-
Fox News By Caleb Parke 5/7/2019
Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp signed the "heartbeat" bill into law Tuesday morning.
Kemp kept his campaign promise in signing the bill, HB 481, technically called the "Living Infants Fairness and Equality (LIFE) Act," which will prohibit abortions in the state after a heartbeat is detected, as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. The law allows exceptions in the case of rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is in danger.
Before the signing of the bill, State Rep. Ed Setzler pointed to science, law, and the simple fact that common sense says a beating heart is a sign of life and those children should receive the full protection of the law. State Sen. Renee Unterman, a former nurse who ushered the bill through the state Senate, said she has waited her entire time as a legislator for this moment, calling it the "culmination of my political career."
"Georgia is a state that values life," Kemp said before putting his signature to the LIFE Act. "We stand up for those who are unable to speak for themselves."
More: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/georgia-gov-brian-kemp-signs-controversial-heartbeat-bill-into-law (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/georgia-gov-brian-kemp-signs-controversial-heartbeat-bill-into-law)
-
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Hillary Clinton blast Georgia's 'heartbeat bill'
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-hillary-clinton-criticized-heartbeat-bill/1140744001/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-hillary-clinton-criticized-heartbeat-bill/1140744001/)
Progressives heavily criticized the signing of a Georgia bill that would make it illegal to receive an abortion after a heartbeat was detected in the womb, about six weeks into a pregnancy. Georgia lawmakers had passed the bill in April, but it did not become law until Governor Brian Kemp signed it on Monday.
The bill, which does not take effect until Jan. 1, 2020, will one of the most restrictive abortion bills in the country. Current Georgia state law allows abortions up until the 20th week of pregnancy.
Progressives slammed the bill on social media.
"Most of the men writing these bills don't know the first thing about a woman's body outside of the things they want from it. It's relatively common for a woman to have a late period + not be pregnant," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., wrote on Twitter.
"This is a backdoor ban," she continued, arguing that a potential abortion ban at six weeks of pregnancy would be equivalent to being two weeks late on a period — meaning that "this law ignores basic biology."
-
Sandy-O the bartender from the Bronx is way too late, period.
-
This is unconstitutional and will never be implemented. Bank on it.
-
This is unconstitutional and will never be implemented. Bank on it.
What part of the Constitution does this violate? Please be specific.
-
What part of the Constitution does this violate? Please be specific.
It deprives the woman of her essential liberty and right to self-determination. What part of the Constitution gives any rights whatsoever, vis a vis the mother, to a six-week old fetus?
-
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Hillary Clinton blast Georgia's 'heartbeat bill'
What business of it is theirs? They can have whatever abortion law they please in New York, and no one in Georgia will do a thing to stop them. So when it comes to Georgia law, if you ain't from here, shut the hell up. Amendment X, baby.
-
It deprives the woman of her essential liberty and right to self-determination.
Again, what part of the Constitution does the Georgia law violate? Please be specific.
What part of the Constitution gives any rights whatsoever, vis a vis the mother, to a six-week old fetus?
I give up. What part does that, not that that has a single thing to do with the Constitutionality of the new Georgia. A better question would be, 'What prohibits Georgia from establishing its own abortion laws in light of the Tenth Amendment?'
-
There's that word "Controversial" again.
Why is it that everything the Left opposes is "Controversial"?
-
There's that word "Controversial" again.
Why is it that everything the Left opposes is "Controversial"?
It is how they roll.
-
A better question would be, 'What prohibits Georgia from establishing its own abortion laws in light of the Tenth Amendment?'
If I have a right under the U.S. Constitution, it cannot be denied by a State on the basis of the Tenth Amendment.
Georgia can regulate the abortion right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, but cannot take it away. Think of the SCOTUS decision re handguns in Heller. According to Heller, the Constitution says that a citizen's essential liberty includes the right of personal self defense. Yet, the District of Columbia passed a law effectively banning the ownership of handguns, thereby depriving a city dweller of any effective means of protecting himself in his own home.
A state has the right under the Tenth Amendment to regulate gun ownership, but not to make it impossible. The Federal Constitution's right - found by means of a SCOTUS majority - to personal self defense trumps the State's ability to take such right away.
Same goes for the abortion right. Take the right away after viability, because the woman will by then have had at least 4 - 5 months to decide whether to exercise the right. But after only six weeks? The woman may not even know by then that she's pregnant.
The heartbeat bill is clearly unconstitutional.
-
Georgia can regulate the abortion right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, but cannot take it away.
Where in the US Constitution can I find this abortion right? Please be specific.
Same goes for the abortion right. Take the right away after viability, because the woman will by then have had at least 4 - 5 months to decide whether to exercise the right.
Whoa, wait just a minute here. What does 'viability' have to do with this. Either a woman has a Constitutional right to an abortion, or she does not. By injecting 'viability' into the equation, you are clearly making up as you go since you have zero Constitutional basis to draw upon.
The heartbeat bill is clearly unconstitutional.
Again, what part of the Constitution does this bill violate? Please be specific.
-
This is unconstitutional and will never be implemented. Bank on it.
You are saying a beating heart does not mean life? Really?
Seems to me that stopping a heartbeat, intentionally, means you killed it, whatever it was. (Something that transcends the species barrier). If it is genetically human, has a heartbeat, it must be alive, and human. A human life.
Why would you deny that human it's fundamental Rights for the convenience of another?
-
It deprives the woman of her essential liberty and right to self-determination. What part of the Constitution gives any rights whatsoever, vis a vis the mother, to a six-week old fetus?
She had the essential liberty and right to self-determination when she engaged in a sexual act without utilizing any of the variety of methods to prevent becoming pregnant. She had her self determination when she engaged in that sex act.
It isn't as if she hasn't had plenty of times to choose and prevent pregnancy.
But with conception, a line has been crossed, a genetically unique human has been formed. A new life.
You are only arguing for her ability to take that life, to kill that child in sacrifice for her lack of planning, to kill an innocent to atone for her actions.
Whatsamatter? Can't wait until they are born to toss the virgins into the volcano?
Sick puppy. **nononono*
-
Whoa, wait just a minute here. What does 'viability' have to do with this. Either a woman has a Constitutional right to an abortion, or she does not. By injecting 'viability' into the equation, you are clearly making up as you go since you have zero Constitutional basis to draw upon.
No, every woman does not have a Constitutional right to an abortion. She has the Constitutional right to choose the circumstances of her life. If she can make that choice within the first four to five months of pregnancy, before the fetus is viable, then that choice is real and meaningful, even if the State of Georgia then says her choice is cut off. But if the State of Georgia insists she make that choice within the first month and a half of pregnancy, perhaps even before she knows for sure she's pregnant, then her choice has been effectively denied.
Just as the District of Columbia effectively denied a citizen's right to self defense in his own home by barring his ability to own a handgun.
Rights are not absolute, rights can be reasonably regulated. But they cannot be denied entirely. Not the gun right. And not a woman's FUNDAMENTAL right to choose whether or not to reproduce.
-
She had the essential liberty and right to self-determination when she engaged in a sexual act without utilizing any of the variety of methods to prevent becoming pregnant. She had her self determination when she engaged in that sex act.
It isn't as if she hasn't had plenty of times to choose and prevent pregnancy.
But with conception, a line has been crossed, a genetically unique human has been formed. A new life.
You are only arguing for her ability to take that life, to kill that child in sacrifice for her lack of planning, to kill an innocent to atone for her actions.
Whatsamatter? Can't wait until they are born to toss the virgins into the volcano?
Sick puppy. **nononono*
You're making a moral judgment (a rather sexist one, but no matter). You as an individual, as a parent, as a friend, as a Christian, can make that moral judgement. So, of course, can God. God in His infinite wisdom may condemn the woman who "couldn't keep her legs closed", or may extend to her His compassion when an unexpected pregnancy leaves her in poverty and partner-less. You think the former, I think the latter.
But the bottom line is simple. It is not the role of the State to make that moral judgement, and deny at the point of a government gun a woman's most basic freedom to decide for herself whether to endure an unanticipated pregnancy.
Make your moral case for the fetus, within the framework of a woman's liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. The woman's right to choose shall not be infringed.
-
No, every woman does not have a Constitutional right to an abortion.
Glad to see you finally come around.
She has the Constitutional right to choose the circumstances of her life.
No one here has said otherwise.
If she can make that choice within the first four to five months of pregnancy, . . .
Hold it right there. If she is pregnant, then she has already exercised her "Constitutional right to choose the circumstances of her life". And the consequence of her choice resulted in the creation of a wholly singular life.
. . . before the fetus is viable . . .
Oh, so now we're back to that 'viability' thing? Again, what is your Constitutional basis? You cannot arbitrarily issue rights based on some made-up self-defined condition. Again, either she has that right or she does not. And according to your first sentence, she does not.
If she can make that choice within the first four to five months of pregnancy, before the fetus is viable, then that choice is real and meaningful, even if the State of Georgia then says her choice is cut off. But if the State of Georgia insists she make that choice within the first month and a half of pregnancy, perhaps even before she knows for sure she's pregnant, then her choice has been effectively denied.
Just as the District of Columbia effectively denied a citizen's right to self defense in his own home by barring his ability to own a handgun.
Rights are not absolute, rights can be reasonably regulated. But they cannot be denied entirely. Not the gun right. And not a woman's FUNDAMENTAL right to choose whether or not to reproduce.
. . . then that choice is real and meaningful . . .
The choice is ALWAYS meaningful to the life that is destroyed. Always, regardless of your own personal viability judgment.
. . . even if the State of Georgia then says her choice is cut off.
What gives the State of Georgia to decide this? (Hint: unlike your 'abortion' right, this right actually can be found in the Constitution)
But if the State of Georgia insists she make that choice within the first month and a half of pregnancy, perhaps even before she knows for sure she's pregnant, then her choice has been effectively denied.
Her choice to engage in sexual intercourse (with full knowledge that her action could lead to pregnancy), was not denied nor has it ever been denied by the State of Georgia. And even with the new law, if a woman is late with her period, she can still get a pregnancy test and rush to a black neighborhood to find a Planned Parenthood clinic, and have that life inside of her terminated before anyone realizes it is a life. Except that Planned Parenthood won't be able to charge as much for the abortion, and they won't get any good fetal tissue that they can sell. They much prefer allowing the babies to grow bigger inside their hosts before they are harvested.
Rights are not absolute, rights can be reasonably regulated. But they cannot be denied entirely.
Again, show me where in the Constitution I can find this right.
And not a woman's FUNDAMENTAL right to choose whether or not to reproduce.
No one is denying any woman that fundamental right. When a woman (who has complete control over her body) chooses to allow a man to ejaculate inside of her, she is actively exercising a choice that can and will result in pregnancy. It happens to be one of those 'we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable' rights. But when it comes to the destruction of another life, that is a power that falls upon the State. (See: Amendment X)
-
You're making a moral judgment (a rather sexist one, but no matter). You as an individual, as a parent, as a friend, as a Christian, can make that moral judgement. So, of course, can God. God in His infinite wisdom may condemn the woman who "couldn't keep her legs closed", or may extend to her His compassion when an unexpected pregnancy leaves her in poverty and partner-less. You think the former, I think the latter.
But the bottom line is simple. It is not the role of the State to make that moral judgement, and deny at the point of a government gun a woman's most basic freedom to decide for herself whether to endure an unanticipated pregnancy.
What a bunch of hogwash. Are you really going to sit here and argue that a State does not have the right to outlaw murder, shoplifting, fraud, theft, assault, property rights, etc? All are moral judgments. Every single one of them. The problem here is that you wish to impose your moral judgment on the rest of us while denying our right to shape our society through the establishment of our own laws. There is a word for that. It is called 'tyranny'. So before you dismiss this, ask yourself this one question: "Why are you unable to cite a single word of the Constitution that backs up your own moral imposition regarding the abortion right?" Because I have shown you again and again and again the Constitutional basis for the right of the State of Georgia to regulate abortion. And you have shown me nothing - nothing except your insistence that "abortion must remain legal" because you say so.
-
No, every woman does not have a Constitutional right to an abortion. She has the Constitutional right to choose the circumstances of her life. If she can make that choice within the first four to five months of pregnancy, before the fetus is viable, then that choice is real and meaningful, even if the State of Georgia then says her choice is cut off. But if the State of Georgia insists she make that choice within the first month and a half of pregnancy, perhaps even before she knows for sure she's pregnant, then her choice has been effectively denied.
Just as the District of Columbia effectively denied a citizen's right to self defense in his own home by barring his ability to own a handgun.
Rights are not absolute, rights can be reasonably regulated. But they cannot be denied entirely. Not the gun right. And not a woman's FUNDAMENTAL right to choose whether or not to reproduce.
