A Question Of Those On The Left...

[ImWithStupid]

Actually, you made it political when you kept trying to pin this on the left. I was just responding to your politicality.

 

Plus I'm utterly sick and tired of the over abundance of liberal bashing on this board. It would be nice to have one thread (or even a whole section) where it simply wasn't allowed.

 

I love it. We need some more to defend the left.

 

My intention wasn't to make this political. Like I said it was mainly a headline to peak interest in the topic.

 

The topic was meant to be purely legal/logical.

[timesjoke]

Actually, you made it political when you kept trying to pin this on the left. I was just responding to your politicality.

 

Plus I'm utterly sick and tired of the over abundance of liberal bashing on this board. It would be nice to have one thread (or even a whole section) where it simply wasn't allowed.

 

Many whites like having their own water fountains and even seperate places to sit at a dinner. They desired to be kept seperate from that they hated/feared.

 

 

The liberals desire their politics to be kept seperate from them the same way and for similar reasons. Why own up to your mistakes and abuses as long as you have the ability to play these games, to duck and dodge and even attack those who are asking the direct questions.

 

 

Play it by the numbers 1,2,3,.......but never answer the question.

[phreakwars]

Plus I'm utterly sick and tired of the over abundance of liberal bashing on this board. It would be nice to have one thread (or even a whole section) where it simply wasn't allowed.

You noticed that too.. Yeah, it does tend to make the site quite boring when 2 people are going all over the board complaining "LIBERALS THIS, LIBERALS THAT".

.

.

[timesjoke]

Play the numbers 1,2,3,.....

 

Now we are back to trying to attack the motivation of the question asker.

Complaining about being labeled.

Crying about the amount of questions being asked of liberals, claiming it is unfair to even ask the questions.

 

 

Here is what I find interesting about this latest line of "your not fair" to us bull......

 

I am a hard line conservative, I am secure in my views and can easily accept the burdon of being put down by everyone on this forum (like now) without even blinking. I stick to my guns and keep to the topic no matter how much I am attacked. If you feel in your heart your right, it does not matter how many are against you.

 

But Liberals require greater numbers, they need to drown out the opposition or even silence it because they know they are doing the wrong thing and understand that if too much light is placed on their actions/beliefs, people may start getting wise to their games.

 

Call me a coinservative and I am proud, call a Liberal what they are and they say it is an insult.

 

One of those things that make you go hmmmmmm.

[jokersarewild]

Here's an answer as to why they try to limit 2A and not abortion:

 

Who can own a gun? Anybody of legal age who can pass a safety course, background check, etc, etc. And buy one. Ok...

 

Who can get an abortion? This one is limited to only females. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html

 

If you scroll down a wee bit, you notice that about half the population in the US is females. Now, it seems these days that even a 7 year old who doesn't like a 4 year old happens to have direct access to his grandfather's WW2 arsenal. So really, it's pretty much the whole damn population on that board. Sure, they can't own it, but they can use it. So really...

 

You have about 102 million (or more) who can have an abortion...

 

Vs Slightly less than 303 million who could actually kill someone with a gun.

 

With that previous 102 million included, mind you.

 

So why do we want to limit the second amendment? So that fewer people have access to weapons to kill people with.

 

So here's to your liberal bashing, IWS and TJ:

 

I've presented facts. I've answered the question.

 

And to especially TJ:

 

If you think bashing liberals and saying that they don't answer questions and that you're a proud conservative somehow lends credence to your ability to present a rational argument, you're sorely mistaken. I've honestly yet to see you try answering the question, whether it was directed to the "left" or not. Oh, but wait, you don't think you have to, right? Classic conservative. Blame the left for everything to avoid having to answer for your own accountability. It's cute that you're trying so hard to discredit liberals by generalizing them, but we all know it's the same bull that comes from conservatives in every debate involving politics.

 

<==Is his own "No Spin Zone"

[timesjoke]

I have never dodged a single question, I may miss one every now and then when several are asked at the same time but just remind me and I will always answer to the best of my ability.

 

 

I can point to several direct questions I have asked liberals that they refuse to answer, such as what in Obama's past qualifies him to be an executive of the largest economy in the nation in relationship to proven skill as someone who has championed reforms to prove he can follow through with his promises of reform and executive skill in changing Washington?

 

 

Well you certainly danced all around the question but in my opinion, you still dodged it. First of all your 303 million number is a completely made up number, you cannot have all people having access if all do not have guns. A very small percentage of homes have "legal" guns in them so in order to make a reasonable comparison with numbers you have to use "real" numbers, not fantacy numbers.

 

Out of the "legal" guns owned, what number are used in criminal activities? Do you even know?

 

Your claim of limiting gun ownership is possible harm, my possition against abortion is the actual abortions. If we compare the number of legally owned guns that are used in a criminal act to the number of children killed in the womb each year, what do you think we will come up with?

 

About 1.2 to 1.4 million children are killed in the womb each year, just one year. About 6,000 legally owned guns are used in the commission of a crime each year, the numbers are not even comparable if we stay in the realm of reality.

 

Now, at the same time let's look at how many times legally owned guns are used for protection or to "stop" crime:

 

The World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock

 

You may want to get educated on the issues so you do not look so bad.

 

 

So, the number of abortions greatly outnumbers the possible illegal gun use, hundreds of times to one when put into factual context.

 

 

So while you attempted to offer a 'partial' answer to the question, your facts were all wrong and you were relying on 100% assumption as the basis of your arguement.

 

I will let IWS field this because it was his question, not mine so maybe he will think you gave a real answer but I do not believe you did.

[wez]

Many whites like having their own water fountains and even seperate places to sit at a dinner. They desired to be kept seperate from that they hated/feared.

 

Just like your buddy, fellacio?

 

 

 

The liberals desire their politics to be kept seperate from them the same way and for similar reasons. Why own up to your mistakes and abuses as long as you have the ability to play these games, to duck and dodge and even attack those who are asking the direct questions.

 

 

Play it by the numbers 1,2,3,.......but never answer the question.

 

Mirror mirror on the wall, who's the biggest hypocrite of them all?

 

 

I have never dodged a single question, I may miss one every now and then when several are asked at the same time but just remind me and I will always answer to the best of my ability..

 

Hahahahahaha...

 

TJ .. not only do you dodge nearly every direct question asked to you, but all you do is accuse "liberals" of being you as you dodge them...

 

Let the Sun shine in..

 

 

Everyone who disagrees with me, is me, and a liberal. ~ timesjoke is right, or else

 

 

[Guest Fullauto]

But Liberals require greater numbers, they need to drown out the opposition or even silence it because they know they are doing the wrong thing and understand that if too much light is placed on their actions/beliefs, people may start getting wise to their games.

 

[attach=full]2089[/attach]

 

[hugo]

 

Thanks Hugo. These calm, reasonable and utterly emotionless posts are why you're my favourite conservative. As always, I heart you.

 

 

 

I heart you, too.

 

Today in the US a person with my political ideology is most frequently labeled a libertarian, in 1968 I would have been labeled a Goldwater conservative, in 1928 I would have been labeled a liberal.

 

Sadly, most political debate today, is little more than name calling and personal attacks. To paraphrase Goldwater we should be able to disagree without being disagreeable.

[RoyalOrleans]

Here's an answer as to why they try to limit 2A and not abortion:

 

Who can own a gun? Anybody of legal age who can pass a safety course, background check, etc, etc. And buy one. Ok...

 

Who can get an abortion? This one is limited to only females. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html

 

If you scroll down a wee bit, you notice that about half the population in the US is females. Now, it seems these days that even a 7 year old who doesn't like a 4 year old happens to have direct access to his grandfather's WW2 arsenal. So really, it's pretty much the whole damn population on that board. Sure, they can't own it, but they can use it. So really...

 

You have about 102 million (or more) who can have an abortion...

 

Vs Slightly less than 303 million who could actually kill someone with a gun.

 

With that previous 102 million included, mind you.

 

So why do we want to limit the second amendment? So that fewer people have access to weapons to kill people with.

 

So here's to your liberal bashing, IWS and TJ:

 

I've presented facts. I've answered the question.

 

And to especially TJ:

 

If you think bashing liberals and saying that they don't answer questions and that you're a proud conservative somehow lends credence to your ability to present a rational argument, you're sorely mistaken. I've honestly yet to see you try answering the question, whether it was directed to the "left" or not. Oh, but wait, you don't think you have to, right? Classic conservative. Blame the left for everything to avoid having to answer for your own accountability. It's cute that you're trying so hard to discredit liberals by generalizing them, but we all know it's the same bull that comes from conservatives in every debate involving politics.

 

<==Is his own "No Spin Zone"

 

What university do you attend?

[snafu]

....Plus I'm utterly sick and tired of the over abundance of liberal bashing on this board. It would be nice to have one thread (or even a whole section) where it simply wasn't allowed.

 

Here ya go.

 

Phood Phreak's

[hugo]

Put on my red liberal hat for a moment:

 

From Roe v. Wade's decision:

 

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8 -9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453 -454; id., at 460, 463-465 [410 U.S. 113, 153] (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

 

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.

 

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The [410 U.S. 113, 154] Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization).

 

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

 

The 14th Amendment:

 

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

No protection for the unborn under the 14th

 

The 9th Amendment:

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

The fact abortion is not enumerated as a right in the Constitution does not mean it is not a right of the people.

 

Abortion laws were quite lax during the colonial era. It was really in the latter half of the 19th century where harsh anti-abortion laws were passed by many state legislatures. The founding fathers were basically liberals in the classical sense of the word. They generally opposed government limits on individual actions; they generally opposed governments interfering with an individuals "pursuit of happiness." Yes, when the Constitution was formed it basically only applied to white men. The 14th Amendment corrected that error. Women are now entitled to engage in their own pursuit of happiness...which may not include birthing a child.

[wez]

Another excellent post brimming with common sense.

[phreakwars]

Another excellent post brimming with common sense.

That's one of the reasons I like Hugo, he doesn't fall into an "US .vs THEM" type category on his opinions.

.

.

[ImWithStupid]

The 14th Amendment:

 

The 14th Amendment:

 

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

 

No protection for the unborn under the 14th

 

 

Define, "born" as it Constitutionally applies here, please.

[wez]

Define, "born" as it Constitutionally applies here, please.

 

 

Well, it doesn't say conceived..

 

I would say born = out of the womb, into the world.

[snafu]

That's one of the reasons I like Hugo, he doesn't fall into an "US .vs THEM" type category on his opinions.

.

.

 

Oh your sadly mistaken. He' s one of us.

[timesjoke]

Define, "born" as it Constitutionally applies here, please.

 

Excellent question, we know if a child is "born" of two American parents in a foreign country we still have our citizenship and enjoy the protections of the 14th so the intent is clear to mean an American, not only someone birthed or where they were birthed.

 

 

Another point to remember on roe-v-wade is here:

 

Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life.

 

Here the Court clearly supports protecting "potential life". This is recognizing the unborn child as life, and a living human in America from an American parent is what????????

 

An American.

[jokersarewild]

I'm actually pretty sure that if they're born in another country, they aren't American citizens. I could be wrong, but it would require a "naturalization" process, since they weren't "born", as the requirement so clearly stated.

 

And since we're supposed to be looking at the constitutionality of this...

 

And the constitution says that unborn children have no rights...

 

It's pretty safe to say that abortion is legal, and should be, as from conception up until moments before birth, it's not yet born, and retains no rights as an American citizen.

 

However... pulls out the Declaration Hm..."The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"...well, it's a good thing the Declaration doesn't govern us, eh?

[ImWithStupid]

I'm actually pretty sure that if they're born in another country, they aren't American citizens. I could be wrong, but it would require a "naturalization" process, since they weren't "born", as the requirement so clearly stated.

 

Appearantly Federal judges don't agree with you.

 

Judge says McCain is a 'natural born citizen' - MSNBC Wire Services - MSNBC.com

 

And since we're supposed to be looking at the constitutionality of this...

 

And the constitution says that unborn children have no rights...

 

Show me where it says in the US Constitution that unborn children have no rights

 

It's pretty safe to say that abortion is legal, and should be, as from conception up until moments before birth, it's not yet born, and retains no rights as an American citizen.

 

This is all moot anyway. I never once questioned the legality of abortion. The question is what is the definition of "born" as it applies to the 14th Amendment.

[phreakwars]

Kinda makes me wonder what would happen if science perfected growing human life forms in a petri dish/ incubator... then what would the definition of "BORN" be.. hmm... something to think about.

.

.

[Guest Fullauto]

Kinda makes me wonder what would happen if science perfected growing human life forms in a petri dish/ incubator... then what would the definition of "BORN" be.. hmm... something to think about.

.

.

 

 

read 'A Brave New World'

Sir Huxley;)

[hugo]

Define, "born" as it Constitutionally applies here, please.

 

Define "define", please.

[ImWithStupid]

Define "define", please.

 

That depends on what the definition of the word, "is", is.

[wez]

That depends on what the definition of the word, "is", is.

 

"Please"?

 

 

Please explain..