Help SD’s Vote Yes For Life
For the 2nd time pro-lifers have introduced an initiative to ban abortion in SD. The 2006 initiative lost 56-44%. Exit polls showed it would have won had it included exceptions.
The 2008 ban includes tightly scripted exceptions. In a poll conducted September 18, it was winning with likely voters 49-41%….
BUT national pro-abort groups ACLU, NARAL, and Planned Parenthood , recognizing abortion’s peril, have banded together to spend at least $1.2 million in ads spreading misinformation. (See their press conference in ad below.)
Vote Yes for Life needs donations to hold on to Initiative 11’s supporters.
Here is an ad Vote Yes for Life released 2 weeks ago featuring an obviously ill Dr. Bernard Nathanson, God bless him, the lone living founding member of NARAL. While he had previously admitted in court having perjured himself when pushing to legalize abortion in the early days, this is the first time he has admitted it on camera
Please donate to Vote Yes for Life now.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
A changed heart: Evidence of the existence of a loving and merciful God of grace.
Yes, God Bless You Dr. Nathanson.
Romans 2:4 “Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you toward repentance?”
I can’t wait to read your thoughts on Sarah Palin’s recent assertion that there is an inherent right to privacy in the US Constitution.
Reality, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito also say that there’s a right to privacy in the Constitution.
But that right to privacy doesn’t give you the right to kill your unborn children any more than it gives you a right to kill your born children in the “privacy” of your own home.
Wow, anti-choicers admitting that there is a right to privacy in the US Constitution, which the federal government obviously has authority to enforce on the states. Never thought I’d see the day.
So, reality, you support Roberts and Alito now? Never thought I’d see the day.
Tell me, are you pro-aborts that dense in real life, or do you just play pretend when you post on here?
GO South Dakota!
God Bless Bernard Nathanson for his conversion.
I can’t wait to read your thoughts on Sarah Palin’s recent assertion that there is an inherent right to privacy in the US Constitution.
Posted by: reality at October 2, 2008 9:22 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nothing in that obvious biased piece says Governor Palin attaches a right to privacy to a right to murder one’s own child.
I can’t even say nice try, it was stupid to post the link.
You really need to get over your abortion fetish.
Excuse me Reality, but using the “privacy” issue as support for abortion rights, crushes the “rights” of the child to be murdered, not to mention those of the father’s? These two other indiviudals in the matter have no privacy “rights”?
Let’s see, pro-aborts took God out of schools, forced legalized abortion down our collective throats, and now want the noramlization of gay marriage. It’s time to say “NO” to peversion and reverse these abominations.
What other perverse things will you shoot for? The legalization of sex with animals? Sex with children? Wasn’t the dissappearance of little Caylee down in Florida a “private” matter? Why is everyone getting so riled about that? I mean, that’s a private matter too isn’t it?
Jeremiah 17:9
The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?
Just because Supreme Court justices are appointed by Republican presidents does not mean they will vote for making it legal to away the rights that women have.
In the first place, the Roe decision came from a Court heavy with Nixon appointees.
Chief Justice Roberts has said that Roe is the settled law of the land, and that it’s a case worthy of respect under the principles of stare decisis, and that those principles were applied in the Casey case, and that Roe rightly stands as precedent.
In other words, Doug, judges nominated by Republicans may respect the text of the Constitution, but judges nominated by Democrats will definitely not respect the text of the Constitution.
Thanks Jill for giving us this boost!
Reality,
I remember when beating one’s wife was covered under “right to privacy”.
Palin will not answer if she wants Abortion illegal. She “personally” would “counsel against an abortion” fine. So would Biden. She wants each state to decide their own abortion law, which means that states like California, Washington, Oregon, NY, MA, and probably a whole bunch of others would have legal abortion if she were in charge. She is on record that this is an issue for each state. No federal anti-abortion Constitutional Amendment from Palin’s judges. Hmmm. I could probably live with that.
Palin wouldn’t appoint judges if she were voted Vice President.
There’s an amendment that banned slavery. If America would wake up to the reality that abortion REALLY TRULY is, then a human life amendment would be in the constitution, protecting babies from abortion from conception to birth.
Problem is Liz, there is too much of a chance she’d end up President. Also, do you know if McCain has a different view?
Plus, where should I post this great news:
“Pepsi just donated $500,000 to Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays,”
Jill,
Why no mention of Colorado’s Personhood Amendment 48??
Colorado was the first state to decriminalize abortion and has a chance in this election cycle to be the first state to clarify that the term “person” includes all human beings from fertilization until natural death, thus making it unconstitutional to kill the preborn, without exceptions. Support CO Amend 48 by going to personhood08.com!
Yes, the constitution contains a ban on “unreasonable search and seizure”, which can be construed as a “right to privacy”. But in writing the Roe decision, Blackmun admitted that if it is ever established that unborn humans are persons (purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment), then the right to privacy would collapse, (since human life takes precedence over privacy). That ought to take care of the question of “privacy”, since the legal definition of “person” is based on Roe itself.
I knew there was a reason I don’t drink PEPSI products.
They should stay out of the culture wars, just like McDonalds should.
Hi From SD. Thanks Jill For featuring our abortion measure today. What I note here, and everywhere that an undeniable truth gets told, is that the pro-aborts will immediately go to another topic. This time Gov. Palin’s support of our Constitution. “Scream loud, scream long, divert from the truth – maybe they will forget it” seems to be the only modus operandi they have.
Dr. Nathanson’s statements given in support of IM 11 are some of the most powerful truth against Planned (un)Parenthood and NARAL that has ever been produced. The immediate response to divert the discussion away from the powerful truth just verifies how devastating this is to the pro-abortion camp.
If the right to privacy allows abortion, why is it a criminal act to view child pornography in one’s own home?
Killing an innocent human life vs. downloading lewd photographs.
What’s wrong this picture (no pun intended)?
Liz, the important thing about the Culture Wars is that we win. If Pepsi and McDonalds are willing to help, it means we’ve already won.
Hal @ 11:20,
“Pepsi just donated $500,000 to Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays,”
Trying to change the subject, Hal? :)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Amy @ 12:15,
The immediate response to divert the discussion away from the powerful truth just verifies how devastating this is to the pro-abortion camp.
Amen.
I like the SD subject too. But, honestly, I’m bored with most of the abortion talk these days. Maybe I need another break. (but who will take my shifts??? ha)
just saying, 11:30a: I’ve mentioned CO’s personhood amendment several times. I just received word of the SD ban’s position in the polls juxtaposed to the pro-abort influx of cash. Wanted to give pro-lifers the opportunity to help.
I’m not on YOUR side, Hal. I’m on the side of rights that start in the WOMB.
If Pepsi decided to make a donation to National Right to Life or a group of Crisis Pregnancy Care Center, then I’d commend them. Instead, they waste 500K on supporting “alternative” lifestyles.
I’m switching to a different brand of cheese flavored crunchy snacks now.
My biggest fear with this ban is the increase in abortions in Nebraska (since SD is our neighbor to the North). We already have 35-40 babies dying every week, we don’t need MORE. :(
Interesting article with more on Dr. Nathanson:
http://www.barf.org/articles/0010/
Well, Liz, that’s what happens when a state bans abortion. Women who want abortions go somewhere else.
Hal,
Dream on. McCain and Palin win and legalized abortion is over in less that 4 years.
If you’re so comfortable that McCain-Palin won’t overtrun Roe V. Wade why don’t you vote for them?
I mean, being an attorney and all, you should understand the economic disaster that Obama tax and spend policies will bring on this country when he kills the engine that generates money, i.e., business. Look at what the Democratically controlled Congress has done in less than 2 years by requiring that banks make bad loans at the threat of shutting them down.
So, why is abortion even an issue for you Hal?
I know why, because you KNOW McCain-Palin will change legalized abortion and this terrifies you. What, you might lose your cush job lobbying for the right to murder children? Despicable. Heck, I wouldn’t doubt it if you’re an abortion rights attorney who got some government or Naral or PP type grant money to battle for abortion rights. How many sites do you post on and under what other handles?
And never once have you answered my questions how how you can be a working attorney and still spend so much time blogging.
Jill:
Why do you let a paid pro-abort Liberal hack blog on your site?
Guess we won’t be drinking any more Pepsi.
Oh, Hisman, I thought we were friends?
I thought I’ve expressed that abortion isn’t a huge issue for me. I understand both sides of the debate, and I’m not “terrified” that McCain/Palin will change anything. Palin, at least, wants the issue decided on a state by state basis. That’s a lot of legal abortions, despite how much “counseling” she does for the “culture of life.”
I assure you I’m not paid to be here. I’m here on days when I have some time. I leave Jill’s site running in the background and check in throughout the day if I’m not too busy. Doesn’t take much time. Also, I can have my internet on in the car, and post a lot while my driver gets me to meetings or social events. ;)
I really liked the video. Dr. Nathanson has quite a story. The Hand of God. I am reading it right now. He looks pretty frail right now but I am thankful he is proclaiming the truth.
Back on track then, Hal.
I will be praying for you SD folks!!!
“If Pepsi decided to make a donation to National Right to Life or a group of Crisis Pregnancy Care Center, then I’d commend them”
Well, you either want them to stay out of the culture wars, or you don’t. Perhaps by “stay out of it” you just want them to be on your side?
Vote yes for killing babies conceived in sexual assault? I don’t think so. This initiative belongs in the garbage.
Unfortunately, the only way this could have passed the last time, Cranky Catholic, according to exit polls, is that if it HAD the exceptions.
I don’t like it either.
And Hal, women don’t NEED abortion. They need LOVE and constant SUPPORT throughout the entire pregnancy.
reality: “I can’t wait to read your thoughts on Sarah Palin’s recent assertion that there is an inherent right to privacy in the US Constitution.”
I agree with her. Of course, having a right to privacy doesn’t include a right to kill another human being, as you seem to think it does.
And Hal…I think it’s great that Pepsi is giving money to families of gays and lesbians and I’m not sure why you think that would bother me in the least…
not you perhaps Bmmg30, but HisMan and some others don’t like it.
Has anybody seen Hal and Obama in the same room together?
Jasper, I’m flattered. But, I’m just a man. Obama is god-like.
It takes a great deal of courage to do what Dr Nathanson is doing. I’m grateful that not only did he change his mind and realize abortion is murder, but is doing all he can to help pro life measures like this one.
Oh Hal…puhleeze.
just joking around Carla. As was Jasper, I’m sure.
Dr. Nathanson is the one, I believe, that brought us the SILENT SCREAM video, showing a REAL abortion and now the tiny baby reacts to the needle heading for it.
This is going to pass. The initial (more stringent) ban back in 2006 barely failed and it would have passed back then had it had these exceptions.
It’s funny- I was talking to one of my hardcore PC friends and she was a PP volunteer who was calling South Dakotans who has donated previously to PP to make sure they vote against the measure (as well as other Democratic South Dakotans, I think)-and she truly believes that this measure will fail once people “learn how restrictive on abortion rights it is”.
I was like, “Are you serious? Have you ever been to South Dakota? Have you ever talked to a typical ‘pro-choicer’ from South Dakota? I guarantee if you talk to a typical South Dakotan who identifies themselves as ‘pro-choice’ will have no problem with this ban because even if they consider them selves “pro-choice” they are usually opposed to ‘elective abortions’ and will always provide these exceptions, but will be fine with banning all other types of abortions.”
Hal:
I’m friends with people that don’t try to manipulate. That’s what you do Hal. And you enjoy it. Thsi abortion stuff is no joke.
I noticed your mood picked up because you think Obama got this one in the tank.
I hope you’re still seeing that shrink.
“Pepsi just donated $500,000 to Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays,”
Posted by: Hal at October 2, 2008 11:20 AM
yup, this is helping the culture by pouring millions into people who live “alternative” death dealing lifestyles….
Also, I can have my internet on in the car, and post a lot while my driver gets me to meetings or social events. ;)
Posted by: Hal at October 2, 2008 2:05 PM
you have a DRIVER… pleasssse! and your in touch with the common people….?????
Liz, the important thing about the Culture Wars is that we win. If Pepsi and McDonalds are willing to help, it means we’ve already won.
Posted by: Hal at October 2, 2008 12:18 PM
Funny thing, I always think of McDonalds as trash food and don’t much like Pepsi either – so I”m presuming you mean the culture of trash wins and not the culture of life….. which is what we support….
Last I checked the golden arches are one of the biggest supporters of gay culture (a misnomer if there ever was one).
what shrink?
but, yes, my mood is very good these days. Maybe it’s the praying MK has got me doing. Since I started saying “hi” Obama has surged in the polls.
what shrink?
but, yes, my mood is very good these days. Maybe it’s the praying MK has got me doing. Since I started saying “hi” Obama has surged in the polls.
Posted by: Hal at October 2, 2008 5:20 PM
which deity are you praying to Hal?
I like Pepsi- now I have even more reason to continue ingesting their fine products.
John L: In other words, Doug, judges nominated by Republicans may respect the text of the Constitution, but judges nominated by Democrats will definitely not respect the text of the Constitution.
No, they’re properly keeping up the “liberty” part of things.
Patricia, I’m not sure. How do you know?
Maybe someone can help me out.
Nathanson, like Norma McCorvey, are two very prominant abortion rights advocates who converted to prolife, and indeed have devoted their lives to the rights of the unborn. I can think of similar abortionists and abortion advocates who converted as well, although not quite so prominant. However, excluding politicians, I cannot think of any well-known pro-lifers who have converted. Anyone out there know of anyone fitting that description?
(I’m excluding politicians because of suspicions that the flip-flopping may be to get votes, not for any personal or ideological reasons.)
in writing the Roe decision, Blackmun admitted that if it is ever established that unborn humans are persons (purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment), then the right to privacy would collapse, (since human life takes precedence over privacy). That ought to take care of the question of “privacy”, since the legal definition of “person” is based on Roe itself.
Doyle, only thing I disagree with is the very last part. Roe didn’t establish “personhood” did it? Roe provides for the individual states being able to protect the post-viability unborn life if the states want to and the Court isn’t going to leave personhood to the states any more than it would with the slavery issue, after that very 14th Amendment you mention.
I certainly agree that if personhood was deemed to be there for the unborn, then the right to privacy would not take precedence.
Liz: Dr. Nathanson is the one, I believe, that brought us the SILENT SCREAM video
Yes, though it’s been thoroughly debunked over the years; the makers admitted that quite a bit was faked and/or misstated.
I made a demonstration type video of the type of chorus obama doesn’t hear and that is the silent scream http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5X-ANH112s please comment or rate so I know that it does OH MY GOSH I JUST NOTICED THE POST BY DOUG oh well please if you like my video let me know I put a lot of thought into it and I’m not a very smart thinker. lol
Jamie, pretty good timing there. Obama talks about preventing teen pregnancy – often a good thing I think you’ll agree.
If the ban includes abortions prior to viability, then it’s unconstitutional.
Murder Is Not the Only Message
The tragedies of abortion have been often documented and cited in many different ways: the death of the child, the implications for the mother and for those performing the murder, and more remote ramifications such as the impact of population reduction and other societal factors.
Yet perhaps the most significant tragedy is often overlooked, even by well-meaning advocates of the cause.
If one were to ask most people why they are opposed to abortion, the overwhelming reply would echo, “Because it’s murder.”
Certainly, from a legal, social, medical and ethical perspective that is a most compelling reason. But I would like to submit to you that there is a tragedy that occurs every time an unborn child is killed that has incredibly far-reaching implications which are rarely recognized.
Before I lose you, dear reader, to a sense of outrage or disregard, please follow this concept with the willingness to see an even more egregious reason that abortion is an abomination.
…….to read more, go here: http://www.Ixoye.Name
Doug, 6:20PM
Where does the constitution say anything about abortion?
Mary, where does it say anything about clipping your fingernails?
Doug,
I never said nailclipping was a constitutional right. Now please, where does the constitution say anything about abortion.
Babies are ALIVE prior to viability, Doug. Do you think you just magically grow into a 7 pound baby at birth?
Your heart began to beat before birth. Your brain waves could be found at about 40 days after conception.
And 96% of abortions are probably the “as birth control” kind because maybe 1% are for “Rape and incest”.
America won’t REJECT Abortion until America SEES abortion.
Doug, I’ll express concern for or against nail clipping the next time a new, independent, fully-formed person springs forth from my fingertip.
Mary, we’ve done this before. 9th amendment is where it says that just because a few rights are listed, that it doesn’t mean that other rights held by people are negated – something like that.
Hal,
Thank you. I didn’t want to ask. But I am very happy.
(You have a driver????)
The right to life IS listed, Doug.
Babies are ALIVE prior to viability, Doug. Do you think you just magically grow into a 7 pound baby at birth?
Liz, no.
…..
Your heart began to beat before birth. Your brain waves could be found at about 40 days after conception.
It’s pretty ludicrous to call it “brain waves” at that stage.
While there is some rudimentary electrical impulses even earlier than that, the organized patterns of electrical activity that we know as true brainwaves don’t show up until later on in gestation.
http://www.jellomuseum.com/index.html
Scroll down on the left side to see that a bowl of Jello emitted “brain waves.” Just goes to show you that it matters what we call a brain wave….
…..
And 96% of abortions are probably the “as birth control” kind because maybe 1% are for “Rape and incest”.
I certainly agree that most abortions are because the woman doesn’t want to be pregnant/doesn’t want to have kids.
…..
America won’t REJECT Abortion until America SEES abortion.
There’s not much to see in the vast majority of abortions.
Doug, I’ll express concern for or against nail clipping the next time a new, independent, fully-formed person springs forth from my fingertip.
X, the point remains that in no way does a right have to be listed in the Constitution to be applicable. The Constitution is really about limiting the power of gov’t to mess with people, including infringing on their liberty, privacy, etc.
…..
The right to life IS listed, Doug.
Sure.
SoMG,
If you’re out there, I just want you to know that I haven’t forgotten about you. I still place you on the altar every Sunday along with Hal and Doug and the others…and will continue to do so.
I think of you often. I hope all is well. The offer of friendship is still open and always will be…
Liz: Dr. Nathanson is the one, I believe, that brought us the SILENT SCREAM video
Yes, though it’s been thoroughly debunked over the years; the makers admitted that quite a bit was faked and/or misstated.
Posted by: Doug at October 2, 2008 5:46 PM
you wish……
I’ve met Dr. Nathanson, very soon after his conversion and at first I doubted his sincerity.
May God have mercy on his soul – he looks very frail now.
Doug, 7:20PM
That’s as clear as mud. Now please, you have called abortion a Constitutional right, so tell me where the Constitution say anything about abortion.
Patricia, I’m not sure. How do you know?
Posted by: Hal at October 2, 2008 5:35 PM
nice try Hal.
Might I suggest that your deity is likely Baal….I’m sure if you met him, the recognition would be mutual…..
