<p>I thought you were implying that pro-choicers weren't really for choice, only in certain instances. Implying that it was the same hypocrisy applied to pro-lifers being for the death penalty. Perhaps I misinterpreted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Youre describing libertarianismnot conservatism. </p>
<p>However, there is nothing in libertarianism that would desire that the government, through its bureaucracy, create another layer of institutional marriage, as far as I understand these things. Marriage as an institution was preserved to protect the disenfranchised: children in particular, but also pre-twentieth century women, as they were only afforded the protections and rights of civil society through marriage up until the last century (as is still the case in some parts of the world). Marriage was not historically granted in a simple effort to confer legal privileges on people-in-love, as it is now being described. </p>
<p>It was to protect the disenfranchised. All men and women in the Western World now have the rights that were once upon a time only available through the franchise of marriage (property rights, right of inheritance, voting, etc.).</p>
<p>A libertarian would likely support the right of two people to co-habitat, or do as they please as they see fit, but by no means be granted another class of legal marriage conferring privileges on two "lovers" not enjoyed by single adults. </p>
<p>Libertarians, by definition, prefer less government involvement in individual lives, not more. Conservatives prefer the conserving of tradition, as it has, by and large, survived the fashions, trends and fades of any given time or generation.</p>
<p>-Support gay and lesbian marriage if it conforms to your individual preference, but it is not a right. Not by any definition of rights. Moreover, if the term rights has any qualitative meaning, it is derived from religion or organized spiritual belief and no-where else. Otherwise, by rights all that is meant is what we prefer at any given time subject to the whims and fashions of the time which is by no means a right but is, more properly, simple legal privilege. </p>
<p>As for capital punishment, I oppose it in general and I am pro-lifeI think the ethos reflects a healthy societythat is, one that favors life above all else, even convenience. However, I do not see that one necessitates the other.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>bobbobbob - I did reply to your beginning-of-humanity post, sort of; I pointed out that the heart actually begins to beat at 5 weeks. But that's one point that people are going to believe what they want to believe, and there's no way science, reason, or anything else can change that. Life has become an arbitrary term.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Life has become an arbitrary term.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well sort of. It's complicated. Life is a continuum, not a simple start and stop thing.</p>
<p>You criticize pro-lifers for being hypocritical and supporting the death penalty.</p>
<p>So I have a better question for you--why aren't pro-choicers pro choice?</p>
<p>They don't support my choice to keep and bear arms, they don't support my choice to not support a bad public school system and send my child elsewhere, they dont support my choice to save for my own retirement, they dont support my choice to hire and fire who I please, this list could go on and on.</p>
<p>Why is it only ok to have a paternalistic government along the lines of democratic values? If you truly are a liberal and a lover of freedom, you should support all the other kinds of choice as well</p>
<p>Who said I was pro-choice? I neither pro-choice nor pro-life. I have my own personal set of beliefs that I do not give labels to. I feel in some instances abortion might be the right choice (rape, if giving birth to child would kill them both, etc...) But in many instances I feel it is not the right decision. Also I am for bearing arms and I am also against social security.</p>
<p>Life has become an arbitrary term.</p>
<hr>
<p>Depending upon your belief system, life could either never die or start and stop or just start over and over again.</p>
<p>Drew00, you are committing a logical fallacy - thinking all pro-choicers fall into that mindset? I am 100% pro-choice.</p>
<p>I support your right to have the choice to have an abortion, keep and bear arms, not support the public school system, save for your own retirement, hire and fire whom you please, etc.</p>
<p>I would hire anyone with a good handlebar mustache. Then I would probably get sued :(</p>
<p>Drew00, you are committing a logical fallacy - thinking all pro-choicers fall into that mindset? I am 100% pro-choice.</p>
<p>I never said all pro-choicers fall into that mindset??</p>
<p>
[quote]
Drew00, you are committing a logical fallacy - thinking all pro-choicers fall into that mindset? I am 100% pro-choice.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said all pro-choicers fall into that mindset??</p>
<p>I said:
[quote]
Who said I was pro-choice? I neither pro-choice nor pro-life. I have my own personal set of beliefs that I do not give labels to. I feel in some instances abortion might be the right choice (rape, if giving birth to child would kill them both, etc...) But in many instances I feel it is not the right decision. Also I am for bearing arms and I am also against social security.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>and this part:
[quote]
You criticize pro-lifers for being hypocritical and supporting the death penalty.</p>
<p>So I have a better question for you--why aren't pro-choicers pro choice?</p>
<p>They don't support my choice to keep and bear arms, they don't support my choice to not support a bad public school system and send my child elsewhere, they dont support my choice to save for my own retirement, they dont support my choice to hire and fire who I please, this list could go on and on.</p>
<p>Why is it only ok to have a paternalistic government along the lines of democratic values? If you truly are a liberal and a lover of freedom, you should support all the other kinds of choice as well</p>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>was said by GHbrown in post 118, I just didn't feel like doing to quote brackets</p>
<p>I saw you saying: So I have a better question for you--why aren't pro-choicers pro choice?</p>
<p>I am a pro-choicer who is pro choice.</p>
<p>I didn't say that, GHbrown in post 118 did. I was quoting him/her and posted my response below, but I forgot to put in the quote brackets.</p>
<p>Holy crap. Sorry. =)</p>
<p>"Why is it only ok to have a paternalistic government along the lines of democratic values? If you truly are a liberal and a lover of freedom, you should support all the other kinds of choice as well."</p>
<p>That would make you a libertarian, not a liberal. </p>
<p>I don't like the term you're using "pro-choice" in terms of letting people basically do whatever they want. I would use a different term, maybe like "realistic," but that doesn't exactly fly w/ the public at large and isn't the generally accepted label for my exact stance, even if I use a different justification. But the distinction I make here is that a woman can choose what she wants to do with her own BODY, which has no effect on anyone else - does a woman getting an abortion give you a major wound? Your decision to hire and fire on the basis of race harms another person w/o real justification, your decision to bear arms may mortally injure/kill someone - even your own children, etc.</p>
<p>I believe in giving people rights and allowing them to express themselves. But as the old saying goes, "my rights end at the tip of your nose" (right? something to this effect). Your "rights" must be controlled and limited at the point that they harm another person. I believe careful consideration of others must be taken even when making private choices; and this is the only way to live even in a semblance of peace and accord in this VERY diverse world.</p>
<p>Liberal in the traditional, TRUE sense is synonymous with libertarian. Thats why I said democratic values. I am taking back the term liberal ;-) (I consider myself a classical liberal)</p>
<p>My firearm will not just spontaneously jump up off a table and kill somebody accidently, espescially if I am safe and responsible and keep it locked, etc. And, not everybody has small children that they allow to play with such things. </p>
<p>On the other hand, your abortion WILL result in the termination of a fetus. Whose rights we may argue about, but I believe it does have them. </p>
<p>What makes you think that a fetus is part of your body? For it to be part of your body, I think it would have to share the same DNA as you, which it does not. It may be inside of your body....</p>
<p>And why shouldn't I be able to hire/fire who I want without any justification? Freedom of contract is SUCH a fundamental right...I'm not even going to expend the effort right now to defend it, because if you can't desire liberties like this in general, I'm really not interested in your opnions.</p>
<p>nevermind that the fetus cannot survive on its own and is solely relying upon the mother for survival, why cant she dictate what she can and cannot provide sustenance to? would you prefer a procedure in which the women separates the umbilical cord, which has her DNA, from the fetus? a fetus is not a separate entity than its mother while in the womb, or else it would not be there to develop. thats why i think that a fetus gains its rights when it can survive outside of the womb. until then, it is part of the mother's body.</p>
<p>So what about late term feti? The ones which could survive on their own...and this line has moved progressively earlier and earlier in the term.</p>
<p>Ive already stated that I think the fetus should gain its rights when it can survive outside the womb.</p>
<p>Late term abortions (after the 6th month) should only be for the health of the mother or other strange circumstances.</p>
<p>My issue with the illegalization of abortions is the idea that condemning someone without knowing her personal story is wrong. No one has the right to dictate the choices a woman makes concerning her body without truly understanding her and why she makes these decisions.</p>
<p>We could get into a philosophical argument as to "what exactly constitutes a person?", but it simply comes down to the rights of the woman to decide whether or not to put herself through the emotional and physical effects of childbirth, nevermind the effects a pregnancy could have on her socially, especially if she is very young.</p>
<p>Abortions will happen no matter what legislation is created to prevent them. Historical precedents have already made this clear. Why destroy the opportunity for women to receive healthy and safe abortions if they are possible and abortions are inevitable?</p>