• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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.

Proof of the Founding Fathers intent:

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
That's the whole problem with this country people have taken that perfect document and through their manipulation and reinterpretation of it in the guise of progress they have transformed this nation into the socialist monstrosity that we have today a government of, by, and for the government.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Yes this thread was to prove the intent of the Founding Fathers and to prove that the Liberal Judges interpretation in the case of RVW was not only wrong but in total violation of the Constitution.
A) You are doing the exact same thing-manipulating the wording of a document to suit your own agenda.(A 200 year old document that has no bearing on the laws of this country) You have no clue what their intent was any more than anyone else.
B) How is protecting the privacy of a person in violation of the Constitution?
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
ngdawg said:
A) You are doing the exact same thing-manipulating the wording of a document to suit your own agenda.(A 200 year old document that has no bearing on the laws of this country) You have no clue what their intent was any more than anyone else.
B) How is protecting the privacy of a person in violation of the Constitution?

Have you ever actually read the constitution or the declaration of independence? Seriously man any laws created after that are with out any bearing if the constitution would have been followed to the letter from the begining as it was intended this country would be perfect because it was a perfect document but instead people like you have been manipulating it and shredding it to pieces almost as soon as it was written, if the constitution would have been followed there would have been no need for the emancipation proclamation, the war powers resolution etc etc because it was already perfect you people just keep ****ing it up through your misinterpretation and people like me have to keep going back to fix it to further clarify what was already self evident. Seriously dude if you don't like the constitution why don't you move to China?
 
Last edited:

FutureIncoming

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
605
Location
Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trajan Octavian Titus wrote: "he evidence is as clear as day human life is created at conception and whether you believe the creator to be some higher being or simply the man and woman who engage in sexual procreation, with the act of conception man and woman become the creators and with that act of creation the creator endows the created with the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness."

FALSE!!! BECAUSE WE (AND THEY) HAVE ROUTINELY DENIED THE LAST TWO TO ALL CHILDREN. "No, you cannot have liberty; you must do your chores. No, you cannot go happily play, you must do your homework." See? So, even though such children are as fully different from ordinary animals as are adult humans, nevertheless two--out-of-three items on that list are PROVABLY denied to them, FREQUENTLY. Thus the Founding Fathers MUST have been talking about adults, not children, and ESPECIALLY not fetuses. Which means WE are perfectly free to deny the third item on the list, life, to unborn humans who in all scientific truth are no more special than ordinary animals.



Trajan Octavian Titus wrote: "The evidence of their intent is clear as day and is not subject for reinterpretation"

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! YOU HAVE DONE EXACTLY THAT.



doughgirl wrote: "Man oh man. You compare humans to chickens?"

In the sense of the adage, YES. You CANNOT count hydatidiform moles as persons. You CANNOT count bodies that never grow brains as persons (these typically die shortly after childbirth) -- or you might as well count bacteria as persons, too. In 1790 you COULD ONLY count their true numbers AFTER birth has sorted the terminally defective from the survivors (or in the case of chickens, after hatching had done the equivalent). That's a fact. Today we could possibly do better, to sort before birth the terminally defective from the probable survivors. But the precedent has long since been set in NOT counting unborn humans as persons -- and should civilization fall and our technology be lost, we would be right back at the 1790 level, unable to count chickens before hatching. When you are just plain unable to do something (like fly by flapping bare arms), there is no reason to try.


doughgirl also wrote: "I give our founding fathers more credit than that. I think abortion was so inconceivable that they did not need to put it in writing. They probably thought there never could be a woman would want to intentionally kill her unborn child."

FALSE. Well-educated people have known that various women throughout the ages have sought abortions. (Mostly among prostitutes, I think, but they held no exclusivity to it whatsoever. EVERY culture in which parents would disown a wayward daughter is a culture that encourages such daughters to seek abortions.)


doughgirl also wrote: "Life was precious in those days unlike today."

