Posts: 1,428
Threads: 111
Joined: Jun 2015
Mood: None
(09-12-2018, 07:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Pat pretty much said it all in his self-proclaimed thread ender. There are those of all Political leaning that cross the line. The problem is around here and nationwide folks try to paint with too broad a brush.
You don't disagree with everything Trump does and have the gall to support some of his actions? You're a Nazi, racists, white supremacist.
You support a woman's right to abort her child? You're a child killer.
The rub comes when one side tries to claim morale superiority. Beleive me, I've seen things that would case the "appalled" here to say: "I get it".
Meh
Fake news.
Definition of a child: Biologically, a child (plural: children) is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty. Wiki.
How can you abort a child once its born?
Ignorance is bliss.
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(09-12-2018, 07:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The rub comes when one side tries to claim morale superiority.
Yep
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority
Posts: 37,467
Threads: 885
Reputation:
122399
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(09-12-2018, 08:00 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Meh
Fake news.
Definition of a child: Biologically, a child (plural: children) is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty. Wiki.
How can you abort a child once its born?
Ignorance is bliss.
Missing the point I was making aside
Look at the very first definition according to Websters:
Definition of child
plural children play \ˈchil-drən, -dərn\
1 a : an unborn or recently born person
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child
What is this fake news you speak of?
Posts: 11,914
Threads: 212
Reputation:
54048
Joined: May 2015
Location: Lancaster, PA
Mood: None
(09-12-2018, 10:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yep
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority
To be fair, he didn't say moral superiority; he said moralE superiority. It's 2 different things 
Posts: 38,651
Threads: 1,704
Reputation:
55570
Joined: May 2015
Location: SW PA
Mood:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/09/13/anonymous-new-york-times-op-ed-ann-coulter-suspects-jared-kushner/1290048002/
Quote:Was Jared Kushner behind the anonymous New York Times op-ed? Ann Coulter thinks so
WASHINGTON – Controversial right-wing firebrand Ann Coulter thinks she knows who was behind the anonymous op-ed from a purported senior White House official that landed in The New York Times last week: Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump's trusted son-in-law.
Why would Ivanka Trump's husband and the father of presidential grandkids do such a thing?
"Because he and Ivanka are going to have to go back to the Upper East Side and go to the Hamptons," Coulter told the Daily Beast in an interview published Thursday. "They’re probably worried that Trump will be removed within the next few years."
She noted the timing of the op-ed, which ran after the couple went to the funeral for Sen. John McCain. It also was "right after Labor Day, so they were probably feeling wistful for the Hamptons. And the only way they can get back in is if they can say, 'Don’t worry, we’re the ones who stopped the wall.' "
Apparently, no fan of the president's son-in-law, Coulter's new book, "Resistance Is Futile! How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind," includes a hypothetical scenario where Trump has Kushner shot.
"I don’t particularly want to attack Jared, but, OK, there was 'Fire Jim Comey, it’s a great idea.' There was ‘Endorse Luther Strange, it’ll be a great idea.' There was 'Let’s start with tax cuts, because that’s what Mitch McConnell wants.' There was 'Let’s hire Anthony Scaramucci – he’s fantastic, Pops!' " she told the Daily Beast.
Quote:Apparently, no fan of the president's son-in-law, Coulter's new book, "Resistance Is Futile! How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind," includes a hypothetical scenario where Trump has Kushner shot.
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
Posts: 20,104
Threads: 160
Reputation:
54515
Joined: May 2015
Location: Cincinnati
Mood: None
(09-13-2018, 04:35 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/09/13/anonymous-new-york-times-op-ed-ann-coulter-suspects-jared-kushner/1290048002/
Well if that dirtball is the "adult in the room" it's worse than I thought. But you may have put this in the wrong thread.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
Posts: 1,428
Threads: 111
Joined: Jun 2015
Mood: None
(09-12-2018, 10:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Missing the point I was making aside
Look at the very first definition according to Websters:
Definition of child
plural children play \ˈchil-drən, -dərn\
1 a : an unborn or recently born person
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child
What is this fake news you speak of?
You left out 2A.
a : a young person especially between infancy and youth
Complete contradiction.
How can a child be unborn? Come on man.
Posts: 20,104
Threads: 160
Reputation:
54515
Joined: May 2015
Location: Cincinnati
Mood: None
(09-13-2018, 06:10 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: You left out 2A.
a : a young person especially between infancy and youth
Complete contradiction.
How can a child be unborn? Come on man.
Do you think something magic happens the minute before birth to the minute after birth? At some point, and when will be debated forever, that’s a child.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
Posts: 37,467
Threads: 885
Reputation:
122399
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(09-13-2018, 06:10 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: You left out 2A.
a : a young person especially between infancy and youth
Complete contradiction.
How can a child be unborn? Come on man.
Could be why I stated the very first definition. Didn't make it down to 2A.
I didn't dispute your assertion that child CAN refer to: a young person especially between infancy and youth.
But somehow you can dispute my assertion that a child CAN refer to: an unborn or recently born person.
Now, does that make any sense?
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(09-13-2018, 08:03 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Do you think something magic happens the minute before birth to the minute after birth? At some point, and when will be debated forever, that’s a child.
No. That is why the current law makes abortions in the third trimester illegal except for medical emergencies or to protect the life of the mother.
The woman has a right to abort the child up to the point that it can live without her. Before that it is not an individual that is entitled to rights superior to the mother. Only individuals are entitled to individual rights and a fetus that can not live without the mother is not an individual.
The discussion about "When life begins" has no bearing on the legal issue of granting individual rights. You can't take away a woman's individual right to make decisions about her own body when there is no other individual to consider.
Someday when technology advances to the point where we can remove fertilized eggs and raise them outside of the mother then we can look at changing the law. But right now the mother is the only individual to consider.
Posts: 20,104
Threads: 160
Reputation:
54515
Joined: May 2015
Location: Cincinnati
Mood: None
(09-13-2018, 09:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No. That is why the current law makes abortions in the third trimester illegal except for medical emergencies or to protect the life of the mother.
The woman has a right to abort the child up to the point that it can live without her. Before that it is not an individual that is entitled to rights superior to the mother. Only individuals are entitled to individual rights and a fetus that can not live without the mother is not an individual.
The discussion about "When life begins" has no bearing on the legal issue of granting individual rights. You can't take away a woman's individual right to make decisions about her own body when there is no other individual to consider.
Someday when technology advances to the point where we can remove fertilized eggs and raise them outside of the mother then we can look at changing the law. But right now the mother is the only individual to consider.
I wasn’t discussing the legality just his statement.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
Posts: 11,914
Threads: 212
Reputation:
54048
Joined: May 2015
Location: Lancaster, PA
Mood: None
(09-13-2018, 09:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You can't take away a woman's individual right to make decisions about her own body when there is no other individual to consider.
Yes you can. A woman can't inject her body with narcotics. A woman under certain ages cannot damage their lungs with smoking or their livers with drinking too much alcohol. A woman also cannot end her own life, legally speaking.
Posts: 37,467
Threads: 885
Reputation:
122399
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(09-13-2018, 09:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No. That is why the current law makes abortions in the third trimester illegal except for medical emergencies or to protect the life of the mother.
So I assume if the law is changed you'll support it because it's the law
The woman has a right to abort the child up to the point that it can live without her. Before that it is not an individual that is entitled to rights superior to the mother. Only individuals are entitled to individual rights and a fetus that can not live without the mother is not an individual.
A fetus can live if unmolested
The discussion about "When life begins" has no bearing on the legal issue of granting individual rights. You can't take away a woman's individual right to make decisions about her own body when there is no other individual to consider.
You mean like the other parent?
Someday when technology advances to the point where we can remove fertilized eggs and raise them outside of the mother then we can look at changing the law. But right now the mother is the only individual to consider.
Actually there are a minimum of 3 people to consider; unfortunately current law only considers one.
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(09-14-2018, 02:14 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Yes you can. A woman can't inject her body with narcotics.
A woman under certain ages cannot damage their lungs with smoking or their livers with drinking too much alcohol.
A woman also cannot end her own life, legally speaking.
1. The laws against narcotic usage are not about the user. They are about the impact on the rest of society.
2. A woman under certain age can not make the decision to have an abortion.
3. It is not against the law to commit suicide.
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(09-14-2018, 02:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Actually there are a minimum of 3 people to consider; unfortunately current law only considers one.
A man does not have a right over a woman's body.
A fetus is not an "individual" until the third trimester.
So that leaves only one individual who has rights over the woman's body.
Posts: 37,467
Threads: 885
Reputation:
122399
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(09-14-2018, 02:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: A man does not have a right over a woman's body.
A fetus is not an "individual" until the third trimester.
So that leaves only one individual who has rights over the woman's body.
But it would be cool if he had some rights regarding his unborn child wouldn't it? Isn't the child half his?
So the woman has the right to stop the child from becoming an individual. Seems kinda barbaric doesn't it?
Anywho, nobody is going to change their views on abortion. We have kicked that can down the road too many time here.
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
"So I assume if the law is changed you'll support it because it's the law."
Depends on how the law is drafted, but I assume I would. Personally I don't see the government getting into the business of raising test tube babies that no one wants, but in cases where someone else is willing to raise the baby I don't see any need to kill it.
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(09-14-2018, 02:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But it would be cool if he had some rights regarding his unborn child wouldn't it? Isn't the child half his?.
Sure. Give him a right to take the fetus when it is removed from the mother. I have no problem with that. BUt what is he going to do with an dead fetus?
(09-14-2018, 02:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So the woman has the right to stop the child from becoming an individual. Seems kind a barbaric doesn't it?
No more barbaric than taking away a womans' liberty to make her own decisions about her own body. Remember "Liberty is an inalienable right"
Posts: 11,914
Threads: 212
Reputation:
54048
Joined: May 2015
Location: Lancaster, PA
Mood: None
(09-14-2018, 02:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 1. The laws against narcotic usage are not about the user. They are about the impact on the rest of society.
2. A woman under certain age can not make the decision to have an abortion.
3. It is not against the law to commit suicide.
1. Doesn't matter. You said that we can't take away a woman's right to do whatever she wants to her body, but the fact remains that we already do.
2. For the most part, this is true, but this just reinforces my point so thanks. 
3. That's not what I've heard but I'm not going to argue.
|
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](http://media1.giphy.com/media/9EmYYw6o9cmsM/giphy.gif)
![[Image: iD1DZBbS_normal.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/598204767739981825/iD1DZBbS_normal.jpg)
