Libertarian party says NO to senator Murkowski.

[OntarioVanMan]

If you are a REAL HONEST Conservative the ONLY checklist you need is the Constitution. That says all you need to know. That is the beginning and the end, NOTHING else matters. Period.

No where in the constitution does abortion come up....

Only religion makes it so....because we are told it is a human at conception...and WHO told us that? the church

No ..IT can't live outside the womb in the first trimester..

Abortion should be only in cases of rape, incest or the mothers health....

 

[Turtle]

Roe vs. Wade is flawed as well. It was based, if I remember correctly, on the idea that the Constitution states that we have privacy rights, we don't.

Everything about the Constitution screams privacy rights. Everything in the Constitution is there specifically to achieve precisely that. While not specifically spelled out in that manner, liberty itself is the paramount right to be left alone. But if there was any doubt about the right to privacy being in the Constitution, the Fourth Amendments all but spells it out with the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

Just as the idea of "separation of church and state" is NOT in the Constitution.

Well, those words aren't in there, but the idea certainly is. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. That means the government cannot be in the religion business, that religion and government must be separate entities. Otherwise you've got things like the Church of England, or Islamic countries where the church and the state are one in the same.

The problem comes when people (including the SCOTUS) take it too far to mean something else.

 

[Turtle]

Turtle... aren't you the least bit embarrassed accepting the praise and worship of dimwitted dullards?

Embarrassed? Not at all. I accept it with the same appreciation and validity that I accept the criticism and condemnation of other dimwitted dullards.

What spell have you cast over these few people? It is like watching a documentary of the Jim Jones cult following in Guyana. The Peoples Temple. Witnessing such gullibility is quite frightening. Release these innocents.

I once sent a letter to the Pope that was almost identically worded.

 

[layoutshooter]

No where in the constitution does abortion come up....

Only religion makes it so....because we are told it is a human at conception...and WHO told us that? the church

No ..IT can't live outside the womb in the first trimester..

Abortion should be only in cases of rape, incest or the mothers health....

Right, abortion does not come up and neither does health care. No it is NOT religion that tells us that we are human at conception, it is plain real science. It is religion that tells us that the soul is present at conception. BIG difference. That fertilized egg has 100% of it's DNA. It is not a cow at that point, nor a horse or even a fly. It is a complete HUMAN BEING at that point it their life. Those are biological facts.

I agree with the mother's health part. I have problems but understand the rape and incest parts. The mother would be going through hell at that point but the baby in totally innocent and is being killed. I do NOT like killing innocent human beings.

There is NO conflict with my past life either. EVERYTHING I did was to AVOID war, and if it happened, top on my job duties was AVOIDING civilian deaths. In FACT, had our enemies NOT put their nukes in civilian neighborhoods we could have avoided almost ALL civilian deaths. I NEVER targeted civilian targets and with out a doubt NEVER targeted human babies!!

 

[greg334]

Again we have these flawed arguments. You can't have it either way, it is either for or against, no gray area.

Abortion is wrong, it murders innocent life BUT we can allow exceptions - mothers health, rape and incense

huh??

OK I know of only one case where the child was killed because of the mother's health. She wasn't going to die carrying the kid, but when she delivered If she didn't have a c-section, then it would have been a good chance she would not survive. That was 20 years ago, when technology wasn't the best but the child would have been healthy and a c-section could have taken place.

There could be other cases but again it is a BS argument because it comes down to the privacy between a doctor and the patient.

Rape? how much more innocent can a child get? Maybe my twisted way of thinking is involved but it seems there are two victims, the female and the child, not just the female. But there are some who think of rape in the broader term, all sex is rape warped way of thinking.

Incest? Well this is a tough one, the child is the innocent party involved, not necessarily the female who bore it. It is a perverted act but again let's just put this into the same thing as the mother's health issue - a privacy issue.

The real problem the fight for most is not going to be won by anything except a revisit of Row v Wade which will result it in an overturning of it and that may happen with Obama's health care mess. Many don't get that abortion issue has little to do with womens rights but more to do with the institution built up around those 'rights'. People make money every step of the way from the providers, to the consulars to the insurance companies to the labs - all have a hand in it. The 'rights' argument is flawed too but I won't get into that.

 

[layoutshooter]

Now you got it Greg, the entire thing is flawed. First and foremost, the Federal Government has NO standing in this. This, as with most things, is a States Rights issue.

I agree, in EVERY case, it is a totally innocent human being that pays the price with their life. No matter how you word it, no matter what words you use to "dehumanize" that person, they are still human beings. To abort is to kill. Again, just a fact.

 

[greg334]

Actually I would normally agree with the state's right thing but not in this case or any medical case - period.

The state, regardless has no business in the doctors office. Be it a assisted suicide issue, abortion or what ever, there is a strict limitation that we handed them.

Even the FDA has overstepped its bounds by limiting medications based on testing - if I am dying from Cancer and there is a drug that can prolong my life or even cure it, the FDA and the state has no business telling me what to do.

NOW with that said, the same goes for the DOT and the FAA to a point. I understand the FAA's position but not the DOTs. A truck can not come crashing down from the sky and has other limiting factors involved like not needing an education to drive it where aircraft has other factors involved. Shifting my medical determination from my doctor to some stranger is wrong as much as how medical records are being planned.

 

[layoutshooter]

Actually I would normally agree with the state's right thing but not in this case or any medical case - period.

The state, regardless has no business in the doctors office. Be it a assisted suicide issue, abortion or what ever, there is a strict limitation that we handed them.

Even the FDA has overstepped its bounds by limiting medications based on testing - if I am dying from Cancer and there is a drug that can prolong my life or even cure it, the FDA and the state has no business telling me what to do.

NOW with that said, the same goes for the DOT and the FAA to a point. I understand the FAA's position but not the DOTs. A truck can not come crashing down from the sky and has other limiting factors involved like not needing an education to drive it where aircraft has other factors involved. Shifting my medical determination from my doctor to some stranger is wrong as much as how medical records are being planned.

Right on on all counts. I only said it was a "State" issue as opposed to a Federal One. ALL things should be left to the DR and the patient. Killing another human? Should not happen.