Virginia Sticks It To Women - Literally

[New Conglomerate]

Remember folks, it's not big government if it's done at a state level. /sarcasm

It isn't big government to protect the future from being murdered. It is big government to regulate drugs, prostitution, religion, free speech, and obscenity. I stand by the full right of civilians to be able to use or have such things legally. Just not abortion.

So, you're willing to impose your sense of morality on others because you believe that your sense of morality is more important than somebody else's.

You don't deserve to use that flag.

[Euronion]

Finally a state on the east coast makes sense.

[Ravineworld]

It should be up to the states and their localities to decide what is best for their citizens.

This is literally the exact opposite of libertarianism. Libertarianism states that it shouldn't be up to ANY government to decide what is best for its citizens.

I am against localities creating laws against private sexual practices, contraception, drugs, prostitution, etc.
With that said, I don't think that the feds should intervene if they do, as long as such regulations don't violate state and or local constitutions.

[Hittanryan]

This is literally the exact opposite of libertarianism. Libertarianism states that it shouldn't be up to ANY government to decide what is best for its citizens.

I am against localities creating laws against private sexual practices, contraception, drugs, prostitution, etc.
With that said, I don't think that the feds should intervene if they do, as long as such regulations don't violate state and or local constitutions.

You're against it...except when you're for it. If state and local governments shouldn't regulate any of those things, why should they have a say on abortion?

[Ifreann]

Hahaha. That's your defence of this law? You can break it or leave the jurisdiction. Oh lawdy, lawdy.

Im just going to apply my last reply to this one, despite the fact that Im sure it either wont be read or you will continue to argue with me on a point im not even advocating and wasting my time.

It's rather difficult to read posts you make while I'm writing my own.

[Ifreann]

Finally a state on the east coast makes sense.

What about this makes sense?

[New Conglomerate]

This is literally the exact opposite of libertarianism. Libertarianism states that it shouldn't be up to ANY government to decide what is best for its citizens.

I am against localities creating laws against private sexual practices, contraception, drugs, prostitution, etc.
With that said, I don't think that the feds should intervene if they do, as long as such regulations don't violate state and or local constitutions.

So you aren't a libertarian. If you were, you would use any means possible to guarantee that such regulations were not imposed upon people.

As has been said before, you are a paleoconservative. More concerned with "states rights" then actual freedom.

[New Conglomerate]

Finally a state on the east coast makes sense.

What about this makes sense?

Probably the fact that it'll end guarantee the Democrats will win Virginia in 2012. I'm fine with that.

[Ifreann]

What about this makes sense?

Probably the fact that it'll end guarantee the Democrats will win Virginia in 2012. I'm fine with that.

I suppose that's something.

[Ravineworld]

I am against localities creating laws against private sexual practices, contraception, drugs, prostitution, etc.
With that said, I don't think that the feds should intervene if they do, as long as such regulations don't violate state and or local constitutions.

So you aren't a libertarian. If you were, you would use any means possible to guarantee that such regulations were not imposed upon people.

As has been said before, you are a paleoconservative. More concerned with "states rights" then actual freedom.

Paleo-conservatives aren't for drug legalization, gay marriage, open borders, and other such socially liberal stances. The only thing I agree with Paleo-conservatives is their stance on states rights, and war.

[New Conglomerate]

So you aren't a libertarian. If you were, you would use any means possible to guarantee that such regulations were not imposed upon people.

As has been said before, you are a paleoconservative. More concerned with "states rights" then actual freedom.

Paleo-conservatives aren't for drug legalization, gay marriage, open borders, and other such socially liberal stances.

Neither are you, if you aren't willing to use any possible means to ensure that they are legal.

[Revolutopia]

I am not saying the government has any right to regulate abortion. At least not at the federal level. It should be up to the states and their localities to decide what is best for their citizens. I am pro life at the state level, pro choice at the federal level. Although even states can't violate their own constitutions.

"Riddle me this, when is a Government not a government, Batman?

Answer, when it is a State Government enforcing my morality on people."-Religious-Right Riddler

[Euronion]

It isn't big government to protect the future from being murdered. It is big government to regulate drugs, prostitution, religion, free speech, and obscenity. I stand by the full right of civilians to be able to use or have such things legally. Just not abortion.

So, you're willing to impose your sense of morality on others because you believe that your sense of morality is more important than somebody else's.

You don't deserve to use that flag.

it's not just our sense of morality, it's the fact that it is killing a child because of the mother's mistake. If you make a mistake then that is okay, learn from your mistakes, but if you make a mistake and the only way to fix your mistake is to kill your child or any person, then it is no longer a sense of morality but a sense of humanity.

[Teutonic Territories]

Pro-abortion posters, I have a question for you: If the fetus is a human being, do you think it would still be alright to abort?

Why do pro-lifers not give a shit about the fetus after they are born? You just send them to be miserable in an orphanage, growing up without parents. Or perhaps worse they grow up in a home where they barely eat, have a bad education, etc. Also, you have no problem sending them to war when they are old enough. Obvious hypocrite is hypocrite.

Once again "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Key word is life. Parents have the authority to decide if the child stays with them or goes to an orphanage. They do not have the right to choose whether the child lives or dies. If you are so concerned, protest the conditions of the orphanages. All we want to do is protect everyone's most inalienable right: Life.

[Euronion]

Finally a state on the east coast makes sense.

What about this makes sense?

the fact that it will save the lives of future unborn Americans.

[New Conglomerate]

So, you're willing to impose your sense of morality on others because you believe that your sense of morality is more important than somebody else's.

You don't deserve to use that flag.

it's not just our sense of morality, it's the fact that it is killing a child because of the mother's mistake. If you make a mistake then that is okay, learn from your mistakes, but if you make a mistake and the only way to fix your mistake is to kill your child or any person, then it is no longer a sense of morality but a sense of humanity.

If it was a 'sense of humanity' then it would be shared by all.

[Revolutopia]

it's not just our sense of morality, it's the fact that it is killing a child because of the mother's mistake. If you make a mistake then that is okay, learn from your mistakes, but if you make a mistake and the only way to fix your mistake is to kill your child or any person, then it is no longer a sense of morality but a sense of humanity.

Damn Rape Victims making the mistake of dressing slutty, thus just asking to be raped!

Oh wait, no that is just stupid and this is a case of the Religious Right tying to forcibly shove their morality down others' throats.

[Hittanryan]

So you aren't a libertarian. If you were, you would use any means possible to guarantee that such regulations were not imposed upon people.

As has been said before, you are a paleoconservative. More concerned with "states rights" then actual freedom.

Paleo-conservatives aren't for drug legalization, gay marriage, open borders, and other such socially liberal stances. The only thing I agree with Paleo-conservatives is their stance on states rights, and war.

States rights and war. Riiiiight. So that makes you a "libertarian" who thinks states should have authoritarian moralistic social controls akin to Iran's, while the US should use its military to impose its will abroad.

No, you're not a libertarian by any sense of the word. You're a conservative.

[New Conglomerate]

What about this makes sense?

the fact that it will save the lives of future unborn Americans.

And make sure that the Virginia GOP gets no female votes next election.

Thanks for giving us another blue state.

[Euronion]

it's not just our sense of morality, it's the fact that it is killing a child because of the mother's mistake. If you make a mistake then that is okay, learn from your mistakes, but if you make a mistake and the only way to fix your mistake is to kill your child or any person, then it is no longer a sense of morality but a sense of humanity.

If it was a 'sense of humanity' then it would be shared by all.

No, Kim Jung Il, Bashar Al Assad, Saddam Hussein, Stalin, Nazis, ect. they all had no sense of humanity

[Iuuvic]

So, you're willing to impose your sense of morality on others because you believe that your sense of morality is more important than somebody else's.

You don't deserve to use that flag.

it's not just our sense of morality, it's the fact that it is killing a child because of the mother's mistake. If you make a mistake then that is okay, learn from your mistakes, but if you make a mistake and the only way to fix your mistake is to kill your child or any person, then it is no longer a sense of morality but a sense of humanity.

So? Your sense of humanity is literally being defined by your morality. By which I mean your view that a fetus is a person is based on your morals.

[New Conglomerate]

If it was a 'sense of humanity' then it would be shared by all.

No, Kim Jung Il, Bashar Al Assad, Saddam Hussein, Stalin, Nazis, ect. they all had no sense of humanity

Are you comparing abortion to politicide/genocide?

[Euronion]

the fact that it will save the lives of future unborn Americans.

And make sure that the Virginia GOP gets no female votes next election.

Thanks for giving us another blue state.

actually the majority of women are Pro-life, so it may in fact give the GOP more women votes.

[Ravineworld]

Paleo-conservatives aren't for drug legalization, gay marriage, open borders, and other such socially liberal stances.

Neither are you, if you aren't willing to use any possible means to ensure that they are legal.

I am willing to protest such big-government stances, educate the public as to why such regulations are bad, pressure the governments of such places to legalize them, but no, I am not going to use a gun and/or a militia to prevent such regulation. Terrorism is also off limits except in the event 1984 has come, and no, I am not going to use the federal government to tell a town full of prohibitionists that they are wrong and that they need to legalize everything, even when they don't want to. To force local people to accept a different culture and a different set of social norms is wrong, and I will fight that with political pressure, education and protesting to get the point across.

[Euronion]

No, Kim Jung Il, Bashar Al Assad, Saddam Hussein, Stalin, Nazis, ect. they all had no sense of humanity

Are you comparing abortion to politicide/genocide?

yes I am, abortion is infanticide sanctioned by the government.