Who here is pro abortion?

in abortion •  11 months ago

shutterstock_198474176-998x666.jpg

I'm against abortion, but I don't want the government to have anything to do with it. If government declared war on abortions, in five years, men would be having them! Such is the law of unintended consequences.

But even saying I'm for or against abortion falls into the crass, political, one-dimensional thinking. Obviously in cases of medical necessity, I'm FOR abortion, just like when you have a gangrenous leg, I'm all for amputating it. I can support your right to amputate your own limbs when you decide necessary without being "pro-amputation."

The fact is that human life begins at conception. That means that an abortion is ending a unique human life. That doesn't mean it's always wrong. That just means that it should be taken seriously.

If you believe that as humans, we own ourselves, how do you square the conundrum of a pregnant woman who owns herself with a baby growing inside her that also owns itself?

The answer is actually relatively simple. If you own your own body, you have no obligation to use it to support another life against your will. That's why it's morally repugnant to deny a woman an abortion when she's been raped. While I would still want to see that child born rather than aborted, I refuse to continue that rape by having the state point a gun at the mother.

As for all of the other cases, what I have to say as a man is of almost no relevance. Being pregnant means being the custodian of another life. That's a deeply personal and private relationship between mother and child. Almost everyone would agree that a mother SHOULD have an abortion if it threatens her life. The question as to how much of a threat requires abortion ... will always be decided by the mother, in private if she desires, with a doctor's help if society does not deny her the right to seek treatment, and hopefully with the love and respect of everyone around her.

So to all of you who pretend to care about this issue but use petty insults, bad arguments, poor logic, virtue signaling, polarization, and demonization of those who disagree with you, get real. You don't really care about human life as much as you care about your own moralistic grandstanding. Even the "pro-abortion" people want there to be less abortions. Let's come together to make this happen by supporting all mothers and future mothers to support every pregnancy possible with love and kindness.

Regardless of whether you're "pro-life," "pro-choice" or just hate those labels as much as I do, if you really care about life and freedom, GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF EVERYTHING!

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Well done, Adam. Get the "big goombah" divide and conquer DISTRACTION addressed early!
The TRUTH of reducing abortions by being supportive of unwed mothers is so painfully obvious, and yet that one seems too complicated for consideration by folks who have a side to defend.

Agreed. Instead of wasting all of the money on the political circus of whether or not it should be legal, we should focus our energies on decreasing the contributing factors to unwanted pregnancies.

Strengthening familial bonds, increasing education, teaching self-love and self-respect, ensuring that people are supported through community so that they never enter the mental space that could justify the harming of another for selfish means; instead of arguing the morality of a side effect of an impoverished society.

If you believe that as humans, we own ourselves, how do you square the conundrum of a pregnant woman who owns herself with a baby growing inside her that also owns itself?

I do it in two ways, the first is self defense, if someone forced themselves inside of you or even if you consented to allowing them to enter you don't you have a right to tell them to get out and defend yourself from that?
The second is not as good an argument but solves a lot of the legal and ethical problems, and that is that children are property. Under this paradigm parents would be allowed to abort their children until the 75th trimester.

For me what is most repugnant about our policy of legal abortions is that the policy was designed and has functioned as a black genocide, it was implemented as a eugenics program to eliminate the poor and minorities and has been doing so from the start. Today more black babies are aborted in NYC than born alive, that's racist.

·

I don't think the force argument is a very good analogy. Except for some edge cases (e.g. rape), most pregnancies occur because the person who is pregnant voluntarily participated in an act knowing there was some amount of risk of pregnancy occurring. In other words, they did something that caused it to happen. It isn't the baby's fault who arguably now has the right to life (which is the most important right you can have in my view). The problem with your first argument is that you could apply it to a child who is 6 years old if you wanted to (which dovetails into your second example...which doesn't resolve ethical problems at all...just legal ones).

Having said all that, except for perhaps prohibiting most late term abortions, I don't think the state being involved will do more good than harm.

