Core Values

[layoutshooter]

Values have been discussed often on these pages and during this election. The very word, values, does not lend itself to change. A “value” is something very important that you base your life on. You should have a set of “values” or rules that you live by. They should not change. Below are mine, they are NOT subject to change.

I have been granted several “rights” by my God, 3 of which are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. I have been given the right to eat whatever food God has given us, be it animal or vegetable. God designed it to work that way. It is how our bodies work.

I believe in the Bill of Rights, ALL of it. I am innocent until proven guilty; I have the Right to keep and Bear Arms. The right worship as I please. To speak up politically. I also believe that any right not specifically noted in the Bill of Rights is the Peoples’.
I believe that under the Constitution the Federal Government has no rights; all rights are granted to the States and the People.

I believe that Abortion is killing a human being. In sexual reproduction once an egg is fertilized by the sperm it becomes the being, regardless of the species. It is alive and aborting it kills it. Period.

I have a right to self determination. I have a right to succeed or fail on my own merits. I do not ask for or want government help.

I have the right to decide who and what to give charity to. Neither man nor government has that right. Charity cannot and should not be forced by law. Charity is by definition a gift. A person cannot be forced to gift another.

Most important, I have the right to be free. Free of government controls. Free from fear. Free to live my life as I please and allow all others the same. I bother no one and no one should bother me.

These are just a few of my Core Values. They are not subject to change. They are as important as honesty and integrity. I live my life by these values. No man, organization nor government has a right to stop me from living this way.

Layoutshooter

 

[Dreamer]

Layoutshooter,

amen! well put!

Dale

 

[layoutshooter]

Thank you. I am a simple man. I make no bones about it. I take pride in it. When I take oath, which happens rarely, I take it and mean it. Like the oath when I got married and the oath I have taken on 3 different occasions to protect and defend our Constitution from all enemies both foriegn and domsetic. layoutshooter

 

[Dreamer]

oops. double posted for some reason ..

Did agree tho!

 

[layoutshooter]

Well Dale,

You must have a great mind. Since Great Minds think alike and I have a Great Mind, you must have well. Life is really this simple. We can argue about this and that but a man (using the term as it is meant to be used) that has a set of morals and values is a man that is trust worthy. A man that does not cannot be trusted. Generally speaking I find Liberals (for lack of a better term. ) tend not to have strong beliefs. They have little in the way of black and white or right and wrong beliefs. They look for answers and acceptance of things even if they do not believe it. They somehow think that it is wrong to judge. If so, why do we have courts? There is right and wrong, good and evil. Period. I can and do judge according to my beliefs. That is how it is and it will not change. Layoutshooter

 

[blondechick]

layoutshooter, First of all thanks for serving our country. Secondly keeping your word to your wife and your country, I temped to use that "G word" again, but I know your iffy about it.

I want to combine your values and then ask your opinion. Freedom of religion - You have the right to believe in God, do you believe this amendment also protects Atheists?
Abortion is murder - I also believe this, because God says so.

Athiest believe in no God, they go only by science. No soul, no life, just cells, less alive than insects, and we kill bugs. If we ban abortion, because God says its wrong, are we violating their 1st amendments rights?

I think your other value of states rights is the answer to all these problems. CA is a different animal than the rest of the US. Let them have gay marriage, let them have abortions. (maybe they'll become extinct). Let your state ban abortion, ban gay marriage, if its people so choose. Also, you have the right to enforce these values in your home.

Does a federal government ban on these items, over steps its bounds by forcing Christian morals on Athiests? I'd like your honest, in my face answer. I know I arguing semantics here, but I'm just curious.

 

[layoutshooter]

I was not speaking of abortion in religious terms, only pure sience. Once alive it is alive and human. Nothing else is possible. As to the government "forcing" things onto athiests, 1. They cannot do that under our Constitution, 2. the best defense of christians rights is to allow others what rights allowed. Marrige is not in the Constitution. I draw the line at abortion, the killing of human life for no other reason than avoidence of responsibility. Not too in your face but my beliefs. Follow the Bill of Rights and MOST of our problems go away. I have not the right to tell a gay couple what they can or cannot do. If you want multi-wife/husband, states decided not the Feds. No killing of innocent un-born people. Layoutshooter

 

[blondechick]

Very fair. I concede to your argument. Now to find a politician who will completely support the Bill of Rights, regardless of poll numbers.

 

[Turtle]

"Free to live my life as I please and allow all others the same. I bother no one and no one should bother me."

You don't really mean that. Sounds good and all that, which makes it hypocritically ingenuous, for you will, absolutely, tell others how to live their life if theirs doesn't please you. Soon as you "draw the line" at abortion, in telling someone else what they can or cannot do based solely on what you believe, you are no longer letting them live their life as they please. Just because you believe in God and you don't believe in abortion does not give you the right to impose those beliefs on others. I'm not saying you shouldn't believe in God, or you shouldn't be against abortion, all I'm saying is don't be hypocritical about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Remove the two lines above from your posting and you're good to go, otherwise you're directly contradicting yourself, and are epitomizing the discussion in the "Flies with honey" thread.

 

[layoutshooter]

Well Turtle, I am not sure you read exactly what I said. I am not forcing anyone to believe in God. I say what I do on abortion not based on my religious views, but just on pure biology. Again, in sexual reproduction once an egg from a species is fertilized by the sperm from that species it forms a new member of that species. Our culture already has outlawed murder. That zygot formed when a female egg is fertilized is a HUMAN zygot. It is alive and I can prove it. It's cells divide, multilply, it feeds and it excretes, from day one. That is life. To abort that life is killiing it. Killing just for the sake of killiing is wrong. Our laws state that over and over. Now, just because you can't see a developing human, at what ever stage does not mean it is not alive. It does meet all of the normal accepted criteria for life. I cannot go out and smash the fertilized egg of an American Bald Eagle or a California Condor without being charged with the crime of killing an endangerd species. If killing that egg is killing that species then the same goes for human life. Nothing else is logical. As to finding a politition who stands for anything other than his/her own power and inrichment good luck. Wish we could Blondechick. Layoutshooter

 

[Turtle]

Well Turtle, I am not sure you read exactly what I said. I am not forcing anyone to believe in God.

No, I read what you said, exactly, and comprehended it. I understand that you are not forcing anyone to believe in God, nor did I say you were. I simply used both God and abortion as two examples of beliefs that should not be be imposed onto others, and I used them together very deliberately, because when you start forcing your opinions of some things, then the others easily follow, and those are two things that really hit home when it comes to forcing opinions onto others.

I say what I do on abortion not based on my religious views, but just on pure biology. Again, in sexual reproduction once an egg from a species is fertilized by the sperm from that species it forms a new member of that species.

I don't disagree at all.

Our culture already has outlawed murder.

Yes, it has, but it has not outlawed abortion. Your belief that any and all abortion is murder, and the laws should reflect that belief, is trying to impose your beliefs onto others.

That zygot[e] formed when a female egg is fertilized is a HUMAN zygot[e]. It is alive and I can prove it. It's cells divide, multilply, it feeds and it excretes, from day one. That is life.

Well, it's not the only definition of life, not by a long shot. There are certain chemical reactions of different types of clays that do the same exact thing, not to mention that there are many types of long-chain protein molecules that act in the very same manner, and no one would argue that clays or autonomous protein molecules are alive. But I digress, as I, too, believe that life begins at conception.

To abort that life is killiing it.

Yep

Killing just for the sake of killiing is wrong. Our laws state that over and over.

Again, yep.

Now, just because you can't see a developing human, at what ever stage does not mean it is not alive. It does meet all of the normal accepted criteria for life.

Again, I don't disagree at all.

