|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,222
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,222 |
The positive thing about these threads is that is shows us who is who on here. Yep, it also shows just who are the BIG GOVERNMENT statists here, Ayn Rand would be disappointed. At what point in a pregnancy do you, or the government, have a legitimate "compelling interest" in the pregnacy? Conception? Viability? Perhaps at the moment of "quickening"?
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence". John Adams
"A dishonest man can always be trusted to be dishonest". Captain Jack Sparrow
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
The positive thing about these threads is that is shows us who is who on here. Yep, it also shows just who are the BIG GOVERNMENT statists here, Ayn Rand would be disappointed. At what point in a pregnancy do you, or the government, have a legitimate "compelling interest" in the pregnacy? Conception? Viability? Perhaps at the moment of "quickening"? Is the baby a human? Yes. Is that human a distinct individual? Yes, as they have unique DNA. Therefore, the baby is a "person". Read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the various laws concerning murder and self-defense. The answers you seek are right there. If you are going to try to make a libertarian argument, please attempt to do so. It should be an interesting one as you twist around one individual being able to arbitrarily kill another for mere convenience.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
Oh, and please do make sure to pay close attention to your own signature line as we work through your position.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,815 Likes: 47
Campfire Kahuna
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,815 Likes: 47 |
Seems to be a lot of hair splitting for justification.
Deep down, we all know what's right or wrong.
Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,647 Likes: 12
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,647 Likes: 12 |
My support is less significant than the millions of women who have happily used PP. - - - Millions of women have happily used fly swatters, nail polish and cocaine. So what?
NRA Member - Life, Benefactor, Patron
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
My support is less significant than the millions of women who have happily used PP. - - - Millions of women have happily used fly swatters, nail polish and cocaine. So what? Likewise, millions of Chinese were happily slaughtered by millions of other Chinese during the Communist takeover. Does that then make it right? Ditto millions of Russians happily slaughtered by the Soviets under Stalin; does that then make their actions right? Millions of Tutsi and Twa pygmies were happily slaughtered by Hutu in Burundi and Rwanda; does that then make it right? A superficial justification to an illogical, immoral act is an extraordinarily poor foundation for an argument or a philosophical belief.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 50,170 Likes: 2
Campfire Kahuna
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 50,170 Likes: 2 |
I don't have a moral issue with somebody else's abortion. I do have a problem with them getting away with murder and getting paid with my money to do it.
The only thing worse than a liberal is a liberal that thinks they're a conservative.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,461
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,461 |
Snyper, I asked you a specific question. Does society pass laws that govern ethics and morality? You completely ignored that question. I was merely trying to understand your argument better because from what I can see it mostly consists of if it's legal it's okay to do.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,081
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,081 |
So, you old f'ers ain't ever going to need anything PP provides. Your tax dollars are not going for abortions. Even if they did, PP is saving the taxpayers money. real money. Conservatives used to mind their own gd business. Keep on trying to regulate what women can and can't do, and the Republicans will keep on losing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,081
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,081 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,222
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,222 |
The positive thing about these threads is that is shows us who is who on here. Yep, it also shows just who are the BIG GOVERNMENT statists here, Ayn Rand would be disappointed. At what point in a pregnancy do you, or the government, have a legitimate "compelling interest" in the pregancy? Conception? Viability? Perhaps at the moment of "quickening"? Is the baby a human? Yes. Is that human a distinct individual? Yes, as they have unique DNA. Therefore, the baby is a "person". Read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the various laws concerning murder and self-defense. The answers you seek are right there. If you are going to try to make a libertarian argument, please attempt to do so. It should be an interesting one as you twist around one individual being able to arbitrarily kill another for mere convenience. I see you did not answer the direct question as too at what point the state or yourself has compelling interest, very telling. I will infer your answer is "conception" due to your mention of unique DNA. Like it or not the Constitution and the Bill of Rights does not grant rights or citizenship until birth, nor does include those in the womb for enumeration and representation. Lets look at history and English common law and the claim that abortion is murder. http://law.jrank.org/pages/445/Abortion-Abortion-in-English-law.htmlThe proposition that abortion cannot be homicide is reiterated by practically every major writer on English criminal law, from William Staunford and William Lambard in the sixteenth century, through Edward Coke and Matthew Hale in the seventeenth century, to William Hawkins and William Blackstone in the eighteenth century. Homicide was agreed to require the prior birth of the victim. Murder might be charged, according to Hale, if the woman on whom an abortion was performed died as a result. Murder also might be charged, according to Coke, if a botched abortion injured a fetus that afterwards was born alive and then died from its prenatal injuries. But where a fetus, even a quickened fetus, was killed in the womb, resulting in stillbirth, whatever the crime, it would not be homicide at common law. http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpress...0e195&toc.id=d0e71&brand=ucpressAbortion was not always a crime. During the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, abortion of early pregnancy was legal under common law.[22] Abortions were illegal only after "quickening," the point at which a pregnant woman could feel the movements of the fetus (approximately the fourth month of pregnancy). The common law's attitude toward pregnancy and abortion was based on an understanding of pregnancy and human development as a process rather than an absolute moment.
If neither you or the State can demonstrate a compelling interest prior to the quickening, then any decision should be left up to individuals.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence". John Adams
"A dishonest man can always be trusted to be dishonest". Captain Jack Sparrow
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 12,022
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 12,022 |
Snyper,
Do you vote? Or do you trust your fellow abortionists to keep the necessary Presidents and Senators in office to insure that no USSC justices that are pro-life are appointed to the court?
Just for the record, I take the only logical position on this for a pro-lifer - how would we (society) enforce an abortion ban? Are we going to tie these women to a bed until the child is born? No, we can't. In the final analysis, the choice has to rest with the mother-to-be. She can explain her decision(s) to God when she passes.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
The positive thing about these threads is that is shows us who is who on here. Yep, it also shows just who are the BIG GOVERNMENT statists here, Ayn Rand would be disappointed. At what point in a pregnancy do you, or the government, have a legitimate "compelling interest" in the pregancy? Conception? Viability? Perhaps at the moment of "quickening"? Is the baby a human? Yes. Is that human a distinct individual? Yes, as they have unique DNA. Therefore, the baby is a "person". Read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the various laws concerning murder and self-defense. The answers you seek are right there. If you are going to try to make a libertarian argument, please attempt to do so. It should be an interesting one as you twist around one individual being able to arbitrarily kill another for mere convenience. I see you did not answer the direct question as too at what point the state or yourself has compelling interest, very telling. I will infer your answer is "conception" due to your mention of unique DNA. Like it or not the Constitution and the Bill of Rights does not grant rights or citizenship until birth, nor does include those in the womb for enumeration and representation. Lets look at history and English common law and the claim that abortion is murder. http://law.jrank.org/pages/445/Abortion-Abortion-in-English-law.htmlThe proposition that abortion cannot be homicide is reiterated by practically every major writer on English criminal law, from William Staunford and William Lambard in the sixteenth century, through Edward Coke and Matthew Hale in the seventeenth century, to William Hawkins and William Blackstone in the eighteenth century. Homicide was agreed to require the prior birth of the victim. Murder might be charged, according to Hale, if the woman on whom an abortion was performed died as a result. Murder also might be charged, according to Coke, if a botched abortion injured a fetus that afterwards was born alive and then died from its prenatal injuries. But where a fetus, even a quickened fetus, was killed in the womb, resulting in stillbirth, whatever the crime, it would not be homicide at common law. http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpress...0e195&toc.id=d0e71&brand=ucpressAbortion was not always a crime. During the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, abortion of early pregnancy was legal under common law.[22] Abortions were illegal only after "quickening," the point at which a pregnant woman could feel the movements of the fetus (approximately the fourth month of pregnancy). The common law's attitude toward pregnancy and abortion was based on an understanding of pregnancy and human development as a process rather than an absolute moment.
If neither you or the State can demonstrate a compelling interest prior to the quickening, then any decision should be left up to individuals. Your grasping at "citizenship" is a classic misreading of the Constitution (and law), and a misunderstanding of the rights guaranteed therein. The issue is not "citizenship", but whether the individual involved is a person within the jurisdiction of the United States. There can be no denial that a human with distinct, individual DNA is, in fact, a person. Go back and re-read those documents again with an understanding of "person" and not "citizen" being the issue.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 305
Campfire Member
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 305 |
Libs are the damdest things. A man could kill a dozen children and rape two or three of them, but the death penalty is WRONG!
Yet, innocent, unborn, helpless babies are killed (with taxpayer monies) by the hundreds because
a) their mother doesn't want stretch marks,
b) their worthless father (mother's boyfriend) will leave the mother if she has the child
c) just because that is their right as a woman!
Where is the logic in that?
BH63
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,778
Campfire Tracker
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,778 |
So, you old f'ers ain't ever going to need anything PP provides. Your tax dollars are not going for abortions. Even if they did, PP is saving the taxpayers money. real money. Conservatives used to mind their own gd business. Keep on trying to regulate what women can and can't do, and the Republicans will keep on losing. Exactly. Turns out women have gotten to be pretty uppity these days, and resent others, especially old, angry white men, telling them what they can do or cannot do with their uteri. Some call it the Republican war on women. Bobby, you might be surprised how many people don't know the difference. I've explained it to gunsmiths and high end gun dealers a few times.
The true hunter counts his achievement in proportion to the effort involved and the fairness of the sport. Saxton Pope
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
So, you old f'ers ain't ever going to need anything PP provides. Your tax dollars are not going for abortions. Even if they did, PP is saving the taxpayers money. real money. Conservatives used to mind their own gd business. Keep on trying to regulate what women can and can't do, and the Republicans will keep on losing. Exactly. Turns out women have gotten to be pretty uppity these days, and resent others, especially old, angry white men, telling them what they can do or cannot do with their uteri. Some call it the Republican war on women. Bobby, you might be surprised how many people don't know the difference. I've explained it to gunsmiths and high end gun dealers a few times. The woman's uterus is not in question; classic red herring. She is not deciding whether to keep or dispose of her uterus. The issue is whether the arbitrary murder of a distinct, individual human being for nothing more than mere convenience is a logical, moral, or philosophically defensible position. To date, none have been able to articulate why it would be.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,778
Campfire Tracker
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,778 |
So, you old f'ers ain't ever going to need anything PP provides. Your tax dollars are not going for abortions. Even if they did, PP is saving the taxpayers money. real money. Conservatives used to mind their own gd business. Keep on trying to regulate what women can and can't do, and the Republicans will keep on losing. Exactly. Turns out women have gotten to be pretty uppity these days, and resent others, especially old, angry white men, telling them what they can do or cannot do with their uteri. Some call it the Republican war on women. Bobby, you might be surprised how many people don't know the difference. I've explained it to gunsmiths and high end gun dealers a few times. The woman's uterus is not in question; classic red herring. She is not deciding whether to keep or dispose of her uterus. The issue is whether the arbitrary murder of a distinct, individual human being for nothing more than mere convenience is a logical, moral, or philosophically defensible position. To date, none have been able to articulate why it would be. That is exactly the argument that typifies the War on Women, and explains why our next president will be a Democrat. What part of MYOFB don't you understand? Again, Roe v Wade, 1973: "The Court issued its decision on January 22, 1973, with a 7-to-2 majority vote in favor of Roe. Justices Burger, Douglas, and Stewart filed concurring opinions, and Justice White filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Rehnquist joined. Burger's, Douglas's, and White's opinions were issued along with the Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton (announced on the same day as Roe v. Wade). The Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws attempting to restrict it to the standard of strict scrutiny.[29]"
The true hunter counts his achievement in proportion to the effort involved and the fairness of the sport. Saxton Pope
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 96,170 Likes: 5
Campfire Oracle
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 96,170 Likes: 5 |
Life Member SCI Life Member DSC Member New Mexico Shooting Sports Association
Take your responsibilities seriously, never yourself-Ken Howell Proper bullet placement + sufficient penetration = quick, clean kill. Finn Aagard
Ken
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24,425 Likes: 19
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24,425 Likes: 19 |
two anti gun d-bags agree with each other wow - amazing So, you old f'ers ain't ever going to need anything PP provides. Your tax dollars are not going for abortions. Even if they did, PP is saving the taxpayers money. real money. Conservatives used to mind their own gd business. Keep on trying to regulate what women can and can't do, and the Republicans will keep on losing. Exactly. Turns out women have gotten to be pretty uppity these days, and resent others, especially old, angry white men, telling them what they can do or cannot do with their uteri. Some call it the Republican war on women. Bobby, you might be surprised how many people don't know the difference. I've explained it to gunsmiths and high end gun dealers a few times. The woman's uterus is not in question; classic red herring. She is not deciding whether to keep or dispose of her uterus. The issue is whether the arbitrary murder of a distinct, individual human being for nothing more than mere convenience is a logical, moral, or philosophically defensible position. To date, none have been able to articulate why it would be. That is exactly the argument that typifies the War on Women, and explains why our next president will be a Democrat. What part of MYOFB don't you understand? Again, Roe v Wade, 1973: "The Court issued its decision on January 22, 1973, with a 7-to-2 majority vote in favor of Roe. Justices Burger, Douglas, and Stewart filed concurring opinions, and Justice White filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Rehnquist joined. Burger's, Douglas's, and White's opinions were issued along with the Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton (announced on the same day as Roe v. Wade). The Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws attempting to restrict it to the standard of strict scrutiny.[29]"
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 96,170 Likes: 5
Campfire Oracle
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 96,170 Likes: 5 |
Life Member SCI Life Member DSC Member New Mexico Shooting Sports Association
Take your responsibilities seriously, never yourself-Ken Howell Proper bullet placement + sufficient penetration = quick, clean kill. Finn Aagard
Ken
|
|
|
|
579 members (160user, 06hunter59, 10gaugeman, 12344mag, 10gaugemag, 10Glocks, 55 invisible),
13,360
guests, and
1,026
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,195,126
Posts18,542,317
Members74,057
|
Most Online21,066 May 26th, 2024
|
|
|
|