Gosnell made millions performing illegal late-term and after-birth abortions. The bigger the baby, the bigger the payday was his creed.At least the right I'm trying to defend is explicitly stated/enshrined in the Constitution.
The abortion rights movement has long insisted that unborn babies are nothing but clumps of tissue. But the only clumps of tissue evident at Gosnell’s trial, which started on March 18, have been those used to soak up the tears shed by former employees and patients who recounted what took place in Gosnell’s “house of horrors.”
Former medical assistant Adrienne Moton cried as she told how she killed at least 10 late-term babies after they were delivered. She was struck, she said, at how life-like one of the babies looked as it lay dead before her...
Like most cities, Philadelphia has no shortage of abortion facilities. It is proof of the power of the abortion lobby, which regards any effort at oversight or regulation as an infringement of a woman’s constitutional right, that Gosnell was able to dispense death so haphazardly for so long.
Still want to end rights for everyone because of the misdeeds of a few? If not, how do you justify this difference in situations?
17 comments:
No one is taking away rights. Regulating arms, which is direct phrasing from the Constitution, is not taking away rights. There is no right to:
anonymity in ownership
a set number of bullets
an absence of regulation
If there is a movement to take away the "right to bear arms," it hasn't been reported.
Any reason why we can't both support the second amendment and Row v. Wade? One's in the Consitution, and one has become a Constitutional interpretation. I don't see that your support of one, and distaste for the other, is any more reasonable than the other side is.
Mark, I inadvertently deleted your comment. Could you post your thoughts again, please?
mmazenko, as is your wont, you're misinterpreting the Constitution--I believe intentionally.
No, it's pretty clear that regulation is not "taking away" a right. All rulings from Cruikshank in 1875 to Heller in 2010 have established that the right is "not unlimited." Even you would oppose flame throwers, tanks, and missiles in civilian hands. Thus, if anyone is misinterpreting, it's you, D.
I don't oppose their possession a priori, you again, you are mistaken.
Face it Mike, your side is losing the gun debate.
There hasn't been a single, important success for you guys in twenty years but there's been a pretty steady series of losses. Even the current debate wouldn't have occurred but for the callous utilization of dead children but then the left's typically advanced their agenda nimbly skipping from one crisis to the next most of which were inflated beyond their importance to national policy.
But times have changed and your portrayal of gun owners as drooling troglodytes is failing. Many people who don't own guns want to know that if they change their mind the policies you adore won't preclude them from acting on their decision. So, nothing of importance will come out of your attempt to gain political advantage from the Sandy Hook tragedy.
As much as I support the right to bear arms ... you shouldn't be trying to make mileage out of Sandy hook. On either side. People should be able to own weapons, unless they fall in to certain dangerous categories. Those who do, should be responsible for what happens if they let insane people get them. So ... background checks, and reasonable safety measures. You want a flame thrower? No problem. You want to use it to kill innocent people, or allow it to fall in to possession of your insane son who uses it to kill people? I have a problem with that. And if you have a counter argument to allowing insane people to kill others with dangerous weapons ... I'm all ears.
And, D., there is no movement or proposed legislation in the country that "opposes possession a priori" or, in your words, "take away my rights." Thus, you are misinterpreting not only all proposed legislation and discussion of guns but also the idea that the Constitution prohibits such regulation.
I have no such argument about keeping crazy people away from ways of killing others.
And no movement that opposes firearms possession? Really? You believe that??? It's just a figment of my imagination? No one has ever tried to outlaw firearms in this country, and no one's talking about doing so now?
Thank God for the Constitution.
"In the interview, Mr. Cuomo did not offer specifics about the measures he might propose, but, while discussing assault weapons, he said: “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.” "
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/nyregion/cuomo-says-he-will-outline-gun-measures-next-month.html?_r=0
How about this one:
"The unfortunate truth is, in the absence of universal gun registration, a universal background check is all but meaningless," writes Dean Weingarten on the Daily Kos on Feb. 25. "This can't be overemphasized, so let’s repeat it: In order for a universal background check to have any meaning, it requires gun registration and this is a problem. It is a problem because, as the gun community correctly argues, registration leads to confiscation."
Why don't they just use the interstate commerce clause to start picking up guns now? The SCOTUS uses it to justify everything else ... I swear I could write their opinions.... blah, blah blah, Roe Vs. Wade, blah blah blah interstate commerce, blah blah blah Clarence, this is Antonin ... here's how you need to vote.
"if liberals interpreted the 2nd amendment the same way they interpret the 1st..gun ownership would be mandatory" micheal kinsley...i would add that if they interpreted the 1st the same way they interpret the 2nd, possesing a library card would be a felony. gun control has little or nothing to do with guns..or crime..or violence. the 2nd amendment is seen as 'right wing' and therefor 'evil'..while the 1st amendment is seen as 'progressive' and therefor 'sacred'(unless it's 'rightwing' speech,and therefor 'hate-speech' and thus can be supressed). those who control the language control the debate..and thus the 'narrative' and thus the people. also notice..none of the critics of this post have mentioned the abortion aspect. own a gun..you're a monster(or giving aide and comfort to them) but rip a late term 'fetus' out of a womb..way cool. BK
And if you have a counter argument to allowing insane people to kill others with dangerous weapons ... I'm all ears.
Uh, who gets to decide who qualifies as insane? Who gets to decide what qualifies as insane?
The DSM, the bible for that sort of thing, is the result of votes taken to determine what qualifies as a mental disorder. What's entered and what's removed is influenced by politics so I'd be loath to put much faith in either the profession or its guiding document.
But that's not my main concern with regard to background checks and such.
My main concern is that such measures are a significant step towards turning a right into a privilege. What sort of right is it that requires a test of fitness before its exercise is legal? Not much of a right at all as far as I'm concerned.
allen .. the obvious choice, and the one that's currently used is the advice of mental health professionals. And, at least in CA, you have the right to a hearing before a judge if you are declared mentally unstable. I know this, because when I tried to kill myself last year, I was told I couldn't own a gun for three years ... and I'm really happy that I can't.
Post a Comment