WTF! Us state takes aim at abortions

[Bearded but no genius]

Me too.

Maybe we have gotten to the root of why we're both such sarcastic cynical assholes.

There was no father to smack it out of us when we were 13.

 

[Slabber]

Maybe we have gotten to the root of why we're both such sarcastic cynical assholes.

There was no father to smack it out of us when we were 13.

Lack of a sense of self and self direction is what the experts say.

Not necessarily a bad thing though, given how some cnuts end up.

 

[Bearded but no genius]

True. I could have a sense of self and be a Chelsea supporter.

That would be worse than like a murder.

 

[Slabber]

A murder?

 

[Bearded but no genius]

A murder?

It might even be worse than an actual murder.

This is like a double murder.

 

[Slabber]

This is like a double murder.

Well that is something which is surely deserving of the death penalty?

 

[Bearded but no genius]

Well that is something which is surely deserving of the death penalty?

In this country, they would be executed.

Or we could go back in time and abort them all. Shouldn't take long, there's what 18,000 of them?

 

[Kevrockcity]

hate to break up this love-in, but there is no right to privacy in the constitution, implied or otherwise.

it's a state's issue.

 

[thewelshconjurer]

I believe that in the medical sense it is indeed just another operation. And an appendix has far more cells than an early term foetus. I don't believe that conception is anything special in a moral sense even if it is biologically rather impressive. After all it is merely (mainly) a reproductive tactic to cope with parasites.

Interesting point of view. Where did you get this from? I am just curious.

 

[thewelshconjurer]

The most effective liberal Supreme Court Chief Justice was appointed by Eisenhower.

You mean that "biggest damfool mistake I ever made" one?

 

[thewelshconjurer]

what a dangerous country you live in when you womens rights are given so little thought

Well, you shouldn't move to Poland then. People would stone you just because you have thought about the concept of abortion.

 

[FresnoBob]

hate to break up this love-in, but there is no right to privacy in the constitution, implied or otherwise.

it's a state's issue.

That's your position. Justice Douglas decided to find that right in the "penumbra of the Bill of Rights" and convinced a majority of the Supreme Court justices of that era to agree. The Constitution is what is actually written,what a majority of the Supremes say it says, and what a majority of justices said it said sometime ago that hasn't been reversed by a subsequent decision.
I'm more interested in what they have to say about the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments.

 

[Slabber]

Kev clearly isn't a lawyer.

 

[Bearded but no genius]

Kev clearly isn't a lawyer.

True.

It's there because the justices of the Supreme Court read it in.

What various political groups think of that has feck all relevance to the reality of the fact that it has been read in. Deal with it.

 

[Kevrockcity]

True.

It's there because the justices of the Supreme Court read it in.

What various political groups think of that has feck all relevance to the reality of the fact that it has been read in. Deal with it.

so when '73 court met, there was a right to privacy in the constitution (which apparently wasn't there before griswold). and now a new court might meet and decide there isn't again. so i'd be correct about there not being a right to privacy in the constitution if i said it before '65, and perhaps after '06, but not in the times in between, despite the amendments where this right supposedly exists (first, fourth, fifth, ninth, and fourteenth) have not changed since 1868?

plenty of things have been read in (or not read in) to the consitution in error (dred scott would be a particularly noteworthy example of judicial imprudence). i don't think the proper response when these things occur is to "deal with it," or simply accept that the judiciary can make no error in interpreting the constitution since it apparently is what they say it is.

 

[Slabber]

No offence Kev, but unless you've studied law, there's little point trying to get in a debate about how precedent operates.

 

[Kevrockcity]

i know how precedent operates. i was poli sci/pre-law undergrad. carry on.

 

[Slabber]

Do it with Jason then.

 

[Wibble]

Interesting point of view. Where did you get this from? I am just curious.

An early term foetus is just a single cell. Then 2, 4 etc. An appendix is millions of cells. It is however as irrelevant as most of the pro-life arguments.

 

[Wibble]

It is my birthday tommorow so do I get any precedents?

 

[FresnoBob]

It is my birthday tommorow so do I get any precedents?

I'll ask Precedent Bush.

 

[Kevrockcity]

happy birthday, wibble.

 

[Wibble]

Thank you. Although I am getting to the age when you start wanting to forget them.

 

[Bearded but no genius]

i know how precedent operates. i was poli sci/pre-law undergrad. carry on.

Excuse me while I giggle.

You can always deal with it by trying to change it if you have such a problem with it, but to pretend it doesn't exist as of right now makes you look like a moron.

 

[Kevrockcity]

how am i pretending like it doesn't exist? you act as though stare decisis is universally applied to constitutional law (and specifically in respect to this issue). many of roe's conclusions have already been undone by later decisions (ie: casey). precedent was over-ruled in regards to privacy in griswold, and even more so in roe.

pretending like it doesn't exist? i'm simply acknowledging the often arbitrary role in plays in u.s. constitutional law. plenty of judges argue no such thing exists in the manner which the roe court held (including many of the current scotus judges). do they not know what precedent is?

excuse you while you giggle? come on, jason. don't be pretentious. i've always been respectful of your posts. i've said nothing to warrant this.

 

[Spoony]

Giggle.

 

[Im red2]

As a person who believes in Christianity as Jesus Christ meant it I firmly believe that the decision which a woman has to make regarding abortion should be left to the woman herself and not to some guy who has never even been with a woman(and has probably abused young boys, which a lot of the people parading as ministers of God have done). If I was a woman and was pregnant and did not wish to have a child I would want for only myself to decide wether to have an abortion or not. My view is this, the bible says for all men have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. I say to those people who condemn women for having abortions, whichever of you have never sinned should undersign the law against abortion.

 

[Im red2]

It is my birthday tommorow so do I get any precedents?

No. But I will send you something that will evolve into a piece of paper, and after a very long time it will evolve into a birthday card and it will evolve a written information upon itself which will say Happy birthday Wibble.
And I hope you have many more. Birthdays that is.

 

[Im red2]

It is my birthday tommorow so do I get any precedents?

No. But I will send you something that will evolve into a piece of paper, and after a very long time it will evolve into a birthday card and it will evolve a written information upon itself wich will say Happy birthday Wibble.
And I hope you have many more. Birthdays that is.

 

[Kevrockcity]

Giggle.

jason's opinion i respect. this i don't mind.

 

[Bearded but no genius]

how am i pretending like it doesn't exist? you act as though stare decisis is universally applied to constitutional law (and specifically in respect to this issue). many of roe's conclusions have already been undone by later decisions (ie: casey). precedent was over-ruled in regards to privacy in griswold, and even more so in roe.

pretending like it doesn't exist? i'm simply acknowledging the often arbitrary role in plays in u.s. constitutional law. plenty of judges argue no such thing exists in the manner which the roe court held (including many of the current scotus judges). do they not know what precedent is?

excuse you while you giggle? come on, jason. don't be pretentious. i've always been respectful of your posts. i've said nothing to warrant this.

The thing that made me giggle was the conclusive statement of fact that you made.

hate to break up this love-in, but there is no right to privacy in the constitution, implied or otherwise.

When it is completely opposite to the current state of the law.

Its a political statement, not a legal statement. That was my point. The legal 'truth' is currently that the right to privacy was always there as penumbras of several of the amendments to the constitution, the court just didn't bother to inform us of this until Griswold.

Its spastic, I know. But that's where we're at.

When and if that ceases to be the case, then there is no implied right to privacy in the Constitution.

The giggle was directed largely at the difference between politics and the law. Apologies if it was OTT.

 

[Wellesley]

What have you all to say about the fact that of all the 1.2 million abortions committed annualy in the United States, 70% of those unborn infant lives are minorities... mainly black, 80% of those being African American, even though 60% of US population is white and of European descent? Do some of you secretly believe this to be a good thing? I should hope not. It would make you a hypocrite to champion the rights of minorities in the first place, would it not?

When one decides to support the "Free Choice" of a woman to commit abortion, they do not consider the "Free Choice" of a woman to refuse unprotected, unmarried sex which produces the "unwanted consequence" known to women for thousands of years. Is abortion a humane way of contraception as opposed to condoms and many other protections? There are currently more than 500,000 families in the US waiting for years to adopt so-called "unwanted" newborns. So the right of a woman "to control her body" does NOT include the obligation to control having unprotected sex... even though she knows of the high probability of conception as a result? Abortion is the abdication of responsibility. The God-given and absolute right to life is one of the primary foundations of liberty and protection from tyranny. There are no more innocent victims of disregard of that right than the unborn child. Should the right of the mother to choose not to be inconvenienced outweigh by law the absolute right to life of an innocent, unprotected, unborn child which the mother knew to be the consequence of irresponsible behavior?

The mother does not have to keep the "unwanted child". She can, and should, carry the child to term and make a gift of that precious life to a loving family which begs for the opportunity to adopt. Why should women have the right to purposely end the life which they created while engaging in behavior designed to create that life when they had the Freedom of Choice to refuse to do so?

I know all the arguements, slogans, specious political rhetoric and disregard which will follow this post. For this reason, I will not entertain an arguement. The choice of a woman should not be to "terminate" an infant's right to life or not, it should be a choice, based on responsibility, of whether or not to engage in unprotected sex which is designed to create that which she finds distasteful.

Of course, this would mean some measure of responsibility on the other half of the equation... men. Why are men willing to engage in that kind of activity without responsibility by Freedom of Choice? Because ultimately they know of the woman's right to abrigate the unborn child's right to life should conception result from an act of irresponsible pleasure.

Sounds progressively simple to me. Every one of you on here are here as a result of your mums deciding on your right to life. Why should others be denied what you so righteously enjoy? What if your mums decided, for whatever reason, that they would rather not be inconvenienced? You wouldn't be here to argue the point and vote for every other woman's right to Freedom of Choice for the rest of humanity by choosing to hire a doctor to murder her unborn child without consequence.

Whose life is more precious and deserving of protection than those who have no voice or choice in the decision when the only responsibility is that the woman "inconvenience herself" by allowing her child to be born and giving it to a wanting family who would love and cherish that life by accepting all the repsonsiblities of it?

Just thought my point should be voiced. I'm not interested in arguing the point. Thank GOD my mum decided to choose life for me... and yours for all of you.

 

[Dubai_Devil]

I think this thread shows that democracy just doesn't work.

 

[Wibble]

What have you all to say about the fact that of all the 1.2 million abortions committed annualy in the United States, 70% of those unborn infant lives are minorities... mainly black, 80% of those being African American, even though 60% of US population is white and of European descent? Do some of you secretly believe this to be a good thing? I should hope not. It would make you a hypocrite to champion the rights of minorities in the first place, would it not?

What point are you making? Are you suggesting that abortion is racist? Or would it be more accurate to say that US social policy has resulted in a "lower" socio-economic where whites are under represented. Sounds like institutional racism to me.

When one decides to support the "Free Choice" of a woman to commit abortion, they do not consider the "Free Choice" of a woman to refuse unprotected, unmarried sex which produces the "unwanted consequence" known to women for thousands of years.

Smokers know the risks as well and they don't even have the excuse of their illness being an unwanted side effect from a biological imperative. Do you suggest that we don't treat smokers in hospitals because they became ill through a free choice?

Is abortion a humane way of contraception as opposed to condoms and many other protections?

Contraception is a method of preventing pregnancy. Abortion is therefore not contraception.

There are currently more than 500,000 families in the US waiting for years to adopt so-called "unwanted" newborns.

Nobody would for a moment suggest that abortion is the only option. I am adopted for which I am obviously grateful. I don't see how that choice should have been made for my biological mother since she lived in a free society.

So the right of a woman "to control her body" does NOT include the obligation to control having unprotected sex... even though she knows of the high probability of conception as a result?

What are you proposing? Making abortion illegal? If so we should lock up smokers and alcoholics to save themseles from themselves.

Abortion is the abdication of responsibility.

Of ocurse it is. That is why womne do it with no more thought than clipping their nails and with no more consequence. A truly ludicrous argument

The God-given and absolute right to life is one of the primary foundations of liberty and protection from tyranny.

Eh?

So use of a death sentence for criminals shakes the foundations of liberty and endangers our protection from tyranny? I would have thought a right winger like yourself would have argued the opposite.

Or is it only potential humans that deserve this absolute right?

And God didn't give anyone any rights. In the US that stems from the constitution which I seem to remember provided for a seperation of church and state.

There are no more innocent victims of disregard of that right than the unborn child.

A foetus is not a child. It is a potential child.

Should the right of the mother to choose not to be inconvenienced outweigh by law the absolute right to life of an innocent, unprotected, unborn child which the mother knew to be the consequence of irresponsible behavior?

Once the foetus becomes a child then it should be given rights of its own which cannot be overriden by those of the mother. Obvioulsy that point is the subject of some debate but a child is not created at the moment a sperm fuses with an egg, nor when it embeds itself in the walls of a womb, nor when ot multiplys from 1 to 2, then 2 to 4 and 4 to 8 cells.

The mother does not have to keep the "unwanted child". She can, and should, carry the child to term and make a gift of that precious life to a loving family which begs for the opportunity to adopt.

Who are you to tell a woman what to do? Who made you God?

Why should women have the right to purposely end the life which they created while engaging in behavior designed to create that life when they had the Freedom of Choice to refuse to do so?

It is called freedom of choice. Something we hopefully enjoy in a free society. It soesn't only apply to white men in gun clubs.

I know all the arguements, slogans, specious political rhetoric and disregard which will follow this post. For this reason, I will not entertain an arguement.

That is a somewhat pathetic statement.

The choice of a woman should not be to "terminate" an infant's right to life or not, it should be a choice, based on responsibility, of whether or not to engage in unprotected sex which is designed to create that which she finds distasteful.

So you are going to remove a woman's right to choice because of what your religious beliefs make you believe her responsibility is? Sounds a great deal like fascism or the practical outcome of communism.

Of course, this would mean some measure of responsibility on the other half of the equation... men. Why are men willing to engage in that kind of activity without responsibility by Freedom of Choice? Because ultimately they know of the woman's right to abrigate the unborn child's right to life should conception result from an act of irresponsible pleasure.

I'm sure that is what most men are thinking when having unprotected sex. Since they aren't htinking about STD's or AIDS I doubt they will be thinking about even more distant consequences.

Odd person.

Sounds progressively simple to me.

Sounds like a Police state to me.

Every one of you on here are here as a result of your mums deciding on your right to life. Why should others be denied what you so righteously enjoy? What if your mums decided, for whatever reason, that they would rather not be inconvenienced? You wouldn't be here to argue the point and vote for every other woman's right to Freedom of Choice for the rest of humanity by choosing to hire a doctor to murder her unborn child without consequence.

Murder? Kinell. You sound like one of those nutters that bomb planned pregnancy clinics.

Perhaps we should also ban contraception to ensure that God's words about spilled seeds are adhered to. Although it is going to get terribly crowded soon.

Whose life is more precious and deserving of protection than those who have no voice or choice in the decision when the only responsibility is that the woman "inconvenience herself" by allowing her child to be born and giving it to a wanting family who would love and cherish that life by accepting all the repsonsiblities of it?

So a bunch of cells has inalienable right but a woman doesn't? Madness.

Just thought my point should be voiced. I'm not interested in arguing the point. Thank GOD my mum decided to choose life for me... and yours for all of you.

I agree with the later part of the sentence.

You are supposed to believe in demoracy and personal freedom yet you are prepared to deny a woman self determination while believing that every (male?) American has thr right to bear tactical nukes or machine guns at the very least.

Do you not see the irony?

 

[Bearded but no genius]

For this reason, I will not entertain an arguement.

Well la de fricking da. Any more diktats?

PS. 'argument'.

 

[Bearded but no genius]

You are supposed to believe in demoracy and personal freedom yet you are prepared to deny a woman self determination while believing that every (male?) American has thr right to bear tactical nukes or machine guns at the very least.

Do you not see the irony?

I voted for Bush, twice, and I think Wellesley is a fecking lunatic.

 

[Wibble]

It amazes me that white males rant about Government interference in their lives for minor things and then turn around and propose wholesale control of a woman's choices about her body without a blink.

Gun control is government interference but banning abortion isn't? Kinell.

 

[Wibble]

I think this thread shows that democracy just doesn't work.

It is either your God given right to say that or you should be locked up by the govenment. Which it is, only Wellesly can decide.

 

[Slabber]

I wish Wellesley's mum had had an abortion.

 

[Kevrockcity]

The thing that made me giggle was the conclusive statement of fact that you made.



When it is completely opposite to the current state of the law.

Its a political statement, not a legal statement. That was my point. The legal 'truth' is currently that the right to privacy was always there as penumbras of several of the amendments to the constitution, the court just didn't bother to inform us of this until Griswold.

Its spastic, I know. But that's where we're at.

When and if that ceases to be the case, then there is no implied right to privacy in the Constitution.

The giggle was directed largely at the difference between politics and the law. Apologies if it was OTT.

no hard feelings.

obviously the current interpretation of scotus is that there is a right to privacy. my original statement (re: right to privacy) was a comment about the body of the constitution proper (and my interpretation of it), not the interpretation of the roe/griswold courts of it - i did not intend it to be an absolute statement about what the current law is. scotus is not infallible and imo made errors in griswold and roe re: "legislating" rights not mentioned in the constitution or ever intended to be there. i have a feeling scotus may soon be agreeing with me. we'll see.