• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Governor signs bills on guns, abortion

Best argument that you have presented. I will back down, as it is true there are no stats that show an increase in bar room deaths. If the laws are enforced on the drinking and carrying then it should be fine. I just think it seems a little wreckless.

Time will tell, but history has already presented us with a notion of why it could be a good thing to have passed this legislation.

Either way, I hope that the laws are strictly enforced as well.
 
Well the minor thing, you always have to get parental consent to do any amount of surgery. Maybe they can make it with some way around in case someone wants to get an abortion and their parents don't want them to. That's the only thing I see as a bad possibility. But they are having a rather major medical practice performed, and for the vast majority of those things, that requires parental consent. I'm not too upset about that.

Doctors/Pharmacists the right to deny plan B is also dependant upon situation. I'm not so sure about the doctor part, but for private business I think a pharmacist can choose or not choose what they sell in their own store. Now I say if some guy owns a pharmacy and wants to sell Plan B, any pharmacist who works there has to sell it because it's no longer their store and they have to go with the wishes of the property owner. But for the property owner themselves, I think they should be free to make the decision for themselves. I think it's their right to sell or not carry any legal product they wish.

Concealed carry needs to be expanded and made easier. Quite honestly, I view open carry and concealed carry as the base situation. I don't see how the State can forbid either one as the individual has the right to to keep and bear arms. I would have long ago abolished most of the laws against open and conceal carry and the norm would be that if the property owner allows it on their property, even if that property is a bar, then you are allowed to carry your gun onto that property. Now this law can't force people to allow guns on their property. If a property owner, such as a bar owner, does not want to allow guns on their property, I think it is their right to deny that. You have to post that guns are not allowed on your property (this doesn't stop the property owner themselves from having guns mind you, just that other people can't bring their guns onto the owner's property), but the choice is up to the property owner.

In the case of surgical intervention on minors, I have to agree. In the case of RU-486, or other non-surgical methods I don't.

Owners of these clinics / pharmacies should be able to dictate whether or not they will dispense medications that are in accordance with their beliefs... Government coersion / force of them either way is ridiculous and shouldn't be tolerated.

And you and I think both the same way about ccw / gun laws. :)
 
Screw the democrats interfering with my medical well being, having doctors tell me what procedures I'm allowed to have and when, and having the government dictate how, when, and where I'm having my procedures being done! How dare those democratic assholes, don't they know only conservatives get to tell us that!

Seriously, if any conservative tries to go into a UHC thread and bitch about the slippery slope precent it presents I'm going to point to this thread, laugh in their face, and ignore them like the hypocrites they are. We can ignore the slippery slope in this case because hey, its abortion, and we hate abortion, so screw our other principles, grrrr....but if the DEM'S bring it up, WOOO BOOY, are we going to be whiny and bitchy then!

It is a completely different issue when a life (i.e. the fetus) is on the line. You admitted such yourself:

Abortion is a bad example actually. Abortion is only a good example IF you accept the premise that the traditional liberal view of it is the correct view, IE fetus does not equal human.

However, traditionally, the conservative view point is that the fetus IS a human and therefore has rights. One of the few jobs of the government that is distinctly deliniated to it through the constitution is protection of its citizens. From this you have the general conservative belief that, barring the issue of the womans life being at risk (which is thus perhaps viewed as self defense), the womans right to not want to be pregnant does not supercede the other "persons" right to be alive. As such, this is not an issue of government regulating morality or ones life but is acting as law enforcement protecting a citizens right to life.
 
Imposing beliefs?

Most people believe that both issues handled by the Governor in this instance: coincides with what they want their dully elected legislators to do.

To not support the majority's opinion on these two issues, would in effect, be imposing the minority's belief on them.

:)
 
Last edited:
Protecting my property is protecting my right to life liberty and happiness.

Protecting people's rights, well look above.. You can't not have equal rights with the above.

Restricting slander, same look above.

Outlawing other forms of murder? Such as? Murder in general affects my rights to life liberty and happiness as well.

What's your point other than you have none? And yes, I know I used a double negative in there.
Again, you fail to grasp the brutally obvious.


All of the examples you cite are representative of laws which exist as a result of someone's moral code.


The very concept that you have rights at all is an expression of a benign moral code. In most places and times in Human history, you'd have had had no real rights at all, because the prevailing moral code, as expressed in the extant law would have granted you none.


That current law states that I may not simply strike down anyone I please and take all that they possess is a codification of the widespread belief, founded in Religion, and not logic I might add, that there is a proper set of moral constraints placed upon Society.


Let me assure you that I find such laws to be a constraint upon my freedom.


So once again, to explain the perfectly obvious, one cannot uphold the rule of law and at the same time reject the imposition of morality. They are very much the same thing.
 
Again, you fail to grasp the brutally obvious.


All of the examples you cite are representative of laws which exist as a result of someone's moral code.


The very concept that you have rights at all is an expression of a benign moral code. In most places and times in Human history, you'd have had had no real rights at all, because the prevailing moral code, as expressed in the extant law would have granted you none.


That current law states that I may not simply strike down anyone I please and take all that they possess is a codification of the widespread belief, founded in Religion, and not logic I might add, that there is a proper set of moral constraints placed upon Society.


Let me assure you that I find such laws to be a constraint upon my freedom.


So once again, to explain the perfectly obvious, one cannot uphold the rule of law and at the same time reject the imposition of morality. They are very much the same thing.

I guess I fail to understand how laws that are placed to protect your constitutional rights are based upon morality.


Other than the fact of it's a simple right / wrong question... should people be able to murder? No. Should people be able to rob what's rightfully earned from others? No. Should people be able to tell me how I should live my life? Unless I'm a danger to society, Nope. (All of those acts, directly infringe upon my rights as an American Citizen)

So I guess I don't understand your broad position of all laws are based on morality.
 
Last edited:
Whats wrong with a 24-hour waiting period for an abortion?
 
Last edited:
I guess I fail to understand how laws that are placed to protect your constitutional rights are based upon morality.


Other than the fact of it's a simple right / wrong question... should people be able to murder? No. Should people be able to rob what's rightfully earned from others? No. Should people be able to tell me how I should live my life? Unless I'm a danger to society, Nope. (All of those acts, directly infringe upon my rights as an American Citizen)

So I guess I don't understand your broad position of all laws are based on morality.

You have to toss out this whole idea that morality is subjective.

Using your question as an example: Nearly every species on the planet has a built in survival instinct. Logically that instinct within those species who develop societies will permeate into that society's rules; from ants and hamsters to dolphins and humans.

Members of the species who follow that inherent, built in "moral code" don't need external rules to point out behavior which have proven to benefit that society.

Those individual members who are not in touch with that instinct need those external rules since their ability to instinctively follow them on their own is diminished.

Hence, "the law is for the lawless".
 
Last edited:
Irrelevant to my question, which you did not answer.

Sure it does, government intervention in health care is a bad thing, we can both agree.. is it not?

(granted, at least it's at the right level this time... and it's my state that's passing this.. instead of the federal government)

You have to toss out this whole idea that morality is subjective.

Using your question as an example: Nearly every species on the planet has a built in survival instinct. Logically that instinct within those species who develop societies will permeate into that society's rules; from ants and hamsters to dolphins and humans.

Members of the species who follow that inherent, built in "moral code" don't need external rules to point out behavior which have proven to benefit that society.

Those individual members who are not in touch with that instinct need those external rules since their ability to instinctively follow them on their own is diminished.

Hence, "the law is for the lawless".

Okay, that makes more sense.
 
I guess I fail to understand how laws that are placed to protect your constitutional rights are based upon morality.


Other than the fact of it's a simple right / wrong question... should people be able to murder? No. Should people be able to rob what's rightfully earned from others? No. Should people be able to tell me how I should live my life? Unless I'm a danger to society, Nope.

So I guess I don't understand your broad position of all laws are based on morality.

I can attempt to explain it as I would to a very small child I suppose.
The idea “right or wrong,” outside of something like Mathematics, is a moral precept. There have been many societies in which it would have been deemed perfectly “right” for the more powerful to own you body, mind and soul. Any statement in such settings to the contrary would have been seen as ridiculous. The law, as a reflection of the prevailing morality would have supported the ruling class.



Your rights would have been, in their entirety, to serve and obey. This would have been the law.



At some point, new moralities arose, most of them, especially those relating to universality of rights for all classes from Religion. A few secular moral codes arose, for instance, those that promulgated genocide, eugenics, Communism and the Terror in Post-Revolutionary France.



As these moralities arose, they codified themselves by passing a series of societal rules, with attached penalties which are of course our modern body of laws.



I don't know how to make it any simpler for you.
 
Sure it does, government intervention in health care is a bad thing, we can both agree.. is it not?
So.... answer my question.
I'll re-word it to better reflect the context in which it was asked:
Whats wrong with a 24-hour waiting period for an (on-demand) abortion?
 
I can attempt to explain it as I would to a very small child I suppose.
The idea “right or wrong,” outside of something like Mathematics, is a moral precept. There have been many societies in which it would have been deemed perfectly “right” for the more powerful to own you body, mind and soul. Any statement in such settings to the contrary would have been seen as ridiculous. The law, as a reflection of the prevailing morality would have supported the ruling class.



Your rights would have been, in their entirety, to serve and obey. This would have been the law.



At some point, new moralities arose, most of them, especially those relating to universality of rights for all classes from Religion. A few secular moral codes arose, for instance, those that promulgated genocide, eugenics, Communism and the Terror in Post-Revolutionary France.



As these moralities arose, they codified themselves by passing a series of societal rules, with attached penalties which are of course our modern body of laws.



I don't know how to make it any simpler for you.

Jerry did a pretty good job without the condescending tone.. but thanks anyway.

And yes, I concede to your point about laws being a moral institution.

I guess I'm more frustrated with the idea that republicans are always whining about there being too much government.. then they turn around and pull **** like this.
 
So.... answer my question.
I'll re-word it to better reflect the context in which it was asked:
Whats wrong with a 24-hour waiting period for an (on-demand) abortion?

Other than the fact that the local government is interceding in private citizen's lives an choices more than they should be?
 
Governor signs bills on guns, abortion

Seriously?

The party of liberty / freedom, and all they ****ing worry about is imposing their moral beliefs on society? Jesus ****ing christ. The repukes wonder why everyone hated them this last election cycle. blah.

This also gives doctors / pharmacists the right to deny you treatment / plan b (cause plan b is abortion)... alsdfkjasldfkjasdflkjasdflkjasdlfj ****ing idiot ass conservatives.


CCW in bars / restaurants is a great thing, hopefully now we'll not have anymore mass murders like in lubbock or liddy I can't remember Texas where a gunman went into a Luby's and opened fire. Keeping in mind that CCWers can't drink.. and well.. they have to have a legal CCW.. in the state.

I don't have a problem with having to notify parents, or the 24 hour waiting period but I do disagree with having to have parental consent for it.

It's a very gray area for me in that I understand the need for parental rights, but then I also do not agree with forcing a girl to go through with a pregnancy she doesn't want just because her parents want her to.

Now can someone clarify on this bill whether they can carry a concealed weapon into a bar now, or just a restaurant that happens to serve alcohol.

If it is a place (Say like Applebees or Chilis) that they can carry in now I don't have a problem with that. However, I do not like the idea of being able to carry in a bar that is not considered a restaurant.
 
Last edited:
Jerry did a pretty good job without the condescending tone.. but thanks anyway.

And yes, I concede to your point about laws being a moral institution.

I guess I'm more frustrated with the idea that republicans are always whining about there being too much government.. then they turn around and pull **** like this.

Republicans are all about big government, though :confused:
 
Other than the fact that the local government is interceding in private citizen's lives an choices more than they should be?

Wait, no, they're freeing up a person's choice to carry...I don't understand.
 
I don't have a problem with having to notify parents, or the 24 hour waiting period but I do disagree with having to have parental consent for it.

It's a very gray area for me in that I understand the need for parental rights, but then I also do not agree with forcing a girl to go through with a pregnancy she doesn't want just because her parents want her to.

Now can someone clarify on this bill whether they can carry a concealed weapon into a bar now, or just a restaurant that happens to serve alcohol.

If it is a place (Say like Applebees or Chilis) that they can carry in now I don't have a problem with that. However, I do not like the idea of being able to carry in a bar that is not considered a restaurant.


The bill doesn't differentiate between either institution... And it shouldn't. If you're responsible enough to conceal carry in a place that serves alcohol.. why shouldn't you be allowed to carry in a place specifically intended for distribution / consumption of alcohol?


Republicans are all about big government, though :confused:

That's how it would seem... At least here.
 
Wait, no, they're freeing up a person's choice to carry...I don't understand.

In reference to the abortion portion of that article.
 
The bill doesn't differentiate between either institution... And it shouldn't. If you're responsible enough to conceal carry in a place that serves alcohol.. why shouldn't you be allowed to carry in a place specifically intended for distribution / consumption of alcohol?

Because a restaraunt that happens to serve alcohol is not the same as a bar.

A Bar you go there to drink usually, a place that happens to just serve alcohol, you most likely won't drink there.
 
Because a restaraunt that happens to serve alcohol is not the same as a bar.

A Bar you go there to drink usually, a place that happens to just serve alcohol, you most likely won't drink there.

I goto bars a lot with my friends. I don't drink, because I'm the designated driver.

You're falling into the same slippery slope that the other guy who argued against it in this thread fell into.
 
Because a restaraunt that happens to serve alcohol is not the same as a bar.

A Bar you go there to drink usually, a place that happens to just serve alcohol, you most likely won't drink there.
If you cannot drink while carrying, why does it matter?
 
The bill doesn't differentiate between either institution... And it shouldn't. If you're responsible enough to conceal carry in a place that serves alcohol.. why shouldn't you be allowed to carry in a place specifically intended for distribution / consumption of alcohol?

Keep in mind that individual establishments can still ban firearms from their property.

This is like a smoking ban being lifted. Now the business owner can decide to allow it or not.

How is that anything other than a pro-choice position?
 
Back
Top Bottom