Will you partcipate in an armed rebellion against the federal government?

[AllieBaba]

You are a Liar. You support the right to murder unborn children because it might inconvenience the mother. You do not care enough to realize the Supreme Court ruled that any Government, town, county, state , federal, can seize anyone's land and give it to someone else for the sole purpose of tax revenue or potential tax revenue. You support affirmative action which is simply a form of racism. Hey but thanks for reminding us of your ignorant positions.

So rape and incest are just inconveniences huh? Because that's what I'm drawing from your statement right there. Oh, and don't forget if her life happens to be in danger. That's just an inconvenience too huh?

The Supreme Court did that, the court isn't exactly Liberal last I checked with quite a few Reagan and Dubya picks on the bench.

I don't support affirmative action (especially the quota system), I support the idea that it's wrong to not hire somebody because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, and things like that.

Which is why I support just getting rid of all such questions on applications which would make Affirmative Action obsolete in many if not all ways.

Once again. We have the left insisting they want abortion to help the multitudes of women who are raped and incestuously impregnated, and whose lives are in danger.

#1. Women have always been able to be medically aborted in emergencies, even before the abortion factories were built.

#2. Women who are raped very seldom get pregnant, and when they do, they have always had the option of what was called a "D&C".

#3. We could put a stop to the incest if the abortion factories would report to the police every girl who shows up for an abortion who is underage for sex. They are MANDATORY REPORTERS. They, like teachers and hospital workers, are obligated by the law to report child abuse. They refuse to. And the liberals defend this heinous behavior.

Liberals in doing this are encouraging incest, which in turn gives them what they think is a trump card in the abortion debate. And that is why they don't report, and continue to refuse to stand up for the rights of the vulnerable. Including victims of incest.

 

[Maple]

but those tea-partiers look pretty threatening, they are for god ,country and family and I think the military might just join them, if god joins them then so will I .

 

[Agnapostate]

[drivel]

Don't make me laugh. You have no basis for claiming that there's rational grounds for your proposed policies when empirical research indicates that countries with less restrictive abortion policies have lower abortion rates because there's a focus on initial prevention of unwanted pregnancies rather than mere prohibitionism. For example, consider Benegiano and Pera's Decreasing the need for abortion: challenges and constraints.

Voluntary abortion is the most controversial act in the entire field of medical practice, although today, it is a practice that, under different conditions, has been legalized in more than 100 countries, mostly in the developed world. The United Nations has agreed that in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning and, therefore, it should be utilized only when contraception has failed. Overall, 61% of humanity lives in countries where abortion is legal and widely available; 14% in countries where termination is allowed to protect a woman’s health; physical, mental, or both; 21% in countries where it can be performed only to save the mother’s life and 4% in countries where abortion is not permitted at all. Restrictive legislation, per se, does not represent a valid deterrent to prevent abortion, while it may contribute to an increase in morbidity and mortality associated with pregnancy. In addition, because abortion is outlawed, nothing is done to actively reduce the reasons leading to it. Indeed, the countries with the lowest abortion rates are those where, on the one hand, pregnancy termination is legal and, on the other, sex education and contraceptive knowledge are widely spread.

Of course, considering that your views are adopted from Biblical principles rather than sound reasoning, it's understandable that you'd be irrational and more focused on the prevention of "fornication" or deviation from traditional gender roles than actual abortion reduction.

 

[AllieBaba]

You are a Liar. You support the right to murder unborn children because it might inconvenience the mother. You do not care enough to realize the Supreme Court ruled that any Government, town, county, state , federal, can seize anyone's land and give it to someone else for the sole purpose of tax revenue or potential tax revenue. You support affirmative action which is simply a form of racism. Hey but thanks for reminding us of your ignorant positions.

So rape and incest are just inconveniences huh? Because that's what I'm drawing from your statement right there. Oh, and don't forget if her life happens to be in danger. That's just an inconvenience too huh?

The Supreme Court did that, the court isn't exactly Liberal last I checked with quite a few Reagan and Dubya picks on the bench.

I don't support affirmative action (especially the quota system), I support the idea that it's wrong to not hire somebody because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, and things like that.

Which is why I support just getting rid of all such questions on applications which would make Affirmative Action obsolete in many if not all ways.

What percentage of Abortions would you say fall into your "Rape , incest , endangerment" category???

It's something like 1/100th of 1 percent, as of the days when you could actually find the information on CDC.

 

[AllieBaba]

[drivel]

Don't make me laugh. You have no basis for claiming that there's rational grounds for your proposed policies when empirical research indicates that countries with less restrictive abortion policies have lower abortion rates because there's a focus on initial prevention of unwanted pregnancies rather than mere prohibitionism. For example, consider Benegiano and Pera's Decreasing the need for abortion: challenges and constraints.

