Gosnell case

[racrguy]

Which is why the constitution permits amendments. Failure to amend the constitution means a failure to provide the federal government with further powers. Anything other than amending the constitution to expand federal power is unconstitutional and thus, unlawful. According to the 10th amendment any power not expressly granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states belong to the states and the people respectively. I have explained there are things I'd love to see done but the federal government lacks authority to it so I must look to my state or community itself. Do I agree with DOMA? Yes. Does the federal government have authority to create and enforce it? No.

We're not under Sharia. We're a constitutional republic which means that the constitution is the end all of federal power. Don't like it? Call an Article 5 convention.

You just ignored everything he said....

[Forever_frost]

No, he went on about quite a few things that has nothing to do with law or what the law says or what establishes it. I ignore emotional diatribes as much as possible. If it is not an enumerated power, it's not a federal authority. You believe the document should 'live and breathe' and 'adapt to the time?' Cool. Amendment. Otherwise, it doesn't change.

[Aceman85turbo]

You just ignored everything he said....

this happens when you run out of yahoo articles to copy and paste. no substance.

[Geor!]

Jay Carney stated yesterday, when questioned about the Gosnell case, that Obama could not comment on an ongoing murder case.

Funny. He sure was quick to comment on the Trayvon case. Funny. He sure was quick to comment on the Cambridge LEO for acting "stupidly." Yet, he cannot comment on babies necks being severed? Unreal. A modern-day Mengele is on trial, and he "cannot comment."

[Forever_frost]

That is because he voted 4 times for partial birth abortion. He can't come out against it

[racrguy]

Jay Carney stated yesterday, when questioned about the Gosnell case, that Obama could not comment on an ongoing murder case.

Funny. He sure was quick to comment on the Trayvon case. Funny. He sure was quick to comment on the Cambridge LEO for acting "stupidly." Yet, he cannot comment on babies necks being severed? Unreal. A modern-day Mengele is on trial, and he "cannot comment."

Politics, baby. No matter what he says about this he's going to piss off a good sized group of people. Whatever.

[Forever_frost]

During a HuffPost Live segment on Tuesday, host Marc Lamont Hill was honest about his take on the initial media blackout.

“For what it’s worth, I do think that those of us on the left have made a decision not to cover this trial because we worry that it’ll compromise abortion rights,” Hill said. “Whether you agree with abortion or not, I do think there’s a direct connection between the media’s failure to cover this and our own political commitments on the left. I think it’s a bad idea, I think it’s dangerous, but I think that’s the way it is.”

“Strong words from a host on a left-leaning outlet,” Washington Post columnist Erik Wemple writes, who appeared on HuffPost Live during the segment.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/16/huffpost-live-host-admits-i-do-think-that-those-of-us-on-the-left-have-made-a-decision-not-to-cover-gosnell-trial/

[exlude]

I can understand that. Both sides are always quick to take a tragedy and make it a political argument.

[JP135]

I do have a question though:


Why is a fetus considered disposable, not alive, un-viable, etc when it's an abortion case but it's considered a living person when the mother dies also?




So violence at the hand of a vacuum and scissor wielding dr ≠ violence at the hand of a mugger with a knife or gun? Somehow a life is less valuable when a mother wishes to discard it?


Forgive any insinuation in the wording of my question... it's a serious question and a serious double standard that bothers me regardless of anyone's stance on abortion.

Completely agreed; it is a double standard. The only variable seems to be the mother's culpability in terminating the pregnancy.

[racrguy]

Completely agreed; it is a double standard. The only variable seems to be the mother's culpability in terminating the pregnancy.

That's the reason why one is murder and the other is not. Choice.

[Tx Redneck]

That's the reason why one is murder and the other is not. Choice.

But a would be perp has the same "choice".

Reminds me of "Depends on what the definition of is is."

Saved and Texan by the Grace of God, Redneck by choice.

[Sean88gt]

I have not read this entire thread. I'll catch up in the morning on the plane.

I do have a question though:


Why is a fetus considered disposable, not alive, un-viable, etc when it's an abortion case but it's considered a living person when the mother dies also?




So violence at the hand of a vacuum and scissor wielding dr ≠ violence at the hand of a mugger with a knife or gun? Somehow a life is less valuable when a mother wishes to discard it?


Forgive any insinuation in the wording of my question... it's a serious question and a serious double standard that bothers me regardless of anyone's stance on abortion.

It pays to jail someone.

[exlude]

But a would be perp has the same choice

Seriously? There are plenty of legitimate arguments and that's what you go with?

[futant]

You just ignored everything he said....

NO NO NO
they have limited powers they were vested.
when they decided they had powers that were not explicitly defined, they were working outside the law of the land.

You can't just hear cases you have NO FUCKING AUTHORITY ON.
This so reminds me of some asshats craming through a bill about healthcare, then calling it a tax, and just basically deciding it's going to be a law.

You can believe whatever the fuck you want. You can even call things like government healthcare a tax. You can even try to enforce it later. But it doesn't mean you ever had the authority to do so. EVER.
They have continuously tried to assert more authority where there isn't any, and never has been. An amendment is required in that case, and they have indisputably side stepped that process on purpose. AM I RIGHT ? that is what happened, and that is what is still CURRENTLY HAPPENING.

You can say that the milk is already spilled , but it doesn't make it legally right or the fight over.

[racrguy]

NO NO NO
they have limited powers they were vested.
when they decided they had powers that were not explicitly defined, they were working outside the law of the land.

You can't just hear cases you have NO FUCKING AUTHORITY ON.
This so reminds me of some asshats craming through a bill about healthcare, then calling it a tax, and just basically deciding it's going to be a law.

You can believe whatever the fuck you want. You can even call things like government healthcare a tax. You can even try to enforce it later. But it doesn't mean you ever had the authority to do so. EVER.
They have continuously tried to assert more authority where there isn't any, and never has been. An amendment is required in that case, and they have indisputably side stepped that process on purpose. AM I RIGHT ? that is what happened, and that is what is still CURRENTLY HAPPENING.

You can say that the milk is already spilled , but it doesn't make it legally right or the fight over.