Quote:

Everyone owns their own body, has a right to choose what happens to it, and is responsible for what happens to it.

Would this include abortion?

I see the mother/fetus relationship as analogous to that of conjoined twins.
I would not condone the killing of one twin by the other despite the shared anatomy.
Killing an infant in utero, in my mind, is the killing of a person who is 'conjoined internally' to another person.
That child owns its own body despite its location.

The fact that one can interpret this two ways means that the statement needs to be more tightly defined.
Whether the platform is for abortion or is for life, it needs to be further clarified.

The bigger picture is what abortion will do to society. I know of numerous women now in their teens, 20s and 30s who have had multiple abortions and use it as a form of birth control. Decades ago women had 1 abortion and exercised better caution in the future, usually with remorse about what happened.

Today we are entering the age of mass multiple abortion on demand and a place where many women do not alter their behavior at all following an abortion. A whole new generation of women are being desensitized to something really awful and I often wonder if we're on a slippery slope because of it.

I wonder if those who use this as a form of birth control are not doing so because of Darwinism... survival of the fittest... if they are of the ilk to use killing as a form of "birth control" perhaps it is as it should be...

According to everything I've read, abortion numbers have been going down for a long time.

From the CDC:

Quote:

Among the 45 areas that reported data every year during 1998--2007, the total number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions decreased during 2006--2007. This decrease reversed the increase in reported abortion numbers and rates that occurred during 2005--2006; however, reported abortion numbers and rates for 2007 still were higher than they had been previously in 2005. In 2006, as in previous years, reported deaths related to abortion were rare.
...
Nonetheless, compared with 1998, the total number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions in 2007 were 6%, 7%, and 14% lower, respectively

*I hadn't read the latest

Abortion is like Castle Doctrine haha the little one will steal more of your $$$ than any thief

My personal and visceral reaction is that abortion is a third rail politically. The Constitution is silent about abortion, and so is the Declaration of Independence.

Personally, I am anti-abortion but pro-choice. Sometimes abortions are needed to save the life of the mother, but that is a decision between the mother and medical professionals. Plus the father, if he is in the picture.

-BigCowboy

This is a state matter. Personally I am 100% pro-life, and you can find the basic libertarian case from reason alt http://l4l.org from Doris Gordon (contra Rothbard).

Those who argue otherwise should also argue to repeal the 19th amendment. If women somehow cannot reason to know where babies come from, or are easily overcome with a psychosis so cannot act on that knowledge when it counts, they need to be the wards of guardians. If they have full reason and will, then they have full responsibility.

The plank puts it perfectly. If you engage in an activity that you know frequently creates a uniquely dependent new and distinct body, you must bear the consequences. If I use a gun or car negligently and injure someone I don't know or intend that takes 9 months of my life to repay, it is very similar.

Saving the mother invokes "double effect" - typically the baby cannot survive anyway (e.g. ectopic pregnancies). The legal standard where the "life or health of the mother" has been interpreted such that if the mother "feels sad" - mental health - she should be able to abort. I don't have a similar right to undo transactions that make me feel sad.

The declaration and constitution are only silent because there is no provision for carving out a different class of human beings and saying the law doesn't apply to them. You don't find them saying murder should be punished because it is obvious. What has happened is that the courts - contrary to evidence they could even see at the time - has declared an unborn baby up to the moment of birth - yes 9 months, able to live outside the mother - a "tissue blob". They aren't "persons" under the constitution (there was a similar argument for torturing suspected terrorists - they aren't "persons").

Should we not also declare the profoundly retarded and sick elderly or adults "nonpersons" so we might be able to eliminate the "useless eaters"?

I also pointed out an objection I have to the wording - you don't own your body, you own your "person". Your integrated whole. You cannot legally sell yourself into slavery or destroy your body and remain a person, and you have no right to either declare yourself a nonperson or destroy your body, though as a practical matter you can't stop someone who really desires to commit suicide. However laws making assassination illegal - both for those who would hire the assassin and the assassin himself are murderers or accessories. Aiding a suicide would fall under this category. Consider an assassin who works based on this: http://au.news.yahoo.com/odd/a/-/odd/926....

But in sum, the plank on self-ownership suffices, and the only modification I would make is to swap "body" for "person" - I'm not merely a ghost who owns a corpse. Either from objectivism, or John Paul II's "theology of the body".

How would you ever know? It's just something that I can't imagine enforcing.

The current Libertarian Party statement on abortion is perfectly acceptable.

Quote:

The current Libertarian Party statement on abortion is perfectly acceptable.

Agreed. 100%.

