Gary Trudeau attacks Texas Abortion laws..

[racrguy]

Not at all. When the Constitution was written it was never intended to list all of our rights. In the 1790's the states put in the bill of rights to prevent the FEDERAL government from acting against them (thus the 10th amendment). Nothing liberal in anything I say.

Do more research on the constitution and case law.

And yes, tell me how using a drill and vaccum on a fetus isn't murder but punching the storage facility in which it is housed until the fetus dies is.

One is by choice, the other isn't. Simple concept that you're unable to see the difference in.

Edit: Can you answer my question above regarding the 3 pictures?

[Forever_frost]

Case law isn't applicable if it comes into conflict with the Constitution, no matter what the SC says. No one has the power to interpret the Constitution.

No, in both cases, the child had no say in what happened, the results are the same, however all that has changed is the manner in which the end result is obtained. Either destroying a fetus is murder or it's not. It's really that simple. If a woman gets an abortion the fetus dies. If I beat her until she miscarries, the fetus dies. In one, murder charges will be brought but not the other.


No, I can't answer to the pictures. If the procedure is done at that stage, there isn't an issue. When there's a heartbeat? Then there's an issue. In order for something to have a heartbeat, it must be alive. Stopping that heartbeat is causing a death.

[Treasure Chest]

Case law isn't applicable if it comes into conflict with the Constitution, no matter what the SC says. No one has the power to interpret the Constitution.

No, in both cases, the child had no say in what happened, the results are the same, however all that has changed is the manner in which the end result is obtained. Either destroying a fetus is murder or it's not. It's really that simple. If a woman gets an abortion the fetus dies. If I beat her until she miscarries, the fetus dies. In one, murder charges will be brought but not the other.


No, I can't answer to the pictures. If the procedure is done at that stage, there isn't an issue. When there's a heartbeat? Then there's an issue. In order for something to have a heartbeat, it must be alive. Stopping that heartbeat is causing a death.

So you're ok with 'murder' before a heartbeat? It's living tissue that's multiplying and growing, but as long as the heart doesn't beat, it's ok?

[racrguy]

Case law isn't applicable if it comes into conflict with the Constitution, no matter what the SC says. No one has the power to interpret the Constitution.

That's not what the Constitution has to say about it.

No, in both cases, the child had no say in what happened, the results are the same, however all that has changed is the manner in which the end result is obtained. Either destroying a fetus is murder or it's not. It's really that simple. If a woman gets an abortion the fetus dies. If I beat her until she miscarries, the fetus dies. In one, murder charges will be brought but not the other.

You would trust a newborn to make any decision? But I digress. It's not the childs choice before viability, it's the mothers. If you deprive her of the life she chose to keep, that's why you're getting charged with murder, whereas she would not. She made the choice to end the pregnancy

No, I can't answer to the pictures. If the procedure is done at that stage, there isn't an issue. When there's a heartbeat? Then there's an issue. In order for something to have a heartbeat, it must be alive. Stopping that heartbeat is causing a death.

See: treasure chest's question. But I'd like to add another question. Would you consider a tree alive, or possibly a blade of grass?

[Forever_frost]

So you're ok with 'murder' before a heartbeat? It's living tissue that's multiplying and growing, but as long as the heart doesn't beat, it's ok?

For it to be death, there has to be a heartbeat. Pretty sure that's understood. Can't kill something with no heartbeat, or do you disagree? When there's a heartbeat, it's unique and is no longer 'just tissue.' Cancer has no heartbeat. No growth other than a child has a heartbeat in the womb.

[Forever_frost]

That's not what the Constitution has to say about it.

You would trust a newborn to make any decision? But I digress. It's not the childs choice before viability, it's the mothers. If you deprive her of the life she chose to keep, that's why you're getting charged with murder, whereas she would not. She made the choice to end the pregnancy


See: treasure chest's question. But I'd like to add another question. Would you consider a tree alive, or possibly a blade of grass?

Then show me the interpretive power of the Supreme Court in the Constitution. Show me where the document grants ANYONE the power to interpret it.

So following this train of thought that until viability, it's not a person, until that point the man can say "Don't care, dont' want it" and walk away? He's not walking away from a child at that point right? Should be zero reprocussions.

A tree and grass is alive but to compare it to a child is one of your herp derp statements at best.

[racrguy]

For it to be death, there has to be a heartbeat. Pretty sure that's understood. Can't kill something with no heartbeat, or do you disagree?

I'm not even going to respond to this.

When there's a heartbeat, it's unique and is no longer 'just tissue.'

Wrong.

Cancer has no heartbeat.

But it is entirely made up of our own cells. It's like we're committing suicide when going through chemo.

No growth other than a child has a heartbeat in the womb.

Wrong. Anything that gives live birth has a heartbeat in the womb. Unless you'd like to ammend your statement to include only humans.

Then show me the interpretive power of the Supreme Court in the Constitution. Show me where the document grants ANYONE the power to interpret it.

Article 3 section 2

So following this train of thought that until viability, it's not a person, until that point the man can say "Don't care, dont' want it" and walk away? He's not walking away from a child at that point right? Should be zero reprocussions.

It depends on what the mother decides to do. If she decides to keep it, he's on the hook. I don't agree with it, but that's the way it is at this point in time. The way I see it, the father should be able to abandon all paternal rights, forever, irrevocably, and he can walk away, just as a mother would be able to with an abortion.

