Quote:The law also said slaves where not people. Doesn't change the violation of personal property rights that slavery violated.
Couple things:
First, isn't it fascinating that in both abortion and slavery, religion was used to restrict the freedom of the group? Pretty interesting.
Secondly, the slavery argument doesn't hold water to me. Personhood of a slave wasn't at question, it was whether that lesser man/woman/child can be property of another.
Abortion, legally speaking, is not about property rights, but personhood---among other things, of course.
I'm sorry, but your morality views of an abortion does not give you the right to force the government to push your views onto the freedoms I'm granted.
Any libertarian that doesn't see that is not a real libertarian, but an agenda pusher just like the rest of the establishment politicians on both sides.
Quote:Couple things:
First, isn't it fascinating that in both abortion and slavery, religion was used to restrict the freedom of the group? Pretty interesting.
Secondly, the slavery argument doesn't hold water to me. Personhood of a slave wasn't at question, it was whether that lesser man/woman/child can be property of another.
Abortion, legally speaking, is not about property rights, but personhood---among other things, of course.
I'm sorry, but your morality views of an abortion does not give you the right to force the government to push your views onto the freedoms I'm granted.
Any libertarian that doesn't see that is not a real libertarian, but an agenda pusher just like the rest of the establishment politicians on both sides.
Exactly, get your religion OFF MY BODY. I kill this dern thing if I please! Get your "thall shalt not murder" crap outta here. ya know?
Hillary Clinton can't even remember the rationale behind roe v. Wade.
Incidently the baby was born and the mother grew up into a Roman Catholic pro life activist.
Quote:Exactly, get your religion OFF MY BODY. I kill this dern thing if I please! Get your "thall shalt not murder" crap outta here. ya know?
Lol, oh badger, you crazy so and so...
I know you're trying to do reductio ad absurdum, but in essence you are correct. Someone else's morality shouldn't dictate my morality. I have the freedom, as do you, to choose our own path. And because a fetus is not a person, the mother has the right to decide, no matter your thoughts on the matter.
Now consider this: I hate guns. I choose not to be around them, and if it was up to me, they'd be outlawed. That's my morality on it.
But there's the second amendment, and I know this freedom granted by the constitution protects the right to gun ownership. Even with all the horrors that my morality sees with guns, I'm not pushing an agenda to get them outlawed.
In that fashion I'm more of a constitutionalist and more of a libertarian than most people who try to wave those particular flags.
Quote:I'm sorry, but your morality views of an abortion does not give you the right to force the government to push your views onto the freedoms I'm granted.
But you're pushing your views onto the freedoms and rights of the unborn. You simply justify it in your own mind and conscience by saying they aren't a person.
Quote:Hillary Clinton can't even remember the rationale behind roe v. Wade.
Incidently the baby was born and the mother grew up into a Roman Catholic pro life activist.
Choice and freedom in action. Ain't nothin wrong with that.
Quote:Someone else's morality shouldn't dictate my morality. I have the freedom, as do you, to choose our own path. And because a fetus is not a person, the mother has the right to decide, no matter your thoughts on the matter.
Now consider this: I hate guns. I choose not to be around them, and if it was up to me, they'd be outlawed. That's my morality on it.
Hell, if someone else's morality doesn't dictate your morality then no other crime should exist either. Murder? I don't object so you can't either. Rape? More like date night! Theft? I don't recognize "private property", that's just like, your opinion, man.
Quote:But you're pushing your views onto the freedoms and rights of the unborn. You simply justify it in your own mind and conscience by saying they aren't a person.
Not legally I'm not.
Your feelings and morality have no place under the law.
And as a constitutionalist and a libertarian, I value these things most. We are a nation of laws, despite what some establishment republicans may say.
Quote:Couple things:
First, isn't it fascinating that in both abortion and slavery, religion was used to restrict the freedom of the group? Pretty interesting.
Secondly, the slavery argument doesn't hold water to me. Personhood of a slave wasn't at question, it was whether that lesser man/woman/child can be property of another.
Abortion, legally speaking, is not about property rights, but personhood---among other things, of course.
I'm sorry, but your morality views of an abortion does not give you the right to force the government to push your views onto the freedoms I'm granted.
Any libertarian that doesn't see that is not a real libertarian, but an agenda pusher just like the rest of the establishment politicians on both sides.
Regarding the part in bold, you are wrong.
Slavery wasn't about a religious issue, it was more about morals. It had more to do with production and commerce. At the time, slaves were considered a "commodity" or "property" much like a John Deere Tractor would be considered today.
Abortion could possibly be considered a religious issue, but it's more of a morality issue. Is it right to kill a viable human life? The question seems to be, what is considered to be "viable human life"?
