The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: Machiavelli on August 07, 2017, 10:55:08 pm
-
Cortney O'Brien
Townhall
August 7, 2017
Two of the senators who singlehandedly derailed the skinny repeal of Obamacare were awarded a sit down interview with the admiring Dana Bash Friday on CNN. The bright faced journalist applauded Sens. Susan Collins (ME) and Lisa Murkowski (AK) for having the “cajones” to vote against the Republican bill when they knew half the country would view them as heretics.
Collins admitted it was an “uncomfortable” vote. But, they both insisted it was the right thing to do, which is why they did not fear backlash from GOP leadership, or even intimidating tweets from the Oval Office.
Both women said they were voting for their constituents, not the Republican Party...
Part of standing up for their states, the senators argued, was protecting Planned Parenthood funding...
Full article (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2017/08/07/collins-murkowski-explain-they-sunk-skinny-repeal-to-protect-planned-parenthood-n2365581)
-
Cortney O'Brien
Townhall
August 7, 2017
Full article (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2017/08/07/collins-murkowski-explain-they-sunk-skinny-repeal-to-protect-planned-parenthood-n2365581)
Thanks for the link to the full article. These two women do not deserve to be in the government at all and certainly not as Republicans.
-
Pub Senators protect an organization that uses tax dollars to campaign against Pubs. *****rollingeyes*****
I have no doubt these liars will bask in the adulation from the left. My response is unless it's a real conservative good riddance to all of them.
-
Thanks for the link to the full article. These two women do not deserve to be in the government at all and certainly not as Republicans.
Why don't they just switch over to the rest of the baby killers..the Dems.
-
Why don't they just switch over to the rest of the baby killers..the Dems.
But how would murk get elected if she didn't run as a republican?
-
But how would murk get elected if she didn't run as a republican?
Write-ins.
-
But how would murk get elected if she didn't run as a republican?
How does she get elected now...don't the folks in Ak look at her voting record?
-
But how would murk get elected if she didn't run as a republican?
She defeated the Republican as a write in if my memory serves me. Yep memory still good. Checked it before posting.
-
Why don't they just switch over to the rest of the baby killers..the Dems.
What difference would that have made?
-
What difference would that have made?
Makes no difference..just saying she ought to proclaim herself a Dem...Dems flaunt their pro-abortion stance..it is the party of abortion.
-
How does she get elected now...don't the folks in Ak look at her voting record?
She lost the Rep primary, then won the general running as in Independent. And then the Reps took her back.?.
-
At the risk of sounding sexist, seems that if one elects a woman to power in DC, it will have an overwhelmingly chance of meaning she is supporting abortion.
How many of the current women US Senators are pro-life vs pro-abortion?
Only pro-life I can see is Joni Ernst and Deb Fischer
That means that only two of the 21 women Senators are pro-life. In other words, right now less than 10% of the women Senators.
Draw your own conclusions from these facts.
U.S. Senate - 21 (16D, 5R)
AK U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R)
CA U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D)
CA U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris (D)
HI U.S. Sen. Mazie Hirono (D)
IA U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst (R)
IL U.S. Sen. L. Tammy Duckworth (D)
MA U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D)
ME U.S. Sen. Susan Collins (R)
MI U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D)
MN U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D)
MO U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D)
ND U.S. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D)
NE U.S. Sen. Deb Fischer (R)
NH U.S. Sen. Maggie Hassan (D)
NH U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D)
NV U.S. Sen. Catherine Cortez-Masto (D)
NY U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D)
WA U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D)
WA U.S. Sen. Patty Murray (D)
WI U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D)
WV U.S. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R)
-
Why was the decision made to muddy a health care reform bill with language defunding Planned Parenthood? Especially when every last vote was needed?
Whatever the merits of defunding Planned Parenthood, given this interview the decision to include it in the reform bill amounts to political malpractice.
Congratulations, conservatives - the ACA remains the law of the land, and PP remains funded.
-
At the risk of sounding sexist, seems that if one elects a woman to power in DC, it will have an overwhelmingly chance of meaning she is supporting abortion.
Makes sense to me - it is the woman's liberty at issue.
-
Makes sense to me - it is the woman's liberty at issue.
I can see you still define liberty by the taking of an innocent's life.
-
I can see you still define liberty by the taking of an innocent's life.
It's not that simple. No question about it - like you, I consider abortion to be morally wrong. The issue is what role the State should play in forcing women to conform to religious norms. Lots of things that are morally wrong aren't proscribed by the State. The uncomfortable reality is that a woman has to go through nine months of profound physical changes and pain. It is a decision that she has to make for herself - with the help of her partner, family, spiritual adviser and God. It cannot be forced upon her by the government. THAT is the liberty she possesses - she needs to be free to make that decision based on her own values and conscience - not the religious diktat of the State.
