Can anyone justify NOT having the Wall?

This happened in Houston just south of the Woodlands

Illegal migrant charged with murdering Jocelyn Nungaray, 12, was released into the US just weeks ago: Texas girl was found raped and strangled in creek | Daily Mail Online

86344121-13553321-image-a-2_1718929486240.jpg
 
Last edited:
bystander said:
Yep.

Here's the basic trouble though with Trump. He lies. And it's maddening because he doesn't have to in order to make his points and sell his policies.

About Trump’s boast that he swept the Texas border vote: He didn’t come close
Click to expand...

I don't know if he's lying or just doesn't know. He knows most Texans and most hispanics support him.

Biden is definitely a serial liar in comparison.

Example #1
Biden regrets lying to you about the ‘Inflation Reduction Act’ - Washington Examiner
 
Last edited:
If these savages raped the daughter of anyone who released an illegal into our country maybe the Biden/Demx policy would change
 
Mr. Deez said:
I actually think Trump is handling abortion better than most Republicans do. He says he's going to leave it to states and keep the feds out. That's sensible.
Click to expand...

I agree with the Constitutional interpretation on this. I just wish some states were a little more lenient on the time frame for having an abortion. I think it's one of those things, like prohibition, that only causes other problems in the sense that people will do it anyway and my feeling about abortions (the immorality of killing a viable baby; gulp) does not over-ride my fear of ceding complete control of our government to the Liberals. But what I think about the viability of a baby is that the life begins around 20 weeks or so; or the date of the earliest premature birth that survived as a healthy baby.
 
lkainer said:
I don't know if he's lying or just doesn't know. He knows most Texans and most hispanics support him.

Biden is definitely a serial liar in comparison.

Example #1
Biden regrets lying to you about the ‘Inflation Reduction Act’ - Washington Examiner
Click to expand...

Well, I would think he would know because South Texas is a huge immigration touch point and knowing their interest in the subject, you would think he and his team are acutely aware of the local political climate.
 
bystander said:
I agree with the Constitutional interpretation on this. I just wish some states were a little more lenient on the time frame for having an abortion. I think it's one of those things, like prohibition, that only causes other problems in the sense that people will do it anyway and my feeling about abortions (the immorality of killing a viable baby; gulp) does not over-ride my fear of ceding complete control of our government to the Liberals. But what I think about the viability of a baby is that the life begins around 20 weeks or so; or the date of the earliest premature birth that survived as a healthy baby.
Click to expand...

Not to derail this too far from the border topic, I find slavery to be a much better comparison to abortion. Someone is forcing his or her will on another. Prohibition is affecting one's self. Of course, letting the states handle slavery didn't end well...
 
guy4321 said:
Not to derail this too far from the border topic, I find slavery to be a much better comparison to abortion. Someone is forcing his or her will on another. Prohibition is affecting one's self. Of course, letting the states handle slavery didn't end well...
Click to expand...

I get all the arguments about banning abortions AFTER 20 weeks or so (then there's the rape arguments). Prior to that, it's murky enough for me to warn that we would win a battle, and then lose a war that would be the end of our way of thinking. The abortion laws would revert back to Hillary's opinion that a baby in the 3rd trimester has no rights. We have to be realistic and smart about this. Idealism is a true killer of rational compromise.
 
It's not idealism to recognize that human life begins when the sperm and egg create a new, unique, and never to be repeated set of human DNA.

You suggest life begins at 20 weeks, because that marks viability outside the womb. Is that organism in the mom dead until that 20 week threshold? Obviously not. Is it dead prior to, say, 10 weeks? Again, obviously not, or it would never make it to the 20 week development level. And we can take this argument all the way back down to the successfully fertilized egg.

Viability outside the womb does NOT define life, and therefore cannot be rationally used to determine the value of a human life, particularly when the decision in question is whether or not one human can kill another freely and without legal consequence.
 
Sangre Naranjada said:
It's not idealism to recognize that human life begins when the sperm and egg create a new, unique, and never to be repeated set of human DNA.

You suggest life begins at 20 weeks, because that marks viability outside the womb. Is that organism in the mom dead until that 20 week threshold? Obviously not. Is it dead prior to, say, 10 weeks? Again, obviously not, or it would never make it to the 20 week development level. And we can take this argument all the way back down to the successfully fertilized egg.

Viability outside the womb does NOT define life, and therefore cannot be rationally used to determine the value of a human life, particularly when the decision in question is whether or not one human can kill another freely and without legal consequence.
Click to expand...

That's fine, then if we made our laws based upon your beliefs, then the Gavin Newsome's and transgender advocates will become your master. If that's what you want, then so be it. I'm picking a viable solution and will vote that way.
 
Last edited:
bystander said:
That's fine, then if we made our laws based upon your beliefs,
Click to expand...
You use the term "beliefs", as if my case is not based in biological fact. I think we need to start with the hard facts, and build our morality from there. We then codify that morality into just laws, rather than arbitrary ones.
 