That's called the "Law of Supply and Demand". If you want humans to become valuable again, you simply reduce the excess inventory. We need do nothing different for that to happen, thanks to the ALWAYS-HAS-BEEN-FALSE assumption that human life is inherently valuable (go ahead, if you want to claim that human life is inherently valuable, let's see the evidence for it!). That assumption is leading us straight to a Malthusian Catastophe, in which the global inventory of humans will be reduced by 90% (if the Catastrophe is merely typical). Apparently you DON'T think 90% of humanity is valuable, or you would promote actions to preserve it! Like preventing the inventory from continuously growing, to become the straw that breaks the back of the Earth's biospherical "camel".



Trajan Octavian Titus wrote: "That's because to the left morals are relative."

This may be true of "the left", but it is NOT true of me. I merely claim that morals are arbitrary, and there is LOTS of evidence to support that claim. If they were non-arbitrary and universal, then every human culture would have had the exact same set of morals. Instead, human cultures had whatever morals they arbitrarily chose, that worked for them. THAT'S A FACT. To claim that morals are relative is to claim that every culture should accept the morals of other cultures, but this is a logical impossibility since OFTEN the morals of Culture A included "Death to Culture B!". YOU, on the other hand, seem to think YOU can arbitrarily decide that YOUR morals are inherently superior to all other morals, WITH NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. That fact actually makes you just like all those Culture As out there, all of which say the same thing, with equal lack of evidence. BAH! That's why I prefer ethics over morals. Ethics CAN in theory be non-arbitrary and Universal.



doughgirl wrote: "they don't see the livign thing inside the woman as anything. In fact Coffee thinks that a nine month old in the womb, could be aborted. No problemo."

I think that there is a problem in that so much time was wasted before such an abortion is performed. Why is that, do you suppose? Because pro-lifers interfere with other people's business? If a pregnant woman does not want to be pregnant, she should be allowed to end it as quickly as possible. No wasting time, so that abortion in the ninth month NEVER needs to happen. Yes, even at implantation the unborn human is perfectly alive and perfectly human AND perfectly parasitic and perfectly animal. If it is unwanted, it can be killed BECAUSE it is an animal. I'm sure you can think of a number of unwanted ADULT human parasites (criminals). But they DO count as "people", not mere animals, and so cannot be killed arbitrarily. Why do you have a problem with simple facts and logic?
 

doughgirl

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
60
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Coffee once again make your mind up.

You said, "“Birth. When a person actually becomes a person. Then they get their rights.” (#13 Founding Fathers Thread)

You are saying here the unborn is nothing. They receive no rights.

You said, “Last time: I do not agree with abortion. If it were possible for a woman to remove a living child from her body at 9 months, at 1 month, or at 1 day, I would want that child to remain alive. If it is not possible for a woman to remove a living child from her body at 9 months, at 1 month, or at 1 day, she should still have the right to remove the child from her body. If the child dies, I would be saddened by that death, but that sadness does not mandate the enslavement of the woman. If the child could be saved, I would mandate that the woman save the child, but not at the cost of he freedom to dcide what to do with her body. That is my position, and it has never changed.” (#123 Suction Machine Thread)

You allow her to abort a child at full term. You said it.

You said, “However, when the rights of two people are in conflict, we must make a choice; you choose the child's rights, I choose the woman's rights. The only one arguing that some people should have NO rights, is you.”

Since the woman is the one who has been born already her rights are all that matters in your opinion. Therefore the unborn child has none and shouldn’t even be mentioned in any of our laws. Case: Scott Peterson. You probably think he got a bum rap, since he was convicted on two deaths: his wife Lacie and HIS SON CONNOR. Our courts however disagree with you and saw Connor as a person. They saw him as viable. Our courts are not however consistent.

