Political Crossfire Forums

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

As usual Steen your troll response refutes nothing in basis of fact.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

AllAmericanMan wrote: As usual Steen your troll response refutes nothing in basis of fact. As usual AAM, you cowardly avoid the issue through irrelevant babbling.

F'losrix · Posted: Mon May 22, 2006 11:34 pm Post subject:

LostSoul3412 wrote: I have noticed that those identified as Pro-Life argue that the protection of the individual gives them the right to interfere with others' choices.
Indeed, that is what lies behind the arguments of many who want control over other peoples lives, whatever the issue.

Great post!

F'losrix · Posted: Mon May 22, 2006 11:57 pm Post subject:

steen wrote: But how is my individual rights a federal issue?
It depends on which 'rights' we're talking about. The Bill of Rights addresses reasoned rights that were originally only intended as a limit on the power of the federal government, not that of the individual states. If you were to read your state constitution, you would likely find that it contains its own version of a bill of rights.

Bottom line - the feds don't necessarily override the states on every issue. Just because you assert that you have some right, that does not make it so.

steen wrote: And how is this different than Abortion having been found to be a federal right, and thus NOT something that can be taken away by the states?
I suggest that you try reading the actual court decisions sometime. The court hasn't found that there is a right to abortion. What they have found is that a woman has a reasonable expectation of privacy that shouldn't be breached, absent a compelling government interest. Her choice of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is considered to be shielded by her right to privately conduct the affairs of her life without undue government interference.

People often assume they have a right to this or that course of action without ever really considering whence that alleged right is extrapolated.

The right to privacy can be a particularly contentious issue, since it is not explicitly stated as such in the Constitution. It is drawn from the wording of the 4th Amendment. Governments, generally being far more interested in controlling a population than in the rights of individuals, must be vigilantly watched and corrected by the people when they make undue impositions. It is my opinion that far too often an apathetic American public fails in this duty, much to their own detriment.

steen wrote: So again, if Congress pass a law stating that "Steen has no Constitutional rights" and all 50 states ratify this amendment, then it is constitutionally valid?
It's highly unlikely to happen, but unfortunately, yes; because it changes the Constitution itself. This is why the amendment process was made difficult by the founders - so that it would be hard for various factions to change things like the style of government, or to abuse government's power in order to persecute some sect. If you think the ability to write such an amendment is a serious flaw, just consider how much worse off you'd be if it were left to something like a simple majority vote!

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7781

Skeptical Mystic wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: I have noticed that those identified as Pro-Life argue that the protection of the individual gives them the right to interfere with others' choices.
Indeed, that is what lies behind the arguments of many who want control over other peoples lives, whatever the issue.

Great post!

Again, your compliments are much appreciated. It is good to see another who values the choice of the individual. :-D

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

Quote: LostSoul3412 wrote:
I have noticed that those identified as Pro-Life argue that the protection of the individual gives them the right to interfere with others' choices.

Indeed, that is what lies behind the arguments of many who want control over other peoples lives, whatever the issue.

Great post! you are infringing the rights of thr unborn baby when you decide o end its very young life.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7781

Plodder wrote: you are infringing the rights of thr unborn baby when you decide o end its very young life.

I am doing no such thine. I advocate the choice of the mother to handle the situation however she sees fit. My personal actions are not the issue here, because I am not supporting actions, I am supporting choice.

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

if you advocate choice then you advocate no punishmant for rapists murderurs and robbers since we would be infringing on their choices. also you would be against arresting attempted child molesters. and ending prostitution would also be a bad thing in your world view.

can we get back on subject?

F'losrix · Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 10:09 am Post subject:

Plodder wrote: if you advocate choice then you advocate no punishmant for rapists murderurs and robbers since we would be infringing on their choices. also you would be against arresting attempted child molesters. and ending prostitution would also be a bad thing in your world view.

can we get back on subject?
You're the one attempting to take us off subject by comparing legal abortion to other acts that have been criminalized for centuries as a matter of settled law.

Your argument relies on purposeful distortion of the other poster's position by concentrating on a single word - 'choice' - and attempting to apply it out of context.

Crimes like murder and theft have clear victims with discernable rights. Whether you like it or not, the Constitution doesn't specify any rights for an embryo. The mother, on the other hand, has the same rights as any other person. The courts, having examined the Constitution and legal precedents, have determined that she has a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that the government's interest in forcing her to carry an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy to full term is limited.

