No, my point was that just because something is a law, doesn’t mean it’s a good thing, or even that it’s supported by the society. Laws that no one obeys are one such example. And there are some things, that if they passed a law against it, I would still do. In fact there are some things that are technically illegal that I don’t agree with and do anyway
You mentioned speed limits, people break the speed limit, does that mean we should do away with speed limits ? That would be fun now wouldn't it. How many more deaths do you think their would be ? Alot and that's why we have a speed limit. Any law from a speed limit to murder can be broken. A law will not stop someone from doing an act if they wish. But as a society we set those laws based on what society demands. You said their are laws you would break if they were passed. So be it but then you face the consequence of your action.
It's not up to you as a singular person what laws should be passed it's up to the majority, (one of those little things called convienence of freedom as you put it) If an individual decides to break the law, society punishes you should you decide to break them. We outlawed, murder and rape and many other things and guess what Allison ? We knew that people would break those laws, same with speed limits but we passed them didn't we. When you pick up a history book swing by and grab a law book, we don't make laws only if we think enough people will abide by them. We decide as a society that it's beneficial knowing full well people will break them, that's why we have those little things called courts and jails to keep the bad people in.
As for those who are upset about the fact they don’t exist, can you provide even one example?
Yes it's called the entire pro life movement, they DO lament the fact that thousands of babies are killed every year. They hold rallies, candle light vigils. Ever hear of em ? DUH>
You mean like the North being the aggressor or on the offensive in the civil war? LOL I love that one.
The South started the war, yes, but that didn't make them the aggressors other than trying to drive out what they considered a "foreign" army from their land. Their goal was simply to become their own nation, not to take over anyone else's nation. It was the North that decided a war was necessary to retake the South and force them to stay a part of the country. The South just wanted to do things their own way. The North was the one that said the Southerners couldn't have that freedom, that they would have to do things the way the Northerners wanted, even if the North had to send armies down there and conquer the entire land to make them do so. And you're disputing this?
Yes it's called the entire pro life movement, they DO lament the fact that thousands of babies are killed every year. They hold rallies, candle light vigils. Ever hear of em ? DUH>
Apparently you're not understanding me then. Give me an example of one person who laments the lack of their ownexistence, not someone else's.
Washington D.C. was very close to the South, and yes, they did make a few forays into northern territory, most notably at Gettysburg, but the Southerners were hardly the aggressors.
LOL. Umm who started the war ? Fort Sumter ring a bell ? A few forrays ?
They had no desire to conquer the northern states. They simply wanted to defeat the army that was trying to force them to stay in the Union. It was the North that had to go in and essentially conquer the South to get them to stay. Â Â
The North didn't want to conquer them either, the did everything they could EXCEPT keep slavery legal to keep them in the union.
BTW: I love this one
90% of the war was fought on Southern territory.
Really ? Wow, more new history.
And the creme de la creme.
Do you recall Sherman’s March and the burning of everything along the way? Had the U.S. simply let the South secede, there would have been no need for war. Yet we justified the deaths of everyone in that war by saying it preserved the strength of our society. So again, we see it’s ok to kill for the sake of preserving your way
Yes for the sake of preserving our silly ways. Ahh if we had only let them secede and keep slavery legal, the good ol days eh Alison ? How dare we fight over that ? can't we all just get along ? O.K you guys down south, go ahead and keep your slaves cuz freedom is just a convienince, right slaves ? (slaves are untied so they can agree) So we wouldn't want to impose our way of life on you, so go right ahead and keep all the slaves you like. Yes we did justify it by saying it preserved the strengh of our society. good thing for the slaves we did.
And the grand finale' in the revisoinist history lesson.
But who said we had to go into Germany in the first place? If you weren’t on their land, they might not have been shooting at you.
Well, lets see, Germany attacked pretty much all of Europe. THEY declared war on us. In order to get a country to surrender you need to usually take their capitol or leadership, ever hear of Hitler ? He was a naughty guy. But I'm sure we were the agressors there too. And Japan wasn't the agressor either and let's not forget the poor south who only wanted to keep their slaves. What a bunch of selfish people we are to keep our silly little way of life and freedom intact.
It keeps getting better.
Besides, I’m not talking about the experience of the individual soldier, I’m talking about the decision to go into Germany in the first place. Would you disagree that we shouldn’t have gone in and killed all those Germans because their right to life superceded America’s agenda to preserve our way of life?
Oh I don't know Alison maybe you should ask someone who was in the concentration camps. No we should have left those nice people alone too, after all they were just exterminating people, We wouldn't want to impose our views. That would be anti choice. How dare we impose our views.
There are people in South who will probably never shed the put-upon mentality, and say the war was all the doing of the North and the South was pushed to where it could do nothing else. But I think that number grows smaller as the generations pass. I think the intermingling of people from the North to the South and vice-versa has done a lot to change that.
Not new history at all. It seems you're the one whose not quite straight on their history so I looked it up for you. Between the years of 1861-1865, 387 recognized battles took place. 299 took place in the actual Confederate states. 60 occured in the border states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and West Virginia, and only 28 took place across the rest of the country, and at least half of those were with Indians, not confederates.
So actually over 90% of the war took place in the Confederate States or states that were sympathetic to them. And yet you're trying to claim it was the South who was trying to invade the North? No, it was the North who decided that war was the only way tp preserve the American nation and set about forcing the South to comply. So it is an example of believing that the right to life can fall second to one's desire to preserve their way of life.
And the Civil War wasn't about slavery. Certainly that was a moral rallying point, but the causes of the war were far more complex than that. But even if it was the point, again I ask, doesn't one's right to life exceed another's right to convenience? You seem to be saying no, that some things like a person' right to be able to live their life the way they want, without ultra-personal invasions of their freedom can take precedence. Ok, fine, but then don't try and say abortion is wrong because a woman is putting her desire for freedom above the life of another. Not only does it happen all the time, but you yourself endorse the concept! Sometimes innocent people must die to preserve our way of life.
Not that I ever believed a fetus was an actual person anyway.
So actually over 90% of the war took place in the Confederate States or states that were sympathetic to them. And yet you're trying to claim it was the South who was trying to invade the North? No, it was the North who decided that war was the only way tp preserve the American nation and set about forcing the South to comply.
Bingo, you figured it out, And why was it fought in 90% or over ? Because THEY seceeded. THEY fired on Fort Sumter. THEY wanted to keep slavery intact. Oh I forgot we were the agressor. So was the south right ? Should they have kept slaves ? Should we have allowed that to happen ? Much of WW2 in the Pacific was fought on Japanese soil or territory but THEY attacked us. THEY declared war. So were we the agressors because much of the war was fought on their soil ? Should we have let them come in ? Germany rolled over Europe and murdered millions of people. Were we the agressors when we went into Germany to stop them ? Do you get it ? Your revision or failure to grasp basic history or to rewrite it is telling.
And the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
Sure O.K Alison, whatever you say. Right and we were the agressors with the south and we should have never went into Germany. And we were the agressors with the Japanese. The Slaves and the Jews I'm sure would thank you for your support.
again I ask, doesn't one's right to life exceed another's right to convenience?
