Author Topic: Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp signs controversial 'heartbeat' bill into law  (Read 1215 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online rustynail

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,730
Stop abortion now!   Ban Hetro-sex.

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,903
The SCOTUS finding that the Constitution protects a citizen's natural right to choose for herself her own future,  or to own a gun for self-defense,  is not "tyranny".

It becomes tyranny when the Supreme Court (or any court) ignores the Constitution.  Black Americans lived under the tyranny of Plessy for over half a century just as the residents of Cobb County, Georgia live under the tyranny of the 11th Circuit prohibiting them from adding to a school text book the obvious truth that evolution is a theory.  Neither decision came from the Constitution, nor did Roe or Doe.  So yes, when the legal foundation of this nation is ignored by the very branch sworn to be the voice of it, that is tyranny.


A ban on the procedure (which is effectively what the "heartbeat" bill is) will force many woman into destitution or a back alley.   This is simply not the g-damn business of the government.  In other contexts,  this will easily be seen as the conservative, liberty-centric position.   And so it is here.

The pros and cons of the abortion debate have zero bearing on the Constitutionality of it.  This same argument was made with Plessy.  Just as you argue that "abortion must remain legal" without referencing a single word of the Constitution, the majority in Plessy argued that "the races must remain separate", again without referencing a single word of the Constitution.  And just as Plessy was overturned in 1954 by Justices who actually referenced the 14th Amendment (with zero regard to what some argued must be done), Roe will one day be overturned by Justices who actually reference the Tenth Amendment (with zero regard to your obscene demand that "abortion must remain legal").  When it comes to choosing between the Constitution or choosing to satisfy demands of "abortion must remain legal" or 'the races must remain segregated', I will side with the Constitution of the Unites States of America every single time.  In the mean time, your George Wallace impersonation - 'Abortion today, abortion tomorrow, abortion forever!' - is getting old.


It is difficult to overstate the damage that has been done to the American fabric by the 40-year battle over abortion.

The sociopathic impact that the devaluation of life has had on society not to mention the wholesale murder of 58 million citizens has been exponentially more damaging.  And then there's the widespread disrespect that women now face when they end up pregnant from their own choice and have some man pressuring them to get an abortion.


The two political parties,  whatever their other differences, are divided on the issue of abortion,  with the Dems taking the libertarian view and the GOP the authoritarian view.

Uh, no.  You have it backwards.  It is the Democrats taking the authoritarian view by denying States the right to choose for themselves.  And it is the Republicans who reject this judicial tyranny by returning the Constitution back to its proper place as the basis of law.


Isn't it well past time to concede that the government cannot police a woman's womb

No one is trying to police a woman's womb.  No one is stopping any woman from inviting any man to enter her womb by using it as a sperm receptacle.  No one.  Not any State government.  Not any local government.  Not the US  Congress.  It isn't about the woman.  It is about the singular life inside of her - a life brought about by her free exercise of choice.  And it is that life that society is demanding a voice to protect  -  (we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights - LIFE)


Extremism begets extremism folks.   And while the abortion wars continue,  what progress has been made on the only thing that ought to matter?

The only extremism here comes from those who willfully deny the right of society to come together and formulate their own laws within the confines of the Constitution.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-

Offline Jazzhead

  • Radicalized
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,551
It seems,  Hoodat, that you would have no objection to the legislature of your State taking your guns away.    Am I right about that?   Your individual rights are meaningless if your State decides they are?   

The Constitution as it has evolved protects your natural rights from infringement whether coming from the Federal government or the States.   You disagree, and claim that your State,  under the 10th amendment,  remains able to take away a woman's natural right to exercise dominion over her own body. 

Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

So no more guns for individual protection, right, if your State says so?   What, that's not what you believe?   Then why do think so little of the natural rights of women (or as you so crassly put it , sperm receptacles)?
« Last Edit: May 10, 2019, 10:43:26 AM by Jazzhead »
"He was born poor, died rich, and never hurt anyone along the way"

   - Duke Ellington, upon hearing of the death of Louis Armstrong

"Not forever.  Just for now"

    - Jay Farrar

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 24,330
The SCOTUS finding that the Constitution protects a citizen's natural right to choose for herself her own future,  or to own a gun for self-defense,  is not "tyranny".   It is the SCOTUS acting consistent with the intent of the Founders that the purpose of government is to secure our natural rights as individuals. 

