Pro-life and Democrat

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
(Why is Right Divider answering for ok doser?)

Because I can chime in with my own comment in these public messages. If you want to PM ok doser, feel free.

No need to, I'm sure that he'll eventually return to the thread to defend Libertarian doctrine .


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I hate to give you a 9th grade biology lessen, but without the mother, the unborn baby wouldn't develop nor survive.

Don't change the subject.

The BABY is not PART of the MOTHER'S BODY.

He or she is not only part of the mothers body, he or she is physically attached to her.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Every living thing needs a host, be it human life or even disease.

Whoop de do.

Did you know that Republican President Donald Trump signed legislation FIVE TIMES in his first 16 months as President that FULLY FUNDED THE BABY MURDERERS AT PLANNED PARENTHOOD?

Surely you must agree with me that Donald Trump is a baby murderer?

"Jump through some hoops" for me and say it.

 

[Right Divider]

He or she is not only part of the mothers body, he or she is physically attached to her.

He or she is a completely distinct person. The "attachment" does not make this NEW person "part of the mother's body".

Did you know that Republican President Donald Trump signed legislation FIVE TIMES in his first 16 months as President that FULLY FUNDED THE BABY MURDERERS AT PLANNED PARENTHOOD?

Surely you must agree with me that Donald Trump is a baby murderer?

"Jump through some hoops" for me and say it.

:dizzy:

Off on another tangent....

 

[ok doser]

that's why i ignore the weirdo

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
He or she is not only part of the mothers body, he or she is physically attached to her.

He or she is a completely distinct person. The "attachment" does not make this NEW person "part of the mother's body".

A person that wouldn't have existed without the mother's body.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Did you know that Republican President Donald Trump signed legislation FIVE TIMES in his first 16 months as President that FULLY FUNDED THE BABY MURDERERS AT PLANNED PARENTHOOD?

Surely you must agree with me that Donald Trump is a baby murderer?

"Jump through some hoops" for me and say it.

Off on another tangent....

Had Hillary Clinton been elected POTUS, she too would have signed legislation fully funding the baby murderers at Planned Parenthood the 5 times that the legislation came up in her first 16 months in office. Didn't think you Trumpeteers and Clintonites had so much in common did ja?

 

[Town Heretic]

I think it's much harder to find a Democrat who is pro-gun rights.

Not outside the fringe, though their definition/limitations would be dramatically different from your own.

I myself could vote for Democrats without any problem, if they'd only pledge to obey the law, in particular the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which is not supposed to be infringed.

But almost no one believes you should have a tank, or a functioning howitzer, dem or rep. So that's a problem right there.

Stop meddling in the gun market.

No?

The recognition, affirmation, and protection of gun rights are the only thing keeping us from where we want to be, Democrat worldviews/narratives/tropes notwithstanding.

I don't believe that's even a little true. Our system, which involves peaceful revolutions of a sort and our armed forces are what has kept our republic sound and continuing.

 

[Right Divider]

A person that wouldn't have existed without the mother's body.

That is completely irrelevant as to whether the child is a distinctly different person than his or her mother. He or she is a distinctly different person than their mother.

Had Hillary Clinton been elected POTUS, she too would have signed legislation fully funding the baby murderers at Planned Parenthood the 5 times that the legislation came up in her first 16 months in office. Didn't think you Trumpeteers and Clintonites had so much in common did ja?

I'm neither a Trumpeteer nor a Clintonite. You're always looking to attack anyone and everyone. Perhaps you should calm down and learn to talk with people.

 

[quip]

So when someone says I’m pro-life and I am a Democrat, is it true that what they are saying is, although I will not get an abortion and I will encourage members of my family not to, when it comes to voting I both encourage people across this nation to get abortions and I enable them to do so?

Pro-choice is not pro-abortion. Hence the 'choice' tag. They're not their sister's keeper.

 

[ok doser]

Pro-choice is not pro-abortion. Hence the 'choice' tag. They're not their sister's keeper.

substitute "child molestation" for "abortion"

(it's a valid substitution - abortion is the ultimate molestation of a child)

would you deny that allowing people to choose whether or not to molest their children is not supportive of the practice?

 

[quip]

substitute "child molestation" for "abortion"

Why?

(it's a valid substitution - abortion is the ultimate molestation of a child)

Flesh out the argument. Sounds rhetorically specious.

would you deny that allowing people to choose whether or not to molest their children is not supportive of the practice?

There's no practical/social application to support such a choice.

 

[Idolater]

I am curious about those who say they are pro-life and that they are a Democrat.

I think it's much harder to find a Democrat who is pro-gun rights.

Not outside the fringe, though their definition/limitations would be dramatically different from your own.

Well, Democrats' 'definition/limitations' to gun rights, is precisely that with which I was contrasting, when I said 'gun rights.' I interpret 'the right of the people to keep and bear all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,' just as the Supreme Court says, as our inalienable 'gun rights.' Democrats, do not, in or out of their fringe.

I myself could vote for Democrats without any problem, if they'd only pledge to obey the law, in particular the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which is not supposed to be infringed.

But almost no one believes you should have a tank, or a functioning howitzer, dem or rep.

There are people who do, and lawfully. Not to mention the armed forces, who even possess 'functioning' nuclear weapons. So it's not a moral matter either.

Stop meddling in the gun market.

No?

Yes. 'Shall not be infringed' means at least 'stop meddling in the gun market.' Our right to food, to clothing and shelter, to medicine; these aren't explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, with the specific prohibition against meddling, like are gun rights.

So yes, just stop: Vote NRA.

The recognition, affirmation, and protection of gun rights are the only thing keeping us from where we want to be, Democrat worldviews/narratives/tropes notwithstanding.

I don't believe that's even a little true.

We agree to disagree.

Our system, which involves peaceful revolutions of a sort and our armed forces are what has kept our republic sound and continuing.

Our armed forces pledge allegiance to the very Bill of Rights which contains 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' That's what they died/die for. The supreme law of the land.

 

[Town Heretic]

Well, Democrats' 'definition/limitations' to gun rights, is precisely that with which I was contrasting

And I think you narrow the net too much, as I suspect most Americans would object to your liberality on the point.

, when I said 'gun rights.' I interpret 'the right of the people to keep and bear all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,' just as the Supreme Court says, as our inalienable 'gun rights.'

The Court got that wrong, though they also recognize limitations you object to.

Democrats, do not, in or out of their fringe.

Again, too narrow. According to Gallop polling (link) most Americans want more gun control (67%), while those supporting the status quo declines (28%) and those wanting looser laws and repeals is the lowest and declining (4%).

 

[ok doser]

There's no practical/social application to support such a choice.

same as with abortion - autonomy, convenience, willfulness

 

[Idolater]

And I think you narrow the net too much, as I suspect most Americans would object to your liberality on the point.

It's a confused topic. It's a very grave topic, so it would be nice if it weren't so confused. Nobody is confused about unlawful killing of an innocent person with malice aforethought being 'murder,' but there are many people who equate the NRA with a 'terrorist organization.'

But there are a good number of us who don't object at all; a sizable minority, which in many counties, and even in some entire states, are a powerful majority.

The Court got that wrong

:chuckle:

Oh.

, though they also recognize limitations you object to.

Heller (2008) dealt with handguns in DC, and Miller (2010) in Chicago, both were very narrowly scoped. Caetano is the next case after those two rulings. That's where we read that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is tantamount to the right to keep and bear "all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." That was in 2016.

I think it's much harder to find a Democrat who is pro-gun rights.

Not outside the fringe, though their definition/limitations would be dramatically different from your own.

I interpret 'the right of the people to keep and bear all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,' just as the Supreme Court says, as our inalienable 'gun rights.' Democrats, do not, in or out of their fringe.

Again, too narrow.

Not at all. Narrowness or broadness isn't the issue. Straw man. Red herring. Whatever. It's not the topic.

According to Gallop polling...

I don't, really care.

