I'm a Libertarian because I believe that when it comes to morality the government has no right to tell someone what they can and can't do with themselves as long as they are not hurting others. I am sick and tired of the government telling me what I can and can't do with my body. If a women wants to get an abortion THAT IS BETWEEN HER AND HER DOCTOR. That is the difference between PRO-LIFE and PRO-CHOICE. Pro-life......abortion illegal. Pro-Choice.......U HAVE A CHOICE BETWEEN GETTING ONE AND NOT GETTING ONE. Pro-choice does not mean that you have to have an abortion. We have too many people in this world already. If we keep going at the rate we are and outlaw abortion the environment won't be able to sustain us. The governments job is to defend us and protect our most basic rights. Not tell us how to live.
- Sign in or Sign up to post comments
- send to friend
- report as spam
the government has no right to tell someone what they can and can't do with themselves as long as they are not hurting others
Great concept
If a women wants to get an abortion THAT IS BETWEEN HER AND HER DOCTOR.
Not at all. It is between 3 persons - woman, doctor and child, who could be either born or killed, at a later stage of pregnancy, the very brutal way. Woman and her doctor decided (conspire) to kill a third person or let this third person live. This is when government could and should be involved, based on your own stated principals (see first quote).
We have too many people in this world already.
Wow! Should I understand it as permission to kill any person whom somebody does not want to see in this world? What if somebody does not like you being here? Can they kill you? Will it be just between him and the killer hired by him to do this job?
my opinion on this matter is as follows. when a man can conceive and carry a child for 9 months then he can be part of this argument. i think abortion is a terrible thing, however i would never make the mistake of deciding what a woman can or cannot do with her body. i understand the pro life argument and i don't disagree with it. but again i feel it is a womans choice and we have to hope most women make the right choice.
So man can decide on live and death of another person only if he can give a birth.
How about only military will vote for Commander in Chief?
How about only bus drivers deciding on safety regulations in public transportation?
How about only bankers decide on our monetary policy?
How about reletives of the women killed for violating family honor (nice tradition in underdeveloped areas of the world) will decide was it the right thing to do?
How about letting only those, who have a permanently ill old reletives, decide should old falks should be killed at the particular age? Should it also between young grandson and the doctor in the nursing home?
If society, through the government, will stop protecting human lives in the society, you can say good-buy to all other human rights.
you just dont get it. but you have all the answers.
the subject was abortion nothing else. your analogys dont work.
i repeat when you can give birth then you can argue a womans right to choose.
Can then women decide on rape charges if they never had surge of testosterone, which man experiences under some circumstances?
Let men decide on this legislation. We could end up with all rapes downgraded to mare accidents.
I do not know if you had noticed that I am not calling for ban on abortion. I just assume that, as in the case of death penalty, government should be very much involved to make killing a human being a very exceptional thing of extreme necessity.
I think it is fundamentally wrong to let women and doctors a license to kill any moment she is going through the mood swing, pretty common during pregnancy, BTW.
shleym we can agree to disagree here.
but on another issue. you asked me to provide you with "even one" incident of bush lieing. well sir i present you with this link http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/64513/detail/
cut & paste and watch the video of bush, cheney, rice, rummy, all lieing on video. now cmon watch it then you reply to me with your opinion.
here is another link to a vid on another lie by gw
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/22/bush-stay-the-course/
on other occasions bush has publicly, directly contradicted pentagon reports on the progress in iraq. if i didnt work i could give you enough lies and contradictions to write a book.
now i do understand that those who are supporters of this administration have tunnell vision and pick and choose information that suits their cause or beleiefs. but if you watch just the 2 short vids from the above url's you will not be able to argue the facts, for they are caught on tape and video.
as i have said in earlier posts the lack of accountability is what could be our downfall.
The video is a childish collage. Assessments from 2024 put against assessments of 2024 or 2024 and difference, which is a result of new information accuired or clarified over 2 years, presented as an evidence of lie.
Hillary told us that
if she knew then what she know now, she would never authorised the war. Does it mean that Hillary is or was lieing? No. It means, that now she knew, that she will not get her base without some anti-war stunt - that is all. Again - new information for our former co-president.Our former First Gentleman took us to war to invade Serbia to stop serbs making albanian massgraves. We went to war, we capture Milosevic, we try him in international court and... and nothing! Nothing was proven over years of trial. It looks like we had capture and tried an innocent man (if you value the "innocent untill proven guilty" concept). Did Clinton lied to invade Yugoslavia? Not, he just trusted our muslim friends, who assured Clinton, that mass graves is a slam dunk in Kosovo. And Kosovo, for multiple reasons, is much easier terrain for CIA to penetrate, than it was Saddam's Iraq. CIA should know better that time, ho was killing whom in Kosovo.
