The party of smaller government
13 Responses to “The party of smaller government”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
April 15th, 2015 at 6:11 pm
The party of “he’s a human being deserving of government protection”
April 15th, 2015 at 6:34 pm
we just need to tie gun infringements with abortion infringements; this BS has gone on too long.
April 15th, 2015 at 6:51 pm
Guess I am not seeing how protecting a threatened class (viable humans) is “big government”…. nor tieing abortion “choice” to a clear right spelled out in the bill of rights. I follow this for my intrest in second amendment rights, not democrat election platforms.. let me know if i should stop following…
April 15th, 2015 at 7:01 pm
Doesn’t protect anyone. Just delays it. How you don’t see that being big government, I don’t know.
April 15th, 2015 at 7:23 pm
guess i have a consious.. later dude!
April 15th, 2015 at 7:30 pm
So, a 48 hour delay is some sort of protection? Does not compute.
April 15th, 2015 at 9:27 pm
If one ascribes to the notion that the protection of Constitutional rights is the primary justification for the existence of gov, then protecting the lives of unborn persons fits that definition. But this seems more an effort to make all abortion so inconvenient as to deny the rights of a female to accept or reject parenthood, and that can only guarantee even more unwanted unloved and undisciplined juveniles along the lines of the attack mob in your prior post. That shit is likely to result in more and more post-partum abortion at the hands of armed victims.
Concentrate the efforts of government control of the murder of viable late term unborns and you can make the case that all humans have the right to Constitutional protection from being killed. But twisting the machinations of gov to enforce the dogma of religion while infringing the right of other humans to choose or reject procreation is in itself unconstitutional.
So at what stage of gestation do the seeds of life become life? Is it when a fetus can survive on its own outside the womb? When it is thought to be able to feel pain and have brain activity? When a sperm has found a viable egg to fertilize? Or when a girl had a little too much to drink and allowed a guy to have his way, and protects from unwanted parenthood with a morning-after pill? How about when she takes a pill to prevent ovulation or he slides on the glove to catch his swimmers?
Tough one. And no easy answers. But this bill definitely ain’t it.
April 16th, 2015 at 5:09 pm
“So, a 48 hour delay is some sort of protection?”
I would assume that the reasoning behind it is that it might prevent the occasional rash decision to abort, by giving some people time to change their minds. One could certainly argue about its potential effectiveness, but that would be the rationale at least.
It is a bit like the idea of mandatory waiting periods for gun purchases. The difference is that the gun waiting period is designed to infringe on an enumerated right and the abortion delay is intended to perhaps protect some innocent life. It would be one of those “this is what we can get for now” sort of small step measures.
“Rights of the woman” verses “rights of the unborn”. I can see room for an honest argument, though often the father (who presumably has rights too) is left out of the debate.
The small government concept would call for getting government out of the abortion picture altogether, at least at the federal level, though as has already been pointed out; the stated purpose of the U.S. government was “to secure these rights [the right to life, liberty…]”.
So it’s a not necessarily so simple as “government shouldn’t be involved”. Taken to the extreme it means there should be no government at all, but in that case we would presumably end up with mob “justice”. I don’t know.
Ultimately, government is only for bad people, because good people don’t need it – they don’t violate other people’s rights. They care for one another, and so there’s nothing from which government has anything to protect anyone.
April 16th, 2015 at 6:17 pm
To SayUncle- Govt forcing a woman to wait 48 hrs before she kills her unborn child = big govt. Maybe. Using fed, state, local tax dollars to subsidize = definitely. Funding for abortion from same sources = big govt.
To Bug- What’s deserve have to do with it? Deserve and entitled should not be in any human language.
To tincankilla- You are going to compare the right to own what is arguably the greatest individual force equalizer on the planet to, “I want the right to kill my unborn child on demand”. Seriously!
To JTC- Your whole post is one big strawman, or should I say strawperson. The first sentence sets up the framework. The rest of what you said is just used to try and hold up the straw. Killing an unborn child should be inconvenient, the harder the better. Nobody is denying the right of women to accept or reject parenthood. They can give the child up for adoption if they don’t want to, or can’t, be responsible.
Your second paragraph just boggles the mind.
The third paragraph, well, just take remedial biology. All things being equal, approximately 9 months after conception a woman gives birth. Anything that interrupts that cycle results in no baby. All that “when life begins” b.s. is just that. B.S. It is an exercise in mental masturbation.
April 17th, 2015 at 12:28 am
Obviousman James,
1. You obviously have no idea what a strawman is. You think saying it makes you sound smart. It doesn’t and you ain’t.
2. Yes, you obviously are boggled. See the last sentence of 1. above.
3. Yes, you obviously are a good argument for sticking to masturbation.
April 17th, 2015 at 6:51 pm
JTC,I apologize. You built two. A strawman is a human construct made of straw, it can also be false assumption. You made two false assumptions. the first one is the “If one subscribes to the notion” comment. Name one elected govt. official who says that notion is the one they used to pass any anti-abortion law.
The other is using anti-abortion laws “as to deny the rights of a female to accept or reject parenthood”. Wanting women to think about not killing their unborn children is not denying women their rights.
The “But twisting the machinations of gov to enforce the dogma of religion while infringing the right of other humans to choose or reject procreation is in itself unconstitutional.” comment is correct as a stand alone comment, but saying, that is what they are doing with this law is absurd. You do not have to be religious to know that killing your child is a bad idea.
You are delusional and you need help.
April 18th, 2015 at 12:13 am
James, an if/then is a simple conditional statement, aka hypothesis/conclusion.
Saying this law is a denial of rights is a simple factual statement, aka a right delayed is a right denied.
Are you saying that all birth control including abstinence is the killing of a child?
One of the three lines above is a strawman; can you guess which one? Hint: it ain’t either of the first two as you claim.
A strawman is just a diversion; rise to the bait of the third line which is an absurd leap, and all of your actual claims are lost in the storm. Now ya got yer strawman.
But back to the post: killing a person is unconstitutional and wrong. Simple. But what’s a person? Not so simple, and there’s the crux.
April 19th, 2015 at 2:09 pm
Some of Kermit Gosnell’s adult patients bled to death; some died from sepsis because he and his staff were too lazy to sterilize equipment.
This country needs a public database for all doctors, for the question: how many patients died within 7 days of seeing you, and what was the legal cause of death? Any candidate for abortion should have to print out the results for her abortion provider, sign them, and turn the paperwork into the county 48 hours before getting an abortion.