Interesting Poll On Pro-Choice/Pro-Life

[manu1959]

except you forgot to put 'only' in front of 'the woman'.

dude are you arguing wif yourself and losing?

 

[Abbey Normal]

Actually, trying to pretend the Constitution is a literal document is more agenda driven and more "activist" than anything else you're discussing.

And if you think judicial review "has its problems", then you're missing the point of the Court and the fact that its the last bastion of protection between tyrannical government and people... or it's supposed to be.

I'm not trying to ""pretend" anything. There is nothing activist about a literal interpretation of anything. That is practically an oxymoron!

I am trying to explain that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. That it was concocted out of imaginary threads between Amendments. Even the most liberal law professors admit that it took a tortured judicial analysis to arrive at the decision in Roe. Perhaps it is your agenda that blinds you to that fact?

Btw, despite your imperious statements, there are several highly intelligent people on this board, including a few attorneys, who know what they are talking about. You do not have a corner on knowledge, Constitutional or otherwise.

 

[dilloduck]

dude are you arguing wif yourself and losing?

shhhhhhhhhh You're making me lose my concentration.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

OK, so the text from the 5th amendment "No person shall be .... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" is meant to be taken... how? It seems to me that a person can't be executed without a trial. But that's what abortion does.

Abortion denies a person the right to life ... because the unborn baby is a person.

The argument that abortion is all about a woman's right to choose what to do with her body is specious. The unborn baby has a genetic structure separate and distinct from its mother's. Unlike an organ, the unborn baby is capable of living separate from the body on its own.

The unborn baby has its own body, but the woman now has a right to decide what to do with her baby's body.

In addition, the 10th amendment states that states have the right to decide on granting or denying rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution. Roe vs. Wade took that right away. Up until 1973, states did vote on abortion. The voters of some states decided against it, the Supreme Court took the right of voters and their duly elected representatives to decide on the issue.

Agreed, but again if we are going to be taking the constitution strictly literally then the 4th Amendment protects against any government entity from spying on American Citizens without a Warrant... And yet here we are with the NSA spying controversy...

Choosing which parts of the constitution to adhere to, seems pretty dangerous if you ask me.

 

[KarlMarx]

Agreed, but again if we are going to be taking the constitution strictly literally then the 4th Amendment protects against any government entity from spying on American Citizens without a Warrant... And yet here we are with the NSA spying controversy...

Choosing which parts of the constitution to adhere to, seems pretty dangerous if you ask me.

Agreed, warrantless searches against United States citizens are illegal. However, spying on agents of foreign powers is not. The President as head of the Armed Services is authorized by Section II of the US Constitution to initiate warrantless searches and wiretaps on agents of foreign powers. However, he cannot issue warrantless searches and wiretaps against citizens in criminal matters. That is the difference between FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), which is legal and constitutional, and what you seem to be accusing President Bush of.

However, as I have posted before... President Clinton authorized IRS audits against political opponents. I'd like to see someone explain to me in a rational manner how this was within his powers as the Executive and not a wanton abuse of power.

While we're at it.... I'd also like someone to explain to me where in the Constitution the President, the Congress or any member of the United States has the power to levy Social Security taxes. A tax by the way, which we all have to pay tax on! A double tax! This does not provide for the general welfare, but instead provides for the welfare of only a small segment of the population.

Then, I could go on and ask about the provisions of Campaign Finance Reform which limits political speech (no negative campaign ads within 30 days of an election). Clearly CFR is unconstitutional, since it clearly violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

And, then there is the Supreme Court's recent decision that the powers granted under the 5th amendment (eminent domain) can be extended to private developers!

 

[jillian]

Agreed, warrantless searches against United States citizens are illegal. However, spying on agents of foreign powers is not. The President as head of the Armed Services is authorized by Section II of the US Constitution to initiate warrantless searches and wiretaps on agents of foreign powers. However, he cannot issue warrantless searches and wiretaps against citizens in criminal matters. That is the difference between FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), which is legal and constitutional, and what you seem to be accusing President Bush of.

I know the difference between spying on foreign powers and spying on U.S. citizens. And, yes, Bush failed to advise the FISA Courts of those citizens under surveillance within the time period required by FISA, at least that's how it appears.

