DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on April 15, 2011, 04:35:41 PM
-
Surprise: "Pro-Life" Democrats Vote to Maintain Planned Parenthood Funding
Guy Benson
Can we finally dispense with the myth of the pro-life Democrat? In the Senate last night, three "pro-life" Democrats voted in lockstep with America's Official Abortion Party to maintain federal funding for Planned Parenthood in a stand alone vote. There was nothing to camouflage or obfuscate the issue. In case you've forgotten, Planned Parenthood is the nation's number one provider of abortions. Ninety-seven percent of pregnant women who enter its doors are no longer pregnant when they exit, and almost 40 percent of the group's revenues stem from abortions. It was founded in racism (remnants of which remain alive and well today), it is systemically corrupt, and its moral degradation reaches far beyond its abortion-related services.
Planned Parenthood receives nine figures in government funding each year, and when presented with the chance to shut off the spigot, "pro-lifers" Sen. Joe Manchin, Sen. Ben Nelson, and Sen. Bob Casey all declined to do so. If one cannot bring oneself to strip government funding from the nation's largest abortion mill, one should abandon the pretense of calling oneself "pro-life." It's an insult to the movement, and an affront to the intelligence of pro-life voters.
The Democratic Party is a pro-abortion party. Last night's vote confirms that sad truth.
UPDATE: Five Republican Senators joined every single Democrat in this disgraceful vote: The Maine Twins, Lisa Murkowski, Scott Brown, and Mark Kirk. Some liberals will inevitably protest that Planned Parenthood is already banned from using federal dollars to directly fund abortions. Look up this word. And don't even start with the phony 'mammograms' talking point.
UPDATE II: To be fair, by my count, there is at least one black swan in all of Congress on this front: Rep. Dan Lipinski of Chicago. He speaks softly and genuinely walks the pro-life walk. Credit where it's due.
UPDATE III: The Senate also defeated an Obamacare de-funding measure last night, strictly along party lines. Happy re-election campaign, vulnerable Democrats! (I must say that Sen. Joe Manchin is really distinguishing himself as a dishonest operator).
Blog (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2011/04/15/surprise_pro-life_democrats_vote_to_maintain_planned_parenthood_funding)
-
No one is pro-abortion.
People are for the right of a woman to determine what is going on in her own body.
-
Sorry, as that's what its all about, pro-abortion vs anti-abortion
Anti-abortionists are for the right of a woman to choose anything they wish as well.......except abortion (the killing of an innocent life, with NO CHOICE in the matter), which brings us full circle again to this being pro-abortion vs anti-abortion
-
Why do you assume that ever fetus is "innocent life"?
According to the Holy Mother Church, every human is guilty of Adam and Eve's accepting unwise culinary advice from a talking reptile. There are no innocent human beings, so there can be no innocent human life, either.
Again, it is NONE OF YOUR DAMN business if a woman decided not to have a child. None at all.
-
Why do you ignore that the issue is about abortion??
according to biology, a NEW INNOCENT life begins at conception
according to nearly every U.S. law on the books, the murder of a Pregnant woman brings about 2, count them, 2 counts of murder. Is that in reference to a woman who was simultaneously murdered in another dimension? I think not
absolutely right.....none of my damn business what a woman does with her body. She can choose anything she wants to do. It does become a damn business when its the intentional killing of another
Which again brings us full circle that this is about abortion, not your PC attempts to minimize that act, by trying to claim its something, that its not
-
I don't see where it is the governments business what elective surgery a person undertakes.
And i certainly don't see where the government should pay for that elective surgery.
-
agreed....except.....that the 1 unanimous reason for the existence of Government is to protect/defend others who, for whatever reason, are unable to
-
agreed....except.....that the 1 unanimous reason for the existence of Government is to protect/defend others who, for whatever reason, are unable to
Is that in the constitution?
-
What is in the constitution?
Is there no provision for equal protection under the law?
Havent we already fought a war over the idea that some human beings should not be second class by category?
-
plane:
What is in the constitution?
sirs: that the 1 unanimous reason for the existence of Government is to protect/defend others who, for whatever reason, are unable to
-
The unborn are not entitled to rights as are the born.
And what's with this "innocent" life crap? That is just Church balderdash.
-
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html)
Article. IV.
Section. 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
AMENDMENT XIV
.....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.
Or from the Preamble , establish Justice
It is really better stated in the Declaration of IndependanceWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--
I note the problamatic "Citizen Born" phrase in admendment 14, it seems to work against my case and perhaps points up the need for another admendment which will prevent the loss of rights as citizen on account of age as other admendments protected rights from infringement by catagoriseing race or sex.
-
The unborn are not entitled to rights as are the born.
And what's with this "innocent" life crap? That is just Church balderdash.
Just be logical about it .
Imagine that your state were to remove the right to vote or to sue or to own firearms from the old and drew the line right across your next birthday.
This is not actually against the constitution , in fact because abortion is leagal it is clear that age is a legitamate means of segregateing full citizens from less so citizens.
-
No one is pro-abortion.
People are for the right of a woman to determine what is going on in her own body.
I am against murder, I am so against it that I am willing to put up with being forbidden to kill even persons who are entirely dependant on me, whether I like them or not.
I think I am so forbidden , why should anyone not be?
-
The easiest way to make abortions go away is to tax the shit of of providers of abortions as well as the recipients of same.
-
A very high tax on abortions?
Might merely drive them underground , but since that is the best expectation anyway I could support it.
-
agreed....except.....that the 1 unanimous reason for the existence of Government is to protect/defend others who, for whatever reason, are unable to
Is that in the constitution?
Not sure...I'm merely referencing that the primary function of Government is the protection of its citizenry. It can be universally argued as such. Folks just have different ways of deciding how, and how much. What would you put ahead of that?
-
The unborn are not entitled to rights as are the born.
And what's with this "innocent" life crap? That is just Church balderdash.
Despite whatever problems you have with said "balderdash", especially as it relates to current U.S. laws trying a person for 2 murders in the death of a pregnant woman, the issue still remains pro abortion vs anti abortion. Always has, always will
-
A tax on abortions would be effective only up to the cost of leaving the country and getting the abortion in another country.\
You can only prevent poor people from getting abortion with laws and/or money,unless you enforce travel restrictions on pregnant women. People who can travel, will do so, just as they are traveling now to combine safari vacations with nosejobs in the RSA.
Plastic surgery, knee replacement, heart transplants, dental implants are all state of the art and far cheaper than in the US.
If you tax abortions too much, the pregnant woman who can afford it will simply hop on a plane and fly away to get it done elsewhere. Restrictions can only be on the poor who cannot afford to leave and the ignorant, who are not aware of leaving the country. You cannot prosecute someone for having an offshore abortion unless you can prove she was pregnant, and we do not check women to see this when they leave. I imagine that it would be unconstitutional to do so.
-
A tax on abortions would be effective only up to the cost of leaving the country and getting the abortion in another country.\
You can only prevent poor people from getting abortion with laws and/or money,unless you enforce travel restrictions on pregnant women. People who can travel, will do so, just as they are traveling now to combine safari vacations with nosejobs in the RSA.
Plastic surgery, knee replacement, heart transplants, dental implants are all state of the art and far cheaper than in the US.
If you tax abortions too much, the pregnant woman who can afford it will simply hop on a plane and fly away to get it done elsewhere. Restrictions can only be on the poor who cannot afford to leave and the ignorant, who are not aware of leaving the country. You cannot prosecute someone for having an offshore abortion unless you can prove she was pregnant, and we do not check women to see this when they leave. I imagine that it would be unconstitutional to do so.
Arn't most of the abortions happening to the poor ?
-
That was my point.
Abortions are not happening to the poor, though. Perhaps poor women are having most of them because that is their choice. I don't think the government keeps a list of abortions performed, and it certainly does not have any list categorized by income.
To tax abortions would be discriminatory against the poor, obviously.
-
For some Women abortion is a calamity. Any woman who thinks it otherwise , isn't paying attention.
and it does happen much more to the poor , is this present state discrimitory?
-
For some women, and unwanted child is a calamity.
I think a woman and her doctor are better judges of how to avoid that woman can avoid her own personal calamity than a bunch of congressmen who overdosed on parochial school.
-
For some women, and unwanted child is a calamity.
I think a woman and her doctor are better judges of how to avoid that woman can avoid her own personal calamity than a bunch of congressmen who overdosed on parochial school.
A child is not a calamity, no one should ever be considered unworthy of existance, have we learned nothing since 1939 to 1945? when that sort of attitude nearly burned the world down?
The Malthusian fear of being up to ones chin in lower class persons need not be a problem solved with geonocide.
-
Genocide and the Holocaust are not really related to abortions.
I support allowing women to make their own decisions. If anti-abortion types want to offer better alternatives, they are free to do so.
-
As Ami has provided for you, on countless occasions when you bring this up, they do
-
Genocide and the Holocaust are not really related to abortions.
I support allowing women to make their own decisions. If anti-abortion types want to offer better alternatives, they are free to do so.
Pro abortionists have heaped so much love on the act of abortion that it has become the most protected right in the nation.
There are alternatives at every stage already , but the geonocide goes on the diffrence between the holocaust and American Abortion is mostly that the Holocaust was smaller and had fewer victims.
-
To tax abortions would be discriminatory against the poor, obviously.
Discrimination against income levels is perfectly legal, and in some circles revered.
-
To tax abortions would be discriminatory against the poor, obviously.
Discrimination against income levels is perfectly legal, and in some circles revered.
Hahahahahahaha!
Caught me off gaurd there.
-
Genocide is the extermination of a specific RACE or NATIONALITY of one group by another (Armenians by the Turks, Jews by the Germans & Austrians, and Malekites by the Jews).
Abortions are not genocide by any normal definition of the word.