If you want to change the law as it stands, then I suggest a constitutional amendment recognizing an embryo or fetus as being a living person with legal status and rights. That is the only way to solidly guarantee the kind of rights you desire for them and is the more direct way, rather than wrangling in the courts.

Why hasn't that been done? Probably because there is considerable disagreement among the people as to whether or not the unborn should be considered full persons with full rights that override a mother's right to privacy and her not unreasonable expectation to be allowed to exercise self-determination on the question of whether to subject her body to the dangers of pregnancy and family planning.

As with most social issues, the courts should be the body of last resort in determining the course the nation takes. You need to convince the public to exert pressure on the legislature for a constitutional amendment so that the court has a solid source for determining how to apply the law while being mindful of constitutionally protected rights. Asking them to overturn settled law that many people have come to rely upon when there is so much disagreement among the public in general on the issue simply isn't a good way to get this done.

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

Quote: You're the one attempting to take us off subject by comparing legal abortion to other acts that have been criminalized for centuries as a matter of settled law.

id dont care if you dont like my words. Quote: Your argument relies on purposeful distortion of the other poster's position by concentrating on a single word - 'choice' - and attempting to apply it out of context. i will use the word tyhat i belive reflect truth. Quote: Crimes like murder and theft have clear victims with discernable rights. Whether you like it or not, the Constitution doesn't specify any rights for an embryo it does b/c an embryo is a person. Quote: other hand, has the same rights as any other person. The courts, having examined the Constitution and legal precedents, have determined that she has a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that the government's interest in forcing her to carry an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy to full term is limited need I remind you that those same courts decided that blacks could legitimatley be separated from whites at no moral reprecussions and befroe that, that blacks were never persons at all. Quote: If you want to change the law as it stands, then I suggest a constitutional amendment recognizing an embryo or fetus as being a living person with legal status and rights. That is the only way to solidly guarantee the kind of rights you desire for them and is the more direct way, rather than wrangling in the courts. not at all science has long proved that an embryo is a human life. Personhood is the argumant. Quote: the courts should be the body of last resort in determining the course the nation takes. The courts should have newvr made up thjis so called "constitutional"right to privacy.

F'losrix · Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 8:49 am Post subject:

Plodder wrote: Quote: Crimes like murder and theft have clear victims with discernable rights. Whether you like it or not, the Constitution doesn't specify any rights for an embryo
it does b/c an embryo is a person.
Nope. The Constitution doesn't say anything about an embryo being a person.

Quote: need I remind you that those same courts decided that blacks could legitimatley be separated from whites at no moral reprecussions and befroe that, that blacks were never persons at all.
No need to remind me of anything. I'm well aware that the court's record is hardly spotless. That doesn't mean they get everything wrong, though.

Quote: Quote: If you want to change the law as it stands, then I suggest a constitutional amendment recognizing an embryo or fetus as being a living person with legal status and rights. That is the only way to solidly guarantee the kind of rights you desire for them and is the more direct way, rather than wrangling in the courts. not at all science has long proved that an embryo is a human life. Personhood is the argumant.
I maintain my prior assertion. Scientific discoveries don't rewrite the Constitution. If you want an embryo or fetus to be granted a status of personhood as a legal matter, then you need to amend the Constitution to say so.

Quote: The courts should have newvr made up thjis so called "constitutional"right to privacy.
The court doesn't 'make stuff up', that's just right-wing rhetoric spawned by the fact that you're not getting your way. The court interprets the application of law & Constitutional principles. The so-called 'right to privacy' is extrapolated from the 4th Amendment. The federal government (including the court) has done more damage by making and/or allowing violations of the precise wording of the 4th Amendment than the courts alone could ever hope to do by acknowledging an expansive right to privacy.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Plodder wrote: Quote: You're the one attempting to take us off subject by comparing legal abortion to other acts that have been criminalized for centuries as a matter of settled law. id dont care if you dont like my words. We don't like to be served up lies, that's all.

Quote: Quote: Your argument relies on purposeful distortion of the other poster's position by concentrating on a single word - 'choice' - and attempting to apply it out of context. i will use the word tyhat i belive reflect truth. In your subjective, politically distorted fashion, regardless of whether it is an outright lie. yes, we are well aware of that.

Quote: Quote: Crimes like murder and theft have clear victims with discernable rights. Whether you like it or not, the Constitution doesn't specify any rights for an embryo it does b/c an embryo is a person. Another lie. It is nowhere in the US Constirtution, and USSC court cases have consistently held also that the embryo or fetus are not persons under the law. You repeating your wishful thinking as fact is just another indication of how much you lie all the time.

