Abortion as Murder.

[BenNatuf]

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

That was fair... perhaps I'll back up and start over with you. But to be honest, mostly it's because I'm not a typer and don't take the time to spell check.

I am a fair guy and have nothing against you.
This is all for fun. No worries my man.

Just as an aside, my computer may be compensating. I have a habit when I write things out of thinking ahead of my writing and rushing through the writing to catch up, the result of which is often a lot of extra e's at the ends of words where they don't belong (not to mention writing that sometimes I can't even read).

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I linked you to it. All you had to do was read it and refute it. You refuse to because you can't refute it.

You're trying to win this argument by excluding the counter - arguments you can't refute.

I also said that if Roe was wrong, its error was in giving the fetus any rights as person at all. You've yet to refute that,
so presumably, that is the winning argument here, i.e.,

that constitutionally, in the strictest most literal adherence to the document,

a woman has a right to an abortion from conception until birth.

Eh?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Abortion was illegal at the state level and state laws have to be constitutional.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The draft is constitutional because Congress has the constitutional authority? lol, could you get more circular in an argument than that?

The constitution never explicitly or implicitly gave Congress the right to raise armies by forced conscription.

 

[NYcarbineer]

hey dipshit

Gosnell is facing charges of murder in the third degree for the death of 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar. Mrs. Mongar died on November 20, 2009, when she was overdosed with anesthetics prescribed by Gosnell. He is also facing seven murder charges for the deaths of infants who were killed after being born viable and alive during the sixth, seventh, or eighth month of pregnancy. Gosnell is also facing numerous other charges.

at least presents the whole facts...

you should yes, the story also sates he's killed possibly 100's of live born babies some as young as 4 1/2 month. So maybe instead of raising false kinards you might actually answer the question and enlighten us all as to what exactly is the difference is between chopping up a viable fetus in utero or out? The fetus is no less viable and using Roe being viable cannot be aborted. Given current medical science all fetus' in any normal pregnancy are viable after about 4 1/2 months, so even using Roe's criteria all are persons deserving of protection from the state.

Where does Roe v Wade say that?

 

[BenNatuf]

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.

I linked you to it. All you had to do was read it and refute it. You refuse to because you can't refute it.

bullshit. Your linking to it does not equate to your arguing to support it. If you want to make the argument... make it. I am under no obligation to research you argument for you and negate it because you're too damned lazy to do it yourself.

You're trying to win this argument by excluding the counter - arguments you can't refute.

No I'm not, your refusing to do your own homework and present the arguments you wish to make. I am under no obligation to search them out for you.

I also said that if Roe was wrong, its error was in giving the fetus any rights as person at all. You've yet to refute that,
so presumably, that is the winning argument here, i.e.,

evidently you don't read responses either. I've said that if the SCOTUS did not identify a viable fetus as a person that is EXACTLY how the law should be applied. But its not what they did... is it? They attempted to say it wasn't a person and then go on to negate anothers persons rights on the basis of some generic interest of the state with ABSOLUTELY no constituional underpinning.

that constitutionally, in the strictest most literal adherence to the document,

a woman has a right to an abortion from conception until birth.

Eh?

depends on how you define "person". So the strictest most literal adherance is a matter of that deffinition. If you define it as a viable fetus then the strictest interpretation would be to not allow any abortion after viability except to protect the mothers life (life ballancing life). If you do not, abortion until birth is the only alternative if we're going to protect real rights of real people. Splitting the baby "so to speak" is anethema to the constituion, either a viable fetus is a person, or its not. The constitution does not allow the states (or the federal government) to create different classes of persons for whom due process rights are unequal to all other persons.

The best thing the SCOTUS could have done in this case is to admit that sans the Congress using its "neccesary and proper" power to define constitutional terms in law, they had no authority to do it in place of them, and that because of that by virtue of the 10th amendment the power to do so rightly belonged to the states, and not the courts. The proper course for the court in the absence of congressional action is to assume that the congress intended not to act, and in doing so leave it up to the states. One of the biggest faults of courts in modern jurisprudence is the assumption that if congress doesn't act on an issue, the courts have to or even should. Courts used to reccognize the limits on their own power, in the progressive era it would appear they don't believe there are any.

 

[Zona]

Well damn zona, i thought you dropped off of the face of the planet.

I did for a minute but am back now.


Hi.

 

[Zona]

nope, the irony is in you obsessing about typos while you help me out a "bid". Is that all you got?

The further irony is in your further obsession about typos when you poorly analogize and blame the reader for drawing the reasonably logical inference from your poorly constructed analogy. You evedently, are ill equipped to make a rational logical argument, so instead you obsess on trivia of no consequence. And no, thats not precious... it's sad.

Conradulations, you win the deflection award for those who have absolutely nothing OT to say!!! Have you gotten it yet? I really don't give it shit about your nitpicky bullshit.

You keep the ironies coming. Hate to inform you, but once again your clapping to insinuate some kind of irony created between my pointing out your poor analogy (a deficit in reasoning), and your pointing out a minor spelling error (lazy) is just further proof of your poor use of analogies and inability to properly identify an irony because of it.

and yes, I know at this point you are doing this on purpose, (we will just go with that) but this game is beginning to get fun.

You really want to debate me if abortion is murder? You think either of us will make the other one change their mind? Really?

Look, here is the deal. It is legal for a woman to have an abortion here in the untied states. The law is backing me up so I am good with that kind of support.

When pro life people adopt 6 or 7 kids. Kids who are born handicapped or from poor backgrounds and not blond blue, perhaps we really could have an honest debate about it.

Why are you trying to break the law and make a woman have to HAVE an unwanted child. There are some on your side who say even if she is raped or is a victim of incest the child should be born. Who takes care of those kids? You? If the situation arises (and it does) that if the woman allows the pregnancy to come to term and she will die, should she have the child? if so, who takes care of child then? You? See where I am going here.

There is no point in arguing pro choice vs. pro life. There really isn't. On my side, you make no points. You take away the rights given to women in this country. on your side, you say it is not her choice. I am a law abiding citizen and what you are preaching is wrong in the eyes of the law. If we start living like that...obeying the laws selectively, it will cause anarchy.

 

[BenNatuf]

Conradulations, you win the deflection award for those who have absolutely nothing OT to say!!! Have you gotten it yet? I really don't give it shit about your nitpicky bullshit.

You keep the ironies coming. Hate to inform you, but once again your clapping to insinuate some kind of irony created between my pointing out your poor analogy (a deficit in reasoning), and your pointing out a minor spelling error (lazy) is just further proof of your poor use of analogies and inability to properly identify an irony because of it.

and yes, I know at this point you are doing this on purpose, (we will just go with that) but this game is beginning to get fun.

You really want to debate me if abortion is murder? You think either of us will make the other one change their mind? Really?

aside from the clumsy wording (or is there just one missing?) I won't say anything about, you still don't seem to understand the threads not about "if abortion is murder". In the scheme of things it doesn't matter whether you or I consider a viable fetus to be a person, what matters is how the findings in Roe and Casey treat them and women and what that means under the theory of law we practice in every event but Roe and Casey. It's about how the law is applied vis a vie viable fetus' and womens rights with regard to Roe and Casey and how that is inconsistant with the constituional precepts of due process and equal treament under the same theory of law we use for every other application. So the thread is not about what I think, or what you think, its about our laws and how in every event except this they are consistantly applied with one overiding philosophy. That the government does not have the power to negate anyones rights unless that negation is constituionally authorized or in the interest of protecting another person or persons more compelling rights.

Look, here is the deal. It is legal for a woman to have an abortion here in the untied states. The law is backing me up so I am good with that kind of support.

up until viability, yes. After that, not so much.

When pro life people adopt 6 or 7 kids. Kids who are born handicapped or from poor backgrounds and not blond blue, perhaps we really could have an honest debate about it.

I could give a damn about your sense of fairness or what you consider riteous, or a contradiction in some peoples views (or theirs for that matter). The thread has nothing to do with stupid talking points or deflective defenses..

Why are you trying to break the law and make a woman have to HAVE an unwanted child. There are some on your side who say even if she is raped or is a victim of incest the child should be born. Who takes care of those kids? You? If the situation arises (and it does) that if the woman allows the pregnancy to come to term and she will die, should she have the child? if so, who takes care of child then? You? See where I am going here.

yes, with the standard talking points that don't require you to think. The law already says (in most states) that if the fetus is viable the woman cannot get an abortion except in certain circumstances. This thread has nothing to do with my own personal beliefs about abortion much less anybody elses. And, the last time I checked we didn't kill anybody because they couldn't be cared for by family (or the family chose not to). All of which of course is OT.

There is no point in arguing pro choice vs. pro life. There really isn't. On my side, you make no points. You take away the rights given to women in this country. on your side, you say it is not her choice. I am a law abiding citizen and what you are preaching is wrong in the eyes of the law. If we start living like that...obeying the laws selectively, it will cause anarchy.

1. I'm not preaching
2. I'm not arguing pro-choice v pro life, i'm arguing for consistancy in legal theory.
3. Whether or not it is her choice vis a vie a viable fetus' is currently undefined federally
4. And, I doubt you'd be arguing that if the law changed.

Odd, if you'd bothered to read the thread an attempt to understand what the point of it was, you might have known all that.

 

[AllieBaba]

Adoption and abortion have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

 

[Zona]

Conradulations, you win the deflection award for those who have absolutely nothing OT to say!!! Have you gotten it yet? I really don't give it shit about your nitpicky bullshit.

You keep the ironies coming. Hate to inform you, but once again your clapping to insinuate some kind of irony created between my pointing out your poor analogy (a deficit in reasoning), and your pointing out a minor spelling error (lazy) is just further proof of your poor use of analogies and inability to properly identify an irony because of it.

and yes, I know at this point you are doing this on purpose, (we will just go with that) but this game is beginning to get fun.

You really want to debate me if abortion is murder? You think either of us will make the other one change their mind? Really?

aside from the clumsy wording (or is there just one missing?) I won't say anything about, you still don't seem to understand the threads not about "if abortion is murder". In the scheme of things it doesn't matter whether you or I consider a viable fetus to be a person, what matters is how the findings in Roe and Casey treat them and women and what that means under the theory of law we practice in every event but Roe and Casey. It's about how the law is applied vis a vie viable fetus' and womens rights with regard to Roe and Casey and how that is inconsistant with the constituional precepts of due process and equal treament under the same theory of law we use for every other application. So the thread is not about what I think, or what you think, its about our laws and how in every event except this they are consistantly applied with one overiding philosophy. That the government does not have the power to negate anyones rights unless that negation is constituionally authorized or in the interest of protecting another person or persons more compelling rights.

up until viability, yes. After that, not so much.

I could give a damn about your sense of fairness or what you consider riteous, or a contradiction in some peoples views (or theirs for that matter). The thread has nothing to do with stupid talking points or deflective defenses..

Why are you trying to break the law and make a woman have to HAVE an unwanted child. There are some on your side who say even if she is raped or is a victim of incest the child should be born. Who takes care of those kids? You? If the situation arises (and it does) that if the woman allows the pregnancy to come to term and she will die, should she have the child? if so, who takes care of child then? You? See where I am going here.

yes, with the standard talking points that don't require you to think. The law already says (in most states) that if the fetus is viable the woman cannot get an abortion except in certain circumstances. This thread has nothing to do with my own personal beliefs about abortion much less anybody elses. And, the last time I checked we didn't kill anybody because they couldn't be cared for by family (or the family chose not to). All of which of course is OT.

There is no point in arguing pro choice vs. pro life. There really isn't. On my side, you make no points. You take away the rights given to women in this country. on your side, you say it is not her choice. I am a law abiding citizen and what you are preaching is wrong in the eyes of the law. If we start living like that...obeying the laws selectively, it will cause anarchy.

1. I'm not preaching
2. I'm not arguing pro-choice v pro life, i'm arguing for consistancy in legal theory.
3. Whether or not it is her choice vis a vie a viable fetus' is currently undefined federally
4. And, I doubt you'd be arguing that if the law changed.

Odd, if you'd bothered to read the thread an attempt to understand what the point of it was, you might have known all that.

There are just too many typo's for me to even try to understand what the hell you are talking about. It makes it hard to take you seriously. But at this point, you are just doing this on purpose. Dude, seriously, if English is your second language, I will stop this but damn this is fun.

It is legal for a woman to have an abortion here in the states. Period. Agree. Even late term abortions are legal in the States. Agree. Bill O'reilly may hate it and he mentioned Tiller over and over as a killer. He did so, right up until someone killed him for performing LEGAL late term abortions, but hey, God bless America righty?

Again, abortion is legal here. Agree.

 

[BenNatuf]

and yes, I know at this point you are doing this on purpose, (we will just go with that) but this game is beginning to get fun.

You really want to debate me if abortion is murder? You think either of us will make the other one change their mind? Really?

aside from the clumsy wording (or is there just one missing?) I won't say anything about, you still don't seem to understand the threads not about "if abortion is murder". In the scheme of things it doesn't matter whether you or I consider a viable fetus to be a person, what matters is how the findings in Roe and Casey treat them and women and what that means under the theory of law we practice in every event but Roe and Casey. It's about how the law is applied vis a vie viable fetus' and womens rights with regard to Roe and Casey and how that is inconsistant with the constituional precepts of due process and equal treament under the same theory of law we use for every other application. So the thread is not about what I think, or what you think, its about our laws and how in every event except this they are consistantly applied with one overiding philosophy. That the government does not have the power to negate anyones rights unless that negation is constituionally authorized or in the interest of protecting another person or persons more compelling rights.

up until viability, yes. After that, not so much.

I could give a damn about your sense of fairness or what you consider riteous, or a contradiction in some peoples views (or theirs for that matter). The thread has nothing to do with stupid talking points or deflective defenses..

yes, with the standard talking points that don't require you to think. The law already says (in most states) that if the fetus is viable the woman cannot get an abortion except in certain circumstances. This thread has nothing to do with my own personal beliefs about abortion much less anybody elses. And, the last time I checked we didn't kill anybody because they couldn't be cared for by family (or the family chose not to). All of which of course is OT.

There is no point in arguing pro choice vs. pro life. There really isn't. On my side, you make no points. You take away the rights given to women in this country. on your side, you say it is not her choice. I am a law abiding citizen and what you are preaching is wrong in the eyes of the law. If we start living like that...obeying the laws selectively, it will cause anarchy.

1. I'm not preaching
2. I'm not arguing pro-choice v pro life, i'm arguing for consistancy in legal theory.
3. Whether or not it is her choice vis a vie a viable fetus' is currently undefined federally
4. And, I doubt you'd be arguing that if the law changed.

Odd, if you'd bothered to read the thread an attempt to understand what the point of it was, you might have known all that.

There are just too many typo's for me to even try to understand what the hell you are talking about. It makes it hard to take you seriously.

your claim is rather disingenuous. It's simple enough to understand as I hardly believe the difference between womens and women's makes the post unintelligeable. Nor does any other of the typos. So, the basic fact is you're just using trivial BS as an excuse condratulations!!! You win the deflection award yet again!

BTW, there is no apostrophe in typos.

But at this point, you are just doing this on purpose. Dude, seriously, if English is your second language, I will stop this but damn this is fun.

I'm glad you think avoiding discussing ideas by deflecting to trivial BS is fun... not very genuine, nor very original though.

It is legal for a woman to have an abortion here in the states. Period. Agree. Even late term abortions are legal in the States. Agree.

No, late term abortions are not, in fact, they are legally available in only two states last time I checked. They are decidedly illegal in most cases in most states.

Bill O'reilly may hate it and he mentioned Tiller over and over as a killer. He did so, right up until someone killed him for performing LEGAL late term abortions, but hey, God bless America righty?

More BS deflection and talking points. Tiller's "services" were far from legal and the failure in his prosecution only serves to prove one of the points I've been making; that even when the states follow the SCOTUS decissions in Roe and Casey and devise laws proscribing late term abortions, the courts will ignore that and follow the political easy road in defending even so barbaric a practice as partial birth abortion. Also, I don't give two shits what O'reilly thinks or who you wish to place blame on for Tiller's killing, as the last I checked the only person responsible for it was the murderer who did it. In case you hadn't noticed, I neither use nor need disingenuous appeals to supposed authority to make my case, and your insinuation that I do by your citing of O'reily is irrelevant to the discussion. Not to worry though, I know these irrelevant deflections and talking points are all that your masters provide you with. Gods forbid you should think for yourself.

Again, abortion is legal here. Agree.

Once again the use of a logical falacy does not prove anything. That laws are not (and will not be) enforced does not making breaking them "legal".

The exception carved out in Roe for a states interest in "potential life" is unique in our system, does not follow any legal theory ever used before or since, and does not pass strict scrutiny. In no case ever has the court granted to the states any ability to negate anyones constitutional rights except if that negation be founded by inumeration in the constitution or in the the ballancing of the rights of another person or persons. The finding in Roe gives the states either the power to negate actual persons' rights based on some notional non-existant persons future and as yet unrealized rights, which power the states do not have; or, it allows the states to choose not to provide due process or equal treatment to actual persons (viable fetus') in the ballancing of thier rights against the rights of other persons' (women) at their whim, which power the states also do not have.

There is no gray area in the constitution. A viable fetus either is a person or it is not. If it is not the states interest can never grow so compelling as to negate a person's rights (the woman), if it is the states interest can never be ignored in the providing to persons (viable fetus') due process and equal protection under the law. Yet the decission allows both, and because of that is inconsistant with our theory of law. Here the court tried a Solomonesque splitting of the baby, but seems to have forgotten that Solomon's wisdom was not in splitting the baby, but in ultimately not splitting the baby. This baby is split.

The affect of the decission is that each and every state may choose to protect or not protect the rights of the woman or the viable fetus both as if the viable fetus were a person, and as if it weren't simultaneously. The effect of this is a "person" who is both reccognized and protected as such, and unreccognized and left unprotected at the same time, and in doing so creating a class of lesser person. The constitution specifically forbids such classes of persons to be created.

Now, please, go ahead and spell check to avoid any discussion... for me, the ideas are more important than any trivial BS you might cite to avoid them.

P.S., I may have spell checked this time to avoid typo's on this post, as this time I do have the time; but, you've made such a big deal of deflecting from the ideas by using it as a trivial excuse, that I just can't do it. It is too much of a display of your lack of any real argument, which of course "it's legal" is not one of.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I linked you to it. All you had to do was read it and refute it. You refuse to because you can't refute it.

bullshit. Your linking to it does not equate to your arguing to support it. If you want to make the argument... make it. I am under no obligation to research you argument for you and negate it because you're too damned lazy to do it yourself.

No I'm not, your refusing to do your own homework and present the arguments you wish to make. I am under no obligation to search them out for you.

I also said that if Roe was wrong, its error was in giving the fetus any rights as person at all. You've yet to refute that,
so presumably, that is the winning argument here, i.e.,

evidently you don't read responses either. I've said that if the SCOTUS did not identify a viable fetus as a person that is EXACTLY how the law should be applied. But its not what they did... is it? They attempted to say it wasn't a person and then go on to negate anothers persons rights on the basis of some generic interest of the state with ABSOLUTELY no constituional underpinning.

that constitutionally, in the strictest most literal adherence to the document,

a woman has a right to an abortion from conception until birth.

Eh?

depends on how you define "person". So the strictest most literal adherance is a matter of that deffinition. If you define it as a viable fetus then the strictest interpretation would be to not allow any abortion after viability except to protect the mothers life (life ballancing life). If you do not, abortion until birth is the only alternative if we're going to protect real rights of real people. Splitting the baby "so to speak" is anethema to the constituion, either a viable fetus is a person, or its not. The constitution does not allow the states (or the federal government) to create different classes of persons for whom due process rights are unequal to all other persons.The best thing the SCOTUS could have done in this case is to admit that sans the Congress using its "neccesary and proper" power to define constitutional terms in law, they had no authority to do it in place of them, and that because of that by virtue of the 10th amendment the power to do so rightly belonged to the states, and not the courts. The proper course for the court in the absence of congressional action is to assume that the congress intended not to act, and in doing so leave it up to the states. One of the biggest faults of courts in modern jurisprudence is the assumption that if congress doesn't act on an issue, the courts have to or even should. Courts used to reccognize the limits on their own power, in the progressive era it would appear they don't believe there are any.

That is false. As I pointed out, men of a certain age are subject to the draft, which is not only a denial of freedom but is life threatening. Thousands have been drafted and killed as a consequence. How is that constitutional?

Children are denied all sorts of rights that adults have. Starting with voting.

It is a false premise to claim that if the Court grants certain rights or protections, it must grant them all.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Adoption and abortion have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Then why do anti-abortion propagandists constantly compare the two, for purposes of claiming adoption is the better choice?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I linked you to it. All you had to do was read it and refute it. You refuse to because you can't refute it.

bullshit. Your linking to it does not equate to your arguing to support it. If you want to make the argument... make it. I am under no obligation to research you argument for you and negate it because you're too damned lazy to do it yourself.

.

The opinion supporting the Roe v Wade decision, written by the Court, IS an argument, you idiot.

 

[BenNatuf]

I linked you to it. All you had to do was read it and refute it. You refuse to because you can't refute it.

bullshit. Your linking to it does not equate to your arguing to support it. If you want to make the argument... make it. I am under no obligation to research you argument for you and negate it because you're too damned lazy to do it yourself.

No I'm not, your refusing to do your own homework and present the arguments you wish to make. I am under no obligation to search them out for you.

evidently you don't read responses either. I've said that if the SCOTUS did not identify a viable fetus as a person that is EXACTLY how the law should be applied. But its not what they did... is it? They attempted to say it wasn't a person and then go on to negate anothers persons rights on the basis of some generic interest of the state with ABSOLUTELY no constituional underpinning.

that constitutionally, in the strictest most literal adherence to the document,

a woman has a right to an abortion from conception until birth.

Eh?

depends on how you define "person". So the strictest most literal adherance is a matter of that deffinition. If you define it as a viable fetus then the strictest interpretation would be to not allow any abortion after viability except to protect the mothers life (life ballancing life). If you do not, abortion until birth is the only alternative if we're going to protect real rights of real people. Splitting the baby "so to speak" is anethema to the constituion, either a viable fetus is a person, or its not. The constitution does not allow the states (or the federal government) to create different classes of persons for whom due process rights are unequal to all other persons.The best thing the SCOTUS could have done in this case is to admit that sans the Congress using its "neccesary and proper" power to define constitutional terms in law, they had no authority to do it in place of them, and that because of that by virtue of the 10th amendment the power to do so rightly belonged to the states, and not the courts. The proper course for the court in the absence of congressional action is to assume that the congress intended not to act, and in doing so leave it up to the states. One of the biggest faults of courts in modern jurisprudence is the assumption that if congress doesn't act on an issue, the courts have to or even should. Courts used to reccognize the limits on their own power, in the progressive era it would appear they don't believe there are any.

That is false. As I pointed out, men of a certain age are subject to the draft, which is not only a denial of freedom but is life threatening. Thousands have been drafted and killed as a consequence. How is that constitutional?

your canard is irrelevant as the constitution clearly gives the congress the ability to raise and support armies and the power to regulate them. A power given the congress to support the defense of the nation and therby protect all of our lives, liberties and property.

Children are denied all sorts of rights that adults have. Starting with voting.

They are denied nothing, the constitution itself does not give them voting rights, it is therefor not possible for them to be denied what the constitution does nt acknowledge they have in the first place... just another canard. As for any other "denials" they are weighed in the ballance of thier parents rights and judged the lessor.

It is a false premise to claim that if the Court grants certain rights or protections, it must grant them all.

No, it's a canard to claim that any of your examples actually deny anyones "rights". Where the government IS empowered, it IS empowered. Where constitutional rights are NOT extended constituionally they are NOT extended. And ballancing a parents rights against their childrens does not negate the children having those rights.... it just puts them on the short side of the ballancing equasion.

The government is not and never has been empowered to ballance a persons rights against any generic "interest" of the state unless that interest is founded constitutionally or an interest in the ballance of other person's rights. Your canard is simply that, a canard. Name one other case where a person's rights have been negated by any interest of the state that is not either grounded in the constitution or a matter of that ballancing.

Good luck Mr Phelps!!!

 

[jillian]

I linked you to it. All you had to do was read it and refute it. You refuse to because you can't refute it.

bullshit. Your linking to it does not equate to your arguing to support it. If you want to make the argument... make it. I am under no obligation to research you argument for you and negate it because you're too damned lazy to do it yourself.

.

The opinion supporting the Roe v Wade decision, written by the Court, IS an argument, you idiot.

he's an idiot with no concept of the legal effect of decisions of the court.

but he's a *constitutionalist* donchaknow.

 

[BenNatuf]

I linked you to it. All you had to do was read it and refute it. You refuse to because you can't refute it.

bullshit. Your linking to it does not equate to your arguing to support it. If you want to make the argument... make it. I am under no obligation to research you argument for you and negate it because you're too damned lazy to do it yourself.

.

The opinion supporting the Roe v Wade decision, written by the Court, IS an argument, you idiot.

And you're too stupid to present it? You are the one who wants to use the dicta as the source of your argument, so go ahead and do so, I am under no compulsion to search out the argument and present the parts I think you'd use for you. Prestent your argument and we'll debate it, I'm not going to present it for you.

 

[BenNatuf]

bullshit. Your linking to it does not equate to your arguing to support it. If you want to make the argument... make it. I am under no obligation to research you argument for you and negate it because you're too damned lazy to do it yourself.

.

The opinion supporting the Roe v Wade decision, written by the Court, IS an argument, you idiot.

he's an idiot with no concept of the legal effect of decisions of the court.

but he's a *constitutionalist* donchaknow.

still got nothin' huh?

