Cedarstrip Loc: Michigan

I knew after I posted the constitutionality questions about a******n that I should have included some comments about extenuating circumstances. There are many highly emotional circumstances that can be associated with pregnancy, and make reasonable exceptions to other arguments against it.

However, Reason's argument that exceptions to a law based on extenuating circumstances invalidate the basis for the law is preposterous. Many laws have such exceptions. In most, if not all, states I can shoot someone who has broken into my house. That doesn't invalidate a law against me shooting anyone who enters my house. Good grief!

Do not assume from this that I have a hard line position on the subject. I haven't said anything about my personal position. I was responding the Chardo's comment a few posts above, "Funny how no body want's to touch my comment about how conservatives talk about freedom but want to control our sexuality". Liberals tend to dismiss the subject as trivial. I don't think its trivial and I wonder how liberals have personally resolved the questions I asked. Want to try again?

Here are the questions:
The fifth amendment says "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". I think we can reasonably conclude that a******n doesn't conform to "due process". That leaves the question of whether a fetus is a person, or at what point it becomes a person. Is it at conception, when a heartbeat begins or brain activity, or some other identifiable stage of development? If we conclude that it only becomes a person at birth, does a fetus have any prenatal rights? If so, on what basis? Is it OK to k**l a baby that survives an a******n attempt? If you can provide compelling answers to these questions maybe the country can put this issue to rest.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

So you really are an Obama liberal. The ACA law is full of anti-liberty words and issues and you can't see it at all. As for dying quietly I fully expect to do just that after Obamacare goes into effect and the Death Panels get wound out. I don't think I would want to sign anything like you want me to since I have been on Medicare over 15 years and am of an age where the government will certainly deem me worthless to society so not worth saving. Liberty!!! What will that be once Obama really gets kicked into gear?

Maybe if you could read this AP article you would like to explain to me how the health insurance mandate isn't going to make many young people want to see that law done away with. Yes, I know they don't understand what is coming but they will find out after January 1, 2014.

http://www.hutchnews.com/Todaystop/A1--health-insurance2013-03-13T16-58-51

The Progressive Patriot

Yes I am. And and old white guy on medicare to boot. Your belief in the death panels destoys any credability that you might have have, This is just scare tactics. So do you think that my pledge idea would be a fair tradeoff for people who don't have and don't want to buy insurance?

Read this...the whole thing: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/06/five-facts-about-obamacare-and-health-premiums/

And the Washinton Post said "Moving forward, the Congressional Budget Office does indeed expect insurance premiums to increase, by 5.7 percent annually. But the Affordable Care Act, again, doesn’t seem to have a lot to do with those increases. In a separate report, the CBO estimates that the health law will increase premiums in the individual market slightly more, due to those extra benefits. It says the impact on large employers is harder to predict, given all the flux in the insurance marketplace right now."

The Progressive Patriot

More good reading: http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-health-insurance-premiums.php

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

Well, at least now you're back to your uncivil self. Feel better?

There are so many things wrong with what you've written I hardly know where to start.

First, the most obvious being the typical progressive liberal strategy of name-calling when you can't debate facts. That is straight from "Rules for Radicals" and ineffective when your opponent recognizes it as nothing more than the diversion that it is.

Second, now you know how I feel about you regarding your support for a theiving murderous brutal dictator like Hugo Chavez. On a sub-note, Chavez's position on gay marriage was the same as mine, so maybe you should reconsider your opinion of him.

Third, I never said I object to gays. In fact I said I don't. That is another Alinsky tactic. To infer false beliefs on your opponent, then attack based on those. I said I object to radical gay activists because of their hyprocrisy, attempts to subvert the 1st amendment and their opposition to equal protection under the law.

Fourth, you say I advocate denying "the same rights". This is wrong on several levels. It implies that you advocate equal rights, which means you should be against special rights granted to minorities, including gays, such as h**e speech and h**e crime laws. I doubt you are against those laws, so it is you, not I, who is against equal rights.

Fifth, I already said I support civil unions which would give gay couples the same legal privileges and rights that apply to heterosexual married couples, so your claim that I advocate denying rights to gays is yet another lie. The only way that makes any sense at all is for you to claim that redefining marriage is a right. Is that your claim? Do you have any children? Are you being discriminated against because you can't marry them? Do you have a dog or cat? Are you being discriminated against because you can't marry them? Do I have a right to redefine marriage to include inanimate objects?

Lastly, the only way for you to actually debate my position is to supply a well-reasoned logical argument as to why civil unions are unacceptable, and why redefining marriage is necessary. The only mention you've made so far is "Don't give me that civil union crap" which is neither well-reasoned, logical or even an argument. Apparently you are incapable of doing that.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

Cedar,

Extenuating circumstances, like the one you described, usually depend on the intent or actions of the parties involved. In the case of a******n, I think we can all agree that the fetus, however conceived, has no ill intentions and has performed no actions other than existing. Hence, the fetus is always completely innocent. That is why I contend that extenuating circumstances don't apply.

