Ron Paul - Will Americans Support Him?

[harper]

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

No one is pro-abortion, so his personal pro-life position is worthless. a libertarian does not support the individual states right to control the drugs you put into your body or what you do with your body.

For the women in many states, his position leaves them no choice, as is already the case. It's his downfall that he lets individual states control an individual's body and personal medical choices.

Wow. Billy didn't cut and paste that. He thought it up with his own high school civics teacher's mind. Someone must've pushed one of his buttons.

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by harper

Wow. Billy didn't cut and paste that. He thought it up with his own high school civics teacher's mind. Someone must've pushed one of his buttons.

and it took me HOURS!

[MrBoogiejuice]

Originally Posted by Gilby

There are two individuals in this. Are one individual's rights more important than another's? That's what makes this a difficult issue. One extreme says there are two lives at conception, and the other extreme says there is only one until the baby is completely born.



You're asking an anarchist... An entity using the threat of violence to gain power over others is not good in any situation. A smaller entity having power over a smaller number of people is better than a large entity having that power. Neither situation is good, but one is better than the other.

When it comes to how a group of people can live and interact with each other, there is no one perfect way that works for everyone. Having things dealt with in a more local mannor allows people to try different things to figure out what works for them and it allows an individual to have more say.



Good thing everyone is a property owner under a free society. You own your body.



I know it's hard to get past the idea that there are only two options in this debate. If I wasn't clear: Ron Paul as an individual is pro-life, his policy isn't to dictate his personal pro-life position on everyone else through the federal government. Leave it up to state jurisdiction and you get many choices.

I see where yourself and Gizmoduck are coming from about there being a spectrum of thought as to where life begins - that wasn't really what I was taking issue with. To an anarchist whether the institution imposing coercive influence is local, national or supra-national, abrogating the power of decision making over something as deeply personal to a woman as reproductive rights should be complete anathema.

And I'm not so sure that state government will de facto make better decisions; as blacks in the south fifty years ago and gays in some states today could readily attest. What matters to anarchists I know, myself included, is the mode of organisation and the principles of an institution, not its size. One dude with a uniform and a gun can inflict the same amount of damage to a person whether he's employed by the sheriff's department or the army.

[GizmoDuck]

Originally Posted by MrBoogiejuice

To an anarchist whether the institution imposing coercive influence is local, national or supra-national, abrogating the power of decision making over something as deeply personal to a woman as reproductive rights should be complete anathema.

I guess you could also view a pregnancy as a parasitic infection. Sounds daft, but as my Obs and Gynae professor was fond of saying- a foetus is the ultimate parasite. It evades all host defences and feeds off it for 40wks.

In that scenario, it should be within a womans rights to get rid of the parasite, at any gestation.

[MrBoogiejuice]

Originally Posted by GizmoDuck

I guess you could also view a pregnancy as a parasitic infection. Sounds daft, but as my Obs and Gynae professor was fond of saying- a foetus is the ultimate parasite. It evades all host defences and feeds off it for 40wks.

In that scenario, it should be within a womans rights to get rid of the parasite, at any gestation.

Was your Obs Gynae professor called Agent Smith?

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by MrBoogiejuice

the power of decision making over something as deeply personal to a woman as reproductive rights should be complete anathema.

You bring forth this idea of a woman having reproductive rights, but you are trying to define when those rights are exercised. Excluding the 1% of abortions (according to some sources) that are the result of a pregnancy due to rape, the other 99% are from consensual sex. You are making the argument that the decision to exercise reproductive rights are made after pregnancy happens. Is it not fair to say that the decision to have sex is consenting to deal with the consequences of that act?

Originally Posted by MrBoogiejuice

One dude with a uniform and a gun can inflict the same amount of damage to a person whether he's employed by the sheriff's department or the army.

The larger the organization, the many more dudes they likely have.

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by feel the light

I love this guy.

Obviously Obama is no peace candidate, and has started more wars while continuing the existing ones. It's hard to even count how many wars the US is in now. Have you checked out the Blue Republican [just for a year] movement? You can't change who the democrat nominee is, but you can help choose the best republican contender, and if war is a huge issue for you, the only choice is Ron Paul, so go to your caucus or primary to get him the nomination.

I hope you can get past the minor issues like abortion (which I view as a divide and conquer issue that will never actually go anywhere), and money (ok, money is a huge issue, but I think you could accept a free market in money).

[MrBoogiejuice]

[quote=Gilby;1469735]You bring forth this idea of a woman having reproductive rights, but you are trying to define when those rights are exercised.[\quote]

I've not tried anywhere to define at what point after conception abortion becomes "wrong", I'm more interested in your your definition of anarchism, and Ron Paul's of libertarianism in relation to what makes a legitimate institution.