-
It's not that simple. No question about it - like you, I consider abortion to be morally wrong. The issue is what role the State should play in forcing women to conform to religious norms. Lots of things that are morally wrong aren't proscribed by the State. The uncomfortable reality is that a woman has to go through nine months of profound physical changes and pain. It is a decision that she has to make for herself - with the help of her partner, family, spiritual adviser and God. It cannot be forced upon her by the government. THAT is the liberty she possesses - she needs to be free to make that decision based on her own values and conscience - not the religious diktat of the State.
That is not justification to take the life of an innocent.
-
It's not that simple. No question about it - like you, I consider abortion to be morally wrong. The issue is what role the State should play in forcing women to conform to religious norms.
Is prohibiting murder a "religious norm"?
-
It's not that simple.
Yes it is
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
-
Why was the decision made to muddy a health care reform bill with language defunding Planned Parenthood? Especially when every last vote was needed?
Why was the decision made that these two Senators were going to put funding for one specific organization (forget for a moment PP's very bad reputation) as their reason? The specifics of PP's actual work aside, this reeks of cronyism.
-
Is prohibiting murder a "religious norm"?
It's not murder, not when the fetus isn't yet viable. I understand your perspective - according to your religion, the fetus has a soul at conception. But we're talking about the police power of the state here. We are not a theocracy.
Preach what you believe. Millions of folks share your view. But it is still a decision that must be made by the woman alone.
-
Yes it is
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Those noble sentiments can be equally applied to justify a woman's fundamental right of self-determination.
-
Why was the decision made that these two Senators were going to put funding for one specific organization (forget for a moment PP's very bad reputation) as their reason? The specifics of PP's actual work aside, this reeks of cronyism.
Cronyism it may be, but the defunding of PP should have never been in the bill in the first place.
-
It is a decision that she has to make for herself - with the help of her partner, family, spiritual adviser and God. It cannot be forced upon her by the government. THAT is the liberty she possesses - she needs to be free to make that decision based on her own values and conscience - not the religious diktat of the State.
I'm assuming you are defending that "right" regardless of whether or not the woman was raped. If so:
She did make a choice -- to have sex without ensuring that she couldn't become pregnant. Lots of decisions we make come with potential consequences with which we are stuck if they happen to come about. She's not being forced to bear a baby by anyone other than Mother Nature.
2) The uncomfortable reality is that a woman has to go through nine months of profound physical changes and pain.
Big deal. So do most people who join the military, even if they subsequently regret it. Suck it up. The consequences of some of the decisions we make cannot be retracted after the fact.
The problem with the absolutist position you are taking regarding "choice" is that it has no logical limits. Why not abortion at 7 months? Or 8? Or right before it is born. Frankly, why should any adult have any legal obligation, at all, to a child after birth. Those of us with kids know that the easiest part is before they're born.
Those noble sentiments can be equally applied to justify a woman's fundamental right of self-determination.
What exactly does "fundamental right of self-determination" mean - other than with respect to abortion?
Women don't have the legal right to commit suicide, nor do they have a right to grow and ingest whatever drugs they'd like, even if it affects nobody other than themselves. Neither do men, for that matter. Those things are just as much "personal autonomy" or "self-determination" as anything else. Even more so, I'd argue, since they don't directly affect anyone other than themselves. So this rather grandiose sounding "fundamental right of self-determination" sounds like something invented simply for abortion.
-
It's not murder, not when the fetus isn't yet viable. I understand your perspective - according to your religion, the fetus has a soul at conception. But we're talking about the police power of the state here. We are not a theocracy.
Preach what you believe. Millions of folks share your view. But it is still a decision that must be made by the woman alone.
It has nothing to do with religion. When is that magic moment when a fetus becomes viable? Can you identify it?
-
https://morningconsult.com/2015/11/24/bernie-sanders-is-the-most-popular-senator-in-america/
November 24, 2015
Sen. Susan Collins is the most popular Republican in the Senate; 78 percent of the 654 registered Maine voters interviewed said they approve of her job performance, while just 16 percent disapprove. Maine voters give Sen. Angus King (I) a 65 percent approval rating.
She is up for re-election in 2020
Murkowski wins even when the right defeats her in the GOP primary.
What a party.
-
It has nothing to do with religion. When is that magic moment when a fetus becomes viable? Can you identify it?
It's after the first trimester. During at least the first trimester a woman should have an unfettered right to choose abortion. I'm not saying she should exercise that right. If she were my daughter, I'd sure urge her to do the right thing. But the State's diktat cannot deprive her of her right to determine her future for herself.
-
I'm assuming you are defending that "right" regardless of whether or not the woman was raped. If so:
She did make a choice -- to have sex without ensuring that she couldn't become pregnant. Lots of decisions we make come with potential consequences with which we are stuck if they happen to come about. She's not being forced to bear a baby by anyone other than Mother Nature.
You're making a moral argument. If it were my daughter I'd be making that same moral argument. If she's a person of faith, her pastor may be making that same moral argument.
But the State? NO.
-
It's after the first trimester. During at least the first trimester a woman should have an unfettered right to choose abortion. I'm not saying she should exercise that right. If she were my daughter, I'd sure urge her to do the right thing. But the State's diktat cannot deprive her of her right to determine her future for herself.
Nice libertarian view. Maybe the state shouldn't make it illegal to rob banks if you really, really need the money.
Actually, I've been pregnant and my 'fetus' that I chose to call 'Sandra' was viable immediately. She made herself known to me before she was a blip on a sonogram. She existed as a person because I knew her in my mind and heart.
I would never have murdered her.
-
Nice libertarian view. Maybe the state shouldn't make it illegal to rob banks if you really, really need the money.
Actually, I've been pregnant and my 'fetus' that I chose to call 'Sandra' was viable immediately. She made herself known to me before she was a blip on a sonogram. She existed as a person because I knew her in my mind and heart.
I would never have murdered her.
I commend you, Emjay. I'm sure your daughter has been a source of great joy to you.
-
It has nothing to do with religion. When is that magic moment when a fetus becomes viable? Can you identify it?
My view is that the viability point is when medical science can successfully save the child and incubate it to term.
As time passes, this point gets earlier and earlier during pregnancy.
When artificial wombs are developed, this whole issue will likely become moot.
-
https://morningconsult.com/2015/11/24/bernie-sanders-is-the-most-popular-senator-in-america/
November 24, 2015
She is up for re-election in 2020
Murkowski wins even when the right defeats her in the GOP primary.
What a party.
It shows a party whose primary voters are so far out of step with the rest of the Alaskan voting population that a write-in can win over against their choice... and a Democrat.
-
Nice libertarian view. Maybe the state shouldn't make it illegal to rob banks if you really, really need the money.
Actually, I've been pregnant and my 'fetus' that I chose to call 'Sandra' was viable immediately. She made herself known to me before she was a blip on a sonogram. She existed as a person because I knew her in my mind and heart.
I would never have murdered her.
You do realize that courts tend to let 'criminals' go with very light sentences (if at all) when the crime is committed due to necessity.
Such as a starving man stealing a loaf of bread.
-
I commend you, Emjay. I'm sure your daughter has been a source of great joy to you.
Enormous joy and an incredible source of worry. I still see her every day.
-
It's not that simple. No question about it - like you, I consider abortion to be morally wrong. The issue is what role the State should play in forcing women to conform to religious norms. Lots of things that are morally wrong aren't proscribed by the State. The uncomfortable reality is that a woman has to go through nine months of profound physical changes and pain. It is a decision that she has to make for herself - with the help of her partner, family, spiritual adviser and God. It cannot be forced upon her by the government. THAT is the liberty she possesses - she needs to be free to make that decision based on her own values and conscience - not the religious diktat of the State.
Why are you defending the forcible ending of a life? I know you are a good person.
Murder is an issue for the state... absolutely. So whether the victim is in the womb or out of it, you cannot justify making it only a moral issue and not a legal issue... because it is both.
-
It's not that simple. No question about it - like you, I consider abortion to be morally wrong. The issue is what role the State should play in forcing women to conform to religious norms. Lots of things that are morally wrong aren't proscribed by the State. The uncomfortable reality is that a woman has to go through nine months of profound physical changes and pain. It is a decision that she has to make for herself - with the help of her partner, family, spiritual adviser and God. It cannot be forced upon her by the government. THAT is the liberty she possesses - she needs to be free to make that decision based on her own values and conscience - not the religious diktat of the State.
'Conform to religious norms'? Killing a baby has nothing to do with 'religous norm'.
Yes, we do indeed have laws that protect people from killing other people in this country.
-
Why are you defending the forcible ending of a life? I know you are a good person.
Murder is an issue for the state... absolutely. So whether the victim is in the womb or out of it, you cannot justify making it only a moral issue and not a legal issue... because it is both.
I respect you, Emjay, so you deserve a serious response. I'll try.
I've never defended abortion. I've defended the right of a woman to decide for herself, whether and when to raise a family. Most women I know who've had abortions have gone on to have kids in later years, kids they loved, kids that wouldn't have existed if the woman had had a child years before, when she didn't have the support of a partner or the security of a career.
I don't know what God wants of us. I think He wants us to be decent, compassionate people. I think He wants us to be good parents. I think most of us are, even if some of us felt the pain of exercising that freedom the feminists insist is a woman's right.
I think the abortion issue polarizes this nation like no other. It is the root of the blue/red divide, the one issue that a Democrat can NEVER break ranks with, and precious few Republicans. It's the reason, well, that we seem to hate each other.
I think the victims of that polarization are the babies themselves. Reconciliation on this issue will save lives, because once the right is safe and legal, there can be consensus on the most important part - that it be rare. That it be rendered unnecessary. My position on abortion is predicated on the belief that reconciliation will ultimately save more lives than petitioning the state to impose its moral will on what is fundamentally a question of conscience, and of extraordinarily private concern.
The left wants to subsidize birth control, and the right wants to provide moral support. Once the choice right is not subject to criminalization, the two sides can unite on a strategy that can strengthen families. Moral war claims casualties. I think there's a better way.
-
I respect you, Emjay, so you deserve a serious response. I'll try.
I've never defended abortion. I've defended the right of a woman to decide for herself, whether and when to raise a family. Most women I know who've had abortions have gone on to have kids in later years, kids they loved, kids that wouldn't have existed if the woman had had a child years before, when she didn't have the support of a partner or the security of a career.
I don't know what God wants of us. I think He wants us to be decent, compassionate people. I think He wants us to be good parents. I think most of us are, even if some of us felt the pain of exercising that freedom the feminists insist is a woman's right.
I think the abortion issue polarizes this nation like no other. It is the root of the blue/red divide, the one issue that a Democrat can NEVER break ranks with, and precious few Republicans. It's the reason, well, that we seem to hate each other.
I think the victims of that polarization are the babies themselves. Reconciliation on this issue will save lives, because once the right is safe and legal, there can be consensus on the most important part - that it be rare. That it be rendered unnecessary. My position on abortion is predicated on the belief that reconciliation will ultimately save more lives than petitioning the state to impose its moral will on what is fundamentally a question of conscience, and of extraordinarily private concern.
The left wants to subsidize birth control, and the right wants to provide moral support. Once the choice right is not subject to criminalization, the two sides can unite on a strategy that can strengthen families. Moral war claims casualties. I think there's a better way.
That is not a justification for taking another life. This country has many, many families wanting to adopt. Many willing to pay every medical bill and associated cost with carrying the pregnancy to term as well.
That is not the issue for abortion. All to often, it is only the inconvenience of carrying the baby to term.
-
That is not a justification for taking another life. This country has many, many families wanting to adopt. Many willing to pay every medical bill and associated cost with carrying the pregnancy to term as well.
That is not the issue for abortion. All to often, it is only the inconvenience of carrying the baby to term.
Adoption is certainly a better alternative than abortion. I applaud those pro-lifers whose mission is focused on adoption alternatives, and support for women in crisis pregnancies.
The very best alternative is contraception.
-
The left wants to subsidize birth control, and the right wants to provide moral support. Once the choice right is not subject to criminalization, the two sides can unite on a strategy that can strengthen families. Moral war claims casualties. I think there's a better way.
You wrote a thoughtful piece and I didn't mean to ignore it but we have different viewpoints.
At one time birth control was a matter of timing and was ineffective. There is no excuse now for unwanted pregnancies and I honestly think people are being careless in that regard because, oh, well, I can always get an abortion.
You cited instances where women who'd had abortions went on to have other children and nice families but where is that little soul that should have been a part of the family?
A close family member had an abortion way back when they were not legal. It was easy enough... just claim excessive bleeding or some other problem and most doctors would do a D&C on you.
In fact, I think it ruined her life. She never married and never had children. She would have been a great mother and that college degree she chose over a child never provided that much satisfaction for her.
I understand your reluctance to let the government have control over any aspect of our lives but we have to let them have control over crimes or we have anarchy. I would never do it by penalizing the women ... they will be penalized now or later. But the doctors and the abortion mills need to go.
-
You wrote a thoughtful piece and I didn't mean to ignore it but we have different viewpoints.
At one time birth control was a matter of timing and was ineffective. There is no excuse now for unwanted pregnancies and I honestly think people are being careless in that regard because, oh, well, I can always get an abortion.
You cited instances where women who'd had abortions went on to have other children and nice families but where is that little soul that should have been a part of the family?
A close family member had an abortion way back when they were not legal. It was easy enough... just claim excessive bleeding or some other problem and most doctors would do a D&C on you.
In fact, I think it ruined her life. She never married and never had children. She would have been a great mother and that college degree she chose over a child never provided that much satisfaction for her.
I understand your reluctance to let the government have control over any aspect of our lives but we have to let them have control over crimes or we have anarchy. I would never do it by penalizing the women ... they will be penalized now or later. But the doctors and the abortion mills need to go.
Emjay, we may have different viewpoints, but I think we both want the same thing - for abortion to be rare and unnecessary.
I think we probably differ in how we view the "typical" situation where a woman ends up choosing abortion. Birth control does fail, and I don't think most women are careless because, well, there's always abortion. Women choose abortion, it seems to me, because they lack the support of a partner or the security of a career. While I don't disagree that abstinence is the cure for either, in the real world women find themselves in unexpected situations and don't want or feel ready for the responsibility. There's no question that modern culture plays a role - men who fifty years ago would marry the woman they've knocked up now urge the woman to "take care of it".
Part of my thinking on the subject comes from my own experience. Mrs. Jazz and I were married about three years when she became pregnant. We were overjoyed, and then devastated when she miscarried. But a year or so later she became pregnant again, and my son is the thing on this earth that I'm most proud of. But he never would have existed had my wife not miscarried. So I don't know what God wants of us, and I am reluctant to judge others by labeling the tough, agonizing decisions they've made as "crimes" or "murder", as too many pro-lifers tend to do. Having the haunting guilt of a lost child is enough punishment; I wish every woman the joy of motherhood under circumstances where she and her partner can, years later, beam with pride and accomplishment at a job well done.
-
Planned Parenthood has it's connections to racism via Margaret Sanger; she called some races like "weeds", even today, their abortion mills are predominantly in minority areas. A black child is 4 times more likely to be aborted than a white child. Good to see our president take on this racist organization, the Senate couldn't get it together because of a few individuals including McCain.
-
Emjay, we may have different viewpoints, but I think we both want the same thing - for abortion to be rare and unnecessary.
I think we probably differ in how we view the "typical" situation where a woman ends up choosing abortion. Birth control does fail, and I don't think most women are careless because, well, there's always abortion. Women choose abortion, it seems to me, because they lack the support of a partner or the security of a career. While I don't disagree that abstinence is the cure for either, in the real world women find themselves in unexpected situations and don't want or feel ready for the responsibility. There's no question that modern culture plays a role - men who fifty years ago would marry the woman they've knocked up now urge the woman to "take care of it"...
REASONS GIVEN FOR ABORTIONS: AGI SURVEY, 2000-2001 [5]
reason or situation.................................number..............% of abortions
not using contraception........................4,957...........46.40
forced to have relations.............................~64..............0.6
using contraception.................................5,726............53.60
...contraceptive failed despite proper use....~1,808.........16.9
More info at:
Reasons given for having abortions in the United States
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
last updated 18 January 2016
-
I don't know what God wants of us.
Why not read this to find out? https://www.bible.com/
-
My view is that the viability point is when medical science can successfully save the child and incubate it to term.
As time passes, this point gets earlier and earlier during pregnancy.
When artificial wombs are developed, this whole issue will likely become moot.
@HonestJohn
The fallacy of that argument is that many of us who have been born encounter times in our lives where we cannot survive on our own strength.
Should that be the test of whether its ok to suck a persons brains out and chop them up into pieces for the body parts company?
Life begins at conception. Treat that life like any other life.
-
Life begins at conception. Treat that life like any other life.
So jail a mother who aborts for murder?
-
So jail a mother who aborts for murder?
Would you jail her if she killed her 3 yr old child?
Again, that baby is a life. Treat the baby as you would any other human life. If the baby represents a threat to the mothers life then the doctors and parents need to weigh the decision.
If its for any other reason like convenience or "I didn't want a baby now" then its murder.
55 million babies have been murdered since Roe v Wade. Think about that for a second.
-
So jail a mother who aborts for murder?
Of course. Back to the kitchen with bare feet and a head wrap. That's the underlying mentality, all the virtue-signaling notwithstanding.
-
Of course. Back to the kitchen with bare feet and a head wrap. That's the underlying mentality, all the virtue-signaling notwithstanding.
@Oceander
You are such an expert on what other people think and who they worship. Man that law school must be really comprehensive.
The vast majority of unwanted pregnancies can be avoided with the proper use of birth control or GASP!!!! abstinence.
-
So jail a mother who aborts for murder?
Equal treatment under the law? Do family members get special exemptions under other murder cases?
The major disconnect is too many people pretend it isn't a life being ended. But it is recognized as such under US Law.
18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841
Sherman man charged with capital murder in death of unborn child
http://www.heralddemocrat.com/news/20170726/sherman-man-charged-with-capital-murder-in-death-of-unborn-child
Bigamist couple indicted in Madison County slayings of husband's 2nd wife, children, relatives
http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2017/08/bigamist_murder_madison_county.html
The five people killed on Aug. 4, 2015 at 215 St. Clair Lane are:
Kristen Smallwood Henderson, 35, who was nine months pregnant with Christopher Henderson's child;
The couple's unborn child, Loryn Brooke Smallwood...
2 face murder, feticide charges in 2016 death of pregnant woman in Algiers
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2017/08/pregnant_woman_murder_arrest.html
Springfield man accused of shooting pregnant woman now charged with double murder
http://www.news-leader.com/story/news/crime/2017/08/04/springfield-man-accused-shooting-pregnant-woman-now-charged-double-murder/541697001/
Seems to me to be a rather common place for murder charges in the death of the unborn. It is the reason some many of us have such a huge problem with abortion. It is murder of the innocent. Failure to comprehend that is the reason for the disagreement. But we have a well established legal precedent with many, many cases.
-
@Oceander
You are such an expert on what other people think and who they worship. Man that law school must be really comprehensive.
The vast majority of unwanted pregnancies can be avoided with the proper use of birth control or GASP!!!! abstinence.
Nice try. However, when it comes to observing what or whom people worship, I go by their objective actions, which is why it's clear you worship Trump, all of your denials notwithstanding.
-
Would you jail her if she killed her 3 yr old child?
Again, that baby is a life. Treat the baby as you would any other human life. If the baby represents a threat to the mothers life then the doctors and parents need to weigh the decision.
If its for any other reason like convenience or "I didn't want a baby now" then its murder.
55 million babies have been murdered since Roe v Wade. Think about that for a second.
So you support jailing 55 million mothers for murder? Think about that for more than a second.
-
Nice try. However, when it comes to observing what or whom people worship, I go by their objective actions, which is why it's clear you worship Trump, all of your denials notwithstanding.
@Oceander
Cmon we know the truth. You just think all women should be on their back in bed waiting for a man. You worship promiscuity and do not want to face the consequences.
-
So you support jailing 55 million mothers for murder? Think about that for more than a second.
@Jazzhead
Sad that youre more concerned with the woman who can make decisions and protect herself then about the dead baby.
That says a lot.
-
@Oceander
Cmon we know the truth. You just think all women should be on their back in bed waiting for a man. You worship promiscuity and do not want to face the consequences.
I do? Why? Simply because I think making abortion a crime is a really, really bad idea? You don't know how to infer conclusions from available facts.
I infer that you worship Trump because you have never criticized him in any meaningful way and have always defended even his stupidest actions, treating him as if he were pure as the driven snow and beset by evil on all sides. That's worshipping at a cult of personality.
-
I do? Why? Simply because I think making abortion a crime is a really, really bad idea? You don't know how to infer conclusions from available facts.
I infer that you worship Trump because you have never criticized him in any meaningful way and have always defended even his stupidest actions, treating him as if he were pure as the driven snow and beset by evil on all sides. That's worshipping at a cult of personality.
@Oceander
Sure its quite obvious. The only value you see in women is in their promiscuity. Thats why you want them free from worrying about any effects of that promiscuity.
I've never treated Trump as pure, never. I know you're a lawyer and its hard but you should really stop lying.
-
@Jazzhead
Sad that youre more concerned with the woman who can make decisions and protect herself then about the dead baby.
That says a lot.
No, it says I am pragmatic and realistic. There are far better ways to reduce the number of abortions than jailing 55 million mothers. We are not a religious police state. We respect the individual liberty of each citizen and her natural right of dominion and autonomy over her own body. That said, I urge those who feel as you do to use your powers of persuasion and support to help the women in your lives to do the right thing.
-
No, it says I am pragmatic and realistic. There are far better ways to reduce the number of abortions than jailing 55 million mothers.
An outstanding example of a lie to meet your ends.
Jailing people who already aborted will not keep them from aborting if they already have, will it?
Try that one again so at least you make your point without the lie.
-
An outstanding example of a lie to meet your ends.
Jailing people who already aborted will not keep them from aborting if they already have, will it?
Try that one again so at least you make your point without the lie.
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.
-
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.
I'm not going to insult you or make outrageous suggestions because you have made thoughtful comments and obviously have thought seriously about this issue.
But to refer to a 'nonviable fetus' is just wrong. There is no such thing. I think the advance of very early sonograms has taught us a lot more about very young babies in the womb. Unless that baby is forcibly removed from the womb, often in cruel ways, it is viable ... viable in the place it exists and is supposed to be until birth.
The comparison of abortion to murdering an inconvenient two-year old is not outrageous. It seems so at first blush, but think about it. The woman has conceived a child who will be a joy and a responsibility all her life. Whether she ends the child's life at 8 weeks or later, she is still taking a life that has been entrusted to her.
The Bible is full of stories of women who knew immediately when they had a life within their bodies. I knew.
So, without making outrageous arguments about throwing women in jail, which will never happen and shouldn't, we should get rid of abortion mills and evil doctors who do this for money. Planned Parenthood is the worst and it actually sells baby parts. Planned Parenthood being supported by our government has weakened the moral fiber of our society. It has to be stopped.
-
You make the moral case against abortion, Emjay, and you make it well. You don't need to persuade me that abortion is morally wrong - I agree with you.
It is the state's authority to deprive a woman of her liberty that I am trying to address. The moral dilemma of abortion must be faced by every woman on her own - with the help, hopefully, of family, partner, the support of good people in the community and, last but not least, her religious faith. The pro-life movement is doing tremendous good in supporting and counseling young women to do the right thing, and promoting the cause of adoption. Even the left, when it encourages the availability of affordable contraception, is doing its part to reduce the need for abortion. Finally, of course, the moral voice of the church rings loud and clear to those willing to listen to it.
But the state should not have the power to deprive a woman of her liberty.
-
You make the moral case against abortion, Emjay, and you make it well. You don't need to persuade me that abortion is morally wrong - I agree with you.
