A question for the pro-abortion aka pro-choice crowd

[Foxfyre]

It's no more unconsitutional than banning slavery

That WAS unconstitutional, which is why it required a constitutional amendment (the 13th).

or making it illegal for husbands to rape their wives, or banning murder of any other sort.

Neither rape nor murder is illegal at the federal level. Both of those are a state responsibility, not a power delegated to the federal government. They are illegal in every state, but there is no federal law against murder or rape.

What is UNCONSTITUTIONAL is bypassing the will of the people to establish a law that allows millions of babies to be slaughtered.

Sooo -- in your view, the federal government operating outside its designated limits is perfectly constitutional, while the Supreme Court using its designated powers to interpret the law is not, when you happen to dislike its ruling.

I guess "constitutional" for you means "what Koshergirl likes." Got it.

No........actually slavery was NOT unconstitutional UNTIL the 13th amendment made it so. That is a very important distinction.

The Constitution does not specify what the people may not do. It was structured to put limits on what the government cannot do.

The vast majority of Americans, even in the South, did not condone slavery at the time the Constitution was written and then ratified, but set aside their differences on that issue in order to form a union of states/people willing to agree to accept some specific basic principles. The Civil War was one of those unimaginably immoral and indefensible activities of humankind. It hastened the demise of slavery at an unacceptable cost in blood and treasure to both black and white people. If it had been left alone, I firmly believe the people themselves would have come around to the right choice re slavery and the 13th amendment would have happened anyway without all the residual bitterness and in a way to allow former slaves to more easily assimilate into society. But hindsight and all that. We didn't give ourselves a chance to find that out.

Left alone on the issue of abortion, I give the American people every credit to come to the right decisions about that and to establish state or local ordinances that achieve the right balance between valuing the sanctity of right and the needs of the women involved. So long as there are those who look to the federal government to achieve that balance, it may happen anyway but it will be far more injurious to all and leave much more bitterness and be bought at an unacceptably high cost than if we leave the people to govern themselves.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Left alone on the issue of abortion, I give the American people every credit to come to the right decisions about that and to establish state or local ordinances that achieve the right balance between valuing the sanctity of right and the needs of the women involved. So long as there are those who look to the federal government to achieve that balance, it may happen anyway but it will be far more injurious to all and leave much more bitterness and be bought at an unacceptably high cost than if we leave the people to govern themselves.

You are consistent in your ignorance of the Constitution and its case law, if nothing else.

The rights of citizens are not subject to majority rule, and a state or other jurisdiction may not decide who will or will not have his right to privacy, with regard to abortion. See: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943).

The Constitution not only restricts the Federal government, but state and local governments as well.

To advocate state or local governments ‘decide’ as to the issue of abortion merely subjects the people to the tyranny of that state or local government. And all tyranny is the same, regardless the source.

 

[koshergrl]

What unmitigated crap.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, no one ever told me that cutting that umbilical cord ACTUALLY makes a child a "physically individual being",

Well, now you know. I guess you learn something new everyday, don'tcha?

Actually, I've known you were a misinformed halfwit for a while now, so it wasn't a newsflash.

probably because it's only "actual" in your own deluded mind. But by all means, if you can show me that written anywhere scientific or factual, feel free to produce it.

No, it is actual and in reality. Indeed, it is even empirically verifiable! I suppose no one ever told you that the placenta (and I'll assume that you know what the term "placenta" means) is composed of both fetal and maternal tissue. Hence, when the umbilical cord is cut, the fetus is now completely individuated from its host.

Would it surprise you to know that your ability to repeat something ad nauseam doesn't constitute "proof" of anything except that you're boring?

I'm well aware of what the placenta is. The only thing I'm NOT aware of is what fucking difference it makes to anything. So any time you'd like to get around to showing me proof - defined as quotes from reliable scientific sources, as opposed to you saying, "No, really, this is a fact. Honest!" - that an intact umbilical cord has any bearing on the scientific definition of a baby, in or out of the womb, as an individual, living human organism, you WILL let me know, won't you?

Shirley, I do not care a whit if the cutting of the umbilical cord is of any interest to you, symbolically or otherwise.

Of course you don't. That's why you're spending all this time boring me with your blather about it.

By "scientific" do you mean something akin to Creationism?

Family guy, evolution and creationism - YouTube

I am even less interested in your attempts to project your skewed schoolboy vision of Christianity onto me and into this conversation than I am in your Neanderthal superstitions about umbilical cords, so please try not to waste my time even worse than you already are by digressing onto unrelated, tangential bullshit.

You seem to be confused over the meaning of the term "attached". Just so you know, it does not mean "alive". Yes, "attached" and "alive" are two entirely different words with entirely different meanings.

I'M not the one who thinks "attached" has anything at all to do with "alive", or really anything at all, other than the purely practical necessity of disposing of unneeded biological waste. YOU are the one randomly trying to insert "attached" somewhere into the scientific definition of life (which I heartily doubt you even know). So since you're the one blithering about the "symbolic and actual" significance of the umbilical cord, I would say that makes YOU confused about attachment, not me.

Apparently, Siamese twins are neither of them alive or individual human beings because they're attached to someone else.

Interesting point, when you really think about it. Are conjoined twins truly individual from one another?

Yes, idiot. They're two individual people who happen to have a birth defect. What's REALLY interesting is that medical science - and humanity in general - has never really had a problem figuring this out, even in primitive times when such a birth might be viewed as an ill omen from the gods. You, on the other hand, living in the 21st century, don't even have the scientific knowledge OR the common sense to figure out what our primitive ancestors got right away.

quote]I'm still waiting for you to figure out that because you can spew garbage like this doesn't make it scientific or proof of anything except that you're so biologically ignorant, you should be legally barred from ever having sex, for the good of the gene pool.

Hah!... Considering your apparently apocryphal geneology (...yes, you do seem like a feral orphan who was raised by wolves), for all either of us know, I could be your father.

Now, wouldn't that be embarassing! (for me) [/QUOTE]

Wow, that was an utterly meaningless - and incredible lame - waste of time. I advise you to focus all your energy on your pathetic attempts to sound more educated than your average jungle tribesman, and leave personal attacks to those who have the brain capacity to multitask and the wit to make it effective.

 

[Dragon]

No........actually slavery was NOT unconstitutional UNTIL the 13th amendment made it so. That is a very important distinction.

What KG said was that BANNING slavery was not unconstitutional. Not slavery itself. But it was. The Constitution did not give the federal government the authority to ban slavery. Any state government could (and many did), but not the fed. That's why it was necessary to amend the Constitution in order to outlaw the practice. The federal government could not simply pass an act of Congress.

The Constitution does not specify what the people may not do. It was structured to put limits on what the government cannot do.

Almost. Actually, the Constitution was set up to declare what the FEDERAL government (not government in general) COULD do (not what it couldn't). It also imposed some affirmative restraints, but the main thing it did was to establish a central government as one of enumerated powers, conceived as the states delegating those powers to the federal government, while retaining all others for themselves.

That's why the federal government couldn't outlaw slavery. It's not that the Constitution contains any ban on that, it simply doesn't grant it as one of the powers delegated to the federal government.

Left alone on the issue of abortion, I give the American people every credit to come to the right decisions about that and to establish state or local ordinances that achieve the right balance between valuing the sanctity of right and the needs of the women involved.

I would say about this, what I would also have said about slavery, and what many did: justice deferred is justice denied.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's no more unconsitutional than banning slavery

That WAS unconstitutional, which is why it required a constitutional amendment (the 13th).



Neither rape nor murder is illegal at the federal level. Both of those are a state responsibility, not a power delegated to the federal government. They are illegal in every state, but there is no federal law against murder or rape.

What is UNCONSTITUTIONAL is bypassing the will of the people to establish a law that allows millions of babies to be slaughtered.

Sooo -- in your view, the federal government operating outside its designated limits is perfectly constitutional, while the Supreme Court using its designated powers to interpret the law is not, when you happen to dislike its ruling.

I guess "constitutional" for you means "what Koshergirl likes." Got it.

No........actually slavery was NOT unconstitutional UNTIL the 13th amendment made it so. That is a very important distinction.

The Constitution does not specify what the people may not do. It was structured to put limits on what the government cannot do.

The vast majority of Americans, even in the South, did not condone slavery at the time the Constitution was written and then ratified, but set aside their differences on that issue in order to form a union of states/people willing to agree to accept some specific basic principles. The Civil War was one of those unimaginably immoral and indefensible activities of humankind. It hastened the demise of slavery at an unacceptable cost in blood and treasure to both black and white people. If it had been left alone, I firmly believe the people themselves would have come around to the right choice re slavery and the 13th amendment would have happened anyway without all the residual bitterness and in a way to allow former slaves to more easily assimilate into society. But hindsight and all that. We didn't give ourselves a chance to find that out.

