GOP plans Constitutional Amendment banning all abortion as national convention platform

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

Wolverine18:

Why? A rape exception makes zero sense.

Either the fetus is a human life, and needs to be protected, or it doesn't.

And here we come to the absolute basis of the whole thing. "Is a fertilized egg-cell a human being, or not?", versus "is a woman's uterus and life (yes, life. Giving birth can KILL women) hers to control, or do they belong to The State?"

Tirunus:
We, as a society and as a country need to decide what constitutes a human being if we ever wish for this debate to end.

I don't think that'll do it. The problem in the abortion debate is not that we don't know what a person is, but that there's a group of people out there for whom carrying out the wishes of their religion is more important than the interests and rights of other people. All the drawing of lines is just a symptom of that deeper conflict.

Katatori-kun:

keiskay:

Katatori-kun:

"Pro-lifer"s are simply not "pro-life". That's a fact. However, that doesn't mean you can just make up any old bullshit about what pro-choicers think.

except its not really a fact?

Of course it is. People call themselves "pro-lifers". However, a statistical majority of them support the death penalty. Therefore, they are in direct conflict with what they have claimed to be their ideology.

but so does the label of pro-murderers or pro-criminal to choicers,

Nonsense. The number of liberals have described themselves as "pro-murderers" or "pro-criminals" is so statistically insignificant I doubt you can provide even a single piece of evidence to back up your ridiculous claim.

And in any event, being opposed to the execution of criminals is not in any remote way related to being for criminality. To make that sort of claim you'd either have to be a flagrant partisan liar or have such a weak grasp on how to relate ideas that basic speech would be a real challenge.

but like people always say, "MY side is always right and holy without flaw"

I never said any such thing at all. You really need to stop making up bullshit.

criminals have given up their rights as citizens, especially those who have committed murder, they violated the contract. you can argue all you want about them being "human" but for all intents and purposes they might as well be cattle at that point.

itsthesheppy:
What you mean is they lost their force.

Sort of... I have the right to force you to not ingest heroin or cut off your own limbs for fun... I think suicide is even illegal in some states and I can force you to not kill yourself.

With Roe v Wade, states that wanted to force you to continue a pregnancy were told they may not. I think this Amendment is a backlash.

arbane:

Wolverine18:

Why? A rape exception makes zero sense.

Either the fetus is a human life, and needs to be protected, or it doesn't.

And here we come to the absolute basis of the whole thing. "Is a fertilized egg-cell a human being, or not?", versus "is a woman's uterus and life (yes, life. Giving birth can KILL women) hers to control, or do they belong to The State?"

Well that last part about belonging to the state is just silly.

The core question really is:

1) Is the fetus a human life entitled to the protections of the law granted any living person?

If not:
- there is no reason to ban abortion

If they are:
- then it is a conflict of mutually elusive rights between two people which is resolved by the standard law test:

2) Weight the competing rights, the harm if one right or the other is exercised, and on balance determine what is in the interest of society as a balance point:

- If the mother's rights win, don't ban abortion
- If the fetus' rights win, ban abortion.
- As an optional 3rd position, do the relative rights change, and if so, at one point?

None of that would justify rape being an exception to the law. The fetus is deserving of protection, or not. Who your father is or how well your parents got along shouldn't determine your rights in society, should it?

I think the "exception for rape" option is a coward's option.

Gorfias:

itsthesheppy:
What you mean is they lost their force.

Sort of... I have the right to force you to not ingest heroin or cut off your own limbs for fun... I think suicide is even illegal in some states and I can force you to not kill yourself.

With Roe v Wade, states that wanted to force you to continue a pregnancy were told they may not. I think this Amendment is a backlash.

I don't recognize your right to tell me what I can and can not do with my own body. Or I should say, you shouldn't have that right and I'm forced to recognize it but I'd rather not. (Catching a theme here?)

You know the funny thing? Republicans are always all like "Get the federal government outta here!" and talking about how big government is bad. Okay, well... how big is the government that it has the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with the only thing that can never be declared not mine? My body is my last line of possessions. It's the meat engine that runs my brain. surely I should be the final arbiter for what happens to it, right? But no. You need to have a say. And who the fuck are you?

