The Political View of Abortion

[PoliticalChic]

I just do not see the issue. Folks can be religously conservative and be against abortion.

Folks can be constitutionally conservative and tell states and the fed neither can tell me what I believe.

This and the right to die issue create strange bedfellows who let their religous or personal beliefs trumo their political beliefs.

Next thing you know the small government folks will care about who can get married in different religions!

You have missed the point by a mile.


This is a political viewpoint.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It is impractical, illogical, and irrational to ignore the meaningful differences between a fertilized human egg and a 30 year old man, or a 5 year old kid, or a 1 day old baby.

Certainly impractical would be a word you would use,irrational and illogical not so much ,for its is illogical to rationalize away the distinct similarities that exist between a fertilized egg,or 19 week old unborn little girl complete just little, and a 30 year old man.

It always turns out to be a person if let to live always.

No it doesn't. The majority of fertilized eggs simply get flushed from the body, never implant, or undergo natural abortion. A fertilized egg is potential. An embryo is potential. That is all.

And aren't you pleased to have been allowed fruition?

 

[PoliticalChic]

[Folk can vote with their feet. Don't care for a law in your state?
Mover to one that is more favorable.

Simple enough even for you?

LOL, the irony of that coming from a rightwinger choosing to live in Brooklyn.

Oh that's rich.

"....choosing to live...."


You're becoming the punchline of a joke.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Again, did you not recently cite the Ninth Amendment as a justification for claiming a constitutional right despite it not being explicit in the Constitution? Because afterall that is the point of the Ninth Amendment, isn't it? To be sure that it is understood that just because a right is not identified in the Constitution does not mean that it cannot be a right?

And while we're at it, do you wish to dispute the statements of PoliticalChic of yesteryear, such as the PC who said:

"A person is entitled to their privacy."

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1126479-post44.html

or the PC who started this thread complaining that Obamacare was going to violate our privacy rights?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...it-was-fun-while-it-lasted-2.html#post1041105

Then of course there's this gem from PC:

To comment directly on your incorrect analysis, the bill of rights includes
1st Amendment: Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly and Petition
2nd Amendment: Right to keep and bear arms
3rd Amendment: Quartering of soldiers
4th Amendment: Unreasonable searches; warrents
5th Amendment: Individuals rights: self-incrimination, grand jury, double jeopardy, eminent domain, due process.
6th Amendment: Rights at and right to a trial
7th Amendment: Trials by jury in civil cases.
8th Amendment: Bail; cruel and unusual punishment
9th Amendment: Enumerated rights and assumed rights (privacy?)10th Amendment: Protects powers of the States, not individuals

I'm sure she'll explain to us how that got there, lol.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...-gun-decision-more-questions.html#post2457183

'And while we're at it, do you wish to dispute the statements of PoliticalChic of yesteryear, such as the PC who said:

"A person is entitled to their privacy."'


I said no such thing.

Please retract that.

Who posted this then?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1126479-post44.html

Hint: you click on the word 'privacy' above.

I would love to know if that post was in a social context or a legal one...as that the issue here.

But...either way...you proved to be correct...and as much as it pains me....rep on the way.

On the other hand....I'm flattered that you keep track of my posts going back years.

 

[Toronado3800]

I just do not see the issue. Folks can be religously conservative and be against abortion.

Folks can be constitutionally conservative and tell states and the fed neither can tell me what I believe.

This and the right to die issue create strange bedfellows who let their religous or personal beliefs trumo their political beliefs.

Next thing you know the small government folks will care about who can get married in different religions!

You have missed the point by a mile.


This is a political viewpoint.

That does happen!

I just don't know why we want the government to have an opinion on this matter or who I marry.

Heck, I am almost willing to try a 1 strike and you're out legalized drug culture after talking with all these small government folks.

Join me and get uncle sam out of our bedrooms and wombs and then habe uncle sam keep these invasive states out of the same.

 

[NYcarbineer]

'And while we're at it, do you wish to dispute the statements of PoliticalChic of yesteryear, such as the PC who said:

"A person is entitled to their privacy."'


I said no such thing.

Please retract that.

Who posted this then?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1126479-post44.html

Hint: you click on the word 'privacy' above.

I would love to know if that post was in a social context or a legal one...as that the issue here.

But...either way...you proved to be correct...and as much as it pains me....rep on the way.

On the other hand....I'm flattered that you keep track of my posts going back years.

It's simple enough to search the word privacy under your username. However, your inconsistency is not the real issue; the real issue is whether we have a constitutional right of privacy. Privacy seems to be about as fundamental a right as one can imagine,

thus it's hard to imagine that our constitution does not protect it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Folk can vote with their feet. Don't care for a law in your state?
Mover to one that is more favorable.

