does legal abortion count? Or only rights you agree with.Originally Posted by Alan
does legal abortion count? Or only rights you agree with.
I hate it when abortion comes up since the fetus is never considered to be a person. Plus, the "right" to abortion was never enshrined into the founding documents of this nation.
If you really want to know, I could go along with the "right" to abort a child if it was limited to a very specific time period, perhaps up to the first trimester because I'm not sure when that fetus becomes a separate person, but when advocates refuse to acknowledge the life they're taking at any stage of the pregnancy, I can't support them and never will. It's not that i don't agree with the mothers "right", I just think it's cancelled by her child's "rights".
Thanks for asking.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
It’s kind of funny Alan, all this chest beating about the second amendment. And what has all these firearms done for us as citizens. We’ve basically had our first and fourth amendment rights completely stripped from us without anyone so much as picking up an AR15 to protest. I challenge every gun toting American......explain to me how your gun has come in handy to beat back the oppression of the government. It hasn’t. Because the oppression isn’t defined by lead projectiles anymore. We are too busy slaughtering each other with semiautos to notice just how oppressed we are. The last people that tried to lift the boot was the Bundys and they got their ass handed to them. As long as they can sell weapon systems overseas and as long as Wayne of the NRA can make 5 million in salary a year.....All is well.
BTW, you haven’t answered.....why are we handicapping our teachers suggesting that they merely be allowed to arm themselves with a token pistol. Let’s give them some really military weapons with which to take out the terrorist. Otherwise, we are exercising our own little progressive gun control system, aren’t we?
I've never suggested we should limit anyone's ability to effectively defend themselves. You must be thinking of someone else.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Why shouldn’t any student be able to test out of a prohibition to carry also? We could teach the necessary skills and have every one in the class armed by the end of the first semester.
We used to do just that. It hasn't been that long ago that some schools taught marksmanship and gun safety with students own weapons. Personally, I'm comfortable with restricting the ownership of weapons to the age of consent, mainly because we don't do a very good job of teaching responsibility anymore. Maybe I'm just old fashioned.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
interesting answer for a conservative. I wish there was never an abortion, but if the Supreme Court decides abortion is legal, or mentally people have a right to gun ownership or a gay young man has the right to marry his male partner, who am I to Say they cannot. The thing about our founding documents though is they were written in a different time. But women have sought abortions whether legal or not since the beginning of time. Just like gun control. Could the founding fathers ever have envisioned AR15’s being sold at big box store and paid for with credit cards? Or young men entering a school full of unarmed children and shooting as many as they can? All of it was totally not in their mind when our young nation was founded. The country is totally different now, for better and for worse.
In the abortion issue, the Supreme Court simply stated that a woman's right to privacy regarding abortion must be balanced with the potentiality of life thereby eliminating a blanket prohibition. It seems we're getting farther and farther away from the balance required and you'd be hard pressed to have a politician or liberal admit that it's a necessary component. That's why we need more conservatives, to remind them.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
So that's why states like texas require medically unnecessary things like ultrasounds and surgery level abortion facilities even thought they admit that the less fancy facilities in NM are perfectly sufficient? To protect the woman's right to privacy?In the abortion issue, the Supreme Court simply stated that a woman's right to privacy regarding abortion must be balanced with the potentiality of life thereby eliminating a blanket prohibition. It seems we're getting farther and farther away from the balance required and you'd be hard pressed to have a politician or liberal admit that it's a necessary component. That's why we need more conservatives, to remind them.
Personally I don't usually wade into the abortion issue because as a man, and even moreso, a middle aged gay man, it's not my life that will be forever influenced by an unintended pregnancy. I trust the woman making the decision to have a better idea than I do of what she needs to do. I might have a different view if the right to life crowd was concerned about life beyond birth, but from what I witness, they don't. If they did CHIP wouldn't have been something held hostage until the government shutdown, not to mention the idiocy currently going on around SNAP. It used to be that people on the left wanted to micromanage the lives of poor people. Now the right has taken that to a whole new level.
Could we keep the topic to one type of child mass murder at a time, please? This thread is about killing kids with AR15s. Start another thread if you want to discuss killing kids in their mothers womb.
https://youtu.be/hXn9ZKPx6CY
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote