Where are America's Morals

[Sergeant Thorne]

You're wrong, Ferno. There is nothing intrinsically primitive or pre-developed about raping a young boy. This is not something that is in any way normative before a culture becomes more enlightened or "evolved". It's no less wrong/evil/backwards for one culture or people than for another. Some cultures may not have an appreciation for contrived sensibilities on the matter coming from American culture, but the underlying principle is a very basic principle drawn from the very nature of humanity, and is something every person can understand and be held accountable for. Boys are boys, and men are men. Boys should be protected and brought up to be men, whereupon they are fit to deal themselves with the actions of other men. When a man is a man who preys on a boy (or a woman), instead of protecting the same, that man is not fit to live, to say nothing of the extreme perversion of treating a boy (or a man) like a woman.

[woodchip]

It would appear Ferno is trying to make the same mitigating excuses about cultural-ism as slick did. Sad to see 2 grown men make excuses about raping a 8 year old but what the hey, must be a intellectual thing.

[sigma]

Premature pullout of troops from Syria? Putin sounds like Bush. Mission accomplished, but not really.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/put ... d=37637792

Russian bear just got scared and ran away with his tail between his legs.

[woodchip]

don't think so sigma. Putin appears to have read the tea leaves and with the upcoming peace talks, he probably thought staying there was pointless. They'll still maintain their naval base there so not like he is fleeing. Also by pulling out it paints Putin as a better peace broker than Obama.

[Top Gun]

Also by pulling out it paints Putin as a better peace broker than Obama.

ahahahahahaha oh wait you're serious that's just sad

[Ferno]

There is nothing intrinsically primitive or pre-developed about raping a young boy.

geez, crack open a history book sometime, will ya?

[Sergeant Thorne]

Right after you thumb through a dictionary. You would be hard-pressed to adequately contest a well-founded (if I do say so myself), philosophical statement using any number of unconflicting historical accounts.

[callmeslick]

so while we parse intervention in other culture's sense of morality, it is sort of tough to maintain moral superiority if elected representatives here are making sure that rapists can sue victims to prevent abortions. Yeesh.
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/01/14/ ... -bill.html

[Spidey]

OMG...seriously!

[callmeslick]

yeah, Spidey.....what kind of sick ★■◆● even sits down and considers the tort rights of rapists against victims when writing a bill? OMG was pretty much what I thought when I read the article and double-checked the bill in the CR.

[Sergeant Thorne]

OMG...seriously!

No. That's just a bull**** scenario. What it actually means is that there would be no abortions. They would be illegal.

[callmeslick]

care to elaborate, Thorne? The wording is in the text of the bill, and doesn't outlaw abortions at any point. Not sure what you are trying to say, above.

[Sergeant Thorne]

The bill...

Section 1. Short title

This Act may be cited as the " Sanctity of Human Life Act ".

Sec. 2. Declaration

In the exercise of the powers of the Congress, including Congress’ power under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress’ power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States—

(1) the Congress declares that—
(A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and
(B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and

(2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.

Sec. 3. Definitions

For purposes of this Act:

(1) Fertilization

The term fertilization means the process of a human spermatozoan penetrating the cell membrane of a human oocyte to create a human zygote, a one-celled human embryo, which is a new unique human being.

(2) Cloning

The term cloning means the process called somatic cell nuclear transfer, that combines an enucleated egg and the nucleus of a somatic cell to make a human embryo.

(3) Human; human being

The terms human and human being include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, beginning with the earliest stage of development, created by the process of fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent.

Slick, I know it's hard with these websites you frequent, but give the ol' reasoning engine some gas. Murder is still illegal, isn't it? "Protecting rapists rights" indeed...

[Spidey]

JFTR, my response was to linking that BS, not the ludicrous speculation presented in the story.

[callmeslick]

Thank you, Thorne. OK, I see your view that the intent is to allow for the potential of a complete ban on abortion, although the wording is so vague as to mainly not specify anything, and SCOTUS precedent would still make any localities' ban of abortion unconstitutional. Hence, the vague,but quite dangerous wording which allows for a window in which any termination can be challenged in court.

[Sergeant Thorne]

It's not vague. This means that from conception there is a human life at stake, and this life is to be treated, legally, as any other human life.

The "cloning" parts feels like a bizarre peek into the future...

[Lothar]

which allows for a window in which any termination can be challenged in court.

The language is not that vague. This wouldn't allow abortion to be "challenged in court", it would straight-up outlaw it. There's no "parental rights" or "rapist's rights" here; it's a bill entirely about fetal rights which treats their "right to life" as something the government is required to protect.

[Top Gun]

Yeah, after reading that bill text the "ZOMG BUT RAPISTS!!!" argument makes utterly no sense.

[callmeslick]

which allows for a window in which any termination can be challenged in court.

The language is not that vague. This wouldn't allow abortion to be "challenged in court", it would straight-up outlaw it. There's no "parental rights" or "rapist's rights" here; it's a bill entirely about fetal rights which treats their "right to life" as something the government is required to protect.

but, to outlaw it makes no sense as that has proven unconstitutional. Redifining the role of government in protecting life doesn't alter that fact.

[Lothar]

but, to outlaw it makes no sense as that has proven unconstitutional

Get used to it. Those of us who believe the unborn are entitled to life will keep trying to outlaw it. Just like those of you who believe guns are dangerous will keep trying to restrict them, even though the second amendment is an actually real and explicit part of the constitution.

[Sergeant Thorne]

"believe guns are dangerous?" I believe guns are dangerous. They believe the right of free people to defend their lives with lethal force is a barbaric notion, and stories of guns in the hands of criminals make them feel so helpless and vulnerable that they want to do away with them, with no concern for how the benefits weigh against the dangers...

That's a poor comparison.

[Ferno]

Get used to it. Those of us who believe the unborn are entitled to life will keep trying to outlaw it. Just like those of you who believe guns are dangerous will keep trying to restrict them, even though the second amendment is an actually real and explicit part of the constitution.

I know you get worked up over this sort of thing, but try to remember to keep a cool head.

[callmeslick]

come on. Guns are no more dangerous than strawberries. Who would feel they are dangerous?

I do get what Lothar is saying, but it was a terrible analogy.

[Lothar]

Both are cases where both sides of the issue have a point, and they differ simply because they're weighing two issues very differently (life and lifestyle of the mother vs life of the child; ability to defend yourself vs risk to innocents).

And both are cases where one side believes the constitution gives them carte blanche to be completely unrestricted, but the other side believes they should be able to restrict or even completely outlaw it, and both have long histories of legal precedent but also a lot of 5-4 SCOTUS decisions that could be reversed with a single unexpected appointment (note that Merrick Garland has tended to side with DC-style gun control measures, and is completely untested on abortion in any way.)

Which means both are cases where the currently-legal side gets shocked that people from the other side would *dare* infringe on their *constitutionally protected right*. But the other side continues to make both open and sneaky attempts to restrict or outlaw, because they believe that some other constitutionally protected right (the life of the innocent) overrides it. So it's funny whenever somebody freaks out about like... "how dare they try to place restrictions on this?" as if it's completely unexpected and not at all one of the major legal/political battles of our time.

[woodchip]

come on. Guns are no more dangerous than strawberries. Who would feel they are dangerous?

I do get what Lothar is saying, but it was a terrible analogy.

No not terrible. Both sitting there are not dangerous. If you load a gun and let it lay around where children can pick it up and use it is just as dangerous as strawberries loaded up with rat poison and left around where children can find them. All a matter of perspective.

[vision]

...it is just as dangerous as strawberries loaded up with rat poison and left around where children can find them.

How do you feel about the existence of a business that sells strawberries with rat poison in them? What's your "perspective" on that?

[woodchip]

It is evident, vision, that you are clueless. Go into any legitimate gun store, go thru all the guns that are displayed for sale, and then tell me you found one loaded. Blew this one didn't you.

[vision]

I'm still waiting on an answer. I want to know your perspective.

[Sergeant Thorne]

My perspective is that if home invaders, muggers, terrorists, and the violently insane had a taste for them, they'd be between the pepper spray and the flashlights at the gun shop, and we'd carry bags of them on our belts opposite our holsters. This silly answer is for a silly question, however, because strawberries filled with rat poison can legitimately be confused with strawberries that are good to eat, and guns have never been subject to confusion with regular, harmless household items. Selling firearms is not irresponsible, but selling poison strawberries is.

[vision]

...strawberries filled with rat poison can legitimately be confused with strawberries that are good to eat, and guns have never been subject to confusion with regular, harmless household items.

Except for things like cell phones, wallets, keys, candy bars, and basically anything about the size of a handgun a trigger-happy police officer might mistakenly shoot you over. But I guess I'm being pedantic. I just wanted woodchip's perspective on a business that sells rat poison filled strawberries.

[woodchip]

Well if I have to draw you a road map vision, my perspective is the poison filled strawberries would be a bad thing...just like at Halloween people handing out apples with razor blades in them. So lets hear your reply.

[callmeslick]

hell, I just tossed out the strawberry bit, because it's strawberry season....

[Sergeant Thorne]

...strawberries filled with rat poison can legitimately be confused with strawberries that are good to eat, and guns have never been subject to confusion with regular, harmless household items.

Except for things like cell phones, wallets, keys, candy bars, and basically anything about the size of a handgun a trigger-happy police officer might mistakenly shoot you over. But I guess I'm being pedantic. I just wanted woodchip's perspective on a business that sells rat poison filled strawberries.

I don't think you're being pedantic. What you've done is stepped outside the bounds of a legitimate analogy, since possession of rat-poison strawberries could never elicit immediate danger from a third party (police officer--"put the strawberries down slowly!").

Strawberries, slick... strawberries!!

[vision]

Well if I have to draw you a road map vision, my perspective is the poison filled strawberries would be a bad thing...

Would you be against a business that sold them?

[woodchip]

hell, I just tossed out the strawberry bit, because it's strawberry season....

I thought strawberry season was in the summer

[woodchip]

Well if I have to draw you a road map vision, my perspective is the poison filled strawberries would be a bad thing...

Would you be against a business that sold them?

OK, I'll bite...yes I would be against a business that sold them. Please don't tell me you are angling for a gun analogy.

[callmeslick]

hell, I just tossed out the strawberry bit, because it's strawberry season....

I thought strawberry season was in the summer

depends on how far South you venture.