Anguille
Bane of the Urbane
- Mar 8, 2008
- 17,910
- 2,266
- 48
It's padded.I've been in the room when libertarians hash this one out...
The libertarians actually have "a room"? Like a specific room?
Is it sort of like a Masonic Lodge?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's padded.I've been in the room when libertarians hash this one out...
The libertarians actually have "a room"? Like a specific room?
Is it sort of like a Masonic Lodge?
Kev...life beginning at conception is a moral view. So you are willing to legislate on a moral view...in this case, yours.Not true. I, for example, am not all that religious, and I would certainly lean pro-life.
No offense Kevin, but how often do you disagree with Ron Paul?
Libertarians by definition should be pro-choice. You wouldn't want the Government coming in to tell you what to do with your children, but you want them to come in and tell a woman what to do with her body?
Not often. But if you'd like an example or two, he's religious and I'm not. We obviously have at least some difference there. Another example would be his stance on pork. I understand his position, and it's correct, but I don't think he should put the pork into the legislation in the first place.
But libertarians, by definition, do not have to be pro-choice as I've already explained. If you accept the notion that life begins at conception, then how could you accept the notion that a woman has the right to terminate that life simply because it's growing in her body? But that's why it's a complex issue, because it is her body.
I think that decision should fall to the mother and her doctor.
Except where's the baby's say? The doctor's job is to do whatever the mother wants.
Kev...life beginning at conception is a moral view. So you are willing to legislate on a moral view...in this case, yours.No offense Kevin, but how often do you disagree with Ron Paul?
Libertarians by definition should be pro-choice. You wouldn't want the Government coming in to tell you what to do with your children, but you want them to come in and tell a woman what to do with her body?
Not often. But if you'd like an example or two, he's religious and I'm not. We obviously have at least some difference there. Another example would be his stance on pork. I understand his position, and it's correct, but I don't think he should put the pork into the legislation in the first place.
But libertarians, by definition, do not have to be pro-choice as I've already explained. If you accept the notion that life begins at conception, then how could you accept the notion that a woman has the right to terminate that life simply because it's growing in her body? But that's why it's a complex issue, because it is her body.
The doctor's job is to help the mother make an informed decision. As to where the baby's say is, obviously that's ridiculous. The abortion issue is so complex because it doesn't fit into a neat little box. At some point, either the mother or the baby's rights could be violated.
Me, too. But in that case it isn't a moral reason that you are depriving a citizen of their rights. Not the same thing.Kev...life beginning at conception is a moral view. So you are willing to legislate on a moral view...in this case, yours.Not often. But if you'd like an example or two, he's religious and I'm not. We obviously have at least some difference there. Another example would be his stance on pork. I understand his position, and it's correct, but I don't think he should put the pork into the legislation in the first place.
But libertarians, by definition, do not have to be pro-choice as I've already explained. If you accept the notion that life begins at conception, then how could you accept the notion that a woman has the right to terminate that life simply because it's growing in her body? But that's why it's a complex issue, because it is her body.
I also find murder and theft to be immoral.
Libertarians are not all pro-choice, not by a long shot. If you believe that life begins at conception then you would see aborting a fetus as a violation of that baby's natural right to their life, and if that's the case then you would not acknowledge the mother's right to violate the baby's right. That'd be very consistent with libertarianism.
If you're a fucking retard who doesn't understand the concept of individual liberty.
No offense.
None taken.
But I do understand the concept of individual liberty, and who's to say that the baby doesn't have natural rights and individual liberty the same as the mother?
None taken.
But I do understand the concept of individual liberty, and who's to say that the baby doesn't have natural rights and individual liberty the same as the mother?
Babies do. Fetuses do not.
The doctor's job is to help the mother make an informed decision. As to where the baby's say is, obviously that's ridiculous. The abortion issue is so complex because it doesn't fit into a neat little box. At some point, either the mother or the baby's rights could be violated.
And that's exactly the point if you see the baby as a person with natural rights. The question is, who's rights are you willing to violate?
Me, too. But in that case it isn't a moral reason that you are depriving a citizen of their rights. Not the same thing.Kev...life beginning at conception is a moral view. So you are willing to legislate on a moral view...in this case, yours.
I also find murder and theft to be immoral.
Last time I check, the unborn are not protected by the constitution.
If you're a fucking retard who doesn't understand the concept of individual liberty.
No offense.
None taken.
But I do understand the concept of individual liberty, and who's to say that the baby doesn't have natural rights and individual liberty the same as the mother?
Babies do. Fetuses do not.
Where does the Constitution say the unborn aren't protected? .
Right after the part where it says the government isn't allowed to regulated television commercial volume.
Right after the part where it says the government isn't allowed to regulated television commercial volume.
So no where then?
You're funny.
You're funny.
Only when I'm not trying to be, apparently.
Only you know for sure.