Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/15/06 10:12 PM, Montgomery_Scott wrote: My fault. Let me reiterate. That is just becuase of the changing nature of the constitution.

I get what you're saying, but I disagree wit the premise that the nature of the Constitution changes. Times change, principles do not.

Privacy to kill babies? It's fake. It's nonsense. Sovereignty explicitly belongs to the states or the people on this issue.

a. abortion isn't killing babies.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

b. Even if you were talking about eating infants, it is a constitutional precident that the it is not within the government's power to intrude on people's lawful activities.

Yeah, but who decides what is lawful? The people should have the right to decide whether this highly contested practice should be legal in their respective state.

Men have spent lifetimes arguing about this signe issue. Why don't we just drop it right here.

Fine

And about Scalia, he shoudl be censured. Calling your opponents idiots is ok if you are like Bill O' Riley or Al Franken. Not if you are a Justice of the supreme court. He brings disgrace to the seat that he holds.

Sort of agree with you, but what he said is nothing compared to the average over-the-top rhetoric of the Democrat in Washington. I don't think he should be censured.

True, but imo, the overall demeanor of politicians on both sides of the aisle has gone downhill. I can name both Democrats and Republicans who make cruel mockery of the decorum of their offices.

No argument there. As rude and as alienating as Scalia is (he's famous for it) at least he's giving some support for his argument rather than baselessly calling his opposition evil.

At 2/15/06 10:30 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 2/15/06 10:12 PM, Montgomery_Scott wrote: My fault. Let me reiterate. That is just becuase of the changing nature of the constitution.

I get what you're saying, but I disagree wit the premise that the nature of the Constitution changes. Times change, principles do not.

I misrepresented my views if you think i said the nature of the document changes. Our interpretation of the document, the way in which we read it changes, and trying to read it as if we were living in 1783 will get us nowhere.

Privacy to kill babies? It's fake. It's nonsense. Sovereignty explicitly belongs to the states or the people on this issue.

a. abortion isn't killing babies.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

zzzzzzzzz

b. Even if you were talking about eating infants, it is a constitutional precident that the it is not within the government's power to intrude on people's lawful activities.

Yeah, but who decides what is lawful? The people should have the right to decide whether this highly contested practice should be legal in their respective state.

But that leads to the slippery slope where if we set the precident that there is no inherent right to privacy we will soon find states outlawing things as innucous as eating chicken etc. There are certain behaviors and activities that the federal government ought to protect people's rights to.

Men have spent lifetimes arguing about this signe issue. Why don't we just drop it right here.

Fine

And about Scalia, he shoudl be censured. Calling your opponents idiots is ok if you are like Bill O' Riley or Al Franken. Not if you are a Justice of the supreme court. He brings disgrace to the seat that he holds.

Sort of agree with you, but what he said is nothing compared to the average over-the-top rhetoric of the Democrat in Washington. I don't think he should be censured.

True, but imo, the overall demeanor of politicians on both sides of the aisle has gone downhill. I can name both Democrats and Republicans who make cruel mockery of the decorum of their offices.

No argument there. As rude and as alienating as Scalia is (he's famous for it) at least he's giving some support for his argument rather than baselessly calling his opposition evil.

Agreed.

Accesscode is trying to mis-interprete the constitution. I'm going to call Scalia to get on his ass.

At 2/15/06 10:43 PM, redskvnk wrote: Accesscode is trying to mis-interprete the constitution. I'm going to call Scalia to get on his ass.

That's pretty queer.

At 2/15/06 10:45 PM, AccessCode wrote: That's pretty queer.

You'll like it.

At 2/15/06 10:49 PM, redskvnk wrote:

At 2/15/06 10:45 PM, AccessCode wrote: That's pretty queer.

You'll like it.

AcessCode! Come out of the closet!

At 2/15/06 10:51 PM, Montgomery_Scott wrote:

AcessCode! Come out of the closet!

FEWL! I live in the bathroom, complete with a computer and ice box and a mini tv!

At 2/15/06 10:41 PM, Montgomery_Scott wrote:

Yeah, but who decides what is lawful? The people should have the right to decide whether this highly contested practice should be legal in their respective state.

But that leads to the slippery slope where if we set the precident that there is no inherent right to privacy we will soon find states outlawing things as innucous as eating chicken etc. There are certain behaviors and activities that the federal government ought to protect people's rights to.

First of all, I don't see the connection between abortion, which is a moral and ethical debate, and eating chicken, which is okay by virtually every person except weirdos like animal rights activists and vegetarians. However, if a state wanted to ban consumption of a certain product, that's in their power to do so. We have people banning smoking in public places, and even though that doesn't make an ounce of sense to me, it's still happening and it is still Constitutionally legit. Why isn't a state ban on abortion?

I love women as much as the next person, and I don't care much for the government intervening in the lives of personal citizens, or at least not as much as other conservatives. But the abortion issue is huge for this country. The reversal of Roe v. Wade would not only limit abortions in most states, but would strengthen democracy.

At 2/15/06 12:08 PM, Proteas wrote:

Personally? I think he's got a point. You do not a write 2+2=4 on a piece of paper, and 200 years later reinterpret 2+2 as being equal to 5. That's not what it meant, and you'd be incorrect to think it does.

What you do you think?

WHAT?! Proteas, do you realize what you're saying? Are you confused or something? So, when a cop searches your car without a warrant and you don't give him/her permission. You'll resist?

At 2/15/06 10:41 PM, Montgomery_Scott wrote:

But that leads to the slippery slope where if we set the precident that there is no inherent right to privacy we will soon find states outlawing things as innucous as eating chicken etc. There are certain behaviors and activities that the federal government ought to protect people's rights to.

Funny, women didn't have the right to an abortion until after Roe vs Wade, yet chicken eating was still legal....fascinating. I mean Jesus, I've heard some dumb arguments before. Allowing gay people to have sex will mean some dude can marry his dog for instance. Or if we end welfare, the black people will have no choice but to become slaves again. But this is pretty damn dumb.

But let's address your argument. The government demands you wear a seatbelt, or a helmet if you ride a motorcycle. They regulate whether a bar is allowed to let its customers smoke. Or whether Wal-Mart has to sell morning after pills. And ironically enough these are all supported by the same people who endorce abortion! That's an overgeneralization, but still.

Abortion is the debate over whether or not life is being ended for convenience. If a fetus is life as the pro-lifers claim, it MUST over-ride the desires of the mother. Simple concept to understand, even if you don't agree with it. It's not simply the debate over a habit such as chewing your finger nails, but a debate over what is and isn't life, and whether it has a right to be protected.

At 2/16/06 02:50 AM, WolvenBear wrote: But let's address your argument. The government demands you wear a seatbelt, or a helmet if you ride a motorcycle. They regulate whether a bar is allowed to let its customers smoke. Or whether Wal-Mart has to sell morning after pills. And ironically enough these are all supported by the same people who endorce abortion!

That's not ironical at all.

Why the fuck should abortion even be a federal issue?

If we want to stick to whattheconstitution was supposed to be about, how about we keep the states first and dont legislate EVERYTHING via the federal goverment?

I think abortion is definitely an issue to be decided at the federal level. It makes no sense to have basic rights decided state-by-state.

This is why states should be able to secede. People keep changing what the Constitution means. But if it truely like a legal contract, it meaning should be fixed.

At 2/16/06 06:31 PM, Wyrlum wrote: This is why states should be able to secede.

Texas can. If you think Scalia calling people idiots is a reason to secede, why hasn't Texas yet?

At 2/16/06 06:22 PM, redskvnk wrote: I think abortion is definitely an issue to be decided at the federal level. It makes no sense to have basic rights decided state-by-state.

Again, it's not a basic right. And the ironic(al) part of my examples were, they support an imaginary right to end life inside them, but ignore the basic right to buy and sell whatever you want in your store. Or pollute your body with cigarette smoke. If you have a right to your body for abortion, you have it for smoking. And you certainly have the basic right to stock what prodcuts you want to carry.

At 2/16/06 06:33 PM, redskvnk wrote: Texas can. If you think Scalia calling people idiots is a reason to secede, why hasn't Texas yet?

Maybe it ought to. The Constitution is being twisted to mean things that it did not originally intend to, therefore the Federal government has no right to force these liberal interpretations on any state.

At 2/15/06 09:53 PM, Montgomery_Scott wrote: haha, simplicity, how lovely. But in all seriousness, AcessCode and Elfer, you need to look beyond the simple language of the amendment and examine the context in which it was added to the constitution.

It was added in the context that a government body can become tyrannical and oppressive, and should that happen, the means should exist for that government to be removed, by force if required.

Thus, the states should be allowed a militia, and individuals allowed weapons.

At 2/16/06 06:38 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Again, it's not a basic right.

I think it is. And the other things you cite.... We do have the ability to smoke and sell whatever legal products we want. You're terrible at drawing parallels.

At 2/16/06 06:41 PM, Elfer wrote: Thus, the states should be allowed a militia, and individuals allowed weapons.

The individuals are allowed weapons, within the scope of an organized militia. Obviously you need people to fill a militia. The entire right to firearms which is enshrined in the constitution, is focused on the states - federal dichotomy.

At 2/16/06 06:43 PM, redskvnk wrote:

At 2/16/06 06:38 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Again, it's not a basic right.

I think it is.

Irrelevant. People think things are their right all the time. And that right may very soon go away or be severely regulated.

:And the other things you cite.... We do have the ability to smoke and sell whatever legal products we want. You're terrible at drawing parallels.

Well, since Wal-Mart has been FORCED to sell contraception, they're obviously not allowed to sell whatever products they want. And depending on where you are you DO NOT have the right to smoke indoors in a restaurant, even if you own it, or outside, or etc. Different cities have imposed all different kinds of restrictions.

I'm excellent at drawing parallels. You're terrible at understanding them.

Since Texas has already been brought up, I'll use it as an example. Texas agreed to the Constitution as it was written when they agreed to it, not as whatever federal judges decide that it should mean. It is like a contract. Once agreed, it can't be changed. If I agree to pay you $50 for a few hours or work, it is right to decide later that you only deserve $35? NO. The states have rights here, and those rights are being trampled all over.

At 2/16/06 06:47 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Irrelevant. People think things are their right all the time. And that right may very soon go away or be severely regulated.

I don't think it is my right. I can't have an abortion. But if me saying that it is a right, then you saying that it isn't a right is similarly "irrelevent." Which is just silly, because then this entire conversation is irrelevent. In the future, actually address what I say, plz.

Well, since Wal-Mart has been FORCED to sell contraception, they're obviously not allowed to sell whatever products they want. And depending on where you are you DO NOT have the right to smoke indoors in a restaurant, even if you own it, or outside, or etc. Different cities have imposed all different kinds of restrictions.

You are allowed to smoke. You are not allowed to harm other people with that smoke. In certain places in certain states. There is no parallel here.

Wal-Mart being forced to sell contraceptives is laughable, and - dare I say - irrelevent to the topic at hand. They sell whatever they wish to sell. Besides some isolated incident somewhere. The exception proves the rule.

At 2/16/06 06:22 PM, redskvnk wrote: I think abortion is definitely an issue to be decided at the federal level. It makes no sense to have basic rights decided state-by-state.

Fair enough. I guess your right about this one. I still would have no problem with the states retaining the right to decide here.

I still dont think the Feds should be trying to legislate half the shit they are doing. I mean, they legislate EVERYTHING. Drugs, sex, highway speed, yadda yadda. Its all crap.

At 2/16/06 06:54 PM, redskvnk wrote: I don't think it is my right. I can't have an abortion. But if me saying that it is a right, then you saying that it isn't a right is similarly "irrelevent." Which is just silly, because then this entire conversation is irrelevent. In the future, actually address what I say, plz.

You think it is someone else's right. Stop playing semantics and word games. You believing that it is a basic right is irrelevant. It is an invented right by the courts that is neither a necessary, nor some would say, even healthy right to have.

Wal-Mart being forced to sell contraceptives is laughable, and - dare I say - irrelevent to the topic at hand. They sell whatever they wish to sell. Besides some isolated incident somewhere. The exception proves the rule.

The fact is simple. A state is being allowed to tell Wal-Mart that they HAVE to sell a product. How is that irrelevant? If you someone has the right to get birth control, or morning after pills, I have the right to tell her to get them through someone else.

As for cigarettes, it too is a parallel. Bar owners are being told they have to ban smoking in their bars, all over the country. IN THEIR BARS. Again, being told what to do with their business. Such other regulations: In LA county, there was a law passed temporarily that said one couldn't even smoke in their own home, because it might seep out and offend neighbors. People are allowed to drive cars that put out ten times the pollutant every second that a pack of cigarettes does. Please, don't even try and give me this "you can't hurt other people with it" BS. If I own a bar, I have the right to make it smoking friendly. And if you don't like it, go somewhere else.

So basically, you only support the rights you agree with, even though the rights I mentioned are basic rights of a company under capitalism. Gotcha.

At 2/16/06 07:03 PM, WolvenBear wrote: You think it is someone else's right. Stop playing semantics and word games. You believing that it is a basic right is irrelevant. It is an invented right by the courts that is neither a necessary, nor some would say, even healthy right to have.

All rights are invented by the government. Without a government, you have no rights. Deal with it.

The fact is simple. A state is being allowed to tell Wal-Mart that they HAVE to sell a product. How is that irrelevant? If you someone has the right to get birth control, or morning after pills, I have the right to tell her to get them through someone else.

You ignored my post. The fact that you found a single example does not prove anything. It proves that I'm correct, that a business can sell whatever it pleases within the restraints of the law. Name another item that Wal-Mart is "forced" to sell. Or half a dozen.

As for cigarettes, it too is a parallel. Bar owners are being told they have to ban smoking in their bars, all over the country. IN THEIR BARS. Again, being told what to do with their business. Such other regulations: In LA county, there was a law passed temporarily that said one couldn't even smoke in their own home, because it might seep out and offend neighbors. People are allowed to drive cars that put out ten times the pollutant every second that a pack of cigarettes does. Please, don't even try and give me this "you can't hurt other people with it" BS. If I own a bar, I have the right to make it smoking friendly. And if you don't like it, go somewhere else.

Smoking is a destructive habit that hurts others. You're not allowed to poison the water of a business, you're not allowed to poison the air of a residence in certain places. If you own a bar in NY state, then you don't have that right. Bars in NY are nonsmoking. Sorry, if you don't like it, you can move your business somewhere else.

At 2/16/06 06:43 PM, redskvnk wrote:

At 2/16/06 06:38 PM, WolvenBear wrote:

I think it is. And the other things you cite.... We do have the ability to smoke and sell whatever legal products we want. You're terrible at drawing parallels.

Whatever legal rights.

There slowly taking away the right to smoke.

If abortion is such a major right of people to chose, why isn't pot, coke or Acid legal.

Don't these people have just the same right to chose what they want to do in thier private use.

At 2/15/06 11:29 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: The reversal of Roe v. Wade would not only limit abortions in most states,

As a conservative, you should say it's a state issue.

but would strengthen democracy.

What? That's drawing a conclusion that can't be drawn unless you're completely deviating from the rules of logic. If roe v. wade was overturned THEN democracy would be strengthened? That's not a properly substantiated conditional statement.

At 2/15/06 12:08 PM, Proteas wrote: Personally? I think he's got a point. You do not a write 2+2=4 on a piece of paper, and 200 years later reinterpret 2+2 as being equal to 5. That's not what it meant, and you'd be incorrect to think it does.

What you do you think?

Mathimatics, in this sense, is perfect, however the founding fathers were not. There's no way they could have predicted the future and determined the best laws to govern them, so the idea that a constitution without ammendment working is preposterous. It's only practical to acknoledge that the future brings changes, and so you should compensate for those changes.

At 2/16/06 07:39 PM, Fenrus1989 wrote: There slowly taking away the right to smoke.

I haven't seen any evidence of that. And even so – what's your point? I'm tired of dancing around points with people. Have your say already. What's your problem with having the federal right to an abortion?