Last week, the legislature voted to restrict abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. After the legislature defeating the governor’s veto (which requires a simple majority vote), the law immediately went into effect. The 12-week limit goes into effect this summer. Opponents have promised to sue to block the ban, and Gov. Mike Beebe cited the costs of fighting such a lawsuit as the key reason for his veto. But Rapert says the state doesn’t have to carry the cost, since he arranged pro bono representation from Liberty Counsel.

But NRL general counsel James Bopp Jr. was more critical in an interview with The New York Times. “As much as we would like to protect the unborn at that point, it is futile and it won’t save any babies,” he said.

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2013/03/arkansas_legisl.html

One additional nugget:

From my logic, the picture is like saying "More people die from Cancer than Homocide, so really God kills more people than murderers, Therefore, murder should be legal"

However, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed so what do I know

You will get from at what you wish to see.

But NRL general counsel James Bopp Jr. was more critical in an interview with The New York Times. “As much as we would like to protect the unborn at that point, it is futile and it won’t save any babies,” he said.

Futile?
Over? Nothing is over until we decide it is. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? No!

Certainly, it is a sign how far we have slipped into the abyss when attempts to save the lives of the helpless and innocent is "futile".


As for the additional 'nugget' provided by Neil deGrasse Tyson....This is the kind of idiocy that has to be overcome, not just in the Right to life...but in so many other things as well.

Love Neil deGrasse Tyson. :thumbup:

rydawg5;1403048 wrote:From my logic, the picture is like saying "More people die from Cancer than Homocide, so really God kills more people than murderers, Therefore, murder should be legal"

However, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed so what do I know

Kind of agree. Liberals tend to use the kooks to generalize, or they simply distort what they think those people believe to make their point. It's really quite impressive how they've been able to take the small % of idiots and nutjobs to characterize the entire party.

Personally I feel that many people simply view life as a gift, and don't attribute getting pregnant or losing a baby to some giant pervert with a petri dish.

Losing baby..= Bad luck

Full term baby = Gift from God?

Devils Advocate;1403232 wrote:Losing baby..= Bad luck

Full term baby = Gift from God?

See, that's the sort of annoying hyperbole favored by faux-intellectuals like Bill Maher. Do you honestly think the vast majority of pro-lifers believe God guides a sperm like a drone with a PS3 joystick?

I don't think people who derive a very strong sense of family, including giving birth and valuing life, from their faith are crazy or deserving of ridicule.

Now if I want to use some hyperbole of my own, diminishing the necessity of family and value of life will eventually lead to people going online to order their genetically engineered wife/husband and kids - and maybe for low-incomes they will come pre-approved for welfare and food stamps.

gut;1403240 wrote:
Now if I want to use some hyperbole of my own, diminishing the necessity of family and value of life will eventually lead to people going online to order their genetically engineered wife/husband and kids - and maybe for low-incomes they will come pre-approved for welfare and food stamps.

Hopefully they will be able to isolate the liberal gene and eradicate it....God willing.

Devils Advocate;1403243 wrote:Hopefully they will be able to isolate the liberal gene and eradicate it....God willing.

Haha...eliminating the stupid gene would ALSO take care of some of the right-wingers.

Not an overly religious person, but I think it is written somewhere that God allows for the presence of evil in the world...hence there is no reason for "Him" to 'eradicate it...if you insist on being anthropromorphic.

There is no reason that even secular and atheistic people shouldn't appreciate the need and the desire to protect progeny. It is often argued that you don't need 'religion' or God to act in a moral manner or know right from wrong...and yet here you have it. You are labelled a right wing nut job if you want to protect unborn babies.

sleeper;1403207 wrote:Love Neil deGrasse Tyson. :thumbup:

I like him too, but if indeed he did say that his logic was terrible and wrong.

jmog;1403447 wrote:I like him too, but if indeed he did say that his logic was terrible and wrong.

If you feel that way, just call it faith and it's okay! :thumbup:

jmog;1403447 wrote:I like him too, but if indeed he did say that his logic was terrible and wrong.

My biggest issue is that what liberals do - they frame the argument in that context as if every pro lifer believes that way. They have a tendency to paint a point of view as something only a crazy person taking the bible literary would have.

And, sorry Neil, but Christians don't believe God controls and is responsible for everything that goes on in your body - they only acknowledge one immaculate conception.

HitsRus;1403435 wrote:Not an overly religious person, but I think it is written somewhere that God allows for the presence of evil in the world...hence there is no reason for "Him" to 'eradicate it...if you insist on being anthropromorphic.

There is no reason that even secular and atheistic people shouldn't appreciate the need and the desire to protect progeny. It is often argued that you don't need 'religion' or God to act in a moral manner or know right from wrong...and yet here you have it. You are labelled a right wing nut job if you want to protect unborn babies.

Some of us believe that even if we have compelling interest in protecting human progeny we also realize that the sovereign freedom of women deserves moral consideration and that it ultimately is immoral for the government to compel a woman to allow human progeny to grow inside of her against her will even if that means some human progeny who feel no pain nor experience the world will never get to be alive when they otherwise might have been.

^^^^well some of us feel there is a compelling interest that people act responsibly where human life is concerned and that given the number of options for preventing pregnancy and allowing for the usual exceptions of rape, incest, medical threat ...that is enough

From other posts, you argue against allowing responsible gun owners from having what is explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution, yet you are in favor of permitting irresponsible behaviour without consequence on something that is certainly less clear cut constitutionally. Don't really buy the "compelling interest" in that.

HitsRus;1403501 wrote:^^^^well some of us feel there is a compelling interest that people act responsibly where human life is concerned and that given the number of options for preventing pregnancy and allowing for the usual exceptions of rape, incest, medical threat ...that is enough

From other posts, you argue against allowing responsible gun owners from having what is explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution, yet you are in favor of permitting irresponsible behaviour without consequence on something that is certainly less clear cut constitutionally. Don't really buy the "compelling interest" in that.

You're doing a couple of things in this post.

I'm not really sure responsibility has anything to do with it as it is about a fundamental liberty. Even if a woman willingly chooses to get pregnant, intending to get pregnant...and then 4 weeks after conception she decides she no longer wishes to be pregnant...it would be a tremendous violation of her personal liberty for the government to compel her to carry it to term against her will. We do have an interest in more children being born and protecting human progeny but given that these particular progeny feel no pain and are not alive in a real sense, we cannot justify the the gross infringement on liberty.

As it relates to guns I never really said anything about "responsibility" either. As I've noted even "responsible" gun owners are more likely to kill themselves or their family than engage in a justified homicide of an attacking criminal. The issue is whether the social and moral costs of attempting to regulate firearms justify the the infringement on liberty.

So it is not really about "responsibility" at all. This seems like something a conservative who is opposed to big government would be against.

In the social contract we necessarily infringe on certain pure liberties to try to make us all have more liberty and wealth in the aggregate. So we in must choose when and why to infringe on certain liberties based on this utilitarian analysis. Modern wealthy societies wherein You infringe the liberty to buy any and all firearms with certain types of regulation and yet we can create freer and better societies the evidence seems to indicate. Societies wherein pregnancy is compelled against the will of women who are pregnant are in the aggregate less free and worse off the evidence seems to indicate. So it is not about punishing or rewarding those "responsible" individuals among us but balancing what will lead to a more perfect union.

Many conservatives against abortion form their position based on the violation of fundamental liberty of the unborn child.

Can't Blame Bush, Blame the Rich or Blame GOD

It always about BLAMING something or someone find the blame, how about taking some of the Blame yourself, start to take your Responsibility for your own action.

Always easy to Blame, more difficult to face the high standards, morals, values …the weak blame because that what they have done their whole life taking the easy method.

Belly35;1403653 wrote:Can't Blame Bush, Blame the Rich or Blame GOD

Always easy to Blame, more difficult to face the high standards, morals, values …the weak blame because that what they have done their whole life taking the easy method.

And yet you blame the POTUS ( that is not your President) and the LIB Mofo's and Community organizers.



Just sayin.....

Devils Advocate;1403697 wrote:And yet you blame the POTUS ( that is not your President) and the LIB Mofo's and Community organizers.



Just sayin.....

lol..reps. Funny reading the guy who starts regular threads blaming Mr. Community Organizer/Not My President for things saying that "the weak blame".

My day is complete!

Devils Advocate;1403043 wrote:http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2013/03/arkansas_legisl.html

One additional nugget:

Bopp is a moron. Company I worked for did fundraising for NRL, and the dude's appeals were just awful, logically.

jmog;1403447 wrote:I like him too, but if indeed he did say that his logic was terrible and wrong.

Eh, he qualifies it with an "if" statement that I don't think is fully true, so there's a qualifier. All in all, I don't mind that.

Devils Advocate;1403697 wrote:And yet you blame the POTUS ( that is not your President) and the LIB Mofo's and Community organizers.



Just sayin.....

Those lib mofo's.

Con_Alma;1403531 wrote:Many conservatives against abortion form their position based on the violation of fundamental liberty of the unborn child.

Agreed, but as the saying goes, one's rights end where another's begin. So, even if we accept that a fetus has a "right to life" that is to say in the normal course of events it might become alive and it has a right in some sense to reach this plateau...and we as a society have a compelling interest in this happening a lot so that our society carries on, etc...in order for this to happen a woman must freely allow the fetus to use her womb as a means to that end. The fetus' becoming alive is contingent upon the woman allowing it to happen inside her own body. So, there is a necessary conflict in rights/liberties if the woman with a fetus growing inside of her desires for her body not to be used in this way (even if she did a week or two ago).

Should the People of the United States engage in a taking of her most intimate private property because of our interest in that fetus' right to become alive? Or, should the People of the United States not engage in such a gross violation of the sovereignty and liberty of the woman and allow the fetus to fail to become alive?

At the very least it seems to me that reasonable minds can disagree. I personally feel that in balancing the liberties against one another, since the fetus feels no pain, has no conscious awareness and therefore is not a sentient being, and that the women of the world have an ample supply of eggs to fertilize, the woman's liberties supervene on the fetus' as the women in our society would be keenly aware of the intervention in their liberty.

BoatShoes;1405556 wrote:...So, there is a necessary conflict in rights/liberties if the woman with a fetus growing inside of her desires for her body not to be used in this way (even if she did a week or two ago).

Should the People of the United States engage in a taking of her most intimate private property because of our interest in that fetus' right to become alive? Or, should the People of the United States not engage in such a gross violation of the sovereignty and liberty of the woman and allow the fetus to fail to become alive?

At the very least it seems to me that reasonable minds can disagree. I personally feel that in balancing the liberties against one another, since the fetus feels no pain, has no conscious awareness and therefore is not a sentient being, and that the women of the world have an ample supply of eggs to fertilize, the woman's liberties supervene on the fetus' as the women in our society would be keenly aware of the intervention in their liberty.

Oh, we certainly disagree. We greatly disagree.

Having government decide that a life should not be granted rights over a woman's "most intimate private property", no mater the feeling or lack thereof involved of the fetus says much about our society. Erroring on the side of not engaging in the "violation of liberty" at the cost of death for another is a reflection of the country's moral barometer.

It's called personal responsibility, something liberals have gradually been eroding over the years. 15 years ago a co-worker told me "...that's the Democrats for you - they don't think people should be responsible for anything hahaha". I agreed and chuckled at the time, but over the years it's proven to be an increasingly poignant insight.

No surprise, really, because personal responsibility does not mesh with an agenda where the gubmit is the provider for all things and the solution to all problems.