One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Alabama A******n law...Is it too extreme???
Page <<first <prev 3 of 5 next> last>>
May 16, 2019 04:44:16   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
proud republican wrote:
I sort of miss him too... But how do i sound like him???


He always used the 12 year old rape victim in his arguments concerning a******n...

Although you are on the opposite side... He was very pro-choice.

Reply
May 16, 2019 04:54:34   #
proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
He always used the 12 year old rape victim in his arguments concerning a******n...

Although you are on the opposite side... He was very pro-choice.


The 12 year old is real girl that we had as patient in PP..Her father DID molest her and got her pregnant!!!..She was the youngest patient to have an a******n in our clinic...But there are unfortunately many of her in the United States...

Reply
May 16, 2019 05:28:23   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
proud republican wrote:
Have compassion for monster who molested his own daughter and got her pregnant???..If i was this girl's mother i would Lorena Bobbit that POS and throw his d**k to the dogs so he wouldn't be able to hurt anyone anymore!!!
So you would sink to the level of the "monster" himself to exact punishment on him. OK, if that is your intention, why stop with just one? You're going to be a very busy woman.

On average, there are 321,500 victims (age 12 or older) of rape and sexual assault each year in the United States, 15% (48,225) of whom are in the 12 to 17 age group.

Like I said, PR, the problem is embedded deeply in the ills of our society and culture. Secularism and moral relativism have nearly destroyed our country's moral compass. Our founders would be appalled. We need a healing as a nation, and that will never come from a heart filled with vengeance.

Reply
 
 
May 16, 2019 08:09:41   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
So you would sink to the level of the "monster" himself to exact punishment on him. OK, if that is your intention, why stop with just one? You're going to be a very busy woman.

On average, there are 321,500 victims (age 12 or older) of rape and sexual assault each year in the United States, 15% (48,225) of whom are in the 12 to 17 age group.

Like I said, PR, the problem is embedded deeply in the ills of our society and culture. Secularism and moral relativism have nearly destroyed our country's moral compass. Our founders would be appalled. We need a healing as a nation, and that will never come from a heart filled with vengeance.
So you would sink to the level of the "monste... (show quote)


I'm willing to bet castrating or executing 321,500 rapists will curb those numbers nicely....


I agree with your point concerning the moral compass of the nation... Where do you see this healing coming from?

Reply
May 16, 2019 09:38:32   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
I'm willing to bet castrating or executing 321,500 rapists will curb those numbers nicely....


I agree with your point concerning the moral compass of the nation... Where do you see this healing coming from?
Seems the common appeal is "God bless America"! There is even a song by that title. I believe God blessed America when our nation was founded, but as events in the Old Testament have shown over and over again, when a nation or people turn away from God and sink into debauchery and immoral behavior, they must suffer the consequences. Maybe our appeal now should be "America praise God"!

Reply
May 16, 2019 09:46:29   #
kemmer
 
proud republican wrote:
If it passes it would be the strictest a******n law in United States history...I'm pro-life,used to be pro- choice in the past until i actually saw a******n performed...However i dont agree with some aspects of this law...It prohibits an a******n if a woman was raped or in case of incest...I dont agree with that at all...I'm sorry,if i was raped i dont want and i dont think i should be forced to carry this baby under my heart for 9 months,when every single minute it will remind me how it got there...And another thing...Imprison Docs for 99 yrs its an overk**l in my opinion...I want to hear your opinions...Please,lets be civil...
If it passes it would be the strictest a******n la... (show quote)

As the governor said, the law is unenforcable. The law is a grandstand play to get to the SCOTUS in the vain hopes that the SCOTUS will oveturn Roe v Wade. Not gonna happen.
The law itself is unconstitutional on it face because it negates Roe v Wade, and everyone knows it.

Reply
May 16, 2019 09:52:12   #
kemmer
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Seems the common appeal is "God bless America"! There is even a song by that title. I believe God blessed America when our nation was founded, but as events in the Old Testament have shown over and over again, when a nation or people turn away from God and sink into debauchery and immoral behavior, they must suffer the consequences. Maybe our appeal now should be "America praise God"!

Your post has a certain OT quaintness to it. If everyone just becomes a constipated evangelical, everything will be just fine.

Reply
 
 
May 16, 2019 09:53:07   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
kemmer wrote:
As the governor said, the law is unenforcable. The law is a grandstand play to get to the SCOTUS in the vain hopes that the SCOTUS will oveturn Roe v Wade. Not gonna happen.
The law itself is unconstitutional on it face because it negates Roe v Wade, and everyone knows it.


Very true, Kem~~

Grandstanding trying to create an issue to run on for campaigning??

Already challenged by a law firm who has said they will take it all the way to the Supreme Court of United States unless the state Supreme Court dismisses it, as they should by the way.

Reply
May 16, 2019 10:09:29   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Seems the common appeal is "God bless America"! There is even a song by that title. I believe God blessed America when our nation was founded, but as events in the Old Testament have shown over and over again, when a nation or people turn away from God and sink into debauchery and immoral behavior, they must suffer the consequences. Maybe our appeal now should be "America praise God"!


I like that motto...

And once again I agree with you

Reply
May 16, 2019 10:10:14   #
kemmer
 
lindajoy wrote:
Very true, Kem~~

Grandstanding trying to create an issue to run on for campaigning??

Already challenged by a law firm who has said they will take it all the way to the Supreme Court of United States unless the state Supreme Court dismisses it, as they should by the way.

The money is on a lower court tossing the law, and the SCOTUS refusing to hear the case.

Reply
May 16, 2019 10:52:06   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
kemmer wrote:
As the governor said, the law is unenforcable. The law is a grandstand play to get to the SCOTUS in the vain hopes that the SCOTUS will oveturn Roe v Wade. Not gonna happen.
The law itself is unconstitutional on it face because it negates Roe v Wade, and everyone knows it.
That's a joke. Roe v Wade was never legislated in congress and signed into law by the POTUS. It is solely a SCOTUS ruling that through political machinations is assumed to be law.

The three fundamental problems with Roe v. Wade

On Jan. 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton. The Court ruled that a******n must be permitted for any reason before fetal viability—and that it must be permitted for "health" reasons, broadly defined in Doe (such that they encompass virtually any reason), all the way until birth. Roe effectively legalized a******n-on-demand nationwide.

The New York Times proclaimed the verdict "a historic resolution of a fiercely controversial issue." But now, 44 years later, Roe has yet to "resolve" anything. And it never will. Three fundamental problems will continue to plague the Court and its a******n jurisprudence until the day when, finally, Roe is overturned.

Unjust

First, and most importantly, the outcome of Roe is harmful and unjust. Why? The facts of embryology show that the human embryo or fetus (the being whose life is ended in a******n) is a distinct and living human organism at the earliest stages of development. "Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote," explains a leading embryology textbook. "This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

Justice requires that the law protect the equal dignity and basic rights of every member of the human family—irrespective of age, size, ability, dependency, and the desires and decisions of others. This principle of human e******y, affirmed in the Declaration of Independence and the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is the moral core of western civilization. But the Roe Court ruled, to the contrary, that a particular class of innocent human beings (the unborn) must be excluded from the protection of the law and allowed to be dismembered and k**led at the discretion of others. "The right created by the Supreme Court in Roe," observes University of St. Thomas law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen, "is a constitutional right of some human beings to k**l other human beings."

After Roe, the incidence of a******n rose dramatically, quickly topping one million a******ns per year and peaking at 1.6 million in 1990 before gradually declining to just under one million in 2014 (the latest year for which complete estimates are available). Under the Roe regime, a******n is the leading cause of human death. More than 59 million human beings have now been legally k**led. And a******n has detrimentally impacted the health and well-being of many women (and men). The gravity and scale of this injustice exceed that of any other issue or concern in American society today.

Unconstitutional

The second problem with Roe is that it is an epic constitutional mistake. Justice Harry Blackmun's majority opinion claimed that the "right of privacy" found in the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is "broad enough to encompass" a fundamental right to a******n. There is no reason to think that's true.

"What is frightening about Roe," noted the eminent constitutional scholar and Yale law professor John Hart Ely (who personally supported legalized a******n), "is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers' thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation's governmental structure. … It is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."

Indeed, "as a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method," writes Edward Lazarus, a former Blackmun clerk who is "utterly committed" to legalized a******n, "Roe borders on the indefensible. ... Justice Blackmun's opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the … years since Roe's announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms."

But Roe is even more ridiculous than most observers realize. The American people adopted the Fourteenth Amendment during an era in which those same American people enacted numerous state laws with the primary purpose of protecting unborn children from a******n. A century later, Roe ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment somehow prevents Americans from doing what the ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment actually did. "To reach its result," Justice William Rehnquist quipped in his dissenting opinion, "the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment."

That's absurd. "The only conclusion possible from this history," Rehnquist explained, "is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter."

Undemocratic

Third, Roe is undemocratic. Roe and Doe v. Bolton together struck down the democratically decided a******n laws of all 50 states and replaced them with a nationwide policy of a******n-for-any-reason, whether the people like it or not. Of course, the Court may properly invalidate statutes that are inconsistent with the Constitution (which is the highest law). But Roe lacked any such justification.

Justice Byron White, a dissenter in Roe, explained the problem in his dissent in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists. "[T]he Constitution itself is ordained and established by the people of the United States," he wrote. "[D]ecisions that find in the Constitution principles or values that cannot fairly be read into that document usurp the people's authority, for such decisions represent choices that the people have never made, and that they cannot disavow through corrective legislation." Roe defied the Constitution and other laws that the American people agreed upon—and imposed the will of the unelected Court instead.

The radical (and frequently unrecognized or misreported) scope of the Roe regime, moreover, was not and has never been consistent with public opinion, which favors substantial legal limits on a******n. Millions and millions of Americans disagree with the a******n policy the Court invented. They want to have a say. The Court decided they could have none.

Why Roe v Wade will fall

So these are the three fundamental and intractable problems with Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court abused the Constitution to usurp the authority of the people by imposing an unjust policy with morally disastrous results. Unjust. Unconstitutional. Undemocratic.

Many a******n defenders want and expect Roe to last forever. It will not. "[A] bad decision is a bad decision," concedes Richard Cohen, a supporter of a******n, in the Washington Post. "If the best we can say for it is that the end justifies the means, then we have not only lost the argument—but a bit of our soul as well."

It's true that a legal embarrassment, like Roe, can sometimes survive long-term. But not when it produces an atrocious outcome that disenfranchises millions of compassionate Americans who will not rest, and will never rest, while the Court's usurpation remains in effect.

Reply
 
 
May 16, 2019 11:01:35   #
kemmer
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
That's a joke. Roe v Wade was never legislated in congress and signed into law by the POTUS. It is solely a SCOTUS ruling that through political machinations is assumed to be law.

The three fundamental problems with Roe v. Wade

On Jan. 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton. The Court ruled that a******n must be permitted for any reason before fetal viability—and that it must be permitted for "health" reasons, broadly defined in Doe (such that they encompass virtually any reason), all the way until birth. Roe effectively legalized a******n-on-demand nationwide.

The New York Times proclaimed the verdict "a historic resolution of a fiercely controversial issue." But now, 44 years later, Roe has yet to "resolve" anything. And it never will. Three fundamental problems will continue to plague the Court and its a******n jurisprudence until the day when, finally, Roe is overturned.

Unjust

First, and most importantly, the outcome of Roe is harmful and unjust. Why? The facts of embryology show that the human embryo or fetus (the being whose life is ended in a******n) is a distinct and living human organism at the earliest stages of development. "Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote," explains a leading embryology textbook. "This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

Justice requires that the law protect the equal dignity and basic rights of every member of the human family—irrespective of age, size, ability, dependency, and the desires and decisions of others. This principle of human e******y, affirmed in the Declaration of Independence and the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is the moral core of western civilization. But the Roe Court ruled, to the contrary, that a particular class of innocent human beings (the unborn) must be excluded from the protection of the law and allowed to be dismembered and k**led at the discretion of others. "The right created by the Supreme Court in Roe," observes University of St. Thomas law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen, "is a constitutional right of some human beings to k**l other human beings."

After Roe, the incidence of a******n rose dramatically, quickly topping one million a******ns per year and peaking at 1.6 million in 1990 before gradually declining to just under one million in 2014 (the latest year for which complete estimates are available). Under the Roe regime, a******n is the leading cause of human death. More than 59 million human beings have now been legally k**led. And a******n has detrimentally impacted the health and well-being of many women (and men). The gravity and scale of this injustice exceed that of any other issue or concern in American society today.

Unconstitutional

The second problem with Roe is that it is an epic constitutional mistake. Justice Harry Blackmun's majority opinion claimed that the "right of privacy" found in the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is "broad enough to encompass" a fundamental right to a******n. There is no reason to think that's true.

"What is frightening about Roe," noted the eminent constitutional scholar and Yale law professor John Hart Ely (who personally supported legalized a******n), "is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers' thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation's governmental structure. … It is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."

Indeed, "as a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method," writes Edward Lazarus, a former Blackmun clerk who is "utterly committed" to legalized a******n, "Roe borders on the indefensible. ... Justice Blackmun's opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the … years since Roe's announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms."

But Roe is even more ridiculous than most observers realize. The American people adopted the Fourteenth Amendment during an era in which those same American people enacted numerous state laws with the primary purpose of protecting unborn children from a******n. A century later, Roe ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment somehow prevents Americans from doing what the ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment actually did. "To reach its result," Justice William Rehnquist quipped in his dissenting opinion, "the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment."

That's absurd. "The only conclusion possible from this history," Rehnquist explained, "is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter."

Undemocratic

Third, Roe is undemocratic. Roe and Doe v. Bolton together struck down the democratically decided a******n laws of all 50 states and replaced them with a nationwide policy of a******n-for-any-reason, whether the people like it or not. Of course, the Court may properly invalidate statutes that are inconsistent with the Constitution (which is the highest law). But Roe lacked any such justification.

Justice Byron White, a dissenter in Roe, explained the problem in his dissent in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists. "[T]he Constitution itself is ordained and established by the people of the United States," he wrote. "[D]ecisions that find in the Constitution principles or values that cannot fairly be read into that document usurp the people's authority, for such decisions represent choices that the people have never made, and that they cannot disavow through corrective legislation." Roe defied the Constitution and other laws that the American people agreed upon—and imposed the will of the unelected Court instead.

The radical (and frequently unrecognized or misreported) scope of the Roe regime, moreover, was not and has never been consistent with public opinion, which favors substantial legal limits on a******n. Millions and millions of Americans disagree with the a******n policy the Court invented. They want to have a say. The Court decided they could have none.

Why Roe v Wade will fall

So these are the three fundamental and intractable problems with Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court abused the Constitution to usurp the authority of the people by imposing an unjust policy with morally disastrous results. Unjust. Unconstitutional. Undemocratic.

Many a******n defenders want and expect Roe to last forever. It will not. "[A] bad decision is a bad decision," concedes Richard Cohen, a supporter of a******n, in the Washington Post. "If the best we can say for it is that the end justifies the means, then we have not only lost the argument—but a bit of our soul as well."

It's true that a legal embarrassment, like Roe, can sometimes survive long-term. But not when it produces an atrocious outcome that disenfranchises millions of compassionate Americans who will not rest, and will never rest, while the Court's usurpation remains in effect.
That's a joke. Roe v Wade was never legislated in ... (show quote)

Anti-a******nists who want Roe v Wade repealed will put the US in company with backward, tinpot dictatorships. A******ns will continue to be performed as they always have, except the death toll among women will soar. But Republicans don't care about women, they care about non-viable clusters of cells. Hey! Maybe there will be a lot of money to be made with private orphanages.

Reply
May 16, 2019 11:11:36   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
kemmer wrote:
Anti-a******nists who want Roe v Wade repealed will put the US in company with backward, tinpot dictatorships. A******ns will continue to be performed as they always have, except the death toll among women will soar. But Republicans don't care about women, they care about non-viable clusters of cells. Hey! Maybe there will be a lot of money to be made with private orphanages.
The a******n issue should be left to the individual states to determine. This is the American concept of Federalism. When a nation's central government dictates a law to all states, that is the hallmark of a dictatorship.

I don't see how leaving the issue to the individual states would cause the death toll among women to soar. And where you get the idea that Republicans don't care about women and that a "cluster of cells" in the womb is non-viable is anybody's guess. Although I have a pretty good idea.

If a fetus in the womb is just a cluster of non-viable cells, just a "thing in there", why do gynecologists provide prenatal health care for pregnant women, such as individual health issues involving both mother and child, discussing family health history, scheduling physical exams, monitoring the progress of the pregnancy, coaching women on dietary concerns, exercise, avoidance of drugs and nicotine, medications, family planning, and a host of other issues critical to both the health of the mother and child?

Reply
May 16, 2019 11:16:23   #
kemmer
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
...When a nation's central government dictates a law to all states, that is the hallmark of a dictatorship.

Wait. What?? In what universe?

Reply
May 16, 2019 11:42:57   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
kemmer wrote:
Wait. What?? In what universe?
It's called the United States of America.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 5 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.