Take the political compass test and post your results, dammit.

[fat mike]

Liar!!!!

It's been done hundreds of times. No one changes their mind and no new information is imparted. My approach is to shock and awe people into submission. It seems to have worked.

lily is infinitely stubborn-she let you live

[Freedom&Liberty]

I gave her a way out.

[Freedom&Liberty]

The religious aspect is what turned it into a political issue and the issue should have been left to each state to decide, not the federal government.

[lily]

lily is infinitely stubborn-she let you live

haha! Is that how you see me? I could've persisted (because he didn't directly answer some questions I asked) but sometimes it's better to let someone think about something for a while, and we can always come back to the debate later.

The religious aspect is what turned it into a political issue and the issue should have been left to each state to decide, not the federal government.

It's a copout when people use the religion card. On this thread, no one has brought up religion, except for the pro-aborts, and none of us here are basing our arguments on religion. Go look at the website libertarians for life. There is no mention of religion at all on that site, but they answer every single "argument" put forth by the prodeath crowd.

[AlbertJ]

Whether or not an embryo is a person is not a political issue, it's a biological issue.

How can biology possibly determine personhood?

[Freedom&Liberty]

haha! Is that how you see me? I could've persisted (because he didn't directly answer some questions I asked) but sometimes it's better to let someone think about something for a while, and we can always come back to the debate later.

I would only further nauseate you.

It's a copout when people use the religion card. On this thread, no one has brought up religion, except for the pro-aborts, and none of us here are basing our arguments on religion. Go look at the website libertarians for life. There is no mention of religion at all on that site, but they answer every single "argument" put forth by the prodeath crowd.

Libertarians can make a case either way. Religion is the only reason this debate keeps coming up.

[optimus]

Epic thread hijack. Wow.

[lily]

I would only further nauseate you.

Um....You advocated parents being allowed to murder their children up to 18 years of age. Do you expect people to applaud that? Or not have the slightest bit of a negative reaction, to the murder of children?

I'm really starting to wonder if we're officially in the Twilight Zone now. First Obama wins the Nobel Prize, and now by the tone of your comment above, I'm the bad one for being nauseated at the thought of murder of children.


Boy, Orwell was so right.

Libertarians can make a case either way. Religion is the only reason this debate keeps coming up.

BS. It's about protecting the most weak and helpless among us, being a voice for the voiceless. That is not a RELIGIOUS thing, it's a HUMANITY thing. If people of good conscience never do speak up, Hitler would still be murdering Jews and others he deemed "subhuman", slavery would still be legal, rape and murder would be legal (apparently that would make a few of you happy), and on and on.

It's a human rights issue, and there are PLENTY of pro-life people who are not religious, on this site we had TLG and RBH, and probably others.

You WANT it to be about religion, so you can whack it down. But you cannot deny that a preborn baby is a living human being, a member of the human species, and therefore abortion is murder.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Um....You advocated parents being allowed to murder their children up to 18 years of age. Do you expect people to applaud that? Or not have the slightest bit of a negative reaction, to the murder of children?

It's not your kid. Having a negative reaction to the murder of any creature is perfectly normal. Why should you have a say one way or the other?

You WANT it to be about religion, so you can whack it down. But you cannot deny that a preborn baby is a living human being, a member of the human species, and therefore abortion is murder.

I don't WANT it to be about religion, it just is and until you accept that, it will never end. Remove the fear of God aspect and you have nothing. You aren't affected in any way when someone else murders their child.

[Dick Tator]

Honestly, if anything, we are better off because we don't have to pay for services for the little bastards... We should encourage more abortion, especially in the more liberal areas of the country were our tax dollars are sucked down into the black hole of economic services.

[lily]

It's not your kid. Having a negative reaction to the murder of any creature is perfectly normal. Why should you have a say one way or the other?

Because if people don't care about the rights of others, then the basic rights of ALL of us are at stake. In a civilized society, of decent people, people don't have that nonchalant, uncaring, coldhearted attitude towards injustice that you seem to think they should have. As MLK put it, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

Another famous quote for you:

"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me."

But I'm sure Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ted Bundy and Charles Manson would wholeheartedly agree with your belief that a parent should be able to murder their child up to the age of 18. And they (along with the slave owners of the past) would also love your twisted view that children are mere "property", to be disposed of at whim.

I don't WANT it to be about religion, it just is and until you accept that it, will never end. Remove the fear of God aspect and you have nothing. You aren't affected in any way when someone else murders their child.

I already answered above why I care about injustice like the murder of innocents. Because I care about others AND because ultimately it affects ALL of us.

Off topic, but what are your religious views, are you an atheist or believer? You seem to be saying that if we take God out of the equation, then there is no reason to not murder, or trample on the rights of others.

Is that what you believe?

Honestly, if anything, we are better off because we don't have to pay for services for the little bastards... We should encourage more abortion, especially in the more liberal areas of the country were our tax dollars are sucked down into the black hole of economic services.

We sort of moved off of the topic of abortion, read the last couple pages.

[AlbertJ]

Witch Hunt.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Because if people don't care about the rights of others, then the basic rights of ALL of us are at stake. In a civilized society, of decent people, people don't have that nonchalant, uncaring, coldhearted attitude towards injustice that you seem to think they should have.

No rights would be removed. If you don't want to kill your children, then don't kill your children. Parents should have the freedom to choose. It's not my kid, why should I have a say.

But I'm sure Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ted Bundy and Charles Manson would wholeheartedly agree with your belief that a parent should be able to murder their child up to the age of 18. And they (along with the slave owners of the past) would also love your twisted view that children are mere "property", to be disposed of at whim.

I don't think government or any uninvolved individual should have the right to decide if a child should be killed, but parents should.

Who do children belong to?

Off topic, but what are your religious views, are you an atheist or believer?

I believe in God.

You seem to be saying that if we take God out of the equation, then there is no reason to not murder, or trample on the rights of others.

I'm saying that government has no right to impose anyone's version of God onto the property of others. Again, who does the child belong to? Society, government or it's parents. Ultimately I believe that a child belongs to God, but I don't have the right to impose that view on anyone and neither do you.

[lily]

No rights would be removed. If you don't want to kill your children, then don't kill your children. Parents should have the freedom to choose. It's not my kid, why should I have a say.

Yes, obviously the most basic right would be removed, the right to life - that is a fundamental right that does not only apply to people over 18. And if (God forbid) someone like you ever got in power and changed the law so that parents can legally murder their children up to the age of 18, then we as a society are saying murder is acceptable.

Then we move on to the elderly (after all, if we are their caretakers, don't we have the "right" to murder them?) the handicapped, the mentally retarded, or heck, anyone those in power deem "subhuman." Jews, Christians, Blacks, Native Americans, Gays, atheists, etc. If we don't protect the rights of ALL human beings, then none of our rights are secure.

Ron Paul talks about this and says that in order to protect liberty, the most fundamental right must be protected - the right to life, for ALL human beings.

I don't think government or any uninvolved individual should have the right to decide if a child should be killed, but parents should.

No, no one has the right to murder an innocent. I can't believe that even needs to be stated to some people.

Who do children belong to?

I believe in God.

I'm saying that government has no right to impose anyone's version of God onto the property of others. Again, who does the child belong to? Society, government or it's parents. Ultimately I believe that a child belongs to God, but I don't have the right to impose that view on anyone and neither do you.

No one "owns" anyone, not the government, not parents, people are not property. Parents are guardians, they are entrusted to take care of children, but their children are not mere "property" to be disposed of at whim.

I agree that ultimately children belong to God, and God is the only one who is sovereign over life. But my personal view on that is neither here nor there, and others don't need to agree with my view, to agree that people have the right to not be murdered.

In this country, our founding principles and founding documents state that we have certain inalienable rights, one of them being life. And our founders believed that the government is supposed to protect those self-evident rights, not to be our "master" and take away our rights.

We have laws against murder. It is possible for one to not believe in God, yet agree that people have the right to not be murdered, as our founding documents state.

If you disagree with that, maybe you should start a new thread. It IS an interesting topic.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Yes, obviously the most basic right would be removed, the right to life - that is a fundamental right that does not only apply to people over 18. And if (God forbid) someone like you ever got in power and changed the law so that parents can legally murder their children up to the age of 18, then we as a society are saying murder is acceptable.

Then we move on to the elderly (after all, if we our their caretakers, don't we have the "right" to murder them?) the handicapped, the mentally retarded, or heck, anyone the government deems "subhuman." Jews, Christians, Blacks, Native Americans, Gays, atheists, etc. If we don't protect the rights of ALL human beings, then none of our rights are secure.

Ron Paul talks about this and says that in order to protect liberty, the most fundamental right must be protected - the right to life, for ALL human beings.




No, no one has the right to murder an innocent. I can't believe that even needs to be stated to some people.



No one "owns" anyone, not the government, not parents, people are not property. Parents are guardians, they are entrusted to take care of children, but their children are not mere "property" to be disposed of at whim.

I agree that ultimately children belong to God, and God is the only one who is sovereign over life. But my personal view on that is neither here nor there, and others don't need to agree with my view, to agree that people have the right to not be murdered.

In this country, our founding principles and founding documents state that we have certain inalienable rights, one of them being life. And our founders believed that the government is supposed to protect those self-evident rights, not to be our "master" and take away our rights.

We have laws against murder. It is possible for one to not believe in God, yet agree that people have the right to not be murdered, as our founding documents state.

If you disagree with that, maybe you should start a new thread. It IS an interesting topic.

I've always considered it an extension of the abortion debate. I've started threads about this before and never got any takers. I'm not the cold hearted bastard I've made myself out to be and I agree with everything you've said, but like it or not I still think I have a point. I have an idea for a thread title that may draw a few daring souls in and I hope you'll participate. .

[fat mike]

I'm not the cold hearted bastard I've made myself out to be

i got you now bitch

[BooRadley]

Honestly, if anything, we are better off because we don't have to pay for services for the little bastards... We should encourage more abortion, especially in the more liberal areas of the country were our tax dollars are sucked down into the black hole of economic services.

Liberal sections of the country give more, conservative sections take more. NYC has lots of money == lots of taxes, Alabama doesn't.

Your stereotype is broken.

[hadit]

Liberal sections of the country give more, conservative sections take more. NYC has lots of money == lots of taxes, Alabama doesn't.

Your stereotype is broken.

You are incorrect. They do not "give" more, they have more taxes sucked out of their wallets. Conservatives voluntarily give more.

[BooRadley]

You are incorrect. They do not "give" more, they have more taxes sucked out of their wallets. Conservatives voluntarily give more.

He was talking about tax dollars, not tithing the church.

[hadit]

He was talking about tax dollars, not tithing the church.

I'm well aware of that. I object to speaking of paying taxes as "giving". It's not.