T1B

Jsc, I believe the true conservative position is that government has no business being involved in marriage at all.

So yes, if gays want to get hitched, have at it.

But also know that government will be getting OUT of marriage right around never.
That being the case, they have a duty to DEFINE what marriage is and is not.
SOMEONE's view of morality will always prevail.
It's what law is.


As far as abortion, Ron Paul, an O.B. doctor who delivered over 4,000 babies, has it right.
Life begins at conception.
Abortion is murder.
Protecting the life of the unborn is protecting liberty.

Did I read one of those comments wrong, or is Laura Bush into anal?

Jsc, Goldwater believed that the intent of all law should be the protection of personal liberty.

Can you understand the GROSS *just wow* moment that takes place upon hearing that in the name of "protection of one's personal liberty" people think we must allow for a citizens to be free to ... END ALL LIBERTY ... for what will be, barring highly unusal circumstances, another citizen?

If you say the fetus deserves no liberty, then I'm sorry, you are just somehow in denial of reality.



Jmo, and I won't go further with this because I don't care to get into another abortion discussion here.

I think LB trolls as Mrs. Vogel.

Laura is logical and correct. She mentioned that gay marriage would eventually be legal anyway. It's just a matter of time. I would prefer that the term marriage remain between a man and a woman and legal union be for gay, lesbian, transgender or whatever other variations "non normal" people come up with.

As far as abortion, I don't get why JSC is so for it. You seem like a good person. Really, who is FOR abortion? Laura is correct, in some cases, it's needed. Sadly. We really should put babies rights ABOVE women's rights. Men who are so one sided on either side of this issue are in the wrong.

trev wrote:Really, who is FOR abortion?

Aborting you would have been a good start.

I don't think so.

A lot of people love me.

There's a difference between being FOR abortion and being for a woman's right to CHOOSE.

But, I guess that's just to subtle to comprehend, eh?

If supporting the woman's choice is a "male" thing, then so be it. I guess.

trev wrote:I don't think so.

A lot of people love me.

I'll fix that.

-mvscal

Jsc wrote:at least until viability, the mother's interest and rights exceed those of the fetus

To think otherwise is preposterous. Placing the rights of a nonviable fetus over its mother is insane. The mother isn't merely potential life. She already has loved ones, responsibilities, hopes, dreams, etc. Hell, she also already has bills, most likely, and she's probably a tax paying citizen who's earned the right to have her needs take priority over a nonviable thing growing within her body.

The fetus has none of these things. The mother has to be prioritized over a nonviable fetus.

Jsc810 wrote: [Perhaps the best way to do that would be to enact such laws asap, allow same sex couples to marry but call it something else.

egairram?

poptart wrote:As far as abortion, Ron Paul, an O.B. doctor who delivered over 4,000 babies, has it right.
Life begins at conception.
Abortion is murder.
Protecting the life of the unborn is protecting liberty.

You're misrepresenting Mr. Paul here.

While he is indeed vehemently anti-abortion, he strongly believes it's a states' rights issue. He's very clearly on the record to that point.


JSC -- you understand conservatism about as well as you understand golf. Being conservative dictates the federal government has no business whatsoever even discussing marriage or abortion.

Jsc810 wrote:

trev wrote:
And trev, while I'm for the right to choose, it isn't like my wife and I are trying to get pregnant so that we can have another abortion. I may state it a bit differently than 88 does, but I do agree that at least until viability, the mother's interest and rights exceed those of the fetus.

Jsc. it comes down to a moral issue. I personally would put a baby's life above my own. There are a lot of moral issues you can't force upon people. Do women have the right to kill their baby? I guess they do, as long as a need is there for abortion in some cases.

Dinsdale wrote: While he is indeed vehemently anti-abortion, he strongly believes it's a states' rights issue.

Ultimate "Pass The Buck".

Make abortion a felony in one state, while having it legal in the next.

Yeah, no problem with that at all...

Let's get this figgered out quick. Rick Santorum's been itching to marry a dog for years now, poor guy.

Van wrote:potential life

Always kills me when they go to the potential term.

Smart guy, what percentage of fetuses, absent human intervention, end up being functioning ... life?


Dins, personally, Ron Paul has a 100% pro life voting record.

You're right that he wants it OUT of fed hands.
Let the states make their own policy.

If that were the case, we'd see a dramatic decrease in abortion.

Mikey wrote:a woman's right to CHOOSE.

Her choice is whether or not she wants to let an unsheathed cock spurt off in her fish pit not whether or not she wants to kill her child.

Killing her child would require due process of law per the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

poptart wrote:

Van wrote:potential life

Always kills me when they go to the potential term.

They seem to be struggling with the plain meaning of the word potential. Such pretzel like contortions of language are necessary when one adopts such a cognitively dissonant position.

Sperm cells and ova are potential life. A fetus is a living human being. That isn't even arguable to any sane, intellectually honest individual.

Jsc810 wrote:

88 wrote:I would vote against homosexual marriage because homosexuality is abnormal.

So is being left handed. So is being fat. So is being an atheist. So are a lot of things. Just because something is abnormal is not sufficient to prohibit the exercise of a fundamental right, such as marriage.

Dipshit810, homosexuality isn't comparable to being left handed, fat, or atheist. Those are quite normal conditions.

Being a faggot who enjoys taking it up the ass is not only abnormal, it's against the basic laws of nature. That trumps your 'fundamental right' to marriage claim all day, every day.

Homsexuality is a sickness and you are an ambulance chasing dumbfuck... when you're not being transported by it, that is.

Fuck you and your gay rights/abortion enabling agenda all to hell.

I cannot fathom the mind set of a person who spends their working day especially as a "late term abortionist" , errr baby killer. Imagine every day you spend killing little innocent babies who twitch and squirm and maybe even cry to try and avoid your tools of death. How can someone do that ? I can only hope some day people will look back in horror some day at what is being done.

88, it seems unnatural to you and I for a dude to jam his cock up another dude's turd baker, but then who are we to judge? If that what those two dudes want to do, then i'm not making it my business.

Toddowen wrote:

Wolfman wrote:Some day I can only hope some day people will look back some day in horror some day at what is some day being done some day.

FTFY

One 'o these days...

mvscal wrote:

Mikey wrote:a woman's right to CHOOSE.

Her choice is whether or not she wants to let an unsheathed cock spurt off in her fish pit not whether or not she wants to kill her child.

Right. because that's the only way a woman ever gets stuck with an unwanted pregnancy. 100% of the time, it was her decision.



Jesus, you're such a disingenuous clown.

Killing her child would require due process of law per the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Gotta love it when our resident conservative Libertarian tries to have it both ways. His usual battle cry is that if it's not expressly written in the Constitution then it's a nonissue, and it should revert to the choice of each state. Now, with the abortion issue, he tries to invoke the Constitution. Well, guess what? There is no language in the Constitution covering fetuses. A fetus has no constitutional rights, and a mother is not bound by the 5th Amendment in any way, shape or form regarding the potential life growing in her womb.

Yes, the potential life, because not all fetuses survive, and until that fetus can survive beyond the womb it's not an independent life.

Regardless, the mother's rights matter more, every single time.

Jesus, you're such a disingenuous clown.

He is that - and yet, at least he was not knocking up hook-nosed bitches left and right. He stuck to other men when it came to risky sexual behavior.

"Turn the other cheek"...? WTF - is the NT a gay porn rag, or what?

PSUFAN wrote:88, it seems unnatural to you and I for a dude to jam his cock up another dude's turd baker, but then who are we to judge?

You judge everyday, nincompoop.

If that what those two dudes want to do, then i'm not making it my business.

Not my business either, but don't get up in my face about it being acceptable behavior and damn sure don't be demanding the same rights and benefits as normal married folk.

Keep that shit in the closet, where it belongs.

Van wrote: Yes, the potential life, because not all fetuses survive, and until that fetus can survive beyond the womb it's not an independent life.

So it's ok to arbitrarily murder that fetus to make sure it doesn't become an independent life. That blob of tissue may have become SRV, but fuck it, it's like wiping shit off your ass.

Van wrote: Right. because that's the only way a woman ever gets stuck with an unwanted pregnancy. 100% of the time, it was her decision.

Oh, sorry. 99.95% of the time then. I'm not overly concerned about an infintesimal fraction of the total number of abortions performed.

Gotta love it when our resident conservative Libertarian tries to have it both ways. His usual battle cry is that if it's not expressly written in the Constitution then it's a nonissue, and it should revert to the choice of each state.

Uh...the Fifth Amendment is expressly written in the Constitution, you braindead fucktard.

Well, guess what? There is no language in the Constitution covering fetuses. A fetus has no constitutional rights, and a mother is not bound by the 5th Amendment in any way, shape or form regarding the potential life growing in her womb.

Couple things here. First, potential life doesn't grow, dumbfuck. Actual life grows and develops. Second, the Fifth Amendment explicitly states that, "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

A fetus is human life. It is not a frog, a monkey or a chicken. It is human and it is demonstrably alive. The developmental stage of that human life is irrelevant. A 12 month old baby is not a viable independent human life nor is an 80 year old dementia patient. According to your logic, the legal guardians of such people should be able to terminate them at will. It is their "choice" after all, right?

Abortion is not a states' rights issue.

Jsc810 wrote: The gays are not asking for a new right. They are asking for nothing more than the same right as we have enjoyed, that right has existed all along.

Denied

War Wagon wrote:

Van wrote: Yes, the potential life, because not all fetuses survive, and until that fetus can survive beyond the womb it's not an independent life.

So it's ok to arbitrarily murder that fetus to make sure it doesn't become an independent life.

Arbitrarily? No. At the discretion of its host, while it's still not a viable human being? Yes.

That blob of tissue may have become SRV, but fuck it, it's like wiping shit off your ass.

So what? It could also become Adolf Hitler, and more likely it would've become a welfare baby.

Not that any of that matters. The only thing that matters is the mother since she's the only viable human being in the equation. The fetus is only a fetus; it has no rights.

mvscal, the 5th Amendment never included a fetus as a "person" so fuck off, you robotic monkey. A fetus has zero constitutional rights. None. Nada.

Mrs. Vogel's tortured cheerio has more constitutional rights than a fetus.

The only "person" covered by the 5th Amendment is the mother. As far as the Constitution is concerned, her fetus is no different than her CD collection.

Van wrote:

mvscal wrote:Killing her child would require due process of law per the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Gotta love it when our resident conservative Libertarian tries to have it both ways. His usual battle cry is that if it's not expressly written in the Constitution then it's a nonissue, and it should revert to the choice of each state. Now, with the abortion issue, he tries to invoke the Constitution. Well, guess what? There is no language in the Constitution covering fetuses. A fetus has no constitutional rights, and a mother is not bound by the 5th Amendment in any way, shape or form regarding the potential life growing in her womb.

Right conclusion, but wrong reasoning.

The Fifth Amendment only acts as a limitation upon action by the State. There is no corresponding prohibition against such action by the individual.

So, if the state were to mandate that a woman obtain an abortion, that act would be unconstitutional. By contrast, if a woman decides on her own, or after consultation with her doctor, that her best course of action is to terminate her pregnancy, there is no constitutional issue invoked.

:?

There is no language in the Constitution covering fetuses. A fetus has no constitutional rights, and a mother is not bound by the 5th Amendment in any way, shape or form regarding the potential life growing in her womb.

Van, I did not know you were such a callous individual.

A fetus is not a person?

I guess since you have no children, you don't have any feelings for children or babies.

trev wrote:Van, I did not know you were such a callous individual.

I care about the woman. You care about her luggage. Who's being callous? You seem to think the woman is to be discounted as nothing more than a vessel for producing babies. I see her as more than that, and more important than her fetus.

A fetus is not a person?

When it's not even viable outside the womb? No, it's not. It's a fetus, not a person. Once it gets into the final trimester and the fetus begins to become viable outside the womb, then it starts to become a dicier issue. When the fetus hasn't even developed enough to be viable beyond the womb? Not a chance. It's not a person.

The mom is, though, so why are you so being so callous towards her?

I guess since you have no children, you don't have any feelings for children or babies.

My wife has a child, and she feels the same as I do. Sorry, but I value the woman more; her rights come first, and I'm hardly alone in that feeling. Plenty of people with children feel the same.

As the saying goes, if men could get pregnant, this wouldn't even be an issue. Abortions would be as easy as getting a vasectomy or an oil change.

The difference between a woman and a baby is simple. The woman needs to protect that baby.

Sorry you can't see that.

trev wrote:Van, I did not know you were such a callous individual.

A fetus is not a person?

No. Until it is able to log onto T1B and post pictures, it is NOT viable.

Van wrote:mvscal, the 5th Amendment never included a fetus as a "person"

What else is a fetus if not a person? It is a living human being by any biological standard of the term life.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:The Fifth Amendment only acts as a limitation upon action by the State. There is no corresponding prohibition against such action by the individual.

So...I can just jam a .12 gauge into your face and blow your fucking head off, right? It's an individual action.

88 wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:88, it seems unnatural to you and I for a dude to jam his cock up another dude's turd baker, but then who are we to judge? If that what those two dudes want to do, then i'm not making it my business.

I don't care what two dudes do with their junk and turd bakers. None of my business.

But if they want a law enacted that equates their decision to bugger each other exclusively to that of a man and a woman who have decided to marry, now I get to say something about it. And I think if a majority of voters in one or more states believe that such a relationship ought to be a marriage, then so be it.

So do you think that the rights of blacks should be put to a vote?