-
Genocide is the extermination of a specific RACE or NATIONALITY of one group by another
So it is merely infantacide on a larger scale than any geonocide has ever been?
Do you know what purportion of the dead are minoritys? It might still meet your more narrow definition.
-
Foetuses are not a race of people. Abortion is not genocide. This is just preposterous.
-
Foetuses are not a race of people. Abortion is not genocide. This is just preposterous.
They are people , mere coincidence that most of the victims in the US are black, but if it isn't racially motivated it isn't wrong?
-
Black women having abortions is not genocide, please.
I do not think that most abortions are among Blacks in this country, anyway.
But it simply is not up to me. Women have a right to have children or not as they desire. If it is a moral issue, it is a personal, not a societal, issue.
-
Black women having abortions is not genocide, please.
I do not think that most abortions are among Blacks in this country, anyway.
But it simply is not up to me. Women have a right to have children or not as they desire. If it is a moral issue, it is a personal, not a societal, issue.
Do you realy see nothing wrong with it?
Why do some people object to being described as pro-Abortion?
-
I do not think that most abortions are among Blacks in this country, anyway.
The absolute numbers are not, but then that's because blacks are a minority. The *rate* of abortions among blacks is something like 30 times that among whites.
-
Why do some people object to being described as pro-Abortion?
Because they are NOT pro abortion. They do not tell anyone to get an abortion. They do not publicly recommend abortions. They simply believe that a woman has a right to have an abortion if she wishes.
If I say that people should be free to eat escargot, that does not make me "pro snail". It does not even mean that I like to eat snails.
If I believe that people have the right to own a gun, that does not mean that I think that everyone should have a gun. It does not make me "pro gun". It simply means that I believe that people have the right to control their own lives without government or society barging in to stop them.
-
Why do some people object to being described as pro-Abortion?
Because they are NOT pro abortion. They do not tell anyone to get an abortion.....They simply believe that a woman has a right to have an abortion if she wishes.
strawman alert.....no one is saying people are being told they HAVE to have an abortion. The issue is abortion itself, always has, always will. So, why do people have a problem being referred to as pro-abortion if they support it??
-
Because they do NOT support or oppose any abortions: they merely believe that women have the right to have or not have an abortion without interference from petty twerps like you messing with their rights.
-
So...they don't like the term pro-abortion because they don't like being criticized for supporting the killing of an unborn child? gotcha
-
Pro -abortion is what it is.
The Pro abortion faction in victory have made abortion an unasailable and unregulated industry with better protection under the law than any other right.
Every abortion ends a human life , like slavery four generations ago there is little middle ground for a moderate to stand on.
Why not embrace the fact that Pro-abortion is pro-abortion? Isn't abortion a GOOD thing?
-
Abortion should be a choice. And an individual choice. You don't want one, don't have one.
Opposition to choice is opposition to personal freedom. As I said, if men could have an abortion, it would be a holy sacrament.
-
Abortion should be a choice. And an individual choice. You don't want one, don't have one.
Opposition to choice is opposition to personal freedom.
Substitute "firearm ownership" for "abortion" and you have one of my core beliefs.
-
Abortion should be a choice. And an individual choice. You don't want one, don't have one.
Opposition to choice is opposition to personal freedom. As I said, if men could have an abortion, it would be a holy sacrament.
No one is opposing choice, as the woman is free to choose anything......except abortion, which brings us back full circle to what the issue is, which is NOT choice. Its pro-abortion vs anti-abortion. Why, for those who support that option, do they run for the hills from that word, I wonder. You would think it would be embraced
-
They don't run from the word.
It is merely inaccurate.
I am sorry that you can't understand the logic involved, but I am giving up on you.
You can't teach a pig to sing: it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
-
They don't run from the word.
Yes they do.....which is why you have the misdirecting effort at pro-choice, as if it were an arguement between pro-choice vs anti-choice.
It is merely inaccurate.
It's spot on....the issue is ABORTION, not choice. One is either pro-abortion or anti-abortion. Inaccurate would be trying to claim that a "fetus" isn't really a person to be counted, when in nearly every court case involving the murder of a pregnant woman and her "fetus", results in 2 counts of murder
I am sorry that you can't understand the logic involved, but I am giving up on you.
The irony of a "professor", either unable to grasp logic or merely a coward in embracing the issue as it is, is truely astounding. Run off then. Go find some other strawman to pull up, in some other thread
-
Being in favor of something is not the same as being in favor of someone else choosing something.
I can be in favor of allowing stores to sell horsemeat, even though I do not eat horsemeat.
If I like to eat horsemeat, I am "pro horsemeat". If I simply think people should have the right to eat horsemeat, that does not make me "pro horsemeat".
I can be in favor of people having the right to ride a ferris whel, even though I do not want to ride one.
-
Deflection alert.......Deflection alert. Yes, if you eat horsemeat, you are pro-horsemeat. If you support the idea of people eating horsemeat, you are pro-horsemeat. It sure as hell doesn't mean you're against it, nor is it demanding that people must eat horsemeat either. You merely support it as an option
It's about abortion. Either embrace it or run for the hills and hide under your PC blanket
-
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".
-
If you are in favor of people being able to ride Ferris wheel, that does not make you pro-Ferris wheel.
Sure it does
To be pro Ferris wheel, you would also have to ride the fool thing.
Under that fool hearty irrational logic, to be anti-abortion, you can't have had one. So those who have had one, who are now staunchly against it, because they came to the realization of their error......can't be??
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.
OR to simply support the option of abortion
Which brings us full circle, yet again, that this is about ABORTION, not some non-existant PC reference to choice, as anti-abortionists are also pro-choice..........EXCEPT ABORTION
Simply saying that every woman has the right to choose on her own is not being "pro-abortion".
Sure it is, it's just a politically correct, albeit cowardly attempt, to remove the abortion spotlight off someone who otherwise supports it
-
Could someone explain to me how having a governmental involvement against the choice of a currently legal elective surgery could possibly be construed as part of any small government conservative philosophy as currently understood.
-
I would imagine that the last thing a small government should stuck its nose into would be a person's right to reproduce themselves or not according to their own desires.
-
I would imagine that the last thing a small government should stuck its nose into would be a person's right to reproduce themselves or not according to their own desires.
Right. For example i do not believe that China would be considered small Government. And they have the one child rule.
-
They don't run from the word.
It is merely inaccurate.
I am sorry that you can't understand the logic involved, but I am giving up on you.
You can't teach a pig to sing: it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
The inaccuracy is very hard to see.
-
Could someone explain to me how having a governmental involvement against the choice of a currently legal elective surgery could possibly be construed as part of any small government conservative philosophy as currently understood.
Already referenced that earlier (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/the-myth-of-the-'pro-life'-democrat/msg121943/#msg121943)
-
Could someone explain to me how having a governmental involvement against the choice of a currently legal elective surgery could possibly be construed as part of any small government conservative philosophy as currently understood.
Already referenced that earlier (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/the-myth-of-the-'pro-life'-democrat/msg121943/#msg121943)
Must have missed your pearls of wisdom. Could you provide a link to where you did that?
-
Did you not click on it above, when provided? Here, try again (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/the-myth-of-the-'pro-life'-democrat/msg121943/#msg121943)
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
-
Did you not click on it above, when provided? Here, try again (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/the-myth-of-the-'pro-life'-democrat/msg121943/#msg121943)
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, 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.
-
Not misconstruing anything.
And my argument, which you have yet to refute, is that one of the primary functions, (if not THE primary function) of government is the protection of its citizenry. You appeared to not even disagree, much less present any function greater than that. Just kind of pushed it to the side
Unless you're going on record as claiming that unborn child isn't a person....just a bunch of cells, all rolled up into 1....nonperson? Which then begs the question, that Xo had to keep ignoring as well, those laws, all across the country, charging someone with 2 counts of murder, when a pregnant woman is killed. What's up with that??
So my position, happens to be both constitutional in nature, and by not funding or supporting any organizations like PP, is also small government
-
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.
-
[quote author=sirs link=topic=15005.msg122388#msg122388 date=1303540297]
Did you not click on it above, when provided? Here, try again (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/the-myth-of-the-'pro-life'-democrat/msg121943/#msg121943)
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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!
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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"
-
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.
-
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.
For the most part they are. Every story I've heard/read, regarding the murder of a pregnant woman has carried 2 counts of murder
And i don't believe i gave a value to the laws in question, perhaps you confuse me with XO.
Perhaps you confuse my question with some supposed conclusion. I thought the question was pretty clear. Did I need to make it bold as well? If that's what you need....Is it your position those are merely "stupid laws"??
Basically trying to facilitate your deliniation of who the government is to protect, being that you still haven't refuted it as a primary function of government. Unborn children, who most courts count as a person in murder trials, don't count in your book?
-
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. Of course and I would not mind being scriptural nor scientific in discussion of where this line belongs.
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?
On what indeed are the unborn denied their citizenship?
-
One cannot be a citizen of any country without being born first.
Fetuses gain their citizenship only when they leave the womb.
The anti-abortion fanatics will be trying to grant citizen ship to a gleam in a man's eye next. But only if the glimmer is within the US and the eye belongs to a citizen.
A fetus is not a person until it is born. It cannot be a citizen until it is a person.
-
Yep, that conclusion sure sounded stupid to me
-
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. Of course and I would not mind being scriptural nor scientific in discussion of where this line belongs.
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?
On what indeed are the unborn denied their citizenship?
Most probably the legal definition of citizenship.
Are you born at conception or born at birth?
-
Since I try, as time allows, to answer direct questions, and would wish to expect a similar level of courtesy in response, as time allows of course, I'll try for a 3rd time:
Is it your position those laws, spread all over the country, that indict a murder suspect with 2 counts of murder, when a pregnant woman is killed, are they merely "stupid laws"??