Voluntary abortion is the most controversial act in the entire field of medical practice, although today, it is a practice that, under different conditions, has been legalized in more than 100 countries, mostly in the developed world. The United Nations has agreed that in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning and, therefore, it should be utilized only when contraception has failed. Overall, 61% of humanity lives in countries where abortion is legal and widely available; 14% in countries where termination is allowed to protect a woman’s health; physical, mental, or both; 21% in countries where it can be performed only to save the mother’s life and 4% in countries where abortion is not permitted at all. Restrictive legislation, per se, does not represent a valid deterrent to prevent abortion, while it may contribute to an increase in morbidity and mortality associated with pregnancy. In addition, because abortion is outlawed, nothing is done to actively reduce the reasons leading to it. Indeed, the countries with the lowest abortion rates are those where, on the one hand, pregnancy termination is legal and, on the other, sex education and contraceptive knowledge are widely spread.

Of course, considering that your views are adopted from Biblical principles rather than sound reasoning, it's understandable that you'd be irrational and more focused on the prevention of "fornication" or deviation from traditional gender roles than actual abortion reduction.

Our abortion rates have SKYROCKETED since abortion became legal. Until Reagan and conservative values began to take hold. They have slacked off somewhat, but they are still miles beyond what they used to be.

I could care less about fornication. Nobody gets killed. Unless people are fornicating and thinking it's "worth the risk" that they might get pregnant and they can just kill their baby. THAT I have a problem with.

 

[Agnapostate]

Our abortion rates have SKYROCKETED since abortion became legal. Until Reagan and conservative values began to take hold. They have slacked off somewhat, but they are still miles beyond what they used to be.

What empirically sound proof do you have that abortion legalization is inherently linked to higher abortion rates? Selective incorporation of raw data isn't going to cut it, especially when peer-reviewed empirical literature illustrates a contrasting picture of abortion rates being lower in countries with legal abortion and sex education and contraception programs.

I could care less about fornication. Nobody gets killed. Unless people are fornicating and thinking it's "worth the risk" that they might get pregnant and they can just kill their baby. THAT I have a problem with.

It should be "couldn't care less." Freudian slip?

 

[AllieBaba]

No, just an error. I make them so seldom you don't recognize it, i guess.

As I said, there's no evidence that abortion reduces the number of abortions. The numbers of abortions rose significantly after legalization of abortion, and still hasn't come down....which means the argument that abortion reduces abortion is idiotic.

 

[Agnapostate]

No, just an error. I make them so seldom you don't recognize it, i guess.

Quite often, actually, and typically in more blatant ways.

As I said, there's no evidence that abortion reduces the number of abortions. The numbers of abortions rose significantly after legalization of abortion, and still hasn't come down....which means the argument that abortion reduces abortion is idiotic.

I understand that you're a dimwit, but this is the last time that I'm going to repeat this. Selective incorporation of raw data about an abortion increase is not sufficient to determine that abortion legalization is inherently linked to a necessarily high level of abortions, but peer-reviewed empirical research that controls for various factors is. However, that empirical research indicates that abortion legalization (not "abortion," you moron) policies typically involve sex and contraception education programs to prevent initial unwanted pregnancy, and countries with less restrictive abortion policies thus generally have lower numbers of abortions, while countries with prohibitionist policies don't lower the rate, but merely increase the morbidity risks for pregnant women.

 

[editec]

This thread has devolved into an abortion debate?

Sad that.

 

[sealybobo]

This thread has devolved into an abortion debate?

Sad that.

For the record, I meant to hit no but accidentally hit yes.

 

[Harry Dresden]

This thread has devolved into an abortion debate?

Sad that.

For the record, I meant to hit no but accidentally hit yes.

come on Bo....your probably sitting in your cellar right now taking inventory of your ammo....

 

[Meister]

This thread has devolved into an abortion debate?

Sad that.

For the record, I meant to hit no but accidentally hit yes.

Now that's what I call a Freudian slip, bobo.

 

[necritan]

^^^ Still making this shit up as he goes along.

Don't be such a fucking moron, Dud. Try and come up with an original response. Of course, I can understand how the fact that you're not any different from the standard rightist idiot with a thousand clones who regurgitates the latest talking point might inhibit such a development.

Maybe in the movies.....

More like in reality. But while we're focused on political economy, let me correct a little misconception of yours as it applies to this thread. The more "libertarian" founding fathers were classical liberals, but would likely be libertarian socialists (i.e. real libertarians) today.

