Abortion Doctor George Tiller Reportedly Killed at Church

[Coloradomtnman]

Taking the same hypothetical above, do you think it would have helped, if the US Congress passed a law saying that blacks are not human and therefore there is no issue with enslaving them?

I don't think this would have quelled the abolitionist movement. It may have enraged them, but I don't think it would have resolved their moral dilemma.

Yeah, and it would have set back the abolitionist movement a big step, perhaps decades.

 

[Ravi]

That ignores what I said in my post.

Perhaps. But you can't start with a faulty premise and expect me to not notice.

Ok, so let's explore my premise and see if it is faulty.

You live in the US in 1850. Slavery is occurring in half the country. It is the law of the land, but you find this practice immoral and repugnant. Is it your position that you should MYOB, because you don't own slaves and you don't have to own a slave if you don't want to?

Or, do you think it is your moral duty to struggle against the unjust enslavement of a segment of the population?

Interesting analogy.

A couple of problems. One, freeing the slaves deprived no one of their civil rights. Forcing women to give birth deprives someone of their civil rights, in fact in makes the woman in question into a slave (which is unconstitutional).

Two, just because one thinks they have a moral duty to force the population to follow a set of morals doesn't mean the forcing is constitutional. For instance, I am uncomfortable with all the gun deaths but that doesn't mean it is my right to force people to give up their constitutionally protected right to bear arms. In your example, there is no constitutional right to own slaves. But there is a constitutional right to not be a slave...and again, forcing a woman to bear a child is a form of enslavement.



I suppose this is where empathy is a good thing in a judge. If I were a judge, it wouldn't affect me personally if abortion were illegal because I've had my tubes tied. But my empathy is powerful enough (by virtue of being a woman and a human) to realize that others could be enslaved by making abortion illegal...and that if you can enslave people for religious or moral reasons then anything is on the table.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

Forcing women to give birth deprives someone of their civil rights, in fact in makes the woman in question into a slave (which is unconstitutional).

By that logic, forcing women to feed, clothe, and shelter children they already give birth to makes the woman in question a slave.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Perhaps. But you can't start with a faulty premise and expect me to not notice.

Ok, so let's explore my premise and see if it is faulty.

You live in the US in 1850. Slavery is occurring in half the country. It is the law of the land, but you find this practice immoral and repugnant. Is it your position that you should MYOB, because you don't own slaves and you don't have to own a slave if you don't want to?

Or, do you think it is your moral duty to struggle against the unjust enslavement of a segment of the population?

Interesting analogy.

A couple of problems. One, freeing the slaves deprived no one of their civil rights. Forcing women to give birth deprives someone of their civil rights, in fact in makes the woman in question into a slave (which is unconstitutional).

Two, just because one thinks they have a moral duty to force the population to follow a set of morals doesn't mean the forcing is constitutional. For instance, I am uncomfortable with all the gun deaths but that doesn't mean it is my right to force people to give up their constitutionally protected right to bear arms. In your example, there is no constitutional right to own slaves. But there is a constitutional right to not be a slave...and again, forcing a woman to bear a child is a form of enslavement.



I suppose this is where empathy is a good thing in a judge. If I were a judge, it wouldn't affect me personally if abortion were illegal because I've had my tubes tied. But my empathy is powerful enough (by virtue of being a woman and a human) to realize that others could be enslaved by making abortion illegal...and that if you can enslave people for religious or moral reasons then anything is on the table.

Actually, at the time we are discussing, slaves were considered chattel property and therefore were Constitutionally protected by the 4th Amendment.

By contrast, the "extra-Constitutional" right found by the justices in Griswold v. Connecticut, the so called right to privacy, is found textually nowhere in the Constitution. Instead, the justices found a "penumbra" of rights "flowing" from 4th, 5th and 8th amendments, that "amounted" to a right to privacy.

I happen to buy the conversion of the woman's womb by forcing her to bare children argument. I'm not sure people who actually support the side I'm arguing would.

Absolutely, the abolitionists were pushing an unconstitutional agenda. The right to own slaves was preserved in the Constitution and cemented in 1859 by the Dred Scott decision in the Supreme Court. So, they were absolutely pushing against the Constitutional rights of the slave holders in the South.

In any case, my point three posts ago was that these people need to compromised with, not that they need to win. A compromise is not a capitulation. The end game would maintain the right to abortion, but maybe not anytime, anywhere. Very few rights are unencumbered by any restrictions or regulations. This should not be an exception.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Jesus only talked about 3 things from the OT....
1....the Laws....like the 10 Commandments....and he abolished some laws that he said are no longer needed,like Sacrificing animals....
2....the Prophets.....what they prophisized and why the Prophecies ALL have to be fulfilled before he can do what he has to do....
3....the PSALMS....he thought these were VERY important......he said the rest is some nice stories and so much Minutiae....he said this to Shepo....

Psalms 137: 9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Psalms 137: 9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

dude read the preceding Psalms..."O Daughter of Babylon,who are to be despoiled,happy will he be that rewards you,with your own treatment with which you treated us".....THEN

Happy will he be that grabs a hold and does dash to pieces....YOUR children against the crag of David.....

and it is all symbolic....dont take it literally....the crag of David is the Rock or foundation that David built....

So it's OK for me to kill YOUR children, but not mine?

ED .....this went right over your head....just like so many ******* blinded people of ALL religions....what me and Willy were just talking about....ZOOM!!! right over your head....BUT you just gave an example of what we were talking about....so thanks for the example....

 

[Sweet Willy]

Seeing how we've progressed into the issue of slavery and it's relevance to abortion, I'd like to toss out an absurd comparison.

Abortion is like an eviction. If you owna house and you want soemone out, it's not your problem if they survive without your shelter. If they persih on the streets, you bear no responsibility.

So, if we allow people to evict living things froma house, certainly a woman has the right to evict an unwanted human from her womb. Right?

 

[DiveCon]

Perhaps. But you can't start with a faulty premise and expect me to not notice.

Ok, so let's explore my premise and see if it is faulty.

You live in the US in 1850. Slavery is occurring in half the country. It is the law of the land, but you find this practice immoral and repugnant. Is it your position that you should MYOB, because you don't own slaves and you don't have to own a slave if you don't want to?

Or, do you think it is your moral duty to struggle against the unjust enslavement of a segment of the population?

Interesting analogy.

A couple of problems. One, freeing the slaves deprived no one of their civil rights. Forcing women to give birth deprives someone of their civil rights, in fact in makes the woman in question into a slave (which is unconstitutional).

Two, just because one thinks they have a moral duty to force the population to follow a set of morals doesn't mean the forcing is constitutional. For instance, I am uncomfortable with all the gun deaths but that doesn't mean it is my right to force people to give up their constitutionally protected right to bear arms. In your example, there is no constitutional right to own slaves. But there is a constitutional right to not be a slave...and again, forcing a woman to bear a child is a form of enslavement.



I suppose this is where empathy is a good thing in a judge. If I were a judge, it wouldn't affect me personally if abortion were illegal because I've had my tubes tied. But my empathy is powerful enough (by virtue of being a woman and a human) to realize that others could be enslaved by making abortion illegal...and that if you can enslave people for religious or moral reasons then anything is on the table.

then you need to petition the courts to release Susan Smith


FALSE analogy

 

[Harry Dresden]

seriously, go do something you are good at and get yourself another scoop of ice cream.

would that be Chocolate or Vanilla?....

 

[Harry Dresden]

You're trying to use reason and common sense here which is something that is sadly lacking on the left side of the aisle, especially with the likes of Jillian. You could point out that none of what she ranted about is true. There IS sex education in schools, there IS welfare for single mothers, there ARE free clinics out the wazoo available to low income people to obtain birth control and see to pre-natal health, there ARE facilities and charities available to low income mothers for education , job training, and child careand abortion IS legal. There are millions of dollars spent every year on these programs year after year after year. 'They' have everything on their agenda fulfilled and yet is STILL isn't enough, they would throw yet more of our money at it. It will never end, and society will never do enough to satisfy these people. Yet she'll sit there and harp about hypothetical situations as if they were reality. What the hell is she bitching about exactly?

These programs and laws are constantly under threat from conservatives, Newby. Sex education is always threatened. Welfare is always threatened. Funding for free clinics is always threatened. Funding for facilities and programs that help single and low-income mothers is always threatened. The millions of dollars spent on these programs in an attempt to help children of low income parents and in attempt to ensure that those children don't grow up and turn to crime or drugs as is prevalent among America's impoverished are constantly being threatened. Just for a woman to go to a clinic she may have to fight her way through a crowd of protestors calling her baby killer or murderer. Yet she may just be getting birth control pills. A woman's right to choose is always under threat. Just last year 3 states tried to pass laws making abortion illegal: Colorado, North Dakota, and California. And that's just the last election. So don't pretend as though the Left has everything it wants and should just sit back content, because just about everything the Left has fought for over the past century is constantly under direct threat. Unlike anything that directly affects conservatives's lives.

Colorada....i dont believe it was an outright abortion ban in California....i believe it mostly had to do with parental notification if a minor was seeking an abortion.....its a thing called Sarah's law....the right of privacy for minors...

 

[Harry Dresden]

assholes with religion.

Good people can do bad things, but only with religion can good people do evil things.


sigh

so if an atheist (who was considered a good person) poisons the water supply and kills 100 people....that isnt evil?....its just bad?

 

[jillian]

Actually, at the time we are discussing, slaves were considered chattel property and therefore were Constitutionally protected by the 4th Amendment.

By contrast, the "extra-Constitutional" right found by the justices in Griswold v. Connecticut, the so called right to privacy, is found textually nowhere in the Constitution. Instead, the justices found a "penumbra" of rights "flowing" from 4th, 5th and 8th amendments, that "amounted" to a right to privacy.

I happen to buy the conversion of the woman's womb by forcing her to bare children argument. I'm not sure people who actually support the side I'm arguing would.

Absolutely, the abolitionists were pushing an unconstitutional agenda. The right to own slaves was preserved in the Constitution and cemented in 1859 by the Dred Scott decision in the Supreme Court. So, they were absolutely pushing against the Constitutional rights of the slave holders in the South.

In any case, my point three posts ago was that these people need to compromised with, not that they need to win. A compromise is not a capitulation. The end game would maintain the right to abortion, but maybe not anytime, anywhere. Very few rights are unencumbered by any restrictions or regulations. This should not be an exception.

"extra-constitutional"? no wonder you so willingly trade away women's rights to their bodies. The constitution was never intended to be a literal document. If it were, tecnically, there would be no right to judicial review. Yet, the intent of the framers was that the judiciary keep the legislature in check. There would have been no other way to effectuate that but for judicial review a la Marbury v Madison.

The right of privacy exemplifies EXACTLY what the constitution was supposed to do... KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR BEDROOMS, OUR MARRIAGES, AND OUR BODIES. Damn right the state of connecticut had no right to prohibit a married couple from purchasing contraception; damn right the state of Virginia had no right to make it illegal for inter-racial couples to marry... and damn right the states had no right to prevent women from being masters of their own bodies. I don't care if they did say it "emanate from the penumbra" of the bill of rights... it did EXACTLY what the constitution was supposed to do... and do you really think that states are allowed to give fewer rights to individuals than the federal constitution? I'll remind you that the answer is no.

So no... you wouldn't "compromise" on the right to free speech or the right to own a gun... so don't be so quick to compromise away my rights.

 

[Sunni Man]

Women who have abortions are committing murder and should be arrested.

Doctors who perform abortions need to be given the death penalty.

 

[Ravi]

Ok, so let's explore my premise and see if it is faulty.

You live in the US in 1850. Slavery is occurring in half the country. It is the law of the land, but you find this practice immoral and repugnant. Is it your position that you should MYOB, because you don't own slaves and you don't have to own a slave if you don't want to?

Or, do you think it is your moral duty to struggle against the unjust enslavement of a segment of the population?

Interesting analogy.

A couple of problems. One, freeing the slaves deprived no one of their civil rights. Forcing women to give birth deprives someone of their civil rights, in fact in makes the woman in question into a slave (which is unconstitutional).

Two, just because one thinks they have a moral duty to force the population to follow a set of morals doesn't mean the forcing is constitutional. For instance, I am uncomfortable with all the gun deaths but that doesn't mean it is my right to force people to give up their constitutionally protected right to bear arms. In your example, there is no constitutional right to own slaves. But there is a constitutional right to not be a slave...and again, forcing a woman to bear a child is a form of enslavement.



