PDA

View Full Version : Where are all the women?




Pages : [1] 2

Hope
09-28-2007, 08:04 PM
Has anyone noticed that male Ron Paul supporters outnumber women ten to one?

Even today as I was handing out liberty cards and sign waving at a busy intersection for two hours, most of the people who espoused interest in Ron Paul were men. Most women didn't care enough to roll down their window and ask, and of the few who did, they didn't seem all that swayed by RP's message.

I know there's the Strippers for Ron Paul group, but I have yet to meet one. :p I really think there's an untapped voter demographic out there of women under the age of 30. How do you get women who are either not that familiar with politics or moderate leaning to support Ron Paul? I don't want to be the only female in our MeetUp group forever.

RP4ME
09-28-2007, 08:05 PM
i am of the girl persuasion

ItsTime
09-28-2007, 08:05 PM
I saw lots of women at the last straw poll

angelatc
09-28-2007, 08:09 PM
I'm a female, but in our meet up I'm out numbered by about 7 to 1.

In the old days, that meant free drinks. :)

Cindy
09-28-2007, 08:11 PM
Has anyone noticed that male Ron Paul supporters outnumber women ten to one?

Even today as I was handing out liberty cards and sign waving at a busy intersection for two hours, most of the people who espoused interest in Ron Paul were men. Most women didn't care enough to roll down their window and ask, and of the few who did, they didn't seem all that swayed by RP's message.

I know there's the Strippers for Ron Paul group, but I have yet to meet one. :p I really think there's an untapped voter demographic out there of women under the age of 30. How do you get women who are either not that familiar with politics or moderate leaning to support Ron Paul? I don't want to be the only female in our MeetUp group forever.

I've been working RP at another forum where the age group is mostly 18-24. RP is the PITS with many young adult women because of where he stands on the abortion issue.

Hope
09-28-2007, 08:14 PM
I've been working RP at another forum where the age group is mostly 18-24. RP is the PITS with many young adult women because of where he stands on the abortion issue.

Ahh. You think that's the clencher? I'm pro-choice myself, but I can agree with Ron Paul that it shouldn't be a federal issue.

I wish people weren't so quick to dismiss a candidate on just one issue.

jcbraithwaite7
09-28-2007, 08:16 PM
I'm JC... and even though most chicks don't go by initials... I am all woman and all for Dr. Paul.

angelatc
09-28-2007, 08:17 PM
Ahh. You think that's the clencher? I'm pro-choice myself, but I can agree with Ron Paul that it shouldn't be a federal issue.

I wish people weren't so quick to dismiss a candidate on just one issue.

Ditto on the pro choice. Work the draft angle. No point in killing the kids that we did want.

Cindy
09-28-2007, 08:24 PM
Ahh. You think that's the clencher? I'm pro-choice myself, but I can agree with Ron Paul that it shouldn't be a federal issue.

I wish people weren't so quick to dismiss a candidate on just one issue.

Here is one example written by one of the young single females I referenced, in her own words.


I understand how the argument is made, but unfortunately I live in the south where the issue would undoubtedly be voted to ban abortion. So if this occurs before I'm financially stable enough to move to a better area, I'd be FUCKED if I got pregnant. Even though I'm super careful, the issue might come up. And then I'd either be imprisoned with a child I would resent, probably not be very loving to, and be completely depressed for two decades, or endure a pregnancy that with my current height and weight and psychiatric prescriptions and tobacco habits would physically endanger both me and the child. In fact, with all the things I'm prescribed I'd probably incur the danger of having a seriously life threatening miscarriage. Have you ever seen someone have a miscarriage? My roommates mom had an unwanted pregnancy that ended in a miscarriage and the bathroom was FLOODED with inches of blood. She didn't even know she was pregnant at the time and had no way of knowing what was coming. She was also above 50 and almost died.

I'm not taking that chance. No way.

BTW, I am a married female, 39 with a daughter who is Pro Choice and I have to say, it took me two months to reason that issue one with myself before I decided to fully support Paul myself.

micahnelson
09-28-2007, 08:25 PM
If only the rabid right to lifer's weren't so concerned with killing Iraqis.

Cindy
09-28-2007, 08:26 PM
And of course, you have the young "girls rule" types who are voting for Hillary simply because she is a woman. There are tons of those out there.

Thats just ignorant reasoning.

archemeedees
09-28-2007, 08:26 PM
I'm a young (23), very pregnant (due any moment), possibly overly-enthusiastic (I started threatening premature labor when I was campaigning for him) Ron Paul supporter.

Maybe women just generally aren't as interested in politics? Most of the women I've known are not. I've had female friends walk away while I was conversing with their boyfriends or husbands about politics. And generally I'm the only woman discussing politics with the men in my husband's family while the women discuss candle parties or something interesting to them. (Then there's my side of the family where there is no discussion of politics for the men or the women, possibly to save on medical bills.)

So in my experience, it's just unusual for women to be interested in politics. But that's just my experience with the general population. I dare say the active portion of our Salt Lake City meetup group is nearly half female. No one can call them Utah Paulite women barefoot (even if some of us are pregnant).

Cindy
09-28-2007, 08:28 PM
If only the rabid right to lifer's weren't so concerned with killing Iraqis.

And Iraqi children who are already born. It's mind boggeling how many support the carnage of innocents over there and yet, get on their high moral horse about abortion.

thehittgirl
09-28-2007, 08:30 PM
Has anyone noticed that male Ron Paul supporters outnumber women ten to one?

Even today as I was handing out liberty cards and sign waving at a busy intersection for two hours, most of the people who espoused interest in Ron Paul were men. Most women didn't care enough to roll down their window and ask, and of the few who did, they didn't seem all that swayed by RP's message.

I know there's the Strippers for Ron Paul group, but I have yet to meet one. :p I really think there's an untapped voter demographic out there of women under the age of 30. How do you get women who are either not that familiar with politics or moderate leaning to support Ron Paul? I don't want to be the only female in our MeetUp group forever.

It's funny because I was thinking about how outnumbered I am then hubby was talking to a friend about it. All 3 of us are in agreement that women don't like his stance on abortion.

I've wondered myself how to get more women interested in Ron Paul. I have two friends that are pro life and against the war. I know one of them is leary because her trust has been shattered.

thuja
09-28-2007, 08:32 PM
i am a lady, and while talking to other ladies i find most of them really grateful that i told them about Ron Paul, as issues such as privacy and freedom are very important to them, its just that they had sullenly given up hope on that like most people, thinking there was no more hope.

dsentell
09-28-2007, 08:33 PM
And of course, you have the young "girls rule" types who are voting for Hillary simply because she is a woman. There are tons of those out there.

Thats just ignorant reasoning.


Yes, and scary, and dangerous for America.

I heard today that one of Hillary's brilliant ideas is to give $5,000 to each American baby that is born. Sure, that sounds nice. But we have about 5 million babies born each year -- do the math.

How on earth are we supposed to pay for this?

Ron Paul is right -- we don't need the government taking care of us from cradle to grave........

thehittgirl
09-28-2007, 08:35 PM
I'm a young (23), very pregnant (due any moment), possibly overly-enthusiastic (I started threatening premature labor when I was campaigning for him) Ron Paul supporter.

Maybe women just generally aren't as interested in politics? Most of the women I've known are not. I've had female friends walk away while I was conversing with their boyfriends or husbands about politics. And generally I'm the only woman discussing politics with the men in my husband's family while the women discuss candle parties or something interesting to them. (Then there's my side of the family where there is no discussion of politics for the men or the women, possibly to save on medical bills.)

So in my experience, it's just unusual for women to be interested in politics. But that's just my experience with the general population. I dare say the active portion of our Salt Lake City meetup group is nearly half female. No one can call them Utah Paulite women barefoot (even if some of us are pregnant).

I think that's another nail hit too. My family members are not into politics. My mom nor sister are interested because they feel it doesn't affect them. That mentality upsets me, and my sister and I got in an argument. I told them now is the time to get into politics, because do they really want their grandson/nephew going off to a war based on lies? My husband calls my mother and my sister pod people since they don't seem to care. I hope they amongst many others will wake up!

dsentell
09-28-2007, 08:35 PM
By the way ... I, too, am a proud Ron Paul supporting female.........

angelatc
09-28-2007, 08:36 PM
Here is one example written by one of the young single females I referenced, in her own words.



BTW, I am a married female, 39 with a daughter who is Pro Choice and I have to say, it took me two months to reason that issue one with myself before I decided to fully support Paul myself.

The thing is, though, is that the next President won't have much to say about it. Bush has already swung the court conservative. As soon as a case makes it up to the Court, the "right" is going to be gone.

I feel for her, but it's an example of why people shouldn't believe they have "rights" that aren't specifically spelled out in the Constitution. If she wants to keep the right to proper medical care, then she should be supporting a Constitutional Amendment to that effect.

The whole abortion issue was decided based on a right to privacy, and the privelege of doctor / patient confidentiality. If she thinks that socialized medical care won't also have a bearing on that decision, I think she's hopelessly niave.

thuja
09-28-2007, 08:36 PM
but i have heard she wishes to have all children microchipped by age two

Hope
09-28-2007, 08:37 PM
One thing that's come to mind, though.

Many other Republican candidates are strictly pro-life -- to the point that they'd like an amendment to the Constitution banning abortion across the nation -- and yet they don't seem to have a problem gaining female supporters. Hrm.

dsentell
09-28-2007, 08:37 PM
but i have heard she wishes to have all children microchipped by age two


Doesn't that just sound wonderful !

thehittgirl
09-28-2007, 08:38 PM
And of course, you have the young "girls rule" types who are voting for Hillary simply because she is a woman. There are tons of those out there.

Thats just ignorant reasoning.

