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

[Thondalar]

1.0 Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government.

1.1 Self-Ownership

Individuals own their bodies and have rights over them that other individuals, groups, and governments may not violate. Individuals have the freedom and responsibility to decide what they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life.

1.2 Expression and Communication

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

1.3 Privacy

Libertarians advocate individual privacy and government transparency. We are committed to ending government’s practice of spying on everyone. We support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, property, and communications. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records.

1.4 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

1.5 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.

1.6 Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. We favor the repeal of all laws creating "crimes" without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes, since only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution to the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

1.7 Self-Defense

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. Private property owners should be free to establish their own conditions regarding the presence of personal defense weapons on their own property. We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition.

2.0 Economic Liberty

Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

2.1 Property and Contract

As respect for property rights is fundamental to maintaining a free and prosperous society, it follows that the freedom to contract to obtain, retain, profit from, manage, or dispose of one’s property must also be upheld. Libertarians would free property owners from government restrictions on their rights to control and enjoy their property, as long as their choices do not harm or infringe on the rights of others. Eminent domain, civil asset forfeiture, governmental limits on profits, governmental production mandates, and governmental controls on prices of goods and services (including wages, rents, and interest) are abridgements of such fundamental rights. For voluntary dealings among private entities, parties should be free to choose with whom they trade and set whatever trade terms are mutually agreeable.

2.2 Environment

We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.

2.3 Energy and Resources

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

2.4 Government Finance and Spending

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

2.5 Money and Financial Markets

We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Markets are not actually free unless fraud is vigorously combated and neither profits nor losses are socialized. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies and unconstitutional legal tender laws.

2.6 Marketplace Freedom

Libertarians support free markets. We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of entities based on voluntary association. We oppose all forms of government subsidies and bailouts to business, labor, or any other special interest. Government should not compete with private enterprise.

2.7 Labor Markets

Employment and compensation agreements between private employers and employees are outside the scope of government, and these contracts should not be encumbered by government-mandated benefits or social engineering. We support the right of private employers and employees to choose whether or not to bargain with each other through a labor union. Bargaining should be free of government interference, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

2.8 Education

Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.

2.9 Health Care

We favor a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (if any), the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines.

2.10 Retirement and Income Security

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system. The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. We believe members of society will become more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm.

3.0 Securing Liberty

The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.

3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights

The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Constitution and Bill of Rights shall not be suspended even during time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.

3.3 International Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

3.5 Rights and Discrimination

Libertarians embrace the concept that all people are born with certain inherent rights. We reject the idea that a natural right can ever impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that "right." We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should neither deny nor abridge any individual's human right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Members of private organizations retain their rights to set whatever standards of association they deem appropriate, and individuals are free to respond with ostracism, boycotts and other free market solutions. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs. This statement shall not be construed to condone child abuse or neglect.

3.6 Representative Government

We support election systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives. We advocate initiative, referendum, recall and repeal when used as popular checks on government.

3.7 Self-Determination

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

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.

So, let's have it. What part of that, any and all, do any of you disagree with? I'm genuinely curious.

[Androidpk]

I'm all for the majority of this though I'm not sure how I feel about cutting off all foreign aid. And what about the subject of monopolies? Comcast wanting to merge with Time Warner for example. Would government intervention be a no no?

[Gelston]

National Defense. If you think isolationist attitudes are the answer I have a lot of history to toss at you. That has always been my thing against this party.

[Thondalar]

I'm all for the majority of this though I'm not sure how I feel about cutting off all foreign aid. And what about the subject of monopolies? Comcast wanting to merge with Time Warner for example. Would government intervention be a no no?

We already have legislation in place to prevent this. This doesn't violate any part of the Libertarian platform.

[Thondalar]

National Defense. If you think isolationist attitudes are the answer I have a lot of history to toss at you. That has always been my thing against this party.

I do not, nor does the Libertarian party. This is a common misconception...reducing our involvement in global policing doesn't mean reducing our global presence. While it most certainly means reducing our physical presence in other parts of the world, technology has advanced to a point where a physical presence of a body of armed personnel isn't really necessary to accomplish our goals. We have been, and still remain, the single greatest military force on the planet when it comes to force projection. I see no reason why we can't keep up with the world but not be so physically a part of it.

[Thondalar]

We already have legislation in place to prevent this. This doesn't violate any part of the Libertarian platform.

edit: incomplete...I don't see where the platform would completely restrict giving aid to allies, but maybe it's just me when I think we really should quit giving aid to North Korea. Yes, their people are starving...how are we helping them by making them less starving? Short-term "feel good" gain that does nothing to win the war.

edit...wtf just happened there.

[Androidpk]

edit: incomplete...I don't see where the platform would completely restrict giving aid to allies, but maybe it's just me when I think we really should quit giving aid to North Korea. Yes, their people are starving...how are we helping them by making them less starving? Short-term "feel good" gain that does nothing to win the war.

edit...wtf just happened there.

That I can agree with but there are times when I do feel the US needs to step in with humanitarian assistance. Fukushima or that tsunami that hit Thailand awhile back come to mind.

Giving Egypt hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military gear? Hell no.

[Thondalar]

So far we have a misconception about International policy and an issue about Monopolies that isn't even an issue...

Come on, there has to be something more substantial. Everyone from the right and the left on these here forums has, at one time or another, expressed genuine malcontent with some part of their claimed platform. Like, deep-seated issues..."but it's the lesser of two evils"...

I was hoping, since like 95% of America votes R or D every time, either side would be able to just shoot a bunch of holes through the Libertarian platform, and point out how it fundamentally makes no sense, and is a bunch of hogwash.

[Thondalar]

That I can agree with but there are times when I do feel the US needs to step in with humanitarian assistance. Fukushima or that tsunami that hit Thailand awhile back come to mind.

Giving Egypt hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military gear? Hell no.

Here's the rub...do you think the US Government should be the one giving that aid, or do you think the US Government should simply stay out of the way of it's citizens giving that aid, if they choose? Our wealth, as a nation, puts us in a unique position to be able to affect global events...that power to make a logical decision is removed from the hands of the people and placed in the hands of the government when we give them carte blanche to do whatever they want...Fukushima gets aid they may or may not have otherwise, but Egypt, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, etc etc gets aid they might not have otherwise, too. The Prime Minister of Japan asked for the world's help after Fukushima...I don't see where it would be against Libertarian ideals to give assistance in that as a nation, be it from the people or the government (which would be the same). Just because we stop the covert machinations of nameless government entities doesn't mean we stop our ability to assist our allies.

[Gelston]

I do not, nor does the Libertarian party. This is a common misconception...reducing our involvement in global policing doesn't mean reducing our global presence. While it most certainly means reducing our physical presence in other parts of the world, technology has advanced to a point where a physical presence of a body of armed personnel isn't really necessary to accomplish our goals. We have been, and still remain, the single greatest military force on the planet when it comes to force projection. I see no reason why we can't keep up with the world but not be so physically a part of it.

So you agree with drones then?

[Androidpk]

It just seems to me that Government intervention in that sort of situation would go against marketplace freedom. But if that isn't an issue then alright. Granted I'm registered as a republican but most of my beliefs align with libertarianism.

[Thondalar]

So you agree with drones then?

Used on foreign soil against foreign people, most certainly.

[Gelston]

Used on foreign soil against foreign people, most certainly.

That seems to go against the stated policies that you quoted.

[Thondalar]

It just seems to me that Government intervention in that sort of situation would go against marketplace freedom.

Why would it? The government has dick to do with the marketplace.


Granted I'm registered as a republican but most of my beliefs align with libertarianism.

I find that most often, though there are a fair amount of Democrats that go "oh...really? Wow, I thought Libertarians were a bunch of gun-hugging terrorists" or something similar. The fact is most people align with Libertarianism, but they've been conditioned by generations of the right/left enslavement paradigm.

[Androidpk]

Here's the rub...do you think the US Government should be the one giving that aid, or do you think the US Government should simply stay out of the way of it's citizens giving that aid, if they choose? Our wealth, as a nation, puts us in a unique position to be able to affect global events...that power to make a logical decision is removed from the hands of the people and placed in the hands of the government when we give them carte blanche to do whatever they want...Fukushima gets aid they may or may not have otherwise, but Egypt, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, etc etc gets aid they might not have otherwise, too. The Prime Minister of Japan asked for the world's help after Fukushima...I don't see where it would be against Libertarian ideals to give assistance in that as a nation, be it from the people or the government (which would be the same). Just because we stop the covert machinations of nameless government entities doesn't mean we stop our ability to assist our allies.

I'm okay with both happening, as it does now. Americans do give a lot but there is only so much that can be done that way. Again, look at the crisis that happened in Thailand with the tsunami. The US Navy was an incredible asset and I'm perfectly okay with the US government going did like that.

[Thondalar]

That seems to go against the stated policies that you quoted.

I asked for specifics here.

[Thondalar]

I'm okay with both happening, as it does now. Americans do give a lot but there is only so much that can be done that way. Again, look at the crisis that happened in Thailand with the tsunami. The US Navy was an incredible asset and I'm perfectly okay with the US government going did like that.

I am too. You should understand the difference between using our resources to assist in global catastrophes and using our resources to create them.

[Gelston]

I asked for specifics here.

And what you quoted specifically says no foreign entanglements.

[Thondalar]

And what you quoted specifically says no foreign entanglements.

Do you have a point here? If so I'd like you to state it plainly, I'm not really up for running around throwing dynamite in gopher holes right now.

[Androidpk]

> The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society

So you're saying denying companies the right to merger, if it were to create a monopoly, would fall under protecting free trade and not controlling or managing trade?

[Gelston]

Do you have a point here? If so I'd like you to state it plainly, I'm not really up for running around throwing dynamite in gopher holes right now.

I think my point is pretty clear. I disagree with their national defense policy. Like I said in my first post in this thread.

[Thondalar]

So you're saying denying companies the right to merger, if it were to create a monopoly, would fall under protecting free trade and not controlling or managing trade?

I'm saying the Sherman Act already prevents monopolies, and nothing in the Libertarian platform says anything about repealing the Sherman Act.

[Thondalar]

I think my point is pretty clear. I disagree with their national defense policy. Like I said in my first post in this thread.

You have said you disagree with their national defense policy, but I'm not really going out on a limb here to say it's not very clear why at all. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate? Your first post said you disagree with Isolationism...what do you mean by that? Exactly what sort of Isolationism does the Libertarian platform espouse that you're in disagreement with?

[Gelston]

You have said you disagree with their national defense policy, but I'm not really going out on a limb here to say it's not very clear why at all. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate? Your first post said you disagree with Isolationism...what do you mean by that? Exactly what sort of Isolationism does the Libertarian platform espouse that you're in disagreement with?

It is an isolationist policy. This does not work. You can do all the air strikes you want but that doesn't take care of a situation. Boots on the ground. Now, if they were against nation building, I would likely agree.

[Thondalar]

For future reference to all posters here, when I say I want something specific, I mean just that...not some talking point you heard somewhere, or something your Aunt told you, or something you think might happen under some other circumstance...

Exactly what part of the platform, as it's written, do you disagree with, and why? In your own words. It's a simple request. Feel free to not take part if you don't want to.

[Gelston]

Yeah, what you said.

[Thondalar]

It is an isolationist policy. This does not work. You can do all the air strikes you want but that doesn't take care of a situation. Boots on the ground. Now, if they were against nation building, I would likely agree.

We're getting closer to somewhere...so, boots on the ground is the only way to make something happen? That's your assertion, right? How many boots were on the ground on "mainland" Japan when they surrendered?

[Gelston]

We're getting closer to somewhere...so, boots on the ground is the only way to make something happen? That's your assertion, right? How many boots were on the ground on "mainland" Japan when they surrendered?

You are comparing a 4 year war that saw many casualties and two nuclear weapons to what?

[Gelston]

Also, we had hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground in that war. And then we occupied the shit out of Japan. We also invaded Okinawa which was Japan.

[Androidpk]

If it weren't for the Red Army prepping for an invasion and two atomic weapons then US boots would have been needed in tokyo. Air power, as amazing as it is, cannot win wars by itself.

My 2 cents

[Gelston]

If it weren't for the Red Army prepping for an invasion and two atomic weapons then US boots would have been needed in tokyo. Air power, as amazing as it is, cannot win wars by itself.

My 2 cents

Yep. Which, btw, we really can't use nukes anymore.

[Androidpk]

Yep. Which, btw, we really can't use nukes anymore.

We shouldn't but I have a feeling sooner or later someone's gonna drop a nuke on someone.

[Gelston]

We shouldn't but I have a feeling sooner or later someone's gonna drop a nuke on someone.

I think it is inevitable. Whether it is a country or an organization.

[Thondalar]

You are comparing a 4 year war that saw many casualties and two nuclear weapons to what?

To your assertion that only "boots on the ground" accomplishes anything.


Also, we had hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground in that war. And then we occupied the shit out of Japan. We also invaded Okinawa which was Japan.

Notice I put mainland in quotes. It's hard to have a mainland when talking about a bunch of islands, but I was referring to the actual central land mass (if you can call it that) that makes up what is now Japan. While Okinawa is certainly part of Japan, it's one of the smaller islands, and almost 400 miles from the "mainland"...this in no way diminishes the bravery and sacrifice of our soldiers there...hell, my grandfather was a Marine there, 6th Division...

We've managed to get pretty far off-base. I'll just renew my initial request...can you quote exactly which part of the platform you have a problem with? You've claimed it's Isolationist....what part(s) brings you to that conclusion? Can we go from there?

[Thondalar]

If it weren't for the Red Army prepping for an invasion and two atomic weapons then US boots would have been needed in tokyo. Air power, as amazing as it is, cannot win wars by itself.

My 2 cents

And completely off-base to what we're talking about. I don't see where Libertarian policy would have changed our role in WW2...hell, FDR tried everything he could to keep us out of it. It wasn't until Japan attacked us that we finally said "ok, fine, you wanted us, now you get us"

[Gelston]

To your assertion that only "boots on the ground" accomplishes anything.



Notice I put mainland in quotes. It's hard to have a mainland when talking about a bunch of islands, but I was referring to the actual central land mass (if you can call it that) that makes up what is now Japan. While Okinawa is certainly part of Japan, it's one of the smaller islands, and almost 400 miles from the "mainland"...this in no way diminishes the bravery and sacrifice of our soldiers there...hell, my grandfather was a Marine there, 6th Division...

We've managed to get pretty far off-base. I'll just renew my initial request...can you quote exactly which part of the platform you have a problem with? You've claimed it's Isolationist....what part(s) brings you to that conclusion? Can we go from there?

You realize without those nukes we'd have been invading Japan right? We can't nuke countries anymore.

And again, read your own quoted text on national defense and read my first post. That is what I disagree with.

Tell me it isn't isolationist.

[Thondalar]

You realize without those nukes we'd have been invading Japan right? We can't nuke countries anymore.

Of course I realize that. Are you ever going to directly quote the platform and explain why you disagree with what is stated, or are you going to keep dancing around?

[Gelston]

And completely off-base to what we're talking about. I don't see where Libertarian policy would have changed our role in WW2...hell, FDR tried everything he could to keep us out of it. It wasn't until Japan attacked us that we finally said "ok, fine, you wanted us, now you get us"

Yes, and before that 6 million Jews died.

[Gelston]

Of course I realize that. Are you ever going to directly quote the platform and explain why you disagree with what is stated, or are you going to keep dancing around?

I already did, multiple times, explain why I disagree with it. You don't seem to want to accept it.

[Thondalar]

I already did, multiple times, explain why I disagree with it. You don't seem to want to accept it.

You have yet to quote anything directly and give an explanation. You've said multiple times it's isolationist, but why?

[Gelston]

You have yet to quote anything directly and give an explanation. You've said multiple times it's isolationist, but why?

Pretty hard to quote from a quote on a phone. I figured saying I disagreed with the section that said National Defense was enough. It was your post, you can go find it.

[Thondalar]

Pretty hard to quote from a quote on a phone. I figured saying I disagreed with the section that said National Defense was enough. It was your post, you can go find it.

I'll help you out.


3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

Exactly what part of that do you find disagreeable and why?

[Gelston]

As I said in my very first post, it reeks of Isolationism. Explain to me how it doesn't.

[Thondalar]

As I said in my very first post, it reeks of Isolationism. Explain to me how it doesn't.

Because no part of it says "the US will completely remove itself from all global interactions". Really, man...quit trying so hard to see what isn't there.

[Androidpk]

Walk softly but carry a big stick > isolationism

[Gelston]

Because no part of it says "the US will completely remove itself from all global interactions". Really, man...quit trying so hard to see what isn't there.

Entangling alliances? NATO itself is pretty entangling. Policing the world? Some places need it, like Somalia. I sorta agree with not pushing compulsory service, which we don't right now anyways. ... unless we hit a WW3 type situation.

[Gelston]

Look, the United States is a superpower. If we want to remain one, yeah, we got to get into other country's shit. That is what happens when you are the big kid on the block.

[Gelston]

As a side effect, it creates a battle hardened military.

[Candor]

Although I considerable myself a conservative, the previous two posts are an excellent example as to why I do not identify with the Far Right.

[waywardgs]

I just want gay married couples to be able to defend their pot plants with guns.

[Jarvan]

I started writing a list of things, then realized, what is the point?

Doesn't matter what I think, no political party is perfect, nor will any change their ways because I disagree with them.

If the OP agrees 100% with the party platform, then he has issues. No one should ever agree 100% with a party platform.

[Parkbandit]

Here's the rub...do you think the US Government should be the one giving that aid, or do you think the US Government should simply stay out of the way of it's citizens giving that aid, if they choose?

So you have no problem with our citizens giving aid to ISIS?

[Taernath]

A couple things that stand out to me:

- I support the legalization of marijuana but that is where it ends. Meth, heroin et al. are different animals, and just because it shows signs of working in certain other places does not necessarily mean it will work in the U.S.

- I also support firearm registration and 'common sense' laws. The party platform makes it sound like they oppose any regulation at all.

- Their environmental platform is exceedingly vague.

- Foreign policy advocates avoiding alliances and foreign entanglements, which, while I do agree with non-interventionism in areas like Iraq and Afghanistan, does sound like isolationism.

I'll write more later, I'm heading out the door.

[Laviticas]

1.5, I certainly do not agree with, cowardly stance. My understanding is that libertarians pride themselves on personal responsibility, aborting a child because we forgot what fucking was for is egg on the face of libertarians for taking a head in the sand stance. You can't have personal liberty when someone can freely take your life. Ron Paul agrees.

[Androidpk]

I don't see that as going against libertarian values. Until you pop out of your mom's cooch it is her body and her decision if she wants an abortion.

[Laviticas]

I don't see that as going against libertarian values. Until you pop out of your mom's cooch it is her body and her decision if she wants an abortion.

I don't agree. That's like saying "I can't see it, so it does not exist"

Looks like a human to me:

6924

[Laviticas]

Still looks like a human:

6925

[Buckwheet]

The fact that so much explanation needs to be given on these "stances" just proves whats wrong with the stances. In general I agree with most of what they said, but they are too vague to be used in any fashion.

[Ker_Thwap]

So far we have a misconception about International policy and an issue about Monopolies that isn't even an issue...

Come on, there has to be something more substantial. Everyone from the right and the left on these here forums has, at one time or another, expressed genuine malcontent with some part of their claimed platform. Like, deep-seated issues..."but it's the lesser of two evils"...

I was hoping, since like 95% of America votes R or D every time, either side would be able to just shoot a bunch of holes through the Libertarian platform, and point out how it fundamentally makes no sense, and is a bunch of hogwash.

The problem comes because it's simplistic. They have a bunch of feel good rules, that like everything else are subject to interpretation, even among dedicated Libertarians. I have Libertarian leanings myself on a theoretical basis, far less so when applied to the real world.

[Allereli]

Still looks like a human:

6925

it's, for lack of better words, a parasite. It cannot live naturally outside of a woman's body. the woman's rights take precedent. the woman gets to decide whether to carry it to term, or not. If you're under the opinion of "oh, it's just 9 months," then you are not a woman or you have never known someone who has hemorrhaged. Pregnancy is still a serious medical condition and a lot can go wrong.

also, for all your "love" of life, who takes care of the baby after it is born? Do you just have them born for the sake of being born? or do you, who forced a woman to carry the fetus to term, then take responsibility for this now person and raise them.

[Laviticas]

I campaigned for Ron Paul and I'm quickly changing my libertarian leanings. As much as I would like it for the US to become noninterventionist, the past couple years have proven to me that this is a naive stance.

[Laviticas]

it's, for lack of better words, a parasite. It cannot live naturally outside of a woman's body. the woman's rights take precedent. the woman gets to decide whether to carry it to term, or not. If you're under the opinion of "oh, it's just 9 months," then you are not a woman or you have never known someone who has hemorrhaged. Pregnancy is still a serious medical condition and a lot can go wrong.

also, for all your "love" of life, who takes care of the baby after it is born? Do you just have them born for the sake of being born? or do you, who forced a woman to carry the fetus to term, then take responsibility for this now person and raise them.


A newborn is unable to sustain life on it's own, so it must be a parasite. The elderly, parasites. Born with an abnormality, parasite.

Who will care for the child? Let's just kill it instead.

Pro-death position holds absolutely no logic. I killed the baby because I am not responsible enough to take care of it, but let's fuck, that is the pro-death logic.

[Allereli]

A newborn is unable to sustain life on it's own, so it must be a parasite. The elderly, parasites. Born with an abnormality, parasite.

Who will care for the child? Let's just kill it instead.

Pro-death position holds absolutely no logic. I killed the baby because I am not responsible enough to take care of it, but let's fuck, that is the pro-death logic.

Okay, you will be responsible for keeping them alive. Everyone is pro life until they have to take care of the baby, when you have to take care of the baby, you turn it around and say "pro death." You are pro death for the life of the mother.

[JackWhisper]

A woman gives up her rights once she decides to fuck someone and get pregnant. It was her choice to risk getting pregnant. You cannot blame a child, no matter how grown or not, for your stupid decision. Just because you are the vessel doesn't mean you should have the right to kill something, just because you think it's not developed enough to scream, "Ow! Don't kill me!" from inside your womb. How immensely naïve.

For lack of better words, if you're so hard up about getting pregnant, next time swallow. It'll save you a lot of trouble, and still get you laid.

[JackWhisper]

And I take care of my child. Nobody else. I chose that. I didn't get pregnant for nine months. But I assumed responsibility. And am better for it.

[Allereli]

A woman gives up her rights once she decides to fuck someone and get pregnant.

LOL, no, a woman never gives up her rights. are you on drugs?

[JackWhisper]

I didn't go from pro life to pro death once I had my infant in my arms. That couldn't be more wrong for a generalized statement.

[JackWhisper]

No, not on drugs. You're just high on that whole shit about 'empowered women. our choice, nobody else's. blablabla'. That's ignorant and selfish and self-serving. Typical for naïve people. Men and women alike.

[Allereli]

I didn't go from pro life to pro death once I had my infant in my arms. That couldn't be more wrong for a generalized statement.

Where in The Constitution does it say a woman gives up her rights? Where in any law does it say a woman gives up her rights?

[JackWhisper]

Sort of common sense to connect the dots on that statement.

[Buckwheet]

A newborn is unable to sustain life on it's own, so it must be a parasite. The elderly, parasites. Born with an abnormality, parasite.

Who will care for the child? Let's just kill it instead.

Pro-death position holds absolutely no logic. I killed the baby because I am not responsible enough to take care of it, but let's fuck, that is the pro-death logic.

What specifically are doing to help others who you feel your position should be forced? You might enjoy standing outside an abortion clinic showing grotesque pictures and handing out fliers, I don't know, but that doesn't do anything to address the issue and help people with their choice.

Are you giving additional money in donations to the IRS or other groups to help? Are you writing checks to birthing centers for mothers who can't pay? Donating money to organizations who DON'T hit people over the head with those grotesque pictures and offering would be mothers safe and clean environments to carry their babies to term?

Its easy to spout words on a message board and hammer people with your philosophy or denigrate them for previous or upcoming choices. The hard part is putting your money with your mouth is and actually seeing a realistic result.

I am pro-choice. Nothing anyone can say will ever change my mind. That being said, I donate regularly to a center that doesn't use aggressive techniques, and just provides information and options and as part of their shelter offers room and board to expecting mothers and for a period of time after the child is born so they can recuperate and then look for work.

[Laviticas]

Where in The Constitution does it say a woman gives up her rights? Where in any law does it say a woman gives up her rights?

Never mind the rights of the female you are so willing to kill, so you don't have to take on the responsibility of your own actions.

The pro-death supporters by means of their own logic should support killing all these illegal children. They are poster children for every one of your arguments.

[Allereli]

Never mind the rights of the female you are so willing to kill, so you don't have to take on the responsibility of your own actions.

The pro-death supporters by means of their own logic should support killing all these illegal children. They are poster children for every one of your arguments.

it's not a person. a chimp fetus looks like a person, too, it is still not a person.

[Laviticas]

What specifically are doing to help others who you feel your position should be forced? You might enjoy standing outside an abortion clinic showing grotesque pictures and handing out fliers, I don't know, but that doesn't do anything to address the issue and help people with their choice.

Are you giving additional money in donations to the IRS or other groups to help? Are you writing checks to birthing centers for mothers who can't pay? Donating money to organizations who DON'T hit people over the head with those grotesque pictures and offering would be mothers safe and clean environments to carry their babies to term?

Its easy to spout words on a message board and hammer people with your philosophy or denigrate them for previous or upcoming choices. The hard part is putting your money with your mouth is and actually seeing a realistic result.

I am pro-choice. Nothing anyone can say will ever change my mind. That being said, I donate regularly to a center that doesn't use aggressive techniques, and just provides information and options and as part of their shelter offers room and board to expecting mothers and for a period of time after the child is born so they can recuperate and then look for work.

Why should I be held accountable for others actions? Thank you for proving my original argument that a true libertarian must be pro-life, or they are just full of bullshit.

[Allereli]

Sort of common sense to connect the dots on that statement.

Yes, it was common sense at one point that black people were slaves. Your common sense argument does not hold up.

[Laviticas]

it's not a person. a chimp fetus looks like a person, too, it is still not a person.

Except we are not killing chimps, most likely you would face jail time for killing a chimp, seeing how we value chimps more than human life.

[Laviticas]

Yes, it was common sense at one point that black people were slaves. Your common sense argument does not hold up.

Odd you should bring up black people, we abort them at a ratio that far exceeds their percentile of the population. Just fucking kill them, more pro-death logic.

[Allereli]

Except we are not killing chimps, most likely you would face jail time for killing a chimp, seeing how we value chimps more than human life.

so you value the "life" of something unborn vs someone already grown. Good to know where women stand in your eyes.

[Buckwheet]

Why should I be held accountable for others actions? Thank you for proving my original argument that a true libertarian must be pro-life, or they are just full of bullshit.

I am not saying you should be held accountable for someone else. I am saying if you are going to insert your self into their lives and denigrate them you should be prepared to help them. I think that is the biggest difference between most pro-life people and most pro-choice people.

Pro-Choice means just that. You are given all the available information and you make a choice. Pro-life people, in general, would never talk about abortion being part of the choice. They just have the hard lined approach of saying the only choice is having the child.

[Allereli]

Odd you should bring up black people, we abort them at a ratio that far exceeds their percentile of the population. Just fucking kill them, more pro-death logic.

that makes no sense whatsoever.

[Laviticas]

that makes no sense whatsoever.

Makes plenty of sense, google the number black abortions in comparison to any other race.

[Allereli]

Makes plenty of sense, google the number black abortions in comparison to any other race.

and what does that have to do with anything? Are you upset because black women exercise their rights? Are you upset that perhaps black women live in areas where they are not provided proper education on birth control?

[Laviticas]

I know "I'm a bad person for hating on women" except the women I'm trying to protect from self centered women trying to kill them.

No Allerli, I value all life equally, it's not me that supports killing a child for self convenience.

[Laviticas]

and what does that have to do with anything? Are you upset because black women exercise their rights? Are you upset that perhaps black women live in areas where they are not provided proper education on birth control?

I think you need to take another gander at the constitution, pretty sure it says Life is a right, not murdering a child because you are a woman.

How does killing a child improve any of your arguments? Is there a certain number of child murders that must be reached before we reach enlightenment and these people will finally learn that fucking is for reproduction?

[Allereli]

I think you need to take another gander at the constitution, pretty sure it says Life is a right, not murdering a child because you are a woman.

again, you prioritize a fetus over a living human.

[Buckwheet]

I know "I'm a bad person for hating on women" except the women I'm trying to protect from self centered women trying to kill them.

No Allerli, I value all life equally, it's not me that supports killing a child for self convenience.

Why do you feel its your job to protect them? Outside of just saying "this is wrong, I don't agree with it" what else do you do? Because words aren't enough.

[Laviticas]

again, you prioritize a fetus over a living human.

Except that "fetus" is a living human. How is that "fetus" threatening a woman's life? Pregnancy is not a disease, a virus or any other means of a threat of death. Sorry you hate being a woman, perhaps you wish mom had killed you instead?

[Fallen]

Sorry you hate being a woman, perhaps you wish mom had killed you instead?

Now THAT'S the kinda argument that changes hearts and minds, people.

[Laviticas]

Why do you feel its your job to protect them? Outside of just saying "this is wrong, I don't agree with it" what else do you do? Because words aren't enough.

It does not matter what else I do, there is no justification for murder, none.

What you are saying, they are better off dead than taking a roll of the dice. When you take the roll of the dice, there is a chance things work out great, killing the child is a sure loss.

[Fallen]

From strictly a financial sense, there is definitely a net loss from having a child. People spend on average 150k per kid up to age 18, not including higher education. If you're affluent, the cost jumps to around 400k.

My numbers may actually be lowballing the costs: http://money.cnn.com/interactive/pf/cost-of-children/

[Ker_Thwap]

and what does that have to do with anything? Are you upset because black women exercise their rights? Are you upset that perhaps black women live in areas where they are not provided proper education on birth control?

It's hyperbole Godwin time! From a racist point of view, inner city abortions are far more efficient than letting them grow up and having to go to all the trouble of stuffing them in ovens.

Sometimes we want to do good, but our actions have unintended consequences. Just something to consider.

[Allereli]

Except that "fetus" is a living human. How is that "fetus" threatening a woman's life? Pregnancy is not a disease, a virus or any other means of a threat of death. Sorry you hate being a woman, perhaps you wish mom had killed you instead?

Pregnancy is an important choice women have to make for THEMSELVES. No one else should make it for them, not the fetus, not you, not any sort of religious institution, and not any government. Abortion will happen no matter what, and denying women access to proper facilities leads to even more tragedy, more loss of life, and even loss of future life. Many women who have abortions go on to have children when they are ready. Many botched abortions prevent women from ever getting pregnant again.

[Allereli]

It's hyperbole Godwin time! From a racist point of view, inner city abortions are far more efficient than letting them grow up and having to go to all the trouble of stuffing them in ovens.

Sometimes we want to do good, but our actions have unintended consequences. Just something to consider.

seriously? wtf

[Laviticas]

Pregnancy is an important choice women have to make for THEMSELVES. No one else should make it for them, not the fetus, not you, not any sort of religious institution, and not any government. Abortion will happen no matter what, and denying women access to proper facilities leads to even more tragedy, more loss of life, and even loss of future life. Many women who have abortions go on to have children when they are ready. Many botched abortions prevent women from ever getting pregnant again.

You're right, pregnancy is a choice, that choice is made when you decide to fuck. Sure you may or may not get pregnant, what we do know is the child is dead when you decide to murder it.

It's murder and should be treated as such. I know that because women have tits they think they are special. The fact is, when a pregnant woman is murdered and it results in the death of the child, murderer gets charged with two counts of murder. Why is it a human life in this case but not in the case of the mother killing it?

With your stance, the guy should have 9 month opt out period, but I'm sure you want nothing to do with this, because men are bad.

[Warriorbird]

People always choose to have sex of course.

[Laviticas]

seriously? wtf

Whoops you didn't know?

You don't even know who your handlers are on this topic. All this shit your side spews is the same ideology that lead to the holocaust and you don't even know it.

[Ker_Thwap]

seriously? wtf

You can't see any concern when the end result of what you propose coincides with the end result of what a racist proposes? That doesn't concern you at all? Are you just happy that the poors are killing off the next generation, breaking the cycle of poverty?

[Fallen]

So the answer is to mandate that these poor people MUST have their children, thus ensuring that their odds of elevating themselves are slim to none? If that's the case, I hope you are supporting all sorts of fun, socialist policies of wealth distribution and government subsidies to fund the life of these precious children.

Or, you know, just talk about bootstraps and leave them to their own devices.

[Allereli]

You can't see any concern when the end result of what you propose coincides with the end result of what a racist proposes? That doesn't concern you at all? Are you just happy that the poors are killing off the next generation, breaking the cycle of poverty?

the poors? seriously? having a child has more of a chance of keeping a woman poor, while allowing her access to abortion would give her the opportunity to get herself together financially before having another child. Does this always happen? no.

The choice is made when you decide to fuck? Sorry, women have the right to fuck. And they have a right that when birth control fails or when they make a mistake or are raped, they can take care of the situation. Plenty of men don't take any sort of responsibility with no repercussions whatsoever. But yes, if the man puts a condom on, the condom breaks, the woman decides against the will of the man to have the child, that the man should be free of the responsibility. Also, the going after sperm donors for child support is bullshit.

[Ker_Thwap]

So the answer is to mandate that these poor people MUST have their children, thus ensuring that their odds of elevating themselves are slim to none? If that's the case, I hope you are supporting all sorts of fun, socialist policies of wealth distribution and government subsidies to fund the life of these precious children.

Or, you know, just talk about bootstraps and leave them to their own devices.

No, I'm fine with abortions for other families pretty much. It's just not a cut and dried answer for me. I'm adopted so I realize I could have easily have been aborted. When my girls were teens, I gave them the additional option( should they get pregnant) of me raising their baby while they got their lives set up. I think that horrifying concept drove home the actual potential that they could easily get pregnant, and to use all sorts of birth control.

I just like to make Allerelli try to even consider that other people have valid and conflicting opinions once in a while.

[Allereli]

I just like to make Allerelli try to even consider that other people have valid and conflicting opinions once in a while.

yes, making everything about race and calling people "the poors" makes your argument so valid.

[Atlanteax]

So, let's have it. What part of that, any and all, do any of you disagree with? I'm genuinely curious.

I'd be a Libertarian if not for 3.1 and 3.3.

Part of what allows Americans to enjoy their day-to-day lives and the empowerment they have, is due to the US being able to impose its will overseas and to negotiate favorably with friendlies.

[Atlanteax]

it's, for lack of better words, a parasite. It cannot live naturally outside of a woman's body. the woman's rights take precedent. the woman gets to decide whether to carry it to term, or not. If you're under the opinion of "oh, it's just 9 months," then you are not a woman or you have never known someone who has hemorrhaged. Pregnancy is still a serious medical condition and a lot can go wrong.

also, for all your "love" of life, who takes care of the baby after it is born? Do you just have them born for the sake of being born? or do you, who forced a woman to carry the fetus to term, then take responsibility for this now person and raise them.

Well said!

If anything, abortions should be more commonplace as we all know people who really should not be parents, but yet (unfortunately) are.

[Fallen]

I'm not a "kill the thing a day before it pops out" kinda guy, but at the same time, as Allereli said, abortions will happen whether you ban them or not. Take a look at Central and South America for illegal abortion rates. Kids are stupid expensive and society doesn't want to raise your child (for the most part). Abstinence education is laughably inaffective. Birth control is great, but some religious people even oppose that. It also isn't free. It also has people that don't want to subsidize it. It also fails.

I'd be fine with banning abortions (outside of it threatening the life of the mother) if society was capable of supporting the life of every child with or without the parent's help to the age of 21, to include higher education of some sort. Until those support structures are in place, there needs to be an option for those who are incapable of supporting the child. Arguments of personal responsibility are just as callous in my mind as abortions because you're basically saying you know the parent and the kid are likely fucked, but you don't care and/or aren't willing to pay to solve the problem.

[Laviticas]

the poors? seriously? having a child has more of a chance of keeping a woman poor, while allowing her access to abortion would give her the opportunity to get herself together financially before having another child. Does this always happen? no.

The choice is made when you decide to fuck? Sorry, women have the right to fuck. And they have a right that when birth control fails or when they make a mistake or are raped, they can take care of the situation. Plenty of men don't take any sort of responsibility with no repercussions whatsoever. But yes, if the man puts a condom on, the condom breaks, the woman decides against the will of the man to have the child, that the man should be free of the responsibility. Also, the going after sperm donors for child support is bullshit.

So murder fixes all these things, except the fact that a human was murdered. Meh, as long as you have that second car in the drive, what's a human life matter?

[Ker_Thwap]

yes, making everything about race and calling people "the poors" makes your argument so valid.

As does repeating over and over again your argument: that womens' rights trumps every other possible situation in the world. Yes, I make EVERYTHING about race, that shows how much you actually pay attention to what other people even say.

[Allereli]

As does repeating over and over again your argument: that womens' rights trumps every other possible situation in the world. Yes, I make EVERYTHING about race, that shows how much you actually pay attention to what other people even say.

yes women's rights will trump those of fetuses. I will say it over and over again, because these women exist, they are real, not some theoretical idea of what might be, and they are in a situation where they need help, not damnation.

[Ker_Thwap]

I'm not a "kill the thing a day before it pops out" kinda guy, but at the same time, as Allereli said, abortions will happen whether you ban them or not. Take a look at Central and South America for illegal abortion rates. Kids are stupid expensive and society doesn't want to raise your child (for the most part). Abstinence education is laughably inaffective. Birth control is great, but some religious people even oppose that. It also isn't free. It also has people that don't want to subsidize it. It also fails.

I'd be fine with banning abortions (outside of it threatening the life of the mother) if society was capable of supporting the life of every child with or without the parent's help to the age of 21, to include higher education of some sort. Until those support structures are in place, there needs to be an option for those who are incapable of supporting the child. Arguments of personal responsibility are just as callous in my mind as abortions because you're basically saying you know the parent and the kid are likely fucked, but you don't care and/or aren't willing to pay to solve the problem.

Seems reasonable to me, although I've always super respected people who put their newborns up for adoption, when they realize they can't care for the baby.

[Androidpk]

Laviticas, I'm guessing you are anti-masturbation then. Think of all those poor spermies going to waste. The Fappening has probably killed more potential humans than Hitler or any of the other crazy despots/dictators.

[Ker_Thwap]

yes women's rights will trump those of fetuses. I will say it over and over again, because these women exist, they are real, not some theoretical idea of what might be, and they are in a situation where they need help, not damnation.

That's an excellent point, in your reality. Unfortunately, it's not exclusively a woman vs. fetus argument in the real world. There are a thousand other concerns in our society that are impacted by this. That you refuse to even discuss them is what worries me.

[Buckwheet]

It does not matter what else I do, there is no justification for murder, none.

What you are saying, they are better off dead than taking a roll of the dice. When you take the roll of the dice, there is a chance things work out great, killing the child is a sure loss.

I don't believe I ever said that. What I said was people have a choice and I am all for educating them on both choices. I don't ever want to be in the position of telling someone what is best for them. That is their decision.

