True conservatives are pro-choice

[JBeukema]

If you are in support of no governmental interference in anything, then you would probably be labeled as more of a Libertarian.

Anarchist, really

 

[NYcarbineer]

The constitution doesn't give anyone any rights, retard

Then they mis-named it the Bill of Rights?

You fail Civics 101

go back to the 6th grade and get a clue

Why don't you stop being a substanceless smartass and make your point, if you have one, which so far, apparently, you don't?

 

[uscitizen]

 

[JBeukema]

Then they mis-named it the Bill of Rights?

You fail Civics 101

go back to the 6th grade and get a clue

Why don't you stop being a substanceless smartass and make your point, if you have one, which so far, apparently, you don't?

idiot

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3182332-post7.html

 

[Ravi]

To say that a human egg upon fertilization is a person is like saying that the blueprint for a building is a building.

Or an acorn is a tree.

And for all the ones that want their state or city to decide...too bad. A woman's body either is hers to govern or it isn't. A state can't make rules that take away constitutionally given rights.

The constitution doesn't give anyone any rights, retard

A state can't make rules that take away constitutionally protected rights. End.

 

[mdn2000]

ha, ha, ha, Liberal, Conservative, Neo-Con, whats with all the labels, why is it there is a group of people who must have a label for everyone. Is it not bigots who label people. Why force people into specific groups that must be defeated.

An endless argument of who people are, this never addresses the issue which is a strategy. Its like trying to shoot a moving target.

Some people in one post make a dozen accusations, if I or anyone else cannot refute every accusation we are the problem and some people proclaim they are the righteous. I use the same tactic, list a hundred facts about what I oppose and the post will be either ignored or I will be called derogatory names.

The only thing clear is there is no compromise with the leftist liberal marxist activists. Maybe they are a small group but they are in power and proclaim to represent every Democrat.

Compromise on abortion, there is no such thing, when does life start and idiots change the debate to is an egg or sperm a human and why are we hypocrites.

Logic seems to escape these people as does fact.

There is no compromise, show me a thread were the activist liberal is compromising.

They will not compromise on one point, they never will, there is only one solution for us. No compromise on any issue. They are wrong we are right.

Whats the worst that happens if we prevent murder of children and teach the mothers and fathers how great children are, I guess those having babies will have to work hard and raise a family, as humans have since time began.

What is the worst that this crazy far right radical religious notion of life begins after sex, what is the worst will happen, what crazy radical thing will happen, a kid that made a choice to have sex gets to live with the gift of a baby, child, a human that will love the person forever.

That is just a radical view, to let live which begins to live. Crazy and dangerous, right. Call me radical, no compromise with those who have proven they will never compromise until they destroy what they have been taught to hate.

No more compromise, for what, so we have to defend sperm and eggs, who is the radical nut jobs.

Its clear to me.

 

[JBeukema]

Or an acorn is a tree.

And for all the ones that want their state or city to decide...too bad. A woman's body either is hers to govern or it isn't. A state can't make rules that take away constitutionally given rights.

The constitution doesn't give anyone any rights, retard

A state can't make rules that take away constitutionally protected rights. End.

Protected. Not granted.

Maybe there's hope for you after all.

 

[Anguille]

Abortion is death, nobody deserves to die, the least of all, those living inside the womb, its torture, pure and simple, abortion is torture.

And what would you call forced pregnancy?

 

[Vast LWC]

If you are in support of no governmental interference in anything, then you would probably be labeled as more of a Libertarian.

Anarchist, really

Well, that would be the extreme form of Libertarian, yes. Most Libertarians don't take it that far.

 

[manifold]

Abortion is death, nobody deserves to die, the least of all, those living inside the womb, its torture, pure and simple, abortion is torture.

And what would you call forced pregnancy?

he'd prolly call it the natural order of the universe.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then enlighten us. What, exactly, is a person?

My personal definition of a person is a human who has been born, who is no longer a fetus. The differentiation to me - on topic - is that upon being born the human acquires certain rights and protections that it did not have as a fetus.

What changes about the child's fundamental nature as it leaves the womb?

How is it any different than 10 seconds earlier that means it now has rights and didn't ten seconds ago?

Because it was still a fetus.

Now, let's hear from you when you believe a fetus becomes a person who is from a legal view equivalent to a child who has in fact been born.

Where do you set that point?

 

[Vast LWC]

ha, ha, ha, Liberal, Conservative, Neo-Con, whats with all the labels, why is it there is a group of people who must have a label for everyone. Is it not bigots who label people. Why force people into specific groups that must be defeated.

An endless argument of who people are, this never addresses the issue which is a strategy. Its like trying to shoot a moving target.

Some people in one post make a dozen accusations, if I or anyone else cannot refute every accusation we are the problem and some people proclaim they are the righteous. I use the same tactic, list a hundred facts about what I oppose and the post will be either ignored or I will be called derogatory names.

I can pretty much agree with most of this, I was just pointing out that if you are going to categorize people, you might as well be accurate about it, but then you say this:

The only thing clear is there is no compromise with the leftist liberal marxist activists. Maybe they are a small group but they are in power and proclaim to represent every Democrat.

Which directly contradicts your opening statement. I must admit, I find that to be a bit confusing.

Compromise on abortion, there is no such thing, when does life start and idiots change the debate to is an egg or sperm a human and why are we hypocrites.

Logic seems to escape these people as does fact.

There is no compromise, show me a thread were the activist liberal is compromising.

And here, I disagree. There is in fact a compromise. If we were to define life as the point at which, say, brain activity begins, that would in fact be a compromise.

The fact is that the people on both sides of this debate don't WANT there to be a compromise. It's too easy for them to use this issue as a distraction from other issues.

They will not compromise on one point, they never will, there is only one solution for us. No compromise on any issue. They are wrong we are right.

Whats the worst that happens if we prevent murder of children and teach the mothers and fathers how great children are, I guess those having babies will have to work hard and raise a family, as humans have since time began.

What is the worst that this crazy far right radical religious notion of life begins after sex, what is the worst will happen, what crazy radical thing will happen, a kid that made a choice to have sex gets to live with the gift of a baby, child, a human that will love the person forever.

That is just a radical view, to let live which begins to live. Crazy and dangerous, right. Call me radical, no compromise with those who have proven they will never compromise until they destroy what they have been taught to hate.

No more compromise, for what, so we have to defend sperm and eggs, who is the radical nut jobs.

Its clear to me.

Again, I believe there can be a compromise. The point of a compromise is that not everyone is completely satisfied because each side gives something up.

 

[Avatar4321]

Maybe I dont care about being a true conservative. What if I would just rather be my own person and do what I know is right?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You fail Civics 101

go back to the 6th grade and get a clue

Why don't you stop being a substanceless smartass and make your point, if you have one, which so far, apparently, you don't?

idiot

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3182332-post7.html

It says, for a reason, that our rights 'shall not be infringed', not that they are granted.

Because rights granted by the State can be taken away by the State. That is why the Constitution grants no rights, but states that our rights are not to be infringed.

That's also the reason for the 9th amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

That's unadulterated rubbish. There is nothing that prevents the State from taking away your rights. By Constitutional amendment you could repeal the 1st or 2nd amendments, you could repeal the 13th or 14 amendments.

Then where you be in regard to those rights?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's flip the OP around a bit. What's a true liberal?

Howard Dean is considered a liberal, I can't think of anyone that would designate or label him otherwise, and yet, he is staunchly pro 2nd amendment.

Does that mean a true liberal should be pro-gun rights, anti gun control?

 

[manifold]

Let's flip the OP around a bit. What's a true liberal?

Howard Dean is considered a liberal, I can't think of anyone that would designate or label him otherwise, and yet, he is staunchly pro 2nd amendment.

Does that mean a true liberal should be pro-gun rights, anti gun control?

A true liberal absolutely supports the 2nd amendment.

 

[Liability]

I find it remarkable (almost stunning) that I have agreed, in broad strokes (as well as in some specifics) with JB a member of this board with whom I find I frequently disagree.

For example, I AGREE that the Constitution doesn't "GIVE" us one right. I also AGREE with JB that there is no principled difference, no VALID distinction that can be drawn, between the pre-born baby 10 seconds before birth and the same being 11 seconds later other than location.

In fact, honestly, I think what he has maintained here is so clear and so obvious that it cannot be honestly disputed.

Now, having said that, I will give some RARE kudos to NYCarby with whom I am usually in more disagreement. In a manner akin to what I argued earlier, Carby "defines" life as something that comes about SOLELY after the entity is "born." With THAT as the sharp line of demarcation, his abortion "rights" advocacy is far more logically consistent than some may like to give him credit for.

It highlights the difficult nature of this debate. Is a pre-born baby not a human life replete with the Constitutionally guaranteed protections we all enjoy because of the mere happenstance that "it" has not yet emerged into the air of our planet? Are those 11 seconds referenced by JB truly that all important? If so, why? What is the principle that makes that extremely minor difference in time so valuable?

And then, no matter WHAT we may say on that part of the debate, it is disingenuous not to give due consideration to implications. Are any of us who are pro-life not at all bothered by the nature of the demands we then place upon pregnant women? Can we not acknowledge that it is morally troublesome to tell a woman that her rights of action (rights which do involve -- to a very large extent -- her own body) must take some back seat to the right of the pre-born person to life? I, for one, cannot pretend that such concerns are "minor." In my view, they are huge and significant.

The "debate" in this thread (minus the usual ad hominem seasoning) actually tracks the more serious aspects of the long moral, ethical, philosophical and legal debate, nationally and internationally.

 

[asterism]

My personal definition of a person is a human who has been born, who is no longer a fetus. The differentiation to me - on topic - is that upon being born the human acquires certain rights and protections that it did not have as a fetus.

So what are your thoughts on those killed after they were born?

You mean what? Fetuses that are being aborted that are still alive after being removed from the mother? That's not a birth it's an abortion.

Nice spin. Define birth then.

 

[whitehall]

If they were honest, true supporters of abortion would not use innocent sounding words like "pro-choice". "Elective killing" might be a better term or "the hiring of technicians to end the life of the unborn" but that's too long and too graphic for the little girls who might be facing the decision.

 

[mdn2000]

Abortion is death, nobody deserves to die, the least of all, those living inside the womb, its torture, pure and simple, abortion is torture.

And what would you call forced pregnancy?

What do you call deflection.