Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: miko2d on January 30, 2004, 09:17:26 AM
-
Many people approved the Federal Government trampling on the states' rights and destroying their independence because it incidentally freed 4 million black slaves a few years earlier than it would have happened naturally.
Federal Government basically denied the States the right to internally determine who is a legal person that is "created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
In pursuit of that goal it enslaved hundreds of thousands of free men, drafted unconstitutionally - demanding not just their time and labor but the very life to fight for the cause they did not support.
The same Federal Government then again trampled on the States' rights to determine internally who it is a legal person that deserved the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" and who is not.
So now 10 million of mostly black children are slaughtered every decade in the states - against the wishes of the majority of their population. In fact their tax money goes to promote and encourage that slaughter making them complicit against their religious and moral beliefs.
The count will hit 50 million soon. Then 100 million. In US alone. Just count.
miko
-
Look at the bright side... when you grow a womb, you'll be free to do whatever you like with it.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
So now 10 million of mostly black children are slaughtered every decade in the states - against the wishes of the majority of their population.
The majority of registered voters in the US are pro-choice.
Whites make up the majority of abortions perfomed in the US.
-
Sandman_SBM: Look at the bright side... when you grow a womb, you'll be free to do whatever you like with it.
I am pro-choice legally though I do not approve of abortion for moral reasons.
I just do not think it's the right of the Federal Government to tell people of my State or any other how to condict our internal affairs and to force us subcidise abortions in US and abroad with our taxes.
If I have any problem with personal rights in my state - and I do have a few - we will sort them out ourselves. People in a free state may or may not be totally free but in a state subjugated by outside power they definitely cannot be free.
This thread is about the hyppocricy.
Freeing 4 million of blacks few years earlier is supposed to justify enslavement of free white people and slaughter of tens of millions of babies. I just do not see how.
Mickey1992: The majority of registered voters in the US...
We are supposed to be a republic, not a democracy. What the majority of US voters think about many issues should be irrelevant even to the federal government, let alone to a State that opposes abortion by internal majority. Constitutional issues are not subject to vote - except by when it is amended. And the USA is a union of the States, not of the people.
are pro-choice.
Though their parents weren't. Ain't it convenient when a government could just mould the population to suit its needs (via unconstitutional socialist education system) rather than other way around?
Whites make up the majority of abortions perfomed in the US.
Thank you for correction. Even if that is true (and there are good reasons to distort racially-sencitive staristics), that hardly affects my point.
The Federal government can unconstitutionally give animals withing a state legal rights but deny them to humans in the first 9 months of their development or to those who smoke the God-given harmless plant or for any other reason. Freedom does not come sliced. It's all or nothing.
miko
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Look at the bright side... when you grow a womb, you'll be free to do whatever you like with it.
Definition of a man - one who spends the first 10 minutes of his life trying to get out of one, and the rest of his life trying to get back in.
-
I like how you use "the majority of the population" as an arguement in your original post, but when I dispute it, you throw it out as irrelevant and state that "What the majority of US voters think about many issues should be irrelevant". Well you didn't think it was irrelevant when you were using it to prove a point, did you?
And to further this theme, you argue that "mostly black children are slaughtered", but when you realize that this is not true, you dismiss it and state that it "hardly affects my point".
It seems to me that you are willing to spout about any subject and readily provide arguements, but when your arguements are proven to be incorrect, you dismiss the validity of them in the first place.
Therefore I question the validity of your entire arguement.
I'm out.
-
one who spends the first 10 minutes of his life
:) ^ Some would say life starts 9 months earlier.
miko
-
the good news is teenage births are down :rolleyes:
-
Mickey1992 wins.
-
Mickey1992: I like how you use "the majority of the population" as an arguement in your original post, but when I dispute it, you throw it out as irrelevant...
Can't you read, man!?
I said the "the states - against the wishes of the majority of their population". Of "their" - the states'!
The USA is a union of the States and not ruled by popular majority.
The majority of US popluation may have no legal right to make a decision concerning the Union or a particular State.
But a majority of a state population may have a legal right - depending on that state's Constitution.
I am not throwing words here but talking about real things. Just because I do not recognise the jurisdiction of some majority it does not mean I do not recongise any majority.
And to further this theme, you argue that "mostly black children are slaughtered", but when you realize that this is not true, you dismiss it and state that it "hardly affects my point".
My point is that once the federal government can decide who has rights inside the state, it may also deny the rights to the people inside the state, including the right to live.
"Children are slaughtered" is the main point and "mostly black" is a minor qualifier. I could have omitted it altogether or said "disporoportionately black" and that would not have changed a damn thing. I only mentioned it because the whole thing supposedely started to benefit blacks - which it didn't, actually.
The federal government decided that 4 million residents of the states posess more rights than the states were willing to grant them. Now the federal government has denied the right to live to millions of humans every decade that the states were willing to grant them.
What's so special about blacks in this respect except they lost more lives than ever were liberated?
but when your arguements are proven to be incorrect...
First, not an argument but a minor sidenote irrelevant to the main flow. But with your inability to grasp complex concepts and separate an insignbificant part from the whole that is understandable confusion.
And how did you prove me incorrect if you did not post any statistics about the black/white abortions? Even the false governmental statistics. I conceded that I might be wrong with the number because I do not care to look it up since it is not the point of my argument, but that does not constitute a proof of your part.
I would even not emphacise the fact that the rate of abortions is disproportionately higher among blacks than among whites.
You want your 50 million of specifically black children dead? OK, So you will have to wait 20 more years for that. Happy?
Therefore I question the validity of your entire arguement.
If you cannot understand what I am talking about in the first place, you can question whatever you damn wish. I am talking about states' rights here and your attention frame is apparently uncapable of holding more than one word in your memory - as illustrated by your confusion about "majority".
I am sorry but in order to discuss things with me, you better be able to hold the whole sentense in your mind (the whole paragraph would be even better). You may wish to upgrade your reading comprehension to at least 3rd grade level or wherever they teach to put words together.
Unless 1992 is the year of your birth, Mickey. If it is, I apploogise. You are typing quite well for a product of the modern school system. Keep it up.
miko
-
ppl are for this one as it gives them the right to be selfish and not take responsibility for their actions ... they don't care where it came from..
-
Mikey, please don't disagree with him or point out mistakes. It makes him grumpy.
-
I thought we already figured out this silly states right thing about 140 years ago.
-
I just hate the fact that the federal govt Bribes/Extorts states to conform to the feds wishes. For instance back in the eighties/late seventies their were some states that had a leagle drinking age of 18.....until the fed said you will lose your federal Highway money if you do not conform to our wishes.
What do some beaurocrats from washington care/know about the wishes of citizens of montana/louisiana....
I dont want some libral bich senator from california telling me how to live my life in texas or any other state.
-
I don't see anything wrong with the abortion, on the contrary.
If some poor woman has been made pregnant and wishes to do abortion within reasonable time from the begining of pregnancy, I rather see it so than yet another problem child in the world.
Too likely the child would be either to be criminal or yet another poorly (economical and life wise) living child.
I do not wish to see either of it to happen.
..let alone if its some crack momma in the question.
Other thing is that pregnancy takes 9 months, which of few months will hinder the woman in question and if shes poor, she'll be even worse so.
Is that good? isn't that as well inhumane...
-
I believe that every man, woman, child has the right to life initially.
Everyone deserves a chance.
-
I assume that most people making proclamations here are pregnant women, right? If not, what business of yours is it?
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
I thought we already figured out this silly states right thing about 140 years ago.
That is really profound
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I assume that most people making proclamations here are pregnant women, right? If not, what business of yours is it?
Sure, only the murderers should have a say in whether murder is legal or not.
-
If you're saying that people who get abortions are committing murder, then why haven't the 'pro-life' people persuaded the courts to send them all to jail?
-
Because the federal government does not have a set date as to when a human life starts. No document says"Human life starts at conception so abortion is murder". Nothing says anything like that. Why do you think pro-lifers have their panties in a bunch?
I myself am pro-choice. I feel that a woman should have the freedom do do whatever the hell she wants to do with her body, as long as the second party (ie, the father) agrees with it. This means that, yes, even if the parents do not want the child, they should be free to abort it. I've been called a man who supports murder and much, much worse before, so I really don't care.
Pro-lifers hate abortion, but support the death penalty. Isn't that somewhat of a double standard?
-
texace I think there is a big difference between abortion and execution. The only thing they have in common is a life is taken
I think woman have a choice....they have a choice to keep their legs closed. If they didnt have that choice than I'd say yes get an abortion.
death row inmates also have a choice. They have a choice not to do what ever it is they do.
Life is all about choices.
But now back to thread topice is it the federal govt. right/responsibility to tell states that they can/cant do this?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
If you're saying that people who get abortions are committing murder, then why haven't the 'pro-life' people persuaded the courts to send them all to jail?
Originally posted by Chairboy
I assume that most people making proclamations here are pregnant women, right? If not, what business of yours is it?
I'm questioning your premise that only those "involved", should have a say on the issue. If only pregnant women have a say on abortion, only the murderers should have a say on murder. After all, as to pointed out "what business of yours is it"?
In short, your argument is utter nonsense.
-
Even thought I pulled a Kappa and didn't actually say what my opinion was, I'll concede the point and just limit my input on this to 'If you're not a pregnant woman, you shouldn't think you have a say in the issue.'
No edit required on my part.
-
Im sorry miko.. I must..
Im going to pull a chairboy and say something off topic that is really ignorant, argumentative, worthless, and very unconstructive.... like:
You should have no say unless your a pregnant woman and your son's name is chairboy..
Or perhaps, whats your opioion if the woman shaved her head and killed her husband just to have a baby??
-
Gunslinger pretty much summed it up perfectly. It's a human once the stem cells become a brain. And every human has the right to live.
I see it as not a right or not for the woman, but a right for the baby inside of her.
-
The host's rights trump the parasite.