Sangre Naranjada said:
You use the term "beliefs", as if my case is not based in biological fact. I think we need to start with the hard facts, and build our morality from there. We then codify that morality into just laws, rather than arbitrary ones.
Click to expand...

I'm not a biologist. I think that qualifies me for the Supreme Court.

We have to decide if an unviable fetus is a life separate and apart from the mother. If it is, then it's life in some sense, but it's not self-sustaining at all. Now we can say a person on life support is not self-sustaining so we should pull the plug. And we do. That's one way to look at it. We can also say that animals are life and we shouldn't kill them to eat and especially not to mount them on the wall. But we do. We can say that God defines life as being created at conception. But we're a secular society and the Bible has not bearing on our laws. I believe that. So, if I don't want to violate God's laws (where does it say the Jews did not abort babies in the Bible? I suppose the phrase, Thou Shalt Not Kill covers all of that, but then, why do we support wars in other countries? Are we really Christ-like in that regard?) then I have to manage myself.

In the end, I'm merely speaking to the turmoil that equating a fetus (the instant it is formed) with an upright human being is going to be the end of this country as we know it, IF our laws are crafted towards that position.

I initially used the word, opinion, then changed it to your beliefs. I knew that would prompt a response. I wasn't trying to denigrate your (fill in the blank) on this.
 
bystander said:
Well, I would think he would know because South Texas is a huge immigration touch point and knowing their interest in the subject, you would think he and his team are acutely aware of the local political climate.
Click to expand...

Is there a current poll? I'd be interested to see the poll after these border towns have dealt with Biden's border policies for 3 years. Apparently Trump has a majority of the hispanic vote now.
 
bystander said:
We have to decide if an unviable fetus is a life separate and apart from the mother. If it is, then it's life in some sense, but it's not self-sustaining at all.
Click to expand...
First, the living fetus is not unviable from the first cell to natural birth. It simply requires a specific environment in which to thrive and be self-sustaining. This need for a specific environment is far from unique, as pretty much every species on Earth requires certain sets of environmental parameters to survive. For example, fish need water, not dry land. Some fish need salty water, others need fresh water, and others can use both, but none of them are viable absent their aqueous environment.

The need for this initial specific environment is quite temporary (a few months compared to decades of life outside the womb).

The moral contradictions and quandaries you list are always worth considering, particularly with respect to human life (those jailed while sentenced to the death penalty, and wartime ethics etc.), and yet the one aspect that separates those issues from the abortion issue is the question of innocence. That baby is utterly innocent (even babies conceived from incidents of rape or incest are innocent), and dependent upon its mother to provide the environment it needs to grow and thrive. In any moral and just society, that mother would never consider killing the baby for her own convenience, out of a sense of fear, or out of any other selfish motivation. (Note, this position leaves room for medical considerations, when the mother's own life is truly endangered by carrying the child.)

In a just society, adoptions would be far easier and less expensive to procure (a quick web search shows costs ranging from $5000, to $40K), and the birth mother would have a far more robust and easily accessed set of life-based services instead of extremely easy access to government subsidized murder shops and death-by-mail abortion pills.

But as you say, let's not look under those rocks because we might lose an election if people get uncomfortable facing the ugliness of the current culture in the country.
 
"...the question of innocence..."

In war many innocents die. We're seeing that in Gaza and the Ukraine invasion. The decision to go to war is to decide you are going to kill innocent people. And these people are self-sustaining. I don't consider oxygen and our atmosphere to be the same as the womb.

"... In any moral and just society..."

It doesn't exist in the sense that all is perfect. People are sinners. We know that. We can't arrest everyone for this, especially in a world where every President of the United States (under the Nuremberg Trials form of justice per Noam Chomsky) have committed war crimes (like Netanyahu?) and gotten away with it; even glorified for it.

"In a just society, adoptions would be far easier and less expensive to procure (a quick web search shows costs ranging from $5000, to $40K), and the birth mother would have a far more robust and easily accessed set of life-based services instead of extremely easy access to government subsidized murder shops and death-by-mail abortion pills."

But that's the cost of life today. And people don't just adopt any old kid. They want certain kinds of kids. All of that is a dream. It's not ever going to be that way.

I'm willing to look under any rock, but I don't see your rocks uncovering any solutions. And you better believe, it will be much worse under a totalitarian state run by Liberals. And your feelings on the matter of abortion will turn into complete outrage. So you seem to be willing to give it all up in order to say that you can sleep at night. I understand your morals, but I don't agree with them before 20 weeks (Just picking a number. It could be 19; it could be 23. I don't know the precise answer there).
 
bystander said:
I'm willing to look under any rock, but I don't see your rocks uncovering any solutions. And you better believe, it will be much worse under a totalitarian state run by Liberals. And your feelings on the matter of abortion will turn into complete outrage. So you seem to be willing to give it all up in order to say that you can sleep at night. I understand your morals, but I don't agree with them before 20 weeks (Just picking a number. It could be 19; it could be 23. I don't know the precise answer there).
Click to expand...

I think where we are failing to understand each other lies here.

I'll vote my conscience. I'll work to change people's hearts. I won't go scream at people of good faith, like yourself, who hold differing opinions. I won't go scream at people who, in bad faith, send abortion pills by mail to people who don't understand all the ramifications of taking them. In other words, I won't work in a way that benefits the other side, such that my efforts might lead to a totalitarian state run by liberals.

But when, in an open forum, the question arises of when life begins, yeah, I'll speak my mind on the matter. And today, I've probably said all I need to say. Peace.
 
Sangre Naranjada said:
I think where we are failing to understand each other lies here.

I'll vote my conscience. I'll work to change people's hearts. I won't go scream at people of good faith, like yourself, who hold differing opinions. I won't go scream at people who, in bad faith, send abortion pills by mail to people who don't understand all the ramifications of taking them. In other words, I won't work in a way that benefits the other side, such that my efforts might lead to a totalitarian state run by liberals.

But when, in an open forum, the question arises of when life begins, yeah, I'll speak my mind on the matter. And today, I've probably said all I need to say. Peace.
Click to expand...

It's been a good discussion; the way it ought to be. I respect your feelings on the matter and it's obvious you've done your homework. I wish the world was a better place. I wish women didn't get knocked up because they were drunk. I wish women didn't get raped. I wish people did hold sex sacred because of all the problems that can occur, beyond the diving catch of an abortion. And I will say this, I can't stand it when a Liberal acts like they are taking the moral high ground over this. They protect women from any consequence and equate a fetus to the moral equivalent of a tonsil or an appendix. That's just wrong to me. And they are wrong to ask us to pay for it.

Good talk. Peace be unto you.
 
Enjoyed reading the discussion. You both covered your position with clear thought (as clear as this subject can be covered I believe) and I appreciate that. Didn’t get the Newsome/transgender comment but appreciate the contrasting arguments.
 
bystander said:
I agree with the Constitutional interpretation on this. I just wish some states were a little more lenient on the time frame for having an abortion. I think it's one of those things, like prohibition, that only causes other problems in the sense that people will do it anyway and my feeling about abortions (the immorality of killing a viable baby; gulp) does not over-ride my fear of ceding complete control of our government to the Liberals. But what I think about the viability of a baby is that the life begins around 20 weeks or so; or the date of the earliest premature birth that survived as a healthy baby.
Click to expand...

Well, that's what makes the federalist system good. There are differing views about when life begins and even whether it matters or not. People are free to make their views known and debate them as you have, and those debates should be happening all over the country. In fact, that's how 99 percent of political and cultural issues should be decided.
 
nashhorn said:
Enjoyed reading the discussion. You both covered your position with clear thought (as clear as this subject can be covered I believe) and I appreciate that. Didn’t get the Newsome/transgender comment but appreciate the contrasting arguments.
Click to expand...

I like those kind of discussions too. My comments about Newsome and transgender politics is based upon my belief that the aggressive abortion laws in Texas could swing the state (and others) to the Democrats. It's game over after that and I used Newsome as an example of how the country would be run.
 
I see. Interesting point. I guess it’s kind of like my absolute astonishment as to how people can be in favor of child mutilation and dike reading classes for youngsters. Abortion views are similar. But I listen to others and can be flabbergasted and still respectful at the same time.
 
nashhorn said:
I see. Interesting point. I guess it’s kind of like my absolute astonishment as to how people can be in favor of child mutilation and dike reading classes for youngsters. Abortion views are similar. But I listen to others and can be flabbergasted and still respectful at the same time.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not in favor of all that stuff either.
 
nashhorn said:
And that’s why abortion and its discussions/arguments are unique, there are no legitimate analogies.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is unique, but I wasn't making an analogy; I was pointing out that in addition to abortion on demand, we would also have those other issues to contend with.
 
I think it is possible for red states to limit abortion down to just about nothing without ceding everything to the communists. I don't think the decision is between either killing babies openly or having a totalitarian federal government. We in fact had both before the Dobb's decision.

Increasing the difference between state legal system will help in the long run as it will incentivize mass sorting. Red states can become redder and blue states can become bluer. Then red states and blue states can cut some of the legal ties so that we can live in peace with one another.
 
Monahorns said:
I think it is possible for red states to limit abortion down to just about nothing without ceding everything to the communists. I don't think the decision is between either killing babies openly or having a totalitarian federal government. We in fact had both before the Dobb's decision.

Increasing the difference between state legal system will help in the long run as it will incentivize mass sorting. Red states can become redder and blue states can become bluer. Then red states and blue states can cut some of the legal ties so that we can live in peace with one another.
Click to expand...

I agree that migration, in theory, can solve any problems we may have with state law. Ironically, the Left seems to glorify migration from south of the Rio Grande. I agreed with the SCOTUS decision to push it back to the states, but I've had some real problems in my personal life with literal believing Christian zealots that had a voice in crafting the law. I just don't think Texas should push it. The electoral college race for Conservatives is vital and Texas is a make or break state. I see no reason to be too aggressive. I feel that the Democrats won't accept mass sorting as a compromise. They will attempt to exploit what they will sell as totalitarianism from the right; specifically, women's rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top