charles Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:Way to marginalize a child.  :rolleyes:

I'm  not a "Right Winger", I am a Libertarian. Should I walk lockstep with the LP? I don't think so. I also disagree with their anti-war stance.

So what you're saying is that you are only in favor of freedom and small government when it is personally convenient to you? In that case you should be a democrat or republican.

So you're saying you walk lock-step with a particular party? In that case YOU should be a Democrat or a Republican. Your assertion that killing animals in your own confines is a person's right and equating that to abortion is assinine. Should a parent also have the right to kill a 14 Y/O child if that child is stricken with Down Syndrome so long as he/she does it in their own confines? It's NOT the mother's body we're talking about, it's the child's. A fetus is cared for just as a 1 Y/O in the home is. If it is done by the "old" methods, the child still feeds from the mother's breast and still relies on it's mother for growth. I guess it should be able to abort a child up until the child doesn't need his/her mother's milk anymore, huh? Spare me the part about, "Well, the child has alternatives, store-bought formula, etc.", a child can live out of the womb way before it's 9 months is up. It's a growing child, face it. When it is in the womb it's no different than when it is being cared for as an infant.

RebelKev Wrote:

charles Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:Way to marginalize a child.  :rolleyes:

I'm  not a "Right Winger", I am a Libertarian. Should I walk lockstep with the LP? I don't think so. I also disagree with their anti-war stance.

So what you're saying is that you are only in favor of freedom and small government when it is personally convenient to you? In that case you should be a democrat or republican.

So you're saying you walk lock-step with a particular party? In that case YOU should be a Democrat or a Republican. Your assertion that killing animals in your own confines is a person's right and equating that to abortion is assinine. Should a parent also have the right to kill a 14 Y/O child if that child is stricken with Down Syndrome so long as he/she does it in their own confines? It's NOT the mother's body we're talking about, it's the child's. A fetus is cared for just as a 1 Y/O in the home is. If it is done by the "old" methods, the child still feeds from the mother's breast and still relies on it's mother for growth. I guess it should be able to abort a child up until the child doesn't need his/her mother's milk anymore, huh? Spare me the part about, "Well, the child has alternatives, store-bought formula, etc.", a child can live out of the womb way before it's 9 months is up. It's a growing child, face it. When it is in the womb it's no different than when it is being cared for as an infant.

If the libertarian party takes a position that goes against the principle of libertarianism(such as telling a woman what to do with her body or spending tax money to prop-up the Saudi Monarchy in exchange for cheap oil) then yes I would take issue with that but thus far I haven't heard the Libertarian Party taking such positions.

.....and we are not talking about the woman's body. We are talking about a child. What gives the LP the right to determine what a child is? How about a living being? I mean, I can, if you wish, post the definition up here for you.

RebelKev Wrote:.....and we are not talking about the woman's body. We are talking about a child. What gives the LP the right to determine what a child is? How about a living being? I mean, I can, if you wish, post the definition up here for you.

Hey a dog is a living thing and having experience with both dogs and humans I can tell you dogs are by far the more nobler of the two and far less disruptive and parasitic and yet no right-winger takes an issue with the thousands of dogs murdered every day in this country just because "there are too many of them". Haven't you seen that new commercial where that brat takes all the candy and blames a dog lying on the floor for it? It's easy to see which of those two is pond scum.

The low, or should I say no, respect you have for children sickens me to no end. :rolleyes:

charles Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:.....and we are not talking about the woman's body. We are talking about a child. What gives the LP the right to determine what a child is? How about a living being? I mean, I can, if you wish, post the definition up here for you.

Hey a dog is a living thing and having experience with both dogs and humans I can tell you dogs are by far the more nobler of the two and far less disruptive and parasitic and yet no right-winger takes an issue with the thousands of dogs murdered every day in this country just because "there are too many of them". Haven't you seen that new commercial where that brat takes all the candy and blames a dog lying on the floor for it? It's easy to see which of those two is pond scum.

Well I hope the LP candidate gets the ubiquitous canine vote. :rolleyes:

Maybe it's just too fundamental but this small point should be considered: humans and dogs are different!

Yes, that's right, humans get more rights than animals!

Twisting this discussion in such a bizarre direction does this:

It avoids RebelKev's pertinent and telling question of, "what about the body of the unborn baby?"

So Charles, either you thoroughly don't understand what the libertarian party has to say, and you're shoveling out a load of illogical nonsense to cover OR

The LP is far less profound then they advertise.

I vote for both, b/c while the LP has some good ideas, Ayn Rand and all are very sophomoric in their approach. They don't understand the deep issues, nor do they assimilate new information into their philosophy.

Here is a man of conviction. This must be middle ground


Tom Coburn, a former member of the House of Representatives from Oklahoma, who is campaigning to become the Republican party's candidate to replace retiring Senator Don Nickles, recently said he supports the death penalty for doctors who perform abortions.

"I favor the death penalty," Coburn told the AP last week, "for abortionists and other people who take life."


You can have it both ways............

no there is no middle ground
either your for killing babies or not

as i have said before abortion is not a good form of birth control
having an abortion coz you are stupid, careless and cant close your legs is not a good enough reason to have an abortion. and the man has a responsibility to put on a rubber or pull out too, just because no one gets pregnant on friends doesnt mean you wont

safetyeagle Wrote:no there is no middle ground
either your for killing babies or not

as i have said before abortion is not a good form of birth control
having an abortion coz you are stupid, careless and cant close your legs is not a good enough reason to have an abortion. and the man has a responsibility to put on a rubber or pull out too, just because no one gets pregnant on friends doesnt mean you wont

no i think one of them got knocked up, it took awhile but she finally did

Fanatical Wrote:

safetyeagle Wrote:no there is no middle ground
either your for killing babies or not

as i have said before abortion is not a good form of birth control
having an abortion coz you are stupid, careless and cant close your legs is not a good enough reason to have an abortion. and the man has  a responsibility to put on a rubber or pull out too, just because no one gets pregnant on friends doesnt mean you wont

no i think one of them got knocked up, it took awhile but she finally did

sorry,quit watchin the show with my wife couple of years ago didnt know anyone got pregnant on the show

safetyeagle Wrote:

Fanatical Wrote:

safetyeagle Wrote:no there is no middle ground
either your for killing babies or not

as i have said before abortion is not a good form of birth control
having an abortion coz you are stupid, careless and cant close your legs is not a good enough reason to have an abortion. and the man has  a responsibility to put on a rubber or pull out too, just because no one gets pregnant on friends doesnt mean you wont

no i think one of them got knocked up, it took awhile but she finally did

sorry,quit watchin the show with my wife couple of years ago didnt know anyone got pregnant on the show

Rachel and Ross had a daughter, I think.

DrTorch Wrote:

charles Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:.....and we are not talking about the woman's body. We are talking about a child. What gives the LP the right to determine what a child is? How about a living being? I mean, I can, if you wish, post the definition up here for you.

Hey a dog is a living thing and having experience with both dogs and humans I can tell you dogs are by far the more nobler of the two and far less disruptive and parasitic and yet no right-winger takes an issue with the thousands of dogs murdered every day in this country just because "there are too many of them". Haven't you seen that new commercial where that brat takes all the candy and blames a dog lying on the floor for it? It's easy to see which of those two is pond scum.

Well I hope the LP candidate gets the ubiquitous canine vote. :rolleyes:

Maybe it's just too fundamental but this small point should be considered: humans and dogs are different!

Yes, that's right, humans get more rights than animals!

Twisting this discussion in such a bizarre direction does this:

It avoids RebelKev's pertinent and telling question of, "what about the body of the unborn baby?"

So Charles, either you thoroughly don't understand what the libertarian party has to say, and you're shoveling out a load of illogical nonsense to cover OR

The LP is far less profound then they advertise.

I vote for both, b/c while the LP has some good ideas, Ayn Rand and all are very sophomoric in their approach. They don't understand the deep issues, nor do they assimilate new information into their philosophy.

Of course dogs and humans are different. Dogs are noble honest creatures. Most humans, especially spoiled brats, are parasitical and dangerous. Having said that I don't advocate murdering even the most repulsive of humans so long as they don't forfeit their right to life by committing a crime. As for abortion, the right for a person to do with her body as he or she sees fit supercedes all rights in my libertarian mantra. If the fetus is alive and capable as you claim he can still give himself a fighting chance by tunneling his way out through any possible opening(or creating one) as soon as he senses danger.

charles Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:The LP is far less profound then they advertise.

Having said that I don't advocate murdering even the most repulsive of humans so long as they don't forfeit their right to life by committing a crime. ... If the fetus is alive and capable as you claim he can still give himself a fighting chance by tunneling his way out through any possible opening(or creating one) as soon as he senses danger.

My work here is done.

DrTorch Wrote:

charles Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:The LP is far less profound then they advertise.

Having said that I don't advocate murdering even the most repulsive of humans so long as they don't forfeit their right to life by committing a crime. ... If the fetus is alive and capable as you claim he can still give himself a fighting chance by tunneling his way out through any possible opening(or creating one) as soon as he senses danger.

My work here is done.

:stupid:


Yep, I knew it was all over............ :laugh:

charles Wrote:If the fetus is alive and capable as you claim he can still give himself a fighting chance by tunneling his way out through any possible opening(or creating one) as soon as he senses danger.

asinine
SYLLABICATION: as·i·nine
ADJECTIVE: 1. Utterly stupid or silly: asinine behavior. 2. Of, relating to, or resembling an ***
ETYMOLOGY: Latin asinnus, of an *** from asinus, ***
OTHER FORMS: asi·ninely —ADVERB
asi·nini·ty (-nn-t) —NOUN