Quote from: Kaz on April 14, 2014, 11:17:10 AM
There are a lot of sick people out there.  No law is going to fix that.

Which brings me to the whole point. Why is that sick, and abortion not?
Both are premeditated murder, except one is done with the blessing of the state, which in my mind is an interference with everyone's liberty to protect all life, while the state interferes.

Quote from: Solar on April 14, 2014, 11:28:05 AM
Which brings me to the whole point. Why is that sick, and abortion not?
Both are premeditated murder, except one is done with the blessing of the state, which in my mind is an interference with everyone's liberty to protect all life, while the state interferes.

She wasn't getting her body back, she was intentionally killing a viable life.  I understand you don't agree with that, but I have stated it as my view numerous times.   

Tough topic...  or at least it has turned into one.  But then abortion is just one of those topics. 

I don't think education is the solution unless society will allow the truth about what abortion really is.  When a woman goes in to consider an abortion it shouldn't be all about getting rid of the "problem" and glossing over that it is a child.  I think a woman should be shown pictures of what exactly she is removing from her body.  Let her see the baby she is considering killing.  If she decides to have the abortion then she should be sterilized at the same time.  Abortion is not birth control.  With all the options out there, including adoption by people who desperately want children, abortion should be the last option.

As to the argument that it is a woman's body and therefore her choice - I believe God gave me this body and His intention was for me to create life.  It is not my choice to decide who lives or dies. 

Toy

Quote from: Kaz on April 14, 2014, 11:36:35 AM
She wasn't getting her body back, she was intentionally killing a viable life.  I understand you don't agree with that, but I have stated it as my view numerous times.

Nine moths is not a permanent loss of any liberty. I guess we differ on where rights begin and end, I believe it is using govt to apply special rights for women, over the wishes of the majority and a father.

Quote from: Kaz on April 14, 2014, 11:12:30 AM
It's worked?  Seriously?   How can you possibly believe that?  You'd have thought we'd learned from prohibition about funding organized crime, yet we've made it even worse with the war on drugs.  We fund the mafia, destabalize governments across the world, terrorize our inner cities, and commit endless warrentless destruction of our privacy and for what?  We still have the drugs.  Prostitution, gambling, they all just go to fund organized crime and drain our resources instead of just being taxable events to fund them.

I was reading journals from the "Thirty Years Wars" some years ago and I came across this quote (translated from german)
"Peace can never be attained as long as not every criminal is hanging from the gallows"

The reason why government enforced morality is not functioning now is because as a liberal society we do not punish or execute deviants to the level that the punishment deterrs the criminals. As for the funding of the mafia you have to be more specific, as I wholeheartedly agree with you that is is not something anyone should be doing.

For prostitution, alchoholism and ruinous gambling there is no denying that these are extremely self destructive activities in which the people doing these activites are harming society, but does the cost of criminalizing these activies exceed the cost of legalizing it? Like you said as from prohibition it is clear alcohol is here to stay, and the Bible only says you shall not drink yourself drunk or drink the wine when it is fermented, so there is a morality based judgement to be made here which is to condem the act of drinking alcohol but not criminalize it. Alcohol can be consumed in small quantities without causing harm but drunkeness is wholly destructive, every year over 100,000 people in the US die from drunk drivers, so it is also clear that this is a area government should enforce morality.

As for censorship it is clear that pornography is destructive to children mental development so this is also something government should enforce morality with censoring culturally destructive mediums.

Drug addicts are a huge burden on society, lowering production, increase government spending, increases government wellfare and bureaucracies in addition to causing crime, murder and broken families. I'm not arguing that the current status quo is right, as it is worse than legalization, but in addition to legalization is also not the solution as it still doesn't prevent crime or the destruction of families. The answer as I see it is to completely eliminate all government funded wellfare and help to drug addicts before legalizing it, and after legalization the punishment of drug addicts should be either 50+ years in a work colony or just solve the problem right away with capital punishment if they cause one crime. This would almost completely deterr drug addicts from committing crime and drastically reduce the cost of the ones that does crime at same time allowing individuals to take drugs if they really want to.