Propertarians (those falsely known as "libertarians" in the U.S.) call themselves the descendants of classical liberals, but there is no legitimate comparison to be made between classical liberalism and this doctrine of propertarianism that falsely masquerades as libertarian in nature. Classical liberal philosophy offers a defense of property rights based on individual appropriation of the product of one's labor that many classical liberal theorists expected to result in relatively egalitarian conditions. No defense of vast corporate structure that modern propertarians defend as legitimate fixtures of fair market exchange and the massive concentration of wealth that they defend as the earned reward of entrepreneurial spirit can be drawn from that philosophy.

It's a frank reality that a defense of private property offered in an agrarian society based on simple markets of exchange between independent producers and artisans where egalitarian conditions were expected to prevail cannot be naturally extrapolated to a defense of private property in a corporate capitalist economy where market and wealth concentration are the prevailing conditions and economic democracy is almost entirely nonexistent. Modern propertarians have effectively co-opted classical liberal arguments just as effectively as they stole the "libertarian" label from European anarchists, thus committing what appear to be property violations more severe than any that they regularly decry. For example, as Robert Dahl (A Preface to Economic Democracy Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985) notes:

[A]n economic order that spontaneously produced inequality in the distribution of economic and political resources acquired legitimacy at least in part, by clothing itself in the recut garments of an outmoded ideology in which private property was justified on the ground that a wide diffusion of property would support political equality. As a result, Americans have never asked themselves steadily or in large numbers whether an alternative to corporate capitalism might be more consistent with their commitment to democracy.

Classical liberal arguments are not a sound basis for the alleged liberty-enhancing qualities of private property in the modern capitalist economy, but there are substantive arguments in legitimate libertarian philosophy against such a state of affairs. For example, you might gain from a brief overview in Section B.4 of An Anarchist FAQ, entitled How Does Capitalism Affect Liberty?

Nope...its Libertarian/Conservative. If it was Liberal it would say " ......endowed by a government of men certain rights ; that among these are blah blah blah.....*trails off*

Libertarianism is not a rightist political or economic theory, but originated as anarchist and socialist in nature. The term "libertarian" was first used in print in an 1857 letter by the French anarcho-communist Joseph Dejacque, who later published Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement social from 1858 to 1861. The later French anarchists Sebastian Faure and Louise Michel then founded Le Libertaire in 1895, which ought to illustrate the term's early usage by anarcho-socialists, largely in an attempt to circumvent anti-anarchist laws. Conversely, the U.S. "Libertarian" Party has only existed since 1971, which means that socialist usage of the term predates its misappropriation by American capitalists by more than a century. As noted by Murray Bookchin, the current American definition of "libertarianism" is merely "the specious identification of an anti-authoritarian ideology with a straggling movement for 'pure capitalism' and 'free trade.' This movement never created the word: it appropriated it from the anarchist movement of the [nineteenth] century. And it should be recovered by those anti-authoritarians . . . who try to speak for dominated people as a whole, not for personal egotists who identify freedom with entrepreneurship and profit."

However, even apart from the historical definition of the term, we can make an even more dramatic claim that capital and libertarianism are actually incompatible and that "libertarian socialism" is really the only variety of libertarianism (and socialism, to some extent) that can exist. For example, most libertarian socialists would posit that capitalism is necessarily inimical to the maximization of liberty because of the authoritarian elements inherent in wage labor, which include the hierarchical conditions of the workplace and the effectively oligopolistic seizure of the financial class over the means of production which serves as the basis for the nature of wage labor in capitalism. Such a state of affairs wherein a tiny elite control such expansive resources would rightfully be condemned as authoritarian in nature were it manifested through the vessel of a state. Hence, we'd argue that libertarian socialism is a redundant term because legitimate libertarianism cannot exist without socialism and legitimate socialism cannot exist without libertarianism. But because "libertarianism" is understood as a laissez-faire capitalist philosophy in this country, we have to use the term "libertarian socialism."

Libertarian Socialist's...???? That was hilarious.......

 

[necritan]

This thread has devolved into an abortion debate?

Sad that.

Agreed....

I much prefered the "Are you wanting the Fed's at your door??" thread.

 

[Agnapostate]

Libertarian Socialist's...???? That was hilarious.......

Uh...considering that anarcho-socialists used the term more than a century before its misappropriation by capitalists...

 

[necritan]

Libertarian Socialist's...???? That was hilarious.......

Uh...considering that anarcho-socialists used the term more than a century before its misappropriation by capitalists...

So....the word must hold the same meaning now as it did then??

I will have to research your findings in a bit......

I find myself on the timeline of anarchy to totalitarianism....to be on the border of anarchy....and if that makes me a Libertarian/socialist....so be it. Even though I know socialism to be two steps away from totalitarianism.