(10-21-2013 03:14 PM)miko33 Wrote:  The only real conflict I have with the Libertarian Party is the notion that the majority is pro-choice. I am a staunch pro life believer. A typical Libertarian view for favoring pro choice beliefs revolves around the notion of personal property and infringement on a person's personal liberty by the fetus acting as a "parasite" I oppose this view entirely and believe strongly in the notion that the Libertarian Party is based on individual rights as espoused in the Declaration as inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Since I believe that life begins at conception, abortion denies the right to life. I do support abortion in extreme cases where the health of the mother is at risk, i.e. an eptopic pregnancy where neither would survive unless the fetus is aborted.

I am exactly the same way. I don't call myself pro-life though. I'm more pro-baby. I don't care one way or another about the death penalty. If you are convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt by a jury of your peers then I think the death penalty is appropriate. But to kill and unborn innocent child to me, their is something very wrong with.

I hate the way people frame the pro- choice movement. It really isn't a choice. Their two choices are have a baby and be miserable or have an abortion and be happy(simplified because I'm typing on my phone) . I don't understand why can't these people who have multiple abortions give their baby up for adoption. Their are thousands of people looking to adopt. It just makes me so sad.

(10-21-2013 04:04 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 03:57 PM)WPDAWG08 Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 03:49 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 03:39 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 03:22 PM)WPDAWG08 Wrote:  I see in no way how being pro life is a libertarian value? I would just consider that being a right wing libertarian.

Ron Paul would disagree.

Again, a "right to life" is an inalienable right as defined by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. It's the foundation upon which the notion of individual rights rest on. Nothing is possible without life. It's foundational and fundamental to the belief. If you've ever visited the LP and other libertarian leaning sites, there are numerous declarations of promoting the agenda through non-violent ways. A right to life is the foundation of the non-violence principle.

It may be a life but it is a life that at the end of the day does not have the ability to make a choice itself without the action of a legal entity IE the government. As a libertarian you dont want the government telling you to spit much less whether or not you can take a fall or go to a clinic...

What you describe is true for certain strains of Libertarians, i.e. "Anarcho-capitalists" and others like them who feel a gov't is completely and utterly useless. It's safe to say that most of us do not believe in this. A gov't is a necessary evil, and while in a utopia everyone would be fully self governing since they would be 100% purely rational beings that conform 100% to the ideals of individual liberties. But most of us are not naive to think this is possible. In the real world, our gov't was designed to provide for the common defense for the nation and to protect the rights and liberties bestowed upon us as human beings. Our gov't is supposed to protect our inalienable rights and to do that, it must have some regulatory power to ensure that we have some kind of consumer protections in place for economic activities as well as laws to protect our lives and property.

Nope; fire stations, police stations, and basic mail are necessary. A fascist government entity to regulate a persons reproductive organs in the name of a religious belief just is not.

(10-21-2013 07:16 PM)WPDAWG08 Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 04:04 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 03:57 PM)WPDAWG08 Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 03:49 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 03:39 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Ron Paul would disagree.

Again, a "right to life" is an inalienable right as defined by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. It's the foundation upon which the notion of individual rights rest on. Nothing is possible without life. It's foundational and fundamental to the belief. If you've ever visited the LP and other libertarian leaning sites, there are numerous declarations of promoting the agenda through non-violent ways. A right to life is the foundation of the non-violence principle.

It may be a life but it is a life that at the end of the day does not have the ability to make a choice itself without the action of a legal entity IE the government. As a libertarian you dont want the government telling you to spit much less whether or not you can take a fall or go to a clinic...

What you describe is true for certain strains of Libertarians, i.e. "Anarcho-capitalists" and others like them who feel a gov't is completely and utterly useless. It's safe to say that most of us do not believe in this. A gov't is a necessary evil, and while in a utopia everyone would be fully self governing since they would be 100% purely rational beings that conform 100% to the ideals of individual liberties. But most of us are not naive to think this is possible. In the real world, our gov't was designed to provide for the common defense for the nation and to protect the rights and liberties bestowed upon us as human beings. Our gov't is supposed to protect our inalienable rights and to do that, it must have some regulatory power to ensure that we have some kind of consumer protections in place for economic activities as well as laws to protect our lives and property.

Nope; fire stations, police stations, and basic mail are necessary. A fascist government entity to regulate a persons reproductive organs in the name of a religious belief just is not.

Sorry, I disagree and I am completely in my right to have this opinion. It doesn't have to be religious belief. You assume I support a pro life position simply because of religion alone. However, even stripping religion away from it you can still be a pro life person. I believe that life begins at conception. The cells unite and then will divide and progress along a normal path to creating a human if left alone. Now an interesting argument against abortion resides in the idea that the man and woman who created the pregnancy FORCED a person to be dependent upon the mother at a minimum. Unlike someone who can vote to take your hard earned money by supporting candidates who believe in wealth redistribution, the baby never asked to be born. The baby did not force himself or herself into its mother's womb. The mother and father are responsible for making this dependent person. Therefore, there is an obligation on their part to see to it that the child is taken care of.

It's about life - the most fundamental belief every Libertarian should hold. Without the right to life, all other rights fall away. No person should ever be given the right to snuff out another life on a whim.

I support Libertarian ideas and candidates ... as long as they don't take enough votes from the Republican to give the election to a liberal Democrat. That would be extremely unfortunate and idiotic.

(10-21-2013 07:37 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I support Libertarian ideas and candidates ... as long as they don't take enough votes from the Republican to give the election to a liberal Democrat. That would be extremely unfortunate and idiotic.

I used to think that way too. But one thing I learned is that when you have to keep picking the lesser of the two evils long enough, you still end up at the same place. It may take you longer, but the end game is the same.

Things will keep going as they have been until the paradigm is broken. That won't happen so long as people are content to pick the lesser of the two evils in front of us.

(10-21-2013 02:51 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I just renewed as well. Joined after watching the RNC go out of their way to be a d*ck to Ron Paul in Tampa. From refusing to say his name out loud to refusing to seat duly elected delegations to changing the nominating rules just hours before roll call.

Rand Paul has all the potential in the world as a R if people learned a thing called patience. The RINOS don't know the definition. The Radical Leftist don't know the definition.... so I don't know what to say.

However, I vote D fairly regularly in state elections (obviously not for Terrence) and wouldn't be welcome to the R side... which is why I side with the Tea Party if I had to describe myself.

(10-21-2013 07:37 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I support Libertarian ideas and candidates ... as long as they don't take enough votes from the Republican to give the election to a liberal Democrat. That would be extremely unfortunate and idiotic.

If serious, +10

(10-21-2013 07:28 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 07:16 PM)WPDAWG08 Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 04:04 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 03:57 PM)WPDAWG08 Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 03:49 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Again, a "right to life" is an inalienable right as defined by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. It's the foundation upon which the notion of individual rights rest on. Nothing is possible without life. It's foundational and fundamental to the belief. If you've ever visited the LP and other libertarian leaning sites, there are numerous declarations of promoting the agenda through non-violent ways. A right to life is the foundation of the non-violence principle.

It may be a life but it is a life that at the end of the day does not have the ability to make a choice itself without the action of a legal entity IE the government. As a libertarian you dont want the government telling you to spit much less whether or not you can take a fall or go to a clinic...

What you describe is true for certain strains of Libertarians, i.e. "Anarcho-capitalists" and others like them who feel a gov't is completely and utterly useless. It's safe to say that most of us do not believe in this. A gov't is a necessary evil, and while in a utopia everyone would be fully self governing since they would be 100% purely rational beings that conform 100% to the ideals of individual liberties. But most of us are not naive to think this is possible. In the real world, our gov't was designed to provide for the common defense for the nation and to protect the rights and liberties bestowed upon us as human beings. Our gov't is supposed to protect our inalienable rights and to do that, it must have some regulatory power to ensure that we have some kind of consumer protections in place for economic activities as well as laws to protect our lives and property.

Nope; fire stations, police stations, and basic mail are necessary. A fascist government entity to regulate a persons reproductive organs in the name of a religious belief just is not.

Sorry, I disagree and I am completely in my right to have this opinion. It doesn't have to be religious belief. You assume I support a pro life position simply because of religion alone. However, even stripping religion away from it you can still be a pro life person. I believe that life begins at conception. The cells unite and then will divide and progress along a normal path to creating a human if left alone. Now an interesting argument against abortion resides in the idea that the man and woman who created the pregnancy FORCED a person to be dependent upon the mother at a minimum. Unlike someone who can vote to take your hard earned money by supporting candidates who believe in wealth redistribution, the baby never asked to be born. The baby did not force himself or herself into its mother's womb. The mother and father are responsible for making this dependent person. Therefore, there is an obligation on their part to see to it that the child is taken care of.

It's about life - the most fundamental belief every Libertarian should hold. Without the right to life, all other rights fall away. No person should ever be given the right to snuff out another life on a whim.

Actually I more or less was playing devils advocate. I am pro choice to a certain extent, but I am certainly torn b/c I see the pro life argument and I feel like I could switch teams when I end up having a kid. I just see how many unwanted children are already out there. I do not know if not being born or being born into a ****** life is worse in this day and age. I know by being born at least you have a shot, but it just seems the chances are getting grimmer by the day.

(10-21-2013 03:14 PM)miko33 Wrote:  The only real conflict I have with the Libertarian Party is the notion that the majority is pro-choice. I am a staunch pro life believer. A typical Libertarian view for favoring pro choice beliefs revolves around the notion of personal property and infringement on a person's personal liberty by the fetus acting as a "parasite" I oppose this view entirely and believe strongly in the notion that the Libertarian Party is based on individual rights as espoused in the Declaration as inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Since I believe that life begins at conception, abortion denies the right to life. I do support abortion in extreme cases where the health of the mother is at risk, i.e. an eptopic pregnancy where neither would survive unless the fetus is aborted.

You're a good man. (no sarcasm)