Ron Paul

[Allanea]

So, do you beliefe libertarianism is only compatible with a hard-line anarcho-capitalist line?

[Mortshnefran]

It isn't a matter of what you or I 'believe'. If the fundamental tenet is that my rights END where yours begin, then the fetus has NO claim on the uterus, because it's mere existence is exerting a claim that MUST 'end' where it 'begins'.

That's not 'belief', that's applying logic to the premise about liberty and 'rights'.

That's why libertariansim and anti-abortionism are incompatible.

it's absolutely about belief. when do believe rights begin? a born baby has rights, i dont think anyone would argue otherwise, and no one would support killing a baby because it still survives off its mother. would a baby one day before birth not have those rights, or one week or one month. where is the line. the line is set by belief. once that line is crossed the baby's right to life trumps any right of the woman except her right to life. if someone were to argue that a woman must carry to term even if it threatened her life, that would be inconsistent with a libertarian view.

[Grave_n_idle]

It isn't a matter of what you or I 'believe'. If the fundamental tenet is that my rights END where yours begin, then the fetus has NO claim on the uterus, because it's mere existence is exerting a claim that MUST 'end' where it 'begins'.

That's not 'belief', that's applying logic to the premise about liberty and 'rights'.

That's why libertariansim and anti-abortionism are incompatible.

it's absolutely about belief. when do believe rights begin? a born baby has rights, i dont think anyone would argue otherwise, and no one would support killing a baby because it still survives off its mother. would a baby one day before birth not have those rights, or one week or one month. where is the line. the line is set by belief. once that line is crossed the baby's right to life trumps any right of the woman except her right to life. if someone were to argue that a woman must carry to term even if it threatened her life, that would be inconsistent with a libertarian view.

No, it's not about beliefs, I'm being objective.

If you take the premise that my rights end when yours begin - and that IS the argument that is being used to justify why a foetus gets to claim uterus space, then OBJECTIVELY you have to allow that to be applied both ways - otherwise, it's just intellectual dishonesty.

If it's applied both ways - the woman has a claim to her uterus. The foetus' claim ends there.

That's not 'belief'. That's not subjective. That's applying the SAME logic that is being CLAIMED as justifying the foetal rights.


YOUR argument is about belief. That's probably what is confusing you. You think that the 'line' matters. It doesn't.

[Mortshnefran]

No, it's not about beliefs, I'm being objective.

If you take the premise that my rights end when yours begin - and that IS the argument that is being used to justify why a foetus gets to claim uterus space, then OBJECTIVELY you have to allow that to be applied both ways - otherwise, it's just intellectual dishonesty.

If it's applied both ways - the woman has a claim to her uterus. The foetus' claim ends there.

That's not 'belief'. That's not subjective. That's applying the SAME logic that is being CLAIMED as justifying the foetal rights.


YOUR argument is about belief. That's probably what is confusing you. You think that the 'line' matters. It doesn't.

if you believe a fetus has the right to life, then the "uterus space" being essential to that life, is more of a right for the fetus then it is the mother's except in cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy.

[Grave_n_idle]

if you believe a fetus has the right to life, then the "uterus space" being essential to that life, is more of a right for the fetus then it is the mother's except in cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy.

No, not even. If the foetus has the right to life, by the SAME rules used to argue that right - the mother has the right to her uterus.

Thus - if the foetus can survive OUTSIDE of her uterus, it gets to exert that right, but otherwise - it doesn't.

[Mortshnefran]

if you believe a fetus has the right to life, then the "uterus space" being essential to that life, is more of a right for the fetus then it is the mother's except in cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy.

No, not even. If the foetus has the right to life, by the SAME rules used to argue that right - the mother has the right to her uterus.

Thus - if the foetus can survive OUTSIDE of her uterus, it gets to exert that right, but otherwise - it doesn't.

you're trying to use the way in which libertarians use to argue property rights, and if you want to go down that road, the claim of ownership would be equal on both counts, and seeing as the property right claim of the fetus is essential to its survival it would supersede any claim by the mother based on convenience.

[Dempublicents1]

it s totally internally consistent to be libertarian and pro-life. an individuals rights only extend to the point to where interfere with the rights of another.

Hence the reason that, even if the embryo/fetus is a full human person with all the rights therein, it still doesn't get to use the mother's womb unless she wants it there.

i am personally pro-choice because i do not believe a tiny collection of cells with no consciousness has rights, but if you believe rights begin at conception and are a libertarian you must in fact be pro-life as no individuals rights trump another's.

If you argue that the fetus gets to use the woman's body against her will, you are arguing that the fetus' rights trump the mother's. In fact, you're arguing that the fetus, and the fetus alone, has rights that no born human being has.

I'm not going to get too far into this since most of you already know where I stand (and the "Ron Paul hates freedom" arguments are pretty loltastic) but I don't think I've ever seen anyone make the point that probably the best argument against abortion is that it denies the father any reproductive rights. Legally speaking, males cannot create a life: only the woman can. A male can create a fetus, but it only matures into a human being if the mother wants it to.

Actually, a male can inject sperm into a mother. The mother's body can then help that sperm to mature and get to an egg, in which case a zygote is formed. Only a woman can create an embryo, fetus, or baby.

From a purely legal standpoint, the man has the exact same reproductive rights as the woman - the right to determine the extent to which his body participates in the reproductive process. It's due to biology that his participation is such a small part of the process, not the law.

Let me put it this way: if the father wants the baby and the mother doesn't, tough shit: he ain't gonna get it. The decision, as it stands, is entirely hers and despite having (theoretically) an equal share in its creation, the male has little or no say in the final decision whether or not to have the baby.

This is because the male has no right to control the woman's body. Again, this is an inequity created by biology, not the law - and not abortion.

If the situation is reversed and the male doesn't want the baby but the female does, guess what? You've got to either get married or pay child support for the next eighteen years.

Child support is really another question altogether. Legally, both parents have equal responsibilities to the child. One could certainly argue that this shouldn't be true - or even that neither parent should have such responsibilities unless they explicitly and voluntarily take them on. But it's an entirely separate issue from abortion.

I don't put much stock in the "baby murder" arguments and I of course agree with the principle that people should have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies, but it's worth noting that as things stand right now, males have essentially zero in the way of reproductive rights, primarily on account of abortion procedures.

It's really more on account of the fact that, biologically, they can't make babies.

and that is what you believe and that is what i believe. but it is subjective
if you believe that a newly fertilized egg is just as deserving of the full scope of human rights then it's right to life trumps the woman's right to choice.

In that case, anyone who needs my kidney should, by law, be able to take it from me against my will. After all, their right to life trumps my right to bodily integrity, right? They need it more than I do.

[Mortshnefran]

and that is what you believe and that is what i believe. but it is subjective
if you believe that a newly fertilized egg is just as deserving of the full scope of human rights then it's right to life trumps the woman's right to choice.

In that case, anyone who needs my kidney should, by law, be able to take it from me against my will. After all, their right to life trumps my right to bodily integrity, right? They need it more than I do.

it's not the same, as the fetus has an existing reliance on the uterus, while an individual who needs a kidney does not. it would be more akin to compare it to conjoined twins that share a vital organ. can one twin make the decision to kill the other for his own convenience? it's not a perfect analogy but it's the closest i could think of.

[Allanea]

No candidate MORE libertarian than Ron Paul was running in the primaries on either side.

Even if we believe [which is not true!] that Ron Paul's stance on abortion and immigration is unlibertarian (nevermind his stance on immigration is the same as that of the Libertarian Party -more legal immigration, less illegal), let's see where this gets us.

Ron Paul is on record for opposing the War on Drugs (even merely repealing all Federal drug laws would make the War on Drugs completely untenable), ending Federal gun laws, (again would make America far freer gun-wise than it is now), end... I don't know where to stop with this.

Now, you could argue that libertarianism is a bad, bad thing, and that these things would fuck up America beyond repair. If you're not a libertarian, obviously he wasn't the guy for you. But if you're a libertarian, Ron Paul's libertarian stances on the majority of issues overwhelm his stance on abortion.

[Grave_n_idle]

if you believe a fetus has the right to life, then the "uterus space" being essential to that life, is more of a right for the fetus then it is the mother's except in cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy.

No, not even. If the foetus has the right to life, by the SAME rules used to argue that right - the mother has the right to her uterus.

Thus - if the foetus can survive OUTSIDE of her uterus, it gets to exert that right, but otherwise - it doesn't.

you're trying to use the way in which libertarians use to argue property rights, and if you want to go down that road, the claim of ownership would be equal on both counts, and seeing as the property right claim of the fetus is essential to its survival it would supersede any claim by the mother based on convenience.

You're saying that convenience isn't a good reason? What happened to 'liberty'?

I'm not using the same argument as property rights - I'm using the same argument as ALL libertarian approaches to rights. You can't do violence to me because your right to employ your fist terminates before it impinges on my rights to personal non-interference. You can't take my property, because your right to ownership terminates before it impinges on my right to claim ownership.

The foetus cannot claim the uterus because the woman already HAS claim to that uterus. The foetus does not have an equal claim. The foetus doesn't have ANY claim.

If you are going to allocate rights to a foetus, it has rights ONLY to the extent that it doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights - just like you do, and I do.

Anything else is intellectually bankrupt.

[Grave_n_idle]

No candidate MORE libertarian than Ron Paul was running in the primaries on either side.

Mike Gravel.

[Conserative Morality]

No candidate MORE libertarian than Ron Paul was running in the primaries on either side.

Even if we believe [which is not true!] that Ron Paul's stance on abortion and immigration is unlibertarian (nevermind his stance on immigration is the same as that of the Libertarian Party -more legal immigration, less illegal), let's see where this gets us.

Ron Paul is on record for opposing the War on Drugs (even merely repealing all Federal drug laws would make the War on Drugs completely untenable), ending Federal gun laws, (again would make America far freer gun-wise than it is now), end... I don't know where to stop with this.

Now, you could argue that libertarianism is a bad, bad thing, and that these things would fuck up America beyond repair. If you're not a libertarian, obviously he wasn't the guy for you. But if you're a libertarian, Ron Paul's libertarian stances on the majority of issues overwhelm his stance on abortion.

I have trouble with his stance on what's legal tender.

He's pretty sane, except for that.

[Mortshnefran]

You're saying that convenience isn't a good reason? What happened to 'liberty'?

I'm not using the same argument as property rights - I'm using the same argument as ALL libertarian approaches to rights. You can't do violence to me because your right to employ your fist terminates before it impinges on my rights to personal non-interference. You can't take my property, because your right to ownership terminates before it impinges on my right to claim ownership.

The foetus cannot claim the uterus because the woman already HAS claim to that uterus. The foetus does not have an equal claim. The foetus doesn't have ANY claim.

If you are going to allocate rights to a foetus, it has rights ONLY to the extent that it doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights - just like you do, and I do.

Anything else is intellectually bankrupt.

the uterus is just as much a part of a fetus as it is a mother.

[Allanea]

No candidate MORE libertarian than Ron Paul was running in the primaries on either side.

Mike Gravel.

...are you serious or just trying to bait me?

[Grave_n_idle]

the uterus is just as much a part of a fetus as it is a mother.

I don't think you know what a uterus is.

At least - I hope so, because if you do, this isn't ignorant - it's dumb.

[Grave_n_idle]

No candidate MORE libertarian than Ron Paul was running in the primaries on either side.

Mike Gravel.

...are you serious or just trying to bait me?

He's at least as Libertarian as Ron Paul.

He even ran for the Libertarian nomination.

[Allanea]

If we ignore that Mike Gravel supports gun licensing, legalization of Marijuana but NOT of other drugs, and does not support nowhere near the sort of medical and educational deregulation that Ron Paul supports, yes.

And Mike Gravel did not get the Libertarian nomination. I wonder why.

[Mortshnefran]

the uterus is just as much a part of a fetus as it is a mother.

I don't think you know what a uterus is.

At least - I hope so, because if you do, this isn't ignorant - it's dumb.

i know what a uterus is. how is is ignorant? the fetus is attached to and enclosed in the uterus. it's survival is dependent upon it. for all intents and purposes it is an extension of itself until birth.

[Grave_n_idle]

If we ignore that Mike Gravel supports gun licensing, legalization of Marijuana but NOT of other drugs, and does not support nowhere near the sort of medical and educational deregulation that Ron Paul supports, yes.

And Mike Gravel did not get the Libertarian nomination. I wonder why.

Because the Libertarian party are not libertarians - they are political opportunists that embrace enough of a platform of libertarianism to not be laughed out of the whole process, altogether.

The Libertarian party didn't nominate Gravel because they did what the other wannabe-Washington parties do, they elect the person they think will collect most votes, not whoever best represents the platform.

[Dempublicents1]

it's not the same, as the fetus has an existing reliance on the uterus, while an individual who needs a kidney does not. it would be more akin to compare it to conjoined twins that share a vital organ. can one twin make the decision to kill the other for his own convenience? it's not a perfect analogy but it's the closest i could think of.

Actually, it's a ridiculous analogy, since both of them have the same claim to the organ. The same is not true for my body and anyone else who seeks to lay claim to it.

Here's a better example. Suppose I give blood regularly with a directed donation (a specific patient who needs it). I decide not to give blood anymore. Can they tie me down and drain it out of me because they have an existing reliance on my blood?

And you're shifting the goalposts. If one person's right to life trumps another person's right to bodily integrity, the preexisting reliance thing really shouldn't matter.

No candidate MORE libertarian than Ron Paul was running in the primaries on either side.

As it pertains to the federal government, and only the federal government, you might be right.

Now, you could argue that libertarianism is a bad, bad thing, and that these things would fuck up America beyond repair. If you're not a libertarian, obviously he wasn't the guy for you. But if you're a libertarian, Ron Paul's libertarian stances on the majority of issues overwhelm his stance on abortion.

Abortion was hardly the only problem with Ron Paul's stances - it's just the one that gets talked about the most. How about the fact that he thinks the state government has the authority to tell you who you can have consenting sex with - and what positions you can use while doing it? What about the fact that he would remove the ability of individual citizens to take their states to task in the judicial system for infringement of their religious freedoms, equal protection, and invasion of their privacy?

Ron Paul is anti-federal government. I do not equate that with libertarian, because I think it's just as bad to allow the state government (or even a government more local than that) to insert itself into the individual's life when it has no business doing so. If he applied man y of his "libertarian" stances to the government in general, instead of picking simply one level of it, I could take him more seriously. As it is - and I've said this before - my biggest problem with Ron Paul is that he is to authoritarian for me, not that he's libertarian.

[Grave_n_idle]

i know what a uterus is. how is is ignorant? the fetus is attached to and enclosed in the uterus. it's survival is dependent upon it. for all intents and purposes it is an extension of itself until birth.

Actually, the foetus is attached to the placenta - not the uterus. It is enclosed in the uterus, but that doesn't make it part OF the foetus any more than your bladder is part of your urine.

[Dempublicents1]

i know what a uterus is. how is is ignorant?

Maybe because the uterus is not, in any way, part of the fetus any more than the building I currently reside in is part of me?

If you were talking about the placenta, you would be correct in stating that it is part maternal and part fetal tissue. But the uterus is completely and totally a part of the woman.

the fetus is attached to and enclosed in the uterus. it's survival is dependent upon it. for all intents and purposes it is an extension of itself until birth.

If the fetus is an extension of the uterus, then is it part of the mother, and she can remove it at will.

[Allanea]

How about the fact that he thinks the state government has the authority to tell you who you can have consenting sex with - and what positions you can use while doing it?

You should read his book. He doesn't.

[Dempublicents1]

How about the fact that he thinks the state government has the authority to tell you who you can have consenting sex with - and what positions you can use while doing it?

You should read his book. He doesn't.

Yes, he does. The fact that he says they shouldn't do it doesn't change the fact that he has argued, quite adamantly, that they do have the authority to do it.

[The_pantless_hero]

How about the fact that he thinks the state government has the authority to tell you who you can have consenting sex with - and what positions you can use while doing it?

You should read his book. He doesn't.

Maybe he should stop proposing and voting for laws to that effect then.