Oh that's my mother! She admits she knows nothing else about politics but yet said she will vote for her. I know it's because of her being a female. :mad:

I've been slowly trying to talk sense into her, but I am not sure it will work.

dsentell
09-28-2007, 08:42 PM
It is a shame that more women are not interested in politics. Ron Pauling consumes much of my day and I am very knowledgeable about what is going on in the world.

Two women (both 50ish) that I work with don't have a clue. They have no interest in news, politics or world affairs. They keep their heads buried in the sand and don't want to know what is going on around them. I try to talk to them about RP, but all they want to talk about is some stupid fiction novel that they are always reading. When they ask me if I read, it is all I can do to keep from saying, "I read, but not story books........."

thuja
09-28-2007, 08:43 PM
it IS scary, that women would vote for her because she is a woman, and not pay attntion to what she is up to.
someone clever should do a campaign for Ron Paul specifically for women. I do find the issues of privacy and of health freedom, such as food supplements to be especially appealing to the women i talk to.

micahnelson
09-28-2007, 08:47 PM
Men think Macro, National/Team Oriented, impersonal
Women think Micro, Individual/Family Oriented, Personal


We need to understand fundamental differences between men and women. The Ron Paul campaign is about BIG MACRO ideas. This is explains the big hooplah among men. We associate with the campaign through the revolutionary war, the patriots, the founding father... rah rah rah.

Women tend to relate to things on a more interpersonal micro level, and politicians understand this. Par example, do you think a president would have successfully said "I feel your pain" before suffrage? Women's issues tend to be about interpersonal issues, health care, social security, things related to the family. I don't mean to offend anyone here, i realize I am likely speaking to the 5-10% minority of women who would have dressed like a man in 76 to fight the redcoats. Im a male who doesn't like sports or drinking beer... so... I feel your pain, lol. Hear me out though. As an example, guy movies are about aliens taking over the entire world and a group of people fighting back. Macro Issues. Girl movies are about a girl who can't decide between a rich man she doesn't love, and a poor man she does love. Micro issues.

We need to find a way to communicate the macro issues of liberty, american independence, to the micro issues women care about. Privacy is out because it has become a buzz word specifically for the abortion debate. Maybe we could discuss how single mom's could start businesses without all the hassle if we had more liberty. Freedom of education for children? Ladies, any ideas?

constituent
09-28-2007, 08:48 PM
I feel for her, but it's an example of why people shouldn't believe they have "rights" that aren't specifically spelled out in the Constitution. If she wants to keep the right to proper medical care, then she should be supporting a Constitutional Amendment to that effect.



It help your case if you argued the FACT that the Bill of Rights is not to be construed as limiting your rights to what are listed... God grants your rights, not the government. The Bill of Rights is a funny thing.

Hope
09-28-2007, 08:49 PM
it IS scary, that women would vote for her because she is a woman, and not pay attntion to what she is up to.
someone clever should do a campaign for Ron Paul specifically for women. I do find the issues of privacy and of health freedom, such as food supplements to be especially appealing to the women i talk to.

Yep! Don't forget education. He's against torture and the death penalty, too.

Today while I was waving a RP sign at an intersection, a woman yelled, "Ron Paul, fuck you!" and flipped me off. I fear for my gender sometimes.

drednot
09-28-2007, 08:50 PM
...
I heard today that one of Hillary's brilliant ideas is to give $5,000 to each American baby that is born. Sure, that sounds nice. But we have about 5 million babies born each year -- do the math.

How on earth are we supposed to pay for this?


Not only that, think of the unintended consequences. We'd be (again) encouraging those unprepared for children to go ahead and have them.

Cindy
09-28-2007, 08:53 PM
it IS scary, that women would vote for her because she is a woman, and not pay attntion to what she is up to.
someone clever should do a campaign for Ron Paul specifically for women. I do find the issues of privacy and of health freedom, such as food supplements to be especially appealing to the women i talk to.


That is how I won my 67 year old mother over to him....and from Edwards.

I told her about the recent FDA ploy to ban nutritional supplements and gave her Pelosi's number to protest it. She was firing mad, and now she is voting for Paul. :D

ksuguy
09-28-2007, 08:53 PM
It would be nice to have more of them. Not only would it be good to have their support, their presence would tend to attract men too.

You see this phenomenon at colleges all the time. Lots of guys show up to events and support causes they really don't give a damn about just so they can meet the women there.

thuja
09-28-2007, 08:55 PM
wow, what an odd woman, wonder what she is really about.
anyway, maybe the abortion issue is a problem, but do the majority of women want abortions, or just freedom in general?

Hope
09-28-2007, 08:59 PM
wow, what an odd woman, wonder what she is really about.
anyway, maybe the abortion issue is a problem, but do the majority of women want abortions, or just freedom in general?

Dunno. I think maybe too many women get caught up in the "free" part of "freedom." As in, free stuff they think the gov't should be giving to them and other interest groups. :confused:

Cindy
09-28-2007, 09:02 PM
Yes, and scary, and dangerous for America.

I heard today that one of Hillary's brilliant ideas is to give $5,000 to each American baby that is born. ....

Did you read it on the net and have a link for that one? I'd love to turn some more people off from her at another forum with that one.

constituent
09-28-2007, 09:02 PM
It is a shame that more women are not interested in politics. Ron Pauling consumes much of my day and I am very knowledgeable about what is going on in the world.

Two women (both 50ish) that I work with don't have a clue. They have no interest in news, politics or world affairs. They keep their heads buried in the sand and don't want to know what is going on around them. I try to talk to them about RP, but all they want to talk about is some stupid fiction novel that they are always reading. When they ask me if I read, it is all I can do to keep from saying, "I read, but not story books........."

I had a commercial script to target women, it was in the Operation NH thing...

no one "got it." I'd appreciate some input from the female ron paul followers...

your situations as described are what i've heard from my sisters, mother, etc. and
thought that it would engage that audience... it was about two old women who
meet up to go "jogging" but they're really trying to keep it under wraps that
they're guerilla style Ron Paul supporters... so they sneak out w/ a sign and hop
in a van... go and hang the sign over the freeway during rush hour traffic... run
into either their husbands, or some young people, whoever... commercial ends.

any input would be greatly appreciated!

micahnelson
09-28-2007, 09:02 PM
Dunno. I think maybe too many women get caught up in the "free" part of "freedom." As in, free stuff they think the gov't should be giving to them and other interest groups. :confused:

I think a lot of it has to do with the decline of families, the government has taken over the role the husbands/fathers used to play- Protection, Economic Stability. Its like people think the government is there to save you from hurricanes, feed your family, get you medical help...

That would explain why women vote for handsome presidents.

thuja
09-28-2007, 09:03 PM
i have introduced lots of women to the Ron Paul revolution while telling them about the NAIS which is the animal identification system that will cause us to have only chemical, cloned and genetically modified animal food ,and will prevent 4H kids and others from keeping animals, due to the requirement to register your land in order to do so. Since Ron Paul is against this, he is a more important candidate for people who care about their health.
I do not eat animals, but the next thing is probably registering your land before you plant any vegetables, so it should be stopped.

Cindy
09-28-2007, 09:08 PM
but do the majority of women want abortions, or just freedom in general?


Pro-Choice women want the freedom to be able to choose if they take an unwanted pregnancy to term or not. No one WANTS an abortion.

Marshall
09-28-2007, 09:08 PM
Dunno. I think maybe too many women get caught up in the "free" part of "freedom." As in, free stuff they think the gov't should be giving to them and other interest groups. :confused:

'cept it's not free. It's their tax dollars as well as the money the government streals from everyone else.


But hey, I'm all for women between 18 and upper twenties joining the revolution. The minority of me wants to meet chicks that aren't mouth-breathers, the majority of me just wants more people voting for Ron Paul.

thuja
09-28-2007, 09:11 PM
I think a lot of it has to do with the decline of families, the government has taken over the role the husbands/fathers used to play- Protection, Economic Stability. Its like people think the government is there to save you from hurricanes, feed your family, get you medical help...

That would explain why women vote for handsome presidents.
if this is true, and i think it is, there is no reason for such people to DO anything, just act like robots, but i do not think they realize it. it is much better to be active in your own life. Once introduced to these ideas, most women will begin to take charge of their lives, and even study political ideas. Once they see there IS hope.
we really need a campaign toward women, and who is the type to organize that?

Hope
09-28-2007, 09:12 PM
'cept it's not free. It's their tax dollars as well as the money the government streals from everyone else.


Definitely. Most people don't make that connection, though. Or if they do, they somehow think it's all right because in a perfect world, the government would act in the role of Robin Hood, stealing from the evil rich to give to the angelic poor.

micahnelson
09-28-2007, 09:15 PM
if this is true, and i think it is, there is no reason for such people to DO anything, just act like robots, but i do not think they realize it. it is much better to be active in your own life. Once introduced to these ideas, most women will begin to take charge of their lives, and even study political ideas. Once they see there IS hope.
we really need a campaign toward women, and who is the type to organize that?

Probably some of the guys who were saying "Id Hit It" when the ron paul girl came to the forums...

Any better suggestions? lol.

Cindy
09-28-2007, 09:21 PM
Now you guys are talking about the women who were brainwashed growing up on Prince Charming fairy tails. They are out there and the Libertarian stance is frightening to them. Indeed, if their night in shining armor doesn't show up and stick around, they want the government to fall back on to take care of them, and their kids if they have any.

They have so many dependancy issues, they are the next most difficult to convert.

thuja
09-28-2007, 09:22 PM
Pro-Choice women want the freedom to be able to choose if they take an unwanted pregnancy to term or not. No one WANTS an abortion.

of course not, but the freedom to choose is threatened by anti abortion legislation, whether federal or state, so Ron Paul is not the winner of this ONE issue among pro choice women. Now what? Promote him on the other issues and hope state laws allow it.

Hope
09-28-2007, 09:25 PM
of course not, but the freedom to choose is threatened by anti abortion legislation, whether federal or state, so Ron Paul is not the winner of this ONE issue among pro choice women. Now what? Promote him on the other issues and hope state laws allow it.

