Abortion as Murder.

[BenNatuf]

to my knowledge there has never been any time in this country when abortion was outlawed federally.

Quite true. Until Roe v. Wade, it was considered strictly a state-level issue, much the same (incidentally) as nearly every other law involving doing harm to another individual is.

and that worked out sooooo well.


Loving v Virginia
Griswold v Connecticut
Roe v Wade
Brown v Board of Ed

Because the states can't be trusted to protect federal constitutional rights.

which is why the anti-choicers want it to be a "state issue".

hint: if there weren't supposed to be a strong central government, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation.

and any remaining questions about "states' rights" were resolved with the civil war. get over it.

There is no such thing as states "rights", states do not have rights, they have authority. People have rights. Some states would perform their constitutional duty and protect the lives of persons of every class within the state if it weren't for Roe, thats why the pro-baby-killing abortionists don't want the states to decide for themselves. They are quite happy with a class of persons having no protections. Roe does not protect anyones constitionally granted rights, it deprives an entire class of person from the most fundamental of rights in order to extend a somewhat lesser fundamental right to another class of person.

 

[Cecilie1200]

to my knowledge there has never been any time in this country when abortion was outlawed federally.

Quite true. Until Roe v. Wade, it was considered strictly a state-level issue, much the same (incidentally) as nearly every other law involving doing harm to another individual is.

and that worked out sooooo well.


Loving v Virginia
Griswold v Connecticut
Roe v Wade
Brown v Board of Ed

Because the states can't be trusted to protect federal constitutional rights.

which is why the anti-choicers want it to be a "state issue".

hint: if there weren't supposed to be a strong central government, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation.

and any remaining questions about "states' rights" were resolved with the civil war. get over it.

Depends on what you consider "working out very well". Since we both know that YOU define that as "forcing my values onto society via judicial fiat instead of letting society decide for itself through duly passed laws", I guess it didn't work out well. It would also depend on how one defines "federal constitutional rights". Again, we both know that YOU define that as "anything I decide that I want to impose through judicial fiat, whether it appears in the written law anywhere or not".

This is why anti-lifers want it to be a federal matter: because when you give people the freedom to shape society for themselves, they often have the supreme nerve to reject leftist ideas. Better to just slam what's good for them down their throats until they choke.

Hint: If you're going to depend on scaring people with the "horrors" of the Articles of Confederation, you might want to be sure first that everyone agrees with your opinion thereof. I realize that it's extremely hard for you to EVER consider that your opinion isn't the universally-accepted standard of right and moral, but you could at least try once in a while.

And you don't get to decide when questions can't be asked any more. DAMN that whole freedom thing that allows people to continue questioning and arguing long after the point where YOU have decided that they should just shut up and accept what you've decided is good and proper for them.

 

[BenNatuf]

tell it to the courts, they have said the state has an interest in preserving the "life" of viable fetus'. (that would be the other person in the decission... you know, the one with no choice)

still ignoring the balancing test of Roe?

i love pretend constitutionalists.

laughably, you acuse me of ignoring dictum in favor of your ignoring application.

too funny.

There is no "balancing" in the applicartion of Roe, a viable fetus is a life the state has a fundamental interest in preserving. There are no "rights" which trump or ballance the fundamental right to not be deprived of life without due process of law. Which is why in its application, if the life of the mother is endangered she has a fundamental right to defend herself by aborting. There is no right to kill simply because you don't like the consequence of not doing so. The right to privacy can not extend so far as to allow one person to kill another and keep it secret and/or not be punished for it. There are no rights that go that far.

 

[Cecilie1200]

tell it to the courts, they have said the state has an interest in preserving the "life" of viable fetus'. (that would be the other person in the decission... you know, the one with no choice)

still ignoring the balancing test of Roe?

i love pretend constitutionalists.

laughably, you acuse me of ignoring dictum in favor of your ignoring application.

too funny.

There is no "balancing" in the applicartion of Roe, a viable fetus is a life the state has a fundamental interest in preserving. There are no "rights" which trump or ballance the fundamental right to not be deprived of life without due process of law. Which is why in its application, if the life of the mother is endangered she has a fundamental right to defend herself by aborting. There is no right to kill simply because you don't like the consequence of not doing so. The right to privacy can not extend so far as to allow one person to kill another and keep it secret and/or not be punished for it. There are no rights that go that far.

I think the "balancing" she's referring to is Roe saying that early in the pregnancy, the state's interest in preserving fetal life does not outweigh the "right" of the mother to an abortion, and that the state's interest in preserving fetal life grows stronger as the pregnancy progresses.

It's hard to tell, though, since Jillian's ideas about what the laws are so rarely match what the laws actually say.

 

[jillian]

tell it to the courts, they have said the state has an interest in preserving the "life" of viable fetus'. (that would be the other person in the decission... you know, the one with no choice)

still ignoring the balancing test of Roe?

i love pretend constitutionalists.

laughably, you acuse me of ignoring dictum in favor of your ignoring application.

too funny.

There is no "balancing" in the applicartion of Roe, a viable fetus is a life the state has a fundamental interest in preserving. There are no "rights" which trump or ballance the fundamental right to not be deprived of life without due process of law. Which is why in its application, if the life of the mother is endangered she has a fundamental right to defend herself by aborting. There is no right to kill simply because you don't like the consequence of not doing so. The right to privacy can not extend so far as to allow one person to kill another and keep it secret and/or not be punished for it. There are no rights that go that far.

dictum? oooh cool.. you learned a word.

actually, the only holding of that case was that the decision of the woman is protected in the first trimester.

EVERYTHING else is dicta.

capish?

the rest of what you said is

 

[jillian]

still ignoring the balancing test of Roe?

i love pretend constitutionalists.

laughably, you acuse me of ignoring dictum in favor of your ignoring application.

too funny.

There is no "balancing" in the applicartion of Roe, a viable fetus is a life the state has a fundamental interest in preserving. There are no "rights" which trump or ballance the fundamental right to not be deprived of life without due process of law. Which is why in its application, if the life of the mother is endangered she has a fundamental right to defend herself by aborting. There is no right to kill simply because you don't like the consequence of not doing so. The right to privacy can not extend so far as to allow one person to kill another and keep it secret and/or not be punished for it. There are no rights that go that far.

I think the "balancing" she's referring to is Roe saying that early in the pregnancy, the state's interest in preserving fetal life does not outweigh the "right" of the mother to an abortion, and that the state's interest in preserving fetal life grows stronger as the pregnancy progresses.

It's hard to tell, though, since Jillian's ideas about what the laws are so rarely match what the laws actually say.

interestingly, that hasn't been my experience during the last 20 years.

so there ya go.

what i think you mean to say is that it rarely matches what the pretend constitutionalists say it does.

as well it should

 

[BenNatuf]

still ignoring the balancing test of Roe?

i love pretend constitutionalists.

laughably, you acuse me of ignoring dictum in favor of your ignoring application.

too funny.

There is no "balancing" in the applicartion of Roe, a viable fetus is a life the state has a fundamental interest in preserving. There are no "rights" which trump or ballance the fundamental right to not be deprived of life without due process of law. Which is why in its application, if the life of the mother is endangered she has a fundamental right to defend herself by aborting. There is no right to kill simply because you don't like the consequence of not doing so. The right to privacy can not extend so far as to allow one person to kill another and keep it secret and/or not be punished for it. There are no rights that go that far.

I think the "balancing" she's referring to is Roe saying that early in the pregnancy, the state's interest in preserving fetal life does not outweigh the "right" of the mother to an abortion, and that the state's interest in preserving fetal life grows stronger as the pregnancy progresses.

It's hard to tell, though, since Jillian's ideas about what the laws are so rarely match what the laws actually say.

Then she needs a course in reading comprehension as the only point of made is in the application of the law regarding the life of VIABLE fetus' which would not be "early stage".

 

[Dr Grump]

still ignoring the balancing test of Roe?

i love pretend constitutionalists.

laughably, you acuse me of ignoring dictum in favor of your ignoring application.

too funny.

There is no "balancing" in the applicartion of Roe, a viable fetus is a life the state has a fundamental interest in preserving. There are no "rights" which trump or ballance the fundamental right to not be deprived of life without due process of law. Which is why in its application, if the life of the mother is endangered she has a fundamental right to defend herself by aborting. There is no right to kill simply because you don't like the consequence of not doing so. The right to privacy can not extend so far as to allow one person to kill another and keep it secret and/or not be punished for it. There are no rights that go that far.

I think the "balancing" she's referring to is Roe saying that early in the pregnancy, the state's interest in preserving fetal life does not outweigh the "right" of the mother to an abortion, and that the state's interest in preserving fetal life grows stronger as the pregnancy progresses.

It's hard to tell, though, since Jillian's ideas about what the laws are so rarely match what the laws actually say.

Just when you think the Cesspit couldn't get any more arrogant or ignorant....up comes this doozy.

...because we know that the Cesspit has a law degree, right? Oh, that's right she doesn't, but being a keyboard warrior, she somehow thinks if she types 'shit' it must be true....

Memo to the Cesspit: No, Cess Baby, it's just shit.....

 

[Dr Grump]

There is no "balancing" in the applicartion of Roe, a viable fetus is a life the state has a fundamental interest in preserving. There are no "rights" which trump or ballance the fundamental right to not be deprived of life without due process of law. Which is why in its application, if the life of the mother is endangered she has a fundamental right to defend herself by aborting. There is no right to kill simply because you don't like the consequence of not doing so. The right to privacy can not extend so far as to allow one person to kill another and keep it secret and/or not be punished for it. There are no rights that go that far.

Ok, Sparkie. I'm calling you out. Enough of this shit with your opinion. This thread started out about a doctor who looks like he might have been performing illegal late term abortions.

Now it is descended into the states rights to protect foetus (you don't seem to be stating in the above at what stage the feotus is at). So, if you are so right about where 'privacy' does extend insofar as a feotus is a 'person', why are abortions carried out every day without people being prosecuted for murder?

Oh, that's right, legal minds - A LOT more intelligent than you and your laptop lapdog the Cesspit - have decided otherwise.

If you want to talk morals, then have at it. If you want to talk the law, then STFU until you know what you are talking about....

 

[BenNatuf]

still ignoring the balancing test of Roe?

i love pretend constitutionalists.

laughably, you acuse me of ignoring dictum in favor of your ignoring application.

too funny.

There is no "balancing" in the applicartion of Roe, a viable fetus is a life the state has a fundamental interest in preserving. There are no "rights" which trump or ballance the fundamental right to not be deprived of life without due process of law. Which is why in its application, if the life of the mother is endangered she has a fundamental right to defend herself by aborting. There is no right to kill simply because you don't like the consequence of not doing so. The right to privacy can not extend so far as to allow one person to kill another and keep it secret and/or not be punished for it. There are no rights that go that far.

dictum? oooh cool.. you learned a word.

actually, the only holding of that case was that the decision of the woman is protected in the first trimester.

the trimester system is scrapped in Casey, the "holding" or applicable part is the sates interest upon "viability". The finding in the case was that the state DOES have an interest in a viable fetus and that the state can limit abortions according to a certain mechanical contrivance of the law which attempted to serve "viability" with a made up trimester system... since scrapped. There is and always was but one test to determine the states interest... viability.

