A Question Of Those On The Left...

[ImWithStupid]

Why is it that a women's right to abortion should be unquestioned as nothing but absolute, to her body, regardless of the rights of the unborn fetus even thought nothing in the Constution, other than a decision (Roe v. Wade) that is only about 35 years old says so, but a Supreme Court decided right to personal Right to keep and bear arms, upholded now for more than 200 years and specifically stated in our nations Bill of Rights, is ok to be limited?

Why is it ok to unconditonally allow someones right to kill a life, but it's a horrible thought that someone could possess a firearm that they want, even though the 2nd Amendment protects this right?

Just a reminder. Federal laws are based on the Constitution of the United States, not personal opinion or politics..

 

[phreakwars]

Because no matter which side of the political spectrum we are on, and no matter what religion we believe in, or don't believe in, we are all essentially, our own gods. And as such, our only limitations to ourselves are the borders we keep. The constitution has about as much say in it, as the bible does, or the Quaran, or even a king's decree. That's why it's called PRO CHOICE, not PRO DEATH as opposed to PRO LIFE. Some consider the growth from a pregnancy inside you nothing more then a cluster of cells, and as such, a person can CHOOSE whether or not to let that cell growth turn into a fully developed human, or not. The problem comes from those who choose to call that cell growth something different. I'm not even certain you can say it's a matter of ethics, it's more of a matter of perception.
.
.

 

[ImWithStupid]

Because no matter which side of the political spectrum we are on, and no matter what religion we believe in, or don't believe in, we are all essentially, our own gods. And as such, our only limitations to ourselves are the borders we keep. The constitution has about as much say in it, as the bible does, or the Quaran, or even a king's decree. That's why it's called PRO CHOICE, not PRO DEATH as opposed to PRO LIFE. Some consider the growth from a pregnancy inside you nothing more then a cluster of cells, and as such, a person can CHOOSE whether or not to let that cell growth turn into a fully developed human, or not. The problem comes from those who choose to call that cell growth something different. I'm not even certain you can say it's a matter of ethics, it's more of a matter of perception.
.
.

You speak from a morality standpoint. My question is of a completely legal/Constitutional standpoint. Why should abortion, that is not addressed in the Constitution, be a right that is "unquestionable", legally, yet the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, specifically stated in the Bill of Rights, and upholded recently by the Supreme Court, be subject to limitations.

Why shouldn't abortion be subject to limitations such as, rape, incest or medical necessity?

 

[Anna Perenna]

Why is it that a women's right to abortion should be unquestioned as nothing but absolute, to her body, regardless of the rights of the unborn fetus even thought nothing in the Constution, other than a decision (Roe v. Wade) that is only about 35 years old says so, but a Supreme Court decided right to personal Right to keep and bear arms, upholded now for more than 200 years and specifically stated in our nations Bill of Rights, is ok to be limited?

Why is it ok to unconditonally allow someones right to kill a life, but it's a horrible thought that someone could possess a firearm that they want, even though the 2nd Amendment protects this right?

Just a reminder. Federal laws are based on the Constitution of the United States, not personal opinion or politics..

Why is this a left/right issue? Surely not everyone on the right and left, respectively, feels exactly the same about both issues.

As for me, I flat out hate guns. Their primary purpose is to kill or harm. The fact that everyone in America seems to want to carry one disturbs me. Something is terribly wrong with your country when everyone is scared of everyone else and thinks they need to be able to defend themselves (with such a serious weapon) at all times. It's probably time for some serious law reforms - harsher punishments for violent crimes would be a good start.

I highlighted your words 'unquestioned' and 'unconditionally' because I don't agree with those parts. Frankly, I don't think many people on the left do, either.

Now, I have a question - why is this site is a never-ending abortion talk-fest?

 

[Anna Perenna]

Because no matter which side of the political spectrum we are on, and no matter what religion we believe in, or don't believe in, we are all essentially, our own gods. And as such, our only limitations to ourselves are the borders we keep. The constitution has about as much say in it, as the bible does, or the Quaran, or even a king's decree. That's why it's called PRO CHOICE, not PRO DEATH as opposed to PRO LIFE. Some consider the growth from a pregnancy inside you nothing more then a cluster of cells, and as such, a person can CHOOSE whether or not to let that cell growth turn into a fully developed human, or not. The problem comes from those who choose to call that cell growth something different. I'm not even certain you can say it's a matter of ethics, it's more of a matter of perception.
.
.

well said .......

