Sign in to follow this  
Chavez

YOU WANT SOME OF THIS?

Recommended Posts

it is reasonable for politicians and judges to decide that since it cannot be determined for sure, as a society, we will choose to err on the side that it is and then act to protect that life, especially as the pregnancy gets further and further along.

 

1493690[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

well see, my position as a believer in individual liberty and limited government is that, on difficult moral questions, the government should err on the side of restraint. if it's a moral decision we can't all come to an agreement on, then the government shouldn't force the decision upon us, it should leave the decision in the hands of the person who is carrying the moral dilemma in her belly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the 1 billionth time, CITIZENSHIP HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.  An American citizen is not allowed to murder wife just because she isn't a citizen.  We have been over this numerous times before and you always admit that I am right, but yet for some reason you keep using the same argument.

 

1493717[/snapback]

 

 

 

well, skins is just sloppily using 'citizenship' to denote a concept perhaps more properly defined as legal personhood or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well see, my position as a believer in individual liberty and limited government is that, on difficult moral questions, the government should err on the side of restraint.  if it's a moral decision we can't all come to an agreement on, then the government shouldn't allow the potential elimination of a living human at the hands of the person who is carrying the moral dilemma in her belly.

 

1493722[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

your post could read this way and make the same point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
your post could read this way and make the same point.

 

1493727[/snapback]

 

 

 

no, your distortion of my point leaves it in a shambles. because the government forcing its way into the decision is the very antithesis of restraint and limited government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no, your distortion of my point leaves it in a shambles.  because the government forcing its way into the decision is the very antithesis of restraint and limited government.

 

1493729[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

wouldn't a defender of individual liberty be against taking the life of another person? that pretty much destroys that person's individual liberty does it not? by permitting abortion, governments are allowing individuals to decide if other innocent individuals can live or die, destroying their individual liberty and putting the government smack dab in the middle as the enabler.

 

the government is involved either way, like it or not. if you want to protect individual liberty, you would err on the side of protecting that could-be life.

Edited by tonorator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the 1 billionth time, CITIZENSHIP HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.  An American citizen is not allowed to murder wife just because she isn't a citizen.  We have been over this numerous times before and you always admit that I am right, but yet for some reason you keep using the same argument.

 

1493717[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

::D Quit being so anal. Say person with legal rights in this country, then.

 

This is an interesting read on the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wouldn't a defender of individual liberty be against taking the life of another person?  that pretty much destroys that person's individual liberty does it not?  by permitting abortion, governments are allowing individuals to decide if other innocent individuals can live or die, destroying their individual liberty and putting the government smack dab in the middle as the enabler.

 

the government is involved either way, like it or not.  if you want to protect individual liberty, you would err on the side of protecting that could-be life.

 

1493731[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Yer a Chinese Communist totalitarian, tonormandog. Just admit and accept it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yer a Chinese Communist totalitarian, tonormandog. Just admit and accept it.

 

1493742[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

:D i've been outed!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Kids" would go right out the f*cking window the second the shotgun was pointed in my general vicinity.

 

EDIT: So would pregnant, for that matter.

 

1492123[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

+ mother effing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wouldn't a defender of individual liberty be against taking the life of another person?  that pretty much destroys that person's individual liberty does it not?  by permitting abortion, governments are allowing individuals to decide if other innocent individuals can live or die, destroying their individual liberty and putting the government smack dab in the middle as the enabler.

 

the government is involved either way, like it or not.  if you want to protect individual liberty, you would err on the side of protecting that could-be life.

 

1493731[/snapback]

 

 

 

you're spouting nonsense. the government is NOT involved either way. the government is involved ONLY if and when it says an individual either MUST do something, or MAY NOT do something.

 

you could use this same tortured, pathetic reasoning of yours to outlaw alcohol, divorce, gambling. "whether the government outlaws alcohol or allows it, it's involved either way. if you want to protect individual liberty, wouldn't you have to prevent all the innocent lives lost because of alcohol consumption?" umm, no...only if you're an idiot without the slightest grasp of the concept of liberty.

