Texas Senate Candidate Dwayne Stovall Takes Out Bizarre Personal Vendetta on Facebook and Website (Exclusive)

[Bigun]

I agree with that, I probably didn't word it clearly. (probably should have said that was one of the purposes of the 2nd versus protection).

I decided to take my post down after realizing that was probably what you meant.

[mountaineer]

Is this thread going to melt into an abortion thread?

.....cause it ain't in the title of the thread.   

Indeed, which is why I won't respond further.

[Oceander]

*  *  *
(thus, I do believe in abortion exceptions for the protection of the life of the mother).

Then there really isn't any difference in kind between you and most pro-choice people, just a difference in degree.  If the right to life you've found is as absolute as you've posited and brooks no interference, then there cannot be an exception for anything, including that one.  Why?  Just to start with, what constitutes the sort of threat that would justify an abortion to protect the life of the mother?  Would it be only death imminent within the next few minutes, with 100% certainty, or something less?

[ABX]

Then there cannot be any due process required in the context of an abortion because the situations are analogous in all relevant aspects.

You don't have a fundamental right to defend yourself from another private individual under the Constitution - as you quite rightly put it, the Constitution applies to governments, not to private actors - the second amendment applies to the relationship between individuals and the government, not to the relationship between private individuals.  And it is perfectly constitutional for a state to outlaw the use of deadly force in self-defense.

So are you saying that a State has the authority to allow individual A to take the life of individual B even though the latter is not a direct threat to individual A's life? 

What protection does individual B have over the governing authority of the State saying their life is forfeit to individual A simply out of convenience? Is individual B's existence always at the will of the State? 

If the State, or any governing authority can determine your life forefeet, then who owns your life?

Why does it then stop at the unborn if we give the State the power over individual life? 

[ABX]

Then there really isn't any difference in kind between you and most pro-choice people, just a difference in degree.  If the right to life you've found is as absolute as you've posited and brooks no interference, then there cannot be an exception for anything, including that one.  Why?  Just to start with, what constitutes the sort of threat that would justify an abortion to protect the life of the mother?  Would it be only death imminent within the next few minutes, with 100% certainty, or something less?

No where did I say 'no exception' or absolute. I did say in my self defense argument it is an individual right.  We are getting into the issue though that makes it so difficult for many. I won't say I have the answer to what level of 'threat to the life of the mother' is involved because I frankly, don't know.

[ABX]

Is this thread going to melt into an abortion thread?

.....cause it ain't in the title of the thread.   

Why not, so far it is a healthy debate. Sometimes thread creep isn't that bad. (and frankly, it evolved to something far more interesting that Stovall's 'you like horsemeat' (possibly sexual innuendo) and internet games.)

I don't know about others here, but sometimes it is good to have an intellectual debate that doesn't devolve into a flame war. More classic Firing Line and less Bill Mahar.

[Oceander]

So are you saying that a State has the authority to allow individual A to take the life of individual B even though the latter is not a direct threat to individual A's life? 

What protection does individual B have over the governing authority of the State saying their life is forfeit to individual A simply out of convenience? Is individual B's existence always at the will of the State? 

If the State, or any governing authority can determine your life forefeet, then who owns your life?

Why does it then stop at the unborn if we give the State the power over individual life? 

You said the state has the authority to allow one person to take the life of another when that person believes the other poses a threat to him - which necessarily includes the case of a person who reasonably, but wrongfully, believes that his life is in danger.  You can't have it both ways.

[ABX]

You said the state has the authority to allow one person to take the life of another when that person believes the other poses a threat to him - which necessarily includes the case of a person who reasonably, but wrongfully, believes that his life is in danger.  You can't have it both ways.

Actually, just the opposite. The right to defend your life is a fundamental right, not something a state 'allows'.
Where we get into the abortion debate, imho, is beyond a conversation of self-defense (as I said in a previous post, this is something I just don't know regarding the level in the life of the mother issue). Very few will argue that most abortions are for protection of the life of the mother (self-defense).  A vast majority of those performed are for convenience.  This is where I feel a State, nor any governing body, doesn't have the authority to let strip a right of one individual for the convenience of another. 

If we weren't talking about the unborn, it wouldn't be so vague. What if one State decided that a toddler who causes the mother so much stress she may develop a heart condition could have his life forfeit to her?  What if another State decided an elderly parent's life is forfeit to the children who have to help provide for them because it may create undue stress on them? 

What if it wasn't life? What if it was property? What if a State decided your home would be better served to the community to give it to a shopping mall developer.

How much more important is life yet both are (should be) protected from a State (or any governing authority) power.

[happyg]

Some years ago, my sister was diagnosed with cervical cancer. She was also five months pregnant. Her doctor suggested an abortion so she could start on treatments before the cancer got further along. She decided to wait and have the baby. She didn't have a doubt in her mind that is what she wanted and would do. Her husband obliged her. After her son was born, she had her surgery and treatment. We didn't know if she would live, but we knew her baby would survive. It wasn't a good time, but I am glad it was her who had to make that call.

