Georgia anti-abortion bill strikes at heart of personal liberty
Georgia state legislators seem likely to pass a bill that would outlaw almost all abortions once a pregnancy has advanced beyond 20 weeks. (The current legal limit is 26 weeks). The rationale behind the bill is scientifically fraudulent, and its potential impact is tragic.
Let’s deal first and quickly with the ungrounded premise behind House Bill 954, which claims that “by 20 weeks after fertilization there is substantial evidence that an unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain.”
No, there isn’t.
Although a relative handful of scientists claim otherwise — and many of those scientists are pro-life activists — the overwhelming scientific consensus is that the neural connections needed to feel pain do not exist in a fetus until at least 24 weeks into gestation and even beyond that. A 2010 review of all research in that area by Britain’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists makes the science behind the question quite clear.
Now, let’s talk about the practical impact of such a bill.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, nine out of 10 abortions performed in the United States occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Most of those are unplanned, unwanted pregnancies that the mother chooses to terminate.
However, the small fraction of abortions that occur after the proposed 20-week deadline are a very different matter. Many if not most such abortions occur not because the pregnancy is unwanted, but because prenatal testing has discovered serious or even fatal abnormalities in the development of the fetus.
However, rather than create an exemption for such tragic cases, HB 954 cruelly and callously forbids it. In fact, they are the target of the bill. Abortions beyond the 20-week limit would be allowed only to save the life of the mother or “to avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function,” which is a very high standard for a “health of the mother” exception. There is no provision regarding severe impairment of the fetus.
Georgia is not alone in considering such legislation. To the contrary, HB 954 is part of a nationwide crusade to pass such laws. In the handful of states where it has passed, it’s already having an impact.
For example, in Nebraska last year, Danielle Deaver suffered a serious setback 22 weeks into a planned pregnancy when her water broke prematurely. Her doctors told her that her fetus’ lung and limb development had ceased as a result, and that even if carried to term, the baby would be born unable to breathe. But under a newly passed state law almost identical to that under consideration here in Georgia, Deaver was denied the right to end that pregnancy.
When she finally went into premature labor, the child died 15 minutes after birth. This was considered humane, moral and proper by Nebraska legislators.
In Washington, D.C., congressional Republicans are trying to pass a bill imposing similar restrictions on residents of the District of Columbia. At a press conference this week, Christy Zink, a D.C. resident and mother of two, recalled the impact that such a law would have had on her own tragic case.
Twenty-two weeks into her pregnancy, tests determined that if carried to term, Zink’s fetus would be born with half of its brain missing and other structures compromised as well. Shocked by the news, she and her husband made the difficult choice to end the pregnancy. Under the so-called “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” however, she would have been denied the right to do so.
“Its very premise — that it prevents pain — is a lie,” Zink said of the bill. “If this bill had been passed before my pregnancy, I would have had to carry to term and give birth to a baby whom the doctors concurred had no chance of a life and would have experienced near-constant pain.”
Here’s Zink’s statement. Watch it, and as you do, remember that in the eyes of many this mother of two is a murderer because of the difficult decision that she and her husband were forced to make, a deeply personal decision that members of Congress and Georgia legislators want to strip from citizens of this country because as elected representatives, they believe themselves to be more qualified.
These decisions are not easy. Several years ago, Rick Santorum and his wife Karen faced a similar dilemma and took a very different course, as he often describes in very moving terms. They decided to see their pregnancy through to term, even knowing that the child would certainly die once it left the womb. Just as their doctors warned them, their son, Gabriel, died two hours after his birth.
No one should question the decision that the Santorums made. It was their personal struggle, and they handled it on the basis of their own values, thoughts and faith. It is the essence of freedom to be able to make such decisions yourself, free of government dictate.
Likewise, however, I also do not believe it within the purview of the Santorums or Georgia legislators or members of Congress to question or most of all overrule the decisions that other Americans might make in that same situation. It is, or ought to be, unthinkable.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
494 comments Add your comment
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
2:59 pm
You can play around with the technicality of the words all you want, Doggone. I’m not playing your game. You know exactly what I am saying.
AmVet - You cons have got to ask yourself one question: Do we feel lucky? Well, do ya, punks?
February 22nd, 2012
3:00 pm
Are the majority of Republican women as bizarre and out of touch with reality on this matter as the Republican men?
And if so, why do these men not keep their women from getting the tens of thousands of abortions every year in this country that they do?
Well?
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
3:00 pm
“Denying someone unfettered use of your body for life support is not homicide.” – When you sugarcoat like that, no it’s not. But if you tell it how it is, the killing of an unborn baby, it is.
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
3:02 pm
Below, what the Founding Fathers said about abortion:
……………..
Below, what Jesus said about abortion:
…………..
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
3:03 pm
Towncrier — “Those who want to argue that the 9th Amendment speaks to natural rights have the tremendous burden of proof to show why the framers did not simply include a passage in the Constitution securing those natural rights.”
Rejected. The burden of proof lies, as it ever does, on *Congress* to show why an exercise of Congressional power is not overly burdensome or overly broad in its impact on the rights of citizens, even as includes unenumerated rights.
“Why? Because some of the state constitutions already had such language and there were at least 5 attempts to include a natural rights section in the Constitution itself that were defeated.”
That’s a matter of historical fact, but it does not establish a burden on those who would exercise their unenumerated rights. There is no ‘right to freedom of travel’ in the Constitution; we can both agree that such a right is unenumerated. However, it is not incumbent upon the prospective traveler to demonstrate to Congress or anyone else that he possesses such a right before embarking. Even further, if the traveler were unreasonably delayed or prevented from proceeding by governmental interference (such as, perhaps, a Congressional act mandating that black sedans could not travel on four-lane limited-access highways due to the possibility that they might be confused with official government vehicles on official government business), the courts would be well within their authority to strike such a law down as overly burdensome and overly broad. In short, Congress can’t justify laws that are overly broad and/or overly burdensome *simply because* they offend no *enumerated* right.
“So why would the framers implicitly and vaguely speak to these rights when they could have done so in an explicit manner???”
I still don’t see why you think this is supportive of your position. The fact that the Framers *didn’t* do something is in no way evidence that they felt it was unimportant. Perhaps the Framers were wise enough to recognize that a future American society might have to grapple with questions and issues that they couldn’t possibly conceive of. In that light, simply saying ‘yeah, the people have other rights that we didn’t list here’ might be the wisest course of action.
You, IMO, wrongly see the burden as being on the citizen who would exercise his or her rights. I counter that he burden is, as it has always been, on *Congress* to show that the laws they pass are only as broad and as intrusive as absolutely necessary to accomplish their necessary function, and that they offend as few rights in as light a manner as possible — both enumerated and unenumerated rights.
DawgDad
February 22nd, 2012
3:04 pm
“It is true that abortion has been practiced throughout human history.”
So has slavery, spousal abuse, child abuse, child labor, war, and a whole host of other unsavory activities. Not sure you have a valid argument there.
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
3:04 pm
“Wow,,,, Is that the same Towncrier or did you forget what you posted about the Founding fathers? There is a huge discrepancy there.”
Because I was articulating what might be, in my mind, the best pro-abortion argument? I am not at all sure what the rights spoken of in 9th Amendment are – it is intentionally vague. I view it as a disclaimer mainly.
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
3:04 pm
Below, what the law says about men killing an unborn child:
Homicide
Below, what the law says about women killing an unborn child:
……………………..
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
3:05 pm
“So has slavery, spousal abuse, child abuse, child labor, war, and a whole host of other unsavory activities. Not sure you have a valid argument there.”
It wasn’t an argument. It was a statement of fact.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
3:06 pm
Towncrier — “Some might say the same of the AJC opinion pages, no?”
The AJC opinion pages don’t hold themselves out as being objective news, no?
Aquagirl
February 22nd, 2012
3:07 pm
You know exactly what I am saying.
Yes, on a blog about a woman forced to make a heartwrenching decision about bearing a child who would live a short existence filled with pain, you’re saying “But let’s talk about about us MENZ who might be charged for homicide!!!!! Waaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!”
Yep, you are communicating loud and clear. Don’t let us walking incubators detract from the important discussion points, please resume your whining.
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
3:07 pm
Below, what the law says about men killing an unborn child:
Below, what the law says about a man OR a woman killing another woman who happens to be prgnant:
Possible double homicide. FOR EITHER the man and the woman who perpetrated it.
JohnnyReb
February 22nd, 2012
3:08 pm
I’m in on page 6 of this one, so apologies if this row has already been plowed.
While in general I am against abortion, there are exceptions and those in Jay’s piece certainly appear to qualify. Perhaps banning all abortions is too stringent. But surely, today’s laws are at the other end of the spectrum. Babies are being aborted for convenience and irresponsibility.
The position of it being a woman’s choice is disproved. Man has passed a law that makes the fetus precious and worthy of the death penalty to someone who would harm it, while giving the mother the right to terminate the fetus at will with no legal repurcusions. That is wrong no matter how you spin it. Either the fetus is a human with the same rights as you and I from inception or not. It can’t be one way today and another tomorrow.
Perhaps the opposing sides should seek compromise and revise law so that abortions are legal for reasons of health and well being of the mother or fetus when agreed by separate doctors. Procedure is conducted in a medical unit, No more clinics, no more morning after pills.
They BOTH suck
February 22nd, 2012
3:09 pm
Towncrier
“There is no evidence I’ve seen that abortion, as a right, was ever on the minds of Founders.”
Seeing that abortion was legal at that time, do you have evidence showing that the majority of the Founding Fathers didn’t want the practice to be legal?
I ask again in a broader terms, if you can’t find something that the Founding Fathers didn’t write about should that issue ever be made law nonetheless be taken to the SC?
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
3:09 pm
“You know exactly what I am saying.”
Yes, I do know exactly what you SAID. It’s not MY fault you said “abortion” when you MEANT foetal death. Next time try THINKING about what you are saying before you click that irrevocable “Submit comment” button.
