|
|
On October 22 2012 23:53 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 23:09 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2012 22:20 BluePanther wrote:On October 22 2012 21:24 DoubleReed wrote:
No, Roe v Wade is not the end-all be-all of the abortion debate and any conservativewho argues differently is being intellectually dishonest. This is big government mandating ridiculous financial regulations on abortion clinics to get them shut down, mandating unnecessary medical procedures (which I have no idea how so-called conservatives could ever defend) and weird, creepy shaming tactics trying to misinform women about their bodies.
It actually pisses me off that people try to sweep this under the rug. I suppose it's because as conservatives this is the government being so incredibly invasive in your personal life that it would be impossible for them to condone, so they just pretend it's not happening.
It's really quite sickening. Put yourself in a woman's shoes for once. We've been over this before. It's a perspective thing. If you're not willing to put yourself in their shoes, then of course it makes no sense to you. Perspective thing? Mandating unnecessary medical procedures is a perspective thing??? Tell me. If this was literally any other circumstance, would you seriously not be angry over the government mandating an unnecessary medical procedure? I cannot take a perspective that is bafflingly inconsistent. Our constitution is framed for the protection of three things: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. As you know, they happen in that order. If the claim is that abortion is a deprivation of that first point to the unborn, then logically it trumps any other government ideology you might hold. In other words, you are justified to use government to enforce that right for the unborn. The argument for the use of government enforcement is actually quite sound if you come at it from the perspective that you are depriving the right of life by supporting abortion.
Um, the Constitution is framed to form a more perfect union, establish justice, provide for the common defense, ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.
Edit: The Declaration of Independence says the purpose of the new government is to secure safety and happiness, too.
|
Do you vote for the Mormon socialist or for the black socialist? It makes no real difference either way, both are so unbelievably far-left that we're doomed either way. Everyone is rallying behind Mitt Romney to get Obama out of office, but even if Romney is elected, we'll still be heading in the wrong direction (socialism). Romney isn't going to do anything to decrease the national debt, end the welfare state, or even touch the Federal Reserve.
|
On October 22 2012 23:49 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 23:43 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 22 2012 22:46 jdsowa wrote:On October 22 2012 17:10 HunterX11 wrote:On October 22 2012 09:46 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 22 2012 09:26 HunterX11 wrote:On October 22 2012 09:08 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Can you prove that "far, far more Democrats than Republicans on the Federal level" oppose racism? Name me one Republican at the federal level who doesn't oppose racism. Name me one Democrat too. There aren't any, of course.
The preclearance section of the Voting Rights Act does need overturned. It isn't 1965 and it is only used nowadays to preserve racially gerrymandered districts, the very premise of which undermines the idea of equality. There are powerful institutions today - the same ones who strongly support the act - ready and willing to file lawsuits at the slightest excuse if southern states try to disenfranchise blacks (and these days, Hispanics). Racially gerrymandered districts are not enfranchising.
I'm talking about legislatively. I don't care if politicians are nice people or not so much as I care about their policies. Look at LBJ: he was certainly a repugnant person, but he did a good job at pushing through the Civil Rights Act. And in 2012 there are several states not covered by preclearance fighting battles to make it harder to vote. If anything, the VRA should be expanded, not reduced. If someone can't manage to get an ID to vote when they cost about $10 and the state will provide you with one free of charge specifically so you can vote, then I don't care if you can't vote because you didn't get an ID. The idea that Voter ID laws make it harder to vote is risible. What exactly is the point of making it harder to vote if not to disenfranchise certain people? Saying it doesn't make it too much harder is just ignoring the question. Why should it be harder to vote? I don't think you "get" the idea behind democracy. We should have MORE people voting, not less people. Yes, this includes undesirables, idiots, poors, blacks, whatever and whomever. You do not represent other people's interests better than they represent their own. If you can vote without an ID, then you can easily vote multiple times at different polling centers. With early voting, you could conceivably vote 1,000 times and sway an election in favor of your candidate. Would you agree that it's better to have politically informed people voting, rather than simply more people voting? If you had a serious medical condition, would you want 1,000 untrained people working on you, or a team of a couple skilled and experienced doctors? Citizens should feel a responsibility to have some baseline of political awareness before voting. Instead, we simply get idiotic "vote or die" campaigns, where the point is to cast a vote even if you don't know left from right. Now, we'd never go back to competency tests. But it's not like they're any less democratic in nature than the concept of the electoral college, or elected representatives. But then that would be some sort of intellectual oligarchy and a lot of people would complain. I mean, since I would probably be in that group of voters (hopefully), I could vote, but I don't think its right to limit the voters because some are stupid, its better to educate them so everyone can make an informed decision rather than limiting it to the group which is already informed. And remember, the literacy tests from the good ole' days... I see 98% of America failing those. We could have a "where does candidate X stand on ____ issue" text, and sadly we'd see a similar rate of failz. Then again with Romney's flip-flopping, most of his voters would probably be rendered ineligible through confusion. K, so I understand voter ID and agree with it in principle. But why does it become such a big issue right before an election? I mean, there couldn't be some sort of ulterior motive, right? Far as my understanding goes, voter registries and other things at polling centers make it so voting multiple times is fairly difficult and tedious. Come back after the election and we can talk.  My specialty in politics is election law. It's is painfully easy to commit voter fraud if you wanted to. Hell, most poll workers unknowingly violate the election laws on a regular basis. I actually got into a huge argument with our election agency (GAB) over their laxness on enforcing election laws. Last I heard Romney was suing them over it (we didn't have the funds).
