The world must be changing.
From Brexit to Trump and now to people other than liberals producing a movie dealing with the social issues of America.

Sounds like a fund raising scam to me. Oh well, thumpers, so fucking what. Not finding any prior financing for their counter culture movie should've been considered a big red flag, or at least a sign from god. I predict limited engagements at local church screens to break even, and then straight to youtube, as long as one of the thumpers doesn't abscond with the crowd fund cash first. Equality seems to be the social issue that this particular religious demographic finds difficult to deal with.

It sounds as if this movie will have a pro-life bias and spin, rather than discussion the actual merits of the circumstances and the case itself. Regardless of the circumstances or one's feelings surrounding the Roe case, the SCOTUS decision on the matter was the correct one.

No, the reason it has been controversial all this time is because the ruling had no Constitutional basis. The reasoning was completely tied to some right of privacy never mentioned in the Constitution, while at the same time there was no mention whatsoever of a right of an unborn child. For decades we have been hearing about "Roe v Wade" from a progressive perspective. It's about time we looked at this from the other side.

No, the reason it has been controversial all this time is because the ruling had no Constitutional basis. The reasoning was completely tied to some right of privacy never mentioned in the Constitution,

The SCOTUS disagreed. They determined a right to privacy exists under the 14th Amendment. That's been settled for over 45 years. The only reason there is still controversy is because some people still have hang ups about abortion or think women should not have the right to choose with regards to their bodies or health. 

while at the same time there was no mention whatsoever of a right of an unborn child.

The unborn do not have rights, and certainly none which trumps the rights of the woman in question.

For decades we have been hearing about "Roe v Wade" from a progressive perspective. It's about time we looked at this from the other side.

Roe is settled case law and precedent. The "progressive perspective" (whatever that is) expanded women's rights. The "other side" has no valid argument, and never did. If they did, then the Roe decision or subsequent abortion decision might have turned out differently. It seems the "other side" is opposed to women's rights and autonomy.

The SCOTUS disagreed. They determined a right to privacy exists under the 14th Amendment.

You can jump up and down and say it a million times. To this day they can't show how the "right to an abortion" came out of the 14th Amendment. They legislated from the bench.

The unborn do not have rights

Not according to that particular Court

Roe is settled case law and precedent.

That it is, even Judge Gorsuch agreed. That's the problem with activist judges. While they legislate from the bench, the original intent Judges end up supporting those rulings. It would seem that you are afraid of a critique of that decision via a popular venue

You can jump up and down and say it a million times.

Once is enough. The SCOTUS already said it all.

To this day they can't show how the "right to an abortion" came out of the 14th Amendment. They legislated from the bench.

Then you are not familiar with the opinions behind the ruling.

Not according to that particular Court

Specify where the unborn have rights?

That's the problem with activist judges. While they legislate from the bench, the original intent Judges end up supporting those rulings.

In other words, when they rule a way you disagree, it's "legislating from the bench." What "legislation" was made? Be specific! And what "original intent judges" are you referring to? They interpreted the Constitution, as is their job! Abortion issues have gone before the SCOTUS multiple times since the Roe decision. Each time, the Roe decision was upheld and/or expanded upon.

It would seem that you are afraid of a critique of that decision via a popular venue

Not at all. Critique all you want. It changes nothing.

Gordy, I let you have the last word. I'll be back later

Once is enough. The SCOTUS already said it all.

Congress can't Amend it?

"t's "legislating from the bench." What "legislation" was made

I hope you know that's not a literal term. Most people with a passing familiarly with the Court system understand term to describe the Court usurping choices that properly belong to the legislature and creating law, rather than interpreting it.  An example being the  creation of the heretofore invisible Constitutional right to abortion that cannot be supported by the text of the Constitution.  It removes the choice choice from the people's representatives, where it belongs.

40 plus years of discord  and the breakdown of the judicial confirmation system are the result of the Court acting as a super legislature.   

 t

Do you know what's involved in a constitutional amendment process? Not to mention Congress has had over 45 years to try. So I doubt it's happening anytime soon. Until then, the SCOTUS' decision still stands.

Interpreting the law and constitution is what the SCOTUS does. And the SCOTUS' interpretations only expanded individual rights. The only reason why there is discord is because people don't agree or think another person's choices is somehow their business .

what's involved in a constitutional amendment process?

Sure. And if mandated, legalized abortion had passed through an amendment process as it should have, it would be accepted as legitimate, and Congress could confirm a Judge without going through WWIII.  But decisions like Roe that creates ""constitutional rights" with no basis in the Constitution  have turned Judges into legislators, and unqualified ones at that. 

Until then, the SCOTUS' decision still stands.

Sure it stands, until 5 judges decide one day  it doesn't. That's the problem with a living Constitution, it has no fixed meaning. 

It didn't need to go through an Amendment process. The SCOTUS struck down laws prohibiting abortion, interpreting the Constitution as the rationale. No new laws or mandates were created. And since the Roe ruling, subsequent abortion cases have only expanded on or reinforced Roe. Like I said, the SCOTUS has had over 45 years to change Roe. But it never had, and for good reason. Never in the entire history of the court have rights been revoked once granted. Any attempt to do so would invoke the proverbial WWIII. 

Sure it stands, until 5 judges decide one day  it doesn't.

The chances of that happening is literally a million to one. We have had a conservative leaning SCOTUS for 40 years and not once has Roe Vs. Wade even been challenged. And how did that conservative SCOTUS rule on same sex marriage? They made it legal nation wide. From the right wings play book?

We won, you lost. Deal with it. 

It also says a lot that some people think a woman's rights should be more limited too, like it was decades ago. And by action of the courts or legislature no less. It's like they want emulate Ireland before their constitutional amendment vote. Look how well that era worked out for them.

It didn't need to go through an Amendment process.

Obviously, since the Constitution has no meaning. The Court, at least those judges who believe in  the living Constitution, simply legislate their own beliefs and call them "constitutional rights"

Never in the entire history of the court have rights been revoked once granted

In 200 years, the Court never invented a right to abortion either. The idea that because something is the way it is now, means it always be that way,  is silly.  It

ny attempt to do so would invoke the proverbial WWIII. 

So you are saying the left doesn't support the rule of law. Shocker!

Totally agree. I think that if republicans had their way, women wouldn't be able to vote or even own land. Just before the presidential election, I saw an interview of a younger couple in Mississippi.... The interviewer asked the woman who she was voting for and she said, "Trump". When asked why, she replied, "because my husband told me I had to". 

That's the mentality in the South apparently. 

at happening is literally a million to one

Like electing Donald Trump? Imagine predicting that Donald Trump would follow Obama at Obama's inauguration.  It's impossible to predict where this Country will be in 8 years, let alone 20 or 30.  

 not once has Roe Vs. Wade even been challenged.

There's been numerous challenges and even an effective rewriting of the decision in Casey. I mean this board is regularly filled by the abortion obsessed complaining about the latest challenges. To say it's never been challenged is preposterous. Hell, it's a litmus test question for Judges.  

We won, you lost

You make my point for me. Rather than making a legal argument to support the "Constitutional right" you simply express it in terms of political power, which is appropriate since it was effectively legislative decision.  

t's like they want emulate Ireland before their constitutional amendment vote

But Ireland did decide the question democratically. 45 years from now, Ireland won't be selecting Judges based on whether they have the correct position on abortion, they'll be selecting Judges based on whether they are good judges. 

Like electing Donald Trump?

Um, no, there were two candidates....so, more like 50/50. 

I mean this board is regularly filled by the abortion obsessed

Huh? Really? I think the term you are looking for is freedom to choose. Obsessed with abortions.... Now THAT'S some funny shit. 

You make my point for me. Rather than making a legal argument to support the "Constitutional right" you simply express it in terms of political power, which is appropriate since it was effectively legislative decision.  

I don't have to make a legal argument, the SCOTUS already did that for me. From a LEGAL standpoint, you LOST. You want to keep women in a state of slavery? Move to Iran or Iraq... They love that stuff. 

What do you think gives you the right to tell a woman what she can do with her own body? 

THere isn't a republican women I know that would agree with that.

Ok... So? You know republican women get abortions too, right? 

Nobody is "abortion obsessed" rather the RIGHT TO CHOOSE out of the 3 choices women have dealing with an unplanned pregnancy.  Birth and keep, birth and adopt out, or abortion and letting the woman decide which choice is best for HER.

Even though it is an older book, if you want perspective from both sides of the issue read Articles of Faith: A Frontline History of the Abortion Wars by Cynthia Gorney.

And yes, conservative christian pro life women have abortions too.  And conservative Christian pro life men want their mistresses to have abortions too.  So please stop kidding yourself.

conservative christian pro life women have abortions too.  And conservative Christian pro life men want their mistresses to have abortions too.

So what? How is that relevant to the text of the Constitution?

SCOTUS ruled in a way you don't like so of course you can't/won't/don't see it as constitutional per the 14th amendment.  

hat do you think gives you the right to tell a woman what she can do with her own body?

What do you think gives you the right to take an innocent life? 

It's NOT your medical decision.  So what gives you the right to have any say in it.

So you cannot answer the question and I will assume that you agree that you have NO right to tell women what they can do with their own bodies. Thanks for playing. 

I know everything there is to know about this topic.

LMAO!!!!!!!! 

If that's true, then you must be pro-choice. Congratulations! 

So what gives you the right to have any say in it.

They can't answer that question because they know the answer is, "none". 

There is a very simple answer to that question. One you are extremely familiar with.  Let's see if you can serve it up for everyone.

So you cannot answer the question either. Got ya, good talk. 

Obviously, since the Constitution has no meaning.

According to whom? You?

The Court, at least those judges who believe in the living Constitution, simply legislate their own beliefs and call them "constitutional rights"

It seems you do not understand the function of the courts.

In 200 years, the Court never invented a right to abortion either.

It's an intrinsic right to autonomy and privacy under the Constitution, as the SCOTUS deemed. 

The idea that because something is the way it is now, means it always be that way, is silly.

What's silly are attempts to restrict already granted or recognized rights, like abortion.

So you are saying the left doesn't support the rule of law. Shocker!

Where did I say that exactly?

Like electing Donald Trump?

Strawman argument.

There's been numerous challenges and even an effective rewriting of the decision in Casey.

And each time, abortion rights have either been reaffirmed or expanded on. Anti-abortionists have a lousy track record in that regard.

I mean this board is regularly filled by the abortion obsessed complaining about the latest challenges.

