What is your main issue?

[realtonygoodwin]

What are the one or two most important issues for selecting a candidate to support? The non-negotiables, if you will.

For me:
1. Pro-life is a must
2. Reduce spending

[Blueskies]

1. Cutting spending
2. Disbanding the foreign emprie

[Philhelm]

1. Individual liberty
2. Free market

[BamaAla]

1. Taxes
2. RKBA

[hugolp]

1. Monetary policy (the Fed)
2. The wars.

[Sola_Fide]

1. End the FED (then spending and the wars will HAVE to stop)
2. Restore liberties to the pre-born

[MN Patriot]

Ending the Marxist income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax, such as a 5% sales tax.
End the Fed and return to honest money.

There are no candidates talking about ending the income tax, both old parties view us as the subjects to be exploited to the maximum extent possible, without us complaining too much. Only one candidate talks about ending the Fed.

[Mike4Freedom]

1. The Federal Reserve
2. The Patriot Act

I put these two as my top issues because without a federal reserve it will be a lot harder to spend on our oversees empire. The FED is a huge assault on economic liberty and the patriot act is a huge assault on personal liberty.

[AlexMerced]

1. Monetary Policy
2. Government Guarantees (FDIC, SIPC, PBGC, SLMA, GNMA, etc.)

Many will notice the Foreign Policy is not in my top 2, I do believe if you fix the monetary system it'll force the end of the wars and the embracing of a trade based foreign policy.

[hazek]

FKING MONETARY POLICY, it's the only thing that matters, cause if we don't have free money WE ARE NOT FREE and everything else is almost irrelevant.

[RM918]

1. Dismantling the Empire
2. Competing Currencies.

[dean.engelhardt]

1. Cutting spending
2. Disbanding the foreign emprie

This

[Koz]

Monetary Policy and Foreign Policy

[newbitech]

Monetary Policy permeates just about every issue. From foreign policy to health care to fostering a vibrant economic environment that will bring sound investment, job creation, healthy competition; all of these are sub-issues impacted by failed central economic planning. Beyond that, I believe a small government means less intrusion into my personal life giving me the freedom to make choices that do no impede others from making their own choices. Everyone must be held accountable to the same set of laws. No special privilege for individuals or corporations.

Money and the Rule of Law.

[kpfareal]

1. Anti-Abortion
2. Anti-Empire
3. Anti-Patriot Act
4. Anti-Federal Reserve
5. Anti-Central Planning

[johnrocks]

Foreign policy
Spending

[unklejman]

For federal candidates:
1. Constitutionality

For state/local candidates:
1. Individual liberty

[muzzled dogg]

The fed
The wars

[realtonygoodwin]

1. Anti-Abortion
2. Anti-Empire
3. Anti-Patriot Act
4. Anti-Federal Reserve
5. Anti-Central Planning

5 way tie?

[erowe1]

What are the one or two most important issues for selecting a candidate to support? The non-negotiables, if you will.

For me:
1. Pro-life is a must
2. Reduce spending

Mine are pretty much the same.

[iamse7en]

1. Money
2. War

The two engines of The State.

[speciallyblend]

1) Foreign Policy, the rest fall into place with this etc like spending,taxes
2) Individual Liberty -i think covers many of the bases we support ,even pro-life,failed drug war and much more!!

[speciallyblend]

Monetary Policy permeates just about every issue. From foreign policy to health care to fostering a vibrant economic environment that will bring sound investment, job creation, healthy competition; all of these are sub-issues impacted by failed central economic planning. Beyond that, I believe a small government means less intrusion into my personal life giving me the freedom to make choices that do no impede others from making their own choices. Everyone must be held accountable to the same set of laws. No special privilege for individuals or corporations.

Money and the Rule of Law.

ron paul blimpin

[kpfareal]

5 way tie?

Pretty close. I would say #1 is the real #1, then a 4-way tie from 2-5.

[JK/SEA]

NFL possible strike
Who will win American Idol
and if the Earth will be hit by a GRB.

[ctnjason]

1) promoting a truly free market 100% free of government regulation
2) empire building

[Freedom 4 all]

1. Reduce war spending
2. End drug laws
3. End police abuse
4. Gun rights
5. monetary police

[mello]

Reducing our debt.
Changing our foreign policy.

[Andrew-Austin]

Education. Ending government indoctrination, enabling more fulfilling and effective free market solutions.



1. Money
2. War

The two engines of The State.

I'd say the public school system is also an engine of the state.

[osan]

What are the one or two most important issues for selecting a candidate to support? The non-negotiables, if you will.

For me:
1. Pro-life is a must
2. Reduce spending

I agree with you on 2, but 1 will get you into a war with many. Attempting to force this upon people at this stage of the game is asking to get yourself killed, very literally. I will add that such force lies in diametric opposition to the principles of liberty. You may not like abortion - I don't much care for it, especially as a means of contraception (which I find utterly reprehensible), but it is an issue for the individual to decide each for herself. If you do not understand why this is so, then I would have to submit that you are not an advocate of liberty but of pretty slavery. Pretty to you, that is.

Hold your values on that issue close to your heart, live by the dictates of your conscience, and demand the world respect them. In return, the price you pay is the same respect of the decisions of others even when what they do fills you with horror. Neither you nor I not anyone else is to impose judgment upon others on such issues. The slope is sudden, slippery, and steep. Beware.

[osan]

But to answer your question:

1. Full and proper recognition of ALL human rights for ALL people
2. Securing our borders, both physically, psychologically, culturally, and politically. Most of the rest of the world is wholly uninterested in human freedom. We must, therefore, as a practical matter of survival wall ourselves off in certain respects from the rest of the world because if we do not we run the significant risk of losing a sufficient concentration of liberty-minded people. Once that happens, the future is completely up for grabs and it will not look good for those who resist slavery. I am not speaking of isolationism as is commonly understood, but of the preservation of the core foundational precepts, attitudes, habits, and predispositions that enable and maintain the environment of personal liberty and national sovereignty. The rest of the world be damned.

[erowe1]

I agree with you on 2, but 1 will get you into a war with many. Attempting to force this upon people at this stage of the game is asking to get yourself killed, very literally. I will add that such force lies in diametric opposition to the principles of liberty. You may not like abortion - I don't much care for it, especially as a means of contraception (which I find utterly reprehensible), but it is an issue for the individual to decide each for herself. If you do not understand why this is so, then I would have to submit that you are not an advocate of liberty but of pretty slavery. Pretty to you, that is.

Hold your values on that issue close to your heart, live by the dictates of your conscience, and demand the world respect them. In return, the price you pay is the same respect of the decisions of others even when what they do fills you with horror. Neither you nor I not anyone else is to impose judgment upon others on such issues. The slope is sudden, slippery, and steep. Beware.

What drivel. Unborn babies don't choose to be killed. If it's ever ethical to use force to protect a human life, then it doesn't all of a sudden become unethical when that life is a little baby who can't do anything to protect herself.

[rholl]

Dismantling the Empire
Monetary Policy
Individual Liberty

[CaliforniaMom]

Prolife, and against war.

[AuH20]

But to answer your question:

1. Full and proper recognition of ALL human rights for ALL people
2. Securing our borders, both physically, psychologically, culturally, and politically. Most of the rest of the world is wholly uninterested in human freedom. We must, therefore, as a practical matter of survival wall ourselves off in certain respects from the rest of the world because if we do not we run the significant risk of losing a sufficient concentration of liberty-minded people. Once that happens, the future is completely up for grabs and it will not look good for those who resist slavery. I am not speaking of isolationism as is commonly understood, but of the preservation of the core foundational precepts, attitudes, habits, and predispositions that enable and maintain the environment of personal liberty and national sovereignty. The rest of the world be damned.

Great post in regard to point #2. We're simply outgunned from a global perspective. The rest of world loves their slavery. America was once a sanctuary from the madness in the world. But it didn't take long for the viruses across the Atlantic Ocean to infiltrate and corrupt our entire population.

[scottditzen]

1. Pro life
2. Pro individual liberty (stop drug war, emphasis on personal responsibility, etc.)
3. Sensible environmental policy (cleaner water, conservation, incentives to help our cities and keep rural areas rural)

[pcosmar]

Liberty
It started (for me) with 2nd amendment and civil liberties issues.
But it all boils down to Liberty.

[Brett85]

1. Ending abortion
2. Returning to a more humble foreign policy

[Travlyr]

End debasement of currency
Individual homestead of all available federal lands


Legalize Industrial Hemp

[Wren]

1) Foreign Policy
2) Individual liberty
3) Monetary Policy

[Andrew-Austin]

But to answer your question:

1. Full and proper recognition of ALL human rights for ALL people
2. Securing our borders, both physically, psychologically, culturally, and politically. Most of the rest of the world is wholly uninterested in human freedom. We must, therefore, as a practical matter of survival wall ourselves off in certain respects from the rest of the world because if we do not we run the significant risk of losing a sufficient concentration of liberty-minded people. Once that happens, the future is completely up for grabs and it will not look good for those who resist slavery. I am not speaking of isolationism as is commonly understood, but of the preservation of the core foundational precepts, attitudes, habits, and predispositions that enable and maintain the environment of personal liberty and national sovereignty. The rest of the world be damned.

"2. Pure nonsense is my second most important issue."

[jclay2]

1. End the Fed. This is the single most important issues as it is the enabler of big government.

[buck000]

1. End the Fed. This is the single most important issues as it is the enabler of big government.

^ ding. ding. ding.

+1

[AGRP]

1) Federal Reserve

2) Federal Reserve

3) Federal Reserve

We can pretty much tell if a candidate is pro-liberty if the Federal Reserve is on their to-do list.

[robert68]

1. End the Fed. This is the single most important issues as it is the enabler of big government.

France has no Fed, but they have big government. Not to suggest there should be a Fed.

[osan]

What drivel. Unborn babies don't choose to be killed. If it's ever ethical to use force to protect a human life, then it doesn't all of a sudden become unethical when that life is a little baby who can't do anything to protect herself.

Call it whatever you wish. Were I a woman and you attempted to interfere with me in such a manner, I would shoot your ass stone dead in a heartbeat. That is reality and if you're smart you will learn to respect the wills of others as well as to mind your own business.

Your argument is cogent, but are your conclusions true in the specific case? That remains UNANSWERED because the answer turns on the question of when a fertilized egg becomes an actual human being, and nobody has been able to demonstrate conclusively one way or the other at what point this is fact. You think you know the answer, just as others think they know another. My personal answer is that I simply do not know and because of that I will not impose my personal feelings upon others because there is no properly reasoned basis for it.

Each believes their truth and rejects that of others. So what is the solution here? The solution is to keep your cotton picking hands to yourself. But do as you will, of course - just do not be terribly surprised if one day someone drills you between the eyes in return for acting on your arrogant, if well intended, opinions.

But let me take this into a more practical vein: if you are so morally outraged by all of this, why are you not out and apprehending young women on their way in the clinic doors? Why are you not stopping them? Why are you standing by and allowing all this murder to occur? Why are you not holding them for their own good and that of their embryos? Is it because you will get into trouble for doing so? Because maybe one of those women or their husbands might blow your brains all over the sidewalk in response to your unwelcome trespass? If so, would that not make you a coward for not doing what is right in the face of evil? And if by chance you are content with hiring third parties to do the dirty work, the dangerous work for you, I would have to call your moral character into some question, not to mention your true motives.

Seriously, why do you do nothing substantive, assuming that you do nothing more than just talk? How would you justify this? When you're standing before St. Pete and God asks you why you did not act, what will you tell Him? How will you excuse yourself as you stand before the Almighty? And no, I am not being mean or sarcastic - I am asking these questions seriously and forthrightly because I am genuinely interested in how you explain this apparent paradox, so please take no offense because none is offered.

I will add that these sorts of questions are not topic-specific, but are eminently applicable across a broad range of analogous situations.

[jclay2]

France has no Fed, but they have big government.

Wrong, its called the European Central Bank.

[robert68]

Wrong, its called the European Central Bank.

Before they used the Euro, they had no Fed, and had big government. They had a nationalized currency, run by their parliament, which can be pretty bad too.

[ChaosControl]

Personal Integrity.

This means many things. Ultimately it is that I need to be able to trust a person as a person to be able to trust them as a leader. Their positions on the issues are irrelevant if they have no integrity.

If they have integrity it is going to mean they are pro-life, they care about the people and aren't bought out by the corporations and banks, they don't have a fetish with blowing up other countries, etc.

Very, very few people have personal integrity, but if they do, I can support them even if I don't agree with them 100%. Ron Paul has integrity and that is why I am a strong supporter of his and will remain such.

[Brett85]

Call it whatever you wish. Were I a woman and you attempted to interfere with me in such a manner, I would shoot your ass stone dead in a heartbeat. That is reality and if you're smart you will learn to respect the wills of others as well as to mind your own business.

Your argument is cogent, but are your conclusions true in the specific case? That remains UNANSWERED because the answer turns on the question of when a fertilized egg becomes an actual human being, and nobody has been able to demonstrate conclusively one way or the other at what point this is fact. You think you know the answer, just as others think they know another. My personal answer is that I simply do not know and because of that I will not impose my personal feelings upon others because there is no properly reasoned basis for it.

Each believes their truth and rejects that of others. So what is the solution here? The solution is to keep your cotton picking hands to yourself. But do as you will, of course - just do not be terribly surprised if one day someone drills you between the eyes in return for acting on your arrogant, if well intended, opinions.

But let me take this into a more practical vein: if you are so morally outraged by all of this, why are you not out and apprehending young women on their way in the clinic doors? Why are you not stopping them? Why are you standing by and allowing all this murder to occur? Why are you not holding them for their own good and that of their embryos? Is it because you will get into trouble for doing so? Because maybe one of those women or their husbands might blow your brains all over the sidewalk in response to your unwelcome trespass? If so, would that not make you a coward for not doing what is right in the face of evil? And if by chance you are content with hiring third parties to do the dirty work, the dangerous work for you, I would have to call your moral character into some question, not to mention your true motives.

Seriously, why do you do nothing substantive, assuming that you do nothing more than just talk? How would you justify this? When you're standing before St. Pete and God asks you why you did not act, what will you tell Him? How will you excuse yourself as you stand before the Almighty? And no, I am not being mean or sarcastic - I am asking these questions seriously and forthrightly because I am genuinely interested in how you explain this apparent paradox, so please take no offense because none is offered.

I will add that these sorts of questions are not topic-specific, but are eminently applicable across a broad range of analogous situations.

Your argument is over the top. According to you Ron Paul supports "slavery," because he supports a ban on abortion. I won't mind my own business when it concerns another human life. The main responsibility of government is to protect innocent human life. If you don't believe in protecting life then you don't believe in the principles of liberty.

[erowe1]

Call it whatever you wish. Were I a woman and you attempted to interfere with me in such a manner, I would shoot your ass stone dead in a heartbeat. That is reality and if you're smart you will learn to respect the wills of others as well as to mind your own business.

Your argument is cogent, but are your conclusions true in the specific case? That remains UNANSWERED because the answer turns on the question of when a fertilized egg becomes an actual human being, and nobody has been able to demonstrate conclusively one way or the other at what point this is fact. You think you know the answer, just as others think they know another. My personal answer is that I simply do not know and because of that I will not impose my personal feelings upon others because there is no properly reasoned basis for it.

Each believes their truth and rejects that of others. So what is the solution here? The solution is to keep your cotton picking hands to yourself. But do as you will, of course - just do not be terribly surprised if one day someone drills you between the eyes in return for acting on your arrogant, if well intended, opinions.

But let me take this into a more practical vein: if you are so morally outraged by all of this, why are you not out and apprehending young women on their way in the clinic doors? Why are you not stopping them? Why are you standing by and allowing all this murder to occur? Why are you not holding them for their own good and that of their embryos? Is it because you will get into trouble for doing so? Because maybe one of those women or their husbands might blow your brains all over the sidewalk in response to your unwelcome trespass? If so, would that not make you a coward for not doing what is right in the face of evil? And if by chance you are content with hiring third parties to do the dirty work, the dangerous work for you, I would have to call your moral character into some question, not to mention your true motives.

Seriously, why do you do nothing substantive, assuming that you do nothing more than just talk? How would you justify this? When you're standing before St. Pete and God asks you why you did not act, what will you tell Him? How will you excuse yourself as you stand before the Almighty? And no, I am not being mean or sarcastic - I am asking these questions seriously and forthrightly because I am genuinely interested in how you explain this apparent paradox, so please take no offense because none is offered.

I will add that these sorts of questions are not topic-specific, but are eminently applicable across a broad range of analogous situations.

What I get from this is that earlier when you said your number one issue was full and proper recognition of all human rights for all people, you didn't really mean it.

[speciallyblend]

Call it whatever you wish. Were I a woman and you attempted to interfere with me in such a manner, I would shoot your ass stone dead in a heartbeat. That is reality and if you're smart you will learn to respect the wills of others as well as to mind your own business.

Your argument is cogent, but are your conclusions true in the specific case? That remains UNANSWERED because the answer turns on the question of when a fertilized egg becomes an actual human being, and nobody has been able to demonstrate conclusively one way or the other at what point this is fact. You think you know the answer, just as others think they know another. My personal answer is that I simply do not know and because of that I will not impose my personal feelings upon others because there is no properly reasoned basis for it.

Each believes their truth and rejects that of others. So what is the solution here? The solution is to keep your cotton picking hands to yourself. But do as you will, of course - just do not be terribly surprised if one day someone drills you between the eyes in return for acting on your arrogant, if well intended, opinions.

But let me take this into a more practical vein: if you are so morally outraged by all of this, why are you not out and apprehending young women on their way in the clinic doors? Why are you not stopping them? Why are you standing by and allowing all this murder to occur? Why are you not holding them for their own good and that of their embryos? Is it because you will get into trouble for doing so? Because maybe one of those women or their husbands might blow your brains all over the sidewalk in response to your unwelcome trespass? If so, would that not make you a coward for not doing what is right in the face of evil? And if by chance you are content with hiring third parties to do the dirty work, the dangerous work for you, I would have to call your moral character into some question, not to mention your true motives.

Seriously, why do you do nothing substantive, assuming that you do nothing more than just talk? How would you justify this? When you're standing before St. Pete and God asks you why you did not act, what will you tell Him? How will you excuse yourself as you stand before the Almighty? And no, I am not being mean or sarcastic - I am asking these questions seriously and forthrightly because I am genuinely interested in how you explain this apparent paradox, so please take no offense because none is offered.

I will add that these sorts of questions are not topic-specific, but are eminently applicable across a broad range of analogous situations.

well said osan!! I am Pro-Life but also agree with a womans choice! I wish there were no abortions! I can only address myself in this issue by not getting a woman pregnant!! I think many women(not all) use abortions like guys use condoms or do not use them and this is very upsetting to me!! If we could only teach folks that babies do not come from storks!! I support Ron Paul because of his position of pro-life but also struggle with a womans choice but i also believe many women have abortions for alot of wrong reasons but it is not me to judge them. They will be judged themselves eventually i would assume!! I think Ron Pauls positions on abortion allow both sides to support him. just sayin;)

[scottditzen]

Osan, perhaps you should make the same accusations directly to Ron Paul.

Is Dr. Paul a coward? Have questionable motives?




Call it whatever you wish. Were I a woman and you attempted to interfere with me in such a manner, I would shoot your ass stone dead in a heartbeat. That is reality and if you're smart you will learn to respect the wills of others as well as to mind your own business.

Your argument is cogent, but are your conclusions true in the specific case? That remains UNANSWERED because the answer turns on the question of when a fertilized egg becomes an actual human being, and nobody has been able to demonstrate conclusively one way or the other at what point this is fact. You think you know the answer, just as others think they know another. My personal answer is that I simply do not know and because of that I will not impose my personal feelings upon others because there is no properly reasoned basis for it.

Each believes their truth and rejects that of others. So what is the solution here? The solution is to keep your cotton picking hands to yourself. But do as you will, of course - just do not be terribly surprised if one day someone drills you between the eyes in return for acting on your arrogant, if well intended, opinions.

But let me take this into a more practical vein: if you are so morally outraged by all of this, why are you not out and apprehending young women on their way in the clinic doors? Why are you not stopping them? Why are you standing by and allowing all this murder to occur? Why are you not holding them for their own good and that of their embryos? Is it because you will get into trouble for doing so? Because maybe one of those women or their husbands might blow your brains all over the sidewalk in response to your unwelcome trespass? If so, would that not make you a coward for not doing what is right in the face of evil? And if by chance you are content with hiring third parties to do the dirty work, the dangerous work for you, I would have to call your moral character into some question, not to mention your true motives.

Seriously, why do you do nothing substantive, assuming that you do nothing more than just talk? How would you justify this? When you're standing before St. Pete and God asks you why you did not act, what will you tell Him? How will you excuse yourself as you stand before the Almighty? And no, I am not being mean or sarcastic - I am asking these questions seriously and forthrightly because I am genuinely interested in how you explain this apparent paradox, so please take no offense because none is offered.

I will add that these sorts of questions are not topic-specific, but are eminently applicable across a broad range of analogous situations.

[osan]

"2. Pure nonsense is my second most important issue."

OK, now how about we try a rational response so we may all know your specific objections? This sort of response is not terribly helpful in understanding the problem.

[ChaosControl]

I agree with you on 2, but 1 will get you into a war with many. Attempting to force this upon people at this stage of the game is asking to get yourself killed, very literally. I will add that such force lies in diametric opposition to the principles of liberty. You may not like abortion - I don't much care for it, especially as a means of contraception (which I find utterly reprehensible), but it is an issue for the individual to decide each for herself. If you do not understand why this is so, then I would have to submit that you are not an advocate of liberty but of pretty slavery. Pretty to you, that is.

Hold your values on that issue close to your heart, live by the dictates of your conscience, and demand the world respect them. In return, the price you pay is the same respect of the decisions of others even when what they do fills you with horror. Neither you nor I not anyone else is to impose judgment upon others on such issues. The slope is sudden, slippery, and steep. Beware.

Pro-life is the pro-liberty position. There is no liberty without life. Do unfortunate circumstances arise where someone has to go through a pregnancy and birth they wish not to go through? Yes. But that temporary time of pain allows for a lifetime of living on the part of the unborn. How selfish is it to deny someone an entire life, so that you may escape a pain that is temporary?

[Original_Intent]

In my opinion in regards to abortion, the Federal government only has two valid positions.

If the unborn is considered a human life, there is justification for federal involvement as protecting human life is within the legitimate power of government.
If the unborn is not a human right, the federal government should not be involved and the decision on whether to legislate devolves to the states and individuals.
In the event of uncertainty of where to draw the line of when human life begins, it only makes sense to err in favor of the life of the unborn as opposed to the right of a woman to control her own body. There are certainly many possible mitigating factors that could weigh in favor of a woman's choice, such as pregnancy as a result of forcible rape, imminent threat to the life of the mother, and others.

In response to the OP, I would say my biggest issue is vast reduction in the size of the federal government. Almost every other issue that I care about would take care of itself if that were addressed.

[miketoles]

1. End the Fed
2. End the wars

[Brett85]

OK, now how about we try a rational response so we may all know your specific objections? This sort of response is not terribly helpful in understanding the problem.

Maybe because your proposal to cut off all immigration is much more anti liberty than any proposal to protect all human life. Your philosophy is about as anti liberty as you can possibly get.

[Flash]

1. Taxes
2. Rent

[osan]

Osan, perhaps you should make the same accusations directly to Ron Paul.

Is Dr. Paul a coward? Have questionable motives?

Weak dodge, I am afraid. I was not conversing with RP, but with one of our other fellows here. He expressed an opinion and I asked a few pointed questions in the sincere desire to understand the totality of his position and in the hope of clarifying what for me appears to be some measure of contradiction. You come back at me with this irrelevant and emotional response as if it had anything to do with the conversation at hand.

But just so you cannot say I have returned a dodge for a dodge: put Dr. Paul before me and if the topic arises and he voices a similar opinion, I will gladly pose the same questions to him. I greatly respect Ron Paul, but I do not stand in awe of him or any man. I leave that sort of thing to others. I do not sufficiently understand his personal position on the question at hand, so I am unable to hold an opinion as to whether he is chicken or holds questionable motives. But if you can get him and me together, I would be most appreciative to have a good conversation with him. I'd even be willing to record and youtube it for everyone here.

Finally, I have made not so much as a single accusation that you can name. I asked questions. That you take them as accusations brings into question either your reading comprehension skills or your honesty because there is nothing you can cite that will legitimately lead one to infer accusations from that which I wrote.

Ball is in your court.

[mt4rp]

1) Individual Liberty
2) Shrinking gov power/size back to the size needed to perform it's original function only

[Brett85]

well said osan!! I am Pro-Life but also agree with a womans choice!

Then you aren't pro life at all. The term "pro life" refers to those who want the government to protect innocent human life. And why in the world do you use exclamation points after every single sentence?

[osan]

What I get from this is that earlier when you said your number one issue was full and proper recognition of all human rights for all people, you didn't really mean it.

Then you "get" incorrectly. On top of that you have failed to answer a single question put to you. So noted.

[georgiaboy]

1. Life (pro)
2. Property (cut spending/gov't, end foreign aid/militarism/nationbuilding, FED/monetary, RKBA)
3. Liberty (Patriot Act, regs, 10th Amend.)

[Brett85]

Then you "get" incorrectly. On top of that you have failed to answer a single question put to you. So noted.

Why would anybody answer any of your ridiculous questions? Those of us who are pro life have the goal of ending abortion through the democratic process. That's the legal way to do it, and it's also the moral way to create change.

[Andrew-Austin]

But to answer your question:

1. Full and proper recognition of ALL human rights for ALL people
2. Securing our borders, both physically, psychologically, culturally, and politically. Most of the rest of the world is wholly uninterested in human freedom. We must, therefore, as a practical matter of survival wall ourselves off in certain respects from the rest of the world because if we do not we run the significant risk of losing a sufficient concentration of liberty-minded people. Once that happens, the future is completely up for grabs and it will not look good for those who resist slavery. I am not speaking of isolationism as is commonly understood, but of the preservation of the core foundational precepts, attitudes, habits, and predispositions that enable and maintain the environment of personal liberty and national sovereignty. The rest of the world be damned.

I was just a bit shocked you would put that as your number two issue. Maybe it could be someone's number six issue, and that is if they lived in a border state and not West Virginia.



Secure borders, both physically, psychologically, culturally, and politically

It makes it sound like you want to erect a regular Iron Curtain. Which is pretty much impossible.


Most of the rest of the world is wholly uninterested in human freedom.

Proof? Beyond looking at the political systems and state of affairs in other countries? Because if you look at the political system, state of affairs, and fuck even the views of most Americans then Americans are not interested in freedom either. Heck they don't even know what it is, let alone advocate it.


We must, therefore, as a practical matter of survival wall ourselves off in certain respects from the rest of the world because if we do not we run the significant risk of losing a sufficient concentration of liberty-minded people.

We don't have a sufficient concentration of liberty-minded people. That is why libertarians or constitutionalists advocate education so much. That is why the free state project came about. If there are so many liberty-minded people in West Virginia, it is strange I have never heard of it even considered for being the next free state project. So if the focus of most libertarian leaning people is educating the thoroughly un-libertarian American population around them, and you still don't want foreigners to come here, it would seem to be your position that foreigners can't be converted in to believers in liberty. And why is this? Are they too stupid or villainous?


I am not speaking of isolationism as is commonly understood, but of the preservation of the core foundational precepts, attitudes, habits, and predispositions that enable and maintain the environment of personal liberty and national sovereignty

Again I can't speak for West Virginia, but the United States is a very diverse place. Diverse precepts, attitudes, habits, predispositions, whatever. Perhaps secession is more in your interests than erecting a super border along the southern and northern states, because then West Virgina could keep its (apparently) cultural pro-liberty vanguard intact by erecting a wall along its borders to keep the mostly diverse and un-liberty oriented United States populace out.

There is no "national essence", or "American culture", and to suggest we should uphold these concepts politically sounds very statist.

[LibertyEagle]

I would think we could all agree that the government should not be funding abortions of any kind.

For me, ending the federal reserve is not one of my main issues, because if they just move the function to a world level, like they have discussed (ie. International Monetary Fund), we'll be even worse off than we are now. So, I'll say ending all central bank involvement in our currency.

[erowe1]

Then you "get" incorrectly. On top of that you have failed to answer a single question put to you. So noted.

Your questions are so full of contradictions, hypocrisy, and false premises, that I can't bother trying to answer them. You say you want people to keep their hands to themselves and use that claim as a way to support their being able to kill other people. You bring up this idea that everybody believes different truths as though it means you have to respect individual wishes, but when it comes to the most important individual, the victim of the abortion, you don't care about the fact that they have no say in the matter.

[osan]

Pro-life is the pro-liberty position. There is no liberty without life.

Agreed, as far as the statement goes, but it goes not quite far enough. One point that the whole abortion debate should make clear to everyone is that the issue is not black and white. The answers are not cut and dried so neatly that one and all may see them for what they are. Were it so, we would not be having such exchanges.


Do unfortunate circumstances arise where someone has to go through a pregnancy and birth they wish not to go through? Yes.

Says who? Please be specific.


But that temporary time of pain allows for a lifetime of living on the part of the unborn. How selfish is it to deny someone an entire life, so that you may escape a pain that is temporary?

Oh please, spare us the histrionics and emotional appeals. They don't work on anyone whose brains are in gear. 'A' for effort, though.

Neither you nor anyone living or yet to live holds the moral authority to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. If you disagree, please cite the absolute and universal authority for initiating force and demonstrate whence it derives legitimacy.

[TheDriver]

1. downsizing the monolithic government that is turning into a Orwellian nightmare

2. sound money

3. sensible foreign policy (but I'm basically an anti-war leftist on foreign policy, it seems).

[scottditzen]

Upvote!


Personal Integrity.

This means many things. Ultimately it is that I need to be able to trust a person as a person to be able to trust them as a leader. Their positions on the issues are irrelevant if they have no integrity.

If they have integrity it is going to mean they are pro-life, they care about the people and aren't bought out by the corporations and banks, they don't have a fetish with blowing up other countries, etc.

Very, very few people have personal integrity, but if they do, I can support them even if I don't agree with them 100%. Ron Paul has integrity and that is why I am a strong supporter of his and will remain such.

[ClayTrainor]

Those of us who are pro life have the goal of ending abortion through the democratic process. That's the legal way to do it, and it's also the moral way to create change.

Prohibition through Democracy is moral, all of a sudden? The pro-lifers need to more seriously consider the consequences of prohibition before advocating such things, imo.

Creating a prohibitive law through democracy won't get rid of abortions, and it will have negative consequences.

[ChaosControl]

Agreed, as far as the statement goes, but it goes not quite far enough. One point that the whole abortion debate should make clear to everyone is that the issue is not black and white. The answers are not cut and dried so neatly that one and all may see them for what they are. Were it so, we would not be having such exchanges.

Life is a lot less complicated than people attempt to make it. People needlessly overcomplicate things and add stress to their life. This issue is not nearly as complex as some attempt to make it.


Says who? Please be specific.
Why would I be specific in a general statement? I am pointing out that I realize there are unfortunate events that occur, but that such events are not an excuse to allow the ending of life.


Oh please, spare us the histrionics and emotional appeals. They don't work on anyone whose brains are in gear. 'A' for effort, though.

Neither you nor anyone living or yet to live holds the moral authority to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. If you disagree, please cite the absolute and universal authority for initiating force and demonstrate whence it derives legitimacy.
Lack of concern for life has nothing to do with having brains that are in gear..

Life triumphs temporary discomfort, everyone has a moral responsibility to ensure a pregnancy comes to term. If you aren't doing your part to help make that happen, you are failing your responsibility as a person of the human species. The survival of innocent life should be a priority for all of us. When possible we want to make sure we do not step on any toes, but sometimes something has to be lost so something can be gained.

[LibertyEagle]

What was likely to happen, according to Jefferson, was that immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society. They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind --ideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty.


George Washington contended in a 1794 letter to John Adams that there was no particular need for the U.S. to encourage immigration, “except of useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions.” He continued: “The policy or advantage of its taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.”

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21626

Do we not have enough of a task getting the American people back to understanding the principles upon which this country was founded and what made it great? Must we compound it?

[osan]

Your questions are so full of contradictions, hypocrisy, and false premises, that I can't bother trying to answer them.

Oh come on, can you not do better than that? Let's see it. Point out and demonstrate the contradictions. Help me understand how I have strayed from reason and truth.


You say you want people to keep their hands to themselves and use that claim as a way to support their being able to kill other people.

It is a contradiction to you only because you suppose that a fertilized egg is in fact a fully fledged human being. If the truth of that assumption can be proven, then I would be forced into agreement with you. I have seen zero convincing evidence that this is the case, but my mind is open to persuasion.


You bring up this idea that everybody believes different truths as though it means you have to respect individual wishes, but when it comes to the most important individual, the victim of the abortion, you don't care about the fact that they have no say in the matter.

Again your reasoning presupposes facts not in evidence. When you are able to prove your presuppositions, then indeed I will alter my point of view. As I wrote earlier, your argument on the original point was cogent. The only remaining question is whether it is in fact true. Establish that and I will alter my opinions, which for the record are purely skeptical. Since I do not know what to believe in those regards, I remain neutral on the specific question of when human life begins. But I DO know that an adult woman capable of conceiving is in fact a human being. Until the "life begins at" question is conclusively settled, I err on the side of that which I know, which is that the woman is indeed a human being and is entitled to live according to the dictates of her conscience. When someone proves that terminating a pregnancy at an state of development does in fact kill a human being, I will come to a new understanding alongside persons such as yourself. I promise.

[LibertyEagle]

Osan, so are we to understand that you are fine with abortion up to the point that the baby is actually born?

[sailingaway]

Since finding out Ron existed I have a whole lot more than two nonnegotiables. I've raised my standards, entirely.

[trey4sports]

Liberty!

[Brett85]

Prohibition through Democracy is moral, all of a sudden? The pro-lifers need to more seriously consider the consequences of prohibition before advocating such things, imo.

Creating a prohibitive law through democracy won't get rid of abortions, and it will have negative consequences.

So are you in favor of doing away with all laws against murder? That would be the only consistent position you could have.

[osan]

Life is a lot less complicated than people attempt to make it. People needlessly overcomplicate things and add stress to their life. This issue is not nearly as complex as some attempt to make it.

You are demonstrably wrong on this point. The fact that people see things as differently as they do is prima facie proof that the questions are not so easily answered, your normative opinions to the contrary notwithstanding.



Why would I be specific in a general statement?

I smell a dodge in the air...


