Gillibrand: Anti-abortion laws 'against Christian faith'

[Sanguine]

Nice try, @Jazzhead, but your "no legal rights vis a vis the mother" argument was offered four days before the Pennsylvania statute was posted.  In other words, your entire "no legal rights" contention was pulled out of thin air, just as I stated.  But once the Pennsylvania statute was posted you foolishly used it as the basis for your earlier claim.  And by doing so, you affirmed the right and exercise of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to set its own laws in regard acts "against the unborn child".  In other words, your entire 'Constitutionality of Roe' argument has been complete and total bullsh!t this entire time.  So enjoy your Pennsylvania law.  It is your entitled right as a citizen of Pennsylvania to vote for a legislature that enacts laws such as this.  But also know that it is my right as a citizen of the State of Georgia to do the same.  And as your legislature specifically and explicitly holds the mother non-liable for said injury or death of her unborn child, my legislature will specifically and explicitly lay out its own laws in this regard with due process under the Constitution of the United States of America, God bless it.

 

[Jazzhead]

I understand the purpose of the Tenth Amendment,  @Hoodat.   I also understand its limitations.   Let's take the twin issues of abortion and guns.   In each case, the Constitution protects an individual right from denial by the State.   But it does not shield these rights from reasonable regulation.   

A state can (under its authority retained under the Tenth Amendment)  ban late term abortions, or require the registration of firearms.   But it cannot ban abortion at six weeks,  since the woman will have had no effective ability to exercise her choice.   Nor can it ban ownership of handguns,  since that would deny a homeowner the effective means of protecting his person and family. 

The relationship of the States to the federal Constitution is clear.   The States have a wide latitude to enact laws their elected representatives want,  but they cannot go so far as to deny INDIVIDUAL rights guaranteed and protected by the federal Constitution.    Let the States experiment to their hearts' content,  so long as they don't cross over the line.     

When all is said and done,  we are Pennsylvanians or Alabamans, but we are primarily Americans, endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.   And among these is the right to protect ourselves.    For you and me,  that includes the right to protect ourselves from predators, and to choose to own a gun to do so.  For a woman,  that includes the right to protect herself regarding when and how to exercise the greatest gift God gave her - to bear, love and raise a child.   

You may disagree with a woman who concludes at age 18 that she is unprepared financially or emotionally to bear a child without a partner,  and who prefers to bear, love and raise her child when she is 25 and married.   But it is her inalienable right to make that choice for herself,  and not have it dictated by your morality or the State's morality as imposed by its elected representatives.   

Your State has power, but not that much power.   As conservatives,  this is fundamental to the notion of government as limited and primarily intended to protect and secure our individual  rights.       

 

[Right_in_Virginia]

When all is said and done,  we are Pennsylvanians or Alabamans, but we are primarily Americans, endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.   And among these is the right to protect ourselves.    For you and me,  that includes the right to protect ourselves from predators, and to choose to own a gun to do so.  For a woman,  that includes the right to protect herself regarding when and how to exercise the greatest gift God gave her - to bear, love and raise a child.   

I see today's message will be from the kinder, gentler @Jazzhead 

And, no, the constitution does not grant a woman protection from pregnancy.  Two rational adults taking every precaution prior to sex is the woman's protection from pregnancy.

And, no, God's greatest gift to women is not exercising her right to bear, love and raise a child when that right will include giving birth to a baby and placing it aside while the "mother" and her doctors decide what to do with it.  You speak of God's greatest gift ... but ignore the greatest insult to God is to return His gift of life unopened.

Get your head out the damn textbooks and see what is happening to real human souls.

[Hoodat]

I understand the purpose of the Tenth Amendment,  @Hoodat.   I also understand its limitations.   Let's take the twin issues of abortion and guns.   In each case, the Constitution protects an individual right from deniia by the State.

When you start your argument off with a false premise, the rest is just wasted text.  There simply is no Constitutional protection for abortion.  But you knew that already.

[Jazzhead]

When you start your argument off with a false premise, the rest is just wasted text.  There simply is no Constitutional protection for abortion.  But you knew that already.

The Supreme Court says there is, and for over 40 years women have relied on that protection.  Sorry, but that's reality.   

[Hoodat]

The Supreme Court says there is, and for over 40 years women have relied on that protection.  Sorry, but that's reality.   