Basically trying to facilitate your deliniation of who the government is to protect, being that you still haven't refuted it as a primary function of government. Unborn children, who most courts count as a person in murder trials, don't count in your book?
-
b]Is it[/b] your position those laws, spread all over the country, that indict a murder suspect with 2 counts of murder, when a pregnant woman is killed, are they merely "stupid laws"??
As in never said they were stupid laws to begin with, i don't know why you insist that you keep working that tangent.
But if it helps i will reiterate that the laws you cite are inconsistent.
-
Pretty sketch answer to the 1st question, when a simple 1 word answer would have sufficed
Let's try a 4th time on the latter: Basically trying to facilitate your deliniation of who the government is to protect, being that you still haven't refuted it as a primary function of government. Unborn children, who most courts count as a person in murder trials, don't count in your book?
Didn't say "all" courts, didn't say "universal", merely referring to most. So, what say you? Unborn children don't count as it relates to protection by the government, given its primary function is protection of its citizenry?
-
Unborn children, who most courts count as a person in murder trials, don't count in your book?
======================================
No, they do not count. An unborn child is not a person, it is a fetus.
You could pass a law stating that a fetus was an endangered, yet tiny, white rhinoceros, but this would not make it so. You could pass a law stating that you could fly, like Superman, but it would be inadvisable to try out your superpowers by jumping off tall buildings.
As Mr Micawber said: "The Law is a ass."
-
Unborn children, who most courts count as a person in murder trials, don't count in your book?
======================================
No, they do not count.
Didn't ask you. We already have your position, you're stupid....I mean, you think the laws are stupid. No need to rehash that stupid tangent
As Mr Micawber said: "The Law is a ass."
Best move to a country that has no laws, would be my recommendation. Good luck with that
-
I have no desire to harm any fetus or pregnant woman, so such laws are irrelevant to me. But they are stupid. A fetus is not a person and is not a citizen.
Any attack on a fetus would clearly be an attack on the woman, and there are plenty of laws that make this highly illegal.
Passing these "double murder, mother and fetus" laws is clearly a stupid gesture on the part of some dumb fanatics.
-
Yea, I think we already got your stupid arguement
-
Unborn children don't count as it relates to protection by the government, given its primary function is protection of its citizenry?
Based on Roe vs Wade, up to a specified point, the answer would be no.
Perhaps you can cite a Scotus case that says the opposite. As you are fond of saying, the ball is now in your court.
-
So your answer is "no", unborn children don't count to be protected by the Government, based on the RvW decision?
So what's with those laws that indict a murder suspect with 2 counts of murder, when they've killed a pregnant woman? What's up with that? Did they not get the memo from SCOTUS?
-
So your answer is "no", unborn children don't count to be protected by the Government, based on the RvW decision?
So what's with those laws that indict a murder suspect with 2 counts of murder, when they've killed a pregnant woman? What's up with that? Did they not get the memo from SCOTUS?
My answer is the US Government based on rulings from the Supreme Court do not qualify for protection up to a specified point.
So what's with those laws that indict a murder suspect with 2 counts of murder, when they've killed a pregnant woman? What's up with that? Did they not get the memo from SCOTUS?
Perhaps you can show how punishing a suspect for two counts of murder protects the unborn? Seems to me if the intent was to protect, there wouldn't be two counts to begin with.
No, i think the intent is to punish more severely, much like hate crimes are intended to punish more severely.
Which reminds me, aren't you against hate crime legislation?
-
So your answer is "no", unborn children don't count to be protected by the Government, based on the RvW decision?
So what's with those laws that indict a murder suspect with 2 counts of murder, when they've killed a pregnant woman? What's up with that? Did they not get the memo from SCOTUS?
My answer is the US Government based on rulings from the Supreme Court do not qualify for protection up to a specified point.
Ok, now we're starting to delve into that area of "sketchy" again. Is or isn't an unborn child (one not born yet, just to be clear) to be protected by the Government, as one of its primary functions? Should be a yes or no question, but now you're not only allowing SOCTUS to make that decision for you, but now there's some "specified point"
OK, I'll bite....when is this "specified point" reached?
So what's with those laws that indict a murder suspect with 2 counts of murder, when they've killed a pregnant woman? What's up with that? Did they not get the memo from SCOTUS?
Perhaps you can show how punishing a suspect for two counts of murder protects the unborn?
DEFLECTION ALERT. I never claimed the punishing of someone who killed an unborn child is "protecting it", so there's no "intent" in trying to bring that up. The issue was that the unborn child was counted as a PERSON, by Government, the Judiciary in particular. I understand the effort to semantically wiggle out of this, but your position is ripe with inconsistency, if its the Government that you're using to claim the unborn person can't be protected.
Or are you now claiming that Government's primary function is to punish??
No, i think the intent is to punish more severely, much like hate crimes are intended to punish more severely. Which reminds me, aren't you against hate crime legislation?
DEFLECTION ALERT #2
-
So your answer is "no", unborn children don't count to be protected by the Government, based on the RvW decision?
So what's with those laws that indict a murder suspect with 2 counts of murder, when they've killed a pregnant woman? What's up with that? Did they not get the memo from SCOTUS?
My answer is the US Government based on rulings from the Supreme Court do not qualify for protection up to a specified point.
Ok, now we're starting to delve into that area of "sketchy" again. Is or isn't an unborn child (one not born yet, just to be clear) to be protected by the Government, as one of its primary functions? Should be a yes or no question, but now you're not only allowing SOCTUS to make that decision for you, but now there's some "specified point"
OK, I'll bite....when is this "specified point" reached?
So what's with those laws that indict a murder suspect with 2 counts of murder, when they've killed a pregnant woman? What's up with that? Did they not get the memo from SCOTUS?
Perhaps you can show how punishing a suspect for two counts of murder protects the unborn?
DEFLECTION ALERT. I never claimed the punishing of someone who killed an unborn child is "protecting it", so there's no "intent" in trying to bring that up. The issue was that the unborn child was counted as a PERSON, by Government, the Judiciary in particular. I understand the effort to semantically wiggle out of this, but your position is ripe with inconsistency, if its the Government that you're using to claim the unborn person can't be protected.
Or are you now claiming that Government's primary function is to punish??
No, i think the intent is to punish more severely, much like hate crimes are intended to punish more severely. Which reminds me, aren't you against hate crime legislation?
DEFLECTION ALERT #2
Specified point:
The Supreme Court on Abortion: A Survey
by Mark Tushnet, from Abortion, Medicine, and the Law, Third Edition, 1986, pp. 162
"The final stage of pregnancy under Roe v. Wade occurs after the fetus becomes viable[4]. After viability, the state could regulate or prohibit abortions unless they were ``necessary, in appropriate medical judgement'', to preserve the life or health of the woman. This standard must be read, however, in light of the Court's decision the same day in Doe v. Bolton, that clinical judgement ``may be exercised in light of all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the well-being of the patient[5]. Thus, the Court nominally allowed the state to prohibit post-viability abortions except in apparently limited cases, but it actually defined the limitation in a way that bars the state from prohibiting such abortions if physicians are willing to perform them.
In a later case the Court sustained a statute defining viability as a stage where the fetus's life ``may be continued outside the womb by the natural or artificial life-supportive systems''[6]. This definition allows the state to regulate the decision to have an abortion, a decision made while the fetus is in the womb, on the basis of what must at that time be a prediction about what will happen after the fetus is removed from the womb. The uncertainty of this prediction might lead physicians to refrain from performing abortions if, as Roe seemed to suggest, states could readily prohibit post-viability abortions. The Court thus stressed that viability was essentially a medical judgement, and invalidated a law making physicians criminally liable for performing abortions when the fetus ``is viable'' or when there is ``sufficient reason to believe that the fetus may be viable''[7]. The threat of criminal liability in the face of the uncertainty associated with viability determinations unacceptably burdened the abortion decision.
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/nvp/roe/roe2.html (http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/nvp/roe/roe2.html)
DEFLECTION ALERT. I never claimed the punishing of someone who killed an unborn child is "protecting it", so there's no "intent" in trying to bring that up. The issue was that the unborn child was counted as a PERSON, by Government, the Judiciary in particular. I understand the effort to semantically wiggle out of this, but your position is ripe with inconsistency, if its the Government that you're using to claim the unborn person can't be protected.
Or are you now claiming that Government's primary function is to punish??
yet you said the governments primary function was to defend those who are unable to defend themselves and gave as examples laws on the books designed to punish those who kill mothers and the unborn.
What i did was question the effectiveness of this protection and agreed that the laws were designed to punish.
-
No, what you did, was try to claim something I never did, that 2 counts of murder, was merely a "harsher punishment", analogus to hate crimes. I've said all along that 2 counts of murder are because 2 PERSONS were murdered. Plain and simple. YOU, on the other hand are concluding that's the reason for the 2 counts. Refresh my memory......are you in favor of hate crimes?
Which brings us back to your sketchy answer, one that could have been made with 1 sentence.....X is the specified point. Apparently, you're just going to hide in the legaleze. So be it
-
Which brings us back to your sketchy answer, one that could have been made with 1 sentence.....X is the specified point. Apparently, you're just going to hide in the legaleze. So be it
So are you no longer claiming that this is a nation of laws?
-
Boy your good at referencing points I never made ::) So, no position on hate crimes either. gotcha. Lemme guess......it depends, right?
-
I don't think crimes based on hate should be punished more severely than crimes based on passion or finance. If there is a racial or other bigoted bias involved, perhaps it can be litigated in civil court.
Meanwhile my query as to your stance on rule of law seems to remain unanswered. I shall pout, be petulant and observe your silence speaks volumes.
-
Murdering is against the law
Obamacare is legaleze
Your answer is in the semantics. I'm a rule of law guy...not a rule of leagalize guy
-
I really doubt that Obama would favor NOT prosecuting the violent beating that the woman gave the alleged transsexual.
