2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: macsak on September 22, 2020, 10:04:11 AM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wepH-jSFSeg
-
I hope she isn't picked. She's against abortion and too religious. Religion should never have a part in government. It's the one thing the right keeps fucking up. Along with freedom speech and rights. (Patriot act, going after internet companiesfor users postings, etc)
-
I hope she isn't picked. She's against abortion and too religious. Religion should never have a part in government. It's the one thing the right keeps fucking up. Along with freedom speech and rights. (Patriot act, going after internet companiesfor users postings, etc)
We have lots of judges who are personally against abortion on demand (not necessarily against abortion in cases of rape, incest or if pregnancy is a risk to the mother). They all are expected to put personal opinions aside and rule according to the law.
Ever since Roe, the judges have upheld abortion rights because of that precedence, not because of personal beliefs.
If Roe v Wade is ever reversed, it won't end abortion rights. it'll simply push the legal decisions back down to the states, like they existed before Roe.
It's irrational to believe the federal courts will ban abortions. They would simply stop the practice of using a bad law to force all states into compliance. So, if CA decides after-birth abortions are okay, the rest of the states have the ability to prohibit the practice.
You seem to be forgetting that the nation was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs. You can follow those beliefs without practicing religion. I think most people agree with the 10 Commandments, the concept of forgiveness, and with treating others as you want to be treated. Whether your acceptance of these moral concepts is based on what you learned from the Bible or from your parents is immaterial. The result is the same: a moral foundation that we all share.
Abortion is a very difficult issue. While many Christians see abortion as murder at any stage of development, many others believe there is a window in early development where the woman can choose to terminate the pregnancy. Others still believe the decision should be based on rational factors, not personal convenience. Then there are those who think life has no meaning at any point on the timeline, and they can kill before, during or after birth.
When Roe v Wade was being debated, the mantra from the Left said abortion should be safe, legal and rare. it has since become a call for abortions as a sign of normalcy. We have celebrities talking about how their first abortion was the best one, or that they wish daily that they could get pregnant so she, too, can be part of the clique who've all terminated a pregnancy. That's pretty sick.
There are extreme positions on both ends of the spectrum, but it all comes down to "what if". What if that child you didn't want was the prodigy that develops a cure for cancer, discovers a viable, sustainable form of energy with none of the current disadvantages of fossil fuels, or develops the first ship capable of traveling at light speed?
Millions of potential lives every year are terminated. I'd say the odds are in favor of at least a few of them being a major loss to the the human race in terms of achievement.
Planned Parenthood was based on the mission to terminate the births of children to minority parents. The Left has denied that truth for so long, they forgot how racist the organization is at its very roots. This year, they finally admitted it, but instead of disbanding them, they are simply expunging Margaret Sanger's name from buildings and monuments. Don't like the history of your racist group? Just erase a few names from the charter and carry on. :wtf:
New York's Planned Parenthood will remove founder's name over her views on eugenics
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/22/us/margaret-sanger-planned-parenthood-trnd/index.html
https://youtu.be/eWsm2JnDIC0
-
in 2017, Diane Feinstein tried to attack Barrett on her religious beliefs as a Catholic. I guess a Jew attacking a Christian isn't new, huh?
There is no religious litmus test for government positions, neither in favor of any particular religion nor opposed to any. To argue that a judge must have no deeply held religious beliefs is a litmus test: "only atheists and agnostics need apply."
I see Muslims in Congress and saw many surrounding the President, his cabinet, and Presidential candidate Clinton. Obama was raised in a mostly Muslim environment outside the US during his formative years. He's stated there's no more beautiful sound than the Call to Prayer announcements. Should those people be barred from making laws and influencing the course of the nation's policies solely because they hold beliefs in a certain religion?
But a Christian's faith is detrimental when seated on the bench? The faith preaches forgiveness. Seems like Liberals would welcome such an open-minded person to the courts.
https://youtu.be/M0ZUrXHnrl8
-
We have lots of judges who are personally against abortion on demand (not necessarily against abortion in cases of rape, incest or if pregnancy is a risk to the mother). They all are expected to put personal opinions aside and rule according to the law.
Ever since Roe, the judges have upheld abortion rights because of that precedence, not because of personal beliefs.
If Roe v Wade is ever reversed, it won't end abortion rights. it'll simply push the legal decisions back down to the states, like they existed before Roe.
It's irrational to believe the federal courts will ban abortions. They would simply stop the practice of using a bad law to force all states into compliance. So, if CA decides after-birth abortions are okay, the rest of the states have the ability to prohibit the practice.
You seem to be forgetting that the nation was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs. You can follow those beliefs without practicing religion. I think most people agree with the 10 Commandments, the concept of forgiveness, and with treating others as you want to be treated. Whether your acceptance of these moral concepts is based on what you learned from the Bible or from your parents is immaterial. The result is the same: a moral foundation that we all share.
Abortion is a very difficult issue. While many Christians see abortion as murder at any stage of development, many others believe there is a window in early development where the woman can choose to terminate the pregnancy. Others still believe the decision should be based on rational factors, not personal convenience. Then there are those who think life has no meaning at any point on the timeline, and they can kill before, during or after birth.
When Roe v Wade was being debated, the mantra from the Left said abortion should be safe, legal and rare. it has since become a call for abortions as a sign of normalcy. We have celebrities talking about how their first abortion was the best one, or that they wish daily that they could get pregnant so she, too, can be part of the clique who've all terminated a pregnancy. That's pretty sick.
