140 responses so far ↓

• 1 angelawittman // Dec 25, 2008 at 12:02 am

  I would like to point out that I am 100% pro-life and I live for the day when prenatal child-killing will be completely abolished in America. Thank you to Mr. Cassidy for publishing this excerpt from my interview with Dr. Vance who is a true gentleman and completely pro-life for those in and out of the womb.

• 2 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 25, 2008 at 12:05 am

  You can’t abolish something when there’s a demand for it in the free market. Economics 101, dum-dum

• 3 angelawittman // Dec 25, 2008 at 12:24 am

  Dear Libertarian Joseph,

  Prenatal murder is not something that should be bought and sold regardless of the demand for it… Ten Commandments 101. : )

• 4 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 25, 2008 at 12:33 am

  The ten commandments holds no water in the real world.

  Here’s a timeline for you

  ban abortion
  abortion goes to the black market
  more overcrowding in current overcrowded jails and prisons
  black market abortionists that will not be as concerned with patient safety
  more waste of tax payer money

  sheesh. this wouldn’t even solve the problem. why not worry about your own lives and leave everyone else alone?

• 5 paulie cannoli // Dec 25, 2008 at 12:39 am

  Dear Angela,

  LJ is what is known on the intrawebs as a troll.

  http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll

  While you and I probably disagree about any number of issues, I respect your viewpoint, and posted the portion of your interview which touches on alternative parties, which is our focus here.

  LJ does not respect anyone’s viewpoint that differs from his in any way, and is generally rude and immature. I have no idea whether he is really as clueless as he appears to be, or is actually a much more clever fellow who is portraying a negative stereotype of libertarians for amusement.

  I would advise you that any attempts to communicate with Joseph would constitute what I believe your religion calls “casting pearls before swine.”

  Now that you have been warned, proceed as you wish.

• 6 Catholic Trotskyist // Dec 25, 2008 at 2:22 am

  Joseph, you make some good points about the social problems caused by a possible ban of abortion. However, the Ten Commandments is what is most important. I also agree with Wittmann and Vance about the equivalency of abortion and war.

• 7 johnlowell // Dec 25, 2008 at 3:41 am

  Vance, a libertarian and an Evangelical, is all wet when he says that there is no “ethical” difference between war and abortion. I will take a back seat to no one when it comes to opposing aggressive war, but to make no allowance for a “just war” is rank pacifism. The main outline of the Christian theological tradition over the last 2000 years makes only the most scant allowances for such attitudes. That is not to say, as has Pope Benedict XVI recently, that, today, while we should “be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a just war”, the fact remains that “we cannot totally exclude the need, the moral need, to suitably defend people and values against unjust aggressors”. There are simply no moral equivalent to just war when it comes to abortion. Abortion is always a moral obscenity no matter what the circumstances that surround it.

• 8 Catholic Trotskyist // Dec 25, 2008 at 6:27 am

  Merry Christmas John. Yes, I am awhere of Just War theory. I was not awhere that Vance did not believe in it at all. I was agreeing with him out of emotion because I like the fact that he calls out the hypocrisy of Christians who support the war in Iraq even though it has generally been proven to be an unjust war.

• 9 angelawittman // Dec 25, 2008 at 7:03 am

  Dear Mr. Cannoli,

  Thank you so much for the warning… I will take your advice. Also, please accept my apology for not realizing earlier that you are the author of this column. Thank you for presenting this part of the interview with Dr. Vance objectively. I appreciate the opportunity for dialog with others.

• 10 johnlowell // Dec 25, 2008 at 8:43 am

  Cattrot,

  Merry Christmas to you!

  Iraq did not qualify as a just war, Pope Benedict XVI made that quire clear, so Vance is right on Iraq. And, while under modern conditions of war, the Pope feels it would be hard to find any war that could be considered just, he makes clear also that that would not preclude the possibility of there being one, one in which concerns “to suitably defend people and values against unjust aggressors” are foremost. But there being this possibilty, for Vance to equate the moral standing of war and abortion is entirely off the mark. Abortion always qualifies as aggression, as it were, war not so. In the circumstances, one wonders if Saddam Hussein’s defence of Iraq might have been considered “just”, actually. I suppose an argument might be made that it were.

  Watched the Holy Father say Mass at midnight last night. Long an enthusiast of his going back to the days before he came to Rome in the late 1970s, I’ve marvelled at his skill when homilising in rendering intelligible difficult to grasp concepts like the Incarnation. He was most skillful in this way last night, speaking of the innocent reality of the baby Jesus, which underlies and grounds all of history. What a glorious truth!

• 11 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 25, 2008 at 9:56 am

  Paulie just gavce that bigot an excuse not to defend her sexist views. How can Paule be a libertarian, when all he does is attack me, a pure libertarian? Answer. He is not. A crypto-socialist. That is what you are. It’s so obvious, Paulie defends greenies and religious nutjobs every chance he get, then, laughably, he proclaims to be a libertarian. ha ha ha. What a confused individual

• 12 1611biblethumper // Dec 25, 2008 at 10:57 am

  Vance’s book was listed about war. One needs to read it to know what he believes. The Iraq war is an unjust war. Many children have died, but many apostate Christians in America support Bush’s bloody aggression. This is hypocrisy. I heard Bush say that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush cowardly uses US troops to promote the new world order. Bush is a puppet of Cheney, who is a puppet for the Council on Foreign Relations.

  I have read the Supreme Court’s ruling of Roe v. Wade personally. Anyone can read it, rather than to go on hearsay. It is my understanding the Court ruled that they and the Federal government have no jurisdiction over the unborn child, BUT THE STATES DO. The issue of abortion is under the jurisdiction of the individual states. It does violate two of the Ten Commandments, which do have authority in the real world. Murder and covetousness are violated by the doctor and nurses. Have you studied how the baby is torn apart or poisoned?

  I would not rely nor give any credibility to the Pope’s opinion when history reveals his alliance with Nazi Germany. Plus, his defense and cover-up of his priestly pedophiles is utter nonsense and absolute hypocrisy.

  Ron Paul is one of the most consistent, sincere, honest, and honorable statesman that America has ever had.

• 13 paulie cannoli // Dec 25, 2008 at 11:36 am

  Howdy folks,

  Good points by almost all in this thread.

  Dear Mr. Cannoli,

  A note on the nom de plume – cannoli is a nickname, chosen because it rhymes with paulie; not that this matters much at all, but Paulie is fine. Do you prefer Mrs. Wittman?

  Also, please accept my apology for not realizing earlier that you are the author of this column. Thank you for presenting this part of the interview with Dr. Vance objectively. I appreciate the opportunity for dialog with others.

  No apology needed. All I do is set google news to scour the web for key terms – the names of the larger alternative parties and their 2008 presidential candidates – and then cut and paste.
  ‘Author’ would, in my mind, require more original writing and interpretation of the source material. However, I’m glad to do so on an equal basis with everyone else in the comment section, and likewise welcome the opportunity for dialogue.

  In my view as a libertarian, persuasion is the best way to solve social problems, with force being the last resort. Given that, and the additional fact that too few people agree with me on this, it seems particular important to me to work on my ability to persuade – and I have much work to do in developing such abilities. It seems to me to be particularly silly for many libertarians to try to impotently bully their way through arguments, impressing no one but themselves, and failing to either persuade or force anyone to agree with them. I say this as someone who has all too often made the same mistake out of thoughtlessness.

  I am an admirer of Dr. Vance’s work in the fields of economics and peace/foreign policy. I likewise agree with the principle of decentralizing government force, where we can not get rid of it entirely, to the most local level possible.

  Pacifism has been referred to derisively in this thread. I think pacifism is a reasonable interpretation of the Gospel (and some other religious traditions), but not the only reasonable interpretation. It seems to me that if there is such a thing as a just war, it would have to be either defensive, or a war of independence. The US side of the wars currently underway in Iraq and Afghanistan, in my view, fits neither category.

  An additional category – wars of liberation – has been proposed. It seems to me that many of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan feel occupied, not liberated, by a foreign power. Furthermore,
  a government entity that seeks to dominate the whole world and determine who is to be ‘liberated’ by force seems to me to be far more dangerous than the worst of local tyrants. The historical path such attempts have taken in the past show that they invariably lead to internal and external tyranny, corruption, and eventual collapse.

  That isn’t to say that local tyrants do not exist, or are not dangerous. It seems to me that the neutrality act, which forbids individuals and groups of Americans from taking up arms on behalf of causes of their choosing around the world, or hiring others to do so at their own expense, is bad policy.

• 14 paulie cannoli // Dec 25, 2008 at 12:10 pm

  As to abortion:

  I would agree that the federal government certainly ought not be involved. Likewise, I would agree that the legal reasoning employed by the court in Roe v. Wade is far removed from any reasonable attempt to interpret the constitution, but is a rather transparent attempt to make it fit what the court considers desirable social policy. This appears to me to be a bad general principle to apply, and renders the constitution of little or no use in limiting government at any level in any way. On the other hand, the whole notion of limiting government seems to me to be akin to limiting an aggressive cancer or infectious plague.

  Getting back to the idea of persuasion versus force, we live in a society which is divided on the question of whether abortion is murder or not. Given that any regime law which is widely disagreed with by a large portion of the population can be effectively nullified by black markets, police and judges willing to look the other way, and jury nullification, I would posit that persuading an overwhelming majority that abortion is indeed murder should be more important to pro-life advocates than passing new laws against it, even at the local level.

  Given that some citizens who seek justice, and fail to receive it from the government after many attempts, eventually tend to take the law into their own hands, it likewise seems to me that those who believe that abortion should be a legitimately permitted choice would be best served by persuading others of their case, rather than turning to government for protection.

  I honestly don’t know what solution free minds and free markets would find for this great social dilemma. Artificial wombs, perhaps – freeing unwilling women from having to carry pregnancies to term, while permitting the developing baby to live. But I have faith that whatever solution we find will be better than whatever we can achieve through the coercive force of the regime – a very blunt instrument of force that destroys much in its path and environs, and sends ripples of destructiveness throughout society every time it is deployed.

• 15 1611biblethumper // Dec 25, 2008 at 12:15 pm

  A just war is self-defense. The Bible recognizes self-defense (Exodus 22:2). The Lord Jesus told Peter to get a sword (Luke 22:36-38) and it wasn’t for cutting a leg of lamb. This is why the Christian influence in the founding of America refers to the military as the Department of DEFENSE. The wars in Iraq, Vietnam, and Korea were wars to promote the new world order or the United Nations.

  The South justly defended themselves against an unjust war of dishonest Abe Lincoln. My understanding of the Revolutionary War was a war of self-defense. The colonists humbly appealed to the King to cease unjust taxation, but King George signed the Prohibitory Act, which removed his protection of the colonies, and hired German mercanaries to attack the colonies. The colonists understood they were no longer British subjects and they were forced to defend themselves.

  Americans defeated one tyrant who was 3000 miles away, but now we have 3000 tyrants one mile away. Even so come, Lord Jesus.

• 16 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 25, 2008 at 12:15 pm

  The Constitution only applies to the federal government. Not to the states. That’s why states have their own constitutions.

• 17 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 25, 2008 at 12:20 pm

  We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes. – Gene Roddenberry

• 18 paulie cannoli // Dec 25, 2008 at 12:35 pm

  I would not rely nor give any credibility to the Pope’s opinion when history reveals his alliance with Nazi Germany.

  Do you mean the current pope as a young man? From what I read, he was neither an overly enthusiastic national socialist nor a dissident against his government. Regarding the conduct of the church during the war, I know there has been much debate. Wikipedia has the following

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII#World_War_II

  Well, that’s probably more than enough of my filibustering. Merry Christmas to all!

• 19 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 25, 2008 at 12:39 pm

  The pope is a statist.

• 20 1611biblethumper // Dec 25, 2008 at 1:14 pm

  It is my understanding that the current pope and the previous pope aligned themselves with the Nazi party. When Adolf Hitler died, the media of the Spanish dictator, Francisco Franco, printed in part, “Adolf Hitler, the son of the Catholic church, died defending the faith.” It is quite clear the “Holy Mother Church” and its “Holy Father” are not holy when they have spent over a billion dollars defending pedophiles in the US alone.

  It seems LJ has a problem with the freewill of man. God created man sinless with a freewill that has the capability to reject God. This reveals that God does not FORCE himself on anyone, but God will judge wrong doing. A doctor can exercise his freewill to poison or cut apart an unborn child, but that doctor will be judged by God for his unlawful actions.

  I will agree with LJ that the pope is a statist, but this pope wants to be the head dictator of religion and state, i.e., the new world order. This was one reason Pope John Paul Jr. was buried in a trapezoid shape casket (Dracula). This was code to the one world government clowns. Ain’t conspiracies something?

• 21 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 25, 2008 at 1:21 pm

  The vatican should be nuked.

• 22 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 25, 2008 at 1:23 pm

  Actually, the vatican is pretty legitimate. No involuntary citizens, it’s funded privately, I just don’t like it. :p

• 23 1611biblethumper // Dec 25, 2008 at 2:01 pm

  The Vatican is funded through fraudulent religious decrees or dogmas and the members of the Mafia give money to appease their sins. It is interesting that the Mafia is 99% of one faith and many dictators stem from the same faith (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Castro, Norega, Ortega, etc.). Church history is forbidden to taught in the public schools.

  This knowledge of the religious intolerance of the Vatican was common amongst the colonists; in fact, it played a major role in the founding of America. Men learn from history that men seldom learn from history.

  The freedom that is enjoyed in America is a direct result of Biblical Christianity during the founding of America. Patrick Henry stated that America was founded upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Many non-conformists Baptists laid a wonderful foundation of liberty for this nation. Many Baptists of today are apostate and deceived though. Even so come, Lord Jesus.

• 24 paulie cannoli // Dec 25, 2008 at 2:23 pm

  1611biblethumper,

  There have been no shortage of dictators of all sorts of professed religious beliefs, and of none, throughout the world in the past or today.

  No religious affiliation has any sort of monopoly on tyrants, or on organized crime.

• 25 pdsa // Dec 26, 2008 at 4:45 am

  angelawittman – Prenatal murder is not something that should be bought and sold regardless of the demand for it – Ten Commandments 101.

  The assertion that a fetus is a legal person cannot be justified from Biblical texts, so your assertion the the 6th Commandment prohibits it is absurd.

  Thou shalt not kill. – Exodus 20:16
  That is a clear prohibition. Now let’s turn to a citation from the very next chapter of the Bible:

  If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. – Exodus 21:22

  Clearly, using Biblical text as the authority, a fetus is not a lawful person, but instead chattel of the father’s. (Exodus 101)

• 26 angelawittman // Dec 26, 2008 at 10:29 am

  Dear pdsa,

  Scripture, plainly tells us that before we were even formed in the womb, God knew us. Personhood for the unborn (or preborn) is clearly a Biblical teaching, as is justice and liberty.

• 27 lounovak // Dec 26, 2008 at 10:53 am

  The federal gov’t has no jurisdiction in the matter of reproduction. The state and local gov’ts have no jurisdiction. The matter is between a woman and her doctor and only those others she deems necessary.

• 28 G.E. // Dec 26, 2008 at 10:59 am

  I challenged Baldwin on this point during an interview with him. I think he simply lacks any real intellectual understanding of issues. I don’t think he’s a liar; I think he’s just stupid. He honestly believes that his position is the same as Ron Paul’s on trade and tried to lecture me on this point. I just felt sorry for him.

• 29 G.E. // Dec 26, 2008 at 11:01 am

  Lou – Says who? Under the Constitution, all powers not prohibited to the states are reserves to the states and to the people. I’m against the state, period, but so long as the state has a self-declared monopoly on justice, I think defending innocent life from in-utero butchery is a legitimate function.

• 30 paulie cannoli // Dec 26, 2008 at 11:01 am

  To any and all Biblical literalists reading:

  I’ve seen numerous, conflicting interpretations of many passages. How can we know, then, which one is correct? (This is of course assuming the Bible even should be attempted to be read literally at all; perhaps it’s poetry, not prose, an attempt to describe the indescribable by the imperfect).

  But, let’s suppose for this part of the discussion that the Bible is literally true.

  Here is one interpretation of some passages which are commonly interpreted otherwise, which I have yet to see anyone refute point by point:

  http://praxeology.net/anarchist-jesus.pdf

  I would be very interested to see if anyone answers these arguments in detail. Not that I can blame you if you don’t have the time – I’m just hoping someone does, so I can see where, if anywhere, the author is wrong.

• 31 1611biblethumper // Dec 26, 2008 at 11:02 am

  I admit there is uncertainty and hypocrisy about the issue of abortion. The word “fetus” is not found in the pure Bible, the Authorized King James Bible. People often use foreign or unbiblical terms to cloud an issue. I have also noticed that people purportedly “use” the Bible to justify one’s opinions or prejudices.

  Exodus 21:22 is a case of accidental death (“yet no mischief follow”), but 21:23 is malicious harm to the unborn infant (“And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,”). Does not “life for life” require the death sentence? I do believe this is study of context (Exodus 102).

  An unborn “fetus” or stillborn is called an infant in Job 3:16 (“Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light.”). Plus, John the Baptist as a “fetus” leaped in the womb of Elisabeth and he was called a babe or baby twice (Luke 1:41, 44). The Bible defines its own terms. (Bible study 101)

  I grant it that prenatal murder is difficult to define, but motive or intent must be determined. There has been botched saline poisoning of the baby and it was born alive, but it was left to die. Is that torture and murder?

  The main motive for abortion is economical because of one’s coveteousness, which is a violation of the Tenth Commandment.

  Hypocrisy is revealed by the words people use. The opposite of Pro-Life would be Pro-Death or Anti-Life, but the “Pro-Choice” bigots can’t use an honest term. Every abortionist and “Pro-Choice” proponent are fortunate his or her parents didn’t practice what he or she believes.

  “Pro-Choice” or more honestly Pro-Death proponents would never have existed if their mothers had abortions. Maybe “Pro-Choice” proponents should practice what they preach and abort themselves. If they are concerned about overpopulation of the planet, they can be the first to volunteer to abort themselves. Their wealth can be distributed to help the poor. Obama would certainly be pleased with this plan.

• 32 paulie cannoli // Dec 26, 2008 at 11:03 am

  The federal gov’t has no jurisdiction in the matter of reproduction. The state and local gov’ts have no jurisdiction.
  

  I’m not sure if you mean this literally. Are they, in your view, responsible for protecting abortionists, for example?

  
  The matter is between a woman and her doctor and only those others she deems necessary.

  Maybe, maybe not. You have given us no reason to agree or disagree. Assertion =/= argument.

• 33 paulie cannoli // Dec 26, 2008 at 11:05 am

  the pure Bible, the Authorized King James Bible.

  That’s just one translation into one language, at variance on many points with many others, of only those books which survived centuries of church politics to remain part of the Bible. Please explain why you think it is “pure” or “authorized.”

• 34 paulie cannoli // Dec 26, 2008 at 11:12 am

  Hypocrisy is revealed by the words people use. The opposite of Pro-Life would be Pro-Death or Anti-Life, but the “Pro-Choice” bigots can’t use an honest term.
  

  Why is it any more or less honest than their description of you as anti-choice? Do you believe that everyone who believes abortion should be permitted actually likes abortion and wants as much of it as possible?

  
  Every abortionist and “Pro-Choice” proponent are fortunate his or her parents didn’t practice what he or she believes.

  That does not necessarily follow. I think alcohol should be legal, but I don’t wish my mother had drank more of it while pregnant with me, for example.

• 35 paulie cannoli // Dec 26, 2008 at 11:17 am

  Ah – I think I see now – Authorized by King James, rather than Authorized in any higher sense. Fair enough. But why “pure”?

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#Style_and_criticism

  
  Style and criticism

  A primary concern of the translators was to produce a Bible that would be appropriate, dignified and resonant in public reading. Hence, in a period of rapid linguistic change, they avoided contemporary idioms; tending instead towards forms that were already slightly archaic, like verily and it came to pass.[94] They also tended to enliven their text with stylistic variation, finding multiple English words or verbal forms, in places where the original language employed repetition.

  The Authorized Version is notably more Latinate than previous English versions,[95] especially the Geneva Bible. This results in part from the academic stylistic preferences of a number of the translators – several of whom admitted to being more comfortable writing in Latin than in English – but was also, in part, a consequence of the royal proscription against explanatory notes.[96] Hence, where the Geneva Bible might use a common English word – and gloss its particular application in a marginal note; the Authorized Version tends rather to prefer a technical term, frequently in Anglicised Latin. Consequently, although the King had instructed the translators to use the Bishops’ Bible as a base text, the New Testament in particular, stylistically owes much to the Catholic Rheims New Testament, whose translators had also been concerned to find English equivalents for Latin terminology.[97] In addition, the translators of the New Testament books habitually quote Old Testament names in the renderings familiar from the Vulgate Latin, rather than in their Hebrew forms (e.g. Elias, Jeremias; for Elijah, Jeremiah).

  While the Authorized Version remains among the most widely sold, modern critical New Testament translations differ substantially from the Authorized Version in a number of passages, primarily because they rely on source manuscripts not then accessible to (or not then highly regarded by) early 17th Century Biblical Scholarship.[98] In the Old Testament, there are also many differences from modern translations that are based not on manuscript differences, but on a different understanding of Ancient Hebrew vocabulary or grammar by the translators. For example, in modern translations it is clear that Job 28 1-11 is referring throughout to mining operations, which is not at all apparent from the text of the Authorized Version.[99] Some suggest that its value lies in its poetic language at the cost of accuracy in translation, while other scholars firmly disagree with these claims. For example, New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman has written:
  “ The Authorized Version is filled with places in which the translators rendered a Greek text derived ultimately from Erasmus’s edition, which was based on a single twelfth-century manuscript that is one of the worst of the manuscripts that we now have available to us.[100]

• 36 VirtualGalt // Dec 26, 2008 at 11:19 am

  I am deeply troubled by the issue of abortion, and I am a pretty strong libertarian. Not as “pure” as some who post here, but I am definitely not Republican Lite.

  I am the parent of a 15 year old. I cannot understand people who think an abortion is no different from, say, clipping your toenails… or who think abortion should be entirely a woman’s choice right up to the point where the doc slaps the kid on the ass.

  I just don’t know where to draw the line.

  If we love liberty, and hate slavery and evil… do we not have the duty to stop egregious wrongs where they exist? Was the appropriate response to 9/11 to raise a private army and go get UBL?

• 37 1611biblethumper // Dec 26, 2008 at 11:23 am

  The Authorized King James Bible is pure because it has no proven errors within it. The laws of jurisprudence teach that something or someone is innocent UNLESS proven guilty beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt. I submit there are NO proven errors or contradictions in the Authorized Bible. The power of this blessed Book reveals its authority.

  There are many translations in English, but there are basically only two types. The manuscripts of the counterfeits stem from Alexandria, Egypt. The manuscript of the true stem travel through Antioch of Syria from Israel. The NIV, NASV, NKJV, and others are counterfeits of the true. All of these have clear errors and contradictions, but the Bible that was instrumental in the founding of America is pure, the Authorized King James Bible. It was the first Bible to be printed by Congress around 1789.

