Say Anything Blog

This is why I support killing abortion “doctors”.

Too radical? Need I remind you that people are already dying?

This is war and this war is stunningly unique in that everybody who dies is an honest-to-goodness innocent. Personally, I’d say that makes it a moral imperative to kill these abortionists.

Here’s what a partial birth abortion looks like. They’re drawn illustrations and safe for work.

Keep this illustration in mind the next time you hear a pro-abortionist “liberal” complain about the terminology. They don’t want to admit that the baby actually is halfway out of the mother’s body.

There is no rational way to explain the NEED for this procedure! Why not adopt the baby at this point? The minds of abortionists are the most self centered individuals. Especially at this point! It is so sick…

I completely agree with Zsa Zsa. If you are going to have the baby in your body for that long in the first place, why not just carry the baby to term and put it up for adoption. There are so many people out there that are physically unable to have children, and are on waiting lists for years just for the chance to adopt. If a person is irresponsible enough to have unprotected sex, then they should have to deal with the consequences without murdering babies.

Rob,

This is the sort of fact-twisting those in favor of abortion must engage in to rationalize their support of killing unborn children.

Not so. Hypothetical rationalization sans fact-twisting:

A government is not responsible for maintaining “moral” order among it’s citizens. Abortion may be “murder” and “immoral,” but if it’s not infringing on any citizen’s liberty (or disturbing the public peace), it is beyond the government’s scope to regulate. And until the government begins to issue birth certificates to fetuses, they are not citizens whose liberty we have to worry about.

Now whether or not goverment funds should subsidize abortion, thats a policy discussion about which I could care less. But regulating abortion? Not the gov’s job.

And I realize that this argument could be used to justify killing illegal aliens—refer to the “disturbing the public peace” clause above.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Personally, I’d say that makes it a moral imperative to kill these abortionists.

Why don’t you strap on a dynamite vest and run into an abortion clinic then? Or, better yet, you can go to a nightclub and blow yourself up there. I mean, think about it, some of those people are probably going to have unprotected sex which will result in IMMORAL abortions—which you’ve just offered to stop at the expense of killing another.

It’s moralizing like this which makes America seem like nothing more than a dogmatic civilization fighting another, equally dogmatic civilization in the “War on Terror.” Think about it, the Islamo-fascist finds our lack of morals as egregious as you view abortion.

On the other hand, if you take moralizing out of the equation, then we’re a nation trying to protect the liberties of our citizens and nothing more. As you may have guessed, I prefer to live in the later.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

A government is not responsible for maintaining “moral” order among it’s citizens. Abortion may be “murder” and “immoral,” but if it’s not infringing on any citizen’s liberty (or disturbing the public peace), it is beyond the government’s scope to regulate.

An argument supported only by the fact-twisting and rationalizing I already alluded to, which allows people like you to define unborn children as things other than persons.

This is the problem I have with abortion supporters: They think this is a debate to be won through definitions and semantics.  You say that it is ok to kill unborn children simply because they haven’t been given birth certificates.  Is this where your personal morals lay?

Did you think it was moral for slaves to be treated as property because the government did not recognize them as citizens, let alone human beings?  Do you think it was moral for the government to later calculate a black man’s vote as being only worth a fraction of a white man’s?

The logic used by those who thought up the policies above is the same logic you use when you say that unborn children aren’t people because they don’t have birth certificates.

Scientifically speaking, life begins at conception and is an uninterrupted continuum of growth and development from that point on.  Stopping that growth and development is ending the life.  Period.  That is how it works, and no definition shell games are going to change that.

And, for the record, I don’t support Lik’s comment from above.  The solution to the problem of millions of unborn children being murdered is not to murder more.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

An argument supported only by the fact-twisting and rationalizing I already alluded to, which allows people like you to define unborn children as things other than persons.

When did I define unborn children as anything other than persons? We legally kill persons all the time: self-defense, war, death penalty. Are you telling me that those who die from the latter are not “persons” in your eyes? Government sanctioned killing of certain “persons” is not a novel or altogether shocking aspect of our society.

Did you think it was moral for slaves to be treated as property because the government did not recognize them as citizens, let alone human beings?  Do you think it was moral for the government to later calculate a black man’s vote as being only worth a fraction of a white man’s?

