Abortion as Murder.

[Cecilie1200]

No they do not. They ballance the rights of the child with the rights of the person responsible for the child. And, they ballance the rights of a child in school, with the rights of all the other children to get an education. It's a ballancing act of one persons rights against anothers, and the persons with the more compelling right wins.

Other than the constitutional rights that are only afforded adults in the first place, Children have the same rights as anyone else, they just lose the battle of who's rights are more compelling in most cases.

Where in the constitution do you see your argument about the balance of rights? Where do you see a right to education in the Constitution? Where does it say that Kids can't put out a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" sign?

Anyways, where do you come up with this:

Woman vs Viable fetus... Viable fetus has more compelling rights.

The Constitution doesn't have to explicitly mention balancing rights. Common sense tells you that if you are going to extend the same rights to everyone, they are going to HAVE to be balanced against each other.

As for a viable fetus having more compelling rights, that would be Roe v. Wade he's referencing, which gives the state the ability to prohibit abortions after the point where the fetus becomes viable outside the womb, with certain exceptions. His entire point has been that the ONLY justification Roe v. Wade could possibly have for allowing the state to interfere in abortions at that point would be that the fetus has rights which take precedent over the mother's then, because the state can only interfere in someone's rights when someone ELSE has rights which supersede the first person's.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You've heard of Roe V Wade? That is precisely what it does and why abortion of a viable fetus can be restricted or outright banned.

On the specific issue of "BHFJ", I happen to agree with you that the courts went to far in upholding the schools decission. They were attempting to Ballance the rights of the other students to learn without undue distraction and failed. As to the right to an education, you seem to be of the wrongheaded opinion that the Constitution confers rights in the first place, it does not, it prevents the government from infringing on some of them.

As to the rest maybe you should take a civics class.

Is Roe V Wade the notion the viable fetus has rights or that the State has in interest in the fetus living?

Out of curiosity, if a fetus is viable outside the womb, but a woman wants to get it out for whatever valid reason, should society pay the health care (and other related costs) of that baby if it is born prematurely? Because it seems to me if a baby will be born (extracted?) prematurely, the baby will have increased odds of disabilities or other negative consequences.

The state's interest in the fetus's life and the fetus's rights are one and the same thing.

Why do people always think "I want [fill in the blank]" translates into "the state should provide it to me"? She wants something that badly, SHE can pay for it.

As it happens, though, a responsible doctor would not induce labor on a premature baby without a compelling health reason to do so. That's a malpractice suit waiting to happen.

 

[BenNatuf]

You've heard of Roe V Wade? That is precisely what it does and why abortion of a viable fetus can be restricted or outright banned.

On the specific issue of "BHFJ", I happen to agree with you that the courts went to far in upholding the schools decission. They were attempting to Ballance the rights of the other students to learn without undue distraction and failed. As to the right to an education, you seem to be of the wrongheaded opinion that the Constitution confers rights in the first place, it does not, it prevents the government from infringing on some of them.

As to the rest maybe you should take a civics class.

Is Roe V Wade the notion the viable fetus has rights or that the State has in interest in the fetus living?

Out of curiosity, if a fetus is viable outside the womb, but a woman wants to get it out for whatever valid reason, should society pay the health care (and other related costs) of that baby if it is born prematurely? Because it seems to me if a baby will be born (extracted?) prematurely, the baby will have increased odds of disabilities or other negative consequences.

The state's interest in the fetus's life and the fetus's rights are one and the same thing.

Seems to be a concept that's alien to them, which is why I've asked several dozens of times for anyone to explain: "what is the states interest that would empower it to infringe on a persons constitutional rights?" To my knowledge the only interest the state could have to do so is to protect the more compelling right of another person or persons. And, as I've asked before... "which person would that be?"

 

[BenNatuf]

No they do not. They ballance the rights of the child with the rights of the person responsible for the child. And, they ballance the rights of a child in school, with the rights of all the other children to get an education. It's a ballancing act of one persons rights against anothers, and the persons with the more compelling right wins.

Other than the constitutional rights that are only afforded adults in the first place, Children have the same rights as anyone else, they just lose the battle of who's rights are more compelling in most cases.

Where in the constitution do you see your argument about the balance of rights? Where do you see a right to education in the Constitution? Where does it say that Kids can't put out a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" sign?

Anyways, where do you come up with this:

Woman vs Viable fetus... Viable fetus has more compelling rights.

The Constitution doesn't have to explicitly mention balancing rights. Common sense tells you that if you are going to extend the same rights to everyone, they are going to HAVE to be balanced against each other.

I'm guessing that "to decide all cases in law and equity..." kinda gets buy him.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Where in the constitution do you see your argument about the balance of rights? Where do you see a right to education in the Constitution? Where does it say that Kids can't put out a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" sign?

Anyways, where do you come up with this:

The Constitution doesn't have to explicitly mention balancing rights. Common sense tells you that if you are going to extend the same rights to everyone, they are going to HAVE to be balanced against each other.

I'm guessing that "to decide all cases in law and equity..." kinda gets buy him.

Perhaps it was the "common sense" thing that was confusing.

 

[eots]

For those who claim abortion is a medical procedure and is not killing an innocent human being I have a question.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 69, faces eight counts of murder in the deaths of a woman following a botched abortion at his office, along with the deaths of seven other babies who, prosecutors allege, were born alive following illegal late-term abortions and then were killed by severing their spinal cords with a pair of scissors.

would these children have been any less viable had this piece of human trash cut them up in utero as opposed to after birth? If Roe is the standard, and the standard it sets is "viability", how is a fetus, any fetus, unviable after about 4 1/2 months of pregnancy? All of them are viable given proper medical care, so what is the difference between murdering them in utero or out?

Philly Abortion Doctor Facing 8 Counts Of Murder CBS Philly – News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of Philadelphia

it occurs behind the facade of the mothers body so it appears less ugly and brutal ?

 

[Gadawg73]

Is there an abortion rights supporter in the house who will answer the questions in this post and make a reasonned legal argument against its assertions?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3345659-post699.html

So far a couple have tried and so far there's nothing very compelling to rebut it.

This is the way it was when it was "illegal":
2 women have an abortion.
Woman A has an abortion and is prosecuted for it.
Woman B has an abortion and is not prosecuted.
Which one committed murder?
How come the prosecutor selectively prosecuted and chose one over the other with these exact same cases?
Happens every day in the real world.
2 doctors perform an abortion.
Doctor A performs an abortion and states that it was for "the safety of the mother". The local prosecutor indicts him for murder.
Doctor B performs an abortion and states that it was for "the safety of the mother". The same prosecutor does not indict him for murder and the evidence is the same.
Happens every day in the real world.
2 women want to have an abortion but it is illegal in that state.
Woman A travels to another state and has the abortion.
Woman B has the child that she does not want, does not know how to raise and does not care about the child.
Happens every day in the real world.
Why did they call the laws "abortion control laws" when NO ONE can control abortion.
Doctors like $$ and will conduce abortions at will. NO state can define what is a legal and what is not a legal abortion if it was banned.
Get over it. I oppose abortion but as a strict conservative I fear THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT even more.
No sane person wants to give government, AN ENTITY THAT HAS LIMITED POWER BY THE US CONSTITUTION, the authority to pick and choose who goes to jail for murder and who doesn't UNDER THE SAME EXACT SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES.

 

[BenNatuf]

Is there an abortion rights supporter in the house who will answer the questions in this post and make a reasonned legal argument against its assertions?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3345659-post699.html

So far a couple have tried and so far there's nothing very compelling to rebut it.

This is the way it was when it was "illegal":
2 women have an abortion.
Woman A has an abortion and is prosecuted for it.
Woman B has an abortion and is not prosecuted.
Which one committed murder?
How come the prosecutor selectively prosecuted and chose one over the other with these exact same cases?
Happens every day in the real world.
2 doctors perform an abortion.
Doctor A performs an abortion and states that it was for "the safety of the mother". The local prosecutor indicts him for murder.
Doctor B performs an abortion and states that it was for "the safety of the mother". The same prosecutor does not indict him for murder and the evidence is the same.
Happens every day in the real world.
2 women want to have an abortion but it is illegal in that state.
Woman A travels to another state and has the abortion.
Woman B has the child that she does not want, does not know how to raise and does not care about the child.
Happens every day in the real world.
Why did they call the laws "abortion control laws" when NO ONE can control abortion.
Doctors like $$ and will conduce abortions at will. NO state can define what is a legal and what is not a legal abortion if it was banned.
Get over it. I oppose abortion but as a strict conservative I fear THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT even more.
No sane person wants to give government, AN ENTITY THAT HAS LIMITED POWER BY THE US CONSTITUTION, the authority to pick and choose who goes to jail for murder and who doesn't UNDER THE SAME EXACT SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES.

Abortion has never been federaly illegal. We have 50 states and the point of them is that they should have some different laws, don't like the ones where you're at? Move.

Other than that I do notice that you just spewed out a bunch of talking point BS and didn't actually address the points or the questions in the post. I'm not interetested in your worn out talking points about fairness. The thread is about the law as it relates to a viable fetus and what that means considering Roe and Casey.

Hit men like money too, should we let them kill? The power of government is that all states must ensure that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law and all persons shall be treated equally under the law." I really don't care if you fear that.

And yes, people do or don't go to jail under the exact same set of circumstances depending on what state they live in and what the laws are in that state.

 

[Gadawg73]

Is there an abortion rights supporter in the house who will answer the questions in this post and make a reasonned legal argument against its assertions?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3345659-post699.html

So far a couple have tried and so far there's nothing very compelling to rebut it.

This is the way it was when it was "illegal":
2 women have an abortion.
Woman A has an abortion and is prosecuted for it.
Woman B has an abortion and is not prosecuted.
Which one committed murder?
How come the prosecutor selectively prosecuted and chose one over the other with these exact same cases?
Happens every day in the real world.
2 doctors perform an abortion.
Doctor A performs an abortion and states that it was for "the safety of the mother". The local prosecutor indicts him for murder.
Doctor B performs an abortion and states that it was for "the safety of the mother". The same prosecutor does not indict him for murder and the evidence is the same.
Happens every day in the real world.
2 women want to have an abortion but it is illegal in that state.
Woman A travels to another state and has the abortion.
Woman B has the child that she does not want, does not know how to raise and does not care about the child.
Happens every day in the real world.
Why did they call the laws "abortion control laws" when NO ONE can control abortion.
Doctors like $$ and will conduce abortions at will. NO state can define what is a legal and what is not a legal abortion if it was banned.
Get over it. I oppose abortion but as a strict conservative I fear THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT even more.
No sane person wants to give government, AN ENTITY THAT HAS LIMITED POWER BY THE US CONSTITUTION, the authority to pick and choose who goes to jail for murder and who doesn't UNDER THE SAME EXACT SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES.

Abortion has never been federaly illegal. We have 50 states and the point of them is that they should have some different laws, don't like the ones where you're at? Move.

Other than that I do notice that you just spewed out a bunch of talking point BS and didn't actually address the points or the questions in the post. I'm not interetested in your worn out talking points about fairness. The thread is about the law as it relates to a viable fetus and what that means considering Roe and Casey.

Hit men like money too, should we let them kill? The power of government is that all states must ensure that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law and all persons shall be treated equally under the law." I really don't care if you fear that.

And yes, people do or don't go to jail under the exact same set of circumstances depending on what state they live in and what the laws are in that state.

That is exactly what I stated. Pay attention next time.
Repeat after me for the facts:
Abortion will NEVER BE ILLEGAL in the United States, ever, EVEN IF ROE V WADE IS OVERTURNED TOMORROW.
United States Law for dummies:
Overturn Roe v. Wade and all you do is place the issue back to each individual state for their legislatures to decide what to ban or not to ban.
Got it so far Moe?
Now to be sure there will be some states that will ban and outlaw abortion outright. More power to them in their ignorance but that is their right as this is a states rights issue and I stand for that.
Other states may put some restrictions on the procedure and those will vary but some form of abortion will be legislated as legal.
With the law so far?
Other states it will be totally legal.
So overturn Roe v. Wade and what will we be left with?
The states where it is illegal or partially illegal will make it hard for women to have an abortion on demand whether someone likes it or not.
The states where it is legal will make it very easy for women to have an abortion on demand whether someone likes it or not.
ALL that will be accomplished will be that it will be more difficult for poor women to travel to a state where abortion is legal to have an abortion.
Well DUH.
The net result of that as anyone with half a brain will know is that:
A. more children born to women that DO NOT WANT THEM and
B. more children born to women that CAN NOT RAISE THEM PROPERLY
Well DUH
The rest of the women that are not poor that want to have an abortion in a state that BANS ABORTION will simply get in a car or book an airline ticket and travel to another state AND HAVE A LEGAL ABORTION.
Well DUH.

 

[BenNatuf]

This is the way it was when it was "illegal":
2 women have an abortion.
Woman A has an abortion and is prosecuted for it.
Woman B has an abortion and is not prosecuted.
Which one committed murder?
How come the prosecutor selectively prosecuted and chose one over the other with these exact same cases?
Happens every day in the real world.
2 doctors perform an abortion.
Doctor A performs an abortion and states that it was for "the safety of the mother". The local prosecutor indicts him for murder.
Doctor B performs an abortion and states that it was for "the safety of the mother". The same prosecutor does not indict him for murder and the evidence is the same.
Happens every day in the real world.
2 women want to have an abortion but it is illegal in that state.
Woman A travels to another state and has the abortion.
Woman B has the child that she does not want, does not know how to raise and does not care about the child.
Happens every day in the real world.
Why did they call the laws "abortion control laws" when NO ONE can control abortion.
Doctors like $$ and will conduce abortions at will. NO state can define what is a legal and what is not a legal abortion if it was banned.
Get over it. I oppose abortion but as a strict conservative I fear THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT even more.
No sane person wants to give government, AN ENTITY THAT HAS LIMITED POWER BY THE US CONSTITUTION, the authority to pick and choose who goes to jail for murder and who doesn't UNDER THE SAME EXACT SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES.

Abortion has never been federaly illegal. We have 50 states and the point of them is that they should have some different laws, don't like the ones where you're at? Move.

Other than that I do notice that you just spewed out a bunch of talking point BS and didn't actually address the points or the questions in the post. I'm not interetested in your worn out talking points about fairness. The thread is about the law as it relates to a viable fetus and what that means considering Roe and Casey.

Hit men like money too, should we let them kill? The power of government is that all states must ensure that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law and all persons shall be treated equally under the law." I really don't care if you fear that.

And yes, people do or don't go to jail under the exact same set of circumstances depending on what state they live in and what the laws are in that state.

That is exactly what I stated. Pay attention next time.

no, you went off on a crying jag about woman A and woman B.

Repeat after me for the facts:
Abortion will NEVER BE ILLEGAL in the United States, ever, EVEN IF ROE V WADE IS OVERTURNED TOMORROW.
United States Law for dummies:

speaking of dummies, the thread is about VIABLE fetus and how they are treated in ROE.

Overturn Roe v. Wade and all you do is place the issue back to each individual state for their legislatures to decide what to ban or not to ban.
Got it so far Moe?

Hey Curly, don't know if you noticed but nobodies ever said anything different.

Now to be sure there will be some states that will ban and outlaw abortion outright. More power to them in their ignorance but that is their right as this is a states rights issue and I stand for that.

States don't have rights dumbass, they have authority, people have rights.

Other states may put some restrictions on the procedure and those will vary but some form of abortion will be legislated as legal.
With the law so far?

did anybody state otherwise?

Other states it will be totally legal.
So overturn Roe v. Wade and what will we be left with?
The states where it is illegal or partially illegal will make it hard for women to have an abortion on demand whether someone likes it or not.
The states where it is legal will make it very easy for women to have an abortion on demand whether someone likes it or not.
ALL that will be accomplished will be that it will be more difficult for poor women to travel to a state where abortion is legal to have an abortion.

don't like the laws? Move to another state... that would be what our federal system was designed to allow

Well DUH.
The net result of that as anyone with half a brain will know is that:
A. more children born to women that DO NOT WANT THEM and
B. more children born to women that CAN NOT RAISE THEM PROPERLY
Well DUH
The rest of the women that are not poor that want to have an abortion in a state that BANS ABORTION will simply get in a car or book an airline ticket and travel to another state AND HAVE A LEGAL ABORTION.
Well DUH.

so?

Now, if you can get this through your thick skull, the thread isn't about all abortions, its about viable fetus' and how they are treated under Roe. So see iof you can answer this question einstien

Roe states that the states have an interst in protecting a fetus once it becomes viable that can infringe on a womans constitutional right to privacy. When can states infringe on constitutional rights? ONLY when ballancing the rights of one person against the more compelling rights of another person or persons. Who would that other person be? Gee, there is only one possibility. The viable fetus. Given that what else could a viable fetus be but a person?

There is no provision in the constitution that would allow the state to deprive anyone of their constitutional rights for any generic "interest", neither is their provision for protecting the future right of potential life of any notional persons who does not yet exist, and the courts are not empowered to create one. That can only be done by constitutional amendment. Given the limitted nature of the states authority, aplying ROE requires that a viable fetus MUST be a person, otherwise the state is powerless to ever infringe on any abortion. And yet, Roe allows the states to do just that, and simultaneously allows them to allow killing these persons without due process. That contradiction is a major flaw, as the courts are NOT empowered to allow that if the fetus is a person, and not empowered to allow it to be stopped if their not. it creates a standard where a viable fetus is a person if the mother wants it, and isn't if she doesn't.

