Questions about outlawing abortion...

[tggroo7]

A lot of my friends are pro-life and very strongly too. I know most of us here don't believe anything should be done at the federal level, but, well what should be done? And how do we (as in my friends and I) as pro-life people push for it? I was going to say, "Don't worry about the abortion issue for federal candidates, look for pro-life STATE candidates" because I know libertarians mostly believe it should be left up to the states. So, my main question is, can a state just override Roe v Wade and outlaw abortion there if a majority of state congresspeople (and constituents) want to do so? This is more a law question than anything else. I don't really know anything about how it should be done.

[Truth Warrior]

PREVENT unwanted pregnancies!

[Jeremy]

Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional, so federal candidates should want to override it... even if they're pro-choice (assuming they're constitutionalist / honest).

[ChaosControl]

Well first you need to overturn RvW in some way, which means a legitimate ban or something needs to be brought to the SC for them to be able to vote on.

So yes, the initial step would be to get state people to ban it. But that is pointless with the current makeup of the SC, you'd need one more judge flipped before it'd work. That doesn't look like it'll happen within the next four years.

The thing is, you could support abortion rights and still oppose RvW because the decision was unconstitutional, it violates the 10th amendment. It is in direct conflict with states' rights. Now if you're pro-life, once RvW is overturned, you'd work at the state level to ban it. If you're not pro-life, you'd work to make it illegal at the state level.

The two sides could be allies to get RvW overturned but then they'd become enemies afterwards. A lot of abortion rights supporters though do not want RvW overturned because they care more about convenience than the unconstitutional aspects of the law.

Oh yeah I think perhaps if you could get a law through congress that defined personhood at conception it may be possible to get around the RvW issue, but that may ban it at a federal level, I'm not sure. Maybe it'd just allow it to bypass RvW and then states could ban it...

[Truth Warrior]

Or just,

PREVENT unwanted pregnancies!

[dannno]

Just because something is wrong doesn't mean it should be illegal.

The problem with Pro-choice people is that they won't admit that pro-life people have a pretty good argument. They are essentially saying that a baby in a mother's womb is alive and deserves protection from the government.

Then there are the pro-life people who can't understand that somebody may not agree with them and they feel that the baby is still apart of the mother's body until it is born, and she can do whatever she wants with it because it is apart of her body.

Both of these are legitimate viewpoints, but only one of them forces their belief on others, and it's not the pro-choice viewpoint. Pro-choice allows people to make that decision individually, with a doctor or an herbalist.

[ChaosControl]

Or just,

PREVENT unwanted pregnancies!

He asked about outlawing it though, not about reducing it.

[SovereignMN]

Or just,

PREVENT unwanted pregnancies!

Nice slogan...but what is your strategy for implementing? If you want the government schools to hand out condoms or teach sex ed then no thanks. If you want parents to teach their kids about responsibilitly and get government to remove welfare incentives and actually force people to raise the kids they have...then I'm with you.

[Truth Warrior]

He asked about outlawing it though, not about reducing it. I'm just problem solving and making most of issue moot. :D

[Kade]

Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional, so federal candidates should want to override it... even if they're pro-choice (assuming they're constitutionalist / honest).

Or, they have a much clearer understanding of the Constitution.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it dictate how to read the Constitution. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Substantive Due Process Doctrine, aside from what has already been defended and argued. You people of litte minds, who don't understand very much outside your lives, yet speak like you know the world.

Smarter men have argued and defended this endlessly, you have chosen the road traveled by morons. Declaring with absolute certainty one side of the argument.

Roe v. Wade is not unconstitutional. In reality, the court gave back the right to the Doctor's in determining the necessity of medical procedures, both in Bolton and Roe, and kept the government out of it.

[tropicangela]

Roe v. Wade is not unconstitutional. In reality, the court gave back the right to the Doctor's in determining the necessity of medical procedures, both in Bolton and Roe, and kept the government out of it.

Really? "Gave back the right to doctors..."? Who took the right away?

[Truth Warrior]

Nice slogan...but what is your strategy for implementing? If you want the government schools to hand out condoms or teach sex ed then no thanks. If you want parents to teach their kids about responsibilitly and get government to remove welfare incentives and actually force people to raise the kids they have...then I'm with you. I just implemented it for me. I DON'T control what other people choose to do. ;)

[Kade]

Really? "Gave back the right to doctors..."? Who took the right away?

Morons did. Like morons take all our rights away. Anything else smartass to add?

[tropicangela]

Morons did. Like morons take all our rights away. Anything else smartass to add?

You are sensitive. Actually I was being serious. I was wondering who took the right away in order for the Supreme Court to "give it back."

[Truth Warrior]

The weenybutt spineless Congress critters wouldn't touch the issue with a stick, so the SCOTUS just "legislated" it. :p :rolleyes:

[nobody's_hero]

Morons did. Like morons take all our rights away. Anything else smartass to add?

I don't think he was being a smartass. He was questioning the question of whether the U.S. Supreme Court should even call into question the issue of abortion, (pro-choice or pro-life notwithstanding).

You both have valid points. Yes, morons did take away our rights, but we shouldn't be letting federal-morons decide on anything that is a state-moron issue. This is simply not an issue for the federal government to take sides, either way. It doesn't have the authority to hear the cases like Roe v. Wade or similar, much like nearly everything else that is [illegally] handled at the federal level these days.

Viva la 10th.

[tropicangela]

Kade, did you mean just the state and federal laws that outlawed it?

[nobody's_hero]

The weenybutt spineless Congress critters wouldn't touch the issue with a stick, so the SCOTUS just "legislated" it. :p :rolleyes:

That too.

[Kade]

You are sensitive. Actually I was being serious. I was wondering who took the right away in order for the Supreme Court to "give it back."

Technically, the same people who gave away the right to have slaves. In essence, it was a cultural thing. We progress, we move forward in our understanding of freedom, and we hopefully bring the conservatives with us.

[Kade]

I don't think he was being a smartass. He was questioning the question of whether the U.S. Supreme Court should even call into question the issue of abortion, (pro-choice or pro-life notwithstanding).

You both have valid points. Yes, morons did take away our rights, but we shouldn't be letting federal-morons decide on anything that is a state-moron issue. This is simply not an issue for the federal government to take sides, either way. It doesn't have the authority to hear the cases like Roe v. Wade or similar, much like nearly everything else that is [illegally] handled at the federal level these days.

Viva la 10th.

There is a good argument to be had in regards to the incorporation of the 14th Amendment into the Bill of Rights incorporation... which could be, relatively speaking, backwards.

But, nobody but myself has made that point. So... :rolleyes:

[tropicangela]

Well anyway, I don't know much about abortion laws before Roe v. Wade, so that's why I asked. Sure I can and will look it up on my own, but you were there.

[Micah Dardar]

I really find it ironic how the same people want to get rid of welfare and make abortion illegal. Get ready for poor starving crack babies robbing your fridge while you sleep. I don't support abortion, but I definitely don't think that it should be illegal.

[Truth Warrior]

The Consequences of Roe v. Wade
48,589,993
Total Abortions since 1973

[John of Des Moines]

Wow, on the Ron Paul Forums a discussion on banning abortions and not a word about Doctor Paul's position. To "overturn" Roe v. Wade the Congress can constitutionally limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts as to the issue of abortion. It then instantly becomes a state issue to be decided on a state by state basis. No Constitutional amendment needed or hoping the Supreme Court takes an abortion case.

[tpreitzel]

Wow, on the Ron Paul Forums a discussion on banning abortions and not a word about Doctor Paul's position. To "overturn" Roe v. Wade the Congress can constitutionally limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts as to the issue of abortion. It then instantly becomes a state issue to be decided on a state by state basis. No Constitutional amendment needed or hoping the Supreme Court takes an abortion case.

Ideally, yes. Can we EVER get one branch of the federal government to restrict another branch, however? The branches of government at the federal level seem to relish usurping power from the states.

[John of Des Moines]

Ideally, yes. Can we EVER get one branch of the federal government to restrict another branch, however?

Well, now that's just crazy talk.

[tpreitzel]

Well, now that's just crazy talk.

Historically, I don't think so unfortunately. Personally, I wish otherwise.

[tropicangela]

RP Youtube where he talks about abortion. Forward to 3:40 (just happened to stumble upon it)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHE_0bCSIVM

"There are difficult circumstances, and there's disagreements on this... the more difficult it is, and the more complicated it is, the more it ought to be local... the more it ought to be at the State level..." - Ron Paul

[escapinggreatly]

In legal terms, no, the states have no power to do anything about Roe v. Wade by themselves at the moment. The Supreme Court made it a federal-level issue, and that would have to be undone in one way or another before anyone at the state level could make any changes.
__________________

http://www.meltingpotproject.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/10/22/libertariansig.jpg
The Melting Pot Project: Proportional Representation. New Parties. Intern Jokes. (http://www.meltingpotproject.com/)

[Truth Warrior]

South Dakota bans most abortions
In signing law, governor says he expects court challenges
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/06/sd.abortion/

[v00513]

I don't understand why so many people are against abortion. I seem to agree with Ron Paul on mostly everything but this issue and a few others (ie why prositution, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research should be banned).

Here is what the Sanctity of Life Act Ron Paul tried to pass says for those of you who don't already know: "(1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term "person" shall include all such human life."

From my understanding, you want genetic defects and sick and suffering children (and also rape and incest victims' children) walking around in public. Well according to that "logic," shouldn't we just let psychopaths and serial killers free? And yes, I am equating children born with multiple drug resistant tuberculosis (though it is very unlikely as of now, but probably won't be within a few decades at the rate illegal immigration is going) as serial killers, for those of you who didn't get the "hint." Also, I don't understand why so many of you care about what OTHER PEOPLE do with THEIR lives. It's none of your concern. If they want to kill themselves, let them, they have every right to do so, just as every "mother" has a right to abort HER unborn child.

[garyallen59]

I don't understand why so many people are against abortion. I seem to agree with Ron Paul on mostly everything but this issue and a few others (ie why prositution, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research should be banned).

Here is what the Sanctity of Life Act Ron Paul tried to pass says for those of you who don't already know: "(1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term "person" shall include all such human life."

From my understanding, you want genetic defects and sick and suffering children (and also rape and incest victims' children) walking around in public. Well according to that "logic," shouldn't we just let psychopaths and serial killers free? And yes, I am equating children born with multiple drug resistant tuberculosis (though it is very unlikely as of now, but probably won't be within a few decades at the rate illegal immigration is going) as serial killers, for those of you who didn't get the "hint." Also, I don't understand why so many of you care about what OTHER PEOPLE do with THEIR lives. It's none of your concern. If they want to kill themselves, let them, they have every right to do so, just as every "mother" has a right to KILL/MURDER HER unborn child.

fixed

[Krugerrand]

I don't understand why so many people are against abortion. I seem to agree with Ron Paul on mostly everything but this issue and a few others (ie why prositution, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research should be banned).

Here is what the Sanctity of Life Act Ron Paul tried to pass says for those of you who don't already know: "(1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term "person" shall include all such human life."

From my understanding, you want genetic defects and sick and suffering children (and also rape and incest victims' children) walking around in public. Well according to that "logic," shouldn't we just let psychopaths and serial killers free? And yes, I am equating children born with multiple drug resistant tuberculosis (though it is very unlikely as of now, but probably won't be within a few decades at the rate illegal immigration is going) as serial killers, for those of you who didn't get the "hint." Also, I don't understand why so many of you care about what OTHER PEOPLE do with THEIR lives. It's none of your concern. If they want to kill themselves, let them, they have every right to do so, just as every "mother" has a right to abort HER unborn child.

The reason why is not complicated. For somebody who accepts that a child the day after it was born is the exact same child it was the day before it was born, it must have the same legal protection. So while unfortunate circumstances (rape, incest) may bring a child into existence, it is still the same child before it was born as after. The child born with a genetic defect was the same child with a genetic defect the day before it was born. Parents are not allowed to kill a 3-day old child with a genetic defect. (There are some who argue that should be permitted.) Parents are not allowed to kill a 3-day old child that was conceived by rape or incest. Thus, this becomes not prohibiting what
PEOPLE do with THEIR lives but what they do with the lives of their children 3 days after birth or 3 days before birth.

Some on this forum will argue that the child is not a person until it passes through the birth canal. I find the argument contrived and weak.

But, if you honestly want to know why ... there it is.

[Truth Warrior]

I don't understand why so many people are against abortion. I seem to agree with Ron Paul on mostly everything but this issue and a few others (ie why prositution, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research should be banned).

Here is what the Sanctity of Life Act Ron Paul tried to pass says for those of you who don't already know: "(1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term "person" shall include all such human life."

From my understanding, you want genetic defects and sick and suffering children (and also rape and incest victims' children) walking around in public. Well according to that "logic," shouldn't we just let psychopaths and serial killers free? And yes, I am equating children born with multiple drug resistant tuberculosis (though it is very unlikely as of now, but probably won't be within a few decades at the rate illegal immigration is going) as serial killers, for those of you who didn't get the "hint." Also, I don't understand why so many of you care about what OTHER PEOPLE do with THEIR lives. It's none of your concern. If they want to kill themselves, let them, they have every right to do so, just as every "mother" has a right to abort HER unborn child.

How many of the 48+ MILLION were NONE of the above?

[Kade]

fixed

Murder is killing a human with malice aforethought. You are going too far to apply that label to abortions. But I don't expect you to understand that... the biggest reason why I stand for what I do, is by simply looking at the idiots who stand in en masse against me.

[Truth Warrior]

How many counts of murder was Scott Peterson charged and convicted of?

[Kade]

How many counts of murder was Scott Peterson charged and convicted of?

How many did he kill with malicious aforethought?

I'm convinced that there is something missing upstairs with you guys... something isn't clicking, and I can't quite put my finger on it.

[garyallen59]

Murder is killing a human with malice aforethought. You are going too far to apply that label to abortions. But I don't expect you to understand that... the biggest reason why I stand for what I do, is by simply looking at the idiots who stand in en masse against me.

oh, kade. :rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

How many did he kill with malicious aforethought?

I'm convinced that there is something missing upstairs with you guys... something isn't clicking, and I can't quite put my finger on it. TWO!

It's probably just your blatant and obvious arithmetic deficiency acting up again. :rolleyes:

[tropicangela]

I thought murder was taking another person's life. First degree murder is premeditated. Second degree isn't. Third is "accidental."

[Truth Warrior]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder)

[Kade]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder)

1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).


My point is STILL valid... do you have a dictionary reference for "Legendary Stupid"?

[tropicangela]

Aforethought is first degree murder then, but second isn't?

I have pregnancy brain right now and you wouldn't understand LOL.

[Truth Warrior]

1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).


My point is STILL valid... do you have a dictionary reference for "Legendary Stupid"? Your point is STILL bogus and IDIOTIC as USUAL. :p

[Kade]

Your point is STILL bogus and IDIOTIC as USUAL. :p

Copying and Pasting other's material does not make you qualified in any culture to criticize another person's point, especially when you are devoid of any original content yourself.

[Truth Warrior]

Fetal Homicide
Updated June 2008

State Laws (http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm#State Law) || Resources (http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm#Resources)

The debate over fetal rights is not new to the legislative arena. Every year pro-life and pro-choice advocates vie for the upper hand in this contentious issue. In recent years, states have expanded this debate to include the issue of fetuses killed by violent acts against pregnant women. In some states, legislation has increased the criminal penalties for crimes involving pregnant women. These laws have focused on the harm done to a pregnant woman and the subsequent loss of her pregnancy, but not on the rights of the fetus.

Other legislation has defined the fetus as a person under fetal homicide or "feticide" laws. Such legislation is hotly debated under names such as the Fetal Protection Act, the Preborn Victims of Violence Act or the Unborn Victim of Violence Act. Those supporting these acts, often pro-life advocates, say that both the lives of the pregnant woman and the fetus should be explicitly protected. They assert that fetal homicide laws justly criminalize these cases and provide an opportunity to protect unborn children and their mothers.

