Skip to main content

CNN's Chetry Tells Ron Paul: 'Freedom and Right to Life Don't Always Go Together'

Matthew Balan's picture

On Monday's American Morning, CNN's Kiran Chetry indicated that individual liberty and the pro-life movement weren't compatible. During an interview of Congressman Ron Paul, Chetry stated, "Freedom to make your own decisions...giving people the ability to make their own decisions, and the right to life movement don't always go together."

The anchor interviewed the libertarian-leaning Republican at the bottom of the 6 am Eastern hour. Midway through the interview, Chetry claimed that Paul is "not a huge social conservative," and then asked about his recent speech at CPAC: "This is one of the largest social conservative gatherings and you're a libertarian. What do you think your appeal is among some of the young social conservatives?"

When Paul replied that "Well, I don't know where you got the idea that I'm not a social conservative," the CNN personality explained what she meant:

Kiran Chetry, CNN Anchor; & Congressman Ron Paul | NewsBusters.orgCHETRY: ...When you gave your speech [at CPAC], you talked a lot about- you know, about going to war and our foreign policy and making sure that we're not- I mean, there wasn't a lot of talk about gay marriage, and whether or not that's going to be a huge issue for you, come 2012,- gun rights, et cetera.

The Texas representative clarified that "what I talk about is freedom, and let people make their own choices, and I make the point that in our social lives and our religious lives- in the First Amendment, you get to make your own choices, and therefore, we should be tolerant of others....But I'm strong right to life, and I happen to have been married for 53 years, so- you know, it's hard to say I'm not a social conservative."

Chetry followed up with her slanted statement about the pro-life movement:

CHETRY: You know, freedom to make your own decisions and right to life don't always go together though.

PAUL: Excuse me again?

CHETRY: I said, freedom to make your own decisions, as you talk about- giving people the ability to make their own decisions- and the right to life movement don't always go together.

PAUL: Well, I don't see a conflict at all. It's just how you get there. Compulsion is one thing. You know, fair and equal distribution of wealth is something- I think people would sort of like to see everybody share in a large middle class. Well, some people want to do it by compulsion, and some people want to do it through the marketplace. I happen to believe that sound money and free markets distribute- produce more wealth and distribute it more fairly.


Though Congressman Paul didn't directly address Chetry's point, pro-lifers would reply that the unborn child's right to life should be protected, for "if you can't protect life, how can you protect liberty,"as the Texas congressman himself stated in 2007. Chetry clearly started off with a false premise.

On the June 1, 2009 edition of American Morning, the CNN anchor let "abortion provider" Diane Derzis denigrate all pro-life activists as potential murderers. Chetry also sympathized with Derzis when she asked her, "What is it like going to work knowing you have a target on your head?

Comments

#1 Paul is slowly going off teh

Paul is slowly going off teh deep end.

Nuke em til they glow; then shoot em in the dark

#2 WOW

Seems like just yesterday every mention of Dr. Paul was met with scorn and  hatred from the neo-con leaning NBers.  

Freedom is a vital component of human effectiveness and fulfillment.

#3 Shocker

The racist bigot Vonu backing the racist bigot Mr. Paul.  No surprise there. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

#4 guess I spoke to soon

Have at it haters

Freedom is a vital component of human effectiveness and fulfillment.

#5 Looks like you did speak too soon

I only see one post so far and it's devoid of hatred.

#6 ~*yawn*

.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"

#7 Doesn't one's right to throw

Doesn't one's right to throw a fist stop at someone else's jaw?

So where does one's freedom to "make your own decisions" stop?

Well, Kiran, it stops at the point of selling one's body for prostitution, and even at the point of selling one's kidney!

But when it harms a helpless tiny human being inside one's body...the woman's right to make her own decisions is supreme.

How do these people sleep at night?

#8 By over medicating.

By over medicating.

Non, je ne regrette rien. "You aren't angry because I might be a racist, you're angry because you know I'm right".

#9 the freedom to make your own decisions...

 also means that you have the responsibility to live with the consequences!

#10 It's not your decision to make

It's always amazes me when someone uses "a woman's right to make her own decisions (her own choice)" when arguing for abortion.  Since when it is someone's right to decide (to choose) the fate of another? 

Hay, Ladies, you DON'T have the right to decide if your own children live or die, just as you don't have the right to decide if your neighbor lives or dies.  What part of that don't you understand?

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court

Or Anwar al-Awlaki.

#11 ~They do understand

That's why abortion providers refer to the baby as anything but a baby.

"Sometimes we lied. A girl might ask what her baby was like at a certain point in the pregnancy: Was it a baby yet? Even as early as 12 weeks a baby is totally formed, he has fingerprints, turns his head, fans his toes, feels pain. But we would say 'It's not a baby yet. It's just tissue, like a clot.'"

--Kathy Sparks told in "The Conversion of Kathy Sparks" by Gloria Williamson, Christian Herald Jan 1986 p 28

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"

#12 History is loaded

with examples of dehumanizing victims ...to promote evil. But the science is settled. Life begins at conception. That's a scientific fact.

roflmao

#13 Short film: Volition

http://www.rockyfarmstudio.com/blog/?p=407

This movie shows the parallels in the dehumanizing thought behind slavery, Nazi Germany's treatment of the Jews, and abortion.  It's a quick view and a good film.

"Unfortunately, some people use belief-based facts rather than fact-based beliefs." -Par for the Course on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 5:38pm

#14 Thanks

I've read stuff like that before, but I always find it engaging.  It's really sad and horrific what goes on.  There's a reason pro-aborts don't want the details getting out.  I still want to buy and read Abby Johnson's story Unplanned and there's a book out there by the lady who was Roe of Roe v. Wade fame. 

The last thing I read was the Grand Jury's report on Gosnell's clinic.  Poking around the blogs, I found that I'm not the only one who reacted to it by losing sleep at night and appreciating my kid even more.

Edit: By "that stuff" I meant http://www.abortionfacts.com/providers/quotes.asp posted by WB.

"Unfortunately, some people use belief-based facts rather than fact-based beliefs." -Par for the Course on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 5:38pm

#15 It's always amazes me when

It's always amazes me when someone uses "a woman's right to make her own decisions (her own choice)" when arguing for abortion.  Since when it is someone's right to decide (to choose) the fate of another? 

Surely you see the irony in this? You say one doesn't have the right to decide the fate of another, yet you are advocating for government to decide the fate of another. Who owns your body, you or government? And abortion aside, I don't think anyone could logically argue that a fetus should be a citizen.

