In response to:

The Libertarian Case for Life

fiddlerMO Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 10:47 AM
Sorry Ms Hawkins. As I was reading your article I came across this line and immediately temporarily suspended your right to free speech. "Even if one accepts that a pregnant woman experiences a temporary, partial loss of liberty, abortion permanently and totally deprives the human fetus of his or her right to life and, consequentially, liberty." If anyones rights are suspended, even for one second, it is wrong. The Gov. can not legislate morals for this very reason. I, personally am against abortion, and against Gov funding of it but I have no right to tell someone else what to do because I disagree with them. Just as the Gov has no right to tell me what to eat or as long as it's not paying for it or harming or I'm not harming others.
jgilmartin Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 1:06 PM
Sorry fiddlerMO,
All governments legislate morals to some extent; ie, legislation to make murder illegal. Your little "if anyones rights are suspended, even for one second, it is wrong" is rather childlike in its naivety. Your rights are suspended all the time. You can't smoke on an airplane, you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, and you can't be openly Christian without ridicule at a place of public education.
Following your logic, just because you are against stoning and against government support of stoning, you have no right to tell muslims not to stone their daughters because they violated family honor.
fiddlerMO Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 1:30 PM
Reed and Martin

All of the things you mention are harmful to other people, not just to themselves, as I stated.
And I don't care what other country's governments do, this America.
As far as being openly Christian in places of public education, ridicule is not law.
fiddlerMO Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 1:45 PM
Ridicule can only harm those who give it.
Also known as intolerance.
I respect your point of view but disagree with it. Am i right to try to make your point of view unlawful?
Morally questionable, yes. Unlawful, no.

fiddlerMO Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 1:52 PM
I forgot to mention that I am totally against government run schools, anyway.
If a private school allowed ridicule of my faith I could move my child to another school.
Texas Chris Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 2:39 PM
"All of the things you mention are harmful to other people..."

The point being that the fetus is a person as well, and the parents made a choice (fornication) for which they resort to murder in order to preserve reputation, lifestyle, or convenience.
Tommy_Maq Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 2:44 PM
...thus proving you are free.

"Free" means you can say 'no,' that you can walk away.

It does not mean power (the ability to do what you want) nor does it mean comfort (the 'right' to carry out your activities without criticism or feedback, aka offense, from others).
Reed42 Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 12:40 PM
Dear Fiddler,
So you are saying my right to target practice with a high power rifle on state land is absolute, and if you happen to walk in front of the target my right to shoot is absolute? You have no right to not be killed, because that would temporarily suspend my right to shoot? You may want to rethink your opinion.
Texas Chris Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 2:36 PM
fiddlerMO Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 10:49 AM
cont.

You can't regulate morals.

At this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), I was invited to participate on a panel called "The Future of the Movement: Winning with Generation X/Y." I had a lot of ideas to discuss, including utilizing new messages to reach this new pro-life generation, recruiting more candidates with a willingness to stand up for what they believe in, developing new technology, and improving grassroots organizing, to name a few.

But, instead of focusing on the panel's extremely important topic, the moderator, Students for Liberty Co-Founder Alexander McCobin, decided to use his time to advance his libertarian ideal of legalizing gay marriage....