Abortion as Murder.

[BenNatuf]

It was all laid out in Roe. You need only refer to the court's rationale and demonstrate why it's wrong.

Then go ahead and lay it out. I've made my argument and you have them to lean on. Go to Roe and Casey and find out what the interest of the state is and then explain why and how that "interest" could be used to negate a persons constitutional right. While your doing it, think on how the state could use that same or any other claimed interest to negate other rights. Then tell me how the negation squares with the idea that the government cannot infringe on your rights except in the case of a more compelling interest of another person or persons rights (real persons, not notional ones).

You claim you want to use thier argument... so do it. Don't expect me to do your homework for you. I will gladly entertain whatever you come up with.

You haven't even read Roe v. Wade?

lol

I've read it more than once, Casey too. You are the one who wants to employ arguments from the dicta, so you go fetch them, and you use them to see if you can create a logical reasonable argument for the state having any interest at all to negate a persons rights that does not involve ballancing those rights against another persons. What your asking me to do is research to argue against an argument you haven't made and in effect make your argument for you. No, make it yourself.

You complained I wouldn't respond to the dicta, something I never said. What I did say is it has no precedential value in the law, and it doesn't. Since this thread is about the application of the law the only relevant parts of Roe and Casey are the findings. You want to argue against that theory using opinions from the dicta of the cases... so have at it. Just remember to explain how the rationale they use relates to the government having any authority to negate a persons rights based on whatever interest they identify and how that relates to the government having no authority to infringe on the rights they allow to be infringed on.

Simple question: do you know of any other incidence that is not specifically constituionally authorized that allows the state to infringe on a persons constituional rights for any reason other than in the ballancing of those rights with the more compelling rights of another person or persons?

and another: do you know of any instance when a person has ever had thier rights negated by any interest of the state that is not based on a ballancing of rights between that person and another person or persons except for those cases where the state is specifically constituionaly empowered to do so?

 

[BenNatuf]

Once again it would appear no-one can identify just what the "compelling interest" the states have that would empower them to negate a person's constitutionally protected rights might be. A generic "interest" is insufficient grounds to empower the state to infringe on constitutional rights. Their "interest" must be based on some precept that would justify a use of thier authority in so extreme a manner that it could negate a constitutionally protected right, like the ballancing of that right against another person or persons more compelling right. If that ellement of the states interest is absent, it's authority is absent.

Just to be clear, are you acknowledging a first trimester constitutional right to an abortion, based on the right to privacy?

I acknowledge that acording to Roe and Casey the womans right to privacy outweighs the states "interest" whatever that may be. This thread is not about my personal beliefs on abortion, it's about law theory and how its applied or not applied vis a vie Roe and Casey, and thats why it's limitted to viable fetus'.

Once again if your going to give the findings in Roe and Casey any credence, and apply the law accordingly based on the precedential value of those findings (remembering that dicta has no precedential value), I don't see how you can escape the conclusion that a viable fetus is, in law, a person. There just is no other conclusion you could come to under the theories we use to enforce and apply the law, the chief among them that the state has no authority to negate rights it is constituionally prohibitted from infringing upon, except in the case of specific constituionally granted authority to do so, or in the ballancing of that right with the rights of another person or persons more compelling rights. States simply do not have the constituional authority to negate rights based on any "compelling interest", it does not exist; unless that interest is another person or persons rights.

 

[Gadawg73]

But Gadawg LOVES telling other people what priorities they can and cannot have, based on the fact that HIS priorities are the universal standard to which everyone else must aspire.

If you vote you also are telling other people what your priorities are.

no you're not, voting is secret
You don't need to do any of that to stand on your priorities... it does help the argument though
The irony is delicious, you're not telling anybody what thier priorities should be... except the entire nation.
Good thing this thread doesn't argue any then, what does it argue is a theory of law.killing is nobodies private choicedo you ever make any sense? Thwere is nothing about gay anything in this thread, and personally I don't give a rats ass what gay people do.evidently... you.
a dumb assed canard if their ever was one. The government is empowered to make law and enforce it, they have lots of them and I don't know of any of them that were enected based on their amoral philosophy

As a taxpayer that owns and runs 3 corporations I want a structured priority list for each and every issue I vote on. Pushing that disciplined order of how our politicians spend their time on each issue with a priority listing is what a responsible taxpayer and citizen does.

but your not trying to push your priorities on anyone?

Climb on board and join us. It will make for a better society that does not waste time on moral issues and focuses ON FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Once again you don't know the difference between a discussion about a theory of law and and what you falsely claim is wasting time on moral issues. I'm probobly about 100% less Christian than you are, but here you have to trot out the canard of religious moralism because its the only fucking argument you know, and your just to damned stupid to know this thread doesn't have a damned thing to do with that. Why don't you join your strawman at the wizards and see if he has an extra brain for you?

Another undisciplined temper tantrum post.
You want abortion illegal and enforced by government because you want control over women.

 

[Zona]

For those who claim abortion is a medical procedure and is not killing an innocent human being I have a question.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 69, faces eight counts of murder in the deaths of a woman following a botched abortion at his office, along with the deaths of seven other babies who, prosecutors allege, were born alive following illegal late-term abortions and then were killed by severing their spinal cords with a pair of scissors.

would these children have been any less viable had this piece of human trash cut them up in utero as opposed to after birth? If Roe is the standard, and the standard it sets is "viability", how is a fetus, any fetus, unviable after about 4 1/2 months of pregnancy? All of them are viable given proper medical care, so what is the difference between murdering them in utero or out?

Philly Abortion Doctor Facing 8 Counts Of Murder CBS Philly – News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of Philadelphia

Love the fetus, hate the child.

Its just that simple really. Pro life, abortion is murder etc.

Then its, why are all these poor children sucking on the tit of the government.

 

[BenNatuf]

Once again it would appear no-one can identify just what the "compelling interest" the states have that would empower them to negate a person's constitutionally protected rights might be. A generic "interest" is insufficient grounds to empower the state to infringe on constitutional rights. Their "interest" must be based on some precept that would justify a use of thier authority in so extreme a manner that it could negate a constitutionally protected right, like the ballancing of that right against another person or persons more compelling right. If that ellement of the states interest is absent, it's authority is absent.

Why was/is the draft constitutional?

Because the congress has the authority to raise armies and defending the nation with them protects the right to life liberty and property of every person in the nation.

1. The congress has the constituional authority
2. The affront to personal liberty is ballanced against the right of all persons to have thier lives liberty and property protected.

meets both criteria.

 

[elvis]

For those who claim abortion is a medical procedure and is not killing an innocent human being I have a question.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 69, faces eight counts of murder in the deaths of a woman following a botched abortion at his office, along with the deaths of seven other babies who, prosecutors allege, were born alive following illegal late-term abortions and then were killed by severing their spinal cords with a pair of scissors.

would these children have been any less viable had this piece of human trash cut them up in utero as opposed to after birth? If Roe is the standard, and the standard it sets is "viability", how is a fetus, any fetus, unviable after about 4 1/2 months of pregnancy? All of them are viable given proper medical care, so what is the difference between murdering them in utero or out?

Philly Abortion Doctor Facing 8 Counts Of Murder CBS Philly – News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of Philadelphia

Love the fetus, hate the child.

Its just that simple really. Pro life, abortion is murder etc.

Then, why are all these poor children sucking on the tit of the government.

tell ya what. get rid of abortion, I'll let all the kids suck on the govt's tit. no problem. free health care, toys, shelter, etc.

 

[BenNatuf]

If you vote you also are telling other people what your priorities are.

no you're not, voting is secret
You don't need to do any of that to stand on your priorities... it does help the argument though
The irony is delicious, you're not telling anybody what thier priorities should be... except the entire nation.
Good thing this thread doesn't argue any then, what does it argue is a theory of law.killing is nobodies private choicedo you ever make any sense? Thwere is nothing about gay anything in this thread, and personally I don't give a rats ass what gay people do.evidently... you.
a dumb assed canard if their ever was one. The government is empowered to make law and enforce it, they have lots of them and I don't know of any of them that were enected based on their amoral philosophy
but your not trying to push your priorities on anyone?

Climb on board and join us. It will make for a better society that does not waste time on moral issues and focuses ON FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Once again you don't know the difference between a discussion about a theory of law and and what you falsely claim is wasting time on moral issues. I'm probobly about 100% less Christian than you are, but here you have to trot out the canard of religious moralism because its the only fucking argument you know, and your just to damned stupid to know this thread doesn't have a damned thing to do with that. Why don't you join your strawman at the wizards and see if he has an extra brain for you?

Another undisciplined temper tantrum post.
You want abortion illegal and enforced by government because you want control over women.

Another strawman... you're going to need a bus to OZ if you keep erecting them.

I'm sorry if you're too damned stupid to know the difference between critisism, scorn, ridicule, reasonably dispalying the absolute ignorance and contradictions displayed in your argument, and a temper tantrum... but that would be because you're an idiot; so, I guess I'm not the one who should be sorry about it anyway.

Tell me einstien, how many times can you contradict yourself in one post before you think anybody else should point it out? honestly, you've made enough of a fool of yourself in this thread. Maybe you should try the romper room... seems more your speed.

 

[BenNatuf]

For those who claim abortion is a medical procedure and is not killing an innocent human being I have a question.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 69, faces eight counts of murder in the deaths of a woman following a botched abortion at his office, along with the deaths of seven other babies who, prosecutors allege, were born alive following illegal late-term abortions and then were killed by severing their spinal cords with a pair of scissors.

would these children have been any less viable had this piece of human trash cut them up in utero as opposed to after birth? If Roe is the standard, and the standard it sets is "viability", how is a fetus, any fetus, unviable after about 4 1/2 months of pregnancy? All of them are viable given proper medical care, so what is the difference between murdering them in utero or out?

Philly Abortion Doctor Facing 8 Counts Of Murder CBS Philly – News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of Philadelphia

Love the fetus, hate the child.

Its just that simple really. Pro life, abortion is murder etc.

Then its, why are all these poor children sucking on the tit of the government.

All you people have is strawman talking points. Care to actually comment on what the thread is actually about?

 

[Zona]

For those who claim abortion is a medical procedure and is not killing an innocent human being I have a question.

would these children have been any less viable had this piece of human trash cut them up in utero as opposed to after birth? If Roe is the standard, and the standard it sets is "viability", how is a fetus, any fetus, unviable after about 4 1/2 months of pregnancy? All of them are viable given proper medical care, so what is the difference between murdering them in utero or out?

Philly Abortion Doctor Facing 8 Counts Of Murder CBS Philly – News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of Philadelphia

Love the fetus, hate the child.

Its just that simple really. Pro life, abortion is murder etc.

Then, why are all these poor children sucking on the tit of the government.

tell ya what. get rid of abortion, I'll let all the kids suck on the govt's tit. no problem. free health care, toys, shelter, etc.

Why are there so many people who want to push an illegal agenda. You know...abortion being legal and all.

 

[BenNatuf]

Love the fetus, hate the child.

Its just that simple really. Pro life, abortion is murder etc.

Then, why are all these poor children sucking on the tit of the government.

tell ya what. get rid of abortion, I'll let all the kids suck on the govt's tit. no problem. free health care, toys, shelter, etc.

Why are there so many people who want to push an illegal agenda. You know...abortion being legal and all.

The thread isn't about all abortions. maybe you should actually read some of it before you knee jerk a response?

BTW, what would be illegal about supporting changing of laws?

 

[elvis]

Love the fetus, hate the child.

Its just that simple really. Pro life, abortion is murder etc.

Then, why are all these poor children sucking on the tit of the government.

tell ya what. get rid of abortion, I'll let all the kids suck on the govt's tit. no problem. free health care, toys, shelter, etc.

Why are there so many people who want to push an illegal agenda. You know...abortion being legal and all.

slavery was once legal. I guess those pushing against it were pushing an illegal agenda.

 

[Zona]

For those who claim abortion is a medical procedure and is not killing an innocent human being I have a question.

would these children have been any less viable had this piece of human trash cut them up in utero as opposed to after birth? If Roe is the standard, and the standard it sets is "viability", how is a fetus, any fetus, unviable after about 4 1/2 months of pregnancy? All of them are viable given proper medical care, so what is the difference between murdering them in utero or out?

Philly Abortion Doctor Facing 8 Counts Of Murder CBS Philly – News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of Philadelphia

Love the fetus, hate the child.

Its just that simple really. Pro life, abortion is murder etc.

Then its, why are all these poor children sucking on the tit of the government.

All you people have is strawman talking points. Care to actually comment on what the thread is actually about?

What, the legality of abortion? Is that the point of this? If it weren't, then maybe you could have some weight behind your point.

I don't think its right, any person telling a woman she HAS to do something with her body, future and mental state. You are there to tell her she has to have a baby, then not be there when she needs support because of something you MADE happen. Thank God abortion is legal and thank god this country is not stuck in a mindset that is antiquated.

Why do you guys disrespect women so much? Talk about a daddy state. You think you know better than every woman on the planet.

How dare you.

 

[Zona]

tell ya what. get rid of abortion, I'll let all the kids suck on the govt's tit. no problem. free health care, toys, shelter, etc.

Why are there so many people who want to push an illegal agenda. You know...abortion being legal and all.

slavery was once legal. I guess those pushing against it were pushing an illegal agenda.

Slavery was legal and abortion was illegal. Lets all thank the one we pray to, this has changed.

 

[BenNatuf]

Love the fetus, hate the child.

Its just that simple really. Pro life, abortion is murder etc.

Then its, why are all these poor children sucking on the tit of the government.

All you people have is strawman talking points. Care to actually comment on what the thread is actually about?

What, the legality of abortion? Is that the point of this? If it weren't, then maybe you could have some weight behind your point.

Maybe if you actually read the thread you'd have an idea what it was about? And then you could actually comment OT

I don't think its right, any person telling a woman she HAS to do something with her body, future and mental state. You are there to tell her she has to have a baby, then not be there when she needs support because of something you MADE happen. Thank God abortion is legal and thank god this country is not stuck in a mindset that is antiquated.

Your BS talking points are irrelevant to the discussion. I do undertsand it's all your masters provide you with, but this thread isn'rt about all abortions, in reality, it's not even about abortion per se, It's about legal theory and how Roe and Casey have turned it on its head.

Why do you guys disrespect women so much? Talk about a daddy state. You think you know better than every woman on the planet.

How dare you.

Why do you guys hate babies so much? See how easy that is? Your inane talking point defences are irrelevant. they serve no purpose. If you want to rail about abortion rights create a thread to do it, this one is about legal theory as it pertains to the findings in Roe and casey and how that applies to the law and its enforcement or lack thereof.

 

[Gadawg73]

no you're not, voting is secret
You don't need to do any of that to stand on your priorities... it does help the argument though
The irony is delicious, you're not telling anybody what thier priorities should be... except the entire nation.
Good thing this thread doesn't argue any then, what does it argue is a theory of law.killing is nobodies private choicedo you ever make any sense? Thwere is nothing about gay anything in this thread, and personally I don't give a rats ass what gay people do.evidently... you.
a dumb assed canard if their ever was one. The government is empowered to make law and enforce it, they have lots of them and I don't know of any of them that were enected based on their amoral philosophy
but your not trying to push your priorities on anyone?
Once again you don't know the difference between a discussion about a theory of law and and what you falsely claim is wasting time on moral issues. I'm probobly about 100% less Christian than you are, but here you have to trot out the canard of religious moralism because its the only fucking argument you know, and your just to damned stupid to know this thread doesn't have a damned thing to do with that. Why don't you join your strawman at the wizards and see if he has an extra brain for you?

Another undisciplined temper tantrum post.
You want abortion illegal and enforced by government because you want control over women.

Another strawman... you're going to need a bus to OZ if you keep erecting them.

I'm sorry if you're too damned stupid to know the difference between critisism, scorn, ridicule, reasonably dispalying the absolute ignorance and contradictions displayed in your argument, and a temper tantrum... but that would be because you're an idiot; so, I guess I'm not the one who should be sorry about it anyway.

Tell me einstien, how many times can you contradict yourself in one post before you think anybody else should point it out? honestly, you've made enough of a fool of yourself in this thread. Maybe you should try the romper room... seems more your speed.

Go ahead and call me what you want if you believe that adds credibility to your argument.
Because that is what you are left with.
You just can not stand the fact that your arguments are moot. No matter what happens you always end up with:
Overturn Roe tomorrow and it goes back to the states.
Some will ban it, some will have it legal for all and some will have some restrictions.
Women with $$ that live in a state that bans it will simply go to another state and have the procedure done.
Women with NO $$ in a state that bans it will be forced at the point of a gun, which is the power of government, to have the baby that they do not want and do not know to care for it.
Everything else you inquire about, state and project is gobbly gook BS. It will never happen and is just rank la la land speculation.
But keep the insults coming. No cry babies here. But next time get 2/3rds of your insult correct: It is Mr. Wealthy Idiot.

 

[BenNatuf]

Why are there so many people who want to push an illegal agenda. You know...abortion being legal and all.

slavery was once legal. I guess those pushing against it were pushing an illegal agenda.

Slavery was legal and abortion was illegal. Lets all thank the one we pray to, this has changed.

Abortion was never fedrally illegal. wher do you people get this stupid shit?

 

[Gadawg73]

slavery was once legal. I guess those pushing against it were pushing an illegal agenda.

Slavery was legal and abortion was illegal. Lets all thank the one we pray to, this has changed.

Abortion was never fedrally illegal. wher do you people get this stupid shit?

Who stated abortion was federally illegal?
Abortion was illegal in every state, with some states having limited exceptions due to rape and incest, for many years.
Every state is not a federal law but it is EVERY STATE.

 

[Zona]

slavery was once legal. I guess those pushing against it were pushing an illegal agenda.

Slavery was legal and abortion was illegal. Lets all thank the one we pray to, this has changed.

Abortion was never fedrally illegal. wher do you people get this stupid shit?

Oh the irony here. You wont get it of course but this is priceless.

Who said it was FEDRALLY illegal. It was illegal in pretty much every state, no?

 

[Gadawg73]

I have a problem with my space key on this old Gateway and maybe he has the same problem with the e key.

 

[BenNatuf]

Another undisciplined temper tantrum post.
You want abortion illegal and enforced by government because you want control over women.

Another strawman... you're going to need a bus to OZ if you keep erecting them.

I'm sorry if you're too damned stupid to know the difference between critisism, scorn, ridicule, reasonably dispalying the absolute ignorance and contradictions displayed in your argument, and a temper tantrum... but that would be because you're an idiot; so, I guess I'm not the one who should be sorry about it anyway.

Tell me einstien, how many times can you contradict yourself in one post before you think anybody else should point it out? honestly, you've made enough of a fool of yourself in this thread. Maybe you should try the romper room... seems more your speed.

Go ahead and call me what you want if you believe that adds credibility to your argument.
Because that is what you are left with.
You just can not stand the fact that your arguments are moot. No matter what happens you always end up with:
Overturn Roe tomorrow and it goes back to the states.

who said anything different? You keep throwing out this strawman, but nowhere in the thread have I ever said Roe should be overturned never mind what the consequence of it should be. That would be because the thread isn't about my personal beliefs about abortion, its about law theory.

Some will ban it, some will have it legal for all and some will have some restrictions.
Women with $$ that live in a state that bans it will simply go to another state and have the procedure done.
Women with NO $$ in a state that bans it will be forced at the point of a gun, which is the power of government, to have the baby that they do not want and do not know to care for it.

none of which has anything to do with the topic of the thread... and you're still too thick to know it even after having it explained to you in detail numerous times.

Everything else you inquire about, state and project is gobbly gook BS. It will never happen and is just rank la la land speculation.

Is that the extent of your argument on topic? LOL.... Much of law theory is built on speculation, that would be why it's "theory". Also, it's gobbloedygook, at least get your unsupported dismissals right.

But keep the insults coming. No cry babies here. But next time get 2/3rds of your insult correct: It is Mr. Wealthy Idiot.

Great country!!! BTW, if their are no crybabies here, quit whining about it... yet another contradiction.