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.

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

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.

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.

pauli+E

Not that complicated, folks…LOL

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.

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.

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’.

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.

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