  It is to be taken literal UNLESS it is impossible or the context reveals symbolic or the use of an analogy. The key words for analogy are “like” and “as.” There is ONLY one true interpretation and ONLY one Interpreter of the Bible and it is the Author, the Holy Ghost. The Bible is a self-interpreting Book. Example: leviathan (Job 41:1), what is it? Most professors and pastors of Christianity do not know because most are apostate. Anyone can understand it if he or she believes the words of Psalm 74:14; 104:26; and Isaiah 27:1. Take a look at these references and see for yourself. This is simple Bible study 101 in defining Bible terms.

  Hope this helps.

• 38 paulie cannoli // Dec 26, 2008 at 11:25 am

  I just don’t know where to draw the line.

  I’m not sure it’s a line. It may be a curve, for example.

  
  If we love liberty, and hate slavery and evil… do we not have the duty to stop egregious wrongs where they exist?
  

  Yes. But it’s not always easy to tell when they do and when they do not. Nor is it possible for anyone of us to fix everything.

  
  Was the appropriate response to 9/11 to raise a private army and go get UBL?

  Only if you think he had anything to do with it, wasn’t following the US regime’s orders if he did, and wasn’t purposely allowed to do it unstopped by the US regime if both of the first two are the case.

• 39 paulie cannoli // Dec 26, 2008 at 11:32 am

  The Authorized King James Bible is pure because it has no proven errors within it.
  

  See the wikipedia article for sources on 98, 99 and 100 from comment 35.

  
  The laws of jurisprudence teach that something or someone is innocent UNLESS proven guilty beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt.

  No, when you make an assertion that one of many translations into one of many languages, of a compilation of books that were selected from among many others that were thrown out due to church politics over succeeding centuries, is “the one true translation,” it isn’t up to everyone else to prove you wrong.

  I’m not saying that you are necessarily wrong, however.

• 40 1611biblethumper // Dec 26, 2008 at 11:34 am

  Why do the “Pro-Choice” proponents choose that name? If their real intentions were made known, who would listen to them? Am I “Anti-Choice”? No, I am pro-choice; it’s just that I choose life.

  It’s similar in the sodomite issue. Gays are not gay (cheerful and happy). Sodomites call heterosexuals, “straight,” right? Okay, what is the opposite of straight? Crooked or another term would be “queer.” Hey, I’m just using their terms. I’m straight. Can I be tolerated by the opposite proponents? All sodomites and abortionists are fortunate their parents didn’t practice their respective beliefs. Neither would have existed.

  False beliefs contradict themselves as the Bible says in Acts 18:a6 (And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed,…) and 2 Timothy 2:25 (In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves;…).

• 41 G.E. // Dec 26, 2008 at 11:48 am

  The line is impossible to draw anywhere except at conception or implantation. But even birth is a ridiculous and arbitrary threshold — why should you have responsibility to a child just because it is outside of your body? Or can you abandon it, not feed it? Why not just murder it?

  The “choice” is the choice to have sex or not have sex. Murder is not a “choice.” People like Lou Novak aren’t for “choice” when it comes to paying taxes, participating in coercive government programs, etc. “Pro-choice” is the true misnomer.

• 42 G.E. // Dec 26, 2008 at 11:52 am

  BTW: I don’t think the issue is very complicated. After some serious thought and study, I have unambiguously come to the conclusion that “life begins” at implantation. The case for life beginning at conception is weak: a fertilized egg, left to its own devices, will not become anything. It is at the point of implantation that, if left unmolested, a fertilized egg can become a human being.

• 43 paulie cannoli // Dec 26, 2008 at 11:52 am

  Why do the “Pro-Choice” proponents choose that name?

  Because they believe abortion should be a woman’s choice, not necessarily that it is good or bad. In fact, most people who consider themselves pro-choice believe abortion is bad, but sometimes necessary, or even that it is always bad, but denying a woman that right to have one is even worse.

  
  If their real intentions were made known, who would listen to them?
  

  It’s never a good idea to argue from the standpoint that everyone who disagrees with you does so with ulterior motives. It is entirely possible that some of them do, yet others are misled, or that you are simply wrong. However, since I am not 100% on your side or theirs, it reduces your credibility when you make that type of argument.

  
  Am I “Anti-Choice”?
  

  According to some people, who either use the term out of bad habit, or believe you must be arguing from ulterior motives.

  
  No, I am pro-choice; it’s just that I choose life.
  

  It’s more than that, since you want to use force to dictate what choices other people are allowed to make. In fairness, so do I, for example in the case of murder. The question is whether abortion is murder. Terms such as anti-life and anti-choice reduce the argument to mindless sloganeering.

  
  It’s similar in the sodomite issue.
  

  What makes you think homosexuality was the sin for which Sodom was supposedly destroyed?

  
  Gays are not gay (cheerful and happy).

  Some are and some are not.

  
  Sodomites call heterosexuals, “straight,” right?
  

  Some do, some don’t.

  
  Okay, what is the opposite of straight?
  

  Wavy? Curled? Multidimensional?

  I’m straight.
  

  Congratulations.

  
  Can I be tolerated by the opposite proponents?
  

  Most of them, yes, as far as I can tell. To the extent that “proponent” is even a remotely relevant term here.

  
  All sodomites and abortionists are fortunate their parents didn’t practice their respective beliefs. Neither would have existed.

  The abortionist part was addressed above, and not refuted.

  The part about LGBT folks – well, for starters, you would have to explain how the term belief applies. I’m lucky that my parents did not choose to be nuns and priests, or otherwise remain single or childless; that in no way means they should have been forced to have sex with each other, does it?

  I suppose my non-existent would be siblings and half siblings are unfortunate that my mother sometimes used birth control, and did not have sex with as many men as possible so that she could increase her chances of remaining pregnant the entire time she was fertile; but that does not mean that all women should be forced to engage in such behavior.

• 44 paulie cannoli // Dec 26, 2008 at 11:53 am

  The line is impossible to draw anywhere except at conception or implantation

  Certainly it is. Quickening, for instance. And that is if you even agree that it should be a line at all.

• 45 paulie cannoli // Dec 26, 2008 at 11:55 am

  People like Lou Novak aren’t for “choice” when it comes to paying taxes, participating in coercive government programs, etc.

  What exactly do you mean by people like Lou Novak?

• 46 G.E. // Dec 26, 2008 at 11:56 am

  The “quickening” is a perception. It’s based on B.S. religious teachings. In other words, it is completely arbitrary and made up. I deal with facts. There is conception, implantation, and birth.

• 47 G.E. // Dec 26, 2008 at 11:56 am

  What exactly do you mean by people like Lou Novak?

  Greens.

• 48 G.E. // Dec 26, 2008 at 11:57 am

  Saying there isn’t a “line” means that “freedom” includes the freedom of me to abort you right now, Paul.

• 49 1611biblethumper // Dec 26, 2008 at 11:59 am

  Paulie,

  If a detective accused you of murder, do you have to prove your innocense or does he have to prove your guilt? Don’t you believe one is innocent UNLESS proven guilt.

  I wrote the King James Bible is pure; it is innocent. I do not have to prove its innocense. You must prove its guilt.

  Example of guilt: The NIV contains a boldface lie in Mark 1:2. It says the quotation is from Isaiah, but the quotation is from Malachi. That is an error. The King James Bible is right when it says, “As it is written in the prophets…,” because there are two quotations: one from Malachi and one from Isaiah.

  The Bible is the final authority for all matters of faith and practice.

• 50 paulie cannoli // Dec 26, 2008 at 12:02 pm

  I deal with facts.

  Brain waves, heartbeat, ability to be delivered live – these are all facts.

  Greens.

  Glad I asked, since it appeared that you meant anyone who considers themselves pro-choice at first.

  Even so, not all Greens are pro-coercion. It is possible to be simultaneously completely consist with both green and libertarian values, since one is a philosophy of desired ends and the other one, of acceptable means.

  Saying there isn’t a “line” means that “freedom” includes the freedom of me to abort you right now, Paul.

  Saying there is no line can mean there is a gradient.

• 51 paulie cannoli // Dec 26, 2008 at 12:06 pm

  If a detective accused you of murder, do you have to prove your innocense or does he have to prove your guilt?

  I haven’t accused the AKJV of guilt. Nor did I accuse the other translations of guilt, or the books that the Catholic councils many centuries before the AKJV decided to leave out of the Bible entirely. I haven’t accused the Vedas or Koran of guilt, either.

  You are the one who is, apparently, attempting to assert that it is a superior translation to others, which is what I understand you to mean by “pure”. I haven’t seen you take on the arguments of those who argue otherwise, which have already been tangentially linked, thus introduced into argument.

• 52 1611biblethumper // Dec 26, 2008 at 12:07 pm

  Sodomy wasn’t only sin of Sodom according to Ezekiel 16:49. But, if you look at Genesis 19, you will read about males desiring “to know” angels. All angels are men in the Bible.

  Sodomy and abortion are choices that people make. I do not desire to FORCE my choices on others. Paulie, you do not know my intentions. You are assuming that you think you know my intentions.

  Have you looked up the references that I already mentioned? Stop, look, and listen before you cross the traintrack of truth.

• 53 G.E. // Dec 26, 2008 at 12:10 pm

  Brain waves, heartbeat, ability to be delivered live – these are all facts.

  Fantasy. There’s no logical reason to set “brain waves” or “heartbeat” as the point at which life magically begins. It’s like saying you’re not having sex if you pull out. What is the entity that WILL develop a heartbeat if left unmolested? Your proposals are entirely arbitrary.

• 54 paulie cannoli // Dec 26, 2008 at 12:10 pm

  You are assuming that you think you know my intentions.

  No, I do not.

  Have you looked up the references that I already mentioned?

  Have you done the same? See comment 35, go to wikipedia article, then go to links for comments 98-100.

  At no point here have I asserted anything, nor am I assuming you to be wrong.

• 55 G.E. // Dec 26, 2008 at 12:11 pm

  Sodomy is not an act of aggression. Putting the consensual sexual preferences of private individuals in the same ballpark as in-utero murder shows a perversion on your part, biblethumper. This is why abortion is so widespread and accepted: cretins like you are so evidently stupid and evil that intelligent and moral people look at you and do the opposite.

• 56 paulie cannoli // Dec 26, 2008 at 12:14 pm

  There’s no logical reason to set “brain waves” or “heartbeat” as the point at which life magically begins.

  Why not? These are how we normally determine when it ends.

  It’s like saying you’re not having sex if you pull out.
  

  Hey, don’t look at me – I’ll argue that life begins as soon as I see a woman I am attracted to. And halfway mean it, too.

  
  What is the entity that WILL develop a heartbeat if left unmolested?
  

  Life starts when I ask a girl out. If allowed to have my way enough times without protection, eventually she will get pregnant and have a kid.

  
  Your proposals are entirely arbitrary.

  They aren’t my proposals.

• 57 1611biblethumper // Dec 26, 2008 at 12:20 pm

  I already looked at the comment and saw no proven contradiction in the King James Bible.

  Doesn’t your statement, “since you want to use force to dictate what choices other people are allowed to make..” imply you KNOW my intentions or desires? You do not know that I want to use force to dictate what choices other people are allowed to make. What is your evidence to make this statement? This is an accusation that is founded upon assumption or personal opinion. I am innocent of your accusation, but I do not have to prove it. You must bring forth your evidence to prove my guilt of your accusation.

  The Authorized King James Bible is pure. It is innocent. It is holy. It is authoritative. It is absolute truth.

• 58 1611biblethumper // Dec 26, 2008 at 12:24 pm

  G.E., thanks for your kind remarks. Do you really believe that every case of sodomy is consenual? Do you mean there is no such thing as rape by a sodomite?

  Do you have evidence that I am evil?

• 59 paulie cannoli // Dec 26, 2008 at 12:33 pm

  I already looked at the comment and saw no proven contradiction in the King James Bible.
  

  I’m not trying to convince you here. In fact, I don’t know or even necessarily think that they are right and you are wrong. You are the one who has, as far as I can tell, asserted that your preferred translation of a pre-selected group of texts is the one true Bible. If you want me to take that assertion seriously, you’ll have to prove it, not ask me to disprove it. I see no particular reason to start with the assumption that you are either right or wrong.

  
  Doesn’t your statement, “since you want to use force to dictate what choices other people are allowed to make..” imply you KNOW my intentions or desires?

  Only that you wish to prohibit abortion, unless I am mistaken about what you have already said.

  It’s not a general statement, but a specific one.

  If I am, my apologies; I am trying to read what people write with an open mind, but it’s always possible to make mistakes. Feel free to correct that if I got it wrong.

  What I did not say, among other things:

  That I know your intentions about anything else.

  That your intentions are evil or stupid.

  That you are wrong.

  That using force to stop any kind of choice is always wrong.

  That using force to stop this particular choice is wrong.

  Nor did I say the opposite of any of those.

  You must bring forth your evidence to prove my guilt of your accusation.

  Why do that? I’m not wedded to the idea that you are “guilty” of anything, or even that the statement I made is one that would make you guilty of something if true.

  Quite simply: do you think abortion is a choice that women should be allowed to make?

  The Authorized King James Bible is pure. It is innocent. It is holy. It is authoritative. It is absolute truth.

  Gotta love argument by assertion. Every bit as convincing as when GE says “cretins like you are so evidently stupid and evil …”

• 60 LibertarianGirl // Dec 26, 2008 at 12:40 pm

  Men wrote the Bible
  Men are imperfect
  therefore the Bible is imperfect

• 61 1611biblethumper // Dec 26, 2008 at 12:43 pm

  You are right about arguments by assertions like GE. If I am so stupid, GE could easily outsmart me or prove the logic of my beliefs wrong.

  Does a woman have choice? I would think the man and the woman make the choice. I may or may not agree, but each has a freewill. I do believe the baby is a separate and living being within the womb of its mother. If the mother choose to have surgery to cut out her liver, she has the right to choose. Like I wrote earlier, there is much uncertainty involved with abortion. I don’t have all the answers, but the Bible clearly says the unborn is a baby and that baby has life.

  In this nation constitutionally that issue is to be decided by each state. If one state outlaws it, than a woman can travel to another state to fulfill her and the man’s wishes.

• 62 1611biblethumper // Dec 26, 2008 at 12:46 pm

  LiberterianGirl,

  If women wrote the Bible, would it be imperfect? Cannot God use imperfect men to create something perfect? God used an imperfect virgin to give life to His perfect Son.

  The King James Bible is innocent and pure UNLESS you prove it wrong.

• 63 LibertarianGirl // Dec 26, 2008 at 12:51 pm

  by men i meant people , i.e men and women

• 64 paulie cannoli // Dec 26, 2008 at 12:51 pm

  I don’t have all the answers

  OK, at least we agree on something. Neither do I. Nor am I inclined to believe any other person if they claim they do.

  My apologies if I misinterpreted what you wrote earlier to deduce you believe that it is sometimes acceptable to use force to stop people from making certain choices – which in the very next sentence I said I sometimes believe is, in fact, acceptable in certain cases, such as the choice to murder someone.

  Men wrote the Bible
  Men are imperfect
  therefore the Bible is imperfect

  However, some people believe it was divinely inspired.

  But, that does not mean they should be allowed to legislate based on that belief.

• 65 LibertarianGirl // Dec 26, 2008 at 12:52 pm

  anything that says it is the only right way to god is a lie.
  God is too big for one name or one religion

• 66 paulie cannoli // Dec 26, 2008 at 12:55 pm

  The King James Bible is innocent and pure UNLESS you prove it wrong.

  Are these books impure? Can you prove them wrong?

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels

  anything that says it is the only right way to god is a lie.
  God is too big for one name or one religion

  I tend to agree. But I can’t be sure.

• 67 1611biblethumper // Dec 26, 2008 at 1:02 pm

  Jesus Christ said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” If the LibertarianGirl wants to call the Lord Jesus Christ a liar, that’s her choice.

  The Apostle Peter said in Acts 4:10-12, “Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ…Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

  Biblical Christianity isn’t a religion as the world uses religion. Judaism is the ONLY religion found in the Bible. Biblical Christianity is a voluntary belief in the faith of Jesus Christ. I have already chosen to believe the Lord Jesus Christ.

• 68 LibertarianGirl // Dec 26, 2008 at 1:04 pm

  So your saying that good people , no matter how good their works on earth are going to hell if they dont believe that Jesus is their savior?

• 69 LibertarianGirl // Dec 26, 2008 at 1:06 pm

  I tend to like Jesus but his followers scare the shit outa me.
  more killing and evil has been perpetrated in the name of varios gods , jesus included .

• 70 1611biblethumper // Dec 26, 2008 at 1:11 pm

  Paulie,

  I looked at the information about the Gnostic Gospels. I have not read them; therefore, I cannot make a statement about them.

  I see that wikipedia uses the foolish notion that the Catholic church is considered to be the Christian church. The proponents of the Catholic church murdered true Christians during the Dark Ages. There has not been one Bible-believing Baptist that has even killed anyone over religion, that I am aware of.

  I must apologize, but I must leave the computer and mail a couple of perfect Bibles to Africa and North Carolina. It’s been fun. Thanks

• 71 G.E. // Dec 26, 2008 at 1:15 pm

  Life starts when I ask a girl out. If allowed to have my way enough times without protection, eventually she will get pregnant and have a kid.

  B.S. Lots of other interventions need to take place between that point and life.

• 72 G.E. // Dec 26, 2008 at 1:17 pm

  G.E., thanks for your kind remarks. Do you really believe that every case of sodomy is consenual?

  Do you believe that non-consensual instances of “sodomy” are somehow worse than vaginal rape? If not, then why not just say “rape”? Do you really just like dick-in-ass action so much that you have to conjure the imagery with your words?

  Do you have evidence that I am evil?

  By in any way equating in-utero butchery with the peaceful and nonviolent sexual choices of individuals, you give me such evidence.

• 73 1611biblethumper // Dec 26, 2008 at 1:20 pm

  LibertarianGirl,

  I must go, but I’ll quickly respond. I just quoted the Bible. I’ll quote it again about the good works of people. Ephesians 2:8-9 says, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

  You didn’t work to get born the first time, why would you work to get born the second time? Religion damns; Jesus Christ saves. Jesus Christ said, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3)

  I would encourage you to read the Gospel of John and find out for yourself. I know that most of the purported followers of Jesus Christ are a joke and hypocritical, but ignore them and go right to the Source. Don’t let the faults of others to keep you away from the truth or being open to the truth.

  Jesus Christ said, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” You can be free from the bondage of religion. There ain’t nothing better!! I have to go to the Post Office. It’s been fun.

• 74 paulie cannoli // Dec 26, 2008 at 1:31 pm

  I see that wikipedia uses the foolish notion that the Catholic church is considered to be the Christian church.

  The Catholic Church selected the books which are part of the Bible you consider perfect, and excluded others.

  
  I must apologize, but I must leave the computer

  No need to apologize. There is no time-commitment expectation implied in any way here.

  It’s been fun. Thanks

  I’m glad you enjoyed it. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

  B.S. Lots of other interventions need to take place between that point and life.

  You have made the assertion that a separate, rights bearing entity exists at implantation.

  Other people believe it does not become one until it can survive on its own, that is, not dependent on one particular person with no possible substitute.

  You also said that the choice was made when the woman decided to have sex, although it is not always a choice – there is such a thing as rape, coercion that is not quite fully rape, and even ignorance of how pregnancy happens.

  You also said What is the entity that WILL develop a heartbeat if left unmolested?

  You did not say that it has already developed one. If allowed to do what I want, and no one is allowed to stop me, eventually I will help create an entity that will develop a heartbeat, and you are correct that some time after that, it is likely to develop further to the stage of self-sufficiency.

  But that does not say anything about which of the many steps along that long journey it becomes a rights-bearing person.

• 75 G.E. // Dec 26, 2008 at 1:42 pm

  Other people believe it does not become one until it can survive on its own

  I accept the logic of this argument. I do not accept anything in between implantation and this.

  If allowed to do what I want, and no one is allowed to stop me, eventually I will help create an entity that will develop a heartbeat

  Again, this is a weak non-argument. You would need to either a) receive consent from another individual or b) initiate force. No such requirements are necessary for a implanted fetus to emerge as a human baby.

  Egg + sperm in a petry dish = nothing without further action.

  Fertilized egg implanted in uterine wall = a human being that can (and usually will) emerge from the womb as a baby.

  Your absurd arguments about asking a girl out, etc., trivialize this issue.

• 76 LibertarianGirl // Dec 26, 2008 at 1:51 pm

  Ive read the Bible , I know what it says , I choose not to believe.
  organized religion is evil ,period.

• 77 LibertarianGirl // Dec 26, 2008 at 1:52 pm

  but just in case Ive been baptized mormon , been saved as a baptist and had a generic christian baptism as well . all befor the age of 15.
  i should be covered:)

• 78 songster7 // Dec 26, 2008 at 1:56 pm

  two comments:

  1) any super-entity alleged to be omnipotent, omniscient and all-knowing … has no need to be bowed down to or worshipped; if it does, it is not any of the former, but merely a pathetic construct of its followers for their own gains.

  2) the key issue in deciding when HUMAN life begins is whether or not an entity so identified possesses at least the potential for human action; until said entity demonstrates some form of freewill, it could be said to be only a living being, not a human one! (My own take is, the “quickening” might be the real threshhold: before that first kick, you may terminate that life if you choose to.

  Of course the real issue is safe, 100% effective (and easily reversible) birth control, which would render about 99% of abortions academic (not “moot” – as many would put it). It is the fact that a woman cannot really know whether or not sex has resulted in conception, until weeks after the fact, that makes this discussion even relevant!

• 79 paulie cannoli // Dec 26, 2008 at 1:59 pm

  You would need to either a) receive consent from another individual or b) initiate force. No such requirements are necessary for a implanted fetus to emerge as a human baby.

  But that’s the point. Consent from another individual implies that we know when something becomes an individual of which we must seek consent. Otherwise, the would-be mother is not violating anyone’s rights by violating such non-consent, because there is no person with rights yet in existence, and anyone who tries to stop her is therefore violating her rights.

  If the standard you propose for making that determination is that a set of actions will proceed from Action A to the point where such a person exists, and that therefore the line where a person exists is moved back to Action A, what you make is a recursive loop argument, and no obvious indication of how far back such a line can or should be moved (that is, which of many actions is A), or why it can or should be moved at all.

• 80 paulie cannoli // Dec 26, 2008 at 2:01 pm

  but just in case Ive been baptized mormon , been saved as a baptist and had a generic christian baptism as well . all befor the age of 15.
  i should be covered:)

  No, you are damned until you are baptized by me into my own religion

• 81 G.E. // Dec 26, 2008 at 2:20 pm

  Paulie – I don’t accept or follow your logic. It is not difficult to determine what a human being is. You don’t need special equipment to do it. This is a silly argument.

• 82 G.E. // Dec 26, 2008 at 2:21 pm

  I think the origin of religion and the origin of the state are one in the same. The two institutions have only recently been split. The state has the upper hand now, so I’d say religion is the lesser of two evils.

