I would suggest actually learning your own laws but I can see that would be a waste of breath. A females actions DO NOT create a pregnancy, anyone with 1st grade knowledge of biology would understand that, all her actions do is create the risk that pregnancy may or may not occur. I don't need to guess, I can see you are only capable of emotional comments and nothing more.
Pure and total bollocks ... unless you don't get any medical treatment for any and all injuries you incurr due to you taking a risk eg. every time you get into a car you are taking a risk that you may crash and be injured, by your so called "logic" you should be refusing medical treatment, after all "Consent to risk is consent to potential consequences" Abortion IS a personal responsibility, just not one you agree with. Absolutely agree, Roe vs Wade should have made the decision that abortion is purely a medical decision and not one that the state should be involved in. Roe vs Wade created the issues that are here today by it's attempt to "please all" Pretty much the same as "everything bigger" USA, except we don't have the Christian religious fanatics you do.
100% wrong, which seems to be a common thing with you. Deadly force in self-defence requires that no other reasonable option is available to the person to alleviate those injuries immediately .. in the comparison you are trying (and failing) to assert a born infant who is injuring another person can be restrained without the use of deadly-force, the victim can retreat (though they is no legal requirement for them to do so) or they can attempt to reason with the born infant .. a pregnant woman has NONE of these options, her ONLY course of action to stop the non-consented injuries from occurring is via the use of deadly force in self-defence. Wrong, yet again, under the person at conception ideology abortion is a 2nd Amendment right to self-defence, and is a 14th Amendment equal protection clause right .. nothing inferred, unless you are asserting that the 2nd Amendment right to self-defence and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment are inferred .. are you? I don't need to throw court cases at you, your own Constitution is proof enough. Now why don't you actually put up some evidence to support your opinion, or is it that your opinion is based on emotion, lies, distortion and ignorance.
We don't need the 14th because the 5th Amendment already gives due process to all persons, all US citizens. And because all states have been and continue to be led by people---states automatically fall under due process. Slaves were never considered to be US citizens, as were illegal aliens, non-taxed Indians or foreign invaders. The main object of the 14th was discrimination. Punishing those people who lived in the Confederacy and South. So the 14th is no better than Jim Crow laws. Dump the 14th. Thinking the Feds have the right to own medical care, to force everyone to have medical insurance is another faucet of Marxism. Abortions should in NO cases be paid for by US taxpayers, or funds given to any abortion facilities, hospitals, PP abortion centers or otherwise. I'd like the states themselves to have control on abortions. Better, more morally superior states like Mississippi and South Dakota should be able to ban them. Morally debased states like Maryland and California can allow them if they wish. If a new Supreme Court dumps Roe v. Wade nationwide, then women can go to Mexico or Canada to kill their unborn children. Too bad, too sad. Of course Leftist Activist Judges have imagined and distorted the USC greatly over the years. The Father of Constitutional Rape, Earl Warren, imagined that "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" included capital punishment: the Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society. Read more at https://www.quotetab.com/quote/by-e...andards-of-decency-that-m#Jii3fo8mVkE4BaG0.99 Virtually all the Founders supported executions of criminals and allowed them in their respective states. If the 8th really did mean that executions were cruel and unusual, then the Founders would have immediately halted them the next day the ink was dry on the USC. Same thing with the years of assaults on the 2nd Amendment. Had the Founders wanted infringements on the 2nd, they would not have penned the word "infringed." And what does the word "infringed" mean now that it did not mean in 1787? There is also a massive comma between the 1st part with the Militia, and the 2nd part that demanded no infringement on the individual right. In fact, even before the USC, Congress wanted high capacity firearms for their armed citizens, and even ordered 100 of them. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...rs-knew-repeating-rifles-bill-rights-drafted/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog...liberal-interpretation-constitution-revealed/ BTW, you are obviously not an American citizen. So I'd clean up your own mess as a start.
