That wasn't the issue, it was laws based on moral beliefs, you don't think moral beliefs should be the foundations for some of our laws? Did you use government to legislate your moral belief against having sex with children? The strawman argument is on your side not mine.
That has to be one of the dumbest misrepresentations of what another poster posted that I have seen for a while. Please tell me that it was deliberate...PLEASE!!!
If you live in Mississippi and you don't like the laws, then work to change them. If you won't or can't do that, then move or don't move there to begin with. That's what's called "the diversity and tolerance of federalism." There are 49 other states to pick from and surely, one or 2 or more of them will have the kinds of laws that suit you.
Well then what was the point he was trying to make? I stated the we have laws based on moral beliefs. He said other countries have those laws and they are not all Christian. So what was his point?
This strawman you presented that our laws aren't based on peoples morals. I know, you got a point? Your contention was that laws are not based on our moral beliefs. I have point out how many of them are.
hey,if states like New York can have stupid laws like ban trans-fats and salt,then Mississippi should be free to ban whatever they choose.I dont agree with alot of laws that states pass,but it is their state sovereignty 10th Amendment right,even if I disagree with it.
Indeed. More Republican voters. Then again, the women of Flag's country abort 6 in 10 of their progeny. 30 years from now, there will be no Russia.
Nothing says freedom and less government interference like using laws to force your sexual proclivities on other people.
You're way out in left field Mak. We're the ones suggesting that if you are going to have sex, use birth control. The left, on the other hand, thinks that it's better to control birth weeks, if not months, after the fact. You know? Live in the now and worry about consequences later? Pure Unadulterated Leftist Dogma
Issues such as gay marriage and banning contraceptives should be voted on by the people of each state. Initiatives and referendums on these matters can prevent exorbitant partisan bias from affecting decisions.
The OP is FAIL. Here is what the OP, gleaned from the wingnuts at the HuffPo suggest: 1st Paragraph: Mississippi voters will be allowed to decide on a ballot measure that defines "personhood" from the moment of fertilization, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled last week. The measure could potentially outlaw abortions, birth control, in vitro fertilization and stem cell research across the state. Here is the text of Initiative Measure 26 as posted on Mississippi's Secretary of State's website: http://www.sos.ms.gov/page.aspx?s=7&s1=1&s2=50 SUBJECT MATTER: Definition of person" BALLOT TITLE: Should the term person be defined to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the equivalent thereof? BALLOT SUMMARY: Initiative #26 would amend the Mississippi Constitution to define the word person or persons, as those terms are used in Article III of the state constitution, to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof. Take a close look at the wording, especially "fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof". So, if passed by their voters, what does it mean to what is written in the HuffPo? Abortions - Outlawed. Interfering with the rights of a fertilized egg which would at this juncture be deemed a person is murder. Birth Control - Egg wouldn't be fertilized if birth control was used, therefore, egg wouldn't be a person. No indication that birth control would eb outlawed. In Vitro Fertilization - Law would not disallow in vitro. But once fertilized by this method, the egg is a viable person. Stem Cell Research - There is no indication that this type of research would be disallowed. I'd go a step further and suggest that "cloning" was written in the language to specifically address the cloning of stem cells. --------- Once again, OP is a FAIL [/thread]
Yesh, that's why this initiatives own web site admits it will make birth control in the pill form illegal. Great logic there. Take away that which prevents pregnancy as a way to stop abortion.
You continue to completely ignore the fact that birth control pills change the uterine lining making the uterus inhospitable to fertilized eggs...oops, I mean people.
Sorry but you have no proof of that - and indeed I have never seen "abstinence" promoted by LEFT wingers
This really a dangerous sign of things to come. The 2 parties economics have been basically the same for a half a century, using their differences of social law to mask that fact. As economics becomes more and more of an issue, and more and more catch on to the same economics of both, both quasi-sides of the political spectrum are going to pass ultra-social legislation as they are very poor at thinking of something new. We could go from "every man has to have earrings" to "every man's earrings must have a picture of Christ on them", back and forth while the elite pray the social aspect will somehow get people as a whole to go back to being sheep. Don't fall for it. (*)(*)(*)(*) social law. Demand a different choice at the ballot for economics. Globalists are anti-nations. Quit voting in globalists to run our nation and then spend all your time arguing why everything is so screwed up.
No (*)(*)(*)(*) Sherlock. So if a woman is using the pill as her chosen form of birth control, her goal is to not allow an egg to be fertilized, thus achieving her goal of birth control. In other words, she is exercising her right not to create a child. How did your argument get so disconnected from the topic to assume that birth control was the agenda of the initiative? Oh. That's right. You read a Huffington post article and were too lazy to research that the purpose of the proposed initiative was to protect unborn children in the event a woman got pregnant.
