B-Man Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 Small steps................. California Judge Orders State to Pay $399K to Pro-life Pregnancy Centers by Brianna Heldt Original Article The state of California has been ordered to pay $399,000 to three crisis pregnancy centers and a politically-conservative law firm after the Supreme Court struck down a law intended to force crisis pregnancy centers to promote abortion. The Supreme Court ruled in June that the California law requiring crisis pregnancy centers to display information on how to obtain a state-funded abortion was unconstitutional. In October, a federal district court issued a permanent injunction against the law known as the California Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency (FACT) Act . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 (edited) Please tell us again how we are misinterpreting the new laws ! Today the Vermont House is debating a bill, co-sponsored by 90 Democrats, that would legalize abortion at stage of pregnancy and for any reason. This is far more radical even than the abortion bills in New York and Virginia. Edited February 21, 2019 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 (edited) 23 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said: You're 100% wrong here, and are conflating legality with philosophical and moral constructs. Our entire system of government is predicated on the notion that humans have the intrinsic right to life (amongst other things) and that the ends of just and legitimate government are to protect that right with legislation; and further, that governments which do not do those things are unjust and illegitimate. Our Foundational documents concede that rights do not come from government, but rather are intrinsic to an individuals humanity. Again, our government does not endow individuals with rights. It acknowledges the inalienable rights of individuals, and legitimizes itself with a pledge to protect them. Dude, the governor gives rights to you. There are rights like you are talking about that are intrinsic or inalienable....then there are legal rights that are accorded by statute and law. I have no idea why in the world you would dispute or argue this. Quote You "line" is arbitrary, as it assigns protections on the "right to life" not when life begins, but rather when it's convenient for individual mothers, and inherently flawed in that it intends a usurpation of government authority over the individual, insisting that rights flow from it's benevolent hand. Disagree with it, but it’s a reasonable line. We treat babies pretty differently pre and post birth. Quote Finally, your suggestion that charting what rights someone has before and after birth shouldn't be disputed is absurd, monstrous, and an outright rejection of science. Humans have rights when they become human, which is when we admit that they are alive. I don’t know what you are talking about. You aren’t living in this world or something. Many rights are, in fact, given after birth to a person that they did not have while in the womb. what a silly thing to argue about. 15 hours ago, PBLESS said: Glad your mother didn't feel that way. Yes, because everyone who is an advocate for abortions gets abortions. Great logic. oh, and my mother does believe that and I turned out just fine lol. 15 hours ago, 3rdnlng said: Not everybody here would agree with you. Lolol. You would have looked less foolish yesterday I suppose. still waiting in that thread for you to answer if the smollet thing is a political hoax, since he had non-political motives... (you know, the same stupid logic you tried to use to discount a few of my examples) Edited February 21, 2019 by Crayola64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 (edited) 46 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: ... still waiting in that thread for you to answer if the smollet thing is a political hoax, since he had non-political motives... (you know, the same stupid logic you tried to use to discount a few of my examples) ... non-political motives .... you know this, how exactly? let's see.... he is friends with Kamala Harris. his staged attack included a noose around his neck. what bill passed the Senate in the immediately following days? oh yeah, an anti-lynching bill sponsored by, Kamala Harris. nope nothing to see here, no political motives at all. Edited February 21, 2019 by Foxx 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Crayola64 said: Dude, the governor gives rights to you. There are rights like you are talking about that are intrinsic or inalienable....then there are legal rights that are accorded by statute and law. I have no idea why in the world you would dispute or argue this. Disagree with it, but it’s a reasonable line. We treat babies pretty differently pre and post birth. I don’t know what you are talking about. You aren’t living in this world or something. Many rights are, in fact, given after birth to a person that they did not have while in the womb. what a silly thing to argue about. Yes, because everyone who is an advocate for abortions gets abortions. Great logic. oh, and my mother does believe that and I turned out just fine lol. Lolol. You would have looked less foolish yesterday I suppose. still waiting in that thread for you to answer if the smollet thing is a political hoax, since he had non-political motives... (you know, the same stupid logic you tried to use to discount a few of my examples) Keep proclaiming victory if that's what you need. Nobody here agrees with you and I really don't have any desire to argue with a rock. You'll need to change your MO before I discuss anything more with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Crayola64 said: Dude, the governor gives rights to you. There are rights like you are talking about that are intrinsic or inalienable....then there are legal rights that are accorded by statute and law. I have no idea why in the world you would dispute or argue this. No, the government does not. You either lack a fundamental understanding of what rights are, and how they differ from social/legal privileges; or you're intentionally trying to conflate them in order to bolster your poor argument. Rights are inherent to you, like the right to life. It is the moral priori we appeal to when we state that it is wrong to kill. Social/legal privileges are separate ideas entirely, and are not intrinsic to your humanity. This is not semantics. This is an incredibly important distinction which I will not allow you to gloss over. Disagree with it, but it’s a reasonable line. It is not a reasonable line, as it is nothing but an arbitrary assertion. A reasonable line would be backed with logic and science. We treat babies pretty differently pre and post birth. Speak to this in depth please. I don’t know what you are talking about. You aren’t living in this world or something. Many rights are, in fact, given after birth to a person that they did not have while in the womb. This is an absurd fiat declaration of your position, not an argument. See my first response to you in this post. what a silly thing to argue about. When an argument as poor as yours is made, it can surely seem so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 16 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Keep proclaiming victory if that's what you need. Nobody here agrees with you and I really don't have any desire to argue with a rock. You'll need to change your MO before I discuss anything more with you. I mean multiple people agreed that Todd was a politically hoax. and its about you owning up after you obnoxiously made me google links and make a list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 28 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Keep proclaiming victory if that's what you need. Nobody here agrees with you and I really don't have any desire to argue with a rock. You'll need to change your MO before I discuss anything more with you. much better with crayola on ignore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 54 minutes ago, Foxx said: ... non-political motives .... you know this, how exactly? let's see.... he is friends with Kamala Harris. his staged attack included a noose around his neck. what bill passed the Senate in the immediately following days? oh yeah, an anti-lynching bill sponsored by, Kamala Harris. nope nothing to see here, no political motives at all. Thank you, my post (if you read it?) was that it was still a political hoax with political motives EVEN IF there were also none-political motives. That was my point, and I am glad you agree with me. 3rdnlng argued yesterday that something couldn’t be a political hoax if there actual non-political motives too. I disagreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 You've chosen to ignore content by Crayola64. Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: I mean multiple people agreed that Todd was a politically hoax. and its about you owning up after you obnoxiously made me google links and make a list that I didn't do very well and ended up embarrassing myself. FIFY. I see you haven't changed your MO. Furthermore, your above post (3rdnlng argued yesterday that something couldn’t be a political hoax if there actual non-political motives too. I disagreed.) is a lie. Edited February 21, 2019 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 9 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: No, the government does not. You either lack a fundamental understanding of what rights are, and how they differ from social/legal privileges; or you're intentionally trying to conflate them in order to bolster your poor argument. Rights are inherent to you, like the right to life. It is the moral priori we appeal to when we state that it is wrong to kill. Social/legal privileges are separate ideas entirely, and are not intrinsic to your humanity. This is not semantics. This is an incredibly important distinction which I will not allow you to gloss over. It is not a reasonable line, as it is nothing but an arbitrary assertion. A reasonable line would be backed with logic and science. Speak to this in depth please. This is an absurd fiat declaration of your position, not an argument. See my first response to you in this post. When an argument as poor as yours is made, it can surely seem so. This is officially the dumbest argument I have been a part of. Yes, there inalienable rights. But there also legal rights that are not inalienable. For example, as a renter or homeowner, you have legal rights given to you by the government. These are called legal rights, not social or legal privileges or whatever you referred to them by. 1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said: FIFY. I see you haven't changed your MO. Lol remember when you distinguished many of my examples and disregarded them because there were also non-political motives? That was dumb of course, but funny that you can’t distinguish them now from smollet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 3 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: This is officially the dumbest argument I have been a part of. Yes, there inalienable rights. But there also legal rights that are not inalienable. For example, as a renter or homeowner, you have legal rights given to you by the government. These are called legal rights, not social or legal privileges or whatever you referred to them by. Lol remember when you distinguished many of my examples and disregarded them because there were also non-political motives? That was dumb of course, but funny that you can’t distinguish them now from smollet. You seem to be involved in a lot of dumb arguments. I wonder what the common denominators are? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 Just now, 3rdnlng said: You seem to be involved in a lot of dumb arguments. I wonder what the common denominators are? Well since you want to weigh in, do you think the government gives any legal rights, or are they all inalienable? (and it’s just this argument and the one you refuse to finish because you know you are wrong. But oh well) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 4 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Well since you want to weigh in, do you think the government gives any legal rights, or are they all inalienable? (and it’s just this argument and the one you refuse to finish because you know you are wrong. But oh well) There is a difference between rights and privileges. I finished the previous argument plus any future arguments until you change your MO. So, go claim your victory and have a parade. People here know differently though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: There is a difference between rights and privileges. Hahaha so you both think the only legal rights are those that are inalienable, and the rest are legal privileges? What is this based on, philosophy? in the real world, and in this country, you have many legal “rights.” For example, in certain circumstances, a landlord may have a “right of entry.” Surely that’s not an inalienable right. No, it’s a right given to landlords by statute. while you may both think constitutional law is the basis of most laws, it’s not. 99% of our laws come elsewhere, and some give legal rights to people. I know this may seem crazy. Edited February 21, 2019 by Crayola64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 37 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: This is officially the dumbest argument I have been a part of. Yes, there inalienable rights. But there also legal rights that are not inalienable. For example, as a renter or homeowner, you have legal rights given to you by the government. These are called legal rights, not social or legal privileges or whatever you referred to them by. It's not my fault, or anyone else's for that matter, that you don't understand the concepts in play; and the argument only seems dumb to you because of your profound ignorance. "Rights" has a very specific and narrow meaning. They are fundamental to your humanity, and the basis of right and wrong. They cannot be taken from you, or given to you; only violated and protected. Anything beyond this which requires the intervention of other people is not a right, but rather is a privilege. Rights exist inherent to you in a state of nature, requiring the efforts or no other person or entity; as you cannot be said to have a right to anything which requires the labor of another person. What you are referring to as "legal rights" are not rights at all. They are social/legal privileges put into place, constructed on top of your foundational natural rights, and do not supersede, amend, or repeal them. These come from other individuals or societies intervention, and can be removed from you; meaning you had no right to them. They are not rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 50 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Thank you, my post (if you read it?) was that it was still a political hoax with political motives EVEN IF there were also none-political motives. That was my point, and I am glad you agree with me. 3rdnlng argued yesterday that something couldn’t be a political hoax if there actual non-political motives too. I disagreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 52 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: This is officially the dumbest argument I have been a part of. Ever notice that all the dumb arguments you've had, all have one thing in common? You. 4 hours ago, B-Man said: Please tell us again how we are misinterpreting the new laws ! Today the Vermont House is debating a bill, co-sponsored by 90 Democrats, that would legalize abortion at stage of pregnancy and for any reason. This is far more radical even than the abortion bills in New York and Virginia. That's unconstitutional. Violation of the equal protection clause. Where's my right to terminate a pregnancy protected? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 25 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Ever notice that all the dumb arguments you've had, all have one thing in common? You. Ummmm. Wouldn’t we all have that factor (“you”) as a common denominator? Its kinda inherent in you being in the argument.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts