|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
10-12-2012, 09:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I do not think abortions should be allowed after the first trimester. If it gets to the point where the fetus can thrive outside the room.. that is no good. You really want 16 year old girls who get pregnant nowadays to not be able to choose to have a first trimester abortion? so they dont get that chance to grow up and will most likely live off taxpayers?
__________________
Quote:
|
|
#2
10-12-2012, 09:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
abortions should also not be on the public dime. exceptions for rape, etc.
choosing to have an abortion because you dont use proper birth control is not an honorable thing. I have no idea how people, in this day in age where birth control is available pretty much everywhere, have unwanted pregnancies. I dont like it, I dont respect it... but I am certainly not going to tell someone what they can do with their own body, own life. I have my own life to worry about, and I dont want others to tell me what to do with my own body either.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
#3
10-12-2012, 09:09 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#4
10-12-2012, 09:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
abortion is a sensitive subject. I'm my opinion, Roe vs wade is law, lets all move on. Though i certainly understand where pro-lifers come from.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
#5
10-12-2012, 09:21 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Yes - let's move on. I responded above - the tie in is to the debate.
|
|
#9
10-12-2012, 04:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#10
10-12-2012, 04:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
When you talk out of both sides of your mouth, while pretending to be an altar boy...you're going to aggravate people. In other words, you're a douchebag. Ooops, guess I lost the argument.
|
|
#11
10-12-2012, 05:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
calling people murderers, trying to make others live by your rules-that's inflammatory. you see, having a right is one thing....you can choose whether or not to engage in whatever right you are free to exercise. a right being in existence doesn't mean a single person will ever be forced to exercise that right. take that right away-well, you're potentially affecting a lot of people, aren't you? and you're trying to take away that right because of your opinion. how does your opinion hold more weight than mine, or anyone's? as for calling people murderers, how does that further your argument? what do you hope to gain by that? who made you the arbiter?
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#12
10-12-2012, 11:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
our constitution doesn't specifically mention much at all, does it? it's up to the justices to see if a right exists under what is currently named. that's how they ruled 'right to privacy', it's also how they've decided on cases involving separation of church and state issues, since that also isn't explicitly stated. nullification was attempted by south carolina about 180 years ago- no one's attempted it since, with good reason.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#13
10-12-2012, 11:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
here's an excerpt from an article regarding the unenumerated 'right to privacy':
The right to privacy isn't directly mentioned in the Constitution, but the US Supreme Court has held that it is a fundamental liberty deserving protection because privacy is implied in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments (Due Process Clause). The judicial concept of "Substantive Due Process," holds that the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause is intended to protect all unenumerated rights considered fundamental and "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," among these the right to privacy. Use of Substantive Due Process is considered judicial activism, in that it seeks to limit the scope of laws that undermine personal liberty, even if the law doesn't address a right specifically mentioned in the Constitution. In the past, (Lochner Era: c.1897-1937, second industrial revolution) Courts used Substantive Due Process in a way that reduced individual protection from exploitation by businesses and the government, such as protecting the "right" of the individual to negotiate contracts with an employer by holding minimum wage and work conditions laws unconstitutional. Today, Substantive Due Process is used to protect the individual against exploitation or legislation that creates an undue burden on individuals, or on an identifiable group or class of citizens. The Supreme Court first declared an individual's right to privacy in the case Griswold v. Connecticut, (1965), which overturned a Connecticut law prohibiting doctors from counseling married couples on the use of birth control. The Court held the state had no legitimate interest interfering in communication between a doctor and patient, that the nature of the discussion was private. Griswold set the precedent used to legalize abortion in Roe v. Wade, (1973) and to decriminalize intimate sexual practices between consenting adults in Lawrence v. Texas, (2003).
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#14
10-12-2012, 12:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
as for 'unenumerated rights' i turned to madison (just finished reading a new book just out about him, and i knew he'd discussed unenumerated rights. he was against a bill of rights, as he didn't want people to think only those rights explicitly stated were to ever be considered, and that the federal and state governments could then abridge other rights):
here's this: Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those. 1 Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. ''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. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.'' 2 It is clear from its text and from Madison's statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement. 3 Recently, however, the Amendment has been construed to be positive affirmation of the existence of rights which are not enumerated but which are nonetheless protected by other provisions. and keep in mind, the same 14th amendment was used in several other cases, yet not once can i remember anyone coming out against those rulings.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#15
10-12-2012, 01:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
it's going to be difficult to put that genie back in the bottle. that's why i said what i said about that 'hollow ring'.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#16
10-12-2012, 09:20 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The baby is growing. Only living things grow. If left alone, you will have a baby in 9 months. That is the whole purpose for the abortion, right? To not have a baby. But, to not have the baby, you need to kill it, or else it will grow and be born. How is it that the 16 year old girl you refer to, if typical, can run rings around her parents in operating her computer or smartphone, knows enough not to smoke, and is supposedly from our smartest generation yet, but will become pregnant without considering the consequences? Anyway - I thought Biden's abortion comments were his weakest part. He said "I don't want to impose my view" on the American people. Well, supporting Roe V. Wade is sure as hell imposing it on those whose lives will be summarily ended without a shred of due process of law.
|
|
#17
10-12-2012, 09:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Of course, not everyone is like that, but I think most of us non robots can think back to when we were 16 and I'm sure we all made a lot of really bad decisions. That's life man. The real irony here is the same people who oppose abortion, are also the same who complain about government handouts. So, we don't want these dumb 16 year olds to have an abortion, and then are outraged that they cannot support themselves and their children because they are ill prepared. Makes sense.
|
|
#18
10-12-2012, 09:57 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ayn Rand on abortion:
"If any among you are confused or taken in by the argument that the cells of an embryo are living human cells, remember that so are all the cells of your body, including the cells of your skin, your tonsils, or your ruptured appendix—and that cutting them is murder, according to the notions of that proposed law. Remember also that a potentiality is not the equivalent of an actuality—and that a human being’s life begins at birth. The question of abortion involves much more than the termination of a pregnancy: it is a question of the entire life of the parents. As I have said before, parenthood is an enormous responsibility; it is an impossible responsibility for young people who are ambitious and struggling, but poor; particularly if they are intelligent and conscientious enough not to abandon their child on a doorstep nor to surrender it to adoption. For such young people, pregnancy is a death sentence: parenthood would force them to give up their future, and condemn them to a life of hopeless drudgery, of slavery to a child’s physical and financial needs. The situation of an unwed mother, abandoned by her lover, is even worse. I cannot quite imagine the state of mind of a person who would wish to condemn a fellow human being to such a horror. I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object. Judging by the degree of those women’s intensity, I would say that it is an issue of self-esteem and that their fear is metaphysical. Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today’s intellectual field, they call themselves “pro-life.” By what right does anyone claim the power to dispose of the lives of others and to dictate their personal choices?"
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#19
10-12-2012, 10:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
That is a shameful statement... the majority of that statment is quite ridiculous actually.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
#20
10-12-2012, 10:08 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
"For such young people, pregnancy is a death sentence" This is obviously figurative. Abortion is always a death sentence for the aborted. This is quite literal. So, if we must choose between the figurative death sentence and the real one, ummm.... I'm thinking we avoid the real one.
|
Hybrid Mode