I am pointing out that I realize there are unfortunate events that occur, but that such events are not an excuse to allow the ending of life.

In your opinion. Others hold opposing views. If you mean to impose your opinions upon the lives of others, you had better be able to provide an unbreakable basis for justifying it. Otherwise you are blowing a lot of hot air.



Lack of concern for life has nothing to do with having brains that are in gear..

This is just silly and a very weak attempt at avoiding the salient points at question.

[/quote]Life triumphs temporary discomfort, everyone has a moral responsibility to ensure a pregnancy comes to term. If you aren't doing your part to help make that happen, you are failing your responsibility as a person of the human species. The survival of innocent life should be a priority for all of us. When possible we want to make sure we do not step on any toes, but sometimes something has to be lost so something can be gained.[/QUOTE]

This is a load of emotional opinion with not an iota of proper reason of a single fact offered to back any of it up. Who says I have a moral responsibility to ensure a pregnancy comes to term? By this assertion, I am morally responsible to ensure my neighbor's pregnancy comes to term. Do I pay her medical bills when she cannot afford a doctor? That is the logic of your stated position and it is utterly absurd. How would you enforce such an opinion? Goon squad?

[osan]

Why would anybody answer any of your ridiculous questions?

If they are ridiculous, so much more the reason to answer them with the force of proper logic. That way your argument is made and any weaknesses in my position are made clear, thus educating me further.

Instead, you evade in the most classically and predictably weak manner possible. This really surprises me because I would have taken you as a far more honest person than that.

I am still open to persuasion to the contrary on all fronts.

[scottditzen]

Last I checked this is the Ron Paul forum.

You seem to be violently opposed to people that have the same views as......Ron Paul.

Someone simply mentions they're "pro life" and you sir, responded with dire warnings of that poster being killed because of their views. Forgive my reading comprehension, but you come off as very emotional on the subject.









Weak dodge, I am afraid. I was not conversing with RP, but with one of our other fellows here. He expressed an opinion and I asked a few pointed questions in the sincere desire to understand the totality of his position and in the hope of clarifying what for me appears to be some measure of contradiction. You come back at me with this irrelevant and emotional response as if it had anything to do with the conversation at hand.

But just so you cannot say I have returned a dodge for a dodge: put Dr. Paul before me and if the topic arises and he voices a similar opinion, I will gladly pose the same questions to him. I greatly respect Ron Paul, but I do not stand in awe of him or any man. I leave that sort of thing to others. I do not sufficiently understand his personal position on the question at hand, so I am unable to hold an opinion as to whether he is chicken or holds questionable motives. But if you can get him and me together, I would be most appreciative to have a good conversation with him. I'd even be willing to record and youtube it for everyone here.

Finally, I have made not so much as a single accusation that you can name. I asked questions. That you take them as accusations brings into question either your reading comprehension skills or your honesty because there is nothing you can cite that will legitimately lead one to infer accusations from that which I wrote.

Ball is in your court.

[muzzled dogg]

hi liberty eagle

[ClayTrainor]

So are you in favor of doing away with all laws against murder? That would be the only consistent position you could have.

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/1157/19lwe.jpg

[LibertyEagle]

In your opinion. Others hold opposing views. If you mean to impose your opinions upon the lives of others, you had better be able to provide an unbreakable basis for justifying it. Otherwise you are blowing a lot of hot air.

What? How is that a valid response to ChaosControl saying...


I am pointing out that I realize there are unfortunate events that occur, but that such events are not an excuse to allow the ending of life.

Do you consider it imposing an opinion, if someone has a problem with someone else murdering someone? I doubt it. Which brings us back to your question of when life begins. Do you believe that it begins at any point whatsoever before the baby is born? If not, does that mean you are ok with an abortion being done anytime at all before birth? If you do believe that life begins at some point before birth, even 5 minutes, when do you believe the cutoff for abortion should be and what reasoning do you use?

Finally, who should be paying for said abortion? Should the government be funding it as they now are doing? Or, is that ok?

[akforme]

But to answer your question:

1. Full and proper recognition of ALL human rights for ALL people
2. Securing our borders, both physically, psychologically, culturally, and politically. Most of the rest of the world is wholly uninterested in human freedom. We must, therefore, as a practical matter of survival wall ourselves off in certain respects from the rest of the world because if we do not we run the significant risk of losing a sufficient concentration of liberty-minded people. Once that happens, the future is completely up for grabs and it will not look good for those who resist slavery. I am not speaking of isolationism as is commonly understood, but of the preservation of the core foundational precepts, attitudes, habits, and predispositions that enable and maintain the environment of personal liberty and national sovereignty. The rest of the world be damned.

I think if you stop the welfare state you won't attract people who want handouts. If people come because we don't have any they come for the opportunities, not the freebies.

Personal liberty for me but I think that pretty much includes everything so I'd say, the fed, and monetary policy are my big issues.

[LibertyEagle]

Be sure and explain your scientific evidence to Dr. Paul, Clay. ;)

[LibertyEagle]

Hi Shem. :)

[ClayTrainor]

Be sure and explain your scientific evidence to Dr. Paul, Clay. ;)

What part?

that an egg is not a chicken? That a walnut is not a tree? That a bunch of sexual discharge is not a human? That a woman owns her body? That prohibition creates more problems than it solves? ;)

[LibertyEagle]

Your point-and-see explanation of why you are fine with stripping the unborn of their life and liberty. I'm sure he would be impressed.

[ClayTrainor]

Your point-and-see explanation of why you are fine with stripping the unborn of their life and liberty.

You believe in forcing women what to do with their bodies, i do not.

[ChaosControl]

You are demonstrably wrong on this point. The fact that people see things as differently as they do is prima facie proof that the questions are not so easily answered, your normative opinions to the contrary notwithstanding.
People viewing things differently doesn't make them complicated. It just demonstrates people attempting to complicate things that aren't needed to be complicated.


I smell a dodge in the air...
No. Responded to a statement of mine for no purpose whatsoever, especially given that that statement was one of admission that hardships arise from pregnancies. If anything such a statement is one I would think someone like you would agree with, yet you find reason to poke at it for no other reason than to make argument, essentially demonstrating my earlier people that people like to make things that are not complicated complicated.


In your opinion. Others hold opposing views. If you mean to impose your opinions upon the lives of others, you had better be able to provide an unbreakable basis for justifying it. Otherwise you are blowing a lot of hot air.
Yes, everyone has an opinion on any topic that has ever existed. Not all opinions are equal. The opinion of life is more valuable than the one that seeks to destroy it. Even though I know, again, you'll disagree.


This is a load of emotional opinion with not an iota of proper reason of a single fact offered to back any of it up. Who says I have a moral responsibility to ensure a pregnancy comes to term? By this assertion, I am morally responsible to ensure my neighbor's pregnancy comes to term. Do I pay her medical bills when she cannot afford a doctor? That is the logic of your stated position and it is utterly absurd. How would you enforce such an opinion? Goon squad?

Humans aren't robots. Emotions are as valid as any other item as they make up the human conscience. Life devoid of emotion is rather meaningless.
If one has no proper regard for life, there is not really much one can present to them that is going to change their mind, one cannot reason with a wall. You ask for something, but nothing is going to change your mind, what you want isn't even clear. The argument against abortion is that it is the taking of a human life, I don't really see what you'd need beyond that in regards to "reason".

You have a moral responsibility as a member of the human race, we are social beings and should show concern for one another, not just ourselves. You should do what is in your ability to help out another. I find the selfishness of people quite disgusting, the value of self above all else, regardless the consequences.

Laws exist to protect people from other people, abortion is a perfect example of where one person's selfishness is causing harm to another life and is the precise reason law needs to exist. If people weren't selfish and were more concerned about others such laws wouldn't be needed and we wouldn't even have this kind of argument, but given that people show little concern for others, we do need things in place to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

[LibertyEagle]

You believe in forcing women what to do with their bodies, i do not.

I believe in people being responsible for their actions. Apparently you do not.

[akforme]

You're a nut. According to you Ron Paul supports "slavery," because he supports a ban on abortion. I won't mind my own business when it concerns another human life. The main responsibility of government is to protect innocent human life. If you don't believe in protecting life then you don't believe in the principles of liberty.

I respect that view, I just don't see them as individuals. I think abortion is horrible, but I would also argue that like drugs, laws aren't going to stop it either. However, I support the repeal of roe v wade because it should be a state issue.

Let me ask you this, do you think a woman can defend her life by having an abortion? And by defend, I don't mean, tell mom and dad and get in trouble, I'm talking health problems.

[ClayTrainor]

I believe in people being responsible for their actions. Apparently you do not.

Of course I do, but that doesn't mean I think prohibition solves more problems than it creates, like you seem to believe. ;)

p.s. I'm against abortion for the most part, I just don't think government prohibition is a legitimate answer, and will have unintended consequences

[newbitech]

I believe in people being responsible for their actions. Apparently you do not.

Hey LE, long time no talk. What if people "respond" to being pregnant by having an abortion? Do you believe in a "certain" kind of responsibility?

back on topic. this is why its dangerous to be a 1-2 issue type voter, especially on the issue of abortion. IMO, its not a good "front" issue.

[ChaosControl]

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/1157/19lwe.jpg

Actually all of those are rather different.
An unfertilized egg or a stand alone semen might be somewhat comparable, but a fertilized egg is not as it has already begun human development.
The unfertilized chicken egg will never and can never be a chicken.
Until that is planted, that can never and will never be a tree.

[ClayTrainor]

The unfertilized chicken egg will never and can never be a chicken.
Is a fertilized egg the same thing as a chicken?


Until that is planted, that can never and will never be a tree.
If I put it in the ground does is it automatically become the same thing as a tree?

[LibertyEagle]

Of course I do, but that doesn't mean I think prohibition solves more problems than it creates, like you seem to believe. ;)

Oh, so you are not pro-abortion, you just think it would be difficult to stop?


p.s. I'm against abortion for the most part, I just don't think government prohibition is a legitimate answer, and will have unintended consequences

I understand. It's something I ponder also. One thing, at least for me, is that I am quite sure that it shouldn't be funded, or decided, by the federal government. Allowing the federal government to dictate on this issue is what gave us Roe v. Wade. We're going to have a much better chance of drastically reducing abortions if we get this issue out of the federal government's hands and back to the individual states.

[osan]

OK, now we're talking. First, thanks for responding... now let us see what you wrote.




But to answer your question:

1. Full and proper recognition of ALL human rights for ALL people
2. Securing our borders, both physically, psychologically, culturally, and politically. Most of the rest of the world is wholly uninterested in human freedom. We must, therefore, as a practical matter of survival wall ourselves off in certain respects from the rest of the world because if we do not we run the significant risk of losing a sufficient concentration of liberty-minded people. Once that happens, the future is completely up for grabs and it will not look good for those who resist slavery. I am not speaking of isolationism as is commonly understood, but of the preservation of the core foundational precepts, attitudes, habits, and predispositions that enable and maintain the environment of personal liberty and national sovereignty. The rest of the world be damned.

I was just a bit shocked you would put that as your number two issue. Maybe it could be someone's number six issue, and that is if they lived in a border state and not West Virginia.

Well,I figured the first point pretty much covered everything else. Clearly not everyone took it the same way I intended. Mea culpa.



Secure borders, both physically, psychologically, culturally, and politically
It makes it sound like you want to erect a regular Iron Curtain. Which is pretty much impossible.

Most of the rest of the world is wholly uninterested in human freedom.


Proof? Beyond looking at the political systems and state of affairs in other countries? Because if you look at the political system, state of affairs, and fuck even the views of most Americans then Americans are not interested in freedom either. Heck they don't even know what it is, let alone advocate it.


Point well taken and I stand corrected. My mode of expression was not well considered. Again, mea culpa.



We must, therefore, as a practical matter of survival wall ourselves off in certain respects from the rest of the world because if we do not we run the significant risk of losing a sufficient concentration of liberty-minded people.
We don't have a sufficient concentration of liberty-minded people

You have a point, though it is somewhat arguable at this point in history. I fear, however, that you may be right. Judging by appearances, things are not looking that great for us.


That is why libertarians or constitutionalists advocate education so much. That is why the free state project came about. If there are so many liberty-minded people in West Virginia, it is strange I have never heard of it even considered for being the next free state project. So if the focus of most libertarian leaning people is educating the thoroughly un-libertarian American population around them, and you still don't want foreigners to come here, it would seem to be your position that foreigners can't be converted in to believers in liberty. And why is this? Are they too stupid or villainous?

I didn't mean to imply that people cannot come here. Please refer back to what I somewhat clumsily wrote: seal ourselves off also psychologically and politically... the point being not to allow ourselves to be inundated with those who do not share our love of freedom. Consider a large number of the Mexicans that come here - they HATE the USA and Americans, and this I know from first hand experience as well as the likes of "La Raza" and so forth, who make no attempt to hide their bald contempt for this nation and its people. Many of those are here for a few less than honorable reasons: to take advantage of the free money, to take advantage of higher earning potential this land offers, and to act as a drain on the economic health of the nation. Such people I cannot in all good conscience welcome here. As for other nations... harder to tell as I have had less first hand experience with most of them, but the principle stands in any event. Go back 100 years or so and the people who came here from Europe could not wait to become AMERICAN. Now, thanks in the main to ourselves, those who come here are often expecting the rest of us to kiss their third-world backsides and accommodate them with language and this and that. They APPEAR to my eyes, as well as those of many others, to have zero interest in being American, but rather in making America a copy of wherever it was from which they came. I am afraid I have some trouble with that.



I am not speaking of isolationism as is commonly understood, but of the preservation of the core foundational precepts, attitudes, habits, and predispositions that enable and maintain the environment of personal liberty and national sovereignty


Again I can't speak for West Virginia, but the United States is a very diverse place. Diverse precepts, attitudes, habits, predispositions, whatever.

Diverse in many respects, yes, but at the core we must be in agreement, and that agreement lies along the lines of a very basic and small set of propositions that delineate and define what it means to be free. If we do not have that, then as far as I can see we are lost because the moment enough people decided we need to go formally communist or fascist or what have you, liberty is out the door. Then what? The majority gets what they want and the rest of us can eat cake? What is your answer to that threat posed to the liberty-minded minority?


Perhaps secession is more in your interests than erecting a super border along the southern and northern states, because then West Virgina could keep its (apparently) cultural pro-liberty vanguard intact by erecting a wall along its borders to keep the mostly diverse and un-liberty oriented United States populace out.


No need to be sarcastic.


There is no "national essence", or "American culture", and to suggest we should uphold these concepts politically sounds very statist.

Oh but there is. What do you think our basis in liberty is? THAT is our essence and culture. That is what allows the Muslim to come here and live as a Muslim if that is what he pleases while his Hindu neighbor does the same, and so on for the Chinese and Spanish, Mexican, Christian, Russian, Jewish, and all the other neighbors. Live. Let live. THAT is our essence. That is not statist by any means, nor it is nationalistic. It is the recognition and prizing of a set of principles that allows us to live in harmony with one another. When that is gone one of two things are likely to happen. Either the guys with the biggest sticks will take over and impose their lifestyle on all or we devolve into a truly feudal nightmare where neighbors build walls to separate each from the other and they either fight constantly or live their days, nervously eyeballing each other from across the walls. Is that what we want? Is that what we are arguing for?

I want my liberty. I want to live and act in accord with the dictates of my conscience. If a bunch of the neighbors want to live in a commune with no private property, that is OK with me just so long as they are not forcing me to join them. THAT is my point - preservation of the framework of freedom such that we who live within the imaginary boundaries we call the United States of America can remain in such circumstances that we are able to choose what sorts of lives we shall lead without interfering with those of others or being interfered with by them. Does this make sense to you?

[mczerone]

1. Limiting institutionalized force to non-aggressive, constitutional limits.

2. Legalizing and otherwise removing inhibitions against non-aggressive private alternatives to any remaining government functions.


P.S. all this abortion talk is really missing the point. Freely entered constitutional organizations could prohibit whatever they want, and could excommunicate those who violate the covenants. So you could live next to an abortion provider, but would be free to refuse to deal with him or even those who patronize him. The method of using geographic monopolies to enforce the rules of life is insufficient to discover the true efficient needs of the sovereign individuals living under those monopolies. There are answers to every debate, but only free associations will discover them.

[ClayTrainor]

Oh, so you are not pro-abortion, you just think it would be difficult to stop?


Basically, yes. Admittedly In the odd extreme cases I am pro-abortion, like if a woman was raped and became pregnant, or if the woman is going to die if she doesnt have the abortion. I think those kind of choices really belong to the woman, since she owns her body.



I understand. It's something I ponder also. One thing, at least for me, is that I am quite sure that it shouldn't be funded, or decided, by the federal government. Allowing the federal government to dictate on this issue is what gave us Roe v. Wade. We're going to have a much better chance of drastically reducing abortions if we get this issue out of the federal government's hands and back to the individual states.

Getting anything out of the federal governments hands is an improvement, for sure, haha. :)

[LibertyEagle]

P.S. all this abortion talk is really missing the point. Freely entered constitutional organizations could prohibit whatever they want, and could excommunicate those who violate the covenants. So you could live next to an abortion provider, but would be free to refuse to deal with him or even those who patronize him. The method of using geographic monopolies to enforce the rules of life is insufficient to discover the true efficient needs of the sovereign individuals living under those monopolies. There are answers to every debate, but only free associations will discover them.

I dunno. For some reason, I'm thinkin' sucking a baby out of a mother's uterus, limb-by-limb, is somewhat against the non-aggression principle.

