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
Mick
February 22nd, 2012
12:15 pm
I’ll say it again, “they make themselves gods”…
USinUK
February 22nd, 2012
12:15 pm
but, no, we don’t need to worry about the GOP overturning Roe V. Wade … that’s not on their agenda …
oy.
F. Sinkwich
February 22nd, 2012
12:16 pm
So what?
States have the authority to this.
Don’t like it?
Move.
Normal
February 22nd, 2012
12:16 pm
I’m sure that this bill will bring jobs to Georgia, right?
Steve
February 22nd, 2012
12:17 pm
This thread is going to bring out the religious nut jobs…I gah-rohn-tee.
USinUK
February 22nd, 2012
12:18 pm
Steve – “This thread is going to bring out the religious nut jobs…I gah-rohn-tee.”
you mean bring them up from downstairs
jm
February 22nd, 2012
12:18 pm
Jay’s brain may need an ultrasound.
In all seriousness, 26 weeks seems fine, no need to move it to 20 weeks.
F. Sinkwich
February 22nd, 2012
12:18 pm
“but, no, we don’t need to worry about the GOP overturning Roe V. Wade … that’s not on their agenda …”
Overturning R v W will not make abortions illegal.
I guess you didn’t know that.
Happy to clear that up for you!
carlosgvv
February 22nd, 2012
12:19 pm
A supprising number of pregancies end in natural miscarriges. And yet, if a woman elects to have an abortion, these people charge her with murder. In fact, people not only have miscarrages, they have heart attacks, strokes, fatal tumors and lingering painful illnesses. At the same time, most Americans insist their politicians publicly worship the “God of love” who is directly responsible for these miscarriges and all this other pain and suffering. And then they wonder why this country is in such a mess.
jm
February 22nd, 2012
12:20 pm
The economy folks……. the economy. Focus. On. The. Economy.
Jay
February 22nd, 2012
12:23 pm
That’s a spectacularly silly position to take, Sinkwich.
Citizens have two choices: Stay quiet or move? That’s just nuts.
scrappy
February 22nd, 2012
12:23 pm
“Don’t like it?
Move.”
NO, we will do everything in our power to educate others about the side effects of these types of laws & try to prevent them from becoming law. Moving is not the action, being outspoken and voting are.
USinUK
February 22nd, 2012
12:25 pm
“Overturning R v W will not make abortions illegal.”
no, but it will open the door for states to do so.
USinUK
February 22nd, 2012
12:25 pm
“That’s a spectacularly silly position to take, Sinkwich.”
consider the source
Steve
February 22nd, 2012
12:26 pm
I don’t want to move. I live in the USA, not the country of Georgia.
Normal
February 22nd, 2012
12:27 pm
“Citizens have two choices: Stay quiet or move? That’s just nuts.”
Jay,
Sounds like Communism, don’t it?
USinUK
February 22nd, 2012
12:27 pm
well said, Steve!
Mr. Snarky
February 22nd, 2012
12:27 pm
F. – Don’t like Obama’s policies?
Get the hell out!
You won’t be missed.
ty webb
February 22nd, 2012
12:28 pm
seems someone doesn’t know what communism is?…you’re not aloud to “move” out of communist states.
Jay
February 22nd, 2012
12:28 pm
There is no realistic question: If Roe v Wade is overturned, congressional Republicans will move immediately to ban the practice nationwide.
As proof, every one of the GOP presidential candidates has endorsed a federal Human Life Amendment that if enacted would outlaw abortion nationwide.
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
12:29 pm
I suppose there is not a better place to continue a discussion on the 9th Amendment than here. From yesterday:
Jay:
“They would not have ratified the Constitution without it, which tells you how important it was to them. It was not some redundant amendment that gave Congress the power to change the Constitution, a power it already had been granted elsewhere in the document.”
JHM:
“Those unemumerated rights exist *independent* of any Congressional legislation pertaining to them, and given the judicial branch’s express power to act as a check on Congress, there’s no justification whatsoever for claiming that the courts have to stand aside on the question of rights until Congress acts. SCOTUS can and has acted *ahead* of Congress in essentially saying ‘there’s a new right here, and you are not to intrude upon it, save in narrowly defined and specifically justifiable circumstances.Trusting the defense of our rights to Congress is a notably bad idea, and that’s why there’s a judicial branch in the first place.”
I believe the 9th Amendment pertains to rights and not powers (which the 10th already does). However, it cannot be known with any degree of certainty what rights are being referred to – state’s rights, individual’s rights or simply some “other” rights. Those, like you Jay, 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. 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. So why would the framers implicitly and vaguely speak to these rights when they could have done so in an explicit manner??? THAT is the question you must answer, Jay.
The 9th Amendment leaves the status of unenumerated rights ambiguous. It does not “deny” or “disparage” these rights (whatever they are) but neither does it embrace or imply any specific right (where is the proof of this?).
Given this understanding, the SCOTUS is clearly in my view overreaching to establish specific rights that had not been articulated by the Constitution itself. There is simply not enough historical evidence to suppose that this is what the framers intended. The Bill of Rights were included by Anti-Federalists to ensure that governmental power would not encroach upon them. There is enough wiggle room in Article 1, section 8, (which enumerates governmental powers) to conceive of the government trampling all sorts of rights. That is what the Anti-Federalists were afraid of and something which Madison clearly saw.
As I have said, I see the 9th Amendment amendment as more of a disclaimer than anything, included to ensure that no one would suppose that there aren’t other unenumerated rights that may be enjoyed by the people. What those rights are the framers left uncertain. But to argue that they would have wanted the SCOTUS to decide that is nonsensical. If that were the case, they would have left out the Bill of Rights and simply state that the SCOTUS would have that function. But their conception of the SCOTUS was a far more limited one that we see now. They certainly did not envision the SCOTUS having the power to make de facto law. Look at some of the Founders expressed fears regarding the SCOTUS and you will see what I am saying.
ty webb
February 22nd, 2012
12:29 pm
and meant “allowed”…damn homophones!
Normal
February 22nd, 2012
12:29 pm
These “Anti-Abortions” Bills are just diversions by the GOP to hide the fact that they are weak on the economy and everything else common Georgians need.
Fred ™
February 22nd, 2012
12:30 pm
Jay, Did you get a hint for this topic from downstairs? :LOL:
RB from Gwinnett
February 22nd, 2012
12:30 pm
Is there a Christian with any morals at all left in the Democrat party??
I like how Jay discounts the scientists he disagrees with and follows the ones he agrees with around like a like a puppy chasing a dog in heat.
Fred ™
February 22nd, 2012
12:30 pm
Jay
February 22nd, 2012
12:30 pm
“Those, like you Jay, 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.
They did include such a passage, Crier. And it’s called the 9th Amendment.
Fred ™
February 22nd, 2012
12:31 pm
Ah……. the case of the script DOES matter
They BOTH suck
February 22nd, 2012
12:31 pm
Sinkwich hasn’t responded back because he is in the process of packing………… Since he doesn’t like Obama’s policies he is moving out of the country
Right Sinkwich?
Jefferson
February 22nd, 2012
12:31 pm
I doubt a law will prevent the behavior. So nothing will change.
Filter
February 22nd, 2012
12:32 pm
jm,
“The economy folks……. the economy. Focus. On. The. Economy.”
I am going to take the rest of the day off from work and go play golf. Two comments with which I agree fully. With miracles such as this happening I’m hoping this is my hole in one day. Or at least an eagle or two.
Bill Orvis White
February 22nd, 2012
12:33 pm
This is not about making ourselves Gods by any means. It’s about protecting those without a voice, the innocent. This is why a personhood amendment needs to be passed in all 50 states. We would solve the problem and move on to more pressing issues such as lowering and/or eliminating draconian taxes.
Amen,
Bill
They BOTH suck
February 22nd, 2012
12:33 pm
RB
“I like how Jay discounts the scientists he disagrees with and follows the ones he agrees with around like a like a puppy chasing a dog in heat.”
Guess you never watch Fox, read right leaning blogs or listen to right lean pundits…. They selectively pick and choose science everyday……..
Is that ok or only when it doesn’t fit your ideology?
mm
February 22nd, 2012
12:33 pm
If birth control were easily available and free, women wouldn’t need abortions.
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
12:33 pm
“Overturning R v W will not make abortions illegal.”
Unlike the SCOTUS (an unelected body of 9 person) making it de facto legal.
ty webb
February 22nd, 2012
12:33 pm
we really need a “coat hanger” reference…I only need one more spot for my daily “Lib talk Bingo Drinking Game”.
Jefferson
February 22nd, 2012
12:35 pm
You don’t “play” golf, you go golfing.
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
12:35 pm
“They did include such a passage, Crier. And it’s called the 9th Amendment.”
Is that all you have? What a lame response. Are you saying the difficulty I outlined for those of your position is insignificant in light of what I said?
Fred ™
February 22nd, 2012
12:37 pm
Jefferson
February 22nd, 2012
12:35 pm
You don’t “play” golf, you go golfing.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Good point. Wanna go golfing?
Filter
February 22nd, 2012
12:38 pm
“Is there a Christian with any morals at all left in the Democrat party??”
What an incredibly arrogant, judgmental and frankly unChristian statement to make. As adults are we not able to have differing opinions, different views of faith and morals without going back to the worn out contentions that the GOP is the party of God and all non-adherents to its tenents must certainly be immoral godless heathens????
Such arrogance is astounding and serves no purpose other than to prop up your fragile ego and drive people further away from the party you love so.
ty webb
February 22nd, 2012
12:39 pm
“If birth control were easily available and free”
check that, Bingo!…”free”.
scrappy
February 22nd, 2012
12:39 pm
“It is the essence of freedom to be able to make such decisions yourself, free of government dictate.”
If only we could keep repeating this, maybe our conservative “friends” would finally get it.
This election is a truly scaring me, and as a woman, I feel like every position the GOP takes is aimed right at me and taking away my choices. Well, no thank you.
Filter
February 22nd, 2012
12:40 pm
Jefferson,
You’ve never seen my “game”. I’m so bad that playing is being generous. A better description for me would be approximating golf. Or perhaps a nice walk in the park distributing golf balls to the woodland creatures and the water turtles.
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
12:41 pm
“If birth control were easily available and free, women wouldn’t need abortions”
No birth control method is infallable, not even abstinence…if the Mary’s experience is any indicator.
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
12:43 pm
““It is the essence of freedom to be able to make such decisions yourself, free of government dictate.” If only we could keep repeating this, maybe our conservative “friends” would finally get it.
Am I free to euthanize my grandmother who is senile then? The question is the sanctity of human life, born or unborn. If we could know with certainty if a fetus of a certain age was alive, would you bet your own life on the position it was not before you knew the truth?
They BOTH suck
February 22nd, 2012
12:44 pm
Normal @ 12:29
Bingo………. You get the Gold Star of the day……..
Wasn’t too many months ago that pundits from both-sides were saying that the election wouldn’t be about social issues……. Generally speaking the thought was that the “economy” would be a slam duck to hammer Obama. While the economy has a long way to go, it isn’t the slam dunk it once was, hence the social issues to shore up the social conservative vote…………..
I’m good with it………. It will not have moderates and independents flocking to vote for the nominee if that if social issues are in the forefront all the time. They may stay at home and not vote Obama, but social issues day in and day out………. will not win the WH for any Republican
Jay
February 22nd, 2012
12:44 pm
Crier, the purpose of the 9th could not be more clear. You can hem and haw and try to obfuscate all you wish, it does not matter. The 9th Amendment says point blank that human beings have rights beyond those actually listed in the Constitution.
Now where might those extra-constitutional rights emanate from? The only answer is that they are natural rights, inherent in us as human beings.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence of “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” that’s what he was referring to.
And as Founding Father George Mason wrote: “… all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
12:44 pm
Oh good lord…not doing this again.
“Georgia anti-abortion bill strikes at heart of personal liberty” – The personal liberty to commit legalized-homicide. Love it! But only for women!
Jay
February 22nd, 2012
12:45 pm
Peadawg, I challenge you to listen to Ms. Zink’s testimony and THEN tell me that a law should strip her of the choice she made. Go ahead.
mm
February 22nd, 2012
12:45 pm
Ty,
“check that, Bingo!…”free”.”
So if it’s free, who pays for it? Should the drug companies give it away?
carlosgvv
February 22nd, 2012
12:47 pm
In America, those who oppose abortion the most are Catholics and the Protestant far-right. Both these groups are led by men with serious maturity issues. I wonder why so many citizens allow themselves to be instructed by these immature men?
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
12:48 pm
Jay,
Either make it homicide, or not.
Jay
February 22nd, 2012
12:48 pm
md, as I explain in the post, those numbers do not apply to abortions performed after 20 weeks.
So far, I see little evidence that people are engaging with the actual issue here, and are instead reverting to “Topic: Abortion; regurgitate pre-programmed arguments.”
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
12:49 pm
“remember that in the eyes of many this mother of two is a murderer” – a man is if he had caused it
ty webb
February 22nd, 2012
12:50 pm
I mean how sexist can those anti-abortion’ers be, what with trying to keep all future women from being aborted and all.
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
12:50 pm
“Crier, the purpose of the 9th could not be more clear.”
Really? How do you then explain the long and large controversy concerning its meaning? Just a bunch of misguided legal scholars and jurists who can’t see the truth in front of their eyes like you can? Such a glib statement is not becoming of you, my friend.
“You can hem and haw and try to obfuscate all you wish, it does not matter. The 9th Amendment says point blank that human beings have rights beyond those actually listed in the Constitution.”
Those, like you Jay, 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. 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. So why would the framers implicitly and vaguely speak to these rights when they could have done so in an explicit manner???
Please answer this question, then.
Jay
February 22nd, 2012
12:50 pm
Well, the Ga. legislature says NOT, Pea. So on that basis, I take it you oppose this bill?
Thomas
February 22nd, 2012
12:50 pm
under a law stating that a fetus is viable when it has been in the womb for 24 weeks and medical testimony shows that it is viable, a driver who causes the death of the fetus might be charged with first-degree murder
such a complex question and there is no stance that does not contain hypocrisy
Stevie Ray
February 22nd, 2012
12:51 pm
JAY,
Thanks for a thoughtful article on this issue. What chaffs my butt is the amount of time, effort and our dollars at state and federal level that get consumed by this old argument. The state folks are now acting like kids in the sandbox with this childish vasectomy v abortion arguments. As time passes, we become more like European countries in the area of personal rights and the role of religion. Blows my mind how much effort will go to keep the (predominately Christians) relevant….Membership trend is sloping sharply down…
Stephenson Billings
February 22nd, 2012
12:51 pm
Wow, a lib worrying about personal liberty. has hell frozen over?
scrappy
February 22nd, 2012
12:53 pm
“The question is the sanctity of human life, born or unborn.”
And this where we will apparently forever disagree. Unborn and human life cannot be linked for the entire 9-10 months unless you agree with the ridiculous personhood at conception bullpucky.
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
12:53 pm
“Well, the Ga. legislature says NOT, Pea. So on that basis, I take it you oppose this bill?”
But in some states, it is. I support, in this case, a national amendment one way or another. Either it’s homicide, or it’s not.
Aquagirl
February 22nd, 2012
12:54 pm
Either make it homicide, or not.
Oh, the drama. How about answering my question from downstairs: are you willing to treat your body the same way? If someone else needs it to live, you have no legal right to object?
C’mon, men, let’s hear why you think someone should die because you hold the insane notion YOUR body belongs to YOU.
RB from Gwinnett
February 22nd, 2012
12:54 pm
“Such arrogance is astounding and serves no purpose other than to prop up your fragile ego and drive people further away from the party you love so.”
Sounds like you’d rather not hear opinions that don’t support your beliefs, filter. Isn’t that what you just fussed at me for? Not accepting differing opinions.
Just so we’re clear, Filter, I have no intentions of us ever “coming together” when it comes to your support of the murder of children. I won’t meet you half way, give a little, nothing. What you support is disgusting and I’ll have no part in it.
Jay
February 22nd, 2012
12:55 pm
So Pea, women who seek an abortion should be prosecuted as murderers, then?
The aforementioned Mrs. Zink is a murderer? What do you think, the electric chair or merely life without parole? Have you watched her statement yet?
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
12:55 pm
“are you willing to treat your body the same way?” – I can’t get pregnant, so whatever argument you’re trying to make doesn’t make sense.
md
February 22nd, 2012
12:55 pm
“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.”
There you go Adam…….directly counters your silliness from downstairs…….unless you don’t understand the term “most”.
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
12:56 pm
“So Pea, women who seek an abortion should be prosecuted as murderers, then?” – Men are charge with double homicide if they kill a pregnant woman. What the f*k is the difference?
Ennis
February 22nd, 2012
12:57 pm
To All bloggers… Just make a constitutional ammendment that says gubmnt can’t make any rules that go beyond the castle front door. That should keep the gubmnt our of bedrooms, living rooms and any other place in the family enviroment. Rick’s decision was his and his alone. If Rick even thinks he has the right to make any family decision that involves my family, he and I will take a walk out behind the barn
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
12:57 pm
Sorry, Jay. You’re not going to convince me that legalized-homicide is ok. You can try all you want.
Jerome Horwitz
February 22nd, 2012
12:58 pm
Don’t want an abortion don’t get one. Don’t force your fake morality on me.
This is about men controlling women – remember “If men could get prenant abortion would be a sacrament”.
Jay
February 22nd, 2012
12:58 pm
Crier, they did address it explicitly. It’s the Ninth Amendment. End of argument.
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
12:58 pm
“Men are charge with double homicide if they kill a pregnant woman. What the f*k is the difference?”
Ask the MEN who passed and signed those laws.
md
February 22nd, 2012
12:58 pm
OK Big Brother Jay…….what were you responding to @ 12:48?
Jay
February 22nd, 2012
1:01 pm
md, to your 12:44.
Those numbers do not apply to the bill in question or the issue at stake.
mm
February 22nd, 2012
1:01 pm
OK righties, enough is enough. You are not pro-life because you hate abortion, but then on the other hand support wars and the death penalty. A life is a life.
Abortion is legal.
Killing during wartime is legal.
Capital punishment is legal.
Your hypocrisy is astounding, they you never see it yourselves.
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
1:02 pm
“Crier, they did address it explicitly. It’s the Ninth Amendment. End of argument.”
Then I guess I won it, because you are being intellectually dishonest at this point.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
1:02 pm
Towncrier — “It does not “deny” or “disparage” these rights (whatever they are) but neither does it embrace or imply any specific right (where is the proof of this?).
I submit that your position does exactly that; denies rights. I further submit that your position argues for the public acknowledgement and approval of rights before they can even be said to exist.
“What those rights are the framers left uncertain. But to argue that they would have wanted the SCOTUS to decide that is nonsensical. If that were the case, they would have left out the Bill of Rights and simply state that the SCOTUS would have that function.”