I cannot go out and smash the fertilized egg of an American Bald Eagle or a California Condor without being charged with the crime of killing an endangerd species.

That's because there are laws against killing an endangered species. (Well, a Condor, yes, an Eagle, probably not, as excepting for the court order protecting Bald Eagles in the Sonoran Desert of central Arizona, the American Bald Eagle was removed from the Endangered Species list. Fortunately, it is still protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.)

If killing that egg is killing that species then the same goes for human life. Nothing else is logical.

If the human species were on the Endangered Species List, then yeah, you got a shot with that one. Otherwise the logic is flawed.

Not that it means anything, but just so you know, my personal beliefs on abortion are irrelevant, and likely a little different than you think, but my stance on it is the only person who should be able to make that choice is the one who is pregnant, with the possible exception of getting some limited input from the one who got her pregnant. Other than that, it's nobody else's business.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

If a pregnant woman is murdered, then the killer is usually charged with the murder of the unborn child, as well. If the courts deem that the being inside the womb is indeed a human life, how can that change just because someone wants an abortion? If the unborn is indeed human, don't they also have the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? It seems they do, unless the woman deems her rights more important than the fetus'.

Now I'm not totally against abortion. As I've stated my personal reasons for exceptions, I still believe the federal government should have no say in it, one way or the other... Supreme Court, or otherwise. The Bill of Rights is not about politics, it is about the limits of the federal government, and our rights as citizens. There is nothing in the Constitution about abortion. Roe v Wade was an abuse of power of a court that decided to legislate from the bench.

 

[layoutshooter]

You are correct TenneseaHawk, it was a total abuse of power based on things that do not exsiit in the constitution. It is a states right issue as are most of what is argued about in here and by the goobers running for office.

Turtle, I did all I could to protect your rights, as those as the babies we are killing. You cannot denie that they are human, just in developement. If you want to kill them or allow them to be killed I guess that is your right. I don't understand taking of innocent human life. Life with a full set of DNA from day one. With all the potential they we develope as adults. I cannot fathom a sociaty that cheapens human life. I go as far as to blame the higher murder rates on this total dis-requard of human life. My personal belief I am entitled to it but force it on no one. Some even equate people to food. They do that when they say animals and people are the same, that humans have no more right to life than that goose I had for diinner. I don't claim to know everything about the Constitution but there are no animal rights in there.

Why is it that we have a document so rare and exciting, the Bill of Rights, say that out loud, a Bill of Rights. How wonderful, how profound, and so many of us want to throw it out for second rate health care and free money. A Bill of Rights. Wow. I won't give it up.

Layoutshooter

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Not that it means anything, but just so you know, my personal beliefs on abortion are irrelevant, and likely a little different than you think, but my stance on it is the only person who should be able to make that choice is the one who is pregnant, with the possible exception of getting some limited input from the one who got her pregnant. Other than that, it's nobody else's business.

I find a flaw in your logic, Turtle. Yes, we all know most abortions are the result of the lazy not taking responsibility for their actions. I call that wasted life. These ppl would be the first to say "government should stay out of my bedroom". If abortion were illegal, most of those ppl would have the children and be on welfare. They want the government out of their bedroom, yet will go to the government as a result of something that happened in the bedroom. But because abortion IS legal, most just want government to pick up that tab.

Same goes with gays. They do their thing, then demand the government fund aids research and drugs when they get aids.

Before I'm labeled a bigot or homophobe, let me say I'm not against the action, as long as the ones committing the act takes FULL responsibility of said act.

