OK, I wasn't really dragged, it was my idea, lemme explain.... Sometime in March, my brother Jariah called and said we should all move to Columbus(2 hours away) so the guys could get better jobs. I said that's a great idea, but lets go to Tucson(36 hours away) instead!! (Zion's been wanting to for years.) Everything worked out really fast, so two months later, we were on our way!
How crazy...I am as brilliant as Shan! I finished school. I am also exhausted and Janessa is scared of the storm (there is a really big thunderstorm going on tonight) so I will try again tomorrow maybe.
The test is rigged!! It is inconceivable that Becca scored higher than I did!!! It's cause there's so many math-related questions.... I hate math!
So, Jess, does that mean that you scored 122 also? And you are blaming it on the weather/ being tired??.. or were you unable to take the whole test because of the thunderstorm? You finished school.... I could have, but I wanted to get a job so I could (of all things) come to Arizona to see Zion!!! haha
um i dont know what you all call math but really there was only like one or maybe two math questions the rest seemed to be like sequence type questions
but I took longer than 40 secs per question, but then I also had phone calls and interuptions during the test. On top of that I was up with Aunt Barb until 2:30 this morning and only got about 5 hours of sleep. Actually , I seem to score better when I am exhausted because on that tickle one I did a year ago I scored 137 I think.
Dad and I re-took the test together, talking over the answers, and this time we got a 147. I wish you could see the correct answers for each problem so we could see what we missed.
Anyone with a minimum four-year degree is already exempt from taking the test and/or reporting their score. So Iz, Rog, and myself get a free pass on this one.
I have taken so many IQ tests during my years in school and I even took a whole course on how to administer them, so any results I get would be completely invalid. They bore me...
But I can tell you right now judging from the scores that this particular test giving out, that this test is completely unreliable.
If the Supreme Court is trying to decide if something is a fundamental right protected by substantive due process it uses a two pronged test. First it asks if the act is fundamental to the concept of ordered liberty. Then they ask if it is rooted in the history and traditions of the country. If it is found to be a fundamental right, then the Court applies strict scrutiny, meaning the statute prohibiting the right must be narrowly tailored to meet a specific compelling state interest, else it is unconstitutional. If the act is found to not be a fundamental right, then they apply rational basis test, meaning the statute must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
So in other words, if killing unborn babies is fundamental to the concept of ordered liberty and is rooted in the history and traditions of the country then it must be a fundamental right.
And now you know one reason why Roe, whether you are for abortion or not, is one of the worst decisions in SCOTUS history.
Also, did you know...
My Constitutional Law final is in 12 hours and 15 minutes... (I have substantive due process coming out my ears)
I would have to admit that I didn't know either of those facts but they were both INCREDIBLY interesting.
Or mildly...something.
It's great to see that everyone here is at or above genius level. I hate to break it to you guys but those online IQ tests are not accurate at all, they tend to moderate scores in both directions.
I didn't actually take it but I know when I was 13 my IQ was just above 80, so go figure. ;)
Things are rearely as simple as some make them seem.
John about abortion, I believe proponents would couch it in terms of whether someone (in this case a pregnant female) has the fundamental right to control over her own body.
There is also the whole argument as to whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right.
Some "so-called" conservatives (dinosaurs) claim it doesn't exist, which I guess would give the government the right to put cameras and recorders in all our bedrooms and toilets, since there is no fundamental right to privacy. We could even say that the concept enhances ordered liberty.
The bottom line is that the history and traditions of the country don't hold all the anwers. The history of our country and the world is full of things we don't particularly know about. For example analysis of birth records and marraige records show that there were quite a few single mothers and people engaged in premarital sex quite a bit, back in the olden days. My guess is that they also had abortions, too although they didn't record them in the history books. Looking back now and claiming that something is or is not part of the history of the country is a very inexact sort of test.
The world has evolved and the Constitution needs to be a living and evolving document too.