Suddenly you're all for the right to life ? apparently only if they are killing jews or keeping slaves, then they have all the rights in the world because we wouldn't want to impose our views but have no problem doing so if we are talking about killing a baby.
To answer the question when one person takes away or tries to take away the most basic of human rights which is life itself. then that person loses those rights. For example. you claimed we shouldn't have went into Germany. If we hadn't and Germany took over Europe and every where else they could have continued to exterminate Jews or anyone else they didn't like. When they did that, their rights stopped. What don't you understand about that.
If we are passing on the street and I pull a knife and you think I am about to kill you or a loved one then my rights stop. My rights end when I try to take away your life. Life supercedes all rights because without life all the other rights are meaningless because your dead. Would you be justified if I pulled that knife and tried to stab you to use whatever means availible to protect yourself ? Sure you would. Because in doing that act I have chosen to break a law and my rights are null and void because I am violating your right to life.
Apparently you still haven't figured out what I'm doing here. I'm taking your arguments against abortion and applying them to other situations to show how they don't make sense and how much inconsistency there is in your position.
Because THEY seceeded. THEY fired on Fort Sumter. THEY wanted to keep slavery intact. Oh I forgot we were the agressor.
The only point I was really trying to make is that for the North, it was hardly a war of self-defense. rather it was an example of where the quality of life was rated higher than the right to life itself.
So was the south right ? Should they have kept slaves ? Should we have allowed that to happen ?
Whether or not one has the right to impose their morals on another is a different, albeit related debate. Whether they were right or not is irrelevant to my point here though which is that we were willing to kill them, not in self-defense, but rather over quality of life issues.
So were we the agressors because much of the war was fought on their soil ? Should we have let them come in ? Germany rolled over Europe and murdered millions of people. Were we the agressors when we went into Germany to stop them ?
What I'm saying is that once we had chased them back to their own borders, it was no longer about self-defense. At that point they were on the defensive. The decision to pursue them past that point wasn't about self-defense anymore, it was about protecting our way of life against potential future threats they might have posed. So again, killing in the name of protecting one's way of life.
The Slaves and the Jews I'm sure would thank you for your support
FYI, we didn't fight WWII to save the Jews. We weren't even aware of what was happening to them until after we came through Germany and discovered the concentration camps. Yet my point is that the same oppresion you think I'm supporting against slaves and Jews, is the same oppression you would support of women, forcing them into the servitude of parenthood against their will.
And the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
Sure O.K Alison, whatever you say.
Is that what you actually believe? That the whole war was about trying to stop slavery? Although if you didn't even know where it took place, then I suppose it could be.
To answer the question when one person takes away or tries to take away the most basic of human rights which is life itself. then that person loses those rights.
So you think a woman who gets an abortion should be executed?
For example. you claimed we shouldn't have went into Germany.
Just to be clear, I wasn't really saying that. I don't even believe that. I was just questioning if the decision to do so was really still about mere self-defense at that point, or was it about turning the tables on them to ensure our own future? Once we went into Germany, then yes, we became the aggressors. Not that we didn't have a good reason to. In fact, not doing so likely would have been a bad idea. But on the way to Berlin and Tokyo, no doubt innocent people were killed, and it wasn't because we were trying to save our own lives at that point, but rather ensure the quality of those lives by putting a final end to Axis aggression.
So we have a precedent whereby one can justify killing another if that person threatens the quality of life of the first person. And by that precedent, abortion should be legal.
"Whether they were right or not is irrelevant to my point here though which is that we were willing to kill them, not in self-defense, but rather over quality of life issues."
It was over a civil uprising. A military installation had been bombed and comandeered by an army formed within the borders of the United States. It's leaders wanted to destroy the union and took up arms against their own country.
You know what that's called? -- Treason.
Your attempts to equate acts of war with abortion in any way is silly, combined with a naivete that is almost like a child's.
Apparently you still haven't figured out what I'm doing here
Have you ? :)
I'm taking your arguments against abortion and applying them to other situations to show how they don't make sense and how much inconsistency there is in your position.
Really ? as good of a job about telling me all about war ? Talk about inconsistency. Hmmm, tell me again how we were forcing our views on the slaves.
Whether they were right or not is irrelevant to my point here though which is that we were willing to kill them, not in self-defense, but rather over quality of life issues.
Yes we wouldn't want to judge slave holders and those fighting for it. Was it self defense when the Confederacy was across the potomac from the capitol ? They would have taken the capitol if they could have, they tried and failed.
Keep telling yourself that the civil war wasn't about slavery. Your were the one who said we were the agressors so why not, sure it wasn't about that and we were the agressors. O.K, sure
So we have a precedent whereby one can justify killing another if that person threatens the quality of life of the first person. And by that precedent, abortion should be legal.
Yes those evil babies. Right I forgot how we were all born with sin. You quoted it in the bible. Funny how you use it when it serves your purpose. I'm sure God loves abortion.
No it's about the right to life. Whether or not one has the right to impose their morals on another is a different, albeit related debate. Whether they were right or not is irrelevant to my point here though which is that we were willing to kill them, not in self-defense, but rather over quality of life issues.
Which is what it all comes down to. It could be said that those who oppose abortion are forcing their will or morals on others as could be said of the people who approve of it. either way it's a value and or moral or opnion that it should be legal or illegal. The country is fairly split on the issue. Which is why it always brings debate. To me the rights of one stops when it takes the life of an innocent baby. Which is where the real debate comes in the whole person/not person argument. I am not going to do it. Either you think it is or isn't. To me it's a baby, a human, etc. If it makes you feel better to call it a fetus and chop it up into pieces. Or to call it a fetus, unwanted or an inconvienece so be it and suck it out with a needle or hook. It's just tissue right ? I hope you're right.
It was over a civil uprising. A military installation had been bombed and comandeered by an army formed within the the borders of the United States. It's leaders wanted to destroy the union and took up arms against their own country.
What? The Civil War did not happen because of Fort Sumter. Fort Sumpter was merely the first incident of violence, but the groundwork for the war was already laid. Several southern states had already seceded from the Union at that point. Don't you think at the very least that might have had more to do with it than trying to defend a fort?
The Civil War, like most such things, was at heart about economics. The North had become a highly industrialized society, yet they were still dependedent on the raw materials of the South. They didn't want the Confederacy to become aligned with England or France instead as that would have crippled the Union's industrial power in the long run. It would also have been a security risk for generations to come. Lincold recognized that the only way the US would ever become a world power was if it did so united, and he was willing to go to war to see to it. Yes, slavery was part of the equation, yet back then, how many white men do you think were really willing to sacrifice their lives just to ensure the freedom of a black man? Civil rights had not come that far yet. Men enlisted out of partiotism and because they still believed in Manifest Destiny and the idea of the Union, not because they were outraged over slavery.
Really ? as good of a job about telling me all about war ?
I've already shown one instance where my facts were correct and yours were not, so I'm not sure what you mean by this.
Hmmm, tell me again how we were forcing our views on the slaves.
I never said anything about it the first time?
Yes we wouldn't want to judge slave holders and those fighting for it.
Well if that's how you feel.
Was it self defense when the Confederacy was across the potomac from the capitol ? They would have taken the capitol if they could have, they tried and failed.
No, that was one of the few occasions where they tried to win the war by going on the offensive. But if you're going to keep pointing to that it only shows your inability to see the bigger picture.
Keep telling yourself that the civil war wasn't about slavery. Your were the one who said we were the agressors so why not, sure it wasn't about that and we were the agressors. O.K, sure
You've already shown your knowledge of the history of the war isn't particularly extensive, so a condescending attitude is hardly going to imtimidate me.
Yes those evil babies. Right I forgot how we were all born with sin. You quoted it in the bible. Funny how you use it when it serves your purpose. I'm sure God loves abortion.
I was just using it on the assumption that it's the basis of your belief. But the idea that God loves babies and hates certain adults is silly. If God is omniscient, he already knows what the future of that baby will be, or would have been. That baby could have grown up to be a serial killer. It's only we humans with our limited linear perspective that see a baby as innocent. But it's irrelevant anyway. If God knows a fetus isn't going to be born, what's the point in giving it a soul?
Which is what it all comes down to. It could be said that those who oppose abortion are forcing their will or morals on others
And they are.
as could be said of the people who approve of it.
No, they want to let people decide for themselves.
either way it's a value and or moral or opnion that it should be legal or illegal.
It is entirely an opinion, but that doesn't mean the legality of it should necessarily be decided by the opinion. Sometimes the law needs to protect the rights of those with a minority opinion. That's why we don't just decide everything with a poll.
The country is fairly split on the issue. Which is why it always brings debate. To me the rights of one stops when it takes the life of an innocent baby. Which is where the real debate comes in the whole person/not person argument. I am not going to do it. Either you think it is or isn't. To me it's a baby, a human, etc. If it makes you feel better to call it a fetus and chop it up into pieces. Or to call it a fetus, unwanted or an inconvienece so be it and suck it out with a needle or hook. It's just tissue right ? I hope you're right.
Most of this I agree with you on actually. And I do believe it's just a body and that it does not yet have a soul. When something like 40% of all fertilized eggs are never born, and God is supposedly omniscient enough to know which ones will be born and which ones won't, it just doesn't make sense to me to think every fertilized egg has a soul. What a waste that would be. And when has God ever shown himself to be so inefficient in his creations?
I've already shown one instance where my facts were correct and yours were not, so I'm not sure what you mean by this.
You mean like this ?
but the Southerners were hardly the aggressors
Sorry I forgot. You missed the sarcasm. I should have just said it originally. My point was that just because we fought in southern states didn't mean we were the agressors or on the offensive as you assert. If you look at any engagement or war going back to the Pelopenison wars generally you have to take the enemies capitol or territory to be victorious. The south DID try and failed. Just as we had to to win. But none of it would have happened if they decided to accept the Missouri compromise. They attacked we didn't until we were. Like I said we fought most of the war against Japan on their territory. It didn't mean we were the agressors. It's how wars are fought. Same with the south. We wouldn't have been fighting at Shiloh or Bull run if they hadn't seceeded due to wanting slavery to continue to run their economy.
I was just using it on the assumption that it's the basis of your belief.
That assumption would be wrong.
But the idea that God loves babies and hates certain adults is silly. If God is omniscient, he already knows what the future of that baby will be, or would have been. That baby could have grown up to be a serial killer. It's only we humans with our limited linear perspective that see a baby as innocent. But it's irrelevant anyway. If God knows a fetus isn't going to be born, what's the point in giving it a soul?
No, god loves them equally. He also gave us the power to have free will and to make choices. We have the power to take another human life and make other sins as well and will be judged accordingly. A baby is innocent. If not what has it done ? Are it's sins so bad it deserves to be killed ? as far as giving them or not giving them a soul how do you know it doesn't That's pretty presumptious.
Which is what it all comes down to. It could be said that those who oppose abortion are forcing their will or morals on others
And they are.
as could be said of the people who approve of it.
No, they want to let people decide for themselves.
Gotta love hypocrisy. So your view is more valid ? So in my opinion I think we should let people kill anyone they choose. So let's let them decide for themselves, hey I wouldn't want to force my opinion on others.
It is entirely an opinion, but that doesn't mean the legality of it should necessarily be decided by the opinion. Sometimes the law needs to protect the rights of those with a minority opinion. That's why we don't just decide everything with a poll.
Every law that is made is made because of opinion. People thought it was a bad idea to kill, rape, steal etc. If enough people decide it's beneficial or harmful to society in general then public opinion gets those elected who work for the change or addition of a law.
And when has God ever shown himself to be so inefficient in his creations?
He gives us the ultimate decision in wether or not that person allows it to be born, we were given free will and with it the ability to sin. Hope you're right and it's just tissue and cells your ripping or sucking out of there. Hope you're right.
Fold, I got the thing with the 90% my point was . Where they fought is irrelavent since they were the agressor. I should have made myself more clear. He was the one claiming the North as the agressor. But it was my fault for not being more clear and a good ribbing over it was well deserved.
"..in fact, as I believe you stated, it is seen by many, as Treason. "
John Walker Lindh, 20 takes up arms against his country and he's reviled and spat upon.
Robert E. Lee and Jeff Davis do the same thing on a much larger scale and their likenesses are carved into the side of a mountain. People cheer their valiant ride in a big laser show.
Wierd world, and people are selling tickets to see it.
Yes, it confuses a lot of people. Still, I like the name Allison Wonderland too much.
As for this agressor thing, let's try an analogy. Let's say two guys are about to get into a fight and guy A throws the first punch. Then after the fight, guy B goes around tracking down every member of A's family, his neighbors, his friends, etc. and beats them up. Are you going to say A was the aggressor in the whole thing just because he threw the first punch and everything guy B did was simply self-defense?
Yes, the South threw the first punch. They had declared their independence and it was their goal to forcibly remove northern troops from their territory, and that was the scope of their agenda. They had no intentions of trying to invade and take over the north. They had no reason to do so, nor was it likely they would succeed in such an endeavor. Their goal was just to solidify their own territory.
It was the North that decided a dissolved union was unacceptable and resolved to get the South back, even if it had to do so by force. It was the North that expanded the scope of the conflict far beyond the simple defense of a fort. The North went on a campaign to literally conquer and occupy the South because it was the only way they could achieve their goal. The North was clearly on the offense, not the defense.
Yes, the South managed a few forays into northern territory, but again, their intention was never to take over the north. Rather they were simply trying to achieve military objectives. The Confederates went into Pennsylvania hoping to steal supplies. And had they actually captured Washington, it's not like they would have been able to take over the country, but they would have likely dealt a serious blow to the North to oppose them, so it made sense from a military standpoint to try.
You guys just need to get past this idea that being the aggressor automatically makes you evil and wrong.
The North, can hardly be called the aggressors, but I think that "The Union", under Lincoln, could be called the righteous, because except for a few natering-nabobs, there is no right to seceed from the Union and in fact, as I believe you stated, it is seen by many, as Treason. There was a right to secede and there still is. It is a right, however, that was forcefully suppressed.
