What about the percentage of Americans who just don't f*cking give a d*mn?
I'm sure it's much higher than either side would care to admit.
What about the percentage of Americans who just don't f*cking give a d*mn?
I'm sure it's much higher than either side would care to admit.
I am pretty sure of that also. I also am expecting to get quite a few neg rep points for asking it. Plus getting flamed up in here. Oh well...
Oh?
This reads to me as a contradiction of the above.
All government, in the form of monopolistic enforcement of social contract, is based on threats or acts of violence. The root word of "law enforcement" is "force". This violence is threatened or performed precisely to impose the will of others onto the individual against whom it is being employed. Without violence and without conflict of wills, there is no government in the form to which we colloquially refer.
Who are these "authorities" you keep referring to?
Wouldn't you consider yourself to be the authority in your life?
Libertarians think there are legitimate state functions. Among them is the preservation of life, liberty, and property.
Come on CarmelHP, quit trying to be manipulative. Your comparison is disgusting and uncalled for. If you're going to talk about the use of children for sexual gratification, there are probably plenty of pedophile boards out there for you.
These posts are an attempt to ask "how much government do we want in our lives?" I would suspect that the general response would be "less," yet forcing abortion to be illegal would seem to be a contradiction of that. Also, forcing doctors to perform abortions with the threat of lawsuits would be an invasion of their personal choice. Some things are morally wrong, like removing an individual's choice.
If we want less gov. control in our lives, let's have it that way and stop saying "less government control in our lives, unless we disagree with another's choice, and then there needs to be immediate intervention by the authorities."
Libertarians believe these are legitimate things for somebody to enforce. Whether it is necessarily the geopolitical monopoly of coercion that we know colloquially as "government" is left open for debate. Anarcho-capitalists would say such enforcement should come from voluntary contract and private law enforcement. I tend to agree with them, though I believe I might also be happy with a minarchy.
Beyond that small quibble, I think I understand what you're saying a little better.
It sounded like you "I can anything I want with my kids" were trying to turn this into a pedophile board. What a whacko you are. You don't own anyone, chattel slavery is dead, and people who think like you are the ones who turn out to be abusers. Forcing parents not to abuse their or child would also be "removing an individual's choice." If you don't like the logical conclusion of where your idiotic ramblings lead then perhaps you should re-examine your opinions.
I have a solution to this. Everyone who is "pro-life" registers with the government. All abortions are stopped. Every unwanted baby goes to the person on the top of the registry along with all the costs involved with the pregnancy and birth. You don't have a choice of what baby you get or when you get it. Once you have gotten the child you go to the end of the list.
I don't buy this argument because it seems like it would work for any crime. I mean, you're right, regardless of what laws are enacted there will probably be some abortions. But, that's true in general: regardless of what laws are enacted against crime X, there will still be some of that crime around.As long as men and women have casual sex, or there are rapes, or babies are diagnosed in the early stages of development with unbelievably terrible defects that make a parent choose between a short agonizing life for the baby or ending the pregnancy there will be abortions, legal or not.
But, we don't say this for babies after birth -- why would we say it for them before birth? Perhaps because they haven't "experienced" as much so they won't suffer as much loss--but you need to tread carefully here, birth doesn't seem like a significant marker in terms of conscious experiencing.I would rather see a fetus aborted than to have a child live with abuse or knowing that they were not wanted and are not valued.
I have always marveled at the number of men who are so anti-choice but don't want to support their children after a divorce or aren't married to the mother and exit stage left as soon as they find out that she is pregnant. I do know that there are many who are truly responsible and would care for children of theirs no matter the situation so this isn't in any way bashing you guys.....heck, I really like men.
I understand this viewpoint, but I really don't think it is consistent. If you really think about the "evil" that you want to say is necessary, I think you have to conclude that it could never really be necessary (except when balanced against saving another life, like the life of the mother in a tubal pregnancy).Over all I think there need to be limits on when the abortion is done but I also truly believe that it is a necessary evil. If someone doesn't want to preform them they shouldn't have to but they also shouldn't abuse the woman seeking one verbally.
OK, bring it on.
Yeah Anarchists are a different story -- which is why I stopped at Libertarian .
If you don't like the logical conclusion of where your idiotic ramblings lead then perhaps you should re-examine your opinions.
I want natural and common law to be the guiding forces in our lives. We all know right from wrong. We don't need the federal government sticking their fingers in our faces telling us what to do. One day it might be "you can't have an abortion," maybe the next day it will be "you *must* have an abortion."
And could you stop being a bully and giving me negative rep for every post because you don't agree? We are allowed to have differing opinions in the United States. I guess you can do and say what you want, but you're just coming across as a jerk. Perhaps disagreement isn't such a good idea around here?
I cannot, in good conscience, agree to murder. I would not condone the killing of a three-month old child because his/her parents were being/already were abusive to the child, why then should a child conceived only a few months later be subject to death for such a reason?