As much as I'm on board with Ron Paul's campaign, sometimes I do worry that states might be getting too much power. Should they really operate as if they were a bunch of little countries? If whole sections of the country -- the South for instance -- kinda band together to outlaw something like abortion (or alcohol or drugs or whatever), isn't that almost like a form of tyranny?

richard1984
09-28-2007, 09:26 PM
I know just as many female Ron Paul supporters as male Ron Paul supporters.

Of course...I guess I mean that in my rather expansive group of friends, the ratio of girls to guys is much higher.

Also, I know more adult females (my mom, my fiancée's mom, their friends, etc.) that like Ron Paul than adult males (like their husbands). The reason for this, though, is that, 1.) the males are more likely to still be sure/on the fence about the war, mainly because they're stubborn and watch Faux News, and 2.) the men have no real faith in the grassroots system and were just sure that Ron Paul had no chance because Faux News said so. The women are much more likely to support him because he's honest, because he actually answers the questions, because people on the news are so rude to him but he handles himself very well, etc.--i.e., they're more likely to support him because they like him (and ignore Fauz News propaganda).

Anyway, that's basically my experience so far.

Marshall
09-28-2007, 09:27 PM
As much as I'm on board with Ron Paul's campaign, sometimes I do worry that states might be getting too much power. Should they really operate as if they were a bunch of little countries? If whole sections of the country -- the South for instance -- kinda band together to outlaw something like abortion (or alcohol or drugs or whatever), isn't that almost like a form of tyranny?

Yeah, they should. If you don't like the local state laws, try to change them. It's better for people to be campaigning on a local level to their state government, rather then to a federal government, where decisions for all 50 states are carried out in DC. States should represent their constituents.

micahnelson
09-28-2007, 09:29 PM
As much as I'm on board with Ron Paul's campaign, sometimes I do worry that states might be getting too much power. Should they really operate as if they were a bunch of little countries? If whole sections of the country -- the South for instance -- kinda band together to outlaw something like abortion (or alcohol or drugs or whatever), isn't that almost like a form of tyranny?

Thats up to the citizens to decide. Its much easier to fight the power if the power is only an hours drive away.

Local government is better for that reason, as long as it doesn't violate your constitutional rights...

Yes that means you would see abortion in New York and a ban in Alabama. Free market balances it out. Alabama would get a bigger labor force (maybe), and New York might attract more professional women... who knows...

If abortion were made illegal it would be considered an act of violence, which as ron paul supporters, you realize falls to the states.

thuja
09-28-2007, 09:32 PM
I had a commercial script to target women, it was in the Operation NH thing...

no one "got it." I'd appreciate some input from the female ron paul followers...

your situations as described are what i've heard from my sisters, mother, etc. and
thought that it would engage that audience... it was about two old women who
meet up to go "jogging" but they're really trying to keep it under wraps that
they're guerilla style Ron Paul supporters... so they sneak out w/ a sign and hop
in a van... go and hang the sign over the freeway during rush hour traffic... run
into either their husbands, or some young people, whoever... commercial ends.

any input would be greatly appreciated!

i like it. the women should not be old, however, but should be like sarah jessica parker, lively and attractive. What happens when they run into the men? maybe the men are doing exactly the same thing, and they all caught each other supporting Ron Paul. so why not do this ad? it would be good!

Hope
09-28-2007, 09:35 PM
Yeah, they should. If you don't like the local state laws, try to change them. It's better for people to be campaigning on a local level to their state government, rather then to a federal government, where decisions for all 50 states are carried out in DC. States should represent their constituents.

I understand what you're saying. I just think that as great as federalism is, the majority rule is not always the answer; the Bill of Rights is all about protecting minority opinions, right? And I'm also concerned that with something as tricky as state government, whether abortion is legal or not could change every election in some states.

Shiranu
09-28-2007, 09:41 PM
Men think Macro, National/Team Oriented, impersonal
Women think Micro, Individual/Family Oriented, Personal




Nailed it! And then, when you throw in a society that promotes thoughts such as sexism and the such as being "completely ok" for a woman to consider her self > then a man, along with media brain washing... AGH!

micahnelson
09-28-2007, 09:51 PM
Nailed it! And then, when you throw in a society that promotes thoughts such as sexism and the such as being "completely ok" for a woman to consider her self > then a man, along with media brain washing... AGH!

And, despite what some people in the chauvinist or feminist camps may say... we need both men and women

Only Women and this is a welfare state...

Only Men and this... is... SPARTA.

The family is very underrated. Im impressed at Ron's relationship with his wife. She seems very proud of him, and he always brags about how she keeps him going. Its nice to see that... as opposed to John Edward's wife picking fights with people.

Collectivism, be it sexism or racism is the destruction of our societal strength. It makes us point fingers instead of stand together. There was a time that I blamed "the liberals" in America- but they are free men with ideas just like me. Now i blame no one but the tyrants in DC, who use these differences to manipulate us.

The problem's not women, men, gays, straights, atheists, believers, blacks or whites- the problem is our tacit support of the eroding of our liberties as individuals.

sorry for the rant. lol.

Marshall
09-28-2007, 09:54 PM
I understand what you're saying. I just think that as great as federalism is, the majority rule is not always the answer; the Bill of Rights is all about protecting minority opinions, right? And I'm also concerned that with something as tricky as state government, whether abortion is legal or not could change every election in some states.

Roe vs. Wade has nothing to do with majority rule. It was decided by a federal court that has no interest in supporting the constituents of any state. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were meant to restrict government power, not the power of the local people to decide their own laws.

A really huge problem has been created with abortion rights within this country. People vote for a presidential candidate based on their support/lack thereof for Roe vs. Wade, While there is no thought or discussion based towards the constitutionality of the debate for/against this issue. Abortion is simply a hot button issue to keep otherwise clear-thinking individuals voting for one of the two major parties, without consideration for any third or independent parties.

Marshall
09-28-2007, 09:56 PM
Im impressed at Ron's relationship with his wife. She seems very proud of him, and he always brags about how she keeps him going.

It's the chocolate chip cookies. They keep his reactor fueled!

thuja
09-28-2007, 09:57 PM
AND family values in that we help ourselves, our family members and our community, which results in stronger people and fewer criminals. We have those as a result of so much dependence on gvt agencies to do things.

Marshall
09-28-2007, 09:59 PM
Also, send all the sexy RP supporters my direction. It'll promote world peace... or something... just do it, or Iraqi's will die!~

thuja
09-28-2007, 10:01 PM
Roe vs. Wade has nothing to do with majority rule. It was decided by a federal court that has no interest in supporting the constituents of any state. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were meant to restrict government power, not the power of the local people to decide their own laws.

A really huge problem has been created with abortion rights within this country. People vote for a presidential candidate based on their support/lack thereof for Roe vs. Wade, While there is no thought or discussion based towards the constitutionality of the debate for/against this issue. Abortion is simply a hot button issue to keep otherwise clear-thinking individuals voting for one of the two major parties, without consideration for any third or independent parties.

i understand partly, but explain how any third or independent parties are omitted

Hope
09-28-2007, 10:13 PM
Roe vs. Wade has nothing to do with majority rule. It was decided by a federal court that has no interest in supporting the constituents of any state. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were meant to restrict government power, not the power of the local people to decide their own laws.

A really huge problem has been created with abortion rights within this country. People vote for a presidential candidate based on their support/lack thereof for Roe vs. Wade, While there is no thought or discussion based towards the constitutionality of the debate for/against this issue. Abortion is simply a hot button issue to keep otherwise clear-thinking individuals voting for one of the two major parties, without consideration for any third or independent parties.

Gotcha! Although, I think it's hard to argue that the Constitution is putting a muzzle on state's rights.

Does anyone have any thoughts concerning my question about hot issues like abortion changing every election? I think that's a real possibility and I'm not totally comfortable with it. I know every state has different laws and penalties concerning, say, murder, but at least we know that the murder laws don't change every time new representatives are elected. I don't think abortion would follow that trend.

Shiranu
09-28-2007, 10:15 PM
And, despite what some people in the chauvinist or feminist camps may say... we need both men and women

Only Women and this is a welfare state...

Only Men and this... is... SPARTA.



sorry for the rant. lol.

:eek: whats wrong with turning America into... Amerta! Rawr! :D

Hope
09-28-2007, 10:17 PM
:eek: whats wrong with turning America into... Amerta! Rawr! :D

I think George W. has already called it that!

"The terrists hate Amerita for its freedoms..."

Shiranu
09-28-2007, 10:18 PM
Damn right they sure! Fricken sand in der Turban terrest and up their undies, jealous of our liberty, freedom, and private bathrooms!

Can I stop acting like a idiot now? :)

Shiranu
09-28-2007, 10:20 PM
Damn right they sure! Fricken sand in der Turban terrest and up their undies, jealous of our liberty, freedom, and private bathrooms!

Make that libeirtys, friidoms, and private bathromz, if I know Bush like I think I know Bush. You know bush?

Corydoras
09-28-2007, 10:46 PM
The whole abortion issue was decided based on a right to privacy, and the privelege of doctor / patient confidentiality.

I have found that one thing that really catches women's attention is pointing out that the Patriot Act allows the government to read medical records, and that Ron Paul has voted consistently against the Patriot Act, while Hillary voted for it and Obama voted to extend it. With the Patriot Act, abortion is between a woman and her doctor and the Department of Homeland Security. Wow does that get a reaction.

Thunderbolt
09-29-2007, 06:04 AM
,,,

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 06:11 AM
Women vote with emotion...more than men ;) not all the time

Thunderbolt
09-29-2007, 06:18 AM
,,,

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 06:21 AM
Well, would you accept it if slavery were up to the states to decide?

Would be unconstitutional. No.


