Why do Conservatives love people who break the law?

[Ben Kenobi]

Everyone has their own interpretation of what "fundamental freedoms" implies.

So you deny that freedom of speech is a 'fundamental freedom?'

Different people have contradictory interpretations and it's impossible to satisfy everyone.

Then some people don't understand fundamental freedoms. Saying that because some people think that 1+1 =3 means we cannot know what fundamental freedoms are is a bogus concept.

For example if abortion were outlawed pro-choice people using the same reasoning could decide it's okay to break the law.

They could, but they would be wrong in asserting that the constitution recognises abortion as a fundamental right. It does no such thing. it does recognise that there is a right to life, and the right to life should protect the unborn child, just as it protects the mother.

This is why abortion is contrary to fundamental freedoms, as it denies the right to life of the unborn child.

Your line of reasoning does disrespect the law

My reasoning is exactly the same as Dr. King. Dr. King argued that "all men were created equal', and that laws which denied this fundamental truth were no laws at all.

[giblets]

So you deny that freedom of speech is a 'fundamental freedom?'

Strawman... I think Canadians have free speech

Then some people don't understand fundamental freedoms. Saying that because some people think that 1+1 =3 means we cannot know what fundamental freedoms are is a bogus concept.

Your opinions aren't facts

They could, but they would be wrong in asserting that the constitution recognises abortion as a fundamental right. It does no such thing. it does recognise that there is a right to life, and the right to life should protect the unborn child, just as it protects the mother.

your opinions aren't facts, and roe v. wade seems to imply that not everyone regards outlawing abortions to be constitutional edit: if you're talking about Canada, then I have no idea if you're telling the truth or not

This is why abortion is contrary to fundamental freedoms, as it denies the right to life of the unborn child.

Another opinion... whether fetuses have rights depends on when life begins

[ShaneWalter]

No, not unreasonable, incredible. You've never heard of corporate crime?

Of course I have. I've rarely, if ever, really heard people saying corporate crime is okay, though.

[bc1871]

Strawman... I think Canadians have free speech

Canadians do not have free speech, on the simple basis that many Provinces operate “Human Rights Commissions”, which flies in the face of free speech.

[Ben Kenobi]

roe v. wade seems to imply that not everyone regards outlawing abortions to be constitutional edit: if you're talking about Canada, then I have no idea if you're telling the truth or not

Canada doesn't have any sort of abortion law, period.

Roe argues that the right to have an abortion stems from a right to privacy. I don't think that Roe is very good law, certainly not strong enough to abrogate the right to life of the unborn.

[bc1871]

Now historically in Canada, having an abortion was a capital offense, punishable by hanging (the only approved method of punishment in Canada).

[Zevico]

Yeah, in other words, there should be no laws that apply to corporations?

If you really wanted to hammer at "the conservatives" for loving people who break the law, you would give some examples of how and why they did so rather than simply proclaiming it to be true.

[Imran Siddiqui]

it does recognise that there is a right to life

I assume you aren't talking about the US Constitution, because there is no place where it recognizes a right to life. Any right to life would have to be covered by substantive due process, stemming from the 14th Amendment (where Roe v. Wade came from, btw).

If you really wanted to hammer at "the conservatives" for loving people who break the law, you would give some examples of how and why they did so rather than simply proclaiming it to be true.

Since Albert can't do it, I'll hold up G. Gordon Liddy, who undoubtedly broke the law, went to jail, and then got a popular talk radio show for it.

[Al B. Sure!]

oh I know!

Oliver North! Excuse me, Lt. Col. Oliver North. Not as clear cut as Gordon Liddy but still shady. Not sure if it was what Kidicious was going for with this one which seemed to be more about corporate crime.

And why'd you bring me up, Imran?

[Ben Kenobi]

I assume you aren't talking about the US Constitution, because there is no place where it recognizes a right to life. Any right to life would have to be covered by substantive due process, stemming from the 14th Amendment (where Roe v. Wade came from, btw).

You can't exercise liberty, or any other rights unless you first have a right to life.

As for Roe, it comes from penumbras and emanations associated with Griswald and a purported 'right to privacy'. Complete legal fiction.

[giblets]

Well, personally I think the seven supreme court justices who were the majority opinion in roe v. wade have more credibility on US constitutional issues than a data entry clerk from Prince George, BC who proclaims their decision to be "complete legal fiction". Especially after the boy scout thread. So, to the best of my knowledge making abortion illegal is unconstitutional.

[Proteus_MST]

You can't exercise liberty, or any other rights unless you first have a right to life.

As for Roe, it comes from penumbras and emanations associated with Griswald and a purported 'right to privacy'. Complete legal fiction.

Considerin ghte fact that the USA is one of the countries whichhas death penalty, it doesn´t seem to care too much about a right to life.

(something which IMHO is a strange thing about many conservatives...while defending the right to life of the unborn children [in a state where it is just a lump of cells, without neural system, thoughts andemoptions] they are often also strong defenders of the death penalty... something which denies the right to life to full grown feeling and thinking human beings)

[Felch]

I assume you aren't talking about the US Constitution, because there is no place where it recognizes a right to life. Any right to life would have to be covered by substantive due process, stemming from the 14th Amendment (where Roe v. Wade came from, btw).

Ben was obviously wrong, but it's equally silly to regard the Constitution an as exhaustive list of rights. That was never the intention. The Constitution was an exhaustive list of the national governments powers, one that has been gaped to the point where it is almost meaningless.

[Felch]

(something which IMHO is a strange thing about many conservatives...while defending the right to life of the unborn children [in a state where it is just a lump of cells, without neural system, thoughts andemoptions] they are often also strong defenders of the death penalty... something which denies the right to life to full grown feeling and thinking human beings)

It makes sense if you remember that one of them is completely innocent and the other has been found guilty in a court of law.

Personally I'm anti-death penalty because I think it's unsporting. You can't kill someone who has surrendered and been disarmed. It's a shameful act. Abortion isn't a fair fight either. Unless that fetus has gotten a hold of a pistol, you need to keep your wire coat hanger away from it.

[Elok]

What if the criminals are let loose in groups of twenty in an enclosed but spacious semi-wooded park, armed with spears, while officers ride around on horseback in groups of five or six with guns and dogs hunting them? Is that adequately sporting? It can't be totally fair or you'd never get any officers to volunteer.