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.
Marriage is not being redefined. Stop arguing against things no one has said. This is a matter of making the eligibility requirements for marriage fair and just. Stick to the topic.
Just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean I'm dodging anything.
You are not a moderator nor are you the OP.....you don't get to dictate to me what the topic is.
Stop trying to dominate the course of the discussion. ...it aint happening.
Just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean I'm dodging anything.
Your evasive reply doesn't surprise me. To be clear: Marriage is not being redefined. This is a matter of making the eligibility requirements for marriage fair and just. Let's see how well you stick to the topic in your reply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dooleys1300
Stop trying to dominate the course of the discussion. ...it aint happening.
What discussion? I'm posting things that pertain to the topic of the thread and you post a reply the entirety of which is nothing but complaining about my words.
Let's use another issue in addition to same sex marrige to illustrate the left and rights hypocrisy on nanny state government vs the libertarian viewpoint shall we?
Using both issues of abortion and same sex marriage.
Personally and morally speaking I'm in agreement with sex marriage rights but I'm disgusted by abortion in almost any case other than rape or to save the life of the mother.
However, from a libertarian point of view, my level of agreement or disgust is irrelevant in either case because in accordance with the original wording and spirit of the Constitution the federal government does not have the constitutional athourtity to regulate either abortion or same sex marriage.
The left and the right however, are both fine with goverment regulating both as long as the government rules in accordance with their personal moral perspective.
And that, from a libertarian standpoint is the definition of hypocrisy.
Your evasive reply doesn't surprise me. To be clear: Marriage is not being redefined. This is a matter of making the eligibility requirements for marriage fair and just. Let's see how well you stick to the topic in your reply.
If government should not be determining any requirements about marriage (my personal opinion), then your question is irrelevant. If marriage is legal recognition of a partnership of two legal entities then regardless of the nature of those legal entities then legally those two entities are "married".
Your eligibility requirements are obsolete under that system. There is one eligibility requirement, that the parties both be legal entities, with no regard whatsoever to the natures of those legal entities. So no you can't marry your cat, but you could marry Apple, your cat is not a legal entity, Apple is.
It also simplifies, business and personal partnerships can all be managed under exactly the same law and conditions.
The problem with equal protection is that as long as everyone is treated equally no matter the treatment received, it's legal. Thus if everyone is treated equally poorly it does not violate equal protection law. Equal protection does not mean fair either, it can as easily mean equally unfair.
in accordance with the original wording and spirit of the Constitution
This is your bias. The Constitution was never intended to be interpreted the way you want it interpreted. Rather, it was built to withstand the test of time, with a defined amendment process, and a defined process for judicial review of perceived disputes with the intent of the Constitution.
Therefore what matters is not what you want to matter. You lost that battle in 1788.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
If government should not be determining any requirements about marriage (my personal opinion), then your question is irrelevant.
The reality is that government should be ensuring Equal Protection under the law, and ensuring Full Faith and Credit - the way that the courts see those things, not necessarily the way you see them. Why? Because the Constitution says so.
This is your bias. The Constitution was never intended to be interpreted the way you want it interpreted. Rather, it was built to withstand the test of time, with a defined amendment process, and a defined process for judicial review of perceived disputes with the intent of the Constitution.
.
Ahh, the "LIVING DOCUMENT ®" argument. ...couldn't see that one coming
Let's use another issue in addition to same sex marrige to illustrate the left and rights hypocrisy on nanny state government vs the libertarian viewpoint shall we?
Using both issues of abortion and same sex marriage.
Personally and morally speaking I'm in agreement with sex marriage rights but I'm disgusted by abortion in almost any case other than rape or to save the life of the mother.
However, from a libertarian point of view, my level of agreement or disgust is irrelevant in either case because in accordance with the original wording and spirit of the Constitution the federal government does not have the constitutional athourtity to regulate either abortion or same sex marriage.
The left and the right however, are both fine with goverment regulating both as long as the government rules in accordance with their personal moral perspective.
And that, from a libertarian standpoint is the definition of hypocrisy.
The government absolutely has the constitutional authority to regulate abortion. People who say the government has no authority over abortion are making the preconceived assumption that abortion is a question of morality and not a question of the termination of the life of a human being. The left consistently tries to ram it down the throats of everyone else that abortion is a personal choice so that they can then bash pro-life people for wanting to regulate that personal choice. Even people who know in their hearts that abortion is a criminal act end up taking a weak "I don't like abortion but I can't make that decision for someone else" stance because they have been browbeaten by the left into accepting that taking an anti-abortion stance makes you a sexist who hates women. Using ad hominem attacks to bully people into not opposing them is a time honored tradition of the left wing, going back decades. You can't ever just disagree with a liberal on matters of policy. If you don't agree with the liberal, you will be called a racist, sexist, homophobic, warmongering, selfish corporatist. So people back off the abortion stance they know is right for fear of being bullied and labeled.
Rationally there is no reason for elective abortion to ever be wrong unless it is because abortion terminates a human life. That's the one and only reasonable conclusion for why abortion should be at all distasteful ever. Nobody ever claims that having a mole removed is a problem. So the only reason that removing a fetus could be a problem is because the fetus is a separate human being. And given that abortion terminates a human life, it necessarily follows that elective abortion is never right unless murder is somehow acceptable behavior. I am pro-life not because I find it somehow morally disgusting, I am pro-life because I cannot logically escape the pro-life position. If I'm not willing to decriminalize murder, then I must follow through with that principle and oppose abortion. It is a necessary conclusion that abortion must be murder. It can no more not be murder than 2+2 can be anything other than 4. The court can legally define a fetus as a "nonperson" all it likes, but that very same court once defined African Americans as nonpersons too.
So the authority of the government to ban abortion does not flow from a desire to force one's morality on others, it flows from the authority of government to enforce criminal law. The authority of the government to enforce criminal law is allowed by the constitution. The 10th amendment grants state governments the authority to enforce criminal law.
And the nonaggression principle of libertarianism makes supporting criminalizing abortion entirely consistent with libertarian philosophy. Libertarians for Life Homepage
A libertarian for life is exactly what I am. I oppose abortion because it is an inescapable conclusion given the scientific facts of human reproduction and the nonaggression principle of libertarian philosophy. Personal morality, religion, and women's rights have nothing to do with it. I oppose abortion the same way I oppose theft, assault, fraud, and other crimes of aggression against innocent human beings.
The government absolutely has the constitutional authority to regulate abortion. People who say the government has no authority over abortion are making the preconceived assumption that abortion is a question of morality and not a question of the termination of the life of a human being. The left consistently tries to ram it down the throats of everyone else that abortion is a personal choice so that they can then bash pro-life people for wanting to regulate that personal choice. Even people who know in their hearts that abortion is a criminal act end up taking a weak "I don't like abortion but I can't make that decision for someone else" stance because they have been browbeaten by the left into accepting that taking an anti-abortion stance makes you a sexist who hates women. Using ad hominem attacks to bully people into not opposing them is a time honored tradition of the left wing, going back decades. You can't ever just disagree with a liberal on matters of policy. If you don't agree with the liberal, you will be called a racist, sexist, homophobic, warmongering, selfish corporatist. So people back off the abortion stance they know is right for fear of being bullied and labeled.
Rationally there is no reason for elective abortion to ever be wrong unless it is because abortion terminates a human life. That's the one and only reasonable conclusion for why abortion should be at all distasteful ever. Nobody ever claims that having a mole removed is a problem. So the only reason that removing a fetus could be a problem is because the fetus is a separate human being. And given that abortion terminates a human life, it necessarily follows that elective abortion is never right unless murder is somehow acceptable behavior. I am pro-life not because I find it somehow morally disgusting, I am pro-life because I cannot logically escape the pro-life position. If I'm not willing to decriminalize murder, then I must follow through with that principle and oppose abortion. It is a necessary conclusion that abortion must be murder. It can no more not be murder than 2+2 can be anything other than 4. The court can legally define a fetus as a "nonperson" all it likes, but that very same court once defined African Americans as nonpersons too.
So the authority of the government to ban abortion does not flow from a desire to force one's morality on others, it flows from the authority of government to enforce criminal law. The authority of the government to enforce criminal law is allowed by the constitution. The 10th amendment grants state governments the authority to enforce criminal law.
And the nonaggression principle of libertarianism makes supporting criminalizing abortion entirely consistent with libertarian philosophy. Libertarians for Life Homepage
A libertarian for life is exactly what I am. I oppose abortion because it is an inescapable conclusion given the scientific facts of human reproduction and the nonaggression principle of libertarian philosophy. Personal morality, religion, and women's rights have nothing to do with it. I oppose abortion the same way I oppose theft, assault, fraud, and other crimes of aggression against innocent human beings.
You won't get any argument from me from a moral standpoint, except possibly very early in conception, say the first month.
However, as you know many would disagree, both in the medical community as well as the political and activist communities. And therein lies the gray area for many people.
As I said, I'm not a Libertarian, I just happen to agree with much of libertarian philosophy on domestic, fiscal and social issues. But the party's isolationist foreign policy and open boarders immigration lunacy makes officially hanging my hat on the Libertarian rack a no go for me.
The government absolutely has the constitutional authority to regulate abortion. People who say the government has no authority over abortion are making the preconceived assumption that abortion is a question of morality and not a question of the termination of the life of a human being.
<snip>
As a libertarian I have the belief 100% that I have complete and total sovereignty over my personal physical being. I can choose to cut off an arm if I so wish, and no one has the right to prevent me.
With abortion is that the person who determines that they want one, is not in violation of that belief.
Prohibiting or restricting abortion would violate that belief.
Now is the destruction/death of a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus the end result of that abortion, currently yes. However it's an unfortunate side effect, the complete sovereignty of a persons being must permit the removal of anything that that person determines is unwanted. If the fetus could survive on it's own then it need not be destroyed/die.
I would not have any issue with someone getting an abortion, and the removed zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus being placed into some mechanism (organic or synthetic) that would permit it complete gestation. However in such an instance the natural mother would not have rights to the child so incubated.
Until we get there however, we have to accept that abortion cannot be prevented from a libertarian standpoint without violating the inherent belief we have complete sovereignty of our beings, if you force someone to retain something undesired for the term of a pregnancy, then that is a form of bondage. While you may argue the morality, the fact remains that removal need not be terminal. If you so desire to meet both criteria (sovereignty of self, and sanctity of life according to your beliefs), then we need a mechanism to incubate very early stage human embryo's to allow them to complete gestation.
The issue is that "for good reasons" people want a number of things that violate the right to your own person, and the right of property. This is just another "good reason". It's pretty binary.
Constitutionally where does it state that the government has the power to regulation abortion? Or any medical procedure whatsoever?
As a libertarian I have the belief 100% that I have complete and total sovereignty over my personal physical being. I can choose to cut off an arm if I so wish, and no one has the right to prevent me.
With abortion is that the person who determines that they want one, is not in violation of that belief.
Prohibiting or restricting abortion would violate that belief.
Now is the destruction/death of a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus the end result of that abortion, currently yes. However it's an unfortunate side effect, the complete sovereignty of a persons being must permit the removal of anything that that person determines is unwanted. If the fetus could survive on it's own then it need not be destroyed/die.
I would not have any issue with someone getting an abortion, and the removed zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus being placed into some mechanism (organic or synthetic) that would permit it complete gestation. However in such an instance the natural mother would not have rights to the child so incubated.
Until we get there however, we have to accept that abortion cannot be prevented from a libertarian standpoint without violating the inherent belief we have complete sovereignty of our beings, if you force someone to retain something undesired for the term of a pregnancy, then that is a form of bondage. While you may argue the morality, the fact remains that removal need not be terminal. If you so desire to meet both criteria (sovereignty of self, and sanctity of life according to your beliefs), then we need a mechanism to incubate very early stage human embryo's to allow them to complete gestation.
I disagree. Your sovereignty over your physical being does not extend towards using your physical being to do harm to others. The fetus is not a part of you. The fetus is another human being.
I agree with the idea that if someone doesn't want to continue a pregnancy, then the fetus should be removed and placed into an artificial incubator. But I disagree with where you place the emphasis. Instead of saying that since we currently don't have the technology to do that, the termination of the fetus is an unfortunate side effect I would say instead that since the primary principle is to do no harm, the necessity of the mother to incubate the fetus is the unfortunate side effect.
As the libertarians for life website puts it: One's right to control one's own body does not allow violating the obligation not to aggress. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.
Quote:
The issue is that "for good reasons" people want a number of things that violate the right to your own person, and the right of property. This is just another "good reason". It's pretty binary.
Constitutionally where does it state that the government has the power to regulation abortion? Or any medical procedure whatsoever?
In the 10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This clearly grants authority to the states to regulate when it is a criminal offense to terminate the life of another human being. An abortion is not only a medical procedure for the mother, but is also the termination of the fetus' life. As I said, when technology advances to such a point that artificial wombs are a reality, then by all means a woman should have the right to terminate her parental rights and have the fetus removed to an artificial womb, to be put up for adoption upon its maturity. Until that technology is available, the principle that one's right to control one's own body does not extend to violating the obligation not to assault others necessitates that she endure the pregnancy.
This isn't a form of bondage. You naturally accept the possibility that pregnancy might occur by the act of engaging in sexual intercourse. This is the principle that allows forcing men to pay child support for unwanted children. If taking the product of their labor against their will to support the needs of a child they do not want is not putting them into slavery, then neither is having the woman endure a pregnancy. She is still free to surrender the child as soon as it is born with no further obligation. But as the quote I gave says, a prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. We already grant that a special relationship exists between parent and child that is different from the relationship between two random strangers on the street. This relationship includes the obligation of the parent to support the child. Until such a time as the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb, the mother's obligation is to do no harm to her child and allow it to use her body for development. Once it is viable, then she can surrender those parental rights and go on with her life and again I have no problem with using an artificial incubator to let her do that as early as possible. She just doesn't have the right to cause the death of her child by refusing to provide it sustenance.
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.
