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 ...
Being pro-life only when it is convenient is hypoctitical. Either you accept that abortion is murder (in which case there can be no more important political issue) or you don't. If you don't, there is no moral basis for infringing on the mother's personal liberty. Especially for libertarians.
Again, in the first six months of pregnancy the baby has no life without the mother's consent. This is not the same thing as a mother who refuses to care for an already born infant as that baby can be taken away from her.
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.
This sounds suspiciously unlibertrian. Please elabotate.
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.
Um, for the libertarian there can be no legal restriction on owning anything, including nukes (if you must). As long is no crime is comitted with those nukes, anything goes.
Or are you saying that you believe in some restrictions, but you have appointed yourself the arbiter of that line?
One increasingly losing their way.
You, however, would vote for a Pro-Life Democrat despite of all their other life destroying political stances. out of control Taxation, no property Rights, anti-RKBA, against religious freedom, limits on freedom of speech, and a complete destruction of our rights of association...
You'd rather vote for a Pro-life Democrat than a pro-life Libertarian who is pro-property Rights, pro-RKBA, for individual religious freedom and speech, and a sound economic policy. Just because of your stupidity in clinging to a mythical "Two Party" ideal...
Check your principles.... They are missing.
“Again, in the first six months of pregnancy the baby has no life without the mother’s consent. This is not the same thing as a mother who refuses to care for an already born infant as that baby can be taken away from her.”
It is true that a baby can be taken from a mother and cared-for by anther. When this is possible is both a matter of opinion & changing technical capability. In printable it will be possible someday almost at the moment of conception.
But when and to whom the “burden” is transferred is really unimportant to the matter that it exist as a product of conception which was almost invariably the result of a willfully act of at least one party to whom the responsibility of resulting obligation is due.
Perhaps the mother was the unwilling party(such as in rape) and is thus unjustly burden with this responsibility (at least until it may be safely transferred). I ask you how is this burden legally different from that of any other injury that may take time to heal?
Might the willful party be charged accordingly for the equivalent of the cost of “damages” to unwilling party as well as the cost of burden?
This sounds suspiciously unlibertrian. Please elabotate.”
It means just what it says, All rights are derived from the people(individuality) where they were created by God.
People cede a small and defined portion of those rights in order to preserve other rights. this portion is defined in the Constitutions State, Local, and Federal.
My whole position is that the Federal Constitution does not contain anything but a tiny few cessions of rights almost all of which are on objects foreign in nature.
Or are you saying that you believe in some restrictions, but you have appointed yourself the arbiter of that line?”
Not I, but the State Constitution is where those lines are drawn.
. I never suggested that there are any laws requiring a two party system, so your sarcasm is unwarranted. I merely observed reality (something you, as a libertarian have a difficult time doing): We are currently and for the foreseeable future IN a two party system. Deal with it.
You, however, would vote for a Pro-Life Democrat despite of all their other life destroying political stances. out of control Taxation, no property Rights, anti-RKBA, against religious freedom, limits on freedom of speech, and a complete destruction of our rights of association...
Next time you go around suggesting reading material for other FReepers, you might want to do a better job actually reading the thread you are currently participating in. What I actually said was:
"I would vote for an honest pro-life democrat (if such a thing existed)..."
I'll let you know when I a come across that honest democrat. I haven't yet. This is merely a restatement of my political belief that the abortion question superseeds ALL other politcal issues. Abortion is murder. The right to life superseeds all other rights. The right to liberty comes next. If I were the 16th president, I would like to think that I would weigh the needs of our citizens and conscript young men and send 600,000 of them to their deaths in the name of ending slavery. You of course, as a libertarian, would not. That is another issue, but before we go any further with this you must answer three questions:
1) Do you aknowledge that abortion is the murder of a human being and potential legal American citizen with the same rights as you or anyone else?
2) If you answered "yes" to the first question, what could be a more important political issue than the legalized murders of 54,600,000 innocent Americans since 1973?
3) If you answered "no" on what grounds do you oppose abortion in the first place?