You also said, “The unborn child has a right to live, but the woman has the right to control her own body. I don't think the death of the child is fine, or all right; I think it is unfortunate, but necessary.” (#102 Suction Machine Thread)

You are saying it is ok to murder the unborn child. You take his/her rights away. You say it is necessary. The death of the unborn is necessary, and you call that which is in the woman a "child".
A woman killing her unborn child at full term is necessary.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
and now all of you are just ******* me the **** off can't you people figure out the format by now how am I supposed to debate when I've got to read through a page of crap before I can respond this is the proper format:

................................

Just capitalize the word QUOTE inside of these things - [...........] and then end the paragraph with one of these QUOTE inside one of these [/...........]

you can even put one of these in their QUOTE=John Doe


John Doe said:
Wow that really wasn't that hard was it???
 

galenrox

ROCK AND ROLL MASTER
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
1,571
Reaction score
38
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
doughgirl said:
Coffee once again make your mind up.

You said, "“Birth. When a person actually becomes a person. Then they get their rights.” (#13 Founding Fathers Thread)

You are saying here the unborn is nothing. They receive no rights.
When are you made a citizen? BIRTH!!!
You said, “Last time: I do not agree with abortion. If it were possible for a woman to remove a living child from her body at 9 months, at 1 month, or at 1 day, I would want that child to remain alive. If it is not possible for a woman to remove a living child from her body at 9 months, at 1 month, or at 1 day, she should still have the right to remove the child from her body. If the child dies, I would be saddened by that death, but that sadness does not mandate the enslavement of the woman. If the child could be saved, I would mandate that the woman save the child, but not at the cost of he freedom to dcide what to do with her body. That is my position, and it has never changed.” (#123 Suction Machine Thread)

You allow her to abort a child at full term. You said it.
Where? Please, show me where it was said that full term abortions should happen?
That's right, it wasn't said, nice little straw man though
What he said was the woman should have the right to have it removed. If it was full term, a removed fetus should be able to survive.
And thus is what I think to be the most logical basis for deciding when a fetus becomes a baby, when it can survive outside of the mother.
You said, “However, when the rights of two people are in conflict, we must make a choice; you choose the child's rights, I choose the woman's rights. The only one arguing that some people should have NO rights, is you.”

Since the woman is the one who has been born already her rights are all that matters in your opinion. Therefore the unborn child has none and shouldn’t even be mentioned in any of our laws. Case: Scott Peterson. You probably think he got a bum rap, since he was convicted on two deaths: his wife Lacie and HIS SON CONNOR. Our courts however disagree with you and saw Connor as a person. They saw him as viable. Our courts are not however consistent.
It's inconsistent, I agree.
You also said, “The unborn child has a right to live, but the woman has the right to control her own body. I don't think the death of the child is fine, or all right; I think it is unfortunate, but necessary.” (#102 Suction Machine Thread)

You are saying it is ok to murder the unborn child. You take his/her rights away. You say it is necessary. The death of the unborn is necessary, and you call that which is in the woman a "child".
A woman killing her unborn child at full term is necessary.
Where did he say that?
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
galenrox said:
When are you made a citizen? BIRTH!!!

Where? Please, show me where it was said that full term abortions should happen?
That's right, it wasn't said, nice little straw man though
What he said was the woman should have the right to have it removed. If it was full term, a removed fetus should be able to survive.
And thus is what I think to be the most logical basis for deciding when a fetus becomes a baby, when it can survive outside of the mother.

It's inconsistent, I agree.

Where did he say that?

Here's a quote from the Declaration of Independence it bears no legal authority, however, it does bear precedence on the circumstances as to the founding father's intent:
Decleration of independence said:
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, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Now whether you believe that god is the creator or that the man and the woman are the creator the fact remains that conception is the act of creation and through that act of creation the creator endows upon the created the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The decleration of independence may not be law but it does bear precedence as to the F.F.'s intent and proof that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution in RVW was wrong.
 