Be that as it may, it is certainly NOT something that as a "United" States, Lincoln, nor any President who may have been in his chair at that time could sit idly by and watch happen. Too much was at stake, as we were the only truly democratic nation in the world and in his eyes, that had to be preserved, slavery had to be rectified and rejected and our "United" States had to be protected from dissaray... A union preserved at the cost of the Constitution.
So now I'm arguing with Bill and agreeing with Jethro. Life is getting weird.
Yes, well they DID invade the North more than was discussed the other day, much more. I seem to remember a place called "Gettysburg"(?), in PA, just to name one more place,
Actually I did mention Gettysburg, a couple of times. Specifically when I said they went into PA looking for supplies. They went to Gettysburg because it was a town that had a reputation for shoe manufacturing, something the Confederates needed badly. They were about to cross a bridge when suddenly the Union army appeared on the other side, about to cross that same bridge. And thus began one of the bloodiest battles of the war. I don't think I'd call it an invasion though. The soldiers were just looking to steal supplies, not take over Pennsylvania.
and IF they had succeeded in that battle, the war would have gone much diffferently for The Union.
Probably, though it would have been because of a strategic military loss and not because Pennsylvania was about to be forced to join the Confederacy.
Your theoretical family battle is quite different too, as the person who attacked the rest of the family would simply be mad and quite out of control, literally crazy.
That's irrelevant. The only question is who is the agressor in that situation?
In the Civil war, the analogy would be like the North going after non-combatants,...
I'm not trying to create a replica of the whole war here. I'm trying to show how even if you didn't start something, you can still become the one on the offensive.
As Lincoln said when a government is overbearing the people have a right to overthrow it. The South just wanted to leave. The real traitors was the north.
I would hardly call the Southerners terrorists. here's a letter they wrote the day before the attack:
Headquarters Provisional Army, C. S. A. Charleston, April 11, 1861.
Sir: The government of the Confederate States has hitherto foreborne from any hostile demonstrations against Fort Sumter, in hope that the government of the United States, with a view to the amicable adjustment of all questions between the two governments, and to avert the calamities of war, would voluntarily evacuate it. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â There was reason at one time to believe that such would be the course pursued by the government of the United States, and under that impression my government has refrained from making any demand for the surrender of the fort. But the Confederate States can no longer delay assuming actual possession of a fortification commanding the entrance of one of their harbors and necessary to its defense and security. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â I am ordered by the government of the Confederate States to demand the evacuation of Fort Sumter. My aides, Colonel Chestnut and Captain Lee, are authorized to make such demand of you. All proper facilities will be afforded for the removal of yourself and command, together with company arms and property, and all private property, to any post in the United States which you may select. The flag which you have upheld so long and with so much fortitude, under the most trying circumstances, may be saluted by you on taking it down. Colonel Chestnut and Captain Lee will, for a reasonable time, await your answer.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, G. T. BEAUREGARD, Brigadier-General Commanding.
However, has anyone found any words in the U.S. Constitution making secession a "right" of the states?
Have you found anything that says it isn't a right? As was said before the Constitution is a document that provided limited powers to the federal government. The feds had no power under the Constitution to force states to remain associated with other states. Powers not delgated to the feds through the Constitution was reserved to the states. The states therfore, had a right,and technically still do, to leave the Union.
HA!!!!!!!! Yeah, well they "Technically" have the right to legalize Marijuana too, but that doesn't mean the FED won't come looking for them if they do, and in fact Have. Thanks to the north winning the civil war the feds do such things. Now if the south had won....
It should be taken it off this board too... The two have nothing in common, (Unless you conceed that since the states have the right to decide, that Abortion is ALSO a "Right"...?) That is one reason Roe v. Wade was flawed.
On fold's board he has the following: Hey "Jethro"...C'mon. The Gloves Are Off!!! Of course he has denied me access to respond. How pathetic can he get?
The American Civil War? Indeed! A conflict over which level of government, the federal government or those of the states, would predominate. The federal government won.
Now to return you to our regularly scheduled thread....
THX had posted that women have total control over their bodies (presumably based upon his earlier posts) prior to pregnancy but after that they had to suck it up and bear the child - regardless of what happens after it is born, mind you, since it seems he doesn't give a damn what happens after birth. Am I correct, even if only in part, THX?
One could go on to ask do we, as a nation, really give a damn about kids. I offer into evidence, welfare mothers. We can argue back and forth about the dollars but is it more expensive to care properly for kids or to pick up the tab for prisons?
Next is this idea of total control over our bodies. HAH! You guys should have some experience with this - you see someone who makes your blood sing and what happens? Exactly. Your physical response is obvious. Once a woman is pregnant, there remains little choice. Continuous vomiting, it happens, massive weight gain, feeling like wanting to rip people's faces off for looking at you; been there, done that; twice. Pleasant, for some I am sure. After the 12th hour, giving birth gets to be more than a pain in the neck, I assure you. And you still go on about convenience? The lady down the hall swearing so as to make a longshoreman blush would have been more than merely willing to tell you what she thinks of such a statement. It remains a wonder that her husband didn't spontaneously combust.
So there are two pints for you to be going on with: 1. total control over body and 2. whether we as a nation really give a damn about kids.
THX had posted that women have total control over their bodies (presumably based upon his earlier posts) prior to pregnancy but after that they had to suck it up and bear the child - regardless of what happens after it is born, mind you, since it seems he doesn't give a damn what happens after birth. Am I correct, even if only in part, THX?
In a nutshell, I'd say you're correct on this.
One could go on to ask do we, as a nation, really give a damn about kids. I offer into evidence, welfare mothers. We can argue back and forth about the dollars but is it more expensive to care properly for kids or to pick up the tab for prisons?
Irrelevant to the abortion issue. Are you saying abortion isn't a moral issue, it's a financial issue?
Next is this idea of total control over our bodies. HAH! You guys should have some experience with this - you see someone who makes your blood sing and what happens? Exactly. Your physical response is obvious. Once a woman is pregnant, there remains little choice. Continuous vomiting, it happens, massive weight gain, feeling like wanting to rip people's faces off for looking at you; been there, done that; twice. Pleasant, for some I am sure. After the 12th hour, giving birth gets to be more than a pain in the neck, I assure you. And you still go on about convenience? The lady down the hall swearing so as to make a longshoreman blush would have been more than merely willing to tell you what she thinks of such a statement. It remains a wonder that her husband didn't spontaneously combust.
Huh? I don't understand this in the least.
So there are two pints for you to be going on with: 1. total control over body and 2. whether we as a nation really give a damn about kids.
More confusion. I see these as two seperate and unrelated issues. Besides, you have control over your body. Don't have sex and you'd have no reason for an abortion, nor an "unwanted" child.
The American Civil War? Indeed? The issue was which would predominate, federal or the states. Federal won.
Two ides to bring us back to this thread, this idea of women having total control over their bodies and whether we really do give a damn about kids as a nation.
To both I say NO. Witness this welfare mother debate - sounds like punishment to me for having children, also this idea that right-to-lifers do not have support, in any way, the children they force women to bear or to adopt them after birth. It reeks more like we care but only until they are born after which they and you their mother can go to perdition for all we really care. No child care, no insurance and so on.