I applaud the pro-life movement for raising the moral dilemma that is abortion.   It is never an easy decision, because in the typical situation the woman has no good choices.    A ban on the procedure (which is effectively what the "heartbeat" bill is) will force many woman into destitution or a back alley.   This is simply not the g-damn business of the government.  In other contexts,  this will easily be seen as the conservative, liberty-centric position.   And so it is here. 

It is difficult to overstate the damage that has been done to the American fabric by the 40-year battle over abortion.   The two political parties,  whatever their other differences, are divided on the issue of abortion,  with the Dems taking the libertarian view and the GOP the authoritarian view.   It is bass-ackwards from the positions each party usually takes.   On issue after issue,  I agree with my conservative colleagues except for this one.    Isn't it well past time to concede that the government cannot police a woman's womb,  and to focus instead on actually reducing the number of abortions?   Think of what progress could be made if we could all agree that abortions should be safe, legal and RARE.    Instead,  the Dems react to pro-life extremism with extremism of their own, pushing unconscionable laws permitting near-infanticide.   

Extremism begets extremism folks.   And while the abortion wars continue,  what progress has been made on the only thing that ought to matter?
Piffle.

Quit equating a listed, numbered, spelled out Civil Right with something which has no basis in Western Philosophy, religion, nor mention in the Constitution nor supporting documents that was decreed by a handful of judges. Murdering your own get flies in the face of Nature and Natural Law, and is the equivalent of giving Nature's God the finger. What people should survive who murder their own progeny?
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression


There are no "Socialists", no "Progressives", only Communists, with every negative image that totalitarianism might muster, demanding fealty and conformity to their views, with a legacy of 150,000,000 dead and counting.

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,903
It seems,  Hoodat, that you would have no objection to the legislature of your State taking your guns away.    Am I right about that?

The Bill of Rights expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  It also states that national guard troops cannot be quartered in my house without my consent, that I cannot be compelled to testify against myself, and that my right to a jury trial cannot be denied in any civil case.  So regardless of my personal opinions on gun control, quartering, juries, etc., these are all covered by the Constitution.  (Note that restrictions against free speech, free exercise, etc. are only denied Congress).

Amendment X clearly states "nor prohibited by it to the states".  Amendment II prohibits States, thus it is a power denied States.  Compare that to the so-called abortion right which you have still been unable to locate in this four-page document. 


Your individual rights are meaningless if your State decides they are?

Clearly, you have never bothered to read Amendment X.


The Constitution as it has evolved .  .  .

Uh, no.  It hasn't evolved.  It is the same today as it was in 1787 with the exception of 25 Amendments (18 and 21 are a wash) that have been ratified by 3/4 of all State legislatures.  This means that Plessy and Roe were unconstitutional.  Nothing in the Constitution changed between 1896 and 1954.  It did not evolve.  Only the thinking of black-robed tyrants changed.


.  .  .  protects your natural rights from infringement whether coming from the Federal government or the States.

The Second Amendment protects them.  It has been around since 1791.


You disagree, and claim that your State,  under the 10th amendment,  remains able to take away a woman's natural right to exercise dominion over her own body. 

Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

So no more guns for individual protection, right, if your State says so?   What, that's not what you believe?   Then why do think so little of the natural rights of women (or as you so crassly put it , sperm receptacles)?




You disagree, and claim that your State,  under the 10th amendment,  remains able to take away a woman's natural right to exercise dominion over her own body.

Nope.  Never said that.  My exact words were:
"No one is trying to police a woman's womb.  No one is stopping any woman from inviting any man to enter her womb by using it as a sperm receptacle.  No one.  Not any State government.  Not any local government.  Not the US  Congress.  It isn't about the woman.  It is about the singular life inside of her - a life brought about by her free exercise of choice.  And it is that life that society is demanding a voice to protect  -  (we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights - LIFE)

The only extremism here comes from those who willfully deny the right of society to come together and formulate their own laws within the confines of the Constitution."
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-

Offline Jazzhead

  • Radicalized
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,551
Piffle.

Quit equating a listed, numbered, spelled out Civil Right with something which has no basis in Western Philosophy, religion, nor mention in the Constitution nor supporting documents that was decreed by a handful of judges. Murdering your own get flies in the face of Nature and Natural Law, and is the equivalent of giving Nature's God the finger. What people should survive who murder their own progeny?

The Second Amendment does not protect your individual right to own a gun to protect your family.   It addresses the obsolete concept of the militia.   For the individual right, look to the Heller decision.    Your individual right's protection is as much the product of "judicial tyrants" as a woman's right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy. 

Regarding your insensitive, sexist position about murdering one's progeny,  that's not how it works in reality.  A woman who gets an abortion at 17 when she is destitute and without a partner will grow older, and, under better circumstances,  marry and bear a child when she is 25.   But if she'd had that child at 17,  the child she would have otherwise had at 25 will never have existed.

Life transpires for a reason,  and an incapable, partnerless mother at 17 will be a loving, capable mom at 25 raising a child with a loving, capable spouse.   

I trust that God is a forgiving God, more so than those here who consign women to the status of sperm receptacles.   Abortions are tragic,  but only God knows what life will later be created in place of the one that was lost.   But I can say that a child raised with loving parents stands a far greater shot in life than one who is resented and unloved from the start.   
« Last Edit: May 10, 2019, 12:33:25 PM by Jazzhead »
"He was born poor, died rich, and never hurt anyone along the way"

   - Duke Ellington, upon hearing of the death of Louis Armstrong

"Not forever.  Just for now"

    - Jay Farrar

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,903
The Second Amendment does not protect your individual right to own a gun to protect your family.

What part of " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do you not get?


For the individual right, look to the Heller decision.

The Second Amendment predates Heller by 216 years.  It is ludicrous to offer that no right to keep and bear arms existed until Heller.  The fact that you would even suggest something so asinine proves to me that you have never even read Heller.  The majority opinion (from Scalia) starts off with


We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

The entire decision rendered was based solely on Amendment II.  Here is how it ends:

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-

Offline Jazzhead

  • Radicalized
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,551
The Heller decision interpreted the 2A to extend its reach beyond the militia context.  Why do folks insist on quoting only part of the 2A,  and leave out the predicate clause?   

You are naïve, Hoodat, if you think the 2A protects your individual right to possess a gun in the absence of the Heller decision.    Politically, what we have right now are:

-   Millions of conservatives agitating to ensure that a future Supreme Court will overturn Roe and allow the States to deny a woman's dominion over her own body; and

-   Millions of liberals agitating to ensure that a future Supreme Court will overturn Heller and allow the States to ban the possession of guns outside the context of a militia.   

It is because of these twin issues that right and left are at each other's throats, each seeking to allow the State to trample the individual right it disfavors.    My position is that a woman's liberty is just as important as a gun owner's liberty.   And I will continue to be skewered for my refusal to favor rights for me but not for thee.   
« Last Edit: May 10, 2019, 01:54:35 PM by Jazzhead »
"He was born poor, died rich, and never hurt anyone along the way"

   - Duke Ellington, upon hearing of the death of Louis Armstrong

"Not forever.  Just for now"

    - Jay Farrar

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,903
The Heller decision interpreted the 2A to extend its reach beyond the militia context.


As did US v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, and US v. Miller.


Why do folks insist on quoting only part of the 2A,  and leave out the predicate clause?   

Because the prefactory clause is not the objective clause.  It is the same as saying that saying that the Constitution doesn't provide equal protection under the law since it wasn't listed in the preamble.  The objective clause here states the right, who has it, and the limits on that right - militia or no militia.  If you took time to read the Heller decision, you would already know this.  Not that this has a single thing to do with the right of the State of Georgia to establish its own abortion laws under Amendment X of the US Constitution.


You are naïve, Hoodat, if you think the 2A protects your individual right to possess a gun in the absence of the Heller decision.

See Nunn v. Georgia, 1846.  Over a century and a half ago, the general understanding was that the right to keep and bear arms belonged to the individual - not the militia.

But let's consider for a moment the idiocy of the counter-argument, i.e. that the right of an armed militia to keep and bear arms needed to be spelled out.  By definition, a militia is an armed force.  So to disarm a militia, the militia ceases to be a militia.  Why on earth would our founding fathers ever consider a militia to be unarmed?  Instead, they are saying that the right of the people is to be like the militia in that they will always have the right to defend their place on the wall of America with arms.  If you read Heller, you would know this.  Not that this has a single thing to do with the right of the State of Georgia to establish its own abortion laws under Amendment X of the US Constitution.


Politically, what we have right now are:

-   Millions of conservatives agitating to ensure that a future Supreme Court will overturn Roe and allow the States to deny a woman's dominion over her own body;

Uh, no.  Here it is a third time since you completely ignored it the previous two:

"No one is trying to police a woman's womb.  No one is stopping any woman from inviting any man to enter her womb by using it as a sperm receptacle.  No one.  Not any State government.  Not any local government.  Not the US  Congress.  It isn't about the woman.  It is about the singular life inside of her - a life brought about by her free exercise of choice.  And it is that life that society is demanding a voice to protect  -  (we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights - LIFE)


-   Millions of liberals agitating to ensure that a future Supreme Court will overturn Heller and allow the States to ban the possession of guns outside the context of a militia.   

It is because of these twin issues that right and left are at each other's throats, each seeking to allow the State to trample the individual right it disfavors.    My position is that a woman's liberty is just as important as a gun owner's liberty.   And I will continue to be skewered for my refusal to favor rights for me but not for thee.

On both issues, the left wants the Constitution to be ignored, while the right wants the Constitution to be followed.

But it goes deeper than that.  For  Conservatives, it is purely a local matter.  Conservatives want a voice in shaping their own State and local government but could care less what you do in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  For liberals, it is a matter of imposing their tyranny on everyone else.  You are not satisfied that the Kermit Gosnell's of the world are unleashed upon the black population of Philadelphia.  You want them forced on the African-American communities of Atlanta, Columbus, Macon, and Savannah as well.

Liberals - always forcing their morality on everyone else, and always using black-robbed tyrants to do it.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 24,330
The Second Amendment does not protect your individual right to own a gun to protect your family.   It addresses the obsolete concept of the militia.   For the individual right, look to the Heller decision.    Your individual right's protection is as much the product of "judicial tyrants" as a woman's right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy. 
Bullsh*t. The second Amendment clearly states that "...the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed." No other Right enumerated in the Bill of Rights retains specifically by the people means anything but a Right of the People. The predicate clause only establishes WHY that Right of the People shall not be infringed. This is discussed at length in the Federalist, indicating the mistrust of a standing Army, and the control of the Army (regulation) is to be kept by the People being armed. That control is necessary to maintaining a Free State. No amount of misreading or semantic warping of the predicate clause takes away the fact that the Right is reserved specifically to the People, as are other Rights of the People in the Bill of Rights.

Quote
Regarding your insensitive, sexist position about murdering one's progeny,  that's not how it works in reality.  A woman who gets an abortion at 17 when she is destitute and without a partner will grow older, and, under better circumstances,  marry and bear a child when she is 25.   But if she'd had that child at 17,  the child she would have otherwise had at 25 will never have existed.
There is nothing to prevent a later pregnancy, unless the abortion is botched and she is rendered sterile by medical mishap. But the child in the first instance has only one chance to live. As for calling the murder of one's progeny what it is, there is nothing sexist about calling slaughter by dismemberment what it is: murder most foul. In fact,
What could be less sexist than standing up for the lives of those who cannot stand up for themselves, over half of whom (statistically speaking) are female? If standing up for the very lives, against seeing live humans dismembered, shredded alive is insensitive, imagine how being a proponent of the dismemberment of living unanesthetized babies appears.

Such practices used against duly convicted axe murderers would be decried as cruel and unusual and unConstitutional, yet you advocate for them for the most innocent among us, who had no choice about their existence, a choice made by sexually mature people who had a choice to not conceive a new life.

Quote
Life transpires for a reason,  and an incapable, partnerless mother at 17 will be a loving, capable mom at 25 raising a child with a loving, capable spouse.   
You claim this with no sign of sarcasm, when "72.3 percent of non-Hispanic blacks are now born out-of-wedlock; 66.2 percent of American Indians/Alaska Natives; 53.3 percent of Hispanics; 29.1 percent of non-Hispanic whites; and 17.2 percent of Asians/Pacific Islanders"... are born out of wedlock. That's 40.7% overall, and those figures are from 2012. THe situation has not improved.source
So much for the loving spouse bit.
Spare me the balderdash. You fail to note that an aborted child will have no loving parents later--they're dead.

Quote
I trust that God is a forgiving God, more so than those here who consign women to the status of sperm receptacles.   Abortions are tragic,  but only God knows what life will later be created in place of the one that was lost.   But I can say that a child raised with loving parents stands a far greater shot in life than one who is resented and unloved from the start.
What makes you think an unrepentant seeker of abortions will ever become more responsible, will ever be a caring parent, when they have already deemed one or more of their offspring disposable to the degree they selfishly would not even give them the chance of life with loving adoptive parents?

I'm not buying what you're selling, not for an instant.

That doesn't mean I don't believe that the Almighty can't forgive anything of the repentant, but repentance means a few things. Someone recognized what they did was WRONG. They are genuinely sorry in their soul for having done it, and they do not do it again. Like the Adulteress saved from stoning, Jesus said "Go forth, and sin no more."

But to lead those in crisis astray with the soft-pedaling rhetoric that somehow a Child is a "Choice" and that there is a "Right" to murder them is despicable, indeed.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2019, 09:19:39 PM by Smokin Joe »
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression


There are no "Socialists", no "Progressives", only Communists, with every negative image that totalitarianism might muster, demanding fealty and conformity to their views, with a legacy of 150,000,000 dead and counting.

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,903
You claim this with no sign of sarcasm, when "72.3 percent of non-Hispanic blacks are now born out-of-wedlock

Not to mention that for every two live births, a third is aborted.  Most would call that 'genocide', while others celebrate it as a woman's right to choose.


Spare me the balderdash. You fail to note that an aborted child will have no loving parents later--they're dead.
What makes you think an unrepentant seeker of abortions will ever become more responsible, will ever be a caring parent, when they have already deemed one or more of their offspring disposable to the degree they selfishly would not even give them the chance of life with loving adoptive parents?


I'm not buying what you're selling, not for an instant.

Preach it, brother.  Abortion devalues life.  And when life is devalued, it is to society's detriment.  Yet Jazzhead says that I should have no voice when it comes to shaping the society in which I live.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-

Offline InHeavenThereIsNoBeer

  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,574
Abortions are tragic,  but only God knows what life will later be created in place of the one that was lost.

So there I was at the gates of Heaven.  Those two lawyers I murdered?  Sure I killed those people.  But I then I went and knocked up four chicks, so I should really come out ahead of the game.
My avatar shows the national debt in stacks of $100 bills.  If you look very closely under the crane you can see the Statue of Liberty.

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,903
Abortions are tragic,  but only God knows what life will later be created in place of the one that was lost.

So there I was at the gates of Heaven.  Those two lawyers I murdered?  Sure I killed those people.  But I then I went and knocked up four chicks, so I should really come out ahead of the game.

Moral relativism.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-

Offline InHeavenThereIsNoBeer

  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,574
Moral relativism.

It's something relativism.  But when someone argues that it's okay to kill a unique human life because you can just take a Mulligan, there's no morality involved.  I can understand those who might disagree that by the time there is a heartbeat there is a distinct human life, but the idea that it is a life, but it's okay to throw it away in the hopes that a "better" one might come along?  Sick beyond anything I can comprehend.
My avatar shows the national debt in stacks of $100 bills.  If you look very closely under the crane you can see the Statue of Liberty.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf