[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Of course someone should have a review of things before one spouse removes the feeding tube from the other.
Did you read all the case documents? Do you have any idea how much this was reviewed by the courts?
Zap Branigan wrote:
I would normally be happy to let the courts do their job. In Schiavo’s case the judge (conservative) basically refused to hear any further evidence after his initial finding. I had a problem with that. I also had a problem with the power grab the coingressional republicans were making.
This was the most reviewed case of its type in the history of the United States.
Politicans were way out of line and the federal government had no jursidiction what so ever. Florida’s courts went above and beyond.
…
[/quote]
The judge refused to allow any evidence. He only reviewed his previous ruling, which meant he reviewed nothing.
While Congress certainly tried to overstep it’s bounds the judge did a piss poor job.
If, by the “disintegration of moral fibre” you’re referring to abortion being legal, that does NOT affect you or your family ONE IOTA. It is OTHER PEOPLE’S business and you ought to STAY OUT OF IT. YOU believe that abortion is immoral. YOU believe that it is ending a human life. YOU are in the MINORITY in this country! Yet you INSIST on shoving your stance on this issue down our collective throats by doing everything in your power to outlaw abortion AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHER, TRULY PRESSING ISSUES. I truly believe YOU and those like you are RUINING this country. And I’m not sure I necessarily disagree with you about abortion in and of itself! I probably wouldn’t personally want to have one (or have my girlfriend have one) for the same reasons as you! Yet I’m NOT about to tear this country apart by trying to impose that on everyone else. See the difference?
You said, “. . . pro-abortion stance (masked as pro-choice) is a social problem (immoral) that must be dealt with for the betterment of our local society.” Gee, anyone smell McCarthyism or Gestapo in the air . . . ? The day I have you or people like you moralizing over what YOU will allow ME to do (and I don’t even WANT to have anything to do with committing an abortion) is the day you step over my cold, dead body. Live free or die. And STAY THE FUCK OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE’S BUSINESS.
That is really a bone-headed argument. Let me give you some examples of laws that “have you or people like you moralizing over what YOU will allow ME to do”.
Any law that outlaws murder, robbery, fraud, embezelment, etc. They are all laws based on morallity.
[/quote]
Reddog, at LEAST try to pay attention to the damn thread! Yeah, those laws are based on morality AS DEFINED BY 99.9% OF THE POPULATION. Those things are outlawed because eeeeeeeveryone agrees that they should be outlawed. 51% of people (at least) DON’T think abortion should be illegal: hence, it’s NOT illegal.
That is really a bone-headed argument. Let me give you some examples of laws that “have you or people like you moralizing over what YOU will allow ME to do”.
Any law that outlaws murder, robbery, fraud, embezelment, etc. They are all laws based on morallity.
Reddog, at LEAST try to pay attention to the damn thread! Yeah, those laws are based on morality AS DEFINED BY 99.9% OF THE POPULATION. Those things are outlawed because eeeeeeeveryone agrees that they should be outlawed. 51% of people (at least) DON’T think abortion should be illegal: hence, it’s NOT illegal.[/quote]
I’ll ask again, popular opinion decides what is wrong & right for you? If 51% of the population agreed rape was ok, then you’d be for it? You check which way the politacal wind is blowing before you say if something is immoral?
[quote]jackzepplin wrote:
Damici wrote:
The day I have you or people like you moralizing over what YOU will allow ME to do (and I don’t even WANT to have anything to do with committing an abortion) is the day you step over my cold, dead body. Live free or die. And STAY THE FUCK OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE’S BUSINESS.
Have you ever heard of the Legislative Branch of Government? It is full of people “moralizing over what YOU will allow ME to do”. It’s their job to listen to the people, and when the people begin to bring back the era of moral justice, the laws WILL change to be more representative of the will of the people. Currently, the will of the people is leaning Pro-Choice, but there is a general shift that has taken place over the last several years. Pro-Life views are catching up. People are starting to “look under the covers”, if you will, and see what Abortion really is.
Debating with people like you is pointless. As someone else pointed out, your logic contradicts itself. I can’t debate with a flip-flopper (I’ll never win). Live free, as long as your willing to let others live free (including the unborn).
