so then there are no absolutes?
whatever anyone's perception is of right and wrong is their choice as long as it isn't forced on anyone else?
so all of the billions of humans living on this planet.....they ALL should/could live by 'their own personal' absolutes?

Quoted from Libertarian4life

I agree, but I also believe that it is every person's right to choose whether to reproduce, or prevent reproduction of themselves.

But one thing I know for certain, I do not want the government taking control of reproduction.

I went to the Chinese restaurant last night on Chrysler Ave and the Chinese woman behind the counter was feeding her 4 kids.

In China those kids would never have been born.

The Chinese people allow their government to be in charge of reproduction.

People must be allowed to decide their own future.

Horrible as it is, it is not your right to force your morals on another person.

We try every day to force American values on to the rest of the world.

Whether we are right or wrong, many of them hate us for it.

Quoted from 55tbird

and the same situation exists as the laws are now...
The woman has absolute control... she can terminate even if the man doesn't want her too, same thing with carrying to term and then he is required to pay child support for a baby he didn't want.

One way to take some of this away is universally available free birth control.
The other is for an opt out of sorts for the man. If he doesn't want the child and doesn't want to pay child support, he gives up all rights of that child permanently. Now, of course, the state has to come in and make up difference, but how different will that be to what happens now?

Exactly!  So then the decision of one (to not abort) is forced upon the other, and then Government enters the picture!

Quoted from joebxr

So 1 parent then has gotten their wishes met and the other has not. How is that equitable, right or fair??????

A child being the creation of 2 persons, should require both parents to consent for anything during their entire childhood.

Unless each parent consents to either party being able to make decisions on their behalf or in the case of a medical emergency.

If you and a partner painted a work of art, would it be equitable, right or fair for one person to sell it?

Or built a home together.

The law is clear on all other items, but the law fails to recognize men's right to their own creation.(fetus)

A fetus is not part of a woman's body, it is a standalone creation that will exist without being attached to the woman's body.

The fetus temporarily being inside the woman's body was a choice knowingly made by two persons.

They both had full knowledge that pregnancy might occur.

Then when a child is born and one of the parents don't want it, the other parent must be offered full custody before shipping the child off to the adoption farm.

Are men and women not equals?

Is the fetus not a joint creation?

Is it fair to put a man's co-creation up for adoption or abortion without his consent?

My belief is that equal rights for fetus creators and also the live children, is the easiest way to greatly reducing abortions and keeping children with one of their parents at much higher numbers.

And less children sent out for adoptions.

Quoted from Libertarian4life

A child being the creation of 2 persons, should require both parents to consent for anything during their entire childhood.

Unless each parent consents to either party being able to make decisions on their behalf or in the case of a medical emergency.

If you and a partner painted a work of art, would it be equitable, right or fair for one person to sell it?

Or built a home together.

The law is clear on all other items, but the law fails to recognize men's right to their own creation.(fetus)

A fetus is not part of a woman's body, it is a standalone creation that will exist without being attached to the woman's body.

The fetus temporarily being inside the woman's body was a choice knowingly made by two persons.

They both had full knowledge that pregnancy might occur.

Then when a child is born and one of the parents don't want it, the other parent must be offered full custody before shipping the child off to the adoption farm.

Are men and women not equals?

Is the fetus not a joint creation?

Is it fair to put a man's co-creation up for adoption or abortion without his consent?

My belief is that equal rights for fetus creators and also the live children, is the easiest way to greatly reducing abortions and keeping children with one of their parents at much higher numbers.

And less children sent out for adoptions.

Again, how do you resolve it when thy don't agree?
You can't just say that then the fetus is aborted or not aborted, because you are forcing the wishes of one party on the other party.

Quoted from 55tbird

and the same situation exists as the laws are now...
The woman has absolute control... she can terminate even if the man doesn't want her too, same thing with carrying to term and then he is required to pay child support for a baby he didn't want.

One way to take some of this away is universally available free birth control.
The other is for an opt out of sorts for the man. If he doesn't want the child and doesn't want to pay child support, he gives up all rights of that child permanently. Now, of course, the state has to come in and make up difference, but how different will that be to what happens now?

You are correct.

But it should be applied to fetuses as well as children.

Any creator of a fetus or child should be allowed to transfer his rights to the co-creator; thereby giving up all rights and/or responsibilities, without financial extortion or imprisonment, that men get, when they give up their rights.

Women do it freely every day without any demands from the government for child support.



And yes please, free birth control for anyone.

Quoted from joebxr

Again, how do you resolve it when thy don't agree?
You can't just say that then the fetus is aborted or not aborted, because you are forcing the wishes of one party on the other party.

You have no reading comprehension.

I answered you fully.

Both parents created the fetus.

Both have a right to that fetus/child if the other gives up their rights.

You cannot destroy something that you have created with a partner.

Both have rights to their joint creation.

No one's rights to standalone decision making is being violated, because neither holds exclusive rights to a joint creation.

It is the right thing to do.

I can't make it any clearer.

Quoted from bumblethru

so then there are no absolutes?
whatever anyone's perception is of right and wrong is their choice as long as it isn't forced on anyone else?
so all of the billions of humans living on this planet.....they ALL should/could live by 'their own personal' absolutes?

It is called free will and is a right given to you at birth.

All persons choose which laws to follow and which not to follow.

Anyone's choices are theirs alone and based on their beliefs.

If every violation of every law was enforced by some unseen force, the entire world would by imprisoned.

Anyone who doesn't follow his own moral and ethical code is surrendering his own rights to self determination, placing their lives in the hands of others.

Quoted from Libertarian4life

You have no reading comprehension.

I answered you fully.

Both parents created the fetus.

Both have a right to that fetus/child if the other gives up their rights.

You cannot destroy something that you have created with a partner.

Both have rights to their joint creation.

No one's rights to standalone decision making is being violated, because neither holds exclusive rights to a joint creation.

It is the right thing to do.

I can't make it any clearer.

Really? My reading skills are quite good but it appears you are the one with comprehension issues about what you yourself say!

Quoted from Libertarian4life

Then the fetus lives.

That is not a "both have rights" decision, it is one sided. One party is then forcing their will on the other party.
What part of that do you not understand? That is violating one's rights based on a standalone decision.
You say "It is the right thing to do." How is it the right thing to do if neither party has given up their rights,
but yet according to you, the fetus lives (which is the wishes of one party and not the other)?

Once again, I asked a legitimate question, but you decided to invoke your Losertarian attitude.

Quoted from Libertarian4life

It is called free will and is a right given to you at birth.

All persons choose which laws to follow and which not to follow.

Anyone's choices are theirs alone and based on their beliefs.

If every violation of every law was enforced by some unseen force, the entire world would by imprisoned.

Anyone who doesn't follow his own moral and ethical code is surrendering his own rights to self determination, placing their lives in the hands of others.

So EVERYONE is free to choose and do whatever they perceive as 'right' based on their self determination?
does this encompass EVERYTHING?
ya know.....if it feels good, do it?

Quoted from bumblethru

So EVERYONE is free to choose and do whatever they perceive as 'right' based on their self determination?
does this encompass EVERYTHING?
ya know.....if it feels good, do it?

According to Libertarian's philosophy than if it felt good for that person to shoot up a movie theater or that other person to shoot up an elementary school than it is O.K.   According to Libertarian: who are we to force our beliefs on someone else?

Also - to respond to something that Joe said .. it really isn't just 2 persons' rights .. we can't forget about the rights of the baby in the womb.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Also - to respond to something that Joe said .. it really isn't just 2 persons' rights .. we can't forget about the rights of the baby in the womb.

The baby's rights are deferred to the parents, since the baby has no actual voice or ability to participate in the decision process.

Quoted from Libertarian4life

If you and a partner painted a work of art, would it be equitable, right or fair for one person to sell it?

Or built a home together.

a baby/fetus is not a painted work of art or a building............we are talking about a human being!!
so human life has boiled down to nothing more and nothing less than a work of art or a building, that once it is dismantled, it goes to the highest bidder.
I find that more than disturbing!

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

According to Libertarian's philosophy than if it felt good for that person to shoot up a movie theater or that other person to shoot up an elementary school than it is O.K.   According to Libertarian: who are we to force our beliefs on someone else?

You should read more about the philosophy.  You cannot aggress and violate the natural rights of another person.  Going into a theater and shooting it up is in total violation of the philosophy.  As is, the state forcibly disarming people and preventing them to defend themselves in the movie theater with the crazed shooter.  

The libertarian philosophy is pretty simple, it's non aggression.  

Quoted from joebxr

Really? My reading skills are quite good but it appears you are the one with comprehension issues about what you yourself say!

That is not a "both have rights" decision, it is one sided. One party is then forcing their will on the other party.
What part of that do you not understand? That is violating one's rights based on a standalone decision.
You say "It is the right thing to do." How is it the right thing to do if neither party has given up their rights,
but yet according to you, the fetus lives (which is the wishes of one party and not the other)?

Once again, I asked a legitimate question, but you decided to invoke your Losertarian attitude.

You are pitiful.

You can't even comprehend the concept of both parties having the same rights, requiring both to consent or no deal.

Taking no action isn't forcing anyone to do anything.

It is a simple fact that both parties have equal rights to a fetus or child.

Equal, to you, must mean something entirely different.

Sharing all rights of your own creation with the other creator is a partnership.

Without agreement no action will take place.

Quoted from joebxr

Exactly!  So then the decision of one (to not abort) is forced upon the other, and then Government enters the picture!

It isn't a use of force, it is freedom of choice.

Plus the government would already be in the picture if the 2 party consent was made mandatory.

A law that enforces equal treatment under the law is Constitutional.

Current laws unequally favor women.