Official platform of the Libertarian party...which parts do you disagree with?

[Allereli]

Allereli - because I don't believe it's a child until it is born.

Go google late term abortions. That's the kind of horridnesss you just admitted to supporting. Nice.

Think mummification procedures. They stick a giant stick inside you and swirl it around until the baby's turned from a body into bloody goop. Or they use shears to chip the baby apart one limb at a time. The head is last. Doesn't that sound so great?

who said abortion was great? you don't think it's a hard decision? You don't think there are emotional and physical consequences to getting an abortion? You don't think that just about every woman has had to consider in a hypothetical or real situation whether she would get an abortion or not? Do you know how scary it is to think your pregnant? Have you ever had a man remove a condom during sex when you didn't know it? Read the Esquire article, please. You don't give a shit about the women who go through this, you just sit there and slut shame them and judge.

No surgery is pretty. Late terms are only 1.5% of all abortions performed and in what I could find in 5 minutes, it is done mostly because of severe birth defects, which cannot be detected until 20 weeks, or because the mother was abandoned. While these may not seem like valid reasons to you, you put yourself in their shoes for a few minutes, and think about all that comes with giving birth.

Anyway, I've wasted enough time on this. Next time you see a group of women in a room making laws about your body, let's see how you react.

[JackWhisper]

I am not getting in the middle of this because I literally don't have a position in this regard.

I just want to say, that for the record, autism is like a popcorn kernel to the field of corn with being born without a brain. That sort of thing is.... very sad, to be honest. I wouldn't blame someone for wanting their child to not have to suffer like that.

I think that, in extreme cases *like missing a brain, for instance*, abortion should be something heavily considered. Because it's not just you you should be thinking about. It's the baby. Just because a baby can't scream kill me, doesn't mean it's gungho about living without the west hemisphere of it's brain. Metallica - One. Really rings home in this sort of thing.

Read that wiki link, Fallen. That is some brutal shit. We really need medical advances to try to fix these sorts of problems.

[Buckwheet]

Our first child had a scan and it was found that she had what they thought were "cysts" on her brain that might indicate that she would be severely brain damaged if carried to term. We decided to get the amnio test that would tell for sure, but it took a week for the results to come back. Longest week of our lives.

We talked and had decided that we would abort her if it turned out that she would be severely brain damaged. Thankfully, the test came back negative.

We went through a similar test before we lost the baby waiting for the tests to come back. We were also in agreement that if it came back positive we would terminate.

To some of the other points:

If more genetic anomalies are found due to environmental issues 20 years from now, and the end result is more abortions, and more centers are needed to handle the influx I have no problem with that. Where my personal stance on when to terminate resides is my business and I am thankful for the ability to make that choice. Being both a parent with a healthy child and having gone through a very rough pregnancy and having to make these choices, it is something I wish on no one. That being said, I feel you need to go through whatever life experience is required in order to make informed choices.

Just because I am willing to terminate a pregnancy due to a chromosomal issue, doesn't mean its the right thing for someone else to do, and I am not advocating that people make that choice. All I can say is, we went through it, we considered it for days, and agonized over it for hours. This was just our experience, and to be quite honest the physical trauma my wife went through during the miscarriage was far worse than what she would have experienced with an abortion. We will never know about the emotional trauma, but as a man I can tell you seeing my wife in agony on the floor in blood and unable to do anything, seems far more traumatic than a doctor telling you that your child has a chromosome issue and you should have surgery to remove it. Would it have been hard? Yes. It was very hard. I still think it would have been less difficult than what we experienced.

[Ker_Thwap]

At what age can you stop caring about the life of a child? Somehow I imagine most of these rigid anti-abortion people aren't too keen on any sort of leeway given to those children coming into the country illegally. Is it because they're Central and South American that we don't value their lives? Is it because they're over X years old?

We just agreed that we are willing to pay the cost, whatever it takes in whatever form it takes to stop any and all abortions from taking place. At what point does it go from "all life is sacred" to "that child is on its own"? I imagine you have to be fairly liberal with the age range, as you're counting the second the egg hits the sperm as life. So at least 9 months, right?

After 9 months can we say, "Fuck 'em!" or is that child's life still precious?

That's a good question to ask. Children are innocent, if they're shits when they're a bit older, you blame the parents, if they're shits when they're adults then I start to lose empathy for them. Reasonable people will differ on various ages, in various circumstances. But yeah, if they aren't gainfully employed by 9 months, just send them straight to jail.

I think you're expanding the argument far beyond the original scope to just dump on a certain segment of conservative Christian types for every sort of policy they may support. I like dumping on them as well, but there aren't any of them in this thread to make fun of.

[Fallen]

I'm trying to point out the hypocrisy in the stance that all life is precious until the second it hits the ground, then it is a burden on society that isn't deserving of help by the state. This thread is about libertarian beliefs. Libertarians aren't usually too keen on government assistance.

Like I said, if you're a bleeding heart through and through that supports the worth of all life with their hearts, minds, votes, and wallet from the cradle to the grave then so be it. You're consistent in your fanaticism and I can respect that.