Now, what does the 14th amendment gaurentee all persons? To not be deprived of life without due process of law. What else does it gaurentee them? Equal protection under the law. What happens when you intentionally take the life of another person without due process? You get charged with murder. How are you protected by the law from murder? The killers are prosecuted. Do we have different classes of persons for whom these protections do not apply? Does the constitution allow that?

 

[Gadawg73]

Abortion has never been federaly illegal. We have 50 states and the point of them is that they should have some different laws, don't like the ones where you're at? Move.

Other than that I do notice that you just spewed out a bunch of talking point BS and didn't actually address the points or the questions in the post. I'm not interetested in your worn out talking points about fairness. The thread is about the law as it relates to a viable fetus and what that means considering Roe and Casey.

Hit men like money too, should we let them kill? The power of government is that all states must ensure that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law and all persons shall be treated equally under the law." I really don't care if you fear that.

And yes, people do or don't go to jail under the exact same set of circumstances depending on what state they live in and what the laws are in that state.

That is exactly what I stated. Pay attention next time.

no, you went off on a crying jag about woman A and woman B.
speaking of dummies, the thread is about VIABLE fetus and how they are treated in ROE.
Hey Curly, don't know if you noticed but nobodies ever said anything different.
States don't have rights dumbass, they have authority, people have rights.
did anybody state otherwise?

Other states it will be totally legal.
So overturn Roe v. Wade and what will we be left with?
The states where it is illegal or partially illegal will make it hard for women to have an abortion on demand whether someone likes it or not.
The states where it is legal will make it very easy for women to have an abortion on demand whether someone likes it or not.
ALL that will be accomplished will be that it will be more difficult for poor women to travel to a state where abortion is legal to have an abortion.

don't like the laws? Move to another state... that would be what our federal system was designed to allow

Well DUH.
The net result of that as anyone with half a brain will know is that:
A. more children born to women that DO NOT WANT THEM and
B. more children born to women that CAN NOT RAISE THEM PROPERLY
Well DUH
The rest of the women that are not poor that want to have an abortion in a state that BANS ABORTION will simply get in a car or book an airline ticket and travel to another state AND HAVE A LEGAL ABORTION.
Well DUH.

so?

Now, if you can get this through your thick skull, the thread isn't about all abortions, its about viable fetus' and how they are treated under Roe. So see iof you can answer this question einstien

Roe states that the states have an interst in protecting a fetus once it becomes viable that can infringe on a womans constitutional right to privacy. When can states infringe on constitutional rights? ONLY when ballancing the rights of one person against the more compelling rights of another person or persons. Who would that other person be? Gee, there is only one possibility. The viable fetus. Given that what else could a viable fetus be but a person?

There is no provision in the constitution that would allow the state to deprive anyone of their constitutional rights for any generic "interest", neither is their provision for protecting the future right of potential life of any notional persons who does not yet exist, and the courts are not empowered to create one. That can only be done by constitutional amendment. Given the limitted nature of the states authority, aplying ROE requires that a viable fetus MUST be a person, otherwise the state is powerless to ever infringe on any abortion. And yet, Roe allows the states to do just that, and simultaneously allows them to allow killing these persons without due process. That contradiction is a major flaw, as the courts are NOT empowered to allow that if the fetus is a person, and not empowered to allow it to be stopped if their not. it creates a standard where a viable fetus is a person if the mother wants it, and isn't if she doesn't.

Now, what does the 14th amendment gaurentee all persons? To not be deprived of life without due process of law. What else does it gaurentee them? Equal protection under the law. What happens when you intentionally take the life of another person without due process? You get charged with murder. How are you protected by the law from murder? The killers are prosecuted. Do we have different classes of persons for whom these protections do not apply? Does the constitution allow that?

Why do I make this large check out to "State of Georgia" every April 15th if they have no right to tax?

 

[BenNatuf]

That is exactly what I stated. Pay attention next time.

no, you went off on a crying jag about woman A and woman B.
speaking of dummies, the thread is about VIABLE fetus and how they are treated in ROE.
Hey Curly, don't know if you noticed but nobodies ever said anything different.
States don't have rights dumbass, they have authority, people have rights.
did anybody state otherwise?
don't like the laws? Move to another state... that would be what our federal system was designed to allow

Well DUH.
The net result of that as anyone with half a brain will know is that:
A. more children born to women that DO NOT WANT THEM and
B. more children born to women that CAN NOT RAISE THEM PROPERLY
Well DUH
The rest of the women that are not poor that want to have an abortion in a state that BANS ABORTION will simply get in a car or book an airline ticket and travel to another state AND HAVE A LEGAL ABORTION.
Well DUH.

so?

Now, if you can get this through your thick skull, the thread isn't about all abortions, its about viable fetus' and how they are treated under Roe. So see iof you can answer this question einstien

Roe states that the states have an interst in protecting a fetus once it becomes viable that can infringe on a womans constitutional right to privacy. When can states infringe on constitutional rights? ONLY when ballancing the rights of one person against the more compelling rights of another person or persons. Who would that other person be? Gee, there is only one possibility. The viable fetus. Given that what else could a viable fetus be but a person?

There is no provision in the constitution that would allow the state to deprive anyone of their constitutional rights for any generic "interest", neither is their provision for protecting the future right of potential life of any notional persons who does not yet exist, and the courts are not empowered to create one. That can only be done by constitutional amendment. Given the limitted nature of the states authority, aplying ROE requires that a viable fetus MUST be a person, otherwise the state is powerless to ever infringe on any abortion. And yet, Roe allows the states to do just that, and simultaneously allows them to allow killing these persons without due process. That contradiction is a major flaw, as the courts are NOT empowered to allow that if the fetus is a person, and not empowered to allow it to be stopped if their not. it creates a standard where a viable fetus is a person if the mother wants it, and isn't if she doesn't.

