Left Wing or Right Wing? Take Pop Quiz in OP!
- Thread starter photonrider
- 582 comments
- 42,128 views
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
It's a Life vs Liberty issue
This conflicts with what I said.
Libertarianism is not Government removal, like I said that is Far left or right Libertarianism, centrist Libertarian is about having a Government maintain life and liberty, since abortion stance is literally life vs Liberty it can't go in any direction.
- 23,800
- Philippines
Protecting the rights of a part of a woman's body that is not a separate, conscious organism (while it certainly has a nervous system and can feel pain and discomfort, it is, for the most part, a non-sentient extension of the woman herself until late in the pregnancy) is quite different from protecting the right of an actual living, breathing, separate entity.
The only argument that matters in the abortion issue lies in when the fetus can be considered a viable human being, thus gaining human rights. Until it can be considered human, an embryo or fetus is merely a collection of cells growing inside the mother's body.
And having said that... and not knowing anything about the legal cut-off date for abortion in the US, I've just looked it up, and that's how the law stands in most states, wherein abortion is only allowed until a certain number of weeks, typically between 20-28 weeks, based, apparently, on when the fetus becomes "viable".
The record for the most premature birth survival is around 21 weeks, while full term is around 40 weeks. At 30 weeks, most fetuses can survive premature birth and already have the capacity to develop consciousness.
As to why consciousness is not a determinant in the cut-off, research shows that consciousness may not develop until a few months after birth. And abortion after birth would simply be murder, as the child is legally recognizable as a separate organism, and a human, and thus possesses human rights.
The only argument that matters in the abortion issue lies in when the fetus can be considered a viable human being, thus gaining human rights. Until it can be considered human, an embryo or fetus is merely a collection of cells growing inside the mother's body.
And having said that... and not knowing anything about the legal cut-off date for abortion in the US, I've just looked it up, and that's how the law stands in most states, wherein abortion is only allowed until a certain number of weeks, typically between 20-28 weeks, based, apparently, on when the fetus becomes "viable".
The record for the most premature birth survival is around 21 weeks, while full term is around 40 weeks. At 30 weeks, most fetuses can survive premature birth and already have the capacity to develop consciousness.
As to why consciousness is not a determinant in the cut-off, research shows that consciousness may not develop until a few months after birth. And abortion after birth would simply be murder, as the child is legally recognizable as a separate organism, and a human, and thus possesses human rights.
- 87,034
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
No, it isn't.
Okay. And?
Don't know why you're telling me this when you already quoted me saying not that.
You can't have far left libertarianism. Libertarianism is fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
You can't have centrist libertarianism. Libertarianism is fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
Libertarianism isn't about government maintaining anything.
As I already explained to you, it's simply a matter of where you draw the line of what life is - conception, implantation, viability or birth. Those who believe life starts before birth believe that abortion is the strong (parent/medics) imposing its will on the weak (foetus/embryo) and making laws to prevent it is a valid role of government. Those who don't, don't.
You can have libertarians in either camp, because libertarianism is about letting the government have authority necessary to protect life but no more. The libertarians who think that life begins before birth think that it's a valid role of government to legislate against abortion. The libertarians who don't, don't.
- 23,800
- Philippines
Libertarianism is for personal freedom. And that includes personal economic freedom Anything left of center seeks to regulate personal economic freedom in order to provide social benefits to others.
The only way to provide for social benefits through government is via wealth re-distribution, which infringes upon personal freedom.
This is about as un-libertarian as you can get.
Libertarians are typically in the middle of the purple sector. If you are all the way at the bottom right, you are an anarchist.
If you are left of center, you are either a social democrat or a socialist or... far left... a communist.
- 87,034
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
This usually precedes a dramatic misunderstanding or misrepresentation of something...
Oh boy
Let's go back to basics then.
The Political Compass has two scales. The vertical is "social freedom" and the horizontal is "fiscal freedom". Each scale goes from "zero government intervention" to "total government control".
The right of the horizontal scale is "fiscally zero government intervention". The left of the horizontal scale is "total government control of all resources". These correspond to "Conservatism" (right wing) and "Socialism" (left wing).
The bottom of the horizontal scale is "socially zero government intervention". The top of the horizontal scale is "total government control of all behaviour". These correspond to "Liberalism" and "Fascism".
To determine your position on the scale, you are asked your stance on a number of issues. For each issue you can adopt positions roughly equivalent to "Total government control", "Largely government controlled", "Largely not controlled by government" and "Zero government control". These answers will put you in certain positions on the chart: if you favour government control on fiscal matters, you will be placed to the left on the horizontal; if you favour less government control on social matters, you will be placed to the bottom on the vertical.
Combining your answers gives you a position on each scale and combining the scales gives you a plot on the chart. Your plot can be one of approximately seventeen positions, but typically it'll be one of eight as few people will give entirely consistent answers on any one scale, much less both. Most people will find themselves in one of three, which is odd as most politicians and political parties are placed in a fourth, different position.
Libertarianism is, specifically, a combination of a liberal social stance (a minimum of government control on behaviour) and a conservative fiscal stance (a minimum of government control on resources) - pretty much liberal conservatism. Libertarianism is the purple quadrant of the chart. You're confusing it with liberalism, which is anything in the bottom half of the chart, both purple and green.
Bernie Sanders, for example, holds a position of liberal socialism (green), not libertarianism.
Anarchism is, specifically, a combination of zero government control on behaviour and zero government control on resources. It would be +10, -10 on the chart - the furthest right and bottom possible. It is, to be fair to you, the outer limit of the libertarian view, where "minimum" is defined as "zero".
Unfortunately in this instance he's talking about property that happens to be life... depending on when you think life starts
- 23,800
- Philippines
Which part?
When you get all the way to the bottom right of the chart, that is anarchy (as Famine explained so eloquently). A complete renunciation of the rule of law in the interest of personal freedom.
Around -5, you have the libertarians, the social democrats (center and left) and the socialists (left).
You won't have any true libertarians left of center. I'm left-of-center, and while I see the attraction of libertarian ideals, I recognize that my stance on the economy is anything but libertarian.
I just don't have that much faith in people.
Lain
Premium
- 7,087
- Pasadena, TX
- Yaywalter
Doesn't surprise me.
Given that these questions are supposed to work out what you think, doesn't it seem a little counter-productive to not put some thought into your answers?
What you call your mind "manipulating" things, I might call taking a critical look at your own beliefs.
Last edited:
- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
I got -1.13 and -3.85, and change of +0.87 and -1.03 since I last took the test.
squadops
(Banned)
- 1,987
- United States
@Spurgy 777 that would be as I suspected. 👍
- 87,034
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Aside from that making little sense (as usual), it's also a double post.
squadops
(Banned)
- 1,987
- United States
I'm sorry dad, do you need a link??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson
I know that I have been a bit lazy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson
I know that I have been a bit lazy
- 87,034
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
No, you just need to make sense.
Even now I have no idea why you're posting a link to the US Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson in this thread, given that this isn't the US Election thread. Though it does at least make more sense than just posting "JOHNSON" and expecting everyone to know what you're talking about.
We aren't mind readers. We aren't in your head. If you wish to communicate your thoughts to other people in this written medium, you must write what they are.
And it's still a double-post regardless.
Similar threads
