Some argue that if U.S. taxation SHOULD NOT be allowed to fund abortion, it SHOULD NOT be allowed to Constitutionally fund the U.S. military since it kills innocent civilians...Is this a valid, rational comparison and/or argument?
J.W. Howler
2012/05/07 00:21:37
|
|
|||||
|
5 votes
|
|
8% | |||
|
1 vote
|
|
2% | |||
|
4 votes
|
|
6% | |||
|
53 votes
|
|
84% | |||
Top Opinion
-
Red_Horse 2012/05/07 00:35:12
Show me where in the Constitution that abortion is to be provided.
And for those who would argue my statement of choosing to take a life, less than 5% of all abortions are for health reasons. Pro abortion sites put that number between 8 and 9%. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, that's still less than 10% of abortions are for the mothers health. Over 90% of abortions are done because the mother decided she didn't want the baby. That is CLEARLY deciding to end a life, by choice!
Even Ayn Rand, who foolishly discounted the reality of unborn human life, would never have countenanced taxpayer funding of abortion--or of *any* activity outside of those three.
the argument comparing abortion to collateral damage is shaky at best. While innocents do indeed die in both cases, abortion is intentional and usually unnecessary while collateral damage is unintentional but inherent to warfare. I suppose that the argument can hold true in the case of our recent unnecessary wars of choice, but certainly not to the military in general or to every war we've ever fought.
case closed.
Abortion is a choice, usually because someone didn't use birth control. Abortion is an easy way out of a mistake.
No, they don't. Coldly put, it would be supported by the Constitution.
"So, why did you answer with a definitive "YES"
What is Constitutional about our Military at this point? That they do vote on it every two years? Or that we are at War?
A standing Army is not Constitutional. If you say that it's because we do vote on it. Well, that would be bending the Constitution to fit you believe. However if you take it literally, then it doesn't allow for that.
So is the Constitution a living breathing document? Or should it be taken literally?
That is the question that we have come to.......
Yet, later on in other replies you make conditions that would effectively revise your first comment.
Whether or not that is still constitutional is arguable, but at least you've actually read the Constitution, good job.
That would go against the entire right wing idea that the constitution is not a living breathing document.......able to change. I get your point however.
To the last part of your comment, I would say securing our liberty from our government. If you look at the history of the middle east etc etc, our government has caused all the blow back we see now. If their were ever a real threat to our homeland, ie though invasion. I don't think it hard not to create a technological standing army. Only problem is.....we've outsourced most of our production capabilities.
So it comes down IMHO that it's too little to late. That our governments actions demand defense. Through their failures the American people will suffer.
As for the rest of what you said, I am in agreement. When it comes down to it, it would be nothing short of a suicide mission for a foreign enemy to invade this country -- we don't rightly need the government to protect us from the land, so long as we have the freedom to own and practice the use of our own firearms.
The problem with Government these days is neither left nor right are following the constitution. Liberal left wants to expound welfare, some of which I agree, just not their means. The right, wants to ratify legislation on marriage, beef up the military in order to "defend" America......or most likely protect their own interest.
Either way, I see it as to late. None of the candidates today stand for anything, at least the ones we are going to be allowed to vote for. It's a sad affair this country is in and I fear it will get much, much worse before it gets any better.
As for your comments on the Constitution, it is a solid document. Our founders were not poets, they were not writing a novel, they were men of science and philosophy. I am confident that what they wrote is exactly what they meant and that there is no hidden meaning. The only wiggleroom in the Constitution beyond the ability to amend it is the rare occasion in which it is just vague enough to leave one guessing whether or not a certain policy is allowed, like in the case of Environmental policy and the way we currently fund our military.
I had to laugh at the person you agree with. Quick quiz, why is July 4, 1776 important? You probably know that since its 2nd grade stuff. Why is June 14, 1775 important? It's the date of the first united states standing army. It's been a standing army ever since, founded by our founding fathers and now 236 years old. The founding fathers knew the importance of a standing military, but in the interest of the people, it requires 2 levels of govt plus the 2nd amendment, plus military articles to protect soldiers from illegal command...
I had to laugh at the person you agree with. Quick quiz, why is July 4, 1776 important? You probably know that since its 2nd grade stuff. Why is June 14, 1775 important? It's the date of the first united states standing army. It's been a standing army ever since, founded by our founding fathers and now 236 years old. The founding fathers knew the importance of a standing military, but in the interest of the people, it requires 2 levels of govt plus the 2nd amendment, plus military articles to protect soldiers from illegal commands, to protect the people from use of the military against the people.
Maybe you two would like to adjust your statement? Strictly in the interest of presenting truth and facts. Military history gives some crucial and very significant facts about our country, even for those who don't like the military.
The same is not true of infantry and light artillery. And if we were allowed to freely own our own weapons, this means we would also be able to own rocket launchers and landmines and such. Anti-tank missile launchers cost less than most houses. I'll take my chances with my own FGM-148 thank you.
“The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.” – Tenche Coxe
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
― Benjamin Franklin
“Whenever people…entrust the defense of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens…” – A Farmer in the Independent Gazetteer, 1791
“Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defence, the militia, is put in the hands of Congress?” - Patrick Henry
We have had a LEGAL standing army since 1775. It's necessary for the overall picture, not just a part of one.