[osan]

You're a nut. According to you Ron Paul supports "slavery," because he supports a ban on abortion. I won't mind my own business when it concerns another human life. The main responsibility of government is to protect innocent human life. If you don't believe in protecting life then you don't believe in the principles of liberty.

These irrational outbursts of emotionalism are not helpful to anyone. Ad hominem attacks do nothing for your credibility and your apparent inability or unwillingness to take in what I said in a composed and rational manner isn't helping you. I have not insulted you in any way, so what is up with calling me a nut? Is it not sufficient just to say that you disagree? We are all on the same side here. Mere differences of opinion are not a good basis for inciting such divisiveness between us. I am not your enemy.

[moonshineplease]

1. cut pork barrel earmarks.

2. Put in a swimming pool.

[ronaldo23]

1. ron paul

2. rand paul

srs

[Andrew-Austin]

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21626

Do we not have enough of a task getting the American people back to understanding the principles upon which this country was founded and what made it great? Must we compound it?

I'm not an advocate of making our job harder. That is why I listed education as my main issue. Abolishing public education would go a long way helping the population become more liberty-oriented, much more so than building a giant wall (which wouldn't work anyways, and at this rate this new expenditure is not feasible).

How would having more immigrants in the country make our job significantly harder? The country gains more statists already when the birth rate increases, since all new persons added will go through the public school system, the majority of them becoming good statists and or philosophically apathetic. So to these souls born on American soil, a libertarian or constitutional re-education is also required.

And wouldn't immigrants who fled other countries be open to the opportunities and standard of living a liberty orientated society would have? Since the reasons they flee their former country, often are directly related to political corruption? The only reason a significant portion of them might be statist, is if they are looking to receive welfare benefits and their children are put in the publication education system. But that is an argument for ending welfare and the public education system, not against immigration. As the country moves more and more in the direction of economic and personal liberty, it will become an even more desirable place to live for foreigners, just as America was the land of opportunity in the 1700s. A war on immigration can't stop people from moving, anymore than the prohibition of a product can stop people from buying and selling.

And it is not clear to me why erecting a wall would make the United States more liberty orientated, or prevent it from becoming more statist, when building the wall itself is not a pro-liberty position?

As for your George Washington quote, I suspect any anti-immigration views some of the founding father's held had more to do with personally disliking or disapproving the lifestyle choices and their cultural differences of the immigrants that were unrelated to their advocacy (or lack thereof) of liberty. Thus their anti-immigration tendencies would have more to do with controlling the population, which has nothing to do with liberty. It does seem weird that people who had just witnessed the birthing of a country by immigrants, would be anti-immigration. Doubtless they wanted to keep America a certain way once they gained power. The desire for cultural conservatism and uniformity is a separate thing from the desire to have a pro-freedom populace. Suffice it to say, not every view the founding father's held was right. I'm sure there are some I could selectively quote that were for immigration, or at least not in favor of hindering it.

---

If this post hasn't succeeded in making people rethink their pro-border control position, I think I've at least made a few successful points that education is more important than immigration.

If you still want to build a border wall or something, consider having your state secede so it can build a wall along its borders, to keep all the anti-liberty Americans out. If you like this idea, secession should be a more important issue to you than anti-immigration, which I wouldn't object to.

[Fredom101]

1. End all wars/stop the mass slaughter
2. End the income tax
3. End the Fed
4. End the government :)

[LibertyEagle]

Hey LE, long time no talk. What if people "respond" to being pregnant by having an abortion? Do you believe in a "certain" kind of responsibility?

Yes, a responsibility for one's own actions. It is a proven fact that whenever a woman has intercourse that a baby may be the end result. If she is unwilling to be responsible for her actions, then she shouldn't do the deed. In this day and age, a woman has a plethora of birth control options available to her and to her partner, to limit the possibility of pregnancy. But, in the end, if a baby is conceived, it is her responsibility to give it the same opportunity to see the light of day, as her own mother gave her. If after having the baby, she wants to give it up for adoption, then by all means, she should do that.

Having an abortion is not being responsible. Anymore than going out and murdering your neighbor.


back on topic. this is why its dangerous to be a 1-2 issue type voter, especially on the issue of abortion. IMO, its not a good "front" issue.

I agree with you about being an issue voter. I try to be more of a principle voter.
Nice to see you, newbitech. :)

[mczerone]

I dunno. For some reason, I'm thinkin' sucking a baby out of a mother's uterus, limb-by-limb, is somewhat against the non-aggression principle.

I understand. I agree. But to rid society as a whole of this practice, a fiat prohibition is insufficient. The only way to convince everyone that this type of practice is barbarous is to allow them the choice to do so, and then to visit upon them consequences that are within the non-aggression principle (of course you would also be free to do more than this, but itself would create a further injustice and open your practice up to intervention from other third parties who allege the injustice).

Personally, I view any post-coital action beyond the use of the Morning After pill an aggression, and feel that true liberty would quickly settle upon this and a liberal adoption policy as the "answer" to abortions. But I am in no position to force anyone to adopt this view, nor is a government.

[osan]

Last I checked this is the Ron Paul forum.

You seem to be violently opposed to people that have the same views as......Ron Paul.

Your exaggerations and false inferences don't impress me much. I am not violently opposed to anything that has been discussed here, not even your slanted emotionalism. Do us a favor and drop it. If you do not want to discuss the issue as an adult, then just let it go. This is getting wearisome.


Someone simply mentions they're "pro life" and you sir, responded with dire warnings of that poster being killed because of their views. Forgive my reading comprehension, but you come off as very emotional on the subject.

Nice try, but again very weakly played. There was nothing "dire" to be read in my words and it was not even a warning. I simply pointed out that this is a very basic issue with people and if you mess with them, someone may one day bring you to some serious harm. This would be the same if someone were to suggest they were to go out on a mugging spree for the contents of their neighbors' wallets. Actions, all actions, have their consequences. That is all I was pointing out. Read into it whatever gives you pleasure but do not for a moment expect anyone with any brains to take you seriously.

I, sir, am done with you. Have a nice day.

[Zatch]

For federal candidates:

1. Must support overturn of Roe vs. Wade and oppose government funding of abortion

2. Must oppose all bailouts

[Brett85]

You believe in forcing women what to do with their bodies, i do not.

If there wasn't another human being involved I would agree with that. But I'm just not a big fan of murdering babies. It's pretty funny that you ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence that life begins at conception.

[Brett85]

These irrational outbursts of emotionalism are not helpful to anyone. Ad hominem attacks do nothing for your credibility and your apparent inability or unwillingness to take in what I said in a composed and rational manner isn't helping you. I have not insulted you in any way, so what is up with calling me a nut? Is it not sufficient just to say that you disagree? We are all on the same side here. Mere differences of opinion are not a good basis for inciting such divisiveness between us. I am not your enemy.

Point taken. I apologize for calling you that. I just thought your argument was way over the top.

[osan]

I understand. I agree. But to rid society as a whole of this practice, a fiat prohibition is insufficient. The only way to convince everyone that this type of practice is barbarous is to allow them the choice to do so, and then to visit upon them consequences that are within the non-aggression principle (of course you would also be free to do more than this, but itself would create a further injustice and open your practice up to intervention from other third parties who allege the injustice).

Personally, I view any post-coital action beyond the use of the Morning After pill an aggression, and feel that true liberty would quickly settle upon this and a liberal adoption policy as the "answer" to abortions. But I am in no position to force anyone to adopt this view, nor is a government.

Your points are well taken, but please explain how it is that you draw the line at the pill? The egg id fertilized and the drug causes it to be expelled. How is that less of an aggression?

We can draw this line arbitrarily closer to pre-sexual activity as well - after all, what is there in principle from stopping us? Use of any form of contraception could be viewed as an aggression - condoms, the "pill", and perhaps most importantly the IUD, which at the bottom if it all functions in a way very similarly to RU486 in that it establishes a hostile environment for embryonic implantation and growth, thereby causing the prospective mother to spontaneously abort.

I would be most interested in knowing the basis for placing the line where you do.

[pcosmar]

I saw a bumper sticker yesterday,
"Just say NO to having sex with Pro-lifers"
The Irony,,,
if folks learn to say no, this wouldn't be an issue

[Aldanga]

Like it's been said, monetary policy and the Fed. End those and you end the state.

[Brett85]

I respect that view, I just don't see them as individuals. I think abortion is horrible, but I would also argue that like drugs, laws aren't going to stop it either. However, I support the repeal of roe v wade because it should be a state issue.

Let me ask you this, do you think a woman can defend her life by having an abortion? And by defend, I don't mean, tell mom and dad and get in trouble, I'm talking health problems.

Yes. The only exception I support is an exception for the life of the mother. If you're going to be pro life, then I think you have to consider the life of the mother as well.

[Sola_Fide]

P.S. all this abortion talk is really missing the point. Freely entered constitutional organizations could prohibit whatever they want, and could excommunicate those who violate the covenants. So you could live next to an abortion provider, but would be free to refuse to deal with him or even those who patronize him.

Uh. Did the baby give his or her consent to be burned alive by saline or cut to pieces with scissors?


The method of using geographic monopolies to enforce the rules of life is insufficient to discover the true efficient needs of the sovereign individuals living under those monopolies. There are answers to every debate, but only free associations will discover them.

The goal I see for government is not to enforce geographic monoplies, but to protect liberty. It should be its only function. The liberty of the pre-born baby-the most innocent party in the whole equation of abortion-is not respected or even taken in to account. A law that does not protect the innocent's right to life and a law that declares the liberty of certain groups null and void, is a statist tyrannical law.

[LibertyEagle]

Oh but there is. What do you think our basis in liberty is? THAT is our essence and culture. That is what allows the Muslim to come here and live as a Muslim if that is what he pleases while his Hindu neighbor does the same, and so on for the Chinese and Spanish, Mexican, Christian, Russian, Jewish, and all the other neighbors. Live. Let live. THAT is our essence. That is not statist by any means, nor it is nationalistic. It is the recognition and prizing of a set of principles that allows us to live in harmony with one another. When that is gone one of two things are likely to happen. Either the guys with the biggest sticks will take over and impose their lifestyle on all or we devolve into a truly feudal nightmare where neighbors build walls to separate each from the other and they either fight constantly or live their days, nervously eyeballing each other from across the walls. Is that what we want? Is that what we are arguing for?

I want my liberty. I want to live and act in accord with the dictates of my conscience. If a bunch of the neighbors want to live in a commune with no private property, that is OK with me just so long as they are not forcing me to join them. THAT is my point - preservation of the framework of freedom such that we who live within the imaginary boundaries we call the United States of America can remain in such circumstances that we are able to choose what sorts of lives we shall lead without interfering with those of others or being interfered with by them. Does this make sense to you?

Osan, thing is that is a bit utopian for the place we are in right now and have hopes to be in for a very, very long time. We cannot take on the whole world. The best thing we can do is to carve out a small area for liberty-minded individuals that want to live by a certain set of principles. That used to be the idea of this country and I hope it will be again. If the rest of the world wants to be socialists or communists, they can have at it. We can trade, travel and trade with them as we choose. But, if they attack us, all hell will rain on their heads.

[ClayTrainor]

If there wasn't another human being involved I would agree with that.

a sperm and an egg is not equivalent to a human being.



It's pretty funny that you ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence that life begins at conception.

A seed does not become a tree the moment i plant it in the ground.

[brandon]

Can't pick two, just wish they would leave me alone.

[ClayTrainor]

Can't pick two, just wish they would leave me alone.

haha, true that. There's only a need for 1.

1. Non-Aggression principle.

[osan]

Point taken. I apologize for calling you that. I just thought your argument was way over the top.

OK, thank you for the apology - accepted. As for the argument, fair enough. THAT response I find completely acceptable.

I believe we are friends here - fellows in liberty, and I take that very seriously. If I am wrong on the abortion issue, I am more than willing to be convinced of it. I am pro-choice ONLY because I cannot definitively say that it is wrong. I do NOT like abortions and have stated this candidly many times here. But my displeasure with it does not justify aggression against another when I cannot substantively demonstrate to myself that what they are doing is violating the rights of another human being, particularly in the case of a fertilized egg. When I come to be smart enough to know one way or the other, my views will change.

[osan]

Maybe because your proposal to cut off all immigration is much more anti liberty than any proposal to protect all human life. Your philosophy is about as anti liberty as you can possibly get.

Hold on thar cowboy... I said SECURE OUR BORDERS - not shut the world out. Allowing people to traipse across the border at will when there are all kinds of free goodies available, courtesy of the tax payer pretty well removes the point of having a nation in the first place, does it not? And I can even live with that, but for a couple of practical problems that arise therefrom: for example, how is liberty preserved? What is to stop Canada from rolling its tanks across the tundra of ND and crushing us? (1/2 sarcasm).

I have no problem with an open border in principle, but as long as we have a welfare state that is sucking the life out of hard- and smart-working Americans, I do not see how this can be allowed without placing us in some very non-trivial peril.

[scottditzen]

Traditional Conservative beat me too it.

Osan I apologize for not doing a better job of communicating on this issue...the very one I listed as most important to me. I sincerely don't mean to be argumentative. I've read your posts and you do pose intelligent and thought provoking questions. I simply disagree with your opinions on what it means to be pro life, I suppose.




OK, thank you for the apology - accepted. As for the argument, fair enough. THAT response I find completely acceptable.

I believe we are friends here - fellows in liberty, and I take that very seriously. If I am wrong on the abortion issue, I am more than willing to be convinced of it. I am pro-choice ONLY because I cannot definitively say that it is wrong. I do NOT like abortions and have stated this candidly many times here. But my displeasure with it does not justify aggression against another when I cannot substantively demonstrate to myself that what they are doing is violating the rights of another human being, particularly in the case of a fertilized egg. When I come to be smart enough to know one way or the other, my views will change.

[Maximus]

Pro Life in all its forms (Anti-abortion, torture, war, etc)
Cutting the deficit

[Deinonychus]

Spending and foreign policy.

[osan]

Osan, so are we to understand that you are fine with abortion up to the point that the baby is actually born?

No, and I am at a complete loss as to how you could have inferred this from anything I wrote.

[LibertyEagle]

I'm not an advocate of making our job harder. That is why I listed education as my main issue. Abolishing public education would go a long way helping the population become more liberty-oriented, much more so than building a giant wall (which wouldn't work anyways, and at this rate this new expenditure is not feasible).

I agree that the education being directed at our children right now from federal government programs is absolutely horrid. It is targeted at dumbing down our children and making them "world citizens" so that they feel comfortable with merging into a world government. Our children are no longer taught the principles upon which this country was founded and the reasoning behind them. They are taught to hate this country and believe that our borders are just imaginary boundaries. They have done their job well.


How would having more immigrants in the country make our job significantly harder? The country gains more statists already when the birth rate increases, since all new persons added will go through the public school system, the majority of them becoming good statists and or philosophically apathetic. So to these souls born on American soil, a libertarian or constitutional re-education is also required.

True, but I see no reason to make our job harder by allowing a massive flood of people who are used to a horrible government to enter our country illegally, that we cannot reasonably assimilate into our even current less than desirable situation here. Why compound the problem? As Jefferson spoke of, the only government many of these people know is dictatorial and never had a history of anything much better. This is the government they know and unless they are taught differently, it is the type of government that they will vote for. We both know that currently our schools are not teaching much of anything that we want furthered with regards to liberty.


And wouldn't immigrants who fled other countries be open to the opportunities and standard of living a liberty orientated society would have? Since the reasons they flee their former country, often are directly related to political corruption? The only reason a significant portion of them might be statist, is if they are looking to receive welfare benefits and their children are put in the publication education system. But that is an argument for ending welfare and the public education system, not against immigration. As the country moves more and more in the direction of economic and personal liberty, it will become an even more desirable place to live for foreigners, just as America was the land of opportunity in the 1700s. A war on immigration can't stop people from moving, anymore than the prohibition of a product can stop people from buying and selling.

That is why Ron Paul wants to end all government handouts. If we we were not providing them birthright citizenship, free medical care, free school, in-state tuition at our colleges, etc., I have no doubt that the flow would be stemmed.


And it is not clear to me why erecting a wall would make the United States more liberty orientated, or prevent it from becoming more statist, when building the wall itself is not a pro-liberty position?

I said nothing about a wall.


As for your George Washington quote, I suspect any anti-immigration views some of the founding father's held had more to do with personally disliking or disapproving the lifestyle choices and their cultural differences of the immigrants that were unrelated to their advocacy (or lack thereof) of liberty. Thus their anti-immigration tendencies would have more to do with controlling the population, which has nothing to do with liberty. It does seem weird that people who had just witnessed the birthing of a country by immigrants, would be anti-immigration. Doubtless they wanted to keep America a certain way once they gained power. The desire for cultural conservatism and uniformity is a separate thing from the desire to have a pro-freedom populace. Suffice it to say, not every view the founding father's held was right. I'm sure there are some I could selectively quote that were for immigration, or at least not in favor of hindering it.

I think you are very wrong. No one here is against legal immigration. I say "legal", because of what I said earlier. We cannot continue to let our borders be overrun. There is no earthly way to assimilate such numbers. The vast majority will vote for the government that they are used to.

The handouts must stop immediately. I think that alone would pretty much solve the problem.

---


If this post hasn't succeeded in making people rethink their pro-border control position, I think I've at least made a few successful points that education is more important than immigration.

I'm not sure why you think these are mutually exclusive events. They are not.

And again, we cannot take on the whole world. The best thing we can do is to carve out a small area where like-minded lovers of liberty can agree to live by a certain set of principles. What the rest of the world chooses to do is their own business, as long as they do not attack us.

[LibertyEagle]

No, and I am at a complete loss as to how you could have inferred this from anything I wrote.

Did I get you confused with someone else? That's possible. heh. I'll go look. :)

Nope. I said what I said because of your apparent approval of abortion. If you wouldn't mind, please go back and address the entirety of what I said, rather than taking this one sentence out of context. Thanks.

[mczerone]

Your points are well taken, but please explain how it is that you draw the line at the pill? The egg id fertilized and the drug causes it to be expelled. How is that less of an aggression?

We can draw this line arbitrarily closer to pre-sexual activity as well - after all, what is there in principle from stopping us? Use of any form of contraception could be viewed as an aggression - condoms, the "pill", and perhaps most importantly the IUD, which at the bottom if it all functions in a way very similarly to RU486 in that it establishes a hostile environment for embryonic implantation and growth, thereby causing the prospective mother to spontaneously abort.

I would be most interested in knowing the basis for placing the line where you do.

Are you asking why I think this is the line, or why I think that this would be the standard line that would be drawn given competitive rule sets?

To answer why I think this is the line, I have a number of reasons. First, this method allows women the right to say "I don't want my body being used for reproduction" even after having sex. This resolves the issue of rape, drunken or lustful mistakes, or otherwise non-consensual pregnancies. The effect of the medicine is the same whether there has been conception or otherwise, and knowledge of a successful pregnancy is taken out of the picture.

Second, this method would acknowledge the rights of a human embryo only after it was known to be present, and a free market in adoption would likely be sufficient to compensate the mothers enough to ensure that they carry the pregnancy at least until the child can be supported outside the womb.

Third this method recognizes the impossibility of prohibiting substances. The pill cannot be effectively pushed out of use through law, as black markets would supply it even if laws made this more risky and costly. In effect, since there is no action by a third party, like a doctor, it would be impossible to police.

Lastly any type of pre-coital measures do not end an already instigated process of independent life, and therefore should not be prohibited on the grounds of "protecting life". Any type of contraception should be allowed, as any limitation on this is a direct restriction on the liberties of existing persons, without there being any cause of action based on the injustice borne by a third party. Grandma and Grandpa might really want a grandchild, but they cannot justly use aggression against their children to ensure that no contraception is used.

I'm not arguing that this is the only non-aggressive solution. There may be others that arise if competing associations of behavior were allowed to thrive, and I would be open to changing my stance in a concrete injustice can be shown that arises from this policy.

[LibertyEagle]

a sperm and an egg is not equivalent to a human being.

True enough. However abortion does not involve removing isolated spermatazoa and unfertilized eggs. It involves sucking out a fetus, limb-by-limb.

[osan]

What? How is that a valid response to ChaosControl saying...




She issued an opinion as fact. I called ChaosControl on it. If there is a convincing response, then great, but I am not just taking their word (or anyone's for that matter) on the issue. I require proof. Also note they said "ending of life". I killed a fly this morning. Am I guilty of murder? I will take it they failed to qualify "life" with "human". Assuming this, we still come to the question of when an egg becomes a person and to that I will repeat myself for what seems the 543rd time today: I don't know. I do not share the certainty that some here appear to hold. I envy them, but in all good conscience I am unable to adopt that position because I have no basis for so doing. Wanting to is not sufficient in this case. Not for me, anyhow.


Finally, who should be paying for said abortion? Should the government be funding it as they now are doing? Or, is that ok?

Government funding of abortion is immoral if for no other reason than that government is forcing some people to pay for what those people regard as murder. That alone is sufficient reason not to fund such things. That the money is forcibly expropriated from us to pay for anything is questionable in my mind - even roads and other elements of the commons.

[Vessol]

Morality

Our current Statist system is immoral because at every corner it depends on coercive violence.

[Andrew-Austin]

Well,I figured the first point pretty much covered everything else. Clearly not everyone took it the same way I intended. Mea culpa.

LOL no my mistake. I was just looking at the more specific issues people listed, so I really only noticed your number two.



I didn't mean to imply that people cannot come here.

Oh. I just don't see any valuable difference between illegal immigration and legal immigration. I don't care if they pass some stupid history test written by the government, and have the proper papers. The legal method is just slower and more inconvenient for them, and pretty much useless to us if technically we say anyone can move to this country.



Please refer back to what I somewhat clumsily wrote: seal ourselves off also psychologically and politically... the point being not to allow ourselves to be inundated with those who do not share our love of freedom. Consider a large number of the Mexicans that come here - they HATE the USA and Americans, and this I know from first hand experience as well as the likes of "La Raza" and so forth, who make no attempt to hide their bald contempt for this nation and its people. Many of those are here for a few less than honorable reasons: to take advantage of the free money, to take advantage of higher earning potential this land offers, and to act as a drain on the economic health of the nation.

We have racists in the country already, we have people who hate "what the country stands for" already, native born people.

And for the welfare queens, we solve that problem by ending welfare, not limiting immigration. Only the former should be done in my opinion. The latter should not be viewed as some placeholder policy until we can end welfare.



Such people I cannot in all good conscience welcome here. As for other nations... harder to tell as I have had less first hand experience with most of them, but the principle stands in any event. Go back 100 years or so and the people who came here from Europe could not wait to become AMERICAN. Now, thanks in the main to ourselves, those who come here are often expecting the rest of us to kiss their third-world backsides and accommodate them with language and this and that.

Its up to people to choose what language they speak, and if they want to learn a new language. Its up to businesses if they want to accommodate people who speak difference languages. As for the public sector, I don't care if the majority vote that English should be the official language, so long as that does not require everyone to speak English.

As for your reference to history, go back further to early America, which had many different cultures and spoken languages. Some were crying for means to use the government as a way of enforcing uniformity, they viewed the diversity as such a big problem. The public education system for instance was advocated to get all the stubborn foreigners to speak English and conform, and I believe in some cases advocated to push religious conformity.




No need to be sarcastic.

Sorry, nothing personal, I'm just addicted to sarcasm.



Diverse in many respects, yes, but at the core we must be in agreement, and that agreement lies along the lines of a very basic and small set of propositions that delineate and define what it means to be free. If we do not have that, then as far as I can see we are lost because the moment enough people decided we need to go formally communist or fascist or what have you, liberty is out the door. Then what? The majority gets what they want and the rest of us can eat cake? What is your answer to that threat posed to the liberty-minded minority?

End things like welfare benefits, decentralize power heavily, and end public education. Anyone that comes here will then be coming for opportunity, they will be fleeing their more statist home country. If they are fascist or communist, they will not move to a capitalist country. If they do, then they won't have the means to move the country in to becoming more fascist or communist, assuming we've already become a more libertarian society.

But we're not a liberty-oriented society at present. All I'm saying is that border enforcement can't change this. Other things have to change first.

Yes I want there to be an agreed pro-liberty consensus in the country, but there is not such a consensus even among natives. So why immigrants are singled out does not make sense to me.


Oh but there is. What do you think our basis in liberty is? THAT is our essence and culture. That is what allows the Muslim to come here and live as a Muslim if that is what he pleases while his Hindu neighbor does the same, and so on for the Chinese and Spanish, Mexican, Christian, Russian, Jewish, and all the other neighbors. Live. Let live. THAT is our essence. That is not statist by any means, nor it is nationalistic. It is the recognition and prizing of a set of principles that allows us to live in harmony with one another. When that is gone one of two things are likely to happen. Either the guys with the biggest sticks will take over and impose their lifestyle on all or we devolve into a truly feudal nightmare where neighbors build walls to separate each from the other and they either fight constantly or live their days, nervously eyeballing each other from across the walls. Is that what we want? Is that what we are arguing for?

I want my liberty. I want to live and act in accord with the dictates of my conscience. If a bunch of the neighbors want to live in a commune with no private property, that is OK with me just so long as they are not forcing me to join them. THAT is my point - preservation of the framework of freedom such that we who live within the imaginary boundaries we call the United States of America can remain in such circumstances that we are able to choose what sorts of lives we shall lead without interfering with those of others or being interfered with by them. Does this make sense to you?

Yes, but immigration control can't work as "a way to ensure that the people who come here are pro-liberty."

It is slightly confusing to me that you are defining "being American" as being "liberty orientated", which is just your personal definition of being American which isn't rooted in facts. Sure I obviously want people to become more liberty oriented as well, I'm just not going to equate this with "Americanism".

Its also confusing that you earlier in this post complained about immigrant's unwillingness to learn English, but that you are now defining your criterion for who should be allowed in to the country as "just be liberty oriented."

[Sola_Fide]

Morality

Our current Statist system is immoral because at every corner it depends on coercive violence.

Good point. We have to take back the "moral" argument from collectivists.

[LibertyEagle]

I understand. I agree. But to rid society as a whole of this practice, a fiat prohibition is insufficient. The only way to convince everyone that this type of practice is barbarous is to allow them the choice to do so, and then to visit upon them consequences that are within the non-aggression principle (of course you would also be free to do more than this, but itself would create a further injustice and open your practice up to intervention from other third parties who allege the injustice).

Perhaps I don't understand what you are suggesting. What do you suggest should happen to someone who aborts her baby?

Do you have the same perspective on someone murdering their neighbor? If not, why not?


Personally, I view any post-coital action beyond the use of the Morning After pill an aggression, and feel that true liberty would quickly settle upon this and a liberal adoption policy as the "answer" to abortions. But I am in no position to force anyone to adopt this view, nor is a government.

Government's proper function is to protect liberty. Even of the unborn.

[LibertyEagle]

Thanks, Osan, but this was the entirety of what I was at least hoping you would respond to:


What? How is that a valid response to ChaosControl saying...
(Chaos' post not included)

Do you consider it imposing an opinion, if someone has a problem with someone else murdering someone? I doubt it. Which brings us back to your question of when life begins. Do you believe that it begins at any point whatsoever before the baby is born? If not, does that mean you are ok with an abortion being done anytime at all before birth? If you do believe that life begins at some point before birth, even 5 minutes, when do you believe the cutoff for abortion should be and what reasoning do you use?

Finally, who should be paying for said abortion? Should the government be funding it as they now are doing? Or, is that ok?

[Vessol]

Good point. We have to take back the "moral" argument from collectivists.

Yup. That's what I've been trying to do on other forums. The leftists and collectivists always try to argue that their system is better because it is based on morality. I then point out the gun in the room and they either vehemently deny it or they justify that the gun is good because the ends justify the means.

[scottditzen]

I understand. I agree. But to rid society as a whole of this practice, a fiat prohibition is insufficient. The only way to convince everyone that this type of practice is barbarous is to allow them the choice to do so, and then to visit upon them consequences that are within the non-aggression principle (of course you would also be free to do more than this, but itself would create a further injustice and open your practice up to intervention from other third parties who allege the injustice).

Personally, I view any post-coital action beyond the use of the Morning After pill an aggression, and feel that true liberty would quickly settle upon this and a liberal adoption policy as the "answer" to abortions. But I am in no position to force anyone to adopt this view, nor is a government.

A fiat prohibition is insufficient...in that I couldn't agree more.

Being pro life, I feel the way to "win" this debate isn't by tackling pregnant women on their way to planned parenthood. It's about having an honest, respectful discussion and education on BOTH sides. NOw I think the more we learn scientifically about the unborn (ability to feel pain, viability, etc), the more likely people are to gravitate toward the pro life side.

It is a very slim minority are actually pro-abortion.

Sure, many of us on here disagree where to draw the line on a government would enforce a ban on abortion. Fair enough, but it's a hypothetical.

When you can agree with the majority of the pro-choice crowd that the less abortion the better, you have common ground. And there lies the roadmap to working toward a positive change.

p.s. Am I the only person who listed "the environment" lol....Al Gore hates you guys.

[osan]

People viewing things differently doesn't make them complicated. It just demonstrates people attempting to complicate things that aren't needed to be complicated.

So you say, but offer no proof. Proof by assertion is invalid..



No. Responded to a statement of mine for no purpose whatsoever, especially given that that statement was one of admission that hardships arise from pregnancies. If anything such a statement is one I would think someone like you would agree with, yet you find reason to poke at it for no other reason than to make argument, essentially demonstrating my earlier people that people like to make things that are not complicated complicated.

I am afraid I understand nary a word of this. I have no idea what you are trying to convey.



Yes, everyone has an opinion on any topic that has ever existed. Not all opinions are equal. The opinion of life is more valuable than the one that seeks to destroy it. Even though I know, again, you'll disagree.

Actually I do not disagree. But this was not the point at hand. The question of when human life as such begins has not been definitively answered by anyone, to my knowledge. I have no answer. If you do, that is great. I hope one day that I, too, will be in possession of same.



If one has no proper regard for life, there is not really much one can present to them that is going to change their mind, one cannot reason with a wall. You ask for something, but nothing is going to change your mind, what you want isn't even clear. The argument against abortion is that it is the taking of a human life, I don't really see what you'd need beyond that in regards to "reason".

You seem to imply here that I have no proper regard for life simply because I do not hold an opinion identical with yours on the question at hand. Let us be clear - these are your OPINIONS and not statements of absolute fact. Prove them to me and I will change my position. I cannot put it any more plainly than that.


You have a moral responsibility as a member of the human race, we are social beings and should show concern for one another, not just ourselves.

You appear quite fond of making these absolutist statements about what my responsibilities are, yet once again you offer not the merest shred of evidence to substantiate the claims. When I ask for proof you cop out by saying there is nothing you could say that would change my mind. This is beginning to take on a certain odor. If you wish to continue this exchange I must ask that you respond forthrightly with me as I do with you. Otherwise we are wasting time and I am not in the mood for that, pardon me.




You should do what is in your ability to help out another.

Says who? Cite the source of authority for this monumental decree. And who determines what is in my ability? By what standard do they judge? By what authority do they judge? Is it me? A third party?


I find the selfishness of people quite disgusting, the value of self above all else, regardless the consequences.

And if the rest of us fail to toe your line of narrow opinion on the subject... then what? Should we be jailed? Bamboo slivers under the finger and toe nails? Either you believe in forcing people to act as if they cared or you do not. Which is it?


Laws exist to protect people from other people, abortion is a perfect example of where one person's selfishness is causing harm to another life and is the precise reason law needs to exist.

More invalid emotionalism. I hope like hell you are not on a debate team because if so, you guys are doomed. 1/2 :)

Seriously, this statement presumes many things, none of which are fact and all of which are opinion. You are entitled to your opinions, but the fact that you appear to expect the world to accept them as fact is more than a little perplexing.

This exchange appears to be pretty hopeless, so I will excuse myself. Let us agree to disagree and go our ways without rancor.

Agreed?

[outspoken]

I believe all of these things are symptoms of a greater disease which ails this country and this world. We have no moral compass or respect for self-reliance and thus self-governing. Our government whom we elect is nothing more than a bunch of sociopaths who play off of the people's unconscious fears in exchange for more power. I do not see a shift happening in government unless there is first a shift in the consciousness of the citizens who put these people in positions of authority.

[LibertyEagle]

Just fyi. Here is an interview I found with Ron Paul where he talks about our national sovereignty.

http://www.vdare.com/pb/070912_paul.htm

[ClayTrainor]

Yup. That's what I've been trying to do on other forums. The leftists and collectivists always try to argue that their system is better because it is based on morality. I then point out the gun in the room and they either vehemently deny it or they justify that the gun is good because the ends justify the means.

The best is when they try to argue in favor of gun control, and then you point out it can only be done by using guns. This can really set off their cognitive dissonance. :D

[Andrew-Austin]

The best is when they try to argue in favor of gun control, and then you point out it can only be done by using guns. This can really set off their cognitive dissonance. :D

I'm not sure I even thought of or read that counter-argument to gun control before (perhaps I forgot it or hadn't realized it explicitly), it is quite hilarious now that I've heard it. :D

[Vessol]

The best is when they try to argue in favor of gun control, and then you point out it can only be done by using guns. This can really set off their cognitive dissonance. :D

That's always funny.

"So, how are you going to take my gun away from me?"
"Uh.."
"Are you going to say pretty pretty please with sugar on top?"

[Monarchist]

Ending the Federal Reserve as it is placing a crushing burden on the working and middle classes and sapping the life out of everyday Americans.

[osan]

Traditional Conservative beat me too it.

Osan I apologize


ASccep[ted as well, and thank you. If this is your #1 issue, so be it. I fully encourage people to live by the dictates of their beliefs, but there are at times conflicts that arise between parties and that is where the flies drop into the ointment of Liberty. I do not see too many clean and pat answers in many of those cases. Perhaps I am simply not smart enough to see them... I don't know. The best answer I have is live and let live. Let us mind our own business to the greatest extents possible. I don't know what else to recommend at this point. The practical result of prohibiting abortion is the same as other prohibitions. Just look where the drug war has gotten us. No, they are not the same thing in specific, but they are close in principle.

I do not think any right-minded person will hold the belief that murder is OK. I surely do not. But I am at a loss to determine for OTHER PEOPLE that terminating the growth cycle of a fertilized egg is murder. OTOH, I find the prospect of later term abortions utterly horrifying to contemplate. Somewhere between those extremes human life as such comes to be. I have NO idea where that happens, that is, at what point in the cycle. To assert that it is at fertilization does not seem right to me at all, though I am open to persuasion even on that point. But if it is not, then when it is? I wish I knew. I wish I had that knowledge and could disseminate it to the world so that everyone would know and this terribly divisive issue would finally be settled so that we could more on to other issues. As I wrote before, I am simply not that smart.


I simply disagree with your opinions on what it means to be pro life, I suppose.

Well hell, I don't even agree with my opinions. :)

[osan]

Did I get you confused with someone else? That's possible. heh. I'll go look. :)

Nope. I said what I said because of your apparent approval of abortion. If you wouldn't mind, please go back and address the entirety of what I said, rather than taking this one sentence out of context. Thanks.

Allowing something does NOT imply approval.

I don't approve of many thing people do. Heroin use is a good example. But prohibition? Not the answer in my book. Abortion is a differently striped tiger, but the principle still applies, depending on the real answer to the "start of life" question.

[scottditzen]

Yeah I re-read your posts to better understand the points you were making. Much common ground despite our disagreement.






Well hell, I don't even agree with my opinions. :)

Ha!

[osan]

To answer why I think this is the line, I have a number of reasons. First, this method allows women the right to say "I don't want my body being used for reproduction" even after having sex. This resolves the issue of rape, drunken or lustful mistakes, or otherwise non-consensual pregnancies. The effect of the medicine is the same whether there has been conception or otherwise, and knowledge of a successful pregnancy is taken out of the picture.

Hooboy... I understand your point, but I don't know if the reasoning flies. I've been thinking on this much of the day and to be honest my head hurts and I need to go get the goats some hay. How's that for a cop out? :)


Second, this method would acknowledge the rights of a human embryo only after it was known to be present, and a free market in adoption would likely be sufficient to compensate the mothers enough to ensure that they carry the pregnancy at least until the child can be supported outside the womb.

But would not "murdering" an embryo unwittingly constitute manslaughter at the least, especially if the aggravating factor of negligence could be demonstrated?


Third this method recognizes the impossibility of prohibiting substances. The pill cannot be effectively pushed out of use through law, as black markets would supply it even if laws made this more risky and costly. In effect, since there is no action by a third party, like a doctor, it would be impossible to police.

OK , but here you are turning your back on principle in favor of practical solutions. This is not always wrong, I suppose, but here we are talking about murder. I am not sure how one reconciles all of this. Ideas?


Lastly any type of pre-coital measures do not end an already instigated process of independent life, and therefore should not be prohibited on the grounds of "protecting life".

Are we drawing a line at independent viability? This may simplify some aspects of the question, though for some certainly not (not for me, BTW), but other aspects remain equally problematic, such as determining at what point a given fetus is viable on its own.... which is usually not until rather late in the term and I have to confess my utter sense of horror at the very thought of later term abortions. Fuck... my head REALLY hurts now... I think I need a pill. Or a beer. Or a pill and a beer. That's the ticket. Seriously.


Any type of contraception should be allowed, as any limitation on this is a direct restriction on the liberties of existing persons,

Oh thank god... finally something to which I can give definite agreement.


I'm not arguing that this is the only non-aggressive solution. There may be others that arise if competing associations of behavior were allowed to thrive, and I would be open to changing my stance in a concrete injustice can be shown that arises from this policy.

Agreed.

[outspoken]

Abortion is an interesting topic... I do not believe in abortion as a right of choice but also am comfortable with the morality of early stage abortion in the case of rape. Hypothetically speaking, if a young girl is raped by a male and becomes pregnant as a result is the highest moral stance to have her proceed with the emotional distress of having that child? Should it not be our goal as human beings to end suffering particularly in the case of a situation of rape?

[BamaAla]

This thread started out with a nice premise then jumped the tracks pretty quickly.

[Brett85]

Hold on thar cowboy... I said SECURE OUR BORDERS - not shut the world out. Allowing people to traipse across the border at will when there are all kinds of free goodies available, courtesy of the tax payer pretty well removes the point of having a nation in the first place, does it not? And I can even live with that, but for a couple of practical problems that arise therefrom: for example, how is liberty preserved? What is to stop Canada from rolling its tanks across the tundra of ND and crushing us? (1/2 sarcasm).

I have no problem with an open border in principle, but as long as we have a welfare state that is sucking the life out of hard- and smart-working Americans, I do not see how this can be allowed without placing us in some very non-trivial peril.

All right. I may have misunderstood what you were saying, because I thought you were saying that all legal immigration should be stopped as well. I support securing the borders as well, but I believe that people should have the right to come here legally.

[Brett85]

a sperm and an egg is not equivalent to a human being.

We aren't talking about banning condoms. When sperm and an egg unite, it forms a human being that continues to grow and develop in the woman's body. It has all the same characteristics that you and I have, including a heartbeat and the ability to breath. Please explain how a living, breathing human being in the womb is not really a human being.

[surf]

back on subject: war

[ClayTrainor]

We aren't talking about banning condoms. When sperm and an egg unite, it forms a human being that continues to grow and develop in the woman's body.

No it does not form a human being at the moment of conception, it forms a human embryo. A bunch of sexual discharge is not the same as a full human being.

A seed does not become a tree the moment you plant it in the ground.


It has all the same characteristics that you and I have, including a heartbeat and the ability to breath. Please explain how a living, breathing human being in the womb is not really a human being.

The embryo eventually forms a human being inside the mother, but this does not happen instantaneously at the moment of conception. That is a religious belief, not science.

[Invi]

Someone's going ask, what makes us human.
Someone will say, our free will, and conscious thought. Maybe our morality, and perhaps a dozen other things. (How many of these things will describe a fetus, at which stages of development?)
Someone will ask, does that make individuals who are braindead not human?

On the subject of abortion, I am pro-choice, but torn about it.



OT
1. Reduce Gov't, Reduce Spending
2. Non-interventionist foreign policy

[Vessol]

We aren't talking about banning condoms. When sperm and an egg unite, it forms a human being that continues to grow and develop in the woman's body. It has all the same characteristics that you and I have, including a heartbeat and the ability to breath. Please explain how a living, breathing human being in the womb is not really a human being.

Uh. A fetus not have a heart until about 3.9 months in and it does not have lungs till about 5 months into the pregnancy.

Until about 6 months there is no actual brain activity. At about this time the neurons in the brain are used for the first time and sentience and self-awareness happens. Because this is when neurons first actually start firing, this is the first time that the fetus can actually feel stimuli which would include pain.

90% of abortions are performed before 3 months, before these things develop. In the first few months, it literally is a tiny mass of cells.

What defines a human? The potential to be a human? Because if that is the case, it should be wrong for me to destroy spermatozoa. If you want to define life beginning at conception when there is no sentience or any kind of functions, then why isn't a human corpse alive as well?
I've always defined a human as being sentient. This goes for any other animal. I don't look at an egg and think "That's a chicken"

I'm not going to debate abortion, but you should at least have your facts straight.

[ChaosControl]

Is a fertilized egg the same thing as a chicken?
Yes, once fertilzied, it is a chicken in the earliest stage of life.


If I put it in the ground does is it automatically become the same thing as a tree?

Yes, once planted, it is a tree int he earliest stage of life.

[Vessol]

Yes, once fertilzied, it is a chicken in the earliest stage of life.

Yes, once planted, it is a tree int he earliest stage of life.

But where do we cut it off?

Why isn't a unfertilized egg a chicken? Or an unplanted seed a tree?

They still have the potential to be either a chicken or a tree.

[LibertyEagle]

Allowing something does NOT imply approval.

I don't approve of many thing people do. Heroin use is a good example. But prohibition? Not the answer in my book. Abortion is a differently striped tiger, but the principle still applies, depending on the real answer to the "start of life" question.

No, those are two entirely different concepts. If someone wants to destroy themselves through heroin or any other mechanism, that is their own affair. But, abortion involves the destruction of another living being. That is what makes your examples quite different indeed. If there was no baby involved, I firmly believe it would be none of my business. But, there is.

The proper role of government is to protect liberty. Even of the unborn.

[LibertyEagle]

But where do we cut it off?

Why isn't a unfertilized egg a chicken?

Because it is missing a major component. The fertilization. Unless the egg is fertilized, it will never become a chicken.

[Vessol]

Because it is missing a major component. The fertilization. Unless the egg is fertilized, it will never become a chicken.

But if the egg is destroyed it will never have the chance to become fertilized in the first place.

[LibertyEagle]

But if the egg is destroyed it will never have the chance to become fertilized in the first place.

True enough. And women should have the option of destroying their own unfertilized eggs if they so choose.

[Vessol]

True enough. And women should have the option of destroying their own unfertilized eggs if they so choose.

But those eggs have the potential to become life.

How is a fertilized egg any different than a unfertilized egg?

How is a chicken any different than a fertilized egg?

What makes life?
The potential for life?
Or sentience?

Why is a human corpse not considered life when there is still potential for life within it?

I really don't have a strong opinion here, don't get me wrong, I just like digging into all sorts of ideas.

[Sola_Fide]

No, those are two entirely different concepts. If someone wants to destroy themselves through heroin or any other mechanism, that is their own affair. But, abortion involves the destruction of another living being. That is what makes your examples quite different indeed. If there was no baby involved, I firmly believe it would be none of my business. But, there is.

The proper role of government is to protect liberty. Even of the unborn.

Yes. If you cede the ground of Liberty on this one issue, it becomes the basis for every other drawback from Liberty.

Abortion is very plainly the State denying an entire class of innocent people the protections of the law. Once you do it to one group, you can do it to any group...because the State declares them "not developed enough".

There is no question that at conception there is a distinct life. The logical hoops that people jump through to try to get around that is frankly sickening. I have a hard time associating sometimes with people who hold this blood-thirsty and cold view of human dignity, but I understand that when you reject the Living God, He will allow you to travel to depths of evil that you couldn't imagine...

[LibertyEagle]

p.s. Am I the only person who listed "the environment" lol....Al Gore hates you guys.

I'm quite sure he does. But, it's not because we don't want his Cap and Trade bull. I am also quite sure that we care more about the environment than Al Gore ever did. His carbon footprint is bigger than all of ours put together.

[ChaosControl]

So you say, but offer no proof. Proof by assertion is invalid..
I'm sorry but I don't know how one proves life is simple, just as I don't know how one would prove it complex. I'd just say the simplest answer is probably the right one and that a simpler life generally results in a happier life. People stress themselves out and are miserable, all in pursuit of what? More money, more fame, more whatever. I think people forgot how to just live peacefully and content with what they have.


I am afraid I understand nary a word of this. I have no idea what you are trying to convey.
Basically I don't even know why you responded to my original statement since it was merely acknowledgement that pregnancies can be quite undesirable at times.



Actually I do not disagree. But this was not the point at hand. The question of when human life as such begins has not been definitively answered by anyone, to my knowledge. I have no answer. If you do, that is great. I hope one day that I, too, will be in possession of same.
Okay, now we are getting somewhere. You don't know when life begins. So at least you don't firmly believe life begins at conception and still support abortion. Some people believe as firmly as me that life begins at conception but still think allowing abortion is acceptable. Okay, at the very least, can you understand how someone who does believe life begins at conception, is against abortion and wishes the practice ended?



You seem to imply here that I have no proper regard for life simply because I do not hold an opinion identical with yours on the question at hand. Let us be clear - these are your OPINIONS and not statements of absolute fact. Prove them to me and I will change my position. I cannot put it any more plainly than that.
Then, you're basically asking me to prove life begins at conception?
I question when else can it even begin? No other point even makes any sense and seems arbitrary. I think of it like a number line, conception is the point just to the right of zero. Birth may be point 1 on the number line and adolescence point 2 and adulthood point 3. It doesn't mean it isn't life just because ti isn't at point 1, it is just in earlier development, just as infancy is earlier development than adolescence.

I don't know that it can really be proven than human personhood begins at conception, although science as time goes on shows when certain developments occur, such as when the first heart beat is, when the fingers are formed, etc. All of those forming within that first trimester, even first month.

I cannot properly prove personhood begins at conception, but to me it is simply the logical conclusion based on that no other point in time would make sense. Why would it start at one month, or three months? Why wouldn't it start at the beginning?

I've talked to some people who have a different criteria, such as being self-aware. I suppose in that case my view isn't going to come across to them. To me it is more the biology of the issue than the mental state of the individual. They are biologically human from the beginning. I suppose we can argue whether all biological humans are entitled to equal rights, I would say they are.


You appear quite fond of making these absolutist statements about what my responsibilities are, yet once again you offer not the merest shred of evidence to substantiate the claims. When I ask for proof you cop out by saying there is nothing you could say that would change my mind. This is beginning to take on a certain odor. If you wish to continue this exchange I must ask that you respond forthrightly with me as I do with you. Otherwise we are wasting time and I am not in the mood for that, pardon me.
Says who? Cite the source of authority for this monumental decree. And who determines what is in my ability? By what standard do they judge? By what authority do they judge? Is it me? A third party?

Not every statement is a matter of proof. You don't prove that someone has the responsibility to take care of others. If you feel that you need this proven to you, I don't know what yo say. It is all a part of making society better for everyone, we are part of society and as part of it we have a duty to do our part in improving conditions. The most fundamental part to ensure would be that we have the right to life, so a responsibility than a pregnancy comes to term would be pretty necessary. I have nothing against ending this part of the discussion though if you must only deal in proofs.


And if the rest of us fail to toe your line of narrow opinion on the subject... then what? Should we be jailed? Bamboo slivers under the finger and toe nails? Either you believe in forcing people to act as if they cared or you do not. Which is it?

I don't support forcing people to act that way, I think people should voluntarily act that way. I think people should WANT to help others. No, I oppose a law forcing it because I really wouldn't want to be around others who only help because the law makes them, I want to be a part of a community that actively wants to help one another because they care about others and feel it is right.


More invalid emotionalism. I hope like hell you are not on a debate team because if so, you guys are doomed. 1/2 :)
No, I dislike debate because it is too try and dead. Its like robots or lawyers talking, it has no humanity to it.


Seriously, this statement presumes many things, none of which are fact and all of which are opinion. You are entitled to your opinions, but the fact that you appear to expect the world to accept them as fact is more than a little perplexing.

This exchange appears to be pretty hopeless, so I will excuse myself. Let us agree to disagree and go our ways without rancor.

Agreed?

I can agree to disagree and end this pointless exchange since we have very different ways of thinking about things in general.

[LibertyEagle]

I believe all of these things are symptoms of a greater disease which ails this country and this world. We have no moral compass or respect for self-reliance and thus self-governing. Our government whom we elect is nothing more than a bunch of sociopaths who play off of the people's unconscious fears in exchange for more power. I do not see a shift happening in government unless there is first a shift in the consciousness of the citizens who put these people in positions of authority.

I think this is worth repeating.

[Vessol]

I believe all of these things are symptoms of a greater disease which ails this country and this world. We have no moral compass or respect for self-reliance and thus self-governing. Our government whom we elect is nothing more than a bunch of sociopaths who play off of the people's unconscious fears in exchange for more power. I do not see a shift happening in government unless there is first a shift in the consciousness of the citizens who put these people in positions of authority.

“That no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted, or reasonably be supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly upon voluntary support”

"Therefore a man’s voting under the Constitution of the United States, is not to be taken as evidence that he ever freely assented to the Constitution, even for the time being. Consequently we have no proof that any very large portion, even of the actual voters of the United States, ever really and voluntarily consented to the Constitution, even for the time being. Nor can we ever have such proof, until every man is left perfectly free to consent, or not, without thereby subjecting himself or his property to injury or trespass from others."

“The only security men can have for their political liberty, consists in keeping their money in their own pockets”

-Lysander Spooner

[LibertyEagle]

Oh geez, Vessol. So, we're back to this again? Even though it isn't perfect, don't you think we would be much better off if we head in the direction of what is laid out in that document? If we had a constitutional government, 95% of what the federal government is now doing, would be stopped.

I honestly don't think we are doing ourselves any favors at all by trash talking the Constitution. All the while that Ron Paul is talking about the need to get our government to follow it.

[Brett85]

Uh. A fetus not have a heart until about 3.9 months in and it does not have lungs till about 5 months into the pregnancy.

Until about 6 months there is no actual brain activity. At about this time the neurons in the brain are used for the first time and sentience and self-awareness happens. Because this is when neurons first actually start firing, this is the first time that the fetus can actually feel stimuli which would include pain.

90% of abortions are performed before 3 months, before these things develop. In the first few months, it literally is a tiny mass of cells.

What defines a human? The potential to be a human? Because if that is the case, it should be wrong for me to destroy spermatozoa. If you want to define life beginning at conception when there is no sentience or any kind of functions, then why isn't a human corpse alive as well?
I've always defined a human as being sentient. This goes for any other animal. I don't look at an egg and think "That's a chicken"

I'm not going to debate abortion, but you should at least have your facts straight.

Your claims are simply false. The baby's heart starts beating 3 weeks after conception, and it begins breathing at about 11 weeks.

[Brett85]

No it does not form a human being at the moment of conception, it forms a human embryo. A bunch of sexual discharge is not the same as a full human being.

A seed does not become a tree the moment you plant it in the ground.



The embryo eventually forms a human being inside the mother, but this does not happen instantaneously at the moment of conception. That is a religious belief, not science.

So when exactly is it a human being in your opinion? At the moment of birth?

[Vessol]

Oh geez, Vessol. So, we're back to this again? Even though it isn't perfect, don't you think we would be much better off if we head in the direction of what is laid out in that document? If we had a constitutional government, 95% of what the federal government is now doing, would be stopped.