When you come up with an argument feel free to use one. Until then you're commentary here is up to your usual standard of "nothing relevant"

You really should send that certificate in paralegal back to the university of Pheonix.

 

[frazzledgear]

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.

I linked you to it. All you had to do was read it and refute it. You refuse to because you can't refute it.

bullshit. Your linking to it does not equate to your arguing to support it. If you want to make the argument... make it. I am under no obligation to research you argument for you and negate it because you're too damned lazy to do it yourself.

No I'm not, your refusing to do your own homework and present the arguments you wish to make. I am under no obligation to search them out for you.

I also said that if Roe was wrong, its error was in giving the fetus any rights as person at all. You've yet to refute that,
so presumably, that is the winning argument here, i.e.,

evidently you don't read responses either. I've said that if the SCOTUS did not identify a viable fetus as a person that is EXACTLY how the law should be applied. But its not what they did... is it? They attempted to say it wasn't a person and then go on to negate anothers persons rights on the basis of some generic interest of the state with ABSOLUTELY no constituional underpinning.

that constitutionally, in the strictest most literal adherence to the document,

a woman has a right to an abortion from conception until birth.

Eh?

depends on how you define "person". So the strictest most literal adherance is a matter of that deffinition. If you define it as a viable fetus then the strictest interpretation would be to not allow any abortion after viability except to protect the mothers life (life ballancing life). If you do not, abortion until birth is the only alternative if we're going to protect real rights of real people. Splitting the baby "so to speak" is anethema to the constituion, either a viable fetus is a person, or its not. The constitution does not allow the states (or the federal government) to create different classes of persons for whom due process rights are unequal to all other persons.

The best thing the SCOTUS could have done in this case is to admit that sans the Congress using its "neccesary and proper" power to define constitutional terms in law, they had no authority to do it in place of them, and that because of that by virtue of the 10th amendment the power to do so rightly belonged to the states, and not the courts. The proper course for the court in the absence of congressional action is to assume that the congress intended not to act, and in doing so leave it up to the states. One of the biggest faults of courts in modern jurisprudence is the assumption that if congress doesn't act on an issue, the courts have to or even should. Courts used to reccognize the limits on their own power, in the progressive era it would appear they don't believe there are any.

Arguments are going astray. Roe v. Wade did NOT declare a fetus a non-person or non-human. No court has the authority to declare a woman's baby is not a person when every woman who has ever had a baby knows good and well it is. Which is also why it is against the law in many states for someone to kill a woman's fetus intentionally or not during the commission of another crime! A fetus has CITIZENSHIP when it takes its first breath. But it is already a PERSON long before that.

I do not understand the really stupid arguments of some people here. "Person" only means "human being" and nothing more -it doesn't specify the location, stage of development or age of that person. It isn't a guppy in there that suddenly and magically turns into a human being by having its mouth an inch further south than that of another fetus whose mouth is still an inch further north! Human beings can only produce another human being so what is in there is at all times a very real HUMAN BEING. Person =HUMAN BEING. But it isn't a citizen yet which requires that person take a breath. Even the Supreme Court ruled that states have an abiding interest in protecting the life of that person even though it is not yet born and a citizen -and the older and more mature that person becomes and capable of independent life outside of its mother, the greater the interest of the state in protecting it. Which is why Roe v. Wade still allowed limits on when a woman could get an abortion.

Something the left NEVER mentions is the fact the US has the most liberal abortion laws in the world outside of communist China where women in some regions are forced to have abortions against their will. In some European countries like Switzerland and Poland, abortion can only be done for legitimate medical necessity. Where it is legal, it is only legal up to the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and late term abortions are NOT allowed! Only the UK allows abortion up to 24 weeks and the rest of Europe disagrees with allowing abortion that late into pregnancy because it crosses the line of viability! No COURT imposed its own determination of whether abortion should be legal or not in their country -the people themselves voted for or against it and THEY don't want abortions beyond 12 weeks. It isn't a political issue in their countries because the people themselves decided what their law would be -and did NOT have rammed down their throats against their will by a court of 9 people. So it shouldn't surprise the pro-abortion extremists but the vast majority of Americans don't want it to be legal after 12 weeks here either!

Summary of European Abortion Laws And there is NO push anywhere in Europe to extend the time period someone can get an abortion beyond 12 weeks! No one is arguing for a need to kill older and viable babies in Europe! If abortions are going to be done, at the very least they should be done LONG before there is a chance of viability in the fetus and that is how it is viewed in Europe. Because once viable it means that person can survive on its own and therefore is the SOLE owner of its life. NOT the mommy harboring homicidal thoughts about that child. Mommy's CONVENIENCE isn't of more value than the life of a human being. Especially since 67% of all abortions today are actually done for reasons of DADDY'S convenience and the percentage of woman who say they were pressured into having one against their will by the baby's father.

Even Europe recognizes that killing a fetus capable of independent life outside of its mother is really nothing short of murder! Just because it hasn't come out yet -doesn't mean it can be killed just because it hasn't yet come out on its own! Even in Europe the most vigorous supporters of abortion recognize that once a fetus reaches viability, no one can legitimately argue or pretend that child doesn't have an independent life separate from that of its mother -which also means no one, including the mother, has any "right" to kill that person. And it IS a person! "Person" just means a HUMAN BEING and it is absolutely a human being since two human beings can only produce another human being.

A fetus starts to become capable of surviving outside of its mother just two weeks after the halfway point in pregnancy at 22 weeks gestation (normal pregnancy is 40 weeks) -with the odds of survival rapidly increasing after that! A baby born at 24 weeks has better than an 80% chance of survival and at 27 weeks that chance of survival is nearly identical with a full term baby.

Taking its first breath ONLY determines citizenship but NEVER determines personhood or its species! And no court has the authority to declare a woman's unborn child to be non-human and a non-person -which is why no court ever has.

Abortion laws do NOT define personhood, do NOT define when a fetus is legally considered a human being and it would be STUPID of the courts to pretend that the fetus of any human being is anything BUT another human being! The law can only define when CITIZENSHIP begins and no one is quibbling about THAT.

But the majority of people in this country object to allowing someone to kill their child for reasons of CONVENIENCE right up until a child takes its first breath -as if a woman's CONVENIENCE takes priority over the very life of another human being right up to the moment of birth! It doesn't in Europe or in any other civilized place in the world (I do not consider any place where government claims a "right" to kill a woman's unborn child against her will to be "civilized" obviously) - and it sure as hell shouldn't here either.

I agree with the person who said this issue properly belongs in the states and is NOT a constitutional issue! And besides the majority of Americans agreeing with that, so do many constitutional lawyers. If it had been left to the states, it wouldn't be a political issue still DECADES later! It is because the Supreme Court made a bad ruling and FORCED an unwanted law down the throats of a people who actually have a superior right of self-determination and a right to decide for themselves what laws they agree to be governed by that it is a political issue at all -and the best way to turn any issue into a political one! Having a court ram it down our throats is NOT a representative democracy but an OLIGARCHY. The Constitution was written at a time when abortion was illegal as well as the sale of abortifacients as a matter of state law -and yet that activist Supreme Court would have us all believe the authors of the Constitution failed to mention some magical "right" of privacy that would overturn state law and allow women to intentionally harm their unborn child in the hopes of killing it before it took its first breath. It took 9 people 200 years later to find that one and the people of this country disagree with it so vigorously that here decades later its STILL a hotly debated and UNSETTLED issue. And it will remain an unsettled political issue until WE THE PEOPLE decide the issue -not 9 people on a court forcing its will on a population that vigorously disagrees with its ruling! It never was a political issue UNTIL that ruling and the people of each state were dealing with the issue as a social health issue -not a political one.

Abortion is the worst age discrimination of all but is defended to the hilt right up to the moment of birth where they still support the violent murder of that child during the process of its birth even -by the very people most likely to demand the perpetrator be given a jail sentence if they saw someone doing to any OTHER living creature what is done to a human fetus in an abortion. I even heard a pro-HUMAN abortion extremist member of NOW go nuts at hearing about a veterinarian who performed an abortion on a dog, ranting and railing against the owner of that dog for not having gotten it spayed in the first place to avoid pregnancy. Apparently shooting off her mouth without fully appreciating the utter irony of the fact that while she obviously believed a dog's owner knew good and well how to avoid an unwanted pregnancy in her dog, she was at the same time insisting that a full grown WOMAN dog owner couldn't possibly be expected to know how to avoid unwanted pregnancy herself. Huh? THAT is the kind of mental gymnastics and convoluted the thinking of the typical pro-abortion extremist who never saw a human fetus whose death they wouldn't celebrate as upholding the "rights" of womanhood.