Abortion's ironic effect upon the RKBA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Incursion, you said:

...to me alcohol is not really a drug because if you drink in moderation it is actually beneficial to your health.

They used to say the same thing about cig's (another drug) back in the 50's. Nice excuse to booze it up, isn't it?

On the other hand cocaine, heroin, ecstacy, LSD, etc., have no benefit besides getting someone "high". Cocaine and heroin are chemically addictive. As far as I know ecstacy, alcohol, marijuana are not chemically addictive, but ecstacy severely affects your brain and so does marijuana.

Okay, ask yourself one simple question about ANY substance: Does it alter your mood and/or ability to perform activities?

Yes...? It's a drug. Pretty strightforward.

I guess YOU would prefer to think of it as "good drugs" vs. "bad drugs". (FYI, cocaine was LEGAL in the U.S. until Prohibition. Coca-Cola got its name from having the drug in it. But when booze became legal again, the "other" drugs somehow got left out. Hmmmmm.....)

Implicit in your statement is the idea that the "War on Drugs", with its associated destruction of American civil liberties and freedom, is a GOOD thing. Personally, I am unable to support Gestapo/Sturmtruppen tactics against law-abiding citizens (oops, wrong house, but he's dead anyway) for any reason. I would hope that most people agree with me on that issue.

Like booze, these substances should be decriminalized, and behavior WHILE IMPAIRED punished as needed. Just like DWI. Smuggling would stop (no profit in it), jail space would open up (no "users" inside), the courts would unclog, and a bunch of lawyers would have to get honest jobs.

Funny, but otherwise rational people cannot understand this simple premise. For the impaired: Prohibition never works. Not for booze, not for tobacco, not for drugs, and not for GUNS.

Might I suggest some serious soul-searching on this issue.

[This message has been edited by Dennis Olson (edited August 06, 2000).]
 
Pro-choice?

What a red herring.

They made their choice when they chose to have sex.

Abortion is not a contraceptive, it's child sacrifice on the alter of "Convenience".

So is gun control.

Instead of facing the truth about the abuses and their sources, we try to cover up the symptoms with band-aid legislation. We sacrifice our freedoms on the alter of "Covenience" in the vain hope that we will gain more "security".

If the American people were to excercise morality, courtesy, ethics, and responsibility our government would be FORCED to go back into its cage and govern as ruled by the Constitution.


------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com

[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited August 06, 2000).]
 
Like it or not, the abortion issue--along with the 2nd Amendment--is defining who we are as a people. There is an obvious connection between 'respect for life' that prompts us to defend innocent life against criminal assault and respect for life that says that the child you created through your own choices is not a mere 'choice' anymore.

If make the word 'choice' an absolute value then you can justify anything in its name. By that logic I can choose to blow away anything and anyone that frustrates my inner desires, and congratulated for doing so.

My personal belief is that men, as protectors and 'warriors', ought to be taking the lead in pointing this out to the murderers among us. In my particular case those 'burdensome bits of fetal tissue' became the son and daughter I am so proud of today. Someday I may become a nuisance to society myself and they may have to speak up for me.

A society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable members--not its wealth.



------------------
 
Imagine yourself in the middle of a storm . All of a sudden there is to be a vote on who should be Captain . Some people like the cook because he makes good food , some people like the First Mate because he tells interesting stories and other people also have favorites . The fella that can lead you out of the storm is not the most popular but can , nevertheless lead you out of the storm . This is the person that you must vote for . Later you can determine a new favorite when not so much is at stake .
We will always have abortion . In the back alleys , a sympathetic girl friend with a coat hanger or , of course , Mexico . A defrocked doctor , a nurse with the necessary knowledge or whomever . It won't be as easy but only the price will change , not the mindset .
Our freedom to keep and bear is very fragile at this point . These people are making serious inroads into our fundamental rights . To join the two arguments together . What's the sense of having children if someone can come into their house and kill them ? If Bush is not the brightest star in your heaven he is surely bright enough to get us through the night .

------------------
TOM
SASS AMERICAN LEGION NRA GOA
 
Personally, I think the phrase "Pro-choice" is as inane, silly and useless as "For the children"....because it means absolutely nothing. Its a vague and meaningless concept; that vague and cowardly people gather to. I say cowardly because those people are afraid to directly declare their position of pro-abortion.

Unless one believes in having every single, solitary facet of life controlled and dictated; then one is "pro-choice". Every single human (and most animals) make multitudes of choices every day, and we can't help it.