I like the SD subject too. But, honestly, I’m bored with most of the abortion talk these days. Maybe I need another break. (but who will take my shifts??? ha)
Posted by: Hal at October 2, 2008 12:27 PM
yeah, I’m sure it’s pretty boring being reminded again and again about your two missing children….
*yawn*
Hal- oh, man, it should totally be Zeus. Oh! Oh! Or Odin! Pray to Odin! Odin was a badass.
@Erin: I perfer Thor. I know the guy. Bright, young chap.
Now Rae, Erin and Patricia,
Cut the guy some slack. It’s the first time he has ever prayed in his life and he’s doing it for Bobby and me. Of course he is praying to God with a capital “G”…what would be the point otherwise. It took great courage to admit it. I’d think those of you on our side would encourage him, instead of degrade him.
Man, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t…
Hal, don’t worry about it. I heard you.
I think I missed the fact that Hal said he was praying. Sorry MK- I didn’t notice that bit.
*whistles*
http://www.palinbingo.com/
THIS ISSUE MUST GET OUT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!
Please Spread This Far and Wide!!!!
Berg Confident Obama & DNC Motion To Dismiss Will Be Defeated
http://www.obamacrimes.com/
Obama IS NOT QUALIFIED to be US President!!!
Our website obamacrimes.com has received 17.1 + million hits. We are urging all to spread the word of our website – and forward to your local newspapers and radio and TV stations.
You’re still buying that crap james? He IS eligible. Plain and simple.
There are vetting teams for the nominee on each side, including searches for eligibility. Even so, once the nominees are announced the government has to check for eligibility. Provide that proof of eligibility itself is likely to even make it on the ballot for either the primaries or as a running independent it’s clear by this point he is indeed eligible.
A note to the women out there.
While Biden was able to keep his mouth closed just enough to keep him from inserting his foot into it, his condescending looks and mannerisms revelaed mountains about his condescending attitudes towards women.
I think Obma came across as 100% Washington, DC and Palin came across simply as a very honest person. These are things that don’t come through totally in words since we are all spiritual beings and can actually connect in such ways.
I think Sarah turned the table on the Obama hack moderator’s attempt at lingering on the foreign policy stuff by asking to talk about Afghanistan again.
Go Sarah! You won the debate.
I agree HisMan, Sarah did very well. She was very on-top of the foreign policy issue with only 5 weeks on the National stage! While Biden has 30 years. She proved that she is very smart.
McCain/Palin 08!!!
I think Sarah did do OK, however I think Biden did win out in the end, if for no other reason than she provided an invaluable soundbyte to the media to the tune of:
I don’t know, I’ve been doing this for what, five weeks?
Thats going to show ineptitude to much of middle america. Instead she should have kept the emphasis on what experience she does have.
And is anyone else getting bugged by the use of the word fundamental? Ugh.
Dan, I agree that Sarah did very well on domestic policy. When it came to foreign issues, however, she fell on her face. Well, she tried.
Though I think I realized that she sounds very much like the Sheriff from “Fargo”.
Palin won the debate!
Obama is finished anyway!
Berg Confident Obama & DNC Motion To Dismiss Will Be Defeated
http://www.obamacrimes.com/
Obama IS NOT QUALIFIED to be US President!!!
Our website obamacrimes.com has received 17.1 + million hits. We are urging all to spread the word of our website – and forward to your local newspapers and radio and TV stations.
Sarah’s victory in the debate = REAL hope, ie, hope that our country will be run by sane people for the next four years instead of Obama, Biden, and the rest of the Demoncats. Keep hope alive!
The fact of the matter is, Sarah didn’t just exceed expectations tonight, she won the debate and dispelled all of the negative feelings that moderates have had about her while re-energizing conservatives. Frank Luntz was on shortly after the debate and he had a group of moderates to give commentary on it. Nearly all of them thought Palin won the debate, and five of them moved closer to voting McCain due to this debate while only one moved away from McCain after this debate.
“I don’t know, I’ve been doing this for what, five weeks?”
Dan, you must have misunderstood her, she was referring to running for vice president for 5 weeks. Unlike Obama who started running for the Presidency when he was elected to the Senate. She was actually working as governor. When does Obama actually do any work?
Plus, Sarah Palin worked for everything she has, unlike Obama who has been propped up by people with money his whole career.
Dan @ 10:02,
I disagree. At the end of a debate where Palin clearly held her own, her emphasis on the fact that she’s been in the public eye for only five weeks was a definite plus for her.
Yeah, Jasper, Obama has spent his entire past four years as a Senator running for President of the United States instead of doing his job. What would he do as President? Take time off to run for Master of the Universe?
@John: That’s impossible. Nobody can dethrone The Doctor from Master of the Universe.
Meanwhile Sarah Palin can spend the next four years running for mayor of Imaginationland. I would really like to know how she came to think that McCain would be such a vast change from Bush
At least Biden didn’t ask Gwen Ifel to stand up with her broken ankle.
Maybe on the next debate we can have Sean Hannity as moderator. Fair is fair.
And Queen are the “Princes of the Universe”…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnrXiaPVeHY
John-
He’s made more votes in the last 4 years than McCain. Least he makes it back to the senate during the campaign. Seems he’s a better multi-tasker ;)
and the exact quote-
“How long have I been at this? Five Weeks?”
Like I said, I think she did well, but in the end I think Biden won “on points” as they say. He took advantage of more opportunities than Palin (though she also had the ability to jump on the opportunities he took to try and generate some of her own). She did surpass expectations, however the momentum remains unchanged and I would bet that statement ends up in an Obama or 527 ad.
Mary-
I dont think the moderator played all that much of a role in this debate.
JKeller-
ah, but imagination land was nuked and is still under reconstruction by Butters, so she’d only be mayor of part of a town ;)
Ahh, hamburgers….
Palin won!
But, I don’t think it really matters because Obama could be finished anyway:
Berg Confident Obama & DNC Motion To Dismiss Will Be Defeated
http://www.obamacrimes.com/
Obama IS NOT QUALIFIED to be US President!!!
Our website obamacrimes.com has received 17.1 + million hits. We are urging all to spread the word of our website – and forward to your local newspapers and radio and TV stations.
Dick Morris just said that he thought Obama won the first debate, but thought Sarah absolutely won this debate and said that anyone who disagrees doesn’t have a brain in their head. He also totally went ape on Alan Colmes for reading DNC talking points instead of having a real discussion with him. It was a beautiful thing!
James, you are simply spamalicious tonight!
James-
How many times does that need to be debunked? Ugh.
Now you’re just beginning to spam. Meaningless comments while posting the exact same thing over and over again.
“What would he do as President? Take time off to run for Master of the Universe?”
I wouldn’t put it past him Dan, he already thinks like that about himself.
Dan,
Actually I thought she did a good job. But if we can have someone who’s writing a book on Obama and should profit handsomely if he wins, then fair is fair, the next moderator should be McCain supporter Sean Hannity.
As opposed to George Bush, who simply believes that he is God’s personal general.
Jasper,
Can’t he make the oceans recede and heal the planet?
” Where does the constitution say anything about abortion?”
Doug @ 7:20,
Mary, we’ve done this before. 9th amendment is where it says that just because a few rights are listed, that it doesn’t mean that other rights held by people are negated – something like that.
As I recall, in my attempts to understand this, the 9th Amendment is meant to ensure that non-enumerated rights (those not mentioned in the Bill of Rights) cannot be assumed to be under the power of the Federal Government. The 9th Amendment does not specify any other “rights”, such as abortion.
An interesting read:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment09/
Any attorneys care to elaborate?
Yeah, Sean Hannity is ineligible to host debates. Because when you’re a moderator, you actually have to allow the candidates to speak, not just drone on your own personal diatribes.
Anyone who says that Hannity doesn’t let people speak has never listened to or watched any of Hannity’s shows.
Unfortunately I have. Your head is just too far up his hindquarters to hear anything.
Doug,
So you acknowledge then that abortion is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution?
A lot of things weren’t mentioned in the constitution. The internet for example.
Come on JKeller,
The left would howl about how a moderator is supposed to be non-partisan and unbiased, just like Gwen Ifel.
I repeat: Anyone who says that Hannity doesn’t let people speak has never listened to or watched any of Hannity’s shows.
I watch Hannity & Colmes often. I yell at the TV because Hannity allows insane liberals to talk too much. I wish he WOULD talk over them and shut off their microphones. If I wanted to hear insane BS, I’d watch MSNBC.
JKeller,
That doesn’t answer my question. The internet isn’t a Constitutional right.
I’m unfamiliar with the politics of Gwen Ifel, and I didn’t learn anything about them from watching the debate. She gave both candidates equal time and equal questioning. Hannity would have thrown softballs to Palin and called Biden an idiot. No one watches a debate to hear the moderator opine. Especially if they are a douchebag like Sean Hannity.
JKeller,
Gwen has been in the tank for Obama and has written a book on him she plans to release on inaugaration day, hopefully Obama’s, and should profit handsomely from it if he becomes president.
Certainly no conflict of interest there!
Yes, but abortion wasn’t an issue in the 18th century.
Was it Obama debating Palin tonight? Show me where she showed blatant favoritism to Biden because she’s writing a book on Obama?
Abortions certainly took place in the 18th century and according to Doug they were legal when the Constitution was written yet our Founding Fathers did not see fit to put abortion in the Constitution.
Sooo, you do acknowledge that our Constitution says nothing about it?
I already acknowledged she did a good job. If she favors Obama then she’s obviously going to favor Biden. I’m just saying fair is fair and if you have a moderator who so blatantly favors the Democrats, then its only fair the next moderator blatantly favors the Republicans.
JKeller,
Ifel admitted she wrote the questions, so how about Sean Hannity being given the same opportunity?
My point is they chose to not put a lot of things in the constitution, doesn’t mean that everything not included in the constitution should be illegal. Chemo therapy, organ transplants, and open heart surgery are not constitutional rights, yet we are perfectly fine to allow them to happen.
JKeller,
The point is abortion is not mentioned and is not a Constitutional right.
Sure, let’s let Hannity do the next VP debate.
I think we should have Tom Delay moderate the next presidential debate.
It’s not mentioned by name. But it is a personal liberty. The same as you can choose to donate your organs, choose to sign a DNR order if you are terminally ill, choose to get tattoos and body piercings, you can choose to do with your body what you will.
C’mon:
It was obvious Ifill was holding the debate on foreign policy until Palin turned the table on both of the flaming Liberals.
Palin came across as honest. Biden was an ass.
Naivete is the word. She should lay off the kool aid a little.
JKeller loses points for incorrect usage of the “Kool-Aid” metaphor.
” But it is a personal liberty … you can choose to do with your body what you will.”
Um, not if you kill an innocent human being in the process.
…and we’ve come back full circle.
Okay maybe it’s not kool aid, maybe it’s crack she’s smoking to think that McCain is any kind of change from Bush.
John,
Please explain the Kool-Aid metaphor. I must be the only person in the US who doesn’t know what it means!
. . . . . . .
On the MSM tonight. I like Hannity too. Chris Matthews made a point of saying that we just don’t know if Palin memorized her answers or actually understood what she was saying. He never would have said that if “she” was a “he”, I am sure! I think she held her own again tonight. Thank God.
JKeller,
Okay maybe it’s not kool aid, maybe it’s crack she’s smoking to think that McCain is any kind of change from Bush.
Bush has Cheney, McCain has Sarah Barracuda. How much different can you get????
Mmmm, Pepsi…
Anybody who thinks it is a WASTE to donate money to families with CHILDREN, no matter WHAT the parent’s lifestyle should soooo not call themselves pro-life.
JKeller, accusing Palin of being on crack, while absurd since that’s more Barry’s style, is at least a coherent mindless attack. Bravo.
Janet, the Kool-Aid metaphor is explained here:
http://www.raptureready.com/rr-kool-aid.html
In short, a cult leader convinced his followers to drink poisoned Kool-Aid and kill themselves. Ever since, the expression “drinking the Kool-Aid” has been used to describe a mindless, fanatical support of a person or cause.
Correct usage: Obama supporters are really drinking the “Hope and Change” Kool-Aid.
“Can’t he make the oceans recede and heal the planet?”
Mary,
some of his followers probably think that. A lot of tough fiscal changes are going to need to made during for the next administration. There will no room for Obama’s trillion dollar socialism plan.
“Anybody who thinks it is a WASTE to donate money to families with CHILDREN, no matter WHAT the parent’s lifestyle should soooo not call themselves pro-life.”
how about if I think it’s a waste to donate money to crack addicted parents? should I call myself pro-choice now?
“It’s not mentioned by name. But it is a personal liberty. ”
can I jump off a tall building? is this a personal liberty too?
OMG. Sarah couldn’t answer a single question without changing the topic. I’m glad Joe stepped in a couple times to call her on her bullsh*t.
And like those who walked before her, she needs to learn how to say nuclear. NU- CLEAR!
Seriously. I’ve lost respect for her after watching this.
PIP, you are the biggest phony in the world. I’ve never had any respect for you, but I think I have less now. It is possible to have negative respect for a person?
what BS PIP?
we must have been watching different debates.
If PIP is mad, Sarah must have done good.
I’ll take it as a positive..
I’m pretty sure you could jump off a tall building Jasper. I mean, you couldn’t really be charged with a crime, cause well, you’re dead. So your exercise of your liberties was successful in that aspect.
Notice how these stupid libs keep saying that Sarah Palin did nothing but change the subject? That’s their DNC talking point. If true (which it isn’t), it would actually reflect more poorly on Gwen Ifill than Sarah Palin. She was the moderator, after all, so if Palin just arbitrarily said stuff instead of actually answering the questions, it was up to Ifill to stop that from happening.
Jasper,
I’m just a sucker for facts, not fluff. She had me at the terrorists hate us for our freedoms…
PIP’s happy as long as she’s free to post nonsense on the internet… even if other women aren’t allowed to go to school or even go out in public without being covered from head to toe.
Osama bin Laden hates America for two reasons: One, because he hates our culture (ie, our freedoms), and two, because he hates that we won’t let him and his friends murder all of the Jews and take over the Holy Land.
You’re a sucker for facts pip? And you’re voting for the KING OF FLUFF? (Obama) Come on now.
John,
I’ve seen plenty of women dressed head to toe in very beautiful clothing. I doubt this is because they’re forced to. If they were forced, I doubt they would care to look pretty in what they were forced to wear. The only time I thought it was a little much was when I saw a woman in many layers on a 90 degree + day. I certainly couldn’t deal with that. I hate sweating.
“I’m just a sucker for facts, not fluff.”
me too PIP.
Joe Biden’s Lies–14 And Counting:
http://www.melissaclouthier.com/2008/10/02/joe-bidens-lies-14-and-counting/
Elizabeth, don’t tell me you thought all of her “golly-gees” and reversions to the script were her performing well? If the point was she didn’t make any major gaffes, then, well, mission accomplished.
PIP,
The mis-pronunciation of nuclear bugs me too, so I did a little research a while ago, and found that every President back to Ford or Nixon (?) has mispronounced the word as nook-yoo-ler. I believe it is now a requirement for any candidate. Lol.
By the way, I thought Palin did just fine considering the pressure she was under. One of the media guys afterwords made a list of Biden’s “misrepresentations of facts”. There were many.
Did you hear Biden say he would be present with Obama for day-to-day matters? Like he and Obama will be co-Presidents. That’s the first I’d heard anything like that! Is Obama’s confidence waning?
“I doubt this is because they’re forced to.”
“Women were forced to wear the burqa in public, because, according to a Taliban spokesman, “the face of a woman is a source of corruption” for men not related to them. [3] They were not allowed to work. They were not allowed to be educated after the age of eight, and until then were permitted only to study the Qur’an. Women seeking an education were forced to attend underground schools such as the Golden Needle Sewing School, where they and their teachers risked execution if caught. They were not allowed to be treated by male doctors unless accompanied by a male chaperone, which led to illnesses remaining untreated. They faced public flogging[4] and execution for violations of the Taliban’s laws.[5] [6]
The Taliban allowed and in some cases encouraged marriage for girls under the age of 16. Amnesty International reported that 80 percent of Afghan marriages were considered to be by force”
pip,
Really…way to change the subject. You’re a fan of facts and you’re voting for the king of fluff.
Considering the amount of dogging that Palin gets for people portraying her as a ditzy, pretty girl I’d say she may have been nervous, and wanted to show people she wasn’t stupid like the MSM likes to portray her as. I sure as hell would have pissed my pants if I were her. She has a lot of guts, and I admire that. “Golly-gee” seems to be part of her accent from the part of the country she’s from, and you’re mocking her because of the way she talks. REALLY?
Jasper,
I’m talking about in America. They aren’t forced to in America. They may choose to because they want to follow their religion. That’s not forcing is it? Are you forced to do everything your religion says or is that your choice to be a part of that religion?
Elizabeth,
I was at work during the prez debate and I need to watch it this weekend. So I’ll get back to you on that point in a few days, okay?
I was talking about palin v. biden here. Don’t change the subject.
“I’m talking about in America”
Oh,ok. :)
“”Golly-gee” seems to be part of her accent from the part of the country she’s from, and you’re mocking her because of the way she talks. REALLY?”
You’ve GOT to be kidding me.
I’m not talking at all about her accent, I’m talking about her words. “Golly Gee” is not an accent. She played up her “folksy” to the point of annoyance.
Either way, pip, you’re still voting for a guy who bases his opinions on fluff that people want to believe is reality. When it’s not. You said you like facts, not fluff…that’s all Obama is.
Palin’s got some guts, I don’t care what you guys say. It takes a strong person to keep standing there while allowing people to hit her, her kids, her family. I would have flown off the handle a loooong time ago. And she takes it all with a really classy smile, and doesn’t even whine about it. THAT’S a strong woman right there.
Different parts of the country have different words that we may not use Pip. In Alaska, “golly gee” may just be one of them.
When I lived in maine, it was “wicked.” People would say “that was wicked cool.” It totally freaked me out at first, cause I had never heard people use that in a sentence so frequently. But it’s just a part of their everyday speak.
but regarding Obama, I would be less confident if he didn’t have someone experienced like Biden on the ticket, to be perfectly honest. So, even though Obama and I disagree on some things, and lacks some experience, Biden does offer that to the ticket. He offers a sense of reason to this whole thing..I liked him in the primary debates, too.
Ha-Ha Elizabeth… that is used in Mass as well.
Can I ask what part of Maine you lived in…
@Elizabeth: Out here where I live, everybody says, “I know, right?” I never heard that damn phrase until the last year or so, and I want it to DIE.
When I went to Florida 11-12 years ago, everything was “the bomb”.
But “gee golly” is a tad too, “Andy Griffith Show” for me.
I lived in Scarborough for about a year Jasper. I was 13 at the time, and I was like “Why do people keep saying that?” lol…and they thought *I* was the one with the accent.
