Originally Posted by Ardentfrost I hadn't heard the second part before. Though he's made no secret about his PERSONAL beliefs on the matter. HE doesn't want abortion to happen at all, but the fact that he can look past his own beliefs for the ideal of personal liberty is admirable. ...
11-11-2007, 11:17 PM
| #21 | ||||
| tyop speicalist Religion Moderator  Capitalist California 
| Originally Posted by Ardentfrost Sanctity of Life Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 If you believe that a woman owns her own body, then you necessarily believe that a woman do with her body as she chooses. If you believe that she has a "contract" with the fetus, then you necessarily do not believe that her self-ownership is unalienable. Libertarians can dissent from that, and that's perfectly legitimate, but from a philosophical standpoint, the only possible conclusion to arrive at, by way of strict libertarianism, is the position known as "pro-choice." And yes, I am of the position that it should be legislated from a federal level. I would fully support a Constitutional amendment, actually. No, that is not statist of me. I'm not looking to the state for any sort of permission. I'm looking for immunity. To say that I'm a statist for that would be akin to me calling you a statist for wanting federal legislation to protect your property from being confiscated without due process of law.
__________________ $$_/^_^\__*<}{~))}}""?  ????   ? //\\  **!!]" | ||||
     |
|
11-12-2007, 12:02 AM
| #22 | ||||
| For those about to rock...  libertarian Atlanta, GA
| Abortion needs lines drawn though. Unless you're saying that you're ok with partial birth/third trimester abortions. If you are, you are officially the first person I've ever seen to be ok with that. In any case where a line has to be drawn, local governments are better equipped to handle it. There is no line at protecting property. It's either taken from your or it isn't. | ||||
| |
|
11-12-2007, 12:07 AM
| #23 | ||||
| For those about to rock... libertarian Atlanta, GA
| Originally Posted by motivez I only skimmed one of them and didn't really catch what it was talking about. But 15 years and no more complaints like this? I would bet the complaints were either circumstantial or not quoted in their entirety. Like I said, I saw something before talking about some of his previous stances, why they were what they were, and how the criticisms weren't correct. I'm just too lazy to find it
 | ||||
| |
|
11-12-2007, 01:48 AM
| #24 | ||||
| tyop speicalist Religion Moderator Capitalist California
| Originally Posted by Ardentfrost If it's viable, then deliver it. If it's non-viable, then abort it. That's my line. In any event, I wouldn't be in favor of having the federal government set that line. Local governments ... maybe, but I'd prefer if the private sector just did that on its own. Even right now, IDX on viable fetuses doesn't really happen, despite the fact that it's not illegal. IDX isn't necessarily a bad thing; the procedure is done on non-viable fetuses (fetuses that would not survive as infants). And even still, it accounts for less than 1% of all abortion procedures (again, it's NOT illegal either). To use that as your argument against abortion in general is tantamount to saying that guns should be banned because sometimes assailants use them.
Last edited by Dumpy Dooby; 11-12-2007 at 02:06 AM. | ||||
| |
|
11-12-2007, 01:56 AM
| #25 | ||||
| Governments should fear their people  Paleolibertarian
| Originally Posted by Ardentfrost
Unless I'm mistaken, it's not that dumpy is "ok" with abortions. He just feels that people have a right to their own bodies. A woman, in his opinion (and in Rothbard's position) can have an abortion up to the moment of birth - that doesn't necessarily mean actively killing the baby, but it does mean expunging it from oneself, because no person should be a slave to another. The entire issue to Rothbard and dumpy isn't even about if the fetus is alive / human. It's about if a person should remain a slave, involuntarily, to another. | ||||
| |
|
11-12-2007, 02:11 AM
| #26 | ||||
| tyop speicalist Religion Moderator Capitalist California
| Originally Posted by lew I am not ok with abortions, personally. I would not want my girlfriend to get an abortion. However, I do not value the life of a fetus all that much. Excuse my demeanor, but I like to compare it to how I feel about fish. I don't give a shit if people are out killing fish all day. But when I go fishing, I put my fish back into the water. I wouldn't be ok with killing a chicken, but I don't care if others do it. That's close to how I feel about fetuses.
| ||||
| |
|
11-12-2007, 03:06 AM
| #27 | ||||
| Bokonist  Independent Kansas City
| Originally Posted by Ardentfrost I don't think he thinks every state will ban abortion. But he has been very clear that he want Roe v Wade overturned so that states can ban abortion. What the libertarian view on this is doesn't really matter. You guys seem to make him into the end all libertarian, when in reality he is just a very good candidate who happens to have libertarian philosophies.
| ||||
| |
|
11-12-2007, 03:09 AM
| #28 | ||||
| Bokonist Independent Kansas City
| Originally Posted by Ardentfrost What does any of that have to do with being a libertarian. Small government is still government, you are just describing is just federalism.
| ||||
| |
|
11-12-2007, 07:35 AM
| #29 | ||||
| For those about to rock... libertarian Atlanta, GA
| Originally Posted by nbiggershaft Small government is much more easily changed than a federal one. That's really the whole point behind a republic. The government at the most local level is tuned in to the needs of that specific community, so it having the most authority (compared to state and federal) will offer the best solutions to each individual than the larger governments can handle. Larger governments are for shit like roads (states) or foreign relations (federal).
