the hypocrisy of libs (guns and abortion)

[NYcarbineer]

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.

What's the appropriate penalty for the premeditated murder of an innocent person?

 

[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.

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.

That fetus did not become a person, if for no other reason than it still could have been aborted by the mother.

 

[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.

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

You keep dodging the point. For obvious reasons. When does it become a baby? Roe v Wade was bad law, the Constitution doesn't limit the government from passing abortion laws. It obviously isn't simply a matter of privacy, I provided an example, double homicide.

Parroting your talking point doesn't change it.

 

[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.

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.

That fetus did not become a person, if for no other reason than it still could have been aborted by the mother.

Whhhooooooooooooooosh.

 

[chikenwing]

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.

You dont read so well do you?,if there was no value,and thats your position,then where doers the punishment part come in?? there would be no punishment for causing the women to loose the child.

Try again only much harder

 

[Disir]

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.

You dont read so well do you?,if there was no value,and thats your position,then where doers the punishment part come in?? there would be no punishment for causing the women to loose the child.

Try again only much harder

There shouldn't be. Everybody knew what was going down with the person hood laws in the states. That's what happens with a bunch of over-reactive ninnies and a bunch of right wing fanatics that saw a shot and took it.

 

[BluesLegend]

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.

Our rights are unalienable, sucks to be you.

 

[Iceweasel]

More importantly, nobody gave a hot damn about gun rights until the 1980s. Nobody. Guns were not a big deal and lots of people had them and had always had them. Then in the 90s people had a knipshit of the militarization of police that had to have better weapons because that was what they were fighting on the streets.

You know there is a problem with the mentally ill getting a hold of guns. You don't address it. You know there is a problem with not being able to lock up those with gun charges for awhile but you don't address it. You don't want to deal with the loopholes or even try to work towards stiffer sentencing penalties. You don't want to address the Tiahrt Amendments.

The best you can come up with is to make a sweeping generalization/comparison with liberals and you have the almighty gall to talk about hypocrisy.

You're stroking yourself here. The Amendments were fully "incorporated" when they were written into the Constitution. Challenging a right doesn't mean it was invalid.

Gun rights didn't become an issue until assholes on the left wanted to take them away from us.

Yep, cops should be better armed than the bad guys, sorry that offends.

The libs are the ones protecting nutcases, probably out of fear of it coming to their doorstep.

 

[Disir]

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.

Our rights are unalienable, sucks to be you.

Only those that have been incorporated. Sucks to be you.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

Our rights are unalienable, sucks to be you.

Only those that have been incorporated. Sucks to be you.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Wow, a one second search and link to an evolving op-ed site and it's a slam dunk for you?

 

[Disir]

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.

Our rights are unalienable, sucks to be you.

Only those that have been incorporated. Sucks to be you.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Wow, a one second search and link to an evolving op-ed site and it's a slam dunk for you?

It's called the Incorporation Doctrine, sweet pea.
Incorporation Doctrine legal definition of Incorporation Doctrine

Feel better?

This means that you as an individual are protected against the state-not just the federal government. So, yeah. It's a slam dunk.

 

[BluesLegend]

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.

Our rights are unalienable, sucks to be you.

Only those that have been incorporated. Sucks to be you.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Ah, you are an idiot.

 

[Disir]

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.

Our rights are unalienable, sucks to be you.

Only those that have been incorporated. Sucks to be you.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Ah, you are an idiot.

Pfftt.........

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

Our rights are unalienable, sucks to be you.

Only those that have been incorporated. Sucks to be you.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Wow, a one second search and link to an evolving op-ed site and it's a slam dunk for you?

It's called the Incorporation Doctrine, sweet pea.
Incorporation Doctrine legal definition of Incorporation Doctrine

Feel better?

This means that you as an individual are protected against the state-not just the federal government. So, yeah. It's a slam dunk.

Well, Sweet Pea, it says: "The doctrine of selective incorporation, or simply the incorporation doctrine, makes the first ten amendments to the Constitution—known as the Bill of Rights—binding on the states."

Meaning rights are for all. How does that change anything?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

So, even though you consider a fetus to be an "unborn child", as long as you agree with the reason, you're okay with killing it.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

You dont read so well do you?,if there was no value,and thats your position,then where doers the punishment part come in?? there would be no punishment for causing the women to loose the child.

Try again only much harder

Translation?

 

[Disir]

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.

Our rights are unalienable, sucks to be you.

Only those that have been incorporated. Sucks to be you.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Wow, a one second search and link to an evolving op-ed site and it's a slam dunk for you?

It's called the Incorporation Doctrine, sweet pea.
Incorporation Doctrine legal definition of Incorporation Doctrine

Feel better?

This means that you as an individual are protected against the state-not just the federal government. So, yeah. It's a slam dunk.

Well, Sweet Pea, it says: "The doctrine of selective incorporation, or simply the incorporation doctrine, makes the first ten amendments to the Constitution—known as the Bill of Rights—binding on the states."

Meaning rights are for all. How does that change anything?

Some of those rights are not incorporated.

1st Amendment: Fully incorporated.
2nd Amendment: Fully incorporated.
3rd Amendment: No Supreme Court decision; 2nd Circuit found to be incorporated.
4th Amendment: Fully incorporated.
5th Amendment: Incorporated except for clause guaranteeing criminal prosecution only on a grand jury indictment.
6th Amendment: Fully incorporated.
7th Amendment: Not incorporated.
8th Amendment: Incorporated with respect to the protection agains "cruel and unusual punishments," but no specific Supreme Court ruling on the incorporation of the "excessive fines" and "excessive bail" protections.
The Fourteenth Amendment and the Incorporation Debate

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Our rights are unalienable, sucks to be you.

Actually, he makes a good point.

Are you saying that women's rights to her own body's functions are unalienable as well?

 

[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.

You keep dodging the point. For obvious reasons. When does it become a baby? Roe v Wade was bad law, the Constitution doesn't limit the government from passing abortion laws. It obviously isn't simply a matter of privacy, I provided an example, double homicide.

Parroting your talking point doesn't change it.

There is absolutely no protection for a fetus in the Constitution, explicitly or implicitly. Barring any protection for the fetus,

other protections are unimpeded, the relevant one here being the right to privacy.

 

[Flash]

What's the appropriate penalty for the premeditated murder of an innocent person?

Significant punishment.