|
Post by colt46 on Jul 24, 2024 21:54:33 GMT -5
Congratulations Socal fan now the whole country will get California liberal policies! Open those borders even more if it’s possible! Give everyone health care illegals included, change the Supreme Court, have abortions up to 9 months like Harris wants!
|
|
Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist
Guest
|
Post by Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist on Jul 24, 2024 21:55:10 GMT -5
I don’t like anti- American talk, just like I didn’t like seeing the American flag 🇺🇸 burning today in WashingtonDC! The Palestinian flag 🇵🇸 flown in its place ! Being pro-American is accepting the first amendment of free speech as an important value. We may not like what others say, but it is American to believe that they should have the right to say what they want.
|
|
|
Post by colt46 on Jul 24, 2024 21:58:14 GMT -5
How about violence against the police today are you ok with that! Ok you can say fire 🔥 in a theater!
|
|
|
Post by colt46 on Jul 24, 2024 22:00:57 GMT -5
You have to have limits period! I should be free to walk in DC WITH OUT BEING ACCOSTED BY PROTESTERS, are they free to mess up monuments in the Capitol?
|
|
|
Post by 1 Guest on Jul 24, 2024 22:02:40 GMT -5
You have to have limits period! I should be free to walk in DC WITH OUT BEING ACCOSTED BY PROTESTERS, are they free to mess up monuments in the Capitol? It's peaceful protests! And if it gets violent, no problem, Kamala will make sure they get bailed out again.
|
|
Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist
Guest
|
Post by Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist on Jul 24, 2024 22:12:08 GMT -5
How about violence against the police today are you ok with that! Ok you can say fire 🔥 in a theater! Are you talking about verbal violence or physical violence. And yes, there are limits to what you can say including saying fire in a theater. But I think we'd have to agree that what eulenspiegel says is irritating rather than dangerous (like the fire in a theater example). The reason that the first amendment exists is to preserve freedom in a society. Imagine living in a closed-off society like North Korea, where the only speech allowed is constant praise of the government and its leaders. If you say anything negative against Kim Jung Un or other North Korean leaders or policies, you risk being shot on the spot. The first amendment preserves the rights of individuals to say what they need to against any tyrannical government. It also preserves the right for citizens to have discussions on how to overthrow that tyrannical government. The only thing more important than the first amendment is the second because it preserves the first.
|
|
Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist
Guest
|
Post by Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist on Jul 24, 2024 22:57:01 GMT -5
inconvenience or emotional discomfort or economic loss or normal levels of physical consequences are NOT grounds for self-defense Freedom and liberty allow you to do what you want, but limit you from harming others including fetuses. Assume the following scenario: You have a unique and rare blood type. Someone is sick and needs hourly transfusions of your blood type. Nobody else has this blood type and the sick guy will die for certain if he doesn't get these hourly transfusions. You gave him transfusions for a few weeks but have decided you don't want to do it any more. Questions for both of you: 1. Can the government force you to keep giving him these transfusions? 2. When you stop the transfusions and the sick guy dies, are you guilty of murder? 3. Is the withholding of your blood considered to be harming the sick guy? 1. Can the government force you to keep giving him these transfusions? The key word here is the word "force". In a perfect libertarian society, the government, nor individuals, would not allowed to force anyone to do anything, whether those actions be "good" or "bad". Libertarianism is dedicated to the idea of volunteerism. In the example you've given, for me, it is a definitive "no" to the transfusions as the use of force is required to provide them. A perfect libertarian society would depend on the healthy person to volunteer the blood to aid the sick person. As a side comment - The US constitution was written to foster liberty, and it its ideal state, we would find a government impotent in its ability to force citizens to do anything. In libertarian circles, you will find a great deal of debate when it comes to the draft and taxes. For libertarian purists, the draft is abhorrent because in the US, the constitution grants the government the power to raise and support armies (the draft). Purists also believe that the government does not have the right to tax its citizens because doing so requires the use of force. 2. When you stop the transfusions and the sick guy dies, are you guilty of murder? Whether the society is libertarian or not, the answer is no. In your example, the healthy individual had nothing to do with causing the sick person to be sick. A different argument could be made if the healthy person caused the condition of the sick person. In that case, an argument could be made that the healthy person is obligated to make the sick person whole. This is how the legal system currently works. 3. Is the withholding of your blood considered to be harming the sick guy? No. In order for the healthy person to be considered of harming the sick person, the healthy person would have had to do something to cause the sick guy to get sick in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Jul 24, 2024 23:08:48 GMT -5
An end run around maybe murder is still maybe murder. You contradict yourself. In the 1st scenario, you said that the government cannot compel someone to give their blood, even if withholding the blood would result in the death of someone else. In the 2nd scenario, the woman withholds her blood from the fetus and you call it murder. You need to make up your mind. I am consistent and logical. For me, neither is murder. No, that's like one of Asimov's robot short stories, with a robot with a weakened first law, so it would not sacrifice itself in a situation (hyperdrive development) that was more immediately harmful to robots than humans. I recall something in the story implying it could harm a human by initiating something that could cause harm with the knowledge that it could prevent it, but then under the weakened first law, simply not preventing it. It's a trick, it's a way to do something indirectly that one could not legitimately do directly. A blob is a person-to-be, it's not property, not mere tissue, not a "choice", etc. Convicted rapists should be executed, no problem with that; that would defend the choice to never engage in what causes pregnancy in the first place. But women and men are different, and cannot be treated identically in law where that difference is evident (and necessary for the continuance of the species). The consequences of reproduction do indeed fall disproportionately on the woman. That should not be equalized by "choice" that does not take into account all THREE parties (more if it's twins, triplets, etc). The father (unless a hit and run type) should have a voice, and there should be an independent advocate for the one with no voice yet.
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Jul 24, 2024 23:16:50 GMT -5
I don’t like anti- American talk, just like I didn’t like seeing the American flag 🇺🇸 burning today in WashingtonDC! The Palestinian flag 🇵🇸 flown in its place ! Being pro-American is accepting the first amendment of free speech as an important value. We may not like what others say, but it is American to believe that they should have the right to say what they want. Genocidal psychopaths go well beyond yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Their right to speech is forfeit. Even those Arab countries that advocate for the Palestinians don't want to offer them refugee status. They're notoriously troublesome and disruptive and having lived off of UN aid for so long, parasitical. I heard that from someone that grew up in Jordan.
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Jul 24, 2024 23:44:43 GMT -5
It's a trick, it's a way to do something indirectly that one could not legitimately do directly. So you admit, grudgingly, that my procedure is legal whereas the standard abortion is not. You dislike the end result although you are unable to find any illegality with the steps taken to reach that end result. I don't see the relevance of the rest of your post. I don't see how Asimov's robots or the difference between male and female are in any way related to a person's right to withhold the transfer of their blood.
|
|
|
Post by colt46 on Jul 25, 2024 7:11:05 GMT -5
Socal Fan do you have term limits for abortion or 9 months is ok for you?
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Jul 25, 2024 7:15:06 GMT -5
Socal Fan do you have term limits for abortion or 9 months is ok for you? I believe in the right to abortion through the 4th trimester.
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Jul 25, 2024 7:46:49 GMT -5
It's a trick, it's a way to do something indirectly that one could not legitimately do directly. So you admit, grudgingly, that my procedure is legal whereas the standard abortion is not. You dislike the end result although you are unable to find any illegality with the steps taken to reach that end result. I don't see the relevance of the rest of your post. I don't see how Asimov's robots or the difference between male and female are in any way related to a person's right to withhold the transfer of their blood. I'm not a lawyer. But if you take an action that has an inevitable consequence (termination of the fetus), that's different from another action specifically forbidden for causing the same consequence, whether or not that's illegal, it's corrupt. And the laws in states that severely restrict abortion should be modified to restrict ANY procedure with the equivalent outcome. The states that restrict abortion should simply define "human" to begin at something like fertilized, implanted, detectable by reasonable means (including but not limited to fetal heartbeat), and still alive (no problem removing a fetus that died naturally, which does sometimes happen); at which point, terminating a fetus is murder if it's not done to save the woman's life. That is neither dependent on religion nor extreme; the states have slightly varying definitions of the end of life, too. The similarity you suggest with forced blood donation does not exist. The difference between male and female matters because the relationship between female and unborn future (if not terminated) offspring is a total dependency that men cannot be burdened by. But it represents TWO lives, and if possible, BOTH must be preserved. That's not a choice, and be damned if it means that fetus acts a bit like a parasite until born (and frankly, afterward as well; say it doesn't after waking up every few hours to feed and clean the whiny monster, let alone years later when dealing with your typical crazed teenager). That's also why the male/female difference is relevant. Women do suffer an unequal burden since men can't get pregnant, that's reality. The evolution of life did not take our contrived notions of fairness into account, and we shouldn't attempt to impose an equality that does not exist. No sympathy; either remain celibate or use birth control if you don't want the consequences. If there is harm to what may or may not be a human, allowing that harm simply to escape the consequences of a lack of prior responsibility is nothing short of evil. Our bodies are not anyone else's property. But they're not our property either, they (and our unborn offspring) are something we have a duty to care for. PETS have more legal protection than you want pre-viable fetuses to have. A quote from C.S. Lewis's "The Screwtape Letters" (advice from a senior to a junior devil on how to corrupt humans): -- start quote -- We produce this sense of ownership not only by pride but by confusion. We teach them not to notice the different senses of the possessive pronoun – the finely graded differences that run from “my boots” through “my dog,” “my servant,” “my wife,” “my father,” “my master,” and “my country,” to “my God.” They can be taught to reduce all these senses to that of “my boots,” the “my” of ownership. Even in the nursery a child can be taught to mean by “my teddy bear,” not the old imagined recipient of affections to whom it stands in a special relation (for that is what the Enemy will teach them to mean if we are not careful), but “the bear I can pull to pieces if I like.” And at the other end of the scale, we have taught people to say “my God” in a sense not really very different from “my boots,” meaning “the God on whom I have a claim for my distinguished services and whom I exploit from the pulpit – the God I have done a corner in.” -- end quote --
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Jul 25, 2024 7:50:33 GMT -5
Socal Fan do you have term limits for abortion or 9 months is ok for you? I believe in the right to abortion through the 4th trimester. Then you should be very thankful you weren't post-birth aborted at roughly 2 1/2 months of age. There are countries where that sort of murder, although not legal, is relatively accepted. That's part of why China has too few women relative to men; unwanted girl children were left to die, given the population control rules that formerly existed. And those same rules caused the severe demographic jam they're in now, with an aging population. Rules suck, and tend to have unintended consequences. They are however, better than allowing murder.
|
|
|
Post by colt46 on Jul 25, 2024 8:17:23 GMT -5
SOCal fan ,How about after the baby is born, the former governor of Virginia said it was up to the mother after the baby was born if to kill it or not, you stance on abortion is unbelievable, I can’t believe you are for late term abortions, have you ever heard of adoption as a option or are you against that ? Abortion isn’t the only answer!
|
|