MTG Calls for Red State Secession

#579
#579
Vol8188 said:
Thatā€™s not what Iā€™m comparing. Iā€™ve clearly stated the same thing about 50x for you now.

Why is it acceptable to allow the child to die if they can be saved?

Youā€™re claiming that youā€™re just inducing labor and letting whatever happens (death) to happen. The obvious question here is why is that only acceptable to you in 1 of these 2 scenarios? Why should we not save both when/if possible?
Click to expand...

I am not allowing a child to die. Not a child.

I am, up to a point, prioritizing the rights of the already born over that of the unborn.
 
#581
#581
ClearwaterVol said:
There is no violation of the rights of the unborn if you simply allow the woman to take a medication that induces labor.
Click to expand...

ClearwaterVol said:
I am not allowing a child to die. Not a child.

I am, up to a point, prioritizing the rights of the already born over that of the unborn.
Click to expand...

I hate to break it to you but if you "induce labor", the child has now been "born".

As for your "prioritizing" claim, it's nonsense because once the child is born, there's no reason you cannot treat both mother and child as needed.

So why would you just allow a child to die?
 
#582
#582
Lawrence Wright said:
Do a quick search on Fetterman in this forum.
Click to expand...

If your disabilities include your cognitive function, and you're running for office, those are 100% fair game. Ableism in some arenas may be bad. But in terms of who should serve in the senate, that should only be the mentally able.
 
#584
#584
Vol8188 said:
If your disabilities include your cognitive function, and you're running for office, those are 100% fair game. Ableism in some arenas may be bad. But in terms of who should serve in the senate, that should only be the mentally able.
Click to expand...

Just making the point that making fun of politiciansā€™ ā€œdisabilitiesā€, cognitive or otherwise, isnā€™t exactly a ā€œnowā€ thing.
 
#590
#590
evillawyer said:
MTG just has too much dumb to pack into one day. She's back at it today.

Click to expand...


5 years is excessive, but I would be open to someone having to live in a state for maybe 2 years to vote on the state level and similar laws for counties and locally. You'd still be able to vote federally.
 
#592
#592
NorthDallas40 said:
And Iā€™d agree about ā€œmost basesā€. Pearl is very very special. A natural deep water protected port right in the middle of the pacific. The bases are inconsequential. Itā€™s the geography that has value.
Click to expand...
Add to that 1/3 of Hawaiiā€™s population is of Han descent. Messyā€¦
 
#594
#594
Vol8188 said:
5 years is excessive, but I would be open to someone having to live in a state for maybe 2 years to vote on the state level and similar laws for counties and locally. You'd still be able to vote federally.
Click to expand...
Privileges and immunities clause says hi.

Gosh, I thought you folks were the ones that had wet dreams about constitutional fidelity.
 
#595
#595
evillawyer said:
Privileges and immunities clause says hi.

Gosh, I thought you folks were the ones that had wet dreams about constitutional fidelity.
Click to expand...

You realize the thing I mentioned already exists just in a more limited scope right? Many places you canā€™t move today and vote tomorrow.

This doesnā€™t violate the privileges and immunities clause to simply establish a process for citizenship. Clearly constitutional law isnā€™t your arena
 
#596
#596
Vol8188 said:
I very clearly answered each of your questions.

We are getting closer to agreeing. Lets make sure I understand you:

1. If the mother wishes to terminate and the child can be saved, we do save the child as long as it doesn't cost too much.

2. Yet, if the child is already born outside of an abortion clinic (rather than inside of one), then we should save/care for the child with tax payer dollars?

3. We are closer to agreeing for sure, but I'm still not sure why you see these 2 children as different classes that should be treated differently in terms of their care? If I surrender a baby we should do everything to save it. If I abort a baby we should do somethings as long as they're not too much....why? Why wouldn't we do everything we could for both populations? You want to treat one as second class citizens but have yet to explain your reasoning/standard.
Click to expand...
What? - you didn't clearly answer them in the least. (You glanced over the third.)
Try again, maybe I missed it.
"at what point is a fetus deemed savable?", "who makes the determination?", and "who pays?"
Now on to your points.
1. If the mother wishes to terminate the fetus and someone views the fetus as savable, I have no problem with them paying to try and save it - if they have access to the fetus.
2. Yes - there is an acknowledged significant difference between a baby who has been born and a 15 week old fetus that has been aborted (even though you continue to call both "a child", no reasonable person views them as such)
3. Simple - I view them as different because they are different. The same as you evidently view an egg fertilized outside of the womb as different.
 
#597
#597
Vol8188 said:
I hate to break it to you but if you "induce labor", the child has now been "born".

As for your "prioritizing" claim, it's nonsense because once the child is born, there's no reason you cannot treat both mother and child as needed.

So why would you just allow a child to die?
Click to expand...

Not a child. It's a fetus.

Prioritizing is nonsense? How so? Your way forces someone to allow a parasitic relationship and forces that person to accept risks they do not wish to accept for 9 months. Financial risks and risks to health up to and including death.
 
#598
#598
luthervol said:
What? - you didn't clearly answer them in the least. (You glanced over the third.)
Try again, maybe I missed it.
"at what point is a fetus deemed savable?", "who makes the determination?", and "who pays?"
Now on to your points.
1. If the mother wishes to terminate the fetus and someone views the fetus as savable, I have no problem with them paying to try and save it - if they have access to the fetus.
2. Yes - there is an acknowledged significant difference between a baby who has been born and a 15 week old fetus that has been aborted (even though you continue to call both "a child", no reasonable person views them as such)
3. Simple - I view them as different because they are different. The same as you evidently view an egg fertilized outside of the womb as different.
Click to expand...
Just one question, Luther, do you consider an abortion for no other reason than the woman doesn't want the baby to be "women's healthcare"?
 
#599
#599
Vol8188 said:
What happens if you vote blue and red wins? The same thing would happen here. Sorry, you got out voted. Move or stay, your call.

Iā€™m not sure why you find that comical in terms of secession but not in terms of democracy in general
Click to expand...
Should each city/county/neighborhood get to decide if they want to remain part of the seceding state?
 
#600
#600
tvolsfan said:
Should each city/county/neighborhood get to decide if they want to remain part of the seceding state?
Click to expand...

Good question but I would say no. Especially those not sharing a border with another state, maybe if a whole block of counties voted not to secede something could be worked out.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top