Cartoon of the week
The drawing says it all. A Viable candidate for life is depicted but denied rights that something as common as an auto accident or not having it's brains sliced and diced as the head emerges depicts. Harking back to my Vietnam years it drum rolls in the background "Now who are the real baby killers?"
Happily the Courts agreed some years ago and stopped such barbaric acts limiting, which i agree fully with, abortion to the pre viability stage and turned their back on how to fit a prom dress as a reason to commit murder.
Fetus stage is roughly 2 trimesters or six months...Viable citizen with the right to be protected is somewhere in the third trimester. It's a medical decision and a human and civil rights decision in most cases.
Execution at that point requires lawyers, juries and the other trappings of a civilized society.
Her support of that alone should be Hillary 'Waddles' Clintonite's last gasp. What about the babies right to choose? What about the husband's right to choose?
Assuming Obama doesn't declare babies the subject of his 'suspicion of' version of our now defunct Bill of Rights.
Happily the Courts agreed some years ago and stopped such barbaric acts limiting, which i agree fully with, abortion to the pre viability stage and turned their back on how to fit a prom dress as a reason to commit murder.
Fetus stage is roughly 2 trimesters or six months...Viable citizen with the right to be protected is somewhere in the third trimester. It's a medical decision and a human and civil rights decision in most cases.
Execution at that point requires lawyers, juries and the other trappings of a civilized society.
Her support of that alone should be Hillary 'Waddles' Clintonite's last gasp. What about the babies right to choose? What about the husband's right to choose?
Assuming Obama doesn't declare babies the subject of his 'suspicion of' version of our now defunct Bill of Rights.
Your knowledge
And I revere the constitution
To support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic; to obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over me. I take this oath with no purposes of evasion.
A President if he or she turns against the Constitution is disregarded, officers means uniformed officers and that means comissioned, non-commissioned or warrant officers, and without evasion leaves no 'out' as does the Presidential version with it's ' best of my ability '
Useful only if the military remains loyal and if the military having been treated despicably by the nation has not learned to despise the county and it's population. Which might well apply these days.
The intent is preserve and defend and turn the reins of government back over to a duly elected civilian government and implicit or implied action.
Which is why all dictatorships including our present government install a counter measure known as the protective echelon and in Obama's case state he wishes to build that element to be equal or greater in power than the military..
Protective Echelon in Germam os Schutz Staffel. the Department of Internal State Security or in the current USA the Department of Homeland Security or Internal Security DHS or DIS the pun there is it's purpose is to DIS-respect the citizens and the Constitution and defend specific leaders.
The way around that is to get the military to take action against the citizens one way or another and thus divert or suborn their primary loyalty.
During the Carter years military takeover was openly discussed in the military the end thought was as long as their is a Constitution we do not act but after the events of Dec 31st last I suspect the military has decided the country isn't worth the effort the provocation is certainly present.
One never knows nor should one ever know if such is boing to go into effect or at one point but at this point in time it would be a legal counter-revolution. To my mind a legal and required action by the military in upholding that oath.
I certainly would not shirk my duty should such come to pass. For those not in nor never have been in the military stand aside and don't get in the way. You time had come and gone it's no longer your concern.
upholding their oath of office
to defend the constitution from
enemies foreign
or domestic.
Who decides and how and
when to act.
Like sitting on hands.
Apparently mdant is gone, and good riddance. It is worse when a mentality like that proclaims himself to be "Objectivist", zealously misrepresenting it without knowing the difference, then after some period of time blowing off in another direction blaming Ayn Rand for being what she never was.
They don't know what rights are and why we have them; rights to them are floating abstractions subjectively attributed to cells as a mystical, intrinsic property of entitlement while denying the rights of the woman.
If you found something in Atlas Shrugged to be appealing to you then learn what her philosophy is that made it possible instead of insulting people with your crude ignorance and outrageous accusations and misrepresentations, screaming "faith" and "religious zealots in the House of Objectivism and the Prophet of Rand". Your posts do not meet the minimal standards of civilized discussion.
Your misrepresentations of atheism and what you claim other here believe are particularly ignorant and speculatively insulting. It is not "faith" to reject arbitrary belief in the supernatural and no "proof" is required to reject assertions containing contradictions and cognitively meaningless utterances. If you want to understand this then search for where it has been discussed at length on this forum and elsewhere. Your swaggering, ignorant pronouncements are not rational discussion and do not belong on this forum.
Religion and denial of rights of the individual for cells and fetuses are fundamentally incompatible with reason and with Ayn Rand's philosophy. You are not a "smart person" correcting anything, you don't know what Ayn Rand's philosophy is and are trying to replace it with its opposite of age-old fallacies of religious thinking while dishonestly stealing her name for it. You don't even understand how your own beliefs are profoundly influenced by conventional religious thinking.
Understanding Ayn Rand's philosophy, which you do not, is not "closed minded" and does not mean not learning and discovering knowledge Ayn Rand did not have, let alone new knowledge. We have active minds, not minds "open" to swallowing whatever conventional falsehoods anyone ignorantly peddles in any variation in the name of "corrections".
Sex is not a "consent", "contract", or "agreement" to bear a child nine months later after a complex process. No person has been created unit birth. Before that, from primitive cells to fetus, it is a potential human person. Cells and fetuses are not what is meant by the concept 'person'.
The mystical notion of a soul with an entitlement to be born after "conception" is a 19th century Catholic doctrine that flagrantly violates the rights of the individual woman. Appeals to denouncing "selfish reasons" is also thoroughly religious mysticism. None of it is "hard reality".
We are not here to "learn" from religious dogmatists condescendingly claiming to "help us understand" through straw man appeals to "responsibility for consequences" rationalizing imposed duties in the name of responsibility. We have no "responsibility" to your dogma and our right to our freedom does not depend on acceptance of any such duties.
You did not say you are trying to create guilt for your own selfish reasons. You are much worse, trying to instill guilt in us for our own selfish values, You stated that "once faced with the choice of ending their child's life due to their own selfish concerns, I think many more would change their minds". You are trying to inculcate a false sense of guilt over a fetus or a cell, misrepresented as a "child", to morally intimidate people into abandoning "selfish concerns".
"Guilt" is not an "indispensable quality of a good person". That is stock religious manipulation through unearned guilt over allegedly "sinful" concern for one's self. Moral pride or guilt are earned through one's actions in accordance with one's own standards of judgment. Rational egoism and moral pride do not lead to "sociopaths". Refusal to sacrifice to religious duties is not socio-pathological. "Good" does not mean religious. The orgy of religious sacrifice of people denounced as inherent "Sinners" is socio-pathological.
You make up a dogma claiming a "responsibility" to bear children in a complex process nine months after sex, invent a non-existent "contract" and fantasy "agreement", denounce people for "shunning" your religious dogmatic duties, and invoke the meaningless conservative slogan of "freedom" requiring whatever "responsibilities", i.e., duties, you want to impose.
You assume a religious conclusion in a circular argument. You have no understanding of what a contract is, which you have rationalized into a floating abstraction on behalf of an arbitrary anti-abortion rights dogma. Then you pompously "assure" us it is all "logical". It isn't, it's a transparent rationalization for religious dogma.
This is a forum for the ideas of Ayn Rand's philosophy. Please learn what it is instead of substituting crude rationalizations for religious conservative duties preposterously in the name of "logic".
Your own rationalistic equivocations do not make Objectivism something that is "given to us" as a "rationalism" without understanding. You either understand it or you don't.
As for the work she did accomplish, you are free to re-examine any of it. If you are going to make a case for "God" - or for that matter anti-trust laws - you had better do more than repeat the worn-out phrases of a previous century.
Objectivists do not assert that there is no God. We only point out that no clear definition of it exists, and no tests have been offered. It ends there. Because it ends there, claims that this action or that action are good or bad because "God" said so (in the Bible or the Quran or just personally to the claimant) must fail.
Should you choose belief and faith, go right ahead. But do so expecting that any comments or posts you make on this site based on such will be met negatively or at least contested.
Anyway, like I said you are right that I do not need to be on this site. I have found this site to be predominately religious zelouts in the House of Objectivism and the Prophet of Rand. I see very little true logical analysis occurring because no one will disagree with the religious tenants. I have to think you have turned away countless good people because you are unwilling to take a look at your unshakable faith in Rand and her religion. Objectivisim has some very good ideas that could be worked with but people here are to closed minded to question ther unproven faith.
Good Luck in improving the Country this way!
In addition more foresight (condom use, abstinence or birth control ) would certainly avoid many unwanted pregnancies.
Load more comments...