• 83 paulie cannoli // Dec 26, 2008 at 2:26 pm

  I don’t accept or follow your logic. It is not difficult to determine what a human being is. You don’t need special equipment to do it. This is a silly argument.

  There is a great deal of disagreement on the issue, as we have already seen in this thread, and any number of other places. You yourself changed your view on it fairly recently. The only thing that has not changed is that both then and now you believe you are self-evidently correct. On the other hand, I’ve gone back and forth and/or been ambivalent about it for a long time, and don’t think it is an easy issue at all.

• 84 paulie cannoli // Dec 26, 2008 at 2:29 pm

  I think the origin of religion and the origin of the state are one in the same.
  

  How, why? I’m pretty sure religion predates the state.

  
  The two institutions have only recently been split.
  

  Not so – whereas atheist/agnostic states are relatively recent, non-state approved religions have been around as far back as I know of.

  
  The state has the upper hand now, so I’d say religion is the lesser of two evils.

  I guess that would depend on when and where.

• 85 G.E. // Dec 26, 2008 at 2:30 pm

  Not true. I did not change my view “fairly recently.” I’ve always viewed arbitrary designations to be absurd. I’ve always thought that the only points at which a line could be drawn were conception/implantation and birth. The only thing that I’ve changed my view of is switching from the birth side to the implantation side (and that was over a year ago now). Your pseudo-stancelends itself to authoritarianism — to “experts” determining when life begins (similar to how they define the mentally ill, etc.)

• 86 G.E. // Dec 26, 2008 at 2:34 pm

  Paul – I think the state began to emerge sometime after the development of agriculture, when human beings broke out of their tribal collectives and into family units, and began practicing commerce and the division of labor. Not all tribes evolved at the same time, and thus, warlike raider tribes would happen upon a civilized society, commit genocide, steal all of their accumulated capital and stores of food, and flee. Eventually, the warlike tribes would figure out that it was better to not kill everyone, but to merely steal from them, so they could do it again. And after that, eventually, tribal leaders began to have the bright idea of simply moving in and declaring themselves gods and kings. There were probably myths before this, but I think this is likely the way “religion” evolved — in tandem with the state. This is mostly a theory, but the strong evidence of it can be made by studying the history and origin of Hinduism.

• 87 paulie cannoli // Dec 26, 2008 at 2:34 pm

  I’ve always thought that the only points at which a line could be drawn were conception/implantation and birth.

  Why presume there has to be a line? Why not a gradient? After all, a human being is not born with all the rights of an adult, except in the view of a tiny minority of people. If there is such a thing as a human person before birth, maybe it becomes one over a period of time, acquiring more rights gradually.

  I’ve not claimed that any special expertise is needed. There are experts on varying sides of numerous issues, including this one; being an expert does not make someone correct.

• 88 G.E. // Dec 26, 2008 at 2:37 pm

  A “gradient” is absurd. Something is either a human being or it’s not.

• 89 paulie cannoli // Dec 26, 2008 at 2:37 pm

  @ 86

  There are pre-agricultural societies which either still exist or were discovered recently. They all had some form of religion.

  I’m pretty sure archeology confirms the same for pre-historic tribal societies as well.

• 90 paulie cannoli // Dec 26, 2008 at 2:38 pm

  A “gradient” is absurd. Something is either a human being or it’s not.

  That is not so self-evident to me. You can also say someone is either an adult or not, but that does not prove that this is so.

• 91 G.E. // Dec 26, 2008 at 2:44 pm

  There are pre-agricultural societies in which there are “governments” and “churches” and a separation between the two? Where?

• 92 paulie cannoli // Dec 26, 2008 at 2:49 pm

  There are pre-agricultural societies in which there are “governments” and “churches” and a separation between the two? Where?

  Where did I say that? I said they had religion, not churches. I did not say they had a state as we know it today, although they did have forms of government.

• 93 songster7 // Dec 26, 2008 at 2:54 pm

  One more way to put it: IN a sane society, conception of a child would be an “opt in” procedure: If one wished that a sexual connection involving coital intercourse should result in a new life … one could take such measures as to ensure this would happen. If one did not want this “side effect” to the shared pleasure to occur, one would be able to prevent it before the fact, instead of after!

  Until we focus on the causes, rather than dealing with the sympt0ms, of an issue … it remains as ineffective and messy as, say, the current “sickcare” situation …?

• 94 paulie cannoli // Dec 26, 2008 at 3:06 pm

  If one wished that a sexual connection involving coital intercourse should result in a new life … one could take such measures as to ensure this would happen.
  

  I don’t know what measure could possibly ensure it, unless there is some breakthrough in fertility technology.

  
  If one did not want this “side effect” to the shared pleasure to occur, one would be able to prevent it before the fact, instead of after!

  Well, that does exist, although it is not fail safe.

  Do you mean society is not sane because certain technologies are not yet developed to a given point, or that they are not yet that developed because society is insane?

• 95 ATM // Dec 26, 2008 at 3:48 pm

  As a more conservative libertarian and non-denominational Christian, I am always challenged by reading Laurence Vance’s columns at lewrockwell.com. Although I hold pro-life views, I am generally confused about the practical applications except to realize that a national abortion ban enforced by the FBI and other national police forces would be both unattainable and disastrous.

  Also, does anyone know anything about this “Christian Liberty Party”? Is it a real political party trying to run candidates for office or just a few people trying to spread their message through a website?

• 96 Trent Hill // Dec 27, 2008 at 5:09 pm

  “The Authorized King James Bible is pure because it has no proven errors within it.”

  Really? The KJV refers to “unicorns” 9 times. Do you believe unicorns existed?

• 97 JimDavidson // Dec 27, 2008 at 5:25 pm

  The AKJV also has many other mistakes.
  http://www.biblebelievers.com/white_dictionary/index.htm

  Among the more notable issues, a circular object is described having a circumference such that pi = 3. Yes, three exactly.

• 98 1611biblethumper // Dec 27, 2008 at 10:12 pm

  Trent,

  Your definition of a unicorn may be different than God’s. Since you haven’t seen an unicorn, doesn’t mean the being did not exist. You must prove that no such being ever existed.

  Jim,

  Have YOU found an error? Hearsay of another’s opinion isn’t evidence. The Book is innocent unless you prove it guilty beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt.

• 99 1611biblethumper // Dec 27, 2008 at 10:14 pm

  LibertarianGirl,

  Water baptism has nothing to do with salvation or eternal life. Salvation is a GIFT that you cannot earn or deserve.

• 100 songster7 // Dec 28, 2008 at 1:25 am

  re paulie 94

  >>If one wished that a sexual connection involving coital intercourse should result in a new life … one could take such measures as to ensure this would happen.

  >I don’t know what measure could possibly ensure it, unless there is some breakthrough in fertility technology.

  My point is, a sane society would be focused on this dual purpose (promoting choice, in either direction?), instead of on restricting voluntary behavior. That breakthru would be one part of the goal … for those who wanted to birth & raise children.

  >>If one did not want this “side effect” to the shared pleasure to occur, one would be able to prevent it before the fact, instead of after!

  > Well, that does exist, although it is not fail safe.

  correct … in that sane society, that would be one intention of the research … to make it failsafe.

  >> Do you mean society is not sane because certain technologies are not yet developed to a given point, or that they are not yet that developed because society is insane?

  the latter, I suspect … that tech is not aiming for those goals (instead of just making the peckers of overstressed and aging men artificially hard, despite some of the worst side-effects of any Pharma concoction?) is the real tragedy here.

• 101 Trent Hill // Dec 28, 2008 at 2:31 am

  “Trent,

  Your definition of a unicorn may be different than God’s. Since you haven’t seen an unicorn, doesn’t mean the being did not exist. You must prove that no such being ever existed.”

  The word was “bull”. They translated it wrong–as unicorn.

• 102 paulie cannoli // Dec 28, 2008 at 12:27 pm

  pi=3. lol, I forgot that one.

• 103 tomdesabla // Dec 29, 2008 at 12:33 am

  Hi guys!

  Um, the Pope really IS a statist.

  And an idiot too.

  As to the Bible, it has been used for good and for ill purposes hasn’t it? It is no more pure than anything else. What counts is how it is interpreted. There are many interpretation debates – for example many religious people defend their submission to the state by quoting Mark 12:17/Matthew 22:21

  “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s”

  They say that this means that Jesus said to submit to the state. Some Christian libertarians have disputed this interpretation, saying that that the passage raises the question of who decides what belongs to who – God or Caesar.

  The point is that true Christians cannot serve two masters or two Gods. Government cannot be allowed to become a substitute for God.

  I think that Ron Paul understands that the real battle between good and evil is the battle between the human urge to dominate and control others (statism) and the equally natural human urge to be free of that control.

  Abortion, unfortunately, is about controlling another. The other is a helpless baby that we bring into existence through our own actions, and then extinguish before it becomes an obligation on us. The whole thing is about control, but it isn’t just control over our own body – it’s control over another human life – period.

  So, actually, though I myself have been responsible for several deaths in this manner, I must admit that abortion is a statist act, and in the end, the pro-life arguments always win. After all, it’s going to be a baby, and it will never turn into anything else, therefore, essentially, the minute it exists, it IS a baby, which means it’s a human life, which we have no automatic, innate right to kill at our whim.

  I can kill somebody for various reasons and maybe not deserve to go to jail, but we certainly cannot say that I have an absolute “right to choose” to kill somebody.

  Anybody is somebody.

  The true libertarian position, I have been forced to conclude, is that there is no blanket, all-encompassing individual right to abort a baby. I agree with Ron Paul, as I do on so many things, that the issue certainly does not belong at the federal level in any way, shape or form.

• 104 paulie cannoli // Dec 29, 2008 at 12:36 am

  As to the Bible, it has been used for good and for ill purposes hasn’t it? It is no more pure than anything else. What counts is how it is interpreted.

  I agree.

  “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s”

  They say that this means that Jesus said to submit to the state. Some Christian libertarians have disputed this interpretation, saying that that the passage raises the question of who decides what belongs to who – God or Caesar.

  Since nothing is rightfully Ceasar’s, this is a clever way of saying give Ceasar nothing – without getting in trouble for saying it.

• 105 libertyforone // Dec 29, 2008 at 4:41 am

  For one thing, I find it very sad that people call each other trolls on libertarian websites. If that really was Angela Wittman commenting on Paulie’s ad hominem attack against LJ, then I am not a fan. She has shown that she belongs in high school along with Mr. Cannoli.

  That said, I don’t know why people don’t know the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment provides legal protection from the states doing anything to stop abortion. The courts just aren’t smart enough to realize that. But you all should be. (And the Constitution of the U.S. trumps the states. e.g. you cannot have slavery in one state because it is against the U.S. Constitution). Until the fetus has a way of surviving outside of the female, it is a parasite and has no rights at all. Once the thing is born the woman has the right to give it away and never look back, so why do you tie her hands while it is still in her?

  Besides the moral issue, which I find so fascinating how all these people who pretend to be for liberty are for the destruction of liberty for half of society, but beyond that…

  LJ is right. It is an economic issue. It will be and was just like the war on drugs. Abortions happened when they were illegal. Women died from them, were made sterile by them, got sick from them, and many children died during childbirth trying to hide it from their parents.

  The rich had the liberties and the rights and the poor didn’t. Is that what you all want? Because that is what will happen. Poor women will be totally out of luck and susceptible to being controlled by any man who wants to and rich women will just leave the country.

  You are going to have to ban birth control too, because that kills unborn zygotes too. Then you are going to have to put monitors on women who get pregnant to make sure they are not doing their unborn children harm by eating poorly, being in unventilated rooms, or taking the wrong medication – even if doctor prescribed. After all, we have child protective services for after the things are born, why not have another lovely government agency for before they are born – they are children too, right?

