An hour or two before its born ok I am against late term abortions I consider myself pro life but I am in favor of an abortion within a month or so of pregnancy. The fetus isn't even a male or female yet therefore imo is not a full functioning human being. If this is about saving something that could potentially be a human being then masturbation should be outlawed too because I kill millions of life forms with each bust. It's is not a human within the first month or so of the womb.
True Libertarianism means that everyone has the right to do what they want, when they want, how they want. And let them deal with the consequences. And as far as "life" goes, a baby is not a baby until its born. Ex: miscarriages, still borns. "True" libertarians MOST be pro-choice!
As someone who considers myself pretty libertarian, I would like to say that the libertarian position should be pro-life. Libertarians believe that the government's main role is to protect individual rights. Three of the rights listed are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." I think that the libertarian position aligns with the pro-life side as the government's responsibility is to protect the right to life of the baby inside the womb. The mother has her rights as well, but nowhere do
Open borders seems crazy, but what people don't understand is that without the welfare state and constant government aid immigrants wouldn't be coming here at the rate they do. They come here because they know they will be taken care of even without being a citizen, if those handouts and free services were taken away their wouldn't be much of an immigration problem to begin with.
Hey idiot! The libertarian position on abortion is simple recognition that the US constitution doesn't give the federal government any authority to be involved. It is a state issue. Even if you take the position that it's murder, murder is a state issue. If you kill someone it is the state who prosecutes you, it isn't a federal crime.
There's a great deal of libertarians out there who don't buy the "open borders" crap. In a libertarian society, every piece of land would be private property, therefore the owner(s) would be totally free to decide who would get in and who would not.
Fox is a neocon bastion, small wonder all four guests "just happen" to support unrestricted immigration.
However, ending the welfare state would in fact force a big deal of immigrants back to their countries.
@angeletism Fox is a neocon bastion.. meanwhile you just watched a femenist and four libertarians argue for open borders, split on abortion and pro gay marriage. That isn't what a neocon is.
If women could kill their unborn babies by themselves that would be "Control over their own body" having someone kill the un-born baby is not her having control, it's yielding to someone to get out of responsibility.
The guy on the right is wrong on immigration. This country has shown a great deal of willingness to add more entitlements and not think about the cost. If the cost of freeloaders benefiting off the welfare state were enough to change fiscal policy in the USA, it already would have done so.
Uhh if it's a human then preventing it from being killed is the government defense of the right to life, which is certainly permitted in the Constitution.
Right after Boaz sensibly points out that there is no clear-cut libertarian position on abortion and that libertarians tend to be more respectful and open toward people who disagree with them on this issue, that feminist bitch implies that anyone who objects to even 3rd-trimester abortion tries to make her into a slave, which is a hell of an insensitive thing to say sitting next to Deroy. "Personhood" is not determined by geographical location; her unborn baby is not HER body or slave/property.
@ElasticGiraffe Well said. The fetus is a separate entity, and its mother has no more right to harm it than anyone else. I can't stand feminist whores like this woman. The mindset that women have the right to murder their babies in cold-blood is barbarism of the highest degree.
@LogicFlawDetector, lol I've been since I was 18! Strange coming from a family of democrats. Actually, Joy Murdock is Costa Rican not black - _ - ... sometimes looks are deceiving.
Sorry but if you are against free migration, against freedom of movement, you are not a libertarian any more. That would be like eating meat and claiming you are a vegetarian. Can you still be pro-freedom? Sure, I think your leaving out a great freedom, but if that's your opinion fine. You can even redefine libertarian if you like but you are no longer a libertarian in the original sense of the word.
@MegaKobraKai The issue is not right to life (which it indisputibly is) or independence (which it won't be until they can support themselves) but self determination. China used legalized abortion as a backdoor to saying that they have a say over it's legality, and then made it mandatory (and make no mistake, population will reach the point where control is a legitimate issue).
At best I would say it should be a state issue, not federal.
Well terrorists aren't the only thing that I am not worried about illegal immigrants. I mean I don't want the drug lords and dealers to come over. And pro-choice people are inconsistent. The black guy is right. It's either a human being or it's not. Its entity or human essence doesn't change whether it's in the woman's body or not. So if you are pro-choice, then consistently you should be able to kill the baby after birth. If that's considered wrong then it's wrong to kill it before birth.
@MegaKobraKai Im tired of self righteous pricks like you telling others what to do in terms of homicidal morality. A child has no rights, a child doent have the right to have sex with an adult, own a gun, drink alcohol, smoke etc. The parents have full guardianship of that child until it reaches the age of consent, only then is it a fully human being with citizenship status. A child below that age rightfully BELONGS to the parents, & their life is within the power & discretion of its parents.
@MegaKobraKai How dare you interfere with peoples rights! Dont you understand the difference between murder vs the right of mutually understood conflict that could result in homicide? When a gang member kills another, he does so because he knows his rival would do the same to him, & its mutually understood between them the hostility. You have no right to interfere with such a relationship. Its the same between spouses, what goes on in that marriage is none of your business, its not murder.
@MegaKobraKai I agree, I think all forms of killing should be legal. Im tired of the government getting in the way of the right to gang warfare, spousal murder, or infanticide. If a parent wants to kill their own child, it is not anyones or the governments business what someone does to their child. The child doesnt belong to anyone but the parents, until that child reaches the age of consent, and obtains rights. Im tired of the government telling me I cant kill someone if they piss me off.
the reasons why the USA didn't put any restrictions on immigration is because we were a new country and we needing more population for jobs. its not fully because we believed in freedom
BULLSHIT ALERT! Look at Europe's immigration policy and the foreigners that take advantage of the welfare! Hahahahha These people are NUTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is no reason to give a zygot rights at conception anymore than giving a frog rights at conception. It is a cluster of cells. Putting it on the same level as a fully developed person who is aware of the existance, has emotion, can feel pain, etc., is absurd and unfounded.
@Zackerybob If you feel that way, then the laws should be changed. Though at this point in time an OBGYN can be sued if an abortion is believed to be carried out improperly. An unborn fetus still has property rights of it's grandparents will. All i ask for is consistency. There is non in the US legislative, or judicial system. Unborn babies have rights under certain circumstances, and non under others. This is a major problem.
I completely agree; if those laws are inconsistant, than there is a problem. If they want to consider the zygot/fetus a person, than not only should they ban abortion outright, but they should also ban chemical contraception, since they can also cause spontaneous abortions, hell, ban jumping, jogging or any physical activity for pregnant women.
You find what hypocritical? Your statement that males have no say on the abortion issue?
The abortion issue is not something that only women have a say in, since the question is whether the fetus should be endowed with personhood. This is a debate that involves both men and women. This is a human issue.
@Zackerybob A fetus does get rights at conception, for instance, as a grand parent you can write your unborn grandchild into your will, giving it property rights.
If you are in an accident with a pregnant woman, and she loses her child because of that accident, you are liable for manslaughter.
My point in all of this is consistency. Do not make a fetus property of the bearer, and in the same sentence give it protection under the law. This is how the law is written now.
....you've already mentioned this earlier and I have responded that if there IS inconsistancy, then this is a problem. You're just repeating yourself....
libertarians dont want to pay taxes for Medicare to save people from dying so why would they bother saving an unborn, doesn't make logical sense to me.
Abortion is my biggest issue..I think that babies are humans with the same rights as a 80 year old or a 2 day old zygote...if you are in favor of abortion then I can't reconcile myself with you...or your ideology...many like myself, believe that human life is sacred and if you can convince me through cause and effect and proximity that fertilized eggs are not human then you are smarter than Francis Shaffer i guess..it only makes sense to me..seems like all these people are moral leftists
Abortion is my biggest issue..I think that babies are humans with the same rights as a 80 year old or a 2 day old zygote...if you are in favor of abortion then I can't reconcile myself with you...or your ideology...many like myself, believe that human life is sacred and if you can convince me through cause and effect and proximity that fertilized eggs are not human then you are smarter than Francis Shaffer i guess..it only makes sense to me..
if your a libertarian who wants limited government, and you oppose gay marriage, immigration, and abortion, then your not for limiting government, your just increasing government from a different angle on the political spectrum.
immigration: run a background check on any crimes, and if there are no major crimes, let them through.
gay marriage: Marriage is a traditional and cultural ceremony that basically registers a couple as partners. Don't PUNISH any interpretation of it
abortion: a woman can choose not to sleep around and have affairs. They have their choice before they get pregnant. Unless it's enforced on them by crimes such as rape, it's murder to avoid consequences.
GAY MARRIAGE: no brainer IF you are libertarian. The federal government stays out. Perhaps the states can decide what marriage is. The default position should be for the GOVERNMENT to stay out of the affairs of 2 consenting adults who are harming nobody else.
ABORTION: I would go a step further. Unless the mother is gonna die from the resulting rape, she should be obligated to carry the child. The baby has rights and is innocent.
Immigration: America is home to all Americans. The borders are our doors. I wouldn't let just anyone live in or enter my home. Marriage: It's not the governments right to know of our personal lives. Abortion: Would a tape worm have a right to life? It needs a host. Just like a fetus. It's the host organisms decision, soley.
I agreed with the majority view on immigration and gay marriage. I agreed with the African American fellow on the issue of abortion. I loved the round table discussion.
Marriage laws began in America to prevent interracial marriages. The only reason for them today is to collect their fee. People need to stop making this a national issue, the last thing we need are marriage laws on the federal level.
@KenMacMillan Others states not wanting to recognize marriage in other states is why it became a federal issue...you're right, it's dumb. Does no one remember "Loving vs VA"?
@105Mittens The point is that marriage is a matter between two or more consenting adults & their religion. There's no reason for the government, state or federal, to tell anyone who they can or can't marry.
@KenMacMillan And heck, not all religions even care that much about it. Kemetic Orthodoxy, for example, says it's a social matter. Heathenry recognizes, and even performs and blesses marriages, but doesn't set any hard rules on it -- it's an oath between bride and groom, so they set the rules. And so on. (In case it wasn't obvious, I'm actually agreeing with you.)
iam probabl ypro-cj\hoice, but funny thing is - the 'my onw body' argument isn't really good. Growing fetus is a completely separate organism, the fact that it grows inside women doesn't make it any more part of woman that a chick developing inside egg is a part of hen that sits on it.
I agree with Abortion for the most part, and note that as long as Abortion is legal, then everything is permissible. Men should be able to use steroids (excepting contractual agreements), people should be able to smoke crack, and when a man decides he doesn't want to have a baby with a woman, he should be free to walk away as a matter of "constructive" abortion.
Further, the reality, as unfortunate or non-PC as it is, is that many immigrant Latinos do not value the same "culture" as Americans (both White and Black) because there simply is no history of similar values in their own nation. They are NOT the cultural descendents of our "founding fathers", whereas, despite what people say, White and Blacks of the U.S. have a shared experience and connection to that past, for better or worse (including the Civil War).
As a European-American married to a Latina (Amerind), who speaks Spanish and has been immersed in the "American Latino" culture, the reality is, many, if not a majority of "Hispanics" in the US do not feel any special kinship to the United States, nor any cultural relation and even generations later (often to the 3rd) refer to the "Old World" home as "Home" even if they have never lived there.
The "kinship" you speak of is due mostly to the political/cultural/educational forces that keep it that way.
Perhaps if you embraced the princples that America WAS based upon, you may start a fire in your heart.
WHAT America should be and WHERE it is today are 2 different things.
If you believe in LIFE, LIBERTY,and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS then I suggest you educate your fellow latinos/as and help them embrace the American dream.
While I'm a pro-choice libertarian, this argument, "it's my body" is the worst argument imho. If it's your body, read the instruction manual, unprotected sex results in pregnancy. You can't start whining "this is slavery" after the fact. I wouldn't outlaw abortion but her argument only serves to polarize the debate. Let it be legal but stop calling it "pro-choice". The "choice" was consensual sex. If it wasn't consensual or you are in danger, it's not choice, but damage control.
While I'm a pro-choice libertarian, this argument, "it's my body" is the worst argument imho. If it's your body, read the instruction manual, unprotected sex results in pregnancy. You can't start whining "this is slavery" after the fact. I wouldn't outlaw abortion but her argument only serves to polarize the debate. Let it be legal but stop calling it "pro-choice". The "choice" was consensual sex. If it wasn't consensual or you are in danger, it's not choice, but damage control.
These people are incredibly naive. Are they really suggesting that nineteenth century migration policies would work in the same way in 2010? Even if welfare expenditure was scaled back to pre-1912 levels - when immigration rules were tightened - allowing anyone who finds their way to the US unfettered access to the labour market would literally empty most of Central-America, not to mention other parts of the world. International travel is much cheaper and quicker now than it was then.
So because they can get here now it's a problem? These are people who haven't done anything to you. Libertarians don't believe that you have a right to be employed, you have no right to force your boss to do anything. If these people are coming in legally and aren't forcing you to do anything then how can you force them to stay out of the country? You are initiating force, which is against libertarian principles. If you want the whole argument watch this: watch?v=GYk00Ufiqb4
@Hashishin13 Libertarians can believe what they want but I am not a libertarian. Now, let's shift back to the material impact of a policy which provides unfettered access to the US labour market to people of other countries irrespective of whether or not wage parity has been achieved: in 2010.
@gwangjuboy1 Okay the wages might go down, or they might go up. Or they might do both but to different groups...
After all the workers need to eat, sleep be entertained and will want pretty much everything else Americans do, so they will be paying for them, which means more jobs/work in general.
I'm going to say this one more time, WATCH THIS:
watch?v=GYk00Ufiqb4
Copy it over the end of your you tube url/address /\
@Hashishin13 The idea that unfettered immigration to the US would result in lower unemployment is absurd. The American economy is currently unable to provide enough jobs to the pre-existing population - an economy that has seen real wages fall continuously since the early 1970s. Your interpretation of labour market economics is not founded on reality or practicality. I have read enough Milton Friedman to appreciate the nuances of both sides of the debate sufficiently enough too.
@gwangjuboy1 Milton Friedman is a sell out. He isn't a free market person. He actually gave the government a new tool to tax people with, that is about as anti-libertarian as you can get. He was good on a couple of things(or so I'm told), and he apologized for the tax thing, but still.
Some immigrants are great. They come here for freedom and to better their lives. But some are here that are thirdworld-minded. They commit crimes and they don't respect this country or its laws. Those ones should get deported immediately.
Sorry, but the woman's right is before conception. Her right is using responsibility. Once that heartbeat is there, then that is a sign of life which we should protect.
@UberDeathTurtle Walter Block has what I believe to be the TRUE libertarian idea on this:
Evictionism
The woman has the right to evict the baby at any time and if an adoptive family can use medical science to keep it alive, good, if not, well it's the mother's womb not the baby's. Medical science is constantly improving so eventually as soon as a hearts beating the baby will live.
Sometimes a pregnant woman has to abort or potentially die, to have medical treatment that would save her life...
@Hashishin13 Yes, but it is the baby'y life. And it is the mother's and father's fault the baby is there in the first place. Why do something to create life when one knows the consequences of what will happen, to only destroy that life later on? That is like a parent not giving their child something to eat, saying it is their food, not the child's. Wouldn't that parent be charged with neglect? It is the mother's womb, but she is sharing it now. Does it sill make it right to abort? Selfishness.
@UberDeathTurtle If the mother doesn't want to feed her child she can put it up for adoption, if she doesn't want to be pregnant there isn't an easy way out.
Also all the people like you think that a fertilized egg is all of a sudden a human being, there is a big difference. I don't hear you crying about the unfertilized eggs and sperm, they could all become human beings too. Just because sperm was allowed to meet egg doesn't make it a human being.
@Hashishin13 If it has a heartbeat, then it is living, no? Would you like to argue life? It isn't a fertalized egg that you are killing, it is a conceived life. Sperm or eggs down grow up. They won't talk later on, they wont cry, they wont laugh. Quit making stupid arguments. When I see one grow up, I will fight for their rights too. Plus, women raped is such a small percentage. You can't compare that to irresponsibility. And, quit assuming. I didn't say there shouldn't be exceptions.
"Just because sperm was allowed to meet egg doesn't make it a human being."
It absolutely does. Why is this pulling hair with you guys? Once the egg is fertilized the woman's body MAKES it grow. Her eggs just get washed out with her period. There is a difference!
Of course we can use arbitrary and crude terms to define HUMANNESS but why?!
@UberDeathTurtle What if the woman was raped? Or like my earlier comment that you apparently chose to ignore, what if she needs surgery or she will die in a year, so the baby could be born but doing so would kill the mother from the disease? A baby isn't a human being until it can live without the direct help of it's mother. I'm not saying when it can fend for its self so don't misinterpret, I mean if someone else could keep it alive then it is a human being in my eyes.
@Hashishin13 You can argue all you want, but it is still life. Destroying that life for a selfish inconvenience is wrong. It might not be a fully grown human, but it is still life. You are killing that life and it will be able to live on its own in just a few short months. You are still choosing the fate in an aggressive manner. Abortion is the prevention of life. It is killing that heartbeat. Call it what you want. Plus, partial birth abortion is definitely murder. Nobody can argue that one.
@UberDeathTurtle What about all those men who selfishly masturbate, have sex or even impregnate a woman and kill millions of LIVING (ALIVE) sperm every time they do so? Or when a woman has her period and passes a potential human life? Isn't it selfish to not give each and every egg the chance to become a human being? After all:
"They won't talk later on, they wont cry, they wont laugh."
@Hashishin13 Sperm isn't going to grow up one day genius. You are making the dumbest arguments. You can't compare a human to a sperm lol. When a woman has a period, it is natural. There is no conceived life. I hate people with logic like yours. It really makes no sence. I am talking about human life, it isn't rocket science. I bet you also say stuff like, "we kill chickens, why is it wrong to kill humans?" Read a biology book or take a course, then you can argue what true life really is.
@UberDeathTurtle Since your so obsessed with heartbeats why do you let the heart of a person die when they are brain dead? Imagine people saying: "Is he dead? Yes they shot him in the head, but his heart is still beating! Lets save his heart!"
The important part of a human being isn't their heart, its their brain. This is why when you are judged by a jury of your peers there are no children(born or unborn) in the stand.
Okay so if abortion is murder then a miscarriage must be manslaughter right?
@Hashishin13 First off, that person will never recover from being brain dead, whereas a baby will have a fully functioning one within months. You are still making strupid, pointless arguments. The important part is the heart, without the heart, there is no life. Really, I bet you are a teenager or something. Jeez, miscarriages are natural lol. Who is feeding you this stupid information? Come back when you can hold a real argument. But do the world a favor and get abortions. I am for it now.
these interviewed people sound like the left wing loons & seem to have lot in common,pro gay marriage,pro choice,pro illegal emigration... libertarians my ass !!
the ideology that "its not likely that we will get rid of that, so lets just regulate what we have now" is not libertarian thinking. prolonging a problem because you dont think it will ever pass. libertarians dont accept defeat, you stick to the issue because you know it is the only reasonable conclusion, otherwise you become a bitch to the system.
No, just no. Why do companies lower costs? To make themselves more competitive. If they have lower costs than they can charge lowers prices cutting their competitors. This is why companies cut costs. The whole "the owner takes it a runs" is straight out of some left wing book of bad economics.
@brian406 See. That's my point. You think it's normal to have to PAY a government agency in order to get married. Do you know when the first marriage licenses were issued? It was after slaves were freed. There was a fear that a newly freed slave and a white person may want to marry. The marriage license was then imposed in order for the government to regulate whom could marry whom. My point was simply that it's none of the government's concern whom marries whom. Government intrusion...
For some reason some of you seem to think that the government has the authority to grant marriages. It does not. Having said that, gay marriage is a non-issue. The real issue is the government meddling where they don't belong. If the government was completely out of the marriage business, where would the problem be? Right. There wouldn't be one.
After jeebus has checked your genitalia, you are issued a contract that binds you with your loved one for LIFE. 9 months latter the stork...............
Pro-choice advocates love to save their cat's life but hates to see their offspring live. Wendy McElroy said that if she is pregnant, the living being inside her is a part of her body and so she has all the right to do whatever she wanted with that living being. Her pet, however, is outside her body; therefore she must respect the life of her pet. She respects the life of her pet more than the life of her offspring.
If lots more people come here, a lot of those people will vote to increase welfare (immigrants tend to vote Democrat). Furthermore, the increase in the deficit will kill the economy.
Man, I'm all for open borders but Congress is never going to pass that. What I would REALLY like to see is what the guy said about giving foreign students a green card. I'm on my way from Britain to US to do my Phd and after 5 years of no-doubt busting my ass I'm out the door. I'll have every intention of coming back, but getting a green card outside of the lottery (not open to UK citizens) is a nightmare and after getting my Phd from US grad school it could take me years before I can return.
I don't believe in open-borders, it would simply turn people against each other.
I think states should deal with the marriage issue, but it'd be better to let churches deal with it completely. If we didn't have such a fucked up tax code, it wouldn't be such a hot issue with the gay community.
That "being" does indeed have legal rights. It's so insane that we punish a 17 year old who dumps her baby, but it would have been legal for a doctor hours before to kill that baby in the womb
@brianh406 There is no reason that two atheists can't enter into a contract and call it whatever they want. To me marriage is a religious ceremony and I'd venture to say that nearly all marriages are performed as such.
@brianh406 I'm an atheist. Not sure what made you think I am religious. Government should only insure contracts-not write them. But we don't have a right to an insured contract-this would mean others would have to subsidize it.
Again I think its safe to say that most marriages are performed as a religious ceremony-but I don't know statistics.
I'm not sure why "libertarians" get upset at the idea that government has no business issuing marriage licenses.
@brianh406 , marriage isn't just a religious ceremony to VictoryCough, it was instituted by God from the very beginning (Gen. 1&2). If not, then what do you think is its origin? However, since we don't want government running our churches, I personally think the government should stay out of it completely like Jeffrey Miron.
@st4ticblu3 ?? Then why do you go to the "state" for a marriage license? Then why is the state involved in a divorce? If the church "owns" marriage then why can people get married at a court house? If the church holds marriage to be sacred then why are non-xtians, Atheist, men who beat women, allowed marriage? Back to Atheist, Why would you be more against marriage of a Same Sex christian couple than a Atheist couple? Its because you are a Hateful Bigoted As Hat...... priest =child molesters.
