Duck07 Thread

[renfrO]

renfrO - the boxes are getting too big & tiresome to attach so I'm just going to lay it out very simply because it's clear we're not going to agree on this.

1. Of course I've done much in my life that's worth protecting but am not going to let you or anyone else decide what is best for me. Of course there are other women who don't believe in abortion, but they also have NO right to tell me (just like I have NO right to tell them) what they should or should not do with their own bodies. That is the simple argument. You don't seem to be understanding this so it's useless to go back & forth on it. I do not believe that conception is the set point to determine human life. It should be survivability outside the womb. Until then, your cells are just that, cells. If you've ever spent time in a neonatal intensive care unit, you would see what I'm talking about. But then again, it's just my opinion & it will not change yours.

2. Your burglary analogy is still ridiculous. You liken an abortion to a crime, which it is not in order to justify your position. Please read #1 above for the same response.

3. So we bullied Komen, eh? Interesting take, but I'm not surprised you would say that. Planned Parenthood offers valuable health services (including breast exams, prostate exams, etc.) and those wishing to outlaw abortion have targeted PP in order to try to make that happen. Do you think women are going to stand by & let you take away that choice? No. You can easily find former employees of any organization (including Komen) who would give negative testimony and I find it also not surprising that you would link to a pro-life article. Yeah, non biased there. Let's see the actual documents & bank statements of money funneling for abortions.

4. Depending on which birth control you use, it can be expensive or it can be free/low cost. I'm basing my view from personal experience & those of my inner circle.

5. Since you're against abortion, I'm guessing you don't believe in the death penalty, war, guns or hunting. Since you mentioned the word "innocent", that definitely describes those who could possibly be wrongly accused, men/women going off to war, children with guns & wild animals. I'm not sure how you can decide one is wrong & not all of the others.

1. But you are advocating FOR someone to be able to take everything away from you. I am thankful that nobody decided to do that to you before you were born. I only hope that someday you will have a change of heart and fight for others to be able live their life like you have been able to. --- Your opinion about when life begins is just that, an opinion that has no basis other than to support what you think people should be able to do. Science indicates that life begins at conception. --- Even if you don't want to accept that, if you are big on not being told what to do by other people, then you should agree that the question of when life begins should not be answered for the entire country by a handful of federal judges (all men at the time btw).

2. The point of the analogy is that the danger of illegal abortion is not a supportable argument against making it illegal.

3. Planned Parenthood absolutely bullied Komen. How is that not completely obvious and widely known? --- Testimony of eye-witnesses is the sole evidence used to reach rulings in court all the time. The testimony of multiple former employees is convincing by any legal measure.

4. Then it sounds like you agree that there are options and contraception is not really cost-prohibitive for people that want to use it.

5. The death penalty and war involve parties that are not innocent. Guns are inanimate objects. Animals are not people. Men/women going off to war are not being killed by us. I'm not sure how you can't see these distinctions.

[renfrO]

Moving on, I was completely unaware that there has been a common consensus on when life begins. Last I checked, its still being debated and people of various ethos' share different views on it. IF you want to define it on a religious belief alone, then you better make it illegal to jerk off too since you're not supposed to let any seed hit the soil, or are you a Protestant? (of course, we can't make laws in this country based off religious beliefs alone - or are you arguing for a move to a theocracy?)

Yeah, when did this happen?

Unless there is some other quote that I am missing, Rick Santorum has not called for the banning of contraceptives. He seems to be being purposely taken out of context from an article he wrote (in which he specifically clarifies that he is not agreeing with the law banning contraceptives).

"Now, before you jump to conclusions, let me clearly state that this law was badly written, and I would not have supported it or its intent."

Actually, the quote I referenced came from a Santorum interview--not his article you provided. He has since backed off his contraception claims (I think he's figured out they aren't as main-stream as he thought). The link below provides the context.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/ ... radiction/

RE Religion and War: I'll say, to be clear, I am far from anti-religion. I'm admittedly not an overly religious person myself, but I do recognize the the positive impact different religious groups can/do make in our communities. That being said, I think it is important to understand that not all people share the same interpretations of each religion and while some would use it for good, others would use it as justification for great tragedy.

Finally, I am glad we agree on something. You must now agree with me then that is therefore immoral to kill babies and go to war. Or are you telling me that one is acceptable under certain situations and the other is not?

07, I know this isn't intended toward me, but for fun, I'll submit that both are acceptable under certain situations.

1. In the sciences, that consensus was reached long ago. http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/artic ... otes2.html

2. Where in that link is Santorum calling for a ban on contraception? Doesn't it reveal that he has clarified that he would not do that?

3. Thank you. I do get the impression that you have a reasonable position on religion. And I agree that people have used religion to justify many shameful acts. I just think that the argument that a religion is reflected by the sum of all who cite it is flawed (but tirelessly repeated by some circles).

[Duck07]

There are regional problems for which population is not the primary cause. That there are inefficiencies and poverty in the world is not evidence that over-population is the problem. Nor is it justification for the immoral policies that such beliefs lead to.

---

No. When life begins is being debated by people of specific ethos: self-serving pro-abortion advocates. Life beginning at conception, before Roe vs. Wade was taught as uncontroversial fact for decades in biological science. Even today, years after Row vs. Wade, text books used for core teaching of biological science confirm that life begins at conception, as do medical dictionaries and encyclopedias.

Here is a list of references: http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/artic ... otes2.html

And where did I define it on a religious belief? Sorry to pull the carpet out from under you by not referring to the straw man you were hoping to debate with.

---

No nation that I'm aware of has ever gone to war for the purpose of killing babies.

Ugh, I know who you are and that you refuse to post under your actual name is rather boring since others have no shame to hide their actual beliefs.

