Misguided Democrats - Wendy Davis and Abortion

[Adelaide]

The Democratic star du jour was asked this week to explain the difference between the late-term abortions she fought to keep legal in Texas and the illegal killings by Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell. “I don’t know what happened in the Gosnell case,” she told the Weekly Standard’s John McCormack (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/wendy-davis-i-dont-know-what-happened-gosnell-case_742625.html), who cornered her after her National Press Club speech on Monday.

This is incredible. After all, Davis is the state senator who held an 11-hour filibuster to fight legislation drafted in response to the abuses at Gosnell’s clinic. A passing knowledge of the case seems like basic due diligence.

She went on: “But I do know that [Gosnell] happened in an ambulatory surgical center. And in Texas changing our clinics to that standard obviously isn’t going to make a difference.” It takes real skill to pack so many falsehoods into so few words.

...

At one point in his interview, McCormack asked Davis what she made of the fact a majority of women (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/08/02/guess-who-likes-the-gops-20-week-abortion-ban-women/?tid=pm_politics_pop) support late-term abortion bans. Davis told him, “I…think that a lot of people don’t really understand the landscape of what’s happening in that arena today and what an incredibly small percentage of procedures take place there.”

Actually, the people who “don’t really understand” the issue are the Democratic ladies crusading against laws the majority of the country supports.

Despite frequently mocking anti-abortion activists as anti-science know-nothings, abortion rights absolutists are the ones who play fast and loose with the facts of abortion. Because they are so rarely asked to defend their positions, Davis and her ilk apparently don’t feel the need to be informed. Follow-up questions to their strange and often empirically false statements are almost nonexistent, while offensive or misinformed comments from GOP back benchers are greeted with full-scale media hysteria.



On Abortion, Wendy Davis Doesn't Know What She's Talking About - The Daily Mail (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/08/on-abortion-wendy-davis-doesn-t-know-what-she-s-talking-about.html)

First, I'm happy to see the Daily Mail covering this. I've always gotten the impression that they often villainize Republicans/conservatives, (whether right or wrong) so for them to post an article like this and to cover this issue is great in my opinion.

So Wendy Davis is basically a hero to pro-choice activists. Her pink sneakers and 11 hour filibuster was highly covered and largely supported by those activists and women's rights advocates. But as it turns out, she actually knows very little about what she was supporting and according to the article, she isn't the only Democrat female to demonstrate it demonstrate a lack of knowledge on abortion - Nancy Pelosi is also featured as following incorrect information to support her views.

The article also says that because anti-Abortion activists often "play fast and lose" with scientific facts that supporters of abortion rights fail to actually gather correct information, and I would suggest that this is because they are basically more comfortable just pointing out the flaws of the arguments of the anti-abortion activists.

The article also notes that when a Republican makes an ignorant and ill-informed comment about abortion, the media covers it enthusiastically while mostly ignoring when Democrats do it.

Anyways, I found the article very interesting.

[jillian]

i'd think in part that's because IF (assuming the assertion is true) democrats make ill-informed comments, it's because those comments don't try to take away anyone's rights.

although i don't see where that's been done. and it's so easy when idiots say things like "a rape kit 'cleans you out'" and "takes care" of pregnancy risk.

no where to go after dumbass things like that but up.

[Cigar]

The one thing Abortion Laws don't do is prevent Abortions for happening.

They only make Abortions Dangerous.

Period!

[Adelaide]

i'd think in part that's because IF (assuming the assertion is true) democrats make ill-informed comments, it's because those comments don't try to take away anyone's rights.

although i don't see where that's been done. and it's so easy when idiots say things like "a rape kit 'cleans you out'" and "takes care" of pregnancy risk.

no where to go after dumbass things like that but up.

True, but rebuttals shouldn't just be, "You're a dumb ass," even if it's true and satisfying. If pro-choice supporters and activists want to make their point they need to know their point, not just know how to put out idiocy by the few to many social conservatives that come out with the silliest, unscientific scrap ever. Wendy Davis and Nancy Pelosi being unable to answer questions about their positions is almost as "dumb ass" as proclaiming rape doesn't result in pregnancy. If you have a stance, you should know why.

[peoshi]

The one thing Abortion Laws don't do is prevent Abortions for happening.

They only make Abortions Dangerous.

Period!

And laws against murder do not prevent murder, the Texas law does not outlaw abortion so what is your point?

What is the difference between an abortion and a third party killing a fetus in the womb? Because the mother lacked the courage to do it herself? Or didn't want to?

Either it is a person or it is not, so which is it?


John Andrew Welden is charged with the murder of a person who was never born.


As Tampa’s WFTS-TV news reports, Welden is facing first-degree murder charges for allegedly giving his pregnant girlfriend Remee Lee an abortion pill and telling her it was an antibiotic. Welden worked in his father’s Florida clinic, a “specialty infertility practice.” When Lee began bleeding and experiencing cramps, she went to her local hospital, where doctors informed her the container labeled as amoxicillin was in fact the labor-inducing Cytotec. The fetus died in utero. “I was never going to do anything but go full term with it,” she told reporters this week. “And he didn’t want me to.” It’s an appalling tale, which will once again force us to ponder what constitutes a human life — and when one has taken it.


http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/is_killing_a_fetus_murder/



This man is charged with first-degree murder for aborting his own child without telling the mother.

If the mother aborted the child without telling the father she would not be charged at all...why is that?

Please note I am not defending the guy, I think what he did was inexcusable, just wondering how one can be first-degree murder and the other is no crime at all

simply because of gender?

[Chris]

i'd think in part that's because IF (assuming the assertion is true) democrats make ill-informed comments, it's because those comments don't try to take away anyone's rights.

although i don't see where that's been done. and it's so easy when idiots say things like "a rape kit 'cleans you out'" and "takes care" of pregnancy risk.

no where to go after dumbass things like that but up.

Progressive liberals like you use government to coerce your denial of the unborn their rights while you selfishly demand protection of yours.

[Chris]

True, but rebuttals shouldn't just be, "You're a dumb ass," even if it's true and satisfying. If pro-choice supporters and activists want to make their point they need to know their point, not just know how to put out idiocy by the few to many social conservatives that come out with the silliest, unscientific scrap ever. Wendy Davis and Nancy Pelosi being unable to answer questions about their positions is almost as "dumb ass" as proclaiming rape doesn't result in pregnancy. If you have a stance, you should know why.

You just won't find that attitude in some emotionally fanatical progressives.

But to your topic. And I think some will find this a surprising view, but not the first time I've expressed it.

Regarding this TX state rep, Davis, dem or not, lib or not, I actually admire her. She stood up for her beliefs, her principles. She brought a government to its knees with defiant, no compromise filibuster. That's how government should work, not for the majority but the minority.

I am anti-abortion as much as she is pro-abortion but government should have absolutely nothing to to say about abortion until society itself settles the issue.

So more power to her.

She reminds me of Justice Ginsberg's recent rejection of Roe v Wade on similar grounds, of the Court's recent rejection of DOMA and the Voting Rights Act.

AMENDMENT X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[jillian]

You just won't find that attitude in some emotionally fanatical progressives.

But to your topic. And I think some will find this a surprising view, but not the first time I've expressed it.

Regarding this TX state rep, Davis, dem or not, lib or not, I actually admire her. She stood up for her beliefs, her principles. She brought a government to its knees with defiant, no compromise filibuster. That's how government should work, not for the majority but the minority.

I am anti-abortion as much as she is pro-abortion but government should have absolutely nothing to to say about abortion until society itself settles the issue.

So more power to her.

She reminds me of Justice Ginsberg's recent rejection of Roe v Wade on similar grounds, of the Court's recent rejection of DOMA and the Voting Rights Act.

AMENDMENT X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


in one breath you say government should work for the minority...

in the next, you say "society" (e.g., the MAJORITY) should "decide" the issue of reproductive choice.

notice a problem there?

constitutional rights are not up for pubic vote. that's the point of them... they protect even unpopular things. no. they ESPECIALLY protect unpopular things because popular things DON'T NEED PROTECTION.

the constitution does not exist to keep government small. it exists to amplify the rights of the individual...not contract them

[Agravan]

in one breath you say government should work for the minority...

in the next, you say "society" (e.g., the MAJORITY) should "decide" the issue of reproductive choice.

notice a problem there?

constitutional rights are not up for pubic vote. that's the point of them... they protect even unpopular things. no. they ESPECIALLY protect unpopular things because popular things DON'T NEED PROTECTION.

the constitution does not exist to keep government small. it exists to amplify the rights of the individual...not contract them

Where does the Constitution specifically protect abortion rights?

[Mr Happy]

Where does the Constitution specifically protect abortion rights?

Roe Vs Wade....

[Chloe]

Where does the Constitution specifically protect or deny abortion rights?

I added in a couple of words to your quote. The thing about the constitution is that things can be added or adjusted to it. Although there may not be anything specifically protecting abortion like you were asking there is also nothing really denying it in the constitution either. Plus consider that back when it was originally written abortion probably wasn't the hot topic that it kindof is now and so with times changing interpretations can change and new amendments can be added. Plus the states can adjust their own constitutions I'm sure too.

[peoshi]

Roe Vs Wade....
Wrong.

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.

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.

Roe imposed one extreme view of the abortion issue upon everyone in the U.S., disenfranchising half the nation and radicalizing social and religious conservatives. A nation without Roe would not only be prudent, but it would also be lawful, as the U.S. Constitution says nothing about abortion, entrusting the sovereign states and their constituents to regulate this issue just as they are trusted to legislate the serious matters of murder, manslaughter, and larceny, and to set penalties for each. It is difficult to coherently justify the judicial overreaching of Roe without allowing the federal courts to set policy for every other aspect of criminal law.

Contrary to popular perception, the majority opinion in Roe did not affirm a constitutional right to privacy, much less a right to have an abortion. The Court attempted to define the extent to which the interests of the state could regulate this particular sphere of personal privacy, without denying the principle that the state could regulate any private sphere, with sufficient cause. While denying an unqualified right to privacy or right to do what one pleases with one’s body, the Court nonetheless found that in this particular case the state had insufficient cause to intrude in this private sphere. The Court applied a high “compelling state interest” standard, contrary to established practice for Due Process cases. This and other specious reasoning enabled the Court to strike down all of Texas’ criminal abortion statutes and to establish an arbitrary trimestral scheme for future abortion legislation. In the companion case, Doe v. Bolton 410 U.S. 179 (1973), the Court’s majority interpreted a woman’s “health” broadly enough to effectively enable abortion on demand at any stage of fetal development.[4]

With its decisions in Roe and Doe, the Supreme Court effectively established abortion as a fundamental right, even though such a notion was unknown to earlier jurisprudence and foreign to the minds of most Americans in 1973.


http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/histpoli/roe.htm

[Mr Happy]

Wrong.

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.

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.

Roe imposed one extreme view of the abortion issue upon everyone in the U.S., disenfranchising half the nation and radicalizing social and religious conservatives. A nation without Roe would not only be prudent, but it would also be lawful, as the U.S. Constitution says nothing about abortion, entrusting the sovereign states and their constituents to regulate this issue just as they are trusted to legislate the serious matters of murder, manslaughter, and larceny, and to set penalties for each. It is difficult to coherently justify the judicial overreaching of Roe without allowing the federal courts to set policy for every other aspect of criminal law.

Contrary to popular perception, the majority opinion in Roe did not affirm a constitutional right to privacy, much less a right to have an abortion. The Court attempted to define the extent to which the interests of the state could regulate this particular sphere of personal privacy, without denying the principle that the state could regulate any private sphere, with sufficient cause. While denying an unqualified right to privacy or right to do what one pleases with one’s body, the Court nonetheless found that in this particular case the state had insufficient cause to intrude in this private sphere. The Court applied a high “compelling state interest” standard, contrary to established practice for Due Process cases. This and other specious reasoning enabled the Court to strike down all of Texas’ criminal abortion statutes and to establish an arbitrary trimestral scheme for future abortion legislation. In the companion case, Doe v. Bolton 410 U.S. 179 (1973), the Court’s majority interpreted a woman’s “health” broadly enough to effectively enable abortion on demand at any stage of fetal development.[4]

With its decisions in Roe and Doe, the Supreme Court effectively established abortion as a fundamental right, even though such a notion was unknown to earlier jurisprudence and foreign to the minds of most Americans in 1973.


http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/histpoli/roe.htm

Nice link from a blog with somebody's opinion.

And no, I'm right....

[zelmo1234]

Roe Vs Wade....

Not in the constitution! And if we can get another case to this court, it is likely that Roe vs Wade, will be over turned and sent back to the state as a states rights issue

[zelmo1234]

I added in a couple of words to your quote. The thing about the constitution is that things can be added or adjusted to it. Although there may not be anything specifically protecting abortion like you were asking there is also nothing really denying it in the constitution either. Plus consider that back when it was originally written abortion probably wasn't the hot topic that it kindof is now and so with times changing interpretations can change and new amendments can be added. Plus the states can adjust their own constitutions I'm sure too.

All I can say if there is a god in heaven, and I believe that the is, he will have all of the unborn children torment those that supported there death for any and all reasons for eternity!

If we had a 911 attack everyday, we would be screaming for justice and for help?

http://www.northbynorthwestern.com/story/are-there-really-3700-abortions-each-day-in-the-us/

Well there is a community that has a 911 everyday. They just have no voice to scream with!

And a nations that supports this??? Well in my opinion will never be blessed

[Mainecoons]

That wasn't the Constitution, that was a liberal court rewriting it.

[Agravan]

I added in a couple of words to your quote. The thing about the constitution is that things can be added or adjusted to it. Although there may not be anything specifically protecting abortion like you were asking there is also nothing really denying it in the constitution either. Plus consider that back when it was originally written abortion probably wasn't the hot topic that it kindof is now and so with times changing interpretations can change and new amendments can be added. Plus the states can adjust their own constitutions I'm sure too.
Never said there was. jillian and other liberals proclaim it as a Constitutional right, but it's not. The Supreme Court cannot grant or deny Constitutional right without an amendment. You guys keep whining about government staying out of your bedrooms, but here you are inviting government into your wombs.

[junie]

Roe v. Wade (1973) ruled unconstitutional a state law that banned abortions except to save the life of the mother. The Court ruled that the states were forbidden from outlawing or regulating any aspect of abortion performed during the first trimester of pregnancy, could only enact abortion regulations reasonably related to maternal health in the second and third trimesters, and could enact abortion laws protecting the life of the fetus only in the third trimester. Even then, an exception had to be made to protect the life of the mother.


In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/robes_blackmun.html) (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws...

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_roe.html

[Mainecoons]

That's correct, Chloe. The process to add things to the Constitution is the "Amendment" process. It is not the "liberal court rewrite" process.

[junie]

Progressive liberals like you use government to coerce your denial of the unborn their rights while you selfishly demand protection of yours.


:rollseyes:


In 1950 Blackmun became general counsel to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, serving until 1959, when President Dwight Eisenhower appointed him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. In 1970 President Richard Nixon nominated him to the Supreme Court. A lifelong Republican, unassuming and intelligent, Blackmun had a reputation as hardworking and conservative.

[Chris]

in one breath you say government should work for the minority...

in the next, you say "society" (e.g., the MAJORITY) should "decide" the issue of reproductive choice.

notice a problem there?

constitutional rights are not up for pubic vote. that's the point of them... they protect even unpopular things. no. they ESPECIALLY protect unpopular things because popular things DON'T NEED PROTECTION.

the constitution does not exist to keep government small. it exists to amplify the rights of the individual...not contract them

You seem to have trouble reading an entire post for meaning. So, it seems, you chop it up into chunks you then twist. The contradiction is thus in your head, not my post.

The meaning of my post was simple, even though I disagree with her position, I admire the way she defined government meddling in a social issue.


Now let's look at your opinion:


constitutional rights are not up for pubic vote. that's the point of them... they protect even unpopular things. no. they ESPECIALLY protect unpopular things because popular things DON'T NEED PROTECTION.

Here you confuse rights with protections. That a serious deep-seated misunderstanding. There are rights, such as the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Then there are protections, be it self-defense of rights or the people creating government for the purpose of protecting their rights. See the difference?


the constitution does not exist to keep government small. it exists to amplify the rights of the individual...not contract them

Again, the one who arrogantly claims to be a Constitutional scholar and puts others down for it, makes an obvious, no, glaring error concerning the Constitution. Go look at the Constitution. Then come back and cite the body of the Constitution where it says anything remotely like your opinion.

[Chris]

Where does the Constitution specifically protect abortion rights?


Roe Vs Wade....

Good lord, do you even know what the Constitution is? Have you ever even read it?

[Chris]

Where does the Constitution specifically protect abortion rights?


I added in a couple of words to your quote. The thing about the constitution is that things can be added or adjusted to it. Although there may not be anything specifically protecting abortion like you were asking there is also nothing really denying it in the constitution either. Plus consider that back when it was originally written abortion probably wasn't the hot topic that it kindof is now and so with times changing interpretations can change and new amendments can be added. Plus the states can adjust their own constitutions I'm sure too.

Chloe, if the Constitution says nothing granting a power or prohibiting violation of a right, then the 10th Amendment applies:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Study that a minute. It gives a precise summary of the Constitution. There is a body to it and that body grants or delegates to government from the people certain, enumerated powers. There are amendments to it and those amendments enumerate prohibitions on government by the people. Period. The people grant government limited powers and prohibit certain powers. Period. There is no, as some argue, granting or prohibiting of rights.

Yes, you can add more amendments to either grant government more powers or prohibit it from violating rights.

You cannot create rights with it for that would undermine the entire basis of the people with inalienable rights granting government powers or prohibiting it from violating rights.

[Chris]

Nice link from a blog with somebody's opinion.

And no, I'm right....

Mere ad hom followed by appeal to authority. What a waste of space--the post, not you, of course.

[Chris]

:rollseyes:


In 1950 Blackmun became general counsel to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, serving until 1959, when President Dwight Eisenhower appointed him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. In 1970 President Richard Nixon nominated him to the Supreme Court. A lifelong Republican, unassuming and intelligent, Blackmun had a reputation as hardworking and conservative.

I'm familiar with his biography, thank you. :icon_scratch:

[junie]

I'm familiar with his biography, thank you. :icon_scratch:



so why do you repeatedly describe a conservative supreme court opinion in terms of a supposed 'progressive coercion'...? :loco:




Progressive liberals like you use government to coerce your denial of the unborn their rights while you selfishly demand protection of yours.




