Anti-lifers

[JBeukema]

One has no sovereignty over another's life.

It's not a Life... It's a Pesky Fetus that's Burdening and Inconveniencing a Woman...



peace...

get your tongue out of your damn cheek

 

[joeyc]

What in the blue hell are you babbling about?

I can see your sarcasm detector isn't on so I'll make it simpler for you: DoMA is constitutional, and abortion isn't.

Incorrect. DoMA is unconstitutional. For one thing, the Fed isn't given authority over the legal recognition by the States of personal relationships or family structure. For two, it violates the principles of equality and the right ton enter into legally binding contracts with any other competent adults (9th amendment).

It's perfectly constitutional for the Fed to take measures against abortion as an extension of federal laws against homicide.

DoMA doesn't preclude states from recognizing gay couples as married, as evidenced by the six states that have already legalized it. Saying there's a "right to enter into legally binding contracts with any other competent adults" is a fancy way of saying they have a "right to be a couple", which is a novel legal concept trumped up by liberals, not to mention this "legally binding contracts" thing doesn't restrict them from entering into PRIVATE contracts (they can still jointly own property, back accounts, etc).

I don't understand the part about abortion. I think we agree, but I'm not sure yet.

 

[JBeukema]

DoMA doesn't preclude states from recognizing gay couples as married, as evidenced by the six states that have already legalized it.

It does, however, serve to prevent the Fed from recognizing them, based on the sex of the parties involved.

Saying there's a "right to enter into legally binding contracts with any other competent adults" is a fancy way of saying they have a "right to be a couple", which is a novel legal concept trumped up by liberals, not to mention this "legally binding contracts" thing doesn't restrict them from entering into PRIVATE contracts (they can still jointly own property, back accounts, etc).

Again, it is blatant sexual discrimination in the recognition of legally binding contracts by the central State. If the Fed is going to recognize such unions, it must recognize them all, in accordance with the fundamental principle of equality before the law upon which this nation is founded. The alternative is to to recognize none at all and keep the Fed out of such matters entirely.

We seem to agree on the other matter.

 

[xsited1]

History will not remember pro-choicers kindly. They will be remembered the same as 19th century slave owners. I would not like to be in their shoes come Judgement Day.

In nearly 2 years that's the most upsetting thing I've read.

Right. Fortunately, slaves are now considered human beings and are given full rights (in civilized countries). Minorities have been given full rights. Gays and lesbians have numerous laws protecting them. Next in line are the unborn. And as I said, I don't believe history will judge the pro-choicers kindly (or those who support the pro-choicers).

If you're a religious person who believes in Hell and you're also pro-choice, killing the unborn sounds like a very serious sin to me. I would not want to be in their shoes come Judgement Day.

 

[joeyc]

DoMA doesn't preclude states from recognizing gay couples as married, as evidenced by the six states that have already legalized it.

It does, however, serve to prevent the Fed from recognizing them, based on the sex of the parties involved.

It's not an entity apart from the federal government. The federal government (at the time of its passing) didn't want to recognize gay couples as being married. Again, "parties involved" is another way of sneaking "couples' rights" into the debate. The text says, for federal purposes, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman.

Saying there's a "right to enter into legally binding contracts with any other competent adults" is a fancy way of saying they have a "right to be a couple", which is a novel legal concept trumped up by liberals, not to mention this "legally binding contracts" thing doesn't restrict them from entering into PRIVATE contracts (they can still jointly own property, back accounts, etc).

Again, it is blatant sexual discrimination in the recognition of legally binding contracts by the central State. If the Fed is going to recognize such unions, it must recognize them all, in accordance with the fundamental principle of equality before the law upon which this nation is founded. The alternative is to to recognize none at all and keep the Fed out of such matters entirely.

We seem to agree on the other matter.

You can talk around it all you want. You're still basically saying, "DoMA is unconstitutional because gay couples aren't being treated the same as straight couples." Newsflash: they don't HAVE to treat all couples the same. This country has never had that broad an understanding of marriage. The Constitution is meant to protect people's life, liberty, and property. Under DoMA (and any of the ancillary DoMAs passed by the states), no gay individual (or couple, for that matter) is threatened with losing their lives, their freedom, or their property in a court of law. You can say it's bad policy to not include gay couples, but you can't say it's unconstitutional for the federal government to show discretion in who it gives incentives to.