You guys should know from personal experience that no one has total control over their bodies after all, you possess an automatic response yourself. Granted it isn't up there with being pregnant for nine months, and all that entails, but tis automatic for all that. You see someone who makes your blood sing and what happens? Hmmmmm?
LOL!
Reading posts on this thread gives some sides of history I never considered.
Rick,
You mean like the North being the aggressor or on the offensive in the civil war? LOL I love that one.
A strange example of "northern aggression" occurred at Fort Sumter, that's for sure.
Alison Wonderland,
You mentioned speed limits, people break the speed limit, does that mean we should do away with speed limits ? That would be fun now wouldn't it. How many more deaths do you think their would be ? Alot and that's why we have a speed limit. Any law from a speed limit to murder can be broken. A law will not stop someone from doing an act if they wish. But as a society we set those laws based on what society demands. You said their are laws you would break if they were passed. So be it but then you face the consequence of your action.
It's not up to you as a singular person what laws should be passed it's up to the majority, (one of those little things called convienence of freedom as you put it) If an individual decides to break the law, society punishes you should you decide to break them. We outlawed, murder and rape and many other things and guess what Allison ? We knew that people would break those laws, same with speed limits but we passed them didn't we. When you pick up a history book swing by and grab a law book, we don't make laws only if we think enough people will abide by them. We decide as a society that it's beneficial knowing full well people will break them, that's why we have those little things called courts and jails to keep the bad people in.
Yes it's called the entire pro life movement, they DO lament the fact that thousands of babies are killed every year. They hold rallies, candle light vigils. Ever hear of em ? DUH>
You mean like the North being the aggressor or on the offensive in the civil war? LOL I love that one.
The South started the war, yes, but that didn't make them the aggressors other than trying to drive out what they considered a "foreign" army from their land. Their goal was simply to become their own nation, not to take over anyone else's nation. It was the North that decided a war was necessary to retake the South and force them to stay a part of the country. The South just wanted to do things their own way. The North was the one that said the Southerners couldn't have that freedom, that they would have to do things the way the Northerners wanted, even if the North had to send armies down there and conquer the entire land to make them do so. And you're disputing this?
Yes it's called the entire pro life movement, they DO lament the fact that thousands of babies are killed every year. They hold rallies, candle light vigils. Ever hear of em ? DUH>
Apparently you're not understanding me then. Give me an example of one person who laments the lack of their ownexistence, not someone else's.
Alison Wonderland,
LOL. Umm who started the war ? Fort Sumter ring a bell ? A few forrays ?
The North didn't want to conquer them either, the did everything they could EXCEPT keep slavery legal to keep them in the union.
BTW: I love this one
Really ? Wow, more new history.
And the creme de la creme.
Yes for the sake of preserving our silly ways. Ahh if we had only let them secede and keep slavery legal, the good ol days eh Alison ? How dare we fight over that ? can't we all just get along ? O.K you guys down south, go ahead and keep your slaves cuz freedom is just a convienince, right slaves ? (slaves are untied so they can agree) So we wouldn't want to impose our way of life on you, so go right ahead and keep all the slaves you like. Yes we did justify it by saying it preserved the strengh of our society. good thing for the slaves we did.
Allison,
And the grand finale' in the revisoinist history lesson.
Well, lets see, Germany attacked pretty much all of Europe. THEY declared war on us. In order to get a country to surrender you need to usually take their capitol or leadership, ever hear of Hitler ? He was a naughty guy. But I'm sure we were the agressors there too. And Japan wasn't the agressor either and let's not forget the poor south who only wanted to keep their slaves. What a bunch of selfish people we are to keep our silly little way of life and freedom intact.
It keeps getting better.
Oh I don't know Alison maybe you should ask someone who was in the concentration camps. No we should have left those nice people alone too, after all they were just exterminating people, We wouldn't want to impose our views. That would be anti choice. How dare we impose our views.
There are people in South who will probably never shed the put-upon mentality, and say the war was all the doing of the North and the South was pushed to where it could do nothing else. But I think that number grows smaller as the generations pass. I think the intermingling of people from the North to the South and vice-versa has done a lot to change that.
God let's hope so Rick.
Really ? Wow, more new history.
Not new history at all. It seems you're the one whose not quite straight on their history so I looked it up for you. Between the years of 1861-1865, 387 recognized battles took place. 299 took place in the actual Confederate states. 60 occured in the border states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and West Virginia, and only 28 took place across the rest of the country, and at least half of those were with Indians, not confederates.
So actually over 90% of the war took place in the Confederate States or states that were sympathetic to them. And yet you're trying to claim it was the South who was trying to invade the North? No, it was the North who decided that war was the only way tp preserve the American nation and set about forcing the South to comply. So it is an example of believing that the right to life can fall second to one's desire to preserve their way of life.
And the Civil War wasn't about slavery. Certainly that was a moral rallying point, but the causes of the war were far more complex than that. But even if it was the point, again I ask, doesn't one's right to life exceed another's right to convenience? You seem to be saying no, that some things like a person' right to be able to live their life the way they want, without ultra-personal invasions of their freedom can take precedence. Ok, fine, but then don't try and say abortion is wrong because a woman is putting her desire for freedom above the life of another. Not only does it happen all the time, but you yourself endorse the concept! Sometimes innocent people must die to preserve our way of life.
Not that I ever believed a fetus was an actual person anyway.
Bingo, you figured it out, And why was it fought in 90% or over ? Because THEY seceeded. THEY fired on Fort Sumter. THEY wanted to keep slavery intact. Oh I forgot we were the agressor. So was the south right ? Should they have kept slaves ? Should we have allowed that to happen ?
Much of WW2 in the Pacific was fought on Japanese soil or territory but THEY attacked us. THEY declared war. So were we the agressors because much of the war was fought on their soil ? Should we have let them come in ? Germany rolled over Europe and murdered millions of people. Were we the agressors when we went into Germany to stop them ? Do you get it ? Your revision or failure to grasp basic history or to rewrite it is telling.
Sure O.K Alison, whatever you say. Right and we were the agressors with the south and we should have never went into Germany. And we were the agressors with the Japanese. The Slaves and the Jews I'm sure would thank you for your support.
Suddenly you're all for the right to life ? apparently only if they are killing jews or keeping slaves, then they have all the rights in the world because we wouldn't want to impose our views but have no problem doing so if we are talking about killing a baby.
To answer the question when one person takes away or tries to take away the most basic of human rights which is life itself. then that person loses those rights. For example. you claimed we shouldn't have went into Germany. If we hadn't and Germany took over Europe and every where else they could have continued to exterminate Jews or anyone else they didn't like. When they did that, their rights stopped. What don't you understand about that.
If we are passing on the street and I pull a knife and you think I am about to kill you or a loved one then my rights stop. My rights end when I try to take away your life. Life supercedes all rights because without life all the other rights are meaningless because your dead. Would you be justified if I pulled that knife and tried to stab you to use whatever means availible to protect yourself ? Sure you would. Because in doing that act I have chosen to break a law and my rights are null and void because I am violating your right to life.
I say the Civil War wasn't about Pearl Harbor, and the South should have never went into Germany.
LOL. Thanks Rick, I needed a good chuckle.
Reminds me of Belushi in "Animal House" ......."Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor ? .....Hell no,,, and it aint over now.
Well, thanks, Rob:
Somtimes I feel a guy's just gotta say what's in his heart and damn the consequences.
Just like Blutto did.
That's it, you're on double secret probation Mr.
Suddenly you're all for the right to life?
Apparently you still haven't figured out what I'm doing here. I'm taking your arguments against abortion and applying them to other situations to show how they don't make sense and how much inconsistency there is in your position.
Because THEY seceeded. THEY fired on Fort Sumter. THEY wanted to keep slavery intact. Oh I forgot we were the agressor.
The only point I was really trying to make is that for the North, it was hardly a war of self-defense. rather it was an example of where the quality of life was rated higher than the right to life itself.
So was the south right ? Should they have kept slaves ? Should we have allowed that to happen ?
Whether or not one has the right to impose their morals on another is a different, albeit related debate. Whether they were right or not is irrelevant to my point here though which is that we were willing to kill them, not in self-defense, but rather over quality of life issues.
So were we the agressors because much of the war was fought on their soil ? Should we have let them come in ? Germany rolled over Europe and murdered millions of people. Were we the agressors when we went into Germany to stop them ?
What I'm saying is that once we had chased them back to their own borders, it was no longer about self-defense. At that point they were on the defensive. The decision to pursue them past that point wasn't about self-defense anymore, it was about protecting our way of life against potential future threats they might have posed. So again, killing in the name of protecting one's way of life.
The Slaves and the Jews I'm sure would thank you for your support
FYI, we didn't fight WWII to save the Jews. We weren't even aware of what was happening to them until after we came through Germany and discovered the concentration camps. Yet my point is that the same oppresion you think I'm supporting against slaves and Jews, is the same oppression you would support of women, forcing them into the servitude of parenthood against their will.
And the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
Sure O.K Alison, whatever you say.
Is that what you actually believe? That the whole war was about trying to stop slavery? Although if you didn't even know where it took place, then I suppose it could be.
To answer the question when one person takes away or tries to take away the most basic of human rights which is life itself. then that person loses those rights.
So you think a woman who gets an abortion should be executed?
For example. you claimed we shouldn't have went into Germany.
Just to be clear, I wasn't really saying that. I don't even believe that. I was just questioning if the decision to do so was really still about mere self-defense at that point, or was it about turning the tables on them to ensure our own future? Once we went into Germany, then yes, we became the aggressors. Not that we didn't have a good reason to. In fact, not doing so likely would have been a bad idea. But on the way to Berlin and Tokyo, no doubt innocent people were killed, and it wasn't because we were trying to save our own lives at that point, but rather ensure the quality of those lives by putting a final end to Axis aggression.
So we have a precedent whereby one can justify killing another if that person threatens the quality of life of the first person. And by that precedent, abortion should be legal.
"Whether they were right or not is irrelevant to my point here though which is that we were willing to kill them, not in self-defense, but rather over quality of life issues."
It was over a civil uprising. A military installation had been bombed and comandeered by an army formed within the borders of the United States. It's leaders wanted to destroy the union and took up arms against their own country.
You know what that's called? -- Treason.
Your attempts to equate acts of war with abortion in any way is silly, combined with a naivete that is almost like a child's.
Alsion,
Have you ? :)
Really ? as good of a job about telling me all about war ? Talk about inconsistency. Hmmm, tell me again how we were forcing our views on the slaves.
Yes we wouldn't want to judge slave holders and those fighting for it. Was it self defense when the Confederacy was across the potomac from the capitol ? They would have taken the capitol if they could have, they tried and failed.
Keep telling yourself that the civil war wasn't about slavery. Your were the one who said we were the agressors so why not, sure it wasn't about that and we were the agressors. O.K, sure
Yes those evil babies. Right I forgot how we were all born with sin. You quoted it in the bible. Funny how you use it when it serves your purpose.
I'm sure God loves abortion.
Which is what it all comes down to. It could be said that those who oppose abortion are forcing their will or morals on others as could be said of the people who approve of it. either way it's a value and or moral or opnion that it should be legal or illegal. The country is fairly split on the issue. Which is why it always brings debate. To me the rights of one stops when it takes the life of an innocent baby. Which is where the real debate comes in the whole person/not person argument. I am not going to do it. Either you think it is or isn't. To me it's a baby, a human, etc. If it makes you feel better to call it a fetus and chop it up into pieces. Or to call it a fetus, unwanted or an inconvienece so be it and suck it out with a needle or hook. It's just tissue right ? I hope you're right.
It was over a civil uprising. A military installation had been bombed and comandeered by an army formed within the the borders of the United States. It's leaders wanted to destroy the union and took up arms against their own country.
What? The Civil War did not happen because of Fort Sumter. Fort Sumpter was merely the first incident of violence, but the groundwork for the war was already laid. Several southern states had already seceded from the Union at that point. Don't you think at the very least that might have had more to do with it than trying to defend a fort?
The Civil War, like most such things, was at heart about economics. The North had become a highly industrialized society, yet they were still dependedent on the raw materials of the South. They didn't want the Confederacy to become aligned with England or France instead as that would have crippled the Union's industrial power in the long run. It would also have been a security risk for generations to come. Lincold recognized that the only way the US would ever become a world power was if it did so united, and he was willing to go to war to see to it. Yes, slavery was part of the equation, yet back then, how many white men do you think were really willing to sacrifice their lives just to ensure the freedom of a black man? Civil rights had not come that far yet. Men enlisted out of partiotism and because they still believed in Manifest Destiny and the idea of the Union, not because they were outraged over slavery.
Your attempts to equate acts of war with abortion in any way is silly, combined with a naivete that is almost like a child's.
Easier to just dismiss it and insult than to have to really thinbk about it,isn't it?
Really ? as good of a job about telling me all about war ?
I've already shown one instance where my facts were correct and yours were not, so I'm not sure what you mean by this.
Hmmm, tell me again how we were forcing our views on the slaves.
I never said anything about it the first time?
Yes we wouldn't want to judge slave holders and those fighting for it.
Well if that's how you feel.
Was it self defense when the Confederacy was across the potomac from the capitol ? They would have taken the capitol if they could have, they tried and failed.
No, that was one of the few occasions where they tried to win the war by going on the offensive. But if you're going to keep pointing to that it only shows your inability to see the bigger picture.
Keep telling yourself that the civil war wasn't about slavery. Your were the one who said we were the agressors so why not, sure it wasn't about that and we were the agressors. O.K, sure
You've already shown your knowledge of the history of the war isn't particularly extensive, so a condescending attitude is hardly going to imtimidate me.
Yes those evil babies. Right I forgot how we were all born with sin. You quoted it in the bible. Funny how you use it when it serves your purpose. I'm sure God loves abortion.
I was just using it on the assumption that it's the basis of your belief. But the idea that God loves babies and hates certain adults is silly. If God is omniscient, he already knows what the future of that baby will be, or would have been. That baby could have grown up to be a serial killer. It's only we humans with our limited linear perspective that see a baby as innocent. But it's irrelevant anyway. If God knows a fetus isn't going to be born, what's the point in giving it a soul?
