Author Topic: The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat  (Read 43652 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16138
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat
« Reply #120 on: April 27, 2011, 01:56:36 AM »
Quote
Law to me, is law.  American, in particular

Then why would ObamaCare not be law and merely legalese?

I realize the effort to make this a semantic arguement.  I'm not going to play.  Law is law.  Obamacare is currently law.  But it is saturated with 2000+ pages of legalize.  You're a smart guy Bt.  You know what I'm referring to, when I'm referencing legalize.  It's law with a A WHOLE HELL of a lot of legal jargon thrown it.  The fact you were using it to try and defend your inconsistent position as it relates to abortion is the reason I brought it up.  I gave you the opportunity to answer a simple question, with a 1 sentence answer, and you posted an Obama-like dissertation on a legal ruling, full of legalize.  Then said your answer was that.  I merely called you on it

Nonsense. You asked for at what specific point would Roe vs Wade not be applicable. And that specific point is when the fetus would be viable outside the womb.

Plane picked up on that immediately. Perhaps because i bolded the pertinent part. Not sure why you had such a difficult time grasping a simple concept.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat
« Reply #121 on: April 27, 2011, 02:17:24 AM »
Perfect sense.....I asked for a specific point and you provided some major discussion on a ruling with no specific point.  Just vagueness regarding "a fetus' life"...."may be continued outside of the womb"..."natural vs artificial support systems".  In other words, it can be many points in that unborn child's life.  Too bad he/she doesn't have a choice in that point.  That's kinda where Government comes into play, as a function it is to provide

Not sure why your ignoring the complexity of the legaleze you're trying to draw me into.  Sorry, not going there.  I'm just going to keep pointing out your inconsistency, on this issue

So,  using your legaleze defense, any unborn child that COULD be kept alive, outside of the womb, with artificial means, SHOULD have the protection of Government........correct??  25weeks work??
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16138
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat
« Reply #122 on: April 27, 2011, 02:30:47 AM »
The court said viable. States as far as i know are free to define further.

But I'm not sure why you think two men should negotiate the rights of women and what and when they can do with their own bodies.

They've been emancipated in this country for almost 100 years.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat
« Reply #123 on: April 27, 2011, 02:44:48 AM »
I see your inconsistency, is at least consistent.  So, lets sum up, and please indicate where you diverge from the path
- 1 of the Government's primary functions is the protection of its citizenry.  You have yet to chime in on refuting that point
- When asked when an unborn child becomes a person, you referenced RvW, viability outside of womb, be it legal or artificial means
- Youngest viable born child was recorded at 21weeks.  I even tacked on a few extra weeks to round it off at 25. 

So, that fits your criteria.....but......that 25week unborn child still doesn't receive the protection of Government, per Bt??  Grasping your inconsistency yet?
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16138
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat
« Reply #124 on: April 27, 2011, 04:36:55 AM »
I see your inconsistency, is at least consistent.  So, lets sum up, and please indicate where you diverge from the path
- 1 of the Government's primary functions is the protection of its citizenry.  You have yet to chime in on refuting that point
- When asked when an unborn child becomes a person, you referenced RvW, viability outside of womb, be it legal or artificial means
- Youngest viable born child was recorded at 21weeks.  I even tacked on a few extra weeks to round it off at 25. 

So, that fits your criteria.....but......that 25week unborn child still doesn't receive the protection of Government, per Bt??  Grasping your inconsistency yet?

RE:- 1 of the Government's primary functions is the protection of its citizenry.  You have yet to chime in on refuting that point

Actually i did. I stated that they can not protect they can only punish. See Laci Petersen

I also asked if you could show me where in the constitution that primary function is spelled out. You didn't seem to have an answer. Plane did try but got caught up in the fact that citizens are by definition those born. An nonviable fetus doesn't qualify.

re:that 25week unborn child still doesn't receive the protection of Government, per Bt??  Grasping your inconsistency yet?

BT doesn't define viability. Scotus did. And what Scotus said was the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the unborn up to that point.

Which brings us back to your views on rule of law. Is Roe vs Wade current law? Are we a nation of laws?





Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat
« Reply #125 on: April 27, 2011, 08:56:30 AM »
We want clarity, and nature gives us little of it.

I am reminded of a scene in the cartoon "King of the Hill" in which young Bobby Hill, who was taking Ritalin of some other ADD medication had his senses so honed that he remarks "There is a jug of milk in the refrigerator that its about to go bad... There! It just went bad!"

We expect a similar moment in which the fetus gets its rights from the government. *BING!* "There! Now it's a citizen!"

The two moments most significant would be (a) the moment of conception and (b) the moment of birth. The first is undetectable for all practical purposes, so I say we go with the latter, which is at least the most obvious in the entire process.  I really doubt the ability of Supreme Court justices to be absolutely correct in this judgment.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat
« Reply #126 on: April 27, 2011, 12:21:06 PM »
I see your inconsistency, is at least consistent.  So, lets sum up, and please indicate where you diverge from the path
- 1 of the Government's primary functions is the protection of its citizenry.  You have yet to chime in on refuting that point
- When asked when an unborn child becomes a person, you referenced RvW, viability outside of womb, be it legal or artificial means
- Youngest viable born child was recorded at 21weeks.  I even tacked on a few extra weeks to round it off at 25. 

So, that fits your criteria.....but......that 25week unborn child still doesn't receive the protection of Government, per Bt??  Grasping your inconsistency yet?


RE:- 1 of the Government's primary functions is the protection of its citizenry.  You have yet to chime in on refuting that point

Actually i did. I stated that they can not protect they can only punish. See Laci Petersen


So, the function of our military is to....."punish"?  The function of our law enforcement is to......"punish"?   Ummmm, ok, if you say so


I also asked if you could show me where in the constitution that primary function is spelled out. You didn't seem to have an answer. Plane did try but got caught up in the fact that citizens are by definition those born. An nonviable fetus doesn't qualify

And we've moved on to the viable form, per your criteria of a person, so no need to bring out the strawman of the non-viable sort.


re:that 25week unborn child still doesn't receive the protection of Government, per Bt??  Grasping your inconsistency yet?

BT doesn't define viability.


oy...I didn't claim that's what you said or defined.  I'm using YOUR decision making via SCOTUS, as it relates to viability.  the fact you keep making up points I never said, merely reinforces my point about your inconsistency, all the more


And what Scotus said was the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the unborn up to that point.

Which brings us back to your views on rule of law. Is Roe vs Wade current law? Are we a nation of laws?


And that point of viability has been reached by 21weeks.  I gave you a cushion of another 4, at 25weeks.  But now our government apparently wasn't formed by our founders to protect us, its to punish us.  Which apparently removes a key component of your inconsistency.  Bravo

You of course must then support tax raising across the board.  Need to punish those evil rich folk and greedy corporations, right?
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat
« Reply #127 on: April 27, 2011, 12:52:14 PM »
That is correct, sirs. The purpose of the government is to punish unborn fetuses. I am surprised it took you so long to discover the conspiracy.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16138
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat
« Reply #128 on: April 27, 2011, 12:53:21 PM »
Quote
The function of our law enforcement is to......"punish"? Ummmm, ok, if you say so

Well you could ask Laci Peterson and her unborn if the state protected them. Oh wait, you can't, because the state didn't protect them. But you can ask Scott Peterson if the state punished him.





sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat
« Reply #129 on: April 27, 2011, 12:58:47 PM »
I'm asking you, and apparently that's your conclusion of Government's function.  And here, all this time, I thought the founders had established a government, whose primary function was the protection of its citizenry.  Wow
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16138
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat
« Reply #130 on: April 27, 2011, 01:05:54 PM »
I'm asking you, and apparently that's your conclusion of Government's function.  And here, all this time, I thought the founders had established a government, whose primary function was the protection of its citizenry.  Wow

You still haven't shown me where it says that in the constitution.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16138
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat
« Reply #131 on: April 27, 2011, 01:08:09 PM »
In fact i think the 2nd amendment shows that the founders thought the citizens better able to defend themselves.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat
« Reply #132 on: April 27, 2011, 01:13:01 PM »
I was just waiting for you to try and pull that.  The Bill of Rights was the founders attempt to protect the citizenry from an overbearing government....OURS.  I'm still waiting for you to reference what the functions of our government is as well, if not protection.  Oh right, you did answer it.....its to punish.  Quite the contradiction our founders put together apparently....Government to punish the citizenry, and the Bill of rights to Protect the citizenry from.... that punishment, I guess
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16138
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat
« Reply #133 on: April 27, 2011, 01:24:53 PM »
I was just waiting for you to try and pull that.  The Bill of Rights was the founders attempt to protect the citizenry from an overbearing government....OURS.  I'm still waiting for you to reference what the functions of our government is as well, if not protection.  Oh right, you did answer it.....its to punish.  Quite the contradiction our founders put together apparently....Government to punish the citizenry, and the Bill of rights to Protect the citizenry from.... that punishment, I guess

So the sole purpose of the second is to enable armed rebellion against government?

What were the settlers supposed to do, call the constabulary when the Indians got restless?

Are you making this up as you go along?

The founders were against a standing army, how would that address this supposed prime directive of protecting its citizenry?

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat
« Reply #134 on: April 27, 2011, 08:55:19 PM »
I was just waiting for you to try and pull that.  The Bill of Rights was the founders attempt to protect the citizenry from an overbearing government....OURS.  I'm still waiting for you to reference what the functions of our government is as well, if not protection.  Oh right, you did answer it.....its to punish.  Quite the contradiction our founders put together apparently....Government to punish the citizenry, and the Bill of rights to Protect the citizenry from.... that punishment, I guess

So the sole purpose of the second is to enable armed rebellion against government?

What part of attempt to protect the citizenry from an overbearing government, did you have trouble understanding?  Hardly some founders' or my advocation of armed rebellion, just for the hell of it.  I appreciate the attempt to misrepresent my position yet again (another consistency you can be proud of), but making it so transparent makes it rather.......feeble


What were the settlers supposed to do, call the constabulary when the Indians got restless?  Are you making this up as you go along?

I have absolutely no clue where you're going now.  My point was clear.  Obviously so clear you had to derail it to someplace...anyplace.  Lemme know when you've gotten back to the points at hand


The founders were against a standing army, how would that address this supposed prime directive of protecting its citizenry?

Because of course, the prime directive is that of punishing its citizenry     ::)
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle