Abortion and the election

[creepycoug]

Look, if you don't really understand the issue, like most people, then fucking of course it's a huge issue. It would be like the SC ruling that the states can decide whether a woman can have a hysterectomy or a tit job. People here would go fucking nuts with that as an invasion of privacy.

But the point is that abortion is not like a hysterectomy or a tit job. It involves the rights of another person. That should by any sane measure of logic take it out of the state's hands and make it a constitutional matter at the federal level. Again, the SC didn't go far enough.

The problem is all of the people who went out and voted on abortion think of it as a privacy issue, like @pawz does. It has absolutely nothing to do with privacy, but you can't make everybody smart and thoughtful. The discussions on the matter on this board prove that conclusively.

So, in a way, those of you who champion this as a state's rights issue more or less are complicit in the voter turnout, because you are, by implication, supporting the notion that abortion can be viewed differently by different people. It can't. One group (mine) is right; everybody else is wrong. It's not a regional cultural thing. It's basic morality. Like it or not.

The argument is bullet proof. Abortion is killing a biological fetus. The realty is that's not going to be mandated either across all states or at the federal level in mine, your or your kids' lifetims.

So one can die on the sword of Yes or No and be forced to watch as full term abortions are performed when the other side triumphs. Or one can put some reasonable fences around the barbarism at, say, 15 weeks and then win hearts and minds.

Me and God will work that out at the pearly gates. [/b]

Not where you're going homre. I can put it a good word for you, but you have to get on my team and drop the practical politics game. It's unbecoming. I don't care what happens to the baby killing Duck bros; but let him you out Dawg. You're better ... by defintion.

 

[PurpleThrobber]

Look, if you don't really understand the issue, like most people, then fucking of course it's a huge issue. It would be like the SC ruling that the states can decide whether a woman can have a hysterectomy or a tit job. People here would go fucking nuts with that as an invasion of privacy.

But the point is that abortion is not like a hysterectomy or a tit job. It involves the rights of another person. That should by any sane measure of logic take it out of the state's hands and make it a constitutional matter at the federal level. Again, the SC didn't go far enough.

The problem is all of the people who went out and voted on abortion think of it as a privacy issue, like @pawz does. It has absolutely nothing to do with privacy, but you can't make everybody smart and thoughtful. The discussions on the matter on this board prove that conclusively.

So, in a way, those of you who champion this as a state's rights issue more or less are complicit in the voter turnout, because you are, by implication, supporting the notion that abortion can be viewed differently by different people. It can't. One group (mine) is right; everybody else is wrong. It's not a regional cultural thing. It's basic morality. Like it or not.

The argument is bullet proof. Abortion is killing a biological fetus. The realty is that's not going to be mandated either across all states or at the federal level in mine, your or your kids' lifetims.

So one can die on the sword of Yes or No and be forced to watch as full term abortions are performed when the other side triumphs. Or one can put some reasonable fences around the barbarism at, say, 15 weeks and then win hearts and minds.

Me and God will work that out at the pearly gates. [/b]

Not where you're going homre. I can put it a good word for you, but you have to get on my team and drop the practical politics game. It's unbecoming. I don't care what happens to the baby killing Duck bros; but let him you out Dawg. You're better ... by defintion.

Am I my brother's keeper? See also my stance on taking down opposition state by state versus swinging for the fences on 50 states all at once.

In the meantime, lots of dead babies trying to get all fiddy on the same page.

Pretty sure my Big Guy would be down with that.

 

[creepycoug]

Look, if you don't really understand the issue, like most people, then fucking of course it's a huge issue. It would be like the SC ruling that the states can decide whether a woman can have a hysterectomy or a tit job. People here would go fucking nuts with that as an invasion of privacy.

But the point is that abortion is not like a hysterectomy or a tit job. It involves the rights of another person. That should by any sane measure of logic take it out of the state's hands and make it a constitutional matter at the federal level. Again, the SC didn't go far enough.

The problem is all of the people who went out and voted on abortion think of it as a privacy issue, like @pawz does. It has absolutely nothing to do with privacy, but you can't make everybody smart and thoughtful. The discussions on the matter on this board prove that conclusively.