#16 surely you see the

surely you see the over-generalization in this...

why is it illegal to abort after 6 months? or why can i be charged with 2 murders if i kill a pregnant woman?

murder is illegal and a baby is innocent

Congratulations Jimmy Carter!

#17 → Right, Truthie

You are so right.

"That stain on your dress aside, how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"

#18 I don't deny that there are

I don't deny that there are inconsistencies in our laws (and of course there is the federal/states issue here, that being not all states have fetal harm laws and federal law only kicks in under certain conditions), but that doesn't even address my point at all.

#19 One truly are one sick f*ck, Incestmo

.

#20 How so? I believe abortion is

How so? I believe abortion is morally wrong, but I also believe that government does not own our bodies. As I said below, freedom is a messy, inconvenient, and repugnant thing for some.

#21 Fetus = property?

What you seem to be arguing is that the fetus is property.

#22 Absolutely. All rights begin

Absolutely. All rights begin with property rights. Our bodies are our property, and by extension fetuses are the property of the mother. Forgive me, but if this idea startles you, then you are unfamiliar with property rights and the idea that property rights begin with our lives/bodies.

http://mises.org/daily/2569

#23 Inscestmo, slavery was

Inscestmo, slavery was outlawed after the Civil War.  An unborn child is not property, it is an unborn child.

Proud member of the 53%!

#24 Who said anything about

Who said anything about slavery? So much for serious discussion.

#25 You referred to the baby as

You referred to the baby as the "property" of the mother.  Slaves are the only human beings referred to as property.

You said it, deal with it.

Proud member of the 53%!

#26 Like I said, so much for

Like I said, so much for serious discussion.

#27 In other words, you put your

In other words, you put your foot in it and are backing down.  Gotcha.

Proud member of the 53%!

#28 "Fetuses are the property of the mother"?

Arguably the most inane thing I've read here--and I've read a lot of inanity.

Mr. Armstrong, if you would be so kind, when, in your opinion, do developing children shed the status of "property"  Third trimester?  Birth canal?  Birth?  A month after being born?

--Mike

#29 satchmo.

Although there is along history of the concept of self-ownership I think your premise that your body is property of your person is highly doubtful. As long as the concept of personhood is inextricably tied to biological bodies, the relationship between them goes beyond that of owner and property. Your body is part of you being a person. Or to put it another way: You cannot transfer, even voluntarily, the property rights of your body to another party. That is legally impossible.

You should seriously scrutinize your libertarian credo "All rights begin with property rights" .
 

#30 Let me clarify: the right to

Let me clarify: the right to life is the source of all rights. So, in that our lives are our property, all rights begin with property rights.

#31 satchmo

The point is neither your body nor your life are your property. They are intrinsically and indistinguishably a part of your person. In this case the notions of property and owner are void.

And what I forgot to say above: Just because something is inside your body, doesn't make it your property.

#32 If you wan to use "person"

If you want to use "person" instead, go ahead, but know we don't disagree on that point. Your living self - body, life, person - is your property. This is not some radical concept; it is a centuries-old one.

#33 ~Uh oh!

That'll teach you to use an adjective instead of a noun! Or vice versa.

Fun when people pretend they didn't get what you said, huh?

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"

#34 satchmo

It may be a centuries old concept, but that doesn't preclude the possibility that the concept itself is inconsistent. 

What's troubling to me is that following your concept necessarily leads one to the notion, that the fetus is private property of the mother and can thereby be sold, mutulated and destroyed ad libitum. 

#35 "What's troubling to me is

"What's troubling to me is that following your concept necessarily leads one to the notion, that the fetus is private property of the mother and can thereby be sold, mutulated and destroyed ad libitum."

But in a sense this exists. After all, the mother is able to enter into a contractual, mutual agreement with adoptive parents prior to birth. It's a transfer of property. Would you deny that the mother has that right?

#36 ~Adoption is a "transfer of property"?!

You are so incredibly twisted.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"

#37 Think of his logic Brunette*

If a child is simply property then of course he would be in favor of adoption as a "contract in transfer of property". That way when he talks about sex with your own child, its not really

incest/incest. Incestmo then grants himself the freedom to do whatever he wants with his "property".

#38 Satchmo, Took a beat down on that, one of them ol 1-2, h/t cajun

The ground squid he is, cajuns' logic went wayyy over his head.

Here's laughing at you satchmo...@ 1:30

#39 No, I didn't say adoption is

No, I didn't say adoption is the transfer of property. I identified the recipients as the eventual adoptive parents. They adopt the child after he is born. Embryonic "adoption" falls under contract law because...ownership is transferred from one party to another.

#40 This is to easy

After all, the mother is able to enter into a contractual, mutual agreement with adoptive parents prior to birth. It's a transfer of property.



Your words you ignorant putz.
Proud member of the 53%!

#41 If money changes hands, it's

If money changes hands, it's illegal BECAUSE A CHILD IS NOT PROPERTY.  Any adoption agrrement, even private adoptions, are regulated by the state.  The parties are investigated by social workers for their fitness BECAUSE A CHILD IS NOT PROPERTY.

You are one sick SOB.

Proud member of the 53%!

#42 You show your ignorance once

You show your ignorance once again, not the least of which is that you have no idea what is even being discussed.

#43 You called children property,

You called children property, remember this? After all, the mother is able to enter into a contractual, mutual agreement with adoptive parents prior to birth. It's a transfer of property.


Must suck that you keep stepping in your own sh1t.
Proud member of the 53%!

#44 I've never once called

I've never once called children property. You also suffer from some delusion that a contract must mean money exchanges hands. Like I said, you display your ignorance readily, especially when you don't even know what is being discussed.

#45 So what the hell is the

So what the hell is the property the mother transferring if not the baby?  Because that is what the discussion is about, babies.

Face it, you said and you have to deal with it.

Proud member of the 53%!

#46 Deny Deny incestmo*

Scroll up a bit doofus. Post #22

2-15-11 12:21 Incestmo....All rights begin with property rights. Our bodies are our property and by extension fetuses are the property of the mother....

And around and around we go...

#47 Fetuses are not children.

Fetuses are not children.

#48 its a matter of opinion - a

its a matter of opinion - a fetus is a baby is a child

Congratulations Jimmy Carter!

#49 It has nothing to do with

It has nothing to do with opinion; it's a matter of developmental fact. Embryo -> fetus -> child (neonate, infant, toddler, etc.)

