not a part of the mother's body. The mother's body is a shelter and source of nourishment for the baby as it grows. Pro-lifers view unborn children as living humans who deserve legal protections and rights, and that includes not letting them be murdered.

The pro-choice crowd, however, by and large doesn't even see the unborn child as "one of the characters in this drama". They mostly don't agree that unborn babies count as living creatures in their own right, or even if they are living creatures, they don't meet the pro-choice crowd's definition of "human". And this is why the pro-choice crowd consistently smears pro-lifers as "anti-women", because they see the pro-life crowd as arguing for the protection of the unborn and view it as just as arbitrary oppression against women and a denial of their bodily autonomy.

"However, unborn children are not a part of the mother's body."

Really? It's half her. It's connected to her, She nourishes it, What she drinks or eat affects it, She births it.