Elizabeth, the use of “wicked” isn’t a regional thing. Phrases and words go in and out of style at different times. She was totally playing up her “folksy-ness” and you know it. I don’t believe that is how she talks in her day to day life.
Also, if I were to take a drink for every time one of them said maverick in this debate I would be dead from alcohol poisoning.
Lol, I know Rae. But when I hear Palin talk, I imagine it fits in with whatever sort of slang they have out there in Alaska.
Thank-God we listened to John McCain on the surge and not Biden and Bama. This would’ve a great victory for the terrorists, they we’d really have a mess on our hands.
As would I every time somebody said “Hope” and “Change” Pip.
Let’s face it…we’re all electioned out.
P.S. I’ve never heard anyone in any part of the country use wicked in place of the term “really” except when I lived in Maine.
Hey..Rae-Rae came back yea!
Obviously, not happy with Biden’s position on gay marriage.
LOL Elizabeth, maybe I’ve watched Harry Potter too many times :P
Seriously, it was the one thing about Maine that drove me crrrrrazy.
But what’s the name of one of my favorite musicals?? WICKED. ahhh…
“Let’s face it…we’re all electioned out.”
I’ll say…. Obama and McCain will have to go to rehab for a mental rest after the election.
“But what’s the name of one of my favorite musicals?? WICKED. ahhh…”
Haha, almost got a chance to see in NYC, but got tickets to Chicago for a better deal
Yeah rae, the way she used her words made her seem LESS intelligent.
“Aw shucks, you men. I just don’t understand you. I must really be an outsider.”
“Let’s face it…we’re all electioned out.”
For real!
I thought Sarah nailed Biden/Obama right off the bat when she said that they voted against McCain sponsored legislation that would have reigned in Fannie and Freddie a few years ago. Why isn’t MSM and the post-debate crowd talking about that?
Jasper, this is just for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uwOL4rB-go
Silence! I Kill You!
Hysterical Rae!
I got the feeling that Joe and Sarah, under different circumstances, would be great friends.
He seemed to truly enjoy her, which actually made him look good, and she him.
It was one of the friendliest debates I’ve ever watched!
While no fan of Joe Biden, I couldn’t help like the guy last night.
I could see a Joe/Sarah ticket!
They actually agreed on more than they disagreed.
Weird.
I honestly don’t think there WAS a winner. On sheer cordiality alone, they both came out as winners.
Rae-
About time someone introduced Jeff Dunham ’round here ;)
My personal favorite is Walter. Hysterical. He’s coming here in November but I can’t afford tickets :(
an american carol is coming out today. all republicans/conservatives should go see it. they finally made a movie for us. the least we can do is go and watch it.
religulous also opens today.
Looks like I’m gonna have a fun weekend. :D
JKeller 11:25PM
We can choose to do with our bodies what we want? Does that include committing crimes, prostitution, drunk driving?
Now please, you have called abortion a Constitutional right, so tell me where the Constitution say anything about abortion.
Mary, the principles of liberty, privacy, etc., “freedom” in general – in the Constitution, are what apply to abortion. There is no specific addressing of abortion in the Constitution, nor does there need to be, per the 9th Amendment.
“Mary, we’ve done this before. 9th amendment is where it says that just because a few rights are listed, that it doesn’t mean that other rights held by people are negated – something like that.”
Janet: As I recall, in my attempts to understand this, the 9th Amendment is meant to ensure that non-enumerated rights (those not mentioned in the Bill of Rights) cannot be assumed to be under the power of the Federal Government. The 9th Amendment does not specify any other “rights”, such as abortion.
Janet – true; the people retain those rights, rather than the gov’t controlling them.
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Elizabeth: Let’s face it…we’re all electioned out.
No doubt….
“There is no specific addressing of abortion in the Constitution, nor does there need to be”
This is the kind of lunacy that’s going to get us all killed. This kind of outright, bat guano insanity is what is going to bring on the Apocalypse.
The Constitution is a legal document, not a living organism. It says some things and it doesn’t say other things. If you think it addresses abortion, except to say that all people may not be deprived of life without due process of law, you’re out of your mind.
John, it doesn’t address abortion directly, nor does it need to.
In no way is the Constitution “about enumerating rights,” per se. It’s mainly about limiting the powers of gov’t to mess with people, so to speak.
From what I’ve seen, Palin and Biden got pretty much a draw. Obama has gained some more over McCain in the polls, just under 1%, so no biggie, either way, from the debate last night.
It’s more about bringing on the Apocalypse by forcing liberal insanity down our throats and using the Constitution to justify it.
And wow, we already have a whole new set of polls since 12 hours ago showing that Obama has increased his lead? Holy cow chips, isn’t that amazing?
I wonder how many child abusers or child molestors use the “right to privacy” to claim they have a right to do what they do?
There IS NOT a RIGHT to abortion in the Constitution.
Doug,
What about the principal of life is right in their with pursuit of happiness and liberty.
So you do acknowledge that abortion is not specifically mentioned in our Constitution but can be “found”, where?
But I thought you were all looking forward to the apocalypse? You’ll finally be rid of us so you can all revel in your self righteousness without having to hear how out of touch with reality you are.
Liz,
I can remember when wife beaters were protected by the “right to privacy”. When my mother called the police for help the response was “well lady, its his house”.
“Different parts of the country have different words that we may not use Pip. In Alaska, “golly gee” may just be one of them.”
You’re right about “wicked” but not about “golly gee.” Most Alaskans don’t talk like that. In fact, never heard that in Alaska except from Gov. Palin.
Hal, 10:53am
Odd, since Gov.Palin was born and raised in Alaska, she must have heard it from someone.
It’s more about bringing on the Apocalypse by forcing liberal insanity down our throats and using the Constitution to justify it.
:: laughing ::
Oh John… “bringing on the Apocalypse..”
…..
And wow, we already have a whole new set of polls since 12 hours ago showing that Obama has increased his lead? Holy cow chips, isn’t that amazing?
Yeah – RCP’s aggregated polls, and RCP’s been criticized lately for picking and choosing which polls to include on the basis of trying to bias the results in McCain’s favor.
Anyway, yeah – today versus yesterday.
Mary
And don’t forget that the ACLU does all it can to protect PORNOGRAPHY, saying its “free speech”, even though its degrading to women.
That’s horrible what the police did. :(
I wonder how many child abusers or child molestors use the “right to privacy” to claim they have a right to do what they do?
Liz, the rights of the child mean that the abusers/molesters are outside the law, there.
To use some more slang, if you see a child being abused or molested, summon the “fuzz.”
SLANG WORDS THAT MEAN “GOOD”
“Cool”
It’s interesting that the word “cool” has survived so long as a slang term in a world where MTV introduces a new expression of exuberance every three days. (The latest: “That’s so elkhound!”) Not only that, it has essentially the same meaning it’s always had: laid-back, unruffled, and free of visible signs of venereal disease.
“Bad”
Boy, people loved this one. It was an easy way for eighties sitcoms to fill space between commercials for Super Nintendo: have the hip, wisecracking, bandana-wearing ethnic youngster explain to the befuddled father figure that “bad” means “good”! Such hilarity! Whee! This one lost favor when it became associated with Michael Jackson in skintight bondage gear. Just like Macaulay Culkin did.
“Phat”
Do the street toughs supposedly responsible for recent slang really care all that much about whimsical spelling? I can’t help but suspect that the “ph”–if not the whole deal–was dreamed up by the same slick-haired record exec who gave us Kris Kross.
“Awesome”
This one stopped being used by actual youths about 1991, but for some reason it’s stuck in the heads of ad writers, who use it to describe anything from the latest Pokemon movie to blue frosting. For fun, mentally substitute the original meaning of the word: “New Tropical Berry Blast instills one with a sense of awe!”
“Gear”
“Fab” was also nice, but I like “gear” because it’s so inexplicable. “Gear”? As in “We can’t get on the freeway because my Honda won’t go past second…”? For maximum effect, this word must be pronounced with a bad Liverpudlian accent.
Odd, since Gov.Palin was born and raised in Alaska, she must have heard it from someone.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 3, 2008 10:56 AM
Barney Fife or Opie perhaps.
There IS NOT a RIGHT to abortion in the Constitution.
Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 3, 2008 10:06 AM
Then there is no right to have children in it either.
Liz, the rights if the child mean that ABORTIONS are outside the law.
I fixed it for you, Doug. You can thank me later.
A pro-abort talking about the rights of children. Funny stuff there. The first black grand dragon of the KKK should be here any minute.
Are you an Alaska resident Hal?
No? Okay then I don’t really think you have any idea what you’re talking about there. People in different parts of the country talk very different than what I’m used to as a Midwesterner, so I have no doubt that in Alaska they have different slang that I would never even use in my everyday speaking.
Liz, the rights if the child mean that ABORTIONS are outside the law.
X, no, because children are not aborted legally. The Constitution does not apply to the unborn. They are not “children” in that way – “child” or not remains a subjective deal, in the eye of the beholder, and that’s not what we are talking about here.
What you want is for rights to be attributed to the unborn. Since the case is now that they are not, you are dissatisfied with the situation. Not saying that it’s impossible that they would be attributed, either, but as of now the vast majority of abortions are not after viability and are not outside the law.
Liz: There IS NOT a RIGHT to abortion in the Constitution.
Tigran: Then there is no right to have children in it either.
Right – the lack of specific mention in the Constitution in no way means that a given action is considered “wrong” nor that it’s not protected under Constitutional principles. 9th Amendment, yet again.
The right of liberty and the right to privacy extends to pregnant women, without doubt, and it not only means that one’s right to end a pregnancy is protected, to viability, anyway, but also that one’s right to continue a pregnancy is protected.
Doug,
What about the mention of the right to life along with liberty and the pursuit of happiness which IS in the Constitution.
“… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
A woman choosing an abortion is not “the State” doing anything.
Mary: What about the mention of the right to life along with liberty and the pursuit of happiness which IS in the Constitution.
What ’bout it, Babe?
Actually, the constitution doesn’t say we have the right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.
The Declaration of Independence does. Not that that lessens the value of the words.
It also lists the reasons for abandoning English Law, accusing England of the following. Remind you of anyone?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Somehow, I don’t think Obama is who JRRTolkien had in mind when he wrote “The Return of the King”.
Doug,
At one time the Constitution did not apply to black people. They were treated as property, and abused and killed for having a different color skin.
Unborn babies are mistreated (killed) because they make the mistake of being conceived at an INconvenient time. Or they will have a disability such as the one that Trig has.
They have committed no CRIME, but yet are sentenced to death for one reason: They came at the wrong time.
The Preamble does however say:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
POSTERITY:
1. Future generations:
2. All of a person’s descendants.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/posterity
If anything, the rights of the unborn ARE in the constitution.
Way to go mk!
Right – the lack of specific mention in the Constitution in no way means that a given action is considered “wrong” nor that it’s not protected under Constitutional principles. 9th Amendment, yet again.
Doug, the 9th Amendement was not written as a declaration that all unnamed rights are in fact rights supported by the Constitution.
It is not proof that abortion is a right in our country. Don’t you see?
Please tell me you understand this.
Actually, the constitution doesn’t say we have the right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.
How hold on here, MK. It does say “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” So that’s two out of the three already.
…..
It also lists the reasons for abandoning English Law, accusing England of the following. Remind you of anyone?
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution
Bush Jr. and the unauthorized wiretaps?
…..
Somehow, I don’t think Obama is who JRRTolkien had in mind when he wrote “The Return of the King”.
No, of course not – it was Viggo Mortensen.
Doug, the 9th Amendement was not written as a declaration that all unnamed rights are in fact rights supported by the Constitution. It is not proof that abortion is a right in our country. Don’t you see? Please tell me you understand this.
Janet – definitely – it doesn’t mean “all unnamed rights.”
However, abortion to quickening was a right under common law when the 9th Amendment was added, so it does fall under it.
At one time the Constitution did not apply to black people. They were treated as property, and abused and killed for having a different color skin.
Liz, yes, and the Amendments 13, 14, and 15 deal with that. I’m not saying it’s impossible that the unborn would someday have constitutional protection, only that as of now they do not.
Doug, please cite your source because I don’t believe you’re telling the truth.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
You mean like construing the right to privacy to mean homicide…now I get it.
MK: If anything, the rights of the unborn ARE in the constitution.
MK, at most that’s an argument about what “posterity” meant, and again – abortion to quickening was legal when that was written, and there is nothing that suggests the writers meant the unborn.
It would not make sense to be stating that the unborn had constitutional protection when the fact was that they did not.
Doug,
You need to show me where in the world you are getting the idea that abortion was “legal” at that point in history.
Do you mean legal, or just not addressed?
from Wikipedia:
* 1765 – Post-quickening abortion was no longer considered homicide in England, but William Blackstone called it “a very heinous misdemeanor”.[56]
* 1803 – United Kingdom enacts Lord Ellenborough’s Act, making abortion after quickening a capital crime, and providing lesser penalties for the felony of abortion before quickening.[57]
* 1821 – Connecticut passes first statute that forbids using poison to induce miscarriages.[58]
* 1825–80: All 50 states pass statutes punishing anyone who performs or attempts to perform an abortion
At one time the Constitution did not apply to black people. They were treated as property, and abused and killed for having a different color skin.
“Liz, yes, and the Amendments 13, 14, and 15 deal with that. I’m not saying it’s impossible that the unborn would someday have constitutional protection, only that as of now they do not.”
Liz: Doug, please cite your source because I don’t believe you’re telling the truth.
Then maybe you oughtta read that part of the Constitution. ; )
You need to show me where in the world you are getting the idea that abortion was “legal” at that point in history.
MK, per Hal’s post, and anyway – the states began making abortion prior to quickening (as well as afterwards) illegal in the 1820’s. This is common knowledge.
Prior to those laws, it was legal for midwives to perform abortions (for example) and this is what the several doctors who really pushed for new laws objected to – they felt it was rightly their province, not that of the midwives.
Historical background
When the United States broke away from Britain in 1776, abortion subsequent to quickening (approximately 17 weeks) was considered homicide at common law (see II H. Bracton Laws & Customs of England 341 (c.1250); I W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 125 (1769)). Starting with Connecticut in 1821, most states moved to criminalize the procedure. 36 of 38 jurisdictions had banned it prior to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. In 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court overturned the laws of the 21 states which had not repealed (or never enacted) bans, declaring that abortion was a fundamental right protected by either the Fourteenth Amendment, the Ninth Amendment, or a generic right to privacy the court had declared to exist eight years previously in Griswold v. Connecticut. The decision ignited a bitterly-fought culture war that continues to date, having a major impact on elections for the Presidency of the United States (due to the nominating process, it has become a de facto requirement for the GOP nominee to be pro life and the Democratic nominee to be pro choice) and which has dominated every Supreme Court nomination since.
mk, if I read your quote correctly, abortion prior to quickening was not illegal between 1776 and the 1820s. The Constiution (and the 9th Amendment)was drafted in 1789. It appears that Doug is correct.
Doug,
Our Founding Fathers did acknowledge the right to life in the Declaration of Independence. Where do they say anything about abortion?
Face it, abortion is no more a Constitutional right than is driving a car.
Doug 3:22PM
Slavery was legal too. Did that ever make it a Constitutional right?
For 45 years it was legal after quickening. From that point on it was illegal.
Surely, you, the King of get with the times, realizes that in this day and age we KNOW when life begins. In 1776 they only knew that what a woman was carrying was alive when they felt it move.
That would, be WHY it was illegal after quickening, because they KNEW that it was alive.
WE now know that it is alive from the moment of fertilization, due to scientific advances. Using the logic that made it illegal in 1776, we can know that it would be illegal today by those standards.
When life was detectable, it was homicide.
Life is detectable at fertilization.
Abortion is homicide.
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
MK: You mean like construing the right to privacy to mean homicide…now I get it.
Nope, that’s not it.
The right to privacy is inherent in the Bill of Rights; the 3rd Amendment; the 4th’s limits on search and seizure, and the 5th – you can’t be compelled to be a witness against yourself. Many rulings over the years have affirmed this – it’s by no means only a deal in relation to abortion or contraception. Privacy is taken to be a basic right and as such is protected by the 9th Amendment.
Cases dealing with interracial marriage point it up well, i.e. Loving versus Virginia.
Our Founding Fathers did acknowledge the right to life in the Declaration of Independence. Where do they say anything about abortion?
Mary – they didn’t say anything about abortion. Why should they? It was legal to quickening at the time.
…..
Slavery was legal too. Did that ever make it a Constitutional right?
Prior to Dred Scott and the 14th Amendment, etc., I imagine there was precedent upholding slavery, if not in the Supreme Court then in lower courts.
However, abortion to quickening was a right under common law when the 9th Amendment was added, so it does fall under it.
Posted by: Doug at October 3, 2008 3:22 PM
The ninth Amendment was enacted in 1791
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
From Hal’s post:
* 1765 – Post-quickening abortion was no longer considered homicide in England, but William Blackstone called it “a very heinous misdemeanor”.[56]
* 1803 – United Kingdom enacts Lord Ellenborough’s Act, making abortion after quickening a capital crime, and providing lesser penalties for the felony of abortion before quickening.[57]
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Doug, You can see that abortion was not a RIGHT in England in 1791 when the 9th Amendment was enacted in the US. Where’s the proof that abortion was legal in 1791 in the United States?
That’s the end of my arguments on this. I don’t see how the history of abortion is relevant to the abortion issue now. It’s a deflection from the real issue.
Doug, 4:06PM
These amendments weren’t about privacy, they were to protect citizens from false imprisonment based on coerced confessions and testimony, false evidence, and the state invading your home on a whim to collect what it deems as “evidence”.
That’s why police need a warrant to search your home and you have a right to “take the 5th”.
mk @ 3:57,
sorry, I didn’t see you comment before I posted. Too many pots spoil the broth. Catch y’all later.
“However, abortion to quickening was a right under common law when the 9th Amendment was added, so it does fall under it.”
Janet: The ninth Amendment was enacted in 1791
Yes, and prior to quickening, abortion was legal in all states until the 1820’s at the earliest – some states didn’t outlaw it until decades later.
…..
From Hal’s post:
* 1765 – Post-quickening abortion was no longer considered homicide in England, but William Blackstone called it “a very heinous misdemeanor”.[56]
Has nothing to do with prior to quickening.
…..
* 1803 – United Kingdom enacts Lord Ellenborough’s Act, making abortion after quickening a capital crime, and providing lesser penalties for the felony of abortion before quickening.[57]
Yes, at that point there were penalities for abortion prior to quickening. Before 1803, including the 1790’s, the 1770’s etc., there had not been.
……
Doug, You can see that abortion was not a RIGHT in England in 1791 when the 9th Amendment was enacted in the US. Where’s the proof that abortion was legal in 1791 in the United States? That’s the end of my arguments on this. I don’t see how the history of abortion is relevant to the abortion issue now. It’s a deflection from the real issue.
The common law was in effect at that time, in both England and the US, i.e. abortion to quickening was okay – it was indeed a right.
MK,
Good points.
Our ancestors can be forgiven for their ignorance concerning prenatal life. We can’t.
They had little more than “quickening” to go on.
When life was detectable, it was homicide.
Life is detectable at fertilization.
Abortion is homicide.
MK, going back to SoMG and several discussions I think you too were involved in – yes, “homocide,” but that is not saying it’s wrong nor unjustified or worse than taking away the freedom that women currently have in the matter.
If we say that it’s “killing a human being,” then I agree that the term fits, yet the abortion argument remains – all the right/wrong/good/bad about it; our perceptions of it.
Doug 4:09PM
OK, then slavery was a Constitutional right since like abortion, it was legal at the time the Constitution was written.
The fact the nothing was written specifically in the Constitution about slavery or abortion is irrelevant.
Doug,
The common law was in effect at that time, in both England and the US, i.e. abortion to quickening was okay – it was indeed a right.
Being OK and a “right” are two different things. You are making broad assumptions here based on opinion not reason. As explained before, the time before quickening was less a crime because of the lack of modern science. Yikes. The deal (to use your terminology) is post quickening – when a baby was known to be there!
These amendments weren’t about privacy, they were to protect citizens from false imprisonment based on coerced confessions and testimony, false evidence, and the state invading your home on a whim to collect what it deems as “evidence”.
That’s why police need a warrant to search your home and you have a right to “take the 5th”.
Mary, the 2nd definition at dictionary.com is
“the state of being free from intrusion or disturbance in one’s private life or affairs.”
Thus, the 3rd amendment definitely applies to privacy, as does the 4th.
If anything I’d say you can only argue about the 5th…..
mk,
When life was detectable, it was homicide.
Life is detectable at fertilization.
Abortion is homicide.
Bingo! You are brilliant! :)
Doug,
Dictionary dot.com? Where does it say this in the bill of rights? Protecting citizens from unreasonable search and seizure was less about privacy and more about protecting you from being thrown in prison on false pretenses or your property and possessions confiscated on a whim of the state.
Mary: The fact the nothing was written specifically in the Constitution about slavery or abortion is irrelevant.
Mary, that’s a good bit of the answer to your previous question:
Where does the constitution say anything about abortion?
“The common law was in effect at that time, in both England and the US, i.e. abortion to quickening was okay – it was indeed a right.”
Being OK and a “right” are two different things. You are making broad assumptions here based on opinion not reason.
Janet, not as far as abortion to quickening and the 9th Amendment.
…..
As explained before, the time before quickening was less a crime because of the lack of modern science.
It wasn’t a crime at all.
…..
Yikes. The deal (to use your terminology) is post quickening – when a baby was known to be there!
Why do you say that’s the deal? Nobody’s arguing about after quickening. There is a question about whether or not penalties were enforced for abortions after quickening, but under common law abortions weren’t supposed to be done then, and under the state laws that began appearing in the 1820’s it remained illegal.
Doug,
What I meant and probably should have phrased better was that since slavery and abortion were legal when the constitution was written, then they were both Constitutional rights even if not writen in the Constitution.
Do you agree they were?
Dictionary dot.com? Where does it say this in the bill of rights? Protecting citizens from unreasonable search and seizure was less about privacy and more about protecting you from being thrown in prison on false pretenses or your property and possessions confiscated on a whim of the state.
Mary, yes, dictionary.com. “Privacy” the word is not found in the Constitution, but that rights of privacy are implied in the Constitution is not seriously arguable.
The owner’s house is considered to be his private domain, and thus in peacetime soldiers weren’t to be quartered in the house against the owner’s desire, nor to be illegally quartered there even in event of war. The right of people to be secure in their houses, secure in their persons, etc. follows the same line of reasoning.
The right is not absolute, and given due process of law people’s privacy can be impacted – that’s why I said if anything you might be able to argue about the 5th Amendment. Yet that the Constitution gives people the right to privacy in many areas is a given; one that’s been affirmed and reaffirmed by numerous court decisions.
Remember – much of the objections to the way it had been in Europe was that governments and churches violated what was felt by many to be properly the private domain of the individual, family, etc.
What I meant and probably should have phrased better was that since slavery and abortion were legal when the constitution was written, then they were both Constitutional rights even if not writen in the Constitution. Do you agree they were?
Mary, I don’t know if slavery had been challenged, constitutionally. I really don’t think that abortion had been.
Anyway, even aside from that, between the times that the 9th and 13th Amendments were adopted, then yes – I’d say that slavery was considered a constitutional right under the 9th. At that time, it was a “right retained by the people” as were vast numbers of things.
Doug,
It hadn’t been challenged.
So you would consider slavery a Constitutional right even though the founding fathers never wrote it into the Constitution as such. Thanks for answering my question.
Mary, I’m not sure about “Constitutional right.” That sounds like it’d be enumerated specifically, as opposed to being supported by the 9th Amendment, etc.
I think it depends on how you define it in the first place – is it simply “granted by the constitution” or is it that it cannot be legally denied by the gov’t, per the constitution? Does there have to be specific mention, or is implication enough?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYnsfV5N2n8&feature=related
Doug,
It only says soldiers could not be quartered in a person’s home without permission. It says nothing about privacy. At one time soldiers could be so quartered without permission and this might impose a huge financial burden on a family.
This gave homeowners the option to say no.
Yes homes were a private domain, but these rights (forbidding search and seizure, quartering of soldiers) were meant to prevent the illegal search and entering of people’s homes without permission or warrant, which gov’ts all too often did. Protecting privacy was a result, but that’s not the reason these amendments were written.
Doug,
I mean very simply does the Constitution mention it or not? We can think something “implies” anything we want it to.
* 1765 – Post-quickening abortion was no longer considered homicide in England, but William Blackstone called it “a very heinous misdemeanor”.[56]
Has nothing to do with prior to quickening.
Nobody said it did…it shows that while abortion after quickening it wasn’t a CAPITAL OFFENSE it was still a CRIME (A misdemeanor) in 1765…BEFORE 1820!
You mean like construing the right to privacy to mean homicide…now I get it.
*
Nope, that’s not it.
*
The right to privacy is inherent in the Bill of Rights; the 3rd Amendment; the 4th’s limits on search and seizure, and the 5th –
Yes, and they were CONSTRUED to apply to something they were NEVER meant to apply to…which is in violation of the 9th ammendment.
* 1765 – Post-quickening abortion was no longer considered homicide in England, but William Blackstone called it “a very heinous misdemeanor”.[56]
1803 – United Kingdom enacts Lord Ellenborough’s Act, making abortion after quickening a capital crime, and providing lesser penalties for the felony of abortion before quickening.[57]
It appears to me that we were fighting to make abortion illegal for 30 some years…sounds familiar.
So obviously it was a hot topic. Look how often the laws were amended and changed during that 30 year period.
Will someone like you look back 100 years from now and say that abortion was legal in the US from 1973 to 2008 and therefore WAS a constitutional right because every one said so? Ignoring the millions of us that disagree?
It appears that from day ONE the US was working on making it illegal. The whole point of creating the US and leaving Britain was because we disagreed with THEIR law. And it looks like one of the first things that was done was to work on abortion laws.
1776 to 1803…in less than 25 years from the Declaration of Independence, abortion was made ILLEGAL…
They REJECTED common law.
This means that in a country with a 232 year history, abortion was totally illegal for 205 of those years.
It was legal WITH RESTRICTIONS for 27. It was NEVER legal, through all nine months.
It was always ILLEGAL once life was detected.
Life can now be detected at fertilization.
Are you telling me that in 1803, they knew that the child was viable, sensient, and had personhood rights??????
And if the life was protected at quickening, WHY was it protected? Because it was thought of as PROGENY? Or a PERSON?
Face it Doug, Roe v Wade was UNconstitutionally sound, bad law, and Illegal in it’s own right!
Corrupt law is corrupt law. The constitution was MISconstrued. Plain and simple.
Apparently, our forefathers and ancestors had the common sense even without ultrasound to realize that what was growing inside of a woman was PERSON, with rights, and should be protected under the law.
How much sense does it make to say that now that we are so scientifically advanced that we KNOW when life begins, we can abolish the laws of those that didn’t, but protected the unborns rights anyway.
If anything science has proven that our ancestors were 100% right!
there are many times when extrapolation from a few cases makes for bad law. But these days we are becoming such talking-heads, like Doug: that we accept his intellectual games as realty (he does too!) Please watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qr9_hzVfYI and apply what you feel to the hapless, little one in the womb.
For me, being without the presence of life is …
MK, 6:21am
An excellent argument. Tragically the Constitution has been “interpreted” to suit whims and accomodate personal biases time and again.
Dred Scott- Where did the Constitution say Americans of African descent could not be citizens?
Plessy v Ferguson- Where did the Constitution sanction segregation?
The confiscation of property and the mass deportation of Japanese American to “relocation centers”, i.e. concentration camps during WW2. If this didn’t turn the Constitution on its head I don’t know what did!
Roe v Wade- The “right” to abortion was found in emanations arising from the penumbra cast by certain amendments. Sounds like the same place they found the “right” to put thousands of innocent citizens into concentration camps.
It only says soldiers could not be quartered in a person’s home without permission. It says nothing about privacy. At one time soldiers could be so quartered without permission and this might impose a huge financial burden on a family.
Mary, it is the principle of privacy, still, and one that has been affirmed many times by the Supreme Court. There are any number of things that would be seen as unjustified if the state did it – on the grounds of invading one’s privacy without sufficient need to.
I mean very simply does the Constitution mention it or not? We can think something “implies” anything we want it to.
Mary, no – of course the Constitution does not mention abortion. It was not at issue when it was written – common law had it legal to quickening and forbidden afterwards, though there is debate about the enforcement, if any, of the post-quickening proscriptions.
There are vast numbers of things where it would be found unconstitutional for the gov’t to interfere with people, even though the specific governmental action or personal right is not mentioned in the Constitution.
* 1765 – Post-quickening abortion was no longer considered homicide in England, but William Blackstone called it “a very heinous misdemeanor”
“Has nothing to do with prior to quickening.”
Nobody said it did…it shows that while abortion after quickening it wasn’t a CAPITAL OFFENSE it was still a CRIME (A misdemeanor) in 1765…BEFORE 1820!
Nobody said it wasn’t, MK.
“The right to privacy is inherent in the Bill of Rights; the 3rd Amendment; the 4th’s limits on search and seizure, and the 5th ”
Yes, and they were CONSTRUED to apply to something they were NEVER meant to apply to…which is in violation of the 9th ammendment.
I don’t think so, MK, not at all. The writers of the Constitution had it firmly in mind that people should be free of much of the governmental and religious interference that had been the case in Europe.
The 9th Amendment doesn’t prevent “construing” as you mention – in fact, it makes it clear that just because a right is not specifically mentioned, that does not mean that other rights aren’t kept by the people. The Constitution was never intended to note every right. It was intended to keep the gov’t off people’s backs, so to speak.
1765 – Post-quickening abortion was no longer considered homicide in England, but William Blackstone called it “a very heinous misdemeanor”.
1803 – United Kingdom enacts Lord Ellenborough’s Act, making abortion after quickening a capital crime, and providing lesser penalties for the felony of abortion before quickening.
MK: It appears to me that we were fighting to make abortion illegal for 30 some years…sounds familiar.
No, MK – abortion after quickening was illegal during those years, just apparently not treated as illegal homicide, whereas before it had been.
…..
So obviously it was a hot topic. Look how often the laws were amended and changed during that 30 year period.
I see nothing saying that things changed in those years.
…..
Will someone like you look back 100 years from now and say that abortion was legal in the US from 1973 to 2008 and therefore WAS a constitutional right because every one said so? Ignoring the millions of us that disagree?
Depends on how you define “constitutional right.” If you mean specifically laid-out in the document, then no, of course not. If you mean a right protected by the constitution, then yes. It’s not “up to the people,” MK, any more than is slavery.
…..
It appears that from day ONE the US was working on making it illegal. The whole point of creating the US and leaving Britain was because we disagreed with THEIR law. And it looks like one of the first things that was done was to work on abortion laws.
1776 to 1803…in less than 25 years from the Declaration of Independence, abortion was made ILLEGAL…
They REJECTED common law.
Oy, you’ve got your countries mixed up. The 1803 deal was in England, not the US.
This means that in a country with a 232 year history, abortion was totally illegal for 205 of those years.
No, MK, From 1776 to 1829 (when NY made pre-quickening abortion a misdemeanor), from what I can find, abortion was not totally illegal. In some states it didn’t become illegal until around 1880 or 1865 – I find conflicting information there. Anyway, that’d be 53 years for NY, and as much as 89 to 104 for other states.
Add on the present 35 years, and we end up with abortion being illegal in NY for 141 years to as little as 93 years for some other states. I have no idea where you got the “205” number. 116 years would be half way from 1776, so for many (most?) states it’s more like 50/50 legal/illegal. And it was never “totally illegal,” anyway – all it took was two doctors saying that abortion was recommended.
…..
It was legal WITH RESTRICTIONS for 27. It was NEVER legal, through all nine months.
Again, I just don’t see where your math is coming from. It’s always been “legal with restrictions” – the two doctor requirement prior to Roe, or the pre-state statute time from 1776 onward, or the post-1973 period. If you just mean “illegal in general” as it became as the states enacted their own laws in the 1800’s then in NY it’d be legal with restrictions for 88 years, and more in the other states, from what I’ve seen.
…..
It was always ILLEGAL once life was detected. Life can now be detected at fertilization.
Okay, although again – the say-so of two doctors made it legal. Agreed, however – life at conception.
…..
Are you telling me that in 1803, they knew that the child was viable, sensient, and had personhood rights??????
MK, were you all hot and bothered when you were typing this? The 1803 deal was in England, and the full title was An Act for the further Prevention of malicious shooting, and attempting to discharge loaded Fire-Arms, stabbing, cutting, wounding, poisoning, and the malicious using of Means to procure the Miscarriage of Women; and also the malicious setting Fire to Buildings; and also for repealing a certain Act, made in England in the twenty-first Year of the late King James the First, intituled, An Act to prevent the destroying and murthering of Bastard Children; and also an Act made in Ireland in the sixth Year of the Reign of the late Queen Anne, also intituled, An Act to prevent the destroying and murthering of Bastard Children; and for making other Provisions in lieu thereof.
Heck of a title… Lord Ellenborough wanted to modify common law and set down in writing. I haven’t seen how he felt about abortion, directly, though I’d agree that he would have been against it, and that he wanted it pretty much illegal, period.
Wikipedia says: “Following protests from medical professionals, who worried about the dangers of the procedure and that it was regularly carried out by non-medical personnel, abortion was made a crime in 1803.”
I don’t know if abortion was “totally illegal” in England after 1803 or if there were exceptions. There certainly were exceptions by the 1920’s/1930’s.
I don’t think that viability or sentience was considered, and they certainly did not attributed personhood to the unborn.
…..
And if the life was protected at quickening, WHY was it protected? Because it was thought of as PROGENY? Or a PERSON?
Well, St. Thomas Aquinas felt abortion was okay prior to ensoulment, and similar thinking carried down the line for hundreds of years in England. I don’t thinke “progeny” came into it nor did personhood.
…..
Face it Doug, Roe v Wade was UNconstitutionally sound, bad law, and Illegal in it’s own right!
Nope, regardless of how much you might not like a thing, it’s not you that determines “unconstitutional,” it’s the Supreme Court.
…..
Corrupt law is corrupt law. The constitution was MISconstrued. Plain and simple.
Disagree – the rights the writers of the Constitution wanted people to have were upheld.
…..
Apparently, our forefathers and ancestors had the common sense even without ultrasound to realize that what was growing inside of a woman was PERSON, with rights, and should be protected under the law.
No, they didn’t say “person” nor did they treat the unborn as such. Having abortion be illegal is not that, on its own. The action of abortion being illegal is not the same as attributing personhood.
…..
How much sense does it make to say that now that we are so scientifically advanced that we KNOW when life begins, we can abolish the laws of those that didn’t, but protected the unborns rights anyway. If anything science has proven that our ancestors were 100% right!
It’s not that we’re saying “we don’t know when life begins” or “the zygote is not alive.” Regardless of what went before, we are saying that the rights of bodily autonomy, privacy, liberty, etc., that the pregnant woman has, outweighs the reasons for totally banning abortion.
John M: But these days we are becoming such talking-heads, like Doug: that we accept his intellectual games as realty (he does too!)
John, if you want “games” then refer to your own debates with Jess. ; )
The Constitution is a good argument, here – there are things that it simply does say, and things it simply does not. There are interpretations, principles, court decisions, meanings, and extentions to be debated.
…..
Please watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qr9_hzVfYI and apply what you feel to the hapless, little one in the womb.
I disagree with him – it’s not “killing an innocent human being,” it’s allowing the patient to end his own life when he wants. Granted that the unborn are “innocent” but there’s no application to what the guy is saying with respect to abortion, unless we note that it’s one person’s opinion.
Doug, 10:19am
Yes this implies privacy but it was meant mainly to deter government tyranny, just as search and seizure amendments were, as well as the right against self incrimination. Doug, at one time “privacy” meant the “right” to abuse one’s wife with no interference from the state. That was in MY lifetime. “Privacy” can be construed as one sees fit and can certainly be abused.
Doug 10:24am
Then you do acknowledge that abortion is not a Constitutional right.
missed it entirely, eh Doug,
the man has a very different understanding of just what a human being is ie. ‘the soldier in a foxhole’. We become just talking-heads (a good example is my posts with Jess). There is a ‘knowledge’ about being human that goes well beyond verbal reportage.
Do you understand people as precious, or as combatants. Without words this ‘John” has touched my soul! (MK’s Dad does and I’ve never met the man.) The Constitution is not about you ONLY, but about ordinary people living quite extraordinary lives …. and become extraordinary by doing so …. walking the talk.
Try to understand that the bill is called ‘assisted suicide’. Because they cannot kill themselves someone else must assist ….. this makes this assistant an accomplice in suicide. Is this where you want doctors to go?
Is the US in a ‘foxhole’ too?
I thank God I never became a lawyer, especially after reading this thread.
Then you do acknowledge that abortion is not a Constitutional right.
Mary, again – depends on how you are defining it. is it simply “granted by the constitution” (specficially), or is it that it cannot be legally denied by the gov’t, per the constitution? Does there have to be specific mention, or is implication enough?
missed it entirely, eh Doug,
No, John, I got it – he wants to have his opinion gain legal force over other people.
…..
the man has a very different understanding of just what a human being is ie. ‘the soldier in a foxhole’. We become just talking-heads (a good example is my posts with Jess). There is a ‘knowledge’ about being human that goes well beyond verbal reportage.
John, I don’t think you or anybody else is only a “talking head.” My point about your and Jess’s posts is that if you want to try and demean somebody else’s posting as “playing games,” then it certainly works both ways.
I think you are romanticizing human beings, and ascribing things to them which cannot be proven. Like the guy in the video, that’s all fine and good for the individual, but does that mean that he should be able to dictate policy for other people in the matter? I say no.
…..
Do you understand people as precious, or as combatants.
As both, John.
…..
Without words this ‘John” has touched my soul! (MK’s Dad does and I’ve never met the man.) The Constitution is not about you ONLY, but about ordinary people living quite extraordinary lives …. and become extraordinary by doing so …. walking the talk.
No argument there, but the point remains that the guy in the video may have his opinion, but in no necessary way does it apply to other people. If he wanted to die, I’d support his opinion, for himself, there too. He wants to live as long as possible – fine, but don’t maintain that his desire somehow “has” to apply to everybody in his situation or worse.
…..
Try to understand that the bill is called ‘assisted suicide’. Because they cannot kill themselves someone else must assist ….. this makes this assistant an accomplice in suicide. Is this where you want doctors to go?
In some cases, yes, because I don’t see any necessary wrong with some people wanting to end their lives. There are situations where I would not stand in their way nor want them prevented from being assisted. The video also portrayed it as more than just “assisting.” He said “the killing of an innocent” and that does not apply – it’s the desire of the one wanting to die. It’s not some horrible, nasty bugger doing it to somebody against their will. He also said he’s “somewhat of a target” of the initiative, and that’s just plain false.
I would not support somebody else saying that the guy in the video should be compelled to end his life. I don’t support him saying that others should be prevented from carrying out their wishes in the matter.
…..
Is the US in a ‘foxhole’ too?
Things are rarely as bad or as good as they look. I do think we’re going into a comparitively “rough” time. If we go with your analogy, I think the bottom of the foxhole – the time when things look the worst – is a long ways off.
Doug,
Depends on how I’m defining it? Do you know who you sound like?
Its simple Doug. Its in the Constitution or its not. Driving is not in the Constitution. Its a legal privilege, not a Constitutional right.
Abortion, like driving, is not in the Constitution. It was regulated by state law until SC justices found a “right” to abortion in emanations(steam, smoke, odor) arising from the penumbra(shadow cast during an eclipse) cast by certain Amendments.
Mary, I sound like someone focusing on the truth.
It is not unreasonable to say that some rights come from constitutional principles, even though they are not specifically enumerated in the constitution. The 9th Amendment speaks to that.
Now, if you want to say that only rights specifically mentioned are “constitutional rights” then I will agree that no, abortion is not one of them.
The point remains that in no way does a right have to be mentioned to have constitutional support.
Since abortion is not mentioned, you could make your same argument were the Supreme Court to say that state laws against abortion were okay.
Mary, here’s one where I did NOT agree with the Supreme Court. They allowed for gov’t’s to force people to sell their houses if developers promise that more taxes will likely be paid on the land in the future, for example.
Justices Affirm Property Seizures
5-4 Ruling Backs Forced Sales for Private Development
Friday, June 24, 2005
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project’s success is not guaranteed.
The 5 to 4 ruling provided the strong affirmation that state and local governments had sought for their increasing use of eminent domain for urban revitalization, especially in the Northeast, where many city centers have decayed and the suburban land supply is dwindling.
Opponents, including property-rights activists and advocates for elderly and low-income urban residents, argued that forcibly shifting land from one private owner to another, even with fair compensation, violates the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of property by government except for “public use.”
But Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, cited cases in which the court has interpreted “public use” to include not only such traditional projects as bridges or highways but also slum clearance and land redistribution. He concluded that a “public purpose” such as creating jobs in a depressed city can also satisfy the Fifth Amendment.
Stevens’s opinion provoked a strongly worded dissent from Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who wrote that the ruling favors the most powerful and influential in society and leaves small property owners little recourse. Now, she wrote, the “specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”
ah Doug,
“missed it entirely, eh Doug,
No, John, I got it – he wants to have his opinion gain legal force over other people.”
………..
your answer is like that of a little kid coming upon a red light – “Those so-&-so’s wish to impose their will(my choice) by stopping me!”
Why do you never pursue the understanding that you do not know everything? YOU HAVE ALWAYS AN ANSWER, no! (This is an observation and does not need answering.) Just perhaps because death is so close, he knows stuff you do not eg. Because death occurs often, does this mean that this is a ‘normal’ reality to be treated as significant as just-one-more-meal? He (to me) is a ‘kind of expert’ talking about placing red lights.
Doug,
The Constitution gives us a framework. The people makes laws through their elected representatives.
Yes laws must pass constitutional standards.
For instance, state laws sanctioning segregation would not pass consitutional standards. No where in the Constitution is segregation sanctioned, though sadly at one time some SC justices “found” justification for segregation in our Constitution.
Concerning your abortion question. SC Justices could have held up state laws because nothing in the Constitution is said about abortion or forbids the states to make their own laws.
Judges “finding” rights in the Constitution can be a double edged sword Doug. They can just as easily take away rights they don’t “find” as well or simply choose to interpret as they see fit. I believe there was a second amendment question not too long ago.
Doug 2:46PM
My point exactly. 9 unelected people in black robes can giveth or taketh away as they see fit.
Frightening isn’t it?
Mary, I think it comes down to what is the “greater good.” IMO too bad the SC ruled on the side of gov’t. I understand wanting to be able to increase the tax base, but that it should make for forced sales of houses is too much, again IMO.
There was one person who wanted to get up enough money to develop the area where one of the Justices who voted with the majority lived – don’t know what came of that.
If the “greater good” is perceived to be in restricting people’s rights, then yes, it can happen as you say (and nothing says that you & I wouldn’t be for it, either…) Most of the time, though, the principles of freedom, liberty, and yes – privacy hold sway. There are few examples of the Court “taking away” rights.
Mary,
This will be quick, because I have little time, but the issue of the Supreme Court is often raised here and, as used, reflects an improper understanding of both a democratic republic and the fundamental ideals of democracy.
Democracy is not simply about majority rule and the expressed will of the people but about the rights of the individual. The tensions inherent in any system which must both be responsive to the will of the people while defending the rights of the individual (and the minority–in my opinion, minority rights are simply an extension of individual rights) necessitate the existence of some governmental body which is removed from the control of the people.
This is where the Supreme Court comes in. By design, it is intended to thwart the will of the people and defend individual rights even when the majority becomes hostile to them. It cannot do this if the justices answer to the people. The Founding Fathers (though I hate implying that they are all-knowing fountains of eternal wisdom) recognized that, just as a democracy’s legitimacy came from the people, the people also had to be prevented from getting too close to governmental power in order to retain its legitimacy.
Does the Supreme Court make mistakes? Undoubtedly. I can cite two examples offhand in which I would argue that the Supreme Court made a mistake (not that I am some all-knowing source of wisdom either–one of them, however, I’m fairly certain is universally viewed to be a mistake, when the SC ruled that the Japanese internment during WWII was legal). These mistakes, however, do not invalidate the entire system or the purpose that it was designed for. Government is imperfect precisely because people are imperfect. The strength of a democratic system is that it is designed to be self-correcting; that is, mistakes are made and them rectified. The Supreme Court is no different and is essential to the maintenance of a viable democratic American state.
your answer is like that of a little kid coming upon a red light – “Those so-&-so’s wish to impose their will(my choice) by stopping me!”
John, I’m saying don’t stop the guy in the video from continuing to live if that’s what he wants, and don’t stop somebody who wants to end their life on the say-so of the guy in the video.
There’s a good reason for the stoplight – plenty good IMO. Should the will of the guy in the video prevail over other people? I don’t think there is a good enough reason in this case.
…..
Why do you never pursue the understanding that you do not know everything? YOU HAVE ALWAYS AN ANSWER, no! (This is an observation and does not need answering.)
Oh come now – there is plenty I don’t know, and I’ve never said differently. I do take issue with some of the things the guy said – I think they are factually incorrect.
….,
Just perhaps because death is so close, he knows stuff you do not eg.
Why do you say that? What necessary “knowing” does he have that we don’t? I understand how he feels – he did get that across, but I think you hear him give some of his unproveable beliefs and then you stamp them with “knowlege” instead.
…..
Because death occurs often, does this mean that this is a ‘normal’ reality to be treated as significant as just-one-more-meal? He (to me) is a ‘kind of expert’ talking about placing red lights.
I think the individual’s feelings about death are significant, and that quite a bit of leeway should be given, regardless if one feels like the guy in the video, or if one wants to die.
What do you really see that makes him an “expert”?
He says, “We should be trying to figure out how to help them (other people in terminal or greatly-suffering circumstances, I guess) have the quality of life that I enjoy.”
Well, not everybody wants what he has. And not everybody could be given it, even if the will was there on their part.
Whew, great comments, A.
By design, it is intended to thwart the will of the people and defend individual rights even when the majority becomes hostile to them.
I’d add that we really don’t vote on rights. A majority of people wanting slavery to be legal again would not succeed, and likewise we don’t vote on taking away the rights that women have in the matter at hand – it gets found to be unconstitutional. I realize that there are those who would try – some in South Dakota, for example.
A,
The role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution, not make law. It protects our rights, either as a group or as individuals with the Constitution as a guide. The people have elected representatives to make the laws.
The Supreme Court ruled Americans of African descent could not be citizens and sanctioned segregation.
Examples of a Supreme Court out of control, finding in the Constitution what isn’t there, unless of course one can show where it says African-Americans can’t be citizens or segregation is sanctioned.
As I said A, giving the Court too much flexibility where the Constitution is concerned can be a double edged sword. They can overlook what is in the Constitution as well as find what isn’t. As we have seen in past rulings, the court can giveth as well as taketh away based on nothing more than personal bias.
There is a big difficulty in what A. says …. and it is that the constitution comes from ‘the people’ spelling out ‘individual rights’. Can a plurality be anything but majority rule … even if the ‘majority is SC justices’. We call this system democracy … it ain’t even close!
Is this not an imposition of a majority to constrict the will of the individual? Why do we accept that more-than-one is more correct?
Doug 5:22PM
Our rights are listed in the Constitution. We vote on laws that must meet Constitutional guidelines. Slavery wouldn’t be legal simply because no legislature would have a prayer on passing it. Also, the Constituttion forbids its.
Doug 5:22PM
Didn’t Casey v PP allow for legislatures to place greater restrictions on abortion?
John @ 6:01,
A.’s explanation seems reasonable to me and I’m having trouble following your objection.
Mary,
Are you agreeing or disagreeing with A.?
Janet,
Just commenting.
Hi Janet,
there are several features of the US Constitution that aree nterpreted as anything but democratically.
So let’s begin at some blatant presumptions ::
:: 1) – all men are created equal … Mary has posted extensively about the history of racial acceptance, so I won’t go near that, but the phrase ‘created equal’ … says who? Every tiny bit of the universe is unique. So how can anything be unique yet equal, at the same time? THEY CANNOT because the word ‘equal’ implies comparison. Just how can a being be unique if that being’s raison d’etre is being compared with another unique being.
problem 2) (what my post entails.) Everyone prides themselves on individual rights … but these do not stem from autonomy/uniqueness but from the majority opinions of others. I just find it kinda weird that individuals rely on the opinions of a majority of others to tell them what an individual is/can-do. Why does any individual yield to any other opinion on what is ‘best’? Why are SC rulings best?
Mary, Thanks for clarifying.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
John,
1)Re: _all men are created equal. Yes, I remember discussing this before. I agree.What you are talking about leads to the commonly heard statement “it’s not fair!” Well, of course most people know that life is not fair, for the reason you stated, I believe.
that aree nterpreted By this I assume you meant “are not interpreted”
2) Well, I know I don’t have the answers. In the case of abortion, there are many people who do not agree that Supreme Court rulings are best and those are people who have analyzed the issue and don’t care about following the crowd. Others yield to SC opinion, IMO, (perhaps) because they don’t have to think for themselves. It’s easier. They agree and go on to “bigger and better” things. I think there are two different kinds of people basically. Those who follow the crowd, and those who don’t. I don’t think some parents today do a very good job of raising their children to be independent thinkers, to question the majority. They almost seem to do the opposite, they immerse their children in the culture, and believe they are magically grown-up at 18 yrs. old.
Our country was founded on principles that were re-enforced by a belief in God. When people no longer believe in God, any number of things can become “gods”.
Mary, the Supreme Court wasn’t “making law” in the Roe decision, it was saying that certain state laws were unconstitutional.
Yes, once upon a time Africans were not protected unded the Constitution. 13th Amendment, etc., took care of that.
Pretty good night – the Brewers won – they live to fight another day. I bought a round for the bar in the 6th inning, to aid with “luck for the Brewers,” and it was well-received.
And – you likely will not agree with this – praise all that is holy – the Ohio State Buckeyes win. I’ve always liked the Wisconsin Badgers, but not against the Buckeyes, and the Badgers couldn’t even beat the multi-accursed Michigan Wolverines last week, so don’t put on airs about beating the Buckeyes…..
Cheers!
Mary, the Supreme Court wasn’t “making law” in the Roe decision, it was saying that certain state laws were unconstitutional.
Which laws?
Doug,
Never mind, I didn’t notice you said “state”.
Doug, 10:43PM
I’m aware they struck down laws, I’m just saying their job is interpretation of the Constitution, the legislature makes laws.
Nothing was said in the Constitution that African Americans couldn’t be citizens or sanctioned segregation. It was SC Justices who determined it Constitutional to deny citizenship to African Americans and to permit segregation.
A majority of people wanting slavery to be legal again would not succeed, and likewise we don’t vote on taking away the rights that women
Posted by: Doug at October 4, 2008
You won’t get the irony of that statement in matters of abortion, dude.
A majority of people wanting fetal chattel slavery/property to be legal would not suceed. Yes it has, and you defend the right to fetal chattel property everyday in everyway.
Chattel;An item of Personal Property that is movable; it may be animate or inanimate.
A fetus is chattel property of a women.
It is the reason a women may do with as she wants, or wishes, since the fetus is nothingmore then animate chattel property of a women.
It is the reason you may sell your animate chattel property dog/pet, or kill the dog, on command of your wishes and wants, or desire.
Oh, wait, we have laws against just wanting and wishing from desire to kill animate chattel property owned by a human being.
But no laws against killing human chattel property, known as a fetus. In fact, Obama evidently finds no irony in his decision for the murder of infant human chattel property today, and is what “human chattel” owners did to fetal/child/adolescent/adult human beings during the legal era of human chattel property of certain non citizens of the USA.
John Mc, is right. all men are created equal, says who? That the government of the USA,from the dogcatcher to a school teacher ask one simple question in truth; Who owns that chattel property which has violated some person with a bite, or a parent being responsible for their chattel property known as a child?
Doug, a defender of animate chattel property, of women.
A majority of people wanting slavery to be legal again would not succeed, and likewise we don’t vote on taking away the rights that women
Posted by: Doug at October 4, 2008
You won’t get the irony of that statement in matters of abortion, dude.
A majority of people wanting fetal chattel slavery/property to be legal would not suceed. Yes it has, and you defend the right to fetal chattel property everyday in everyway.
Chattel;An item of Personal Property that is movable; it may be animate or inanimate.
A fetus is chattel property of a women.
It is the reason a women may do with as she wants, or wishes, since the fetus is nothingmore then animate chattel property of a women.
It is the reason you may sell your animate chattel property dog/pet, or kill the dog, on command of your wishes and wants, or desire.
Oh, wait, we have laws against just wanting and wishing from desire to kill animate chattel property owned by a human being.
But no laws against killing human chattel property, known as a fetus. In fact, Obama evidently finds no irony in his decision for the murder of infant human chattel property today, and is what “human chattel” owners did to fetal/child/adolescent/adult human beings during the legal era of human chattel property of certain non citizens of the USA.
John Mc, is right. all men are created equal, says who? That the government of the USA,from the dogcatcher to a school teacher ask one simple question in truth; Who owns that chattel property which has violated some person with a bite, or a parent being responsible for their chattel property known as a child?
Doug, a defender of animate chattel property, of women.
Doug,
My point was that between 1803 and 1860, the laws changed a number of times. From after quickening, to before quickening as a misdemeanor, to all abortions being a crime.
So obviously, this was an issue that was being talked about and dealt with. At NO time was abortion legal through all nine months.
That’s where I got the 205 number from.
Throughout all of our history abortion has been both legal and illegal depending on when it was done.
It’s a matter of the glass if half full/half empty.
You can say that it was legal for the majority of those years, I can say it was illegal.
But from 1803 on it was a misdemeanor BEFORE quickening.
That means it was a crime. If one or two states had different laws, they were in the minority.
1803 – United Kingdom enacts Lord Ellenborough’s Act, making abortion after quickening a capital crime, and providing lesser penalties for the felony of abortion before quickening.
From 1803 on, abortion had LESSER PENALTIES FOR THE FELONY…
Were we following common law or not then?
If so then abortion was a felony in 1803.
2008 – 1803 = 205
Prior to that it was Illegal after quickening, but still illegal.
205 – 30 years of Roe v Wade = 175
Abortion was illegal at ALL times for 175 of our 232 year history.
And ONLY since 1973 has it EVER been legal through all nine months.
Our history as a country has NOT supported elective abortion through all nine months.
Our rights are listed in the Constitution. We vote on laws that must meet Constitutional guidelines. Slavery wouldn’t be legal simply because no legislature would have a prayer on passing it. Also, the Constituttion forbids its.
Mary – true, because there is a specific amendment addressing slavery. But in no way are all our rights listed – and the 9th Amendment specifically addresses that too.
…..
Didn’t Casey v PP allow for legislatures to place greater restrictions on abortion?
I don’t know – let me look.
:: look :: look :: look ::
“The Court’s lead plurality opinion upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion but lowered the standard for analyzing restrictions of that right, invalidating one regulation but upholding the others.”
Pennsylvania already had restrictions on abortion, and of those which were contested, the Court upheld all but one. Held to be valid = 24 hour waiting period, informed consent, and parental consent. Held to be invalid = spousal notification.
John M: Because death occurs often, does this mean that this is a ‘normal’ reality to be treated as significant as just-one-more-meal? He (to me) is a ‘kind of expert’ talking about placing red lights.
John, I was wondering – if a person with a terminal condition was for assisted suicide, would you also consider them an “expert”?
Janet,
was thinking about what i wrote and thank you for your considerations. I have always loved the line in ‘Camelot’ when Arthur says: “It’s not: might is right!; It’s might FOR right!”
In my discussion, majority = might.
the constitution comes from ‘the people’ spelling out ‘individual rights’. Can a plurality be anything but majority rule … even if the ‘majority is SC justices’. We call this system democracy … it ain’t even close!
John, in practice that’s very true. Pure democracy is “mob rule.”
In the US there are some individuals with far, far greater input than most of us, i.e. the President, members of Congress, Court judges, etc.
The US is a constitutional republic, and Canada is a parliamentary democracy, right?
Nothing was said in the Constitution that African Americans couldn’t be citizens or sanctioned segregation. It was SC Justices who determined it Constitutional to deny citizenship to African Americans and to permit segregation.
Mary, the Constitution is not about enumerating the cases where rights are not there, any more than it is about enumerating every single right that is.
When it was written, slavery was the case, and for a while the SC did uphold slavery, yes indeed.
yllas: A majority of people wanting fetal chattel slavery/property to be legal would not suceed.
Wrong again. The majority of people in the US are for abortion being legal to a point in gestation. Late enough in gestation – the 3rd trimester – and most people are against elective abortion.
The 2nd trimester is where most of the debate lies.
For the 1st trimester, most people are for abortion being legal (and for the woman making her own decision).
…..
John Mc, is right. all men are created equal, says who?
Said people who wanted to tell King George to go screw off….
This was white, male landowners rejecting “the divine right of kings” and all that jazz.
My point was that between 1803 and 1860, the laws changed a number of times. From after quickening, to before quickening as a misdemeanor, to all abortions being a crime.
MK, you’re still mixing up England and the US. 1803 was a change in England. From 1829 (from what I can find) through the 1860’s or the 1880 area – that was a change in the US.
…..
But from 1803 on it was a misdemeanor BEFORE quickening. That means it was a crime. If one or two states had different laws, they were in the minority.
1803 – United Kingdom enacts Lord Ellenborough’s Act, making abortion after quickening a capital crime, and providing lesser penalties for the felony of abortion before quickening.
“1803” is not significant to the US in this matter. That’s why your numbers were off. In the US, 1803 was just a year in the period of 1776 to whenever a given state set down its own abortion statute, which is from 1829 to 1880, again from what I’ve seen. I do think that most states had abortion pretty much illegal by 1865, but there is conflicting information on that.
…..
Abortion was illegal at ALL times for 175 of our 232 year history.
Not at all. This is what I’ve found – that New York made abortion a misdemeanor before quickening in either 1829 or 1830. Connecticut made it illegal to sell abortifacients (or at least illegal for “apothecaries” to sell them) in 1821, but that’s not the same thing as having abortion illegal.
So, for NY that would mean that abortion was “illegal” (outside of two doctors saying it was okay) for either 140 or 141 years. NY was the first state to put down such a state statute, so for the other states the number of years when abortion was illegal would be less, down to 93 if we take the 1880 figure or 108 for 1865.
Thus, there’s quite a range, and overall it looks to me like it’s been pretty much 50/50 as far as having legal abortion or not.
The constitution, like the Bible, can and has been used as an excuse to ban or legalize virtually anything that individual people or groups happen to approve or disapprove of.
But it doesn’t even say whether we may hold a barbecue or not. No right to privacy ? No right to abortion or homosexual conduct etc ? Ok. Does this mean that the government has the right to put up surveillance cameras in every home just in case some pregnant women might try to abort themselves, and then arrest, prosecute, imprison, or possibly execute them?
Or put up surveillance cameras in every bedroom etc in every home and arrest, prosecute, imprison or possibly execute any one caught having homosexual sex ?
Come on. This sounds more like George Orwell’s 1984 to me than what the constitution and its framers intended.
Or maybe Iran and Saudi Arabia. Is this what we want for America ?
There is nothing in the constitution which mentions whether the consumption of alcohol should be allowed. Most of the founding fathers enjoyed imbibing, though a few were members of temperance organizations.
But years ago, some self-righteous individuals wheedled the government and supreme court into banning liquor. Did it work? Of course not. Speakeasies flourished as well as organized crime.
Suppose some group of wackos in America believed that holding barbecues was a heinous crime and against the Bible and Christianity. Theoretically, they could get the government to make barbecues illegal and give stiff jail sentences to asny one who barbecued.
It’s the same with abortion. When the founding fathers were froming America, abortion was a non-issue. No one mentioned it in polite company. If any of the founding fathers had even mentioned abortion at a meeting, let alone making it illega, the others would have thought he was out of his mind ! They had much bigger fish to fry.
But it doesn’t even say whether we may hold a barbecue or not.
True, Robert. Who knows – perhaps some day there will be an amendment to affirm the rights of women here, or to protect the life of the unborn (not out of the question, though it’d be opening up such a can of worms).
…..
They (the Founding Fathers) had much bigger fish to fry.
Do you think they ever barbecued them?
Doug, 9:00am
My point is these SC justices found what suited them in the Constitution(slavery, denying citizenship to African-Americans, and upholding segregation laws) though it wasn’t in the Constitution! That’s what is frightening!
Robert Berger,
There are certainly state and city laws, as well as local ordinances that protect you, or are supposed to anyway, from having cameras placed in your home, from people peeping in your windows,etc. Laws protect our privacy and our safety, not the Constitution. Of course clever private detectives can circumvent these laws and you’re probably in greater danger from some clever private detective than you ever will be the gov’t.
Also RB, laws regulate alcohol, cigarettes, and yes barbecuing. Wasn’t it in California that barbecues were deemed destructive to the planet and limited or banned?(see, there are wackos who want to ban barbecuing). Also try to be a bar or restaurant owner who wants to permit smoking. The cigarette nazis will be after you, or their lackeys in the local or state gov’t.
Can you step into any bldg these days and not be on camera? Do you consider this a violation of privacy? Why does my trip to the drug store have to be recorded on film?
At my place of employment cameras watch me all the time. In fact I’m on camera right now. SMILE :)
If anything RB you better be concerned about left wing wackos who want to limit your barbecuing, curtail your right to go to a fast food restaurant, tell you how to run your business, tell you where, when, and if you can smoke(including in your own home), as well as what you can or cannot do with your private property. These are the people who really seem to have little regard for your privacy or legal privileges. Oh, and be careful of private detectives as well.
Doug @ 9:26,
Thus, there’s quite a range, and overall it looks to me like it’s been pretty much 50/50 as far as having legal abortion or not.
Pretty much 50/50 – you can’t determine what’s “wanted” by society (your usual litmus test for law-making) if 50% are for legal abortion and 50% are against legal abortion.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
yllas @ 3:22,
Chattel; An item of Personal Property that is movable; it may be animate or inanimate.
A fetus is chattel property of a women.
It’s a sad state of our country when the MSM can overlook this attitude in their favorite presidential candidate.
C-H-A-T-T-E-L = O-B-A-M-A
Correction on italics:
yllas @ 3:22,
Chattel; An item of Personal Property that is movable; it may be animate or inanimate.
A fetus is chattel property of a women.
It’s a sad state of our country when the MSM can overlook this attitude in their favorite presidential candidate.
C-H-A-T-T-E-L = O-B-A-M-A
Doug and Robert Berger,
You may remember a TV movie that came out a year ago or so concerning the true account of a woman who discovered her neighbor had planted cameras in her home. He was able to observe even the most intimate details of her life.
Anyway the woman could take no real legal action against the man. The reason? There were no state or city laws dealing with the use of such modern technology and its illegal use in someone’s home. She had to initiate the passing of such laws even though when they finally were on the books it would be too late to benefit her.
The woman also had to face the humiliation of going public.
Due to the lack of such laws, she apparently had no real rights in this situation.
So, here is a woman who’s privacy, family and home have been violated in the extreme, yet the DA couldn’t do much. Apparently the “right to privacy” is based on whatever laws are on the books at the time, not the Constitution.
Doug 8:37am
So apparently the people of S.Dakota are within the boundaries set by the SC and are do nothing “unconstitutional”.
“Thus, there’s quite a range, and overall it looks to me like it’s been pretty much 50/50 as far as having legal abortion or not.”
Pretty much 50/50 – you can’t determine what’s “wanted” by society (your usual litmus test for law-making) if 50% are for legal abortion and 50% are against legal abortion.
Janet, I don’t think it’s the “litmus test,” but rather just what’s operative – if there is enough sentiment for a law, then it will be. This isn’t saying you or I will agree or disagree with the law, just how it comes to be.
The 50/50 is for abortion being legal prior to quickening – now I’d say viability. After viability/quickening it’s obviously been illegal much more.
Apparently the “right to privacy” is based on whatever laws are on the books at the time, not the Constitution.
Mary, well sure – the Constitution does not operate in a vacuum. Mostly, our rights are not specified within it, but rather have long been established by legal precedent. I’d think if nothing else the guy was guilty of trespassing – her right to privacy operates there.
The Constitution doesn’t work “directly,” does it? I think the actual enforcement is of federal and state laws.
……
So apparently the people of S.Dakota are within the boundaries set by the SC and are do nothing “unconstitutional”.
If you mean the proposed restrictions that were voted down in the last couple years, or the 2008 initiative, then no, such would be unconstitutional per the Roe decision. While the PA restrictions in Casey were found to be okay, they’re not like what SD has on the ballot – really restricitng/banning abortion prior to viability.
Doug 2:43PM
Being he was a trusted neighbor who was allowed access to the house and even given a key when the family was on vacation, I’m not sure trespassing even applied. Its appalling that he walked away with little more than a wrist slapping. It seems our privacy depends more on what laws are on the books than the Constitution, which says nothing about privacy.
This woman couldn’t even make a case her Constitutional rights were violated.
One would think SOMETHING was violated here but apparently not.
I well remember how ballistic abortion groups went after Casey passed the Supreme Court test. Apparently, state enforced restrictions are Constitutional. I would think the groups drawing up this referendum would have lawyers check it out, as well as those who oppose it. I would think if its unconstitutional it wouldn’t even be on the ballot and opposing groups would see to this.
So, here is a woman who’s privacy, family and home have been violated in the extreme, yet the DA couldn’t do much. Apparently the “right to privacy” is based on whatever laws are on the books at the time, not the Constitution.
Posted by: Mary at October 5, 2008 1:22 PM
Con Law 101. The Constitution and Bill of Rights protects us from the government, not from each other. The government can’t invade our privacy, whether other people can or can’t depends on the criminal law.
Being he was a trusted neighbor who was allowed access to the house and even given a key when the family was on vacation, I’m not sure trespassing even applied. Its appalling that he walked away with little more than a wrist slapping. It seems our privacy depends more on what laws are on the books than the Constitution, which says nothing about privacy. This woman couldn’t even make a case her Constitutional rights were violated. One would think SOMETHING was violated here but apparently not.
Mary, Hal has a good point about the Constitution.
That sounds a little to me like the “you must come in of your own free will” – in stories about vampires, they can’t just drag somebody into their abode, the person must enter of their own free will.
If they guy was allowed in the house, then yeah – likely was no statute against it at the time.
Anyway, again – as Hal says – the Constitution gives us privacy from gov’t intervention in our lives.
I well remember how ballistic abortion groups went after Casey passed the Supreme Court test. Apparently, state enforced restrictions are Constitutional.
Mary, well – some are, some aren’t.
…..
I would think the groups drawing up this referendum would have lawyers check it out, as well as those who oppose it. I would think if its unconstitutional it wouldn’t even be on the ballot and opposing groups would see to this.
Heh – the sponsors want a constitutional challenge.
A Republican, Larry Long, the state Attorney General, rolls his eyes and notes that the South Dakota state gov’t would have to pay for defending the law in court, if passed.
yllas: A majority of people wanting fetal chattel slavery/property to be legal would not suceed.
Wrong again. Posted by: Doug at October 5, 2008 .
Wrong again. The majority of people in the US are for abortion being legal to a point in gestation. Late enough in gestation – the 3rd trimester – and most people are against elective abortion.
The 2nd trimester is where most of the debate lies.
For the 1st trimester, most people are for abortion being legal (and for the woman making her own decision).
…..
What difference is there in killing what is your chattel property that is animate Doug, whether the animate chattel property is growing bigger and bigger?
A women own’s her body, It’s her property, and being that her arm,kidney, or fetus is her’s to do with as she wants. So is her chattel property named as fetus.
A majority of people wanting fetal chattel slavery/property to be legal would not suceed.
It has already succeeded, and it matters not what size or age is that animate chattel property that a women has in her possesion, named a fetus.
Total passion, and sensibility with no connection to the SC decision to kill animate chattel property before birth, or after according to Obama.
Fetal chattel slavery/property is legal in the USA. The SC said so. It’s a right.
Majorities don’t matter to the SC, as has been written about till one laughs at such discussions.
A women has the right to kill her animate chattel property at anytime she wants and desires too. And they do.
Sometimes they kill what is their animate chattel property, after being a living human being that has aged and grown in size beyond nine months. And if you think a person who kills what they own, thinks they have done wrong, then you better get that moral compass adjusted to reality as designed by God. You know, the God you grew up with Doug.
Afterall, she made it, she can kill it, and make another just like it. Look at Hal for moral direction on such matters of making another just like it, from knowing that human beings are animate chattel property.
You must agree, if abortion is a natural action of humans, resulting from the full good of sex, then killing what is yours, is not wrong. No matter what a court, you, or anyone says ot does.
And age and time appeals to whether one can kill what is their’s, are distractions of the weak and sick minded, the illogical position of denying the right of a individual of animate chattel property by time and age reasoning, who are decieving themselves, as you are, Doug. Next thing you know, someone is going to deny my taking fish eggs, that I made bear those eggs, and deny my right to eat them.
Or a cow.
In fact dogma Doug, is not the property of a women, the fetus, even though she has been unable to kill her chattel property herself, and hired another person to kill her animate chattel property, has the right to eat her animate chattel property if she wants to?
What reasons can you offer, dogma Doug, in defence of a women not asking the hired killer of her self-property, to “bag it up”, and then eat the fetus in the privacy of her home? What reason may you offer to curtail her right to not eat her fetus in public?
What reasons can you offer in defence of a women, being denied the right to eat what is her animate chattel property, known as a fetus?
John Mc, is right. all men are created equal, says who?
Said people who wanted to tell King George to go screw off….
This was white, male landowners rejecting “the divine right of kings” and all that jazz.
Posted by: Doug at October 5, 2008 9:06 AM
That has got to be one of the worst replies given to the idea of equal right’s origination.
No wonder John MC, seems to speak in tongues to you Doug. You ain’t got a clue, from being unable to read one sentence that doesn’t agree with your dogma, concluding before you read a word, that no one has a good sentence against your dogma, they just think they do.
Another product of brainwashing, and being a good komsomol/soviet student, reciting the ideological, dogmatic history lessons of instructor Joe Steel, and never forgetting those words from repetition upon repetition. Are you related to Tom Tuttle from Tacoma, dogma Doug?
Doug and Hal
Sorry, but the Constitution protects us from gov’t tyranny. Its says nothing about privacy.
Local and state laws are what do, or do not, protect our privacy.
Doug 8:55PM
It likely will be a challenge. The PC side has never been much for the will of the people.
yllas,
Your chattel/fetus analogy is very good!
Did you see the link I posted for you a few days ago? If I could remember where I put it, I’d tell you…… sorry!
God bless you.
comment3,
comment3, http://surstsynisg.stinkdot.org/index.html “>patch a wall, =-DD,
comment4, http://cujrvbdkk.justfree.com/buspirone-patch.htm “>sentinel patch, :OOO,
yllas: What difference is there in killing what is your chattel property that is animate Doug, whether the animate chattel property is growing bigger and bigger?
You were wrong about “the majority of people” yllas, that’s the bottom line. Development makes a difference to people. Sentience makes a difference to people (not everybody granted, but a lot). There are many reasons why there is much more sentiment against late-term abortion versus early-term. You have the vast resources of the internet at your fingertips, and I bet you could find out such a thing yourself, actually.
And, you can always ask people. Personally, it makes a difference to me when there is sentience, when there is “somebody” there, versus just an insensate, non-conscious, unaware organism.
…..
You must agree, if abortion is a natural action of humans, resulting from the full good of sex, then killing what is yours, is not wrong. No matter what a court, you, or anyone says ot does.
Not at all. Why would I agree? This is just you getting wacky again.
Women are not your chattel, that you can tell them what to do in this matter – that too is the bottom line.
John Mc, is right. all men are created equal, says who?
“Said people who wanted to tell King George to go screw off….”
“This was white, male landowners rejecting “the divine right of kings” and all that jazz.”
yllas: That has got to be one of the worst replies given to the idea of equal right’s origination.
No – that’s where what John was talking about came from.
You are thinking about other stuff, but if you cannot throw off your confusion enough to address what actually was said, then so be it.
Sorry, but the Constitution protects us from gov’t tyranny. Its says nothing about privacy.\
Mary, it’s part and parcel of it – we have privacy from gov’t intrusion into our lives, without there being a good enough reason otherwise. People came from Europe, etc., to the “new world” to get such a deal. The right to privacy, in a variety of ways, has never been in doubt, and it’s be reaffirmed many times by Supreme Courts of various makeup.
Once again – in no way just “what the Constitution says.” Much more of our rights exist beyond what is enumerated there, versus what is spelled out.
The PC side has never been much for the will of the people.
Not when it comes to rights. If a majority of the people were for slavery, now, Pro-Choicers would not be with them. And Pro-Choicers are not for taking away the rights that women have in the matter of continuing or ending pregnancies, either.
Doug,
People came to the New World to flee gov’t tyranny. The Constitution was written to protect you from it. “Privacy” at one time was construed to permit wife beating. It can be dangerous when justices are free to look for and implement what they “see” though it is not written. Just ask Black Americans.
Face it Doug, the PC side had to force abortion on the American people through a sympathetic SC court. Why not let the American people speak through their elected representatives and overturn abortion laws? Becasue maybe it would have never happened.
Protecting rights? Don’t make me laugh Doug. This represents little better than a judicial dictatorship, right along with Dred Scott. And please Doug, slavery is mentioned and forbidden in the Constitution. Abortion is not.
“Privacy” at one time was construed to permit wife beating. It can be dangerous when justices are free to look for and implement what they “see” though it is not written. Just ask Black Americans.
Mary, as I said, however, the SC rarely if ever takes away rights. It may have been slow in including blacks under the Constitution, yes, from our viewpoint now, but it’s not like the SC is going to be “dangerous” and take away the rights of blacks at this point. And actually – it was the Constitution being amended that truly made the biggest steps for blacks. Prior to that, the SC was not deciding in opposition to what the Constitution said.
I hear you on wife beating. Nevertheless, that concepts of liberty, privacy, etc., are implied if not stated in the Constitution isn’t in doubt.
…..
Face it Doug, the PC side had to force abortion on the American people through a sympathetic SC court.
Just like the abolition of slavery had to be forced on the American people.
Doug,
I disagree. The SC has taken away rights, ask Black Americans, by seeing in the Constitution what isn’t there, i.e. that Black Americans could not be citizens and segregation was sanctioned. The SC was not deciding against what the Constitution said, they were seeing in the Constitution what wasn’t.
The abolition of slavery came about as the end result of a war, though the struggle against it had been ongoing for generations. Southern master/slave society had been decimated, the federal gov’t took over, blacks fled. For that matter, staying in the Union was forced on Americans as well. Most states did not have legalized slavery at the time.
Thanks to the Supreme Court finding support for segregation in the Constitution, a means of keeping the newly freed blacks in their “place” was sanctioned.
Doug,
Also while privacy may be implied, one can read anything they want into something, the fact is the Founding Fathers concerned themselves first and foremost with protecting citizens from gov’t tyranny, i.e. forced searches of homes, confiscation of property, torture, forced confessions, etc.
I disagree. The SC has taken away rights, ask Black Americans, by seeing in the Constitution what isn’t there, i.e. that Black Americans could not be citizens and segregation was sanctioned.
Mary, that’s not taking away rights. Blacks didn’t have rights in the US prior to those SC decisions you are talking about.
…..
And I hear you on “protecting us from tyranny,” and tyranny is what many people would see it as were blacks to have rights taken away from them, and what many people would see it as were women to have rights taken away from them.
(Just ask Bob Berger ; ) )
Doug,
The SC judges read what they wanted into in the Constitution. The Constitution said nothing about Black people not having rights. It said nothing about segregation. Perhaps if the SC judges had done their job, there would have been no Dred Scott or segregation.
Tyranny, like privacy, can be defined as one sees fit. The fact remains the Constitution, like segregation, says nothing about abortion.
Both are examples of what SC justices “saw” the Constitution as implying.
Mary: The SC judges read what they wanted into in the Constitution. The Constitution said nothing about Black people not having rights. It said nothing about segregation.
The fact remains that those decisions did not take away rights.
…..
The fact remains the Constitution, like segregation, says nothing about abortion.
Sure, just like it does not specifically address very many things like that at all. That’s not what it’s there for.
Doug,
Dred Scott most certainly did take away rights, as did the sanctioning of segregation and second class citizenship for black Americans.
The Constitution is there to give us a foundation. The people make laws through their elected representatives.
Nope, Mary, Dred Scott decision affirmed no rights – not the same thing as taking away.
Doug,
The SC can giveth and the SC can taketh away. I KNOW Dred Scott affirmed no rights. It took away rights, unless of course you were a slaveholder. The Constitution made no exception for Black people nor did it ever specify that black Americans could not be citizens.
This was the rather biased interpretation of the SC.
You’re still looking at it backwards. It’s not the Constitution’s job to enumerate everything.
The Scott decision didn’t change anything for blacks; still no rights (so to speak).
Doug,
Its the SC’s responsibility to interpret the Constitution and not create rights that don’t exist, or deny rights that exist.
Constitutionally, though not legally, blacks had rights. The Constitution said nothing to the contrary. Put simply, there was no Constitutional basis to deny black Americans their rights as they were denied in the Dred Scott and Plessy decisions.
It’s the SC’s responsibility to interpret the Constitution and not create rights that don’t exist, or deny rights that exist.
True, Mary, but you are supposing that rights existed where they did not, and denying that they appear where they do. You could say, for example, that there is no implied right to privacy in the Constitution. Vast numbers of people would disagree with you, and the Supreme Court would too. So, what then?
…..
Constitutionally, though not legally, blacks had rights.
No they didn’t, until the 13th Amendment, the Emancipation Proclamation, etc. Again, going back to the white, male landowners – pretty much everybody else wasn’t treated the same, women included – and that too was later addressed by Court rulings on state laws, the Equal Rights Amendment (though not passed yet), and the affirmation of women’s rights by many court decisions.
…..
The Constitution said nothing to the contrary.
For the manyeth time, that doesn’t matter.
…..
Put simply, there was no Constitutional basis to deny black Americans their rights as they were denied in the Dred Scott and Plessy decisions.
Even if somebody agreed with you, they could then say there is no Constitutional basis to deny women the rights they now have, by your logic.
Doug,
So what if they disagree with me about privacy? Its a matter of opinion. You show me where the Constitution specifically mentions privacy and you’ve won.
OK, where did the Constitution make exceptions and specify to what race and gender of people rights belonged? The SC found Constitutional support for segregation. WHERE did the Constitution say anything about segregation?
WHERE did the Constitution specify black people were slaves with no rights?
WHERE did the Constitution specify women did not have rights?
What I’m saying Doug is people were denied rights by law and because of bias. None of this was justified by the Constitution. SC justices doing their job would never have supported Dred Scott or Jim Crow because nowhere in the Constitution was it said black people couldn’t be citizens and the issue of segregation even addressed. This was “seen” in the Constitution by biased justices.
Amendments were added to the Constitution so that women could not legally be denied the vote and black people could not be legally be enslaved. It recognized these groups had rights, but the Constitution never specified that they did not have rights.
Tenderizing that dead equine….
Mary, the Constitution “not specifying” does not matter. It’s not the purpose of it to specify, like that.
Yes, the extent of our privacy is a matter of opinion, but there is enormous legal precedent that affirms our privacy, and again – quite a bit of the desire for a “new country” that became the US was in order for people to have greater privacy from governmental and church intrusion into their lives.
There is no “denying rights” if rights have not been attributed. Were the Constitution now changed to permit slavery of blacks, that would be a taking away of rights – lessening freedom.
That freedom was not present, however, in 1776 or 1789 or prior to the 13th Amendment, etc.
Doug,
I know the Constitution “not specifying” doesn’t matter. That’s how justices have been able to read into the Constitution what isn’t there, such as the sanction of segregation.
Yes there may well be legal precedent for privacy, but it is not listed in the Constitution. Certainly laws protect our privacy. The woman who’s neighbor set up secret cameras in her home couldn’t go after this guy for violating her Constitutional right to privacy. It wasn’t even a consideration. She had virtually no legal recourse against him and had to go through her lawmaker and the legislative process to prevent this from happening to someone else.
Doug, people wanted less gov’t tyranny, not so much privacy. They did not want the gov’t free to invade your home, seize your property, deny your rights on a whim, and extract forced confessions.
Certainly legal rights were denied, but the fact remains the Constitution itself made no exception for race or gender when our rights were enumerated. These were the actions of lawmaking bodies based on public support and biases. In fact all blacks were not enslaved at the time of the Civil War or the passing of the 13th Amendment. Many were legally free and had been for generations. The 13th Amendment meant no laws could ever be passed to enslave people, it did not change the Constitution which never sanctioned slavery to begin with.
Certainly legal rights were denied, but the fact remains the Constitution itself made no exception for race or gender when our rights were enumerated.
That’s just it – our rights are not enumerated in the first place.
it did not change the Constitution which never sanctioned slavery to begin with
And of course it never sanctioned taking away womens’ right to abortion.
Doug,
Our Constitutional rights ARE enumerated. The people determine legal rights through their elected representatives.
The Constitution did not sanction abortion anymore than it sanctioned slavery. It initially did not forbid laws for or against either, though it eventually did forbid laws supporting slavery.
Does anything in the Constitution support or prohibit laws on abortion? No, the Constitution never sanctioned taking away the “right” to abortion, it also never sanctioned any “right” to abortion. This was a matter that was for years left to the representatives of the people and no changes to the Constitution, such as the 13th Amendment, ever took place.
Not all constitutional rights are enumerated, Mary, not by a long shot. Much is a matter of interpretation.
It’s really not the purpose of the Constitution to “sanction” this or that.
But if you want to hang your hat on what is not prohibited in the Constitution, then of course abortion is one of those.
Doug,
Our Constitutional rights are enumerated, our legal rights and privileges are granted by the representatives of the people.
Yes much is a matter of interpretation, or bias, such as determining the Constitution sanctioned segregation when in fact it does not do so anywhere.
Mary, so then by your logic it’s certainly not sanctioned to take away the rights that women currently have in the matter of continuing and ending pregnancies.
Doug,
By my logic abortion was never a Constitutional right and you’ve never shown me where it is.
When have women not had the right to continue a pregnancy?
Nobody says abortion is mentioned in the Constitution. The point is that rights don’t have to be mentioned in the Constitution.
Continuing a pregnancy is not at issue. Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choicers agree that the woman should be free to do that.
Doug,
Those “rights” not mentioned in the Constitution are the ones designated by our lawmakers.
I’m glad we finally agree the Constitution says nothing about abortion and does not designate it as a right.
Those “rights” not mentioned in the Constitution are the ones designated by our lawmakers.
Mary, no, for the most part. The rights implied but not enumerated in the Constitution greatly outnumber the ones that are specifically mentioned, and state law (for example) cannot trump them.
…..
I’m glad we finally agree the Constitution says nothing about abortion and does not designate it as a right.
No, it doesn’t say anything directly about abortion, but that is not the purpose of the Constitution.
The 9th Amendment supports womens’ rights as they now have them.
Doug,
“Implied” can mean anything a person wants and can be dangerous. Just ask Black Americans who were denied their rights because SC Justices saw the legality of segregation “implied” in the Constitution.
Why do we have legislatures Doug? Its so laws can be made and the people can have a voice in making them. Our Founding Fathers certainly knew all laws could not be covered in the Constitution, they could only lay down the foundation and enumerate basic rights that state laws could not interfere with, such as religious freedom and freedom of the press.
What is the purpose of the Constitution if not to enumerate our rights, which it does, and provide a foundation?
Where in the 9th Amendment is there anything about abortion? Did you forget that the SC justices had to look in steam and shadows to find this “right”. Probably the same place they found the “right” of states to segregate black citizens.
“Implied” can mean anything a person wants and can be dangerous.
Mary, yes but there are concepts of liberty and freedom in the Constitution that really are not at issue. I know you don’t like the right to privacy extended to women having abortions, but there is enormous legal precedent for this.
…..
Just ask Black Americans who were denied their rights because SC Justices saw the legality of segregation “implied” in the Constitution.
It wasn’t a case of “denying” rights, it was that rights weren’t attributed at that time. The Amendments took care of that.
However, if we go with the “should not have been denied,” then that obviously applies to women’s rights, which were attributed at the time of the Constitution’s writing, i.e. abortion to a point in gestation was okay. In the here and now, rights could be taken away from blacks and from women, too, and I do not want that.
…..
Why do we have legislatures Doug? Its so laws can be made and the people can have a voice in making them. Our Founding Fathers certainly knew all laws could not be covered in the Constitution, they could only lay down the foundation and enumerate basic rights that state laws could not interfere with, such as religious freedom and freedom of the press.
The core of the Constitution is aimed at liberty and freedom for the people. Legislatures are to make laws, but in this country they are not to go against the Constitution. Should we vote on whether to reinstitute slavery for blacks? Of course not. Likewise, let’s let women retain the freedom they too have.
…..
What is the purpose of the Constitution if not to enumerate our rights, which it does, and provide a foundation?
To keep the gov’t off our backs.
…..
Where in the 9th Amendment is there anything about abortion?
Where it says that mentioning some few rights does not “deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Abortion to a point in gestation was a right then.
You mentioned slavery, and this was later addressed by constitutional amendment. After those amendments, laws which negated or restricted the rights that blacks were now accorded should/would be found unconstitutional.
As to abortion, women already had the right, to quickening. From 1776 on, it should have been protected by the Constitution. Our system is not perfect and it took a long time, until 1973 in fact, to right this wrong.
Doug,
There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. There are laws to protect our privacy, but not a Constitutional right. Remember the woman who’s home and privacy were violated by her neighbor? There was no mention of any Constitutional rights where her privacy was concerned. This was a matter for the legislature. If anything, she was guilty of a consitutional violation by entering her neighbor’s home illegally and removing the videos taken of her without a search warrant!
What’s the enormmous legal precedent to you’re talking about?
No Doug, it was a case of denying rights by reading into the Constitution that which wasn’t there, i.e. the sanction of segregation. The 13th Amendment meant no laws can be passed permitting slavery. There was never any sanction of slavery in the Constitution prior to the 13th Amendment. This was a matter left to state legislatures.
Doug both slavery and abortion(you say) were legal at the time the Constitution was written. Neither were mentioned in the Constititution. Slave ownership and abortion were not seen as Constituional rights.
How could rights be taken from blacks Doug? Do you think laws will be passed reinstating Jim Crow? Think they would pass Constitutional scrutiny? Sure, the day after snow flies in hell.
Of course laws cannot go against the Constitution but the Constitution says nothing about abortion! Period. Good grief Doug the justices had to look for this “right” in smoke and shadows. Probably the same places they found the constitutionality of “seperate but equal”.
The Constitution protects us from gov’t tyranny. You cannot be forced into testifying against yourself (taking the 5th), and the gov’t can’t barge into your home on a whim, looking for “evidence” to throw you in prison with.
Get the gov’t off our backs? Yeah right. Ever hear of the IRS?
Doug abortion was a “right” then like slavery was. Neither were sanctioned by the Constitution. Both were decided by state legislatures.
Yes laws sanctioning segregation certainly should have been found unconstitutional, for the simple reason nothing in the Constitution sanctioned segregation. However, the SC justices apparently saw it “implied” in the Constitution, largely aided by their own biases.
Whether or not you think abortion is a “right” that should have been put in the Constitution is irrelevant. It wasn’t. As such it was an issue for the people to decide through their elected representatives.
There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. There are laws to protect our privacy, but not a Constitutional right. Remember the woman who’s home and privacy were violated by her neighbor? There was no mention of any Constitutional rights where her privacy was concerned. This was a matter for the legislature. If anything, she was guilty of a consitutional violation by entering her neighbor’s home illegally and removing the videos taken of her without a search warrant!
What’s the enormmous legal precedent to you’re talking about?
Mary, there have been many court rulings affirming the principles of freedom and liberty in the Constitution, and that includes privacy. The woman’s neighbor would be guilty of trespassing, no? Considering the videos of her were taken inside her house, (right?), then yes – the state could make laws about that, as opposed to videos outside in “public” places. Such a state law would be further affirmation of the right to privacy.
…..
No Doug, it was a case of denying rights by reading into the Constitution that which wasn’t there, i.e. the sanction of segregation.
You still have it backwards. The Constitution is not about enumerating and mentioning “everything.” People had slaves when the Constitution was written – there need be no “sanction” of it for it to continue – it was already accepted.
…..
The 13th Amendment meant no laws can be passed permitting slavery. There was never any sanction of slavery in the Constitution prior to the 13th Amendment. This was a matter left to state legislatures.
And the Amendment was then saying that blacks had rights, that people born in the US had rights, etc. This was a change from the past. There didn’t have to be any “sanction” of slavery prior to that. After that would be when it would have to be sanctioned.
…..
Doug both slavery and abortion(you say) were legal at the time the Constitution was written. Neither were mentioned in the Constititution. Slave ownership and abortion were not seen as Constituional rights.
No, they were seen as Constitutional rights, and this was further affirmed in 1789(?) by the 9th Amendment. The Constitution delegates powers to the gov’t, and in the absence of that, the people retain their rights. It’s not that something has to be mentioned in the Constitution for people to have it as a right, it’s that the gov’t can’t go beyond what the Constitution permits.
…..
How could rights be taken from blacks Doug? Do you think laws will be passed reinstating Jim Crow? Think they would pass Constitutional scrutiny? Sure, the day after snow flies in hell.
Right, not gonna happen, huh? I also don’t think the rights that women how have will be taken away.
…..
Of course laws cannot go against the Constitution but the Constitution says nothing about abortion! Period. Good grief Doug the justices had to look for this “right” in smoke and shadows. Probably the same places they found the constitutionality of “seperate but equal”.
Again, the Constitution doesn’t have to say anything about it, specifically. The 9th Amendment covers it plenty well.
…..
The Constitution protects us from gov’t tyranny. You cannot be forced into testifying against yourself (taking the 5th), and the gov’t can’t barge into your home on a whim, looking for “evidence” to throw you in prison with.
Get the gov’t off our backs? Yeah right. Ever hear of the IRS?
Some people argue that the IRS is unconstitutional – I don’t know it’s even been seriously challenged. But, yes – the main deal with the Constitution is limiting powers of gov’t.
…..
Doug abortion was a “right” then like slavery was. Neither were sanctioned by the Constitution. Both were decided by state legislatures.
No, they had been rights under common law, and remained so when the Constitution was written.
…..
Yes laws sanctioning segregation certainly should have been found unconstitutional, for the simple reason nothing in the Constitution sanctioned segregation.
Nope, not true – you’re looking at it backwards again. That’s not what the Constitution’s for.
…..
However, the SC justices apparently saw it “implied” in the Constitution, largely aided by their own biases.
The Amendments concerning slavery changed things, and later Court rulings were per that. Before that, was the federal gov’t to tell the people (and the states) what to do, concerning slavery? No.
…..
Whether or not you think abortion is a “right” that should have been put in the Constitution is irrelevant. It wasn’t. As such it was an issue for the people to decide through their elected representatives.
No, just as we don’t now vote on slavery, since it’s seen as a violation of rights, we also don’t vote on the rights women now have. Abortion rights don’t have to be put in the Constitution, although perhaps it’d end a lot of the arguing…..?
Doug,
This woman had to go to the legislature to get laws passed against such invasion of privacy! She didn’t have a legal, or apparently even a Constitutional leg to stand on. Not even tresspassing since she had allowed him in her home and as a trusted neighbor he had a housekey.
If anything HIS constitutinal rights were violated when she entered his home illegally and removed his videos of her without a warrant!
Doug, whatever the laws at the time, slavery was not put in the Constitution. It was not a Constitutional right, period. It was left to the legislatures to regulate.
The 13th Amendment ended slavery. Legislatures could no longer sanction it. It did nothing to guarantee the rights of black people as Plessy v Ferguson would later indicate. The Constitution never addressed the issue of slavery to begin with.
Blacks could not be citizens under the SC Dred Scott decision. Another example of seeing something “implied” in the Constitution by justices with their own agenda. Again, nothing in the Constitution said black people couldn’t be citizens.
Doug those issues not mentioned in the Constitution are determined by the legislatures.
Abortion and slavery were never Constitutional rights because they were never mentioned. They may have been legal “rights”, that did not make them Constitutional guarantees. Just as the privacy situation with the woman I mentioned. She had NO constitutional right to privacy, laws protecting her and the rest of us would have to be initiated by the legislature.
OK, show me where the Constituion sanctions segregation.
Again, laws promoting slavery could not be passed because it is specifically mentioned and prohibited by the Constitution. Abortion is NOT mentioned anywhere.
As for the IRS I have no idea if its Constitutional. I know its a pain in the neck. Its also a very effective weapon the gov’t has to intimidate us. So much for getting the gov’t off our backs.
Oh and Doug, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over whether or not Jim Crow laws will be reestablished. Apparently Whoopi Goldberg expressed some concern that slavery would be reinstituted if McCain won. Exactly the kind of stupidity I expect from Whoopi.
Doug those issues not mentioned in the Constitution are determined by the legislatures
Only as long as they don’t violate the Constitution – the wording and the spirit of it. There are many freedoms arising from it, though they are not all enumerated; the 9th Amendment partially adresses that.