 

[JBeukema]

The text says, for federal purposes, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman.[/qupote]

Which is to introduce sexual discrimination nito the legal recognition of the marriage contract, simply because some ignorant, uneducated, homophobic christians felt afraid that their kids might turn gay.

You can talk around it all you want. You're still basically saying, "DoMA is unconstitutional because gay couples aren't being treated the same as straight couples." Newsflash: they don't HAVE to treat all couples the same.

yes, they do, as do the States. Remember when SCOTUS struck down laws against interracial marriage? The underlying principle is the same and the precedent was then set for the equal legal recognition of personal contracts, which is all marriage ultimately its in the eyes of the law..

This country has never had that broad an understanding of marriage.

Nor of 'people', but we've moved past that. To cite past intolerance, hatred, fear, and discrimination doesn't justify continuing these policies, but highlights the very struggle to get rid of them in order to work towards the principles this nation was founded on, most importantly equality before the law.

The Constitution is meant to protect people's life, liberty, and property. Under DoMA (and any of the ancillary DoMAs passed by the states), no gay individual (or couple, for that matter) is threatened with losing their lives, their freedom, or their property in a court of law.

The Constitution protects more than that, as the BoR was passed to demonstrate. Both the 9th Amendment and thereprinciple upon which this entire nation was built make it clear that such discrimination cannot be tolerated. Wither all such contracts are recognized equally, or none are nd the Fed stays out of peoples' relationships altogether.

You can say it's bad policy to not include gay couples, but you can't say it's unconstitutional for the federal government to show discretion in who it gives incentives to.

Yes, I can, and yes it is. Just like laws against interracial marriages were struck down and suffrage was extended to Blacks and women, it has been long recognized that America is founded on equality before the law ad either all citizens are equal; or none are. If such incentives are to be offered for persons involved in such contracts, then they must be available to all who are involved in such contracts. The alternative is to offer no such incentives and keep the government out of the matter entirely./

 

[joeyc]

This is getting longer and longer...

The text says, for federal purposes, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman.[/qupote]

Which is to introduce sexual discrimination nito the legal recognition of the marriage contract, simply because some ignorant, uneducated, homophobic christians felt afraid that their kids might turn gay.

That's just your inner libretard talking.

You can talk around it all you want. You're still basically saying, "DoMA is unconstitutional because gay couples aren't being treated the same as straight couples." Newsflash: they don't HAVE to treat all couples the same.

yes, they do, as do the States. Remember when SCOTUS struck down laws against interracial marriage? The underlying principle is the same and the precedent was then set for the equal legal recognition of personal contracts, which is all marriage ultimately its in the eyes of the law..

The "underlying principle" with interracial marriage being illegal doesn't laterally apply here. Interracial marriage was against the law; people could be arrested for marrying someone of the opposite sex. We've already established there's no such threat with DoMA. Interracial marriage was still one man and one woman, which is the central definition we've agreed on.

States don't have to treat all couples the same. They never have. Aside from states denying same-sex couples marriage benefits, they don't recognize polygamous couples, bigamists, and pedophilic couples. States even have different ages of consent regarding marriage.

Nor of 'people', but we've moved past that. To cite past intolerance, hatred, fear, and discrimination doesn't justify continuing these policies, but highlights the very struggle to get rid of them in order to work towards the principles this nation was founded on, most importantly equality before the law.

Making the symbolic argument based on past intolerance doesn't justify overturning policy just because of what it signifies. Symbolic ideas like "equality" are great, but 1) you could argue our Founding Fathers never intended marriage to be between two men or two women, and 2) we don't have to make people feel good about any and all of their associations. We have marriage benefits for a reason. Taking the covetous approach ("you got a lollipop...I want one too!" ) doesn't address the whole issue.

The Constitution protects more than that, as the BoR was passed to demonstrate. Both the 9th Amendment and thereprinciple upon which this entire nation was built make it clear that such discrimination cannot be tolerated. Wither all such contracts are recognized equally, or none are nd the Fed stays out of peoples' relationships altogether.

Stop romanticizing the issue. That's all the Constitution is there to protect, and you keep acting like all we have to go on is principle. We also have precedence. You keep saying "equality", but really you're just talking about sameness. There is no promise of that, other than one you've idealized. The government has an interest in incentivizing some things and not others. It's showing discretion on how it spends its money.

You can say it's bad policy to not include gay couples, but you can't say it's unconstitutional for the federal government to show discretion in who it gives incentives to.

Yes, I can, and yes it is. Just like laws against interracial marriages were struck down and suffrage was extended to Blacks and women, it has been long recognized that America is founded on equality before the law ad either all citizens are equal; or none are. If such incentives are to be offered for persons involved in such contracts, then they must be available to all who are involved in such contracts. The alternative is to offer no such incentives and keep the government out of the matter entirely./

You're presenting a false dilemma. There is no either/or here. Simply mentioning equality in whatever amorphous context you're using it doesn't justify why gay couples should receive these benefits. If there is some overarching purpose behind it, that is based on what is good policy. It has nothing to do with the Constitution.

 

[JBeukema]

That's just your inner libretard talking.

And now we see the intelligence and depth of reasoning characteristic of right-wing politics, oto which you evidently adhere when it omes to this issue. When unable to actually refute the points I have made, and simultaneously unable to overcome your own bigotry, you seek to find some label to stick on me in order to enable yourself to merely attack an artificial target. These tactics are discussed in Avatar's thread, beginning with post 13.

The "underlying principle" with interracial marriage being illegal doesn't laterally apply here. Interracial marriage was against the law; people could be arrested for marrying someone of the opposite sex. We've already established there's no such threat with DoMA. Interracial marriage was still one man and one woman, which is the central definition we've agreed on.

Who is 'we'? Interracial marriage was struck down because Scotus recognized that it is unconstitutional and contrary the American principles to discriminated based on sex, race, ethnicity, etc in the recognition of legal contract. Those who seek to enforce things like DoMA are no different than those who opposed interracial marriage, and they ultimately make the same arguments for the same reasons.

States don't have to treat all couples the same. They never have

Not did they treat all people the same.. Once again, citing past wrongs does not justify them, but highlight that such bigotry has been struck down in the past because it is contrary to the very principles on which America was founded and contained within the Constitution.

Making the symbolic argument based on past intolerance doesn't justify overturning policy just because of what it signifies.

When it signifies that the law is based on bigotry and discrimination and is contrary to what America stands for, it does.

Symbolic ideas like "equality" are great, but 1) you could argue our Founding Fathers never intended marriage to be between two men or two women,

Nor did they intend to consider Blacks human. Once, again you appeal to past wrong to justify current ones. You're a one-note trick, and your words ring as hollow as your head.

and 2) we don't have to make people feel good about any and all of their associations. We have marriage benefits for a reason. Taking the covetous approach ("you got a lollipop...I want one too!" ) doesn't address the whole issue.

The issue is simple: legal recognition of a contract between persons. That's all it boils down to.

Stop romanticizing the issue. That's all the Constitution is there to protect, and you keep acting like all we have to go on is principle. We also have precedence.

An I have shown that precedence to be shutting up bigots and working towards real equality.

You're presenting a false dilemma. There is no either/or here

yes, there is. Equality before the law works like that. Either offer incentives or do not. That you say any matter of federal law 'has nothing to do with the constitution' shows that you have no respect for or grounding in American principles or the Constitution itself. You're just another would-be tyrant from the right-wing who wishes to legislate your own bigotry.

 

[Gurdari]

One has no sovereignty over another's life.

Well... if that life cannot exist without being part of them physically, and is ACTUALLY part of another being's body, that is different than you or I having control over each other's lives.

The bold simply isn't true./ Ther is no room for debate on this, as science has already demonstrated that the child is a distinct human organism. Therefore, even if we were to accept your argument for the sake of argument, your own requisite conditions are not met.

Your fail, moron.

Sorry - the child is a distinct human organism in one sense, but if you sever its connection to the Mother, it cannot survive on its own, a fetus needs and is part of the Mother's body.

