Posted on 11/25/2009 5:44:39 PM PST by Lesforlife
You two are lying, Palin is not “Libertarian” on abortion, she is pro-life.
The libertarian position on abortion is that no position is needed, do whatever you want, kill at will, zero restrictions.
Here is the Platform statement which translates to “no position needed, do what ever you want”
Libertarian Platform on 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.”
‘nobody going to jail for having an abortion’ is to me, a libertarian position COMPATIBLE with being personally Pro-Life, and living Pro-life, advising Pro-life and promoting Pro-life.
You are lying, Palin is not a libertarian on abortion, she is pro-life.
“And, um, if you’re asking, though, kind of foundationally here, should anyone end up in jail for having an … abortion, absolutely not. That’s nothing I would ever support.”
That means the woman should not go to jail, You are claiming that anyone that does not support the woman going to jail is libertarian on abortion, yet the libertarian position is total 100% non interference at any level, in other words no limits, no restraints, no partial abortion limits, nothing, not with the woman, or the doctors, or the clinics, or any other action or policy that would interfere.
Maybe you can name some politicians that support jail for the woman?
Are there any prominent U.S. antiabortion groups that take Sarah Palin’s position that they don't think women should be criminally charged for having an abortion?
How is abortion going to be “illegal” if nobody goes to jail for it?
And again, stating my opinion on Palin’s words is not a lie. You are idiotic if you cannot discern the difference between me stating my position (’sounds libertarian to me’) and me saying that ‘Palin is a libertarian not Pro-life’ which I DID NOT SAY, but is apparently the argument you wish to oppose and say is a lie - only I did not make that argument.
My opinion that she sounds libertarian on the issue to me is not and cannot be a lie, unless I am misrepresenting my own opinion; and I assure you I am not, neither would you have any way of discerning if I was - so your accusation of lying is ludicrous.
What a load of gibberish.
Palin is pro-life and is not libertarian on abortion, I believe that you know that and you are trying to sell a lie.
The libertarian position on abortion is to not have a position other than zero interference, period. I don’t accept that you are so stupid that you believe that is her position, I think that you are just lying.
Being pro-life personally, living pro-life, advocating pro-life and not wanting people to go to jail for abortion is, to me, a pro-life AND a libertarian position- in my opinion; and my opinion is not a lie.
I have in no way denied that she is Pro-life, that is your lie. You seem to be enamored of your lie. You like to lie about me claiming she is not Pro-life.
Palin is Pro-life.
Advocating that a person not go to jail for having an abortion is, to me, a more libertarian view than most Pro-life views. Thus we see the attack on Palin from anti-abortion absolutists (the subject of this thread) who apparently DO want women who have an abortion to go to jail.
As Palin’s candidacy advances (and it will) we will see how much traction this ‘not Pro-life ENOUGH’ advocacy gets. Hopefully not far, as I like Palin as a candidate, and agree with her on just about every issue.
The libertarian view on abortion is that anything goes, we stay out of your personal stuff. Is that what you think that Governor Palin’s position is?
That could be seen as “staying out of your personal stuff” as far as government involvement in a persons life.
Do you think the person advocating women go to jail for having an abortion is MORE libertarian than Palin’s position, or LESS libertarian?
This is this groups list of grievances:
“According to ARL, her offenses include: Appointing a former Planned Parenthood board member to the Alaska Supreme Court, failing to oppose the morning-after pill (described here as “an abortifacient chemical that kills the tiniest children”), failing to oppose stem cell research, failing to support efforts to define fetuses as full persons, and — wait for it — promoting evolution.”
Failing to OPPOSE??? What the hell does that mean.. was she ever in a position to affect anything on those things? I can accuse anyone of failing to oppose anything whether they agreed or disagreed with it or not depending on how I framed the statement.
Appointing a former Planned Parenthood Board Member to the Supreme Court would cause me to do a little more digging, but nothing else in their gripe list even seems remotely relevant unless they can provide an exact context in where the Governor sat by when her actions could have affected an outcome.
This sounds to me like a rabbidly overzealous group, or a leftist group created simply for the purpose of stirring the pot. Frankly their grievances as a whole sound so dumb, that I tend to believe its the latter.
LOL, like I said, you were, and are lying when you claim that you find her being libertarian on abortion.
You admit that she is pro-life, so that makes it impossible for her to be libertarian on the issue, to keep mixing her name with them is a lie.
I honestly don’t think she has a strong belief system. She praised Ron Paul as her kind of guy and then completely signed on to the neocon foreign policy of her debate handler, Billy Kristol. Like Obama, she is about 90 percent image and biography and 10 percent ideas.
What did she say in those two cases?
why do you assume she doesn’t have a strong belief system. I praise Ron Paul myself but I support action in Afghanistan. Not all Libertarians are cookie cutter Ron Paul mold. She may not be on the same side as Ron Paul on foreign affairs, but she is on Ron Paul’s side on national issue. She is also someone who have similar views to Ron Paul, more likely to be elected president than Ron Paul
She support action or at least non-critical of action in both Afghan and Iraq. She support winning war if we’re in it or pull out if we’re not in it to win. She’s harsh on Iran, North Korea e.g supporting sanction and Ron Paul mold Libertarians hate that as interferance and war monger
"Win" or not, Palin (unlike, for example, Glenn Beck) has never even hinted that she might support a pull-out. Having said that, "winning" in Afghanistan is a utopian pipedream (akin to "winning" the war on poverty). Both the Soviets (despite a scorched earth policy) and the British discovered that. It is all rhetoric for the sheeple anyway. Those who procalim that we "should win or get out" will ALWAYS oppose getting out when push comes to shove.
The 527 group American Right to Life has compiled a “prolife profile” of Sarah Palin that describes her as a cynical politician indeed, a fake anti-choicer whose “words and actions prove that she is officially pro-choice and stands against the God-given right to life of the unborn.”
Then all the Salon.com readers should relax,
even vote Palin, because she’s secretly on
their side.
Bwhahahah. Where DO these LOSERS come from?
I did not “admit” that Palin is Pro-life; I have consistently maintained that she is Pro-life. She is also libertarian enough on the issue to think that women shouldn't go to jail for having an abortion.
Only in your deluded mind is being Pro-life anathema to having a libertarian view of the issue. I noticed you avoided my question because OBVIOUSLY someone who wants to jail women for getting an abortion has a LESS libertarian position than thinking they should not go to jail; thus I find Palin’s position MORE libertarian than someone who thinks that women who get an abortion should go to jail (and once again for the thinking and logic impaired, it is impossible for my genuine opinion to be a lie).
Libertarianism is not a dirty word. Here is what Ronald Reagan had to say on the subject...
“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.” Ronald Reagan
Compared to which other politicians? Which pro-life politicians want women to go to jail for abortion? Palin is pro-life as you admit which proves that she is not libertarian on abortion.
In the rest of that 1975 interview with libertarians Reagan proceeded to distance himself from much of the libertarian movement, by defending social conservatism, a strong, active, military and not speaking enthusiastically of the Libertarian party that was brand new at that point.
What is funny is that you are just so flat out desperate to get Palin under the wacky title of libertarian and you are willing to lie to do it.
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.