The time to choose is before she becomes pregnant. That's all her life, she can do or not do what she pleases.
After she becomes pregnant, she HAS reproduced, past tense, and there is another life in the picture. Handguns have jack sh*t to do with this. She is the mother, or contracts for the killer. The baby doesn't have the means for self-defense, otherwise, I am sure it would fight being dismembered and shredded with every means available.
-
@Hoodat
I used viability as a lawful line of demarcation, but it is not the only one. The states could choose to outlaw abortion after, say, 20 weeks (that's similar to how some European nations do it). The point is to preserve a woman's meaningful ability to choose whether or not to continue with a pregnancy. The right - like the individual gun right - can be regulated but not denied. The heartbeat bill would ban abortion before the time a woman will know for sure she is pregnant and can make a decision. It is, therefore, clearly unconstititutional.
The Constitution is designed to address both that (i) we are endowed with certain individual liberties by our Creator, and (ii) the government's role is to preserve those liberties. Some of those liberties are spelled out plainly in the Constitution, such as the freedom of speech and association, but other similarly critical liberties are not, but have been found to nevertheless be protected by the federal Constitution. These include the right of personal privacy (the underpinning of the choice right) and the right to individual self defense. Each of these rights is protected by reason of the Constitution's interpretation by the Supreme Court. You individual right to own a gun for reasons of self defense is just as much Constitutionally protected by reason of the Heller decision as a woman's right to reproductive self-determination is Constitutionally protected by reason of Roe v. Wade.
(The Constitution's protection of each of these rights is potentially at risk in the event these Court decisions were to be overturned, which is why I've long advocated that they be codified. It is no coincidence that the most contentious fault lines in our culture today are abortion and guns, because both women and gun owners believe, with justification, that their precious rights are subject to the whims of the political winds.)
Hoodat, I understand that you consider abortion to be a moral wrong, and demand the State enforce your moral perspective regarding the "rights" of a six-week old fetus. But consider the damage that's been done by pro-lifers' attempts to elevate a moral issue into a political one. Far more abortions would be prevented if folks of good will could work together to educate women about what abortion is and to offer support to those who seek to do the right thing. Unfortunately, women feel justifiably threatened that a choice they must retain may be taken away - just as you feel threatened that your right to own a gun for your own defense has been politicized and is in danger of being denied.
-
The time to choose is before she becomes pregnant.
That's what you say, and you're welcome to your opinion. But it is not up to the State to say.
The reality is that many abortions are the result of a partner's reaction to an unplanned pregnancy, with the man leaving the woman and leaving her destitute, alone and without options. Rather than demanding the State force her to bear an unwanted child under such circumstances, why not band together with other like-minded folks to offer her financial and other support and assistance to do the right thing? Wouldn't the pro-life movement be better received and appreciated if it focused on providing such support, rather than on taking a woman's rights away?
-
@Hoodat
I used viability as a lawful line of demarcation, but it is not the only one. The states could choose to outlaw abortion after, say, 20 weeks (that's similar to how some European nations do it). The point is to preserve a woman's meaningful ability to choose whether or not to continue with a pregnancy. The right - like the individual gun right - can be regulated but not denied. The heartbeat bill would ban abortion before the time a woman will know for sure she is pregnant and can make a decision. It is, therefore, clearly unconstititutional.
Oh, piffle.
Women know they are pregnant, especially the second and subsequent times, with exceptions. Morning sickness, absence of menses, etc. The baby will cause changes in everything from food input (cravings) to body chemistry which an EPT can detect as early as three weeks.
But deciding when to say you can kill the baby because the mother doesn't want to be a mom, well, what keeps that line from being extended through the terrible twos or some other age? Not one damned thing except you can hear them scream. So you don't think its okay to throw your kids in a woodchipper when they're five years old, why would you subject them to that when they're five months along?
The Constitution is designed to address both that (i) we are endowed with certain individual liberties by our Creator, and (ii) the government's role is to preserve those liberties. Some of those liberties are spelled out plainly in the Constitution, such as the freedom of speech and association, but other similarly critical liberties are not, but have been found to nevertheless protected by the Constitution. These include the right of personal privacy (the underpinning of the choice right) and the right to individual self defense. Each of these rights is protected by reason of the Constitution's interpretation by the Supreme Court. You individual right to own a gun for reasons of self defense is just as much Constitutionally protected by reason of the Heller decision as a woman's right to reproductive self-determination is Constitutionally protected by reason of Roe v. Wade.
Do you honestly think our Creator, who has known us since before we were formed, would say it's okay for you to shred that life at any time? The Constitution exists to protect the Rights of the weak in our society, not as an excuse to murder them. You simply cannot convince me that the men who wrote that document would have in any way ever intended the slaughter of 60 million of their fellow Americans in the name of convenience, nor that they would have ever intended for that alleged right to be inferred in that document nor the Bill of Rights.
(The Constitution's protection of each of these rights is potentially at risk in the event these Court decisions were to be overturned, which is why I've long advocated that they be codified. It is no coincidence that the most contentious fault lines in our culture today are abortion and guns, because both women and gun owners believe, with justification, that their precious rights are subject to the whims of the political winds.)
There you go, conflating the natural right of self-defense with murder for convenience.
What about the precious rights of the 60,000,000 who have been murdered in this quest for convenience? Where is their right to self-defense? Aren't we the sort of culture who protects the weak among us? Otherwise, we have taken a great retrograde leap in our level of civilization. The means have existed to prevent conception since well before the ruling of the few who have sanctioned this slaughter, claiming to find some Right in a document written by men who would never have sanctioned this slaughter. The time to choose is before conception, not after the fact. The right to choose whether or not to engage in sexual activity still exists, along with the Right to choose who to engage thus with. The ability to choose whether or not to conceive exists, and was even one of the flagship arguments for the imposition of Obamacare, despite the usurpation of the right to decide whether or not to purchase a service.
Hoodat, I understand that you consider abortion to be a moral wrong, and demand the State enforce your moral perspective regarding the "rights" of a six-week old fetus. But consider the damage that's been done by pro-lifers' attempts to elevate a moral issue into a political one. Far more abortions would be prevented if folks of good will could work together to educate women about what abortion is and to offer support to those who seek to do the right thing. Unfortunately, women feel justifiably threatened that a choice they must retain may be taken away - just as you feel threatened that your right to own a gun for your own defense has been politicized and is in danger of being denied.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms has been codified, directly, as a Right of the People.
That Right was discussed at length in the communications of the Federalists, the logic laid out.
No such codification exists in the Constitution for abortion, no discussion of that alleged right, nor any support for that position was ever laid out in the founders' communications. It is a fabrication solely emanating from the eugenicists and others whose philosophies are in conflict with the whole concepts of Life and Liberty as expressed by the Founders. The ruling in Roe v Wade is a stain on American Jurisprudence, a damned spot that won't wash out. Like typical liberals, though, those who were wrong, double down, time and again, claiming something that never was.
In the meantime, the slaughter continues.
-
That's what you say, and you're welcome to your opinion. But it is not up to the State to say.
The reality is that many abortions are the result of a partner's reaction to an unplanned pregnancy, with the man leaving the woman and leaving her destitute, alone and without options. Rather than demanding the State force her to bear an unwanted child under such circumstances, why not band together with other like-minded folks to offer her financial and other support and assistance to do the right thing? Wouldn't the pro-life movement be better received and appreciated if it focused on providing such support, rather than on taking a woman's rights away?
"Unplanned pregnancies" are preventable. Just as I noted above, and have been since well before Roe. One of the reasons given for the imposition of Obamacare was so Georgetown Law Students could afford common and inexpensive contraceptives.
Rather than have the State (us) sanction the wholesale slaughter of our fellow citizens, how about we ban that practice?
But support for those who choose life continues, and has cost the taxpayers of this nation fortunes, so that is a weak argument. It becomes a question of passing down the death sentence on an innocent for the irresponsibility of their parent, for the sake of convenience, far more often than not, using means of execution we would not use on the most heinous criminal duly convicted of their crimes.
-
@Hoodat
I used viability as a lawful line of demarcation, but it is not the only one.
@Jazzhead
You used viability as a subjective term that you get to define to suit your purpose. Nothing lawful about that. No legal definition written anywhere. Besides, there is already on record healthy surviving babies that pre-dated Roe's arbitrary lawless 'viability' rule. Not that any of this has a thing to do with Georgia's right under the US Constitution to establish it's own laws on viability - a right which you feel compelled to arbitrarily deny them based on the asinine legal argument that "abortion must remain legal".
The states could choose to outlaw abortion after, say, 20 weeks (that's similar to how some European nations do it).
The States could also choose to do what their citizens want them to do instead of what you want them to do. Seriously, if you want Pennsylvania to do one thing, then by all means petition your Commonwealth government. As for Georgia, we will do what our citizens want under the Constitution of the United States of America.
The point is to preserve a woman's meaningful ability to choose whether or not to continue with a pregnancy. The right - like the individual gun right - can be regulated but not denied.
So which is it? A right? Or a "woman's meaningful ability"? And again, where is this "right" defined? Certainly not in the US Constitution. If it actually existed, you would have cited it already. So stop pushing judicial tyranny as being Constitutional.
The heartbeat bill would ban abortion before the time a woman will know for sure she is pregnant and can make a decision.
Are you seriously suggesting that pregnancy tests do not work? Besides, by the time she gets pregnant, she would have already made a decision.0
It is, therefore, clearly unconstititutional.
Based on what? For the umpteenth time, please show me the portion of the Constitution that is being violated here? We will see how it lines up against Amendment X.
The Constitution is designed to address both that (i) we are endowed with certain individual liberties by our Creator, and (ii) the government's role is to preserve those liberties.
Finally, the truth comes out. Your case is essentially that it is our Creator that endowed us with the inalienable right to kill babies in the womb, in direct contrast to God's prohibition against sacrificing our children. I have been wondering for quite some time if you were ever going to get down to this. You finally did. At least we all know now that you believe in a god that believes abortion is on equal terms with free speech and self-defense.
Some of those liberties are spelled out plainly in the Constitution, such as the freedom of speech and association, but other similarly critical liberties are not, but have been found to nevertheless be protected by the federal Constitution. These include the right of personal privacy (the underpinning of the choice right) and the right to individual self defense.
So basically, they aren't actually in the Constitution, but they are deemed so by some tyrannical judge. Got it.
Each of these rights is protected by reason of the Constitution's interpretation by the Supreme Court. You individual right to own a gun for reasons of self defense is just as much Constitutionally protected by reason of the Heller decision as a woman's right to reproductive self-determination is Constitutionally protected by reason of Roe v. Wade.
The primary difference here is that the right to bear arms can actually be found in the Constitution (Amendment II) while your right to an abortion cannot.
(The Constitution's protection of each of these rights is potentially at risk in the event these Court decisions were to be overturned, which is why I've long advocated that they be codified. It is no coincidence that the most contentious fault lines in our culture today are abortion and guns, because both women and gun owners believe, with justification, that their precious rights are subject to the whims of the political winds.)
How odd. The Constitution itself remains unchanged. Yet you are worried that judicial tyranny could turn against you. Wouldn't it be much better if our courts followed the Constitution instead of making it up as they go?
Hoodat, I understand that you consider abortion to be a moral wrong, and demand the State enforce your moral perspective regarding the "rights" of a six-week old fetus.
My personal position on abortion has zero bearing on the right of Georgia to shape its own society through the formulation of laws through the people's duly elected representatives, or by open referendum. If a statewide referendum that legalized abortion up until age 2 was passed in Georgia, I would live by that decision. And I definitely would not want some black-robed tyrant making everything OK for me by trampling all over the Constitution of the United States of America. Personally, I believe that life should be valued. And I will continue to lend my voice to society in support of that valuation. But my personal views do not in any way change the wording of the Bill of Rights.
But consider the damage that's been done by pro-lifers' attempts to elevate a moral issue into a political one. Far more abortions would be prevented if folks of good will could work together to educate women about what abortion is and to offer support to those who seek to do the right thing.
Judicial fiat is what has made this a political issue. Once the rules were discarded - the very Constitution itself - the quest for power took over. And that is why we have people such as yourself relying on political decisions like Roe, Doe, and Obergefell while ignoring the Constitution.
Unfortunately, women feel justifiably threatened that a choice they must retain may be taken away - just as you feel threatened that your right to own a gun for your own defense has been politicized and is in danger of being denied.
There you go with that word "must" again. Why must they retain it? Why? What is so important about that decision that you would trash the Constitution over it?
-
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?
-
Stop abortion now! Ban Hetro-sex.
-
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.
-
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)?
-
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?
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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 (https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/latest-statistics-illegitimate-births-roger-clegg/)
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.