  Any pregnant woman who has a drink – 4 years in prison. A cigarette – 10 years. Doesn’t take her prenatal vitamins – 5 years. Doesn’t eat right – hard to say, we will have to work on that one. Gains too much weight… gains too little weight…works out too much… doesn’t get enough exercise…was drunk when the kid was conceived…continued to drink for months until she knew she was pregnant…drove too fast…didn’t put a mat down in her bathtub to prevent slipping… we can go on and on and on. How far do the Nazi brigade want to take this? Because if a fetus is a kid, then you have opened up a whole huge can of worms and all of them lead to fewer liberties for women only.

  You will have to put every women who has a miscarriage on trial for murder. Was it really a miscarriage?…

  You will have to have women submit to pregnancy tests on a monthly basis – we don’t want any of those murderers slipping through the cracks.

  In fact, why not just imprison all women right now and only let them out so they can reproduce more and cook and possibly bring in an income that will stop as soon as she gets pregnant.

  Libertarians… With friends like these….

  Please, all you anti women’s rights people call yourselves anything but a libertarian. There are not that many words that mean lover of liberty. You have your pick of the dictionary. Find another word that means what you stand for.

• 106 G.E. // Dec 29, 2008 at 9:54 am

  Until the fetus has a way of surviving outside of the female, it is a parasite and has no rights at all.

  So it becomes a non-parasite with rights as soon as it’s out of the womb? It can’t survive on its own… Is it okay for a woman to birth a baby and leave it in a dumpster or bathroom stall?

  Once the thing is born the woman has the right to give it away and never look back, so why do you tie her hands while it is still in her?

  Giving the baby away to a family that can better take care of it is a lot different from scraping it out of her womb and throwing it in the trash.

• 107 paulie cannoli // Dec 29, 2008 at 12:14 pm

  For one thing, I find it very sad that people call each other trolls on libertarian websites. If that really was Angela Wittman commenting on Paulie’s ad hominem attack against LJ, then I am not a fan. She has shown that she belongs in high school along with Mr. Cannoli.

  Accurately pointing out a troll attack isn’t ad hominem, it’s simple courtesy to those who haven’t been around long enough to know better than to fall into the troll’s trap. I’m no more Mr. Cannoli than Mr. Dumpty or Mr. Leghorn. And thank you for your opinion of my level of education and maturity, but I’m afraid even my kids don’t belong in high school anymore.

  Besides that, you and GE both have a point, for the remainder of 105 and 106. Balancing these concerns is no easy task.

  See comment 14 for my thoughts on this.

  Or if you don’t feel like scrolling up, here it is again:

  I would agree that the federal government certainly ought not be involved. Likewise, I would agree that the legal reasoning employed by the court in Roe v. Wade is far removed from any reasonable attempt to interpret the constitution, but is a rather transparent attempt to make it fit what the court considers desirable social policy. This appears to me to be a bad general principle to apply, and renders the constitution of little or no use in limiting government at any level in any way. On the other hand, the whole notion of limiting government seems to me to be akin to limiting an aggressive cancer or infectious plague.

  Getting back to the idea of persuasion versus force, we live in a society which is divided on the question of whether abortion is murder or not. Given that any regime law which is widely disagreed with by a large portion of the population can be effectively nullified by black markets, police and judges willing to look the other way, and jury nullification, I would posit that persuading an overwhelming majority that abortion is indeed murder should be more important to pro-life advocates than passing new laws against it, even at the local level.

  Given that some citizens who seek justice, and fail to receive it from the government after many attempts, eventually tend to take the law into their own hands, it likewise seems to me that those who believe that abortion should be a legitimately permitted choice would be best served by persuading others of their case, rather than turning to government for protection.

  I honestly don’t know what solution free minds and free markets would find for this great social dilemma. Artificial wombs, perhaps – freeing unwilling women from having to carry pregnancies to term, while permitting the developing baby to live. But I have faith that whatever solution we find will be better than whatever we can achieve through the coercive force of the regime – a very blunt instrument of force that destroys much in its path and environs, and sends ripples of destructiveness throughout society every time it is deployed.

• 108 tomdesabla // Dec 29, 2008 at 12:29 pm

  As evidence for my claim that the pro-life arguments are usually stronger.

  Exhibit 1 – libertyforone said this: “Once the thing is born the woman has the right to give it away and never look back, so why do you tie her hands while it is still in her?”

  ***

  Excuse me? “The thing”? Right there that’s really weird, to call a human being “a thing.”
  Obviously this is done to lower the baby’s status to some “thing” or “parasite” that it’s ok to kill.

  Further, as GE says, giving a baby away to another family is nothing at all like killing it.

  Besides, I disagree with the idea that having a baby and giving it away is something that is completely acceptable and is a “right” that women have.

  No, it’s something that society has come to allow in this day and age; however, it used to be a sign of weakness, immaturity, and immorality. Women were shunned and disrespected for doing it, just as beggars were shunned and disrespected.

  I think our society was stronger, more unified, and more productive back then.

• 109 Trent Hill // Dec 29, 2008 at 1:18 pm

  “I think our society was stronger, more unified, and more productive back then.”

  Id argue that on MANY points. American society “back then” was quite insecure, what with the oppression of Irishmen, blacks, jews, etc.
  However, I agree that beyond all laws, society should frown upon a woman freely giving away her baby–but it certainly is better than killing it.

• 110 paulie cannoli // Dec 29, 2008 at 1:49 pm

  American society was very oppressive towards women then. They could be beaten and raped by their husbands with very little recourse, and divorce or even separation was not easy. The same often applied to underage girls and their fathers.

  In the case of rape by strangers, the presumption of guilt was generally on the woman, unless her attacker was of lower social standing in terms of race or class.

  They did not have full legal standing in business of politics in most cases.

  Of course, anyone who was gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender was treated horribly, as were sex workers (who still are being treated horridly now, due to badly outdated laws against prostitution).

  As Trent notes, racism was also prevalent.

  That isn’t to say that all our social changes have been for the better, but glorifying the past seems ill-considered from my perspective.

• 111 libertyforone // Dec 29, 2008 at 3:41 pm

  Cannoli,
  I did not see your comment on government. I did agree with most of what you said. I still think calling people trolls is a sad way of dealing with people with whom you disagree. Besides, his reasoning was beyond reproach and you seem to agree with it for the most part.

  I think you can try to get women to agree that abortion is murder, but I don’t think that most women who are pro choice will agree with you.

  Mostly because of the arguments I laid out above. Once a few cells growing together are defined as a human being, society has a right to protect that being at the cost of the host. Once you get into that territory all freedom has been lost for women.

  As Cannoli writes, for years women have been oppressed by men sexually and every other way possible. It still goes on today on a wide scale.

  If you tell all those women that if they are raped they will then have to suffer a life threatening situation, have their figures misshapen for life and have a stigma and trauma that will last a lifetime on top of it, they would tell you that you are beyond evil.

  Try telling an 11 year old that she must carry that child. Try telling your daughter that the murderous scum who raped her repeatedly for hours, tore her to shreds, broke her pelvis, and cut her up with a knife that now she is going to have to bear that man’s child.

  I am telling you, this is not easy.

  What do you do with the 9 year old I know that was raped by her father and got pregnant? Force her to have that child? Bearing a child is life threatening. Should she have to undergo that as well?

  Many women take the pill as birth control. The pill tricks the body into thinking it is already pregnant. If a sperm does get in and fertilize an egg, that egg is expelled. Now, according to most of you, that would be murder. Since I am sure that many of you men have slept with women who are on the pill, don’t you bear the responsibility for the death of that child?

  Perhaps you should all decide that you will never sleep with a women who takes the pill. Or has an IUD. In fact, miscarriages happen all the time to women, is that murder as well? If so, then men bear half the responsibility for that as well.

  But from a libertarian standpoint, the things you would have to do to women to protect that fetus are so beyond the pale, so extreme, so anti-liberty that any advocate of banning abortions is actually for the subjugation of women.

  Think about it. I scroll up and read some of my examples. They were meant seriously.

  Forget your gut, and think about how much control you are willing and wanting to have over women.

  Any man who wanted to completely control a woman would only have to kidnap her and rape her over and over and over until she was pregnant. At that point he could turn her over to the cops and they would prevent her from having an abortion because it would be murder.

  The cops would then have to follow up on her to make sure she was still pregnant. If she had a miscarriage, she would have to prove it was natural and not due to anything she did (something that no woman can ever do because we just don’t know enough about why miscarriages happen) and then she would have to go on trial for murder and try to prove a negative.

  Seriously, think about the implications and the incredible loss of control for all women. They would live in constant terror. All sex would become a possibility for the state to control her life. Even married, sex would be a terror, not a pleasure assuming she is not ready for children.

  For centuries, men used sex to control women. It worked well. Do you really want to go back to the dark ages?

  Should sex be a matter of control by a man over a woman? Is that what you are advocating? That men should be able to destroy a woman’s life? Destroy her career? Put her in a medical situation that can kill her?

  How much liberty do you want to take away from women? Forget the discussion about whether or not the fetus is a baby. Just discuss how much liberty women should lose with the decision that a few cells are a human being.

  Most rape victims are given an AIDS test and the morning after pill. That pill often kills what would turn into a baby. Are you going to stop that practice too?

  How much trauma are you willing to force on women? How much pain?

• 112 paulie cannoli // Dec 29, 2008 at 3:52 pm

  I still think calling people trolls is a sad way of dealing with people with whom you disagree.

  Calling someone a troll isn’t based on agreement or disagreement with their views. It’s based on behavior. I don’t know how many of the threads here you read, but LJ is a troll. Comments like “101, dum-dum,” calling me a “crypto-socialist,” and saying “The vatican should be nuked.” – that’s mild compared to some of his nonsense, which is constant over many, many threads here.

  I haven’t labeled people as trolls indiscriminately. Thus far, only one out of hundreds of people that have posted here – and I have read almost all of the 32,000 plus comments that have been left at IPR since May 20. Of those, there have been many with whom I disagree with on far more issues.

  So, again, it’s based on behavior, not beliefs.

• 113 libertyforone // Dec 29, 2008 at 4:05 pm

  Ok, whatever.

  But what about the libertarian arguments above? Why is no one willing to discuss them?

  I bet a lot of libertarians also wanted a strong police force against the use of drugs once and now we have a drug war that is out of control.

  Before you advocate a position, think it out.

  So, again, I ask you, how much force are you willing to use against women? And are you willing to give the government, any government, state or federal, the right to decide how much force they will use. Because once you get them to decide that a fetus is a human being, you have no say in what laws they pass. It is out of your hands.

  I am trying to point out what the future holds if you continue to try to force your views on all that abortion is murder.

  Are you willing to agree to all of that? Are you willing to traumatize women to that degree? Are you willing to control women to that degree? Are you willing to turn sex into a life threatening act for women? Are you willing to further inflict trauma and pain on rape victims?

  This is a libertarian forum, so let’s discuss libertarian ideals on this matter.

• 114 paulie cannoli // Dec 29, 2008 at 4:14 pm

  But what about the libertarian arguments above? Why is no one willing to discuss them?

  Well, for starters, this is a pretty old thread. I’m posting 10-15 new articles every day, and this one is from several days ago. Also, you just added your most recent comment a few minutes ago, and several people in addition to me responded to your previous post.

  And are you willing to give the government, any government, state or federal, the right to decide how much force they will use.

  If by government, you mean coercive territorial monopoly regime, the answer is none, since I do not want it to exist at all. While it still exists, I want it to be as small and powerless as possible. That does not mean that the problems people want government to solve are not real, just that government is not the best way to solve them.

