Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He's a doctor right? M.D.? Logical-science based thinking.
He knows what a collection of cells are and doesn't confuse it with being a baby.
Not a reason for me to not vote for him... I won't vote for him because he's a nut.
BTW wrong all the way based on the doctors I know. MDs are not generally scientists, although they apply the findings done by researchers. No offense to the doctors out there. If he had a PHD in Biology, I might care. MD? Not so much.
See, I think people should pick the candidate that best supports the US Constitution. Our country wouldn't be so messed up if this had been done for the past 100 years because the federal government wouldn't be meddling in our individual lives.
I agree but that is an example of our interests, values and those of the candidates that we will vote to elect. However, not everyone agrees with those interests and values. As Americans they have the right to vote for whomever they want in office.
There are no candidates that usually match our values exactly. That was my point.
Why doesn't it matter to so-called libertarians whether it is the federal government or a state government dictating an individuals moral choices?
Because they calculate that it will be easier to have the fight on the local level.
And in several of the states they have the numbers to push that agenda.
Quote:
If the philosophy is that government has no business dictating personal actions what difference does it make where the locus of such government interference emanate?
Philosophy? meh.
It's purely about the politics of pressing the argument where it can be won more easily
and then parlaying that to pressure the states bordering those... and so forth.
Once they have achieve a critical mass aligned with their own view...
...just as if we still lived in the same 18th century world that the Constitution was written in without any provisions in it for Congress to enact laws that address issues which might not have been specifically addressed in that suicide pact they forced upon the fledgling new nation.
Gotcha.
Except that the US Constitution was last amended in 1992, not the 18th century.
Where did I say that I would never have an abortion?
To me, there is nothing more important than a woman's right to have complete and total control over her own body. No one should be able to force a woman to terminate or continue a pregnancy.
You and I both know that "leaving it up to the individual states" would result in women in many states being denied the right to make the choice that is right for them.
Women just should just lay down the law and refuse intercourse unless they WANT to get pregnant. (Letting your date have his way with you doesn't really impress him anyway---just the opposite in fact.)Any short-term pleasure that might be gained from the act is not worth the risk of potential impregnation as far as I'm concerned.
There may be exceptions in the case of rape, but still...
Women just should just lay down the law and refuse intercourse unless they WANT to get pregnant. (Letting your date have his way with you doesn't really impress him anyway---just the opposite in fact.)Any short-term pleasure that might be gained from the act is not worth the risk of potential impregnation as far as I'm concerned.
There may be exceptions in the case of rape, but still...
Because they calculate that it will be easier to have the fight on the local level.
And in several of the states they have the numbers to push that agenda.
Philosophy? meh.
It's purely about the politics of pressing the argument where it can be won more easily
and then parlaying that to pressure the states bordering those... and so forth.
Once they have achieve a critical mass aligned with their own view...
hth
Which says nothing about making the political argument that anti-libertarian laws are a state's right. The logical flow of the libertarian argument should be that such laws are an anathema be they enacted by the federal or state governments. Just passing it off as a state's right leaves me highly skeptical of the reasoning or sincerity of the argument as being put forth.
Which says nothing about making the political argument that anti-libertarian laws are a state's right.
OK. I see your point.
I guess I'm rejecting the premise that the label ("Libertarian") has any significance to anything of consequence...
that the word is just being used as a political expedient. iow... it's a farce.
Quote:
The logical flow of the libertarian argument should be that such laws are an anathema be they enacted by the federal or state governments. Just passing it off as a state's right leaves me highly skeptical of the reasoning or sincerity of the argument as being put forth.
I guess we agree then
---
But you know something... If these folks (Paul himself?) had the nerve to *commit* to not push or even address any of their social agenda goals for X years, or perhaps until after certain specific universally lauded objective improvements in the economic arenas are accomplished, iow just the actual Libertarian politics, they might even be able to pull off a win.
(yeah I don't think they would do it either)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
