My solution to the Abortion, Gay Marriage and Birth Right Argument

[GHook93]

I say create the 28th amendment ruling on it. Obviously my liberal up bringing is coming out (at least for gay marriage and abortion), but I think my amendment is a good conpromise on abortion, yes I am taking a far swing left on gay marriage and yes I see a huge problem with the birth right clause of the 14th amendment (its legislative intent was to make sure the newly freed slaves and their children were not denied citizenship, not to reward the children of fugitives)!

Note: No I am not sending it to congress so no asshole comments please!

Amendment XXVIII
Abortion, Marriage and Citizenship Amendment​

Section 1: First trimester - No State or Federal Law can infringe on a women's right to an abortion during the 1st trimester.
Second trimester - Its up to the State to decide whether to allow or to disallow abortion in the 2nd trimester. Exceptions to the prohibition of abortion in the 2nd trimester are cases of rape, incest or the mother's life is in danger.
Third Trimester - Abortion in the 3rd trimester is illegal in all cases, unless one of the prescribed exceptions is present. Exceptions to the prohibition on abortion in the 3rd trimester are cases of incest or the mother's life is in danger.
Father's rights and minor's parental consent are left to the State to decide on.

Section 2: Marriage is legal union between two consenting adults. The right for two consenting adults to marry may not be infringed on by the Federal or State government. Age of consent is to be determined by the State.

Section 3: All persons naturalized through means prescribed by Federal immigration and naturalization laws and all children born in the US in which at least one NATURAL parent is a US citizen of legal and proper standing are US citizens.

 

[Jon]

There's a compromise there? I see no compromise, I see your left-wing agenda being pushed into a permanent addition of our Constitution, and further denying states' rights.

No thanks.

 

[jillian]

That's funny... because I was thinking "spousal consent, my butt".

 

[GHook93]

There's a compromise there? I see no compromise, I see your left-wing agenda being pushed into a permanent addition of our Constitution, and further denying states' rights.

No thanks.

Amendment X​

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectfully or to the people."


Presenting an amendment on gay marriage and abortion infringes on the 10th amendment, when ratified constitutional amendment is precisely what the 10th amendment says takes away the rights of the state to legislate on the issue? Please explain!

 

[GHook93]

That's funny... because I was thinking "spousal consent, my butt".

I am also against spousal consent, since that is a slippery slope that I don't want to go down and it creates too much a clusterfuck, however, I think its something for the States to decide.

 

[Jon]

Also, if the government can decide that a woman can have an abortion with the father's consent, can it also decide that the father doesn't have to pay child support if he doesn't want the child?

 

[GHook93]

There's a compromise there? I see no compromise, I see your left-wing agenda being pushed into a permanent addition of our Constitution, and further denying states' rights.

No thanks.

How is it not a compromise? Left wingers want abortion legal all the way to the bitter end of pregnancy. Right wingers do not want abortion legal even before the egg and the sperm meet. Moderates mostly want State rights.
Satisfy the left wingers - abortion is legal in the 1st trimester, in which the fetus is in its infancy stage.
Satisfy the right-wingers - late term abortion is criminalized and 2nd trimester can also be criminalized.
Satisfy the moderates on the issue. The State has the right on the 2nd trimester, father's rights and minor consent!

I guess in your opinion a compromise is only when each and everything goes entirely your way!

 

[Jon]

There's a compromise there? I see no compromise, I see your left-wing agenda being pushed into a permanent addition of our Constitution, and further denying states' rights.

No thanks.

How is it not a compromise? Left wingers want abortion legal all the way to the bitter end of pregnancy. Right wingers do not want abortion legal even before the egg and the sperm meet. Moderates mostly want State rights.
Satisfy the left wingers - abortion is legal in the 1st trimester, in which the fetus is in its infancy stage.
Satisfy the right-wingers - late term abortion is criminalized and 2nd trimester can also be criminalized.
Satisfy the moderates on the issue. The State has the right on the 2nd trimester, father's rights and minor consent!

I guess in your opinion a compromise is only when each and everything goes entirely your way!

I don't know many left wingers should support abortion past the first trimester. Sorry.

And there is zero compromise on the gay marriage portion of this proposed amendment. I'm not against gay marriage, but you can't call a compromise a compromise when it isn't one.

 

[GHook93]

There's a compromise there? I see no compromise, I see your left-wing agenda being pushed into a permanent addition of our Constitution, and further denying states' rights.

No thanks.

Say an amendment to the constitution was passed that criminalized all abortion and made marriage exclusively between a man and a women. I won't like or agree with it, but I won't say it went against the 10th amendment. Rather I would say the activist who got the constitutional amendment went about it the right way.

Don't think you realize how hard it is to pass a constitional amendment.

Article V​

"2/3 of both the Houses (the House and Senate) shall be necessary, to propose Amendments to this Constitution, or the Application of the legislators of 2/3 of the several States, shall call for a (Constitutional) convention for proposing Amendments..."

IOW: 2/3 of the house and senate and a Presidential approval, or
2/3 of the States calling for a constitutional convention. That would be a first since there has only ever been one constitutional convention in our great country's history!

 

[ItsFairmont]

I think abortion should be illegal unless there is danger to the mother, a case of rape, or incest. Abortion for convenience is immoral.

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Give one vote for each generation you have that was a U.S. citizen. I have SEVEN ancestors on the Mayflower Compact.

 

[Shogun]

Stop ripping off The Shogun's Great Abortion Compromise, dude. The only difference being that you make a division between trimesters while I chose a detectable heartbeat and added the complete range of birth control and education.


so, for real. stop trying to rip off my ideas that were posted back in 07.

 

[JBeukema]

I think abortion should be illegal unless there is danger to the mother, a case of rape, or incest. Abortion for convenience is immoral.

At least you said one smart thing

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

you're defining it to suit your desires. Marriage as a legal contract is different from marriage as a socio-religious recognition of a union

Give one vote for each generation you have that was a U.S. citizen. I have SEVEN ancestors on the Mayflower Compact.

What?! In other words, strike equality under the law

 

[Jon]

Don't think you realize how hard it is to pass a constitional amendment.

I don't think you should make assumptions about someone you don't know. Of course I know what it takes to pass an amendment. I also know that the Democrats are very close to having those numbers and a President who will do whatever they tell him to do.

 

[GHook93]

Don't think you realize how hard it is to pass a constitional amendment.

I don't think you should make assumptions about someone you don't know. Of course I know what it takes to pass an amendment. I also know that the Democrats are very close to having those numbers and a President who will do whatever they tell him to do.

Lets exam how close:

The House of Representatives:
Total Seats: 435
2/3 Majority: 290
Current D: 255
Seats Needed: 35
That doesn't seem like much in retrospect, but its alot given that those 35 seats will be in Republican dominated areas. The only way they pick them up is if the economy turns rapidly by 2010.

Senate:
Total Seats: 100
2/3 Majority: 67
Current D: 59 (I consider the Communist in NH a D and Liberman a D, besides Iraq he is very liberal)
Seats needed: 7
I expect a Democratic supermajority in 2010.

Governors: Which usually represents which was the state leans (also note the 2/3 of the States can call for a constitutional convention):
Total States: 50
2/3 Majority: 34
Current Democratic: 28
Needed: 6

 

[amrchaos]

I have a better amendment.

ALL living organisms that can be transformed naturally into a human being must, under all powers provided by the United of the law, be allowed to develop into a human being. This does not exclude sperm and un-fertilized eggs.

Also, 10% of all tax revenue must be dedicated to the Great Church of the United States of America and no religion besides Christian Capitalism is to be practiced from now on.....

 

[frazzledgear]

I say create the 28th amendment ruling on it. Obviously my liberal up bringing is coming out (at least for gay marriage and abortion), but I think my amendment is a good conpromise on abortion, yes I am taking a far swing left on gay marriage and yes I see a huge problem with the birth right clause of the 14th amendment (its legislative intent was to make sure the newly freed slaves and their children were not denied citizenship, not to reward the children of fugitives)!

Note: No I am not sending it to congress so no asshole comments please!

Amendment XXVIII
Abortion, Marriage and Citizenship Amendment​

Section 1: First trimester - No State or Federal Law can infringe on a women's right to an abortion during the 1st trimester.
Second trimester - Its up to the State to decide whether to allow or to disallow abortion in the 2nd trimester. Exceptions to the prohibition of abortion in the 2nd trimester are cases of rape, incest or the mother's life is in danger.
Third Trimester - Abortion in the 3rd trimester is illegal in all cases, unless one of the prescribed exceptions is present. Exceptions to the prohibition on abortion in the 3rd trimester are cases of incest or the mother's life is in danger.
Father's rights and minor's parental consent are left to the State to decide on.

Section 2: Marriage is legal union between two consenting adults. The right for two consenting adults to marry may not be infringed on by the Federal or State government. Age of consent is to be determined by the State.

Section 3: All persons naturalized through means prescribed by Federal immigration and naturalization laws and all children born in the US in which at least one NATURAL parent is a US citizen of legal and proper standing are US citizens.

I have problems with the notion of making Constitutional Amendments on every single thing some generation happens to favor at the moment. The Constitution is a very plain document that was intended to give far more power to the states than federal government -because the government closest to the people was most responsive to their needs and demands. The one furthest from the people was the most abusive and least responsive. Still true. The Constitution specifically states that it is state legislatures that will decide the prerequisites on all licenses -and that includes marriage licenses. State legislatures because they can be held accountable by the people -who actually have the right to decide this issue.

Apparently some people just cannot get this one -but marriage is NOT a right and it sure isn't about love. No one is required by the state to actually love the person they marry -no love test involved. Not by any state -or any country for that matter. You can love whoevever you want. But that doesn't mean you get to marry the person you choose to love -and that is true for both gays and heterosexuals alike. Gays insist not being allowed to marry the person of THEIR choice somehow violates their Equal Protection rights -on the grounds they CHOSE to love someone the state said was not an eligible marriage partner. But what about a heterosexual who loves someone the state also says is not an eligible marriage partner? That is no less a violation of their "rights" as well then, right? No. Because marriage isn't about who you choose to love.

There is no "right" to marry -it is a state-granted privilege only. You are only granted that privilege if the person you choose is an eligible marriage partner as defined by the state. You want your state to change who is and is not an eligible marriage partner -then elect to the state legislature those who will vote to change it. THAT is how it is done. NOT by Constitutional Amendment in order to bypass the will of the people. It is WE THE PEOPLE who will have to deal with any unintended and unwanted consequences -therefore it is something WE THE PEOPLE, through our elected representatives -should get to decide.

Secondly, our Constitution was set up so that it didn't require a major upheaval of constantly adding one Constitutional Amendment after another every time another generation changed its mind about what it did and did not want as law. What an unwieldy and unworkable document it would quickly become -which is why the founders made it difficult and time consuming to alter -giving the people plenty of time to debate whether it was necessary and the best means. And the founders listed ONLY those rights that were universal and applied to each and every American. Marriage isn't the right of anyone in the first place -and therefore any mention of marriage, much less gay marriage has no place in our Constitution whatsoever.

Defining the laws and regulations we will be governed by is NOT the purpose of our Constitution because our Constitution was set up to specifically insure that power remained with WE THE PEOPLE. And WE THE PEOPLE would decide what laws we will be governed by. Which means if we want to change the laws regarding abortion and gay marriage -then we need only change state law. Majority rules. That way if some later generation changed its mind again about some law a previous generation enacted, they merely had to change the law again. And if the next generation wanted to change it again -they could. And on and on. No generation has the right to force some future generation to live by the arbitrary laws they chose to inflict on themselves. Which is why our Constitution involves only the universal and identical rights of all Americans that government could not EVER take from any of us. Why on earth would marriage of anyt kind even be mentioned -much less how an eligible marriage partner is defined -when marriage isn't a right at all.

Any proposed Constitutional Amendment regarding gay marriage would FAIL -completely. The overwhelming majority of the US population opposes it -period. Government has no right to EVER alter the Constitution, only the people can do that. Because it is OUR contract with government, instructing government how we agree to be governed. Not the other way around. Which means any Amendment to the Constitution requires the approval of the majority of the people in at least 38 states. You can't find 4 states where the majority of people want gay marriage legalized even in their OWN state, much less nationwide. Never going to find 38 of them. Vermont is the only state that approved gay marriage the proper way -by state legislature. In the other three states gay activists got a court to ram it down the throats of the majority against their will -where it is still opposed by the majority in those states.

People couldn't get but a handful of states to vote in favor of an Equal Rights Amendment -a proposal that was a hell of a lot less controversial than your proposed amendments. Using the Constitution to protect something that is NOT a universal right of all humans but to elevate a tiny group with special "rights" - is abusing the document and needlessly so when it merely requires changing state law to allow gay marriage. The problem gays have with that though -is they know they haven't a legitimate argument to persuade the majority to go along with it. AT THIS TIME -and they don't want to have to spend their time trying to persuade the majority like everyone else has to do when they want certain laws changed. Which is why they want the courts to ram unwanted law down the throats of the majority against their will. Plenty of gays have been in legal marriages -so they can and do marry. But gays want it declared a "right" to marry whoever they choose to LOVE -even though loving someone is never required by the state in order to get a marriage license. And until all heterosexuals get to marry ANYONE they claim to love that the state has also deemed to be an ineligible marriage partner -then gays are not being treated any differently. Plenty of gays and heterosexuals alike end up choosing to be in relationships that the state will never recognize as a "marriage".

