CDZ Abortion laws should be left up to the States

[there4eyeM]

It seems that women had better get a Constitutional amendment passed. They are in grave danger, being thought of as subordinate reproduction drones.

 

[Chuz Life]

It seems that women had better get a Constitutional amendment passed. They are in grave danger, being thought of as subordinate reproduction drones.

Women should have nothing to fear about the idea of their children (of any age) having the same right to the equal protections of our laws that everyone else has.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Coyote]

It seems that women had better get a Constitutional amendment passed. They are in grave danger, being thought of as subordinate reproduction drones.

Women should have nothing to fear about the idea of their children (of any age) having the same right to the equal protections of our laws that everyone else has.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Anyone forced to carry a pregnancy against her will should have something to fear.

 

[Chuz Life]

It seems that women had better get a Constitutional amendment passed. They are in grave danger, being thought of as subordinate reproduction drones.

Women should have nothing to fear about the idea of their children (of any age) having the same right to the equal protections of our laws that everyone else has.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Anyone forced to carry a pregnancy against her will should have something to fear.

When a woman consents to the act and (along with her partner) assumes the risk for pregnancy herself... the claim that her pregnancy is being FORCED onto her is not supported by any facts.

Noone forces anyone to create children in consensual acts. But, children once created do have a right to the equal protections of our laws.

Pretty much what Justice Potter Stewart said more than 40 years ago.

 

[Toronado3800]

I don't have time (again) for a lengthy intro to this subject so I have to be brief.

A lot of comments are being made from all sides of the abortion issue - that the legality of abortion would be or should be a decision reverted to or left up to the States, if or when Roe V Wade is overturned.

I completely disagree with that position and here is why.

The U.S. Constitution (5th and 14th Amendments) clearly says that all persons (not only citizens) under U.S. Jurisdiction are entitled to the Equal Protections of our laws. The Constitution does not allow for that clause to be modified by or to be deviated from 'State by State.'

If Roe v Wade is overturned under the established principle that "personhood" begins at and by conception (using fetal homicide laws for example) . . . then the "personhood" of any children in the womb is automatic in EVERY State and so is their rights as persons under our Constitution, also going to be automatic.


All CDZ rules apply.

I disagree but it is a personal thing.

So, being in favor of small government I am in favor of keeping the whims of the states out of your personal beliefs.

Otherwise someone who believes the morning after pill after a rape needs outlawed can become Governor and what do you know if his charisma score is high enough, it will be. Or mandatory abortions if the fetus is discovered to have a peanut allergy, or if the mom has Zinca or...

So, being in favor of small government I voted not.

 

[Chuz Life]

I don't have time (again) for a lengthy intro to this subject so I have to be brief.

A lot of comments are being made from all sides of the abortion issue - that the legality of abortion would be or should be a decision reverted to or left up to the States, if or when Roe V Wade is overturned.

I completely disagree with that position and here is why.

The U.S. Constitution (5th and 14th Amendments) clearly says that all persons (not only citizens) under U.S. Jurisdiction are entitled to the Equal Protections of our laws. The Constitution does not allow for that clause to be modified by or to be deviated from 'State by State.'

If Roe v Wade is overturned under the established principle that "personhood" begins at and by conception (using fetal homicide laws for example) . . . then the "personhood" of any children in the womb is automatic in EVERY State and so is their rights as persons under our Constitution, also going to be automatic.


All CDZ rules apply.

I disagree but it is a personal thing.

Scratching my head trying to understand that.

What I posted was not a personal opinion. It is a conclusion based upon the facts and what the facts, laws and what constitution says.

So, being in favor of small government I am in favor of keeping the whims of the states out of your personal beliefs.

You have deviated so far from what this thread is about, I have no idea of how to get you on topic. This thread is not about what our preferences and beliefs are. It's about whether or not laws governing abortion would be left up to the States, if/ when the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v Wade.

Otherwise someone who believes the morning after pill after a rape needs outlawed can become Governor and what do you know if his charisma score is high enough, it will be.

I guess the imagination does run wild, when you take reality completely out of the equation. Do you really think a Governor could pass such a law as that on their own?

Or mandatory abortions if the fetus is discovered to have a peanut allergy, or if the mom has Zinca or... So, being in favor of small government I voted not.

You have completely missed the purpose of my poll. It was not to try to gage everyone's "preferences." It's an attempt to gage how well everyone knows / believes how the governmental process will unfold / play out.

I suppose any confusion on that is my own fault. I did use the word "should" in the poll question but I thought everyone would understand the context based on the information in the OP.

It is "should" as in an expectation based on how the government is expected to function according to the Constitution. Not "should" as based on how we might want or wish it to be.

 

[Fishlore]

It takes only a little education in the social sciences to see the individual people behind the abstract laws and dogma of ideologues. Conservatives of all sorts are typically weak at this because their focus is on "authority" i.e. authors, theories and magic books. Significantly, our Constitution begins not with the sublimated ideas of the Declaration but with the decidedly democratic words, "We, the people." This sets the orientation of our government and its laws directly on our individual citizens, their lives, their needs and their happiness. Speculation about microscopic life forms is subordinate to the immediate consequence of government on the lives of the American people.

 

[Toronado3800]

I don't have time (again) for a lengthy intro to this subject so I have to be brief.

A lot of comments are being made from all sides of the abortion issue - that the legality of abortion would be or should be a decision reverted to or left up to the States, if or when Roe V Wade is overturned.

I completely disagree with that position and here is why.

The U.S. Constitution (5th and 14th Amendments) clearly says that all persons (not only citizens) under U.S. Jurisdiction are entitled to the Equal Protections of our laws. The Constitution does not allow for that clause to be modified by or to be deviated from 'State by State.'

If Roe v Wade is overturned under the established principle that "personhood" begins at and by conception (using fetal homicide laws for example) . . . then the "personhood" of any children in the womb is automatic in EVERY State and so is their rights as persons under our Constitution, also going to be automatic.


All CDZ rules apply.

I disagree but it is a personal thing.

Scratching my head trying to understand that.

What I posted was not a personal opinion. It is a conclusion based upon the facts and what the facts, laws and what constitution says.

So, being in favor of small government I am in favor of keeping the whims of the states out of your personal beliefs.

You have deviated so far from what this thread is about, I have no idea of how to get you on topic. This thread is not about what our preferences and beliefs are. It's about whether or not laws governing abortion would be left up to the States, if/ when the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v Wade.

Otherwise someone who believes the morning after pill after a rape needs outlawed can become Governor and what do you know if his charisma score is high enough, it will be.

I guess the imagination does run wild, when you take reality completely out of the equation. Do you really think a Governor could pass such a law as that on their own?

Or mandatory abortions if the fetus is discovered to have a peanut allergy, or if the mom has Zinca or... So, being in favor of small government I voted not.

You have completely missed the purpose of my poll. It was not to try to gage everyone's "preferences." It's an attempt to gage how well everyone knows / believes how the governmental process will unfold / play out.

I suppose any confusion on that is my own fault. I did use the word "should" in the poll question but I thought everyone would understand the context based on the information in the OP.

It is "should" as in an expectation based on how the government is expected to function according to the Constitution. Not "should" as based on how we might want or wish it to be.

Nope. The country needs to live up to some standards. You need protected from my views as I need protected from yours. Being well written as you are you should see the flaws in language and the need to fit overall intent.

Otherwise avoid the phrases Korean War, Gulf War 1 & 2, Vietnam War? I would ask you to stop using them terms then tell us how those were not wars as otherwise would imply the President has the power to declare war.

Consider how the 2nd Ammendment rambles on about militias being necessary and people in them needing guns. But since we want to have the right to bear arms we don't take them away from everyone not in the guard.

 

[PK1]

It seems that women had better get a Constitutional amendment passed. They are in grave danger, being thought of as subordinate reproduction drones.

Women should have nothing to fear about the idea of their children (of any age) having the same right to the equal protections of our laws that everyone else has.

I agree with this statement:

Women should have nothing to fear about the idea of their "children" (i.e., after live birth) having the same right to the equal protections of our laws that everyone else has.

Why not be more practical? Use your limited time/energy/funds to help all those unfortunate children who were born from poor, uneducated women in violent neighborhoods!
Instead, you worry about zygotes?
LOL.

 

[Chuz Life]

It seems that women had better get a Constitutional amendment passed. They are in grave danger, being thought of as subordinate reproduction drones.

Women should have nothing to fear about the idea of their children (of any age) having the same right to the equal protections of our laws that everyone else has.

I agree with this statement:

Women should have nothing to fear about the idea of their "children" (i.e., after live birth) having the same right to the equal protections of our laws that everyone else has.

Why not be more practical? Use your limited time/energy/funds to help all those unfortunate children who were born from poor, uneducated women in violent neighborhoods!
Instead, you worry about zygotes?
LOL.

Why can YOU see that they are all the SAME children? Only some are younger and less developed than others?

One of the reasons I am driven to fight abortion is because it is only legal due the ignorance and the kind of denials that you just exhibited.

You can't even see that it's about MORE than only a humanitarian effort. It's about justice, responsibility and the consistency of our laws with regard to the principles established by the Constitution. We Already have laws that make the abuse, neglect, molesting and murders of "born" children punishable by law.

The denial of the same for children in the womb is not something I will ever accept.

Childhood, personhood is not something that just magically begins when society can no longer stomach the denial of it anymore. And, that is the kind of ignorance you are expecting me to sign onto.

You are placing the burden on a child in the womb to overcome your ability to deny they are a child... before they reach some arbitrarily decided point - after which you just can't deny them any more.

That is unacceptable to me.


Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Chuz Life]

It seems that women had better get a Constitutional amendment passed. They are in grave danger, being thought of as subordinate reproduction drones.

Women should have nothing to fear about the idea of their children (of any age) having the same right to the equal protections of our laws that everyone else has.

I agree with this statement:

Women should have nothing to fear about the idea of their "children" (i.e., after live birth) having the same right to the equal protections of our laws that everyone else has.

Why not be more practical? Use your limited time/energy/funds to help all those unfortunate children who were born from poor, uneducated women in violent neighborhoods!
Instead, you worry about zygotes?
LOL.

Why can't YOU see that they are all the SAME children? Only some are younger and less developed than others?

One of the reasons I am driven to fight abortion is because it is only legal due the ignorance and the kind of denials that you just exhibited.

You can't even see that it's about MORE than only a humanitarian effort. It's about justice, responsibility and the consistency of our laws with regard to the principles established by the Constitution. We Already have laws that make the abuse, neglect, molesting and murders of "born" children punishable by law.

The denial of the same for children in the womb is not something I will ever accept.

Childhood, personhood is not something that just magically begins when society can no longer stomach the denial of it anymore. And, that is the kind of ignorance you are expecting me to sign onto.

You are placing the burden on a child in the womb to overcome your ability to deny they are a child... before they reach some arbitrarily decided point - after which you just can't deny them any more.

That is unacceptable to me.


Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Fixed.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[PK1]

Why not be more practical? Use your limited time/energy/funds to help all those unfortunate children who were born from poor, uneducated women in violent neighborhoods!
Instead, you worry about zygotes?

Why can't YOU see that they are all the SAME children? Only some are younger and less developed than others?

So, with your limited resources (time, energy, funds), you don't mind ignoring suffering born children in order to "benefit" unconscious zygotes that pregnant women don't want? Hmm ...

Ok, I'll try to take you seriously, since you seem to actually believe that statement of yours i saved.
We seem to view the same living matter differently; we have different "lenses".
Let's clarify ...
There are similarities and differences between a human zygote and a newborn. You emphasize the similarities (which i probably don't dispute), while i try to take a balanced perspective that includes differences that i consider crucial. So ...

1) What are the similarities, besides same DNA?
2) Do you see any significant differences, besides "less developed"?
I see major differences between a zygote and newborn!

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear PK1 and Chuz Life
It's not "either / or" ie pitting the rights to life AT ODDS with the rights of due process. Laws have to meet ALL STANDARDS of Constitutional principles.
Laws would have to satisfy BOTH the arguments of right to life and freedom of choice
in order not to violate Constitutional standards and beliefs, either way.

We'd have to write better laws that both
* acknowledge and protect the right to life beliefs
* but without infringing on the equal beliefs and due process of others
>>> BOTH <<<<
NOT EITHER / OR "in competition" with each other.
If there is conflict, that means that law is not written Constitutionally.

Other examples:
* Sure, we can have health care provisions that "provide for the general welfare" BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF religious freedom, civil liberties and due process of law abiding citizens. The laws on health care HAVE TO MEET ALL CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS.
NOT EITHER OR. NOT SATISFYING ONE STANDARD WHILE VIOLATING ANOTHER PART OF THE LAW.
* Same with gun laws. Sure, we need to have public health and safety and law enforcement standards. BUT CAN'T IMPOSE SUCH BUREAUCRATIC REGULATIONS THAT THEY INFRINGE ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES BY DEPRIVING LAW ABIDING CITIZENS OF FREEDOM WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.

We need regulations but do not need to overregulate.
We need to stick to Constitutional principles and standards
where all sides AGREE it doesn't go too far over or under the intended goals.

As for abortion:
Why not have an agreement that abortion can be banned
in districts or states with a zero percent rate of sexual abuse, relationship abuse, rape, incest and unwanted pregnancy.
Successfully eliminate and ban unwanted sex and pregnancy first.

And after that is achieved, then the residents of that district city county or state can agree to ban abortion since it will no longer impose on or affect women disproportionately.

The men AND women in each district would have to agree to ban any sex that otherwise would lead to unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children and thus unwanted abortion.

One step at a time. Get rid of rape, abuse of sex and relationships.
And then getting rid of abortion will naturally follow as a consequence, and it will not impose any risk or harm of punishing women more than men, when men are equally responsible for the decision to have sex, IF NOT MORE IN THE CASE OF RAPE, COERCION OR OTHER ABUSE.

The part we are NOT trying to change is the definitions ...

I'm curious. why do you care about another family's embryo? Zygote?
How does someone else's personal & private issues affect your life?[/QUOTE]
I can't give a long answer to this on my phone but I have many many responses to that question. Including some questions of my own, like why DON'T YOU care? ...
I finally realized and accepted the fact that a child's life begins at and by conception when I couldn't intellectually and honestly maintain that denial anymore. ...
[/QUOTE]
So, you adopted a belief that a zygote, someone else's zygote, is more important than the grown human life carrying it? I simply disagree; i do not believe that.
WHY DON'T I CARE?
First, i do NOT believe an embryo, and especially a zygote, have much human value in comparison to a born baby. Half the zygotes are aborted naturally in the developmental process, often without the woman knowing it. That's nature.
Secondly, i recognize people vary in their beliefs, and i respect individual liberty, i.e., others have their right to choose their pregnancy option, as my wife or daughter have their own rights based on their own beliefs.
If you want to "save" human lives, there are plenty of very unfortunate miserable born babies & children out there that you can assist.[/QUOTE]

 

[Chuz Life]

Why not be more practical? Use your limited time/energy/funds to help all those unfortunate children who were born from poor, uneducated women in violent neighborhoods!
Instead, you worry about zygotes?

Why can't YOU see that they are all the SAME children? Only some are younger and less developed than others?

So, with your limited resources (time, energy, funds), you don't mind ignoring suffering born children in order to "benefit" unconscious zygotes that pregnant women don't want? Hmm ...

Did you miss the part where I said that "we already have laws" to protect "born" children from abuse and neglect? Did you miss the part where I said I support those laws?

How are we ever going to get the same level of protections for children in the womb - unless people (like me) stand up for their rights and demand them?

You tell me.

Ok, I'll try to take you seriously, since you seem to actually believe that statement of yours i saved. We seem to view the same living matter differently; we have different "lenses".

Let's clarify ...
There are similarities and differences between a human zygote and a newborn. You emphasize the similarities (which i probably don't dispute), while i try to take a balanced perspective that includes differences that i consider crucial. So ...

STOP!

Please tell me what part of the "equal rights and equal protections" clauses of our Constitution makes you think that basic human rights can be "balanced" against the "differences" that people might have between one and another?

Is "age" discrimination something you approve of in other areas of social issue concerns?

1) What are the similarities, besides same DNA?
2) Do you see any significant differences, besides "less developed"?
I see major differences between a zygote and newborn!

Red Herring.

Clearly you are having a hard time with the concept of "equal" rights.

 

[Chuz Life]

Dear PK1 and Chuz Life
It's not "either / or" ie pitting the rights to life AT ODDS with the rights of due process. Laws have to meet ALL STANDARDS of Constitutional principles.
Laws would have to satisfy BOTH the arguments of right to life and freedom of choice
in order not to violate Constitutional standards and beliefs, either way.

We'd have to write better laws that both
* acknowledge and protect the right to life beliefs
* but without infringing on the equal beliefs and due process of others
>>> BOTH <<<<
NOT EITHER / OR "in competition" with each other.
If there is conflict, that means that law is not written Constitutionally.

Other examples:
* Sure, we can have health care provisions that "provide for the general welfare" BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF religious freedom, civil liberties and due process of law abiding citizens. The laws on health care HAVE TO MEET ALL CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS.
NOT EITHER OR. NOT SATISFYING ONE STANDARD WHILE VIOLATING ANOTHER PART OF THE LAW.
* Same with gun laws. Sure, we need to have public health and safety and law enforcement standards. BUT CAN'T IMPOSE SUCH BUREAUCRATIC REGULATIONS THAT THEY INFRINGE ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES BY DEPRIVING LAW ABIDING CITIZENS OF FREEDOM WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.

We need regulations but do not need to overregulate.
We need to stick to Constitutional principles and standards
where all sides AGREE it doesn't go too far over or under the intended goals.

As for abortion:
Why not have an agreement that abortion can be banned
in districts or states with a zero percent rate of sexual abuse, relationship abuse, rape, incest and unwanted pregnancy.
Successfully eliminate and ban unwanted sex and pregnancy first.

And after that is achieved, then the residents of that district city county or state can agree to ban abortion since it will no longer impose on or affect women disproportionately.

The men AND women in each district would have to agree to ban any sex that otherwise would lead to unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children and thus unwanted abortion.

One step at a time. Get rid of rape, abuse of sex and relationships.
And then getting rid of abortion will naturally follow as a consequence, and it will not impose any risk or harm of punishing women more than men, when men are equally responsible for the decision to have sex, IF NOT MORE IN THE CASE OF RAPE, COERCION OR OTHER ABUSE.

What a messy post. I can barely make out what you were trying to say. Maybe you should take this back to the drawing board and while you are there, work on an example of how you would apply the same logic of this position of yours to an issue like slavery.

You know.... a way to let people continue to buy, sell and hold slaves so long as certain conditions are met. . .

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Chuz Life
1. Sorry but the abortion laws ARE A MESSY ISSUE: because the laws affect not only the recognition of life and beliefs on the front end
BUT ALSO the CONSEQUENCES "after the fact" which impact Women more than Men.

so THAT'S WHY it's such a complex issue.
There are MANY criteria that have to be met.

2. as for conditions on slavery it's called CONSENT. when people CONSENT to volunteer labor for free it's called CHARITY.
And YES it is legal to WILLINGLY work for free.

Prison labor is tricky -- if there is restitution owed, that's one thing. but workers in prison cannot be abused either.

so YES THIS GETS MESSY ALSO.

Sorry to break the news to you, Chuz Life

Laws not only have to address the issue, but have to ENFORCEABLE *IN PRACTICE* where they don't violate equal protections and due process of law.

It can get VERY MESSY.

That's why we need to be careful and DILIGENT. We need to work together, including ALL SIDES and ALL OBJECTIONS to resolve conflicts BEFORE WRITING PASSING AND ENFORCING LEGISLATION.

so I AGREE WITH YOU the laws need to be worked out VERY METICULOUSLY IN ADVANCE. *** EXACTLY ***

Dear PK1 and Chuz Life
It's not "either / or" ie pitting the rights to life AT ODDS with the rights of due process. Laws have to meet ALL STANDARDS of Constitutional principles.
Laws would have to satisfy BOTH the arguments of right to life and freedom of choice
in order not to violate Constitutional standards and beliefs, either way.

We'd have to write better laws that both
* acknowledge and protect the right to life beliefs
* but without infringing on the equal beliefs and due process of others
>>> BOTH <<<<
NOT EITHER / OR "in competition" with each other.
If there is conflict, that means that law is not written Constitutionally.

Other examples:
* Sure, we can have health care provisions that "provide for the general welfare" BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF religious freedom, civil liberties and due process of law abiding citizens. The laws on health care HAVE TO MEET ALL CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS.
NOT EITHER OR. NOT SATISFYING ONE STANDARD WHILE VIOLATING ANOTHER PART OF THE LAW.
* Same with gun laws. Sure, we need to have public health and safety and law enforcement standards. BUT CAN'T IMPOSE SUCH BUREAUCRATIC REGULATIONS THAT THEY INFRINGE ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES BY DEPRIVING LAW ABIDING CITIZENS OF FREEDOM WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.

We need regulations but do not need to overregulate.
We need to stick to Constitutional principles and standards
where all sides AGREE it doesn't go too far over or under the intended goals.

As for abortion:
Why not have an agreement that abortion can be banned
in districts or states with a zero percent rate of sexual abuse, relationship abuse, rape, incest and unwanted pregnancy.
Successfully eliminate and ban unwanted sex and pregnancy first.

And after that is achieved, then the residents of that district city county or state can agree to ban abortion since it will no longer impose on or affect women disproportionately.

The men AND women in each district would have to agree to ban any sex that otherwise would lead to unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children and thus unwanted abortion.

One step at a time. Get rid of rape, abuse of sex and relationships.
And then getting rid of abortion will naturally follow as a consequence, and it will not impose any risk or harm of punishing women more than men, when men are equally responsible for the decision to have sex, IF NOT MORE IN THE CASE OF RAPE, COERCION OR OTHER ABUSE.

What a messy post. I can barely make out what you were trying to say. Maybe you should take this back to the drawing board and while you are there, work on an example of how you would apply the same logic of this position of yours to an issue like slavery.

You know.... a way to let people continue to buy, sell and hold slaves so long as certain conditions are met. . .

 

[emilynghiem]

P.S. also Chuz Life and PK1
Laws must BOTH respect the rights of people and States locally
AND meet Constitutional standards federally.

It's NOT "EITHER/OR"

BOTH standards should be met, and not be in conflict. State laws should also respect Constitutional equal protections of beliefs, representation and due process for all citizens.

Reverting back to States does NOT mean Constitutional laws can be violated on federal levels. The States are still supposed to protect and respect the same privileges of all citizens by the 14th Amendment.

So even if the unborn don't have direct representation, the fact that CITIZENS of the several States have PROLIFE BELIEFS, those are supposed to be equally protected by laws as PROCHOICE beliefs.

Going through States is not some excuse to violate Constitutional laws that still apply.

 

[Chuz Life]

Dear Chuz Life
1. Sorry but the abortion laws ARE A MESSY ISSUE: because the laws affect not only the recognition of life and beliefs on the front end
BUT ALSO the CONSEQUENCES "after the fact" which impact Women more than Men.

so THAT'S WHY it's such a complex issue.
There are MANY criteria that have to be met.

2. as for conditions on slavery it's called CONSENT. when people CONSENT to volunteer labor for free it's called CHARITY.
And YES it is legal to WILLINGLY work for free.

Prison labor is tricky -- if there is restitution owed, that's one thing. but workers in prison cannot be abused either.

so YES THIS GETS MESSY ALSO.

Sorry to break the news to you, Chuz Life

Laws not only have to address the issue, but have to ENFORCEABLE *IN PRACTICE* where they don't violate equal protections and due process of law.

It can get VERY MESSY.

That's why we need to be careful and DILIGENT. We need to work together, including ALL SIDES and ALL OBJECTIONS to resolve conflicts BEFORE WRITING PASSING AND ENFORCING LEGISLATION.

so I AGREE WITH YOU the laws need to be worked out VERY METICULOUSLY IN ADVANCE. *** EXACTLY ***

Dear PK1 and Chuz Life
It's not "either / or" ie pitting the rights to life AT ODDS with the rights of due process. Laws have to meet ALL STANDARDS of Constitutional principles.
Laws would have to satisfy BOTH the arguments of right to life and freedom of choice
in order not to violate Constitutional standards and beliefs, either way.

We'd have to write better laws that both
* acknowledge and protect the right to life beliefs
* but without infringing on the equal beliefs and due process of others
>>> BOTH <<<<
NOT EITHER / OR "in competition" with each other.
If there is conflict, that means that law is not written Constitutionally.

Other examples:
* Sure, we can have health care provisions that "provide for the general welfare" BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF religious freedom, civil liberties and due process of law abiding citizens. The laws on health care HAVE TO MEET ALL CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS.
NOT EITHER OR. NOT SATISFYING ONE STANDARD WHILE VIOLATING ANOTHER PART OF THE LAW.
* Same with gun laws. Sure, we need to have public health and safety and law enforcement standards. BUT CAN'T IMPOSE SUCH BUREAUCRATIC REGULATIONS THAT THEY INFRINGE ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES BY DEPRIVING LAW ABIDING CITIZENS OF FREEDOM WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.

We need regulations but do not need to overregulate.
We need to stick to Constitutional principles and standards
where all sides AGREE it doesn't go too far over or under the intended goals.

As for abortion:
Why not have an agreement that abortion can be banned
in districts or states with a zero percent rate of sexual abuse, relationship abuse, rape, incest and unwanted pregnancy.
Successfully eliminate and ban unwanted sex and pregnancy first.

And after that is achieved, then the residents of that district city county or state can agree to ban abortion since it will no longer impose on or affect women disproportionately.

The men AND women in each district would have to agree to ban any sex that otherwise would lead to unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children and thus unwanted abortion.

One step at a time. Get rid of rape, abuse of sex and relationships.
And then getting rid of abortion will naturally follow as a consequence, and it will not impose any risk or harm of punishing women more than men, when men are equally responsible for the decision to have sex, IF NOT MORE IN THE CASE OF RAPE, COERCION OR OTHER ABUSE.

What a messy post. I can barely make out what you were trying to say. Maybe you should take this back to the drawing board and while you are there, work on an example of how you would apply the same logic of this position of yours to an issue like slavery.

You know.... a way to let people continue to buy, sell and hold slaves so long as certain conditions are met. . .

You gave a very detailed example of a policy on abortion that you would support.

I would like to see you provide the same as a policy that would allow / permit slavery.

Let's not be cute with the words, here. I am talking not talking consent, charity or working for free. I am talking about the denial of someone's rights and freedoms and even their personhood in order to force them to provide labor for others.

So, again... give me a comparable example to the one that you provided about abortion. . . that would allow for society to keep and maintain slavery under our Constitution.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes Chuz Life I gave an example of how "slavery" is legal if people consent to it:

1. by charitable volunteer work. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses refer to being "faithful and discreet slaves". If you religiously submit to work for free, that is legal through nonprofits and religious organizations.

2. If you volunteer your labor for restitution for wrongdoing, where it is in keeping with laws,
then it is not abusing people or labor by "involuntary servitude". Because it is voluntary and follows given guidelines, such as for prison labor.

do you want more examples?

3. Currently we do allow import and sale of products made by FOREIGN slave labor.
We just don't allow certain labor within the domestic US. (again one exception being prison labor)

Is prison labor a good enough example for you Chuz Life?

Many people contest this practice and the laws on it. Some people believe MORE labor should be forced on inmates; other people believe such labor should not be abused.

so this IS ONE AREA where laws are in place that justify slave labor.

Dear Chuz Life
1. Sorry but the abortion laws ARE A MESSY ISSUE: because the laws affect not only the recognition of life and beliefs on the front end
BUT ALSO the CONSEQUENCES "after the fact" which impact Women more than Men.

so THAT'S WHY it's such a complex issue.
There are MANY criteria that have to be met.

2. as for conditions on slavery it's called CONSENT. when people CONSENT to volunteer labor for free it's called CHARITY.
And YES it is legal to WILLINGLY work for free.

Prison labor is tricky -- if there is restitution owed, that's one thing. but workers in prison cannot be abused either.

so YES THIS GETS MESSY ALSO.

Sorry to break the news to you, Chuz Life

Laws not only have to address the issue, but have to ENFORCEABLE *IN PRACTICE* where they don't violate equal protections and due process of law.

It can get VERY MESSY.

That's why we need to be careful and DILIGENT. We need to work together, including ALL SIDES and ALL OBJECTIONS to resolve conflicts BEFORE WRITING PASSING AND ENFORCING LEGISLATION.

so I AGREE WITH YOU the laws need to be worked out VERY METICULOUSLY IN ADVANCE. *** EXACTLY ***

Dear PK1 and Chuz Life
It's not "either / or" ie pitting the rights to life AT ODDS with the rights of due process. Laws have to meet ALL STANDARDS of Constitutional principles.
Laws would have to satisfy BOTH the arguments of right to life and freedom of choice
in order not to violate Constitutional standards and beliefs, either way.

We'd have to write better laws that both
* acknowledge and protect the right to life beliefs
* but without infringing on the equal beliefs and due process of others
>>> BOTH <<<<
NOT EITHER / OR "in competition" with each other.
If there is conflict, that means that law is not written Constitutionally.

Other examples:
* Sure, we can have health care provisions that "provide for the general welfare" BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF religious freedom, civil liberties and due process of law abiding citizens. The laws on health care HAVE TO MEET ALL CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS.
NOT EITHER OR. NOT SATISFYING ONE STANDARD WHILE VIOLATING ANOTHER PART OF THE LAW.
* Same with gun laws. Sure, we need to have public health and safety and law enforcement standards. BUT CAN'T IMPOSE SUCH BUREAUCRATIC REGULATIONS THAT THEY INFRINGE ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES BY DEPRIVING LAW ABIDING CITIZENS OF FREEDOM WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.

We need regulations but do not need to overregulate.
We need to stick to Constitutional principles and standards
where all sides AGREE it doesn't go too far over or under the intended goals.

As for abortion:
Why not have an agreement that abortion can be banned
in districts or states with a zero percent rate of sexual abuse, relationship abuse, rape, incest and unwanted pregnancy.
Successfully eliminate and ban unwanted sex and pregnancy first.

And after that is achieved, then the residents of that district city county or state can agree to ban abortion since it will no longer impose on or affect women disproportionately.

The men AND women in each district would have to agree to ban any sex that otherwise would lead to unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children and thus unwanted abortion.

One step at a time. Get rid of rape, abuse of sex and relationships.
And then getting rid of abortion will naturally follow as a consequence, and it will not impose any risk or harm of punishing women more than men, when men are equally responsible for the decision to have sex, IF NOT MORE IN THE CASE OF RAPE, COERCION OR OTHER ABUSE.

What a messy post. I can barely make out what you were trying to say. Maybe you should take this back to the drawing board and while you are there, work on an example of how you would apply the same logic of this position of yours to an issue like slavery.

You know.... a way to let people continue to buy, sell and hold slaves so long as certain conditions are met. . .

You gave a very detailed example of a policy on abortion that you would support.

I would like to see you provide the same as a policy that would allow / permit slavery.

Let's not be cute with the words, here. I am talking not talking consent, charity or working for free. I am talking about the denial of someone's rights and freedoms and even their personhood in order to force them to provide labor for others.

So, again... give me a comparable example to the one that you provided about abortion. . . that would allow for society to keep and maintain slavery under our Constitution.

 

[Chuz Life]

Yes Chuz Life I gave an example of how "slavery" is legal if people consent to it:

1. by charitable volunteer work. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses refer to being "faithful and discreet slaves". If you religiously submit to work for free, that is legal through nonprofits and religious organizations.

2. If you volunteer your labor for restitution for wrongdoing, where it is in keeping with laws,
then it is not abusing people or labor by "involuntary servitude". Because it is voluntary and follows given guidelines, such as for prison labor.

do you want more examples?

3. Currently we do allow import and sale of products made by FOREIGN slave labor.
We just don't allow certain labor within the domestic US. (again one exception being prison labor)

Is prison labor a good enough example for you Chuz Life?

Many people contest this practice and the laws on it. Some people believe MORE labor should be forced on inmates; other people believe such labor should not be abused.

so this IS ONE AREA where laws are in place that justify slave labor.

Dear Chuz Life
1. Sorry but the abortion laws ARE A MESSY ISSUE: because the laws affect not only the recognition of life and beliefs on the front end
BUT ALSO the CONSEQUENCES "after the fact" which impact Women more than Men.

so THAT'S WHY it's such a complex issue.
There are MANY criteria that have to be met.

2. as for conditions on slavery it's called CONSENT. when people CONSENT to volunteer labor for free it's called CHARITY.
And YES it is legal to WILLINGLY work for free.

Prison labor is tricky -- if there is restitution owed, that's one thing. but workers in prison cannot be abused either.

so YES THIS GETS MESSY ALSO.

Sorry to break the news to you, Chuz Life

Laws not only have to address the issue, but have to ENFORCEABLE *IN PRACTICE* where they don't violate equal protections and due process of law.

It can get VERY MESSY.

That's why we need to be careful and DILIGENT. We need to work together, including ALL SIDES and ALL OBJECTIONS to resolve conflicts BEFORE WRITING PASSING AND ENFORCING LEGISLATION.

so I AGREE WITH YOU the laws need to be worked out VERY METICULOUSLY IN ADVANCE. *** EXACTLY ***

Dear PK1 and Chuz Life
It's not "either / or" ie pitting the rights to life AT ODDS with the rights of due process. Laws have to meet ALL STANDARDS of Constitutional principles.
Laws would have to satisfy BOTH the arguments of right to life and freedom of choice
in order not to violate Constitutional standards and beliefs, either way.

We'd have to write better laws that both
* acknowledge and protect the right to life beliefs
* but without infringing on the equal beliefs and due process of others
>>> BOTH <<<<
NOT EITHER / OR "in competition" with each other.
If there is conflict, that means that law is not written Constitutionally.

Other examples:
* Sure, we can have health care provisions that "provide for the general welfare" BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF religious freedom, civil liberties and due process of law abiding citizens. The laws on health care HAVE TO MEET ALL CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS.
NOT EITHER OR. NOT SATISFYING ONE STANDARD WHILE VIOLATING ANOTHER PART OF THE LAW.
* Same with gun laws. Sure, we need to have public health and safety and law enforcement standards. BUT CAN'T IMPOSE SUCH BUREAUCRATIC REGULATIONS THAT THEY INFRINGE ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES BY DEPRIVING LAW ABIDING CITIZENS OF FREEDOM WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.

We need regulations but do not need to overregulate.
We need to stick to Constitutional principles and standards
where all sides AGREE it doesn't go too far over or under the intended goals.

As for abortion:
Why not have an agreement that abortion can be banned
in districts or states with a zero percent rate of sexual abuse, relationship abuse, rape, incest and unwanted pregnancy.
Successfully eliminate and ban unwanted sex and pregnancy first.

And after that is achieved, then the residents of that district city county or state can agree to ban abortion since it will no longer impose on or affect women disproportionately.

The men AND women in each district would have to agree to ban any sex that otherwise would lead to unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children and thus unwanted abortion.

One step at a time. Get rid of rape, abuse of sex and relationships.
And then getting rid of abortion will naturally follow as a consequence, and it will not impose any risk or harm of punishing women more than men, when men are equally responsible for the decision to have sex, IF NOT MORE IN THE CASE OF RAPE, COERCION OR OTHER ABUSE.

What a messy post. I can barely make out what you were trying to say. Maybe you should take this back to the drawing board and while you are there, work on an example of how you would apply the same logic of this position of yours to an issue like slavery.

You know.... a way to let people continue to buy, sell and hold slaves so long as certain conditions are met. . .

You gave a very detailed example of a policy on abortion that you would support.

I would like to see you provide the same as a policy that would allow / permit slavery.

Let's not be cute with the words, here. I am talking not talking consent, charity or working for free. I am talking about the denial of someone's rights and freedoms and even their personhood in order to force them to provide labor for others.

So, again... give me a comparable example to the one that you provided about abortion. . . that would allow for society to keep and maintain slavery under our Constitution.

Thanks for your help in proving my point.

Your hedging, twisting and mental gymnastics speaks volumes.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app