ABORTION AND THE VACUUM TUBE

[@danielmarkleblanc1800]

Thank you. You are radio smart and a original. Keep up the good work.

[@RandomRetr0]

Well said! Hi to kitty in the background

[@johngifford8335]

No where in the constitution does it say that you have the right to murder an innocent baby. If you dont want a child then dont have that sexual act.

[@christinejigau2619]

Hey! I’m a female newly graduated electrical engineer and am so grateful for men like you.

[@squarewave2]

Hi, Christine Congratulations on your granulation. Electrical engineering is a great field! I wish I had more female viewers like you! Thank you for commenting.

[@radman999]

We come here to avoid politics. It's too bad you mix your political views into a technical channel. A little disappointing.

[@drontobil]

I think he is doing right in the serious direction US is heading. "Freedom", "Equal value" etc is not just what religious people say it is. de SA3BOW

[@leoutdoors5438]

dont speak for others, nobody made you watch it either

[@radman999]

@@leoutdoors5438 I don't watch it. Unsubscribed and gone.

[@YaxisX]

Your understanding of the U. S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights is errant. (1) You can cite no objective data which supports what you say. (2) Your analysis of religious basis is also flawed because your comments serve as a logical inconsistency with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Your thinking on that matter in specific is sufficiently simplistic to justify dismissal. (4) You are citing religious texts to justify your legal argument. Religious texts cannot be both credited and discredited as supports for an argument. As Aristotle taught over 2,200 years ago, you cannot logical argue both for and against the same conclusion in the same context and at the same time. Your remarks qualify as a violation of the Law of Noncontradiction. (5) Abortion is not an enumerated right in the U. S. Constitution. Perhaps you have confused the Supreme Court decision in ROE versus WADE as the equivalent of the U. S. Constitution, but most certainly, your conclusion is unsubstantiated. What you have is rhetoric, which is not sufficient for proof in any knowledge domain.(6) You are writing of your own remarks in the context of "our". You are not an "our" but you are an "I". Propagandists, when intending to manipulate the thinking of other persons, will begin offering their individual and personal opinion as that attributed to a "we" which is a plurality of persons. No my friend, you are an "I". You can logically claim that your right or rights have been eliminated, but you cannot logically claim an "our right" has been eliminated.

[@squarewave2]

Hi Brucer Ducer, Thank you for your comment; am happy to hear from the "right to lifers". How is my understanding of the bill of rights "errant"? Does it not guarantee essential rights and civil liberties? ? The "establishment clause" you mention is to separate the church from the state. This sure supports my contention that the first amendment has been violated, does it not? If you don't believe the right- to- life dogma is related to religion, where do you think it comes from? The argument that the constitution does not give women the right to an abortion is meaningless; You could also say the constitution does not prohibit assault rifles so there should be no restrictions on them. I would love to see some "objective data" to support the right of the supreme court to prohibit abortion. Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution one way or the other. Just keep your eye on the further cements I will receive.

[@YaxisX]

@@squarewave2 You are asking a question. Questions are never probative in dialogue. Unfortunately for your amateurish analysis of law, you are one of those persons who are so poorly informed, that you think you prove a standpoint by asking questions. The obligation is upon the person making claims, and your deficiency is that you have cited no case law whatsoever to support your rhetoric. The statements you do make are unsubstantiated by case law. Your personal opinion is not law in the United States.

[@squarewave2]

@@YaxisX Hi Bruce It is very revealing that you find it necessary to write verbose paragraphs critical of the opinions I express on you tube. Apparently, I have hit a nerve. Your comments are inappropriate. Do you think I am preparing a courtroom case?, I am not. Asking questions is intended to make people think differently about cetin issues. I eagerly await seeing one of your videos debunking some of mine.

[@YaxisX]

@@squarewave2 "Apparently, I have hit a nerve."----Squarewave2 (A) #1 You cannot argue an appearance. You can argue a fact or a reason, but what you are doing now is complaining that a member of the public has commented upon your opinion. #2 Opinions are never proof of anything. (B) "It is very revealing that you find it necessary to write verbose paragraphs critical of the opinions I express on you tube."-----Squarewave2 You have not actually "revealed" anything. My comments are self evident of specific counters to your published claims. That is what is "revealed". (C) "Your comments are inappropriate."----Squarewave2 You have no evidence of anything written being "inappropriate". I am discussing correspondent information in the context of (a) Logic, (b) Law, and (c) Argumentation Theory and the Rules for Arguments. Thus far, you have demonstrated nothing which illustrates that these subjects are "inappropriate" in regards to a discussion of American Law. (D) "Do you think I am preparing a courtroom case?"------Squarewave2 Again you are repeating the error in dialogue of asking questions. What I "think" is specifically indicated by what I have published for comment. Asking a question about what I think is not only irrelevant but a redundancy, since what I "think" is exactly what I have written. Yet again you demonstrate the populist error of asking repeated questions as though it is expressive of some sort of cleverness. Actually, what you are doing is showing that you bring no specific knowledge to the dialogue. (E) "Asking questions is intended to make people think differently about cetin issues. "----Squarewave 2 In accordance with the Principle of the Burden of Proof, I am under no obligation whatsoever to produce a video. In point of fact, the format that you have used for public broadcast of your ideas provides for commentary. Your inability to show a knowledge of the Principle of the Burden of Proof and your obligation to show that your discussion of Legal Facts rather than a personal "opinion" shows that you are unable to communicate intelligently in regards to your chosen subject which is abortion in the United States. What I am puzzled by is your ONE WAY STREET attitude in which you presume to "make people think differently" while objecting to all persons who actually do "think differently". You have not defined "think differently" and neither to you write knowledgeably about "different ways of thinking". You certainly bring no meaningful legal information to your subject. Additionally, you object to my attempt to bring relevant facts to the forefront of discussion about your chosen subject.

[@YaxisX]

@@squarewave2 "If you don't believe the right- to- life dogma is related to religion, where do you think it comes from? "------Squarewave2 SECULAR OJECTIONS TO ABORTION IN HISTORY: FROM JUVENAL: "Poor women...endure the perils of childbirth, and all the troubles of nursing to which their lot condemns them; but how often does a gilded bed contain a woman that is lying in it? So great is the skill, so powerful the drugs, of the abortionist, paid to murder mankind within the womb."----JUVENAL (circa 57/67---127) from the "Satire" 6.592-601 FROM MUSONIUS: "The lawgivers, who had the same task of searching out and finding what was good for the city and what bad, and what helped or harmed it, did not they also consider that it was most beneficial to their cities to fill the houses of the citizens, and most harmful to deplete them? They considered that childlessness, or small families, of citizens was unprofitable, while to have children, and in fact many children, was profitable. Therefore, they forbade the women to abort and attached a penalty to those who disobeyed; secondly they forbade them to use contraceptives on themselves and to prevent pregnancy; finally they established honors for both men and women who had many children and made childlessness punishable."-----fragment 15a of MUSONIUS, a document pre-dating Early Christianity and in reference to Augustinian legislation of 28 BC and 9 AD Note what Musonius wrote regarding Roman legislation. He stated: "...THEY FORBADE THE WOMEN TO ABORT AND ATTACHED A PENALTY TO THOSE WHO DISOBEYED."---Musonius and also: "THEY FORBADE THEM TO USE CONTRACEPTIVES ON THEMSELVES AND TO PREVENT PREGNANCY."---Musonius This was a matter of Roman law, far removed from "religious" doctrine.

[@drontobil]

Well spoken! Well analysed! de SA3BOW