…..
.
Abortion and slavery were never Constitutional rights because they were never mentioned.
They both were, prior to the banning of slavery. Abortion remains so to this day.
…..
OK, show me where the Constituion sanctions segregation.
It doesn’t, of course.
Show me where it sanctions taking away the rights that women have in the matter of willfully continuing a pregnancy or ending it. Same deal.
…..
Oh and Doug, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over whether or not Jim Crow laws will be reestablished. Apparently Whoopi Goldberg expressed some concern that slavery would be reinstituted if McCain won. Exactly the kind of stupidity I expect from Whoopi.
Not an issue, due to the 13th Amendment, etc.
I like to debate the issue, but maybe we need an amendment for women’s rights on abortion, to viability, anyway, to settle things down. Slavery isn’t an issue, really, anymore….
You may be right about Whoopi, but IMO a much smater person, who served in three Republican administrations, Colin Powell, noted that McCain’s choice of Palin shows there is rightful concern about his judgment.
Doug,
Of course laws can’t violate the Constitution. The Constitution clearly enumerates our rights. State law can’t outlaw religion or institute slavery.
Doug, slavery and abortion were never Constitutional rights. They were legal rights. The Constitution says NOTHING about either prior to the 13th Amendment.
Finally you see my point. Segregation was never in the Constitution. It was “found” by judges with an agenda.
The Constitution says nothing about anyone’s reproductive rights. This is a matter left to the states. I know of no laws regulating or banning pregnancy. The people supported laws that protected the unborn, the justices looked into smoke and shadows and revoked all of them.
As for Colin Powell’s opinion of Sarah Palin, hardly unbiased since he’s endorsed Obama, you might ask the good general to list the qualifications of Barack Obama.
Oh and tell that to Whoopi. She’s not particularly bright.
Doug,
BTW, Joe Biden at one time questioned Obama’s ability as well. Something about the presidency not being the place for on the job training, Obama’s cutting off funding of the troops, and his ability to be Commander in Chief. I’d be more concerned about that than what Powell says about Sarah.
Mary, Palin has been an increasing liability as time has gone on; that’s about it. McCain cannot win without a lot of moderates and independents, and Palin has alienated more and more of those, again, as time has gone on.
Right – state law can’t say “yes” to slavery, since the Constitution was amended to address it. And if we would have an amendment to “settle things,” as I said, then the abortion debate wouldn’t be what it is.
In lieu of that, however, people’s freedom and liberty is still protected under the Constitution quite a bit, beyond the rights that are enumerated within it (of course). Per the 9th amendment, state law cannot say “yes” to taking away women’s rights (any more than it can to okaying slavery) or anymore than it can to making it illegal to walk outdoors on a Thursday.
It was not that segregation was “found” in the Constitution, it was that it wasn’t an issue when it was written. Later, it became an issue, and it was dealt with.
There are plenty of laws regulating pregnancy – I think it’s 41 states that have restrictions on abortion.
Prior to the amendments, you say that slavery “shouldn’t” have been supported by the courts. Well, okay, your opinion, but likewise many people feel that there should be no taking away of the rights that women have, and they have them now, whereas the slaves did not have them at the time.
Those who are for women retaining their rights have the 9th Amendment on their side, plus the law, plus the fact that abortion to quickening was okay under common law.
You are arguing against common law, against the 9th Amendment, and against current law.
I will agree that slavery is wrong, but I also say that taking away the freedom that women have is wrong, and there is a much stronger current argument for abortion rights than there was against slavery prior to the Constitution being amended.
Not saying that abortion is the same, but as for,
Doug,
Please, Obama’s own VP candidate has questioned Obama’s ability to lead. He recently predicted that if elected, Obama’s inexperience may tempt our enemies to “test” him. Very reasssuring. Hopefully Biden can be of some help in such a situation. You were saying something about a liability?
If there were an amendment concerning abortion then one could say it was a Constitutional right. Until that time it is not.
The Constitution serves as a foundation. Laws are made by the representatives of the people and must meet Constitutional standards, i.e., a legislature cannot ban religion or reinstitute slavery.
“Seperate but equal”(segregation) was ruled constitutional. It was “found” in the Constitution by justices with an agenda. The Constitution said nothing about “seperate but equal”.
Those laws regulate abortion, not pregnancy. I wish there was a law against certain people having children.
Abortion util “quickening”, which may not be felt until the 5th or 6th month, was the only determining factors our forebearers had to determine prenatal life. Their ignorance was understandable. Please point out where the 9th Amendment sanctions abortion.
Doug, Please, Obama’s own VP candidate has questioned Obama’s ability to lead. He recently predicted that if elected, Obama’s inexperience may tempt our enemies to “test” him. Very reasssuring. Hopefully Biden can be of some help in such a situation. You were saying something about a liability?
Politics, Mary. It was shameful how McCain toadied to Bush Jr. in the last election after the way Bush treated him. Nothing like the prominent Republicans now seeing Palin as an anchor around McCain’s neck.
…..
If there were an amendment concerning abortion then one could say it was a Constitutional right. Until that time it is not.
Nope – once again, and for the manyeth time, you’re looking at it backwards. “Enumeration” is not the deal, and it says so in the Constitution.
…..
The Constitution serves as a foundation. Laws are made by the representatives of the people and must meet Constitutional standards, i.e., a legislature cannot ban religion or reinstitute slavery.
Since slavery was later addressed by the Constitution, yes. In the meantime, states cannot take away the rights that women have in the matter of continuing or ending pregnancies. If there would be an Amendment to further clarify it, then it’d be more “settled,” but that affirmation of women’s rights is not needed for what I say to be true.
…..
“Seperate but equal”(segregation) was ruled constitutional. It was “found” in the Constitution by justices with an agenda. The Constitution said nothing about “seperate but equal”.
Okay, so you don’t think that slavery should have been affirmed prior to the 13th Amendment etc. Okay, I agree with you. Same for it not being affirmed that “women should not have the rights they do.”
…..
Those laws regulate abortion, not pregnancy. I wish there was a law against certain people having children.
Heh – me too, but it’s so subjective – ain’t gonna happen.
…..
Abortion until “quickening”, which may not be felt until the 5th or 6th month, was the only determining factors our forebearers had to determine prenatal life. Their ignorance was understandable. Please point out where the 9th Amendment sanctions abortion.
Been there, done that.
Come on Doug,
Politics? Its the first time Biden’s gotten it right! Face it, the guy is inept and inexperienced. Even Biden has acknowledged this fact again. If you can give me a list of his credentials, please do.
Doug, you said yourself an amendment would resolve the issue once and for all. It would. It would put abortion in the Constitution which it isn’t now.
I don’t think a “right” to slavery ever should have been affirmed and it never was.
Doug, please point out in the 9th Amendment where abortion is sanctioned.
Politics? Its the first time Biden’s gotten it right! Face it, the guy is inept and inexperienced. Even Biden has acknowledged this fact again. If you can give me a list of his credentials, please do.
Mary, the only “inept” one is Palin, of the four. Even many Republicans acknowledge this – there’s a show on CNN / Larry King right now about it.
….
Doug, you said yourself an amendment would resolve the issue once and for all. It would. It would put abortion in the Constitution which it isn’t now.
If it really needs to be codified further, yes. But it does not – it’s legal to viability and after that the states, if they want to, can restrict it. Abortion was legal in 1776, 1789, etc., and later was not made illegal on Constittuitonal grounds, and the Roe decision was in in line with that, and in line with the priciples of liberty and freedom in the Constitution.
…..
I don’t think a “right” to slavery ever should have been affirmed and it never was.
Actually, I think you’ve mentioned Supreme Court decisions prior to the 13th Amendment, the Emancipation Proclamation, etc., which did just that.
…..
Doug, please point out in the 9th Amendment where abortion is sanctioned.
When it was written, abortion was a right. No, it, like most things, was not mentioned specifically in the Constitution. It was another right.
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
So, just because a thing isn’t mentioned in no way means it’s not a right – so says the Constitution.
Doug,
Please, the list of Obama’s qualifications.
Again it doesn’t matter what both abortion and slavery were legal when the Constititution was written. Neither were listed as Constitutional rights. They were left to the people and their elected representatives. The 13th Amendment meant slavery was no longer such an issue. No amendments were passed concerning abortion.
The 9th doesn’t specify abortion. How were laws ever enacted against abortion if the 9th was to prevent them? After all the 13th stopped the passage of any slavery laws.
The Emancipation Proclamation had nothing to do with the Supreme Court and historians have disagreed over exactly what motivated it. It was issued by President Lincoln. I’m sure the slaves who were freed couldn’t care less what motivated Lincoln.
I’m glad we finally agree that abortion was never in the Constitution and as such was never a constitutional right. It was covered by state laws, as was slavery up until the 13th Amendment.
Mary: Again it doesn’t matter what both abortion and slavery were legal when the Constititution was written. Neither were listed as Constitutional rights. They were left to the people and their elected representatives. The 13th Amendment meant slavery was no longer such an issue. No amendments were passed concerning abortion.
Oh yes it does matter. Abortion was not left to the people’s elected representatives – it was legal to quickening if the woman wanted to end the pregnancy. It was covered under the 9th Amendment as in “others” (other rights) that though not enumerated were there nonetheless and supported by the Constitution. The Constitution is about upholding the rights of the people and keeping the gov’t from messing with them too much – in no way does a right have to be “listed” there.
…..
The 9th doesn’t specify abortion. How were laws ever enacted against abortion if the 9th was to prevent them? After all the 13th stopped the passage of any slavery laws.
Yes, the 13th – and that’s why I said that FOCA or something could settle things down a bit. Were Roe codified more into law, the debate about post viability abortions would continue, though there’s not much argument there anyway. The rights of women would be more secure, and for pre-viability abortions things would be less prone to change.
The 9th Amendment is not about enumerating specific rights – heck, it’s about saying that rights don’t have to be “in” the Constitution to be supported by it. In no way is the Constitution about listing everything.
The Roe decison did not say that “things have changed” with respect to women’s rights – it said that state laws violated Constitutional rights of privacy, liberty, freedom, etc., and that the state, prior to viability, doesn’t have a compelling need to take away those rights. Roe is saying that most anti-abortion laws were wrong, all along.
…..
I don’t think a “right” to slavery ever should have been affirmed and it never was.
“Actually, I think you’ve mentioned Supreme Court decisions prior to the 13th Amendment, the Emancipation Proclamation, etc., which did just that.”
The Emancipation Proclamation had nothing to do with the Supreme Court and historians have disagreed over exactly what motivated it. It was issued by President Lincoln. I’m sure the slaves who were freed couldn’t care less what motivated Lincoln.
Anyway, the right to have slaves had indeed been affirmed prior.
…..
I’m glad we finally agree that abortion was never in the Constitution and as such was never a constitutional right. It was covered by state laws, as was slavery up until the 13th Amendment.
Well, it’s a right that is certainly supported by the Constitution.
Doug,
I don’t care if it was legal!! It was not put in the Constitution so like slavery, it was left to the people’s representatives to regulate. How were laws passed regulating abortion if the 9th forbade it? Law weren’t passed legalizing slavery once the 13th Amendment forbade it.
I know the Constitution isn’t about enumerating everything. Its a foundation. The legislatures and people do the rest.
Doug, get real. Do you think abortion would have been regulated by the state legislature all the years prior to Roe if the Constitution had truly forbidden such regulation? No lawyer or legislature wouldn’t have challenged this decades before Roe? How many laws forbidding religious freedom have been passed? How many laws permitting slavery have been passed since the 13th? It was “found” in the Constitution just as “seperate but equal” was “found” in the Constitution.
The “right” to own slaves was not in the Constitution. It was considered a legal “right” and was regulated by the states.
If abortion has always been a “right” supported by the Constitution, how did laws exist for decades outlawing it?
Mary, it wasn’t “left to the people’s representatives to regulate.” It was a common law right, and was thus supported by the 9th Amendment. Yes, laws were passed that really should not have been, but the system is not perfect. It took quite a while, but that one wrong was righted in 1973.
Religious freedom is in the Constitution, so I don’t think laws forbidding it have been passed. That’s what I mean about FOCA settling things down – some of the attempts to chip away at women’s rights wouldn’t happen, with FOCA in place. Same for the 13th Amendment and slavery – it certainly clarified things, not to mention bring a big change. With FOCA we wouldn’t be talking about a big change, just an affirmation of the rights that were wrongly taken away/restricted prior to Roe.
I can certainly understand you thinking it was wrong for slavery to be permitted prior to the 13th Amendment. You ought to be able to see that many people don’t want women’s rights restricted, FOCA or not.
Doug,
Abortion, like slavery, was left to the people’s representatives. It took until 1973 for someone to figure out the 9th Amendment sanctioned abortion, even if they had to look in smoke and shadows to find it? Thank heaven it didn’t take that long for someone to realize slavery was forbidden by the 13th or that the Constitution mandates religious freedom.
FOCA would only be legislation, not a constitutional amendment. Why would FOCA be necessary if the Constitution clearly states abortion is a right? Do we need a piece of legislation to guarantee religious freedom?
Mary, if we are going for codifying things, like the 13th Amendment did for slavery, then to uphold the rights of women, like the rights of blacks were upheld, perhaps we do need FOCA or similar.
It’s not “smoke and mirrors” – there have been numerous court decisions affirming our right to privacy, and again – the principles of freedom and liberty in the Constitution support people having freedom of action, provided they don’t infringe on the rights of others and provided the state does not have compelling interest otherwise.
An amendment would have greater force yet, but FOCA would “settle things down,” as I said. Despite the clear affirmation of privacy, freedom, liberty, etc., by court rulings, there are still people who want to take away the freedom that women how have, and FOCA would slow them down, to say the least.
Somewhat related:
Doug,
CBS news poll? I have never known the MSM to be lacking in bias. Also, wording makes a great difference. People who support abortion for rape, incest, and threat to the life of the mother may answer abortion is a good thing. I think an accurate poll requires a number of questions and circumstances.
Doug, like it or not, the SC justices found this right in smoke and shadows, literally.
Face it Doug, if this was in the constitution, it would not have taken until 1973 to find it. Like “seperate but equal” if was “found” by justices with an agenda.
Also if it is indeed in the Constitution, no piece of legislation is necessary.
Doug, like it or not, the SC justices found this right in smoke and shadows, literally.
Mary, you could have said the same thing had slavery been found unconstitutional prior to the 13th Amendment.
You think that the slaves should have had rights….. People think that women shouldn’t lose the rights they have…..
……
Face it Doug, if this was in the constitution, it would not have taken until 1973 to find it. Like “seperate but equal” if was “found” by justices with an agenda.
It’s in the Constitution. The 9th Amendment – “others” as in other rights, and abortion was certainly a right. The system’s not perfect, and it didn’t come up until 1973.
Justice Harlan once wrote:
“The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This `liberty’ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment.”
So, there has to be “enough need” on the part of the state, and with respect to abortion it is not the case that the state has sufficient need to ban or further restrict it.
…..
Also if it is indeed in the Constitution, no piece of legislation is necessary.
I agree. The proposed legislation is to negate attempts at taking away or reducing the rights.
Mary: People who support abortion for rape, incest, and threat to the life of the mother may answer abortion is a good thing. I think an accurate poll requires a number of questions and circumstances.
Threat to the mother’s life was already okay, prior to Roe – two doctors saying an abortion was needed was plenty.
A majority of people are glad Roe was decided and don’t want it overturned.
Yes, it pays to use different wording if more answers are desired.
Doug,
Polls that have asked various questions concerning abortion, not just one, have shown that Americans are ambivalent and will support abortion under limited cicumstances. Asking one question just does not to justice.
Also, concerning Judge Harlen. How interesting Justice Harlen didn’t see “seperate but equal” in the Constitution as did his fellow SC justices. Apparently justices can find what they want in the Constitution.
Come on Doug, this is open to any kind of interpretaton and one can see what one wants, as SC justices have since Dred Scott. Certainly liberty and rights are not restricted to listed amendments, those were the foundation. That’s why there are legislatures. Slavery continued to be regulated by legislatures, even outlawed, until the Civil War. Apparently the 9th didn’t guarantee a “right” to own slaves even if slavery was legal at the time the 9th was written.
Doug,
No legislation would not be needed. If one’s religious freedom is being denied, one can take legal action, has the Constitution to back them up, and one can go to the Supreme Court if necessary. One does not go to the Legislature.
The woman I mentioned who’s privacy was violated by her neighbor had no Constitutional backing. She had to go to the legislature to get laws passed to protect future victims. Ironically her neighbor had constitutional backing and the law couldn’t touch him!
Polls that have asked various questions concerning abortion, not just one, have shown that Americans are ambivalent and will support abortion under limited cicumstances. Asking one question just does not to justice.
Agreed, but even when many responses are possible, the bottom line is that a majority of Americans favor Roe being in effect, favor abortion being legal to a point in gestation, etc. And it’s only a small minority that wants it totally illegal or legal only for risk to the life of the mother.
…..
Also, concerning Judge Harlen. How interesting Justice Harlen didn’t see “seperate but equal” in the Constitution as did his fellow SC justices. Apparently justices can find what they want in the Constitution.
Sometimes, yes. The fact remains that the Constitution is about keeping the gov’t off people’s backs, and that we first look to the freedom and liberty of the people, then to what compelling reason the gov’t has for abridging it, if any.
…..
Come on Doug, this is open to any kind of interpretaton and one can see what one wants, as SC justices have since Dred Scott. Certainly liberty and rights are not restricted to listed amendments, those were the foundation. That’s why there are legislatures. Slavery continued to be regulated by legislatures, even outlawed, until the Civil War. Apparently the 9th didn’t guarantee a “right” to own slaves even if slavery was legal at the time the 9th was written.
Did it even come up on a constitutional basis during that time?
It’s the same for abortion – it really wasn’t challenged until the 1970’s.
……
No legislation would not be needed. If one’s religious freedom is being denied, one can take legal action, has the Constitution to back them up, and one can go to the Supreme Court if necessary. One does not go to the Legislature.
One can try to go to the Supreme Court for anything. Maybe the court hears the case, maybe not.
The point with FOCA is to negate a lot of the attempted chipping-away at women’s rights in the matter.
Doug,
The Constitution was to protect us from gov’t tyranny. The IRS is one indication the gov’t has no intention of getting off our backs.
If it didn’t come up on a Constitutional basis its likely because no one saw any Constitutional basis. Neither slavery or abortion were Constitutional rights, period. They were regulated by the legislatures and apparently no lawyers, judges, or Constitutional scholars had any issues with this for a hundred plus years.
The point is Doug such rights as religion and freedom of the press have a Constitutional basis and cannot be “chipped away” at. If there was a Constitutional basis for abortion, the same would hold true. I’ve never heard of any “Freedom of Religion Act” or “Freedom of the Press Act”.