Trying to shut up Fugazi? Why? Can't handle his facts? Obviously reading and learning is not your goal. There is a law in place, Hyde Act, that prevents federal funds from paying for abortions. Your lack of knowledge on an issue you're spouting off about, noted . Also hilarious, your: "" I'd like the states themselves to have control on abortions. Better, more morally superior states like Mississippi and South Dakota should be able to ban them. Morally debased states like Maryland and California can allow them if they wish. If a new Supreme Court dumps Roe v. Wade nationwide, then women can go to Mexico or Canada to kill their unborn children. Too bad, too sad.""" "morally superior states"? As determined by whom? You? So if women have to go to another place to have an abortion you don't REALLY care about that fetus, just punishing women for having sex.....it ALWAYS boils down to that with the "morally superior" ... Why do you think women who are American citizens should have their citizenship revoked in certain states? And here's a stumper for ya: Why do you think "dumping RvW will stop abortions? How? As Fugazi said: ""one of the first steps to a dictatorship is removing or distorting the rights of the individual.""" ....and you are all for that......
Are you saying here that it was wrong for the mean old federal government to make the states free the slaves and consider them to be US citizens? Those "moral" states of yours did not all want to do that. I notice that you never answered Fugazi's question "So you are a fan of State rights .. would you then accept your states determination that abortion was a right that a woman should have and that the state had a duty of care to pay for it .. or would you then decide that your interpretation of 'Gods' laws superseded State rights?"
As in other threads, you don't consider an unborn person to be a person with unique, individual, civil rights. Don't bother to waste your breath trying to convince me otherwise. I am liberal on the issue of allowing states to determine if they want abortions or not. Abortions are going to happen regardless, and women in the 21th Century are only hours away from driving to another state to kill their unborn children if they so desire. Mexico or Canada is only a fews days away by bus at the longest. If I didn't think my views were morally superior to yours or others, they would not be worth my time sharing. Dictatorships and nations with inferior civil rights have laws against free speech and freedom of the press. Can you please name one nation that has more individual freedoms than the USA?
Sorry, but the 13th freed the slaves, not the 14th. Using your liberal logic, we can determine what people were (and are by past events) morally superior to others. Vermont was the first state with a beginning slavery ban, now making all people from Vermont superior to all Americans and those in the UK. Britons didn't abolish most of its slavery until 1838. They are more superior to all the people in the US, except those who abolished slavery before 1863. Americans are far superior to Asians in Korea that didn't end slavery until 1898, and Japan that still enslaved people until 1945. The Japs and everyone else is morally superior to those in Mauritania who were the last to abolish slavery in 1981, and only made it a crime in 2007. AS to your last question: Here are the facts: https://www.aclu.org/other/public-funding-abortion If my state was one that forced its citizens to pay for abortions, then I would not like it, but I would have to accept it. I'm not going to march thru the streets and throw rocks through windows, or shoot cops, or firebomb the capital building. That is for the Hillary/Obama crowd.
...Your flailing around is amusing.....now your issue is something totally off topic.....what a desperation move...
?? You brought the slaves into the discussion "Slaves were never considered to be US citizens, ..." (etc). It reminds me that some of those "moral" states you love were convinced that children of Africans did not count as persons and they had to be dragged (by the federal government) to the point of treating them as full persons with equal rights with all other citizens. The states do not deserve the moral high ground. You trust the Founding Fathers, right? Did they say everybody conceived within the boundaries of these United States has the rights enumerated in the Constitution? Or did they say everybody born here? Was that a typo? I do appreciate your restraint (in the event that your state allowed and covered abortions for those who need them). I much prefer responses like this ( http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/18/politics/kids-letters-donald-trump-kindness-trnd/ ) that allows children to express their views instead of pickets, riots, pitchforks, and/or torches. I hope Trump will evaluate the problems facing this country with an open mind and focus on improving the economy and the lives for those who voted for him (or THEY may be the ones carrying the pitchforks and torches in a few years).
