Obama's Really Pizzing Off the Wrong People.....Just Sayin'

[traderjake]

Never said it was the moral equivalent of anything. Just said it was the womans right to have absolute control over her own body.

Do you believe in abortion in cases of rape or incest?

Yes.

The baby's body is not the mother's body.

Abortion is government sanctioned murder.

 

[Ms Tree]

Yes.

The baby's body is not the mother's body.

Abortion is government sanctioned murder.

Why is a baby conceived from rape not worthy of life? On what legal/moral ground do you make that determination? Seems to me that either all life is sacrosanct or it is not. When you start making exceptions based on your personal POV then there is no justification for denying others their POV.


The fetus is a parasite, at least in the first trimester. It cannot survive with out the host (mother). In order for it to be murder you will have to change a few laws first. A fetus has no legal standing in US courts of law as of yet. As far as I am concerned, the government has no rights over my body or that of anyone else. DO you really want to go down the slippery slope of allowing government intervention in a persons personal life?


Out of curiosity, assuming abortion becomes illegal and is considered murder. What will you do with a mother who has an illegal abortion? What will you do with those who assist her?

 

[EastUS1]

I believe a woman can do what ever she wants with her body. I believe a person should be able to marry whom ever they choose and as many as they choose. I believe a person should be allowed to ingest, shoot or inhale what ever they choose. I believe in the right of a person to take their own life if they deem it appropriate. I believe the government has no right intervening in my life so long as my actions do not affect the rights of others.

Amazingly enough; I'm in complete agreement with you there. I personally find the very thought of abortion to be disgusting and morally/spiritually repugnant on too many levels to even address...but I find intrusion into a person's essential Freedom to be far more so.

Recent decades have shown us that those infesting contemporary government have largely not the slightest real concerns for Freedom of any sort, and willingly granting such creatures ANY more power at ANY level is completely and unquestionably a fool's errand of the worst sort. Government getting it's callous hands on healthcare, to any significant degree, most certainly falls within that classification.

 

[EastUS1]

How many other presidents have played these games to this level???

"Why can't you answer the question directly instead of shucking and a jiving?"

Pick me! I've got that one! Umm...Because we all know the true answer to that already? 😉

 

[southwind]

Why is a baby conceived from rape not worthy of life? On what legal/moral ground do you make that determination? Seems to me that either all life is sacrosanct or it is not. When you start making exceptions based on your personal POV then there is no justification for denying others their POV.


The fetus is a parasite, at least in the first trimester. It cannot survive with out the host (mother). In order for it to be murder you will have to change a few laws first. A fetus has no legal standing in US courts of law as of yet. As far as I am concerned, the government has no rights over my body or that of anyone else. DO you really want to go down the slippery slope of allowing government intervention in a persons personal life?


Out of curiosity, assuming abortion becomes illegal and is considered murder. What will you do with a mother who has an illegal abortion? What will you do with those who assist her?

I'm sure your belief in Atheism, has nothing to do with "When life begins"!

 

[Ms Tree]

I'm sure your belief in Atheism, has nothing to do with "When life begins"!

Nope. Science.

I see you still cannot answer the questions posed to you.

 

[southwind]

Nope. Science.

I see you still cannot answer the questions posed to you.

Oh..........so a Scientologist ! Not much better !

 

[Ms Tree]

Scientology? No. I'm an atheist as you pointed out above. Why would I believe in some mythical fairy tale?

I believe in science. The process that designed the computer that you are typing on. The process that has got rid of polio and has created countless other cures. The process that put people on an orbiting moon over 200,000 miles from us. The process that designed building over 1,000 feet tall. The process that touches virtually every aspect of your life. I believe in science.

And again you fail to answer the question. Why is it that you believe you can dictate to others how they should conduct their life?

 

[EastUS1]

Why is it that you believe you can dictate to others how they should conduct their life?

Perhaps for the same reason(s) you feel you should be able to do so, where arms ownership, healthcare, etc are concerned? 😉 Sigh! What a truly terrible place this world of ours would be if we all ever came to universally adopt the "Live and Let Live" perspective. Heck! We'd have to learn to get by without mass-murder/war being among our all-time, favorite hobbies, and what would we ever do without power-mad politicians, just for starters? 🙂

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST86JM1RPl0

 

[Black Magic]

As long as it feels good and doesn't hurt anybody, anything goes!! Sex with animals, snort/inject anything you want and become a burden on society, it's all good!! That's the liberal mindset.

 

[Ms Tree]

What is it with conservatives and bestiality? That and pedophilia seem to be your 'go to' when all rational arguments fail. WTF?

You need to look up the legal definition of consent. As for the other stuff. Yes. A person should have absolute control over their own life so long as it does not affect the rights of others.

The other thing you seem to fail to grasp is that when you start using arbitrary standards to deprive people of their freedom that same arbitrary standard can be used on you. Should atheists come to be the majority they may determine that religion is a "burden on society" and ban it. Is that something you are OK with. I doubt it. One could certainly argue that the KKK is a burden on society. Shall we ban them? Where would you like to draw the line? Alcohol can be easily abused. Let's ban it. Nicotine. Let's ban it. Fast food? Ban it. Candy? Let's ban it.

Hell you are not even on a slippery slope. You just stepped off a cliff and are in free fall. That seems to be the fundamentalist mind set. Conservatives supposedly believe in personal responsibility.

So I'll ask you too. What rational do you use to ban drugs but allow alcohol or any of the other bad things I mentioned above? What constitutional argument do you use to allow 'traditional' marriage and prohibit same sex or plural marriage? The US is a nation based on law after all. So how do you do it?

 

[EastUS1]

.....and become a burden on society,....

You've just touched on my personal beliefs as to the proper and reasonable limits of Freedom. Imo: None ever have any inherent Right to drag others down with them. As for "snort/inject anything you want"? I'd say that's more reasonably within the individual's Rights, so long as they harm none but themselves in the process, and the whole, entirely obscene "War on Drugs" is to my thinking, nothing more than yet another government ploy to grab control over citizens for the politicians' selfish purposes and power-crazed agendas. "Prescription" drugs kill far more people annually than do those of the illegal sort. Any person trashing themselves with drugs/alcohol/etc is definably sick, and making of them "criminals" helps no one ever, save those that wish to be part of any supposedly Free society that yet has a higher percentage of our own population locked up for just what they personally choose to injest, than even Russia, China and all of europe combined!

Trickey-Dick discovered long-ago that he couldn't arrest protestors just for protesting, but he could do so for illegal drug use. Those that've followed, even the "messiah" obama, apparently still find it very convenient to have at their disposal, pathetic little private "armies" that, costumed-up as sorry little Halloween-level-impersonations of "soldiers", can kick in citizens' doors in the middle of the night for perhaps nothing more than harming themselves! The actual point of which is mostly to have around said sorry little "armies" to use as they wish...and keep constant reminders demonstrated of just who's the "boss" around here.

 

[EastUS1]

What rational do you use to ban drugs but allow alcohol.....?

Agreed...or cigs, chewing tobacco/etc. Individual responsibilty either exists as an accepted social paradigm, or doesn't...period. What most disgusts me with "liberals" is their childish desire to seek out some parent figure in government, in order to prevent them from ever actually embracing personal responsibility of any sort. Case in point: When you've previously discussed being an unarmed/helpless victim of a mugging....your subsequent notions were/are to pass yet more gun laws, and thus feel Fantasyland's warm and comforting embrace, instead of responsibly arming yourself so's to prevent such BS. Why's that? 😉

Nothing is ever gotten for nothing exchanged in this world of ours. Universal and all-encompassing health care, given magically for virtually free, would certainly be included there.

 

[Ms Tree]

You've just touched on my personal beliefs as to the proper and reasonable limits of Freedom. Imo: None ever have any inherent Right to drag others down with them. As for "snort/inject anything you want"? I'd say that's more reasonably within the individual's Rights, so long as they harm none but themselves in the process, and the whole, entirely obscene "War on Drugs" is, to my thinking, nothing more than yet another government ploy to grab control over citizens for the politicians' selfish purposes and power-crazed agendas. "Prescription" drugs kill far more people annually than do those of the illegal sort. Any person trashing themselves with drugs/alcohol/etc is definably sick, and making of them "criminals" helps no one ever, save those that love to be part of the supposedly Free society that yet has a higher percentage of our own population locked up than even Russia and China combined!

I agree with you to a point. I am sure we have all looked at someone or something and thought that is a drain on society. Part of the problem as I see it is everyone's standard is a bit different. I see smoking as a drain on society. I am willing to ban it in public places because I am in the public and when I am forced to inhale the smoke it affects me. I'm not going to say you cannot smoke in private.

I think a good rule of thumb is that for the state to have valid interest there must be a direct causal(sp?) relationship. Second hand smoke kills. Science has proven it. The KKK ranting about wanting a white society does not have any direct causal effect. It is speech. Offensive yes, illegal? I sure as hell hope it never is.

I had a law professor who said that the COTUS is there to protect the people you despise the most and to protect them. It is not there to protect the majorities right to run rough shod over the rights of those who you disagree with.

Anytime people say they want to ban something or prohibit something the hair on the back of my neck stands up. You want to ban 'xxxx'? What legal basis do you have to do that?

 

[EastUS1]

I see smoking as a drain on society. I am willing to ban it in public places because ....

Anytime people say they want to ban something or prohibit something the hair on the back of my neck stands up. You want to ban 'xxxx'? What legal basis do you have to do that?

So then; the bottom line is that you honestly, really don't give a sh-t about Freedom and are willing to ban whatever suits YOU? WTF!?....Over? 😉 I'm fine with no smoking areas in restaurants/etc, as purely being a reasonable courtesy to other patrons and good for business as elected to by the establishment's owner,... but...well....the entire frikkin' world is definably a public place. Who-in-hell are you or I to say what all others should do? if smoking concerns and offends you, well, only patronize non-smoking establishments, which is well within your Rights, and infringes on no one else's....But you're so very willing and even eager to ban things for others...WHY? Don't you even believe in your own espoused, but apparently, just pure BS? 🙂 "The other thing you seem to fail to grasp is that when you start using arbitrary standards to deprive people of their freedom that same arbitrary standard can be used on you." Ponder that a bit further.

PPS: Which is it Kommisar? Your notions of: "Yes. A person should have absolute control over their own life so long as it does not affect the rights of others." OR..."I think a good rule of thumb is that for the state to have valid interest..."? Which is dear? "The might "state" or the individual that should have the Rights? 🙂