Ted Kennedy Secretly Asked The Soviets To Intervene In The 1984 Elections


No. Your “assumption” is that the baby is somehow a cancer or a parasite with no intrinsic worth and needs to be excised from the woman’s womb at any time she decides she doesn’t want to carry it–or even care FOR it after it’s born. Almost ALL of the 1,000,000 abortions that occur annually in this country are for the simple reason that it would be "inconvenient’ to carry the baby to term or feed and clothe it for 18 years after it’s born. I suspect that there are people I’ve come into contact with throughout my 76 years on this Earth that find MY very existence to be “inconvenient” for them. That doesn’t give them the right to terminate my existence. I’m sorry, but “Inconvenience” is NEVER a reason to kill someone…including a baby conceived “unintentionally.”


How is this any different from investigating or preventing, or arbitrating murder? Unless you’re a volunteerist stating we should seek private arbitration and investigation for everything, your frame here is disingenuous.

The fetus is not the property of the Mother; it’s a human life, ergo, it gets the same default treatment as anyone else, with the same protections.

Your viewpoint stems from not treating them as a person; that’s the only reason you deny them these rights. However, you can’t give one argument to justify that stance.

At 20 weeks, they have all of the qualities of a human being. Thus, they deserve the same rights & duties to have those rights recognized.

And those rights include, what you can, and can’t do to a person, even when that person is harming you.
Which is what defeats any claim that this denies “self ownership”. That is also disingenuous, unless you’re going to say current self-defense law denies self-ownership to people who are being attacked, yet are punished for killing.


Get the lumberyard out of your own eye. You’re so posterior-backward in your arguments that you left its (your posterior’s) imprints on every wall that you’ve bounced off of (which is all of them, since you haven’t come within a light year of hitting the mark).


Your viewpoint stems from not treating them as a person; that’s the only reason you deny them these rights. However, you can’t give one argument to justify that stance.

At 20 weeks, they have all of the qualities of a human being. Thus, they deserve the same rights & duties to have those rights recognized.

Even if the fetus possesses full moral personhood (a big and controversial “if,” and not at all self-evident as you suggest), it still does not have the right to exist within the mother against her will, or to demand that she undergo specific medical procedures in order to remove it. Your arguments do not in fact demonstrate any such rights.

However, even if it does have the right, in the abstract and under ideal theory (say, a government ran by a council of Socrates, Jesus, and Buddha), to demand that she undergo specific medical procedures in order to remove it, this has to assume that the mother is governed in such cases by a rational system that can be expected to treat her and her situation with sufficient foresight and wisdom to avoid violating her rights to privacy, self-determination, and life. There is no reason to expect the U.S. government to provide this wisdom or foresight.

Hence, even if (and this is a big and controversial “if”) the fetus has full personhood rights, and even if (and this is a big and controversial “if”) the fetus has a right to demand from the mother a specific medical procedure in order to extract it, the state should still not be trusted as arbiter of some of the most private, painful, and complicated medical decisions women will ever have to make regarding their lives and body.

It’s irrational and illiberal to wish to ram extreme liberty-threatening and government expanding policies on the basis of extremely controversial assumptions, especially when, in fact, abortions after the 20 month mark are exceedingly rare in any case (1.3% of all abortions), and tend to involve threats to the life of the mother, or serious health problems in the fetus. In my opinion, you’ve failed to provide theoretical justification for government regulation of women’s choices during pregnancy, and you’ve also failed to provide any evidence or arguments to make one suppose that such regulations would do more good than harm (you’re calling out for government regulation of a non-problem, which, as classical liberals are supposed to know, tends to turn out badly.) Hence, your position is not consistent with classical liberal theory.


With the exception of rape, the woman is responsible for the consequences of her actions. I believe rape victims should be free to make a choice must there must be a severe time limit on her decision.


It can, in the same way an attacker can demand that their victim not take their life.

Disproportional harm. The mother can expel the fetus, but she has to do it through the least harmful method available. After 20 weeks, that’s one of the multitude of ways of giving birth.

We can compel action, if the claims upon natural rights are unequal. You don’t have an automatic right to kill someone, unless their harm puts your own life in jeopardy.

“Harm” does not give you infinite authority on how to treat the person harming you. If it did, self-defense law would be far different. As it stands, bare minimum duties apply. If you’re viewing the fetus as a person, you can’t deny this.

The problem for your frame, is that either way, the baby is coming out. We’re not proscribing the procedure, only the state the baby is in when it’s delivered.

Which is alive. We’re not asking anything more of the mother than “not kill”. And if it’s a moral person, that’s defendable, because the fetus then has rights, and is not her property.

