Atlasian Civil Liberties Caucus (ACLC)

[Speed of Sound]

it looks good. i like it.

[Jake]

Where is the right to go topless is the Constitution?

[Q]

Where is the right to go topless is the Constitution?

Ben Franklin was irate when they denied him this request.

[Max Power]

Looks good, Q! I only think that the Caucas should support same-sex marriage, not civil unions. The age limit for marrying should be 17, I believe, and no to polygamy and incest.

[Jake]

Where is the right to go topless is the Constitution?

Ben Franklin was irate when they denied him this request.

LOL

[Q]

Looks good, Q! I only think that the Caucas should support same-sex marriage, not civil unions. The age limit for marrying should be 17, I believe, and no to polygamy and incest.

Thanks, Casey.

I think several members argued for civil unions for all, and marriages as an optional service that may be undertaken at the couple's discretion and has no legal consequence.  Inter- and intra-gender couples would be treated the same way under the law.

Unions limited to only 2 people - I'll include that in the next draft.

Caucus members: minimum age for union set at 17?  What do you all think?

Regarding incest: what relation is prohibited, both for sexual contact as well as civil unions?

[Max Power]

If we said that sexual incest was banned, even as disgusting as it is, it would be contradictory to the Sexual Freedoms section of the platform.

[Ebowed]

Here's my opinion the marriage issue:

- Get the government out of marriage and give civil unions for straight and gay couples, but no incestuous couples;
- No polygamy, bigamy, or other weird sh**t;
- Age limit?  What do you mean by this?  You should be at least 16 to get married, but there needs to be some limits because I don't think 70 year olds marrying 20 year olds should be legal.  Maybe an age difference limit of 20 - 30 years.

Banning polygamy and bigamy, while not a traditionally socially liberarian position, is necessary for the well being of society.  The kind of stuff that goes on in Mormon fundamentalist polygynist socities definitely should not be legal.

Also, I don't like the contraceptives/abortion plank.  We seem to have taken the pro choice position but we could also easily take the pro life position by saying we believe that fetuses should have human rights and the right to life and liberty.  Since the caucus likely would not come to an agreement on the issue, I understand we won't have a pro life plank, but the current plank, which favors 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions, is just not acceptable.

[Emsworth]

- Age limit?  What do you mean by this?  You should be at least 16 to get married, but there needs to be some limits because I don't think 70 year olds marrying 20 year olds should be legal.  Maybe an age difference limit of 20 - 30 years?

I don't think that there is any rational basis on which the government can presume to deny the right to marry simply because of an age difference. Although this is fine as a personal view, I would not favor including such a position in the platform.

Eighteen years is an acceptable minimum age; up to sixteen, I think, is also fine with parental consent.

[Max Power]

I don't think 70 year olds marrying 20 year olds should be legal.  Maybe an age difference limit of 20 - 30 years?

No. That's the opposite of Civil Liberties. So if you're saying that if a 70-year-old falls in love with a 25 year old, and they truly love each other, the government should say no? And that contradicts your first point.

[Ebowed]

- Age limit?  What do you mean by this?  You should be at least 16 to get married, but there needs to be some limits because I don't think 70 year olds marrying 20 year olds should be legal.  Maybe an age difference limit of 20 - 30 years?

I don't think that there is any rational basis on which the government can presume to deny the right to marry simply because of an age difference. Although this is fine as a personal view, I would not favor including such a position in the platform.

Well, OK, but I'm still wary of the idea.  However I don't think any age difference limits need to be included in the platform, except for specifying an age at which one can marry.

[Emsworth]

Banning polygamy and bigamy, while not a traditionally socially liberarian position, is necessary for the well being of society.  The kind of stuff that goes on in Mormon fundamentalist polygynist socities definitely should not be legal.

It would, I think, be best not to take a position on the issue in the platform.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The position, I think, should be based on the notion that a fetus is not a person. The amount of legal precedent favoring such a view is much more than some might imagine. Once the fetus is defined not to have the right to life, I should say that the Caucus cannot reasonably oppose abortion at any stage.

[Ebowed]

I don't think 70 year olds marrying 20 year olds should be legal.  Maybe an age difference limit of 20 - 30 years?

No. That's the opposite of Civil Liberties. So if you're saying that if a 70-year-old falls in love with a 25 year old, and they truly love each other, the government should say no? And that contradicts your first point.

I see little difference between that and the love between a 9 year old and 30 year old.  However, since it is consenting adults, I just think they're out of their mind, rather than classifying it as pedophilia.  As I said, it's not as important an issue as banning incest or what have you.  If a brother and sister love each other, should they marry?

[Ebowed]

The position, I think, should be based on the notion that a fetus is not a person. The amount of legal precedent favoring such a view is much more than some might imagine. Once the fetus is defined not to have the right to life, I should say that the Caucus cannot reasonably oppose abortion at any stage.

We can't just base our positions on legal precedent, as we are aiming to fight against socially oppressive laws that restrict our freedom.  If a baby born prematurely at 27 weeks in the womb is able to live without threat of euthanasia, I don't see why a fetus in the womb at 38 weeks can't live without the threat of abortion.

[Max Power]

The position, I think, should be based on the notion that a fetus is not a person. The amount of legal precedent favoring such a view is much more than some might imagine. Once the fetus is defined not to have the right to life, I should say that the Caucus cannot reasonably oppose abortion at any stage.

We can't just base our positions on legal precedent, as we are aiming to fight against socially oppressive laws that restrict our freedom.  If a baby born prematurely at 27 weeks in the womb is able to live without threat of euthanasia, I don't see why a fetus in the womb at 38 weeks can't live without the threat of abortion.

Are you joking?

[Jake]

Are you? You're supporting a plan that would support partial birth abortions and abortions for fetuses that are fully formed and able to live autonomously outside the womb.

[Max Power]

Are you? You're supporting a plan that would support partial birth abortions and abortions for fetuses that are fully formed and able to live autonomously outside the womb.

If you put it that way, no, I don't. But if the woman wants one, $he gets one, regardless if you disagree. I believe we should promote adoption at that point, but it's up to Q.

[Jake]

Then your position is it should be legal because the woman wants it?

[Max Power]

Then your position is it should be legal because the woman wants it?

Did you read my post? Yes, but like I said, we should tell her that an adoption may be a better idea.

[Jake]

She probably won't care if she's willing to kill her child after 8 months.

[Ebowed]

The position, I think, should be based on the notion that a fetus is not a person. The amount of legal precedent favoring such a view is much more than some might imagine. Once the fetus is defined not to have the right to life, I should say that the Caucus cannot reasonably oppose abortion at any stage.

We can't just base our positions on legal precedent, as we are aiming to fight against socially oppressive laws that restrict our freedom.  If a baby born prematurely at 27 weeks in the womb is able to live without threat of euthanasia, I don't see why a fetus in the womb at 38 weeks can't live without the threat of abortion.

Are you joking?

Did anything in my post sound sarcastic, far fetched, or exaggerated at all?  No...

[Brandon H]

The position, I think, should be based on the notion that a fetus is not a person. The amount of legal precedent favoring such a view is much more than some might imagine. Once the fetus is defined not to have the right to life, I should say that the Caucus cannot reasonably oppose abortion at any stage.

We can't just base our positions on legal precedent, as we are aiming to fight against socially oppressive laws that restrict our freedom.  If a baby born prematurely at 27 weeks in the womb is able to live without threat of euthanasia, I don't see why a fetus in the womb at 38 weeks can't live without the threat of abortion.

While the Atlas Liberty Caucus has not written a platform yet, the real-life Liberty Caucus is neutral on abortion, which is what I believe our platfrom should be. You could consider joining the ALC.

(You mentioned if first.)

....or you could join the Atlasian Civil Liberties Caucus.

[Max Power]

She probably won't care if she's willing to kill her child after 8 months.

It's not a child, it's a fetus. But I won't get into that. It's probably too confusing for you.

[Q]

but it's up to Q.

No way!  It's up to the membership, and caucus leaders have only 1 vote each, same as every member .

We're going to have to try to reach an agreement or compromise on several issues, but if we can't, then I see no reason why we have to include points of contention.

For example, if it winds up being that we declare our support for the right of a woman to have an abortion during the first trimester, but make no mention of our stance on abortions after that, I don't see why that would be a huge problem.

And I think we should declare support for adoption as well, but that's just my opinion.

[Jake]

She probably won't care if she's willing to kill her child after 8 months.

It's not a child, it's a fetus. But I won't get into that. It's probably too confusing for you.

Which means you have no answer. Nice