And yet for years no one really complained about it, and the cases of actual voter fraud have been rather scarce.
Okay, so you're saying the a lot of the problem lies with the poll workers. ID's doesn't address that, does it?
|
On October 23 2012 00:02 Swazi Spring wrote:
Do you vote for the Mormon socialist or for the black socialist? It makes no real difference either way, both are so unbelievably far-left that we're doomed either way. Everyone is rallying behind Mitt Romney to get Obama out of office, but even if Romney is elected, we'll still be heading in the wrong direction (socialism). Romney isn't going to do anything to decrease the national debt, end the welfare state, or even touch the Federal Reserve.
You don't know what socialism is.
|
On October 22 2012 23:59 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 23:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 22 2012 23:09 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2012 22:20 BluePanther wrote:On October 22 2012 21:24 DoubleReed wrote:
No, Roe v Wade is not the end-all be-all of the abortion debate and any conservativewho argues differently is being intellectually dishonest. This is big government mandating ridiculous financial regulations on abortion clinics to get them shut down, mandating unnecessary medical procedures (which I have no idea how so-called conservatives could ever defend) and weird, creepy shaming tactics trying to misinform women about their bodies.
It actually pisses me off that people try to sweep this under the rug. I suppose it's because as conservatives this is the government being so incredibly invasive in your personal life that it would be impossible for them to condone, so they just pretend it's not happening.
It's really quite sickening. Put yourself in a woman's shoes for once. We've been over this before. It's a perspective thing. If you're not willing to put yourself in their shoes, then of course it makes no sense to you. Perspective thing? Mandating unnecessary medical procedures is a perspective thing??? Tell me. If this was literally any other circumstance, would you seriously not be angry over the government mandating an unnecessary medical procedure? I cannot take a perspective that is bafflingly inconsistent. Our constitution is framed for the protection of three things: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. As you know, they happen in that order. If the claim is that abortion is a deprivation of that first point to the unborn, then logically it trumps any other government ideology you might hold. In other words, you are justified to use government to enforce that right for the unborn. The argument for the use of government enforcement is actually quite sound if you come at it from the perspective that you are depriving the right of life by supporting abortion. Um, the Constitution is framed to form a more perfect union, establish justice, provide for the common defense, ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. Edit: The Declaration of Independence says the purpose of the new government is to secure safety and happiness, too.
The Founders knew that the only things the government should protect are the right to life, liberty, and property. Though this idea actually started with John Locke; an English philosopher who influenced the Founding Fathers greatly.
On October 23 2012 00:16 helvete wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 00:02 Swazi Spring wrote:
Do you vote for the Mormon socialist or for the black socialist? It makes no real difference either way, both are so unbelievably far-left that we're doomed either way. Everyone is rallying behind Mitt Romney to get Obama out of office, but even if Romney is elected, we'll still be heading in the wrong direction (socialism). Romney isn't going to do anything to decrease the national debt, end the welfare state, or even touch the Federal Reserve. You don't know what socialism is.
helvete | Sweden | October 23 2012 00:16 | Posts 168
Oh really?
|
On October 23 2012 00:17 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 23:59 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 23:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 22 2012 23:09 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2012 22:20 BluePanther wrote:On October 22 2012 21:24 DoubleReed wrote:
No, Roe v Wade is not the end-all be-all of the abortion debate and any conservativewho argues differently is being intellectually dishonest. This is big government mandating ridiculous financial regulations on abortion clinics to get them shut down, mandating unnecessary medical procedures (which I have no idea how so-called conservatives could ever defend) and weird, creepy shaming tactics trying to misinform women about their bodies.
It actually pisses me off that people try to sweep this under the rug. I suppose it's because as conservatives this is the government being so incredibly invasive in your personal life that it would be impossible for them to condone, so they just pretend it's not happening.