 

[Town Heretic]

It's a confused topic. It's a very grave topic, so it would be nice if it weren't so confused. Nobody is confused about unlawful killing of an innocent person with malice aforethought being 'murder,' but there are many people who equate the NRA with a 'terrorist organization.'

A silly idea, though they aren't the NRA of my youth, sadly. They've lost their way.

But there are a good number of us who don't object at all; a sizable minority, which in many counties, and even in some entire states, are a powerful majority.

4% at present...so sizeable might be generous.

:chuckle:

Oh.

It happens. See: Dred Scott.

Heller (2008) dealt with handguns in DC, and Miller (2010) in Chicago, both were very narrowly scoped. Caetano is the next case after those two rulings. That's where we read that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is tantamount to the right to keep and bear "all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

It's the last part that's pure invention and a mistake.

I don't, really care.

It wouldn't do for you to care, given how little support you have in that position, but it will, over time, matter.

 

[quip]

same as with abortion - autonomy, convenience, willfulness

Why stop there....is this where your spurious correlations end? :idunno:

 

[Idolater]

A silly idea

It wouldn't do for you to treat it seriously, since those idiots who spout such 'silly' ideas are all voting the way you vote.

Stop. Vote NRA.

they aren't the NRA of my youth, sadly. They've lost their way.

Given your views on fundamental gun rights, you've no other choice, but that conclusion. Meanwhile the NRA largely (not perfectly) supports obeying the supreme law of the land, and the authorized interpretations of that law.

4% at present...so sizeable might be generous.

It'll take some time, some effort, some evangelization. Either the Supreme Court's authorized interpretation is correct, or it's not.

It happens. See: Dred Scott.

The right of the black people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I don't see the parallel. The unconstitutional Mulford Act sounds more like Dred Scott to me, being that this law targeted black people, patently infringing their right to keep and bear arms; who, just btw, are like my favorite people.

It's the last part that's pure invention and a mistake.

They sure do refer to Heller a lot, as they're inventing it. 'Curious.

It wouldn't do for you to care, given how little support you have in that position, but it will, over time, matter.

It will, when otherwise innocent people start to go 'hot,' in revolt against lawmakers who obstinately continue to have no regard for our inalienable gun rights, and the supreme law that very specifically protects them. Give me liberty or give me death, or some such.

 

[Town Heretic]

It wouldn't do for you to treat it seriously, since those idiots who spout such 'silly' ideas are all voting the way you vote.

Most Americans would agree with me that calling the NRA terrorists, instead of shils, is a silly idea. And while most Americans would agree with me that gun laws should be toughened, I doubt my particular line in the sand would be that popular.

Stop. Vote NRA.

No. They once honored the safe use of weapons. Now they're little more than a mouthpiece for gun producers. And they've wrapped congress around their middle finger where American opinion is concerned. I know you don't care about that, but congress should in a representative democracy.

Given your views on fundamental gun rights, you've no other choice, but that conclusion.

Given the sea change on policy and approach since my youth it's rationally inescapable as conclusions go.

Meanwhile the NRA largely (not perfectly) supports obeying the supreme law of the land, and the authorized interpretations of that law.

You mean they'll take what they can get until they can get more.

It'll take some time, some effort, some evangelization. Either the Supreme Court's authorized interpretation is correct, or it's not.

It isn't, but it will take the continuation of American resolve to undo that error. On the plus side, for my perspective, it's heading in that direction pretty powerfully.

I don't see the parallel.

Sure you do. You just don't want to consider it. Like public opinion.

It will, when otherwise innocent people start to go 'hot,' in revolt against lawmakers who obstinately continue to have no regard for our inalienable gun rights, and the supreme law that very specifically protects them. Give me liberty or give me death, or some such.

If they want to become criminals then let them accept the consequence of that choice.

 

[A-Scholten]

The Trump administration is trying to abolish essential government programs to help the poor - especially poor pregnant women .

Are there facts that support this?

 

[ok doser]

thehorn doesn't bother with facts

 

[Town Heretic]

Are there facts that support this?

You might find this interesting. It's an article on the thrust of Trump and cohorts in paying for the tax cuts by impacting social services and supports that directly impact children. LINK