Yet Another anti-abortion march on Washington.

Aug 20, 2002
10,154
687
www.usaviation.com
W-T-F !

They come again. This time for the 40th anniversary of Roe v Wade.
Who are these people ? Well most likely, a majority of good well-meaning folks carrying bibles, and Tub-Thumping for thier cause.

The subject matter is a heart breaking one, and as a guy, I'm glad I've never(been able to) have to possibly face this issue !!!!!!!!!!!!

There was the 'weep-er', BONER, grandstanding, declaring that THIS is the PREMIER issue to be dealt with this year !

B U T, as difficult as this issue is, the MAJORITY of Women(Yes women, those hunmans that ONLY can get pregnant)..DO NOT WANT R v W changed.
And (IMHO) in my lifetime, I'll NEVER see it overturned. Furthermore it will NEVER be overturned.

I guess the biggest question I have is,............What part of..... the "majority of the will of the people"...... does the Anti crowd Not Understand ??

If the answer is,......that it makes the ANTI's FEEL BETTER by coming, well that I can understand, But the net result will be the same !

This is not rocket science !
 
Things that make you go hmmm.........Wonder how many women were involved in the march?
Maybe all the Dudes in this pic are wearing wigs, trying to fool everyone !
Or maybe you only believe in free speech, when it fits your agenda !
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
I wonder if they will actually present any ideas to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I doubt it but one can hope. I wonder how many of these people have adopted kids given up by mothers who did not want the pregnancy. I wonder how many of these people have voted against all the aid that these young unwed mothers require to raise a child.

All these people care about is sting the abortion. Other than that, they could not give a cap about the children or the mothers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
Once again we have morons seeking a legal remedy to a moral issue. I have "Issues" with abortion. I also have greater "Issues" with a government getting in between a person and their right to live as they choose.

To me, all of these issues like abortion, drug use, alcohol use, prostitution are issues the government has no business attempting to regulate or legislate as they are issues of Personal Liberty.

These are heart & mind issues that just can not be successfully legislated. Conversely, the government should never ever fund or encourage these behaviors. In the case of Abortion, if you take away the moral component what's left is elective surgery same as a boob job or other cosmetic surgery.

Also if we are so pro women and their so called reproductive rights then perhaps Murray Rothbard is right in that in a true free market men and women could sell their unwanted children. Allowing the sale of kids would lower the number of abortions.

Thanks to Glenn Quagmire for post the Rothbard paper on the subject.
 
Also if we are so pro women and their so called reproductive rights then perhaps Murray Rothbard is right in that in a true free market men and women could sell their unwanted children.
It is an interesting and thought provoking idea. It is an ethicist professor's dream...

Here is a teaser of his writing:

"First, let us begin with the prenatal child. What is the parent’s, or rather the mother’s, property right in the fetus? In the first place, we must note that the conservative Catholic position has generally been dismissed too brusquely. This position holds that the fetus is a living person, and hence that abortion is an act of murder and must therefore be outlawed as in the case of any murder. The usual reply is simply to demarcate birth as the beginning of a live human being possessing natural rights, including the right not to be murdered; before birth, the counter-argument runs, the child cannot be considered a living person. But the Catholic reply that the fetus is alive and is an imminently potential person then comes disquietingly close to the general view that a newborn baby cannot be aggressed against because it is a potential adult. While birth is indeed the proper line of demarcation, the usual formulation makes birth an arbitrary dividing line, and lacks sufficient rational groundwork in the theory of self-ownership."

"... Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway-freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children. Superficially, this sounds monstrous and inhuman. But closer thought will reveal the superior humanism of such a market. For we must realize that there is a market for children now, but that since the government prohibits sale of children at a price, the parents may now only give their children away to a licensed adoption agency free of charge.[12] This means that we now indeed have a child-market, but that the government enforces a maximum price control of zero, and restricts the market to a few privileged and therefore monopolistic agencies. The result has been a typical market where the price of the commodity is held by government far below the free-market price: an enormous “shortage” of the good. The demand for babies and children is usually far greater than the supply, and hence we see daily tragedies of adults denied the joys of adopting children by prying and tyrannical adoption agencies. In fact, we find a large unsatisfied demand by adults and couples for children, along with a large number of surplus and unwanted babies neglected or maltreated by their parents. Allowing a free market in children would eliminate this imbalance, and would allow for an allocation of babies and children away from parents who dislike or do not care for their children, and toward foster parents who deeply desire such children. Everyone involved: the natural parents, the children, and the foster parents purchasing the children, would be better off in this sort of society."

Full article here:

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp
 
I wonder if they will actually present any ideas to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I doubt it but one can hope. I wonder how many of these people have adopted kids given up by mothers who did not want the pregnancy. I wonder how many of these people have voted against all the aid that these young unwed mothers require to raise a child.

All these people care about is sting the abortion. Other than that, they could not give a cap about the children or the mothers.
So you polled everyone of these people...................correct?
 
It is an interesting and thought provoking idea. It is an ethicist professor's dream...

Here is a teaser of his writing:

"First, let us begin with the prenatal child. What is the parent's, or rather the mother's, property right in the fetus? In the first place, we must note that the conservative Catholic position has generally been dismissed too brusquely. This position holds that the fetus is a living person, and hence that abortion is an act of murder and must therefore be outlawed as in the case of any murder. The usual reply is simply to demarcate birth as the beginning of a live human being possessing natural rights, including the right not to be murdered; before birth, the counter-argument runs, the child cannot be considered a living person. But the Catholic reply that the fetus is alive and is an imminently potential person then comes disquietingly close to the general view that a newborn baby cannot be aggressed against because it is a potential adult. While birth is indeed the proper line of demarcation, the usual formulation makes birth an arbitrary dividing line, and lacks sufficient rational groundwork in the theory of self-ownership."

"... Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway-freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children. Superficially, this sounds monstrous and inhuman. But closer thought will reveal the superior humanism of such a market. For we must realize that there is a market for children now, but that since the government prohibits sale of children at a price, the parents may now only give their children away to a licensed adoption agency free of charge.[12] This means that we now indeed have a child-market, but that the government enforces a maximum price control of zero, and restricts the market to a few privileged and therefore monopolistic agencies. The result has been a typical market where the price of the commodity is held by government far below the free-market price: an enormous "shortage" of the good. The demand for babies and children is usually far greater than the supply, and hence we see daily tragedies of adults denied the joys of adopting children by prying and tyrannical adoption agencies. In fact, we find a large unsatisfied demand by adults and couples for children, along with a large number of surplus and unwanted babies neglected or maltreated by their parents. Allowing a free market in children would eliminate this imbalance, and would allow for an allocation of babies and children away from parents who dislike or do not care for their children, and toward foster parents who deeply desire such children. Everyone involved: the natural parents, the children, and the foster parents purchasing the children, would be better off in this sort of society."

Full article here:

http://mises.org/rot...cs/fourteen.asp
Does the fetus have a soul ? We already know your answer Tree, so don't bother !
 
Told you already, if a woman gets a free abortion, simply because she can't keep her legs together, administer a tubal-ligation, at the same time, so she does not become a habitual offender of taking a child's life and leeching off the system !
 
What about the children? What happens when the mother is unable provide for the child?

Life is no more than a series of annoying choices. Under Rothbards theory, a Mother incapable of caring for her child could sell it on the open market. This would eliminate much of the need for food stamps and TANF benefits. Additionally if we stayed out of personal liberty issues the Mother in question could become a "working Girl" and earn more then enough to raise her child.

Notice that none of the remedies require the government to spend a dime and that's the beauty of Liberty. People are free to live their lives as they choose. However they are also forced to live with the consequences of those decisions. Decisions with consequences usually result in a change in behavior.
 
Life is no more than a series of annoying choices. Under Rothbards theory, a Mother incapable of caring for her child could sell it on the open market. This would eliminate much of the need for food stamps and TANF benefits. Additionally if we stayed out of personal liberty issues the Mother in question could become a "working Girl" and earn more then enough to raise her child.

Notice that none of the remedies require the government to spend a dime and that's the beauty of Liberty. People are free to live their lives as they choose. However they are also forced to live with the consequences of those decisions. Decisions with consequences usually result in a change in behavior.

How about we stick to the reality that we currently live in where children cannot be sold and prostitution is illegal. So I'll ask again, what about the children who cannot be provided for in the world we actually live in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Told you already, if a woman gets a free abortion, simply because she can't keep her legs together, administer a tubal-ligation, at the same time, so she does not become a habitual offender of taking a child's life and leeching off the system !
The government doesn't pay for abortions. Some of their funding may go to pay the light bill at planned parenthood, but none of it pays for abortions. The government doesn't pay for abotions....are you saying that they SHOULD?