Dems Without a Prayer!!

[OCA]

I am pro-life and pro-choice.

This disqualifies you from any further serious discussion on the board. Get serious.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

And as I have said before, the unborn childs right to life is not an absolute right, it is a qualified right. It must be weighed against the rights of the mother, and of society. Society's rights must be weighed against those of the mother and the child. I am pro-life and pro-choice. The pro-lifers you speak of are pro-life and anti-choice. The difference is that I oppose abortion, and will do everything within my power to prevent an abortion, but this does not extend to depriving another person of their liberty.

Whatever the motives of the mother, it is her place to make that choice. If you oppose abortions of convenience than agree with the Democratic Party and start working to provide incentives that would promote the right choice instead of attempting to deprive a woman of her rights based upon a few selected criteria.

Where do you get the idea that human life is a "qualified right", oh religious one? btw which religion did you say you belong to anyhow? or is that something you dimwits found somewhere in the Constitution?

 

[Edward]

Do you actually want to have an intelligent conversation? Or are you gonna just spout these crazy statements about liberty and Demos. Ever hear of right vs wrong or is that just a theory also?

Yes I have. Abortion is wrong. Forcing others to do something against their will is wrong. To force a woman to carry a child inside of her for 9 months against her will is wrong. That is why democrats oppose abortion, and support adoption incentives. That is why democrats support liberty and choice, and believe that this decision is best life to the individual, not the government. And that is why we as a Party consistently support the right of the woman while maintaining our pro-life stance. It is you who has no idea of right or wrong. For if you did you would know that it is wrong to be pro-life/anti-choice and right to be pro-life/pro-choice.

 

[OCA]

Of course not, it instead supports the exact opposite. The GOP cares nothing for liberty, that is why the Democratic Party has been the party that has survived the longest. Americans realize that we are the party of the people, we are the party that represents the interests of everyone. The Republican Party has consistently, and unswervingly flip-flopped on the issues because of one consistent principle, that is the omnipotent state. For example, state rights when it suites the party, but anti-state rights when it does not suite the right-wing radical agenda of the Republican party. Many people don't realize that the right-wing agenda is a dangerous threat to our nation and our way of life.

Buddy the last 30 years Demos have had their asses handed to them, your theories about who is for liberty and who is against is not supported by reality.

 

[OCA]

Buddy the last 30 years Demos have had their asses handed to them, your theories about who is for liberty and who is against is not supported by reality.

Wow I feel like i'm talking to the bum downtown spouting halfbaked theories. I'm sorry though I didn't know oxymorons were absolute truths.

 

[Edward]

Where do you get the idea that human life is a "qualified right", oh religious one? Which religion did you say you belong to? or is that something you dimwits found somewhere in the Constitution?

All rights are qualified, because they cease to be rights when they infringe on the rights of another. An example, your right to life ends when it conflicts with my right to life, or the right of society to be safe. Your right to freedom of action is qualified by how it interacts with my rights. Again, the CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court appointed by Republicans who handed down ROE V. WADE agree. They rejected the idea that the right to abortion was absolute. Anyone with common sense understands that every right is a qualified right, that absolute rights cannot and do not exist, whether civil or natural. Your natural right to life is qualified by my natural right to life, and my civil rights.

You Republicans just don't get it. You are so self-centered that you do not realize that from the beginning of your party it has always been authoritarianism that you support.

P.S., the unborn childs right to life must be weighed against the right of the mother to choose, and that right is weighed based on whether the child is viable. At the point the child is viable the state has a legitimate interest in protecting even the possibility of life. Until that time, the states interests in the unborn childs rights are far more limited.

 

[Edward]

Buddy the last 30 years Demos have had their asses handed to them, your theories about who is for liberty and who is against is not supported by reality.

And the Democratic Party has been handing it to every party since it was first formed, and it was formed long before the Republican Party came upon the scene. In fact, the Democratic Party is the oldest political party in existence today and like every party before it who has fallen to the Democratic Party, the Republican too will cease to exist, and the Democratic Party will still be trodding along as it always has.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

All rights are qualified, because they cease to be rights when they infringe on the rights of another. An example, your right to life ends when it conflicts with my right to life, or the right of society to be safe. Your right to freedom of action is qualified by how it interacts with my rights. Again, the CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court appointed by Republicans who handed down ROE V. WADE agree. They rejected the idea that the right to abortion was absolute. Anyone with common sense understands that every right is a qualified right, that absolute rights cannot and do not exist, whether civil or natural. Your natural right to life is qualified by my natural right to life, and my civil rights.

You Republicans just don't get it. You are so self-centered that you do not realize that from the beginning of your party it has always been authoritarianism that you support.

P.S., the unborn childs right to life must be weighed against the right of the mother to choose, and that right is weighed based on whether the child is viable. At the point the child is viable the state has a legitimate interest in protecting even the possibility of life. Until that time, the states interests in the unborn childs rights are far more limited.

And what about the rights of the child? ...Oh hell, just kill it...the baby's qualified rights are infringing on the qualified rights of the mother/father...(that was sarcasm)

You think we Republicans are "self-centered" because we care about the life of an unborn baby and don't really care about the inconvenience that it will cause the mother/father? Your Democrat values are really distorted - not ours.

Take your choice and shove it.

 

[musicman]

Civilized society has a right to defend itself. The relentless onslaught of vulgar barbarianism, the elimination of any and all restraints on behavior, and the cheapening of human life are things that Americans are - FINALLY - beginning to regard with alarm. The days of the unelected, unaccountable feudal lords of the federal judiciary - employing deliberately flawed, agenda-driven interpretations of the Constitution, in order to use America as their personal social petri dish - are fast coming to a close. The abortion issue is for the voters, and that's where it's going - whether it offends anyone's elitist sensibilities or not. Read 'em and weep.

 

[Annie]

Ok, been to way too many classes and heard way too many things. I knew I'd had a prof. that said that Roe was overturnable, if certiorari, would ever be granted. Had to be the Constitution class...

I think I found the prof and his testimony, it's way too long but I'll grab a bit:


http://judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/te090401so-kmiec.htm

April 22, 1996

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to
respond to your request to participate in the oversight hearing on
"The Origins and Scope of Roe v. Wade."

. . . .

With reference to internal Supreme Court
memoranda relating to the drafting of Roe v. Wade made public by
Thurgood Marshall, but to my knowledge, not previously analyzed, it
will be illustrated how, by Justice Blackmun's own admission, the
holding in Roe is more "arbitrary" preference than constitutional
interpretation.

. . . .

III. "Arbitrary Legislation" From the Bench -- An Inside Look at
the Making of Roe v. Wade

Despite the Supreme Court's putative "reaffirmation" of part of
Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, these opinions remain highly
contentious because the constitutional premises upon which they rest
are so wholly erroneous as to be non-existent in law. The writer
Santyana enjoins us to learn from history. Recently, the lessons to
be learned from the history of the abortion cases have come into
sharper focus because of the donation of the late Justice Thurgood
Marshall's papers to the Library of Congress. I have reviewed some of
these internal Supreme Court documents, including draft opinions and
correspondence in the 1971-72 period when Roe was being decided.

Do these internal Court documents reveal the hidden source of
abortion's constitutional and legal legitimacy? Hardly.

None of the Justices claim there is a specific textual guarantee
of abortion to be found anywhere in the constitutional document. Nor
does the abortion claim find legitimacy within the background
principles of common law out of which the American Constitution
emerged. As Bracton records, and the draft opinions within the
internal Marshall papers indicate the Justices knew, abortion has
little common law support, and was clearly thought by some to be
homicide. [II Bracton, On the Laws and Customs of England 341 (Thorne
ed. 1968), a citation to which can be found in Justice Blackmun's 4th
circulated draft in December 1972]. Because of the more rudimentary
nature of science in the 18th and 19th centuries, the common law drew
a distinction between abortions before and after quickening [16 to 18
weeks], but under English codification in 1803 both were criminal only
in different degrees. When medical science advanced, the quickening
distinction receded, and penalties for all abortions increased. In
1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted, statutory prohibitions or
restrictions on abortion were commonplace. Twenty-eight states of the
then 37 and 8 territories banned or limited abortion. [J. Mohr,
Abortion in America at 200 (1978)].

The Court's drafts also reveal that the decision was not being
guided by ancient precepts of medical ethics. In this respect, the
Hippocratic Oath dating back three to four hundred years before
Christ, had doctors pledging that they "will give no deadly medicine
to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner
. . . not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion." [The 4th
circulated draft of Justice Blackmun's opinion in Roe cites the
Hippocratic Oath, but cavalierly dismisses it on the basis of academic
writing that found it to be held as true only within Pythagorean Greek
culture. Why the Pythagoreans should be so ill-treated, or deemed
uninfluential, is not explained. Indeed the Oath, which coincides
with prevalent Christian belief since the end of antiquity, became the
"nucleus" of medical ethics.]

But neither text, nor the common law, nor medical ethics as
embodied in the Hippocratic Oath was to steer the Supreme Court in its
discovery of a non-textual abortion right. What did guide the Court?

I regret to say, little more than pragmatic, expedient politics; an
exercise in judicial will, not judgment...

[...]

The cases were reargued, but only over Justice Douglas'
extraordinary and harshly written protest. [An internal Letter from
William O. Douglas to Warren Burger, dated June 1, 1972, threatens
"f the vote of the Conference is to reargue, then I will file a
statement telling what is happening to us and the tragedy it entails."
Justice Douglas filed a published written dissent to setting the cases
over for reargument]. Perhaps, the key to understanding why the
Court, notwithstanding Douglas' protestations, pursued reargument lies
with the gentlemanly prodding of new Justice Powell. As mentioned,
Powell had recently joined the Court, and he asked politely for
reargument, pointing out that "Harry Blackmun, the author of the
(draft] opinions, thinks the cases should be carried over and reargued
next fall. His position, based on months of study, suggests enough
doubt on an issue of large national importance to justify the few
months delay." [Memorandum to the Conference from Lewis Powell, dated
June 1, 1972].

Months of study? Having read the file history in this dark
episode, Justice Powell's words are far too benign. Except for the
exchange of personal opinion or medical speculation, there is no
evidence of constitutional study or consideration. Only Chief Justice
Burger attempted to anchor the discussion in the Constitution,
expressing the patent federalism objection that "the states have,...,
as much concern in this area as in any within their province; federal
power has only that which can be traced to a specific provision of the
Constitution." [Memorandum to the Conference from Warren Burger,
dated May 31, 1972]. There is little other argument or discussion in
the internal correspondence touching upon the substance of
constitutional law.

The cases were reargued in October 1972. In November, Harry
Blackmun writes the final drafts of opinions that today we know rather
infamously as Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) and Doe v. Bolton, 410
U.S. 179 (1973). Again, no real discussion of law occurs in the
internal deliberations; instead, there is the startling admission from
Justice Blackmun in the presentation of his near final draft that "you
will observe that I have concluded that the end of the first trimester
is critical. This is arbitrary, but perhaps any other selected point,
such as quickening or viability, is equally arbitrary." [Memorandum
to Conference from Harry Blackmun, dated November 21, 1972, emphasis
added].

So, there you have it. A confession by the principal author of
the most infamous decision in this century, and perhaps after Dred
Scott, ever, revealing that arbitrary choice -- not discernment of the
law of the land -- accounts for the result in Roe. Law, legal
history, constitutional allocations of power, all ignored. The
abortion right derives not from background principles of common law;
not in the first principles of our constitutional republic; not as a
result of careful parsing of constitutional text. The application of
lethal force to the innocent unborn can be found neither in the
records of the drafting of the 14th amendment, nor the accounts of
that amendment's ratification. The respect due the structural
reservation of health, safety and moral questions to the states under
the 10th amendment was forsaken as well.

It is upon this lawless foundation that the Court has authorized
the "arbitrary" extermination of roughly 1.5 million unborn children
each year, ever since. Indeed, the arbitrariness of the life line
pulled from the grasping hands of the innocents in Roe is even more
manifest in last minute tinkering with the opinion. Between late
November and the end of the year, Blackmun observes how he's thinking
about moving what he called previously the "critical" line from the
end of the first trimester to viability. He admits that he chose the
end of the first trimester largely for marketing reasons, writing: "I
selected the earlier point because I felt that it would be more easily
accepted (by us as well as others) . . ." [Memorandum to the
Conference from Harry Blackmun, dated December 11, 1972]. He is
hesitant, however, if moving the line would cost him votes on the
merits. ["I would be willing to recast the opinions at the later date
(viability instead of the end of the first trimester), but I do not
wish to do so if it would alienate any Justice who has expressed to
me, either by writing or orally, that he is in general agreement, on
the merits, with the circulated memorandum." [Id.]

The viability line thus has no constitutional significance. It
is Justice Blackmun's arbitrary choice. It is also a choice that
reveals no consideration of the unborn child's interest, and virtually
no acknowledgment of state legislative authority. Rather, the
viability line ultimately gets chosen by the Court to simply maximize
the opportunity for young women especially to undergo abortions...

[...]

 

[Trinity]

Of course not, it instead supports the exact opposite. The GOP cares nothing for liberty, that is why the Democratic Party has been the party that has survived the longest. Americans realize that we are the party of the people, we are the party that represents the interests of everyone. The Republican Party has consistently, and unswervingly flip-flopped on the issues because of one consistent principle, that is the omnipotent state.

So I guess you must have been out of the country during the last election! Missed all the flip flopping going on in the democratic party did ya? :blah2:

 

[musicman]

Ok, been to way too many classes and heard way too many things. I knew I'd had a prof. that said that Roe was overturnable, if certiorari, would ever be granted. Had to be the Constitution class...

I think I found the prof and his testimony, it's way too long but I'll grab a bit:

Wow, Kathianne - that is DYNAMITE! Roe vs. Wade is bad law, plain and simple. The fact that it endures in the face of all reason and sanity is testament to the fanaticism of its disciples.

 

[Annie]

Wow, Kathianne - that is DYNAMITE! Roe vs. Wade is bad law, plain and simple. The fact that it endures in the face of all reason and sanity is testament to the fanaticism of its disciples.

Yep, now THAT was Judicial Activism...

 

[musicman]

Yep, now THAT was Judicial Activism...

No kidding!

"Uh...yeah - Roe vs. Wade is VERY relevant to the Constitution in that...ummmm....they're BOTH WRITTEN IN ENGLISH - yeah - THAT'S the ticket!"

Judicial HYPER-activism is more like it!

 

[Bonnie]

Good show Kathianne!!! Your post worth gold!!

Which proves my earlier point that abortion came about under the auspice of privacy deference which is why it is bad law and has no foundation upon any truth.

 

[Annie]

No kidding!

"Uh...yeah - Roe vs. Wade is VERY relevant to the Constitution in that...ummmm....they're BOTH WRITTEN IN ENGLISH - yeah - THAT'S the ticket!"

Judicial HYPER-activism is more like it!

I've been looking and looking for that! By jove, finally! :happy2:

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Excellent, Kathianne!
(your reps were full)

So, there you have it. A confession by the principal author of the most infamous decision in this century, and perhaps after Dred
Scott, ever, revealing that arbitrary choice -- not discernment of the
law of the land -- accounts for the result in Roe. Law, legal
history, constitutional allocations of power, all ignored. The
abortion right derives not from background principles of common law;
not in the first principles of our constitutional republic; not as a
result of careful parsing of constitutional text. The application of
lethal force to the innocent unborn can be found neither in the
records of the drafting of the 14th amendment, nor the accounts of
that amendment's ratification. The respect due the structural
reservation of health, safety and moral questions to the states under
the 10th amendment was forsaken as well.

So, there you have it.
It was the CHOICE of the activist judiciary to have CHOICE.

I repeat, take your CHOICE and shove it. We must reverse this horrible law... it's time for the nuclear option...

 

[Annie]

Excellent, Kathianne!
(your reps were full)



So, there you have it.
It was the CHOICE of the activist judiciary to have CHOICE.

I repeat, take your CHOICE and shove it. We must reverse this horrible law... it's time for the nuclear option...

Thank you for the comment. There are 2 choices: A Constitutional Amendment-not gonna happen or A SCOTUS that will grant cert to a case-THAT is what the libs are so afraid of!

The term 'nuclear option' was very unfortunate on so many levels.

 

[007]

Exactly...just another verbose lib teetering on the edge of insanity...

You got it SE.

I can't even FORCE myself to wade through all the psycho-babble this little turd is slavering out. He's gotta be a young one, fully indroctrinated, and has been brain washed in a ultra leftist, liberal zealot, hippie community somewhere in Oregon.

I just glaze over at every attempt to read his... :blah2: :blah2: :blah2: :blah2:

I used to think mattskramer's put out some bull shit, but this punk takes the cake.

 

[theim]

And the Democratic Party has been handing it to every party since it was first formed, and it was formed long before the Republican Party came upon the scene. In fact, the Democratic Party is the oldest political party in existence today and like every party before it who has fallen to the Democratic Party, the Republican too will cease to exist, and the Democratic Party will still be trodding along as it always has.

Old does not equal great. The Democratic Party has become the Communist Party with a catchy name. I find it amusing you proudly proclaim yourself a Democrat and at the same time profess your loathing for Democracy. Just move to Cuba already. Castro needs some more junior toadies before he finally croaks.