It's really quite sickening. Put yourself in a woman's shoes for once. We've been over this before. It's a perspective thing. If you're not willing to put yourself in their shoes, then of course it makes no sense to you. Perspective thing? Mandating unnecessary medical procedures is a perspective thing??? Tell me. If this was literally any other circumstance, would you seriously not be angry over the government mandating an unnecessary medical procedure? I cannot take a perspective that is bafflingly inconsistent. Our constitution is framed for the protection of three things: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. As you know, they happen in that order. If the claim is that abortion is a deprivation of that first point to the unborn, then logically it trumps any other government ideology you might hold. In other words, you are justified to use government to enforce that right for the unborn. The argument for the use of government enforcement is actually quite sound if you come at it from the perspective that you are depriving the right of life by supporting abortion. Um, the Constitution is framed to form a more perfect union, establish justice, provide for the common defense, ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. Edit: The Declaration of Independence says the purpose of the new government is to secure safety and happiness, too. The Founders knew that the only things the government should protect are the right to life, liberty, and property. Though this idea actually started with John Locke; an English philosopher who influenced the Founding Fathers greatly.
That's true, but that's not how the Constitution is framed at all...and they also obviously knew the government should protect domestic tranquility and promote (which is more than protect) the general welfare.
Edit: The "right to life" is as much a part of the framing of the constitution as the "right to privacy." They both are implicit and not part of the framing of the document.
|
On October 23 2012 00:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 00:17 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 22 2012 23:59 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 23:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 22 2012 23:09 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2012 22:20 BluePanther wrote:On October 22 2012 21:24 DoubleReed wrote:
No, Roe v Wade is not the end-all be-all of the abortion debate and any conservativewho argues differently is being intellectually dishonest. This is big government mandating ridiculous financial regulations on abortion clinics to get them shut down, mandating unnecessary medical procedures (which I have no idea how so-called conservatives could ever defend) and weird, creepy shaming tactics trying to misinform women about their bodies.
It actually pisses me off that people try to sweep this under the rug. I suppose it's because as conservatives this is the government being so incredibly invasive in your personal life that it would be impossible for them to condone, so they just pretend it's not happening.
It's really quite sickening. Put yourself in a woman's shoes for once. We've been over this before. It's a perspective thing. If you're not willing to put yourself in their shoes, then of course it makes no sense to you. Perspective thing? Mandating unnecessary medical procedures is a perspective thing??? Tell me. If this was literally any other circumstance, would you seriously not be angry over the government mandating an unnecessary medical procedure? I cannot take a perspective that is bafflingly inconsistent. Our constitution is framed for the protection of three things: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. As you know, they happen in that order. If the claim is that abortion is a deprivation of that first point to the unborn, then logically it trumps any other government ideology you might hold. In other words, you are justified to use government to enforce that right for the unborn. The argument for the use of government enforcement is actually quite sound if you come at it from the perspective that you are depriving the right of life by supporting abortion. Um, the Constitution is framed to form a more perfect union, establish justice, provide for the common defense, ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. Edit: The Declaration of Independence says the purpose of the new government is to secure safety and happiness, too. The Founders knew that the only things the government should protect are the right to life, liberty, and property. Though this idea actually started with John Locke; an English philosopher who influenced the Founding Fathers greatly. That's true, but that's not how the Constitution is framed at all...and they also obviously knew the government should protect domestic tranquility and promote (which is more than protect) the general welfare. Edit: The "right to life" is as much a part of the framing of the constitution as the "right to privacy." They both are implicit and not part of the framing of the document.
While I agree with you, one could use the Fifth Amendment as an argument for the so-called "right to life." The Constitution, at least in terms of the judicial system, recognize that individuals have the right to life.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The Constitution only limits government (and originally only the federal government), so the "right to life" doesn't apply when a private individuals murder each other (abortion). I'm just pointing out that there is a reference to it in the Constitution.
|
On October 23 2012 00:35 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 00:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 00:17 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 22 2012 23:59 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 23:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 22 2012 23:09 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2012 22:20 BluePanther wrote:On October 22 2012 21:24 DoubleReed wrote:
No, Roe v Wade is not the end-all be-all of the abortion debate and any conservativewho argues differently is being intellectually dishonest. This is big government mandating ridiculous financial regulations on abortion clinics to get them shut down, mandating unnecessary medical procedures (which I have no idea how so-called conservatives could ever defend) and weird, creepy shaming tactics trying to misinform women about their bodies.
It actually pisses me off that people try to sweep this under the rug. I suppose it's because as conservatives this is the government being so incredibly invasive in your personal life that it would be impossible for them to condone, so they just pretend it's not happening.
It's really quite sickening. Put yourself in a woman's shoes for once. We've been over this before. It's a perspective thing. If you're not willing to put yourself in their shoes, then of course it makes no sense to you. Perspective thing? Mandating unnecessary medical procedures is a perspective thing??? Tell me. If this was literally any other circumstance, would you seriously not be angry over the government mandating an unnecessary medical procedure? I cannot take a perspective that is bafflingly inconsistent. Our constitution is framed for the protection of three things: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. As you know, they happen in that order. If the claim is that abortion is a deprivation of that first point to the unborn, then logically it trumps any other government ideology you might hold. In other words, you are justified to use government to enforce that right for the unborn. The argument for the use of government enforcement is actually quite sound if you come at it from the perspective that you are depriving the right of life by supporting abortion. Um, the Constitution is framed to form a more perfect union, establish justice, provide for the common defense, ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. Edit: The Declaration of Independence says the purpose of the new government is to secure safety and happiness, too. The Founders knew that the only things the government should protect are the right to life, liberty, and property. Though this idea actually started with John Locke; an English philosopher who influenced the Founding Fathers greatly. That's true, but that's not how the Constitution is framed at all...and they also obviously knew the government should protect domestic tranquility and promote (which is more than protect) the general welfare. Edit: The "right to life" is as much a part of the framing of the constitution as the "right to privacy." They both are implicit and not part of the framing of the document. While I agree with you, one could use the Fifth Amendment as an argument for the so-called "right to life." The Constitution, at least in terms of the judicial system, recognize that individuals have the right to life. Show nested quote +No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. The Constitution only limits government (and originally only the federal government), so the "right to life" doesn't apply when a private individuals murder each other (abortion). I'm just pointing out that there is a reference to it in the Constitution.
That's definitely a fair point. I guess my own point is really that there's no constitutional basis for a positive right to life overriding any and every other right in the Constitution itself (from what I can tell). There's definitely a negative right to life in the fifth amendment.
|
On October 23 2012 00:35 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 00:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 00:17 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 22 2012 23:59 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 23:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 22 2012 23:09 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2012 22:20 BluePanther wrote:On October 22 2012 21:24 DoubleReed wrote:
No, Roe v Wade is not the end-all be-all of the abortion debate and any conservativewho argues differently is being intellectually dishonest. This is big government mandating ridiculous financial regulations on abortion clinics to get them shut down, mandating unnecessary medical procedures (which I have no idea how so-called conservatives could ever defend) and weird, creepy shaming tactics trying to misinform women about their bodies.
It actually pisses me off that people try to sweep this under the rug. I suppose it's because as conservatives this is the government being so incredibly invasive in your personal life that it would be impossible for them to condone, so they just pretend it's not happening.
It's really quite sickening. Put yourself in a woman's shoes for once. We've been over this before. It's a perspective thing. If you're not willing to put yourself in their shoes, then of course it makes no sense to you. Perspective thing? Mandating unnecessary medical procedures is a perspective thing??? Tell me. If this was literally any other circumstance, would you seriously not be angry over the government mandating an unnecessary medical procedure? I cannot take a perspective that is bafflingly inconsistent. Our constitution is framed for the protection of three things: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. As you know, they happen in that order. If the claim is that abortion is a deprivation of that first point to the unborn, then logically it trumps any other government ideology you might hold. In other words, you are justified to use government to enforce that right for the unborn. The argument for the use of government enforcement is actually quite sound if you come at it from the perspective that you are depriving the right of life by supporting abortion. Um, the Constitution is framed to form a more perfect union, establish justice, provide for the common defense, ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. Edit: The Declaration of Independence says the purpose of the new government is to secure safety and happiness, too. The Founders knew that the only things the government should protect are the right to life, liberty, and property. Though this idea actually started with John Locke; an English philosopher who influenced the Founding Fathers greatly. That's true, but that's not how the Constitution is framed at all...and they also obviously knew the government should protect domestic tranquility and promote (which is more than protect) the general welfare. Edit: The "right to life" is as much a part of the framing of the constitution as the "right to privacy." They both are implicit and not part of the framing of the document. While I agree with you, one could use the Fifth Amendment as an argument for the so-called "right to life." The Constitution, at least in terms of the judicial system, recognize that individuals have the right to life. Show nested quote +No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. The Constitution only limits government (and originally only the federal government), so the "right to life" doesn't apply when a private individuals murder each other (abortion). I'm just pointing out that there is a reference to it in the Constitution.
Well a fetus is not a person and I want any person who believes he thinks it is to answer this:
If you believe a fetus is a person and an abortion is murder, then you are looking at the biggest crime in human history, the perpetual murder of millions of the most defenseless members of society right now. And your reaction to that is: well better vote Republican this time. Really? I mean really?
I call bullshit, either you don't believe a fetus is a person and aborting is murder or you are full of shit. In a sense those who bomb abortion clinics are the only consistent ones. Btw would you support invading other countries because they abort? I mean so many more "persons" die this way than in all the conflicts where intervention was deemed necessary...
|
On October 23 2012 00:41 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 00:35 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 00:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 00:17 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 22 2012 23:59 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 23:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 22 2012 23:09 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2012 22:20 BluePanther wrote:On October 22 2012 21:24 DoubleReed wrote:
No, Roe v Wade is not the end-all be-all of the abortion debate and any conservativewho argues differently is being intellectually dishonest. This is big government mandating ridiculous financial regulations on abortion clinics to get them shut down, mandating unnecessary medical procedures (which I have no idea how so-called conservatives could ever defend) and weird, creepy shaming tactics trying to misinform women about their bodies.
It actually pisses me off that people try to sweep this under the rug. I suppose it's because as conservatives this is the government being so incredibly invasive in your personal life that it would be impossible for them to condone, so they just pretend it's not happening.
It's really quite sickening. Put yourself in a woman's shoes for once. We've been over this before. It's a perspective thing. If you're not willing to put yourself in their shoes, then of course it makes no sense to you. Perspective thing? Mandating unnecessary medical procedures is a perspective thing??? Tell me. If this was literally any other circumstance, would you seriously not be angry over the government mandating an unnecessary medical procedure? I cannot take a perspective that is bafflingly inconsistent. Our constitution is framed for the protection of three things: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. As you know, they happen in that order. If the claim is that abortion is a deprivation of that first point to the unborn, then logically it trumps any other government ideology you might hold. In other words, you are justified to use government to enforce that right for the unborn. The argument for the use of government enforcement is actually quite sound if you come at it from the perspective that you are depriving the right of life by supporting abortion. Um, the Constitution is framed to form a more perfect union, establish justice, provide for the common defense, ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. Edit: The Declaration of Independence says the purpose of the new government is to secure safety and happiness, too. The Founders knew that the only things the government should protect are the right to life, liberty, and property. Though this idea actually started with John Locke; an English philosopher who influenced the Founding Fathers greatly. That's true, but that's not how the Constitution is framed at all...and they also obviously knew the government should protect domestic tranquility and promote (which is more than protect) the general welfare. Edit: The "right to life" is as much a part of the framing of the constitution as the "right to privacy." They both are implicit and not part of the framing of the document. While I agree with you, one could use the Fifth Amendment as an argument for the so-called "right to life." The Constitution, at least in terms of the judicial system, recognize that individuals have the right to life. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. The Constitution only limits government (and originally only the federal government), so the "right to life" doesn't apply when a private individuals murder each other (abortion). I'm just pointing out that there is a reference to it in the Constitution. That's definitely a fair point. I guess my own point is really that there's no constitutional basis a positive right to life overriding any and every other right in the Constitution itself (from what I can tell). There's definitely a negative right to life in the fifth amendment.
I see what you're saying, I'm just playing devil's advocate and trying to argue both sides.
|
On October 22 2012 23:53 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 23:09 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2012 22:20 BluePanther wrote:On October 22 2012 21:24 DoubleReed wrote:
No, Roe v Wade is not the end-all be-all of the abortion debate and any conservativewho argues differently is being intellectually dishonest. This is big government mandating ridiculous financial regulations on abortion clinics to get them shut down, mandating unnecessary medical procedures (which I have no idea how so-called conservatives could ever defend) and weird, creepy shaming tactics trying to misinform women about their bodies.
It actually pisses me off that people try to sweep this under the rug. I suppose it's because as conservatives this is the government being so incredibly invasive in your personal life that it would be impossible for them to condone, so they just pretend it's not happening.
It's really quite sickening. Put yourself in a woman's shoes for once. We've been over this before. It's a perspective thing. If you're not willing to put yourself in their shoes, then of course it makes no sense to you. Perspective thing? Mandating unnecessary medical procedures is a perspective thing??? Tell me. If this was literally any other circumstance, would you seriously not be angry over the government mandating an unnecessary medical procedure? I cannot take a perspective that is bafflingly inconsistent. Our constitution is framed for the protection of three things: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. As you know, they happen in that order. If the claim is that abortion is a deprivation of that first point to the unborn, then logically it trumps any other government ideology you might hold. In other words, you are justified to use government to enforce that right for the unborn. The argument for the use of government enforcement is actually quite sound if you come at it from the perspective that you are depriving the right of life by supporting abortion.
Wtf does that have to do with mandating unnecessary medical procedures!!!??? It doesn't protect anyone, or do anything besides for wasting time and money of patients and doctors. Studies have even shown that almost no women change their mind after the ultrasound.
The idea that you actually think that response has anything to do with mandating unnecessary medical procedures is absolutely laughable.
People who call themselves pro-life apparently will support anything as long as it is "anti-abortion." Doesn't matter what it is or what it does. It's insane.
|
On October 23 2012 00:44 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 00:35 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 00:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 00:17 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 22 2012 23:59 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 23:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 22 2012 23:09 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2012 22:20 BluePanther wrote:On October 22 2012 21:24 DoubleReed wrote:
No, Roe v Wade is not the end-all be-all of the abortion debate and any conservativewho argues differently is being intellectually dishonest. This is big government mandating ridiculous financial regulations on abortion clinics to get them shut down, mandating unnecessary medical procedures (which I have no idea how so-called conservatives could ever defend) and weird, creepy shaming tactics trying to misinform women about their bodies.