 

[layoutshooter]

I don't buy the argument that those children would all be on welfare. There are many alternitives. Like, getting married and raising them right? Or, adoption? Any idea how many U.S. citizens go out of the country to adopt? Let's just take responsibility for our actions. That would solve most of our problems. It's a shame Osama Obama's parents were like they were, look at the results. A man with no real values and a man that blames the people who paid his welfare for what was bad in his life. Why not blame a bad mother and father? They are the ones who did not raise a child they created. He then looked up to other mal-contents, like Ayers, for answers. Placing blame on sociaty is easier than blaming those who abandonde you. That would have to be hard to live with. Too bad education can't teach you to accept what happened. Scum abandons children and those children of scum have problems and often become scum. Layoutshooter

 

[Turtle]

Hawk: "If a pregnant woman is murdered, then the killer is usually charged with the murder of the unborn child, as well. If the courts deem that the being inside the womb is indeed a human life, how can that change just because someone wants an abortion?"

Me: Well, the unborn child is a life, without question, and that life was not the killer's to take. He took it, and thus got charged with taking it. Laws regarding abortion don't change any of that, except that it, in effect, gives the life of the unborn child to the mother, which if you think about it is where it belongs in the first place.

Shoot: "You cannot denie that they are human, just in developement."


Me: Like I said, life begins at conception, development has nothing to do with it.

Shoot: "If you want to kill them or allow them to be killed I guess that is your right. I don't understand taking of innocent human life."

Me: Well, the "allow" word up there bothers me a great deal, as it's not up to me, or you, to allow someone else to do something. If I started telling you what I will and will not allowyou to do, I have a feeling you might have a comment or two for me. But as far as not understanding the taking of a human life, as applied to the unborn, on the surface, if you don't even understand it, then why take the stance of telling someone else they can or cannot do that?

Me still: But that's not really the issue. Just like men and women are different, so are the born and the unborn. Do you realize that for every 100 eggs that are exposed to sperm, 84 are fertilized, 69 make it as far as implanting in the uterus, 42 survive one week, 37 for 6 weeks, 31 are born alive. I had learned all that in first year biology but had forgotten it until my niece recently had a miscarriage and the numbers were given to her by her doctor. (That said, knowing how hard it is to actually get pregnant and go full-term to give birth, and how rare it really and truly actually is (the Chinese notwithstanding), I do have to question anyone who would so easily dismiss it with an on-purpose abortion without a reeeaaaalllly good reason. But I digress.).

Me still: As a fetus, while it is life, human life, the rubber doesn't meet the road until that fetus becomes a child, not until that child is born (or could otherwise survive outside the womb, be it naturally or with all the miracles of modern medicine). Until that umbilical cord is cut, it's a part of the mother, and the mother should have the final say so. Otherwise, you have no choice but to apply the same rules regarding abortion to those 53 of the 84 pregnancies that never made it to term unless you know, for sure, the precise reason for each and every one of those miscarriages.

Hawk: "I find a flaw in your logic, Turtle."

Me: Well, you certainly arent the first. But there is no logic there to find a flaw in. It's nobody's business, period. If the pregnant mother wants to introduce someone else into it, like the government, thaaaat's another story. Then it becomes The People's business, yours and mine. I can't think of a single reason, not one, where the government should pick up the tab for an abortion. Nor can I think of a single reason why the amount of Welfare a mother gets should increase because she gave birth while on Welfare. I'm real harsh on that subject, like if she wants to carry it to term, fine, then she can take care of it, otherwise she gets her tubes tied, end of story.

BTW, AIDS isn't a "gay" thing. Look into it. Far more heterosexuals are contracting HIV and AIDS than all of the gay people who have ever had it. African-American and Hispanic women together represent less than one-fourth of all U.S. women, but account for more than three-fourths (76%) of AIDS cases among women in this country. Women now account for 43% of all HIV infected people over the age of 15. These women didn't get it because they are gay. Worldwide there are about 16,000 people infected with HIV every day, and in the US the rates seem to be holding steady at about 40,000 new cases per year. How many of those 40,000 people do you think are gay? How many gay people do you think we have here? It ain't all that many, certainly nowhere near enough to account for 40,000 cases a year, year after year.

True enough, AIDS started in the US as almost exclusively a gay disease, but in Africa it started out, and is still, almost exclusively a straight disease. If you look into the history and the possible origins of AIDS, the disease itself was likely man-made, anyway, either as a result of the Special Virus Cancer Program (1962-1977) or the primate research that was done during the biological warfare experiments with primate viruses (1971-1984 officially, but I gotta figure something's still going on somewhere). There was an overlap between the programs, not the least of which included organ transplants from monkeys into humans during the late 50's and early 60's, but more probable from a connection standpoint was the Gay Hepatitis-B experiments (1977-1981) that took place on the heels of the SVC Program, as an extension of it, where thousands of gay men signed up to be guinea pigs for government-sponsored hepatitis B vaccine experiments. These took place in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, places that a few short years later would be Ground Zero for the explosion of AIDS in this country. The same experiments were carried out in several places within Africa at just about the same time, only in Africa, where Hepatitis was more widespread, they didn't seek out only gay men for the experiments.

The reason you constantly hear about gays whining for AIDS research money is, well, gays are just whiny.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

While you may be right about heterosexuals having more cases of AIDS than homosexuals, percentage-wise, it affects gays more. It is a gay issue because the gay community made it so. Like you said, gays are whiny. Not all of them. Just the militant ones. I can tolerate anyone's sexual orientation (except NAMBLA). But when it's brought out of the bedroom, it's open to criticism. That doesn't mean we're homophobes; it just means we find distaste in what has been 'exposed' to the public. If it's in the bedroom, keep it in the bedroom!!!

I also find distaste in what OUR money is really funding, that's supposed to go towards AIDS research and awareness. But that stuff isn't suitable for this forum.

I respect your opinion on abortion, Turtle. I won't agree or disagree. I'm just looking at arguments from all sides. Still, the argument about it not being in the Constitution trumps all, IMO. It's a hot-bed issue that doesn't weigh as heavily on my mind that it does on some. But I still find Obama's views on letting a botched abortion survivor being left to die on its own to be very barbaric.

 

[blondechick]

I still agree with layoutshooters belief that following the Bill of Right/Constitution is the ultimate solutions to all our problems. Abortion is a hard issue for 2 reasons.

1) Depending on which "science" you read life either begins at conception or upon first breath outside the womb. Legally a fetus must be viable inorder to for murder charges to apply. Using the Bill of Right "science" would have to agree upon the definition of life inorder to pass a ban, this will never happen. For every scientific report, there is someone willing to dispute it.

2) Most people who wish to ban abortion (not sure how layoutshooter feels on this one) they want to ban all abortion. This is were I oppose a total ban. In the case of rape, incest, extreme minors, and when the mothers life is at true risk - I wouldn't want to stop these people from having an abortion.

I don't want my tax dollars paying for abortions at a health clinic because little Johnnie was too lazy to buy some condoms, and little Suzie isn't on birth control, and their too hot to trot to wait. When birth control options are easily available for use, abortion is an unnessary, irresponsible, cruel act.

Also, related to birth conrol, the Morning after Pill is offered to rape victims at the hospital. Some reports say taking normal birth control pills is the same as having a monthly abortion. If life truely starts upon conseption, then these drugs could also be banned. Its a sticky situation trying to protect "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The definition of life could lead us down a slippery slope.

 

[layoutshooter]

I might agree to all it in cases of rape and incest and MAYBE in the case of severe deformity/disease. Always to save the life of the mother. That one is not hard for me. It is the same when I was an EMT. When you have two patients, and can only save one, you save the one that is most likely to live. Always a tough call, I had to do it twice. I did it, it was VERY hard but I sleep well. I did what I had to and how I was trained to do it. Layoutshooter

 

[drivingmecrazy]

Maybe if you got off of right wing radio for a minute, you wouldn't spew so much hate for another AMERICAN.
Obama does not hate America, or americans, just like John McCain said "He is a decent family man, and you should not be afraid of him if he is the next president."
And there are plenty of american children who are raised by grand parents, they are not scum, or even half as hatefull as you- I believe they are gratefull.