1 in 4 women have abortions? Wow.

[Box Ox]

You’re at least reachable. Keep reading I guess.

Likewise!

Just admit what you are then.

What am I? I’d love to know your thoughts. Cheesy sounding but I’m not kidding.

I’ve never voted for a Republican in my life. Even used to go door-to-door for Democratic candidates. Yet I’ve been repeatedly told on here in the fairly recent past that I might as well vote for Trump as the Democratic Party has continued its slide further to the left.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Murder is a legal standard based on evidence. Stop being hysterical.

So you're open to discussing the legal standard for what murder is, based on evidence.

Fantastic! Now we're getting somewhere.
Let's discuss the evidence.

A human baby. Is crushing it's skull and vacuuming out it's brains murder?

This is a yes or no question.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Just want to interject, the point of the constitution is not to enumerate all rights. Most "constitutional" rights are either directly stated or implied. But by and large the constitution enumerates rights in order to establish constraints on when the government can violate them, in many cases that is never, and others it's when someone breaks the law (ie, violated someone else's rights).

The government is delegated powers from the people in order to handle the affairs of governance. People cannot delegate powers they don't have. Many of the powers exercised by the Government are illegitimate because they are not powers that people have to delegate.

No one ever need to talk about rights not guaranteed by the constitution. The only right we don't have is to violate other people's rights, and to turn down jury duty (even though anyone who really wants to get out of it generally can). What that means is not always clear, paeticularly when rights conflict and overlap, which is where law comes in, to establish clear(er) rules that people are to follow in order to not violate others' rights.

I do not have the right to hack someone to bits and vacuum up the pieces. Why people think anyone has the right to do so under any circumstances is beyond me. Most western countries that even allow abortion (yes, some don't at all) have stricter rules about it than Mississippi passed. Those countries use the same standards to determine when children and adults are considered alive or dead and apply them to developing babies. Meaning most restrict abortions after the 13th-15th week. So don't worry about whether or not you can coerce the chick you knocked up into murdering your baby, it's still easier to do in any red state in the US than in any other western country.

Hopefully everyone learns that babies are individual persons deserving of the same protection of their right to life as anyone else, and we all agree to stop murdering them. Until that point, you can still enjoy blending up babies and vacuuming up the bits.

 

[vantexan]

When it’s unborn and going to die or be a brain-dead vegetable anyway

Are you of the opinion that most abortions are to remove brain dead babies?

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Just want to interject, the point of the constitution is not to enumerate all rights. Most "constitutional" rights are either directly stated or implied. But by and large the constitution enumerates rights in order to establish constraints on when the government can violate them, in many cases that is never, and others it's when someone breaks the law (ie, violated someone else's rights).

The government is delegated powers from the people in order to handle the affairs of governance. People cannot delegate powers they don't have. Many of the powers exercised by the Government are illegitimate because they are not powers that people have to delegate.

No one ever need to talk about rights not guaranteed by the constitution. The only right we don't have is to violate other people's rights, and to turn down jury duty (even though anyone who really wants to get out of it generally can). What that means is not always clear, paeticularly when rights conflict and overlap, which is where law comes in, to establish clear(er) rules that people are to follow in order to not violate others' rights.

I do not have the right to hack someone to bits and vacuum up the pieces. Why people think anyone has the right to do so under any circumstances is beyond me. Most western countries that even allow abortion (yes, some don't at all) have stricter rules about it than Mississippi passed. Those countries use the same standards to determine when children and adults are considered alive or dead and apply them to developing babies. Meaning most restrict abortions after the 13th-15th week. So don't worry about whether or not you can coerce the chick you knocked up into murdering your baby, it's still easier to do in any red state in the US than in any other western country.

Hopefully everyone learns that babies are individual persons deserving of the same protection of their right to life as anyone else, and we all agree to stop murdering them. Until that point, you can still enjoy blending up babies and vacuuming up the bits.

Tldr version:

The constitution isn't a list of rights.
Rather, it lists limitations on governance of rights that need not be listed, because they are inalienable.

God bless America.

 

[vantexan]

I did not mean any offense by this, just saying you are entitled to privacy in your bedroom, anybody that argues against that is UNAMERICAN, and you call ME the commie. !

You are entitled to privacy in the bedroom but not to results that come out of that bedroom. If a man contracts AIDS "in the bedroom" does he have the right to privacy by not disclosing his condition to other sexual partners?

 

[baklava]

What am I? I’d love to know your thoughts.

You seem to be reluctantly simpatico with the religious right. I don’t know why.

I’ve never voted for a Republican in my life. Even used to go door-to-door for Democratic candidates. Yet I’ve been repeatedly told on here in the fairly recent past that I might as well vote for Trump as the Democratic Party has continued its slide further to the left.

I vehemently hate the Democrat Party. With all due respect, you don’t seem to understand neoliberalism. I’m down for a good faith discussion but I’m not gonna waste my energy here.

you can still enjoy blending up babies and vacuuming up the bits.

I used to think you were intellectually honest, at least now I know to not take you seriously anymore.

 

[baklava]

Are you of the opinion that most abortions are to remove brain dead babies?

No. Most are elective, early, and none of our business (assuming you’re a male).

 

[Box Ox]

You seem to be reluctantly simpatico with the religious right. I don’t know why.

If that’s what a discussion of the Constitution and what judicial activism actually is makes me sound like then so be it I guess.

I’m down for a good faith discussion but I’m not gonna waste my energy here.

Mmmmm hmmmm.

 

[baklava]

If that’s what a discussion of the Constitution and what judicial activism actually is makes me sound like then so be it I guess.

The Supreme Court is not always right. Plessy v Ferguson off the top of my head. Yes, that means Roe may not be right but don’t we always side with individual liberty in America? Shouldn’t we? Overturning 50 years of precedent regarding privacy and individual liberty is activist. Unless of course you’re simpatico with the religious right. Which you apparently are.

 

[baklava]

Mmmmm hmmmm.

If you have an inclination toward economic left politics but hate the mainstream media and woke bull, PM me and we can talk.

 

[baklava]

European countries that the left so often talks about admiring so much

European countries are an example of what can be done. We should be better than Europe in every way; from our healthcare, to our abortion laws, to our military, to our individual liberties etc

 

[Box Ox]

The Supreme Court is not always right. Plessy v Ferguson off the top of my head. Yes, that means Roe may not be right but don’t we always side with individual liberty in America?

No. We have laws that prohibit individuals from doing certain things. Usually for good reason.

Shouldn’t we?

Does abortion only affect one individual?

Overturning 50 years of precedent regarding privacy and individual liberty is activist. Unless of course you’re simpatico with the religious right. Which you apparently are.

I don’t believe the overturning of a poorly reasoned Supreme Court decision after 50 years is activism just because a conservative majority came along and decided they’d like to stick to the Constitution. Even if they are personally and ideologically against abortion.

The argument that abortion is protected by the Constitution and that a judge or justice is an activist if they do stick to the Constitution in their decisions just doesn’t hold up for me.

 

[Box Ox]

European countries are an example of what can be done. We should be better than Europe in every way; from our healthcare, to our abortion laws, to our military, to our individual liberties etc

I guess we’ll just have to disagree on the idea that the allowance of abortion in the third trimester for reasons other than the saving of the life of the mother here in the US makes our abortion tradition “better” than Europe’s.

 

[baklava]

I guess we’ll just have to disagree on the idea that the allowance of abortion in the third trimester for reasons other than the saving of the life of the mother here in the US makes our abortion tradition “better” than Europe’s.

I’m reluctant to get into this argument because I’m going to end up wrestling in the mud with the right wing retards on here, but eff it.

Dude, there are legal parameters relating to the viablity standard for abortion. A woman can’t abort an 8 month old baby because she doesn’t feel like having it. Late term abortions are rare and horrific, and where they are done, it is for good reason.

Abortion is sad, it’s grotesque, it’s traumatic for the women that go through it. But it’s their choice, and quite frankly it’s on their conscience, not ours. The majority of women in the US want to make that choice for themselves. Allowing women to make that decision with the advice of a physician is superior to restrictive laws elsewhere in the world.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

You seem to be reluctantly simpatico with the religious right. I don’t know why.

I vehemently hate the Democrat Party. With all due respect, you don’t seem to understand neoliberalism. I’m down for a good faith discussion but I’m not gonna waste my energy here.

I used to think you were intellectually honest, at least now I know to not take you seriously anymore.

Intellectually dishonest is pretending a baby is a "pregnancy". What I described is how the infanticide is carried out. People who use euphemisms like "abortion" need to confront the reality of what they support.

 

[vantexan]

I’m reluctant to get into this argument because I’m going to end up wrestling in the mud with the right wing retards on here, but eff it.

Dude, there are legal parameters relating to the viablity standard for abortion. A woman can’t abort an 8 month old baby because she doesn’t feel like having it. Late term abortions are rare and horrific, and where they are done, it is for good reason.

Abortion is sad, it’s grotesque, it’s traumatic for the women that go through it. But it’s their choice, and quite frankly it’s on their conscience, not ours. The majority of women in the US want to make that choice for themselves. Allowing women to make that decision with the advice of a physician is superior to restrictive laws elsewhere in the world.

But that's just it, abortion advocates are pushing to allow abortions right up to just before birth. And not because of something terrible discovered about the fetus. Saw an interview with Hillary Clinton in 2016 where she said a woman should be able to choose whether to abort right up until just before birth and it was no one else's business but her's why. The former governor of Virginia who was a medical doctor explained on video how they would still kill a baby who survived an abortion attempt. They would as he put it make it comfortable but otherwise render no aid until it expired on its own. It was the intent of the mother to abort the baby so they wouldn't let it live. I don't recall how it turned out but New York State was looking at allowing third trimester abortions. So if you're upset about women not being allowed to abort in red states you really shouldn't be surprised that people with very strong beliefs reacted so vehemently against what was being pushed by abortion supporters.

 

[baklava]

I’m reluctant to get into this argument because I’m going to end up wrestling in the mud with the right wing retards on here, but eff it.

But that's just it, abortion advocates are pushing to allow abortions right up to just before birth.

This is exactly what I’m talking about. I’m not going to argue this stupid with you.

 

[vantexan]

The Supreme Court is not always right. Plessy v Ferguson off the top of my head. Yes, that means Roe may not be right but don’t we always side with individual liberty in America? Shouldn’t we? Overturning 50 years of precedent regarding privacy and individual liberty is activist. Unless of course you’re simpatico with the religious right. Which you apparently are.

You're essentially saying that if the Supreme Court got it wrong the first time we'll just have to live with it forever. Funny how that works when it's a ruling you agree with. Just out of curiosity if a woman can terminate a fully formed child until right before birth then why not allow her to kill it after it's born? Bills are too much, can't afford childcare, can't feed it and the other older children too. Why not just take it to an euthanasia clinic and have it mercifully put down? Why stop there? Elderly Alzheimer's patient is being a burden on his family. Off he goes. Repeat offender is being a burden to society. Why feed him in prison? If we're going to slaughter tens of millions of babies we might as well start trimming the fat elsewhere. Lean and mean. Show those Europeans how it's done.

 

[vantexan]

This is exactly what I’m talking about. I’m not going to argue this stupid with you.

Because you have no argument. It's just what you want and the rest of us be damned if we don't like it. The power is back with the states like it was supposed to be all along. You shouldn't have legal precedent when it never should have happened. Now each state gets to decide and if you don't agree with your state's view then by all means move to one you agree with. Just remember it's now the state's right to decide and not any of your business what people in other states choose. The irony is delicious.