Gillibrand: Anti-abortion laws 'against Christian faith'

[txradioguy]

I don't doubt that some pro-choicers are intellectually dishonest,  the same way some pro-lifers and 2A advocates are.   

But it is not a "lie" to state that Roe v. Wade,  and the decisions prior to that which found a right of personal privacy that, for example, stops a state from banning the use of contraceptives, represent the enshrinement in the Constitution of protection against the denial of these individual liberties by the State.   

Until Roe is overturned,  the choice right is as much a part of the Constitution as the individual gun right.    And until Heller is overturned, the individual gun right is as much a part of the Constitution as the choice right.

There is no hierarchy of individual rights based on whether the right is specifically addressed in the Constitution (free speech) or was found to be under the Constitution's protection by a SCOTUS majority (privacy,  individual RKBA).   To infer that there is such a hierarchy,  or that your gun right is sacrosanct but your daughter's choice right is not,  is a lie.

There never was a legitimate privacy issue in Roe.  The authors state as much.  Therefore...the whole premise that Roe was built on is a lie.

Just like I predicted...you breezed right past the importance of what I said with your fingers planted firmly in your ears going "lalalalala".

Even one of the law clerks that wrote the decision for Justice Blackmun admits it's a fraud ruling.

And yet here you are...the Don Quixote of TBR tilting at imaginary Constitutional rights like the Man of La Mancha tilts at windmills in de Cervantes' classic novel.

There is no "right" in the Constitution to abortion on demand.  If there was you'd have showed it to alllll of us after so many have queried you on where exactly in the Constitution it is. 

And as usual you start tossing something into the discussion that has nothing to do with the topic.  I know a favorite debate tactic of yours is to start tossing around the 2nd Amendment and your Liberal dislike for it in a discussion where it doesn't belong.  You like to mish mash the two in order to try and deflect from the shallowness of your argument and defense of a totally fraudulent ruling like Roe.

[Hoodat]

40-plus years of right and left screaming at each other about individual liberties and fetuses make tragically clear that the SCOTUS finding rights in the Constitution is not the ideal way to convey legitimacy to such rights in our representative Republic.   

And then there's the 'right to abortion' which was never found in the Constitution but instead invented out of thin air.

[Jazzhead]

And then there's the 'right to abortion' which was never found in the Constitution but instead invented out of thin air.

Not thin air.   It is an aspect of a woman's natural, inalienable right as a human being.     

[roamer_1]

Not thin air.   It is an aspect of a woman's natural, inalienable right as a human being.   

Yeah. Thin air. Her natural right ended when she spread her legs apart.

[mountaineer]

Not thin air.   It is an aspect of a woman's natural, inalienable right as a human being.   

The child growing within her is a human being, not a duck or a pencil, a ham sandwich or anything other than a very young human being, with a beating heart, organs, and a brain - but for some reason that child has no natural, inalienable rights. Just a bit disingenuous.

[roamer_1]

... Just a bit disingenuous.

Meaning totally whack...
 

[Jazzhead]

The child growing within her is a human being, not a duck or a pencil, a ham sandwich or anything other than a very young human being, with a beating heart, organs, and a brain - but for some reason that child has no natural, inalienable rights. Just a bit disingenuous.

Why should it?   Before it is viable, it is literally part of the mother's body, unable to survive on its own.    It is within the mother's dominion and is the mother's responsibility.  Not the State's.   

[Jazzhead]

Yeah. Thin air. Her natural right ended when she spread her legs apart.

Sexist, patriarchal bullcrap.   

[roamer_1]

Why should it?   Before it is viable, it is literally part of the mother's body, unable to survive on its own.    It is within the mother's dominion and is the mother's responsibility.  Not the State's.   

No it most definitely is NOT part of the mother's body - It is unique with a distinct DNA and different blood.

And it is perfectly viable on its own if left in the environment it was designed for.

[Sanguine]

Sexist, patriarchal bullcrap.

"Patriarchal"?  Because women are too stupid to understand what having sex means?  Or, they're too weak to say "no"?  What the hell are you saying here?

[roamer_1]

Sexist, patriarchal bullcrap.

Not sexist at all. No more so than a man being made responsible (forced by the state) for the exact same action.

[txradioguy]

Sexist, patriarchal bullcrap.

Sexist...is putting 100% of the blame for a pregnancy on someone who only has 50% of the participation in the process.

You’re basically saying...and you’ve said it before...that a woman is incapable of not getting pregnant.

Doesn’t get more sexist and misogynistic than that.

[Sanguine]

Not sexist at all. No more so than a man being made responsible (forced by the state) for the exact same action.

You just stand back and let me handle this.  He's just about totally pi$$ed me off with that sexist, patriarchal statement of his.

[txradioguy]

"Patriarchal"?  Because women are too stupid to understand what having sex means?  Or, they're too weak to say "no"?  What the hell are you saying here?

He’s saying women are too dumb to keep from getting pregnant.

[Sanguine]

Sexist, patriarchal bullcrap.

@Jazzhead, where'd you go? 

[mountaineer]

Why should it?   Before it is viable, it is literally part of the mother's body, unable to survive on its own.    It is within the mother's dominion and is the mother's responsibility.  Not the State's.   

"It" is literally a separate human being living within his or her mother's body.

[roamer_1]

"It" is literally a separate human being living within his or her mother's body.

A distinct and unique hoomin bean, unlike any other hoomin bean in the entire history of hoomin beanity.

An extraordinary and precious thing.

[Hoodat]

Not thin air.   It is an aspect of a woman's natural, inalienable right as a human being.   

As I said, pulled out of thin air.

[txradioguy]

@Jazzhead, where'd you go?

Hmmmm...I don't see him

[Sanguine]

Hmmmm...I don't see him

Weird, huh?

[Jazzhead]

"It" is literally a separate human being living within his or her mother's body.

No, not separate.   Yes, living within its mother's body, but unable to survive otherwise.    It is indeed the mother's responsibility, not the State's.   

[Jazzhead]

 

@Jazzhead, where'd you go?

 

[Jazzhead]

A distinct and unique hoomin bean, unlike any other hoomin bean in the entire history of hoomin beanity.

An extraordinary and precious thing.

It is indeed an extraordinary and precious thing.    Which is why it must be the mother's choice,  because above all else a baby needs a mother's love.   

[Right_in_Virginia]

It is indeed an extraordinary and precious thing.    Which is why it must be the mother's choice,  because above all else a baby needs a mother's love.

Above all else the baby needs life.

[Jazzhead]

Above all else the baby needs life.

If the mother so chooses.   Not the State. 

For the umpteenth time:   It is a noble thing to try to persuade and support a woman to do the right thing.   Typically, a woman who seeks to abort is in a desperate situation, with no easy options.    But while persuasion is good, enlisting the State to deny a woman's autonomy is a denial of her most basic liberty. 

Let abortion be safe, legal and RARE.