Reply With Quote
Be patient. GOP is ing themselves.
the GOP.
Be patient. GOP is ing themselves.
.true
I would argue you can't be "pro-life", aka "anti-choice" and libertarian. You also can't be anti-gay civil rights and libertarian. Libertarian by definition means you oppose government involvement in your private life, as well as in many areas of public life. It means LESS government. Being anti-abortion and anti-gay rights means you want to government MORE involved in people's private lives.
I disagree.
Libertarians believe in the unalienable rights of the individual. The question becomes, when does a person become a person deserving of those rights. Many libertarians are grappling with that question.
If you believe, as I do, a person becomes a person at conception then you ascribed to them those unalienable rights of life, liberty, and property.
No, but you can be anti-preferential treatmentt for "special" classes of people.
Even to the extent that government works to afford protected status to other individuals.
Even to the point where property owners should be allowed complete control of their property, including with whom they choose to associate, do business, or serve.
Yep.
No, it means you want the government to protect the unalienable rights of the unborn and quit giving undue advantage to groups defined by the squeaky wheel.
When you're adding an exception to the general rule in the cons ution, you're singling out who the 'special classes of people' are. So the 'special' classes of people are heterosexual couples, not the other way around.
Couldn't agree more. I'm not sure the Cons ution speaks to marriage beyond the contractual obligation one person has to another.
I say we abandon all statutes, government privileges, and policies that depend on marital status.
Unless you believe that the state can intervene to protect the life of an individual and that life starts at conception. As for "gay rights," it depends on how those rights are defined. If it's to live as you see fit, that's one thing. If it's to impose something on another through the state, above and beyond respecting the rights of others to live as they see fit, then that's not a libertarian perspective. A libertarian believes the state should stay out of marriage altogether, for example, beyond upholding a contract between however many individuals. A libertarian will certainly oppose certain parts of a 'pro gay rights' agenda.
Libertarianism is certainly not for the eradication of all government, and while there are many state actions that libertarians want to see eliminated, it is not as simple an ideology that all government action is unnecessary and should be eliminated. Many confuse anarchism with libertarianism in that vein.
Last edited by Marcus Bryant; 05-15-2009 at 03:10 PM.
In addition, expecting a similar approach to abortion and gay rights from a libertarian ignores the fundamental difference between the two issues. On the one hand, you have at issue whether or not a fetus is an individual. The other issue is essentially a private relationship between consenting individuals.
So if you believe life "begins at conception," how do you balance the priority of the fetus's life versus the mother's life? Because in many cases, not having access to abortion would threaten the mother's life, either physically, financially, or emotionally.
And WTF does it mean to say life begins at conception, anyway? That is the most ridiculous language I've heard, and you hear it a lot. Life begins when the sperm makes contact with the ovum? So every miscarriage could then be classified as manslaughter? Come on.
I can imagine a rational discussion about the limits of safe, legal abortion that actually gets into "where life begins"...but I don't think you can make a rational argument for life beginning before the fetus is capable of living on its own outside the woman's body...and that doesn't happen until at least 6 months.
As far as gay rights goes, no gay rights advocate has ever argued for "special rights"...in the same way black people weren't arguing for "special rights" when they wanted inclusive classrooms and to sit in the front of the bus. Marriage is a civil right, conferred by the state, and has been a civil contract for centuries. It has also changed its meaning over the course of human history - it used to mean a man purchased a woman, and often property as well, in a financial transaction. Today it is a civil contract that grants hundreds of rights to opposite gender couples in 50 states, and to any couple regardless of gender in 6 states (MA, NH, VT, IA, ME, CT)
That's a difficult question. But, I'd much rather contemplate it in the absence of the million of convenience abortions being had every year.
No, life begins when the sperm penetrates the ovum, fertilizes it, and cell division occurs.
Every miscarriage could then be classified as a death. In some cases, miscarriages caused by violence or assault are already classified as homicide.
So, you would say a baby, born prematurely, and incapable of living on its own, outside the woman's body could be killed?
Affirmative Action is a request for special rights. Preferential hiring is a request for special rights.
Threatening the mother's life "financially"? Um, ok.
The meaning is stated.And WTF does it mean to say life begins at conception, anyway?
Then when does life for an individual begin? Come on yourself.That is the most ridiculous language I've heard, and you hear it a lot. Life begins when the sperm makes contact with the ovum? So every miscarriage could then be classified as manslaughter? Come on.
So simply because a fetus cannot live on its own, that does not mean it is an unique individual? Does not follow. And of course you could imagine a rational discussion about the limits of abortion, but apparently you are incapable of actually participating in one.I can imagine a rational discussion about the limits of safe, legal abortion that actually gets into "where life begins"...but I don't think you can make a rational argument for life beginning before the fetus is capable of living on its own outside the woman's body...and that doesn't happen until at least 6 months.
Special rights is not the issue.As far as gay rights goes, no gay rights advocate has ever argued for "special rights"...in the same way black people weren't arguing for "special rights" when they wanted inclusive classrooms and to sit in the front of the bus. Marriage is a civil right, conferred by the state, and has been a civil contract for centuries. It has also changed its meaning over the course of human history - it used to mean a man purchased a woman, and often property as well, in a financial transaction. Today it is a civil contract that grants hundreds of rights to opposite gender couples in 50 states, and to any couple regardless of gender in 6 states (MA, NH, VT, IA, ME, CT)
Anyways, libertarianism, like any other political ideology, does not imply a given position on the legality of abortion. That was the subject at hand, at least originally before your last post.
Affirmative action has nothing to do with gay rights. No gay activist is arguing someone should be hired BECAUSE they are gay, only that they shouldn't be ruled out for that reason.
How about the creation of technology capable of taking a fetus from the womb early on in a pregnancy which allows for the kind of development which takes place during pregnancy? We're probably not as far away from that as we might think.
In the meantime, we're supposed to pretend that there's nothing there until an individual pops out of their mother's vagina, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Like our president said, I think we can all agree that the number of abortions in this country should decrease. As abortion activists are fond of saying, abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Of course the key to keeping abortions rare is quality sex education, something many of the so-called "pro life" activists argue against. Since it has been well do ented that abstinence-only sex education is completely ineffective in preventing people from having sex, it is pretty clear more comprehensive, honest sex education is the way to go.
I am not sure what the third question is meant to mean, other than be the kind of inflammatory scenario anti-choice people often bring up. Under what cir stances would someone want to kill a "baby" born prematurely? If it can live on it's own, it's a human life. If it must be inside the mother's body in order to survive, it's a fetus. That's my definition.
Anyways, abortion in this country has been a rather effective method of culling a large percentage of poor, non-white individuals.
Meanwhile, politicians take donations from groups which generate a significant amount of revenue from performing abortions on poor, non-white individuals to maintain the status quo.
I don't think we're far from this either, but I can imagine groups of people who would oppose this practice as well. For many, the concern for the life of the unborn is sincere... however, I think we'll find that for many others, it's really about the sex.
Well, sure. Which is absurd to a certain extent because then it would be more likely that individuals use protection. So if abortion was made illegal then it could be a boon for 'safe sex' advocates.
What organizations are you implying here? Most insurance (all?) won't cover abortions, so most abortions are done at hospitals or non-profits (e.g. Planned Parenthood) neither of which are profit-making businesses. So they don't actually generate revenue - the revenue they make pays for salaries and then goes back into the business, if there is any left over. But if you know anything about non-profits, you know that there is almost never, ever anything left over.
So nobody profits off a non-profit? How about the execs? Do they work for free?
It's just a coincidence that most Planned Parenthood clinics operate in areas with largely poor, non-white populations.
But, why do we agree the number of abortions should decrease?
Why rare?
If it weren't so easy to escape the consequences of casual sex, there wouldn't be as many abortions either.
Frankly, I have trouble imagining the cir stances under which someone would want to kill an unborn child. So, I equate the two. The prevalence or frequency or commonality of one cir stance over the other doesn't persuade me.
Pretty arbitrary... There are premature infants that cannot survive outside the womb without extraordinary medical intervention. Could a mother forgo the medical care and, in effect, abort the baby?
This isn't meant to be inflammatory. It's a relevant question.
Like Brookline, MA, where their mothership office is located?
Uh, rare because no one can deny that abortion is an intense, sometimes traumatic medical procedure no woman would choose unless she felt like she had no other choice. And that is why women choose it - because they feel like they have no other choice. Raising a child you don't want, aren't ready to care for, or otherwise can't support isn't noble, it's child abuse. And while adoption is an nice idea, there are far too many children already in need of homes.
It gets really tiresome discussing this issue with men, who have no concept of what it is like to be a woman and to actually have to carry a child, give birth, much less be a mother. And I don't care how many pregnancies/births you've witnessed, I don't think men really have much business having opinions on this issues. It's a medical issue that should be between a woman and her doctor.
Would you expect the executives to live anywhere else?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