Fred ™
February 22nd, 2012
3:10 pm
Aquagirl
February 22nd, 2012
3:07 pm
Yep, you are communicating loud and clear. Don’t let us walking incubators detract from the important discussion points, please resume your whining.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I dunno why josef doesn’t like you, I find your directness refreshing even, (maybe especially), when I don’t agree with you. I don’t remember when you posted something I didn’t agree with, but I’m sure you have.
You usually find a way that is not only blunt but funny as well yet without using all the normal catch phrases.
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
3:10 pm
“But if you tell it how it is, the killing of an unborn baby, it is.”
But that is, of course, a lie from the get-go. Abortion is not killing an unborn baby.
(ir)Rational
February 22nd, 2012
3:11 pm
Pea – You don’t seem to understand the subtle differences, as I was trying to point out to you below. There is a difference in what you have done to YOURSELF and what someone else does to you. The qualifier is if you did it to yourself or if someone did it to you. To paraphrase you from below – you’re either being intentionally dumb, or you are dumb, and we’re all having a hard time discerning which it is.
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
3:11 pm
Adam, and yet nothing if the woman kills her own unborn child. Everything’s a-ok and she’s deemed a hero on Jay’s blog. Sick.
Aquagirl, you’re so cute when you’re angry.
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
3:11 pm
Because we all know if the Founding Fathers never talked about something then IT SHOULD NOT EXIST AGHAGHAGH
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
3:12 pm
“Abortion is not killing an unborn baby.” – Ooooooook.
“There is a difference in what you have done to YOURSELF and what someone else does to you.” – Dude you and I went in circles earlier lol. Let’s just agree to disagree.
Fred ™
February 22nd, 2012
3:12 pm
They BOTH suck
February 22nd, 2012
3:09 pm
Seeing that abortion was legal at that time, do you have evidence showing that the majority of the Founding Fathers didn’t want the practice to be legal?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Really? I didn’t know that. How did they do it? With herbs or with the primitive brutal methods of surgery they had back then?
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
3:14 pm
JohnnyReb — “Perhaps the opposing sides should seek compromise and revise law so that abortions are legal for reasons of health and well being of the mother or fetus when agreed by separate doctors. Procedure is conducted in a medical unit, No more clinics, no more morning after pills.”
I’m still not clear on why you’d think your opinion should have any weight in any abortion decision where you weren’t one of the involved parties.
In short, if it’s not your wife/GF or minor daughter involved, what makes you think you should have any input into someone else’s medical decisions?
The GOP had a golden opportunity during the Schiavo case to demonstrate that the whole abortion issue wasn’t about using coercive state power to influence or make people’s medical decisions for them — and they completely blew it. They simply made it obvious that that’s *exactly* what it was about.
They BOTH suck
February 22nd, 2012
3:15 pm
Adam @ 3:11
Isn’t that the funniest thing you have read in sometime?
Maybe he meant to convey something else. Either way it provide a good belly laugh
JKL2
February 22nd, 2012
3:15 pm
AmVet- And if so, why do these men not keep their women from getting the tens of thousands of abortions every year in this country that they do?
Because the Republicans have the common sense to make a decision in less than 5 months.
Fred ™
February 22nd, 2012
3:15 pm
Doggone: Not really on topic but not far off……… just out of curiosity, why do you use the foetal way to spell fetal (and foestus ect….).
You aren’t British are you?
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
3:16 pm
“So has slavery, spousal abuse, child abuse, child labor, war, and a whole host of other unsavory activities. Not sure you have a valid argument there”
but all of those are now illegal HERE because they violate the rights of a separate person and citizen. A foetus is neither.
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
3:17 pm
What the Founding Fathers said about the Internet:
AmVet - You cons have got to ask yourself one question: Do we feel lucky? Well, do ya, punks?
February 22nd, 2012
3:17 pm
Reb, though I’m sure you see your position as one of compromise, it is not.
Completely legal and accessible abortion facilities are the law of the land. That is NOT going to change. We had the opposite once upon a time in this country, remember? It was a horrifically wrong-headed, impractical and often misogynistic idea then and it is now.
Women are never again gonna be shamed into doing what a small minority of control freak men want them to do.
Look at your pal, Pea. Talking down to Aquagirl, like it is still the 1950s.
It ain’t and we are never gonna let you take this nation back to those times.
Period. End of story.
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
3:17 pm
“Below, what the law says about men killing an unborn child:
Homicide
Below, what the law says about women killing an unborn child”
Then why aren’t male abortion providers charged with murder?
(ir)Rational
February 22nd, 2012
3:17 pm
JohnnyReb – That is no type of compromise, where I give most and you give very little.
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
3:18 pm
“That’s a matter of historical fact, but it does not establish a burden on those who would exercise their unenumerated rights.”
The problem goes to what the meaning of these unenumerated rights are. It is hard to see how the framers construed them to be natural rights if they five times rejected the inclusion of an explicit passage saying so. And the fact is, this amendment was added (almost as an afterthought) to placate the Federalists.
“There is no ‘right to freedom of travel’ in the Constitution; we can both agree that such a right is unenumerated. However, it is not incumbent upon the prospective traveler to demonstrate to Congress or anyone else that he possesses such a right before embarking.”
A strawman argument. What about rights we disagree on? What if one feels he or she has the right to have sex with a 13 year old? There are many historical precedents for that. Why is this NOT a natural unenumerated right? Who decides? You? Me? A oligarchy of nine? Or the Congress elected by the majority of the people? Which of these option are democratic?
Bosch
February 22nd, 2012
3:18 pm
“Rick Santorum and his wife Karen faced a similar dilemma and took a very different course, as he often describes in very moving terms. They decided to see their pregnancy through to term, even knowing that the child would certainly die once it left the womb. Just as their doctors warned them, their son, Gabriel, died two hours after his birth.”
And that really is, at the heart, the ultimate in hypocrisy for Santorum now. Him and his wife made a CHOICE based on what was the best for them — Santorum want to deny others the same thing.
Bruno
February 22nd, 2012
3:19 pm
So tonight, I’m asking Democrats and Republicans to simplify the system. Get rid of the loopholes. Level the playing field. And use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years
Jay–To be honest, I didn’t watch Obama’s SOTU speech in 2011. And while your quote stands, there are an equal number of Obama quotes out there in which he stated that corporations aren’t paying their fair share of taxes. In fact, a deeper analysis shows that everyone will be paying more taxes under his new proposals:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290972/obama-s-class-warfare-tax-rich-budget-larry-kudlow
From the article:
And while it may lower the top rate, it’s going to penalize U.S. firms operating abroad by roughly $150 billion in tax hikes. All in, the Obama budget raises corporate taxes by $350 billion. Just what business does not want or need.
So, for the record, I came back and acknowledged your quote.
carlosgvv
February 22nd, 2012
3:20 pm
If you talk to true believer Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants and ask them “why do you believe in God”, they say “my faith tells me God is real”. If you ask them why they have any faith at all, they say “it is a gift from God”. This is essentially the same kind of thinking children have with the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. Why do so many conservatives let simple little children in grown-up bodies do their thinking for them?
JohnnyReb
February 22nd, 2012
3:20 pm
JoeMama – I and every other citizen has a right to weigh in on abortion because it is not confinded to the mother/father/family. It’s a human rights issue. It’s a moral issue. It’s a legal issue. It’s the citizens of this Nation who should decide via their elected representatives how law affecting the issue should be written. It’s no different than making law that decides if other acts are or are not crimes.
They BOTH suck
February 22nd, 2012
3:20 pm
Fred @ 3:12
“In the British colonies abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10297561
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/legal/history_1.shtml
DawgDad
February 22nd, 2012
3:20 pm
Abortion is not a racial issue, per se, and I don’t intend this to foster a racial argument, but I believe it would be helpful to ask the leftist-socialist, feminist, and race-industry blacks out there, “How is abortion working out for you and your community? Is it advancing your cause, or hurting it?”
I think an honest answer would be it helps individual black women at the time, as a leftist-socialist or feminist would define “help”, but it has prevented a very significant portion of the community from ever existing and contributing to society and the greater cause, even if only by strength in numbers.
Sounds a bit selfish to me, or subservient to someone else’s population control agenda (potentially racist at that), but then what do I know, I don’t have a uterus, right?
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
3:20 pm
“Then why aren’t male abortion providers charged with murder?” – Good question.
Aquagirl
February 22nd, 2012
3:20 pm
I dunno why josef doesn’t like you
Anyone reverent enough to write “G-d” is probably gonna be upset by references to “the invisible sky fairy.”
Aquagirl, you’re so cute when you’re angry.
But hey…at least Pea likes me.
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
3:21 pm
“just out of curiosity, why do you use the foetal way to spell fetal (and foestus ect….).”
Because that’s how I was taught to spell in in school, and I see no reason to change.
Jefferson
February 22nd, 2012
3:21 pm
When the GOP tries to be clever, they in fact are acting stupid.
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
3:22 pm
“What the Founding Fathers said about the plastic surgery:
Bruno
February 22nd, 2012
3:22 pm
Here are some of the other tax changes proposed by Obama. From the article:
“The capital-gains tax goes from 15 percent to 24 percent (including Obamacare). The dividends tax goes from 15 percent to nearly 40 percent, and that’s not including the double tax on corporate profits embodied in dividends and capital gains. The Bush tax cuts for top earners are repealed. There’s the 30 percent Buffett-rule minimum tax on millionaires. The carried-interest tax for private equity, hedge funds, and other investment partnerships goes from 15 to 39.6 percent. The estate tax jumps to 45 percent. State and local bond interest deductions are severely limited. Oil and gas companies get hit. So do banks. And there’s probably more stuff in there I haven’t read yet. (Jimmy P. lays it out nicely.) Paul Ryan’s press release calls it a $1.9 trillion tax hike, with $47 trillion in government spending over the next decade and the fourth straight year of trillion-dollar deficits.”