I disagree; Congress’s power is explicitly limited, and nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given the power to consider and then approve or deny putative rights. The Bill of Rights enumerates certain rights that the Founders thought important enough to deserve immediate mention, but the 9th Amendment makes clear that the list of guaranteed rights is by no means exhaustive. Your position appears to be that it *is* exhaustive, absent governmental action, and that position, sir, is much more easily refuted than my own.
“But their conception of the SCOTUS was a far more limited one that we see now. They certainly did not envision the SCOTUS having the power to make de facto law. Look at some of the Founders expressed fears regarding the SCOTUS and you will see what I am saying.”
Perhaps you’d favor us by pointing us to some of the specific language to which you refer? Be advised that three or more links in a post may cause it to be rejected by the autocensor.
Jay
February 22nd, 2012
1:03 pm
I’m just trying to see how consistent you want to be here, Pea.
Again, as someone who paid a “hitman” to kill her own child, as you see it, should Mrs. Zink be executed, or merely be sentenced to life without parole?
Aquagirl
February 22nd, 2012
1:04 pm
I can’t get pregnant, so whatever argument you’re trying to make doesn’t make sense.
Your body can be used by others via blood transfusion or organ donation. People die every day waiting, and no one can take any of those things without your consent.
But pregnancy only applies to women, and that’s different, right?
Keep running, boy. I can smell the dodge and it ain’t pleasant.
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
1:05 pm
“If that were the case, they would have left out the Bill of Rights and simply state that the SCOTUS would have that function.”
There was no Bill of Rights in the original Constitution for that very reason. There were many members of the Constitutional Convention who felt that to enumerate ANY rights would cause this VERY argument.
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
1:05 pm
Screw this. I’m going to FIND work to do now.
Have a happy time getting all hot and bothered under the collar over this, cons.
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
1:06 pm
“Abortion is legal. Killing during wartime is legal. Capital punishment is legal.”
Fetus’s are completely innocent. Soldiers and the leaders that initiate war are not. Murderers are not. Killing in all three ways is intentional. Killing civilians accidentally during war is not intentional. Does that clear it up for you?
Ennis
February 22nd, 2012
1:06 pm
Yes you can be prosecuted for murder if you kill a unborn child. I am a over the road truck driver and I can’t recall the specifics, but several years ago a truck driver was charged for manslaughter of 2 people, 1 a mother and the 2nd her unborn child. That’s a fact, and if I had the time and resources to locate the article I could give you undeniable proff.
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
1:06 pm
“I’m just trying to see how consistent you want to be here, Pea.” – No problem. I try to be consistent when it comes to homicide.
“Again, as someone who paid a “hitman” to kill her own child, as you see it, should Mrs. Zink be executed, or merely be sentenced to life without parole?” – That’d be up to a judge/jury.
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
1:07 pm
“Does that clear it up for you?”
Not if the stand against abortion is taken on the “sanctity of life” platform. Life is life. If life is sanctified, then that applies to ALL life…guilty or not.
TaxPayer
February 22nd, 2012
1:08 pm
Aw, come on Jay! Just because that there little fetus might be found to not have a brain — and hence make the perfect little conservative of the Republicna faith — or have its heart dangling outside its ear or have its eyeballs attached to extra appendages, that’s no reason whatsoever to not raise it and care for it and nurture and love it like it was gonna be able to live uninsured and uninsurable forever. I mean, we’re talking about a viable human life here!
Jm
February 22nd, 2012
1:08 pm
Jay 12:48
Welcome to your blog
Cramer
February 22nd, 2012
1:10 pm
Hmmmm. I wonder what the doctors said about Tim Tebow? They were wrong.
And I find it sad that Jay wants to discount doctor’s opinions because they are pro-life, but fully accepts the pro-abortion doctor opinions. No bias there.
You guys hide behind these handful of heartbreaking stories but truth be told, you are just trying to protect on demand after the fact birth control. I’m sure you guys lose sleep over the possibility that one day the GOP will agree to legal abortion for any of these unusual cases but ban the recreational sex, oops I forgot to buy a condom, abortions. Then you won’t be able to find these 2 or 3 sob stories.
Anyway, these moves are politically based and have no chance of passing. If anything, they may be aimed at steering GOP voters toward Romney hoping conservatives would rather fight Obama than the abortion battle right now.
In the end, you liberal’s kids right to terminate their babies for any reason whatsover will be protected.
md
February 22nd, 2012
1:11 pm
“You are not pro-life because you hate abortion, but then on the other hand support wars and the death penalty. A life is a life. ”
Never ceases to amaze me that folks can compare the most innocent of all life forms to wars and predators………..
md
February 22nd, 2012
1:12 pm
Jay…..that 12:44 was downstairs and in relation to another bogus comment…..that has since been claimed as bogus.
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
1:12 pm
“Never ceases to amaze me that folks can compare the most innocent of all life forms to wars and predators”
A life is a life
Jay
February 22nd, 2012
1:12 pm
Sadly well put, Taxpayer.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
1:12 pm
md — “Never ceases to amaze me that folks can compare the most innocent of all life forms to wars and predators………..”
Never ceases to amaze me that folks claim to be “pro-life” but are, at the same time, pro-death penalty and pro-war.
TaxPayer
February 22nd, 2012
1:13 pm
Never ceases to amaze me that folks can compare the most innocent of all life forms to wars and predators………..
Tell that to the innocent civilians blasted to a million pieces in Iraq.
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
1:15 pm
Psalm 51 – a foetus is innocent?
“5Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me”
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
1:15 pm
“Your body can be used by others via blood transfusion or organ donation. People die every day waiting, and no one can take any of those things without your consent. But pregnancy only applies to women, and that’s different, right?
A woman’s consent begins with unprotected, unmarried sex (a bad foundation for having a child), playing with fire thinking they are not going to get burned. An abortion in most cases is not about saving life; it is about taking life in order to avoid consequences. The only consolation I have presently is that I think an aborted child is better than a truly unwanted one.
DJ Sniper
February 22nd, 2012
1:15 pm
People, this is actually pretty simple: If you are personally opposed to abortion, then don’t have one, but stop trying to dictate what the next person should do. Your situation may be totally different from theirs.
Aquagirl
February 22nd, 2012
1:16 pm
folks can compare the most innocent of all life forms to wars and predators
Where did you think all those predators came from? They didn’t start as sacred egg-sperm unions?
Elmer Fudd
February 22nd, 2012
1:16 pm
Where are those whascally baby killers?
They BOTH suck
February 22nd, 2012
1:16 pm
“Never ceases to amaze me that folks can compare the most innocent of all life forms to wars and predators………..”
Did the Catholic Church change their stance on the death penalty? When? I missed that one for sure…………
Geo
February 22nd, 2012
1:16 pm
“C’mon, men, let’s hear why you think someone should die because you hold the insane notion YOUR body belongs to YOU.”
Try that Bayer pill between the knees routine. You won’t have that “life or liberty” problem to contend with.
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
1:18 pm
“If you are personally opposed to abortion, then don’t have one, but stop trying to dictate what the next person should do. Your situation may be totally different from theirs.”
Of course. It always comes back to this: freedom for ME, but not for thee. They don’t want to be forced to do something, but have no qualms about forcing OTHERS to do their bidding.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
1:19 pm
Towncrier — “A woman’s consent begins with unprotected, unmarried sex”
And sometimes, protected, married sex leads to unplanned pregnancy. My wife and I know this, because it happened to us in 1999.
She nearly died; had she not had an abortion, I’d have been widowed.
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
1:20 pm
“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me”
That passage points to Christian theology, wherein everyone is born with a sinful nature. But as it says elsewhere, where there is no law, there is no transgression.
“But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.” – Isaiah 7:16
According to this theology, though we are all born with a sinful nature, we are up to a certain point not accountable for the bad things we do because we don’t know better. Retarded people may never be accountable.
TaxPayer
February 22nd, 2012
1:20 pm
If a little baby is born with some condition that will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to sustain the little one’s life and the parents do not have the money and no one steps up to pick up the tab and the baby subsequently dies, was it murdered.
By the way, did y’all medical professional Republicans come up with a consensus yet on the definition of conception or is there still an outlier that believes that we’re experiencing global cooling, er, um, I mean that conception has not been uniquely defined to everyone’s satisfaction.
Erwin's cat
February 22nd, 2012
1:22 pm
Aquagirl -“C’mon, men, let’s hear why you think someone should die because you hold the insane notion YOUR body belongs to YOU.”
First explain why you think you have the right to terminate a life that doesn’t belong to you?
Jefferson
February 22nd, 2012
1:22 pm
Until you realize what is your business and not yours you will be frustrated.
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
1:23 pm
“And sometimes, protected, married sex leads to unplanned pregnancy. My wife and I know this, because it happened to us in 1999. She nearly died; had she not had an abortion, I’d have been widowed.”
I have no issue with women getting abortions due to rape, incest or deemed medical necessity. It’s the other 80-90% (if the statistics I’ve read are accurate) that bother me.
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
1:23 pm
“That passage points to Christian theology”
If every word in the Bible is LITERALLY true, then what I quoted stands on it own: we are sinful from conception. And that means NOT INNOCENT. No exceptions.
Aquagirl
February 22nd, 2012
1:24 pm
A woman’s consent begins with unprotected, unmarried sex
Try that Bayer pill between the knees routine.
Ah, the “$lut$ asked for it” crowd is being forced from their burrows.
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
1:24 pm
“First explain why you think you have the right to terminate a life that doesn’t belong to you?”
But it DOES belong to the woman. As long as the foetus is totally dependent on her body, it is a symbiote of that body and has no rights. If the body rejects it, it dies. Period.
JOE Cool-Republicans Call Him MESSIAH, I Just Call Him Mr. President
February 22nd, 2012
1:25 pm
“It’s the other 80-90% (if the statistics I’ve read are accurate) that bother me.”
Bottom line….you no like, you no get!! LIBERTY to choose.
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
1:26 pm
“I have no issue with women getting abortions due to rape, incest or deemed medical necessity. It’s the other 80-90% (if the statistics I’ve read are accurate) that bother me.”
Than…like it or not…you are PRO-ABORTION. You just want to reserve the “right” to see punished those with whose decisions you disagree.
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
1:27 pm
“People, this is actually pretty simple: If you are personally opposed to abortion, then don’t have one, but stop trying to dictate what the next person should do. Your situation may be totally different from theirs.”
Ah, but if it were really that simple. If the majority of Americans pushed Congress to legislatively permit abortions, I could not complain. We are a democracy, after all. But when the SCOTUS makes abortion legal in a de facto way, now I feel disenfranchised. I never voted for that. That’s the rub.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
1:28 pm
Towncrier — “I have no issue with women getting abortions due to rape, incest or deemed medical necessity. It’s the other 80-90% (if the statistics I’ve read are accurate) that bother me.”
Am I correct in presuming, then, that you do not view abortion as ‘murder?’ Or am I reading you incorrectly?
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
1:29 pm
“Ah, the “$lut$ asked for it” crowd is being forced from their burrows.”
Is that all you got, baby?
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
1:29 pm
” But when the SCOTUS makes abortion legal in a de facto way, now I feel disenfranchised. I never voted for that. That’s the rub”
We are not given the right to vote on our rights. We HAVE our rights, it is up to the courts to PROTECT THEM. If a law makes a right illegal, it is the courts JOB to negate that law and return the right to legality.
Talking Head
February 22nd, 2012
1:29 pm
when gas hits $5 a gallon in a few months, we’ll see how important the abortion discussion will be
They BOTH suck
February 22nd, 2012
1:30 pm
Towncrier
“But when the SCOTUS makes abortion legal in a de facto way, now I feel disenfranchised.”
Did you or do you feel “disenfranchised” because the SJC had to intercede on numerous civil rights issues because many people in numerous states did not want to make the right decision?
They BOTH suck
February 22nd, 2012
1:32 pm
Talking Head @ 1:29
Valid point.. Boortz was saying today that social issues are not going to win the WH for Republicans…………….
geesh!
February 22nd, 2012
1:32 pm
being forced to buy a product by federal mandate is a strike at the heart of personal liberty, just throwing that out there…
md
February 22nd, 2012
1:32 pm
“Where did you think all those predators came from? They didn’t start as sacred egg-sperm unions?”
You claiming they are all innocent?
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
1:32 pm
“Am I correct in presuming, then, that you do not view abortion as ‘murder?’ Or am I reading you incorrectly?”
Murder charges depend upon intent, do they not? If one is almost forced to abort, due to matters of conscience or medical necessity, then that is different in my mind from doing it simply because having a child is inconvenient.
Aquagirl
February 22nd, 2012
1:33 pm
It’s the other 80-90% (if the statistics I’ve read are accurate) that bother me.
Yes, I can see why that bothers you….Because you don’t get to shove your nose in there and dictate your decision to the woman. You really, really want that control.
That frustration is visible all over this thread.
JOE Cool-Republicans Call Him MESSIAH, I Just Call Him Mr. President
February 22nd, 2012
1:33 pm
geesh!
February 22nd, 2012
1:32 pm
So you agree ppl who show up at the hospital with no insurance should just die?
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
1:33 pm
Towncrier — “Ah, but if it were really that simple. If the majority of Americans pushed Congress to legislatively permit abortions, I could not complain. We are a democracy, after all. But when the SCOTUS makes abortion legal in a de facto way, now I feel disenfranchised. I never voted for that. That’s the rub.”
Now I see your issue. You feel that you should have a say in what rights individuals have.
Do you feel disenfranchised by the Emancipation Proclamation? Or do you feel better because Congress finally enshrined the prohibition of slavery and indentured servitude into law?
I, for one, don’t think that my unenumerated rights require a multi-year fight and Congressional approval. The Constitution is pretty clear on the point that We The People gave ourselves our rights, and I don’t for a moment understand your insistence on formalizing them via Congressional proceedings.
geesh!
February 22nd, 2012
1:33 pm
unplanned by man/ woman or not, all life is planned by a Soveriegn God, terminating an unborn child is not right…
Ernest T. Bass
February 22nd, 2012
1:34 pm
The rationale behind the bill is scientifically fraudulent
Science isn’t something the religious nuts or Republican specialize in.
Some of them still think the world is 6,000 years old etc.
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
1:35 pm
“being forced to buy a product by federal mandate is a strike at the heart of personal liberty, just throwing that out there”
I’m guessing you’re referring to the ACA. I happen to agree. I think, absent single-payer, that they should have made it a tax, like Medicare and not a mandate to purchase.
Ernest T. Bass
February 22nd, 2012
1:35 pm
is planned by a Soveriegn God,
Which one is that. Zeus ? Allah ?
md
February 22nd, 2012
1:35 pm
“Never ceases to amaze me that folks claim to be “pro-life” but are, at the same time, pro-death penalty and pro-war.”
More like “pro-innocent baby”………and predators give up all rights the moment they choose to take them away from others.
PJ
February 22nd, 2012
1:36 pm
As someone that faced a very similar decision to Ms Zink, I can tell you it wasn’t taken lightly and scarred my family tremendously. The knowledge that the child you were looking forward to more than anything, is going to die is unbelievable.
Then you have the choice to have your wife (mine was petite, so pregnancy itself was difficult) carry a child for up to 5 more months, knowing that it will die. And, if you believe the fetus feels pain, knowing you are sentencing your child to unimaginable pain that will only stop when he dies, should make you consider how ‘moral’ you are. I saw the ultrasound, held my son after he died, and can tell you that I could not sentence him to literally having his brain ripped in half, and then dying.
And I know several people with similar stories, and none of them wanted to lose their child.
Since the tests and fetal development does not show these problems until 20+ weeks, this bill is a complete intrusion of government into what is a private medical matter, and the hardest decision that most people will hopefully never have to make.
And for all the sanctity of life, how do you reconcile that belief with the hunting, war, and capital punishment, which most conservatives believe are okay, if not ‘rights’ on their own? If every life is sacred and only for God to determine when it ends, how do you justify ending others?
geesh!
February 22nd, 2012
1:36 pm
never said that Joe Cool, the point is , if a federal gov’t can tell you to buy one product, who’s to say they can’t tell you to buy this product or that product, who’s to say the federal gov’t then has the right to tell you how many children you can or can’t have. When does it stop?
geesh!
February 22nd, 2012
1:37 pm
Ernest, the God you are mocking is the one who plans life….
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
1:37 pm
“all life is planned by a Soveriegn God, terminating an unborn child is not right”
then why does God do it? Or are you one of those who think there’s no such thing as spontaneous abortion?
TaxPayer
February 22nd, 2012
1:38 pm
And by the way, off topic, Chris Christie can kiss my lily white arse! — Warren Buffett’s secretary’s first cousin’s Facebook friend of a friend and distant cousin of Thomas Jefferson.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
1:38 pm
Towncrier — “Murder charges depend upon intent, do they not? If one is almost forced to abort, due to matters of conscience or medical necessity, then that is different in my mind from doing it simply because having a child is inconvenient.”
I love your legal thinking. You’ve just justified euthanasia and given your stamp of approval to Mr. Schiavo.
If you’re going to say that abortion under one set of circumstances is societally and legally prohibited while the other is societally and legally *permitted* if not outright *encouraged,* then I think you’re opening a much larger can of worms than you expected.
I think it’s much simpler and much more honest to leave the decision up to individual women. There’s nothing stopping your side from *convincing* or *persuading* women to forego abortion, but it seems to me that since you can’t convince or persuade all women to go along with it, you want to use the force of law to compel compliance with your beliefs regardless of adherence to those beliefs and regardless of individual circumstances.
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
1:38 pm
“Did you or do you feel “disenfranchised” because the SJC had to intercede on numerous civil rights issues because many people in numerous states did not want to make the right decision?”
Apples and oranges. For instance, the idea of ending slavery was considered and argued for at beginning. But the practice was left untouched as a compromise in order to get the southerns states be part of the union. THAT was a huge mistake. There is no evidence I’ve seen that abortion, as a right, was ever on the minds of Founders.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
1:40 pm
md — “More like “pro-innocent baby”
Then be honest and say that.
“……and predators give up all rights the moment they choose to take them away from others.”
You are aware that I included soldiers during wartime, right? Are you now calling soldiers “predators?” Am I now such a “predator,” since I served during wartime?
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
1:40 pm
“You’ve just justified euthanasia and given your stamp of approval to Mr. Schiavo. ”
No, I think you have done so on my behalf in your own mind.
geesh!
February 22nd, 2012
1:40 pm
who is anyone to question God’s plan, it is one thing to terminate a pregnancy because it is “unwanted” and natural miscarriages which is a totally different issue…
Talking Head
February 22nd, 2012
1:40 pm
“Valid point.. Boortz was saying today that social issues are not going to win the WH for Republicans…………….”