The problem arises when you start to draw distinctions, saying this child's life is precious because it's in the womb, that child's life is not because it is outside of it. If you're for cutting off programs that help feed, care, and educate disadvantaged children or their parents to include prenatal care. Then at least recognize you're a hypocrite and we can move on. Christians and non-Christians alike can be hypocrites. I'm not picking on anyone but people with two-faced belief systems.

If this is a precious human life:
6928

Aren't they as well?
6929

[Ker_Thwap]

I'm trying to point out the hypocrisy in the stance that all life is precious until the second it hits the ground, then it is a burden on society that isn't deserving of help by the state. This thread is about libertarian beliefs. Libertarians aren't usually too keen on government assistance.

Like I said, if you're a bleeding heart through and through that supports the worth of all life with their hearts, minds, votes, and wallet from the cradle to the grave then so be it. You're consistent in your fanaticism and I can respect that.

The problem arises when you start to draw distinctions, saying this child's life is precious because it's in the womb, that child's life is not because it is outside of it. If you're for cutting off programs that help feed, care, and educate disadvantaged children or their parents to include prenatal care. Then at least recognize you're a hypocrite and we can move on. Christians and non-Christians alike can be hypocrites. I'm not picking on anyone but people with two-faced belief systems.

If this is a precious human life:
6928

Aren't they as well?
6929

I like making fun of hypocrites as well...

That said, I don't think either of these two scenarios are particularly valid. People's belief systems aren't as black and white as you're portraying.

Edit: Well, I suppose the Libertarian platform isn't particularly valid for the exact same reasons. People's belief systems aren't as black and white as they're portraying either.

[waywardgs]

I'm trying to point out the hypocrisy in the stance that all life is precious until the second it hits the ground, then it is a burden on society that isn't deserving of help by the state. This thread is about libertarian beliefs. Libertarians aren't usually too keen on government assistance.

Like I said, if you're a bleeding heart through and through that supports the worth of all life with their hearts, minds, votes, and wallet from the cradle to the grave then so be it. You're consistent in your fanaticism and I can respect that.

The problem arises when you start to draw distinctions, saying this child's life is precious because it's in the womb, that child's life is not because it is outside of it. If you're for cutting off programs that help feed, care, and educate disadvantaged children or their parents to include prenatal care. Then at least recognize you're a hypocrite and we can move on. Christians and non-Christians alike can be hypocrites. I'm not picking on anyone but people with two-faced belief systems.

If this is a precious human life:
6928

Aren't they as well?
6929

You don't get it. That blastocyst might paint the next Mona Lisa. That gang in the second pic is just plotting to steal your wallet.

[Parkbandit]

Anyway, I've wasted enough time on this. Next time you see a group of women in a room making laws about your body, let's see how you react.

I see you still haven't answered my simple question. I don't blame you for trying to bow out of the conversation though.

[Allereli]

I see you still haven't answered my simple question. I don't blame you for trying to bow out of the conversation though.

what was your question?

[Androidpk]

what was your question?

He asked you out to the senior citizen prom.

[Allereli]

He asked you out to the senior citizen prom.

I have an awesome dress for that.

[Parkbandit]

what was your question?


At what stage in development do you believe it should be illegal for a woman to abort her child aka the parasite?


So, it is your belief that it is the woman's right to have an abortion at anytime right up until birth?

Just wanted to know exactly where you stand.

[Androidpk]

I have an awesome dress for that.

Pics

[Allereli]

Just wanted to know exactly where you stand.

I believe it has to be left open as an option to protect the rights and life of women. It's not an ideal situation for anyone to carry something that far along and 98.5% of the time abortion is done beforehand. So when 98.5% of women get it done quickly, you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the 1.5% of women that do it at a later time that their reason is a good one for their own sake. It's not going to be a good reason 100% of the time, but what is 100% guaranteed to do right? Why do you think all women come to the decision to abort late term so flippantly?

[Candor]

Well...no one wants to address my issue. I understand - after all you can't make a sensible argument that a child still in a woman's body is not a child. Obviously, it is.

I am not saying I am against all abortions - that is not my position. But that isn't the point I am making here. A child is a child, whether in the woman's body or not. Period, end of story. Duh.

And please let's not get into "do I think a fetus is a person at the moment of conception". Abortions are usually not performed before the 8th week of pregnancy, and by that time, the brainwaves of the child make it obvious that you have a growing human life (even at 6 weeks, which is the earliest I have heard of an abortion being performed, the point still stands).

No matter what distractions you want to put into the discussion, the simple fact is that by the time an abortion can be performed, you don't have a "lump of tissue", or a "potential life". Medically you have a human life. Deal with it.

[Parkbandit]

I believe it has to be left open as an option to protect the rights and life of women. It's not an ideal situation for anyone to carry something that far along and 98.5% of the time abortion is done beforehand. So when 98.5% of women get it done quickly, you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the 1.5% of women that do it at a later time that their reason is a good one for their own sake. It's not going to be a good reason 100% of the time, but what is 100% guaranteed to do right? Why do you think all women come to the decision to abort late term so flippantly?

I'm not talking about risking the health of the woman or that this is a case of rape or incest or anything else. Most people agree that sometimes abortions have to take place to safeguard the pregnant woman and / or to terminate a fetus that didn't develope correctly.

I'm speaking about a normal pregnancy with a normal child inside her.

