Author Topic: Buttigieg Defends Abortion by Suggesting the Bible Says ‘Life Begins with Breath’  (Read 5013 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sanguine

  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 36,008
Would it make any difference?

None whatsoever.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." – George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 1788

“Do right and risk the consequences.”
– Sam Houston

Offline bigheadfred

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,668
  • Bobaladinga
To me at least.

Not just to you. It should matter to us all.

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 25,782
The 10th amendment doesn't give majorities in the States the ability to deny folks their natural rights as individuals which are secured by the federal Constitution.    A woman's natural right to self-determination is secured by the Constitution just as is your natural right to protect your person and home.   Texas can't take away your individual gun right, just as Texas cannot take away (at least not before the fetus is viable) your daughter's right to choose whether and when to reproduce.   
Quote the part of the Constitution which reserves the right of a woman to contract the killing of her offspring, regardless of age.
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 bigheadfred

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,668
  • Bobaladinga
None whatsoever.

I think that identifies the problem.  What to do about it is something else.

Offline bigheadfred

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,668
  • Bobaladinga
Quote the part of the Constitution which reserves the right of a woman to contract the killing of her offspring, regardless of age.

Depends on which Constitution you are referring to.

Definition of constitution

1a : the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it...

2a : the physical makeup of the individual especially with respect to the health, strength, and appearance of the body...

I've made my view clear in earlier posts.








Offline OfTheCross

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 536
The Constitution doesn't explicitly say we have a Right to Privacy either, but we certainly do.

It doesn't say anything about us having the Right to Travel, but I'd say we do. Who's going ot stop us from going state to state?..

It doesn't say we have a Right to an Education, but all 50 States have given us that Right as well with public education. If it were challenged, I bet the Supreme Court would give it to us as well.

In the Bill of Rights, it's acknowledged that we have the Rights to things that may not be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution

If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.

Offline bigheadfred

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,668
  • Bobaladinga
The Constitution doesn't explicitly say we have a Right to Privacy either, but we certainly do.

It doesn't say anything about us having the Right to Travel, but I'd say we do. Who's going ot stop us from going state to state?..

It doesn't say we have a Right to an Education, but all 50 States have given us that Right as well with public education. If it were challenged, I bet the Supreme Court would give it to us as well.

In the Bill of Rights, it's acknowledged that we have the Rights to things that may not be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution

Uh huh


The three R's.

What is your's is R's.

What is ours is R's.

Everything else is R's.



Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,041
The Constitution doesn't explicitly say we have a Right to Privacy either, but we certainly do.

So it's a right, just not a Constitutional right.  Got it.


It doesn't say anything about us having the Right to Travel, but I'd say we do. Who's going ot stop us from going state to state?

See Article IV, Section 2.


It doesn't say we have a Right to an Education, but all 50 States have given us that Right as well with public education.

See Amendment X.  There is no Constitutional right to an education.  That power is reserved for the States.  It is the States who decide through their legislatures whether their citizens shall be eligible for state-run education.  This is how the Founding Fathers intended it.  They left it up to the citizens of each State to decide on their own laws.  (See:  Fraud, murder, assault, pumping gas, marriage, abortion, recycling, etc.)


If it were challenged, I bet the Supreme Court would give it to us as well.

Hey, they gave us Plessy and Scott.  That same reasoning gave us Roe and Obergfell.  So yes, anything is possible when the Constitution is ignored.


In the Bill of Rights, it's acknowledged that we have the Rights to things that may not be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution

That does not mean that we have rights to everything and anything not mentioned.  Here is the exact wording:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This does not mean that there is a right to abortion, murder, shoplifting, fraud, etc.  It means that the listing of rights within the Constitution cannot be used to deny or minimize other rights.  Amendment IX was added as a compromise between the two main factions during the drafting of our Constitution - those who wanted a bill of rights included in our Constitution, and those who did not.  The latter faction won out.  The Bill of Rights was offered separately after the Constitution was ratified.

In Federalist 84, Alexander Hamilton questioned the need for a Bill of Rights at all.  In it, he pointed out several specific rights the people retained in the Constitution itself (e.g. trial by jury, habeas corpus, republican government, etc.)  Hamilton pointed out that our preamble goes further towards expressing our rights than our Bill of Rights ever could.   He states further:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?


Unfortunately, decisions like Roe and Obergfell are an affront to Hamilton's words above.  For the guarantee of the Constitution includes republican government for the people of each State.  Yet with the judicial overreach listed above, the right of the people to establish their own laws within the confines of the Constitution is denied.  So your 9th Amendment argument actually backfires since you are using it to deny and disparage rights retained by the people.

Again:

Quote
For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

-Alexander Hamilton-

Why declare that Georgia cannot determine its own abortion laws when there is no such power to do so?
« Last Edit: September 18, 2019, 11:56:28 PM by Hoodat »
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

  • Mark Sanford for President
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,173
Quote the part of the Constitution which reserves the right of a woman to contract the killing of her offspring, regardless of age.

Well, how about the passage that Hoodat always relies on:  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The natural rights of man (and woman)  endowed by the Creator and secured against state tyranny by the Constitution are not limited to those specifically enumerated therein.   The Courts in exercise of their Constitutional authority have from time to time extended the Constitution's protections to such unenumerated natural rights,  perhaps the most significant for our purposes being the right of personal privacy.    The decision made by a woman whether and when to reproduce is personal and private because,  at least before viability,  the fetus has no independent legal rights of its own.   I understand you want to call it a "baby" and do so because of your religious belief that it has a separate soul.  But your religious view does not afford a pre-viable fetus with separate rights as a matter of law vis a vis the woman of whose body it is wholly and inextricably a part.   

It is odd to see so-called conservatives clamoring for the state to impose its will on the individual, personal and private decisions made by millions of women.   As far as the rights of the states under the 10th amendment,   those rights were never intended to permit a tyranny of the majority to deny the natural and therefore Constitutionally protected rights of the individual.   Conservatives understand well that principle,  except when they choose to apply it only with respect to the rights they care about.   

I keep raising the issue of Heller because it illustrates well your hypocrisy.   Protest all you want,  but the natural right of self-defense is not the subject of the Second Amendment.   The 2A does not address natural rights, but rather the sovereignty of each state vis a vis the new federal government.   The individual states' ability to maintain their citizen militias is protected from denial by the federal government.   It was only, over two centuries later, that a SCOTUS majority midwifed by means of the 2A the Constitution's protection of yet another natural right not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

So why do conservatives champion the Constitution's protection of the natural right of self-defense but not the natural rights of privacy and self-determination?    Why are conservatives willing to man the barricades to protect a gunowner's rights, but not a woman's?   (And, of course,  that hypocrisy is not only shared by conservatives -  liberals stop at literally nothing to defend the abortion right,  but will no doubt overturn Heller if they achieve the power to do so.) 

What I am urging, when all is said and done,  is merely the politically unacceptable position of rights for me AND right for thee.       

 
« Last Edit: September 19, 2019, 08:39:24 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 txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,729
  • Rule #39
Well, how about the passage that Hoodat always relies on:  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
     

Wrong.

Lets try this again...because you always play duck and weave when you're pressed on this question. 

What is the specific Amendment that grants the right of abortion?
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 25,782
Well, how about the passage that Hoodat always relies on:  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The natural rights of man (and woman)  endowed by the Creator and secured against state tyranny by the Constitution are not limited to those specifically enumerated therein.   The Courts in exercise of their Constitutional authority have from time to time extended the Constitution's protections to such unenumerated natural rights,  perhaps the most significant for our purposes being the right of personal privacy.    The decision made by a woman whether and when to reproduce is personal and private because,  at least before viability,  the fetus has no independent legal rights of its own.   I understand you want to call it a "baby" and do so because of your religious belief that it has a separate soul.  But your religious view does not afford a pre-viable fetus with separate rights as a matter of law vis a vis the woman of whose body it is wholly and inextricably a part.   

It is odd to see so-called conservatives clamoring for the state to impose its will on the individual, personal and private decisions made by millions of women.   As far as the rights of the states under the 10th amendment,   those rights were never intended to permit a tyranny of the majority to deny the natural and therefore Constitutionally protected rights of the individual.   Conservatives understand well that principle,  except when they choose to apply it only with respect to the rights they care about.   

I keep raising the issue of Heller because it illustrates well your hypocrisy.   Protest all you want,  but the natural right of self-defense is not the subject of the Second Amendment.   The 2A does not address natural rights, but rather the sovereignty of each state vis a vis the new federal government.   The individual states' ability to maintain their citizen militias is protected from denial by the federal government.   It was only, over two centuries later, that a SCOTUS majority midwifed by means of the 2A the Constitution's protection of yet another natural right not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

So why do conservatives champion the Constitution's protection of the natural right of self-defense but not the natural rights of privacy and self-determination?    Why are conservatives willing to man the barricades to protect a gunowner's rights, but not a woman's?   (And, of course,  that hypocrisy is not only shared by conservatives -  liberals stop at literally nothing to defend the abortion right,  but will no doubt overturn Heller if they achieve the power to do so.) 

What I am urging, when all is said and done,  is merely the politically unacceptable position of rights for me AND right for thee.       
Well, here you go conflating firearm ownership with murdering babies again. How tedious.

Note I said "at any age", so you would contend the mother could just off that pesky toddler and get on with her business, whatever that is.

Heller is a rebuke of the government of The Federal District for an egregious violation of the Second Amendment, as it should be. But it wasn't an issue of the States, and the Right is not reserved to the States, but to The People. Seems to me that phrase is in there somewhere, and it was expressly so, so the people could retain that and all their other Rights in the face of a government that no longer just derived its powers from the consent of the governed, but tried to impose its usurpations upon the people by force, despite their unalienable Rights.

You apparently forget the primary right protected, that of Life. Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness come after, and in that instance, I'd say that places Life first. Once that life exists, at conception, it is no longer just an argument about a woman's privacy, or her convenience, but a discussion of two lives. As I noted up thread, she is considered "With Child" (As opposed to being "With lump of tissue" or "With fetus".) TO say the one life is without rights, even an immortal soul is to deny the personhood and individuality which the child's DNA would prove. SO whether you angle at this scientifically, theologically, or culturally, the developing child is just that, a state only attorneys seem to be capable of ignoring (and a few parts dealers who want Lambos.)

But again, as so often, you didn't answer my question. Please quote the part of the Constitution which protects the alleged right of a woman to kill her offspring at any age.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2019, 09:28:23 AM 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: 7,041
Well, how about the passage that Hoodat always relies on:  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That happens to be Amendment IX, not Amendment X, although I am not surprised to see you get that wrong considering your contempt for using the Constitution as a basis for law.  But since you bring it up, allow me to point out again that the only right being denied here is the right of the people to formulate and establish their own abortion laws.  And the fact that you are now using the Ninth Amendment to do so is the greatest irony of all.


The natural rights of man (and woman)  endowed by the Creator and secured against state tyranny by the Constitution are not limited to those specifically enumerated therein.

You are not going to get any support for your cause by claiming that the right of a woman to kill her child is an inalienable right granted by God Almighty.  A God-given right that suddenly deteriorates to nothing when some arbitrary condition called 'viability' is reached.  Never mind that rocks and stones themselves are 'viable' to the Creator you mention.


The Courts in exercise of their Constitutional authority have from time to time extended the Constitution's protections to such unenumerated natural rights,  perhaps the most significant for our purposes being the right of personal privacy.

With Roe, it isn't a matter of extending the Constitution's protection.  It is a matter of denying the Constitution's protection outright.  In this case, the right of the citizens of a State to formulate its own laws as explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights.


The decision made by a woman whether and when to reproduce is personal and private

This has never been about a woman's right to reproduce.  The fact that a woman is pregnant shows that her right to reproduce has already been freely exercised.  The issue here rests with the new singular life that has been created (by the same Creator you mentioned earlier).


because,  at least before viability,  the fetus has no independent legal rights of its own.

There you go with that magic 'viability' word again.  The word that magically takes a 'constitutional' [sic] right and makes it null and void.  The word that is defined by a tyrant wearing a black robe with zero medical training.  The same tyrant that would even deny the State's interests by disallowing any testing of viability throughout the mother's guardianship of the unborn child.

And what about that unborn child?  The inalienable rights endowed to us by our Creator somehow do not apply to that Creation?  Bah!  Good luck with that defiance of logic and critical thought.


I understand you want to call it a "baby" and do so because of your religious belief that it has a separate soul.

You don't understand jack.  My argument has been a legal argument from Day One.  I am willing to live under the conditions agreed upon by my societal peers in this society called Georgia.  And it is our right as citizens to mold and shape our society as we see fit.  If this society decides that shoplifting is a punishable crime, then we will draft laws against shoplifting.  If we decide that private citizens pumping their own gas is too dangerous for their own safety, then we will draft laws against pumping your own gas.  And if we decide that the valuation of human life will have a positive effect on our society, then we will set laws in place to protect it.  But it is OUR CHOICE, not yours.  Do whatever you want to do in Pennsylvania, but leave us out of it.

Isn't it ironic that the ones claiming to be "pro-choice" are the same ones hell-bent and determined to deny a "choice" explicitly enumerated in the Constitution to the people of Georgia.


But your religious view does not afford a pre-viable fetus with separate rights as a matter of law

Says the tyrant who has zero law to back up his claim.  Contrast that with the Bill of Rights which explicitly says that I do have that right.  Besides, when it comes to religion, YOU are the one claiming that abortion is a God-given right, while I continue to claim that self-determination is a legal (i.e. based upon written law) right.  Your hypocrisy on this is astounding.


vis a vis the woman of whose body it is wholly and inextricably a part.

Uh, no.  The baby has his/her own DNA, his/her own blood, his/her own vital organs, his/her own heartbeat.  This remains a medical fact no matter how much you try to dismiss it.  The mother and baby do not share anything except for nutrients that pass at the molecular level through the placenta.   It is no different than a mother breastfeeding or giving a bottle of formula to a newborn.  By law, she is required to provide sustenance to the life she chose to create by the free exercise of her reproductive rights.


It is odd to see so-called conservatives clamoring for the state to impose its will on the individual, personal and private decisions made by millions of women.

No one is imposing their will on women exercising their reproductive rights.  A woman is free to engage in any exercise that will lead to pregnancy any time she chooses.  But once a new singular right is Created (see "Creator" above), the the State has a vested interest in the outcome of that life.


As far as the rights of the states under the 10th amendment,   those rights were never intended to permit a tyranny of the majority to deny the natural and therefore Constitutionally protected rights of the individual.   

The right to abortion is not Constitutionally protected.  If they were, you would have cited it by now.  But after three years of asking, you still come up empty.  So quit lying.  There is no Constitutional abortion right.  Even the drafter of the Roe decision admits that.  Enough already.


Conservatives understand well that principle,  except when they choose to apply it only with respect to the rights they care about.

Allow me to point out once again that this Conservative is the one standing by what the Constitution actually says while you are the one bypassing the Constitution to impose your will.  I am the one willing to accept the collective decision made by my fellow society members here in Georgia in the formulation of our own laws while you are not.  I am the one who will never interfere with the right of the people of Pennsylvania to decide their own laws while you stand firm in interfering with Georgia's Constitutionally-protected citizens' rights.  So don't try to lecture me about tyranny when you are the one standing by those wearing black robes and holding guns on us.


I keep raising the issue of Heller because it illustrates well your hypocrisy.

You keep bringing up Heller because it is a strawman you think you can win.  And unlike abortion, there actually is a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.


Protest all you want,  but the natural right of self-defense is not the subject of the Second Amendment.

Our Founding Fathers vehemently disagree.  I happen to trust their judgment a heck of a lot more than I trust yours, just as they trust me to determine what is best for Georgia's society than they do you.  But don't take my word for it.  Here is what Madison had to say about it in Federalist 46:

The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other.

He goes on:


It has appeared also, that the prepossessions of the people, on whom both will depend, will be more on the side of the State governments, than of the federal government. So far as the disposition of each towards the other may be influenced by these causes, the State governments must clearly have the advantage.  .  .  .  Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the people from a tyrannical federal government.  So yes, self-defense was absolutely the purpose behind it.


The 2A does not address natural rights, but rather the sovereignty of each state vis a vis the new federal government.       

Madison was clear.  Each State is its own society made up by individuals in order to serve its people.  To each person, it takes precedence over the federal government.  To deny that States rights are derived from the people is ludicrous.


The individual states' ability to maintain their citizen militias is protected from denial by the federal government.     

The people themselves have that same protection.


It was only, over two centuries later, that a SCOTUS majority midwifed by means of the 2A the Constitution's protection of yet another natural right not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

There are many other cases that predate Heller that have been presented to you.  One case being, Nunn v. Georgia, where the Georgia Supreme Court overturned a ban on handguns by acknowledging that individual gun ownership was a Constitutionally protected right.  This has been carefully explained to you more than once already, yet you dishonestly choose to willfully ignore it each time.   


So why do conservatives champion the Constitution's protection of the natural right of self-defense but not the natural rights of privacy and self-determination?

This Conservative champions both.  Keep in mind that I am the one here standing up for each Georgian's right of self-determination in shaping our society under Amendment X of the Constitution.  Contrast that with your stance to deny the people of Georgia that right with absolutely no Constitutional basis at all.

Again, YOU are the one stating unequivocally that "Abortion must remain legal" in Georgia, while I could care less what you do in Pennsylvania.  So who is the tyrant now?
« Last Edit: September 19, 2019, 10:20:50 AM by Hoodat »
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 Sanguine

  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 36,008
Guys, there has already here been a very clear and right presentation of the argument that babies=fetuses=little bitty humans, and that American humans have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Jazzhead and the Cross guy have repeatedly ignored that argument.  If they haven't been able to pull their heads out of their respective cabooses by now, that's because they are firmly and permanently stuck there.

Remember these words of wisdom:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." – George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 1788

“Do right and risk the consequences.”
– Sam Houston

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 35,200
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Guys, there has already here been a very clear and right presentation of the argument that babies=fetuses=little bitty humans, and that American humans have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Jazzhead and the Cross guy have repeatedly ignored that argument.  If they haven't been able to pull their heads out of their respective cabooses by now, that's because they are firmly and permanently stuck there.

Remember these words of wisdom:



 :yowsa:   :amen:

Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,927
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"
The Constitution doesn't explicitly say we have a Right to Privacy either, but we certainly do.

Only because of one of the top 5 worst Supreme Court decisions in history.  To the extent the Constitution actually speaks to privacy -- a word that doesn't appear anywhere in the document -- it is in the specific context of the 4th Amendment limitations on searches of private property, the Third Amendment prohibition on the quartering of troops, etc..  But there isn't some broad guaranteed to an undefined "Right to Privacy" that could pretty much mean anything to anyone, and stretch the Constitution beyond the bounds of rational restraint.

Quote
It doesn't say anything about us having the Right to Travel, but I'd say we do. Who's going ot stop us from going state to state?..

You're reading the Constitution backwards, as if the federal government can do anything it wants unless the Constitution prohibits us from doing so.  The reason we have a right to travel is because the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the power to limit travelling.  But again, that doesn't mean the Constitution guarantees a "Right to Travel".  It simply doesn't give the feds the power to limit it.

Before you dismiss that as a mere semantic distinction, a "Right to Travel" expressly guaranteed by the Constitution might be used to argue against all sorts of perfectly reasonable things, such as house arrest in lieu of jail, bail restrictions, temporary confinement of people who have entered the country illegally, etc..  The invention of new "affirmative" rights not expressly defined in the Constitution is part of what turns Supreme Court justices into the unelected makers of policy rather than just interpreters of the law.

Quote
In the Bill of Rights, it's acknowledged that we have the Rights to things that may not be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

Again, that was to eliminate the argument that the federal government was permitted to do anything that wasn't expressly prohibited.  For example, the Constitution doesn't permit the federal government to outlaw abortion.  That is NOT the same as saying the Constitution guarantees a "right" to abortion because that still leaves the state free to regulate it.  It's the entire concept of federalism that was a core component of our Constitutional debates.

Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,927
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"
Well, how about the passage that Hoodat always relies on:  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The natural rights of man (and woman)  endowed by the Creator and secured against state tyranny by the Constitution are not limited to those specifically enumerated therein.

Absolutely correct.  But that's because our government only has certain enumerated powers, and none others.  So, it's the lack of authority to act, not a specific prohibition against certain acts or the recognition of brand new "rights", that protect us from an oppressive federal government.

Endorsing the Supreme Court's whole cloth creation of specific new, enforceable rights out of the 9th or 10th Amendments is the road to collectivism/tyranny by Court decree:  Newly-discovered "rights" to housing, transportation, health care, college educations, the "right" not to be offended or degraded, the "right" to choose your own gender....etc., etc. etc..  All of those "rights" could be found in the Constitution just as the Right to Privacy was, and we'd all lose liberty because of it.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2019, 01:03:20 PM by Maj. Bill Martin »

Offline Sanguine

  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 36,008
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." – George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 1788

“Do right and risk the consequences.”
– Sam Houston

Offline Jazzhead

  • Mark Sanford for President
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,173
Guys, there has already here been a very clear and right presentation of the argument that babies=fetuses=little bitty humans, and that American humans have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Jazzhead and the Cross guy have repeatedly ignored that argument.  If they haven't been able to pull their heads out of their respective cabooses by now, that's because they are firmly and permanently stuck there. 

No, it's very simple - the right to liberty of a born, adult woman is the only right at stake here.  There is no conflict between the competing rights of "humans".   A pre-viable fetus simply isn't, yet, a human being.     A fetus is pre-viable precisely because it is wholly dependent for its survival on the body of the woman in which it is growing.  Without the woman, it cannot have a separate existence.   Hence - vis a vis the woman - it has no separate "right to life". 

Cross's analogy to the baking of a cake is apt.   Flour, eggs and sugar don't make a cake.  Neither is placing all the ingredients in a pan.  Only by baking the assembled ingredients for the required time is a cake created.   Until then, no cake.   And until birth, no baby.   

Now it's not that cut and dried.  At some point along the way,  that baking cake, er, I mean fetus, is well enough along on its way that if it were to exit the womb it could survive on its own.   That's the idea of "viability".  Only when viability is reached may the State assert an interest in the fetus's protection - which does not IMO conflict with the woman's liberty because the months it takes for a fetus to attain viability offers the woman ample time to exercise her liberty.   

I understand that smacks of an unprincipled compromise to you.   But there is no other Constitutional way to balance the woman's liberty against the state's interest in protecting life.   But take heart -  you can always persuade the woman to do the right thing.   You just can't enlist the State to coerce her to do so.       

"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 truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 25,694
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
Thecurrent Left, seem to favor women killing their children, even after birth.

The child is not "viiable during the final months before birth, or for the first years after birth.

In Nature, the Mother's role is to take care of the chil. Before and after birth, that it may grow and learn to be self-supporting.

By the Lef't reasoning, the mother can kill the child at birth minus two months, and at birth plus two years.

Too much inconvenience.
"God must love the common man, he made so many of them.�  Abe Lincoln

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,299
No, it's very simple -


Yes, it is very simple. If you don't want a baby, don't hump.
That is the point of reproductive right and reproductive decision.

Quote
I understand that smacks of an unprincipled compromise to you.   But there is no other Constitutional way to balance the woman's liberty against the state's interest in protecting life.   But take heart -  you can always persuade the woman to do the right thing.   You just can't enlist the State to coerce her to do so.     

Utterly false, and an absurd artifice, as unnatural and unrefined as to be a barbarism.
Every moment of a females being once she is pregnant is for the continuation of the offspring. Animals know instinctively, from dietary changes, to nesting, and etc, what the human female has been trained and fooled into ignoring. There is no such pre and post viable condition - There is only baby.

And the female is hard-wired for that purpose, in every species there is. And in every species, there is nothing more precious, especially to that female.

To include the human female. Not a generation ago, the most noble act a woman could do was to die in the act of saving her unborn child. "Don't worry about me, save my baby!" If it is not still so, that it is not so is a crying shame. A damnation.

Your sophistry has warped your mind.

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,041
Guys, there has already here been a very clear and right presentation of the argument that babies=fetuses=little bitty humans, and that American humans have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Jazzhead and the Cross guy have repeatedly ignored that argument.  If they haven't been able to pull their heads out of their respective cabooses by now, that's because they are firmly and permanently stuck there.

Remember these words of wisdom:



Untruths should never go unchallenged.  If one prefers the tyranny of the courts instead of the restraint of the Constitution, then one should man-up and take ownership.  But calling cops criminals and sinners saints should never be allowed to stand under any circumstances.
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

  • Mark Sanford for President
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,173
Yes, it is very simple. If you don't want a baby, don't hump.
That is the point of reproductive right and reproductive decision.

Utterly false, and an absurd artifice, as unnatural and unrefined as to be a barbarism.
Every moment of a females being once she is pregnant is for the continuation of the offspring. Animals know instinctively, from dietary changes, to nesting, and etc, what the human female has been trained and fooled into ignoring. There is no such pre and post viable condition - There is only baby.

And the female is hard-wired for that purpose, in every species there is. And in every species, there is nothing more precious, especially to that female.

To include the human female. Not a generation ago, the most noble act a woman could do was to die in the act of saving her unborn child. "Don't worry about me, save my baby!" If it is not still so, that it is not so is a crying shame. A damnation.

I don't disagree personally with any of that, @roamer_1 .    Where we differ is I am willing to try to persuade but unwilling to enlist the state to coerce.   Most women exercise their liberty in the way you describe - they view pregnancy as a blessing and a fulfillment of what makes them female.   But sometimes life's circumstances compel a different choice.   It may be the worst decision a woman can make, but it is still her decision, and hers alone.     
"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 Jazzhead

  • Mark Sanford for President
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,173
Untruths should never go unchallenged.  If one prefers the tyranny of the courts instead of the restraint of the Constitution, then one should man-up and take ownership.  But calling cops criminals and sinners saints should never be allowed to stand under any circumstances.

I fear the tyranny of the majority over the "tyranny" of courts who dare to secure my, your and our daughters'  individual rights against such majorities.   
"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: 7,041
A pre-viable fetus simply isn't, yet, a human being.     

What is your basis for this?  I ask because there are many who believe that it is.  Why do you get to decide and not them?


A fetus is pre-viable precisely because it is wholly dependent for its survival on the body of the woman in which it is growing.

What does viability have to do with this?  Either a woman has a Constitutional right to kill her unborn child or she does not.


Without the woman, it cannot have a separate existence.     

Advances in medical science have moved back your viability window.  Not that any judge has had any medical training.  Roe's 'viability' clause did not come from the Constitution.  Instead, it was pulled out of a judge's ass.

btw, the people of each State through their legislators have imposed a duty upon the mother to provide nourishment and nourishing for her baby after birth.  That duty can be equally applied before birth as well.  At least that's what the Constitution says.   Still can't find that abortion clause though.


Cross's analogy to the baking of a cake is apt.   Flour, eggs and sugar don't make a cake.

A cake doesn't have singular DNA, internal organs, a beating heart, blood flow, brain cells, etc.


Only by baking the assembled ingredients for the required time is a cake created.   Until then, no cake.   And until birth, no baby. 

So what happened to 'viability'?  Now it isn't a baby until it is born?  Geez.  How quickly the goal posts move.


Now it's not that cut and dried.  At some point along the way,  that baking cake, er, I mean fetus, is well enough along on its way that if it were to exit the womb it could survive on its own.   That's the idea of "viability".  Only when viability is reached may the State assert an interest in the fetus's protection   

Again, your basis?  Either the woman has a Constitutional right to kill her child or she does not.


I understand that smacks of an unprincipled compromise to you.   But there is no other Constitutional way to balance the woman's liberty against the state's interest in protecting life.

Actually, there is.  The Constitutional way to go about it is to actually do what the Constitution says and allow the members of a society to come together and work out that compromise.  It is what our Founding Fathers intended.  It is explicitly written into our treatise of government.  And it is something you hold in utter contempt.

I ask again, what does it matter to you what the people of Georgia decide on this matter?   No one from Georgia is dictating what Pennsylvania does.  Why are you such a supporter of tyranny and an enemy of our Constitution?
« Last Edit: September 19, 2019, 04:45:10 PM by Hoodat »
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 Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,041
I fear the tyranny of the majority .  .  .

That would be believable if you were dealing with people in your own State.  But this has nothing to do with your State.  It has to do with mine.  And in that regard, it is you who is the tyrant because you wish to deny our Constitutional right towards self-rule.


over the "tyranny" of courts who dare to secure my, your and our daughters'  individual rights against such majorities.

This would be the same courts that gave us segregation because your right to send your kids to all-white schools trumps the 14th Amendment, just as your right to deny Georgia the right of self-determination trumps the Tenth Amendment.


Just come out and say it.  You don't trust the Constitution and are unwilling to allow people the power they are due if it threatens your right to knock up some woman and then persuade her to kill the baby so that you aren't stuck with 18 years of child support.
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-


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf