Sorry Kestrel, I had to correct you on a few things..

UAE, Singapore, and Kuwait are not dictatorships. UAE is a representative conglomerate of states similar to an Arab version of the USA on a much smaller scale. Kuwait and Singapore's governments are based on the westminster system which is a democratic form of government that is modeled after the UK.

 

Fair enough. But I think you would agree that rights in those countries are nowhere near as widespread as in the United States, which is what I'm basing my point on: countries that restrict rights tend to have better security, but at the cost of individual rights.

 

Kestrel is correct that there are a huge number of individual rights that pertain to all people. However, these were decided by the majority at the time and were not written and decided upon by one person. As an individual I have freedom of speech, however I am limited to what I can say. I do not have the freedom to yell fire in a crowded movie theater and risk people getting injured in the esuing mele to get out.

As for the 51% deciding to give up their firearms I may disagree with it and would fight it to the end but if that was the new law then I would abide by it. I know there are many that would not but I would as that is what the masses want.

 

I guess I don't really understand what your issue with the ACLU is. Yes, choices our society makes are often based on the rule of the majority; however, that is not what the ACLU deals with. The ACLU deals with rights that each individual is allotted as stated in the Bill of Rights, which are there regardless of what the majority chooses, and the ACLU only comes into play when laws as chosen by the majority infringe on these rights. I don't think this is such a bad thing.

 

if only it were that simple, the ACLU has been overstepping it's charter for years.

 

My point is that just because we have the rights as individuals does not mean we have the right to them all the time. As in my "fire" example I have the right to free speach but cannot use it to the detriment of other people. Same thing if I go on a subway. I have the right not to be searched as an individual but when getting on public transportation there are times I need to be for the good of the public.

I feel there are times that the individual rights get superceded by the collective rights of the masses, the ACLU obviously seems that the individual supercedes the masses. That is my issue with the ACLU.

 

I only hope that you are just saying that and don't truly believe it. This country was based on certain liberties and "inalienable rights" and if you would give up your liberty because a bunch of assholes told you to, then you missed the point of this country.

 

Well I guess it all depends on the situation at the time, and maybe I did not think my whole response through properly. I guess part of the fact is that I honestly do not see that happening. Chances are there would be a pretty big uprising, certain states would want to seceed from the Union (hopefully NH would be one) and things would change.

 

I'd like to address Benjamin's post where he talked about the woman who used cocaine and ended up putting her baby's life on the line as a result. Tell me why Scott Peterson should be charged with the murder of his wife and his baby. Sure, charge him with the murder of his wife but why charge him with the murder of the fetus? The baby was unborn and according to you liberals, a baby has a dependent nervous system and is technically "Not a living being" -- after all that is why abortion is legal -- because you're just shoving a cold rod through an "object's" brain, right? Ever heard of third trimester abortions? They actually do a C-section on a pregnant woman, take the baby out, snip the cord, and then they shove a sharp metal rod through the baby's head. Sounds like something out of a horror sci-fi movie, huh? It's called abortion, folks! And it's legal in the great U.S.A.! It's a contradiction in the laws to me. You charge a criminal who kills a pregnant woman and the fetus dies as a result. You charge him with double homicide. Now a woman walks into a "Kill your baby here" clinic and she tells the doctor she wants the daily special (an abortion) and she walks out scotch free (except if she has a conscience, she'll have the baby's death on her mind for the rest of her life) and that's all good.

The ACLU is defending this woman's right to choose. They are defending her right to choose to do cocaine while pregnant. They are defending her right to choose to harm her baby. She has a legal responsibility to protect the living thing inside her. Yet the ACLU is fighting for a legal system that allows women to kill or harm their babies? Wow. How does any member of the ACLU live with theirselves knowing they believe that a mother has the right to kill her own baby if she chooses; just because she doesn't want a baby? But they jump on another track going a different way and scream "it's murdahh" when a violent criminal is put down? I'm sorry if I don't understand this. Maybe I need to lower my sense of morality down to a sociopath's to see why this is okay. You put a baby next to a big violent criminal who killed 12 people in the early 90's and is telling people that he'll kill again if he gets the chance and who would I pick to get that cold rod shoved down their brainstem? Well we all know the ACLU would be yelling out "the baby! the baby!" right now. The ACLU. Killing babies and protecting serial killers since 1920!

 

You make a lot of assumptions. Too many.

Lets get something straight here -- murder is wrong. Killing a human is wrong. There isn't a sane, reasonable person in the world who doesn't agree with that. Anyone who thinks murder is okay is dead wrong. (This point may spark a debate on capital punishment; if so, I welcome the debate.)

I do not think the scenario you describe above is morally permissible or any other kind of permissible. Its wrong. And yeah, I'm a little bit angry with you for suggesting that I'm comfortable with the idea that its okay to kill baby humans.

So how do I justify my pro-choice attitudes? There is specific, measurable brain activity that indicates that a fetus has transitioned into a human that thinks and feels. When this threshold is crossed, I think abortion is not morally permissible. Before this threshold, I think abortion is morally permissible.

And, for what its worth, this is the reason that I think it was okay that Michael Schiavo disconnected the feeding tube to his wife's body.

The idea that a two-week old cluster of cells and hormones is a human life is, in my opinion, incorrect. It is a belief drawn directly from religious convictions, and I don't accept that United States law should be written on the basis of that belief.

You need to stop making wild assumptions that anyone who identifies as a liberal is exactly the same, and you definitely need to stop slinging crap at me. If you want to know what I think, ask, but the implication that I'm comfortable with the idea of shoving a metal spike through a baby's brian is fucking incredibly offensive. You need to back off.