Huckabee and the Constitution - Amend to meet God's Standards

[HSisOverrated]

<p>

How about this: if you want to talk about “obvious” intrusion (which really means practical intrusion), it’s your responsibility to provide some examples. I am flat out telling you, as someone who has experienced in various ways the intrusions of both systems, that there is, at the moment, more restriction of civil liberties in America than in Canada (lots of it through DHS and the Patriot Act, which in reality more intrusive than you think). It’s possible that I’m wrong, as anecdotes are unreliable (and I’m going based largely on personal experience and consumption of the news), but pending that determination I challenge you to provide whatever sources you’re using to back up your assertion that Canada has less freedoms than America does.

</p>

<p>yeah this is really wrong.</p>

<p>thanks for playing!</p>

[emeraldkity4]

<p>I challenge you to provide whatever sources you’re using to back up your assertion that Canada has less freedoms than America does.</p>

<p>

yeah this is really wrong.</p>

<p>thanks for playing!

</p>

<p>Got any sources?</p>

<p>So- that would be a no?</p>

[mathwiz]

<p>

That’s ok. I see your point, and it summarizes the whole argument: which has precedence, the right to the unborn baby’s life, or the right of the woman to not have to support that unborn baby with her own body?</p>

<p>We’re not talking about the right of the unborn baby to life vs the right of the woman to life. It boils down to the right to life vs the right to convenience, really.</p>

<p>imo, life trumps convenience.</p>

<p>The 2 issues are just not equal. Life weighs more than convenience.

</p>

<p>Two things wrong with that argument. First, “convenience” is not as simple as you put it. You just toss it away as if its a luxury, whereas it could be that the mother cannot afford a baby, or the unborn baby has an untreatable disease, or that the pregnancy threatens the mother’s life. And anyways, you can’t say one right is more important than another. You don’t have to chose between your rights, you are entitled to all of them. </p>

<p>Secondly, you assume an unborn baby has a right to live. This is not a fact. It’s something up to debate. And here’s I question I’ll pose you. If an unborn baby has a right to live, do unfertilized egg and sperm have a right to live? So are we killing people everytime an egg or sperm is wasted? Your going to have to draw the line somewhere, and anyplace is as arbitrary as the next.</p>

[1of42]

<p>

@emeraldkitty4

Got any sources?</p>

<p>So- that would be a no?

</p>

<p>Does that fact really surprise you? I thought that, given what he was saying, it was pretty much obvious. ;)</p>

<p>

@HSIsOverrated

yeah this is really wrong.</p>

<p>thanks for playing!

</p>

<p>Is it? Again, I challenge you to explain it in depth and provide sources to substantiate your claims. If you can’t do that, you lose, as it were.</p>

[TheDad]

<p>

If America were to vote for his desired changes, all would be quite valid.

Possibly. But the result would no longer be “America.”</p>

<p>I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands…</p>

[lealdragon]

<p>

it could be that the mother cannot afford a baby, or the unborn baby has an untreatable disease, or that the pregnancy threatens the mother’s life. And anyways, you can’t say one right is more important than another.

</p>

<p>cannot afford? give it up for adoption
untreatable disease? do we kill adults with untreatable diseases?
threatens mother’s life? that is completely overused - actual cases are exceedingly rare and when they do happen, there would be an exemption - mother’s life trumps baby’s life. but don’t use that as an excuse for abortion on demand.</p>

<p>one right more important than another? our Constitution specifies ‘life liberty and pursuit of happiness’ with life being in the #1 position so it’s obvious you can’t even consider the others unless you have life. therefore life is #1 right.</p>

<p>right to live? it’s easy to distinguish between a fertilized egg and an unfertilized egg. I don’t see any conflict here. it’s not arbitrary at all but completely logical. but yes, an agreement must be reached…but the only 2 choices are a.) when it’s fertilized (ie conception) or b.) when there’s a heartbeat. </p>

<p>b.) is the logical choice because that is ALREADY the standard of life - a person is considered dead when his heart stops. no need for a new definition.</p>

[emeraldkity4]

<p>Wont change anyones mind here- but I know it has been stated on other threads, for instance that freedom of religion doesn’t include imposing my religions dictates upon others.
My religion incidentally does not consider a blastocyst- [which is not even implanted and a toss up as to whether the woman will even ever know if she had a fertilized egg ], the equivalent of a human adult.</p>

[mathwiz]

<p>

one right more important than another? our Constitution specifies ‘life liberty and pursuit of happiness’ with life being in the #1 position so it’s obvious you can’t even consider the others unless you have life. therefore life is #1 right.