Quote: Quote: If you want to change the law as it stands, then I suggest a constitutional amendment recognizing an embryo or fetus as being a living person with legal status and rights. That is the only way to solidly guarantee the kind of rights you desire for them and is the more direct way, rather than wrangling in the courts. not at all science has long proved that an embryo is a human life. What scientific reference do you have for your nonsense? Or are you lyign AGAIN?

Quote: Personhood is the argumant. But up above, you presented it as a fact. I am pleased that you finally are admitting that you are lying.

Quote: Quote: the courts should be the body of last resort in determining the course the nation takes. The courts should have newvr made up thjis so called "constitutional"right to privacy. Yes, it is clear that you feel people should be forced to give blood or donate a kidney against their will.

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

Quote: Nope. The Constitution doesn't say anything about an embryo being a person Constitution is not a scientific documnt. All I sais was that embryos are persons and tha under the constitution they have rights. Quote: No need to remind me of anything. I'm well aware that the court's record is hardly spotless. That doesn't mean they get everything wrong, though. then do not defend the perfectness of a cout that you know is very dirtied. Quote: I maintain my prior assertion. Scientific discoveries don't rewrite the Constitution. If you want an embryo or fetus to be granted a status of personhood as a legal matter, then you need to amend the Constitution to say so.
not true b/c the contitution is not a scoientific documant. it is not the place of it to define what a person is, it can only delegatre what the states can or cant do and what the Federal Gov can do and what rights persons have. Quote: The court doesn't 'make stuff up', that's just right-wing rhetoric spawned by the fact that you're not getting your way. The court interprets the application of law & Constitutional principles. The so-called 'right to privacy' is extrapolated from the 4th Amendment. The federal government (including the court) has done more damage by making and/or allowing violations of the precise wording of the 4th Amendment than the courts alone could ever hope to do by acknowledging an expansive right to privacy. then tell my why until the 70's no one cared about a right to privacy? The court is not always right as proven by me in earlier post and confirmed by yourself.While it has the right to do these things, it can be stopped if what it does is immoral and wrong.

F'losrix · Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:42 am Post subject:

Plodder wrote: Quote: Nope. The Constitution doesn't say anything about an embryo being a person Constitution is not a scientific documnt. All I sais was that embryos are persons and tha under the constitution they have rights. Quote: No need to remind me of anything. I'm well aware that the court's record is hardly spotless. That doesn't mean they get everything wrong, though. then do not defend the perfectness of a cout that you know is very dirtied. Quote: I maintain my prior assertion. Scientific discoveries don't rewrite the Constitution. If you want an embryo or fetus to be granted a status of personhood as a legal matter, then you need to amend the Constitution to say so.
not true b/c the contitution is not a scoientific documant. it is not the place of it to define what a person is, it can only delegatre what the states can or cant do and what the Federal Gov can do and what rights persons have. Quote: The court doesn't 'make stuff up', that's just right-wing rhetoric spawned by the fact that you're not getting your way. The court interprets the application of law & Constitutional principles. The so-called 'right to privacy' is extrapolated from the 4th Amendment. The federal government (including the court) has done more damage by making and/or allowing violations of the precise wording of the 4th Amendment than the courts alone could ever hope to do by acknowledging an expansive right to privacy. then tell my why until the 70's no one cared about a right to privacy? The court is not always right as proven by me in earlier post and confirmed by yourself.While it has the right to do these things, it can be stopped if what it does is immoral and wrong.
The Constitution doesn't have to be a scientific document to define who qualifies for the legal status of 'person'. The Constitution is a legal document, and this is a legal issue. We don't go around establishing legal definitions according to what one set of scientists decide - we do it through established legal processes.

I don't go around defending what I view as the court's legal mistakes. I also don't go around discounting their good decisions or the need for their existance just because I'm unhappy about a ruling here and there.

It's a myth that privacy has never been an issue before the '70s. What happened then was a culmination of everything that came before.

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

Quote: It's a myth that privacy has never been an issue before the '70s. What happened then was a culmination of everything that came before. theere were o cases in which privavcy was the central issue. privacy has always been the screen used by liberals to hide the nature of their goals, eg abortion contracpetion gaymarrige ect. Quote: I don't go around defending what I view as the court's legal mistakes. I also don't go around discounting their good decisions or the need for their existance just because I'm unhappy about a ruling here and there.
your opinion is your own. I belive thast roe was a bad descision and i will fight it and so will the other pro lifers

Snarf · Joined: 10 Jan 2005 Posts: 5260

There's a very good analysis of this issue in the current Atlantic Monthly. The bottom line message from Democrats to Republicans is, please, pretty please, overturn R v W and soon.

For the pro-life group, once it goes down early abortion will be legal till the end of foreseeable time, as well as health, fetal deformity, and rape exemptions in nearly all cases. They simply do not have the numbers necessary to outlaw abortion.

It would be nice to put this issue to bed and overturning Roe will do the trick, so let's get to work...

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

Quote: There's a very good analysis of this issue in the current Atlantic Monthly. The bottom line message from Democrats to Republicans is, please, pretty please, overturn R v W and soon.

For the pro-life group, once it goes down early abortion will be legal till the end of foreseeable time, as well as health, fetal deformity, and rape exemptions in nearly all cases. They simply do not have the numbers necessary to outlaw abortion.

It would be nice to put this issue to bed and overturning Roe will do the trick, so let's get to work... funny i read that article. you might be able to tell form the summary.

And I disagree. rape will vanish since mony can be used instead of killing a baby to put the child into adoptive services, health will be limited to making sure the mother does not die. If the life of the mother is at stake there will be an exception. but to simpply say health can include "pstychoilogical " healt eg depresson. which is not a reason to kill a child. It is also my hope that people will recognize the life that even an embryo holds. What i never see as possible form going away is contraception. the world it too corrupt to come back from that.

Snarf · Joined: 10 Jan 2005 Posts: 5260

Plodder wrote: Quote: There's a very good analysis of this issue in the current Atlantic Monthly. The bottom line message from Democrats to Republicans is, please, pretty please, overturn R v W and soon.

For the pro-life group, once it goes down early abortion will be legal till the end of foreseeable time, as well as health, fetal deformity, and rape exemptions in nearly all cases. They simply do not have the numbers necessary to outlaw abortion.

It would be nice to put this issue to bed and overturning Roe will do the trick, so let's get to work... funny i read that article. you might be able to tell form the summary.

And I disagree. rape will vanish since mony can be used instead of killing a baby to put the child into adoptive services, health will be limited to making sure the mother does not die. If the life of the mother is at stake there will be an exception. but to simpply say health can include "pstychoilogical " healt eg depresson. which is not a reason to kill a child. It is also my hope that people will recognize the life that even an embryo holds. What i never see as possible form going away is contraception. the world it too corrupt to come back from that.
Contraception, like abortion, has been around for thousand of years. Women not wanting to get pregnant, but still wanting to have sex, is a very old thing indeed. It’s about as old as we are. In the past, an unwanted baby was left in the field or the snow to die. Either way, abortion and contraception are here to stay, as they never really went away even when dedicated people in the US tried to make them disappear during the last 100 or so years.

The majority of conceptions are aborted as part of the natural reproductive process. Even with man’s laws on the books, nature’s laws will continue as they always have, since in her court, conceptions are a dime a dozen. That’s why she throws more than every other one away without a second thought it seems.

The problem with your rape=adoption idea is that it is still considerably more dangerous to have a baby than it is to have an abortion, especially if you're a teenager. Few people will allow a rape victim to suffer a death sentence just to avoid a commonplace medical abortion. And few would make a rape victim carry a rapist's child to term.

It would be nice to move past Roe regardless of how we get there…

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

Quote:
The problem with your rape=adoption idea is that it is still considerably more dangerous to have a baby than it is to have an abortion, especially if you're a teenager. Few people will allow a rape victim to suffer a death sentence just to avoid a commonplace medical abortion. And few would make a rape victim carry a rapist's child to term. not accorsing to the WHO. The CDC gets a large protion of funding from PP, NOW and others. Their numbers are skewed compared to the WHO and other survey centers.

Snarf · Joined: 10 Jan 2005 Posts: 5260

Plodder wrote: Quote:
The problem with your rape=adoption idea is that it is still considerably more dangerous to have a baby than it is to have an abortion, especially if you're a teenager. Few people will allow a rape victim to suffer a death sentence just to avoid a commonplace medical abortion. And few would make a rape victim carry a rapist's child to term. not accorsing to the WHO. The CDC gets a large protion of funding from PP, NOW and others. Their numbers are skewed compared to the WHO and other survey centers.
I've read the numbers for years now. You'd bring your numbers up so we can all see how dangerous abortion is because it's well-known that it is very, very safe, while giving birth is filled with profound risks can still kills many women each year.

Abortion is a perfectly acceptable issue to argue about but using skewed data invalidates anything like morality…