A Question Of Those On The Left...

[hugo]

Actually, Rowe v. Wade, the ruling liberals strive to protect, does limit abortions. Ms. Palin should thank God for the Roe v. Wade decision. Without it she would not be the VP nominee and would quite possibly still be a simple housewife. One thing for sure no court decision in our century screwed up Presidential politics more.

 

I go by the original intent standard when judging the constitution. The founding fathers certainly intended to preserve an individuals right to bear arms and had no intent to guarantee rights to abortion. Abortion should be a state issue.

 

Of course, McCain/ Feingold was the greatest attack on the 1st Amendments free speech guarantees since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 it's co-author got the nomination of the so-called conservative party.

 

A few quotes:

 

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

"The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."

-- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

-- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

-- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."

-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

[ImWithStupid]

Actually, Rowe v. Wade, the ruling liberals strive to protect, does limit abortions. Ms. Palin should thank God for the Roe v. Wade decision. Without it she would not be the VP nominee and would quite possibly still be a simple housewife. One thing for sure no court decision in our century screwed up Presidential politics more.

 

I go by the original intent standard when judging the constitution. The founding fathers certainly intended to preserve an individuals right to bear arms and had no intent to guarantee rights to abortion. Abortion should be a state issue.

 

I understand Roe v. Wade but if you talk to the far left, they operate under the presumption that there shouldn't be limits on abortion and this is a Constitutional right and cite Roe v. Wade as their backup.

[ImWithStupid]

So ..... can you please answer my questions? They are genuine..

 

I'm sorry. What question do you mean, sweetie.

[hugo]

I understand Roe v. Wade but if you talk to the far left, they operate under the presumption that there shouldn't be limits on abortion and this is a Constitutional right and cite Roe v. Wade as their backup.

 

 

And there are radicals on the far right who would execute gays, I see little sentiment on the left for aborting a healthy full tem infant. In fact the left, as I stated earlier, almost universally supports Roe v. Wade despite the fact that Roe v. Wade limits abortions.

 

Anna, actually there is a process to amend the constitution. That is why blacks and women can now vote (good amendments) and we have a federal income tax (a bad amendment), Some of these amendments aren't that old. What our Constitution tried to prevent is an all powerful federal government and a tyranny of a temporary majority. Neither abortion rights or gun rights have any possibility of being subject to a constitutional amendment, at this time, due to the fact amendments require super majorities.

[ImWithStupid]

And there are radicals on the far right who would execute gays.

 

Difference is, they don't hold high offices in Congress.

 

Nancy Pelosi

 

Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)

Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)

Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)

Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)

Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)

Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)

Voted NO on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)

Voted NO on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)

Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)

Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)

Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)

Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)

Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)

Protect the reproductive rights of women. (Jan 1993)

Supported funding contraception and UN family planning. (Jul 1999)

 

Nancy Pelosi on the Issues

[hugo]

Difference is, they don't hold high offices in Congress.

 

 

 

Nancy Pelosi on the Issues

 

And she fully supports Roe v. Wade with it's allowing states to restrict abortion.

From Roe v Wade

 

WITH RESPECT TO THE STATE'S IMPORTANT AND LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN

POTENTIAL LIFE, THE "COMPELLING" POINT IS AT VIABILITY. THIS IS SO

BECAUSE THE FETUS THEN PRESUMABLY HAS THE CAPABILITY OF MEANINGFUL LIFE

OUTSIDE THE MOTHER'S WOMB. STATE REGULATION PROTECTIVE OF FETAL LIFE

AFTER VIABILITY THUS HAS BOTH LOGICAL AND BIOLOGICAL JUSTIFICATIONS. IF

THE STATE IS INTERESTED IN PROTECTING FETAL LIFE AFTER VIABILITY, IT MAY

GO SO FAR AS TO PROSCRIBE ABORTION DURING THAT PERIOD, EXCEPT WHEN IT IS

NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE LIFE OR HEALTH OF THE MOTHER. MEASURED AGAINST

THESE STANDARDS, ART. 1196 OF THE TEXAS PENAL CODE, IN RESTRICTING LEGAL

ABORTIONS TO THOSE "PROCURED OR ATTEMPTED BY MEDICAL ADVICE FOR THE

PURPOSE OF SAVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER," SWEEPS TOO BROADLY. THE

STATUTE MAKES NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN ABORTIONS PERFORMED EARLY IN

PREGNANCY AND THOSE PERFORMED LATER, AND IT LIMITS TO A SINGLE REASON,

"SAVING" THE MOTHER'S LIFE, THE LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROCEDURE.

THE STATUTE, THEREFORE, CANNOT SURVIVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL ATTACK MADE

UPON IT HERE.

[Guest Fullauto]

Difference is, they don't hold high offices in Congress.

 

 

 

Nancy Pelosi on the Issues

 

good point... Both sides have radicals... but the left seems to vote them power more than the right...