I suppose this is where empathy is a good thing in a judge. If I were a judge, it wouldn't affect me personally if abortion were illegal because I've had my tubes tied. But my empathy is powerful enough (by virtue of being a woman and a human) to realize that others could be enslaved by making abortion illegal...and that if you can enslave people for religious or moral reasons then anything is on the table.

Actually, at the time we are discussing, slaves were considered chattel property and therefore were Constitutionally protected by the 4th Amendment.

By contrast, the "extra-Constitutional" right found by the justices in Griswold v. Connecticut, the so called right to privacy, is found textually nowhere in the Constitution. Instead, the justices found a "penumbra" of rights "flowing" from 4th, 5th and 8th amendments, that "amounted" to a right to privacy.

I happen to buy the conversion of the woman's womb by forcing her to bare children argument. I'm not sure people who actually support the side I'm arguing would.

Absolutely, the abolitionists were pushing an unconstitutional agenda. The right to own slaves was preserved in the Constitution and cemented in 1859 by the Dred Scott decision in the Supreme Court. So, they were absolutely pushing against the Constitutional rights of the slave holders in the South.

In any case, my point three posts ago was that these people need to compromised with, not that they need to win. A compromise is not a capitulation. The end game would maintain the right to abortion, but maybe not anytime, anywhere. Very few rights are unencumbered by any restrictions or regulations. This should not be an exception.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the decision in Dred Scott was that Scott wasn't a citizen and therefore could not sue the US Government.

I still cannot see why these people need to be compromised with when in my opinion they are on the wrong side of the constitution.

 

[Ravi]

Forcing women to give birth deprives someone of their civil rights, in fact in makes the woman in question into a slave (which is unconstitutional).

By that logic, forcing women to feed, clothe, and shelter children they already give birth to makes the woman in question a slave.

If they are forced into childbirth by the state, yes. If you wish to concede that a woman cannot be constitutionally forced to give birth then we can discuss if men can be constitutionally forced to be fathers.

I'm okay with the state paying for what the state forces.

 

[DiveCon]

Forcing women to give birth deprives someone of their civil rights, in fact in makes the woman in question into a slave (which is unconstitutional).

By that logic, forcing women to feed, clothe, and shelter children they already give birth to makes the woman in question a slave.

If they are forced into childbirth by the state, yes. If you wish to concede that a woman cannot be constitutionally forced to give birth then we can discuss if men can be constitutionally forced to be fathers.

I'm okay with the state paying for what the state forces.

men are already forced to be
its only the women that have a choice

 

[Ravi]

By that logic, forcing women to feed, clothe, and shelter children they already give birth to makes the woman in question a slave.

If they are forced into childbirth by the state, yes. If you wish to concede that a woman cannot be constitutionally forced to give birth then we can discuss if men can be constitutionally forced to be fathers.

I'm okay with the state paying for what the state forces.

men are already forced to be
its only the women that have a choice

To a point...once a child is born each parent is equally responsible for its upbringing.

 

[jgbkab]

If they are forced into childbirth by the state, yes. If you wish to concede that a woman cannot be constitutionally forced to give birth then we can discuss if men can be constitutionally forced to be fathers.

I'm okay with the state paying for what the state forces.

men are already forced to be
its only the women that have a choice

To a point...once a child is born each parent is equally responsible for its upbringing.

Major crapola.

 

[DiveCon]

If they are forced into childbirth by the state, yes. If you wish to concede that a woman cannot be constitutionally forced to give birth then we can discuss if men can be constitutionally forced to be fathers.

I'm okay with the state paying for what the state forces.

men are already forced to be
its only the women that have a choice

To a point...once a child is born each parent is equally responsible for its upbringing.

so, if the woman doesnt want the child, but the man does, he has to let her kill his child, but if he doesnt want the child and the woman does, he is forced to be financial support for a child he doesnt even want

nice double standard

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

How come nobody trusts middle aged white guys on the SCOTUS, but they are the keepers of the eternal flame, without reproach, when it comes to a cranking out late term abortions?

Psst. Sonia Sotomayor could be pro-life! Oh, the humanity!

 

[Nik]

How come nobody trusts middle aged white guys on the SCOTUS, but they are the keepers of the eternal flame, without reproach, when it comes to a cranking out late term abortions?

Psst. Sonia Sotomayor could be pro-life! Oh, the humanity!

Nobody trusts middle aged white guys on SCOTUS?

Ever heard of Roberts? Or Alito?