That’s right, because social issues are off point of whats important right now in the present. Sticking to the current numbers on unemployment, the deficit, the debt, rising energy prices (resulting in rising prices of goods such as food)…and what this administration has done to alleviate these problems and what they haven’t done are the keys to success with voters. $5 gallon gas will be eons more relevant to a voter than social issues, because $5 gallon gas dictates what that person can and can’t do on a daily basis.
Jimmy62
February 22nd, 2012
1:41 pm
A question…. Very hypothetical, but I’m just wondering what people think…
So let’s say that there isn’t a single doctor in a state willing to perform an abortion because they all think it’s murder… It’s not illegal in that state, there’s just no one willing to perform the procedure. So what happens then? Do you force a doctor to do it? Do you pass a law making it illegal to say no to someone who wants an abortion?
Aquagirl
February 22nd, 2012
1:41 pm
More like “pro-innocent baby”
Apparently you have never seen young children steal each other’s toys or bite the hell out of each other. Innocent my @$$.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
1:42 pm
Towncrier — “There is no evidence I’ve seen that abortion, as a right, was ever on the minds of Founders.”
Shrug. There’s no evidence I’ve seen that any given unenumerated right has to be considered, debated and approved by Congress before citizens can exercise it.
Elmer Fudd
February 22nd, 2012
1:42 pm
If a baby wabbit is killed, but doesn’t make a sound, has a tree fallen?
Ernest T. Bass
February 22nd, 2012
1:42 pm
1. Human beings will always have sex but not necessarily want the result of that to be a child.
2. Abortion, condoms, vasectomies, the pill etc etc are all just tools to accomplish that goal.
If your going to outlaw abortions.
1. Your not going to stop anyone from having an abortion. Those with means will go to Canada or Mexico. Those without will use a clothes hanger.
2. Alot more babies are gonna get dumped in dumpsters.
End of discussion.
They BOTH suck
February 22nd, 2012
1:43 pm
TownCrier
“There is no evidence I’ve seen that abortion, as a right, was ever on the minds of Founders.”
So based on this statement should the SC hear ANY cases that was not on the “minds of the Founders”
You must be kidding, right? While very intelligent and wise the Founding Fathers were HUMAN……… they did not have on their mind or could not have the ability to comprehend everything that would be put forth from the inception of the US until today………………….
Thanks for the belly laugh………. You too funny
Jimmy62
February 22nd, 2012
1:43 pm
Of course the conversation has turned to social issues. The Dems know they can’t win if everyone focuses on the economy, so they and their water carriers in the media make everything about social issues. Watch the debates, the mostly liberal moderators downplay anything economy related while trying ask about and clarify as many social issues as possible. This contraceptive thing is a complete and total distraction.
ITS ALL BUSHS FAULT
February 22nd, 2012
1:43 pm
Bush was a rightous man he’s only a war criminal. but hey that doesn’t count in the compansite con world.
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
1:44 pm
“I, for one, don’t think that my unenumerated rights require a multi-year fight and Congressional approval. The Constitution is pretty clear on the point that We The People gave ourselves our rights, and I don’t for a moment understand your insistence on formalizing them via Congressional proceedings.”
Would you not concede that this could become a very slippery slope at some point, leading to euthanasia and who knows what else? In what does wrong consist, in your view?
ragnar danneskjold
February 22nd, 2012
1:44 pm
The death rate in abortions is at least 50%, Even Buchenwald was not so high.
Ernest T. Bass
February 22nd, 2012
1:44 pm
So let’s say that there isn’t a single doctor in a state willing to perform an abortion because they all think it’s murder… It’s not illegal in that state, there’s just no one willing to perform the procedure. So what happens then? Do you force a doctor to do it? Do you pass a law making it illegal to say no to someone who wants an abortion?
This is the kind of hypothetical nonsense that muddies the waters and keeps people from seeing what is really happening.
Geo
February 22nd, 2012
1:44 pm
RIGHT!
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
1:45 pm
“who is anyone to question God’s plan, it is one thing to terminate a pregnancy because it is “unwanted” and natural miscarriages which is a totally different issue”
And how do you know it ISN’T God’s “plan” that the woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy?
ragnar danneskjold
February 22nd, 2012
1:45 pm
All who favor murder in utero ought to try to explain to a 9 year old why it is a good idea.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
1:45 pm
Towncrier — “No, I think you have done so on my behalf in your own mind.”
You brought up intent. If Schiavo’s *intent* wasn’t to kill — and despite multiple court cases, no such *intent* has ever been found or brought to light on his part — then by your own argument, no murder can be said to have taken place.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
1:46 pm
geesh — “who is anyone to question God’s plan”
Who are you to assert such a thing?
ragnar danneskjold
February 22nd, 2012
1:47 pm
But I would make a general exception to my “no abortions” rule, as I favor abortions for all leftists whenever the opportunity presents itself.
Bryan G.
February 22nd, 2012
1:47 pm
While it may be bad that Democrats want to force “charity” upon us all through wealth redistribution, it is much worse when Republicans try to force their “morals” upon us all.
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
1:47 pm
“If every word in the Bible is LITERALLY true, then what I quoted stands on it own: we are sinful from conception. And that means NOT INNOCENT. No exceptions.”
You apparently don’t know the Bible very well. In many (if not most) cases, it’s position is NOT spelled out in a single sentence. That is a 20th century conception of literature.
Aquagirl
February 22nd, 2012
1:48 pm
Since the tests and fetal development does not show these problems until 20+ weeks, this bill is a complete intrusion of government into what is a private medical matter, and the hardest decision that most people will hopefully never have to make.
That sounds incredibly painful, PJ, I’m sorry. But rest assured, there are plenty of men here ready to tell you what to do, but somehow they have totally ignored your post. You’d think they’d be anxious since you’re right here.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
1:48 pm
Jimmy62 — “Of course the conversation has turned to social issues. The Dems know they can’t win if everyone focuses on the economy, so they and their water carriers in the media make everything about social issues.”
It’s not the Democrats pushing the social issues, Champ.
Just watch what Gingrich, Santorum and Romney are saying on the campaign trail. The social issues are being raised by *your* side.
geesh!
February 22nd, 2012
1:48 pm
doggone, you bring up a good point, but I truly believe ones who have abortions and the doctor’s that provide them when they sit before God on judgement day, they will be let known how wrong is was to do so. So whether you love and obey the Lord or by your own sins you are judged, God get’s glory and his plan goes through.
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
1:49 pm
“Would you not concede that this could become a very slippery slope at some point, leading to euthanasia and who knows what else?”
We already have euthanasia. What else would you call it when life-support systems are disconnected?
They BOTH suck
February 22nd, 2012
1:49 pm
Jimmy62 @ 1:43
PSSST……… I’m going to let you in on a little secret, but you can’t tell anyone…….. Ok?
Santorum who is surging in the polls is Republican……. He can’t get social issues off his brain since he started garnering interest from SOCIAL conservatives via the polls……..
Psst: another thing…… It is the Repubs in the stats attempting the change the current abortion law…….
Now keep running with your tired diatribe about the Dems…….. but don’t tell anyone about Santorum and the GA majority Repub legislature
It will be our secret
be very quiet
ok?
You are officially the CLOWN of the day
BWHAHAHAHAHAH
Ernest T. Bass
February 22nd, 2012
1:49 pm
And how do you know it ISN’T God’s “plan” that the woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy?
Good point. Maybe the abortion is gods plan.
He does work in mysterious ways !!!!!
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
1:49 pm
Towncrier — “Would you not concede that this could become a very slippery slope at some point, leading to euthanasia and who knows what else?”
Euthanasia is legal in at least one US state. Did you not know that?
“In what does wrong consist, in your view?”
What do you mean by “wrong?”
Geo
February 22nd, 2012
1:50 pm
It must be an election year:
IF YOU VOTE GOP – more black churches will burn…
IF YOU VOTE GOP – your social security will be taken away…
and now
IF YOU VOTE GOP – your ability to off an infant will be impaired
so
VOTE FOR US INSTEAD [and thanks for not noticing the economy]!!
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
1:50 pm
“You apparently don’t know the Bible very well. In many (if not most) cases, it’s position is NOT spelled out in a single sentence. That is a 20th century conception of literature.”
Actually, I DO know that. It is not ME who wants to claim that every word in the Bible is LITERALLY true. I was just “quoting” those who DO. You have – nicely – just proven my point.
geesh!
February 22nd, 2012
1:51 pm
Joe Hussein, God is, He says it in Psalms, in Job, and through out the Bible.
Becky
February 22nd, 2012
1:51 pm
PJ-I am so sorry for your and your wife’s loss. This bill must be defeated.
Jay-what can we do to defeat this bill? Our elected officials do not listen to their constituents. Any ideas?
Bryan G.
February 22nd, 2012
1:52 pm
And, also, it needs to be clear: this whole fetus pain thing is total bull. This whole thing is about baby Jesus, not baby pain.
Bruno
February 22nd, 2012
1:52 pm
Back with some on-topic comments in a minute, but I couldn’t resist putting up this headline:
“Geithner: Obama seeks 28 percent corp. tax rate”
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/geithner-obama-seeks-28-percent-corp-tax-rate-165554751.html
From the article: “Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Wednesday the current U.S. business tax system is bad for business and for job-creation and argued that President Barack Obama’s plan to reduce corporate tax rates to 28 percent would make the tax system more globally competitive.”
Hmmm–Maybe someone can jog my memory: Hasn’t this been the Republican position all along?? At what point are some of you Libs going to call out Obama on his BS??
Obviously not Fred, the “Independent”, who had this to say yesterday:
“I saw President Obama extend the Bush tax cuts rather than cut of money to the massive number of unemployeed. i guess if you consider blackmail a victory then you CAN lie and say he “did it.”
So, even given a Democrat Congress and a Democrat President, it’s still the Republicans fault that the Libs didn’t have the spine to walk the walk and let the Bush tax cuts expire?? Do you guys ever take responsibility for anything??
Ernest T. Bass
February 22nd, 2012
1:53 pm
doggone, you bring up a good point, but I truly believe ones who have abortions and the doctor’s
that provide them when they sit before God on judgement day, they will be let known how wrong is was to do so.
The problem with this thinking is that is your personal religious beliefs.
However crazy they are.
You can believe the world is 6,000 years old or any of the other crazy stuff in Christianity.
That’s fine.
But don’t push it on the adults or those of us with brains please.
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
1:53 pm
“So whether you love and obey the Lord or by your own sins you are judged, God get’s glory and his plan goes through.”
But that is YOUR OPINION, based on the religious teachings you have been given. You have NO RIGHT to impose them on others who do not share them. There is no law existing, and no law proposed to FORCE anyone to have an abortion. So if YOU don’t want one, don’t have one.
You make YOUR decision, and leave others to make theirs.
(ir)Rational
February 22nd, 2012
1:55 pm
geesh! – So now you’re not only wanting to push your morals on me, you’re wanting to push your beliefs on me as well? You do realize that not everyone consults an invisible (and possibly imaginary) deity before making every decision, right?
(ir)Rational
February 22nd, 2012
1:55 pm
Doggone – They want to make their decision and yours too. They’re not content with making just their own.
Ernest T. Bass
February 22nd, 2012
1:56 pm
Joe Hussein, God is, He says it in Psalms, in Job, and through out the Bible.
The bible says lots of crazy stuff that contradicts the other crazy stuff.
Deuteronomy 22:13-21
1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord. 2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.
Deuteronomy 23:1
If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife–with the wife of his neighbor–both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
And there are a million more.
Jay
February 22nd, 2012
1:56 pm
Doggone, I’ll add that God’s punishment, should it come, would be up to God. Enlisting government to act in God’s stead is an entirely different matter.
mm
February 22nd, 2012
1:56 pm
” Does that clear it up for you?”
You lose the argument cons. You can’t have it both ways. But that is your argument on the majority of subjects. You pick and choose what fits your ideology. A life is a life. Go pound sand.
Your holier than thou attitude has pissed off America.
” The Dems know they can’t win if everyone focuses on the economy, so they and their water carriers in the media make everything about social issues.”
That is pathetic. Your party started this crap and you know it.
geesh!
February 22nd, 2012
1:57 pm
Ernest, I think it’s a tad insulting that you say I have no brain because I have fundemental Christian beliefs. I never once said you had no brain for not believing how I do. Nor am I really trying to push it on anyone either. I recognize we live in a nation where the rule of law is supposed to be followed and that we don’t live in a theocracy. I get that, I’d like to see abortion outlawed but if it is not my wife doesn’t have to get one and I’m sure not going to do anything immoral to change other’s mind…
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
1:57 pm
“They want to make their decision and yours too. They’re not content with making just their own.”
But God forbid *I* should try to push onto them MY ideas of what they should do.
“Freedom for me, but not for thee” says it all.
Bryan G.
February 22nd, 2012
1:58 pm
mm – seriously. 15% of workers are un-employed or under-employed and the GOP wants to talk about abortion and birth control. Ridiculous.
Aquagirl
February 22nd, 2012
1:59 pm
I truly believe ones who have abortions and the doctor’s that provide them when they sit before God on judgement day, they will be let known how wrong is was to do so.
You seem perfectly willing to cut that process short and sit on that throne of judgement yourself. Just in case God needs help with that wrathful stuff and all.
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
1:59 pm
“Doggone, I’ll add that God’s punishment, should it come, would be up to God. Enlisting government to act in God’s stead is an entirely different matter.”
Amen to that!
Bryan G.
February 22nd, 2012
1:59 pm
geesh! – What would say if Ernest told you he believed in a purple unicorn that spreads sugar on everyone? I bet you’d tell him he had no brain.
mm
February 22nd, 2012
1:59 pm
“Hmmm–Maybe someone can jog my memory: Hasn’t this been the Republican position all along?? ”
No, actually your stable of lunatics running for prez have talked about 0 – 12 percent corporate tax
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
2:00 pm
geesh — “Joe Hussein, God is, He says it in Psalms, in Job, and through out the Bible.”
Even if I credit that statement, which I don’t, YOU still don’t have the authority to make such claims.
Jimmy62
February 22nd, 2012
2:00 pm
They Both Suck: Actually the GOP is talking about the economy plenty, but the media is only talking about when they discuss social issues, thus all you see are them talking social stuff. And Santorum is surging primarily because pretty much every single state he’s won is in the heartland. He won’t win the coasts. But that sort of obvious analysis must be too complicated for you.
Ernetss T. Bass- You say it muddies the waters and won’t answer the question. The real reason you won’t answer it is because you would have to admit that you think pregnant women should have choices and not be forced in to anything (I agree with you there), but on the other hand you are fully supportive of taking away choice from caregivers and forcing them to do things.
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
2:00 pm
“I get that, I’d like to see abortion outlawed ”
In other words, you want to push YOUR beliefs on all of us.
geesh!
February 22nd, 2012
2:01 pm
I am not sitting on His throne of Judgement, that’s His place.
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
2:02 pm
“You brought up intent. If Schiavo’s *intent* wasn’t to kill — and despite multiple court cases, no such *intent* has ever been found or brought to light on his part — then by your own argument, no murder can be said to have taken place.”
Well the Schiavo case is not in my mind an instance of euthanasia. Removing the means of artificially sustaining life is different from actually taking life due to a person’s suffering. I am not at all sure Terri was suffering – she was in a vegetative state, oblivious to all. I am not sure why we should be guilty of any wrongdoing in such cases. If God Himself was unwilling to sustain her life, then why should one be blamed for not doing so artificially?
He certainly had intent to kill, but not all killing is murder. Taking a life accidentally or in war, for example, is not murder. I don’t think he “murdered” his wife (in the way Ted Bundy or Son of Sam murdered people).
Ernest T. Bass
February 22nd, 2012
2:02 pm
I’d like to see abortion outlawed but if it is not my wife doesn’t have to get one and I’m sure not going to do anything immoral to change other’s mind…
You realize the result of that would be much worse don’t you ?
Criminalization of abortion did not reduce the numbers of women who sought abortions. In the years before Roe v. Wade, the estimates of illegal abortions ranged as high as 1.2 million per year.1 Although accurate records could not be kept, it is known that between the 1880s and 1973, many thousands of women were harmed as a result of illegal abortion.
Many women died or suffered serious medical problems after attempting to self-induce their abortions or going to untrained practitioners who performed abortions with primitive methods or in unsanitary conditions. During this time, hospital emergency room staff treated thousands of women who either died or were suffering terrible effects of abortions provided without adequate skill and care.
Some women were able to obtain relatively safer, although still illegal, abortions from private doctors. This practice remained prevalent for the first half of the twentieth century. The rate of reported abortions then began to decline, partly because doctors faced increased scrutiny from their peers and hospital administrators concerned about the legality of their operations.
Your wanna go back to that ???
Geo
February 22nd, 2012
2:03 pm
It’s here…
http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2012/02/22/florida-drivers-shelling-out-nearly-6-a-gallon-at-some-gas-stations/
md
February 22nd, 2012
2:03 pm
“You are aware that I included soldiers during wartime, right? Are you now calling soldiers “predators?” Am I now such a “predator,” since I served during wartime?”
Geez, I get admonished for not saying one thing and then admonished again when I do say something…….I said “predator”……there was no mention of the war component.
And for the record, soldiers follow orders…….but we do have a voluntary military, so make of that what you will.
St Simons- island off the coast of New Somalia
February 22nd, 2012
2:04 pm
Thank you Ga Republicans. Do you have an organ grinder, too?
Steve - USA (I support "None Of The Above")
February 22nd, 2012
2:04 pm
It seems like the Anti-Abortion faction is following the strategy of what happened to smokers. While smoking is still legal they have put up so many obstacles to pursue a legal product that it almost punitive to smoke. I saw on the news the other night a State (can’t remember which, Texas maybe) that you have to get a sonogram before an abortion and the Dr. is required to describe the fetus out loud during the procedure..”there’s the spine, there’s the legs”, needless to say the woman felt pressured.
Just so you know, I don’t and never have smoked , I am not comparing Smoking Vs. Abortion. What I am trying to say is that I think the tactic’s used against Smoking are being replicated to make a woman’s legal right to an Abortion an almost unbearable hurdle.
JMHO
Aquagirl
February 22nd, 2012
2:04 pm
What would say if Ernest told you he believed in a purple unicorn that spreads sugar on everyone? I bet you’d tell him he had no brain.
Yeah, what a loon—-everyone knows unicorns crap Skittles instead!
How do people get through life confused about such basic, obvious things?
Jay
February 22nd, 2012
2:05 pm
Hmmm–Maybe someone can jog my memory: Hasn’t this been the Republican position all along??
No, Bruno, it has been OBAMA’s position all along, as Granny has so helpfully pointed out:
“In June 2008 candidate Obama said: “If we could eliminate loopholes in taxes, create a level playing field, then I think there’s the possibility of reducing corporate rates” – Tax.com
And as Obama said in his 2011 State of the Union:
“Over the years, a parade of lobbyists has rigged the tax code to benefit particular companies and industries. Those with accountants or lawyers to work the system can end up paying no taxes at all. But all the rest are hit with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and it has to change. 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 — without adding to our deficit. It can be done.”
And as Obama told the Business Roundtable in 2009:
“… my interest over time in potentially lowering corporate rates in exchange for closing a lot of the loopholes that make the tax system so complex, that’s a very appealing conversation to me, and I’d like to pursue it.”
Billybob
February 22nd, 2012
2:05 pm
still trying to ride the false liberal media template train regarding contraception and abortion jay…..you are an exposed pawn and your silence on media matters and the corrupt liberal media that goes all the way to the white house is very enlightening……….keep talking lib, your ideology is falling off the cliff as we speak……….did you get this directive from media matters as well jay, is that why you have been silent? Wonder why soros gave 1.6 million to npr to grow reporters all over the country………just ask media matters jay………
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
2:06 pm
geesh — “I am not sitting on His throne of Judgement”
If you’re the one articulating what’s supposedly going to happen to others, then you most certainly ARE judging others.
“that’s His place.”
Then I suggest you leave the matter to your deity and trust that he will address the matter in his own way. That said, I don’t answer to any deity and I certainly don’t answer to you.
John K.
February 22nd, 2012
2:06 pm
You know, it really hurts the mood when I go to bed with my wife and the entire Georgia GOP is standing there keeping close watch.
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
2:06 pm
The Dems know they can’t win if everyone focuses on the economy
AHAHAHAHAHAHA
No, silly, it’s the REPUBLICANS who think they can’t win on the economy now so they have shifted to social issues. Watch this entire conversation magically disappear if the unemployment rate goes back up.
Ernest T. Bass
February 22nd, 2012
2:07 pm
I am not sitting on His throne of Judgement, that’s His place.
It sure is.
But he drop hints to you on who to judge doesn’t he ?
Wink wink
Just curious.
Do you believe the world is 6,000 years old ?
I’m just trying to get a gauge on what level we are at here ?
Normal
February 22nd, 2012
2:07 pm
Jay,
You said, “Doggone, I’ll add that God’s punishment, should it come, would be up to God. Enlisting government to act in God’s stead is an entirely different matter.”
I believe it’s called arrogance.
Billybob
February 22nd, 2012
2:08 pm
jay can you enlighten everyone as to the bill that was being disucssed to bring to the floor by the democrats yesterday invovling a man? should be interesting…..
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
2:08 pm
Towncrier — “He certainly had intent to kill, but not all killing is murder. Taking a life accidentally or in war, for example, is not murder. I don’t think he “murdered” his wife (in the way Ted Bundy or Son of Sam murdered people).”
You split the hair exceedingly finely, sir. And despite what you say, something on the order of a dozen different court proceedings found no “intent to kill” on Schiavo’s part, your counterclaim notwithstanding.
Billybob
February 22nd, 2012
2:10 pm
adam,
democratic operative george stephanopoulos started this a month and a half ago……….wake up
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
2:10 pm
md — “Geez, I get admonished for not saying one thing and then admonished again when I do say something…….I said “predator”……there was no mention of the war component.”
*I* included it. You responded, including the word “predator.” Perhaps you should have striven to be more clear.
“And for the record, soldiers follow orders…….but we do have a voluntary military, so make of that what you will.”
I’d like to know what *you* make of it. Are soldiers now “predators?” Am *I* such a “predator,” since I served during wartime?
Rockerbabe
February 22nd, 2012
2:10 pm
This is the latest volley in the war on women. The GOP sees women, not as persons in the own right, but property. Afterall, with property, one does not have to worry about its future, own does not have to worry about consulting property about what it wants, desires or even tolerates. With propety, one can do what one wants because. . . All this new restrictions on women, is just the GOP’s determination to see things back to the 1950’s. What a shame. I will not ever vote for a GOPer again in my life. Their lack of respect for women and women’s rights is astounding and underserving of reelection.
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
2:11 pm
Oh this is AWESOME:
Todd Tanner will give you his gun when you pry it from his cold, convinced-of-the-nonexistence-of-climate-change hands. Tanner, the chair of the new group Conservation Hawks — sportsmen (i.e. hunters) who don’t want climate change to ruin their fun — has challenged anyone to prove to him that climate change shouldn’t be a concern. If you win, he will give you, the Conservationist’s Hal Herring reports, “his most prized possession: A Beretta Silver Pigeon 12 gauge over/under that was a gift from his wife, and has been a faithful companion on many a Montana bird hunt.”
http://grist.org/list/prove-climate-change-doesnt-exist-get-an-awesome-gun/?utm_source=Sightline%20Newsletters&utm_campaign=8a528d27da-SightlineDaily&utm_medium=email
mm
February 22nd, 2012
2:12 pm
“still trying to ride the false liberal media template train regarding contraception and abortion jay…..you are an exposed pawn and your silence on media matters and the corrupt liberal media that goes all the way to the white house is very enlightening”
Easy to see what the rightwing talking points have been for the last week. Dimwits.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
2:13 pm
Rockerbabe — “I will not ever vote for a GOPer again in my life.”
At this point, I don’t see myself ever doing that again, either. And I stuck with the GOP for over 20 years of my voting life.
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
2:13 pm
Biillybob: democratic operative george stephanopoulos started this a month and a half ago……….wake up
Oh please. Yeah, it’s the DEMOCRATS fault that all these Republicans are putting forth legislation like this and diverting attention away from the economy when things start to look good.
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
2:14 pm
“jay can you enlighten everyone as to the bill that was being disucssed to bring to the floor by the democrats yesterday invovling a man”
blogspot.com is ready when you are
Keep Up the Good Fight!
February 22nd, 2012
2:14 pm
Jay, I hope that the Dems propose a bill amendment that says that if parent designates their child as at risk in weeks 20-26 then if born with any different abilities the state of Georgia shall pay all costs for that child however incurred until and including the burial of that person. And if the mother should pass during birth, the state shall pay all costs of the family until each of their burials. If these idiots are going to continue their stupid war on women then let them pay the real costs. My guess is that they’ll squeal about their lack of responsibility.
Billybob
February 22nd, 2012
2:15 pm
rockerbabe,
you need to realize what your leftist dem party is doing to manipulate you involving these trumped up social issues……hussein uses misdirection so nobody will pay attention to ANYTHING else that he is FAILING at……please learn from you mistakes
TBone
February 22nd, 2012
2:15 pm
Wanna see the biggest turn around from pro choice to pro life; when the supposed gene that gives rise to homosexuality is identified then we will see this shift in conscience.
Jay
February 22nd, 2012
2:15 pm
And I’m sure it was the Democrats who put this rather startling statement up on the home page of the Mitt Romney campaign:
“This is an election not only to replace a president. It is an election to save the soul of America.”
John Birch
February 22nd, 2012
2:16 pm
The only lives the libtards think are sacrd are Viet Cong, Boat People, illegal aliens, and convicted murderers and rapists, while the completely innocent unborn can die as long as they’re an inconvenience to mom.
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
2:16 pm
“jay can you enlighten everyone as to the bill that was being disucssed to bring to the floor by the democrats yesterday invovling a man”
It’s ok. They’re woman. They’re allowed to get away with wasting time and taxpayers’ money.
jm
February 22nd, 2012
2:16 pm
dumb democrats. oh yes, and said rules only apply to business, not to government. more dem hypocrisy (that’s their motto)
government is dumb
Aimed at banks, Volcker Rule hits unlikely targets
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/22/us-states-volcker-idUSTRE81L0PZ20120222
Some public agencies that rely on the municipal bond market for financing fear that a landmark financial reform rule will cripple their ability to sell bonds and make it more expensive to raise money for crucial services.
The Volcker Rule was designed to curb the risks that banks take with depositor dollars, a practice known as proprietary trading. But the rule risks ensnaring public agencies ranging from housing agencies to hospital authorities because the way muni bonds are sold and traded results in banks risking their own capital — the very practice banned under the Volcker Rule.
fedup
February 22nd, 2012
2:17 pm
US states did not begin to pass laws criminalizing abortion until the 19th century. At the time that the Constitution was drafted, abortion providers openly advertised abortion services before the “quickening” of the fetus.
jm
February 22nd, 2012
2:17 pm
“This is an election not only to replace a president. It is an election to save the soul of America.”
amen
jconservative
February 22nd, 2012
2:17 pm
” It is the essence of freedom to be able to make such decisions yourself, free of government dictate.”
Nice conservative sentence Jay.
9th Amendment:
James Madison, who authored the Bill of Rights, writing in The Federalist No. 84 – “”It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure.”
So he also wrote the 9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
In short, just because rights are not listed does not mean you do not have the rights.
Do you folks really want to be totally dependent on the Government for everything? Your pay check, your health, your freedom, your ability to think? Having the citizens totally dependent on government is the definition of a totalitarian state.
Bud Wiser
February 22nd, 2012
2:17 pm
I will not share my opinion on abortion any one way or another – never have, never will. Every person’s opinions are their own, and any speculation about another’s beliefs are just that, speculation.
An unborn baby has a heartbeat as early as near the end of the first month of pregnancy, during week four or week five, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. This is just two to three weeks after conception. By this time, the heart is actually pumping blood with a steady rhythm.
So is it a living being then?
Everyone makes their own determination, whether by personal ethics, theology, or political persuasion these days.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
2:17 pm
billybob — “please learn from you mistakes”
I already did. That’s why I left the GOP in 2003.
JOE Cool-Republicans Call Him MESSIAH, I Just Call Him Mr. President
February 22nd, 2012
2:18 pm
You must know the economy is doing better when all the cons start shouting ABORTION, Media Matters, Religious Freedoms, Satan…….lol
Billybob
February 22nd, 2012
2:18 pm
mm,
that’s actual facts compared to some ‘talking point’ that you state, learn the difference lib and keep your head in the sand regarding your radical dems………i love educating lib pawns, it’s not your fault, you just believe a bunch of radical liars who have taken over the dem party……..independent and moderate dems will flee hussein in Nov…….join them
mm
February 22nd, 2012
2:18 pm
BillyBob,
The turnip patch called and it’s waiting on it’s leader (you).
Jay
February 22nd, 2012
2:20 pm
Billybob, you forgot to include “media matters” in that last post.
Ten points’ deduction by your indoctrination leader.
Recon 0311 2533
February 22nd, 2012
2:20 pm
Oh yeah the Holy Grail of liberalism, abortion restricted in any form gets the left into a frenzied rage. A perfectly common sense piece of legislation attacked by Jay and his faithful flock. Pointing to the Royal College of Obstetricians as absolute authority on this issue is royal ignorance if it’s generally agreed that the time into gestation can’t be determined beyond any reasonable doubt, why not err on the side of caution. The left views water boarding as extreme torture but has no problem with torturing and killing life in the womb.
They BOTH suck
February 22nd, 2012
2:20 pm
Jimmy62
I can go to pretty much any media source……. left, right or indifferent and find issues on the economy…….
I can read or hear how Obama has done nothing, how he has done everything and every thing in the middle of those two extremes
You are kidding yourself about the economy not getting coverage
Wake up…….. No one has made Santorum get in the “pulpit” lately. He is rising and he is also talking social issues, hence it is being covered.
Repubs in here in GA want abortion law changed, hence it is being covered…….
Obama about stepped in it the other week on contraception, hence it is being covered………..
Any the economy which impacts us all is some way or another is covered DAILY from all sides and views…….
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
2:21 pm
Face it: The Conservative Propaganda Machine grabbed hold of the conversation once again, and THAT is why we are talking about all these social issues.
Any attempt to place this conversation or any others as something the Democrats CAUSED lets me know that you know DAMN WELL that it is not only WRONG to be talking about this crap as part of public policy, but you also know it’s a losing issue for you guys.
mm
February 22nd, 2012
2:21 pm
Billybob,
i am an independant. And before you convince yourself you are educating others, you really need to educate yourself. Go back to listening to your braincell killing heroes at Fox News.
md
February 22nd, 2012
2:21 pm
“I’d like to know what *you* make of it. Are soldiers now “predators?” Am *I* such a “predator,” since I served during wartime?”
Never said they were……..not too sure why you would draw that conclusion. But no, I don’t see soldiers as predators…….they follow orders for the good of the Nation.
Totally different discussion than those that order the wars to begin. And since there is man and evil in the world, war will more than likely always be present.
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
2:21 pm
“The bible says lots of crazy stuff that contradicts the other crazy stuff.
There is always enough rope in the Bible for people who want to dismiss it to hang themselves. A good example is of this is Jesus’ statement in John 6:53-4: “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.” Either Jesus was a madman or a stupid fool or there is more to what he is saying than what appears on the surface. If one is curious, even if with a willing suspension of disbelief, one might find that things are quite what they seem from a single verse.
Regarding Deuteronomy 23:1ff you quoted (from the KJ version I suppose), what is the assembly of the Lord referred to? It is the Hebrew word, Kahal, which generally signifies a congregation or company of men met together as leaders.
But here is what the Bible says elsewhere, in Isaiah 56:4-5:
For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.
My advice is to not so quickly dismiss things you read in the Bible as inane, for you could be grossly misjudging its meaning.
Billybob
February 22nd, 2012
2:23 pm
jay,
startling? more like truthful…..class warfare, division, socialism, central gov’t planning vs. everyone succeeding on their own merits, free market capitalism, limited gov’t, freedom……i would say that statement is accurate…….the problem you have with it is that you are on the losing side of it, lib……enjoy
Billybob
February 22nd, 2012
2:25 pm
keep looking the other way in regards to media matters bookman, your silence regarding this corruption shows who you are……….your welcome
Billings
February 22nd, 2012
2:25 pm
Much ado about nothing. Even pro-life attorneys say these amendments are a waste of energy. R v W remains until SCOTUS decides otherwise.
There is no more pivotal moment in the subsequent growth and development of a human being than when 23 chromosomes of the father join with 23 chromosomes of the mother to form a unique, 46-chromosomed individual, with a gender, who had previously simply not existed.
There’s no crime in calling it what it is. IT is a human being. At the very least, we can grant human dignity. No?
Bosch
February 22nd, 2012
2:25 pm
It’s always been my opinion, that ni matters of abortion, men have absolutely no right to an opinion. Sure, they can express it, but they have no right to have a say in what a woman does with her body. It’s really just that simple.
And Jay, Peadawg has previously expressed his belief that women who have abortions should be imprisioned. Surprise you missed that one.
JamVet - Jay say no the GOP's plan to bring back the Dark Ages.
February 22nd, 2012
2:26 pm
These reactionary control freaks care as much about the unborn as they care about the suffering Iraqi people.
The only thing that truly matters to these con men is that they will never be satisfied until they can force women, all women, to do what they want them to do.
Which means Republican men are never going to be satisfied again.
And I love it…
md
February 22nd, 2012
2:26 pm
“The GOP sees women, not as persons in the own right, but property. Afterall, with property, one does not have to worry about its future, own does not have to worry about consulting property about what it wants, desires or even tolerates. With propety, one can do what one wants because. .”
Interesting……can’t the same be said of women and baby’s?
ld
February 22nd, 2012
2:26 pm
A decision as to whether or not individual liberty and equal right under law exists for every person born in this country–without regard to gender–should not even be an issue; however, since it seems to be for some, then we may need to revisit the equal rights amendment and putting gender equality into the Constitution– that women have equal right under law as men.
IF the issue were actually freedom of religion, then your GOP right-wing right to believe that life begins at conception is NOT greater than my my independent right to believe that life begins when a new life–a newborn without extreme measures w/regard to medical intervention–not unlike the way it was necessary for newborns to survive when our Constitution was written.
No one should be forced to use contraception or get an abortion (not even that Octomom); however, no one should be permitted to interfere with the choices of others to take advantage of medical advances developed as our society has progressed.
When you, Rick Santorum and other GOP right-wing fundamentalist, apply turn the other cheek and thou shall not kill to our NATION–which now has the motto, “In God We Trust” and not only stop supporting the death penalty but stop funding the military, then I’ll believe you believe thou shall not kill. But as long as you believe, as I do, that we have a right to defend this nation by any means necessary–including bombing that kills CHILDREN, do NOT be so stupid as to think you are any more “moral” than I am or that I believe you are sincere in your faith. It takes more than dictating to your neighbors how they should live for you to be abiding by that commandment, thou shall not kill.
If the standard is LITERAL translation of documents–Bible or Constitution–
use the LIVING standards from the times they were written before people could get the kind of medical help available now–if, of course, you can afford it.
So you, right-wing GOP, actually do STOP taking advantage of all the medical advances to save and prolong life– THEN, but only then, I may be convinced of your sincerity that you TRUST in God.
But as long as YOU choose those medical advances to which you want access and can afford, then everyone else must have that equal right. Neither contraception nor abortion should be “free” but it should be freely, readily available to anyone that can afford it. If there are those that want to start a non-profit to help fund this medical care, they should be as able to do that as you are to have your church or your local YMCA or any and all other club of choice be a non-profit.
The issue is NOT religious liberty, not women’s liberty, not reproductive liberty –
THE ISSUE IS INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY–
either this nation stands for that
or the grand “experiment” has failed.
Bosch
February 22nd, 2012
2:27 pm
And when will the GOP realize that their dogmatic stances on these social issues are what’s killing them?
Sane people really just don’t give a sh*t about things like abortion and gay marriage and that crap.
Get over your pompous santamonious selves GOPers.
Billybob
February 22nd, 2012
2:27 pm
mm,
libs always need a strawman or antagonist to play off of……this is easy……enough time wasted here……enjoy libs
Jefferson
February 22nd, 2012
2:27 pm
The GOP is losing, due to strategy and poor leadership. They don’t deserve the support that get as they don’t produce results.
JamVet - Jay say no the GOP's plan to bring back the Dark Ages.
February 22nd, 2012
2:28 pm
Jay, I think the cons hate Media Matters because they called out the piggish coward, Rush Limbo for denigrating Iraq war veterans.
Support the Troops.
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
2:28 pm
“And Jay, Peadawg has previously expressed his belief that women who have abortions should be imprisioned.” – If that’s the consequence for homicide, sure…seeing as men get charged for double homicide when killing a pregnant woman.
The double standards shown here today are sickening.
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
2:28 pm
“You split the hair exceedingly finely, sir. And despite what you say, something on the order of a dozen different court proceedings found no “intent to kill” on Schiavo’s part, your counterclaim notwithstanding.”
Good catch. JMH. That was the first thing I penned and meant to strike it out. He intended to no longer artificially sustain her life, for which he is not culpable in my view as I indicated in the rest of my earlier post.
Jay
February 22nd, 2012
2:30 pm
US states did not begin to pass laws criminalizing abortion until the 19th century. At the time that the Constitution was drafted, abortion providers openly advertised abortion services before the “quickening” of the fetus.
An important and often-overlooked point, fedup. And yet somehow God still managed to smile upon this country and bring it prosperity and power. Go figure, huh?
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
2:31 pm
BTW, JMH, would you care to answer the question Jay will not:
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. 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. So why would the framers implicitly and vaguely speak to these rights when they could have done so in an explicit manner???
ld
February 22nd, 2012
2:31 pm
The “S O U L” of America is individual liberty.
Find me one person in this country that will openly admit they do not want “individual liberty” for themselves and I will show you a liar and fool.
Billybob
February 22nd, 2012
2:31 pm
to sum up…..republicans hate women and dems love women……..this is the false lib media template that was put forth by george and hussein….good luck getting traction with that lie bookman……pawn
Talking Head
February 22nd, 2012
2:32 pm
Obama’s 2013 budget will increase capital gains tax from 15% to 44%.
This guy is a clown. COTUS
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204880404577225493025537660.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories
md
February 22nd, 2012
2:32 pm
And folks bitch about stagnant wages here, this is what folks get once they pass the point of no return:
“It’s being called the “negative salary”: Due to austerity measures in Greece, it’s being reported that up to 64,000 Greeks will go without pay this month, and some will have to pay for having a job. Numbers in austerity reports have usually reflected figures in the millions, since they reflect industry-wide cuts (i.e. a 537-million euro cut to health and pension funds). And plans of cutting minimum wage by up to 32% is all but a given in the country. Today’s “negative salary” deal—which could have government employees returning funds— reveals the real human impact of the austerity measures. ”
Wonder where our point of no return is……anybody?
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
2:33 pm
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/geithner-obama-seeks-28-percent-corp-tax-rate-165554751.html
“President Barack Obama says the current corporate tax system is outdated, unfair and inefficient. He is calling for an end to dozens of subsidies and loopholes that he says offer tax breaks to companies that move jobs and profits overseas.”
“The Obama administration is proposing cutting corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 28 percent.”
Jefferson
February 22nd, 2012
2:34 pm
The only true “right” belongs to those making the decision about their situation, otherwise its not your business. Those that think they know it all are wrong, but bang your head against the wall if you want.
md
February 22nd, 2012
2:35 pm
“Find me one person in this country that will openly admit they do not want “individual liberty” for themselves and I will show you a liar and fool.”
Oh, everybody wants it all right…….but some seem to want a good bit more as well………..
JamVet - Jay say no the GOP's plan to bring back the Dark Ages.
February 22nd, 2012
2:36 pm
Template…
You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
LOL…
In midst of anti-abortion legislation in GA, Congresswoman Yasmin Neal introduces the Anti-Vasectomy Act so that men can also experience an invasion of privacy | God Discussion
February 22nd, 2012
2:38 pm
[...] Bookman at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution points out that there is no substantial evidence that fetuses experience pain at 20 weeks, writing: Although a relative handful of scientists claim otherwise — and many of those [...]
They BOTH suck
February 22nd, 2012
2:38 pm
Towncrier
See JB @ 2:30
Now what were you saying earlier about what the Founding Fathers envisioned? Since you do know what they envisioned, right?
oopppssss………..
But keep up the good fight……… hahahaha
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
2:38 pm
“My advice is to not so quickly dismiss things you read in the Bible as inane, for you could be grossly misjudging its meaning”
And so could you.
md
February 22nd, 2012
2:38 pm
“Obama’s 2013 budget will increase capital gains tax from 15% to 44%.”
It’s actually dividends, which will end up costing the older folks among us the most in the long run as corps tend to stop paying dividends all together when the rates get too high. 4 out of 5 retired folks get dividends………..
Aquagirl
February 22nd, 2012
2:38 pm
the double standards shown here today are sickening.
Can’t disagree with you there, Pea….oh, and when were you going to surrender control of your organs to the State? I missed your reply somehow. There’s ex-fetuses dying every day because you deny them access to your body. Get busy, man.
They BOTH suck
February 22nd, 2012
2:39 pm
JB @ 2:30
That post will have some scrambling like cockroaches when the light comes on………………..
JamVet - Jay say no the GOP's plan to bring back the Dark Ages.
February 22nd, 2012
2:40 pm
Poor Head. The tycoon would take a merciless beating on his vast capital gains if the Uppity Muslin gets his way…
Jay
February 22nd, 2012
2:40 pm
TalkingHead, sorry, I don’t trust the opinion pages of the WSJ to give me straight scoop on the facts of tax reform. They have a long and dishonest history in that regard.
Show me something from the news side of the operation and I’ll consider it seriously.
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
2:42 pm
“Can’t disagree with you there” – Thanks, Aquagirl.
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
2:43 pm
Obama’s 2013 budget will increase capital gains tax from 15% to 44%.
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! WAH WAH WAAAAAAAAHHHHH
Talking Head
February 22nd, 2012
2:44 pm
Jay,
First, the WSJ opinion page didn’t increase the dividend tax. Obama did, and it’s in his 2013 budget.
Second, If you actually read instead of castigating then you would read that “Who would get hurt? IRS data show that retirees and near-retirees who depend on dividend income would be hit especially hard. Almost three of four dividend payments go to those over the age of 55, and more than half go to those older than 65, according to IRS data.”
Bosch
February 22nd, 2012
2:44 pm
Sad truth Pea, if Mrs. Peadawg decided to get an abortion, you couldn’t stop her from doing it, and if you did, you’d be charged with a whole manner of things.
Spare me your melodrama about double standards when we see them with the GOP every single day. How can they be anti-government intrustion, preach to us about civil liberties and how the government is taking over our lives and in the same breath be for the government to force a woman to have a child against her will?
Bernie
February 22nd, 2012
2:44 pm
What If the Women of Georgia stood up and said “NO”.
That thought alone should give many in the State House pause and nightmares….:)
Give it Time and they will….
just as African Americans said of segregation in the face all obstinance from the Georgia State House Legislators.
Bosch
February 22nd, 2012
2:45 pm
“There’s ex-fetuses dying every day because you deny them access to your body. Get busy, man.”
Or better yet, get Mrs. Pea down to the nearest embryo holding clinic to donate her uterus.
DawgDad
February 22nd, 2012
2:47 pm
First, a lot of abortions involve the “unthinkable”. Want to watch some videos? Second, I reject at face value Jay Bookman’s authority to proclaim what is and isn’t valid science.
Third, we are not debating the beginning of life, we are debating the beginning of what the GOVERNMENT recognizes as life. Two different concepts, just like the government is NOT able to define “marriage” in a religious sense. This is necessary becase the MISSION of government is to provide for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I am pro-life, but in context of GOVERNMENT’s role I am libertarian. The question is whose life and liberty are we protecting, and under what conditions.
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
2:47 pm
“in the same breath be for the government to force a woman to have a child against her will?”
Actually? They aren’t for that at all. Just ask them how they would go about DOING that? You’ll get no answer that makes any sense. They don’t REALLY care that the child be born, they only REALLY care to punish the woman for making the decision to terminate her pregnancy.
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
2:47 pm
“when we see them with the GOP every single day.”
“But…but…but they do it” isn’t an argument.
All I’m asking is to make abortion homicide in all cases, or none. Just a little consistency in the law is all.
AmVet - You cons have got to ask yourself one question: Do we feel lucky? Well, do ya, punks?
February 22nd, 2012
2:47 pm
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s320×320/407997_350751261622809_174612345903369_1069025_1097335828_n.jpg
Bosch
February 22nd, 2012
2:47 pm
“Or better yet, get Mrs. Pea down to the nearest embryo holding clinic to donate her uterus.”
That goes for all wingnuts here who either have a uterus, or access to one — get off this blog and go donate their uterus for these embryos and poor unwanted fetuses, or go down to the nearest DFACS office and pick up a foster kid.
Otherwise, stfu about your faux concern.
Talking Head
February 22nd, 2012
2:47 pm
If Obama wants everything to be fair, then he should eliminate the dividend tax. The dividend payout has already been taxed once.
So it’s becoming clear that Obama has it out for the elderly in our country. He took $500 billion away from Medicare to pay for his healthcare law, he’s currently taking away from SS to pay for a $40 payroll tax cut, and he’s planning on reducing the income of elderly citizens with higher dividend taxes.
JKL2
February 22nd, 2012
2:48 pm
-Jay
Does this mean all the Demwits getting abortions couldn’t figure out within the 5 MONTHS that they had been victims of rape or incest?
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
2:49 pm
“An important and often-overlooked point, fedup. And yet somehow God still managed to smile upon this country and bring it prosperity and power. Go figure, huh?”
I hardly think God is “pro-abortion,” and He sends sunshine and rain on the just and unjust. He also blesses (or at least does not curse) nations when only some of its people are righteous. God is clearly anti-extramarital sex (the cause of most abortions) and there are clearly passages that imply that a fetus, at some point, is a real person.
It is true that abortion has been practiced throughout human history. In the colonies it was practiced before the fetus produced tangible movements in the womb (a so-called “quickening”). This is perhaps the strongest argument pro-abortion people can make for it being a “right” (on the theory that the 9th Amendment protects rights in place at the enactment of the Constitution). But as far as I know, in the colonies it was done covertly and not advertised all over. And some of the European nations at that time, like Scotland, outlawed it completely.
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
2:50 pm
Then, Bosch, let’s work on changing the law to not charge men w/ with homicide against the unborn baby. K, punkin?
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
2:50 pm
Doggone: they only REALLY care to punish the woman for making the decision to terminate her pregnancy.
EXACTLY
Pro Life means you care about something AFTER it’s born too, not just until that point. But if you’re Pro Life and against welfare? Sorry, you’re not really pro life.
Bosch
February 22nd, 2012
2:50 pm
They aren’t for that at all”
Actually Doggone, yes they are — how else would you end abortions? They don’t see that the only way to end them once and for all is to take Pea’s belief to imprison these women, or force them to have the child.
And who would be enforcing this? The government.
So, where’s your consistency Pea?
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
2:50 pm
“TalkingHead, sorry, I don’t trust the opinion pages of the WSJ to give me straight scoop on the facts of tax reform. They have a long and dishonest history in that regard.”
Some might say the same of the AJC opinion pages, no?
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
2:50 pm
“All I’m asking is to make abortion homicide in all cases, or non”
And you got your wish. Abortion is not homicide in ANY case. Now, wasn’t that quick?
Steve - USA (I support "None Of The Above")
February 22nd, 2012
2:50 pm
Jay@2:40
Good idea. Always take an opinion piece with a grain of salt.
DagnyT
February 22nd, 2012
2:51 pm
I am a pro-life evangelical Christian and I think Mr. Bookman has a valid point. Having had friends in this heartbreaking situation in another state with a similar law, I think at the very least a “fetal death” provision should be in place. Their baby had no brain and no skull. They could not carry until term and the procedure needed was considered an abortion in their state. They had 2 days to make a life-altering decision before their state’s law kicked in and the procedure would be outlawed. I’m not trying to start an argument, just to point out that sometimes lawmakers don’t understand all the consequences of their actions and that is can result hardships being placed on already grieving couples. I know this couple felt like they didn’t have time to consider their options or even have their family members arrive for support and the whole thing was rushed because of a mandated state deadline. It compounded an already sad situation.
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
2:51 pm
Peadawg: Should we make all killing of humans (for the sake of argument, NOT including pre-birth) homicide in all cases, no exceptions?
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
2:53 pm
“Actually Doggone, yes they are”
and I would put it that they SAY they are, that they even THINK they are..but in reality, they are not. Because they have no idea of a mechanism to FORCE any woman to carry her pregnancy to term. Therefore, despite their assetions, they aren’t not REALLY advocating an end to abortion…just another round of punishment for those who choose to have one.
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
2:54 pm
“Now what were you saying earlier about what the Founding Fathers envisioned? Since you do know what they envisioned, right?”
To the extent we have writings of theirs indicating what they thought, yes.
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
2:54 pm
“And you got your wish. Abortion is not homicide in ANY case. Now, wasn’t that quick?” If it’s caused by the man, it is. We’ve been over this.
They BOTH suck
February 22nd, 2012
2:54 pm
Towncrier @ 2:49
Reread your earlier post and than the one @ 2:49………
Wow,,,, Is that the same Towncrier or did you forget what you posted about the Founding fathers? There is a huge discrepancy there.
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
2:56 pm
“If it’s caused by the man, it is”
When anyone kills a woman, and thereby kills her foetus, it is NOT an abortion.
Aquagirl
February 22nd, 2012
2:56 pm
All I’m asking is to make abortion homicide in all cases, or none.
Denying someone unfettered use of your body for life support is not homicide.
And all I’ve asked for is that you take the same position on control of your organs as you give to women. But you’ve pretty much done a marathon running from that idea, those man parts sure move quick when threatened.
Billybob
February 22nd, 2012
2:57 pm
steve……nice
They BOTH suck
February 22nd, 2012
2:59 pm
Towncrier
“To the extent we have writings of theirs indicating what they thought, yes.”
I know it might be a little difficult to comprehend, however with the framework of the Constitution and other writing of the “Founding Fathers”……. they did not nor could not foresee everything that was to come after them………….
Spin it as you see fit, play semantics, dig in for all you can get, but you know that they were HUMAN and thus limited like all HUMANS in what they good foresee or not……….
Remember it was you that implied what the Founding Fathers thought or didn’t think about abortion.
How many sites did you go to after Jay’s post attempting to disprove it? Be honest. Now you did your homework, you frame your narrative differently……
No problem……. Your choice and right………. Just funny to see you shift and ignore your own posts and think it isn’t obvious
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.
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
3:53 pm
“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.”
Oh oh…here come the smiley faces – a sure sign that a liberal is no longer reasoning. So are you prepared to claim that the SCOTUS is infallible and hasn’t made horrendously bad decisions (please, PLEASE, do so)? Since you mention pornography, why don’t you explain to all of us how that practice was encompassed in the framers meaning of “free speech”? Please provide historical evidence. And, good luck with that.
Generation$crewed
February 22nd, 2012
3:53 pm
Why then can I not smoke weed, snort a lil coke, or shoot some heroin?
It is my body after all and the laws should have no impact as to what i put in or take out of my body. Right? Or is it only when a fetus is what is being removed?
Paul
February 22nd, 2012
3:54 pm
Afternoon, Bosch
“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. ”
I regularly ask that question. So far, I’ve had one blogger state he’s against any abortion, period, and he’s a Methodist, not Catholic.
One of our blogger friends, a Marine from about 40 years ago, justified killing the baby because it’s self defense for the mother. uh-huh-
The rest of the bloggers dodge the issue or remain silent.
So I guess a lot of them do realize their position is inconsistent. But rather than admit it, they keep doubling down.
Bosch
February 22nd, 2012
3:54 pm
“Why then can I not smoke weed, snort a lil coke, or shoot some heroin?”
GS, in my opinion, you should be able to.
Later guys!
Hey Paul!!
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
3:55 pm
“Wrong. You don’t have any right to inject yourself and your opinions into any individual abortion decision where you aren’t personally involved.”
Says who? You?
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
3:56 pm
Billings — “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.”
Here’s your compromise. You can make that decision for *yourself* only. The same way abortion works.
Paul
February 22nd, 2012
3:57 pm
Peadawg
“If a fetus ISN’T a human being, how can someone be charged double homicide for killing a pregnant woman.”
If it’s similar to a recently-publicized case, it’s because the fetus was practically to term. Viable. Past the point of legal abortion everywhere I know of without extraordinary circumstances. No late-term abortions, it’s already against the law, remember?
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
3:58 pm
(ir)Rational — “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.”
We have spoken many times, and I would say this is an accurate assessment. You seem conservative on fiscal matters, and quite libertarian on social ones. Hardly a shrieking moonbat by anyone’s measure.
Fred ™
February 22nd, 2012
3:58 pm
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.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sweet, so we can do away with corporate welfare and pull the plug on AIG and the banks that got the buyouts?
(ir)Rational
February 22nd, 2012
3:59 pm
Towncrier – You have every right to interject your personal beliefs and opinions into the debate as it pertains to politics and policies. And technically, you have every right to stand outside any place that preforms abortions (although, I bet you would be surprised at the number of places that do) and protest that too, but one would hope you would have the decency to not interject your personal beliefs and opinions into a private discussion between a couple or family and make what is already a hard decision harder by being an asshat.
Generation$crewed
February 22nd, 2012
3:59 pm
Bosch
February 22nd, 2012
3:54 pm
So if its a human rights issue why are those things not ever brought up along with a woman’s right to abort her fetus.
Would it also not stand to reason that it is not only Republicans who want to tell others what to do with their body but it is democrats and republicans.
(ir)Rational
February 22nd, 2012
4:00 pm
JHM – I blame my wife. Before her, I was a-political.
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
4:00 pm
“practically” – But it wasn’t outside the mother’s womb. So it’s still an abortion. Nice try buddy. Abortion is abortion. Consistency baby!!!
Aquagirl
February 22nd, 2012
4:01 pm
Those that can’t aren’t my concern. Let them die for want of a better life. I’ve decided that is fair.
Is there any reason you felt like spontaneously reiterating the GOP worldview? Or was that some kind of verbal tic?
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
4:01 pm
“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?”
What constitutes harm is the question. People dismiss some moral arguments on the basis that “no one is getting hurt.” Well, let’s consider adultery. It used to be illegal. It does, fact, do a lot of harm. The harm may not always be tangible, but it will manifest itself in some fashion. I would submit everything we do affects others in some way, that we are not living in vacuums. At least be honest about that and leave off the lame “it isn’t hurting anyone” platitude.
TGT
February 22nd, 2012
4:04 pm
Georgia anti-abortion bill strikes at heart of personal liberty
Yeah, and abortion strikes at the heart of an unborn child.
Dr. K.S. Anand, a pediatrician at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, said: “There is circumstantial evidence to suggest that pain occurs in the fetus.”
For example, he said, tiny premature babies, as young as 23 or 24 weeks, cry when their heels are stuck for blood tests and quickly become conditioned to cry whenever anyone comes near their feet.”In the first trimester there is very likely no pain perception,” Dr. Anand said. “By the second trimester, all bets are off and I would argue that in the absence of absolute proof we should give the fetus the benefit of the doubt if we are going to call ourselves compassionate and humane physicians.” But despite his view, Dr. Anand did not recommend trying to anesthetize fetuses during abortions. “It is premature at this point to say we should do this or not do it,” he said. “As a scientist, I’m not sure we have the best methods.”
Dr. Anand said he did not oppose abortion, but had testified that fetuses feel pain at hearings called by legislators seeking to ban late-term abortions.