I honestly don't think we are doing ourselves any favors at all by trash talking the Constitution. All the while that Ron Paul is talking about the need to get our government to follow it.

I'm just following Thomas Jefferson really, who was against the drafting of the Constitution as well. I personally feel that the Articles of Confederation, while not perfect, were much better if someone desires smaller government.

The Constitution did nothing to prevent the size and growth of the Federal Government for the past two hundred years, why should I believe that if we hit reset and go back to 1787 the same thing won't happen?


Your claims are simply false. The baby's heart starts beating 3 weeks after conception, and it begins breathing at about 11 weeks.

I did a bit of research and you are correct, thank you for the correction. :)

What do you believe defines a human being? I'm not asking "when is it a human being?", but rather, what makes it a human being?

[LibertyEagle]

But those eggs have the potential to become life.

How is a fertilized egg any different than a unfertilized egg?

How is a chicken any different than a fertilized egg?

What makes life?
The potential for life?
Or sentience?

Why is a human corpse not considered life when there is still potential for life within it?

I really don't have a strong opinion here, don't get me wrong, I just like digging into all sorts of ideas.

Until the egg is fertilized, it is not life.

[Vessol]

Until the egg is fertilized, it is not life.

So a chemical reaction between cells=life. Thank you for the clarification :).

[LibertyEagle]

I'm just following Thomas Jefferson really, who was against the drafting of the Constitution as well. I personally feel that the Articles of Confederation, while not perfect, were much better if someone desires smaller government.

The Constitution did nothing to prevent the size and growth of the Federal Government for the past two hundred years, why should I believe that if we hit reset and go back to 1787 the same thing won't happen?

Well, Vessol, I sincerely hope you put a cap on it if and when Ron Paul runs again. Because personally, I always found it pretty disgusting to see people who claimed to support Ron Paul so strongly and then go stab him in the back by pushing arguments that ran contrary to his platform all over these forums and elsewhere. We lost more than a few people because of it.

[ChaosControl]

But where do we cut it off?

Why isn't a unfertilized egg a chicken? Or an unplanted seed a tree?

They still have the potential to be either a chicken or a tree.

I cut it off at the beginning. Before the egg is fertilized it is not and cannot be a chicken.
The seed/tree is a little more iffy though. It makes me think of implantation vs fertilization, so maybe it should be considered a tree even unplanted.

It isn't about potential or not, but about what it is. A fertilized egg, chicken or human, IS chicken or human. It isn't potentially that, it already is that just at the earliest stage of development.

An unfertilized egg may have the potential, but until it is fertilized it isn't human life anymore than semen on its own is. That unique DNA must be created. Which of course is why yeah, I support the seed of the tree should be considered a tree planted or not, just at the earliest stage.

[LibertyEagle]

So a chemical reaction between cells=life. Thank you for the clarification :).

That is not what I said, but whatever floats your boat. Perhaps you should go purchase a book on human reproduction.

[surf]

back on topic: war

my second issue is getting godamn Comcast to provide Fox Soccer Channel in HD

all of you discussing issues about conception of life or whatever the hell your discussing should all go to the chat room right now and let this thread go back to what is the most important issue.

[Vessol]

I cut it off at the beginning. Before the egg is fertilized it is not and cannot be a chicken.
The seed/tree is a little more iffy though. It makes me think of implantation vs fertilization, so maybe it should be considered a tree even unplanted.

It isn't about potential or not, but about what it is. A fertilized egg, chicken or human, IS chicken or human. It isn't potentially that, it already is that just at the earliest stage of development.

An unfertilized egg may have the potential, but until it is fertilized it isn't human life anymore than semen on its own is. That unique DNA must be created. Which of course is why yeah, I support the seed of the tree should be considered a tree planted or not, just at the earliest stage.

But there's still a chance that the unfertilized egg could be fertilized, right?

Just because an egg is fertilized does not guarantee life, all sorts of things could happen. 50% of human pregnancies end up in spontaneous natural abortions, usually very early on.

[Vessol]

Well, Vessol, I sincerely hope you put a cap on it if and when Ron Paul runs again. Because personally, I always found it pretty disgusting to see people who claimed to support Ron Paul so strongly and then go stab him in the back by pushing arguments that ran contrary to his platform all over these forums and elsewhere. We lost more than a few people because of it.

Why all the hostility? I recognize common goals, but I have doubts?

Am I allowed to have doubts or are those not allowed in your viewpoint?

I know many people have doubts about my own ideas, but I don't attack them, rather I debate them civilly.


That is not what I said, but whatever floats your boat. Perhaps you should go purchase a book on human reproduction.

I'm no expert on the subject, but it is a chemical reaction. Basically when one spermatozoa interacts with the egg and penetrates it, the egg gives off an electrical charge that doesn't allow other spermatozoa to enter.

I'd consider this a chemical reaction.

[LibertyEagle]

Why all the hostility? I recognize common goals, but I have doubts?

Am I allowed to have doubts or are those not allowed in your viewpoint?

I know many people have doubts about my own ideas, but I don't attack them, rather I debate them civilly.

Sure you are, Vessol. I guess I've just been around here a long time and saw a bunch of things happen during the last election and a variety of things, since. Go ahead and debate it all you want. But, please understand if I don't partake. I've seen that topic debated ad nauseum. Also, please understand that when most of the rest of the country is having trouble even understanding why they would be better off with far less government and keeping them within the bounds of the Constitution, it often confuses them when they see Ron Paul supporters advocating for tossing out the Constitution and a variety of other things. Anyway, that is where my frustration lies.

I apologize though, if it seemed to you like I was biting your head off. :)



I'm no expert on the subject, but it is a chemical reaction. Basically when one spermatozoa interacts with the egg and penetrates it, the egg gives off an electrical charge that doesn't allow other spermatozoa to enter.

I'd consider this a chemical reaction.

Okey dokey. But, the key ingredient is the sperm and that is what differentiates the fertilized egg from an unfertilized egg.

[FrankRep]

So a chemical reaction between cells=life. Thank you for the clarification :).


Just remember, Ron Paul supports the idea that Life begins at conception.


http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Picture-140.png
Ron Paul, CPAC 2011 Straw Poll Winner (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/6299-ron-paul-wins-cpac-presidential-straw-vote)


H.R.1094 - Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h1094/show)

Sponsor: Ron Paul

(1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(2) the term "person" shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state . Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure:

(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions. Makes this Act applicable to any case pending on the date of enactment.

[ChaosControl]

But there's still a chance that the unfertilized egg could be fertilized, right?

Just because an egg is fertilized does not guarantee life, all sorts of things could happen. 50% of human pregnancies end up in spontaneous natural abortions, usually very early on.

And if it is fertilized, it will be life. As that is when the unique DNA is set.
And yes a fertilized egg DOES guarantee life, it may end early in development, but it is life at that point on.

[ClayTrainor]

Just remember, Ron Paul supports the idea that Life begins at conception.

Just remember, it's important to think for yourself, before drawing conclusions. ;)

[ClayTrainor]

And if it is fertilized, it will be life. As that is when the unique DNA is set.
And yes a fertilized egg DOES guarantee life, it may end early in development, but it is life at that point on.

So, if someone artificially inseminated and egg in a petri dish in a lab, would you claim what's in that petri dish has the same rights as a full grown human?

If they accidentally drop the petri dish and kill the embryo, are they guilty of killing a human being, and should be tried in the same way as if they accidently killed me?

[ChaosControl]

So, if someone artificially inseminated and egg in a petri dish in a lab, would you claim what's in that petri dish has the same rights as a full grown human?

If they accidentally drop the petri dish and kill the embryo, are they guilty of killing a human being?

Yes. It is unique life at that point.
Although I oppose artificial insemination. If you cannot reproduce naturally, I think you should adopt instead of finding other ways to get pregnany.

[LibertyEagle]

So, if someone artificially inseminated and egg in a petri dish in a lab, would you claim what's in that petri dish has the same rights as a full grown human?

Now, it's a "full grown human"? Do you really want to lay this opportunity at the feet of the government for them to decide who is and who is not, worthy of life and liberty?

That is what it is coming to, you know.

[LibertyEagle]

Just remember, it's important to think for yourself, before drawing conclusions. ;)

Since this is Ron Paul Forums, I think he was just making sure that all the people viewing this thread understand Ron Paul's view on the subject.

[ClayTrainor]

Yes. It is unique life at that point.

It's unique life, sure (so is a cockroach), but that's not the point of my question. Is what's in that petri dish equivalent to a human being, like myself? If someone accidentally drops the petri dish, you think that's equivalent to someone accidentally killing me?



Although I oppose artificial insemination. If you cannot reproduce naturally, I think you should adopt instead of finding other ways to get pregnany.

And do you want the state to enforce that opinion as well?

[ClayTrainor]

Now, it's a "full grown human"? Do you really want to lay this opportunity at the feet of the government for them to decide who is and who is not, worthy of life and liberty?

Of course not, how could you possibly get that from what I'm saying? It's the anti-abortionists who advocate state intervention in these decisions, I want the state OUT of it.

I also don't want the state deciding what women can do with their own bodies.

[ClayTrainor]

Since this is Ron Paul Forums, I think he was just making sure that all the people viewing this thread understand Ron Paul's view on the subject.

That's fine, and I'm making the point that it's important to think things through yourself, before coming to a conclusion because of someone elses opinion. :)

[Vessol]

That's fine, and I'm making the point that it's important to think things through yourself, before coming to a conclusion because of someone elses opinion. :)

Yup, otherwise it's a logical fallacy called "appeal to authority".

I don't let Ron Paul shape what I believe, I like Ron Paul because he shares and he pushes for the things I believe.

[erowe1]

It's unique life, sure (so is a cockroach), but that's not the point of my question. Is what's in that petri dish equivalent to a human being, like myself? If someone accidentally drops the petri dish, you think that's equivalent to someone accidentally killing me?


Yes.

But I can understand why some people are unsure about a case like that. And if someone is unsure, then they should treat that embryo the same way they would treat something else whose humanity they're not sure of, like if they're hunting and the see something move, but can't tell if it's a man or a deer.

[Vessol]

While I lean pro-life, my main issue is this:

How are you going to enforce any ban on abortions? What's stopping a black market that cater to the demand that some will continue to have for abortions?

[ChaosControl]

It's unique life, sure (so is a cockroach), but that's not the point of my question. Is what's in that petri dish equivalent to a human being, like myself? If someone accidentally drops the petri dish, you think that's equivalent to someone accidentally killing me?
It is the same. A fertilize human egg is a unique human life at its earliest stage of development and should receive full rights and recognize the same as an infant or adult receives.


And do you want the state to enforce that opinion as well?
I'm not sure, but I definitely would prefer it not existing. I can see the potential need to prevent it since it can result in frozen embryos that are eventually discarded.

[ClayTrainor]

Yes.

But I can understand why some people are unsure about a case like that.

I'll admit that it makes no sense to me. I do not view a freshly planted seed as a tree. And I do not view a bunch of sexual discharge in a petri dish, as a human being. Maybe i'm crazy. :p

[erowe1]

While I lean pro-life, my main issue is this:

How are you going to enforce any ban on abortions? What's stopping a black market that cater to the demand that some will continue to have for abortions?

I don't think it can completely be stopped. The same is true of any other crime.

[ClayTrainor]

While I lean pro-life, my main issue is this:

How are you going to enforce any ban on abortions? What's stopping a black market that cater to the demand that some will continue to have for abortions?

+1

[ChaosControl]

While I lean pro-life, my main issue is this:

How are you going to enforce any ban on abortions? What's stopping a black market that cater to the demand that some will continue to have for abortions?

You can't end it completely, but you can cut down on the number by preventing hospitals and clinics from being able to offer the procedure. Less will be willing to perform it or have it done if there is a greater risk involved.

Banning it, doing more for people who are pregnant, etc, all are things we need to do, not just one thing.

[osan]

I believe all of these things are symptoms of a greater disease which ails this country and this world. We have no moral compass or respect for self-reliance and thus self-governing. Our government whom we elect is nothing more than a bunch of sociopaths who play off of the people's unconscious fears in exchange for more power. I do not see a shift happening in government unless there is first a shift in the consciousness of the citizens who put these people in positions of authority.

Very well stated. On the money.

[Vessol]

You can't end it completely, but you can cut down on the number by preventing hospitals and clinics from being able to offer the procedure. Less will be willing to perform it or have it done if there is a greater risk involved.

Banning it, doing more for people who are pregnant, etc, all are things we need to do, not just one thing.

But this is the same argument made for prohibition, and that obviously hasn't worked.


You can't end drug use completely, but you can cut down on the number by preventing stores and markets from being able to offer the drug. Less will be willing to sell it or use it if there is a greater risk involved.

Banning it, doing more for people who are addicted, etc, all are things we need to do, not just one thing.

What I'm trying to say is this: Perhaps the pro-life crowd is looking at it the wrong way. Instead of looking to the State to fix the problem, they themselves should go forth and try to share their ideas and try to change the consciousness of society. Using the government to solve any problem never works and it always has unintended consequences.

[ClayTrainor]

You can't end it completely, but you can cut down on the number by preventing hospitals and clinics the market from being able to offer the procedure drugs. Less will be willing to perform it sell or do drugs if there is a greater risk involved.

Prohibition doesnt work, sorry.

[LibertyEagle]

That's fine, and I'm making the point that it's important to think things through yourself, before coming to a conclusion because of someone elses opinion. :)

I agree with that.

[erowe1]

Prohibition doesnt work, sorry.

Not even the prohibition of murder?

[ChaosControl]

But this is the same argument made for prohibition, and that obviously hasn't worked.

What I'm trying to say is this: Perhaps the pro-life crowd is looking at it the wrong way. Instead of looking to the State to fix the problem, they themselves should go forth and try to share their ideas and try to change the consciousness of society. Using the government to solve any problem never works and it always has unintended consequences.

I agree that there is a need beyond law to address this issue. However, I think law also plays a role. No, we cannot stop the activity 100% with law. But you stop the clinics and hospitals from offering a "safe, legal" place to get it done, more are going to think twice about it. The difference I think in things like prohibition is other than getting caught by the cops, there isn't really a difference of much in risk. While there is a pretty difference risk in having a surgery done.

[Vessol]

Not even the prohibition of murder?

No, murders still occur.

Laws against murder don't prevent it from happening.

[LibertyEagle]

Prohibition doesnt work, sorry.

That's not a good analogy. Drinking does not infringe on another's liberty. Abortion does.

Clay, last time I checked, murder was against the law. That doesn't mean that murders still don't happen every day. The fact that they still happen, does not mean that we should remove all laws against murder. The same would be true for abortion.

But, my stance is that first, I want to remove Roe v. Wade and all federal government funding for abortion. It should be each state's decision as to how to handle abortion, just as it is their decision of how to deal with most every other murder.

[erowe1]

No, murders still occur.

Laws against murder don't prevent it from happening.

Do you think they don't decrease its rate of incidence?

[Vessol]

Do you think they don't decrease its rate of incidence?

Not particularly. There are no sources to cite from either argument, but I don't really think that the boys in blue are making people stop and think "Wait, maybe I shouldn't murder". Rather they just find more elaborate ways to kill someone instead of just walking up to them and shooting them in the head.

[LibertyEagle]

No, murders still occur.

Laws against murder don't prevent it from happening.

No, but they certainly curtail it. Just as the threat of a lawsuit, curtails other activities. But, in the end, many in our country now suffer from a complete lack of morality and inability to see beyond their own selves. It's pretty sad. In fact, our Founders said quite a few things about this and told us that our form of government was only suited for a moral people.

Those whose intent has been to destroy our country have done a good job. :(

[ClayTrainor]

That's not a good analogy. Drinking does not infringe on another's liberty. Abortion does.

It's a perfect analogy. If you prohibit something there is demand for, you create a black market with heaps of unintended consequences.



Clay, last time I checked, murder was against the law. That doesn't mean that murders still don't happen every day. The fact that they still happen, does not mean that we should remove all laws against murder. The same would be true for abortion.


Do you think if there were no state laws for murder, that there would be no consequences to murder?



But, my stance is that first, I want to remove Roe v. Wade and all federal government funding for abortion.
That's a good start



It should be each state's decision as to how to handle abortion, just as it is their decision of how to deal with most every other murder.

There should be no monopolies dictating what "the law" is.

I don't think states handle murder charges very well, either. Those with political connections can literally get away with murder, at times, and police all too often incarcerate the wrong people for the sake of wrapping up a case, while the real criminals stay out on the streets.

In my opinion, the state (federal and state-level) are front organizations for organized crime. They should not be entrusted with moral decisions.

[Vessol]

No, but they certainly curtail it. Just as the threat of a lawsuit, curtails other activities.

I don't think what's stopping the vast majority of people from murdering someone is the law that makes it illegal.

There are far more punishments for murder than "the law".

If today, murder suddenly became legal, I highly doubt you'd have a sudden onrush of people who'd go "Well, now the law says its okay, so I'll go ahead and murder!"

It's kind of a Hobbesian view of humankind to say otherwise.

[erowe1]

There should be no monopolies dictating what "the law" is.

I don't think states handle murder charges very well, either. Those with political connections can literally get away with murder, at times, and police all too often incarcerate the wrong people for the sake of wrapping up a case, while the real criminals stay out on the streets.

In my opinion, the state (federal and state-level) are front organizations for organized crime. They should not be entrusted with moral decisions.