#50 So, areyou going to argue

So, areyou going to argue that when a woman is pregnant she has two hearts, four lungs, two brains, etc? 

Give it up, a fetus is NOT part of it's mother's body, it is a separate being living within it's mother's body.

Proud member of the 53%!

#51 You're being ridiculous.

You're being ridiculous. Where have I even suggested that a pregnant woman has two hearts, four lungs, etc.? I've never said it is a part of her body like an organ or a limb or a system, although the uterus certainly is a part of her body. Agree? I've said that our bodies are our property, and by extension, the fetus is the property of the mother.

#52 Since when is another human

Since when is another human life the property of someone else?  That leads back into the whole slavery thing. 

Proud member of the 53%!

#53 And that leads back to your

And that leads back to your being ridiculous. Slavery implies much more than ownership or possession.

#54 OMG this is almost comical. 

OMG this is almost comical.  What more to slavery is there besides ownership? 

You are really off the wall tonight.

Proud member of the 53%!

#55 What more? Seriously???

What more? Seriously???

#56 Yes, seriously.  The whole

Yes, seriously.  The whole idea of ownership of one human being over another is horrendous enough.  You say it implies more, as if slavery isn't bad enough on it's own. 

Proud member of the 53%!

#57 Sick freak

Incestmo, once again constantly condescending to others.

He simply cannot counter-argue.  Incestmo is supreme in all things; the most brilliant thinker on all of NB, ever.  He never needs to respond to counter-arguments.  People who dare to respond to his posts with arguments of their own, in Incestmo's world, stupid, ignorant, or can't read.

Sick freak. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

#58 SatchelMouth---

you are way off when you get on your high horse and state that you did not say what you said. You said exactly what Rad said you did, and when you deny that, with your post hanging there to be seen, by trying to lay it on someone else's misinterpretation, or saying they don't know what they are talking about, means you leave your arse flappin' in the breeze as well. Monty Python's Black Knight has absolutely nothing on you. Apparently taqqiya is now a sanctioned course at Troll University.
"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#59 One would think you'd have

One would think you'd have learned your lesson.

#60 insecstmo

The only lesson we can learn from you is that no matter how many times you are proven wrong, you behave like a three year old.  You deny what is put in front of your face and pretend you haven't been proven wrong over and over again. 

Lesson to be learned:  Satchmo is a stubborn pigheaded troll who knows very little and proves it every time he comes to NB.
 

Proud member of the 53%!

#61 Proven wrong about what?

Proven wrong about what? Of course I'm going to deny saying someting I never said. The problem in this instance is that you are equating fetuses with children and using them interchangably, which I have never done anywhere in this thread; I have specifically separated the terms out of accuracy.

#62 Oh my, unlike The Vet I don't

Oh my, unlike The Vet I don't have the patience to go through all of your posts, because I'd say in pretty much all of them your wrong.

And you most certainly did interchange children and fetus's, in your post about adoption. 

Proud member of the 53%!

#63 I didn't ask you to go

I didn't ask you to go through all of my posts. Just name one.

I didn't interchange children and fetus in that post. In fact, I didn't use either word. I said that a mother can enter into a mutual, contractual agreement with the adoptive parents prior to birth. That agreement could be prior to the embryonic stage, it could be during or even beyond the embryonic stage, but there are contracts made prior to birth, and it's a transfer of property. The property is transferred upon signing the agreement and the mother is custodian of the property and would be bound by any agreement in eating healthy and refraining from any activity that could harm the fetus. This isn't some brand new concept.

#64 Adoption is a two fold

Adoption is a two fold process, the first step is the termination of the parental rights of the mother and father.  The next, and separate step, is to bestow the parental rights onto the adoptive parents.  The child is not refered to as property.

Did you say you were a lawyer?  I really really hope not, because if you are, you should get a refund from your law school.

Proud member of the 53%!

#65 I am not speaking of

I am not speaking of post-birth adoption. Adoption takes place after birth. Once again, I never called a child property. You are - purposefully, I have to believe at this point - using terms interchangably when I have clearly stated there is a distinct difference. The least you could do would to be honest and acknowledge that.

#66 A child cannot be adopted

A child cannot be adopted before birth.  Aren't you a lawyer?

Proud member of the 53%!

#67 And what, exactly, PervMeister SatchelMouth---

are you referring to? The fact that I gave you a point for a link calling Down's Syndrome "Down" Syndrome? Are you telling me that you are fool enough to think that providing that link somehow won you the argument? Don't bother to answer that; fools just do NOT come any bigger than you. Speaking of comprehension, while your thoughts are the exact opposite of being comprehensible, it takes no comprehensive ability whatsoever to see you for the idiot you are. Putz.
"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#68 After reading this again, I'm

After reading this again, I'm struck once more by lip service conservativism. Here is a tacit admission that we are subjects of the state, and you're cool with it. No "well, this sucks, but that's how it is'" or "I don't agree with it, but..." Just acceptance without question. So now we go back to the question that started it all: who owns your body, you or the state? I think we have your answer here.

#69 Nope, the question is, is a

Nope, the question is, is a fetus part of a woman's body or not?  No, it's not, it's a life of it's own inhabiting the mother's body.

Keep trying to change the argument, but all your b.s. lies are right there for everyone to see.

Proud member of the 53%!

#70 How could I have changed the

How could I have changed the argument when I was the one who posited it in the first place? And yes, your question is a response to the argument. So there is no contradiction here; there has been no change of argument.

And in case you didn't know, I was referring to your social worker scenario in that last post.

#71 Rinse, Repeat*

Incestmo....I did not read your post....I did not say that....you are taking my words out of context....you are changing the subject....you are displaying your ignorance.....

Around and around we go

#72 Irony

An authoritarian lecturing conservatives on conservatism. 

Consider my irony meter pegged....

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

#73 It's a transfer of a legal title, not of the child.

In the case you mention you transfer the title of guardianship or custody (neither of which includes claims of property regarding the child) from one party to another!

#74 What part of...

...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;

Do you not understand? Pretty darn simple, if you ask me...yeah, if you want to be "PC" replace men with women, babies, etc.

"If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you always got."

#75 I understand it completely.

I understand it completely. What part of it do you find confusing that leads you to believe the state owns your body?

#76 Satch, this is not about who

Satch, this is not about who owns  our bodies. We do, we are responsible for what we do with them. The government is supposed to protect us, "equal protection under the law", even the unborn. Our govenment has thus far not been protecting the life of the unborn. If one aborts a child, one should be guilty of murder.

Right as allways, never left.

#77 It most certainly is about

It most certainly is about who owns our bodies; either we are free individuals or we are subjects of the state. The government is NOT supposed to protect us. It exists to protect and secure our liberties. Protecting oneself or one's family is the responsibility of the individual. This is not even a legal question, this is a philosophical question regarding freedom and government.

#78 How does the government

How does the government protect our liberties? What is the militrary for, the FBI, CIA, Homeland Secutiry etc etc should the Government leave us wide open to foriegn invation and terroist attacks? Arm the citzens to the teeth, because government is not supposed to protect us, just our liberties.

Right as allways, never left.

#79 Protecting the borders is one

Protecting the borders is one way of securing our liberties, yes, but that is not how the government secures our liberties (I'm sure you are familiar with Benjamin Franklin's quote, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"). Our Constitution was enshrined to protect us from government intrusion into our liberties, and a system of checks and balances was set up throughout government to do so as well. Government does not exist to protect you. That was never its purpose.

#80 So, help me with your nuance here.

You're arguing there is, or should be, the freedom to kill a child before his or her birth?

--Mike

#81 I'm arguing that the

I'm arguing that the government does not own your body, and therefore has no right to tell a person that they must terminate a fetus, carry it to full term, or to its birth.

#82 The government does not own

The government does not own my children, but they tell me I cannot terminate them.  A fetus is still a baby and a human being. 

Proud member of the 53%!

#83 Surely you recognize there is

Surely you recognize there is a difference between autonomous, sovereign children born and an in utero fetus.

#84 That difference is?  You

That difference is?  You believe killing one but not the other?

Proud member of the 53%!

#85 Hey Professor Incestmo

While you're lecturing, tell us, have you ever see an autonomous newborn child?

So you're also down with 8th month abortions because it's the mother's property.

You sink to a new low every day here.

#86 So now you're being a troll.

So now you're being a troll. You ignored my response to you above in which I said that abortion is morally wrong, and here you falsely state that I'm in favor of abortions. That is troll behavior.

#87 Yup, I'm a troll. Stuff it.

You talk out of both ends, and neither of them hear the other one.

But keep mucking up the threads with your double-speak and whining about how everyone else is always missing the point or suffering from reading comprehension.

We comprehend you quite well.

#88 Admitting it is the first

Admitting it is the first step to recovery.

#89 ~Poor Pervmo

He can't even come up with any original material. So sad.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"

#90 Incestmo is using this "How

Incestmo is using this "How to" guide

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dmw0OXWz5lE

Proud member of the 53%!

#91 That's our boy to a tee

I had a slightly different mental image, though ;)

#92 LOL Rad,


#93 Your inconsistencies are startling here, Satch.

You supposedly believe abortion to be morally wrong, yet you describe developing children as "property."  Your word.  Property that, by extension, the mother may do with as she sees fit.

Taking the tanget of "the government does not own your body" and running with it doesn't serve you well.  As others have observed, the discussion is not about who does or doesn't own one's body, but rather about whether or not it's a good idea to kill a developing child.  

Of course, it's much easier to kill a developing child when he or she is categorized as mere property.  Protest all you like, but it is cognitively dissonant to assert that abortion is immoral while asserting that developing children are but property, subject to the whims of the mother and the mother's abortionist.

To answer a question you've posed, the difference between a developing child and a newborn is patience.  Have a little patience, Satchmo--what's your hurry?

--Mike

#94 " As others have observed,

" As others have observed, the discussion is not about who does or doesn't own one's body, but rather about whether or not it's a good idea to kill a developing child."

No, that is exactly what the debate is about. There isn't a single person here who has said it's a good idea to kill a developing child; that argument is nonexistent. So your attempt to try and reframe the argument into something entirely different fails, as does your "whims of...the mother's abortionist," which is another weak strawman. And fyi, I didn't ask what the difference between a child and a fetus is.

So if you wish to have a discussion, then try being honest.

#95 The debate is about the

The debate is about the government allowing women to kill unborn babies because they want to.  And of course you didn't ask about the difference between a fetus and a baby, because that kills your argument about property.

If you wish to have a discussion, man up and deal with the b.s. you've spouted on this thread.

Proud member of the 53%!

#96 I didn't ask what the

I didn't ask what the difference is; I had already stated what it is. The debate is about freedom: either we are freemen who own our own bodies, who are sovereign individuals, or we are subjects of the state and do not own our bodies. No matter how much you may wish it weren't, this is the debate.

#97 So when does "sovereign individual-hood" begin, then?

Fine, then.  Let's use your terminology--and I'll ask the same set of questions again, using your term.

Mr. Armstrong, if you would be so kind, when, in your opinion, do developing children shed the status of "property" and become sovereign individuals?  Third trimester?  Birth canal?  Birth?  A month after being born?

--Mike

#98 Birth

Birth

#99 Cesarean birth, ok?


#100 Ok for what? Birth is

Ok for what? Birth is birth.The condition is in utero versus not in utero.

#101 Further clarification.

So, if a child is in the birth canal, still property?

If a child is eight-and-a-half months into gestation, able to live outside the womb if necessity required it?  Still property?

How about if the cord hasn't been cut yet?  Is he or she still property?

--Mike

#102 I don't understand what is

I don't understand what is confusing about in utero versus not in utero. I've answered this question already. In fact, I had already stated this condition far before you first asked. So before you continue asking the same question over and over, regardless of how it's phrased, ask youself if your hypothetical is in utero or not, and you'll have your answer.

#103 Your logic?

"And abortion aside, I don't think anyone could logically argue that a fetus should be a citizen."

The preamble to the constitution says "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

That is "Posterity" not "Posteriors".  "Posterity" is all who come after us.  Which includes born children... unborn children... and descendants not even dreamed of yet.  So yes... a "fetus" is our "Posterity" and the constitution protects their rights.  Is that assigning them the rights of a citizen... yes it is.  The responsibilities of a citizen will come at a more mature time.

#104 → beauxdog

What incestmo is trying to say is "Setting aside the main issue, I like quiche"

#105 Well then we really better

Well then we really better get on with redoing the census, then. Since fetuses are citizens and all. And we better make sure they get their Social Security cards. Let's toss out birth certificates and go with conception certificates instead.

Please. That just isn't logical. A fetus is not a descendant, not until birth. A fetus is not a citizen, not until birth. Give me an argument based on logic that a fetus should be counted as a citizen.