The Supreme Court has also said that slaves continue to be slaves in States that prohibit slavery and that black citizens can be blocked from enjoying the same rights and privileges as white citizens.  But then we aren't talking about what the Supreme Court says.  We are talking about what the Constitution says.  Here again are your exact words regarding the abortion right:

the Constitution protects an individual right from deniia by the State.

You continue to say this again and again knowing full well that the Constitution says no such thing, relying instead on the courts to impose their tyranny on the States with zero regard to what the Constitution actually says.  And THAT is reality.

[Hoodat]

A state can (under its authority retained under the Tenth Amendment)  ban late term abortions

This would indicate that abortion is not the Constitutional right that you make it out to be if States are allowed to ban it at all.   Which is why I prefer to go by what the Constitution actually says instead of making things up to suit your own vain imaginations. 

But it cannot ban abortion at six weeks

Where in the Constitution can I find this "six weeks" caveat?

.  .  .  since the woman will have had no effective ability to exercise her choice.

Um, the woman has already exercised her choice.  It is how she got pregnant to begin with.

The relationship of the States to the federal Constitution is clear.   The States have a wide latitude to enact laws their elected representatives want,  but they cannot go so far as to deny INDIVIDUAL rights guaranteed and protected by the federal Constitution.

There you go again with that word "Constitution".  Please show me the place in the Constitution where this individual right to abortion can be found as well as the time limit on that right.

When all is said and done,  we are Pennsylvanians or Alabamans, but we are primarily Americans, endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.   And among these is the right to protect ourselves.    For you and me,  that includes the right to protect ourselves from predators, and to choose to own a gun to do so.  For a woman,  that includes the right to protect herself regarding when and how to exercise the greatest gift God gave her - to bear, love and raise a child.

Legal argument aside for a moment.  THIS is the most heinous, despicable, and downright demonic aspect of your entire argument - that the right of a woman to destroy her unborn child is an inalienable right given to her by God Almighty, the Creator of all life.

You may disagree with a woman who concludes at age 18 that she is unprepared financially or emotionally to bear a child without a partner,  and who prefers to bear, love and raise her child when she is 25 and married.

I don't disagree with that at all.

But it is her inalienable right to make that choice for herself

It is her inalienable right to decide whether she will allow a potential father to inseminate her by inviting and allowing him access to her womb.  And with that right, there comes responsibility.

and not have it dictated by your morality or the State's morality as imposed by its elected representatives.

Wait just a damn minute here.  The one here trying to impose his morality on the rest of us is YOU.  Keep in mind that my entire argument has been based on what the Constitution says.  I am the one willing to abide by the rules my society sets though their legislative representatives.  Contrast that with you who demands that "abortion must remain legal" - the Constitution be damned.  You are the one demanding that your will be imposed on Georgia, while not once have I ever said the same for Pennsylvania or any other State.  Morality?  Not once have I crammed secular humanist bullsh!t down anyone's throat under the guise of 'separation of church and state'.  And NEVER have I falsely claimed something to be a right enumerated in the Constitution.

As for the State imposing a moral code, you are perfectly content with Pennsylvania imposing a moral code that explicitly absolves a mother from any criminal charges while intentionally inflicting harm against her unborn child.  Not only are you content with it, you actually cite that law as the basis for a woman's right to destroy her unborn child.  Yet at the same time, you wish to deny my State that same right to enact its own moral code for my benefit.  It's OK when your moral code is being imposed.  But short of that, it suddenly becomes a Constitutional crisis?  Bah!

Your State has power, but not that much power.   As conservatives,  this is fundamental to the notion of government as limited and primarily intended to protect and secure our individual  rights.     

In other words, Georgia does not have the same power that Pennsylvania does since Georgia may do something that you don't agree with.  In other words, individual rights are OK only as long as Jazzhead says so.

[Jazzhead]

This would indicate that abortion is not the Constitutional right that you make it out to be if States are allowed to ban it at all.   Which is why I prefer to go by what the Constitution actually says instead of making things up to suit your own vain imaginations. 

There is no Constitutional right to abortion.   There is a Constitutional right to choose abortion.   It doesn't last forever (hence, a state can ban late-term abortions),  but it must be able to be exercised in a  meaningful way.   

Where in the Constitution can I find this "six weeks" caveat?

You can't.  It is my opinion that banning abortion before a woman even knows for sure she is pregnant effectively denies her right to CHOOSE abortion.  Obviously, the SCOTUS has yet to weigh in on the subject.   

Legal argument aside for a moment.  THIS is the most heinous, despicable, and downright demonic aspect of your entire argument - that the right of a woman to destroy her unborn child is an inalienable right given to her by God Almighty, the Creator of all life.

She has the legal right to decide for herself.   She can weigh potential consequences in the Hereafter,  but I wouldn't be so sure that God is as merciless as some of His self-appointed proxies here on earth.   

It is her inalienable right to decide whether she will allow a potential father to inseminate her by inviting and allowing him access to her womb.  And with that right, there comes responsibility.

  I don't disagree  with the sentiment that the parties to a sexual relationship exercise responsibility .  An unintended pregnancy is just that - unintended.  And, far too often,  when an unintended pregnancy occurs,  the man heads for the hills, leaving the "problem" -and the burden - with the woman.   But again - it is not the State that gets to decide.   

Wait just a damn minute here.  The one here trying to impose his morality on the rest of us is YOU.  Keep in mind that my entire argument has been based on what the Constitution says.  I am the one willing to abide by the rules my society sets though their legislative representatives.  Contrast that with you who demands that "abortion must remain legal" - the Constitution be damned.  You are the one demanding that your will be imposed on Georgia, while not once have I ever said the same for Pennsylvania or any other State.  Morality?  Not once have I crammed secular humanist bullsh!t down anyone's throat under the guise of 'separation of church and state'.  And NEVER have I falsely claimed something to be a right enumerated in the Constitution.

The right is part of the Constitution by reason of the majority decision of the SCOTUS.   Your individual gun right is also part of the Constitution for the same reason.   And those rights constrain the actions of the States under the Tenth Amendment.    I am demanding nothing more and nothing less than that your gun right,  and my daughter's choice right,  not be denied by the state in which I or she may reside.  Individual rights matter - and should to anyone who calls themselves a conservative. 

As for the State imposing a moral code, you are perfectly content with Pennsylvania imposing a moral code that explicitly absolves a mother from any criminal charges while intentionally inflicting harm against her unborn child.  Not only are you content with it, you actually cite that law as the basis for a woman's right to destroy her unborn child.  Yet at the same time, you wish to deny my State that same right to enact its own moral code for my benefit.  It's OK when your moral code is being imposed.  But short of that, it suddenly becomes a Constitutional crisis?  Bah! 

Your state is obliged to adhere to the Federal Constitution, just as mine is.

In other words, Georgia does not have the same power that Pennsylvania does since Georgia may do something that you don't agree with.  In other words, individual rights are OK only as long as Jazzhead says so.

Bullshit.  Georgia can regulate your gun right,  or your daughter's choice right,  but it cannot deny it.    Individual rights are important because the CONSTITUTION says so.   

[txradioguy]

The Supreme Court says there is, and for over 40 years women have relied on that protection.  Sorry, but that's reality.   

The Supreme Court also at one time said separate but equal was legal...and so was rounding up American citizens and putting them in detention camps.

You have this very misguided belief that the courts are never wrong in their rulings (as long as they rule for your favorite pet Liberal beliefs that is) and that just isn't the case.

As I've pointed out (and you ignored)...their whole ruling on Roe was based on lies in a book and facts made up out of thin air.

There is no Constitutional right to abortion on demand.

[Jazzhead]

The Supreme Court also at one time said separate but equal was legal...and so was rounding up American citizens and putting them in detention camps.

You have this very misguided belief that the courts are never wrong in their rulings (as long as they rule for your favorite pet Liberal beliefs that is) and that just isn't the case.

As I've pointed out (and you ignored)...their whole ruling on Roe was based on lies in a book and facts made up out of thin air.

There is no Constitutional right to abortion on demand.

The SCOTUS decisions in your first paragraph above involve the denial of rights.   The Roe decision confirmed the existence and protection of rights.  Big difference.   

And while I could care less about your ignorance,  the reality is that a woman's choice right is just as much a Constitutionally-protected right as your individual gun right - and for the same reason, a majority SCOTUS decision.   

Yes,  a future SCOTUS majority could take away the choice right, just as it could your individual gun right.  Funny that you agitate for the former, and condemn efforts to undo the latter.   That's foolish,  IMO,  because what's good for the goose is good for the gander.   It is far more principled, not to mention conservative,  to support the protection of individual liberty in both situations.   

[Hoodat]

There is no Constitutional right to abortion.   There is a Constitutional right to choose abortion.   It doesn't last forever (hence, a state can ban late-term abortions),  .  .  .

