"THE END" to abortion, and also Libertarianism...

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • EvilBlackGun

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   1
    Apr 11, 2011
    1,851
    38
    Mid-eastern
    From an article in WND; in my own words:
    And the end to Libertarianism, also !
    Alabama Supreme Court rules, ".... a n embryo, is in the full sense of the word a "
    'person,' with all rights inherent to personhood.":


    COURT RULES UNBORN IS 'CHILD'
    Affirming the value of all life, including those most vulnerable of all, a ruling from the Alabama Supreme Court has concluded that a reference in state law that prevents exposing children to dangerous chemicals also protects an unborn child.

    The decision per se is unrelated to abortion, in a court where at least one justice has advocated overturning Roe v. Wade the decision today in Ankrom v. State undoubtedly will be referenced again.

    The case upheld the convictions of two women, Hope Ankrom of Coffee County and Amanda Kimbrough of Colbert County, who were prosecuted for using drugs during pregnancy.

    The state law originally was intended to prevent parents from operating meth labs around children, or allowing children to be in meth labs, and does not mention the unborn.

    But the decision said “The plain meaning of the word ‘child’ in the chemical endangerment statute includes unborn children.”

    Recent U.S. Supreme Court’s abortion cases are an aberration to Moral Law and Principle, standing on a desolate island of perverted justice in a sea of tranquil life, resting within the womb of the female parent whether she make like it or not. One would hope that that island will now disappear.”

    It was the original Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion throughout the United States that noted, "... should the personhood of the unborn be established, abortion advocacy would disintegrate, since the unborn then would be qualified for all the protections offered by the U.S. Constitution."

    Any historical review of legal protection for unborn children, dating from ancient Greece to the present day. Common law from England and into the United States, with support from the medical and legal professions, recognized that ‘[l]ife is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb.’ This understanding remained the prevailing view in the United States through the middle of the 20th century, when a societal shift prompted a ‘liberalization’ of criminal laws, including restrictions against abortion, culminating in the abortion cases, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, (1973) and Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), in which the Supreme Court held that unborn children are not ‘persons’ protected by the right to life set forth in the Constitution.”

    But now the Alabama court has ratified the argument that the public policy of the state is to protect life, both born and unborn, and it is a fundamental and tremendous victory that the Alabama Supreme Court has affirmed the value of all life, including those of unborn children whose lives are among the most vulnerable of all.”

    According to records, plaintiff Ankrom and her newborn son both tested positive for cocaine when the child was born in 2000. She was on probation for a year. Plaintiff Kimbrough’s son was born in 2008 and died 19 minutes later. His cause of death was “acute methamphetamine intoxication” and she was sentenced to 10 years.

    Previously, the same court suggested that states simply “reject” the concept of pre-viability abortion-at-will that comes from Roe v. Wade until the U.S. Supreme Court overrules the precedent. This is it.

    In a powerful statement that appears to affirm the concept of the “personhood” movement, through which pro-life advocates seek to have states recognize the unborn as “persons,” a concurrence in a case-law result from Justice Tom Parker said, “Since Roe was decided in 1973, advances in medical and scientific technology have greatly expanded our knowledge of prenatal life.

    “The development of ultrasound technology has enhanced medical and public understanding, allowing us to watch the growth and development of the unborn child in a way previous generations could never have imagined,” he wrote.

    “Similarly, advances in genetics and related fields make clear that a new and unique human being is formed at the moment of conception, when two cells, incapable of independent life, merge to form a single, individual human entity.”

    We call them "babies" because new life is not yet mature – growth and development are necessary before that life can survive independently – but it is nonetheless human life. And here has been a broad legal consensus in America, even before Roe: the life of a human being begins at conception as a unique and individual human being from conception, and, therefore, is entitled to the full protection of law at every stage of development.

    Get Judge Roy Moore’s classic book about his battle for liberty, “So Help Me God: The Ten Commandments, Judicial Tyranny, and the Battle for Religious Freedom.”

    “Roe’s viability rule was based on inaccurate history and was mostly unsupported by legal precedent. Medical advances since Roe have conclusively demonstrated that an unborn child is a unique human being at every stage of development. And together, Alabama’s homicide statute, the decisions of this court, and the statutes and judicial decisions from other states make abundantly clear that the law is no longer, in Justice Blackmun’s words, ‘reluctant … to accord legal rights to the unborn..’

    Thus Roe v Wade’s viability rule is neither controlling nor persuasive here and should be rejected by other states until the day it is overruled by the United States Supreme Court.

