McCain VP choice?

[Len]

Sept 5, 2008 21:22:35 GMT -5 subdjoe said:

OK, thanks JMO. I'm going to ask you - If even one state infringes on the expressed, enumerated right to keep and bear arms as stated in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, is that "one state too many?" If not, why not? And, of course I'm not saying that everyone MUST own a gun, or that felons or those found to be mentally incomeptent should be allowed to own them. NOTE - part of me feels that someone who has done all the time, made restitution, is no longer being supervised, etc. should be able to get back full citizenship - vote, firearms, etc. Another part of me says that any violent felon should be prevented from every voting or owning firearms again. and,yes, I know it is a contradiction.

JMO wrote: "Personally, I think the latest an abortion should be done is between 7-8 weeks after fertilization. And to add honestly I don't like the idea of abortion AT ALL! I think it is taking away life, but I cannot govern the lives of others." So, you support murder in some situations, then? (note - I;m not talking about justified defense of self or others). If you really believe that it is the taking of a(n) (innocent) life, then how can you justify it?

I used to be in favor of keeping it legal, but I've been doing more reading of stuff from both sides, and am becoming more and more convinced that it is an immoral act. If the life of the mother is in more danger from carrying to term than from an abortion, or in cases of rape or incest, then I feel it is, or may be justified. On the other hand, it should be a private matter between a woman, her God, and her doctor.

I know how you feel, real ambivalence, but we are not talking about how we feel, but black letter law, and no one reading this board will live longer than Roe v Wade. As a moral imperative, we cannot justify the taking of a human life, but up there with that is the taking of freedoms people have, which in this case, the freedom of women to choose, wrongly, but theirs. And in your last sentence you left "the father" out of the equation. Very important factor!
As with all laws, there is an "arbitrary" line drawn, in this case it's "when", and the enemy wants it 30 days AFTER the birth. So the real issue is not Roe V Wade, but the extensions of it, coupled the advancements in technology. As it is "case law" and the judicial approach to building on such, there are other dangers more immediate, if you are real pro-LIFE advocate.
Oh, and scrots that have proven themselves do not get a gun, ever, in life, or near this life, no matter how long the've mended the social contract of being a wonderful human being. Actions have consequences, and if they do the crime, then don't ever feed them.
I was thinking or running on that ticket for school board. Can I get a landslide victory? Or is it too liberal?

[The New Guy]

hey, mink!

who did you vote for/support in '84?

reagan/bush or mondale/ferraro?

[Mink]

I didn't vote that election.

[harpman1]

Not that it would have made much difference.

[The New Guy]

who did you SUPPORT in that contest?