I'm not pro-abortion and I'm very much against it personally, but I think that the government needs to stay out of our business as much as possible, especially when it comes to what happens in the bedroom and when it comes to private medical decisions.
Especially when it comes to medical necessity and you have to choose between the mother's life and the life of the unborn, I don't think the courts or the politicians need to decide that.
I think the 'Medical neccesity" excuse is a bunch of hooey. There are provisions for that in every attempt to curb our country's killing of all these babies anyway, but that is what everyone always brings up as a great excuse to keep abortion legal. I don't buy it. It is really rare that you hear of a case where having a baby would kill the pregnant woman. Usually the reason you hear about it is because the doctors were wrong and the woman had her baby and DIDN'T die after all. God made women to have babies. God put it in a woman to protect her babies at any costs. I've read a few stories over the years where God has honored that in a woman and brought her through a pregnancy that was supposed to kill her. The doctors can't know for sure. God Knows. I know occasionally a woman will die during pregnancy. Occasionally a woman will die on a sidewalk. We don't outlaw sidewalks. Brother Branham said in these days women will mother a cat or a dog. It is perverted to kill your own baby in ANY circumstance. But this is a peverted world we live in. As far the gorvernment being "involved" it all depends on your perspective. If you see it as the woman's body, then it is her business. If you see it for what it is, another person, then it is murder, and what good are laws of the land if they don't make murder illegal? The government can pass laws about plastic bags vs. paper, but not about murder? Even so, come quickly Lord.
Under current laws, if a pregnant woman is walking up to an abortion clinic to have an abortion, and I step out in front of her, punch her in the stomach, and the baby dies, I can be charged with murder.
Well I guess it depends on how much you trust the government to make decisions for you.
I don't believe the government should be incredibly powerful and govern almost every private aspect of our lives. That is a tenet of true conservatism.
Personally I don't trust the government to answer questions like :
Was Terry Schiavo murdered?
Can a month old fetus be murdered?
If someone "murders" a fetus should we put them in jail for 20 years?
Should we give them the death penalty?
How many cells do their have to be in a embryo before we charge someone with murder?
What sorts of balancing tests apply when the life of the mother is endangered?
Are we going to force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want even if it is horribly handicapped and would be born without a stomach or brain or some other major organ?
I don't believe government should be making decisions for people. But it is a blight on a society when its leaders fail to step up and protect those who cannot protect themselves.
When babies who can't protect themselves die, libs tell the government to mind their own business. When grownups who didn't have the sense to get out of the way of a hurricane get stranded on a roof, libs chastise the government for not acting fast enough to protect them. Absolute hypocrisy.
Well then I guess the solution for everything is a huge government that should protect everyone from everything including having to make their own decisions?
It would be kind of like a mixture of the Soviet and Chinese systems with just a little bit of Iran thrown in.
How you deduced a big government stance from my post escapes me. As far as I'm concerned, the less government the better.
But governments make laws to preserve an ordered society where all people receive equal rights and protection. Governments make law against murder and raise up police forces to protect the people and punish offenders. So who is protecting the unborn - the most defenseless of all of us? No one.
You were right earlier when you said the Constitution was an evolving document. But it should evolve via the prescribed means. If you want a woman to have a right to kill an unborn baby because it might interfere with her lifestyle, then persuade your fellow voters and your Congressman and pass a constitutional amendment granting her that right. The Founders built in that mechanism for just such a purpose.
No where in the Constitution does it say a woman has a right to an abortion. And no where in the Constitution does it say seven judges have the duty to decide policy for an entire nation.
You say you want less government. But Roe v. Wade only expanded the power of the federal government. Pre-Wade it was a state-by-state decision. The people of the states ruled over themselves and decided whether they wanted legal abortions or not. In fact, the pro-abortion movement has succeeded in persuading a handful of states to change their laws. Then Roe and the seven dwarf justices came along and took the power out of the hands of the people and placed it in the federal government.
If you truly want less government you would support overturning Wade and giving the authority back to the states.
I don't know how trying to pass more restrictive laws equates to smaller government.
Federal Governmment vs. State is a red herring if what you are trying to do is deny people the power to make their own medical decisions.
What I was pointing out was the inherent hypocrisy in conservatives saying, I want less government when it comes to restricting guns for example but more government when it comes to restricting doctors and women.
What you are essentially saying is, the government is better equipped to to make this decision than women and their doctors are.
You can quibble with whether it is a "fundamental" right to make that choice, or a "major" right, but the fact is a woman has a "right" to make that choice right now.
When you start to abdicate the right to make fundamental decisions, what's next?
I guarantee that someone will want to take away your "right" to discipline your kid by spanking, because it infringes on your kids "right" to be free of pain.
"What you are essentially saying is, the government is better equipped to to make this decision than women and their doctors are."
That is not remotely close to what I am saying. What I am saying is that it is up to the people in a society to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Prior to Roe, this was possible.
If you wanted to live in a society where a woman could take the life of her unborn child, there were states where you could do so. If you wanted to live in a society where unborn children were protected, there were states where you could do so. If you disagreed with the laws of the state you lived in, you could persuade your fellow citizens to change them.
After Roe this decision was taken out of the hands of people and placed in the hands of the government. Roe didn't create more freedom. It created less. It didn't take government out of people's lives. It interjected it into them. It didn't protect rights. It stripped them away.
What you are talking about is taking the right to make certain decisions away from an individual and giving that power to "the people" (a nameless faceless mob, who doesn't really know anything about the individual.)
The nameless faceless mob then posits the power to make that decision in a goverment entity, be they federal, state, city whatever.
So you are advocating taking the rights away from an individual and turning them over to the government. How does this create more freedom?
Saying that Roe v. Wade took away your right to live in a abortion-free state involves semantic obfuscation when it comes to defining "rights" it also blurs the distiction between individual rights and the "right" of the masses and twists logic beyond all recognition.
You might as well say that the free Exercise of Religion clause strips you of your right to live in a Muslim / Jewish / Buddhist-free state.
If someone doesn't want an abortion they are freely able not to have one. That individual right is still intact.
What you don't have at the moment is the right to force someone else to have a baby they don't want or aren't physically capable of having.
I wish everyone would choose life, but I don't think the government should have the power to force anyone to abdicate control over their own bodies, their own medical care and their own future.
That is why I am a true "limited government" conservative and you are not.
You are for limited governmment when it is convenient and serves your purposes.
Therein lies the intellectual dishonesty at the heart of so-called conservatives running the Republican party.
They claim they are for non-activist judges but they really want to put in activist judges that support their agenda to move us toward a Christian Theocracy.
I don't want to live in a Christian Theocracy anymore than I want to live in a Muslim Theocracy. Freedom from religion is just as important and freedom of religion.
Right?
If you don't believe me, think about what people who went through the Spanish Inquistion would say...
The freedom of religion issue is distinguishable because it is an expressed right. It say right there in the First Amendment that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[.]" No where in the Constitution does it say that a woman has a right to an abortion.
What it does say about rights not expressed is: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The people. The people decide which rights are retained.
I don't believe in a Christian Theocracy either. I would love to live in a nation of like-minded Christians. But that day won't come until the rapture. In the meantime, an American system that protects free exercise is the best we can hope for.
State-sponsored religion is the No. 1 reason why Mexico's economy is so depressed and its leadership so instable and corrupt. The Catholic Church convinced many early Spanish settlers to will their land to the Church, instead of passing it down to their families. That's why so many of the Zapatistan- and Villan-type insurgencies centered around land reform. State-sponsored religion is a cancer.
You keep saying I want more government. I don't want more government. I just want the Supreme Court to do its job and leave policy decisions up to the people.
Remember that science sermon I sent you where Bro. Lonnie showed that everything living has a spirit, even a leaf, and how science proves that with kirlian photography? Well, that baby inside the womb is alive. If someone were to break your arm, would you feel the pain or would your mom feel the pain? If someone would have crushed little Miguel's skull inside of Christine's womb, Miguel would have felt that pain, not Christine. Babies are not just tissues of a woman's body. They are the bodies of the baby's, a completely different person. It doesn't really matter how many times you say it is the woman's body, it still is not. It doesn't matter how many friends you have out there that say that, it still is not. It doesn't matter if everyone in California says that, it still is not. It does not change one thing if every person in the world agrees that it is ok, God's word still says thou shall not kill and we will have to answer for it.
I believe it is very important to know right from wrong, therefore when we do know it we need to state it clearly for others for this reason, if someone can not tell right from wrong in this very deceiving age we are living in, then that one might never repent. The first step has to be that one acknowledges that he or she was wrong. I am not talking about you, Israel, of course you have never had an abortion, but for anyone that has, Jesus is waiting with open arms to forgive them. But in order for them to be able to repent, they would have to know they were wrong in the first place. Our society is happy to make everyone feel guilty about driving SUV's or using plastic grocery bags, but we wouldn't want to cause anyone to feel the least bit bad about murdering their unborn baby. I wonder what spirit is behind that.
I wish I was the admin of this blog so I could be cool like John and say something along the lines of "what started as a discussion about how smart everyone who took the IQ is, has deteriorated into an argument about theocracies, fundamental rights, morality and SUV's. As a result this post has been LOCKED!!"
Thankfully, Shanny isn't as "cool" as John, she'll just let us go on and on about anything we wanna yak about. That whole argument about staying on topic has never held us back! As long as her blog is "winning" the popularity contest, she's good, right Shan?
In spite of the incredible influence of the Catholic Church, Mexico recently legalized abortion.
Why?
Women were getting illegal abortions anyway with horrible medical consequences. Doctors were having their licenses taken away right and left for performing abortions but nothing was being accomplished.
Not to mention that the poorest people where having tons of kids they couldn't afford or care for, creating huge problems for the country.
Meanwhile abortions have increased 29 percent in the US because the Republicans don't want federally funded clinics to dispense or encourage or educate people about contraception, they only want to promote "abstinence."
I never understood why Republicans do that when they could cut the number of abortions by almost 30 percent just by letting people have access to information about contraception and family planning.
Doesn't make sense to me...
Plus, if you look at the current slate of Republican Presidential candidates it's obvious they know nothing about abstinence since even while they are married (and condemning Clinton for his infidelity) they can't keep their hands off of other women.
(Sorry I couldn't resist that last crack! Hee, hee the party of "family values," my foot!)
...because the Republicans don't want federally funded clinics to dispense or encourage or educate people about contraception. This is the most retarded argument I've heard to date. :)
You'd be surprised by the level of ignorance out there. People are just downright uninformed about all kinds of things.
Recently Time magazine did a piece on those federally approved clinics that don't promote abstinence over contraception and they found that those clinics actually spread outright lies to discourage people not to use contraceptives, including "nine out of ten condoms are defective and full of holes and rips."
This is because they want people to rely entirely on abstinence.
(Except of course for Republican Presidential candidates)
For some reason I can't fathom, Gary recently subscribed to that rag, Time magazine. I've been looking it over a little bit, I don't believe half of what I've read so far. :)
51 comments:
Well, I was bored, once again...
I did that test too, I got 127... I wonder why you're bored!! haha
How crazy...I am as brilliant as Shan! I finished school. I am also exhausted and Janessa is scared of the storm (there is a really big thunderstorm going on tonight) so I will try again tomorrow maybe.
The test is rigged!! It is inconceivable that Becca scored higher than I did!!! It's cause there's so many math-related questions.... I hate math!