Which is no different than scrutinizing Government handling of complicated defense cases like Treyvon Martin.

Either the Government does or doesn’t get to be the arbiter of natural rights surrounding self-defense, that’s what it comes down to.


The issue of rape/pregnancies is, to me, a quandary. On the one hand, the rape is NOT the baby’s fault and it shouldn’t be subjected to the death penalty for coming into being. On the other hand, requiring a woman to carry to term the (rare) result of such a horrendous assault seems to be compounding the rape. I don’t have an answer other than to be thankful that pregnancies resulting from rape are EXCEEDINGLY rare, despite claims to the contrary by the pro-abortion crowd. If making rape/pregnancies the sole exception to banning abortion outright, we’ll see a spate of false claims that pregnancies were the result of “rape.”


OK . . . apparently the towering intellect that made those POSTS has trouble keeping up.

So let’s rephrase . . . maybe that will help.

Your argument (in your own words):

Your position then is that the state doesn’t have the authority to make a woman endure a pregnancy full term.

I couldn’t agree more, and I don’t think any other members have disputed that.

HOWEVER, the state DOES have the right, indeed DUTY, to prosecute murderers . . . and in this case, the murderer would be the ABORTION DOCTOR.

In fact, that’s been done already in places like Philadelphia (Kermit Barron Gosnell . . . the ABORTION DOCTOR charged with eight counts of murder, including seven newborns said to have been killed by having their spinal cords severed with scissors . . . in some instances, surgical incisions had been made at the base of the fetal skulls.).

Gosnell was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life without parole.

In your world, then, Gosnell and his brethren would be . . . HEROES.

In your world, a woman can hop from bed to bed, become pregnant, ABORT, and not be responsible for any of the consequences of coupling. IOW . . . “free love”.

(I had thought this “free love” notion had died along with the Woodstock counter-culture, but apparently it’s still alive in your mind.)

Your assumption (in your own words):

You’re assuming that the state would treat the woman “as a criminal”. At best, that is speculation. What is NOT speculation is that the state can, and does (see above example), treat the ABORTION DOCTOR as a criminal.

And finally, this:

Your tunnel vision is caused by your devotion to an IDEOLOGY. Your unquestioning loyalty to “classical liberalism” means that you will dig your heals in no matter what.

I no more expect you to think about this on your own than I expect to become a youth again.

You will forever be bound by your ideology to embrace the dark side.

This post is not an attempt to sway. That will never happen.


My feeling is that the rape is a done deed. Eliminating the child doesn’t make the rape go away, although many women have tried to convince themselves of it. What is pretty common is women regretting their abortion; probably including more than a few who claim otherwise.


You SLAY me, Nutjob!


It will also help destroy the family.


Well, in this country, murder has always been illegal. Abortion is murder.


Mod help please: working from my phone, I posted a reply to this thread, and it wound up in “right vs right”, no IDEA how that happened. Can it be moved?

From the other thread:
Pretty surprised to find both Alaska Slim and CSBrown saying things i agree with on the SAME TOPIC IN THE SAME THREAD, particularly with regards to abortion. I’m an “at conception” guy, but I’d take the 20 weeks ban and celebrate it as a huge, if incomplete, victory. Now who do I yell at? Anderson’s no fun, he don’t yell back… :confused:


Not necessarily, Susanna. You can still claim ownership of the baby, though you’ve left its maturation to others in an artificial womb. All it does is relieve the woman of the burden of carrying the baby around for 9 months and going through the pain of childbirth.


I think I found the right one. I couldn’t find a control to move it, so I copied and pasted it to your post. Would you like me to delete the other post?


Yep, that’s it. Thank you, I could have done that, and edited the other out of existence, and will if that ever happens again. So long as it doesn’t break any links or whatever, the other can go to the great server farm in the sky. I thought you guys had the god-like power to move it with less than the snap of your fingers… soooo disillusioned!


I am either hopelessly lost or I missed the crossroads in the middle of this (my) post?

There must be at least a dozen different topics being discussed here that have nothing to do with the original subject?

money, abortion, disarmament, firearms, uranium one …

If I have just wandered into a consolidated thread and am too dumb to recognize it, I apologize.

Then again, maybe it’s the browser I am using that has led me astray? :thinking:


Me too!


I think abortion was the last topic in this thread…originally Ted Kennedy asking the Soviets to intervene in the 1984 election.


Naw, this thread is thoroughly jacked. There’s only like 4 active threads, but 16 discussions :smile: i cant keep track either, i just respond to what gets posted wherever it pops up.