If I wanna OD on heroin that's my choice to make about me. If I wanna eat cheeseburgers every day and die of heart failure at the age of 38 that's my choice to make about me. And you should support that. Because there's things you likely do for you that you don't want me having a say in, because who the fuck am I?

The only force you should have on me, or anyone should have on anyone else, is the force to stop someone from hurting another human or animal without cause.

The difference between you and me is you see the fetus as a human and I do not. Who's right? Maybe neither of us. But it's unequivocally part of the woman's body (in that it can't survive without it and is unable of looking after itself in even the most basic sense) so until we can make things otherwise, it's her body, her future, her health, and we should stay out of it.

Funny that I, liberal scum that I am, tend to be greatly more interested in individual liberty than those on the right who pay so much lip service to freedom.

Amnestic:
Link

Captcha: beg the question

I just...

Fuck it, I can't say anything to this.

Enjoy your Derp Party, Republicans. This isn't a single person from a backwater state senate or anything. NATIONAL. CONVENTION. PLATFORM. Every vote you throw in support of a Republican is a tacit supporting vote of this thing.

Well the appropriate response upon hearing this is this.....

image
nnnnnnoooooooo!!!

Seriously GOP when are you going to tackle major issues like deporting illegal immigrants and stop beating this dead horse(see:abortion)?

Helmholtz Watson:

Seriously GOP when are you going to tackle major issues like deporting illegal immigrants and stop beating this dead horse(see:abortion)?

The second it stops getting them votes.

Keep in mind that the GOP will probably never actually flat-out ban abortion. if they do that, the Pro-Forced-Pregnancy voters will stop showing up. If they were ever going to make a try at that, it would have been during the Bush Junta when they controlled all three branches of government, and I don't remember them even mumbling Word One about it then. They'll just keep incrementally whittling away at it, so that it's ever harder for poor women to get them, while making sure that their wives, daughters, and mistresses[1] will only ever need a short 'vacation' to dispose of an unwanted fetus.

[1] Sexist on my part? maybe. But the GOP bigshots ARE mainly men.

itsthesheppy:
... I should say, you shouldn't have that right and I'm forced to recognize it but I'd rather not. (Catching a theme here?)...

If I wanna OD on heroin that's my choice to make about me. ...

The only force you should have on me, or anyone should have on anyone else, is the force to stop someone from hurting another human or animal without cause.

These are political arguments and are very persuasive. My problem is that Roe pretended it was law and took away the public's right to engage in political arguments. You do agree, at this time, the actual law is, I can force you to not ingest heroin, correct?

The difference between you and me is you see the fetus as a human and I do not....

I've avoided that analogy. I think it unique. It is not a human being. We don't have funerals for women who have pregnancies that just don't take, and a tiny embryo is flushed without even the potential mom knowing.

Were it human and it was our legal tradition to treat it so, I'd make a 9th and 14th Amendment argument in its favor.

Funny that I, liberal scum that I am, tend to be greatly more interested in individual liberty than those on the right who pay so much lip service to freedom.

I don't know how much freedom you have if you have lost the right to self government and are now ruled by a Kritarchy. Personally, I don't want to go there.

When it comes to social issues... Why is the republican party is just so damn backwards and entirely evil with their stances? I seriously considered dropping Godwin's law on this.

These stances they take are just so morally wrong and justified by so much lies, stupidity, and private religious values it just stuns me.

Gorfias:

itsthesheppy:
... I should say, you shouldn't have that right and I'm forced to recognize it but I'd rather not. (Catching a theme here?)...

If I wanna OD on heroin that's my choice to make about me. ...

The only force you should have on me, or anyone should have on anyone else, is the force to stop someone from hurting another human or animal without cause.

These are political arguments and are very persuasive. My problem is that Roe pretended it was law and took away the public's right to engage in political arguments. You do agree, at this time, the actual law is, I can force you to not ingest heroin, correct?

The difference between you and me is you see the fetus as a human and I do not....

I've avoided that analogy. I think it unique. It is not a human being. We don't have funerals for women who have pregnancies that just don't take, and a tiny embryo is flushed without even the potential mom knowing.

Were it human and it was our legal tradition to treat it so, I'd make a 9th and 14th Amendment argument in its favor.

Funny that I, liberal scum that I am, tend to be greatly more interested in individual liberty than those on the right who pay so much lip service to freedom.

I don't know how much freedom you have if you have lost the right to self government and are now ruled by a Kritarchy. Personally, I don't want to go there.

What's a Kritarchy?

I agree that you have the right to stop be injecting heroin into my arm. I don't think you should. I also don't think that opposes my point in any way because I'm not arguing that laws shouldn't change or be challenged. I'm saying that laws shouldn't infringe on my choices to do what I want with my own body or possessions.

And you're right, a fetus isn't a human being. But what is it? Because it would have to be something more than a cow, but less than a human. I don't think you and I would be able to settle on a happy medium there.

arbane:

Helmholtz Watson:

Seriously GOP when are you going to tackle major issues like deporting illegal immigrants and stop beating this dead horse(see:abortion)?

The second it stops getting them votes.

Keep in mind that the GOP will probably never actually flat-out ban abortion. if they do that, the Pro-Forced-Pregnancy voters will stop showing up. If they were ever going to make a try at that, it would have been during the Bush Junta when they controlled all three branches of government, and I don't remember them even mumbling Word One about it then. They'll just keep incrementally whittling away at it, so that it's ever harder for poor women to get them, while making sure that their wives, daughters, and mistresses will only ever need a short 'vacation' to dispose of an unwanted fetus.

Nah, I don't think they'd stop short of banning it. Because then all they would have to do is sow a constant fear of regression in their voting blocks to keep them going to the polls.

itsthesheppy:

arbane:

Helmholtz Watson:

Seriously GOP when are you going to tackle major issues like deporting illegal immigrants and stop beating this dead horse(see:abortion)?

The second it stops getting them votes.

Keep in mind that the GOP will probably never actually flat-out ban abortion. if they do that, the Pro-Forced-Pregnancy voters will stop showing up. If they were ever going to make a try at that, it would have been during the Bush Junta when they controlled all three branches of government, and I don't remember them even mumbling Word One about it then. They'll just keep incrementally whittling away at it, so that it's ever harder for poor women to get them, while making sure that their wives, daughters, and mistresses will only ever need a short 'vacation' to dispose of an unwanted fetus.

Nah, I don't think they'd stop short of banning it. Because then all they would have to do is sow a constant fear of regression in their voting blocks to keep them going to the polls.

"Those damn commie loving hippies are going to steal our guns!"
I guess they same could be used with abortion

"Those damn commie loving hippies are going to destroy the country with abortion"

itsthesheppy:

What's a Kritarchy?

Rule by Judges.

I agree that you have the right to stop be injecting heroin into my arm. I don't think you should. I also don't think that opposes my point in any way because I'm not arguing that laws shouldn't change or be challenged. I'm saying that laws shouldn't infringe on my choices to do what I want with my own body or possessions.

And that's fine. It is a political argument. I might be in favor of some sort of "physical integrity" Amendment that might, say, protect a prison inmates right to not be tattooed (as a for instance). My problem is that the law isn't there yet and in Roe, some Judges pretended it is (Depending on your interpretation of the 9th) and I think that caused part of this Amendment backlash.

I've read that other countries did not have so radical a decision imposed upon them and came about reproductive rights democratically. I think that is the way to go.

Helmholtz Watson:

Amnestic:
Link

Captcha: beg the question

I just...

Fuck it, I can't say anything to this.

Enjoy your Derp Party, Republicans. This isn't a single person from a backwater state senate or anything. NATIONAL. CONVENTION. PLATFORM. Every vote you throw in support of a Republican is a tacit supporting vote of this thing.

Well the appropriate response upon hearing this is this.....

Seriously GOP when are you going to tackle major issues like deporting illegal immigrants and stop beating this dead horse(see:abortion)?

My guess is they probably don't want to touch illegal immigrants since Obama's been deporting them in record numbers. It's kind of hard to talk about a topic ("Illegal immigrants are bad and we will stop them!") when your opponent is doing exactly what you want except better than your guy did.

Gorfias:

itsthesheppy:

What's a Kritarchy?

Rule by Judges.

