Posted on 05/02/2013 4:07:23 PM PDT by presidio9
Addressing Planned Parenthood last week, President Obama made what must be one of the least self-aware statements of his tenure. "Forty years after the Supreme Court affirmed a woman's constitutional right to privacy, including the right to choose, we shouldn't have to remind people that when it comes to a woman's health, no politician should get to decide what's best for you," he said. "No insurer should get to decide what kind of care that you get. The only person who should get to make decisions about your health is you."
It's no secret that
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
Libertariansm on Abortion:
1.4 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
...as governor of New Mexico, I would have signed a bill banning late term abortion, I've always favored parental notification, I've always favored counseling and I've always favored the notion that public funds should not be used for abortion.
Which makes your "zero restrictions" bullsh*t a complete lie.
More BS.
Johnson did not change the party platform and libertarianism, so his campaigning that he “personally” doesn’t like partial birth abortion, is meaningless.
Ted Kennedy was “personally opposed” to all abortion.
I agree. And in the "not always" category, I wouldn't have been as diplomatic as RR on these issues, for example:
Allowing a tax increase
Amnesty for illegal aliens (1986)
Criticism of another Republican (there are many more to criticize today than in the 1980's)
I would rather stand firm and risk losing a battle over a bill, than to ever compromise conservative principles.
.
A true and dedicated Marxist can easily retain and support two absolutely contradictory ideas in his mind at the same time. It is what and who they are. Never be surprised at what they do or say. Rationality does not enter the equation.
The so-called "libertarian conservative" pro-life argument is that the life or death of the unborn child trumps the personal liberty of the mother, correct?
It therefore stands to reason that if I hold the patent on a medication that will save thousands who can not afford it, the government is also within its rights to seize that medication because the lives it will save outweigh my own personal liberty. Most libertarian conservatives I know would agree with the first scenario and reject the second. Do you see the inconsistency here? In your fantasy world issues can be boiled down to predetermined outcomes that always favor "The Big 'L'." In the real world, things are usually not that simple. So, again, that's why most of us on this website grew out of libertarianism at some point in our early 20's.
An honest libertarian is pro-abortion. Period.
You realize taking the Libertarian party’s position is like assuming the democratic party’s positions are democratic.
The Libertarian party is not Libertarian
“OK, I’ll play along for one hand and give you a hypothetical:
The so-called “libertarian conservative” pro-life argument is that the life or death of the unborn child trumps the personal liberty of the mother, correct?”
Not exactly, the libertarian Conservative position is that the child is entitled to the same right to life as the mother. That abortion is nothing more than murder, and should not be treated differently.
This is not to say that the child could not die on its own, or die separably if transplanted ect...
“It therefore stands to reason that if I hold the patent on a medication that will save thousands who can not afford it, the government is also within its rights to seize that medication because the lives it will save outweigh my own personal liberty.”
No, once again there is a very big difference between “saving a live” and taking a life. The difference is the theory of non-interference (or nonexistence).
If you didn’t exist(or interfere) you would nether save nor take any lives. Therefore the people who would die for-lack of YOUR saving would still die, just as the people who would die because of your actions would live.
In just law(true libertarian theory) you can at best be made responsible only for the results of YOUR own actions NOT your inaction.
Therefore your rights to act end only when those ACTIONS become injurious to others and then only according to law. You of course have compete athority to not act because that would be as if you never existed to act in the first place.
You are an addition to this world & population not a servant to the same, nor are they servants to you. Your acts must by nature be willful, and your inaction’s presumed rights.
To explain how this applies to a mother, she did not get pregnant by lack of action but instead by action. If that act was against her will(say she was raped) then the question becomes that of the right of the baby and the technical, financial, & situation feasibility of transferring said baby to someone willing. If that is not feasible for whatever reason then the pregnancy should be treated like an injury in liability.(Be it one that takes 9 months to recover from but at least its not permanent like a lost limb)
The libertarian party is absolutely libertarian, it is where the politics hit the road.
Any jerk can claim to be a libertarian and then disagree with the principles, for instance being against homosexuals in the military, or adopting.
If you didn’t exist(or interfere) you would nether save nor take any lives. Therefore the people who would die for-lack of YOUR saving would still die, just as the people who would die because of your actions would live.
In just law(true libertarian theory) you can at best be made responsible only for the results of YOUR own actions NOT your inaction.
Carrying through your mental gymnastics to the next logical step, if the mother has the baby and then allows it to starve to death, no court of law should find her guilty. It was her inaction that killed the baby, not her action.
Suppose I see you walking across the street but decide not to step on the brakes? Not my fault. The car was in motion. I decided not to stop. As the car was already moving, my inaction killed you, not my action.
Again, the difference between conservatism and libertarianism is that of fantasy and reality. Conservatives understand that the world is not black and white and accept that some government is unavoidable and then focus on limiting its scope to absolute necessity. Libertarians simplify the world to an unrealistic ideal so that it fits their unworkable model.
“”No, once again there is a very big difference between “saving a live” and taking a life. The difference is the theory of non-interference (or nonexistence).
If you didn’t exist(or interfere) you would nether save nor take any lives. Therefore the people who would die for-lack of YOUR saving would still die, just as the people who would die because of your actions would live.
In just law(true libertarian theory) you can at best be made responsible only for the results of YOUR own actions NOT your inaction.”
Carrying through your mental gymnastics to the next logical step, if the mother has the baby and then allows it to starve to death, no court of law should find her guilty. It was her inaction that killed the baby, not her action.
“
Except for the initial responsibility assumed by the initiating act either by the mother & father(thou willful sex) or just the father thou rape.
I don’t understand how that can be so difficult to understand.