I'd also like someone to explain to me where in the Constitution the President, the Congress or any member of the United States has the power to levy Social Security taxes. A tax by the way, which we all have to pay tax on! A double tax! This does not provide for the general welfare, but instead provides for the welfare of only a small segment of the population.

I'm not going to get into those issues because they've been settled for about 60 years. Not up to me to reinvent the wheel.

Then, I could go on and ask about the provisions of Campaign Finance Reform which limits political speech (no negative campaign ads within 30 days of an election). Clearly CFR is unconstitutional, since it clearly violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

I disagree. But again. You're moving way away from the issue at hand.

And, then there is the Supreme Court's recent decision that the powers granted under the 5th amendment (eminent domain) can be extended to private developers!

I hate ther result of that decision. But the sole issue that was before the Court was the extent of the Fed's ability to review local/state action. Sucked...but that was all it was.

 

[5stringJeff]

OK, so the text from the 5th amendment "No person shall be .... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" is meant to be taken... how? It seems to me that a person can't be executed without a trial. But that's what abortion does.

Abortion denies a person the right to life ... because the unborn baby is a person.

The argument that abortion is all about a woman's right to choose what to do with her body is specious. The unborn baby has a genetic structure separate and distinct from its mother's. Unlike an organ, the unborn baby is capable of living separate from the body on its own.

The unborn baby has its own body, but the woman now has a right to decide what to do with her baby's body.

In addition, the 10th amendment states that states have the right to decide on granting or denying rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution. Roe vs. Wade took that right away. Up until 1973, states did vote on abortion. The voters of some states decided against it, the Supreme Court took the right of voters and their duly elected representatives to decide on the issue.

Exactly! Roe takes away the right to life - the most fundemental human right - from the unborn child, and strips the states' rights to pass laws in which the federal government has no Constitutional jurisdiction.

 

[5stringJeff]

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Constitutional analysis doesn't say ignore the words...which is what you're saying. The way it's done and has always been done is that the Court looks at the words and, to apply the words to the issue at hand, the Court determines what the intent behind the words is.

If these issues really interest you. Take a course in Con Law. You seem like you'd enjoy it.

I took Constitutional law in college. It was enjoyable. But I have to say that Roe did not take the words of the Constitution and apply them to a case. It was a very clear case of judicial activism, in which the court set forth brand new mandates as to when an abortion could be determined as legal or illegal - a clear usurpation of the judiciary into the realm of the legislative branch's duties.

Well...the Second Amendment protects that. Yet, if I had to guess, you're one of those who would like to see that right be construed in the broadest, most liberal sense possible, so as to protect that right and save it from the slippery slope of infringement. I actually agree (within the reasonable limit of maybe keeping people from having cannons and 50 mm guns on their premises). That's all I expect of the Court as regards the other Amendments.

Well, I don't see a problem with people owning .50 caliber guns (I'm sure that's what you meant to say - a 50mm would be a mortar or small cannon). I've shot a couple, and frankly they're a lot of work, so I can't imagine they would be very widespread. But I'm happy to see that you support the 2nd Amendment. Ever think about joining the NRA?

 

[jillian]

I took Constitutional law in college. It was enjoyable. But I have to say that Roe did not take the words of the Constitution and apply them to a case. It was a very clear case of judicial activism, in which the court set forth brand new mandates as to when an abortion could be determined as legal or illegal - a clear usurpation of the judiciary into the realm of the legislative branch's duties.

I disagree, but I see your point. The one thing I'll say is that sometimes judges do the right things for the wrong reasons.

And again, it doesn't actually determine when it's legal or not legal (although that's clearly the result) it rules only on when the governmental interest in the subject outweighs the right of the individual to determine what happens in her own body.

And before you tell me again that the "life" of the fetus is being taken away. Before one determines that a fetus is a person they are making a religioius judgment that the State, IMO, really has no business involving itself in. It's really a moral decision that has to be made by the individual.

It's kind of like thinking government is more capable of making decisions for me than I am.

and see... I knew you'd like Con Law.

Well, I don't see a problem with people owning .50 caliber guns (I'm sure that's what you meant to say - a 50mm would be a mortar or small cannon). I've shot a couple, and frankly they're a lot of work, so I can't imagine they would be very widespread. But I'm happy to see that you support the 2nd Amendment. Ever think about joining the NRA?

Yeah...probably did mean .50 caliber. Sorry. What I know about guns, you could write on your pinkie nail.

The NRA? Nah... I don't like the fact that they went afield of guns and started on the militia stuff. But I do tend to be fairly realistic on the issue and expect every Amendment to be respected. And I HATE when lawmakers pass stupid, ineffective laws instead of just enforcing what already exists. (As if anti-gun laws deter lawbreakers who get the guns anyway. Sheesh! Silliness, IMO).

 

[dmp]

Before one determines that a fetus is a person they are making a religioius judgment

You know that little about biology?

 

[5stringJeff]

I disagree, but I see your point. The one thing I'll say is that sometimes judges do the right things for the wrong reasons.

And again, it doesn't actually determine when it's legal or not legal (although that's clearly the result) it rules only on when the governmental interest in the subject outweighs the right of the individual to determine what happens in her own body.

And before you tell me again that the "life" of the fetus is being taken away. Before one determines that a fetus is a person they are making a religioius judgment that the State, IMO, really has no business involving itself in. It's really a moral decision that has to be made by the individual.

It's kind of like thinking government is more capable of making decisions for me than I am.

and see... I knew you'd like Con Law.



Yeah...probably did mean .50 caliber. Sorry. What I know about guns, you could write on your pinkie nail.

The NRA? Nah... I don't like the fact that they went afield of guns and started on the militia stuff. But I do tend to be fairly realistic on the issue and expect every Amendment to be respected. And I HATE when lawmakers pass stupid, ineffective laws instead of just enforcing what already exists. (As if anti-gun laws deter lawbreakers who get the guns anyway. Sheesh! Silliness, IMO).

Well, the fact that you're pro-2nd Amendment makes you OK in my book!

 

[jillian]

Well, the fact that you're pro-2nd Amendment makes you OK in my book!

I think you're ok, too!

 

[archangel]

from a 'old farts' perspective that silly jilly.....did the abort thingeee...and is feeling a little guilty now...just a opinion mind ya...but hey we all have one...including silly jilly!

 

[5stringJeff]

from a 'old farts' perspective that silly jilly.....did the abort thingeee...and is feeling a little guilty now...just a opinion mind ya...but hey we all have one...including silly jilly!

Whether she did or not is no one's business on this board.

EDIT: The more I think about it, the more this pisses me off. Speculating on whether someone had an abortion or not is tasteless. That particular topic is closed for further discussion, upon pain of a 48-hour ban.

 

[deaddude]

Right, or something. It did things, without legal standing. It will be overturned, but not stop abortion, at least not every state.

In which case it becomes futile to stop it at all, people will simply drive to which ever state offers abortions.

 

[jillian]

In which case it becomes futile to stop it at all, people will simply drive to which ever state offers abortions.

Unless, of course, you're poor or young.

 

[deaddude]

Also the Republicans now have a decent hold on all three branches of government. Why has nothing been done about abortion? My theory is that it is politics. There are a large number of voters who simply vote on the abortion issue. The Republicans know this and know that they get the "family values" votes. Abortion creates an excellent wedge issue, and it allows Republican canidates to call their opponents baby killers. You could not do better if if you called your oppenent a Nazi.

 

[dmp]

from a 'old farts' perspective that silly jilly.....did the abort thingeee...and is feeling a little guilty now...just a opinion mind ya...but hey we all have one...including silly jilly!

If any post in the history of this board deserved Neg Rep, it's the above.

 

[archangel]

If any post in the history of this board deserved Neg Rep, it's the above.

so no one is aloud to express their opinion..if it is not pre-approved...hey she made her opinion known..and so did I! if I deserve a neg for expressing my opinion so do you! You are the one who expresses negatives for abortion on demand...and now you are attacking me for what?

 

[GotZoom]

from a 'old farts' perspective that silly jilly.....did the abort thingeee...and is feeling a little guilty now...just a opinion mind ya...but hey we all have one...including silly jilly!

Are you out of your mind?!?

WTF? You really are insane aren't you?

Just go away.