Excluding the 1% of abortions (according to some sources) that are the result of a pregnancy due to rape, the other 99% are from consensual sex. You are making the argument that the decision to exercise reproductive rights are made after pregnancy happens. Is it not fair to say that the decision to have sex is consenting to deal with the consequences of that act?

People ain't always rational actors, so no. No form of birth control is 100% effective and circumstances and desires can change rapidly. I wouldn't ever presume to know the motivations of, or conditions under which, your 99% of women who have non physically coerced sex.

Like I say, I'm not claiming to have an answer as to when abortion is justified, but bemused as to how an anarchist can engage in such moral equivalence between coercive institutions of differing sizes but with equal capacity to exert coercive power over the women within their jurisdictions.

The larger the organization, the many more dudes they likely have.

Well obviously. But that matters not a jot to the guy being shot - the seat of power in anarchism is the individual - whether one or one hundred people are being oppressed the oppression is equally as distasteful to those facing it and should be opposed by anarchists regardless of the numbers engaging in the oppression or at the sticky end of it.

To my mind, government whether local or national, is inherently patriarchal and as such least well informed to make decisions regarding a woman's body. Emma Goldman and Simone De Beauvoir's thoughts on abortion, sex and marriage are those that most influence my personal leanings on such matters.

[GizmoDuck]

Originally Posted by MrBoogiejuice

People ain't always rational actors, so no. No form of birth control is 100% effective and circumstances and desires can change rapidly.

A hysterectomy and/or oopherectomy comes pretty close

[nick]

Originally Posted by Gilby

You bring forth this idea of a woman having reproductive rights, but you are trying to define when those rights are exercised. Excluding the 1% of abortions (according to some sources) that are the result of a pregnancy due to rape, the other 99% are from consensual sex.

What is the rational for restricting abortions to cases of rape?

Originally Posted by Gilby

You are making the argument that the decision to exercise reproductive rights are made after pregnancy happens. Is it not fair to say that the decision to have sex is consenting to deal with the consequences of that act?

Why not base policy decisions on what makes the most sense, rather than what a certain segment of the population believes is fair? Although, possibly this is the wrong way to argue my case with a libertarian, hah!

[MrBoogiejuice]

Originally Posted by GizmoDuck

A hysterectomy and/or oopherectomy comes pretty close

Fair point, perhaps I should have prefixed birth control with "non-permanent".

What's an oopherectomy, is it "the snip"?

[nick]

Originally Posted by MrBoogiejuice

Fair point, perhaps I should have prefixed birth control with "non-permanent".

What's an oopherectomy, is it "the snip"?

I have a vasectomy. It is not 100% (though unlikely, they can spontaneously heal).

[MrBoogiejuice]

Have you had children already?

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by MrBoogiejuice

I've not tried anywhere to define at what point after conception abortion becomes "wrong", I'm more interested in your your definition of anarchism, and Ron Paul's of libertarianism in relation to what makes a legitimate institution.

My point was that the choice to reproduce happens before conception. If you choose to have sex, you've chosen reproduction as a possible outcome.

Originally Posted by MrBoogiejuice

People ain't always rational actors, so no.

So if I do something irrational, I don't have to deal with the consequences? If I do something stupid and injure myself, can I just wave a wand and reverse it? In the real world, I could be dealing with an injury for a long time, maybe even the rest of my life.

Originally Posted by MrBoogiejuice

I'm not claiming to have an answer as to when abortion is justified, but bemused as to how an anarchist can engage in such moral equivalence between coercive institutions of differing sizes but with equal capacity to exert coercive power over the women within their jurisdictions.

I prefer anarchy, but would settle for minarchy if it has a substantially better chance of being achieved any time soon.

The point of having things done by local government instead of national government is that it is not an equal capacity to exert coercive force. The bigger the institution, the easier it is for them to overstep their boundaries into a state of lawlessness like what we have today.

Originally Posted by nick

What is the rational for restricting abortions to cases of rape?

I didn't state that position, nor did I ever claim to take the pro-life position. MrBoogiejuice is arguing that abortions should be legal because woman have reproductive rights. I'm arguing that that reason for abortions to be legal doesn't stand because one can choose to not reproduce by not having sex. Rape, by definition, is the exception to choosing to have sex and possibly reproduce, which would be dealt with as the crime that it is.

[nick]

Originally Posted by MrBoogiejuice

Have you had children already?

Hell no.