CDZ Any Government, no matter how large or small. . .

Our govt. has a legitimate role to play in defending rights from the moment a life begins.

  • True

  • False


Results are only viewable after voting.
Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?
Agree, now here's the problem. Pregnancy is not a zero risk proposition, so which life takes precedence?Can you demand one person to risk her live in protection of another live?
When there are conflicts in rights, the government has an obligation to favor the right that does the least amount of harm.

A 'risk' in a pregnancy is not a sure thing. The woman's life 'May' or 'May not" be at risk.

An abortion is an absolute risk. Have an abortion and a life is lost. No, if and's or buts.

Clearly, the least harm is to rule in favor of the fetus.
That's actually a good argument. This is my answer.
- The woman's life is at risk it's not a hypothetical, it is a statistical fact.
- The amount of harm is the same, namely death.
- You have a point that on the side of the baby death is certain and on the side of the woman it is small. You are however still demanding that the woman risks her life. By what right? What makes the life of the fetus more valuable then the life of the woman?
 
Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?
Agree, now here's the problem. Pregnancy is not a zero risk proposition, so which life takes precedence?Can you demand one person to risk her live in protection of another live?
When there are conflicts in rights, the government has an obligation to favor the right that does the least amount of harm.

A 'risk' in a pregnancy is not a sure thing. The woman's life 'May' or 'May not" be at risk.

An abortion is an absolute risk. Have an abortion and a life is lost. No, if and's or buts.

Clearly, the least harm is to rule in favor of the fetus.
That's actually a good argument. This is my answer.
- The woman's life is at risk it's not a hypothetical, it is a statistical fact.
- The amount of harm is the same, namely death.
- You have a point that on the side of the baby death is certain and on the side of the woman it is small. You are however still demanding that the woman risks her life. By what right? What makes the life of the fetus more valuable then the life of the woman?

Do you see any difference at all between a situation where her physical relationship to the child is only as a result of her own actions and the choices she and her partner made to put it there (consensual sex) and a situation where the child and connection is FORCED on her in a physical attack (rape?)
 
Here your analogy fails because it presumes intent for the biological connection. Something that is false because the fact that the person wants an abortion strongly implies the person didn't want to become pregnant in the first place. If in the Saw movies a person chooses to save himself at the expense of others is that person guilty of murder?

Did the person in "Saw" willfully and knowingly assume risks that put them self in that situation?

You just don't want to acknowledge the point, do you?
-I've acknowledged and rebuked your point a few times already. If you want to make a point that a person who gets pregnant when it isn't rape is voluntarily taking responsibility, you have to establish that getting pregnant is a choice they make EVERY time. You can't do that because most people take active steps to prevent pregnancies when they don't want too become pregnant. You can't volunteer for something you want to prevent, it's contradictory. That's why your analogy failed.
-To answer your question,( I note that you answered my question to you, with another question) even if they're own actions caused them to be put in that situation a person saving himself at the expense of someone else is acting out of self defense and not committing murder.

No-one has the right to trap or to lure another person into a situation against them self and then kill that other person and then claim it was in "self defense."
-Lol now you are missing my point. Probably my fault since a movie reference isn't universal. The Saw analogy I put out because the premise of those movies is that someone kidnaps people the killer deems immoral in some way and then gives them moral dilemmas they have to work trough by blood and pain. Sometimes it involves several people of who only one survives, usually by condemning the other ones. It's pretty sadistic and I only watched I believe parts of the second one but it is apt to this conversation. Anyways in the movies the people saving themselves are the victims, not the ones doing the kidnapping.
- I'm also noticing that again you are not trying to address the clear challenge I gave.
Please establish that someone who gets pregnant voluntarily takes responsibility for the risks that pregnancy entails?


It's called an "assumption of risks" and it is precisely what the Supreme Courts justices have been mindful of, when they commented that "once personhood is established for children in the womb, the case for abortion becomes near impossible to make."

