 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / General Topics / October 2003Can you find abortion here?
Amendment IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Our moron Supreme Dolts have said that the above amendment prohibits states from banning abortion. LOL Amendment II. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This amendment gives every citizen the right to own and carry a standard military rifle (AK 47, M16) but try it and see what happens! Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. And yet it is now illegal to pool your money with fellow citizens to promote a political candidate! Instead of being the protectors of the Constitution, the Supreme Traitors are its greatest enemies! rAD I can't find anything about the right of Big Business or the Wealthy, be allowed to dominate our government, either. but they are doing it. ---redpill. > Amendment IV. > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > rAD > RedPill may be indicted for posting the following: > I can't find anything about the right of Big Business or the Wealthy, > be allowed to dominate our government, either. but they are doing it. We keep electing the people who allow them by our own choice. Big difference. > I can't find anything about the right of Big Business or the Wealthy, be > allowed to dominate our government, either. but they are doing it. You also can't find any non-kook proof that this is the case. ============================ Mr_Blonde Presents the: "MORON OF THE MONTH" Club: Harry Hope, WeThePopTarts, §yko D'Mann, Barbara Waker Polybius, Kurt Knoll, Mark K, Clough, Robin Carmody Michael Everett, kcaj, JoettaB, beber, Ray Fischer Hogan's Goat, amigocabal, Bob Hubert, George Johnson Dunter Powries, Tlalocelotl Tlatoani, gaffo, Mr Video Kalun D ============================ See, this is the problem...the ignorance of people like you.The US Constitution does not deal with limiting PRIVATE citizens and institutions. It deals ONLY with limiting GOVERNMENT. BTW, the so called "campaign finance" laws are the very reason that the wealthy are dominating elections. Ordinary citizens are prohibited from pooling their money to support candidates. At any rate, since the Jews have destroyed education in the US, there's really no point in trying to debate this with you. rAD > I can't find anything about the right of Big Business or the Wealthy, be > allowed to dominate our government, either. but they are doing it. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > > > rAD > At any rate, since the Jews have destroyed education in the US, there's > really no point in trying to debate this with you. Well, there's no point in a wacko like you debating anything with anyone, when you get right down to it. > Amendment IV. > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Our moron Supreme Dolts have said that the above amendment prohibits states > from banning abortion. LOL There's no reason to deny abortion. 'Nuff said... (I personally feel abortion to be murder if the fetus is visible to the naked eye) > Amendment II. > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, > the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. > > This amendment gives every citizen the right to own and carry a standard > military rifle (AK 47, M16) but try it and see what happens! Interesting. I take it you don't have kids... I think most parents would be concerned if some neighbor was storing military rifles in their house. Even if the adult who legally obtained it doesn't abuse the weapon, look at Columbine (the kids obtained rifles...). There is really no reason for a military assault weapon except to kill other people! > Amendment I. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And yet it is now illegal to pool your money with fellow citizens to promote > a political candidate! I somewhat agree to this. Money is equivalent to speech. Given how Arnold won California (because of the stupidity/foolishness of the general population), I'm not sure if I would prefer more direct democracy or to keep more legislative powers to the few. Anyways, allowing huge campaign war chests generally keeps incumbents in power. In alt.california, "David Chen" <david_c11@yahoo.com> wrote: >There's no reason to deny abortion. 'Nuff said... (I personally feel >abortion to be murder if the fetus is visible to the naked eye) I'm not anti-abortion, but isn't that kind of odd? I mean, if you actually think abortion is murder, then isn't it a bit weird to think that's not a reason to disallow it? (I do oppose PBA, but not in the earlier stages) > In alt.california, "David Chen" <david_c11@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > (I do oppose PBA, but not in the earlier stages) I do think late-term abortions are murder, but it is better that a woman has the right to choose than if extremists forbid all abortions. If we're against murder in general, then we should forbid the right to carry assault weapons! Which is more devestating: a barely visible fetus dying or young adults with great potential who are shot down while at school? In alt.california, "David Chen" <david_c11@yahoo.com> wrote: >I do think late-term abortions are murder, but it is better that a woman has >the right to choose than if extremists forbid all abortions. I don't think there's a dilemna. How about stop late-terms, but not all? Solution. Maybe you mean just plain old killing? (Murder requires intent, and I really doubt that more than the tiniest percentage of folks who've had abortion thought they were killing someone. Really tiny.) >If we're against murder in general, then we should forbid the right to carry >assault weapons! Which is more devestating: a barely visible fetus dying or >young adults with great potential who are shot down while at school? Folks dying isn't a good thing, period. But I don't think of abortion as murder (or as killing, except in the very late term), so that's pretty much an unanswerable question. > Folks dying isn't a good thing, period. But I don't think of abortion > as murder (or as killing, except in the very late term), so that's > pretty much an unanswerable question. If you want to outlaw all abortions, don't forget the people that died every year from coat hanger abortions. > > Folks dying isn't a good thing, period. But I don't think of abortion > > as murder (or as killing, except in the very late term), so that's > > pretty much an unanswerable question. > > If you want to outlaw all abortions, don't forget the people > that died every year from coat hanger abortions. The problem with abortion (IMHO) is that both the pro-life and the pro-choice positions intuitively break down at the edges. Pro-life folks consider abortions to be murder. Yet many of them would allow abortions in the case of rape or of incest. This is illogical, since the unborn child did nothing to deserve death. The logical position -- that *all* abortion is murder, even in cases of rape or of incest -- seems intuitively very harsh. The pro-choice side has a problem as well. If a woman has an absolute right to terminate any pregnancy for any reason, then she should have the right to get an abortion 1 minute before the head emerges. Yet it seems to me to be a dubious notion -- that life begins when the head emerges. Just so I won't be accused of hiding the ball, my opinion is that life does begin some time before birth. I'm not sure that I agree that it begins at conception. But at some point well before birth, it is a life as we intuitively define that term. I have never had to make that call, so I cannot say with certainty how I would personally react. IMHO, the pro-life position is at least asking the correct question, though they often assume the answer when the facts are not in evidence. The real -- indeed the only -- question is when the fetus becomes a human life. At that point, there is no justification for killing it, except to preserve the life of the mother (as is the case with any other life threatening issue of self defense). Before it is a human life, I can see no reasonable argument for prohibiting the woman from aborting it at her pleasure. The rights of the woman -- the main argument of the pro-choice side -- are irrelevant in my opinion. You cannot legally murder another person out of mere economic convenience (the leading reason for abortion the last time I looked at this issue). So if the fetus is a person, this is simply not a valid reason. What I think is criminal is how the pro-choice folks get a hand wave on this simple logical point. They blather on about women's rights and no one asks them the simple question "should a woman have an absolute right to abort a fetus 10 seconds before the head emerges?" or "when specifically does life begin?" Appeals to coat hangers and the death penalty are irrelevant smokescreens IMHO. I think that they are used by folks to obscure the fact that the pro-choice position is logically untenable. Besides, I oppose murder. But I support capital punishment. I also support the right of someone to use deadly force when their life is in danger. And I support the right of soldiers to kill enemy combatants. In other words, I think that "murder" is not the same as "killing". Certainly, the law defines it differently. Generally, it is murder is the "legally unjustified, intentional killing of another person." Generally, I submit that moral codes define it as the "morally unjustified, intentional killing of another person." A person can be killed in many ways and it not be murder. I can accidentally kill someone and neither commit a crime nor behave immorally. The poorly reasoned holding in Roe v Wade (which is *not* the current law of the land on abortion by the way) is a perfect example of the slippery slope in action. It was the latesy in a line of cases holding that the Constitution included a right to privacy that prevented states from outlawing the purchase of condoms by married people. The next case extended the holding to unmarried people. Then to minors. And then, since these cases all held that the choice of engaging of procreation could not be interfered with, the holding was logically extended to the choice to abort a fetus in Roe v Wade. Of course, the problem is that no general right to privacy explicitely exists in the Constitution. The court read it into the protection from searches and siezures. Yet I think that it is more reasonable to conclude that the existence of a specific, narrow protection is evidence that no general right of privacy was intended -- else why not simply include a general right to privacy? But once the court created a right of privacy, Roe v Wade became almost inevitable. IMHO of course. --Ty In alt.california, Pantheras <Pope.Joan@Vatican.god> wrote: >> Folks dying isn't a good thing, period. But I don't think of abortion >> as murder (or as killing, except in the very late term), so that's >> pretty much an unanswerable question. > >If you want to outlaw all abortions, Did you read my post? Do that. Then come back to me. Thanks > I do think late-term abortions are murder, but it is better that a > woman has the right to choose than if extremists forbid all abortions. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > fetus dying or young adults with great potential who are shot down > while at school? First paragraph: You can equate abortion to murder, but you want women to decide if they can commit such murder if they want to. Second paragraph: You're against murder in general, but you want to take away people's right to defend against murderers. You're not having a moral dillema at all here, you're downright confused! ============================ Mr_Blonde Presents the: "MORON OF THE MONTH" Club: Harry Hope, WeThePopTarts, §yko D'Mann, Barbara Waker Polybius, Kurt Knoll, Mark K, Clough, Robin Carmody Michael Everett, kcaj, JoettaB, beber, Ray Fischer Hogan's Goat, amigocabal, Bob Hubert, George Johnson Dunter Powries, Tlalocelotl Tlatoani, gaffo, Mr Video Kalun D, torresD, the entire country of France, fâhç ============================ > > I do think late-term abortions are murder, but it is better that a > > woman has the right to choose than if extremists forbid all abortions. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > First paragraph: You can equate abortion to murder, but you want women to > decide if they can commit such murder if they want to. I'll try to clarify myself, but I'm not sure how to say this without being too blunt: A fetus does not represent a huge investment from society. Heck, the people who really care if a fetus dies are the parents, and if they're okay with the fetus dying, then we shouldn't worry about it today because we have bigger issues! Look at everyone else being murdered. Those people represent a huge investment from society and their deaths do cause anguish to the entire community. We should eliminate the mudering of them first! If one day we can eliminate all murders in the world except for abortions, then I think that is a reasonable time to forbid abortions (where the fetus would be considered alive and the abortion would thus be considered murder). > Second paragraph: You're against murder in general, but you want to take > away people's right to defend against murderers. Huh? You want everyone at school to bring a gun? That way, if someone starts shooting his gun, you can defend yourself with your own gun? I thought that was what we had the police for... From what I understand, the 2nd Amendment was created from the fear that the federal government would be too strong. If states could have armed militias and worst came to worst, they would overthrow a tyrannical central government. Today, the central gov. is incredibly strong and no state nor group of people could hope to defeat the federal gov in armed combat. Your assault rifle would be no match against an airstrike! But back in 1791 (somewhere around there was when the Bill of Rights was added), an armed militia would have a reasonable chance against the federal army. Thus, the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment is meaningless today. (OTOH, writing the last paragraph made me consider a corrupt police force... But the police are a part of the state government) > > Amendment IV. > > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > There's no reason to deny abortion. 'Nuff said... (I personally feel > abortion to be murder if the fetus is visible to the naked eye) So why have a Constitution or state governments? We could just ask you what to do! > > Amendment II. > > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Columbine (the kids obtained rifles...). There is really no reason for a > military assault weapon except to kill other people! Except that the US Constitution says we can keep and bare them. > > Amendment I. > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > more legislative powers to the few. Anyways, allowing huge campaign war > chests generally keeps incumbents in power. This weird attitude is so typical. Many people don't care at all what the US Constitution says. They only care about their own personal opinions and feel that those opinions should be forced upon people. rAD > This weird attitude is so typical. Many people don't care at all what the US > Constitution says. They only care about their own personal opinions and feel > that those opinions should be forced upon people. > > rAD That's very true. Does the Constitution really say anything explicitly against segregation? It was the personal opinions of the Supreme Court justices to decide to end segregation. If I recall correctly, the Brown vs. Board of Education justices were mulling over this because they felt in their heart that it was time to end segregation, but they found it tough to support via the Constitution. >> This weird attitude is so typical. Many people don't care at all what the >US [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Does the Constitution really say anything explicitly against segregation? Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. >it >was the personal opinions of the Supreme Court justices to decide to end >segregation. If I recall correctly, the Brown vs. Board of Education >justices were mulling over this because they felt in their heart that it was >time to end segregation, but they found it tough to support via the >Constitution. > Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and > subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any > person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Oh boy! I'm going to end this because this will go on forever if we're going to debate "separate but equal"! > Oh boy! I'm going to end this because this will go on forever if we're going > to debate "separate but equal"! Not much to debate, since facilities were certainly separate, but rarely equal. > >> This weird attitude is so typical. Many people don't care at all what the > >US [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any > person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. That only applies to GOVERNMENT, private citizens and institutions are perfectly free to "discriminate". BTW, the amendment you quoted does make quota laws unconstitutional! I am constantly amazed how few people are able to grasp simple concepts in law or even logic. rAD I spent many hours studying the Supreme Court. I suggest that the WORLD BOOK, COMPTONS, and electronic encyclopedias have articles by noted scholars of the Sumpreme Court. Read at least one or two of the Supreme Court encyclopedia articles. Meanwhile, if I were writing an article for the ENCYCLOPEDIA BULLSHITA: Groups Advanced Groups Search Preferences Groups Help Groups search result 3 for robtcohen supreme court Searchable Court Cases • All 50 state plus federal cases $49 Free training and phone support! • www.CaseClerk.com Sponsored Links The Prince • By Niccolo Machiavelli. Free Super Saver Shipping. • Amazon.com Court Case Records • Investigate court records. Get the facts right now. (Aff) • Web-Detective.com Search Result 3 From: RobtCohen (robtcohen@aol.com) Subject: Re: U.S. Constitution, unconstitutional? View: Complete Thread (6 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: alt.philosophy Date: 2000-11-18 08:15:05 PST Peruse a WORLD BOOK or BRITANNICA ON-LINE under "Supreme Court" for the famous landmark watermark precedent setting controversial cases. Imho: I agree with an implication of the originating poster's question that the Supreme Court reflects political opinion. The Supreme Court is adaptive. It reflects folkways, mores, customs, traditions, and taboos. It certainly does consist inherently of " political appointees." How could it be otherwise? We are a nation odf law: However, the law is interpreted and administered by human beings. "The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is.," says Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes circa early 20th century. The "IMPLIED power of judicial review" is Constitutional, says the very first Chief Justice John Marshal in Marbury v. Madison. The "I" word challenges the literalism & absolutism & "strict constructionism" argumentation, doesn't it? What is "strict constructionism?" Imho: The phrase is utilized as a political catch-phrase signal of reactionism generally against some abhorred "liberalistic" & "socialistic" rulings particularly since The New Deal, particularly including the Earl Warren Supreme Court. President Eisenhower appointment of the Californian Warren became so hated that there were billboards, "IMPEACH EARL WARREN," apparently sponsored by the John Birch etal Rightist political groups. President Eisenhower did comment that his Warren appointment was a regret. Here is a complex historical nuance-irony: Warren was criticized as being ...uh..."fascistic" during World War II for being the Calif Atty-General encouraging or gung-ho for re-location camps for Japanese-Americans. Perhaps the moderate Ike apparently did not think of Warren as being judicially liberalistic. Anyhow, the hated-by-Conservatives/loved-by-Liberals WARREN COURT is most prominent in my own childhood memory Y'all can have your boring RHENQUIST .COURT. . Here is a foggy understanding: Please correct me if I am getting this perception fouled-up: In the mid-later 19th Century, the Supreme Court was considered quite pro-federal regulation, apparently in order for big business to flourish & railroads to get built. Some individual States wanted to be more regulatory, but the TENTH AMENDMENT was not emphasized by the then Anti States Rights Supreme Court. The rationale of regulating "interstate commerce" was their favorite clause. Later the "packed" (attempted) New Deal liberalistric-socialistic Court also used the INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE as rationale. So, what is Constitutional literalism and absolutism? In interpreting & applying the Constitution: Are the justices mechanics or artists? Both. Their function is a subjective joint construction of ... legalisms. I luv/hate the phrase "legal fiction." No