 

in fairness, can anyone here list a senator or congressman with such right radical view?

 

Senator Byrd? He's said some stupid shyt, but has he voted that way... he's supposed to represent... can ya pull his record?

[ImWithStupid]

good point... Both sides have radicals... but the left seems to vote them power more than the right...

 

in fairness, can anyone here list a senator or congressman with such right radical view?

 

Senator Byrd? He's said some stupid shyt, but has he voted that way... he's supposed to represent... can ya pull his record?

 

That website will show the voting records based on various issues. It even has the Supreme Court Justices stances on the issues.

 

OnTheIssues.org - Candidates on the Issues

 

Sen. Robert Byrd (D) WV.

 

Robert Byrd on the Issues

 

You can click on the topic at the top.

[hugo]

I happen to be a radical myself. Ron Paul is certainly considered a radical and is certainly less mainstream than Pelosi. Whenever you see a 400-1 vote the dissenter is most likely Paul.

[Anna Perenna]

Actually, Rowe v. Wade, the ruling liberals strive to protect, does limit abortions.

 

I go by the original intent standard when judging the constitution. The founding fathers certainly intended to preserve an individuals right to bear arms and had no intent to guarantee rights to abortion. Abortion should be a state issue.

 

And there are radicals on the far right who would execute gays, I see little sentiment on the left for aborting a healthy full tem infant. In fact the left, as I stated earlier, almost universally supports Roe v. Wade despite the fact that Roe v. Wade limits abortions.

 

Anna, actually there is a process to amend the constitution. That is why blacks and women can now vote (good amendments) and we have a federal income tax (a bad amendment), Some of these amendments aren't that old. What our Constitution tried to prevent is an all powerful federal government and a tyranny of a temporary majority. Neither abortion rights or gun rights have any possibility of being subject to a constitutional amendment, at this time, due to the fact amendments require super majorities.

 

Cheers for the info.

 

And she fully supports Roe v. Wade with it's allowing states to restrict abortion.

From Roe v Wade

 

WITH RESPECT TO THE STATE'S IMPORTANT AND LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN

POTENTIAL LIFE, THE "COMPELLING" POINT IS AT VIABILITY. THIS IS SO

BECAUSE THE FETUS THEN PRESUMABLY HAS THE CAPABILITY OF MEANINGFUL LIFE

OUTSIDE THE MOTHER'S WOMB. STATE REGULATION PROTECTIVE OF FETAL LIFE

AFTER VIABILITY THUS HAS BOTH LOGICAL AND BIOLOGICAL JUSTIFICATIONS. IF

THE STATE IS INTERESTED IN PROTECTING FETAL LIFE AFTER VIABILITY, IT MAY

GO SO FAR AS TO PROSCRIBE ABORTION DURING THAT PERIOD, EXCEPT WHEN IT IS NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE LIFE OR HEALTH OF THE MOTHER. MEASURED AGAINST THESE STANDARDS, ART. 1196 OF THE TEXAS PENAL CODE, IN RESTRICTING LEGAL ABORTIONS TO THOSE "PROCURED OR ATTEMPTED BY MEDICAL ADVICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SAVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER," SWEEPS TOO BROADLY. THE STATUTE MAKES NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN ABORTIONS PERFORMED EARLY IN PREGNANCY AND THOSE PERFORMED LATER, AND IT LIMITS TO A SINGLE REASON, "SAVING" THE MOTHER'S LIFE, THE LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROCEDURE. THE STATUTE, THEREFORE, CANNOT SURVIVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL ATTACK MADE UPON IT HERE.

 

I happen to be a radical myself. Ron Paul is certainly considered a radical and is certainly less mainstream than Pelosi. Whenever you see a 400-1 vote the dissenter is most likely Paul.

 

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

 

So, IWS, what was the purpose of this thread, again? Are you really after an answer or are you just trying to instigate yet more (YAWN) liberal-bashing?

 

The saddest thing is, all the liberal bashing on this forum just makes me despise the right-wing agenda of (some of the) people here even more. Telling me over and over how terrible and stupid liberals are doesn't make you look smart or reasonable. It makes you look like a nasty, frustrated broken record - ie, not someone I'm interested in paying attention to, let alone siding with.

[ImWithStupid]

So, IWS, what was the purpose of this thread, again? Are you really after an answer or are you just trying to instigate yet more (YAWN) liberal-bashing?

 

Wow. Someone needs to settle down and take a chill pill on the acusations. Defensive much.

 

No. I just like to point out irony where I see it. I kept saying it had nothing to do with morals, just reason.

 

Just like I don't understand how people on the right can be pro-life but pro-capitlal punishment. How people can argue that abortion is fine since the embryo isn't a life yet will back charging someone with two counts of murder if they kill a pregnant woman.

 

My point is, either a right is a right, or it isn't. One issue is specifically spelled out in the founding documents and the other isn't. either neither should be limited or both can be. To argue that the 2A shouldn't be limited but abortion should, until ruled otherwise, is just as bad as wanting to limit the 2A and not abortion.

 

They are all contradictive.

[eddo]

Just like I don't understand how people on the right can be pro-life but pro-capitlal punishment.

...

They are all contradictive.

 

I do struggle with that one. I am most definitely pro-life when it comes to pregnancies, But not so much when it comes to people that commit crimes that deserve the ultimate punishment.

 

the revenge part of me wants these people to die for their heinous crimes, but the part of me the trusts in God knows that I shouldn't be after that revenge, but instead let Him handle it.

 

It is most definitely a contradiction in my views, and it is one that I often reassess how I stand on.

[snafu]

I believe in giving a life the chance thus pro-life. I also believe once given the chance and you abuse it you should pay thus pro capital punishment.

[ImWithStupid]

I believe in giving a life the chance thus pro-life. I also believe once given the chance and you abuse it you should pay thus pro capital punishment.

 

But isn't that actually, anti-abortion, pro-capital punishment, not pro-life.

[snafu]

But isn't that actually, anti-abortion, pro-capital punishment, not pro-life.

 

Yes that would be a better way to put it.

[Anna Perenna]

Wow. Someone needs to settle down and take a chill pill on the acusations. Defensive much.

 

I'm not in need of a chill pill - I was asking a question. If you see that as overly reactionary, then ...... that's your presumption.

 

No. I just like to point out irony where I see it. I kept saying it had nothing to do with morals, just reason.

 

Just like I don't understand how people on the right can be pro-life but pro-capitlal punishment. How people can argue that abortion is fine since the embryo isn't a life yet will back charging someone with two counts of murder if they kill a pregnant woman.

 

My point is, either a right is a right, or it isn't. One issue is specifically spelled out in the founding documents and the other isn't. either neither should be limited or both can be. To argue that the 2A shouldn't be limited but abortion should, until ruled otherwise, is just as bad as wanting to limit the 2A and not abortion.

 

They are all contradictive.

 

Which brings me back to my question - why did you ask this question on a debate forum in the first place? You probably should have just said "isn't it ironic that ....." and then perhaps called for discussion.

 

Otherwise, you know it's just going to end in a bunch of pointless and ugly liberal bashing, much like what happens in most other threads on this site.

[snafu]

He was trying to put another spin on the issues by questioning the constitutionality of the subjects. But you keep going back to the morality of it. I think he explained this a few times to you. But if you want to consider it liberal bashing thats fine. Liberals are wrong on both subjects as far as he and I go so I can see why you would think we were bashing libs.

[Anna Perenna]

He was trying to put another spin on the issues by questioning the constitutionality of the subjects. But you keep going back to the morality of it.

 

Where have I done this?

[ImWithStupid]

I'm not in need of a chill pill - I was asking a question. If you see that as overly reactionary, then ...... that's your presumption.

 

 

 

Which brings me back to my question - why did you ask this question on a debate forum in the first place? You probably should have just said "isn't it ironic that ....." and then perhaps called for discussion.

 

Otherwise, you know it's just going to end in a bunch of pointless and ugly liberal bashing, much like what happens in most other threads on this site.

 

The title was just to get attention, just like any headline. If you look at the body of the first post, nothing in there is political, nor do I even say liberal or conservative. Just the question of the irony of the views.

 

I even quantified that with this note at the end...

 

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

[Anna Perenna]

I just find it funny how, left thinking people, are not capable of answering this question, because they even know that it defies all logic and reason, and to answer it, honestly, would make them look foolish.

 

You can spin the situation as much as you like but the above post, and your opportunity to post it, was clearly the point of your thread.

[ImWithStupid]

You can spin the situation as much as you like but the above post, and your opportunity to post it, was clearly the point of your thread.

 

It's not a spin. Based on pure law, no opinion, morals or bias, it's impossible to logically answer this.

[timesjoke]

1,2,3,..... Follow the liberal guide to 'NOT' answer any liberal possition by the numbers, repeat each step as much as neccessary but never, never answer the question.

 

 

Right now we are back at calling your motives into question again, it is a repeating cycle.

[Anna Perenna]

It's not a spin. Based on pure law, no opinion, morals or bias, it's impossible to logically answer this.

 

So the right can't answer it either?

 

Cool.

[ImWithStupid]

So the right can't answer it either?

 

Cool.

 

I guess I should have said, nobody can justify it.

 

It's against logic to say that a right that is spelled out in a document could be limited where one that isn't can't. Regardless of the rights.

 

You keep making this political where it's logical.

[Anna Perenna]

I guess I should have said, nobody can justify it.

 

It's against logic to say that a right that is spelled out in a document could be limited where one that isn't can't. Regardless of the rights.

 

You keep making this political where it's logical.

 

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.