August West
Platinum Member
- Sep 5, 2014
- 14,088
- 5,843
- 400
My apologies Emily. Woosh, it went right over my head.How in the hell does someone abort babies? A former REPUBLICAN congressman from Pa. resigned recently when we learned that he encouraged his mistress to have an abortion. Your being played by these phonies.So who would attack a bunch of children?
Oh, that's right. Republicans. I forgot.
deanrd
Yep just as bad as liberal Democrats who believe in aborting babies.
Or BLM chanting that cops should fry like bacon
when it's the police putting their lives on the line
to defend their rights to march protest and chant freely
Anti-abortion Rep. Tim Murphy resigns after report he asked lover to end pregnancy
Hi August West
I think you got my sarcasm by your message
but missed it in mine.
My point is liberals blame conservatives for defending gun rights as killing children,
while conservatives blame liberals for defending abortion rights as killing babies!
And yes, like you point out too, BOTH sides argue the other uses that right and is hypocritical!
Bingo!
I am a prochoice Democrat, and a Constitutionalist first, with a Universalist level interpretation
where Natural Laws apply to all people as self-existent in human nature, and made statutory in the Constitution (like how spiritual laws exist by nature, but are spelled out by using religions as languages
for the laws from the Bible to Buddhism; Constitutionalism uses the Bill of Rights and Code of Ethics for Govt Service as the equivalent of the OT and NT laid out for the people to learn and enforce the laws)
I've had people argue I'm the equivalent of a murderer.
I've had friends argue that abortion is murder and not a choice,
whose beliefs I do defend as protected equally under law
as those who defend DUE PROCESS and freedom of choice equally as inviolate.
The way I argue that prochoice does not mean proabortion:
1. many Catholics are against the death penalty, but don't support making it illegal.
You can keep the law on the books that allows it to be carried out.
But work to end murder and crime, so that the death penalty is never carried out.
This can be done without banning the death penalty.
So being for the CHOICE of the death penalty is not the same as supporting executions.
Likewise being for the CHOICE of abortion without banning it
is NOT the same as supporting abortions. In my case I am antiabortion but prochoice,
and I find most people are a combination of those where they don't want abortion
and prefer it to be prevented, but many don't want to ban it because of legal complications
with that process.
2. all the prolife groups, activists and movements and programs out there
operate effectively to prevent and end abortion through educated free choice.
None of them require abortion to be banned in order to operate.
So we CAN prevent and even eliminate the causes of abortion 100% (as I believe
is possible, or very close to 100% prevention)
without having to ban it legally and/or criminalize women for it.
The prolife movement proves this can be done by free choice,
and even the most effective groups I have found that help women not to be pressured into abortions work by free choice not blaming or condemning women.
So August West you are preaching to the same
choir who sings the same song, or a similar tune in harmony at least.
I also argue very similarly that "due process" applies in gun rights cases,
and it's unconstitutional to Deprive Liberties or "freedom of choice" from law abiding citizens with intent to defend laws, punishing them the SAME as criminals with intent to violate laws.
there are better more specific ways to screen out mentally ill or legally incompetent people from abusing arms rather than banning them against the consent of law abiding citizens who refuse to be treated as criminals.
Laws should be passed by consent, similar to how prochoice and prolife don't agree to draw the line at conception but compromised and agreed on a limit at 3 months or the first trimester. Without consent of the governed, laws don't reflect the people as the government but get abused political to put one groups political or religious beliefs above another so it's oppressing the equal rights and beliefs of people of dissenting groups instead of protecting all people equally regardless of creed. So to have equal protection of the laws, we need to include the consent of people of BOTH sides' beliefs whether religious or political, these BELIEFS are equally protected under laws as our free choice or free exercise of religion.
If you look at the common principles and problems
with both gun rights and abortion rights, and conflicts both sides
with each other, you'll see a near mirror image or parallel between them.
both want due process and freedom from criminalization when it
comes to THEIR freedom of choice not getting BANNED by govt.
Both want to PREVENT the abuses and loss of life when that
freedom of choice isn't used to prevent problems but abused to CAUSE them.
in both cases, people are arguing to prevent the problems in better ways than just BANNING which introduces legal complications. In the case of abortion, just criminalizing penalizing or banning abortion affects women more than men who are equally responsible for the choice of sex and cause of pregnancy if not MORE in the case of coercion and rape so it's discriminatory for laws to only target women and not the men equally, and it violates "substantive due process" (so effective prevention requires intervening BEFORE the choice to have sex occurs, where men and women have equal responsibility, but where the govt has no authority to intervene). In the case of guns, banning or restricting guns without consent of the law abiding citizens affected deprives them of liberty and free choice without first proving or convicting them of any crime through due process. Again the solution is to come up with agreed laws for preventing abuses and problems WITHOUT imposing bans or restrictions that violate due process to degrees that people do not consent to give up to government.
In order to give up freedom to government, people have to consent. Like a legal contract you sign to commit to a partnership under mutual terms and conditions; all parties to the contract have to agree to the terms for it to be legally binding.
And where it involves beliefs, whether religious or political beliefs, human nature is such that people will not agree to change or give up their beliefs to govt control. so in cases of laws that touch on areas of inherent beliefs, whether gun rights or abortion rights, people will not even agree to majority rule or court ruling, but will refuse any laws that don't respect and reflect their consent, so that consensus on laws becomes necessary, or the dissenting side will keep protesting that law as unconstitutional.
it's best in such cases to focus on consensus to begin with. just forcing a law by political pressure majority rule or court ruling is not going to work when it comes to political beliefs that people refuse to change in order to comply with govt. they will fight back and forth to defend their beliefs.
instead of going against natural laws, we should recognize other groups political beliefs equally as our own and respect consensus as the standard.
that's what we want when it comes to OUR beliefs where we don't want any other group abusing govt to force us to change or comply against those beliefs; so by equal protection of the laws, we should respect the same when it comes to political beliefs of other people and groups as well.