This is why you are a libertarian. Until such technology exists, inserting the idea into this discussion is a distraction and nothing more. I know this is difficult, but unless you are delibrately trying to waste my time, please stick to reality.
Perhaps the mother was the unwilling party(such as in rape) and is thus unjustly burden with this responsibility (at least until it may be safely transferred). I ask you how is this burden legally different from that of any other injury that may take time to heal?
I reject the idea of abortion in cases of rape and incest. I sympathize with the mother, but I value human life above all else.
BTW, if you make such a concession you just contradicted yourself again. Either its murder or its not.
My whole position is that the Federal Constitution does not contain anything but a tiny few cessions of rights almost all of which are on objects foreign in nature.
In other words, you are either a Constitutonalist or a Libertarian (there IS a difference), depending on what is most convenient to the argument you are making. Are you familiar with Article III, and why the founders included it?
Not I, but the State Constitution is where those lines are drawn.
Nope. Sorry. Nothing in any State or Federal constitution concerning nuclear weapons. Please try again.
1. Yes.
2. The enslavement of the other 320 million of us currently alive.
Go vote Democrat...
He was in his twenties and in the army and voted for Norman Thomas as a protest vote and in tribute to Thomas's earlier isolationist speeches.
I'm not sure that makes it okay (maybe it makes it worse), but everybody makes mistakes in their twenties.
Interesting choice of words since I take it from your answer you also would not have fought a war to end slavery.
I would have worked to end slavery, but i wouldn’t have destroyed our voluntary Federation and killed a million people to do it.
Not sure which smelly orifice you pulled that remarkable bit of idiocy from...
Again, if you're not going to bother reading the thread that you are responding to, and specifically posts written to you that you responded to, I don't see much point in continuing to try to help you with your ignorance.
Slavery, abortion.
Yeah... The connection is obvious.
:-/
Moron.
:-/
Moron.
There is a special thrill to catching someone so completely making a fool out of himself. Particularly one who is so quick with to jump to name calling and personal insults.
Your comment was:
Not sure which smelly orifice you pulled that remarkable bit of idiocy from...
So I gladly referred you back (all of five posts) to post 85, where I said to you the following:
I'll let you know when I a come across that honest democrat. I haven't yet. This is merely a restatement of my political belief that the abortion question superseeds ALL other politcal issues. Abortion is murder. The right to life superseeds all other rights. The right to liberty comes next. If I were the 16th president, I would like to think that I would weigh the needs of our citizens and conscript young men and send 600,000 of them to their deaths in the name of ending slavery. You of course, as a libertarian, would not.
I added the underline for emphasis. This is the third time I am referring you back to this post. The last time I did so you were a little slow on the uptake. I think you may be having trouble with the correct usage of the word moron. Did you hear it a lot when you were growing up? No, don't answer that.
But we already knew you sucked at thinking things through. You're a libertarian. It goes with the territory.
Yet another pointless irrelevance in your continuing string of stupidity.
Go vote “pro-life” Democrat while the Country swirls the Socialist drain. If you expect a Dem to not toe the Party line, then yes...
You are by definition a Moron.
I'd be feeling a bit embarassed if my own laziness and poor reading comprehension was on display for all the world to see too. That being said, personal attacks are not to be confused with coherent arguments. And "moron" is not a proper noun. If all you've got left is name calling, it helps to get that name right.
IOW... You conceded the argument from your very first posting? Glad to hear you admitting it...
You started this thread to troll. You continue to respond to keep your trolling alive.
Keep on trolling. It's about all you've got left...
In other words, you repeatedly accused my of pulling a point out of my ass because you were too stupid/lazy to refer five posts back to the orign. Even when I tried to help you. Three times.
Then you finally figured it out, so you called me a moron. I don’t need to troll. You jump right into the boat.
And yet, here you are.
The only reason I'm responding is I'm bored and you are a convenient punching bag.
I can't force you to be smarter or more principled, but it'd be nice if you at least tried to be honest.
So when the facts add up against you and are easy for all to see, your next move is to make vague accusations of lying. Really?
This gets better and better.
Democrats do this on almost every issue - that's how they took over California.
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.