Tell me, what percentage of pro-lifers are religious versus those that are non-religious?

I find it very interesting that Roe v Wade occurred in 1973 yet the earliest quote from your link comes in 1976. None of those links offer conclusive evidence either, they simply make the argument that life begins at the embryonic stage while others argue it is later on during development. You could argue that your sperm is alive and every time you do not inseminate a female, you are guilty of murder as well.

Further, you have not shown that going to war to murder is any different than the murder you believe occurs during an abortion.

[lukeyrid13]

Look at the ten commandments for example, I can say I've broken probably 8 out of 10 which would make me a total failure and I admit that. Just like David I've done some pretty bad things(nowhere near murder though). That is what separated David is he knew what he did was bad, very bad and asked for forgiveness. Most people think they're good but redeeming quality is knowing that you're bad and you need God. David knew that.

Do you believe women enjoy the process of going through an abortion? Do you believe that the majority of them want to do it in the first place? Why is not acceptable for an individual to sin today and seek forgiveness if it was acceptable for David?

If you want to stop abortions than legislation is the absolute worst way to accomplish that.

There is certainly forgiveness in abortion, absolutely. Since this is a pretty open book thread, my wife had an abortion when she was 16 before I met her. I see first hand every day the effects an abortion has on a woman. She disagrees with it now and regrets it more than anything else in her life.

It is perfectly acceptable to sin today and seek forgiveness. As I said I've broken 8/10 ten commandments myself so I have a lot I need to atone for. There is still forgiveness in it but there is a big difference between doing something then later realizing it was wrong and knowing it was wrong and mis-using God as your own personal eraser for forgiveness and redemption

[Duck07]

There is certainly forgiveness in abortion, absolutely. Since this is a pretty open book thread, my wife had an abortion when she was 16 before I met her. I see first hand every day the effects an abortion has on a woman. She disagrees with it now and regrets it more than anything else in her life.

It is perfectly acceptable to sin today and seek forgiveness. As I said I've broken 8/10 ten commandments myself so I have a lot I need to atone for. There is still forgiveness in it but there is a big difference between doing something then later realizing it was wrong and knowing it was wrong and mis-using God as your own personal eraser for forgiveness and redemption

I agree as well, which is why I find it so maddening that the majority of these same people who decry abortions aren't out doing the same thing every time we go to war.

[lukeyrid13]

It is an interesting dichotomy, people who appose abortion are typically for wars and the death penalty and those for abortion are against war and death penalty. Also you could throw in gun control laws into that as well.

Everyone at my church is a gun owner and very pro-war. I am very much against guns and war. People think that both soldiers and home owners need guns as protection but FAR more accidents/harm is done by guns than protecting

[Duck07]

It is an interesting dichotomy, people who appose abortion are typically for wars and the death penalty and those against abortion are against war and death penalty. Also you could throw in gun control laws into that as well.

Everyone at my church is a gun owner and very pro-war. I am very much against guns and war. People think that both soldiers and home owners need guns as protection but FAR more accidents/harm is done by guns than protecting

woops

When I was 17 I went to Cuba for a missionary trip. Almost a decade later, if someone asks I tell them I have faith but not religion. I have been very intrigued by the Hopi story of creation/prophecies and Maasau over the last year as I find the parallels to other beliefs very striking.

Here are the newsletters that the Elders put out in the 70s to spread their message.
http://www.jnanadana.org/hopi/techqua_ikachi_i.html

This video is a good giving a brief overview of the story and warnings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzjgL8YAmN4

Anybody care to discuss Manifest Destiny and the treatment of the indigenous peoples?

[QuackSince82]

Hey Duck07 there was an article in the RG today about the strange boxes on the coast.

"...someone had taken an axe to the box by the South Jetty, chopping a hole in it. That revealed the chunk of plastic foam on the inside, and the very terrestrial answer to this particular mystery.
Surrounding the plastic foam is wood. Around that, fiberglass. Just like the dock supports that washed down the Siuslaw River during the floods that ravaged the region in January."

http://www.registerguard.com/web/newslo ... e.html.csp

[Duck07]

An M-1 class solar flare

[Duck07]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/83463 ... nned-no-18
So the Cali gang's are so bad that they have a jersey ban in CO.

I remember in WA like 15 years ago an elementary student was sent home and expelled because the GI Joe he brought in for show-and-tell had a gun.

[NCDucks09]

An M-1 class solar flare

I had a 7th Day Adventist tell me the other day, that because the US has 'Blue' laws (that state Sunday is the day of rest), and the US Government is in bed with the Catholic Pope, someday the US Government will dictate that all citizins will have to observe the day of rest on Sundays.

Pretty absurd sounding to me, as I think this country would resort to Civil War before allowing the Government to merge Church and State.

Further, this individual went on to tell me that no one on Earth actually knows what the Sun is made of because no one has actually taken a sample from it and that the same is true of every star in space. When I responded that our DNA is made up of the same matter as those stars in space and that our planet has been impacted with countless meteors that we have been able to sample...I was asked if I want to spend eternity in a box a thousand miles below ground.

[lukeyrid13]

7th day are only denomination that observes the sabbath. In the new testament they say that sabbath is now moot and not relevant anymore(and that was 2000 years ago)

[Duck07]

Unconstitutional Official Acts

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Jon Roland:

Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.

All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.

Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.

[Duck07]

I have a question for those interested in regards to 'the right to marry.'

If marriage is based on religious precepts but we acknowledge the separation of church and state, why then would the government at any level issues 'marriage licenses?' If it not based on a religious ethos specific to heterosexuals, then how can you preclude a minority group from marrying?

[lukeyrid13]

Almost all religions have disdain for separation of church and state so adhering to those concepts isn't exactly goal #1