Quote:

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

From the platform page
http://federationist.org/platform.html

Quote:

Personal autonomy means what it says, but does not include the right to rob others to support one's choices. While eating until you weigh 500lbs is bad for you, it's your body. While consuming drugs of any sort (tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, etc) are bad for you, it's your body. While certain sexual practices are quite dangerous, it's your body. While choosing not to exercise could result in a shorter life, it's your body. While choosing not to spend any money on medical insurance could result in your death if you cannot afford to purchase required medical care for cash, it's your body. Federationists must respect personal autonomy and refuse to force others to pay for personal choice, irrespective of whether that choice was a positive one (e.g. the decision to use drugs or overeat) or a negative one (the choice to not buy medical insurance.

Since pregnancy results from a choice (usually) to have sex during a fertile time (whether using contraceptives or not), the way I read the above section is that the platform does not prohibit abortion, but those that have an abortion are on their own to pay for it. This will bring up the argument of aid in cases of non-consensual sex that result in pregnancy, though.

In general, I agree that this is the stance to take at the Federal level - one that would give states a framework to deal with the issue.

Quote:

Personal autonomy means what it says, but does not include the right to rob others to support one's choices.

If you consider a baby to be a member 'others' than I would have to disagree with your interpretation.

Some don't consider it a baby at that stage, as you well know.

My suggestion is, if you consider it a baby from the moment of conception, then do not have an abortion.

Many years ago I wrote an essay on this point; read here:

http://childrens-justice.org/papers/perf....

Quote:

Since pregnancy results from a choice (usually) to have sex during a fertile time (whether using contraceptives or not), the way I read the above section is that the platform does not prohibit abortion, but those that have an abortion are on their own to pay for it. This will bring up the argument of aid in cases of non-consensual sex that result in pregnancy, though.

Why do you consider it improper to stick a gun in my face and rob me to pay for the pregnancy, but do consider it proper to murder the innocent baby?

With regards to the matrix from "in a perfect world", and viability v.s. conception (which also applies to IVF and embryonic stem cells) we do not let people have individual definitions anywhere else in the law. I cannot define fraud one way and you another. There can only be one natural law definition from reason and the positive law should conform to it. I don't care if anyone thinks they have a right to my property, life, or labor, they don't. Nor do I care if they happen to think the human being inside is too inconvenient to have the protections of everyone.

But even if you accept individual definitions of when life begins, if I see an old lady being mugged, I have every right to intervene to protect her right to her property, it isn't just the police. So if I see an unborn human being murdered (under my definitions), I have an equal right to intervene to prevent that murder regardless of the thoughts of those conspiring to murder the child.

Quote:

we do not let people have individual definitions anywhere else in the law. I cannot define fraud one way and you another.

On the contrary. I can contract with you for certain things and define what is and is not a breach.

The current state of the law as defined by Roe .v. Wade is that "personhood" vests at fetal viability. This in and of itself under the Constitution is a stretch which defines the point of human rights as vesting at birth.

14th Amendment wrote..

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There's your definition; under the Constitution rights vest at birth.

If you wish to contract around that for a higher standard you are entitled to do so, but if you want to change the baseline standard there is only one legal way to do it, and that's with a Constitutional Amendment.

Quote:

The current state of the law as defined by Roe .v. Wade is that "personhood" vests at fetal viability. This in and of itself under the Constitution is a stretch which defines the point of human rights as vesting at birth.

Actually it vests at the point of birth. Roe made abortion legal for all nine months. You will not find anywhere that "personhood" is granted at viability, merely that laws restricting abortion past the point of personhood aren't unconstitutional.

http://www.wrtl.org/abortion/legalfornin....

There is the ability to restrict it past the point of viability, but the court carved out a very wide "health of the mother" exception which is so broad - including "psychological health" that in practice means if the mother will be sad if she doesn't kill her 9 month term fetus, the state has no right to stop the abortion.

The 14th amendment was passed before modern medical knowledge and also with the practical limitation of not easily knowing where anyone is conceived. Then there's a question if you are a citizen but your child is born when the mother is outside the USA: http://www.legalzoom.com/marriage-divorc.... - it was also to cancel the evil court decision at the time, Dred Scott which also said what was obviously a human being was not a "person" but property.

The illegality and evil of abortion goes back to the original Hippocratic oath. The modern laws allowing abortion were the innovation. Just as the earlier laws allowing sterilization were. "Three generations of imbeciles are enough", the problem is that the imbeciles are on the bench.

Neither of us accept that the Kelo decision was the right one. The plank seeks to overturn it but does not specify the means. I don't think there should be an abortion plank because of the controversial nature - e.g. this thread.

Yes, it would require something like "The Human Life Amendment" or for the legislature and president to pass a law to define life beginning at conception and prevent judicial review (something they tried and so far haven't been challenged in some of the terrorism laws).

Also, by your standard of contracts, if the banksters simply said "the constitution doesn't apply, you have no rights" at the top of every form, it would override the other laws. Contract language is subject to the existing law and cannot bind third parties who are not signatories to the contract nor change legal definitions.

You can contract with me and define anything you want, but not all terms in contracts are valid and you would have to go to court in one specific state to enforce it. And some terms are often thrown out, others aren't.

The argument that pregnancy results from a choice to have sex during a fertile time, and that this choice imposes responsibilities, runs up against certain difficulties when you consider that the people making these choices are often minor children (from a legal standpoint, at least).

So we are in "minor child ****s up" territory here, in many cases. What to do?

Quote:

The illegality and evil of abortion goes back to the original Hippocratic oath. The modern laws allowing abortion were the innovation. Just as the earlier laws allowing sterilization were. "Three generations of imbeciles are enough", the problem is that the imbeciles are on the bench.

False. The history is not anywhere near so clear as you describe. The justices did quite a good job of cataloging the history on this matter in Roe.

The support in a historical context for a complete ban on any sort of abortive procedure prior to "quickening" is thin at best. In a religious context of course it is not, but that's not the standard. The argument that our founders were religious men (which is oft-trotted out when it suits people) seems to be at odds with this position, in that personhood from a definitional standpoint in our Constitution and other founding documents vests at birth, yet certainly they were aware of how children came to be and that this process began with the act of sex.

If the goal is to attempt to steer this effort toward redefining these facts I decline. If that in turn precludes your support then that's your free choice to make.

Quote:

The argument that pregnancy results from a choice to have sex during a fertile time, and that this choice imposes responsibilities, runs up against certain difficulties when you consider that the people making these choices are often minor children (from a legal standpoint, at least).

And if you give the keys to your car and your "minor child" gets drunk and kills someone? The parents are responsible for acts of unemancipated minor children.

If they get HIV, HPV, herpes, chlamydia, syphilis, gonorrhea, the parents or someone else needs to pay the health-care bill.

I added Education as a possible plank. Until they reach the age of majority, or sue for legal adulthood status earlier, the parents are responsible for whatever the children do.

If Mom and Dad had to pay for their son's child support bills as well, they might take a greater interest in his chastity.

Quote:

The illegality and evil of abortion goes back to the original Hippocratic oath. The modern laws allowing abortion were the innovation. Just as the earlier laws allowing sterilization were. "Three generations of imbeciles are enough", the problem is that the imbeciles are on the bench.

False. The history is not anywhere near so clear as you describe. The justices did quite a good job of cataloging the history on this matter in Roe.

The support in a historical context for a complete ban on any sort of abortive procedure prior to "quickening" is thin at best. In a religious context of course it is not, but that's not the standard. The argument that our founders were religious men (which is oft-trotted out when it suits people) seems to be at odds with this position, in that personhood from a definitional standpoint in our Constitution and other founding documents vests at birth, yet certainly they were aware of how children came to be and that this process began with the act of sex.

If the goal is to attempt to steer this effort toward redefining these facts I decline. If that in turn precludes your support then that's your free choice to make. I maintain that actually modifying the Constitution is properly done through the defined process, and not through the back door.

Quote:

Roe made abortion legal for all nine months. You will not find anywhere that "personhood" is granted at viability, merely that laws restricting abortion past the point of personhood aren't unconstitutional.

Nonsense. Read the actual decision. Roe divides pregnancy into three parts:

1. First trimester, where abortion restrictions are unconstitutional.

2. A middle period where the decision is silent.

3. At and beyond fetal viability, where the states are recognized as having the ability to declare an overriding compelling interest in the continued existence of the fetus, effectively declaring that they may treat a fetus that is viable as having the protection of the laws of this nation.

The latter does not prevent the destruction of the fetus if on balance the harm to the other life involved would be great if it is continued. Exactly how that decision is made is left in the hands of the states. This is identical in form and substance to the prohibition against killing fully born and animate people - you may not do so in the general sense, but if a burgler enters your home by force you have the right to presume that he intends to kill you, and thus you may shoot until he is no longer a threat, even though such an act is very likely to lead to the invader's death.

What people have CLAIMED Roe said doesn't change the actual language of the decision. If you wish to argue this point cite from the actual decision itself, as that is the only authoritative source on what was actually handed down.

There were several decisions following Roe itself including Casey. Those don't cease to exist and affect current law. When Roe was applied, many laws were overturned that should have been proper given the original language.

I know what the original decisions said. I also know the decisions since which affected how it was interpreted, and others are still moving through the courts.

From PP v. Casey, we have Kennedy stating:

Quote:

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.

That seems to say "personhood" is at any individual's whim.

Does existence exist? Should I be bound by the silly notions of reality? Isn't everything a mystery anyway? If so then what is the point of this whole exercise?

And there was the companion case, Doe v. Bolton which is what I'm bringing up:

http://www.newsweek.com/2008/10/15/healt....

Quote:

in Doe v. Bolton , a companion case issued the same day as Roe , the court provided further guidance on what preserving the "health of the mother" entailed. "Medical judgment may be exercised in light of all factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age--relevant to the wellbeing of the patient," the court wrote. "All these factors may relate to health."
...
Pro-life groups have long complained that the Supreme Court's definition is too vague and includes too many provisions. "It allows abortion under any circumstance because the Supreme Court has defined 'health' to mean a general feeling of well being or age or familial conditions or psychological factors," says David O'Steen, president of the National Right to Life (NRLC). "Health means anything."

Your cite is no different than how it works for deadly force in my home right now in Florida.

If someone kicks down my door at 2:00 AM I am within my rights to shoot them immediately. I cannot at that instant discern if they have a weapon and intend to kill me,******my girlfriend or daughter or simply want some beer out of my fridge. I am not required to discern this first; I am given the latitude under the law to presume serious criminal intent that goes beyond stealing a beer and open fire.

If the invader intended only to steal a beer, he might die anyway. The law says this is ok. A judgment was made prior to the event that levies a substantial presumption that the person doing the invading intends great bodily harm or worse, and thus I am within my rights to use deadly force without proving the invader's intent first.

Corner cases make for bad law. We therefore set the bar in a place that's reasonably defensible, understanding that we will not always get it right.

The founders set that bar at birth. There is strong history that supports setting the bar at "quickening" but no plurality, say much less consensus, prior to that time. Nonetheless the founders placed the bar where they did, safely away from the line when it comes to the legal prohibition against action.

Changing the point of absolute determination requires a Constitutional Amendment. I do not believe you can find support for that in the sufficient numbers. If you can, then have at it, but I refuse to participate in an end-run around the process, especially given that the entire point of this platform and political statement is to endorse and buttress The Constitution and its process rather than subvert it.

(Incidentally, note that changing the presumption to "conception" makes anyone CONCEIVED in the United States a citizen and those conceived elsewhere not, unless both parents are citizens, irrespective of the place of birth. Think very, very carefully before you choose to go there as it has very material consequences you might not like very much.)

(sorry for the delay, I hit a post quota and couldn't respond)

Quote:

Why do you consider it improper to stick a gun in my face and rob me to pay for the pregnancy, but do consider it proper to murder the innocent baby?

I was not referring to health insurance nor health care, only abortion and bringing up that the section may exclude public funding for it. I think you're arguing that public aid for the pregnancy would not be covered, too. The way it's written, I would agree.

The assumption with all of this is the "one's choices" language. Exceptions in the law for incest and******are included because the victim did not have that choice. If the platform's stance is dependent on choice, then public funding for abortions when there wasn't a choice is possible.

Regarding the choices of minors, I'd agree that the parents share responsibility until the child is of age.

Personally, I'm strongly against abortion and work to eliminate it, but I can't stop people from doing it any more than I can stop someone from smoking in their own home.

Bah.

Among the "abortion is murder" crowd, the only ones whose stated conviction shows any ethical consistency whatsoever in my book are the clinic bombers and the abortionist killers. If the rest of them believe what they're saying, why are they sitting on their morally-superior hands while "millions of babies die"?

Suffice to say their ilk would have posed no roadblock against Hitler, Stalin or Mao.

Furthermore I believe that it would be a matter of settled law regarding homicide, that if abortion were to be deemed murder, that any mother who ordered the operation would be as guilty of a capital crime as a Mafia Don ordering a hit. Either that, or like Andrea Yates, she would have to be criminally insane.

Bull****.

Biblically -- for anyone who cares to know -- it was when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" that Adam "became a living soul" (Genesis 2:7); and in human beings today that breath of life is taken at birth. Furthermore the penalty in the Bible for murder was death (Genesis 9:5, etc.), but the penalty for causing a miscarriage was a fine (Exodus 21:22-23).

The Founders set the bar at birth for good reason. Roe is fine as settled law. Let the states decide the viability question during the last trimester. And Gen's linked ideas for what could be agreed to under civil law sound workable to me too, to address the varying religious convictions among people on the issue.

Otherwise LEAVE IT ALONE.