| ||||
| |
|
11-12-2007, 11:35 AM
| #30 | ||||
| The Fed Must Go!  Paleolibertarian
| Well, I proved my point about those who attack Ron Paul. Issue vs. Issue with any other candidate, in 48 hours, not one person took me up on the challenge. We digress.... abortion... ugh... Anyway... Planned Parenthood received more than a third of its nearly $1 billion budget from government grants and contracts last year alone. As Rep. Pence says, "It's time that the American people know that the nation's biggest abortion provider is also the largest recipient of Title X dollars." Pence has introduced the Background on the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act U.S. Congressman Mike Pence : 6th District Of Indiana What right does the Federal government have to take my hard earned tax dollars and kill unborn babies with them? ZERO rights.... Can't be found in the Constitution anywhere. Roe v. Wade didn't give government that right. It should be a state issue period. Ron Paul on Abortion Donkey, Octavius, you lose by default for not replying to the original intent of this thread. Fed Up
__________________ "An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425 (1885) | ||||
| |
|
11-12-2007, 12:03 PM
| #31 | ||||
| tyop speicalist Religion Moderator Capitalist California
| Originally Posted by Fed Up The abortion issue is about whether or not women reserve the right to opt out of pregnancy. It's not about funding. Funding is an extension of the issue, but it says nothing about your opinion on the issue; it's a nonsequitor. I'm against funding abortions. I am not against others getting abortions.
| ||||
| |
|
11-12-2007, 12:17 PM
| #32 | ||||
| For those about to rock... libertarian Atlanta, GA
| Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby Abortion is just one of those issues that people of any party affiliation or philosophy can't come to one conclusion on, as we've proven. If anyone wondered if libertarians can disagree on something, this proves the answer is a resounding "yes"
 But I certainly agree that abortions should be left up to the mothers, however there's gotta be a point (or instances) where the rights of the child needs to be taken into consideration. If a mother decides she doesn't want the baby in the final month of pregnancy, there's no way that's right... especially considering the viable alternative solutions. If the child's birth is going to kill the mother, then sure, that's different entirely. And I'm not going to pretend that I even know when a line should be drawn (when is it too late for a mother to decide to abort?). I do think it'll be a rare occurrence that someone would just assume abort the baby in the 9th month than go through having it and just put it up for adoption or whatever, but some sort of non-federal protection against that I'd be okay with (as in, if it were in my city, I wouldn't make a big fuss about it). I just can't justify drawing a line between the rights of a mother and the rights of a child at the federal level given my ideology. My personal desire is for no abortion to ever happen or be needed, but what I feel personally and what is right isn't the same in this case. | ||||
| |
|
11-12-2007, 12:51 PM
| #33 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est  Pragmatist Greensboro, NC
| Originally Posted by Ardentfrost But his writings and opinions on subjects are relevant unless those opinions have changed, regardless of how long ago it was..
 I know one of his writings about the race riots awhile back came off sounding pretty racist, for example.. I don't think that'd fly very well in today's uber PC political climate.. | ||||
| |
|
11-12-2007, 01:09 PM
| #34 | ||||
| The Fed Must Go! Paleolibertarian
| Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby and this thread has been hijacked...
 The abortion issue is about "when does life begin." This is the key issue. If it was about a women's choice about when to kill their unborn, then how is it that when a pregnant women is murdered and her unborn child is also killed that it is a double murder but when a woman decides to kill her own unborn child that it's OK? Fed Up | ||||
| |
|
11-12-2007, 01:11 PM
| #35 | ||||
| no es mi culpa  Independent Beantown
| Originally Posted by Fed Up because it's a WOMAN'S body. not the state's.
__________________ There is small disproportion betwixt a fool who useth not wit because he hath it not and him that useth it not when it should avail him. | ||||
| |
|
11-12-2007, 01:16 PM
| #36 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur.  Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by Linzyhop Technically the fetus is its own body also.
__________________ No good decision was ever made in a swivel chair. Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid: As we look back in history, the Founding Fathers would be cringing to hear people talking about eliminating earmarks. | ||||
| |
|
11-12-2007, 01:21 PM
| #37 | ||||
| Hamiltonian > Jeffersonian  Libertarian Party DFW
| Originally Posted by Fed Up I would note that many of the states that made this a law (charged with a double murder if you kill a pregnant woman, thus killing the fetus as well) have in some cases admitted to making this a law as the framework within which to attack a woman's right to an abortion.
__________________ “The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased.” --Alexander Hamilton--  | ||||
| |
|
11-12-2007, 01:25 PM
| #38 | ||||
| The Fed Must Go! Paleolibertarian
| Originally Posted by Linzyhop So if a woman chooses as her method of abortion between some guy who punches her in the stomach to kill her baby and a doctor that kills the baby surgically, it's still her choice but how come one goes to jail for murder and the other wouldn't? It was her choice right? The State would step in and arrest the one who punched her in the stomach whether she approved or disapproved of it.
If you think the State doesn't own you then why is the name on your Birth Certificate capitalized? Why is the name on your Drivers License capitalized? Why is your name on any public document capitalized? Think again. You're owned! Fed Up | ||||
| |
