Virginia's Latest Threat to Reproductive Rights

Capitalism Magazine ^ | May 21, 2003 | Jim Woods

[Thane_Banquo]

Fundamentally, the abortion disputes are about individual rights—a woman's right to make decisions about her life, her body, her future, and her reproduction.

What about the child's right to make decisions about his body, his future, and his reproduction?

[trebb]

Even if they decide that some abortions are OK, they should not spend 1 penny of our taxes on the procedure.

[RJCogburn]

I am in favor of making the 'morning after pill' available without prescription, but the author's careless phrase

denied their right to medical care

is incorrect. He might have said something like 'their entitlement to health care' which is more accurate and more odious.

[The Old Hoosier]

What kind of stupid magazine is this? "Captalism" mag is for state-funded contraception. What, do they carry a few pages of RU-486 ads or something?

[presidio9]

A more honest name for this magazine would be "Libertarianism."

[LiteKeeper]

Pro-life bump for later

[Servant of the Nine]

What about the child's right to make decisions about his body, his future, and his reproduction?

A fetus gets rights when it becomes capable of surviving outside the womb, or should. Until then it is just one more parasite living inside someones body.

Only liberal democrats could expect something with the lifestyle of a leach to recieve equal rights if they thought about it.

What happened to "individual responsibility"?

So9

[John Beresford Tipton]

Perhaps it is called Capitalism because capitalism is about freedom, a concept that is alien to theocrats such as the Taliban (among others).

[The Old Hoosier]

Since when do libertarians favor state-funded contraception/abortion?

[Ligeia]

Perhaps it is called Capitalism because capitalism is about freedom, a concept that is alien to theocrats such as the Taliban (among others).

This capitalist author seems to have forgotten that in a capitalistic society, citizens have their prescriptions filled at the corner capitalistic drug store instead of at the state-supported, taxpayer-subsidized arm of the government called a state university.

[jimt]

Since when do libertarians favor state-funded contraception/abortion?

They don't, but that doesn't stop folks who just like to get in a gratuitous insult.

[vt_crosscut]

Speaking of careless wording. How can the morning after pill be called "emergency contraception"? The definition of contraception is the prevention of conception. By definition, contraception must happen BEFORE conception. The morning after pill is not contraception, it is an abortion.

[presidio9]

Click on the thread. The editorial policies of "The Conservative" on the subject of abortion jibe nicely with the apologies endorsed by Libertarians. Be sure to pay these linked earlier articles a visit. Note the Democrat policy on abortion is easily distinguishable from that of Libertarians. These are clearly of the latter flavor.

The Religious Right's Descent into the Anti-Abortion Swamp Will Send Americans Reeling to the Far Left
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=259

Abortion: When do rights begin?
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=273

President Bush's Contradictory Stance on Abortion
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=169

[borntodiefree]

Since some are the abortion discussion...again....I thought this would be an interesting read ....

---

Christianity, Libertarianism, and Abortion
Are Christianity and Libertarianism at war over abortion?


To answer the question we must first define the terms:

Libertarianism: The acceptance that all mankind is free to do as he pleases as long as he does not violate the rights of another individual (this does not mean there are no personal consequences, just no government intervention), if the person does violate the rights of another person then it is a crime.

Christianity: The acceptance of Jesus the Christ’s sacrifice upon the cross for the forgiveness of mankind’s sin and the following of the precepts of the Bible.

Abortion: The destruction of an embryo.

Before we address the issue of the embryo, it should be conceded that the man’s sperm and woman’s egg have no perpetual life and are designed to die. It is therefore true of these cells that the man or woman are clear to do with them as they please; however though not all things that can be done should be done from a moral perspective.

The question now is what happens when these two cells (sperm and egg) merge into an embryo. The embryo unlike its components is no longer destined to be ejected from the body, but now maintains its own self-perpetuation. Though the embryo is reliant upon the nurturing from the mother, it is still self-replicating and requires no additional external support or design to continue its growth (except nourishment).

What then distinguished the embryo at any stage in the womb to the moment just before birth to the moment just after birth and beyond? There is increased cell division, however, the design of the embryo at any stage has not changed. Therefore the human embryo immediately at conception or fifty years out of the womb has not changed except for increased cell division. The intelligence factor is a non-issue as we are referencing the physical human embryo and we cannot determine who has a right to life based on mental development at a particular stage of existence.

Therefore with true conviction as a Christian first and a Libertarian second, I can unequivocally state that the purposeful destruction of this self-replicating human embryo whether at the moment after conception, just before birth, or any time after birth should be considered murder.

What of women who are raped or were incestually fertilized? Is this the fault of the self-perpetuating human embryo? The answer is of course no. This is not to be insensitive to women who have been treated so terribly, but this is not about the rights of the woman, but of the self-perpetuating human embryo.

The determination of abortion being a crime or not is not within the purview of the powers granted to the Federal government. I will therefore continue to fight to remove ALL unconstitutional “Federal” laws, but do support a law making abortion illegal at the State level.

by Mark Andrew Johnson
Candidate - U.S. House of Representatives – District 8 – 2002
8518 Piccadilly Lane – Harrisburg, NC (28075)
http://www.markforusrep.com - mjohnson@markforusrep.com

[GovernmentShrinker]

If they don't spend tax dollars on abortion they'll spend many times more tax dollars on various forms of welfare and public schooling for the resulting children and their mothers. No point prohibiting taxpayer funded abotions without prohibiting taxpayer funded welfare and social engineering schemes at the same time.

[candeee]

What about the unborn children that have saved their mothers' lives by allowing the mother to temporarily share the unborn child's properly working kidney?

[candeee]

Since when do Libertarians advocate the initiation of force?

[GovernmentShrinker]

I'm a libertarian, and under the current scheme of things I certainly favor taxpayer funded abortions. Until the welfare state and public school systems are dismantled, every taxpayer dollar spent on abortions saves hundreds if no thousands of tax dollars spent on supporting the children and their demonstrably irresponsible parents. I'm in favor of anything that shrinks government, and taxpayer funded abortions definitely shrink the bloated welfare and public education portions of government, and also tend to shift the political balance (trust me, people who grow up on government checks tend to vote for big socialist government).

[Servant of the Nine]

What about the unborn children that have saved their mothers' lives by allowing the mother to temporarily share the unborn child's properly working kidney?

What about it?
Rights and obligations are individual.
No person or fetus gains any status or owes any obligation based upon what happened in any other case.

So9