I agree that you have the right to stop be injecting heroin into my arm. I don't think you should. I also don't think that opposes my point in any way because I'm not arguing that laws shouldn't change or be challenged. I'm saying that laws shouldn't infringe on my choices to do what I want with my own body or possessions.

And that's fine. It is a political argument. I might be in favor of some sort of "physical integrity" Amendment that might, say, protect a prison inmates right to not be tattooed (as a for instance). My problem is that the law isn't there yet and in Roe, some Judges pretended it is (Depending on your interpretation of the 9th) and I think that caused part of this Amendment backlash.

I've read that other countries did not have so radical a decision imposed upon them and came about reproductive rights democratically. I think that is the way to go.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that. What makes me sad is that a lot of people would vote based on what their religion tells them, which to me would be a great loss for personal liberties everywhere.

Edit: The personal integrity amendment would, however, do a great deal to bolster Roe.

itsthesheppy:

Gorfias:

itsthesheppy:

What's a Kritarchy?

Rule by Judges.

I agree that you have the right to stop be injecting heroin into my arm. I don't think you should. I also don't think that opposes my point in any way because I'm not arguing that laws shouldn't change or be challenged. I'm saying that laws shouldn't infringe on my choices to do what I want with my own body or possessions.

And that's fine. It is a political argument. I might be in favor of some sort of "physical integrity" Amendment that might, say, protect a prison inmates right to not be tattooed (as a for instance). My problem is that the law isn't there yet and in Roe, some Judges pretended it is (Depending on your interpretation of the 9th) and I think that caused part of this Amendment backlash.

I've read that other countries did not have so radical a decision imposed upon them and came about reproductive rights democratically. I think that is the way to go.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that. What makes me sad is that a lot of people would vote based on what their religion tells them, which to me would be a great loss for personal liberties everywhere.

Edit: The personal integrity amendment would, however, do a great deal to bolster Roe.

Yes, the personal integrity amendment would likely protect reproductive freedom.

I agree with you that religious dogma can be dangerous. I do think you would be well served to learn of some of the intellectual arguments against abortion if for no other reason to politically inoculate yourself: know the other side's arguments and be able to counter even before they make their points. While religious dogma may feed the abortion debate, its opponents have rational reasons for their position you should know, if for no other reason, to defend your own position. Personally, I try to read stuff from opposing views often. (MSM to Worldnet Daily if need be).

Gorfias:

itsthesheppy:

Gorfias:

Rule by Judges.

And that's fine. It is a political argument. I might be in favor of some sort of "physical integrity" Amendment that might, say, protect a prison inmates right to not be tattooed (as a for instance). My problem is that the law isn't there yet and in Roe, some Judges pretended it is (Depending on your interpretation of the 9th) and I think that caused part of this Amendment backlash.

I've read that other countries did not have so radical a decision imposed upon them and came about reproductive rights democratically. I think that is the way to go.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that. What makes me sad is that a lot of people would vote based on what their religion tells them, which to me would be a great loss for personal liberties everywhere.

Edit: The personal integrity amendment would, however, do a great deal to bolster Roe.

Yes, the personal integrity amendment would likely protect reproductive freedom.

I agree with you that religious dogma can be dangerous. I do think you would be well served to learn of some of the intellectual arguments against abortion if for no other reason to politically inoculate yourself: know the other side's arguments and be able to counter even before they make their points. While religious dogma may feed the abortion debate, its opponents have rational reasons for their position you should know, if for no other reason, to defend your own position. Personally, I try to read stuff from opposing views often. (MSM to Worldnet Daily if need be).

Thank you but I'm well versed in nonreligious opinions for opposing abortion. The problem is that the religious stance is predominant. At the end of the day, most of it comes down to personhood, and that's where the religious folks start adding nonsense about souls and stuff.

I'm interested in your response to my question, however.; If not a person, then what is a fetus? and in what way does it have fewer rights than a human being, but more rights than a cow?

Gorfias:

These are political arguments and are very persuasive. My problem is that Roe pretended it was law

If the Supreme Court made a ruling, it IS law. You don't actually understand how our government works, do you?

Gorfias:

I don't know how much freedom you have if you have lost the right to self government and are now ruled by a Kritarchy. Personally, I don't want to go there.

OH NOES ACTIVIST JUDGES!!@!one

Right now, I don't have the 'right' to smoke weed in quote a few states, and I can get put in jail for trying and failing to commit suicide. I don't have 'the right to self-government' in either of those cases, so why are you whining that Roe v. Wade is some kind of unique abomination against Freedom™?

Elect G-Max:
They'll never get 3/4 of the state legislatures to agree. This proposed plank is just harmless pandering and they know it.

I doubt that it will even get into the final platform.

Oh finally. I've been watching the RNC and judging by the way they approached abstinence education i.e. by saying that they should have abstinence education but they acknowledged that despite that kids are still having sex they should also talk about contraceptives. That amendment was passed into the final product. Thus while there may be a portion that supports this the majority will amend it to say in cases of rape and incest as well.

Of course this won't stop everyone in the forum to just scream about how the Republicans are pushing for this.

Gorfias:
My problem is that the law isn't there yet and in Roe, some Judges pretended it is

Where in the US constitution does it say "Women have no rights whatsoever" or "Imposing religion goes above all other interests"? If not, then te reasoning sinks. Not in the last place because the US signed the core human rights charter way before that ruling.

In all other circumstances, the right to bodily integrity trumps all else, and that's not even counting the fact that the supreme court makes law, as has already been noted.

Well, at least there's ONE Republican willing to speak out against this!

itsthesheppy:

I'm interested in your response to my question, however.; If not a person, then what is a fetus? and in what way does it have fewer rights than a human being, but more rights than a cow?

A fetus is something unique. A cow, historically and in western social history and law, exists for our pleasure. A fetus is potential human life. There have been laws on our books for a long time authorizing "abortion" until "quickening" for some time. This life has the reverence we give to it. Under law, destroying someone else's fetus (thug hits pregnant woman in the stomach) there is the understanding that the woman has not lost just some piece of "property" to the thug. Something more has happened. Disrespect for the fetus, it is feared, creates a disrespect for human life in general, so there are those that will argue a unique and special status for it, far above that of a cows.

arbane:

If the Supreme Court made a ruling, it IS law.

How very subservient of you to notice. Thank you for surrendering your liberty. You're much easier for others to govern now.

Blablahb:
Where in the US constitution does it say "Women have no rights whatsoever" or "Imposing religion goes above all other interests"? If not, then te reasoning sinks. Not in the last place because the US signed the core human rights charter way before that ruling.

In all other circumstances, the right to bodily integrity trumps all else, and that's not even counting the fact that the supreme court makes law, as has already been noted.

Where, in a reasonable interpretation of the law, do you have the right to shoot heroin? It's right next to where you have a constitutional right to abortion.

Okay. This is now party-wide. The GOP has to lose, lose, lose. Not just this year. But until the radical theocrats have garnered so many defeats that they are driven back to the fringe where they belong. It's the only hope, not just for the GOP themselves but for the USA overall. I can only hope the Democrats redouble, nay, retriple or more their "war on women"-efforts. Too long have Repubs said here that these views, actions and folks are just a small part, that the GOP is about fiscal responsibility. As if the latter weren't laughable enough (when has a Repub actually reduced the deficit), it's clear that the socially conservative scum have taken over.

Gorfias:

itsthesheppy:

I'm interested in your response to my question, however.; If not a person, then what is a fetus? and in what way does it have fewer rights than a human being, but more rights than a cow?

A fetus is something unique. A cow, historically and in western social history and law, exists for our pleasure. A fetus is potential human life. There have been laws on our books for a long time authorizing "abortion" until "quickening" for some time. This life has the reverence we give to it. Under law, destroying someone else's fetus (thug hits pregnant woman in the stomach) there is the understanding that the woman has not lost just some piece of "property" to the thug. Something more has happened. Disrespect for the fetus, it is feared, creates a disrespect for human life in general, so there are those that will argue a unique and special status for it, far above that of a cows.

I disagree that cows are legally here for our pleasure. If my pleasure is having sex with cows or setting them on fire while they are still alive, then I will be arrested and charged. If I keep a cow locked in a room and I don't feed or water it and let it die, I'll be arrested. We attribute some value to cows. However, we grant more to humans because we are humans, and we also have an increased capacity for suffering. (Or so we think anyway).

But a fetus doesn't have an increased capacity for suffering like we do. It, in fact, is cognitively inferior to a cow. A cow can find its own food, avoid danger on its own, and reproduce. A fetus can do none of those things. So why is the fetus more important? Because, if left to develop, it will become a person? Do we value it more than a cow because of human potentiality?

Wolverine18:

I don't see how my answers are misleading. Of course most people are against 3rd trimester abortions, but that's a moot question. No law is needed as the medical ethics rules imposed by the self regulating medical associations in all provinces already restrict 3rd trimester abortions.

What exactly do you think is disgusting about the laws in Canada as they stand?

Because Canada has the laxest abortion law of any western country. I don't really mind first trimester abortions, and second trimester ones for select reasons, but the law is partially supposed to embody the morality of the populace, and most people I know are not ok with 3rd trimester abortions. The medical community may "regulate" it, but I question how much bite they really have. I would like to see criminal penalties or fines for late term abortion.

"The Canadian Institute for Health Information statistics indicate that of all the reports of abortions in Canada in 2010, only 22% included the gestational age of the fetus at the time of abortion. Even with such a small percentage reported, there were 537 abortions in Canada after 21 weeks gestation. Assuming we can project that ratio onto the 78% of abortions that did not record gestational ages, there may have been over 1,900 abortions after 21 weeks. The Canadian Medical Association has set viability outside the womb at 20 weeks gestation.

I feel at that point you can elect to have the baby removed and placed on life support, but you cannot kill it.

Skeleon:
Okay. This is now party-wide. The GOP has to lose, lose, lose. Not just this year. But until the radical theocrats have garnered so many defeats that they are driven back to the fringe where they belong. It's the only hope, not just for the GOP themselves but for the USA overall. I can only hope the Democrats redouble, nay, retriple or more their "war on women"-efforts. Too long have Repubs said here that these views, actions and folks are just a small part, that the GOP is about fiscal responsibility. As if the latter weren't laughable enough (when has a Repub actually reduced the deficit), it's clear that the socially conservative scum have taken over.

i would like to point you to warforgers post which is wonderfully informative and not biased unlike the OP's source and 90% of the people in this thread. (also the OP's source is biased its a blog, while associated with a legitimate news source its still a blog)

Warforger:

Elect G-Max:
They'll never get 3/4 of the state legislatures to agree. This proposed plank is just harmless pandering and they know it.

I doubt that it will even get into the final platform.

Oh finally. I've been watching the RNC and judging by the way they approached abstinence education i.e. by saying that they should have abstinence education but they acknowledged that despite that kids are still having sex they should also talk about contraceptives. That amendment was passed into the final product. Thus while there may be a portion that supports this the majority will amend it to say in cases of rape and incest as well.

Of course this won't stop everyone in the forum to just scream about how the Republicans are pushing for this.

Champthrax:

Wolverine18:

I don't see how my answers are misleading. Of course most people are against 3rd trimester abortions, but that's a moot question. No law is needed as the medical ethics rules imposed by the self regulating medical associations in all provinces already restrict 3rd trimester abortions.

What exactly do you think is disgusting about the laws in Canada as they stand?

Because Canada has the laxest abortion law of any western country. I don't really mind first trimester abortions, and second trimester ones for select reasons, but the law is partially supposed to embody the morality of the populace, and most people I know are not ok with 3rd trimester abortions. The medical community may "regulate" it, but I question how much bite they really have. I would like to see criminal penalties or fines for late term abortion.

It's not lax, its comprehensive. Sadly it isn't enforced enough though, there are still areas of the country that are not following their legally mandated requirement to provide free and accessible abortions.

Besides, saying what procedures you can't do is not the purpose of criminal law. How many medical procedures do you know that are criminalized? Good luck finding any. Medical procedures are regulated, and by the provinces at that since health care is a Provincial responsibility under the Constitution.

"The Canadian Institute for Health Information statistics indicate that of all the reports of abortions in Canada in 2010, only 22% included the gestational age of the fetus at the time of abortion. Even with such a small percentage reported, there were 537 abortions in Canada after 21 weeks gestation. Assuming we can project that ratio onto the 78% of abortions that did not record gestational ages, there may have been over 1,900 abortions after 21 weeks. The Canadian Medical Association has set viability outside the womb at 20 weeks gestation.

I feel at that point you can elect to have the baby removed and placed on life support, but you cannot kill it.

Have you ever had a baby? One of the things they tell you as the father/partner is there may be a point during delivery where you have to choose, mother or child. It's not always possible for every baby to be taken out and put in an incubator even if you wanted to.

Also many late term abortions are for defects that could not or should not be supported outside the womb. For example, my brother's gf's doctors suggested an abortion to her when it became apparent that the child was SEVERELY deformed and would never live 5 minutes outside the womb. (And while she didn't have the abortion, it turned out they were right, the baby screamed for 1 minute and then died).

As a lawyer, I'd rather medical ethics be left up to doctors than to lawyers (who write the legislation based on what politicians think people want to hear)

Amnestic:

Helmholtz Watson:

Amnestic:
Link

Captcha: beg the question

I just...

Fuck it, I can't say anything to this.

Enjoy your Derp Party, Republicans. This isn't a single person from a backwater state senate or anything. NATIONAL. CONVENTION. PLATFORM. Every vote you throw in support of a Republican is a tacit supporting vote of this thing.

Well the appropriate response upon hearing this is this.....

Seriously GOP when are you going to tackle major issues like deporting illegal immigrants and stop beating this dead horse(see:abortion)?

My guess is they probably don't want to touch illegal immigrants since Obama's been deporting them in record numbers. It's kind of hard to talk about a topic ("Illegal immigrants are bad and we will stop them!") when your opponent is doing exactly what you want except better than your guy did.

How about securing the border and putting in place laws that would heavily fine employers of illegal immigrants?

Gorfias:

arbane:

If the Supreme Court made a ruling, it IS law.

How very subservient of you to notice. Thank you for surrendering your liberty. You're much easier for others to govern now.

what is this

i dont even

Helmholtz Watson:
How about securing the border

Not fiscally responsible. I thought Republicans were all about cutting out excess waste that didn't serve to do anything?

Do you have any idea how much a truly "effective" wall would cost? A wall which people would end up getting by anyway? People were smuggling people past the Berlin Wall for Haruhi's sake. Do you really think you stand a better chance for whatever paltry sum is thrown at those construction efforts?

Helmholtz Watson:
and putting in place laws that would heavily fine employers of illegal immigrants?

Spoiler Alert: He's doing that too.

Could he fine them more? Probably. It's never that simple though, is it?

"An audit would force us to fire 70% to 80% of our workers," said Fred Leitz, a fourth-generation Michigan farmer employing 250 seasonal workers. "The people working the fields and harvesting the crops that feed our nation need work authorization."

You gotta balance the impact such stuff has on the American agriculture industry (and the knock-ons from that - like food prices across the country?).

But yeah, he's kicking them out at record rates and fining companies who hire illegals.

The only thing he's not doing is being a "tax and spend Democrat" by wasting millions of dollars on an ineffective border wall. Maybe the Republicans want him to do that so they can whine about his out of control spending though?

itsthesheppy:

Gorfias:

itsthesheppy:

I'm interested in your response to my question, however.; If not a person, then what is a fetus? and in what way does it have fewer rights than a human being, but more rights than a cow?

A fetus is something unique. A cow, historically and in western social history and law, exists for our pleasure. A fetus is potential human life. There have been laws on our books for a long time authorizing "abortion" until "quickening" for some time. This life has the reverence we give to it. Under law, destroying someone else's fetus (thug hits pregnant woman in the stomach) there is the understanding that the woman has not lost just some piece of "property" to the thug. Something more has happened. Disrespect for the fetus, it is feared, creates a disrespect for human life in general, so there are those that will argue a unique and special status for it, far above that of a cows.

I disagree that cows are legally here for our pleasure. If my pleasure is having sex with cows or setting them on fire while they are still alive, then I will be arrested and charged. If I keep a cow locked in a room and I don't feed or water it and let it die, I'll be arrested. We attribute some value to cows. However, we grant more to humans because we are humans, and we also have an increased capacity for suffering. (Or so we think anyway).

But a fetus doesn't have an increased capacity for suffering like we do. It, in fact, is cognitively inferior to a cow. A cow can find its own food, avoid danger on its own, and reproduce. A fetus can do none of those things. So why is the fetus more important? Because, if left to develop, it will become a person? Do we value it more than a cow because of human potentiality?

Some good points. I understand Jewish Law, for instance, commands animals be given a measure of respect, that you don't kill them in unnecessarily inhumane ways before eating and harvesting.

But if I come to your house and kill your cow, by and large (unless something unusual is proven) I owe you property damage. I punch you or your spouse in her pregnant belly and cause a fetus to die, again, there is an understanding that something unique (Sui Generis)has happened.

arbane:

Gorfias:

arbane:

If the Supreme Court made a ruling, it IS law.

How very subservient of you to notice. Thank you for surrendering your liberty. You're much easier for others to govern now.

what is this

i dont even

That isn't meant as an insult. It appears you are who you want to be. I do not.

The 9th Amendment reads that even if a right is not explicit in the Constitution, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Well, what does that mean. Shrug, duh, yeah, and I reserve the right to fight for my rights or.....

The USSC decides what rights are. You accept that criteria, you have given up your right to self governance. There is nothing they could not decide and have their opinion made "law."

I think what you meant was that, as long as a decision by the USSC is the decision, that is the law.

It is up to everyone, particularly the President, to police the USSC and respond accordingly. If they're up to shenanigans (hallucinating their preferences) you're supposed to call them on it. The President, in his co-equal branch status, has particular obligations. As to Jurisdiction, so does the Congress.

Amnestic:

Not fiscally responsible. I thought Republicans were all about cutting out excess waste that didn't serve to do anything?

Do you have any idea how much a truly "effective" wall would cost? A wall which people would end up getting by anyway? People were smuggling people past the Berlin Wall for Haruhi's sake. Do you really think you stand a better chance for whatever paltry sum is thrown at those construction efforts?

I should have clarified, I don't mean a wall. Just make sure that there is enough border portal guards at the border. However, it would be great if they could try to eliminate the secret tunnels that coyotes seem use.

Amnestic:

Spoiler Alert: He's doing that too.

Could he fine them more? Probably. It's never that simple though, is it?

"An audit would force us to fire 70% to 80% of our workers," said Fred Leitz, a fourth-generation Michigan farmer employing 250 seasonal workers. "The people working the fields and harvesting the crops that feed our nation need work authorization."

You gotta balance the impact such stuff has on the American agriculture industry (and the knock-ons from that - like food prices across the country?).

But yeah, he's kicking them out at record rates and fining companies who hire illegals.

The only thing he's not doing is being a "tax and spend Democrat" by wasting millions of dollars on an ineffective border wall. Maybe the Republicans want him to do that so they can whine about his out of control spending though?

Until I see it applied properly[1], I'll remain uncertain of said laws. Hopefully the president doesn't disappoint.

[1] as in no major businesses or fields of business that would rely on illegal immigrants are except from these laws

Amnestic:

Could he fine them more? Probably. It's never that simple though, is it?

"An audit would force us to fire 70% to 80% of our workers," said Fred Leitz, a fourth-generation Michigan farmer employing 250 seasonal workers. "The people working the fields and harvesting the crops that feed our nation need work authorization."

You gotta balance the impact such stuff has on the American agriculture industry (and the knock-ons from that - like food prices across the country?).

In Alabama, they recently (last year or two?) passed REALLY strict anti-illegal-immigrant laws.
It crippled the agricultural economy.

Gorfias:
Ann Coulter wrote a good column

No she did not.

Gorfias:
called something like, "When Blue States Attack." She, like me, was outraged that the left often uses the Federal Government and courts to lawlessly and through the abuse of power, take away peoples' rights within their own state.

Oh, stop it. Your schtick is getting very old, very fast. I for one am getting sick and fucking tired of your incessant blather about "the left," wherein you either castigate "the left" for shit your side does in fucking SPADES, or simply make shit up.

Gorfias is on the brink of ignore, since I have a clean mod record and I'd like to keep it that way.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked