The Political View of Abortion

[JoeB131]

[

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

Oookay, guy, so when a company puts an unsafe product on the market because it's cheaper to pay the lawsuits than do the recall, what would you call it?

 

[Agit8r]

[

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

Oookay, guy, so when a company puts an unsafe product on the market because it's cheaper to pay the lawsuits than do the recall, what would you call it?

Nonsense. It is cheaper to hire a legion of corporate lawyers than it is to pay lawsuits.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

As it appears that I am in the business of teaching you, of providing for your education, here is the next installment.





Judges and Justices who don't understand their role frequently pass their whims and caprices as the import of the Constitution.

Those who haven't the ability to think for themselves accept whatever they say. Raise your paw.


The question at issue is whether the role of the judge is to decide cases based on what one may believe to be 'social justice,' or 'evolving standards,' or to enforce the letter of the law, of the Constitution.

The mistake is construing the Constitution in the light of evolving standards of human dignity. Recall the ‘Dred Scott v. Sandford,’ ‘Lochner v. New York,’ and ‘Korematsu v. United States’ were substantive due process decisions where the court was guided by its own ideas about what ‘human dignity’ required.

If there are lacunae or even flaws in the Constitution, Article V provides the remedy.






Justice Roberts had it right, here:

'WASHINGTON — Chief Justice nominee John Roberts said Thursday there is no room for ideologues on the Supreme Court, declaring an “obligation to the Constitution” and to no other cause as he concluded three grueling days of confirmation testimony.

“If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy’s going to win in court before me,” Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy’s going to win.”'
Roberts says he's not an ideologue - US news - The Changing Court | NBC News

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

I see you bring to each and every post the all of the accumulated knowledge that a garden gnome can accumulate.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"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.

Why is it so very many of your posts appear to come from the sulking loser in life's lottery, just hoping to peculate some of what has been accumulated by smarter, harder working, entrepreneurs?

I hope to ban nothing as a conservative.
My perspective is that this nation was based on federalism....better review the concept,...and that each of the 50 laboratories of democracy should decide for themselves.


Folk can vote with their feet. Don't care for a law in your state?
Mover to one that is more favorable.

Simple enough even for you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Now you're getting close to correct!

See...my work as proven efficacious.

Here is the necessary improvement:

It's not up to the Supreme Court to invent rights not stated in the Constitution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

'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."'


I said no such thing.

Please retract that.

 

[JoeB131]

[



Why is it so very many of your posts appear to come from the sulking loser in life's lottery, just hoping to peculate some of what has been accumulated by smarter, harder working, entrepreneurs?

Oh, no. I realize that it's all pretty fucking random and there is no reward for virtue or hard work. Some people just win the lottery. Which is fine, but when you win the lottery, you pay your fair share.

[
I hope to ban nothing as a conservative.
My perspective is that this nation was based on federalism....better review the concept,...and that each of the 50 laboratories of democracy should decide for themselves.

No, there has to be a national standard so it isn't a race to the bottom. That's the point. We kind of worked that one out in something called "The Civil War" when we decided that some states couldn't own slaves.

Folk can vote with their feet. Don't care for a law in your state?
Mover to one that is more favorable.

Simple enough even for you?

Are we still talking about abortion here? It's always kind of hard to tell with you?

The problem with having a patchwork of 50 states with 50 different abortion laws is that people with wealth can get abortions merely by buying a plane ticket and the poor will be victimized by shady operators working in back allies.

This is an improvement in your world view, how, exactly?

How about this as a concept. The government doesn't try to tell women what to do with their own bodies. If we want less of them to choose abortion, we give them less other choices.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"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

'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."'


I said no such thing.

Please retract that.

Who posted this then?

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

Hint: you click on the word 'privacy' above.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

As it appears that I am in the business of teaching you, of providing for your education, here is the next installment.





Judges and Justices who don't understand their role frequently pass their whims and caprices as the import of the Constitution.

Those who haven't the ability to think for themselves accept whatever they say. Raise your paw.


The question at issue is whether the role of the judge is to decide cases based on what one may believe to be 'social justice,' or 'evolving standards,' or to enforce the letter of the law, of the Constitution.

The mistake is construing the Constitution in the light of evolving standards of human dignity. Recall the ‘Dred Scott v. Sandford,’ ‘Lochner v. New York,’ and ‘Korematsu v. United States’ were substantive due process decisions where the court was guided by its own ideas about what ‘human dignity’ required.

If there are lacunae or even flaws in the Constitution, Article V provides the remedy.






Justice Roberts had it right, here:

'WASHINGTON — Chief Justice nominee John Roberts said Thursday there is no room for ideologues on the Supreme Court, declaring an “obligation to the Constitution” and to no other cause as he concluded three grueling days of confirmation testimony.

“If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy’s going to win in court before me,” Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy’s going to win.”'
Roberts says he's not an ideologue - US news - The Changing Court | NBC News

Nothing you posted has anything of relevance to the issue of whether or not Roe v Wade was rightly or wrongly decided.

And you took a very long winded approach to once again being irrelevant.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Folk can vote with their feet. Don't care for a law in your state?
Mover to one that is more favorable.

Simple enough even for you?

LOL, the irony of that coming from a rightwinger choosing to live in Brooklyn.

Oh that's rich.

 

[Coyote]

Why do people who claim not to look to the government for rights want to amend the Constitution to give rights to fetuses?

Just because lberals manipulated science to call a baby a fetus, doesn't take a baby's right not to be killed by his mother. If a woman wants a right to choose, maybe she should choose not to have unprotected sex, that's not the baby's fault.

You are perfectly welcome to take that "baby", implant it in your own body and raise it as your own.

 

[Coyote]

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.

No it doesn't. The majority of fertilized eggs simply get flushed from the body, never implant, or undergo natural abortion. A fertilized egg is potential. An embryo is potential. That is all.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why do people who claim not to look to the government for rights want to amend the Constitution to give rights to fetuses?

Just because lberals manipulated science to call a baby a fetus, doesn't take a baby's right not to be killed by his mother. If a woman wants a right to choose, maybe she should choose not to have unprotected sex, that's not the baby's fault.

You are perfectly welcome to take that "baby", implant it in your own body and raise it as your own.

Plant it in his head. There's obviously some free space there.

 

[Gadawg73]

Starting a new country and no laws banning abortion considered by those fine God fearing Christian founders. In fact Franklin wrote articles on how to abort. Jefferson attached no moral objections to abortion and one of the signers of Declaration of Independence Dr. Benjamin Rush spoke of late term abortions as one would speak about the common cold these days.
Amazing how naive and gullible folks are. My mistake was not running ads on Rush Limbaugh years ago. People believe that shit and listen by the millions.

 

[Toronado3800]

I just do not see the issue. Folks can be religously conservative and be against abortion.

Folks can be constitutionally conservative and tell states and the fed neither can tell me what I believe.

This and the right to die issue create strange bedfellows who let their religous or personal beliefs trumo their political beliefs.

Next thing you know the small government folks will care about who can get married in different religions!

 

[Grandma]

The OP's very full of shit.

She fails to do any historical research that overwhelmingly indicates that not only were fetuses not considered to be persons, but nor were stillbirths nor babies that died before having been baptized.

As late as the early 20th Century male children spent the first 5 years of their lives dressed as girls. This was based on a superstition that as girls are inferior an angry god wouldn't take a male child that appeared female. Denying a child's gender is scarcely identifying him as a person with free will and rights. Girls had no rights.

To this day juvenile law is not the same as adult law. Juveniles are not protected by the same rights as adults.

The Constitution itself states that 'all MEN are created equal..." a rule that was expanded upon with the rule that slaves were considered to be three-fifths of a person. Women have not been granted full equality to this day.

Then there's the First Amendment and the Separation of Church and State clause. Both prevent zealots from forcing their minority point of view on others who disagree with faith-based rules that go against their own beliefs.

So to suggest that some peoples' religious superstitions force a rule that non-sentient fetuses automatically have the same rights as adult males but that pregnant women do not is not only ridiculous, but obnoxious, as are those that make such claims.

Try to rise above your nature, and be less vulgar.
It is unbecoming.



"Then there's the First Amendment and the Separation of Church and State clause."
Further....and this may be easier....try to get an education.
There is no such clause.

Not nearly so unbecoming as to suggest that a tiny minority with absolutely no facts or logic to back up their position have the right to butt into others' personal business.

 

[editec]

I personally don't give a damn what the founders, people who declared slaves as being 3/5th of a citizen, think about a the rights of a fetus.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The OP's very full of shit.

She fails to do any historical research that overwhelmingly indicates that not only were fetuses not considered to be persons, but nor were stillbirths nor babies that died before having been baptized.

As late as the early 20th Century male children spent the first 5 years of their lives dressed as girls. This was based on a superstition that as girls are inferior an angry god wouldn't take a male child that appeared female. Denying a child's gender is scarcely identifying him as a person with free will and rights. Girls had no rights.

To this day juvenile law is not the same as adult law. Juveniles are not protected by the same rights as adults.

The Constitution itself states that 'all MEN are created equal..." a rule that was expanded upon with the rule that slaves were considered to be three-fifths of a person. Women have not been granted full equality to this day.

Then there's the First Amendment and the Separation of Church and State clause. Both prevent zealots from forcing their minority point of view on others who disagree with faith-based rules that go against their own beliefs.

So to suggest that some peoples' religious superstitions force a rule that non-sentient fetuses automatically have the same rights as adult males but that pregnant women do not is not only ridiculous, but obnoxious, as are those that make such claims.

Try to rise above your nature, and be less vulgar.
It is unbecoming.



"Then there's the First Amendment and the Separation of Church and State clause."
Further....and this may be easier....try to get an education.
There is no such clause.

Not nearly so unbecoming as to suggest that a tiny minority with absolutely no facts or logic to back up their position have the right to butt into others' personal business.

Much better.

Now...did you find that I was equally correct about there being no such clause as you've suggested?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I personally don't give a damn what the founders, people who declared slaves as being 3/5th of a citizen, think about a the rights of a fetus.

I suspect that the feeling would be mutual.