Life Begins at Conception, Says Department of Health and Human Services

[INVAR]

We recognize the fundamental liberty and the law's equal protection with respect to all our citizens - yeah, even the women you consider chattel...

You have absolutely NO comprehension or understanding of what women as chattel in the third world even looks like pal.

I do.  I lived in the slums with women whose entire society regards them as chattel.  I support those in a society that considers women half a human being until the business transaction of their arranged marriage is fulfilled by dowry - and then have watched widows beaten, abused and discarded as cursed creatures.

You can shove your perverted comparison of women in this country who want to have sex without consequences as 'chattel' - because you have absolutely no clue or idea of what the hell you are talking about or what that word even means.

[Smokin Joe]

The decision whether to reproduce is the woman's, not the state.  That doesn't mean that "unborn babies" are chattel, it means that you're going to have to work at persuading moms to be to do the right thing.   You can't just demand that the state enforce your religious morality.   That's not how it works in the this country.

Dude. At the point there IS an unborn baby the decision has been made. The woman has reproduced. After that, the only question is whether she will let her child be born or kill it.

[Jazzhead]

After that, the only question is whether she will let her child be born or kill it.

Bingo!  Help her make the right decision.  Support her to make the right decision.   It's up to her - not the state. 

[INVAR]

A woman's fundamental right trumps that of a State legislature seeking to deny it.   

Funny how the enumerated right to keep and bear arms can be trumped by state legislatures seeking to deny it according to you (Texas gun culture that you railed against) -  but a 'right' constructed out of thin air to permit a woman to kill her infant in the womb because it is not convenient, cannot be denied by a state legislature.

Hypocrite does even begin to describe your posts to this board.

Why do you advocate for a state's right to force a citizen to reproduce, but not (I presume) to give up her guns?

Why do you advocate for the state to force us citizens to purchase specific health insurance plans against our will, and to surrender our wealth to fund your constituencies because 'it is the price they must pay to have wealth and live here', and advocate for the state to force us to violate our conscience to celebrate homosexuality or lose our livelihoods?

You are perfectly fine and good with using the state to impose tyranny that you like and advocate, so your arguments promoting the genocide of infants because the adult women have a right to have sex without consequences, is beyond insultingly stupid.

You've got this whole "tyranny" thing ass-backwards.   For the rights of an individual to be stripped by the whim of a transient majority is tyranny.  For a transient majority to be prevented from taking our most fundamental individual rights away is the essence of our Constitution.

Yet you advocate doing that very thing here on this board DAILY.  You are the CHIEF purveyor of tyranny on this board.  You advocate for the rights of individuals to not only be stripped of their rights by the hand of the courts and the state - but advocate punishment to be administered for refusing to violate their consciences, and their first Amendment rights of free exercise and speech in refusing to use their talents and livelihoods to celebrate homosexuality.   You have no problem with a transient minority of homosexuals to take the most fundamental individual rights away from those whose morality conflicts with what you have empowered the state and their courts to administer.

Nearly all of us on this board know that you stand for what we recognize as abject tyranny while calling those of us refusing to capitulate to your advocacy of tyranny; bigots - and worse.

[Jazzhead]

Funny how the enumerated right to keep and bear arms can be trumped by state legislatures seeking to deny it according to you (Texas gun culture that you railed against) -  but a 'right' constructed out of thin air to permit a woman to kill her infant in the womb because it is not convenient, cannot be denied by a state legislature.

A Constitutional right is just as valid whether "enumerated" or recognized by the SCOTUS.  In each case - whether it be the right to decide whether to reproduce or the right to keep and bear arms - the recognized right is nevertheless subject to reasonable regulation.  See, e.g., Heller.  States can and do regulate each of these rights, which is perfectly constitutional provided the fundamental right isn't taken away or rendered incapable of effective exercise.  Hence, guns can be required to be registered, and women can be required to view sonograms of their moving fetuses. 

No hypocrisy here, sir - I take the exact same position regarding the states' right to regulate with respect to each of these Constitutional rights.  (And, for what it's worth, local laws concerning non-discrimination with respect to public accommodations represent reasonable regulation of the privilege of conducting business with members of the community.  Your religious panic regarding homosexuals has no place in the conduct of a business with the GP.)       

 

[Suppressed]

(And, for what it's worth, local laws concerning non-discrimination with respect to public accommodations represent reasonable regulation of the privilege of conducting business with members of the community.  Your religious panic regarding homosexuals has no place in the conduct of a business with the GP.)       

