Federal Judge: Late-term abortion ban unconstitutional

[ajwps]

Originally posted by dilloduck

I have been struggling in vain to take the "when life begins " issue out of this discussion in effort to discuss the legal personal rights issue and perhaps I need to start a new thread. Thanks for the help with common sense.

Life in utero vs when is murder (killing) in utero not a crime?

Yep you probably would do better on a different thread.

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by ajwps
Apparently it wasn't I that deviated from the subject neither understood the question that you thought you posed.

You seemingly find insults, but compliments leave you baffled.

Your first sentence makes no sense Dr. Aj. No wonder I'm baffled.

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by ajwps
I have been struggling in vain to take the "when life begins " issue out of this discussion in effort to discuss the legal personal rights issue and perhaps I need to start a new thread. Thanks for the help with common sense.

Life in utero vs when is murder (killing) in utero not a crime?

Yep you probably would do better on a different thread.

You completely misrepresented what I said ! I understand why people don't bother to try to discuss issues with you. As long as you get in some kind of "last tag" statement, you could care less if it means anything. Take the thread please---you have rendered it useless to me. I will be posting elsewhere to find a mature discussion.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by dilloduck
You completely misrepresented what I said ! I understand why people don't bother to try to discuss issues with you. As long as you get in some kind of "last tag" statement, you could care less if it means anything. Take the thread please---you have rendered it useless to me. I will be posting elsewhere to find a mature discussion.

So after all you admit you were not interested in utero murder but simply want to discuss legal personal rights issues.

This subject has already been discussed many times in this thread. What are the Federal legal implications of personal decisions when it does not involve human beings.

Therefore you want to discuss if the man or woman has the legal right, under the US Constitution of what either can be done or not done to themselves or their procreating habits.

This is the equivalent of talking about egg salad and simply omitting the eggs.

 

[dilloduck]

not even close .

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by dilloduck
not even close .

Okay allow me to again attempt to characterize your inquiry.

dillduck point of inquiry?

Which of the two procreators (man or woman) should have the right to to decide the premature act of pregnancy termination before delivery?

If this is not your posit, then you probably should create a site for those who have a better understanding of what you ask.

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by ajwps
Okay allow me to again attempt to characterize your inquiry.

dillduck point of inquiry?

Which of the two procreators (man or woman) should have the right to to decide the premature act of pregnancy termination before delivery?

If this is not your posit, then you probably should create a site for those who have a better understanding of what you ask.

closer---The question is since abortion is legal, why shouldn't both procreators have equal rights regarding the fate of the fetus?

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by dilloduck
closer---The question is since abortion is legal, why shouldn't both procreators have equal rights regarding the fate of the fetus?

Apparently the Supreme Court has maintained the right of the WOMAN to decide what is done to her own body. To the best of my knowledge, the Supreme Court of the United States did not give a MAN any rights to have a vote on what the WOMAN decides about herself even if half the genetic material was contributed by a known or possibly unknown partner to the now forming cell groups.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by ajwps
Apparently the Supreme Court has maintained the right of the WOMAN to decide what is done to her own body. To the best of my knowledge, the Supreme Court of the United States did not give a MAN any rights to have a vote on what the WOMAN decides about herself even if half the genetic material was contributed by a known or possibly unknown partner to the now forming cell groups.

The focus of the abortion debate on a woman's choice is insulting to human life. WHich deodorant to use is a choice. The issue of abortion is: Is it ok to kill babies?

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by ajwps
Apparently the Supreme Court has maintained the right of the WOMAN to decide what is done to her own body. To the best of my knowledge, the Supreme Court of the United States did not give a MAN any rights to have a vote on what the WOMAN decides about herself even if half the genetic material was contributed by a known or possibly unknown partner to the now forming cell groups.

gimme a break--I understand what SCOTUS has decided. I just disagree with it. The fact that SCOTUS did not even consider the rights of the father is what I believe to be the point of contention. Perhaps it wasn't worded in a way for them to consider it however it leaves the rights of the potential father in question. I would consider this to be a shared choice and a shared responsibilty. Would a woman be willing to accept it as such? Maybe another trip to SCOTUS would expose a the feminists REAL agenda in supporting abortion. Can a woman deny a man the right to be a father? Simple.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by dilloduck

gimme a break--I understand what SCOTUS has decided. I just disagree with it. The fact that SCOTUS did not even consider the rights of the father is what I believe to be the point of contention. Perhaps it wasn't worded in a way for them to consider it however it leaves the rights of the potential father in question. I would consider this to be a shared choice and a shared responsibilty. Would a woman be willing to accept it as such? Maybe another trip to SCOTUS would expose a the feminists REAL agenda in supporting abortion. Can a woman deny a man the right to be a father? Simple.

It seems to me that the Supreme Court of the United States or SCOTUS has decided to limit it's decision to two points even if you think that there is another REAL feminist agenda.

1) Every living American citizen has the right to their own LIFE, LIBERTY and the "PURSUIT" OF HAPPINESS.

2) That any SCOTUS judgement has no right to decide any moral issues not specifically enumerated to them by the US Constitution or Bill of Rights.

You have apparently decided that the growing fetus is a possession of both the woman and the man. In your own opinion this is something to be decided by a Federal court dealing with a legal determination or definition of cellular ownership. The Supreme Court appears to disagree with your minority opinion.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr

The focus of the abortion debate on a woman's choice is insulting to human life. WHich deodorant to use is a choice. The issue of abortion is: Is it ok to kill babies?

The beginning of human life is yet to be determined and any definition of killing or murder must conincide with definitive proof of human life's beginning.

Your opinion that abortion is equivalent to killing babies is just a minorty opinion and does not have any basis or foundation for making laws that determine anything not proved. Except in your mind of course.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by ajwps
The beginning of human life is yet to be determined and any definition of killing or murder must conincide with definitive proof of human life's beginning.