It is the state's authority to deprive a woman of her liberty that I am trying to address. The moral dilemma of abortion must be faced by every woman on her own - with the help, hopefully, of family, partner, the support of good people in the community and, last but not least, her religious faith. The pro-life movement is doing tremendous good in supporting and counseling young women to do the right thing, and promoting the cause of adoption. Even the left, when it encourages the availability of affordable contraception, is doing its part to reduce the need for abortion. Finally, of course, the moral voice of the church rings loud and clear to those willing to listen to it.
But the state should not have the power to deprive a woman of her liberty.
So if a woman wants to kill you the state should not deprive her of her liberty Got it.
-
So if a woman wants to kill you the state should not deprive her of her liberty Got it.
This is a deliberate misrepresentation of what @Jazzhead posted.
-
You make the moral case against abortion, Emjay, and you make it well. You don't need to persuade me that abortion is morally wrong - I agree with you.
It is the state's authority to deprive a woman of her liberty that I am trying to address. The moral dilemma of abortion must be faced by every woman on her own - with the help, hopefully, of family, partner, the support of good people in the community and, last but not least, her religious faith. The pro-life movement is doing tremendous good in supporting and counseling young women to do the right thing, and promoting the cause of adoption. Even the left, when it encourages the availability of affordable contraception, is doing its part to reduce the need for abortion. Finally, of course, the moral voice of the church rings loud and clear to those willing to listen to it.
But the state should not have the power to deprive a woman of her liberty.
It all comes back (with you) to the power of the state ... Let me make a poor analogy.
We arrest people for doing drugs. People who do drugs are hurting, and often killing, themselves.
We should be arresting the drug dealers.
That's what I'm advocating. Get rid of every purveyor of abortion and first and foremost do not encourage it by funding Planned Parenthood.
-
But the state "gets rid of every purveyor of abortion", isn't that the same thing as depriving a woman of her liberty? Unless you define her liberty as meaning the liberty to get a back-alley abortion.
This is the sort of logic that is tearing this country apart. All I'm really saying is that the state should be neutral regarding the choice - not encouraging abortion, but not placing so many obstacles in front of a woman's choice right that it becomes impossible or meaningless.
I've always agreed with the compromise that taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund abortions. Abortion providers should not be subsidized by tax money, directly or indirectly. (There are plenty of rich liberals who can raise private funds for the poor to get abortions.) But I disagree with the tactics of some pro-lifers that would impose so many arbitrary restrictions on providers that they would be forced to close up shop.
I also have no objection to placing restrictions on abortion once the fetus becomes viable. That's a compromise, to be sure, and not a very elegant one. But the point is to provide women with a meaningful opportunity to exercise their right, but not one that lasts indefinitely - let it expire after the fetus becomes viable (that is, can survive outside the womb).
-
This is a deliberate misrepresentation of what @Jazzhead posted.
It most certainly is not his argument is that the state should not deprive a woman of her liberty to kill a child. How is that different than killing anyone else
-
Those noble sentiments can be equally applied to justify a woman's fundamental right of self-determination.
Self determination? Yeah, right. You vehemently oppose self determination when it comes to state and local governments, siding instead with the tyranny of people wearing black robes. So stop lying about it already.
-
Write-ins.
:silly:
Yup.
-
So you support jailing 55 million mothers for murder? Think about that for more than a second.
I support the people of a state to choose their own laws regarding murder among other things - something you oppose.
-
I support the people of a state to choose their own laws regarding murder among other things - something you oppose.
The abortion of a pre-viable fetus is not murder. And the point of the Constitution is to protect individual liberty against the tyranny of the state. Especially tyranny based on religion
-
The abortion of a pre-viable fetus is not murder.
Who gets to decide that? The people? Or some tyrant
-
Who gets to decide that? The people? Or some tyrant
The state cannot force a woman to reproduce. That is tyranny. That is a deprivation of her fundamental liberty.
-
Who gets to decide that? The people? Or some tyrant
You asked, and here it comes....
-
The state cannot force a woman to reproduce. That is tyranny. That is a deprivation of her fundamental liberty.
If one believes life comes at conception, then one believes conception comes at the act of sex. IOW, nobody is forcing a woman to reproduce by prohibiting an abortion because she made that choice already, by choosing to conceive (having sex).
Now, if women were being tied down and forced to have sex like in Handmaid's Tale then that would be "forcing a woman to reproduce."
-
The state cannot force a woman to reproduce. That is tyranny. That is a deprivation of her fundamental liberty.
But they can force a man to be a father. That s ok right?
-
The abortion of a pre-viable fetus is not murder. And the point of the Constitution is to protect individual liberty against the tyranny of the state. Especially tyranny based on religion
Why is it if a third party kills the unborn they can be charged with murder, but if the mother chooses to do it, it is not murder? The law makes no distinction of viable outside the womb for those crimes.
Since you ignored it the previous time I posted this in this thread, I will post the link again.
18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841
Treated equally under the law?
-
If one believes life comes at conception . . .
You are entitled to that belief. You are not entitled to have the state force that belief on others, and deprive them of their liberty.
-
It most certainly is not his argument is that the state should not deprive a woman of her liberty to kill a child. How is that different than killing anyone else
No difference. Murder = retroactive abortion.
-
Why is it if a third party kills the unborn they can be charged with murder, but if the mother chooses to do it, it is not murder?
Those are different situations. A third party tortfeasor is depriving the mother of something valuable - her unborn child. That's why that distinction exists in the law - the fetus's rights are derivative of the mother's. Vis a vis the mother, a pre-viable fetus has no such rights. It is up to the mother to decide whether to reproduce, not the state.
-
It most certainly is not his argument is that the state should not deprive a woman of her liberty to kill a child. How is that different than killing anyone else
You want the state to impose your religious beliefs on others. Sorry, that's not how things work in this country.
-
But they can force a man to be a father. That s ok right?
Good point. They say a man gives up that right at conception by virtue of the act of having sex, but somehow that responsibility doesn't attach for the mother. That doesn't make sense to me.
-
You want the state to impose your religious beliefs on others. Sorry, that's not how things work in this country.
I know that dragging religion into this argument carries weight in the circles you run in, but I see it as nothing but a cheap device. It's quite possible to make a moral argument about not allowing abortions quite free of religion.
-
The state cannot force a woman to reproduce. That is tyranny. That is a deprivation of her fundamental liberty.
The reproduction has already begun before the abortion happens. Only in the case of rape is she being forced to reproduce.
To kill the being created as a result of that choice in the womb is beyond tyrannical; it is downright barbaric.
-
You are entitled to that belief. You are not entitled to have the state force that belief on others, and deprive them of their liberty.
But the state does force that viewpoint on others already, if the death is caused by a third party, not an abortion.
-
The state cannot force a woman to reproduce.
No one is forcing a woman to reproduce. Another lie on your part. Women aren't victims here. They do have control of their bodies. They do get to decide whether or not to allow a man to ejaculate inside of them.
-
No one is forcing a woman to reproduce. Another lie on your part. Women aren't victims here. They do have control of their bodies. They do get to decide whether or not to allow a man to ejaculate inside of them.
IOW, women have "agency." A favorite word of the left.
-
The state cannot force a woman to reproduce. That is tyranny. That is a deprivation of her fundamental liberty.
The choice to reproduce is made at the time of conception not later
-
You want the state to impose your religious beliefs on others. Sorry, that's not how things work in this country.
There was no religious point in that statement Try again
-
There was no religious point in that statement Try again
He says that all the time. It's a leftist talking point. It's in statements like these he tips his hand about his true political leanings.
-
The choice to reproduce is made at the time of conception not later
This concept is already recognized in the law, because the father gets no choice about abortion, neither pro or con.
-
Those two either need to announce they are switching parties or their respective states need to primary them OUT of their current political office.
And quite honestly...this is one of those times I'd support Trump trying to get a Republican primaried out of office.
-
There was no religious point in that statement Try again
@Mom MD
Any opposition...even that based in facts and logic...will automatically be labelled as being based in religious bigotry by Jazz.
-
You want the state to impose your religious beliefs on others. Sorry, that's not how things work in this country.
@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?
-
@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?
:2popcorn:
-
:2popcorn:
He went quiet. His friends need to tell him what talking points to bring back from the hive.
-
I also have no objection to placing restrictions on abortion once the fetus becomes viable.
The baby IS viable if left alone.
-
The baby IS viable if left alone.
Leave him alone, he's still communing with the Hive to tell him what to say....
-
Why is it if a third party kills the unborn they can be charged with murder, but if the mother chooses to do it, it is not murder? The law makes no distinction of viable outside the womb for those crimes.
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"/
-
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"/
The "tell" in this quandary is what are the rights of the other half of the conception? The father?
-
You want the state to impose your religious beliefs on others. Sorry, that's not how things work in this country.
I want the people of a state to have the right to determine their own laws. The only one here who believes in government imposing its beliefs on others and denying the people the right to establish their own laws is you.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
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."
-
I can see you still define liberty by the taking of an innocent's life.
-1
-
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.
-
@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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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".
-
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?
-
@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
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.
-
Enormous joy and an incredible source of worry.
The sum totality of having kids, in 8 words. :tongue2:
-
@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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
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.
-
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.
-
-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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Makes sense to me - it is the woman's liberty at issue.
Only if you consider "Liberty" to be a license to kill.
-
The sum totality of having kids, in 8 words. :tongue2:
Thanks. It's so true, isn't it?
-
Thanks. It's so true, isn't it?
:laugh:
It's also never boring with kids.
-
:laugh:
It's also never boring with kids.
Someone say kids?
(https://synchromiss.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/baby-goatskids.jpg)
-
:laugh:
It's also never boring with kids.
I wouldn't know. It was 17 years and bleep you. :shrug: