There was a thread on this very subject not too long ago (which I can’t seem to find) - some places in the US do indeed expect and need locals to pay for their services via donations.
No. I don’t favor randomly killing people in the street, but that doesn’ mean I favor supporting those people if they choose not to work.
Why can’t a Christian, who believes that the soul is present at conception, think it is murder to kill a fetus, but still believe that charity should be voluntary? It’s one thing to say “thou shalt not kill”. It’s another to say “thou shalt tax they neighbor to support the poor”.
In that case, I would like Bricker to offer up any reason at all for pro-lifers to support this legislation besides a desire to exercise control over the sexual autonomy of teenaged girls. I agree that the whole Libertarian angle seems to be a red herring.
And some demand payment for service.
Because Jesus never said a word about abortion, but was all about that helping the poor thing.
This is not analogous. A baby has no choices. By your logic, if a live baby is found abandoned in a trash can, the state should just let it lie there and die.
Jesus didn’t say that charity was voluntary. He also said to pay your taxes, even if you feel those taxes are unjust.
The bigger hypocrisy, though, is the lack of compassion and dereliction of moral responsibility towards those who are the most helpless. You can’t say you care about fetuses in the womb if you don’t give a shit about them after they’re born.
Sure. And we had a thread just recently on precisely that sort of arrangement. So what? Sounds fine.
Good for you. How is that remotely relevant to what a strict libertarian would want?
I’m saying that it’s a principled, consistent position to hold, not the result of a malicious soul or a desire to repress women, children or puppies.
It occurs to me that I never should have attempted to answer the response about Christian consistency because I wasn’t talking about Christians in the first place, I was talking about pro-lifers. They are not the same thing. Christian doctrine was irrelevant to my point and I shouldn’t have let myself get sidetracked by it. The hypocrisy I was talking about was solely that which pertained to the inconsistency of claiming to care about babies only until the second they’re born.
er… because males are not the recipients of such services? What analgous free services are males receiving?
Not the same thing. What’s wrong with saying that if you can’t support your baby, give it up for adoption, but don’t make me pay for it.
But he didn’t say don’t try to change the laws if you disagree with them. Which is all this person is doing here. He’s not saying not to pay taxes, he just wants to change what the taxes are used for.
You problem is that define “give a shit” too narrowly. As I said, if you can’t support your kid, you need to consider adoption. Why must we assume that the best option is for the kid to stay with the mother and be supported by the state? Of course the best strategy is to not have the kid in the first place.
…Good point. :smack: Sorry about that, clearly I wasn’t thinking.
Alright, I’d accept that a strict libertarian could hold such views without them being misogynistic. So, are the Wisconsin senators strict libertarians?
Was there anyone in his sphere of influence who favored abortion? There would have been no reason to bring it up. Jesus, like the constitution, is silent on the matter of abortion. His talk of charity was always in terms of what the individual should do, not what the state should do.
Standing at the Pearly Gates, when God asks you how you helped the poor, do you think it’s acceptable to say “I never gave to charity, but I always paid my taxes”? 
“Why was this oil not sold for three hundred days’ wages and given to the poor?”
So Jesus said, “Leave her alone. Let her keep this for the day of my burial. You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.”
Doubtful indeed.
Of course, I was making the point that there are potentially reasons to support this that do not involve invidious suppression of women… not that any given supporter has any particular viewpoint.
Nonsense. You can support laws against murder, but not favor public charity of any kind. Again looking at the libetarian world, you can be guided by the principle of non-coercion: prohibit only the initiation of force against an unwilling recipient, and nothing else. If someone starves on his own, that’s no business of the government; if he’s killed by another, that is an initiation of force.
Well, yes, there are. But the problem is that people here are suggesting that the senators involved wanted to “insidiously suppress women”, or similar. You’ve made the point that a group of people might have reasons other than this - and it’s a good point - but that doesn’t have any bearing on either this situation nor the suggestion of others in this thread that these senators might hold those views.
Okeedokee then. Next time I have the choice between providing conveniences for the Only Son of the Living God of Abraham and giving everything to the poor, I’ll make sure to choose the former.
However, while the Magdalene had that choice to make, I’m unlikely to face it any time soon.
Yanno Rick, all this squabbling could have been avoided had you chosen not to bait the libbies to begin with.
Just sayin’ is all.
So is it your view or are you just stating your hypothetical strict libertarian position?
Jim
I see.
What evidence, precisely, was adduced for the claim that these senators hold such misogynistic views, then?