Now, what does the 14th amendment gaurentee all persons? To not be deprived of life without due process of law. What else does it gaurentee them? Equal protection under the law. What happens when you intentionally take the life of another person without due process? You get charged with murder. How are you protected by the law from murder? The killers are prosecuted. Do we have different classes of persons for whom these protections do not apply? Does the constitution allow that?

Why do I make this large check out to "State of Georgia" every April 15th if they have no right to tax?

Do you not know the difference between a right and an authority? They have the AUTHORITY to tax. Taxing is not a "right", its an authority. People have rights, states have authoirity.

The states authorities are limitted by the peoples rights. The peoples rights can be infringed upon by the state ONLY when that infringement serves to protect the more compelling rights of another person or persons.

 

[Gadawg73]

no, you went off on a crying jag about woman A and woman B.
speaking of dummies, the thread is about VIABLE fetus and how they are treated in ROE.
Hey Curly, don't know if you noticed but nobodies ever said anything different.
States don't have rights dumbass, they have authority, people have rights.
did anybody state otherwise?
don't like the laws? Move to another state... that would be what our federal system was designed to allow
so?

Now, if you can get this through your thick skull, the thread isn't about all abortions, its about viable fetus' and how they are treated under Roe. So see iof you can answer this question einstien

Roe states that the states have an interst in protecting a fetus once it becomes viable that can infringe on a womans constitutional right to privacy. When can states infringe on constitutional rights? ONLY when ballancing the rights of one person against the more compelling rights of another person or persons. Who would that other person be? Gee, there is only one possibility. The viable fetus. Given that what else could a viable fetus be but a person?

There is no provision in the constitution that would allow the state to deprive anyone of their constitutional rights for any generic "interest", neither is their provision for protecting the future right of potential life of any notional persons who does not yet exist, and the courts are not empowered to create one. That can only be done by constitutional amendment. Given the limitted nature of the states authority, aplying ROE requires that a viable fetus MUST be a person, otherwise the state is powerless to ever infringe on any abortion. And yet, Roe allows the states to do just that, and simultaneously allows them to allow killing these persons without due process. That contradiction is a major flaw, as the courts are NOT empowered to allow that if the fetus is a person, and not empowered to allow it to be stopped if their not. it creates a standard where a viable fetus is a person if the mother wants it, and isn't if she doesn't.

Now, what does the 14th amendment gaurentee all persons? To not be deprived of life without due process of law. What else does it gaurentee them? Equal protection under the law. What happens when you intentionally take the life of another person without due process? You get charged with murder. How are you protected by the law from murder? The killers are prosecuted. Do we have different classes of persons for whom these protections do not apply? Does the constitution allow that?

Why do I make this large check out to "State of Georgia" every April 15th if they have no right to tax?

Do you not know the difference between a right and an authority? They have the AUTHORITY to tax. Taxing is not a "right", its an authority. People have rights, states have authoirity.

The states authorities are limitted by the peoples rights. The peoples rights can be infringed upon by the state ONLY when that infringement serves to protect the more compelling rights of another person or persons.

No, the 10th Amendment vests all rights not given to the Federal government to the states. The 14th amendment, and SPECIFICALLY the interpretation of the interstate commerce clause, has been read by the courts to mean that every citizen of every state is entitled to the same rights and no state can restrict the rights a citizen enjoys in another state.
In Florida for instance there is a written constitutional RIGHT TO PRIVACY, which does not exist in any other state.
Now the US Supreme Court HAS been wishy washy on this issue but that does not support your uninformed claims. They also have been intellectually dishonest. In cases where the states have made caps on tort liability, limited certain rights to sue, etc. and allowed corporations to act that were otherwise outlawed, they do rule the state government trumps the Federal government. But then we have the medical weed cases and the Bush v. Gore fiasco where the states clearly had the right to run their own government the Supremes hold the states had no such right.
The problem is that you are not following THE LAW.

 

[BenNatuf]

Why do I make this large check out to "State of Georgia" every April 15th if they have no right to tax?

Do you not know the difference between a right and an authority? They have the AUTHORITY to tax. Taxing is not a "right", its an authority. People have rights, states have authoirity.

The states authorities are limitted by the peoples rights. The peoples rights can be infringed upon by the state ONLY when that infringement serves to protect the more compelling rights of another person or persons.

No, the 10th Amendment vests all rights not given to the Federal government to the states. The 14th amendment, and SPECIFICALLY the interpretation of the interstate commerce clause, has been read by the courts to mean that every citizen of every state is entitled to the same rights and no state can restrict the rights a citizen enjoys in another state.
In Florida for instance there is a written constitutional RIGHT TO PRIVACY, which does not exist in any other state.

That is complete garbage. Rights are held by people, they include things like "freedom of speech, freedom of religion, protection from unreasonable searches and siezures, not being deprived of life, liberty and property. Authority is exercized by states, not rights.

9th ammendment

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

oooh, by golly look!!! people have rights

10th amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

and OMG!!!! who'd a thunk it, states have POWER!!!!

And no, the 14th amendment gaurentees that every person within a state must have the same treatment of every other person within that state, not that they must enjoy the same treatment as any other person in any other state. That would be why different states have different laws. Seriously, take a civics class or something. Also, the commerce clause has absolutely nothing to do with rights... where do you get this dumb shit?

National Constitution Center: Interactive Constitution

Now the US Supreme Court HAS been wishy washy on this issue but that does not support your uninformed claims.

I'm not relying on there wishy washyness, I'm relying on my very informed claims of how the law works and how it relates to the constitution and what the courts decissions mean in relation to those. You claiming it doesn't is meaningless, I have shown that it does by actually aplying legal reasoning thats consistant (which the SCOTUS did not). You claim it doesn't, based on what? You saying so? Pretty weak

They also have been intellectually dishonest. In cases where the states have made caps on tort liability, limited certain rights to sue, etc. and allowed corporations to act that were otherwise outlawed, they do rule the state government trumps the Federal government. But then we have the medical weed cases and the Bush v. Gore fiasco where the states clearly had the right to run their own government the Supremes hold the states had no such right.

That would be because the Constitution gives the Courts the power to decide all cases in "law or equity" and because to sue you have to show damages and show standing. These are pretty basic tenets of the law and if you don't know that you really should quit this thread.

Further, finding that laws regulating how an assembly of persons known as a coporation spend their own damned money persuing their own right to free speech in thier own commercials is not "allowing them to do something that's outlawed", its correcting the law to fit within the scope of the constitutional limitations on government power. Which you evidently love when it suits you.

The problem is that you are not following THE LAW.

No, the problem is you have no idea how the law works. Are you so dense you don't realize the irony of claiming the 14th amendment means all people must be treated the same by the laws in all 50 states (as if there were no borders) and then trumpetting "states rights"?

Federal law must treat all persons equally in all states, state law must treat people equally within the state. Roe is federal law (not passed by the congress, invented by the courts... another usurpation). So tell me einstein, How does federal law vis a vie Roe treat all persons equally? Either the woman in a state that allows abortion of viable fetus' is getting away with killing a person without due process, or women in the other states are being deprived of their right to privacy to have a medical procedure which effects no person but themselves. This dichotomy in federal law is not constitutionally consistent.

 

[Gadawg73]

Do you not know the difference between a right and an authority? They have the AUTHORITY to tax. Taxing is not a "right", its an authority. People have rights, states have authoirity.

The states authorities are limitted by the peoples rights. The peoples rights can be infringed upon by the state ONLY when that infringement serves to protect the more compelling rights of another person or persons.

No, the 10th Amendment vests all rights not given to the Federal government to the states. The 14th amendment, and SPECIFICALLY the interpretation of the interstate commerce clause, has been read by the courts to mean that every citizen of every state is entitled to the same rights and no state can restrict the rights a citizen enjoys in another state.
In Florida for instance there is a written constitutional RIGHT TO PRIVACY, which does not exist in any other state.

That is complete garbage. Rights are held by people, they include things like "freedom of speech, freedom of religion, protection from unreasonable searches and siezures, not being deprived of life, liberty and property. Authority is exercized by states, not rights.

9th ammendment

oooh, by golly look!!! people have rights

10th amendment

and OMG!!!! who'd a thunk it, states have POWER!!!!

And no, the 14th amendment gaurentees that every person within a state must have the same treatment of every other person within that state, not that they must enjoy the same treatment as any other person in any other state. That would be why different states have different laws. Seriously, take a civics class or something. Also, the commerce clause has absolutely nothing to do with rights... where do you get this dumb shit?

National Constitution Center: Interactive Constitution

I'm not relying on there wishy washyness, I'm relying on my very informed claims of how the law works and how it relates to the constitution and what the courts decissions mean in relation to those. You claiming it doesn't is meaningless, I have shown that it does by actually aplying legal reasoning thats consistant (which the SCOTUS did not). You claim it doesn't, based on what? You saying so? Pretty weak

They also have been intellectually dishonest. In cases where the states have made caps on tort liability, limited certain rights to sue, etc. and allowed corporations to act that were otherwise outlawed, they do rule the state government trumps the Federal government. But then we have the medical weed cases and the Bush v. Gore fiasco where the states clearly had the right to run their own government the Supremes hold the states had no such right.

That would be because the Constitution gives the Courts the power to decide all cases in "law or equity" and because to sue you have to show damages and show standing. These are pretty basic tenets of the law and if you don't know that you really should quit this thread.

Further, finding that laws regulating how an assembly of persons known as a coporation spend their own damned money persuing their own right to free speech in thier own commercials is not "allowing them to do something that's outlawed", its correcting the law to fit within the scope of the constitutional limitations on government power. Which you evidently love when it suits you.

The problem is that you are not following THE LAW.

No, the problem is you have no idea how the law works. Are you so dense you don't realize the irony of claiming the 14th amendment means all people must be treated the same by the laws in all 50 states (as if there were no borders) and then trumpetting "states rights"?

Federal law must treat all persons equally in all states, state law must treat people equally within the state. Roe is federal law (not passed by the congress, invented by the courts... another usurpation). So tell me einstein, How does federal law vis a vie Roe treat all persons equally? Either the woman in a state that allows abortion of viable fetus' is getting away with killing a person without due process, or women in the other states are being deprived of their right to privacy to have a medical procedure which effects no person but themselves. This dichotomy in federal law is not constitutionally consistent.

You live in the United STATES of America, NOT the United PEOPLE of America.
You can deny that all you want but that is fact.
The United STATES OF AMERICA was not really established as a "nation". Rather, we were formed as a federation of individual states.
Twist, distort and slant all you want but the facts are facts.
As a result of that we were established WITH a Federal government that was supposed to function with a limited number of responsibilities.
Now people do have rights and one can argue that governments only have those responsibilities as mentioned earlier but they have the right to have those responsibilites.
States do have rights guaranteed to them by Constitution.
We are a federation, a group of political entities together that yield some, too much these days, of their power to a central government.
I recommend a Constitutional Law or History class for you.
The assertion that a "right" cannot exist in anyone other than an individual is not supported by common definition of the word, nor by any position of logic.
The State IS a creation of the people and the spout of any state's power is the right of the people how they should be governed. Once those people have entered into an agreement to create a state government, a sovereign entity, then that entity, THE STATE, has powers that it legally can utilize.
Such "powers" are defined and called RIGHTS regardless how they are invested in a person, a corporation or a sovereign.
So when you make your preposterous claim that "rights reside in the individual" there is no logical support for that.
When power is delegated to sovereign government and they plan to utilize that power it becomes a right for that state.

 

[BenNatuf]

No, the 10th Amendment vests all rights not given to the Federal government to the states. The 14th amendment, and SPECIFICALLY the interpretation of the interstate commerce clause, has been read by the courts to mean that every citizen of every state is entitled to the same rights and no state can restrict the rights a citizen enjoys in another state.
In Florida for instance there is a written constitutional RIGHT TO PRIVACY, which does not exist in any other state.

That is complete garbage. Rights are held by people, they include things like "freedom of speech, freedom of religion, protection from unreasonable searches and siezures, not being deprived of life, liberty and property. Authority is exercized by states, not rights.

9th ammendment

oooh, by golly look!!! people have rights

10th amendment

and OMG!!!! who'd a thunk it, states have POWER!!!!

And no, the 14th amendment gaurentees that every person within a state must have the same treatment of every other person within that state, not that they must enjoy the same treatment as any other person in any other state. That would be why different states have different laws. Seriously, take a civics class or something. Also, the commerce clause has absolutely nothing to do with rights... where do you get this dumb shit?

National Constitution Center: Interactive Constitution

I'm not relying on there wishy washyness, I'm relying on my very informed claims of how the law works and how it relates to the constitution and what the courts decissions mean in relation to those. You claiming it doesn't is meaningless, I have shown that it does by actually aplying legal reasoning thats consistant (which the SCOTUS did not). You claim it doesn't, based on what? You saying so? Pretty weakThat would be because the Constitution gives the Courts the power to decide all cases in "law or equity" and because to sue you have to show damages and show standing. These are pretty basic tenets of the law and if you don't know that you really should quit this thread.

Further, finding that laws regulating how an assembly of persons known as a coporation spend their own damned money persuing their own right to free speech in thier own commercials is not "allowing them to do something that's outlawed", its correcting the law to fit within the scope of the constitutional limitations on government power. Which you evidently love when it suits you.

The problem is that you are not following THE LAW.

No, the problem is you have no idea how the law works. Are you so dense you don't realize the irony of claiming the 14th amendment means all people must be treated the same by the laws in all 50 states (as if there were no borders) and then trumpetting "states rights"?

Federal law must treat all persons equally in all states, state law must treat people equally within the state. Roe is federal law (not passed by the congress, invented by the courts... another usurpation). So tell me einstein, How does federal law vis a vie Roe treat all persons equally? Either the woman in a state that allows abortion of viable fetus' is getting away with killing a person without due process, or women in the other states are being deprived of their right to privacy to have a medical procedure which effects no person but themselves. This dichotomy in federal law is not constitutionally consistent.

You live in the United STATES of America, NOT the United PEOPLE of America.
You can deny that all you want but that is fact.
The United STATES OF AMERICA was not really established as a "nation". Rather, we were formed as a federation of individual states.

did anyone claim otherwise? Dude, you make no sence

Twist, distort and slant all you want but the facts are facts.
As a result of that we were established WITH a Federal government that was supposed to function with a limited number of responsibilities.
Now people do have rights and one can argue that governments only have those responsibilities as mentioned earlier but they have the right to have those responsibilites.
States do have rights guaranteed to them by Constitution.

I've already proven you wrong by showing you the EXACT quotes from the constituion (in fact they were the 9th and 10th in their entirety)... you should just give up. I've shown you what IS in there, you make claims you can't support.

We are a federation, a group of political entities together that yield some, too much these days, of their power to a central government.

who siad we weren't? And since you want the federal government to be able to tell the states they have to allow abortion, i guess you must like them having all that extra power

I recommend a Constitutional Law or History class for you.

Let me know when you can at least get the words right. Don't worry, I won't expect you to actually understand them

The assertion that a "right" cannot exist in anyone other than an individual is not supported by common definition of the word, nor by any position of logic.

Except the constitution which reccognizes that people have rights and states have authority. Ooops. Guess you must have missed that.

The State IS a creation of the people and the spout of any state's power is the right of the people how they should be governed. Once those people have entered into an agreement to create a state government, a sovereign entity, then that entity, THE STATE, has powers that it legally can utilize.

yes, powers. Not rights

Such "powers" are defined and called RIGHTS regardless how they are invested in a person, a corporation or a sovereign.

No, they're called authorities... maybe you should add a vocabulary class to that civics thing you're lacking in?

So when you make your preposterous claim that "rights reside in the individual" there is no logical support for that.

Except of course the rights pre-exist the constitution and the government, they belong to the people, the state cannot infringe on them, and they are unalienable. Try this one on for size

"...all MEN are created equal, that they are endowed by their creater with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the persuit of hapiness..."

When power is delegated to sovereign government and they plan to utilize that power it becomes a right for that state.

no, its just authority they are ceded and have the power to use.

 

[Cecilie1200]

no, you went off on a crying jag about woman A and woman B.
speaking of dummies, the thread is about VIABLE fetus and how they are treated in ROE.
Hey Curly, don't know if you noticed but nobodies ever said anything different.
States don't have rights dumbass, they have authority, people have rights.
did anybody state otherwise?
don't like the laws? Move to another state... that would be what our federal system was designed to allow
so?

Now, if you can get this through your thick skull, the thread isn't about all abortions, its about viable fetus' and how they are treated under Roe. So see iof you can answer this question einstien

Roe states that the states have an interst in protecting a fetus once it becomes viable that can infringe on a womans constitutional right to privacy. When can states infringe on constitutional rights? ONLY when ballancing the rights of one person against the more compelling rights of another person or persons. Who would that other person be? Gee, there is only one possibility. The viable fetus. Given that what else could a viable fetus be but a person?

There is no provision in the constitution that would allow the state to deprive anyone of their constitutional rights for any generic "interest", neither is their provision for protecting the future right of potential life of any notional persons who does not yet exist, and the courts are not empowered to create one. That can only be done by constitutional amendment. Given the limitted nature of the states authority, aplying ROE requires that a viable fetus MUST be a person, otherwise the state is powerless to ever infringe on any abortion. And yet, Roe allows the states to do just that, and simultaneously allows them to allow killing these persons without due process. That contradiction is a major flaw, as the courts are NOT empowered to allow that if the fetus is a person, and not empowered to allow it to be stopped if their not. it creates a standard where a viable fetus is a person if the mother wants it, and isn't if she doesn't.

Now, what does the 14th amendment gaurentee all persons? To not be deprived of life without due process of law. What else does it gaurentee them? Equal protection under the law. What happens when you intentionally take the life of another person without due process? You get charged with murder. How are you protected by the law from murder? The killers are prosecuted. Do we have different classes of persons for whom these protections do not apply? Does the constitution allow that?

Why do I make this large check out to "State of Georgia" every April 15th if they have no right to tax?

Do you not know the difference between a right and an authority? They have the AUTHORITY to tax. Taxing is not a "right", its an authority. People have rights, states have authoirity.

The states authorities are limitted by the peoples rights. The peoples rights can be infringed upon by the state ONLY when that infringement serves to protect the more compelling rights of another person or persons.

This, of course, should not in any way be confused with the concept and issue of "states' rights" in regards to possible conflicts between the sphere of influence of the federal government versus that of the individual states.

I'd hate for some dumbass leftist who can't separate topics and stick to one to triumphantly declare that you've now invalidated and dismissed THAT debate by way of THIS one.

 

[Gadawg73]

That is complete garbage. Rights are held by people, they include things like "freedom of speech, freedom of religion, protection from unreasonable searches and siezures, not being deprived of life, liberty and property. Authority is exercized by states, not rights.

9th ammendment

oooh, by golly look!!! people have rights

10th amendment

and OMG!!!! who'd a thunk it, states have POWER!!!!

And no, the 14th amendment gaurentees that every person within a state must have the same treatment of every other person within that state, not that they must enjoy the same treatment as any other person in any other state. That would be why different states have different laws. Seriously, take a civics class or something. Also, the commerce clause has absolutely nothing to do with rights... where do you get this dumb shit?

National Constitution Center: Interactive Constitution

I'm not relying on there wishy washyness, I'm relying on my very informed claims of how the law works and how it relates to the constitution and what the courts decissions mean in relation to those. You claiming it doesn't is meaningless, I have shown that it does by actually aplying legal reasoning thats consistant (which the SCOTUS did not). You claim it doesn't, based on what? You saying so? Pretty weakThat would be because the Constitution gives the Courts the power to decide all cases in "law or equity" and because to sue you have to show damages and show standing. These are pretty basic tenets of the law and if you don't know that you really should quit this thread.

Further, finding that laws regulating how an assembly of persons known as a coporation spend their own damned money persuing their own right to free speech in thier own commercials is not "allowing them to do something that's outlawed", its correcting the law to fit within the scope of the constitutional limitations on government power. Which you evidently love when it suits you.
No, the problem is you have no idea how the law works. Are you so dense you don't realize the irony of claiming the 14th amendment means all people must be treated the same by the laws in all 50 states (as if there were no borders) and then trumpetting "states rights"?

Federal law must treat all persons equally in all states, state law must treat people equally within the state. Roe is federal law (not passed by the congress, invented by the courts... another usurpation). So tell me einstein, How does federal law vis a vie Roe treat all persons equally? Either the woman in a state that allows abortion of viable fetus' is getting away with killing a person without due process, or women in the other states are being deprived of their right to privacy to have a medical procedure which effects no person but themselves. This dichotomy in federal law is not constitutionally consistent.

You live in the United STATES of America, NOT the United PEOPLE of America.
You can deny that all you want but that is fact.
The United STATES OF AMERICA was not really established as a "nation". Rather, we were formed as a federation of individual states.

did anyone claim otherwise? Dude, you make no sence
I've already proven you wrong by showing you the EXACT quotes from the constituion (in fact they were the 9th and 10th in their entirety)... you should just give up. I've shown you what IS in there, you make claims you can't support.
who siad we weren't? And since you want the federal government to be able to tell the states they have to allow abortion, i guess you must like them having all that extra power
Let me know when you can at least get the words right. Don't worry, I won't expect you to actually understand them
Except the constitution which reccognizes that people have rights and states have authority. Ooops. Guess you must have missed that.
yes, powers. Not rights
No, they're called authorities... maybe you should add a vocabulary class to that civics thing you're lacking in?

So when you make your preposterous claim that "rights reside in the individual" there is no logical support for that.

Except of course the rights pre-exist the constitution and the government, they belong to the people, the state cannot infringe on them, and they are unalienable. Try this one on for size

"...all MEN are created equal, that they are endowed by their creater with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the persuit of hapiness..."

When power is delegated to sovereign government and they plan to utilize that power it becomes a right for that state.

no, its just authority they are ceded and have the power to use.

The electoral college defends the interest and RIGHTS of the states. The President is not elected by a majority vote of the people. The President is elected by the electoral college, the rights apportioned to each state with a specific number of electoral votes.
It is the States that send the electors to the electoral college, not the people. The election you vote in is a state run election, not a federal run election.
It was the intent of the electoral college to protect the STATES, not the individual voter.
It was the states that joined the union, not the people. And every state gets 2 Senators regardless of population to ensure each states' rights on treaties and such.
We used to practice it a little more purely with the States appointing their own Senators until the 17th Amendment ruined that also. If that wasn't a right then what was it?

 

[Gadawg73]

I like the Curly come back!

 

[BenNatuf]

Why do I make this large check out to "State of Georgia" every April 15th if they have no right to tax?

Do you not know the difference between a right and an authority? They have the AUTHORITY to tax. Taxing is not a "right", its an authority. People have rights, states have authoirity.

The states authorities are limitted by the peoples rights. The peoples rights can be infringed upon by the state ONLY when that infringement serves to protect the more compelling rights of another person or persons.

This, of course, should not in any way be confused with the concept and issue of "states' rights" in regards to possible conflicts between the sphere of influence of the federal government versus that of the individual states.

I'd hate for some dumbass leftist who can't separate topics and stick to one to triumphantly declare that you've now invalidated and dismissed THAT debate by way of THIS one.

The federal governments authority was ceded to it by the states, and is on loan from the states, it is not possible to argue against the authorities retained by the states by citing hegomony over the very entities the federal power is borowed from. The "states rights" argument is in essence an argument over the authority of the states vs the authority ceded to the federal government and is not a "rights" argument at all.