More like anti-abortionists who are obsessed with other peoples rights and business.

Rather than making a legal argument to support the "Constitutional right" you simply express it in terms of political power, which is appropriate since it was effectively legislative decision.

The legal arguments have been made. Refer to the Roe decision and subsequent abortion rights decisions. The anti-abortion side did not make a compelling legal argument.

But Ireland did decide the question democratically.

That's Ireland. But here in this country, individual rights is not put to popular vote, and for good reason.

What do you think gives you the right to take an innocent life?

An appeal to emotion. No wonder anti-abortionist lost on the issue.

led in a way you don't like so of course you can't/won't/don't see it as constitutional per the 14th amendment.

Where in the 14th Amendment does it say that women have a right to an abortion? Why did it take more than 100 years to discover that right, if it exists? 

Um, no, there were two candidates....so, more like 50/50

Are you being intentionally dishonest? It's really hard for a literate person to  to ignore the  context  "Imagine predicting that Donald Trump would follow Obama at Obama's inauguration"

Really pathetic. 

You want to keep women in a state of slavery? 

So women were slaves until 1973. Wow!  Might want to think about that Champ. 

Where in the 14th Amendment does it say that women have a right to an abortion?

Where in the 2nd amendment does it say you have the right to bear guns? 

According to whom? You?

Pe ople who think the Constitution is  a living document. How'd did you miss that?

It seems you do not understand the function of the courts

Given the above, I'm not sure, what, if anything you understand. 

It's an intrinsic right to autonomy and privacy under the Constitution, as the SCOTUS deemed.  

In others words, Sean is right so won't address his point. 

Strawman argument.

I don't think you know what that means, because that's not how it works. 

T he anti-abortion side did not make a compelling legal argument.

Now that's funny! Here's some of the leading liberal pro abortion legal scholars agreeing with how shoddy the reasoning behind Roe was:

  http://americasfuture.org/roe-was-wrong/\

Where in the 14th Amendment does it say that women have a right to an abortion?

Under the concept of personal liberty.

Why did it take more than 100 years to discover that right, if it exists?

Because there was no significant challenge to abortion laws before then. 

So women were slaves until 1973. Wow!

In effect, they were bodily slaves to a fetus. That's why before 1973, there were many back alley abortions being performed, often to the detriment of the woman obtaining them.

People who think the Constitution is a living document. How'd did you miss that?

It's what the SCOTUS thinks that really matters.

Given the above, I'm not sure, what, if anything you understand.

Resorting to thinly veiled ad hom attacks only shows how weak your argument really is.

In others words, Sean is right 

Not even a little.

I don't think you know what that means, because that's not how it works.

Speak for yourself.

Now that's funny! Here's some of the leading liberal pro abortion legal scholars agreeing with how shoddy the reasoning behind Roe was

Merely their opinions. If the anti-abortion crowd had made a compelling argument, Roe and/or subsequent abortion cases might have gone very differently.

Where in the 2nd amendment does it say you have the right to bear guns?

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Feel free to read Heller for an explanation of how the prefatory clause of the Amendment operates on the highlighted part. 

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You forgot the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" part that precedes the right of the people....

No one and mean NO ONE has forgotten that.

Apparently, you did.

So there is NO POINT in restating it.

There's no point in restating the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, as I doubt no one has forgotten that either. I'll bet people are more familiar with the 2nd Amendment than any other Amendment of the Constitution.

It says, "ARMS", not guns. Arms could be a baseball bat or a rake, etc... Or even a car, since the right seems to think that cars are made for the same reason guns are made...to kill people. 

The long-standing, well-established constitutional right to privacy places limits on the government’s ability to interfere with a person’s most basic, personal decisions – including the decision whether and when to bear children.  The right to abortion was first recognized four decades ago, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed its central holding, yet this fundamental constitutional right is under ever-increasing attack.

Not your medical decision, NOT your business.  

Clearly there is a reason to emphasize the right to bear arms is an individual right since your comments imply otherwise.

How does my comment imply otherwise? I simply pointed out the part you left out.

I can answer it, but you already know the answer.  You just won't admit it.

Then do so. 

Why did it take more than 100 years to discover that right, if it exists?

Why did it take 99 years for SCOTUS to recognize that mixed-race couples had a constitutionally protected right to marry?

Why did it take 103 years for SCOTUS to recognize that the constitutionally protected right of equal protection of the law prohibited differential treatment based on sex?

Why did it take 147 years for SCOTUS to recognize that mixed-race couples had a constitutionally protected right to marry?   Note that the very same aspects of the 14th Amendment were involved in all three cases.

.

Also note that once SCOTUS has recognized a right it never has rescinded it.

Where in the 14th Amendment does it say that women have a right to an abortion?

Sounds like you need to learn about the liberty aspect of due process.    It's the same reason that people now have a right to use contraception.

Deleted, sweeping generalization  {SP}

You first.

1) I asked first.

2) I already answered, the SCOTUS ruled and says that abortions are legal. 

Now, YOUR TURN... Or are you going to keep playing childish word games? 

Explain to me what gives you the right to tell women they cannot get abortions? Not a tough question. 

Unless you have a uterus, I seriously doubt that.

pro abortion

Doesn't exist. No one is running around asking women to get abortions or celebrating when a woman gets one. Pro CHOICE exists...pro abortion? Not so much. 

"I know everything there is to know about this topic."

Unless you have a uterus, you don't know Jack. All you know to do is shoot off our mouth, and try to tell women what they have the do with theirs.

So until you and the other men grow a uterus, you have no womb to talk.

You are confused.

You must be projecting.

I didn't leave anything out.

I specifically stated what you left out. So don't try to lie about it!

You now are suggesting that I disabuse myself of the notion that you are aware of the proforma arguments regarding the 2nd. So be it.

I have made no such suggestion.

So quit wasting my time with these nonsensical remarks

You first!

I know everything there is to know about this topic.

I'm sorry, dearie, but I'm going to need for you to post an image of your vagina.  Because unless you have one, it's impossible for you to know everything about this topic. 

"I'm sorry, dearie, but I'm going to need for you to post an image of your vagina."

There is also the thing called 'pregnancy' that he needs to experience, with its morning sickness, sore boobs and ballooning girth. Until then, he don't know a dang thing, just the crap he reads and hears from his favorite right wing news horns. 

And did your boobs grow to three times their original size and hurt from being stretched to over size? Did you butt spread and look like the landing strip of an Air Craft carrier in the process? Did you waddle like a duck? If you did not experience any of these things then you were not even close. (big grin)

Maybe, he is an obstetrician. 

As an old retired paramedic, lost count of the babies I assisted being born. That was the best part of the job.

As a suggestion to help him with a pregnancy my suggestion would for him to swallow a 16 lb bowling ball and shit it out...It's as close as he'll ever come to understanding.

How many centimeter did your anus have to spread before you were able to pass the steak? 

As a suggestion to help him with a pregnancy my suggestion would for him to swallow a 16 lb bowling ball and shit it out...It's as close as he'll ever come to understanding.

Indeed!! And without an epidural for realism. Maybe just a small stick to bite down on to help against the pain.  

I loved being pregnant.  My boobs grew, my belly swelled,as well as my ankles, I was plagued with stomach sickness off and on/  I felt my baby move.....first as a little butterfly.  The only thing I regret is having eaten all those donuts the night I went into labor.

Much more fun than pulling the sheet up an recording the time of death.

You can jump up and down and say it a million times. To this day they can't show how the "right to an abortion" came out of the 14th Amendment. They legislated from the bench.

Actually, any thinking person that actually reads the Roe decision has to admit that they DO make a cogent argument for the right to privacy in the 14th Amendment. They did a hell of lot better job of than Scalia did in Heller...

Not your medical decision, NOT your business.

Right on!!! Not their uterus, not their business, not their right to to say Jack about it.  

You forgot the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" part that precedes the right of the people.

Deleted, Skirting  {SP}  

I wrote Feel free to read Heller for an explanation of how the prefatory clause of the Amendment operates on the highlighted part. 

on the highlighted part.

Of all my years of reading SCOTUS opinions, I have never seen a 'highlighted part'. 

BTFW, Heller is about the right to keep a weapon IN YOUR HOME. So go ahead and carry it around in you house all you want...

Where in the 14th Amendment does it say that women have a right to an abortion? Why did it take more than 100 years to discover that right, if it exists? 

The current judicial interpretation of the U.S. Constitution regarding abortion in theUnited States, following the Supreme Court of the United States 1973 landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, and subsequent companion decisions, is that abortion is legal but may be restricted by the states to varying degrees.

Why did it take even longer to abolish slavery, Sean? 

What is LAW and what is a HUMAN RIGHT and morally correct  … are not always the same!

In NAZI GERMANY, the "law" allowed for GENOCIDE … did that mean that Jews, et al did not have a right to live?

The U.S. Constitution can be amended and other laws can be changed as follows:

Changing the law. ... The law can be changed through the federal and State legislatures enacting legislation. This legislation might reflect new social values or developments in society.

Society changes over time and so the views and values of its citizens. Law reform is the process of changing and updating laws, so that they reflect the current values and needs of modern society. 

There are certainly differences of opinion regarding abortions, but questioning why it can take time to change, amend or repeal laws, disregards the realities of social change.

Unlock the Trump PC thread if you would like a response Mac.    Otherwise i’ll understand you don’t care to field  a dissenting opinion.

nges over time and so the views and values of its citizens. Law reform is the process of changing and updating laws, so that they reflect the current values and nee

Thanks AMAC for demonstrating, again, there is no basis in the text of the Constitution for mandated legal abortion.

Society changes over time and so the views and values of its citiz

Why should unelected judges decide when society has changed or evolved? Is that what lawyers are taught to do, decide how society is changing? Asa Justice Scalia said, "I'm not very good at determinating what the aspirations of the American people are. I am out of touch with the American people. I don't even try to be in touch. People mention movie stars and I don't know who they're talking about, and I get a blank look on my face. If you want somebody who's in touch with what are the evolving standards of decency that reflect a maturing society, ask the Congress to make the relevant decisions."  

It's comical to me that people think unelected lawyers, of all people,  are the ones in touch with the evolving standards of American society.

f all my years of reading SCOTUS opinions, I have never seen a 'highlighted part'.

With all your years reading SCOTUS decisions, you can't figure out what the "highlight part refers to in a two sentence post: 

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Feel free to read Heller for an explanation of how the prefatory clause of the Amendment operates on the highlighted part." 

Sad! That's not much of an endorsement of your comprehension  skills

THere isn't a republican women I know that would agree with that.

And they can do whatever they want to do with their healthcare decisions, but NOBODY has a right to tell other WOMEN (who are the ONLY ones with limits to their freedom to manage their own body) what to do.   I find it fascinating (ok, deplorable) that the same group that never met a gun regulation they supported has no issues keeping women down by trying to control their fertility.  Abortion is NOT murder and I'll be damned if I let that bullshit go unchallenged.  How dare your all try to justify controlling female fertility (cue the slut shaming).

Feel free to read Heller for an explanation of how the prefatory clause of the Amendment operates on the highlighted part."

Sad! That's not much of an endorsement of your comprehension skills

Actually, it reflects on your writing skills. 

Feel free to read Heller for an explanation of how it ONLY relates to keeping a weapon in your home and how Scalia bolster the posit that the government CAN regulate gun ownership.

Actually, it reflects on your writing skills.

Funny, I actually had an eight year old read those two sentences. She could figure out what "the highlighted part"  meant. Yet, you despite " years of reading Supreme Court decisions" couldn't. That's not a very good endorsement of your reading comprehension skills.

Unlock the Trump PC thread if you would like a response Mac.    Otherwise i’ll understand you don’t care to field  a dissenting opinion.

You had 201 opportunities for dissent and took several opportunities to express same. And I gave ample notice before locking the article; so, write your own article, state your case, and if I don't buy it, I'll post a dissenting opinion.

And see if you can express an idea without an ad hominem toss in.

It's comical to me that people think unelected lawyers, of all people,  are the ones in touch with the evolving standards of American society.

What body of law enables the POTUS to appoint SCOTUS Justices, Sean?

Funny, I actually had an eight year old read those two sentences. She could figure out what "the highlighted part" meant.

Are you actually thumping your chest for being able to write to a 8 year old's cognitive level? 

BTW, your kid must be a genius if he/she knows what prefatory clause means at 8. 

Yet, you despite " years of reading Supreme Court decisions" couldn't. That's not a very good endorsement of your reading comprehension skills.

Yet you, despite your writing expertise, don't know where to put a freaking coma. Perhaps you should have your 8 year old review all of your drafts in the future. 

Now, do you want to go back to me schooling you about the Constitution? 

Yeah didn't Think you wanted a real debate ..... no matter what you say you want.

SOSDD

Yeah didn't Think you wanted a real debate ..... no matter what you say you want.

If it weren't for ad hominem … you'd add NOTHING at all.

Back off the insults.

If your so intent on that debate, post your position in your own article and I'll comment; then we'll know that you want a real debate.

Why should unelected judges decide when society has changed or evolved? 

I don't recall your stating that regarding Heller, Hobby Lobby, Citizens United, the gutting of the Voting Rights Act …

Americans can literally have their "day-in-court" … that's what make it America.You can argue ideology, or, philosophy or the law … but to make your point, you need to avoid mixing them into your bottom lines.

There is no insults, there is no ad hominem.     Only a differing opinion that you don’t like.   My position is clearly stated numerous times.    No need to repeat it.

Feel free to point out where i’ve done anything different towards you on the topic in question and i’ll be happy to apologize for it. 

Only a differing opinion that you don’t like.   My position is clearly stated numerous times.    No need to repeat it.

If there's no need to repeat it, why are you asking me to unlock an article that had 201 comments … including yours.

If you have a particular disagreement with me on an issue, post an article, state your position and we can have the debate that you taunt that I don't want.

When you taunt with comments like …

Yeah didn't Think you wanted a real debate ..... no matter what you say you want.

… you imply that I'm cowering … afraid to debate you … bring your position to a discussion … if you don't and continue to hide behind such a taunt, it will appear that you may not want a real debate. 

If you need to go to the locked article, you can still copy and paste any/all of my comments therein and I give you permission to POST THE COMMENT WITH WHICH YOU WISH TO TAKE EXCEPTION … VERBATIM … IN YOUR OWN ARTICE … then, without any pronouncements or taunts or ad hominem stuff … state your case against said comment …

… and we'll debate.

Otherwise, after I had a 201 comment discussion … I thing asking you to start an article beginning with ONE COMMENT … depending on your response … will tell the tale.

onsequently, by virtue of THE CONSTITUTION, the "unelected lawyers" who become SCOTUS justices, derive their authority via the Constitution.

Yes Amac.  You completely dodged the question. What training or special talents due unelected justices have to determine what the evolving standards are that that reflect a maturing society?  Are you happy that people like yourself are not allowed to weigh in on the discussion? Only rich elites who attend a tiny handful of law schools and live lives very different from ordinary Americans somehow deserve the power to determine the  standards of American society?  

re you actually thumping your chest for being able to write to a 8 year old's cognitive level?

No, But I guess I shouldn't be surprised you didn't get it. It's a pattern with you, after all.

 I was laughing at your inability to read at an 8 years olds cognitive level. I guess I needed to spell that out more explicitly for those, like yourself,  who can't keep up with 8 year olds. 

TW, your kid must be a genius if he/she knows what prefatory clause means at 8.

No. She just understands that the words "highlighted part" describes the "highlighted part" of a two sentence post.

et you, despite your writing expertise, don't know where to put a freaking coma.

Good Move! When you can't win on substance, go after typos/grammar.

Good Move! When you can't win on substance, go after typos/grammar.

Says the poster that harps on 'highlighted parts' rather than address the substance of my posts, the ACTUAL content and effect of Heller. 

And yes, conservative christian pro life women have abortions too.

I've known at least 2.

Yes Amac.  You completely dodged the question. What training or special talents due unelected justices have to determine what the evolving standards are that that reflect a maturing society?  Are you happy that people like yourself are not allowed to weigh in on the discussion? 

Your grievance isn't wth me, Sean, it's with the authors of the Constitution who established a three-tier system of Federal government including a JUDICAL branch.

And I and other Americans do get to weigh in on the discussion via the VOTE, the COURTS and the pressure often generated by the COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION.

You accuse me of dodging the question … well, let's see; it's you who failed to justify your selective acceptance of SCOTUS decisions I cited, namely, Heller, Hobby Lobby, Citizens United, the gutting of The Voting Rights Act … each via the same logistics as Roe v. Wade.

You are one of the few Conservatives here on NT that I respect for attempts at REAL DIALOGUE/DEBATE, that, even though we never agree on issues. I don't like your allegation that I "dodged" the question, and I'll give you the reason: YOUR QUESTION constitutes a A LOGICAL FALLACY in that you base it on a contention as to how, in your opinion, certain laws should be made.

You are certainly entitled to that opinion, and in some ways, I agree with it … BUT … let us be clear in what we are arguing … we are arguing the law and the way things ARE; if you want to argue how those things, in your thinking, OUGHT TO BE … we can do that. But don't accuse me of dodging a question that is NOT THE QUESTION AS IT APPLIES TO HOW A LAW CAME TO BE, rather than HOW YOU WISH IT HAD COME TO BE.

Don't posit an inaccurate premise then accuse me of dodging giving a response to that premise as if it were viable. Analogously, if you argued that (i.e.) "The team colors are red and white and they'd be a lot better if they were orange and blue," BUT THE ACTUAL TEAM COLORS WERE YELLOW AND PURPLE … we'd be spinning our wheels and going nowhere as a result!

Tell us what the abortion process entails?  Every detail, since you know everything about the topic.

What do you think gives you the right to take an innocent life?

Since the vast majority of anti-choice advocates in this country profess to be Christians, their dogma of 'original sin' would preclude them from basing an argument on the concept of 'innocent life'. 

'I know everything there is to know about this topic.'

I imagine that's what you think about ANY TOPIC.  

Why should unelected judges decide when society has changed or evolved?

Mostly because the Constitution tasks them with doing so. 

Is that what lawyers are taught to do, decide how society is changing?

No more than Legislators are, yet you seem to be advocating for them to make those decisions. 

Asa Justice Scalia said, "I'm not very good at determinating what the aspirations of the American people are. I am out of touch with the American people. I don't even try to be in touch. People mention movie stars and I don't know who they're talking about, and I get a blank look on my face. If you want somebody who's in touch with what are the evolving standards of decency that reflect a maturing society, ask the Congress to make the relevant decisions."

So you think it's pertinent that Scalia based his concept of 'the evolving standards of decency that reflect on a maturing society' on the movie stars people talk about and seems proud that he claims to be 'out of touch with the American people' based on his intentional ignorance of 'pop culture'.  

Yet in truth, the Scalia spent years reading hundreds of amicus briefs, from lawyers and institutions all over the country, who advocated for people from every spectrum of the nation. Scalia in his time on the bench, read hundreds of opinion from Federal District Courts across the country, addressing a wide spectrum of issues that the 'American people' deal with every day. 

Anyone that believes that the briefs and opinions that go through the SCOTUS don't enlighten a Justice about the 'evolving standards of decency that reflect a maturing society' is lying to themselves. 

Secondly, Scalia admitted in interviews that he read the WSJ and the Washington Times while intentionally avoiding the NYT and the WaPo because he viewed them as 'shrilly liberal'. This admission alone proves that Scalia CHOSE what 'evolving standards' to review and which to ignore.

That doesn't make him 'out of touch', that makes him a partisan hack. 

One cannot pretend to be 'out of touch' while citing each element of a posit in opposing arguments.

Based on the documentation of Scalia's 'jurisprudence', he did not accept 'evolving standards' or a 'maturing society' as influences that should effect his interpretation of the Constitution.

Scalia believed that the standards evolved at all and sited 'historical tradition' ad nauseam. Scalia made a conscious CHOICE to appear 'out of touch' with a 'maturing society', while making vehement opposing arguments against recognizing that 'evolving standards of decency' as worthy of being any basis for interpreting the merits of a case. 

Judges are just as capable as Legislators to 'take the pulse' of the American people, in fact, maybe more so since most Judges hear and read more diverse information than Legislators that serve gerrymandered districts. If Judges ARE 'out of touch', they make the conscience decision to be so and we should be critical of that choice. 

When you taunt with comments like …

Not intended to be a taunt but if you choose to take it that way ..... nothing I can do about it.

So quit wasting my time with these nonsensical remarks.

Then stop making them. 

1) The unborn have no rights. No SSN, they can't vote, etc...

2) It's a fetus, not a baby or a child.

3) It's not murder, but if you feel differently. by all means, call the police, I am sure they could use a good laugh. 

4) You worry about your vagina, let other women worry about theirs. 