Last edited:

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Future Coming said:
FALSE!!! BECAUSE WE (AND THEY) HAVE ROUTINELY DENIED THE LAST TWO TO ALL CHILDREN. "No, you cannot have liberty; you must do your chores. No, you cannot go happily play, you must do your homework." See? So, even though such children are as fully different from ordinary animals as are adult humans, nevertheless two--out-of-three items on that list are PROVABLY denied to them, FREQUENTLY. Thus the Founding Fathers MUST have been talking about adults, not children, and ESPECIALLY not fetuses. Which means WE are perfectly free to deny the third item on the list, life, to unborn humans who in all scientific truth are no more special than ordinary animals.

By they you mean the liberals and the progressionists who have continually shredded the original intent of the Constitution almost as soon as it was writen either to allow for slaverY or to allow for child labor either way the constitution was a perfect document to start it's the people who have continually manipulated it and misinterpreted it through the last 200 years who are responsible for the current state of the nation.

Future Coming said:
HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! YOU HAVE DONE EXACTLY THAT.

No, it was the Supreme Court who has done exactly that just as they have done in the imminent domain case to subvert the 4th amendments guarantee of the right to property so they can take the land that they deem valuable and give it to the highest bidder, it's like we're living in Communist Russia thanks to the liberal socialist traitors.

Marx said:
From each according to his ability to each according to his means.

Well **** that **** not on my ****ing watch socialist. Viva le revolution started back in 1776 but never completed!

U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights said:
Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Declaration of Independence said:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


And there you have it the means and the permission to revolt granted by Jefferson himself!
 
Last edited:

galenrox

ROCK AND ROLL MASTER
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
1,571
Reaction score
38
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Here's a quote from the Declaration of Independence it bears no legal authority, however, it does bear precedence on the circumstances as to the founding father's intent:


Now whether you believe that god is the creator or that the man and the woman are the creator the fact remains that conception is the act of creation and through that act of creation the creator endows upon the created the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The decleration of independence may not be law but it does bear precedence as to the F.F.'s intent and proof that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution in RVW was wrong.
Depending on when you believe life begins.
I think if it can't survive outside of the mother it's not a human life.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
galenrox said:
Depending on when you believe life begins.
I think if it can't survive outside of the mother it's not a human life.

Yes but now you must differentiate between self sustaining life and life itself, one must realize that the act of conception itself is the act of creation, is it not? And if that act of conception is creation then as specified by the founding fathers the creators have endowed upon the creation the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While the Declaration of Independence may not be legally binding it certainly provides precedence on the circumstances in the RVW decision, a precedence which the Supreme Court totally ignored.

This is coming from an Agnostic mind you this isn't a religious matter for me it's a Constitutional and legal one.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, maybe if you don't like it you should move to Red China.

:roll: I live in Australia, dumbarse.

So, slavery is okay by you, then? I'm sure they intended for that to be legal.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
vergiss said:
:roll: I live in Australia, dumbarse.

So, slavery is okay by you, then? I'm sure they intended for that to be legal.

No actually the fourth amendment specifically states that no man shall be relieved of his life, liberty, or property without due process, it took liberal mis-interpretations of the constitution to allow for slavery, just as it took liberal mis-interpretations to allow for abortion and the stealing of private property from the poor to give away to the rich in realestate deals because some asshole mayor deemed it was for the public good. The Founding Fathers did give the people a perfect government but it took us to fu*k it up.
 
Last edited:

Felicity

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
vergiss said:
:roll: I live in Australia, dumbarse.

So, slavery is okay by you, then? I'm sure they intended for that to be legal.
The Australian legal system is based in English common law just like the US legal system.

Your states have the right to decide--our highest legal court usurped that right.






P.S. "dumbarse" isn't very nice.....;):mrgreen:
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Felicity said:
The Australian legal system is based in English common law just like the US legal system.

Your states have the right to decide--our highest legal court usurped that right.