There are extreme positions on both ends of the spectrum, but it all comes down to "what if". What if that child you didn't want was the prodigy that develops a cure for cancer, discovers a viable, sustainable form of energy with none of the current disadvantages of fossil fuels, or develops the first ship capable of traveling at light speed?
Millions of potential lives every year are terminated. I'd say the odds are in favor of at least a few of them being a major loss to the the human race in terms of achievement.
Planned Parenthood was based on the mission to terminate the births of children to minority parents. The Left has denied that truth for so long, they forgot how racist the organization is at its very roots. This year, they finally admitted it, but instead of disbanding them, they are simply expunging Margaret Sanger's name from buildings and monuments. Don't like the history of your racist group? Just erase a few names from the charter and carry on. :wtf:
New York's Planned Parenthood will remove founder's name over her views on eugenics
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/22/us/margaret-sanger-planned-parenthood-trnd/index.html
https://youtu.be/eWsm2JnDIC0
Abortion on convenience isn't a bad thing. No more than periods or shooting your load in a tissue. Or shedding hair. It's a collection of cells thats holds no real value scientifically. Planned Parenthood in my opinion is great. I've used their services before. I have no complaints. Just because poor people use it to cancel kids they don't want or can't even afford doesn't make it bad. I think it's far better than forcing them to have the child and brining that child into a life of poverty.
Also if they cancel it sure it won't ban it in say our state. But not everyone is fortunate to just pick where they live or get services. Especially if they are poor or young. Those who need abortions the most can't get it. It's your body, America is based on freedom for all not for those who live in X state.
-
Abortion on convenience isn't a bad thing. No more than periods or shooting your load in a tissue. Or shedding hair. It's a collection of cells thats holds no real value scientifically. Planned Parenthood in my opinion is great. I've used their services before. I have no complaints. Just because poor people use it to cancel kids they don't want or can't even afford doesn't make it bad. I think it's far better than forcing them to have the child and brining that child into a life of poverty.
Also if they cancel it sure it won't ban it in say our state. But not everyone is fortunate to just pick where they live or get services. Especially if they are poor or young. Those who need abortions the most can't get it. It's your body, America is based on freedom for all not for those who live in X state.
I hope your abortion was completed without complications...
-
She's against abortion and too religious.
I am glad access to abortions is important to you.
AFAIK, Ginsburg was a religious Jew, but that was fine? Catholics bother you?
It seems the homo "community" really hates her.
-
the argument that changed my mind was that if you define when life started we should also define when life ends
-
I am glad access to abortions is important to you.
AFAIK, Ginsburg was a religious Jew, but that was fine? Catholics bother you?
It seems the homo "community" really hates her.
Yeah, Little Chuckie Schumer said they were having rosh hashanah dinner when the announcement came that Justice Greenberg, er, Ginsburg had died and his daughter turned to her wife and said "I wonder if our right to marry will be preserved?" [For real, there's video of him saying exactly that, including "Greenberg"...][https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/09/aint-sht-stop-lying-people-schumer-rattled-hecklers-disrupt-presser-ginsburgs-replacement-video/ (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/09/aint-sht-stop-lying-people-schumer-rattled-hecklers-disrupt-presser-ginsburgs-replacement-video/)}
-
I hope your abortion was completed without complications...
You know they do stuff other than abortions. Got my ex on the birth control and they do stuff like STD tests and condoms. Important safe sex practices... Not that you would have any use of that.... :shaka:
-
I am glad access to abortions is important to you.
AFAIK, Ginsburg was a religious Jew, but that was fine? Catholics bother you?
It seems the homo "community" really hates her.
I do applaud her for not letting her religion influence her job. I don't care what you believe in as long as you dont let those beliefs influence your job. Your job is the interpret a non biased, non religious law. If you let your beliefs dictate how you rule on law you are doing it wrong.
-
the argument that changed my mind was that if you define when life started we should also define when life ends
What?
Life begins when you can leave the womb and can breath and survive, life ends when you cant? Pretty simple.
-
What?
Life begins when you can leave the womb and can breath and survive, life ends when you cant? Pretty simple.
What if a person is in a coma, suffered a heart attack, near drowning. Do we attempt to resuscitate? How long do we keep a person in a coma?
-
What if a person is in a coma.
They are breathing and alive? Unless you mean vegetative state then if you take them off life support do they die?
If we really get into the thick. I believe consciousness matters, but that's a harder concept to nail down.
-
What?
Life begins when you can leave the womb and can breath and survive, life ends when you cant? Pretty simple.
so a baby in the womb at what point can not be aborted? In your definition, an abortion can be performed right up until birth.
-
They are breathing and alive? Unless you mean vegetative state then if you take them off life support do they die?
If we really get into the thick. I believe consciousness matters, but that's a harder concept to nail down.
Does that define life?
-
Does that define life?
Two parts of life, physical and mental. One can say to be truly alive you need both. But I think mental is the more important of the two. Personally I believe if you dont have consciousness you are not "alive".
FYI a non viable fetus has neither.
-
Got my ex on the birth control and they do stuff like STD tests
I see why she is your "ex"
-
As far as I’m concerned abortion is murder....period....no two ways about it.
-
I do applaud her for not letting her religion influence her job. I don't care what you believe in as long as you dont let those beliefs influence your job. Your job is the interpret a non biased, non religious law. If you let your beliefs dictate how you rule on law you are doing it wrong.
please cite an instance or two when ACB let her beliefs dictate how she ruled on law...
-
please cite an instance or two when ACB let her beliefs dictate how she ruled on law...
Along with evidence that buzzie's Jewish faith did not influence anything, as the troll seemed to claim.
-
What?
Life begins when you can leave the womb and can breath and survive, life ends when you cant? Pretty simple.