5) We abolished slavery a long time ago, trying to tell women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies is slavery....(no wonder the right wing wants to do away with freedom of choice). 

6) If you don't like abortions, don't get one.

That sums it all up nicely. 

It's too bad some people cannot mind their own business and leave well enough alone.

Thanks Gordy, good to see ya! 

You too Frost.

yes, I agree but we disagree on who those people are 

yes, I agree but we disagree on who those people are

So do tell, which people are you referring to?

Say hey, you're allegedly a smart boy, you can figure it out.

Say hey, you're allegedly a smart boy, you can figure it out.

Deflection noted.

Skirting the coc "BF"

Intellectual sloth noted previously

Ad hom attack noted currently!

they can

Not a legal argument in the bunch. It's a nice platform for a legislator!

Abortion, as all the arguments in support of it have amply demonstrated, a legislative question to be decided by the people's representatives. Not a Constitutional argument based on the text  in the bunch. After all, how could there be?

It's like you and Gordy are trying to illustrate my point. 

After all, how could there be?

Doesn't matter, the SCOTUS ruled. Why is it that the right wing yells and screams that the SCOTUS has made a good decision when it goes their way, but then turns around and screams that the SCOTUS is wrong on this issue? The SCOTUS is not going to reverse Roe Vs. Wade. If they were, they would have done so a long time ago. 

Doesn't matter, the SCOTUS ruled

So if SCOTUS rules that Democrat supporters can be banned from the internet, newspapers etc. because that's how the "constitution evolved" your response will be: 

Doesn't matter, SCOTUS ruled. 

If you believe that the text of the Constitution doesn't matter because SCOTUS can do what it  wants in all matters and that's a good thing, I'll give you credit for being consistent. 

So if SCOTUS rules that Democrat supporters can be banned from the internet, newspapers etc. because that's how the "constitution evolved" your response will be:

Abortion isn't political, you are comparing apples and oranges. 

It's like you and Gordy are trying to illustrate my point.

Oh I'm sorry. Did you have a point?

Not a legal argument in the bunch.

I have yet to see you make one.

So if SCOTUS rules that Democrat supporters can be banned from the internet, newspapers etc. because that's how the "constitution evolved" your response will be:

Nice Red Herring. What a lovely shade of crimson.

"Why is it that the right wing yells and screams that the SCOTUS has made a good decision when it goes their way"

For the same reason, the left wing yells and screams that the SCOTUS made a good decision when it goes their way. They got what they wanted.

Not a legal argument in the bunch. It's a nice platform for a legislator! Abortion, as all the arguments in support of it have amply demonstrated, a legislative question to be decided by the people's representatives. Not a Constitutional argument based on the text

Actually, there ARE a couple cogent LEGAL arguments in that list, specifically, 1-3. Now if you have a 'legal argument' to the contrary, let's hear them. 

bortion isn't political, you are comparing apples and oranges

WHAT? Have you paid attention to politics at all, since the 1960s. Abortion is one of the primary topics of political  debate.

Honestly, I don't even know how to respond to that. It's like claiming 2+2 is a math problem and 3+3 isn't. 

For you own sake ,think it through. 

Abortion, as all the arguments in support of it have amply demonstrated, a legislative question to be decided by the people's representatives. Not a Constitutional argument based on the text  in the bunch. After all, how could there be?

The Constitution establishes a JUDICIAL BRANCH of government where legislative decisions can be sustained or overturned … the framers understood that not all legislative decisions might reflect the will of the people … today … or two hundred years from today.

I agree with you that abortion is a political football....but what's really sad is that so many voters are a one-issue voter and use abortion as their one issue.

How many people will not vote for a qualified candidate because that person happens to be pro or anti-choice?

The unborn have no rights. No SSN, they can't vote, etc... 2) It's a fetus, not a baby or a child.

So why are there laws for killing a unborn "fetus" in 35 states?

I'm prochoice. If you want to kill your unborn child go for it. 

If the left feels so strongly about Roe vs Wade and its the law why are they hypocrites when it comes to the scotus ruling on the 2nd amendment?

So why are there laws for killing a unborn "fetus" in 35 states?

You are talking about killing the mother, correct? Because it wasn't a CHOICE to terminate the pregnancy, it was unlawfully ending a pregnancy that COULD have resulted in the birth of a human. The part you are missing is...CHOICE. 

I'm prochoice. If you want to kill your unborn child go for it. 

No such thing as an unborn child, and, I am a male, so....yea. 

If the left feels so strongly about Roe vs Wade and its the law why are they hypocrites when it comes to the scotus ruling on the 2nd amendment?

If the right feels so strongly about the 2nd amendment, why are they hypocrites when it comes to the SCOTUS ruling on Roe Vs. Wade? It's a two way street. You don't always get your way. 

so now you are claiming that whether or not an unborn is a baby or not depends upon the situation? 

so now you are claiming that whether or not an unborn is a baby or not depends upon the situation?

Legally, yes. 

No such thing as an unborn child, and,

I hope you have never been invited to a Bridal shower. 

Have you ever inquired if the fetus is a male or female? That must have been awkward.

So why are there laws for killing a unborn "fetus" in 35 states?

Such laws are based on intentional harm inflicted against the woman in question, especially since said harm forcefully interferes with her choice. Also, fetal homicide charges depend on the circumstances surrounding the death, the intentions, the stage of gestation, individual state laws, and whether a prosecutor pushes for such a charge. Such laws are also knee-jerk reactions.

If the left feels so strongly about Roe vs Wade and its the law why are they hypocrites when it comes to the scotus ruling on the 2nd amendment?

The issue is abortion, not the 2nd Amendment.

I hope you have never been invited to a Bridal shower.

What difference does tat make? MrFrost is not wrong.

Have you ever inquired if the fetus is a male or female? That must have been awkward.

See previous statement! The determination of gender does not change the fact that it is still a fetus.

so now you are claiming that whether or not an unborn is a baby or not depends upon the situation?

It's not no matter the situation. It's still an embryo/fetus until birth. At birth, it's a baby.

Most males aren't invited to BRIDAL showers... LOL

Actually, it's pretty revealing that the sex of an unborn fetus would be relevant at a thumper bridal shower instead of the baby shower. Maybe they have that the next weekend.

I have been invited to bridal showers because they knew I would be there to assist when the time came.

So why are there laws for killing a unborn "fetus" in 35 states?

What 'right' does that grant to the fetus? 

I'm prochoice. If you want to kill your unborn child go for it.

There is no such thing as an 'unborn child'. It's either a fetus or a BORN child. 

If the left feels so strongly about Roe vs Wade and its the law why are they hypocrites when it comes to the scotus ruling on the 2nd amendment?

So is your posit is that if one disagrees with one SCOTUS opinion and agrees with another, one MUST be a hypocrite? You know that means that EVERY Supreme Court Justice who ever served on the bench is a hypocrite, right? You may want to review the history of 'dissenting opinions'. 

What 'right' does that grant to the fetus?

You just posting to post? If you can't figure it out I'm sure explaining it to you will not help either.

There is no such thing as an 'unborn child'. It's either a fetus or a BORN child.

Okay I thought your other comment was ignorant now you went and out did yourself. 

the developing young in the uterus, specifically the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, which in humans is from the third month after fertilization until birth. money.cnn

A change to college savings accounts in the Republican tax plan would expand eligibility to unborn children. money.cnn

Bikini-clad drunk driver pleads guilty in crash that killed man and unborn child  foxnews

You Better get on your high horse and gallop around the country informing them there is no such thing as a unborn child. 

So is your posit is that if one disagrees with one SCOTUS opinion and agrees with another, one MUST be a hypocrite?

Guess you need to follow the thread instead of jumping to assumptions. It was someone else harping that it is the law of the land and must be accepted. 

it's pretty revealing that the sex of an unborn

In this day and age does it matter? Aren't all the cool proglibs choosing there gender as they see fit.

Hell they are even choosing there own race? 

You just posting to post?

That's pretty funny since you posted multiple links to answer my comment. 

If you can't figure it out I'm sure explaining it to you will not help either.

In short, you can't answer the question. Deflection. 

Okay I thought your other comment was ignorant now you went and out did yourself.

So your 'go to' sources to bolster your posit about a legal and /or scientific definition is media articles. Oh and not just ANY media outlets, but moneycnn.com and fox. Hilarious. 

You Better get on your high horse and gallop around the country informing them there is no such thing as a unborn child.

Just because an author puts two words together, doesn't mean that they DEFINE a fucking thing. I have no need to gallop anywhere because the majority of the country already acknowledges the definition of child. 

Guess you need to follow the thread instead of jumping to assumptions. It was someone else harping that it is the law of the land and must be accepted.

No problem following the thread at all. Our conversation started @ my reply to YOUR comment @ 3.3. where you stated:

If the left feels so strongly about Roe vs Wade and its the law

YOU were the FIRST one 'harping about Roe v Wade' being the law. 

YUGE fail!

If the left feels so strongly about Roe vs Wade and its the law why are they hypocrites when it comes to the scotus ruling on the 2nd amendment?

Flip that around …

If the right feels so strongly about the 2nd Amendment and its the law, why are they hypocrites when it comes to the scotus ruling on the Roe v Wade? 

Such laws are based on intentional harm inflicted against the woman in question, especially since said harm forcefully interferes with her choice.

Only in 8 really stupid states. In 38 other states, it's murder to intentionally kill a fetus. Even California defines "murder" as "the unlawful killing of a human being or fetus with malice aforethought."

Only in 8 really stupid states. In 38 other states, it's murder to intentionally kill a fetus. Even California defines "murder" as "the unlawful killing of a human being or fetus with malice aforethought."

It's not based on fetal "murder." It's based on harm against the woman. The fetus is an afterthought. 

Even California defines "murder" as "the unlawful killing of a human being or fetus with malice aforethought."

You use this quote to bolster your 'point' while ignoring the FACT that it makes a distinction between 'human being' and 'fetus'. 

Secondly, since it's likely that you copied and pasted that part of the CA statute section 187 (a), that you felt bolstered your posit, it's also likely that you intentionally avoided citing section 187 (b 1-3). Could it be that you didn't want to 'tell the whole story'?   

'Most males aren't invited to BRIDAL showers... LOL'

Really, DUH!

2) It's a fetus, not a baby or a child.

OK. What's a fetus? No wait . . . I'll look it up on Google and bold the important parts for you:

fe·tus

ˈfēdəs/

noun

OK. What's a fetus? No wait . . . I'll look it up on Google and bold the important parts for you:

Google is not always your friend. The American Academy of Pediatrics defines a fetus as thus: "A fetus is defined from 8 weeks after conception until term while in the uterus."

Note that the term "baby" is not used in either definition.

Google is not always your friend.

Oh good, another person who knows more than the dictionary. Sigh.

"A fetus is defined from 8 weeks after conception until term while in the uterus."

This little sentence doesn't say what a fetus is defined as, beyond the 8 weeks. What is the context for this incomplete definition?

Ahh! Here it is in the abstract for the article:

Accurately defining and reporting perinatal deaths

"Deaths" require life. If a fetus can die, that means it was alive at some point. As in, a living, but unborn human baby.

Oh good, another person who knows more than the dictionary. Sigh.

I cited an actual scholarly medical source. Not some generic dictionary. I can cite other similar scientific sources for you. But the definition with be the same or quite similar.

This little sentence doesn't say what a fetus is defined as, beyond the 8 weeks. What is the context for this incomplete definition?

A fetus is the gestational age after 8 weeks. Before 8 weeks, it's an embryo. It's obvious you don't even understand the basic scientific terms or definitions. I wonder how you can go bny science as you claim, when you clearly have no understanding ofg it or even the most basic terms!

"Deaths" require life. If a fetus can die, that means it was alive at some point. As in, a living, but unborn human baby.

You prove my point with that statement. "unborn baby" is an oxymoron. If it's unborn, it's clearly not a baby. Learn your terminology. And whether it's a "life" or not is irrelevant.

"Deaths" require life. If a fetus can die, that means it was alive at some point. As in, a living, but unborn human baby.

So 'dead skin' qualifies. 

Maybe, Mark, was just a fetus to you, but to me he was MY baby!

When anti-abortion, "pro-life" legislators vote to allow a pregnant woman to claim her embryo and fetus as tax-exemption dependents … as deductions …

… they will cease being the hypocrites who say an unborn child is a "life" … entitled to the same rights as one who is viable outside the womb.

For the record, while on most issues I am a "liberal," I believe it is correct to argue that a fetus is a life. But I find that there is a huge chasm of religionist hypocrisy between being PRO-LIFE and PRO-BIRTH!

To quote George Carlin with regard to "pro-lifers," …

"If you're PRE-BIRTH … you're good …

"If you're PRE-SCHOOL … 

… you're fucked!"

I know it's long but......

George Carlin – Pro Life, Abortion, And The Sanctity Of Life

George Denis Patrick Carlin (May 12, 1937 – June 22, 2008)] Source: LYBIO.net
Why, why, why, why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn’t want to fuck in the first place, huh? Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren’t they? They’re all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you’re born, you’re on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don’t want to know about you. They don’t want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you’re pre-born, you’re fine; if you’re preschool, you’re fucked.

Conservatives don’t give a shit about you until you reach “military age”. Then they think you are just fine. Just what they’ve been looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. Pro-life… pro-life… These people aren’t pro-life, they’re killing doctors! What kind of pro-life is that? What, they’ll do anything they can to save a fetus but if it grows up to be a doctor they just might have to kill it?They’re not pro-life. You know what they are? They’re anti-woman. Simple as it gets, anti-woman. They don’t like them. They don’t like women.They believe a woman’s primary role is to function as a brood mare for the state.

Pro-life… You don’t see many of these white anti-abortion women volunteering to have any black fetuses transplanted into their uterus’s, do you? No, you don’t see them adopting a whole lot of crack babies, do you? No, that might be something Christ would do. And, you won’t see a lot of these pro-life people dousing themselves in kerosene and lighting themselves on fire. You know, morally committed religious people in South Vietnam knew how to stage a goddamn demonstration, didn’t they?! They knew how to put on a fucking protest. Light yourself on FIRE!! C’mon, you moral crusaders, let’s see a little smoke. To match that fire in your belly.

Here’s another question I have: how come when it’s us, it’s an abortion, and when it’s a chicken, it’s an omelet? Are we so much better than chickens all of a sudden? When did this happen, that we passed chickens in goodness? Name six ways we’re better than chickens… See, nobody can do it! You know why? ‘Cuz chickens are decent people. You don’t see chickens hanging around in drug gangs, do you? No, you don’t see a chicken strapping some guy to a chair and hooking up his nuts to a car battery, do you? When’s the last chicken you heard about came home from work and beat the shit out of his hen, huh? Doesn’t happen. ‘Cuz chickens are decent people.

But let’s get back to this abortion shit. Now, is a fetus a human being? This seems to be the central question. Well, if a fetus is a human being, how come the census doesn’t count them? If a fetus is a human being, how come when there’s a miscarriage they don’t have a funeral? If a fetus is a human being, how come people say “we have two children and one on the way” instead of saying “we have three children?” People say life begins at conception, I say life began about a billion years ago and it’s a continuous process. Continuous, just keeps rolling along. Rolling, rolling, rolling along.

And say you know something? Listen, you can go back further than that. What about the carbon atoms? Hah? Human life could not exist without carbon. So is it just possible that maybe we shouldn’t be burning all this coal? Just looking for a little consistency here in these anti-abortion arguments. See the really hardcore people will tell you life begins at fertilization. Fertilization, when the sperm fertilizes the egg. Which is usually a few moments after the man says “Gee, honey, I was going to pull out but the phone rang and it startled me.” Fertilization. Source: LYBIO.net

But even after the egg is fertilized, it’s still six or seven days before it reaches the uterus and pregnancy begins, and not every egg makes it that far. Eighty percent of a woman’s fertilized eggs are rinsed and flushed out of her body once a month during those delightful few days she has. They wind up on sanitary napkins, and yet they are fertilized eggs. So basically what these anti-abortion people are telling us is that any woman who’s had more than more than one period is a serial killer! Consistency. Consistency. Hey, hey, if they really want to get serious, what about all the sperm that are wasted when the state executes a condemned man, one of these pro-life guys who’s watching cums in his pants, huh? Here’s a guy standing over there with his jockey shorts full of little Vinnies and Debbies, and nobody’s saying a word to the guy. Not every ejaculation deserves a name.

Now, speaking of consistency, Catholics, which I was until I reached the age of reason, Catholics and other Christians are against abortions, and they’re against homosexuals. Well who has less abortions than homosexuals?! Leave these fucking people alone, for Christ sakes! Here is an entire class of people guaranteed never to have an abortion! And the Catholics and Christians are just tossing them aside! You’d think they’d make natural allies. Go look for consistency in religion. And speaking of my friends the Catholics, when John Cardinal O’Connor of New York and some of these other Cardinals and Bishops have experienced their first pregnancies and their first labor pains and they’ve raised a couple of children on minimum wage, then I’ll be glad to hear what they have to say about abortion. I’m sure it’ll be interesting. Enlightening, too. But, in the meantime what they ought to be doing is telling these priests who took a vow of chastity to keep their hands off the altar boys! Keep your hands to yourself, Father! You know? When Jesus said “Suffer the little children come unto me”, that’s not what he was talking about!

So you know what I tell these anti-abortion people? I say “Hey. Hey. If you think a fetus is more important that a woman, try getting a fetus to wash the shit stains out of your underwear. For no pay and no pension.” I tell them “Think of an abortion as term limits. That’s all it is. Biological term limits.

But you know, the longer you listen to this abortion debate, the more you hear this phrase “sanctity of life”. You’ve heard that. Sanctity of life. You believe in it? Personally, I think it’s a bunch of shit. Well, I mean, life is sacred? Who said so? God? Hey, if you read history, you realize that God is one of the leading causes of death. Has been for thousands of years. Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians all taking turns killing each other ‘cuz God told them it was a good idea. The sword of God, the blood of the land, vengeance is mine. Millions of dead motherfuckers. Millions of dead motherfuckers all because they gave the wrong answer to the God question. “You believe in God?” “No.” *Pdoom*. Dead. “You believe in God?” “Yes.” “You believe in my God? “No.” *Poom*. Dead. “My God has a bigger dick than your God!” Thousands of years. Thousands of years, and all the best wars, too. The bloodiest, most brutal wars fought, all based on religious hatred. Which is fine with me. Hey, any time a bunch of holy people want to kill each other I’m a happy guy.

But don’t be giving me all this shit about the sanctity of life. I mean, even if there were such a thing, I don’t think it’s something you can blame on God. No, you know where the sanctity of life came from? We made it up. You know why? ‘Cuz we’re alive. Self-interest. Living people have a strong interest in promoting the idea that somehow life is sacred. You don’t see Abbott and Costello running around, talking about this shit, do you? We’re not hearing a whole lot from Mussolini on the subject. What’s the latest from JFK? Not a goddamn thing. ‘Cuz JFK, Mussolini and Abbott and Costello are fucking dead. They’re fucking dead. And dead people give less than a shit about the sanctity of life. Only living people care about it so the whole thing grows out of a completely biased point of view. It’s a self serving, man-made bullshit story.

It’s one of these things we tell ourselves so we’ll feel noble. Life is sacred. Makes you feel noble. Well let me ask you this: if everything that ever lived is dead, and everything alive is gonna die, where does the sacred part come in? I’m having trouble with that. ‘Cuz, I mean, even with all this stuff we preach about the sanctity of life, we don’t practice it. We don’t practice it. Look at what we’d kill: Mosquitoes and flies. ‘Cuz they’re pests. Lions and tigers. ‘Cuz it’s fun! Chickens and pigs. ‘Cuz we’re hungry. Pheasants and quails. ‘Cuz it’s fun. And we’re hungry. And people. We kill people… ‘Cuz they’re pests. And it’s fun!

And you might have noticed something else. The sanctity of life doesn’t seem to apply to cancer cells, does it? You rarely see a bumper sticker that says “Save the tumors.”. Or “I brake for advanced melanoma.”. No, viruses, mold, mildew, maggots, fungus, weeds, E. Coli bacteria, the crabs. Nothing sacred about those things. So at best the sanctity of life is kind of a selective thing. We get to choose which forms of life we feel are sacred, and we get to kill the rest. Pretty neat deal, huh? You know how we got it? We made the whole fucking thing up! Made it up! The same way… Thank you.

The man was a genius. RIP, Mr. Carlin

Republicans oppose...

Health care for the poor

Education for the poor

Food for the poor

Housing for the poor

Welfare for the poor...

But they insist that they want to do away with abortions? So they want to force women to have kids, then turn around and offer zero support? Makes no sense at all. 

The whole antiabortion nonsense makes no sense. I have never seen any rational argument for it. Just appeals to emotion, religious beliefs, or plain old nosy busy bodies with an opinion on their part. I suppose that's why they lost on the abortion issue.

I doubt that even most pro-choice people believe that.

Are you sure? I think most pro-choice people "believe" that abortion is a woman's right to choose, regardless of their own personal views or opinions regarding abortion itself.

Just appeals to emotion, religious beliefs, or plain old nosy busy bodies with an opinion on their part.

My problem with abortion has nothing to do with any of those things. My objection is rooted in science. They can stick a camera in a uterus and show you the baby inside. That baby is revealed to be uniquely human. It's not a tumor or a dinosaur. It's a person.

As for emotion, why do you think people would be emotional about it other than that they know abortion kills a baby? Isn't that a thing worth being emotional about?

The only religious component would be that human life has value, but I don't think that particular morality is unique to religious people. 

Once upon a time, Barack Obama declared that abortion should be rare. Why should it be rare except that we acknowledge that abortion extinguishes a human life? Why is it a personal decision that is difficult and private except that we know an unborn baby will die? It's not just a procedure performed on a woman. No one thinks teeth cleanings and eye exams should be rare or difficult. The truth is that everyone understands very well what abortion does. Only the hardcore pro-abortion people pretend otherwise.

They can stick a camera in a uterus and show you the baby inside.

Not during 1st trimester when terminations are legal and zygotes are conglomerations of cells...

If you know of any babies being killed call law enforcement. Otherwise, can that hysterical talk.

I am waiting for the right wing to pass a law saying that masturbation is murder. 

My objection is rooted in science.

That's funny, especially since you can't even get the scientific terms right.

They can stick a camera in a uterus and show you the baby inside. That baby is revealed to be uniquely human. It's not a tumor or a dinosaur. It's a person.

It's a fetus. That's science.

As for emotion, why do you think people would be emotional about it other than that they know abortion kills a baby? Isn't that a thing worth being emotional about?

No. That just means people cannot think or be rational, especially if they think abortion "kills a baby" (which it does not). Abortion terminates an embryo/fetus. If they want to be emotional about it, that's up to the individual. 

The only religious component would be that human life has value, but I don't think that particular morality is unique to religious people.

Again, such a component is another appeal to emotion.

Once upon a time, Barack Obama declared that abortion should be rare.

He also supported a woman's choice.

Why should it be rare except that we acknowledge that abortion extinguishes a human life?

It doesn't matter if it's rare or not. It only becomes rare if women choose to not have abortions, or if abortion is not even necessary due to birth control.

Why is it a personal decision that is difficult and private except that we know an unborn baby will die?

Key phrase there is "personal decision," as in that's exactly what it is. So it's no one else's business!

It's not just a procedure performed on a woman.

Abortion is a medical procedure.

No one thinks teeth cleanings and eye exams should be rare or difficult.

Neither should abortion. But some people want to make them rare or unobtainable, regardless if someone wants or needs one.

The truth is that everyone understands very well what abortion does. Only the hardcore pro-abortion people pretend otherwise.

No such thing as "pro-abortion." Like I said, it's funny you try to cite science for your arguments, when your argument is nothing but one big disingenuous appeal to emotion. You're fooling no one.

There is an abundance of rational arguments against abortion.

I have yet to hear one.

And yes many pro-choice people understand that.

They understand that some people are opposed to abortion.

Thus, the branding of pro-choice instead of pro-abortion.

Pro-choice means exactly that: allowing a choice. That includes the woman's right to choose to have an abortion or continue a pregnancy, regardless of how anyone else feels about it.

It's a process of rationalization that attempts to obscure the hard truths. Things like, well it's not a baby, it has no rights, it's allowed by law, it's not murder as they define it and so on.

What rationalization? Those are all simple facts. 

At the same time consider the millions that have had an abortion and later regretted it. Or the anguish one goes through as they deal with the cognitive dissonance resulting from the decision.

And many have not. So what's your point? That does not mean the choice should not be available to begin with just because someone might regret it later.

To dismiss the choice or equate it as something as mundane is what to eat for breakfast does everyone a disservice.

The only ones trying to dismiss choice are anti-abortionists, with attempts to limit or prohibit it. Choice should be available regardless of how one views it.

Your response is a perfect example of what I was referring to in my comments.

My response is a logical and rational point.

Which also explains why these discussions go nowhere. In the end cognitive dissonance forces you into these untenable positions.

Speak for yourself. I provided scientific and/or legal analysis or precedents and facts to support my arguments. My position is quite secure, thank you.

BTW, you don't have to hear them. You can actually see them in their daily lives.

In other words, there is no rational argument. Duly noted.

No need the left wing already did so.

They did? When was this... Link please. 

There is an abundance of rational arguments against abortion.

Strange that you've never been able to cite even one.

For the sake of mankind, don't ever release your DNA where it could end up in the food chain.

Why should it be rare except that we acknowledge that abortion extinguishes a human life?

So does the death penalty. 

I am waiting for the right wing to pass a law saying that masturbation is murder.

I doubt that will ever happen, how else would they be able to think of all the crap they spew? 

spew?

Giggity...

I don't really care who has an abortion.....their loss.

My oldest son's bio mother will never know the joy our son has given us.  Beautiful baby!  Picked him up from the hospital when he was three days old.  She will, also, not know the nights he and I stayed up till 3 in the morning as we talked and talked about her.  He was a teenager and couldn't understand why she didn't want him.  Judy was Catholic so abortion was out of the question.  Thank God!  I wouldn't have him. 

Four years later, I conceived.  I gave birth to a beautiful son.  My two sons are the epitome of love.

Once upon a time, Barack Obama declared that abortion should be rare.

Yes, which is why he was for birth control and other things that impact women's health to be covered under Obamacare.  Prevent them.  As opposed to say, slut shaming.  Think about all the ways conservatives want to restrict women's ability to control their fertility.  Republicans don't want reproductive physiology even covered by insurance half the time!  And they don't make it easy to afford to have a baby.  Don't like sex ed.  I challenge you to explain why you only care about life in utero, but it ends there.  Just look at how easy it is for certain people to look away when 1500 kids were separated from their parents by immigration.  Or are killed at school.  Or don't get enough to eat.     I don't believe for one second republicans care about 'life', they care about controlling women.

I don't really care who has an abortion.....

If only everyone had the same attitude.

their loss.

That's a matter of opinion.

My oldest son's bio mother will never know the joy our son has given us. Beautiful baby! Picked him up from the hospital when he was three days old.

Kudos to you for adopting.

She will, also, not know the nights he and I stayed up till 3 in the morning as we talked and talked about her.

So?

Judy was Catholic so abortion was out of the question.

Leave it to religion to take someone's choice away.

Thank God! I wouldn't have him. Four years later, I conceived. I gave birth to a beautiful son. My two sons are the epitome of love.

Congratulations.

I don't believe for one second republicans care about 'life', they care about controlling women.

I disagree. All of the conservative people I know do care about life. They also care about the country. IMO Most conservatives I know just mainly believe their world (our world) is changing in ways that are not good for America. 

Sometimes, I tend to disagree with them as well. Sometimes I agree.

No one is correct 100 % of the time that I know either. Including me.

They're never do that....all these righties on here will be in jail

I don't believe for one second republicans care about 'life',

If they really cared about life they wouldn't be so fired up about sending our sons and daughters to war

I disagree. All of the conservative people I know do care about life.

Actions speak louder than words.  I know and love many conservatives too.  But until the actions reflect the words (and NOT just in utero), I don't buy it.  And I challenge them on it.  There is a disconnect between what they say they believe and care about and what is done.

Cum again?

BTW, isn't masturbation "making it with someone you love," and you don't have to get all dressed up.

What about the women that continue a pregnancy & have regretted giving birth?  Happens all the time - 6 times for my mother.  Bet you don't want to think that women regret having children, though.

There is a disconnect between what they say they believe and care about and what is done.

Many times I think the disconnect is in the interpretation of what caring constitutes, do you teach a man to fish or do you feed a hungry man ?

do you teach a man to fish or do you feed a hungry man

Why not both?  Feed the hungry man & then teach him to fish.  Hungry children tend to fall behind in the learning environment.

If you feed a hungry man he'll probably feel like fishing. Hunger causes lethargy.

It does for me.... 

There is an abundance of rational arguments against abortion. And yes many pro-choice people understand that. Thus, the branding of pro-choice instead of pro-abortion.

The reason why people consider themselves "pro-choice" versus "pro-abortion" is that no one is trying to get other people to have abortions. No one is excited at the prospect of a fertilized egg, zygote or embryo being destroyed and discarded. It is the last resort of a desperate woman who realizes she is in no way ready to take on the responsibility of raising a child and can be due to thousands of different reasons, from being way too young and without the financial ability to care for a child to already having 6 kids and realizing another would fracture the already stressed family dynamic causing the rest of the family to suffer. Because of that sensible persons want women to have a choice, thus the term "pro-choice". It has nothing to do with "branding" and everything to do with reality.

The battle is really between "pro-choice" and "no-choice" advocates. To claim you're "pro-life" but also be "pro-death penalty" is a clear contradiction or to be "anti-abortion" but say you're okay with it if it's to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape, also a contradiction. So pro-choice vs no-choice, and in a free secular society one should always be on the side of choice. Only in theocracies and fascist dictatorships is there support for no-choice.

'Picked him up from the hospital when he was three days old.  She will, also, not know the nights he and I stayed up till 3 in the morning as we talked and talked about her.'

Did you trash talk his biological mother to him?

Funny.....as if I would tell you what we talked about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

'Funny.....as if I would tell you what we talked about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'

That was a rhetorical question.  

 Bless yer heart!

'Did you trash talk his biological mother to him?'

I'll take your above response as a YES.  

Why don't you do that?

'Why don't you do that?'

Do what?

Why not both?

I agree, most of us would. Unfortunately many of our politicians and many Americans themselves these days would rather argue about what to do and end up not doing either. 

Truly sickening...

A new law passed in Arkansas means women must obtain permission from the man who impregnated them before they can have an abortion.

Even in the case of rape, women wishing to terminate a pregnancy would have to seek the opinion of their attacker or abusive partner – who would be able to refuse and potentially block the procedure.

independent.co.uk

It doesn't get more Sharia than that. I suppose for a few shekels, the rapist can pay the woman's father and marry her too.

It is absolutely disgusting the way the old white men (and some old white women) down at the Capitol building behave

I think Arkansas is also one of the states that require women to get permission from the "father" of the child before placing it up for adoption (even her rapist).  Also I think they grant rapists visitation rights.  This makes me p[physically ill.

Arkansas has some fucked up values

All about those "family values".

I also I think they grant rapists visitation rights.  This makes me p[physically ill.

Is rape not a criminal act in Arkansas? It would seem that any rapist that has to give permission for the women/girl he raped to have an abortion, and seeks visitation rights of the child when born, would be admitting their guilt of rape, which in most states is a criminal offense.    

would be admitting their guilt of rape, which in most states is a criminal offense

Rape is a crime, but we all know that very few rapists ever serve time and if they do it is not for very long.  When they get out they can sue for visitation & the woman would have to ask his permission to place the child up for adoption.

Arkansas has some fucked up values

Indeed. Now they're trying to restrict medication induced abortions in the state. I seeded an article about it here :

The right wing insists they want more personal freedoms and less government intrusion into their lives....apparently they mean, "for men only". 

The demand for terminations is caused by unwanted pregnancies and it is proven how to eliminate that demand.

1. Provide early comprehensive sex education for all boys and girls prior to puberty.

2. Provide easy access to all forms of birth control for sexually active persons.

3. Provide easy access to women's health services such as provided by Planned Parenthood.

Demand for termination services, which has existed forever, is about twice what it is in the US in more patriarchal nations where terminations are mostly illegal such as Mexico and Czechoslovakia because the demand for abortions is mostly caused by women already having more children then they can care for. Oddly, those most opposed to reproductive choice, legal terminations, are also those most opposed to the very things that are proven to drastically reduce the demand for abortions. If you want to drastically reduce the number of terminations we know how to do exactly that but the anti-choice hard liners are all standing in the proverbial school house door blocking society for doing what is known and proven to work and which nobody can really dispute as fact. So, either lead, follow or get out of the way. Society should not go backwards knowing better now...

Excellent point. And because of religious views, the South doesn't promote safe sex NEARLY as much as they should. The incidence of teen pregnancy is MUCH higher in red states than in blue states....

cdc

Take Mississippi for example, (from the same link...)

Exactamundo...

The SCOTUS says abortion is legal. So from a legal standpoint, the right has nothing. But I will ask again..."what gives you the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body?" Have asked a couple of times and it seems the rightists cannot answer. Figures. 

God is the ultimate abortion doctor. 

Note that the bible and "the Lord" are pro-abortion if a husband suspects that his wife has been sleeping around and is pregnant as a result......it's a lot like that new abortion law in Arkansas in that a man gets veto power over a woman's body:

Numbers 5:11-31 (NIV)

The Test for an Unfaithful Wife

¹¹  Then the Lord said to Moses, ¹²  “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him ¹³  so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), ¹⁴  and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— ¹⁵  then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah ^a  of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

¹⁶  “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord . ¹⁷  Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. ¹⁸  After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord , he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. ¹⁹  Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. ²⁰  But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— ²¹  here the priest is to put the woman under this curse— “may the Lord cause you to become a curse ^b  among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. ²²  May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

²³  “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. ²⁴  He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. ²⁵  The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. ²⁶  The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial ^c  offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. ²⁷  If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. ²⁸  If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

²⁹  “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, ³⁰  or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. ³¹  The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’”

.

The part I like best about this passage is how profoundly misogynistic it is.    It's like the entire bible distilled down into a few paragraphs.

profoundly misogynistic

Which is a large part of why the right doesn't want women getting abortions... I mean, how DARE a woman make a decision on her own!!!! [eye roll] /sarc

I mean, how DARE a woman make a decision on her own!!!!

I know, right! What's next? Women will think they have the right to vote or go out of the house on their own without an escort? 

I guess people  are too ignorant about what it takes to get pregnant. 

If they are home schooled, I can see why they don't understand. 

I guess people are too ignorant about what it takes to get pregnant.

Fortunately, they can be smart enough to know abortion is an option.

Four years later, I conceived.

so?

I guess people are too ignorant about what it takes to get pregnant.

Or they rely on contraceptives that fail. Condoms have an 18% failure rate. 

Reading through this post, it’s clear that liberals think like  the proverbial rat in the experiment who keep pressing the button for food, without thinking of the long term consequence of their action.  It’s instant gratification, “we like abortion therefore is abortion is Constitutional” And that’s the extent of their thoughts. No consideration for the implications of creating a Constitutional right out of thin air, and what the long term implications are of a Constitution unmoored from any text and dependent on the whims of 5 unelected judges.

It’s similar to the debate around ending the filibuster. Liberals wanted some appellate judges right now! so they ended the filibuster for appellate judges. And then they acted shocked that Republicans used that precedent against them to confirm Gorsuch. It’s like they can’t envision social mores or policy debates changing from what they are today .

When you decide the Constitution has no fixed meaning, than you better be prepared to have your own sacred ox gored when 5 judges decide a right either magically appears or disappears thanks to a Constitution they decided “evolved.”  It’s like some sore of brain block prevents them from seeing these tools will be used against them someday.  

 As the liberal Carol Horton wrote, Conservatives believe that at there is such a thing as ‘human nature,’ and that it’s highly fallible, and inevitably bedeviled by problems such as envy, corruption, and greed. They’ve read history. Out of ignorance and Marxism ,  Liberals think history has a “right side” and that it moves in one direction and that it cares how things work out.  They cite 40 years like it means something in the scope of human history.

the proverbial rat in the experiment who keep pressing the button for food, without thinking of the long term consequence of their action.

How dare you! Who wants to limit contraception coverage?  Who wants to cut programs that help poor women prevent unwanted pregnancies?  Who spins mightily to control a fetus in utero, but literally doesn't give a fuck what happens after birth?  Who wants to limit sex education?  Who wants to limit insurance policies that cover pregnancy and other female health issues?   AND make them pay more for it separately?  Who wants to let employers decide what coverage women can have?  Take your sanctimonious bullshit about 'consequences' and 'responsibility' and sit on them.  Same assholes don't even blink when children are separated from parents or don't get enough to eat.    Fuck that.

And if you really have a problem with SCOTUS making things up, start with fucking Citizens United.

Was that addressed to me by accident?

Although, I guess it sort of validates my point that many liberals lack a coherent philosophy of constitutional interpretation. 

Like Obama who taught constitutional law?

Like Obama who taught constitutional law

Yeah, exactly. The guy who stopped deportations by executive order after saying he lacked the power to do so. 

Or the President's power to bomb a country absent an imminent threat, etc.etc..

liberals

Jesus H. Christ. If you do not want to be labeled a partisan hack, quit with the constant "liberals think" bullshit. 

Conservatives think women are too stupid to make their own decisions.

Conservatives think that forcing women to have kids is fun.

Conservatives think that forcing women to have kids, then watching the baby die in the streets because they cut funding is the Christian thing to do.

Conservatives think women should not be able to speak in public unless the man says it's ok. 

Conservatives think that women shouldn't be able to vote. 

Hey you know what? Telling others what other people think sure is fun! 

The guy who stopped deportations

Huh? Who told you that? Alex Jones? Rush Limpballs? Weird that the illegals called Obama the, "deporter-in-chief". Must be because he didn't deport illegals? Sure, that makes total sense...

FACT: Obama deported more illegals in 6 years than Clinton and Bush did in 16 years. 

FACT: Obama asked Boehner for 2.1 billion dollars to fix the illegal immigration problem and Boehner said, "no, fix it yourself". 

FACT: Boehner had an immigration reform bill on his desk for 2 YEARS that Obama said he would gladly sign, but Boehner refused to submit it because if he did, the immigration problem would have been solved and the GOP would have find something new to fucking cry about. 

New word in the dictionary - NO - works in so, so, so many instances.  Wonder why it doesn't work here, eh?

"Who wants to limit contraception coverage?  Who wants to cut programs that help poor women prevent unwanted pregnancies?"

You want to enjoy sex with no contraceptions???  Learn how to pay the price and not want to government to pay for your "pleasures".

Where do you GET this crap from????????

Some want the govt. to do everything for them.

personal responsibility went by the wayside--after all, we have government!

Huh? That's waht conservatives believe..... I mean, you on the right are so adept at telling the left what we believe, I figured we on the left should let you on the right what YOU believe... Seems fair, right? 

Where do you GET this crap from????????

What crap? Do tell... LOL

personal responsibility went by the wayside--after all, we have government!

So you want the government to regulate abortions, but stay out of your life? You drunk? LOL

No, that is what YOU "believe" conservatives believe.

I don't know what YOU read, but I never stated that. skirting the CoC [ph]

Women who are raped said NO

now what?

You want to enjoy sex with no contraceptions???

Birth control can fail.

'Learn how to pay the price and not want to government to pay for your "pleasures".'

It would be a win win to provide free birth control.

I have no idea what you're talking about.  

But not near as many who were NOT raped, and DIDN'T say NO, got pregnant - that's the point Trout.

I concur with those who were raped and became pregnant with their choice of having an abortion or not.  I do not concur with folks who decide to "have fun/sex" without contraceptives and get pregnant and then demand that the government pay for their lack of responsibility and piss-poor judgement.

The government doesn't pay for abortions

IT'S CALLED THE HYDE AMENDMENT

Now that I've put that in large, bold, red letters it will finally sink in

New word in the dictionary - NO - works in so, so, so many instances.

The most prominent religion in this country preaches a dogma that instructs women to submit to their husbands. The majority of women who have abortions are Christian, married/cohabitating, are already mothers of at least one child AND were using contraceptives when they got pregnant.  

became pregnant with their choice of having an abortion or not.

I don't think there's any difference between abortions on demand or abortion because of rape. If you truly think about it, if you feel there's an unborn baby in one situation, then there's one in the other. You don't get to say that abortion is wrong in one situation but perfectly fine in another.

I do not concur with folks who decide to "have fun/sex" without contraceptives and get pregnant and then demand that the government pay for their lack of responsibility and piss-poor judgement.

Then you must be happy about the FACT that the government DOESN'T PAY FOR ABORTIONS except in the cases of rape, incest and saving a woman's life. 

Now that I've put that in large, bold, red letters it will finally sink in

Don't be too sure about that...

A girl can dream, can't she?

Learn how to pay the price and not want to government to pay for your "pleasures".

Cue the slut shaming!  Thanks for never disappointing, I was just waiting for someone to take my bait, prove what this is all about.  While you bask in the ignorance assuming women's reproductive physiology is only about good sex. Gawd.

I concur with those who were raped and became pregnant with their choice of having an abortion or not. I do not concur with folks who decide to "have fun/sex" without contraceptives and get pregnant and then demand that the government pay for their lack of responsibility and piss-poor judgement.

What difference does it make? In either instance, a pregnancy can occur. Therefore, the choice for an abortion or not becomes an option.

Learn how to pay the price and not want to government to pay for your "pleasures".

How does the government do that exactly?

PLANNED PARENTHOOD

Sorry - you lost.

Yeah, I know - you "do-righters" just plain forget about the Planned Parenthood abortions - and their funding comes from the government.

But, hey - ya'll are always right and everyone else is always wrong 'cause they don't fit your "level of intelligence".

Skirting the CoC [ph]

Skirting the CoC [ph]

You might want to think about the CoC.

I guess you just plain forgot the Hyde Amendment prohibits government funding for elective abortions.

Yeah, I know - you "do-righters" just plain forget about the Planned Parenthood abortions - and their funding comes from the government.

Nope. Except for cases of rape, incest and saving a woman's life, not even Planned Parenthood receives government funding for abortions. Planned Parenthood is one of THE most audited business in the country. 

But, hey - ya'll are always right and everyone else is always wrong 'cause they don't fit your "level of intelligence".

WFT 1st. I'm merely stating FACTS.

You're smart enough to do your own fucking research and when you DO, you'll have to acknowledge that ALL of the data and ALL of the audits have proven that Planned Parenthood DOES NOT get federal funding for abortions because the federal government DOES NOT fund abortions...

That is a FACT. 

If you're going to argue a posit, it should at least be based on the facts. 

THEY DO NOT GET FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ABORTIONS!!!!

I can do this all day long but I think Perrie will have something to say about it

Ah yes - the infamous Hyde Act.  And, of course, you forgot about the Medicare/Medicaid funding that the states authorize for abortions which exceed the Hyde Act restrictions, right?

"Title X does not allow federal funds to be used for abortions. Medicaid, however, does allow government money to be spent on them — in very restricted cases.

The 1977 Hyde Amendment dictated that federal Medicaid funds could only be used to fund abortions in cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother. However, some states have expanded cases in which they will provide funds. Currently, 17 states allow funds to be used for "medically necessary" abortions. In those cases that these states count as medically necessary but that are not permitted by the federal guidelines, states cover the cost alone."

Still receiving government monies for abortion.

So a woman who will lose her life if she attempts to carry to full term shouldn't get assistance for an abortion......

Show me where I said that.  Quit "whatifforisming" me.

You don't think it can happen?

My mother would have died had she not had an abortion when I was about 3 years old. She shouldn't have had the two kids she did, but back in the early 60's birth control was practically non-existent and abortion was illegal. It was illegal when she had hers, but she got a doctor to say it was medically necessary.

I don't know who paid for it, probably Dad's insurance, but my point is that sometimes women need a medically necessary abortion. If she is on Medicaid, Medicaid should pay for it.

And, of course, you forgot about the Medicare/Medicaid funding that the states authorize for abortions which exceed the Hyde Act restrictions, right?

Oh so you were talking about state funding all along right? Pffft. 

And, of course, you forget the 10th Amendment. If you have a issue with YOUR state funding abortion, go DO something about it. 

Even before Roe was decided, some states allowed and funded abortions and the Roe ruling has NOTHING to do with whether states fund abortions today. And many of those that DO, have their own form of the Hyde Amendment, with similar exceptions. 

In short, you 'point' is irrelevant. 

And, of course, you forgot about the Medicare/Medicaid funding that the states authorize for abortions which exceed the Hyde Act restrictions, right?

Not at all. I specifically said the Hyde does not cover elective abortions. That restriction does not include medically necessary abortions. So medicare can cover it as deemed medically necessary, just like any other medically necessary procedure. 

Still receiving government monies for abortion.

Medically necessary ones, like any other Medicaid and medically necessary procedures. I don't see you complaining about government money going towards other medically necessary procedures. But please, continue grasping at straws. It only makes you look desperate and foolish!

In short, you 'point' is irrelevant.

In short, he has no point. Just meaningless whining.

Reading through this post, it’s clear that liberals think like  the proverbial rat in the experiment who keep pressing the button for food

That looks like one of those sweeping generalization thingies. 

without thinking of the long term consequence of their action.

Long term consequences.... You mean like having a kid, without realizing that the next 18 years of your life are going to be spent taking care of that kid? Seems to me that women who accidentally get pregnant and have an abortion ARE thinking about the long term. How many 14-17 year old women who have decided to keep their kids had a "long term" view? Most likely, none. 

My son was born 10 years after I got married. Why? Because I wanted to make sure that financially, we could afford it. Teen's do not have a grasp of what a child will require. Liberals don't think about the long term consequences? I thought progressives were all about the long term, now they aren't? I think you are really confused. Cons only think about the here and now, they only worry about themselves, fuk everyone else. 

It’s similar to the debate around ending the filibuster. Liberals wanted some appellate judges right now! so they ended the filibuster for appellate judges. And then they acted shocked that Republicans used that precedent against them to confirm Gorsuch. It’s like they can’t envision social mores or policy debates changing from what they are today .

You are way off topic but.... Well, for starters, not everyone that doesn't fit your mold of conservative is a liberal. I know that they right uses the word, "liberal" as a racial slur now, but you would do well to educate yourself as to what a liberal really is. I wish I was more liberal, but, I am not. I think you are referring to the left wanting Garland to be confirmed, but refused because, "Obama only had a YEAR left", which was total horseshit. Not to worry, that shoe will be on the other foot at some point and as they say, "paybacks are a bitch..".

When you decide the Constitution has no fixed meaning, than you better be prepared to have your own sacred ox gored when 5 judges decide a right either magically appears or disappears thanks to a Constitution they decided “evolved.”  It’s like some sore of brain block prevents them from seeing these tools will be used against them someday.  

The SCOTUS interprets the constitution...they concluded that making abortions illegal was unconstitutional. It really is that simple. Can you present an argument to the SCOTUS that would change their stance? Never in a million years.  The entire argument against abortion was based on religion and morals. Neither of which has any legal standing in this country, that's why it failed and will continue to fail. End of story...

As the liberal

Do you get paid every time you use the word, "liberal"? Look, liberals are no worse than the cons. If you would put down your partisanship, you would see that. 

o u mean like having a kid, without realizing that the next 18 years of your life are going to be spent taking care of that kid? Seems to me that women who accidentally get pregna

Try and get past your obsession with abortion and see the big picture here. This whole discussion, which you seem to have alot of trouble following, is about how the Constitution is interpreted. That is what matters for the long term health of this country. For once, stop repeating the same abortion is great talking points over and over and try and think about what's being discussed.

Put abortion aside, because that just leads to the crazy coming out of so many of you. Is the Country better off when the Supreme Court can ignore the text of the Constitution when it makes Constitutional rulings or when it follows the actual text?  That's the issue with actual long term implications. 

 ? I thought progressives were all about the long term, now they aren't

Who ever said they were? 

know that they right uses the word, "liberal" as a racial slur now, but you would do well to educate yourself as to what a liberal really is.

Stooping to race baiting now? Sad!  Pretty heady stuff for a guy who claim girls in Ireland in 2018 have it as bad as slaves did  in America. 

I'm using the word as short hand for those who favor an evolving constitution, because that's what liberal judges believe. 

 think you are referring to the left wanting Garland to be confirmed

I am referring to when Harry Reid ended the filibuster in order to approve liberal judges.  Look it up.

they concluded that making abortions illegal was unconstitutional. It really is that sim

One last time, the point is that the reasoning the Court used is illegitimate and dangerous.  Given your simple argument that the Court is always right because it says it's right,  you must believe the Court is incapable of making a mistake. 

I disagree.  

an you present an argument to the SCOTUS that would change their stance?

Of course. Give me 5 justices who  follow the Constitution  and Roe would be overturned.

The entire argument against abortion was based on religion and morals

I'm sorry, but that is either idiotic, ignorant or some combination of the two. Google is your friend. There are literally any number of arguments, some made by avid pro-choice supporters, who think Roe is a Constitutional embarrassment.  Here's a simple distillation of Justice Scalia's dissent in the Casey case:

. "The issue is whether it is a liberty protected by the Constitution of the United States. I am sure it is not. I reach that conclusion not because of anything so exalted as my views concerning the "concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."  Ibid.  Rather, I reach it for the same reason I reach the conclusion that bigamy is not constitutionally protected--because of two simple facts: (1) the Constitution says absolutely nothing about it, and (2)  the longstanding traditions of American society have permitted it to be legally proscribed.  ^[n.1]   Akron II ,  supra , at 520 (Scalia, J., concurring)."

Scalia's argument to overturn Roe is based on neither religion, nor morals, simply the text of the Constitution. 

Do you get paid every time you use the word, "liberal"?

It's simply shorthand to describe those who don't believe the Constitution has a fixed meaning. I don't why the term triggers you so much. 

It's always interesting to hear from those who are simultaneously PRO-LIFE, PRO-WAR, PRO-GUN, PRO-DEATH PENALTY, PRO-TORTURE, ANTI-HEALTH INSURANCE FOR CHILDREN, ANTI-ENVIRONMENT (a.k.a. the work of the CREATOR) …

I am a liberal who believes that life begins at conception … and I also believe, that upon BIRTH, a life is just as sacrosanct … 

yay.

Why don't you support other liberals on this site? For the record, I am not a liberal...

Why don't you support other liberals on this site? For the record, I am not a liberal...

?????????????

I do support other liberals on the site, not because they are liberals, but because I tend to agree with their positions on issues.

Fair enough.

Seen way too much death and destruction in my day to believe life is sacrosanct. Just going with "shit happens".

What f'n legislator hypocrite and panderer to religionist hypocrites, is simultaneously anti-contraception and anti abortion?

Paul Ryan

What f'n legislator hypocrite and panderer to religionist hypocrites, is simultaneously anti-contraception and anti abortion?

Here's a quick list that may be a little out of date. 

Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Capito (R-WV)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cotton (R-AR)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Daines (R-MT)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Enzi (R-WY)
Ernst (R-IA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Gardner (R-CO)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (R-WI)
Lankford (R-OK)
Lee (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Paul (R-KY)
Perdue (R-GA)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rounds (R-SD)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sasse (R-NE)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Thune (R-SD)
Tillis (R-NC)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

You win