[Laviticas]

Now that child is just a theory?

If it's not murder, why is it such a hard decision? If there is no moral question about it, it would be like throwing out a rotten turnip or some shit?

As much as women like you wish it man does not = woman just like 1 does not = 2. How is it women have allowed themselves to feel shameful for being women? It's fucking pathetic, you have the one gift that is magical and you call it a parasite.

[Laviticas]

I don't believe I ever said that. What I said was people have a choice and I am all for educating them on both choices. I don't ever want to be in the position of telling someone what is best for them. That is their decision.

When has deciding for a person they are better off dead ever been answered back with an ok?

[Buckwheet]

If it's not murder, why is it such a hard decision? If there is no moral question about it, it would be like throwing out a rotten turnip or some shit?

For some people its not. I know several people who had said if our pregnancy includes all sorts of genetic issues we are aborting. So to them its not murder. Just like killing the guy who rapes and murders your child is seen as justice by a lot of people.

[Buckwheet]

When has deciding for a person they are better off dead ever been answered back with an ok?

In the case of two people I know. They had illnesses and if it wasn't for the archaic laws they would have chosen assisted suicide. The doctors pretty much told them that they were going to suffer for the next week or two. So they did the next best thing and opted for hospice care, which is just giving you so much morphine that you are gone anyways until the body shuts down.

[Laviticas]

Laviticas, I'm guessing you are anti-masturbation then. Think of all those poor spermies going to waste. The Fappening has probably killed more potential humans than Hitler or any of the other crazy despots/dictators.

Are you that ignorant on the subject of biology that you believe a sperm becomes a human without an egg?

[Allereli]

Now that child is just a theory?

If it's not murder, why is it such a hard decision? If there is no moral question about it, it would be like throwing out a rotten turnip or some shit?

As much as women like you wish it man does not = woman just like 1 does not = 2. How is it women have allowed themselves to feel shameful for being women? It's fucking pathetic, you have the one gift that is magical and you call it a parasite.

the theoretical part is that they even grow to term and become people. I have been through all the moral issues about it, and the fact remains that abortion will happen whether it is legal or not and therefore it must be legally provided and accessible in safe facilities.

"How is it that women have allowed themselves for feeling shameful for being women?" Where did this come from? Is a woman only good as a provider of birth? What low opinion of women's capabilities do you have? Am I not fully a woman if I cannot have children or do not give birth in my lifetime?

[Androidpk]

Are you that ignorant on the subject of biology that you believe a sperm becomes a human without an egg?

What kind of egg?

[Wrathbringer]

So far we have a misconception about International policy and an issue about Monopolies that isn't even an issue...

Come on, there has to be something more substantial. Everyone from the right and the left on these here forums has, at one time or another, expressed genuine malcontent with some part of their claimed platform. Like, deep-seated issues..."but it's the lesser of two evils"...

I was hoping, since like 95% of America votes R or D every time, either side would be able to just shoot a bunch of holes through the Libertarian platform, and point out how it fundamentally makes no sense, and is a bunch of hogwash.

People would have to think to be Libertarian. No one wants to do that.


Used on foreign soil against foreign people, most certainly.

I would agree with this use of drones only during an officially declared war against specifically named countries and targets with full transparency about their use.


I find that most often, though there are a fair amount of Democrats that go "oh...really? Wow, I thought Libertarians were a bunch of gun-hugging terrorists" or something similar. The fact is most people align with Libertarianism, but they've been conditioned by generations of the right/left enslavement paradigm.

Again, Thinking? How does it work?


Yes, and before that 6 million Jews died.

Not our fault, and as such, unrelated.


Because no part of it says "the US will completely remove itself from all global interactions". Really, man...quit trying so hard to see what isn't there.

He's a warmonger. Any excuse to risk American lives is a good one to these people.


Look, the United States is a superpower. If we want to remain one, yeah, we got to get into other country's shit. That is what happens when you are the big kid on the block.

We can remain a super power without policing the world. Any contention otherwise is ridiculous.


As a side effect, it creates a battle hardened military.

"Go ahead, private, run up there and take a bullet. It'll be good for you. Then, watch your buddies get killed. It'll be good for the country and you." Stupid.


1.5, I certainly do not agree with, cowardly stance. My understanding is that libertarians pride themselves on personal responsibility, aborting a child because we forgot what fucking was for is egg on the face of libertarians for taking a head in the sand stance. You can't have personal liberty when someone can freely take your life. Ron Paul agrees.

Agreed. This is one of my main problems with the platform. Abortion should already be covered by murder legislation, in my opinion.


I don't see that as going against libertarian values. Until you pop out of your mom's cooch it is her body and her decision if she wants an abortion.

"Until you pop out..." So... 5 minutes before that, this child had no right to live? Libertarian values must apply to all human life, which obviously begins at conception.


it's, for lack of better words, a parasite. It cannot live naturally outside of a woman's body. the woman's rights take precedent. the woman gets to decide whether to carry it to term, or not. If you're under the opinion of "oh, it's just 9 months," then you are not a woman or you have never known someone who has hemorrhaged. Pregnancy is still a serious medical condition and a lot can go wrong.

also, for all your "love" of life, who takes care of the baby after it is born? Do you just have them born for the sake of being born? or do you, who forced a woman to carry the fetus to term, then take responsibility for this now person and raise them.

"it cannot live naturally outside the human body..." Irrelevant. The child is alive, and has just as much right to live as the woman. Simply because the woman can plead her case and the baby cannot is not a good excuse to murder it. As for, "But 9 months!" Too bad, so sad. Keep your legs closed. Got raped? Sorry for your misfortune. You may give the child up for adoption if you so choose.Your one other seemingly valid contention in favor of abortion about post-natal care is asinine. "Who'll raise the kid? I dunno. Well, just kill it."

[Laviticas]

In the case of two people I know. They had illnesses and if it wasn't for the archaic laws they would have chosen assisted suicide. The doctors pretty much told them that they were going to suffer for the next week or two. So they did the next best thing and opted for hospice care, which is just giving you so much morphine that you are gone anyways until the body shuts down.

They hade a choice in that decision making. Thought we were talking about someone deciding for you?

Obviously you would be ok with someone deciding to kill you because you might be poor at some point in your life.

[Fallen]

How do you libertarians feel about forcing the father to take equal responsibility for the child they helped create? Who should enforce this policy? How should it be funded? That sounds like an awful lot of intrusion into people's lives to me.

[Buckwheet]

They hade a choice in that decision making. Thought we were talking about someone deciding for you?

Obviously you would be ok with someone deciding to kill you because you might be poor at some point in your life.

Well the trolling is strong but insufficient. I guess I didn't use English properly and that is my fault. In both instances the POA and family made the choice to do hospice not the patient. If there was an option to "unplug the machine" without there being a mechanical machine based on the conversations with the doctor I know the POA would have opted to just terminate life.

My position is that abortion is just an option. Just like adoption is an option. Everyone has a right to evaluate both options without any bias from government or religious organizations. It needs to be the best thing for the parties involved. It amazes me how hard lined people can be with all these social situations until it happens to them. I hope that everyone gets to experience first hand the situations they sit and make judgement on. From food stamps and unemployment to getting raped and getting pregnant. Then I want people to tell their stories of how they saw the world before and after.

[Ker_Thwap]

How do you libertarians feel about forcing the father to take equal responsibility for the child they helped create? Who should enforce this policy? How should it be funded? That sounds like an awful lot of intrusion into people's lives to me.

Clearly once we have the system in place, people will automatically behave with nothing but goodwill towards their fellow man, and for the one in a billion deviant type, the people will rise up against them, where they'll see the error of their ways then immediately fall into line. Can you hear the people sing?!

[Hydra]

also, for all your "love" of life, who takes care of the baby after it is born? Do you just have them born for the sake of being born? or do you, who forced a woman to carry the fetus to term, then take responsibility for this now person and raise them.

Adoption and Safe Haven laws kind of answer this question if the woman doesn't want the responsibility.

[Laviticas]

the theoretical part is that they even grow to term and become people. I have been through all the moral issues about it, and the fact remains that abortion will happen whether it is legal or not and therefore it must be legally provided and accessible in safe facilities.

"How is it that women have allowed themselves for feeling shameful for being women?" Where did this come from? Is a woman only good as a provider of birth? What low opinion of women's capabilities do you have? Am I not fully a woman if I cannot have children or do not give birth in my lifetime?

You are a woman, look in the fucking mirror. This is not hard, why do women like you insist you are otherwise? I'm not degrading you by saying this, women have skill sets guys suck at and vise verse.

I'm not here to hold you back from your dreams and wishes, I'm just not going to sit silently because two people fucked up those dreams and wishes and want to use murder to escape that fuck up. It's not about you being a woman, it's about a child being murdered. That child is not dead, if it were you would not have to kill it.

[Allereli]

Adoption and Safe Haven laws kind of answer this question if the woman doesn't want the responsibility.

and what happens to the woman during those 9 months of her life? who pays for the doctor visits and all the other things women require during pregnancy? what if she develops diabetes and other issues that might stay with her post-pregnancy? Let's dump all the responsibility and burden on the woman and give her zero choice. We've already seen how that works out, we should not go back.

[Allereli]

You are a woman, look in the fucking mirror. This is not hard, why do women like you insist you are otherwise? I'm not degrading you by saying this, women have skill sets guys suck at and vise verse.

I'm not here to hold you back from your dreams and wishes, I'm just not going to sit silently because two people fucked up those dreams and wishes and want to use murder to escape that fuck up. It's not about you being a woman, it's about a child being murdered. That child is not dead, if it were you would not have to kill it.

And again you would put the women's life at risk when abortion is much safer than pregnancy.

http://www.esquire.com/features/abortion-ministry-of-dr-willie-parker-0914

[Back]

Ah the old abortion argument. Some people are so concerned for the life of a fetus... then when the kid is born could give two shits about how it's family is going to make ends meet if they are below a certain income "because it's all the parents fault for bad life choices" based on some seriously twisted interpretation of a farsical fantasy story about God and morality. Putting the life of the fetus before the parent has nothing to do with compassion for life and everything to do about wanting to feel morally superior to someone else.

The anti abortion stance is really insidious in its discrimination. When an anti abortion person tells you that you cannot have an abortion they are saying many things. A) that you don't know any better about your own self/life than they do, B) you are a corrupt individual for even considering it and a murderer for doing it, C) that anti abortion people have a higher moral standard than anyone else thus are superior to everyone else.

Not everyone who is against abortion is like this of course. Just the really kooky ones. I wouldn't

[Hydra]

and what happens to the woman during those 9 months of her life? who pays for the doctor visits and all the other things women require during pregnancy? what if she develops diabetes and other issues that might stay with her post-pregnancy? Let's dump all the responsibility and burden on the woman and give her zero choice. We've already seen how that works out, we should not go back.
Excellent questions. I was responding to the part I quoted. But now that we have government health care I guess we all can pay for those expenses.

I'm not suggesting that we force women to carry a baby she doesn't want to term. I'm saying there are multiple options in place other then keeping it. So I personally don't think the "who takes care of the child after it's born" argument hold water. If carrying the child is the issue, that's another can of worms.

[Laviticas]

Well the trolling is strong but insufficient. I guess I didn't use English properly and that is my fault. In both instances the POA and family made the choice to do hospice not the patient. If there was an option to "unplug the machine" without there being a mechanical machine based on the conversations with the doctor I know the POA would have opted to just terminate life.

My position is that abortion is just an option. Just like adoption is an option. Everyone has a right to evaluate both options without any bias from government or religious organizations. It needs to be the best thing for the parties involved. It amazes me how hard lined people can be with all these social situations until it happens to them. I hope that everyone gets to experience first hand the situations they sit and make judgement on. From food stamps and unemployment to getting raped and getting pregnant. Then I want people to tell their stories of how they saw the world before and after.

I have been in this very situation with my Dad. Dad was in the decision making at one point.

I have also been in the position of deciding on an abortion. We decided to murder our child, I'm guilty as fuck. Worst decision of our life and a major turning point in my world view. It's murder.

[Buckwheet]

I have been in this very situation with my Dad. Dad was in the decision making at one point.

I have also been in the position of deciding on an abortion. We decided to murder our child, I'm guilty as fuck. Worst decision of our life and a major turning point in my world view. It's murder.

At least you had the choice. Instead of using the language you have been using, your story is more true to life and is based one experiences. You can share that with someone. You can say, I have been here. I did this, and its haunted me and here is why. You don't have in insult anyone and say they are murdering someone or whatever. People will listen to your life experiences.

[Fallen]

Adoption and Safe Haven laws kind of answer this question if the woman doesn't want the responsibility.

I honestly don't know a lot about adoption laws and statistics, but one has to wonder that if suddenly, all of the children who were being aborted started flooding into the state's hands, what would that do to the Unites States? The costs, the effects on the children, the effects on society once these children leave foster care, etc. I don't think adoption is the solution to abortions. It is A solution, certainly, but it cannot be more than at most a small part without massive, massive costs involved.

[waywardgs]

Are you that ignorant on the subject of biology that you believe a sperm becomes a human without an egg?

Every sperm is sacred, Lavitoricus.

[Buckwheet]

Every sperm is sacred, Lavitoricus.

I bet ISIS was behind The Fappening. Think of the Christians watching their precious sperms getting flushed away like nothing.

