- Joined
- Jul 27, 2010
- Messages
- 37,412
- Reaction score
- 13,542
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
and mostly white :ssst:
Stop you're race baiting... :2mad:
and mostly white :ssst:
So all libertarians must be pro-choice? If I am incorrect please correct me, but doesn't libertarianism support maximizing personal liberty? If someone believes that an unborn child has the right to life and they believe that it's an encroachment on that unborn child's liberty to electively kill it how is that against libertarian principals?
Most who oppose the Tea Party make the association that white=racist. I have no problem with it being a majority white group. We live in a majority white country, is America racist over that? I believe demographics do not make a group racist, but actions do.Mostly tea partiers seems to make the association of white=racist. Rev won't even admit that he belongs to a movement comprised mostly of dissatisfied white people.
Did you watch the video?Really? You are going to stick with that line of reasoning? Okey dokes.
So all libertarians must be pro-choice? If I am incorrect please correct me, but doesn't libertarianism support maximizing personal liberty? If someone believes that an unborn child has the right to life and they believe that it's an encroachment on that unborn child's liberty to electively kill it how is that against libertarian principals?
Stop you're race baiting... :2mad:
Difficult question. However, in a perfectly libertarian sense it comes down to individual rights. Do I have a right based on my personal beliefs to infringe on another person's right to do what they will with their body, in order to save the life of an unborn fetus simply because I believe it should be saved? At what point will I not infringe on other people's rights simply because I have personal beliefs that differ from them?
I have no problem with it being a majority white group. We live in a majority white country, is America racist over that? I believe demographics do not make a group racist, but actions do.
Troll much?
So when does the unborn child gain it's liberty?
Difficult question. However, in a perfectly libertarian sense it comes down to individual rights. Do I have a right based on my personal beliefs to infringe on another person's right to do what they will with their body, in order to save the life of an unborn fetus simply because I believe it should be saved? At what point will I not infringe on other people's rights simply because I have personal beliefs that differ from them?
Difficult question. However, in a perfectly libertarian sense it comes down to individual rights. Do I have a right based on my personal beliefs to infringe on another person's right to do what they will with their body, in order to save the life of an unborn fetus simply because I believe it should be saved? At what point will I not infringe on other people's rights simply because I have personal beliefs that differ from them?
When it becomes a citizen. As per our Constitution, that is when it is born. If you want it earlier than that, then you should probably amend the Constitution to grant citizenship sooner.
Moderator's Warning: |
Next person to call, infer, or accuse someone else of being a "troll" gets a boot from the thread. Stick to the topic, cut the personal attacks. This isn't the basement, take your pissing fueds elsewhere |
Why would it be ok to infringe upon someone's right to murder another person? Murder is wrong, it robs someone of their personal liberty. Why would it also be wrong for a libertarian to believe that unborn life possesses liberty and that it would also be wrong to kill it? Someone may have the personal believe that murder is ok, but I don't know any libertarian that would argue that murder is right and that we shouldn't infringe upon someone's personal decision to murder another person. In essence, it's wrong to rob someone of personal liberty and people shouldn't have the legal choice to do so. Believing that abortion is unjust murder of an unborn child would fall under keeping murder illegal because it robs someone of personal liberty.
Here you are talking about "murder" but as far as the will of the people is concerned, which as you may recall is the Constitution of the United States, the unborn do not attain citizenship and thus the protection of the will of the people, until they are born.
Here you are talking about "murder" but as far as the will of the people is concerned, which as you may recall is the Constitution of the United States, the unborn do not attain citizenship and thus the protection of the will of the people, until they are born.
AND the bolded shows you why you're not attempting to even try and come at the topic objectively.
There is no scientific, definitive, unquestionable way of determining without question or on some grand high authority when a fetus is or is not a "child". That is an entirely opinion based issue where facts, both anecdotal and scientific, can be used to argue on either side of the issue. While there is a definition for it legally under the law, its far from uncommon for a Libertarian to disagree with the precedence the law states now. Viewing the situation in such a way that the ONLY way to view it as an "unborn fetus" rather than an "unborn child" means you're not attempting one iota to actually honestly address the issue from the variety of legitimate view points and thus can't make an honest call on whether or not one could be libertarian and be pro-life. THEIR personal belief that it isn't a child is no better or worse than your personal belief that it is or isn't a child. Thus, by NOT acting you could just as much be failing to protect the rights of another life as you could be to infringing upon their rights. Which leads the libertarian that believes it to be a child to come into the quandry of do you gamble on the childs potential rights, which if you're wrong means its violated by their death, or do you gamble on the parents potential rights, which if you'er wrong means its violated by their right to bodily soveriegnty. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that the gamble is more apt to be made in defference to the first situation as "death" would be the worst consequence of violating an individuals rights as possible.
Call it a fetus or a child, I don't care, the will of the people is the law of the land and it takes the form of the Constitution. Until the Constitution recognizes the unborn as citizens and thus worthy of the protection of the will of the people, it doesn't matter what you call it, the mother's right to property takes precedence. It's a matter of law, not a matter of morality or principle.
The Tea Party is a movement against expanding government and federal spending. Since most of those that feed off welfare are minorities its serves to reason that most Tea Partiers are White since its counter productive to protest the government to take away your income.
Welfare receiptients by and large are a group of disatisfied non-white people.
People on welfare are usually black, teenage mothers who stay on ten years at a timeMyth: People on welfare are usually black, teenage mothers who stay on ten years at a time.
Fact: Most welfare recipients are non-black, adult and on welfare less than two years at a time.
Summary
According to the statistics, whites form the largest racial group on welfare; half of all welfare recipients leave in the first two years; and teenagers form less than 8 percent of all welfare mothers.
Argument
Here are the statistics on welfare recipients:
Traits of families on AFDC (1)
Race
--------------
White 38.8%
Black 37.2
Hispanic 17.8
Asian 2.8
Other 3.4
So then you are for killing the baby as long as it doesnt cross the vagina line?
I find that savage and barbaric. Perhaps you would volunteer to do it yourself instead of expecting others to do so...
And the tea party movement is a largely conservative movement. Nothing wrong with pointing that out.
The issue is when you start talking about specific portiosn of it. The Anti-war movement isn't about environmentalism, and the Tea Party movement isn't about social conservatism.
That is your belief and you are entitled to it. However, under the same logic foreigners are not citizens either so are they not under the protection of the will of the people in our country?
Is citizenship the only thing that should determine that a life is valuable and protected? Other's believe that the Constitution promotes Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness and that abortion is the ending of life (of the unborn), liberty (of the unborn), and the pursuit of happiness (of the unborn) and that abortion violates the Constitution.
Again, as I ask in a previous post, are you suggesting Libertarians are fine with foriegners being murdered because they're not citizens? That there is some mandatory philosophical point of libertarianism that believes rights extend only to citizens?
that requires a DNR, or brain death.
3rd trimester? 2nd trimester?