too big to ignore

[Christian Liberty]

I know some good Republicans still hanging on to their Democrat Light Party with a sprinkle of greed. They need to go the way of the Wigs. They have ceased to function as a check and balance on the just as evil Democrats and need to be replaced. If the libertarians would just get off their legalize drugs campaign, we could get on with dismantling the Republicans and form a real party to combat the evil of the Democrat/Socialists......

The fact that the Texas Republicans have passed a law to protect some unborn children is the least of my concerns about Republicans.

Regarding the second part, yeah, pretty much. I wish I could emphasize the abortion issue more but the bottom line is:

1. People are going to do it anyway.

2. The Country is falling apart.

I choose to fight over the murders by the State itself first. Assassinations without trial and endless imperial warfare need to end first. Not to mention fixing our economy so the country can actually prosper again rather than having everything stolen from us at gunpoint. And allowing people to own military grade weaponry. Oh, so many issues.

Regarding drugs, we'd probably disagree on that, since I support legalizing drugs. There's no justification for telling an adult what he/she can and cannot put in their own bodies. That said, there are a lot of freedom issues, and I don't necessarily insist that a candidate agree with me on that issue (Rand Paul, afterall, does not.)

Yet you support the legislation. If this legislation should make it through the courts it will be the first time in Republican Party history where they no longer acknowledge that life starts at conception, but at 20 weeks.

No it isn't. Its simply further restricting the cases in which murder is legal, but does not entirely eliminate them.

Its a step in the right direction. Show me where this bill allows the killing of any child that would not have died were this bill to pass and I'll agree with you.

 

[WizardofOz]

Two weeks prior to this premature human beings birth, the new Texas abortion law, if passed, would allow this little boy to be murdered.

Can you live with that?

This law would affect this baby in no way.

Explain how it would.

 

[chrysostom]

This law would affect this baby in no way.

Explain how it would.

nice try wiz
but
you know you will not get a reasonable answer from him

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Having this law on the books is better than not having it.

The "all or nothing" mentality of some prevents the protection of more lives than we would otherwise have.

So you're ok with the Republican Party (which you don't vote for, as you're a Libertarian), defining via law that life begins at 20 weeks?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior View Post
Two weeks prior to this premature human beings birth, the new Texas abortion law, if passed, would allow this little boy to be murdered.

Can you live with that?

This law would affect this baby in no way.

Explain how it would.

My point is that prior to reaching his 21st week of life in the womb, if the Republicans are successful in passing this law, this baby could have legally been murdered in the womb 2 weeks prior at 19 weeks of age.

I won't bother to ask a pagan Libertarian if he can live with that, as that would be a waste of time doing so.

 

[WizardofOz]

So you're ok with the Republican Party (which you don't vote for, as you're a Libertarian), defining via law that life begins at 20 weeks?

The law doesn't define life as starting at 20 weeks.

Are the unborn better off with this law or without it?

My point is that prior to reaching his 21st week of life in the womb, if the Republicans are successful in passing this law, this baby could have legally been murdered in the womb 2 weeks prior at 19 weeks of age.

If the Republicans are not successful in passing this law, the baby could still have been legally murdered in the womb 2 weeks prior at 19 weeks of age.

This law would not impact the baby in the picture at all. It would give legal protection to more of the unborn than are currently given protection, however.

That's a bad thing?

Explain how this legislation would have any impact on the baby in your picture whatsoever. :juggle:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So you're ok with the Republican Party (which you don't vote for, as you're a Libertarian), defining via law that life begins at 20 weeks?

The law doesn't define life as starting at 20 weeks.

Technically it does Aaron. The proposed law says that it's illegal (i.e. immoral) to murder a baby in the womb over 20 weeks old. Obviously those that wrote the law don't seem to think that a baby under 20 weeks old is able to be murdered.

Are the unborn better off with this law or without it?

With man now deciding whose life is more valuable that others, instead of God making that decision, people in general are much worse off. Whose next, people with incurable diseases, the elderly, the mentally handicapped?


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior View Post
My point is that prior to reaching his 21st week of life in the womb, if the Republicans are successful in passing this law, this baby could have legally been murdered in the womb 2 weeks prior at 19 weeks of age.

If the Republicans are not successful in passing this law, the baby could still have been legally murdered in the womb 2 weeks prior at 19 weeks of age.

But not legally after 20 weeks. Why does two weeks makes one child's life more valuable that anothers?

This law would not impact the baby in the picture at all. It would give legal protection to more of the unborn than are currently given protection, however.

That's a bad thing?

Ah yes, memories of Adolf Hitler where the blonde haired-blued eyed ones didn't have to go into the gas chambers.

Explain how this legislation would have any impact on the baby in your picture whatsoever.

The baby in the picture is an example of what could have been done to him if the Texas abortion law is legislated.

On a side note: I'm so very proud of you for getting through a post without mentioning blasphemy laws or cigarettes! Maybe there is hope for you after all!

 

[Christian Liberty]

nice try wiz
but
you know you will not get a reasonable answer from him

I haven't gotten any from you either, for the record.

You two are the dumbest posters on this entire forum. It just so happens he's #1 in that regard but so what? You're #2, not something to be proud of.

Why not actually respond to me sometime?

So you're ok with the Republican Party (which you don't vote for, as you're a Libertarian), defining via law that life begins at 20 weeks?

Well, you're right that I generally don't support Republicans, but that's not what they're doing here. They're simply banning some murders that were previously legal. Its only a few, and therefore pathetic, but they aren't sentencing a single child that would otherwise live to death.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior View Post
Two weeks prior to this premature human beings birth, the new Texas abortion law, if passed, would allow this little boy to be murdered.

Can you live with that?



My point is that prior to reaching his 21st week of life in the womb, if the Republicans are successful in passing this law, this baby could have legally been murdered in the womb 2 weeks prior at 19 weeks of age.

I won't bother to ask a pagan Libertarian if he can live with that, as that would be a waste of time doing so.

And if this law wasn't passed, that baby would live?

 

[Eeset]

As long as she dots her i's and crosses her t's and gets it done promptly (withing 20 weeks) this bill declares the right of any woman to kill her baby, does it not?

I think so. And as it turns out Governor Perry's older sister is a doctor who runs a chain of doctor owned out patient surgery centers. Word on the street is that her company will be a direct beneficiary of this law and will be able to buy up closing abortion clinics very cheaply. Always follow the money trail. Here is a link to the article I saw if you want to learn more.
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/governor-rick-perrys-sister-positioned-to-make-a-fortune-off-the-new-texas-abortion-law/news/2013/07/22/71470

 

[chrysostom]

Texas Bill Would Block Anti-Abortion Laws Until Death Penalty Is Abolished

this is interesting

abortion and the death penalty

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Texas Bill Would Block Anti-Abortion Laws Until Death Penalty Is Abolished

this is interesting

abortion and the death penalty

Leave it to the "dimocrats" to compare a convicted mass murderer on death row with that of an innocent unborn baby.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Leave it to the "dimocrats" to compare a convicted mass murderer on death row with that of an innocent unborn baby.

That liberals for you

 

[WizardofOz]

The proposed law says that it's illegal (i.e. immoral) to murder a baby in the womb over 20 weeks old

An improvement over the current standard indeed. Will more of the unborn be protected with the passing of this law or less?

Obviously those that wrote the law don't seem to think that a baby under 20 weeks old is able to be murdered.

Or, they put forth a law that stood a chance of being passed. Do you think an outright ban on abortion would pass?

My point is that prior to reaching his 21st week of life in the womb, if the Republicans are successful in passing this law, this baby could have legally been murdered in the womb 2 weeks prior at 19 weeks of age.

:doh:
As he or she could have if this law was not passed. Again, does this law give more protection to the unborn or less?

 

[Rusha]

Texas Bill Would Block Anti-Abortion Laws Until Death Penalty Is Abolished

this is interesting

abortion and the death penalty

Not particularly. It is a smokescreen ... there is no valid comparison.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Leave it to the "dimocrats" to compare a convicted mass murderer on death row with that of an innocent unborn baby.

That liberals for you

Speaking of liberals:

I was curious what the Loonatarian view on the death penalty is. Your fearless leader, Murray Rothbard, who is residing in Hell for eternity, had this to say about it back in 1978.

"In all cases, it should be the victim — not 'society' or 'its' district attorney — who should bring charges and decide on whether or not to exact punishment."
http://mises.org/daily/4468

You guys are some real nutcases Jr.

 

[Christ's Word]

Two weeks prior to this premature human beings birth, the new Texas abortion law, if passed, would allow this little boy to be murdered.

Can you live with that?

I have to live with that, or I will not be alive to help change it, so yes, I am forced to. It stinks to high Heaven, murder is wrong, and killing any unborn child is just plain sin.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
The proposed law says that it's illegal (i.e. immoral) to murder a baby in the womb over 20 weeks old

An improvement over the current standard indeed. Will more of the unborn be protected with the passing of this law or less?

In the long run no, as this new law very well might set a precedent for the Republican Party, a major political party that currently says that life begins at conception.

For instance, former Governor of California Ronald Reagan back in 1967 signed the "Therapeutic Abortion Act" which opened the door for abortion across the nation.

Quote:
Obviously those that wrote the law don't seem to think that a baby under 20 weeks old is able to be murdered.

Or, they put forth a law that stood a chance of being passed. Do you think an outright ban on abortion would pass?

Keep this word at the front of your Libertarian mind Aaron (i.e. think outside of the box, or in Libertarian words: past the ash at the tip of your doobie) :

Precedent.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/precedent

 

[WizardofOz]

In the long run no, as this new law very well might set a precedent for the Republican Party, a major political party that currently says that life begins at conception.

And they will continue to say it. While they continue saying it, please remind me what recent pro-life legislation has actually been passed in oh, let's say, the past decade or so.

Take your time doing some research and get back to me.

Good intentions and all :yawn:
What actual laws have been passed?

For instance, former Governor of California Ronald Reagan back in 1967 signed the "Therapeutic Abortion Act" which opened the door for abortion across the nation.

:doh: The Act allowed for more abortion, not less. The Texas law prohibits abortion and does not allow for more than what current law does allow.

So, they're like...:idea: opposite in their consequence.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
In the long run no, as this new law very well might set a precedent for the Republican Party, a major political party that currently says that life begins at conception.

And they will continue to say it.
While they continue saying it, please remind me what recent pro-life legislation has actually been passed in oh, let's say, the past decade or so.

Take your time doing some research and get back to me.

Good intentions and all
What actual laws have been passed?

Poor Aaron, he's such a confused Libertarian. He thinks that he can continue to fuel our nation's "death culture" by ignoring God and promoting recreational drugs and perverted sex, all the while thinking that he has a solution to the abortion problem by putting a small band aid over the cancer.


Quote:
For instance, former Governor of California Ronald Reagan back in 1967 signed the "Therapeutic Abortion Act" which opened the door for abortion across the nation.

The Act allowed for more abortion, not less. The Texas law prohibits abortion and does not allow for more than what current law does allow.

So, they're like... opposite in their consequence.

Remember that word we talked about in the earlier post Aaron?

"Precedent".

Think past the ash at the tip of the doobie you're smoking and imagine what will happen when man, not God, decides when life should begin and end.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Speaking of liberals:

I was curious what the Loonatarian view on the death penalty is. Your fearless leader, Murray Rothbard, who is residing in Hell for eternity, had this to say about it back in 1978.

"In all cases, it should be the victim — not 'society' or 'its' district attorney — who should bring charges and decide on whether or not to exact punishment."
http://mises.org/daily/4468

You guys are some real nutcases Jr.

Well, you don't know that Murray Rothbard is in Hell, he may have repented on his deathbed. Most likely, however, you are correct. Which is irrelevant to his politics.

There isn't a libertarian view on the death penalty, there are several different ones. I'd tend to agree with Kinsella rather than Rothbard, although the differences there are relatively miniscule. There is, of course, also the pragmatic issue of making sure you get the right person, which our current justice system isn't very good at.

That said, I see nothing wrong with Rothbard's assertation that it should be the person who was actually, you know, victimized, that chooses whether or not to enact punishment.