Kalipornia Dimocrats vote down bill outlawing sex-selection abortion

[Vigilante]

well, that's a pretty stupid law in general.

And probably will be struck down if it is ever challenged in the courts.

Reality, though, even the BIble didn't consider fetuses to be people.


If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23

Well, you seem to be pretty stupid as it's a TEN YAR OLD LAW, and still ON THE BOOKS

Are you some sort of religious hating freak, as you keep bringing religion into our conversations when YOU know I'm agnostic! I talk science and you can't refute that!

guy, you talking science is like watching a monkey operate a calculator. Amusing at first, but depressing after a while.

It's a ten year old law that has had almost no real cases applied to it, usually because when they charge for the death of a fetus, the mother was also killed. SO it's kind of like all those rapists who got charged with sodomy... just piling on.

Unfortunately, you are the monkey playing with the keyboard.

Now you're playing the part of a shyster? Tell me shyster, just how many cases were prosecuted....should be simple, and as they say in here

LINK PLEASE!!!

 

[Vigilante]

Well, you seem to be pretty stupid as it's a TEN YAR OLD LAW, and still ON THE BOOKS

Are you some sort of religious hating freak, as you keep bringing religion into our conversations when YOU know I'm agnostic! I talk science and you can't refute that!

guy, you talking science is like watching a monkey operate a calculator. Amusing at first, but depressing after a while.

It's a ten year old law that has had almost no real cases applied to it, usually because when they charge for the death of a fetus, the mother was also killed. SO it's kind of like all those rapists who got charged with sodomy... just piling on.

One monkey laughs at another, here, have a banana, now smile!

 

[Vigilante]

Holyfuck, Vagisil, just how rightarded are you? Laws don't have to be explicitly written in the Constitution to be Constitutional. It's one of the reason we have a judicial branch; to make such determinations.

Are you also under the delusion that other rights, such as the right to get married and have children, the right to a trial by a jury of your peers, the presumption of innocence when facing a trial; are not rights because they are not exclusively mentioned in the Constitution??

If not directly written into the Constitution, it is all INTERPRETATION by 9 UNELECTED people.... sounds like DEMOCRACY to me,

Yes, you infinite idiot. That's how our Constitution works. Plus (are ya sitting down?), we're not a democracy. Don't you know anything? Stop watching Fox, it's dumbing you down.

And I notice you didn`t answer the question ... which of these do you believe are unconstitutional:

- marriage
- having children
- trial by jury
- Miranda rights
- presumption of innocence
- the airforce

c'mon, speak up. I can't hear ya.

Let's see dumbass, did I say we were a democracy, or did I say "sounds like a democracy to me"? Referring to an unelected SCOTUS

Apparently, in your haste to try and look like an intelligent being, you can't tell the difference between looking like a democracy, and our country being a republic!

Why not ask if

Eating
Sleeping
walking
mowing the lawn

is constitutional! You're amusing, like the monkey above, but keep trying, I need a small chuckle from Pawn in the morning!

Your 2 digit IQ, and your supposed elitism seems to be taking another hit!

 

[Vigilante]

Vigilante will have a coronary if he keeps on like this.

You still haven't answered the question, is that YOU in your avatar?

 

[Faun]

If not directly written into the Constitution, it is all INTERPRETATION by 9 UNELECTED people.... sounds like DEMOCRACY to me,

Yes, you infinite idiot. That's how our Constitution works. Plus (are ya sitting down?), we're not a democracy. Don't you know anything? Stop watching Fox, it's dumbing you down.

And I notice you didn`t answer the question ... which of these do you believe are unconstitutional:

- marriage
- having children
- trial by jury
- Miranda rights
- presumption of innocence
- the airforce

c'mon, speak up. I can't hear ya.

Let's see dumbass, did I say we were a democracy, or did I say "sounds like a democracy to me"? Referring to an unelected SCOTUS

Apparently, in your haste to try and look like an intelligent being, you can't tell the difference between looking like a democracy, and our country being a republic!

Why not ask if

Eating
Sleeping
walking
mowing the lawn

is constitutional! You're amusing, like the monkey above, but keep trying, I need a small chuckle from Pawn in the morning!

Your 2 digit IQ, and your supposed elitism seems to be taking another hit!

Aww, how adorable. Vagisil is pitching a fit because his tube got squeezed. Your continued refusal to answer which of the items I enumerated are unconstitutional actually answered for you. That answer being that rights don't have to be explicitly stated in the Constitution to be protected by the Constitution. That includes abortion.

you may now carry on with your tantrum.

 

[Vigilante]

Yes, you infinite idiot. That's how our Constitution works. Plus (are ya sitting down?), we're not a democracy. Don't you know anything? Stop watching Fox, it's dumbing you down.

And I notice you didn`t answer the question ... which of these do you believe are unconstitutional:

- marriage
- having children
- trial by jury
- Miranda rights
- presumption of innocence
- the airforce

c'mon, speak up. I can't hear ya.

Let's see dumbass, did I say we were a democracy, or did I say "sounds like a democracy to me"? Referring to an unelected SCOTUS

Apparently, in your haste to try and look like an intelligent being, you can't tell the difference between looking like a democracy, and our country being a republic!

Why not ask if

Eating
Sleeping
walking
mowing the lawn

is constitutional! You're amusing, like the monkey above, but keep trying, I need a small chuckle from Pawn in the morning!

Your 2 digit IQ, and your supposed elitism seems to be taking another hit!

Aww, how adorable. Vagisil is pitching a fit because his tube got squeezed. Your continued refusal to answer which of the items I enumerated are unconstitutional actually answered for you. That answer being that rights don't have to be explicitly stated in the Constitution to be protected by the Constitution. That includes abortion.

you may now carry on with your tantrum.

Aw, I hurt Pawns feelings ....again!

When you ask stupid questions, you get back what you ask. But to clear it up for you, none of your examples, or my examples are Unconstitutional.....until they are brought before SCOTUS and ruled on, and even then, it's the decision of 9 UNELECTED people that make a decision, and that, my low IQ friend, is undemocratic.

Unfortunately over the years the SCOTUS and the Fed gov't has usurped the power of states, where MOST of these issues should have been decided, if need be. I see you're not a true Constitutionalist who believes in the originality of what was written in plain English.... you subversives are ALL that way!

 

[Faun]

Let's see dumbass, did I say we were a democracy, or did I say "sounds like a democracy to me"? Referring to an unelected SCOTUS

Apparently, in your haste to try and look like an intelligent being, you can't tell the difference between looking like a democracy, and our country being a republic!

Why not ask if

Eating
Sleeping
walking
mowing the lawn

is constitutional! You're amusing, like the monkey above, but keep trying, I need a small chuckle from Pawn in the morning!

Your 2 digit IQ, and your supposed elitism seems to be taking another hit!

Aww, how adorable. Vagisil is pitching a fit because his tube got squeezed. Your continued refusal to answer which of the items I enumerated are unconstitutional actually answered for you. That answer being that rights don't have to be explicitly stated in the Constitution to be protected by the Constitution. That includes abortion.

you may now carry on with your tantrum.

Aw, I hurt Pawns feelings ....again!

When you ask stupid questions, you get back what you ask. But to clear it up for you, none of your examples, or my examples are Unconstitutional.....until they are brought before SCOTUS and ruled on, and even then, it's the decision of 9 UNELECTED people that make a decision, and that, my low IQ friend, is undemocratic.

Unfortunately over the years the SCOTUS and the Fed gov't has usurped the power of states, where MOST of these issues should have been decided, if need be. I see you're not a true Constitutionalist who believes in the originality of what was written in plain English.... you subversives are ALL that way!

Aww, poor, Vagisil. Doubling down on stupid. Some of the things I listed were ruled on by the Supreme Court, which upheld their constitutionality. Lemme explain it to ya .... that means, like abortion, they are rights protected by the Constitution even though they are not explicitly mentioned.

Capiche?

 

[Vigilante]

Aww, how adorable. Vagisil is pitching a fit because his tube got squeezed. Your continued refusal to answer which of the items I enumerated are unconstitutional actually answered for you. That answer being that rights don't have to be explicitly stated in the Constitution to be protected by the Constitution. That includes abortion.

you may now carry on with your tantrum.

Aw, I hurt Pawns feelings ....again!

When you ask stupid questions, you get back what you ask. But to clear it up for you, none of your examples, or my examples are Unconstitutional.....until they are brought before SCOTUS and ruled on, and even then, it's the decision of 9 UNELECTED people that make a decision, and that, my low IQ friend, is undemocratic.

Unfortunately over the years the SCOTUS and the Fed gov't has usurped the power of states, where MOST of these issues should have been decided, if need be. I see you're not a true Constitutionalist who believes in the originality of what was written in plain English.... you subversives are ALL that way!

Aww, poor, Vagisil. Doubling down on stupid. Some of the things I listed were ruled on by the Supreme Court, which upheld their constitutionality. Lemme explain it to ya .... that means, like abortion, they are rights protected by the Constitution even though they are not explicitly mentioned.

Capiche?

I see you don't understand that 9 UNELECTED citizens INTERPRET the Constitution..... Like trying to put a round peg in a square hole...and still have no idea what I was talking about when I said democracy!....Amusing!

 

[JFK_USA]

Pawn, you asshole, a SCOTUS decision is NOT WRITTEN in the Constitution! It can also be amended! Fruitcake!

Holyfuck, Vagisil, just how rightarded are you? Laws don't have to be explicitly written in the Constitution to be Constitutional. It's one of the reason we have a judicial branch; to make such determinations.

Are you also under the delusion that other rights, such as the right to get married and have children, the right to a trial by a jury of your peers, the presumption of innocence when facing a trial; are not rights because they are not exclusively mentioned in the Constitution??

If not directly written into the Constitution, it is all INTERPRETATION by 9 UNELECTED people.... sounds like DEMOCRACY to me!

Obviously you forget the whole Checks and balances our founding fathers put in our constitution because as extremely smart men, they saw the problem with electing judges to the highest court. It could mean one side's interests are always represented if they have the money.

That's why our judges get lifetime appointments so they provide a check on the current make up of the legislative and executive branches. Like when FDR's new deal was gutted by a conservative supreme court. It provided a check on the powers of the federal government.

The judicial system in our country is the only way to ensure true democracy.

 

[DriftingSand]

It’s official: the feminist movement and their willing servants in the California Democratic Party are willing to see in utero females killed because they are female in order to protect their existing legal right to abortion. You can’t make an abortion omelet without breaking a few zygotes. Daniel Nussbaum of Breitbart reports:

On Tuesday, thirteen Democrats on the California State Assembly Health Committee voted down a bill that would have outlawed the practice of sex selection through abortion.
The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (AB 2336) ran into opposition by all of the Democrats on the committee, who saw the bill as a prelude to broader abortion restrictions, according to a report from LifeNews.com. Instead, Democrats introduced a resolution to condemn sex-selection abortion--but not to outlaw it.
The bill was introduced on May 6th by Assemblywoman Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield), who said in her opening testimony that "the U.N. estimates that upwards of 200 million girls around the world have been aborted merely because they were 'the wrong gender.'" She explained that countries like India and China are dominated by a male-child mentality, with mothers preferring future working men and family providers over the "burden" of baby girls.
​

The bill was defeated 13-6 on a straight party line vote.

So which party is it that has a war on women?

American Thinker ^

So it used to be that the purpose for an abortion was to allow a woman to choose based on the "right" she had "over her body" but now she can pick and choose which sex she will or will not murder? It seems that it's gone beyond the "right over the body" argument and has reached a new, unheard of level. In other words, an abortion was usually based on the following:

1) Rape
2) Incest
3) Career
4) Immaturity
5) Lack of finances
6) Desire to remain promiscuous

But all of those reasons to kill the little child were based on one of the above reasons. It seems to me that choosing to massacre a boy over a girl or choosing to burn to death a girl over a boy transcends all of the above reasons for an abortion. What's the logical argument for this new reasoning?

 

[Faun]

Aw, I hurt Pawns feelings ....again!

When you ask stupid questions, you get back what you ask. But to clear it up for you, none of your examples, or my examples are Unconstitutional.....until they are brought before SCOTUS and ruled on, and even then, it's the decision of 9 UNELECTED people that make a decision, and that, my low IQ friend, is undemocratic.

Unfortunately over the years the SCOTUS and the Fed gov't has usurped the power of states, where MOST of these issues should have been decided, if need be. I see you're not a true Constitutionalist who believes in the originality of what was written in plain English.... you subversives are ALL that way!

Aww, poor, Vagisil. Doubling down on stupid. Some of the things I listed were ruled on by the Supreme Court, which upheld their constitutionality. Lemme explain it to ya .... that means, like abortion, they are rights protected by the Constitution even though they are not explicitly mentioned.

Capiche?

I see you don't understand that 9 UNELECTED citizens INTERPRET the Constitution..... Like trying to put a round peg in a square hole...and still have no idea what I was talking about when I said democracy!....Amusing!

Whether you understand it or not, the Constitution grants the judicial branch that power. And despite your ignorance, abortion, like the other rights I listed which were subjected to a judicial test, is a right protected by the Constitution.

 

[DriftingSand]

Aww, poor, Vagisil. Doubling down on stupid. Some of the things I listed were ruled on by the Supreme Court, which upheld their constitutionality. Lemme explain it to ya .... that means, like abortion, they are rights protected by the Constitution even though they are not explicitly mentioned.

Capiche?

I see you don't understand that 9 UNELECTED citizens INTERPRET the Constitution..... Like trying to put a round peg in a square hole...and still have no idea what I was talking about when I said democracy!....Amusing!

Whether you understand it or not, the Constitution grants the judicial branch that power. And despite your ignorance, abortion, like the other rights I listed which were subjected to a judicial test, is a right protected by the Constitution.

It's certainly not a "right" protected by the original Constitution and the founders would NEVER have condoned infanticide in the form of abortion.

 

[Unkotare]

Like when FDR's new deal was gutted by a conservative supreme court. It provided a check on the powers of the federal government.

And of course, in true democrat style that fucking scumbag FDR decided "fuck that" and schemed to subvert the Constitution and do whatever the hell he wanted anyway. He threatened to undermine that 'check' on power by expanding the court into irrelevancy so that it would support the Wager and Social Security acts. When he was finally able to appoint Hugo Black he officially had all branches of government under his heel (or wheel, in this case). It was because the founders feared some power-mad villain like FD-fucking-R that they tried the untenable Articles of Confederation first. It ultimately falls to we citizens to provide the final check on power, if enough of us still care to.

 

[Faun]

It’s official: the feminist movement and their willing servants in the California Democratic Party are willing to see in utero females killed because they are female in order to protect their existing legal right to abortion. You can’t make an abortion omelet without breaking a few zygotes. Daniel Nussbaum of Breitbart reports:

On Tuesday, thirteen Democrats on the California State Assembly Health Committee voted down a bill that would have outlawed the practice of sex selection through abortion.
The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (AB 2336) ran into opposition by all of the Democrats on the committee, who saw the bill as a prelude to broader abortion restrictions, according to a report from LifeNews.com. Instead, Democrats introduced a resolution to condemn sex-selection abortion--but not to outlaw it.
The bill was introduced on May 6th by Assemblywoman Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield), who said in her opening testimony that "the U.N. estimates that upwards of 200 million girls around the world have been aborted merely because they were 'the wrong gender.'" She explained that countries like India and China are dominated by a male-child mentality, with mothers preferring future working men and family providers over the "burden" of baby girls.
​

The bill was defeated 13-6 on a straight party line vote.

So which party is it that has a war on women?

American Thinker ^

So it used to be that the purpose for an abortion was to allow a woman to choose based on the "right" she had "over her body" but now she can pick and choose which sex she will or will not murder? It seems that it's gone beyond the "right over the body" argument and has reached a new, unheard of level. In other words, an abortion was usually based on the following:

1) Rape
2) Incest
3) Career
4) Immaturity
5) Lack of finances
6) Desire to remain promiscuous

But all of those reasons to kill the little child were based on one of the above reasons. It seems to me that choosing to massacre a boy over a girl or choosing to burn to death a girl over a boy transcends all of the above reasons for an abortion. What's the logical argument for this new reasoning?

Who said it's a real reason. How prevalent is it?

 

[Faun]

I see you don't understand that 9 UNELECTED citizens INTERPRET the Constitution..... Like trying to put a round peg in a square hole...and still have no idea what I was talking about when I said democracy!....Amusing!

Whether you understand it or not, the Constitution grants the judicial branch that power. And despite your ignorance, abortion, like the other rights I listed which were subjected to a judicial test, is a right protected by the Constitution.

It's certainly not a "right" protected by the original Constitution and the founders would NEVER have condoned infanticide in the form of abortion.

Original Constitution? There is only one.

 

[Vigilante]

Holyfuck, Vagisil, just how rightarded are you? Laws don't have to be explicitly written in the Constitution to be Constitutional. It's one of the reason we have a judicial branch; to make such determinations.

Are you also under the delusion that other rights, such as the right to get married and have children, the right to a trial by a jury of your peers, the presumption of innocence when facing a trial; are not rights because they are not exclusively mentioned in the Constitution??

If not directly written into the Constitution, it is all INTERPRETATION by 9 UNELECTED people.... sounds like DEMOCRACY to me!

Obviously you forget the whole Checks and balances our founding fathers put in our constitution because as extremely smart men, they saw the problem with electing judges to the highest court. It could mean one side's interests are always represented if they have the money.

That's why our judges get lifetime appointments so they provide a check on the current make up of the legislative and executive branches. Like when FDR's new deal was gutted by a conservative supreme court. It provided a check on the powers of the federal government.

The judicial system in our country is the only way to ensure true democracy.

You know, that WAS a very good way of doing things BEFORE the subversive left took over control. Look at this quote from the woman that many have acknowledged to be the obomanations brain...

Now look at that last sentence "We have two judges ready to go"

That statement sums up why we can no longer rely on UNBIASED, and CONSTITUTIONAL based SCOTUS judges. CONSTITUTION and the laws currently in place. If you need it, I can go into this further, but, I believe, everyone UNDERSTANDS this line, and why it is no longer acceptable to have APPOINTED FOR LIFE justices that have agenda's that are NOT IN LINE with our Constitution, and what our Founders wanted our new country to be.

 

[Vigilante]

Aww, poor, Vagisil. Doubling down on stupid. Some of the things I listed were ruled on by the Supreme Court, which upheld their constitutionality. Lemme explain it to ya .... that means, like abortion, they are rights protected by the Constitution even though they are not explicitly mentioned.

Capiche?

I see you don't understand that 9 UNELECTED citizens INTERPRET the Constitution..... Like trying to put a round peg in a square hole...and still have no idea what I was talking about when I said democracy!....Amusing!

Whether you understand it or not, the Constitution grants the judicial branch that power. And despite your ignorance, abortion, like the other rights I listed which were subjected to a judicial test, is a right protected by the Constitution.

NO, it doesn't!!! It is only 1/3 of our system of laws. IF, as we have seen with the current regimes UNCONSTITUTIONAL changing of obumacare, the changing of dates, the WAIVERS that were NEVER part of the law, and so many other UNCONSTITUTIONAL acts by the regime, with the F&F, NSA, IRS, NSA and OTHER scandals, the court and the Constitution mean nothing to them. A feckless Congress that has NO POWER as the Senate shuts out the House, and vice versa, leaves it just a head to head confrontation between Executive and Judicial.... Their WE WILL NOT PROSECUTE THAT LAW, is directly opposite the Constitution.

So don't try with the bullshit that the Judicial is the end all in decision, as we have seen, the Executive does what he wants, and what he believes he can get away with, and NOTHING can be done about it!

You sir, are a good subversive, undoubtedly college trained, but there are others that look at situations, and see what most of the sheeple don't!

 

[JoeB131]

Like when FDR's new deal was gutted by a conservative supreme court. It provided a check on the powers of the federal government.

And of course, in true democrat style that fucking scumbag FDR decided "fuck that" and schemed to subvert the Constitution and do whatever the hell he wanted anyway. He threatened to undermine that 'check' on power by expanding the court into irrelevancy so that it would support the Wager and Social Security acts. When he was finally able to appoint Hugo Black he officially had all branches of government under his heel (or wheel, in this case). It was because the founders feared some power-mad villain like FD-fucking-R that they tried the untenable Articles of Confederation first. It ultimately falls to we citizens to provide the final check on power, if enough of us still care to.

Yeah, Fucking FDR saving the world from Fascism.

We really needed him to heed the word of some dead slave rapists about Cleetus and Billy-Bob being more qualified to provide gummit services.

 

[DriftingSand]

You mean the PILL spoils it for her? JoeB, the medical consultant to the stars!

Pills don't always work, and women don't always take them.

Although I suspect if the Funditarded Christians had their way, pills wouldn't be available, either.

Yeah, no kidding.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GApbGZiKa4"]Welfare Momma with 15 kids blames society - YouTube[/ame]

Has nothing to do with the fact that she opens her legs to every Tom, Dick, and Ice T who gives her a wink and a smile.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Democrats are sick puppies.