It actually pisses me off that people try to sweep this under the rug. I suppose it's because as conservatives this is the government being so incredibly invasive in your personal life that it would be impossible for them to condone, so they just pretend it's not happening.
It's really quite sickening. Put yourself in a woman's shoes for once. We've been over this before. It's a perspective thing. If you're not willing to put yourself in their shoes, then of course it makes no sense to you. Perspective thing? Mandating unnecessary medical procedures is a perspective thing??? Tell me. If this was literally any other circumstance, would you seriously not be angry over the government mandating an unnecessary medical procedure? I cannot take a perspective that is bafflingly inconsistent. Our constitution is framed for the protection of three things: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. As you know, they happen in that order. If the claim is that abortion is a deprivation of that first point to the unborn, then logically it trumps any other government ideology you might hold. In other words, you are justified to use government to enforce that right for the unborn. The argument for the use of government enforcement is actually quite sound if you come at it from the perspective that you are depriving the right of life by supporting abortion. Um, the Constitution is framed to form a more perfect union, establish justice, provide for the common defense, ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. Edit: The Declaration of Independence says the purpose of the new government is to secure safety and happiness, too. The Founders knew that the only things the government should protect are the right to life, liberty, and property. Though this idea actually started with John Locke; an English philosopher who influenced the Founding Fathers greatly. That's true, but that's not how the Constitution is framed at all...and they also obviously knew the government should protect domestic tranquility and promote (which is more than protect) the general welfare. Edit: The "right to life" is as much a part of the framing of the constitution as the "right to privacy." They both are implicit and not part of the framing of the document. While I agree with you, one could use the Fifth Amendment as an argument for the so-called "right to life." The Constitution, at least in terms of the judicial system, recognize that individuals have the right to life. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. The Constitution only limits government (and originally only the federal government), so the "right to life" doesn't apply when a private individuals murder each other (abortion). I'm just pointing out that there is a reference to it in the Constitution. Well a fetus is not a person and I want any person who believes he thinks it is to answer this: If you believe a fetus is a person and an abortion is murder, then you are looking at the biggest crime in human history, the perpetual murder of millions of the most defenseless members of society right now. And your reaction to that is: well better vote Republican this time. Really? I mean really? I call bullshit, either you don't believe a fetus is a person and aborting is murder or you are full of shit. In a sense those who bomb abortion clinics are the only consistent ones. Btw would you support invading other countries because they abort? I mean so many more "persons" die this way than in all the conflicts where intervention was deemed necessary...
I'm sorry if my post offended you, silynxer, that was not my intention. I'm not even pro-life, I was just trying to argue both sides, I feel as though that is often times the best way to look at an argument; ignore the rhetoric and focus on the facts, no matter how inconvenient they may be. As for your question, I don't really have an answer to it, sorry.
|
Now I feel bad because I was overly aggressive, sorry for that. I was not offended by anything (and you will notice that I address my post only to persons who actually think this way), I just dislike the hypocrisy in the abortion debates.
|
On October 23 2012 00:44 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 00:35 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 00:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 00:17 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 22 2012 23:59 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 23:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 22 2012 23:09 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2012 22:20 BluePanther wrote:On October 22 2012 21:24 DoubleReed wrote:
No, Roe v Wade is not the end-all be-all of the abortion debate and any conservativewho argues differently is being intellectually dishonest. This is big government mandating ridiculous financial regulations on abortion clinics to get them shut down, mandating unnecessary medical procedures (which I have no idea how so-called conservatives could ever defend) and weird, creepy shaming tactics trying to misinform women about their bodies.
It actually pisses me off that people try to sweep this under the rug. I suppose it's because as conservatives this is the government being so incredibly invasive in your personal life that it would be impossible for them to condone, so they just pretend it's not happening.
It's really quite sickening. Put yourself in a woman's shoes for once. We've been over this before. It's a perspective thing. If you're not willing to put yourself in their shoes, then of course it makes no sense to you. Perspective thing? Mandating unnecessary medical procedures is a perspective thing??? Tell me. If this was literally any other circumstance, would you seriously not be angry over the government mandating an unnecessary medical procedure? I cannot take a perspective that is bafflingly inconsistent. Our constitution is framed for the protection of three things: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. As you know, they happen in that order. If the claim is that abortion is a deprivation of that first point to the unborn, then logically it trumps any other government ideology you might hold. In other words, you are justified to use government to enforce that right for the unborn. The argument for the use of government enforcement is actually quite sound if you come at it from the perspective that you are depriving the right of life by supporting abortion. Um, the Constitution is framed to form a more perfect union, establish justice, provide for the common defense, ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. Edit: The Declaration of Independence says the purpose of the new government is to secure safety and happiness, too. The Founders knew that the only things the government should protect are the right to life, liberty, and property. Though this idea actually started with John Locke; an English philosopher who influenced the Founding Fathers greatly. That's true, but that's not how the Constitution is framed at all...and they also obviously knew the government should protect domestic tranquility and promote (which is more than protect) the general welfare. Edit: The "right to life" is as much a part of the framing of the constitution as the "right to privacy." They both are implicit and not part of the framing of the document. While I agree with you, one could use the Fifth Amendment as an argument for the so-called "right to life." The Constitution, at least in terms of the judicial system, recognize that individuals have the right to life. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. The Constitution only limits government (and originally only the federal government), so the "right to life" doesn't apply when a private individuals murder each other (abortion). I'm just pointing out that there is a reference to it in the Constitution. Well a fetus is not a person and I want any person who believes he thinks it is to answer this: If you believe a fetus is a person and an abortion is murder, then you are looking at the biggest crime in human history, the perpetual murder of millions of the most defenseless members of society right now. And your reaction to that is: well better vote Republican this time. Really? I mean really? I call bullshit, either you don't believe a fetus is a person and aborting is murder or you are full of shit. In a sense those who bomb abortion clinics are the only consistent ones. Btw would you support invading other countries because they abort? I mean so many more "persons" die this way than in all the conflicts where intervention was deemed necessary...
The republican party doesn't want to stop abortions, they just want to make them illegal. Because abortion is bad, and you should feel bad.
That's the gist of it anyway.
Personally I like Roe. It establishes a balance between the rights of life, liberty, and happiness of the mother and the potential life of the fetus. It also has a very conservative leaning.
Anti-abortion viewpoint: Abortion should be outlawed, the rights of the fetus outweigh the rights of the mother entirely
Pro-abortion viewpoint: The state should not have the authority to force women to remain pregnant. The mother outweighs the child as she is a member of society and a person.
Roe: For the first third of pregnancy, the mother's will supersedes that of the fetus. For the last two thirds, the fetus supersedes the will of the mother except for cases of incest and rape.
I don't get how people are so against legal abortion. Roe is already an enormous compromise between two conflicting ideals. Repealing it is saying that you fail to understand that a large group of people either do not believe that the right to life applies at conception, or believe that the state has no right to force people to remain pregnant. Instead a more pro-life campaign would be to increase the quality of sex education and make contraceptives more accessible. You know, since these things have proven to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies.
Actually, in hindsight sex is bad and has consequences that must be enforced by law so our teenage daughters don't become sluts. America!
|
On October 23 2012 00:02 Swazi Spring wrote:
Do you vote for the Mormon socialist or for the black socialist? It makes no real difference either way, both are so unbelievably far-left that we're doomed either way. Everyone is rallying behind Mitt Romney to get Obama out of office, but even if Romney is elected, we'll still be heading in the wrong direction (socialism). Romney isn't going to do anything to decrease the national debt, end the welfare state, or even touch the Federal Reserve.
Do you live in reality?
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
If the USA is socialist then I am a unicorn. Which would be fucking awesome.
|
On October 23 2012 01:07 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 00:44 silynxer wrote:On October 23 2012 00:35 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 00:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 00:17 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 22 2012 23:59 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 23:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 22 2012 23:09 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2012 22:20 BluePanther wrote:On October 22 2012 21:24 DoubleReed wrote:
No, Roe v Wade is not the end-all be-all of the abortion debate and any conservativewho argues differently is being intellectually dishonest. This is big government mandating ridiculous financial regulations on abortion clinics to get them shut down, mandating unnecessary medical procedures (which I have no idea how so-called conservatives could ever defend) and weird, creepy shaming tactics trying to misinform women about their bodies.
It actually pisses me off that people try to sweep this under the rug. I suppose it's because as conservatives this is the government being so incredibly invasive in your personal life that it would be impossible for them to condone, so they just pretend it's not happening.
