Posted on 05/20/2002 2:51:41 PM PDT by dubyajames
Actually, the author fails to show any such difference between an unjoined and joined egg and sperm, for that matter. If he wants to make the case that it is all just a matter of an essential thing regardless of the point in the sequence, then he must follow his logic all the way back -- and not stop at an essentially arbitrary point in the sequence -- the actual joining.
For there are consequences to things like condoms which effectively prevent specific future individuals from being born. Abstinence as well -- stops a future beating heart.
Once you allow the sequence to be aborted at any point -- you have the same ultimate consequences -- the lost to the world forever of a unique human potential. The only recourse is to force women to have babies as fast as they can for as long as they can. An absurd result.
You want abortion illegal? Convince the Several States'.
Of course, this is not a perfect United States and the Constitution is no longer worth the cannabis paper it is written on.
lol. That has to be the funniest thing you have ever said. I know full well that you understand the difference between extinguishing a living entity and not creating one.
The only recourse is to force women to have babies as fast as they can for as long as they can. An absurd result.
No one forces me to do anything. What planet are you on, J? All I am asking is that if you create a life, be responsible enough to bear the consequences instead of acting selfishly and terminating the life of an innocent. That's it. Its called having compassion.
If libertarians want to denounce abortion rights and be known as pro-lifers, thats fine. Some libertarains, have even left the LP and become members of the Liberty Caucus, an political sidewing or offshoot of the Republican Party.
But if libertarians wanted to be real honest about any new found moral convictions in their lives, why not denounce the entire Libertarian Platform, while their at it. Reasonable people still don't support legalizing drugs or prostitution and they don't support diamantling America's military armed forces and criminal jusitce system either.
What an utterly boorish statement. Hopefully, you'll have some new found manners and humility one of these days. You don't have the lock on moral convictions.
Get off the crack. Libertarians don't want to dismantle the armed forces OR dismantle the criminal justice system.
Maybe you need to smoke some pot and relax a little, ReaganMan. Ronnie wouldn't even want to put you in jail for it.
I'm not saying RR was a libertarian. All I am saying is that RR at least understood the principles of libertarianism, and didn't spend his days railing AGAINST libertarianism. RR was against Commies, Reagan Man. Not libertarians.
And he didn't go around purposely distorting and misrepresenting libertarian views.
While the LP platform is intentionally non-committal, saying that reasonable people can disagree, the essence of libertarianism is to never initiate force on another. This would include killing an unborn.
BTW, I have been on picket lines at abortion clinics, so don't try to say that all liberatarians are this or that. Those that I personally know are more socially active and 'conservative' than most Republicans. Church going, gun toting, prolifers who value freedom more than they are firghtened of legalized pot.
Pure propoganda, however freedom loving people cannot also support the current Wo(some)D.
The Libertarian Party Platform plank on abortion says the following:
Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question.
We condemn state-funded and state-mandated abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another's abortion.
I guess you'd consider this to be "pro-choice" if you believe that the government should outlaw abortions. On the other hand there are many pro-choice advocates who'd dispute that characterization, because the LP Platform fails to affirmatively support abortion as a government-mandated and Constitutionally-protected right. They would take the second of the above paragraphs as evidence of Libertarian hostility towards abortion.
I think most Libertarians would at least agree that Roe v Wade was a bad Supreme Court decision, since the Constitution does not grant the Federal Government any specific powers to deal with this issue. Hence the Tenth Amendment should be controlling:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In that interview, Reagan was basically talking about his desire for a smaller and less intrusive federal government and how his conservative-republicanism, on that specific issue, was very similiar in regards to the libertarian idea of limited government. Beyond Reagan's basic agreement on that issue, the overwhelming desire for more fiscal responsibility at the federal level, Reagan never claimed to be a libertarian, nor did he support the libertarian agenda, philosophy or ideology.
Ronald Reagan was a moral conservative above all else and a strong law and order (old-guard Democrat) conservative.
Here's some more of what Reagan said about libertarianism.
Now, I can't say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don't each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves.
Reagan also said:
Well, third parties have been notoriously unsuccessful; they usually wind up dividing the very people that should be united. And then we elect the wrong kind-the side we're out to defeat wins.
Lets not confuse Ronald Reagan's mainstream conservatism, with the extreme agenda of the Libertarian Party.
You know that's not true and to distort the truth, only weakens your argument. Seems like you are ashamed of the LP platform. I credit you for being pro-life. But the LP platform says the following:
"We call for repeal of all laws discriminating against women... We oppose all laws likely to impose restrictions on free choice...
Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question".
That means the LP supports abortion rights for women.
... so don't try to say that all liberatarians are this or that.
I mentioned the Liberty Caucus, which are former libertarians who are now pro-life. So don't throw stones at me, bucko.
"We call for repeal of all laws discriminating against women... We oppose all laws likely to impose restrictions on free choice... we believe the government should be kept out of the question [of abortion]".
No discriminating laws against women, no restrictions on free choice and no government intervention, against killing innocent human infants, living in a womans womb. As I already said, this means the LP supports abortion rights for women.
What about rape? Many pro-choicers hold the confused view that if fetuses are to have any rights, then they must have more rights than other human beings. They can be forgiven for this because many pro- lifers seem to share this illogical notion. If human beings can legitimately be killed in self-defense, fetuses are no different. This case can be made in instances of rape, when the mother did not consent to the act that imposes parental obligations, and it is unassailable in instances when the mother's life is endangered.
The author was doing well until this point. Rape is no excuse to murder an innocent child. Two wrongs don't make a right, as most of us were taught. In the case of the mother's life at risk, ethically everything must be done to save both lives. If the author is claiming that rape or the potential for medical crisis excuses or allows murder because the mother hadn't offered her informed consent first, then every single human being who was ever born should likewise be allowed to murder their own parents for consigning them to a potential lifetime of pain and emotional distress, which is nonsense. The equation missing from the author's piece is the Author of life.
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.