The hard, cold fact is that abortion will not be made illegal in our lifetime, no matter what politicians say. Too many people want them, and thus there will always be politicians using the issue to garner support.
What could conceivably be altered is that our society (through tax dollars) cease to be forced to subsidize abortion. And this is the jist of the matter....once again, tax dollars...who wants them, who gets them and who profits from giving them.

If the powers that be were truly concerned about abortion as anything other than a political issue, then long term contraceptives would be issued (much like fluoride in water to prevent dental caries).
Of course that opens up a new can of worms, but it wouldn't be as devisive (and politically profitable) as the abortion issue.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Dennis, they probably did say the same thing about cigs, but the fact is they have no benefit to your health. If you drink one glass of wine a day, it is actually beneficial to your health, and it won't affect your behavior (this has been pretty much proven). I'm not saying that the destruction of civil liberties is a good thing. I seriously doubt that every DEA agent uses gestapo tactics. There are good cops, and there are bad cops.
 
Incursion....

Man, you just keep MISSING THE FRICKIN' POINT dude.

There are NO SUCH THINGS as "good recreational drugs" and "bad recreational drugs". There are just "sanctioned recreational drugs". They are ALL BAD FOR YOU. Alcohol too. The substance in red wine that is good for you is NOT the alcohol. If that were so, then a good stiff martini would be just as good. But the study said it wasn't. So, whatever is in red wine that's good, the drug ain't it.

And you OBVIOUSLY haven't been following LEA seizure trends in the U.S. this past decade. Where are you living anyway? It sure isn't in the U.S. Here, illegal seizures of property and cash from people with no provable drug connection are increasing exponentially. Many angencies now routinely use the money and property seized to run their departments. The only way a person can get the stuff back is by spending $20,000+ in court/atty fees to do so.

I think you need to do some serious re-evaluation of reality. (IMHO)

BTW Inc, I see no "PhD" after your name. So, I guess you're not a doctor. That being said, where are you getting your info on "good" and "bad" stuff? DOH! (head slap) I know - you're getting it from the MEDIA, that bastion of accuracy and truthfulness. I feel for ya buddy. And as for good cops/bad cops, I guess Waco was just a "mistake"?

Sheesh.


[This message has been edited by Dennis Olson (edited August 06, 2000).]
 
If tax dollars support abortion because abortion is a right, then why don't they purchase me a new rifle, and other necessary arms, because being armed is a higher right, listed right in there with the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The DOI, and the BOR are a foundation of rights.

I truly am ignorant, but how did the Supreme Court find a right to abortion in the United States Constitution? I've read it over and over and over, and have yet to come across that amendment. Please help if you have an answer.
If I were a prudent Federal Judge, I believe I would have left Abortion entirely in the hands of the State Legal system. I cannot find a constitutional basis for abortion, therefore the 10th amendment clearly would direct the issue to "the states or the people respectively."

------------------
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!" --- Benjamin Franklin
 
I live in Houston, and no I don't have a PhD, but I have 3 doctors in my family. One of them is a urologist, and he has confirmed the media report that a glass of wine a day is good to protect against urinary tract infection. I see what you're saying, but my point is that alcohol is not inherently bad for you. If I drink one glass of wine a day, I haven't caused any harm to other people. I can easily not drink the next day; alcohol is not chemically addictive, and it can have positive effects. Blame the agencies for using their gestapo tactics. To me, you're saying that because the agencies use illegal/gestapo tactics and infringe on people's rights, we should just let people take drugs. I don't have a problem with people taking drugs, but I do have a problem when it affects the rest of society i.e. increased crime. I can understand that it would probably be better economically for society if drugs were made legal because we wouldn't have to pay for the damn agencies. The question boils down to: which opportunity cost is greater? You see it one way; I see it the other. One of the reasons I also think that drugs should be kept illegal is because I am a Christian. No where in the Bible does it say that drinking alcohol is a sin. Jesus drank wine with his disciples at the last supper. It says do not be a drunkard because inebriation harms the body. According to the Bible, an indvidual's body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, one should not harm their own body. Drugs such as cigarettes, marijuana, cocaine, etc. have not been shown to have ANY positive effects on the body.
 
KJM, I heard this from someone else, so by no means is this necessarily accurate or true.


Someone told me that the reason the court ruled the way they did in Roe V. Wade is because that back at that time, the medical experts could not determine exactly when life began, so the judges basically said, "Well if the medical experts can't determine when life begins, we sure aren't in any position to determine it."
 
Incursion, my friend, you have a steep hill to climb with that argument ...

A glass of wine each day is healthful? Maybe ... probably. How does this extend to vodka and whiskey being 'healthful'?

Alcohol is a drug, plain and simple. Don't you see the irony of LEO's stopping off at the Dew Drop Inn for a celebratory beer after they make a pot bust?

And, consider the economics of prohibition ... supply and demand. Outlaw something desirable, and the price skyrockets. Look at full capacity magazines prices for you and versus what LEO's pay. Illicit drugs are disproportionately expensive due to prohibition.

Live and let live. Regards from AZ

[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited August 06, 2000).]
 
If I make a crown and coke with just 10% crown in a 20 oz. glass, do you think that's going to be harmful to my body? That miniscule amount wouldn't harm me at all. I believe that alcohol helps the blood flow more easily and that's why it helps prevent urinary tract infection. I could be mistaken, but I don't think that it's limited to wine.

[This message has been edited by Incursion (edited August 06, 2000).]
 
And marijuana is used to treat glaucoma, and reduce nausea from cancer treatments. When my 2-year-old son had his eyebrow stitched up after a fall, the doctor told me he used a topical anesthetic to dull the pain ... an anesthetic derived from cocaine. And, morphine, a narcotic, is still commonly used in pain control.

Honest ... nice try, but I really think your premise will fail you with this argument.

Live and let live. Regards from AZ
 
Inc, I'm a Mormon. And as to the COST of illegal drugs? Let's see....

Prisons: New builds and operating expenses for existing (include guards)

Courts: Salaries of all persons connected with them; judges, clerks, bailiffs, secretaries, etc.

LEA's: More cops, more DEA, more FBI, more... more... more...

Gangs: More killings, more members, more crimes. (Remember the gangs of the 30's? You know, Al Capone and his ilk. When Prohibition ended, their reason for being evaporated. The ones that never got caught soon went out of business.)

Users: High cost of drugs (because of the contraband nature of the substances) cause users to commit crimes to buy $100 of cocaine, where if legal, the cost would be $10, which even a job at McDonalds would support.

Lawsuits: From people having lost their possessions, and wrongful death suits from widows/children of deceased people "mistakenly" shot during a "no-knock" warrant.

Medical: Costs associated with impure narcotics and O/D's due to varying strength of the products.

Alphabet agencies: Would have to fund their clandestine operations in other ways then importing drugs into the U.S.

I could go on for a long time. You STILL miss the point that the illegal drug "industry" fuels a BUNCH of things in this country. I hope I've shown you how ridiculous it is to KEEP them illegal.

Illegal drugs is a lose-lose situation for EVERYONE involved. Un-pucker your sphincter and take a good look around.

PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK. Period. The only ones who are fooled are YOU, and those that think like you on this subject. (And alcohol KILLS brain and liver cells. Even a SINGLE drink. Go check with your doctor family.)
 
I believe in the sanctity of human life, not the fruit fly or the snail darter. I dont care with whom of what you choose to couple, just dont ask me to approve or to pay to support your choice.
Some of our legal rights are based upon relationship and most of these relationships are based upon the now archiac concept of family. If the law is changed to recognize families including same-gender spouses, so what? We have people of all genders and preferences adopting and raising children, sheep and other livestock, SO WHAT? Who can tell them that they are not free to make those choices if they are able to afford it?

Until they want me to pay for it, SO WHAT???

------------------
You have to be there when it's all over. Otherwise you can't say "I told you so."

Better days to be,

Ed
 
Ugh 2 against 1. Hard to argue with that. You two are starting to sway me. I'll admit that I don't know too much about this topic. I guess I'll look into it further. This is an educational debate which is the whole purpose of this board imho. It's too bad other people in this world can't resolve things with civility. I guess people are too prideful.

I do want to broach two things that I think are important and pertinent to this topic:

1. From a moral perspective, I believe it all boils down to what's in the person's heart. The intentions of the person is what counts, but I don't know if I would be bold enough to try and legislate on this issue. Live and let live I guess.

2. Moderation is an important practice. Almost everything in excess is detrimental or deleterious to one's existence/health.


Rant off.

[This message has been edited by Incursion (edited August 06, 2000).]
 
GODLESS GAY PRO-CHOICE HEDONISTS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP

I'm in...I'm not gay, but I'm not Jewish either and I surely plan to join JPFO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top