P.S. "dumbarse" isn't very nice.....;):mrgreen:

I believe this may be the right you're reffering to:
Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I think that one's been done to death so I like to refer to this one:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
 
Last edited:

Felicity

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I believe this may be the right you're reffering to:


I think that one's been done to death so I like to refer to this one:
Well...I still have hope that the issue can be reverted without overthrow.;)
 

Stace

Boobie Jubilee
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
7,254
Reaction score
364
Location
Clarksville, TN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
No actually the fourth amendment specifically states that no man shall be relieved of his life, liberty, or property without due process, it took liberal mis-interpretations of the constitution to allow for slavery, just as it took liberal mis-interpretations to allow for abortion and the stealing of private property from the poor to give away to the rich in realestate deals because some asshole mayor deemed it was for the public good. The Founding Fathers did give the people a perfect government but it took us to fu*k it up.

Now, wait a minute.....it was mostly Southerners who owned slaves....and Southerners are, for the most part, historically conservative. So explain this one to me again?

Not to mention, it's conservatives that are giving all of the money to the rich man.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Stace said:
Now, wait a minute.....it was mostly Southerners who owned slaves....and Southerners are, for the most part, historically conservative. So explain this one to me again?

Not to mention, it's conservatives that are giving all of the money to the rich man.

You couldn't be more wrong the Republicans were the party of Lincoln during reconstruction after the civil war the party of Jefferson (the Democrats) was hijacked by the former confederates just as it was hijacked again in the 1968 DNC riots in Chicago by radical leftists. It was the Dixiecrats who were against civil rights and the modern day Democrats who still use the plantation mantality of African Americans to retain their own political power through political bribery in the guise of social programs.

Dixiecrat - The term Dixiecrat is a portmanteau of Dixie, referring to the Southern United States, and Democrat, referring to the United States Democratic Party. Initially, it referred to a 1948 splinter from the party: for over a century, white Southerners had overwhelmingly been Democrats, but that year many bolted the party and supported Strom Thurmond's third-party candidacy for president of the United States.

PS by the way giving the money to the rich man is actually newspeak for not stealing money from the people and then giving it to the federal government to maintain an authoritarian state built on the principles of socialism. ;)
 
Last edited:

FutureIncoming

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
605
Location
Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trajan Octavian Titus quoted: "FALSE!!! BECAUSE WE (AND THEY) HAVE ROUTINELY DENIED THE LAST TWO TO ALL CHILDREN. "No, you cannot have liberty; you must do your chores. No, you cannot go happily play, you must do your homework." See?

--and wrote: "By they you mean the liberals and the progressionists who have continually shredded the original intent of the Constitution almost as soon as it was writen either to allow for slaverY or to allow for child labor"

NOPE. "They" were those Founding Fathers who had children who had chores and homework. Chores and homework existed long before the Constitution OR the Declaration was written --and were not abolished by them, either! And your remark about child labor is inappropriate. That is typically defined as grinding/hard factory-type work. Chores tended to be a wide variety of household-specific activities, seldom detrimental (and possibly actually somewhat helpful) to a child's development. (Yes, I'm sure SOME parents abuse their children as laborers, but it is not common.)

And therefore it is YOU, and those of a similar bent, who are misinterpreting both the Declaration and the Constitution, in a manner designed to permit enslavement of unwilling women to their pregnancies, granting mere animals power over fully adult humans. SHAME ON YOU ALL!!!
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
FutureIncoming said:
Trajan Octavian Titus quoted: "FALSE!!! BECAUSE WE (AND THEY) HAVE ROUTINELY DENIED THE LAST TWO TO ALL CHILDREN. "No, you cannot have liberty; you must do your chores. No, you cannot go happily play, you must do your homework." See?

--and wrote: "By they you mean the liberals and the progressionists who have continually shredded the original intent of the Constitution almost as soon as it was writen either to allow for slaverY or to allow for child labor"

NOPE. "They" were those Founding Fathers who had children who had chores and homework. Chores and homework existed long before the Constitution OR the Declaration was written --and were not abolished by them, either! And your remark about child labor is inappropriate. That is typically defined as grinding/hard factory-type work. Chores tended to be a wide variety of household-specific activities, seldom detrimental (and possibly actually somewhat helpful) to a child's development. (Yes, I'm sure SOME parents abuse their children as laborers, but it is not common.)