The logic used by those who thought up the policies above is the same logic you use when you say that unborn children aren’t people because they don’t have birth certificates.

Once again, never said that unborn children weren’t people. And… ::shrug:: ... those are emotional appeals.  I thought we were having a logical debate.

You asked for a defense of abortion without fact-twisting or defining the unborn as something other than persons, I gave that to you. I’m not going to debate morality, however, as such an argument of core values can only be solved by violence—where the winner dictates what is and is not moral (think: crusades, inquisition, American Civil War, or what muslim fundamentalists are attempting to do today—the winner in the “War on Terror” will define “morality” for the future generations).

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

When did I define unborn children as anything other than persons?

When you said it was ok to kill them.

We legally kill persons all the time:

The constitution requires due process before any person can be deprived of life, liberty or property.

By your own argument put forth in this thread, abortion is as unconstitutional as murder.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Once again, never said that unborn children weren’t people. And… ::shrug:: ... those are emotional appeals.  I thought we were having a logical debate.

We are having a logical debate.  Don’t try to weasel out now by dismissing my arguments without addressing them.

You said that unborn children are ok for slaughter because they don’t have birth certificates.  I pointed out that the government has in the past used such bureaucratic dodges to deny citizens their rights and used the example of slavery and early black voting.

This, to me, is a perfectly logical response to your assertion that people are only people when the government defines them as such.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Tim Bukher:
While I am against a theocracy and I don’t believe we are a so-called Christian nation; the quotes below and a host of others indicate that our government has an interest, on behalf of the peace and happiness of its citizens and others in our nation to advance, promote and in some cases legislate certain codes of moral behavior. Not that morality can be legislated, but that the amoral and immoral man might be restrained in indulging their worst impulses by a government legislating certain minimal moral laws which we are all expected to obey. Surely, of all those laws those against murder are the most necessary to our personal safety and further that every human being, whether in the womb or in the outside, cruel world would enjoy that most basic human right - the right to life.

From our National Charter:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men [not just citizens] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Declaration of Independence

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religious, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.” Patrick Henry 1776

“I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator and, I hope, to the pure doctrine of Jesus also.” Thomas Jefferson

We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.” - James Madison

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity religion and morality are indispensable supports.” George Washington

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary; if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” - James Madison

1. It is a deliberate misreading of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the documents of our Founding Fathers to exclude the idea that government does have a role in promoting and legislating certain standards of moral behavior.

2. Rob and I agree that life is life, inside or outside the womb and no semantic gymnatics to dehumanize a fetus can be allowed to prevail. Once you can dehumanize one class of living, human creatures; then nothing would restrain you from dehumanizing others, and a case in point is our recent laws on active euthanasia which allows a doctor under the cover of law to terminate the life of an adult human being no longer be considered fully human.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman: As a Christian are you for or against the death penalty ? If for, do you believe abortion doctors qualify if abortion became illegal? 

I’m with Likwidshoe on this one, I support killing abortion “doctors”.

I’m with Lik.  Those who make their living from killing children are inhuman monsters and therefore should not be protected by laws against taking human life.

[Feet make good soup!]

Tim Bukher - Why don’t you strap on a dynamite vest and run into an abortion clinic then?

Riiiight. I also support killing the Islamic radicals, so I could also chose to blow myself up in that fight.

Get real Tim.

Once again, never said that unborn children weren’t people. And… ::shrug:: ... those are emotional appeals.  I thought we were having a logical debate.

Admitting that they’re children is an ”emotional appeal”?!!

Rob said, And, for the record, I don’t support Lik’s comment from above.  The solution to the problem of millions of unborn children being murdered is not to murder more.

“Murder more” who? I don’t want more children to die. In reality, I prefer that we execute the abortion “doctors”, but society seems to see nothing wrong with killing 1.3 million people per year. I say that if we take out a mere few hundred “doctors”, we can shunt that number in half. Seems like a great trade-off to me.

What,..this isn’t a war? Millions are dying every single year and we sit here saying, “well, it would be wrong to kill the killers”.

Bullshit.