But the difference between Bush's and Clinton's mistakes is profound. Clinton's mistake emboldenned our enemies and cost us 9/11. It was a strategic disaster. Bush's mistake with Iraqi WMD severaly damaged confidence of our enemies in their strength. Strategicaly, it still was the right thing to do. It would be better to crush Saudi Arabia, but there is no legal ground for it in international law, while Saddam, with all of his violations of UN security consil resolutions was practicaly begging for invasion.
Have you ever changed your statements, made 3 years ago, based on new knowleage?
Bottom line - decision to invade Iraq was still made based on the best available information at the time, when it was made. No lieing. Maybe, some incompetence in our intellegence community. But will you blame Bush for trusting professionals?
BTW, latest revelations from Alan Grinspan suggests, that he thought that Saddam is a very dangerous manniac, sitting too close to the world oil supply, to be allowed to run wild. Grinspan gave it to Bush as a reason to use force to depose Saddam, but Bush had considered it a weak reason to invade Iraq based on it.
PS I was talking about the first link, you had provided. I did not check the second one yet
as i said in my post those who support bush choose not to see the facts.
you simply asked me to name one time bush has lied. i am showing you many. but instead of acknowledgement you make excuses and false justifications. as if you and only you know the truth. for every thing you post i could post many facts to refute them, i don't have the time. if you choose to be misled that is your right. also you did just as i predicted in my previous post, blame clinton. well i didn't vote for clinton but he had nothing to do with 911 no matter how much you would like to think so. and you use hillary to prove your point? she is a liar also in my opinion so you will have to use a better example.
by the way just one more little lie (there are so many). how many times did bush use the term "stay the course" in speeches? i believe it was somewhere around 200 times. yet when asked by george stephanoupolis about stay the course bush said, and i quote "we have never been stay the course". the list of deception and lies is endless, you obviously do not want the truth. you are in, what is called, a state of denial and no amount of facts or proof is going to change your mind. \
so be it.
history will show that iraq was for oil and profiteering by friends of the administration. that is my opinion. only time will tell.
anyhow you asked for proof bush lied-i give you many more than one and yet you still wont acknowledge so there is no more debate.
It's all a grand interconnected plot set beyond the times of our founding fathers. Maybe it's set to look like one thing so we can achive another?
Or maybe...I'm just loony, or is it the foundation of all mankind perhaps?
You cannot change the past, but you can look upon it and change the future. Anyone who says otherwise is a lethargic devil.-I.T.
I belive that the government should be involved, just to review the situation, and make a good moral descision. The world is a great place, and around the world there are countries that are willing to have a nice child to help them raise thier own lives. Now you may say it sounds like and in fact it is, baby selling, the selling of a human being, but if you look at it this way, the baby doesn't know where it is when it's born. The mom surley doens't want the kid. The 'government' can control who the babies go to, and if the baby is smart enough to find his orgin, then so be it. That is the hard lesson of Life. If you're gonna take it into the court that's the way it should be laid out. The judges should decide where the baby can be shipped to better the economy to make the most out of his or her ethnic status. Challenge me. I darrre you.
You cannot change the past, but you can look upon it and change the future. Anyone who says otherwise is a lethargic devil.-I.T.
Libertarians are as divided on this issue as the general population.
Here is one Libertarian who believes the only difference between abortion and infanticide is timing. Not to mention that pregnancy can be prevented by a number of means. The one that works the best costs nothing.
This may seem an odd position to many, but I believe abortion, like euthanasia, should be illegal, and available. This would discourage either in all but the most extreme situation. No, I have no idea how to achieve this.
Roe v Wade was not a mistake because it made abortion legal, but because it took control away from the individual states. I have no option to vote with my feet without leaving the country.
Now, it is a sane point of view, I find easy to agree with.
I only have one thing to say about this issue. I am pro-choice, but that choice is not between a women and a doctor, it is between a husband, his wife, and their doctor. The baby is just as much the fathers as it is the mothers, regardless of who has to carry the baby.
i completely agree!
