What's wrong with everybody choosing what is best for their situation.

[choiceone]

How much I can work for, who I can hire, what I can buy, they even control the time when I may and may not purchase alcohol. They controlled how I built my house, the design of my house, where I could build it on my own land, the materials I was allowed to use to build it and so on and so forth. I could keep on going, but suffice to say that the progressive regulatory state has its filthy fingers in just about every pie.

I'd really like to see you exemplify these things. No one controls how much you can work for. They control how much you can pay others for work if you're engaged in a formal employment relationship, because they can't stand it when cheats and cons hurt innocent people.

They assume, as I do, that you only have your own land because the government stole the land from Native Americans, with permission or active help from people, and the government that let you buy what it stole. It has at least some say about what you do with it because those are the only terms under which you got it.

Whose fingers are filthy?

 

[Integrityrespec]

Letting each person, each family, each man and women work out their reproductive lives privately seems like a reasonable philosophy. Those that need to end a a pregnancy that will be devastating to a family are free to do so. Those that consider abortion a sin are free to eshew abortions and bring a child into this world. Everybody gets to pick the action that is best for them and their families.

So why do conservative religious groups want to make everybody follow their single set of rules, rules that don't allow for individual situations, privacy, personal needs or personal freedom. If you think one group can control the private lives of others defend your thoughts with reliable sources keeping in mind that your God (if you believe in God) is not the same as the God pro-choice people believe in. .

So lets apply that to all society. I decide that I want your car, so I take it. I decide that blond haired people are evil, so lets get rid of them, at least the ones I see. Your logic is about as stupid as my example. Society cannot exist without boundaries and the extreme left idea of killing baby humans is sick. Conservative religious groups are for life.

 

[choiceone]

Do you know how many couples who cannot procreate on their own want to adopt? The adoptive parents usually pay for prenatal care in these cases also. What a waste of a life to abort as long as the mother's life isnt in danger.

The trouble is, her life is in danger and so is her health. Every girl or woman who is pregnant and continues the pregnancy increases her risk of death, injury, and illness.

There are almost no pregnancies/childbirths that result in a better life for the girl or woman unless she actually wants to give birth and be a birth mother.

How dare you write as if the life is something the woman is wasting. That life is her own life until she gives it to the born. The guy could be nothing but a sperm donor and nothing risks his life or health.

 

[aociswundumho]

I'd really like to see you exemplify these things. No one controls how much you can work for. They control how much you can pay others for work if you're engaged in a formal employment relationship, because they can't stand it when cheats and cons hurt innocent people.

That limits what all employees may legally work for. We are talking about adults, not children. An adult woman can decide for herself how much to work for, it is none of the state's business. If you believe she is incapable of making this relatively minor decision, then how can she be capable of making important decisions regarding her pregnancy?

 

[weaver2]

So lets apply that to all society. I decide that I want your car, so I take it. I decide that blond haired people are evil, so lets get rid of them, at least the ones I see. Your logic is about as stupid as my example. Society cannot exist without boundaries and the extreme left idea of killing baby humans is sick. Conservative religious groups are for life.

If society was as stupid as you portray we would all still be living in trees and eating ants.

 

[choiceone]

So lets apply that to all society. I decide that I want your car, so I take it. I decide that blond haired people are evil, so lets get rid of them, at least the ones I see. Your logic is about as stupid as my example. Society cannot exist without boundaries and the extreme left idea of killing baby humans is sick. Conservative religious groups are for life.

The right of a person to be the only person that gets to use his/her internal body, its life, and its liberty is the first and most important right of all human rights. Nobody has the right to use any of those things without full and free consent of the person. Without that right of a person, you can force anyone to be a full time sex slave.

Conservative religious groups believe they have the right to rape girls and women by forcing them to continue pregnancies and give birth, forcing something bigger than one-person watermelons to pass through their vaginas or forcing them to be sliced open so others can have what's inside them. They think they have the right to do this in the name of their god, i.e., themselves, even if they physically injure - and in some cases kill - those women.

 

[choiceone]

That limits what all employees may legally work for. We are talking about adults, not children. An adult woman can decide for herself how much to work for, it is none of the state's business. If you believe she is incapable of making this relatively minor decision, then how can she be capable of making important decisions regarding her pregnancy?

The state is simply saying that, if it is a formal employer-employee relationship, the employer can't offer such a bad deal as to screw up the economic freedom being protected.

Every government protects an economic order. Either it protects private property and trade or it protects community property and trade. If you want it to protect your right to think you own your land and can keep others off it, then you have to put up with some conditions of ownership. If you want to protect your right to think you can make a deal with potential workers, then you have to put up with conditions of hiring.

Most people can't afford to hire others to work for them, so they do their own work. They're really grateful for the government's looking out for their interests because they know that rich people, who can afford to hire others, would really prefer making people work for nothing. In fact, sometimes they make con offers of unpaid internships, pretending that a person will get something valuable from being nothing but a con victim.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

How much I can work for, who I can hire, what I can buy, they even control the time when I may and may not purchase alcohol. They controlled how I built my house, the design of my house, where I could build it on my own land, the materials I was allowed to use to build it and so on and so forth. I could keep on going, but suffice to say that the progressive regulatory state has its filthy fingers in just about every pie.

What time you can and cannot purchase alcohol is almost always a cause for social conservatives, not liberals. How you build your house, if it is regulated, is almost always Country Club Republican nimbysm - who btw, typically also like to tell people what color they can paint their house

I mean, if you are going to bitch, at least bitch about the right people.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

It's the same principle: the government knows what's best.

You seem to have an issue with the concept of society.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Conservative states regulate these things too. There are good reasons for having regulations.

They regulate them even more. Does anyone think banning Sunday liquor sales is a liberal cause?

 

[trouble13]

Oh but it does answer your question.

Men and women in committed relationships do discuss the abortion issue.

You want us to believe that men do not have a say…. Either way.

I'm going to repeat what I asked the OP. Listen closely.

I asked what about when the father and the mother best interests are not the same, does his position include room for that.

You and I have already spoke enough on this topic for me to know your position does not. You are heavily bias toward what's in the wimens best interest even if it comes at the expense of what the fathers best interest is. Unless you have recently modified your opinion. Have you recently changed your position to one that's more tolerant of men's best interests?

By the very nature of how you attempted to cloud my question tells me you have not and you are trying to obfuscate my position.

 

[WillyPete]

Letting each person, each family, each man and women work out their reproductive lives privately seems like a reasonable philosophy. Those that need to end a a pregnancy that will be devastating to a family are free to do so. Those that consider abortion a sin are free to eshew abortions and bring a child into this world. Everybody gets to pick the action that is best for them and their families.

For some in the abortion is sin crowd the existence of abortion is intolerable.

If they were content just calling sinners sinners and not sinning themselves there would be no problem, but those are not acceptable terms (to them.)

 

[trouble13]

Nope it's just a reality. If you want to have a say in any matter you have to be willing to act cooperatively, pleasantly and intelligently.

People who hold your opinion is why I dont care when states outlaw all abortions. When you try to make it some kind of ethical argument about it being unfair to women I just laugh your faces because I know fairness is the furthest thing from your minds.

 

[Lursa]

Holy crap. Its a wonder that the human species isnt extinct since pregnancy is so terrible. Why are we all still here?

Because lots of women/couples want kids?

That question is even sillier since women do have a choice and still, by far, choose to give birth. In the US, the abortion rate has been dropping every year.

 

[Lursa]

Where do fathers fall in your position?

What if they want a different outcome than the mother? Do they also get to decide what's best for them because traditionally that has not been the case.

This issue is why you refuse to respond to my posts, I believe. You know this: men know before they decide to sleep with a woman that that decision is totally hers. If they object to that, then they can choose not to sleep with her. That's accurate, right?

 

[Lursa]

Do you know how many couples who cannot procreate on their own want to adopt? The adoptive parents usually pay for prenatal care in these cases also. What a waste of a life to abort as long as the mother's life isnt in danger.

Do you know that there are more than 100,000 children waiting to be adopted in the US? (There are 400,000 in foster care, so also a lot of parents that cannot care for their children.).

Why arent those parents you refer to adopting these kids? Do you think it's ethical to encourage women to have babies they dont want or cant afford, knowing they'll just add them to that giant pool of kids, waiting and hoping?

 

[Lursa]

Why only for their reproductive lives, and not their lives in general?

But we have every right to have an abortion, correct Libertarian?

Leftists want virtually every part of our lives regulated by the state, but only when it comes to abortion do they back off a little.

Not remotely true regarding other parts of our lives. We dont wish to regulate people's genders, who people have sex with, who people marry, etc.

And I think several other people have addressed this well too.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Do you know that there are more than 100,000 children waiting to be adopted in the US? (There are 400,000 in foster care, so also a lot of parents that cannot care for their children.).

Why arent those parents you refer to adopting these kids? Do you think it's ethical to encourage women to have babies they dont want or cant afford, knowing they'll just add them to that giant pool of kids, waiting and hoping?

Natural parents love their kids even if they have a disability. But when it comes to adoption, that bond hasn't already been established during pregnancy, and they want only kids who are "perfect".

Maybe to overcome this, intending adopters shouldn't be told. They would "sponsor" a fetus and then just take it regardless.

 

[Lursa]

Natural parents love their kids even if they have a disability. But when it comes to adoption, that bond hasn't already been established during pregnancy, and they want only kids who are "perfect".

Maybe to overcome this, intending adopters shouldn't be told. They would "sponsor" a fetus and then just take it regardless.

My parents adopted my twin "special needs" sisters. Their special needs other brother and sister were also adopted, as was their non-special needs sister. They were all born to a crack whore. However all the children are very loved (all are adults now).

Mental illness, alcoholism, drug use, even smoking, would all be known. IMO it would be unethical not to tell prospective parents.

But yes, there are definitely more parents that only want infants that look perfect and look like them.

 

[Ug make hammer]

My parents adopted my twin "special needs" sisters. Their special needs other brother and sister were also adopted, as was their non-special needs sister. They were all born to a crack whore.

All born to the same crack addict? My authoritarian side wants her sterilized.

Of course it's wonderful to live in a world where people are accepted despite disabilities. However actively causing disability is going a bit far.

However all the children are very loved (all are adults now).

Mental illness, alcoholism, drug use, even smoking, would all be known. IMO it would be unethical not to tell prospective parents.

But yes, there are definitely more parents that only want infants that look perfect and look like them.

"Looking like them" might protect the children from stigma. It shouldn't be shameful to be adopted, but for some people (and particularly other kids) it is. Wanting only "perfect" children however, is very lazy.

 

[aociswundumho]

But we have every right to have an abortion, correct Libertarian?

Of course.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

It's the same principle: the government knows what's best.

Let each individual decide what their building codes will be.

LMAO. Come on brah, think it through!

 

[aociswundumho]

The state is simply saying that, if it is a formal employer-employee relationship, the employer can't offer such a bad deal as to screw up the economic freedom being protected.

Preventing adults from working for whatever wage they want is violating their economic freedom, not protecting it.

 

[aociswundumho]

What time you can and cannot purchase alcohol is almost always a cause for social conservatives, not liberals.

That's true, but it's the progressive regulatory state that gives them the power, and it was the political left which created the regulatory state, just like they created the welfare state.

 

[minnie616]

Preventing adults from working for whatever wage they want is violating their economic freedom, not protecting it.

Actually , you are a bit late ( like over 80 years late ) to be protesting a minimum wage in the United States.

The federal minimum wage was introduced in 1938 at the rate of $0.25 per hour (equivalent to $4.6 in 2020).

But you and I are off topic.
Wages have nothing to do with abortion.