[Gazoo]

Some years ago, my sister was diagnosed with cervical cancer. She was also five months pregnant. Her doctor suggested an abortion so she could start on treatments before the cancer got further along. She decided to wait and have the baby. She didn't have a doubt in her mind that is what she wanted and would do. Her husband obliged her. After her son was born, she had her surgery and treatment. We didn't know if she would live, but we knew her baby would survive. It wasn't a good time, but I am glad it was her who had to make that call.

Makes you wonder if the cancer went into remission while she was pregnant.

[happyg]

Makes you wonder if the cancer went into remission while she was pregnant.

One never knows about those kinds of things, Gazoo.

[Carling]

...the Constitution of the United States gives the Federal Government no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the issue of abortion.... - Dwayne Stovall

I'd be interested to know how many people on this site disagree with this statement.  I certainly don't.

I agree with it completely.  Abortion should be a state issue, and the only reason it isn't is because of a made up justification in Roe v. Wade.

I felt the same way when DOMA passed, too. 

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Stovall stated he would not 'demonize' them during the campaign, but instead, wait until he was elected then 'go after them with both barrels'.

Stockman is going after Stovall.  Thank you Congressman.  Keep driving down Stovall's numbers.  We gotta get John's number's above 50%.

The Tea Party has to start asking themselves why they can't field a decent candidate. 

[aligncare]

...the Constitution of the United States gives the Federal Government no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the issue of abortion.... - Dwayne Stovall

I'd be interested to know how many people on this site disagree with this statement.  I certainly don't.

I don't disagree. Roe v Wade is a federal power grab. The issue belongs at the state level.

While I consider myself pro-life, I am also pro individual sovereignty. In other words, I think if the state "owned" us, much as the monarch owns the serf, it can say to a pregnant female "I forbid you to kill your unborn child, as it's labor will be needed to work in the collective." Well, no. A woman is not owned by the state. It has no right to her or her child's labor.

However, as to my pro-life stance. That comes from my belief in God and that we belong to Him. And that it is religion and the religious community that can change society and the culture that devalues life. So that it's through persuading the individual's conscience that we make abortion unthinkable. Not by government decree – one way or the other.

I think my position is consistent.

[massadvj]

So that it's through persuading the individual's conscience that we make abortion unthinkable. Not by government decree – one way or the other.

This is the salient point.  If abortion were as unthinkable as cannibalism we wouldn't need to pass any laws, and unfortunately, passing laws will not make abortion unthinkable to the people in our culture.  It's outside the purview of the law. 

[happyg]

However, as to my pro-life stance. That comes from my belief in God and that we belong to Him. And that it is religion and the religious community that can change society and the culture that devalues life. So that it's through persuading the individual's conscience that we make abortion unthinkable. Not by government decree – one way or the other.

That is my view, as well. Back when RvW was passed, Dad said nearly the same thing. He also said that abortion will become common since it is now legal, and people will mistakenly believe it is OK. Government over God is never a good thing.

[Bigun]

I don't disagree. Roe v Wade is a federal power grab. The issue belongs at the state level.

While I consider myself pro-life, I am also pro individual sovereignty. In other words, I think if the state "owned" us, much as the monarch owns the serf, it can say to a pregnant female "I forbid you to kill your unborn child, as it's labor will be needed to work in the collective." Well, no. A woman is not owned by the state. It has no right to her or her child's labor.

However, as to my pro-life stance. That comes from my belief in God and that we belong to Him. And that it is religion and the religious community that can change society and the culture that devalues life. So that it's through persuading the individual's conscience that we make abortion unthinkable. Not by government decree – one way or the other.

I think my position is consistent.

BRAVO!!!

Spot on!

[Lipstick on a Hillary]

I don't disagree. Roe v Wade is a federal power grab. The issue belongs at the state level.

While I consider myself pro-life, I am also pro individual sovereignty. In other words, I think if the state "owned" us, much as the monarch owns the serf, it can say to a pregnant female "I forbid you to kill your unborn child, as it's labor will be needed to work in the collective." Well, no. A woman is not owned by the state. It has no right to her or her child's labor.

However, as to my pro-life stance. That comes from my belief in God and that we belong to Him. And that it is religion and the religious community that can change society and the culture that devalues life. So that it's through persuading the individual's conscience that we make abortion unthinkable. Not by government decree – one way or the other.

I think my position is consistent.

I have mulled over and struggled with this issue in my mind for a lot of years.  For some of us, this is just not a yes or no thing.  I think your post pretty much reflects my feelings--thanks for posting it.

[MBB1984]

My views on the subject of abortion have been previously posted by me on any number of threads.  I was primarily interested in what members think.  I assume the vast majority here think Roe is bad law.  But I was curious as to how many think the fetus is protected or ought to be protected by the constitution.  I'd be interested to see what others, beyond O and Abx, think.

I had not ever contemplated this hypothetical before due to the weak possibility of Roe ever being overturned.  But, I believe the authority to protect a fetus is granted under the Fourteenth Amendment--the right to equal protection and substantive due process. 

[massadvj]

I had not ever contemplated this hypothetical before due to the weak possibility of Roe ever being overturned.  But, I believe the authority to protect a fetus is granted under the Fourteenth Amendment--the right to equal protection and substantive due process.

Thanks for a concise, on point answer.