No one was murdered. I don't think that Obama favors murder, either, whatever the motivation.
-
hmm
since I wasn`t around then
would that person 60 years ago get any help at all or simply be left in the alley to die. do people die alot in alleys in the 50`s??
the last time I recall somebody died in a alley was 20 years ago.
the whole point of hate crime laws is to finally get the police involved in a crime involving certain people who tend to die in alleys..
no proof those laws work,but most definitely no proof it doesn`t- meaning people are dying less in alleys today
-
I really doubt that Obama would favor NOT prosecuting the violent beating that the woman gave the alleged transsexual.
No one was murdered. I don't think that Obama favors murder, either, whatever the motivation.
Good thing no one claimed, or even implied any of that. Nice strawman though
-
One cannot be a citizen of any country without being born first.
Fetuses gain their citizenship only when they leave the womb.
The anti-abortion fanatics will be trying to grant citizen ship to a gleam in a man's eye next. But only if the glimmer is within the US and the eye belongs to a citizen.
A fetus is not a person until it is born. It cannot be a citizen until it is a person.
So what makes a person a person is that the government recognises IT to be a person.
This is very recursive.
Is it your opinion that while the government refused to recognise the citizenship of black persons that they were not persons in fact?
So that in particular the Dread Scott decision was not wrong?
If a person is only what the government says a person is then the government has in its hands already the complete solution to the Social Security problem. A simple declaration that all persons above a certain age are non-persons just as fetus-es are and then the load that the government must carry is suddenly lightened.
Persons above the critical age could be aborted , by properly qualified personell of course.
-
In a later case the Court sustained a statute defining viability as a stage where the fetus's life ``may be continued outside the womb by the natural or artificial life-supportive systems''[6]. This definition allows the state to regulate the decision to have an abortion, a decision made while the fetus is in the womb, on the basis of what must at that time be a prediction about what will happen after the fetus is removed from the womb.
Younger and smaller Premies are rescued every year as science continues to learnbetter how to rescue them .
Does this make it a states responsibility to decide by a quickly changeing standard what is a person? Or is the status of a person as a person really entirely the states right of fiat to declare?
This question to BT and XO both, would McBeths foe McDuff have ever been a citizen under these rules since by the definition of his times he was never born?
(http://johnlocke.weebly.com/uploads/1/7/8/8/1788394/2454096.jpg)
MACBETH AND MACDUFF GET INTO AN ARGUMENT OVER SEMANTICS.
BY Raphael Bob-Waksberg
- - - -
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2010/4/9waksberg.html (http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2010/4/9waksberg.html)
(Macbeth and Macduff are fencing in front of a castle.)
MACBETH: Macduff! Let fall thy blade on vulnerable crests. I bear a charmed life, which must not yield to one of woman born.
MACDUFF: Despair thy charm! Macduff was from his mother's womb untimely ripped.
(They stop sword fighting.)
MACBETH: Pardon?
MACDUFF: I was extracted surgically, in an operation.
MACBETH: Okay, but thou wast still born, right?
MACDUFF: No. Untimely ripped.
MACBETH: Okay, but after thou wast ripped, thou wast of woman born.
MACDUFF: I don't know...
MACBETH: Wast thou ripped from a man?
MACDUFF: No...
MACBETH: Then thou wast of woman born, what's the problem?
MACDUFF: I think, technically, to be "born" you need to pass through the birth canal.
MACBETH: No. If you exist, then you were born.
MACDUFF: I grant you it's a bit of a gray area.
MACBETH: No! Any sane definition of the word "born" would also house the subcategory of Cesarean sections.
MACDUFF: Okay, thou hast no need to get snippy.
MACBETH: I'm not snippy.
MACDUFF: Thou ist. A little bit.
MACBETH: Well I'm a little stressed out right now. They said, "No man of woman born—"
MACDUFF: Who said?
MACBETH: The old ladies. By the side of the road.
MACDUFF: Uh... huh.
(Cut to: Macduff and Macbeth by the side of the road, looking at three old dancing witches.)
WITCH: Dibble dabble dribble doo. Put a monkey in a stew.
MACBETH: Okay, well, now they're just talking gibberish but before they said, "Fear not till Birnam wood do come to Dunsinane" and—
MACDUFF: Which it did.
MACBETH: No! You dressed up like the wood. That's not the same thing at all.
MACDUFF: Look. I'm just going to kill thee, okay?
MACBETH: No! Thou canst! Because thou wast of woman born!
MACDUFF: Okay, seriously though, thou needst to chill out, a little bit, with the "of woman born" stuff. Have you consulted a physician about this, or did you just declare yourself the expert on the differences between "born" and "not born"?
MACBETH: You want to consult a physician? Because honestly I would LOVE to consult a physician about this.
MACDUFF: Let's go.
MACBETH: Let's go right now, I'm not doing anything.
(Cut to: Macduff and Macbeth in a doctor's hut.)
DOCTOR: All right, explain it to me again?
MACBETH: Okay, Macduff—who is standing before you right here!—was he born? Or was he—and remember, we're talking about this guy, who exists!—not born?
MACDUFF: Don't forget, I was from my mother's womb untimely ripped!
MACBETH: Yes, mother's womb! MOTHER. OF WOMAN BORN.
MACDUFF: Doctor?
DOCTOR: Yeah, I don't know. This is like the thirteenth century. Medical science isn't really... I mean, if you're feeling sick, maybe you have a demon inside you and you could swallow a snake to find the demon and then the snake will eat the demon and you won't be sick anymore, but then, yeah, how do we get the snake out, right?
MACBETH: Well, thank you very much; you were of no help at all.
MACDUFF: Look, I didn't want to get into a whole THING with this... Yeah, I'm just gonna kill you now.
MACBETH: No! Thou ist of woman—I mean, is everyone else crazy here, or is it me?
(Macduff stabs Macbeth in the heart.)
MACBETH: Ow!
(Macduff shrugs. Macbeth dies. Then Macduff puts Macbeth's head on a stick, of all things. Audience applauds politely, but secretly thinks maybe this Shakespeare guy is kind of losing it.)
- - - -
Macbeth (V,7-8): Macbeth Meets Macduff in Final Battle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiC3y5YJEYY#)
http://www.thisismacbeth.com/ (http://www.thisismacbeth.com/)
-
One cannot be a citizen of any country without being born first.
Fetuses gain their citizenship only when they leave the womb.
The anti-abortion fanatics will be trying to grant citizen ship to a gleam in a man's eye next. But only if the glimmer is within the US and the eye belongs to a citizen.
A fetus is not a person until it is born. It cannot be a citizen until it is a person.
So what makes a person a person is that the government recognises IT to be a person.
This is very recursive.
Is it your opinion that while the government refused to recognise the citizenship of black persons that they were not persons in fact?
So that in particular the Dread Scott decision was not wrong?
If a person is only what the government says a person is then the government has in its hands already the complete solution to the Social Security problem. A simple declaration that all persons above a certain age are non-persons just as fetus-es are and then the load that the government must carry is suddenly lightened.
Persons above the critical age could be aborted , by properly qualified personell of course.
--------------------
Younger and smaller Premies are rescued every year as science continues to learnbetter how to rescue them .
Does this make it a states responsibility to decide by a quickly changeing standard what is a person? Or is the status of a person as a person really entirely the states right of fiat to declare?
This question to BT and XO both, would McBeths foe McDuff have ever been a citizen under these rules since by the definition of his times he was never born?
Bravo
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_LG-GRrWhzMc/TSdq5LU7q9I/AAAAAAAAAjE/gmGUcr4wldY/s200/take-a-bow-thumb3083579.jpg)
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/ (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/)
-
By leave the womb, I meant by both natural and surgical means of course.
-
Murdering is against the law
Obamacare is legaleze
Your answer is in the semantics. I'm a rule of law guy...not a rule of leagalize guy
Interesting.
Law to you is Judeo Christian scriptural law.
What is your position on Sharia Law?
-
Younger and smaller Premies are rescued every year as science continues to learnbetter how to rescue them .
I would guess the definition of viable is flexible enough to still be operable even with medical advances.
-
By leave the womb, I meant by both natural and surgical means of course.
Then Abortion itself is Birth!
-
If you cannot tell a fetus from a baby, then it follows that you cannot tell a birth from an abortion.
So I am not surprised.
-
If you cannot tell a fetus from a baby, then it follows that you cannot tell a birth from an abortion.
So I am not surprised.
Tell me what then the diffrence between Fetus and baby is?
Remember, I am going for reality and logic.
We can get to scripture later.
-
Murdering is against the law
Obamacare is legaleze
Your answer is in the semantics. I'm a rule of law guy...not a rule of leagalize guy
Interesting.
Law to you is Judeo Christian scriptural law.
Law to me, is law. American, in particular
What is your position on Sharia Law?
Don't have one outside of keep it outside of America
-
Tell me what then the diffrence between Fetus and baby is?
==================================================
A living fetus is invisible, since it is still in the womb.
A baby is not inside a womb, and may be alive or dead.
-
Tell me what then the diffrence between Fetus and baby is?
==================================================
A living fetus is invisible, since it is still in the womb.
A baby is not inside a womb, and may be alive or dead.
Is the whole diffrence that you have not had a chance to look at it?
I am missing the reality and the logic.
You have not stated any diffrence except one of position, and again an abortion itself would be a birth, Converting the invisible to the visible.
-
Younger and smaller Premies are rescued every year as science continues to learnbetter how to rescue them .
I would guess the definition of viable is flexible enough to still be operable even with medical advances.
When it flexes all the way to conception will it still be a viable differention?
-
Murdering is against the law
Obamacare is legaleze
Your answer is in the semantics. I'm a rule of law guy...not a rule of leagalize guy
Interesting.
Law to you is Judeo Christian scriptural law.
What is your position on Sharia Law?
Is the diffrence between right and wrong a matter of logic , science or tradition?
Sharia Law is better than amorality.
I prefer US traditions of Law mostly , but we are behind the advancement of Sharia Law when it comes to abortion.
-
hmm
since I wasn`t around then
would that person 60 years ago get any help at all or simply be left in the alley to die. do people die alot in alleys in the 50`s??
the last time I recall somebody died in a alley was 20 years ago.
the whole point of hate crime laws is to finally get the police involved in a crime involving certain people who tend to die in alleys..
no proof those laws work,but most definitely no proof it doesn`t- meaning people are dying less in alleys today
I don't think there should be a diffrence without haveing a result in mind.
People who leave you dieing in an alley for greeds sake do not deserve a break above someone doing the same for racisms sake.
What is the result that is hoped for ? Makeing muggers colorblind?
-
Law to me, is law. American, in particular
Then why would ObamaCare not be law and merely legalese?
-
When it flexes all the way to conception will it still be a viable differention?
At that point there would be no legal abortions, as currently defined.
-
Murdering is against the law
Obamacare is legaleze
Your answer is in the semantics. I'm a rule of law guy...not a rule of leagalize guy
Interesting.
Law to you is Judeo Christian scriptural law.
What is your position on Sharia Law?
Is the diffrence between right and wrong a matter of logic , science or tradition?
Sharia Law is better than amorality.
I prefer US traditions of Law mostly , but we are behind the advancement of Sharia Law when it comes to abortion.
Thank you for understanding my point.
-
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
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
In fact i think the 2nd amendment shows that the founders thought the citizens better able to defend themselves.
-
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
-
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?
-
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 ::)
-
Because of course, the prime directive is that of punishing its citizenry
Not its citizenry. The purpose of government is to govern. In this nation, that means by enforcement of duly enacted laws. And the main means of enforcement is arrest and prosecution of those who choose to break those laws. IE punish lawbreakers. See Scott Peterson.
But you seem to be saying the main purpose of government is cradle to grave security for its citizenry.
Are you sure you didn't vote for Obama?
-
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.
There is no ambiguity in the natural situation. Children move from absolutely dependant on Parents to Independence along a smooth continuum that requires about thirty years.
If you accept it as logical that the government needs a deviding line between person and non person that the government can palce arbitarialy then by what logic is the government prevented from drawing a line at too old to protect the same way that they drew a line across too young to protect?
-
Actually, there is probably NOT a possibility of an actual number of days in which every single fetus becomes potentially viable outside the womb. It almost certainly depends on the individual fetus, and as such, the facts do not make it possible for the law to be exact, no matter who makes the decision. But nine doctors of obstetrics could almost certainly come closer than the current (or any) Supreme Court.
-
Actually, there is probably NOT a possibility of an actual number of days in which every single fetus becomes potentially viable outside the womb. It almost certainly depends on the individual fetus, and as such, the facts do not make it possible for the law to be exact, no matter who makes the decision. But nine doctors of obstetrics could almost certainly come closer than the current (or any) Supreme Court.
And if nine of every ten doctors of obstetrics refuse to perform Abortions , this indicates to you nothing?
-
(a) I question that this is the case.
(b) I was simply mentioning that doctors would know more about this specific age of the fetus than the average Supreme Court justice. I was not seeking to engage them in abortions, so this is a moot issue.
-
What is in question is whether Abortion should be illegal .
And whether the Government has a right to define a person as a Person or a non person on account of age.
So far you have not made logic usefull in making your case.
New Zealand, along with other countries, faces a shortage of trained abortion providers. One reason is that many younger doctors specialising in obstetrics and gynaecology, are choosing not to train as abortionists.
http://www.life.org.nz/abortion/abortionethicalkyissues/abortionistsob-gyns/ (http://www.life.org.nz/abortion/abortionethicalkyissues/abortionistsob-gyns/)
There are several reasons for the declining number of abortion providers:
The "greying" of current providers. In the US, the majority are close to retirement.
Picketing and violence that targets abortion providers (not in NZ)
Social stigma and marginalisation
Professional isolation and peer pressure
The perception of abortion as an execution of a human life.
The one in Italics is mine , it wasn't there originally but this article was written by someone who thought that a shortage of Abortion providers is a problem not good news ,so I took the liberty of including the obvious missing factor.
British medical selection panels in general, regard the provision of abortion services as a primary health service and a woman's legal right. NHS hospitals usually roster staff for a daily schedule of abortions, and when O&Gs and nurses chose to opt out on the grounds of conscience, the workload is increased for the other staff.
Therefore, it appears logical to fill training and hospital posts with doctors who are prepared to provide abortion services.
Ugh this writer is seriously thickheaded.
The situation in America (as of June, 2003):
87% of all U.S. counties and 97% of all rural U.S. counties have no abortion provider
Since 1982, the number of abortion providers has decreased by 37%
58% of all OB/GYN doctors providing abortions are 50 years of age or older. This means the number of providers will continue to decline as they reach retirement age, unless younger clinicians learn to perform abortions.
In 1983, 42% of all OB/GYN doctors performed abortions. In 1995, only 33% did. The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed by a small group of doctors. Only 2% of U.S. OB/GYN doctors perform more than 25 abortions per month.
72% of OB/GYN residency programmes do not train all residents in abortion procedures.
From 1982 to 2000, the number of hospitals providing abortions decreased by 57%.
Only 15% of chief residents in family medicine residency programmes, have experience providing first-trimester abortions.
"Physician-only" laws in most states require careful legal research to ascertain whether advanced nurses and midwives can provide medical and surgical abortions.
Many nursing programmes do not adequately prepare students to care for women having abortions, contributing to a shortage of nurses willing and trained to assist abortion providers.
Abortion is one of the only medical procedures with a "conscience clause", allowing doctors and nurses to refuse to participate in the care of a patient.
If only we could persuade the most of the Doctors and nurses that Abortion is alright , it would decrease the workload on the minority willing to rake in that big money for the easy work of assassinating the innocent and helpless. Perhaps we should not require so much training for the performance of this procedure?
"Working conditions for clinicians providing abortions are frequently unsatisfying. For clinicians who have spent years honing their diagnostic skills, abortion largely underutilizes their abilities and relegates them to the role of a technician. As noted by Potts (Lancet, 1975): ?When the patient was a client who had decided on the prescription (abortion), this eliminated half the medical mythology and demoted the doctor to technician or tradesman.'"
"Both the evolution of new clinic personnel (abortion counsellors and nurse-practitioners), and the rapid flow of patients in clinics, have depersonalised the abortion experience, not for the patient but for the clinician. For some, communication may be limited to a brief discussion with the patient on the operating table before surgery."
"Isolation can occur. Clinicians whose practice is limited to abortion services may become estranged from the medical community. The tedium of largely repetitive operations can be compounded by the emotional stress surrounding unwanted pregnancies and families in crisis. A practice limited to women with personal crises, differs markedly from the usual mix of patients in an obstetric and gynaecological practice. On the other hand, some physicians find helping women to resolve personal crises especially rewarding."
Proposed solutions
Oh this has got to be good.Dr Grimes recommends more integration of abortion training into residency programmes, increased pay and training nurses and midwives to perform first-trimester abortions.
He concludes: "Abortion is the most divisive social issue of our time. Despite strong professional support for legal abortion from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, one of their 1985 news releases observes: ?There remains a lack of enthusiasm and even opposition from many gynaecologists, who consider abortion a distasteful chore. The medical profession must be educated to the fact that abortion is no longer a favour to bestow, but rather an obligation to perform.
"consider abortion a distasteful chore"
Well DuH!
-
According to an October 17th story in Catholic News Service, obstetricians and medical students intending to specialize in obstetrics are being increasingly pressured to take part in abortion procedures. This pressure, coupled with an excessive litigation threat, is causing a numbers crisis in the obstetrics field.
Dr. Robert Walley, founder of MaterCare International, said that he had no idea how much of an effect legalized abortion would have on practicing obstetricians. Walley initially practiced obstetrics in England under the National Health System but when he refused to perform abortions he was told to either switch specialties or leave. Walley chose to leave and moved to Canada where he worked as a faculty member at a new medical school. He says “They weren’t happy I had a particular view of things, and that pursued me until I retired from clinical practice last year.”http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/1961/jan/6101801
-
There are some things it would be better if you didn't know.
A British doctors group has prepared new preliminary guidelines saying women should be told there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. That’s not going over well with an organization that educates women about the link.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) has released new guidelines on The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion that say, “Women should be informed that induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer.”
The RCOG’s guidelines cite a review that says, “Failure to provide this information is a direct threat to maternal autonomy, diminishing a woman’s ability to give informed consent.”
Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer says the guidelines make it appear the British doctors are “putting their wallets ahead of their patients’ health much like tobacco executives.”
“Do they read standard medical texts at the RCOG?” she told LifeNews.com. “Increased childbearing, starting at a younger age, and increased duration of breastfeeding sharply reduce breast cancer risk. The woman choosing abortion has a greater risk than the one choosing to give birth. The loss of the protective effect is only one of three breast cancer risks associated with induced abortion.”
“Two Americans and three Australians have successfully sued their doctors for failing to warn about the risks of breast cancer and emotional harm,” said Malec. “It would serve them right at the RCOG to be sued for malpractice.”
Professor Joel Brind, an endocrinologist at Baruch College in New York, worked with several scientists on a 1996 paper published in the Journal of Epidemiol Community Health showing a “30% greater chance of developing breast cancer” for women who have induced abortions. He’s also noted that abortion has resulted in at least 300,000 cases of breast cancer causing a woman’s death in the United States since the Supreme Court allowed virtually unlimited abortion in its 1973 case.
Dozens of other studies have shown the abortion-breast cancer link and, during the last 22 months alone, four epidemiological studies and one review reported an abortion-breast cancer link. One study included National Cancer Institute branch chief Louise Brinton as co-author.
“We count nearly 50 published epidemiological studies since 1957 reporting a link. Biological and experimental studies also support it,” Malec notes.
Despite the effort to hide the abortion-breast cancer link the RCOG guidelines acknowledge a “small increase in risk of subsequent preterm birth, which increases with the number of abortions.” But Canadian researcher Brent Rooney says that is minimizing the abortion-preterm birth link and he called the RCOG’s use of the word, “small,” “the language of cover-up.”
In August, Dr. Jay Iams, a professor and vice chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Ohio State University wrote a report on caring for women prior to pre-term birth in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Iams wrote, “Contrary to common belief, population-based studies have found that elective pregnancy terminations in the first and second trimesters are associated with a very small but apparently real increase in the risk of subsequent spontaneous pre-term birth.”
In July 2006, a report from the National Academies of Science found a first-trimester abortion, the most common abortion procedure, is linked to an increasing risk of premature birth. In the report is a list of “immutable medical risk factors associated with preterm birth” and “prior first-trimester abortion” is listed third among other risk factors that increase the risk of having a subsequent premature birth.
The IOM reported that premature births before 37 weeks gestation represent 12.5 percent of all U.S. births, a 30% increase since 1981. Abortion became legally accessible in 1973 and the number of abortions peaked in the early 1980s as it became more ingrained in society.
Meanwhile, the closing date on the new guidelines from RCOG is February 26 — the date by which health officials and researchers can submit their consultations on the guidelines.
International experts on the abortion-breast cancer link have submitted their consultations saying the guidelines are flawed. They include Brind, and Patrick Carroll, a statistician and actuary from Pension and Population Research Institute in London.
-
Because of course, the prime directive is that of punishing its citizenry
Not its citizenry. The purpose of government is to govern.
LOL.....in the dictionary under redundant, it says see redundant. Nice dodge.
But you seem to be saying the main purpose of government is cradle to grave security for its citizenry.
Yea, because protection equates to cradle to grave security. :o Boy, you are indeed mastering the art of misrepresentation
-
Yea, because protection equates to cradle to grave security.
Then define your terms instead of wasting my time with your circular blather. Because Laci Peterson and her child certainly were not protected by the state. Were they?
-
My terms have been clear from the onset....protection to those who can not otherwise protect themselves. In even greater detail, protection from grave threats, be it physical or when their rights are being abused/violated. I mean, its pretty clear what my intent has been Bt. But I suppose I can understand your rhetorical flailing. I highlighted an egregious inconsistency on your part, and you went into knee jerk defensive mode, complete with the apparent obligatory semantic somersaults & misrepresentation tact.
And no need to worry about Lacy. Ignoring the fact that Lacy no longer existed, as her mind was largely no more than a bowl of neuronic dust, with squat brain activity and squat quality of life, and that the law provided the spouse with medical power of attorney, sure can't say the same of a viable unborn child now, can we. But hell, we have too many people in this country already, right Bt. Probably best to allow their murders go unchecked. Out of sight, out of mind, right?
-
Abortions are not murders.
-
I know...it's Government apparently punishing unborn children
-
My terms have been clear from the onset....protection to those who can not otherwise protect themselves. In even greater detail, protection from grave threats, be it physical or when their rights are being abused/violated. I mean, its pretty clear what my intent has been Bt. But I suppose I can understand your rhetorical flailing. I highlighted an egregious inconsistency on your part, and you went into knee jerk defensive mode, complete with the apparent obligatory semantic somersaults & misrepresentation tact.
And no need to worry about Lacy. Ignoring the fact that Lacy no longer existed, as her mind was largely no more than a bowl of neuronic dust, with squat brain activity and squat quality of life, and that the law provided the spouse with medical power of attorney, sure can't say the same of a viable unborn child now, can we. But hell, we have too many people in this country already, right Bt. Probably best to allow their murders go unchecked. Out of sight, out of mind, right?
Do you know who Laci Peterson was?
-
Isn't she the Florida woman, irrepairably brain damaged, in a constant persistive vegetative state? Lemme google really fast, perhaps I have the wrong person in mind.........Ooop, my bad, wrong person. Yea, Government sure dropped the ball on that one. Which ........ I have no idea why you've brought her up now.
Scott, I see, was charged with 2 counts of murder. OK, you're helping to reinforce my point again.
-
Isn't she the Florida woman, irrepairably brain damaged, in a constant persistive vegetative state? Lemme google really fast, perhaps I have the wrong person in mind.........Ooop, my bad, wrong person. Yea, Government sure dropped the ball on that one. Which ........ I have no idea why you've brought her up now.
Scott, I see, was charged with 2 counts of murder. OK, you're helping to reinforce my point again.
Your point was that governments role was to protect. How'd that work out for Laci and her unborn?
My point was that governments role was to govern through laws and enforce those laws.
Which is pretty much what happened to Scott Peterson.
I'm pretty sure my point was made and yours wasn't.
-
I have no idea why you've brought her up now. Scott, I see, was charged with 2 counts of murder. OK, you're helping to reinforce my point again.
Your point was that governments role was to protect. How'd that work out for Laci and her unborn?
Not quite. I've said...ALL ALONG...that a primary function is to protect its citizenry, not your misrepresenting it into some form of cradle <--> grave 24/7 security service. I even provided you, at your request, an even greater detailing of that goal. How it worked out for Laci was how it works out for most murder victims......not so good. And the fact the husband was charged with 2 counts of murder reinforces my point all the more
My point was that governments role was to govern through laws and enforce those laws.
Your point was to dodge your consistent inconsistency, using your now standard use of deflective semantics and misrepresentation of my position(s). That although you choose to accept RvW version of when an unborn child can be considered a person, vs your own determination, even then, they don't receive the protection of government.
But fear not, we've now uncovered that the primary role of Government, per Bt, is to punish, not protect, which gets you off the hook of your inconsistency......I suppose
I'm pretty sure my point was made and yours wasn't.
I'm pretty sure, quite the contrary
-
The FBI keeps statistics on how badly the Government achieves this alleged primary directive of yours that they protect its citizenry. And i would say based on that that either they are failing miserably at achieving this goal, or it wasn't the goal to begin with.
-
Being that youre insisting on characterizing my position as what its not, I guess we're done here. Remember that reference I made about misrepresenting done as a purposeful act? Minus any pending effort at misrepresenting that position, I thank you for reinforcing that point as well
-
Being that youre insisting on characterizing my position as what its not, I guess we're done here. Remember that reference I made about misrepresenting done as a purposeful act? Minus any pending effort at misrepresenting that position, I thank you for reinforcing that point as well
You certainly said governments role was to protect. I gave numerous reasons that the founders did not have that in mind when they crafted the constitution. And you really haven't disputed the points i made. From the purpose of the second amendment to their distaste for a standing army, to the FBI crime statistics that are released yearly. If their role is to protect, they have failed miserably.
-
A primary function in fact. I also referenced what the Bill of Rights, and in particular what 2nd amendment is all about. YOU, on the otherhand took it to the ludicrous notion of some 24/7 security force, not to mention that radical misrepresenting my position on the 2nd amendment as well.
I'm pretty fed up with your continued misrepresentation efforts. But I suppose, when your position on abortion has been exposed for its inconsistency, I guess we should come to expect that from you, from now on, when any position of yours has been shown to be...."shaky". That's unfortunate, given that you are one of those that sets a primary example for others to follow
-
A primary function in fact.
Could you give examples of this primary function at work.
Pearl Harbor one of your examples?
How about 9-11?
or Border Security.
I'll even settle for the article in the constitution that says that protecting citizens is the primary function of government.
-
Wes, you can list all the battles we've lost and all the terroist attacks that got thru. There are far more we could list as accomplishments, WWII in partciular, as well as terrorists attacks that were foiled. But what's the point. You're going to continue to mispresent what I've said, regardless of how many times I keep correcting you, and I'm fed up with it
-
Wes, you can list all the battles we've lost and all the terroist attacks that got thru. There are far more we could list as accomplishments, WWII in partciular, as well as terrorists attacks that were foiled. But what's the point. You're going to continue to mispresent what I've said, regardless of how many times I keep correcting you, and I'm fed up with it
oh boo hoo
Did you or did you not say the primary function of government was to protect its citizens?
Yes or NO.
Would this protection be offered around the clock or only during banking hours?
If around the clock, would this protection be offered to all citizens regardless of age?
If all citizens regardless of age, then how did i misrepresent what you said when i restated your claim to mean provide security from cradle to grave.
And who is Wes?
-
Yes, you can list all the battles we've lost and all the terrorist attacks that got thru. There are far more we could list as accomplishments, WWII in partciular, as well as terrorists attacks that were foiled. But what's the point. You're going to continue to mispresent what I've said, regardless of how many times I keep correcting you, and I'm fed up with it
Did you or did you not say the primary function of government was to protect its citizens?
Yes or NO.
Yes, for the nth time, but to correct your repetative error yet again, I said it is ONE OF THE, IF NOT THE PRIMARY FUNCTION.....and did I equate that to some federal mandate of 24/7 cradle <--> grave security,? NO. That was YOUR 6 level to Kevin Bacon misrepresentation
And who is Wes?
Wes is a typo... Yes is what was meant to be typed
-
Yes, for the nth time, but to correct your repetative error yet again, I said it is ONE OF THE, IF NOT THE PRIMARY FUNCTION.....and did I equate that to some federal mandate of 24/7 cradle <--> grave security,? NO. That was YOUR 6 level to Kevin Bacon misrepresentation
So this protection, this primary function, is only part time?