[Laviticas]

At least you had the choice. Instead of using the language you have been using, your story is more true to life and is based one experiences. You can share that with someone. You can say, I have been here. I did this, and its haunted me and here is why. You don't have in insult anyone and say they are murdering someone or whatever. People will listen to your life experiences.

I'm not insulting anyone, it's murder, sorry I don't sugar coat mass murder. I don't give a fuck about the feelings of people that support it.

[waywardgs]

I have been in this very situation with my Dad. Dad was in the decision making at one point.

I have also been in the position of deciding on an abortion. We decided to murder our child, I'm guilty as fuck. Worst decision of our life and a major turning point in my world view. It's murder.

So you think you're guilty of murder?

[Buckwheet]

I'm not insulting anyone, it's murder, sorry I don't sugar coat mass murder. I don't give a fuck about the feelings of people that support it.

You are when you call them names which you have done numerous times.


So you think you're guilty of murder?

He should volunteer to self terminate by carrying out the death penalty if his state supports it.

[Laviticas]

I'm not insulting anyone, it's murder, sorry I don't sugar coat mass murder. I don't give a fuck about the feelings of people that support it.

You are when you call them names which you have done numerous times.



He should volunteer to self terminate by carrying out the death penalty if his state supports it.

Just as you should support killing all that are not self sufficient. Let out that inner Biometric NAZI and build that perfect society.

[Laviticas]

So you think you're guilty of murder?

Simply put, yup.

[waywardgs]

Simply put, yup.

Have you adopted any unwanted children as penance?

[Parkbandit]

Odd you should bring up black people, we abort them at a ratio that far exceeds their percentile of the population. Just fucking kill them, more pro-death logic.

To be fair, that was the driving force behind Planned Parenthood. From their standpoint, it's a huge success.

[Laviticas]

And again you would put the women's life at risk when abortion is much safer than pregnancy.

http://www.esquire.com/features/abortion-ministry-of-dr-willie-parker-0914

Safer for who? What a selfish position. But continue on with your red herring argument. The vast majority of these murders are simply being done as a form of birth control and we all fucking know it.

[Androidpk]

I bet ISIS was behind The Fappening. Think of the Christians watching their precious sperms getting flushed away like nothing.

An evil plot indeed!

http://i.imgur.com/yuyrcgK.jpg

[Laviticas]

To be fair, that was the driving force behind Planned Parenthood. From their standpoint, it's a huge success.

Oh, I know.

[waywardgs]

Lavaticas- care to answer the question? Have you adopted any unwanted children as penance? Or do you feel like your guilt is assuaged enough by writing angry diatribes on the internet? What sort of punishment do you think you deserve as a self-described murderer? Or do you think "feeling guilty" is enough?

[Parkbandit]

Lavaticas- care to answer the question? Have you adopted any unwanted children as penance? Or do you feel like your guilt is assuaged enough by writing angry diatribes on the internet? What sort of punishment do you think you deserve as a self-described murderer? Or do you think "feeling guilty" is enough?

Why would someone be required to adopt a baby because they had an abortion? I've never had an abortion (that I know about) and I'm fine with very early term abortion being legal. I'm not crazy enough to think its murder on one end of the lunatic spectrum and I don't consider a fetus a "parasite" that a woman can kill if she wants to on the other end of the crazy nut job train. I think most intelligent people are in the middle. It's the unintelligent crazy fucks that are making abortion even an issue.

[waywardgs]

Why would someone be required to adopt a baby because they had an abortion? I've never had an abortion (that I know about) and I'm fine with very early term abortion being legal. I'm not crazy enough to think its murder on one end of the lunatic spectrum and I don't consider a fetus a "parasite" that a woman can kill if she wants to on the other end of the crazy nut job train. I think most intelligent people are in the middle. It's the unintelligent crazy fucks that are making abortion even an issue.

I wouldn't require anything of him. But if he thinks he's a murderer, I'm just curious what he's doing to pay for his crime.

[Laviticas]

Lavaticas- care to answer the question? Have you adopted any unwanted children as penance? Or do you feel like your guilt is assuaged enough by writing angry diatribes on the internet? What sort of punishment do you think you deserve as a self-described murderer? Or do you think "feeling guilty" is enough?

I live with it on a daily basis. Angry? Are you mistaking my bluntness with anger ? Sorry I'm not a giant vagina that needs to paint everything I say in pastel colors as not to hurt some feelings. In my eyes abortion is murder, you of all people should see I have taken the pages out of the liberal play book of extremity in politics.

It amazes me how liberals will stand strong for fags, illegals, welfare but by god piles of dead children we are going to support. I suppose it's because those dead children are a result of the politics you support. Team Democrat Go!

[Fallen]

Team Democrat Go!

Isn't the vilification of democrats on this issue a bit one-sided? Isn't it the religious right who are so strongly opposed to women being able to receive coverage through work for contraception? Do they not have a hand in unwanted pregnancies? Or how about their stance against sex education in schools? How about republican's repeated attacks on funding for programs which provide education on birth control and family planning as wasteful expenditures?

Hyper-partisanship does little to solve this problem, and adds even less to the conversation.

[waywardgs]

I live with it on a daily basis. Angry? Are you mistaking my bluntness with anger ? Sorry I'm not a giant vagina that needs to paint everything I say in pastel colors as not to hurt some feelings. In my eyes abortion is murder, you of all people should see I have taken the pages out of the liberal play book of extremity in politics.

It amazes me how liberals will stand strong for fags, illegals, welfare but by god piles of dead children we are going to support. I suppose it's because those dead children are a result of the politics you support. Team Democrat Go!

So... You don't do anything to pay for your crime. I thought you'd be all about personal responsibility and accountability...

[Atlanteax]

Is this the Laviticas meltdown thread?

[Taernath]

I honestly don't know a lot about adoption laws and statistics, but one has to wonder that if suddenly, all of the children who were being aborted started flooding into the state's hands, what would that do to the Unites States? The costs, the effects on the children, the effects on society once these children leave foster care, etc. I don't think adoption is the solution to abortions. It is A solution, certainly, but it cannot be more than at most a small part without massive, massive costs involved.

I looked it up for one of the other abortion threads we've had. The adoption rate is around 1/10 the estimated abortion rate.

[Laviticas]

So... You don't do anything to pay for your crime. I thought you'd be all about personal responsibility and accountability...

I have payed the price in more way than one and continue to do so. I know what you're looking for me to say. But I take you fucks with a grain of salt, the GS community has already trolled a kid to suicide, I'm sure it was worth the laughs and to think you're a fucking teacher.

[waywardgs]

Is this the Laviticas meltdown thread?

Nah. I mean, he did confess to murder, but he feels pretty bad about it so it's cool.

[Laviticas]

Is this the Laviticas meltdown thread?

There's constructive input, your fame among the PC forums will make your life complete. You suck cock too?

[waywardgs]

I have payed the price in more way than one and continue to do so. I know what you're looking for me to say. But I take you fucks with a grain of salt, the GS community has already trolled a kid to suicide, I'm sure it was worth the laughs and to think you're a fucking teacher.

So we're all murderers now? Awesome. You fit right in!

[Androidpk]

>Hyper-partisanship does little to solve this problem, and adds even less to the conversation.

Ding ding ding! A winner is you!

[JackWhisper]

Just got home from picking my son up from school, figured I'd chime in to a comment a good time back.

Fallen - you commented on children being a net loss and such a few pages back. That is true, in some cases. But the opposite is also true with the following. Now, I don't think this is how it SHOULD happen, but it is how it DOES happen. My adopted sister's real sister *who is black*, has more than half a dozen kids. That's right. OVER six. Why? Because she gets rich from the government for having them. She has no job, gives her children the bare minimum, and makes *BANK*. There are all sorts of programs out there to help pregnant women, as you get insurance the second you are pregnant here in California, once you register for it. No matter your rich/poor situation. And you get it until the kid is five years old, with a six month grace period.

And someone said something about fathers taking care of the kids if women don't want them. I did that. <---- this guy. Me. Alone. Yeah I'm a guy. Not a woman. And I love my child. Don't need a vagina to care and be protective of a small person who can't defend themselves.

BTW whoever commented that the fetus was a woman and should have equal rights to decide to not be terminated... laughed my ass off at that irony. Thank you. That was great.

[Fallen]

I looked it up for one of the other abortion threads we've had. The adoption rate is around 1/10 the estimated abortion rate.

I can't find info on how much it costs the state to house a child. My google is weak. What was your source for the above info?

[Ker_Thwap]

Is this the Laviticas meltdown thread?

Pfft, we all have meltdown threads. Don't be selfish.

[Latrinsorm]

So, let's have it. What part of that, any and all, do any of you disagree with? I'm genuinely curious.It's gonna be long:

-Individuals own their bodies
Show me the receipts.

-Libertarians advocate individual privacy and government transparency. We are committed to ending government’s practice of spying on everyone. We support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, property, and communications. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records.
This isn't at all what the Fourth Amendment says, I disagree that individual privacy is a sacrosanct right, and I disagree that Libertarians actually advocate for it. Proof: would there be patrolmen in the police forces of a libertarian government? Yes, obviously.

-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.
Major league cop-out. What happened to "individuals own their bodies"? You lie in the bed you make, so go ahead and lie.

-We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.
I trust I don't need to elaborate.

-All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.
A progressive income tax works, sorry. You can't cite the empirical benefits of a free market and ignore the empirical detriments. I mean you CAN, but it makes you a hypocrite.

-For voluntary dealings among private entities, parties should be free to choose with whom they trade and set whatever trade terms are mutually agreeable.
See above. Busting monopolies works, minimum wage laws work. Your not liking them doesn't amount to a hill of beans in terms of how effective they are empirically.

-Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems.
Please see "tragedy of the commons". Environmental advocates and social pressure... lol.

-While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.
Shortsighted if not outright naive. What makes solar difficult to invest in is that it has a much higher up-front cost that is made up for with much lower operating costs, because sunlight is a heck of a lot cheaper to acquire than coal. The overall cost of the energy is the same, but the liquid capital required is a relative barrier to entry. A government loan represents a small loss to the government balance sheet (even if paid back, opportunity costs exist) but represents a large gain to the community (energy independence, pollution). This is precisely the sort of thing the government is supposed to do.

-We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid.
Please see the Marshall Plan. You say "free market" over and over like a mantra, but you apparently never checked history to see how well it actually works in various environments. In international relations it is a catastrophic failure; massive government intervention is required for the best outcome.

-Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs. This statement shall not be construed to condone child abuse or neglect.
Another cop-out. You talk such a good game about government having absolutely no interference in the FREE MARKET, except for all the places you think it ought to. I gotta say, the placement of these caveats with abortion and child abuse makes me wonder if these hypocrisies are conscious, so as to not alienate potential voters for your candidates.

.

I recognize there are 7 pages to get through, so now I'll go through that.

[Jarvan]

Where in The Constitution does it say a woman gives up her rights? Where in any law does it say a woman gives up her rights?

What right, exactly, is a woman giving up if they become pregnant but don't want to carry it to term? Women have been getting pregnant and giving birth for how long.. dawn of mankind?

Fundamentally it all comes down to when people determine a fetus to be a baby, and not a non entity. Here is a question, if we had machines that could carry a baby to term. And someone broke into a hospital that was using them, and unplugged them all, killing the babies.. would you think this is a crime? Or would you think that this is a great thing?

Ever heard the phrase... just because you can do something, does that mean you should? Obviously you think women should.

Prob one of those people that think that women should be able to abort up until the second the baby pops out.

[Latrinsorm]

I don't see where the platform would completely restrict giving aid to alliesNot only does the platform declare in absolute and unequivocal language that they would end all aid (3.3), the "foreign entanglements" part states we would "avoid" even having allies. Rather, our goal would be Switzerland. Good luck with that.
I find that most often, though there are a fair amount of Democrats that go "oh...really? Wow, I thought Libertarians were a bunch of gun-hugging terrorists" or something similar. The fact is most people align with Libertarianism, but they've been conditioned by generations of the right/left enslavement paradigm.The philosophy you advocate is libertarianism with all the edges sanded off. No foreign aid (except for disaster relief), no interference with the free market (except for monopolies), no invasion of the home (except for child abuse). In a phrase, you advocate libertarianism except when it's the decent thing to do otherwise, and where the "except" is defined at your discretion. This is a great rhetorical device, and I mean that sincerely:

1. When someone proposes a violation of a simple philosophy you don't like, you can say "look how simple this is sheeple! simple is good!".
2. When someone proposes a violation of a simple philosophy you DO like and criticizes you for not agreeing with it, you can say "I never said that! way to believe the hype sheeple!"

With all that said, it is a little unsporting for you to snap back and forth between (1) and (2) so quickly and criticize other people for not being able to keep up, somewhat like the "I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10,000,000" game.
I don't see that as going against libertarian values. Until you pop out of your mom's cooch it is her body and her decision if she wants an abortion.Section 1.0: "No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government." The fetus did not initiate the pregnancy (by definition), therefore force cannot be used against it in response IF it is an individual. There is no scientific way of establishing whether an entity is an individual or not, therefore the libertarian party must define it one way or the other - birth(/Allereli), conception(/Laviticas), some arbitrary time between. They have chosen neither, and they have also not supported any other solution to the apparent dilemma (and they do exist).

[Allereli]

What right, exactly, is a woman giving up if they become pregnant but don't want to carry it to term? Women have been getting pregnant and giving birth for how long.. dawn of mankind?

Fundamentally it all comes down to when people determine a fetus to be a baby, and not a non entity. Here is a question, if we had machines that could carry a baby to term. And someone broke into a hospital that was using them, and unplugged them all, killing the babies.. would you think this is a crime? Or would you think that this is a great thing?

Ever heard the phrase... just because you can do something, does that mean you should? Obviously you think women should.

Prob one of those people that think that women should be able to abort up until the second the baby pops out.

I am for giving women a choice for what to do with their body under any circumstance, no matter what. There is no "women should get an abortion instead of putting up for adoption" opinion, it is about keeping all options available and accessible to her and letting her make the decision.

You're probably one of those forced vaginal probe men, if we're playing that game.

[Jarvan]

again, you prioritize a fetus over a living human.

If a woman is going to die by bringing a baby to term, I think that every thing possible should be done to save both, if not possible, you save the mother. Unless the mother is one of those (I assume you think this way cause it just feels like you do) Fucking nut jobs who value their baby more then their own life.

I Haven't seen anyone in this thread say that a woman's life should come after the babies. ( I do love how you feel you HAVE to call it a fetus to marginalize what you are doing) I have seen someone say that women shouldn't basically use abortions as a form of birth control because they fucked someone and either forgot, or didn't bother with other methods.

Sometimes shit happens tho... I know someone that had an IUD for a few months and STILL got pregnant. It happens. Seriously tho, if your odds are like 1 in a million, and you do get pregnant, maybe the universe is telling you something.. Wait.. for you it's telling you.... KILL THE FUCKING PARASITE.

[Velfi]

If a woman is going to die by bringing a baby to term, I think that every thing possible should be done to save both, if not possible, you save the mother. Unless the mother is one of those (I assume you think this way cause it just feels like you do) Fucking nut jobs who value their baby more then their own life.

I Haven't seen anyone in this thread say that a woman's life should come after the babies. ( I do love how you feel you HAVE to call it a fetus to marginalize what you are doing) I have seen someone say that women shouldn't basically use abortions as a form of birth control because they fucked someone and either forgot, or didn't bother with other methods.

Sometimes shit happens tho... I know someone that had an IUD for a few months and STILL got pregnant. It happens. Seriously tho, if your odds are like 1 in a million, and you do get pregnant, maybe the universe is telling you something.. Wait.. for you it's telling you.... KILL THE FUCKING PARASITE.

http://i.imgur.com/FTpvzsW.gif

[Warriorbird]

I especially like the no abortion even in rape and incest guys. Those are real humanitarians.

[Jarvan]

I'm not a "kill the thing a day before it pops out" kinda guy, but at the same time, as Allereli said, abortions will happen whether you ban them or not. Take a look at Central and South America for illegal abortion rates. Kids are stupid expensive and society doesn't want to raise your child (for the most part). Abstinence education is laughably inaffective. Birth control is great, but some religious people even oppose that. It also isn't free. It also has people that don't want to subsidize it. It also fails.

I'd be fine with banning abortions (outside of it threatening the life of the mother) if society was capable of supporting the life of every child with or without the parent's help to the age of 21, to include higher education of some sort. Until those support structures are in place, there needs to be an option for those who are incapable of supporting the child. Arguments of personal responsibility are just as callous in my mind as abortions because you're basically saying you know the parent and the kid are likely fucked, but you don't care and/or aren't willing to pay to solve the problem.

I figure we would be better off coming up with a 100% effective birth control shot and mandate all women over 12 get it unless they sign a paper stating they want to have children. Then ban abortions except in the case of the mothers life being threatened.

Apparently some women consider pregnancy a disease, maybe it's time to "cure" it.

[Jarvan]

I am for giving women a choice for what to do with their body under any circumstance, no matter what. There is no "women should get an abortion instead of putting up for adoption" opinion, it is about keeping all options available and accessible to her and letting her make the decision.

You're probably one of those forced vaginal probe men, if we're playing that game.

No idea what that is.

But apparently yes, you are Kill the baby up to the day you deliver, type of person.

Sad really.

[Velfi]

I wonder if there are any statistics on the win rates of arguments when you can manufacture both your own position as well as your opponent's vs the alternative.

[Velfi]

I have to assume it's a more favorable proposition. Jarvan, your thoughts?

[Thondalar]

-Individuals own their bodies
Show me the receipts.

If you don't own it, who does?

-Libertarians advocate individual privacy and government transparency. We are committed to ending government’s practice of spying on everyone. We support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, property, and communications. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records.
This isn't at all what the Fourth Amendment says, I disagree that individual privacy is a sacrosanct right, and I disagree that Libertarians actually advocate for it. Proof: would there be patrolmen in the police forces of a libertarian government? Yes, obviously.

That's proof of what, exactly?

-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.
Major league cop-out. What happened to "individuals own their bodies"? You lie in the bed you make, so go ahead and lie.

How does this violate individuals owning their bodies? Seems to me like it backs it up completely.

-We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.
I trust I don't need to elaborate.

You do, actually.

-All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.
A progressive income tax works, sorry. You can't cite the empirical benefits of a free market and ignore the empirical detriments. I mean you CAN, but it makes you a hypocrite.

I'm saying the positives outweigh the negatives. Net gain.

-For voluntary dealings among private entities, parties should be free to choose with whom they trade and set whatever trade terms are mutually agreeable.
See above. Busting monopolies works, minimum wage laws work. Your not liking them doesn't amount to a hill of beans in terms of how effective they are empirically.

There is no empirical data from the last century to compare.

-Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems.
Please see "tragedy of the commons". Environmental advocates and social pressure... lol.

You'd rather use some economist's "theory" as a proof rather than empirical data? Can't say I'm surprised.

-While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.
Shortsighted if not outright naive. What makes solar difficult to invest in is that it has a much higher up-front cost that is made up for with much lower operating costs, because sunlight is a heck of a lot cheaper to acquire than coal. The overall cost of the energy is the same, but the liquid capital required is a relative barrier to entry. A government loan represents a small loss to the government balance sheet (even if paid back, opportunity costs exist) but represents a large gain to the community (energy independence, pollution). This is precisely the sort of thing the government is supposed to do.

No, this is precisely the sort of thing private investors are supposed to do.

-We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid.
Please see the Marshall Plan. You say "free market" over and over like a mantra, but you apparently never checked history to see how well it actually works in various environments. In international relations it is a catastrophic failure; massive government intervention is required for the best outcome.

Proof?

-Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs. This statement shall not be construed to condone child abuse or neglect.
Another cop-out. You talk such a good game about government having absolutely no interference in the FREE MARKET, except for all the places you think it ought to. I gotta say, the placement of these caveats with abortion and child abuse makes me wonder if these hypocrisies are conscious, so as to not alienate potential voters for your candidates.

There is no caveat to anything regarding abortion, and child abuse violates the fundamental belief of Libertarianism...the non-aggression principle.

[Allereli]

No idea what that is.

But apparently yes, you are Kill the baby up to the day you deliver, type of person.

Sad really.

there are always situations that defy logic and keeping that option open is a necessity. Some women don't even know that they're pregnant until they give birth, so it's not unthinkable that other women don't find out until well into the pregnancy. And no, I'm not in favor of killing the baby that has been born in those cases where the women don't know, they obviously were fine during their pregnancy and can give it up for adoption if they feel a need to.

Sometimes the fetus is discovered to have developmental issues that will make its quality of life as a person nonexistent. We have to leave the options open for these possibilities

Like Buck said, until you're one in the situation, you just can't say for sure what you would do.

Here's some info on Virginia's recent abortion law history: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/va-senate-votes-scrap-abortion-law

[Laviticas]

"Sometimes the fetus is discovered to have developmental issues that will make its quality of life as a person nonexistent. We have to leave the options open for these possibilities"

Welcome to NAZI America, where we kill you because your quality of life may not be that great.

[Jarvan]

there are always situations that defy logic and keeping that option open is a necessity. Some women don't even know that they're pregnant until they give birth, so it's not unthinkable that other women don't find out until well into the pregnancy. And no, I'm not in favor of killing the baby that has been born in those cases where the women don't know, they obviously were fine during their pregnancy and can give it up for adoption if they feel a need to.

Sometimes the fetus is discovered to have developmental issues that will make its quality of life as a person nonexistent. We have to leave the options open for these possibilities

Like Buck said, until you're one in the situation, you just can't say for sure what you would do.

Here's some info on Virginia's recent abortion law history: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/va-senate-votes-scrap-abortion-law

This is going to sound odd of course...

But.. since I can NEVER be in the situation (being a man) I don't think I actually have a say in abortion. (Apparently, according to you I don't) I think abortion is it is right now is fairly fine. I think there should be MUCH tighter rules on when the latest you can abort is. No I do not think day before you deliver is fine, like you do.

My personal opinion in this case, is not my political one. Odd isn't it.

At the same time.. if men have NO SAY in abortion. I think men should have no requirements if the woman chooses to keep the baby to term if they wanted her to abort. Good for the goose and all, after all. What sense does it make to say that the woman, who has all the rights, can force her rights onto a man? What about men's rights?


As for developmental problems... I have a nephew that has them. It's great to know that you would have preferred he died.

http://i58.tinypic.com/141ati.jpg

I bet you also think women should be able to kill kids if they don't like the sex.. How about eye color or hair color? If we had a way to tell that from the womb, I bet you would be all for that as well. Is there any time at all that you are NOT for killing a baby?

[Allereli]

"Sometimes the fetus is discovered to have developmental issues that will make its quality of life as a person nonexistent. We have to leave the options open for these possibilities"

Welcome to NAZI America, where we kill you because your quality of life may not be that great.

you would rather have the baby suffer for a few days or a few weeks and die on its own. how merciful

[Wrathbringer]

This is going to sound odd of course...

But.. since I can NEVER be in the situation (being a man) I don't think I actually have a say in abortion. (Apparently, according to you I don't) I think abortion is it is right now is fairly fine. I think there should be MUCH tighter rules on when the latest you can abort is. No I do not think day before you deliver is fine, like you do.

My personal opinion in this case, is not my political one. Odd isn't it.

At the same time.. if men have NO SAY in abortion. I think men should have no requirements if the woman chooses to keep the baby to term if they wanted her to abort. Good for the goose and all, after all. What sense does it make to say that the woman, who has all the rights, can force her rights onto a man? What about men's rights?


As for developmental problems... I have a nephew that has them. It's great to know that you would have preferred he died.

http://i58.tinypic.com/141ati.jpg

I bet you also think women should be able to kill kids if they don't like the sex.. How about eye color or hair color? If we had a way to tell that from the womb, I bet you would be all for that as well. Is there any time at all that you are NOT for killing a baby?

Of course not. It's a parasite, right, Allereli?

[Allereli]

Again, for lack of better words, the fetus has a parasitic relationship with the mother, it cannot live without feeding through the mother's body. Yes I think if the baby is not properly developed in an obvious manner than abortion should be an option. Obviously your nephew has a head with a full face, two arms and two legs, skin, teeth and eyes. There are cases where babies are born with a lot less, suffer and die after a few days. For every kid like your nephew, there is another who has next to no proper brain function. Until children are adults and have their own wills or partners in charge of making life decisions, parents have a call about their medical care including pulling the plug when the kid is on life support. How is this much different? Should pulling the plug become illegal?

[Parkbandit]

I especially like the no abortion even in rape and incest guys. Those are real humanitarians.

I especially like the pro abortions even after the child has been living outside the womb for a few years guys. Those are the real humanitarians.

[Parkbandit]

Again, for lack of better words, the fetus has a parasitic relationship with the mother, it cannot live without feeding through the mother's body. Yes I think if the baby is not properly developed in an obvious manner than abortion should be an option. Obviously your nephew has a head with a full face, two arms and two legs, skin, teeth and eyes. There are cases where babies are born with a lot less, suffer and die after a few days. For every kid like your nephew, there is another who has next to no proper brain function. Until children are adults and have their own wills or partners in charge of making life decisions, parents have a call about their medical care including pulling the plug when the kid is on life support. How is this much different? Should pulling the plug become illegal?

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

[Fallen]

I especially like the pro abortions even after the child has been living outside the womb for a few years guys. Those are the real humanitarians.

I imagine you're not trying to establish some sort of equivalency of scale here, as one group is fairly common, and the other is not.

[Warriorbird]

I especially like the pro abortions even after the child has been living outside the womb for a few years guys. Those are the real humanitarians.

Stop being so mean to Republicans. Those economic policies are to benefit everybody. Really!

[Wrathbringer]

I especially like the no abortion even in rape and incest guys. Those are real humanitarians.

Because it's the child's fault right?

[Parkbandit]

I imagine you're not trying to establish some sort of equivalency of scale here, as one group is fairly common, and the other is not.

Is it all that "fairly common" not to allow a woman to have an abortion because she got pregnant by rape/incest? That's a crazy fringe that believes there is absolutely no circumstances where an abortion should be allowed. I honestly don't have time for crazily opinions like that.. and I disagree that they are common.

[Parkbandit]

Stop being so mean to Republicans. Those economic policies are to benefit everybody. Really!

Wha?

[Fallen]

Is it all that "fairly common" not to allow a woman to have an abortion because she got pregnant by rape/incest? That's a crazy fringe that believes there is absolutely no circumstances where an abortion should be allowed. I honestly don't have time for crazily opinions like that.. and I disagree that they are common.

Except there is one here posting in this thread. Possibly more with Laviticus. No one is suggesting killing children after they are being born, however.

[Warriorbird]

That's a crazy fringe that believes there is absolutely no circumstances where an abortion should be allowed. I honestly don't have time for crazily opinions like that.. and I disagree that they are common.

I'm pretty sure we have more than one in this thread. There's quite a few in Republican Governor's mansions and who will attempt to run for the White House.

[Wrathbringer]

Is it all that "fairly common" not to allow a woman to have an abortion because she got pregnant by rape/incest? That's a crazy fringe that believes there is absolutely no circumstances where an abortion should be allowed. I honestly don't have time for crazily opinions like that.. and I disagree that they are common.

Pre-meditated murder is pre-meditated murder, regardless of circumstances.

[Warriorbird]

Pre-meditated murder is pre-meditated murder, regardless of circumstances.

Vasectomies and tubal ligations really ought to be capital crimes.

[Fallen]

Pre-meditated murder is pre-meditated murder, regardless of circumstances.

I assume you're against the death penalty in absolutely all cases, then. And assisted suicide

[Parkbandit]

Except there is one here posting in this thread. Possibly more with Laviticus. No one is suggesting killing children after they are being born, however.

No one here is.. Though one considers fetuses "parasites"

But there are many people who have written books regarding parental rights concerning late term abortions and even "aborting" children under 3.

[Laviticas]

you would rather have the baby suffer for a few days or a few weeks and die on its own. how merciful

Do you have any idea how fucking retarded your logic is?

[Fallen]

Do you have any idea how fucking retarded your logic is?

Why would you be against abortion of a child born without most of its brain, for instance? How is it "retarded" to think that it is simply not capable of leading anything resembling a life?

[Laviticas]

Why would you be against abortion of a child born without most of its brain, for instance? How is it "retarded" to think that it is simply not capable of leading anything resembling a life?

Closer to life than dead, but again, we all know this is the rare case and what is really going on is we are killing our children so our selfish little lives are not burdened by our actions.

[Parkbandit]

Closer to life than dead, but again, we all know this is the rare case and what is really going on is we are killing our children so our selfish little lives are not burdened by our actions.

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?

[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?

I guess that depends if you believe that killing the child makes the rape go away. I see no point in creating yet another victim from a terrible crime.

[Taernath]

I can't find info on how much it costs the state to house a child. My google is weak. What was your source for the above info?

I didn't look up state costs, just abortion rates vs. adoption rates.

Guttmacher (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2014/02/03/index.html) (part of Planned Parenthood) claims "An estimated 239,400 early medication abortions were performed in 2011". There are about 100k children up for adoption, but that includes sub 1 year olds to 20 year olds. According to the 2012 AFCARS Report (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/afcarsreport20.pdf), about 50k (of all ages) are adopted every year. So, initially, it's not quite 1/10 but those unadopted babies will quickly pile up if rates remain constant a few years.

[Parkbandit]

I guess that depends if you believe that killing the child makes the rape go away. I see no point in creating yet another victim from a terrible crime.

I can respect your opinion. If my wife was raped, I just don't think I have the ability to love the child as it were my own knowing it was created during a very violent and personal attack on the woman I love.

[Ker_Thwap]

I didn't look up state costs, just abortion rates vs. adoption rates.

Guttmacher (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2014/02/03/index.html) (part of Planned Parenthood) claims "An estimated 239,400 early medication abortions were performed in 2011". There are about 100k children up for adoption, but that includes sub 1 year olds to 20 year olds. According to the 2012 AFCARS Report (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/afcarsreport20.pdf), about 50k (of all ages) are adopted every year. So, initially, it's not quite 1/10 but those unadopted babies will quickly pile up if rates remain constant a few years.

Healthy infants are adopted quickly. It's the older children who become orphaned who linger in the system. Are there a quarter million people looking to adopt infants? No idea. I suspect more people would adopt infants if more infants were available, which would be good, but that would make it even harder for the older children to be adopted, which would be bad. Just can't win.

[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?


I can respect your opinion. If my wife was raped, I just don't think I have the ability to love the child as it were my own knowing it was created during a very violent and personal attack on the woman I love.

It's a terrible scenario, and I do understand. I wish it were the only case of abortion that we were discussing, but we all know this us not the case. The numbers we are talking about here, these are not rapes or medical emergencies......some would call it human sacrifice, not that I'm trying to thump here, but it's a pretty damn good description.

[Latrinsorm]

If you don't own it, who does? Everybody, in proportion to how much they have contributed to its construction, maintenance, and general well being.
That's proof of what, exactly?They're looking at you, hence government spying.
How does this violate individuals owning their bodies? Seems to me like it backs it up completely. If fetuses aren't individuals, then it is a woman's right to have an abortion and she can't be refused by "other individuals, groups, and governments". If fetuses are individuals, then it is their right to not be aborted unprovoked. Not making a decision either way is weaseling out of the question.
You do, actually.Jury nullification, like Constitutional nullification, is quite literally anarchy.
I'm saying the positives outweigh the negatives. Net gain.[/I]I read later how you're getting rid of the income tax entirely so it's a moot point.
There is no empirical data from the last century to compare. Au contraire. The minimum wage has had drastically different real values over the years, and the United States has had drastically different behavior relative to monopolies. We can't compare absolute capitalism to absolute socialism, but we have a wide range of data available and none of it suggests AC is an ideal.
You'd rather use some economist's "theory" as a proof rather than empirical data? Can't say I'm surprised.I am all for economics theories that are backed up by data. It's not my fault so much of classic economics isn't.
No, this is precisely the sort of thing private investors are supposed to do.They disproportionately can't. That's what a barrier to entry means. A ten million start-up cost vs. one million means a lot if you only have two million, but it doesn't mean a thing if you have one billion.
Proof?Please see the Marshall Plan.
There is no caveat to anything regarding abortion, and child abuse violates the fundamental belief of Libertarianism...the non-aggression principle.The red line given was "initiate force", but we can use aggression too. If a child breaks a lamp or hits another child, surely they have initiated force, no? I would call it child abuse if their finger was then broken, and I'm sure you would call it that too, but you have to see how your fundamental belief needs caveats to keep from allowing it. Like "do no harm", it sounds good until you think it through. You might think "proportionate response" can save you, but nope, unless you want to catastrophically undermine national defense.

[JackWhisper]

I like this thread, and how quickly it has shown the fence sides of this subject.

Rape/Incest - I think a woman should carry it to term, have it given up for adoption, and the government should compensate the woman for her time. As it has been said. Just because the child was conceived through hate or evil intent, doesn't mean the child is to blame. And, to coin the phrase again, LULZ. So if the fetus would be a woman, she gets the same rights as the female that's carrying her, right? WOMEN'S RIGHTS, YALL!.... That being said, on the other coin of it; some women simply do not possess the mental fortitude to consider the innocent child, as all they are reminded of is what was done to them, and thus a larger than normal percentage of victims in these circumstances kill themselves, killing the baby as well. This is the one type of situation where I believe it truly should be up to the woman. But, remember. This is rape/incest. Not your stupid ass got drunk, changed your mind 80% of the way through while sifting through a drug and alcohol induced haze, and said it's full rape. That's full retard. You never go full retard.

Developmental Problems - I have developmental problems. I am hyper-ADHD, OCD, and mildly autistic. I was kicked out of no less than six schools growing up. My brother was the reason my parents thought they could have more kids. I was the reason my father got a vasectomy. I was that hard to manage growing up. One of my good friends that I've gamed with for going on eight years has FOUR kids. Three of them are heavily autistic. He loves them all dearly. They can barely even understand him 75% of the time. But him and his wife love their kids, trials and all. Should they have been killed?

Abortion In General - Classifying when a fetus is aware is something we can't do. The thing isn't going to say SUP BRO at 4 months just so you know it's there. But, in under a month, you have a heartbeat. Things don't just get a heartbeat that don't have at least some tiny notion of what's going on around it. You have function. In my opinion, the second an egg is fertilized, it's a something. We may not understand what it is, but just because you understand it, doesn't mean it gives you the right to classify it as something less/not worthy of living. It cannot fight for itself to live, so others must fight for it to live. I am someone that had to fight for my own son to be born. It IS something I know intimately about because my ass had to deal with 9 months of terror that my son was going to end up in a medical waste bag. It gave me nightmares until he was two years old.

Abortion Specifics - Late term abortion is gross, whoever brought that up as a situation that happens. Just disgusting. They stick a pair of pruning shears into a woman's vagina, and clip the baby's body like a tree. I've seen video of it. I've seen the aftermath. It's not pretty. It's very disturbing. You can use your googlefu for some videos on youtube, and other uncensored websites, to show just how sad it gets.

[JackWhisper]

BTW sorry for hijacking your guys thread. Honestly.

[Warriorbird]

So if a fertilized egg instantly acquires humanity in your mind are you against the morning after pill? Birth control?

[JackWhisper]

I am against the morning after pill. I am not against birth control. Birth control actively inhibits the insemination process.

[Androidpk]

Birth control isn't 100% effective.

[Warriorbird]

I am against the morning after pill. I am not against birth control. Birth control actively inhibits the insemination process.

Why are you against it?

[Jeril]

I am against the morning after pill. I am not against birth control. Birth control actively inhibits the insemination process.

We had a debate about this before and Whirlin found something that said only 1/5 fertilized eggs manage to attach to the uterine wall to actually grow and develop into a fetus. This attachment is what the morning after pill stops along with any further chances of insemination for a few days after taking it. To me, not a whole lot different then stopping the process of insemination in the first place.

[Taernath]

But him and his wife love their kids, trials and all. Should they have been killed?

This is not the pro-abortion side's argument.

[Warriorbird]

This is not the pro-abortion side's argument.

It's an easy one to imagine them up having.

[JackWhisper]

I kind of meant condoms, Jeril. Not birth control pills. But I do understand what you're saying on that, in that there isn't much difference. I meant birth control in general.

[waywardgs]

Nobody is "pro abortion."

[JackWhisper]

Someone is. They're all parasites! INVADING US TO TAKE OVER THE EARTH!

[Warriorbird]

Someone is. They're all parasites! INVADING US TO TAKE OVER THE EARTH!

Excellent job demonizing the one woman involved the discussion. Almost as good as Laviticas.

[Androidpk]

Pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion.

[JackWhisper]

Not demonizing. I heavily disagree with thinking of any living thing as a parasite. Unless it is actually a parasite WITH an appetite to kill someone. Like a cancer virus. Babies just want to live. You were a baby. We all were babies. It's not as if many people were test tube babies. Everything has the same right to live.

That's probably why my backyard has snakes, mice, and a shitload of other critters my son knows NOT to touch. I just won't kill them for the convenience of it.

[Taernath]

Nobody is "pro abortion."


Pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion.

You know what I meant.

[JackWhisper]

Picking apart statements =/= a leg to stand on. It's pretty clear what is being said. Don't bring this down to a petty semantics argument, guys.

[Androidpk]

It isn't semantics. There is a difference.

[Jeril]

Picking apart statements =/= a leg to stand on. It's pretty clear what is being said. Don't bring this down to a petty semantics argument, guys.

Some here do seem to be pro-abortion, like Allereli and it isn't a bad thing. And other people while they wouldn't choose abortion for themselves won't deny the choice to other people, hence the term pro-choice. Of course most people use the term pro-choice because it is harder to make that sound bad the pro-abortion, and it isn't their fault that people can be such idiots at times.

[Warriorbird]

Not demonizing. I heavily disagree with thinking of any living thing as a parasite. Unless it is actually a parasite WITH an appetite to kill someone. Like a cancer virus. Babies just want to live. You were a baby. We all were babies. It's not as if many people were test tube babies. Everything has the same right to live.

That's probably why my backyard has snakes, mice, and a shitload of other critters my son knows NOT to touch. I just won't kill them for the convenience of it.

As the viability line changes, things may change... it does all come down to when you think human life starts.

[Fallen]

I just can't wrap my mind around people who on one hand will argue for the sanctity of life...even to the point of saying the second sperm hits egg is a human life, then at the same time will say "if the mom suffers due to the pregnancy...tough!" How can you not see these two statements are at odds with each other?

For those preaching this no abortion stance, are you against the death penalty, and assisted suicide? Or does the "all life is precious" argument stop the second the child is born? How about free healthcare? How is it not protecting innocent life if you're for people dying of treatable diseases because they can't pay for the cure?

Are you for subsidies for the poor to include WIC, subsidized child care and health care? If not, why is a human life important enough to insist someone who got raped must keep the baby, yet paying taxes or inconveniencing yourself in any way to see to it's well being is an assault on your liberties?

"It's not my responsibility" is the argument I see. Ok, that's fine. Neither is it your responsibility then to decide whether the woman has an abortion. You can't have it both ways. Rather, you certainly can, but you come off as a hypocrite who only values life when it doesn't effect yours in any way.