Wetback: Death Penalty - the Old Testament says that if someone takes a life they must forfeit their own life for the sake of society. The New Testament is relatively silent on the issue, speaking only of those occasions when the Holy Spirit is responsible for the death of evil doers. On the other hand the NT does not forbid the death penalty, leaving it to the state and our obedience to those laws and considering the OT does demand the death penalty, I would say it is not disapproved by the Lord. I am uncomfortable with it today because we no longer swear an oath to God to tell the truth and the judicial system has pretty much kicked God out entirely, so as a Christian I don’t know how real justice can be done unless all the parties involved recognize a higher Divine Authority will hold us all to account.

If and it is really huge IF, but if abortion became illegal and the abortionist deliberately, knowingly assisted in killing a fetus more than once, the first time they should get a stiff prison sentence and more than once if sentenced to death I would support that decision.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Rob: Likwidshoe and I are not friendly, but in a way I agree with what he is saying. If we really believe abortion is murder, and I emphasize really to emphasize a deep seated, core belief; then if the laws were changed to allow Capital Punishment of abortionists and long prison sentences for any accessories to those crimes, it would be legal and a definite reduction of the numbers of innocent children murderer each year would result saving hundreds of thousands if not a million plus lives each year.

Again, I could never be accused of supporting Lik, but I saw nothing to suggest he approved of the methods of anti-abortion extremists in blowing up abortion clinics or killing abortionists as an act of justifiable homicide.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Rob,

When you debate a subject as emotionally charged as abortion, it’s very tempting to lapse into casuistry. Appealing to the Constitution, for instance, as if the document does more than limit the role of government in our lives – which it does not – is a perfect example.

Neither murder nor abortion are unconstitutional unless performed, or condoned, by the government. The framers created the document to place limits on our government, not the people. Have you ever read of a murder trial where the murderer was accused of acting unconstitutionally?

In the case of abortion, the constitutional question is not whether it is constitutional for a mother to abort her unborn but, rather, whether it is constitutional for the State to prevent her from doing so. This is an important distinction.

Yet you appeal to the Constitution as if we were arguing legalities. If you want to have a legal debate, by all means, let me know and we’ll discuss the law. But if we’re arguing prescriptive cases – how things should be, rather than how they are – then you employ circular reasoning when you premise your conclusions as to how the laws should be on how the laws now are. You are saying, “Murder is illegal, therefore murder should be illegal.” I cannot argue such a statement as a matter of course, but as an example of logic, it is a tautology.

I did not dismiss your points regarding slavery and civil rights. You demanded to know whether I thought so and so was moral. In response, I said that “argument of core values can only be solved by violence.” And I stand by this. As emotionally charged as your points were, they appealed to nothing more than my emotions.

Sure, I disapprove of slavery – of course I don’t believe that people should ever be treated as property. But these are beliefs, nothing more. And the only reason our country now functions along these values is because enough people felt strongly about it to fight for their inception into the national belief system. Or, to put it another way, enough people disapproved of slavery to subjugate those people who did approve of it.

Make no mistake, when it comes to values, what counts as moral and what falls into chasm of immorality rests on nothing more than brute force. When you argue that free markets are better for GDP growth than controlled markets, the ensuing debate would rest on logic because both sides share the same premise: they both want the fastest GDP growth; they simply disagree on the best method to achieve this. When you say that killing an unborn child is immoral, you are expressing your personal value – a premise. There is no way to argue this, and one is just as correct to premise his actions on the belief that killing a human, living, unborn child is perfectly moral. Both sides are left with two choices: Either to appeal to a higher truth (God) or to fight it out and see who wins.

I would never argue that you are wrong to state you beliefs. I merely point out that in this, you are no more correct than the person who holds the opposite belief. Democracy, as you may recall, is nothing more than a means of solving differences of values with a minimum of bloodshed. If a majority of Americans find nothing wrong with killing an unborn child (or a born child, or a grown man) then it is moral as far as our society is concerned.

You are perfectly within your rights to try to convince us to think the way you do, but don’t pretend like you are “correct” in the objective sense. You are preaching in the hopes of converting. Nothing more.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Neither murder nor abortion are unconstitutional unless performed, or condoned, by the government.

And Roe wasn’t the government condoning abortion?