wonder lawyers drink. Are the justices our secular "gods" and "goddesses?" Yeah. That's what I am suggesting here in this philosophy news group for your consideration. Are the justices "objective" or "subjective?" I am a subjectivist & relativist. I can't accept "objectivism." "Facts" are words. Words are derived from culture. Words connote (and denote) meanings. Well, anyhow, I perceive "facts" as frequently being at least partly culturally-based & biased & perceived con-structs. OK, ok, ok: two plus two equals four. Maybe Ayn Rand's FOUNTAINHEAD isn't a subjective portrayal of realty. Maybe OBJECTIVISM exists. Maybe the Supreme Court Justices are human objectivists. Was the infamous Dredd Scott decision about the fugitive slave as property by Chief Justice Roger Tanney a good Supreme Court decision? Well, this is (partly) why there was a War Between The States. It was in all the newspapers. Some Constitutional Amendments (11th, 12th, 13th, 14th) were consequently passed. YES, our tragic CIVIL WAR was about "economics" too. The phrase "political economy" is a fine ole descriptive phrase about reality. Don't fall into the trap of excluding at least both of the cliche reasons-for-the-Civil War: Moral compunction about slavery AND the dynamics of economics. Human motivation is not a mutual exclusive. Here is a classic example of how the Supreme Court changes its interpretation: Plessey v. Ferguson, circa 1890, "separate (railroad facilities) but equal is Constitutional," then overturned by Brown v. Board, 1954, "separate (school facilities) but equal is inherently unConstitutional." Imho: The Supreme Court does reflect our complex history, anthropology, and culture. As culture evolves-devolves, the Court adapts-maladapts because it is in every denotation & connotation of the term a "political" phenomenon.. It is important for the stability and survival of us all that we the people should respect and regard the Supreme Court as our "holy secular" authority. No major party politico or judge or stranger-seatmate on the Air Tran- Greyhound Bus would tell you this, but I just did. I am no radical nor anarchist. I may be something of a cynic in my analyses. I now acknowledge that I may be considered as chickensh_t prude & fearful conservative in fear of anarchy. I am aspiring to be neoliberal, utilitarian, pragmatic and realistic. When a Pres candidate G.W. promises he's going to appoint more "strict constructionist" Scalia's and Thomas' to the Supreme Court, the above ideas begin re- floating from a course of Constitutional Law and also a course in judicial procedures philosophy 30 years ago; and so thus I thank the reader for indulging this prolonged ramble. ========================================================================== ================================================================== >Will an effort be made in the near future to void >the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Path: >lobby!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc01.blue.aol.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet. com!news.gtei.net!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldne t-localpost!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail >Message-ID: <3A141D85.20AB0A8E@worldnet.att.net> >From: Roy Jose Lorr mosestorah@worldnet.att.net [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 17:39:09 GMT >Organization: AT&T Worldnet -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ Google Home - Advertise with Us - Business Solutions - Services & Tools - Jobs, Press, & Help ©2003 Google > Amendment IV. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Our moron Supreme Dolts have said that the above amendment prohibits states > from banning abortion. LOL Most people who have abortions normally want one !! > Amendment II. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > military rifle (AK 47, M16) but try it and see what happens! > Amendment I. No. It means a National Defense forces. Not the right for dis gruntled white males pretending to be "defending their Country". > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or > prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > rAD > No. It means a National Defense forces. Not the right for dis gruntled > white males pretending to be "defending their Country". You seem to be suffering from a misconception here regarding why citizens own small arms. People own guns for sporting or defense of their selves, family and property. I seriously doubt that very many of us own small arms to defend our country, but rather to defend ourselves from the liberal- created crime waves that regularly sweep across the country. ============================ Mr_Blonde Presents the: "MORON OF THE MONTH" Club: Honorary Lifetime Members: Harry Hope, WeThePopTarts, kcaj basilod, torresD, amigocabal, Dunter Powries, beber, gaffo Tlalocelotl Tlatoani, Mr Video, fâhç, Polybius, Strider Dues-Paying Members: §yko D'Mann, Barbara Waker, Kurt Knoll Mark K, Robin Carmody, Clough, Michael Everett, JoettaB Ray Fischer, Hogan's Goat, Bob Hubert, Kalun D, Eugene Kent George Johnson, John F Winston, the entire country of France Wbarwell, InsuranceBroker ============================ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.