The Institution of Marriage goes way back. Over 5,000 years ago, the Sumerians had made laws which regulated marriage. But it was still "Rough House" rules. The "Best Man" got that name because he would help kidnap the bride, and then fight off the relatives if they tried to rescue her. The Romans thought this a bit uncivilised. They went one step further, and wrote laws that made sure that both the groom and the bride entered into their marriage of their own free choice.
The very earliest marriage certificate that we have was found in a bundle of Aramaic papyri, some 2,500 years old. It was found in the ruins of a Jewish Garrison, that had been stationed at Elephantine in Egypt. It's more of a "contract" than a "marriage certificate", as it documents that the groom landed himself a healthy 14 year-old girl bride in exchange for six cows.
You tell me to do my research, knowing, I'd prove you Ignorant to the topic. -bigot
What should I expect from someone who wears a blind fold, which causes them to be led blindly by a known sex offender? I would say fix your church before fixing strangers, but I'd imagine you are a stranger to anything non-xtian....Open your eyes to reality, meet someone who is different from yourself and come to the realization that we are not one person of one blood, but many people from many different cultures with many different beliefs.
With what I have said, IF you're still not convinced that the "church" doesn't own marriage. I'd think about moving to the middle east, they are like minded to you with intertwining their religion to Government. It seems to work pretty well for them, right?
@brianh406 I thought it was a religious ceremony long before the state was created to authorize and officially sanction marriages. Isn't this a historical fact?
@crodrigo Well thats cute of you, how about utilizing this vast network of information called the internet and Google some real facts instead of saying "I thought" or "Isn't"...;-) Marriage dates back "historically" over 5 thousand years -WAY before any religion of today and was -Vastly different than what it is today.
An hour or two before its born ok I am against late term abortions I consider myself pro life but I am in favor of an abortion within a month or so of pregnancy. The fetus isn't even a male or female yet therefore imo is not a full functioning human being. If this is about saving something that could potentially be a human being then masturbation should be outlawed too because I kill millions of life forms with each bust. It's is not a human within the first month or so of the womb.
NosoCOMINSOON 1 week ago
FEminists..OMG. so annoying.
NosoCOMINSOON 1 week ago
And all issues as well: immigration, abortion, homosexual marriage, social welfare, etc. Bottom line is EVERYONE has freedom of choice! Period!
teddypgray 1 month ago
Oh, and BTW, libertarianism isn't just a federal issue. It is an ideology, therefore; it has to be applied to Federal, State, and Local government.
teddypgray 1 month ago
True Libertarianism means that everyone has the right to do what they want, when they want, how they want. And let them deal with the consequences. And as far as "life" goes, a baby is not a baby until its born. Ex: miscarriages, still borns. "True" libertarians MOST be pro-choice!
teddypgray 1 month ago
Comment removed
RebelwithaCause777 3 days ago
...but nowhere does the constitution say that she has the right to terminate another human being's life.
BearFan09 1 month ago
@BearFan09 Truth!
RebelwithaCause777 3 days ago
As someone who considers myself pretty libertarian, I would like to say that the libertarian position should be pro-life. Libertarians believe that the government's main role is to protect individual rights. Three of the rights listed are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." I think that the libertarian position aligns with the pro-life side as the government's responsibility is to protect the right to life of the baby inside the womb. The mother has her rights as well, but nowhere do
BearFan09 1 month ago
I don't agree with the whole abortion thing....it's just too far
OrganicKing 1 month ago
lol Yeah i'm sure the crowd knows so much more than a harvard economist..
SKATEyD3STROY 1 month ago
Open borders seems crazy, but what people don't understand is that without the welfare state and constant government aid immigrants wouldn't be coming here at the rate they do. They come here because they know they will be taken care of even without being a citizen, if those handouts and free services were taken away their wouldn't be much of an immigration problem to begin with.
TO0DLES213 2 months ago
hell no to open borders
yami700thumper 2 months ago
libertarian discussion, pepsi, and everquest: good times. :)
Personmr 2 months ago
@MegaKobraKai lol back-door abortion
xalentcash 2 months ago
Hey idiot! The libertarian position on abortion is simple recognition that the US constitution doesn't give the federal government any authority to be involved. It is a state issue. Even if you take the position that it's murder, murder is a state issue. If you kill someone it is the state who prosecutes you, it isn't a federal crime.
wrjamescom 2 months ago
These people aren't libertarians, they are idiots. Anyone rational can tell the difference between an immigrant and a criminal invader.
wrjamescom 2 months ago
There's a great deal of libertarians out there who don't buy the "open borders" crap. In a libertarian society, every piece of land would be private property, therefore the owner(s) would be totally free to decide who would get in and who would not.
Fox is a neocon bastion, small wonder all four guests "just happen" to support unrestricted immigration.
However, ending the welfare state would in fact force a big deal of immigrants back to their countries.
angeletism 2 months ago
@angeletism Fox is a neocon bastion.. meanwhile you just watched a femenist and four libertarians argue for open borders, split on abortion and pro gay marriage. That isn't what a neocon is.
Arcturistheballer 1 month ago 3
If women could kill their unborn babies by themselves that would be "Control over their own body" having someone kill the un-born baby is not her having control, it's yielding to someone to get out of responsibility.
darkmaster388 2 months ago
No incentives for immigrants, so no welfare.
TheChertron 3 months ago
The guy on the right is wrong on immigration. This country has shown a great deal of willingness to add more entitlements and not think about the cost. If the cost of freeloaders benefiting off the welfare state were enough to change fiscal policy in the USA, it already would have done so.
darlinglittlemammy 3 months ago
It pissed me off that so many people were booing the harvard economist when he was talking about opening the borders.
ca1cifer 3 months ago
@MegaKobraKai
Uhh if it's a human then preventing it from being killed is the government defense of the right to life, which is certainly permitted in the Constitution.
Onieracraft 4 months ago
Right after Boaz sensibly points out that there is no clear-cut libertarian position on abortion and that libertarians tend to be more respectful and open toward people who disagree with them on this issue, that feminist bitch implies that anyone who objects to even 3rd-trimester abortion tries to make her into a slave, which is a hell of an insensitive thing to say sitting next to Deroy. "Personhood" is not determined by geographical location; her unborn baby is not HER body or slave/property.
ElasticGiraffe 4 months ago
@ElasticGiraffe Well said. The fetus is a separate entity, and its mother has no more right to harm it than anyone else. I can't stand feminist whores like this woman. The mindset that women have the right to murder their babies in cold-blood is barbarism of the highest degree.
UltraConservative298 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul on gay marriage (Dr. Paul says yes and even wins the Values Summit GOP Straw Poll!)
/watch?v=l1gzs27HswQ on gay marriage statement
/watch?v=ug1nZSI_fsA Values Straw Poll result conservation
Vote Ron Paul, President 2012! -- The anti-war candidate -- and champion of the Constitution!
vechorik 4 months ago
i can't believe how willfully ignorant all of these speakers are to promote their ideology.
pneumatictrousers 4 months ago
Deroy
psydewaves 5 months ago
Comment removed
psydewaves 5 months ago
@LogicFlawDetector, lol I've been since I was 18! Strange coming from a family of democrats. Actually, Joy Murdock is Costa Rican not black - _ - ... sometimes looks are deceiving.
psydewaves 5 months ago
Sorry but if you are against free migration, against freedom of movement, you are not a libertarian any more. That would be like eating meat and claiming you are a vegetarian. Can you still be pro-freedom? Sure, I think your leaving out a great freedom, but if that's your opinion fine. You can even redefine libertarian if you like but you are no longer a libertarian in the original sense of the word.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 5 months ago
@MegaKobraKai The issue is not right to life (which it indisputibly is) or independence (which it won't be until they can support themselves) but self determination. China used legalized abortion as a backdoor to saying that they have a say over it's legality, and then made it mandatory (and make no mistake, population will reach the point where control is a legitimate issue).