#106 What a ridiculous reply...

And "posterity" refers to generations to come.  They are not born, the vast majority of them aren't even concieved... yet the preamble specifically mentions them. 

I am sorry you are so wrapped up in your rhetoric that basic logic escapes you.

#107 Yes, it was ridiculous; that

Yes, it was ridiculous; that was the point (hence the "that just isn't logical" part). I'm just following your train of thought and showing you how absurd it is. You didn't even address the content. The argument is not about what 'posterity' means. A fetus is not a descendant until birth. A fetus is not a citizen until birth. Give me a logical argument for fetuses to be counted as citizens.

#108 I'm just going to keep asking, then.

"Mr. Armstrong, if you would be so kind, when, in your opinion, do developing children shed the status of "property" and become sovereign individuals?  Third trimester?  Birth canal?  Birth?  A month after being born?"

--Mike

 

#109 Answered above: birth. Sorry

Answered above: birth. Sorry I had missed your post before.

#110 Oh, you may have responded...

...but, as I hope you'll understand, you hardly have an answer.

--Mike

#111 If you twist other people's words...

to the way you want them, I guess you can make anything seem illogical.

You keep changing my word (and the constitution's) from "Posterity" to "Descendants".  I guess you can talk down descendants, but not posterity.  You are also stuck on the word "citizen".  So, I will give you this one.  If you want to contend that a "citizen" is a living, post-partum human being... so be it.  However... that does not change the fact that the constitution was written to protect not only "citizens" rights, but the rights of all members of our future generations.  This includes unborn babies and those not even dreamed of yet.

And yes... a "fetus" is a human being.  It is a human being with its own unique DNA which it has had since conception.  Though it is dependant on its host for nurishment and protection, it is a unique individual who's rights are protected by the constitution.  It is not "property".  Come to think of it... it will be dependant on its host for nurishment and protection for 20 to 30 more years.


Regardless... I see now that I was foolish to have defended you in the past.  It is obvious that all you want to do is argue for the sake of arguement and twist other people's words.  Yes... you are SO MUCH smarter than the rest of us... we bow to your superior intellect.

(yes... that is sarcasm cast in your general direction)
 

#112 Oh my god. Two important

Oh my god. Two important things: 1) you shouldn't use words as the crux of an argument when you don't know what they mean, and I haven't twisted your words at all. Besides, you used the word "descendants" in your post; and 2) I'm stuck on the word citizen? Brother, you are the one who responded to my post when I first questioned the logic of fetus as citizen. So refusing to allow you to change the subject means I'm stuck on the subject? Good one.

OK, three important things: 3) No one is arguing that a fetus does not have its own DNA; that is entirely irrelevant.

#113 ~Pervmo, meet your own petard

No, a fetus does not have property rights. I said our bodies are our property, and by extension fetuses are property of the mother.

 

3) No one is arguing that a fetus does not have its own DNA; that is entirely irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant when you've argued that a fetus is part of a mother's body.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"

#114 I know what the words mean...

I did use "descendant" in my first post, but it was as a redefinition of "posterity" as in "descendants who haven't been dreamed of".  You redefined "descendants" as post-partum humans.  So please, don't imply that I used "descendant" as you did.  I notice you still can't bring yourself to say "posterity" because it totally shoots your logic and argument down.

And yes... you are stuck on the word "citizen".  You didn't question the logic of fetus as citizen... you announced it as though your opinion was a done deal.

Anyway... in all of this crap, you still haven't responded to the crux of my argument... all you have done is throw out side issues.

Respond to this:  The Preamble to the Constitution states its purpose is to preserve liberty for the citizens AND posterity.  This is assigning rights not only to living human beings, but the un-born AND the un-conceived... my children's children's children's children.  They may not be citizens yet... but the constitution was written to protect their rights.

A fetus's DNA in only irrelevant if you want to deny its humanity so you can kill an inconvenient life.

#115 So it's cool when you do it,

So it's cool when you do it, but not when I do it. Gotcha.

Look, dude, you don't have an argument.

#116 double post

dbl pst

#117 No problem on double posts, Satch---

because sometimes your stupidity must be posted twice, as the first read is usually met with disbelief, and a duplicate post by you is likely the only occasion when you can't try to deny what you just said. Of course, being Satchmo, you try anyway.
"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#118 Compulsion

That is what it boils down to. If the Government mandates you to get  heath care and when the other side gets in the Government mandates you not to get any abortion. Where is the freedom for anyone.  A limited government has to set a limit on when they need to get involved in protecting that freedom and with that freedom some will not like what comes from it and we weep but not mandate anyone do anything.

#119 Different roads, same

Different roads, same destination. The choice he lays out is simple - self determination or gov't directed. Finally, a real choice!

The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Ronald Reagan

#120 Responsibility and freedom go

Responsibility and freedom go hand-in-hand. No one just "becomes" pregnant, and the baby shouldn't pay with its life if two people were only thinking of a quick orgasm at a Christmas party.

"It may be true that you can't fool all the people all the time, but you can fool enough of them to rule a large country"......Will Durant

#121 "Becoming" pregnant.

Let's face it, most aborted pregnancies are the result of women to lazy to use birth control and men who are too worthless to accept responsibility. A society that promotes sex as just another feel good sensation with no consequencies also contributes to the problem. There have been about 40 million abortions since abortion was made legal. People are using it for birth control instead of using the several other options. The are choosing the sex of children with selective abortions. I am not saying abortion should be banned, but it should be better controlled. Even if you accept that abortion is a right, there are no absolute rights as leftists and liberals often like to point out.

“We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” -Winston Churchill

#122 According to Guttmacher...

More than half of abortions performed are on women who were contracepting the month they became pregnant.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.

"Unfortunately, some people use belief-based facts rather than fact-based beliefs." -Par for the Course on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 5:38pm

#123 And exactly

none of them were performed on women who were abstaining. What's your point?

"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me

#124 I was responding to this line above:

"Let's face it, most aborted pregnancies are the result of women to lazy to use birth control"

which the data contradicts.  One of the comments here noted the trustworthiness of self-reported data.  To that point, what makes this statistic interesting in that regard is that it comes from Guttmacher, which is very sympathetic to Planned Parenthood and abortion in particular.  Since PP and Guttmacher advocate contraception, it's ironic that they'd report data that suggests contraception doesn't guarantee fewer abortions.  In other words, if contraception guaranteed that you wouldn't need abortions, why were so many abortions performed on women who contracepted?  Moreso, why would Guttmacehr report it if it wasn't true? 