Those on the other side feel that laws to protect a fetus could become a "slippery slope" that could jeopardize a woman's right to choose an abortion. Pro-choice advocates say such laws grant a fetus legal status distinct from the pregnant woman - possibly creating an adversarial relationship between a woman and her baby. They are also concerned that the laws could be interpreted to apply to a woman's behavior during her pregnancy (such as smoking, drinking or using drugs). They prefer criminalizing an assault on a pregnant woman and recognizing her as the only victim.

Currently, at least 36 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 19 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization").

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm

[Kade]

And on cue.

[Truth Warrior]

Copying and Pasting other's material does not make you qualified in any culture to criticize another person's point, especially when you are devoid of any original content yourself.

Just keep on spewing your phony idiotic BULLSHIT, guppy. :p

[gjdavis60]

I'm ambivalent about the issue, but I am confused about what, to me, seems to be a logical inconsistency in the application of the law.

If someone can be charged with manslaughter or murder for killing a fetus, intentionally or not, then how can a mother decide to terminate a pregnancy without placing herself in the same position? Or if a fetus is merely property to be disposed of as the mother chooses, then how could someone be charged with manslaughter or murder for killing one? You can't be charged with murder if you kill your neighbor's dog or their spruce tree. Dogs and spruce trees, although alive, are considered property under the law.

Conversely, why can't a parent euthanize their 3-year-old? Is a 3-year-old not the property of the parent?

Does Roe v. Wade give the mother the power to classify her fetus as she pleases (human being or property), depending on the situation?

Can something be a human being and a piece of property simultaneously, or are the two designations mutually exclusive under the law?

Just wondering.

[Kade]

Just keep on spewing your phony idiotic BULLSHIT, guppy. :p

Yes sir, Mr Unoriginal!


http://www.frog-man.net/photos/frogdrunkagain.jpg

[Truth Warrior]

I'm ambivalent about the issue, but I am confused about what, to me, seems to be a logical inconsistency in the application of the law.

If someone can be charged with manslaughter or murder for killing a fetus, intentionally or not, then how can a mother decide to terminate a pregnancy without placing herself in the same position? Or if a fetus is merely property to be disposed of as the mother chooses, then how could someone be charged with manslaughter or murder for killing one? You can't be charged with murder if you kill your neighbor's dog or their spruce tree. Dogs and spruce trees, although alive, are considered property under the law.

Conversely, why can't a parent euthanize their 3-year-old? Is a 3-year-old not the property of the parent?

Does Roe v. Wade give the mother the power to classify her fetus as she pleases (human being or property), depending on the situation?

Can something be a human being and a piece of property simultaneously, or are the two designations mutually exclusive under the law?

Just wondering. You are asking the correct questions.<IMHO> ;)

[Kade]

I'm ambivalent about the issue, but I am confused about what, to me, seems to be a logical inconsistency in the application of the law.

If someone can be charged with manslaughter or murder for killing a fetus, intentionally or not, then how can a mother decide to terminate a pregnancy without placing herself in the same position? Or if a fetus is merely property to be disposed of as the mother chooses, then how could someone be charged with manslaughter or murder for killing one? You can't be charged with murder if you kill your neighbor's dog or their spruce tree. Dogs and spruce trees, although alive, are considered property under the law.

Conversely, why can't a parent euthanize their 3-year-old? Is a 3-year-old not the property of the parent?

Does Roe v. Wade give the mother the power to classify her fetus as she pleases (human being or property), depending on the situation?

Can something be a human being and a piece of property simultaneously, or are the two designations mutually exclusive under the law?

Just wondering.

It wasn't always the case, ever really. Fetuses were normally treated as property. Even the Bible, (a worthless guideline for law imo) gives a set price for the unborn, at much less than those of the born.

Many State pro-life organizations have pushed agendas like these to blur the lines more, so they can use it as a political weapon. No surprise there, the response of course is about intent. If someone has intent to deliver a healthy child, and she is murdered, than they have, by proxy, killed a person.

[Truth Warrior]

Yes sir, Mr Unoriginal!

< Silly, goofy, idiotic and childish pic snipped >


Sometimes, I'm just the messenger.

After reading some of your "originality" ( so called ) I've determined that it is grossly and completely over rated, especially by you, guppy.

[garyallen59]

It wasn't always the case, ever really. Fetuses were normally treated as property. Even the Bible, (a worthless guideline for law imo) gives a set price for the unborn, at much less than those of the born.

where does it say that? and please don't get all worked up i'm asking a serious quiestion.

[Kade]

where does it say that? and please don't get all worked up i'm asking a serious quiestion.

"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

Exodus 21:22-25

[Krugerrand]

I'm ambivalent about the issue, but I am confused about what, to me, seems to be a logical inconsistency in the application of the law.

If someone can be charged with manslaughter or murder for killing a fetus, intentionally or not, then how can a mother decide to terminate a pregnancy without placing herself in the same position? Or if a fetus is merely property to be disposed of as the mother chooses, then how could someone be charged with manslaughter or murder for killing one? You can't be charged with murder if you kill your neighbor's dog or their spruce tree. Dogs and spruce trees, although alive, are considered property under the law.

Conversely, why can't a parent euthanize their 3-year-old? Is a 3-year-old not the property of the parent?

Does Roe v. Wade give the mother the power to classify her fetus as she pleases (human being or property), depending on the situation?

Can something be a human being and a piece of property simultaneously, or are the two designations mutually exclusive under the law?

Just wondering.

I don't think that most abortion advocates would not consider the fetus as property. The more honest advocates will admit that fetus is not truly a "part of the mother." The case then goes that this entity in its earliest life stages is completely dependent on it mother. Even so, the mother can still do what she wants with her own body.

The less debated case would be a mother that has cancer and will undergo chemotherapy. The chemo will almost guarantee the death of the child. Virtually everybody will agree that the woman can take the chemo even though a consequence will be the death of the fetus.

The twist on abortion would be to continue that to say the woman can do whatever to her body, for any reason up to including taking steps to intentionally kill the fetus. Thus, saying she is not yet responsible for the well being of the fetus. The murderer kills the mother and the fetus. Yes, the an abortion kills the fetus, but it is being treated as an 'unfortunate' consequence to doing whatever she wants with her body. Of course, this makes more sense with earlier term abortions and pill induced abortions than with something like a partial-birth abortion.

Personally, I do not buy the argument ... but it's not a fetus=property argument.

[Truth Warrior]

DNA of A + DNA of B = DNA of C. :)

C is NOT property of A, B or STATE.

[tropicangela]

Great questions and points. Complicated topic.




The less debated case would be a mother that has cancer and will undergo chemotherapy. The chemo will almost guarantee the death of the child. Virtually everybody will agree that the woman can take the chemo even though a consequence will be the death of the fetus.

And unfortunately, because many ppl aren't aware of safer, alternative treatments besides chemo/allopathic medicine, because MS doctors don't tell them, ppl don't know they have other options that might not take their baby's life.

[gjdavis60]

I don't think that most abortion advocates would not consider the fetus as property. The more honest advocates will admit that fetus is not truly a "part of the mother." The case then goes that this entity in its earliest life stages is completely dependent on it mother. Even so, the mother can still do what she wants with her own body.

The less debated case would be a mother that has cancer and will undergo chemotherapy. The chemo will almost guarantee the death of the child. Virtually everybody will agree that the woman can take the chemo even though a consequence will be the death of the fetus.

The twist on abortion would be to continue that to say the woman can do whatever to her body, for any reason up to including taking steps to intentionally kill the fetus. Thus, saying she is not yet responsible for the well being of the fetus. The murderer kills the mother and the fetus. Yes, the an abortion kills the fetus, but it is being treated as an 'unfortunate' consequence to doing whatever she wants with her body. Of course, this makes more sense with earlier term abortions and pill induced abortions than with something like a partial-birth abortion.

Personally, I do not buy the argument ... but it's not a fetus=property argument.

What if a pregnant woman is assaulted and this causes a miscarriage?

What if the woman had intended to abort the pregnancy prior to being assaulted?

Does the perpetrator of the assault get charged with manslaughter, murder, destruction of property, assault ... or does he bill the woman for services rendered?

Was the fetus a person, or not? How does the law decide?

[Truth Warrior]

What if a pregnant woman is assaulted and this causes a miscarriage?

What if the woman had intended to abort the pregnancy prior to being assaulted?

Does the perpetrator of the assault get charged with manslaughter, murder, destruction of property, assault ... or does he bill the woman for services rendered?

Was the fetus a person, or not? How does the law decide? Merely based on an arbitrarily and capriciously determined SCOTUS time line.

Before, it's fair game for death, after it's a human being. :rolleyes:

[Krugerrand]

What if a pregnant woman is assaulted and this causes a miscarriage?

What if the woman had intended to abort the pregnancy prior to being assaulted?

Does the perpetrator of the assault get charged with manslaughter, murder, destruction of property, assault ... or does he bill the woman for services rendered?

Was the fetus a person, or not? How does the law decide?

It decides haphazardly. Notice, the industry providers are allowed to cause the abortion, but not the person to whom she made the request.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158783,00.html

Double Murder Conviction for Man Who Helped Girlfriend Miscarry

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

LUFKIN, Texas — A 19-year-old accused of causing his teenage girlfriend to miscarry two fetuses by stepping on her stomach was convicted Monday of two counts of murder.

Gerardo Flores (search) received an automatic life sentence because prosecutors did not seek the death penalty, which was available under the state's 2003 fetus protection law (search).

Erica Basoria, 17, acknowledged asking Flores to help end her pregnancy; she could not be prosecuted because of her legal right to abortion.

The defense contended that Basoria punched herself while Flores was stepping on her, making it impossible to tell who caused the miscarriage.

Basoria told authorities that, after about four months of pregnancy, she regretted not getting an abortion and started jogging and hitting herself to induce a miscarriage. When her efforts failed, she said she asked her boyfriend to help.

Flores did not testify, but earlier told police that he stepped on Basoria's stomach several times during the week before she miscarried.

Prosecutor Art Bauereiss said most of Basoria's family was pleased with the jury's decision. But Basoria, who sobbed as she left the Angelina County Courthouse, had stood by Flores.

"It's just tragedy all around," said Flores' attorney, Ryan Deaton.

Texas law defines an embryo or fetus as an "individual" and allows criminal prosecution or civil action for a preventable injury or death of a fetus. The law exempts health care providers who perform a legal medical procedure, such as an abortion.

[gjdavis60]

It decides haphazardly. Notice, the industry providers are allowed to cause the abortion, but not the person to whom she made the request.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158783,00.html

So, in this case, the fetuses became "people" after they were dead because the woman didn't have them killed via a sanctioned process? Or are they people that became property after they're dead if and only if a physician was used to terminate the pregnancy?

Why wasn't the man simply charged with practicing medicine without a license? According to the SCOTUS in Roe, this was a perfectly legal act protected by the woman's "right of privacy" guaranteed by the Constitution.

Now I'm really confused.

[Truth Warrior]

"Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."

[John E]

Or just,

PREVENT unwanted pregnancies!

I agree 100% -- if you focus on preventing them in the first place, the topic of abortion becomes irrelevant. Think about how many much time, energy and resources have been spent by prolife and prochoice groups fighting over this -- now imagine if all that focus was placed on properly education and prevention!



He asked about outlawing it though, not about reducing it.

a) Its a social issue, not a legal issue. Outlawing it wont make the larger issue of unwanted pregnancies go away.

b) WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT ANY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT INVOLVED IN THIS?

Cry: "we want less government in our lives"
Cry: "we want the government to outlaw abortion"

Its down right hypocritical if you ask me.


Honestly,... I think the issue is far to complex for government to legislate. Its a decision (morally right or not) that only the people involved (the parents to be) can make.



Nice slogan...but what is your strategy for implementing? If you want the government schools to hand out condoms or teach sex ed then no thanks. If you want parents to teach their kids about responsibilitly and get government to remove welfare incentives and actually force people to raise the kids they have...then I'm with you.

This is where I guess I differ from the current libertarian ideology.

Yes, I am all for having parents teach about responsibility but lets be realistic - they are not. Managing the welfare incentive may help but it wont eliminate the issue. Only education can do that. If the parents can't, or won't, then as a society we need to step in and do that.

Again, I point out the general hypocracy of

Cry: "we want less government in our lives"
Cry: "we want the government to outlaw abortion"
Cry: "we want less abortions but god forbid someone teach sex ed!"

[Truth Warrior]

I agree 100% -- if you focus on preventing them in the first place, the topic of abortion becomes irrelevant. Think about how many much time, energy and resources have been spent by prolife and prochoice groups fighting over this -- now imagine if all that focus was placed on properly education and prevention! It's mind boggling!<IMHO> ;)

[Krugerrand]

Cry: "we want less government in our lives"
Cry: "we want the government to outlaw abortion"

Its down right hypocritical if you ask me.

If you respect that a child is the same child that is is the day after it was born as it was the day before it was born, then as Ron Paul once said, you have to have life before you can have liberty.

Would you support changing laws so that parents can kill their 7-day old child? or would you "Cry:we want less government in our lives."


Yes, I am all for having parents teach about responsibility but lets be realistic - they are not. Managing the welfare incentive may help but it wont eliminate the issue. Only education can do that. If the parents can't, or won't, then as a society we need to step in and do that.

Again, I point out the general hypocracy of

Cry: "we want less government in our lives"
Cry: "we want the government to outlaw abortion"
Cry: "we want less abortions but god forbid someone teach sex ed!"

I'd like to see the public school system abolished. I think that's a somewhat commonly accepted libertarian stance. Government teaching sex ed sounds hypocritical to libertarian principles to me.

[literatim]

Murder is killing a human with malice aforethought. You are going too far to apply that label to abortions. But I don't expect you to understand that... the biggest reason why I stand for what I do, is by simply looking at the idiots who stand in en masse against me.



Legal analysis of murder

Common law murder is defined as the: 1. unlawful 2. killing 3. of another human person 4. with a state of mind known as "malice aforethought."

The first three elements are relatively straightforward; however, the concept of "malice aforethought" is a complex one that does not necessarily mean premeditation. The following states of mind are recognized as constituting the various forms of "malice aforethought":

(i) Intent to kill; (ii) Intent to inflict serious bodily harm short of death; (iii) Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"); or (iv) Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony-murder" doctrine).

Under state of mind (i), intent to kill, the deadly weapon rule applies. Thus, if the defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon or instrument against the victim, such use authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill. An example of a deadly weapon or instrument is a gun, a knife, or even a car when intentionally used to strike the victim.

Under state of mind (iii), an "abandoned and malignant heart," the killing must result from defendant's conduct involving a reckless indifference to human life and a conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury. An example of this is a 2007 law in California where an individual could be convicted of second-degree murder if he or she kills another person while operating a motor vehicle while being under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or controlled substances.

Under state of mind (iv), the felony-murder doctrine, the felony committed must be an inherently dangerous felony, such as burglary, arson, rape, robbery or kidnapping. Importantly, the underlying felony cannot be a lesser-included offense such as assault, otherwise all criminal homicides would be murder as all criminal homicides are felonies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder#Legal_analysis_of_murder

[Krugerrand]

I agree 100% -- if you focus on preventing them in the first place, the topic of abortion becomes irrelevant. Think about how many much time, energy and resources have been spent by prolife and prochoice groups fighting over this -- now imagine if all that focus was placed on properly education and prevention!

I think it's a huge myth that most abortions are the result of people that "have not been educated" on preventing pregnancy. They are the result of
a) people that know how to prevent pregnancy but choose not to exercise that knowledge
b) people that know how to prevent pregnancy but assume that 'it won't happen this time.'
c) people that know how to prevent pregnancy but couldn't be bothered.

[Truth Warrior]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homicide (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homicide)

[v00513]

DNA of A + DNA of B = DNA of C. :)

C is NOT property of A, B or STATE.

DNA of A + B would belong to both, and we all, A, B, C and the rest of the alphabet, as of most latterly, belong to the state, but it is still OUR decision (or the decision of either A or B depending on the situation) to get the abortion, NOT the state's. No one is forcing us -- if you don't want it, don't get it. And murder or no murder, it's not your business, especially if you say you don't support "big government." So my advice to those who want to be (or remain) "progressive," (or to put it simply, want to keep a genetic defect): move to California, they're oozing with "progression."

[BagOfEyebrows]

"Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."


Yep... and they've had folks arguing the wrong things for decades on this one. :(

I got caught in the trap of debating it for years (from a pro-choice angle.) But I, as many others in government, in law and in society, was simply missing the most important piece of the puzzle in order to understand why a federal ruling on any social issue must not happen (and if any have, they must be overturned and returned to the states.)

They get us arguing these concepts that have nothing to do with the federal constitution itself, but sets up the federal government (and others) right where it wants to be - and has us be hamsters on their wheel.

While we argue about property rights, when life begins, and murder, the real issue at hand was already thought about and solved within the state constitutions.

Abortion has been around for centuries.

The abortion issue isn't about when life begins - it's about when rights begin.

It's not about your right to choose on an individual basis - it's about having a state constitution that is aligned with your creator, so that you can honor it and abide by it. If your state constitution is in conflict with your god's law, what law do you follow?

No wonder the Amish do things the way they do - no matter who or what your creator is or or what your personal ideology is about life, death and this universe we live in, the federal government creates chaos on social issues when it mandates 'one size fits all', because it conflicts with too many personal, sacred thoughts and views and code of ethics that each of us comes to upon his own free will... be it God, or no God.


In each state constitution written prior to the federal constitution/bill of rights, it states you are either born with rights or created with them. There's the distinction - you could select a state based upon its harmony with your creator (and/or lack of one, if you weren't religiously inclined.)

Are you born with your rights or are you created with them? Our founding fathers knew this had to be by state - by keeping it a state decision, there would be a selection, based upon the votes of those within each state, on social issues that would make states have great variety to select from to live in. And those social issues would have to be decided over the course of a state's lifetime - and the people, who lived in each state, would form/elect governments that best reflected the overall ideology of the population that lived there (via voting.)

Back then, prior to the writing of the federal constitution, each state's constitution was the law of its sovereign land/state. But, our founding fathers were brilliant enough to offer up real choices within those states where you could find a document to support and uphold, both of yourself as well as your laws and your government, by finding the state that had a constitution that wasn't in conflict with your creator's or your thoughts about what your creator's words dictated to you in terms of life/death.

Because when you lived in a state, you made a solemn, social compact to abide by the laws of that land... all of the states only had one small set of main laws:

don't lie, cheat or steal from each other, and no agression towards another/infringing on anyone's rights to life, liberty, property and the seeking/obtaining of happiness; all derived from the 10 commandments.

The rest of the rules of a state had to be different, as freedom of religion couldn't exist unless the social ideas were allowed to be different - because variations of religion allow different things. In some bibles, the death penalty is ok ... in others, only God can take vengence upon someone who has committed a murder.

We don't allow the federal government to mandate the death penalty for certain crimes for all states to follow, for the same reasons we shouldn't allow it to make a ruling on the issue of abortion.

Of the states that signed/ratified the federal constitution, here's the states that offered up 'born with rights' :

New Hampshire

Massachusetts (The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, written by John Adams, ratified in 1780, oldest/longest lasting governing document to date... the federal constitution didn't get ratified until 1788, eight years after this one.)

Pennsylvania


'Created' with rights states:

New York (based on 1777 constitution)


Here's the states that didn't clarify born or created:

Connecticut (their state constitution wasn't ratified until after the federal one... and I'm still reading up on it to understand how/why they were even a part of the federal one, when their own state constitution kept running into rewrites and issues and hadn't even been ratified.)

New Jersey

Delaware (another interesting state constitution history)

Virginia

North Carolina

South Carolina

Georgia (John Adams must have ripped out his own hair on this one.)



One I'm unsure about in regards to rights starting at creation or birth:

Maryland


We're trying, and have been trying, to defend freedom and liberty with this abortion issue... but our views on freedom and liberty have to keep in mind two things:

freedom of religion, and how that ties to state constitutions/state rights, and why that means the federal government has to stay out of social issues. You can not have a federal ruling on a social issue that impacts state constitutions/state rights, and that conflicts with the laws of one's creator, and then expect those who want to abide by their creator's laws to 'submit' to eternal damnation by living in a state that allows something 'sinful' and/or 'immoral' and that goes against God's word/law (as that is how they absolutely see it.)

When do rights begin? Not when does life begin... I'd say that life does start at conception, but I'm still pro choice, just against a federal ruling on the right to choose abortion as a method to terminate a pregnancy... mainly because I hold the right to freedom of religion as being vital to our nation - don't we all? I'd imagine even atheists would defend freedom of religion, which includes non-religion.

Right to Lifers aren't trying to force their opinions on you... they don't want a FEDERAL ruling, they want to have at least one state where they can be in harmony with their creator - with the law of their land.

The Amish don't have abortion clinics in their communities - are any of us angry at them for not allowing the 'choice' for their females? I know I'm not angry at them for it - maybe this could go even better by making it a town/city decision. Like the Amish.


Shouldn't at least one state or area out there be allowed to have a government that abides by a religious ideology of 'thou shalt not kill' with no exceptions? For those that worship that particular God? We all wouldn't have to live there, and if we felt very strongly that women in that state or area deserved a right to choose, we could just set up private sector donation/volunteer groups to pay for the flights to abortion states/areas for the females there to get their choice.

but do we feel that strongly about the right to choose - or is this about freedom and liberty? If it's about freedom and liberty, then get back to freedom and liberty, which includes freedom of religion, and get out of the never-ending debate about life and property, because that's not the issue at hand.

Freedom of religion is the issue -

and the government suckered us all into this decades long sideshow while they ripped from our states the sovereignty that protected all of us... by swooping in to grab hold of the social issues they knew they needed control over ... like our schools and the education of our children ... and our police departments, and our state laws.

We've gotta get off the hamster wheel and defend freedom of religion and the principles this nation were founded upon, intead of assisting our federal government with our own destruction by demanding seperation of church and state when it's those very principles we most need right now for our government to abide by itself ... the church doesn't own those principles, John Adams figured that out, but it's the only thing our government 'leaders' understand as being 'principled' (re: God/Jesus Christ)- so we either unite with the principles and the ideologies of those we consider 'religious' and protect those principles... or we lose our one shot at reclaiming this Republic.

Remember ... this nation was founded upon the principles of those religious 'bible thumpers' who, if you really listen to them without judging them as 'religous nutballs', are actually trying to make sure the government doesn't continue to lie, cheat and steal from you all of your liberty and freedom. They are trying to make sure your rights, too, aren't infringed upon. They are trying to save freedom of religion, not only for themselves, but even for agnostics and atheists!

Whew - okay, I'm done yappin'.

[Truth Warrior]

Yep... and they've had folks arguing the wrong things for decades on this one. :(

I got caught in the trap of debating it for years (from a pro-choice angle.) But I, as many others in government, in law and in society, was simply missing the most important piece of the puzzle in order to understand why a federal ruling on any social issue must not happen (and if any have, they must be overturned and returned to the states.)

They get us arguing these concepts that have nothing to do with the federal constitution itself, but sets up the federal government (and others) right where it wants to be - and has us be hamsters on their wheel.

While we argue about property rights, when life begins, and murder, the real issue at hand was already thought about and solved within the state constitutions.

Abortion has been around for centuries.

The abortion issue isn't about when life begins - it's about when rights begin.

It's not about your right to choose on an individual basis - it's about having a state constitution that is aligned with your creator, so that you can honor it and abide by it. If your state constitution is in conflict with your god's law, what law do you follow?

No wonder the Amish do things the way they do - no matter who or what your creator is or or what your personal ideology is about life, death and this universe we live in, the federal government creates chaos on social issues when it mandates 'one size fits all', because it conflicts with too many personal, sacred thoughts and views and code of ethics that each of us comes to upon his own free will... be it God, or no God.


In each state constitution written prior to the federal constitution/bill of rights, it states you are either born with rights or created with them. There's the distinction - you could select a state based upon its harmony with your creator (and/or lack of one, if you weren't religiously inclined.)

Are you born with your rights or are you created with them? Our founding fathers knew this had to be by state - by keeping it a state decision, there would be a selection, based upon the votes of those within each state, on social issues that would make states have great variety to select from to live in. And those social issues would have to be decided over the course of a state's lifetime - and the people, who lived in each state, would form/elect governments that best reflected the overall ideology of the population that lived there (via voting.)

Back then, prior to the writing of the federal constitution, each state's constitution was the law of its sovereign land/state. But, our founding fathers were brilliant enough to offer up real choices within those states where you could find a document to support and uphold, both of yourself as well as your laws and your government, by finding the state that had a constitution that wasn't in conflict with your creator's or your thoughts about what your creator's words dictated to you in terms of life/death.

Because when you lived in a state, you made a solemn, social compact to abide by the laws of that land... all of the states only had one small set of main laws:

don't lie, cheat or steal from each other, and no agression towards another/infringing on anyone's rights to life, liberty, property and the seeking/obtaining of happiness; all derived from the 10 commandments.

The rest of the rules of a state had to be different, as freedom of religion couldn't exist unless the social ideas were allowed to be different - because variations of religion allow different things. In some bibles, the death penalty is ok ... in others, only God can take vengence upon someone who has committed a murder.

We don't allow the federal government to mandate the death penalty for certain crimes for all states to follow, for the same reasons we shouldn't allow it to make a ruling on the issue of abortion.

Of the states that signed/ratified the federal constitution, here's the states that offered up 'born with rights' :

New Hampshire

Massachusetts (The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, written by John Adams, ratified in 1780, oldest/longest lasting governing document to date... the federal constitution didn't get ratified until 1788, eight years after this one.)

Pennsylvania


'Created' with rights states:

New York (based on 1777 constitution)


Here's the states that didn't clarify born or created:

Connecticut (their state constitution wasn't ratified until after the federal one... and I'm still reading up on it to understand how/why they were even a part of the federal one, when their own state constitution kept running into rewrites and issues and hadn't even been ratified.)

New Jersey

Delaware (another interesting state constitution history)

Virginia

North Carolina

South Carolina

Georgia (John Adams must have ripped out his own hair on this one.)



One I'm unsure about in regards to rights starting at creation or birth:

Maryland


We're trying, and have been trying, to defend freedom and liberty with this abortion issue... but our views on freedom and liberty have to keep in mind two things:

freedom of religion, and how that ties to state constitutions/state rights, and why that means the federal government has to stay out of social issues. You can not have a federal ruling on a social issue that impacts state constitutions/state rights, and that conflicts with the laws of one's creator, and then expect those who want to abide by their creator's laws to 'submit' to eternal damnation by living in a state that allows something 'sinful' and/or 'immoral' and that goes against God's word/law (as that is how they absolutely see it.)

When do rights begin? Not when does life begin... I'd say that life does start at conception, but I'm still pro choice, just against a federal ruling on the right to choose abortion as a method to terminate a pregnancy... mainly because I hold the right to freedom of religion as being vital to our nation - don't we all? I'd imagine even atheists would defend freedom of religion, which includes non-religion.

Right to Lifers aren't trying to force their opinions on you... they don't want a FEDERAL ruling, they want to have at least one state where they can be in harmony with their creator - with the law of their land.

The Amish don't have abortion clinics in their communities - are any of us angry at them for not allowing the 'choice' for their females? I know I'm not angry at them for it - maybe this could go even better by making it a town/city decision. Like the Amish.


Shouldn't at least one state or area out there be allowed to have a government that abides by a religious ideology of 'thou shalt not kill' with no exceptions? For those that worship that particular God? We all wouldn't have to live there, and if we felt very strongly that women in that state or area deserved a right to choose, we could just set up private sector donation/volunteer groups to pay for the flights to abortion states/areas for the females there to get their choice.

but do we feel that strongly about the right to choose - or is this about freedom and liberty? If it's about freedom and liberty, then get back to freedom and liberty, which includes freedom of religion, and get out of the never-ending debate about life and property, because that's not the issue at hand.

Freedom of religion is the issue -

and the government suckered us all into this decades long sideshow while they ripped from our states the sovereignty that protected all of us... by swooping in to grab hold of the social issues they knew they needed control over ... like our schools and the education of our children ... and our police departments, and our state laws.

We've gotta get off the hamster wheel and defend freedom of religion and the principles this nation were founded upon, intead of assisting our federal government with our own destruction by demanding seperation of church and state when it's those very principles we most need right now for our government to abide by itself ... the church doesn't own those principles, John Adams figured that out, but it's the only thing our government 'leaders' understand as being 'principled' (re: God/Jesus Christ)- so we either unite with the principles and the ideologies of those we consider 'religious' and protect those principles... or we lose our one shot at reclaiming this Republic.

Remember ... this nation was founded upon the principles of those religious 'bible thumpers' who, if you really listen to them without judging them as 'religous nutballs', are actually trying to make sure the government doesn't continue to lie, cheat and steal from you all of your liberty and freedom. They are trying to make sure your rights, too, aren't infringed upon. They are trying to save freedom of religion, not only for themselves, but even for agnostics and atheists!

Whew - okay, I'm done yappin'.

Divide and conquer, power and control.;)

Problem --> Reaction --> Solution

Religion and politics are both the very same thing. They are both only, very old and very effective, means to control large masses of people. It has always only been that way, and it always only will be.

The ends do NOT justify the means.

Thanks! :)

[v00513]

Divide and conquer, power and control.;)

Problem --> Reaction --> Solution

Religion and politics are both the very same thing. They are both only, very old and very effective, means to control large masses of people. It has always only been that way, and it always only will be.

The ends do NOT justify the means.

Thanks! :)

Religion and politics may be the same thing in the Islamic Republic of France, but they aren't here. If Christians, and by that I mean Christians like Baldwin, not W, had their way, do you seriously believe we would be in the mess we're in right now? Those Christians are the ones that read their Bible, not the 90% of the so called "Christians" that don't. Hell, I bet even the devil is a Christian.


Your logic is bullshit, just like your opinion on abortion. If you want to save lives, donate everything you own to help starving Africans, otherwise, shut the fuck up -- the world is way overpopulated as it is.

[KenInMontiMN]

Keep it simple.

It's about centralized control of social directions, a very difficult thing to accomplish if there are now 50 points of control. Therefore in order to take control in a centralized manner the Supreme Court opted to amend the constitution to its liking to accomplish that. We now have no reliably enforceable constitution as a result of such cavalier attitudes and treatment over the years. SCOTUS assumes the right to make any interpretation at will. Presidents assume the right to ignore it at will. Only assured prompt impeachment can ever correct this.

I would neither support RvW nor would I support a constitutional amendment to define the beginning of human life at any point. The issue belongs back in the most local jurisdictions possible, the Founders absolutely never intended or allowed for centralized Federal control of social directions in this Union of States. The Federalization of such matters has completely destroyed the integrity of our national politics and our solidarity as Americans. Its kept us hopelessly split in times when we needed to stand united or lose our freedoms.

The whole issue is really about the control freaks (on both sides of the question) looking for Federal central one-point control mechanisms vs the Liberty-minded insisting on limited Federal powers and jurisdiction.

It really is that simple.

[BagOfEyebrows]

Divide and conquer, power and control.;)

Problem --> Reaction --> Solution

Religion and politics are both the very same thing. They are both only, very old and very effective, means to control large masses of people. It has always only been that way, and it always only will be.

The ends do NOT justify the means.

Thanks! :)

YES!

agreed - but if both religion and government would just get back to the foundation that began them both (re: the principles), then things could get back to good pretty quickly, I think.

Closer to the logic of the principles, for atheists/agnostics.

Closer to the words of Jesus Christ, and the stuff God asked folks not to do, for the religious.

I've seen, with my own eyes, and heard, with my own ears, an atheist defend a religious person's rights in a government state house! When do we figure out we're all trying to protect the same exact thing, the principles themselves? And the rights, which the religious believe were given by a creator, and the agnostics/atheists believe are just definites that don't neccesary need a creator to stand by them or over them in order to exist.

Unite them all - the atheists, the agnostics, and the 'super duper religious' and you got a pretty powerful force on your hands... Ron Paul absolutely did that - but trying to unite groups of people who think the 'other guy' is out to destroy their 'freedom' of either religion or liberty to be free from religion, it's a mind-blowingly nutty task!

And with the abortion issue... well, it's the whole 'keep them arguing about the wrong things' tactic, yep. Works every time. Look how long this zany little struggle has been going on, great points made here and there, but not about the actual issue of state sovereignty and why it mattered for freedom of religion... nothing about state constitutions and why each state was supposed to be set up differently so that peace could exist, prosperity and liberty and freedom to be sustainable... we'll end up like the middle east in complete religious holy wars for centuries to come if we don't let go of our great debates and instead focus on allowing the differences of opinion/ideology to exist, religiously.

We forced the very devout to live in a nation that completely goes against the word of their Lord, and we can not call ourselves a 'civil society' full of 'freedom and liberty' when we have sentenced each of them to an eternal damnation for abiding by state and federal constitutions above that of their God.

No wonder they have all been so upset - we basically setenced them all to hell, no matter if we believe it or not, they do - and we shouldn't have, and we do need to work together to give them that one 'place', like the Amish, that they can call 'home' and live in harmony with their creator.

I can't believe how ashamed I am for having spent decades of my life defending a federal position that I'd never have supported had I known about the state constitutions and the way our nation was supposed to work - it's the most brilliant government ever, what the founding fathers set up for us, and we have got to get it back!

Probably abolishing the federal dept. of education would be a good start. That's the entity that really, really screwed up civics classes in schools. We never got to learn any of this important stuff - it's all crap, what you learn in public and private schools. How will we reign in our federal government back to its federal constitutional levels without utilizing the laws and directions in our sovereign state constitutions? It can't be done! We need the laws of each of our lands, and we have to start abiding by them, and holding elected officials accountable when they break their oath to it.

They teach state constitution stuff in 4th grade here in my state, but by the time the kids can vote, do you think most of them remembers anything they learned in that grade about government and the role of the state constitution? And do you think they teach them about the principles this nation was founded upon? I doubt it! We accidently pushed too hard for that whole seperation of church and state, and for government, that means 'seperation of government and principles' - I'm going to try to get it so that it's taught again in the 10th grade - with the principles - with the DATES of the ratification compared to the federal one. Most folks just don't know - but they have to know, or they'll fall right into the trap of the push for a Republic to be changed to a Democracy... thinking they are doing what is 'right' for 'freedom', when Democracy will be the death of it.

Lambs to slaughter. :(

[BagOfEyebrows]

Religion and politics may be the same thing in the Islamic Republic of France, but they aren't here. If Christians, and by that I mean Christians like Baldwin, not W, had their way, do you seriously believe we would be in the mess we're in right now? Those Christians are the ones that read their Bible, not the 90% of the so called "Christians" that don't. Hell, I bet even the devil is a Christian.


Your logic is bullshit, just like your opinion on abortion. If you want to save lives, donate everything you own to help starving Africans, otherwise, shut the fuck up -- the world is way overpopulated as it is.

hey... HEY!!! ... that wasn't nice. Not need to get all crunchy with each other, that's what they WANT!

I'm pro-choice, too, but we gotta recongize how we're ALL being manipulated by the federal government into allowing these one size fits all dictates... it's not like abortion rights would disappear by getting rid of the federal ruling on it - I'd fight right along side you to keep some states where abortion was a legal procedure.

But we've got to fight just as hard to allow the God and Jesus Christ abiding folks to have a constitution that isn't in conflict with THEIR firmly held convictions, too!

And that is done by keeping it at state levels... or even cities and towns!

This ain't rocket science! Can't you see why we can't do this to them? It's not honoring the very ideals of freedom and liberty - Freedom of Religion can't exist in a nation that makes it legal, nationwide, to kill unborn infants (because for some, that is going to get them a one way ticket to Satanville, for freakin' eternity!)

Stop debating the 'right to choose' and start defending REAL CHOICE and real freedom and liberty. :)

[BagOfEyebrows]

Keep it simple.

It's about centralized control of social directions, a very difficult thing to accomplish if there are now 50 points of control. Therefore in order to take control in a centralized manner the Supreme Court opted to amend the constitution to its liking to accomplish that. We now have no reliably enforceable constitution as a result of such cavalier attitudes and treatment over the years. SCOTUS assumes the right to make any interpretation at will. Presidents assume the right to ignore it at will. Only assured prompt impeachment can ever correct this.

I would neither support RvW nor would I support a constitutional amendment to define the beginning of human life at any point. The issue belongs back in the most local jurisdictions possible, the Founders absolutely never intended or allowed for centralized Federal control of social directions in this Union of States. The Federalization of such matters has completely destroyed the integrity of our national politics and our solidarity as Americans. Its kept us hopelessly split in times when we needed to stand united or lose our freedoms.

The whole issue is really about the control freaks (on both sides of the question) looking for Federal central one-point control mechanisms vs the Liberty-minded insisting on limited Federal powers and jurisdiction.

It really is that simple.

extremely well said and beautifully written - I agree 100%.

[Truth Warrior]

Religion and politics may be the same thing in the Islamic Republic of France, but they aren't here. If Christians, and by that I mean Christians like Baldwin, not W, had their way, do you seriously believe we would be in the mess we're in right now? Those Christians are the ones that read their Bible, not the 90% of the so called "Christians" that don't. Hell, I bet even the devil is a Christian.


Your logic is bullshit, just like your opinion on abortion. If you want to save lives, donate everything you own to help starving Africans, otherwise, shut the fuck up -- the world is way overpopulated as it is.

Kiss my ass! The NWO wants the jerk barbarians like you. :rolleyes: See ya in FEMA camp.

[BagOfEyebrows]

Kiss my ass! The NWO wants the jerk barbarians like you. :rolleyes:

hey... HEY! That wasn't nice, either - stop being cacaheads to each other, we got a freakin' Republic to save here, and in less than two weeks we're going to know what we're up against on the federal level for the next four years (they both look easy to me to defeat, even with their goofy administration plans, how about you?)

This abortion debate crap is really getting on my nerves. I've had two abortions (so far, during this thread, maybe) and I'll have another if you don't knock it off. (just kidding... dark humor attack.)

[v00513]

Kiss my ass! The NWO wants the jerk barbarians like you. :rolleyes: See ya in FEMA camp.

Nice way of putting it, but I think NWO wants idiots like you voting for them. That way when some fool tries to prove they (the freemasons, bolshevists, human rights activists and other scum) elected themselves, they'll point their fucking fingers right at you and smile, then have their buddies at CNN back them up with charts proving the majority did indeed vote for candidates X, Y and Z.

[Truth Warrior]

Keep it simple.

It's about centralized control of social directions, a very difficult thing to accomplish if there are now 50 points of control. Therefore in order to take control in a centralized manner the Supreme Court opted to amend the constitution to its liking to accomplish that. We now have no reliably enforceable constitution as a result of such cavalier attitudes and treatment over the years. SCOTUS assumes the right to make any interpretation at will. Presidents assume the right to ignore it at will. Only assured prompt impeachment can ever correct this.

I would neither support RvW nor would I support a constitutional amendment to define the beginning of human life at any point. The issue belongs back in the most local jurisdictions possible, the Founders absolutely never intended or allowed for centralized Federal control of social directions in this Union of States. The Federalization of such matters has completely destroyed the integrity of our national politics and our solidarity as Americans. Its kept us hopelessly split in times when we needed to stand united or lose our freedoms.

The whole issue is really about the control freaks (on both sides of the question) looking for Federal central one-point control mechanisms vs the Liberty-minded insisting on limited Federal powers and jurisdiction.

It really is that simple.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." ;)

[Truth Warrior]

hey... HEY! That wasn't nice, either - stop being cacaheads to each other, we got a freakin' Republic to save here, and in less than two weeks we're going to know what we're up against on the federal level for the next four years (they both look easy to me to defeat, even with their goofy administration plans, how about you?)

This abortion debate crap is really getting on my nerves. I've had two abortions (so far, during this thread, maybe) and I'll have another if you don't knock it off. (just kidding... dark humor attack.) Sorry, I don't take any SHIT from anybody. ;)

[BagOfEyebrows]

Nice way of putting it, but I think NWO wants idiots like you voting for them. That way when some fool tries to prove they (the freemasons, bolshevists, human rights activists and other scum) elected themselves, they'll point their fucking fingers right at you and smile, then have their buddies at CNN back them up with charts proving the majority did indeed vote for candidates X, Y and Z.

HEY!... the founding fathers of this nation were freemasons, so stop buying into all the theories out there about 'whodunnit' - cuz there's more disinfo out there about what 'groups' are to blame than there are stars in our galaxy. I'm not saying that there might not be some infiltrations or bad eggs within certain groups - I'm just saying that research the freemason thing more, and you'll find that a lot of what you've been told is kinda like 'wag the dog' and makes you look over at one place, while something else is going on someplace else.

C'mon, guys/chicks/whatever you two are... stop the silly debating over the wrong issue at hand. We gotta get on the same page with this issue - it's the one issue they keep us tied up in while they rape our rights, freedoms and liberties.

Crikey. I'm tired and cranky!

[v00513]

HEY!... the founding fathers of this nation were freemasons, so stop buying into all the theories out there about 'whodunnit' - cuz there's more disinfo out there about what 'groups' are to blame than there are stars in our galaxy. I'm not saying that there might not be some infiltrations or bad eggs within certain groups - I'm just saying that research the freemason thing more, and you'll find that a lot of what you've been told is kinda like 'wag the dog' and makes you look over at one place, while something else is going on someplace else.

C'mon, guys/chicks/whatever you two are... stop the silly debating over the wrong issue at hand. We gotta get on the same page with this issue - it's the one issue they keep us tied up in while they rape our rights, freedoms and liberties.

Crikey. I'm tired and cranky!

Free masonry and bolshevism, like democracy and socialism, are fruits from the same tree.

[BagOfEyebrows]

Sorry, I don't take any SHIT from anybody. ;)


I take shit from folks and make little characters out of it, little kittens playing with balls of yarn, or Mr. Potato Head faces... using it like playdough... then I give it back to them as a spruced up gift of love. "here's that poop you gave me... it's not so bad..." It's led to a lot of 'huh' moments. And lots of hugs. Life's crap is squishy good fun, ya gotta make the most of it, or you'll go through life with a face of 'who farted?'

When folks give you shit, it's because they want you to give them some of yours - when you give them back their own shit instead of yours, you're letting them know "I understand where you're coming from... you're full of shit. But I love you anyways, and I know we can sort this shit out."

We seriously gotta sort this abortion shit out. It's not about abortion, for starters.

*tosses everyone a roll of toilet paper*

[BagOfEyebrows]

Free masonry and bolshevism, like democracy and socialism, are fruits from the same tree.

What!?????

WRONG! (insert ten paragraph post explaining why it's wrong here, tomorrow, at some point, or at some point thereafter)

I'm tired and my husband is trying to get frisky with me, he wanted me to sign my last post from "Mr. Hanky" HAHAHA...

sorry... I've kicked into silly/frisky mode and probably should go throw on my clown outfit and ransack the bedroom! Where's the big shoes? Where's the nose at?

Goodnight!

*seriously hasn't done drugs since 1992*

You guys/chicks better not be fighting still when I come back to this forum at some point, or I'll... well, I'll ... I dunno. I'll type some text at ya, that's what I'll do!

goodnight for now :)

[John E]

If you respect that a child is the same child that is is the day after it was born as it was the day before it was born, then as Ron Paul once said, you have to have life before you can have liberty.

Would you support changing laws so that parents can kill their 7-day old child? or would you "Cry:we want less government in our lives."


No I would not advocate the murder of small children. For that matter, I am not advocating late term abortions either.

What I am advocating... is that the issue is far more complex than you or I can truly appreciate and a blanket one size fits all law by the government cannot adequately deal with the situation. In such a situation, I fall back to the uniquely liberterian ideal that the government stay out of it and let a family govern its own affairs (much like your stance about the govt not getting into sex ed in school).

[Krugerrand]

No I would not advocate the murder of small children. For that matter, I am not advocating late term abortions either.

What I am advocating... is that the issue is far more complex than you or I can truly appreciate and a blanket one size fits all law by the government cannot adequately deal with the situation. In such a situation, I fall back to the uniquely liberterian ideal that the government stay out of it and let a family govern its own affairs (much like your stance about the govt not getting into sex ed in school).

I do appreciate the complexity of the issue. I appreciate a libertarian perspective wishing that the government (especially federal) not get involved. I also appreciate the libertarian perspective of "do what you want as long as you don't hurt anybody else' can *not hypocritically* be applied to the unborn child.

As often happens over the course of the abortion discussion, the previous posts went into religion. I object the notion that atheists are not pro-life or that being pro-life is a Christian based philosophy.

My biggest beefs ... don't call pro-life anti-libertarian, uniquely Christian (I know John, that wasn't you.), or illogical. Yes, it's a complex issue. As liberty minded people, I think this forum could find specifically more common ground on the issue than can be found outside of the forum. It would be nice if such a common ground approach among those espousing liberty could lead the way to more civil discussions elsewhere.

I think there would be far less resistance to abortion laws if it wasn't so drastically funded by tax dollars. When you look at the percentage of Planned Parenthood's budget that comes from tax dollars, it's sickening. Add to that the legal pressures placed on doctors, hospitals, insurance plans, and pharmacists that want to distance themselves from abortion. Where's the protection of liberty?

Some current things to ponder about the complexity of the issue: the percentage of girls aborted in India and China, embryos genetically selected to be "future parts donors" for siblings, many vaccines are created off of cell lines from aborted fetuses. Future issues: genetic selectivity based on predicted: intelligence, physical appearance, ****/heterosexuality, personality traits, or political beliefs; "Brave New World" ... how long can we keep the embryo/fetus living outside of a mother? Who owns the 8 month test-tube baby? What about the test-tube baby with no parents? Can 8 month test-tube babies be used like lab rats to test new medicines?

[Truth Warrior]

I take shit from folks and make little characters out of it, little kittens playing with balls of yarn, or Mr. Potato Head faces... using it like playdough... then I give it back to them as a spruced up gift of love. "here's that poop you gave me... it's not so bad..." It's led to a lot of 'huh' moments. And lots of hugs. Life's crap is squishy good fun, ya gotta make the most of it, or you'll go through life with a face of 'who farted?'

When folks give you shit, it's because they want you to give them some of yours - when you give them back their own shit instead of yours, you're letting them know "I understand where you're coming from... you're full of shit. But I love you anyways, and I know we can sort this shit out."

We seriously gotta sort this abortion shit out. It's not about abortion, for starters.

*tosses everyone a roll of toilet paper* Different strokes for different folks! Whatever works for you. ;)

[Truth Warrior]

No I would not advocate the murder of small children. For that matter, I am not advocating late term abortions either.

What I am advocating... is that the issue is far more complex than you or I can truly appreciate and a blanket one size fits all law by the government cannot adequately deal with the situation. In such a situation, I fall back to the uniquely liberterian ideal that the government stay out of it and let a family govern its own affairs (much like your stance about the govt not getting into sex ed in school). What's so complex about the barbaric homicide of those not yet born? :rolleyes: 48 MILLIONS+, since Roe v. Wade, and counting.

[tropicangela]

...In such a situation, I fall back to the uniquely libertarian ideal that the government stay out of it and let a family govern its own affairs...

I hear pro-choice women say, "Keep the gov't out of my uterus." But yet they agree with Roe v. Wade. If they meant what they said, they'd want no Roe v. Wade and no laws banning abortion either.

[Pepsi]

How would abortion be outlawed if they enact a one-child policy? With the way the Green movement is going and how Obama wants to Declare CO2 a “Dangerous Pollutant”, I can easy see how a One-child policy can be enacted.