The Political View of Abortion

[Borillar]

1. "It is very difficult for many people to acknowledge the low intellectual and moral level to which many professors and universities have fallen. On Feb. 21, the 600 Northwestern University students enrolled in the popular Human Sexuality course taught by professor John Michael Bailey were told that if they wished to stay after class -- it was clearly made optional -- they would see a live demonstration of female ejaculation, the subject of that day's class. A naked young woman (not a student) would demonstrate a "f---saw" and come to orgasm in front of the students. About 120 students stayed.When word came out about this contribution to young people's understanding of life, the university defended it.

Its official spokesman, Al Cubbage, released this statement: "Northwestern University faculty members engage in teaching and research on a wide variety of topics, some of them controversial and at the leading edge of their respective disciplines. The university supports the efforts of its faculty to further the advancement of knowledge." …In Bailey's class and Mr. Cubbage's statement, we have reached the logical culmination of the '60s and '70s.

Instead of studying Dead White European Males, students get to study a young white living female ejaculating with a f---saw…. For four years, the American college student is taught that human beings are animals…. the exhibition is no different than watching a female baboon having sex. http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2011/03/08/the_$50,000_orgasm/page/2



2. Universities have become to Liberalism what a Christian seminary is to Christianity. The difference is that Christian seminaries acknowledge their purpose, to produce committed Christians.
Dennis Prager

a. “The purpose of a university should be to make a son as unlike his father as possible.” The University's Part in Political Life” (13 March 1909) in PWW (The Papers of Woodrow Wilson) 19:99.

You went to a university where they taught you to cut and paste the work of someone else and never to think for yourself.
Where was that?

The Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.

To be fair, PC did stick her toe in the water of thinking for herself in this thread. It did not go well for her...

...she's back on dry land.

That should be the "Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Republican Studies" or more simply LIARS.

 

[Agit8r]

Intercourse is compulsory?

For people with a pulse.

Now, this is of interest to me.
Even someone like you....those who are missing a few layers of insulation in his attic....open a door worth investigating.


The colleges and universities, the conservatories of Liberalism, teach the young that they are no different from any animal...and it is perfectly correct to behave as such.

Therefore, for folks like you and reptilelady, it is beyond imagination that one would forego sexual relations under the view that pregnancy would occur.
After all, one can simply kill the baby.
Isn't that your view?

Isn't that the logical implication of "For people with a pulse."?

Obviously humans are animals, but I don't think that anybody would claim that humans are no different from any other animal. What other animal creates evil for it's own sake?

"This is what the LORD of Heaven's Armies has declared: I have decided to settle accounts with the nation of Amalek for opposing Israel when they came from Egypt. Now go and completely destroy the entire Amalekite nation--men, women, children, babies, cattle, sheep, goats, camels, and donkeys."
-- 1 Samuel 15:2-3

No, the "lesser" animals accept necessities for individual and collective self-preservation, but only humans can aspire to virtue or conversely deprave themselves to the standard above ^

 

[Dragonlady]

Terminating a pregnancy is not "killing an individual" since the fetus is not separate from its mother and has yet to develop a personality or anything to set it apart as "indivual". All of the efforts of conservatives to paint the fetus as a baby, a child, or an individual deserving of rights separate and apart from its mother, must necesarily abrogate, curtail and deny rights to the mother who has rights and interests that should be paramount at all times, until the fetus achieves full gestation.

Any attempts to curtail a woman's self-evident, inalienable right to security of person, is a violation of her rights. I would have added "under the Constitution" but since women have no rights under the Constitution, that would be factually incorrect. The Constitution PC is so keen on following, doesn't even consider her a person with rights equal to a black man. At least male slaves were considered 3/5 of a person at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Women are still not equal to men under the law.

If conservatives want women to stop aborting babies, maybe they should reconsider universal, government funded health care, the minimum wage, paid maternity leave, and the quality of public education in the US. Countries such as Canada, and most European countries, have all of the above and abortion rates in those countries are at least 30% lower than that of the USA.

Countries with a strong social safety net, birth control education in the school, government funded health care, and paid maternity leave, all have lower abortion rates than the US. In fact, only Russia's rate of abortion is higher.

 

[NYcarbineer]

]

Its [the Constitution's] function is not to tell citizens what they can do...it is to tell government what it can do....anything not covered by the enumerated powers is beyond the scope of the federal government.


As the abortion right is not in said powers, it is not within the province of the federal government, and serves as an example of an over-stepping Supreme Court.
This is, and should be, a state decision.


.

Anyone else find the reasoning above absurdly absurd???

Read it carefully. First one who spots the absurdity wins!

 

[koshergrl]

Terminating a pregnancy is not "killing an individual" since the fetus is not separate from its mother and has yet to develop a personality or anything to set it apart as "indivual". All of the efforts of conservatives to paint the fetus as a baby, a child, or an individual deserving of rights separate and apart from its mother, must necesarily abrogate, curtail and deny rights to the mother who has rights and interests that should be paramount at all times, until the fetus achieves full gestation.

Any attempts to curtail a woman's self-evident, inalienable right to security of person, is a violation of her rights. I would have added "under the Constitution" but since women have no rights under the Constitution, that would be factually incorrect. The Constitution PC is so keen on following, doesn't even consider her a person with rights equal to a black man. At least male slaves were considered 3/5 of a person at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Women are still not equal to men under the law.

If conservatives want women to stop aborting babies, maybe they should reconsider universal, government funded health care, the minimum wage, paid maternity leave, and the quality of public education in the US. Countries such as Canada, and most European countries, have all of the above and abortion rates in those countries are at least 30% lower than that of the USA.

Countries with a strong social safety net, birth control education in the school, government funded health care, and paid maternity leave, all have lower abortion rates than the US. In fact, only Russia's rate of abortion is higher.

Having a discernible personality is not the definition of "human".

BTW, you're a liar. China's rate of abortion is higher. These are what we call "ass numbers". Thanks for sharing. Pass the febreeze, please.

 

[Dragonlady]

China isn't a first world country. Furthermore, it is a country which forces women to have an abortion if they already have a child, and where couples will chose to abort a female child and try again for a male child. The USA has none of these restrictions on bearing children.

Note how the Christian conservative doesn't say "Your figures are incorrect", she says "You're a liar!". That's because her first inclination is to lie, because the truth is always against her in this argument, and she therefore assumes everyone else lies too. Liberals don't need to lie in this debate because the facts are on our side, although sometimes we get an incomplete set of data, or we misquote. At least I admit when I'm wrong.

PC and Koshergirl fabricate stuff because there is nothing in the Bible, the Constitution, law or history to support their ideas. The truth, as in most things conservative, is not their friend.

 

[koshergrl]

You didn't say anything about first world countries. You used very loose terminology, deliberately vague.

You guys all work the same.

 

[NYcarbineer]

]

Its [the Constitution's] function is not to tell citizens what they can do...it is to tell government what it can do....anything not covered by the enumerated powers is beyond the scope of the federal government.


As the abortion right is not in said powers, it is not within the province of the federal government, and serves as an example of an over-stepping Supreme Court.
This is, and should be, a state decision.


.

Anyone else find the reasoning above absurdly absurd???

Read it carefully. First one who spots the absurdity wins!

Let me help you.

The above says that the government does not have the enumerated power of the right to an abortion.

lol

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

]

Its [the Constitution's] function is not to tell citizens what they can do...it is to tell government what it can do....anything not covered by the enumerated powers is beyond the scope of the federal government.


As the abortion right is not in said powers, it is not within the province of the federal government, and serves as an example of an over-stepping Supreme Court.
This is, and should be, a state decision.


.

Anyone else find the reasoning above absurdly absurd???

Read it carefully. First one who spots the absurdity wins!

It’s not only absurd, it’s just fundamentally ignorant and wrong.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied:

Speaking for a unanimous (7-0) Court, Chief Justice Marshall rejected the Maryland argument. The decision centered on Maryland's claim that because the Constitution was ratified by State conventions, the States were sovereign. Marshall refuted this claim, saying that the Constitution was the instrument of the people, not the States. Therefore, the Court asserted the supremacy of the Federal Constitution over the States. The Court also emphasized the importance of national supremacy. Marshall stated that “…the Government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action….”

