- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Strong on Second Amendment, Strongly Pro Choice
Posted on 8/23/19 at 7:39 pm to ShortyRob
Posted on 8/23/19 at 7:39 pm to ShortyRob
quote:Ok you ignorant a-hole. What the fuk does pro-life mean, exactly?
Because the question I addressed was how many women are pro life.
Without that, your point isn't worth a shite.
Does the weight/validity of any poll that gauges sentiment about abortion necessary depend upon the question that is asked?
That's exactly what I said.
You're too ignorant to know how ignorant you are.
1
Posted on 8/23/19 at 7:39 pm to scrooster
quote:Well. If you ask the left, males don't even have a right to an opinion on the issue because it supposedly "doesn't affect them".
The question always is .... what rights do males have?
To which I say...…...even if I accept the "doesn't affect me" logic, on no fricking reasonable planet is it true politically that a person only has a right to an opinion on issues that DIRECTLY affect them.
If it did, then women are gonna have to start shutting up on a LOT of shite...…...which I don't anticipate happening any time soon.
Posted on 8/23/19 at 7:40 pm to texridder
quote:You do realize that I have absolutely zero intention of playing your silly games and letting you troll me in circles for 20 pages, right?
Ok you ignorant a-hole. What the fuk does pro-life mean, exactly?
You're a dishonest POS. You always are. You don't like that I point it out. I don't give a frick that you don't like it.
There. I saved us several pages.
Posted on 8/23/19 at 7:40 pm to scrooster
quote:
The question always is .... what rights do males have?
No. The question should center on what rights does the unborn child have. The answer should include the right to not be destroyed by another.
Posted on 8/23/19 at 7:40 pm to DeusVultMachina
quote:Not a question of fed govt "allowing" anything. Fed govt is limited and has only the powers granted in USConst. Question is whether anything in USConst authorizes Fed govt to play any role or prohibits a State from enacting its own laws.
we disagree over the governmental power to allow a human to destroy another human without allowing the pretext of protection of the victimized human's right to life
PI clause n/a bc fetus not born and thus not a citizen. Equal protection clause not applicable. Due process clause would preclude a State from affirmatively depriving a "person" of life, liberty or property without due process, but State is not directly doing so be declining to criminalize woman's decision to abort. Could ARGUE that State could not FUND abortion as indirect deprivation (I think not, bc direct deprivation is all that is addressed).
Posted on 8/23/19 at 7:47 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Well. If you ask the left, males don't even have a right to an opinion on the issue because it supposedly "doesn't affect them".
To which I say...…...even if I accept the "doesn't affect me" logic, on no fricking reasonable planet is it true politically that a person only has a right to an opinion on issues that DIRECTLY affect them.
If it did, then women are gonna have to start shutting up on a LOT of shite...…...which I don't anticipate happening any time soon.
Exactly
Posted on 8/23/19 at 7:47 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
State is not directly doing so be declining to criminalize woman's decision to abort
I dislike your wording, but yes: the state mandating that the womans right to destroy the infant outweighs the right of the infant to be secure in its body without being destroyed by another IS DIRECT action, and is in effect sanctioning abortion.
Also, taxpayer funding. But that is obvious.
Posted on 8/23/19 at 8:01 pm to omegaman66
quote:
You may have the law on your side but you certainly do not have science on your side.
I have both.
Posted on 8/23/19 at 8:02 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
State is not directly doing so be declining to criminalize woman's decision to abort. Could ARGUE that State could not FUND abortion as indirect deprivation (I think not, bc direct deprivation is all that is addressed).
But states are govt actors that are subject to both federal authority to allow (decriminalize) abortion, as well as subject to mandatory federal regulation by way of judicial precedence. As well as restricted in their actions by the U.S. Constitution.
It's state government action that legislates the legal ability to get an abortion (therefore not be prosecuted for illegal abortion as it was for the most part pre-Roe), and the states derive their authority to allow abortion to stay legal by way of federal action, ultimately justification under the 14th A.
This post was edited on 8/23/19 at 8:06 pm
Posted on 8/23/19 at 8:10 pm to texridder
quote:Impossible.
