What Do People Of Colorado Think Of This?

Help Support Steer Planet:

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
Wrong again.   How many cells are abortions carried out at?

Studies show as early as two weeks but obviously lots of them are after that

At what cell stage is an embryo not an embryo?

Apparently many thousands.

Viable children are aborted. Fact.

Is an embryo with a detectable heartbeat still an embryo?


 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA

comercialfarmer

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
196
-XBAR- said:
Zygotes and embryos are aborted; Children are not. Youre good with definitions, you should easily be able to differentiate.

hmmmm  this Judge labeled them unborn children.  Maybe you should work on your definition, his is legal. 


Print Article | Email Article | Write To Us
Daily News
Alabama Supreme Court Recognizes Unborn as ‘Children’ (11049)
The decision could have significant implications in ending abortion in the U.S., according to pro-life advocates.

by MICHELLE BAUMAN/CNA/EWTN 01/16/2013 Comments (69)

WASHINGTON — An Alabama Supreme Court decision recognizing the unborn as persons deserving of legal protections could have significant implications in ending abortion in the U.S., say pro-life advocates.

“The Alabama Supreme Court has dealt a massive blow to the constitutional fraud of Roe v. Wade by recognizing that the preborn child is a person,” said Personhood USA legal analyst Gualberto Garcia Jones in a statement.

On Jan. 11, the Alabama high court ruled that unborn children are protected by the state’s chemical-endangerment law.

The case involved two women who placed their unborn children at risk through the use of illegal drugs during pregnancy. One of the women acknowledged that she had smoked meth three days before her son was born prematurely. The child died 19 minutes later of “acute methamphetamine intoxication.” 

Under Alabama law, it is a crime to chemically endanger a child by exposing him or her to a controlled substance. The women’s attorneys argued that the chemical-endangerment law does not apply to unborn children.

However, the court disagreed, observing that “the only major area in which unborn children are denied legal protection is abortion, and that denial is only because of the dictates of Roe.”

The court noted that 40 states and the District of Columbia “permit recovery of damages for the wrongful death of an unborn child when post-viability injuries to that child cause its death before birth.”

The ruling cited a South Carolina case in which a court arrived at a similar ruling, determining that “it would be absurd to recognize the viable fetus as a person for purposes of homicide laws and wrongful death statutes but not for purposes of statutes proscribing child abuse.”

It also agreed with the appeals court that pointed out, “Not only have the courts of this state interpreted the term ‘child’ to include a viable fetus in other contexts, the dictionary definition of the term ‘child’ explicitly includes an unborn person or a fetus.”



Legal Consistency

The Supreme Court emphasized that in upholding legal protection for the unborn it was being consistent “with the widespread legal recognition that unborn children are persons with rights that should be protected by law.”

It also noted that its decision is in keeping with the state Constitution’s Declaration of Rights, which proclaims that “all men are equally free and independent; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange applauded the decision.

“The court has ratified our argument that the public policy of our state is to protect life, both born and unborn,” he said in a statement. “It is a tremendous victory that the Alabama Supreme Court has affirmed the value of all life, including those of unborn children whose lives are among the most vulnerable of all.”

While the Jan. 11 ruling does not directly apply to abortion regulations, pro-life advocates are encouraged by the decision, saying that it could contribute to the growing recognition of the unborn as human persons with legal rights.

“In personal injury, criminal and wills and estate law, the trend has been to recognize the unborn child as a human with legal protections, not merely a ‘potential’ human being,” said Mathew Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit litigation and policy organization that filed a brief in the case.

He asserted: “The U.S. Supreme Court’s abortion cases are an aberration to law and stand on an island by themselves, and that island will one day disappear.”
 

comercialfarmer

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
196
-XBAR- said:
All fire power that would  legitimately protect you from dictatorship is already outlawed.   Youre holding on to a false sense of security.  Your/My ARs would be about as effective as a spit wad against the weaponry the elite/military have access to. 

Higher capacity rifles arent mentioned in the bill of rights either.  Fortunately, Americans have the right to vote on what we want accessible in our society.

So are rifles not "arms"?      Do you also know what "shall not be infringed upon" means? 

 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
I guess we could vote on whether we want health care accessible to cancer patients, anyone above 50, pretty much anything.

That logic is so circular it's bigger than the universe, maybe Pha as well.
 

RyanChandler

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
3,457
Location
Pottsboro, TX
Alabama Supreme Court  (lol)  How about posting something with some relevancy.  Fortunately, federal law supersedes some babbling honky in Alabama.
commercialfarmer said:
-XBAR- said:
All fire power that would  legitimately protect you from dictatorship is already outlawed.  Youre holding on to a false sense of security.  Your/My ARs would be about as effective as a spit wad against the weaponry the elite/military have access to. 

Higher capacity rifles arent mentioned in the bill of rights either.  Fortunately, Americans have the right to vote on what we want accessible in our society.

So are rifles not "arms"?      Do you also know what "shall not be infringed upon" means? 


Again, ill ask: Do you feel as if all weaponry should be legal to the general public?  Why or why not? 


 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
A similar question might be do you believe in abortion all the way to term?

Your question asks if there should be unlimited power to kill, mine asks at what point will you stop killing.

Semantically very different questions.

I'm sure somehow a pesky definition will get in the way.

And to be fair to your logic, should the government have unlimited discretion to put down a revolution which is what the 2nd amendment is about.

People seem to forget that this country was founded on violence. If you don't agree with the methods used to found this country then perhaps it's circular logic to forbid the public to overthrow the government by force if necessary.

Government can not have unlimited power to remove any means to change their government.

Both parties have made great efforts to keep out competition and are essentially the same party along with the media and the fed.

It's just a fact, not a conspiracy.
 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
Criminalization of dissent is an eventual weakness of consolidation.

The brilliance of the constitution sought to make this last as long as possible to incentivize a balance between the individual and any form of not an individual.
 

comercialfarmer

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
196
I guess its my turn again.

-XBAR- said:
Alabama Supreme Court  (lol)  How about posting something with some relevancy.  Fortunately, federal law supersedes some babbling honky in Alabama.
 

Am I really suppose to answer this?       A state's Supreme Court is a babbling honky- Okay :)   If that is all you can come back with, I will give you an E for effort.  You tried at least.  I'm sure when you passed the Bar exam you amazed them with your knowledge, Si?

Last time I checked, a state's supreme court decision was a pretty big deal and had to be inline with the Constitution or previous precedence of the Supreme Court, or it would be overturned.  

When you care to argue the facts I laid out there for you, you let me know.  Until then, I guess you'll just attack individuals that you don't even know or know anything about, since you can't argue with the message.    Yes, I would believe you went to school in California.  They should be proud.    (clapping)

Speaking of California, amazing enough there is a case before the Supreme Court right now that came out of California.  hmmmm how did that happen???  Probably went through a bunch of babbling honky's in California.    ;)

By the way:  

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212)

Title 18, Section 1841 of the United States Code, reads as follows:

Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children

   (a) (1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.

       (2) (A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother.

           (B) An offense under this section does not require proof that—

               (i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
               (ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.

           (C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

           (D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.

Wonder which babbling honkies wrote this?


-XBAR- said:
Again, ill ask: Do you feel as if all weaponry should be legal to the general public?  Why or why not?  
 

Again, I'll ask what does "shall not infringe upon" mean?

I'll help you out a little, seems you have difficulty with definitions.  

Infringe:  Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on
 

Search Biden + limit  and see if anything about guns comes up.   ;)
 

hamburgman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
569
So these hunts that people go on that are guided are they not a service that someone offers?  Seems like most economic issues end of being a complaint about the US not manufacturing and exporting enough and how anyone who isn't in agriculture of manufacturing has an economically non-viable profession. 
 

RyanChandler

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
3,457
Location
Pottsboro, TX
hamburgman said:
So these hunts that people go on that are guided are they not a service that someone offers?  Seems like most economic issues end of being a complaint about the US not manufacturing and exporting enough and how anyone who isn't in agriculture of manufacturing has an economically non-viable profession.  

I see it the other way around.  The future and hope of America is in service and technology.  
 

jason

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
3,046
Location
Emporia, Kansas
Redwine Cattle said:
You only hunt migratory birds with 3 shots? You know that plug comes out real quick! I kid I kid.

Benelli m2 semi auto with 8 shots

I went on one of those "European" quail hunts on land where you do not need to plug your gun , talk about a bruised shoulder the next day.
http://flintoak.com/
 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
-XBAR- said:
hamburgman said:
So these hunts that people go on that are guided are they not a service that someone offers?  Seems like most economic issues end of being a complaint about the US not manufacturing and exporting enough and how anyone who isn't in agriculture of manufacturing has an economically non-viable profession. 

I seen it the other way around.  The future and hope of America is in service and technology. 

cause ag doesn't have any service or technology.
 

chambero

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
3,207
Location
Texas
You can hunt wild quail and other such birds anywhere without a plug.

Leaving it in though usually doesn't hurt my harvest but definitely helps on the shotgun shell budget.  Those 4th and 5th shots at birds are usually just fired to help speed them along their way. ;)
 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
The issue for me isn't common sense.  

They will just keep coming and coming.

There's that UN treaty to that you can bet 40% of libs already support.

The only ones compromising aren't the libs.

It's not a wise policy to compromise with those who won't compromise.

They won't look at you leading by example, but with weakness.
 

rackranch

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
1,245
Location
under the X in Texas
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...cent-gun-laws/

Hunters across the country are boycotting Colorado because of recent legislation meant to curtail gun violence.
The state is known to be home to some of the best elk hunting in the country. But after its governor, John Hickenlooper, signed controversial bills this month banning ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds, and require background checks for private and online gun sales, some out-of-state hunters say they'll take their business elsewhere.
Hunting outfitters say people began canceling trips after the legislation passed, the Colorado Springs Gazette reported. The numbers are few, but growing.

    "If those jaded sportsmen from out of state and right here at home really do follow through with their threats to never spend another penny on hunting and fishing in Colorado, well, the hunting and fishing just got a lot better for those who do participate."

- Scott Willoughby writes in The Denver Post


Northwest Colorado hunting guide Chris Jurney expects more state defections in a major tourism industry. Out-of-state hunters accounted for 15 percent of hunting licenses last year, 86,000, compared with 489,000 for residents.
"There's a united front of sportsmen that are tired of having their freedoms and liberties and fundamental rights taken away from them," said Jurney, vice president of the Colorado Outfitters Association. "That kind of unity among sportsmen is going to be big, and unfortunately for those of us who live here, we're going to suffer the consequences of this misguided legislation."
Jurney said he expects the actual impact of gun regulations on Colorado hunters will be small. Varmint hunters tend to use high-capacity magazines, so they might be limited. He also is concerned about a provision that limits the loaning of a gun to 72 hours. Many youth hunts, in which most guns are loaned, last longer, he said.
Jeff Lepp, owner of Specialty Sports, a gun and hunting shop in Colorado Springs, predicts hunters are going to choose to visit other Rocky Mountain states.
"Small mountain towns and rural towns in this state are going to lose a lot of money because you're not going to see the number of out-of-state hunters coming here. Other states are going to see a growth," he said.
Michael Bane, a producer for The Outdoor Channel, also announced he will no longer film his four shows in Colorado.
The new gun laws and others were drawn up in response to mass killings at a suburban Denver movie theater and a Connecticut elementary school.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife spokesman Randy Hampton said his agency has asked the state attorney general's office for advice on impacts to hunters. While legal possession of high-capacity magazines is grandfathered in, officials want to make sure they are still legal to use.
Meanwhile, Scott Willoughby, who writes an outdoors column for The Denver Post, wrote that the disenfranchised hunters' "sour grapes" may benefit local hunters.
He wrote, "if those jaded sportsmen from out of state and right here at home really do follow through with their threats to never spend another penny on hunting and fishing in Colorado, well, the hunting and fishing just got a lot better for those who do participate."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...#ixzz2Olc5T8nj
Reply With Quote
 
Top