…but never see the crop.

It is in God’s hands, or as the Muslim say, Insha’allah.

Life is one of the primary areas that our organic laws are intended to protect. Viability is meaningless – we tear a baby out of its God-given (or nature-provided if you prefer) environment, and then say “Look, the baby can’t live out here. It must not be a human.” If a human goes into space without man-made protection, he’ll die there just like an unborn child would. Space isn’t our natural environment, just like the outside world isn’t a baby’s. That doesn’t preclude that person from being a fully human being.

No one gets pregnant by accident – it just isn’t possible. Part of my concept of real libertarianism is that people take responsibility for their own actions. If you engage in sexual relations, you just might get pregnant. If you can’t handle it, wait until you are grown up (in whatever sense that may apply) instead of casting off responsibility and acting like a child.

The Government already decides in the cases where pregnant women are assaulted. They just don’t have the courage to apply it to abortion. A illegal alien has more rights in the US than an unborn child. If science can’t tell us when a soul enters a child, the Government had better error on the safe side and put the burden on the Mother seeking an abortion, to prove in court good reason for abandoning her child. Government for a long time protected the practice of partial-birth abortion, so they are involved already, just in a negative way. They also removed the decision from the States through the courts, preventing them from acting according to their communities conscience to sanction the practice or not. So no, unlike Amsterdam,, Americans do reserve the right to exercise our political voice based in religous beliefs and traditions in the public square. We always have, and we always will.

If government can essentially force a female to have a child she does not wish to have for whatever reason, then there is precious little else it cannot force you to do.

OK, it’s clear you are talking about a child in the womb here, but from where does your moral authority come to draw the line there? Claiming a basic human right to kill the pre-born child in the shelter of the womb, why not the basic human right to kill the inconvenient 3 month old in the shelter of the nursery for whatever reason? Why not euthanize the indigent and infirm? Certainly they sap the resources and limit the personal freedoms of those of us forced to care for them out of an artificially constructed morality called “tradition.” These are not straw man arguments, these are the published “ethics” put forth by those Libertarians in academia who have the courage of their convictions, boosted by the steroid called “tenure.”

In every case where the government has exercised its Constitutionally granted power to protect the weak or defenseless individual it has essentially applied force against an unwilling or uncooperative entity that was denying said individual of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Your chivalrous concern for the rights of a woman and her body necessarily presumes non-personhood for the pre-born. Otherwise, any force of law protecting the pre-born would be as natural to you as the law that (for now) protects the toddler.

Now, about that “non-person” category of inconvenient warm bodies… it’s very fickle politics, to say the least. Ask the descendants of American slaves, or the survivors of the Jewish holocaust. Under Stalin, Libertarians (or their analog) were probably denied the category of “human” (anyone to the right of them was already dead).

Now I will rephrase your Libertarian rant into a Conservative truism: If government can essentially declare one defenseless and inconvenient category of human beings to be non-persons, it will, given the power, expand the prerogative to other inconvenient, defenseless categories of human beings. The lesson of history is, if you’re inconvenient, you damned well better not be defenseless.

I can’t decide if Libertarianism is Conservatism without morals or if it’s Progressivism without financing.

I do hope you go to CPAC. RS has a spot there and you know everyone, Turn this into something big. That’s just one less front we have to fight.
Cheers

The reason that this country has arrived at this juncture to a great degree is that “We the People” have abrogasted our political responsisibilty to The Constitution and each other. The Tea Party/Patriot Group I am involved with locally here isn Tidewater Virginia is in the process of getting involved with the Republican party. There are however some very serious flaws to the Republican Party as it is a major part of why we are where we are. There is a corrupt cadre at the top who are on the take and election is everything, no matter what including getting in bed wth the devil process. They are going to fight very hard to keep their positions at the Oink, Squeel and Slop trough. They do not want to admit that they have been increasingly off course for about 40 to 50 years. They want to idolize Chaney? He is a hard core Neo Con and on the take corporate shill. He gives a rats azz for the Constitution. The Republican Party can change the course of history but, it will need to change it;’s course also to one of complete servitude to The Constitution. As I have said the Republicans and the Democrats have had 150 years to run this country and Run it into the ground they have.
iI have the local Republican Party commitee aplication on my printer feed and I am trying to deside if I want to leave the Libertarians for what might be a futile effort, after 35 plus years.
We shall see.

Roe v Wade was wrong on a whole host of points having nothing to do with the power of the state to allow the killing of people/babies. The Catholic Church is firm in their disapproval of killing both…babies and murderers…and purely on philosophical grounds. The Left wants to save the murderer, but can’t raise thr philosophical muster to save the innocent baby. The libertarian, on the other hand, seems indifferent about the killer, but the baby, well, they’re on the same page as the Left. Is that politics or philosophical?

That is a conservative issue because of the exerted power of the Court in taking away from the people of the states to make this decision.

In other words,Constititutionaly conservatives don;t have to be pro-life to be against Roe v Wade. Many cultures have accepted abortion (e.g. Japan) since Christ was a corporal…but now are rethinking it only because they can now show medically when that little squirt of gizzum actually starts becoming a human beink. (Popeye). The Sonogram ruined much of Roe v Wade, and all of Planned Parenthood’s ideas for late term abortion.

Many conservatives are against a federal “right to life amendment”. NY had abortion prior to Roe, and in most states only a few urban places actually practice it even today, which says a lot about the power of the “herd” libertarians really, really don’t like.

I believe the power to decide these things should be the province of the People, at the lowest level, which means those ignoramuses in South Boston and NE Georgia, not the US Supreme Court, should decide these issues, each in his own jurisdiction.

In other words, what will play in Massachusetts matters not one whit to me. Scott Brown may well be gone in another two years. I hope he stays, but if he’s going to turn into a Maine blueberry, no big loss. The fight of the constitutionalist goes on and on.

You spend way too much time being wrapped up in labels,. We work in the world of ideas here, not what will sell in a state with one foot already on banana peel.

No birth control method is absolutely foolproof except abstinence. I find it difficult to believe that you think that even a baby conceived by “accident” is not worthy of life, because that is what you are saying.

“The freedom to do as one pleases as long as it does not interfere with health and safety of others is what is at stake.”

“However, that is a theological matter as to when the soul takes possession of the fetus.”

“Until a fetus is capable of sustaining life on its own (the viability approach) interfering with the freedom of an independent person in favor of one dependent upon her requires a strange set of priorities.”

1) I believe someone above already addressed the idea that aborting an infant, does indeed interfere with the health and life of said infant.
2) Your take on the soul and when it takes “possession” of the body, is not a theological matter. Live is life, remember; many names are used to explain the concept of the soul and life. And this then leads me to my third point and probably the most egregious remark you made.
3) The age of viability has been expanding day by day, week by week. What was once unheard of two, three decades ago, now can be routine for saving babies. Infants as young as 23wks have survived, even at 21-22, we know we can save some at 25wks, that is the 2nd trimester. How to you justify 3rd trimester abortions, those do not all fall under your exception of “partial-birth abortion.” Infants, toddlers, children are dependent on adults for survival, so how do you justify them interfering with the “freedom” of the adult? What struck me about the third quote I posted, was how you said “interfering with the freedom of an independent person….” that sounds like the most selfish thing I have ever heard. As free as we are in the context of our great and wonderful lives in this country, we are still human beings, and we cannot live in a vacuum, as if nothing we want should be interfered with by anyone else. Whether you believe God gave you life or you are just an accident, nature gives us the opportunity for survival. To take that away from another helpless innocent, takes away our humanity, and we are no different than those dictators that openly murder large swaths of humanity.

me above. If a person doesn’t have sex, they can’t get pregnant. Therefore, pregnancy cannot happen by accident. Just one of those choices you make – and you had better be prepared to handle the consequences.

If you still would like to differ, I’ll be glad to direct you to some books.

R vs. W and PP vs. Casey need to be overturned because they are horrible constitutional reasoning. I’m not opposed to going step by step instead of all at once, but we need to do what is right, not just what is popular.