Seems that every political conversation tends to devolve into the abortion issue. How about a little discussion concerning which types of intrusion into privacy (which is what morality legislation is) you would tolerate or endorse. Here's my list of morality categories:
1. Intrusion into personal health issues (abortion, euthanasia, right to die in dignity)
2. Intrusion into personal religious issues (what constitutes a valid religion vs a cult, which laws may be broken in the name of religion, how far can government go in promoting religion)
3. Intrusion into personal sexuality (homosexuality, paedophilia, miscegenation, adultery, marriage)
Those seem to me to be the broad categories, although some may want to add others. I'm pretty libertarian when it comes to morality legislation. But like everybody, I have my limits. My general rule is that government has no place regulating any personal practices or beliefs where there is no one who is clearly hurt by the practice. (In some cases, there are people hurt who seem to want to be hurt, and I think that is their own business.) Where the individuals concerned consent, there's no reason for the government to be interested. And you can always make a case that some practice you find to be immoral hurts your feelings or leads to societal breakdown or just makes you mad as hell, but I don't find that to be a persuasive reason for government to jump in and "fix" it.
What you are allowing if I am correctly reading this,
is if two men.
One recording the other.
Or using a written agreement.
Agree to fight to the death or worse.
then the government or local law have
no right to jump in and fix it?
Or what if a scientist grabs a handfully of people
having them sign a contract for thier lives, and then
be tested and expermented on at the scientists leisure?
Or what if a crazed dope head rallies up some people to move into
the desert, and records direct statements of people consenting to
fight to the death against something, and is violently crushed.
would that be considered an immoral war crime?
What if a rich man goes to several prisons and handpicks several death row inmates, and purchases them, they're already 'dead'. and has them each play a bloddy game of survival. Survival of the fittest. All for entertainment. is this reason for the government to jump in and fix it?
both sides of this debate are wierd.
You need a blunt prespective of the whole thing...
You cannot change the past, but you can look upon it and change the future. Anyone who says otherwise is a lethargic devil.-I.T.
My general rule is that government has no place regulating any personal practices or beliefs where there is no one who is clearly hurt by the practice. (In some cases, there are people hurt who seem to want to be hurt, and I think that is their own business.) Where the individuals concerned consent, there's no reason for the government to be interested.
Here is a tricky test for you.
Sadomasochistic couple adopts or even gives birth to a child. Their sexual practices are consensual. Child is not participating, just occasionally watching foreplays of the parents.
Should government be involved out of concern for the child’s mental health (or to put is cynically, out of the wish to have a productive member of the society in the future), or should it stay out of the sexual life?
phil s
what you suggest shelym is big brother. unfortunately there will always be bad, sick, deranged, and deviant people in the world.
i will propose this to you shelym. would you mind if there are your house is under 24 hour surveillance (including your bedroom, bathroom, etc..)? how else would anyone know what is going on in the case you proposed in your post?
Hi Phil, historicaly societies had always been concernned with wellbeing of its members. And I agree with you, that at least in the western christian society had bben a drive for individual freedoms for the last 600 years.
I do not want Big Brother and I do not want a Roman Familias, where The Father (almost mafia stile Don figure) was free to torture and to kill any member of his family and Gaovernment could say nothing.
It is hard to draw the line. Frankly, I can not answer my own question. That is why I called my question tricky.
shelym i applaud your honesty. i think that often a bad person or persons actions come to light and something is done. of course sometimes they do not, but as you said what are the alternatives. i don't rea;lly know if there is an answer. as you said tough question.
unfortunaltely no society is perfect.
How does the child know what is right or wrong?
Eventually through experience the signs will show.
and someone will say something.
You cannot change the past, but you can look upon it and change the future. Anyone who says otherwise is a lethargic devil.-I.T.
What the author of this thread has seemingly ignored is taht issues of morality are not in any way universally composed. Individuals have mroal guidlines ranging from the most strict of Christian pacifists to genocidal maniacs including Hitler and Hussein. To some, murder is not a right at all as it is either forbidden by God or unjustifiable based upon other, less stable grounds; but to others, murder is just as much a right of the strong as is the freedom of speech. I have not even found a libertarian who disagrees with the fact that murder should be regulated and punished by the government.
Now, the author of this thread has stated that he believes the government should only regulate those actions which affect more than those taking the action. But I have never met a libertarian who will consent to the slaughter of dogs for personal preference and yet this does not affect anyone but the dog and its owners. Yet, with little discernable difference other than taste, a great many libertarians, I am sure, will gladly consent to what amounts to the brutal torture and destruction of cows simply because they cannot seem to get by without their McDonalds. The author may choose to note these examples do not include people. But the author has already provided an example for hypocritcal policies in his discussion of abortion. How can abortion be exclusively in the hands of a woman when the child is the one who bears the mortal end of the bargain? Regardless fo the author's persoanl standpoint,a bortion provides for an excellent example of state regulated morality: in your opinion, this country is currently upholding a woman's right to kill a specifc kind of person. Morality is being regualted, whether you prefer to acknowledge it or not.
shadismount@hotmail.com
is your stance on abortion?........(and for the record my belief is that cruelty to animals is worse then cruelty to another human being, I have not and never will condone cruelty to animals.)Furthermore this argument that an abortion is between a mother, her doctor, and the baby is ridiculous. A fetus is nothing more then a parasite in human from it only becomes a baby once the umbilical cord is cut, to say a baby has a say in an abortion is absurd, a baby has no mental capacity to make that kind of decision.
The way you worded your comment intrigues me, in all my 83 Years I've never heard of a Fetis referred to as a "parasite" , what made you chose that particular word ..
popo
I wouldn't use parasite, but it does make sense.
all the 'baby' does for 9 months is cause a woman pain
and discomfort, and possibly even makes her fatter
and less immobile, and all because of that parasite that
keeps feeding off of mommas belly. And when it's cut off
it's no longer a parasite and it's up to the parent to regard it
as a nuissance or a joy.
You cannot change the past, but you can look upon it and change the future. Anyone who says otherwise is a lethargic devil.-I.T.
The relationship between a fetus and it's mother is a parasitic one. The definition of a parasite is "an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism, something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return." Now correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't a fetus depend on it's mother for existence?, and what kind of return does a fetus provide to it's mother?
The analogy of course is correct, what interested me was your decision to use it in a public venue on such an emotional issue ..
your response doesn't really answer my question.
Pete Evans
I bet if you asked
any woman at some point they wanted that child.
for brief moments of 'pleasure', you must endure 9 months
of discomfort. For every good thing there is a bad thing,
nothing exists that is all good.
If they didn't want that chhild
they committed crime of lust
and it was thier own will
that led them to it.
they we're fully aware of the consequences and yet still
chose to go for it.
sounds oddly familiar doesnt it?
perhaps may touch base on adam and eve?
adam and eve representing humankind and god representing
the 'higher power' that trusted them. Satan being 'inevitable rebels' provoke eve to eat an apple. Causes 'god' to mistrust the humans, and lay the plans for the 'snake' to make plans?
None are intrested to read so I'm not intrested in details at the moment.
thertsmaster@gmail.com
You cannot change the past, but you can look upon it and change the future. Anyone who says otherwise is a lethargic devil.-I.T.
lust is a crime? since when and says who?
Who gets to define when you are hurting someone else? You?
Purely emotional issue based on a confused assumption about some sort of absolute individual rights and the unacceptance of legitimate individual citizenship obligations to a larger group.
Indiana - 2nd District
wrayphil@gmail.com
http://unity-usa.org
That's why you get the whole country to vote on it...
You cannot change the past, but you can look upon it and change the future. Anyone who says otherwise is a lethargic devil.-I.T.
indeed.
I'm pretty sure most humans don't like to be used.
Male or Female.
Lust is using someone for sex only.
Isn't it a moral crime?
A crime that isn't in any book,
but plain common sense?
Or perhaps you are defending it
because you have comitted
such acts as lust yourself?
I'm sure everyone has, but everyone can
be helped, to a certain extent.
I can lead you to the antidote, you
just have to take the medicine yourself..
You cannot change the past, but you can look upon it and change the future. Anyone who says otherwise is a lethargic devil.-I.T.
marriam webster defines lust as - an intense longing. did you pull your definition out of thin air? just curious. and yes i have lusted. and i don't need help because of this. not sure why you would equate lust with needing help. it is a normal human emotion. lust, last i looked is not a crime.
don't know where your coming from except perhaps trying to push your (religious?) views on others.
also your incorrect definition of lust: Lust is using someone for sex only.
last i looked if two consenting adults are ok with using each other for sex only, as you put it, whats the harm? does it offend you?