Left alone on the issue of abortion, I give the American people every credit to come to the right decisions about that and to establish state or local ordinances that achieve the right balance between valuing the sanctity of right and the needs of the women involved. So long as there are those who look to the federal government to achieve that balance, it may happen anyway but it will be far more injurious to all and leave much more bitterness and be bought at an unacceptably high cost than if we leave the people to govern themselves.

I believe what the halfwit was trying to say - although it's hard to puzzle out the gibberish sometimes - is that it would have been Unconstitutional for Congress to simply pass a law abolishing slavery, which is why it had to be added to the Constitution.

I could be wrong, though, and she actually meant something else entirely. Who knows?

Of course, what she's missing is that a Constitutional Amendment regarding abortion is exactly what the pro-lifers are looking for on the federal level, since it's the only really effective way to take the Supreme Court out of the question entirely.

 

[Foxfyre]

That WAS unconstitutional, which is why it required a constitutional amendment (the 13th).



Neither rape nor murder is illegal at the federal level. Both of those are a state responsibility, not a power delegated to the federal government. They are illegal in every state, but there is no federal law against murder or rape.



Sooo -- in your view, the federal government operating outside its designated limits is perfectly constitutional, while the Supreme Court using its designated powers to interpret the law is not, when you happen to dislike its ruling.

I guess "constitutional" for you means "what Koshergirl likes." Got it.

No........actually slavery was NOT unconstitutional UNTIL the 13th amendment made it so. That is a very important distinction.

The Constitution does not specify what the people may not do. It was structured to put limits on what the government cannot do.

The vast majority of Americans, even in the South, did not condone slavery at the time the Constitution was written and then ratified, but set aside their differences on that issue in order to form a union of states/people willing to agree to accept some specific basic principles. The Civil War was one of those unimaginably immoral and indefensible activities of humankind. It hastened the demise of slavery at an unacceptable cost in blood and treasure to both black and white people. If it had been left alone, I firmly believe the people themselves would have come around to the right choice re slavery and the 13th amendment would have happened anyway without all the residual bitterness and in a way to allow former slaves to more easily assimilate into society. But hindsight and all that. We didn't give ourselves a chance to find that out.

Left alone on the issue of abortion, I give the American people every credit to come to the right decisions about that and to establish state or local ordinances that achieve the right balance between valuing the sanctity of right and the needs of the women involved. So long as there are those who look to the federal government to achieve that balance, it may happen anyway but it will be far more injurious to all and leave much more bitterness and be bought at an unacceptably high cost than if we leave the people to govern themselves.

I believe what the halfwit was trying to say - although it's hard to puzzle out the gibberish sometimes - is that it would have been Unconstitutional for Congress to simply pass a law abolishing slavery, which is why it had to be added to the Constitution.

I could be wrong, though, and she actually meant something else entirely. Who knows?

Of course, what she's missing is that a Constitutional Amendment regarding abortion is exactly what the pro-lifers are looking for on the federal level, since it's the only really effective way to take the Supreme Court out of the question entirely.

Dragon is a she? Hmmm, hadn't figured on that.

But no way would I support banning all abortion for any reason whatsoever. There are times when it is necessary and the moral choice. My motives are to change our culture to revere life and stop killing babies for no better reason than they are unwanted or inconvenient. I want to win that battle in the court of public opinion and conscience and not by the heavy hand of the federal government. And that would require allowing for the conscience and sensibilities of the pro lifers who see abortion on demand as legalized murder.

You're probably right that the more extreme pro lifers do want a Constitutional amendment. And at some level that might be okay if it followed the guidelines set forth in Roe. The first trimester everybody stays out of it and lets the woman and her doctor work it out. After that, it would require a court order to get an abortion. Even if the law allowed doctors to act without authorization in medical emergencies, it would put them in a terrible situation and almost certainly would greatly increase malpractice claims.

And, I can also see the fight then moving to appoint only pro life or pro choice judges that would deny the court orders or give them out like kleenex, no questions asked. And the accusations and lawsuits that would be opened up when there were genuine emergencies and there was no judge to sign the order.

I still think the best solution is for the federal government to get out of it altogether and allow each community to follow its own conscience and convictions in the matter. When we allow the people to govern themselves, they usually eventually get around to doing the right thing.

 

[Gadawg73]

Yep. Women with dollars can have an in home washing machine. Women without dollars go to mom's house or go to a laundromat. Women with dollars can afford to own a car. Women without dollars walk or take the bus. Women with dollars can buy steak and potatoes at a restaurant or supermarket. Women without dollars make do with hamburger or the local soup kitchen. That's the way the world is and has always been.

But regardless, Roe definitely allows abortion for those in the first trimester as a matter between the woman and her doctor no questions asked. I support that as a reasonable compromise between the two camps.

After the first trimester, the state can have interest. But the Doe v Bolton case that followed pretty well extended abortion on demand to the entire nine months and opened the door for the unconscionable partial birth abortion procedure.

Ironically, both Roe and Doe, the 'plaintiffs' in those cases, are now both staunchly pro life and would never participate in such cases should they be asked to do so now.

And I wonder if those seven Supreme Court Justices would have changed their opinion if they had even dreamed of the horrendous results that have come from it?

Since Roe v Wade became law in 1973, more than 50 million babies have been killed in the womb. That averages out to about 1.2 million per year or more then 3,300 per day. Human lives snuffed out before they ever had a chance to live.

As a society, if we do not revere and protect and defend the lives of the most helpless among us, we lose our conscience, our sense of right and wrong, our humanity.

We can do better.

It comes as no surprise that many women regret having abortions.
But no one forced them to. Personal responsibility takes a back seat to excuses and the current Roe and Doe PR is more excuse than taking responsibility for one's actions.
You can not fix dumb ass. NO LAW stops abortion.
And, most importantly, no rhetoric either. Our society in America has allowed abortion since inception. The anti abortion era did not start until the 1800s.

But up until Roe v Wade, a community who valued the sanctity of life and did not want abortions in their community did not have to have them. I am not saying that abortion should not be legal in the first trimester or under specific circumstances after that.

I am saying that if we believe in freedom, we won't force people to condone and/or allow what they believe to be the murder of millions of babies.

The Founders intended the people themselves to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wished to have short of denying a person his/her unalienable rights.

Where is anyone forced to condone anything?
Who is twisting your arm?
Freedom is states rights. How many times do I have to explain that to you?
Or how many times do I have to count that you ignore what you know is fact?

 

[Gadawg73]

No........actually slavery was NOT unconstitutional UNTIL the 13th amendment made it so. That is a very important distinction.

The Constitution does not specify what the people may not do. It was structured to put limits on what the government cannot do.

The vast majority of Americans, even in the South, did not condone slavery at the time the Constitution was written and then ratified, but set aside their differences on that issue in order to form a union of states/people willing to agree to accept some specific basic principles. The Civil War was one of those unimaginably immoral and indefensible activities of humankind. It hastened the demise of slavery at an unacceptable cost in blood and treasure to both black and white people. If it had been left alone, I firmly believe the people themselves would have come around to the right choice re slavery and the 13th amendment would have happened anyway without all the residual bitterness and in a way to allow former slaves to more easily assimilate into society. But hindsight and all that. We didn't give ourselves a chance to find that out.

Left alone on the issue of abortion, I give the American people every credit to come to the right decisions about that and to establish state or local ordinances that achieve the right balance between valuing the sanctity of right and the needs of the women involved. So long as there are those who look to the federal government to achieve that balance, it may happen anyway but it will be far more injurious to all and leave much more bitterness and be bought at an unacceptably high cost than if we leave the people to govern themselves.

I believe what the halfwit was trying to say - although it's hard to puzzle out the gibberish sometimes - is that it would have been Unconstitutional for Congress to simply pass a law abolishing slavery, which is why it had to be added to the Constitution.

I could be wrong, though, and she actually meant something else entirely. Who knows?

Of course, what she's missing is that a Constitutional Amendment regarding abortion is exactly what the pro-lifers are looking for on the federal level, since it's the only really effective way to take the Supreme Court out of the question entirely.

Dragon is a she? Hmmm, hadn't figured on that.

But no way would I support banning all abortion for any reason whatsoever. There are times when it is necessary and the moral choice. My motives are to change our culture to revere life and stop killing babies for no better reason than they are unwanted or inconvenient. I want to win that battle in the court of public opinion and conscience and not by the heavy hand of the federal government. And that would require allowing for the conscience and sensibilities of the pro lifers who see abortion on demand as legalized murder.

You're probably right that the more extreme pro lifers do want a Constitutional amendment. And at some level that might be okay if it followed the guidelines set forth in Roe. The first trimester everybody stays out of it and lets the woman and her doctor work it out. After that, it would require a court order to get an abortion. Even if the law allowed doctors to act without authorization in medical emergencies, it would put them in a terrible situation and almost certainly would greatly increase malpractice claims.

And, I can also see the fight then moving to appoint only pro life or pro choice judges that would deny the court orders or give them out like kleenex, no questions asked. And the accusations and lawsuits that would be opened up when there were genuine emergencies and there was no judge to sign the order.

I still think the best solution is for the federal government to get out of it altogether and allow each community to follow its own conscience and convictions in the matter. When we allow the people to govern themselves, they usually eventually get around to doing the right thing.

Which is it? In the other post you stated that if one believes in freedom they will not allow abortion and now you claim you believe the federal government should stay out of it.

 

[Foxfyre]

It comes as no surprise that many women regret having abortions.
But no one forced them to. Personal responsibility takes a back seat to excuses and the current Roe and Doe PR is more excuse than taking responsibility for one's actions.
You can not fix dumb ass. NO LAW stops abortion.
And, most importantly, no rhetoric either. Our society in America has allowed abortion since inception. The anti abortion era did not start until the 1800s.

But up until Roe v Wade, a community who valued the sanctity of life and did not want abortions in their community did not have to have them. I am not saying that abortion should not be legal in the first trimester or under specific circumstances after that.

I am saying that if we believe in freedom, we won't force people to condone and/or allow what they believe to be the murder of millions of babies.

The Founders intended the people themselves to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wished to have short of denying a person his/her unalienable rights.

Where is anyone forced to condone anything?
Who is twisting your arm?
Freedom is states rights. How many times do I have to explain that to you?
Or how many times do I have to count that you ignore what you know is fact?

If you think I need that explained to me, you haven't read anything I've written though that isn't all of it. The individual's unaienable rights, i.e. freedom, can't be infringed by even the state, let alone the federal government, if we follow the intent of the Constitution the Founders gave us.

 

[Gadawg73]

But up until Roe v Wade, a community who valued the sanctity of life and did not want abortions in their community did not have to have them. I am not saying that abortion should not be legal in the first trimester or under specific circumstances after that.

I am saying that if we believe in freedom, we won't force people to condone and/or allow what they believe to be the murder of millions of babies.

The Founders intended the people themselves to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wished to have short of denying a person his/her unalienable rights.

Where is anyone forced to condone anything?
Who is twisting your arm?
Freedom is states rights. How many times do I have to explain that to you?
Or how many times do I have to count that you ignore what you know is fact?

If you think I need that explained to me, you haven't read anything I've written though that isn't all of it. The individual's unaienable rights, i.e. freedom, can't be infringed by even the state, let alone the federal government, if we follow the intent of the Constitution the Founders gave us.

Got it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No........actually slavery was NOT unconstitutional UNTIL the 13th amendment made it so. That is a very important distinction.

The Constitution does not specify what the people may not do. It was structured to put limits on what the government cannot do.

The vast majority of Americans, even in the South, did not condone slavery at the time the Constitution was written and then ratified, but set aside their differences on that issue in order to form a union of states/people willing to agree to accept some specific basic principles. The Civil War was one of those unimaginably immoral and indefensible activities of humankind. It hastened the demise of slavery at an unacceptable cost in blood and treasure to both black and white people. If it had been left alone, I firmly believe the people themselves would have come around to the right choice re slavery and the 13th amendment would have happened anyway without all the residual bitterness and in a way to allow former slaves to more easily assimilate into society. But hindsight and all that. We didn't give ourselves a chance to find that out.

Left alone on the issue of abortion, I give the American people every credit to come to the right decisions about that and to establish state or local ordinances that achieve the right balance between valuing the sanctity of right and the needs of the women involved. So long as there are those who look to the federal government to achieve that balance, it may happen anyway but it will be far more injurious to all and leave much more bitterness and be bought at an unacceptably high cost than if we leave the people to govern themselves.

I believe what the halfwit was trying to say - although it's hard to puzzle out the gibberish sometimes - is that it would have been Unconstitutional for Congress to simply pass a law abolishing slavery, which is why it had to be added to the Constitution.

I could be wrong, though, and she actually meant something else entirely. Who knows?

Of course, what she's missing is that a Constitutional Amendment regarding abortion is exactly what the pro-lifers are looking for on the federal level, since it's the only really effective way to take the Supreme Court out of the question entirely.

Dragon is a she? Hmmm, hadn't figured on that.

Well, admittedly, I can't actually TELL. I just seem to remember her(?) saying so once.

But no way would I support banning all abortion for any reason whatsoever. There are times when it is necessary and the moral choice. My motives are to change our culture to revere life and stop killing babies for no better reason than they are unwanted or inconvenient. I want to win that battle in the court of public opinion and conscience and not by the heavy hand of the federal government. And that would require allowing for the conscience and sensibilities of the pro lifers who see abortion on demand as legalized murder.

Despite liberal pretense to the contrary, almost no pro-lifers advocate banning ALL abortion. We all understand that there are occasions - blessedly rare - when hard, ugly choices are necessary. For example, although most people don't think of it as an abortion, removal of an ectopic pregnancy IS, in fact, an abortion, but I don't know anyone who would suggest that it shouldn't be done. Ditto for the removal of a baby who dies in utero. And what about a pregnant woman whose life suddenly requires some sort of urgent medical treatment which would damage or kill the baby? No matter how much they want to lie to themselves, we DO all grasp the reality of these scenarios.

You're probably right that the more extreme pro lifers do want a Constitutional amendment. And at some level that might be okay if it followed the guidelines set forth in Roe. The first trimester everybody stays out of it and lets the woman and her doctor work it out. After that, it would require a court order to get an abortion. Even if the law allowed doctors to act without authorization in medical emergencies, it would put them in a terrible situation and almost certainly would greatly increase malpractice claims.

I don't know how "extreme" it actually is. It is a reality that our current national situation is such that there's probably not any other way to keep the left from trying to do an end run around the laws passed by the people and their duly-elected representatives.

I also happen to think Roe's "trimester" set-up was crappy law AND crappy adjudicating, and I'm not alone in that opinion.

And, I can also see the fight then moving to appoint only pro life or pro choice judges that would deny the court orders or give them out like kleenex, no questions asked. And the accusations and lawsuits that would be opened up when there were genuine emergencies and there was no judge to sign the order.

I still think the best solution is for the federal government to get out of it altogether and allow each community to follow its own conscience and convictions in the matter. When we allow the people to govern themselves, they usually eventually get around to doing the right thing.

Unfortunately, the left is never going to allow that to happen. They have a long history of running to the judiciary any and every time they don't get their way from the legislature or the ballot box, and there just aren't a whole lot of ways to prevent the judiciary from assigning itself the role of oligarchs in black dresses.

 

[Dragon]

Dragon is a she? Hmmm, hadn't figured on that.

Dragon is not a she. Neither is Cecilie. At least, not a human she.

Maybe it thinks I'm female because I rejected it on another thread and it thinks no man can do that. We'll have confirmation if it now decides I'm gay.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Dragon is a she? Hmmm, hadn't figured on that.

Dragon is not a she. Neither is Cecilie. At least, not a human she.

Maybe it thinks I'm female because I rejected it on another thread and it thinks no man can do that. We'll have confirmation if it now decides I'm gay.

I realize you have little to no experience in this area, so just a tip: one must be wanted before one can reject.

Take notes, because I hate repeating myself.

 

[koshergrl]

It's no more unconsitutional than banning slavery

That WAS unconstitutional, which is why it required a constitutional amendment (the 13th).



Neither rape nor murder is illegal at the federal level. Both of those are a state responsibility, not a power delegated to the federal government. They are illegal in every state, but there is no federal law against murder or rape.

What is UNCONSTITUTIONAL is bypassing the will of the people to establish a law that allows millions of babies to be slaughtered.

Sooo -- in your view, the federal government operating outside its designated limits is perfectly constitutional, while the Supreme Court using its designated powers to interpret the law is not, when you happen to dislike its ruling.

I guess "constitutional" for you means "what Koshergirl likes." Got it.

No........actually slavery was NOT unconstitutional UNTIL the 13th amendment made it so. That is a very important distinction.

The Constitution does not specify what the people may not do. It was structured to put limits on what the government cannot do.

The vast majority of Americans, even in the South, did not condone slavery at the time the Constitution was written and then ratified, but set aside their differences on that issue in order to form a union of states/people willing to agree to accept some specific basic principles. The Civil War was one of those unimaginably immoral and indefensible activities of humankind. It hastened the demise of slavery at an unacceptable cost in blood and treasure to both black and white people. If it had been left alone, I firmly believe the people themselves would have come around to the right choice re slavery and the 13th amendment would have happened anyway without all the residual bitterness and in a way to allow former slaves to more easily assimilate into society. But hindsight and all that. We didn't give ourselves a chance to find that out.

Left alone on the issue of abortion, I give the American people every credit to come to the right decisions about that and to establish state or local ordinances that achieve the right balance between valuing the sanctity of right and the needs of the women involved. So long as there are those who look to the federal government to achieve that balance, it may happen anyway but it will be far more injurious to all and leave much more bitterness and be bought at an unacceptably high cost than if we leave the people to govern themselves.

My brother in law, a brilliant, compassionate, kind and giving man...believes the exact same thing.

You're in good company.

 

[koshergrl]

Dragon is way, way out of his depth, I'm afraid.

Better go back to the Creationists bashing thread...you don't even have to pretend to have any understanding of the constitution, science or the faith you're bashing there...you can just jeer and point.

 

[logical4u]

Sex between consenting adults is not immoral and is none of your business

Ahhhh! Qualifier.

The Highest Power says differently. I will take His word over yours. You do not have to listen to Him, but I choose to.

Yes...listen

He is telling you to condemn others

I have stated this many times, please pay attention. I HAVE NO POWER AND NO AUTHORITY TO CONDEMN. I can tell someone when they are making the wrong choices. It does not mean that I am condemning them, just that I know they are headed for trouble (thru their choices). I cannot make them change their choices; I cannot change their life. That is entirely up to them. I do get a little testy when someone that has spent much of their life making seriously bad decisions wants to WHINE and CRY that their life is not as they want it to be. Who made those decisions? Who do you think was going to live with those decisions?

After that, the Lord does not "tell me" to do anything. I can read about Him, and His wisdom, just like anyone else can. I, like everyone else has to make my own choices and live with those decisions. I am not the one telling others that they have it too good, and they must sacrifice to give to me because my decisions were not as good as theirs.

 

[logical4u]

The Highest Power says differently. I will take His word over yours. You do not have to listen to Him, but I choose to.

You may listen to whatever idiocy you wish – just keep it to yourself and out of the law.

Are you saying the Lord has nothing to do with the Law? How naive you are.

 

[logical4u]

If people that are not married are having sex, it is immoral (this has moved well into the tolerated category, but if you look at it logically, it is immoral, as well). BTW, there are many more forms of immoral sex, not that you would care. Are you one of those that think school children should have sexual positions taught on the tax dollar?

So does this mean you admit that your anti-choice position is all about enforcing traditional sexual morality, and not about saving lives?

By the way, the "highest power" tells me that there is nothing wrong with people loving each other and giving each other pleasure, and a marriage license is only a scrap of paper and totally irrelevant.

I swear you libs/leftists/dems/homosexual activists/islamic extremists/communists/socialists work really hard to act like idiots. You want to know how to make things better. The answer is Christianity (there are other faiths that are close); it was made for all people not just A, B, or C people.

Your second statement is even more idiodic. Should a mother and child (that love each other) be able to give each other sexual pleasure????????????????????
A father and child?
Any adult and child?
any person and animal?
Close relatives?
How about close relatives of the same sex?

Marriage is a very specific arrangement. Because you, choose to believe that it is JUST a scrap of paper does not make it so.

I really do get tired of your "pure" ideals with no basis in reality or respect for life.

 

[logical4u]

Some people feel ANY form of contraceptive is abortive. That's wrong. Here is such a statement from "pro-life" physicians.

do oral contraception cause abortion?

This is my concern over the "pro-life" movement. It is NOT just abortion they are targeting. It is contraception too. Margaret Sanger was opposed to abortion, and the birth control movement was always, in her time, about making contraception more readily available to women to reduce the abortion rate.

Margret Sanger was all for the elimination of the "minorities". Abortion was just one method that she supported to "reduce" the number of minority births. I am not surprised that you use her as an example.