4 votes

"We Need to Limit the Government and Get It Out of Our Lives!" (unless it's drugs, gay marriage, abortion, religion, etc...)

If your goal is to limit the power that the government has over us, it's probably not in yours (or anyone's) best interest to beg for government intervention in other peoples private lives.

It kinda hurts the argument :/

Whether it's drugs, gay marriage, abortion, or christianity...it's none of ANYONE'S business what people do in their private lives unless it is hurting someone else.

The fact is that people want to smoke some pot after a long day without being sent to prison, people want to marry who they love without seeking permission, women want to manage their bodies without politicians prying in, and christians want to practice their religion without interference.

And whether we agree or not on any of these issues, we just can't expect to keep the government out of our private lives unless we ask it to get out of our neighbors private lives too.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I believe abortion kills the baby

So that in fact does harm someone, namely the baby.

If you believe in liberty and rights and stopping violence, the you must believe in the fundamental right to exist.

I agree with you - but

you know what happens when abortion is outlawed....it goes underground...then we have the same mess we do with the "war on drugs"...outlawing it completely is not the answer. Unfortunately our imperfection as a society is reflected in how we bring life into the world... We have rapists, quality of life birth defects, and the poverty of young mothers and fathers... This issue has NO easy answer...and certainly government is not the solution. Stopping late term abortions, providing counseling, society stepping up and providing assistance through tax revenue...yes...I am in favor... But outlawing abortion completely will end up creating more victims...children AND mothers. I myself don't personally agree with abortions unless all done very early and only in cases of rape, incest, or severe quality of life birth defects.

I COMPLETELY AGREE!

It is the separation of these things that has held back the liberty movement. You can't have liberty for what you believe in and your lifestyle - then expect government to restrict others with different beliefs and lifestyles. The only time there should be government interventions is when someone else's beliefs and lifestyle infringe on the rights of others.

Think about how the media has tried to separate us... Democrats vs Republicans, Gays vs Straight, "Americans" vs people from another country that now live in America, many of them citizens, Black vs White, Rich vs Poor, "Educated" vs non-educated.... The government and their backers (special interests and banks) are fine with keeping us fighting among ourselves...

What I find is that

What I find is that individual liberty and freedom is very scary to a vast majority of people. I don't really see that changing since tptb love to keep the sheeple afraid and willing to give up liberty for security. And that security makes a lot of tax $$$$ for tptb.

I have put a lot of thought into the abortion issue as of late.

First, I am a Christian but I don't believe in forcing my religious beliefs on anyone for any reason. Abortion is an abomination in my eyes, and well I can't claim to understand the mind of our Creator, I like to think it is an abomination in our Creator's eyes as well.

As a liberty lover and logical thinking person, I ask myself, "when does life begin, when did I first receive my rights to life and liberty?" I believe that the simplest explanation to this is to first ask when life ends. If life ends because a beating heart stops, doesn't life begin when a heart beats for the first time?

This seems like an incredibly simple and libertarian solution to the problem of abortion. For starters, a fetus' heart begins to beat 22 days after conception. The overall size of the fetus at 22 days is usually around 2mm (not a type-O, two millimeters). So even if a woman did become pregnant, she most likely would not even know that she was carrying until she missed her next menstrual cycle anyway.

Also, if a woman takes the morning after pill, is this murder? If you answered yes to this question, where is the evidence? Do we put a cop in everyone's bathroom to collect this evidence? Do we outlaw the morning after pill (if you support the war on drugs, maybe)?

As a Christian there is no good solution to this problem that doesn't either involve increasing the war on drugs, advancing the police state, or Heaven forbid increasing the surveillance state. I say life begins with a beating heart. Any doctor performing an abortion on a fetus that has a beating heart is a murderer and their nursing staff are involved in an ongoing criminal conspiracy.

Id agree in all cases save

Id agree in all cases save abortion. Abortion "is" a government issue as long as we have a government which is supposed to protect the individual right to life. A baby, even an unborn one has just as much right to live as you and I.

Infact, its already law. If a drunk driver hits a pregnant woman and kills her and the baby, he gets double homocide. If you punch a woman in the stomach and kill her baby, you get homicide. However if a woman hires a hit-man to assassinate her baby in the womb, she's just "managing her body." This is a stark double standard to the law which should not have such contradictions if its to be "just."

The term itself seems to disassociate and dehumanize the little victim to the "mother." Maybe if it was called "murder" it might make the girl think a little on the impact of what it is she is about to do to a baby.

Sadly this is one of those issues most people will never get until they see their own baby on the ultra sound waving her arms and sucking her thumb in the 2nd trimester.

Half the trouble is the term "abortion" itself. If we just called it what it is, murder, then there would probably far less infanticides in the world. A teenage girl doing it doesn't associate it with the crime that it is because she's thinkings its just an abortion, rather than a murder.

But you may say: It can't be enforced, so people will just do it in the black market. This is true, but then; you can't enforce anti- murder laws either. That doesn't mean as a society we should ever legalize murder. But we punish killers when they are caught, and use individual self defense to protect life when we must. If a person is intent on murdering their baby, let them do it illegally as the criminal they are, and face the consequences/risk of their actions. No one may legally deprive another human of their life, liberty or property.

We have to remember that the purpose of police is not to "prevent" crime or even to protect people. That falls to individuals practicing their right to self defense. The police are only there to go and get law breakers and bring them to justice. That's it. Therefore no law is "enforcable" if "prevention" is what you want. Its exactly because the police have attempted to get into "prevention" that we have a militarized police force of thugs and gangsters sodomizing our rights. There is a reason soldiers and police are kept seperate. Soldiers view the public as external threats as they attempt to "prevent." Police do not.

Im not opposed to the "rape/incest/mother's toast" arguments however.

The real debait in my mind, is at what point is it a baby?

Shoulda known it was you.

Nice job putting words in our mouths, by the way.

I take issue with gay marriage as inherently immoral, but the gov't has no say. It's a church issue. I take issue with drugs as downright stupid to use, but again, not a gov't issue. Religion? What? Can't remember the last time anyone on here supported government-mandated religion.

Of course, you're just putting words in the mouths of those who oppose your precious abortion. Baby-killing. THAT is a government issue. Murder is, was, and always will be a legitimate government issue. Best taken care of at the local level, but still well deserving of being forbidden, just like all other forms of murder and violations of human rights.

oh really? you don't support gov't manadted religion???

you sir are a walking talking contradiction!

you cant have things both ways.

Are you trying to equate the

Are you trying to equate the abortion issue with religion? Because science also shows how a fetus is a living thing, but we ALL know it's a living thing of course, and attempt to redefine it to make ourselves feel better (the pro abortion crowd does, anyway, they must hate science too then...)It's pretty obvious and no amount of euphemisms will change the fact that a living being is being killed via abortion. Even the lady who brought Roe V Wade to court is a pro life activist now apparently. When she saw the pictures of abortions, she was disgusted with what she'd done and felt tricked.

She is a pro-life activist now.

I actually got to hear her speak a few years back.

Gotta say, though, she's a terrible speaker.

...What?

At what point have I ever advocated government-mandated religion?

Seriously, I don't even have anything snarky to say. I'm just baffled.

lol

He obviously either read your comment too fast, or he is trying to twist your words. Have pity on him either way, he doesn't know what he's talking about, there are a lot of people like that. :)

What is

answer to all of these?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Not hard.
Yes the federal government needs to be downsized.

. . . . . . _ . . . _ _ .
. _ . . _ _ . . . . _ _ . . . . . . . _ . . _ . .
. _ . . _ _ . . . . _ _ . . . . . . . _ . . _ . .

Ron Paul:

"If you do not protect liberty across the board... you’re gonna end up with government that’s gonna tell us what we can eat and drink and whatever.”

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

I agree with 3 of your 4 examples:

Abortion Is different because the woman is killing another human. It's as if you say that government should be out when it comes to murders. The woman's full ownership of her body stops the moment she becomes pregnant; after that, she has a responsibility to her unborn child. Sucks to be you if that pregnancy is unwanted, the unborn baby's life isn't less important than a "woman's right to choose": the moment that the choice that you're referring to came was at the moment of procreation not once the life has been created.

Now, in case of rape or a pregnancy that endangers the life of the woman then and only then there's matter for debate (less than 1 pregnancy out 20 and less than 1% of total abortions), IMO.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, an

how is it murder if the fetus cant survive on it's own??

and what if the mother is unhealthy? will she go to prison for "child neglect" for not raising a healthy baby for the state?

Dumb arguments for abortion

Um, a BABY born into the world and not aborted ALSO CAN'T SURVIVE ON ITS OWN. Neither can someone on a kidney dialysis machine. Your criterion would condemn both of them to death as well. You might consider thinking a bit before speaking.

A newborn carried to term

A newborn carried to term can't survive on its own. It's also arguably more obnoxious and more of a burden in every way, not just to the mother, but to everyone else in its household, and to society. The newborn also would have no awareness of what happened if it was humanely put to sleep. Why would it be murder to kill it?

Good lord...

Don't let liberals know that! They will legalize 53rd trimester abortions and put to sleep anyone who doesn't repeat their doublethink.

A fetus can survive

as early as 20 weeks into pregnancy but that's not even the point, it's alive and it's human the moment it's conceived. If the pregnancy endangers the mother then there's matter for debate as you can argue the mother can have an abortion for motives of self defense but that's not the case in 19 out 20 pregnancies and in less than 1% of abortions.

Before going to prison for "child neglect" she can give the child for adoption but all of that could have been prevented if she would have acted responsibly in the first place (condoms, BC pills, abstinence, ect).

Life and liberty are impossible without responsibility.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, an

Couldn't agree more

For some people, they want government out of their lives, but not the lives of babies that haven't been born yet, they don't count.

I Don't Understand The Exception For Rape

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0812/napolitano.php3#.UdYlH...

Like Dr. Paul I favor the morning after pill, which stops conception from ever happening.

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

I agree with you

There's plenty of ways for the woman to have choices in regards to her body without having to kill an unborn child. The instances where an abortion is legitimized morally and ethically are so minuscule, almost non existent, especially in technologically advanced countries.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, an

The moment a person tries to

The moment a person tries to dictate morality (as it relates to this controversy) they tend to side with using force of government to make others act as they want to act. That's not freedom.

You can also feel free to

go and kill your neighbor, now that's freedom...

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, an

sorry buddy but the last time i checked ...

my neighbor isn't growing inside of me...and I doubt his is either! lol

You made that conscious choice

to have that baby growing inside of you by not taking precautions to avoid the pregnancy, if that was what you wanted. It's not the middle ages anymore, there's ways to prevent becoming pregnant: condoms, pills, morning after pill, abstinence... Failure to take responsibility for your own actions is no excuse to kill a baby.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, an

What about...

...Because she's not ready to make it the priority in life it needs to be?

...And because it's not her obligation to "make" a child because someone else might want to adopt it?

...And because she doesn't see it as a child yet, because it's nowhere near done cooking?

Three utterly discusting

reasons you just enumerated there. Murdering an unborn baby is still murder whether it's convenient for the woman or not, it isn't self defense, it's MURDER.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, an