Be careful with the term “cold, dead body”, because you may have to eat those words if the President is successful at cleaning up the mess that America was in.
Stick a thermometer in your ass, and I’ll gladly step over you when it reaches the appropriate temperature. As far as I’m concerned, you’re done.[/quote]
My my, Jack, you’re REALLY emotional. You can’t even keep a civil tone in a debate over an issue. That’s mighty small of you. That’s the problem with your group on this issue – you’re letting your emotions get in the way of rational thought and political discourse, because this isn’t just politics for you, it’s RELIGION. And no, I don’t necessarily mean Christianity or whatever deity you may worship, I mean that you’ve gotten SOOOOO emotionally, fervently wrapped up in your “saving people from their own wrongdoing” furor that the furious fight becomes an end in and of itself for you. Try to keep a level head so that you’re able to converse rationally.
You wrote, “when the people begin to bring back the era of moral justice, the laws WILL change to be more representative of the will of the people.” Wow, for someone in the minority, you sound AWFULLY cocksure of yourself. What makes YOU so certain? You sound like someone who is saying that their will WILL change or else you’ll MAKE IT CHANGE. Again, the people of this country do not take kindly to Gestapo types force-feeding them thought or laws.
You referred to me as a “flip-flopper,” yet I flip-flopped precisely NOWHERE, and you and anyone carefully reading this thread knows that full well. I am AGAINST having goverment interfere with a woman’s existing right to have an abortion, as YOU would like to do, and the fact that the issue has been proprely legislated by the Supreme Court, and UPHELD by them in several reviews, tells you that the system is working right, and the law (Roe) is as it should be.
You then referred to the unborn as “living.” Again: THIS – IS – YOUR – OPINION. MOST – OF – THE – COUNTRY – DOES – NOT – AGREE – WITH – YOU.
Does it not bother you in the slightest, not even a TINY bit, that candidates who are likely to be SUBLIMELY better at governing and handling almost every other major issue out there are prevented from being nominated to higher office because of this hangup you have over the abortion issue? Doesn’t that bother you at ALL?? Would it bother you more if your city was blown up by terrorists? THEN would it bother you? Would it bother you if Iran succeeded at going nuclear? THEN would it bother you? Would it bother you if we become COMPLETELY dependent on foreign oil with NO altenatives proposed for the next few decades, leaving us permanently at the mercy of the Saudis? THEN would it bother you??
These are all hypotheticals (although not unrealistic ones), obviously, but they’re tremendously valid questions. I await your answer.
[quote]Damici wrote:
I await your answer.
[/quote]
Like I said, I’m done with you. No more answers for you. You simply don’t have the ability to effectively debate anything. Anyone with a brain can see the faults in your arguments.
Anyone else want to discuss the Disaffected Republicans?
That is really a bone-headed argument. Let me give you some examples of laws that “have you or people like you moralizing over what YOU will allow ME to do”.
Any law that outlaws murder, robbery, fraud, embezelment, etc. They are all laws based on morallity.
Reddog, at LEAST try to pay attention to the damn thread! Yeah, those laws are based on morality AS DEFINED BY 99.9% OF THE POPULATION. Those things are outlawed because eeeeeeeveryone agrees that they should be outlawed. 51% of people (at least) DON’T think abortion should be illegal: hence, it’s NOT illegal.
I’ll ask again, popular opinion decides what is wrong & right for you? If 51% of the population agreed rape was ok, then you’d be for it? You check which way the politacal wind is blowing before you say if something is immoral?
[/quote]
NO, but it decides, from a pragmatic standpoint, what can and can’t be outlawed (or overturned, thereby taking away the right to do it), especially when you’re talking about such a highly emotionally charged issue that would cause national upheaval.
Oh, and 51% of the population is never going to believe that rape is ok, so we don’t have to worry about that one. Which should tell you something by comparison, by the way – it tells you that, as of now, abortion is NOT widely viewed by the overwhelming majority of the population as being in that category. Hence, your side will likely never win on this argument. Try to change people’s minds if you want – you’re welcome to do so. But I don’t think you’ll succeed. And as I mentioned previously (please read), even G.W.B. knows that it would be apocolyptic to try to overturn Roe vs. Wade with the national opinion being where it is.
[quote]jackzepplin wrote:
Damici wrote:
I await your answer.
Like I said, I’m done with you. No more answers for you. You simply don’t have the ability to effectively debate anything. Anyone with a brain can see the faults in your arguments.
Anyone else want to discuss the Disaffected Republicans?[/quote]
Wow, you just LOST, so you're running away with your tail between your legs?? YOU'RE the one who has (almost admittedly) lost the ability to debate, because you can't control your emotions. You hurled insult after insult at me while I focused on the subject matter at hand.
Oh, AND you were just hit with a question that you haven't formed a coherrent answer to in your own head. So you gave up.
Ok.
[quote]Damici wrote:
I’ll ask again, popular opinion decides what is wrong & right for you? If 51% of the population agreed rape was ok, then you’d be for it? You check which way the politacal wind is blowing before you say if something is immoral?
NO, but it decides, from a pragmatic standpoint, what can and can’t be outlawed (or overturned, thereby taking away the right to do it), especially when you’re talking about such a highly emotionally charged issue that would cause national upheaval.
[/quote]
So, if something is pragmatic and immoral, then you oppose it, but if it’s immoral but problematic, then you’re ok ignoring it? Do you stand up for anything?
[quote]Damici wrote:
jackzepplin wrote:
Damici wrote:
I await your answer.
Like I said, I’m done with you. No more answers for you. You simply don’t have the ability to effectively debate anything. Anyone with a brain can see the faults in your arguments.
Anyone else want to discuss the Disaffected Republicans?
Wow, you just LOST, so you're running away with your tail between your legs?? YOU'RE the one who has (almost admittedly) lost the ability to debate, because you can't control your emotions. You hurled insult after insult at me while I focused on the subject matter at hand.
Oh, AND you were just hit with a question that you haven't formed a coherrent answer to in your own head. So you gave up.
Ok.[/quote]
Whatever makes you sleep better at night, Pumpkin.
[quote]Damici wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Damici wrote:
Thunderbolt, the Supreme Court has upheld Roe vs. Wade on more than one occasion, even with courts that have been majority conservative. That’s why it’s still law – hello![/quote]
Roe has been upheld - you sure about the conservative majority part?
I absolutely agree, which is why I thought the Democratic Party making a pro-choice’ litmus test has been a bad idea.
You gloss over the hardest part of the abortion question - at what point do you extend rights to the child? That has nothing to do with ‘minding your own business’ - and it is a hard question for both pro-lifers and pro-choicers to answer.
First of all, aren’t anti-Bushites constantly harping that the country is divided? Secondly, we are already divided on the abortion issue in the culture wars. Roe didn’t settle anything for that. It is alive and well, evidenced by our conversation here. Overturning Roe wouldn’t disturb this fantasy of ‘peaceful waters’ you have concocted - the rift would be the same.
Be serious and quit the semantics. In your world, what else shouldn’t the Supreme Court ‘allow’? It’s not the job of the Supreme Court to decide in an abstract sense what is allowable and what is not - it is their job to defer to the Constitution to do that. If the right to abortion isn’t in the Constitution, the judges have no calling to make law accoridng to their preferences, even if they think abortion is good or bad policy. Judges are supposed to be umpires, not players.
But you’re all mixed up - you can’t separate the law from the politics.If that is my policy preference, so be it - I should have the right to campaign and try to convince others that I am right and to vote my way. But that is a completely different issue from whether or not Roe should be overturned.
By the way, while you might like the US government or state governments not to ‘intervene’ in anyone’s business, you should recognize that the governments has wide powers of ‘intervention’ whether you want them to or not. Whether they should exercise that intervention or not is a policy question. What you are arguing is whether the government should or should not intervene - the Supreme Court is only concerned with whether the government can or cannot intervene.
You can’t see the distinction.
I am fine with that - let’s put it to the test.
So, you’ll have no objection if and when the Supreme Court judges vote to overturn Roe? You’ll be content with that, right? Based on your own apprecaition for the value of how the SC vote goes?
Actually it hasn’t since 1972, when Roe was decided. When a right is discovered and announced by the Supreme Court, it ceases to be a topic eligible for democratic solution. That is why it is a judiciary, and not a legislature.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? So when my ideas are in the minority - even a slim minority that could change in one hiccup - I should abandon any ideas of trying to move the electorate in my direction?
You have embarrassed yourself. Every group is trying to legislate one thing or another. By your rationale, the Democrats - in the minority in the last Presidential election, mind you - should not go against any policy initiative set out by Bush - after all, they are 49% at best!
Right, and that is a perfectly valid opinion to consider in a legislative approach to deciding abortion.
Nonsense. The divide already exists - there will be no resource distraction.
You sure?
But you miss the point, yet again - Roe was wrongly decided, not because of whether or not abortion is a great or terrible idea, but because there is - wait for it - no constitutional right to one, and the issue should be left to the states via the 10th Amendment. Period. Overturning Roe would be a refutation of this judicial aberration only, not a position on abortion.
Let’s take this at face value - if your numbers are right, another poll in two months could say the opposite. The numbers are practically half-and-half. It could go either way. The issue is far from solidified - it is completely up for grabs. Your numbers demonstrate this.
Clearly, barring a constitutional pre-emption, an issue on which the country is this divided, strictly from a numbers point of view, is perfect for the democratic process. You seem to think that a 51% majority is an overwhelomg number - nope, it is proof that the issue is absolutely up for grans.
Fabulous. What other forms of public morality law do you want to extend that to?
Nope, I was making a rhetorical point that you weren’t prone to following you own advice.
This is plain silly - when people don’t agree with me, trying to win them over is not ‘force feeding’. It’s called democratic process, and you should consider looking into it. Minorities, assuming they are, don’t lie down and roll over. If they believe in an idea, they try and get it enacted, even against a majoritarian tide.
And Zap, it is pro-choice, not pro abortion. I am pro-choice. I don’t think I could try to get my girlfriend to have an abortion if something happened, but that’s my choice. And it should remain a choice.
…
Do you call a used car “previously enjoyed?”
When you cannot call it an abortion and feel you must hide behind the term choice, that means you know it is wrong.
You just don’t want to admit it.
Yea. Thanks alot for the valuable insight into myself. You made absolutely no point in your comment. [/quote]
And Zap, it is pro-choice, not pro abortion. I am pro-choice. I don’t think I could try to get my girlfriend to have an abortion if something happened, but that’s my choice. And it should remain a choice.
…
Do you call a used car “previously enjoyed?”
When you cannot call it an abortion and feel you must hide behind the term choice, that means you know it is wrong.
You just don’t want to admit it.
Yea. Thanks alot for the valuable insight into myself. You made absolutely no point in your comment.
Why am I not surprised you don’t understand?
Because you realize this comment was stupid?[/quote]
Whatever dude. Just because you have to call your support for aborting fetuses a “choice” doesn’t mean you have to try to drag people down to your level.
Why do you have trouble admitting you are pro-abortion? Why must you try to use misleading terminology to justify your position?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Damici wrote:
…
Oh, and 51% of the population is never going to believe that rape is ok, so we don’t have to worry about that one. …
Usually the rapist thinks it is OK and the victim rarely does so it is a 50/50 split.[/quote]
Yeah, except there are about 279,999,998 other people in our country. Hence the 99.9% figure.
[quote]Damici wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Damici wrote:
…
Oh, and 51% of the population is never going to believe that rape is ok, so we don’t have to worry about that one. …
Usually the rapist thinks it is OK and the victim rarely does so it is a 50/50 split.
Yeah, except there are about 279,999,998 other people in our country. Hence the 99.9% figure. :)[/quote]
If you buy into some of the feminist kooks beliefs all men are rapists and all penile/vaginal intercourse is rape.
Which should tell you something by comparison, by the way – it tells you that, as of now, abortion is NOT widely viewed by the overwhelming majority of the population as being in that category. Hence, your side will likely never win on this argument. Try to change people’s minds if you want – you’re welcome to do so. But I don’t think you’ll succeed. And as I mentioned previously (please read), even G.W.B. knows that it would be apocolyptic to try to overturn Roe vs. Wade with the national opinion being where it is.