quote:

Originally posted by Krysta_101 I was just pondering this... Most conservatives are pro-life, and pro-death penalty Whereas most liberals are pro-choice, and anti-death penalty. One wants to kill them when they're new, the other wants to kill them after they've killed someone else. I just thought it was kinda odd, either way, I'm still Libertarian.

Yea I've always thought it a bit odd too. I'm pro-choice and anti-death penalty and the way I get round it is that I dont consider a fetus to be a sentient life form at that stage (sounds harsh but I would consider it just like a limb) I also think euthenasia should be legal too

Anti-abortion. Agree with death penalty in principle (but due to mistakes and what I deem unjust executions of some people am opposed to it in practice). Pro-euthenasia too.

___________________
"Níl saoirse gan saoirse lucht oibre."

I agree with both of your points. Nice to see a fellow libertarian on the boards, by the way. The death penalty posses more than simply moral questions, as abortion does. Some argue that the death penalty should be in place, as we are wasting a lot of money on prisoners. While this is true, if you look at the number of people that recieved the death penalty last year, 125, then you can see this arguement holds no water considering the amount of people currently incarcerated, around a couple million I believe. This is actually interesting, as I have heard this arguement before from conservatives, albeit not very smart ones. The major arguement, however, is the oldest form of punishment, retribution. In order to stop this rant, I will end on one of my favorite quotes.

'An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind' - Mahatma Gandhi

by the way I'm listening to Groove Armada- Easy right now, what a freaking track

___________________
Lost Souls

hi krysta nice to see u on this forum !

I'm libertarian, but I'm still anti-abortion.

First of all, as a society, it makes no sense to kill entire future demographics. I've read countless articles dealing with the problem of an "aging" population and the lack of numbers in future populations to continue to afford social programs, especially for the elderly. When you average approximately 1.5 million abortions a year in the United States (a conservative number), take that back to Roe V. Wade and then determine that those "children" would now be having children of their own, there is a large portion of the young demographic missing.

Even though I don't think it is necessary, I would be willing to concede the use of abortion when not used as birth control. Being a libertarian I do believe in personal freedom, but with that comes personal responsibility. If you wish to have sex, no matter what protection you may or may not use, it is up to you to be responsible in knowing that there is always a possibilty of having children. If you are not responsible in realizing the outcome of your actions, than that is no excuse for an abortion. And don't give me some crap about bringing a kid into a bad environment. Take any of those kids, and than once they become 18, of legal age, ask them if they would have mind being aborted instead of being brought into such a "bad environment." How many people are really going to choose death over life even in poor circumstances? If a time machine existed, and once you turned 18, someone came up to you and said, "your mother really wanted to abort you, but we wanted to give you the ability to make your own choice...do you mind if we go back and abort you?" What would you choose?

There are also countless double standards when it comes to abortion. We have attempted murder and attempted robbery to name a few charges based on future possibility, probabilty and tendancy. However, when it comes to a pregrant woman, which after syngamy is statistically shown to give birth to a living human a great majority of the time, we have no problems with killing. What makes the difference then, location? If we are able to keep the fetus alive outside the body, does that constitute living, or is it then okay to kill neonates that are unable to survive on their own? And if that is the case, what happens when we are able to bring a fetus to full term from fertilization outside the female body? Will that effectively end abortion, or do we extend things in the opposite manner? A three year old would not be able to survie without adult care and supervision, so is it then okay to "abort" a three year old?

When it comes to the death penatly, it's easy for me. You have all the rights that everyone else enjoys, until you take away another's. When you take away someone's right to life, than guess what, you forfeit your own. An unborn child also has that right, even though it is unable to survive on its own or speak for itself. I guess if you want an analogy it would be like kiling someone in a coma that is guaranteed to come out of it. If Terri Shiavo was guaranteed to come out of her vegetative state in 9 months and make a full recovery, would we have allowed her feeding tube to be pulled?

Well, my stances are as follows:

I'm pro-choice (though I think charging someone like Scott Peterson murder on 2 counts yet not charging a doctor whom of which performs an abortion a complete and utter misuse of the law) though I am against partial-birth abortions. If the baby is actually about ready to come out of the womb, no need to crush its skull and kill it. It's called an adoption agency, use one.

I'm pro-death penalty. For the simple fact that I know it's not cheaper per sé, but to be truthful, I would rather have my money fund someone who killed an entire family's death rather than his/her ability to live in a cell.

I am also pro-euthanesia since I think people should have control over their own lives if it does not affect the lives of others or infringe upon another's rights. I also don't think suicide should be illegal.

Ohhhh well, those are my two cents.

A libertarian that is pro-life, I firmly believe that you should never feel you have to perscribe to all of a party's values, but pro-life

___________________
Lost Souls

quote:

Originally posted by kush paintings A libertarian that is pro-life, I firmly believe that you should never feel you have to perscribe to all of a party's values, but pro-life

Yup, I believe in the rights of humans whether they are in their mother or not.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Yea I've always thought it a bit odd too. I'm pro-choice and anti-death penalty and the way I get round it is that I dont consider a fetus to be a sentient life form at that stage (sounds harsh but I would consider it just like a limb) I also think euthenasia should be legal too

I agree to that, even tho a fetus might be alieve (which is basically the pro life argument), its not more alieve than a pig or something else that we kill everyday without thinking about it.

But on the other hand, if you kill someone who comitted a crime, then you killed someone that was a living human beeing.

I'm SO not getting into this argument for the umpteenth time!

___________________
aka Tits McGee
aka Chesty LaRue
aka Busty St. Claire

quote:

Originally posted by squirrelly I'm SO not getting into this argument for the umpteenth time!

ditto

___________________
A witty saying proves nothing.
-Voltaire