Even so, I'm sure he meant the 10th.Stubbee wrote:
I am familiar with the eleventh, but thanks.
I recommend the 1st.
DesertFox- wrote:
Even so, I'm sure he meant the 10th.Stubbee wrote:
I am familiar with the eleventh, but thanks.
I recommend the 1st.
k
Extra Medium wrote:
the laws and policies should follow what the majority wants.
So if the majority bans things you don't like thats great, if the majority bans things you like they shouldn't be allowed to because freedom.If the majority of a people wanted to ban guns in a state, they would not be able to fully do it because the bill of rights protects it, just as the bill of rights protects you from being a slave. States are free however to make guns as restrictive and hard to get as they please so long as they don't outright ban them.
'murica
Fuck Israel
The majority banned abortion in texas. I dont like that. But i still have to respect it. If the majority banned guns, i wouldnt like it. I would at least respect it and move to somewhere i could own a firearm.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
And replace it with what?Uzique The Lesser wrote:
i recommend burning that old piece of shit and leaving the middle ages
The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'
How is that at all what I'm saying?Dilbert_X wrote:
Extra Medium wrote:
the laws and policies should follow what the majority wants.So if the majority bans things you don't like thats great, if the majority bans things you like they shouldn't be allowed to because freedom.If the majority of a people wanted to ban guns in a state, they would not be able to fully do it because the bill of rights protects it, just as the bill of rights protects you from being a slave. States are free however to make guns as restrictive and hard to get as they please so long as they don't outright ban them.
'murica
There is no section in the bill of rights that protects abortion. There is however, one that very clearly protects guns.
Have you ever once heard me bitch about the massive gun control laws in New York or California? Have you heard me bitch about gay marriage being legal in Maine? No. If that is what they want, more power to them. If Texas doesn't want abortion, good on them. If Michigan came out tomorrow and voted for free abortions for everyone, I wouldn't agree with it but I would respect their wishes.
The issue I have is people in Connecticut or California or New York or Illinois saying they don't like guns, don't want guns and we should ban guns and then trying to push it on a national level. If they don't want guns then fucking restrict the hell out of them in your own state and leave mine out of it.
According to wikiExtra Medium wrote:
How is that at all what I'm saying?Dilbert_X wrote:
Extra Medium wrote:
the laws and policies should follow what the majority wants.So if the majority bans things you don't like thats great, if the majority bans things you like they shouldn't be allowed to because freedom.If the majority of a people wanted to ban guns in a state, they would not be able to fully do it because the bill of rights protects it, just as the bill of rights protects you from being a slave. States are free however to make guns as restrictive and hard to get as they please so long as they don't outright ban them.
'murica
There is no section in the bill of rights that protects abortion. There is however, one that very clearly protects guns.
Have you ever once heard me bitch about the massive gun control laws in New York or California? Have you heard me bitch about gay marriage being legal in Maine? No. If that is what they want, more power to them. If Texas doesn't want abortion, good on them. If Michigan came out tomorrow and voted for free abortions for everyone, I wouldn't agree with it but I would respect their wishes.
The issue I have is people in Connecticut or California or New York or Illinois saying they don't like guns, don't want guns and we should ban guns and then trying to push it on a national level. If they don't want guns then fucking restrict the hell out of them in your own state and leave mine out of it.
Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion
boom 14th amendment
Don't leave off the last part of that sentence, you're better than that:
the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women's health.
Texas didn't outright try to ban abortion, they simply tried to regulate it to the point it was no longer plausible or accessible.
As in context to my point that the bill of rights doesn't outright protect abortion, it doesn't.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Very clearly protecting guns.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Abortion is where? It's literally up to interpretation. It just so happened the court was leaning liberally when the case was brought forth. Also, if an abortion is considered "depriving someone of life" then I don't know what the fuck is.
One states it's purpose outright, the other was shoehorned in by someone using a play on words being interpreted by a pro-abortion court.
Definitively the same thing.
the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women's health.
Texas didn't outright try to ban abortion, they simply tried to regulate it to the point it was no longer plausible or accessible.
As in context to my point that the bill of rights doesn't outright protect abortion, it doesn't.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Very clearly protecting guns.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Abortion is where? It's literally up to interpretation. It just so happened the court was leaning liberally when the case was brought forth. Also, if an abortion is considered "depriving someone of life" then I don't know what the fuck is.
One states it's purpose outright, the other was shoehorned in by someone using a play on words being interpreted by a pro-abortion court.
Definitively the same thing.
oh i dunno, what every other functioning democracy uses? i hope you reallize there are many countries without a constitution that still have human rights.Stubbee wrote:
And replace it with what?Uzique The Lesser wrote:
i recommend burning that old piece of shit and leaving the middle ages
It's funny how Republicans are against regulation of any kind unless it's in their own moral and personal interests.
no government regulation! but please enforce a church morality!Jaekus wrote:
It's funny how Republicans are against regulation of any kind unless it's in their own moral and personal interests.
Right, lets charge women who get abortions with murder. Life in prison, or maybe even the death penalty. That makes so much sense, and is proportional to the amount of damage done to society.Extra Medium wrote:
It just so happened the court was leaning liberally when the case was brought forth. Also, if an abortion is considered "depriving someone of life" then I don't know what the fuck is.
ok buddy
"also, if an abortion is considered 'depriving someone of life' then i don't know what the fuck is"
pardoning the atrocious grammar, as usual, where i assume you meant "if an abortion ISN'T considered...", i still have an answer for you: homicide is considered depriving someone of their life. you know, that act where you kill someone else, and they die. that's it. it's that. have a little think.
pardoning the atrocious grammar, as usual, where i assume you meant "if an abortion ISN'T considered...", i still have an answer for you: homicide is considered depriving someone of their life. you know, that act where you kill someone else, and they die. that's it. it's that. have a little think.
Because regulation of a piece of metal that projects pieces of metal is tyranny, whereas regulation over the right for women to choose what they do with their own bodies is fine.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
no government regulation! but please enforce a church morality!Jaekus wrote:
It's funny how Republicans are against regulation of any kind unless it's in their own moral and personal interests.
I'm 1000 percent sure that if EM was a woman he would have a different opinion. It has nothing to do with god, and everything to do with white males in their 40s wanting to prevent their daughters from sleeping around.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
"also, if an abortion is considered 'depriving someone of life' then i don't know what the fuck is"
pardoning the atrocious grammar, as usual, where i assume you meant "if an abortion ISN'T considered...", i still have an answer for you: homicide is considered depriving someone of their life. you know, that act where you kill someone else, and they die. that's it. it's that. have a little think.
at university all the posh girls with concerned daddies would be the ones who slept around the most. basic psychology. girls who grow up with protective fathers who treat them as too precious end up becoming mega-sluts, wanting to fill the daddy-sized void with as many young cocks as possible. that 'topic' doesn't even touch upon abortion though. girls use contraception here. if they don't regularly use the pill in texas, then god help 'em. abortion should never be mentioned directly in debates about teenage promiscuity. contraception is cheap and easy to get it. hell, you even have morning after pills for those rare emergency situations. i've had a few scares in my life and i have never allowed it to go to the sort of stage where you have to think about an abortion (not that i would want to limit or prohibit others' ability to get such treatment). if EM is worried about his daughter, maybe he should stop trying to limit what treatment is available to other people, and should take his teen-slut down to a clinic to get some contraceptive pills, or an implant.
Well the usual fundamentalist right wing line of thought is "only have sex after youre married, don't use condoms, and abortion is murder". It 's almost always a complete package, with each part going hand in hand with the other. Abortion is seen as a an excuse to have pre-marital sex, and government provided contraception is a big no no. Again, the feminist argument is that it's not really about the "innocent life being killed", its just one part of a larger system of controlling women.
Last edited by Spearhead (2013-07-06 06:41:48)
yeah, i get that. they bring it on themselves. didn't rick perry talk about coitus interruptus "just working". what a fucking tool. running texas like ethiopia or something. promote contraceptives and the abortion issue disappears in all but the worst cases of medical emergency, rape, mistreatment, the rarest accident, etc. in which case, it's ordinarily a much more clear cut thing - unless you're so nuts that you'd genuinely wish a rape victim to raise a changeling, or for a mother to die of health complications. in which case: back to the old testament with you.
That's actually one of the controversial parts of the healthcare reform that passed, government provided contraception. You'd think it'd just be standard procedure in women's healthcare... but nope.
first world superpower.
There's a way we could quite easily get the right on board with women's health issues. Since they lifted that ban on having women in front-line combat roles, just say it's necessary for defense. Billions of dollars will be thrown that way in no time.
- globefish23
- sophisticated slacker
- +334|6541|Graz, Austria
In no time the military–industrial complex would have developed drones that allowed doctors to remotely perform abortions on female front line soldiers.DesertFox- wrote:
just say it's necessary for defense. Billions of dollars will be thrown that way in no time.
A few accidental abortions on local civilian women here and there, but that wouldn't matter much (unless some whistle-blower revelead some 'utero-leaks').
Safe medical abortion didn't exist back then, so it wouldn't have occurred to them, thats the problem with relying on a document written hundreds of years ago to govern in the modern world.Extra Medium wrote:
There is no section in the bill of rights that protects abortion.
That and the writers of the constitution weren't so enlightened they thought it worthwhile to let women vote, they probably wouldn't have given much thought to any other rights.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-07-06 21:56:25)
Fuck Israel
doesn't really help when there are many states that have abstinence only education. GG merika.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
yeah, i get that. they bring it on themselves. didn't rick perry talk about coitus interruptus "just working". what a fucking tool. running texas like ethiopia or something. promote contraceptives and the abortion issue disappears in all but the worst cases of medical emergency, rape, mistreatment, the rarest accident, etc. in which case, it's ordinarily a much more clear cut thing - unless you're so nuts that you'd genuinely wish a rape victim to raise a changeling, or for a mother to die of health complications. in which case: back to the old testament with you.