They are breathing and alive? Unless you mean vegetative state then if you take them off life support do they die?
If we really get into the thick. I believe consciousness matters, but that's a harder concept to nail down.
Omg. Consciousness?
https://youtu.be/X48G7Y0VWW4
#imnotadoctor
#wevegotaliveone
-
The same Liberal idiots who use the argument for tax payer funded Climate Change programs, "But what if the Climate Change believers are RIGHT?" turn around and say about abortion, "Life only counts if it makes it out of the womb and doesn't need help to survive."
What if THEY are wrong?
The self-centered abortion-on-demand crowd has no concept of parenthood. Parents would sacrifice everything for their kids. The rest are worried that a kid will cause them to take care of someone other than themselves. Abortion to them is just another form of birth control, like condoms and the pill. What's missing is empathy. Fearing a few minutes of pleasure creates a life that changes your life forever is what shapes their opinions.
Sex without consequences.
-
please cite an instance or two when ACB let her beliefs dictate how she ruled on law...
still waiting...
-
still waiting...
She made a lecture opposing LGBT views in 2016. She also said in her nomination the Constitution doesn't protect privacy and that statement is against all freedoms and even roe v Wade. She was against affordable care act funding abortions too.
Then you gave that whole kingdom of God quote. So far plenty of evidence she's far right religious and it will influence her opinions.
-
She made a lecture opposing LGBT views in 2016.
Please be more specific. What views? That's too ambiguous to be considered an argument based on religion.
She also said in her nomination the Constitution doesn't protect privacy and that statement is against all freedoms and even roe v Wade.
I have the same opinion, and it has NOTHING to do with religion (i'm not a practicing follower of any religion). Roe v Wade was BAD LAW. There is no such "Right to Privacy" in the Constitution. If you disagree, please point to the part of the Constitution that includes the word "privacy".
She was against affordable care act funding abortions too.
I'm against ACA forcing me to pay into any insurance plan that pays for abortions for other people. I want the freedom to buy a policy that does not include services I find immoral or nonessential. The ACA is a tax program. They said so before the Supreme Court. Therefore our taxes are being used to cover abortions, sex reassignment, transgender procedures, and other procedures we are all being forced to financially provide as members of the exchange. The Gov't wants us ALL to be on the ACA roles.
Then you gave that whole kingdom of God quote. So far plenty of evidence she's far right religious and it will influence her opinions.
That's your opinion and purely hypothetical. You have given no specific examples where she has ever done that. As a judge on the 7th circuit appellate, you should be able to find at least one example if what you said is true.
So far, you've failed to answer the question -- just like you have failed on other questions put to you. Nothing but hyperbolic bullshit.
:wacko:
-
She made a lecture opposing LGBT views in 2016. She also said in her nomination the Constitution doesn't protect privacy and that statement is against all freedoms and even roe v Wade. She was against affordable care act funding abortions too.
Then you gave that whole kingdom of God quote. So far plenty of evidence she's far right religious and it will influence her opinions.
I said to cite examples where it influenced how she ruled on laws...
"plenty of evidence" is in your opinion (which you always neglect to say)
-
What?
Life begins when you can leave the womb and can breath and survive, life ends when you cant? Pretty simple.
I think the definition of life is the heartbeat. Even babies cut out of the womb early can survive with modern medicine.
Life starts with independent heartbeat and ends when it stops.
A baby in the womb after a very short period of time develops and maintains a heartbeat all on it's own
and realistically all death certificates can list cause of death as heart failure.
-
Please be more specific. What views? That's too ambiguous to be considered an argument based on religion.
I have the same opinion, and it has NOTHING to do with religion (i'm not a practicing follower of any religion). Roe v Wade was BAD LAW. There is no such "Right to Privacy" in the Constitution. If you disagree, please point to the part of the Constitution that includes the word "privacy".
I'm against ACA forcing me to pay into any insurance plan that pays for abortions for other people. I want the freedom to buy a policy that does not include services I find immoral or nonessential. The ACA is a tax program. They said so before the Supreme Court. Therefore our taxes are being used to cover abortions, sex reassignment, transgender procedures, and other procedures we are all being forced to financially provide as members of the exchange. The Gov't wants us ALL to be on the ACA roles.
That's your opinion and purely hypothetical. You have given no specific examples where she has ever done that. As a judge on the 7th circuit appellate, you should be able to find at least one example if what you said is true.
So far, you've failed to answer the question -- just like you have failed on other questions put to you. Nothing but hyperbolic bullshit.
:wacko:
Idk what 4th ammendment you are reading but the right of the people to be secure in their persons is privacy....
Hard to find a case because most judges don't take cases like that because it's president
Says the person who failed to even respond to my right of the mother not to be forced to take a baby to term....
-
I think the definition of life is the heartbeat. Even babies cut out of the womb early can survive with modern medicine.
Life starts with independent heartbeat and ends when it stops.
A baby in the womb after a very short period of time develops and maintains a heartbeat all on it's own
and realistically all death certificates can list cause of death as heart failure.
That works physically but not mentally. If they cut off your head but keep your heart pumping are you alive?
-
I think the definition of life is the heartbeat. Even babies cut out of the womb early can survive with modern medicine.
Life starts with independent heartbeat and ends when it stops.
A baby in the womb after a very short period of time develops and maintains a heartbeat all on it's own
and realistically all death certificates can list cause of death as heart failure.
On average, a fetus is fully developed at around 25 weeks, or 6 months. If an abortion is performed after that, the doctor must attempt to induce a heart attack prior to the abortion. Sometimes they do partial-birth abortions where they deliver the head, then use a scalpel or snips to sever the brain stem before completing delivery.
Basically, they KILL a living human being before removal. The only criteria used to justify that murder versus one after birth is location. Nothing scientific differentiates the living person inside the womb and one outside the womb. A difference of a few inches in location is all that's considered.
-
That works physically but not mentally. If they cut off your head but keep your heart pumping are you alive?
The head is a physical part of the body.
-
I said to cite examples where it influenced how she ruled on laws...
"plenty of evidence" is in your opinion (which you always neglect to say)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barrett-abortion-roe-v-wade-judicial-precedent-her-own-words-1533
-
The head is a physical part of the body.
Also, the heart cannot function without the autonomic control of the brain. A person on life support and without brains function is clinically considered dead. That's why it's legal to disconnect the machines keeping the heart pumping.
Where did you study medicine? My guess: nowhere.
-
Also, the heart cannot function without the autonomic control of the brain. A person on life support and without brains function is clinically considered dead. That's why it's legal to disconnect the machines keeping the heart pumping.
Where did you study medicine? My guess: nowhere.
I'm not a doctor but I know they have ways to keep the body "alive" after death. Mostly used for transplants. In animals too to keep the heart pumping.
Yes that's exactly what I was saying this while time consciousness to me is life. The physical part isn't that important.
-
She is a great pick as far as throwing the religious right and evangelicals a bone. They have been ignored and neglected as a captured demographic similarly to how the left has thrown unions under the bus yet still demands their loyalty.
Trump may have many faults, but he knows the game has changed. Most pols are still pretending that populism does not exist.
-
I'm not a doctor but I know they have ways to keep the body "alive" after death. Mostly used for transplants. In animals too to keep the heart pumping.
Yes that's exactly what I was saying this while time consciousness to me is life. The physical part isn't that important.
So when a person loses consciousness we do not revive?
-
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barrett-abortion-roe-v-wade-judicial-precedent-her-own-words-1533
PAGE NOT FOUND
Sorry, but that page cannot be found.
The page might have moved to a different location or there might have been an error in the URL you were trying to access. If you believe that the link is broken, please contact us and we will look into the issue. Also, you can try using the search box above or go to our homepage.
-
Idk what 4th ammendment you are reading but the right of the people to be secure in their persons is privacy....
Hard to find a case because most judges don't take cases like that because it's president
Says the person who failed to even respond to my right of the mother not to be forced to take a baby to term....
what does trump have to do with this?
-
I'm not a doctor but I know they have ways to keep the body "alive" after death. Mostly used for transplants. In animals too to keep the heart pumping.
Yes that's exactly what I was saying this while time consciousness to me is life. The physical part isn't that important.
There is no solid line between "alive" and "dead". Someone whose heart stops can be revived up to two minutes after that before brain damage begins. There are documented cases of people drowning in frozen rivers and lakes and then resuscitated after much longer times. This person was underwater for 87 minutes and had a body temp of about 56 degrees F. She was warmed up and resuscitated. Her heart stopped, She had no brain activity (can't happen without blood flowing that long). She was not alive. Now she is -- again.
https://www.thevintagenews.com/2019/04/03/the-swedish-skier/
There is no bright, definite line between what is a viable living organism and what is not. Only an arrogant human would presume to know where that line exists. Even the best doctors can't tell you where that line is. They can only render opinions based on currently known facts. There is still much more we don't know about medicine. People who had no chance of recovering from a vegetative state suddenly wake up and lead normal lives. I have a friend with a head injury that literally only 1 in 1 million survive beyond 1 year, and less than that with normal brain function (above a child's capacity). He was 16 when he was transported to the hospital in a body bag. He retired from the Navy last year and lives in FL.
Given the lack of certainty surrounding the mysteries of life, it's impossible that you could know beyond all doubt when life begins.
-
I'd say :popcorn:, but that'd be a waste of perfectly good popcorn...
-
This is actually quite entertaining. Seeing a one legged person really trying to compete in an asskicking contest. Esp one that “seams” to think they are up to it. More like a 10 watt lightbulb trying to enlighten the world.
-
Y'all still arguing with some millennial with a smartphone and Gargle to keep looking up stuff? What is this now, up to four clowns that seem to come here just to argue?
I quit giving those types the time of day over a decade ago when I realized it was like arguing with a spoiled little kid, pointless. If I bother, it will be with someone of similar life experience, not a child.
-
Y'all still arguing with some millennial with a smartphone and Gargle to keep looking up stuff? What is this now, up to four clowns that seem to come here just to argue?
I quit giving those types the time of day over a decade ago when I realized it was like arguing with a spoiled little kid, pointless. If I bother, it will be with someone of similar life experience, not a child.
It's not a simple problem, but he makes it sound as if he's got it all figured out.
I like to watch people with self-inflicted wounds suffer ....
-
I guess this is the wrong forum to say any different views. I'm probably the only one here using a cell phone. Enjoy your echo chamber but realize there are all types of gun supporters and the future of your rights are those of my generation. Try not to alienate them all. We are the future.
-
I guess this is the wrong forum to say any different views. I'm probably the only one here using a cell phone. Enjoy your echo chamber but realize there are all types of gun supporters and the future of your rights are those of my generation. Try not to alienate them all. We are the future.
Meh. I disagree with folks on here all the time. You're just frustrated because no one sees the world the way you do. I mean you're free to think how you want to think, just don't get all frustrated when folks don't agree statements that you make can can't back up.
Think #notarealdoctor is still waiting for you to cite an example. . .
-
Meh. I disagree with folks on here all the time. You're just frustrated because no one sees the world the way you do. I mean you're free to think how you want to think, just don't get all frustrated when folks don't agree statements that you make can can't back up.
Think #notarealdoctor is still waiting for you to cite an example. . .
True everyone has their own opinions but the gang up heard mentality isn't helping the gun cause. The way to expand gun rights is to be more inclusive not exclusive. Most young people view civil rights and freedom very highly. Personal freedoms to abort, fuck or be with whoever or whatever you want or any number of things regarding personal freedom. Its a bit hypocritical of the right to be so called pro freedom, but at the same time be so anti-freedom. You can have your own opinions about anything but you shouldn't force your opinions on another. If you think abortion is against god, then just don't do it. Its simple. Don't make others follow your personal rules.
https://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barrett-abortion-roe-v-wade-judicial-precedent-her-own-words-1533707
-
True everyone has their own opinions but the gang up heard mentality isn't helping the gun cause. The way to expand gun rights is to be more inclusive not exclusive. Most young people view civil rights and freedom very highly. Personal freedoms to abort, fuck or be with whoever or whatever you want or any number of things regarding personal freedom. Its a bit hypocritical of the right to be so called pro freedom, but at the same time be so anti-freedom. You can have your own opinions about anything but you shouldn't force your opinions on another. If you think abortion is against god, then just don't do it. Its simple. Don't make others follow your personal rules.
https://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barrett-abortion-roe-v-wade-judicial-precedent-her-own-words-1533707
That's certainly debatable - the "right" to terminate a pregnancy. As you can see there are many issues with this "freedom". I think it is beyond the right of a woman. This is not as simple as the rights of woman. Owning firearms is a right - the moment you murder another human being with that right then it becomes a crime. There is a responsibility. I agree with Reagan. The ones who are calling for an abortion, withstanding a pregnancy as a result of a rape or one that would endanger the life of a woman; are ironically the ones who are already gifted life.
I don't agree with everyone here on everything. I think ARs are superior over the commie AK. We can argue all day. In the end it was a good day....
-
True everyone has their own opinions but the gang up heard mentality isn't helping the gun cause. The way to expand gun rights is to be more inclusive not exclusive.
Kid, get off the iFag and learn to spell.
"gun cause" Since when is that of interest to you? Proselytizing about leftwing narratives seems to be your focus.
As i recall, you first showed up here wanting to argue endlessly about the globull warming farce. You vanished and now come back wanting to trash a supreme court candidate. Same modus.
It is clear you just like arguing like a teenage girl. You to my view, are another millennial with a smartphone, google, and an attitude that you are more smart and clever than all those geezers.
Now you are whining you get no respect?
-
That's certainly debatable - the "right" to terminate a pregnancy. As you can see there are many issues with this "freedom". I think it is beyond the right of a woman. This is not as simple as the rights of woman. Owning firearms is a right - the moment you murder another human being with that right then it becomes a crime. There is a responsibility. I agree with Reagan. The ones who are calling for an abortion, withstanding a pregnancy as a result of a rape or one that would endanger the life of a woman; are ironically the ones who are already gifted life.
I don't agree with everyone here on everything. I think ARs are superior over the commie AK. We can argue all day. In the end it was a good day....
Let's switch arguments then because it's impossible to argue if it's alive, too much opinions. Let's agree that a baby in a way is a parasite as it can't live without the mother with our current level of technology. Is it your right to force someone to do something for 9 months against their will? Then force them to live with the repercussions for another 18+?
If you went swimming in the lake and there was this magical parasite like leech that latched onto your balls but if you leave it for 9 months it turns into a baby should society force your to keep the leech? Or should it be your decision because no one other than you has that right to make that decision.
-
Kid, get off the iFag and learn to spell.
"gun cause" Since when is that of interest to you? Proselytizing about leftwing narratives seems to be your focus.
As i recall, you first showed up here wanting to argue endlessly about the globull warming farce. You vanished and now come back wanting to trash a supreme court candidate. Same modus.
It is clear you just like arguing like a teenage girl. You to my view, are another millennial with a smartphone, google, and an attitude that you are more smart and clever than all those geezers.
Now you are whining you get no respect?
I wrote in for laws, showed up to protest and vote for those who support 2a? What more shall I do? Do you want me to wave my dick around saying how much I love guns here. It's pretty obvious everyone here supports gun rights. Not sure why you are hating on young people. I vanished because it was clearly not a topic I could win with this group. Still believe but I did my best to try and convince others, but after a while it was time to move on the conversation was too toxic.
Guns aren't my only opinion or thing I value. I'm not a one issue voter or person. Echo chambers are not healthy. We should be more inclusive of others if we want to keep our gun rights.
-
True everyone has their own opinions but the gang up heard mentality isn't helping the gun cause. The way to expand gun rights is to be more inclusive not exclusive. Most young people view civil rights and freedom very highly. Personal freedoms to abort, fuck or be with whoever or whatever you want or any number of things regarding personal freedom. Its a bit hypocritical of the right to be so called pro freedom, but at the same time be so anti-freedom. You can have your own opinions about anything but you shouldn't force your opinions on another. If you think abortion is against god, then just don't do it. Its simple. Don't make others follow your personal rules.
"The way to expand gun rights is to be more inclusive not exclusive", with folks who are articulate and can speak intelligently about gun rights. You "seam" to want to set "presidents" with your statements about "heard" mentality. Ok, spelling, grammar, and hooked on phonics aside. Mr #imnotarealdoctor likes to call me out on that as well, but I like to think I back up my statements with rational arguments. You seem to just want to "do what you like" and not get called out when you say things that are way out there. That's not hypocritical, that's called living in society. You must not have many friends. All I know if I said some of the things you said, I'd be immediately called out on it.
Let's switch arguments then because it's impossible to argue if it's alive, too much opinions. Let's agree that a baby in a way is a parasite as it can't live without the mother with our current level of technology. Is it your right to force someone to do something for 9 months against their will? Then force them to live with the repercussions for another 18+?
If you went swimming in the lake and there was this magical parasite like leech that latched onto your balls but if you leave it for 9 months it turns into a baby should society force your to keep the leech? Or should it be your decision because no one other than you has that right to make that decision.
See, that's YOUR opinion about what YOU think it means to be alive. Consciousness? I think not. Baby as a parasite? Then an analogy with a leech? GMAFB. . .
-
Let's switch arguments then because it's impossible to argue if it's alive, too much opinions. Let's agree that a baby in a way is a parasite as it can't live without the mother with our current level of technology. Is it your right to force someone to do something for 9 months against their will? Then force them to live with the repercussions for another 18+?
If you went swimming in the lake and there was this magical parasite like leech that latched onto your balls but if you leave it for 9 months it turns into a baby should society force your to keep the leech? Or should it be your decision because no one other than you has that right to make that decision.
The way I see it, it is a personal responsibility thing.
Women cannot get pregnant without having sex. Men are just as responsible for that act as well. Problem is these arguments neglect any and all responsibility for the act itself and it's consequences. The left has, and always will be, the side that wants to destroy any and all sense of personal responsibility for one's actions. We see it in EVERY thing they take issue with from crime, politics, race, abortion, EVERYTHING. Everything is always someone else's fault, NEVER one of someone's OWN poor choices.
-
The way I see it, it is a personal responsibility thing.
Women cannot get pregnant without having sex. Men are just as responsible for that act as well. Problem is these arguments neglect any and all responsibility for the act itself and it's consequences. The left has, and always will be, the side that wants to destroy any and all sense of personal responsibility for one's actions. We see it in EVERY thing they take issue with from crime, politics, race, abortion, EVERYTHING. Everything is always someone else's fault, NEVER one of someone's OWN poor choices.
That's what I was getting at earlier when I said a woman has rights to make decisions with her body, but that also includes being accountable for those decisions and to accept the consequences when they happen. "Sex without consequences" sounds like a good thing, until you find our that even if you don't make a baby, catch - and infect others with - a disease, or get falsely accused of rape, there's the emotional side of trusting someone with a part of yourself that's very vulnerable only to find out they are just playing you.
Maybe Omni will understand this one day after he's actually had intercourse ..... with a woman.
And, if being a "parasite" were a reason to give someone a one-way ticket to paradise, there are millions dependent on the government (aka tax payers) to live.
-
Let's switch arguments then because it's impossible to argue if it's alive, too much opinions. Let's agree that a baby in a way is a parasite as it can't live without the mother with our current level of technology. Is it your right to force someone to do something for 9 months against their will? Then force them to live with the repercussions for another 18+?
If you went swimming in the lake and there was this magical parasite like leech that latched onto your balls but if you leave it for 9 months it turns into a baby should society force your to keep the leech? Or should it be your decision because no one other than you has that right to make that decision.
It is not impossible to argue. A fetus from the moment of conception is most definitely “alive”. What is debated is whether or not the fetus has rights.
Just because the baby cannot survive without the mother does not make it a parasite. A parasitic relationship is characterized by the fact that nutrients is consumed at the cost of its host. By your definition my 3 year old is also a parasite considering he could not live without me taking care of him.
Your analogy is so preposterous it’s difficult to imagine you Put any thought into it. However I’ll play along. Does this hypothetical man who jumped in the lake know that by swimming in this lake a leech will attach to his balls? Was there another activity he could have done besides swimming in this lake? Was there something he could have put on his balls to keep the leech away? Do you see where this is going? A little bit of personal responsibility goes a long way.
-
True everyone has their own opinions but the gang up heard mentality isn't helping the gun cause. The way to expand gun rights is to be more inclusive not exclusive. Most young people view civil rights and freedom very highly. Personal freedoms to abort, fuck or be with whoever or whatever you want or any number of things regarding personal freedom. Its a bit hypocritical of the right to be so called pro freedom, but at the same time be so anti-freedom. You can have your own opinions about anything but you shouldn't force your opinions on another. If you think abortion is against god, then just don't do it. Its simple. Don't make others follow your personal rules.
https://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barrett-abortion-roe-v-wade-judicial-precedent-her-own-words-1533707
"Preventing a state statute from taking effect is a judicial act of extraordinary gravity in our federal structure," the dissent read.
wow, she is obviously using her catholic beliefs strongly in this position...
-
"Preventing a state statute from taking effect is a judicial act of extraordinary gravity in our federal structure," the dissent read.
wow, she is obviously using her catholic beliefs strongly in this position...
Obviously, voting against the majority on a panel of judges is tyrannical and based on nothing BUT religious dogma.
It CAN'T be based on anything else, like her interpretation of the facts of the case and the law. :geekdanc: :thumbsup:
it's obvious that the Pro-Choice/Pro-Abortion people are terrified of opening the Roe decision for review. The decision was released in 1973. This is 2020. There have been a TON of new medical findings in that field over those 47 years. If new SCIENCE contradicts the facts used back then, it could prove that the law was based on erroneous scientific arguments, and that we should reconsider whether or not what we now know changes that decision.
You know, kind of like how the Left loves to say how the Second Amendment no long applies, or the electoral college is outdated? "Times change, and so should our laws."
-
Obviously, voting against the majority on a panel of judges is tyrannical and based on nothing BUT religious dogma.
