The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat

[Plane]

[quote author=sirs link=topic=15005.msg122388#msg122388 date=1303540297]
Did you not click on it above, when provided?  Here, try again

The funny thing is, here you seem to be arguing how being anti-abortion (to the Xo's of the world, pro-abortion stance) is somehow not small government conservative, when the whole notion of Government not paying/sponsoring/supporting organizations like PP is entirely small government in nature

Perhaps you are misconstruing my argument.

It is really quite simple. I don't believe the government has jurisdiction in the abortion debate. If, as defined currently by Scotus, [/size] abortion is elective surgery, that the fetus is not a citizen with rights, then for the government to outlaw abortions at the point of a gun, does not seem to fit in with small government philosophy. No where do i say that you can not hold different views about abortion and the rights of the unborn, nor do i say that you can not advocate among your peers that abortions really should not be considered an option, because that would definitely be counter to the whole idea of free speech.

So my argument pretty much says that government should remain neutral. It should not pay for abortions, and by extension offset organizational costs for organizations that perform abortions.

At the same time i don't see how those who argue for small government could want the government to intrude further into our lives.

[/quote]



Cruelty to animals is a felony in Ga. they way you kill or maim a fetus is not adressed in law.

How did this type of human get less consideration in law than lab rats?

[Plane]

If you are in favor of people being able to ride Ferris wheel, that does not make you pro-Ferris wheel.

To be pro Ferris wheel, you would also have to ride the fool thing.

The only way to be pro-abortion is to give abortions or to have abortions performed on one, perhaps to favor abortions as a method of birth control.

Simply saying that every woman has the right to choose on her own is not being "pro-abortion".

  I think you are in error.

In 1860 were only slave owners proslavery?

In 1860 were only slaves abolitionists?

If slaves could have slaves would slavery be a sacrement?

In 1910 was Molly Hatchet accurately described as Pro-temperance or anti- drinking?

[Xavier_Onassis]

The pro slavery people all either owned slaves or hoped to do so.

Being as half the population is biologically ineligible to have an abortion, you cannot say the same for pro-choice people.They only believe a woman should be the one who can decide whether she gives birth.

I am not sure that all slaves were abolitionists, but I am pretty sure that most were.

Pro temperance and anti drinking are the same thing. Prohibitionists wanted to ban the sals or consumption of alcohol to everyone.

[sirs]

charging someone with 2 counts of murder, when a pregnant woman is killed.  What's up with that??

Some people are really, really stupid. Some of them elect other really, really stupid people likew themselves to state legislatures, and they pass really, really stupid laws.

And still others make stupid proclamations that the murder of a pregnant woman, generating 2 counts of murder, is somehow a stupid law


But is sure does explain California, nicely

[BT]

charging someone with 2 counts of murder, when a pregnant woman is killed.  What's up with that??

Some people are really, really stupid. Some of them elect other really, really stupid people likew themselves to state legislatures, and they pass really, really stupid laws.

And still others make stupid proclamations that the murder of a pregnant woman, generating 2 counts of murder, is somehow a stupid law


But is sure does explain California, nicely

Has the California law been challenged? Seems there is a conflict with Scotus rulings as to when life starts.

[Plane]

charging someone with 2 counts of murder, when a pregnant woman is killed.  What's up with that??

Some people are really, really stupid. Some of them elect other really, really stupid people likew themselves to state legislatures, and they pass really, really stupid laws.

And still others make stupid proclamations that the murder of a pregnant woman, generating 2 counts of murder, is somehow a stupid law


But is sure does explain California, nicely

Has the California law been challenged? Seems there is a conflict with Scotus rulings as to when life starts.

  As far as I know there has never been a ruling to make that clear.

[Plane]

The pro slavery people all either owned slaves or hoped to do so.

Being as half the population is biologically ineligible to have an abortion, you cannot say the same for pro-choice people.They only believe a woman should be the one who can decide whether she gives birth.

I am not sure that all slaves were abolitionists, but I am pretty sure that most were.

Pro temperance and anti drinking are the same thing. Prohibitionists wanted to ban the sales or consumption of alcohol to everyone.

  Lots of people who didn't own or need to own a slave were profiting from the institution , all the textile mills in the western world for example were dependant on cheap cotton .

    Yes,Pro-temperance would indeed be alike to anti drinking, as Pro-abortion is a good description for anyone who is in favor of its continuance as an unregulated industry. Calling it something else is a fig leaf or a euphemism.

[sirs]

charging someone with 2 counts of murder, when a pregnant woman is killed.  What's up with that??