[m444w]

I just can't wrap my mind around people who on one hand will argue for the sanctity of life...even to the point of saying the second sperm hits egg is a human life, then at the same time will say "if the mom suffers due to the pregnancy...tough!" How can you not see these two statements are at odds with each other?

For those preaching this no abortion stance, are you against the death penalty, and assisted suicide? Or does the "all life is precious" argument stop the second the child is born? How about free healthcare? How is it not protecting innocent life if you're for people dying of treatable diseases because they can't pay for the cure?

Are you for subsidies for the poor to include WIC, subsidized child care and health care? If not, why is a human life important enough to insist someone who got raped must keep the baby, yet paying taxes or inconveniencing yourself in any way to see to it's well being is an assault on your liberties?

"It's not my responsibility" is the argument I see. Ok, that's fine. Neither is it your responsibility then to decide whether the woman has an abortion. You can't have it both ways. Rather, you certainly can, but you come off as a hypocrite who only values life when it doesn't effect yours in any way.

The problem is... you're a reasonable person, attempting to have a reasonable conversation, with unreasonable people.

Anyone that argues a woman should be forcibly required to carry a rape baby to full term, should have to undergo prison rape, then every morning for the next 9 months be required to watch the video of themselves being raped. We'll see if they still have the same opinion.

[Allereli]

Some here do seem to be pro-abortion, like Allereli and it isn't a bad thing. And other people while they wouldn't choose abortion for themselves won't deny the choice to other people, hence the term pro-choice. Of course most people use the term pro-choice because it is harder to make that sound bad the pro-abortion, and it isn't their fault that people can be such idiots at times.

I am pro-choice, I don't believe in forcing the choice upon any woman. I don't believe in forced unnecessary procedures before getting an abortion, and I don't believe in limiting abortion based on any sort of judgmental reason because it might restrict the procedure from someone who really needs it. We don't have to look very far back to when abortion was illegal, and what happened to those women who were forced to go to less reputable sources was unconscionable.

definition of parasite: parasite (pr-st)
An organism that lives on or in a different kind of organism (the host) from which it gets some or all of its nourishment. Parasites are generally harmful to their hosts, although the damage they do ranges widely from minor inconvenience to debilitating or fatal disease.

There is a general misunderstanding of what a parasite is. It is a reference to how similar a fetus growing in a woman is similar to an organism depending on a host for nourishment. But you guys will twist everything.

[Androidpk]

>My position is that abortion is just an option. Just like adoption is an option. Everyone has a right to evaluate both options without any bias from government or religious organizations. It needs to be the best thing for the parties involved. It amazes me how hard lined people can be with all these social situations until it happens to them. I hope that everyone gets to experience first hand the situations they sit and make judgement on. From food stamps and unemployment to getting raped and getting pregnant. Then I want people to tell their stories of how they saw the world before and after.

^ what Buckwheat said

[Rallorick]

2.0 Economic Liberty

Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.


this is just not true. It's just misguided oversimplifications (like this) that make it difficult for me to take the party seriously. It's all surface appeal, with no substance.

[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?



The problem is... you're a reasonable person, attempting to have a reasonable conversation, with unreasonable people.

Anyone that argues a woman should be forcibly required to carry a rape baby to full term, should have to undergo prison rape, then every morning for the next 9 months be required to watch the video of themselves being raped. We'll see if they still have the same opinion.

I will agree to your idea of being raped, if you accept being killed after I'm raped.

[JackWhisper]

Fallen, your statement is apples and oranges.

You are saying people are saying that the baby being killed is the same as the mother suffering.

It is not.
If a baby could suffer like a mother could, without dying, I'd say hey, go for it. Equal opportunity pain. It's not like that. Apples to apples? Kid dies, kill the mom. Oh wait, but I thought this was equal footing? See? It's not.

As I previously posted, in the case of rape and incest, I believe it SHOULD be an option to remove the baby. Not necessarily the only option, but an option no one can deny someone who went through something so traumatic. Normal drunk sex? Yeah. You had sex. You chose to. Have the kid, quit being a whiny bitch.

As for the problems during pregnancy? I believe, and support, the baby being killed if the mother is in danger of dying. It's a horrid circumstance, but a mother should not die for her child unless it is her choice.

That's about all I have to say right now, until more people talk.

[Androidpk]

Not your body, not your choice. There is no other way around it. You can stomp your feet and cry all you want but abortions are here to stay.

[Wrathbringer]

Not your body, not your choice. There is no other way around it.

If you're referring to the baby, I agree with you.

[Wrathbringer]

I assume you're against the death penalty in absolutely all cases, then. And assisted suicide

Correct.

[Wrathbringer]

I will agree to your idea of being raped, if you accept being killed after I'm raped.

Lol exactly.

[m444w]

I will agree to your idea of being raped, if you accept being killed after I'm raped.
As nonsensical an answer as one could expect from someone touting an argument born of pure misogyny disguised as morality.

[Ceyrin]

I disagree with the very premise of the Libertarian party. I'm of the firm belief that the vast majority of people aren't intelligent enough to actually be free from being told what to think and what to do. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of comments in this thread back me up entirely, too. No need to cherry-pick them and make people feel bad though. This is the internet, where the Libertarian platform has been in action for years and years.

[Jarvan]

Why would you be against abortion of a child born without most of its brain, for instance? How is it "retarded" to think that it is simply not capable of leading anything resembling a life?

How exactly do you know?

Are you suddenly able to see the future? Capable of seeing through space and time? How do you know what, if anything, the child would be able to do or achieve?

Maybe you just aborted someone that would painted the next Mona Lisa.

Congrats.

[Ker_Thwap]

I just can't wrap my mind around people who on one hand will argue for the sanctity of life...even to the point of saying the second sperm hits egg is a human life, then at the same time will say "if the mom suffers due to the pregnancy...tough!" How can you not see these two statements are at odds with each other?

For those preaching this no abortion stance, are you against the death penalty, and assisted suicide? Or does the "all life is precious" argument stop the second the child is born? How about free healthcare? How is it not protecting innocent life if you're for people dying of treatable diseases because they can't pay for the cure?

Are you for subsidies for the poor to include WIC, subsidized child care and health care? If not, why is a human life important enough to insist someone who got raped must keep the baby, yet paying taxes or inconveniencing yourself in any way to see to it's well being is an assault on your liberties?

"It's not my responsibility" is the argument I see. Ok, that's fine. Neither is it your responsibility then to decide whether the woman has an abortion. You can't have it both ways. Rather, you certainly can, but you come off as a hypocrite who only values life when it doesn't effect yours in any way.

First, I like parts of your argument, but other parts seem incomplete.

I can easily see a non hypocritical moral judgement that an unborn child's life has more value than the life of a convicted killer. Everyone sports fan wants to see what the rookie can do.

Maybe a very few people believe that all life is sacred, but I've never met one personally, and I wonder if you're making a straw man argument on that point. I've met people who get insanely protective of infants, that's kind of hard wired into most of us. Maybe a less extreme way of looking at it might be that all new human life/innocent life has value.

You can flip your argument on it's head and discuss why you believe a convicted killer's life is more important than that of an unborn child, too. Then discuss that hypocrisy. It's still a poor argument of course, because as with the original point, it's comparing apples to oranges.

I do like your closing argument, if one finds infant life so very sacred, then they should be willing to care for it with what resources they can spare.

[Jarvan]

Nobody is "pro abortion."

Allereli certainly is. Funny.. she is pro choice.. as long as that choice is abortion. I always find it funny when either side of the political spectrum picks wordage for their stance that can be used both ways... Pro Choice... the CHOICE to keep the baby alive.

There you go.

Nope... Allereli wants more abortion clinics... the ability to abort the baby while it's being pushed out of the woman's body, hell.. isn't it a parasite still until the second the umbilical cord is cut Allereli? maybe that should be the point that a woman can't choose what to do.. I can see it now.

DR. " Congrats Allereli! it's a boy!"

Allereli "Oh for fucks sake.. just bash it's skull in I hate boys"

DR. "I can't do that it's cruel!"

Allereli "Well, it's still attached to me, so it's not a baby it's a parasite, and since it's attached to me, it's technically part of my body and I say kill the fucking creature!!!"



Seriously.. we just need the technology to move birth out of the woman's body, then people like Allereli can finally shut the fuck up about how they should be able to do anything they want to anything in their body and be damned if the thing in their body has the same rights as them.

[Jarvan]

I am pro-choice, I don't believe in forcing the choice upon any woman. I don't believe in forced unnecessary procedures before getting an abortion, and I don't believe in limiting abortion based on any sort of judgmental reason because it might restrict the procedure from someone who really needs it. We don't have to look very far back to when abortion was illegal, and what happened to those women who were forced to go to less reputable sources was unconscionable.

definition of parasite: parasite (pr-st)
An organism that lives on or in a different kind of organism (the host) from which it gets some or all of its nourishment. Parasites are generally harmful to their hosts, although the damage they do ranges widely from minor inconvenience to debilitating or fatal disease.

There is a general misunderstanding of what a parasite is. It is a reference to how similar a fetus growing in a woman is similar to an organism depending on a host for nourishment. But you guys will twist everything.

Is there ever a time that you sat there and thought... geeze, I wish my mom had killed that damn parasite when she had the chance.


Calling a baby a parasite... is stupidity. It's just something you want to use to try to push your argument that you should be able to kill a baby anytime you want.

By your definition, we could call poor people parasites. Poor = Organism Country = Host. It gets some or all of it's nourishment from the host.

Bet you feel we should just kill all the poor, huh?

[Allereli]

are you fucking serious? Do you know what is happening with abortion clinics around the country? Do you have any idea how much the Republican party has worked in the past 5 years to cut off access to abortion?

The entire western part of Texas has been cut off from access, the Federal Courts have had to intervene. You are so ignorant to what women have had to go through to get a legal procedure done.

You think I'm anti adoption because I stand up for the right for women to get an abortion? then you don't know anything about me.

[Wrathbringer]

are you fucking serious? Do you know what is happening with abortion clinics around the country? Do you have any idea how much the Republican party has worked in the past 5 years to cut off access to abortion?

The entire western part of Texas has been cut off from access, the Federal Courts have had to intervene. You are so ignorant to what women have had to go through to get a legal procedure done.

You think I'm anti adoption because I stand up for the right for women to get an abortion? then you don't know anything about me.

Well, you certainly haven't been standing up for the child's right to life. Gotta live to be adopted.

[Allereli]

Well, you certainly haven't been standing up for the child's right to life. Gotta live to be adopted.

because I don't believe it's a child until it is born. It's not a person yet while it is in the woman's body. I defend the right of the woman to choose and to have nothing given precedence over what she wants to do with her body and her life.

[Furryrat]

HER body, HER life. Guess in your mind the father would have no say in the matter too, hmm?

[Allereli]

HER body, HER life. Guess in your mind the father would have no say in the matter too, hmm?

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.

[JackWhisper]

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?

[Ker_Thwap]

are you fucking serious? Do you know what is happening with abortion clinics around the country? Do you have any idea how much the Republican party has worked in the past 5 years to cut off access to abortion?

The entire western part of Texas has been cut off from access, the Federal Courts have had to intervene. You are so ignorant to what women have had to go through to get a legal procedure done.

You think I'm anti adoption because I stand up for the right for women to get an abortion? then you don't know anything about me.

Entirely likely. But, this is the internet, so we only have your own words to judge you by. Your standard counter argument seems to be "R U SERIOUS?" This to me exhibits a disturbing lack of empathy on your part. You can't even conceive that someone might disagree with your amazingly non empathetic arguments.

I've seen two arguments from you. A. rights over all other considerations. B illegal abortions will happen absent legal abortions.

I agree wholeheartedly with you on B. One can't even have a discussion with you on the relative merits of A. however.

[Candor]

because I don't believe it's a child until it is born. It's not a person yet while it is in the woman's body.

Why?

Medically you could not win this argument. So why is a child not a child until it is born?

[Parkbandit]

because I don't believe it's a child until it is born. It's not a person yet while it is in the woman's body. I defend the right of the woman to choose and to have nothing given precedence over what she wants to do with her body and her life.

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

[Fallen]

How exactly do you know?

Are you suddenly able to see the future? Capable of seeing through space and time? How do you know what, if anything, the child would be able to do or achieve?

Maybe you just aborted someone that would painted the next Mona Lisa.

Congrats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly

These babies aren't painting anything.


Anencephaly can be diagnosed prenatally with a high degree of accuracy. Given that anencephaly is a fatal condition, parents receive the option of abortion in either the second or the third trimester of pregnancy, depending on the abortion laws in the state. In 2012, Brazil extended the right of abortion to mothers with anencephalic fetuses. This decision is, however, receiving much disapproval by several religious groups.

I'll even do your work for you: http://www.kpho.com/story/26405843/keithville-boy-born-without-brain-dies-at-12

That's absolute best case scenario. Let's just go ahead and push this on everyone because reasons. How much do you want to bet that they didn't pay for this child's treatment out of pocket? How much do you want to bet that this child's treatment likely exceeded a million dollars (probably way....way more). If you're 100% on board with subsidizing the cost of these cases, which somehow I doubt you are, then by all means keep your rigid stance.

[Parkbandit]

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.

[Fallen]

I do like your closing argument, if one finds infant life so very sacred, then they should be willing to care for it with what resources they can spare.

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?