-
It is a function of government, if not the primary function. That doesn't make it some personal security agency, that surrounds each and every person with bullet proof bubble wrap, and armed escort everytime you leave your home. End of story....end of misrepresenting my position
-
It is a function of government, if not the primary function. That doesn't make it some personal security agency, that surrounds each and every person with bullet proof bubble wrap, and armed escort everytime you leave your home. End of story....end of misrepresenting my position
So Laci Petersons unborn viable child didn't qualify for protection anyways. Because when we say the governments primary function is to protect its citizens we don't mean every citizen, we mean just the ones the government can get to, as time permits. Gotcha
Geez, the post office is more ambitious than that.
-
And the misrepresentation holds no bounds. Bravo, and wonderful example for others
Sad, otherwise
-
And the misrepresentation holds no bounds. Bravo, and wonderful example for others
Sad, otherwise
Nice rebuttal.
Like calling republicans racist. Meaningless without the backup data.
-
Add deflection to misrpresentation now
-
And still no constitutional reference to back up your assertion. Must be that living breathing document school of thought.
-
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
-
So you equate defense with protection?
And you equate securing the blessings of liberty with protection.
I guess that would qualify as a liberal interpretation.
Thank goodness for the second amendment so we can throw the rascals out if they don't take this protection thing seriously.
-
I equate protection with protection. Simple as that. How the hell you think protection isn't defense & vice versa....well, perhaps ignorance? When one protects their home, they're not defending it??
-
Speaking of ignorance.
You quote the preamble to the constitution as your proof of the codification of this alleged primary function of government to protect its citizens yet the preamble has no legal significance per SCOTUS
In terms of the Preamble to the Constitution, however, Jacobson v. Massachusetts had a different effect. The Preamble does not have any legal power within the Constitution; it is an introduction to the document as a whole and does not, in and of itself, allow the exercise of any kind of legal power. This was confirmed and established in the Syllabus of the decision for Jacobson V. Massachusetts. The syllabus opened up with a statement on the fact that the Preamble did not confer any powers to the Government or to citizens, and the only power that can arise from the Constitution must come from elsewhere, not the Preamble.
http://constitution.laws.com/preamble/jacobson-v-massachusetts-1905 (http://constitution.laws.com/preamble/jacobson-v-massachusetts-1905)
So is there an article of the constitution that enumerates this power you allege?
-
Abortions are not murders.
Are too!
I think your debate skills are improveing.
-
Speaking of ignorance.
You quote the preamble to the constitution as your proof of the codification of this alleged primary function of government to protect its citizens yet the preamble has no legal significance per SCOTUS
In terms of the Preamble to the Constitution, however, Jacobson v. Massachusetts had a different effect. The Preamble does not have any legal power within the Constitution; it is an introduction to the document as a whole and does not, in and of itself, allow the exercise of any kind of legal power. This was confirmed and established in the Syllabus of the decision for Jacobson V. Massachusetts. The syllabus opened up with a statement on the fact that the Preamble did not confer any powers to the Government or to citizens, and the only power that can arise from the Constitution must come from elsewhere, not the Preamble.
http://constitution.laws.com/preamble/jacobson-v-massachusetts-1905 (http://constitution.laws.com/preamble/jacobson-v-massachusetts-1905)
So is there an article of the constitution that enumerates this power you allege?
The Preamble the the Cponstitution is the most read and best understood part in the public, this counts, it is the explanation of the purpose of the rest of the document , the rest of it gets more technical and usefull to lawyers , but the preamble helps earn the consent of the governed, this really counts.
The government does promise police protection, but not proactively in all cases!
Retroactive protection is supposed to be a deterant before the deed , and when it works it works. Too bad there is nothing we can do that will work much better. Most murders are defined and punished in State law, not federal anyway.
-
The Preamble the the Cponstitution is the most read and best understood part in the public, this counts, it is the explanation of the purpose of the rest of the document , the rest of it gets more technical and usefull to lawyers , but the preamble helps earn the consent of the governed, this really counts.
One would expect a primary function of government to be codified in one of the articles of the constitution. Not vaguely, and subject to wide interpretation, in the introduction.
-
The Preamble the the Cponstitution is the most read and best understood part in the public, this counts, it is the explanation of the purpose of the rest of the document , the rest of it gets more technical and usefull to lawyers , but the preamble helps earn the consent of the governed, this really counts.
One would expect a primary function of government to be codified in one of the articles of the constitution. Not vaguely, and subject to wide interpretation, in the introduction.
No as far as I know the broud purpose of the document and the government it establishes is the Preamble , the articles get more technical and specific , but in the articles it does not say what the point of the whole thing is as it does in the Preamble.
Laws contrary to the preamble might be perfectly workable as laws within the system , but the public support of such law could be attacked.
I think you and I took the same oath to defend the constitution, do you remember saying "except" because I don't. The statement of purpose is important even if it isn't specific enough to stand alone as law.
-
The Preamble the the Cponstitution is the most read and best understood part in the public, this counts, it is the explanation of the purpose of the rest of the document , the rest of it gets more technical and usefull to lawyers , but the preamble helps earn the consent of the governed, this really counts.
The government does promise police protection, but not proactively in all cases!
Retroactive protection is supposed to be a deterant before the deed , and when it works it works. Too bad there is nothing we can do that will work much better. Most murders are defined and punished in State law, not federal anyway.
*golf clap* Someone who actually gets it
-
No as far as I know the broud purpose of the document and the government it establishes is the Preamble , the articles get more technical and specific , but in the articles it does not say what the point of the whole thing is as it does in the Preamble.
The preamble has no legal significance per scotus. But lets say they and i am wrong.
How could any conservative with an ounce of respect for the founding fathers and their desire to protect the citizenry and promote the general welfare have the nerve to say Obamacare is unconstitutional, when the authority of the preamble clearly says it is.
-
Clearly....it doesn't. Promote is NOT Provide
-
Clearly....it doesn't. Promote is NOT Provide
And provide for the common defense is not protect individual citizens, viable or not.
-
Defense is protection....as best as the Government can provide. Especially those who can't
-
Defense is protection....as best as the Government can provide. Especially those who can't
Defense is for the sovereign nation, not its individual citizens.
-
The individual citizens is what makes up this sovereign nation. Do we want to start a laundry list of all the laws and regulations, just at the Federal level, of the government trying to "protect us"??
-
Which makes you feel safer ? Your government issued body guard or that firearm you carry?
Oh wait. You don't have a bodyguard.
-
Nor do I expect one. The Government isn't a personal security service. Then again, we've already addressed that. Circle now complete. Time to move on
-
Nor do I expect one. The Government isn't a personal security service. Then again, we've already addressed that. Circle now complete. Time to move on
Then why use that argument when it comes to the unborn?
-
Because they can't protect themselves. I, on the other hand, can protect myself. As I said, your inconsistency has been established....time to move on
-
Because they can't protect themselves. I, on the other hand, can protect myself. As I said, your inconsistency has been established....time to move on
So who protects the rights of the mother?
-
A SIG Sauer, if she so choses
-
A SIG Sauer, if she so choses
So she should shoot anyone who stands in her way of obtaining a legal abortion?
-
How is that, in any way defending herself, from physical harm, which is what the protection in question, is all about???
-
My question was who protects her rights.
So who protects the rights of the mother?
You said she does with a gun.
A SIG Sauer, if she so choses
-
If her life is not in danger, you could say the Government....which brings us back full circle to who protects the life of the unborn child, which your RvW gives us the vague designation of viability as when being considered a person......let's go with 25weeks, for a buffer
-
If her life is not in danger, you could say the Government....which brings us back full circle to who protects the life of the unborn child, which your RvW gives us the vague designation of viability as when being considered a person......let's go with 25weeks, for a buffer
The same govt that protects her rights would be responsible for protecting the life of a viable unborn.
So how do you propose they do it?
-
Danger in loss of life comes 1st
-
Danger in loss of life comes 1st
Is that your answer?
According to Scotus life begins at the point of viability.
So how do you propose they protect a viable unborn?
-
When that viable unborn child's life is being threatened. Already gave you a number...25weeks. Otherwise, let it be
-
When that viable unborn child's life is being threatened. Already gave you a number...25weeks. Otherwise, let it be
1. I never gave a number. You did.
And two: And if the doctor and the mother decide to proceed after the point of viability?
Whatcha gonna do?
-
When that viable unborn child's life is being threatened. Already gave you a number...25weeks. Otherwise, let it be
1. I never gave a number. You did.
a) I never claimed you did. I made it painfully clear I did, based on viability, so an interesting irrelevant point to bring up as any number, much less 1.
And two: And if the doctor and the mother decide to proceed after the point of viability?
Whatcha gonna do?
b) There in lies the conundrum of the current debate on abortion. Suffice to say, its not about extra large government, as you were trying to push, its about small government sticking to its constitutional guidelines, and at a minimum not supporting any agency that provides the opportunity to kill one of those viable unborn children
-
There in lies the conundrum of the current debate on abortion. Suffice to say, its not about extra large government, as you were trying to push, its about small government sticking to its constitutional guidelines, and at a minimum not supporting any agency that provides the opportunity to kill one of those viable unborn children
My posityion has been that the government has no business in the abortion business, whether legislating for or against it or funding it, just as they have no business getting involved with any other elective surgery. So it is not I who is pushing for a larger government role. I am advocating just the opposite. And it is pretty clear where you stand on that issue, based on your postings concerning whether it appropriate for the tea party folks to get in volved in conservatively driven social issues.
My understanding is that there are already laws on the books that for forbid the federal government from directly funding abortions. Are you advocating that they expand that law to defund any organization that performs abortions?
-
And my position is that the Government has a primary responsibility to protect its citizenry. NOT your ridiculous notion of a 24hr armed guard escort service, merely that it protect those who can not otherwise protect themselves from imminent injury/death. Nor does it require "big government" to do so, either
-
And my position is that the Government has a primary responsibility to protect its citizenry. NOT your ridiculous notion of a 24hr armed guard escort service, merely that it protect those who can not otherwise protect themselves from imminent injury/death. Nor does it require "big government" to do so, either
So what is your plan ?
