Society cannot interfere halfway; "interruptus interruptus." In for a penny, in for a pound. If we can and must intervene within someones body despite their objection, all because a fetus MAY be a person, we can and must intervene outside it with their urging because they are CERTAINLY a person.

"I am removing my cancerous arm before it kills me."

"No, your arm MAY be a person; that would be murder."

"Then treat my cancer."

"Not my business, not my problem."

Except society MAKES it our problem if we demand a role; we cannot demand the role then abandon it when its consequences are undesirable. It is either our business or not, and if invasively for presumptive lives, that much more noninvasively for undeniable lives. If we are always absolutely—supercedingly—"pro-life" we cannot stand idly saying our right to retain all wealth supercedes life. Perhaps one is preeminent, perhaps the other, but they cannot BOTH be preeminent.

Bottom line: One cannot be pro-life and anti-sustenance. Life is impossible without sustenance, so any obligation to life is necessarily and equally obligation to sustain life, though there are potential added state obligations (e.g. readiness, productivity, etc.) It is irresponsible and unreasonable to mandate life yet not its support.

I have never objected to killing to prevent another death, nor even to prevent serious injury. I listed many complaints against capital punishment, but not that one, nor do I object to guns under reasonable conditions. Remember, I support certified responsible private ownership of tanks and fighters; my preferred certification requirements would just be prohibitively high for most civilians.

Anyway, where known alternatives exist to stealing food or anything else to save a life, excuses to do so are NONexistent. Absent such options though, few juries would convict Jean Valjean, not because stealing to save a life is the lesser of two evils, but because it is no evil at all. Unsurprisingly, it is as with abortion: "Morally" refusing to steal what cannot be bought when someone will die without it is passively killing them, just as letting someone else kill a child is passively doing it oneself. The pro-choice issue has never been "is killing babies OK?" but "is a fetus a baby, and if so, when?" For all the "baby killer" slurs, pro-lifers implicitly recognize that distinction with each bill declaring fetuses people—because under current law they are NOT.

It is a proposition, yes, but a foundational one in Western law: In Americas case, the Fifth Amendment prohibits deprivation of liberty without due process of law, and due process only permits liberty forfeiture on criminal conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Incidentally, that protection notably does NOT include liberty to retain wealth, hence monetary and other civil judgements are binding, despite requiring only proof by preponderance of evidence, not beyond reasonable doubt. The liberty of a persons, well, PERSON, however, IS covered, hence a person may not be imprisoned without conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Likewise, the state may not dictate what medical procedures competent free citizens obtain.

I cannot explain how, but if referring to case law, no, I am not aware of it. If even subsequent proof is needless that is a dangerous precedent/statute: Anyone could legally justify going anywhere by saying they believed someones life in danger; sincere and fabricated claims are indistinguishable. Reasonable evidence less than proof would be another thing, but even within law the precise meaning of "reasonable" can be very uncertain despite (or because of) its legal definition.

I have always been personally pro-life; if everyone were content I alone never have an abortion there would be no debate. I have, however, gone back and forth at least three times on whether I am also pro-choice, before finally (apparently...) concluding I am. Ultimately, the clincher is abortion bans do not prevent abortion, only make it far deadlier for those obtaining one anyway. That is, abortion bans do not save a single fetus' life, only ensure far more women die with them; from a pragmatic perspective bans are tragically pointless.

Aside from that though, I adamantly support self-determination, and the possibility it MAY apply is not sufficient to overrule it where it INDISPUTABLY applies.

Yes; I read Justice Blackmuns majority opinion in Roe. The sticking point is whether the vast uncertainty over when/what a person is justifies banning or permitting abortion. I keep coming back to definite-person>maybe-person. The second the latter is medically on par with the former my position on abortions legality does a 180°, but we are far from there. I (et al.) favor the view that if death occurs when brainwaves cease life occurs when they begin, but even when brainwaves begin—even what "brainwaves" are—is fiercely and widely debated precisely because of the implications on abortion. Even a relatively unbiased source devoted to general medical ethics yields this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1375108/

You may recognize Dr. Goldenrings name from the Komen/Planned Parenthood thread a while back, or the hotly debated article I cited at the time from an author who bills herself as an (unaccredited) experienced professional on womens health issues (i.e. she wrote a few rabidly pro-choice About.com entries and LTEs.)

Point being, our definite knowledge of when life begins is about where it was 40 years ago when Justice Blackmun rightly noted we had virtually none, and concluded that precluded any basis for prohibiting abortion. Since then, partisans on both sides have greatly clouded the issue with slanted presentations of research biased and otherwise, without advancing certainty an inch. The issue remains whether government should legislate critical medical decisions for millions of people based on a hotly debated impossible-to-resolve supposition. One can argue government should, even (theoretically) make a reasonable case for it—but no libertarian can, nor can anyone who insists the right to retain all property preempts the right of millions of fellow Americans to not starve or freeze to death on the street.

If life is preeminent, life is preeminent; preeminence permits no qualifiers. Life either trumps being "taxed enough already," or is not preeminent.

Mm, yes; but murder must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, obviously impossible if we cannot even prove beyond doubt there was even a person there to be murdered in the first place. If pro-lifers spent as much time PROVING fetuses are people as they do legislating it, again, there would be no debate. Because, again, pro-choice=/=baby murderer. Really. "Proclamation," indeed; good thing some are less easily offended than others.

Anyway, ban someone aborting their Downs Syndrome afflicted child and they would still do it, so if it WERE a baby it would be no less dead: The only difference is there is a good chance the mother would die with it, or be maimed. It would not be the fathers call in any case unless it were in his uterus (but that messed up aspect of the abortion debate was already covered elsewhere.)

"That's a valid position but only if you carry it all the way. Otherwise it is nonsense." Congrats, in turn, on conceding my initial point on consistency.

To the point in question: Murder indisputably takes a persons life; again, abortion can not be proven to take a persons life and thus be murder, else there would be no debate. Likewise with theft; it indisputably preys on another person. Even refusal of taxation does indirectly, because you and I must either make up the difference or do without the government goods and services denied (or both.)

The issue is NOT whether women may kill a person inside them for any reason or none, but whether it IS, indisputably, a person. Proving it beyond reasonable doubt would be good enough, IMHO, because proof beyond reasonable doubt is good enough for a murder conviction, but we do not even have a preponderance of evidence. It is a supposition or, if one prefers, a "simply a proclamation, you don't justify it, merely '[Isaac] says', and hence may be discarded." Once we discard "abortion is murder" though naught remains to debate.

Also once again, I do not object to "people" having guns: I object to criminals and/or the incompetent having them. Another one of those funny things; almost no one would hand a violent felon, paranoid psychotic or a toddler a gun, let alone a law-abiding rational adult "merely" ignorant of how to even load or even clean the weapon. Yet just try passing a law against it and suddenly that is tyranny.

News flash, Libertarian=/=libertarian, no more than Bush offerd Kerry a consolation prize by pledging "a democratic Iraq." It is increasingly hard to see much difference between the Libertarian Party and Log Cabin Republicans (sometimes right down to the anarchist wing(s)) but libertarians include far more persuasions.

We established nothing of the sort. I am fine with forcing people to support other people if 1) the other people are incapable of supporting themselves and 2) proven beyond reasonable doubt to BE people. For example, I do not agree the proper way to deal with a fetus diagnosed with Downs is to deliver it, then leave it on a street corner to starve/freeze. Just like when that HS girl had her baby, dropped it in a dumpster and went back to prom she was prosecuted for murder; we did not simply say, "well, it was outside the womb; no harm, no foul."

I was told preeminent sanctity of life makes the state responsible for lives of prenatal quasi-people but not postnatal definite people. That is contradictory on its face: Either the state is responsible for all peoples lives, or none; it is not responsible for peoples lives when—and only when—that suits Cannoli (or any other individual.)