So, Jess, does that mean that you scored 122 also? And you are blaming it on the weather/ being tired??.. or were you unable to take the whole test because of the thunderstorm? You finished school.... I could have, but I wanted to get a job so I could (of all things) come to Arizona to see Zion!!! haha
Well, Shan I am no math genius either, but the test is just logic. It's not rigged,you know I'm just smarter! lol
I might have scored higher if I had not been tired but we could all say that I guess..hehe.
you will be glad to know that i scored a 132 on my first attempt
Good job, Justin!!
I can't even pronounce the number I got but be assured it was at least 700 digits...
ok fine, I'm bad at math too.
um i dont know what you all call math but really there was only like one or maybe two math questions the rest seemed to be like sequence type questions
Anything that has a number is math!! If there is a number in the question or the answer... it is math. =) And I don't like math =P...
142 :)
but I took longer than 40 secs per question, but then I also had phone calls and interuptions during the test. On top of that I was up with Aunt Barb until 2:30 this morning and only got about 5 hours of sleep.
Actually , I seem to score better when I am exhausted because on that tickle one I did a year ago I scored 137 I think.
Dad just took the test and he got a 142 also! Maybe you kids will get smarter as you get older!
Well, that's something to look forward to I guess. lol
Dad and I re-took the test together, talking over the answers, and this time we got a 147. I wish you could see the correct answers for each problem so we could see what we missed.
.... told you sharla was smart.
and pops holsapple is smart for marrying her...
it's the rest of y'all i ain't so sure 'bout...
Roger and Israel neither one gave up their score.... makes a person wonder!.....
Anyone with a minimum four-year degree is already exempt from taking the test and/or reporting their score. So Iz, Rog, and myself get a free pass on this one.
I don't take IQ tests anymore, especially online.
I have taken so many IQ tests during my years in school and I even took a whole course on how to administer them, so any results I get would be completely invalid.
They bore me...
But I can tell you right now judging from the scores that this particular test giving out, that this test is completely unreliable.
Did you know...
If the Supreme Court is trying to decide if something is a fundamental right protected by substantive due process it uses a two pronged test. First it asks if the act is fundamental to the concept of ordered liberty. Then they ask if it is rooted in the history and traditions of the country. If it is found to be a fundamental right, then the Court applies strict scrutiny, meaning the statute prohibiting the right must be narrowly tailored to meet a specific compelling state interest, else it is unconstitutional. If the act is found to not be a fundamental right, then they apply rational basis test, meaning the statute must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
So in other words, if killing unborn babies is fundamental to the concept of ordered liberty and is rooted in the history and traditions of the country then it must be a fundamental right.
And now you know one reason why Roe, whether you are for abortion or not, is one of the worst decisions in SCOTUS history.
Also, did you know...
My Constitutional Law final is in 12 hours and 15 minutes... (I have substantive due process coming out my ears)
I would have to admit that I didn't know either of those facts but they were both INCREDIBLY interesting.
Or mildly...something.
It's great to see that everyone here is at or above genius level. I hate to break it to you guys but those online IQ tests are not accurate at all, they tend to moderate scores in both directions.
I didn't actually take it but I know when I was 13 my IQ was just above 80, so go figure. ;)
The rest of us all already knew that. We are all geniuses... IQ tests don't lie! haha
Things are rearely as simple as some make them seem.
John about abortion, I believe proponents would couch it in terms of whether someone (in this case a pregnant female) has the fundamental right to control over her own body.
There is also the whole argument as to whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right.
Some "so-called" conservatives (dinosaurs) claim it doesn't exist, which I guess would give the government the right to put cameras and recorders in all our bedrooms and toilets, since there is no fundamental right to privacy. We could even say that the concept enhances ordered liberty.
The bottom line is that the history and traditions of the country don't hold all the anwers. The history of our country and the world is full of things we don't particularly know about. For example analysis of birth records and marraige records show that there were quite a few single mothers and people engaged in premarital sex quite a bit, back in the olden days. My guess is that they also had abortions, too although they didn't record them in the history books. Looking back now and claiming that something is or is not part of the history of the country is a very inexact sort of test.
The world has evolved and the Constitution needs to be a living and evolving document too.
I'm not pro-abortion and I'm very much against it personally, but I think that the government needs to stay out of our business as much as possible, especially when it comes to what happens in the bedroom and when it comes to private medical decisions.
Especially when it comes to medical necessity and you have to choose between the mother's life and the life of the unborn, I don't think the courts or the politicians need to decide that.
I think the 'Medical neccesity" excuse is a bunch of hooey. There are provisions for that in every attempt to curb our country's killing of all these babies anyway, but that is what everyone always brings up as a great excuse to keep abortion legal. I don't buy it. It is really rare that you hear of a case where having a baby would kill the pregnant woman. Usually the reason you hear about it is because the doctors were wrong and the woman had her baby and DIDN'T die after all.
God made women to have babies. God put it in a woman to protect her babies at any costs. I've read a few stories over the years where God has honored that in a woman and brought her through a pregnancy that was supposed to kill her. The doctors can't know for sure. God Knows.
I know occasionally a woman will die during pregnancy. Occasionally a woman will die on a sidewalk. We don't outlaw sidewalks.
Brother Branham said in these days women will mother a cat or a dog.
It is perverted to kill your own baby in ANY circumstance. But this is a peverted world we live in.
As far the gorvernment being "involved" it all depends on your perspective. If you see it as the woman's body, then it is her business. If you see it for what it is, another person, then it is murder, and what good are laws of the land if they don't make murder illegal?
The government can pass laws about plastic bags vs. paper, but not about murder?
Even so, come quickly Lord.
Under current laws, if a pregnant woman is walking up to an abortion clinic to have an abortion, and I step out in front of her, punch her in the stomach, and the baby dies, I can be charged with murder.
Well I guess it depends on how much you trust the government to make decisions for you.
I don't believe the government should be incredibly powerful and govern almost every private aspect of our lives. That is a tenet of true conservatism.
Personally I don't trust the government to answer questions like :
Was Terry Schiavo murdered?
Can a month old fetus be murdered?
If someone "murders" a fetus should we put them in jail for 20 years?
Should we give them the death penalty?
How many cells do their have to be in a embryo before we charge someone with murder?
What sorts of balancing tests apply when the life of the mother is endangered?
Are we going to force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want even if it is horribly handicapped and would be born without a stomach or brain or some other major organ?
I don't believe government should be making decisions for people. But it is a blight on a society when its leaders fail to step up and protect those who cannot protect themselves.
When babies who can't protect themselves die, libs tell the government to mind their own business. When grownups who didn't have the sense to get out of the way of a hurricane get stranded on a roof, libs chastise the government for not acting fast enough to protect them. Absolute hypocrisy.
Well then I guess the solution for everything is a huge government that should protect everyone from everything including having to make their own decisions?
It would be kind of like a mixture of the Soviet and Chinese systems with just a little bit of Iran thrown in.
How you deduced a big government stance from my post escapes me. As far as I'm concerned, the less government the better.
But governments make laws to preserve an ordered society where all people receive equal rights and protection. Governments make law against murder and raise up police forces to protect the people and punish offenders. So who is protecting the unborn - the most defenseless of all of us? No one.
You were right earlier when you said the Constitution was an evolving document. But it should evolve via the prescribed means. If you want a woman to have a right to kill an unborn baby because it might interfere with her lifestyle, then persuade your fellow voters and your Congressman and pass a constitutional amendment granting her that right. The Founders built in that mechanism for just such a purpose.
No where in the Constitution does it say a woman has a right to an abortion. And no where in the Constitution does it say seven judges have the duty to decide policy for an entire nation.
You say you want less government. But Roe v. Wade only expanded the power of the federal government. Pre-Wade it was a state-by-state decision. The people of the states ruled over themselves and decided whether they wanted legal abortions or not. In fact, the pro-abortion movement has succeeded in persuading a handful of states to change their laws. Then Roe and the seven dwarf justices came along and took the power out of the hands of the people and placed it in the federal government.
If you truly want less government you would support overturning Wade and giving the authority back to the states.
I don't know how trying to pass more restrictive laws equates to smaller government.
Federal Governmment vs. State is a red herring if what you are trying to do is deny people the power to make their own medical decisions.
What I was pointing out was the inherent hypocrisy in conservatives saying, I want less government when it comes to restricting guns for example but more government when it comes to restricting doctors and women.
What you are essentially saying is, the government is better equipped to to make this decision than women and their doctors are.
You can quibble with whether it is a "fundamental" right to make that choice, or a "major" right, but the fact is a woman has a "right" to make that choice right now.
When you start to abdicate the right to make fundamental decisions, what's next?
I guarantee that someone will want to take away your "right" to discipline your kid by spanking, because it infringes on your kids "right" to be free of pain.
"What you are essentially saying is, the government is better equipped to to make this decision than women and their doctors are."
That is not remotely close to what I am saying. What I am saying is that it is up to the people in a society to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Prior to Roe, this was possible.
If you wanted to live in a society where a woman could take the life of her unborn child, there were states where you could do so. If you wanted to live in a society where unborn children were protected, there were states where you could do so. If you disagreed with the laws of the state you lived in, you could persuade your fellow citizens to change them.
After Roe this decision was taken out of the hands of people and placed in the hands of the government. Roe didn't create more freedom. It created less. It didn't take government out of people's lives. It interjected it into them. It didn't protect rights. It stripped them away.
I disagree.
What you are talking about is taking the right to make certain decisions away from an individual and giving that power to "the people" (a nameless faceless mob, who doesn't really know anything about the individual.)
The nameless faceless mob then posits the power to make that decision in a goverment entity, be they federal, state, city whatever.
So you are advocating taking the rights away from an individual and turning them over to the government. How does this create more freedom?
Saying that Roe v. Wade took away your right to live in a abortion-free state involves semantic obfuscation when it comes to defining "rights" it also blurs the distiction between individual rights and the "right" of the masses and twists logic beyond all recognition.
You might as well say that the free Exercise of Religion clause strips you of your right to live in a Muslim / Jewish / Buddhist-free state.
If someone doesn't want an abortion they are freely able not to have one. That individual right is still intact.
What you don't have at the moment is the right to force someone else to have a baby they don't want or aren't physically capable of having.
I wish everyone would choose life, but I don't think the government should have the power to force anyone to abdicate control over their own bodies, their own medical care and their own future.
That is why I am a true "limited government" conservative and you are not.
You are for limited governmment when it is convenient and serves your purposes.
Therein lies the intellectual dishonesty at the heart of so-called conservatives running the Republican party.
They claim they are for non-activist judges but they really want to put in activist judges that support their agenda to move us toward a Christian Theocracy.
I don't want to live in a Christian Theocracy anymore than I want to live in a Muslim Theocracy. Freedom from religion is just as important and freedom of religion.
Right?
If you don't believe me, think about what people who went through the Spanish Inquistion would say...
The freedom of religion issue is distinguishable because it is an expressed right. It say right there in the First Amendment that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[.]" No where in the Constitution does it say that a woman has a right to an abortion.
What it does say about rights not expressed is: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The people. The people decide which rights are retained.
Not one woman and seven Supreme Court Justices.
I don't believe in a Christian Theocracy either. I would love to live in a nation of like-minded Christians. But that day won't come until the rapture. In the meantime, an American system that protects free exercise is the best we can hope for.
State-sponsored religion is the No. 1 reason why Mexico's economy is so depressed and its leadership so instable and corrupt. The Catholic Church convinced many early Spanish settlers to will their land to the Church, instead of passing it down to their families. That's why so many of the Zapatistan- and Villan-type insurgencies centered around land reform. State-sponsored religion is a cancer.
You keep saying I want more government. I don't want more government. I just want the Supreme Court to do its job and leave policy decisions up to the people.
Israel,
Remember that science sermon I sent you where Bro. Lonnie showed that everything living has a spirit, even a leaf, and how science proves that with kirlian photography? Well, that baby inside the womb is alive.
If someone were to break your arm, would you feel the pain or would your mom feel the pain?
If someone would have crushed little Miguel's skull inside of Christine's womb, Miguel would have felt that pain, not Christine. Babies are not just tissues of a woman's body. They are the bodies of the baby's, a completely different person.
It doesn't really matter how many times you say it is the woman's body, it still is not. It doesn't matter how many friends you have out there that say that, it still is not. It doesn't matter if everyone in California says that, it still is not. It does not change one thing if every person in the world agrees that it is ok, God's word still says thou shall not kill and we will have to answer for it.
I believe it is very important to know right from wrong, therefore when we do know it we need to state it clearly for others for this reason, if someone can not tell right from wrong in this very deceiving age we are living in, then that one might never repent. The first step has to be that one acknowledges that he or she was wrong.
I am not talking about you, Israel, of course you have never had an abortion, but for anyone that has, Jesus is waiting with open arms to forgive them. But in order for them to be able to repent, they would have to know they were wrong in the first place. Our society is happy to make everyone feel guilty about driving SUV's or using plastic grocery bags, but we wouldn't want to cause anyone to feel the least bit bad about murdering their unborn baby. I wonder what spirit is behind that.
I wish I was the admin of this blog so I could be cool like John and say something along the lines of "what started as a discussion about how smart everyone who took the IQ is, has deteriorated into an argument about theocracies, fundamental rights, morality and SUV's. As a result this post has been LOCKED!!"
Thankfully, Shanny isn't as "cool" as John, she'll just let us go on and on about anything we wanna yak about. That whole argument about staying on topic has never held us back!
As long as her blog is "winning" the popularity contest, she's good, right Shan?
Absolutely.
Besides, the way I look at it, this argument is proving just how smart everyone who took that IQ test really is. =)
In spite of the incredible influence of the Catholic Church, Mexico recently legalized abortion.
Why?
Women were getting illegal abortions anyway with horrible medical consequences. Doctors were having their licenses taken away right and left for performing abortions but nothing was being accomplished.
Not to mention that the poorest people where having tons of kids they couldn't afford or care for, creating huge problems for the country.
Meanwhile abortions have increased 29 percent in the US because the Republicans don't want federally funded clinics to dispense or encourage or educate people about contraception, they only want to promote "abstinence."
I never understood why Republicans do that when they could cut the number of abortions by almost 30 percent just by letting people have access to information about contraception and family planning.
Doesn't make sense to me...
Plus, if you look at the current slate of Republican Presidential candidates it's obvious they know nothing about abstinence since even while they are married (and condemning Clinton for his infidelity) they can't keep their hands off of other women.
(Sorry I couldn't resist that last crack! Hee, hee the party of "family values," my foot!)
WHO, on this planet, does not know about contraceptives?
...because the Republicans don't want federally funded clinics to dispense or encourage or educate people about contraception.
This is the most retarded argument I've heard to date. :)
contra-what?! What are you guys talking about???
Ask Brandon Shan. Most kids his age know all about it by now.
You'd be surprised by the level of ignorance out there. People are just downright uninformed about all kinds of things.
Recently Time magazine did a piece on those federally approved clinics that don't promote abstinence over contraception and they found that those clinics actually spread outright lies to discourage people not to use contraceptives, including "nine out of ten condoms are defective and full of holes and rips."
This is because they want people to rely entirely on abstinence.
(Except of course for Republican Presidential candidates)
Well, you know what they say; abstinence makes the heart grow fonder...
lol
ROFL! Shan.
For some reason I can't fathom, Gary recently subscribed to that rag, Time magazine. I've been looking it over a little bit, I don't believe half of what I've read so far. :)
Post a Comment