A tree and grass is alive but to compare it to a child is one of your herp derp statements at best.

I read your statement backwards. I thought you said for anything to be alive it had to have a heartbeat. My bad.

[03trubluGT]

So what you're saying is two people are perfectly capable of engaging in the action that creates life, have no problem with doing it knowing what the possibility is, but due to the fact that they engaged in an action that carries a responsibility, it makes me or anyone else a bad person for insisting that they pay for that action?

It's kind of like insisting that Newton is wrong. Every action has a reaction, but sex because if you have unprotected sex that you know can result in a child and a child results from the action, you can always kill the child.

Guess it would thin out liberals.

What about rape, incest, or health cases?

[Forever_frost]

Were abortion limited to only those three cases and enacted before there was a heartbeat, you'd find many, many of us less opposed. Unfortunately, it's not.

And Racr, here's Article 3, Section 2. Not seeing a power to interpret:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

[Treasure Chest]

For it to be death, there has to be a heartbeat. Pretty sure that's understood. Can't kill something with no heartbeat, or do you disagree? When there's a heartbeat, it's unique and is no longer 'just tissue.' Cancer has no heartbeat. No growth other than a child has a heartbeat in the womb.

Oh, cool! So If I strangle this guy, it's not murder?

http://theweek.com/article/index/216275/the-man-without-a-heartbeat

[Forever_frost]

Oh, cool! So If I strangle this guy, it's not murder?
http://theweek.com/article/index/216...ut-a-heartbeat

Artificial heart. Unless you're saying that since he is currently incapable of viability outside of that hospital or that artificial heart that he's not a person, which would be Racr's argument.

A fetus is a child. You leave it be, it'll be born. You step in and use a drill and a vaccum, you kill it. By killing a human you commit murder. Justification is just that. If I shoot people during war, it's called doing my job. If a doctor stops the heartbeat of a child it's called his job. If I beat a woman into miscarriage, it's murder. Same end result, different methodology.

[Treasure Chest]

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Until the fetus is viable, it's basically a medical condition that can be dealt with how the woman sees fit without legal consequence.
Once the fetus is viable, it's protected by law. You may not like it or agree, but it's not your choice to make. She has to deal with the emotional and philosophical consequences.

As for the argument that of a man's choice in the matter when it is genetically his child....in reality, he should consider it a blessing in disguise, if his woman decides to make the choice to abort, without giving consideration to his feelings. If a woman is going to be that much of a bitch, she's probably not the type of person he really wants to have a child with.

[Forever_frost]

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Until the fetus is viable, it's basically a medical condition that can be dealt with how the woman sees fit without legal consequence.
Once the fetus is viable, it's protected by law. You may not like it or agree, but it's not your choice to make. She has to deal with the emotional and philosophical consequences.

As for the argument that of a man's choice in the matter when it is genetically his child....in reality, he should consider it a blessing in disguise, if his woman decides to make the choice to abort, without giving consideration to his feelings. If a woman is going to be that much of a bitch, she's probably not the type of person he really wants to have a child with.

You're right, it's not my choice to make. Even if I'm the father and steadfast against it, the woman who had just as much to say in the baby's creation gets all of the power to terminate the life without me being consulted but when it's reversed, I have no power to walk away without financial obligation from a child I don't want but she does.

What happened to equal protection under the law? If a woman can destroy a life she doesn't want but the father does, why does the father not have the ability to walk away from a life he helped create but doesn't want?



Edit: I know you're playing DA TC. Just one of those things that turns my guts.

[slow06]

You have completely opened my eyes! We should protect their lives so they can be born and starve to death. That way, no one plays judge and jury, except God, through natural selection. Pro-lifers are happy because another baby was born, and the anti-welfarers are happy because their tax dollars don't go to the poor, so there's no blood on anyone's hands. Brilliant!

Funny part is, those are often the same people...

I think I actually agree with racrguy here. If it is viable outside the womb then you shouldn't be able to abort. More specifically, if there would just be a definition of when "life" begins then it would solve this problem IMO. I don't like the government setting up rules like this, I don't believe they are constitutional until they define when life begins.

Now personally, I hold myself and my family to a higher standard because we believe that life begins at conception. I am about as pro-life as they come in that regard. I would plead with any person I could to reconsider an abortion because I do believe that every baby deserves a chance to live. I know not everyone will believe the way I do, and I know that bombing abortion clinics or calling them murders is not going to change anything. If I can have convince someone in a positive way I will take that opportunity, otherwise I have to let them make their own choices.

[Forever_frost]

Funny part is, those are often the same people...

I think I actually agree with racrguy here. If it is viable outside the womb then you shouldn't be able to abort. More specifically, if there would just be a definition of when "life" begins then it would solve this problem IMO. I don't like the government setting up rules like this, I don't believe they are constitutional until they define when life begins.

Now personally, I hold myself and my family to a higher standard because we believe that life begins at conception. I am about as pro-life as they come in that regard. I would plead with any person I could to reconsider an abortion because I do believe that every baby deserves a chance to live. I know not everyone will believe the way I do, and I know that bombing abortion clinics or calling them murders is not going to change anything. If I can have convince someone in a positive way I will take that opportunity, otherwise I have to let them make their own choices.

I agree which is why I tend not to mention it until there's something posted about it