Why many Libertarians have a problem with Barr.....

[Osborn F. Enready]

http://www.ontheissues.org/Bob_Barr.htm

Follow the link to the bottom of the page, and it can all be summed up with the results of his political philosophy quiz. :sadly:

[Milton Bradley]

Indeed, I don't score anywhere near there whn I take that test.


Well, if Paul can pretend to be a Republican, I guess Barr can pretend to be a Libertarian. It was sanctioned by many within the party.


I guess their think having a high profile character to sell their message will help.


I don't.

[Burning Giraffe]

http://www.ontheissues.org/Bob_Barr.htm

Follow the link to the bottom of the page, and it can all be summed up with the results of his political philosophy quiz. :sadly:

Yes, well, neither Bob Barr or Wayne Root are Libertarians. They are Republicans. That said, after the 2004 nomination of maybe the worst candidate the LP has ever put up, the left wing of our party has been shut out and shut down. We've swung widely right in order to counter the coming national swing to the left. People familiar with Libertarian Party politics understand this and expected it.

That said, it's been eight years since Harry Browne, who represented the best the Libertarian Party had and still has to offer. The Libertarian Party has gotten a bit unfocused as of late, worrying more about party publicity than party principles and politics. Still, Bob Barr is much better than McCain, or Obama, or Baldwin, or Nader. So, I'm excited. I actually have someone to vote for with whom I agree on a majority of the issues. There are many, many subjects on which Barr and I disagree, but I don't need to be in lock step with a candidate before I vote for them. I vote for who is the best, most libertarian candidate running. And, right now, that is Bob Barr.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Burning Giraffe said:
That said, after the 2004 nomination of maybe the worst candidate the LP has ever put up, the left wing of our party has been shut out and shut down. We've swung widely right in order to counter the coming national swing to the left. People familiar with Libertarian Party politics understand this and expected it.

Are you saying Badnarik was the worst candidate, while the party nominated Barr?

I think Barr is far worse than Badnarik, and on several critical issues.

Burning Giraffe said:
That said, it's been eight years since Harry Browne, who represented the best the Libertarian Party had and still has to offer.

I liked Harry Browne, but I think Ron Paul ran a better Libertarian campaign as a Republican than Barr will as a Libertarian. Pauls character is obvious both in his voting history and his personal examples, whereas Barr is a religious republican, running as a Libertarian which is pretty obvious when viewing the voting records.

Burning Giraffe said:
The Libertarian Party has gotten a bit unfocused as of late, worrying more about party publicity than party principles and politics. Still, Bob Barr is much better than McCain, or Obama, or Baldwin, or Nader.

Hard for me to argue there, but I don't agree with the lesser evil theory.

Burning Giraffe said:
So, I'm excited. I actually have someone to vote for with whom I agree on a majority of the issues. There are many, many subjects on which Barr and I disagree, but I don't need to be in lock step with a candidate before I vote for them. I vote for who is the best, most libertarian candidate running. And, right now, that is Bob Barr.

Unfortunately, I have to agree.

I don't require lock-step agreement either, but for a Libertarian there should be automatic lock-step agreement in fundamental individual rights. I don't have that with Barr.

[Burning Giraffe]

Barr is too conservative when it comes to law and order, but I view these areas as points of disagreement, not points of serious contention. I don't look at him as a "lesser evil". He's a good, just not a very exciting good. This is why I don't have any problem voting for him, because while we don't agree on everything, I still agree with him on most things, and that's what is most important. That I vote for someone who will actually represent me on the majority of the issues.

[Milton Bradley]

See, I can't rationalize away the fact that if he is not with me on the concept of protecting the Constitution, he's not "with me" at all.


My allegiance is to the constitution, and anybody who would trample it under foot is my enemy. It's just that simple.

[Burning Giraffe]

See, I can't rationalize away the fact that if he is not with me on the concept of protecting the Constitution, he's not "with me" at all.


My allegiance is to the constitution, and anybody who would trample it under foot is my enemy. It's just that simple.

Which articles of the Constitution do you and Barr disagree on upholding?

[Milton Bradley]

He supports The Patriot Act!

