Abortion and the election
Comments
-
Supreme court found privacy and substantive due process wherever; so the supreme court can find a right to life. How about in the 14th Amendment?PurpleThrobber said:
You're going to get to your goal of zero abortion a lot faster picking off state by state than trying to get 50 of them to agree all at the same time.creepycoug said:
Get rid of the first bolded part and you're spot on. Both don't work.Sledog said:Dims are dumb as are their voters. Sending it back to the states was the correct decision. This bullshit that it was a right to murder the unborn was fabricated by the left but many grew up being told that lie. The baby is a seperate whole person and the murder of children shouldn't be fucking legal!
And isn't getting, say, 10 right out of the chute saving babies?
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I found two places on which I could go to fucking town and write a 500 page opinion. Change the disingenuous, and frankly stupid, framing of the issue from privacy and self-determination, and then maybe people would follow.
But "take it to the states" makes you complicit because, by implication, you are sponsoring the possibility of any given state reaching the conclusion that it's ok. There are things so fundamental that you don't leave it up the legislature.
As for your theory of "some is better than nothing", which is at least rational (sorry @pawz ), I supposed we could have just said that we didn't need to bother with the 13th amendment and get into a little skirmish with the rebels because the northern states were around.
IDK man. The argument for a national mandate is pretty fucking compelling. -
Not a bad argument on the 14th
Probably why the right to privacy was invented -
-
Well, in 1868 the term person meant a legal person, like with a birth certificate. It was written and intended to prohibit discrimination based on skin color, like blacks. It wasn't written or intended to cover gay marriage or give women the right to vote or for men to participate in women's sports. Murder was defined under state law which at that time didn't treat the death of an unborn baby as qualifying for a murder charge. It was also not written or intended to take away a states right to make abortion illegal.
-
Not sure what your point is here, other than perhaps to suggest you don't think women should have the right to vote, and to make my point about leaving things like this up to the states.WestlinnDuck said:Well, in 1868 the term person meant a legal person, like with a birth certificate. It was written and intended to prohibit discrimination based on skin color, like blacks. It wasn't written or intended to cover gay marriage or give women the right to vote or for men to participate in women's sports. Murder was defined under state law which at that time didn't treat the death of an unborn baby as qualifying for a murder charge. It was also not written or intended to take away a states right to make abortion illegal.
Your point about "legal persons" is classic question begging. Are you saying we're stuck with the acts, omissions and cultural details and limitations of 1868? Human fetus is a person man. It's as plain as the nose on your face. If your position comes down to spatial location (you brought up "unborn" as a legally significant point of demarcation), then you're also down with murdering a child on the day it is due to be born. Even seconds before it's due to be born. Because "unborn" is about spatial location, and absolutely nothing else. What is the moral significance of spatial location? Maybe they were too busying trying to stay warm in 1868 and didn't think that through. Not sure I GAF though.
Spatial location. Better than privacy and "my body my choice." But not by much. Tell me what it is about spatial location that moves you so. I sincerely want to know.
Birth certificate? Are you kidding me? So if a kid is borne in some shitty state that doesn't get its act together and can't issue birth certificates for 6 mos. then it's open season on the kid until the certificate is issued? What if some kid is born at home and has weird parents who don't report it to the county and it goes years w/o a birth certificate? Can we hunt this kid w/o reprisal? Birth certificate may be the worst thought I've heard. Next.
-
I don't think women should vote if that helps
-
I knew that already. You and I were acquainted for more than a decade before you started crawling around with the riff raff in this den of iniquity.RaceBannon said:I don't think women should vote if that helps
-
This has been the tactic for the left for 40 years. Turnabout/Fair PlayRaceBannon said:
Good pointPurpleThrobber said:
You're going to get to your goal of zero abortion a lot faster picking off state by state than trying to get 50 of them to agree all at the same time.creepycoug said:
Get rid of the first bolded part and you're spot on. Both don't work.Sledog said:Dims are dumb as are their voters. Sending it back to the states was the correct decision. This bullshit that it was a right to murder the unborn was fabricated by the left but many grew up being told that lie. The baby is a seperate whole person and the murder of children shouldn't be fucking legal!
And isn't getting, say, 10 right out of the chute saving babies? -
I still can't fathom how people support the murder of unborn children. Adults I can understand!
-
Hey, it's just elective surgery. Like, say, removing an unsightly mole. It's your private business with your doctor. Just my opinion.Sledog said:I still can't fathom how people support the murder of unborn children. Adults I can understand!
Fucking lunacy.