A right that has a time limit?  This should be interesting.   Can you please pinpoint exactly where this "right to choose abortion" - a right that "doesn't last forever" - can be found in the Constitution?

.  .  .  but it must be able to be exercised in a  meaningful way.   

It must be?  Must?  Based on what?  And what is "in a meaningful way" defined?  Seriously.  Show me where in the Constitution it says this.

You can't.  It is my opinion that banning abortion before a woman even knows for sure she is pregnant effectively denies her right to CHOOSE abortion.

Let me help you out here, Jazzhead.  The term "Constitutional" is not synonymous with the term "Jazzhead's opinion".  When using the term "Constitutional", it means that it is backed up with the actual wording in the Constitution.  But when you use the term "Constitutional", you mean it to mean that it is backed up by your opinion only with zero reference to the Constitution itself.

I don't disagree  with the sentiment that the parties to a sexual relationship exercise responsibility.  An unintended pregnancy is just that - unintended.

Vehicular homicide was unintended when someone chose to drive intoxicated.  Bankrupting Enron was unintended when someone chose to cook the books.  The deaths of eleven oil workers was unintended when someone chose to ignore standard safety procedures on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig.  The loss of the Challenger space shuttle was unintended when NASA managers chose to ignore the warnings of their engineers.  In real life, there are consequences to choices.  And as bad as the consequences of these choices may have been, none tried to make it right by destroying an unborn baby.

And, far too often,  when an unintended pregnancy occurs,  the man heads for the hills, leaving the "problem" -and the burden - with the woman.

It is Roe that caused this.  Because abortion is now considered 'birth control' - it is no longer a man's concern.  Because abortion lets men off the hook.  Because if a man gets a woman pregnant, all he has to do is pressure her and wear her down until she does his bidding for him and absolves him of 18 years of child support.  Abortion is for the man - not for the woman.  It always has been.

As for your 'head to the hills' nonsense, here is what happened in the first ten years after Roe:

• Out of wedlock births doubled
• The number of abortions doubled
• Promiscuity of teen-age girls tripled

The right is part of the Constitution by reason of the majority decision of the SCOTUS.

You are obviously confused here.  The term 'Part of the Constitution' is not the same thing as 'a majority decision of SCOTUS'.  A majority decision of the Supreme Court also ruled that slaves remained slaves even in States that outlawed slavery, just like your opinion on legal abortion.  A majority decision of SCOTUS also ruled that it was perfectly OK to deny rights to one race over another in direct contradiction to the equal protection clause of Amendment XIV.  A majority decision of SCOTUS ruled that capital punishment was unconstitutional even though the Bill of Rights directly addresses capital crimes.  In every one of these cases, their decision directly contradicted the wording of the Constitution itself.  So no, just because the Supreme Court says it does not mean that the Constitution also says it.  Not even close.

Your individual gun right is also part of the Constitution for the same reason.

   
Unlike your so-called abortion right, my individual gun right actually can be found in the Constitution.  (See:  the Right of the people to keep and bear arms)

And those rights constrain the actions of the States under the Tenth Amendment.

I have never said otherwise.  But the problem for you here is that there is no abortion right in the Constitution.  And you know there isn't.  Which means that there is no such constraint when it comes to the States.  And the fact that you yourself resorted to Pennsylvania law on this very same matter affirms the position that States do indeed have this right.

I am demanding nothing more and nothing less than that your gun right

Uh, no.  You are demanding that my State be bound solely by your opinion.  I would never demand that burden be placed on yours.  I wholeheartedly believe that Pennsylvania is free to choose its own abortion laws, marriage laws, etc., within the confines of the US Constitution.  Yet you do not believe the same for Georgia.  So no, your demands are nothing like mine.

Individual rights matter - and should to anyone who calls themselves a conservative.

Even my right to petition my State and join with my fellow citizens of society to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity?  Because I know full well that you do not believe in that type of liberty.  You do not trust the people of Georgia, California, or Louisiana to formulate their own laws as a direct reflection of those societies, but insist ... - no, you DEMAND - that they accept your opinion (at the point of a gun, with all the backing of federal judiciary fiat) which you conveniently re-label as "Constitutional".

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

-T. Jefferson-

[txradioguy]

A right that has a time limit?  This should be interesting.   Can you please pinpoint exactly where this "right to choose abortion" - a right that "doesn't last forever" - can be found in the Constitution?