Some people are really, really stupid. Some of them elect other really, really stupid people likew themselves to state legislatures, and they pass really, really stupid laws.

And still others make stupid proclamations that the murder of a pregnant woman, generating 2 counts of murder, is somehow a stupid law


But is sure does explain California, nicely

Has the California law been challenged? Seems there is a conflict with Scotus rulings as to when life starts.

 

My reference to CA had nothing to do with the discussion on the pro-abortion crowd vs anti-abortion crowd.  Nor does it reference the laws across the country that seem to indict a murder suspect with 2 counts of murder, in the killing of a pregnant woman.  A point, you also have yet to acknowledge

It did however have everything to do with an apparent majority of stupid people, electing the same stupid politicians, blanketing this state with more and more stupid laws

[BT]

charging someone with 2 counts of murder, when a pregnant woman is killed.  What's up with that??

Some people are really, really stupid. Some of them elect other really, really stupid people likew themselves to state legislatures, and they pass really, really stupid laws.

And still others make stupid proclamations that the murder of a pregnant woman, generating 2 counts of murder, is somehow a stupid law


But is sure does explain California, nicely

Has the California law been challenged? Seems there is a conflict with Scotus rulings as to when life starts.

  As far as I know there has never been a ruling to make that clear.

So the Scotus ruling is settled law, at least for the time being. But that still begs the question as to why those who would want to eliminate the option of abortion, usually small government social conservatives,  would look to government to accomplish this goal, when in almost every other aspect of their lives, the less government intrusion in their lives, the better.

Does that not seem inconsistent, at the minimum?
 

[Xavier_Onassis]

Charging a murder with TWO counts of murder if the victim of pregnant is just stupid.

The reason to make an act illegal is to prevent the person from committing the crime. But it is not observable in any cases that the potential victim is pregnant, so the deterrent effect is simply not there.

If the prosecutor mentions to the jury that the victim was pregnant, thew jury will certainly take this into consideration, just as it takes into consideration that the male or female victim's children are now orphans. No special law is required to suggests a greater penalty for the perpetrator.

I am opposed to murdering pregnant women as well as non-pregnant women. But this law is just brainless posturing by fanatics.

Speaking of which, the idiots in the FL legislature seem posturing to require and ultrasound be paid for and shown to any woman before having an abortion. DUMB!

[sirs]

Well, its good to know that you have no substantive rebuttal, outside calling established law of the land as stupid.  But as I referenced earlier, at least we know, given your parameters, why CA is in such an economic death spiral, with the insidious amount of corrosive stupid "green" laws & worsening stupid anti-business regulations

What I do find interesting is BT's continued complete ignoring of what is the function of Government, if not to protect its citizenry.  Not so surprising he keeps asking questions, but when posed with one that apparently will provide an inconsistency to his platform, he merely.....ignores it

[Plane]

PT....  As far as I know there has never been a ruling to make that clear.

So the Scotus ruling is settled law, at least for the time being. But that still begs the question as to why those who would want to eliminate the option of abortion, usually small government social conservatives,  would look to government to accomplish this goal, when in almost every other aspect of their lives, the less government intrusion in their lives, the better.

Does that not seem inconsistent, at the minimum?

   Not in the least part!
     What faction is so Libertarian that it wants to remove the government from enforceing the illeagality of Murder?
      The inconsistancy is that you can't be killed without consequence , just because you have finished your gestation.

[BT]

  The inconsistancy is that you can't be killed without consequence , just because you have finished your gestation.

So we are back to a disagreement as to when life starts, legally speaking.

And apparently the law is in conflict, my understanding being that some states define it for their double murder laws as at conception, others follow more closely the Scotus guidelines for abortion. So is the goal to change Scotus precedent or further legislate from the states, which both require some form of government intervention.

Does the constitution directly address the rights of the unborn?

Is a fetus considered a citizen? What if they were conceived in a foreign land? How would that affect anchor babies?  conceived there, born here.   

And sirs, are the unborn citizens? Based on what?

[sirs]

Based on the consistency of laws across the country that indict a murder suspect with 2 counts of murder, with the killing of a pregnant woman.

Is it your position those are merely "stupid laws"

[BT]

Based on the consistency of laws across the country that indict a murder suspect with 2 counts of murder, with the killing of a pregnant woman.

Is it your position those are merely "stupid laws"

Unfortunately those laws that you refer to are not consistent.

And i don't believe i gave a value to the laws in question, perhaps you confuse me with XO.