Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-31-2012, 15:17   #1
W420Hunter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,286
Send a message via AIM to W420Hunter Send a message via Yahoo to W420Hunter
House rejects gender-based abortion bill

This makes me sick.
House rejects gender-based abortion bill
W420Hunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2012, 15:57   #2
G-19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,237
What makes me sick is that this is even an issue. How could some one kill a baby for any reason, let alone just because of its gender. This country has lost all of its morals.

It is no wonder this country is in the State it is.
G-19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2012, 16:02   #3
G22Dude
Senior Member
 
G22Dude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,906
I agree with everything you guys have said but the bill was flawed in the sense that they seem to be arguing that abortion is ok for ever other reason other than gender selection.

I assume that the sponsor is protecting life in any way he can, but the whole sitution is a stinking mess, and speaks to the moral decline of this once great nation
G22Dude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2012, 19:06   #4
beforeobamabans
FYPM
 
beforeobamabans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Crossroads of America
Posts: 5,592
I am appalled that Ron Paul voted no on this and that my Congressman, conservative firebrand Dan Burton, didn't even bother to vote.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll299.xml
__________________
G17, G26, G30SF, Gen4 G23

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty." Ben Franklin
beforeobamabans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2012, 19:09   #5
G-19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by beforeobamabans View Post
I am appalled that Ron Paul voted no on this and that my Congressman, conservative firebrand Dan Burton, didn't even bother to vote.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll299.xml
Paul voted no because everyone should have freedom to kill babies.
G-19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2012, 19:09   #6
Lethaltxn
Senior Member
 
Lethaltxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,313
What else was attached to it?
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Lew Horton Springfield Compact 1911
Springfield Loaded

Last edited by Lethaltxn; 05-31-2012 at 19:09..
Lethaltxn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2012, 19:12   #7
steve1988
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ft. Meade, MD
Posts: 1,249
If we accept (as our government has) that aborting a child for convenience sake is right, then I don't see a flaw in the logic of anyone who voted no on this bill.
__________________
Thomas Paine: "...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."
steve1988 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2012, 19:18   #8
beforeobamabans
FYPM
 
beforeobamabans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Crossroads of America
Posts: 5,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1988 View Post
If we accept (as our government has) that aborting a child for convenience sake is right, then I don't see a flaw in the logic of anyone who voted no on this bill.
The flaw is, if you consider yourself pro-life, then you take a stand to chip away at our legalized holocaust whenever and wherever you can. Shame on every no voter, including our own Andre Carson, Muslim, IN.
__________________
G17, G26, G30SF, Gen4 G23

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty." Ben Franklin
beforeobamabans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2012, 19:20   #9
beforeobamabans
FYPM
 
beforeobamabans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Crossroads of America
Posts: 5,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-19 View Post
Paul voted no because everyone should have freedom to kill babies.
I have searched for a statement explaining this vote but cannot find one. If someone does, please post it as I would like to see it.
__________________
G17, G26, G30SF, Gen4 G23

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty." Ben Franklin
beforeobamabans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2012, 19:21   #10
steve1988
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ft. Meade, MD
Posts: 1,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by beforeobamabans View Post
The flaw is, if you consider yourself pro-life, then you take a stand to chip away at our legalized holocaust whenever and wherever you can. Shame on every no voter, including our own Andre Carson, Muslim, IN.
You misunderstand. What I meant was, for someone who is pro-choice, even if the abortion is purely for convenience sake, I don't see a flaw in their logic.

The only logical reason that I can see someone who is pro-life voting no would be that the law would be vague and nearly impossible to enforce.
__________________
Thomas Paine: "...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."
steve1988 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2012, 19:22   #11
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,207
This bill reminds me of an episode of Seinfeld I saw a long time ago, where Jerry tries to return a sport jacket he just bought. It went something like this:

Jerry: I'd like to return this jacket.

Clerk: For what reason?

Jerry: Spite. I don't care for the salesman who sold it to me.

Clerk: You can't return it for that reason.

Jerry: What? What difference does it make? Ok, then, I'm returning it because I don't like it.

Clerk: Too late, you already said spite.
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2012, 21:39   #12
Syclone538
Senior Member
 
Syclone538's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by beforeobamabans View Post
I am appalled that Ron Paul voted no on this and that my Congressman, conservative firebrand Dan Burton, didn't even bother to vote.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll299.xml
I read the article, and don't know much at all about the bill.

In general, libertarians want fewer laws, not more.

Given that abortion is currently legal, this is an attempt at creating thought crime.
__________________
Some people want freedom, even for those they disagree with, and some don't.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Quote:
...
The constitution is not, nor was it meant to be absolutely literal.
...
Syclone538 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2012, 22:16   #13
The Machinist
No Compromise
 
The Machinist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The Left Coast
Posts: 6,025
Ron Paul has said that he is pro-life, and views abortion as an act of violence akin to murder. With that said, he still believes it's up to the states to make laws regarding that. I don't agree, but that's what the man said.

No, I don't have a link. It's simply something he said during one of the primary debates.
__________________
Proud to be an infidel!
The Machinist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2012, 23:02   #14
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 42,646


Quote:
Originally Posted by G-19 View Post
everyone should have freedom to kill babies.
You said it in the same way Paul said it.

See how that works?
__________________
“If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he should see how it is WITH representation.”

Rush Limbaugh
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2012, 02:34   #15
beforeobamabans
FYPM
 
beforeobamabans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Crossroads of America
Posts: 5,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Machinist View Post
Ron Paul has said that he is pro-life, and views abortion as an act of violence akin to murder. With that said, he still believes it's up to the states to make laws regarding that. I don't agree, but that's what the man said.

No, I don't have a link. It's simply something he said during one of the primary debates.
Protection of Life from womb to grave is one of the few legitimate roles of government (at all levels IMO). Sometimes, politics becomes the art of what's practical rather than theory of how it should be. I noted even Joe Donnelly D-IN, who is running against Richard Mourdock (the guy who beat Lugar), voted yes. Good move on his part.
__________________
G17, G26, G30SF, Gen4 G23

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty." Ben Franklin

Last edited by beforeobamabans; 06-01-2012 at 02:35..
beforeobamabans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2012, 08:49   #16
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by beforeobamabans View Post
Protection of Life from womb to grave is one of the few legitimate roles of government (at all levels IMO).
Good. Let's ban hydrogenated oils, sodas, cigarettes, motorcycles, guns, cars, swimming pools, tall buildings, skiis, etc.
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2012, 09:12   #17
aspartz
Senior Member
 
aspartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Sandstone, MN 55072
Posts: 6,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by beforeobamabans View Post
Protection of Life from womb to grave is one of the few legitimate roles of government (at all levels IMO).
OK, lets play that out:

If life is defined as beginning at conception, we will have to monitor pregnant women far more closely. If she does not eat correctly, she will have to be force fed, because after all, it's for the child.
...if she drinks or smokes she will have to be incarcerated for child abuse.
...if has a miscarriage or the baby is stillborn, we will have to charge her with manslaughter until she proves that it was not her fault that the darling child died.
...of course the courts will have to appoint the "baby" an independent atty and MD to make medical decisions since the mother may have conflicting interests.

Your value system says that life begins at conception. Not everyone agrees. Stop forcing your values on others. That's the meaning of freedom.

ARS
__________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Unknown
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force" - George Washington
aspartz is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:24.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,006
282 Members
724 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31