 

look, i don't begrudge anyone for having pro-life political views. i understand and empathize with their concerns deeply. i just hold a different view, for the reasons stated a few posts up. but DON'T try and argue that the government making the decision for you is the position favoring individual liberty. that is pure returdation. like skins trying to argue that government run elections is the "true libertarian" position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
::D Quit being so anal. Say person with legal rights in this country, then.

 

This is an interesting read on the topic.

 

1493733[/snapback]

 

 

 

It was an interesting read (not that I have read all of it yet). In typical huddle fashion I will point out the parts that were most interesting: :D

 

this is interesting:

The extreme left (as in Communist China) supports abortion
but wait a minute, I thought the pro-lifers were like...

 

so is this:

"I am a vegetarian. The killing of sentient, biologically autonomous birds or mammals who have done nothing to me, solely to satisfy a completely unnecessary (and unhealthy) lust for artery-clogging animal fat, is something that I personally consider to be immoral and unethical.

this means that she wouldn't be opposed to eating, say, a cow fetus

Edited by wiegie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but DON'T try and argue that the government making the decision for you is the position favoring individual liberty.  that is pure returdation.  like skins trying to argue that government run elections is the "true libertarian" position.

 

1493749[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

it favors the individual liberty of the unborn child. do you argue with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was an interesting read (not that I have read all of it yet).  In typical huddle fashion I will point out the parts that were most interesting:  :D

 

this is interesting:  but wait a minute, I thought the pro-lifers were like...

 

so is this:

this means that she wouldn't be opposed to eating, say, a cow fetus

 

1493751[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I agree that it is fascinating that the far far left totalitarian Chinese Communists and far far right Typical Republican fundies like you have the same position regarding government intrusion into personal liberty and autonomy.

 

Since yer so touchy and sensitive, I will add this, doush: :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I've posed this before--

 

Those of you who are against abortion--does this include instances of rape/incest? In other words, if mary is raped and made pregnant, should she be permitted to abort the baby?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it favors the individual liberty of the unborn child.  do you argue with that?

 

1493755[/snapback]

 

 

 

:D

 

ONLY if everyone is agreeing that the fetus/child is a "person" to which legal rights attach in the first place. which, of course, is EXACTLY the moral problem we're talking about. you can't get to the point where the state has to protect the liberty of the person in the mother's womb until AFTER the state has forced its way into the decision about when the clump of cells in a woman's belly becomes a "life". so we're really addressing two different questions:

1) when do the clump of cells become a "life", or, more properly, a protected interest under the law?

2) should the government protect "persons", legally understood, from harm?

 

you can't answer question 2) until you've answered question 1). but once you HAVE answered question 1), then OBVIOUSLY the answer to question 2) is "yes". there is no issue of government restraint there, as one thing EVERYONE agrees is that one of the absolutely fundamental obligations of ANY government is to protect its citizens (or "legally defined 'persons'" to keep wedgie from freaking out again) from harm.

 

so question 2) isn't really an issue at all, the only question here is 1) and when does the government grab control from the mother. to exercise that control early is to be more government intrusive and less respectful of the liberty of the individual, and to grab that control late is to exercise governmental restraint and respect for individual liberty.

Edited by Azazello1313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
every now and then, I agree with az.

 

1492191[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Where's the graemlin for :fainting: ??? This could become my new sig line. :D

 

What a sorry story. I blame public education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a guy that works for Bush and wears pumps around the office, Asz can drop some knowledge sometimes.

Edited by skins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you guys actually arguing that a fetus has as much right to life as the mother?

 

:D No wonder you jacka$$es think jumping out of an airplane if more than a 50/50 proposition. You are nuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D

 

1493782[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

:D it's an endless loop!

 

so question 2) isn't really an issue at all, the only question here is 1) and when does the government grab control from the mother.  to exercise that control early is to be more government intrusive and less respectful of the liberty of the individual, and to grab that control late is to exercise governmental restraint and respect for individual liberty.