    “Because Roe is not controlling authority beyond abortion law, and because its viability standard is not persuasive, I conclude that, at least with regard to the law for wrongful death, Roe’s viability standard should be universally abandoned.”

    The “personhood” campaign that has been developing around the nation calls for states to adopt constitutional amendments describing the unborn from the moment of conception as “persons.”

    Also of note is the fact that Judge Roy Moore last November was elected to the position of chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court and soon will be sworn in to those responsibilities.

    He has stated that he will be responsible for acknowledging that God is the Source of human rights.

    “I get criticized for my professions that God is the basis of all rights or liberties, and yet, the rule of law, being the Constitution, and its companion, the Declaration of Independence, organize the laws of our country on [the premise that] our rights come from God.” Government’s job is to secure and protect those rights."
     

    88GT

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 29, 2010
    16,643
    83
    Familyfriendlyville
    Already being discussed.

    And a pro-abortion ruling would have been just as deadly to libertarianism. Or does not the father have claim to his own child?

    If libertarianism is defined in large part by the non-aggression principle, anything BUT the AL court ruling would have been in opposition to libertarianism.
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,908
    113
    Mitchell
    While I agree with the court's position, I don't see the ruling as an end to the libertarianism. It definitely will rile a great number of professed Libertarian Party loyalists.
     

    DKY197

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Oct 16, 2011
    94
    6
    Monroe County
    :twocents:

    Based on the a lot of posts on INGO over a single day concerning the tenets of Libertarianism I would have to say that Libertarianism is the label placed on any belief held by anyone who considers themselves third party. The Non-Aggression Principle is the most recurring theme I'm seeing, but that seems like a really silly thing to base a political party around. I prefer the apparent misconception that Libertarianism is about liberty and states rights. I like to thing that a Libertarian president would have worked to tear down the federal government rather than spend his time not attacking anyone for any reason ever no matter what. At the same time I feel like the perception of Libertarianism I am most fond of is also one incongruous with the institution of political parties. Shouldn't political parties form and evolve based upon the people they represent, not the other way around?
     

    DKY197

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Oct 16, 2011
    94
    6
    Monroe County
    To make my post more relevant, I think either of the previously described views of Libertarianism demand an answer to the question. If the fetus is a human life, one Libertarian cannot harm it no matter what. On the other hand, the other Libertarian is dedicated to the liberty and freedom of said fetus. I guess that seems pretty one sided.


    All this talk of a woman's right to do with her body what she pleases seems kind messed up to me. Ovaries are a responsibility. Children used to be a consequence. I think that system worked well for thousands of years.


    On the other hand, I can't say I like the idea of a woman desiring an abortion raising a child.


    Thank God I'm a dude.
     

    digitalphoenix

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 24, 2012
    322
    18
    In a cornfield.
    Libertarian here,

    I believe people should do whatever they want, unless it harms someone else in any way. A fetus is a future somebody, aborting a fetus is killing that somebody. It's funny how libs are preaching save the children yet support pro choice abortion. They'd also call bacteria on Mars life yet disregard a future life in a womb? ******* how stupid are these people?
     

    IndyDave1776

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    27,286
    113
    To make my post more relevant, I think either of the previously described views of Libertarianism demand an answer to the question. If the fetus is a human life, one Libertarian cannot harm it no matter what. On the other hand, the other Libertarian is dedicated to the liberty and freedom of said fetus. I guess that seems pretty one sided.


    All this talk of a woman's right to do with her body what she pleases seems kind messed up to me. Ovaries are a responsibility. Children used to be a consequence. I think that system worked well for thousands of years.


    On the other hand, I can't say I like the idea of a woman desiring an abortion raising a child.


    Thank God I'm a dude.

    Not a good picture, but there are several things that must be considered. First is that real consequences as would come from being denied the abortion option would inspire more responsibility in form of controlling one's actions, using effective birth control (which is readily available at little cost) or being prepared to spend nine months weighing one's options including adoption.

    I have made the argument repeatedly that it is inherently unequal that a woman can make a unilateral decision to abort with no consequences or to have a child, but there apparently are no rights for the man who one way or other stands to have the next two decades of his life controlled by that decision and arguably the rest of his life regardless of whether it is being dragooned into responsibility with no opt-out like the woman has or the loss of the child he should have had in his life. One compromise solution I can see is letting a father who wants the child take it after birth and letting the mother walk away. Similarly, I would allow the same for a father to opt out completely--after all, a woman can already do that without anyone else's input.
     

    CountryBoy1981

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 12, 2011
    446
    18
    Libertarian here,

    I believe people should do whatever they want, unless it harms someone else in any way. A fetus is a future somebody, aborting a fetus is killing that somebody. It's funny how libs are preaching save the children yet support pro choice abortion. They'd also call bacteria on Mars life yet disregard a future life in a womb? ******* how stupid are these people?

    The majority of libs are also anti-death penalty. Explain that one to me. :dunno:
     

    Nemesis

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 5, 2013
    61
    6
    Harrison County
    Libertarian here,

    I believe people should do whatever they want, unless it harms someone else in any way. A fetus is a future somebody, aborting a fetus is killing that somebody. It's funny how libs are preaching save the children yet support pro choice abortion. They'd also call bacteria on Mars life yet disregard a future life in a womb? ******* how stupid are these people?

    Agreed, Hypocrisy knows no bounds in the liberal/democrat party. I have a friend thats swears up and down that he is pro-life, but he is also die hard democrat, make no sense to me. :twocents:
     

    CountryBoy1981

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 12, 2011
    446
    18
    Agreed, Hypocrisy knows no bounds in the liberal/democrat party. I have a friend thats swears up and down that he is pro-life, but he is also die hard democrat, make no sense to me. :twocents:

    Is there any real difference between the Nazi supporters and the killing of the Jews and the pro-life person voting for the pro-abortion Democrats?
     

    EvilBlackGun

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   1
    Apr 11, 2011
    1,851
    38
    Mid-eastern
    They are in YOUR crowd.

    Alabama ruing is that an embryo is a person, a " ... someone else ..." in your first clause. The Embryo / fetus is a person NOW, and potentially another mass-murderer or an Einstein. But both have the right to be born. The woman (read, "womb-man) has the capability of carrying that baby to delivery, and should. "Oooops" does not count. Abortion is murder, and the mother should be taken to task for it. Keep the penis out of your vagina and you are unlikely to become a mother. (Please, all of you Howlers, don't jump the MourdockMonkey in here; I support the right of a raped female to take whatever measures to displace or deanimat the sperm she was forced to have ejaculated in her, but not four months later; "Gosh, I must have been raped in my sleep when my boy-friend and his buddies slept over!") Huge grey area, but the courts have not finished wiping the P.P. abortion mills out of existence, yet.
    Libertarian here, I believe people should do whatever they want, unless it harms someone else... <snip> It's funny how libs are preaching save the children yet support pro choice abortion. They'd also call bacteria on Mars life yet disregard a future life in a womb? ******* how stupid are these people?
    The Libs to which you refer are what I referred to as "Libertarians" because I believed at the time they were for 100% "right to choose." Sorry for that mis-I.D.
     

    mrjarrell

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 18, 2009
    19,986
    63
    Hamilton County
    I had believed that they are 100% for "right to choose." I may have been wrong, but if it were a plank in their platform, it has been demolished by the AL Supremes.
    You are wrong.

    From the 2012 platform:

    1.4 Abortion

    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.
     

    Brian S.

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 12, 2011
    104
    18
    Toto, IN
    It is the epitome of arrogance that the courts attempt to legislate metaphysical reality…and tragic that fools applaud it.
     

    melensdad

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 94.7%
    18   1   0
    Apr 2, 2008
    24,037
    77
    Far West Suburban Lowellabama
    While I agree with the court's position, I don't see the ruling as an end to the libertarianism. It definitely will rile a great number of professed Libertarian Party loyalists.

    And a great many libertarian loyalist support this definition. See the party platform!!!

    Libertarians welcome both sides of this issue. I agree with it and am a Libertarian. Protection of the smallest minority from the tyranny of those stronger/bigger/more populous is one of the key tenets of libertarian ideals. So as a pro-life libertarian it fits right in with my political belief.

    Who is smaller, weaker and has less of a voice than an unborn child?

    Since he/she has no voice, the libertarian ideal of protecting the minority from the majority is clearly consistent.
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,908
    113
    Mitchell
    And a great many libertarian loyalist support this definition. See the party platform!!!

    Libertarians welcome both sides of this issue. I agree with it and am a Libertarian. Protection of the smallest minority from the tyranny of those stronger/bigger/more populous is one of the key tenets of libertarian ideals. So as a pro-life libertarian it fits right in with my political belief.

    Who is smaller, weaker and has less of a voice than an unborn child?

    Since he/she has no voice, the libertarian ideal of protecting the minority from the majority is clearly consistent.

    My reading of the LP platform on abortion is far from consistency.
     
    Top Bottom