You're consistent in your argument.  But then there's the issue of that little word "reasonable".

[Hoodat]

A woman's fundamental right trumps that of a State legislature seeking to deny it.

Fundamental right?  What makes abortion a fundamental right (besides you calling it one)?

Does a woman also not have a fundamental right to eat?  Yet a state can place restrictions on what and where she can eat.  Go figure.

So where does that "fundamental right" come from?  Clearly, it doesn't come from the Constitution of the United States of America.  Because if it did, you would have cited it by now.

No state may abrogate a woman's Constitutional right of self-determination for the same reason that no state may take away the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Amendment II is where the 'right to keep and bear arms' is found.  I don't see abortion mentioned in Amendment II.  Care to try again?

Constitutional rights are just that - rights accruing to INDIVIDUALS.

So where can I find this Constitutional right to abortion?  The Roe court certainly couldn't find it.  Can you?  Because if you can't, then you might want to stop lying about how it is a Constitutional right.

Even individuals residing in states where a transient majority in the legislature prefers to take those rights away.

You mean rights that are invented out of thin air with zero Constitutional basis?

Although I'm curious enough to ask -  would you be okay with the right of a state to criminalize abortion if it could also take away a Constitutional protection you favor?

Not a fair comparison since a State's right to regulate abortion is a Constitutional protection.  So you are effectively asking me to give up two Constitutional protections.

Why do you advocate for a state's right to force a citizen to reproduce

I don't.  No one is advocating that a woman be forced to reproduce.  No one.  And you know that.  Yet here you are lying.  Lying again and again and again.

Besides, once a woman becomes pregnant, she has already reproduced.

[INVAR]

A Constitutional right is just as valid whether "enumerated" or recognized by the SCOTUS. 

Yes, like all the Marxists and Leftists that your views closely align themselves with - enumerated 'rights' can be abolished, regulated, infringed and ignored under the pretense of 'reasonable' while other 'rights' can be created out of thin air by justices in black robes and decree by fiat - that natural law from millennia and Providence is invalid in favor of new aberrations and perversions deemed inviolable and permanent beyond the reach of Providence and Religious conscience.

In your perverse world, a court can choose to recognize 'rights' or not recognize them; create rights; or deny rights that you deem 'legal'.

In short- your tyrannical worldview has abolished the concept and idea of "rights" to having made them mere privileges granted by the whim of men in robes and in offices of the legislature.

In your world, 'rights' are whatever men in power say they are - or are not.

Your religious panic regarding homosexuals has no place in the conduct of a business with the GP.)       

Better send your government's agents with guns and body armor to raid my business then, because I have absolutely NO INTENTION of complying with such tyranny.

I will instead resist it - with all means at my disposal should people like you push it to where you and yours will take it.

[txradioguy]

Fundamental right?  What makes abortion a fundamental right (besides you calling it one)?

Does a woman also not have a fundamental right to eat?  Yet a state can place restrictions on what and where she can eat.  Go figure.

So where does that "fundamental right" come from?  Clearly, it doesn't come from the Constitution of the United States of America.  Because if it did, you would have cited it by now.


Amendment II is where the 'right to keep and bear arms' is found.  I don't see abortion mentioned in Amendment II.  Care to try again?


So where can I find this Constitutional right to abortion?  The Roe court certainly couldn't find it.  Can you?  Because if you can't, then you might want to stop lying about how it is a Constitutional right.


You mean rights that are invented out of thin air with zero Constitutional basis?


Not a fair comparison since a State's right to regulate abortion is a Constitutional protection.  So you are effectively asking me to give up two Constitutional protections.


I don't.  No one is advocating that a woman be forced to reproduce.  No one.  And you know that.  Yet here you are lying.  Lying again and again and again.

Besides, once a woman becomes pregnant, she has already reproduced.

Amusing and kinda sad how Jazzy's situational ethics are so strong for individual rights when it comes to murdering an unborn baby...but he gives way to the states right to force someone to bake a cake when it goes against their 1st Amendment rights.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I advocate only for one's individual liberty, protected by the Constitution against encroachment by the state.   A non-viable fetus is within the woman's dominion and control.  Period.  To argue otherwise and then claim one is a feminist is a crock of crap.   

I do not defend abortion, nor do I defend a woman for making a poor or immoral choice.  But it sure as heck needs to be HER choice, not that of the state or hyperventilating religious zealots. 

Surely you know the difference between fact and opinion?

Once again, you bring up the viability of a fetus which, as you already have admitted is a life whether viable or non-viable.

You have yet to state how one can determine the viability of a fetus BEFORE an abortion is performed.  I asked this of you back here
 http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,285911.msg1483331.html#msg1483331 and you have yet to respond.

Since it is a life, this seems to be something that should be 100% certain so murder is not performed, right?

@Jazzhead

[txradioguy]

A Constitutional right is just as valid whether "enumerated" or recognized by the SCOTUS.

Except when it comes to a baker and his religious freedom.

Or a home owner and his or her right to own firearms.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The issue is how to reduce the number of abortions consistent with the woman's fundamental liberty.

And that is where your head is up your A___.

This is about the morality of killing an innocent who has guaranteed rights under the laws of this land for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is NOT about whether it is convenient or not for someone to murder that life.

[Hoodat]

A Constitutional right is just as valid whether "enumerated" or recognized by the SCOTUS. 

So it's not in the Constitution after all.  Glad we finally cleared that up.  I wonder how many posts will go by before you again falsely claim it to be in the Constitution.

In each case - whether it be the right to decide whether to reproduce or the right to keep and bear arms - the recognized right is nevertheless subject to reasonable regulation.

Of course we aren't talking about a woman's right to reproduce here.  No one is disputing a woman's right to reproduce.  But then you knew that already.

The issue here is whether the people of a State have the right to protect the product of that reproduction - a singular life with a beating heart and its very own unique DNA.

A Constitutional right is just as valid whether "enumerated" or recognized by the SCOTUS.

How do you reconcile that statement with the fact that the Roe court specifically allows State regulation of abortion.

No hypocrisy here, sir - I take the exact same position regarding the states' right to regulate with respect to each of these Constitutional rights.  (And, for what it's worth, local laws concerning non-discrimination with respect to public accommodations represent reasonable regulation of the privilege of conducting business with members of the community.  Your religious panic regarding homosexuals has no place in the conduct of a business with the GP.)       

As the self-anointed arbiter of rights, your inability to see the hypocrisy of your actions comes as no surprise.

[TomSea]

Also, that "persuasion" is a flowery-worded cop-out, States have the right to legislate this.

We have "high abortion" states, we have "low abortion" states and we have states that are close to the national median. All of those stats can be looked up and are put out by the Guttmacher Institute which is connected to the "pro-choice" side, maybe even planned parenthood itself.

I'll just go with the two most recently admitted states, Hawaii and Alaska:

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/state-facts-about-abortion-hawaii

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/state-facts-about-abortion-alaska

Usually, they have graphs showing how states rates compare to the national average.  It looks like they have changed their display, however I found this about Alaska.

Restrictions on Abortion

In Alaska, the following restrictions on abortion were in effect as of July 1, 2017:

    A woman must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage her from having an abortion.

And that is good, even if we look at Europe as liberal, if one checks their abortion laws, Germany has a waiting period and I believe mandatory counseling as well. 

In France, there are no abortions after 12 weeks though, I'm sure there are loopholes to these kinds of laws. All of this can be researched.

So again, saying "persuasion", this is just flowery talk, we have mostly more liberal abortion laws than even Europe though some states are making a good challenge of it.

@Jazzhead : I am just saying for everyone, JH is going to speak in vague and general terms if this is like the past, a total lack of precision in speaking of planned parenthood, waiting periods, the government funding the nation's biggest abortion provider in Planned Parenthood, individual state legislation and so on.

[mountaineer]

Pretty sure this topic has been beaten to death, but carry on, anyway. 

[Hoodat]

Except when it comes to a baker and his religious freedom.

Or a home owner and his or her right to own firearms.

But . . . but . . . but that's different.

[TomSea]

I don't mean to use a derisive term,

It's pretty clear, many liberals and pro-homosexual types (and for that matter, pro-Islam liberal types), like to slam Christianity and they do that by supporting abortion. It's a way to slight Christianity and I think we have seen that here before.

[Smokin Joe]

Bingo!  Help her make the right decision.  Support her to make the right decision.   It's up to her - not the state.

Now you're done arguing about what's what, and quibbling over price.

I invoke the equal protection clause for those who haven't aged enough to speak for themselves. Equal protection under the law. You can't shred, poison, chemically burn, or deny nutrition to another adult, I want the same laws to apply equally to the humans who are unborn.

[Jazzhead]

I want the same laws to apply equally to the humans who are unborn.

I know that's what you want, but that's not what the law is, or has ever been.   The state isn't going to lock up millions of women for murder,  or force today's modern women - who expect opportunities in life equal to men - to resort to the back alley.   The religious patrimony you're nostalgic for is over and done.  Women want and deserve dominion over their own bodies and their own lives. 

So what you're doing is wasting your time.   Some here paint me as critical of the pro-life movement. I'm not - their hearts are in the right place.  But the effort they make, and the resources they expend,  tilting at windmills trying to change the law back to what it was when men ruled the roost would be better served persuading and supporting women in crisis to do the right thing. 

Persuasion, not coercion - why has that simple concept driven so many to the brink of madness in their anger towards me?   

[INVAR]

Persuasion, not coercion -

Funny how that little talking point proverb of yours does not apply when you're discussing the imposition of forcing Christians to violate their consciences and produce celebratory products for homosexuals.

In that case you are on record of applauding the state to force and punish those who refuse to do as you demand.

Coercion, not persuasion is your mantra there.

[Jazzhead]

Funny how that little talking point proverb of yours does not apply when you're discussing the imposition of forcing Christians to violate their consciences and produce celebratory products for homosexuals.

In that case you are on record of applauding the state to force and punish those who refuse to do as you demand.

Coercion, not persuasion is your mantra there.

That's just silly.  What coercion?   No one's telling the baker what he can sell or not sell.  He's free to sell wedding cakes or not.   No one's forcing him to sell what he hasn't advertised to provide. 

[Jazzhead]

You're consistent in your argument.  But then there's the issue of that little word "reasonable".

Of course.   I think that requirements to register and insure the firearms one owns - just like everyone does with cars - is reasonable regulation.  Obviously, some here disagree.   But conceptually,  the right to keep and bear arms and the right to abortion are not "absolute" and similarly subject to regulation.   Indeed, the right to abortion is subject to expiration - go too long and the fetus is viable and the state can protect it under the Constitution.   But the woman must have a meaningful opportunity to exercise dominion over her own body before the state imposes its strictures.   

[TomSea]

Anyone who stands up for barren infertile marriages..... can not persuade me about abortion... think about it.  Persuade this.

Also, knocking the religion that feeds millions of hungry persons around the world with missionaries and other workers, risking their lives and often being killed while at the same time, "Muslims are our friends and neighbors".

Persuade this, this is just left-wing rubbish.

Oh, and called the President of the US a fascist.

[INVAR]

That's just silly.  What coercion?   No one's telling the baker what he can sell or not sell.  He's free to sell wedding cakes or not.   No one's forcing him to sell what he hasn't advertised to provide.

Bullshit.  You openly advocated for forcing the baker/photographer/florist to provide services and products to celebrate a perversion that violates their consciences.  The baker does not make wedding cakes for homosexuals.  The photographer does not document homosexual celebrations and the florist does not do arrangements for homosexual parties and 'weddings', yet you openly advocate punishing those who do not by the hand of the state.  Coercion, by the hand of the state to force people to violate their first amendment, and fourth amendment rights, not to mention their right of conscience which you have stated is bigoted and therefore in need of punishment.

Out of one side of your mouth you pine talking point proverb of 'persuasion, not coercion' and in the other to promote your advocacy of perversion you insist on coercion/punishment instead of persuasion.

[Jazzhead]

Bullshit.  You openly advocated for forcing the baker/photographer/florist to provide services and products to celebrate a perversion that violates their consciences.  The baker does not make wedding cakes for homosexuals.  The photographer does not document homosexual celebrations and the florist does not do arrangements for homosexual parties and 'weddings', yet you openly advocate punishing those who do not by the hand of the state.  Coercion, by the hand of the state to force people to violate their first amendment, and fourth amendment rights, not to mention their right of conscience which you have stated is bigoted and therefore in need of punishment.

Out of one side of your mouth you pine talking point proverb of 'persuasion, not coercion' and in the other to promote your advocacy of perversion you insist on coercion/punishment instead of persuasion.

 

Again - no one is forcing the baker (or the florist or the photographer) to provide what they've not advertised to provide.