That is not even close to the same subject.

If the man is causing her bodily harm then she has every right to get him out of her life as soon as possible. That includes emotional or physical harm.

What if "he" just continually threatens or writes blogs about how to do it? Does that change the dynamic MTP?

Or the Nut for that matter.

Counts as emotional harm, she has a right to separate herself from him as soon as possible. There is no "just threatens or writes blogs" though, most likely it is going to escalate to real violence. I never told spud she has the right to outright kill him just because she scared. She can have him arrested if he has really done her harm, get a court order against him, move, ect.
Like I've said, this is not the same issue as abortion. Having a child has consequences physically and emotionally no matter what, every time. The soonest way for a woman to separate herself from an unwanted pregnancy is abortion.
Its the woman's choice to make individually because every case is going to be different with different outcomes for both the fetus and mother. I cannot judge how one woman's pregnancy is going to affect her, either negatively or positively. I cannot force my ideals on her knowing how emotionally and physically traumatic a pregnancy (wanted or unwanted) can be. The unborn fetus is not traumatized if it is aborted, it was not conscience of having life. The mother is the one who is fully aware through the process and can be severely traumatized depending on the circumstances of the pregnancy.

I was not talking about a pregnancy I as trying to relate your example to the discussion at hand of killing an American citizen because he is apparently a terrorist.

Sorry if I read too much into your post.

Back to killing terrorists...

At the end of the day, high treason is still punishable by death, even in the United States. Doesn't count for much to me if such death comes in the process of prosecuting a war. Would there have been any handwringing if a B-29 raid had killed Tokyo Rose -- any of the several?

Now if the good cleric were to find himself forcibly ductaped to Jeremiah Wright... he may beg for a quick coup de grâce. Especially if either takes to chewing on the other.

And that too has consequences, including upon the father. I know.

It's not a lightly-done thing.

The point wasn't about choice, it is about not being able to kill a known terrorist who has committed treason without judicial review, but being able to kill a baby any time it's inconvenient. Don't bring the back alley abortionist spin into this, or I'll bring in the argument about back alley car dealers causing thousands of deaths, or barbers or musicians.
The constitution provides protection against meaningless killing. Protect the terrorist, but not the innocent baby. Protect eagle eggs, but not human embryos. The Bill of Rights, and the Constitution as a whole prohibits murder. It doesn't prohibit execution of traitors!

I find myself appalled. I'm with Flint on this one. There's no reason to put names on a death list without due process. They say he's a dick traitor. But how in the hell would we KNOW...

I very much doubt it is legal in the US to kill any baby any time.
Aborting a foetus is not killing a baby, it is removing a collection of cells incapable of life.

Sorry Sundae, but a good friend of mine is one of those " collection of cells incapable of life." I'll wager she's glad you weren't in charge of things back then. She's 60 years old now. I wonder how many people who would have been born after liberalization of abortion laws are not here now, solving the problems they were destined to solve?
But we digress. Liberals have been trying to marginalize our constitution here for years, taking away rights they don't like and adding rights that aren't there. The topic is Obama killing an American citizen. My point is, liberals have been commiting mass murder of Americans for decades, while wringing their hands about the rights of their fellow mass murderers.

Maybe they were put here to solve overpopulation and unwanted children.

I don't think you should believe in both anti-abortion and predestination though. That person lived the life they were destined to live, right? Brevity is not part of the question, especially if you believe in an eternal soul. The soul in that mass of cells is certainly in heaven now. Good job well done, don'tcha think?

No she isn't.

Not exactly. Liberals have been allowing individuals the choice to keep or abort an embryo. I think you are mistaken if you think conservatives don't get abortions.

I don't think all conservatives are conservative due to religious beliefs either. In fact, most of the conservatives I know are what they are for financial gain rather than religious beliefs.

Do not speak about events you know nothing about. Stick to your theories.

The only overpopulation problem we have in the US is from illegal aliens. We actually have an underpopulation problem.

I'm not positive, but i'm pretty sure HM meant that clearly your friend is not a collection of useless cells simply by the virtue of having a worthwhile life (or at least it seems that that was what you were alluding to spud).

There is a lot of truth in that statement.

From the stated data that she is 60, and your friend, I concluded she isn't a blastocyst. I don't think my "theory" is on shaky ground.

In the larger context of conservatism, that may be the case.

In the US, the conservative movement is dominated by those whose guiding principles are the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, the sanctity of guns and the sanctity of Jesus Christ.

Any deviation from any of the above puts you at odds with the hard core American conservatives.

Well that leaves me out.

Yep.

And, IMO, i think it is why the social conservatives who currently dominate the Republican party and the Tea Party advocates (fiscal conservatives/libertarians) will find it very difficult to co-exist under one banner....there is a fundamental clash of priorities.

You forgot the sanctity of the constitution and the rule of law.

You're right. Co-existance under one banner with conservatives and libertarians would be impossible. Different philosophies.

The rule of law says first trimester abortion is legal and Jesus Christ doesnt belong in the classroom and gays and lesbians have some level of civil rights.

What, no conservative Jews, muslims, Atheists?

Of course there are.

What I said was that conservatism in the US is dominated by those whose guiding principles are the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage (and heterosexuality), and the sanctity of Jesus Christ.....ie, evangelicals and Christian conservatives.

Religion is not on the same level over here as it is in the US, which is why the whole god argument isn't very effective (and rarely used) in anything to do with politics here.

That being said though, our current opposition leader is quite a long way to the right and is quite religious. Who knows what will happen next year if his party wins.

Here is an example.

The Texas Republican Party just adopted its platform for the 2010 elections....including re-criminalizing sodomy (despite a Supreme Court decision declaring the previous Texas sodomy law - up to 5 - 15 years in jail - unconstitutional), denying any legal rights to gay partners, and restoring organized prayer in school.

Remind me not to get too kinky in Texas next time I'm there!

Or vote for Kinky Friedman.

He is "not pro-life, and I'm not pro-choice. I'm pro-football" and "supports gay marriage. I believe they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us."

He seems to be a bit all over the shop according to the bit of info about him on Wiki.

Well, they just don't make Jews like Jesus anymore. ;)

Kinky fucking rocks man!

Love the Friedman :)


[eta] might have to dig out the books and read 'em again!

Your definition. Not the view of the three groups independently, Tea Party supporters, conservatives, libertarians...

I agree with DanaC, Friedman is great. He has a few kooky ideas but I like his style, and given many of the choices in the recent elections I might just vote for him over the other choices if I lived in Texas. :D

Obama Administration Expanding "Secret War"
Link
I'm certain this makes some of you uncomfortable, but this is probably the only way to fight this war.

I am quite comfortable with it. And in fact Obama should be applauded for it.

Yup. War strategies have always evolved over the years and history almost always suggests that the side that has learned and grown from the past will be victorious. The current guerrilla style fighting is a response to the United States overwhelming firepower and [insert group]'s lack of it. If [insert group] fought like we did, they would be wiped out quicker than the Iraqi army. So, in response, to fight these new groups, the US will need to change strategies.

Right now the people the US are fighting are hiding from them. So they need to figure out a way to find them.

Careful that was almost a compliment. :right:
Absolutely. Finding and eliminating them 1 by 1 or 2 by 2 is an extremely slow and arduous process. Americans do not have the patience for that. Nor do I think it will ultimately be effective.

ANY American citizens we want? 'Cause, like, I have this list, see.

Every war has turncoats and they frequently end up dead.

... as they should.