</p>

<p>Wait… what? Your argument doesn’t make much sense. Just because you don’t have rights if you are not alive does not mean the right to life is more important than other rights. The constitution doesn’t say that liberty and the pursuit of happiness are any lesser rights. Anyways… what about cases in which people receive the death penalty? How does justice trump this so called “#1 right”?</p>

<p>

right to live? it’s easy to distinguish between a fertilized egg and an unfertilized egg. I don’t see any conflict here. it’s not arbitrary at all but completely logical. but yes, an agreement must be reached…but the only 2 choices are a.) when it’s fertilized (ie conception) or b.) when there’s a heartbeat.

What makes a fertilized egg so special that we draw the line there? I understand the heartbeat thing because the legal definition of that also relies on that, but why fertilized egg? And you still don’t tell me why an unborn baby has a legal right to live. Even if we do assume that an unborn baby is technically alive, does it really have a right to burden the mother without her consent? Here’s an analogy. Your the landlord of an apartment building and one of your tenants fails to pay the rent. You kick him out of the apartment. He cannot afford shelter (obviously, since he couldn’t pay you rent) and he dies outside in the cold. Now, are you guilty of murder?</p>

<p>

the only 2 choices are a.) when it’s fertilized (ie conception) or b.) when there’s a heartbeat.</p>

<p>b.) is the logical choice because that is ALREADY the standard of life - a person is considered dead when his heart stops. no need for a new definition.

</p>

<p>So your saying that an unborn baby is not technically alive? How does that support your claim that abortion should be illegal?</p>

[garland]

<p>For me, scientifically, the only thing that makes logical sense is that a new person starts when the blueprint of that person comes into being–conception. Everything else is semantics and arbitrary (including heartbeat.)</p>

<p>But, as I said above, person or not, no other person should be compelled to carry that other person within their own body if they choose not to–the world, and its laws, stops at my skin–inside there, I’m the absolute ruler. Else no individual has bodily integrity. </p>

<p>(The first proposition above explains why I wouldn’t get an abortion myself; the second explains why I believe I have no right to forbid someone else to.)</p>

[citygirlsmom]

<p>so, now we have the confederate flag…who embraces that symbol of slavery?</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>“(The first proposition above explains why I wouldn’t get an abortion myself; the second explains why I believe I have no right to forbid someone else to.)”</p>

<p>If I were as articulate as Garland, I would have said this.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>"But, as I said above, person or not, no other person should be compelled to carry that other person within their own body if they choose not to–the world, and its laws, stops at my skin–inside there, I’m the absolute ruler. Else no individual has bodily integrity. "</p>

<p>So, the person “inviting” the creation of the baby “in her skin” (as the vast majority of aborted babies are created) has no responsibilty for her actions? She is allowed to terminate a life to solve her own mistake? Yikes, that sounds cold.</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>“So, the person “inviting” the creation of the baby “in her skin” (as the vast majority of aborted babies are created) has no responsibilty for her actions? She is allowed to terminate a life to solve her own mistake? Yikes, that sounds cold.”</p>

<p>It does sound cold and I wouldn’t make that choice, but for the life of me, I can’t bring myself to tell someone else what to do in that regard. As a practical matter, I’ve never quite understood the benefit of late-term abortion, though.</p>

[garland]

<p>First of all, it’s not a question of “inviting.” Second, still her world. We can’t legislate “cold” (or there would be a lot of changes I’d want to make because of what I might think is “cold” behavior.)</p>

[lealdragon]

<p>

Just because you don’t have rights if you are not alive does not mean the right to life is more important than other rights. The constitution doesn’t say that liberty and the pursuit of happiness are any lesser rights.

</p>

<p>imo, it’s obvious. The other rights depend upon the right to life; therefore the right to life is obviously paramount. </p>

<p>

Anyways… what about cases in which people receive the death penalty? How does justice trump this so called “#1 right”?

</p>

<p>It doesn’t. I don’t believe in the death penalty for the same reason (see my earlier post in which I propose an alternative for violent offenders that keeps them from harming others but does not kill them). I agree; nothing trumps life, not even justice. Those who claim to be ‘pro-life’ while supporting the death penalty or war usually do not it as hypocritical, because they justify it, but…it is, imo. (No offense to anyone.)</p>

<p>

What makes a fertilized egg so special that we draw the line there?

</p>

<p>Probably nothing. Which is why I think the only way to settle this is to use an EXISTING definition of life - the HEARTBEAT, rather than trying to define life as beginning at conception, which opens up a whole can of worms. Not everyone will agree, but it would simplify things tremendously and eliminate most abortions from being legal, if not all.</p>

<p>

does it really have a right to burden the mother without her consent?

</p>

<p>Again, the baby’s right to life trumps the mother’s right to convenience for a mere 8 months of her life (by the time she finds out she’s pregnant, about a month will have already gone by).</p>

<p>

Here’s an analogy. Your the landlord of an apartment building and one of your tenants fails to pay the rent. You kick him out of the apartment. He cannot afford shelter (obviously, since he couldn’t pay you rent) and he dies outside in the cold. Now, are you guilty of murder?

</p>

<p>I don’t think that’s a very good analogy at all. The Creator (or evolution, if you don’t believe in a creator) for some bizarre reason designed procreation this way (or mammals evolved this way, if you prefer). For reasons unbeknownst, that’s just the way it is. Females get pregnant. Aha! We have figured out that females sometimes get pregnant from sex.</p>

<p>Now, I’m no purist on premarital sex. I have no problem with that at all, so don’t accuse me of trying to endorse abstinance. It’s not a moral thing (not religiously moral anyway) but a responsibility thing. We all know that if we drive on the highway, there is a chance of having an accident. We all choose to take that chance each time we get in our cars. If there is an accident, the person has to deal with the consequences, including possible hospitalization, recovery, hassling with the insurance company, and oh, yes, possibly retribution to another party if it was your fault. Consequences, all, of something that happened that you didn’t necessarily cause…might have just been bad luck or karma…but you knew was a POSSIBILITY when you chose to get in that car.</p>

<p>This, I think, is a much better analogy.</p>

<p>

So your saying that an unborn baby is not technically alive? How does that support your claim that abortion should be illegal?

</p>

<p>Huh?? When did I say that?? Do you mean after conception but before there is a heartbeat? At that point, yes, it is alive, but I am proposing a compromise as to WHEN it becomes a person. We need a clear demarcation, and there is no way to prove the precise time of conception, and sometimes conceived eggs get passed with the period, etc. It’s not a perfect solution and won’t please everyone, as I said, but it would be something that is reasonable, since we ALREADY have a definition of life as being connected to the heartbeat. The ‘life begins at conception’ people and the ‘save the sperm and eggs too’ people and the anti-contraception people won’t be happy, but it’s a definition that the pro-choice people could find reasonable. Unless both sides are willing to compromise just a little, there won’t ever be a solution. I think this idea is the most logical.</p>

[lealdragon]

<p>Getting back to huckabee:</p>

<p>

Who knew a candidate of Christian identity politics would be afforded such respect? But Huckabee has managed it, which is one reason why he should open a strategic-communications firm the day after he leaves the presidential race. The ability to gull analysts into making so much from so little is a rare and potentially lucrative talent.</p>

<p>Huckabee won Iowa for one reason - he won an overwhelming plurality of evangelical voters in a GOP caucus where they made up an astonishing 60 percent of the electorate. Huckabee won 47 percent of evangelical voters, and only 14 percent of nonevangelicals - less than John McCain and Fred Thompson, who tied for third in Iowa, and barely more than Ron Paul, who finished fifth.</p>

<p>On this basis, E.J. Dionne of The Washington Post declared “a revolution in Republican politics.” David Brooks of The New York Times opined that Huckabee’s win “opens up the way for a new coalition,” given how profoundly he understands “middle-class anxiety.” Huckabee’s national campaign chairman, Ed Rollins, talked in similarly grand terms of rallying working-class voters to the GOP.</p>

<p>But working-class voters haven’t cooperated. In New Hampshire, where Huckabee finished a distant third, he won 33 percent of evangelicals, but just 7 percent of nonevangelicals - less than Ron Paul. In Michigan, he lost evangelicals to Mitt Romney 34-29, and got just 8 percent of nonevangelicals - again, less than Ron Paul. So among nonevangelicals, Huckabee is as much a fringe candidate as the sometimes bizarre libertarian purist.

</p>

<p>from [THE</a> HUCK HOAX](<a href=“THE HUCK HOAX”>THE HUCK HOAX)</p>

[kelsmom]

<p>I live in MI. My neighbor describes herself as an evangelical, and she supports McCain. Just like blacks don’t necessarily support Obama & women do not necessarily support Clinton … evangelicals do not necessarily support Huckabee.</p>

<p>I have so much I’d love to say myself on this subject … but on this subject, I tend to refrain from commenting. I can’t imagine anyone will change his/her mind as a result of anything I have to say.</p>

[mathwiz]

<p>leal, I typed up a lengthy response to your post addressing everything, but I just deleted it. You have your own beliefs, which clearly you will not give up because of someone in a public forum. Nothing wrong with that, but its a waste for us to continue arguing on something if there’s guarunteed to be no result. I’ll let the law speak for itself.</p>

[lealdragon]

<p>You’re right that it’s unlikely either of us would change our minds. However, I do not seek to change anyone’s mind. I seek intellectual discourse and I hope that the person on the other side of the debate may learn something from my words, as I learn from theirs. I seek understanding and the stretching of one’s outlook, for us all. That’s why I discuss controversial topics. Maybe others try to convert people, but I don’t.</p>

[TheresaCPA]

<p>Getting back to Huckabee imposing the Bible on the constitution:
Does anyone else see this as an inherently anti semetic concept?
Would Huckabee also do away with the death penalty as the Bible directs people to forgive those who trespass against us?
Where does it stop, if religion imposes life beliefs and marriage ceremonies will it stop at the rest of the ten commandments?</p>