·
·

Consider two gay men copulating, they started off consensually but now the one on the bottom wants to stop, does he have a right to use force to get the other fellow out?

·
·
·

Sure, but that's a piss poor analogy. The baby doesn't have any choice in the matter.

·
·
·
·

in my analogy does the top? no right? he can GTFO or face the consequences.

·
·
·
·
·

Again, the baby has no such choice.

·
·
·
·
·
·

yeah, that's right, it doesn't, which is probably good since a fetus has no agency.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

I don't know what you mean by agency in this context.

"I'm against abortion, but I don't want the government to have anything to do with it."

I agree you 100% on this.

"If you own your own body, you have no obligation to use it to support another life against your will."

If you're forbbiden to abort, you obviously have to bring that baby to the world.

In my opinion, the problem is that this person will probably be a bad parent, the child will get adopted, etc.

Much agreed. Even if I don't like it, who am I to force my understanding on somebody else's life? Thats violence. I don't go and punch people for making other choises I wouldn't make either :)

Very difficult topic.

My view:
Danger to mother: abortion ok.
Rape: abortion ok.

It is still problematic, but there is no other way.

All other cases: abortion is initiation of force.
Sex leads to pregnancy. The moment you engage in sex you know this is a possibility and accept it. This responsibility cannot be avoided by initiating force IMHO.

The day after pill can avoid much of the problem, in my opinion. I don't consider it as abortion, would like to know if others do, though.

This shouldn't even be about whether the government legalized it or not. This is about moral consciousness and conscience. It is totally wrong, absolutely wrong to take the life of an innocent baby. You had sex without protection, what were you expecting? A plasma TV? This shouldn't be the last thing we resort to. Innocent kids shouldn't be responsible for our wrong choices. We should all be man enough to face the consequences of our actions and it should not have anything direct or indirect consequences on these unborn kids. Thank you for lending the voice. I hope people get to read this. It deserves a wider audience.

Outstanding article!
I agree 100%

Pro-freedom - for mother and baby, like with most things the government is not the the entity that should have any say in this matter.

It is a very sensitive issue. Thanks for sharing your opinion with us. I totally agree with you. It is decision of the people not the government!

Not be fire that she is freedom guys, than she upset befor baby.so helpnees and happytime.thanks@adamkokesh

The only thing I would change here in terms of what you said is, in place of 'get the government out of everything', GET THE NEW WORLD ORDER out of everything. Personally I believe in government as long as it is good government. I see that role primarily as facilitation of the quality of ALL life. Thanks for posting.

·

"I believe in violence and coercion as long as it's good violence and coercion." Find a proper definition of government and try again!

I've always said if your pro-life are you willing to kill a mother to save a child? Because like any other state action it will ultimately end in violence.

I have to say that I disagree with you. If a baby in a womb is a unique human life, it has the same rights as one outside the womb. If a woman can kill the baby inside her, she should also have the right to kill it when it's two years old, which I hope you would agree is murder. The woman is forced to not kill the baby when it's a year old, and should be forced to not kill it when she's pregnant, just as we all are forced not to kill.

·

Nobody is forced to not kill babies, man. People do it all the time, but hopefully society enforces justice. Governments can only threaten force before a crime happens and apply force after. A threat is really coercion, not force. It appears from your profile picture that you are in the military, so here's a real world example for you:
-A threat is when you point a gun at someone and tell them to surrender or be shot. Force is when you shoot them.

Calling abortion murder is also problematic. If a person doesn't believe the baby is a person, but just a part of their body, then at best abortion is manslaughter. In order for it to be murder, they would have to know it was a person, plan, and execute the murder. By your logic we could charge women who get pregnant but have a miscarriage due to poor diet with manslaughter.

·
·

In my opinion "Murder" throughout history has been considered a moral absolute. The taking of ones life whom did not threaten or attack another. "Manslaughter" on the other hand is merely a legal term in explaining varying forms of murder. Same with with "first degree murder" which seems to be what you were defining.

But a baby or a fetus regardless of the name you choose to give it is in fact separate from the mothers body. Although it is dependent upon the mothers body for survival. Again these are my opinions only.

·
·
·

I think you may be right that I'm making a distinction from first degree murder, but I think I had second degree murder in mind. Manslaughter is killing someone when you didn't mean to, like in a car wreck or through some other negligence... Hunter accidentally shoots his buddy because he walked in front of him.

I definitely agree with you that a baby fetus is another life, and should be protected. I'm just saying, some people don't. I think that complicates the morality a little, because if you don't know what you are doing is wrong you can't really be guilty, merely ignorant. For instance, some say George Washington was bled to death by his doctors because they thought it would make him feel better. Did they murder him?

·
·
·
·

In ancient times if one accidentally murdered another, they would have to flee to a sanctuary city. For if the family of the slain person found and killed the murderer prior to them finding sanctuary, they would be guiltless. Because he did in fact take the others life without cause. Intentions didn't play a role in this. But, if he found sanctuary and then they killed him they would be guilty of murder themselves. There was no sanctuary for those to willfully murdered.

I don't think that ignorance is an excuse, nor a justification in the grand scheme of things. Ignorance does not lessen the effects of said death. But it certainly can allow for a greater measure of mercy, if one is so inclined to grant it.

"George Washington was bled to death by his doctors because they thought it would make him feel better. Did they murder him?"

My answer would be, Yes. But, do to their ignorance I would not seek to see them suffer for it. Because I choose to show mercy. Likewise I would not seek to see a women suffer more than she naturally will, for allowing the murder of their unborn baby. The doctor or true Murderer, on the other hand is not ignorant of this. But I would rather the government not mandate morality. In the end we all eat of our own labors. Does that Make sense?

My point is I guess I like to call a spade a spade, regardless of what the law, gov, or society says it is. Again these are my thoughts on the matter and everyone is free to think otherwise.

·
·
·
·
·

I think the main disagreement we are having is with the definition of the word "murder." I'm using the word in the sense it is commonly used and defined. You seem to be saying that any killing of a person is murder, which is a re-interpretation of the word. It's kind of hard to see that kind of thing coming in a discussion.

I understand from the Bible that there were sanctuary cities in the ancient Kingdom of Israel but was unaware it was more widespread than that. However, if you look at the Bible as a guide to how the practice was carried out, there is a clear distinction between murder and manslaughter. The point of the sanctuary cities was to protect the killer from revenge killings on the part of the killed person's family. They're culture demanded blood for blood, and in the Old Testament God puts restraints on the people to ensure some level of justice.

I don't think that ignorance is an excuse or justification. I do think it changes things from a moral perspective. Sure, you can't bring George back from the dead, but if you ascribe guilt to the doctors who were trying to help him then you make murderers out of every doctor, nurse, EMT, and firemen who ever made a bad call while trying to save a person's life. Further, any doctors who have made a bad choice of prescription drugs, and the pharmacists who filled the orders are guilty. Any Lawyer, police officer, judge, or jury member who has been involved in a case where they convicted the wrong person is a kidnapper and if they die in prison, murderer. Anyone who causes a car wreck because they were inattentive, killed a guy in a boxing match, hit a golf ball into traffic causing a wreck, tripped and knocked someone into oncoming traffic, etc.

As for the government not legislating morality, that's a naive idea, IMO. The government is always legislating morality by necessity. There is no other way around it, it's just a matter of whose morality they are legislating. There is no separating morality from the act of pointing a gun at someone's head and demanding they do what you want, and pay them money, or they will throw you in a cage and murder you if you resist.

That's how I see it, anyway.

·
·
·
·
·
·

Spot on response. You are correct, it us unfair for me to go around redefining common used words. For that I'm sorry. In day to day life I would not use murder to describe those circumstances.

I still think if in the examples you described people did view their negligent actions as resulting in a slaying, with some sense of "personal" guilt, there would be very few of them. For example when I drive I assume people are idiots and have no sense of self preservation. Therefor I slow down around blind corners and when people are to busy looking at their phones to notice they are walking into traffic. I would feel bad if I was to kill them, so I do everything in my power to prevent this. It seems to piss off the people behind me who know that legally there would be no consequences of a said death, so they don't care. Some even seem eager to run down said phone stare-er.

This is also the reason I could never be a prosecutor, judge, or jury member. I would feel responsible for destroying an innocents life.

I know that I have gone way off of the original topic. I suppose what I dislike most is people hide behind laws and court decisions, to remove their own "personal" responsibility for things and therefor act hastily with others lives.

Thank you for this dialog, I very much enjoyed it. These sort of things are much more efficiently hashed out in speech when instant clarifications can be made.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

I see where you are coming from. I also think it's a shame how people these days have no sense of personal responsibility. Good dialog.

@adamkokesh
I strongly oppose abortion that rampant in do some people, except abortion is done by the doctor to save the life of a pregnant woman's survival.

I am "pro-life" but like you, I'm not so sure government should be involved overly much, at least in regards to early term abortions. I just don't think it is helpful.

On the other hand, what is the role of government? If it has a role at all, is it not to protect rights? What right is more important than the right to life? At what point does a human gain that right? Just something to think about.

It's amazing how you don't shy away from pressing matters. You just tackle them head-on without reticence. I suppose I should expect no less from someone running for US presidency. Stay strong Adam!

Here here! I would disagree with "That doesn't mean it's always wrong." It is always wrong but, in some cases it's the lesser of two evils. I would that every baby's life was the priority since they didn't ask to be a part of this & most ladies did know what they were doing could lead to a new life so they hold the liability of protecting that innocent life. With all that being said...death to the state!!! Yes, get the "government" out of everything.

·

That was an awsome opening..."in five years"... L.O.L.

·

That's semantic disagreement then! Doesn't mean it's always the WRONG decision.

·
·

Ok, it's is mainly about how we would frame the statement, I guess. My contention is that murder is ALWAYS evil & abortion is always murder. So I still say it's a wrong decision but in very rare cases it's the least wrong of the options. So it sounds like we agree, making my original reply semantical. For me though an important distinction. On a saparate note, I am having a really hard time coming up with a scenerio where murdering an unborn baby is the lesser of two evils.

Hi. Upvote me

Agreed - whatever you choose to do shouldn't involve the government, because when the government gets to have a say in what you must do with your body, that's your freedom gone.
I'm against abortion, always have been. But I don't think it should be an issue for the state to decide. I would hate it just as much if abortions were illegal as I would if they were totally fine and actually encouraged. Not your decision, get out.

It is disconcerting listen to one women say she feels a connection with the child that is growing inside her, and another women saying, she can abort it because its just a pile of cells, not a human.

Further, the real reason for abortions in first world countries is a dirty secret women will never talk about. It is their trump card. Their ace in the hole. In this day and age, we still accept "oops, I got pregnant"? Most often it was planned and premeditated.

The way to stop abortions is to give rights to men. A woman can choose to abort or have the baby. The woman can decide to keep the baby or give it up for adoption (or leave it at a fire house).

A man cannot decide anything. He will pay child support or he will go to jail. Even if the man never had sex with her. Sometimes even when it is not his child. The man has no choices.

The way to stop abortions is to give the men the right to abort fatherhood. To say that he is not financially tied to the fetus.

That govern-cement compels men to pay for all the children, and twice if he is named the father, is the reason this argument has been dragging on so long. Get govern-cement out of forcing child support.

(and, studies have found, that men who see their children often, provide more child support. By themselves, with no coercion.)

I've really go no problem with the commentary in this thread, sure it varies widely from my own opinions in some cases, but most of it seems to be FREE THOUGHT and quite thoughtful as well.

Great Post, Adam! I find a lot of commonality here, I see you are a seeker of TRUTH. I am glad that you are old enough to run for POTUS, but young enough to maybe run more than once? The political process in this country tends to age the participants, it seems. Godspeed and I am now following, I thought I did last night on @fishyculture's post :D In Fact, you get the Full F.U.R.R. Treatment!
Follow
Up-vote
Re-Steem
Reply
!

F.U.R.R.

one picture says a thousand words

Great article, especially the end point about love and kindness no matter on the difference of opinion. And, absolutely, there is nothing that isn't made worse by the addition of Government.

Your last sentence says it all. The best solution will inevitably come from an informed, free society rather than a moocher. Pro and against argument be it for abortion, guns, vaccines and multitude of others, should never be decided by governments. World isn't perfect but it is even less so when people who are detached from real life and unaffected by the mistakes they make are the ones making decisions for others.

A pro-choice argument in the form of a series of arrogant tweets recently went viral. You would think that with all that bravado, there would have been something new or interesting, but, no, it was just the same argument that has been around for decades. Disappointing as the argument was, I did find it interesting that, the last time I experienced this argument on a college campus, the person making the argument had a similar aggressive tone.

Thank you for this,you speak my mind. I don't know why abortion is becoming this popular,we have to accept the fact that committing abortion is tantamount to claiming a life. Stop the abortion,stop killing,let those children live.

I an saddened that the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" have been presented as diametrically opposed ideas by the media and governmental agents.
It is, of course, in their best interest to keep the people thinking in an "us vs. them" mindset.
I do hope we will all continue to see our similarities and the value of working through our differences.
I think it's safe to say that freedom loving individuals can agree that to truly be pro-life one is also pro-choice. Part of living out our freedoms means making our our choices.

Thanks for posting your heart Adam.
I hope you make it through Texas with no more trouble. :/

This is definitely a hot topic and one that many are passionate about on both sides. You are going to run into immorality in either position.

you mentioned an important topic. I am against the abortion. Unless it threatens your mother's life. thanks for writing

Very well sir, as allways, really controversial topic here, the other day I was wondering what will happend if somehow the US have a non president as you stand, what will happend for example with Alaska or Puerto rico, guns or ''crime solving''.
I am on your side, just looking for a possible way to get out alive, Thanks!

I'm a reasonably new anarchist. Less than two years since I really became comfortable calling myself that. You're one of the first that started turning me on to the idea of anarchy and voluntarism about six years ago.

The abortion talk always encourages me when it's had between liberty people. The ability to largely take emotion out of the picture in traditionally emotional subjects is unique to anarchists.

Abortion is homicide. There's a definite time and place for homicide, and no voluntarist will disagree with that.

Hello Adam! I am libertarian from Poland with long expierience. An issue of abortion from libertarian perspective especially engages me for many years, maybe because I am both woman and medical doctor (I will be one in short time). I would like to discuss very important point from your article:

"If you own your own body, you have no obligation to use it to support another life against your will."

I absolutely agree, the need of one person doesn't create an obligation to any other person. But I also believe that my body is my property in exactly the same like other things that are my property, like a flat or a car. If I own my flat on seventh floor, and I invite someone to my flat, then I technically support his life with my floor. Does it mean I have a right to dump him from my balcony? I think not, as long as using my property according to my will is equivalent to actively killing someone (destroy his property of the body), I think it would simply violate the non-agression principle- if it is not a self-defence in contrary to agression on my property. Invited guest is not an agressor, even if I don't want to host him longer. Agression must be physical action in physical world. If he came with my consent, it was not an agression on my property, and if I change my mind in how to menage my property it still doesn't make him agressor. A child in uterus didn't trespass at any moment to, I can't simply menage my uterus with killing it, I would violate the NAP. I can't call it a self-defense because the child is not an agressor. I have to give him opportunity to safely exit my property just like I have to the guest in my flat.

And I think, that even in anarcho-capitalist land, the privite court should punish for abortion in most cases, because in most cases it is violation of the Non Agression Principle, not self-defense.

Sorry for my English. What do you think?
Bpiwj9iCUAE4jNy.jpg

We don't own our own bodies, for one thing. God does. He lends them to us.
For another, the body inside her body is not her body.
Abortion is child sacrifice.