Abortion and the election

Dims are dumb as are their voters. Sending it back to the states was the correct decision.[/b] 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![/b]
Click to expand...

Get rid of the first bolded part and you're spot on. Both don't work.
Click to expand...

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.

And isn't getting, say, 10 right out of the chute saving babies?
Click to expand...

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?

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[/b] of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[/i]; nor deny to any person[/b] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws[/i].

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.

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.

 
Last edited:
I don't think women should vote if that helps
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Dims are dumb as are their voters. Sending it back to the states was the correct decision.[/b] 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![/b]
Click to expand...

Get rid of the first bolded part and you're spot on. Both don't work.
Click to expand...

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.

And isn't getting, say, 10 right out of the chute saving babies?
Click to expand...

Good point
Click to expand...
This has been the tactic for the left for 40 years. Turnabout/Fair Play
 
I still can't fathom how people support the murder of unborn children. Adults I can understand!
 
I still can't fathom how people support the murder of unborn children. Adults I can understand!
Click to expand...

Hey, it's just elective surgery. Like, say, removing an unsightly mole. It's your private business with your doctor. Just my opinion.

Fucking lunacy.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

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? Yes. The 14th amendment has nothing to do with abortion or a state's definition of murder.[/b] 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. Nope, I support limited abortion before 15 weeks[/b]. 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? Really, that's what you think I meant?[/b] 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.
Click to expand...

 
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.
Click to expand...

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.

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? Yes. The 14th amendment has nothing to do with abortion or a state's definition of murder.[/b] 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. Nope, I support limited abortion before 15 weeks[/b]. 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? Really, that's what you think I meant?[/b] 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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So the 14th amendment is just for black people and for little to nothing else. Got it. As for birth certificates, you brought it up, not me. If it was proffered, as I think it was, to amplify the distinction between the reference to being "born" in the United States and the two references to "persons", then you're back at spatial location, and the logical end to that is up-to-the-last-second infanticide. Which is a brutal position to take, but you're free to take it of course. I'm not as much interested in the constitutional theories of jurisprudence to which you subscribe and am more interested why you think it is an acceptable result for California to one day decide a fetus on its way out of the womb has no personhood and then suddenly acquires it a few hours, minutes or seconds later.

After that is settled, then it makes sense to discuss whether there is any play for a conservative SCOTUS, which now includes a young, tanned, rested and ready ACB, to conclude it's unconstitutional vs. whether a constitutional amendment is required. I view those issues as secondary concerns. You have to get to the right answer first and then worry about how you legally role it out. Like slavery I suppose.
 
Last edited:
I told all of you fucks 6 months ago that even talking about abortion was a poison pill. And anyone that says that the Dobbs ruling’s timing wasn’t part of our teams strategy needs to take a long walk on the pier.
 
So voters don't like GOP issues?

Probably shouldn't have run on it for 50 years

Probably don't need the GOP either
 
So voters don't like GOP issues?

Probably shouldn't have run on it for 50 years

Probably don't need the GOP either
Click to expand...

Smoke all the weed and talk all the shit you want about abortion.

Just wait until you win the Natty before you do it.

You play to win the game.
 
Dims are dumb as are their voters. Sending it back to the states was the correct decision.[/b] 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![/b]
Click to expand...

Get rid of the first bolded part and you're spot on. Both don't work.
Click to expand...

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.

And isn't getting, say, 10 right out of the chute saving babies?
Click to expand...

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?

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[/b] of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[/i]; nor deny to any person[/b] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws[/i].

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
Click to expand...

Frankly Madam we need to have a talk about the way in which the federal government is "protecting" my right to life liberty and property as it is.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.

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? Yes. The 14th amendment has nothing to do with abortion or a state's definition of murder.[/b] 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. Nope, I support limited abortion before 15 weeks[/b]. 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? Really, that's what you think I meant?[/b] 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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So the 14th amendment is just for black people and for little to nothing else. Got it. As for birth certificates, you brought it up, not me. If it was proffered, as I think it was, to amplify the distinction between the reference to being "born" in the United States and the two references to "persons", then you're back at spatial location, and the logical end to that is up-to-the-last-second infanticide. Which is a brutal position to take, but you're free to take it of course. I'm not as much interested in the constitutional theories of jurisprudence to which you subscribe and am more interested why you think it is an acceptable result for California to one day decide a fetus on its way out of the womb has no personhood and then suddenly acquires it a few hours, minutes or seconds later.

After that is settled, then it makes sense to discuss whether there is any play for a conservative SCOTUS, which now includes a young, tanned, rested and ready ACB, to conclude it's unconstitutional vs. whether a constitutional amendment is required. I view those issues as secondary concerns. You have to get to the right answer first and then worry about how you legally role it out. Like slavery I suppose.
Click to expand...

Coug, keep phucking that strawman ass. Let's see, we had a Civil War over slavery and then we passed the 14th amendment for what? Gay marriage and abortion? Deal with that. Either the Constitution is a written document or it is meaningless. Hell, today Congress could ban alcohol under the perverted view of the commerce clause. But in 1919 they knew they needed the 18th amendment to empower the federal government to override state social and legal authorization of drinking. In 1868 an unborn baby wasn't a person under the 14th Amendment in spite or your feelings. If you want to change the amendment, then do so under the Constitution.

Like the dems, if you want to be king, then say so.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.

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? Yes. The 14th amendment has nothing to do with abortion or a state's definition of murder.[/b] 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. Nope, I support limited abortion before 15 weeks[/b]. 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? Really, that's what you think I meant?[/b] 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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So the 14th amendment is just for black people and for little to nothing else. Got it. As for birth certificates, you brought it up, not me. If it was proffered, as I think it was, to amplify the distinction between the reference to being "born" in the United States and the two references to "persons", then you're back at spatial location, and the logical end to that is up-to-the-last-second infanticide. Which is a brutal position to take, but you're free to take it of course. I'm not as much interested in the constitutional theories of jurisprudence to which you subscribe and am more interested why you think it is an acceptable result for California to one day decide a fetus on its way out of the womb has no personhood and then suddenly acquires it a few hours, minutes or seconds later.

After that is settled, then it makes sense to discuss whether there is any play for a conservative SCOTUS, which now includes a young, tanned, rested and ready ACB, to conclude it's unconstitutional vs. whether a constitutional amendment is required. I view those issues as secondary concerns. You have to get to the right answer first and then worry about how you legally role it out. Like slavery I suppose.
Click to expand...

Coug, keep phucking that strawman ass. Let's see, we had a Civil War over slavery and then we passed the 14th amendment for what? Gay marriage and abortion? Deal with that. Either the Constitution is a written document or it is meaningless. Hell, today Congress could ban alcohol under the perverted view of the commerce clause. But in 1919 they knew they needed the 18th amendment to empower the federal government to override state social and legal authorization of drinking. In 1868 an unborn baby wasn't a person under the 14th Amendment in spite or your feelings. If you want to change the amendment, then do so under the Constitution.

Like the dems, if you want to be king, then say so.
Click to expand...

Still dodging and can't take the issue head on like a man. Piss poor response, and I gave you the out on the 14th, because those debates are tedious and obfuscate the issue, which I'm sure was your aim; but thanks for the dime store lesson on original intent anyway. Believe it or not, I've heard it before.

Come back to me when you actually have something to say on the matter.
 
Dims are dumb as are their voters. Sending it back to the states was the correct decision.[/b] 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![/b]
Click to expand...

Get rid of the first bolded part and you're spot on. Both don't work.
Click to expand...

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.

And isn't getting, say, 10 right out of the chute saving babies?
Click to expand...

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?

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[/b] of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[/i]; nor deny to any person[/b] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws[/i].

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
Click to expand...

Frankly Madam we need to have a talk about the way in which the federal government is "protecting" my right to life liberty and property as it is.
Click to expand...

You, sir, have high expectations of the government. If they don't have the gumption to figure out their ass from a hole in the ground on something as basic as, say, state- (and apparently Tug-) sponsored murder of a child, what on earth are you doing expecting them to care about your liberty and property ese?

But Westlinn "feels" like 15 weeks is OK!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top