1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Ted Nugent in 2016?

Irresponsible47Percenter Wrote: Jul 04, 2013 12:09 AM
Well, one of the benefits of a Ted Nugent nomination campaign is that he'll make Donald Trump look like a viable mainstream candidate.
In response to:

Distrusting Government

Irresponsible47Percenter Wrote: Jul 03, 2013 4:42 PM
Williams: "Our nation's founders recognized that most human abuses are the result of government." Our nations founders recognized NO SUCH THING, and I believe they would find Wiliam's claim as dubious as I do. Our nation's founders had just rebelled against a tyrannical government, they were about the business of trying to create something new and very radically different under the sun, a Government of free people, and so the abuses & evils of Government were much on their minds. But I'm sure that they would look to more fundamental root causes, ex the fallen nature of man, were you to ask them about such issues.
In response to:

Distrusting Government

Irresponsible47Percenter Wrote: Jul 03, 2013 4:33 PM
LL: "Liberals somehow seem to equate society with government as though they were one and the same." I'm a Liberal and I never did that. I've always thought of 'Society' as the totality of everything that the Government governed. I suppose that Society thus includes the Govt, as our Govt is supposed to govern itself by the rule of law, but most of Society is not Government.
But we never do. I say that we never do because we do not really think of the newly-conceived embryo, at this stage of the pregnancy, as a Human Being. And I think we are being hypocritical when we demand that a woman who wishes to take the morning-after pill, or to have a 1st-trimester abortion, be forced to follow any different standard.
Karen1069: "And, that product of conception will never "grow into" anything else but another human being. It will never become a carrot, or a puppy, or a pony. " Karen, you either fail to grasp or choose to ignore the point I was trying to express below. Yes, you are correct, the newly-concieved embryo will never become anythig iother than a Human Being. But, what I wish you would realize and consider, is that in over half the cases it does not even do that. Most commonly it does not implant. Now, if we really (and I mean *really*) did believe that this newly-concieved embryo was I real, bona-fide, Human Being at the instant of conception, would not that Human Beings own Mother and Father strive mightily to save this Human Being from the grisly fate of being tossed in the garbage or flushed down the toilet as menstrual flow? Might it not be possibel to save and perhaps re-implant tis Human Being, or at least give this Human Being's mortal remains the decent, respectful burial we accord those of any other Human Being?
Unlike you, I distinguish between "being alive" and "being a human being". That single cell is obviously "alive" at conception, it's not a rock or some inert thing. It's also of no other species than "human". But we sure do not treat it like a "human being" at conception, as I note above. That comes gradually, more and more, as the pregnancy progresses.
I have agonized over this at great length, at: http://www.theliberalresponse.com/CommonSenseOnChoice.html among other places. I do not know. But it seems to me that, as long as we are not talking about Abortion, we act as though we think the fetus gradually becomes a human being over the course of pregnancy. As best as science can tell, a good half or more of successful human conceptions to not implant. We don't care, we just flush them down the toilet as a heavy period. When a miscarriage occurs we are sad, but we do not view it as a tragedy like the death of a little child. And certainly, like you say, a newborn baby is a person so how could the baby have been otherwise at the start of labor?
And is there really any chance that the 20-week limit in this legislation will survive a supreme court challenge? I always read that Roe v Wade set the limit at 24 weeks. And even in Texas 24 > 20.
What portion of the Abortions in this country are 'late-term'? And what portion of that portion are *not* due to health/safety concerns for the mother? Does anyone have a link to some kind of graph of 'weeks gestation' vs 'percentage of abortions', for the nation and/or Texas? It seems to me like we should know these things before claiming to have an informed opinion on this issue.
Well, Libertarians hate stuff like this, but as I posted below (in my other identity): "... our govt and society view marriage as a good thing that promotes stable families and a healthy, productive and prosperous society, and we believe that Govt therefore has a compelling interest in facilitating and encouraging marriage." And a separate consideration: W/o govt involvement, how would atheists marry?
1 - 10 Next