Liberals have no problem insisting their agenda is so "morally" superior that it justifies ramming unwanted law down the throats of the majority against their will. All tyrants justify ramming unwanted law down the throats of the majority in this way though. Perhaps liberals and the militant gay activists should review history -not just ours, but from around the world - about what happens when the majority have had enough of that bullshit.

 

[007]

There's a compromise there? I see no compromise, I see your left-wing agenda being pushed into a permanent addition of our Constitution, and further denying states' rights.

No thanks.

How is it not a compromise? Left wingers want abortion legal all the way to the bitter end of pregnancy. Right wingers do not want abortion legal even before the egg and the sperm meet. Moderates mostly want State rights.
Satisfy the left wingers - abortion is legal in the 1st trimester, in which the fetus is in its infancy stage.
Satisfy the right-wingers - late term abortion is criminalized and 2nd trimester can also be criminalized.
Satisfy the moderates on the issue. The State has the right on the 2nd trimester, father's rights and minor consent!

I guess in your opinion a compromise is only when each and everything goes entirely your way!

How about abortion is murder? So then if we're going to say it's legal, then say my neighbor pisses me off, I go over and shoot him in the face with a shot gun, then should I only get a $50 fine under this agreement to legally kill a human?

How do you "compromise" life? You're either living or you're dead. Whether you're one day old or ninety, you're either living or dead. You're suggesting we "compromise" murder.

No thanks.

 

[JBeukema]

As you never responded in the other thread

Amendment XXVIII​

Abortion, Marriage and Citizenship Amendment​

Section 1:
First trimester - No State or Federal Law can infringe on a women's right to an abortion during the 1st trimester.
Why can she kill her child for three months? Also, if I kick her in the stomach and she miscarries, I can be charged only for assaulting her, correct.
Second trimester - Its up to the State to decide whether to allow or to disallow abortion in the 2nd trimester. Exceptions to the prohibition of abortion in the 2nd trimester are cases of rape, incest or the mother's life is in danger.
If she were raped, she had three months according to article one. Why would she wait? Also, if it's legal in a given state, I can kick her in the stomach until she miscarries with no consequence, correct? Would yo make them look at the remains of their child so they know what they're doing, or would you simply slay the child for convenience and let her go about her way?
Third Trimester - Abortion in the 3rd trimester is illegal in all cases, unless one of the prescribed exceptions is present. Exceptions to the prohibition on abortion in the 3rd trimester are cases of incest or the mother's life is in danger.
Father's rights and minor's parental consent are left to the State to decide on.
Why can that bitch kill my baby, who is half of my DNA? This law is also sexist and deprives a father of the ability to protect his child

.......

 

[GHook93]

Amendment XXVIII
Abortion, Marriage and Citizenship Amendment​

Section 1: First trimester - No State or Federal Law can infringe on a women's right to an abortion during the 1st trimester.
Second trimester - Its up to the State to decide whether to allow or to disallow abortion in the 2nd trimester. Exceptions to the prohibition of abortion in the 2nd trimester are cases of rape, incest, the mother's life is in danger or birth defects are discovered.
Third Trimester - Abortion in the 3rd trimester is illegal in all cases, unless one of the prescribed exceptions is present. Exceptions to the prohibition on abortion in the 3rd trimester are cases of birth defects are discovered or the mother's life is in danger.
Father's rights and minor's parental consent are left to the State to decide on. (I honestly think this is a moderate compromise, maybe a little left leaning)

Section 2: Marriage is legal union between two consenting adults. The right for two consenting adults to marry may not be infringed on by the Federal or State government. Age of consent is to be determined by the State.
(Left view I will admit)

Section 3: All persons naturalized through means prescribed by Federal immigration and naturalization laws (at a minimum, a statutory waiting period of 10 years, fluent in English, graduate from high school and no criminal record) and all children born in the US in which at least one BIOLOGICAL or ADOPTIVE parent is a US citizen of legal and proper standing are US citizens. (This is right leaning)