What do you think a forced pregnancy is?

uhh... rape? you mean the pro-life argument? I'm abortion neutral, leave it to states. At the state level: i'm pro choice, even though I'm not fond of the practice. If you want an abortion in a pro life state, go to a different state? Alternatively, try to pass a constitutional amendment lol

Corydoras
09-29-2007, 06:26 AM
We need to find a way to communicate the macro issues of liberty, american independence, to the micro issues women care about.

I couldn't agree more. I think your point is spot-on.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 06:29 AM
if we treat everyone as individuals, we wouldn't have to think about "women issues" they would be well served in a free society, as would everyone's interests

Corydoras
09-29-2007, 06:29 AM
Technical problems: Fetuses are not transplantable, and vasectomies are not reliably reversible.

Thunderbolt
09-29-2007, 06:29 AM
,,,

Thunderbolt
09-29-2007, 06:30 AM
,,,,

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 06:32 AM
Tell that to a raped 11 year old. Or better yet, tell that to a cancer patient. Once you get sick you are trapped in your state because you cannot take your health care with you. So if you have some illness that prevents you from leaving the state, but would kill you if you got pregnant, then the law in that state would make it a death sentence if you got raped or mistakenly pregnant.

This isn't so easy.

I don't think we need a constitutional amendment. I think the 9th will do just fine.

What are you proposing here? nation wide abortion rights? similar to the 2nd amendment issue?

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 06:32 AM
And Iraqi children who are already born. It's mind boggeling how many support the carnage of innocents over there and yet, get on their high moral horse about abortion.

Yeah, I've noticed the same thing.

BTW, I'm a woman too. :)

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 06:33 AM
I really don't care if people want to abort themselves... I just want to go about things in a constitutional way

allyinoh
09-29-2007, 06:33 AM
I am a little late to the conversation but I am a female who most definitely supports Ron Paul. In my meetup group I would have to say that it's almost equal.

I think the biggest thing is that women tend to be less into politics than men. That's probably the biggest reason, I think anyway, that there are more men supporters. I think the whole pro-life/pro-abortion issue really isn't the dealbreaker. When I talk to females about him that issue doesn't come up and they are still interested in him. (this is just my experience though)

For example, before I met my husband, I didn't even know talk radio existed. I met him and learned about Rush Limbaugh. (Whom I no longer listen to!) If I go and poll 20 of my girl friends, about 20 of them would not know any political question or even know that talk radio exists.

I think we need to figure out a way to draw women of all ages to politics. Last night I talked with two female coworkers. One said, "I'm a raging liberal." I gave her a Ron Paul slim jim and told her to look up his issues and don't let the "conservative" or "Republican" deter her from reading into him. She said she would look into him and see what he's about.

But like I said before, I don't think it has as much to do with the abortion issue as it does that women tend to be less into politics than men.

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 06:35 AM
Women vote with emotion...more than men ;) not all the time

Oh bull. :rolleyes:

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 06:37 AM
Oh bull. :rolleyes:

I did say "not all the time" lol if women are "emotional creatures," wouldn't it be a logical assumption?

btw.. I'm referring to the women that don't like Ron Paul lol

Thunderbolt
09-29-2007, 06:37 AM
,,,

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 06:40 AM
I guess you could allow natonwide abortion rights based on the 9th amendment?

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

hmm. But it's not clear as the 2nd amendment

Corydoras
09-29-2007, 06:40 AM
if you have some illness that prevents you from leaving the state, but would kill you if you got pregnant, then the law in that state would make it a death sentence if you got raped or mistakenly pregnant.

If someone knows she has an illness that she thinks will kill her if she gets pregnant, why doesn't she just get sterilized? Now it can be done in a fast, cheap non-surgical no-needles procedure where the tubes are plugged instead of tied.

Ron Paul said that in his own practice, he never encountered a case where a woman had to have an abortion to save her life.

Thunderbolt
09-29-2007, 06:43 AM
,,,

allyinoh
09-29-2007, 06:44 AM
I just don't understand how our world got to the point where we think it's okay to just dispose of an unborn child like it's yesterday's trash?

I am a big, BIG supporter of self responsibility. If you don't want to take the chance of getting pregnant, don't have sex. If you know that 1. I can have sex. 2. If I have sex I could get pregnant. 3. If I have sex I could possibly get an STD. and you go and have sex and 2 or 3 happens, I don't feel sorry for you and I think you should step up and take responsibility.

If you don't want to accept responsibility for your actions, don't do those actions. Plain and simple. Don't open your legs, keep them shut, and you won't have to be forced with the decision to get rid of your unborn child.

Thunderbolt
09-29-2007, 06:46 AM
,,,

Thunderbolt
09-29-2007, 06:47 AM
,,,

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 06:49 AM
you're challening the right of state's to decide based on your interpretation of the 9th amendment? yes?

Thunderbolt
09-29-2007, 06:51 AM
,,,

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 06:53 AM
And why do women have to be denied sex but not men? Why aren't you punishing men for the act of unwanted children? Why punish women only? You seem to be under the assumption that a woman's life is not as important as a man's.

hmm I don't advocate this.

Thunderbolt
09-29-2007, 06:53 AM
,,,,

Thunderbolt
09-29-2007, 06:54 AM
[,,,

allyinoh
09-29-2007, 06:54 AM
What if you are raped?

Give the baby up for adoption. Why would you punish the child for the father's wrong doing?

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 06:55 AM
Yes, The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Such as the right to be free of a parasite.

ok. I'll agree with you. You have a point. I am pro choice, even though I'm not a fan of the practice, I just wasn't aware of any constitutional rights to it. I promise you, if I'm ever elected to any office, I'll try to swing it ;)

allyinoh
09-29-2007, 06:57 AM
And why do women have to be denied sex but not men? Why aren't you punishing men for the act of unwanted children? Why punish women only? You seem to be under the assumption that a woman's life is not as important as a man's.

Just because I said don't open your legs doesn't mean I mean just women. I think men should not have sex either if they aren't willing to take responsibility for their child if that should happen and the girl gets pregnant.

So no, I am not saying only women should be "denied" sex. I'm saying that if men and women do not want to have the possibility of taking responsibility for what can come with sex, then they don't need to have it.

No, I am not saying a woman's life is not as important as a males, I'm saying that ultimately the decision to have an abortion rests on the female.

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 06:58 AM
Nothing is going to be perfect. There are down sides to each way. ie. having states decide the penalties, if any, for abortion vs. the federal government dictate a one-for-all policy.

For me, when I really think about whether it's best to handle an issue at the state or federal level, 9 times out of 10, it ends with me that I'd rather have the decision made at the state level. At least at this level, we have much more influence over the decision that is made and even though it might be hard, we do have the opportunity to move somewhere else, if we just don't think we can live with it. If the decision is made at the federal level, our 1 little vote doesn't have much influence and if the decision made is one we absolutely detest, you have to leave the country entirely to try to get away from the all encompassing nature of the decision.

So, I'm for leaving most decisions up to the states, because otherwise we will have to be willing to live with those big government federal decisions that we do not like, as well as with the ones we do. I believe in the old saying... keep your friends close and your enemies closer. The closer to us the decisions are made, the more influence we will have on the outcome.

It's not perfect, but there was a good reason for the way the Founding Fathers set up every piece of our government and why most of the power was left with the states and the people. It helps me to go review those reasons sometimes, as it usually clears things up for me a lot. This is a book I've found very helpful in that effort:
http://www.amazon.com/Making-America-Substance-Meaning-Constitution/dp/0880800178/ref=sr_1_2/103-5686249-0007802?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191070940&sr=8-2

Thunderbolt
09-29-2007, 06:59 AM
///

allyinoh
09-29-2007, 07:00 AM
///


You can't delete posts? lol

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 07:01 AM
You can't delete posts? lol

no

allyinoh
09-29-2007, 07:01 AM
Nothing is going to be perfect. There are down sides to each way. ie. having states decide the penalties, if any, for abortion vs. the federal government dictate a one-for-all policy.

For me, when I really think about whether it's best to handle an issue at the state or federal level, 9 times out of 10, it ends with me that I'd rather have the decision made at the state. At least at this level, we have much more influence over the decision that is made and even though it might be hard, we do have the opportunity to move somewhere else, if we just don't think we can live with it. If the decision is made at the federal level, our 1 little vote doesn't have much influence and if the decision made is one we absolutely detest, you have to leave the country entirely to try to get away from the all encompassing nature of the decision.

So, I'm for leaving most decisions up to the states, because otherwise we will have to be willing to live with those big government federal decisions that we do not like, as well as with the ones we do. I believe in the old saying... keep your friends close and your enemies closer. The closer to us the decisions are made, the more influence we will have on the outcome.



I agree with you. Although I am 100% pro-life, I still believe this is an issue for the state level to decide.

Thunderbolt
09-29-2007, 07:04 AM
no

roflmao

Thunderbolt
09-29-2007, 07:06 AM
,,,

Corydoras
09-29-2007, 07:08 AM
All operations are dangerous and sending a woman into early menopause is a nightmare.

YOU get some facts here about what is required when a woman reasonably takes precautions to protect herself.

Blocking or tying the fallopian tubes does NOT send a woman into menopause.

It's like the way vasectomy does not remove testicles. Sterilization does not remove the ovaries.

And it does NOT require an operation:
http://essure.com/Home/Understanding/WhatisEssure/tabid/55/Default.aspx

allyinoh
09-29-2007, 07:12 AM
Why punish the mother for being a victim?

So the mother, whom is raped (which this case scenario rarely happens) and becomes pregnant, is going to be punished by carrying the baby and giving the baby up, the baby she doesn't want, giving it up to one of the thousands of families that are waiting to adopt a baby because they can't have one?

I don't know, I don't like arguing about abortion because people just have their own views and it's hard to change or persuade those views but I just don't see how a mother who does not want a baby giving that baby away to someone who does want one is punishing the mother?

Because she has to go through carrying the baby and delivery? What a small price to pay for a baby to have the life that is granted to it in the Constitution.

I'm with Ron Paul when he says the Constitution grants us the right to life and that goes for unborn babies as well.


(I don't want to create enemies on here so I'm going to withdrawal because you all are so nice and I don't want to get anyone mad or anything like that but if you'd like to discuss it further you are more welcome to PM me.)

allyinoh
09-29-2007, 07:15 AM
Does it make sense that the mother is a victim so she makes the baby a victim as well? I mean, babies don't choose to be born.

Really for me it all goes back to the fact that people need to take responsibility for their actions.

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 07:18 AM
If it wasn't for the fact that fetuses are living beings, I think we would all agree that it's the mother's choice.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 07:21 AM
well, what a woman does in this regard doesn't affect us, so why should we care in the first place??

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 07:23 AM
Why punish the mother for being a victim?

This is just my personal belief, but I don't see why circumstances such as rape cannot be handled with the morning after pill. I know some won't like that, but it makes sense to me.

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 07:24 AM
well, what a woman does in this regard doesn't affect us, so why should we care in the first place??

What regard are you talking about? Having an abortion? If that is what you're talking about, I guess the answer would be similar to why I would care if you shot your neighbor dead.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 07:24 AM
What regard are you talking about? Having an abortion?

yeah

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 07:28 AM
see my post above.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 07:30 AM
What regard are you talking about? Having an abortion? If that is what you're talking about, I guess the answer would be similar to why I would care if you shot your neighbor dead.

Well, that's because no one disputes murder... MURDER IS BAD! That's universal. Abortion is controversal..

then again... what if we legalize murder? That'd make everything interesting. Also, libertarianism is based around individual rights, it is debatable if a fetus is an individual, it is not debated that an individual is an individual lol

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 07:33 AM
Well, that's because no one disputes murder... MURDER IS BAD! That's universal. Abortion is controversal..



Well, but that is the issue. A lot of people believe that abortion is murder. In the same light that driving your children into a lake and drowining them as Susan Smith did, is murder.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 07:33 AM
libertarianism is based around individual rights, it is debatable if a fetus is an individual, it is not debated if an individual is an individual lol

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 07:34 AM
This is the reason that this decision should be left up to the states.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 07:34 AM
This is the reason that this decision should be left up to the states.

what about the 9th amendment?

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 07:34 AM
libertarianism is based around individual rights, it is debatable if a fetus is an individual, it is not debated if an individual is an individual lol

What if the fetus can live outside of the womb? Is it an individual then, in your eyes?

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 07:37 AM
what about the 9th amendment?

There is no right to murder.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 07:39 AM
There is no right to murder.

ugh.. I'm back to leaving it to the states. what a head ache lol libertarianism is about maximum personal liberties, so why hold out on one issue?

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 07:39 AM
To me, the issue is not one of morality. It is at what point the fetus should be considered a living being and thus, have it's own right to life. I personally don't know that answer. In my mind though, it is long before the baby is born, because babies can be born prematurely and are all the time, and live a normal life.

When's the cutoff point? I honestly do not know.

Like I said earlier, if a living being wasn't involved, it would be a no-brainer for me. In that case, the government shouldn't have any business in it at all.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 07:41 AM
To me, the issue is not one of morality. It is at what point the fetus should be considered a living being and thus, have it's own right to life. I personally don't know that answer. In my mind though, it is long before the baby is born, because babies can be born prematurely and are all the time, and live a normal life.

When's the cutoff point? I honestly do not know.

but to say.. NO YOU CAN'T... no woman ENJOYS abortion, there are no "serial abortists"

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 07:45 AM
but to say.. NO YOU CAN'T... no woman ENJOYS abortion, there are no "serial abortists"

No woman enjoys having an abortion, but there sure are some women who can't seem to figure out what they're doing that is causing them to get pregnant. Because there are more than a few women who have had multiple abortions. :rolleyes:

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 07:46 AM
Maybe not, but there sure are some women who can't seem to figure out what they're doing that is causing them to get pregnant. Because there are more than a few women who have had multiple abortions. :rolleyes:

but don't abortions decrease your chances of getting pregnant again? my ex gf told me that.

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 07:47 AM
In this day and age with all the different methods available for birth control, that's more than a little stupid.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 07:48 AM
In this day and age with all the different methods available for birth control, that's more than a little stupid.

ah well.... if you are holding something from the edge of a cliff, will you be liable for murder if you let go?

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 07:49 AM
but don't abortions decrease your chances of getting pregnant again? my ex gf told me that.

Supposedly, it can. But that certainly is not the case with everyone.

Corydoras
09-29-2007, 07:49 AM
but don't abortions decrease your chances of getting pregnant again? my ex gf told me that.

They might, if you have borderline fertility, but not enough to count on. If you have normal fertility, they don't, not at all. There's a remarkable number of women who have had three or more abortions.

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 07:50 AM
ah well.... if you are holding something from the edge of a cliff, will you be liable for murder if you let go?

Well, yes..... if that "something" is a human being. doh. :)

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 07:52 AM
Well, yes..... if that "something" is a human being. doh. :)

lol.. I meant someone ha yes? if you just decide to let go? murder?

BW4Paul
09-29-2007, 07:53 AM
Another female for RP here!


ah well.... if you are holding something from the edge of a cliff, will you be liable for murder if you let go?
Let me hold you over the edge of a cliff, and then ask me that question again. :o

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 07:53 AM
Let me get this straight. You are asking me if you will be liable for murder if you drop a human being off the edge of a cliff???

Answer: YES

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 07:54 AM
Let me get this straight. You are asking me if you will be liable for murder if you drop a human being off the edge of a cliff???

Answer: YES

no... if he, let's say, falls off, but grabs your hand, are you liable if you willfully let go?

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 07:55 AM
Yes. "Willfully" being the key word here.

Perhaps you intended to add the caveat that if he didn't, he would also fall? Because if you did, that would change the whole ball game.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 07:56 AM
Yes.

isn't that collectivist thought? lol "if a man falls, another must lift him up"

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 07:59 AM
Well... this is all I'm saying here: a woman can abort herself if she wanted, so why ban abortion? It could endanger her life. And what would the penalty be for having an "illegal abortion"? I just don't get it.. there's so many ways a woman can abort the fetus lol

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 08:00 AM
There are a lot of ways that anyone can kill another human being. Does that fact make it any less of a murder?

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 08:01 AM
There are a lot of ways that anyone can kill another human being. Does that fact make it any less of a murder?

but a fetus is nothing/.... it doesn't even think. My first memory was when I was like...3 or 4

Corydoras
09-29-2007, 08:03 AM
but a fetus is nothing/.... it doesn't even think. My first memory was when I was like...3 or 4

So if someone kills you while you are sleeping or on a memory-suppressing drug, it's not a murder.
Right.
I hope you never have to undergo general anesthesia.

My first memories happen to be from before I was four months old. Not only was I a baby, but they were from a relative's house where my family lived until I was four months old, and when I visited the house later in my childhood, the room where my memory was had been repainted, and I found out later that its previous color was the one I remembered.

But really, it's foolish to say that you have no moral status if you can't remember, or that you can't think if you don't remember.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 08:05 AM
So if someone kills you while you are sleeping or on a memory-suppressing drug, it's not a murder.
Right.

lol. this is too much. What do you propose? murder charges for abortion? absurd

BW4Paul
09-29-2007, 08:05 AM
but a fetus is nothing/.... it doesn't even think. My first memory was when I was like...3 or 4
Just an FYI from a medical student. This is totally incorrect. Memory =/= thought.

Fetal brain waves are first measurable at 4 weeks. By 8-12 weeks the fetus is not only has a certain level of awareness of the world around him, but can act upon it by doing things such as jumping on the placenta as a "trampoline" and playing with the umbilical cord like a toy. We have 4-D ultrasound videos showing these things to be true. Also, fetuses are well-known to try to "get away" during an abortion by swiming away from the cuvette and kicking their arms and legs wildly as the knife sinks into their bodies.

Just saying.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 08:06 AM
Just an FYI from a medical student. THis is totally incorrect. Memory =/= thought.

Fetal brain waves are first measurable at 4 weeks. By 8-12 weeks the fetus is not only aware of the world around him, but can act upon it by doing things such as jumping on the placenta as a "trampoline" and playing with the umbilical cord like a toy. Also, fetuses are well-known to try to "get away" during an abortion by swiming away from the cuvette and kicking their arms and legs wildly as the knife sinks into their bodies.

Just saying.

yes, but I just didn't realize I was alive until that age. So what would have happened if I was aborted? I didn't know I was alive, so nothing?

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 08:06 AM
isn't that collectivist thought? lol "if a man falls, another must lift him up"

Let me ask you this. Let's say you were a passenger on an airplane and that airplane was in flight. Both the pilot and the co-pilot decide to exercise their individual rights to quit their jobs, mid-flight and decide to no longer fly the plane. The plane subsequently crashes and everyone dies.

Are they guilty of murder?

BW4Paul
09-29-2007, 08:07 AM
yes, but I just didn't realize I was alive until that age. So what would have happened if I was aborted? I didn't know I was alive, so nothing?
Where do human rights come from under our Constitution?

Bradley in DC
09-29-2007, 08:07 AM
If only the rabid right to lifer's weren't so concerned with killing Iraqis.

Way out of line: you'll find many are consistently pro-life.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 08:08 AM
Where do human rights come from under our Constitution?

I'm pretty much an atheist

BW4Paul
09-29-2007, 08:08 AM
Way out of line: you'll find many are consistently pro-life.
Yes-- like those of us on this site.

BW4Paul
09-29-2007, 08:09 AM
I'm pretty much an atheist
Just answer the question.

Besides, I'm more or less agnostic. If DNA is my Creator, then so be it-- the statement holds. The main thing is that human rights aren't determined by other humans.

Corydoras
09-29-2007, 08:09 AM
What do you propose? murder charges for abortion?

Yes.

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 08:10 AM
Just an FYI from a medical student. This is totally incorrect. Memory =/= thought.

Fetal brain waves are first measurable at 4 weeks. By 8-12 weeks the fetus is not only has a certain level of awareness of the world around him, but can act upon it by doing things such as jumping on the placenta as a "trampoline" and playing with the umbilical cord like a toy. We have 4-D ultrasound videos showing these things to be true. Also, fetuses are well-known to try to "get away" during an abortion by swiming away from the cuvette and kicking their arms and legs wildly as the knife sinks into their bodies.

Just saying.

OMG, that is horrible!! :(

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 08:11 AM
Yes.

Wow. I have to stand for abortion rights, I'm sorry. It's what libertarianism is all about, especially American libertarianism.

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 08:13 AM
Libertarianism is about the right to kill an unborn baby? Wow. I didn't know that. Are you sure about that?

DocGrimes
09-29-2007, 08:13 AM
Dunno. I think maybe too many women get caught up in the "free" part of "freedom." As in, free stuff they think the gov't should be giving to them and other interest groups. :confused:

:confused: hmm... this is a generalization but, are perhaps many woman looking to the government for the 'support' and 'protection' that was once expected of men?

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 08:13 AM
Libertarianism is about the right to kill an unborn baby? Wow. I didn't know that.

maximum personal liberties

Corydoras
09-29-2007, 08:13 AM
http://www.layyous.com/ultasound/ultrasound_video.htm
No abortion movies here. Just some impressive motion pics.

BW4Paul
09-29-2007, 08:14 AM
OMG, that is horrible!! :(

Yes. I would encourage you to do your own research on this. Good places to go include:
www.abort73.com (can be graphic in parts, but they warn you ahead of time)
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-95845318.html (not graphic)
http://www.layyous.com/ultasound/ultrasound_video.htm (not graphic)
http://www.abortionno.org/ (very, very graphic)

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 08:16 AM
maximum personal liberties

Libertarianism is about individual liberty.

Where exactly does the unborn child's liberty come into play here? Because that is the issue, it seems to me.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 08:17 AM
I don't like the practice of abortion, but to charge a woman for murder over an abortion? That's too much. There are NO "serial abortionists" that's just unheard of... "ohhh I can't wait to kill my unborn baby hehehe" cmon now lol

BW4Paul
09-29-2007, 08:18 AM
Wow. I have to stand for abortion rights, I'm sorry. It's what libertarianism is all about, especially American libertarianism.
"Abortion rights" are predicated on the notion that one human (the mother) confers rights onto another human (her fetus) and that if she does not cofer these rights, her fetus has no right to life. Since I reject the notion that one human can ever confer rights onto another, I must necessarily reject abortion. What say you?

Hope
09-29-2007, 08:19 AM
I really think most people who believe that an early term foetus is really "alive" haven't taken a close look at science. And as someone else said, how could you even enforce anti-abortion laws? How can you prove if a miscarriage was intentional or not? A woman's body actually intentionally has early term abortions about half the time. And you'd end up with a whole lot of back alley abortions on top of everything else. It's just not practical.

Here in western NC, many pro-life groups actually work together with abortion clinics. They realize that simply making a law against abortion isn't ever going to the magic solution. They work toward the mantra of having abortions safe, legal and rare.

In any case, like I've said before, all but one candidate (Rudy) on the Republican stage is more aggressively pro-life than Ron Paul, yet they don't seem to have the same problem garnering female supporters. So if it isn't abortion, why does Ron Paul's message not reach as many women as it does men? I don't think political apathy applies, for the same reason above. The macro/micro argument is a good one, but I think personal liberty and some of RP's other positions (health supplements and such) are pretty micro. Hm.

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 08:19 AM
I don't like the practice of abortion, but to charge a woman for murder over an abortion? That's too much. There are NO "serial abortionists" that's just unheard of... "ohhh I can't wait to kill my unborn baby hehehe" cmon now lol

So, if you only murder occasionally and don't make a habit of it, it's ok?

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 08:20 AM
"Abortion rights" are predicated on the notion that one human (the mother) confers rights onto another human (her fetus) and that if she does not cofer these rights, her fetus has no right to life. Since I reject the notion that one human can ever confer rights onto another, I must necessarily reject abortion. What say you?

I say.... the fetus is not a citizen

BW4Paul
09-29-2007, 08:22 AM
I really think most people who believe that an early term foetus is really "alive" haven't taken a close look at science.
Um, I'm a medical student who just finished embryology. Trust me that this statement is just silly. I'll be happy to send you my textbooks if you like, but none of our instructors have ever suggested that the fetus is not alive-- don't forget that we can first detect a heartbeat between 18-24 days after implantation (depends on your sourse). This would be only a week or two after the woman misses her period.

Now mind you that there are plenty of pro-choice people in my class-- but they freely admit that they are killing the fetus.

BW4Paul
09-29-2007, 08:23 AM
I say.... the fetus is not a citizen
We're not talking about citizenship (illegal immigrants aren't citizens either). We're talking about human rights.

I ask again-- where do human rights come from?

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 08:24 AM
Um, I'm a medical student who just finished embryology. Just me that this statement is just silly. I'll be happy to send you my textbooks if you like, but none of our instructors have ever suggested that the fetus is not alive-- don't forget that we can first detect a heartbeat between 18-24 days after implantation (depends on your course). This would be only a week or two after the woman misses her period.

Now mind you that there are plenty of pro-choice people in my class-- but they freely admit that they are killing the fetus.

what about the fetuses that get absorbed by the woman? I forget what it's called, but I saw it on a show, a fetus just was absorbed by the woman's body... involuntary murder? LOL

BW4Paul
09-29-2007, 08:25 AM
what about the fetuses that get absorbed by the woman? I forget what it's called, but I saw it on a show, a fetus just was absorbed by the woman's body... involuntary murder? LOL
Obviously not on the "involuntary murder" charge, and you're dodging my question:

Where do human rights come from?

Hope
09-29-2007, 08:26 AM
Um, I'm a medical student who just finished embryology. Trust me that this statement is just silly. I'll be happy to send you my textbooks if you like, but none of our instructors have ever suggested that the fetus is not alive-- don't forget that we can first detect a heartbeat between 18-24 days after implantation (depends on your sourse). This would be only a week or two after the woman misses her period.

Now mind you that there are plenty of pro-choice people in my class-- but they freely admit that they are killing the fetus.

Forgive me, by "alive" I meant a sentient being that more closely resembles a human than not. Mice have all the basic anatomy we do, including the often-cited heartbeat -- doesn't mean it should be considered murder if I flush one down the toilet.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 08:26 AM
Obviously not on the "involuntary murder" charge, and you're dodging my question:

Where do human rights come from?

society, and the ability to defend oneself

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 08:27 AM
I say.... the fetus is not a citizen

Oh, so now you've added the caveat that one has to be ordained by government as a "citizen", before that being has a right to life?

So, does that make it alright for me to murder those in our country here with green cards? Or maybe those just here on vacation. Good exchange rates these days, you know.

BW4Paul
09-29-2007, 08:28 AM
Forgive me, by "alive" I meant a sentient being that more closely resembles a human than not. Mice have all the basic anatomy we do, including the often-cited heartbeat -- doesn't mean it should be considered murder if I flush one down the toilet.
Well, the mouse is certainly alive, isn't it? We don't call it murder because a mouse isn't human. So if you flush it down the toilet it's "mouse killing."

Is a fetus human?

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 08:29 AM
Oh, so now you've added the caveat that one has to be ordained by government as a "citizen", before that being has a right to life?

So, does that make it alright for me to murder those in our country here with green cards? Or maybe those just here on vacation. Good exchange rates these days, you know.

lol. do you know what utilitarianism is? let's throw this in the mix. Does the US need a boom in babies? Nope...

does Russia? Yes.

problem solved

BW4Paul
09-29-2007, 08:30 AM
society, and the ability to defend oneself
SOCIETY?!?!?!?! Are you freaking KIDDING me?!?!?!
Maybe you might want to rethink that answer for a second...

As for the ability to defend oneself, that would be one human setting up requirements for another to fill. So that is, again, another way of saying "society."

Good lord, Big Brother Joseph, you need to start thinking this stuff through.

Corydoras
09-29-2007, 08:30 AM
what about the fetuses that get absorbed by the woman? I forget what it's called, but I saw it on a show, a fetus just was absorbed by the woman's body... involuntary murder? LOL

Fetus papyraceus. I've seen one in person, from a fetal reduction procedure. They're perfectly recognizable fetuses. The thing about being "absorbed" by the woman's body is an outright lie-- what really happens is that the fetus gets encapsulated by the placental tissues.

A natural termination of pregnancy (such as a miscarriage) is an ACCIDENT.

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 08:30 AM
society, and the ability to defend oneself

Wait a minute. You think your rights come from "society"? Surely you don't mean that, because if you do that goes against the whole concept of individual liberty.

Hope
09-29-2007, 08:31 AM
Well, the mouse is certainly alive, isn't it? We don't call it murder because a mouse isn't human. So if you flush it down the toilet it's "mouse killing."

Is a fetus human?

That's what I'm saying. A fetus isn't human. Not yet, anyway.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 08:31 AM
SOCIETY?!?!?!?! Are you freaking KIDDING me?!?!?!
Maybe you might want to rethink that answer for a second...

As for the ability to defend oneself, that would be one human setting up requirements for another to fill. So that is, again, another way of saying "society."

Good lord, Big Brother Joseph, you need to start thinking this stuff through.

are you telling me that the police are not protecting you? the weak are protected

BW4Paul
09-29-2007, 08:31 AM
lol. do you know what utilitarianism is? let's throw this in the mix. Does the US need a boom in babies? Nope...

does Russia? Yes.

problem solved
So the needs of the society come before the needs of the human fetuses within it, eh?

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 08:32 AM
Wait a minute. You think your rights come from "society"? Surely you don't mean that, because if you do that goes against the whole concept of individual liberty.

where do police officers come from?

BW4Paul
09-29-2007, 08:32 AM
That's what I'm saying. A fetus isn't human. Not yet, anyway.
If I take a sample of the fetus's DNA and analyze it, what species will the fetus be?

BW4Paul
09-29-2007, 08:33 AM
where do police officers come from?
Police protect the State. Not individual liberty. Just look around you- both in this country and abroad- to see the truth of this.

Corydoras
09-29-2007, 08:34 AM
society, and the ability to defend oneself

One of Ron Paul's big campaign points is that human rights come from God and NOT from society. Of course you can disagree with him on that, but it's pretty striking that you are supporting someone you disagree with on such a basic level.

How is it that you think you are a libertarian rather than an anarchist, by the way?

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 08:34 AM
Police protect the State. Not individual liberty. Just look around you- both in this country and abroad- to see the truth of this.

lol. if you assault someone, why do they intervene? to protect the state? wow

Corydoras
09-29-2007, 08:34 AM
That's what I'm saying. A fetus isn't human. Not yet, anyway.

What is it, then, a mouse?

Hope
09-29-2007, 08:35 AM
If I take a sample of the fetus's DNA and analyze it, what species will the fetus be?

:rolleyes: Oh yes, let's completely ignore the physical circumstances the subject is in. Hold up a zygote in a petri dish for me and tell me it is absolutely no different than a fully developed human being. While we're at it, sperm have DNA, does that make them a viable human beings?

Corydoras
09-29-2007, 08:35 AM
lol. if you assault someone, why do they intervene? to protect the state? wow

Why do YOU think they intervene? You're pretty naive about police if you think they don't pick and choose who to protect and under what circumstances they will.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 08:36 AM
One of Ron Paul's big campaign points is that human rights come from God and NOT from society. Of course you can disagree with him on that, but it's pretty striking that you are supporting someone you disagree with on such a basic level.

How is it that you think you are a libertarian rather than an anarchist, by the way?

why? because I don't want to be cross killers, so I think a minarchy is viable. I'm an atheist, so I can't support Ron Paul? lol. Look... without police officers, who is going to protect you? yes, yourself.... your friends, your family, your "allies"

BW4Paul
09-29-2007, 08:36 AM
lol. if you assault someone, why do they intervene? to protect the state? wow
The laws of the State are that murder is a crime. The police are protecting the State-- it's just that, lucky for you, they're protecting yout liberty while they're at it.

The laws of the State are also that pot use is a crime, that prostitution is a crime, and that having an unregistered gun in your home is a crime. When the police enforce these laws, they are protecting the State at the expense of your individual liberty.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 08:36 AM
Why do YOU think they intervene? You're pretty naive about police if you think they don't pick and choose who to protect and under what circumstances they will.

they are making a living

Corydoras
09-29-2007, 08:36 AM
While we're at it, sperm have DNA, does that make them a viable human beings?

Sperm have only half the chromosomes that human beings do. They're not human beings.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 08:37 AM
The laws of the State are that murder is a crime. The police are protecting the State-- it's just that, lucky for you, they're protecting yout liberty while they're at it.

The laws of the State are also that pot use is a crime, that prostitution is a crime, and that having an unregistered gun in your home is a crime. When the police enforce these laws, they are protecting the State at the expense of your individual liberty.

exactly. that's why I said society... the American government is sort of protecting us, no? they're locking up criminals, no?

Hope
09-29-2007, 08:38 AM
Sperm have only half the chromosomes that human beings do. They're not human beings.

There are people out there without the full 46 chromosomes due to natural mutations. Are they not human beings?

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 08:40 AM
Joseph, I think you should get yourself over to www.mises.org and www.fee.org and start reading.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 08:40 AM
I hope you know that many libertarians ARE utilitarians. Example? the libertarians that don't want nuclear weapons in the hands of individuals, that's utilitarianism... the good of society

Corydoras
09-29-2007, 08:42 AM
There are people out there without the full 46 chromosomes due to natural mutations. Are they not human beings?

There isn't anyone out there with half a set of chromosomes. What's your all-inclusive list of characteristics someone MUST have in order to be a human being?

Corydoras
09-29-2007, 08:43 AM
the American government is sort of protecting us, no? they're locking up criminals, no?

Your naivete is touching.
:o

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 08:43 AM
Joseph, I think you should get yourself over to www.mises.org and www.fee.org and start reading.

Look, who do you call when someone robs you? 911 right LOL

Where do we get our rights from? Well, the government is allowing us, they can crack down on it at ANYTIME.. this is why I support the 2nd amendment, maybe you should do some reading ;)

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 08:44 AM
lol. do you know what utilitarianism is? let's throw this in the mix. Does the US need a boom in babies? Nope...

And you are basing this on, what exactly? Our birth rates have dramatically decreased over the years. That is why we're fed the line about needing all the illegal aliens. Or did you forget?



does Russia? Yes.

problem solved

I'm not getting your point. Are you now saying that the babies should be born and then shipped to Russia, or what exactly?

Corydoras
09-29-2007, 08:45 AM
What I think is sickening is how this thread started out being about WOMEN and it's turned into being about women's UTERUSES.

A woman is more than her abdominal organs.

BW4Paul
09-29-2007, 08:45 AM
:rolleyes: Oh yes, let's completely ignore the physical circumstances the subject is in. Hold up a zygote in a petri dish for me and tell me it is absolutely no different than a fully developed human being. While we're at it, sperm have DNA, does that make them a viable human beings?
Well, as you note above, it's all about development, isn't it? A zygote is at the very dawn of its development, while a fully formed human has completed much of its development. So they are in two different life stages. But how does age or development progress relate to whether or not something is human? Genus and species are conferred by an organism's genetic compliment.

Besides, when we talk about abortion, we're not talking about zygotes. The zygotic state only lasts for ~the first week after fertilization. Since a woman's won't miss her period for ~2 weeks after fertilization, she won't even know that there is a zygote within her to abort.

Surgical abortions are generally performed at no less than 7 weeks, and more generally 8-12 weeks. This is because it is helpful to the abortionist for the fetal body to be large enough to "pin down" and cut apart properly. But this time, of course, we have heartbeat, brainwaves, the presence of all bodily organs (8 wks), etc.

Sperm do not have a complete set of human DNA. A s

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 08:45 AM
Your naivete is touching.
:o

your ad hominem "argument" is a good indicator of your character

Corydoras
09-29-2007, 08:48 AM
your ad hominem "argument" is a good indicator of your character

It's not an argument. It's an assertion.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 08:49 AM
It's not an argument. It's an assertion.

That's what you resort to when you unable to argue.

BW4Paul
09-29-2007, 08:49 AM
your ad hominem "argument" is a good indicator of your character
Joseph, I think what we're all saying is that for someone who calls himself a Libertarian, you seem to put an awful lot of stock in the authority of the State and of Society in determining the rights of individuals. In fact, I would argue that if you truly believe that rights come from the State/Society, than you cannot be called either a Libertarian or a libertarian, since the concept of Natural Rights sits at the core of L/libertarianism.

Just my $0.02.

Corydoras
09-29-2007, 08:50 AM
That's what you resort to when you unable to argue.

You're making an assertion, too.
:rolleyes:

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 08:51 AM
We have our supreme rights from the constitution.... but does this mean the government is unable to crack down on us? unable to turn the US into a dictatorship? I'm an atheist, so "god" doesn't exist, therefore, no right comes from any "creator" sorry

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 08:51 AM
Look, who do you call when someone robs you? 911 right LOL

Where do we get our rights from? Well, the government is allowing us, they can crack down on it at ANYTIME.. this is why I support the 2nd amendment, maybe you should do some reading ;)

OMG, Joseph. Do you not understand the importance of our rights coming from our Creator? This isn't about religion. If our rights come from a supreme being, that means we own our rights. They did not come from government. What government did not grant us, they cannot take away. If you are willing to concede that your rights came from government, then you have accepted that they can take them away from you. This is the major difference between the U.S. Constitution and the U.N. Charter and it is CRITICAL that you understand this.

Have you forgotten the whole thing about how the people were the ones where most of the power was to reside. ie.. "self government"? Here's an idea.... Have you ever listened to Michael Badnarik's Constitution class? It's much better in person, but you can watch it online. It's pretty good.

allyinoh
09-29-2007, 08:52 AM
Look, who do you call when someone robs you? 911 right LOL

Where do we get our rights from? Well, the government is allowing us, they can crack down on it at ANYTIME.. this is why I support the 2nd amendment, maybe you should do some reading ;)

The question was not who "protects" us. The question was where do our rights come from..

I specifically remember something about inalienable rights from our Creator... The government is to SECURE, DEFEND, and PROTECT our rights they don't GIVE us our rights...

That's scary that people believe our government or society gives us our rights.

But what do I know.. ;)

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 08:52 AM
Libertarianism is not limited to the US. Ever spoken to any foreign libertarians? They do not hold your views on where our rights come from.

allyinoh
09-29-2007, 08:53 AM
OMG, Joseph. Do you not understand the importance of our rights coming from our Creator? This isn't about religion. If our rights come from a supreme being, that means we own our rights. They did not come from government. What government did not grant us, they cannot take away. If you are willing to concede that your rights came from government, then you have accepted that they can take them away from you. This is the major difference between the U.S. Constitution and the U.N. Charter and it is CRITICAL that you understand this.

Have you forgotten the whole thing about how the people were the ones where most of the power was to reside. ie.. "self government"? Here's an idea.... Have you ever listened to Michael Badnarik's Constitution class? It's much better in person, but you can watch it online. It's pretty good.

Well said, well said! =)

Corydoras
09-29-2007, 08:53 AM
We have our supreme rights from the constitution.... but does this mean the government is unable to crack down on us? unable to turn the US into a dictatorship? I'm an atheist, so "god" doesn't exist, therefore, no right comes from any "creator" sorry

We do not have our supreme rights from the constitution.