:rollseyes:


In 1950 Blackmun became general counsel to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, serving until 1959, when President Dwight Eisenhower appointed him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. In 1970 President Richard Nixon nominated him to the Supreme Court. A lifelong Republican, unassuming and intelligent, Blackmun had a reputation as hardworking and conservative.





Roe v. Wade (1973) ruled unconstitutional a state law that banned abortions except to save the life of the mother. The Court ruled that the states were forbidden from outlawing or regulating any aspect of abortion performed during the first trimester of pregnancy, could only enact abortion regulations reasonably related to maternal health in the second and third trimesters, and could enact abortion laws protecting the life of the fetus only in the third trimester. Even then, an exception had to be made to protect the life of the mother.


In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/robes_blackmun.html) (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws...

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt...dmark_roe.html (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_roe.html)

[junie]

You just won't find that attitude in some emotionally fanatical progressives.

But to your topic. And I think some will find this a surprising view, but not the first time I've expressed it.

Regarding this TX state rep, Davis, dem or not, lib or not, I actually admire her. She stood up for her beliefs, her principles. She brought a government to its knees with defiant, no compromise filibuster. That's how government should work, not for the majority but the minority.

I am anti-abortion as much as she is pro-abortion but government should have absolutely nothing to to say about abortion until society itself settles the issue.

So more power to her.

She reminds me of Justice Ginsberg's recent rejection of Roe v Wade on similar grounds, of the Court's recent rejection of DOMA and the Voting Rights Act.

AMENDMENT X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.



the state government in texas had something to say and a citizen stood up for herself against the government intrusion of her privacy.

the powers delegated by the constitution determined that the state government was out of bounds!


being rigidly "anti- abortion" means YOU want to use government coercion in a constitutionally protected private situation.

[Chris]

Where does the Constitution specifically protect abortion rights?


so why do you repeatedly describe a conservative supreme court opinion in terms of a supposed 'progressive coercion'...? :loco:










Roe v. Wade (1973) ruled unconstitutional a state law that banned abortions except to save the life of the mother. The Court ruled that the states were forbidden from outlawing or regulating any aspect of abortion performed during the first trimester of pregnancy, could only enact abortion regulations reasonably related to maternal health in the second and third trimesters, and could enact abortion laws protecting the life of the fetus only in the third trimester. Even then, an exception had to be made to protect the life of the mother.


In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/robes_blackmun.html) (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws...

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt...dmark_roe.html (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_roe.html)




Because the decision followed then and is followed by now is progressive opinion.

[Chris]

the state government in texas had something to say and a citizen stood up for herself against the government intrusion of her privacy.

the powers delegated by the constitution determined that the state government was out of bounds!


being rigidly "anti- abortion" means YOU want to use government coercion in a constitutionally protected private situation.




the powers delegated by the constitution

Please cite the relevant text of the Constitution. Should be easy, it's a short document.



being rigidly "anti- abortion" means YOU want to use government coercion in a constitutionally protected private situation.

It's nice that you speak for me and make up what I think, but it is utterly false.

[junie]

i'm beginning to think chris must be a bot... could anyone possibly be so consistently disingenuous? :dontknow:

[jillian]

i'm beginning to think chris must be a bot... could anyone possibly be so consistently disingenuous? :dontknow:

And consistently wrong.

[Chris]

i'm beginning to think chris must be a bot... could anyone possibly be so consistently disingenuous? :dontknow:

It's amazing that someone can blatantly violate rules here and get away with it. Do you never tire of your personal attacks, junie? Every time we start to discuss a topic, you stoop immediately to personal attack. You do realize, don't you, the misattribution errors say everything about your character and nothing about me. Such personal attacks, in effect, only serve to hoist your own petard.

[Chris]

And consistently wrong.

And there's that continuing posted arrogance of a self-proclaimed expert who can't get past telling everyone she's right and they're wrong, past that to ever actually arguing her opinion.

[Kalkin]

AMENDMENT X

You rang?

[Chris]

You rang?

Hopefully a death knell for some of the foolish liberal arguments about the Constitution here.

[peoshi]

Nice link from a blog with somebody's opinion.

And no, I'm right....

No...you're not:


JUSTICE SCALIA: 'THE CONSTITUTION SAYS NOTHING ABOUT ABORTION'



Attempting to charge Scalia with inappropriately allowing his conservative ideology and Catholic faith to influence his interpretation of the Constitution, Morgan asserted, “Clearly, as a conservative Catholic, you’re going to be fundamentally against abortion. How do you, as a conservative Catholic, how do you not bring your personal sense of what is right or wrong to that kind of decision?”
Justice Scalia countered, “Regardless of what my views as a Catholic are, the Constitution says nothing about it…the Constitution, in fact, says nothing at all about the subject.”

Scalia added that the theory of “substantive due process,” upon which the final Roe v. Wade decision was based, is “simply a lie.”

Scalia said, “My view is that regardless of whether you think prohibiting abortion is good or whether you think prohibiting abortion is bad--regardless of how you come out on that--my only point is the Constitution does not say anything about it. It leaves it up to democratic choice. Some states prohibited it, and some states didn’t. What Roe v. Wade said was that no state can prohibit it.”



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj_MhS2u-Pk

[jillian]

Wrong

your rightwing blogger is wrong.

the constitution doesn't exist in a vacuum but terms are defined by caselaw. THAT is what a common law system is.

thanks for your "opinion" on the subject, but my essential right to exercise dominion over my own body was never supposed to be up for grabs by extremist religious right states' activists.

which is why no matter how many times old men pass laws like they did in texas or ohio or north carolina... where they should know how to read a supreme court case despite having their heads up their butts.... pass abusive laws intended to humiliate women, the supreme court will strike them down.

well... unless and until some rightwinger destroys the court for generations with more ethically challenged incompetents like clarence thomas.

[jillian]

No...you're not:



yes... he is.

and scalia is one opinion... which is in the minority (thank G-d).

but again, thanks for your "opinion"

[peoshi]

yes... he is.

and scalia is one opinion... which is in the minority (thank G-d).

but again, thanks for your "opinion"

It's not my "opinion" dumbass,...its a fact.

Your "opinion" doesn't mean shit to me, and scalia is not a right-wing blogger, nor is it his "opinion"...it's a fact.

The amendments you and others have cited would also make prostitution legal,idiot...yet it is not.

If you can point out where abortion is mentioned in the constitution then do so...otherwise STFU!



waiting to be banned or warned.

[Chris]

It's not my "opinion" dumbass,...its a fact.

Your "opinion" doesn't mean shit to me, and scalia is not a right-wing blogger, nor is it his "opinion"...it's a fact.

The amendments you and others have cited would also make prostitution legal,idiot...yet it is not.

If you can point out where abortion is mentioned in the constitution then do so...otherwise STFU!



waiting to be banned or warned.



Careful, don't let her troll you into a warning. The fact she cannot even put forth an argument let alone cite the Constitution to support her opinion speaks for itself.

[peoshi]

Careful, don't let her troll you into a warning. The fact she cannot even put forth an argument let alone cite the Constitution to support her opinion speaks for itself.

Thanks for your concern,Chris...but I really don't care.

Stupidity should be pointed out, regardless of what the mods think.:angry:

[zelmo1234]

your rightwing blogger is wrong.

the constitution doesn't exist in a vacuum but terms are defined by caselaw. THAT is what a common law system is.

thanks for your "opinion" on the subject, but my essential right to exercise dominion over my own body was never supposed to be up for grabs by extremist religious right states' activists.

which is why no matter how many times old men pass laws like they did in texas or ohio or north carolina... where they should know how to read a supreme court case despite having their heads up their butts.... pass abusive laws intended to humiliate women, the supreme court will strike them down.

well... unless and until some rightwinger destroys the court for generations with more ethically challenged incompetents like clarence thomas.

RACIST!

by the way who gets to tell the late term abortion kids that get there brains sucked out, what to do with their bodies?

What court case protects them?

[zelmo1234]

yes... he is.

and scalia is one opinion... which is in the minority (thank G-d).

but again, thanks for your "opinion"

Actually the current court could very well allow for a lot of restrictions on abortions?

So it will be great to see some of these cases working there way through the system.

[Chris]

Actually the current court could very well allow for a lot of restrictions on abortions?

So it will be great to see some of these cases working there way through the system.

If that were to happen you'd suddenly see legal positivists like jillian and her fellow travelers abandon their legal positivist argument, like they did in the Zimmerman case.

[Dr. Who]

That's correct, Chloe. The process to add things to the Constitution is the "Amendment" process. It is not the "liberal court rewrite" process.Yes but interpreting the Constitution in the context of everything not enumerated in the Constitution is the role of the Courts.

[Chris]

Yes but interpreting the Constitution in the context of everything not enumerated in the Constitution is the role of the Courts.

No, not really, who. There's a difference between interpreting the Constitution when applying it to cases before the Court, and interpreting it to in effect change what it means. The one, while not in the Constitution, was decided in Marbury v Madison. The other is pure judicial activism.

[Dr. Who]

No, not really, who. There's a difference between interpreting the Constitution when applying it to cases before the Court, and interpreting it to in effect change what it means. The one, while not in the Constitution, was decided in Marbury v Madison. The other is pure judicial activism.If the judiciary who are appointed to the Supreme Court do not interpret the Constitution in an unbiased fashion, then it is up to the people to demand that they be replaced. Until that happens, their rulings are effectively the law. The manner and fashion of judicial appointments are an equal opportunity activity of either party in power.

[jillian]

RACIST!

by the way who gets to tell the late term abortion kids that get there brains sucked out, what to do with their bodies?

What court case protects them?

Laughing at you for the racist BS because it makes you sound absurd.

Thanks re the stupidity about dilation and extraction.. Old men who want to control and humiliate women always talk about that. Yet the numbers are negligible and the procedure is done when the child is either going to die from something like hydrocephalus or causes a risk to the life of the mother. And really? Heck with anyone who thinks they should get between a doctor and his/her patient in a circumstance like that.

You think some old rightwing extremist politician is better able to make those determinations than a doctor and his patient? You don't even think you should have to buy two 15 oz sodas to feed your face instead of sucking down a 30 oz one, but you think government should make intimate medical decisions?

i have an idea. Lets just agree you shouldn't be making other people's medical decisions for them. Mmmkay?

[jillian]

If the judiciary who are appointed to the Supreme Court do not interpret the Constitution in an unbiased fashion, then it is up to the people to demand that they be replaced. Until that happens, their rulings are effectively the law. The manner and fashion of judicial appointments are an equal opportunity activity of either party in power.

They can't be replaced. That's the point. They are on the bench for life. And if you asked "the people" if there should be Jim Crow laws, "the people" in those lovely states where it was outlawed would vote "yes".

Which is why the court is there to tell "the people" to piss off sometimes.

[Venus]

Laughing at you for the racist BS because it makes you sound absurd.

Thanks re the stupidity about dilation and extraction.. Old men who want to control and humiliate women always talk about that. Yet the numbers are negligible and the procedure is done when the child is either going to die from something like hydrocephalus or causes a risk to the life of the mother. And really? Heck with anyone who thinks they should get between a doctor and his/her patient in a circumstance like that.

You think some old rightwing extremist politician is better able to make those determinations than a doctor and his patient? You don't even think you should have to buy two 15 oz sodas to feed your face instead of sucking down a 30 oz one, but you think government should make intimate medical decisions?

i have an idea. Lets just agree you shouldn't be making other people's medical decisions for them. Mmmkay?


Is abortion the only time government should stay out of your vagina? Or only right wing extremist should stay out of your vagina?

What joke. I support Obamacare but damn it you right wing nuts stay out of my vagina!



Funny, not in a ha ha kinda way but in a really sad partisan kinda way.

[Chris]

If the judiciary who are appointed to the Supreme Court do not interpret the Constitution in an unbiased fashion, then it is up to the people to demand that they be replaced. Until that happens, their rulings are effectively the law. The manner and fashion of judicial appointments are an equal opportunity activity of either party in power.

That's expected but doesn't address my point of what specifically judicial interpretation is for.

But on your point, I would suggest Jeffrey Rosen's The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America. One of his sub-themes is how once nominated most Supreme Court justices change. Liberally minded ones might turn conservative, or vice versa, or go moderate. O'Connor moved to the middle though some might argue left. Even Ginsberg lately has shifted. Roberts was expected to be very conservative, but hasn't been. Not all, mind you, Thomas has remained very conservative.

[Chris]

Laughing at you for the racist BS because it makes you sound absurd.

Thanks re the stupidity about dilation and extraction.. Old men who want to control and humiliate women always talk about that. Yet the numbers are negligible and the procedure is done when the child is either going to die from something like hydrocephalus or causes a risk to the life of the mother. And really? Heck with anyone who thinks they should get between a doctor and his/her patient in a circumstance like that.

You think some old rightwing extremist politician is better able to make those determinations than a doctor and his patient? You don't even think you should have to buy two 15 oz sodas to feed your face instead of sucking down a 30 oz one, but you think government should make intimate medical decisions?

i have an idea. Lets just agree you shouldn't be making other people's medical decisions for them. Mmmkay?

What is it about some members here who just can't seem to address the topic but instead always stoop to personal attacks?

[Chris]

They can't be replaced. That's the point. They are on the bench for life. And if you asked "the people" if there should be Jim Crow laws, "the people" in those lovely states where it was outlawed would vote "yes".

Which is why the court is there to tell "the people" to piss off sometimes.

And you know this how, jill? Do you have any facts to back that up or is it mere opinion?


And the court's job is not to tell people to piss off. But I can understand how you who tries to turn every discussion into a personal pissing contest would interpret things that way.

[jillian]

And you know this how, jill? Do you have any facts to back that up or is it mere opinion?


And the court's job is not to tell people to piss off. But I can understand how you who tries to turn every discussion into a personal pissing contest would interpret things that way.

Im not going to try to educate you about our legal system. I told you that.

Youd better hurry, though. You have more than 200 years of caselaw to study.

[Chris]

Im not going to try to educate you about our legal system. I told you that.

Youd better hurry, though. You have more than 200 years of caselaw to study.

Educate? First, you need to be able to articulate ideas, not merely spew inflammatory BS. Next, you need to have ideas, your legal positivism is a dead end. Finally, you need to drop the arrogance, you have nothing to be be arrogant about, engaged in discussion of law and justice, rather than contribute, if you have anything to contribute, you stoop to petty personal attacks.

[junie]

And you know this how, jill? Do you have any facts to back that up or is it mere opinion?


And the court's job is not to tell people to piss off. But I can understand how you who tries to turn every discussion into a personal pissing contest would interpret things that way.




that's hilarious, coming from you...


the point is not whether they would or they wouldn't but that they could, and shouldn't be able to as our constitution considers that a tyranny of the majority. so the majority can in essence 'piss off' when it comes to our constitutionally protected rights.

[Kalkin]

You don't even think you should have to buy two 15 oz sodas to feed your face instead of sucking down a 30 oz one, but you think government should make intimate medical decisions?

Actually, it's not a question of the government making the decision as much as it is the government protecting innocent human lives from harm. In the vast, vast majority of cases, the decision to have sex was freely made by those who engaged in the activity. There are consequences to such decisions, and one is the possibility of being responsible for the new life one has created.

[Chris]

that's hilarious, coming from you...


the point is not whether they would or they wouldn't but that they could, and shouldn't be able to as our constitution considers that a tyranny of the majority. so the majority can in essence 'piss off' when it comes to our constitutionally protected rights.


junie, much as you try to make things up, I stick to attacking messages, not messengers the way you and jillian and marie do.




the point is not whether they would or they wouldn't but that they could, and shouldn't be able to as our constitution considers that a tyranny of the majority. so the majority can in essence 'piss off' when it comes to our constitutionally protected rights.

Could you translate that, please. I've highlighted words that are too convoluted to parse or too vague to understand--"that" referring to the convoluted mess.



our constitution considers that a tyranny of the majority

OK, cite the Constitution to support that.

[Dr. Who]

That's expected but doesn't address my point of what specifically judicial interpretation is for.

But on your point, I would suggest Jeffrey Rosen's The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America. One of his sub-themes is how once nominated most Supreme Court justices change. Liberally minded ones might turn conservative, or vice versa, or go moderate. O'Connor moved to the middle though some might argue left. Even Ginsberg lately has shifted. Roberts was expected to be very conservative, but hasn't been. Not all, mind you, Thomas has remained very conservative.

So has Scalia. The point being that judicial activism goes both ways. Hopefully having an equally balanced bench results in an impartial decision.

[Chris]

So has Scalia. The point being that judicial activism goes both ways. Hopefully having an equally balanced bench results in an impartial decision.

Agree with that. Scalia has come to some judicially active decisions based on his personal beliefs.

Equally balanced here is not counterbalancing but additive activism.

[Dr. Who]

They can't be replaced. That's the point. They are on the bench for life. And if you asked "the people" if there should be Jim Crow laws, "the people" in those lovely states where it was outlawed would vote "yes".

Which is why the court is there to tell "the people" to piss off sometimes.What I meant was that if the People don't like the structure of government, then it is up to the People to change it. So while the Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, if the People don't agree, it could be changed. Now I don't happen to believe that the bench is biased, since there is sufficient representation from both sides of the political/philosophical spectrum to ensure impartiality.

[Chris]

What I meant was that if the People don't like the structure of government, then it is up to the People to change it. So while the Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, if the People don't agree, it could be changed. Now I don't happen to believe that the bench is biased, since there is sufficient representation from both sides of the political/philosophical spectrum to ensure impartiality.

Well, we can disagree on bias based on our own biases, but that is certainly true, the Constitution itself prescribes the only ways it can be changed.

Article V:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Were the Court to change it, even in interpretation, would be unconstitutional.

[Mr Happy]

It's not my "opinion" dumbass,...its a fact.

Your "opinion" doesn't mean shit to me, and scalia is not a right-wing blogger, nor is it his "opinion"...it's a fact.

The amendments you and others have cited would also make prostitution legal,idiot...yet it is not.

If you can point out where abortion is mentioned in the constitution then do so...otherwise STFU!



waiting to be banned or warned.

You write drivel like this and then call somebody a dumb arse.

You don't even have a clue how your system works and then spout shit like above....beyond a dumb arse are you...

[Mr Happy]

Actually, it's not a question of the government making the decision as much as it is the government protecting innocent human lives from harm. In the vast, vast majority of cases, the decision to have sex was freely made by those who engaged in the activity. There are consequences to such decisions, and one is the possibility of being responsible for the new life one has created.

No, they don't have to be responsible for the 6 week old foetus...thus abortions...

[jillian]

What I meant was that if the People don't like the structure of government, then it is up to the People to change it. So while the Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, if the People don't agree, it could be changed. Now I don't happen to believe that the bench is biased, since there is sufficient representation from both sides of the political/philosophical spectrum to ensure impartiality.

well, the structure would have to be changed via constitutional amendment... not by someone saying "we the people" don't think it's constitutional. and yes, i know that isn't what you were saying. i'm just clarifying.

as for bias... individual members certainly are. as a whole? i think there are a couple who skew the court away from proper adjudication of issues. i think the other seven try their best and while having their own viewpoints, try to work within the bounds of stare decisis and precedent.

[peoshi]

You write drivel like this and then call somebody a dumb arse.
You don't even have a clue how your system works and then spout shit like above....beyond a dumb arse are you...And your stupid ass who doesn't even live in my country does?
The same applies to you,dumbARSE...if you can point out where the constitution mentions abortion then do so...otherwise STFU!

[Mr Happy]

And your stupid ass who doesn't even live in my country does?
The same applies to you,dumbARSE...if you can point out where the constitution mentions abortion then do so...otherwise STFU!

Compared to you, obviously.

As I said Roe vs Wade. Your Constitution and it's amendments doesn't mention the words assault weapons either, but do you have a right to bear one under the 2nd?

[zelmo1234]

Compared to you, obviously.

As I said Roe vs Wade. Your Constitution and it's amendments doesn't mention the words assault weapons either, but do you have a right to bear one under the 2nd?

Well that is a stretch, don't you think!

First I don't think you are a "Dumb Ass" In fact I know that not to be true. But you are a liberal and liberals will stretch the truth! and have never been real concerned about the constitution!

but in the founding documents, the closest thing that could be found to support a position on abortion is the statement that we are endowed by our creator with these unalienable rights. LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS

To take away a person right to life because you wanted to have sex? that is just wrong.

Now this is where I differ from some of my conservative brethren

And I would allow for rape, incest and life of the mother. As this would not have been a choice of the person! and in fact you could make the case that this would infringe on their right to these rights!

So if we can do away with 90% of the abortions? why would you not do this.

And a country that kills about 3500 of it's citizens each and every day? how can they continue to exist!

[jillian]

Well that is a stretch, don't you think!


no it isn't. and more to the point, the constitution does not give a private right of gun ownership. the document clearly says "a well regulated militia" formed the basis for the necessity of the right. the private right is something "CONSTRUED" or interpreted by the Court. Certainly whether it prohibits background checks is absolutely made up and has nothing to do with the amendment. Greater minds than anyone on this board have opined so. Justice Berger laughed at loud at the suggestion that there was a limitless private right of gun ownership.

even the 1st amendment is limited by place time and manner restrictions... by limitations on "obscene" speech and by limitations on commercial speech.

[junie]

Could you translate that, please. I've highlighted words that are too convoluted to parse or too vague to understand--"that" referring to the convoluted mess.




OK, cite the Constitution to support that.




too difficult for you to comprehend references to what's already been posted...?



Roe v. Wade (1973) ruled unconstitutional a state law that banned abortions except to save the life of the mother. The Court ruled that the states were forbidden from outlawing or regulating any aspect of abortion performed during the first trimester of pregnancy, could only enact abortion regulations reasonably related to maternal health in the second and third trimesters, and could enact abortion laws protecting the life of the fetus only in the third trimester. Even then, an exception had to be made to protect the life of the mother.


In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/robes_blackmun.html) (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws...

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt...dmark_roe.html (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_roe.html)






third time's a charm? :doubt:

[junie]

Careful, don't let her troll you into a warning. The fact she cannot even put forth an argument let alone cite the Constitution to support her opinion speaks for itself.



interesting view into your devious mindset here... who does that? :loco:

[junie]

"the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy."

[Peter1469]

no it isn't. and more to the point, the constitution does not give a private right of gun ownership. the document clearly says "a well regulated militia" formed the basis for the necessity of the right. the private right is something "CONSTRUED" or interpreted by the Court. Certainly whether it prohibits background checks is absolutely made up and has nothing to do with the amendment. Greater minds than anyone on this board have opined so. Justice Berger laughed at loud at the suggestion that there was a limitless private right of gun ownership.

even the 1st amendment is limited by place time and manner restrictions... by limitations on "obscene" speech and by limitations on commercial speech.

Except, you have to understand the history behind the 2nd Amendment. It did not change the laws of the states.

All able bodied males were part of the militia and were required to own and maintain certain weapons (infantry stuff). And towns were required to own and maintain cannons.

[jillian]

Except, you have to understand the history behind the 2nd Amendment. It did not change the laws of the states.

All able bodied males were part of the militia and were required to own and maintain certain weapons (infantry stuff). And towns were required to own and maintain cannons.

that IS the history... it was for well-regulated militia.

and yes, TOWNS were required to do so. not individuals... THAT is the point. but it's disingenuous to assert that somehow extraneous things should be taken into account, but that my right to exercise dominion over my own body is somehow abbreviated because the right wants it to be.

the primary purpose of the constitution is to keep us safe from INTERFERENCE by the government in our day to day lives... not to keep government "small" in the way the right asserts or there wouldn't be a commerce clause, wouldn't be a general welfare clause.

but it's clear that government was never intended to make moral/religious/intimate personal decisions for individuals.

and if you think for a second it's overstepping for government to tell you that you can't buy a 30 oz soda but have to buy a 15 oz soda, then how much more invasive is it to force a woman to be an incubator... subject her to humiliating and expensive and UNNNECESSARY medical tests just to obstruct her right to GOVERN HER OWN BODY?

reality: roe v wade acknowledged that life exists on a continuum... two cells is not a baby... a baby is not two cells... somewhere in between, the governmental interest in protecting potential life kicks in. but two cells do NOT have equal rights with me.

end of story.

[Peter1469]

that IS the history... it was for well-regulated militia.

and yes, TOWNS were required to do so. not individuals... THAT is the point. but it's disingenuous to assert that somehow extraneous things should be taken into account, but that my right to exercise dominion over my own body is somehow abbreviated because the right wants it to be.

the primary purpose of the constitution is to keep us safe from INTERFERENCE by the government in our day to day lives... not to keep government "small" in the way the right asserts or there wouldn't be a commerce clause, wouldn't be a general welfare clause.

but it's clear that government was never intended to make moral/religious/intimate personal decisions for individuals.

and if you think for a second it's overstepping for government to tell you that you can't buy a 30 oz soda but have to buy a 15 oz soda, then how much more invasive is it to force a woman to be an incubator... subject her to humiliating and expensive and UNNNECESSARY medical tests just to obstruct her right to GOVERN HER OWN BODY?

reality: roe v wade acknowledged that life exists on a continuum... two cells is not a baby... a baby is not two cells... somewhere in between, the governmental interest in protecting potential life kicks in. but two cells do NOT have equal rights with me.

end of story.

You misread my post about the difference between individual weapons and "crew served" weapons regarding the 2nd Amendment.

I see no valid link to the abortion debate here. The Constitution is silent on the matter, and it should be a state issue.

And the Commerce Clause is an enumerated power under Art 1, Sec. 8, US Constitution- the General Welfare clause. It is not an open ended grant of power to the federal government (such a reading renders the Constitution meaningless) ..., hence the word enumerated.......

[Chris]

You write drivel like this and then call somebody a dumb arse.

You don't even have a clue how your system works and then spout shit like above....beyond a dumb arse are you...

While I agree about the senseless name calling that you bitch about, you turn around hypocritically and name call back.

And by drivel do you mean yours? Peoshi presented an opinion and argued it. Here in yours you post opinion with no argument. You say it's drivel but provide no reason why, you say he doesn't understand our system but seem incapable of explaining it yourself.

[Chris]

well, the structure would have to be changed via constitutional amendment... not by someone saying "we the people" don't think it's constitutional. and yes, i know that isn't what you were saying. i'm just clarifying.

as for bias... individual members certainly are. as a whole? i think there are a couple who skew the court away from proper adjudication of issues. i think the other seven try their best and while having their own viewpoints, try to work within the bounds of stare decisis and precedent.

Another one who spews drivel. Let me explain. One, she opines the court can change the Constitution but here argues that can be done only by amendment--self-contradiction. Two, she argues the people cannot when they obviously can through either their federal or state representatives--read the Constitution. Three, she argues some bias but names no justices and provides no examples--mere opinion, no support.

[Chris]

Compared to you, obviously.

As I said Roe vs Wade. Your Constitution and it's amendments doesn't mention the words assault weapons either, but do you have a right to bear one under the 2nd?

Yes, you said Roe v Wade can be found in the Constitution. It is not.

Second amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. It is.


And you're the one telling others they don't understand our system. Pshaw!

[Chris]

no it isn't. and more to the point, the constitution does not give a private right of gun ownership. the document clearly says "a well regulated militia" formed the basis for the necessity of the right. the private right is something "CONSTRUED" or interpreted by the Court. Certainly whether it prohibits background checks is absolutely made up and has nothing to do with the amendment. Greater minds than anyone on this board have opined so. Justice Berger laughed at loud at the suggestion that there was a limitless private right of gun ownership.

even the 1st amendment is limited by place time and manner restrictions... by limitations on "obscene" speech and by limitations on commercial speech.


Another who just doesn't understand the Constitution.


the constitution does not give a private right of gun ownership

Uh, jill, the Constitution does not grant rights, period. This is just so fundamental a misunderstanding of the Constitution it's hard to believe.



the document clearly says "a well regulated militia" formed the basis for the necessity of the right.

Uh, no it does not. You know you would do well to cite the actual text instead of making up meanings.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It doesn't say what you say it says at all.



Greater minds than anyone on this board have opined so.

Now here you're absolutely right. Opinions.

[Chris]

too difficult for you to comprehend references to what's already been posted...?



Roe v. Wade (1973) ruled unconstitutional a state law that banned abortions except to save the life of the mother. The Court ruled that the states were forbidden from outlawing or regulating any aspect of abortion performed during the first trimester of pregnancy, could only enact abortion regulations reasonably related to maternal health in the second and third trimesters, and could enact abortion laws protecting the life of the fetus only in the third trimester. Even then, an exception had to be made to protect the life of the mother.


In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/robes_blackmun.html) (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws...

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt...dmark_roe.html (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_roe.html)






third time's a charm? :doubt:




too difficult for you to comprehend references to what's already been posted...?

Uh, no, junie, I have no trouble comprehending what most post, but in this case your convoluted and vague prose was unintelligible.



OK, cite the Constitution to support that.

Roe v. Wade...

Not the Constitution.



the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws...

Ever here of incorporation, junie? That's all that statement means.

[Chris]

interesting view into your devious mindset here... who does that? :loco:


In context the answer to that was obvious, jun, jill. Trolling like that is what's devious.

[Chris]

"the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy."


Government does not create rights, junie, rights create government. Unbelievable how you and happy and jill have this so backwards with your statist views and legal positivism.

[Chris]

that IS the history... it was for well-regulated militia.

and yes, TOWNS were required to do so. not individuals... THAT is the point. but it's disingenuous to assert that somehow extraneous things should be taken into account, but that my right to exercise dominion over my own body is somehow abbreviated because the right wants it to be.

the primary purpose of the constitution is to keep us safe from INTERFERENCE by the government in our day to day lives... not to keep government "small" in the way the right asserts or there wouldn't be a commerce clause, wouldn't be a general welfare clause.

but it's clear that government was never intended to make moral/religious/intimate personal decisions for individuals.

and if you think for a second it's overstepping for government to tell you that you can't buy a 30 oz soda but have to buy a 15 oz soda, then how much more invasive is it to force a woman to be an incubator... subject her to humiliating and expensive and UNNNECESSARY medical tests just to obstruct her right to GOVERN HER OWN BODY?

reality: roe v wade acknowledged that life exists on a continuum... two cells is not a baby... a baby is not two cells... somewhere in between, the governmental interest in protecting potential life kicks in. but two cells do NOT have equal rights with me.

end of story.




that IS the history... it was for well-regulated militia.

We've seen time and again you cannot cite the Constitution to support your arguments. How about this, if it was history, then cite the history, jill. Just for once, jill, back up your opinion.




reality: roe v wade acknowledged that life exists on a continuum... two cells is not a baby... a baby is not two cells... somewhere in between, the governmental interest in protecting potential life kicks in. but two cells do NOT have equal rights with me.

The truth is right before your eyes but you don't see it. You post it, but don't see it.

The Court in Roe v Wade did not decide when life begins, it merely decided where government interest lies. There's a world of different between its interest and life.

[peoshi]

Compared to you, obviously.

As I said Roe vs Wade. Your Constitution and it's amendments doesn't mention the words assault weapons either, but do you have a right to bear one under the 2nd?Yes, I do...as a matter of fact .And I posted a video of a supreme court justice saying the same thing that I did,I guess you know more than him as well.Neither Roe v Wade or abortion is mentioned at all in the constitution,which is what you were asked in the first place, and judging by the nonsense you've posted since...you can't. When you find yourself in a hole its best to quit digging!

[junie]

Government does not create rights, junie, rights create government. Unbelievable how you and happy and jill have this so backwards with your statist views and legal positivism.



whatever 'this' is in your mind, who knows... our constitution provides individual privacy protections, period.


"The Court in Roe v Wade did not decide when life begins, it merely decided where government interest lies. "



^ how else would you have it..?

[jillian]

Government does not create rights, junie, rights create government. Unbelievable how you and happy and jill have this so backwards with your statist views and legal positivism.

Government ENFORCES rights. Again, ask any Japanese citizen who lived here during WWII feels about your pretend rights in the air m

and no one cares how many words like "statist" you throw around, let us know when you have even the slightest understanding of how how our legal system works.

[Chris]

Government does not create rights, junie, rights create government. Unbelievable how you and happy and jill have this so backwards with your statist views and legal positivism.


whatever 'this' is in your mind, who knows... our constitution provides individual privacy protections, period.


"The Court in Roe v Wade did not decide when life begins, it merely decided where government interest lies. "



^ how else would you have it..?


whatever 'this' is in your mind, who knows

Why, junie, what it means is stated in the context of the previous sentence. "This" is used to refer back to the previously stated thing, action, thought. Here, quite obviously, it refers to where rights come from.



our constitution provides individual privacy protections, period.

Then you will be so kind as to site the text from the Constitution that does this--this = "our constitution provides individual privacy protections".

Here, let me make it very easy for you: Cite the text of the Constitution that provides us any right whatsoever.




The Court in Roe v Wade did not decide when life begins, it merely decided where government interest lies.

^ how else would you have it..?

Exactly, glad you agree, now you can join me in arguing with jillian who said, the Court does decide that:


roe v wade acknowledged that life exists on a continuum... two cells is not a baby... a baby is not two cells... somewhere in between, the governmental interest in protecting potential life kicks in. but two cells do NOT have equal rights with me.

[Chris]

Government ENFORCES rights. Again, ask any Japanese citizen who lived here during WWII feels about your pretend rights in the air m

and no one cares how many words like "statist" you throw around, let us know when you have even the slightest understanding of how how our legal system works.



Wow, jillian, tell me something I don't know. Yes, the government enforces, eh, wrong word, protects rights, as I have been consistently saying. It does not, contrary to your and junie's oft-stated opinion, create rights.


I have Japanese relatives, jillian, I know what they went through under the progressive government of FDR and it's failure to protect rights.



and no one cares how many words like "statist" you throw around, let us know when you have even the slightest understanding of how how our legal system works.

Are you supporting junie's opinion that government creates rights, jillian? You just stated the opposite, and she just said the opposite of you on this topic. I'm waiting for you two to argue out your differences. It would be fun to watch confusion and obfuscation argue.

And, jill, you're speaking for others when you have trouble speaking for yourself, on the legal system let alone anything else.

[junie]

Wow, jillian, tell me something I don't know. Yes, the government enforces, eh, wrong word, protects rights, as I have been consistently saying. It does not, contrary to your and junie's oft-stated opinion, create rights.


I have Japanese relatives, jillian, I know what they went through under the progressive government of FDR and it's failure to protect rights.




Are you supporting junie's opinion that government creates rights, jillian? You just stated the opposite, and she just said the opposite of you on this topic. I'm waiting for you two to argue out your differences. It would be fun to watch confusion and obfuscation argue.

And, jill, you're speaking for others when you have trouble speaking for yourself, on the legal system let alone anything else.



you seem to be arguing with yourself as the rest goes over your head. :rollseyes:



please link to where i ever argued that 'government creates rights'...........?

[Chris]

you seem to be arguing with yourself as the rest goes over your head. :rollseyes:



please link to where i ever argued that 'government creates rights'...........?




you seem to be arguing with yourself as the rest goes over your head

You post a lot but don't seem to argue anything.




please link to where i ever argued that 'government creates rights'...........?

Don't you even remember what you post? It was you, junie: "the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy."

The privacy you speak of was a creation of government: http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/your-right-privacy


The right to privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has said that several of the amendments create this right.

There is no Constitution right to anything. The Constitution does not create rights.

Think so, then cite the Constitution. As I've asked time and again: "Then you will be so kind as to site the text from the Constitution that does this--this = "our constitution provides individual privacy protections"."

[junie]

You post a lot but don't seem to argue anything.





Don't you even remember what you post? It was you, junie: "the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy."

The privacy you speak of was a creation of government: http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/your-right-privacy



There is no Constitution right to anything. The Constitution does not create rights.

Think so, then cite the Constitution. As I've asked time and again: "Then you will be so kind as to site the text from the Constitution that does this--this = "our constitution provides individual privacy protections"."



you want to play word games but i said our constitution protected jane doe's right to privacy against state government. that's a fact, jack.


the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws...

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt...dmark_roe.html (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_roe.html)

[Dr. Who]

You post a lot but don't seem to argue anything.





Don't you even remember what you post? It was you, junie: "the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy."

The privacy you speak of was a creation of government: http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/your-right-privacy



There is no Constitution right to anything. The Constitution does not create rights.

Think so, then cite the Constitution. As I've asked time and again: "Then you will be so kind as to site the text from the Constitution that does this--this = "our constitution provides individual privacy protections"."

The legal definition would seem to indicate that there are Constitutional rights:

Constitutional rights n. rights given or reserved to the people by the U. S. Constitution, and in particular, the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments). These rights include: writ of habeas corpus, no bill of attainder, no duties or taxes on transporting goods from one stateto another, (Article 1, Section 9), jury trials (Article III, Section 1), freedom of religion, speech, press (which includes all media), assembly andpetition (First Amendment), state militia to bear arms (Second Amendment), no quartering of troops in homes (Third Amendment), no unreasonable search andseizure (Fourth Amendment), major ("capital and infamous") crimes require indictment, no double jeopardy (more than one prosecution) for the same crime, no self-incrimination, right to due process, right to just compensation for property taken by eminent domain (Fifth Amendment); in criminal law, right to a speedy trial, to confront witnesses against one, and to counsel (SixthAmendment), trial by jury (Seventh amendment), right to bail, no excessive fines, and no cruel and unusual punishments (Eighth amendment), unenumerated rights are reserved to the people (Ninth amendment), equal protection of thelaws (14th amendment), no racial bars to voting (15th amendment), no sex bar to voting (19th amendment), and no poll tax (24th amendment). Constitutional interpretation has expanded and added nuances to these rights. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/constitutional+rights

[Chris]

you want to play word games but i said our constitution protected jane doe's right to privacy against state government. that's a fact, jack.


the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws...

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt...dmark_roe.html (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_roe.html)



Stop with the false accusations, junie. You plainly used the phrase "constitutional rights".

"-al1 a suffix with the general sense “of the kind of, pertaining to, having the form or character of” that named by the stem" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/-al?s=t

There are no "constitutional rights". That is demonstrated by your inability to find one in the Constitution. It is also demonstrated by the following:

But I'm glad you agree with my view that the Constitution does not create rights but protects them. It in fact protects those rights from government violation of them, for example:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Thank you.

[Chris]

The legal definition would seem to indicate that there are Constitutional rights:

Constitutional rights n. rights given or reserved to the people by the U. S. Constitution, and in particular, the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments). These rights include: writ of habeas corpus, no bill of attainder, no duties or taxes on transporting goods from one stateto another, (Article 1, Section 9), jury trials (Article III, Section 1), freedom of religion, speech, press (which includes all media), assembly andpetition (First Amendment), state militia to bear arms (Second Amendment), no quartering of troops in homes (Third Amendment), no unreasonable search andseizure (Fourth Amendment), major ("capital and infamous") crimes require indictment, no double jeopardy (more than one prosecution) for the same crime, no self-incrimination, right to due process, right to just compensation for property taken by eminent domain (Fifth Amendment); in criminal law, right to a speedy trial, to confront witnesses against one, and to counsel (SixthAmendment), trial by jury (Seventh amendment), right to bail, no excessive fines, and no cruel and unusual punishments (Eighth amendment), unenumerated rights are reserved to the people (Ninth amendment), equal protection of thelaws (14th amendment), no racial bars to voting (15th amendment), no sex bar to voting (19th amendment), and no poll tax (24th amendment). Constitutional interpretation has expanded and added nuances to these rights. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/constitutional+rights



Then cite a constitutional right from the Constitution.

As cited above, for example:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

This does not create or grant a right, it prohibits government from violating rights, pre-existing any constitution.

[Dr. Who]

Then cite a constitutional right from the Constitution.

As cited above, for example:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

This does not create or grant a right, it prohibits government from violating rights, pre-existing any constitution.

Perhaps it is a matter of semantics, but even Wiki defines Constitutional Rights thusly: A constitutional right is a legal right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights) of its citizens (and possibly others within its jurisdiction) protected by a sovereignty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty)'s constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_right I have often heard the term used in reference to violations 1st, 2nd etc Amendment rights and most recently in reference to NSA activities.

[Chris]

Perhaps it is a matter of semantics, but even Wiki defines Constitutional Rights thusly: A constitutional right is a legal right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights) of its citizens (and possibly others within its jurisdiction) protected by a sovereignty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty)'s constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_right I have often heard the term used in reference to violations 1st, 2nd etc Amendment rights and most recently in reference to NSA activities.

How could this be when rights pre-exist constitutions, when based on their rights, we the people created a constitution, government, legal system, etc? How? Constitutions, governments, legal systems do not create rights. I think those definitions, like junie's, and jillian's are the progressive problem turning the United States on its head and into a statist nation.

To depend entirely on dictionary definitions is indeed arguing semantics.

[junie]

Stop with the false accusations, junie. You plainly used the phrase "constitutional rights".

"-al1 a suffix with the general sense “of the kind of, pertaining to, having the form or character of” that named by the stem" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/-al?s=t

There are no "constitutional rights". That is demonstrated by your inability to find one in the Constitution. It is also demonstrated by the following:

But I'm glad you agree with my view that the Constitution does not create rights but protects them. It in fact protects those rights from government violation of them, for example:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Thank you.



you're just being argumentative for the sake of being contrary... zzz NPR characterized the SCOTUS decision as having protected jane doe's constitutional right, as her right to privacy from state government intrusion was indeed legally protected by our constitution... that's a fact, not a hypothetical.

[junie]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."



^ :offtopic:

[Dr. Who]

How could this be when rights pre-exist constitutions, when based on their rights, we the people created a constitution, government, legal system, etc? How? Constitutions, governments, legal systems do not create rights. I think those definitions, like junie's, and jillian's are the progressive problem turning the United States on its head and into a statist nation.

To depend entirely on dictionary definitions is indeed arguing semantics.
Whether the term or indeed the definition is correct or not, it is certainly in popular usage, even within the legal community. It was used by Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck vs United States: "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger

[Mr Happy]

Yes, I do...as a matter of fact .And I posted a video of a supreme court justice saying the same thing that I did,I guess you know more than him as well.Neither Roe v Wade or abortion is mentioned at all in the constitution,which is what you were asked in the first place, and judging by the nonsense you've posted since...you can't. When you find yourself in a hole its best to quit digging!

Assault weapons aren't mentioned in the constitution either. Go figure...

[junie]

Assault weapons aren't mentioned in the constitution either. Go figure...



lol neither was chewing bubble gum, now that i think of it! :shocked:

[Singularity]

Assault weapons aren't mentioned in the constitution either. Go figure...You can't really reason with a strict constructionist. In their view,
either there's something directly in the Constitution that authorizes
something, or it's not allowed.

Period, no dice beyond that, no matter what. A reasonable student
of Constitutional law knows that the Supreme Court has two jobs:
interpreting the protections of our rights in the Constitution, and
deciding the basis for protections of our rights against problems the
Founders could never have envisioned or understood.

If it cannot do that, then we need a new Constitution that addresses
the problems of today... and obviously, that's never going to happen.
The modern essential fiat of the USSC on issues like abortion, which
in the end rests on the argument that "the Constitution says abortion
is legal because the Supreme Court said it says that," is the solution.

[Chris]

you're just being argumentative for the sake of being contrary... zzz NPR characterized the SCOTUS decision as having protected jane doe's constitutional right, as her right to privacy from state government intrusion was indeed legally protected by our constitution... that's a fact, not a hypothetical.


Oh, I'm being argumentative? I've been arguing all along the Constitution does not create rights but protects them. Your previous post agreed with me. Yet here you are still arguing.

[Chris]

Whether the term or indeed the definition is correct or not, it is certainly in popular usage, even within the legal community. It was used by Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck vs United States: "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger

You're still arguing semantics. Both junie and jill have argued my point now, that the Constitution doesn't create rights but protects them.

[Chris]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."



^ :offtopic:

Say something articulate.

[junie]

Progressive liberals like you use government to coerce your denial of the unborn their rights while you selfishly demand protection of yours.



so we agree then, that is was the state government which was trying to coerce a denial of jane doe's right to privacy?

[Chris]

Assault weapons aren't mentioned in the constitution either. Go figure...

Covered by the right to keep and bear arms.

[Chris]

lol neither was chewing bubble gum, now that i think of it! :shocked:

Indeed, both of you are arguing silly points.

[junie]

Say something articulate.




did you just call me inarticulate? tsk tsk the insult police are watching! :laughing4:

[Chris]

You can't really reason with a strict constructionist. In their view,
either there's something directly in the Constitution that authorizes
something, or it's not allowed.

Period, no dice beyond that, no matter what. A reasonable student
of Constitutional law knows that the Supreme Court has two jobs:
interpreting the protections of our rights in the Constitution, and
deciding the basis for protections of our rights against problems the
Founders could never have envisioned or understood.

If it cannot do that, then we need a new Constitution that addresses
the problems of today... and obviously, that's never going to happen.
The modern essential fiat of the USSC on issues like abortion, which
in the end rests on the argument that "the Constitution says abortion
is legal because the Supreme Court said it says that," is the solution.



You can't really reason with a strict constructionist.

The proper term is textualist. Constructionist look to other sources.




A reasonable student
of Constitutional law knows that the Supreme Court has two jobs:
interpreting the protections of our rights in the Constitution, and
deciding the basis for protections of our rights against problems the
Founders could never have envisioned or understood.

Your argument fails because it's predicated on a logical fallacy, poisoning the well, iow, you're begging the question when you insist "A reasonable student" would do anything because you fail to make any reasonable case.

The court's jog is rather to interpret in applying the Constitution to cases before it. The Constitution provides a set of principles by which to do that. There's no need to invent things that are not in the Constitution. For example, happy's silly argument about assault weapons when the Constitution provides a principle in the right to keep and bear arms.

If we do as you advocate, and helter skelter invent new rules and new meanings then you have undermined the social contract created and agreed to by the people for the very basis of our government. You admit this in your last paragraph advocating the need for a new Constitution. And you further undermine yourself in admitting the revision of the Constitution depends on fiat for solution, iow, might is right.

Typical statist view.

[Chris]

so we agree then, that is was the state government which was trying to coerce a denial of jane doe's right to privacy?

So we agree then that it is SCOTUS who coerced abortion on our society?

[Chris]

Say something articulate.


did you just call me inarticulate? tsk tsk the insult police are watching! :laughing4:


Uh, no, junie, read what I posted, I asked you to say something articulate. That was because the post I commented on was inarticulate.


Nothing was said about you personally. The problem around here is some members taking things personal that are not and then using that to justify making it personal themselves.


Do try and stick to the topic, an exchange of opinions and ideas, rather than turning everything into a personal pissing contest.

[Dr. Who]

You're still arguing semantics. Both junie and jill have argued my point now, that the Constitution doesn't create rights but protects them.

You said:

There is no Constitution right to anything. The Constitution does not create rights. Why should the term Constitutional Right mean that the right is created by the Constitution rather than one protected by the Constitution?

[Chris]

Say something articulate.


You said:
Why should the term Constitutional Right mean that the right is created by the Constitution rather than one protected by the Constitution?

See above, it's the root of the suffix -al.


But, question, like junie, if you agree with what my point has been all along, that the Constitution does not create rights but protects them, why are you still arguing semantics?

[junie]

pray tell, what exactly is STATIST about protecting an individual's rights against STATE authority...?

[Dr. Who]

See above, it's the root of the suffix -al.


But, question, like junie, if you agree with what my point has been all along, that the Constitution does not create rights but protects them, why are you still arguing semantics?
It's important that when people communicate or debate that they take the same meaning from terms. When June posted:
"the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy.", you responded with
Government does not create rights, junie, rights create government. You assume because she uses the term constitutional right that she therefore must believe that the right comes from the constitution, as opposed to a right protected by the constitution. The Texas statute did indeed violate Jane Roe's right as protected by the constitution.

[Chris]

pray tell, what exactly is STATIST about protecting an individual's rights against STATE authority...?

Nothing. Protecting rights is anti-statist, libertarian.

http://i.snag.gy/TVUYv.jpg

But the invention of a privacy right by the court and the later use of it in Roe v Wade to legislate law and decide what is society's right to decide, that is statist.

[Chris]

It's important that when people communicate or debate that they take the same meaning from terms. When June posted: , you responded with You assume because she uses the term constitutional right that she therefore must believe that the right comes from the constitution, as opposed to a right protected by the constitution. The Texas statute did indeed violate Jane Roe's right as protected by the constitution.


If communication was the purpose then junie could have simply said yes that's what I mean, not creation but protection of rights. Instead she went off arguing and is still arguing even though everyone now agrees.

[junie]

So we agree then that it is SCOTUS who coerced abortion on our society?



no, private reproductive choice has always existed.

state governments have attempted to impose themselves onto the private individual.

jane doe challenged her state government and SCOTUS cited her constitutionally protected right to privacy.

[zelmo1234]

no it isn't. and more to the point, the constitution does not give a private right of gun ownership. the document clearly says "a well regulated militia" formed the basis for the necessity of the right. the private right is something "CONSTRUED" or interpreted by the Court. Certainly whether it prohibits background checks is absolutely made up and has nothing to do with the amendment. Greater minds than anyone on this board have opined so. Justice Berger laughed at loud at the suggestion that there was a limitless private right of gun ownership.

even the 1st amendment is limited by place time and manner restrictions... by limitations on "obscene" speech and by limitations on commercial speech.

So lets look at the great minds. First if the Words in the Second amendment "THE PEOPLE" means the government. then those words would likely mean that government in each and every other case as well right, which would mean that one the government would have the right of free speech, religion search and seizure

Next we don't have to wonder what the founding fathers wanted? they recorded it just so when liberals such as yourself, tried to put words in their mouths we could look it up!

http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

Now I admit that some have grown into legend over the years, but many if not most can be traced back to the debates on the second amendment!

And then lets just talk about those scholars that you are talking about

The supreme court has ruled that the second amendment is a personal right, they have through out history, so you are once again wrong!

But once again you brought beck the recycled lie, hoping that others would get sick of pointing out the facts.

[Chris]

no, private reproductive choice has always existed.

state governments have attempted to impose themselves onto the private individual.

jane doe challenged her state government and SCOTUS cited her constitutionally protected right to privacy.


Sorry, but it hasn't always existed. Governments have dictated it, religions, and society has always had various views.

Unless you care to provide some links to document that.



state governments have attempted to impose themselves onto the private individual

Just as the federal government did in Roe v Wade.

Here's the difference, states can explore different solutions to the issue based more closely on its citizens. That's what they were doing before SCOTUS took that states right power* and coerced a cookie cutter** law on them.


* "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

** Pun intended.

[zelmo1234]

that IS the history... it was for well-regulated militia.

and yes, TOWNS were required to do so. not individuals... THAT is the point. but it's disingenuous to assert that somehow extraneous things should be taken into account, but that my right to exercise dominion over my own body is somehow abbreviated because the right wants it to be.

the primary purpose of the constitution is to keep us safe from INTERFERENCE by the government in our day to day lives... not to keep government "small" in the way the right asserts or there wouldn't be a commerce clause, wouldn't be a general welfare clause.

but it's clear that government was never intended to make moral/religious/intimate personal decisions for individuals.

and if you think for a second it's overstepping for government to tell you that you can't buy a 30 oz soda but have to buy a 15 oz soda, then how much more invasive is it to force a woman to be an incubator... subject her to humiliating and expensive and UNNNECESSARY medical tests just to obstruct her right to GOVERN HER OWN BODY?

reality: roe v wade acknowledged that life exists on a continuum... two cells is not a baby... a baby is not two cells... somewhere in between, the governmental interest in protecting potential life kicks in. but two cells do NOT have equal rights with me.

end of story.

Well if one person killed another they would be forcing something on the victim? Right?

So we have a totally incent life? and now because the mother does not want to be bothered with it she is allow to kill it!

I have no issue with Rape, incest and life of the mother, but a birth control? NO! she made the choice when she decided to have sex. if you can't do the time, then don't do the crime!

Or should we allow any that can prove that someone else is a hardship on their life to be able to kill that other person and remove the hardship?

After all it really is just more cells!

[Mr Happy]

You can't really reason with a strict constructionist. In their view,
either there's something directly in the Constitution that authorizes
something, or it's not allowed.

Period, no dice beyond that, no matter what. A reasonable student
of Constitutional law knows that the Supreme Court has two jobs:
interpreting the protections of our rights in the Constitution, and
deciding the basis for protections of our rights against problems the
Founders could never have envisioned or understood.

If it cannot do that, then we need a new Constitution that addresses
the problems of today... and obviously, that's never going to happen.
The modern essential fiat of the USSC on issues like abortion, which
in the end rests on the argument that "the Constitution says abortion
is legal because the Supreme Court said it says that," is the solution.

Yeah, I know. Find it very amusing....lol

I find those that think like Poeshi are not the smartest kids in the room.....Probably didn't finish high school...

[zelmo1234]

Government ENFORCES rights. Again, ask any Japanese citizen who lived here during WWII feels about your pretend rights in the air m

and no one cares how many words like "statist" you throw around, let us know when you have even the slightest understanding of how how our legal system works.

Boy you are right here, liberals and democrats have been pissing on people rights and the constitution ever since they formed.

It was terrible what FDR did to the people!

[Dr. Who]

Sorry, but it hasn't always existed. Governments have dictated it, religions, and society has always had various views.

Unless you care to provide some links to document that.




Just as the federal government did in Roe v Wade.

Here's the difference, states can explore different solutions to the issue based more closely on its citizens. That's what they were doing before SCOTUS took that states right power* and coerced a cookie cutter** law on them.


* "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

** Pun intended.

I think that the decision did not coerce a law upon the state but rather ruled that the State could not make a law that violated the plaintiff's rights as protected by several amendments of the constitution. No State can make a law that violates any right protected under the Constitution. I would think that the most basic right of all, is the right to sovereignty over ones own person.

[zelmo1234]

Assault weapons aren't mentioned in the constitution either. Go figure...

Neither are Stock, Binds Oil Gasoline, mining regulations, OSHA safety rule, there a tons of things that are not mentions.

But in the case of your Assault Weapon s, one might say that the founding fathers did recognize that technology would improve and the people would need to upgrade?

Thus the phrase "Well Regulated" Or state of the art one might say!

But I will make a deal with you! you shoot me in the hip with the Chose rifle and round of the US military. the 5.56 NATO

And I will shoot you in the hip with the modern day equivalent of the muzzle loading rifle?

One of us will walk again? the other most likely won't Guess which one?

[zelmo1234]

Yeah, I know. Find it very amusing....lol

I find those that think like Poeshi are not the smartest kids in the room.....Probably didn't finish high school...

Thought you were the one that did not like calling names? OH! wait you just don't like people calling you names? Typical liberal!

[zelmo1234]

I think that the decision did not coerce a law upon the state but rather ruled that the State could not make a law that violated the plaintiff's rights as protected by several amendments of the constitution. No State can make a law that violates any right protected under the Constitution. I would think that the most basic right of all, is the right to sovereignty over ones own person.

To bad that unborn child has not rights

And states are allowed to make laws prohibiting the practice of religion all the time?

[Dr. Who]

To bad that unborn child has not rights

And states are allowed to make laws prohibiting the practice of religion all the time?The Constitution protects your right to practice your religion, but not the right to impose your religious tenets on anyone else.

[Chris]

Yeah, I know. Find it very amusing....lol

I find those that think like Poeshi are not the smartest kids in the room.....Probably didn't finish high school...


Always the personal insults toward other members, you and single make a great pai, thanked by none other than jillian.

[peoshi]

Assault weapons aren't mentioned in the constitution either. Go figure... But the right to bear arms is...go figure.
You were asked a simple question by agravan...where the constitution protected abortion rights, you were not asked about your interpretation of the various amendments posted by others here ,nor were you asked the courts
interpretation of them.
If you can point out specifically where the constitution mentions abortion or roe v wade then do so...that's all you were asked to do in the first place.

[Chris]

I think that the decision did not coerce a law upon the state but rather ruled that the State could not make a law that violated the plaintiff's rights as protected by several amendments of the constitution. No State can make a law that violates any right protected under the Constitution. I would think that the most basic right of all, is the right to sovereignty over ones own person.


It legalized abortion, are you kidding? It coerced a liberal view, the religion of statists on society.


Assume such a property right as you exclaim. One, it is a natural right, unlike "constitutional" right to privacy. Two, in protecting the woman's right to her property in her body you violate the equal right of the unborn in its. You cannot even claim common good for it provides special favor to one group and it denies another.

[jillian]

But the right to bear arms is...go figure.
You were asked a simple question by agravan...where the constitution protected abortion rights, you were not asked about your interpretation of the various amendments posted by others here ,nor were you asked the courts
interpretation of them.
If you can point out specifically where the constitution mentions abortion or roe v wade then do so...that's all you were asked to do in the first place.

only with respect to a well-regulated militia

isn't that funny?

and where does it say you can't have reasonable regulation?

even the winger scalia doesn't say that.

we'll wait.

[peoshi]

I'm sorry if my post are hard to read...storm knocked my CPU out last night,posting with a tablet.

[Mr Happy]

Thought you were the one that did not like calling names? OH! wait you just don't like people calling you names? Typical liberal!

Not me. I couldn't give a shit what you call me...

[Mr Happy]

But the right to bear arms is...go figure.
You were asked a simple question by agravan...where the constitution protected abortion rights, you were not asked about your interpretation of the various amendments posted by others here ,nor were you asked the courts
interpretation of them.
If you can point out specifically where the constitution mentions abortion or roe v wade then do so...that's all you were asked to do in the first place.

Does Junie have to post it yet again??? On this thread??? Really???

[peoshi]

only with respect to a well-regulated militia

isn't that funny?

and where does it say you can't have reasonable regulation?

even the winger scalia doesn't say that.

we'll wait.WTF does this nonsense have to do with whether or not abortion is in the constitution,Jillian?

[Chris]

only with respect to a well-regulated militia

isn't that funny?

and where does it say you can't have reasonable regulation?

even the winger scalia doesn't say that.

we'll wait.

No, it's not "only with respect to a well-regulated militia". How could you possibly parse the second amendment that way? Do you know what an nominative absolute is? That's the syntax, and it has semantic implications. Go study, or ask.

The rest of you post makes less sense. In the face of a repeated request to cite the Constitution you mutter "well wait"? No sense at all.

[peoshi]

Does Junie have to post it yet again??? On this thread??? Really???Junie hasn't posted shit to do with what you were asked so quit hiding behind her skirt.

[Chris]

Not me. I couldn't give a shit what you call me...

Right, and you're the one also said you didn't give a shit what the mods said of your personal attacks: "I'll do what I please. If the mods have a crack, then c'est la vie.." @ http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/15398-Confederate-flag-will-fly-along-I-95?p=344121&viewfull=1#post344121

[Mr Happy]

Junie hasn't posted shit to do with what you were asked so quit hiding behind her skirt.


Translation: I'm out of my depth and don't even know it.

Thanks for playing peoshi....You obviously have no clue as to how your constitution works....

[jillian]

Translation: I'm out of my depth and don't even know it.

Thanks for playing peoshi....You obviously have no clue as to how your constitution works....

oh... i think he knows he's out of his depth.

[peoshi]

Translation: I'm out of my depth and don't even know it.

Thanks for playing peoshi....You obviously have no clue as to how your constitution works....Translation...if I can't answer a simple question,I can always bail.
You worry about your government and I'll worry about mine,mate.

[jillian]

Translation...if I can't answer a simple question,I can always bail.
You worry about your government and I'll worry about mine,mate.

proof positive that you don't even understand what he's saying, much less being capable of answering.

lmao

[peoshi]

oh... i think he knows he's out of his depth.You're free to cite it as well,j.

Trolling doesn't count though, which kind of rules you out!

[jillian]

You're free to cite it as well,j.

Trolling doesn't count though, which kind of rules you out!

ah...typical rightwingnut.

you've already been told what the law is. either figure out how to respond properly or go back to talking about what you had for lunch, since that might be the only thing you actually are sharp enough to write about.

[junie]

Does Junie have to post it yet again??? On this thread??? Really???



lol maybe i should hold his hand and read him a constitutional lullaby... zzz

[jillian]

lol maybe i should hold his hand and read him a constitutional lullaby... zzz

the problem is he doesn't understand it.

i wonder if there's a schoolhouse rock to explain it to him

[Mr Happy]

Translation...if I can't answer a simple question,I can always bail.
You worry about your government and I'll worry about mine,mate.

Tell your govt to keep its nose out of everybody else's business and I might just hold you to that..

Your argument is a BS one to start with.

You seem to think that is ridiculous that I tell you to find the words 'assault weapon' in your constitution, yet in the same breath you ask me to find the word 'abortion'. You are requiring a different burden of proof from me, that you can't even meet yourself.

That aside, even a person of limited retentative ability such as yourself must know that the USSC interprets your constitution, and therefore Roe vs Wade is now part of it. Whether you like it or not. Every decision they make is. You do know that, right? Which is why there is a such a shit fight when one of the justice's retires or dies....

[peoshi]

lol maybe i should hold his hand and read him a constitutional lullaby... zzzMaybe you should, or you could just cite what was asked, the simple fact is that the constitution does not address abortion AT ALL, and you have seen a supreme court justice say the same thing.
You three are either just too stubborn or too stupid to admit you're wrong...so which is it?

[peoshi]

Tell your govt to keep its nose out of everybody else's business and I might just hold you to that..

Your argument is a BS one to start with.

You seem to think that is ridiculous that I tell you to find the words 'assault weapon' in your constitution, yet in the same breath you ask me to find the word 'abortion'. You are requiring a different burden of proof from me, that you can't even meet yourselfArms are mentioned in the constitution,genius...which is what an assault weapon is.

Abortion is not mentioned in any context, try again.

[Mr Happy]

Arms are mentioned in the constitution,genius...which is what an assault weapon is.

Abortion is not mentioned in any context, try again.

You left out the last sentence in the quote.

Gee I wonder why...

[zelmo1234]

The Constitution protects your right to practice your religion, but not the right to impose your religious tenets on anyone else.

When children are prevented from saying Merry Christmas and Happy Easter in School you are not being allowed to practice your religion!
,
But in the eyes of the abortion debate, Is not imposing the death of a child, forcing your right on another? Just a thought!

[Agravan]

You left out the last sentence in the quote.

Gee I wonder why...
Please point out which Amendment ROE V WADE is in. you say it's part of the Constitution, so point out where it is. Supreme Court decisions have been overturned before, something not possible without an amendment if their decisions were made a part of the Constitution.
There have been 27 Amendments, so it should be easy to point it out. I'll wait.

[zelmo1234]

Not me. I couldn't give a shit what you call me...

Then why were you whining about it yesterday?

[zelmo1234]

proof positive that you don't even understand what he's saying, much less being capable of answering.

lmao

Oh! I understand, he approached government through the eyes of a Royal Subject!

As far as the words in the constitution. do you feel that the words "the people" when the appear in the constitution mean the government or the citizens?

That should help the debate.

[Mr Happy]

Then why were you whining about it yesterday?

When?

[Mr Happy]

Please point out which Amendment ROE V WADE is in. you say it's part of the Constitution, so point out where it is. Supreme Court decisions have been overturned before, something not possible without an amendment if their decisions were made a part of the Constitution.
There have been 27 Amendments, so it should be easy to point it out. I'll wait.

Please point out where the words "assault weapon" are...take your time....

[zelmo1234]

You left out the last sentence in the quote.

Gee I wonder why...

Shall not be infringed????? I think that is his point!

[Dr. Who]

Arms are mentioned in the constitution,genius...which is what an assault weapon is.

Abortion is not mentioned in any context, try again.Neither were nuclear weapons or telephones or the internet, however just because something did not exist 200 or so years ago, doesn't mean that it can't be evaluated conceptually in the general context of what the framers envisioned. The concept of freedom was preeminent in the constitution, from which flows the concept of privacy. Your mind, your thoughts and your body are the only things with which you come into the world. Your most basic right is to yourself. Who has a right to infringe your right to your own person? Were the situation reversed, and a State decided that there were too many people, and thus certain people must be sterilized, would that not be an infringement on those people's rights under the constitution. Should a State have the right to sterilize people who are not attractive enough, not smart enough, not tall enough or not the right color? Should the State have the right to tell you with whom you may or may not have children, or whether you should be permitted to have children at all? Do you carry a recessive gene? What if it was decided that all people who carry undesirable recessive genes may not reproduce? If you carry a history of heart defects, a propensity for cancer, whatever. Were any of these concepts explicitly covered under the Constitution?

[zelmo1234]

When?

Sorry Happy, I got you confused with the good Dr.

My deepest apology!

[Dr. Who]

Sorry Happy, I got you confused with the good Dr.

My deepest apology!
Please do remind me what I was "whining" about.

[Agravan]

Please point out where the words "assault weapon" are...take your time....
Already covered with the word "arms"

[peoshi]

Neither were nuclear weapons or telephones or the internet, however just because something did not exist 200 or so years ago, doesn't mean that it can't be evaluated conceptually in the general context of what the framers envisioned. The concept of freedom was preeminent in the constitution, from which flows the concept of privacy. Your mind, your thoughts and your body are the only things with which you come into the world. Your most basic right is to yourself. Who has a right to infringe your right to your own person? Were the situation reversed, and a State decided that there were too many people, and thus certain people must be sterilized, would that not be an infringement on those people's rights under the constitution. Should a State have the right to sterilize people who are not attractive enough, not smart enough, not tall enough or not the right color? Should the State have the right to tell you with whom you may or may not have children, or whether you should be permitted to have children at all? Do you carry a recessive gene? What if it was decided that all people who carry undesirable recessive genes may not reproduce? If you carry a history of heart defects, a propensity for cancer, whatever. Were
any of these concepts explicitly covered under the Constitution?Thnx.for your opinion who,but it has nothing to do with the question asked.
The original topic of this thread was Davis's opposition to the abortion bill passed in Texas and her ignorance on the gosnell trial. The Texas bill does not outlaw abortion until after 20 weeks, and you claiming "your most basic right is to yourself" denies the unborn child that same basic right
To state otherwise is basically saying mother and child are the same person, which is absurd.

[Mr Happy]

Thnx.for your opinion who,but it has nothing to do with the question asked.
The original topic of this thread was Davis's opposition to the abortion bill passed in Texas and her ignorance on the gosnell trial. The Texas bill does not outlaw abortion until after 20 weeks, and you claiming "your most basic right is to yourself" denies the unborn child that same basic right
To state otherwise is basically saying mother and child are the same person, which is absurd.

I would say the vast majority of right-thinking people would not want people to have abortions after 20 weeks unless the mother's life is in jeopardy or the baby is severely disabled....

[Mr Happy]

Already covered with the word "arms"

Great, I'll go buy a nuke....

[peoshi]

I would say the vast majority of right-thinking people would not want people to have abortions after 20 weeks unless the mother's life is in jeopardy or the baby is severely disabled....I would say that too, but the j twins think the child should have no rights regardless of the circumstances.

[jillian]

Already covered with the word "arms"

ridiculous... the founders never contemplated any such thing.

funny how their "original intent" doesn't matter to the right vis the 2nd amendment.

[jillian]

I would say the vast majority of right-thinking people would not want people to have abortions after 20 weeks unless the mother's life is in jeopardy or the baby is severely disabled....

i'd say that's largely true... except they don't give amniocentesis until really close to that point.

i think... people want abortion to be safe, readily available and not used much... which is what occurs in places where women are economically stable and religious extremists don't interfere with their rights.

[Mainecoons]

which is what occurs in places where women are economically stable and religious extremists don't interfere with their rights.

Once again, feel free to document this unless, as usual, you made it up.

[Mr Happy]

Once again, feel free to document this unless, as usual, you made it up.


[/COLOR]

which part is wrong? you do realise that in the rest of the civilised world the abortion issue is not even a political one right? Only in the good ole USA....

[Mainecoons]

Did I say "wrong?" Do you see that word anywhere in my post? You really need to learn how to read what is there, not what is going on in your head.

I asked her to document this statement. If she is going to make these statements like they are facts, she should have no problem doing so.

[jillian]

Once again, feel free to document this unless, as usual, you made it up.


[/COLOR]

why would you need me to restate something that was fully discussed on threads over the past week.

are your retention skills as much of a fail as your comprehension skills?

[Mainecoons]

Where's the beef?

As usual, you can't back up your statements. Thanks for confirming that.

[jillian]

you can also look at this link:

abortion rates are highest where wingers make it illegal

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46043957/ns/health-health_care/t/abortion-rates-higher-where-its-illegal/#.UgjLexafdhA

[jillian]

Where's the beef?

As usual, you can't back up your statements. Thanks for confirming that.

here's the thing... i couldn't care less about what you want... thank G-d my rights are protected from old men who want to control women.

please feel free to post something of value at any time, puddy tat.

[Mr Happy]

Did I say "wrong?" Do you see that word anywhere in my post? You really need to learn how to read what is there, not what is going on in your head.

I asked her to document this statement. If she is going to make these statements like they are facts, she should have no problem doing so.

I'm looking around and I don't see a judge or a jury or a bible to swear on. I didn't realise this was a court of law. As far as I'm concerned you inferred it....shrug...

That aside, I back up her assertion and I don't need to document. I've lived in three countries (NZ Aust and UK)...I have been through 8 election in NZ, two in the UK and about to go through my third in Aust. Not once has the abortion issue been mentioned in any of those election. I could be wrong - it might have been on page 20 in one of the daily newspapers once. Dunno though....

The vast majority of US citizens who are against abortion in the US are against it for religious reasons. The ones who make it a political issue and have an extreme position in the USA are seen as extremists from those of us looking in. Down here, and in the UK and Europe, we do have the odd person who see abortion doctors as baby killers, and women who have elective abortions and scum, but we look at the people who think like that as loons, and they are on the fringe of society....go figure...

[Mainecoons]

As far as I'm concerned you inferred it....shrug...

As far as I'm concerned, you made it up. As usual.

Your rant has nothing to do with the statement. It is being stated that where "wingers" don't "interfere" with the "right" to an abortion, there are fewer of them. Now obviously you all wouldn't make the mistake of mixing up cultures on this, so you both should have no problem citing data from places where this is true in the U.S.

Sorry, Jillian, your citation isn't relevant to your statement. Try again.

[Chris]

Translation: I'm out of my depth and don't even know it.

Thanks for playing peoshi....You obviously have no clue as to how your constitution works....


oh... i think he knows he's out of his depth.


lol maybe i should hold his hand and read him a constitutional lullaby... zzz


Considering, when you three are not attacking members, the superficial contributions you three make....

[Chris]

Tell your govt to keep its nose out of everybody else's business and I might just hold you to that..

Your argument is a BS one to start with.

You seem to think that is ridiculous that I tell you to find the words 'assault weapon' in your constitution, yet in the same breath you ask me to find the word 'abortion'. You are requiring a different burden of proof from me, that you can't even meet yourself.

That aside, even a person of limited retentative ability such as yourself must know that the USSC interprets your constitution, and therefore Roe vs Wade is now part of it. Whether you like it or not. Every decision they make is. You do know that, right? Which is why there is a such a shit fight when one of the justice's retires or dies....


Thar she blows again. Happy tries to cover up still his faux pas by continued personal attacks.

Why are these three, happy, jillian, and junie, so privileged around here?

[Mainecoons]

you can also look at this link:

abortion rates are highest where wingers make it illegal

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46043957/ns/health-health_care/t/abortion-rates-higher-where-its-illegal/#.UgjLexafdhA

From the citation:


Experts couldn't say whether more liberal laws led to fewer procedures, but said good access to birth control in those countries resulted in fewer unwanted pregnancies.

Experts can't but, of course, Jillian can.

And:


Abortion rates are higher in countries where the procedure is illegal and nearly half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe, with the vast majority in developing countries, a new study concludes.

Didn't realize that "wingers" are a world-wide phenomenon. At least in Jillian's mind. :grin:

:grin:

[Chris]

Please point out which Amendment ROE V WADE is in. you say it's part of the Constitution, so point out where it is. Supreme Court decisions have been overturned before, something not possible without an amendment if their decisions were made a part of the Constitution.
There have been 27 Amendments, so it should be easy to point it out. I'll wait.



Yes, let's remember this is where the argument started, the ridiculous claim by Happy, when asked where in the Constitution abortion is a right, he answered Roe V Wade. Rather than admit he was wrong he argues on and on but contributes absolutely nothing to discussion.


It's like the argument I had with junie over her claim about constitutional rights. I clarified the Constitution doesn't create rights only protects them. Then for page after page, even after she had agree with me, she argues and argues and argues to cover it up but contributes absolutely nothing to discussion.

It's also like the continuing argument with jillian over the law and Constitution, she goes on and on and on about how she's right but contributes absolutely nothing to discussion. Not once has she even argued her point.


Remarkably, when this is seen as a problem, these three are portrayed a complete innocents and those they attack are blamed. Consider who's coming at me last night as if I was the bilerent one.

[Mr Happy]

As far as I'm concerned, you made it up. As usual.

Your rant has nothing to do with the statement. It is being stated that where "wingers" don't "interfere" with the "right" to an abortion, there are fewer of them. Now obviously you all wouldn't make the mistake of mixing up cultures on this, so you both should have no problem citing data from places where this is true in the U.S.

Sorry, Jillian, your citation isn't relevant to your statement. Try again.


[/COLOR]

Making what up? Are you accusing me or Jillian?
I haven't made anything up...
It's a fact that most places where it is legal it is safe (Europe, canada, US, australia, nz), are where women are economically stable and religious zealots are out of the picture.

Point out on this list of 50 countries that is economically stable or there are no religious zealots or a combination of the two. None of them meet the criteria..

http://www.whichcountry.co/countries-where-abortion-is-illegal/

[Chris]

Please point out where the words "assault weapon" are...take your time....



Another case of happy going on and on and on repeating the same question and refusing any answer like the 2nd amendment says arms, a general term that includes any weapon. It contributes nothing. It's trolling.

[Chris]

Already covered with the word "arms"


Great, I'll go buy a nuke....



Answered, he abandons the first gotcha for another gotcha. It's just a game. Trolling.

[Chris]

ridiculous... the founders never contemplated any such thing.

funny how their "original intent" doesn't matter to the right vis the 2nd amendment.



And then the self-proclaimed constitutional expert chimes in with as usual an unsupported claim.

[Chris]

here's the thing... i couldn't care less about what you want... thank G-d my rights are protected from old men who want to control women.

please feel free to post something of value at any time, puddy tat.



Why contradict yourself? If you couldn't care less, why are you posting and arguing?


Maine is right, you offer opinions, nothing to support them. Understandable for when you do your own links undermine your opinions, as maine has shown.

[Chris]

I'm looking around and I don't see a judge or a jury or a bible to swear on. I didn't realise this was a court of law. As far as I'm concerned you inferred it....shrug...

That aside, I back up her assertion and I don't need to document. I've lived in three countries (NZ Aust and UK)...I have been through 8 election in NZ, two in the UK and about to go through my third in Aust. Not once has the abortion issue been mentioned in any of those election. I could be wrong - it might have been on page 20 in one of the daily newspapers once. Dunno though....

The vast majority of US citizens who are against abortion in the US are against it for religious reasons. The ones who make it a political issue and have an extreme position in the USA are seen as extremists from those of us looking in. Down here, and in the UK and Europe, we do have the odd person who see abortion doctors as baby killers, and women who have elective abortions and scum, but we look at the people who think like that as loons, and they are on the fringe of society....go figure...




I back up her assertion and I don't need to document.

Another self-proclaimed expert who believes his opinions alone are sufficient.


I could be wrong

But you will never know because you only listen to yourself.

[Chris]

Making what up? Are you accusing me or Jillian?
I haven't made anything up...
It's a fact that most places where it is legal it is safe (Europe, canada, US, australia, nz), are where women are economically stable and religious zealots are out of the picture.

Point out on this list of 50 countries that is economically stable or there are no religious zealots or a combination of the two. None of them meet the criteria..

http://www.whichcountry.co/countries-where-abortion-is-illegal/


Confronted, happy pulls the old switcheroo, he can't back up his claims so he shifts burden of proof to the other guy.

[Chris]

The elephant in the room is if liberals believe it's right for government to protect their rights how can they deny the same protection to the unborn?

Several arguments have ended right there with no response.

[Mainecoons]

Making what up? Are you accusing me or Jillian?
I haven't made anything up...
It's a fact that most places where it is legal it is safe (Europe, canada, US, australia, nz), are where women are economically stable and religious zealots are out of the picture.

Point out on this list of 50 countries that is economically stable or there are no religious zealots or a combination of the two. None of them meet the criteria..

http://www.whichcountry.co/countries-where-abortion-is-illegal/

To start out with, the question was addressed to Jillian, as was made plain. Do you also have trouble understanding when you are in the conversation and when not?

Secondly, your citation fails for the same reason her's does, which I quoted from it:


Experts couldn't say whether more liberal laws led to fewer procedures, but said good access to birth control in those countries resulted in fewer unwanted pregnancies.

In other words, real experts, not you two obviously, can't sort out exactly why the abortion rate MIGHT be lower in countries where it is legal, because BC is also legal and readily available in those places.

Congratulation Happy: Your failure to understand both the question and who it was addressed to, not you, has made quite a garbled mess of this discussion.

[Chris]

made quite a garbled mess of this discussion

I think that's the intent of all the liberal hand wringing and waving.

[Mainecoons]

Yes, that was exactly my point in raising the discussion. These two make up facts regularly and when pushed on their statements, either can't cite anything or, in this case, cite something which actually shows their made up statements to be wrong.

Bottom line here: As I expected, Jillian cannot cite a credible reference that proves that abortion rates are lower in countries where it is legal simply because it is legal. Not to mention the fact that to examine that question and try to draw comparisons by looking at disparate countries with very different cultures AND birth rates, is probably not possible.

I never cease to be amazed at how poor our liberals here are at this kind of critical thinking and analysis. But I suppose if they were good at it, they wouldn't be extreme liberals at all.

:grin:

BTW, while I believe that making abortion illegal is about as fruitful as making drugs illegal, I also think that the widespread usage of both in the U.S. is a very powerful statement of the degradation of the moral fiber of the country after 50 years of the leftist moral culture. It's a terminal disease, unfortunately.

[Chris]

The following directly contradicts the claim abortion rates are lower in countries where it's legal--Jillian's link claimed specifically lower rates in Europe and South America.

http://i.snag.gy/t0FAk.jpg.

@ http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/01/daily-chart-7

[Mr Happy]

To start out with, the question was addressed to Jillian, as was made plain. Do you also have trouble understanding when you are in the conversation and when not?

Secondly, your citation fails for the same reason her's does, which I quoted from it:


[/I][/FONT][/COLOR]
In other words, real experts, not you two obviously, can't sort out exactly why the abortion rate MIGHT be lower in countries where it is legal, because BC is also legal and readily available in those places.

Congratulation Happy: Your failure to understand both the question and who it was addressed to, not you, has made quite a garbled mess of this discussion.

Um, before you start casting aspersions on people you might want to check out your post 178. You clearly say "as far as i'm concerned, you made it up, as usual". The post you have quoted was mine, so no, you were not being clear. That is plain for anybody to see.

Her original assertion never mentioned the US, she said places. My link talks about places. You never mentioned the caveat it was related to the states until the above.

you really need to bone up on being more articulate and state what you mean concisely and clearly. Typical rightie - create confusion then blame it on others. How typical....

[Mainecoons]

You are amazingly confused. Yes, that was directed to you, as you injected the word "wrong" into my post. That is not the same "made up" as I was referring to when I responded to Jillian, who, as I've since shown, did make up her claim that legalization is the cause of lower abortion rates.

There were two different "made ups." Her made up was what I was addressing when you shoved your way into the discussion. Your made up was putting words into my post.

Tell you what I'll do. You need a lot of help separating yourself from Jillian, clearly. So I'll make sure that

when I'm attempting to talk to you, I'll use your name in every sentence. Will that help?

:rofl:

[Mr Happy]

Yes, that was exactly my point in raising the discussion. These two make up facts regularly and when pushed on their statements, either can't cite anything or, in this case, cite something which actually shows their made up statements to be wrong.

Bottom line here: As I expected, Jillian cannot cite a credible reference that proves that abortion rates are lower in countries where it is legal simply because it is legal. Not to mention the fact that to examine that question and try to draw comparisons by looking at disparate countries with very different cultures AND birth rates, is probably not possible.

I never cease to be amazed at how poor our liberals here are at this kind of critical thinking and analysis. But I suppose if they were good at it, they wouldn't be extreme liberals at all.

:grin:

BTW, while I believe that making abortion illegal is about as fruitful as making drugs illegal, I also think that the widespread usage of both in the U.S. is a very powerful statement of the degradation of the moral fiber of the country after 50 years of the leftist moral culture. It's a terminal disease, unfortunately.

Do you actually believe the drivel you write?

From J's link..Here I have bolded your 'problem' with her facts and how it was addressed in the link. Now say 'thank you'. You're welcome..

Abortion rates were lowest in Western Europe — 12 per 1,000 — and highest in Eastern Europe — 43 per 1,000. The rate in North America was 19 per 1,000. Sedgh said she and colleagues found a link between higher abortion rates and regions with more restrictive legislation, such as in Latin America and Africa. They also found that 95 to 97 percent of abortions in those regions were unsafe.

But the biggest crock of shit and the thing that made me laugh out loud was your 'These two make up facts regularly' and then your last paragraph (and last sentence especially), you do the same thing you accuse us of. Of course the difference is we actually provide evidence...go figure...

[Chris]

Yes, that was exactly my point in raising the discussion. These two make up facts regularly and when pushed on their statements, either can't cite anything or, in this case, cite something which actually shows their made up statements to be wrong.

Bottom line here: As I expected, Jillian cannot cite a credible reference that proves that abortion rates are lower in countries where it is legal simply because it is legal. Not to mention the fact that to examine that question and try to draw comparisons by looking at disparate countries with very different cultures AND birth rates, is probably not possible.

I never cease to be amazed at how poor our liberals here are at this kind of critical thinking and analysis. But I suppose if they were good at it, they wouldn't be extreme liberals at all.

:grin:

BTW, while I believe that making abortion illegal is about as fruitful as making drugs illegal, I also think that the widespread usage of both in the U.S. is a very powerful statement of the degradation of the moral fiber of the country after 50 years of the leftist moral culture. It's a terminal disease, unfortunately.


Um, before you start casting aspersions on people you might want to check out your post 178. You clearly say "as far as i'm concerned, you made it up, as usual". The post you have quoted was mine, so no, you were not being clear. That is plain for anybody to see.

Her original assertion never mentioned the US, she said places. My link talks about places. You never mentioned the caveat it was related to the states until the above.

you really need to bone up on being more articulate and state what you mean concisely and clearly. Typical rightie - create confusion then blame it on others. How typical....



Compare these summaries of an ongoing argument.

Maine's reiterates the main points clearly, his is self-contained, no need to go searching for posts to make sense of it, it sticks to opinions and ideas.

Happy's makes little sense, something about places, something about he said she said, you need to go read posts to figure out what he's talking about, mostly it's just trying to continue his personal pissing contest.

One post is articulate, the other not.

[Mr Happy]

You are amazingly confused. Yes, that was directed to you, as you injected the word "wrong" into my post. That is not the same "made up" as I was referring to when I responded to Jillian, who, as I've since shown, did make up her claim that legalization is the cause of lower abortion rates.

There were two different "made ups." Her made up was what I was addressing when you shoved your way into the discussion. Your made up was putting words into my post.

Tell you what I'll do. You need a lot of help separating yourself from Jillian, clearly. So I'll make sure that

when I'm attempting to talk to you, I'll use your name in every sentence. Will that help?

:rofl:

Well considering you just wrote four paragraphs trying to explain yourself, what do you think?

[junie]

The elephant in the room is if liberals believe it's right for government to protect their rights how can they deny the same protection to the unborn?

Several arguments have ended right there with no response.



whatever your perceptions of the 'argument' here, the legal arguments did not ignore the unborn...another simple fact you need to swallow.

[Mainecoons]

I'm beginning to wonder if Happy is some sort of Jillian alter ego. He really can't seem to sort out when he's being addressed and when not.

Let's hope my solution works.

:grin:

[Agravan]

ridiculous... the founders never contemplated any such thing.

funny how their "original intent" doesn't matter to the right vis the 2nd amendment.

So, please enlighten us as to what their "original intent" was, jillian.

[Chris]

Do you actually believe the drivel you write?

From J's link..Here I have bolded your 'problem' with her facts and how it was addressed in the link. Now say 'thank you'. You're welcome..

Abortion rates were lowest in Western Europe — 12 per 1,000 — and highest in Eastern Europe — 43 per 1,000. The rate in North America was 19 per 1,000. Sedgh said she and colleagues found a link between higher abortion rates and regions with more restrictive legislation, such as in Latin America and Africa. They also found that 95 to 97 percent of abortions in those regions were unsafe.

But the biggest crock of shit and the thing that made me laugh out loud was your 'These two make up facts regularly' and then your last paragraph (and last sentence especially), you do the same thing you accuse us of. Of course the difference is we actually provide evidence...go figure...



Too bad you have me on ignore and missed statistics that directly counter your repetition.

Yes, you provide evidence, cherry picked, as maine revealed by quoting the parts of that article you avoid citing.

[Mr Happy]

I'm beginning to wonder if Happy is some sort of Jillian alter ego. He really can't seem to sort out when he's being addressed and when not.

Let's hope my solution works.

:grin:

I'm sure if you start being more articulate, or take up a remedial course in how to post in a concise, clear manner, your solution should be fine....

[junie]

In 1992, after much anticipation, the Supreme Court released a lengthy, multipart decision ruling that Roe v. Wade was affirmed but that the bulk of the Pennsylvania law was constitutional nonetheless. Reiterating some of the reasoning in Roe, the Court first declared that a woman's decision to get an abortion implicates important "liberty interests" and "privacy interests" that the Constitution's Due Process Clause protects against state interference. Together, these interests form a "substantive right to privacy" that is protected from state interference in "marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education." This right also protects the abortion decision, the Court again argued, because it implicates equally intimate questions of a woman's personal autonomy, personal sacrifices, emotional and mental health, and fundamental right to define her life.

With the constitutional right to an abortion reaffirmed, the Court next reiterated Roe's ruling that, first, states could not ban abortions before the "viability" point (the point at which the fetus is able to sustain life outside the womb), and second, that in no case may states ban abortions that help preserve the life or health of the mother. The Court also rejected parts of Roe, holding that the state can legally pass laws protecting the life and health of the fetus or mother in far broader circumstances. For example, while in Roe the Court had held that the state could not regulate any aspect of abortions performed during the first trimester, the Court now held that states could pass such regulations affecting the first trimester, but only to safeguard a woman's health, not to limit a woman's access to abortions. In another change, the Court now held that, with the advance of life-preserving medicines, the point at which a fetus might become "viable" (the point at which states may constitutionally outlaw abortions) could be slightly before the third trimester. Finally, the Court proclaimed that any regulation that imposes a "substantial obstacle" preventing a woman from obtaining a legal abortion is an "undue burden" that violates the woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

With these new rules established, the Court examined the Pennsylvania law and measured its constitutionality. The Court ruled that one of the more controversial provisions of the law, the mandatory 24-hour waiting period, was not an undue burden and was thus constitutional. This provision's purpose, to promote well-considered abortions, was legitimate and only incidentally and slightly limited access to abortions. Next, the Court ruled that the spousal consent provision did constitute an undue burden, because husbands could potentially resort to abuse and obstruction upon learning of their spouses' abortion plans. The Court upheld the remaining portion of the law, including a parental consent provision for minors.

Casey v. Planned Parenthood, though less famous than Roe v. Wade, is actually a more important case. In Casey, a more recent Supreme Court not only affirmed Roe's abortion right, but broadened the states authority to regulate it. And yet the decision remains as controversial as Roe, not just politically or morally, but legally. The "undue burden" test is more ambiguous and difficult to apply. With Justices John Roberts (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/future/robes_roberts.html) and Samuel Alito (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/future/robes_alito.html) joining the Supreme Court in its 2005 term, it may revisit the constitutional status of the abortion right that Casey, in part, preserved.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_casey.html

[Mainecoons]

I'm sure if you start being more articulate, or take up a remedial course in how to post in a concise, clear manner, your solution should be fine....

THIS POST IS ADDRESSED TO MR. HAPPY

Happy, at least I know when I've been addressed. :grin:

[Chris]

whatever your perceptions of the 'argument' here, the legal arguments did not ignore the unborn...another simple fact you need to swallow.


So you say but provide no substance to it. Where did legal argument protect the rights of the unborn to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and protection of body as property? Please cite this since you claim it's true.

[Mr Happy]

THIS POST IS ADDRESSED TO MR. HAPPY

Happy, at least I know when I've been addressed. :grin:

That is because you are addressed in the clear, concise manner, unlike your confusing, muddled posting style...:smiley:

[Mainecoons]

THIS POST ADDRESSED TO MR. HAPPY.

Sentences end with only one period.

:rofl:

[Chris]

...

You keep repeating citations as if they speak for themselves. You need to articulate your point yourself. Simply citing some opinion and highlighting portions do not accomplish that.



...the Court first declared that a woman's decision to get an abortion implicates important "liberty interests" and "privacy interests" that the Constitution's Due Process Clause protects against state interference. Together, these interests form a "substantive right to privacy"...

They, the court, the government created a right. But we have all agreed government can only protect rights. Round and round and round you go.



...states could not ban abortions before the "viability" point...

Nothing but a cop out, a form of special pleading, defining away the issue, in order to not only ignore but to deny the unborn equal rights.

[Chris]

That is because you are addressed in the clear, concise manner, unlike your confusing, muddled posting style...:smiley:

Project much?

[Mr Happy]

THIS POST ADDRESSED TO MR. HAPPY.

Sentences end with only one period.

:rofl:

Who said the sentence had ended?

Homework for Mainecoons today - look up the definition of aposiopesis...

PS, it really is a lot easier if you hit the reply with quote button. As long as you don't get too confused about who wrote what post. Ciao...

[Chris]

That is because you are addressed in the clear, concise manner, unlike your confusing, muddled posting style...:smiley:

Like maine said, sentences end in single punctuation not run on vague ellipses.

Also, it's " in the [sic, a] clear, concise manner".

Moreover, in your "(A) That is because you are addressed in the clear, concise manner, (B) unlike your confusing, muddled posting style", you're parallelism is off, not just in the dangling ending, already pointed out, but (A) is passive voice and (B) is active voice.

Work on it, OK.

Once you get the English down, then substantiate. Demonstrate "confusing, muddled posting style" as I have just done.



Who said the sentence had ended?

And you laugh at your own vague, "confusing, muddled posting style".

[jillian]

Who said the sentence had ended?

Homework for Mainecoons today - look up the definition of aposiopesis...

PS, it really is a lot easier if you hit the reply with quote button. As long as you don't get too confused about who wrote what post. Ciao...
Mr Happy aposiopesis has six syllables. you don't really think he knows the word, do you?

[junie]

Texas abortion bill a step closer to law July 11, 2013


...


Pastor Rick Scarborough, of Vision America, who was asked to provide opening remarks for the news conference, offered a much more succinct end goal: "This is a small, important step toward the beginning of the end of abortion in America."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/politics/texas-abortion-bill/index.html











Banning abortions after a specific point in pregnancy has been a popular trend in the states this year.

Last week, made Texas the 12th state to ban most abortions after 20 weeks.

http://www.npr.org/2013/07/22/204422693/state-abortion-laws-differ-from-doctors-in-defining-20-weeks


But how states define the starting point for that 20 weeks may cause headaches for women and their doctors — and ultimately affect whether these laws pass constitutional muster.


Like all but one of the abortion bans passed so far in the states, the Texas law starts its 20-week calendar at fertilization.

But that's not the same as saying 20 weeks of pregnancy, because that's not how doctors measure pregnancy.





With few exceptions, however, that's not how the state laws — and a bill that — are being written.


"What we're seeing with these laws is that they are pegging the beginning of pregnancy to fertilization," says Elizabeth Nash, who tracks state issues for the , an abortion rights think tank.






The ban they would impose is earlier than what's currently considered viability, or when a fetus can survive outside the womb.

http://www.babymed.com/prematurity/pregnancy-viability-what-does-it-mean



"I think there's definitely consensus that viability doesn't happen before 24 menstrual weeks," he says. "So when we're talking about banning abortion at 20 or 22 weeks even, that's clearly at least two weeks before the earliest point in pregnancy where viability would be a concern."


That's important, because current Supreme Court precedent says states can't ban abortion before viability.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/us/arizonas-ban-on-abortions-struck-down-in-federal-court.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/us/arizonas-ban-on-abortions-struck-down-in-federal-court.html?_r=0)

[junie]

So you say but provide no substance to it. Where did legal argument protect the rights of the unborn to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and protection of body as property? Please cite this since you claim it's true.



educate yourself... i'm not going to read the cases or hold your hand and regurgitate the constitution...

[Mainecoons]

Here's a chart depicting birth rates:

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SP.DYN.CBRT.IN

Now if you then compare this with Chris's bar graph it APPEARS that although the abortion rates are higher in places like Africa, as a PROPORTION of the birth rate, they are not, since the birth rate in much of Africa is 2-3 times what it is in developed countries but the abortion rate is not.

Conversely, if one looks at the low birth rate in Europe and the U.S., for example, where abortion is legal and then look at Chris's bar graph, it would appear upon casual examination that the abortion rate AS A FUNCTION OF THE BIRTH RATE is higher, not lower, in places where it is legal.

This is what makes simplistic statements about the relationship of legality to abortion rates so difficult, which is probably why the "experts" don't try to do so.

[Chris]

Mr Happy aposiopesis has six syllables. you don't really think he knows the word, do you?

Aposiopesis is not an excuse for a vague, "confusing, muddled posting style".


Interesting implication about aposiopesis:


A biblical example is found in Psalm 27, verse 13. In English it says: "Unless I had believed I would see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living …" The implication is that the author does not know what he would have done.

@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aposiopesis

[Chris]

...

Say something, junie.

[Mainecoons]

@Mr Happy (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=720) aposiopesis has six syllables. you don't really think he knows the word, do you?

THIS POST IS DIRECTED TO JILLIAN

Jillian, would you now care to comment about how your reference apparently contradicts your conclusion from it?

Would you also care to comment on the relationship of birth rate to abortion rate and how that makes the kind of simplistic comparison you engaged in here, quite suspect?

Thanks.

On edit, I decided I better reiterate the quote from Jillian's source so that she can be clear as to what it says:


Experts couldn't say whether more liberal laws led to fewer procedures, but said good access to birth control in those countries resulted in fewer unwanted pregnancies.

[Chris]

Here's a chart depicting birth rates:

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SP.DYN.CBRT.IN

Now if you then compare this with Chris's bar graph it APPEARS that although the abortion rates are higher in places like Africa, as a PROPORTION of the birth rate, they are not, since the birth rate in much of Africa is 2-3 times what it is in developed countries but the abortion rate is not.

Conversely, if one looks at the low birth rate in Europe and the U.S., for example, where abortion is legal and then look at Chris's bar graph, it would appear upon casual examination that the abortion rate AS A FUNCTION OF THE BIRTH RATE is higher, not lower, in places where it is legal.

This is what makes simplistic statements about the relationship of legality to abortion rates so difficult, which is probably why the "experts" don't try to do so.

Start adding in different politics and policies, social norms and mores, wealth and poverty, and etc, and you have something no simplistic agenda-based claim can deal with.

[Ravi]

What is it about some members here who just can't seem to address the topic but instead always stoop to personal attacks?

Who? I notice that you are continually making personal attacks and yet here you still are.

[Chris]

Who? I notice that you are continually making personal attacks and yet here you still are.

Marie, where have I made any personal attacks? Either demonstrate that or you are flat out lying. (Given that you have repeatedly made this false accusation and never backed it up, the likely conclusion is you are lying.)

[junie]

Economics of Abortion

Printable version of this fact sheet (http://www.prochoice.org/pubs_research/publications/downloads/about_abortion/economics_of_abortion.pdf) (PDF file, 23K)

http://www.prochoice.org/images/global/dots545.gif
Before and After Roe v. Wade



When abortion was illegal in the U.S., desperate women often paid high fees to obtain abortions, even from unlicensed, untrained practitioners working in frightening, non-sterile conditions. Dangerous medical complications were likely to follow these illegal abortions, resulting in lengthy hospital stays, increased financial and health costs, and a serious drain on hospital maternity resources. Complications from black market abortions were a leading cause of maternal death when abortion was legally prohibited, exacting a huge price from American families.


In 1973, the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision re-established the right to legal abortion in every state. As a result, abortion is now medically safe and less expensive. Today, women who want abortions can select well-trained, compassionate medical personnel, who work in clean, well equipped offices, clinics, or hospitals. Now, almost 90% of abortions in the U.S. are provided during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.1 (http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/economics.html#1) The danger of serious complications is extremely small. Learn more about the safety of abortion

(http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/safety_of_abortion.html)

The Cost of Abortion


The exact cost of an abortion depends on many factors, such as how far along the pregnancy is, the kind of procedure and anesthetic that are used, and the kind of facility (clinic, physician's office, or hospital).


In general, though, women getting an abortion between six and ten weeks' gestation can expect to pay about $350 at an abortion clinic and $500 at a physician's office. Providing abortions later in pregnancy is somewhat more complicated, and is usually more expensive. For example, at 16 weeks gestation, abortion clinics generally charge around $650 and physicians' offices generally charge around $700. After the 20th week, the cost rises to above $1,000.2

(http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/economics.html#2)

Other costs might result if care is not available locally. These might include travel costs, costs for overnight stays, or lost wages in states requiring waiting periods between pre-abortion counseling and the abortion itself.


The Economics for Women and Their Families


Paying for abortion is not usually a problem for middle- and upper-income women, because the majority of private medical insurance plans and HMO organizations currently cover abortion services. However, the availability of abortion funding for low-income women is controlled by elected government officials. Since 1978, Congress has imposed a restriction on the use of federal money to cover abortion. This restriction, known as the Hyde Amendment, forbids federal funding of abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or when a woman's life is endangered. The restrictions apply to Medicaid, the government program that pays for medical care for many low-income families, as well as other federally funded medical programs such as those for Native American women, military personnel and their dependents, and Peace Corps volunteers. Only 23 states use their own funds to cover abortion services beyond the Hyde Amendment's restrictions. Learn more about public funding for abortions

(http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/public_funding.html)

The Economics for Abortion Providers


In very marked contrast to most other medical procedures, the cost of abortion has risen less than inflation. In fact, contrary to the distorted picture of the "abortion industry" as a tremendously profitable business designed to take advantage of women, in reality abortion providers have maintained lower than average fees for their services compared with physicians in other specialties. Correcting for inflation, legal abortions in 1991 cost only about half what they cost in the early 1970s.3

(http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/economics.html#3)

Physicians and other medical professionals who provide abortion services are people who understand that a woman's right to choose whether she will continue a pregnancy is a critical part of her total health care. They are compassionate people who know that legal abortions are safe abortions.



The Costs of Denying Abortion Funding


When women are denied abortions that they seek because their insurance or Medicaid plans do not cover them, there are both real and hidden costs that they, their families, and other taxpayers must bear. There is also the social cost associated with forcing some women to bear children when they are not prepared to be mothers or when parents are unable to support their children.
For example, many of the women who are denied funding for abortion have one anyway, usually at great sacrifice to themselves and their families. They may take on extra work or borrow from their rent or grocery budgets. Sometimes, because it takes time to find the money, the woman has to obtain the abortion at a later stage of pregnancy, when the procedure is more expensive and more complicated.4

(http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/economics.html#4)

Some women without money to pay for an abortion attempt to induce one themselves. This usually fails, resulting in delays before seeking surgical abortion. Self-induced abortion attempts are often medically very dangerous, leading to serious complications or death.


Those who oppose public funding for abortion call it an unfair burden on taxpayers. In fact, funding restrictions on abortions cost taxpayers millions of dollars every year, due to the much higher cost of prenatal care and childbirth, and the secondary costs of unplanned births.4 (http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/economics.html#4) Families also pay a high price whenever a woman must carry an unwanted pregnancy to term because she is unable to pay for abortion services.


Abortion and Health Care Reform


There are disagreements about whether abortion services should be covered in proposed health care reform plans. But as long as abortion funding is denied to low-income women, the effect is discriminatory and unfair. The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to choose abortion is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. If a government sponsored universal health care plan fails to cover abortion, all women will lose insurance funding for this procedure, and low-income women and young women will be especially penalized. The right to make private decisions about childbearing and reproductive health care should apply to all women, not just those who can afford it.


http://www.prochoice.org/images/global/dots545.gif
References



Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Surveillance Summaries, November 29, 2002. MMWR 2002:51 (No. SS-9).
Henshaw S, Finer LB, The Accessibility of Abortion Services in the United States, 2001, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, Volume 35, Number 1, January/February 2003.
Grimes DA. Clinicians Who Provide Abortions: The Thinning Ranks, Obstetrics & Gynecology, 1992, 80: 719.
Guttmacher Institute, Revisiting Public Funding of Abortion for Poor Women, Issues in Brief, 2000 Series, No. 5.

http://www.prochoice.org/images/global/dots545.gif
For More Information
For unbiased information about abortion and other resources, including financial assistance, call toll-free 1-800-772-9100


http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/economics.html

[junie]

Say something, junie.




how clever to quote a disappearing quote while completely ignoring the substance of my post.

i work for a living and don't have time to chat or jump thru disingenuous hoops for you... stop 'arguing' and educate yourself.





In 1992, after much anticipation, the Supreme Court released a lengthy, multipart decision ruling that Roe v. Wade was affirmed but that the bulk of the Pennsylvania law was constitutional nonetheless. Reiterating some of the reasoning in Roe, the Court first declared that a woman's decision to get an abortion implicates important "liberty interests" and "privacy interests" that the Constitution's Due Process Clause protects against state interference. Together, these interests form a "substantive right to privacy" that is protected from state interference in "marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education." This right also protects the abortion decision, the Court again argued, because it implicates equally intimate questions of a woman's personal autonomy, personal sacrifices, emotional and mental health, and fundamental right to define her life.

With the constitutional right to an abortion reaffirmed, the Court next reiterated Roe's ruling that, first, states could not ban abortions before the "viability" point (the point at which the fetus is able to sustain life outside the womb), and second, that in no case may states ban abortions that help preserve the life or health of the mother. The Court also rejected parts of Roe, holding that the state can legally pass laws protecting the life and health of the fetus or mother in far broader circumstances. For example, while in Roe the Court had held that the state could not regulate any aspect of abortions performed during the first trimester, the Court now held that states could pass such regulations affecting the first trimester, but only to safeguard a woman's health, not to limit a woman's access to abortions. In another change, the Court now held that, with the advance of life-preserving medicines, the point at which a fetus might become "viable" (the point at which states may constitutionally outlaw abortions) could be slightly before the third trimester. Finally, the Court proclaimed that any regulation that imposes a "substantial obstacle" preventing a woman from obtaining a legal abortion is an "undue burden" that violates the woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

With these new rules established, the Court examined the Pennsylvania law and measured its constitutionality. The Court ruled that one of the more controversial provisions of the law, the mandatory 24-hour waiting period, was not an undue burden and was thus constitutional. This provision's purpose, to promote well-considered abortions, was legitimate and only incidentally and slightly limited access to abortions. Next, the Court ruled that the spousal consent provision did constitute an undue burden, because husbands could potentially resort to abuse and obstruction upon learning of their spouses' abortion plans. The Court upheld the remaining portion of the law, including a parental consent provision for minors.

Casey v. Planned Parenthood, though less famous than Roe v. Wade, is actually a more important case. In Casey, a more recent Supreme Court not only affirmed Roe's abortion right, but broadened the states authority to regulate it. And yet the decision remains as controversial as Roe, not just politically or morally, but legally. The "undue burden" test is more ambiguous and difficult to apply. With Justices John Roberts (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/future/robes_roberts.html) and Samuel Alito (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/future/robes_alito.html) joining the Supreme Court in its 2005 term, it may revisit the constitutional status of the abortion right that Casey, in part, preserved.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_casey.html


--


Texas abortion bill a step closer to law

July 11, 2013


...


Pastor Rick Scarborough, of Vision America, who was asked to provide opening remarks for the news conference, offered a much more succinct end goal: "This is a small, important step toward the beginning of the end of abortion in America."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/politics/texas-abortion-bill/index.html









Banning abortions after a specific point in pregnancy has been a popular trend in the states this year.

Last week, made Texas the 12th state to ban most abortions after 20 weeks.

http://www.npr.org/2013/07/22/204422693/state-abortion-laws-differ-from-doctors-in-defining-20-weeks


But how states define the starting point for that 20 weeks may cause headaches for women and their doctors — and ultimately affect whether these laws pass constitutional muster.


Like all but one of the abortion bans passed so far in the states, the Texas law starts its 20-week calendar at fertilization.

But that's not the same as saying 20 weeks of pregnancy, because that's not how doctors measure pregnancy.





With few exceptions, however, that's not how the state laws — and a bill that — are being written.


"What we're seeing with these laws is that they are pegging the beginning of pregnancy to fertilization," says Elizabeth Nash, who tracks state issues for the , an abortion rights think tank.






The ban they would impose is earlier than what's currently considered viability, or when a fetus can survive outside the womb.

http://www.babymed.com/prematurity/pregnancy-viability-what-does-it-mean



"I think there's definitely consensus that viability doesn't happen before 24 menstrual weeks," he says. "So when we're talking about banning abortion at 20 or 22 weeks even, that's clearly at least two weeks before the earliest point in pregnancy where viability would be a concern."


That's important, because current Supreme Court precedent says states can't ban abortion before viability.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/us/arizonas-ban-on-abortions-struck-down-in-federal-court.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/us/arizonas-ban-on-abortions-struck-down-in-federal-court.html?_r=0)

[Chris]

how clever to quote a disappearing quote while completely ignoring the substance of my post.

i work for a living and don't have time to chat or jump thru disingenuous hoops for you... stop 'arguing' and educate yourself.





In 1992, after much anticipation, the Supreme Court released a lengthy, multipart decision ruling that Roe v. Wade was affirmed but that the bulk of the Pennsylvania law was constitutional nonetheless. Reiterating some of the reasoning in Roe, the Court first declared that a woman's decision to get an abortion implicates important "liberty interests" and "privacy interests" that the Constitution's Due Process Clause protects against state interference. Together, these interests form a "substantive right to privacy" that is protected from state interference in "marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education." This right also protects the abortion decision, the Court again argued, because it implicates equally intimate questions of a woman's personal autonomy, personal sacrifices, emotional and mental health, and fundamental right to define her life.

With the constitutional right to an abortion reaffirmed, the Court next reiterated Roe's ruling that, first, states could not ban abortions before the "viability" point (the point at which the fetus is able to sustain life outside the womb), and second, that in no case may states ban abortions that help preserve the life or health of the mother. The Court also rejected parts of Roe, holding that the state can legally pass laws protecting the life and health of the fetus or mother in far broader circumstances. For example, while in Roe the Court had held that the state could not regulate any aspect of abortions performed during the first trimester, the Court now held that states could pass such regulations affecting the first trimester, but only to safeguard a woman's health, not to limit a woman's access to abortions. In another change, the Court now held that, with the advance of life-preserving medicines, the point at which a fetus might become "viable" (the point at which states may constitutionally outlaw abortions) could be slightly before the third trimester. Finally, the Court proclaimed that any regulation that imposes a "substantial obstacle" preventing a woman from obtaining a legal abortion is an "undue burden" that violates the woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

With these new rules established, the Court examined the Pennsylvania law and measured its constitutionality. The Court ruled that one of the more controversial provisions of the law, the mandatory 24-hour waiting period, was not an undue burden and was thus constitutional. This provision's purpose, to promote well-considered abortions, was legitimate and only incidentally and slightly limited access to abortions. Next, the Court ruled that the spousal consent provision did constitute an undue burden, because husbands could potentially resort to abuse and obstruction upon learning of their spouses' abortion plans. The Court upheld the remaining portion of the law, including a parental consent provision for minors.

Casey v. Planned Parenthood, though less famous than Roe v. Wade, is actually a more important case. In Casey, a more recent Supreme Court not only affirmed Roe's abortion right, but broadened the states authority to regulate it. And yet the decision remains as controversial as Roe, not just politically or morally, but legally. The "undue burden" test is more ambiguous and difficult to apply. With Justices John Roberts (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/future/robes_roberts.html) and Samuel Alito (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/future/robes_alito.html) joining the Supreme Court in its 2005 term, it may revisit the constitutional status of the abortion right that Casey, in part, preserved.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_casey.html


--


Texas abortion bill a step closer to law

July 11, 2013


...


Pastor Rick Scarborough, of Vision America, who was asked to provide opening remarks for the news conference, offered a much more succinct end goal: "This is a small, important step toward the beginning of the end of abortion in America."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/politics/texas-abortion-bill/index.html









Banning abortions after a specific point in pregnancy has been a popular trend in the states this year.

Last week, made Texas the 12th state to ban most abortions after 20 weeks.

http://www.npr.org/2013/07/22/204422693/state-abortion-laws-differ-from-doctors-in-defining-20-weeks


But how states define the starting point for that 20 weeks may cause headaches for women and their doctors — and ultimately affect whether these laws pass constitutional muster.


Like all but one of the abortion bans passed so far in the states, the Texas law starts its 20-week calendar at fertilization.

But that's not the same as saying 20 weeks of pregnancy, because that's not how doctors measure pregnancy.





With few exceptions, however, that's not how the state laws — and a bill that — are being written.


"What we're seeing with these laws is that they are pegging the beginning of pregnancy to fertilization," says Elizabeth Nash, who tracks state issues for the , an abortion rights think tank.






The ban they would impose is earlier than what's currently considered viability, or when a fetus can survive outside the womb.

http://www.babymed.com/prematurity/pregnancy-viability-what-does-it-mean



"I think there's definitely consensus that viability doesn't happen before 24 menstrual weeks," he says. "So when we're talking about banning abortion at 20 or 22 weeks even, that's clearly at least two weeks before the earliest point in pregnancy where viability would be a concern."


That's important, because current Supreme Court precedent says states can't ban abortion before viability.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/us/arizonas-ban-on-abortions-struck-down-in-federal-court.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/us/arizonas-ban-on-abortions-struck-down-in-federal-court.html?_r=0)





how clever to quote a disappearing quote while completely ignoring the substance of my post.

Not my doing, junie, when all you post is a quote of someone else's words the forum software removes it, not me. Clever of you though to blame me for your inadequacy to express your own point of view. Seems like you either have unsupported opinions or unopinionated support.

Ditto the last two posts that are either all other people's opinions or if you add anything yourself it's impossible to tell.

[junie]

:rollseyes: no one made you pretend as if i hadn't posted any substance. you did that.



legal FACTS extracted from real life SCOTUS opinions on what is constitutional are just my 'unsupported opinion'? oookeedoookeee. :loco:

[Chris]

:rollseyes: no one made you pretend as if i hadn't posted any substance. you did that.



legal FACTS extracted from real life SCOTUS opinions on what is constitutional are just my 'unsupported opinion'? oookeedoookeee. :loco:



I still don't see your opinion. Wring your hands, wave them about, all wasted, what you need to do is clearly state your opinion and then support it. Facts, or rather opinions by others, do not speak for themselves.

[junie]

i try to post to the topic, not to the demands of disingenuous personalities in the vicinity...


the substance of what i've posted speaks for itself, and any sincere reader can better understand the topic for having read them.

you're welcome! :D (not you, of course)

[Chris]

i try to post to the topic, not to the demands of disingenuous personalities in the vicinity...


the substance of what i've posted speaks for itself, and any sincere reader can better understand the topic for having read them. you're welcome! :D


YAPA (Yet Another Personal Attack).


Posting other people's opinions does not speak for itself. Why are you having such a difficult time simply stating in clear, plain prose, what your opinion is?



BTW, you have not responded to my question why you think it's OK for government to protect your rights but not equally protect the rights of the unborn. See, that would be rule of law, equality before law, as opposed to your rule of men, those in black robes, who were never granted power to legislate.

[oceanloverOH]

It's not my "opinion" dumbass,...its a fact.

Your "opinion" doesn't mean shit to me, and scalia is not a right-wing blogger, nor is it his "opinion"...it's a fact.

The amendments you and others have cited would also make prostitution legal,idiot...yet it is not.

If you can point out where abortion is mentioned in the constitution then do so...otherwise STFU!



waiting to be banned or warned.

Please refrain from namecalling.

[Mr Happy]

i try to post to the topic, not to the demands of disingenuous personalities in the vicinity...


the substance of what i've posted speaks for itself, and any sincere reader can better understand the topic for having read them.

you're welcome! :D (not you, of course)

Seriously, why do you engage with him? He tries to act like we're here for his amusement and he the teacher and us the pupils. But the only ones who appear to be doing any teaching is us to him and yet he ignores what you are saying...

The guy hasn't a clue how stupid he comes across.

At least the likes of Zelmo, Av and even MC on occasion try and address the issues and provide answers instead of demanding them and then crying like a little baby that people are insulting him.

Put him on ignore. You won't miss a thing..

[Adelaide]

Right...

So I found the article in the OP interesting for a lot of reasons. I think there is a genuine ignorance amongst most people on most topics but people form opinions anyways. Then they try to support those opinions and find information to back those opinions, often ignoring contradictory information regardless of whether it makes more sense or has a more concrete basis. This is well known, it's certainly not limited to just politicians or not politicians. Confirmation bias isn't exactly a new idea.

But Republicans are often really treated poorly for their ignorant comments about abortion, reproductive rights and family planning. If we decide to believe that the media has been selectively deciding to only focus on Republican gaffes, which is possible, then I have to really wonder just how many other Democrats have made just as silly comments but we're completely unaware of it due to a disingenuous media machine.

Truthfully, I've always thought I've sided with Democrats largely on the issue, but I'm questioning whether they're much better than Republicans (whose position I don't support). They might support and believe in what I support but I don't want to associate myself as being aligned with them on an issue if they or many of them don't even understand the issue. High profile female democrats making ignorant comments, nonetheless about legislation they're fighting for/against, kind of makes me uneasy about Democrat politicians generally.

So while we (liberals) are busy laughing at Akin and others, we've got people who supposedly represent our beliefs basically showcasing their own ignorance on the topic. And we arguably have no idea of to what extent this ignorance spreads within the party because most people don't spend their days watching things like C-SPAN and rely heavily on media to provide the picture.

[junie]

Seriously, why do you engage with him? He tries to act like we're here for his amusement and he the teacher and us the pupils. But the only ones who appear to be doing any teaching is us to him and yet he ignores what you are saying...

The guy hasn't a clue how stupid he comes across.

At least the likes of Zelmo, Av and even MC on occasion try and address the issues and provide answers instead of demanding them and then crying like a little baby that people are insulting him.

Put him on ignore. You won't miss a thing..




:dontknow: lol maybe i haven't yet because i'm an optimist at heart... or a hopeless masochist! ha ha!

[Chris]

Seriously, why do you engage with him? He tries to act like we're here for his amusement and he the teacher and us the pupils. But the only ones who appear to be doing any teaching is us to him and yet he ignores what you are saying...

The guy hasn't a clue how stupid he comes across.

At least the likes of Zelmo, Av and even MC on occasion try and address the issues and provide answers instead of demanding them and then crying like a little baby that people are insulting him.

Put him on ignore. You won't miss a thing..



Again, personal attack from behind the skirt of the ignore feature. Why this is allowed is beyond me.



You know, as I think back, he put me on ignore following an argument in which he resorted to the same thing he always does, personal attack, for which he got a warning, for which he thinks and now say I reported, but actually I did not. So his whole beef with me, several times now peeking out from behind the skirts of the ignore feature to make pot shot personal attacks, it based on a lie he told himself. I do not report things anymore, it's just not worth it.

[peoshi]

Again, personal attack from behind the skirt of the ignore feature. Why this is allowed is beyond me.



You know, as I think back, he put me on ignore following an argument in which he resorted to the same thing he always does, personal attack, for which he got a warning, for which he thinks and now say I reported, but actually I did not. So his whole beef with me, several times now peeking out from behind the skirts of the ignore feature to make pot shot personal attacks, it based on a lie he told himself. I do not report things anymore, it's just not worth it.Maybe he will see your response now and you 2 can work it out.

I doubt it but it was worth a shot!

[peoshi]

That is if he doesn't have me on ignore as well.

If you have someone on ignore do their posts show if some quotes them?
Or are the quotes blanked out as well?

[Chris]

That is if he doesn't have me on ignore as well.

If you have someone on ignore do their posts show if some quotes them?
Or are the quotes blanked out as well?


Don't know, I don't hide behind ignore. :-D

[Mr Happy]

That is if he doesn't have me on ignore as well.

If you have someone on ignore do their posts show if some quotes them?
Or are the quotes blanked out as well?

Why would I put you on ignore? I think you are wrong in most of what you say, but as least you engage - in a grumpy kind of way..

And yes, I can see his posts if you quote them..doesn't mean I read 'em tho'..;o)

[Chris]

Hey, happy, your clown, ;o), is still missing his hat. let me help: <*;o)

[peoshi]

Oh well...so much for working it out. : (

[Dr. Who]

Yes, let's remember this is where the argument started, the ridiculous claim by Happy, when asked where in the Constitution abortion is a right, he answered Roe V Wade. Rather than admit he was wrong he argues on and on but contributes absolutely nothing to discussion.


It's like the argument I had with junie over her claim about constitutional rights. I clarified the Constitution doesn't create rights only protects them. Then for page after page, even after she had agree with me, she argues and argues and argues to cover it up but contributes absolutely nothing to discussion.

It's also like the continuing argument with jillian over the law and Constitution, she goes on and on and on about how she's right but contributes absolutely nothing to discussion. Not once has she even argued her point.


Remarkably, when this is seen as a problem, these three are portrayed a complete innocents and those they attack are blamed. Consider who's coming at me last night as if I was the bilerent one.
I wasn't coming at you Chris. I was trying to clear up the communication. One term with different interpretations. Constitutional right - a right protected by the constitution. Now I would say that according to Roe v Wade, the right to physical self determination is subsumed within the very real right to privacy. I also think it should fall within the very real right to liberty. A person is not free if someone, or even a government, can dictate what you may or may not do with your own body.

[Chris]

I wasn't coming at you Chris. I was trying to clear up the communication. One term with different interpretations. Constitutional right - a right protected by the constitution. Now I would say that according to Roe v Wade, the right to physical self determination is subsumed within the very real right to privacy. I also think it should fall within the very real right to liberty. A person is not free if someone, or even a government, can dictate what you may or may not do with your own body.

You quoted wrong post so I'm trying to remember.... Don't think I said you were coming at me, per se, just that you and others were arguing the meaning long after we'd agreed it meant not created but protected rights.


the right to physical self determination is subsumed within the very real right to privacy

The opposite could be argued, privacy subsumed under property rights, given we have a right in our bodies, our opinions (Madison) and the fruit of our labor (Locke).


A person is not free if someone, or even a government, can dictate what you may or may not do with your own body.

Right, thus, while the government provides that to a select special group, it denies it to another, the unborn.

[Dr. Who]

You quoted wrong post so I'm trying to remember.... Don't think I said you were coming at me, per se, just that you and others were arguing the meaning long after we'd agreed it meant not created but protected rights.



The opposite could be argued, privacy subsumed under property rights, given we have a right in our bodies, our opinions (Madison) and the fruit of our labor (Locke).



Right, thus, while the government provides that to a select special group, it denies it to another, the unborn.15 to 50% of all conceptions are miscarried within the first trimester. I would really like someone to explain to me why a conception that is spontaneously aborted because the mother has the flu or had a bad day at work or may have some fundamental disorder that the body recognizes as unviable, has any different rights than one therapeutically aborted. Of course in the case of the former, the mother may not even know that she was pregnant, never mind know that she has miscarried. Of those conceptions that are therapeutically aborted, there is a statistical probability that a certain percentage would have been spontaneously aborted by the mother in any event.

[Mr Happy]

15 to 50% of all conceptions are miscarried within the first trimester. I would really like someone to explain to me why a conception that is spontaneously aborted because the mother has the flu or had a bad day at work or may have some fundamental disorder that the body recognizes as unviable, has any different rights than one therapeutically aborted. Of course in the case of the former, the mother may not even know that she was pregnant, never mind know that she has miscarried. Of those conceptions that are therapeutically aborted, there is a statistical probability that a certain percentage would have been spontaneously aborted by the mother in any event.

Believe it or not, I'm against abortion. However, I also believe in the mother's right to choose. As mentioned in an earlier post, the only place I know of in the western world where this is a hot potato issue is the US. And it is usually down to religious reasons (not saying there are those like me who for totally non-religious reasons don't believe in abortion, but we are by far the minority).

[junie]

"we've got people who supposedly represent our beliefs basically showcasing their own ignorance on the topic."



^happens all the time with politicians, yet thru the all the minutia, the underlying principle of privacy remains as the prevailing issue here.


what pro-choice citizens are concerned with, and what davis stood for, didn't depend upon the facts of that one particular case.

[junie]

You quoted wrong post so I'm trying to remember.... Don't think I said you were coming at me, per se, just that you and others were arguing the meaning long after we'd agreed it meant not created but protected rights.



The opposite could be argued, privacy subsumed under property rights, given we have a right in our bodies, our opinions (Madison) and the fruit of our labor (Locke).



Right, thus, while the government provides that to a select special group, it denies it to another, the unborn.




round and round you go...







Roe v. Wade (http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_a.htm) is the historic Supreme Court decision overturning a Texas interpretation of abortion law and making abortion legal in the United States. The Roe v. Wade decision held that a woman, with her doctor, could choose abortion in earlier months of pregnancy without legal restriction, and with restrictions in later months, based on the right to privacy.

Date of the Roe v. Wade decision

January 22 (http://womenshistory.about.com/library/cal/bl0122.htm), 1973.

Effect of the Roe v. Wade decision:

All state laws limiting women's access to abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy were invalidated by Roe v. Wade. State laws limiting such access during the second trimester were upheld only when the restrictions were for the purpose of protecting the health of the pregnant woman. Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the United States, which was not legal at all in many states and was limited by law in others.

Basis of the Roe v. Wade decision:

The lower court's decision in this case was that the Ninth Amendment, a part of the Bill of Rights, in stating that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," protected a person's right to privacy. The Supreme Court chose to base its decision on the Fourteenth Amendment (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/laws/a/equal_protect.htm). Roe v. Wade was decided (http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_g.htm) primarily on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. A criminal statute that did not take into account the stage of pregnancy or other interests than the life of the mother was deemed a violation of Due Process.

Acceptable government regulation according to Roe v. Wade:

Different rules at different stages of pregnancy were considered appropriate:

In the first trimester, the state (that is, any government) could treat abortion only as a medical decision, leaving medical judgment to the woman's physician.
In the second trimester (before viability), the state's interest was seen as legitimate when it was protecting the health of the mother.
After viability of the fetus (the likely ability of the fetus to be able to survive outside and separated from the uterus), the potential of human life could be considered as a legitimate state interest, and the state could choose to "regulate, or even proscribe abortion" as long as the life and health of the mother was protected.


Who Roe and Wade were:

The alias "Jane Roe" was used for Norma McCorvey (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortionus/a/norma_mccorvey.htm), on whose behalf the suit was originally filed, alleging that the abortion law in Texas violated her constitutional rights and the rights of other women.. The defendant was the district attorney of Dallas County, Texas, Henry B. Wade.


Who voted for and against the Roe v. Wade decision:

The majority: Harry Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Chief Justice Warren Burger, William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, Lewis Powell and Potter Stewart. The dissent: William Rehnquist and Byron White. The majority opinion was written by Harry Blackmun (http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_b.htm). Concurring opinions were written by Potter Stewart (http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_i.htm), Warren Burger (http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_k.htm), and William O. Douglas (http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_l.htm). Dissenting opinions were written by William Rehnquist (http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_j.htm) and Byron White (http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_m.htm).
Where to read the whole Roe v. Wade decision:

On this site: Roe v Wade Supreme Court Decision 1973 (http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_a.htm)
More on Roe v. Wade:



Abortion History (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortionuslegal/a/abortion.htm) - a history of the controversy over abortion in the United States
History of restrictive abortion laws in the United States (http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_e.htm), as summarized in the Roe v. Wade decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, 1973
Roe v. Wade (http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_a.htm) - text of the Supreme Court decision, 1973, with opinions written by Justices Blackmun, Stewart, Rehnquist, Burger, Douglas and White.
Abortion in the Ancient and Premodern World (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortion/a/ancientabortion.htm)











Because abortions lie within a pregnant woman's "zone of privacy," the abortion decision "and its effectuation" are fundamental rights that are protected by the Constitution from regulation by the states, so laws regulating abortion must be sufficiently "important." Was Texas's law sufficiently important to pass constitutional muster?

The Court reviewed the history of abortion laws, from ancient Greece to contemporary America, and therein found three justifications for banning abortions: "a Victorian social concern to discourage illicit sexual conduct"; protecting the health of women; and protecting prenatal life. The Court rejected the first two justifications as irrelevant given modern gender roles and medical technology. As for the third justification, the Court argued that prenatal life was not within the definition of "persons" as used and protected in the U.S. Constitution and that America's criminal and civil laws only sometimes regard fetuses as persons deserving protection. Culturally, while some groups regard fetuses as people deserving full rights, no consensus exists. The Court ruled that Texas was thus taking one "view" of many. Protecting all fetuses under this contentious "view" of prenatal life was not sufficiently important to justify the state's banning of almost all abortions.

However, the Court ruled that narrower state laws regulating abortion might be sufficiently important to be constitutional. For example, because the medical community finds that the human fetus might be "viable" ("capable of meaningful life") outside the mother's womb after six months of growth, a state might constitutionally protect a fetus from abortions in the third trimester of pregnancy, as long as it permitted an exception to save the life of the mother. Additionally, because second- and third-trimester abortions present more health risks to the mother, the state might regulate certain aspects of abortions related to maternal health after three months of pregnancy. In the first trimester, however, a state's interests in regulating abortions can never be found "important" enough. Such abortions are thus exclusively for the patient and her doctor to govern.

Defenders of the decision, however, argue that Roe v. Wade was a disinterested, pragmatic, and ultimately principled decision defending the most basic rights of personal liberty and privacy.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_roe.html

[Mr Happy]

Patience of a saint...

[jillian]

Patience of a saint...

Junie? Yeah. Lol

[Adelaide]

"we've got people who supposedly represent our beliefs basically showcasing their own ignorance on the topic."

^happens all the time with politicians, yet thru the all the minutia, the underlying principle of privacy remains as the prevailing issue here.

what pro-choice citizens are concerned with, and what davis stood for, didn't depend upon the facts of that one particular case.

No, but we shouldn't be so accepting of politicians who don't even know what they're standing for and we should be able to expect and trust that the media will remain as impartial as possible.