A Liberal is a Libertarian addled with guilt and self loathing

[Anguille]

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?

It's padded.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Kev...life beginning at conception is a moral view. So you are willing to legislate on a moral view...in this case, yours.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

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.

 

[Modbert]

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?

 

[Ravi]

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.

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.

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.

Last time I check, the unborn are not protected by the constitution.

 

[manifold]

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?

Babies do. Fetuses do not.

 

[Anguille]

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.

baby killer!!!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

I'd be willing to take what I would consider a common sense approach. If the mother's life is in danger, then in my opinion, it makes more sense to save the life of the mother. But ultimately I would leave it up to the mother. If the mother wanted to sacrifice herself for the sake of the baby, that would be her prerogative.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

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.

Last time I check, the unborn are not protected by the constitution.

I would say it is the same thing. When did abortions become "moral?"

Where does the Constitution say the unborn aren't protected? And we don't get our rights from the Constitution regardless.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Is there a difference? That's rhetorical by the way, obviously you see a difference.

 

[manifold]

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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

So no where then?

 

[manifold]

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.

So no where then?

You're funny.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Right after the part where it says the government isn't allowed to regulated television commercial volume.

So no where then?

You're funny.

Only when I'm not trying to be, apparently.

 

[manifold]

So no where then?

You're funny.

Only when I'm not trying to be, apparently.

Only you know for sure.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You're funny.

Only when I'm not trying to be, apparently.

Only you know for sure.

Well I think I'm funny.

 

[manifold]

Like I said, you're funny.