 

1493782[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

science continues to confirm that there are life activities that start at conception. not long after that you have a beating heart and a body forming. this is at the core of the abortion debate and we won't resolve that debate here.

 

this bent towards individual liberty, however, doesn't really make sense. by protecting a little window during which it is ok to terminate an underdeveloped human being, are you really serving the cause of individual liberty? you acknowledge that later in the process, the government can then "grab control." again, to be on the pure side of individual liberty, you would have to side with the individual liberty of that developing, innocent person who deserves to live. sure, it is an inconvenience to the mother to carry for 9 months, but she did get pregnant and should have to deal with her decision responsibly. she can give up the child for adoption and her everyone's individual liberties are protected.

Edited by tonorator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this bent towards individual liberty, however, doesn't really make sense.  by protecting a little window during which it is ok to terminate an underdeveloped human being, are you really serving the cause of individual liberty?  you acknowledge that later in the process, the government can then "grab control."  again, to be on the pure side of individual liberty, you would have to side with the individual liberty of that developing, innocent person who deserves to live.  sure, it is an inconvenience to the mother to carry for 9 months, but she did get pregnant and should have to deal with her decision responsibly.  she can give up the child for adoption and her everyone's individual liberties are protected.

 

1493794[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

You may have addressed this but I take it you do not allow for exceptions for rape, incest, health of the mother?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ps - I dont care what anybody does with themselves.  But we are talking about what they do with another human being.  Dont you liberals get it?  The unborn baby is not just another part of mother like a spleen or a wisdom tooth.  It is a seperate and distinct human being who simply has a parasitic relationship to its mother.  So, quit acting like murdering the baby is simply the mother doing something with her own body.

 

1493612[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

No...they don't.

 

Who said a fetus isnt a life? A fetus is certainly a life. One that a mother should be allowed to terminate because her rights trump those of the fetus.

 

1493626[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

:D This leaves a HUGH hole for abortion to be abused...as it is today. It should be for Rape or Mother could die and decided by the Mother and or Father and approved by a MD..

 

 

 

Results: A total of 854,122 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC for 2002 from 49 reporting areas, representing a 0.1% increase from the 853,485 legal induced abortions reported by the same 49 reporting areas for 2001. The abortion ratio, defined as the number of abortions per 1,000 live births, was 246 in 2002, the same as reported for 2001. The abortion rate was 16 per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years for 2002, the same as for 2001. For the same 48 reporting areas, the abortion rate remained relatively constant during 1997--2002.

 

The highest percentages of reported abortions were for women who were unmarried (82%), white (55%), and aged <25 years (51%). Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported, 60% were performed at <8 weeks' gestation and 88% at <13 weeks. From 1992 (when detailed data regarding early abortions were first collected) through 2002, steady increases have occurred in the percentage of abortions performed at <6 weeks' gestation. A limited number of abortions was obtained at >15 weeks' gestation, including 4.1% at 16--20 weeks and 1.4% at >21 weeks. A total of 35 reporting areas submitted data stating that they performed and enumerated medical (nonsurgical) procedures, accounting for 5.2% of all known reported procedures from the 45 areas with adequate reporting on type of procedure.

 

 

2002 report...I didn't have time to find 2005 or 2004.

 

 

Those of you who are against abortion--does this include instances of rape/incest?  In other words, if mary is raped and made pregnant, should she be permitted to abort the baby?

 

1493773[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D This leaves a HUGH hole for abortion to be abused...as it is today. It should be for Rape or Mother could die and decided by the Mother and or Father and approved by a MD..

 

1493806[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Shoo. The grownups are talking. We all know you dont believe individual liberty and freedoms. No need to keep reminding us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I've posed this before--

 

Those of you who are against abortion--does this include instances of rape/incest?  In other words, if mary is raped and made pregnant, should she be permitted to abort the baby?

 

1493773[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

You haven't read the whole thread yet. We've already turned Doc into an illegal Holliday on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
science continues to confirm that there are life activities that start at conception. 

 

1493794[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Life activities?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this means that she wouldn't be opposed to eating, say, a cow fetus

 

1493751[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

How was the horse last week?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.