So you don't believe in natural, non-god-given rights either?

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 08:53 AM
The question was not who "protects" us. The question was where do our rights come from..

I specifically remember something about inalienable rights from our Creator... The government is to SECURE, DEFEND, and PROTECT our rights they don't GIVE us our rights...

That's scary that people believe our government or society gives us our rights.

But what do I know.. ;)

doesn't "give" us our rights... allows us, that's why you need counter balances

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 08:55 AM
We have our supreme rights from the constitution.... but does this mean the government is unable to crack down on us? unable to turn the US into a dictatorship? I'm an atheist, so "god" doesn't exist, therefore, no right comes from any "creator" sorry

No, our rights do NOT come from the Constitution at all. You have that completely wrong. This isn't about religion Joseph. I could care less if you think you got them from the moon fairy or the big boom theory. The point is that your individual rights are your own. They were not conferred to you by government.

Seriously Joseph, what you are describing is not Libertarianism at all. I even know that and I am not a Libertarian.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 08:55 AM
No, our rights do NOT come from the Constitution at all. You have that completely wrong.

Seriously Joseph, what you are describing is not Libertarianism at all. I even know that and I am not a Libertarian.

your interpretation is not mine. I take it in the literal sense.... creator: "The creator god is the divine being that created the universe, according to various traditions and faiths"

allyinoh
09-29-2007, 08:56 AM
doesn't "give" us our rights... allows us, that's why you need counter balances


We don't need to be "allowed" to have rights that are our own.

Try using your logic with other things such as your car. Would it work if I said you own your car but the government allows you to drive it?

Corydoras
09-29-2007, 08:56 AM
So please explain, what makes you think you are a libertarian?

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 08:58 AM
We don't need to be "allowed" to have rights that are our own.

Try using your logic with other things such as your car. Would it work if I said you own your car but the government allows you to drive it?

Why do we need? because our government in the US supposedly represents us. they run the military, the police

Hope
09-29-2007, 08:58 AM
There isn't anyone out there with half a set of chromosomes. What's your all-inclusive list of characteristics someone MUST have in order to be a human being?

You're missing my point. Genetic mutations aren't what makes someone human.

But to answer your question, my list is pretty short. Anyone with a functioning human brain is sentient.

Before anyone jumps all over me with, "But what about mentally handicapped people?!?"... Low IQ? Sure. Someone who has fluid where their brain should be? No. A zygote? No. The cerebrum develops last in fetuses, in the seventh month of development.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 08:59 AM
So please explain, what makes you think you are a libertarian?

Well, I'm fiscally conservative, free marketeer, and, I believe in maximum personal liberties. I wasn't aware that I was obligated to explain my beliefs to you?

allyinoh
09-29-2007, 08:59 AM
Why do we need? because our government in the US supposedly represents us. they run the military, the police

Let me get this straight, you believe that your rights are not yours and are given to you by gov't or society?

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 09:00 AM
doesn't "give" us our rights... allows us, that's why you need counter balances

No Joseph. Our Founders' told us that WE owned the government. Not the other way around. WE were to be the ones with the power.

You are buying into a dangerous fallacy.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 09:01 AM
Let me get this straight, you believe that your rights are not yours and are given to you by gov't or society?

they are mine... but the government has power. To think that they don't have the power to hurt our liberties is incredibly naive thinking imo

Corydoras
09-29-2007, 09:01 AM
Anyone with a functioning human brain is sentient.

Before anyone jumps all over me with, "But what about mentally handicapped people?!?"... Low IQ? Sure. Someone who has fluid where their brain should be? No. A zygote? No. The cerebrum develops last in fetuses, in the seventh month of development.

Functioning brain or functioning cerebrum?

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 09:02 AM
No Joseph. Our Founders' told us that WE owned the government. Not the other way around. WE were to be the ones with the power.

You are buying into a dangerous fallacy.

Well, if we "own" the government, why does it operate in the status quo?

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 09:02 AM
Here:

http://www.archive.org/details/Michael_Badnarik

Corydoras
09-29-2007, 09:03 AM
Well, I'm fiscally conservative, free marketeer, and, I believe in maximum personal liberties. I wasn't aware that I was obligated to explain my beliefs to you?

You're not obligated to explain your beliefs, but it would be pretty stupid to go onto a forum and not expect to be asked to.

So. Do you believe in any responsibilities as a member of society?

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 09:03 AM
Please don't mistaken opinion for fact.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 09:04 AM
You're not obligated to explain your beliefs, but it would be pretty stupid to go onto a forum and not expect to be asked to.

So. Do you believe in any responsibilities as a member of society?

No.

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 09:04 AM
Well, if we "own" the government, why does it operate in the status quo?

You mean, why are they doing what they are now doing? If that's what you are asking, the answer is because just like you, Americans have forgotten where the power resides and are going along with what is happening like fat, little sheep.

Hope
09-29-2007, 09:05 AM
Functioning brain or functioning cerebrum?

Yes. (And by cerebrum I mean the telencephalon, as most people do, which includes the limbic system, cerebral cortex, basal ganglia, and olfactory bulb.)

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 09:05 AM
You mean, why are they doing what they are now doing? If that's what you are asking, the answer is because just like you, Americans have forgotten where the power resides and are going along with what is happening like fat, little sheep.

just like me? lol. I believe in libertarian values, weather you think so or not. I think a true, free market works

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 09:08 AM
LOL! Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were a fat, little sheep. I worded that badly. But, I do think you have either forgotten, or don't understand that our Founders intended for the majority of the power to be with the people. It's all over their papers. Have you ever read the federalist and anti-federalist papers? They're fascinating. :)

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 09:08 AM
I have to speak like a founding father in order to be a libertarian? HELLO! Libertarianism is not just an American philosophy

Corydoras
09-29-2007, 09:09 AM
Yes. (And by cerebrum I mean the telencephalon, as most people do, which includes the limbic system, cerebral cortex, basal ganglia, and olfactory bulb.)

Function is not a binary on-off thing... you're wading into some very murky waters here, because if a fetus doesn't have a fully functioning brain, you say it's okay to terminate, but if someone in a nursing home bed doesn't have a fully functioning brain, you say it's not okay to terminate. Do you have a bright line here?

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 09:09 AM
Plus, I posted the link to Badnarik's Constitution class above, in case you were interested.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 09:10 AM
Plus, I posted the link to Badnarik's Constitution class above, in case you were interested.

I don't care about America as much as I care about libertarianism.

Hope
09-29-2007, 09:10 AM
Function is not a binary on-off thing... you're wading into some very murky waters here, because if a fetus doesn't have a fully functioning brain, you say it's okay to terminate, but if someone in a nursing home bed doesn't have a fully functioning brain, you say it's not okay to terminate. Do you have a bright line here?

I don't see anything "murky" about either of those hypotheticals.

Corydoras
09-29-2007, 09:10 AM
Well, Joseph, that's a pretty interesting statement, that you have no responsibilities as a member of society. So nobody has any responsibilities to you?

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 09:11 AM
I have to speak like a founding father in order to be a libertarian? HELLO! Libertarianism is not just an American philosophy


True. But the Founding Fathers were classical liberals and that is where Libertarianism got its roots.

No insult intended Joseph, but I never in my life have met a Libertarian who believed that their rights came from government. Seriously. I think that goes against the very foundation of Libertarianism.

Corydoras
09-29-2007, 09:11 AM
I don't see anything "murky" about either of those hypotheticals.

Why not? Where is the bright line?

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 09:11 AM
Well, Joseph, that's a pretty interesting statement, that you have no responsibilities as a member of society. So nobody has any responsibilities to you?

Well, by "responsibilities," you mean, to be a productive member of society? Or to abide by laws?

LibertyEagle
09-29-2007, 09:12 AM
I don't care about America as much as I care about libertarianism.

I think you are enamored with the term, but I don't think you have a grasp of what it means.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 09:13 AM
True. But the Founding Fathers were classical liberals and that is where Libertarianism got its roots.

No insult intended Joseph, but I never in my life have met a Libertarian who believed that their rights came from government. Seriously. I think that goes against the very foundation of Libertarianism.

I do not believe that... I just believe that the government has the POWER to take our liberties away.. I don't think it's right, but it's true, and it's very feasible right now... Does Giuliani ring a bell? ;)

Corydoras
09-29-2007, 09:13 AM
Well, by "responsibilities," you mean, to be a productive member of society? Or to abide by laws?

You can confidently answer "no" for yourself without making this distinction. So answer on the same basis for others. If you do make a distinction, please explain why it makes a difference to others but not to you.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 09:14 AM
I think you are enamored with the term, but I don't think you have a grasp of what it means.

ha ha. okay, here goes:

Libertarianism:

maximum personal liberties
maximum economic liberties
minarchism

Everything else is just.... culture

Corydoras
09-29-2007, 09:14 AM
I just believe that the government has the POWER to take our liberties away.

I believe the discussion was about rights, not about power. Where do your RIGHTS come from? Not your power, your rights.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 09:15 AM
I believe the discussion was about rights, not about power. Where do your RIGHTS come from? Not your power, your rights.

They come from my belief in this philosophy

Corydoras
09-29-2007, 09:16 AM
Everything else is just.... culture

You do not believe culture is worth upholding?

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 09:16 AM
You do not believe culture is worth upholding?

If you want to :D

Corydoras
09-29-2007, 09:17 AM
They come from my belief in this philosophy

So people who do not believe in your philosophy do not have rights?

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 09:17 AM
So people who do not believe in your philosophy do not have rights?

They still do

Corydoras
09-29-2007, 09:18 AM
They still do

And where do THEIR rights come from?

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 09:19 AM
And where do THEIR rights come from?

In the philosophy

Corydoras
09-29-2007, 09:20 AM
So your and others' rights come from your philosophy. In other words, from you.