[Burning Giraffe]

He supports The Patriot Act!

Most, if not all, of the illegal and unconstitutional measures in the Patriot Act have been over turned by the new Supreme Court. Which measures of what's left of the Patriot Act, that Bob Barr still supports, directly contradict the US Constitution?

[nateb]

I'll say this. Many LPs may not like Barr but Barr has me looking at the LPs much more. Before the LPs weren't an option. Reading the website of Barr, I am seriously considering voting for Barr.

I'm a disgruntled Republican.

Before LPs were unelectable. For whatever reason you're looking alot more electable and more like a viable conservative option. I don't know that I'd be upset about that!

[Milton Bradley]

Most, if not all, of the illegal and unconstitutional measures in the Patriot Act have been over turned by the new Supreme Court. Which measures of what's left of the Patriot Act, that Bob Barr still supports, directly contradict the US Constitution?


I'm not up to date on what measures have sunsetted, or what's been thrown out, but the whole act was an attack on our Constitution from domestic enemies.


So, in short, all of it. :fight:

[Burning Giraffe]

I'm not up to date on what measures have sunsetted, or what's been thrown out, but the whole act was an attack on our Constitution from domestic enemies.


So, in short, all of it. :fight:

The vast majority of the Patriot Act was bureaucratic reform and not at all unconstitutional. For the most part, it was simply a "sharing of information" act between the CIA, FBI, DOD, and NSA. The problem was, they used a bill that was 99% clean to throw in some unconstitutional measures; measures which, after three or four years, were overruled. It is extremely important for our intelligence agencies to work together, but given the nature of the federal bureaucracy, it had become nearly impossible. So, for the most part, the Patriot Act was a good thing. It is the warrentless wiretapping that I have a problem with.

[Milton Bradley]

Oh, so sharing information between a bunch of unconstitutional agencies somehow benefts the constituent.


Sorry, but I don't buy it for a second. The Patriot Act was written by a bunch of Neocon swindlers, and no part of it is within the realm of Constitutional government.


Just another Executive power grab.

[Burning Giraffe]

Oh, so sharing information between a bunch of unconstitutional agencies somehow benefts the constituent.


Sorry, but I don't buy it for a second. The Patriot Act was written by a bunch of Neocon swindlers, and no part of it is within the realm of Constitutional government.


Just another Executive power grab.

Who told you this and why did you believe them?

None of these agencies are Unconstitutional and all of them are bound by Constitutional Law. If they break the law, then the Justice Department is supposed to deal with them. We may have systemic problems that prevent this from working all the time, but the agencies themselves are perfectly legal.

[Milton Bradley]

Who told you this and why did you believe them?

None of these agencies are Unconstitutional and all of them are bound by Constitutional Law. If they break the law, then the Justice Department is supposed to deal with them. We may have systemic problems that prevent this from working all the time, but the agencies themselves are perfectly legal.


Congressional oversight is basically a thing of the past, and that pretty much renders these institutions criminal, and illegal.


Have you read any books on the accountabilty of these organizations?

[Burning Giraffe]

Congressional oversight is basically a thing of the past, and that pretty much renders these institutions criminal, and illegal.


Have you read any books on the accountabilty of these organizations?

I've read many articles written on the "crimes" of our intelligence organizations, but I haven't read any books. Just out of curiosity, how is congressional oversight a thing of the past? As I understand it, it still exists. I'm also unaware of any crimes against the American public, where a US citizen was detained unreasonable and illegal by the US government under the grounds of the articles pertaining to the Patriot Act. It seems that most of the attacks on our liberty are coming from economic regulation, blurry constitutional interpretation, and eminent domain - and not from our intelligence agencies.

[Milton Bradley]

I've read many articles written on the "crimes" of our intelligence organizations, but I haven't read any books. Just out of curiosity, how is congressional oversight a thing of the past? As I understand it, it still exists. I'm also unaware of any crimes against the American public, where a US citizen was detained unreasonable and illegal by the US government under the grounds of the articles pertaining to the Patriot Act. It seems that most of the attacks on our liberty are coming from economic regulation, blurry constitutional interpretation, and eminent domain - and not from our intelligence agencies.


Well, the truth seems to be somewhat different. The CIA smuggles, and sells cocaine, and the FBI lets them take that product to the ghetto, and sell it to minorities so they can then bust the minorities with the illegtal substances. ( Crossing the Rubicon, by Mike Ruppert. )


Congressional oversight is about as common as Constitutional law in Washington.


Hell, these people didn't even read The Patriot Act before signing it, so it's not like they know what's in the either.

[Burning Giraffe]

Well, the truth seems to be somewhat different. The CIA smuggles, and sells cocaine, and the FBI lets them take that product to the ghetto, and sell it to minorities so they can then bust the minorities with the illegtal substances. ( Crossing the Rubicon, by Mike Ruppert. )


Congressional oversight is about as common as Constitutional law in Washington.


Hell, these people didn't even read The Patriot Act before signing it, so it's not like they know what's in the either.

alright, well, I can't substantiate your claims, but they are yours, so fair enough. I don't take you as the type of individual stomach the beating of a dead horse, so I'll let it go. :) Agree to disagree.

[4Reaganomics]

I thought he was going to get into the

They want to inject aids into blacks....NAH NAH NAH GD AMERICA conspiracy nonsense

but luckily we only had to hear the drugs conspiracy

[Osborn F. Enready]

I think you two should educate yourself a bit more on the facts behind the propaganda.

A good reading list to start with.....

Overthrow: A century of regime change from Hawaii to Iraq(Stephen Kinzer), War Powers: How the imperial presidency hi-jacked the Constitution(Peter Irons). Crossing the Rubicon(Mike Rupert). War Against The Weak(Edwin Black). Fog Facts(Larry Beinheart). Tragedy And Hope-1st edition(Carrol Quigley).

The republic is being systematicly dismantled by bi-partisan design.

[SouthernLadyGA]

I have met and talked with Barr personally....he is an utter asshole!

[Burning Giraffe]

I have met and talked with Barr personally....he is an utter asshole!

:) Really? Why do you say that?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Barr is an asshole.

He is a social conservative (authoritarian) and an economic neocon.

Its mystifies me how the Libertarian Party could pick this schmuck to take charge as they have the largest groundswell of support in their history.... great way to lose a large part of that groundswell in my opinion.....

[Milton Bradley]

Barr is an asshole.

He is a social conservative (authoritarian) and an economic neocon.

Its mystifies me how the Libertarian Party could pick this schmuck to take charge as they have the largest groundswell of support in their history.... great way to lose a large part of that groundswell in my opinion.....


Indeed, it seems the Libertarian party sought to shoot itself in the foot, but missed, and shot itself in the groin.


What a bunch of maroons.

[Burning Giraffe]

Barr is an asshole.

He is a social conservative (authoritarian) and an economic neocon.

Its mystifies me how the Libertarian Party could pick this schmuck to take charge as they have the largest groundswell of support in their history.... great way to lose a large part of that groundswell in my opinion.....

As I've explained, the party swung wide right after the disastrous campaign of Michael Badnarick. Its an over-adjustment. I'm just not sure where in the world you get the idea that Bob Barr is a Neocon. I get the social conservative part and that bothers me a great deal, but in sum, he's so much better than the rest of the candidates and he is, in my opinion, the only positive candidate in the race, the only person with whom I can agree on the majority of issues. It seems like people are simply offended by the idea of Barr and Root because of their Republican background, which makes sense, but its no reason to shut the brain off and become overly pessimistic. I think Barr will draw in many Libertarian-leaning Republicans and Wayne Root with his beliefs on cutting government spending in half and legalizing gambling rights for everyone... I don't know, I think they'll do well. All but one of my Republican friends have told me they intend to vote for Barr. My parents are Christian Conservatives who simply do not want to see any Democrats in office, so they just vote Republican tickets, shrugging off their libertarian values as irrelevant to the political process.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Giraffe said:
It seems like people are simply offended by the idea of Barr and Root because of their Republican background, which makes sense, but its no reason to shut the brain off and become overly pessimistic.

Well, once a lying partisan political sock puppet, almost always a lying partisan political sock puppet for life.

His career in the Republican party was built on selling out individual rights and making moves toward social conservatism, so I don't see how his "character" could change so much over such a short time, especially knowing the level of corruption in Washington.

After the damage done by Bush to the Republican Party, it wouldn't suprise me to see them trying to fluff the Libertarian bed as an alternate party for their agenda should the Republican Party continue to lose its little credibility left. I see Barr as an uncomfortable reminder of the situation that occurred in 1912 with Roosevelt and the Bull Moose Party.

Giraffe said:
As I've explained, the party swung wide right after the disastrous campaign of Michael Badnarick.

So is that an implication that Badnarik was wide left?

[Burning Giraffe]

So is that an implication that Badnarik was wide left?

Yes, for the most part. He's kind of Bill Maher Libertarian. I think Ron Paul is more in line with the moderate libertarian core and I'd say that Bob Barr is to the right of Paul. I think by 2012 we'll have a more moderate candidate like Paul to pull the right and left leaning Libertarians to the principled center.

[william the wierd]

I supported Phillies by helping to set up contact points on the internet. I largely agree with the denunciations of Barr. I was reading up on Browne before there was a Libertarian party and he had his good points but he was being accused of taking and giving kickbacks as far back as I can remember. Paul in 88 and again this time had problems blowing off the lunatic fringe. There ain't no such thing as a perfect candidate or for that matter agreed upon definition of libertarianism beyond the NAP and not much agreement on what that means. For a social Darwinist such as myself it causes no problems but spending time arguing about how many principles can dance on the head of the libertarian pin is nonsense.

[Burning Giraffe]

I supported Phillies by helping to set up contact points on the internet. I largely agree with the denunciations of Barr. I was reading up on Browne before there was a Libertarian party and he had his good points but he was being accused of taking and giving kickbacks as far back as I can remember. Paul in 88 and again this time had problems blowing off the lunatic fringe. There ain't no such thing as a perfect candidate or for that matter agreed upon definition of libertarianism beyond the NAP and not much agreement on what that means. For a social Darwinist such as myself it causes no problems but spending time arguing about how many principles can dance on the head of the libertarian pin is nonsense.

I agree, but one can't exactly ignore the consequences of these sorts of divisions, can they?

[heyjude]

Part of the problem that we Libertarians have is that we don't like government and are less inclined to become part of it than others. Bob Barr is no more of a Libertarian than Obama. I am going to vote for Mary Ruwart, who is a Libertarian. And was runner-up for the nomination.

I could never consider Ron Paul a Libertarian. There are other parties he would fit into nicely. Libertarians are the party of freedom. That is why we call ourselves libertarians. Ron Paul believes in freedom for every one but women who don't want to be pregnant. The Libertarian Party platform supports the right of choice. One of many principles that neither Paul or Barr support. I am going to vote for a Libertarian for president, not a right wing nut masquerading as a Libertarian.

[Osborn F. Enready]

jeyjude said:
Part of the problem that we Libertarians have is that we don't like government and are less inclined to become part of it than others. Bob Barr is no more of a Libertarian than Obama. I am going to vote for Mary Ruwart, who is a Libertarian. And was runner-up for the nomination.

How, she won't be on the ballot? I too liked Ruwart, but she just didn't get the nomination.

HeyJude said:
I could never consider Ron Paul a Libertarian.

??!!??!?? How do you arrive there?

HeyJude said:
There are other parties he would fit into nicely. Libertarians are the party of freedom. That is why we call ourselves libertarians. Ron Paul believes in freedom for every one but women who don't want to be pregnant.

I beg to differ.

LIbertarians are not solidified on the right to life or abortion.

There are many libertarians on both sides of that issue, but mainly because many of them are tainted by religion mixed with their politics.... most have fled to the Constitutionalist Party.

HeyJude said:
The Libertarian Party platform supports the right of choice. One of many principles that neither Paul or Barr support.

No doubt, but that is because both claim to be personally religious......

I would rather see it in state hands, than federal, which both support.

HeyJude said:
I am going to vote for a Libertarian for president, not a right wing nut masquerading as a Libertarian.

Ron Paul has one of the most consistent, honorable voting records in the halls of Congress. One of a few politicians who doesn't say one thing and then do another....

[Osborn F. Enready]

Burning Giraffe said:
Yes, for the most part. He's kind of Bill Maher Libertarian. I think Ron Paul is more in line with the moderate libertarian core and I'd say that Bob Barr is to the right of Paul. I think by 2012 we'll have a more moderate candidate like Paul to pull the right and left leaning Libertarians to the principled center.

I don't see how anyone could have labeled Badnarik a left anything.....I know none of the leftists I associated with had a good word about him.....

I supported Badnarik vociferously when he ran, and still do. He was right about a lot of things, as was Paul, which is why the media hated showing him in the debates......

[heyjude]

I do have a problem with states being the arbitrators of the legality of abortion. It is the military. Women in the military would have no right to abortion if the government did not legalize that right. I know that the military doesn't give women the right, but that is Bush. And we need to stop the president from being able to change laws according to their own personnel religious beliefs. Something neither main-stream candidate is willing to support.

It is impossible to obtain an abortion in some, or at least one state, right now. There are no abortion providers in Wis. If a woman wants an abortion, she must leave the state. Which makes it a law that discriminates against the poor.

There are certain inalienable rights that all citizens have. And states do not have the right to pre-empt them. I believe the right to control her own body and her own fertility is one of them. Bumping abortion rights to the states would make many states able to deny women that right.

I respect many things about Ron Paul, but I will never support any self-righteous male telling me I have to breed.

[Osborn F. Enready]

heyjude said:
I do have a problem with states being the arbitrators of the legality of abortion.

Why? Is not state law easier to change than federal law? Does this then have the effect of making states more representative of the public they are elected in place to govern?

heyjude said:
It is the military. Women in the military would have no right to abortion if the government did not legalize that right. I know that the military doesn't give women the right, but that is Bush. And we need to stop the president from being able to change laws according to their own personnel religious beliefs. Something neither main-stream candidate is willing to support.

I agree, but this is an argument about the emination of rights, and where they derive from. Neither party has that equation right, so their findings are usually 180 degrees out from logical.

The military is the federal testing ground for authoritarian public policy, and it always has been, most evident in drug testing implementation.

heyjude said:
It is impossible to obtain an abortion in some, or at least one state, right now. There are no abortion providers in Wis. If a woman wants an abortion, she must leave the state. Which makes it a law that discriminates against the poor.

No argument here... the issue resides however with the balance of the states population.
There is no partisan answer, since both sides of the bi-partisan coin are built on lying, deceit and incorrect context of our founding documents and legal system.

heyjude said:
There are certain inalienable rights that all citizens have. And states do not have the right to pre-empt them. I believe the right to control her own body and her own fertility is one of them.

I agree 100%, but, you will have no luck with that in either party.... all the more reason to put them in the wastecan of bad ideas.

HeyJude said:
Bumping abortion rights to the states would make many states able to deny women that right.

I understand this, but, it should be obvious to everyone with eyes today that this nation is divided on the concept of individual rights..... The only way to address this is to make it a state issue, and allow people to see the real depth of the problem and act accordingly to their inclinations, by either reforming the system (huge task) or moving to a state that upholds THEIR concept of individual rights in the meantime.

HeyJude said:
I respect many things about Ron Paul, but I will never support any self-righteous male telling me I have to breed.

No doubt, I respect that view and stand beside you in your fight. I will say however, Ron Paul seemed to be the only candidate on the podium that understands where rights actually eminate from.... nature of the BORN and LIVING persons, not some subjective god.

[IndieVisible]

I'm sorry I stopped taking the Libertarians seriously when they nominated Howard Stern! :shock:

[Osborn F. Enready]

Indiependent said:
I'm sorry I stopped taking the Libertarians seriously when they nominated Howard Stern!

Well, surely then you don't support Democrats or Republicans, right?

You have seen some of the members and voting records from both parties, right?

[IndieVisible]

Why not? At least they don't nominate rip off shock jocks who don't care about any thing except ratings. :lmao:

[Osborn F. Enready]

I could care less...

Both parties records stand for themselves..... corrupt from the ground up, and you are championing THAT message, and THOSE messengers?!?

What good has either party done in the last few decades? How many trillions of dollars have they spent, and with what to show for it?

[Invayne]

I could never consider Ron Paul a Libertarian. There are other parties he would fit into nicely. Libertarians are the party of freedom. That is why we call ourselves libertarians. Ron Paul believes in freedom for every one but women who don't want to be pregnant. The Libertarian Party platform supports the right of choice.

Ron Paul was a doctor....obstetrics/gynecology. He has a good idea of what abortion actually does...it kills. I think he is more consistent on the belief of freedom than the rest of the LP if they are pro-death.

Paul doesn't believe in the death penalty either, which I disagree with. I believe in saving taxpayer money and just killing the people that kill others. I do NOT believe in killing innocent life.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Invayne, while we seemingly agree on many things, I have to ask this question of you....

What besides species, does a born person and a fetus have in common?
Under what pretense would a fetus have any rights at all, much less rights that take precedence over a born, full rights holding woman?

[Burning Giraffe]

Ron Paul was a doctor....obstetrics/gynecology. He has a good idea of what abortion actually does...it kills. I think he is more consistent on the belief of freedom than the rest of the LP if they are pro-death.

Paul doesn't believe in the death penalty either, which I disagree with. I believe in saving taxpayer money and just killing the people that kill others. I do NOT believe in killing innocent life.

Abortion may be evil, but it is a dark and cruel reality that it is the only way for our species to survive. I know this sounds cynical and terrible, but without abortion the poor would literally breed Western Civilization into a Dark Age, because there is no social or personal responsibility left to the activity of sex. We'd all end up killing each other over resources anyway, were we to let every child be born. Is abortion murder? Yes it is. But think about the consequences of forcing women to have every child they stupidly conceive.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I agree Giraffe, and that is the underlying necessity.

Its a necessity for many reasons....two of the most evident being:

-The earth is finite, and our species is not.... its always growing, which means more and more people consuming more and more from less natural material overall.
-If we recognize that life sustaining material is finite, and we agree that populations tendency is to grow, we must recognize individual rights to birth control, pre and post conception or that decision will be forced to be taken on by governments through population control methods, which we know is inherantly unjust.


I am all for protecting innocent life that is BORN, that is INDIVIDUAL, that is ABLE to recognize and be legally recognized for their legal rights as born citizens.... but in no way can I support, condone or allow the rights of women to come second to the "claimed" rights of an unborn, who neither contributes to, or is capable of supporting its own life and lives entirely at the will, ability and DETERMINATION of the mother to support that life from conception to birth.

Removing the potential life of an unborn is a right over our own offspring, and I would like to see how those who claim we own our own bodies, are responsible for our own lives and decisions, can attempt to remove the right to control when we do or don't, can or can't, how we will or won't, decide if birthing a child is in OUR OWN best intrests, abilities and how it fits into our pursuit of happiness.


The underlying moral argument against abortion is built upon non-universal values, and logically flawed interpretation of individual rights, and their source of emination.

The right to produce offspring is a fundamental right, as is the right not to.


I say all of this, but still must qualify that I am not pro-abortion, and I don't advocate it..... I am pro-CHOICE, because regardless of my subjective feelings and opinion, women have rights over their own body, the right to privacy, and the right to control their ability to produce offspring, and none of this can be removed simply by "pregnancy status".

If a pregnant woman decides to go on a hunger strike to protest her being forced to birth, what role can the state play except to use force against her, before or after the act?

[Invayne]

Invayne, while we seemingly agree on many things, I have to ask this question of you....

What besides species, does a born person and a fetus have in common?
Under what pretense would a fetus have any rights at all, much less rights that take precedence over a born, full rights holding woman?

If you believe that life begins at conception, which I know alot of people don't, then they should both have the same rights. Unfortunately, the baby is at the mercy of the mother who may or may not be an irresponsible idiot. I can't see anywhere in the Constitution where it says a mother has the right to murder her unborn child.

I used to be pro-death until I saw what abortion looks like.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/index.htm

[Invayne]

Abortion may be evil, but it is a dark and cruel reality that it is the only way for our species to survive. I know this sounds cynical and terrible, but without abortion the poor would literally breed Western Civilization into a Dark Age, because there is no social or personal responsibility left to the activity of sex. We'd all end up killing each other over resources anyway, were we to let every child be born. Is abortion murder? Yes it is. But think about the consequences of forcing women to have every child they stupidly conceive.

It's easy to be irresponsible when you know you can just flush your kid out and throw it in the trash can any time you want to. Somebody somewhere has to know what "personal responsibility" is. Hell, I've never had kids because I never wanted any. If women don't want kids, there's a thing called birth control. It actually works!

[firefox]

I used to be pro-death until I saw what abortion looks like.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/index.htm

This may sound crass, but I have too, and I just don't give a flying ferret. I support abortion because a woman owns her body, AND because I'd be a hypocrite if I rejected abortion because I'd do it myself if I was female in a second-- and I'd LIKE it.

[Invayne]

This may sound crass, but I have too, and I just don't give a flying ferret. I support abortion because a woman owns her body, AND because I'd be a hypocrite if I rejected abortion because I'd do it myself if I was female in a second-- and I'd LIKE it.

:madlaugh: You'd like it, huh? WooHoo! Get up on that table and get in them stirrups, hoss---we goin fer a ride!

A woman owns her body, so she should be responsible with it. That's not HER body that's living inside of her. Do you have any idea what women go through psychologically after it's all said and done? I can speak for a couple of friends of mine. They felt so guilty they wanted to die. One almost changed her mind when they did the ultrasound and she saw the baby inside of her. But unfortunately, her boyfriend said he would leave if she had it, so she went ahead. Years later, the boyfriend was feeling guilty too.

[heyjude]

Some people find it very easy to lead other people lives for them. I have heard women talk about their lives. Women who were not free to choose much of their lives. Their husbands would not allow them to practice birth control because they believed it was immoral. So those women secreted money away to use for abortion. That was the only form of birth control they had.

When I was fourteen my grandmother told me about performing abortions on herself with a crochet hook. My grandmother had ten children. And she self aborted seven times. My grandfather was a Baptist minister and believed birth control was immoral. I think my grandmother thought perpetual pregnancy was immoral.

Ivanye, you have very clear ideas about what you think is wrong. But you never seem to take into consideration that not all women have freedom and power even today. Some women are living lives that are little better than slaves. You would have laws in place that make their lives even harder than they are. I wish you would consider other women's lives . They could use more compassion and less moralizing.

[Invayne]

Some people find it very easy to lead other people lives for them. I have heard women talk about their lives. Women who were not free to choose much of their lives. Their husbands would not allow them to practice birth control because they believed it was immoral. So those women secreted money away to use for abortion. That was the only form of birth control they had.

When I was fourteen my grandmother told me about performing abortions on herself with a crochet hook. My grandmother had ten children. And she self aborted seven times. My grandfather was a Baptist minister and believed birth control was immoral. I think my grandmother thought perpetual pregnancy was immoral.

Ivanye, you have very clear ideas about what you think is wrong. But you never seem to take into consideration that not all women have freedom and power even today. Some women are living lives that are little better than slaves. You would have laws in place that make their lives even harder than they are. I wish you would consider other women's lives . They could use more compassion and less moralizing.

Jeez, I can understand how your grandmother felt. I have a friend whose grandmother did the same thing. I would've cut him off if he wouldn't let me use birth control. (shit, I would've used it anyway) HE should have been the more responsible one...sorry. Anyone who thinks birth control is immoral needs to have a little more compassion. Nowadays, though, there are too many women that can get it for FREE and still don't bother. They use abortion as a method of birth control when there are other options for them. I don't understand why they don't use it....it's CHEAPER!

