Rush: Why Those 12 Republican Senators Really Voted Against Trump

[Sighlass]

ROTFLMAO!!! He's spending more money than Obama did! He hasn't even made a budget yet! And you think this is a small government administration?? WTF planet are you on?

Yeah, that was definitely a Trump worship attempted white-washing. Not enough paint and way too much surface to try to conceal.

[roamer_1]

Yeah, that was definitely a Trump worship attempted white-washing. Not enough paint and way too much surface to try to conceal.

That's right - Turd polish by the gallon!

[IsailedawayfromFR]

My goodness, you are obsessed with abortion.  You speak of those "60 million" as though they are the victims of mass murder.   But the reality is there are 60 million individual circumstances,  many involving impossible choices by women who aren't hard of heart.

Most murders are performed one at a time as 'individual circumstances'.

And get real, these are most certainly not 'impossible circumstances'.

Your own mother found you less than 'impossible'.

And yes, morality does obsess me.

[Jazzhead]

And yes, morality does obsess me.

But enforcing religiously-based morality isn't the job of the State.   Rather, its job is to protect a woman's liberty.     

[roamer_1]

But enforcing religiously-based morality isn't the job of the State.   Rather, its job is to protect a woman's liberty.     

Oh bullshit, @Jazzhead . If you want it that way, then every morality is religious in some fashion... or can be claimed to be. THERE IS NO MORAL NEUTRAL. You ARE serving someone's morality, whether you like it or not, and every position is a moral one. So by your basis, there should be no law at all.

And then there is reality. A woman's liberty is not being protected by slaughtering the singular and unique child within her. Liberty has responsibilities.  But you are removing the liberty of the child. And to suggest there is no moral imperative tied t that act is simply unconscionable.

[Jazzhead]

Oh bullshit, @Jazzhead . If you want it that way, then every morality is religious in some fashion... or can be claimed to be. THERE IS NO MORAL NEUTRAL. You ARE serving someone's morality, whether you like it or not, and every position is a moral one. So by your basis, there should be no law at all.

And then there is reality. A woman's liberty is not being protected by slaughtering the singular and unique child within her. Liberty has responsibilities.  But you are removing the liberty of the child. And to suggest there is no moral imperative tied t that act is simply unconscionable.

A pre-viable fetus is within the purview and control of the woman, not the State.    Make your moral arguments based on your religious belief in the fetus' soul and personhood, and persuade her to do the right thing.   Maybe she'll listen to you, especially if you're willing to address the situation that has convinced her she's unable to raise a child (that is, help her out with financial and other tangible support).    But ultimately,  the woman's inherent LIBERTY means it's her choice to make,  be it morally right or morally wrong in your eyes. 

[roamer_1]

A pre-viable fetus in within the purview and control of the woman, not the State.   

Did you know that fetus is just Latin for baby? So your distinction is without a difference... And the child is viable all the way along if you leave it alone.

And no, according to our law, our rights are not in the control of either - But rather, in the hands of the Creator. So the life of that child is sacrosanct, and neither the woman, nor the state, has the impetus to curtail it - I's fate is in the hands of a higher court.

And if that is not true, then of a necessity, you are denying that the rights of men are endowed by the Creator, and the whole of our law, and the very existence and establishment of this nation, is in vain.

Make your moral arguments based on your religious belief in the fetus' soul and personhood [...]

Mine is not a religious argument. Mine is an argument of law. There are only two means by which this government at any level can sanction death. By just cause or by due process - state sanctioned abortion is neither one, and thereby outside of the limits placed upon this government, and that by definition is a breach of liberty.

But ultimately,  the woman's inherent LIBERTY means it's her choice to make

It is not her liberty. She is inevitably unaffected and un-violated... Her responsibility can end in a mere 9 months.
It is the child's liberty that is violated. That child's right to life is forever extinguished.

[QueenCatofAragon]

A pre-viable fetus is within the purview and control of the woman, not the State.    Make your moral arguments based on your religious belief in the fetus' soul and personhood, and persuade her to do the right thing.   Maybe she'll listen to you, especially if you're willing to address the situation that has convinced her she's unable to raise a child (that is, help her out with financial and other tangible support).    But ultimately,  the woman's inherent LIBERTY means it's her choice to make,  be it morally right or morally wrong in your eyes.

@Jazzhead

Okay, I’m pregnant.  I’m not, but just for discussion purposes.

I carry a human life in my belly—complete with a beating heart.  Anything I do to stop the beating of that heart means I’ve taken a life, and that is not a matter of my liberty. My rights end when it involves an innocent life.   Not only for that reason, but because my husband, as father of that child, has a say, too.

Nine months isn’t going to be the end of my world.  If I really don’t want the baby, I can give it up for adoption.  Done.  But abortion is the end of the baby’s life.  I can sacrifice nine months for that. 

The old argument of “pay me if you don’t want me to abort” crap is just that. It’s never flown and it never will.  That came about partly because it fits in neatly with the entire feminist concept of woman > man—-her comfort trumps life, the father’s opinion doesn’t matter, etc.  It’s not up to anyone else to support her child to keep her from killing it.

Also, since the left now wants to kill them after they’re born, they’ve forfeited the right to talk about child welfare.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead

Okay, I’m pregnant.  I’m not, but just for discussion purposes.

I carry a human life in my belly—complete with a beating heart.  Anything I do to stop the beating of that heart means I’ve taken a life, and that is not a matter of my liberty. My rights end when it involves an innocent life.   Not only for that reason, but because my husband, as father of that child, has a say, too.

Nine months isn’t going to be the end of my world.  If I really don’t want the baby, I can give it up for adoption.  Done.  But abortion is the end of the baby’s life.  I can sacrifice nine months for that. 

The old argument of “pay me if you don’t want me to abort” crap is just that. It’s never flown and it never will.  That came about partly because it fits in neatly with the entire feminist concept of woman > man—-her comfort trumps life, the father’s opinion doesn’t matter, etc.  It’s not up to anyone else to support her child to keep her from killing it.

Also, since the left now wants to kill them after they’re born, they’ve forfeited the right to talk about child welfare.

I agree with everything you say, @QueenCatofAragon .   My view of the moral question of abortion is the same as yours.  It is wrong, and for the reason you describe - if the woman would just carry it to term,  it would emerge as a human being.    Where we differ (I assume) is the role that the State may play in enforcing your and my moral view of the matter.    I don't think the State can play any role prior to fetal viability.   It is a matter of the woman's inherent liberty that is protected by the Constitution of the United States.    When viability arrives, the woman will have had plenty of time to make her choice/exercise her liberty.  At that point,  as a legal matter I believe the State can ban the procedure.   But not before. 

And I agree that, in a perfect world,  a woman (or a man for that matter) shouldn't have to be paid to do the right thing.  But the pro-life movement has been successful in preventing some abortions by providing material and emotional support to young mothers cast adrift by their partner or their parents.   These women aren't bloodthirsty,  but they have (in many cases) been backed into a corner.    Persuasion and support can and must be able to do the job.    Not the police power of the State.   

[roamer_1]

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

[Smokin Joe]

A pre-viable fetus is within the purview and control of the woman, not the State.    Make your moral arguments based on your religious belief in the fetus' soul and personhood, and persuade her to do the right thing.   Maybe she'll listen to you, especially if you're willing to address the situation that has convinced her she's unable to raise a child (that is, help her out with financial and other tangible support).    But ultimately,  the woman's inherent LIBERTY means it's her choice to make,  be it morally right or morally wrong in your eyes.

I guess you haven't been playing the home game. Try to keep up. There are two states already extending that 'right' you claim is only for a 'pre viable fetus' to babies which survive birth.

You still haven't addressed the Liberty of the child.

But I have a question for you. Suppose the definition (a legal quibble) of when life begins is changed, to include from the time a heartbeat is discernible, would you embrace that, or still claim the right to murder that baby, too?

[Jazzhead]

But I have a question for you. Suppose the definition (a legal quibble) of when life begins is changed, to include from the time a heartbeat is discernible, would you embrace that, or still claim the right to murder that baby, too?

I understand that's what Mississippi is trying to do - ban abortion after, basically speaking, six weeks when a fetal heartbeat can be detected.

