The Political View of Abortion

[jknowgood]

So liberals in the 14th century started calling the unborn 'fetuses'? lol, I don't think you're up to this conversation.

What your saying there wasn't science in the 14 century?

I'm saying that the idea that 'liberals' manipulated science to use a scientific term to identify the unborn is so stupid that if this board had even the most minimal standards prohibiting stupidity,

with only the most extremely stupid posts comprising only the top one percent of all things stupid qualifying as sufficiently stupid,

you would be banned for saying that.

Liberals love science and science has proven a fetus is a living being with a heartbeat.

 

[Agit8r]

It's pretty obvious that this issue is entirely based on the level of ignorance and/or superstition of one side.

It is little wonder that they want to perpetuate this troglodytic zealotry by doing away with education.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's sad that in the marketplace of ideas, facts are treated with so little value. The fact is that by placing authority in founding principal, she has nullified her own argument completely, because abortion existed in colonial America, and was not a political issue. I can't even understand why there is anything more to discuss here.

OK.

See ya'....

You are not going to admit that you are 100% wrong even when the PROOF is dragged out for everyone to see? That tells me that your personal integrity is zero.

What???


You said there is nothing "more to discuss here" and now you're back?????

That tells me that your personal integrity is zero.

 

[Agit8r]

OK.

See ya'....

You are not going to admit that you are 100% wrong even when the PROOF is dragged out for everyone to see? That tells me that your personal integrity is zero.

What???


You said there is nothing "more to discuss here" and now you're back?????

That tells me that your personal integrity is zero.

The matter of your OP being conclusively proven incorrect isn't up for discussion. It is now an established fact.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What your saying there wasn't science in the 14 century?

I'm saying that the idea that 'liberals' manipulated science to use a scientific term to identify the unborn is so stupid that if this board had even the most minimal standards prohibiting stupidity,

with only the most extremely stupid posts comprising only the top one percent of all things stupid qualifying as sufficiently stupid,

you would be banned for saying that.

Liberals love science and science has proven a fetus is a living being with a heartbeat.

So? If you think all abortion should be illegal then I suggest you get enough people together and amend the Constitution.

 

[chikenwing]

I think U.S. law should protect all humans in this jurisdiction.
If you believe a fetus is a human being, then how can you not extend the protection of law?

It is impractical, illogical, and irrational to ignore the meaningful differences between a fertilized human egg and a 30 year old man, or a 5 year old kid, or a 1 day old baby.

Certainly impractical would be a word you would use,irrational and illogical not so much ,for its is illogical to rationalize away the distinct similarities that exist between a fertilized egg,or 19 week old unborn little girl complete just little, and a 30 year old man.

It always turns out to be a person if let to live always.

 

[Agit8r]

I'm saying that the idea that 'liberals' manipulated science to use a scientific term to identify the unborn is so stupid that if this board had even the most minimal standards prohibiting stupidity,

with only the most extremely stupid posts comprising only the top one percent of all things stupid qualifying as sufficiently stupid,

you would be banned for saying that.

Liberals love science and science has proven a fetus is a living being with a heartbeat.

So? If you think all abortion should be illegal then I suggest you get enough people together and amend the Constitution.

Well obviously they aren't going to get that done. That is why it is sheer genius that the party that doesn't give two shits about either abortion of simple backwoods folks always says they "support" such an amendment. It is evil brilliance, really.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think U.S. law should protect all humans in this jurisdiction.
If you believe a fetus is a human being, then how can you not extend the protection of law?

It is impractical, illogical, and irrational to ignore the meaningful differences between a fertilized human egg and a 30 year old man, or a 5 year old kid, or a 1 day old baby.

Certainly impractical would be a word you would use,irrational and illogical not so much ,for its is illogical to rationalize away the distinct similarities that exist between a fertilized egg,or 19 week old unborn little girl complete just little, and a 30 year old man.

It always turns out to be a person if let to live always.

And supposedly God made man from the dust of the earth so I guess that means that housecleaning is murder.

 

[clevergirl]

I'm saying that the idea that 'liberals' manipulated science to use a scientific term to identify the unborn is so stupid that if this board had even the most minimal standards prohibiting stupidity,

with only the most extremely stupid posts comprising only the top one percent of all things stupid qualifying as sufficiently stupid,

you would be banned for saying that.

Liberals love science and science has proven a fetus is a living being with a heartbeat.

So? If you think all abortion should be illegal then I suggest you get enough people together and amend the Constitution.

The Constitution does not need an amendment to protect life... But Roe definitely needs to be re-visited by SCOTUS

The most controversial of the civil rights cases is undoubtedly Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), which has been applied in a way that effectively establishes an unwritten constitutional right to have an abortion, though the opinion of Roe itself made no such assertion directly. Roe represents a twofold failure of judicial social engineering, since it (1) applied a uniform legal solution over all the states on a highly contentious issue that opens deep moral, religious, and philosophical fissures, and (2) was poorly reasoned and not grounded in law, giving it little intellectual legitimacy. We are only going to consider the second aspect of Roe, its failing as a legal argument. Roe’s intellectual inadequacies are well known and criticized among legal scholars, even those who personally favor a right to abortion.[1] These criticisms have not reached a larger audience, however, due to the superficial coverage of legal matters by the mass media. Accordingly, we need to clear some common misconceptions before examining the opinion of Roe itself, which is often cited but seldom read.

Legal Issues of Roe v. Wade

 

[clevergirl]

And did you know?

First of all, Roe v. Wade did not legalize abortion. Before Roe, abortion on demand was already legal in several states, while it was available under restricted circumstances in many others, and all states recognized an exception to save the life of the mother. Abortion statutes gradually became liberalized in more states as social attitudes changed.[2] Roe short-circuited this development[3] by radically restricting the states’ right to regulate abortion, and effectively mandating abortion on demand for the first two trimesters. Overturning Roe would not make abortion illegal anywhere, but it would allow each state to decide for itself under what circumstances abortion is permissible. A legislative solution prevails in nearly all democratic nations, most of which have achieved a compromise reflecting the values of a pluralistic society.

Legal Issues of Roe v. Wade

 

[JoeB131]

"For the health of the mother and potential current and future health problems due to this pregnancy an abortion is warranted for this woman"
was bought for about $5,000 for millions of abortions when abortion was "illegal".
Same thing would happen again if abortion was "illegal".
NO DOCTOR anywhere would ever question it.
But we do have millions of big government supporters like Political Chic that would want GOVERNMENT to make the decision of who gets an abortion and who doesn't.
Other than the women with the 5 grand to get one of thousands of willing doctors claiming it was for "the health of the mother" in each and every instance when there is 5 grand on their table.

"....big government supporters like Political Chic....."

I've regularly found that the dumber the poster, the more quickly they pretend that they know that I believe exactly the opposite of what I say I believe.

And, of course, my premise is borne out in your post.

Considering your constellation of skills, how is it possible for you to decide whether to defecate or to wind your watch?

Actually, Gawdawg is on your side when it comes to defending corporate greed and privilage.

he just has the good sense to realize that you can't ban abortions.

But here's the sad thing. If you are a conservative because you believe greed is good and some day you hope to be one of the 1% shitting on everyone else, then I can kind of understand that. It's reprehensible, but I understand it.

If you are a "conservative" because you hope to ban gay marriage or abortion or something else to please your imaginary friend in the sky, then that's kind of pathetic.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Liberals love science and science has proven a fetus is a living being with a heartbeat.

So? If you think all abortion should be illegal then I suggest you get enough people together and amend the Constitution.

The Constitution does not need an amendment to protect life... But Roe definitely needs to be re-visited by SCOTUS

The most controversial of the civil rights cases is undoubtedly Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), which has been applied in a way that effectively establishes an unwritten constitutional right to have an abortion, though the opinion of Roe itself made no such assertion directly. Roe represents a twofold failure of judicial social engineering, since it (1) applied a uniform legal solution over all the states on a highly contentious issue that opens deep moral, religious, and philosophical fissures, and (2) was poorly reasoned and not grounded in law, giving it little intellectual legitimacy. We are only going to consider the second aspect of Roe, its failing as a legal argument. Roe’s intellectual inadequacies are well known and criticized among legal scholars, even those who personally favor a right to abortion.[1] These criticisms have not reached a larger audience, however, due to the superficial coverage of legal matters by the mass media. Accordingly, we need to clear some common misconceptions before examining the opinion of Roe itself, which is often cited but seldom read.

Legal Issues of Roe v. Wade

I've read Roe v. Wade.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And did you know?

First of all, Roe v. Wade did not legalize abortion. Before Roe, abortion on demand was already legal in several states, while it was available under restricted circumstances in many others, and all states recognized an exception to save the life of the mother. Abortion statutes gradually became liberalized in more states as social attitudes changed.[2] Roe short-circuited this development[3] by radically restricting the states’ right to regulate abortion, and effectively mandating abortion on demand for the first two trimesters. Overturning Roe would not make abortion illegal anywhere, but it would allow each state to decide for itself under what circumstances abortion is permissible. A legislative solution prevails in nearly all democratic nations, most of which have achieved a compromise reflecting the values of a pluralistic society.

Legal Issues of Roe v. Wade

It's not up to the Supreme Court to invent rights for fetuses.

 

[clevergirl]

And did you know?

First of all, Roe v. Wade did not legalize abortion. Before Roe, abortion on demand was already legal in several states, while it was available under restricted circumstances in many others, and all states recognized an exception to save the life of the mother. Abortion statutes gradually became liberalized in more states as social attitudes changed.[2] Roe short-circuited this development[3] by radically restricting the states’ right to regulate abortion, and effectively mandating abortion on demand for the first two trimesters. Overturning Roe would not make abortion illegal anywhere, but it would allow each state to decide for itself under what circumstances abortion is permissible. A legislative solution prevails in nearly all democratic nations, most of which have achieved a compromise reflecting the values of a pluralistic society.

Legal Issues of Roe v. Wade

It's not up to the Supreme Court to invent rights for fetuses.

Yes, you prove the point of "mediocre reasoning".

SCOTUS, in Roe, imposed its will over the states with a specious argument and arbitrary reasoning, that is not explicit or even implicit in the Constitution.

While over turning Roe will prove difficult, it is not impossible. And as the links author clarifies, doing so does not make abortions illegal, but rightly puts laws regarding abortion back into the hands of states where it belongs.

 

[Gadawg73]

"For the health of the mother and potential current and future health problems due to this pregnancy an abortion is warranted for this woman"
was bought for about $5,000 for millions of abortions when abortion was "illegal".
Same thing would happen again if abortion was "illegal".
NO DOCTOR anywhere would ever question it.
But we do have millions of big government supporters like Political Chic that would want GOVERNMENT to make the decision of who gets an abortion and who doesn't.
Other than the women with the 5 grand to get one of thousands of willing doctors claiming it was for "the health of the mother" in each and every instance when there is 5 grand on their table.

"....big government supporters like Political Chic....."

I've regularly found that the dumber the poster, the more quickly they pretend that they know that I believe exactly the opposite of what I say I believe.

And, of course, my premise is borne out in your post.

Considering your constellation of skills, how is it possible for you to decide whether to defecate or to wind your watch?

Actually, Gawdawg is on your side when it comes to defending corporate greed and privilage.

he just has the good sense to realize that you can't ban abortions.

But here's the sad thing. If you are a conservative because you believe greed is good and some day you hope to be one of the 1% shitting on everyone else, then I can kind of understand that. It's reprehensible, but I understand it.

If you are a "conservative" because you hope to ban gay marriage or abortion or something else to please your imaginary friend in the sky, then that's kind of pathetic.

There is no such thing as corporate greed and privilege.
That is a made up term by Lenin.

 

[Gadawg73]

And did you know?



Legal Issues of Roe v. Wade

It's not up to the Supreme Court to invent rights for fetuses.

Yes, you prove the point of "mediocre reasoning".

SCOTUS, in Roe, imposed its will over the states with a specious argument and arbitrary reasoning, that is not explicit or even implicit in the Constitution.

While over turning Roe will prove difficult, it is not impossible. And as the links author clarifies, doing so does not make abortions illegal, but rightly puts laws regarding abortion back into the hands of states where it belongs.

And it would change nothing except it allows government to force poor women to have babies they do not want and in most cases do not know how to raise.
Same as it was when it was "illegal"
Which few if any here have a clue as you are too young to know any better.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And did you know?



Legal Issues of Roe v. Wade

It's not up to the Supreme Court to invent rights for fetuses.

Yes, you prove the point of "mediocre reasoning".

SCOTUS, in Roe, imposed its will over the states with a specious argument and arbitrary reasoning, that is not explicit or even implicit in the Constitution.

While over turning Roe will prove difficult, it is not impossible. And as the links author clarifies, doing so does not make abortions illegal, but rightly puts laws regarding abortion back into the hands of states where it belongs.

States cannot make laws that violate the Constitution, in particular in this case, rights of privacy protected by the Constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"It is reasonable to assume that if the Founders had wished to make so specific a change in the common practice of the times,...."

Wrong, because you still don't have a grasp on the reason for the Constitution.

Its 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.


This disagreement serves as an excellent example of the diametrically opposed views of the Liberal big-government serf, you, who looks to government for rights,

....and the conservatives who wrote the Constitution, and those such as myself who endorse individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


If not for the indoctrination of government schooling, far more would still understand that original view.

The right of privacy is in the Constitution. To deny a woman the right to abort a fetus that itself has no constitutional protection is a violation of her privacy right.

"The right of privacy is in the Constitution."

Of course, it is not.

It was first suggested by the man who made Woodrow Wilson our first progressive President.
Brandeis, 1928, imagined a 'right to be left alone.'


It is one of those imagined by a certain variety of judge.
And accepted by folks like you who are, or pretend to be, oblivious to the amendment process.

Again, did you not recently cite the Ninth Amendment as a justification for claiming a constitutional right despite it not being explicit in the Constitution? Because afterall that is the point of the Ninth Amendment, isn't it? To be sure that it is understood that just because a right is not identified in the Constitution does not mean that it cannot be a right?

And while we're at it, do you wish to dispute the statements of PoliticalChic of yesteryear, such as the PC who said:

"A person is entitled to their privacy."

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1126479-post44.html

or the PC who started this thread complaining that Obamacare was going to violate our privacy rights?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...it-was-fun-while-it-lasted-2.html#post1041105

Then of course there's this gem from PC:

To comment directly on your incorrect analysis, the bill of rights includes
1st Amendment: Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly and Petition
2nd Amendment: Right to keep and bear arms
3rd Amendment: Quartering of soldiers
4th Amendment: Unreasonable searches; warrents
5th Amendment: Individuals rights: self-incrimination, grand jury, double jeopardy, eminent domain, due process.
6th Amendment: Rights at and right to a trial
7th Amendment: Trials by jury in civil cases.
8th Amendment: Bail; cruel and unusual punishment
9th Amendment: Enumerated rights and assumed rights (privacy?)10th Amendment: Protects powers of the States, not individuals

I'm sure she'll explain to us how that got there, lol.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...-gun-decision-more-questions.html#post2457183

 

[Gadawg73]

It's not up to the Supreme Court to invent rights for fetuses.

Yes, you prove the point of "mediocre reasoning".

SCOTUS, in Roe, imposed its will over the states with a specious argument and arbitrary reasoning, that is not explicit or even implicit in the Constitution.

While over turning Roe will prove difficult, it is not impossible. And as the links author clarifies, doing so does not make abortions illegal, but rightly puts laws regarding abortion back into the hands of states where it belongs.

States cannot make laws that violate the Constitution, in particular in this case, rights of privacy protected by the Constitution.

If Roe was overturned the states would be allowed to ban abortion and the right of privacy would not be a winnable challenge by opponents.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes, you prove the point of "mediocre reasoning".

SCOTUS, in Roe, imposed its will over the states with a specious argument and arbitrary reasoning, that is not explicit or even implicit in the Constitution.

While over turning Roe will prove difficult, it is not impossible. And as the links author clarifies, doing so does not make abortions illegal, but rightly puts laws regarding abortion back into the hands of states where it belongs.

States cannot make laws that violate the Constitution, in particular in this case, rights of privacy protected by the Constitution.

If Roe was overturned the states would be allowed to ban abortion and the right of privacy would not be a winnable challenge by opponents.

I was pointing out why Roe was right and the poster was wrong.