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
4:05 pm
“…but one would hope you would have the decency to not interject your personal beliefs and opinions into a private discussion between a couple or family and make what is already a hard decision harder by being an asshat.”
We are all of us our bother’s keeper. I have every right and perhaps the obligation to say something (at least once) in this case- to speak my mind in a non-judgmental way. I do NOT have the right to try to control or coerce a decision that is legally theirs to make. God doesn’t do it, why should I?
DawgDad
February 22nd, 2012
4:08 pm
“As a woman, it’s always fun to sit back and watch men legislate things that affect women’s health”
Then PLEASE stop all the WOMEN from having a say in MY health care! Think Sebilius, Hillary, Pelosi, and all the other women in government, and women voters. We ALL have a say politically because the only qualification is being registered to vote. Throwing the sex card makes you a HYPOCRITE!
JOE Cool-Republicans Call Him MESSIAH, I Just Call Him Mr. President
February 22nd, 2012
4:10 pm
“I have every right and perhaps the obligation to say something”
Freedom of speech has consequences……
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
4:11 pm
Towncrier — “Oh oh…here come the smiley faces – a sure sign that a liberal is no longer reasoning.”
One of us isn’t reasoning, but it’s not me. (laughing)
“So are you prepared to claim that the SCOTUS is infallible and hasn’t made horrendously bad decisions (please, PLEASE, do so)?”
I’ve never said or thought any such thing. Maybe *you’re* prepared to claim that Congress is infallible and hasn’t made horrendously bad decisions?
“Since you mention pornography, why don’t you explain to all of us how that practice was encompassed in the framers meaning of “free speech”? Please provide historical evidence. And, good luck with that.”
Pornography’s not normally a matter of Federal law. It’s almost exclusively dealt with at the state and local level. It’s been about 20 years since I sat in a First Amendment Law class, but I remember the topic well enough to explain that to you. *Obscenity* is more commonly the topic of Federal action, but not often, and cases dealing with it are somewhat uncommon.
Fact of the matter is, Towncrier, there’s ample historical and legal precedent for things being done the way I’m explaining them — whereas you’re arguing for an entire paradigm shift in the way individual rights are viewed and asserted in this country. Again, if you want to live your life in accordance with some sort of spelled-out list of what’s permissible, then knock yourself out. However, I’m more interested in liberty, and I’m not going to go ask for Congress’ permission whenever I want to exercise a right or freedom that’s not spelled out in detail in the Constitution.
Midori
February 22nd, 2012
4:11 pm
Her womb is so polluted, she can’t even have a baby with me — Thomas Jefferson
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
4:12 pm
G$ — “Why then can I not smoke weed, snort a lil coke, or shoot some heroin?”
I think you’ll find yourself prosecuted under state or local law for doing that, not Federal.
Darwin
February 22nd, 2012
4:13 pm
It’s reported today that Santorum has not yet seen a loss of women voters. If women continue to not care about their reproductive rights, they will lose them.
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
4:13 pm
Towncrier: What about pr0n is NOT freedom of expression?
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
4:13 pm
Towncrier — “Says who? You?”
Who says you *have* the right to interfere in medical decisions where you’re not personally involved?
You?
Generation$crewed
February 22nd, 2012
4:14 pm
Has anyone ever stopped to think if the next Einstein was aborted, maybe Bobby Fischer, Galileo? Who Knows
What is even more what if the fetus that contained the DNA code to cure cancer was aborted, AIDS, alzheimer’s….
Not really making a call for or against abortion, just kinda thought of it and it did stop me and make me think…….
How many of the worlds problems would have been solved if not for abortion?
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
4:15 pm
JHM: Actually I’m pretty sure the drug laws are federal
Midori
February 22nd, 2012
4:15 pm
It’s reported today that Santorum has not yet seen a loss of women voters. If women continue to not care about their reproductive rights, they will lose them.
those are not women. those are freaks.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
4:16 pm
(ir)Rational — “And technically, you have every right to stand outside any place that preforms abortions (although, I bet you would be surprised at the number of places that do) and protest that too, but one would hope you would have the decency to not interject your personal beliefs and opinions into a private discussion between a couple or family and make what is already a hard decision harder by being an asshat.”
Actually. some asshattish behavior in this regard is now against the law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FACE_Act
Generation$crewed
February 22nd, 2012
4:16 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
4:12 pm
Isn’t the topic of this about a state government’s decision or possible decision?
Federals usually only enter the picture if you have moved well beyond the consumption level of product on hand…..
Billings
February 22nd, 2012
4:20 pm
JHM, “Here’s your compromise. You can make that decision for *yourself* only. The same way abortion works”
The woman isn’t in this alone. Marx once said labor is a means to life. Libs want me to labor on someone elses behalf but don’t expect the same from women.
I am determined to enjoy the fruits of my labor by voting out every demwit I can.
From each according to his ability to each according to his need my a$$.
td
February 22nd, 2012
4:22 pm
Jay,
Please explain where in the Constitution that we can give one subgroup (women) a specified right (to murder a child) and not give it to all groups?
Why is it that a woman can kill a baby and it be called an abortion but if the same pregnant woman was pushed down the stairs by an abusive husband and the unborn child died it would be called homicide?
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
4:26 pm
Towncrier — “What constitutes harm is the question.”
Not preemptively, it’s not. To preemptively halt someone’s behavior, you’re have to make a showing in court and get an injunction. If you can’t convincingly show that actual harm will be done by the action you’re trying to prevent, you’re not going to get that injunction.
“People dismiss some moral arguments on the basis that “no one is getting hurt.” Well, let’s consider adultery. It used to be illegal.”
It *still is* illegal in a lot of jurisdictions; it’s just not prosecuted very often any more. You can be court-martialed for it in the military, and it’s a felony in some states. Maybe you should read up on it.
“It does, fact, do a lot of harm. The harm may not always be tangible, but it will manifest itself in some fashion. I would submit everything we do affects others in some way, that we are not living in vacuums.”
Explain to me how the man capering beneath the full moon (see my earlier example) is ‘affecting others in some way.’ And go read up on the discredited legal concept of “weakest minds.”
“At least be honest about that and leave off the lame “it isn’t hurting anyone” platitude.”
I think it’s quite unreasonable of you to try to create a linkage between a man capering under the full moon on his own land and the crime of adultery, and then accuse *me* of dishonesty. Further, I’m not an attorney, but you seem *notably* uninformed about some of the legal items you yourself bring up. I don’t begrudge you your opinion, but I think we’d both benefit if you were better informed about some of the legal concepts and points you’re raising.
AmVet - You cons have got to ask yourself one question: Do we feel lucky? Well, do ya, punks?
February 22nd, 2012
4:26 pm
Billings, is your favorite Republican if all time, Joseph McCarthy? Because you sure do seem stuck in that same 1950s mindset…
LOL…
Inconceivable! ~Thomas Jefferson in a speech to the Danbury baptists, regarding outlawing abortions
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
4:28 pm
“Fact of the matter is, Towncrier, there’s ample historical and legal precedent for things being done the way I’m explaining them — whereas you’re arguing for an entire paradigm shift in the way individual rights are viewed and asserted in this country. ”
“Historical and legal precedent” don’t mean right, necessarily. Even you should know that. Fact is, that the rapid expansion of “rights” in many cases has proceeded through the judicial branch. Why? Because that is a much easier path than through the legislative branch. You can make law without making law that way. I would suggest to you that the SCOTUS is no better an arbiter of our rights than are you or me. I would much prefer that rights be secured through a democratic process than an undemocratic one. For example, I think pornography (as with a lot of sexual misconduct) is very harmful to a society. It degrades women, puts them in competition with an image, can ruin marriages and the like. This can hardly be denied. Yet many people want to claim it as a right – a right they would not be able to claim but for the sagacity of the SCOTUS.
td
February 22nd, 2012
4:29 pm
Where is the mans rights when it comes to children. Why does not the man have the right to state that they do not want an unplanned pregnancy? Why do we have a state law that says if a child is born then two parents are responsible for that child? I man can protest all they want to but they will pay 18 years of child support if the woman chooses to bring the pregnancy to term.
Again this is an example of women having special rights as a sub group.
(ir)Rational
February 22nd, 2012
4:29 pm
td – Please explain where in the Constitution it mentions murder in any shape form or fashion.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
4:30 pm
G$ — “Has anyone ever stopped to think if the next Einstein was aborted, maybe Bobby Fischer, Galileo? Who Knows”
That argument cuts both ways. What if Hitler had been aborted?
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
4:31 pm
G$ — “Federals usually only enter the picture if you have moved well beyond the consumption level of product on hand…..”
That’s what I was getting at, yes. If you’re pulled over and the cop finds a little bit of dope and paraphernalia on you, you’re not going up on Federal charges for that.
Not like I’d know from experience. The only drugs I take come with a prescription and I get them at Walgreens.
(ir)Rational
February 22nd, 2012
4:33 pm
td – Well, see the thing is, until it pops out, that fetus is the sole property of the mother. Sure the dad had a hand in making it, after all, they don’t just appear out of thin air, but the man has absolutely no responsibility to take care of the woman, even though she is pregnant, or after she has the child. After she has the child, if only one parent takes care of it, the other parent is typically required to pay child support, but last I checked, if the dad had custody of the child, the mother had to pay child support, so the reality isn’t exactly how you spelled it out.
td
February 22nd, 2012
4:33 pm
(ir)Rational
February 22nd, 2012
4:29 pm
td – Please explain where in the Constitution it mentions murder in any shape form or fashion.
Is it or is it not true that if a man or woman for that matter causes a child to die inside the womb before birth then that person will be charged with murder? The only exception is if the woman carrying the child decides to kill the child then it is called an abortion and that person is not prosecuted?
AmVet - You cons have got to ask yourself one question: Do we feel lucky? Well, do ya, punks?
February 22nd, 2012
4:33 pm
(ir), oh no!
Is this gonna open up the great 9th Amendment debate again???
Only in Republibonics is abortion synonymous with murder.
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
4:34 pm
“Who says you *have* the right to interfere in medical decisions where you’re not personally involved?”
Who said anything about interfering? Is offering your thought for consideration interference? If so, you have a strange notion of life. As I said, no of us has the right to try to control others.
Bruno
February 22nd, 2012
4:36 pm
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 won’t call you an asshat like you called me, Fred, but you really do need to take a look around before automatically labeling every conservative a “Rushbot”. On many issues, I think the official Republican party line is whack. But, on balance, my views are conservative, so I most often align with the Repubs. Which is different from not thinking for myself.
John Birch
February 22nd, 2012
4:36 pm
Don’t half those chromosomes come from the father? What happened to his rights?
(ir)Rational
February 22nd, 2012
4:36 pm
JHM – Yeah, cause your Walgreen’s prescriptions are the reason you get stopped at airport security.
Me, it’s because my family has friends in the Middle East that we speak with a good bit, at least that is what I believe. Either that, or I’m the most benign looking white person they can find, so they figure they better pull me out so all the non-whites that get pulled out can’t say they were being profiled. Cause that time I was talking about earlier when I was leaving London – I am about as close to Aryan (in looks) as you can get, was 17 at the time, weighed maybe 145 or 150, and dressed like a kid from prep-school, down to the tie. Can’t say that I looked like too much of a threat.
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
4:38 pm
“Only in Republibonics is abortion synonymous with murder.”
No honey, the law says it too. But only in special cases.
Where’s the consistency?
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
4:38 pm
“Not preemptively, it’s not. To preemptively halt someone’s behavior, you’re have to make a showing in court and get an injunction. If you can’t convincingly show that actual harm will be done by the action you’re trying to prevent, you’re not going to get that injunction.”
Granted, if the behavior is novel and cannot be known through past experience. But harm isn’t even considered in many cases, even when it is known (as with adultery). And see my other post on pornography.
td
February 22nd, 2012
4:39 pm
(ir)Rational
February 22nd, 2012
4:33 pm
td – Well, see the thing is, until it pops out, that fetus is the sole property of the mother.
I thought human beings could not be considered “property” any longer?
So you are saying a life made by two human beings is the property of only one human being until birth because it resides in one human being?
(ir)Rational
February 22nd, 2012
4:40 pm
td – You asked for a specific example from the Constitution. I just asked you to tell me where the Constitution mentioned murder. I realize what you meant was the United States Code, but then you would lose again because it does have it in there that one is legal and the other not.
John Birch – The law is pretty clear on this one, the father doesn’t have any rights before birth, unless he wants to go to the trouble of suing for them, and even then it is going to be a fight.
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
4:44 pm
“Further, I’m not an attorney, but you seem *notably* uninformed about some of the legal items you yourself bring up. I don’t begrudge you your opinion, but I think we’d both benefit if you were better informed about some of the legal concepts and points you’re raising.”
Well I am certainly not one. But don’t see myself as having to argue things strictly within the legal framework (which is a patently imperfect human system). I much prefer to argue on the basis of principles and ideas (which underpin the legal or any other system).
(ir)Rational
February 22nd, 2012
4:44 pm
td – I believe that is how it works. Especially at that stage when it is just a fetus. It is the property of the mother, considering it resides in the mother, and could not survive without her. If you figure out some way to move the fetus from the mother into the father, then I think he would have sole proprietary rights over the fetus until it was born. Good luck with that though, cause I’m fairly certain that would be medically impossible.
Bruno
February 22nd, 2012
4:45 pm
Please explain where in the Constitution that we can give one subgroup (women) a specified right (to murder a child) and not give it to all groups?
td–It is an American value to treat everyone equally under the law. In the case of reproduction, however, it isn’t possible because the woman, and the woman alone carries the child. That doesn’t mean that women are given permission to operate outside of the law or that men can’t have input into creating the laws, as the Lib women here seem to be demanding. What it does mean is that other established legal principles have to be carefully considered and adapted to fit this unique situation.
I have no doubt that abortion ends a life. At the same time, due to the unique situation by which a woman has to surrender full control over her own body during pregnancy, it’s not a cut-and-dried legal decision. My own opinion is that abortion should remain legal, but with reasonable restrictions.
td
February 22nd, 2012
4:45 pm
(ir)Rational
February 22nd, 2012
4:40 pm
I am making the case that under the “equal protection clause” then one can not be charged with murder if the other is not charged with murder. Also, under the same clause, then it is very difficult for me to understand how a woman has the right to choose death or birth and a man only choice is to pay if the child is born.
AmVet - You cons have got to ask yourself one question: Do we feel lucky? Well, do ya, punks?
February 22nd, 2012
4:45 pm
But only in special cases.
Yeah, right, Perry Mason.
Leave these discussions to the adults, attention wh*re…
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
4:45 pm
Towncrier — “Historical and legal precedent” don’t mean right, necessarily. Even you should know that.”
I don’t know what sort of “right” you’re getting at, but when it comes to the Federal courts, precedent carries a *lot* of weight. Go read up on the topic of “stare decisis.”
“Fact is, that the rapid expansion of “rights” in many cases has proceeded through the judicial branch. Why? Because that is a much easier path than through the legislative branch.”
No, because the judicial branch is the *guarantor* of our Constitutional rights. Part of their job is *restraining* the other two branches and preventing them from actions which would be violative of our rights. Sometimes they do a good job at that. Sometimes they don’t.
“You can make law without making law that way. I would suggest to you that the SCOTUS is no better an arbiter of our rights than are you or me.”
Well, if this is what you think, then there’s not much more reason for us to discuss this topic.
“I would much prefer that rights be secured through a democratic process than an undemocratic one.”
I disagree. I don’t think that my rights, or yours, or DawgDad’s, or (ir)Rational’s, should be subject to some sort of public referendum or approval process. There’s a concept called ‘the tyranny of the majority’ that holds that in pure democracies, a majority can impose unconscionable burdens on a minority by abrogating rights and freedoms. I don’t want *anyone’s* rights subject to a vote. If DawgDad wants to go to church seven days a week and twice on Sunday, he should be able to do it. If (ir)Rational wants to move to Alaska and build his dream shack on the tundra and live in it, he should be able to do it (provided he’s not squatting on someone else’s land).
“For example, I think pornography (as with a lot of sexual misconduct) is very harmful to a society. It degrades women, puts them in competition with an image, can ruin marriages and the like. This can hardly be denied.”
It can be, but I’m not going to argue this point with you; there’s evidence on both sides, and both sides have been known to play fast and loose with their methodology. If you’re opposed to pron, then don’t partake. But if my wife and I happen to dig it, you need to butt out of our usage of it. Simple as that.
“Yet many people want to claim it as a right – a right they would not be able to claim but for the sagacity of the SCOTUS.”
Again, go read up on the largely discredited legal concept of “weakest minds.” In short, it used to hold that things could be banned or made illegal (most often, this meant pron) because of the harm they could do to the most vulnerable members of society, e.g. children and the mentally disabled. The concept is no longer considered a legal justification, and has largely been discredited. One of the major reasons for its rejection was that it constrained the freedom of a majority of adult Americans to freely use or not use pron as they saw fit. Protecting those weak minds was a function of parents or guardians, not of government.
md
February 22nd, 2012
4:45 pm
(ir),
My sons were always pulled to the side……as I understand it, the profile is “young male with malleable mind possible troublemaker”……………
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
4:47 pm
“Yeah, right, Perry Mason.
Leave these discussions to the adults, attention wh*re…”
You must have not paid attention in class at all today. Kids table that way ->.
md
February 22nd, 2012
4:50 pm
“If you figure out some way to move the fetus from the mother into the father, then I think he would have sole proprietary rights over the fetus until it was born. Good luck with that though, cause I’m fairly certain that would be medically impossible.”
As I mentioned earlier, we are already growing body parts in a lab……next logical step??
(ir)Rational
February 22nd, 2012
4:53 pm
md – I got searched 9 times to get on one plane. I feel certain that if my dad had of been there, the last one would have been a cavity search. I’m talking chemical swabs, being pulled into a room to go through my checked luggage, pat downs, stripped to the layer above underwear, everything besides cavity (luckily I was a minor travelling with a group from school). If it had of just been that time, I would have thought it was just a bad day, but it has been every time I’ve ever gotten on an airplane, except when I was flying them myself. That was the worst day though. Most of the rest of the time, I just get pat downs and my luggage checked.
td
February 22nd, 2012
4:53 pm
(ir)Rational
February 22nd, 2012
4:44 pm
So once that child pops out of the mother then the state can tell the mother what to do with the child? The court has the “best interest of the child” standard the minute the child comes out of the womb but has no rights to protect the child inside the womb? Oh no that can not be the case because Judges lock up pregnant women everyday that are drug abuser so that they do not harm the unborn child. How can that be since that unborn baby is the property of the mother?
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
4:53 pm
Towncrier — “Who said anything about interfering?”
You did. You said that you wanted some sort of societal imprimatur on individual rights before they could be exercised.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
4:55 pm
(ir)Rational — “JHM – Yeah, cause your Walgreen’s prescriptions are the reason you get stopped at airport security.”
