Related Posts

‘You Are The Worst Human Being’

“True stud” Elliot Page and “heartthrob” Mae Martin reunite after both coming out

Will the Biden administration retract a Trump-era policy harming LGBTQ refugees?

20 Comments on “Libertarian Viewpoints on Immigration, Gay Marriage and Abortion”

  3. 7:28 So why did you create that being? You can't put me through your actions into your body and then destroy me. You can't stick my finger in your nose and then heck it off just because it is in your body.

  6. Best part about libertarianism – you can practice it no matter what everybody else does. Just go on and live your libertarian life as you please. Nobody else’s business should matter to you. Don’t like where you live? You’re a libertarian, move to the wilderness.

  9. 4:01 That guy just doesn’t get it. If you have open borders with a welfare state, it would make ppl not only sick of the welfare state, but sick of immigrants. Hence Trump’s election and the rise of Nationalism. Ppl would trust Govt and fully support Govt to take away civil liberties and build a wall insofar it means that immigration will be handled.

  12. Open boarders doesn't seem to have done Europe any favours recently, a lot more terrorism etc there than before they imported millions of people from the 3rd world.

  13. If a pregnant woman who planned to keep the child is murdered, is it double homocide? If so, then does the mother’s wanting to keep the child define whether they have the right to life? How is that reasonable, for right to life, in this case, to be defined on a case-by-case basis by one of those conspiring to do the deed? We would never in any other case suggest that a person who plans to have another’s right to life taken away, determine whether or not that individual being has a right to life to begin with. Shouldn’t the One who grants human rights determine the definitions that they fall under? And if we don’t necessarily know what that means (or can’t specify it as part of a government action – even though the basis is the Constitution which does recognize these as innate rights granted by a Higher Power of some kind), shouldn’t we err on the side of caution, if nothing else?

    You can’t merely say it’s a woman’s right to liberty, because the child is not actively and knowingly taking away any of the mother’s rights. The mother has to seek to abort the child, actively and consciously taking away those rights. There is no more sacred a right than that of the right to life, and there is no more sacred a U.S. Citizen than one that has their whole life ahead of them!

    And what of the father’s reproductive rights? Does he get to force a woman to abort her child because he doesn’t want it, or vice versa? That being is half his, and wouldn’t exist if not for him. If he wants the child, with or without the mother, does she have the right to abort it – taking away any right he had to reproduce now? Sure, he doesn’t have to carry the child, but if the basis is a vague claim to reproductive rights – then whose reproductive rights are prioritized and how do you determine that in any given case? Granted, sure, people have reproductive rights. I don’t doubt that at all. But those rights are vague, undefined, and not specified in the Constitution, whereas right to life is clear, specific, and key to the foundation of our system of government. If right to life is not sacred, then no right is sacred. If no right is sacred, then Western society is a farce and worth tearing down to build your Marxist utopia, which will be anything but!

  17. Open boarders? Boy this video aged terribly for the people advocating that. Look at Europe they are on the brink of collapse because of their open border policy to Islamic country. Our ideologies are completely different.

Comments are closed.