Which is what it all comes down to. It could be said that those who oppose abortion are forcing their will or morals on others
And they are.
as could be said of the people who approve of it.
No, they want to let people decide for themselves.
either way it's a value and or moral or opnion that it should be legal or illegal.
It is entirely an opinion, but that doesn't mean the legality of it should necessarily be decided by the opinion. Sometimes the law needs to protect the rights of those with a minority opinion. That's why we don't just decide everything with a poll.
The country is fairly split on the issue. Which is why it always brings debate. To me the rights of one stops when it takes the life of an innocent baby. Which is where the real debate comes in the whole person/not person argument. I am not going to do it. Either you think it is or isn't. To me it's a baby, a human, etc. If it makes you feel better to call it a fetus and chop it up into pieces. Or to call it a fetus, unwanted or an inconvienece so be it and suck it out with a needle or hook. It's just tissue right ? I hope you're right.
Most of this I agree with you on actually. And I do believe it's just a body and that it does not yet have a soul. When something like 40% of all fertilized eggs are never born, and God is supposedly omniscient enough to know which ones will be born and which ones won't, it just doesn't make sense to me to think every fertilized egg has a soul. What a waste that would be. And when has God ever shown himself to be so inefficient in his creations?
Sometimes the law needs to protect the rights of those with a minority opinion. That's why we don't just decide everything with a poll.
how's that line go? democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. freedom is a well-armed sheep contesting the issue.
You mean like this ?
Sorry I forgot.
You missed the sarcasm. I should have just said it originally. My point was that just because we fought in southern states didn't mean we were the agressors or on the offensive as you assert. If you look at any engagement or war going back to the Pelopenison wars generally you have to take the enemies capitol or territory to be victorious. The south DID try and failed. Just as we had to to win. But none of it would have happened if they decided to accept the Missouri compromise. They attacked we didn't until we were. Like I said we fought most of the war against Japan on their territory. It didn't mean we were the agressors. It's how wars are fought. Same with the south. We wouldn't have been fighting at Shiloh or Bull run if they hadn't seceeded due to wanting slavery to continue to run their economy.
I was just using it on the assumption that it's the basis of your belief.
That assumption would be wrong.
No, god loves them equally. He also gave us the power to have free will and to make choices. We have the power to take another human life and make other sins as well and will be judged accordingly. A baby is innocent. If not what has it done ? Are it's sins so bad it deserves to be killed ? as far as giving them or not giving them a soul how do you know it doesn't That's pretty presumptious.
Which is what it all comes down to. It could be said that those who oppose abortion are forcing their will or morals on others
as could be said of the people who approve of it.
Gotta love hypocrisy. So your view is more valid ? So in my opinion I think we should let people kill anyone they choose. So let's let them decide for themselves, hey I wouldn't want to force my opinion on others.
Every law that is made is made because of opinion. People thought it was a bad idea to kill, rape, steal etc. If enough people decide it's beneficial or harmful to society in general then public opinion gets those elected who work for the change or addition of a law.
He gives us the ultimate decision in wether or not that person allows it to be born, we were given free will and with it the ability to sin. Hope you're right and it's just tissue and cells your ripping or sucking out of there. Hope you're right.
Allison Wonderland is a male.
Fold, I got the thing with the 90% my point was . Where they fought is irrelavent since they were the agressor. I should have made myself more clear. He was the one claiming the North as the agressor. But it was my fault for not being more clear and a good ribbing over it was well deserved.
(This message not displayed because 'Bill - Fold' is on your Ignore Posts list. To change your Ignore Posts list go to Preferences.)
See, it does work.
allison's his last name, bill.
"..in fact, as I believe you stated, it is seen by many, as Treason. "
John Walker Lindh, 20 takes up arms against his country and he's reviled and spat upon.
Robert E. Lee and Jeff Davis do the same thing on a much larger scale and their likenesses are carved into the side of a mountain. People cheer their valiant ride in a big laser show.
Wierd world, and people are selling tickets to see it.
Yes, it confuses a lot of people. Still, I like the name Allison Wonderland too much.
As for this agressor thing, let's try an analogy. Let's say two guys are about to get into a fight and guy A throws the first punch. Then after the fight, guy B goes around tracking down every member of A's family, his neighbors, his friends, etc. and beats them up. Are you going to say A was the aggressor in the whole thing just because he threw the first punch and everything guy B did was simply self-defense?
Yes, the South threw the first punch. They had declared their independence and it was their goal to forcibly remove northern troops from their territory, and that was the scope of their agenda. They had no intentions of trying to invade and take over the north. They had no reason to do so, nor was it likely they would succeed in such an endeavor. Their goal was just to solidify their own territory.
It was the North that decided a dissolved union was unacceptable and resolved to get the South back, even if it had to do so by force. It was the North that expanded the scope of the conflict far beyond the simple defense of a fort. The North went on a campaign to literally conquer and occupy the South because it was the only way they could achieve their goal. The North was clearly on the offense, not the defense.
Yes, the South managed a few forays into northern territory, but again, their intention was never to take over the north. Rather they were simply trying to achieve military objectives. The Confederates went into Pennsylvania hoping to steal supplies. And had they actually captured Washington, it's not like they would have been able to take over the country, but they would have likely dealt a serious blow to the North to oppose them, so it made sense from a military standpoint to try.
You guys just need to get past this idea that being the aggressor automatically makes you evil and wrong.
Didn't the founders make it clear that states had (have) the right to secede?
The North, can hardly be called the aggressors, but I think that "The Union", under Lincoln, could be called the righteous, because except for a few natering-nabobs, there is no right to seceed from the Union and in fact, as I believe you stated, it is seen by many, as Treason. There was a right to secede and there still is. It is a right, however, that was forcefully suppressed.
Be that as it may, it is certainly NOT something that as a "United" States, Lincoln, nor any President who may have been in his chair at that time could sit idly by and watch happen. Too much was at stake, as we were the only truly democratic nation in the world and in his eyes, that had to be preserved, slavery had to be rectified and rejected and our "United" States had to be protected from dissaray... A union preserved at the cost of the Constitution.
So now I'm arguing with Bill and agreeing with Jethro. Life is getting weird.
Yes, well they DID invade the North more than was discussed the other day, much more. I seem to remember a place called "Gettysburg"(?), in PA, just to name one more place,
Actually I did mention Gettysburg, a couple of times. Specifically when I said they went into PA looking for supplies. They went to Gettysburg because it was a town that had a reputation for shoe manufacturing, something the Confederates needed badly. They were about to cross a bridge when suddenly the Union army appeared on the other side, about to cross that same bridge. And thus began one of the bloodiest battles of the war. I don't think I'd call it an invasion though. The soldiers were just looking to steal supplies, not take over Pennsylvania.
and IF they had succeeded in that battle, the war would have gone much diffferently for The Union.
Probably, though it would have been because of a strategic military loss and not because Pennsylvania was about to be forced to join the Confederacy.
Your theoretical family battle is quite different too, as the person who attacked the rest of the family would simply be mad and quite out of control, literally crazy.
That's irrelevant. The only question is who is the agressor in that situation?
In the Civil war, the analogy would be like the North going after non-combatants,...
I'm not trying to create a replica of the whole war here. I'm trying to show how even if you didn't start something, you can still become the one on the offensive.
South Carolina asked the Union soldiers to leave. They could have done so peacefully. They should have done so.
"South Carolina asked the Union soldiers to leave. They could have done so peacefully. They should have done so."
Why should they comply with traitors and terrorists?
By whose authority could Beauregard make such a demand?
As Lincoln said when a government is overbearing the people have a right to overthrow it. The South just wanted to leave. The real traitors was the north.
That's ridiculuous.
How so?
I would hardly call the Southerners terrorists. here's a letter they wrote the day before the attack:
Headquarters Provisional Army, C. S. A.
Charleston, April 11, 1861.
Sir: The government of the Confederate States has hitherto foreborne from any hostile demonstrations against Fort Sumter, in hope that the government of the United States, with a view to the amicable adjustment of all questions between the two governments, and to avert the calamities of war, would voluntarily evacuate it.
       There was reason at one time to believe that such would be the course pursued by the government of the United States, and under that impression my government has refrained from making any demand for the surrender of the fort. But the Confederate States can no longer delay assuming actual possession of a fortification commanding the entrance of one of their harbors and necessary to its defense and security.
       I am ordered by the government of the Confederate States to demand the evacuation of Fort Sumter. My aides, Colonel Chestnut and Captain Lee, are authorized to make such demand of you. All proper facilities will be afforded for the removal of yourself and command, together with company arms and property, and all private property, to any post in the United States which you may select. The flag which you have upheld so long and with so much fortitude, under the most trying circumstances, may be saluted by you on taking it down. Colonel Chestnut and Captain Lee will, for a reasonable time, await your answer.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
G. T. BEAUREGARD,
Brigadier-General Commanding.
Hardly sounds like terrorist propaganda. To read a complete article on the events at Ft. Sumter, go to http://www.civilwarhome.com/CMHsumter.htm
bill, i've always justified it by the opening of the declaration of independence.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...
However, has anyone found any words in the U.S. Constitution making secession a "right" of the states?
Have you found anything that says it isn't a right? As was said before the Constitution is a document that provided limited powers to the federal government. The feds had no power under the Constitution to force states to remain associated with other states. Powers not delgated to the feds through the Constitution was reserved to the states. The states therfore, had a right,and technically still do, to leave the Union.
HA!!!!!!!! Yeah, well they "Technically" have the right to legalize Marijuana too, but that doesn't mean the FED won't come looking for them if they do, and in fact Have. Thanks to the north winning the civil war the feds do such things. Now if the south had won....
It should be taken it off this board too... The two have nothing in common, (Unless you conceed that since the states have the right to decide, that Abortion is ALSO a "Right"...?) That is one reason Roe v. Wade was flawed.
On fold's board he has the following: Hey "Jethro"...C'mon. The Gloves Are Off!!!
Of course he has denied me access to respond. How pathetic can he get?
The American Civil War? Indeed! A conflict over which level of government, the federal government or those of the states, would predominate. The federal government won.
Now to return you to our regularly scheduled thread....
THX had posted that women have total control over their bodies (presumably based upon his earlier posts) prior to pregnancy but after that they had to suck it up and bear the child - regardless of what happens after it is born, mind you, since it seems he doesn't give a damn what happens after birth. Am I correct, even if only in part, THX?
One could go on to ask do we, as a nation, really give a damn about kids. I offer into evidence, welfare mothers. We can argue back and forth about the dollars but is it more expensive to care properly for kids or to pick up the tab for prisons?
Next is this idea of total control over our bodies. HAH! You guys should have some experience with this - you see someone who makes your blood sing and what happens? Exactly. Your physical response is obvious. Once a woman is pregnant, there remains little choice. Continuous vomiting, it happens, massive weight gain, feeling like wanting to rip people's faces off for looking at you; been there, done that; twice. Pleasant, for some I am sure. After the 12th hour, giving birth gets to be more than a pain in the neck, I assure you. And you still go on about convenience? The lady down the hall swearing so as to make a longshoreman blush would have been more than merely willing to tell you what she thinks of such a statement. It remains a wonder that her husband didn't spontaneously combust.
So there are two pints for you to be going on with: 1. total control over body and 2. whether we as a nation really give a damn about kids.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Kit's motto: kill the kid, I don't care!
Fetuses not kids. Once the child is born its another thing entirely. You see, with me, its BIRTH not CONCEPTION that matters.
A "fetus" is a human being. So your mottomust be: Kill human beings, I don't care!
Kit Zupan 4/8/02 8:27am
THX had posted that women have total control over their bodies (presumably based upon his earlier posts) prior to pregnancy but after that they had to suck it up and bear the child - regardless of what happens after it is born, mind you, since it seems he doesn't give a damn what happens after birth. Am I correct, even if only in part, THX?
In a nutshell, I'd say you're correct on this.
One could go on to ask do we, as a nation, really give a damn about kids. I offer into evidence, welfare mothers. We can argue back and forth about the dollars but is it more expensive to care properly for kids or to pick up the tab for prisons?
Irrelevant to the abortion issue. Are you saying abortion isn't a moral issue, it's a financial issue?
Next is this idea of total control over our bodies. HAH! You guys should have some experience with this - you see someone who makes your blood sing and what happens? Exactly. Your physical response is obvious. Once a woman is pregnant, there remains little choice. Continuous vomiting, it happens, massive weight gain, feeling like wanting to rip people's faces off for looking at you; been there, done that; twice. Pleasant, for some I am sure. After the 12th hour, giving birth gets to be more than a pain in the neck, I assure you. And you still go on about convenience? The lady down the hall swearing so as to make a longshoreman blush would have been more than merely willing to tell you what she thinks of such a statement. It remains a wonder that her husband didn't spontaneously combust.
Huh? I don't understand this in the least.
So there are two pints for you to be going on with: 1. total control over body and 2. whether we as a nation really give a damn about kids.
More confusion. I see these as two seperate and unrelated issues. Besides, you have control over your body. Don't have sex and you'd have no reason for an abortion, nor an "unwanted" child.
The American Civil War? Indeed? The issue was which would predominate, federal or the states.
Federal won.
Two ides to bring us back to this thread, this idea of women having total control over their bodies and whether we really do give a damn about kids as a nation.
To both I say NO. Witness this welfare mother debate - sounds like punishment to me for having children, also this idea that right-to-lifers do not have support, in any way, the children they force women to bear or to adopt them after birth.
It reeks more like we care but only until they are born after which they and you their mother can go to perdition for all we really care. No child care, no insurance and so on.
You guys should know from personal experience that no one has total control over their bodies after all, you possess an automatic response yourself. Granted it isn't up there with being pregnant for nine months, and all that entails, but tis automatic for all that. You see someone who makes your blood sing and what happens? Hmmmmm?
So two points for you to have fun with:
1. total physical control
2. as a nation do we really give a damn?
Thank you for your kind attention.