It must be?  Must?  Based on what?  And what is "in a meaningful way" defined?  Seriously.  Show me where in the Constitution it says this.


Let me help you out here, Jazzhead.  The term "Constitutional" is not synonymous with the term "Jazzhead's opinion".  When using the term "Constitutional", it means that it is backed up with the actual wording in the Constitution.  But when you use the term "Constitutional", you mean it to mean that it is backed up by your opinion only with zero reference to the Constitution itself.




Vehicular homicide was unintended when someone chose to drive intoxicated.  Bankrupting Enron was unintended when someone chose to cook the books.  The deaths of eleven oil workers was unintended when someone chose to ignore standard safety procedures on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig.  The loss of the Challenger space shuttle was unintended when NASA managers chose to ignore the warnings of their engineers.  In real life, there are consequences to choices.  And as bad as the consequences of these choices may have been, none tried to make it right by destroying an unborn baby.


It is Roe that caused this.  Because abortion is now considered 'birth control' - it is no longer a man's concern.  Because abortion lets men off the hook.  Because if a man gets a woman pregnant, all he has to do is pressure her and wear her down until she does his bidding for him and absolves him of 18 years of child support.  Abortion is for the man - not for the woman.  It always has been.

As for your 'head to the hills' nonsense, here is what happened in the first ten years after Roe:

• Out of wedlock births doubled
• The number of abortions doubled
• Promiscuity of teen-age girls tripled

You are obviously confused here.  The term 'Part of the Constitution' is not the same thing as 'a majority decision of SCOTUS'.  A majority decision of the Supreme Court also ruled that slaves remained slaves even in States that outlawed slavery, just like your opinion on legal abortion.  A majority decision of SCOTUS also ruled that it was perfectly OK to deny rights to one race over another in direct contradiction to the equal protection clause of Amendment XIV.  A majority decision of SCOTUS ruled that capital punishment was unconstitutional even though the Bill of Rights directly addresses capital crimes.  In every one of these cases, their decision directly contradicted the wording of the Constitution itself.  So no, just because the Supreme Court says it does not mean that the Constitution also says it.  Not even close.

   
Unlike your so-called abortion right, my individual gun right actually can be found in the Constitution.  (See:  the Right of the people to keep and bear arms)


I have never said otherwise.  But the problem for you here is that there is no abortion right in the Constitution.  And you know there isn't.  Which means that there is no such constraint when it comes to the States.  And the fact that you yourself resorted to Pennsylvania law on this very same matter affirms the position that States do indeed have this right.


Uh, no.  You are demanding that my State be bound solely by your opinion.  I would never demand that burden be placed on yours.  I wholeheartedly believe that Pennsylvania is free to choose its own abortion laws, marriage laws, etc., within the confines of the US Constitution.  Yet you do not believe the same for Georgia.  So no, your demands are nothing like mine.


Even my right to petition my State and join with my fellow citizens of society to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity?  Because I know full well that you do not believe in that type of liberty.  You do not trust the people of Georgia, California, or Louisiana to formulate their own laws as a direct reflection of those societies, but insist ... - no, you DEMAND - that they accept your opinion (at the point of a gun, with all the backing of federal judiciary fiat) which you conveniently re-label as "Constitutional".

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

-T. Jefferson-

 

[Smokin Joe]

There is not one word in the Constitution that provides rights in any way, shape or form to a pre-viable fetus.  The woman's liberty is the only thing at stake, and the Tenth Amendment does not give the states the right to deny rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.   

If you don't like that, then amend the Constitution to provide that a first trimester fetus has the rights of a born citizen.   You won't do that, of course, and instead demand the Court do your dirty work for you.   

The Constitution doesn't provide rights. It enumerates some (as amended) and provides for the protection of those Rights (and even others not listed) from Governmental interference.

If Government gave us Rights, it could take them away. We call those things privileges, not Rights, which exist, regardless of being interfered with.

There is nothing, nothing which would lead one to believe that a woman has the right to contract for the murder of her baby, any more than she has the right to hire a hit man for her husband. In both cases, she may be dissatisfied with the outcome, but like choosing to get married, she chose to perform an act which has a reasonable expectation of pregnancy. That was the time to choose. She can get divorced, she can give the baby up for adoption, but there is no Right to kill either one.

[jmyrlefuller]

Society has a notorious habit of dehumanizing people it doesn't want to treat like people. Such was the case with slavery hundreds of years ago, and with abortion now.