-
b) There in lies the conundrum of the current debate on abortion. Suffice to say, its not about extra large government, as you were trying to push, its about small government sticking to its constitutional guidelines, and at a minimum not supporting any agency that provides the opportunity to kill one of those viable unborn children
-
b) There in lies the conundrum of the current debate on abortion. Suffice to say, its not about extra large government, as you were trying to push, its about small government sticking to its constitutional guidelines, and at a minimum not supporting any agency that provides the opportunity to kill one of those viable unborn children
So any hospital that accepts medicare and also performs abortions would no longer be eligible for payment for services rendered?
-
If those abortion dollars can be tracked back to the tax payer, absolutely
-
Tax payer dollars for medicare are mixed in with the abortion payments to the general operating fund.
Much like what happens with planned parenthood.
So hospitals take a hit or they don't perform legal elective surgery. Is that the plan?
-
If those abortion dollars can be tracked back to the tax payer, absolutely
-
If those abortion dollars can be tracked back to the tax payer, absolutely
is that the case with planned parenthood?
-
Since they specialize in the procedure, and openly advocate the process, I do believe that's the case
-
Since they specialize in the procedure, and openly advocate the process, I do believe that's the case
The question was whether abortion dollars are intermingled with tax dollars into some general fund. Much like medicare hospitals that also do abortions. or are they separately accounted for, at least on paper.
What is the factual truth of the situation when comparing planned parenthood to any other medical facility that receives federal funds for other purposes. Are they just a symbolic poster boy?
-
If those abortion dollars can be tracked back to the tax payer, you have your answer
-
If those abortion dollars can be tracked back to the tax payer, you have your answer
According to planned parenthood and supporters of planned parenthood is that tax dollars can not be traced back to abortions. I guess medicare/medicaid hospitals can claim the same.
So are we treating planned parenthood differently than other providers?
And are you ok with that?
-
Being that the whole argument in defunding PP was in defunding an organization that specializes in taking tax dollars and performing abortions, apparently they can be treated differently
-
Being that the whole argument in defunding PP was in defunding an organization that specializes in taking tax dollars and performing abortions, apparently they can be treated differently
The question is whether that accusation is true.
-
It would appear so, given the staunch defense of PP and the right to abortion, per RvW
-
It would appear so, given the staunch defense of PP and the right to abortion, per RvW
A defense of taxpayer funding for the other services planned parenhood provides does not make the accusations that federal dollars are paying directly for abortions true.
And least i haven't seen any evidence of that from proponents of defending.
So is it true that federal tax funds directly pay for abortions performed by plannned parenthood?
-
It would appear so, given the staunch defense of tax payer supported PP and the right to abortion, per RvW. So, what should be done at this point, is that there needs to be an accounting process put in place. No more hiding behind a "general fund".
Or, simply have those types of organizations, no longer perform the procedure, and cont to take in all the tax dollars it can
-
It would appear so, given the staunch defense of tax payer supported PP and the right to abortion, per RvW. So, what should be done at this point, is that there needs to be an accounting process put in place. No more hiding behind a "general fund".
Or, simply have those types of organizations, no longer perform the procedure, and cont to take in all the tax dollars it can
So basically the charge that the federal govertment is paying for abortions at planned parenthood is unsubstantiated.
I agree an audit would help get to the bottom of this.
Just as it would be prudent to audit any hospital that receives federal funding and also performs abortions.
-
It would appear so, given the staunch defense of tax payer supported PP and the right to abortion, per RvW. So, what should be done at this point, is that there needs to be an accounting process put in place. No more hiding behind a "general fund".
Or, simply have those types of organizations, no longer perform the procedure, and cont to take in all the tax dollars it can
So basically the charge that the federal govertment is paying for abortions at planned parenthood is unsubstantiated.
No, basically, you have an organization, that receives federal tax dollars, and prides itself in performing abortions, then hides behind a "general fund"
I agree an audit would help get to the bottom of this.
Just as it would be prudent to audit any hospital that receives federal funding and also performs abortions.
Yep
-
No, basically, you have an organization, that receives federal tax dollars, and prides itself in performing abortions, then hides behind a "general fund"
Right. But so do many medicare eligible hospitals and clinics. Are they on your list?
Do you work at one?
-
Yes and No.....and no, other medicare eligible hospitals do not pride themselves in performing abortions. Not too many of those clinics, either
-
I'm not sure what you mean by pride themselves. And i'm not sure why that "pride" would be a legitimate concern of government.
-
Openly support and advocate abortion. That's what I mean by pride themselves
-
Openly support and advocate abortion. That's what I mean by pride themselves
Could you provide a link to some website or pamphlet of theirs that shows them pushing abortion over contraception or other women's health issues?
-
I'll see what I can do, as I'm merely going on both their rhetoric, and the rhetoric of those that support PP's ability to perform abortions. Note, its not, and never has been a defense of PP's pattern of advocating contraception, adoption, of other women's health related issues, either
-
I'll see what I can do, as I'm merely going on both their rhetoric, and the rhetoric of those that support PP's ability to perform abortions. Note, its not, and never has been a defense of PP's pattern of advocating contraception, adoption, of other women's health related issues, either
Yet the funding they receive goes to contraception, adoption and other women's health related issues. The complaint was that these funds offset the cost of abortions. Would the same not apply to other multi-disciplined women's health providers?
It seems that planned parenthood is just a convenient boogeyman without proof of federally funded abortions.
-
It goes into their "general fund", and their rhetoric more than substantiates their "boogeyman" status. But by all means, let them produce documentation that proves no tax dollars are applied towards abortions
-
It goes into their "general fund", and their rhetoric more than substantiates their "boogeyman" status. But by all means, let them produce documentation that proves no tax dollars are applied towards abortions
Seems to me that the burden of proof rests with the accusers.
So whatcha got?
-
I have their rhetoric, I have their accepting of tax payer dollars, and hiding what they do within their "general fund"
-
I have their rhetoric, I have their accepting of tax payer dollars, and hiding what they do within their "general fund"
Do you?
Have you looked at their financials?
-
LOL......what do you think that whole defensive posture they applied was about?? They kept claiming that tax dollars don't pay for abortions, and that their tax payer funds go into a general fund.
I don't get you Bt. You claim to want Government out of the abortion, and the least they (the Government) can do, is to defund those organizations that perform it, and you seem to be defending even that endeavor. Your inconsistency seems to be rising to pretty high levels now, on this subject
-
LOL......what do you think that whole defensive posture they applied was about?? They kept claiming that tax dollars don't pay for abortions, and that their tax payer funds go into a general fund.
I don't get you Bt. You claim to want Government out of the abortion, and the least they (the Government) can do, is to defund those organizations that perform it, and you seem to be defending even that endeavor. Your inconsistency seems to be rising to pretty high levels now, on this subject
Perhaps my argument is too complex for you.
1. Is there proof that Planned Parenthood uses federal funds designated for other purposes to offset the cost of abortion services. Yes or no
2. Are other providers of women's health services such as hospitals and women's clinics being treated the same way that Planned Parenthood is being treated.
3 And is this unequal treatment something you approve of.
-
Apparently you missed my point of your inconsistency in an attempt to derail it.
An organization, receiving Government tax dollars, that openly and with great pride, performs abortions, yet uses the guise of a general fund to get around the wording that no tax payer dollars are used to perform abortions......you, wish to continue to defend that......to defend that Government continue to provide tax dollars, and remain in the abortion business, all the while railing the need to get out the abortion business
-
Perhaps you misunderstood my position as it does not fit on a bumper sticker.
I am lukewarm to the idea of the federal government subsidizing contraception and pap smears and any of the other non abortion related services that many organizations including planned parenthood provide.
I am against the government paying for abortions.
See the difference?
So when the so-cons advocate defunding planned parenthood, what exactly are they advocating be defunded.
If i am reading your responses correctly, you want to defund planned parenthood because you don't like their attitude.
-
If you are "against Government paying for abortions", how you can continue to defend tax payer dollars going to organizations like PP, with abortions cloaked within their general fund, is the height of inconsistency
-
If you are "against Government paying for abortions", how you can continue to defend tax payer dollars going to organizations like PP, with abortions cloaked within their general fund, is the height of inconsistency
And we know they are cloaked because?
And how is planned parenthood different than any other organization that receives medicare reimbursements while also have a division that performs abortions.
Oh yeah. You don't like their attitude.
-
Because they perform abortions, because they DO receive tax dollars, and they claim that no tax dollars are used to pay abortions
That's how we know
Unless they can demonstrate otherwise
-
I say we put a checkoff on your income taxes, so those who don't want their money to pay for abortions can say they don't, and those that think a woman has the right to an abortion can indicate that preference. Then we can get on with it and forget about this issue.
I am all for a woman having an abortion if she wants one, and it is okay if my taxes pay for it. And I do not give a hoot whether "pro life" Democrats are a myth or not.
-
Because they perform abortions, because they DO receive tax dollars, and they claim that no tax dollars are used to pay abortions
That's how we know
Unless they can demonstrate otherwise
and what information do you have that their claims about tax dollars are false.
-
The use of the "general fund"
-
The use of the "general fund"
So you can produce their financials?
-
They DON'T have a general fund? How the hell do they run their operation?
-
They DON'T have a general fund? How the hell do they run their operation?
Don' know how they do their accounting. That would be up to those who are saying they are co-mingling the funds to determine. Seems to me you are damning them without the facts to back up your claims.
-
More so, I'm using their rhetoric to damn their claims. Unless they have a completely seperate "abortion account", using tax payer dollars from their general fund is still using tax payer dollars to fund abortions
-
They DON'T have a general fund? How the hell do they run their operation?
The closest thing to a "general fund" under general accounting principles is the "petty cash" account.