Those are THEIR words, not mine.
Sure but I gave you a clear argumentation to challenge the voluntarily nature of getting pregnant in light of birth control. It flatters me that you think it takes a member of the supreme court to answer me but it's a bit of a cop out isn't it?
 
Did the person in "Saw" willfully and knowingly assume risks that put them self in that situation?

You just don't want to acknowledge the point, do you?
-I've acknowledged and rebuked your point a few times already. If you want to make a point that a person who gets pregnant when it isn't rape is voluntarily taking responsibility, you have to establish that getting pregnant is a choice they make EVERY time. You can't do that because most people take active steps to prevent pregnancies when they don't want too become pregnant. You can't volunteer for something you want to prevent, it's contradictory. That's why your analogy failed.
-To answer your question,( I note that you answered my question to you, with another question) even if they're own actions caused them to be put in that situation a person saving himself at the expense of someone else is acting out of self defense and not committing murder.

No-one has the right to trap or to lure another person into a situation against them self and then kill that other person and then claim it was in "self defense."
-Lol now you are missing my point. Probably my fault since a movie reference isn't universal. The Saw analogy I put out because the premise of those movies is that someone kidnaps people the killer deems immoral in some way and then gives them moral dilemmas they have to work trough by blood and pain. Sometimes it involves several people of who only one survives, usually by condemning the other ones. It's pretty sadistic and I only watched I believe parts of the second one but it is apt to this conversation. Anyways in the movies the people saving themselves are the victims, not the ones doing the kidnapping.
- I'm also noticing that again you are not trying to address the clear challenge I gave.
Please establish that someone who gets pregnant voluntarily takes responsibility for the risks that pregnancy entails?


It's called an "assumption of risks" and it is precisely what the Supreme Courts justices have been mindful of, when they commented that "once personhood is established for children in the womb, the case for abortion becomes near impossible to make."

Those are THEIR words, not mine.
Sure but I gave you a clear argumentation to challenge the voluntarily nature of getting pregnant in light of birth control. It flatters me that you think it takes a member of the supreme court to answer me but it's a bit of a cop out isn't it?

It's not a cop out when the legal nature of "assumptions of risks" have already long been established and no one is challenging them
 
Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?
Agree, now here's the problem. Pregnancy is not a zero risk proposition, so which life takes precedence?Can you demand one person to risk her live in protection of another live?
When there are conflicts in rights, the government has an obligation to favor the right that does the least amount of harm.

A 'risk' in a pregnancy is not a sure thing. The woman's life 'May' or 'May not" be at risk.

An abortion is an absolute risk. Have an abortion and a life is lost. No, if and's or buts.

Clearly, the least harm is to rule in favor of the fetus.
That's actually a good argument. This is my answer.
- The woman's life is at risk it's not a hypothetical, it is a statistical fact.
- The amount of harm is the same, namely death.
- You have a point that on the side of the baby death is certain and on the side of the woman it is small. You are however still demanding that the woman risks her life. By what right? What makes the life of the fetus more valuable then the life of the woman?
Take the number of pregnancies every year and divide it by the number of women who die in childbirth and then get back to Me on which is the least harmful.

Simply being 'at risk' is not a solid enough foundation. Essentially, you are saying a possibility should have a greater weight than an absolute. That is not how I see it.
 
Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?
I agree but you have yet to established the basis of yer argument, when life begins....
 
Last edited:
Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?
Agree, now here's the problem. Pregnancy is not a zero risk proposition, so which life takes precedence?Can you demand one person to risk her live in protection of another live?
When there are conflicts in rights, the government has an obligation to favor the right that does the least amount of harm.

A 'risk' in a pregnancy is not a sure thing. The woman's life 'May' or 'May not" be at risk.

An abortion is an absolute risk. Have an abortion and a life is lost. No, if and's or buts.

Clearly, the least harm is to rule in favor of the fetus.
That's actually a good argument. This is my answer.
- The woman's life is at risk it's not a hypothetical, it is a statistical fact.
- The amount of harm is the same, namely death.
- You have a point that on the side of the baby death is certain and on the side of the woman it is small. You are however still demanding that the woman risks her life. By what right? What makes the life of the fetus more valuable then the life of the woman?

Do you see any difference at all between a situation where her physical relationship to the child is only as a result of her own actions and the choices she and her partner made to put it there (consensual sex) and a situation where the child and connection is FORCED on her in a physical attack (rape?)
Not really now I think about it, at least when pregnancy is concerned. In the end in both cases you are equally at risk and choosing to carry the fetus to term is still a choice you make. As I pointed out on nearly every post having consensual sex doesn't necessarily mean you want to become pregnant. So when it does happen you didn't choose to become pregnant and therefore don't fall under the "assumption of risk" you like to quote. As I also said before I'd like you to take responsibility but don't believe I have the right to put it into law.
 
-I've acknowledged and rebuked your point a few times already. If you want to make a point that a person who gets pregnant when it isn't rape is voluntarily taking responsibility, you have to establish that getting pregnant is a choice they make EVERY time. You can't do that because most people take active steps to prevent pregnancies when they don't want too become pregnant. You can't volunteer for something you want to prevent, it's contradictory. That's why your analogy failed.
-To answer your question,( I note that you answered my question to you, with another question) even if they're own actions caused them to be put in that situation a person saving himself at the expense of someone else is acting out of self defense and not committing murder.

No-one has the right to trap or to lure another person into a situation against them self and then kill that other person and then claim it was in "self defense."
-Lol now you are missing my point. Probably my fault since a movie reference isn't universal. The Saw analogy I put out because the premise of those movies is that someone kidnaps people the killer deems immoral in some way and then gives them moral dilemmas they have to work trough by blood and pain. Sometimes it involves several people of who only one survives, usually by condemning the other ones. It's pretty sadistic and I only watched I believe parts of the second one but it is apt to this conversation. Anyways in the movies the people saving themselves are the victims, not the ones doing the kidnapping.
- I'm also noticing that again you are not trying to address the clear challenge I gave.
Please establish that someone who gets pregnant voluntarily takes responsibility for the risks that pregnancy entails?


It's called an "assumption of risks" and it is precisely what the Supreme Courts justices have been mindful of, when they commented that "once personhood is established for children in the womb, the case for abortion becomes near impossible to make."

Those are THEIR words, not mine.
Sure but I gave you a clear argumentation to challenge the voluntarily nature of getting pregnant in light of birth control. It flatters me that you think it takes a member of the supreme court to answer me but it's a bit of a cop out isn't it?

It's not a cop out when the legal nature of "assumptions of risks" have already long been established and no one is challenging them
The legal nature of assumption of risk has been established. You just fail too make an argument to make it apply too abortion.
 
Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?
Agree, now here's the problem. Pregnancy is not a zero risk proposition, so which life takes precedence?Can you demand one person to risk her live in protection of another live?
When there are conflicts in rights, the government has an obligation to favor the right that does the least amount of harm.

A 'risk' in a pregnancy is not a sure thing. The woman's life 'May' or 'May not" be at risk.

An abortion is an absolute risk. Have an abortion and a life is lost. No, if and's or buts.

Clearly, the least harm is to rule in favor of the fetus.
That's actually a good argument. This is my answer.
- The woman's life is at risk it's not a hypothetical, it is a statistical fact.
- The amount of harm is the same, namely death.
- You have a point that on the side of the baby death is certain and on the side of the woman it is small. You are however still demanding that the woman risks her life. By what right? What makes the life of the fetus more valuable then the life of the woman?

Do you see any difference at all between a situation where her physical relationship to the child is only as a result of her own actions and the choices she and her partner made to put it there (consensual sex) and a situation where the child and connection is FORCED on her in a physical attack (rape?)
Not really now I think about it, at least when pregnancy is concerned. In the end in both cases you are equally at risk and choosing to carry the fetus to term is still a choice you make. As I pointed out on nearly every post having consensual sex doesn't necessarily mean you want to become pregnant. So when it does happen you didn't choose to become pregnant and therefore don't fall under the "assumption of risk" you like to quote. As I also said before I'd like you to take responsibility but don't believe I have the right to put it into law.

Do you honestly believe that your legal or even your moral obligation would be (or should be) exactly the same if you were to assume some risks and end up biologically connected to another person. . . as opposed to a situation where someone were to FORCIBLY connect your body to another person against your will?
 
No-one has the right to trap or to lure another person into a situation against them self and then kill that other person and then claim it was in "self defense."
-Lol now you are missing my point. Probably my fault since a movie reference isn't universal. The Saw analogy I put out because the premise of those movies is that someone kidnaps people the killer deems immoral in some way and then gives them moral dilemmas they have to work trough by blood and pain. Sometimes it involves several people of who only one survives, usually by condemning the other ones. It's pretty sadistic and I only watched I believe parts of the second one but it is apt to this conversation. Anyways in the movies the people saving themselves are the victims, not the ones doing the kidnapping.
- I'm also noticing that again you are not trying to address the clear challenge I gave.
Please establish that someone who gets pregnant voluntarily takes responsibility for the risks that pregnancy entails?


It's called an "assumption of risks" and it is precisely what the Supreme Courts justices have been mindful of, when they commented that "once personhood is established for children in the womb, the case for abortion becomes near impossible to make."

Those are THEIR words, not mine.
Sure but I gave you a clear argumentation to challenge the voluntarily nature of getting pregnant in light of birth control. It flatters me that you think it takes a member of the supreme court to answer me but it's a bit of a cop out isn't it?

It's not a cop out when the legal nature of "assumptions of risks" have already long been established and no one is challenging them
The legal nature of assumption of risk has been established. You just fail too make an argument to make it apply too abortion.

Is it not common sense to conclude that no birth control is 100% effective and that intercourse has a certain risk for pregnancy that one must assume the risks for, before having sex?
 
Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?
Agree, now here's the problem. Pregnancy is not a zero risk proposition, so which life takes precedence?Can you demand one person to risk her live in protection of another live?
When there are conflicts in rights, the government has an obligation to favor the right that does the least amount of harm.

A 'risk' in a pregnancy is not a sure thing. The woman's life 'May' or 'May not" be at risk.

An abortion is an absolute risk. Have an abortion and a life is lost. No, if and's or buts.

Clearly, the least harm is to rule in favor of the fetus.
That's actually a good argument. This is my answer.
- The woman's life is at risk it's not a hypothetical, it is a statistical fact.
- The amount of harm is the same, namely death.
- You have a point that on the side of the baby death is certain and on the side of the woman it is small. You are however still demanding that the woman risks her life. By what right? What makes the life of the fetus more valuable then the life of the woman?
Take the number of pregnancies every year and divide it by the number of women who die in childbirth and then get back to Me on which is the least harmful.

Simply being 'at risk' is not a solid enough foundation. Essentially, you are saying a possibility should have a greater weight than an absolute. That is not how I see it.
I'm saying that when it comes to survival a person has the right to choose self preservation even in light of an absolute on the other side of the equation. To come back to an analogy used by chuz life. If you see someone drowning in a pool are you obligated to jump in to try to safe him? What if it's a river? A stream? An ocean? At what point can the government say you are obligated to safe him? What is an acceptable risk of dying?
 
What rights are you talking about? When does life begin? And why should the government be involved? The constitution says that you have the right to defend your life, not your comrades.
 
Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?
Disagree...
Its duty is to protect the rights of the citizens that fund it. And to make sure all under its jurisdiction adhere to the laws of the land. Non citizens should not be entitled to the protections of our constitution. They are foreigners; here at our whim, and pleasure. As such they should be treated quite differently than citizens.
 
Agree, now here's the problem. Pregnancy is not a zero risk proposition, so which life takes precedence?Can you demand one person to risk her live in protection of another live?
When there are conflicts in rights, the government has an obligation to favor the right that does the least amount of harm.

A 'risk' in a pregnancy is not a sure thing. The woman's life 'May' or 'May not" be at risk.

An abortion is an absolute risk. Have an abortion and a life is lost. No, if and's or buts.

Clearly, the least harm is to rule in favor of the fetus.
That's actually a good argument. This is my answer.
- The woman's life is at risk it's not a hypothetical, it is a statistical fact.
- The amount of harm is the same, namely death.
- You have a point that on the side of the baby death is certain and on the side of the woman it is small. You are however still demanding that the woman risks her life. By what right? What makes the life of the fetus more valuable then the life of the woman?

Do you see any difference at all between a situation where her physical relationship to the child is only as a result of her own actions and the choices she and her partner made to put it there (consensual sex) and a situation where the child and connection is FORCED on her in a physical attack (rape?)
Not really now I think about it, at least when pregnancy is concerned. In the end in both cases you are equally at risk and choosing to carry the fetus to term is still a choice you make. As I pointed out on nearly every post having consensual sex doesn't necessarily mean you want to become pregnant. So when it does happen you didn't choose to become pregnant and therefore don't fall under the "assumption of risk" you like to quote. As I also said before I'd like you to take responsibility but don't believe I have the right to put it into law.

Do you honestly believe that your legal or even your moral obligation would be (or should be) exactly the same if you were to assume some risks and end up biologically connected to another person. . . as opposed to a situation where someone were to FORCIBLY connect your body to another person against your will?
Legal and moral obligation are separate. As I just pointed out I'm not morally comfortable with abortion. Legally though is a different matter, legally if my position is that abortion should be allowed on the bases that saying otherwise violates the right to life of the mother, the fact that the pregnancy happened by force or consensual sex doesn't make a difference. I think the choice to get an abortion for a victim of rape as opposed to an abortion after consensual sex is morally a whole lot simpler.
 
Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?
Disagree...
Its duty is to protect the rights of the citizens that fund it. And to make sure all under its jurisdiction adhere to the laws of the land. Non citizens should not be entitled to the protections of our constitution. They are foreigners; here at our whim, and pleasure. As such they should be treated quite differently than citizens.

You can't treat foreigners differently from citizens, because you tax them the same way and you don't notify them of any difference before they come.
 
Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?
Agree, now here's the problem. Pregnancy is not a zero risk proposition, so which life takes precedence?Can you demand one person to risk her live in protection of another live?
When there are conflicts in rights, the government has an obligation to favor the right that does the least amount of harm.

A 'risk' in a pregnancy is not a sure thing. The woman's life 'May' or 'May not" be at risk.

An abortion is an absolute risk. Have an abortion and a life is lost. No, if and's or buts.

Clearly, the least harm is to rule in favor of the fetus.
That's actually a good argument. This is my answer.
- The woman's life is at risk it's not a hypothetical, it is a statistical fact.
- The amount of harm is the same, namely death.
- You have a point that on the side of the baby death is certain and on the side of the woman it is small. You are however still demanding that the woman risks her life. By what right? What makes the life of the fetus more valuable then the life of the woman?
Take the number of pregnancies every year and divide it by the number of women who die in childbirth and then get back to Me on which is the least harmful.

Simply being 'at risk' is not a solid enough foundation. Essentially, you are saying a possibility should have a greater weight than an absolute. That is not how I see it.
I'm saying that when it comes to survival a person has the right to choose self preservation even in light of an absolute on the other side of the equation. To come back to an analogy used by chuz life. If you see someone drowning in a pool are you obligated to jump in to try to safe him? What if it's a river? A stream? An ocean? At what point can the government say you are obligated to safe him? What is an acceptable risk of dying?


You are only addressing a small part of the allegory and you don't even have that part completely right.


The Legal Duty to Rescue Someone Else

In general, there is no legal requirement in the United States to help and rescue someone else who is in danger. This would typically apply even in extreme situations where a bystander sees a small child who has wandered into the street or a man who has fallen onto the train tracks. There are some exceptions to this rule. Ten states have limited rules that may require you to help a crime victim if you can do so without danger or peril to yourself or to others


We both already agree that no analogy is 100% accurate. (that's largely what makes it an analogy) but, beyond that. . . my analogy was not to make the point that the person who looks out the window and sees a kid in their bool must be compelled to jump in and save the kid.

The point is, they would not have the right to KILL the little bastard simply for being in their pool - un invited.
 
Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?
Disagree...
Its duty is to protect the rights of the citizens that fund it. And to make sure all under its jurisdiction adhere to the laws of the land. Non citizens should not be entitled to the protections of our constitution. They are foreigners; here at our whim, and pleasure. As such they should be treated quite differently than citizens.


You need to read the 14th amendment just a little more slowly and while paying closer attention to how it specifically uses the word "persons" for some things and where it uses the word "citizen" for others.

Hint: They are NOT the same.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment XIV

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.
 
Agree, now here's the problem. Pregnancy is not a zero risk proposition, so which life takes precedence?Can you demand one person to risk her live in protection of another live?
When there are conflicts in rights, the government has an obligation to favor the right that does the least amount of harm.

A 'risk' in a pregnancy is not a sure thing. The woman's life 'May' or 'May not" be at risk.

An abortion is an absolute risk. Have an abortion and a life is lost. No, if and's or buts.

Clearly, the least harm is to rule in favor of the fetus.
That's actually a good argument. This is my answer.
- The woman's life is at risk it's not a hypothetical, it is a statistical fact.
- The amount of harm is the same, namely death.
- You have a point that on the side of the baby death is certain and on the side of the woman it is small. You are however still demanding that the woman risks her life. By what right? What makes the life of the fetus more valuable then the life of the woman?
Take the number of pregnancies every year and divide it by the number of women who die in childbirth and then get back to Me on which is the least harmful.

Simply being 'at risk' is not a solid enough foundation. Essentially, you are saying a possibility should have a greater weight than an absolute. That is not how I see it.
I'm saying that when it comes to survival a person has the right to choose self preservation even in light of an absolute on the other side of the equation. To come back to an analogy used by chuz life. If you see someone drowning in a pool are you obligated to jump in to try to safe him? What if it's a river? A stream? An ocean? At what point can the government say you are obligated to safe him? What is an acceptable risk of dying?


You are only addressing a small part of the allegory and you don't even have that part completely right.


The Legal Duty to Rescue Someone Else

In general, there is no legal requirement in the United States to help and rescue someone else who is in danger. This would typically apply even in extreme situations where a bystander sees a small child who has wandered into the street or a man who has fallen onto the train tracks. There are some exceptions to this rule. Ten states have limited rules that may require you to help a crime victim if you can do so without danger or peril to yourself or to others


We both already agree that no analogy is 100% accurate. (that's largely what makes it an analogy) but, beyond that. . . my analogy was not to make the point that the person who looks out the window and sees a kid in their bool must be compelled to jump in and save the kid.

The point is, they would not have the right to KILL the little bastard simply for being in their pool - un invited.
I understand that chuz. I just kind of hijacked it to make a point too darkwind. Wasn't meaning to rehash the original point.
 
Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?
Disagree...
Its duty is to protect the rights of the citizens that fund it. And to make sure all under its jurisdiction adhere to the laws of the land. Non citizens should not be entitled to the protections of our constitution. They are foreigners; here at our whim, and pleasure. As such they should be treated quite differently than citizens.

You can't treat foreigners differently from citizens, because you tax them the same way and you don't notify them of any difference before they come.
But we can. And we should. Foreigners arent our equals when on our soil, and the laws should reflect that. As long as we keep treating outsiders with such unwarranted equality; we'll continue to piss away our children's birthright.
 

Forum List

Back
Top