A Response to negative commenters of abortion by SovereignJim
(libertarian)
Sunday, February 28, 2010
I wish I had used the word baby in place of child in article Abortion
The rejections to my recommendations about abortion are of two types. First is that the condition we call life begins at conception and that all life must be protected. Nothing new here. Their old, old, single, simple logic debate point carried in their wagon to a discussion is all they have to argue with. I would not protest if their choice was established even though it will be under constant attack. Their argument seems to be stalled and going nowhere.
The second type of protest is that the best solution is to make abortion a state by state debate with decision. Their debate wagon also has only one plank in it's load. I have considerable sympathy with their position but consider the possibility of it happening close to nil.
The arguments are being made against my proposal because it has no place in their opinion wagon. Both groups have closed minds exhibited by never arguing against a point made by an opposing view and only parroting their well worn existing positions. The essence of my recommendation is that we use a demonstrable existence of a beating heart as a sign of life as we use it's absence as a sign of death---and that we then use that signal of life as a time point for changing the name for the consequence of pregnancy from fetus to baby---and that we then provide the same protections we provide today to all babies. Not a single reference about a beating heart or the logic that follows is made by the rejecters.
The growing numbers against abortion comes from more people becoming aware of the pain being suffered by babies not yet fully birthed. The reality of body parts being torn from a living thing and the resulting pain suffering is becoming well known. It is only a matter of time and public awareness that will someday cause a big change in the abortion issue.
For the all or nothing first type of disagreement, agree with me and help to save more worthy lives than your current position will. For the "A states decision" supporters why not start to save lives now when you hopes are unlikely to ever to be fulfilled.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 11
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of SovereignJim only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
SovereignJim is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: No Name Supplied
Date: 2010-02-28 07:16:07
I am Catholic, so my belief is that abortion is fundamentally, murder. I am also libertarian, so that brings me to a difficult position on abortion. Since as a libertarian, I never agree with imposing my views on someone else. I get a little queasy about people telling a woman what she can and can't do with her own body. However, we do need to draw the line of personal freedom where it imposes on someone else's personal freedom. I think we can all agree that ending someone's life is imposing on their freedom. My proposal is the line not be a hearbeat. As a nurse, I can tell you that a baby has a heartbeat a mere 2 weeks into a pregnancy. I saw my son's heartbeat at 2 weeks. That would effectively eliminate all abortion. At the end of the day, someone desperate enough for an abortion, is going to get one. One way or another, they are going to kill that baby. Instead, I call to my own religious community to change their focus from protesting abortions, to reaching out to at risk pregnancies. As far as the law is concerned, the line should be the age of viability. That is the age that a child is able to survive without it's mother. At the point a child can survive without it's mother, it seems to me it has earned the right to live. If you have not made a decision by that time as a woman, then I don't suppose you feel strongly enough about it to go through with an abortion anyway. As medical technology continues to advance, eventually this point will be mute. We will be able to transplant a baby from the womb of a woman who doesn't want it, into the womb of a woman who desperately wants to adopt it. I for one, can not wait until we get to that point.
The bible and God clearly states that He knew 'you' when He formed 'you' in the womb. I'm not an english major, but 'you' is a personal pronoun indicating God is speaking of an individual; someone unique not an abstract concept of life. Life is either life or it isn't. Parsing hairs isn't going to cut it. It's a black and white issue; life or death. Should you be concerned with any gray area in your mind, do what the bible suggests. Err on the side of caution and choose life.
Posted By: No Name Supplied
Date: 2010-03-02 13:28:19
I think the original point being made here is that the abortion question shouldn't be a question at all. The debate has been "when does life begin?" because once it has been established that someone is alive, their life is protected and cannot be terminated (as Americans we have that "pesky" Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness thing). I think the beating of a heart to mark the start of life is a brilliant observation - when someone's heart stops beating they are considered dead, so when a heart starts beating a baby should be considered alive. As a mom of two who had an early ultrasound with each pregnancy, I was able to see my babies hearts beating when they were only a couple weeks along. It is amazing! A baby's heart starts to beat 18 days after conception... that is only 4 days after the mother's missed period. That means most abortions take place well after the heart has started beating. I am not okay with giving the states the option to kill innocent little LIVING babies with beating hearts. These fetuses  should be afforded the same constitutional rights as a full term baby!
I'm pro-life. I would say the more modern way to judge wether there is life or not is if there is brain activity. If brain activity exists, then there should be no abortion. Also, I think there needs to be a step back taken on th eargument from a future historic perspective--i believe through medical breakthru's abortion will be obsolete in 10-20 years. If so, in, say, 100 years, how will the historians of the future judge us? I believe we will be judged as barbaric as we judge the ancients that took part in cannabalism and human sacrifice due to abortion.
Posted By: Ross Williams
Date: 2010-04-13 11:46:23
as a libertarian, I never agree with imposing my views on someone else.
I'd suggest you have a facile concept of Libertarianism. 1stAm libertarians, the Free Speech Uber Alles folks, would impose their commentary on those who didn't want to hear it; 2ndAm libertarians would impose their guns on a community which may very well be all hot for gun control; 4thAm libertarians would impose an end to warrantless searches on a population terrified of their own shadows; etc.
Everyone "imposes"; you can't get away from it. It is when the impositions come from a basis of philosophically political supportability that you get libertarianism.
As a nurse, I can tell you that a baby has a heartbeat a mere 2 weeks into a pregnancy
As a rational and logical person who does not have to equivocate in order to support my position, I can tell you that you have no such thing.
There is no "baby" at two weeks of pregnancy; there is a fetus. A baby is a person outside the uterus; a fetus is not.
These fetuses  should be afforded the same constitutional rights as a full term baby!
Including tax exemption status? AFDC qualification? How exactly would you go about enforcing that ... "as a libertarian"? Isn't that a bit too nosy? or is hypocrisy a valid exception in this case?
Â
The bible and God clearly states that ...
What the bible says is clearly irrelevant. As offensive as I find it for those who endlessly "interpret" the Constitution until they render up into down and black into white, the nearly infinite interpretations of the bible are even more self-serving.
Jewish tradition, and written into one of those boring old books of the Old Testament, allows abortion up until "quickening" - which is when the fetus starts to kick.
Not "flutter" and inspire nausea, Ms "Noname" Nurse, kick.
Â
how will the historians of the future judge us?
By and large, Tim, historians do not do much "judging". Historians do more "describing"; it is non-historians who take those descriptions, run them through their filters of bias and bigotry and self-righteous self-superiority and do the judging.
And please explain how cannibalism and human sacrifice is "due to abortion". I could use a chuckle today.
Â
Jim: I have considerable sympathy with their position but consider the possibility of it happening close to nil.
Et moi. This issue is not one in which the Constitution gives the federal government any authority. It is properly a state issue. But the natural trend for 'government' is to absorb more and more power and control for itself - and usually claim that the limitations on their power actually do not limit the power that they just absconded with.
So no, the genie is out of the bottle and won't go back in.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
