Abortion as Murder.

[BenNatuf]

The SCOTUS 'interprets' the Constitution. That is its job. That also confirms that the Constitution is open to interpretation. Which it is.

It is the courts job to apply the law, in applying the law they determine if the interpretation the excutive used in enforcing it is constitutionally consistent. It is not their interpretation they judge, it is the executives. That there are areas that can be interpretted strictly or less strictly is a given, but their are no portions that can be interpretted in or out of it. The courts are not empowered to enhance the powers of the federal government, when they do so, they themselves are acting in amanner inconsistant with the constitution.

I said, if the SCOTUS strictly interprets the Constitution on abortion, given that the Constitution makes no mention of the unborn, given that the Constitution conveys no civil rights to non-persons,

then the correct decision under that constraint is to protect the right of abortion from conception to birth, on the grounds of a woman's rights.

That would be correct IF they determine that an unborn is at no point a person. I've never said otherwise.

They however have conveyed protections on the unborn once they are viable which is an implicit admission that they are persons at least at that point, otherwise the government has NO authority to infringe on the womans constitutional right. And if you're going to be consistant with the constitution it would mean they are entitled to its protections against being deprived of life without due process of law, and having equal protection under the law. Once again the constitution does NOT protect the future rights of potential life of notional persons. It protects actual persons, real life and existing rights. The SCOTUS is not empowered to create different classes of persons who do not get those protections, to do that you have to change the constitution.

The SCOTUS is not empowered to make up authorities that do not exist by interpretting them into existance from the ether of what they consider the "right" thing to do, or the best compromise. Either the government has the power, or it doesn't. If ROE is correct then the government has the power to infringe on ALL of your rights for any generic interest it can dream up that the courts will wave at.

Since you refused to even read the Court's rationale for how they decided Roe v Wade, that I directed you to, it's not easy to carry on a discussion about their rationale.

Their "rationalle" is dicta, which is irrelevant to the application of the law as it has no precedential value. The argument is based on the precedent set by the finding not by the dicta contained in the opinion. If courts offer no precedential value to dicta why should anyone else?

They did not 'dream up' a reason, in the sense that implies something cavalier and baseless. The Court drew on common law, on the cultural beliefs of the time of the writing of the Constitution, etc., etc., in developing a very thoughtful and actually quite brilliant decision.

They did no such thing, they invented a power for the state to infringe on a persons right for a generic interest and surrounded that invention with a lot of logical falacies and circular arguments. I know they said the intent of the founders when they said "person" was that it would be a "walking around person" (itself a falacy as at worst they meant born) but since they chose not to define their intent, the inference is not that we must believe what they did given medical science of that day, but that we're free to define it as we wish in this day. However we do that though must be consistant as there are no notional persons with any rights in the document anywhere. Clearly they expected the definition to change, and by golly it did when we passed the 14th amendment ("person" as they were speaking about it referencing the 14th not being an invention of the founders in the first place).

the decission is far from brilliant, it is perhaps the most flawed deccission in the history of the courts as it clearly either robs a woman of a constitutional right in the interest of protecting a non-person with no rights to balance, or it allows a woman to kill without consequence a person the court says the state has an interest in protecting, depending on where you live and whether the woman wants the child.

By your logic the Court cannot compromise on any rights for any reason. By your logic yelling fire in a crowded theatre is constitutionally protected.

Your strawman is rediculous as my argument is based on the ballancing of one persons rights against anothers and clearly states that courts are supposed to determine the more compelling right.

so which is it?

In granting the states the ability to infringe on a womans right to privacy did they rely on the states authority to protect another person and ballance those rights? or did they just invent some generic interest the state might have out of the ether? What interest can the state possibly have that would EVER allow them to infringe on your constitutional rights other than their interest in ballancing them against another person or persons? Thats the problem, they declare a states interest but do not define that interest in any way that could possibly constitutionally justify either taking a right, or taking a life, and there is no possible way to conclude that either one or the other isn't happenning.

 

[BenNatuf]

The SCOTUS 'interprets' the Constitution. That is its job. That also confirms that the Constitution is open to interpretation. Which it is.

It is the courts job to apply the law, in applying the law they determine if the interpretation the excutive used in enforcing it is constitutionally consistent. It is not their interpretation they judge, it is the executives. That there are areas that can be interpretted strictly or less strictly is a given, but their are no portions that can be interpretted in or out of it. The courts are not empowered to enhance the powers of the federal government, when they do so, they themselves are acting in amanner inconsistant with the constitution.

I said, if the SCOTUS strictly interprets the Constitution on abortion, given that the Constitution makes no mention of the unborn, given that the Constitution conveys no civil rights to non-persons,

then the correct decision under that constraint is to protect the right of abortion from conception to birth, on the grounds of a woman's rights.

That would be correct IF they determine that an unborn is at no point a person. I've never said otherwise.

They however have conveyed protections on the unborn once they are viable which is an implicit admission that they are persons at least at that point, otherwise the government has NO authority to infringe on the womans constitutional right. And if you're going to be consistant with the constitution it would mean they are entitled to its protections against being deprived of life without due process of law, and having equal protection under the law. Once again the constitution does NOT protect the future rights of potential life of notional persons. It protects actual persons, real life and existing rights. The SCOTUS is not empowered to create different classes of persons who do not get those protections, to do that you have to change the constitution.

The SCOTUS is not empowered to make up authorities that do not exist by interpretting them into existance from the ether of what they consider the "right" thing to do, or the best compromise. Either the government has the power, or it doesn't. If ROE is correct then the government has the power to infringe on ALL of your rights for any generic interest it can dream up that the courts will wave at.

It is well established that rights under the constitution are not absolute. That would include the right of privacy. The Court's infringement of a woman's right of privacy was based on that established fact, and justified by citing compelling State's interests.

WHAT INTEREST CAN THE STATE HAVE THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO TAKE YOUR RIGHTS? In every case the only interest the state can ever have that would allow them to do that is the more compelling right of another person or persons. There is no other authority the state has that can do so.

 

[BenNatuf]

The country is running massive deficits that our great grandkids will have to pay, or will not be able to pay, Medicare is a waste, education is a mess, social security is a mess, gas is almost $4 a gallon and you folks are worried about abortion.
A non issue. Get with the conservative program. The moral police need not apply to the conservative movement.
FAIR TAX, less government and less taxes. Abortion has NOTHING to do with solving the problems we face.

Fair tax? Why would any conservative ever want to inflict that piece of shit redistribution scheme on steroids onto the country?

And i don't give a shit what you don't give a shit about. If you don't give a shit about the law, then don't post in the fucking thread dumbass.

 

[Gadawg73]

The country is running massive deficits that our great grandkids will have to pay, or will not be able to pay, Medicare is a waste, education is a mess, social security is a mess, gas is almost $4 a gallon and you folks are worried about abortion.
A non issue. Get with the conservative program. The moral police need not apply to the conservative movement.
FAIR TAX, less government and less taxes. Abortion has NOTHING to do with solving the problems we face.

Fair tax? Why would any conservative ever want to inflict that piece of shit redistribution scheme on steroids onto the country?

And i don't give a shit what you don't give a shit about. If you don't give a shit about the law, then don't post in the fucking thread dumbass.

]

My business is the LAW. Over the last 30 years I have investigated over 5000 cases, 1500 cases for trial.
I know the law as that is my business.
Fair Tax redistribution?
How is a consumption tax "redistribution"?
Income tax IS redistribution.
You are not very intelligent. Sorry about that.

 

[BenNatuf]

The country is running massive deficits that our great grandkids will have to pay, or will not be able to pay, Medicare is a waste, education is a mess, social security is a mess, gas is almost $4 a gallon and you folks are worried about abortion.
A non issue. Get with the conservative program. The moral police need not apply to the conservative movement.
FAIR TAX, less government and less taxes. Abortion has NOTHING to do with solving the problems we face.

Fair tax? Why would any conservative ever want to inflict that piece of shit redistribution scheme on steroids onto the country?

And i don't give a shit what you don't give a shit about. If you don't give a shit about the law, then don't post in the fucking thread dumbass.

]

My business is the LAW. Over the last 30 years I have investigated over 5000 cases, 1500 cases for trial.
I know the law as that is my business.
Fair Tax redistribution?
How is a consumption tax "redistribution"?
Income tax IS redistribution.
You are not very intelligent. Sorry about that.

family consumption allowance and prebate. Look it up dumbass.

You've allready proven you're a complete moron claiming states have rights and now you don't know the first thing about the law you support... what a fucking moron.

Now asshole, this thread is about how viable fetus' should be treated under the law with regard to the findings in ROE and Casey and how that relates constituionally to "persons" due process and equal treatment. If thats not what you want to discuss... why post here?

 

[Gadawg73]

Fair tax? Why would any conservative ever want to inflict that piece of shit redistribution scheme on steroids onto the country?

And i don't give a shit what you don't give a shit about. If you don't give a shit about the law, then don't post in the fucking thread dumbass.

]

My business is the LAW. Over the last 30 years I have investigated over 5000 cases, 1500 cases for trial.
I know the law as that is my business.
Fair Tax redistribution?
How is a consumption tax "redistribution"?
Income tax IS redistribution.
You are not very intelligent. Sorry about that.

family consumption allowance and prebate. Look it up dumbass.

You've allready proven you're a complete moron claiming states have rights and now you don't know the first thing about the law you support... what a fucking moron.

Now asshole, this thread is about how viable fetus' should be treated under the law with regard to the findings in ROE and Casey and how that relates constituionally to "persons" due process and equal treatment. If thats not what you want to discuss... why post here?

You are not very intelligent and need to stick to whatever you do for a living.
Sorry about that.

 

[BenNatuf]

]

My business is the LAW. Over the last 30 years I have investigated over 5000 cases, 1500 cases for trial.
I know the law as that is my business.
Fair Tax redistribution?
How is a consumption tax "redistribution"?
Income tax IS redistribution.
You are not very intelligent. Sorry about that.

family consumption allowance and prebate. Look it up dumbass.

You've allready proven you're a complete moron claiming states have rights and now you don't know the first thing about the law you support... what a fucking moron.

Now asshole, this thread is about how viable fetus' should be treated under the law with regard to the findings in ROE and Casey and how that relates constituionally to "persons" due process and equal treatment. If thats not what you want to discuss... why post here?

You are not very intelligent and need to stick to whatever you do for a living.
Sorry about that.

And you still haven't made one single argument thats even cogent. Dude, you're a complete moron. Likely some redneck deputy who fancies yourself magnum PI while you run around handing out warrants to your drunk buddies for beating their wives and screwing their cousins. I'll bet you support the so called "fair tax" and don't even know what the family consumption allowance and prebate is. And while you carp about "moral police" probobly kneel at the alter of that useless pro life liberal "Huckster" preacher from AR.

 

[Gadawg73]

family consumption allowance and prebate. Look it up dumbass.

You've allready proven you're a complete moron claiming states have rights and now you don't know the first thing about the law you support... what a fucking moron.

Now asshole, this thread is about how viable fetus' should be treated under the law with regard to the findings in ROE and Casey and how that relates constituionally to "persons" due process and equal treatment. If thats not what you want to discuss... why post here?

You are not very intelligent and need to stick to whatever you do for a living.
Sorry about that.

And you still haven't made one single argument thats even cogent. Dude, you're a complete moron. Likely some redneck deputy who fancies yourself magnum PI while you run around handing out warrants to your drunk buddies for beating their wives and screwing their cousins. I'll bet you support the so called "fair tax" and don't even know what the family consumption allowance and prebate is. And while you carp about "moral police" probobly kneel at the alter of that useless pro life liberal "Huckster" preacher from AR.

Redneck, well maybe. Sticks and stones, doesn't matter to me.
But not a deputy. I am a private detective licensed for 30 years in Atlanta with my own agency. One of my clients for years was the attorney that they wrote the Matlock show after that Andy Griffith played.
How about we both put up 20K and you can check with the Georgia Secretary of States' office where I am licensed under after you put your cash up and they will show you that my detective agency has been in business since 1982.
Or crawl back into the hole you came out of because your milk is weak?
Which is it?
Once again, you are not very intelligent and undisciplined. You can not control your temper.
Wouldn't want you on my line when it is 4th and 1. Fold like a house of cards.
Sorry for you but it is what it is.
20K?

 

[BenNatuf]

You are not very intelligent and need to stick to whatever you do for a living.
Sorry about that.

And you still haven't made one single argument thats even cogent. Dude, you're a complete moron. Likely some redneck deputy who fancies yourself magnum PI while you run around handing out warrants to your drunk buddies for beating their wives and screwing their cousins. I'll bet you support the so called "fair tax" and don't even know what the family consumption allowance and prebate is. And while you carp about "moral police" probobly kneel at the alter of that useless pro life liberal "Huckster" preacher from AR.

Redneck, well maybe. Sticks and stones, doesn't matter to me.
But not a deputy. I am a private detective licensed for 30 years in Atlanta with my own agency. One of my clients for years was the attorney that they wrote the Matlock show after that Andy Griffith played.
How about we both put up 20K and you can check with the Georgia Secretary of States' office where I am licensed under after you put your cash up and they will show you that my detective agency has been in business since 1982.
Or crawl back into the hole you came out of because your milk is weak?
Which is it?
Once again, you are not very intelligent and undisciplined. You can not control your temper.
Wouldn't want you on my line when it is 4th and 1. Fold like a house of cards.
Sorry for you but it is what it is.
20K?

If thats what you say you are, I haven't got any reason to doubt it, so why would a wager you're not? The rest is intersting. As to intelligence at least I know states have authorities not rights. I know whats in the law you support, and you apparently don't. Supporting a law that you know nothing about other than its named "fair tax' isn't very bright. And, at least I can put together a cogent argument and know what the topic of the thread is. I couldn't care less what you think about my discipline and no, I'm not angry, I'm just pointing out that you're wrong... a lot.

Truth is there's probobly a lot we would would agree on, and I didn't create this thread to make abortion an issue, it already is. But in case you haven't noticed the argument here isn't about any moral anything... it's about the law as it applies to viable fetus' with regard to the deciissions in Roe and Casey and how that relates to the constitutional requirements of due process and equal treatment. It's a thread about a theory of law and constitutional principles more than it is about abortion. If thats not what you want to discuss, why are you here complaining about it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The country is running massive deficits that our great grandkids will have to pay, or will not be able to pay, Medicare is a waste, education is a mess, social security is a mess, gas is almost $4 a gallon and you folks are worried about abortion.
A non issue. Get with the conservative program. The moral police need not apply to the conservative movement.
FAIR TAX, less government and less taxes. Abortion has NOTHING to do with solving the problems we face.

Fair tax? Why would any conservative ever want to inflict that piece of shit redistribution scheme on steroids onto the country?

And i don't give a shit what you don't give a shit about. If you don't give a shit about the law, then don't post in the fucking thread dumbass.

But Gadawg LOVES telling other people what priorities they can and cannot have, based on the fact that HIS priorities are the universal standard to which everyone else must aspire.

 

[BenNatuf]

The country is running massive deficits that our great grandkids will have to pay, or will not be able to pay, Medicare is a waste, education is a mess, social security is a mess, gas is almost $4 a gallon and you folks are worried about abortion.
A non issue. Get with the conservative program. The moral police need not apply to the conservative movement.
FAIR TAX, less government and less taxes. Abortion has NOTHING to do with solving the problems we face.

Fair tax? Why would any conservative ever want to inflict that piece of shit redistribution scheme on steroids onto the country?

And i don't give a shit what you don't give a shit about. If you don't give a shit about the law, then don't post in the fucking thread dumbass.

But Gadawg LOVES telling other people what priorities they can and cannot have, based on the fact that HIS priorities are the universal standard to which everyone else must aspire.

I think I'm kinda gettin' that...

 

[BenNatuf]

Once again it would appear no-one can identify just what the "compelling interest" the states have that would empower them to negate a person's constitutionally protected rights might be. A generic "interest" is insufficient grounds to empower the state to infringe on constitutional rights. Their "interest" must be based on some precept that would justify a use of thier authority in so extreme a manner that it could negate a constitutionally protected right, like the ballancing of that right against another person or persons more compelling right. If that ellement of the states interest is absent, it's authority is absent.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is the courts job to apply the law, in applying the law they determine if the interpretation the excutive used in enforcing it is constitutionally consistent. It is not their interpretation they judge, it is the executives. That there are areas that can be interpretted strictly or less strictly is a given, but their are no portions that can be interpretted in or out of it. The courts are not empowered to enhance the powers of the federal government, when they do so, they themselves are acting in amanner inconsistant with the constitution.

That would be correct IF they determine that an unborn is at no point a person. I've never said otherwise.

They however have conveyed protections on the unborn once they are viable which is an implicit admission that they are persons at least at that point, otherwise the government has NO authority to infringe on the womans constitutional right. And if you're going to be consistant with the constitution it would mean they are entitled to its protections against being deprived of life without due process of law, and having equal protection under the law. Once again the constitution does NOT protect the future rights of potential life of notional persons. It protects actual persons, real life and existing rights. The SCOTUS is not empowered to create different classes of persons who do not get those protections, to do that you have to change the constitution.

The SCOTUS is not empowered to make up authorities that do not exist by interpretting them into existance from the ether of what they consider the "right" thing to do, or the best compromise. Either the government has the power, or it doesn't. If ROE is correct then the government has the power to infringe on ALL of your rights for any generic interest it can dream up that the courts will wave at.

It is well established that rights under the constitution are not absolute. That would include the right of privacy. The Court's infringement of a woman's right of privacy was based on that established fact, and justified by citing compelling State's interests.

WHAT INTEREST CAN THE STATE HAVE THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO TAKE YOUR RIGHTS? In every case the only interest the state can ever have that would allow them to do that is the more compelling right of another person or persons. There is no other authority the state has that can do so.

It was all laid out in Roe. You need only refer to the court's rationale and demonstrate why it's wrong.

 

[BenNatuf]

It is well established that rights under the constitution are not absolute. That would include the right of privacy. The Court's infringement of a woman's right of privacy was based on that established fact, and justified by citing compelling State's interests.

WHAT INTEREST CAN THE STATE HAVE THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO TAKE YOUR RIGHTS? In every case the only interest the state can ever have that would allow them to do that is the more compelling right of another person or persons. There is no other authority the state has that can do so.

It was all laid out in Roe. You need only refer to the court's rationale and demonstrate why it's wrong.

Then go ahead and lay it out. I've made my argument and you have them to lean on. Go to Roe and Casey and find out what the interest of the state is and then explain why and how that "interest" could be used to negate a persons constitutional right. While your doing it, think on how the state could use that same or any other claimed interest to negate other rights. Then tell me how the negation squares with the idea that the government cannot infringe on your rights except in the case of a more compelling interest of another person or persons rights (real persons, not notional ones).

You claim you want to use thier argument... so do it. Don't expect me to do your homework for you. I will gladly entertain whatever you come up with.

 

[Gadawg73]

The country is running massive deficits that our great grandkids will have to pay, or will not be able to pay, Medicare is a waste, education is a mess, social security is a mess, gas is almost $4 a gallon and you folks are worried about abortion.
A non issue. Get with the conservative program. The moral police need not apply to the conservative movement.
FAIR TAX, less government and less taxes. Abortion has NOTHING to do with solving the problems we face.

Fair tax? Why would any conservative ever want to inflict that piece of shit redistribution scheme on steroids onto the country?

And i don't give a shit what you don't give a shit about. If you don't give a shit about the law, then don't post in the fucking thread dumbass.

But Gadawg LOVES telling other people what priorities they can and cannot have, based on the fact that HIS priorities are the universal standard to which everyone else must aspire.

If you vote you also are telling other people what your priorities are.
If you believe strongly in your beliefs and have the information, facts and figures to back it up after a lot of hard work doing one's research you stand on your priorities.
Never stated anywhere what your priorities should be. One can take a look at the mess we are in today to know that the nation does not have their priorities in order.
Moral issues are not a nation's priorities. Those are family issues and abortion is a family decision. The very people that object to gay this and that being taught at school is wrong and should only be taught at home are the ones stating that other morals should be taught in public. Which is it and who decides what the moral police should teach and where is that as a priority?
The government? Or each voter?
As a taxpayer that owns and runs 3 corporations I want a structured priority list for each and every issue I vote on. Pushing that disciplined order of how our politicians spend their time on each issue with a priority listing is what a responsible taxpayer and citizen does.
Climb on board and join us. It will make for a better society that does not waste time on moral issues and focuses ON FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.

 

[NYcarbineer]

WHAT INTEREST CAN THE STATE HAVE THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO TAKE YOUR RIGHTS? In every case the only interest the state can ever have that would allow them to do that is the more compelling right of another person or persons. There is no other authority the state has that can do so.

It was all laid out in Roe. You need only refer to the court's rationale and demonstrate why it's wrong.

Then go ahead and lay it out. I've made my argument and you have them to lean on. Go to Roe and Casey and find out what the interest of the state is and then explain why and how that "interest" could be used to negate a persons constitutional right. While your doing it, think on how the state could use that same or any other claimed interest to negate other rights. Then tell me how the negation squares with the idea that the government cannot infringe on your rights except in the case of a more compelling interest of another person or persons rights (real persons, not notional ones).

You claim you want to use thier argument... so do it. Don't expect me to do your homework for you. I will gladly entertain whatever you come up with.

You haven't even read Roe v. Wade?

lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

Once again it would appear no-one can identify just what the "compelling interest" the states have that would empower them to negate a person's constitutionally protected rights might be. A generic "interest" is insufficient grounds to empower the state to infringe on constitutional rights. Their "interest" must be based on some precept that would justify a use of thier authority in so extreme a manner that it could negate a constitutionally protected right, like the ballancing of that right against another person or persons more compelling right. If that ellement of the states interest is absent, it's authority is absent.

Just to be clear, are you acknowledging a first trimester constitutional right to an abortion, based on the right to privacy?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Once again it would appear no-one can identify just what the "compelling interest" the states have that would empower them to negate a person's constitutionally protected rights might be. A generic "interest" is insufficient grounds to empower the state to infringe on constitutional rights. Their "interest" must be based on some precept that would justify a use of thier authority in so extreme a manner that it could negate a constitutionally protected right, like the ballancing of that right against another person or persons more compelling right. If that ellement of the states interest is absent, it's authority is absent.

Why was/is the draft constitutional?

 

[JBeukema]

Roe v. Wade was decided based on perjury

the entire case needs to be thrown out and reheard

 

[BenNatuf]

Fair tax? Why would any conservative ever want to inflict that piece of shit redistribution scheme on steroids onto the country?

And i don't give a shit what you don't give a shit about. If you don't give a shit about the law, then don't post in the fucking thread dumbass.

But Gadawg LOVES telling other people what priorities they can and cannot have, based on the fact that HIS priorities are the universal standard to which everyone else must aspire.

If you vote you also are telling other people what your priorities are.

no you're not, voting is secret

If you believe strongly in your beliefs and have the information, facts and figures to back it up after a lot of hard work doing one's research you stand on your priorities.

You don't need to do any of that to stand on your priorities... it does help the argument though

Never stated anywhere what your priorities should be. One can take a look at the mess we are in today to know that the nation does not have their priorities in order.

The irony is delicious, you're not telling anybody what thier priorities should be... except the entire nation.

Moral issues are not a nation's priorities.

Good thing this thread doesn't argue any then, what does it argue is a theory of law.

Those are family issues and abortion is a family decision.

killing is nobodies private choice

The very people that object to gay this and that being taught at school is wrong and should only be taught at home are the ones stating that other morals should be taught in public.

do you ever make any sense? Thwere is nothing about gay anything in this thread, and personally I don't give a rats ass what gay people do.

Which is it and who decides what the moral police should teach and where is that as a priority?

evidently... you.

The government? Or each voter?

a dumb assed canard if their ever was one. The government is empowered to make law and enforce it, they have lots of them and I don't know of any of them that were enected based on their amoral philosophy

As a taxpayer that owns and runs 3 corporations I want a structured priority list for each and every issue I vote on. Pushing that disciplined order of how our politicians spend their time on each issue with a priority listing is what a responsible taxpayer and citizen does.

but your not trying to push your priorities on anyone?

Climb on board and join us. It will make for a better society that does not waste time on moral issues and focuses ON FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Once again you don't know the difference between a discussion about a theory of law and and what you falsely claim is wasting time on moral issues. I'm probobly about 100% less Christian than you are, but here you have to trot out the canard of religious moralism because its the only fucking argument you know, and your just to damned stupid to know this thread doesn't have a damned thing to do with that. Why don't you join your strawman at the wizards and see if he has an extra brain for you?