  This is a libertarian forum,

  No, it is not. It is a forum for Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists, Socialists, Nationalists, and everyone else who participates in alternative party and independent politics.

• 115 libertyforone // Dec 29, 2008 at 4:31 pm

  Wow, you are really good at avoiding the issue at all costs and then finding one tiny error to jump on. It makes your arguments look weak and frightened.

  I was not speaking to you directly Mr. Paulie, I was speaking to all who read this. I read this article yesterday when it appeared on my google page. That is when I responded to it. I would guess that perhaps others read it as well and had time to respond to my comments. They have not.

  The people who responded to my post, ignored all of the arguments about a woman’s freedom and liberty and instead picked out a sentence or two to spout more controlling ideology about pro-life issues. They jump on the concept of giving a baby away and ignore the social control issues that their positions would create.

  It is frustrating.

  Instead of discussing politics and the ramifications of forcing a female to undergo a pregnancy, all I get is people shouting about how a fetus is a human. I know that is their position on pregnancy. But what is their position on the political ramifications of having laws that force women to have children they don’t want?

• 116 paulie cannoli // Dec 29, 2008 at 4:37 pm

  But what is their position on the political ramifications of having laws that force women to have children they don’t want?

  I provided my answer twice, in comments 14 and 107. GE has provided his. So did tomdesalba. Maybe more people will be along later to share their views, maybe not.

  But, while I am here, I may as well ask you a question. It’s only a question, and I don’t presume anything more by it than what it says, even if you think I do:

  You say, “political ramifications of having laws that force women to have children they don’t want.” Suppose we have a woman who, for whatever reason, is in a position where she has a born child she does not want, and no one to take the child off her hands – say for example, she is lost in the woods, or lives in a country where there are far more children than parents who want them.

  Should she have the right to kill or abandon her child regardless of the child’s age?

• 117 G.E. // Dec 29, 2008 at 4:40 pm

  As Cannoli writes, for years women have been oppressed by men sexually and every other way possible. It still goes on today on a wide scale.

  Yes, and legalized abortion is part of that sexual exploitation. See what Susan B. Anthony had to say on the subject.

  The “rape” card is mostly B.S. Very few pregnancies arise from rape. Secondly, a rape kit can ensure no pregnancy takes place without aborting an implanted fetus. Thirdly, in the rare case in which a woman is raped and prevented from accessing a rape kit (i.e., kept in a sex dungeon, etc.), then access to abortion may be warranted. That’s 0.000000001% of all abortions. The number of abortions that are to “save the life of the mother” are even lower; more like 0.0%.

  No one wants to “force” women to have children they don’t want. They are free not to have sex.

• 118 G.E. // Dec 29, 2008 at 4:42 pm

  Only socialists consider “political ramifications.” Libertarians only consider what’s right and what’s wrong. The initiation of force against human life IS WRONG. “Liberty” for one would weigh the “political ramifications” for abolishing slavery, too. Just like abortion, slavery was an evil ingrained in the sick American culture. To hell with “political ramifications,” but truth be known, the “ramifications” would be a lower birth rate, greater respect for women and the family, and greater respect for life.

• 119 libertyforone // Dec 29, 2008 at 5:45 pm

  G.E. Your comments have not addressed my issues about the use of force you are willing to use on women.

  Ok, so forget about rape. What about the woman who gets pregnant and didn’t want to. Again, if abortion is murder then the state, either the feds or the state, will have the right to decide what she can do with her body while she is pregnant.

  That includes nutrition, medication, use of tobacco or alcohol or other drugs, the amount of calories she consumes, the amount of risk she puts her body through (bungee jumping? motorcycle riding, etc?) etc. etc. etc.

  All you need to do is look back in history. We already have gone through prohibition with alcohol and prohibition with abortions. Neither produced this paradise you describe.

  Why do you dismiss the political ramifications so quickly? The government has a great deal of power over you. It is important to decide how much more power you are willing to give them.

  Again, for a woman who does not want a child, how much pain are you willing to force on her?

  And why do so many say that it is a woman’s job to keep her legs closed? No sex for women, huh? Nice of you. But I never hear that men should stop having sex with women they don’t want to bear a child with. Again, this is a very one sided argument where the men get all the power and women have none.

  A woman has to close her legs, but a man can go at it as much as he wants. So much for equality. It takes two to make a baby and yet, all arguments seem to fall on the side of the woman making all of the concessions. Is that right? Is that fair?

  So, you are advocating that women be terrified of sex, but men can have as much as they like. Since you are not considered really married until you have sex, a woman cannot get married until she is willing to undergo a procedure that could get her pregnant.

  Do you see where this leads? To women, sex becomes a terrifying life changing act. To men, it is pure pleasure and they have nothing to fear. Women become objects that are not worth anything in and of themselves. They are simply vessels for another human. Once pregnant they are subjected to scrutiny, and possible incarceration if the fetus dies.

  This does not lead to greater respect for women, it leads to less.

  Look at your history. Read Betty Friedan. Learn about how women were subjugated until the pill came along. How being able to have sex without getting pregnant freed women to be able to have careers and make choices about their lives.

  Finally, you are simply wrong about how a rape kit works. All the kit does is collect evidence. It does nothing to prevent a pregnancy. They give women pills to prevent a pregnancy that may have started and in doing so possibly kill a growing fetus. Under your views that is murder.

  Moreover, you cannot ignore the rape issue just because you don’t like it. Either all unborn children are fully human or they are not.

  Most pro lifers do their best to ignore the rape issue because it is such a glaring example of the amount of force you would have to use against a woman and they are not comfortable with that.

  Well, raped or not, an unwanted pregnancy is hell for a woman and forcing her to keep it will cause incredible pain and trauma against women. It will change the way they see sex. It will make them afraid of sex and men. It will help to make them more meek and submissive. They will not thrive as humans. They will be stunted. They will be shunned. They will be shamed.

  That is not liberty. That is not freedom. That is not right.

  You can pretend none of that will happen, but it will and did.

  No woman wants to get an abortion. All abortions happen because a woman got pregnant who did not want to.

  Right now there are teenagers who got pregnant who did not want to and who do horrible things to their bodies to get rid of the fetus because they are terrified of their parents finding out. That is fact.

  Now, imagine that a fetus is a human and abortion is murder. That means that the woman and doctor could go to jail for life. That also means that the state would have the right to follow the woman and force all kinds of things on her. That is slavery in my eyes.

  Now imagine you are a woman who really wants a baby. You try and try and get pregnant. Then you have a miscarriage. You are devastated. You have just lost your child and you are heartbroken. But here comes the state to determine if you committed murder and here comes your arrest, your incarceration, and then your trial. You may not be able to make bail (bail is high in a murder trial) and you may sit in jail for months or longer while your defense is mounted (if you can afford one, otherwise you are stuck with an underpaid public defender). You lose your job, your other children at home are sent to foster care and you lose your home and your life savings. If you are lucky, you will be able to prove that the miscarriage was not your fault, if not, well, you go to jail for life.

  These are the political ramifications that you don’t want to deal with. But when you hold a political ideal, you must think it through. Now, it is fine if you want to live your life that way, but when you decide that you want to force others to live that way, then you must think it through.

  Force is force. Libertarians are against force. We are for liberty and freedom. I see your side of it. I understand that you think you are saving humans. But you disregard the fully human host and the cost to her. That is the main problem with your arguments.

• 120 hogarth // Dec 29, 2008 at 6:55 pm

  Look at your history. Read Betty Friedan. Learn about how women were subjugated until the pill came along. How being able to have sex without getting pregnant freed women to be able to have careers and make choices about their lives.

  Pfui (somewhat). Women had choices before – just different ones. Marriage/sex or career? Of course, there were important (and not necessarily all bad) social constraints on those choices, but they were there.

  Also, a women can (setting aside the emotional/biochemical aspect) abandon a baby as easily as a man can. The fact that (possibly) fewer *did* speaks well about those social constraints, and /or about women as parents.

  The pill gave women more choices – it did NOT free them from ’subjugation’, unless it was their personal acceptance that child abandonment was wrong.

  The Pill wasn’t without negative consequences, though, if you want to get squishy and women’s-studies about it. A woman who simply wants to settle down and raise children and make *that* her career is pretty well belittled (or at best, patronized) by today’s society.

  Few material changes are unmitigated blessings. Consider the introduction and widespread distribution of the washing machine. Liberating women from washday drudgery? Sure, but then standards quickly adapted and weekly washing-chores became the drudgery of the daily laundering of every article of once-worn clothing. A wash, at best, except that it made poor people more conspicuous still against the middle-class.

  None of this means I’m anti-Pill, or anti-washing-machine for that matter (dryers are another matter:) – it just means that while I accept that ready access to woman-controlled birth control was a revolution for women, and on the whole probably a positive one, it hasn’t come without its own price.

• 121 G.E. // Dec 29, 2008 at 7:24 pm

  Your comments have not addressed my issues about the use of force you are willing to use on women.

  I’m not willing to use any force against women (or men, for that matter; or anyone in between).

  Ok, so forget about rape. What about the woman who gets pregnant and didn’t want to.

  She should have known the potential consequences of her voluntary actions and been ready to deal with them. Making a mistake does not confer the “right” to murder the consequences.

  Again, if abortion is murder then the state, either the feds or the state, will have the right to decide what she can do with her body while she is pregnant.

  Not so at all. I don’t endorse the state’s monopoly in any sphere, but I certainly would not endorse the regulations you speak of (nor do I think they’re “inevitable” within a society wherein fetal murder is criminalized). I reject the state. In order for their to be charges, there needs to be a victim, or someone seeking restitution on behalf of a victim. If the kind of cases you’re talking about could be won at the trial level, then so be it. I don’t think an aristocratic elite of legislators is preferable to a jury of peers when it comes to determining justice. Do you?

  We already have gone through prohibition with alcohol and prohibition with abortions.

  Consuming alcohol does not initiate force against another person. Ripping their limbs off within the womb or sucking their brains out DOES initiate force. Your sicko socialist consequentialist logic is NOT libertarian. Libertarians care about one thing and one thing only: rejecting officially sanctioned violence.

  It will change the way they see sex.

  Although this is irrelevant to the moral fact that fetal murder is wrong, I say GOOD.

  To women, sex becomes a terrifying life changing act.

  That’s precisely what it is. You want state intervention to countervail nature’s reality.

  It will make them afraid of sex and men. It will help to make them more meek and submissive. They will not thrive as humans. They will be stunted. They will be shunned. They will be shamed.

  Biggest load of bullshit I’ve ever read here.

  Why should losing the “right” to murder infants make women more “afraid” of men? You are a sick bastard/skank (whichever) who views women as nothing but walking vaginas. That is the result of legalized and officially condoned fetal murder — IT is what stunts and makes women less than fully human.

  All abortions happen because a woman got pregnant who did not want to.

  Not even close to true. Many abortions are the result of men FORCING women to have them.

  But here comes the state to determine if you committed murder and here comes your arrest, your incarceration, and then your trial.

  More bullshit. I reject the state. The state has no role to play in this.

  Force is force. Libertarians are against force.

  Yes, and this is why you’re not a libertarian.

• 122 G.E. // Dec 29, 2008 at 7:25 pm

  Oh, and I like how the guy cites Marxist Betty Friedan… VERY libertarian!

• 123 G.E. // Dec 29, 2008 at 7:28 pm

  The Pill does not initiate force against a human being. Nor does the Morning After Pill. (Some people think they do because they think life begins at conception, but I’ve stated my reasons for seeing it as beginning at implantation). The latter is nearly foolproof in preventing unwanted pregnacies, even with the rampant and dehumanizing promiscuity that “liberty”forone endorses.. And yet he/she STILL demands the “right” of fetal murder on the basis of utilitarianism!!!

• 124 paulie cannoli // Dec 29, 2008 at 7:33 pm

  Both sides are not looking at the issue of enforcement.

  Let’s just take juries for example.

  So long as any significant percentage of the population disagrees with the idea that abortion is murder, nor woman and no abortionist will be convicted of murder for abortion.

  So long as any significant percentage of the population agrees with the idea that abortion is murder, they will presumably not convict someone who takes the law into their own hands to stop it. That is, if they really believe it is murder.

  And juries are not the only element to consider here – police, judges, prosecutors can all nullify laws they see as unjust in their own ways.

  The battleground should be on the field of persuasion. The law should be the last thing to change, if at all, and only as an afterthought.

• 125 G.E. // Dec 29, 2008 at 7:35 pm

  Paul – That is the same thing as saying slavery should not have been abolished by law until overwhelming majorities favored abolition. There are people being murdered right now. Should Nazi Germany have not stopped murdering Jews until a majority of the populace agreed that it was wrong?

• 126 FreedBirdy // Dec 29, 2008 at 7:43 pm

  “G.E. // Dec 26, 2008 at 2:20 pm
  Paulie – I don’t accept or follow your logic. It is not difficult to determine what a human being is. You don’t need special equipment to do it. This is a silly argument.”

  Really? Try these . . . answers later
  http://www.flickr.com/photos/33800264@N02/show/

• 127 paulie cannoli // Dec 29, 2008 at 7:43 pm

  As a matter of fact, I do think both of those problems had non-regime solutions. Slavery was upheld by the fugitive slave laws; without them, it would quickly have ended.

  Anti-slavery advocates should have pushed regime non-recognition of property in slaves, armed slaves for rebellion – there were any number of ways to end slavery. Moral opponents of slavery could organize boycotts of products of slave labor, for example.

  Nazism was, of course, the result of many actions by the regimes of other nations. Opponents of nazism should have armed Jews and other victims of nazism, so they could have carried out more actions like the Warsaw Ghetto uprising.

  In neither case do I think the federal government coming in to ’solve’ the problem in one case, and the international community in the the other (in the case of most death camps, Soviet forces), was the optimal way to solve it.

• 128 hogarth // Dec 29, 2008 at 7:43 pm

  Oh, and I like how the guy cites Marxist Betty Friedan…

  Don’t be so close-minded. I’ve been reading A. Solzenitzen lately, and finding much that is valuable and freedom-loving in his writing, but he also was what you would call a ‘marxist’.

• 129 libertyforone // Jan 1, 2009 at 4:17 pm

  I am confused. You all seem to want to define a fetus as a human. If so, you need legislation for that. If you want to define it for yourself, then go right ahead. But this website is the independent political report and hence implies that you are seeking political action for your ideals.

  At the same time, many of you say that you want a fetus defined as a human, but you don’t want the state to interfere.

  Well, define the issue however you want.

  But, if you want legislation to define a fetus as a human, then you lose all control over how the government then takes action over the issue.

  For heavens sake, the ecologist socialists have gotten Congress to ban incandescent light bulbs, and force all people to use those awful curly fluorescent light bulbs that cost 300% more and cause migraines and will emit a mercury cloud if they break, like they are more likely to do than the other kind.

  So, if Congress is going to do that kind of incredibly stupid thing, what do you think they will do if a fetus is defined as a human.

  I agree with Pauli. If you want to persuade people of your ideas, then do so, but don’t seek political solutions to the issue. Once you do, you will see laws that will make your skin crawl.

  And to G.E., nice to know that you care so much about women that you actually WANT sex to be a life changing terrifying act.

  And you say you are not for subjugating women? Where are your laws that make sex a life changing terrifying act for men? Or am I being foolish? Women should be terrified and men should not? Women should be subjugated.

  When women are terrified of sex, then they are also terrified of men because men can cause women to have sex any time they want. (The man may be morally against it, but he still has the capability.) That changes the whole dynamic between men and women.

  Just look back a few decades. Women were stuck in marriages they hated because they had no work skills. Women had abortions anyway and suffered death and/or terrible side effects and incredible pain.

  You can try to force women to act the way you want, but they will not. If they want an abortion they will have one. The only question is how safe it is for the female. But you don’t seem to care about the health of the female. They don’t seem to be 100% human to you. They are less than men.

  If you want to stop unwanted pregnancies, then force all men to have reversible vasectomies, and or to take some kind of pill that kills their sperm and/or make it felony to get a woman pregnant unless she says she agreed to that conclusion.

  That would protect any unborn from being born and would put the onus on the men. But, is that what you want? I doubt it. If not, then you really don’t care about the fetuses that get created, you just want to subjugate women (as it seems you have already implied.)

  This is why this whole discussion is so absurd. When it gets right down to it, the issue is not about unborn humans, but about women’s right to exist equally in this society. It is mostly a misogynistic viewpoint designed to weaken the power of women and to have more force over them.

  I don’t like using force against other humans.

• 130 paulie cannoli // Jan 1, 2009 at 5:02 pm

  At the same time, many of you say that you want a fetus defined as a human, but you don’t want the state to interfere.

  I haven’t said whether I want to define a fetus as human or not. What I have said is that I would like for the state (regime) to be aborted and thrown out with the trash.

• 131 paulie cannoli // Jan 1, 2009 at 5:04 pm

  I agree with Pauli.

  pauli+E

  Not that complicated, folks…LOL

  

• 132 G.E. // Jan 1, 2009 at 5:39 pm

  You all seem to want to define a fetus as a human. If so, you need legislation for that.

  You are a such a pathetic statist. Do we need legislation to define when the sun comes up in the morning? Your logic and argumentation skills are laughably lame.

  But this website is the independent political report and hence implies that you are seeking political action for your ideals.

  More statism. “Political action,” as you’re using it, is violence. As the founder of this site, I did not intend for it to be solely a place for Nazis like yourself to debate how best to use state violence in order to achieve the amoral utilitarian results you desire. Your brain is so rotted by brown-shirt statism that you can’t understand that “political action” can also mean de-statification, idiot. I advocate removing the state’s monopolization of legislative, judicial, and executive services as they apply to abortion and everything else. This is what’s known as “libertarianism” — you ought to look it up. Put down the Betty Friedan, you pinko scumbag.

  you actually WANT sex to be a life changing terrifying act.

  I don’t “want” it to be anything. Sex IS and has always been a “life changing” and “terrifying” act. You’re trying to socially engineer a society wherein it’s “no big deal” and you want to use state violence to achieve your perverted, anti-woman ends.

  Where are your laws that make sex a life changing terrifying act for men?

  I don’t want to “make” anything anything. But I also don’t want to use your Marxist social engineering state violence to undo the biological differences between men and women. Here’s a politically incorrect fact: men have always viewed sex differently than women — just as males and females of other species are different, too. Men have the biological imperative to spread their genetic material, and women, as the ones who carry babies, are naturally more selective with their sex partners. These are biological facts that you’re trying to undo by use of state violence and sanctioned violence against a weak subset of the population (i.e., unborn babies).

  As a communist, I know it’s hard for you to understand this, but my imperative is LIBERTY, not some other end (i.e., making the consequences of sex “equal” between men and women). However, I support castration for rapists and this could have the effect (though I don’t really care) of making promiscuous sex equally “terrifying” for men.

  I couldn’t stand reading the rest of your pinko diatribe, so I’m stopping here. You are not a libertarian.

• 133 Steven Druckenmiller // Jan 1, 2009 at 6:39 pm

  G.E. demonstrates his commitment to intellectual, reasoned debate by acting like a name-calling little child.

• 134 libertyforone // Jan 2, 2009 at 6:50 pm

  G.E.,

  I am the one who doesn’t want the state to interfere in this matter in any way shape or form.

  I want all women to be free of state action when it comes to their bodies. I don’t want any state, local or federal to have a say in any of it. I think that is their right under the U.S. Constitution, under the Ninth Amendment. (As mentioned previously.)

  That makes me the opposite of a statist. I don’t want the State or state to have any say in this matter at all. I don’t want force exerted against women. If they decide to get an abortion that is their choice and their body. I don’t consider that murder.

  By implication, if you call an abortion murder, then unless you specifically explain differently, one will assume that you want the state or State to do something about that murder. Otherwise, why call it murder? Murder is a legal definition and legality is defined by the government. Hence, it becomes a purview of the government. On the other hand, there are many types of killing that are not murder.

  Since many of your comments have spoken of how women should think, feel, and behave, then it sure sounds like you are seeking government action against them. If not, and you do not want any political/governmental action taken against women who have abortions, then I am confused as to why you are talking about a purely philosophical stance on a website you started called the Independent Political Report. It seems this “conversation” would be better had on a website called Philosophical Viewpoints. Unless of course you do want government, local or federal, action taken against women who commit abortions. Then it makes perfect sense.

  I find your intended insults quite comical. What do you think I am saying? I wasn’t actually advocating any action to be taken against men who get women pregnant, it was an example of the absurdity of advocating horrendous consequences (by calling it murder) against women who get pregnant when they don’t want to and choose to have an abortion, but ignoring the fact that men have an equal part in the act and the conception of the child. Therefore, if women should be subjected to consequences for “murdering” a child by having an abortion, then men should subjected to consequences for their part in the unwanted pregnancy, but no pro-lifers ever advocate that.

  All talk seems to be on the side of changing a woman’s behaviour and I was pointing out that if you had dire consequences against men, then you could alter their behaviour and reach your stated goal of not having so many unwanted pregnancies.

  I was not advocating either position, just debating the issue and offering another side to it. As mentioned many times over, I don’t think this is an issue for politics or the government. I am not advocating any state action at all, in fact, quite the opposite.

  And to Paulie, please forgive me for the misspelling of your name. It was not an intentional slight, just a little play on your “comment” at being called Mr. Cannoli and an attempt to correct that by calling you Pauli instead. It was a joke. However, I promise to make sure that your name is correctly spelled from here on out.

• 135 paulie cannoli // Jan 2, 2009 at 6:53 pm

  No biggie. It’s just a nickname, it’s really just Paul.

  I just find it funny that so many people find six letters to be so challenging. Hence the LOL…

• 136 libertyforone // Jan 2, 2009 at 7:15 pm

  You got it, Paul.

• 137 paulie cannoli // Jan 2, 2009 at 7:33 pm

  http://streetfiles.org/search/137/photos/page:1/sort:pop/direction:desc

• 138 paulie cannoli // Jan 2, 2009 at 7:45 pm

  http://citynoise.org/noise/sane_smith

• 139 G.E. // Jan 2, 2009 at 7:49 pm

  Libertyforone’s statism is so thoroughly ingrained in his/her sick skull he/she cannot even fathom an anarchistic viewpoint.

• 140 libertyforone // Jan 4, 2009 at 2:19 am

  G.E.,
  That is enough. You have not engaged in one realistic debate. You have done nothing but act like a spoiled 5 year old bully.

  Your insults are as pathetic as your arguments. You obviously know nothing about me or my politics.

  Or worse, you are using words you don’t understand.

  I suspect the latter is the case.

  You think I am a statist because I don’t want the state involved in this issue. Therefore, you are either stupid, or incredibly ignorant.

  I have been tolerant of your ignorant rantings and insane dialogue in an attempt to debate an issue. You have made that impossible.

  You are a rude little child who needs to be spanked. Typical of a young brat who gets to hurl insults into hyperspace without ever having to actually face the man in front of him.

  Even more incredible, you freely admit that you have not bothered to read what I have written, so your insults are based on delusional fantasies.

  An argument has several parts and if you stop reading at any one point, you miss the meaning of the whole.

  Now shut your mouth and learn some bloody manners.

Leave a Comment