Um, that action/inaction nonsense came out of your brain, not mine. I am a conservative. I seek the minimum practical level of government. Therefore, I accept the fact that outlawing abortion is an infringement on the mother's personal liberty and say "tough nuggies." The child is a human being and his or her right to life takes precedent. I don't bother with action and inaction. Libertarian mental gymnastics are your department, not mine.
Similarly, I recognize that the exact same rationales that libertarians apply to the marijuana issue also apply to every single other illegal drug.
Or that libertarian support for the second ammendment (as opposed to the correct conservative position) means that no personal weapon (including shoulder mounted surface to air missles) should be outlawed.
Or the inevitable "unforseen" consequences of right to die laws.
Or leagalized prostitution.
And so on.
Again, libertarianism is a fantasy world of preprogramed responses to complicatied issues. Conservatives live in the real world make hard, sometimes unpopular, choices, and sleep easy at night knowing that they are more interested in getting it right that they are in narcissistic monomania.
Yep.
Being a libertarian, completely, also means saying, "I have no conscience."
No. If the pregnancy is killing the mother, then she can choose to either terminate the pregnancy or give up her life to allow her child a chance to live. A friend of ours with breast cancer is taking that chance right now. Delaying her chemo and radiation therapy to a point where he child will survive, but she might not.
And no, your red herring doesn't work either. The government would never have the authority to seize anything from you. No matter the "benefit" to others. Period. End of story.
I'm more of a libertarian than I am a bigger government, open borders, "reach across the aisle", compromise on principles republican. And I'm pro-life.
Question is, why aren't you?
“Um, that action/inaction nonsense came out of your brain, not mine. I am a conservative. I seek the minimum practical level of government. Therefore, I accept the fact that outlawing abortion is an infringement on the mother’s personal liberty and say “tough nuggies.” The child is a human being and his or her right to life takes precedent. I don’t bother with action and inaction. Libertarian mental gymnastics are your department, not mine.
“
I Have checked the post logs and it seems the post in question was in fact from your post (#70 of this thread). Perhaps it was a miss-statement if that be the case then I of course accept your clarification and move on.
Besides that we seem to be in general agreement on both substance of the child and need to protect it’s life if not moral justification behind such reasoning.
On this issue I hold but one position, it is possible that a State Constitution could be made so that prohibition of this or most any other product could be legally accepted. This however is not so written in the Federal Constitution and therefore Federal laws against marijuana and any and all other such domestically produced Goods are indeed illegitimate.
Whether that position is libertarian or not I leave to your own idea of the English language. It is nonetheless Constitutional and I do believe in Constitutions legitimately conserved. As a general rule(as explained by Alexander Hamilton) Washington has no legitimate place in the regulation of most any domestic activity.
“Or that libertarian support for the second ammendment (as opposed to the correct conservative position) means that no personal weapon (including shoulder mounted surface to air missiles) should be outlawed.”
By Washington I would agree with libertarian the simple reason is again the lack of provision in the Federal Constitution for such power. Indeed the clear prohibition in the 2nd amendment against such power serves only to underline that point. This must be the Provence of each and every State.
As even now this matter is a State issue, i leave them to experiment and find out.
On this matter I have only one passing thought: People seem quite effective at killing themselves whether it is legal or not someone intent on dying knows on good authority that they won’t be around to be “punished” for the crime by the State at least.
Nevada seems quite adept in the experimentation in the consequent of that legalization. I do not however see such a thing as necessarily desirable in more ethical states.
I put a lot of thought into the responses I have given you.
I’m glad you “checked the post logs.” Good for you. To bad you didn’t understand them. If you thought I was “clarifying” you missed the point. An honest libertarian values personal liberty above all else. This philosophy falls apart all over the case, but nowhere better than with the abortion question. If you think having a baby constitues a “minor inonvenience” you are obviously not a woman, and clearly don’t have many close relationships with them. It is a major life event. Again, the Conservative looks at this and says we are going to superseed your personal liberty in this instance because it is the right thing to do. The correct libertarian response is to not interfere with the mother’s decision, even if the result is the death of the baby (at least through the second trimester). Until then, the baby is incapable of living without the mother’s support, and no one else is capable of replacing her. Compelling her to carry the baby is without a doubt an imposition on her personal liberty.
I will edit the rest of the post to conclude that you have no problem with legalized heroin, prostitution, and shoulder mounted anti-aircraft missles on the state level. I also conclude that you are therefore incapable of thinking through the inevitable consequences of these policies. No wonder libertarianism appeals to you.
No one, not even the Catholic Church, opposes medical intervention to save a mother's life at the risk of the life of the unborn child. I respect your friend's decision, but your hypothetical is irrelevant.
FWIW, I think you may have misunderstood me. Right to life is my #1 political issue. I would vote for an honest pro-life democrat (if such a thing existed) over a pro-choice republican.
Thank you. Sincerely. Every baby has a soul.
While i would never vote for a Democrat/Socialist. Ever.
“If you think having a baby constitues a “minor inonvenience” you are obviously not a woman, and clearly don’t have many close relationships with them. It is a major life event. “
I guess we both seem to be having trouble communicating. because i meant minor in a sense relative to the “inonvenience” of being killed.
I don’t think that is an appropriated answer. I think a woman’s has agreed-ed to give up a part of her rights(such as the right to murder) in order to live without the constant threat of being murdered.
I think any so called Libertarian that disputes that is actually an anarchist.
You know your state can engage in customs on its border just like Washington so its not like they don’t have a legitimate excuse for notcontrolling state borders against such “prohibited” items. That being said I think you will find few if any states would fail to prohibit nukes. You would find it even more difficult to built or obtain such a weapon given the enormous expense involved in building & mantaing them.
Reasured when it becomes cost effective to built nukes people will get them and we will have to learn how to detect and/or deter them. No law will prevent that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.