I agree with all that. Groups of people who come up with rules by their own whims and declare them the law have no authority for that. The only truly legitimate law is the one that comes from the creator. Whatever means is proper for a society to govern itself should be a means where the only law that reigns in the court and that is administered by whatever methods a society uses is that natural law.

Within this, the same prohibition of murder that natural law affords to the born, it also affords to the pre-born. So you might have good arguments against the state, but those arguments don't entail being pro-choice in abortion any more than they entail being pro-choice in other forms of murder.

[QueenB4Liberty]

I agree with you on 2, but 1 will get you into a war with many. Attempting to force this upon people at this stage of the game is asking to get yourself killed, very literally. I will add that such force lies in diametric opposition to the principles of liberty. You may not like abortion - I don't much care for it, especially as a means of contraception (which I find utterly reprehensible), but it is an issue for the individual to decide each for herself. If you do not understand why this is so, then I would have to submit that you are not an advocate of liberty but of pretty slavery. Pretty to you, that is.

Hold your values on that issue close to your heart, live by the dictates of your conscience, and demand the world respect them. In return, the price you pay is the same respect of the decisions of others even when what they do fills you with horror. Neither you nor I not anyone else is to impose judgment upon others on such issues. The slope is sudden, slippery, and steep. Beware.

Exactly good post. In the last interview he did when he was asked about abortion he basically said government couldn't do anything to stop it, but he is pro-life. It's an acceptable position. I think he realizes abortion is a very polarizing issue. If he's in this thing to win this time, he can't come out swinging saying he'll make abortion illegal without losing a ton of support. After all, you can't really run a campaign on individual liberty for all except for pregnant women can you?

[QueenB4Liberty]

1. Monetary Policy
2. Foreign Policy

[Kludge]

http://www.steadyhealth.com/Home_abortion___success_or_failure_with_syringe_t1 01996.html

To answer the question -
1) Ending gov't wars
2) Dismantling gov't entirely or removing enough power from gov't so evading it is dramatically easier than currently (through anfasc means, ofc :D)

[Vessol]

I agree with all that. Groups of people who come up with rules by their own whims and declare them the law have no authority for that. The only truly legitimate law is the one that comes from the creator. Whatever means is proper for a society to govern itself should be a means where the only law that reigns in the court and that is administered by whatever methods a society uses is that natural law.

Within this, the same prohibition of murder that natural law affords to the born, it also affords to the pre-born. So you might have good arguments against the state, but those arguments don't entail being pro-choice in abortion any more than they entail being pro-choice in other forms of murder.

Excellent post, couldn't agree more. That's why I call myself pro-life :)

[newbitech]

I wonder if there is a long list of issues somewhere that I could leach. Anyone?

[QueenB4Liberty]

Then you aren't pro life at all. The term "pro life" refers to those who want the government to protect innocent human life. And why in the world do you use exclamation points after every single sentence?

A woman is a born person. There is no debate in that. You're saying it's okay for born person's to lose their liberty (even temporarily). If the born can't have liberty then no one can.

[Brett85]

What do you believe defines a human being? I'm not asking "when is it a human being?", but rather, what makes it a human being?

I think that any life form with human characteristics that is actually growing and devoloping is a human being. That would certainly include a fetus. That's probably the best definition I can come up with.

[Brett85]

So a chemical reaction between cells=life. Thank you for the clarification :).

Yes. That's a good definition as well.

[erowe1]

Exactly good post. In the last interview he did when he was asked about abortion he basically said government couldn't do anything to stop it, but he is pro-life. It's an acceptable position. I think he realizes abortion is a very polarizing issue. If he's in this thing to win this time, he can't come out swinging saying he'll make abortion illegal without losing a ton of support. After all, you can't really run a campaign on individual liberty for all except for pregnant women can you?

I doubt he said that. He might have said the federal government shouldn't do anything. But I'd be really surprised if he said no government should do anything.

I definitely wouldn't say no government should do anything to stop abortion either. But the kind of government that should do something should be a pure republic, built from the individual on up, with voluntary participation, and not one that rules its subjects by conquest.

[Brett85]

But this is the same argument made for prohibition, and that obviously hasn't worked.

I don't see how you can compare drug use to abortion. People who use drugs are just harming themselves, while people who get or perform abortions are killing an innocent human being. That's why almost all libertarians support legalizing drugs, but a large number are also pro life.

[LibertyEagle]

A woman is a born person. There is no debate in that. You're saying it's okay for born person's to lose their liberty (even temporarily). If the born can't have liberty then no one can.

A woman has plenty of liberty.

She has the liberty to read a book to understand that intercourse produces babies. It is after all, a reproductive function.

She has the liberty to keep her legs closed, or use birth control, if she chooses to engage in sex and does not want to become pregnant.

If however, she chooses to have sex and pregnancy is the outcome of her chosen actions, she needs to be responsible for her choices and actions and give the unborn the chance to be born. If at that time, she wants to wash her hands of her spawn, then she can give it up for adoption.


And again, an individual's liberty only extends to the point where they infringe on another's liberty. Sucking a baby out of the mother's uterus, piece-by-piece, I'm thinkin' might be considered an infringement on that baby's liberty.

[Brett85]

A woman is a born person. There is no debate in that. You're saying it's okay for born person's to lose their liberty (even temporarily). If the born can't have liberty then no one can.

I don't think that preventing someone from committing murder takes away their liberty. Should an adult have the liberty to come into my house, take my belongings, and kill me? I'll never believe that murder is somehow a civil liberty that people should have.

[Vessol]

I don't see how you can compare drug use to abortion. People who use drugs are just harming themselves, while people who get or perform abortions are killing an innocent human being. That's why almost all libertarians support legalizing drugs, but a large number are also pro life.

Look on the past page and I was debating the fact that there is little evidence that making laws against murder actually prevent murder.

Saying otherwise is a very Hobbesian view of mankind, thinking that laws are the only thing that hold us back from being savages. Hobbes argued that the State must exist and have full control of the lives of humans because of this, this goes against Lockian theory which holds that humans are inherently good. Our nation was founded upon the Lockian viewpoint of humans.

I don't think that laws banning abortion will be effective and they will have many unintended consequences, like any law. Never trust the government to fix a problem, government IS the problem.
Those who are pro-life should focus rather on trying to teach why abortion is wrong and try to change societies view on it. Laws don't do that, but you can :).

[ClayTrainor]

Look on the past page and I was debating the fact that there is little evidence that making laws against murder actually prevent murder.

Saying otherwise is a very Hobbesian view of mankind, thinking that laws are the only thing that hold us back from being savages. Hobbes argued that the State must exist and have full control of the lives of humans because of this, this goes against Lockian theory which holds that humans are inherently good. Our nation was founded upon the Lockian viewpoint of humans.

I don't think that laws banning abortion will be effective and they will have many unintended consequences, like any law. Never trust the government to fix a problem, government IS the problem.
Those who are pro-life should focus rather on trying to teach why abortion is wrong and try to change societies view on it. Laws don't do that, but you can :).

+10000000000000000000000000000000

+rep when i have more ammo.

[Dr.3D]

+10000000000000000000000000000000

+rep when i have more ammo.

I gave him one too. That is a very good explanation as to why laws don't keep people from doing anything.

[LibertyEagle]

It's a perfect analogy. If you prohibit something there is demand for, you create a black market with heaps of unintended consequences.

It's a poor analogy, because you equated it to something in which no one but the person engaging in the behavior was harmed. Abortion is very different. It is murder. As such, it absolutely goes against the non-aggression principle.




Do you think if there were no state laws for murder, that there would be no consequences to murder?

Define "state".

Actually, I am not in favor of mob rule or lynch mobs, but you can give it a try in Canada and tell us how it works out.



There should be no monopolies dictating what "the law" is.

No one is desirous of a monopoly. The form of government in my country was intended to be representative. They were to represent us, within the boundaries of the Constitution.


I don't think states handle murder charges very well, either. Those with political connections can literally get away with murder, at times, and police all too often incarcerate the wrong people for the sake of wrapping up a case, while the real criminals stay out on the streets.

Please point out where anyone has argued for what our government has become. It is very far from the constitutional government it is supposed to be.


In my opinion, the state (federal and state-level) are front organizations for organized crime. They should not be entrusted with moral decisions.

Abortion is not a moral decision, Clay. It is murder. Or do you consider murder a moral issue?

[QueenB4Liberty]

A woman has plenty of liberty.

She has the liberty to read a book to understand that intercourse produces babies. It is after all, a reproductive function.

She has the liberty to keep her legs closed, or use birth control, if she chooses to engage in sex and does not want to become pregnant.

If however, she chooses to have sex and pregnancy is the outcome of her chosen actions, she needs to be responsible for her choices and actions and give the unborn the chance to be born. If at that time, she wants to wash her hands of her spawn, then she can give it up for adoption.


And again, an individual's liberty only extends to the point where they infringe on another's liberty. Sucking a baby out of the mother's uterus, piece-by-piece, I'm thinkin' might be considered an infringement on that baby's liberty.

Responsible does not mean doing whatever you think is right. Birth Control fails sometimes. The bottom line is that it isn't your choice.

I wonder how many pro-lifers would actually get up and stop a woman from having an abortion? Would you be comfortable with that? Kind of like Osan said.

If you seriously want to ban it, you should seriously start thinking about real answers to confronting these women.

[QueenB4Liberty]

I don't think that preventing someone from committing murder takes away their liberty. Should an adult have the liberty to come into my house, take my belongings, and kill me? I'll never believe that murder is somehow a civil liberty that people should have.

No an adult is entirely different from a fetus that is attached to the mother. Everything the mother goes through, the fetus does as well. That's not an individual entity (it's a human being, yes) but until it's able to survive without sucking off the mother's resources, it's the mother's choice.

[LibertyEagle]

Responsible does not mean doing whatever you think is right. Birth Control fails sometimes. The bottom line is that it isn't your choice.

Sure it is. Sex is a reproductive function. Babies are often the result. If one engages in a reproductive function and ends up reproducing, they shouldn't be shocked.


I wonder how many pro-lifers would actually get up and stop a woman from having an abortion? Would you be comfortable with that? Kind of like Osan said.

If you seriously want to ban it, you should seriously start thinking about real answers to confronting these women.

For right now, I want all federal funding of abortion to be stopped and Roe v. Wade to be tossed out. The battles should be fought at the state levels.

[LibertyEagle]

No an adult is entirely different from a fetus that is attached to the mother. Everything the mother goes through, the fetus does as well. That's not an individual entity (it's a human being, yes) but until it's able to survive without sucking off the mother's resources, it's the mother's choice.

How about a newborn? They can't survive on their own, either. Is it ok to murder them too?

This is a slippery slope, you know. To judge what life is worthy of living and which is not.

[realtonygoodwin]

I agree with you on 2, but 1 will get you into a war with many. Attempting to force this upon people at this stage of the game is asking to get yourself killed, very literally. I will add that such force lies in diametric opposition to the principles of liberty. You may not like abortion - I don't much care for it, especially as a means of contraception (which I find utterly reprehensible), but it is an issue for the individual to decide each for herself. If you do not understand why this is so, then I would have to submit that you are not an advocate of liberty but of pretty slavery. Pretty to you, that is.

Hold your values on that issue close to your heart, live by the dictates of your conscience, and demand the world respect them. In return, the price you pay is the same respect of the decisions of others even when what they do fills you with horror. Neither you nor I not anyone else is to impose judgment upon others on such issues. The slope is sudden, slippery, and steep. Beware.

I would say only one who is opposed to liberty would advocate for the state to allow one to take an innocent human life.


Like it's been said, monetary policy and the Fed. End those and you end the state.

Is that your goal - to end the state?


Uh. A fetus not have a heart until about 3.9 months in and it does not have lungs till about 5 months into the pregnancy.

Until about 6 months there is no actual brain activity. At about this time the neurons in the brain are used for the first time and sentience and self-awareness happens. Because this is when neurons first actually start firing, this is the first time that the fetus can actually feel stimuli which would include pain.
...

I'm not going to debate abortion, but you should at least have your facts straight.

Interesting that my wife is 22 weeks pregnant currently, and is right now at the hospital listening to the heartbeat of our daughter. For probably the 4th time. I believe we heard it for the first time around 11 weeks. My research indicates it is detectable at 7 weeks. Gender is discernible at 15 weeks or so. So, make sure your facts are straight.;)
My personal opinion is that life begins at the time that the fertilized egg has unique human DNA (indicating it is human), and the cells split (indicating growth, and thus, life). I think the only valid reason for a woman to have an abortion is if the mother will die otherwise. The right to defend herself against an existential threat is not waived merely because she is pregnant.

To those that argue against being pro-life from a prohibition standpoint- that only works if you are an anarchist. If you are a Constitutionalist, then you understand that the proper role of the federal government is to protect people from having others infringe upon their rights.

Do you suggest that we make armed robbery "safe, legal, and rare"?

[QueenB4Liberty]

How about a newborn? They can't survive on their own, either. Is it ok to murder them too?

This is a slippery slope, you know. To judge what life is worthy of living and which is not.

Someone else can care for them. Until a woman can put a fetus in an artificial uterus, it's not even up for comparison.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Sure it is. Sex is a reproductive function. Babies are often the result. If one engages in a reproductive function and ends up reproducing, they shouldn't be shocked.



For right now, I want all federal funding of abortion to be stopped and Roe v. Wade to be tossed out. The battles should be fought at the state levels.


So you're saying it's okay to murder babies if it the state decides it is allowed?

[Theocrat]

Here is my main issue:

http://theapologeticsgroup.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/constitutional-convention-founding-fathers-prayer.jpg

[ClayTrainor]

It's a poor analogy, because you equated it to something in which no one but the person engaging in the behavior was harmed.


It's irrelevant to the analogy. It's an economic point, not a moral one. When there is demand for a product/service and you make a law restricting that demand, it gets driven underground to the black markets where it becomes far more dangerous.


Define "state".


A Monopoly on the right to use force.



Actually, I am not in favor of mob rule or lynch mobs, but you can give it a try in Canada and tell us how it works out.


Straw-man. I'm in no way in favor of such things.

It's either a lynch mob, or a coercive monopoly? are those my only 2 options?



No one is desirous of a monopoly. The form of government in my country was intended to be representative. They were to represent us, within the boundaries of the Constitution.

Yea, and the Roman empire wasn't supposed to burn. Guess what?




Please point out where anyone has argued for what our government has become. It is very far from the constitutional government it is supposed to be.


I didn't suggest that, I don't feel you are comprehending my points very well.

You are arguing that the states should handle abortion, and I'm saying that states are just as corrupt as the feds. I agree with you that the FEDs should be out of legislating abortion laws, but I don't agree that the states would do a better job.



Abortion is not a moral decision, Clay. It is murder.

the pre-meditated killing of another human being is murder. An embryo is not a human being any more than an egg is a chicken, or a seed is a tree.


Or do you consider murder a moral issue?

Are you kidding? I don't think that I understand what you're asking.

[nobody's_hero]

Abortion is not as big an issue for me, if the candidate has no say in the matter in the level of government he is seeking office for.

That's why I could support Peter Schiff, because he openly admitted to being 'pro-choice' but at the same time, he acknowledged that he would have no authority to decide the issue one way or another as a U.S. senator. He was also against Roe vs. Wade on the grounds that the Supreme Court had overstepped its authority by rendering a decision on an issue that the Federal government was not allowed to consider per the 10th Amendment.

If Peter had been running for a state-seat in Georgia, I would likely have looked around to see what other candidates were available.

But to answer your question:

1: Natural rights
2: Ending the Fed

[lester1/2jr]

abortion is a north-south uirban vs rural thing. I mean lets face it. theres no "truth" it's cultural.

Anyway my issue is war. ending them. end the empire. then end income tax. or both at once!

[treyfu]

The use of violence against peaceful people.

[LibertyEagle]

You are arguing that the states should handle abortion, and I'm saying that states are just as corrupt as the feds. I agree with you that the FEDs should be out of legislating abortion laws, but I don't agree that the states would do a better job.

I am saying that the federal government has no constitutional right to be involved in abortion. That means, the decision is left up to the states and the people. They may decide in a given state to do nothing at all. It's up to the people of the individual states.


the pre-meditated killing of another human being is murder.

Yes, and abortion is premeditated too.


An embryo is not a human being any more than an egg is a chicken, or a seed is a tree.

Are you serious? You are equating human life with an unfertilized chicken egg or a seedling? For the record, unless a chicken egg is fertilized, it will never become a chicken. The life inside a mother's womb is a living being, with a heartbeat, limbs, etc. To kill it is murder.


Are you kidding? I don't think that I understand what you're asking.
No, I wasn't kidding. It had to do with this statement that you made...
"In my opinion, the state (federal and state-level) are front organizations for organized crime. They should not be entrusted with moral decisions."

I think we're somehow misunderstanding each other tonight, maybe. We can try again another day. :)

[lester1/2jr]

"She has the liberty to keep her legs closed, "



Location:Texas

[Agorism]

Issues of war and peace are #1 (including stopping the "war on terror")

[Brett85]

No an adult is entirely different from a fetus that is attached to the mother. Everything the mother goes through, the fetus does as well. That's not an individual entity (it's a human being, yes) but until it's able to survive without sucking off the mother's resources, it's the mother's choice.

After the baby is born, it still depends on the mother to survive. It depends on her milk, and it depends on her to take care of it in general. According to your logic, it should be legal to kill a child until they turn about 16.

[Brett85]

I gave him one too. That is a very good explanation as to why laws don't keep people from doing anything.

Then why don't we just do away with all laws and just have anarchy?