Another "Pro Lifer" kills...

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from stu:

yuk...honestly. ET should provide sick bags when you post.

I am very much uneasy about abortion in general and I feel 22 weeks is just too far anyway. I have an overwhelming sense that humans should treat life as if it were inviolable.

But constructing smarmy political speak, encouraging and excusing outrageous and misleading language or violence against those who do not share my views about it, calling it murder when it is not, linking it with arguments against homosexuals , playing the victim feigning lifers are being censored , expecting to be taken seriously by pleading a holy Christian self-righteousness on moral grounds for human life when at the same time you take the role of hypocritical religious apologist in condescending explanations why your Christian "Father" drowned all his own children, is never going help me crystallize my doubt to your way of thinking.
I’m sure many don't like the whole abortion question too and wish your stupid fucking God had never made it a problem in the first place so putting that religion crap forward yet again as if it can answer anything is no idea at all.

bigdavediode has given rational practical and reasonable argument for - in a strong defense of.
It's time lifers treated the audience in similar manner and came up with some responsible dialogue and meaningful justification.

I'm afraid your distaste for me obscured what I was trying to get across, which really had nothing to do with abortion, pro or con. It had everything to do with the use of political correctness to gradually erode important constitutional rights. The First Amendment grants us free exercise of religion. Of course, that includes the option not to be religious. But much of the opposition to abortion is religiously based. It is based on a belief that human life should be protected. When people like you know who say that it is out of bounds to use terms like killing or baby, they are really saying people cannot give voice to their religious beliefs. To me, that threatens First Amendment rights.

You may not care for the terms used, and that is your privilege. Speech that is popular and uncontroversial however seldom needs constitutional protection.

 

[jem]

Quote from bigdavediode:

So the law is wrong about abortion, so the whether an action is moral clearly is not decided by law -- BUT because fetuses are protected by law in some places in this case whether an action is moral IS decided by the law.

When you went to law school did they introduce the fallacy "special pleading?"



Why? What is different about the women in Alabama versus Maine? I mean, other than the number of teeth?

First of all your argument makes no sense. I think I know why, you manifest a complete ignorance of the constitution.

I suspect you got your legal training from zzz who just tried to tell us that murder is a federal charge or something similarly confused and pretended that someone said a fetus was a citizen to set up a strawman

You both need to read the constitution. Pay particular attention to the tenth amendment in which the states reserved the right to govern health safety and morals.

I realize you leftists have no respect for the constitution... but please do not pretend you understand the law.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from jem:

First of all your argument makes no sense. I think I know why, you manifest a complete ignorance of the constitution.

Yes, special pleading makes no sense.

I suspect you got your legal training from zzz who just tried to tell us that murder is a federal charge or something similarly confused and pretended that someone said a fetus was a citizen to set up a strawman

Actually you said it. Doh! How embarrassing is that? You said it in your argument that "There is no more core value of a government than to protect its citizen's rights to exist."

Except fetuses are not citizens.

You both need to read the constitution. Pay particular attention to the tenth amendment in which the states reserved the right to govern health safety and morals.

I realize you leftists have no respect for the constitution... but please do not pretend you understand the law.

By your odd constitutional interpretation, Medicare does not exist.

Thanks, but the courts already decided what was and was not included in the 10th amendment.

You're not really an attorney, I pray.

 

[jem]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Yes, special pleading makes no sense.



Actually you said it. Doh! How embarrassing is that? You said it in your argument that "There is no more core value of a government than to protect its citizen's rights to exist."

Except fetuses are not citizens.



By your odd constitutional interpretation, Medicare does not exist.

Thanks, but the courts already decided what was and was not included in the 10th amendment.

You're not really an attorney, I pray.

special pleading my ass -

You argued protecting a fetus would be big government - I argued just about the first role of government is to protect its citizens rights.

then I explained the next thing it does is decide who is protected?

That does not mean I said a fetus is a citizen. Where did I say a fetus was a citizen.

Your logic sucks.

Should I try sign language or do you get it now.



your medicare could be considered a special pleading by a "special" person.

let me explain.

I wrote that I thought abortion law should left to the states and majority rule. You and your lefty friend zzz made strange apparently ignorant arguments about the law. zzz made all timer with his murder is federal comment and you chimed in with similarly cogent remarks.

I corrected you and explained that "police powers" (note that might be a legal term of art for those who are not familiar with the constitution - but it does apply here) were reserved by the states.

you make some ridiculous argument about medicare.


I suspect a kindly professor might correct you and say in a charitable manner that you made a special pleading. However he would really mean you should shut up, stop embarrassing yourself and come to class prepared before you raise your hand.

Are you even familiar with the idea that the states reserved police powers for themselves. do you attend elementary school in america? Fed vs state? sound familiar.


its pretty humorous actually I was trying to explain core constitutional understandings which we learn in grade school civics class.

let me try again do you agree the state granted explicit areas of authority to the feds and reserved all others power to themselves. yes or no - what grade were you first exposed to this concept?


I then explain the 10th amendment and the reservation of the right to regulate health safety and morals. do you deny this? were you not exposed to this idea before you started typing?


And the boards biggest lefty says

wrong medicare.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from jem:

special pleading my ass - you must thing that you are entitled to make special arguments because you are IQ challenged.

I'll give you a tip -- if you're going to pose as an attorney, you may wish to understand what special pleading is. I have two requirements in attorneys -- one is that they understand how to communicate and understand how to debate effectively, and the other is to understand the 10th amendment.

You argued protecting a fetus would be big government - I argued just about the first role of government is to protect its citizens rights.

Yeah, boy did you get clobbered on that one.

then I explained the next thing it does is decide who is protected?

That does not mean I said a fetus is a citizen. Where did I say a fetus was a citizen.

When you tried to argue that the government has an interest in this because the government needs to protect citizens' rights.

I can draw you a picture and fax it to your "law office."

Your logic sucks. Get it. Just because I was explaining that protecting its citizens from murder is not big government does not mean I said a fetus was a citizen.

Should I try sign language or do you get it now.

No, I really don't get it -- because it's wrong on two levels. A fetus is, as pointed out to you, not a citizen and therefore not included in your description of these protections. Additionally, you couldn't even get your argument right as the government also protects non-citizens.

You could have said, "The government protects everyone within it's borders", had a stronger (although still weak) argument and not made yourself look silly since the government protects everyone and not just citizens.

What kind of attorney are you, again?

you medicare could be considered a special pleading for a "special" person.

Yeah. Uhh... okay. Attorneys know what "special pleading" means. You can't fake your way through this.

let me explain.

I state i would like to see abortion law left to the states and majority rule. You and you lefty friend zzz make ignorant arguments about the consitution.

Actually I haven't brought up the constitution at all, you did. Just as you forgot that you mentioned "citizens" as anyone can plainly see by scrolling back through the posts.

I correct you and explain that "police powers" (note that might be a legal term of art for those who are not familiar with the constitution - but it does apply here) were reserved by the states.

Hurray. So your argument is that the Supreme Court is wrong about abortion and you're right.

Great. Why should I value your opinion over the Supreme Court again?

you make some ridiculous argument about medicare.

I suspect that could be kindly be called a special pleading. however most would call it ignorant.

That didn't even make sense. Seriously, you can't fake your way through this. If you're an attorney, I'm a cantelope.

you really should read the constitution.

And you should read Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528, 105 S. Ct. 1005, 83 L. Ed. 2d 1016 (1985) where the court stated that if residents of a state were worried about the extent of federal jurisdiction over local matters, they should contact their legislatures resolve the particular issue through legislation.

Once again, it's the Supreme Court versus you. Why should I give you more credence than the Supreme Court?

Were you trying to say the states do not have the power of the health safety and morals of it citizens.

And once again, it's the Supreme Court versus you. They've already decided this issue at the federal level.

You say they were wrong, and that you, an accomplished attorney know better about which are federal and which are state and local restrictions.

Are you denying the states have police power.

To that I'd say "Who cares and what does that have to do with abortion?"

why are you arguing about shit you know nothing about?

Well you have to give me a break, as you are an accomplished attorney and I am just a casual observer.

 

[stu]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I'm afraid your distaste for me obscured what I was trying to get across, which really had nothing to do with abortion, pro or con. It had everything to do with the use of political correctness to gradually erode important constitutional rights. The First Amendment grants us free exercise of religion. Of course, that includes the option not to be religious. But much of the opposition to abortion is religiously based. It is based on a belief that human life should be protected. When people like you know who say that it is out of bounds to use terms like killing or baby, they are really saying people cannot give voice to their religious beliefs. To me, that threatens First Amendment rights.

You may not care for the terms used, and that is your privilege. Speech that is popular and uncontroversial however seldom needs constitutional protection.

I don't have distaste for you, I have intense dislike of what you say, and the very apparent dishonesty displayed in the way you try to get it across .

So your argument is not about the pro or con of abortion ,it is about an idea of constitutional rights, which should allow you to stop people from saying things you think stop other people from saying things. Brilliant.

But just for good measure, you throw in some agenda stuff . Some sanctimonious religious political correctness, some hijacking of morality, a mention of homosexuals, stuff about First Amendment and about killing babies.

In trying to play the self-righteous so precious victim being deprived of their First Amendment rights, instead of making compelling argument against, you evangelical Christian lifers do more to alienate than improve, by adopting the role of a pious unfortunate as if that were the argument, when all the time for people like me and many (dare I say most) others, abortion is an extremely emotional, highly controversial, intensely disturbing and upsetting subject which needs compelling and thoughtful responses.

If you cannot think of a decent driving argument why the practice of abortion should differ or why law should change or whatever, why don't you just shut the fuck up making side comments , and try to understand the real difficulties. Take an honest approach instead of pushing irrelevancies like the interminable bastion of all political correctness -religion and phony claims about a depravation of constitutional rights.

Honesty is generally more popular and uncontroversial than trying to sound like a bleeding heart politician.

 

[jem]

Quote from bigdavediode:

I'll give you a tip -- if you're going to pose as an attorney, you may wish to understand what special pleading is. I have two requirements in attorneys -- one is that they understand how to communicate and understand how to debate effectively, and the other is to understand the 10th amendment.



Yeah, boy did you get clobbered on that one.



When you tried to argue that the government has an interest in this because the government needs to protect citizens' rights.

I can draw you a picture and fax it to your "law office."



No, I really don't get it -- because it's wrong on two levels. A fetus is, as pointed out to you, not a citizen and therefore not included in your description of these protections. Additionally, you couldn't even get your argument right as the government also protects non-citizens.

You could have said, "The government protects everyone within it's borders", had a stronger (although still weak) argument and not made yourself look silly since the government protects everyone and not just citizens.

What kind of attorney are you, again?



Yeah. Uhh... okay. Attorneys know what "special pleading" means. You can't fake your way through this.



Actually I haven't brought up the constitution at all, you did. Just as you forgot that you mentioned "citizens" as anyone can plainly see by scrolling back through the posts.



Hurray. So your argument is that the Supreme Court is wrong about abortion and you're right.

Great. Why should I value your opinion over the Supreme Court again?



That didn't even make sense. Seriously, you can't fake your way through this. If you're an attorney, I'm a cantelope.



And you should read Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528, 105 S. Ct. 1005, 83 L. Ed. 2d 1016 (1985) where the court stated that if residents of a state were worried about the extent of federal jurisdiction over local matters, they should contact their legislatures resolve the particular issue through legislation.

Once again, it's the Supreme Court versus you. Why should I give you more credence than the Supreme Court?



And once again, it's the Supreme Court versus you. They've already decided this issue at the federal level.

You say they were wrong, and that you, an accomplished attorney know better about which are federal and which are state and local restrictions.



To that I'd say "Who cares and what does that have to do with abortion?"



Well you have to give me a break, as you are an accomplished attorney and I am just a casual observer.

all you do is lie - you are a waste of time.

1. no one said it was a citizen - you and zzz introduced that stupidity.

2. you are an ignorant clown - I introduced the argument to zzz about a fetus being protected under state law

3.

the rest of your argument is filled with deception.

you misrepresented my statements and introduced irrelevant responses.

Wrong "medicare" was your stupid remark.

Introducing information showing that there is a tug of war between the fed and the states does not mean that the police powers were not reserved for the states.

your logic sucks and since I did not tell you I am an attorney - I note you must have gleaned that by the way you got your ass handed to you after you made ignorant arguments.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from jem:

all you do is lie - you are a waste of time.

1. no one said it was a citizen - you and zzz introduced that stupidity.

Then your argument about the state protecting citizens has no merit.

2. you are an ignorant clown - I introduced the argument to zzz about a fetus being protected under state law

Yes, as support that fetuses are people, all while saying that federal law which allows abortion is incorrect.

That called "special pleading." You say the law is an authority (which is reasonable enough) on this topic, then you say that abortion law is wrong and thus not an authority. I award you one "Fail."

the rest of your argument is filled with deception.

you misrepresented my statements and introduced irrelevant responses.

Wrong "medicare" was your stupid remark.

Introducing information showing that there is a tug of war between the fed and the states does not mean that the police powers were not reserved for the states.

your logic sucks and since I did not tell you I am an attorney - I note you must have gleaned that by the way you got your ass handed to you after you made ignorant arguments.

"Actually being attorney - I have spent time setting up trusts." -- http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2401026&highlight=attorney#post2401026

You also said it in this thread.

You also forgot that you were the one who incorrectly brought up "citizens."

You know a critical requirement for an attorney is to not have memory problems.

 

[Barth Vader]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Blue cheese? You're some kind of secret leftist?

It took my weekly visit to grocery, to finally end my frustration over this cheese.

I said "Blu" and you have stated "Blue", it appears to be "Bleu"

 

[jem]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Then your argument about the state protecting citizens has no merit.



Yes, as support that fetuses are people, all while saying that federal law which allows abortion is incorrect.

That called "special pleading." You say the law is an authority (which is reasonable enough) on this topic, then you say that abortion law is wrong and thus not an authority. I award you one "Fail."



"Actually being attorney - I have spent time setting up trusts." -- http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2401026&highlight=attorney#post2401026

You also said it in this thread.

You also forgot that you were the one who incorrectly brought up "citizens."

You know a critical requirement for an attorney is to not have memory problems.

more deception from you.
you conclusions are unfounded in just about every sense.

I explained the core point of government is to supports suport its citizens right to not be murdered... how hard is it for you to understand that is foundation of our laws. you may wish to read up on Rosseau and locke.

you have a comprehension or truth problem because I never said a fetus was a citizen under our current law, you have to be a clown to keep making that assertion.


I argued that I would like to see the state and majority rule determine abortion rights. I said abortion was barbaric. I did not say the Roe v. Wade was not the law of the land. In fact I stated as barbaric as it is you can still hack away as long as it is legal.