Simple enough even for you?

LOL, the irony of that coming from a rightwinger choosing to live in Brooklyn.

Oh that's rich.

"....choosing to live...."


You're becoming the punchline of a joke.

You're telling others they have a choice where they live, as I bolded. Now you wish to claim that you don't?

If you don't like NY taxes for example, then quit complaining and move. Or quit telling others to quit complaining and move.

 

[Gadawg73]

As long as Republicans are stuck on abortion and gay marriage they will continue to get their asses kicked.

Conservatives need to stick to fiscal issues.
I oppose abortion strongly and counsel everyone and anyone to keep their baby.
But government has no role in the health decisions of a woman and her doctor.
Gay marriage? If there a larger NON issue in this country someone please point to it.
Goldwater conservatives are coming back and we will soon control the party again.

 

[JoeB131]

As long as Republicans are stuck on abortion and gay marriage they will continue to get their asses kicked.

Conservatives need to stick to fiscal issues.
I oppose abortion strongly and counsel everyone and anyone to keep their baby.
But government has no role in the health decisions of a woman and her doctor.
Gay marriage? If there a larger NON issue in this country someone please point to it.
Goldwater conservatives are coming back and we will soon control the party again.

Guy, you are deluding yourself.

Once these Christian folks realize "conservative fiscal issues" mean the rich getting richer while they get poorer, the aren't going to be voting for you.

The group of poor people voting for religious issues is larger than the people voting for economic issues. This is just a fact.

Case in point. Mitt Romney didn't talk about the religious stuff because he belonged to another brand of religious crazy.

The only way you get America to swallow the bitter pill of Plutocracy is by wrapping in Theocratic bacon.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Who posted this then?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1126479-post44.html

Hint: you click on the word 'privacy' above.

I would love to know if that post was in a social context or a legal one...as that the issue here.

But...either way...you proved to be correct...and as much as it pains me....rep on the way.

On the other hand....I'm flattered that you keep track of my posts going back years.

It's simple enough to search the word privacy under your username. However, your inconsistency is not the real issue; the real issue is whether we have a constitutional right of privacy. Privacy seems to be about as fundamental a right as one can imagine,

thus it's hard to imagine that our constitution does not protect it.

I will provide an OP which will set you no the correct path.

Stay tuned...

 

[PoliticalChic]

LOL, the irony of that coming from a rightwinger choosing to live in Brooklyn.

Oh that's rich.

"....choosing to live...."


You're becoming the punchline of a joke.

You're telling others they have a choice where they live, as I bolded. Now you wish to claim that you don't?

If you don't like NY taxes for example, then quit complaining and move. Or quit telling others to quit complaining and move.

As is true of so very politicians and folks of limited intelligence, they view the world as static.


In reality, it is dynamic.


That means all factors are taken into consideration by sentient individuals. That is why new taxes never bring in as much as originally predicted: folks alter their behavior.
The greater the burden, the more alteration.


It is hardly surprising that you cannot imagine the multiplicity of factors that going into a decision as to where one chooses an abode.

Complaining is merely one possibility among a myriad.
Of course....you may decide that the Supreme Court may ban complaining...that's what Liberals do when they don't like something.



Study and learn from my posts....and perhaps, someday, in the distant future....you may close in on the necessary understanding.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I just do not see the issue. Folks can be religously conservative and be against abortion.

Folks can be constitutionally conservative and tell states and the fed neither can tell me what I believe.

This and the right to die issue create strange bedfellows who let their religous or personal beliefs trumo their political beliefs.

Next thing you know the small government folks will care about who can get married in different religions!

You have missed the point by a mile.


This is a political viewpoint.

That does happen!

I just don't know why we want the government to have an opinion on this matter or who I marry.

Heck, I am almost willing to try a 1 strike and you're out legalized drug culture after talking with all these small government folks.

Join me and get uncle sam out of our bedrooms and wombs and then habe uncle sam keep these invasive states out of the same.

Try as you may to obfuscate....the issue is government 'opinion' as to whom you may kill.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Who posted this then?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1126479-post44.html

Hint: you click on the word 'privacy' above.

I would love to know if that post was in a social context or a legal one...as that the issue here.

But...either way...you proved to be correct...and as much as it pains me....rep on the way.

On the other hand....I'm flattered that you keep track of my posts going back years.

It's simple enough to search the word privacy under your username. However, your inconsistency is not the real issue; the real issue is whether we have a constitutional right of privacy. Privacy seems to be about as fundamental a right as one can imagine,

thus it's hard to imagine that our constitution does not protect it.

Correct.

Our Constitution does indeed protect the right to privacy:

To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment, and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment, which specifically states that [p492] "[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972).

A woman who has, in the privacy of her thoughts and conscience, weighed the options and made her decision cannot be forced to reconsider all, simply because the State believes she has come to the wrong conclusion.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

 

[Toronado3800]

As long as Republicans are stuck on abortion and gay marriage they will continue to get their asses kicked.

Conservatives need to stick to fiscal issues.
I oppose abortion strongly and counsel everyone and anyone to keep their baby.
But government has no role in the health decisions of a woman and her doctor.
Gay marriage? If there a larger NON issue in this country someone please point to it.
Goldwater conservatives are coming back and we will soon control the party again.

I agree on the issues but think the elections are close enough beauty plays as much a role as anything.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
It is hardly surprising that you cannot imagine the multiplicity of factors that going into a decision as to where one chooses an abode.

.

You seem to be forgetting that the only reason we're talking about this is because you told someone to move if they didn't like it...

...apparently that was before YOU imagined the multiplicity of factors that go into where one lives.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[
It is hardly surprising that you cannot imagine the multiplicity of factors that going into a decision as to where one chooses an abode.

.

You seem to be forgetting that the only reason we're talking about this is because you told someone to move if they didn't like it...

...apparently that was before YOU imagined the multiplicity of factors that go into where one lives.

Your limitations are showing.

One may move if they don't like some law....enough.

 

[Toronado3800]

Strange subject....

I don't like moving to chase jobs or get away from laws. Especially changes in the law that are sweeping across the country.

Also imagine the financial disaster of having to start a mortgage every decade with all that front loaded interest!

Not to mention I have folks I truat here to watch my kid.

While I am not as attached to my land as some I really prefer not to move.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Strange subject....

I don't like moving to chase jobs or get away from laws. Especially changes in the law that are sweeping across the country.

Also imagine the financial disaster of having to start a mortgage every decade with all that front loaded interest!

Not to mention I have folks I truat here to watch my kid.

While I am not as attached to my land as some I really prefer not to move.

From post #111...

'It is hardly surprising that you cannot imagine the multiplicity of factors that going into a decision as to where one chooses an abode.

Complaining is merely one possibility among a myriad.'


I believe 'myriad' covers your post.

 

[Dragonlady]

"It is reasonable to assume that if the Founders had wished to make so specific a change in the common practice of the times,...."

Wrong, because you still don't have a grasp on the reason for the Constitution.

Its function is not to tell citizens what they can do...it is to tell government what it can do....anything not covered by the enumerated powers is beyond the scope of the federal government.

The first fallacy of your argument is that those who wrote the Constitution were modern conservatives. They weren't. They opposed the conservative King of England and taxation without representation. So that's your first fail.

I bolded the last section, because extended your arugment logically, therefore the government cannot restrict abortion in any way because they are not mandated by the Constitution to deal with this issue. The government has no right to impede, restrict, or hinder a woman's right to determine what happens to her own body.

Last but not least, nothing in the Constitution recognizes that life begins at conception. In fact, the unborn are not even mentioned, so any idea that the Constitution protects life from the moment of conception is simply you projecting your own ideas into it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"It is reasonable to assume that if the Founders had wished to make so specific a change in the common practice of the times,...."

Wrong, because you still don't have a grasp on the reason for the Constitution.

Its function is not to tell citizens what they can do...it is to tell government what it can do....anything not covered by the enumerated powers is beyond the scope of the federal government.

The first fallacy of your argument is that those who wrote the Constitution were modern conservatives. They weren't. They opposed the conservative King of England and taxation without representation. So that's your first fail.

I bolded the last section, because extended your arugment logically, therefore the government cannot restrict abortion in any way because they are not mandated by the Constitution to deal with this issue. The government has no right to impede, restrict, or hinder a woman's right to determine what happens to her own body.

Last but not least, nothing in the Constitution recognizes that life begins at conception. In fact, the unborn are not even mentioned, so any idea that the Constitution protects life from the moment of conception is simply you projecting your own ideas into it.

1. "The first fallacy of your argument is that those who wrote the Constitution were modern conservatives."

The first problem in your post is a failure to understand that the classical liberal is the earlier term....today they would be known as conservatives.
Conservative philosophy is based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
This defines the Founders.


2. "...therefore the government cannot restrict abortion in any way because they are not mandated by the Constitution to deal with this issue. The government has no right to impede, restrict, or hinder a woman's right to determine what happens to her own body."

You are very close to being correct in the above.
It was an erroneous decision by the Supreme Court to decide based on an imaginary right.
But...had you said that the states can decide the issue of abortion, I would agree.


3. " ...nothing in the Constitution recognizes that life begins at conception."
But the Constitution has no purview as to when life begins.

Unfortunate that you don't realize that.

So, it seems that between the two of us, the failures are yours.

Don't you agree?