Tim, take a long hard look at what you just wrote and ask yourself why you have to work so hard to defend abortion.  Could it maybe be because such a defense requires a maze of twisted definitions and rationalizations?

I think that’d be it.  This is why you’ve now switched to criticize my rhetorical methods rather than my arguments themselves (as if we need another debate about debate). 

So just admit it.  You don’t support abortion on a logical stance.  You support it because that’s what’s convenient.

I will address this, however:

Sure, I disapprove of slavery – of course I don’t believe that people should ever be treated as property. But these are beliefs, nothing more. And the only reason our country now functions along these values is because enough people felt strongly about it to fight for their inception into the national belief system. Or, to put it another way, enough people disapproved of slavery to subjugate those people who did approve of it.

You are aware that our founders considered all people endowed with certain unalienable rights, right?

What argument are you even trying to make?  That currently enough people condone abortion, so that makes it ok?  Was slavery ok until attitudes shifted?  And what is the meaning of this:

I merely point out that in this, you are no more correct than the person who holds the opposite belief.

So...I’m no more correct in my opposition to slavery than my friendly neighborhood Klansman who feels that blacks should still be chained to one another in the fields and picking cotton?

Someone wake me up when Tim has a legitimate argument to make.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Professor Olsen: “The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years.  ‘During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage.

Profesor Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the ‘complacency and apathy’ phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the ‘governmental dependency’ phase.

We have officially told God that He is personna non grata in the public square and His Law about right and wrong, morality and immorality are passe, and we have become thus complacent an dwe have produced a generation of people wholly dependent upon the government for their daily bread, and the next step, unless we wake up, will be a fall into bondage to the government.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Tim, take a long hard look at what you just wrote and ask yourself why you have to work so hard to defend abortion.

I’m not defending abortion, I’m attacking your arguments against it.

Could it maybe be because such a defense requires a maze of twisted definitions and rationalizations?

You keep bringing this up, and yet, no where in my responses have I defined anything differently from you. So in response to your attack: Do you keep bringing this point up because you have no better argument against my logic than to put words in my mouth?

This is why you’ve now switched to criticize my rhetorical methods rather than my arguments themselves (as if we need another debate about debate).

If you look at my first post on this thread, I have ONLY criticized your rhetorical methods. I have championed nothing more than the idea that you cannot have a reasonable, logical argument for or against abortion, and thus, argued that you should stop pretending like your preaching represents an objectively “correct” viewpoint.

What argument are you even trying to make?  That currently enough people condone abortion, so that makes it ok?

Yep. Unless your preaching convinces enough people to take up the torch and kill them off. We call it a democracy—majority rules.

Was slavery ok until attitudes shifted?

Yep—as far as people back then were concerned. I don’t think it’s okay, and you don’t think it’s okay, but back then it was okay. Values change, people change, that’s the way of the world. Who knows, two hundred years from now, eating red meat might be considered as bad as slavery.

So...I’m no more correct in my opposition to slavery than my friendly neighborhood Klansman who feels that blacks should still be chained to one another in the fields and picking cotton?

If it was just you and the Klansman having this argument in a void, then yes—neither one of you is more correct than the other. Outside the void, majority is the only thing that lends credence to your cause.

...who feels that blacks should still be chained to one another in the fields and picking cotton?

Tisk tisk. More emotional appeals. You are not going to scare me into abandoning logic for sentiment. I know how I feel about this—just because I think that slavery is wrong, doesn’t make it an objective truth. When I tell racists that they shouldn’t act the way they do, I don’t pretend like I am justified by anything more than the majority of people who feel the way I do.

Like I said, your rhetoric in regards to abortion is the only thing I have a problem with. Because all other views that you have expressed on this site stem from logic: you argue the best way to reach a conclusion based on given premises. But when it comes to abortion, you abandon logic for emotion. You should call those articles “Rob’s sermon of the day.”

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

We call it a democracy—majority rules.

That would normally make sense, except that we’re talking about abortion here. The “majority” that ruled only consisted of nine black robes. That’s not democracy in action.

Actually, the original Roe decision was 7-3.  We had baby-killing for birth control purposes imposed on us by seven people.  Some majority.
Abortion has never been put to a popular vote.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Separate, legal argument (for the sake of keeping up with these):

And Roe wasn’t the government condoning abortion?

No, it was the government saying that the goverment has no right to stop a woman for killing her unborn baby (look, I didn’t even resort to swapping “killing” for “aborting” or “baby” for “fetus,” I’m quite comfortable with the definitions). If you feel like the government should have the right to prevent unborn baby killing, petition for an amendment that says “The federal government is now entitled to regulate what people do with their bodies or with whatever resides within their bodies.” Until then, its not so much constitutional for a woman to kill her unborn child as it is unconstitutional for the gov to prevent her.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

If someone murders the mother and an unborn child they are charged with double homicide.
This was murder.

TB: The harsh reality is that Roe elevated abortion to the status of a constitutional right, and you know it.  All the legalistic BS in the world won’t change that reality.  Only vacating Roe will change it, along with a State by State popular vote on the matter.  After all, we all have a stake in the lives of our children, don’t we?

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Tim Bukher:

Until then, its not so much constitutional for a woman to kill her unborn child as it is unconstitutional for the gov to prevent her.

Which of course is not the finding of Roe v. Wade at all, which merely found that the mother’s “right to privacy” had to be considered in the constitutionality of any law regulating abortion.  (WTF right to privacy has to do with is a question for people who like to spin truth to discuss.)

That’s a huge distinction.  And in fact laws regulating abortions remain on the books even today.  So your statement “it is unconstitutional for the gov to prevent her” is just wrong.

Until then, its not so much constitutional for a woman to kill her unborn child as it is unconstitutional for the gov to prevent her.

Your constitutional acumen leaves something to be desired.  The FEDERAL government does not have the constitional right to regulate what a woman does with her child (unless one considers the unborn as a human).  That right like all other rights not spcified in the constitution was left to the states and the people (read the 10th amendment).  In fact, prior to Roe, most states were exercising that right with laws regulating abortion.  Over time, the Federal government (which includes the Supreme court) has illegally usurped states rights and Roe is just one more example of that.  The Supreme court had no right to rule on the Roe case and should have remanded the case to the state in which it was filed.

Being liberal is never having to admit you’re wrong

K, so legal arguments from this point on?
Let’s do it:

Anna,

If someone murders the mother and an unborn child they are charged with double homicide.
This was murder.

This is a State law, which some States don’t have. It does not, however, deal with the mother’s right to privacy—which is basically the right for a mother to decide whether the living thing in her is a potential human or future medical waste. (Sorry for being harsh with the terminology, I don’t want Rob to accuse me of twisting definitions.)

Robert108,

The harsh reality is that Roe elevated abortion to the status of a constitutional right, and you know it.

What does that even mean? “What came first, the constitutional right or the court ruling that defined it?” I don’t even know how I would begin to argue that.

Only vacating Roe will change it, along with a State by State popular vote on the matter.

Quite right. If you get a bunch of judges who have a more moralistic, paternalistic mindset, they could possibly overturn Roe, and you’ll be happy. Of course such judges would also be likely to do a bad job protecting your other constitutional rights, since they would, by definition, have to be the kind of people who believe that government should play a greater role in your life. No argument from me on that one—I concede (though personally hope—for our country’s sake—that it never happens).

Carrick,

So your statement “it is unconstitutional for the gov to prevent her” is just wrong.

No, my statement was just overly general because I did not expect to have a legal argument. You’re right, Roe does not prevent the government from regulating abortion, it prevents the government from regulating what goes on INSIDE the woman’s body. That’s why we have distinctions where it is okay to kill the child inside, but not okay to kill it once it’s past a certain mark outside. But make no mistake, despite government’s ability to regulate, it cannot prevent because prevention would necessitate invading the woman’s body.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Docdave,

The FEDERAL government does not have the constitional right to regulate what a woman does with her child (unless one considers the unborn as a human).

Quite right, I never said it did. When I say “government regulation” I mean state regulation, I will be more clear with that in the future.

But it is YOUR constitutional acumen that leaves something to be desired. While the States have the power to make whatever laws they like, their laws cannot violate the Constitution. In Roe, the SC held that criminalizing abortion violated the woman’s 14th Amendment right to due process—read the case.

Now, just to make to clear. I am not going to argue whether or not this was a good decision. When we have a legal argument, we argue what the law IS not what it SHOULD BE.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Quite right. If you get a bunch of judges who have a more moralistic, paternalistic mindset, they could possibly overturn Roe, and you’ll be
happy.

Your inappropriate speculation on my happiness aside, you are wrong.  Roe deprived the citizens of a right to vote on the issue, and not only that, but it violates Equal Protection, in several ways.  Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg, before they muzzled her, said it was “bad law”.  Of course, giving any relatively small group(pregnant women who want to kill their babies) the right to take life at their whim violates basic human decency, but lefties only want the political issue, as we both know.
This abominable decision forces abortion on all of us, despite what the majority of the population might want.  You have a curious backward view of this, I suspect from being too young to escape the feminist propaganda.  It’s not all about what a small group of women want, it’s about all of us.
Even the lefties call them “abortion rights”, so I don’t understand why you have such a problem understanding such a simple concept as abortion being elevated to the status of a constitutional right via a SCOTUS decision.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Roe deprived the citizens of a right to vote on the issue, and not only that, but it violates Equal Protection, in several ways.

The Constitution deprives citizens of the right to vote on many issues—for example, they can’t vote to disband the branches and elect a monarch. The SCOTUS is the lawful branch of government that interprets the Constitution. And the citizens can always overule SCOTUS decisions by passing an amendment or, much simpler, by stripping jurisdiction.

I don’t understand why you have such a problem understanding such a simple concept as abortion being elevated to the status of a constitutional right via a SCOTUS decision.

I have no problem understanding this. The SC interprets the law of the land. Thus the SC “elevated” school segregation to an equal protection issue via Brown. That’s how it works.

You have a curious backward view of this, I suspect from being too young to escape the feminist propaganda.

If you are left with nothing more than age to justify your view over mine—considering that you know nothing about my background or where or how I grew up—you betray the weakness of your argument. There ends our discussion.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Bukher:

What does that even mean? “What came first, the constitutional right or the court ruling that defined it?” I don’t even know how I would begin to argue that.

The SCOTUS invented a right to privacy that does not exist in the Constution, then by subsequent decisions Stare decisis applies:  The policy that directs judges to follow precedent. It is a Latin phrase meaning to abide by decided cases. Thus a right to privacy, the legal foundation became, absent the Amendmewnt process a part of our Constitution, and no matter how you may think otherwise, it allowed mothers and abortionists the Constitutional right to murder the living human being in her womb.

Anna was perfectly right. It is an impossible situation to say the fetus, until birth is not a citizen and not a human being, then in case of deliberate or accidental injury which causes the death of the fetus to charge the guilty party with murder or criminal liable of/against a human being. The fetus must either always be a lump of tissue, a non-human being or always a human being, it cannot be one thing one moment and another thing the next moment at the whim of the mother or the legal system, when the fetus is in all cases exactly the same living being inside the womb..

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

If you are left with nothing more than age to justify your view over mine—considering that you know nothing about my background or where or how I
grew up—you betray the weakness of your argument. There ends our discussion.

If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Seriously, if you are left with nothing more than namecalling(”...a more moralistic, paternalistic mindset...") to justify standing up for the rights of the defenseless unborn, that betrays the weakness of your argument.  I won’t run away, though.  You seem to be unable to discuss anything if it’s not on your narrow terms.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

That should have been “...to criticize standing up...”

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

In Roe, the SC held that criminalizing abortion violated the woman’s 14th Amendment right to due process—

Tim, granting women carte blanche rights to kill their offspring has nothing to do with due process (DUE PROCESS - The idea that laws and legal proceedings must be fair.) which pretain soley to legal procedures.  The only consideration made by the court was whether the unborn could come under the protection of the 14th amendment

.[Transcripts of Oral Argument (#1) (#2)] the landmark (7-2) abortion decision voided the abortion laws of nearly every state. Striking down a Texas statute that prohibited all abortions except to save the mother’s life, the Supreme Court, per Blackmun, held that abortion was a constitutional right that the states could only abridge after the first six months of pregnancy. More specifically, the Court held that: (1) the Court had jurisdiction; (2) Roe’s case was not moot, despite the birth of her child, because the case was “capable of repetition, yet evading review;” (3) the right to privacy includes the right to abortion; (4) since abortion is a fundamental right, state regulation must meet the “strict scrutiny” standard, which means the state must show it has a “compelling interest” in having the law; (5) the word “person” in the 14th Amendment, does not apply to the unborn; (6) the state has an important interest in both preserving the heath of a pregnant woman and in protecting fetal life; (7) the state’s interest in maternal health becomes compelling at three months; (8) the state’s interest in fetal life becomes compelling at viability--six months; (9) the state may not regulate abortion at all during the first trimester; (10) the state may regulate abortion during the second three months, but only for the protection of the woman’s health; (11) the state may regulate or ban abortion during the third trimester to protect fetal life.

Right, Tim, you not only don’t know the constitution but don’t know the Roe case as well.  LOL.

Being liberal is never having to admit you’re wrong

If you are left with nothing more than age to justify your view over mine—considering that you know nothing about my background or where or how I
grew up—

A complete misstatement of what I said.  I commented on the possible origin of your stance about “women’s rights” to abortion, not your age.  Of course, I know nothing about you, except for what you have written on this blog.  Your words here are what I base my speculation about the origin of your beliefs on.  Got it?  You seem very emo and sensitive about the subject, I observe.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

DocDave: How dare you confuse the issue by bringing objective, factual evidence into this debate? What are facts versus raw emotion, nothing!

the Supreme Court, per Blackmun, held that abortion was a constitutional right that the states could only abridge after the first six months of pregnancy.

1. SCOTUS through Blackmen disagrees with Bukher, as they say having abortion (murdering a fetus) is a constitutional right.

2. It was fascinating that an arbitrary 6 months to viability was selected, why not 5.5 months or 6.2 months? A few weeks one way or the other spells life or death. By the way, did you notive that SCOTUS did not insist they couldn’t allow abortion even after six months?

3. Just as Rob said quite earlier, the only way the Left gets away with this state sanctioned mass murder is by dehumianizing the fetus.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

It was fascinating that an arbitrary 6 months to viability was selected, why not 5.5 months or 6.2 months?

Yeah, neiman, that shows the legal gymnastics the court went thru to get a majority to make this decision which ironically is an abortion in itself.

Being liberal is never having to admit you’re wrong

Tim Bukher:

No, my statement was just overly general because I did not expect to have a legal argument. You’re right, Roe does not prevent the government from regulating abortion, it prevents the government from regulating what goes on INSIDE the woman’s body. That’s why we have distinctions where it is okay to kill the child inside, but not okay to kill it once it’s past a certain mark outside

It is pure sophistry on your part to say you weren’t making a legal argument.  You clearly were, and you completely misstated what is fact from the start, and you continue to do so.  That isn’t fixed by being more careful with your words, because you said what you clearly intended to say.  In fact, you were making a very poor legal argument without any more than a cursory prior review of the relevant constitutional law.

The issue of “right of privacy” as found by Roe v. Wade is that there are conflicting state interests in protecting the fetus and in protecting the mother’s “right to privacy”.  What this “conflicting interests” issue implies is that any law that is a complete ban on abortions must be unconstitutional because it fails to address the mother’s rights.

In order to override the mother’s right to privacy, the state must show a compelling interest.  Since most states recognize some rights to fetuses (even if the fetus has no current constitutional protection), there is a balance that must be struck between the two.  Roe v. Wade determined that you can’t have any law banning abortions during the first trimester, the state can ban some abortions during the second trimester, and a total ban (other than for medical reasons) on the third trimester is constitutional.  The second barrier (beginning of third trimester) is possibly eroding because the age of viability continues to go earlier in the pregnancy as medical technology improves…

Clearly this is a very different set of criteria than your “it prevents the government from regulating what goes on INSIDE the woman’s body.” You’re simply wrong on that.

By the way, I should have mentioned that the Roe v. Wade test is no longer the generally accepted one.  That was drafted by Judge O’Connor in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).  It was this rule primarily, together with pressures from advancing medical technology, that broke the strict second-trimester rule than abortions could only be banned after the second trimester.

But the point I was making still holds.  The claim by Tim Bukher:

Roe does not prevent the government from regulating abortion, it prevents the government from regulating what goes on INSIDE the woman’s body.

is complete nonsense.

Yeesh.

And consider also that as the baby (English for “fetus") is dying, it’s transferring that poison to its mother (English for “mater") via the placenta, or perhaps the murderer (English for “Abortion provider") might accidentally put it into the mother directly instead of the baby.

DocDave, your capacity for understand the laws which govern your country justifies the practical (though highly unpopular) idea that Americans should first pass a civics test before gaining the right to vote.

(5) the word “person” in the 14th Amendment, does not apply to the unborn

and

Of course, not recognizing that the unborn are persons is the most significant flaw in the decision and the whole abortion ‘right’ falls dramatically apart once the unborn are recognized as the persons that they are.

The court argues “person” in the legal sense, not the moral sense. The 14th Amendment protects the rights of “persons”. Thus, just as it would be the invasion of the mother’s privacy (as protected by the due process clause via previous common law rulings), it would be the violation of the unborn child’s 14th Amendment rights to abort it if it were considered a “person” in the context of the 14th Amendment. Let me repeat that: In the context of the 14th Amendment—not in the context that you all hold (ie: A person is a living being), no, as far as the 14th Amendment is concerned, a “person” is a naturalized citizen, immigrant, and fugitive slave. Here’s the relevant excerpt:

The Constitution does not define “person” in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to “person.” The first, in defining “citizens,” speaks of “persons born or naturalized in the United States.” The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. “Person” is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, 2, cl. 2, and 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, 2, cl. 3; 53 in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word “person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.

No, once again, all moralizing aside—the legal argument is this: The Constitution protects “persons” and until we grant unborn babies the status of citizen, immigrant, or fugitive slave, our law does not consider it a person. Consequently, a proper amendment can clasify my dog as a “person” in the context of the Constitution as well.

This is the legal argument.

Oh, and…

abortion ‘right’ falls dramatically apart once the unborn are recognized as the persons that they are.

Quite right, no argument from me there. Once an amendment qualifies the unborn as “persons” within the context of the constitution, the “right” will fall apart. My vote will, of course, oppose such an amendment.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

TB: This thread isn’t just about your definition of a legal argument; it’s about abortionists violating the law.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

If someone murders the mother and an unborn child they are charged with double homicide.
This was murder.

I vote with you Anna.

Once an amendment qualifies the unborn as “persons” within the context of the constitution, the “right” will fall apart. My vote will, of course, oppose such an amendment.

Nice to know where you stand, child killer.  However it’s really not that simple because the time when the unborn becomes a person covered by the 14th amendment is unclear.  Even the supreme court was inconsistent and hypocritical on the subject. i.e. If the court firmly believed that the unborn was not a person, why did it put restrictions on abortions after the 1st trimester?

(6) the state has an important interest in both preserving the heath of a pregnant woman and in protecting fetal life; (7) the state’s interest in maternal health becomes compelling at three months; (8) the state’s interest in fetal life becomes compelling at viability--six months; (11) the state may regulate or ban abortion during the third trimester to protect fetal life.

Now what could be the states ‘important interest’ in protecting the unborn if was widely accepted as a thing and not a human, and why would the Supreme Court yield to that ‘important interest’ unless it was uncertain with their blanket refusal to accept the unborn as a person.  I believe that the Supreme Court has left the door partially open for a redefinition of the unborn as a person and it will take a court review with the right justices, not a constitutional amendment to correct this glaring judicial error.

That the unborn magically becomes a person (yes, humans and persons are the same) at the moment of its birth defies all logic.  One cannot create a specie out of protoplasm without it already having all the characteristics of the specie.  To deny this is to deny reality.

Being liberal is never having to admit you’re wrong

That the unborn magically becomes a person…

It’s a lot like transubstantiation. When a liberal woman is pregnant, she refers to “
my baby”, when is the “baby” due, etc. if she wants to have it. If she plans on having an abortion, the the very same substance in her womb, at the very same gestation period becomes a “fetus”, a “product of conception”, or an “undifferentiated tissue mass”...rather like a tumor… The priestess of Gaia transforms the substance with her will!

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.