And therefore it is YOU, and those of a similar bent, who are misinterpreting both the Declaration and the Constitution, in a manner designed to permit enslavement of unwilling women to their pregnancies, granting mere animals power over fully adult humans. SHAME ON YOU ALL!!!

Actually what I said is quit putting your posts in the wrong format making it impossible for me to respond to your load of crap which is somehow making a moral equivalency between making your child take out the trash and killing it.

Really I'm at a loss for words as to how you could possibly interpret that from the constitution, oh wait I forgot, you're a moral relativist. ;)
 

CoffeeSaint

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 24, 2005
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
23
Location
Wherever there is caffeine, I'll be there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Actually what I said is quit putting your posts in the wrong format making it impossible for me to respond to your load of crap which is somehow making a moral equivalency between making your child take out the trash and killing it.

Really I'm at a loss for words as to how you could possibly interpret that from the constitution, oh wait I forgot, you're a moral relativist. ;)

FutureIncoming is using the same documents that you are; he's just applying logic, instead of sophistry and rhetoric. The Declaration states there are 3 inalienable rights: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- actually, it states these are "among" the inalienable rights, which means there could be thousands (Including the right to control one's own body?) -- but since these three are the ones enumerated specificaly, we'll stick to those.

As FI said: we deny the second two to children, since we deny them freedom and happiness; actually, to stick closer to the argument, we deny them to fetuses inside the mother's womb, unless you want to free all fetuses from the prison of their mothers' bodies. Since we deny the right to freedom to fetuses, it is reasonable to see them as not yet created people, not yet deserving of rights, and therefore, not yet the subject of the document you have been quoting. Or are you saying that the Founding Fathers wanted fetuses to be freed when they wrote the Declaration? Where in the list of grievances does it refer to the wrongful imprisonment of American zygotes?
 

Felicity

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
CoffeeSaint said:
The Declaration states there are 3 inalienable rights: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness --


Do think the order in which those rights are innumerated has some importance?
 

CoffeeSaint

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 24, 2005
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
23
Location
Wherever there is caffeine, I'll be there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Felicity said:
Do think the order in which those rights are innumerated has some importance?
Yes; like all good writers, Jefferson recognized that lists should start with the least important and end with the most important. Same as David Letterman's Top Ten Lists.

Seriously? Your argument against abortion is based on a semantic choice from a Virginian 230 years ago? No; the order of the rights is utterly meaningless. It sounds good, because it moves from the smallest number of syllables to the largest, and it includes that lovely alliteration: life, liberty. It starts on the ground, and leaps to the sky. Proof that Jefferson was a magnificent wordsmith; nothing more.

If they believed that life was more important than liberty, they would not have risked their lives to win freedom from tyranny.
 

Felicity

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
CoffeeSaint said:
Yes; like all good writers, Jefferson recognized that lists should start with the least important and end with the most important. Same as David Letterman's Top Ten Lists.

Seriously? Your argument against abortion is based on a semantic choice from a Virginian 230 years ago? No; the order of the rights is utterly meaningless. It sounds good, because it moves from the smallest number of syllables to the largest, and it includes that lovely alliteration: life, liberty. It starts on the ground, and leaps to the sky. Proof that Jefferson was a magnificent wordsmith; nothing more.

If they believed that life was more important than liberty, they would not have risked their lives to win freedom from tyranny.

Hey! You're an English teacher aren't you?! Is that "leaping to the sky" a reference to Pope?

Did I say that my entire position rests upon Jefferson's semantics....tsk...tsk...weren't you the one complaining about people putting words in your mouth?

On the issue of semantics...this is what I think of the "order" of the words.

You do recognize that one can't be "free" or "pursue happiness" if one never has "life"--so actually, I see the order as starting with a foundation and building upon that foundation. This especially is apparent in that the "possibly thousands" of other inalienable rights you mentioned would all be dependant upon 1st: life, 2nd: individual freedom to act, and 3rd: freedom to act upon licit preferences.
 
Last edited:

doughgirl

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
60
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
"prison of their mothers' bodies."

It is sad that you compare the womb to a prison. The womb should be a safe place for a child to grow. The abortionist makes it a slaughterhouse by killing and dismembering an unborn child there.

I don't care what words you use. Life, Liberty, or the Pursuit of happiness.....I don't even care about this document that you discuss.....Once owning slaves in the United States was legal, once abortion was illegal.......and I believe we had the same Constitution then as we do today. Every society will bend the rules and change the laws to support what they do. And today society doesn't give a damn about life. Without Life you have nothing else.
It's ironic that in hospitals and clinics all over the country we have doctors in one operating room trying to save lives........while in the other we have doctors dismembering children.

What most of you forget are the scientific facts. And those scientific facts for some of you don't even make a difference.

Coffee says two different things....... He says it doesn't matter when the fetus is aborted even at full term.......Doesn't matter that all organs are functioning, doesn't matter that the unborn child can feel pain, the WOMAN HAS THE RIGHT TO KILL IT. Yet he says he is not for abortion.

Is silence the solution?
Lincoln said, "To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men." He was right.
By our silence we consent to child-killing. I do not repect anyone who sits back and does nothing.

I got thinking last night about this document in discussion here.
Take the right to privacy....There is nothing constitutional about the right to privacy, because that right is nowhere to be found in the document. It was declared by the Supreme Court however in 1973 as a right higher than that of the unborns childs right to live. I believe that those men who wrote the Consititution would be shocked to learn that their document which was to ensure justice and compassion for ALL, has been claimed by some to guarantee a right to kill preborn children.
Is privacy a right? Society recognizes that some rights are higher than others. Does one persons right to privacy outweigh another persons right to live?

What would we think of a man who defended beating his wife on the grounds that what I do in the privacy of my own home is no one's business but mine.

Does abortion kill babies?
Planned Parenthoods argument for abortion is based on this right to privacy.
This issue isn't really about sex. The issue is whether an innocent child deserves to live or die.

And most of you say die.









Are courts are a mess. They say abortion is legal YET.........In Portland Oregon judges have put woman in jail because they were takign drugs that endangered their unborn babies. But at the same time that same woman whi is jailed for endangering her child is perfectly fine to abort it.
In our country today, IT IS ILLEGAL TO HARM YOUR PREBORN CHILD, BUT IT IS PERFECTLY LEGAL TO KILL HIM.

What should be the safest place in America-a mother's womb-is now the most dangerous place. 1.4 million children killed by abortion in this country every year.

So you can hash over this document all you want. The facts remain the same. Abortion kills. It takes a life. And without life, does anything else matter?
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Have you ever actually read the constitution or the declaration of independence? Seriously man any laws created after that are with out any bearing if the constitution would have been followed to the letter from the begining as it was intended this country would be perfect because it was a perfect document but instead people like you have been manipulating it and shredding it to pieces almost as soon as it was written, if the constitution would have been followed there would have been no need for the emancipation proclamation, the war powers resolution etc etc because it was already perfect you people just keep ****ing it up through your misinterpretation and people like me have to keep going back to fix it to further clarify what was already self evident. Seriously dude if you don't like the constitution why don't you move to China?
A) I'm not a dude.
B) People like me? WTF do you know?
C) At the times those were originally written, slaves were not considered people, they were property, so the emancipation proclamation WAS needed. History essays have long established that both were written with the thought of meaning the laws and ideaologies were applicable to only white men eligible to vote.
Reading them is one thing...actually reading the whys and wherefores is something you obviously need to do.
 
Top Bottom