That's blatantly unconstitutional.    Since a woman won't know she's pregnant until she misses her period,  that leaves only about two weeks to both confirm the fact of pregnancy and decide whether to end it.   That is a clear evisceration of the woman's liberty to choose whether or not to reproduce.    May God help you if your gun rights were treated with such disdain.

Legislation like this makes me sick and angry over the hypocrisy of so-called "conservatives" who think so little of a woman's Constitutional rights.    Why can't you fascist oppressors be satisfied with the 20-week standard of viability?    That's more than enough time for the woman to decide.    Two flippin' weeks?   That's an outrage. 

Can you tell that this gets me a bit angry?   It's pathetic that you folks have such a lack of confidence in the moral strength of your position that you insist the State criminalize women placed in impossible positions, and give them no way out.   

     

[Idiot]

I understand that's what Mississippi is trying to do - ban abortion after, basically speaking, six weeks when a fetal heartbeat can be detected.

That's blatantly unconstitutional.    Since a woman won't know she's pregnant until she misses her period,  that leaves only about two weeks to both confirm the fact of pregnancy and decide whether to end it.   That is a clear evisceration of the woman's liberty to choose whether or not to reproduce.    May God help you if your gun rights were treated with such disdain.

Legislation like this makes me sick and angry over the hypocrisy of so-called "conservatives" who think so little of a woman's Constitutional rights.    Why can't you fascist oppressors be satisfied with the 20-week standard of viability?    That's more than enough time for the woman to decide.    Two flippin' weeks?   That's an outrage. 

Can you tell that this gets me a bit angry?   It's pathetic that you folks have such a lack of confidence in the moral strength of your position that you insist the State criminalize women placed in impossible positions, and give them no way out.   

   

I respect and will defend the baby's LIFE.  Apparently you have little to no regard for human life.

[Smokin Joe]

I understand that's what Mississippi is trying to do - ban abortion after, basically speaking, six weeks when a fetal heartbeat can be detected.

That's blatantly unconstitutional.    Since a woman won't know she's pregnant until she misses her period,  that leaves only about two weeks to both confirm the fact of pregnancy and decide whether to end it.   That is a clear evisceration of the woman's liberty to choose whether or not to reproduce.    May God help you if your gun rights were treated with such disdain.

Legislation like this makes me sick and angry over the hypocrisy of so-called "conservatives" who think so little of a woman's Constitutional rights.    Why can't you fascist oppressors be satisfied with the 20-week standard of viability?    That's more than enough time for the woman to decide.    Two flippin' weeks?   That's an outrage. 

Can you tell that this gets me a bit angry?   It's pathetic that you folks have such a lack of confidence in the moral strength of your position that you insist the State criminalize women placed in impossible positions, and give them no way out.   

   

I don't understand your anger.
 We say someone is clinically dead when their heart stops. You can't be dead if you never were alive, so when that heart stops, that life stops.

If there is a heartbeat, we say they are alive. Or are we going to start burying people whose ticker is still ticking?

The baby has a heart. Stop it and you killed it. Jazzhead has a heart, stop it and you killed Jazzhead (not ever a threat of violence, just making a rhetorical point).
In either case that beating heart defines a life.
But stopping it, in either case, sounds like it would be homicide to me.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Can you tell that this gets me a bit angry?   It's pathetic that you folks have such a lack of confidence in the moral strength of your position that you insist the State criminalize ...   

Isn't this the basis for all law?

[Jazzhead]

I respect and will defend the baby's LIFE.  Apparently you have little to no regard for human life.

And you, it appears, have little to no regard for human liberty. 

But the woman is undeniably a human as well as a citizen whose rights are protected by the Constitution.   Your view that a pre-viable fetus has rights that trump the woman's is based on religion -  and that's fine - but you cannot insist that your religious views be enforced at the point of a government gun.

The preservation of liberty lies at the heart of what we as conservatives value, and what we insist be the duty of the State to protect.   I respect your religious beliefs regarding the soul of a pre-viable fetus,   but it provides no basis for the State to take away a woman's most fundamental right to her own self-determination.   Why don't you have the strength of conviction to persuade others to your moral perspective, rather than coerce?   

