New documentary takes unflinching look at abortion in US

Teak · #**111** (**permalink**) 12-28-2007, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satv365

It is what they are supposed to do. Sadly, they are negligent in that duty.

So all you John Birch Society members have decided to do it for them? Sorry, kid, that won't fly any better in this decade than it did back in the 1960's.

satv365 · #**112** (**permalink**) 12-28-2007, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teak

So all you John Birch Society members have decided to do it for them? Sorry, kid, that won't fly any better in this decade than it did back in the 1960's.

So where in the Constitution does it say abortion is a protected right?

If it does not, than the Supreme court is wrong.

The Supreme Court is not here to determine something that is not mentioned in the Constitution is or is not Constitutional. But to determine what is mentioned in the Constitution as Constitutional.

They failed on that.

I'd like for you to show me a rational explanation for the Constitutionality of Roe Vs Wade.

If you can't than I stand correct in my belief that the Supreme Court has usurped the Constitution regularly to suit it's partisan agenda.

Something the Supreme Court has no provisions or authority to do.

ONEWHITEDUCK · #**113** (**permalink**) 12-28-2007, 07:43 PM

Live Search: POPULATION CONTROL and MAKING PEOPLE GAY

Teak · #**114** (**permalink**) 12-28-2007, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satv365

So where in the Constitution does it say abortion is a protected right?

If it does not, than the Supreme court is wrong.

The Supreme Court is not here to determine something that is not mentioned in the Constitution is or is not Constitutional. But to determine what is mentioned in the Constitution as Constitutional.

They failed on that.

I'd like for you to show me a rational explanation for the Constitutionality of Roe Vs Wade.

If you can't than I stand correct in my belief that the Supreme Court has usurped the Constitution regularly to suit it's partisan agenda.

Something the Supreme Court has no provisions or authority to do.

Article III Section 2 is all the authority they need. Now if you want to debate the meaning of that, I suggest you take it up with the current members of said court.

P.S. here is another area you might study. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/constitutional.pdf

ONEWHITEDUCK · #**115** (**permalink**) 12-28-2007, 08:43 PM

The depopulation crisis is real!

wvpeach · #**116** (**permalink**) 12-29-2007, 04:21 AM

Stupid is one way to put it.

Personally I think most of them live in a fantasy world.

And I am a devout follower of Christs . Yet I know women who go to church every week. Now that they are "saved" as they would say , they will cry and moan about the abortion they had years ago and how Satan made them do it , or they didn't know any better . Then swear up and down their own kids would never have sex till they are married. ..........Yeah right.

The truth is most people do have sex and the majority take a tumble or two before they are married. That is never going to stop . Sex is always going to happen , even if the far right doesn't like it.

People like that end up with kids like that youngest spears girl who is now pregnant at 16 . bet the poor kid could not talk to her mom about birth control , she would have been handed the typical unrealistic line . But honey its a sin , you must save yourself for marriage. People are nuts.

You can talk to your kids about abstinence , but you best have a back up plan if they decide to do it anyway.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by navyvet50

The big lie is that the right is against abortion. If they really believed it was murder, condoms and birth control would be handed out for free in every church and school in the nation. The right is just too stupid to make the leap that sex can result in pregnancy.

Cookie Parker · #**117** (**permalink**) 12-29-2007, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satv365

So where in the Constitution does it say abortion is a protected right?

If it does not, than the Supreme court is wrong.

The Supreme Court is not here to determine something that is not mentioned in the Constitution is or is not Constitutional. But to determine what is mentioned in the Constitution as Constitutional.

They failed on that.

I'd like for you to show me a rational explanation for the Constitutionality of Roe Vs Wade.

If you can't than I stand correct in my belief that the Supreme Court has usurped the Constitution regularly to suit it's partisan agenda.

Something the Supreme Court has no provisions or authority to do.

The Supreme Court made the decison in Roe v Wade based upon basic constitutional rights granted to people.

Substantive Due Process

Quote:

"Substantive Due Process" is the fundamental constitutional legal theory upon which the Griswold/Roe/Casey privacy right is based. The doctrine of Substantive Due Process holds that the Due Process Clause not only requires "due process," that is, basic procedural rights, but that it also protects basic substantive rights. "Substantive" rights are those general rights that reserve to the individual the power to possess or to do certain things, despite the government’s desire to the contrary. These are rights like freedom of speech and religion. "Procedural" rights are special rights that, instead, dictate how the government can lawfully go about taking away a person’s freedom or property or life, when the law otherwise gives them the power to do so.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, states "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . " The facially clear meaning of this passage is that a state has to use sufficiently fair and just legal procedures whenever it is going to lawfully take away a persons life, freedom or possessions. Thus, before a man can be executed, imprisoned or fined for a crime, he must get a fair trial, based on legitimate evidence, with a jury, etc. These are procedural or "process" rights.

However, under "Substantive Due Process," the Supreme Court has developed a broader interpretation of the Clause, one that protects basic substantive rights, as well as the right to process. Substantive Due Process holds is that the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee not only that appropriate and just procedures (or "processes") be used whenever the government is punishing a person or otherwise taking away a person’s life, freedom or property, but that these clauses also guarantee that a person’s life, freedom and property cannot be taken without appropriate governmental justification, regardless of the procedures used to do the taking. In a sense, it makes the "Due Process" clause a "Due Substance" clause as well.

This is an extremely significant idea because of how it greatly expands the power of judicial review exercised by the federal courts. This happens in two ways:

First, it gives the federal courts unqualified discretion to decide what substantive rights are protected under Due Process and how extensive that protection is. There are two ways the Supreme Court does this:

* Under the substantive wing of the "Incorporation" doctrine, where the Court adopt selected provisions of the Bill of Rights and apply them to the states under Due Process. This can be called "Substantive Incorporation."
* Under the "Fundamental Rights" theory, where the Court adopts whatever substantive rights it thinks are so basic, natural and fundamental that they must be protected even without reliance on any particular provision of the Constitution. Instead the Court is said to root these guarantees directly in the word "Liberty" in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

Second, once the federal courts decide what substantive rights are protected buy Substantive Due Process, it can use Judicial Review to enforce these rights by reviewing all state legislation for compliance with these rights.

In the original U.S. Constitution itself, there are not that many express restrictions on the power of the states. Most are in Art. I § 10 and in Art. VI. The Bill of Rights was added in 1791. But by it own terms, applies only to the federal government. See Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 (1833). The Bill of Rights contains both substantive and procedural rights designed to limit the power of the federal government. After the adoption of the 14th Amendment in 1868, the Supreme Court determined that many of the procedural provisions of the Bill of Rights (like the Fourth and Fifth Amendments) would also be protected by the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which was directed at the states. However, the Court also used the theory of Substantive Due Process to apply ("incorporate") many of the substantive provisions of the Bill of Rights (like the First Amendment) to the states as well. E.g. Gitlow v. NewYork, 268 U.S. 652 (1925). In the late 1800’s the Supreme Court also began to use Substantive Due Process to establish various substantive rights not actually articulated in the Constitution under the "Fundamental Rights" theory. See Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905). Later on, the Court would repudiate the "fundamental rights" version of Substantive Due Process as an infringement on the authority of state legislatures. See West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937); Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726 (1963). In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), at least four of the seven votes that affirmed the right to privacy were based on the fundamental rights theory. This reliance continued in Roe and Casey. Even while different constitutional theories were advanced in Griswold, Roe and Casey to support the right to privacy all of them, directly or indirectly, rely on Substantive Due Process.

Critics of Substantive Due Process claim that it is not the laws it strikes down, but rather the theory itself which is "unconstitutional." They claim that it is a pure usurpation of power by the Court since they Court can’t use Judicial Review to strike down a state law unless the law is really contrary to the Constitution. Critics claim that "Substantive Due Process" is an oxymoron and that there is no way a reasonable person with a sixth grade grasp of grammar could read the "Due Process" Clause to assure anything but procedural rights. They say that when the Court uses judicial review to enforce these pseudo-Constitutional rights they are stealing the legitimate law-making power from the state legislatures.

Supporters of Substantive Due Process, on the other hand, point to its long history and its dynamic ability to defend basic human rights from infringement by the government. They argue that Substantive Due Process provides comprehensive nation-wide protection for all our most cherished rights, which might otherwise be at the mercy of state governments. They argue that the doctrine is a simple recognition that no procedure can be just if it is being used to unjustly deprive a person of his basic human liberties and that the Due Process Clause was intentionally written in broad terms to give the Court flexibility in interpreting it.

satv365 · #**118** (**permalink**) 12-29-2007, 10:46 AM

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree, here.

I can find you a thousand scholars who disagree with the assertion that abortion is either protected or denied under Constitutional law.

I'm of the belief it is not mentioned in the Constitution. And therefore should either me amended into the Constitution or delegated to the states.

The Constitution gives Congress and the Federal Government very, very limited powers over our daily lives. Broad interpretations do not negate the fact that Abortion is not not mentioned in the Constitution as a protected right.

The mere idea that it can be overturned at a vote of congress or change of opinion in the Supreme Court realy reinforces my opinion.

You can not do that with let say, the Bill of Rights. But abortion is up for grabs in the legislating Supreme Court...

wvpeach · #**119** (**permalink**) 12-29-2007, 02:09 PM

If what Satv is trying to say is that the states need to have a lot more control over the laws of the states and the feds should just stay out of states business ...................I agree.

Abortion can be decided as well as most things on a state to state basis. Don't like the fact your state allows abortion ..........Move to a state that doesn't.

That would be the real American way. Free enterprise at its best.

The feds need to mind their own business except in very few areas like interstate commerce and national defense and let the states govern themselves.

Dom1 · #**120** (**permalink**) 12-29-2007, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crowonapost

That is a common tactic on both the left & right of the political spectrum around here. it shows a very weak sense of debate skills.

Billy doesn't have any debate skills.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crowonapost

Calling Nate a liar without proof, just hyperbole & opinion does not in ANY way make your arguments look worthy of respect. if anything you lower yourself each time you say dumb shit like that.

Is it possible for her to lower herself any more?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eternal Footman

In short, yes. People have been persuaded not to kill based on the consequenses put forth by society(ie. prison time).

BTW- Dom covered how profoundly retarded the rest of your argument was/is so I neednt bother with anymore than this one statement of yours. Since the answer is yes, what now?

She won't answer. She is the one ducking her own argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wvpeach

Here we go again , some people have been persuaded not to kill based on societies laws . But I imagine those people are a lot like you eternal footman.
The people who do not kill because of laws , care about their own lives and don't want to take the chance on getting caught and spending life in prison.

Yet we still have lots of people in jail who have murdered other people and who are they? They come from every walk of life. Doctors , lawyers , retards, mothers , kids . People still murder and they do it in large numbers .

The State Department and FBI have some great web sites on the murder rate and violent crime rate in the US . Seems they say just over 16,000 people were killed by murder in the US last year. Now keep in mind that number does not include the people who somebody attempted to murder but they lived. Nor does that number include the people who were victims of violent assaults . Anyone who has ever been knocked in the head by a mugger will tell you that mugger could have killed them and keeping them alive was not the concern of the mugger , or he would not have knocked them in the head in the first place. Nobody ever said muggers are smart people .

So its apparent eternal footman that even though we have a law against murder and other violent crimes it only deters the law abiding . The low lifes, and stupid among the population are not deterred by laws.

Now fast forward to abortion . A look at abortion really means you have to look at the rates of unmarried sexual encounters in the US. When last I heard at least 20 states still had laws on the books against fornication. Granted nowadays most are not enforced. But some state governments still use illegal co habitation as a reason to not hire somebody . And a look down through the pages of history will tell you that fornication laws used to be seriously prosecuted and punished. At the beginning of the rowdy 1930"s in the US courts were full of fornication prosecution cases. But it didn't stop people from fornicating. In fact I think its safe to say that people have fornicated more ever since.

The same is true of the murder rate. They will say the rate decreased for the last few years . But they are using the murder rate per capita in the US . In fact each year there are more murders , because there are more people . Per Capita is just a way to make it sound nice and make cowards feel better.

Sex and conception is a age old problem. The bible talks about immoral sex a lot , because it was happening even way back then. men were visiting prostitutes. Biblical prostitutes not having very reliable birth control methods, you can bet were having abortions. Men were stealing other mens wifes and getting them pregnant and then doing away with babies because they did not want to get caught.

The bible says correctly " there is no new thing under the sun, what is , has been and what was , will come again"

People act like abortion and immorality is a new thing. I can tell you with out a doubt both have always existed with mankind. And will always continue , until God ends the world as we know it.

And if your one of those who thinks the US will be punished for its tolerance of immorality . Then let me offer you this scenario . I agree God is going to punish the US for its immorality . But that immorality didn't just crop up in the 20th century. We slaughtered the Indians to steal their land , then we enslaved black people for a century and killed them at will. I agree we are now not exactly a moral country and the saying " one nation under God" is a joke as we don't keep those words at all. But as a nation we never have.

Statistics were not kept about the numbers of Indians or slaves that were killed per year back then. But we do know that over 600,000 abortions are performed in the US each year. Add to that number who knows how many thousands of babies are tossed in the trash at fertility clinics . And its a symptom of a callous nation where life is concerned.

But I can easily see 600,000 Indians a year having been killed for the first several years we took this country over. And with slaves who knows , many , many were killed or things even worse than death done to them.

So before we claim the moral high ground as a nation , we might want to go back and at least apologize for all the deaths we inflicted decades ago , don't you think?

Wow. Most of that post had NOTHING to do with what EF was saying.

Secondly, you are back to that idiotic argument that since people still commit murder we should not have laws against abortion.

You know, I have seen a lot of pro-abortion arguments and some of them are good. This one you have presented is by far the dumbest I have ever seen. I am not at all surprised that you ar the one making it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wvpeach

Why ??? Now I am confused. I asked you a simple question nate.

Fertility clinics create and kill life everyday . I asked do you want those all shut down too ?????

That should be a simple question to answer . I do not understand why you are ducking that question.

Please explain????

I asked you a simple question Billy and YOU keep ducking it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by navyvet50

The big lie is that the right is against abortion. If they really believed it was murder, condoms and birth control would be handed out for free in every church and school in the nation. The right is just too stupid to make the leap that sex can result in pregnancy.

Another weak argument. A sperm is not a fetus.