It's really quite sickening. Put yourself in a woman's shoes for once. We've been over this before. It's a perspective thing. If you're not willing to put yourself in their shoes, then of course it makes no sense to you. Perspective thing? Mandating unnecessary medical procedures is a perspective thing??? Tell me. If this was literally any other circumstance, would you seriously not be angry over the government mandating an unnecessary medical procedure? I cannot take a perspective that is bafflingly inconsistent. Our constitution is framed for the protection of three things: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. As you know, they happen in that order. If the claim is that abortion is a deprivation of that first point to the unborn, then logically it trumps any other government ideology you might hold. In other words, you are justified to use government to enforce that right for the unborn. The argument for the use of government enforcement is actually quite sound if you come at it from the perspective that you are depriving the right of life by supporting abortion. Um, the Constitution is framed to form a more perfect union, establish justice, provide for the common defense, ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. Edit: The Declaration of Independence says the purpose of the new government is to secure safety and happiness, too. The Founders knew that the only things the government should protect are the right to life, liberty, and property. Though this idea actually started with John Locke; an English philosopher who influenced the Founding Fathers greatly. That's true, but that's not how the Constitution is framed at all...and they also obviously knew the government should protect domestic tranquility and promote (which is more than protect) the general welfare. Edit: The "right to life" is as much a part of the framing of the constitution as the "right to privacy." They both are implicit and not part of the framing of the document. While I agree with you, one could use the Fifth Amendment as an argument for the so-called "right to life." The Constitution, at least in terms of the judicial system, recognize that individuals have the right to life. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. The Constitution only limits government (and originally only the federal government), so the "right to life" doesn't apply when a private individuals murder each other (abortion). I'm just pointing out that there is a reference to it in the Constitution. Well a fetus is not a person and I want any person who believes he thinks it is to answer this: If you believe a fetus is a person and an abortion is murder, then you are looking at the biggest crime in human history, the perpetual murder of millions of the most defenseless members of society right now. And your reaction to that is: well better vote Republican this time. Really? I mean really? I call bullshit, either you don't believe a fetus is a person and aborting is murder or you are full of shit. In a sense those who bomb abortion clinics are the only consistent ones. Btw would you support invading other countries because they abort? I mean so many more "persons" die this way than in all the conflicts where intervention was deemed necessary... The republican party doesn't want to stop abortions, they just want to make them illegal. Because abortion is bad, and you should feel bad. That's the gist of it anyway. Personally I like Roe. It establishes a balance between the rights of life, liberty, and happiness of the mother and the potential life of the fetus. It also has a very conservative leaning. Anti-abortion viewpoint: Abortion should be outlawed, the rights of the fetus outweigh the rights of the mother entirely Pro-abortion viewpoint: The state should not have the authority to force women to remain pregnant. The mother outweighs the child as she is a member of society and a person. Roe: For the first third of pregnancy, the mother's will supersedes that of the fetus. For the last two thirds, the fetus supersedes the will of the mother except for cases of incest and rape. I don't get how people are so against legal abortion. Roe is already an enormous compromise between two conflicting ideals. Repealing it is saying that you fail to understand that a large group of people either do not believe that the right to life applies at conception, or believe that the state has no right to force people to remain pregnant. Instead a more pro-life campaign would be to increase the quality of sex education and make contraceptives more accessible. You know, since these things have proven to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies. Actually, in hindsight sex is bad and has consequences that must be enforced by law so our teenage daughters don't become sluts. America!
Although rather extreme, I do see the logic in the dichotomy that silynxer draws. If you truly believe abortion is murder, then murder is occurring every day and somehow you're ok to let it pass until... something happens. That seems to suggest either you don't mind murder (that much), or the issue isn't quite as important to you as you profess. There's some degree of moral or cognitive dissonance there.
While Roe vs. Wade is a good compromise, well, I find myself on the right side of it, I think abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape or other danger to the mother, but that would be in an ideal world where people were educated about it and didn't do stupid things.
|
On October 23 2012 01:10 Recognizable wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 00:02 Swazi Spring wrote:
Do you vote for the Mormon socialist or for the black socialist? It makes no real difference either way, both are so unbelievably far-left that we're doomed either way. Everyone is rallying behind Mitt Romney to get Obama out of office, but even if Romney is elected, we'll still be heading in the wrong direction (socialism). Romney isn't going to do anything to decrease the national debt, end the welfare state, or even touch the Federal Reserve. Do you live in reality? Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SocialismIf the USA is socialist then I am a unicorn. Which would be fucking awesome.
America is socialist, in fact, just about every country is socialist to some extent these days. Unfortunately America is becoming more and more socialist; and by extension, less and less free (capitalist).
Even I support some socialist policies, but it's by no means my overarching ideology, nor is it something I think we should strive towards.
|
On October 23 2012 00:02 Swazi Spring wrote:
Do you vote for the Mormon socialist or for the black socialist? It makes no real difference either way, both are so unbelievably far-left that we're doomed either way. Everyone is rallying behind Mitt Romney to get Obama out of office, but even if Romney is elected, we'll still be heading in the wrong direction (socialism). Romney isn't going to do anything to decrease the national debt, end the welfare state, or even touch the Federal Reserve.
You don't know what "socialism" means son
|
I like how the socialists here have to resort to name-calling and appeals to ignorance instead of actually trying to counter my argument in rational and civilized manner. Please see the first rule of this thread.
|
On October 23 2012 01:23 Swazi Spring wrote:
I like how the socialists here have to resort to name-calling and appeals to ignorance instead of actually trying to counter my argument in rational and civilized manner. Please see the first rule of this thread.
You haven't presented an argument, you've simply thrown around buzzwords in the hope they coagulate into something coherent. Go ahead, give us a definition of socialism and apply it. Otherwise stop blowing hot air.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
