Paul Ryan: A Big Government Conservative

[George Whorewell]

youre an idiot

anti abortion = hate women
anti gay marriage = hate gays
anti illegal immigrants = hates immigrants
anti welfare = hate poor ppl

only in the mind of a liberal does this shit make sense

QFT

Tolerance means destroying America. If you're against destroying America, then you hate everyone.

[howardroark]

Anti-freedom is subjective. If someone believes that life is created at the moment of conception then it is murder to them. No different than the ass clown walking into a theater and shooting people.

Life obviously is created at conception. The conflict is one of property rights. The woman has the right to decide what can and cannot be in her body, including the fetus. So even if the fetus has rights* then the woman still can decide to remove the fetus from her body and use force to do so.


* Which I contend it does not, but that's a deeper problem of philosophy/ethics/politics that I don't feel like dealing with at the moment.

[tonymctones]

Life obviously is created at conception. The conflict is one of property rights. The woman has the right to decide what can and cannot be in her body, including the fetus. So even if the fetus has rights* then the woman still can decide to remove the fetus from her body and use force to do so.


* Which I contend it does not, but that's a deeper problem of philosophy/ethics/politics that I don't feel like dealing with at the moment.

One could say that by voluntarily agreeing to sex she waives that right.

Also one could say that if the decision is hers and hers alone b/c it is her body that she and she alone should deal with the consequences. Meaning that the father of the child should not be held accountable as he has no choice in the matter other the act of agreeing to have sex. Which you already concede isnt a binding decision in taking care of a resulting child seeing as women dont have to adhere to it.

[Straw Man]

youre an idiot
anti abortion = hate women
anti gay marriage = hate gays
anti illegal immigrants = hates immigrants
anti welfare = hate poor ppl

only in the mind of a liberal does this shit make sense

right back at yah

forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to the child of her rapist is absolutely rage and hatred not only against that woman but all women.  Given Ryan penchant for double standards I'm sure if one of his daughters was raped he'd find a way to make an exception in that one case.

Writing budgets where taxes and dividend have a zero percent tax rate and then gutting Medicare to pay for it is rage and hatred against almost everyone else in the county (even against brain dead repubs such as yourself)

Being a self proclaimed objectivist and claiming rights come from God and Nature and then telling gay people they have no right to get married is just another example of pathetic double standards but then what can we expect from a trust fund baby who has never worked in the private setor and thinks that there should be one set of rule for himself and another set for everyone else.   

[Kazan]

right back at yah

forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to the child of her rapist is absolutely rage and hatred not only against that woman but all women.  Given Ryan penchant for double standards I'm sure if one of his daughters was raped he'd find a way to make an exception in that one case.

Writing budgets where taxes and dividend have a zero percent tax rate and then gutting Medicare to pay for it is rage and hatred against almost everyone else in the county (even against brain dead repubs such as yourself)

Being a self proclaimed objectivist and claiming rights come from God and Nature and then telling gay people they have no right to get married is just another example of pathetic double standards but then what can we expect from a trust fund baby who has never worked in the private setor and thinks that there should be one set of rule for himself and another set for everyone else.   

And how often does that actually happen? Please cite some statistics. If it accounts for .00001% of the abortions, smash your fingers with a sledge hammer.

[blacken700]

And how often does that actually happen? Please cite some statistics. If it accounts for .00001% of the abortions, smash your fingers with a sledge hammer.

it only has to happen once if it's your daughter or wife,right

[Kazan]

it only has to happen once if it's your daughter or wife,right

Look I'm not anti-abortion, everyone has to make their own decision and live with the consequence. The abortion on demand advocates need to come up with a better argument than this

[Straw Man]

And how often does that actually happen? Please cite some statistics. If it accounts for .00001% of the abortions, smash your fingers with a sledge hammer.

Why would that matter

Let's say it happens only one time a year

Would that be an acceptable reason to force the woman to give birth
to the child of her rapist?

[Kazan]

Why would that matter

Let's say it happens only one time a year

Would that be an acceptable reason to force the woman to give birth
to the child of her rapist?

Well that all depends if you think that justifies the other 41,999,999

[Straw Man]

Well that all depends if you think that justifies the other 41,999,999

It doesn't have to justify it

Why would you think it did?

[Straw Man]

One could say that by voluntarily agreeing to sex she waives that right.

Also one could say that if the decision is hers and hers alone b/c it is her body that she and she alone should deal with the consequences. Meaning that the father of the child should not be held accountable as he has no choice in the matter other the act of agreeing to have sex. Which you already concede isnt a binding decision in taking care of a resulting child seeing as women dont have to adhere to it.

one could say that by voluntarily agreeing to sex the man concedes he does not have and never had any control over the womans body.  Furthermore he concedes that in the case of pregnancy the woman has the sole right to make the decision whether to have an abortion or whether to give birth thereby making them both financially responsible for the consequences of their sexual encounter

[tu_holmes]

if you dont see the difference between an innocent child and a convicted murderer then youre defective...

Life = Life is all I'm saying.

Only people who try to rationalize the idea that they are not say this.

The difference is that I don't give a shit either way... I'm not hypocritical about it.

[howardroark]

One could say that by voluntarily agreeing to sex she waives that right.

If that were true, then it would not apply to cases of rape, or when the woman used birth control and it failed, or in cases when the woman simply didn't want to have a child and got pregnant on accident. All of these would make abortion 100% legal and accessible for practical reasons, simply because it would be impossible for the government to determine in a free society whether or not the woman was lying about the pregnancy being an accident.

Furthermore, even if the woman wanted to become pregnant, that does not mean that she is entering into a long-term contract - she still has the right to change her mind at any point and determine that she wants to terminate the pregnancy.

Lastly, as I briefly mentioned in a previous post, it is a bit of a stretch to extend rights to the unborn. Rights only exist in a social context - I do not adhere to the view that rights are God-given or naturally endowed. So from this perspective, it would appear that the unborn do not have any rights since they obviously do not engage in society or even exist within the "social context."

Also one could say that if the decision is hers and hers alone b/c it is her body that she and she alone should deal with the consequences. Meaning that the father of the child should not be held accountable as he has no choice in the matter other the act of agreeing to have sex. Which you already concede isnt a binding decision in taking care of a resulting child seeing as women dont have to adhere to it.

I agree that the father shouldn't be held legally responsible for a child born out of wedlock. Again, engaging in sex does note constitute entering into a long-term contract.

Though in cases of marriage or when the mother/father do make an agreement to have a child, the circumstances change, and thus the father should be held legally responsible - and at the same time the decision to terminate the pregnancy no longer is just the mother's, but also the father's. But at no point is this a decision to be made by the government.

[Straw Man]

If that were true, then it would not apply to cases of rape, or when the woman used birth control and it failed, or in cases when the woman simply didn't want to have a child and got pregnant on accident. All of these would make abortion 100% legal and accessible for practical reasons, simply because it would be impossible for the government to determine in a free society whether or not the woman was lying about the pregnancy being an accident.

Furthermore, even if the woman wanted to become pregnant, that does not mean that she is entering into a long-term contract - she still has the right to change her mind at any point and determine that she wants to terminate the pregnancy.

Lastly, as I briefly mentioned in a previous post, it is a bit of a stretch to extend rights to the unborn. Rights only exist in a social context - I do not adhere to the view that rights are God-given or naturally endowed. So from this perspective, it would appear that the unborn do not have any rights since they obviously do not engage in society or even exist within the "social context."

I agree that the father shouldn't be held legally responsible for a child born out of wedlock. Again, engaging in sex does note constitute entering into a long-term contract.

Though in cases of marriage or when the mother/father do make an agreement to have a child, the circumstances change, and thus the father should be held legally responsible - and at the same time the decision to terminate the pregnancy no longer is just the mother's, but also the father's. But at no point is this a decision to be made by the government.

society has a justifiable  expectation that both parents should be financially responsible for their spawn

that's what we do now and I don't see any problem with it

[howardroark]

society has a justifiable  expectation that both parents should be financially responsible for their spawn

that's what we do now and I don't see any problem with it

How is this expectation "justifiable?"

[Straw Man]

How is this expectation "justifiable?"

adults engaging in sex know the potential outcome is a child

as an adult they should be responsible for their actions

if they don't support their child then it will be you and me and all the other tax payers who have to pay to take care of their kid

[tu_holmes]

How is this expectation "justifiable?"

But the premise of having a "spawn" be born is not a decision that 2 people make.

Only one person has the ultimate say.

[Straw Man]

But the premise of having a "spawn" be born is not a decision that 2 people make.

Only one person has the ultimate say.

one person has the ultimate say because that person has the ulitmate risk and requirement of bearing the child

how many men have died during child birth ..to give one example

I honesly don't know any responsible adult male who doesn't understand how this work

you knock up a woman and if she chooses not to get an abortion then you're going to be paying for your kid

[howardroark]

adults engaging in sex know the potential outcome is a child

as an adult they should be responsible for their actions

The exact same argument applies to making abortion illegal.

I refuted it here. It is not the case that simply by engaging in sex, that you enter into a contract agreeing to have and take care of a child.

And as I stated previously, this does not apply to cases where there was an explicit agreement to have a child between a couple. Obviously, if a couple agrees to have a child, then they have entered into a common law contract. But in that case, the decision to have an abortion is not solely the mother's, and both parents have a legal obligation to take care of the child.

if they don't support their child then it will be you and me and all the other tax payers who have to pay to take care of their kid

Unless positive rights don't exist (which they don't). No one has the right to live off of the rightfully earned income of someone else.

[Straw Man]

The exact same argument applies to making abortion illegal.

I refuted it here. It is not the case that simply by engaging in sex, that you enter into a contract agreeing to have and take care of a child.

And as I stated previously, this does not apply to cases where there was an explicit agreement to have a child between a couple. Obviously, if a couple agrees to have a child, then they have entered into a common law contract. But in that case, the decision to have an abortion is not solely the mother's, and both parents have a legal obligation to take care of the child.

Unless positive rights don't exist (which they don't). No one has the right to live off of the rightfully earned income of someone else.

I don't think your link is working - it seems to be pointing back to this thread

Aren't you the guy who wants absolutly no restriction on abortion

Most libertarians used to be pro-choice, but Ron Paul has brought a bunch of pro-lifers into the libertarian movement now, so I THINK it's more evenly split now.

IMO, the legitimate libertarian position on abortion:

The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man’s absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the fetus. Most fetuses are in the mother’s womb because the mother consents to this situation, but the fetus is there by the mother’s freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic “invader” of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as “murder” of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother’s body.[2] Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers.

- Murray Rothbard, "The Ethics of Liberty" Chapter 14 http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp



An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?

- Ayn Rand, "Of Living Death" http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/abortion.html#order_1

would you have any limits in regards to a time frame that a woman could get an abortion ?

Also, just curious, has there been any modern society/government based on the libertarian ideals?

Nope.

Nope, but countries with greater economic freedom (which certainly is a libertarian ideal) tend to perform much better than those with less:

[howardroark]

I don't think your link is working - it seems to be pointing back to this thread

It is pointing back to this thread. It's to a post I wrote refuting an argument against abortion. You use the exact same argument to argue that the father should be held responsible for a child born out of wedlock. You cannot use that argument and at the same time be pro-choice without engaging in self-contradiction.

Aren't you the guy who wants absolutly no restriction on abortion

Yes.

[Straw Man]

It is pointing back to this thread. It's to a post I wrote refuting an argument against abortion. You use the exact same argument to argue that the father should be held responsible for a child born out of wedlock. You cannot use that argument and at the same time be pro-choice without engaging in self-contradiction.

Yes.

why not just copy the post instead

I don't know which one it refers to

just so I'm clear, you don't have any problem if one guy has 20 different kids with 20 different women and doesn't pay a dime to support any of his kids ?

If no, should we also assume that these kids should also not be eligible for any kind of government assistance say for housing, food or healthcare?

[howardroark]

why not just copy the post instead

I don't know which one it refers to

I tried it out and the link refers you directly to the post I intended it to.

just so I'm clear, you don't have any problem if one guy has 20 different kids with 20 different women and doesn't pay a dime to support any of his kids ?

There's no reason why he should have a legal obligation to take care of all of those kids.

If no, should we also assume that these kids should also not be eligible for any kind of government assistance say for housing, food or healthcare?

In order to fund all of that, you would need taxation. Taxation is theft, plain and simple. Theft is immoral.

[tu_holmes]

one person has the ultimate say because that person has the ulitmate risk and requirement of bearing the child

how many men have died during child birth ..to give one example

I honesly don't know any responsible adult male who doesn't understand how this work

you knock up a woman and if she chooses not to get an abortion then you're going to be paying for your kid

You don't "knock her up"

You guys do it TOGETHER, and if that's the case, which we KNOW it is, then why is the power COMPLETELY her decision. No guy can go in and forbid her from doing it... NONE.

Ultimate risk? What? By carrying it to term or getting an operation? What about the risk of having to pay for a child that you seriously do not want or DO want but have ZERO say.

You're sitting here talking about risk and who has say, well if 1/2 of the genetic material is from a person, then that person should get EQUAL say in what goes on.

I am infinitely responsible... Tony is also a responsible sort of person it seems and we seem to disagree... so apparently your ideal that all responsible people would agree with you is flawed.

The bottom line should be that if you are responsible for the WELL BEING of the BORN child, then you should have a say in what the fuck happens to get the child here or not... in ALL points along the way.

Not just the point where I can choose or not to choose to have sex... That's a very right wing mentality on a basic human desire... Kind of like preaching only abstinence.

[Straw Man]

I tried it out and the [ur=http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=437018.msg6263291#msg6263291]link[/url] refers you directly to the post I intended it to.

There's no reason why he should have a legal obligation to take care of all of those kids.

In order to fund all of that, you would need taxation. Taxation is theft, plain and simple. Theft is immoral.

ok - well it doesn't seem to work on my browser.  When I click on the link it opens up a window and I see the bottom of the post that includes your link

I have problems with this site when posting too.   If the post is long or I'm replying to a long post the dialogue box literally jumps around on the screen and I can't even see the text I've just typed

anyway

I don't really understand your point of view

are you aware that taxes actually exist in our society

are we discussing a hypothical reality or the place where we actually live ?

In the reality where I live if someone fathers 20 different kids with 20 different women there is a good chance some of those kids are going to need some form of public assistance.    Are you aware of this?