The Progressive Patriot

First, the most obvious being the typical progressive liberal strategy of name-calling when you can't debate facts. That is straight from "Rules for Radicals" and ineffective when your opponent recognizes it as nothing more than the diversion that it is. { You have not idea how much I'm holding back, and to call you a bigot is only a statement of fact}

Second, now you know how I feel about you regarding your support for a theiving murderous brutal dictator like Hugo Chavez. On a sub-note, Chavez's position on gay marriage was the same as mine, so maybe you should reconsider your opinion of him. { OK, Chavez was a pig also}

Third, I never said I object to gays. In fact I said I don't. That is another Alinsky tactic. To infer false beliefs on your opponent, then attack based on those. I said I object to radical gay activists because of their hyprocrisy, attempts to subvert the 1st amendment and their opposition to equal protection under the law. { Who's opposed to equal protection under the law? You not against gays...just "radical gays" that want we the rest of us have? Typical anti gay tactic, turning around so that others are the victim....that itself speaks volumes about you.}

Fourth, you say I advocate denying "the same rights". This is wrong on several levels. It implies that you advocate equal rights, which means you should be against special rights granted to minorities, including gays, such as h**e speech and h**e crime laws. I doubt you are against those laws, so it is you, not I, who is against equal rights. { H**e crime laws do not treat the groups who are victimised differently. They treat the perpetrator who preys on them differently than other criminals. It treats the crime differently, because it is. When a h**e crime is commited against an individual, in reality it is commited against the whole group...so this aregument is bogus}

Fifth, I already said I support civil unions which would give gay couples the same legal privileges and rights that apply to heterosexual married couples, so your claim that I advocate denying rights to gays is yet another lie. { Not a lie pal! Read this and then tell me civil unions are the same http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html }

The only way that makes any sense at all is for you to claim that redefining marriage is a right. Is that your claim? { yes it is...you're the one who mentioned equal protection.Why are you so afraid of redefining marriage?}

Do you have any children? Are you being discriminated against because you can't marry them? Do you have a dog or cat? Are you being discriminated against because you can't marry them? Do I have a right to redefine marriage to include inanimate objects? { I won't dignify this with response}

Lastly, the only way for you to actually debate my position is to supply a well-reasoned logical argument as to why civil unions are unacceptable, and why redefining marriage is necessary. The only mention you've made so far is "Don't give me that civil union crap" which is neither well-reasoned, logical or even an argument. Apparently you are incapable of doing that.[/quote] { see above}

I will add this. You are on the wrong side of history. The tide has turned. Marriage e******y is widely reccognised as a civil right. In a decade or two, the country will look back on these times, and people like you, with the same scorn and contempt that most people now have for the r****t who fought against intergration and other rights for b****s.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Are gay activists pushing for civil unions or pure out and out marriage? You keep talking like a gay but not an activist one. They have been living with civil unions for years and then they got organized with their L**T groups and have been pushing for marriage or nothing. Am I completely wrong?

The Progressive Patriot

I assume that your addressing me OldRoy...is that your name...Roy? You might want to use the quote repy feature...makes it easier to follow

Gay activists are pushing for marriage because it's the right thing to do. Am I talking like a gay? How so?

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Why is it the right thing to do? I really don't know about that. I have read the Constitution many times and never saw anything about same sex marriage. I don't know how many of the founders were not married to women. Do you?

The Progressive Patriot

Of course you’re not going to see the words “same sex marriage” in the constitution. Actually, marriage is not in there at all. The documents brilliance is that it does not have to enumerate each and every right. Sure, it mentions a few like free speech, but it’s clear that the founders did not intend for it to be limited to those specifically enumerated rights. The brilliance of the document is that there is room for interpretation and for it to adapt to changing times and values. I believe that the high court will overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, and eventually declare that state bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional. The decision., I think, will turn on the principal of equal protection under the law. It’s not for them to find a justification for upholding same sex marriage, but rather to justify denying it to gays. So, aside from the constitutional issue what is you objection to it?

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

First, the most obvious being the typical progressive liberal strategy of name-calling when you can't debate facts. That is straight from "Rules for Radicals" and ineffective when your opponent recognizes it as nothing more than the diversion that it is. { You have not idea how much I'm holding back, and to call you a bigot is only a statement of fact} So I guess you'd call it Alinsky-lite? I've never displayed any type of bigotry ever, while you, on the other hand, do it all the time. Must be that progressive double-speak

Third, I never said I object to gays. In fact I said I don't. That is another Alinsky tactic. To infer false beliefs on your opponent, then attack based on those. I said I object to radical gay activists because of their hyprocrisy, attempts to subvert the 1st amendment and their opposition to equal protection under the law. { Who's opposed to equal protection under the law? You not against gays...just "radical gays" that want we the rest of us have? Typical anti gay tactic, turning around so that others are the victim....that itself speaks volumes about you.}The volumes it speaks is that I look at the real world and facts and form opinions based on that. You, and the rest of your groupthink progressives, impute non-existent evil motives to anyone who dares to disagree and non-existent pure motives to everybody who agrees with you.

Fourth, you say I advocate denying "the same rights". This is wrong on several levels. It implies that you advocate equal rights, which means you should be against special rights granted to minorities, including gays, such as h**e speech and h**e crime laws. I doubt you are against those laws, so it is you, not I, who is against equal rights. { H**e crime laws do not treat the groups who are victimised differently. They treat the perpetrator who preys on them differently than other criminals. It treats the crime differently, because it is. When a h**e crime is commited against an individual, in reality it is commited against the whole group...so this aregument is bogus}Are you really so stupid as to say that making the punishment for a crime worse for one group as opposed to another doesn't give special rights to the special group? You also failed to mention the dismantling of 1st amendment rights.

Fifth, I already said I support civil unions which would give gay couples the same legal privileges and rights that apply to heterosexual married couples, so your claim that I advocate denying rights to gays is yet another lie. { Not a lie pal! Read this and then tell me civil unions are the same http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html }The civil unions I support would be a federal law that would mandate three things. 1. Would allow civil unions to be recognized at the federal level. 2. Would mandate that all states grant the same rights/privileges granted at the state level to married heterosexual couples. 3. Would ban redefining marriage.

The only way that makes any sense at all is for you to claim that redefining marriage is a right. Is that your claim? { yes it is...you're the one who mentioned equal protection.Why are you so afraid of redefining marriage?}Because it is the cornerstone of the traditional family which is the cornerstone of polite civilization.

Do you have any children? Are you being discriminated against because you can't marry them? Do you have a dog or cat? Are you being discriminated against because you can't marry them? Do I have a right to redefine marriage to include inanimate objects? { I won't dignify this with response}Why not? The exact arguments can be used that are being used today for gay marriage. Further, the reason parents can't marry their own children now is to prevent inbreeding. With gay marriage legal, that would be moot if a mother married her daughter or a father married his son.

Lastly, the only way for you to actually debate my position is to supply a well-reasoned logical argument as to why civil unions are unacceptable, and why redefining marriage is necessary. The only mention you've made so far is "Don't give me that civil union crap" which is neither well-reasoned, logical or even an argument. Apparently you are incapable of doing that. { see above} ditto

I will add this. You are on the wrong side of history. The tide has turned. Marriage e******y is widely reccognised as a civil right. In a decade or two, the country will look back on these times, and people like you, with the same scorn and contempt that most people now have for the r****t who fought against intergration and other rights for b****s. I actually agree with that. I see gay marriage in this country as inevitable, and wrong. It will be one of the results from l*****ts taking control of the educational system and replacing education and critical thinking with l*****t indoctrination. The l*****t media will also play a key role. The difference between this issue and r****m is that it was progressives like you who advocated r****m because then, like now, you view yourselves as superior beings. I view r****m as lazy bigotry, because it's so easy to tell a black person from a white.

After gay marriage becomes the law of the land, what do you progressives plan to do about the unfair biological law that makes it impossible for gays to conceive a child? I expect there will be demands that the govt spend trillions to find a way to allow genetic material from both members of a gay couple to be inserted into a fetus.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

So you don't believe that the 10th Amendment is meaningful, at all. You really believe that States aren't allowed to do what their amended constitutions say. You believe that the Supreme Court can blow out the 10th with a ruling like you speak about.

Why do you want the Court to declare DOMA unconstitutional when Obama and his main law interpreter have already said that?

The Progressive Patriot

]



So you don't believe that the 10th Amendment is meaningful, at all. You really believe that States aren't allowed to do what their amended constitutions say. You believe that the Supreme Court can blow out the 10th with a ruling like you speak about.

Why do you want the Court to declare DOMA unconstitutional when Obama and his main law interpreter have already said that?[/quote]


Roy, That question indicates to me that you don't have a real good understanding of the constitution or how things work

The Progressive Patriot

{So you called me stupid for expressing an opinion on h**e crimes? You have forever forefited any moral high ground and your right to talk about civility to anyone. I think that I've got you rattled! Regardless of what your civil union would look like, if you refuse to grant the status of marriage, you are being discriminatory and therefore a BIGOT. What is the problem with marriage? Can you explain? Polite civilization. GMAFB! You are pathetic and I've had enough of you}