Yeah I'll go ahead and point out the obvious since I figured you'd get it, but you haven't. Self-defense argument against a fetus is ridiculous in 99% of abortion cases. The clear reason being that self-defense that requires you to take human life means your own life must be in jeopardy, or threatened with grave bodily harm. Sore nipples is no basis for self-defense. An infant is just as capable of causing the level of harm a unborn infant causes, except in those few cases of possible death. Roe Vs. Wade was advanced by a bunch of liberals trying to advance an agenda. The reasons why abortion is not a constitutional right is clear in Rehnquist's dissent. - - - Updated - - - If me getting medical care required sacrificing another human life you might have a point. Rehnquist clearly pointed out the "right to privacy" issue in his dissension.
I see you still studiously avoid any books on biology or physiology, learning, or facts..... I'd sure love to see you prove that the only side effect of pregnancy is sore nipples as you claim....still haven't talked to Mom about her pregnancies????
I see you didn't address the self-defense, right to privacy, or any of the other Roe V. Wade farcical arguments.
Right, so as a follower of the ideology of original intent and purpose of the Constitution you should know that the 5th Amendments original intent and purpose only applied to Federal courts, it was not until the ratification and inclusion of the 14th Amendment that the 5th Amendment applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of that Amendment. The Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment ONLY applies to the Federal Government, not State government and as such removing the 14th amendment would enable states to ignore the due process clause for everything that is not a Federal case. It is the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment that restricts the individual states in the same way the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment restricts Federal government. Problem is you forget that should Roe be overturned and the unborn be deemed persons under the protection of the Constitution, it also means they have to abide by the restrictions of that status ie, the unborn as a person MUST gain separate and distinct consent from the female to use her body, just as any other person has to gain that consent .. her consenting to sexual intercourse does not imply consenting to pregnancy, which would be a separate contract/agreement between her and the unborn .. because as you well know consenting to one person for one action does not mean consenting to another person for another action. You could, I suppose, claim that her consent to sexual intercourse implies her consent to pregnancy or even that it is informed consent .. however, implied and/or informed consent are only applicable until, by word or action, the female says 'no', as soon as she does that implied and/or informed consent are moot. The other thing you seem to have over looked is that the unborn as persons brings them under the 2nd Amendment right of self-defence, which as a follower of original intent and purpose you know is an absolute right and applies to the female equally as any other person, you will also know that that deadly force in self-defence is not restricted to life or death situations, it is also justified in cases of serious injury and loss of liberty .. pregnancy is already seen as a serious literal injury in some cases equal to a broken limb or a gun shot wound, and as such enables the female to remove the unborn that is causing her injuries if she has not or does not consent to them. As to your assertion that no abortion should be paid for by the US taxpayer, the same principle could be argued against the US tax payer funding wars or anything else. Regarding morality, your religious inspired morality does not hold greater power than another person non-religious morality, remember the 1st Amendment and what it's original intent and meaning was? No more or less than any other judges that have served on SCOTUS. There is an argument for capital punishment to be seen as a "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" .. not one I happen to agree with, but the argument is there and as such needed to be debated. Though what this has to do with abortion is a mystery. Again, little to do with abortion unless it involves the self-defence issue under the 2nd Amendment, I again see no problem with law abiding US citizens owning and bearing arms. LOL is that your way of trying to avoid debate, this forum is an international forum there are no rules in place that say I cannot comment on issues outside of my own country .. whether you respond is up to you.