Sounds like a lot more taxes to me. Yet no spending cuts that I am aware of.
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
3:23 pm
What if one feels he or she has the right to have sex with a 13 year old? Why is this NOT a natural unenumerated right?
Each state has its own laws with regard to age of consent. The federal courts have yet to take this up. There’s plenty of precedent showing this is NOT an unenumerated right.
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
3:24 pm
“Santorum want to deny others the same thing.”
Well, they do have a choice: do what the Santorum’s did, or do what the Santorum’s did.
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
3:24 pm
Bruno: And while it may lower the top rate, it’s going to penalize U.S. firms operating abroad by roughly $150 billion in tax hikes. All in, the Obama budget raises corporate taxes by $350 billion. Just what business does not want or need.
Nothing stopping those companies from depriving the U.S government from that revenue by moving wholly into U.S. territory with their HQ and their jobs.
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
3:25 pm
“Then why aren’t male abortion providers charged with murder?” – Actually after thinking about it a sec…pretty dumb question.
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
3:25 pm
Bruno: I am curious, do you think the budget will pass?
They BOTH suck
February 22nd, 2012
3:26 pm
There were few laws on abortion in the United States at the time of independence, except the English common law adopted into United States law by Acts of Reception, which held abortion to be legally acceptable if occurring before quickening. James Wilson, a framer of the U.S. Constitution, explained as follows:
“ With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States
Fred ™
February 22nd, 2012
3:26 pm
They both Suck: It doesn’t really tell HOW though. It mentions the potions or herbs and kind of hints at surgical options……….. that’s what I’m curious about. The second link mentions the 1920’s but I know for fact (family history0 thta by then they had crude surgical methods.
JohnnyReb
February 22nd, 2012
3:26 pm
(ir)rational – but it is a good compromise. A justified abortion would still be available and abortions for convenience outlawed. Don’t be like a lot of Moonbats who want life without responsibility.
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
3:26 pm
“What if one feels he or she has the right to have sex with a 13 year old? Why is this NOT a natural unenumerated right?”
Because “your rights end where mine begin” – this is not a right, because it violates the rights of ANOTHER PERSON. The child’s.
Jm
February 22nd, 2012
3:28 pm
Jay 1:56
” Enlisting government to act in God’s stead is an entirely different matter.”
We do that every day. It’s called civilization.
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
3:28 pm
“Seeing that abortion was legal at that time, do you have evidence showing that the majority of the Founding Fathers didn’t want the practice to be legal?”
Of course not. As I’ve said earlier, I believe abortion was practiced covertly for the most part. There were not scores of clinics to perform them because unmarried sex was considered shameful and criminal. But this has no weight in the discussion unless one believes that rights in place during the enactment of the 9th Amendment were the referent of the of the word “rights.” That simply cannot be proven.
“I ask again in a broader terms, if you can’t find something that the Founding Fathers didn’t write about should that issue ever be made law nonetheless be taken to the SC?”
My view is that on matters not covered by the Constitution, the SC should refer them to the Congress – as only that body has the authority to draft laws.
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
3:28 pm
“Then why aren’t male abortion providers charged with murder?” – Actually after thinking about it a sec…pretty dumb question
Not nearly as dumb as your assertion that the law punished men for a foetal death, but not women.
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
3:30 pm
“Because “your rights end where mine begin” – this is not a right, because it violates the rights of ANOTHER PERSON. The child’s.”
How so? A 13 year old was virtually an adult in past ages and societies. If he or she consents, where is the problem?
Jm
February 22nd, 2012
3:31 pm
When jay takes this philosophy to heart and declares government should get out of meddling with healthcare decisions, I’ll take him seriously.
Until then, as always, he’s just another hypocritical liberal liar full of pure BS (as bro would say).
Fred ™
February 22nd, 2012
3:31 pm
Thanks Doggone, I figured it was something like that. At first I thought it was a typo but then I saw you used it exclusively so I looked it up.
AquaGirl: Maybe the sky fairy thing IS it. Doesn’t bother me, I’m comfortable with my faith as you are with yours (or lack there of lol).
Bruno: I dunno what thread you are replying to, but keep it up lol. What was the rule Jay made up for WOW on talking off topic? 500 posts/ I have been EAGERLY awaiting the 500……… but since YOU opened the worm can………
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
3:32 pm
“How so? A 13 year old was virtually an adult in past ages and societies. If he or she consents, where is the problem?”
Are they NOW considered adults? And remember, while you MIGHT have the “right” to such sex, if allowed by law, you have NO RIGHT to such sex if the 13 year old does not consent. It would still have to be mutual consent. You cannot have your right TO sex in violation of the 13 year old’s right to NOT have sex.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
3:33 pm
Towncrier — “The problem goes to what the meaning of these unenumerated rights are. It is hard to see how the framers construed them to be natural rights if they five times rejected the inclusion of an explicit passage saying so. And the fact is, this amendment was added (almost as an afterthought) to placate the Federalists.”
Irrelevant and specious. Adam’s being difficult about it, but he’s repeatedly poking holes in your argument. The Founders said nothing about homosexuality, air travel, telecommunications, pornography and a host of other things, but that hasn’t stopped the courts from ruling on them when Congress and the states try to infringe on them too broadly and deeply.
“A strawman argument.”
Only because you don’t like it and can’t counter it, I think.
“What about rights we disagree on? What if one feels he or she has the right to have sex with a 13 year old? There are many historical precedents for that.”
You really aren’t even trying here, Towncrier. There’s nothing in the Constitution about assault and battery, but it’s against the law and that prohibition doesn’t offend the Constitution. Putative rights that infringe upon the rights of *other* citizens have always been the subject of judicial and Congressional review and I suspect you know that.
“Why is this NOT a natural unenumerated right? Who decides? You? Me? A oligarchy of nine? Or the Congress elected by the majority of the people? Which of these option are democratic?”
Why should the rights of others be subject to the approval of the people? If a man wants to smear sour cream and gummi bears all over his naked body and then caper about in his pastureland and howl at the full moon, why, exactly, do you feel the need to have some say in that? So long as the neighbors can’t see him and he’s not hurting anyone else, why does Congress need to sign off on it?
That said, I bet Larry Craig, David Vitter and Mark Foley would have voted for legislation permitting the whole sour-cream-and-gummi-bears thing. Those guys are *freaks.*
I’m enjoying our exchange, but IMO you really need to up your game here. If you feel you need to be constrained by an approved list of rights, go ahead and conduct your life that way. I and many, many others feel that what’s not *prohibited* by the Constitution and applicable state and local law is therefore *permitted,* and I think you should probably get comfortable with that notion.
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
3:33 pm
Jm: Government should be out of healthcare DECISIONS, as in those between the patient and doctor. They are perfectly fine to prevent health care insurance providers from taking money for prmiums and then finding ways to leave the people who have been paying premiums to foot any bill they want to, and to regulate the industry in other ways. NOT individual choice in the matter, but availability of individual choice should be mandated to be as available as humanly possible.
AmVet - You cons have got to ask yourself one question: Do we feel lucky? Well, do ya, punks?
February 22nd, 2012
3:33 pm
Carlin always had the knack for telling it like it is…
“Conservatives are not pro-life, they are anti-women.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qtlvr6LLV8&feature=player_embedded
Bosch
February 22nd, 2012
3:33 pm
“Not nearly as dumb as your assertion that the law punished men for a foetal death, but not women.”
And not nearly as dumb as his assertion that women who have abortions should be imprisoned. All the while whining about government spending.
“A justified abortion would still be available and abortions for convenience outlawed”
That’s the problem Reb, you don’t get to decide what is justified for someone else. It’s precisely what Santorum is doing and he’s a hypocrite.
AT
February 22nd, 2012
3:34 pm
Ahh yes. The no-pain argument. No matter that this is a unique human with unique DNA, he/she can’t feel pain, so feel free to rip its limbs off and vacuum the rest, just because it is “your” decision. God forgive us of our insults to your creation and attacks on “the least of these”.
ITS ALL BUSHS FAULT
February 22nd, 2012
3:35 pm
Its HER uterus she can haul coal in it if SHE wants to. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS
carlosgvv
February 22nd, 2012
3:35 pm
I guess we don’ have to worry about Sharia law being imposed on us anymore. Looks like the “compassionate convervative” Republicans have their own brand of religious enforcement which they are determined to impose on us.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
February 22nd, 2012
3:36 pm
Well, I’m sure sick of this fussing about abortion. Seems like the topic comes up every day.
And it sure don’t look like people are going to stay away from doing the You Know What to cause a woman to get in the Family Way.
So my buddy Jim Earl and me come up with a way to Preserve Life without having a baby. Follow me on this, now. See, we got all these Fertility Clinics in the U.S. A. because the women that really want a baby can’t seem to get in the Family Way, while the women that don’t want a baby seem to get in the Family Way if they just look at a man. So these Fertility Clinics wind up with thousands of human eggs that don’t have a home.
So how about we just give all the men and women that oppose abortion a egg in a little petri dish so they can walk around and make sure it has a good home and won’t get tossed out in the trash? I mean, people could meet in stores and restaurants and places like that just to compare their eggs. And come up with cute little names for them. That way, people could Preserve Life and they wouldn’t have to deal with abortion. And everybody knows this 10 weeks or 15 weeks or whatever is just a rabbit hole anyway. We could Preserve Life from the time a egg gets formed. Heck with “life begins with conception.” Everybody could say “life begins with the egg and is the egg.”
It’s a idea I’d like you all to give some thought to. Now I got to admit me and Jim Earl had lost count of the number of PBRs we had before we come up with the idea, but I think it’s a great way to end the abortion debate.
Have a good p.m. everybody.
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
3:36 pm
“Not nearly as dumb as your assertion that the law punished men for a fetal death, but not women.”
**shakes head**
Bless your heart, Doggone. Bless your heart.
Cutty
February 22nd, 2012
3:36 pm
Pro-Life, Pro-Death Penalty, Pro-Guns, & Pro-War.
Republicans are really confusing.
Aquagirl
February 22nd, 2012
3:36 pm
” Enlisting government to act in God’s stead is an entirely different matter.”
We do that every day. It’s called civilization.
Now we know who to blame for those stupid HOT lanes.
Bruno
February 22nd, 2012
3:36 pm
Bruno: I am curious, do you think the budget will pass?
Adam–I don’t know, but that sure sounds like a lot of new taxes. I can’t see how that will help the economy at all. Given the severity of our budget deficits and overall debt level, raising taxes will likely have to be considered at some point. However, in the meantime, we have to cut spending. Whether it comes from the military budget, entitlements, or simply by making the government more efficient, I don’t really care.
What I do find offensive are suggestions that folks like myself who are at near panic level due to our mismanaged budget are simply Obama haters. The most patriotic thing we can do is to get our financial house in order.
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
3:36 pm
“ With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.”
Good quote TBS. That is added support for those who want to argue that the 9th Amendment speaks to rights in place at the time of the Constitution’s enactment. But I am not at all sure that is the case.
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
3:38 pm
“Bless your heart, Doggone. Bless your heart”
Your capitulation is accepted. I did warn you that you needed to be more careful about what you submit if you don’t want to be misunderstood.
Bosch
February 22nd, 2012
3:40 pm
And I’ll add that I think another thing that is hypocritical in the argument the wingnuts give is their approval of abortion if it is in the case of rape, incest, or health of mother. I dont’ agree. If you are going to argue that you are agaist abortion based on your idea of sanctity of life and such, then there should be no exceptions if you are going to be consistent. You obviously don’t care about the mother in any of the other cases, so why are you concerned if her health is in danger? It’s all about the unborn. And how is it the unborn’s fault if they are conceived due to rape or incest?
Where’s that consistency Pea?
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
3:40 pm
“I did warn you that you needed to be more careful about what you submit if you don’t want to be misunderstood.”
Yeah…I gotta stop assuming I’m talking to other adults. I’ll try harder next time.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
3:41 pm
JohnnyReb — “JoeMama – I and every other citizen has a right to weigh in on abortion because it is not confinded to the mother/father/family.”
Wrong. You don’t have any right to inject yourself and your opinions into any individual abortion decision where you aren’t personally involved.
“It’s a human rights issue. It’s a moral issue. It’s a legal issue. It’s the citizens of this Nation who should decide via their elected representatives how law affecting the issue should be written. It’s no different than making law that decides if other acts are or are not crimes.”
No. It’s a matter of individual and personal liberty, just like any other medical decision. You need to recognize that other people’s medical and reproductive decisions are none of your or the government’s business.
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
3:41 pm
Bruno: As far as I can tell we can cut spending significantly by letting the tax expenditures expire, rolling back or modifying the Medicare Part D plan so that it costs less somehow (perhaps generic drugs and cost negotiation?) as well as getting out of Afghanistan. While that last part wont’ get the money BACK, it will stop it from continuing to flow. We also need to reduce our military spending, which has seen the largest increase over the past decade, back down to at least a much slower growth rate, perhaps with more cuts. Do all that, run the numbers, and then if we need more cuts elsewhere we can talk about that. Before all that stuff we were on our way to deficit elimination in 10 years.
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
3:42 pm
“Where’s that consistency Pea?” – If you’re going to charge men with double homicide for killing a pregnant woman, I agree. No special cases. Homicide across the board. Consistency, right?
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
3:42 pm
“It’s all about the unborn. And how is it the unborn’s fault if they are conceived due to rape or incest?”
Exactly. I have more respect for those who assert “no abortion, no exceptions” than I do for those who weasel around with a list of exceptions. I think the “no abortion ever” crowd is acutely insenstive and wrong, but at least they are consistent. I can respect that, even while vehemently disagreeing with it.
Siloparek
February 22nd, 2012
3:42 pm
Aquagirl… SOLIDARITY! As a woman, it’s always fun to sit back and watch men legislate things that affect women’s health. States have even tried to pass legislation requiring a criminal investigation into all miscarriages! Reproductive rights are really something intensely personal, something that is beyond the powers of legislation and control of man, and my body is certainly off-limits to anyone else’s moral hangups. I need someone to explain to me why anyone other than the man and woman who knocked boots actually cares about perceived life inside a woman’s womb.
Do bible thumpers lay awake at night wringing their hands over all the little dead babies? Does a prolifer shed a tear every time he feels like somewhere, someone is terminating an unwanted pregnancy?
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
3:44 pm
Peadawg: yes. If you’re going to classify fetus death as homicide, then it should apply in all cases. But I don’t think we should classify it that way.
Jefferson
February 22nd, 2012
3:45 pm
Even when the court tell you who’s decision it is, some wrongly think different. Mind your own business. Go fly a kite.
Bosch
February 22nd, 2012
3:45 pm
Pea,
Nice dodge. You are obviously not equipped to deal with such issues. But laws are made because there are gray areas — that’s why there are different definitions and degrees of homicide.
So, answer my question: why do you give exceptions when a fetus is the product of rape or incest or if the mother’s health is in danger? You obviously could care less about a woman — going so far as to say they should be imprisoned, so why do you give exceptions there? Why is it okay to abort if the fetus is the product of a rape or incest?
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
3:46 pm
“Yeah…I gotta stop assuming I’m talking to other adults. I’ll try harder next time”
Maybe you should ponder this: “I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.” (or in this case, wrote) unk
and this one:
“When you’re arguing with a fool, make sure he isn’t doing the same thing” unk
AmVet - You cons have got to ask yourself one question: Do we feel lucky? Well, do ya, punks?
February 22nd, 2012
3:46 pm
For the philosopher Pea and his pals…
If a fetus is a human being, how come the census doesn’t count them?
If a fetus is a human being, how come there is no funeral after a miscarriage?
If a fetus is a human being, how come people say we have two children and one on the way, instead of saying we have three children?
Hat tip George Carlin…
TaxPayer
February 22nd, 2012
3:47 pm
All I knows is that when I looks at something like actual tax receipts for say 2010 and I sees Individual Income Tax Revenues of 898.5 billion and Payroll Tax Revenues of 864.8 billion and Corporate Income Tax Revenues of 191.4 billion, it’s pretty obvious to me who is not pulling their weight and its those corporate persons.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
3:47 pm
IABF — “Its HER uterus she can haul coal in it if SHE wants to. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS”
Best. Christmas. Stocking. EVAR.
Fred ™
February 22nd, 2012
3:47 pm
Amvet: I THINK this one is the next segment to the Carlin you posted (which was still great btw).
Also, did you see my post downstairs about the blues concert at the white house where Brother Barry sings?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDO6HV6xTmI&feature=related
Jefferson
February 22nd, 2012
3:48 pm
Tax, if they have a voice they should have to pay taxes and the bribes.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
3:48 pm
AT — “feel free to rip its limbs off and vacuum the rest”
Banned troll is banned.
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
3:49 pm
“If a fetus is a human being, how come the census doesn’t count them?”
If a foetus is a human being, how come they can’t vote?
Billings
February 22nd, 2012
3:49 pm
Viable schmiable? As long as the left leaves me free to decide who can and cannot make it on their own in society. Those that can’t aren’t my concern. Let them die for want of a better life.
I’ve decided that is fair.
Paul
February 22nd, 2012
3:49 pm
I could get through only about a third of the comments before I gave up.
What happens when people blog? Do they check their powers of reasoning and empathy at the keyboard? I’ve heard of doubling down on dumb comments, but triple down? Quadruple down?
All I can say is, I hope some of these peoples’ moms or wives or sisters or daughters never have to endure what Ms. Zink and her husband did. In spite of their absolutist, judgmental and condemnatory attitudes.
TaxPayer
February 22nd, 2012
3:50 pm
And as for anything that Paul Ryan offers up, all I gots to say to him is that I’m all for it just as soon as he shows us how the unemployment rate is a gonna hit 2.8% and stay there.
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
3:51 pm
AmVet @ 3:46 – If a fetus ISN’T a human being, how can someone be charged double homicide for killing a pregnant woman.
” why do you give exceptions when a fetus is the product of rape or incest or if the mother’s health is in danger?” – I don’t. Consistency baby!!! Consistency!!! Y’all want some f’ing consistency, you got it!
Bosch
February 22nd, 2012
3:52 pm
Doggone,
I have absolutely no respect for Santorum, but that is the only thing I’ve heard him say that I thought, well at least he’s consistent – he is against abortion even for rape or incest. At least he’s consistent in his dogma.
Fred ™
February 22nd, 2012
3:52 pm
Given the severity of our budget deficits and overall debt level, raising taxes will likely have to be considered at some point. However, in the meantime, we have to cut spending. Whether it comes from the military budget, entitlements, or simply by making the government more efficient, I don’t really care.
What I do find offensive are suggestions that folks like myself who are at near panic level due to our mismanaged budget are simply Obama haters. The most patriotic thing we can do is to get our financial house in order.
Yeah Bruno, but you are in the definite MINORITY of pubs who will toss a tax hike in with the spending cuts. Most seem we can cut everydamnthing in order to pay for the two unfunded wars and not raise any taxes.
I say we start the cuts with the blue hair welfare and see where that gets us…….
(ir)Rational
February 22nd, 2012
3:52 pm
JohnnyReb – I realize you responded a while ago (3:26), but I’ve been away and thought I should respond to you. Just because we disagree on this issue, doesn’t mean I’m a moonbat or anything else you could try and call a liberal. I come at this issue strictly from my conservative/libertarian rationale that says I don’t want to allow the government any type of access to my body, or anyone else’s body. I don’t recognize the government’s right to impose someone else’s morals on my life, against my will or otherwise. Morals are personal, and shouldn’t not be dictated by the government.
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
3:52 pm
“Peadawg: yes. If you’re going to classify fetus death as homicide, then it should apply in all cases. But I don’t think we should classify it that way.”
The law needs to be changed either way.