Quote from: Kaz on April 14, 2014, 11:12:30 AM
Libertarian is not equal to libertarian.  The first, proper name, is the party.  The second is the ideology.  I am not a member of the party, nor have I particularly voted for it more than Republicans.   The second is small government ideology.  There are far more Republican libertarians than Libertarian libertarians.  The problem you're having is they are against the social agenda you advocate.   I try to be a Republican libertarian, it's just that the party sucks so bad I have a hard time doing it.  Per this thread though, Reagan was a very libertarian President.

Anyway, I don't care what's "hip" with the youth, I am just saying things like gay marriage are coming and abortion isn't going to be banned.  The trends are overwhelmingly away from that.  I hope conservative kids focus on making sure they don't need to get an abortion or have an unwanted child.  The war is won one step at a time.

I understand your argument, though I disagree with you I really hope libertarians and Conservatives will work together to reduce government spending, eliminate socialism first, and after this is completed we can bring the social agendas down to the state and local level asit is not justice to force citizens to pay taxes to subsidize deviants lifestyles. But if some citizen want to do that then let them live in a place where local government does tax people for it.

Quote from: Kaz on April 12, 2014, 07:46:30 AM
This sounds good, but it's actually pretty empty.

Not really.  That is reality.  Do you agree that if a pro-abortion person was aborted, then they wouldn't be around to push for more abortions?

Quote
Should we outlaw condoms?  You could say the same about children who aren't born because their father used a rubber.

No, I couldn't say the same thing.  You may be confusing abortion, i.e., taking a growing life, with contraception.  A rubber is not an abortion.

Quote
  I actually like Solar's argument better that it's taking a life.  I agree with him on that.  I just don't think it's the job of government to solve it since government owning our bodies scares the crap out of me.  Should government prevent the mother from drinking during pregnancy?  Should they force her to take vitamins and eat healthy?  The only way to really limit government is to have a hard line, you're opening the door to a lot more power.

You want to hug on to the argument that if a woman was raped, the kid should be chucked.

Quote from: Kaz on April 12, 2014, 07:48:04 AM
Nothing, but it has a lot to do with the mother who was raped and is now being raped again by government which is using force to make her bear the child of the criminal who raped her.

You want to move us towards a society where abortion is more acceptable.  I want to move us towards a society where abortions and rape are reduced.

Quote from: Kaz on April 12, 2014, 07:53:25 AM
I agree, but that doesn't make it a government power to own a woman's body.

A woman can't take her child's life.

Quote
Actually, to be a strawman fallacy, I would have had to say someone said this and then attacked it as if they had.  I was just making a point regarding how I view the difference between to kill and to murder.

OK.

Quote
  That your view is that the distinction doesn't matter doesn't make it a strawman because I didn't say anyone said that and I didn't attack it as if they had.

You were attempting to make the case that your cliff scenario is similar to an abortion because the intent is not murder.  I'm saying the cliff scenario isn't murder, and the abortion is.  The whole point and intent of abortion is to murder the child.  The motive is inconvenience.  If it wasn't, then the child would be allowed to live.

Quote
Again, I agree.  I don't consider that argument a reasonable basis to expand government power over our bodies.  People will continue to make bad choices, we can't outlaw them all.  And if we do, it won't work.

It isn't a case for government expansion.  Murder is pretty straight forward, and this reinforces the sanctity of life.  To support abortion, you have to not respect the sanctity of life.  A society that cherishes a life from the very beginning is a more solid, stable, law abiding society.

Quote from: taxed on April 15, 2014, 11:20:41 AM
You want to move us towards a society where abortion is more acceptable.  I want to move us towards a society where abortions and rape are reduced.

Actually, we are both against abortion.  The debate is that you believe government is the best solution to the problem, and I think government is not the best solution to the problem.

You make argument after argument that assumes the truth of your own position without ever justifying or even addressing why your contention that government is the best solution to the problem is true.

What you are doing is a logical fallacy called, "begging the question."

Quote from: Kaz on April 15, 2014, 11:57:40 AM
Actually, we are both against abortion.  The debate is that you believe government is the best solution to the problem, and I think government is not the best solution to the problem.

You make argument after argument that assumes the truth of your own position without ever justifying or even addressing why your contention that government is the best solution to the problem is true.

What you are doing is a logical fallacy called, "begging the question."

We have laws, and our laws need to be enforced.  I think we need a small, limited government to enforce the laws against actions like murder.  I don't want government telling me what I can and can't do.  I do want it protecting life, liberty, and property.