Posted on 05/20/2002 2:51:41 PM PDT by dubyajames
Why? Those anti-abortion advocates in the LP continue to remain in the LP in spite of its rather overwhelming majority in favor of female sovereignty over her own body. I guess they are sufficiently comfortable -- it's not like the Republicans or Democrats give them anywhere else to go.
There is nothing more amusing on this green earth than watching one religion call the other religion gullible.
What? Athena is god, is she not?
LOL, no one plays me for a sucker. I've been around American politics for the last 35 years and the name of the game is to win elections. If you don't win elections, you don't get the opportunity to have the power and influence required, to effcet real change in all the aspects of American life, society, culture and government. That's the problem with the Libertarian Party and libertarians in general. They can't convince enough American's they deserve the publics trust, to carry out the will of the people and in the best interests of the country. You libertarians are political novices, who have no understanding of what American politics is all about. The proof is in the pudding. You guys are perpetual political losers.
Aside from being men of great wisdom and intelligence and of course, first class revolutionaries, the Founding Fathers were consumate politicians. The Founding Fathers were practical, reasonable men, who knew how the nature of politics works and the need to compromise and negotiate. That's how they created the Constitution and this great Republic we live in.
Libertarians have a lot to learn about America politics in the 21st century. If I was you, I'd start learning how to play the political game, now!
-- Thank you, - that is exactly my case. - But the fact that challenges have little effect, points more to bad lawmaking & bad lawyers, than to any failure of our constitutional system.
As I said earlier, medical advances will soon allow 'pro-life' people to put there money up where there mouths are, - and 'save' unwanted babys with artifical methods. -- Two bits there are very few takers. -- In effect, they are pro-life, as long as someone else is responsible for nurturing & rearing that life.
I don't get it. What happens to some people. They otherwise act responsibly then all of a sudden they get paranoid and forget to act responsible.
Windsong, Goldhammer's post #78 it is right up your alley. Hop on it. Or would you like me to help?
I think abortion is murder. And as with hate crime laws, I don't think we need laws against abortion. Murdering another human being is already against the law.
Dave in Eugene (a Republican with a small l that is getting larger every day)
Again you champion that old, tired, discredited liberal ideal:
"Allow me to be irresponsible, and I'll allow you all to pay for the consequences of my irresponsibility."
Based upon your proselytization, we'll have to rename libertarianism: "freeloaderism."
Yeah, I noticed how the GOP is on the verge of overturning abortion on demand. heh heh
If that was ever a real principle more than a PR gimick to attract the gullible, it has been sold out more often than 10 cent burgers at MacDonald's.
To be honest, I don't think tpaine is on my side, but I could be wrong. Which is really neither here nor there because he and I respect and tolerate each others differences. So I guess in that sense we are on the same side -- mature and tolerant.
Quite so. In fact you have to forget sequence and potential, it is unenlightening.
It's being (human being, of course) and actuality that matter. The point of looking at the sequence is to see where the new being begins.
Instead, the uniqueness of the human, that which makes a human a human, is not his genetic potential, not his gene code, it is his mind. And the mind doesn't develope right away. I can't tell you when the mind reaches the stage of a human, but it isn't when it is a small clump of cells right after conception.
I would hardly think a baby measures up. Newborn A.J.Armitage was hardly ready to argue over abortion. And what about severely retarded people? And if they do qualify as human by the mind standard, then a few animals probably do too. So do babies and retards have no rights? Do they have some rights, but not others, along with some animals? Or maybe the same rights, but they can be overriden whenever a full human finds it necessary, or even just convenient. Which leads to the question: shouldn't smart "persons" get more rights than dumb ones? I don't mean more income, since that's just a result of equal rights to make contracts, but actual rights. If rights are based on having a developed mind, why not have gradations based on IQ or education? If you say that once you meet the "human" level you get the full set of rights equal to every one else, I have a question: why?
Showing your ignorance once again, I see. Roe v. Wade, won't be overturned, until Scalia, Reinquest and Thomas have two more conservatives to join them on the bench. A majority of five is needed to reverse any past decision. But I don't expect you to understand that, because as with all aspects of politics, you can't grasp the complex nature of the US Supreme Court. There are nine justices, but you can't count that high. I guess math wasn't one of your strong subjects.
Keep trying, may be one day you'll get it.
-------------------------------
Yep, NO ONE can tell us when that happens, - when a human form is endowed with its inalienable rights.
So the USSC made a constitutional decision; - an embryo is an integral part of its mother till the end of the first trimester. -- From then till viablity, its abortion can be 'regulated'. -- After viablity, it is a human being, with full rights.
Fairly simple, legally. -- Unacceptable to those who are obsessively driven to control others.
Sure there is. There's also a Liberal Party. They're both in Wew York, but that is part of America, after all. They're both obviously viable, since they've been around forever. And they do have elected officeholders, since NY election law allows a candidate to run as the candidate of more than one party; if the R or D is acceptable, he gets the nomination.
Poker, A Guaranteed Income for Life by Using the Advanced Concepts of Poker.
Excellent poker book. But the real power is in the metaphors. First published over thirty years ago it became the best selling poker book of all time. Dr. Wallace took it out of print in the late seventies. Now it's on their Web site and can be read for free.
BTW, how many best sellers or comparative accomplishments have you achieved?
Also, did you read my #87 post to you? If not, please do.
I was talking about a national political party, capable of winning at all levels.
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.