At best I would say it should be a state issue, not federal.
Rensune 5 months ago
I really hope this audience isn't full of libertarians. You can't call yourself a libertarian and support the current entitlement programs.
AzuAtoms 5 months ago
@ExistentialistPeace You really didnt get the sarcastic argument in this did you?
TheMedievalMan 6 months ago
@TheMedievalMan Neither did you.
ExistentialistPeace 6 months ago
@ExistentialistPeace lol, liar, you know you made a mistake... cant fix it now buddy. :-)
TheMedievalMan 6 months ago
Well terrorists aren't the only thing that I am not worried about illegal immigrants. I mean I don't want the drug lords and dealers to come over. And pro-choice people are inconsistent. The black guy is right. It's either a human being or it's not. Its entity or human essence doesn't change whether it's in the woman's body or not. So if you are pro-choice, then consistently you should be able to kill the baby after birth. If that's considered wrong then it's wrong to kill it before birth.
jpzxcvbnm 6 months ago
I'm a Pro-Choice Libertarian!
Shonenut213 6 months ago
Sigh.........I always hate watching videos on immigration.
TOO MUCH FUCKING TROLLING AND FLAMING!!!!
Shonenut213 6 months ago
@MegaKobraKai Im tired of self righteous pricks like you telling others what to do in terms of homicidal morality. A child has no rights, a child doent have the right to have sex with an adult, own a gun, drink alcohol, smoke etc. The parents have full guardianship of that child until it reaches the age of consent, only then is it a fully human being with citizenship status. A child below that age rightfully BELONGS to the parents, & their life is within the power & discretion of its parents.
TheMedievalMan 6 months ago
@MegaKobraKai How dare you interfere with peoples rights! Dont you understand the difference between murder vs the right of mutually understood conflict that could result in homicide? When a gang member kills another, he does so because he knows his rival would do the same to him, & its mutually understood between them the hostility. You have no right to interfere with such a relationship. Its the same between spouses, what goes on in that marriage is none of your business, its not murder.
TheMedievalMan 6 months ago
@MegaKobraKai I agree, I think all forms of killing should be legal. Im tired of the government getting in the way of the right to gang warfare, spousal murder, or infanticide. If a parent wants to kill their own child, it is not anyones or the governments business what someone does to their child. The child doesnt belong to anyone but the parents, until that child reaches the age of consent, and obtains rights. Im tired of the government telling me I cant kill someone if they piss me off.
TheMedievalMan 6 months ago
the reasons why the USA didn't put any restrictions on immigration is because we were a new country and we needing more population for jobs. its not fully because we believed in freedom
anessone 6 months ago
If we can have Separatists nations easier, I'm all for it.
iEatBoneDust 6 months ago
BULLSHIT ALERT! Look at Europe's immigration policy and the foreigners that take advantage of the welfare! Hahahahha These people are NUTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
iEatBoneDust 6 months ago
That bitch is totally clueless.
iEatBoneDust 6 months ago
WHAT? If this is what most Libs believe, I'll have to rethink my party.
Would it be o.k. with them if ALL of South America and Africa wanted to come here? This is bullshit.
iEatBoneDust 6 months ago
Fuck Boez on this subject.
iEatBoneDust 6 months ago
The problem with abortion, is that the baby already has property rights before it is born. A fetus gets rights at conception.
asleeperj 6 months ago
@asleeperj
There is no reason to give a zygot rights at conception anymore than giving a frog rights at conception. It is a cluster of cells. Putting it on the same level as a fully developed person who is aware of the existance, has emotion, can feel pain, etc., is absurd and unfounded.
Zackerybob 6 months ago
@Zackerybob If you feel that way, then the laws should be changed. Though at this point in time an OBGYN can be sued if an abortion is believed to be carried out improperly. An unborn fetus still has property rights of it's grandparents will. All i ask for is consistency. There is non in the US legislative, or judicial system. Unborn babies have rights under certain circumstances, and non under others. This is a major problem.
asleeperj 6 months ago
@asleeperj
I completely agree; if those laws are inconsistant, than there is a problem. If they want to consider the zygot/fetus a person, than not only should they ban abortion outright, but they should also ban chemical contraception, since they can also cause spontaneous abortions, hell, ban jumping, jogging or any physical activity for pregnant women.
Zackerybob 6 months ago
@Zackerybob are you a male?
asleeperj 6 months ago
@asleeperj
Why does it matter?
Zackerybob 6 months ago
@Zackerybob If you are male, then you have no say in the matter. Even if it where your child. I find that hypocritical to some extent.
asleeperj 6 months ago
@asleeperj
You find what hypocritical? Your statement that males have no say on the abortion issue?
The abortion issue is not something that only women have a say in, since the question is whether the fetus should be endowed with personhood. This is a debate that involves both men and women. This is a human issue.
Zackerybob 6 months ago
@Zackerybob A fetus does get rights at conception, for instance, as a grand parent you can write your unborn grandchild into your will, giving it property rights.
If you are in an accident with a pregnant woman, and she loses her child because of that accident, you are liable for manslaughter.
My point in all of this is consistency. Do not make a fetus property of the bearer, and in the same sentence give it protection under the law. This is how the law is written now.
asleeperj 5 months ago 10
@asleeperj
....you've already mentioned this earlier and I have responded that if there IS inconsistancy, then this is a problem. You're just repeating yourself....
Zackerybob 5 months ago
Obnoxious xenophobes in the audience.
tedfreeway 6 months ago
This lady makes libertarians look bad. The black man IS a genius.
dabassist88 7 months ago
libertarians dont want to pay taxes for Medicare to save people from dying so why would they bother saving an unborn, doesn't make logical sense to me.
aargh5 7 months ago
Terrorists? wtf? These guys are morons. DONT LISTEN TO THEM!
Takiado 7 months ago
@MegaKobraKai exactly!
Takiado 7 months ago
the black guy is awesome
redarmyjay 8 months ago
Abortion is my biggest issue..I think that babies are humans with the same rights as a 80 year old or a 2 day old zygote...if you are in favor of abortion then I can't reconcile myself with you...or your ideology...many like myself, believe that human life is sacred and if you can convince me through cause and effect and proximity that fertilized eggs are not human then you are smarter than Francis Shaffer i guess..it only makes sense to me..seems like all these people are moral leftists
doobersmanster 8 months ago
Abortion is my biggest issue..I think that babies are humans with the same rights as a 80 year old or a 2 day old zygote...if you are in favor of abortion then I can't reconcile myself with you...or your ideology...many like myself, believe that human life is sacred and if you can convince me through cause and effect and proximity that fertilized eggs are not human then you are smarter than Francis Shaffer i guess..it only makes sense to me..
doobersmanster 8 months ago
why is gay marriage and abortion even an issue in a supposedly free country lol shows how backwards the states are
louiscfc93 8 months ago
shut that audience up, what is this Jerry Springer?
yomommaisme7 8 months ago
if your a libertarian who wants limited government, and you oppose gay marriage, immigration, and abortion, then your not for limiting government, your just increasing government from a different angle on the political spectrum.
CTFxCsoldierNumber27 8 months ago
@CTFxCsoldierNumber27 exactly. These guys are either phonies or they're stupid. They don't even understand their own viewpoints.
Takiado 7 months ago
Here are my views, feel free to disagree:
immigration: run a background check on any crimes, and if there are no major crimes, let them through.
gay marriage: Marriage is a traditional and cultural ceremony that basically registers a couple as partners. Don't PUNISH any interpretation of it
abortion: a woman can choose not to sleep around and have affairs. They have their choice before they get pregnant. Unless it's enforced on them by crimes such as rape, it's murder to avoid consequences.
audioblogs12 8 months ago
IMMIGRATION: sounds good.
GAY MARRIAGE: no brainer IF you are libertarian. The federal government stays out. Perhaps the states can decide what marriage is. The default position should be for the GOVERNMENT to stay out of the affairs of 2 consenting adults who are harming nobody else.
ABORTION: I would go a step further. Unless the mother is gonna die from the resulting rape, she should be obligated to carry the child. The baby has rights and is innocent.
gideondavid30 8 months ago in playlist Libertarianism
Immigration: America is home to all Americans. The borders are our doors. I wouldn't let just anyone live in or enter my home. Marriage: It's not the governments right to know of our personal lives. Abortion: Would a tape worm have a right to life? It needs a host. Just like a fetus. It's the host organisms decision, soley.
HELLDOGGER 9 months ago
I agreed with the majority view on immigration and gay marriage. I agreed with the African American fellow on the issue of abortion. I loved the round table discussion.
NewVinland 10 months ago
That was a terrific debate.
tehsuperepicpwnzor 10 months ago
Harumph
welchce 11 months ago
that guy in the middle is not a libertarian
zapptube123 11 months ago
@zapptube123
What guy in the middle? In the middle is a woman.
BenjaminWirtz 10 months ago
Libertarian Party rules, such a shame it's not that popular.
davlor86 1 year ago
What was with the audience?
9jv4 1 year ago
If you don't want to have a baby. Keep your fucking pants.
st4ticblu3 1 year ago
Marriage laws began in America to prevent interracial marriages. The only reason for them today is to collect their fee. People need to stop making this a national issue, the last thing we need are marriage laws on the federal level.
KenMacMillan 1 year ago
@KenMacMillan Others states not wanting to recognize marriage in other states is why it became a federal issue...you're right, it's dumb. Does no one remember "Loving vs VA"?
105Mittens 1 year ago
@105Mittens The point is that marriage is a matter between two or more consenting adults & their religion. There's no reason for the government, state or federal, to tell anyone who they can or can't marry.
KenMacMillan 1 year ago
@KenMacMillan I agree. Peace.
105Mittens 1 year ago
@KenMacMillan And heck, not all religions even care that much about it. Kemetic Orthodoxy, for example, says it's a social matter. Heathenry recognizes, and even performs and blesses marriages, but doesn't set any hard rules on it -- it's an oath between bride and groom, so they set the rules. And so on. (In case it wasn't obvious, I'm actually agreeing with you.)
bigpileofcrock 1 year ago
One open border country in a world of closed border countries is suicide for a nation.
KenMacMillan 1 year ago
That black dude nailed it. He was the best. I hope more black folks would turn to libertarianism.
LogicalFlawDetector 1 year ago 21
iam probabl ypro-cj\hoice, but funny thing is - the 'my onw body' argument isn't really good. Growing fetus is a completely separate organism, the fact that it grows inside women doesn't make it any more part of woman that a chick developing inside egg is a part of hen that sits on it.
coturnix19 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Place your classify we offer you naughty women benaughtyman.info
imasagunasekara 1 year ago
Asian women looking for dating and marriage lushfmlk.info
shehananadini 1 year ago
the unborn is an individual human being, he or she has his or her own unique genetic code, as well as a different heartbeat.
MrAbolitionist 1 year ago
I agree with Abortion for the most part, and note that as long as Abortion is legal, then everything is permissible. Men should be able to use steroids (excepting contractual agreements), people should be able to smoke crack, and when a man decides he doesn't want to have a baby with a woman, he should be free to walk away as a matter of "constructive" abortion.
ScottMacFie 1 year ago
Further, the reality, as unfortunate or non-PC as it is, is that many immigrant Latinos do not value the same "culture" as Americans (both White and Black) because there simply is no history of similar values in their own nation. They are NOT the cultural descendents of our "founding fathers", whereas, despite what people say, White and Blacks of the U.S. have a shared experience and connection to that past, for better or worse (including the Civil War).
ScottMacFie 1 year ago
As a European-American married to a Latina (Amerind), who speaks Spanish and has been immersed in the "American Latino" culture, the reality is, many, if not a majority of "Hispanics" in the US do not feel any special kinship to the United States, nor any cultural relation and even generations later (often to the 3rd) refer to the "Old World" home as "Home" even if they have never lived there.
ScottMacFie 1 year ago
The "kinship" you speak of is due mostly to the political/cultural/educational forces that keep it that way.
Perhaps if you embraced the princples that America WAS based upon, you may start a fire in your heart.
WHAT America should be and WHERE it is today are 2 different things.
If you believe in LIFE, LIBERTY,and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS then I suggest you educate your fellow latinos/as and help them embrace the American dream.
gideondavid30 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Be ready Russian women online ** leefoxnow.info **
MonicaTreefse 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
While I'm a pro-choice libertarian, this argument, "it's my body" is the worst argument imho. If it's your body, read the instruction manual, unprotected sex results in pregnancy. You can't start whining "this is slavery" after the fact. I wouldn't outlaw abortion but her argument only serves to polarize the debate. Let it be legal but stop calling it "pro-choice". The "choice" was consensual sex. If it wasn't consensual or you are in danger, it's not choice, but damage control.
superesonator 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
While I'm a pro-choice libertarian, this argument, "it's my body" is the worst argument imho. If it's your body, read the instruction manual, unprotected sex results in pregnancy. You can't start whining "this is slavery" after the fact. I wouldn't outlaw abortion but her argument only serves to polarize the debate. Let it be legal but stop calling it "pro-choice". The "choice" was consensual sex. If it wasn't consensual or you are in danger, it's not choice, but damage control.
superesonator 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
She is so sexy and Latino women rockmycity.info
violetlle 1 year ago
Real Asian women are there online now lushfmlk.info
berinaxaule 1 year ago
@berinaxaule great
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
These people are incredibly naive. Are they really suggesting that nineteenth century migration policies would work in the same way in 2010? Even if welfare expenditure was scaled back to pre-1912 levels - when immigration rules were tightened - allowing anyone who finds their way to the US unfettered access to the labour market would literally empty most of Central-America, not to mention other parts of the world. International travel is much cheaper and quicker now than it was then.
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
So because they can get here now it's a problem? These are people who haven't done anything to you. Libertarians don't believe that you have a right to be employed, you have no right to force your boss to do anything. If these people are coming in legally and aren't forcing you to do anything then how can you force them to stay out of the country? You are initiating force, which is against libertarian principles. If you want the whole argument watch this: watch?v=GYk00Ufiqb4
its good
Hashishin13 1 year ago
@Hashishin13 Libertarians can believe what they want but I am not a libertarian. Now, let's shift back to the material impact of a policy which provides unfettered access to the US labour market to people of other countries irrespective of whether or not wage parity has been achieved: in 2010.
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
@gwangjuboy1 Okay the wages might go down, or they might go up. Or they might do both but to different groups...
After all the workers need to eat, sleep be entertained and will want pretty much everything else Americans do, so they will be paying for them, which means more jobs/work in general.
I'm going to say this one more time, WATCH THIS:
watch?v=GYk00Ufiqb4
Copy it over the end of your you tube url/address /\
Hashishin13 1 year ago
Comment removed
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
@Hashishin13 The idea that unfettered immigration to the US would result in lower unemployment is absurd. The American economy is currently unable to provide enough jobs to the pre-existing population - an economy that has seen real wages fall continuously since the early 1970s. Your interpretation of labour market economics is not founded on reality or practicality. I have read enough Milton Friedman to appreciate the nuances of both sides of the debate sufficiently enough too.
gwangjuboy1 1 year ago
@gwangjuboy1 Milton Friedman is a sell out. He isn't a free market person. He actually gave the government a new tool to tax people with, that is about as anti-libertarian as you can get. He was good on a couple of things(or so I'm told), and he apologized for the tax thing, but still.
Hashishin13 1 year ago
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
brianh406 1 year ago
Dear LORD is the audience ANNOYING....
uschiotze 1 year ago
Who is this black guy? He is a genius.
UberDeathTurtle 1 year ago
Some immigrants are great. They come here for freedom and to better their lives. But some are here that are thirdworld-minded. They commit crimes and they don't respect this country or its laws. Those ones should get deported immediately.
Sorry, but the woman's right is before conception. Her right is using responsibility. Once that heartbeat is there, then that is a sign of life which we should protect.
UberDeathTurtle 1 year ago
@UberDeathTurtle Walter Block has what I believe to be the TRUE libertarian idea on this:
Evictionism
The woman has the right to evict the baby at any time and if an adoptive family can use medical science to keep it alive, good, if not, well it's the mother's womb not the baby's. Medical science is constantly improving so eventually as soon as a hearts beating the baby will live.
Sometimes a pregnant woman has to abort or potentially die, to have medical treatment that would save her life...
Hashishin13 1 year ago
@Hashishin13 Yes, but it is the baby'y life. And it is the mother's and father's fault the baby is there in the first place. Why do something to create life when one knows the consequences of what will happen, to only destroy that life later on? That is like a parent not giving their child something to eat, saying it is their food, not the child's. Wouldn't that parent be charged with neglect? It is the mother's womb, but she is sharing it now. Does it sill make it right to abort? Selfishness.
UberDeathTurtle 1 year ago
@UberDeathTurtle If the mother doesn't want to feed her child she can put it up for adoption, if she doesn't want to be pregnant there isn't an easy way out.
Also all the people like you think that a fertilized egg is all of a sudden a human being, there is a big difference. I don't hear you crying about the unfertilized eggs and sperm, they could all become human beings too. Just because sperm was allowed to meet egg doesn't make it a human being.
Hashishin13 1 year ago
@Hashishin13 If it has a heartbeat, then it is living, no? Would you like to argue life? It isn't a fertalized egg that you are killing, it is a conceived life. Sperm or eggs down grow up. They won't talk later on, they wont cry, they wont laugh. Quit making stupid arguments. When I see one grow up, I will fight for their rights too. Plus, women raped is such a small percentage. You can't compare that to irresponsibility. And, quit assuming. I didn't say there shouldn't be exceptions.
UberDeathTurtle 1 year ago
"Just because sperm was allowed to meet egg doesn't make it a human being."
It absolutely does. Why is this pulling hair with you guys? Once the egg is fertilized the woman's body MAKES it grow. Her eggs just get washed out with her period. There is a difference!
Of course we can use arbitrary and crude terms to define HUMANNESS but why?!
Just leave it at conception.
gideondavid30 8 months ago
@UberDeathTurtle What if the woman was raped? Or like my earlier comment that you apparently chose to ignore, what if she needs surgery or she will die in a year, so the baby could be born but doing so would kill the mother from the disease? A baby isn't a human being until it can live without the direct help of it's mother. I'm not saying when it can fend for its self so don't misinterpret, I mean if someone else could keep it alive then it is a human being in my eyes.
Hashishin13 1 year ago
@Hashishin13 You can argue all you want, but it is still life. Destroying that life for a selfish inconvenience is wrong. It might not be a fully grown human, but it is still life. You are killing that life and it will be able to live on its own in just a few short months. You are still choosing the fate in an aggressive manner. Abortion is the prevention of life. It is killing that heartbeat. Call it what you want. Plus, partial birth abortion is definitely murder. Nobody can argue that one.
UberDeathTurtle 1 year ago
@UberDeathTurtle What about all those men who selfishly masturbate, have sex or even impregnate a woman and kill millions of LIVING (ALIVE) sperm every time they do so? Or when a woman has her period and passes a potential human life? Isn't it selfish to not give each and every egg the chance to become a human being? After all:
"They won't talk later on, they wont cry, they wont laugh."
If they aren't allowed to meet a sperm!
Hashishin13 1 year ago
@Hashishin13 Sperm isn't going to grow up one day genius. You are making the dumbest arguments. You can't compare a human to a sperm lol. When a woman has a period, it is natural. There is no conceived life. I hate people with logic like yours. It really makes no sence. I am talking about human life, it isn't rocket science. I bet you also say stuff like, "we kill chickens, why is it wrong to kill humans?" Read a biology book or take a course, then you can argue what true life really is.
UberDeathTurtle 1 year ago
@UberDeathTurtle Since your so obsessed with heartbeats why do you let the heart of a person die when they are brain dead? Imagine people saying: "Is he dead? Yes they shot him in the head, but his heart is still beating! Lets save his heart!"
The important part of a human being isn't their heart, its their brain. This is why when you are judged by a jury of your peers there are no children(born or unborn) in the stand.
Okay so if abortion is murder then a miscarriage must be manslaughter right?
Hashishin13 1 year ago
@Hashishin13 First off, that person will never recover from being brain dead, whereas a baby will have a fully functioning one within months. You are still making strupid, pointless arguments. The important part is the heart, without the heart, there is no life. Really, I bet you are a teenager or something. Jeez, miscarriages are natural lol. Who is feeding you this stupid information? Come back when you can hold a real argument. But do the world a favor and get abortions. I am for it now.
UberDeathTurtle 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
gay marriage is all about legalization of human sexual practices or human sexual behavior, thats it
migxp1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
gay marriage is all about legalization of human sexual practices or human sexual behavior, thats it
migxp1 1 year ago
Comment removed
MRLfromhell 1 year ago
Comment removed
MRLfromhell 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You don't have rights until you are born
macintologist04 1 year ago
I'm generally pro-life, but Wendy's argument at 7:25 is THE best case for pro-choice I've heard.
tugboat2030 1 year ago
@tugboat2030
Are you kidding? That was the worst and most childish pro-choice argument I have ever heard. Maybe your just a dumbshit
MRLfromhell 1 year ago
LOL i love the crowd in this show
tmac9938 1 year ago
these interviewed people sound like the left wing loons & seem to have lot in common,pro gay marriage,pro choice,pro illegal emigration... libertarians my ass !!
hayden50 1 year ago
This is quite a rowdy audience. You know right off the back whether they agree with what the speaker is saying.
