[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

No Right" is absolute , maybe I am wrong but I don't think many people would think private ownership of nuclear weapons should be allowed, likewise should abortion be available right up to birth ??

You made my point. All these posts stating 2nd amendment is absolute, must not have thought through what that means, I was pointing that out with a touch of sarcasm - nukes.

And I am sure there are some people that would agree parents should have the RIGHT to abort a fetus up to 18 years old when they kick them out of the house or abort them if they won't leave.

Even the President of the Southern Baptist Convention was in favor of permitting abortions up to quickening, then SBC started getting money from the GOP and guess what they changed their position, to life begins at conception and no abortions can be tolerated. It is all politics.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Okay, then you can have 2 muzzle loaders, since that was the definition of ARMS when the Constitution was written. Or, if you prefer, we can go the other way, since Nukes are not mentioned and certainly fall under the category of "arms" we can all legally own Nukes and not pesky regulations can prevent that.

Or we can go the other way, constitution doesn't say anything about cancer surgery - that is removing a bunch of deformed human cells which if not removed can kill you, same can be said of some embryos.

Wrong, once again...

Citizens had cannons, gun ships, AND automatic/semiautomatic weapons...

But, if you want to play silly word games, the 2A now only applies to town criers, quill and ink and set type printing, No TV, radio or internet...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

I am not trying to be argumentative...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

This also means that the unborn fetus, as a legal "person" should be considered a dependent for tax purposes. And as a dependent, a woman on welfare should be getting extra child credits while she's still pregnant. And food stamps (since it's per dependent, and not per capacity of digestive system). Health care too - social programs should be extended to the unborn, if the unborn is required to be legally considered a "person."

You mean like the free pre-natal care that is readily available?

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

You made my point. All these posts stating 2nd amendment is absolute, must not have thought through what that means, I was pointing that out with a touch of sarcasm - nukes.

Where are all of these "absolute" posts?

And I am sure there are some people that would agree parents should have the RIGHT to abort a fetus up to 18 years old when they kick them out of the house or abort them if they won't leave.

Just quit while you're behind...

Even the President of the Southern Baptist Convention was in favor of permitting abortions up to quickening, then SBC started getting money from the GOP and guess what they changed their position, to life begins at conception and no abortions can be tolerated. It is all politics.

I'd post a list of people who have "changed" their position on abortion, but it would result in another "vacation"...

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

You made my point. All these posts stating 2nd amendment is absolute, must not have thought through what that means, I was pointing that out with a touch of sarcasm - nukes.

And I am sure there are some people that would agree parents should have the RIGHT to abort a fetus up to 18 years old when they kick them out of the house or abort them if they won't leave.

Even the President of the Southern Baptist Convention was in favor of permitting abortions up to quickening, then SBC started getting money from the GOP and guess what they changed their position, to life begins at conception and no abortions can be tolerated. It is all politics.

I think you have to give due respect to both sides , people have deeply held concerns, ethics, politicians on the other hand never stop doing the political calculus as to what is best for their political future

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

I think you have to give due respect to both sides , people have deeply held concerns, ethics, politicians on the other hand never stop doing the political calculus as to what is best for their political future

I agree with you.

My brother is a retired Southern Baptist minister with a PhD in Theology (Thd). We have “interesting discussions”. But, he knows I respect true Christians.

However, I have no respect for those cafeteria Christian’s that want to convert our government into a theocracy, and don’t fool yourself into thinking that can’t happen. There are a lot of well connected people working diligently to make that happen.

[RVJim]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

I am not trying to be argumentative, but I can't tell if you think the SCOTUS was wrong or the woman in the HOV Lane.

I know you are not trying to be argumentative, I think you are genuinely curious what my thoughts are. Honestly, I don’t have an opinion on either nor do I really care. My point is that in these crazy times we live in the attorney always win no matter the outcome.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

I think you have to give due respect to both sides , people have deeply held concerns, ethics, politicians on the other hand never stop doing the political calculus as to what is best for their political future

Well here's the thing:

I respect any woman who chooses not to have an abortion if they get pregnant. They have that right to make that choice to carry their pregnancy.

If you are against abortion, then don't have one. I will respect your choice.

If you are against donating a kidney, then don't donate one. I will respect your choice.

If you are against being host to a medical experiment, where you won't know if it will kill you in 9 months or not, I will respect your choice not to allow your body to be used in such a manner.

Now it's your turn to respect my choice.

If I'm 15 and get date-raped by my 16-year-old boyfriend because he never learned that "no means no" and get pregnant, I will have an abortion. You don't have the right to tell me I can't.

If my sister needs my kidney and both of mine are healthy, I will donate mine. You don't have the right to tell me I can't.

If I want to help medical science improve on vaccines by allowing a pharmaceutical company to use me as a host for their new formula, then I will. And you have no right to tell me I can't.

I respect your choices, you respect mine. Abortion shouldn't be a legal matter at all. It shouldn't be "permitted" and it shouldn't be "prohibited." It is a medical procedure, and a private matter between the patient and physician. No one should be forced to host a growth in their body against their will, male or female.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by RVJim

I know you are not trying to be argumentative, I think you are genuinely curious what my thoughts are. Honestly, I don’t have an opinion on either nor do I really care. My point is that in these crazy times we live in the attorney always win no matter the outcome.

Yeah, it does seem that the only real winner in any court case is the lawyer. It seems we need a major reset, but I am afraid that will just result in things getting worse. I wish I had a suggestion for a fix America.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Well here's the thing:

I respect any woman who chooses not to have an abortion if they get pregnant. They have that right to make that choice to carry their pregnancy.

If you are against abortion, then don't have one. I will respect your choice.

If you are against donating a kidney, then don't donate one. I will respect your choice.

If you are against being host to a medical experiment, where you won't know if it will kill you in 9 months or not, I will respect your choice not to allow your body to be used in such a manner.

Now it's your turn to respect my choice.

If I'm 15 and get date-raped by my 16-year-old boyfriend because he never learned that "no means no" and get pregnant, I will have an abortion. You don't have the right to tell me I can't.

If my sister needs my kidney and both of mine are healthy, I will donate mine. You don't have the right to tell me I can't.

If I want to help medical science improve on vaccines by allowing a pharmaceutical company to use me as a host for their new formula, then I will. And you have no right to tell me I can't.

I respect your choices, you respect mine. Abortion shouldn't be a legal matter at all. It shouldn't be "permitted" and it shouldn't be "prohibited." It is a medical procedure, and a private matter between the patient and physician. No one should be forced to host a growth in their body against their will, male or female.

Best post so far on this thread.

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

You made my point. All these posts stating 2nd amendment is absolute, must not have thought through what that means, I was pointing that out with a touch of sarcasm - nukes.

And I am sure there are some people that would agree parents should have the RIGHT to abort a fetus up to 18 years old when they kick them out of the house or abort them if they won't leave.

Even the President of the Southern Baptist Convention was in favor of permitting abortions up to quickening, then SBC started getting money from the GOP and guess what they changed their position, to life begins at conception and no abortions can be tolerated. It is all politics.

Politician and political parties follow their supporters /constituents are influenced by their interests and has been demonstrated can be bought. The idea that a political party is buying support of a group has the tail waging the dog. Religious groups exist do to their common adherence to a moral code so you think that this group's morality, leadership ,rank and file was bought and paid for? What ever the financial interchange is/was I think that would strain cause and effect

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

Politician and political parties follow their supporters /constituents are influenced by their interests and has been demonstrated can be bought. The idea that a political party is buying support of a group has the tail waging the dog. Religious groups exist do to their common adherence to a moral code so you think that this group's morality, leadership ,rank and file was bought and paid for? What ever the financial interchange is/was I think that would strain cause and effect

First, numerous studies, show that politicians in Congress do not do what is in their constituents best interest. One study from Harvard I believe about 10 (15?) years ago, showed that Congress voted directly against the interest of their constituents around 85% of the time. And of the 15% of the time they did vote in their constituents interest it was because big money didn't care about the issues 90% of that time.

Congress, until about 10 years ago, could not care less what WE want, they voted over and over for their money bag over lords while spewing nonsense about doing what WE want. The GOP climbed in bed with the religious when their researchers showed their base was dwindling and would soon be insignificant. That decision turned into catching a tiger by the tail, and now "they" are pushing a Theocracy agenda onto the GOP and the GOP seems to not know how to tame the Tiger. Listen to some of the "ministers" (you know those that always have their hands out of TV) and how it is time to "take back" their government etc.

[Caymus]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

First, numerous studies, show that politicians in Congress do not do what is in their constituents best interest. One study from Harvard I believe about 10 (15?) years ago, showed that Congress voted directly against the interest of their constituents around 85% of the time. And of the 15% of the time they did vote in their constituents interest it was because big money didn't care about the issues 90% of that time.

Congress, until about 10 years ago, could not care less what WE want, they voted over and over for their money bag over lords while spewing nonsense about doing what WE want. The GOP climbed in bed with the religious when their researchers showed their base was dwindling and would soon be insignificant. That decision turned into catching a tiger by the tail, and now "they" are pushing a Theocracy agenda onto the GOP and the GOP seems to not know how to tame the Tiger. Listen to some of the "ministers" (you know those that always have their hands out of TV) and how it is time to "take back" their government etc.

You may find it hard to believe, but not everybody is an atheist.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

First, numerous studies, show that politicians in Congress do not do what is in their constituents best interest. One study from Harvard I believe about 10 (15?) years ago, showed that Congress voted directly against the interest of their constituents around 85% of the time. And of the 15% of the time they did vote in their constituents interest it was because big money didn't care about the issues 90% of that time.

Congress, until about 10 years ago, could not care less what WE want, they voted over and over for their money bag over lords while spewing nonsense about doing what WE want. The GOP climbed in bed with the religious when their researchers showed their base was dwindling and would soon be insignificant. That decision turned into catching a tiger by the tail, and now "they" are pushing a Theocracy agenda onto the GOP and the GOP seems to not know how to tame the Tiger. Listen to some of the "ministers" (you know those that always have their hands out of TV) and how it is time to "take back" their government etc.

You just can't stop with the political posts...