Collins, Murkowski: We Sunk Skinny Repeal to Protect Planned Parenthood

[Hoodat]

He went quiet.  His friends need to tell him what talking points to bring back from the hive.

That makes perfect sense.  He keeps bringing up the same false premises every single time while completely ignoring the right of the people to choose their own laws.  There is no way to work around it.  Jazz supports tyranny.

[Hoodat]

@Jazzhead
The state imposes ALL kinds of beliefs which have a religious foundation.   Things like murder, theft, slander, adhereing to the states laws and more.

And how do those laws get enacted?  Through the will of the people.  The people elect legislators who do their bidding in creating those laws.  But Jazz doesn't believe in that.  Jazz believes that the will of the people should be denied while his own personal will is imposed upon them.

Ironic, isn't it?  The only one here embracing the tyranny of imposing his beliefs on others is Jazz.

[INVAR]

I sure would like to see someone try to answer this question.

At some point genetic material shared between a man and a woman becomes an individual human life.  When exactly is that?  And is that a question for science or religion?  I don't know.  I have my opinion, but I don't know.  What I do know is that the answer is not variable on a case-by-case basis depending upon what is "convenient" for the "mother"/

It has been said that the Civil War was God's Judgment on this nation for the institution of Slavery while using God's Name to proclaim liberty for all men.  620,000 or roughly 2% of the entire population was killed in combat.    1.6 million total casualties including those that resulted in death from being maimed or as a result of disease directly related to the war.

In today's terms we are talking 6 million combat deaths alone.  Many more millions in addition to infection and disease.

Now if the Civil War was God's judgment for slavery in a nation of People that were called by His Name - what do you imagine The Almighty's Judgment is going to be upon this generation for the deaths of millions of infants, an entire generation of Americans in the womb?

I will quote Jefferson:

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?  That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?  Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!  The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest."

[Formerly Once-Ler]

I can see you still define liberty by the taking of an innocent's life.

-1

[Formerly Once-Ler]

You want the state to impose your religious beliefs on others.   Sorry, that's not how things work in this country.

I have been enjoying your thoughtful posts, Jazz, very much through this thread.  I take you at your word when you say "I consider abortion to be morally wrong," and I feel your empathy for women faced with tough choices. 

[HonestJohn]

@Jazzhead
The state imposes ALL kinds of beliefs which have a religious foundation.   Things like murder, theft, slander, adhereing to the states laws and more. Why don't you have issue with all of those equally?

None of those laws were enacted due to religious foundations.  There were enacted so that there could be a functioning society.

[txradioguy]

I have been enjoying your thoughtful posts, Jazz, very much through this thread.  I take you at your word when you say "I consider abortion to be morally wrong," and I feel your empathy for women faced with tough choices.

-1

[IsailedawayfromFR]

What lie?   I was responding to driftdiver's absurd suggestion that the abortion of a  nonviable fetus be treated under the law just as the murder of a three-year old.  ("Treat that life like any other life").

Folks like you and driftdiver toss around words like murder until they lose all meaning.   The penalty for murder is jail.  So jail time for a mother who aborts a first trimester fetus it is?    You're the one wearing the consequences of that absurdity,  not me. 

The state has absolutely no business restricting a woman's liberty regarding what she chooses to do with a nonviable fetus.   The fetus cannot survive without her.  It is her body, her liberty.  Once the fetus is viable, then the state may have some interest in protecting it, but certainly not before.  A non-viable fetus has absolutely no legal rights vis a vis its mother.   

You insist that the state enforce at the point of a gun your religious values.   Sorry, not under the Constitution.  You're going to have to rely on your own powers of persuasion.

Logic is obviously not your strong suit.

You claim jailing 55 million people who abort will save those babies from abortion.

Please explain how that can happen.  Are the babies resurrected somehow after their brains are sucked out or do you have some magic wand that can predict who will be aborting and jail them prior to that action?  Or could it just be the lie I said it was?

[driftdiver]

None of those laws were enacted due to religious foundations.  There were enacted so that there could be a functioning society.

@HonestJohn

American laws were originally based on English Common Law.  Common law was in part derived from Christian principles.  Regardless they are the same.   Thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness.

So if your argument is that being against abortion is trying to impose my religious beliefs on you then so are these other laws.  Why don't you take issue with those laws?   Where's the Roe V Wade for slander?

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Logic is obviously not your strong suit.

You claim jailing 55 million people who abort will save those babies from abortion.

Please explain how that can happen.  Are the babies resurrected somehow after their brains are sucked out or do you have some magic wand that can predict who will be aborting and jail them prior to that action?  Or could it just be the lie I said it was?

Actually, if you want to address bad "logic":

Someone said there were 55 million abortions in the US, to which J responds with a comment about putting 55 million mothers in prison.

As if each abortion is committed by exactly one unique woman.

As if, if we did punish mothers (and he does use the word mothers) for killing their children, it would have no effect on the number of murders.

[driftdiver]

And how do those laws get enacted?  Through the will of the people.  The people elect legislators who do their bidding in creating those laws.  But Jazz doesn't believe in that.  Jazz believes that the will of the people should be denied while his own personal will is imposed upon them.

Ironic, isn't it?  The only one here embracing the tyranny of imposing his beliefs on others is Jazz.

@Hoodat
What I've never understood is abortion is the single instance where government intrusion isn't warranted according to leftists.  In every other part of our lives the leftists believe government control IS the answer.

I had one woman justify her stance on abortion by telling me "there are too many people in the world anyway".

[Suppressed]

Those two either need to announce they are switching parties or their respective states need to primary them OUT of their current political office.

Considering how they usually vote with the GOP, why would you want to give that to the Dems?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@Hoodat
What I've never understood is abortion is the single instance where government intrusion isn't warranted according to leftists.  In every other part of our lives the leftists believe government control IS the answer.

I had one woman justify her stance on abortion by telling me "there are too many people in the world anyway".

In the words of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood

The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.

[HonestJohn]

@HonestJohn

American laws were originally based on English Common Law.  Common law was in part derived from Christian principles.  Regardless they are the same.   Thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness.

So if your argument is that being against abortion is trying to impose my religious beliefs on you then so are these other laws.  Why don't you take issue with those laws?   Where's the Roe V Wade for slander?

You never mentioned America in your OP.  Just the hypothetical "State".

Nations institute laws to ensure their society can thrive and prosper.  Murder, theft, etc... hinders a functional society, hence they are illegal.

Ancient/modern China is a good example of a state forbidding such acts, not due to religion, but due to the needs of society.  Their laws are heavily influencd by Confucian thought, which is just a philosophy on the proper functioning of society and governance.

[EC]

Enormous joy and an incredible source of worry.

The sum totality of having kids, in 8 words. 

[truth_seeker]

@HonestJohn

American laws were originally based on English Common Law.  Common law was in part derived from Christian principles.  Regardless they are the same.   Thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness.

And before common law, aspects of governance included the Magna Carta, the Nordic "Thing" (town meeting, legislature) and other writings on morality, rule of law, etc.

IOW civil laws which agree with religious views, merely strengthens both.

Take a different subject, sex with minors. Religious views, and civil laws both oppose it.

Claiming the rule is because of or derived from religion, does not lessen the validity of it.

[txradioguy]

Considering how they usually vote with the GOP, why would you want to give that to the Dems?

@Suppressed

Considering how the GOP helped Obama get most of his agenda passed over the last 8 years...how would we know the difference of party in those seats?

[Cyber Liberty]

Considering how they usually vote with the GOP, why would you want to give that to the Dems?

Something I've been saying, related to that, for years:  When the chips are down, and you need his precious vote the most, is the exact moment John McCain will stick a knife in your back.  With friends like that, we have relatively little need for enemies.  No point in keeping the votes from the Dems, the occupants called GOP will do the same thing, with the same results as regular Dems.  The primary difference is our Primaries will always be open to new blood, unlike now.

[roamer_1]

Wrt religion vs. civil law, the argument is absurd.
At our establishment we had no precedence to base law upon.

Our forefathers used, as that precedence, the Holy Bible in the Protestant form, and Blackstone's Law (English Common Law). Those two remained, and continued to be our oldest and most powerful precedence in law until the liberals overturned them both, by a particular bias against Christianity in law, in the late 1960's and forward.

To suggest that the Judeo-Christian ethic does not belong in our government, and as the law itself, is simply a liberal fallacy.

[Hoodat]

@Hoodat
What I've never understood is abortion is the single instance where government intrusion isn't warranted according to leftists.

@driftdiver

Au contraire, mon frere.  Leftists welcome the intrusion of government in the form of tyrants wearing black robes who show their contempt for the Constitution while enforcing their leftist beliefs on the rest of us - the other branches of government be damned.  They embrace the power of any court that will enact their leftist vision on the population at large without regard to the will of the people.  Government intrusion?  They wholly depend upon through control of the judiciary.

I had one woman justify her stance on abortion by telling me "there are too many people in the world anyway".

She is welcome to exit any time.

[Hoodat]

And before common law, aspects of governance included the Magna Carta, the Nordic "Thing" (town meeting, legislature) and other writings on morality, rule of law, etc.

IOW civil laws which agree with religious views, merely strengthens both.

Take a different subject, sex with minors. Religious views, and civil laws both oppose it.

Claiming the rule is because of or derived from religion, does not lessen the validity of it.

The point here is that the people get to choose their own laws regardless of the basis.

If Wyoming wants to outlaw cattle rustling, they should be allowed to do so without regard to whether that decision is religion-based.
If Oregon wants to set up their own state-run health insurance program, they should be allowed to regardless of basis.
If Vermont wants to allow same-sex marriage, then they should be allowed to do so.
And if California wants to define marrage as between one man and one woman, they likewise should be allowed to do so without regard of whether that decision is religion-based.

Liberals on the other hand don't believe any of this.  They believe that states should only be allowed to do what they want them to do.  And if they choose to do otherwise, then the power of the courts should be used against them to force them to adopt laws contrary to their own will, but fully in line with what liberals want. 

In short, liberals are tyrants who have no qualms about using the point of a government gun to get what they want.

Sure, they issue emotional arguments of why things must be that way or why you are some religious neanderthal bigot for holding a view contrary to theirs.  But when the question comes down to who gets to decide what the law is, they always grow silent knowing that they alone should be the ones to call the shots.

[Emjay]

-1

I respect him also but I'm abandoning this argument.  I've said all that I can say on this subject.

I would like to add one thing that will probably bring abuse on me from the righteous.

I've tried to talk people out of fighting other social issues that don't really affect us.  I'm talking about homosexuality, gay marriage, people wanting add or subtract body parts and so on.

It makes us seem like nannies and it is not a true societal problem.  Abortion is a true problem and is the one social issue that I'll go to the wall on.  But I'm not after misguided women who are encouraged by Hollywood or whatever.  I'm after the abortion mills and the utterly egregious funding of Planned Parenthood.

[Hoodat]

I've tried to talk people out of fighting other social issues that don't really affect us.  I'm talking about homosexuality, gay marriage, people wanting add or subtract body parts and so on.

There is really no point in having these arguments when the right to decide these issues has been usurped by the tyranny of a few black-robed liberals.

I'm after the abortion mills and the utterly egregious funding of Planned Parenthood.

I'm with you there.  Sadly, the ones here who believe abortion-on-demand to be a constitutional right (in spite of what the Constitution actually says) are also the ones who advocate subsidizing abortion providers with federal tax dollars taken at the point of a gun.  All in the name of freedom, of course.

[bilo]

Wrt religion vs. civil law, the argument is absurd.
At our establishment we had no precedence to base law upon.

Our forefathers used, as that precedence, the Holy Bible in the Protestant form, and Blackstone's Law (English Common Law). Those two remained, and continued to be our oldest and most powerful precedence in law until the liberals overturned them both, by a particular bias against Christianity in law, in the late 1960's and forward.

To suggest that the Judeo-Christian ethic does not belong in our government, and as the law itself, is simply a liberal fallacy.

Thank you for some sanity.

[Smokin Joe]

Makes sense to me - it is the woman's liberty at issue.

Only if you consider "Liberty" to be a license to kill.