The US doesn't even appear in the top 20 countries with the best personal freedom, even the UK is higher than the USA. https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/human-freedom-index-files/human-freedom-index-2015.pdf
firstly you forgot loss of liberty, but never mind. secondly, you obviously don't have a very good education in human reproductive biology, if you had you would know that "sore nipples" is the least of the issues .. I wonder would you defend yourself against another person who, suppressed your local immune reaction system, increased your hormone levels by up to 400%, increased you blood pressure by approx 15%, grew a new organ inside your body, re-routed your circulatory system and siphoned of oxygen and nutrients directly from your blood in order to sustain themselves .. I strongly suggest you would do anything and everything in your power to stop them .. including killing them. thirdly, pure and utter BS that a born infant can cause the same level of harm an unborn fetus does, again your insignificant level of biology knowledge is shining through. fourthly, the Supreme court in 1973 that made the Roe decisions had a conservative majority - 4 Judges were appointed by the Republican President Richard Nixon - Blackmun, who penned the Supreme Courts final Majority opinion, Burgher, Powell and Renquist 2 Judges were appointed by the Republican President Dwight Eisenhower - Brennan and Stewart 1 Judge was appointed by the Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt - Douglas 1 Judge was appointed by the Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson - Marshall 1 Judge was appointed by the Democratic President John F. Kennedy - White So as can be seen 6 of the 9 judges were Republican-appointed Justices. and finally, Rehnquist's dissent .. and what may come as a surprise to you I agree with much of what he said, I am not fan of the Roe decision, I believe it created more confusion and conflict than it solved. As to your assertion that "Roe Vs. Wade was advanced by a bunch of liberals trying to advance an agenda." is BS, had it been a "liberal" decision then it would have invalidated any and all abortion restrictions, just as if it had been a "conservative" decision it would have made any and all abortions illegal .. the court attempted to create a compromise that was ill conceived and created greater division. Irrelevant, you can't cherry pick or move the goalposts as to how the law applies just to suit your own bias .. either you believe what you stated that "Consent to risk is consent to potential consequences" or you don't. I couldn't care less about the Roe decision, that is not the foundation of the arguments I use.
"right to privacy, or any of the other Roe V. Wade farcical arguments." are irrelevant, just as the personhood of the unborn is irrelevant.
Yes, and other posters have...you either ignored them or couldn't understand them. BTW, If you're insinuating that RvW had something to do with self defense then no amount of factual posts will ever help you...... I'd sure love to see you prove that the only side effect of pregnancy is sore nipples as you claim....still haven't talked to Mom about her pregnancies????
Well---the 14th does in fact deal with slavery and the aftermath of it. I was using the nutty logic (that some of my relative use) in understanding who is morally superior. By their logic, a person who happens to be born in or currently lives in Vermont automatically lives on higher moral ground in terms of slavery, than anyone else in the US, or certainly someone born in Japan or living there now. It's the whole collective guilt rap. <Rule 3>
Oh I addressed it, multiple times. Self defense of the lethal variety is only permissible when threat of serious bodily harm or death is imminent. Clearly, that does not apply in 99% of the cases of pregnancy. I refer you to whoever posted the list of "sore nipples, swollen feet" self-defense argument. Oh wait that was you wasn't it? You'll notice that I referred to Rehnquist's dissension in that case, because it pretty much says it all, particularly with regards to the "right to privacy" baloney. You know, as well as I do, that Roe V. Wade was a progressive agenda and that the arguments used were entirely threadbare.
Pregnancy is already deemed a serious literal injury in some cases, you can ignore that all you like .. it is still a fact. the 1973 SCOTUS judges were Republican nominated by a margin of 6 to 3 Rehnquist's dissension has a lot of merit, Roe was a illogical compromise .. neither liberal or conservative. You haven't offered a single piece of evidence to support your assertion that self-defence is not a viable argument to keep abortion legal, all you have done is whine the same rubbish .. in fact you even stated that court decisions and even your own laws mean nothing to you. You have displayed a total ignorance of human developmental biology, ignorance of your own laws and Constitution, and certaily a lack of any meaningful research.
Thing I find disturbing is that you consider your moral position against abortion and forcing a female to gestate and give birth as higher than someone who wants her to have a choice over who, what, where and when her body is used by another. I often wonder if pro-lifers really understand the meaning of liberty. To me liberty means the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's behaviour or political views .. perhaps you have a different understanding of liberty.
Your argument hinges on equating pregnancy, as you said in a previous post, as being, and I quote "equal to a broken limb or a gun shot wound". That is utterly ridiculous. Let's take a poll of women in the US and ask them if they're rather be pregnant or get shot in the stomach. Amazing. I like how you try to make the judges conservative by proxy. Who appointed them is irrelevant, since we know Blackmun was the biggest prog of them all by the time Roe V. Wade rolled around. I'm not moving any goal posts. If I fall down and hurt myself I'm the only one harmed. This is not true for abortion. If I had to sacrifice a small child due to a tummy ache there would be an equivalency.