Your opinion that abortion is equivalent to killing babies is just a minorty opinion and does not have any basis or foundation for making laws that determine anything not proved. Except in your mind of course.

How about we err on the side of caution, instead of pushing this "kill em all" anti human agenda. How about that?

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr

How about we err on the side of caution, instead of pushing this "kill em all" anti human agenda. How about that?

Basically because our only concept of human life and the human soul has been in our consciousness following the reading of what each of us call the Bible.

Ergo there is no prohibition against abortion in either version of the New or Old Testament. The words killing and murder are no where equated with abortion which does not appear in any spot of the entire Bible of books.

The only place abortion is considered murder or killing is in the minds of men and not the BOOK.....

To err is human, to forgive divine.

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by ajwps
It seems to me that the Supreme Court of the United States or SCOTUS has decided to limit it's decision to two points even if you think that there is another REAL feminist agenda.

1) Every living American citizen has the right to their own LIFE, LIBERTY and the "PURSUIT" OF HAPPINESS.

2) That any SCOTUS judgement has no right to decide any moral issues not specifically enumerated to them by the US Constitution or Bill of Rights.

You have apparently decided that the growing fetus is a possession of both the woman and the man. In your own opinion this is something to be decided by a Federal court dealing with a legal determination or definition of cellular ownership. The Supreme Court appears to disagree with your minority opinion.

I haven't decided anything. Just looking for the truth. SCOTUS does not believe that a decision on the pursuit of happiness would be a moral decision? How convenient of them to skirt issues! They also ruled that FUTURE judgements have no right to decide moral issues ? I think that there is a lot of bullshit floating around up there and a lot of citizens believe in my majority opinion.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by dilloduck

I haven't decided anything. Just looking for the truth. SCOTUS does not believe that a decision on the pursuit of happiness would be a moral decision? How convenient of them to skirt issues! They also ruled that FUTURE judgements have no right to decide moral issues ? I think that there is a lot of bullshit floating around up there and a lot of citizens believe in my majority opinion.

Is the 'pursuit of happiness' defined as a moral decision to be decided by SCOTUS?

If this issue is in the perview of SCOTUS then it would be convenient to skirt this issue but apparently it isn't.

Actually the US Constitution that created SCOTUS as the third branch of government specifically did not feel that morality should be decided by the highest court in the land. Future judgements or not.....

About that bullshit floating around here is probably best identified by one who does it best.

The mandated description of fetal characteristics at two-week intervals, no matter how objective, is plainly overinclusive. [It is] not medical information that is always relevant to the woman’s decision, and it may serve to confuse and punish her and to heighten her anxiety.

Majority opinion in 7-2 ruling that established the constitutional legality of abortion, 22 Jan 73

ATTRIBUTION: Harry A Blackmun, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by ajwps

Aj--when the Supreme Court issues a ruling they usually end up creating more questions than anwers. Thier decisions are still open to debate. I'm sure you are able to do this without the insults. Please do so. It's a time waster.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by dilloduck

Aj--when the Supreme Court issues a ruling they usually end up creating more questions than anwers. Thier decisions are still open to debate. I'm sure you are able to do this without the insults. Please do so. It's a time waster.

Dill any decision made by any court remains open to debate but closed to legal chalanges.

Just last week the Supreme Court ruled that HMOs can use a law meant for protecting employers from large medical costs for very sick employees and which will now prohibit patients and families from suing their HMO. If an HMO health insurance entity uses a highly trained GED educated clerk to decide whether a cancer patient receives delayed or denies care for profit, there is no redress for the injured or dead person's family in the US courts.

This US Supreme Court decision gives license to killing of sick insureds while keeping healthy premium payers contributing every month to the stockholders and the CEO's 20+ million per year salary and 400 million + dollar a year in bonuses.

This decision is open to debate but can only be changed by an act of Congress.

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by ajwps
Dill any decision made by any court remains open to debate but closed to legal chalanges.

Just last week the Supreme Court ruled that HMOs can use a law meant for protecting employers from large medical costs for very sick employees and which will now prohibit patients and families from suing their HMO. If an HMO health insurance entity uses a highly trained GED educated clerk to decide whether a cancer patient receives delayed or denies care for profit, there is no redress for the injured or dead person's family in the US courts.

This US Supreme Court decision gives license to killing of sick insureds while keeping healthy premium payers contributing every month to the stockholders and the CEO's 20+ million per year salary and 400 million + dollar a year in bonuses.

This decision is open to debate but can only be changed by an act of Congress.

Which is exactly what I have been attempting to get across here. However someone wants to define the powers of the Supreme Court, they still can be challenged in open debate and legally. A jury can decide to not convict a defendent simply because they don't agree with the law. There is the law and there is the law as practiced. It changes from time to time. Thats why so many women and dems are scared to death of pro-life judges being appointed to SCOTUS.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by dilloduck
Which is exactly what I have been attempting to get across here. However someone wants to define the powers of the Supreme Court, they still can be challenged in open debate and legally. A jury can decide to not convict a defendent simply because they don't agree with the law. There is the law and there is the law as practiced. It changes from time to time. Thats why so many women and dems are scared to death of pro-life judges being appointed to SCOTUS.

Actually the Supreme Court as the third branch of government cannot be challenged by open debate or legally as they are the highest and final court in the nation as defined by the US Constitution.

Only Congress (both houses) can challenge or change any Supreme Court's final decision.

George Bush is a pro-life Christian who has the power to name anti-abortion appointees to the Supreme Court. But it remains up to Congress to ratify those presidential nominees.

The Democrats are very opposed to approving any conservative SCOTUS judge nominated by a conservative anti-abortion president.

Quite a dilemma.