So, in a way, those of you who champion this as a state's rights issue more or less are complicit in the voter turnout, because you are, by implication, supporting the notion that abortion can be viewed differently by different people. It can't. One group (mine) is right; everybody else is wrong. It's not a regional cultural thing. It's basic morality. Like it or not.

The argument is bullet proof. Abortion is killing a biological fetus. The realty is that's not going to be mandated either across all states or at the federal level in mine, your or your kids' lifetims.

So one can die on the sword of Yes or No and be forced to watch as full term abortions are performed when the other side triumphs. Or one can put some reasonable fences around the barbarism at, say, 15 weeks and then win hearts and minds.

Me and God will work that out at the pearly gates. [/b]

Not where you're going homre. I can put it a good word for you, but you have to get on my team and drop the practical politics game. It's unbecoming. I don't care what happens to the baby killing Duck bros; but let him you out Dawg. You're better ... by defintion.

Am I my brother's keeper? See also my stance on taking down opposition state by state versus swinging for the fences on 50 states all at once.

In the meantime, lots of dead babies trying to get all fiddy on the same page.

Pretty sure my Big Guy would be down with that.

He's not your big guy; he's my Big Guy. And that's because of your position on this issue.

What kind of country has a diverse definition of personhood for Christ's sake? Such a state of affairs that it leads to what amounts to genocide of the sort that makes Stalin's purges and the Holocaust pale in comparison. Your solution is, let's try and stem the genocide in the southeastern US and lower midwest and see what happens. Crazy. It starts with bringing clarity to what is actually going on. "State by State" makes it seem like the matter is something amenable to opinion, like our Oregon bros and their "feelings" about what is and is not ok. 15 weeks! Just my opinion! FO with that G. Westlinnn seems to be telling me we might need another civil war and resulting constitutional amendment. Or some such shit. But then again, he's an on-the-record abortionist, so WGAF what he thinks.

I literally count four people who see this clearly: me, roadie (trip, not 55), sleddy and damone. My fellow bean @UW_Doog_Bot too, but he's an intellectual and sorting out the inherent tension between a national ban vs. libertarian principals. I get it, but at least he's thinking.

Be on the right side of history. You're an Idaho guy. You know what to do.

 

[WestlinnDuck]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I just pointed out that your take on the 14th Amendment is wrong. You could man up and agree with my historical analysis, which you now reject because you feel you have the moral high ground and you can change the written Constitutional language based on your feelings. I think it is morally wrong to have a child that you don't want and can't take care of. You want to live in a perfect world of morality and that world doesn't exist. The Throbber's view would result in fewer abortions of actual viable babies than yours.

 

[Swaye]

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]

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

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?

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

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.

I'm going to need to see your Covid proof of vaccination card before you can even say that here. Also, we just took your house under imminent domain. Vote blue!

 

[UW_Doog_Bot]

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]

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

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?

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

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.

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!

You are relentless lady, I'll give you that.

Still, the smallest minority is the individual, the fed should be focused on getting that right and everything else will follow.

Right now I see a fed not focused on protecting rights but on destroying them. Let's start by pushing back on that instead of pressing on the gas with other concerns.

Right to property(including one's self), 1a, 2a and maybe room for the 4th depending on argument. Let's start with those being protected instead of under siege.

 

[creepycoug]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I just pointed out that your take on the 14th Amendment is wrong. You could man up and agree with my historical analysis, which you now reject because you feel you have the moral high ground and you can change the written Constitutional language based on your feelings. I think it is morally wrong to have a child that you don't want and can't take care of. You want to live in a perfect world of morality and that world doesn't exist. The Throbber's view would result in fewer abortions of actual viable babies than yours.

It seems that literal reading of words on paper or screens extends to message board threads. Even the strict constructionists look for drafter intent. Read, again, how the 14th amendment came up in my response to another poster, and tell me if the context of floating that idea was an indication of interest or intent to have a living document / original intent debate or discussion. So, I have nothing for which to man up. For one thing, yours is one philosophy of constitutional jurisprudence. I could just take the other one. Or would that be the first time the SCOTUS searched for text to substantiate a result it was looking for? Don't be naive. IDC about how it is effected, and I would take a new interpretation over your thoughtless and rather brutal stance on the underlying matter, which now I see involves the only slightly better viability [/i]justification. Still doesn't work for reasons I'm sure you're not interested in, since you're on record with infanticide. But for me, I'm more interested in the discussion of what it means that something as fundamentally basic as personhood ... right on the same footing as slavery as moral questions go ... can vary throughout the states and still call this collection of jurisdictions a country. The question has been framed for you quite clearly.

 

[UW_Doog_Bot]

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]

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

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?

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

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.

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!

You are relentless lady, I'll give you that.

Still, the smallest minority is the individual, the fed should be focused on getting that right and everything else will follow.

Right now I see a fed not focused on protecting rights but on destroying them. Let's start by pushing back on that instead of pressing on the gas with other concerns.

Right to property(including one's self), 1a, 2a and maybe room for the 4th depending on argument. Let's start with those being protected instead of under siege.

Not to Franny! But to relevantly follow on and show my thinking.

If the current government doesn't even consider normal and basic citizens rights to life primary axioms how are we going to settle anything else?

Extra-judicial killings are now normal over seas and admitted in public. I think we can all guarantee they are happening on American soil even if they aren't public yet.

 

[creepycoug]

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]

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

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?

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

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.

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!

You are relentless lady, I'll give you that.

Still, the smallest minority is the individual, the fed should be focused on getting that right and everything else will follow.

Right now I see a fed not focused on protecting rights but on destroying them. Let's start by pushing back on that instead of pressing on the gas with other concerns.

Right to property(including one's self), 1a, 2a and maybe room for the 4th depending on argument. Let's start with those being protected instead of under siege.

Another idea hombre: let's start with getting the most very basic questions of right ... the right to continue to exist physically in the physical world and to enjoy the right to one's own biological existence, and then build on that for things like land, guns and stuff. I have no hostility towards the latter, only a prioritization of the former. It starts with people being honest about what we're dealing with. The rationalizations of @pawz and the Oregon Abortion Bros only serves to further entrench the notion that this is something that is rightly subject to varying opinions and thus better left to the local and regional decision-making apparatus. I think none of us would accept that if the question were whether it's ok to kill a 3-month old for convenience. This isn't Sparta.

 

[Swaye]

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]

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

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?

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

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.

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!

You are relentless lady, I'll give you that.

Still, the smallest minority is the individual, the fed should be focused on getting that right and everything else will follow.

Right now I see a fed not focused on protecting rights but on destroying them. Let's start by pushing back on that instead of pressing on the gas with other concerns.

Right to property(including one's self), 1a, 2a and maybe room for the 4th depending on argument. Let's start with those being protected instead of under siege.

Another idea hombre: let's start with getting the most very basic questions of right ... the right to continue to exist physically in the physical world and to enjoy the right to one's own biological existence, and then build on that for things like land, guns and stuff. I have no hostility towards the latter, only a prioritization of the former. It starts with people being honest about what we're dealing with. The rationalizations of @pawz and the Oregon Abortion Bros only serves to further entrench the notion that this is something that is rightly subject to varying opinions and thus better left to the local and regional decision-making apparatus. I think none of us would accept that if the question were whether it's ok to kill a 3-month old for convenience. This isn't Sparta.

Hombre means friend in Mexican.

 

[creepycoug]

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]

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

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?

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

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.

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!

You are relentless lady, I'll give you that.

Still, the smallest minority is the individual, the fed should be focused on getting that right and everything else will follow.

Right now I see a fed not focused on protecting rights but on destroying them. Let's start by pushing back on that instead of pressing on the gas with other concerns.

Right to property(including one's self), 1a, 2a and maybe room for the 4th depending on argument. Let's start with those being protected instead of under siege.

Not to Franny! But to relevantly follow on and show my thinking.

If the current government doesn't even consider normal and basic citizens rights to life primary axioms how are we going to settle anything else?

Extra-judicial killings are now normal over seas and admitted in public. I think we can all guarantee they are happening on American soil even if they aren't public yet.

Agreed. Those things are equally bad. My point is that this is equally bad to that when you think about it, which the Oregon Abortion Bros, and Pawz and his privacy, don't want to do. I have no faith the government will do the right thing. Was hoping the SCOTUS could find a way, but apparently we're stuck in 1868 and would need a civil war and resulting constitutional amendment. Or something. All I know is "But, but the states" isn't the answer. If it is, this isn't a country and I'd rather just pay all my taxes to the real Washington and forget the whole arrangement as a terrible sham.

I'm being dramatic, of course, but it's something to ponder. The unborn are automatically guilt-free. Killing them is pretty random violence.

I guess it's true: Ducks really have no soul.

#hateweek

 

[WestlinnDuck]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I just pointed out that your take on the 14th Amendment is wrong. You could man up and agree with my historical analysis, which you now reject because you feel you have the moral high ground and you can change the written Constitutional language based on your feelings. I think it is morally wrong to have a child that you don't want and can't take care of. You want to live in a perfect world of morality and that world doesn't exist. The Throbber's view would result in fewer abortions of actual viable babies than yours.

It seems that literal reading of words on paper or screens extends to message board threads. Even the strict constructionists look for drafter intent. Read, again, how the 14th amendment came up in my response to another poster, and tell me if the context of floating that idea was an indication of interest or intent to have a living document / original intent debate or discussion. So, I have nothing for which to man up. For one thing, yours is one philosophy of constitutional jurisprudence. I could just take the other one. Or would that be the first time the SCOTUS searched for text to substantiate a result it was looking for? Don't be naive. IDC about how it is effected, and I would take a new interpretation over your thoughtless and rather brutal stance on the underlying matter, which now I see involves the only slightly better viability [/i]justification. Still doesn't work for reasons I'm sure you're not interested in, since you're on record with infanticide. But for me, I'm more interested in the discussion of what it means that something as fundamentally basic as personhood ... right on the same footing as slavery as moral questions go ... can vary throughout the states and still call this collection of jurisdictions a country. The question has been framed for you quite clearly.

Lots of word that don't make a unborn baby a person under the 14th amendment. Imagine, using the literal readings of words on paper supported by the historical context of those written words to reach a conclusion. Your moral support for your feelings is exactly like the "reasoning" behind Roe v. Wade. I prefer a Constitution that isn't interpreted by who is reading the entrails.

 

[creepycoug]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I just pointed out that your take on the 14th Amendment is wrong. You could man up and agree with my historical analysis, which you now reject because you feel you have the moral high ground and you can change the written Constitutional language based on your feelings. I think it is morally wrong to have a child that you don't want and can't take care of. You want to live in a perfect world of morality and that world doesn't exist. The Throbber's view would result in fewer abortions of actual viable babies than yours.

It seems that literal reading of words on paper or screens extends to message board threads. Even the strict constructionists look for drafter intent. Read, again, how the 14th amendment came up in my response to another poster, and tell me if the context of floating that idea was an indication of interest or intent to have a living document / original intent debate or discussion. So, I have nothing for which to man up. For one thing, yours is one philosophy of constitutional jurisprudence. I could just take the other one. Or would that be the first time the SCOTUS searched for text to substantiate a result it was looking for? Don't be naive. IDC about how it is effected, and I would take a new interpretation over your thoughtless and rather brutal stance on the underlying matter, which now I see involves the only slightly better viability [/i]justification. Still doesn't work for reasons I'm sure you're not interested in, since you're on record with infanticide. But for me, I'm more interested in the discussion of what it means that something as fundamentally basic as personhood ... right on the same footing as slavery as moral questions go ... can vary throughout the states and still call this collection of jurisdictions a country. The question has been framed for you quite clearly.

Lots of word that don't make a unborn baby a person under the 14th amendment. Imagine, using the literal readings of words on paper supported by the historical context of those written words to reach a conclusion. Your moral support for your feelings is exactly like the "reasoning" behind Roe v. Wade. I prefer a Constitution that isn't interpreted by who is reading the entrails.

We're done here. You don't have it bro. And I've told you now thrice that I DGAF about what you prefer. The issue is framed clearly. Be more like your brethren and just hide from it honestly. The 14th Amendment has been sacrificed. You needn't make your pedantic appeal to history and drafter's intent any longer.

 

[creepycoug]

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]

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

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?

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

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.

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!

You are relentless lady, I'll give you that.

Still, the smallest minority is the individual, the fed should be focused on getting that right and everything else will follow.

Right now I see a fed not focused on protecting rights but on destroying them. Let's start by pushing back on that instead of pressing on the gas with other concerns.

Right to property(including one's self), 1a, 2a and maybe room for the 4th depending on argument. Let's start with those being protected instead of under siege.

Another idea hombre: let's start with getting the most very basic questions of right ... the right to continue to exist physically in the physical world and to enjoy the right to one's own biological existence, and then build on that for things like land, guns and stuff. I have no hostility towards the latter, only a prioritization of the former. It starts with people being honest about what we're dealing with. The rationalizations of @pawz and the Oregon Abortion Bros only serves to further entrench the notion that this is something that is rightly subject to varying opinions and thus better left to the local and regional decision-making apparatus. I think none of us would accept that if the question were whether it's ok to kill a 3-month old for convenience. This isn't Sparta.

Hombre means friend in Mexican.

 

[Prestonluv]

Abortion issue is only reason why a red wave didn’t happen

I don’t give a fuck about giving control to the states regarding this issue. It’s just a poor play.

We don’t need more poor people having kids period.

 

[Sledog]

Abortion issue is only reason why a red wave didn’t happen

I don’t give a fuck about giving control to the states regarding this issue. It’s just a poor play.

We don’t need more poor people having kids period.

No it wasn't. The red wave only occurred where voting integrity laws were passed IE: Florida. The dims are holding up counts so the can manufacture the need votes/machine hacks to win. Nothing more nothing less.

Trump vs DeSantis really isn't a thing but Trump deserves this next run as he was cheated out of it. I like both and we're lucky to have both.

 

[RaceBannon]

Abortion issue is only reason why a red wave didn’t happen

I don’t give a fuck about giving control to the states regarding this issue. It’s just a poor play.

We don’t need more poor people having kids period.

No it wasn't. The red wave only occurred where voting integrity laws were passed IE: Florida. The dims are holding up counts so the can manufacture the need votes/machine hacks to win. Nothing more nothing less.

Trump vs DeSantis really isn't a thing but Trump deserves this next run as he was cheated out of it. I like both and we're lucky to have both.

As Billy Muny said

Deserves got nothing to do with it

 

[creepycoug]

Abortion issue is only reason why a red wave didn’t happen

I don’t give a fuck about giving control to the states regarding this issue. It’s just a poor play.

We don’t need more poor people having kids period.

 

[Sledog]

Abortion issue is only reason why a red wave didn’t happen

I don’t give a fuck about giving control to the states regarding this issue. It’s just a poor play.

We don’t need more poor people having kids period.

No it wasn't. The red wave only occurred where voting integrity laws were passed IE: Florida. The dims are holding up counts so the can manufacture the need votes/machine hacks to win. Nothing more nothing less.

Trump vs DeSantis really isn't a thing but Trump deserves this next run as he was cheated out of it. I like both and we're lucky to have both.

As Billy Muny said

Deserves got nothing to do with it

I want 12 years not 8.

 

[RaceBannon]

Abortion issue is only reason why a red wave didn’t happen

I don’t give a fuck about giving control to the states regarding this issue. It’s just a poor play.

We don’t need more poor people having kids period.

No it wasn't. The red wave only occurred where voting integrity laws were passed IE: Florida. The dims are holding up counts so the can manufacture the need votes/machine hacks to win. Nothing more nothing less.

Trump vs DeSantis really isn't a thing but Trump deserves this next run as he was cheated out of it. I like both and we're lucky to have both.

As Billy Muny said

Deserves got nothing to do with it

I want 12 years not 8.

If DeSantis is the guy you might get 16

Reagan dragged Bush over the line for 12

Someone needs to reset the narrative or we'll get nothing and like it