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.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
There are many reasons for abortion, most of them valid, but for us it wasn't an option. But the "for us" cannot be substituted as a "for you."
I'd need a whole page or perhaps two in order to address your issues, but for me, the abortion problem is a sidebar and not entitled to anywhere near the time spent on it.
.
You can agree or disagree with anything you want to, it doesn't make you an Objectivist who happens to be "non-standard". This a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and egoism, not your "non-standard" religious "version" that is fundamentally incompatible. This is not the place for you to promote your religious anti-abortion rights and anti "selfish concerns" dogma or your stubborn ignorance of Ayn Rand, let alone in the name of "logic" and "growth".
.
This is a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and egoism. You should learn what that is.
If you are willing to allow abortion (and I am), then to be consistent, you must allow infanticide (and I do). As I asked rhetorically, when does your mother lose her right to take your life? When you say so? But not before? Maybe...
You have a deep and integrated understanding of Objectivism as it was given to you, but you are only repeating a rationalism.
Rationalize <= Rational Lies.
I just ripped the livig shit out of any chance you have to make a difference in the up coming election by exposing how easy it is to control the conversation and send people off on what for election purposes are meaningless fruitless tangents.
You lose but Bernie, Hillary or Donald are going to win.
The key point had nothing to do with abortion per se. It serves as a hot button issue that can and just did slice and dice any chance or possibility of a cohesive coalition to support whomever Cruz or Webb or Johnson or ...or ....or...
One more time and I repeat..
"My main issue is to attack the hardest issues head on and point out until they can be set aside albeit temporarily and a ....constitutional centrist coalition ..... which is my phrase and nothing to do with any other similar named groups, put together the splintered 46% will remain dog food for the left either republicans or democrats and that would be flushing the constitution irrevocavbly down the toilet.
Quit Enabling
Take Control
Make Changes"
But you nicely took the bait and went off completely controlled and directed with nothought to those six words. .
Sucker punched? Yes. Ambushed? Yes Decimated? Hell no that's only ten percent. My unit's standards were do the job right and there are no names left to take.
Too busy looking in the wrong directions....with, as near as I can detect, absolutely no interest in anything else.
The worst part is most of the abortion debate was dealt with as much as it could be years ago.
The main point is
Quit Enabling - you didn't.
Take Control - you won't
Make Changes - not a chance.
Now go think about it.
We had a test question once which showed us how simple most solutions are. What is the easiest and most clandestine method to destroy a class 60 timber trestle bridge using the least amount of explosives?
Some said there aren't any anymore, some said not enough to worry about, some said what's a timber trestle bridge. some came up (using dimensions provided) with 8 pounds of TNT. Those are the answers you gave in this boobytrapped discussion thread even after I gave warning in other threads....
The answer is a gallon of gas and a match. both of which are classified as explosives.
The answer to your dilemma is start working together accomplishing what can be done and quit providing aid and comfort to the other side. Form a coalition based on one idea and that's a return to constitutional government and a rejection of fascist socialism.
Once that is done then use that document to solve these other issues.
I'm still betting 95% plus of those voting will choose fascist socialism.
Welcome to the world of realpolitik
for if you don't hang together you will surely hang separately
Load more comments...