• 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!

24 hour waiting period for abortion

Does this infringe on the right to have an abortion


  • Total voters
    50
Everyone who supports mandatory firearms insurance should also support mandatory medical insurance to pay for those abortions.
Well...
If the liberals read the 2nd amendment the way they read the rest of the Constitution, there'd be a federal program to buy guns for people that cannot afford them.
 
Well...
If the liberals read the 2nd amendment the way they read the rest of the Constitution, there'd be a federal program to buy guns for people that cannot afford them.

And mandatory gun-ed programs in the public school.

In most states use of lethal force is lawful against rape.

;) I guess Liberals don't care about collage women being raped because they oppose guns per-se and guns on campus especially.
 
Last edited:
As seen in AZ:


Governor signs bills on guns, abortion

Does this infringe on the right to have an abortion?
If so, how?
If not, why not?


I'm still looking for that personal right to an abortion in the words of our US Constitution. One would think that abortion, like so many other so called Federal rights and Federal restrictions really fall under the Tenth Amendment, i.e., fall under the purview of the States. But silly me, I'm not PC.
 
I'm still looking for that personal right to an abortion in the words of our US Constitution. One would think that abortion, like so many other so called Federal rights and Federal restrictions really fall under the Tenth Amendment, i.e., fall under the purview of the States. But silly me, I'm not PC.


Abortion isn't a "right," per se', but it has, in many ways, become one. Lots of things we consider "rights" nowadays aren't specifically listed in the constitution. Instead of changing the constitution every decade or so, society finds ways to put certain "right" under other umbrella rights guaranteed by the constitution. I don't know if that's right or wrong, good or bad, but it's just the way it works.
 
And mandatory gun-ed programs in the public school.
We all know that at one point, every able-bodied male was required to have a gun. Imagine that.
 
What if you couldn't afford one?
 
What if you couldn't afford one?
If we have the governemnt we have today, the federal government wudl supply you one.

But, back before the infestation of the idea that the government exists to provide you with the means to exercise your rights, if you did not provide yourself with said equimpent, you would be punished.
 
But, back before the infestation of the idea that the government exists to provide you with the means to exercise your rights, if you did not provide yourself with said equimpent, you would be punished.

So if you had almost no money, and were forced to decide between food for your family and a gun, you had to go buy a gun, or be punished by the gov't? How retarded.
 
Obama should step in and give you one.

I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about some poor chap who, in that era, couldn't afford a gun, yet would be punished for not having one. It's basically a law against poor people who felt that it would be more responsible to purchase household items than a gun.
 
I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about some poor chap who, in that era, couldn't afford a gun, yet would be punished for not having one. It's basically a law against poor people who felt that it would be more responsible to purchase household items than a gun.
No... its a law that provides for the security of the individual states as well as the entire country. Poor people are just as responsible for this as people of means.
 
So if you had almost no money, and were forced to decide between food for your family and a gun, you had to go buy a gun, or be punished by the gov't? How retarded.
Why are 'you' poor in the first place? That information is critical.

If you didn't have food chances are it was because you didn't have a gun.

So your choices are to buy food and get punished for not having a gun, or learn to fish and trap and buy a gun.
 
No... its a law that provides for the security of the individual states as well as the entire country. Poor people are just as responsible for this as people of means.


Okay, so some poor chap who can't afford a gun, what do you do, put him in jail? Then the state has to provide for him until he serves his time. Then when he gets out he'll break that law again because he has even less money with which to buy a gun. Then he's back in jail causing more dollars to be spent on him. And just think, all they had to do was give him a certificate that showed he was too poor to purchase a gun and make the law not applicable to him.

The government shouldn't tell people that they have to go purchase certain items. That's not freedom, that's oppression. If the gov't is going to demand that you have a certain thing, then they need to provide it to you. A gov't telling its citizens how they must spend their money sounds like despotism to me.
 
Why are 'you' poor in the first place? That information is critical.

If you didn't have food chances are it was because you didn't have a gun.

So your choices are to buy food and get punished for not having a gun, or learn to fish and trap and buy a gun.

The guy might be a day laborer in a state with few or no slaves. He might only have enough to have a small shack and a few food stuffs. You're going to tell that guy that he's got to force his family to starve for a few weeks until he puts together enough money to buy a gun? LOL!!!
 
I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about some poor chap who, in that era, couldn't afford a gun, yet would be punished for not having one. It's basically a law against poor people who felt that it would be more responsible to purchase household items than a gun.

Statesmen would privately sponsor the local militia. If you were poor one of your best opportunities was to join the militia. Now you have food, a gun, and a paying job. Problem solved.

If you have some disability which prevents you from earning any living at all, and that's why you're poor, then you aren't "able bodied" to begin with and the law requiring you to have a gun does not apply to you.
 
Statesmen would privately sponsor the local militia. If you were poor one of your best opportunities was to join the militia. Now you have food, a gun, and a paying job. Problem solved.

Ah, so someone IS paying for your gun in such a case.


If you have some disability which prevents you from earning any living at all, and that's why you're poor, then you aren't "able bodied" to begin with and the law requiring you to have a gun does not apply to you.

Of course. Who's talking about this scenario?
 
Each time my wife had an abortion we had to wait about a week.

Each time? How many did you have? I know thats a personal question but since your throwing it out there.

I don't see a problem with having a 24 hour waiting period before an abortion.
 
Okay, so some poor chap who can't afford a gun, what do you do, put him in jail?
He would probably be fined, and if he contined to break the law, he would then be jailed.

Then the state has to provide for him until he serves his time.
If jailed, yes.

Then when he gets out he'll break that law again because he has even less money with which to buy a gun. Then he's back in jail causing more dollars to be spent on him. And just think, all they had to do was give him a certificate that showed he was too poor to purchase a gun and make the law not applicable to him.
The government back then was not interested in such silliness -- when it passed a law, it expected compliance, not excuses.

The government shouldn't tell people that they have to go purchase certain items. That's not freedom, that's oppression.
Its no different than the government forcing you to do any number of things, like provide health care for the old and poor.

A gov't telling its citizens how they must spend their money sounds like despotism to me.
Welcome to the welfare state.
 
The bottom line is this:

If the government can tell private citizens that they must pay for certain items or services, then it has that right. If they can tell citizens that they must own a gun then they can also tell citizens that they must have health care. You can't argue FOR the concept when it comes to guns, and AGAINST the concept when it's something you don't agree with. Logic doesn't work that way. :cool:
 
The guy might be a day laborer in a state with few or no slaves. He might only have enough to have a small shack and a few food stuffs. You're going to tell that guy that he's got to force his family to starve for a few weeks until he puts together enough money to buy a gun? LOL!!!
How many people starved because of the Militia Act of 1792?
 
He would probably be fined, and if he contined to break the law, he would then be jailed.

LOL!! You can't afford a gun, so we're going to put you up in jail and pay for your food and shelter there.


The government back then was not interested in such silliness -- when it passed a law, it expected compliance, not excuses.

Sounds like the Taliban to me. Yep.


Its no different than the government forcing you to do any number of things, like provide health care for the old and poor.

Yes, this was my point. Do you think the gov't should tell you that you have to provide health care for the old and the poor, or not? If you say no, then you can't be in favor of "such silliness" as the gov't expecting compliance on telling people to own guns. You both argue for and against a system of doing things depending on whether you happen to agree with the particular topic at that particular time.


Welcome to the welfare state.

According to you, it's always been one.
 
The guy might be a day laborer in a state with few or no slaves. He might only have enough to have a small shack and a few food stuffs. You're going to tell that guy that he's got to force his family to starve for a few weeks until he puts together enough money to buy a gun?

Ok so we're talking about an irresponsible dip**** who thought it would be an outstanding idea to ask for a woman's hand in marriage, and then steeped in ignorance they both mutually agreed that bringing children into poverty was the best thing the world needed. Willfully forsaking the benefit of a father's advice and a childhood full of on-the-job training, our model leader finds himself unable to feed himself, his wife, his children, or fulfill the most basic civil duties.

Yeah, I have no problem locking him in the stockade for a few days. No problem at all.

Rifles were cheap because you didn't have new and you didn't have to have the latest model. You could have an old hand-me-down in good repair, but this icon of civic virtue couldn't even muster a rusty antique and a few shots.

I'd advise his wife to grab the kids move back with her parents.

LOLOLMURLOKLOL!!1!!!1LOLZLOLOLMAO1!!1LOL
 
Back
Top Bottom