[Jazzhead]

I don't understand your anger.
 We say someone is clinically dead when their heart stops. You can't be dead if you never were alive, so when that heart stops, that life stops.

If there is a heartbeat, we say they are alive. Or are we going to start burying people whose ticker is still ticking?

The baby has a heart. Stop it and you killed it. Jazzhead has a heart, stop it and you killed Jazzhead (not ever a threat of violence, just making a rhetorical point).
In either case that beating heart defines a life.
But stopping it, in either case, sounds like it would be homicide to me.

It's not a "baby", it's a pre-viable fetus that has no means of survival on its own.   The mother is essential to its existence as a matter of biology. 

I know your position.   I don't denigrate it as some here denigrate mine.   But my response remains the same: 

Persuade,  don't coerce.   

[Smokin Joe]

It's not a "baby", it's a pre-viable fetus that has no means of survival on its own.   The mother is essential to its existence as a matter of biology. 

I know your position.   I don't denigrate it as some here denigrate mine.   But my response remains the same: 

Persuade,  don't coerce.   

Oh, my "previable". How many infants can survive on their own? THey'd starve or die of dehydration.
How many one year olds will make it out of a thousand, on their own?
How many two year olds?

Where is the cutoff for viability?

If the little squirt gets the colic can mama off him? After all, he can't get out of the crib by himself.


Pick an age where they're safe from being killed by their own mother.

[Bigun]

It's not a "baby", it's a pre-viable fetus that has no means of survival on its own.   The mother is essential to its existence as a matter of biology. 

I know your position.   I don't denigrate it as some here denigrate mine.   But my response remains the same: 

Persuade,  don't coerce.   

You know what @Jazzhead, YOU are pretty pre-viable yourself if someone were to come along and snatch you out of your natural environment or just filled you full of saline solution and burned you to death from the inside out!

[Jazzhead]

Where is the cutoff for viability?

The scientific consensus appears to be approximately 20 weeks.   Ban the procedure after that, but give a woman a fair shot at exercising her liberty before that. 

That's a reasonable compromise to most who can see both sides of the issue. 

[Jazzhead]

You know what @Jazzhead, YOU are pretty pre-viable yourself if someone were to come along and snatch you out of your natural environment or just filled you full of saline solution and burned you to death from the inside out!

If it's so cut and dried,  why can't you persuade rather than coerce?    Actually, it's because you come on like an assh0le.   Judging a woman who's been abandoned by her partner that she's guilty of unspeakable murder doesn't really work as an effective means of persuasion. 

[catfish1957]

The scientific consensus appears to be approximately 20 weeks.   Ban the procedure after that, but give a woman a fair shot at exercising her liberty before that. 

That's a reasonable compromise, to all but the religious jihadis.

Nope.  I don't consider myself a very religious person, but stlll am pro-life.

Flawed logic bubba.

[Jazzhead]

Nope.  I don't consider myself a very religious person, but stlll am pro-life.

Flawed logic bubba.

You and I likely agree on the moral status of abortion.   Where we disagree is the role of the State in forcing our moral values on others,  so as to deny a woman's liberty entirely.   20 weeks is reasonable.   Six weeks is unreasonable, and undoubtedly unconstitutional.   

[TomSea]

How did a thread on these 12 turn into an abortion thread. Has someone derided JH's opinion? Oh, the tragedy, have you heard about how he scapegoats Christians since his arguments are so weak? It might make a Klansman blush, it is so hateful.

Also, unable to talk about funding or defunding planned parenthood, viability, etc.

Also, now that the Dems are coming out for infanticide, unfortunately, one has to pick an extreme....at the very least, the government should not give one penny to planned parenthood.

[roamer_1]

If the little squirt gets the colic can mama off him? After all, he can't get out of the crib by himself.
Pick an age where they're safe from being killed by their own mother.

That hit me, right there. That statement is SO VERY against reality... That statement grates against even the basest instinct... Not just of female hoomins, but of females of every sort... Every female thing on the planet is wired for one thing.

I hope folks will stop long enough to think that through...