The Political View of Abortion

[PoliticalChic]

It's hardly a case of me being incorrect....rather it is your lack of comprehension based on your loving acceptance of big government propaganda.


Neither homeschooling nor abortion are the province of the federal government.


Sadly, neither is indoctrinating you...but they've taken over in that area as well.

So last week you found the right to homeschool in the Ninth Amendment, but this week you can't find it,

all because your argument-of-the-week necessitates that the right of privacy cannot be found in the Constitution.

I'm just curious, did you manage to find the right of privacy in the Constitution for gun owners a few weeks ago when the topic was the publication of the names of New Yorkers with gun licenses?

lol NY you can't argue logic with these silly KKK right wingers, it just doesn't work.

How would you know?

It's not as though you play more than one note, is it, dim-wit?

 

[lukelk]

hahahahahhahaha sooooooo the MAJORITY wants it to be LEGAL? haahahaha GO HOME YOU KKK *****

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you remember making the statement below, last week?

NYcarbineer: Where do you find the right to homeschool in the Constitution?

PoliticalChic: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

See if you can guess which amendment this is.

So, given what you said today and what you said last week, in which case were you wrong?

Unenumerated rights are imaginary, or rights don't have to be enumerated to exist?

You have to pick one or the other; it can't be both.

Your penchant for trying to change your own rules to fit your wacky agenda might be part of the reason your agenda is in fact wacky.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ooling-a-fundamental-right-7.html#post6935134

It's hardly a case of me being incorrect....rather it is your lack of comprehension based on your loving acceptance of big government propaganda.


Neither homeschooling nor abortion are the province of the federal government.


Sadly, neither is indoctrinating you...but they've taken over in that area as well.

So last week you found the right to homeschool in the Ninth Amendment, but this week you can't find it,

all because your argument-of-the-week necessitates that the right of privacy cannot be found in the Constitution.

I'm just curious, did you manage to find the right of privacy in the Constitution for gun owners a few weeks ago when the topic was the publication of the names of New Yorkers with gun licenses?

The argument you put forth is that government has a say in every aspect of life.


This is not the case.

 

[lukelk]

So last week you found the right to homeschool in the Ninth Amendment, but this week you can't find it,

all because your argument-of-the-week necessitates that the right of privacy cannot be found in the Constitution.

I'm just curious, did you manage to find the right of privacy in the Constitution for gun owners a few weeks ago when the topic was the publication of the names of New Yorkers with gun licenses?

lol NY you can't argue logic with these silly KKK right wingers, it just doesn't work.

How would you know?

It's not as though you play more than one note, is it, dim-wit?

hahaha so even a dim-wit can tell you that even by the most con. polls the MAJORITY of people thing abortion SHOULD BE LEGAL. Like I said go back the kitchen the KKK rally need their food cooked for them before they can start.

 

[PoliticalChic]

hahahahahhahaha sooooooo the MAJORITY wants it to be LEGAL? haahahaha GO HOME YOU KKK *****

I think I’ve got your problem figured out….your prostate is bigger than your brain.

 

[lukelk]

It's hardly a case of me being incorrect....rather it is your lack of comprehension based on your loving acceptance of big government propaganda.


Neither homeschooling nor abortion are the province of the federal government.


Sadly, neither is indoctrinating you...but they've taken over in that area as well.

So last week you found the right to homeschool in the Ninth Amendment, but this week you can't find it,

all because your argument-of-the-week necessitates that the right of privacy cannot be found in the Constitution.

I'm just curious, did you manage to find the right of privacy in the Constitution for gun owners a few weeks ago when the topic was the publication of the names of New Yorkers with gun licenses?

The argument you put forth is that government has a say in every aspect of life.


This is not the case.

you are right the GOV. does NOT have a say in every aspect of life, hence abortion is left up to the WOMAN to choose. go get raped by a KKK person and raise that rape baby to be another good minion in the inbred army that is the Jackson Mississippi Libration strike force "aka the KKK" hahahhahah

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think killing innocent human beings is wrong.

It that alright with you?

You think what you want, but don't try to inflict your assinine beliefs on the rest of us. That impugns my religious freedom. If you think a fetus is a person, that is your right, but unless and until the child is born and breathing on it's own, it is not, by law, a person.

Stop trying to force us to accept that you're right or your beliefs should have consideration over the beliefs of others. If you want to live according to your principles, feel free to do so, but don't try to tell us that we can't live according to ours.

"....but don't try to tell "us" that we can't live according to ours."

I've always felt that folks who use 'us' and 'we' when the actually mean 'me' and 'I' are afraid to stand up by themselves.

Any truth to that?


BTW....52% of Americans want abortion legal only under certain circumstances.

28% want it legal under any circumstances, e.g., as birth control

Abortion




So...who is the "we" and the "us"?

By over 2 to 1 Americans agree with Roe v. Wade.

Abortion

 

[lukelk]

NY this ***** is nothing but a KKK card holding member, Logic does not work with her.

 

[Dragonlady]

But worry not....I have no expectation of you learning....'cause then you wouldn't be 'erroneous.'

I read your articles. There are so many if's involved in this supposed population decline, and even then, the earth's population will only decline by half by the year 2200, and them, if nothing changes to increase the birth rate, it will be down to 1 billion by 2300. And all of it is just theory and conjecture.

Interesting that you deny global warming, which has been scientifically proven, yet you believe that the earth's population will die out. Of course science, logic, reasoning, facts are no substitute for fear, superstition, and the outright denial of unpleasant facts for right wingers.

I also looked at your graph. 80% of Americans are pro-choice, to some degree or another. In spite of nearly 50 years of lies, distortions and hysteria from the anti-abortion faction, your campaign to win the hearts and minds of Americans has failed. I'm willing to bet that if you surveyed women only, those numbers would be even higher.

Your positions are weak and indefensible. You make up shit about the Constitution to suit whatever argument you want to make, and then try to tell us what was in the hearts of minds of the founding fathers. Like you would know.

As for my using profanity, you bet your ass I do. Especially when dealing with condescending a$$hats like you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

But worry not....I have no expectation of you learning....'cause then you wouldn't be 'erroneous.'

I read your articles. There are so many if's involved in this supposed population decline, and even then, the earth's population will only decline by half by the year 2200, and them, if nothing changes to increase the birth rate, it will be down to 1 billion by 2300. And all of it is just theory and conjecture.

Interesting that you deny global warming, which has been scientifically proven, yet you believe that the earth's population will die out. Of course science, logic, reasoning, facts are no substitute for fear, superstition, and the outright denial of unpleasant facts for right wingers.

I also looked at your graph. 80% of Americans are pro-choice, to some degree or another. In spite of nearly 50 years of lies, distortions and hysteria from the anti-abortion faction, your campaign to win the hearts and minds of Americans has failed. I'm willing to bet that if you surveyed women only, those numbers would be even higher.

Your positions are weak and indefensible. You make up shit about the Constitution to suit whatever argument you want to make, and then try to tell us what was in the hearts of minds of the founding fathers. Like you would know.

As for my using profanity, you bet your ass I do. Especially when dealing with condescending a$$hats like you.

I never do.

Yet I have no problem putting folks like you in their place....do I.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You think what you want, but don't try to inflict your assinine beliefs on the rest of us. That impugns my religious freedom. If you think a fetus is a person, that is your right, but unless and until the child is born and breathing on it's own, it is not, by law, a person.

Stop trying to force us to accept that you're right or your beliefs should have consideration over the beliefs of others. If you want to live according to your principles, feel free to do so, but don't try to tell us that we can't live according to ours.

"....but don't try to tell "us" that we can't live according to ours."

I've always felt that folks who use 'us' and 'we' when the actually mean 'me' and 'I' are afraid to stand up by themselves.

Any truth to that?


BTW....52% of Americans want abortion legal only under certain circumstances.

28% want it legal under any circumstances, e.g., as birth control

Abortion




So...who is the "we" and the "us"?

By over 2 to 1 Americans agree with Roe v. Wade.

Abortion

But the statistics that I provided were correct...weren't they.

 

[Dragonlady]

But the statistics that I provided were correct...weren't they.

The statistics were correct but your context wasn't. 80% of Americans believe that abortion should be legal. As for those who want some restrictions, there is nothing which indicates what those might be as those questions weren't asked. Some may want parental consent for underage patients, others may want bans on late term abortions because of the misinformation those on the right have been putting out for years.

In any case, it's a medical issue and none of your business.

As for the profanity, I note how smugly you said you don't use profanity. Well whoop de doo. I guess we should have a parade for you, you're just that special. I have friends who don't swear and I don't swear when I'm with them. However, my friends aren't all holier than thou about it so I respect their wishes.

I especially don't respect someone who calls other posters stupid and acts superior. And THAT you do in spades. So, I will show you the same level of respect you show others, which is to say, none at all.

 

[PoliticalChic]

But the statistics that I provided were correct...weren't they.

The statistics were correct but your context wasn't. 80% of Americans believe that abortion should be legal. As for those who want some restrictions, there is nothing which indicates what those might be as those questions weren't asked. Some may want parental consent for underage patients, others may want bans on late term abortions because of the misinformation those on the right have been putting out for years.

In any case, it's a medical issue and none of your business.

As for the profanity, I note how smugly you said you don't use profanity. Well whoop de doo. I guess we should have a parade for you, you're just that special. I have friends who don't swear and I don't swear when I'm with them. However, my friends aren't all holier than thou about it so I respect their wishes.

I especially don't respect someone who calls other posters stupid and acts superior. And THAT you do in spades. So, I will show you the same level of respect you show others, which is to say, none at all.

I respond to folks based on the tone of their posts.

You began the conversation this way:

"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 felt it was important to teach you a lesson.


I believe I've done so.

 

[Toronado3800]

Either it is in the text of the Constitution or in the form of an amendment.

Otherwise.....imaginary.

Do you remember making the statement below, last week?

NYcarbineer: Where do you find the right to homeschool in the Constitution?

PoliticalChic: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

See if you can guess which amendment this is.

So, given what you said today and what you said last week, in which case were you wrong?

Unenumerated rights are imaginary, or rights don't have to be enumerated to exist?

You have to pick one or the other; it can't be both.

Your penchant for trying to change your own rules to fit your wacky agenda might be part of the reason your agenda is in fact wacky.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ooling-a-fundamental-right-7.html#post6935134

NY this "chick" is a ******* fool, she can take her KKK politics back to the boonies and live a happy yet stupid life.

Settle down big guy!

Being pro life or anti abortion is perfectly fine. So is he other view imo. It is a terrible topic.

Personally I ride the fence enough I just don't wanna make the decision or have the government make the decision for you so I am pro choice.

NOW, know PC's posts I might give her a hard time about anti abortion being pro big government rules and religion but please try to be nice, especially when I think we are both pro choice. Make those who agree wih me look level headed!

Anyways, this is way more muddled ground than liberal John Ashcroft's right to die in Oregon big brother in D.C. confusion.

 

[ima]

Nothing really worthwhile ever came out of Brooklyn. Jus' sayin'.

 

[Dragonlady]

I felt it was important to teach you a lesson.


I believe I've done so.

And once again you would be wrong. You should be used to that by now, but you continue to believe that some way, some how, you've put everyone in their place, when all you've done throughout this so-called discussion is backpedal when you've been caught out and fling insults.

In your first post, you told us what all conservative must think about abortion, which is that the rights endowed by the Creator are vested in an individual upon conception.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In no way does the pre-amble even suggest that these rights exist from the moment of creation, that is your projection of what it says. When others posted strong evidence that your take on this, and other quotes was factually wrong, you posted insults. As to the intent of the Founding Fathers, each of the "truths" they hold to be self-evident is separate by the word "that" which I have bolded in each case. This sentence structure separates each of the truths from the others, so "that all men are created equal" is separate and apart from "that they are endowed by their Creator". You've not only tied these two together as one truth, but you've decided when the Creator endowed the rights because that's what fits your ideals. Wishing it doesn't make it so.

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.

As the abortion right is not in said powers, it is not within the province of the federal government, and serves as an example of an over-stepping Supreme Court.
This is, and should be, a state decision.

This disagreement serves as an excellent example of the diametrically opposed views of the Liberal big-government serf, you, who looks to government for rights,

....and the conservatives who wrote the Constitution, and those such as myself who endorse individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

If not for the indoctrination of government schooling, far more would still understand that original view.

Condescending, insulting and bitchy, and not in a good way either. This, for you, is what passes for discussion. Your disdain for liberals is exceeded only by your political ignorance. Your claims to have knowledge of what was in the minds of the Founding Fathers is laughable. You're projecting into their writing what you WANT to see, not what is. And then, if you should come upon another issue which contradicts your first assertions, like the right to privacy, you quickly abandon the concept as not being in the Constitution. You can't suck and blow at the same time, but you keep trying to do it.

So don't flatter yourself. I am spectacularly unimpressed with either your debating skills, or your manners. Quoting Ann Coulter in your sig line is a dead giveaway. Another mysogynistic woman who sells out her sex to those who would deny them their rights, except that Coulter is doing it for financial gain, so at least there's some self interest involved. You're a true believer, which makes you not only a dupe, but one who thinks she is smarter than any stupid liberal.

I try not to make a fool of anyone, but I do give them leave to develop their natural tendencies, and you have just been durrrrred.

Have a nice day, *****.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I felt it was important to teach you a lesson.


I believe I've done so.

And once again you would be wrong. You should be used to that by now, but you continue to believe that some way, some how, you've put everyone in their place, when all you've done throughout this so-called discussion is backpedal when you've been caught out and fling insults.

In your first post, you told us what all conservative must think about abortion, which is that the rights endowed by the Creator are vested in an individual upon conception.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In no way does the pre-amble even suggest that these rights exist from the moment of creation, that is your projection of what it says. When others posted strong evidence that your take on this, and other quotes was factually wrong, you posted insults. As to the intent of the Founding Fathers, each of the "truths" they hold to be self-evident is separate by the word "that" which I have bolded in each case. This sentence structure separates each of the truths from the others, so "that all men are created equal" is separate and apart from "that they are endowed by their Creator". You've not only tied these two together as one truth, but you've decided when the Creator endowed the rights because that's what fits your ideals. Wishing it doesn't make it so.

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.

As the abortion right is not in said powers, it is not within the province of the federal government, and serves as an example of an over-stepping Supreme Court.
This is, and should be, a state decision.

This disagreement serves as an excellent example of the diametrically opposed views of the Liberal big-government serf, you, who looks to government for rights,

....and the conservatives who wrote the Constitution, and those such as myself who endorse individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

If not for the indoctrination of government schooling, far more would still understand that original view.

Condescending, insulting and bitchy, and not in a good way either. This, for you, is what passes for discussion. Your disdain for liberals is exceeded only by your political ignorance. Your claims to have knowledge of what was in the minds of the Founding Fathers is laughable. You're projecting into their writing what you WANT to see, not what is. And then, if you should come upon another issue which contradicts your first assertions, like the right to privacy, you quickly abandon the concept as not being in the Constitution. You can't suck and blow at the same time, but you keep trying to do it.

So don't flatter yourself. I am spectacularly unimpressed with either your debating skills, or your manners. Quoting Ann Coulter in your sig line is a dead giveaway. Another mysogynistic woman who sells out her sex to those who would deny them their rights, except that Coulter is doing it for financial gain, so at least there's some self interest involved. You're a true believer, which makes you not only a dupe, but one who thinks she is smarter than any stupid liberal.

I try not to make a fool of anyone, but I do give them leave to develop their natural tendencies, and you have just been durrrrred.

Have a nice day, *****.

1. "...you continue to believe that some way, some how, you've put everyone in their place,..."

Not everyone....you.




2. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,..."

"In no way does the pre-amble even suggest that these rights exist from the moment of creation,"

Yeah, it does.

Except for one blinded by bias....raise your paw.....where, in that memorializing statement, do you find that the Creator is checking the time to see when said individual is born so as to confer the unalienable rights?

Right...you don't.

a. As for "that," it applies to restrictive clauses, and in the case of 'all men' you have a leg to stand on …except that according to the dictionary, man can refer to both men and women…so it’s not really a restrictive clause…

The second usage certainly seem to comply with the restrictive nature…but I’m going to have to say that in both cases….it seems to be a stylistic usage rather than grammatical.


b. Your fall-back position might be that there are no such rights.
Again, we'd disagree.



3. "Your disdain for liberals is exceeded only by your political ignorance."
Well, you're half right, half-wit.

Is that what you mean by 'insulting'?
No...it's defining.

I should have warned you that first thing I do when I get up is brush my teeth and sharpen my tongue.



4. "I am spectacularly unimpressed with either your debating skills, or your manners."
And that certainly would be a problem for any interested in impressing you.....





5. "...but one who thinks she is smarter than any stupid liberal."
(Sigh...) Guilty as charged.





6. "Have a nice day, *****."

Gee, I thought I had corrected your language....but, I guess you can take the broad out of the pool hall, but you can't take the pool hall out of the broad.


Now...write soon...I'm kinda enjoying this.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's hardly a case of me being incorrect....rather it is your lack of comprehension based on your loving acceptance of big government propaganda.


Neither homeschooling nor abortion are the province of the federal government.


Sadly, neither is indoctrinating you...but they've taken over in that area as well.

So last week you found the right to homeschool in the Ninth Amendment, but this week you can't find it,

all because your argument-of-the-week necessitates that the right of privacy cannot be found in the Constitution.

I'm just curious, did you manage to find the right of privacy in the Constitution for gun owners a few weeks ago when the topic was the publication of the names of New Yorkers with gun licenses?

The argument you put forth is that government has a say in every aspect of life.


This is not the case.

If abortion went back to the states, the states would be able to ban early term abortion. Roe v. Wade is the government saying, no, government does not have a say in that aspect of life.

You have it just the opposite.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"....but don't try to tell "us" that we can't live according to ours."

I've always felt that folks who use 'us' and 'we' when the actually mean 'me' and 'I' are afraid to stand up by themselves.

Any truth to that?


BTW....52% of Americans want abortion legal only under certain circumstances.

28% want it legal under any circumstances, e.g., as birth control

Abortion




So...who is the "we" and the "us"?

By over 2 to 1 Americans agree with Roe v. Wade.

Abortion

But the statistics that I provided were correct...weren't they.

Your statistic says 80% of Americans want abortion legal at least sometimes.

 

[Dragonlady]

The poll was done by Gallup, one of the polling companies which said that Romney winning the election, primarily because Gallup doesn't call cell phones - landlines only, and the younger you are, the more likely you are to have gone entirely wireless for your phone service. Gallup's cross section skews much older than average.

This site has a number of women's health issue polls, including abortion:

Abortion