Whatever you may think of Rand Paul...

[Tiberius]

If a woman wants an abortion merely for birth control reasons, she should be rejected. She should be forced to carry the unwanted baby to term.

This is NOT enforcing morality through government in your mind.

Every decision taken by government on social matters is at some level enforcing morality, and even this situation doesn't sit well with me. I don't want the government to be enforcing morality, but at the same time I understand that if we didn't have this to some degree, society wouldn't function. Abortion is a complicated case, because it involves the lives of two beings (I think we can both agree on that). What bothers me with abortion is where you'd draw the line, and I think I showed how indefensible your position gets when you say that line is at birth. To myself, and the rest of the medical community, there is little difference between a baby who has just been born, and a baby who is due to be born in 2 weeks. Abortion ultimately boils down to what makes us human, because we oppose the killing of humans, but not many other things. It is a double standard to oppose the killing of humans but also support abortions where the mother can abort her pregnancy any time before birth.

I think since abortion is such a hot topic, it is easy to simply pick a side without thinking things through properly. I disagree with such actions; if anything, the hot topics are the ones where you must think the most, which is why I'm still not decided on where I stand on abortion. In some aspects, I agree with it, in others, I don't. Whatever I do, I can't reconcile abortion completely with what I regard as "logically moral", because at some point, someone loses out.

You support a business to choose wether they have "whites only" signs on their place of business because you dont want the govt legislating morality.

That means you support racism.

Not at all. It means I support freedom of expression; the freedom to express any idea, even if it is offensive. I say that Muslims should be free to build mosques wherever they can, but that doesn't mean I support Islam; on the contrary, I find Islam to be absurd and in some places downright evil. I hold the same view of most religions, and I find racism to be entirely evil. Part of being a libertarian is accepting that we have no right over other people's ideas.

because I will be plain and simple with you. If I saw a business with "whites only" on a sign in front of their door, you can bet your ass I will be destroying that sign and being VERY vocal about the owners being fascist fucknuggets while I do it.

That is up to you, but you would be arrested for destroying someone else's property, just as you would if you destroyed any sign. Being vocal about the owners is free speech, so I have no problem with that (in fact I encourage it).

Then i would get a group of all types and colors to enter the facility.

What then R? Will you support the government arresting me and my slightly darker colored friends? You would have to. In order for you to support the owners right to hang the sign, you would also have to support the government and police enforcing that sign owners wishes and property rights.

Now you are supporting the enforcement of racism through the government.

No, it would be the enforcement of property rights through government. It boils down to this: if you own / control a property, you have the last say on who gets to use this property. Shops today even do it; they have the ability to ban individuals from their premises for whatever reason they want. At the end of the day, you have no right to go onto their property if they don't like it. The government should ideally be blind to any social reasons behind such a ban, and instead focus on the violation of the law (i.e. trespassing). Of course, this means that black people are free to open up stores and put up "blacks only" signs or "non-racists only" signs, etc. As I said before, I doubt very many black people would want to go inside a store with a sign saying "whites only", unless as you pointed out they were there to cause trouble.

...and if a smal group of blacks keep trying to enter that "whites only" building...will you support the police breaking out the dogs and fire hoses to protect that racist owners wishes?

I doubt very much that would happen, but then it really depends on how violent the group of blacks is. Nobody should be above the law.

Did you NOT think the situation through to its logical conclusion... or did you think it through and decide to support it anyways?

I've thought about this issue many times, and whilst I would personally object to such stores or businesses, I accept that I have no right whatsoever to support freedom of expression and then say "Oh, but apart from you guys, because we all think your ideas are evil". Only a moral absolutist could be in support of such a statement, and I am a moral relativist.

Do humans have rights?

No, there are no inherent human rights. Can humans come together and agree to act civil with each other? Yes.

There are no inherent positive human rights, but I would argue that form a logical standpoint, there are inherent negative human rights.

Should unborn children have rights?

it depends on what the majority of people think..but ultimately the choice is, and always has been, the owner of the womb. If she wants an abortion, then she will get one REGARDLESS of what anyone else thinks. You are a logical minded person...you tell me if I am wrong on that.

I'm sure if she wants an abortion she will try to get one. This fact is irrelevant. What matters is whether she should be allowed to get one, or should be punished if she gets one against the law. As I've said before, this issue is complicated; it involves the conflicting rights of two humans. At some point, someone has to lose out. How do we decide who gets to make that decision? In your view, the mother gets the decision, but then you are effectively null and voiding the rights of the unborn child every time. I'm sorry if I'm the only one here who can say it, but that thought doesn't sit well with me. I don't have a solution; in my view, there isn't one.

Do business owners have the right to hang up racist signs?

No, there are no inherent human rights. Can people come together and enforce racism? Yes. Can people come together and revolt against racism? yes. Is it better that we discourage racism as a society? I believe so.

An inherent negative right would be that nobody has the right to interfere with what restrictions someone puts on their own property. I agree that we should discourage racism as a society, but I disagree that the discouragement should be in the form of limiting the freedom of expression of those you disagree with.

Your profile says: "Millitant Agnostic Atheist. Existential & Moral Nihilist "

How can you be a moral nihilist and support such idealistic concepts as "rights"? Do you not understand what "nihilism" means?

Moral Nihilism means there are no objective morals. I'm not arguing that there are objective morals. The concept of negative rights and nihilism are perfectly compatible.

NOW..this is where the nihilist and absurdist part paths. the nihilist will stay on "No" and will not budge. There are no rights for humans, never was, never were, and there is no sense in making stuff up. Reality is reality and we should face it.

THAT is what a nihilist would say.

That is what a nihilist would say about positive rights, and I agree.