Quote:Hell, if someone else's morality doesn't dictate your morality then no other crime should exist either. Murder? I don't object so you can't either. Rape? More like date night! Theft? I don't recognize "private property", that's just like, your opinion, man.
The foundation is the constitution.
Do me a favor, read it and tell me where it would be permissible to murder?
Nice try. But as a constitutionalist, I know that my freedoms end where another PERSON'S begins. :-)
Quote:The foundation is the constitution.
Do me a favor, read it and tell me where it would be permissible to murder?
Nice try. But as a constitutionalist, I know that my freedoms end where another PERSON'S begins. :-)
Isn't that the same position that anti-abortionists take?
Quote:Lol, oh badger, you crazy so and so...
I know you're trying to do reductio ad absurdum, but in essence you are correct. Someone else's morality shouldn't dictate my morality. I have the freedom, as do you, to choose our own path. And because a fetus is not a person, the mother has the right to decide, no matter your thoughts on the matter.
Now consider this: I hate guns. I choose not to be around them, and if it was up to me, they'd be outlawed. That's my morality on it.
But there's the second amendment, and I know this freedom granted by the constitution protects the right to gun ownership. Even with all the horrors that my morality sees with guns, I'm not pushing an agenda to get them outlawed.
In that fashion I'm more of a constitutionalist and more of a libertarian than most people who try to wave those particular flags.
So true. It's not a person.... unless the abortion doesn't work and the baby comes out breathing, then it's a person, suffering mercilessly on a table.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/24/this-f...911-tapes/
Quote:Isn't that the same position that anti-abortionists take?
I wouldn't know. As a libertarian, I'm speaking about the law.
Quote:I like Gary on 90% of the issues. Again its is pro-choice stance that gives me pause. In the past he's took a more let the states deciede approach but this year I've seen a few interviews where he just days I'm pro-choice that's it.
So my question is, if abortion is murder, why do you care if it's decided at the federal level or the state level? Murder should be illegal, period. Do you think it's okay if some states legalize it, as long as it's done at the state level?
Quote:The foundation is the constitution.
Do me a favor, read it and tell me where it would be permissible to murder?
Nice try. But as a constitutionalist, I know that my freedoms end where another PERSON'S begins. :-)
Well, you're 3/5ths right.
@ real Marty, as a libertarian, I'd like to answer that question.
I am a constitutionalist. As such, certain authority is granted to the federal government, and other authorities are granted to the states. The rights of each person, is protected by the bill of rights and certain other amendments. States are not constitutionally able to change these rights. So murder would not be an act that a state would be able to change.
Quote:Secondly, the slavery argument doesn't hold water to me. Personhood of a slave wasn't at question, it was whether that lesser man/woman/child can be property of another.
That's willful ignorance. Dehumanizing based on skin color is the same as dehumanizing based on stage of development.
Quote:So my question is, if abortion is murder, why do you care if it's decided at the federal level or the state level? Murder should be illegal, period. Do you think it's okay if some states legalize it, as long as it's done at the state level?
We have to define the terms to have this discussion. abortion after the first trimester I consider murder its a developed life of its own by any measurable means you use. So after the first trimester it should be illegal just like murder. Those who participate in it should be punished by law.
Prior to the first trimester its not so scientifically concrete its an individual life yet. At that point I can compromise with letting the states deciede their own laws regarding abortion. In my state I would fight for life begins shortly after conception but it's perfectly reasonable that some other states would establish laws different then others.
Quote:Lol, oh badger, you crazy so and so...
I know you're trying to do reductio ad absurdum, but in essence you are correct. Someone else's morality shouldn't dictate my morality. I have the freedom, as do you, to choose our own path. And because a fetus is not a person, the mother has the right to decide, no matter your thoughts on the matter.
Now consider this: I hate guns. I choose not to be around them, and if it was up to me, they'd be outlawed. That's my morality on it.
But there's the second amendment, and I know this freedom granted by the constitution protects the right to gun ownership. Even with all the horrors that my morality sees with guns, I'm not pushing an agenda to get them outlawed.
In that fashion I'm more of a constitutionalist and more of a libertarian than most people who try to wave those particular flags.
My right to own a gun doesn't give me the right to use it as I please. I can't harm someone else with that gun just because it's my right to own the gun. A women has the right to do with her body as she pleases. But she doesn't have the right to end the life of a child just because she wants too.
Quote:That's willful ignorance. Dehumanizing based on skin color is the same as dehumanizing based on stage of development.
No, sir. It is not willful ignorant. It's differentiating two separate facts.
Slavery was a question of property. Abortion is a question of personhood.
Your bleeding heart rhetoric regarding skin color is something I guess I should expect from someone that is not willing to discuss the law and how the law trumps your morality.
Let's focus on libertarianism within this thread, please.