Abortion as Murder.

[BenNatuf]

You live in the United STATES of America, NOT the United PEOPLE of America.
You can deny that all you want but that is fact.
The United STATES OF AMERICA was not really established as a "nation". Rather, we were formed as a federation of individual states.

did anyone claim otherwise? Dude, you make no sence
I've already proven you wrong by showing you the EXACT quotes from the constituion (in fact they were the 9th and 10th in their entirety)... you should just give up. I've shown you what IS in there, you make claims you can't support.
who siad we weren't? And since you want the federal government to be able to tell the states they have to allow abortion, i guess you must like them having all that extra power
Let me know when you can at least get the words right. Don't worry, I won't expect you to actually understand them
Except the constitution which reccognizes that people have rights and states have authority. Ooops. Guess you must have missed that.
yes, powers. Not rights
No, they're called authorities... maybe you should add a vocabulary class to that civics thing you're lacking in?
Except of course the rights pre-exist the constitution and the government, they belong to the people, the state cannot infringe on them, and they are unalienable. Try this one on for size

"...all MEN are created equal, that they are endowed by their creater with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the persuit of hapiness..."

When power is delegated to sovereign government and they plan to utilize that power it becomes a right for that state.

no, its just authority they are ceded and have the power to use.

The electoral college defends the interest and RIGHTS of the states. The President is not elected by a majority vote of the people. The President is elected by the electoral college, the rights apportioned to each state with a specific number of electoral votes.

That has nothing to do with rights, its our federal system and the method by which we choose a President. Now you're claiming a method is a right...

It is the States that send the electors to the electoral college, not the people. The election you vote in is a state run election, not a federal run election.

who said it wasn't? The constituion leaves the authority to run elections in the hands of the states. Thats AUTHORITY.

It was the intent of the electoral college to protect the STATES, not the individual voter.

It is the intent of the electoral college to make sure that smaller states had some influence in the federal system in determining their own future, and are not ruled in tyrany by the majority. Of course the states gave up most of their ability to do that with the 17th amendment but thats another story. Still has not a dmaned thing to do with any rights.

It was the states that joined the union, not the people.

It was the states that created the union, and it was the states that lent some of their authority to the federal government to facilitate the union.

And every state gets 2 Senators regardless of population to ensure each states' rights on treaties and such.

You mean their authority to ratify them? treaties are not enacted by rights, they are enacted by authority.

We used to practice it a little more purely with the States appointing their own Senators until the 17th Amendment ruined that also. If that wasn't a right then what was it?

Their authority. They APPOINTED senators because they had the AUTHORITY to do so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why would I concern myself with non-binding dicta? The only binding part of the decission is the finding. The intellectually dishonest hoops they jumped through to get there are meaningless in the law.

The finding in Roe is that the States have an interest in restricting abortion once the fetus becomes viable. If its not a person, what interest would they have? How could that interest be justification for negating a persons rights? There is no instance in the history of this nation where the government has ever been seen to have the power to negate rights based on anything other than another person or persons more compelling rights... except this one case. That is the flaw in Roe.

The only thing you'll do by leaning on the dicta is expose the flaw.

The first thing I pointed out in this thread was my opinion that the 'flaw' in Roe v. Wade was that it gave rights to 'viable' fetuses with no Constitutional basis for that.

Carb, here's the gist of it, we AGREE on this point.

The fact is my argument is that the court has no authority to make any decission which is not constitutionally grounded. The Constitution limits our ENTIRE government including the courts.

What you seem to be celebrating is the SCOTUS acting outside of the constitution and making decissions which are not grounded in it. Think about that seriously. Are we a nation of laws or aren't we?

I said earlier that the opinion should have been either that a viable fetus was a person, therby engendering the states with the authority to protect it; or, that it was not thereby negating any possibility of ever infringing on a womans rights. That however is only correct in the context of them making any decission. The correct decission would have been for the court to declare themselves not having the authority to make ANY decission, since congress had not thought to use its legislative powers to define what a "person" is in the law. They (the courts) used to do that quite a bit before progressives took over our government.

Where in our constitution is the SCOTUS empowered to enhance the powers of our government beyond it's constitutional limitations?

The SCOTUS 'interprets' the Constitution. That is its job. That also confirms that the Constitution is open to interpretation. Which it is.

I said, if the SCOTUS strictly interprets the Constitution on abortion, given that the Constitution makes no mention of the unborn, given that the Constitution conveys no civil rights to non-persons,

then the correct decision under that constraint is to protect the right of abortion from conception to birth, on the grounds of a woman's rights.

 

[BenNatuf]

The first thing I pointed out in this thread was my opinion that the 'flaw' in Roe v. Wade was that it gave rights to 'viable' fetuses with no Constitutional basis for that.

Carb, here's the gist of it, we AGREE on this point.

The fact is my argument is that the court has no authority to make any decission which is not constitutionally grounded. The Constitution limits our ENTIRE government including the courts.

What you seem to be celebrating is the SCOTUS acting outside of the constitution and making decissions which are not grounded in it. Think about that seriously. Are we a nation of laws or aren't we?

I said earlier that the opinion should have been either that a viable fetus was a person, therby engendering the states with the authority to protect it; or, that it was not thereby negating any possibility of ever infringing on a womans rights. That however is only correct in the context of them making any decission. The correct decission would have been for the court to declare themselves not having the authority to make ANY decission, since congress had not thought to use its legislative powers to define what a "person" is in the law. They (the courts) used to do that quite a bit before progressives took over our government.

Where in our constitution is the SCOTUS empowered to enhance the powers of our government beyond it's constitutional limitations?

The SCOTUS 'interprets' the Constitution. That is its job. That also confirms that the Constitution is open to interpretation. Which it is.

It is the courts job to apply the law, in applying the law they determine if the interpretation the excutive used in enforcing it is constitutionally consistent. It is not their interpretation they judge, it is the executives. That there are areas that can be interpretted strictly or less strictly is a given, but their are no portions that can be interpretted in or out of it. The courts are not empowered to enhance the powers of the federal government, when they do so, they themselves are acting in amanner inconsistant with the constitution.

I said, if the SCOTUS strictly interprets the Constitution on abortion, given that the Constitution makes no mention of the unborn, given that the Constitution conveys no civil rights to non-persons,

then the correct decision under that constraint is to protect the right of abortion from conception to birth, on the grounds of a woman's rights.

That would be correct IF they determine that an unborn is at no point a person. I've never said otherwise.

They however have conveyed protections on the unborn once they are viable which is an implicit admission that they are persons at least at that point, otherwise the government has NO authority to infringe on the womans constitutional right. And if you're going to be consistant with the constitution it would mean they are entitled to its protections against being deprived of life without due process of law, and having equal protection under the law. Once again the constitution does NOT protect the future rights of potential life of notional persons. It protects actual persons, real life and existing rights. The SCOTUS is not empowered to create different classes of persons who do not get those protections, to do that you have to change the constitution.

The SCOTUS is not empowered to make up authorities that do not exist by interpretting them into existance from the ether of what they consider the "right" thing to do, or the best compromise. Either the government has the power, or it doesn't. If ROE is correct then the government has the power to infringe on ALL of your rights for any generic interest it can dream up that the courts will wave at.

 

[BenNatuf]

still not murder.

The extent of your argument is overwhelming.

"because I said so"

let me know when you can address the questions I've asked and refute something with more than your BS and unsupported opinion.

You can start here

By what constitutional provision and grant of authority does the state have the power to negate a persons right for any generic "interest"?

 

[BenNatuf]

ive already had my fun in your thread.

so you got nothin' huh?

cewl.

 

[BenNatuf]

Just figured I'd bring the post forward for anybody who wants to take a shot at it

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3345659-post699.html

 

[BenNatuf]

​

ive already had my fun in your thread.

so you got nothin' huh?

cewl.

mind your own business and dont worry about others..........trust me, I dont care about you

I am minding my business and I'll worry about who I please. Trust me, I don't give a rats fucking ass about you.

 

[BenNatuf]

​

mind your own business and dont worry about others..........trust me, I dont care about you

I am minding my business and I'll worry about who I please. Trust me, I don't give a rats fucking ass about you.

not if you think abortion is murder your not

maybe you should try to actually read the thread. Its about VIABLE fetus' and how the law should view tham vis a vie ROE if we're to be consistant in our aplication of the law and consistant with our constitutional principles. And the flaw in ROE that renders the decision itself constituionally inconsistant.

And I can think whatever I please, I don't need your permission or your aproval, niether do I seek it. as I recall, you are the one who entered this thread.

When your capable of making a grown up argument and debating points of law and how its applied or not applied in a manner consistant with the constitution, feel free to try. Your inane talking points just don't interest me.

 

[Gadawg73]

did anyone claim otherwise? Dude, you make no sence
I've already proven you wrong by showing you the EXACT quotes from the constituion (in fact they were the 9th and 10th in their entirety)... you should just give up. I've shown you what IS in there, you make claims you can't support.
who siad we weren't? And since you want the federal government to be able to tell the states they have to allow abortion, i guess you must like them having all that extra power
Let me know when you can at least get the words right. Don't worry, I won't expect you to actually understand them
Except the constitution which reccognizes that people have rights and states have authority. Ooops. Guess you must have missed that.
yes, powers. Not rights
No, they're called authorities... maybe you should add a vocabulary class to that civics thing you're lacking in?
Except of course the rights pre-exist the constitution and the government, they belong to the people, the state cannot infringe on them, and they are unalienable. Try this one on for size

"...all MEN are created equal, that they are endowed by their creater with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the persuit of hapiness..."no, its just authority they are ceded and have the power to use.

The electoral college defends the interest and RIGHTS of the states. The President is not elected by a majority vote of the people. The President is elected by the electoral college, the rights apportioned to each state with a specific number of electoral votes.

That has nothing to do with rights, its our federal system and the method by which we choose a President. Now you're claiming a method is a right...
who said it wasn't? The constituion leaves the authority to run elections in the hands of the states. Thats AUTHORITY.
It is the intent of the electoral college to make sure that smaller states had some influence in the federal system in determining their own future, and are not ruled in tyrany by the majority. Of course the states gave up most of their ability to do that with the 17th amendment but thats another story. Still has not a dmaned thing to do with any rights.
It was the states that created the union, and it was the states that lent some of their authority to the federal government to facilitate the union.

And every state gets 2 Senators regardless of population to ensure each states' rights on treaties and such.

You mean their authority to ratify them? treaties are not enacted by rights, they are enacted by authority.

We used to practice it a little more purely with the States appointing their own Senators until the 17th Amendment ruined that also. If that wasn't a right then what was it?

Their authority. They APPOINTED senators because they had the AUTHORITY to do so.

Methods, authorities, responsibilities, powers, whatever name you can come up with, are all given as rights defined by law.
You have yet to show anything or any definition to prove otherwise.
We are a nation of laws.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do you not know the difference between a right and an authority? They have the AUTHORITY to tax. Taxing is not a "right", its an authority. People have rights, states have authoirity.

The states authorities are limitted by the peoples rights. The peoples rights can be infringed upon by the state ONLY when that infringement serves to protect the more compelling rights of another person or persons.

This, of course, should not in any way be confused with the concept and issue of "states' rights" in regards to possible conflicts between the sphere of influence of the federal government versus that of the individual states.

I'd hate for some dumbass leftist who can't separate topics and stick to one to triumphantly declare that you've now invalidated and dismissed THAT debate by way of THIS one.

The federal governments authority was ceded to it by the states, and is on loan from the states, it is not possible to argue against the authorities retained by the states by citing hegomony over the very entities the federal power is borowed from. The "states rights" argument is in essence an argument over the authority of the states vs the authority ceded to the federal government and is not a "rights" argument at all.

Quite true, but since it was labeled with the word "rights", I didn't want some leftist playing at "Mr. Clever Dick" to go nuts with it.

 

[BenNatuf]

The electoral college defends the interest and RIGHTS of the states. The President is not elected by a majority vote of the people. The President is elected by the electoral college, the rights apportioned to each state with a specific number of electoral votes.

That has nothing to do with rights, its our federal system and the method by which we choose a President. Now you're claiming a method is a right...
who said it wasn't? The constituion leaves the authority to run elections in the hands of the states. Thats AUTHORITY.
It is the intent of the electoral college to make sure that smaller states had some influence in the federal system in determining their own future, and are not ruled in tyrany by the majority. Of course the states gave up most of their ability to do that with the 17th amendment but thats another story. Still has not a dmaned thing to do with any rights.
It was the states that created the union, and it was the states that lent some of their authority to the federal government to facilitate the union.You mean their authority to ratify them? treaties are not enacted by rights, they are enacted by authority.

We used to practice it a little more purely with the States appointing their own Senators until the 17th Amendment ruined that also. If that wasn't a right then what was it?

Their authority. They APPOINTED senators because they had the AUTHORITY to do so.

Methods, authorities, responsibilities, powers, whatever name you can come up with, are all given as rights defined by law.
You have yet to show anything or any definition to prove otherwise.
We are a nation of laws.

you mean like the 10th amendment that calls them "powers".

I'm sorry you don't know the difference between a right and an authority, and evidently wish to remain blissfully ignorant, but I guess thats the way it is.

We are a country of laws... which would be the method the states use to exercize their authority.

 

[Cecilie1200]

still not murder.

Abortion is not murder for one reason and one reason only: because murder is defined as the "unlawful taking of a human life", and abortion has been declared lawful by judicial fiat. That's it. There is no substantial difference between the two. There is merely a technical, semantic one.

The purpose of this thread, by the way, is not to shout the slogan, "Abortion is murder", as I see it. It is to say essentially what I just did: if you compare an abortion to the murders of which Dr. Gosnell is accused, there is no real, qualitative difference. There is just the semantic one of "lawful" versus "unlawful".

 

[BenNatuf]

This, of course, should not in any way be confused with the concept and issue of "states' rights" in regards to possible conflicts between the sphere of influence of the federal government versus that of the individual states.

I'd hate for some dumbass leftist who can't separate topics and stick to one to triumphantly declare that you've now invalidated and dismissed THAT debate by way of THIS one.

The federal governments authority was ceded to it by the states, and is on loan from the states, it is not possible to argue against the authorities retained by the states by citing hegomony over the very entities the federal power is borowed from. The "states rights" argument is in essence an argument over the authority of the states vs the authority ceded to the federal government and is not a "rights" argument at all.

Quite true, but since it was labeled with the word "rights", I didn't want some leftist playing at "Mr. Clever Dick" to go nuts with it.

Oh, I know. I mean we've already seen what a mess a "conservative" will make of it. Eh? screw it, long as he votes GOP I'm happy, he can keep his delusions.

 

[Cecilie1200]

​

mind your own business and dont worry about others..........trust me, I dont care about you

I am minding my business and I'll worry about who I please. Trust me, I don't give a rats fucking ass about you.

not if you think abortion is murder your not

Yes, because interfering in someone's desire to kill someone else is intolerably nosy. If I'M not the victim, it's none of my business.

 

[BenNatuf]

​

I am minding my business and I'll worry about who I please. Trust me, I don't give a rats fucking ass about you.

not if you think abortion is murder your not

Yes, because interfering in someone's desire to kill someone else is intolerably nosy. If I'M not the victim, it's none of my business.

Evidently it wouldn't be your business if you were the hit man either. Just doing your job!!!

 

[BenNatuf]

Yes, because interfering in someone's desire to kill someone else is intolerably nosy. If I'M not the victim, it's none of my business.

Evidently it wouldn't be your business if you were the hit man either. Just doing your job!!!

apples and hand grenades

Nope, paid killers and paid killers.

 

[Cecilie1200]

not if you think abortion is murder your not

Yes, because interfering in someone's desire to kill someone else is intolerably nosy. If I'M not the victim, it's none of my business.

desire? yes there is this massive desire to abort fetuses..
If you are going to say stupid shit, i will treat you as a stupid shit.

The only "stupid shit" here is your obtuse attempt to pretend that anyone was talking about a "massive desire to abort fetuses". That wasn't even a good try, but hey. If you don't mind looking like a jackass in public, I don't mind you doing it, either.

Do women who get abortions desire to abort that particular fetus? Yes, they do. Is it comparable to a person desiring to kill another person for their money or whatever other motive? Yes, it is. Does desiring to kill another person require a "massive desire to kill people"? No, it doesn't.

If you are going to say stupid shit, EVERYONE will treat you as a stupid shit. Oh, and look! They already do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Carb, here's the gist of it, we AGREE on this point.

The fact is my argument is that the court has no authority to make any decission which is not constitutionally grounded. The Constitution limits our ENTIRE government including the courts.

What you seem to be celebrating is the SCOTUS acting outside of the constitution and making decissions which are not grounded in it. Think about that seriously. Are we a nation of laws or aren't we?

I said earlier that the opinion should have been either that a viable fetus was a person, therby engendering the states with the authority to protect it; or, that it was not thereby negating any possibility of ever infringing on a womans rights. That however is only correct in the context of them making any decission. The correct decission would have been for the court to declare themselves not having the authority to make ANY decission, since congress had not thought to use its legislative powers to define what a "person" is in the law. They (the courts) used to do that quite a bit before progressives took over our government.

Where in our constitution is the SCOTUS empowered to enhance the powers of our government beyond it's constitutional limitations?

The SCOTUS 'interprets' the Constitution. That is its job. That also confirms that the Constitution is open to interpretation. Which it is.

It is the courts job to apply the law, in applying the law they determine if the interpretation the excutive used in enforcing it is constitutionally consistent. It is not their interpretation they judge, it is the executives. That there are areas that can be interpretted strictly or less strictly is a given, but their are no portions that can be interpretted in or out of it. The courts are not empowered to enhance the powers of the federal government, when they do so, they themselves are acting in amanner inconsistant with the constitution.

I said, if the SCOTUS strictly interprets the Constitution on abortion, given that the Constitution makes no mention of the unborn, given that the Constitution conveys no civil rights to non-persons,

then the correct decision under that constraint is to protect the right of abortion from conception to birth, on the grounds of a woman's rights.

That would be correct IF they determine that an unborn is at no point a person. I've never said otherwise.

They however have conveyed protections on the unborn once they are viable which is an implicit admission that they are persons at least at that point, otherwise the government has NO authority to infringe on the womans constitutional right. And if you're going to be consistant with the constitution it would mean they are entitled to its protections against being deprived of life without due process of law, and having equal protection under the law. Once again the constitution does NOT protect the future rights of potential life of notional persons. It protects actual persons, real life and existing rights. The SCOTUS is not empowered to create different classes of persons who do not get those protections, to do that you have to change the constitution.

The SCOTUS is not empowered to make up authorities that do not exist by interpretting them into existance from the ether of what they consider the "right" thing to do, or the best compromise. Either the government has the power, or it doesn't. If ROE is correct then the government has the power to infringe on ALL of your rights for any generic interest it can dream up that the courts will wave at.

Since you refused to even read the Court's rationale for how they decided Roe v Wade, that I directed you to, it's not easy to carry on a discussion about their rationale.

They did not 'dream up' a reason, in the sense that implies something cavalier and baseless. The Court drew on common law, on the cultural beliefs of the time of the writing of the Constitution, etc., etc., in developing a very thoughtful and actually quite brilliant decision.

By your logic the Court cannot compromise on any rights for any reason. By your logic yelling fire in a crowded theatre is constitutionally protected.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Carb, here's the gist of it, we AGREE on this point.

The fact is my argument is that the court has no authority to make any decission which is not constitutionally grounded. The Constitution limits our ENTIRE government including the courts.

What you seem to be celebrating is the SCOTUS acting outside of the constitution and making decissions which are not grounded in it. Think about that seriously. Are we a nation of laws or aren't we?

I said earlier that the opinion should have been either that a viable fetus was a person, therby engendering the states with the authority to protect it; or, that it was not thereby negating any possibility of ever infringing on a womans rights. That however is only correct in the context of them making any decission. The correct decission would have been for the court to declare themselves not having the authority to make ANY decission, since congress had not thought to use its legislative powers to define what a "person" is in the law. They (the courts) used to do that quite a bit before progressives took over our government.

Where in our constitution is the SCOTUS empowered to enhance the powers of our government beyond it's constitutional limitations?

The SCOTUS 'interprets' the Constitution. That is its job. That also confirms that the Constitution is open to interpretation. Which it is.

It is the courts job to apply the law, in applying the law they determine if the interpretation the excutive used in enforcing it is constitutionally consistent. It is not their interpretation they judge, it is the executives. That there are areas that can be interpretted strictly or less strictly is a given, but their are no portions that can be interpretted in or out of it. The courts are not empowered to enhance the powers of the federal government, when they do so, they themselves are acting in amanner inconsistant with the constitution.

I said, if the SCOTUS strictly interprets the Constitution on abortion, given that the Constitution makes no mention of the unborn, given that the Constitution conveys no civil rights to non-persons,

then the correct decision under that constraint is to protect the right of abortion from conception to birth, on the grounds of a woman's rights.

That would be correct IF they determine that an unborn is at no point a person. I've never said otherwise.

They however have conveyed protections on the unborn once they are viable which is an implicit admission that they are persons at least at that point, otherwise the government has NO authority to infringe on the womans constitutional right. And if you're going to be consistant with the constitution it would mean they are entitled to its protections against being deprived of life without due process of law, and having equal protection under the law. Once again the constitution does NOT protect the future rights of potential life of notional persons. It protects actual persons, real life and existing rights. The SCOTUS is not empowered to create different classes of persons who do not get those protections, to do that you have to change the constitution.

The SCOTUS is not empowered to make up authorities that do not exist by interpretting them into existance from the ether of what they consider the "right" thing to do, or the best compromise. Either the government has the power, or it doesn't. If ROE is correct then the government has the power to infringe on ALL of your rights for any generic interest it can dream up that the courts will wave at.

It is well established that rights under the constitution are not absolute. That would include the right of privacy. The Court's infringement of a woman's right of privacy was based on that established fact, and justified by citing compelling State's interests.

 

[Gadawg73]

The country is running massive deficits that our great grandkids will have to pay, or will not be able to pay, Medicare is a waste, education is a mess, social security is a mess, gas is almost $4 a gallon and you folks are worried about abortion.
A non issue. Get with the conservative program. The moral police need not apply to the conservative movement.
FAIR TAX, less government and less taxes. Abortion has NOTHING to do with solving the problems we face.