Nah, it’s my Hispanic wife with an attitude.
(ir)Rational
February 22nd, 2012
4:55 pm
td – To paraphrase someone else from today, I’m not sure if you’re being intentionally dense or if you actually are dense, but it is difficult to tell. Also, I’m done, and going home, I’m tired of arguing with people that refuse to open their mind to the truth. Whether you like that truth or not, it is the truth.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
4:56 pm
Towncrier — “But harm isn’t even considered in many cases, even when it is known (as with adultery).”
Actually, in fault states, adultery can make a big difference in divorce proceedings. You should probably read up on it.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
5:00 pm
(ir)Rational — “md – I got searched 9 times to get on one plane. I feel certain that if my dad had of been there, the last one would have been a cavity search. I’m talking chemical swabs, being pulled into a room to go through my checked luggage, pat downs, stripped to the layer above underwear, everything besides cavity (luckily I was a minor travelling with a group from school). If it had of just been that time, I would have thought it was just a bad day, but it has been every time I’ve ever gotten on an airplane, except when I was flying them myself.”
Jebus, you *must* be on a bad list.
I was a Delta Platinum Medallion for several years, back when Plat was the top level, and a United Premier Executive (mid-level elite) and I *never* got treated like that. I flew back and forth between Washington for a couple of years between 9/11 and coming off the road, and I never once got that kind of treatment.
I think you’re right; someone must have you on some kind of suspicious ppl list.
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
5:02 pm
“I don’t know what sort of “right” you’re getting at, but when it comes to the Federal courts, precedent carries a *lot* of weight. Go read up on the topic of “stare decisis.”
Agreed. But therein lies the rub form me. Because if you base a decision more upon precedent rather than principle, there is the very real danger that, by degrees, in the path of one mistaken precedent upon another, you wind up far afield of where you should or wanted to be.
“I don’t think that my rights, or yours, or DawgDad’s, or (ir)Rational’s, should be subject to some sort of public referendum or approval process. There’s a concept called ‘the tyranny of the majority’ that holds that in pure democracies, a majority can impose unconscionable burdens on a minority by abrogating rights and freedoms. I don’t want *anyone’s* rights subject to a vote.
“One of the major reasons for its rejection was that it constrained the freedom of a majority of adult Americans to freely use or not use pron as they saw fit. Protecting those weak minds was a function of parents or guardians, not of government”
And that is the root disagreement between us. I feel that some of the rights that are now granted (such as allowing pornography) is placing an undue burden upon me, my family and others of like mind. I mean, it’s to the point that you can’t allow a child to get on the Internet or to watch cable television without being supervised. That, my friend, is an imposition. Geez, I can remember as a 6th grader getting into a girlie show (I was tall for my age) at the state fair and seeing a dancing nude woman playing to the men. If it’s there, and there is no supervision or constraints…guess what happens? I care not a wit that the “weakest minds” has been discredited. The judgements of the SC are, in my view, often very wrong on major issues (segregation being the most notable). So why should I constrain myself to arguments to the boundaries of a system I distrust to a large extent? That is what you are missing in your assessment of my arguments.
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
5:04 pm
“You did. You said that you wanted some sort of societal imprimatur on individual rights before they could be exercised.”
That wasn’t the context of my statement and you know it. Be honest and fair.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
5:16 pm
“Agreed. But therein lies the rub form me. Because if you base a decision more upon precedent rather than principle, there is the very real danger that, by degrees, in the path of one mistaken precedent upon another, you wind up far afield of where you should or wanted to be.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis
Stare decisis doesn’t say that you *can’t* overturn prior precedent; just that a court must have a , very compelling reason to do so.
“And that is the root disagreement between us. I feel that some of the rights that are now granted (such as allowing pornography) is placing an undue burden upon me, my family and others of like mind. I mean, it’s to the point that you can’t allow a child to get on the Internet or to watch cable television without being supervised. That, my friend, is an imposition.”
No, that’s a *responsibility.* You choice to have kids doesn’t oblige anyone else to change their lives in order to facilitate your parenting.
There are tools you can use to restrict your kids’ internet use, and tools you can use to control what they watch on TV. If you don’t avail yourself of them, that doesn’t create some sort of obligation on anyone else’s part to censor or bowdlerize their lives and business just because you don’t want to exercise the requisite amount of responsibility.
While I’m at it, let’s see you show me where the right to use pron was “granted.” I think you misunderstand the dynamic at work there.
“Geez, I can remember as a 6th grader getting into a girlie show (I was tall for my age) at the state fair and seeing a dancing nude woman playing to the men. If it’s there, and there is no supervision or constraints…guess what happens? I care not a wit that the “weakest minds” has been discredited.”
Shrug. That’s the legal argument you’re making, and you won’t get far with it in court these days.
“The judgements of the SC are, in my view, often very wrong on major issues (segregation being the most notable). So why should I constrain myself to arguments to the boundaries of a system I distrust to a large extent?”
I’d say you haven’t got a choice in the matter.
“That is what you are missing in your assessment of my arguments.”
I didn’t miss it. I just don’t see where you have a choice.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 22nd, 2012
5:19 pm
Towncrier — “That wasn’t the context of my statement and you know it.”
No, I don’t “know it.” Don’t be so quick to assume bad faith on others’ parts. I can’t read your mind, and it’s unreasonable of you to assume that your meaning is automatically crystal clear to others. Expend some effort clarifying yourself instead of making accusations; we might both benefit from it.
“Be honest and fair.”
Be more honest and fair yourself. Instead of being insulting and jerky, take advantage of the opportunity to be more clear and collegial.
Joseph
February 22nd, 2012
6:23 pm
There is certainly a clear difference between Republicans and democrats on this issue. Dems think its ok to kill babies whenever a mother choses. Repubs don’t… there that simple…
Joseph
February 22nd, 2012
6:25 pm
By the way Jaybird… Who the hell cares what Britain’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists thinks… We are on top of the food chain so we’ll make our own decisions… Troting out a European thought.. You libbys are hillarious….
Jym Allyn
February 22nd, 2012
6:25 pm
Any law that restrict abortion that does not come from “medical authorities” is purely a reflection of specific religious teachings. As such ALL “anti-abortion” laws violate the US Constitutional separation of church and state because they are purely an imposition of (fraudulent) religious convictions under the guise of legal “authority.”
Jym Allyn
February 22nd, 2012
6:26 pm
Any law that restricts abortion that does not come from “medical authorities” is purely a reflection of specific religious teachings. As such ALL “anti-abortion” laws violate the US Constitutional separation of church and state because they are purely an imposition of (fraudulent) religious convictions under the guise of legal “authority.”
(Grammatical correction.)
Business Man
February 22nd, 2012
6:28 pm
This has never happened, I completely agree with you on this one Jay. That said, I am still voting for Santorum.
Jym Allyn
February 22nd, 2012
6:29 pm
Santorum’s MOTHER is the one who should have had the abortion.
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
6:41 pm
“Stare decisis doesn’t say that you *can’t* overturn prior precedent; just that a court must have a , very compelling reason to do so.”
Right. And so we had the “precedent” of Plessy v. Ferguson being followed for nearly 60 years to the great harm of our black citizens. There is no way to sugar this. The ends are not justified by the means.
“Shrug. That’s the legal argument you’re making, and you won’t get far with it in court these days.”
I don’t expect or hope to without a constitutional revision. And that’s not on the perceivable horizon given the almost evenly divided beliefs on core issues in America.
“No, that’s a *responsibility.* You choice to have kids doesn’t oblige anyone else to change their lives in order to facilitate your parenting. There are tools you can use to restrict your kids’ internet use, and tools you can use to control what they watch on TV. If you don’t avail yourself of them, that doesn’t create some sort of obligation on anyone else’s part to censor or bowdlerize their lives and business just because you don’t want to exercise the requisite amount of responsibility.”
Sorry. We disagree. I should not have to bend over backwards to prevent children from exposure to that sort of thing. One did not have to do that decades ago or at the time the Constitution was enacted. The exercise of that “right” should at the very least be more constrained – as it is with nude beaches and strip clubs. Consigning all pornography on the net to one domain (.xxx for instance) would be a step in the right direction. And not intermingling adult with family content on television would be a corrective.
“While I’m at it, let’s see you show me where the right to use porn was “granted.” I think you misunderstand the dynamic at work there.”
Implicitly and gradually, through the introduction and then redefinition of concept of obscenity (one the classes of unprotected speech). The SCOTUS has done this. Why not limit the first amendment (as the founders surly meant) to speech alone – either by voice or in writing? Images, gestures are literally not speech. In my view, they may be allowed if a state wishes, but there should be no constitutionally protected right to make use of them. Again, I understand that you would see this as an unenumerated right. But what if harm from pornography – “smut for smut’s sake” – could be unequivocally established? Would you then concede your right to view it?
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
6:49 pm
“Any law that restricts abortion that does not come from “medical authorities” is purely a reflection of specific religious teachings. As such ALL “anti-abortion” laws violate the US Constitutional separation of church and state because they are purely an imposition of (fraudulent) religious convictions under the guise of legal “authority.”
I’m guessing you imagine the esteemed “medical authorities” are never wrong. You also imagine the separation clause has force and meaning the founders never intended (since they themselves introduced their religious beliefs everywhere). Just because the SCOTUS has ruled one way, doesn’t make them right (can you say Plessy v. Ferguson?).
Towncrier
February 22nd, 2012
7:03 pm
“Be more honest and fair yourself. Instead of being insulting and jerky, take advantage of the opportunity to be more clear and collegial.”
My apologies. I guess I shouldn’t have assumed you had read the post to which I was responding. You did take my response out of context nonetheless. There is almost always the context of me responding to others posts in any of my own, just so you know.
I rarely make statements otherwise.
In any case, JHM, thanks for the extended dialogue. Hopefully we both gained something from the exchange (which is what the first amendment is really about in my opinion – the “marketplace of ideas”).
philosopher
February 22nd, 2012
9:59 pm
I don’t care what anybody says, I don’t care if Santorum is a crazy egomaniac. I don’t care if he has delusions of grandeur and would gladly infringe on my personal, private, and sexual freedoms. I don’t even care that he believes that sex is only for procreating. I don’t care if he thinks God put us here on earth as little demigods to to use and abuse the earth as we please. I don’t care if he did put his dog up on the roof while he drove for hours at 70+ miles and hour (which besides being cruel, was illegal in the state in which he was governor) …I’m voting for him, anyway!
Joe Hussein Mama
February 23rd, 2012
9:42 am
Towncrier — “Right. And so we had the “precedent” of Plessy v. Ferguson being followed for nearly 60 years to the great harm of our black citizens. There is no way to sugar this. The ends are not justified by the means.”
Sorry, but you’re engaging in multiple logical fallacies there, and I don’t suffer logical fallacies lightly. Here are the fallacies you’re committing with that:
Hasty Generalization
Begging The Question
False Dilemma
Fallacy of the Single Cause
Perfect Solution Fallacy
You’re probably also engaging in Suppressed Correlative and Special Pleading, but I’d have to check on that.
But again, I’ve never claimed that SCOTUS was error-free and you’re implicitly claiming that Congress *is.* Quite simply, you’re trying to redefine my position into one I’ve clearly claimed I do not hold. Perhaps you should adjust your argument.
“I don’t expect or hope to without a constitutional revision. And that’s not on the perceivable horizon given the almost evenly divided beliefs on core issues in America.”
Good.
“Sorry. We disagree. I should not have to bend over backwards to prevent children from exposure to that sort of thing.”
Yes, you should, particularly if you’re expecting others to conduct *their* lives in a manner that makes *your* job as a parent less difficult and demanding. If you didn’t want the work that comes along with being a parent, then you shouldn’t have made the choice to have kids.
“One did not have to do that decades ago or at the time the Constitution was enacted.”
Irrelevant.
“The exercise of that “right” should at the very least be more constrained – as it is with nude beaches and strip clubs. Consigning all pornography on the net to one domain (.xxx for instance) would be a step in the right direction.”
Taking responsibility for what your kids do on the Internet would be, a step in the right direction, too. When you give your kids the keys to the car, you don’t have the benefit of a special set of kiddie roads that they have to drive on; they get on real roads with other real drivers, and if they screw up and have an accident, you bear the burden of that. Same thing with the Internet.
If you don’t want to accept the risk of your kids getting in a car crash, then don’t give them your car keys. And if you don’t want to accept the risk that your kids might see nekkid b00bies on the Internet, then don’t let them surf the web unsupervised. Simple as that.
“And not intermingling adult with family content on television would be a corrective.”
Expending some effort to figure out what you’re going to be watching would *also* be a corrective, and TV program ratings have been a standard for several years. If you can’t be bothered to check the TV listings and figure out that a given program has Adult Language, Adult Situations and Partial Nudity (and then ensure that your kids don’t watch it), then I don’t see why anyone else has to be inconvenienced. If you won’t take the initiative to protect your own kids from what you see as harmful influences, then why should anyone else lift a finger to?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_Parental_Guidelines
“Implicitly and gradually, through the introduction and then redefinition of concept of obscenity (one the classes of unprotected speech). The SCOTUS has done this. Why not limit the first amendment (as the founders surly meant) to speech alone – either by voice or in writing? Images, gestures are literally not speech.”
SCOTUS has long held the view that *expression* is the pivotal issue, not verbal speech. Many types of expression are nonverbal, and SCOTUS has found that there’s no compelling state interest in treating verbal expression and nonverbal expression differently.
“In my view, they may be allowed if a state wishes, but there should be no constitutionally protected right to make use of them. Again, I understand that you would see this as an unenumerated right. But what if harm from pornography – “smut for smut’s sake” – could be unequivocally established? Would you then concede your right to view it?”
No. Our long legal history has clearly established that Federal laws and regulations can only constrain and limit the exercise of rights as narrowly and as specifically as necessary to achieve the express aim of the legislation. If you can establish that porn does *specific* harm to a *specific* population (e.g. children under 18), then SCOTUS would be obliged to strike down laws with farther-reaching effects. This is partly why SCOTUS has rarely ruled on matters of obscenity, and why it has largely left the matter determined by states and communities, who then apply the “community standards” test.
You certainly have the right to move to a locale that has “community standards” congruent with your own, if you feel that expression you find indecent or obscene is tolerated where you live.
“My apologies. I guess I shouldn’t have assumed you had read the post to which I was responding.”
How RUDE.
I *did* read it. Reading what you say does not in any way imply that the reader will agree with you or automatically ‘get’ your point. There’s nothing so perfect about any writer that anything he or she writes will automatically be understood with 100% intended clarity by all readers.
“You did take my response out of context nonetheless.”
I don’t reject the possibility that I did. I *do* reject your contention that I did so intentionally and/or maliciously.
“There is almost always the context of me responding to others posts in any of my own, just so you know. I rarely make statements otherwise.”
I can’t speak for what you do or don’t do on a routine basis any more than you can speak for what I do or don’t do on a routine basis.
“In any case, JHM, thanks for the extended dialogue. Hopefully we both gained something from the exchange (which is what the first amendment is really about in my opinion – the “marketplace of ideas”).”
You’re welcome, and thank you.
Towncrier
February 23rd, 2012
12:10 pm
“Sorry, but you’re engaging in multiple logical fallacies there, and I don’t suffer logical fallacies lightly. Here are the fallacies you’re committing with that:”
Unsubstantiated, pompous and stupid. How often do you make use of your Logic 101 glossary, BTW?
“You’re probably also engaging in Suppressed Correlative and Special Pleading, but I’d have to check on that.”
Don’t let me hold you back.
“But again, I’ve never claimed that SCOTUS was error-free and you’re implicitly claiming that Congress *is.*”
Completely incorrect. Where have I ever intimated that? I resent your even making such an absurd claim. But let me spell out for you here exactly what I think: since both branches are prone to error, and only one is really democratic, I prefer the people and the Congress to determine what rights we have so that we do not have a tyranny of the minority. So we are on opposite end of the spectrum on this.
“Yes, you should, particularly if you’re expecting others to conduct *their* lives in a manner that makes *your* job as a parent less difficult and demanding. If you didn’t want the work that comes along with being a parent, then you shouldn’t have made the choice to have kids.”
Don’t presume to tell me how to parent, please.
“SCOTUS has long held the view that *expression* is the pivotal issue, not verbal speech. Many types of expression are nonverbal, and SCOTUS has found that there’s no compelling state interest in treating verbal expression and nonverbal expression differently.”
Exactly the problem.
“I *did* read it. Reading what you say does not in any way imply that the reader will agree with you or automatically ‘get’ your point. There’s nothing so perfect about any writer that anything he or she writes will automatically be understood with 100% intended clarity by all readers.
Then I overestimated your reading comprehension skills.
EV
February 23rd, 2012
12:47 pm
I didn’t know it was okay to kill someone if they don’t experience pain. Hmm. I guess this would be a great defense at a murder trial.
EV
February 23rd, 2012
12:48 pm
But forcing someone to buy health insurance isn’t an affront to personal liberty?
EV
February 23rd, 2012
12:51 pm
You are sounding awfully Libertarian today Jay. So you agree that the government should get out of our personal lives?
EV
February 23rd, 2012
12:55 pm
I love how you use the 9th amendment when it is convenient for you….
Joe Hussein Mama
February 23rd, 2012
1:09 pm
“Unsubstantiated, pompous and stupid.”
*You* cited a single SCOTUS case as *your* support for a wholesale rewriting of our system of government. If that’s not a Hasty Generalization, then I don’t know what is. Your single-case ‘evidence’ is much more emblematic of something unsubstantiated, pompous and stupid.
“How often do you make use of your Logic 101 glossary, BTW?”
Don’t need one. You, on the other hand, could apparently use a couple of semesters of basic logic courses at the college level.
“Don’t let me hold you back.”
If I thought you were at all amenable to learning something from it, I probably would.
“Completely incorrect. Where have I ever intimated that? I resent your even making such an absurd claim.”
Over the last three pages of discussion is where you’ve intimated it. You’ve argued for preempting SCOTUS of its power of interpreting the Constitution w/r/t unenumerated rights. You’ve argued for requiring some sort of legislative imprimatur before unenumerated rights can be asserted and practiced, a scheme that’s nowhere in the Constitution. Your asserted justification for removing SCOTUS’ power in this regard is the level of ‘error’ or ‘imperfection’ you feel has been exhibited by SCOTUS. Yet you seem completely unmoved by the exhibited ‘errors’ and ‘imperfections’ of Congress, and seek to give Congress a power that is actually *forbidden* to it by the Constitution.
If I’m misreading you, I’m open to correction, but I think I’m paying a lot closer attention to what you’re saying than *you* are.
“But let me spell out for you here exactly what I think: since both branches are prone to error, and only one is really democratic, I prefer the people and the Congress to determine what rights we have so that we do not have a tyranny of the minority. So we are on opposite end of the spectrum on this.”
Fortunately, the Founders were wise enough to cut Congress out of that equation entirely. I don’t want you voting on my rights, and I’m pretty sure you don’t want me voting on yours. Since we conduct our affairs in accordance with the Constitution, I’m afraid you’re going to have to suffer under the unconscionable and intolerant system our Founders decided to burden you with.
“Don’t presume to tell me how to parent, please.”
Don’t presume to tell me how I have to conduct my life in order to make YOUR job of parenting easier.
Furthermore, I didn’t in any way tell you how to parent. I said that if you don’t want to do the work that comes along with being a parent, then don’t make the choice to have kids.
“Exactly the problem.”
I see no problem there. I see your personal discomfort with others’ freedoms, and a desire on your part to constrain their freedoms resulting from that discomfort.
“Then I overestimated your reading comprehension skills.”
Don’t bother trying to insult me on that score. I assure you, I am quite immune to insults and slights along that line. (laughing)
If you’re not coming across clearly to your audience, then be an adult and look to yourself before blaming others. That advice worked well for my students at the university level 20 years ago, and I suspect it will work well for you today.
EV
February 23rd, 2012
1:15 pm
Dems and repubs arguing over personal liberty is hilarious.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 23rd, 2012
1:52 pm
Glad to be of entertainment value, EV.
EV
February 23rd, 2012
1:59 pm
I understand where both of you stand. I think both sides agree that the government, be it Federal or State, affronts our personal liberty all of the time. We can simply pick and choose which issue we want to hang our hat on. We cannot say that an anti-abortion bill affronts personal liberty and then say that an individual mandate doesn’t. (Mandate btw)
Towncrier
February 23rd, 2012
2:19 pm
“*You* cited a single SCOTUS case as *your* support for a wholesale rewriting of our system of government. If that’s not a Hasty Generalization, then I don’t know what is. Your single-case ‘evidence’ is much more emblematic of something unsubstantiated, pompous and stupid.”
I cited the most egregious and obvious case. I didn’t think I needed to compile a list for you. Or do your really think that was the only “mistake” (as you put it) the SCOTUS has made through the years? I cited that example because it is a cautionary tale of epic proportions. You and I can only imagine how deleterious it was to our black citizens.
For someone who take umbrage at others jumping to conclusions, you sure do a lot of jumping!
“You, on the other hand, could apparently use a couple of semesters of basic logic courses at the college level.”
Funny, I was thinking the same about you.
“If I thought you were at all amenable to learning something from it, I probably would.”
I am amenable to learning, but I always consider the source.
“Over the last three pages of discussion is where you’ve intimated it. You’ve argued for preempting SCOTUS of its power of interpreting the Constitution w/r/t unenumerated rights. You’ve argued for requiring some sort of legislative imprimatur before unenumerated rights can be asserted and practiced, a scheme that’s nowhere in the Constitution. Your asserted justification for removing SCOTUS’ power in this regard is the level of ‘error’ or ‘imperfection’ you feel has been exhibited by SCOTUS. Yet you seem completely unmoved by the exhibited ‘errors’ and ‘imperfections’ of Congress, and seek to give Congress a power that is actually *forbidden* to it by the Constitution.”
Adding to the Bill of Rights is not “forbidden.” What are you smoking? Again, your reading comprehension skills are deficit. I didn’t imply that Congress was incapable of error, you inferred that I did, Go back and read your primer on logic. I want rights to be established democratically and you don’t. It’s just that simple.
“If I’m misreading you, I’m open to correction, but I think I’m paying a lot closer attention to what you’re saying than *you* are.”
And this from a guy telling others to gain humility?
“Don’t presume to tell me how I have to conduct my life in order to make YOUR job of parenting easier.”
Don’t presume to tell me how I to parent in order for your to do whatever you please.
“Furthermore, I didn’t in any way tell you how to parent. I said that if you don’t want to do the work that comes along with being a parent, then don’t make the choice to have kids.”
I think you should pay closer attention to what you yourself are saying
“I see no problem there.”
That’s obvious.
“If you’re not coming across clearly to your audience, then be an adult and look to yourself before blaming others. That advice worked well for my students at the university level 20 years ago, and I suspect it will work well for you today.”
You would do well to heed this counsel.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 23rd, 2012
4:45 pm
Towncrier — “I cited the most egregious and obvious case. I didn’t think I needed to compile a list for you.”
You do if you’re going to espouse a wholesale rewriting of our system of government, to include giving powers to Congress that it wasn’t granted in the Constitution, yes.
“Or do your really think that was the only “mistake” (as you put it) the SCOTUS has made through the years?”
The notion of mistakes and flaws in our system being justification for a wholesale revision of it is all yours, Towncrier. That concept’s *all* your baby.
“I cited that example because it is a cautionary tale of epic proportions. You and I can only imagine how deleterious it was to our black citizens.”
And it’s irrelevant to the discussion we were having. I clearly stated that stare decisis doesn’t mean that SCOTUS *never* revisits or overturns itself, simply that there’s a high standard for it. You apparently think that the solution to occasional mistakes and errors of judgment is to throw the judicial baby out with the bathwater.
“For someone who take umbrage at others jumping to conclusions, you sure do a lot of jumping!”
I’ve been quite polite with you in asking you to be more clear. You’ve responded to those requests with rudeness and insults.
“Funny, I was thinking the same about you.”
I’m not the one tossing out logical fallacies and representing them as some sort of principled, coherent argument.
“I am amenable to learning, but I always consider the source.”
Be careful that dictum doesn’t get directed at you.
“Adding to the Bill of Rights is not “forbidden. What are you smoking?”
I didn’t say or suggest that it was. But you have *clearly* argued for Congress to act *before* individuals can assert and use unenumerated rights. That is *clearly* different and distinct from “(a)dding to the Bill of Rights.”
“Again, your reading comprehension skills are deficit.”
Incorrect. I’m paying *extremely* close attention to what you’re saying. I don’t think *you* are paying close attention to what you’re saying. Either that, or I don’t think you’ve thought your position out very thoroughly.
“I didn’t imply that Congress was incapable of error, you inferred that I did”
Logic FAIL. If you’re going to argue that SCOTUS is flawed and that its power to determine whether or not people can exercise unenumerated rights should be taken away from it and given instead to Congress DESPITE Congress being flawed as well, then your position is weaker than I had thought it was.
“Go back and read your primer on logic. I want rights to be established democratically and you don’t. It’s just that simple.”
Go back and read yours, as well as your Constitution. Congress’ powers are given to it by We The People, and We The People gave ourselves our own rights. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given the power to determine what rights we have, and I frankly find your position offensive. Again, I don’t want you voting on my rights, and I’m pretty sure you don’t want me voting on yours.
“And this from a guy telling others to gain humility?”
Yes. You’re quite rude and insulting, in addition to being quite presumptuous.
“Don’t presume to tell me how I to parent in order for your to do whatever you please.”
Once again, for the slower participants in this conversation, I haven’t *once* told you how to parent. You can go parent however you please. But the moment you presume to tell me how to *live* in order to make your job of parenting easier, well, you can go take a flying leap. You are free to conduct your own life and to raise your children however you like. But when you come into my life and demand that my behaviors and activities change to suit you and your job of parenting, I will not meet that demand with politeness, acquiescence or compliance.
“I think you should pay closer attention to what you yourself are saying”
I think *you* should pay closer attention to what I’m saying, and moreover, I challenge you to demonstrate where I have *once* told you how to parent your children.
“That’s obvious.”
Yawn.
“You would do well to heed this counsel.”
I am heeding it. I share it with you for the benefit of both of us.
When you don’t seem to understand or follow what I’m saying, I explain in greater detail. When I don’t seem to understand or follow what you’re saying, you let loose with insults. Grow up, sir.
Towncrier
February 23rd, 2012
9:30 pm
“You do if you’re going to espouse a wholesale rewriting of our system of government, to include giving powers to Congress that it wasn’t granted in the Constitution, yes.”
What wholesale rewriting of our system? What are you thinking.my good man? I am simply suggesting that rights we as a democratic wish to secure from the encroachment of governmental power be added, as already established by precedent, to the Bill of Rights. I really am at a loss to understand how you, in your own mind, have inferred things I have never said and then want to lay the burden of this error upon my by claiming I implied it. Such a thing was NEVER in my mind. You can choose to not believe that if you wish; I cannot control that. You are content to let the SCOTUS secure these rights; I am not. The reason is very simple. At least with the Congress, I have some say in what rights are secured. That doesn’t sit well with you. Fine. You’ve said as much. We disagree (though I really would be surprised if you would be amenable to any and every right another citizen might claim). You see, someone has to decide what rights are to be secured. I prefer that citizens did (since they after all are said to be the residium of those rights) rather than the SCOTUS. And the issue of securing rights need never come up if there is never any governmental encroachment to begin with. But if it does, I feel it could be handled just as expeditiously via a referendum as it might be through the judiciary.
“The notion of mistakes and flaws in our system being justification for a wholesale revision of it is all yours, Towncrier. That concept’s *all* your baby.”
See my response above.
“And it’s irrelevant to the discussion we were having. I clearly stated that stare decisis doesn’t mean that SCOTUS *never* revisits or overturns itself, simply that there’s a high standard for it. You apparently think that the solution to occasional mistakes and errors of judgment is to throw the judicial baby out with the bathwater.”
It’s not irrelevant because it was not simply an error of judgement. That “error” may have cost a number of poor black people their lives. It certainly retarded their development as an ethnic group and has filled a lot of them with seething hatred. Go tell the survivors of lynchings that your are sorry for the SCOTUS’ mistake. You see, the people of the land could do nothing about that “mistake: for 58 years. That is why I am loathe to have the SCOTUS decide such things, because we can’t vote to change their decisions. That is when the US becomes an oligarchy.
“I’ve been quite polite with you in asking you to be more clear. ”
Really? Why don’t you re-read some of your posts. You have been insulting without doubt. If you want to deny that, then I really think you are dishonest. I can admit I was insulting, because it would be the truth.
“I’m not the one tossing out logical fallacies and representing them as some sort of principled, coherent argument.”
This is not the venue for a dissertation, my friend. It is a blog on which people are entering text in a HTML textarea field, text that can’t be edited once it is posted (unlike Jay’s). Here you need to read between the lines a little. I don’t recall anyone accusing me of being illogical in general (we are all that way from time to time, in this statement or the other), so if that’s what you are doing, you are the first.
“I didn’t say or suggest that it was. But you have *clearly* argued for Congress to act *before* individuals can assert and use unenumerated rights. That is *clearly* different and distinct from “(a)dding to the Bill of Rights.”
See my response above.
“Incorrect. I’m paying *extremely* close attention to what you’re saying. I don’t think *you* are paying close attention to what you’re saying. Either that, or I don’t think you’ve thought your position out very thoroughly.”
Shrug. I don’t know what to say.
“Logic FAIL. If you’re going to argue that SCOTUS is flawed and that its power to determine whether or not people can exercise unenumerated rights should be taken away from it and given instead to Congress DESPITE Congress being flawed as well, then your position is weaker than I had thought it was.”
See my response above.
“Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given the power to determine what rights we have, and I frankly find your position offensive. Again, I don’t want you voting on my rights, and I’m pretty sure you don’t want me voting on yours.”
Congress may secure certain rights from governmental encroachment via the Bill of Rights. The 9th Amendment, all twenty-one words of it, only states that the enumeration of rights does not thereby disparage or deny unidentified unenumerated rights. It does not imply or indicate what those rights are. There has been much debate over the nature of these rights. It cannot be argued with certainty the referent is natural rights. Because of the vagueness and brevity of this amendment, in contrast to the explicitness found in other amendments, I tend to view this as a disclaimer introduced mainly for political reasons. Bork thought it was an inkblot. In any case, as I’ve said above, previously unenumerated rights have to be identified in order to be protected whenever there is an encroachment upon them. Presently, the SCOTUS does that. I want Congress to do that by adding to the Bill of Rights. One way means a minority can impose its will upon the majority and the other way vice versa.
“You’re quite rude and insulting, in addition to being quite presumptuous.”
In all honestly, and without prejudice, I would say you were equally as guilty.
“Once again, for the slower participants in this conversation…you can go take a flying leap…”
See what I mean?
“Yawn.”
See again? I could easily (if you wanted me to) identify the places I was rude and insulting. Can you do the same?
Well, in any event, I still mean what I said in another post. Sparks have flown, but I have enjoyed the exchange and feel I have benefited from it. It helped me to sharpen and narrow the focus of my argument. But I think you’d agree we have pretty mush fleshed out our positions to each other, so perhaps we can let this go.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 24th, 2012
9:41 am
Towncrier — “What wholesale rewriting of our system?”
Your notion of having Congress determine whether or not specific unenumerated rights are actually exercisable or not. THAT wholesale rewriting of our system.
“What are you thinking.my good man? I am simply suggesting that rights we as a democratic wish to secure from the encroachment of governmental power be added, as already established by precedent, to the Bill of Rights.”
There’s nothing simple about it. The Founders and the Constitution make it clear that *government* is limited, not the rights of individuals.
“I really am at a loss to understand how you, in your own mind, have inferred things I have never said and then want to lay the burden of this error upon my by claiming I implied it. Such a thing was NEVER in my mind.”
You have clearly called for the courts to be stripped of their power to defend the rights of individuals against the encroachment of government power, and have called for government power to be increased so that government has the power to declare unenumerated rights unexercisable by individuals.
“You can choose to not believe that if you wish; I cannot control that. You are content to let the SCOTUS secure these rights; I am not.”
It’s worked quite nicely for over 230 years.
“The reason is very simple. At least with the Congress, I have some say in what rights are secured.”
I don’t want you or anyone else to have any say in anyone else’s rights. You exercise your rights as you see fit, and leave others to do the same. When there are disputes, as there inevitably will be, the courts are empowered to settle them. It has ever been thus, but you’re not happy with it. Shrug.
“That doesn’t sit well with you. Fine. You’ve said as much. We disagree (though I really would be surprised if you would be amenable to any and every right another citizen might claim).”
I’m not. But that’s exactly why you shouldn’t want me voting on your rights, just as I don’t want you voting on mine.
“You see, someone has to decide what rights are to be secured.”
Rejected. Fortunately, the Founders were wise enough to recognize that they couldn’t foresee all possible circumstances.
“I prefer that citizens did (since they after all are said to be the residium of those rights) rather than the SCOTUS. And the issue of securing rights need never come up if there is never any governmental encroachment to begin with. But if it does, I feel it could be handled just as expeditiously via a referendum as it might be through the judiciary.”
Your methodology was what sustained slavery in this country for generations, yet you object to the ‘errors’ of the courts. Methinks thou dost protest too much.
“It’s not irrelevant because it was not simply an error of judgement. That “error” may have cost a number of poor black people their lives. It certainly retarded their development as an ethnic group and has filled a lot of them with seething hatred. Go tell the survivors of lynchings that your are sorry for the SCOTUS’ mistake.”
Go tell Congress and the American citizens of generations past that they were *perfectly justified* in voting to sustain slavery, Jim Crow laws, racial discrimination and the like.
“You see, the people of the land could do nothing about that “mistake: for 58 years. That is why I am loathe to have the SCOTUS decide such things, because we can’t vote to change their decisions. That is when the US becomes an oligarchy.”
Your solution is, IMO and in the view of history, far less perfect. You appear blind to the excesses and ‘mistakes’ committed by legislatures and citizens who were trying to operate under the same system you appear to want to have. And it took the Federal court system to put an end to what YOUR preferred sort of system wrought.
“Really? Why don’t you re-read some of your posts. You have been insulting without doubt. If you want to deny that, then I really think you are dishonest. I can admit I was insulting, because it would be the truth.”
I give what I get, and I don’t have a great deal of patience. If you want a polite conversation with me, then act like it. By my reading, you responded to several of my polite questions and replies with rudeness and intemperance, so that’s what you get in return. I can be collegial and polite, or I can be as big a Richard as you’re being.
It’s quite your choice.
“This is not the venue for a dissertation, my friend. It is a blog on which people are entering text in a HTML textarea field, text that can’t be edited once it is posted (unlike Jay’s). Here you need to read between the lines a little.”
And here you justify the leaping-to of conclusions, while in a previous post you *accused* me of leaping to conclusions.
I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that you operate under a double standard.
“I don’t recall anyone accusing me of being illogical in general (we are all that way from time to time, in this statement or the other), so if that’s what you are doing, you are the first.”
I haven’t accused you of being illogical in general. I’ve accused you of being illogical in a *specific* circumstance. Surely that was not lost on you.
“See my response above.”
“Shrug. I don’t know what to say.”
“See my response above.”
Your concession is noted and accepted.
“Congress may secure certain rights from governmental encroachment via the Bill of Rights. The 9th Amendment, all twenty-one words of it, only states that the enumeration of rights does not thereby disparage or deny unidentified unenumerated rights. It does not imply or indicate what those rights are. There has been much debate over the nature of these rights. It cannot be argued with certainty the referent is natural rights. Because of the vagueness and brevity of this amendment, in contrast to the explicitness found in other amendments, I tend to view this as a disclaimer introduced mainly for political reasons. Bork thought it was an inkblot. In any case, as I’ve said above, previously unenumerated rights have to be identified in order to be protected whenever there is an encroachment upon them. Presently, the SCOTUS does that. I want Congress to do that by adding to the Bill of Rights. One way means a minority can impose its will upon the majority and the other way vice versa.”
There’s nothing that says that Congress can’t add an *enumerated* right to the Constitution. However, I’m not prepared to wait years and years for my rights to be enshrined into law. Fortunately, I have the Constitution and the court system on my side, so I can challenge any infringement on my rights without having to suck it up while waiting for Congress to actually do something about it.
“In all honestly, and without prejudice, I would say you were equally as guilty.”
I freely tell others with whom I enter into discussion here that I give what I get. If you can be polite with me — even if we disagree — I will gladly return the courtesy. There are a few conservative posters here with whom I’m able to do that. OTOH, if you choose to be insulting and don’t adjust yourself even after I *tell* you that I’m taking offense at what you’re saying — as I have done with you — then I feel no further obligation to be polite. Deal with it.
“See what I mean?”
Again, I give what I get and I told you more than once that I was taking offense. Straighten out yourself or deal with it.
See again? I could easily (if you wanted me to) identify the places I was rude and insulting. Can you do the same?
Again, I give what I get and I told you more than once that I was taking offense. Straighten out yourself or deal with it.
“Well, in any event, I still mean what I said in another post. Sparks have flown, but I have enjoyed the exchange and feel I have benefited from it. It helped me to sharpen and narrow the focus of my argument. But I think you’d agree we have pretty mush fleshed out our positions to each other, so perhaps we can let this go.”
Uh huh.