This reinforces Hockey Kid's point that abstinence is the only guarantee for no unplanned pregnancies, unless you also count male castration.

The prevailing wisdom is that contraception will reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies.  It makes sense for one 'encounter'.  But even the most effective contraceptives are about 99.5% (sorry for not providing a link to this) effective.  That creates the mentality that 'it won't happen this time' and encourages more than one encounter.  If you have 200 encounters, your chance of an unplanned pregnancy are a lot greater than 0.5%.  So, my point is that the change in behavior caused by the use of contraceptives increases the number of unplanned pregnancies and the number of abortions.

"Unfortunately, some people use belief-based facts rather than fact-based beliefs." -Par for the Course on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 5:38pm

#125 I find it amazing that so

I find it amazing that so much of what the left supports requires such nuance to comprehend/deal with, when if people took responsibility from the start, there would be no need for that nuance!

But then they wouldn't have to be constantly fixing the "unintended consequences" and ensuring their job security!

So don't want to wait until marriage to have sex, we got your back with abortion.

Don't want to work for less than you feel you deserve, let's extend unemployment from 26 to 99 weeks.

Hate renting? Here, buy a house you can't afford.

ad naseum..... Diana West is correct - arrested development is the root of our crisis!

The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Ronald Reagan

#126 So if contraception is not

So if contraception is not used properly it doesn't work.  There are other options for women that don't require much effort.  One doctor visit and they can be covered for periods over a year. 

There are no excuses for abortion.

Proud member of the 53%!

#127 ~Well now,

that clears it all up, GW. Self-reporting is 100% accurate, I'm sure.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"

#128 Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness...

...unless you are a fetus. Ms. Chetry, an aborted fetus never has the chance to make the decision to abort their fetus.

 

"What a revoltin' development this is!"

Chester Riley

#129 Good Grief, Poor Kiren

See what happens when you hang with a bunch of Liberal retards??  You get STUPID.   Such a shame.  

#130 I guess Ron Paul...

...will be the next Republican candidate, based on how the left chose our last candidate.  Like a dumbass, I will vote the ticket again... and lose again... thank you MSM and brain dead American couch potatoes (did I spell that right?)

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend, unless my friend is more evil than my enemy."

#131 Don't give up, MM....Paul may

Don't give up, MM....Paul may have won the straw poll there, but that only means more of his supporters went to the conference.

And CPAC isn't exactly the heartbeat of the Republican party.

PS...who the hell is Gary Johnson???  He came in third.

#132 The left chose McCain? Uh,

The left chose McCain? Uh, no. Republicans did. If only people voted principles instead of party.

#133 Chetry needs prayer

Ms. Chetry has professed herself to be a Christian, yet as is evidenced by her words on several occasions concerning abortion, she does not understand the value nor the preciousness of human life.

She needs our prayers so that the truth can be revealed to her.

#134 It seems...

...the lovely (on the outside) Ms. Chetry may know as little of Christianity as she knows about freedom.

#135 Chetry

Ever since Chetry tried to get Gretchen Carlson fired at Fox News so she could be a co-host of "Fox and Friends", I have considered Chetry to be ugly on the inside and ugly on the outside.  CNN is a good place for a liberal pig like her.  She fits right in with pigs like wolf blitzer, jack cafferty, kyra phillips and the rest of those scum suckers at CNN.  If Chetry professes to be a Christian, she needs to read up on what makes a good one, instead of  worshipping at the altar of liberalism like nancy pelosi.

NotFondOfLibs

#136 I laughed out loud....

when I heard Pelosi claim she separates her personal life [the one where she's allegedly a Catholic] from her professional life [the one where she's Baroness over the American people].

#137 A question.

Upon what does she base that claim?

I'm into being a Christian for over forty years now, and have yet to meet another Christian who thinks abortion is a good idea.

--Mike

#138 Who, who...not an owl!

Who to vote for? I haven't made up mu mind. I am a conservative, if Ron Paul is actually a liberterian I will probably not vote for him. I want conservatives elected. I think that Chetry stating the freedom of choice doesn't necessarily reconcile with freedom is bogus. We are not talking about smoking, or what car you can drive, we are talking about what many Americans believe is ending a human life.

“We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” -Winston Churchill

#139 There are no statesmen truer

There are no statesmen truer to the ideals and vision of our Founders than Ron and Rand Paul.

#140 Reactionary

They are not statesmen at all.  Ron especially is a reactionary; not a conservative or even a libertarian. 

Maybe you share Ron's anti-Semitism, too, Incestmo?

Oh, and if Ron Paul is SO TRUE to the ideals and vision of our Founders, can you point out to me where in the Constitution it says that Congress pays for city buses and subsidizes the shrimp industry? 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

#141 ehhh

Trump for President!  :P

#142 So I guess

Chetry thinks freedom gives everyone the right to bust a cap in her head...huh.... Some logic

roflmao

#143 Life and choices

Life is about making choices, the decision to do an action(or inaction, which is actually an action of not doing anything).  What makes it all the more difficult that liberals can't deal with is when it comes to accepting the consequences of those actions, or put another way, taking responsibility for those actions, especially if those actions can affect someone other than yourself.

What's amazing to me is that if you want to prevent conception, there are far more safer ways of doing it, even if it was not acceptable to some like churches that believe that if a man and a woman have sex and life is formed, then it is meant to be.  There are a lot of forms of "protection" for both male and females, but some would rather be lazy and not employ those methods.  This is the amazing part, and not in a good way, but by not choosing to use those PAINLESS methods, a woman is forced to undergo a basically surgical procedure which can cause pain, and even emotional trauma in many cases.  This makes no logical sense to me.  But they choose to do that.

I know there are mitigating circumstances that abortion might be considered, and at depth, but it should NEVER be something taken lightly in the same breath as "I think I'll get my hair cut today."

This is just using common sense, science has developed the means of various forms of conception prevention(I hate the term birth control, reminds me of gun control).  If a man or a woman can't be bothered to make use of this and they desire to have sex, then fine, come what consequences may.  Don't make the rest of the world have to suffer for it.  The rest of the world had no part in that decision or choice.  Leave us and our wallets alone.

-Jon

#144 Freedom is a bad word to the left.

Any time a conservative says freedom, life, responsibility or God the hairs on the back of progressives' neck stand up.

Angry people do and say stupid things.

#145 It's a bad word to many here

It's a bad word to many here as well. There's a lot of lip service paid to freedom and liberty here. Freeodom is a messy thing. There are always going to be people who do something you don't like, who make art you don't like, who say things you don't like, but that in no way infringes upon anyone's rights. Still, the lip service conservatives will come down on the side of government and against liberty.

#146 Did you say FREE market below?

Then here you mention art? So I have to assume you are talking about the threads relating to the "ants on a crucifix" thing that you posted several times on. So you pay lip service to the free market? I didn't read anywhere on those threads that controversial artists should not make art, but that we shouldn't pay for it. Is that not supporting the Free market? You seem to support anything and everything except for a citizens right to criticize it.

#147 I don't recall ever posting

I said nothing about tax dollars. I don't recall ever posting on the ants entry. Regardless, I've never said that one doesn't have the right to criticize. I also believe that no taxpayer money should fund the arts, at least no federal tax dollars. The states reserve that right for themselves, although I wouldn't agree with its use. Any more incorrect assumptions you'd like to make?

#148 You are correct

You didn't post there but what else would you be referring to? Does one have the right to make complaint to say, an advertiser telling them they will not support their business if they support offensive art/shows/whatever? Is that against the free market in your mind? Is that censorship?

#149 What else would I be

What else would I be referring to? Nothing specific, and I wasn't even referring to a specific form of art or art medium. Just...art. You're trying too hard to play some gotcha! game. I'm libertarian. What do you think the libertarian pov is?

#150 Gotcha Game

Who's making assumptions now? I was asking questions that would clarify your position. If you feel that doing that provides a gotcha moment, that's your problem, not mine. I have no idea what the libertarian pov is since I can't find two libertarians that can agree on one. For example, Paul himself said "if you can't protect life, how can you protect liberty". That doesn't seem to agree with your pov. Who should I go with?

#151 That was no

That was no assumption. 

How does that not agree with my pov when elsewhere in this thread I said that all rights stem from property rights and that they begin with one's right to exist? And Paul is a Republican who leans libertarian. That doesn't make him a libertarian. He correctly believes that laws pertaining to abortion and its regulation are Constitutionally the province of the states and not the federal.

#152 Yes it was

All rights stem from property rights and begin with one's right to exist? That does not seem to be what you have been saying through the thread. Does a fetus have a right to exist? If so, do they have property rights?

#153 "All rights stem from

"All rights stem from property rights and begin with one's right to exist? That does not seem to be what you have been saying through the thread."

Really?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2011/02/14/cnns-chetry-tells-ron-paul-freedom-and-right-life-dont-always-go-toge#comment-1436483

No, a fetus does not have property rights. I said our bodies are our property, and by extension fetuses are property of the mother.

#154 Again, human beings are not

Again, human beings are not property. 

Proud member of the 53%!

#155 Yes, you don't have to

Yes, you don't have to announce each time that you are unfamiliar with philosophy and rights.

#156 I agree

Yes, you don't have have to announce each time that you are unfamiliar with the 13th Amendment. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

#157 It is philosophy that tells

It is philosophy that tells me that an unborn child is not property.  I'd like to know where you come up with the bizzare assertion that a child is property.  Try to find something from the 21st century, the 19th century doesn't count. 

Proud member of the 53%!

#158 Then you are wrong

I was pointing out the addition of "begin with one's right to exist". If that is the case, you should be argueing why a fetus does not have that right. If property rights cannot begin unless one exists, would not the right to exist trump the right to property?

#159 I see. That wasn't an

I see. That wasn't an addition, just another phrasing. It's not an easy thing to navigate, but we first have to recognize that we are not subjects of the state, that we are - or should be - free, autonomous individuals making decisions for our own lives. The fetus is not an autonomous individual; it is in utero. The mother is the autonomous individual.

#160 As was noted, the baby in

As was noted, the baby in utero has it's own distinct DNA.  It is not part of the mother.  You really are thick.
 

Proud member of the 53%!

#161 Rad

Doubtless, because the baby doesn't say "No" the little tyke must be asking for it.

Consensual suicide, dontcha' see?

#162 No one said it doesn't have

No one said it doesn't have it's own DNA. That's completely irrelevant. The condition is being in utero, not DNA.

#163 Then the baby is not the

Then the baby is not the property of the mother as it possess's it's own DNA.  A baby lives in my house, and is dependent on me, but I still cannot kill it.

Proud member of the 53%!

#164 Yes, we've already covered

Yes, we've already covered your ignorance of philosophy and rights. Try reading John Locke some time: "“every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself." "Man... hath by nature a power.... to preserve his property - that is, his life, liberty, and estate - against the injuries and attempts of other men."

#165 that is, his life, liberty,

that is, his life, liberty, and estate - against the injuries and attempts of other men."

So you're admitting the baby has a right to life.  Thanks for finally getting that through your thick skull.
Proud member of the 53%!

#166 ~Unborn children

have their own distinct DNA. From the moment of conception they are biologically distinct from their mothers. They are not a woman's spare body parts, you inbred nitwit.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"

#167 "Isn't Baby Spleen adorable?"

We're so glad we took him to term just like his sister Vestigial.

#168 ~Oh yes

I consider the ability to push parts of your own body out into the world where they magically morph into separate human beings the single most astounding ability of women.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"

#169 Sickoflibs*

Did you mean sisters?

#170 You said that Down Syndrome

You said that Down Syndrome is not genetic, so understand that I couldn't care less about whatever you have to say.

#171 ~Pervmo

It's okay, dollface. I understand that you have no desire to confront someone who trounced you so thoroughly.
 

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"

#172 The proper terminology, SatchelMouth, is---

Down's Syndrome; but then you haven't been correct, by any stretch of the imagination, in any post you have made, in the entirety of your cancerous presence around here. Neither can you argue, debate, or discuss, with even the slightest semblance of coherence. You should be required to place sematic signs at the start of each of your posts.
"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#173 ⚡⚡ or ☭ and ⚠

⚡⚡   Sparky Scratchmo...

#174 You might want to educate

You might want to educate yourself a little before telling someone they're wrong.

http://www.google.com/search?q=down+syndrome

#175 According to your link, SatchelMouth, you are correct---

but according to my dictionary, it is Down's Syndrome.

According to my cousin Mollie's family, it is Down's Syndrome.

Mollie is afflicted with it, that's what they call it, and it is good enough for me.

You, however, score a point with what you provided in the way of a link.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#176 Chetry is too simple to see the logic in her own statement

Chetry stated, "Freedom to make your own decisions...giving people the ability to make their own decisions,

That's exactly what Obamacare eliminates: the freedom to make one's own decisions.  The infamous mandate forces those who decide not to buy health care to pay a fine --- some choice.

But like most MSM airheads, she lacks continuity of thought to see the connection.

#177 People should be more

People should be more offended over her phrase "giving people the right". Sweetheart, it's an innate right. Granted, many here don't agree with personal choice, instead believing that the police power of government should be used to force people to behave the way they want them to, and to remove the mechanisims of the free market.

#178 Your freedom stops at hurting

Your freedom stops at hurting someone else, including an unborn baby.

Proud member of the 53%!

#179 You make my point.

You make my point.

#180 Personal Freedom = Individual Liberty

What, exactly, IS your point? That YOUR personal freedom supersede the personal freedom of others? Where did you get THAT idea?

Having your own personal freedom doesn't allow you to disregard, or violate, the personal freedom of someone else. That very sentiment is antithetical to the concept of personal freedom, of individual liberty. I'm beginning to doubt your ability to even understand the concept of personal freedom, of individual liberty.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court

Or Anwar al-Awlaki.

#181 Cobra

I'm beginning to doubt your ability....

beginning??

:)

- Shy Vinyl

(and tune in at 4:00 EST today @ http://ZeroRadio.co.uk ... I'll be on The Soul Sanctuary Show :))

#182 To give the bennifit of the doubt

To give satchmo the benefit of doubt, I was hoping, fruitlessly, I guess, that he would at least understand what personal liberty (freedom) actually means.  Never mind hoping that he understands how we, as a lawful society, protect and defend the freedoms and liberties of our fellow members of society, which is, of course, the various federal, state, and local governments and th laws those governments create. I guess I was hoping for too much.

It looks like satchmo is really an anarchist.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court

Or Anwar al-Awlaki.

#183 Libertarianism is not

Libertarianism is not anarchism; libertarian is not for lawlessness. This should also be obvious when I state that government exists to protect and secure our liberties. If I were an anarchist, I would say there should be no government, law, or authority. I truly have NO idea how you would even suspect or come to the conclusion that I'm an anarchist.

#184 Too bad you're not a libertarian

It's too bad you're not a libertarian, for even libertarians understand and accept the need for a government to defend and enforce our rights through the application of law.

YOU, my friend, are an anarchist! You don't believe in the power of government to define and uphold the laws which regulate civilized society. You think it is a giant police state, as you said many times already. You believe that the power to enforce individual liberties lies only with the individual itself, a VERY dangerous concept, one that invariably leads to anarchy. THAT makes you an anarchist.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court

Or Anwar al-Awlaki.

#185 Cobra

You believe that the power to enforce individual liberties lies only with the individual itself...

Spot. On.

Although, all of your wonderful efforts may be futile with this one.

- Shy Grooves

#186 "It's too bad you're not a

"It's too bad you're not a libertarian, for even libertarians understand and accept the need for a government to defend and enforce our rights through the application of law."

How many times do I have to say that government exists to secure our liberties? You are being completely irrational in ignoring this and in ignoring my pointing out the major difference between libertarianism and anarchism. 

I have never said that we live in a police state. I said that people wish to use the police power of the state. If you think the state doesn't have police power, then you are not living in reality. I never said the power to enforce individual liberties lies only with the individual himself; I said the protection of the individual is the responsibility of the individual. Have you never heard of the Second Amendment?

This is three times now that you want to create strawmen instead of having a reasoned discussion. You, sir, are being entirely disingenuous.

#187 No, those are your words that

No, those are your words that you are putting in my mouth, not mine. I have never said one's freedom supercedes another's. So, I didn't "get that idea" because it's not my idea. That's something you just came up with. We can have reasoned discussion, but building strawmen is not reasoned discussion.

#188 Then what IS your point?

Then what IS your point?

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court

Or Anwar al-Awlaki.

#189 I think my point was rather

I think my point was rather obvious: There are many here who pay lip service to freedom. liberty, personal choice, but then wish to use the police power of the state to make people behave the way they desire, and to interfere with the mechanisms of the free market.

What, exactly, is it you take issue with?

Also, my other point, which I made in response to your post further up the page, was that I hoped you saw the irony of your point of view. I'd like to see your response to mine and what you think about it.

#190 The point your missing...

The point your missing is that government, and the laws the government creates, is how we ENFORCE those individual, inalienable rights.  Although imperfect, it is the only way that doesn't resort to anarchy.  You can't have personal freedoms without a system of justice, universal justice, one that is equally applied to all people, in which to enforce those freedoms.  THAT requires a government, that 'police state' you keep complaining about, one that protects the citizens it serves.   Anything other type of enforcement invariably reverts to chaos, invariably becomes anarchy, (which always leads to a LOSS of freedom for the weaker members of society, by the way) as our Founding Fathers knew well. That's WHY we even have governments, and clearly defined laws which are enforced by legally defined protectors (known as police)  to, hopefully, insure that every person has the same rights and that those rights are enforced equally and in a manner that is acceptable to the majority of society.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court

Or Anwar al-Awlaki.

#191 "The point your missing is

"The point your missing is that government, and the laws the government creates, is how we ENFORCE those individual, inalienable rights. "

How, exactly, am I missing this point when I've stated multiple times that government exists to protect and secure our liberties? The point is inherent in that statement. I said nothing about a police state, so quit making things up. In regards to "protecting" the citizens, are you aware the Supreme Court ruled that the police have no Constitutional duty to protect you? That they have no obligation to protect you or to even respond to a call? Protect and serve is nothing more than a mission statement with no binding obligation. Regardless, you are arguing against something you made up. I'd suggest you quit trying to put words in people's mouths and attributing things to them that they never said. 

#192 There is no enforcement

No-one has to play by the rules anymore. From the POTUS to, illegal aliens, those who hire them, delinquent kids, hell even I got my ticket fixed. Everyone gets 5 chances or buys their way out.

 

Liberty in America amounts to protecting one's self from the punitive regulations forced on the citizens, by the government!

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty

#193 I see...

Sort of like how you believe government should have the power to issue people allowance money like a Big Parent?

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

#194 What the hell is that woman

What the hell is that woman talking about?  She didn't even know Ron Paul's position on anything.  I guess being hot doesn't make you terribly informed.

#195 Freedom

and right to life don't always go together... unless you're reading the Declaration of Independence.

"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.