Twenty words or less (or more) what is the basis for it being a purely state issue?
We are supposed to have a federal system, with States making most laws. Fed govt powers limited to those set forth in USConst, which does not give fed govt any such role.
Two parallel analyses: What are the rights of the pregnant woman? Does an unborn fetus have any theoretical rights and (if so) when do they vest?
If woman is citizen, state cannot deprive her of PI under 14A of USConst. I see no federal privilege/right to abort in USConst, though SCOTUS created nontextual privacy right in Roe. (I am not saying we should NOT have a right to privacy ... only that no one wrote it into USConst). Thus, PI clause should not preclude a State from prohibiting abortion, but under Roe the law says otherwise at this time.
Fetus has no rights under PI clause bc not born and thus not yet a citizen.
Due process clause could be argued to say that State cannot deprive fetus of life, liberty or property (if fetus is a "person," which is topic for another thread) ... but the STATE is not directly depriving the fetus of anything by declining to criminalize a woman obtaining an abortion. The pregnant woman is undertaking such deprivation. 14A does not preclude action by a woman, only by the State. Clever argument that State FUNDING would violate due process clause, but a losing one probably.
Thus, any State should be able to preclude abortion ... or not. Nature of a federal system.
Roe is just wrong textually, even if I think ideologically that a woman SHOULD have right to abort (up to 12-16 weeks IMO). But that ideological view is a policy opinion re what legislation SHOULD say, not an analysis of what USConst actually SAYS.
This post was edited on 8/23/19 at 9:11 pm
Posted on 8/23/19 at 8:15 pm to davyjones
quote:I do not see viability as playing role in PI analysis, because I am a textualist and "born means born."
Id say that given advancements in science/med/health, there's likely a case to at least revisit the viability issue. Captain Obvious here, I know
I do not think it should play a role in due process analysis unless State is attemting to COMPEL deprivation of life. THEN viability perhaps has some role in determining personhood for pruposes of 14A
This post was edited on 8/23/19 at 8:18 pm
Posted on 8/23/19 at 8:29 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Texridder:
What the fuk does pro-life mean, exactly? Without that, your point isn't worth a shite.
Does the weight/validity of any poll that gauges sentiment about abortion necessary depend upon the question that is asked?
That's exactly what I said.
quote:You are just a chickenshit.
You do realize that I have absolutely zero intention of playing your silly games and letting you troll me in circles for 20 pages, right?
You don't want to answer my above post because it shows you are a jackass. So, you just try to weasel out and slime away.
Posted on 8/23/19 at 9:27 pm to ChatRabbit77
Abortion in terminating tissue.
Posted on 8/23/19 at 9:29 pm to baybeefeetz
There is no abortion, its tissue.
Posted on 8/23/19 at 10:07 pm to AggieHank86
quote:If it's a fundamental right, why not use the 9th Amendment instead of the 14th?
Roe is just wrong textually, even if I think ideologically that a woman SHOULD have right to abort (up to 12-16 weeks IMO).
Posted on 8/23/19 at 10:34 pm to texridder
quote:If WHAT is a "fundamental right?"quote:If it's a fundamental right, why not use the 9th Amendment instead of the 14th?
Roe is just wrong textually, even if I think ideologically that a woman SHOULD have right to abort (up to 12-16 weeks IMO).
I assume you reference either "privacy" or "abortion."
Posted on 8/23/19 at 10:37 pm to Eurocat
quote:
Abortion in terminating tissue.
To be fair, you are tissue as well
Posted on 8/23/19 at 10:40 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
I have both.
No you don't. Genetically the baby is different dna than the mother or the father so it is a different person than them.
Genetic testing also proves it is human.
It is alive and that is why some evil doctors poison the baby for money.
So, no! You don't have science on your side.
Posted on 8/23/19 at 10:49 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
DisplacedBuckeye
frick Ohio state. And frick potatoes.
This post was edited on 8/23/19 at 10:50 pm
Posted on 8/23/19 at 10:58 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Privacy.
If WHAT is a "fundamental right?" I assume you reference either "privacy" or "abortion."
Page 7 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News