Obama - I don't want my daughters "punished with a baby"

[Diuretic]

then it has no moral authorioty to stop anyone from killing anyone

I think it does. There has been a prohibition on murder for centuries, I think it's entirely probable that the earliest criminal codes prohibited murder. Murder is still the number one case in the law calendar. The insistence that one human won't murder (as opposed to kill) another human being is fairly old. The state has had this ability to prohibit for thousands of years of human history.

 

[DiveCon]

I think it does. There has been a prohibition on murder for centuries, I think it's entirely probable that the earliest criminal codes prohibited murder. Murder is still the number one case in the law calendar. The insistence that one human won't murder (as opposed to kill) another human being is fairly old. The state has had this ability to prohibit for thousands of years of human history.

so, why cant it also protect those humans least able to protect themselves, those in the womb

 

[Haro]

I just cant understand how you are so passionate for life ...when it comes to abortion...but then you are happy to drop bombs on Iraqi civilians.

Could it be that you dont really care about unborn babies...and you just agree with any extreme right wing opinion?

Just a theory.

How are the laws for abortion in the england with no religion? I do not feel it is right the the US defied NATO legislature in the indiscriminate bombings. The second part may be right for some, you can't generalize like that.

 

[Haro]

I just cant equate your passionate drive to save unborn life.....with your zeal for dropping bombs on those already born?

Its a bizarre paradox....dont you agree?

Most people do not know what is going on in Iraq and most Republicans who supported Bush (all of them for at least 5-6 years because most are just part of the machine) do not want to think about it because they supported those actions.

 

[Diuretic]

so, why cant it also protect those humans least able to protect themselves, those in the womb

Perhaps it's been considered a personal and private matter and not a matter that the state should be involved in.

 

[DiveCon]

Perhaps it's been considered a personal and private matter and not a matter that the state should be involved in.

then couldn't other things also be ruled that way, things even you might not like to accept?
the point being that we are talking about a law that has and can still be changed
this is not some inalienable right

 

[Diuretic]

then couldn't other things also be ruled that way, things even you might not like to accept?
the point being that we are talking about a law that has and can still be changed
this is not some inalienable right

Yes they could. When it comes down to it the law of a society is a reflection of the democratic will of that society, so yes, it's entirely possible it could be changed. However, the change has to be considered, well in a democracy it does. There are many competing arguments on what laws should be passed (I'm only going to refer to criminal laws for the moment) and there has to be much debate and consideration on why laws should be enacted and changed. And the debate will be conducted on grounds that are deep in the value system and philosophies of a society, which is as it should be.

 

[MichaelCollins]

you might have a point, if babies were targeted, but they are, so your posts prove what an ignorant asshole you are

Walk into a public place..wearing a blind fold DC... and then open fire quite randomnly...

Are you a murderer if you kill a baby or child or woman or man?...or can you say... I am not a terrorist because i didnt target anyone?

 

[DiamondDave]

And your intent was indeed to do a criminal act or to have a chance to kill someone

That is not the case of innocents in war. we are not targeting innocent civilians...

The men and women in the US military, my military brothers and sisters, have more honor in one cell of their bodies than 400,000,000 of you would have, Collins... they are not terrorists.. personally I hope you get a chance to tell that to one's face.... I'll have the money set aside to be able to send you some black roses at your hospital bed

 

[jillian]

And?

And... it's the whole puritan ethic thing... nothing at all to do with life...everything to do with "sin" and "contrition".

Ask him how he feels about food stamp programs to keep the kid from starving to death after they're born. Suddenly "life" won't matter as much as "responsibility".

 

[DiamondDave]

And... it's the whole puritan ethic thing... nothing at all to do with life...everything to do with "sin" and "contrition".

Ask him how he feels about food stamp programs to keep the kid from starving to death after they're born. Suddenly "life" won't matter as much as "responsibility".

Did not know kids were directly given food stamps.. rather it was based on whether the parents actually had the personal responsibility to provide for their own families... but nice try

 

[jillian]

Did not know kids were directly given food stamps.. rather it was based on whether the parents actually had the personal responsibility to provide for their own families... but nice try

Sorry if comprehension's not your thing

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

This is another classic case where one needs an interpreter to decipher the meaning of the plain English used by those the left seeks to place in high office.

Hussien's words were unambiguous. He seeks to eliminate the responsibility women have for their sexual decisions, by nullifying the reproductive ramifications of those decisions.

The problem is that the rights that woman have with regard to sex is based upon the awesome responsibility they realize as a result of their sexual decisions; the path on which Hussien and the left is encouraging here can only lead to undermining that right.

"Be Careful what you wish for ladies.

 

[jillian]

This is another classic case where one needs an interpreter to decipher the meaning of the plain English used by those the left seeks to place in high office.

Hussien's words were unambiguous. He seeks to eliminate the responsibility women have for their sexual decisions, by nullifying the reproductive ramifications of those decisions.

The problem is that the rights that woman have with regard to sex is based upon the awesome responsibility they realize as a result of their sexual decisions; the path on which Hussien and the left is encouraging here can only lead to undermining that right.

"Be Careful what you wish for ladies.

What a ridiculous post. Keep your whole sin/punishment thing in your church and impose it on people who agree with you.

I am really grateful that you proved my point, though.

Has nothing to do with life... has to do with sin and punishment ... for the harlots.

"nullifying the reproductive responsibility for those decisions"???????

make your own decisions.... you sure aren't grounded enough to make mine.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

What a ridiculous post. Keep your whole sin/punishment thing in your church and impose it on people who agree with you.

Would you please find where I spoke of "sin/punishment?" I can see you're eager to turn this into an argument over religious doctrine. Sadly (for you) I don't play that game...

So you've been directly challenged to show where in the position to whic you're responding here, that I advanced the concept of 'sin/punishment'... Your failure (which is a 100% certainty) will be your default concession that the entirety of you're position is founded on the typical false premise of an adleminded leftist, discrediting you and bringing shame to your Mother and Father for not doing a better job of educating you.

I am really grateful that you proved my point, though.

I eviscerated your point, refuting it in its entirety. But IF you can show where I, in fact, made your point, I'll be more than happy to discuss it... Naturally, your failure to show from the position to which you're responding here that I, in fact, proved your point will be your default concession that your position is IN FACT: A LIE, advanced for no other purpose than to DECEIVE THIS BOARD.

Has nothing to do with life... has to do with sin and punishment ... for the harlots.

Would you please find where I spoke of "sin/punishment?" I can see you're eager to turn this into an argument over religious doctrine. Sadly (for you) I don't play that game...

So you've been directly challenged to show where in the position to whic you're responding here, that I advanced the concept of 'sin/punishment'... Your failure (which is a 100% certainty) will be your default concession that the entirety of you're position is founded on the typical false premise of an adleminded leftist, discrediting you and bringing shame to your Mother and Father for not doing a better job of educating you.

"nullifying the reproductive responsibility for those decisions"???????

make your own decisions.... you sure aren't grounded enough to make mine.

You've a right to decide when, where and with WHOM you engage in sexual intercourse... meaning you have a right to CHOOSE. Your choice is a simple one:

A-To engage in sexual intercourse
B-To NOT engage in sexual intercourse.

Our culture gives the female TOTAL AUTHORITY IN THIS DECISION... That authority rests on the awesome responsibility she bears in reproduction. Should a man force himself into a woman, violating her right to decide who enters her body, our culture will come down on them with both feet and upon the facts proving their offense, we will recognize that they have forfeited their own rights by having ursurped those of the woman and in many cases execute them, stripping them of their very lives... the best they can hope for is prlonged periods of incarceration; 15,20-30 years in prison and a lifetime of being identifed for their usurpation of the right of a woman to choose her reproductive fate.

What you and the idiocracy are trying to do; what Hussein is speaking to here, is the desire to strip women of the responsibility for their CHOICE. He is saying that just because a young female makes a choice to engage in intercourse, she shouldn't be punished by bearing the responsibility for that choice... and in so doing he is saying that the life conceived through that choice is not entitled to it's right to live and pursue the fulfullment of that life.

Now the position that the choice to engage in the biological function which is designed by nature to conceive a human being, should not be one to which a woman is held accountable means the women are no longer the bearers of the awesome responsibility of rearing a child... thus the act of rape will be reasonably recognized in short order (a generation or two at the most), as nothing more than assault... men will no longer face capital punishment for violating a woman's right to choose, because she is not bearing any real responsibility in the act of intercourse.

Secondly, the position, at BEST Discounts the very foundation of the United States... the right of the individual to their life and to pursue the fulfillment of that life. It does so by the overt denial of the life of the conceived human being which is set for termination on no other consideration than that life is an inconvenience. Thus the culture no longer accepts the premise that human life itself is precious; it no longer respects the principle of inalienable human rights endowed by their Creator: Nature's God; rights which exist on the ultimate authority of that Creator, thus that culture no longer recognizes the premise that the only valid function of government is to protect the means of the INDIVIDUAL to exercise those rights...

Now I ask you sis... The cruxt of my argument is that human rights rest on nothing but the responsibility which is inherent in them... If the viability of your human right to choose when, where and with whom you allow to intercouse with your body DOES NOT REST UPON THE RESPONSIBILITY TO BEAR THE PRODUCT OF THAT DECISION... then what precisely do you feel human rights are, how do they work? What makes a human right, a human right?


Best of luck with that list sis... Your failure to provide a well reasoned, logically valid, intellectually sound response, through which you support your position will, of course, be your default concession that you truly have no earthly idea about the scope and breadth of this issue, the principles involved or the certain ramifications which must come should the culture respond in favor of your implied goals.

 

[Diuretic]

This is another classic case where one needs an interpreter to decipher the meaning of the plain English used by those the left seeks to place in high office.

Hussien's words were unambiguous. He seeks to eliminate the responsibility women have for their sexual decisions, by nullifying the reproductive ramifications of those decisions.

The problem is that the rights that woman have with regard to sex is based upon the awesome responsibility they realize as a result of their sexual decisions; the path on which Hussien and the left is encouraging here can only lead to undermining that right.

"Be Careful what you wish for ladies.

Talking about needing an interpreter .....

Exactly what do you mean here?