• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Margaret Sanger - founder of planned parenthood.

ngdawg said:
Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
You're in a well-regulated militia? Fighting for the security of a 'free state, eh? And yet, you think women are not free to make a personal decision. Oh, the irony.....


You must have missed this part of the second amendment.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Sanger had the right to voice opinion, as do you, regardless of the absurdity.

She has no right to open a population control clinic

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The right to be secure in our persons, without violation without probable cause, pertains to the notion of NOT being forced to bear pregnancy against one's will as well. That would also fall under Amendment VIII:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Since forcing someone to do something against their will and with their own bodies would be considered involuntary servitude, your posted views seem to apply. But guess you COULD hold a gun to their heads.....


How you mix that with a alledged right to murder a baby is very amusing.
 
jamesrage said:
You must have missed this part of the second amendment.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



She has no right to open a population control clinic




How you mix that with a alledged right to murder a baby is very amusing.

So, are you part of a well regulated militia? Oh, and, the no "involuntary servitude" part does fit pretty well with the right to abortion.
 
jamesrage said:
You must have missed this part of the second amendment.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



She has no right to open a population control clinic
Wrong again, Rage...She, you, me, can open just about anything we want.




jamesrage said:
How you mix that with a alledged right to murder a baby is very amusing.
There is no right to 'murder a baby'-murder is an illegal crime. The right to reproductive freedoms, including the right to abort, is covered constitutionally. You can mix it up in your own little head, but that doesn't make it so.
 
afr0byte said:
So, are you part of a well regulated militia?.


Now why would they state the right of the people to keep and bear arms if only malitias were allowed to keep and bear arms?

I would think if they only ment malitias were allowed gun ownership they would have only stated "only malitias shall have the right to keep and bear arms" instead of adding "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

Oh, and, the no "involuntary servitude" part does fit pretty well with the right to abortion

Killing a baby is not a right nor is it involuntary servitude when she voluntarily out of her own free decided to engage in the activity which led to her getting pregnate in the first place.
 
jamesrage said:
Now why would they state the right of the people to keep and bear arms if only malitias were allowed to keep and bear arms?

I would think if they only ment malitias were allowed gun ownership they would have only stated "only malitias shall have the right to keep and bear arms" instead of adding "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

It says that because we need a militia, people need to be able to bear arms. It certainly depends on how you choose to read the line, but from my perspective it certainly states that the right to bear arms is for the purpose of a well regulated militia.

jamesrage said:
Killing a baby is not a right nor is it involuntary servitude when she voluntarily out of her own free decided to engage in the activity which led to her getting pregnate in the first place.

She voluntary chooses to have sex, but she may or may not be choosing voluntarily to let the embryo implant its self.
 
ngdawg said:
Wrong again, Rage...She, you, me, can open just about anything we want.

So I can open a store and sell heavy machine guns?





The right to reproductive freedoms, including the right to abort, is covered constitutionally.

Reproductive freedoms my ***,there is no such thing.Our forfathers did not write in the constitution that a woman can kill her baby.
Murdering a baby and calling that crime something different does not change the fact that abortionist support the murder of children.I can call a cow turd a cow pie,cow chips, cow dung or cow **** but what ever I call it is still the same thing.Abortion is code word for the murder of babies.Just because the rat nazi abortionist change the name of a baby to fetus does not change the fact that is a human baby.
 
jamesrage said:
Reproductive freedoms my ***,there is no such thing.Our forfathers did not write in the constitution that a woman can kill her baby.
Murdering a baby and calling that crime something different does not change the fact that abortionist support the murder of children.I can call a cow turd a cow pie,cow chips, cow dung or cow **** but what ever I call it is still the same thing.Abortion is code word for the murder of babies.Just because the rat nazi abortionist change the name of a baby to fetus does not change the fact that is a human baby.

Once again, it's not murder. Murder has a specific legal definition.
 
jamesrage said:
So I can open a store and sell heavy machine guns?
Did you just arrive here?? Yes, as long as it's a legal product or service, you can sell it. You can sell the idea of it. You're not making one smidgen of a case for anything you have so far.....




jamesrage said:
Reproductive freedoms my ***,there is no such thing.Our forfathers did not write in the constitution that a woman can kill her baby.
Murdering a baby and calling that crime something different does not change the fact that abortionist support the murder of children.I can call a cow turd a cow pie,cow chips, cow dung or cow **** but what ever I call it is still the same thing.Abortion is code word for the murder of babies.Just because the rat nazi abortionist change the name of a baby to fetus does not change the fact that is a human baby.

You choose to call it something that it is not.
And whatever you call it, it is still a protected choice of the individual, just like YOUR choice to own a gun and mine not to. (Your gun is a weapon of death, it can't be changed from that. My uterus is what I choose it to be, but unlike your gun, I can and did choose it to nurture life.)
I also hear that men who own guns are compensating for other shortcomings....is that true?:mrgreen:
 
ngdawg said:
And whatever you call it, it is still a protected choice of the individual,

Why should some individuals choose whether other individuals live or die?
 
jimmyjack said:
Why should some individuals choose whether other individuals live or die?

Your use of the term "individual" is dishonest.
 
afr0byte said:
Your use of the term "individual" is dishonest.

I disagree, a human in its earliest stage of development is an individual....but you could argue that an uninvited unwanted individual in the womb has no rights and you'd be correct.
 
Back
Top Bottom