the hypocrisy of libs (guns and abortion)

[NYcarbineer]

Fetuses are not offspring. Roe v Wade is case law giving a woman the right to an abortion. If you don't like how the Constitution works,

leave.

It was and is bad law, and it's not a Constitutional issue. A fetus isn't an offspring until someone kills the baby in your wife's womb. The hypocrisy of the left on this is monumental. They hold on to the argument as if its' fetal tissue on second and a baby the next, depending on whether they wanted it or not.

There is no protection whatsoever in the Constitution for fetuses as persons, citizens, or any equivalent,

but there is constitutional protection of privacy.

Like it or not, that means a woman's right to an abortion is protected by the Constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Libs want law abiding citizens to give up their guns, which are protected by the Constitution and B.O.R. Gun owners, 99% of whom are law abiding want to protect their families, their homes and their BODIES from attack/criminals/scumbags etc. Libs want to force gun owners to lose their gun rights.

Libs want women to have control over their bodies and make their own decisions. They say that no one has the right to tell them what to do. Libs say no one should force a woman to not abort.

Can you see the issue here?

Sure, the issue is, why do people like you insist on having the right to own guns while insisting that a woman must not have the right to an abortion?

The 2nd amendment gives us the right to own guns, it also gives us the right to life, not the right to kill the unborn. Both are Constitutional.
Killing your own offspring is not in the Constitution.

Fetuses are not offspring. Roe v Wade is case law giving a woman the right to an abortion. If you don't like how the Constitution works,

leave.

fetus
/fe·tus/ (fēt?us) [L.] the developing young in the uterus, specifically the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, in humans from nine weeks after fertilization until birth.

'unborn'. There is no protection whatsoever for the unborn in the Constitution.

 

[Iceweasel]

Fetuses are not offspring. Roe v Wade is case law giving a woman the right to an abortion. If you don't like how the Constitution works,

leave.

It was and is bad law, and it's not a Constitutional issue. A fetus isn't an offspring until someone kills the baby in your wife's womb. The hypocrisy of the left on this is monumental. They hold on to the argument as if its' fetal tissue on second and a baby the next, depending on whether they wanted it or not.

There is no protection whatsoever in the Constitution for fetuses as persons, citizens, or any equivalent,

but there is constitutional protection of privacy.

Like it or not, that means a woman's right to an abortion is protected by the Constitution.

You dodged my point. At what point does it go from fetus to baby? 2 months? 7 months? 8.5 months? The Constitution doesn't say. Those kinds of details need to be decided by states, not the Constitution.

 

[Iceweasel]

The 2nd amendment gives us the right to own guns, it also gives us the right to life, not the right to kill the unborn. Both are Constitutional.
Killing your own offspring is not in the Constitution.

So there is only a murder charge on the woman on her way to delivering a baby? I don't think so. Double homicide charges do happen and are prosecuted successfully.

 

[initforme]

Hypocrisy is claiming you are for less gov't intervention, then whining and stomping your foot when two gays get married. If your stance is freedom, then why the cry baby whining about it?

 

[jknowgood]

The hypocrisy is in saying you want smaller government while actually wanting more laws and more invasive laws to control the private lives of Americans.

You want the right to kill human beings but want to deny women the right to control her own reproduction.

Further hypocrisy is that the right would deny govt assistance to give food, shelter and education to unwanted children.

As always, the right wants to protect fetuses but not people.

But your kind wants to force a woman to receive chemotherapy against her will. Can I say hypocrite?

 

[Disir]

The hypocrisy is in saying you want smaller government while actually wanting more laws and more invasive laws to control the private lives of Americans.

You want the right to kill human beings but want to deny women the right to control her own reproduction.

Further hypocrisy is that the right would deny govt assistance to give food, shelter and education to unwanted children.

As always, the right wants to protect fetuses but not people.

But your kind wants to force a woman to receive chemotherapy against her will. Can I say hypocrite?

A minor with an 80-85 percent chance of survival that is currently considered a ward of the state.

 

[Flash]

Fetuses aren't children. Even women who have miscarriages in the early stages of a pregnancy do not freak out the way that they do when they lose a child.

Miscarriages end up in the medical waste bin. They don't get funerals.

You are just like the Nazis that dehumanized their victims in order to justify exterminating them.

As long as you are spouting this bullshit about a child only being a fetus then the infanticide doesn't seem quite so murderous, does it?

 

[jknowgood]

The hypocrisy is in saying you want smaller government while actually wanting more laws and more invasive laws to control the private lives of Americans.

You want the right to kill human beings but want to deny women the right to control her own reproduction.

Further hypocrisy is that the right would deny govt assistance to give food, shelter and education to unwanted children.

As always, the right wants to protect fetuses but not people.

But your kind wants to force a woman to receive chemotherapy against her will. Can I say hypocrite?

A minor with an 80-85 percent chance of survival that is currently considered a ward of the state.

A minor can get an abortion, anyway she was seventeen and her family supported the decision. Also it's her body, not the governments right?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The 2nd amendment gives us the right to own guns, it also gives us the right to life, not the right to kill the unborn. Both are Constitutional.
Killing your own offspring is not in the Constitution.

So there is only a murder charge on the woman on her way to delivering a baby? I don't think so. Double homicide charges do happen and are prosecuted successfully.

Those laws do not grant personhood to a fetus.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Fetuses aren't children. Even women who have miscarriages in the early stages of a pregnancy do not freak out the way that they do when they lose a child.

Miscarriages end up in the medical waste bin. They don't get funerals.

You are just like the Nazis that dehumanized their victims in order to justify exterminating them.

As long as you are spouting this bullshit about a child only being a fetus then the infanticide doesn't seem quite so murderous, does it?

Should a woman face the death penalty for having an abortion, if you could put that law in place?

 

[Disir]

The hypocrisy is in saying you want smaller government while actually wanting more laws and more invasive laws to control the private lives of Americans.

You want the right to kill human beings but want to deny women the right to control her own reproduction.

Further hypocrisy is that the right would deny govt assistance to give food, shelter and education to unwanted children.

As always, the right wants to protect fetuses but not people.

But your kind wants to force a woman to receive chemotherapy against her will. Can I say hypocrite?

A minor with an 80-85 percent chance of survival that is currently considered a ward of the state.

A minor can get an abortion, anyway she was seventeen and her family supported the decision. Also it's her body, not the governments right?

It's called medical neglect on mom's part. Had they made their appointments then this wouldn't have gone this far. Yep. In Connecticut she can acquire an abortion without parental consent. It's, again, about safety.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Fetuses are not offspring. Roe v Wade is case law giving a woman the right to an abortion. If you don't like how the Constitution works,

leave.

It was and is bad law, and it's not a Constitutional issue. A fetus isn't an offspring until someone kills the baby in your wife's womb. The hypocrisy of the left on this is monumental. They hold on to the argument as if its' fetal tissue on second and a baby the next, depending on whether they wanted it or not.

There is no protection whatsoever in the Constitution for fetuses as persons, citizens, or any equivalent,

but there is constitutional protection of privacy.

Like it or not, that means a woman's right to an abortion is protected by the Constitution.

You dodged my point. At what point does it go from fetus to baby? 2 months? 7 months? 8.5 months? The Constitution doesn't say. Those kinds of details need to be decided by states, not the Constitution.

That's not what SCOTUS said.

 

[jknowgood]

The 2nd amendment gives us the right to own guns, it also gives us the right to life, not the right to kill the unborn. Both are Constitutional.
Killing your own offspring is not in the Constitution.

So there is only a murder charge on the woman on her way to delivering a baby? I don't think so. Double homicide charges do happen and are prosecuted successfully.

Those laws do not grant personhood to a fetus.

Here a few years ago a boyfriend shot his pregnant girlfriend. He was charged with double homicide. So all of a sudden a fetus becomes a baby. Imagine that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Fetuses are not offspring. Roe v Wade is case law giving a woman the right to an abortion. If you don't like how the Constitution works,

leave.

It was and is bad law, and it's not a Constitutional issue. A fetus isn't an offspring until someone kills the baby in your wife's womb. The hypocrisy of the left on this is monumental. They hold on to the argument as if its' fetal tissue on second and a baby the next, depending on whether they wanted it or not.

There is no protection whatsoever in the Constitution for fetuses as persons, citizens, or any equivalent,

but there is constitutional protection of privacy.

Like it or not, that means a woman's right to an abortion is protected by the Constitution.

You dodged my point. At what point does it go from fetus to baby? 2 months? 7 months? 8.5 months? The Constitution doesn't say. Those kinds of details need to be decided by states, not the Constitution.

States can't violate a woman's right to privacy, unless the Court has provided them exceptions.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The hypocrisy is in saying you want smaller government while actually wanting more laws and more invasive laws to control the private lives of Americans.

You want the right to kill human beings but want to deny women the right to control her own reproduction.

Further hypocrisy is that the right would deny govt assistance to give food, shelter and education to unwanted children.

As always, the right wants to protect fetuses but not people.

But your kind wants to force a woman to receive chemotherapy against her will. Can I say hypocrite?

I haven't heard of a "woman" being forced to get chemo against her will.

However, we've all read of the CHILD who is.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The hypocrisy with regard to guns and abortion belongs to solely to most conservatives, where with the former the states have no right to violate the Second Amendment, and the will of the people may be ignored by the courts; whereas with the latter, states have the right to violate a woman's right to privacy and the courts have no authority to invalidate the will of the people.

Conservatives can't have it both ways: if 'states' rights' allow the states to ban abortion, then 'states' rights' must allow the states to ban firearms.

 

[JoeB131]

You are just like the Nazis that dehumanized their victims in order to justify exterminating them.

As long as you are spouting this bullshit about a child only being a fetus then the infanticide doesn't seem quite so murderous, does it?

Uh, no, it's actually the attitude people have had for thousands of years.

Even in the Bible.

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23

Even the Bible didn't consider Fetuses to be people.

 

[Flash]

Should a woman face the death penalty for having an abortion, if you could put that law in place?

If it was up to me I would have a law preventing a mother from killing her unborn child for the sake of convenience and I would have an appropriate penalty for doing so. I would also hold the father accountable if he knew about it or could have prevented it.

I would allow abortion for legitimate medical reasons without penalty.

It ain't rocket science.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Libs want law abiding citizens to give up their guns, which are protected by the Constitution and B.O.R. Gun owners, 99% of whom are law abiding want to protect their families, their homes and their BODIES from attack/criminals/scumbags etc. Libs want to force gun owners to lose their gun rights.

Libs want women to have control over their bodies and make their own decisions. They say that no one has the right to tell them what to do. Libs say no one should force a woman to not abort.

Can you see the issue here?

This fails as a straw man fallacy.

'Libs' do not want anyone to 'give up his guns,' the notion is ignorant, unfounded idiocy.

The majority of liberals own guns and consider Heller/McDonald settled and accepted Constitutional jurisprudence.

Unfortunately the same isn't true for many conservatives with regard to Griswold/Eisenstadt/Roe/Casey, where many on the right – the social right in particular – continue to exhibit their hostility toward the privacy rights of women, seeking to expand the power and authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty.

Indeed, there's a Texas measure enacted by conservative lawmakers seeking to place an undue, un-Constitutional burden on the right to privacy being currently challenged in the courts.