The Politics of the "Abortion" Word Games

[Agit8r]

Once again Don PoliticalSpice Quixote is on her futile crusade to tear down the wall of separation between church and state.

There is no such "wall, " you uneducated dunce.

The KKKer, Hugo Black, FDR's first Supreme Court nominee, inserted it and dopes like you believe that the concept was not anathema to the view of the Founders.

1. The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting ... First Amendment to the United States Constitution

The wall of separation was part of case law much earlier:

REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES. LII Legal Information Institute

In any case, abortion before "the quickening" was legal at the time of this country's founding.

You might want to read something other than ridiculous propaganda if you don't want to continually make an ass of yourself.

Have someone explain both the first amendment, and the religious character of the Founders to you.

It might take quite a while......

If they were so religious, why did they dabble in astrology?


(from Poor Richard's Almanack)

 

[TSJohnson]

Well, that was weird, Herr Pimmelknaller. So, you think there are no Jews who are pro-life? Really?

I just love it when newbies do drive-bys as if they really know the membership. This is always fun.

I think that, if your parents were actually Jewish, then they would have raised you better than that. I think that they would have raised you to be a decent human being and to believe in women's rights. I don't think they would have raised an authoritarian sexist or let you fall in with the exact same bigoted crowd that tried to kill their people just seventy years ago. If you're Jewish, then I'm Canadian and the Queen is English. And your parents clearly need to evaluate how they failed their child.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I am in favor of killing human babies on demand by the mother, if that cute little human baby is in the first and second trimester of pregnancy

Yes... we've read your incitement to murder already.

It wasn't acceptable yesterday and STILL isn't acceptable.

It doesn't matter what you accept.

And apparently you can't even accept the dictionary definition of murder.

I haven't disagreed with that definition.

I simply pointed out that what is LEGAL must be moral, for it to be VALID. A Law which fails to serve sound, objectively reasoned morality, cannot serve justice. And a law that fails to serve justice, is not a valid justification to act outside of sound, objectively reasoned morality.

I further pointed out that history is replete with examples of nations which had 'legalized' killing human life for what were subjectively reasoned, unsound moral justifications; which is murder. It turns out that being Jewish, or Christian or Black are not actually sound, objectively reasoned moral justifications to take someone's life. And someday, some authority, is going to come along and make it clear that taking pre-born human life, on the justification that 'if ya don't take that life ya won't be able to fit into your prom dress', is also not a valid moral justification to take the life of an innocent and otherwise helpless human being.

"It was legal and it was my job" did not work out well at all for those who brought it as their reasoning, when they were on trial at Nuremberg..., it rarely works at a Military Courts Martial, and only when the VERY SPECIFIC rules for being 'legal' while engaged in MORTAL COMBAT OF OUR SWORN ENEMIES were followed, and TO THE LETTER.

Sooo.... While I'm a proponent of Dictionary Citations, there is a limit to their relevant depth... and you've run headlong into that problem, here.

As a result, your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Once again Don PoliticalSpice Quixote is on her futile crusade to tear down the wall of separation between church and state.

There is no such "wall, " you uneducated dunce.

The KKKer, Hugo Black, FDR's first Supreme Court nominee, inserted it and dopes like you believe that the concept was not anathema to the view of the Founders.

1. The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting ... First Amendment to the United States Constitution

The wall of separation was part of case law much earlier:

REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES. LII Legal Information Institute

In any case, abortion before "the quickening" was legal at the time of this country's founding.

You might want to read something other than ridiculous propaganda if you don't want to continually make an ass of yourself.

Have someone explain both the first amendment, and the religious character of the Founders to you.

It might take quite a while......

If they were so religious, why did they dabble in astrology?


(from Poor Richard's Almanack)

Yes, agrarian cultures tended toward pagan fundamentals... . If it helps, they also used calendars, followed lunar and solar cycles and prayed for rain.

Where's the problem?

 

[Agit8r]

Once again Don PoliticalSpice Quixote is on her futile crusade to tear down the wall of separation between church and state.

There is no such "wall, " you uneducated dunce.

The KKKer, Hugo Black, FDR's first Supreme Court nominee, inserted it and dopes like you believe that the concept was not anathema to the view of the Founders.

1. The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting ... First Amendment to the United States Constitution

The wall of separation was part of case law much earlier:

REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES. LII Legal Information Institute

In any case, abortion before "the quickening" was legal at the time of this country's founding.

You might want to read something other than ridiculous propaganda if you don't want to continually make an ass of yourself.

Have someone explain both the first amendment, and the religious character of the Founders to you.

It might take quite a while......

If they were so religious, why did they dabble in astrology?


(from Poor Richard's Almanack)

Yes, agrarian cultures tended toward pagan fundamentals... . If it helps, they also used calendars, followed lunar and solar cycles and prayed for rain.

Where's the problem?

Like that "Gaia worship" that religionists are so upset about?

"I hope this [discovery of oxygen] will give some check to the rage of destroying trees that grow near houses, which has accompanied our late improvements in gardening, from an opinion of their being unwholesome. I am certain, from long observation, that there is nothing unhealthy in the air of woods"
-- Benjamin Franklin; letter to Joseph Priestly (1772)

-

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

There is no right to an abortion in the Constitution. Calling it "privacy" doesn't change that fact.

There is a right to privacy in the Constitution and you have no right to shove your meddling sanctimonious nose into any woman's uterus without her explicit permission.

Wrong. There's nothing in a woman's uterus that she alone has the power to put there. That means that any baby belongs to more than just the mother. So it isn't so "private" after all.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

There is no such "wall, " you uneducated dunce.

The KKKer, Hugo Black, FDR's first Supreme Court nominee, inserted it and dopes like you believe that the concept was not anathema to the view of the Founders.

1. The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting ... First Amendment to the United States Constitution

The wall of separation was part of case law much earlier:

REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES. LII Legal Information Institute

In any case, abortion before "the quickening" was legal at the time of this country's founding.

You might want to read something other than ridiculous propaganda if you don't want to continually make an ass of yourself.

Have someone explain both the first amendment, and the religious character of the Founders to you.

It might take quite a while......

If they were so religious, why did they dabble in astrology?


(from Poor Richard's Almanack)

Yes, agrarian cultures tended toward pagan fundamentals... . If it helps, they also used calendars, followed lunar and solar cycles and prayed for rain.

Where's the problem?

Like that "Gaia worship" that religionists are so upset about?

"I hope this [discovery of oxygen] will give some check to the rage of destroying trees that grow near houses, which has accompanied our late improvements in gardening, from an opinion of their being unwholesome. I am certain, from long observation, that there is nothing unhealthy in the air of woods"
-- Benjamin Franklin; letter to Joseph Priestly (1772)

-

So when did Benjamin Franklin propose the EPA?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No, it's not "what it boils down to", the mother's health does come before and undeveloped fetus, and it should.

Of course it does... As does every consideration where human life is at risk.

The problem is that you on the pro-"Choice" side want to limit the scope of that chain of moral absolutes... so that it doesn't gore your ox.

The reason that the mother's life is priority is that the mother is the superior life, it is established and it is carrying the child... Mother has conceived that child... she did so through her own willful behavior... SHE took action to conceive the child. Therefore the Mother is the vessel, endowed by God with the right to her life, with that come the responsibilities which extend out from there... conception being but one of many.

The Child is dependent upon the Mother for its life. It is also the new life introduced, thus is junior to the Mother.

Surely no one disagrees so far.

Taking a human life requires as its first element of justification, that the life being questioned is a threat to another's life... Where the child's life threatens ANY other life, it's own right to its own life is forfeited.

Now, from that level we travel to the next, which is intent... is the life at issue reasonably recognized as being in clear intent to injure another? If so... "Flip the switch". Instant justification. All Lights are green.

If not... is there any other option to avoid taking its life? And so on...

Such is the tiered construct of justification and choices, standards, rules, statutes etc, for all of Western Jurisprudence down to the simple summons.

You guys just want to set aside that when a woman willfully engages in the behavior that CAUSES CONCEPTION... that 'she just screwed up a little' , when she conceives and needs to kill that life, because if she doesn't she's going to be seriously inconvenienced.

Mom's got a right to save her own life and part of that threshold is that the baby existence is a threat to mommies' life... by virtue that it EXISTS. You want to treat the baby is if it were to be growing in Daddy's body, decidedly unsuited to such, which would in FACT be fatal... which is NOT true in the case of a female.

DO major medical crises come up when that tragic decision needs to be made? Of course... And are their very specific thresholds which establish what IS and is NOT a a true medical crisis? Yep... (See, where this is going?)

Those circumstances are VERY RARE... And few people of reason have ever protested such as they recognize that in nearly every ONE of those exceedingly rare the parents are put in a tragic position of having to destroy something they loved very much.

THAT is not what is at issue and it is deceitful to suggest that it is.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

When does a person become a "person"? Apparently the surpreme court gets to decide this based on whatever arbitrary reason they see fit. At one time a fetus was a person, but that was before the Roe vs. Wade decision.
Perhaps in the future the supreme court will make a fetus a person again, or maybe it will be changed in the other direction and "it" will not be a person until 2 years after leaving the womb.

Perhaps there should be a constitutional amendment to state when a person becomes a person.

Link?

Why the red? do you think you are a mod?

link? Use some common sense. Abortion was illegal before Roe vs. Wade. Was it because a fetus at that time was considered a vegetable?

No you're wrong. Abortion has been legal in my state since the people of my state had their first chance to vote on the subject in 1968. So abortion has been legal in my state for 47 years.

We've had two more chances to vote on the abortion issue. Again in the early 1980s when we voted to use state tax dollars to pay for abortion. It passed and I voted in the majority. So our state medicaid dollars have been paying for abortions for around 35 years.

Then again in the early 1990s. we had the chance to vote on an initiative that said that no matter what DC does, no matter what any judge says, no matter what any politician does in our state congress, abortion stays legal and safe in my state. It passed again and I voted with the majority. So no matter what any judge or politician in DC or politician in our state congress says or does, abortion stays legal and safe in my state forever.

Alter the dates to the relevant period and that's pretty much what happened in Germany in the 1930s and 40s with the Jews. They were innocent and unable to defend themselves and their mortal judgment became a bureaucratic matter. No Trials and any public speech which advocated for Jews was quickly beaten into submission.

And the Germans didn't care what anyone else thought about it... , for a while there. Then, fairly suddenly, that they didn't care, didn't matter.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

When does a person become a "person"? Apparently the surpreme court gets to decide this based on whatever arbitrary reason they see fit. At one time a fetus was a person, but that was before the Roe vs. Wade decision.
Perhaps in the future the supreme court will make a fetus a person again, or maybe it will be changed in the other direction and "it" will not be a person until 2 years after leaving the womb.

Perhaps there should be a constitutional amendment to state when a person becomes a person.

Link?

Why the red? do you think you are a mod?

link? Use some common sense. Abortion was illegal before Roe vs. Wade. Was it because a fetus at that time was considered a vegetable?

No you're wrong. Abortion has been legal in my state since the people of my state had their first chance to vote on the subject in 1968. So abortion has been legal in my state for 47 years.

We've had two more chances to vote on the abortion issue. Again in the early 1980s when we voted to use state tax dollars to pay for abortion. It passed and I voted in the majority. So our state medicaid dollars have been paying for abortions for around 35 years.

Then again in the early 1990s. we had the chance to vote on an initiative that said that no matter what DC does, no matter what any judge says, no matter what any politician does in our state congress, abortion stays legal and safe in my state. It passed again and I voted with the majority. So no matter what any judge or politician in DC or politician in our state congress says or does, abortion stays legal and safe in my state forever.

Alter the dates to the relevant period and that's pretty much what happened in Germany in the 1930s and 40s with the Jews. They were innocent and unable to defend themselves and their mortal judgment became a bureaucratic matter. No Trials and any public speech which advocated for Jews was quickly beaten into submission.

And the Germans didn't care what anyone else thought about it... , for a while there. Then, fairly suddenly, that they didn't care, didn't matter.