What do you believe should be, if any, the last moment where a woman can opt to have an abortion? Or do you believe that it is the woman's right to terminate the pregnancy anytime she wishes?

[Allereli]

No matter what distractions you want to put into the discussion, the simple fact is that by the time an abortion can be performed, you don't have a "lump of tissue", or a "potential life". Medically you have a human life. Deal with it.

and the woman is a human being with rights and ownership over her own body. Deal with it.

[Allereli]

I'm not talking about risking the health of the woman or that this is a case of rape or incest or anything else. Most people agree that sometimes abortions have to take place to safeguard the pregnant woman and / or to terminate a fetus that didn't develope correctly.

I'm speaking about a normal pregnancy with a normal child inside her.

What do you believe should be, if any, the last moment where a woman can opt to have an abortion? Or do you believe that it is the woman's right to terminate the pregnancy anytime she wishes?

There is always an odd circumstance in which the woman has gone through an otherwise healthy pregnancy where she feels the need to terminate. We must allow for that situation and allow for the woman to have command over her body. It's not ideal, it doesn't happen a lot, but we must allow for it. What if she was held captive? What if ... so many different situations. What percentage of the 1.5% are we talking about? I don't know, but it's a minuscule percentage of all abortions. For all the talk you give of protecting gun rights so that people can own guns that can be easily stolen and used to kill someone with very little skill or training (blah blah blah knives, I know), you certainly don't give that same consideration to women to treat their bodies and their lives responsibly.

[Androidpk]

I would have to think that any late term abortion would involve a very good reason and not something done just for the sake of it.

Dr: Good news, your baby will here next monday.

Mom: But the new American Idol premieres that night..

Dr: Hmm, good point. We could abort?

Mom: Abort!

Dr: Abort!

[Parkbandit]

There is always an odd circumstance in which the woman has gone through an otherwise healthy pregnancy where she feels the need to terminate. We must allow for that situation and allow for the woman to have command over her body. It's not ideal, it doesn't happen a lot, but we must allow for it. What if she was held captive? What if ... so many different situations. What percentage of the 1.5% are we talking about? I don't know, but it's a minuscule percentage of all abortions. For all the talk you give of protecting gun rights so that people can own guns that can be easily stolen and used to kill someone with very little skill or training (blah blah blah knives, I know), you certainly don't give that same consideration to women to treat their bodies and their lives responsibly.

It actually doesn't "happen a lot".. the last statistic I found was .08% were past 24 weeks. So, let's not quibble over that portion.

I am literally ONLY talking about a typical mother carrying a typical child. At what time do you feel that this mother can have an abortion if she feels like it? I'll even give you multiple choice:

1) Up to 20 weeks.
2) Up to 24 weeks.
3) Up to 28 weeks.
4) Up to time of birth.

[Androidpk]

>It actually doesn't "happen a lot"..

That is exactly what she said.

[Allereli]

It actually doesn't "happen a lot".. the last statistic I found was .08% were past 24 weeks. So, let's not quibble over that portion.

I am literally ONLY talking about a typical mother carrying a typical child. At what time do you feel that this mother can have an abortion if she feels like it? I'll even give you multiple choice:

1) Up to 20 weeks.
2) Up to 24 weeks.
3) Up to 28 weeks.
4) Up to time of birth.

I've already expressed that I believe a mother should be allowed to get an abortion when she wishes as it is her own body, how many times do I need to write that? I get bashed for repeating, then bashed for not repeating enough. You can't write a law with all situations accounted for where a mother might have a healthy pregnancy and need to terminate last minute. there's still a lot of time in between 24 weeks and birth and it's still only 0.08%. I have two friends at 35 weeks now and one who is 5 days late, and I trust that if they needed to abort, then there would be a damn good reason.

[Parkbandit]

I've already expressed that I believe a mother should be allowed to get an abortion when she wishes as it is her own body, how many times do I need to write that? I get bashed for repeating, then bashed for not repeating enough.

I don't think I've ever bashed you for repeating anything.

And if we're being honest.. the actual events went like this: I asked, you ignored, I asked, you ignored, I asked, you played dumb, I repeated, you danced, I asked again, you danced, I asked and you posted this.


You can't write a law with all situations accounted for where a mother might have a healthy pregnancy and need to terminate last minute. there's still a lot of time in between 24 weeks and birth and it's still only 0.8%. I have two friends at 35 weeks now and one who is 5 days late, and I trust that if they needed to abort, then there would be a damn good reason.

And why would they need a "damn good reason" if your logic is that it's a woman's body to do whatever she wants to do with it? I'm assuming that if the scenario that AndroidPK stated earlier happened, you would be fine with that mother's right to abort?

I disagree with your belief that a child isn't a child until it's birthed, but thanks for finally taking a stand.

[Allereli]

I disagree with your belief that a child isn't a child until it's birthed, but thanks for finally taking a stand.

maybe I didn't directly respond to you before, but nothing I wrote was exactly far off or new from what I've written before. I hope I stroked your ego enough by responding directly to you, there are a lot of posts, and honestly I don't particularly like you, and I'm sure you don't like me, so I am not inclined to give your posts much thought or time.

[Jeril]

Well...no one wants to address my issue. I understand - after all you can't make a sensible argument that a child still in a woman's body is not a child. Obviously, it is.

I am not saying I am against all abortions - that is not my position. But that isn't the point I am making here. A child is a child, whether in the woman's body or not. Period, end of story. Duh.

And please let's not get into "do I think a fetus is a person at the moment of conception". Abortions are usually not performed before the 8th week of pregnancy, and by that time, the brainwaves of the child make it obvious that you have a growing human life (even at 6 weeks, which is the earliest I have heard of an abortion being performed, the point still stands).

No matter what distractions you want to put into the discussion, the simple fact is that by the time an abortion can be performed, you don't have a "lump of tissue", or a "potential life". Medically you have a human life. Deal with it.

Are these just brain waves or something that is distinctly human though?

[Parkbandit]

maybe I didn't directly respond to you before, but nothing I wrote was exactly far off or new from what I've written before. I hope I stroked your ego enough by responding directly to you, there are a lot of posts, and honestly I don't particularly like you, and I'm sure you don't like me, so I am not inclined to give your posts much thought or time.

Stoked my ego? Not at all. I feel like I just took a retard for a walk and she just kept tripping over her own feet, so I basically had to carry her to the ice cream store.

Exhausting... but I finally got you there!

GOOD JOB DERPDERP! Did you want chocolate or strawberry?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tMqLtx3crYk/UdBkWUznLRI/AAAAAAAABOI/Vpcrvst42FM/s439/where+to+buy+ice+cream+cups.jpg

[Allereli]

and you wonder why I don't like you. I've been taking the same stand this entire thread. I'll just go back to ignoring you officially instead of an unofficial manner.

[Androidpk]

Stoked my ego? Not at all. I feel like I just took a retard for a walk and she just kept tripping over her own feet, so I basically had to carry her to the ice cream store.

Exhausting... but I finally got you there!

GOOD JOB DERPDERP! Did you want chocolate or strawberry?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tMqLtx3crYk/UdBkWUznLRI/AAAAAAAABOI/Vpcrvst42FM/s439/where+to+buy+ice+cream+cups.jpg

You mean you finally got there. You kept asking a question that has already been answered multiple times.

[Parkbandit]

and you wonder why I don't like you. I've been taking the same stand this entire thread. I'll just go back to ignoring you officially instead of an unofficial manner.

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb112/omgimalana/Random%202%20LOL/ks61JeWp4r.gif

[Parkbandit]

You mean you finally got there. You kept asking a question that has already been answered multiple times.

Can you quote all the posts where Allereli stated that a woman should be able to abort any fetus up until birth?

Thanks.

[Androidpk]

Can you quote all the posts where Allereli stated that a woman should be able to abort any fetus up until birth?

Thanks.

Feel free to go back and read where she says it is a woman's choice and needs to be left open-ended, multiple times. Then reread them again because your reading comprehension is a bit off it seems.

[Parkbandit]

Feel free to go back and read where she says it is a woman's choice and needs to be left open-ended, multiple times. Then reread them again because your reading comprehension is a bit off it seems.

Feel free to read all the caveats that she included with those statements. I wanted to get to her actual belief and state it implicitly: That a woman can abort a child at anytime she wants because it's her body.

I got what I wanted from the crackpot. Thankfully, that isn't the belief shared by most normal people.

[Androidpk]

She has been implicit since her first post on the subject? And crackpot? Normal people? What are you in grade school or something?

[Jarvan]

and if it were your body and your life, would you want anyone else to have a say on it? Women should not be made slaves to their reproductive abilities. If you as a man want a child so bad, you can adopt.

So are you saying men should not be economic slaves to a women's uterus?

Your body, your life.

[Laviticas]

But sometimes (rape) they aren't the actions of the woman, but of someone else who imposes their will upon her. Should she be forced to carry the child of her rapist?


As nonsensical an answer as one could expect from someone touting an argument born of pure misogyny disguised as morality.

This your logic on display, not mine.

[Wrathbringer]

I disagree with your belief that a child isn't a child until it's birthed, but thanks for finally taking a stand.

She knows it's a child, I think. She just has to say that it isn't or her house of cards rationalization for murder "Because the baby's body is in my body it has no rights! NONE!!!!one!!11!" falls apart.

[Jarvan]

It actually doesn't "happen a lot".. the last statistic I found was .08% were past 24 weeks. So, let's not quibble over that portion.

I am literally ONLY talking about a typical mother carrying a typical child. At what time do you feel that this mother can have an abortion if she feels like it? I'll even give you multiple choice:

1) Up to 20 weeks.
2) Up to 24 weeks.
3) Up to 28 weeks.
4) Up to time of birth.

She is trying to tell you she feels that she should be able to kill the baby right up till the second the umbilical cord is cut.

[Androidpk]

Fetus, child, unborn baby.. whatever you want to call it.. doesn't change anything.

[Jarvan]

I was re-reading a good book series the other week, and this just reminded me of it.

Wouldn't it be FUCKING AWESOME if Humans developed ESP.

Wouldn't it also be AWESOME if this happened soon, and Allereli just happened to get pregnant.. and went for an abortion.. and her baby started talking to her.. "No Mommy.. don't kill me.. please.." And Allereli replied.. "Fucking die you parasite!"

[Allereli]

I was re-reading a good book series the other week, and this just reminded me of it.

Wouldn't it be FUCKING AWESOME if Humans developed ESP.

Wouldn't it also be AWESOME if this happened soon, and Allereli just happened to get pregnant.. and went for an abortion.. and her baby started talking to her.. "No Mommy.. don't kill me.. please.." And Allereli replied.. "Fucking die you parasite!"

how mature of you.

[Wrathbringer]

how mature of you.

Yeah, that was stupid.

[Androidpk]

Bob was 100% right with his last comment.

[Drevihyin]

4.0 Omissions

Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.


Great since I agree with this part I'm going to have to come out of the closet and call myself a Libertarian.

[Ker_Thwap]

I was re-reading a good book series the other week, and this just reminded me of it.

Wouldn't it be FUCKING AWESOME if Humans developed ESP.

Wouldn't it also be AWESOME if this happened soon, and Allereli just happened to get pregnant.. and went for an abortion.. and her baby started talking to her.. "No Mommy.. don't kill me.. please.." And Allereli replied.. "Fucking die you parasite!"

While I'm not a big fan of her debating techniques, this is a bit creepy. Everyone shared our opinions. Don't like someone's opinion, you can still be somewhat respectful to them.

[Jarvan]

Yeah, prob a bit to far.

Tho you do got to wonder what would happen with abortion laws if we could hear thoughts from the children in mother's wombs.

[Ker_Thwap]

Yeah, prob a bit to far.

Tho you do got to wonder what would happen with abortion laws if we could hear thoughts from the children in mother's wombs.

Are you talking about that horrible movie with Bruce Willis doing the baby voice? You're an animal for bringing that up. An animal!

[Fallen]

Yeah, prob a bit to far.

Tho you do got to wonder what would happen with abortion laws if we could hear thoughts from the children in mother's wombs.

We probably wouldn't eat animals either if we're examining thoughts of that level of complexity. Most mammals develop faster mentally than humans for the first year or so.

[Androidpk]

We probably wouldn't eat animals either if we're examining thoughts of that level of complexity. Most mammals develop faster mentally than humans for the first year or so.

Hell we probably wouldn't eat vegetables either.

[Parkbandit]

She has been implicit since her first post on the subject? And crackpot? Normal people? What are you in grade school or something?

The belief that a woman can terminate a pregnancy up until the time of birth for whatever reason they choose is a belief held by a very small margin of people on the far left of the spectrum. If normal is more towards the center, then crackpot would be a very descriptive term for the far left fringe area she occupies.

I'm thankful that most people aren't this callous about human life.. even if we're only talking about "parasites".

[Jarvan]

Are you talking about that horrible movie with Bruce Willis doing the baby voice? You're an animal for bringing that up. An animal!

No, I am not talking about Look Who's Talking.

[Androidpk]

The belief that a woman can terminate a pregnancy up until the time of birth for whatever reason they choose is a belief held by a very small margin of people on the far left of the spectrum. If normal is more towards the center, then crackpot would be a very descriptive term for the far left fringe area she occupies.

I'm thankful that most people aren't this callous about human life.. even if we're only talking about "parasites".

You might want to check available polling results. The number of people who favor abortion under any circumstance outnumbers the percentage of those who think it should be illegal under any circumstance. Not to mention this isn't a simple left or right political issue. I'm all for pro-choice and I'm certainly more right wing than left. Your attempt to margnalize her for her opinion is rather pathetic.

[Latrinsorm]

You might want to check available polling results. The number of people who favor abortion under any circumstance outnumbers the percentage of those who think it should be illegal under any circumstance. Not to mention this isn't a simple left or right political issue. I'm all for pro-choice and I'm certainly more right wing than left. Your attempt to margnalize her for her opinion is rather pathetic.I can't take any abortion poll seriously that doesn't explicitly include the option "abortions for some, tiny American flags for others".

[Candor]

You might want to check available polling results. The number of people who favor abortion under any circumstance outnumbers the percentage of those who think it should be illegal under any circumstance. Not to mention this isn't a simple left or right political issue. I'm all for pro-choice and I'm certainly more right wing than left. Your attempt to margnalize her for her opinion is rather pathetic.

I think the largest group of people would be those who believe abortion should be legal in SOME circumstances. There is considerable variance on when it should and should not be legal, but the point is that I don't think that the extreme view on either side is the majority. As an example, most people on the right believe that abortion should be legal to protect the life of the mother.

[Parkbandit]

You might want to check available polling results. The number of people who favor abortion under any circumstance outnumbers the percentage of those who think it should be illegal under any circumstance.

Are you suggesting that the left crackpots are "more" normal than the right crackpots?

When it comes right down to it.. they are still both crackpots.


Not to mention this isn't a simple left or right political issue. I'm all for pro-choice and I'm certainly more right wing than left. Your attempt to marginalize her for her opinion is rather pathetic.

I marginalize the stupid... regardless of which side they are on. And let's be honest.. you've done far more pathetic stuff in real life that's brought here where we can all laugh at you about.

[Androidpk]

I can't take any abortion poll seriously that doesn't explicitly include the option "abortions for some, tiny American flags for others".

Tiny flags for some implies they don't already have a flag and how can you take anything without a flag seriously? No flag, no country.