The Court also rejected Maryland's argument that the Constitution did not explicitly allow for a national bank. Marshall's argument rested on this simple point: “…we must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding.” In other words, the Constitution was meant to be an outline of basic ideas, easily understood by the general public, and open to interpretation. Marshall went on to argue that while the powers of government are limited, the “necessary and proper” clause was meant to enlarge the ability of Congress to carry out its enumerated powers. He wrote: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional…”

Turning to Maryland's action in imposing the tax, he observed that “…the power to tax involves the power to destroy…,” and on that basis, the Court ruled that Maryland did not have the power to destroy a duly constituted institution of the Federal Government.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Since the Foundation Era it was acknowledged, settled, and understood that “but that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

The Federal Constitution is supreme, and the 4th Amendment to that Constitution states the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,” it’s impossible to imagine no greater unreasonable violation of one’s right to be secure in her person than to have the state dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not.

Last, nowhere in the Constitution do we find the words “individual right to self-defense, individual right to own a gun,’ but those rights exist nonetheless, enshrined in the Second Amendment; yet we never hear conservatives rejecting that ‘made up’ right,’ because it’s ‘not in the Constitution.’

 

[koshergrl]

Refusing to allow a woman to kill her baby is not a violation of her person.

PREGNANCY isn't a violation of one's person, any more than the digestive process is a *violation*. It's a biological function that can potentially occur after one is impregnated.

One is typically impregnanted via consensual sex.

So if she wants to be spared the "violation" of pregnancy, then she probably shouldn't choose to engage in the act that results in pregnancy.

Once you CHOOSE to engage in sex, then the results can no longer be called a "violation". It's the chance you took.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Refusing to allow a woman to kill her baby is not a violation of her person.

PREGNANCY isn't a violation of one's person, any more than the digestive process is a *violation*. It's a biological function that can potentially occur after one is impregnated.

One is typically impregnanted via consensual sex.

So if she wants to be spared the "violation" of pregnancy, then she probably shouldn't choose to engage in the act that results in pregnancy.

Once you CHOOSE to engage in sex, then the results can no longer be called a "violation". It's the chance you took.

Unless you can find constitutional rights for the fetus in the Constitution that trump a woman's constitutional right of privacy,

well, you're screwed.

 

[koshergrl]

Lol.

Yeah...a baby violates a woman's right of privacy.

Newsflash...YOUR RIGHT TO PRIVACY DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN SECRETLY MURDER PEOPLE.

 

[Dragonlady]

Refusing to allow a woman to kill her baby is not a violation of her person.

PREGNANCY isn't a violation of one's person, any more than the digestive process is a *violation*. It's a biological function that can potentially occur after one is impregnated.

Pregnancy is most definitely a violation of one's person. You are hosting a parasite which changes your physiology, causing nausea, swelling, and in the end, a lot of pain. Nothing violated my person more than my pregnancies. The whole process is so awful and gross, that if you didn't get a baby at the end of it, no woman would ever go through it.

All of the physical changes are beyond your control. Pregnancy is bad enough when you WANT to be pregnant. I can't imagine how horrible it would be if having a child was compromising your existing family, and your live children were suffering because you couldn't work.

One is typically impregnanted via consensual sex.

So if she wants to be spared the "violation" of pregnancy, then she probably shouldn't choose to engage in the act that results in pregnancy.

Once you CHOOSE to engage in sex, then the results can no longer be called a "violation". It's the chance you took.

I always find it amazing that anti-abortion people talk about living babies as "consequences" of sex. Not as human beings, not a children, but "consequences".

When you go skiing, you might get injured if you fall. If you do break a leg, you get it set and put a cast on it until it heals. You don't say "You knew the risk when you chose to go skiing. If you didn't want to limp and use a cane for the rest of your life, you should have abstained".

I know you're going to say "But setting a broken leg isn't murdering a child", well neither is having an abortion, and no matter how many times you say it won't make it so.

 

[Gadawg73]

It's so funny that these are the same loons who claim the right is "anti-education".

The right opposes education which teaches science and factual history. They want their children taught that the US is a republic not a democracy and they want history texts to portray the Founding Father as conservatives. They want creationism taught, not evolution. They even oppose Einstein's theory of relativity because it disproves creationism.

It is no accident that in every country where right wing dictators have taken over a country, the first thing they do is kill all of the university professors and the lawyers - those who both think for themselves and understand the laws and how they work, and those who teach others to do so.

IOW, conservatives don't want their children taught facts or how to think for themselves, they want their children raised to be good little conservatives. They fear that the liberals will pollute their little darlings' mind and turn them gay, or worse, Democrat.

Liberals are not afraid to teach children to think for themselves. We don't fear that meeting gay people will turn our kids gay. We don't think that exposing our children to the world's religions will turn them away from God, although that is always a risk. We believe that if we instill good values and live our lives according those values, our kids will be fine.

Some of my conservative friends have commented that my methods of child rearing have taught my children to question authority. I raised children to think for themselves. Oh the horror!

This country is a democratic republic, sort of in between but we are not a pure democracy.
Democracy is mob majority rule and the Constitution is written to protect the rights of the individual, not the majority.
The right wing conservative stretches that to mean that one religion can dominate over another in wrongly stating that this nation was founded on Christianity.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
This nation was founded on THE LAW where the foundation is the rights of the individual.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Lol.

Yeah...a baby violates a woman's right of privacy.

Newsflash...YOUR RIGHT TO PRIVACY DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN SECRETLY MURDER PEOPLE.

The Constitution doesn't view fetuses as people.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Civil marriage requires licensing or some equivalent government sanction of the marriage contract in order to be legal. Your analogy is nonsensical.

LOL! How funny.

You come with two absurd assertions ("if it hasn't been made illegal, then it must be legal" and "the law doesn't make things legal"). I respond countering that and you turn around and further disprove your own original assertions.

If, as you assert, something is legal before it's made illegal (and vice versa), then gay marriage-- much the same way you claim with abortion-- must have been legal since the founding of this nation, because there were no laws against it until twenty or so years ago. But, funny thing here. You reject your own argument when it's applied to a position you happen to agree with. I'd say I'm shocked, but I'm not. Liberals have a penchant for trying to change the rules of the proverbial game midway through once they find it doesn't suit them.

But here... I'll make it easy on you. Do you agree that something is illegal before it's legal or legal before it's illegal? It doesn't really matter which way you answer, simply because either way you're going to contradict your own argument placed forth.

Edit: By the way, I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why, if laws don't make things legal, why the hell liberals are busy trying to pass laws legalizing gay marriage?

If you can produce evidence of the laws in the colonies in the 1700's that made abortion before quickening a crime,

then by all means do so. Otherwise shut up and accept the fact that such abortions were generally LEGAL then.

Why do I need to do that? The onus is on you to prove your assertion, not in me to disprove it. That's a disingenuous way to debate.

As it stands, you cannot prove your assertion, and both you and I know this. There was no law in the legality of abortion until the 1960s; to argue otherwise is to dispute history. That leaves us with your original assertion, where you assume that X is legal until the law says it illegal, which brings me back to my original question; "when was gay marriage legal in Florida?". For if something is (generally) legal until it's made illegal, then your logic necessitates that gay marriage was at one point legal in Florida since it's now illegal here. But we all know how ridiculous that is, since gay marriage had never been legal in Florida. Just because the law hasn't expressly made something illegal doesn't mean it's legal.

I'm starting to think that maybe you had your brain sucked out while en utero, as your inability to debate is rather pathetic.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Civil marriage requires licensing or some equivalent government sanction of the marriage contract in order to be legal. Your analogy is nonsensical.

LOL! How funny.

You come with two absurd assertions ("if it hasn't been made illegal, then it must be legal" and "the law doesn't make things legal"). I respond countering that and you turn around and further disprove your own original assertions.

If, as you assert, something is legal before it's made illegal (and vice versa), then gay marriage-- much the same way you claim with abortion-- must have been legal since the founding of this nation, because there were no laws against it until twenty or so years ago. But, funny thing here. You reject your own argument when it's applied to a position you happen to agree with. I'd say I'm shocked, but I'm not. Liberals have a penchant for trying to change the rules of the proverbial game midway through once they find it doesn't suit them.

But here... I'll make it easy on you. Do you agree that something is illegal before it's legal or legal before it's illegal? It doesn't really matter which way you answer, simply because either way you're going to contradict your own argument placed forth.

Edit: By the way, I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why, if laws don't make things legal, why the hell liberals are busy trying to pass laws legalizing gay marriage?

If abortion wasn't legal in the 18th century, why were states passing laws to make it illegal in the 19th?

I'd like to answer your question with a question. If gay marriage wasn't legal in the U.S. at some point, then why have some states banned it? Indeed, the first ban on gay marriage preceded any state legalizing it. Obviously, that must mean gay marriage was legal I'm the U.S. prior, right?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Lol.

Yeah...a baby violates a woman's right of privacy.

Newsflash...YOUR RIGHT TO PRIVACY DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN SECRETLY MURDER PEOPLE.

Neither an embryo nor fetus is the source of the privacy rights violation, the state violates the right to privacy by attempting to dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not.

The right to privacy places a limit on government authority and safeguards individual liberty.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Lol.

Yeah...a baby violates a woman's right of privacy.

Newsflash...YOUR RIGHT TO PRIVACY DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN SECRETLY MURDER PEOPLE.

Neither an embryo nor fetus is the source of the privacy rights violation, the state violates the right to privacy by attempting to dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not.

The right to privacy places a limit on government authority and safeguards individual liberty.

Here in the U.S., a state has never dictated whether a woman may or may not have a child. This isn't China. How are you going to argue something you don't seem to understand?

 

[NYcarbineer]

LOL! How funny.

You come with two absurd assertions ("if it hasn't been made illegal, then it must be legal" and "the law doesn't make things legal"). I respond countering that and you turn around and further disprove your own original assertions.

If, as you assert, something is legal before it's made illegal (and vice versa), then gay marriage-- much the same way you claim with abortion-- must have been legal since the founding of this nation, because there were no laws against it until twenty or so years ago. But, funny thing here. You reject your own argument when it's applied to a position you happen to agree with. I'd say I'm shocked, but I'm not. Liberals have a penchant for trying to change the rules of the proverbial game midway through once they find it doesn't suit them.

But here... I'll make it easy on you. Do you agree that something is illegal before it's legal or legal before it's illegal? It doesn't really matter which way you answer, simply because either way you're going to contradict your own argument placed forth.

Edit: By the way, I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why, if laws don't make things legal, why the hell liberals are busy trying to pass laws legalizing gay marriage?

If you can produce evidence of the laws in the colonies in the 1700's that made abortion before quickening a crime,

then by all means do so. Otherwise shut up and accept the fact that such abortions were generally LEGAL then.

Why do I need to do that? The onus is on you to prove your assertion, not in me to disprove it. That's a disingenuous way to debate.

As it stands, you cannot prove your assertion, and both you and I know this. There was no law in the legality of abortion until the 1960s; to argue otherwise is to dispute history. That leaves us with your original assertion, where you assume that X is legal until the law says it illegal, which brings me back to my original question; "when was gay marriage legal in Florida?". For if something is (generally) legal until it's made illegal, then your logic necessitates that gay marriage was at one point legal in Florida since it's now illegal here. But we all know how ridiculous that is, since gay marriage had never been legal in Florida. Just because the law hasn't expressly made something illegal doesn't mean it's legal.I'm starting to think that maybe you had your brain sucked out while en utero, as your inability to debate is rather pathetic.

IOW you have no evidence of laws making early term abortion illegal throughout the colonies in the 18th century, and yet you claim it was illegal.

To the highlighted:

Name anything that is illegal that was not made illegal by law.

Name anything that has not been made illegal by law that is illegal anyway.

And don't say 'gay marriage'. Gay marriage was made illegal whenever and wherever marriage laws were passed,

giving some forms of marriage legal recognition under the law, but excluding same sex marriages.