[Alonzo]

If you believe that life begins at conception, which I know alot of people don't, then they should both have the same rights. Unfortunately, the baby is at the mercy of the mother who may or may not be an irresponsible idiot. I can't see anywhere in the Constitution where it says a mother has the right to murder her unborn child.

I used to be pro-death until I saw what abortion looks like.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/index.htm

I bet you I've seen more aborted fetuses than you have, honestly they don't bother me at all.

Two things though. One is that the fetuses the pro-life groups show are rare, they typically show late term fetus, older than the vast majority of those that are aborted.

Second is that physical body doesn't really tell you much of what is, or isn't, going on inside that fetus or embryo. It may look developed, but cognitively it usually has no functioning at all.

[Alonzo]

A woman owns her body, so she should be responsible with it. That's not HER body that's living inside of her. Do you have any idea what women go through psychologically after it's all said and done? I can speak for a couple of friends of mine. They felt so guilty they wanted to die. One almost changed her mind when they did the ultrasound and she saw the baby inside of her. But unfortunately, her boyfriend said he would leave if she had it, so she went ahead. Years later, the boyfriend was feeling guilty too.

But a study out this month finds that 80% of women were not depressed after having an abortion. In fact, the rate of depression in the postabortion group was equal to the rate of depression in the general population. As for post-traumatic stress symptoms, the rate was 1% in the postabortion group compared with an estimated 11% in women of the same age in the general population.

The study's authors say the results agree with previous studies -- including one by former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, MD -- showing that severe mental distress following an abortion is rare.

"Most women were satisfied with their decision, believed they had benefited more than had been harmed by their abortion, and would have the abortion again," writes study author Brenda Major, PhD. "These findings refute claims that women typically regret an abortion." Major is a professor of psychology at the University of California in Santa Barbara.

For the study, published in the August issue of Archives of General Psychiatry, Major and colleagues interviewed 882 women undergoing abortion. The interviews were conducted prior to abortion, immediately after the procedure, and, for 442 women, again two years later.

Nearly 70% of women reported being satisfied with the decision, and 72% reported more benefit than harm. Of those who reported depression or regret after the abortion, most were depressed or had emotional problems prior to becoming pregnant.

Experts express little surprise at the findings and say this study is more proof that for the majority of women, abortion has few aftereffects.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Nancy Adler, PhD, says that rather than contributing to mental stress, the studies suggest a significant decrease in mental distress and an increase in positive emotions and self-esteem.

Adler, director of health psychology at the University of California in San Francisco, also points out that it is important to look closer at studies that have found psychological harm after abortion to evaluate whether distress really was the result of the abortion, or of other events.

"Experiencing an unwanted pregnancy is itself distressing, as may be the events associated with it. For example, a woman's partner may respond to the pregnancy by leaving her. The abortion then occurs in the context of loss and abandonment, yet depression or distress following the abortion would be attributed to the procedure," Adler writes. Facing hostile protesters and intimidation in seeking an abortion also may be factors that heighten risk for psychological problems postabortion in some women, she says.

http://www.webmd.com/news/20000822/study-says-most-women-dont-regret-abortion?page=2

[Invayne]

Well, good for them. I'm sure these are all abortionists wanting people to think abortion is like getting your toenails clipped....

[Osborn F. Enready]

IT has nothing to do with the "ease" of abortion Invayne.....

It has to do with the RIGHT to make a choice considering a womans own body, offspring and birth control.

[Invayne]

IT has nothing to do with the "ease" of abortion Invayne.....

It has to do with the RIGHT to make a choice considering a womans own body, offspring and birth control.

More women should make the CHOICE of taking more responsibility for themselves. And that goes for men too.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Invayne said:
More women should make the CHOICE of taking more responsibility for themselves. And that goes for men too.

No argument there.

The reason this country is so screwed up right now is people FORGOT we the people are REQUIRED to enforce the Constitutional Limitations on government....apathy, ignorance and propaganda are the new trend.

[Invayne]

No argument there.

The reason this country is so screwed up right now is people FORGOT we the people are REQUIRED to enforce the Constitutional Limitations on government....apathy, ignorance and propaganda are the new trend.

I agree. It'll be the death of us.