Trump Signs First Anti Abortion Legislation Today

[Wingnut]

Anyone have anything new to say on the subject besides restating their same old posts in different words over and over?

Anyone have a change of heart because of someones post?

Have you convinced anyone "you are right"  and they are wrong?

Do we all have the strength to carry on our mighty task in this thread; or are we just jerking off?


Carry on then.   

[txradioguy]

Marbury v. Madison was the seminal case that confirms that the SCOTUS has the authority to interpret the Constitution.   That authority was exercised in the early seventies by the twin decisions in Griswold and Roe v. Wade.   The former is the key case establishing the Constitutional right to privacy,  from which the right to self-determination found in Roe is derived.   These are both natural rights, by the way - God-given, if you will.   

Like it or not, Roe v. Wade and its progeny are the law of the land.  A woman's right to self-determination is guaranteed by the Constitution, like it or not.   Be an armchair lawyer all you want, and spout that the decision was wrong, blah blah blah.  Your opinion is like your arsehole  - you've got one and so does everybody else.   

It has the power to INTERPRET...not create rights out of whole cloth.  Which is exactly what the courts did when they decided on Roe.  They CREATED not interpreted how the Constitution was written.

There is no wall of privacy.  That was created in Griswald unconstitutionally expanded in Roe.


There's no more wall of privacy in the U.S. than there is a wall of separation between Church and State.

Neither exist in the Constitution. 


Your ability to interpret the Constitution...in a word...sucks.  This isn't the first time you've falsely used the Constitution to justify your Liberal positions on issues.

And sadly I'm afraid it won't be the last.

Liberals have a tendency to see things in the Constitution that don't exist.

[Jazzhead]

You are incapable of engaging in a civil dialogue, txradioguy.  Probably why two wives left you.   

This has nothing to do with me "sucking" at interpreting the Constitution.   The SCOTUS has the authority to do so, and its decision guarantees that the state cannot force a woman to be an incubator against her will.   I recognize that reality and that it's not going to change because women aren't going to tolerate the loss of their liberty. 

Now it's more complicated than that, I realize -  the state can and will, even under Roe,  regulate and even ban abortion once the pregnancy is far enough along.  But every woman must have a meaningful and reasonable opportunity to decide FOR HERSELF whether to carry a pregnancy to term.   That's part and parcel of her most precious natural rights of privacy and self-determination.   Of course, you're not a woman and will never have to bear the pain and burden of pregnancy and childbirth.   I am sick of turds like yourself that want "rights for me but not for thee".   

[Bigun]

Marbury v. Madison was the seminal case that confirms that the SCOTUS has the authority to interpret the Constitution.   That authority was exercised in the early seventies by the twin decisions in Griswold and Roe v. Wade.   The former is the key case establishing the Constitutional right to privacy,  from which the right to self-determination found in Roe is derived.   These are both natural rights, by the way - God-given, if you will.   

Like it or not, Roe v. Wade and its progeny are the law of the land.  A woman's right to self-determination is guaranteed by the Constitution, like it or not.   Be an armchair lawyer all you want, and spout that the decision was wrong, blah blah blah.  Your opinion is like your arsehole  - you've got one and so does everybody else.   

Good God!!! 

[txradioguy]

You are incapable of engaging in a civil dialogue, txradioguy.  Probably why two wives left you.

Ad hominem...the last refuge of people with no intelligent leg to stand on.   

This has nothing to do with me "sucking" at interpreting the Constitution.   The SCOTUS has the authority to do so, and its decision guarantees that the state cannot force a woman to be an incubator against her will.

The SCOTUS does NOT have the authority to create law out of whole cloth.  You are falsely claiming that it does.

Now it's more complicated than that, I realize -  the state can and will, even under Roe,  regulate and even ban abortion once the pregnancy is far enough along.  But every woman must have a meaningful and reasonable opportunity to decide FOR HERSELF whether to carry a pregnancy to term.   That's part and parcel of her most precious natural rights of privacy and self-determination.   

And what about the natural rights of the baby?  Hmmm when do those come into play? 

And again this is a question you've never answered...why do you absolve the women of ANY responsibility for getting pregnant...place it all on the man...yet do the exact polar opposite when it comes to killing the baby?

I am sick of turds like yourself that want "rights for me but not for thee".

I'm not the turd denying the "natural rights" of a baby before it ever gets the chance to succeed in life.

You're the one supporting imposition of Imperial...Federal unconstitutional mandates onto states that don't want them and shouldn't have to accept them if they don't want to.

Of course, you're not a woman and will never have to bear the pain and burden of pregnancy and childbirth. 

And neither are you.  So WTF exactly gives you the right to pontificate on and pass judgment on people that detest your willful and wanton support and defense of murder?

By your own words you have no right to weigh in on this subject either.

[MOD3]

@Jazzhead.

Stop with the personal insults.
If you cannot be civil don't post.
No further warnings will be given.

[Hoodat]

This has nothing to do with me "sucking" at interpreting the Constitution.   The SCOTUS has the authority to do so, and its decision guarantees that the state cannot force a woman to be an incubator against her will.

Ah, so it didn't come from the Constitution after all, but was the dictate of the Supreme Court.  Glad we finally got that cleared up.

So now we're back to you siding with tyranny - the Constitution be damned.

[TomSea]

One would not have Supreme Court judges themselves saying certain issues, abortion and so on are not in the Constitution.

[chae]

@txradioguy

It's funny that JH tells you that you don't get an opinion because you're a man, and then tells at least 3 women here that their opinion is wrong. 

[TomSea]

Respectfully, when someone speaks, it sounds like he is from one of the Eastern Abortion Havens, NJ, NY have astronomic abortion rates and what sends them so high is the black abortion rate; so if this sounds like something to champion, blacks 5 times more likely to be aborted than a white child, that's sad.

And of course, all of those abortions are wrong but it is a real problem in the black community.

--------

Supreme Court Judges write themselves, some decisions are NOT to be found in the Constitution, that is what that one judge said in the dissent I posted yesterday.

One poster has been harping over and over, in the Constitution, well, it's in the Constitution for states to legislate against abortion as well. This poster's arguments are not that strong.

[truth_seeker]

Respectfully, when someone speaks, it sounds like he is from one of the Eastern Abortion Havens, NJ, NY have astronomic abortion rates and what sends them so high is the black abortion rate; so if this sounds like something to champion, blacks 5 times more likely to be aborted than a white child, that's sad.

And of course, all of those abortions are wrong but it is a real problem in the black community.

--------

Changing the subject somewhat, "According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of all homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites,.."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States

Black culture is violent, and life means little.  They skew statistics very much when ever they are present in significant numbers.

[r9etb]

Respectfully, when someone speaks, it sounds like he is from one of the Eastern Abortion Havens, NJ, NY have astronomic abortion rates and what sends them so high is the black abortion rate; so if this sounds like something to champion, blacks 5 times more likely to be aborted than a white child, that's sad.

And of course, all of those abortions are wrong but it is a real problem in the black community.

Hideously true. In NYC, more black babies are aborted than born. 

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/nov/25/cynthia-meyer/cynthia-meyer-says-more-black-babies-are-aborted-n/


Margaret Sanger is smiling in hell.

[TomSea]

Hideously true. In NYC, more black babies are aborted than born. 

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/nov/25/cynthia-meyer/cynthia-meyer-says-more-black-babies-are-aborted-n/


Margaret Sanger is smiling in hell.

Sometimes, when these things are being defended; one needs to talk about reality and what is being defended. One often sees an abortion march or those who promoted abortion prior to 1973; but whom suffers from it the most are minorities. 

Clearly all abortions are wrong; but that always sticks out at me.

Most Planned Parenthood clinics are in minority communities and so on. When, however one wants to label the pro-choice argument is brought up; I think this is a proper response.

[r9etb]

Black culture is violent, and life means little.  They skew statistics very much when ever they are present in significant numbers.

I'd modify that just a bit to, "Fatherless culture is violent..."

It's not the fact that they're black, except by happenstance.  The real issue is an inner-city culture that has been functionally without fathers and intact families for generations.  The dysfunction is due to the collapse of the two-parent family, and the lack of fathers' influence;  not the race of the families involved.  The presence of an involved father is crucial for both girls and boys.

There's a tremendous amount of research on this, with agreement across the political spectrum.

[Jazzhead]

So now we're back to you siding with tyranny - the Constitution be damned.

I'm siding with personal liberty - and the Constitution is with me.   

How can it be "tyranny" to favor personal liberty and self-determination?   The tyranny I oppose is the tyranny of the majority.  Religious zealots have no right to force a woman to reproduce,  thank God and thank the Constitution.   

[Bigun]

I'd modify that just a bit to, "Fatherless culture is violent..."

It's not the fact that they're black, except by happenstance.  The real issue is an inner-city culture that has been functionally without fathers and intact families for generations.  The dysfunction is due to the collapse of the two-parent family, and the lack of fathers' influence;  not the race of the families involved.  The presence of an involved father is crucial for both girls and boys.

There's a tremendous amount of research on this, with agreement across the political spectrum.

And where does that fatherless culture come from? 

[Jazzhead]

And where does that fatherless culture come from?

Hard to say,  but one factor may be the prevalence of social welfare programs that provide the means for a single mother to tell an abusive partner to skedaddle.   

[TomSea]

I'm siding with personal liberty - and the Constitution is with me.   

How can it be "tyranny" to favor personal liberty and self-determination?   The tyranny I oppose is the tyranny of the majority.  Religious zealots have no right to force a woman to reproduce,  thank God and thank the Constitution.

Once again, Jazzhead calls the Founding Fathers "religious zealots", they drew up the Constitution; and a good case can be made they drew it up with Christian values in mind.

JH basically repeats himself.

I am not for the genocide of black youth.

The Constitution also has shown that States have a right to legislate against abortion as their are a number of states where their right to persuade against abortion is upheld. That is Constitutional; hence, states like Missouri and others have only one clinic in the whole state where abortion is available.

[txradioguy]

And where does that fatherless culture come from?

LBJ and the Great Society.

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy

It's funny that JH tells you that you don't get an opinion because you're a man, and then tells at least 3 women here that their opinion is wrong.

@chae yeah I noticed that too.

Ironic isn't it?

[TomSea]

LBJ and the Great Society.

That's right, those kinds of programs are blamed.

[Mod2]

Changing the subject somewhat, "According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of all homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites,.."

Black culture is violent, and life means little.  They skew statistics very much when ever they are present in significant numbers.

We'd prefer that posters stay on topic.

[Wingnut]

LBJ and the Great Society.

Rarely can you pinpoint an exact point in time when one action  started it all rolling down hill...

But that SOB Johnson is the exception to the rule.

Liberals will never admit it though.

[r9etb]

And where does that fatherless culture come from?

I hope you're not suggesting that it's an intrinsic "black thing."

You can see the same dynamic at work in any demographic - black, white, Hispanic, American Indian. 

The collapse of marriage and the two-parent family is the primary discriminator for poverty, crime, teen pregnancy, educational achievement, and various other social ills -- all of which feed back on the next generation and make the problem worse and more concentrated.  (Charles Murray's book, Coming Apart deals with it quite rather well.)

I think the fact that it's concentrated among blacks in the inner city has its roots in their particularly difficult history, and a culture that was already vulnerable.  The combination of poverty and the unintended consequences of the Welfare State would have taken hold there first.

[Bigun]

Hard to say,  but one factor may be the prevalence of social welfare programs that provide the means for a single mother to tell an abusive partner to skedaddle.

Didn't exist prior to 1964!