AutumnAlmonds 1 year ago
Homophobic retards, marriage is a legal contract, shove your "sanctity of marriage" up your ass.
idontgiveashit0930 1 year ago 3
the ideology that "its not likely that we will get rid of that, so lets just regulate what we have now" is not libertarian thinking. prolonging a problem because you dont think it will ever pass. libertarians dont accept defeat, you stick to the issue because you know it is the only reasonable conclusion, otherwise you become a bitch to the system.
stjimmy111111 1 year ago
That was actually pretty intelligent for the most part. Impressive.
alexjohnc3 1 year ago
@MikeSPx24bj9
No, just no. Why do companies lower costs? To make themselves more competitive. If they have lower costs than they can charge lowers prices cutting their competitors. This is why companies cut costs. The whole "the owner takes it a runs" is straight out of some left wing book of bad economics.
cnips20 1 year ago
@brian406 See. That's my point. You think it's normal to have to PAY a government agency in order to get married. Do you know when the first marriage licenses were issued? It was after slaves were freed. There was a fear that a newly freed slave and a white person may want to marry. The marriage license was then imposed in order for the government to regulate whom could marry whom. My point was simply that it's none of the government's concern whom marries whom. Government intrusion...
growe73 1 year ago
@growe73 I agree:)
So whats your conclusion?
How should marriage be approached and validated?
Are you in support of Gay Marriage?
brianh406 1 year ago
For some reason some of you seem to think that the government has the authority to grant marriages. It does not. Having said that, gay marriage is a non-issue. The real issue is the government meddling where they don't belong. If the government was completely out of the marriage business, where would the problem be? Right. There wouldn't be one.
growe73 1 year ago
@growe73 Really....Are you married?
So you sent in your money to
jeebus christ
PO BOX 6969
Cloudy day, Universe 90210-666
After jeebus has checked your genitalia, you are issued a contract that binds you with your loved one for LIFE. 9 months latter the stork...............
Evolve Already.....
brianh406 1 year ago
Pro-choice advocates love to save their cat's life but hates to see their offspring live. Wendy McElroy said that if she is pregnant, the living being inside her is a part of her body and so she has all the right to do whatever she wanted with that living being. Her pet, however, is outside her body; therefore she must respect the life of her pet. She respects the life of her pet more than the life of her offspring.
rubentenido 1 year ago
Do they actually have hecklers in a "news" program? That is so stupid.
jttb011 1 year ago
this video is homo
sammyDougDenton 1 year ago
Why is there an audience?
valkyrie9002 1 year ago
immagrants add a lot.....like cheap labor
texas9085 1 year ago
If lots more people come here, a lot of those people will vote to increase welfare (immigrants tend to vote Democrat). Furthermore, the increase in the deficit will kill the economy.
mitchblatt1dot1com 1 year ago
Man, I'm all for open borders but Congress is never going to pass that. What I would REALLY like to see is what the guy said about giving foreign students a green card. I'm on my way from Britain to US to do my Phd and after 5 years of no-doubt busting my ass I'm out the door. I'll have every intention of coming back, but getting a green card outside of the lottery (not open to UK citizens) is a nightmare and after getting my Phd from US grad school it could take me years before I can return.
An0nEeMouse 1 year ago
I don't believe in open-borders, it would simply turn people against each other.
I think states should deal with the marriage issue, but it'd be better to let churches deal with it completely. If we didn't have such a fucked up tax code, it wouldn't be such a hot issue with the gay community.
That "being" does indeed have legal rights. It's so insane that we punish a 17 year old who dumps her baby, but it would have been legal for a doctor hours before to kill that baby in the womb
VictoryCough 1 year ago
@VictoryCough "churches deal with marriage?"
How would that work for non-religious people?
You'd be forced to go to church even though you dont believe in jesus?
Where do you go when you want to get a divorce hunny? It aint church.
brianh406 1 year ago
@brianh406 There is no reason that two atheists can't enter into a contract and call it whatever they want. To me marriage is a religious ceremony and I'd venture to say that nearly all marriages are performed as such.
VictoryCough 1 year ago
@VictoryCough "To me marriage is a religious ceremony and I'd venture to say that nearly all marriages are performed as such"
Really? how amazingly misinformed you xtians are.
Doesnt matter what you think, the government writes the contract for marriage not jesus, who seems to be absent 100% of the time
If marriage is religious then why do people divorce?
Instead of "venturing to say" How about doing some research and come up with some facts. Or are you working off of the "Faith System?"
brianh406 1 year ago 43
@brianh406 I'm an atheist. Not sure what made you think I am religious. Government should only insure contracts-not write them. But we don't have a right to an insured contract-this would mean others would have to subsidize it.
Again I think its safe to say that most marriages are performed as a religious ceremony-but I don't know statistics.
I'm not sure why "libertarians" get upset at the idea that government has no business issuing marriage licenses.
VictoryCough 1 year ago
@VictoryCough AGAIN
You say "most" and "i dont know"
Do the research............
brianh406 1 year ago
@brianh406 , marriage isn't just a religious ceremony to VictoryCough, it was instituted by God from the very beginning (Gen. 1&2). If not, then what do you think is its origin? However, since we don't want government running our churches, I personally think the government should stay out of it completely like Jeffrey Miron.
ajeisit 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ajeisit "However, since we don't want government running our churches, I personally think the government should stay out of it completely"
I AGREE, then give back your Tax Exempt certificates.
You xtians are soooo Ignorant you're Oblivious.
brianh406 1 year ago
@brianh406 Sorry but you are incorrect. Marriage belongs in the church and is no business of the state. Research the history of marriage.
st4ticblu3 1 year ago
@st4ticblu3 ?? Then why do you go to the "state" for a marriage license? Then why is the state involved in a divorce? If the church "owns" marriage then why can people get married at a court house? If the church holds marriage to be sacred then why are non-xtians, Atheist, men who beat women, allowed marriage? Back to Atheist, Why would you be more against marriage of a Same Sex christian couple than a Atheist couple? Its because you are a Hateful Bigoted As Hat...... priest =child molesters.
brianh406 1 year ago
@st4ticblu3 (1)
The Institution of Marriage goes way back. Over 5,000 years ago, the Sumerians had made laws which regulated marriage. But it was still "Rough House" rules. The "Best Man" got that name because he would help kidnap the bride, and then fight off the relatives if they tried to rescue her. The Romans thought this a bit uncivilised. They went one step further, and wrote laws that made sure that both the groom and the bride entered into their marriage of their own free choice.
brianh406 1 year ago
@st4ticblu3 (2)
The very earliest marriage certificate that we have was found in a bundle of Aramaic papyri, some 2,500 years old. It was found in the ruins of a Jewish Garrison, that had been stationed at Elephantine in Egypt. It's more of a "contract" than a "marriage certificate", as it documents that the groom landed himself a healthy 14 year-old girl bride in exchange for six cows.
You tell me to do my research, knowing, I'd prove you Ignorant to the topic. -bigot
brianh406 1 year ago
@st4ticblu3 (3)
What should I expect from someone who wears a blind fold, which causes them to be led blindly by a known sex offender? I would say fix your church before fixing strangers, but I'd imagine you are a stranger to anything non-xtian....Open your eyes to reality, meet someone who is different from yourself and come to the realization that we are not one person of one blood, but many people from many different cultures with many different beliefs.
brianh406 1 year ago
@st4ticblu3 (4)
With what I have said, IF you're still not convinced that the "church" doesn't own marriage. I'd think about moving to the middle east, they are like minded to you with intertwining their religion to Government. It seems to work pretty well for them, right?
brianh406 1 year ago
@brianh406 I thought it was a religious ceremony long before the state was created to authorize and officially sanction marriages. Isn't this a historical fact?
crodrigo 11 months ago
@crodrigo Well thats cute of you, how about utilizing this vast network of information called the internet and Google some real facts instead of saying "I thought" or "Isn't"...;-) Marriage dates back "historically" over 5 thousand years -WAY before any religion of today and was -Vastly different than what it is today.
brianh406 11 months ago