(05-14-2019, 11:34 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The Alabama state legislature has just passed the most restrictive abortion bill in the nation. It awaits the governor's signature.

-Abortions at all stages are illegal except for cases where the mother's life is at serious risk (as determined by two doctors).

-Mental or emotional health risk exceptions require two doctors confirming that the woman will likely kill herself or her child if she has the baby

-No abortions if you are raped or in cases of incest

-It's a felony for a doctor to perform an abortion, with up to 99 years in prison

(05-15-2019, 08:53 AM)GMDino Wrote: Listen, when you see your party losing on a national level and record amount of women getting elected by the other party you gotta double down when you're a white, male, republican!

Quote:(They are banking on making laws so awful that they can fight them all the way to the SC where Justice Kegger can remember that bro who knocked some chick up after a weekender and how she went away for a week and came back not pregnant 'cause "god's will" and stuff...not 'cause of abortion.  )

Quote:All seriousness aside at least it's not solely because of religious reasons and is based on hard science.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/alabama-senate-passes-nations-most-restrictive-abortion-law-which-makes-no-exceptions-for-victims-of-rape-and-incest/2019/05/14/e3022376-7665-11e9-b3f5-5673edf2d127_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2db33900bc96



I can't find the story about the official quoting bible verses in favor of the bill right now.

(05-15-2019, 03:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  I am amused about the outrage over the government taking away "rights" from many of the same people who clamor for my right to own a firearm to be severely restricted because of the actions of criminals.

(05-15-2019, 03:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think it would help you a bit if you came to the realization that the vast majority of people who are "pro life" honestly believe you are murdering a child when you get an abortion.

(05-15-2019, 07:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am amused that a law enforcement officer does not understand how public safety can create a compelling state interest to justify limiting individual rights.

Quote:Do you also find it amusing that some people are in favor of limiting your right to free speech based on the actions of criminals who incite riots?

(05-15-2019, 07:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am pretty sure everyone here clearly understands their position.

Quote:I think it would help you a bit if you came to the realization that the vast majority of people who are pro gun regulation believe that making it easy for criminals and people with zero training to buy and possess deadly weapons leads to increased violence and deaths.

(05-15-2019, 10:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Interesting that you would use this example.  See this is an example of the first amendment, the right to own a firearm is the second amendment.  I've been looking intensively and have yet to find the amendment guaranteeing the right to get an abortion.  (note this doesn't change my opinion on abortion just pointing out the absurdity of your argument)

(05-16-2019, 10:43 AM)GMDino Wrote: Just heard a guy running for special election in PA say we have to stop any new green deal and socialized medicine because it doesn't all citizens to make their own choices.

Spoiler: He's a Republican.

And he's voted for each and every abortion limiting law...and sponsored one.

"choices"

(05-15-2019, 07:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am amused that a law enforcement officer does not understand how public safety can create a compelling state interest to justify limiting individual rights.

(05-16-2019, 12:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is absurd that you would try to make this arument without reading the decision in Roe v Wadw.

(05-16-2019, 12:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Our campus police chief has Gadsden flag license plates. It's a special kind of irony.

Quote:A man who raped a 12-year-old has been awarded joint custody of her child despite being convicted of her rape and another sexual assault on a child.


The convicted rapist assaulted the girl nine years ago and she subsequently became pregnant.

A judge has given Christopher Mirasolo, 27, parenting time and joint legal custody of the eight-year-old boy after a paternity test found he was the father.

Since his conviction for the rape in 2008, Mirasolo, from Brown City, Michigan, has been convicted of another child sex assault, for which he served four years in prison.

As reported by The Detroit News, the victim is now 21-years-old and her attorney, Rebecca Kiessling, is seeking protection under the federal Rape Survivor Child Custody Act to halt his access.

The custody was granted by Judge Gregory S Ross and Mirasolo was given the victim’s address and his name added to the birth certificate, without the victim’s consent.

“This is insane,” said Ms Kiessling, who filed objections on Friday with the judge. “Nothing has been right about this since it was originally investigated.

“He was never properly charged and should still be sitting behind bars somewhere, but the system is victimising my client, who was a child herself when this all happened.”

The matters ordered by the court will be taken up at a hearing later this month.

According to Ms Kiessling, Mirarsolo forcibly raped and threatened to kill her client in September 2008.

Mirasolo was found guilty of third-degree criminal sexual conduct and sentenced to one year in jail, but only served six and half months.

In March 2010, Mirasolo committed another offence on a victim aged between 13 and 15 years olf which he served four years in prison for.

“She, her 13-year-old sister and a friend all slipped out of their house one night to meet a boy and the boy’s older friend, Mirasolo, showed up and asked if they wanted to go for a ride,” said Kiessling.

“They thought they were going to McDonald’s or somewhere.

“Instead, he tossed their cellphones away, drove to Detroit where he stole gas from a station and then drove back to Sanilac County, where he kept them captive for two days in a vacant house near a relative, finally releasing the older sister in a park.

“He threatened to kill them if they told anyone what happened.”

Mirasolo was arrested a month later, she said, when her client was pregnant.

The victim decided to keep the child as she did not want the “baby to be a victim too” and left school to live with relatives and worked to support herself.

He was sentenced to one year in prison but only served six and half months before early release to care for his sick mother.

In March 2010, Mirasolo committed a sex assault on a victim between the age of 13 and 15-years-old. He served four years with this second offence.

Barbara Yockey, Mirasolo’s attorney, said it is unclear what her client’s future involvement, if any, will be with the eight-year-old boy and declined to discuss any of his past criminal cases.

(05-16-2019, 12:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I am aware of the text of Roe v. Wade, it does nothing to contradict my argument as it is entirely based on interpretation.  The Framers were very clear about the right to free speech and the right to bear arms, they were not clear at all on abortions.  An interpretation is not the same thing as a direct statement.  Using this standard one could argue, with the same degree of validity, that abortion deprives the fetus of "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness".  Again, it's strictly interpretative.  

(05-16-2019, 12:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If he believes that abortion is the killing of a baby then there is literally zero contradiction in his actions and words.  You don't get to murder a person because of your "choice".  The man is being completely consistent.  There are far better ways to attack his position than this.

(05-16-2019, 12:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: To be fair, so is the concept of the individual right to own arms. That being a relatively new interpretation of the 2A. I don't disagree with what you're saying, but we must remember that the courts interpret the application of all of the amendments. The right to an abortion is held within the rights to liberty as well as against unreasonable searches. We don't actually have a "right to vote" expressly stated in the Constitution, either, only that we cannot have the vote withheld from us for specific reasons.

Quote:My point is that almost every one of our civil liberties is mostly interpretation, some not even taking effect until they are incorporated, some still not effective. So it's a bit disingenuous to say the individual right to own a firearm is somehow based less on interpretation than the right to an abortion.

(05-16-2019, 12:55 PM)GMDino Wrote: Sure you do.

You just have a law that says you will be punished for that choice because you killed a human being.

Quote:If he believes you should fart because it will upset god so he votes for legislation that limits where you fart...but he REALLY believes it...he's still wrong.

Quote:Consistent =/= correct.

Quote:Thanks for you input.

(05-16-2019, 01:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hence you don't get to make that choice.  But please let me know if having a semantic argument is your agenda so I can kindly cease discussing this with you.

(05-16-2019, 01:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, not allowing people to fart is analogous to not allowing people to kill each other.  Sincerely, well argued.

(05-16-2019, 01:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Absolutely.  However, when the crux of your post was pointing out, incorrectly, that this Republican man was contradicting himself consitency rather becomes the topic at hand, no?

(05-16-2019, 01:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your sarcasm would be a lot more enjoyable if you were at all good at it.

(05-16-2019, 01:35 PM)GMDino Wrote: But abortion is a choice.  A legal one.

One he would "limit" or take away completely.

"consistent"

Quote:Your "argument" was that if he sincerely believed it that abortion was murdering a human then his is consistent in saying that socialized health care takes away choices but taking away abortion choices is ok.  If he sincerely believes farting is evil his would be "consistent" to take away the your choices.

His "sincere belief" (a personal one) should not be the reason to remove someone else's rights.

Quote:No.  He wants to eliminate some choices via government but is afraid of losing others via government.  

Quote:Dude, if you only knew.

But thanks again for telling me how I was wrong.  At least you are "consistent".  

(05-16-2019, 02:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Correct a choice to kill a human being, in his opinion.




Except a legitimate argument can be made that abortion is killing a human being.  One cannot make a legitimate argument about "evil farts".





Yes, he wants to eliminate the right to, in his opinion, murder a human being.  Again, a legitimate argument, that I do not agree with, can be made that abortion does exactly that.



You're not wrong, you're just making a very poor, and inconsistent, argument.

(05-16-2019, 01:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: On this we have to 100% disagree as the right to own a firearm is expressly stated in the second amendment.  It's very black and white and is also the only amendment that definitively states that it "shall not be infringed".  There is, obviously no mention of abortion in any way shape of form in any amendment.

(05-16-2019, 02:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: Your "argument" that he is being "consistent" is based on his personal, "sincere" belief.  Which doesn't amount to a hill of beans when it comes to forcing his "belief" on other people.

Quote:To make that argument he can never be inconsistent.  He just has to really, really believe he is right.

Quote:And there's plenty of reasons he is wrong.  On both agendas.

Quote:Mucho gracias!