Now you understand why I HATE Nazis with their Jew hate talk, the same kind of talk that turned a religious society into a murderous machine. I'll oppose Jew haters with unrelenting antagonism wherever I encounter them.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

When does a person become a "person"? Apparently the surpreme court gets to decide this based on whatever arbitrary reason they see fit. At one time a fetus was a person, but that was before the Roe vs. Wade decision.
Perhaps in the future the supreme court will make a fetus a person again, or maybe it will be changed in the other direction and "it" will not be a person until 2 years after leaving the womb.

Perhaps there should be a constitutional amendment to state when a person becomes a person.

Link?

Why the red? do you think you are a mod?

link? Use some common sense. Abortion was illegal before Roe vs. Wade. Was it because a fetus at that time was considered a vegetable?

No you're wrong. Abortion has been legal in my state since the people of my state had their first chance to vote on the subject in 1968. So abortion has been legal in my state for 47 years.

We've had two more chances to vote on the abortion issue. Again in the early 1980s when we voted to use state tax dollars to pay for abortion. It passed and I voted in the majority. So our state medicaid dollars have been paying for abortions for around 35 years.

Then again in the early 1990s. we had the chance to vote on an initiative that said that no matter what DC does, no matter what any judge says, no matter what any politician does in our state congress, abortion stays legal and safe in my state. It passed again and I voted with the majority. So no matter what any judge or politician in DC or politician in our state congress says or does, abortion stays legal and safe in my state forever.

Alter the dates to the relevant period and that's pretty much what happened in Germany in the 1930s and 40s with the Jews. They were innocent and unable to defend themselves and their mortal judgment became a bureaucratic matter. No Trials and any public speech which advocated for Jews was quickly beaten into submission.

And the Germans didn't care what anyone else thought about it... , for a while there. Then, fairly suddenly, that they didn't care, didn't matter.

Now you understand why I HATE Nazis with their Jew hate talk, the same kind of talk that turned a religious society into a murderous machine. I'll oppose Jew haters with unrelenting antagonism wherever I encounter them.

Of course... it's evil. Where one fails to oppose evil, by default one joins with evil and, in so doin', destroy one's self.

I totally get it.

 

[Agit8r]

"Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti- abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals."
-- Ayn Rand; from The Ayn Rand Letter

-

 

[JoeB131]

"Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti- abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals."
-- Ayn Rand; from The Ayn Rand Letter

-

dude, you totally melted their brains.

 

[tinydancer]

I've always found it fascinating that some one is having a baby but some one else lost a fetus.

 

[tinydancer]

"Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti- abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals."
-- Ayn Rand; from The Ayn Rand Letter

-

And she was right to make us realize that to have a child is not only a gift but a responsibility.

 

[tinydancer]

"Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti- abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals."
-- Ayn Rand; from The Ayn Rand Letter

-

dude, you totally melted their brains.

You really do believe we are all stupid don't you?

 

[tinydancer]

I love it. Joe and agit whatever actually really truly unbelievably think we are all morons.

They have just posted so.

 

[Agit8r]

I love it. Joe and agit whatever actually really truly unbelievably think we are all morons.

They have just posted so.

I didn't say so. But if the cap fits...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

"Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti- abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals."
-- Ayn Rand; from The Ayn Rand Letter

-

Oh I totally agree with every BIT of that... except where it rationalizes that the child in utero is not a child. Pretending otherwise rejects the responsibility intrinsic to being female.

No one should take on the raising of a child lightly, and as a result, no one should engage in the behavior designed for that which should not be taken lightly, lightly. Because as a great thinker one noted, human beings are not stock-farm Animals, we have the means to reason, to know that what should not be taken lightly... because there's a life at risk, which is not yours.

In short: You have no right to screw, when such results in someone besides you, getting screwed.

 

[JoeB131]

"Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti- abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals."
-- Ayn Rand; from The Ayn Rand Letter

-

dude, you totally melted their brains.

You really do believe we are all stupid don't you?

Oh, i entirely believe you're that stupid. And in your case, crazy as a shit-house rat.