EVERYTHING else is dicta.

gee, thanks for the datum.

capish?

more than you are capable of apparently. Capiche?

the rest of what you said is

new word? Laughably the good little lib retreats behind the "i'm smarter than you" BS arrogance of self agrandizement. Dictum has no bearing on application of the law, it is not a nholding of precedent. It is non-binding an explanatory of the legal finding, but not a finding itself. You ignore a lot for someone who likes to complain about things being ignored...

bit of irony there

 

[jillian]

Laughably the good little lib retreats behind the "i'm smarter than you" BS arrogance of self agrandizement. Dictum has no bearing on application of the law, it is not a nholding of precedent. It is non-binding an explanatory of the legal finding, but not a finding itself.

little lib? what an arrogant little pissant you are.

i don't bother with your arguments because they're stupid. and i don't argue with the idiocy spewed by arrogant imbeciles.

as for being smarter? well, yes, i am. i'm also not insane like you apparently are.

i'm also not a rabid rightwingnut trying to interfere in other people's moral choices.

so stop pretending its about law.

and please stop talking about caselaw when you haven't a clue what it says or means. if what you were saying about Casey were accurate, abortion would be illegal. it's not.

now run along, skippy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

was there even federally legal abortions when Sanger was alive?

to my knowledge there has never been any time in this country when abortion was outlawed federally.

Quite true. Until Roe v. Wade, it was considered strictly a state-level issue, much the same (incidentally) as nearly every other law involving doing harm to another individual is.

I agree that we don't want harm to the mother. She always comes before the fetus when her health is endangered.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In either North or South Dakota a state senator supposedly is getting ready to sponsor a bill that will making killing abortion industry personnel a justifiable homicide. I understand the state police commissioner (or whoever holds the equivalent of that office) has informed the senator's office that the senator will be immediately arrested for a terroristic threat if he so enters the bill.

I can't find much on this. Who has more, please?

 

[BenNatuf]

There is no "balancing" in the applicartion of Roe, a viable fetus is a life the state has a fundamental interest in preserving. There are no "rights" which trump or ballance the fundamental right to not be deprived of life without due process of law. Which is why in its application, if the life of the mother is endangered she has a fundamental right to defend herself by aborting. There is no right to kill simply because you don't like the consequence of not doing so. The right to privacy can not extend so far as to allow one person to kill another and keep it secret and/or not be punished for it. There are no rights that go that far.

Ok, Sparkie. I'm calling you out. Enough of this shit with your opinion. This thread started out about a doctor who looks like he might have been performing illegal late term abortions.

OK Chiefy, you obviously have no concept of why i started the thread. It started out (and is in the OP if you read it) as a thread to discuss the law and its application with regard to Roe, personhood and the states duty to apply the law equally in light of the botched abortions and what they imply about "viability".

Now it is descended into the states rights to protect foetus (you don't seem to be stating in the above at what stage the feotus is at). So, if you are so right about where 'privacy' does extend insofar as a feotus is a 'person', why are abortions carried out every day without people being prosecuted for murder?

the stage would be at whatever point medical science determines it to be viable. In case you hadn't noticed, didn't bother to read, or are just flat out incapable of understanding that, I've stated previously that with current medical science and proper medical care I believe that to be about 4 1/2 months. And again, people have rights, states have authority. Perhaps its just a pet pieve of mine but I really can't stand it when people talk about "states rights", thats not what states have, they have authority.

As to why they're not prosecuted, the answer is quite simple. Although by application of Roe and Casey these persons (viable fetus') must needs be persons, as there is no other entity the sate would have any "interest" in preserving the life of, there is currently no state, no AG, no DA, no prosecutor who is willing to apply the law fully. By not doing so they are complicit in denying a class of what can only be persons the most fundamental of rights, the right to not be deprived of life without due process of law. It is merely a matter of will, and the political will is not there. I'm not stupid, I know what a shit storm it would brew if one did. Personally, they're cowards for not doing it, but that does not negate the argument, the law, or the fact that the crime fits the deffinition.

Oh, that's right, legal minds - A LOT more intelligent than you and your laptop the Cesspit - have decided otherwise.

If you want to talk morals, then have at it. If you want to talk the law, then STFU until you know what you are talking about....

You want the argument to be about "morals" so you can pretend some moral ground built on the illusion of some person supposed liberty to kill. You don't like the legal argument? Oh well, you don't have to. You don't agree with it? Oh well you don't have to. You don't want to discuss it? Well, you don't have to do that either, but I will, I will continue to do so, and I will once again point out the rather weak appeal to authority that you're using once again because you just can't form an argument of your own.

insulting a posters inteligence and telling them to STFU is just so conducive to debate.

What an ass.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ben is a poseur and can posit no viable argument here. He is laughable.

 

[BenNatuf]

little lib? what an arrogant little pissant you are.

laughable coming from someone who spent several posts trying to make a point of the part of the law that was overturned in Casey, and was not a holding in the law to begin with. It was mechanics designed to serve the finding.

i don't bother with your arguments because they're stupid. and i don't argue with the idiocy spewed by arrogant imbeciles.

laughable yet again, and just so you know... kinda sounds like an arrogant little pissant. You don't arguie them because you're incapable of it. You tried, and I give you credit for that, but you tried to argue based the part of the opinion that is no longer meaningful since Casey.

as for being smarter? well, yes, i am. i'm also not insane like you apparently are.

unfortunately all you've demonstarted is the opposite.

i'm also not a rabid rightwingnut trying to interfere in other people's moral choices.

Nothing in any argument I've made about any moral anything.

so stop pretending its about law.

stop pretending its not. I know you have to pretend its not so you can make your little grandstanding freedom from religion postings, but it's realy not.

and please stop talking about caselaw when you haven't a clue what it says or means. if what you were saying about Casey were accurate, abortion would be illegal. it's not.

now run along, skippy.

I will talk about whatever i want to talk about and I don't need either your permission or approval.

casey scrapped the trimester system in favor of strict "viability". Thats what it did. Roes declared the states interest inpreserving the "life" of a viable fetus, thats what it did. Therefore before viability the state has no authority and abortion is unrestricted, but after viability the state can limit, ban or do whatever it likes so long as provision is made for the life of the mother (self defense is a right).

The states could use the viability test in Roe (enshrined and strengthenned in Casey) as legal justification for considering a viable fetus to be a person. And as a person they could, if they chose, extend all the legal protections to them that any other person recieves. In fact, according to the constitutional right to equal protection under the law, they really have no option constitutionally, and yet, they don't. Not because they shouldn't, not because its not a valid legal position, but because of the politics of it.

Every person in a state has a right to be treated equally with every other person under the law, and if the law dictates that justice be administered in the name of the dead upon their murderers, then it should apply equally to all those who are murdered. It is not, because we currently have a class of persons who are held outside of the law.

 

[BenNatuf]

In either North or South Dakota a state senator supposedly is getting ready to sponsor a bill that will making killing abortion industry personnel a justifiable homicide. I understand the state police commissioner (or whoever holds the equivalent of that office) has informed the senator's office that the senator will be immediately arrested for a terroristic threat if he so enters the bill.

I can't find much on this. Who has more, please?

The guy is an ass and the people should find another rep.

I don't see where a legislator in the course of legislating could possibly be charged with anything due to the wording of his proposed legislation though... thats just dumb.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The mother's life and health comes before a fetus. Your position, Ben, is indefensible morally, legally, or religiously. You have made no viable argument.

 

[BenNatuf]

Ben is a poseur and can posit no viable argument here. He is laughable.

^^^that, is about the only thing laughable here, It does however kinda fit the rest of your "arguments".^^^

If its all you got, maybe you should just quit and let the adults discuss things.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have no viable legal, moral, or religious arguments, Ben, that means a mother must be dealt death in order to save a child that threatens her health and or life. She can make that choice. Neither you nor the state can make such a choice. We don't live in Hitler's Germany.