 

[phreakwars]

I think the main problem with the 2-A isn't so much the fear of people having guns and killing people, but the fear of things like Columbine, and Virginia tech where maniacs go out on a wild killing spree and take out mass numbers of people for no real ethical or moral reason whatsoever. And again, you can't really put a party line to that either. A large number of Democrats/Liberals will carry the same mantra as Charleton Heston..., you can have their gun when you peel it from their cold dead hands. If you need any further proof of that, just check out Democratic Underground - Guns

You'll get a cornucopia of opinions coming from JUST DEMOCRATS that are for and against firearms.
.
.

 

[ImWithStupid]

Why is this a left/right issue? Surely not everyone on the right and left, respectively, feels exactly the same about both issues.

As for me, I flat out hate guns. Their primary purpose is to kill or harm. The fact that everyone in America seems to want to carry one disturbs me. Something is terribly wrong with your country when everyone is scared of everyone else and thinks they need to be able to defend themselves (with such a serious weapon) at all times. It's probably time for some serious law reforms - harsher punishments for violent crimes would be a good start.

I highlighted your words 'unquestioned' and 'unconditionally' because I don't agree with those parts. Frankly, I don't think many people on the left do, either.

Now, I have a question - why is this site is a never-ending abortion talk-fest?

I think you missed my point on comparison and maybe I shouldn't have put a label on it, and you must put it in perspective of the US Constitution and the Amendments to said Constitution.

My question is, we have people who are generally on the side of the liberal population who believe that the right to chose abortion shouldn't be limited, at all even in late term abortions, but a Constitutional right, spelled out in the Second amendment, is ok to limit?

It seems a bit contradictary to me.

My view is that certain limits to the second amendment are reasonable, i.e. machine guns, rocket launchers, granades, etc..., but the left won't concede that reasonable limits to abortion, i.e. rape, incest, medical emergency for the mother, etc... shouldn't be legislated.

 

[phreakwars]

the left won't concede that reasonable limits to abortion, i.e. rape, incest, medical emergency for the mother, etc... shouldn't be legislated.

And again, why should they? It's a matter of perception.
.
.

 

[Anna Perenna]

My view is that certain limits to the second amendment are reasonable, i.e. machine guns, rocket launchers, granades, etc..., but the left won't concede that reasonable limits to abortion, i.e. rape, incest, medical emergency for the mother, etc... shouldn't be legislated.

You say "the left" but really isn't it up to all 'distinguished gentlemen' with a vote to pass or not pass a bill of this nature?

Of course abortion should be legislated, but the conditions need to be fairly comprehensive and considerate. For instance:

any girl under the age of 18 should be allowed to have an abortion, no questions asked.
any woman who has been raped or is the victim of incest; is suffering from severe medical problems as a result of her pregnancy; is mentally ill; is a drug addict or her partner is a drug addict; etc .....

So many factors need to be considered. Until someone drafts up an appropriate policy and it's approved, how can you expect there to be a reform?

As for the gun thing - I personally think private citizens shouldn't be allowed to own guns, not even for 'sport'.

 

[ImWithStupid]

You say "the left" but really isn't it up to all 'distinguished gentlemen' with a vote to pass or not pass a bill of this nature?

Of course abortion should be legislated, but the conditions need to be fairly comprehensive and considerate. For instance:

any girl under the age of 18 should be allowed to have an abortion, no questions asked.
any woman who has been raped or is the victim of incest; is suffering from severe medical problems as a result of her pregnancy; is mentally ill; is a drug addict or her partner is a drug addict; etc .....

So many factors need to be considered. Until someone drafts up an appropriate policy and it's approved, how can you expect there to be a reform?

I think everyone is having a problem with the whole "Constitutional" aspect of this arguement and are speaking from personal opinion.

I'm not saying abortion should be illegal. I'm saying that the same people who think that government has no business puting regulations on abortion, are the same people who think limits should be put on something that is a Constitutionally protected right, even though abortion isn't spelled out as such a right.

As for the gun thing - I personally think private citizens shouldn't be allowed to own guns, not even for 'sport'.

Again, you are speaking from a personal/national standpoint from Australia. In the US the right to keep and bear arms is a right that is spelled out in the Bill of Rights and has recently been upheld as an individual right by the Supreme Court. Your opinion is moot in this argument. The issue is based on rights guaranteed, not personal opinon or feelings.

 

[Anna Perenna]

I think everyone is having a problem with the whole "Constitutional" aspect of this arguement and are speaking from personal opinion.

I'm not saying abortion should be illegal. I'm saying that the same people who think that government has no business putting regulations on abortion, are the same people who think limits should be put on something that is a Constitutionally protected right, even though abortion isn't spelled out as such a right.

Again, you are speaking from a personal/national standpoint from Australia. In the US the right to keep and bear arms is a right that is spelled out in the Bill of Rights and has recently been upheld as an individual right by the Supreme Court. Your opinion is moot in this argument. The issue is based on rights guaranteed, not personal opinion or feelings.

So were you asking a rhetorical question, then?

The only people on the left who are able/willing to answer this = me, bender and wez

 

[jokersarewild]

Well, IWS, you're asking about people's opinions in relation to the constitution, then asking them to present facts. Opinions are opinions for a reason, stud.

And ye olde "right to bear arms" was because, at the time, they didn't have an "army". They had a "militia". People had the right to own guns because, well, they needed to. It was more of a "own a gun or you're going to die" type policy. However, we have one of those "army" things, so private citizens owning guns is, well, ridiculous. We don't NEED guns. My job affords me enough money to where I don't have to go shoot a deer for food. If my house gets robbed, what do you want to bet a baseball bat or a nice machete will take the er out, gun or not? I could give him a good thumping, take his gun, tie him to a chair, and then spend a week making him regret his decision. Why? Just cause I want to

As far as abortion being limited, why would it be? You want it to be limited, based on YOUR morals. YOU think it's a life from conception. But in reality, like Bender said, it's PERCEPTION, not MORALS. That, and Abortion has NOTHING to do with the second amendment. Nice fallacy though.

 

[timesjoke]

IWS, the reason they refuse to answer your question is not because they don't understand it, but the honest answer is not somehting they want to voice openly, that is the biggest problem with those who have that mindset to attack our American rights put forth by our constitution, to them they are wiser and better suited to say how things should be, the only time they show any respect for these rights (and that is fake respect) is when they can twist them to their own use.


Forget the 'fact' that you can only remove 'legal' guns, criminals will always have guns, Canada has very strong gun control, their people are still being killed by those darn illegal guns though. If a guy is willing to say rob someone with a gun, why whould he be concerned with breaking another lesser law? When you point out that leagally owned guns are almost never used in crime they cover their ears and start yelling la,la,la.


These same people who have no respect for our constitution also have little respect for true morals. These peopel feel they make something moral just by making it legal when in reality, laws have nothing to do with morals. Sure, laws have their beginning as written morals motivated by religious beliefs but these same liberals have been working hard to hijack laws from a religious standpoint and force them to serve their mission of making morals irrelivant.


In national polls and studies, most Americans agree that abortions should either be ended or at least limited in some way, by a very large margin. In fact the margin is larger then those who believe we should run away from Iraq but still our lawmakers ignore the majority, why is that?

Because abortion is one of those key liberal politically correct possitions. The liberals have been successful in making lawmakers fear to even mention restrictions on abortions. Look how they have been beating Palin over the head with the claim her only qualification for office is she has never had an abortion. To them, abortion is their key foothold in supplanting morals with human corrupt law, they will never let that foothold go.

 

[timesjoke]

I think you missed my point on comparison and maybe I shouldn't have put a label on it, and you must put it in perspective of the US Constitution and the Amendments to said Constitution.

And this is why your an acceptable conservative and I am not.


You play their game.


The first step in the liberal game book is to completely ignore both the question and the spirit of the question that speaks about their key issues. The second step is to claim indignation and hurt feelings, to try and blam the one asking the question for being unfair or otherwise mean for putting them in a catagory or using labels to describe their key issues. The third step is to attack the person asking the question, to call into question their motivations or their integrity, maybe even use a few personal attacks.

It is all just smoke, their only intention is to never answer the direct question and if they can, make you look like the bad guy.


Where you went wrong (in my opinion) is you keep falling for the fake indignation. You immediately softened your tone and started with the appeasement. They made you give an inch and took a mile instead. That is what has happened to 'modern' conservatives, we have been made to feel guilty for pointing out the truth.


Liberals never give an inch, their key issues are always completely off limits as you correctly pointed out, but conservatives are the ones caving in, we are giving up.

 

[ImWithStupid]

Well, IWS, you're asking about people's opinions in relation to the constitution, then asking them to present facts. Opinions are opinions for a reason, stud.

And ye olde "right to bear arms" was because, at the time, they didn't have an "army". They had a "militia". People had the right to own guns because, well, they needed to. It was more of a "own a gun or you're going to die" type policy. However, we have one of those "army" things, so private citizens owning guns is, well, ridiculous. We don't NEED guns. My job affords me enough money to where I don't have to go shoot a deer for food. If my house gets robbed, what do you want to bet a baseball bat or a nice machete will take the er out, gun or not? I could give him a good thumping, take his gun, tie him to a chair, and then spend a week making him regret his decision. Why? Just cause I want to

First off, I was asking a question based on the highest law of our nation, The US Constitution, not an opinon. The right to bear arms was created so that the Federal Government wouldn't be able to have so much power it could take it from the people, those people could help out in the defense of the nation and as far as the "Army", there was never supposed to be a powerful standing army and definitely never supposed to perform law enforcement actions in the US during time of peace. (see posse comitatus act)

As far as abortion being limited, why would it be? You want it to be limited, based on YOUR morals. YOU think it's a life from conception. But in reality, like Bender said, it's PERCEPTION, not MORALS. That, and Abortion has NOTHING to do with the second amendment. Nice fallacy though.

With that said, my question has nothing to do with morals. It has to do with legality. You are telling me that abortion is something that should never be questioned, and is an ultimate right, that should not be limited even though it has only been deemed a right for about 35 years, but something that was put in the Bill of Rights over 200 years ago, is subject to limitations.

This whole idea defies reason. I'm not arguing that abortion should be limited, I just don't understand how anyone can argue that it has more priority over the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

Gawdammit!

You people are duller than a bag of hammers.

If you post in this thread, answer the man's question before you give in to your own opinions lest the thread quickly move away from the topic at hand.

This whole idea defies reason. I'm not arguing that abortion should be limited, I just don't understand how anyone can argue that it has more priority over the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

There is a quick, simple answer to the much-dodged question here...

The Second Amendment, as fair and equal with the rest of our Bill of Rights, can not be argued. It should not be limited. It should not be interpreted as "ye olde right to bear arms". The Second Amendment is exactly what it is, the freedom to maintain a personal arsenal if we so desire.

I hope this helps, IWS.

 

[Old Salt]

Today is Constitution Day, which marks the 221st anniversary of the signing of the US Constitution.

 

[timesjoke]

lest the thread quickly move away from the topic at hand.

That is their plan, they have no intention of answering the question.

Today is Constitution Day, which marks the 221st anniversary of the signing of the US Constitution.

A great day indeed.

Too bad many do not respect the constitution these days, it gets in too many people's way to transform America into a socialist state.

 

[Anna Perenna]

Why is it that a women's right to abortion should be unquestioned as nothing but absolute, to her body, regardless of the rights of the unborn fetus even thought nothing in the Constution, other than a decision (Roe v. Wade) that is only about 35 years old says so, but a Supreme Court decided right to personal Right to keep and bear arms, upholded now for more than 200 years and specifically stated in our nations Bill of Rights, is ok to be limited?

Ok, starting again ...

I was trying to make a supposition for you, but you mistook it for mere personal opinion.

I honestly don't believe the left/liberals think that a women's right to abortion should be unquestioned as nothing but absolute. No reforms have been made (probably/possibly) because nobody has actually drafted a comprehensive piece of legislation that includes all the possible clauses I mentioned (and more).

Have conservatives been trying to pass suitable bills on this issue? (ie - what exactly is your problem here?)

Why is it ok to unconditonally allow someones right to kill a life, but it's a horrible thought that someone could possess a firearm that they want, even though the 2nd Amendment protects this right?

Just a reminder. Federal laws are based on the Constitution of the United States, not personal opinion or politics..

The constitution is not perfect, it's not sacred and the amendments are so old. Don't you think it's time they were updated?

Again, I can only make a supposition (just like everyone else in this thread) and remind you that laws need to be written and rewritten constantly to match the times and circumstances that arise. If you feel strongly about this imbalance/incongruity then write to someone in power about it.

 

[Fullauto]

Why is it that a women's right to abortion should be unquestioned as nothing but absolute, to her body, regardless of the rights of the unborn fetus even thought nothing in the Constution, other than a decision (Roe v. Wade) that is only about 35 years old says so, but a Supreme Court decided right to personal Right to keep and bear arms, upholded now for more than 200 years and specifically stated in our nations Bill of Rights, is ok to be limited?

Why is it ok to unconditonally allow someones right to kill a life, but it's a horrible thought that someone could possess a firearm that they want, even though the 2nd Amendment protects this right?

Just a reminder. Federal laws are based on the Constitution of the United States, not personal opinion or politics..

additional question...

How can someone allow the killing of the innocent unborn, but not allow the killing of convicted 1st degree murderers?

Sound like most lip from the left... a bit against natural intellect... And mind you, I am pro choice...