The Wonderful Christian Message of Wonderfully Christian South Dakota

[PureX]

When the 'right' I am infringing upon is the 'right' to kill unborn instances of human life, I do believe it is my obligation to fight it... I do beleive it is rational to apply the right to life to unborn children...

But it's only your opinion that a fetus should be given the same rights and consideration as a birthed child. So really all you're saying here is that it's rational (to you) that you should be able to force everyone else to comply with your opinions, just because they're your opinions.

 

[Sunstone]

I believe PureX has a point that it is highly questionable to assert ones rights have been infringed upon merely because other people do things one finds reprehensible.

I also believe Mister Emu has a point in that it is a legitimate view that the unborn have a right to life, albeit I happen to disagree with that view at least in part.

 

[Mister Emu]

The Constitution is not law at all.

Yes it is...

It is the guiding document that governs how the country is run... what it can and cannot do... how to go about doing its job... it is the ultimate law of the land...

 

[kevmicsmi]

But it's only your opinion that a fetus should be given the same rights and consideration as a birthed child. So really all you're saying here is that it's rational (to you) that you should be able to force everyone else to comply with your opinions, just because they're your opinions.

No. It is because they are his opinions on something that is not a constitutional right, therefore vulnerable to state legislation from the majority.

 

[kevmicsmi]

I believe PureX has a point that it is highly questionable to assert ones rights have been infringed upon merely because other people do things one finds reprehensible.

So I assume you feel it questionable for drugs to be illegal, for prostitution to be illegal, etc, etc. I find it questionable that others right have been infringed upon in if someone prostitutes, or uses drugs as well, i just dont pretend to see a right in the Constitution for these when none exists.

 

[Mister Emu]

But it's only your opinion that a fetus should be given the same rights and consideration as a birthed child. So really all you're saying here is that it's rational (to you) that you should be able to force everyone else to comply with your opinions, just because they're your opinions

I disagree that it is only my opinion that the unborn deserve a right to live...

I assert that society has a right and obligation to extend protection to those it finds deserving...

 

[Sunstone]

So I assume you feel it questionable for drugs to be illegal, for prostitution to be illegal, etc, etc. I find these questionable as well, i just dont pretend to see a right in the Constitution for these when none exists.

Please re-read my post. It seems to have nothing to do with your response to it.

 

[PureX]

I also believe Mister Emu has a point in that it is a legitimate view that the unborn have a right to life, albeit I happen to disagree with that view at least in part.

It is also a legitimate view that women should have the right to decide what will happen within their own bodies. The problem here is that different people stress different and equally viable views. So the question remains: should one view over-rule all others? if so, why? If not, what then?

So far the courts have decided that one view should not over-rule all others. And that instead, women should have the right (though limited) to decide for themselves. But the anti-abortion folks won't accept this decision, and so are now actively trying to "break" the system, so that they can force their view on everyone else.

 

[Mister Emu]

so are now actively trying to "break" the system, so that they can force their view on everyone else.

The system was "broken" when instead of using the proscribed legislative process, the judicial system decided anything on abortion.

 

[PureX]

I disagree that it is only my opinion that the unborn deserve a right to live...

Lots of people have lots of opinions. The point is that you think your opinion should rule the behavior of other people against their will.

Why should your opinion about abortion over-ride the rights of other people to decide for themselves?

I assert that society has a right and obligation to extend protection to those it finds deserving...

But society is not of one mind about this. What then?

 

[kevmicsmi]

Lots of people have lots of opinions. The point is that you think your opinion should rule the behavior of other people against their will.

Why should your opinion about abortion over-ride the rights of other people to decide for themselves?
But society is not of one mind about this. What then?

Then individual States decide.

 

[Mister Emu]

Why should your opinion about abortion over-ride the rights of other people to decide for themselves?

Because I, along with many other, believe that the descision to kill an instance of humanity should not be able to be made... along with the descision to own someone... or rape someone... or torture someone... or etc.

But society is not of one mind about this. What then?

That is why we elect people who mirror our views... thus the majority will is made law providing it does not violate an enumerated right of either the state or US constitutions...

and since abortion is nowhere enumerated as a right... nor can any of the enumerated rights be intellectually honestly construed to apply towards abortion... it is a descision of state legislatures to decide on the abortion issue.

 

[kevmicsmi]

Please re-read my post. It seems to have nothing to do with your response to it.

Poor job of writing ony my part, see my edited post, I understand the confusion

 

[dawny0826]

I suggest watching World News from the BBC and the Lehrer News Hour. Also, Frontline offers the most in-depth and unbiased news documentaries on the air.

So, I'm supposed to trust that these are unbiased sources...because you say so?:flirt:

Why this last part? What do you hope to gain by supporting politicians who agree with your opinion on abortion?

What do I have to lose? Do you expect me to vote for the politician that I DON'T want in office?

Do you realize that they can't vote to ban abortion (well, they can, but their vote will be overturned by the courts)?

Does it matter? If I stand firm on my own personal grounds...I'm going to get a better night's sleep, regardless.

Does this mean that you are willing to deny your fellow citizens the right to make up their own minds and to choose for themselves regarding abortion? I so, then don't they then have the same right to ignore your opinions, and deny you the right to live as you believe is right, if they are able?

I think "they" are ignoring my opinions. And it IS their right to stand firm on issues that they feel is right.

If my fellow citizens are denied rights because I stand against abortion...fine...I already told you that I'll accept a "Bigot" label.

Do you believe that this is what human society must come down to: a battle of self-centered righteousness; with everyone trying to force everyone else to comply with their own opinions and beliefs?

How the hell should I know?

I can only live my life and do what I feel is right.

What does your or anyone else's approval have to do with anything? Why do you think it's your place to approve or disapprove the thoughts or behaviors of other people? Who gave you this task? Who gave you this right? Why do you assume that other people have to answer to you for their thoughts and behaviors?

What are you saying?

Sock it to me.Knockout

Are you saying that I shouldn't vote conservatively because the similar viewpoints that conservatives and myself tend to share...infringe on the rights of those who believe differently?

BUT...I'm supposed to shut up and accept the views from the other side?

What are you saying? Because this is what I'm picking up from your posts.

There is a huge difference between expressing an opinion, and trying to force other people to comply with your opinions.

And I was under the impression that my opinions...which I'm expressing mean nothing in the grand scheme of things.

The only way that I, personally could be forcing anything upon anyone is by supporting the politicians that I support. So, what...am I to sell out and vote the other way?

But your rights are not being infringed upon in any way.

Sure, buddy.

You are not being forced to do anything that you believe is wrong. Your "feeling" in this instance is unfounded and irrational. Yet you do wish to infringe upon the rights of other people to decide for themselves what is right for them. So while you're feeling oppressed, even though you aren't really being oppressed at all, you are trying to oppress others.

How am I personally...by what I've described and disclosed about ME PERSONALLY...how am I infringing upon the rights of others?

Is this really about you wishing to oppress those like myself to protect the rights of those who are more like you?

Do you think this is rational? Do you think this is right?

I'm comfortable with my views.

I'm comfortable with others expressing their views and doing what they feel is right to support their own causes.

I wouldn't expect anyone else to sell out on my behalf.

And I'm NOT a sell out.

 

[PureX]

Then individual States decide.

How about individual cities deciding? Or maybe individual neighborhoods within the cities? Maybe individual homes in individual neighborhoods in the cities? Or maybe individual people in the homes in the neighborhoods in the cities in the states of the nation.

Please explain to me why of all these possible choices, we should let the state goverments decide?

 

[Mister Emu]

Please explain to me why of all these possible choices, we should let the state governments decide this issue?

Because city restrictions on abortion would be meaningless... and since there are diverse opinions a nationwide restriction would not be plausible... the state government is in an ideal place to deal with the abortion issue.

 

[kevmicsmi]

How about individual cities deciding? Or maybe individual neighborhoods within the cities? Maybe individual homes in individual neighborhoods in the cities? Or maybe individual people in the homes in the neighborhoods in the cities in the states of the nation.

Please explain to me why of all these possible choices, we should let the state goverments decide?

Actually individual cities could decide not to allow it , until of course the State decided the issue, which would take precident over the city decisions. I dont think it needs to go to a federal level personally, I am a States Rights Advocate

 

[PureX]

Because I, along with many other, believe that ...

So what? Lots of people believe lots of things. You aren't answering the question, you're only reiterating your self-righteousness. I'm asking you to justify your self-righteousness.

That is why we elect people who mirror our views... thus the majority will is made law providing it does not violate an enumerated right of either the state or US constitutions...

But it has already been decided by the highest court in the land that banning abortion DOES violate the rights of women to choose for themselves. Why can't you accept this as the will of your nation (even though you don't agree with it)?

and since abortion is nowhere enumerated as a right... nor can any of the enumerated rights be intellectually honestly construed to apply towards abortion... it is a descision of state legislatures to decide on the abortion issue.

Only an idiot would assume that a woman does NOT have a right to decide what will happen inside her own body. The Constitution does not have to spell this out for us.

 

[dawny0826]

Only an idiot would assume that a woman does NOT have a right to decide what will happen inside her own body.

As a woman...who has carried two children to term...allow me to let you in on a little something...a woman only has a CERTAIN amount of control over what goes on inside her body, anyway.

 

[PureX]

Because city restrictions on abortion would be meaningless... and since there are diverse opinions a nationwide restriction would not be plausible... the state government is in an ideal place to deal with the abortion issue.

Why would city mandates be meaningless? Why would a national mandate not be plausable?