[Androidpk]

I think the largest group of people would be those who believe abortion should be legal in SOME circumstances. There is considerable variance on when it should and should not be legal, but the point is that I don't think that the extreme view on either side is the majority. As an example, most people on the right believe that abortion should be legal to protect the life of the mother.

You're probably right. Then again, considering the subject, how accurate are these polls? Is everyone going to answer honestly considering the sensitivity of the subject?

[Parkbandit]

You're probably right. Then again, considering the subject, how accurate are these polls? Is everyone going to answer honestly considering the sensitivity of the subject?

There is very little support for the extreme (Abortion until the cord is cut / absolutely no abortion even with rape/incest/etc..) position. Most people lie somewhere in between.

[Androidpk]

> And let's be honest.. you've done far more pathetic stuff in real life that's brought here where we can all laugh about.

Not sure what that has to do with anything regarding this topic.

[Wrathbringer]

There is very little support for the extreme (no respect for life / total support for life) position. Most people lie somewhere in between in "but what if" land where morality is relative.

This is more accurate.

[Latrinsorm]

Are you suggesting that the left crackpots are "more" normal than the right crackpots?

When it comes right down to it.. they are still both crackpots.There's no statistical guarantee that a distribution is symmetrical, that one extreme will be as far or as populous as the other. Consider human height: the average (US male) is about 5'8", but there are many more 5'5" than 5'11", more 5'1" than 6'3". Thus you could correctly say there are more short people than tall people, or put another way that short people are "more normal" than tall people. You could also look at it with a toy problem...

We set up six glasses left to right by amount in the glass.
Glass 1: empty
Glasses 2 through 5: half full
Glass 6: half full plus one drop

It would be obviously incorrect to say that the far left and the far right equally diverged from the mean, no?
You're probably right. Then again, considering the subject, how accurate are these polls? Is everyone going to answer honestly considering the sensitivity of the subject?The bias I've seen documented is liberal responses towards racial issues, I'm not sure how that would translate to this case though. It's odd if you think about it, given that America self-identifies as plurality conservative.

[Latrinsorm]

There is very little support for the extreme (Abortion until the cord is cut / absolutely no abortion even with rape/incest/etc..) position. Most people lie somewhere in between.This is empirically not the case. It's an almost exactly 50/50 split between gray area and the combined might of black and white, and has been for decades (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx) (keeping the tiny flag caveat in mind).

[Atlanteax]

This is empirically not the case. It's an almost exactly 50/50 split between gray area and the combined might of black and white, and has been for decades (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx) (keeping the tiny flag caveat in mind).

Latrin, just imagine yourself being shushed when you think about posting something as asinine as this.

If you are just going for +1 to your post count, then "Meh".

[waywardgs]

Latrin, just imagine yourself being shushed when you think about posting something as asinine as this.

If you are just going for +1 to your post count, then "Meh".

Why? Seemed pretty relevant to me.

[Latrinsorm]

Latrin, just imagine yourself being shushed when you think about posting something as asinine as this.

If you are just going for +1 to your post count, then "Meh".Dude, am I wrong? People were asked explicitly if abortion should be legal under any circumstances, 28% said yes. People were asked explicitly if abortion should be illegal under any circumstances, 21% said yes. 28% and 21% make 49%, or almost 50%.

[Wrathbringer]

Dude, am I wrong? People were asked explicitly if abortion should be legal under any circumstances, 28% said yes. People were asked explicitly if abortion should be illegal under any circumstances, 21% said yes. 28% and 21% make 49%, or almost 50%.

So much for the crackpot theory.

[JackWhisper]

I'm pretty sure that someone that thinks something should or shouldn't be, no matter WHAT happens, even if it's an alien anal probe situation, is a crackpot.

[Wrathbringer]

I'm pretty sure that someone that thinks something should or shouldn't be, no matter WHAT happens, even if it's an alien anal probe situation, is a crackpot.

Then half the country is made up of crackpots, which by definition makes them not crackpots as half the country is far too many to be considered eccentric or bizarre. Thanks for weighing in though.

[JackWhisper]

Nope. Only 49%. Which means 51% of us are normal. We win by 2%! VIVA LA NORMAL!

Fucking crackpots.

[JackWhisper]

And more than 50% of Germany was EASILY for being Nazi bastards during the Holocaust. Still not too many for us to think they were SEVERELY bizarre.

[Wrathbringer]

And more than 50% of Germany was EASILY for being Nazi bastards during the Holocaust. Still not too many for us to think they were SEVERELY bizarre.

:lol2:

[Thondalar]

This is empirically not the case. It's an almost exactly 50/50 split between gray area and the combined might of black and white, and has been for decades (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx) (keeping the tiny flag caveat in mind).

Interesting that you frame this as 50/50, as opposed to 25/50/25.

But I digress.

As much as I hate to get back on topic, I'm going to...the OP's original request was to find out from this small sample size what sort of problems people had with the Libertarian platform. Aside from Latrin's in-depth (and entirely faulty) analysis, and ignoring the pages of abortion debate that this somehow caused, it seems like most people just have a problem with the interpreted "Isolationist" ideal.

This is where I would suggest logic come in to play. Let's take the official platforms of the Republican and Democrat parties. Would you honestly say that the majority of politicians follow their given platform to the letter, without wavering...or would it be more correct to say that they use their platform as a guideline, and modify it's intent on a case-by-case basis? I don't see how anyone could reasonably argue the former, except in rare circumstances...the overwhelming empirical data would support the latter. The Libertarian platform is no different. It's a platform...it's a starting point. It's a base to build upon. As far as Isolationism goes, I think it would be fair to say that the left generally supports a more Isolationist doctrine...no wars, bring our troops home, live and let live sort of scenario. The right is more likely to be supportive of these things, regardless of actual outcome...we need to be in control, because we're 'Murica, by God. If that means boots on the ground in every country of the world, so be it.

What gets a bit lost in all of this back-and-forth is reality. The Libertarian platform contends that the sovereign nations of the world are responsible for themselves...and nothing else. If taken in it's entirety, it could be argued that the situation of all other countries is the business of every other country, because of the interconnectedness of our modern planet...and I think you would be hard pressed to prove that's not the case.

In that context, does it not seem more reasonable that the platform would simply guide American officials to take a more "hands-off" approach to International situations, but still allow them to do what needs to be done for the security of the State? You could interpret the platform literally, but then you'd have to also interpret the platforms of the Republicans and Democrats literally, and in doing so you would invalidate some actions of every politician ever, from any party.

[Androidpk]

AKA as what Obama said last night. We're America, and we'll step in and help, but Iraq and Syria and other countries of that area need to step up big.

[Thondalar]

AKA as what Obama said last night. We're America, and we'll step in and help, but Iraq and Syria and other countries of that area need to step up big.

One of the few things I've agreed with him on. Taking a hands-off approach to international politics doesn't mean we're going to ignore threats to our sovereignty. It would be pure ignorance to think otherwise.

[Warriorbird]

Interesting that you frame this as 50/50, as opposed to 25/50/25.

But I digress.

As much as I hate to get back on topic, I'm going to...the OP's original request was to find out from this small sample size what sort of problems people had with the Libertarian platform. Aside from Latrin's in-depth (and entirely faulty) analysis, and ignoring the pages of abortion debate that this somehow caused, it seems like most people just have a problem with the interpreted "Isolationist" ideal.

This is where I would suggest logic come in to play. Let's take the official platforms of the Republican and Democrat parties. Would you honestly say that the majority of politicians follow their given platform to the letter, without wavering...or would it be more correct to say that they use their platform as a guideline, and modify it's intent on a case-by-case basis? I don't see how anyone could reasonably argue the former, except in rare circumstances...the overwhelming empirical data would support the latter. The Libertarian platform is no different. It's a platform...it's a starting point. It's a base to build upon. As far as Isolationism goes, I think it would be fair to say that the left generally supports a more Isolationist doctrine...no wars, bring our troops home, live and let live sort of scenario. The right is more likely to be supportive of these things, regardless of actual outcome...we need to be in control, because we're 'Murica, by God. If that means boots on the ground in every country of the world, so be it.

What gets a bit lost in all of this back-and-forth is reality. The Libertarian platform contends that the sovereign nations of the world are responsible for themselves...and nothing else. If taken in it's entirety, it could be argued that the situation of all other countries is the business of every other country, because of the interconnectedness of our modern planet...and I think you would be hard pressed to prove that's not the case.

In that context, does it not seem more reasonable that the platform would simply guide American officials to take a more "hands-off" approach to International situations, but still allow them to do what needs to be done for the security of the State? You could interpret the platform literally, but then you'd have to also interpret the platforms of the Republicans and Democrats literally, and in doing so you would invalidate some actions of every politician ever, from any party.

I'm not thinking that Clinton is likely to fall into your "left" classification. Obama hasn't either. His Iraq opposition was centered on chasing Bin Laden.

[Thondalar]

I'm not thinking that Clinton is likely to fall into your "left" classification. Obama hasn't either. His Iraq opposition was centered on chasing Bin Laden.

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about, or why it would have anything to do with what I was talking about that you quoted.

[Androidpk]

I'm not thinking that Clinton is likely to fall into your "left" classification. Obama hasn't either. His Iraq opposition was centered on chasing Bin Laden.

Not to mention he wanted to go after Syria last year.

[Androidpk]

One of the few things I've agreed with him on. Taking a hands-off approach to international politics doesn't mean we're going to ignore threats to our sovereignty. It would be pure ignorance to think otherwise.

Which is why it is completely riduculous that some in the GOP are saying Rand Paul is an isolationist.

[Warriorbird]

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about, or why it would have anything to do with what I was talking about that you quoted.

This.


As far as Isolationism goes, I think it would be fair to say that the left generally supports a more Isolationist doctrine...no wars, bring our troops home, live and let live sort of scenario. The right is more likely to be supportive of these things, regardless of actual outcome...we need to be in control, because we're 'Murica, by God. If that means boots on the ground in every country of the world, so be it.

[Thondalar]

This.

I'm sorry...I was talking about platforms and you threw out a few random presidential names that nobody of sound mind would remotely associate with what I was talking about. We're going to need a little more background here, because right now it's really wtf?






edit: "need" has a d at the end.

[Thondalar]

Which is why it is completely riduculous that some in the GOP are saying Rand Paul is an isolationist.

They say this for the same reason Gelston reads "zomg fuck the world what could it possibly have to offer us we're going to shut ourselves away completely and just fold up and become a nothing State" in the Libertarian platform. Assumption without context.

[Wrathbringer]

They say this for the same reason Gelston reads "zomg fuck the world what could it possibly have to offer us we're going to shut ourselves away completely and just fold up and become a nothing State" in the Libertarian platform. Assumption without context.

Because they've also nothing better to do than drink and know it all?

[Warriorbird]

I'm sorry...I was talking about platforms and you threw out a few random presidential names that nobody of sound mind would remotely associate with what I was talking about. We're going to need a little more background here, because right now it's really wtf?






edit: "need" has a d at the end.

I'd think a thesis tends to be a bit problematic when the most recent two term President of a party and the likely next don't really fall under it. I could put Clinton under a similar category given Yugoslavia. The choices are hardly random.

[Atlanteax]

I'm sorry...I was talking about platforms and you threw out a few random presidential names that nobody of sound mind would remotely associate with what I was talking about. We're going to need a little more background here, because right now it's really wtf?

Ignore it, WB is just projecting again.

[Warriorbird]

Ignore it, WB is just projecting again.

I'm sure a psychologist could have a field day with your behavior. The suggestion that modern Democratic Presidents don't fit Thondalar's ideals is hardly even rebellious, let alone something many people would disagree with unless they were obsessed. I don't even disagree with his main point about lack of conformity to platform, just that secondary one.

[Latrinsorm]

Interesting that you frame this as 50/50, as opposed to 25/50/25.I'd say that I was responding to the claim PB made (which put it that way), but I'd also say I'm not sure what's interesting about it.
As much as I hate to get back on topic, I'm going to...the OP's original request was to find out from this small sample size what sort of problems people had with the Libertarian platform. Aside from Latrin's in-depth:)
(and entirely faulty) analysis,:(
What gets a bit lost in all of this back-and-forth is reality. The Libertarian platform contends that the sovereign nations of the world are responsible for themselves...and nothing else. If taken in it's entirety, it could be argued that the situation of all other countries is the business of every other country, because of the interconnectedness of our modern planet...and I think you would be hard pressed to prove that's not the case.

In that context, does it not seem more reasonable that the platform would simply guide American officials to take a more "hands-off" approach to International situations, but still allow them to do what needs to be done for the security of the State? You could interpret the platform literally, but then you'd have to also interpret the platforms of the Republicans and Democrats literally, and in doing so you would invalidate some actions of every politician ever, from any party.I think if you actually looked at their platforms you would be surprised. You say "the left" generally supports a more isolationist doctrine, but the DNP (http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform) platform stresses involvement in Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China by name, and contains remarks such as these: "From Europe and Asia to the Middle East, Africa, and the Americas, we have strengthened the alliances and partnerships that are so central to global security, and we have taken steps to reinvigorate international institutions."

Compare this with the statements in the Libertarian platform that we should "avoid foreign entanglements" and end all foreign aid. This isn't a case where people aren't being fair to the Libertarians, or are subjecting them to disproportionate scrutiny. This is a case where the Libertarian platform actually is isolationist and the Democrat platform actually isn't.

As I said earlier, I understand why you want to bend so far backwards to make the Libertarians not really isolationist. Almost all uncompromising philosophies inevitably lead to places their adherents don't want to go, but uncompromising philosophies are so useful as a rhetorical and self-satisfying tool. We could also revisit the unbelievable comedy of the (so-called) libertarians relying on social pressure for environmental change but having no trouble sending state police into peoples' homes for child abuse. Child abuse bothers you (and rightly so!) so libertarianism is set aside. Environmental abuse doesn't bother you, so the invisible hand is fine. If you could only see...

[Thondalar]

We could also revisit the unbelievable comedy of the (so-called) libertarians relying on social pressure for environmental change but having no trouble sending state police into peoples' homes for child abuse. Child abuse bothers you (and rightly so!) so libertarianism is set aside. Environmental abuse doesn't bother you, so the invisible hand is fine. If you could only see...

Social pressure has already done more for environmental change than anything the EPA has done, and nothing about Libertarianism says you're allowed to break the law. I really wish you could see how pointless and fundamentally incorrect these arguments are.

[Latrinsorm]

Ah, so I take it Libertarians are for the federal law that marijuana use is illegal? Nothing about Libertarianism says you're allowed to break the law! :) C'mon, that was easy.

[Thondalar]

Ah, so I take it Libertarians are for the federal law that marijuana use is illegal? Nothing about Libertarianism says you're allowed to break the law! :) C'mon, that was easy.

No, that was idiotic. If you repeal a law, it's no longer a law. I don't see the law against child abuse being repealed, especially since it violates the nonaggression principle.

[Latrinsorm]

No, that was idiotic. If you repeal a law, it's no longer a law. I don't see the law against child abuse being repealed, especially since it violates the nonaggression principle.You don't see those laws being repealed because even the Libertarian Party carves out an explicit exception to libertarianism for its sake (please note how I have already addressed your attempted nonaggression cover). You don't see how it's an exception because when it comes to libertarian politicians you see no evil. That's it.