It CAN'T be based on anything else, like her interpretation of the facts of the case and the law. :geekdanc: :thumbsup:
it's obvious that the Pro-Choice/Pro-Abortion people are terrified of opening the Roe decision for review. The decision was released in 1973. This is 2020. There have been a TON of new medical findings in that field over those 47 years. If new SCIENCE contradicts the facts used back then, it could prove that the law was based on erroneous scientific arguments, and that we should reconsider whether or not what we now know changes that decision.
You know, kind of like how the Left loves to say how the Second Amendment no long applies, or the electoral college is outdated? "Times change, and so should our laws."
If I’m not mistaken, Barrett has said that RvW is a done deal at that the only question that needs answering is whether or not abortions should be government funded.
-
As for "privacy", Ginsburg said that the Roe decision did not establish a woman's right to have an abortion (so nothing about "my body, my choice" applies). It instead protected a doctor's right to perform abortions (something that was illegal in many states).
The Supreme Court shoehorned the practice into the Constitution as a woman's "right" based on privacy between herself and her doctor. There's no such thing as an individual's right to privacy in the Constitution when it comes to abortion. If there were, then ANYTHING a person, male or female, wished to do with their own bodies could not be made a crime. We all know that's not the case. Deductive reasoning tells us that the right to privacy argument is bullshit.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This in no way says that the individual has a right to privacy. It says the GOVERNMENT can't gather evidence of you committing a crime without a valid warrant based on probable cause. Nothing more, nothing less.
The Roe v Wade decision was bad law on its face. It should have remained a state matter. Arguing that people in this state can't move to another state to get what they want ignores the other stance -- that the people in this state have every means at their disposal to pass the laws they want. If the majority decides against it and you lose, that's tough. Why should the MINORITY be allowed to FORCE THEIR BELIEFS ON THE MAJORITY through a bad SCOTUS ruling disguised as a Constitutional right?
-
People who are against any kind of abortion are usually the first to sneak the neighbors 16yo daughter to the Planned Parenthood clinic and forge her parents signature after accidentally knocking her up. The Catholic church has a history of allowing pedophilia, and right wing politicians and public figures who rallied against gay rights were regularly getting caught in seedy hotel rooms with their boyfriend and a bag of crystal meth. Life is not the issue, but control, and similar to the radical leftists and their racist ideological purge of racism, it is usually the right wingers who scream loudest about how every life is precious that end up respecting life the least.
-
If I’m not mistaken, Barrett has said that RvW is a done deal at that the only question that needs answering is whether or not abortions should be government funded.
please don't confuse omnigun with facts, he's content with his feelings...
-
I give up arguing, even if I convince people it doesn't matter. But I'm willing to take bets that if she gets put on the court abortion will be restricted more in some way. Who's interested?
-
I give up arguing, even if I convince people it doesn't matter. But I'm willing to take bets that if she gets put on the court abortion will be restricted more in some way. Who's interested?
Having one Catholic justice is not going to swing things significantly. Trump put up two moderates already, so the only concern going forward is if a future right-wing president stacks it even more.
-
I give up arguing, even if I convince people it doesn't matter. But I'm willing to take bets that if she gets put on the court abortion will be restricted more in some way. Who's interested?
How long are we supposed to wait for this "abortion restriction" by the Supreme Court to happen?
In other words, you can't put off paying the bettor indefinitely hoping it eventually happens one day in the distant future.
-
I give up arguing, even if I convince people it doesn't matter. But I'm willing to take bets that if she gets put on the court abortion will be restricted more in some way. Who's interested?
I’d rather bet on Lie Hagi’s weather forecasts.
-
How long are we supposed to wait for this "abortion restriction" by the Supreme Court to happen?
In other words, you can't put off paying the bettor indefinitely hoping it eventually happens one day in the distant future.
True I would like to say it depends on who elected president. Republican or Democrat to be fair i would say 8 years that gives ample opportunity to both sides. Unless you have a better idea. Rules will be simple. If in those 8 years an abortion case gets heard by the Supreme Court if Amy votes to limit or eliminate abortion rights i win. If she votes to keep the status quo or expand rights you win. If no case is accepted by the court then the bet is void.
-
People who are against any kind of abortion are usually the first to sneak the neighbors 16yo daughter to the Planned Parenthood clinic and forge her parents signature after accidentally knocking her up. The Catholic church has a history of allowing pedophilia, and right wing politicians and public figures who rallied against gay rights were regularly getting caught in seedy hotel rooms with their boyfriend and a bag of crystal meth. Life is not the issue, but control, and similar to the radical leftists and their racist ideological purge of racism, it is usually the right wingers who scream loudest about how every life is precious that end up respecting life the least.
You really dislike Catholics don’t you.... pretty broad statement.... I guess in your world all the other religions are good to go....
Thanks for the education! :thumbsup:
-
getting caught in seedy hotel rooms with their boyfriend and a bag of crystal meth.
You talking about Andrew Gillum?
He is a democrat.
-
You really dislike Catholics don’t you.... pretty broad statement.... I guess in your world all the other religions are good to go....
Thanks for the education! :thumbsup:
It's funny how association with a church is used as a label when doing something wrong, as if the church was the CAUSE of the bad act.
It's logical to believe that affiliating with ANTIFA, BLM, the KKK, Nazi groups, and gangs influenced a person to commit crimes. It's a major stretch to blame the Catholic church for the crimes of their members. I've read the Bible, and there's nothing I found that teaches the opposite of the 10 Commandments.
There are bad actors in all groups. Labeling the group bad because of a member's actions, especially when the group teaches the opposite behavior, is plain ignorance.
-
It's funny how association with a church is used as a label when doing something wrong, as if the church was the CAUSE of the bad act.
It's logical to believe that affiliating with ANTIFA, BLM, the KKK, Nazi groups, and gangs influenced a person to commit crimes. It's a major stretch to blame the Catholic church for the crimes of their members. I've read the Bible, and there's nothing I found that teaches the opposite of the 10 Commandments.
There are bad actors in all groups. Labeling the group bad because of a member's actions, especially when the group teaches the opposite behavior, is plain ignorance.
Certain groups are “seemingly” easily distracted by propaganda. It’s been working well since Obama. Thankfully I’m seeing more folks seeing through the smoke screen.
-
You really dislike Catholics don’t you.... pretty broad statement.... I guess in your world all the other religions are good to go....
Thanks for the education! :thumbsup:
Individual Catholics have about the same variety of qualities as most other groups of individual humans, but the leadership of the organization is an entirely different story. The pedophile scandal is too fresh to ignore when arguments of moral superiority start getting thrown around. Once again we find people who claim every life matters turn out to not put a very high value of the lives of the children that they sexually assaulted and swept under the rug.
-
You talking about Andrew Gillum?
He is a democrat.
https://lmgtfy.app/?q=anti-lgbt+gets+caught
If you want to find people who are sexually repressed, all you have to do is look for the ones shouting the loudest from their supposed moral high ground.
-
https://lmgtfy.app/?q=anti-lgbt+gets+caught
If you want to find people who are sexually repressed, all you have to do is look for the ones shouting the loudest from their supposed moral high ground.
All generalities are false ......
-
All generalities are false ......
;D I see what you did there
-
Individual Catholics have about the same variety of qualities as most other groups of individual humans, but the leadership of the organization is an entirely different story. The pedophile scandal is too fresh to ignore when arguments of moral superiority start getting thrown around. Once again we find people who claim every life matters turn out to not put a very high value of the lives of the children that they sexually assaulted and swept under the rug.
I suppose all the other religions are not guilty of the same? Pretty narrow view if you ask me. I bet if you search for the facts you’ll discover that ALL religious leaders are guilty of the same if not more heinous crimes against humanity. Scores of people have died in the name of religion and that is a sad thing for sure but more babies have been murdered because they were an mere inconvenience to the so called biological parents. As an adoptive parent I abhor abortion but praise the courage of biological mothers who decided to bring their children into the world. I also realize that there may be cases for exceptions but the ugly truth is abortion is looked upon as being a normal reaction to an unfortunate situation which could have been prevented. Evidently this so called parents are/were too ignorant to use contraception. I personally value life having learned a somber lesson in Vietnam from the lives I took. Can you say the same? I doubt it....
Sorry, I don’t buy your analogy which is IMHO seriously flawed at best but I respect your opinions....
P.S.: yes I’m a practicing Roman Catholic Christian ;)
-
I suppose all the other religions are not guilty of the same? Pretty narrow view if you ask me. I bet if you search for the facts you’ll discover that ALL religious leaders are guilty of the same if not more heinous crimes against humanity. Scores of people have died in the name of religion and that is a sad thing for sure but more babies have been murdered because they were an mere inconvenience to the so called biological parents. As an adoptive parent I abhor abortion but praise the courage of biological mothers who decided to bring their children into the world. I also realize that there may be cases for exceptions but the ugly truth is abortion is looked upon as being a normal reaction to an unfortunate situation which could have been prevented. Evidently this so called parents are/were too ignorant to use contraception. I personally value life having learned a somber lesson in Vietnam from the lives I took. Can you say the same? I doubt it....
Sorry, I don’t buy your analogy which is IMHO seriously flawed at best....
P.S.: yes I’m a practicing Roman Catholic Christian ;)
Since there has been a God, there has been killing in his name.
-
Since there has been a God, there has been killing in his name.
Absolutely true but whose fault is that? Not God but humankind...So sad but true....... :(
Ok back to topic, mrgaf.....
-
Since there has been a God, there has been killing in his name.
From my reading, Joan of Arc was mentally ill and heard voices. One way she had at that time of explaining the voices was that God was talking to her.
I imagine mental illness in pre-modern-medical times was often deemed either some spirit or demon was causing it.
The Romans, Greeks and Egyptians all created great and powerful empires. They worshipped many gods and other deities. We now call what they worshipped "myths".
Leaders who can convince others that they are following orders from a higher power are often respected. They must be special if God chose to speak through them.
"If God is for us, who can be against us?"
These historical and philosophical examples is one reason religion is feared and denigrated now. Nobody with any moral values wants another Crusade war or the continuation of mass murder in the name of Allah. Unfortunately, today we still see Muslims trying to eliminate Jews and Christians through genocide (Bosnia, Palestine, ...). I don't see too many examples of Christians killing in large numbers today. So now we make it a liberty accusation: "Don't force your beliefs on me!" That's hypocritical, because the Liberals are literally passing laws that force the ideas of the minority onto the majority.
No matter who Trump nominates Saturday, the Left will try to run another game of character assassination on her.
I almost hope Trump nominates someone other than Barrett, just to waste all the gnashing of teeth and foaming at the mouth they did all this week over her! :rofl: :rofl:
-
Absolutely true but whose fault is that? Not God but humankind...So sad but true....... :(
Ok back to topic, mrgaf.....
Not blaming anyone. But yeah, humans in general. It’s just a quote I remember from back when I was little and really turned me away from religion in general. Then I took a bunch of Religious studies classes in college and actually enjoyed them and was enlightened in some ways.