So, if the Mother smokes crack - her entire body and all that is a part of it are affected. Did science not prove that as well?

(you can engage in name calling, but is there really a point?)

 

[JBeukema]

Sorry - the child is a distinct human organism in one sense, but if you sever its connection to the Mother, it cannot survive on its own

And if I fling you into space, you cannot survive on your own- does that make you and Earth part of the same organism?

It's a parasitic relationship between two organisms, you twit. Do learn some basic biology. This is not difficult subject matter.

a fetus needs and is part of the Mother's body.

How many times must I explain this?

 

[Diuretic]

The science can tell us what we know, objectively, about the foetus. But science can't make moral judgements for us, that's up to us.

 

[joeyc]

That's just your inner libretard talking.

And now we see the intelligence and depth of reasoning characteristic of right-wing politics, oto which you evidently adhere when it omes to this issue. When unable to actually refute the points I have made, and simultaneously unable to overcome your own bigotry, you seek to find some label to stick on me in order to enable yourself to merely attack an artificial target. These tactics are discussed in Avatar's thread, beginning with post 13.

I could refute the "points" (see: baseless insults) you made, but what's the point? I've been around the block enough times to know when people start with the whole "stupid, intolerant, bigoted Christian homophobes are taking people's rights away" (I'm paraphrasing) stuff, they're usually not trying to hear anything close to reason.

The "underlying principle" with interracial marriage being illegal doesn't laterally apply here. Interracial marriage was against the law; people could be arrested for marrying someone of the opposite sex. We've already established there's no such threat with DoMA. Interracial marriage was still one man and one woman, which is the central definition we've agreed on.

Who is 'we'? Interracial marriage was struck down because Scotus recognized that it is unconstitutional and contrary the American principles to discriminated based on sex, race, ethnicity, etc in the recognition of legal contract. Those who seek to enforce things like DoMA are no different than those who opposed interracial marriage, and they ultimately make the same arguments for the same reasons.

Unless you have proof that DoMA directly facilities people being locked up, given the death penalty, or having their property confiscated, "we" are in agreement that there's no inherent threat to people's fundamental rights, whereas the former was a threat regarding laws that made it illegal for blacks to marry whites. The Supreme Court didn't "find" that it was "contrary to the American principles" to discriminate on the basis of sex in that ruling; it was only about race. Had they concluded that, gay marriage would've been legalized right along with interracial marriage.

Out of curiosity, are you a native to the U.S.?

Not did they treat all people the same.. Once again, citing past wrongs does not justify them, but highlight that such bigotry has been struck down in the past because it is contrary to the very principles on which America was founded and contained within the Constitution.

I could've sworn America was founded on the rights of man as an individual, not the rights of groups. I don't consider it bigoted to not actively endorse every association man comes up with.

When it signifies that the law is based on bigotry and discrimination and is contrary to what America stands for, it does.

There's no consensus that this applies to DoMA. In fact, the consensus is the exact opposite.

Nor did they intend to consider Blacks human. Once, again you appeal to past wrong to justify current ones. You're a one-note trick, and your words ring as hollow as your head.

No, you'd be the one-trick pony. Analogizing this issue with bigotry -- no matter how tenuous the analogy -- doesn't actually make it bigotry. You're the one who keeps blathering on about "principles", as if that's all we have to go on. Blacks were denied their basic human rights. You're trying to juxtapose that with "gay couples" being denied basic human rights, when the entire notion of couples' rights is a legal concept introduced to defend gay marriage. "All men are created equal" can obviously apply to Blacks. It doesn't obviously apply to abstract pairings, or "couples".

The issue is simple: legal recognition of a contract between persons. That's all it boils down to.

Yeah, because you're a liberal who doesn't know how to think for himself. You're just spouting talking points. You don't care about any kind of substantive debate.

Stop romanticizing the issue. That's all the Constitution is there to protect, and you keep acting like all we have to go on is principle. We also have precedence.

An I have shown that precedence to be shutting up bigots and working towards real equality.

Where did you show that? I must have missed it.

You're presenting a false dilemma. There is no either/or here

yes, there is. Equality before the law works like that. Either offer incentives or do not. That you say any matter of federal law 'has nothing to do with the constitution' shows that you have no respect for or grounding in American principles or the Constitution itself. You're just another would-be tyrant from the right-wing who wishes to legislate your own bigotry.

You sound like a liberal parrot. BARRRRRRACK! EQUALITY! BARRRRRRACK! PRINCIPLES! You don't know anything about the Constitution, and all you want to do is argue based on symbolism and empty rhetoric. I'd rather legislate through my own "bigotry" and adhere to the tenets of the Constitution, rather than legislate through "feelings" and rape it of all its intent like you.

 

[JBeukema]

I never said anything about the 'rights of groups', you twit. All you keep doing is purposefully misrepresenting g my position and repeating the same ignorant bullshit I already refuted and showed to be ignorant bullshit. If all are created equal, then they are to be equal before the law, then they are to have equal rights to enter into and have recognized legal contracts with one another. Of course, you clearly don't believe in equality, so you don't see a problem.

That all you have is repeating your moronic points, accusing me of 'spouting talking points', and trying to lump me in with some standard target to avoid addressing my point (instead attempting to attack an imaginary target) shows that not only are you an ignorant bigot, you are also dishonest.

 

[tigerbob]

History will not remember pro-choicers kindly. They will be remembered the same as 19th century slave owners. I would not like to be in their shoes come Judgement Day.

In nearly 2 years that's the most upsetting thing I've read.

Right. Fortunately, slaves are now considered human beings and are given full rights (in civilized countries). Minorities have been given full rights. Gays and lesbians have numerous laws protecting them. Next in line are the unborn. And as I said, I don't believe history will judge the pro-choicers kindly (or those who support the pro-choicers).

If you're a religious person who believes in Hell and you're also pro-choice, killing the unborn sounds like a very serious sin to me. I would not want to be in their shoes come Judgement Day.

I am a Christian. I believe in heaven and hell. I am pro choice up to the point I have already expressed in this thread. Clearly you think I am guilty of a terrible sin and am going straight to hell.

You, on the other hand are clearly pro-life, view yourself as free from sin, and will be welcomed into paradise on Judgement Day.

Perhaps I could ask you to pray for me?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Yawn...

Homosexuals aren't being discriminated against... the assertion is absurd on it's face.

THERE IS NOT A SINGLE STATE IN THE US WHEREIN A HOMOSEXUAL IS DISALLOWED FROM APPLYING FOR AND BEING GRANTED A LICENSE TO MARRY ANYONE THEY CAN TALK INTO MARRYING THEM... As long as they meet the long standing, eminently reasonable standard required for marriage; which is that the TWO ADULT PARTIES REPRESENT THE DISTINCT GENDERS.

Now if ya can't do that, well then you're free to incorporate and enjoy the rights and privileges thereof... don't like that? Then you're free to set up house and cohabitate... without fear of government reprisal...

PERIOD!

What the queers want are SPECIAL RIGHTS, to accomodate their SPECIAL NEEDS... and in the process undermine sound cultural standards... which violates THE RESPONSIBILITY which are intrinsic in their human rights, not to violate the rights of others... in this case the right to establish sound cultural standards... to promote a sound, sustainable culture.

No one is trying to stop the queers from being queer... that is nature's way of culling the unstainable lines from the herd... But Marriage is a union of TWO people... each representing the distinct GENDERS... can't handle that simple standard, you've no business being married.

Beyond that, the human fetus is a human life... whoever should conceive such is responsible for that human being's welfare until such time that it is able to sustain itself... thus conception is a VERY BIG DEAL...

Now where one takes it upon themselves to end that human life... except; as is the case in ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE A HUMAN LIFE IS TO BE TAKEN; where there is just moral cause to do so; then that person is committing murder; now that this specific murder has found a temporal legal standing, changes NOTHING. You have no RIGHT to take the life of another human being, EXCEPT WHERE THAT LIFE IS A DIRECT AND PRESENT THREAT TO YOUR OWN LIFE OR THAT OF ANOTHER IN YOUR IMMEDIATE PRESENCE... and where one is RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONCEPTION OF THAT LIFE... it's a fairly tough argument, to rest the responsibility for any threat one may sense, on the part of the life which HAD NO SAY IN THE CONCEPTION...

These aren't complex issues... just well beyond the means of the sub-intellects, typical of the ideological leftist.

 

[JBeukema]

Marriage is a legal contract with legal implications regarding taxes, power of attorney, and other legal ramifications. It is nothing more.

i have found that you can generally know that a given position is completely ******* retarded when PI adopts it.

 

[joeyc]

I never said anything about the 'rights of groups', you twit. All you keep doing is purposefully misrepresenting g my position and repeating the same ignorant bullshit I already refuted and showed to be ignorant bullshit. If all are created equal, then they are to be equal before the law, then they are to have equal rights to enter into and have recognized legal contracts with one another. Of course, you clearly don't believe in equality, so you don't see a problem.

That all you have is repeating your moronic points, accusing me of 'spouting talking points', and trying to lump me in with some standard target to avoid addressing my point (instead attempting to attack an imaginary target) shows that not only are you an ignorant bigot, you are also dishonest.

I'm not misrepresenting your points...YOU ARE. You haven't shown how the law is unequal, you haven't made any sort of argument relying on the Constitution (just mentioning the 9A doesn't count), and you're relying either on symbolism (which isn't a substantive argument) or novel legal concepts (rights to be a couple). It's obvious to anyone with a brain who the idiot is here, and it's you.

Just to finish off your dumbass argument: the government has every right to legislate which types of relationships they decide to subsidize. They're completely based on the heterosexual monogamous model of marriage (considering no other form of marriage has ever been widely legal in the U.S.), and there's no Constitutional mandate that we even receive them. Instead of being baselessly covetous, you should ask yourself why we have any regulation on benefits and incentives from the government. Using your mentality, I deserve a G.I. bill, Medicare, WIC vouchers, and farming subsidies just because somebody else gets them.

 

[Anguille]

why would a woman test to see if she was PG if she didnt think she was, other than if she was TRYING to get PG
and how many actually would start to think that exactly 4 weeks after their last period, they might just be a few days late

Depending on how regular you are, a late period is always a concern for a sexually active woman. No form of birth control is 100% effective.

 

[Anguille]

Welcome to the independents ... we are glad to have you.

I feel the same way, there are times when abortion is not only valid but also a better choice, and many times when it's just wrong.

Yea I mean, I can't imagine being raped by some grotesque, fat, sweatty, possibly disfigured man (if I were a girl, lol); who subdues me and puts his most disgusting part into me, along with his bodily fluid, and then people expecting me to have his baby/carry it to term/etc.?!?!?! FFFFAAWWWkkkkkk that. If this guy is some sort of psychotic scumbag, perhaps the baby would inherit that and be a detriment to this Earth, wholly and forever.

A 16-year old, on the other hand, should have the baby always. I don't really have sympathy for the Responsibility-excuse, she can grow up really fast or seek adopting, loving parents.

Bravo! That's an excellent way to teach the whore a lesson!!! Make her go through a pregnancy !! That's just so smart!! And who gives **** about the baby and what kind of childhood he has ahead of him/her anyway.

 

[Anguille]

Welcome to the independents ... we are glad to have you.

I feel the same way, there are times when abortion is not only valid but also a better choice, and many times when it's just wrong.

Yea I mean, I can't imagine being raped by some grotesque, fat, sweatty, possibly disfigured man (if I were a girl, lol); who subdues me and puts his most disgusting part into me, along with his bodily fluid, and then people expecting me to have his baby/carry it to term/etc.?!?!?! FFFFAAWWWkkkkkk that. If this guy is some sort of psychotic scumbag, perhaps the baby would inherit that and be a detriment to this Earth, wholly and forever.

A 16-year old, on the other hand, should have the baby always. I don't really have sympathy for the Responsibility-excuse, she can grow up really fast or seek adopting, loving parents.

Definitely, but I wouldn't let the 16 year old raise the child for many reasons, adoption, but make them carry it as their punishment. After that I truly doubt they would make that mistake again, and if they did at least you know they are getting their own punishment.

The rape thing, I think should be the choice of the victim. There are other medical reasons to, and many anti-abortionists would rather let them both die ... which is plain stupid.

Wow! you are even more brilliant than GT!!