• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

libertarianism and abortion [W:294]

Yes because its simply wrong. Abortion was legal in every state before Roe vs Wade and thats simply a fact. it had restrictions however that were up to each individual state. As it should be.

You counter facts and evidence with denial? Again I point you to various sources.
Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

National Abortion Federation: History of Abortion
Between 1967 and 1973 one-third of the states liberalized or repealed their criminal abortion laws. However, the right to have an abortion in all states was only made available to American women in 1973 when the Supreme Court struck down the remaining restrictive state laws with its ruling in Roe v. Wade.

CHARTS: How Roe v. Wade changed abortion rights
Through the mid-1960s, 44 states outlawed abortion in nearly all situations that did not threaten the life or health of the mother. States began liberalizing their abortion laws in the 1960s and 1970s.
abortion8.webp
 
No one is talking about banning abortion.

false some people here have that very view, they want it fully banned or mostly banned and if you refer back to post 72 my opening statement was this
well first let me be clear what im talking about, im talking about if all or most abortions are banned by law and made murder
 
Thousands upon thousands of children given up for adoption grow up in the USA without ever being adopted.
 
Serious as hell

In that case...
The NAACP, as far as I can tell has no real purpose any more, the dems are looking out for minority rights now. But lets leave this to a different sub forum, not abortion. It's off topic.
 
Through the mid-1960s, 44 states outlawed abortion in nearly all situations that did not threaten the life or health of the mother. States began liberalizing their abortion laws in the 1960s and 1970s.

You just proved yourself WRONG. As I said it was legal in every state
 
false some people here have that very view, they want it fully banned or mostly banned and if you refer back to post 72 my opening statement was this

Very few want it banned. We just want Roe vs Wade gone.
 
Very few want it banned. We just want Roe vs Wade gone.


really? not on this board, the vast majority of of pro-lifers want it mostly banned

and why do you want roe vs wade gone?
so you just want unlimited abortioins then?
 
Not new born babies

Don't fool yourself , there are special needs newborns who are not adopted.
And why should a woman have to risk her health and her life to give away a baby?
That is a very selfish reason to ban abortions.

And I have a lot of relatives who are adopted.
So I understand the desire for newborns.
I have 5 nephews and niece and several cousins who are adopted.
My husbands cousin and his wife adopted 2 boys and then 2 girls that they fostered. One of the foster girls was a special needs child. They also foster many other babies and toddlers over the years.

So I do know quite a bit about the foster care and adoption system here in the USA.
 
Am I the only Pro Choice Libertarian on this forum?

I don't know if i'd be classed as a libertarian in the modern American sense, but abortion is one of very, very few issues that I actually don't have a strong view on either way. Well actually I do, but my strong views on it flow both ways. I think the rights of a human should override the rights of a fetus, but I don't have a clear view on what point the fetus gains human rights of its own which is critical in establishing whether abortion is a violation of the NAP.
 
You just proved yourself WRONG. As I said it was legal in every state


How was I wrong?
But it says 44 states outlawed abortion, that means you're wrong. since you said it was legal in every state.
If you look at the other sources 30 of those states outlawed it completely
 
Last edited:
We want taxes. But only those authorized by the constitution. I dont think we want to change the meaning of marriage either. But if gay marriage is ok them every other kind should be as well. I think most of us would say get government out of the marriage business .

Lots of cognitive dissonance going on here. I bet you would be the first to state that welfare is not supported by the constitution, however, it is just as easy for a baby to be born into a poor family as a rich one and anything in between. Would you be willing to support that infant if it needed various forms of welfare to survive?
 
really? not on this board, the vast majority of of pro-lifers want it mostly banned

and why do you want roe vs wade gone?
so you just want unlimited abortioins then?
Then the vast majority here are different than the rest of the population. I however doubt your right on this. Anyone here want all abortions for any reason banned? I doubt it.

I want abortion to be a matter for the states to decide as it was before Roe vs Wade.
 
Don't fool yourself , there are special needs newborns who are not adopted.
And why should a woman have to risk her health and her life to give away a baby?
That is a very selfish reason to ban abortions.

And I have a lot of relatives who are adopted.
So I understand the desire for newborns.
I have 5 nephews and niece and several cousins who are adopted.
My husbands cousin and his wife adopted 2 boys and then 2 girls that they fostered. One of the foster girls was a special needs child. They also foster many other babies and toddlers over the years.

So I do know quite a bit about the foster care and adoption system here in the USA.

Maybe you can site a case where one hasnt been adopted

Who Wants a "Defective" Baby? by Nancy Valko
 
Lots of cognitive dissonance going on here. I bet you would be the first to state that welfare is not supported by the constitution, however, it is just as easy for a baby to be born into a poor family as a rich one and anything in between. Would you be willing to support that infant if it needed various forms of welfare to survive?

I surely is not in the constitution. If we didnt have the taxes we have I and others would give even more to charity than we do now.



http://www.fee.org/library/detail/not-your-to-give-2#axzz2ZKGOQMyy

he power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown , neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington , no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.

“‘So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people.

Read more: Not Yours to Give : Library : Foundation for Economic Education
 
Sorry dbl post
 
1.)Then the vast majority here are different than the rest of the population.
2.)I however doubt your right on this.
3.) Anyone here want all abortions for any reason banned? I doubt it.
4.) I want abortion to be a matter for the states to decide as it was before Roe vs Wade.

1.) not on this issue they arent
2.) ypou are free to doubt it i see no evidence suggestion otherwise
3.) there you go again begin dishonest, i didnt say they all want all abortions banned, what i said is this

" the vast majority of of pro-lifers want it mostly banned"

and this is true

there are some here and in real life that even want it banned for rape and incest.
please dont try to twist things around because it wont work.

4.) and if you dont want it banned why should it be up to the states? why would the states have any say in medical decisions of this nature? why not just leave it legal?
 
Last edited:
1.) not on this issue they arent
2.) ypou are free to doubt it i see no evidence suggestion otherwise
3.) there you go again begin dishonest, i didnt say they all want all abortions banned, what i said is this

" the vast majority of of pro-lifers want it mostly banned"

and this is true

there are some here and in real life that even want it banned for rap and incest.
please dont try to twist things around because it wont work.

4.) and if you dont want it banned why should it be up to the states? why would the states have any say in medical decisions of this nature? why not just leave it legal?
You have nothing to back any of this up. Just your words

I will bet than no one or close to no one wants ALL abortions for any reason banned

Though maybe some want it banned in cases of rap as you said :lol:

Personally I hate rap

Mostly banned? Thats a pretty vague statement. But again proving my point that no one wants all abortion banned and the vast majority of people do not favor abortion on demand. You also cannot refute the fact the abortion was legal in every state before Roe vs Wade
 
1.)You have nothing to back any of this up. Just your words
2.)I will bet than no one or close to no one wants ALL abortions for any reason banned
3.)Though maybe some want it banned in cases of rap as you said :lol:
4.) Personally I hate rap

1.) LMAO really did you miss the link earlier to the thread that asked what people want and what they would do?

sorry most prolifers on this board want abortion mostly banned, only life immanent life of the mother and rape some incest
then there are a couple that dont even care about rape

this is just how it is, you can disagree all you want, doesnt matter or change this

2.) good think nobody ever said this, but please feel to make up more stuff that fails. Let me know wehn anybody said the lie you just made up
3.) yes some do want it banned for rape
4.) good for you

the issue is most prolifers do want abortions mostly banned :shrug:
 
I surely is not in the constitution. If we didnt have the taxes we have I and others would give even more to charity than we do now.

Since early colonial times, taxes were collected to support the poor, especially those deemed "worthy" so please answer my question, are you okay paying taxes for welfare which supports the many babies born in poverty? If so, would you label yourself a "socialist"?
 
1.) LMAO really did you miss the link earlier to the thread that asked what people want and what they would do?

sorry most prolifers on this board want abortion mostly banned, only life immanent life of the mother and rape some incest
then there are a couple that dont even care about rape

this is just how it is, you can disagree all you want, doesnt matter or change this

2.) good think nobody ever said this, but please feel to make up more stuff that fails. Let me know wehn anybody said the lie you just made up
3.) yes some do want it banned for rape
4.) good for you

the issue is most prolifers do want abortions mostly banned :shrug:

Again mostly is very vague and giving a false sense of reality. I would imagine most people want abortion on demand banned even so called pro choicers.
 
Since early colonial times, taxes were collected to support the poor, especially those deemed "worthy" so please answer my question, are you okay paying taxes for welfare which supports the many babies born in poverty? If so, would you label yourself a "socialist"?
At the state level yes as thats constitutional but not at the federal level. The federal government did not collect taxes early on to support the poor. It was a state responsibility. Did you even bother to read not yours to give?
 
1.)Again mostly is very vague and giving a false sense of reality.
2.)I would imagine most people want abortion on demand banned even so called pro choicers.

1.)nothing vague about it i spelled it out for you
2.) this is also false depending on your definition of abortion on demand

Im totally fine with any and all reasons for an abortion up to 21 weeks, many feel similar with different time frames
 
1.)nothing vague about it i spelled it out for you
2.) this is also false depending on your definition of abortion on demand

Im totally fine with any and all reasons for an abortion up to 21 weeks, many feel similar with different time frames

Its very vague and do you call yourself a pro choicer? Its like me saying most pro choicers want all abortions legal. But as we can see even you have your limits and conditions. We are just a bit more strict than you are.
 
At the state level yes as thats constitutional but not at the federal level. The federal government did not collect taxes early on to support the poor. It was a state responsibility. Did you even bother to read not yours to give?

What difference if you are paying taxes through the state or federal government to support welfare? It still cost you in tax dollars so answer my question. Does that make you a socialist?
 
Back
Top Bottom