Could we ban abortion on the state level?

[SmarterThanHick]

let's outlaw sperm too. cuz without them, there would be no abortion.

 

[Father Time]

Another state can enact a head tax for every abortion provided, another state can use its power of eminant domain and take abortion clinics specifically and turn them into parks. It can be called the parks restoration act.

It's disgusting that you would consider using those methods, as the ends never justify evil means.

You want precedent that eminent domain abuse is OK? Don't you care about property rights?

How about taxing the hell out of something? I'm pretty sure that taxing something to make it so expensive it's effectively banned isn't allowed but even if it isn't it's pretty low.

To quote Dick Armhey (sp) "There's only one legitimate reason to levy a tax and that's to raise money, anything else you try to do with the tax code is corruption."

 

[Immanuel]

Sorry bud Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood are two cases very settled on the subject. A women's right to choose, although may be restricted (such no late term abortions), can be unduely infringed on!

Would this be infringing on a woman's right to choose since she still has the power to make the choice since their is no law banning her choice? However, powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states and eminent domain is not given to the federal government so it remains in the hands of the state government. The federal government has no power to interfere in how that power is to be implemented.

Always with the 10th amendment. If you attend law school you will see it a right with not teeth. Basically anything the Federal government wants to rule on they can.

The premise behind Roe v. Wade was a right to privacy is a fundamental right that can't be infringed on. Although the constitution doesn't directly protect privacy, the court found its within the prenumbras of the amendments of the bill of right, specially 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th.

Quick question,

Do you think the unwarranted wiretapping of the NSA Wiretapping scandal and the infringements of the Patriot Act could be construed as violations of that "right to privacy" that is not even written into the Constitution, but according to the Supreme Court does actually exist?

Immie

 

[SpidermanTuba]

There are hundreds if not thousands of rights not written into the Constitution. That's the entire point of the 9th amendment. The Founders knew that there were so many natural rights - such as the right to privacy, the right to reproduce, the right to name your children, the right to wear whatever color shirt you want - that there was no way they could write them all down.

The right to privacy is amply implied by the 4th amendment. Without the right to privacy - the right against unreasonable search and seizure has no reason for being.

 

[DiamondDave]

so you do want the government involved in people's lives.

YOu don't want them to tell you what to do, but it is okay if the government tells someone else what to do with their body.

As stated SO many times.. .if it's only your body, do as you choose.. get nipple piercings, plastic surgery, get a finger removed, or whatever else you wish to do... but the fact is, the developing human with its own unique DNA signature is not just part of the woman's body, but a unique developing life that just happens to be reliant on the mother for survival (not really any different than any other life dependent on others that has the right to have it's right to life protected)

 

[SpidermanTuba]

so you do want the government involved in people's lives.

YOu don't want them to tell you what to do, but it is okay if the government tells someone else what to do with their body.

As stated SO many times.. .if it's only your body, do as you choose.. get nipple piercings, plastic surgery, get a finger removed, or whatever else you wish to do... but the fact is, the developing human with its own unique DNA signature is not just part of the woman's body, but a unique developing life that just happens to be reliant on the mother for survival (not really any different than any other life dependent on others that has the right to have it's right to life protected)

So you're against the birth control pill?

 

[DiamondDave]

so you do want the government involved in people's lives.

YOu don't want them to tell you what to do, but it is okay if the government tells someone else what to do with their body.

As stated SO many times.. .if it's only your body, do as you choose.. get nipple piercings, plastic surgery, get a finger removed, or whatever else you wish to do... but the fact is, the developing human with its own unique DNA signature is not just part of the woman's body, but a unique developing life that just happens to be reliant on the mother for survival (not really any different than any other life dependent on others that has the right to have it's right to life protected)

So you're against the birth control pill?

No, just as I am not against condom use and other forms of BC that are not removing the developing human that is attached and developing in the womb... and before you start the little jab argument tried by so many others... a BC pill is not an abortifacient

 

[bodecea]

The strategy in my opinon should be for each state to enact seperate methods for banning abortion without interfering with a woman's right to choose. For example, one state can ban doctors from providing abortions yet not punish women for recieving them thus maintaining her right to choose. This prevents a court battle that would attempt to use the Roe V Wade precedence to block anti-abortion laws.

Another state can enact a head tax for every abortion provided, another state can use its power of eminant domain and take abortion clinics specifically and turn them into parks. It can be called the parks restoration act.

The point is by creating 30 different scenarios to ban abortion if forces opponents to come up with 30 unique defenses and one of those defenses is bound to fail and once it does the other 29 states can implement that law that successfully bans abortions.

You know they tried that in South Dakota....then they let the people vote....

 

[Mr Natural]

Women will always find a way to end unwanted pregnancies regardless of the law so we should at least make sure there is access to safe abortions.

 

[DiamondDave]

Women will always find a way to end unwanted pregnancies regardless of the law so we should at least make sure there is access to safe abortions.

People want to find a way to eliminate those who endanger them or eliminate those that inconvenience them or eliminate their enemies... should we leave a legal option open so that they can murder others on whim too?

 

[Mr Natural]

Women will always find a way to end unwanted pregnancies regardless of the law so we should at least make sure there is access to safe abortions.

People want to find a way to eliminate those who endanger them or eliminate those that inconvenience them or eliminate their enemies... should we leave a legal option open so that they can murder others on whim too?

Well smartguy, how would you enforce an anti-abortion law?

I know, maybe the government should require doctors to turn over the records of pregnant women and then check up on those women nine months later. And any women who didn't bring her pregnancy to full term had better have a good reason.

 

[DiamondDave]

Women will always find a way to end unwanted pregnancies regardless of the law so we should at least make sure there is access to safe abortions.

People want to find a way to eliminate those who endanger them or eliminate those that inconvenience them or eliminate their enemies... should we leave a legal option open so that they can murder others on whim too?

Well smartguy, how would you enforce an anti-abortion law?

I know, maybe the government should require doctors to turn over the records of pregnant women and then check up on those women nine months later. And any women who didn't bring her pregnancy to full term had better have a good reason.

How should government enforce anti-murder laws then? I mean, people will still try. Why try and enforce any medical procedure laws either? Why have any medical laws? Why review procedure and surgeries doctors do?

Medical procedures are kept on record and reviewed... and we do already have bans on late term abortions

Just as every murderer won't get caught, every sleazebag getting or performing an abortion that is not a procedure saving the life of the mother won't get caught either. It does not mean that it should be legal and it does not mean that when there is evidence of the action that prosecution should not take place.

 

[Mr Natural]

People want to find a way to eliminate those who endanger them or eliminate those that inconvenience them or eliminate their enemies... should we leave a legal option open so that they can murder others on whim too?

Well smartguy, how would you enforce an anti-abortion law?

I know, maybe the government should require doctors to turn over the records of pregnant women and then check up on those women nine months later. And any women who didn't bring her pregnancy to full term had better have a good reason.

How should government enforce anti-murder laws then? I mean, people will still try. Why try and enforce any medical procedure laws either? Why have any medical laws? Why review procedure and surgeries doctors do?

Medical procedures are kept on record and reviewed... and we do already have bans on late term abortions

Just as every murderer won't get caught, every sleazebag getting or performing an abortion that is not a procedure saving the life of the mother won't get caught either. It does not mean that it should be legal and it does not mean that when there is evidence of the action that prosecution should not take place.

But it is legal and has been for over 30 years.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Abortion is not murder unless it is so defined by statutory law. I am not sure that abortion meets the legal definition of homicide. I understand the arguments here, but I suspect the far side is trying to impose religious belief on secular law.

 

[DiamondDave]

Well smartguy, how would you enforce an anti-abortion law?

I know, maybe the government should require doctors to turn over the records of pregnant women and then check up on those women nine months later. And any women who didn't bring her pregnancy to full term had better have a good reason.

How should government enforce anti-murder laws then? I mean, people will still try. Why try and enforce any medical procedure laws either? Why have any medical laws? Why review procedure and surgeries doctors do?

Medical procedures are kept on record and reviewed... and we do already have bans on late term abortions

Just as every murderer won't get caught, every sleazebag getting or performing an abortion that is not a procedure saving the life of the mother won't get caught either. It does not mean that it should be legal and it does not mean that when there is evidence of the action that prosecution should not take place.

But it is legal and has been for over 30 years.

Slavery was legal a long time as well.. Lots of things HAVE been legal. Unfortunately this type of murder has been pushed to the wayside by those who only think of a developing human life as an inconvenience

And Jake... this has nothing to do with religion... simply with the protection of the most innocent of human lives... whether you be atheist, christian, hindu or whatever religion or non-religion...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dave, 'this type of murder' is only your opinion, not statutory. Most of the type of thinking that does consider abortion to be murder is religious based in my experience. But it does not matter if it is based secularly. The opinions are only opinion, not fact by law.

 

[Mr Natural]

How should government enforce anti-murder laws then? I mean, people will still try. Why try and enforce any medical procedure laws either? Why have any medical laws? Why review procedure and surgeries doctors do?

Medical procedures are kept on record and reviewed... and we do already have bans on late term abortions

Just as every murderer won't get caught, every sleazebag getting or performing an abortion that is not a procedure saving the life of the mother won't get caught either. It does not mean that it should be legal and it does not mean that when there is evidence of the action that prosecution should not take place.

But it is legal and has been for over 30 years.

Slavery was legal a long time as well.. Lots of things HAVE been legal. Unfortunately this type of murder has been pushed to the wayside by those who only think of a developing human life as an inconvenience

And Jake... this has nothing to do with religion... simply with the protection of the most innocent of human lives... whether you be atheist, christian, hindu or whatever religion or non-religion...

Good luck in your crusade.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Slavery was legal a long time as well.. Lots of things HAVE been legal. Unfortunately this type of murder has been pushed to the wayside by those who only think of a developing human life as an inconvenience

And Jake... this has nothing to do with religion... simply with the protection of the most innocent of human lives... whether you be atheist, christian, hindu or whatever religion or non-religion...

It has everything to do with religion. Only God can convince strangers that they have business up some woman's coochie.

 

[Father Time]

so you do want the government involved in people's lives.

YOu don't want them to tell you what to do, but it is okay if the government tells someone else what to do with their body.

As stated SO many times.. .if it's only your body, do as you choose.. get nipple piercings, plastic surgery, get a finger removed, or whatever else you wish to do... but the fact is, the developing human with its own unique DNA signature is not just part of the woman's body, but a unique developing life that just happens to be reliant on the mother for survival (not really any different than any other life dependent on others that has the right to have it's right to life protected)

Aye but just like if it's your house you should have the right to remove whatever you want from your body, if whatever it is can't live outside it then oh well.

 

[Dante]

The strategy in my opinon should be for each state to enact seperate methods for banning abortion without interfering with a woman's right to choose. For example, one state can ban doctors from providing abortions yet not punish women for recieving them thus maintaining her right to choose. This prevents a court battle that would attempt to use the Roe V Wade precedence to block anti-abortion laws.

Another state can enact a head tax for every abortion provided, another state can use its power of eminant domain and take abortion clinics specifically and turn them into parks. It can be called the parks restoration act.

The point is by creating 30 different scenarios to ban abortion if forces opponents to come up with 30 unique defenses and one of those defenses is bound to fail and once it does the other 29 states can implement that law that successfully bans abortions.

fucking stupid 101