Oh yeah...so Abortion

So what would you do Stephanie? Would you follow Paul's "strong" right to life and allow the "murders" to occur in some states? That murder is a State's Rights issue? Following the "Slavery" concept, won't it just go away on it's lonesome without Government intervention?

Would those in states who border Choice-states need papers to prove they weren't going there to get an abortion?

What would the penalties be for those who got abortions in States were it was prohibited?

And what of spontaneous abortion? Lesser penalties?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Let's start with the most basic question, SFCraig. When does human life begin?

Depends to whom the question is asked. Otherwise, there would be no debate.

I believe the issue should be dealt with by an amendment to the Constitution, with the states addressing the issue until that process is complete.

SFCraig, is that an avatar of Dan Radmacher?

Obama Is the Most Pro-Abortion Candidate Ever (Obama Believes in Infanticide.)

CNSNews ^ | January 09, 2008 | Terence P. Jeffrey

Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever. He is so pro-abortion that he refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions because he did not want to concede -- as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the Illinois Senate floor -- that these babies, fully outside their mothers' wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact "persons." "Persons," of course, are guaranteed equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment.

I find Obama's vote bone chilling as well (or non-vote, as the case is).

Stephanie wrote:I believe the issue should be dealt with by an amendment to the Constitution, with the states addressing the issue until that process is complete.

Details. Amend the constitution to say what? To make it illegal?

What do you do with those who choose it? Would you jail these women? Try them for murder?

And what about spontaneous abortions?


(Oh...and yes, I chose Dan as my avatar....like it?)

SFCraig wrote:

Stephanie wrote:I believe the issue should be dealt with by an amendment to the Constitution, with the states addressing the issue until that process is complete.

Details. Amend the constitution to say what? To make it illegal?

What do you do with those who choose it? Would you jail these women? Try them for murder?

And what about spontaneous abortions?

(Oh...and yes, I chose Dan as my avatar....like it?)

Have to pay more attention to where I enter text!

I'd amend the Constitution to read that abortion is murder. I would only jail women who perform abortions, including self-inflicted abortions.

Spontaneous abortions are acts of nature, not of man.

Since ancient times, women have consumed or inserted items that cause abortions. Would we have a CSI type investigation anytime someone had a miscarriage?



What if she slips on the sidewalk? Can you she sue the homeowner for murder if the fetus dies?

What about the discarded materials involved in artificial insemination?

SFCraig wrote:Since ancient times, women have consumed or inserted items that cause abortions. Would we have a CSI type investigation anytime someone had a miscarriage?



What if she slips on the sidewalk? Can you she sue the homeowner for murder if the fetus dies?

What about the discarded materials involved in artificial insemination?

Craig,

You're not going to bait me into this kind of ridiculous debate. People have been murdering each other in a variety of fashions long before recorded history. Sometimes they get away with it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to prevent future murders and punish the murderers we do catch.

The courts have, for some time, been convicting people for murdering unborn children. I believe Scott Peterson was convicted for murdering his unborn son, although I could be mistaken. In any event, this is already taking place without a Constitutional amendment.

I'm not baiting at all. I think that these issues need to be brought down to the practical, not the theoretical.

Let's use the old "coat-hanger" story. How does the Government determine that a woman has not had a spontaneous abortion? Does every woman who claims miscarriage have to submit to big brother?

Lastly, if one believes that abortion is murder shouldn't they be doing everything in their power to prevent the act from taking place? If a murder were occurring next door would you act to prevent it?

It seems to me that many on the pro-life side say "Abortion is murder. I don't, however, place enough importance on murder to do anything about it."

If a woman friend of yours had an abortion, would you report her to the Government? Would you call her a murderer to her face?

SFCraig wrote:I'm not baiting at all. I think that these issues need to be brought down to the practical, not the theoretical.

Let's use the old "coat-hanger" story. How does the Government determine that a woman has not had a spontaneous abortion? Does every woman who claims miscarriage have to submit to big brother?

Lastly, if one believes that abortion is murder shouldn't they be doing everything in their power to prevent the act from taking place? If a murder were occurring next door would you act to prevent it?

It seems to me that many on the pro-life side say "Abortion is murder. I don't, however, place enough importance on murder to do anything about it."

If a woman friend of yours had an abortion, would you report her to the Government? Would you call her a murderer to her face?

My women friends all know me well enough that they wouldn't tell me if they decided to kill their unborn child. My distrust and loathing of police is legenday, Craig. However, if I knew someone performed an abortion on a friend, or gave her something to cause an abortion, I would report it in hopes of putting that person behind bars and out of business.

If a woman has a miscarriage, chances are she is going to require medical treatment. Medical professionals could be required to report suspected cases of deliberate pregnancy terminations the same way they are now required to report suspected cases of child abuse. Big brother demands all kinds of things of parents already. Vitamin K shots, PKU screenings, mandatory vaccinations.

Now I'm not 100% certain that this law is still in place, but the state of CT used to require HIV screening for pregnant women. The woman could refuse, but they would test her infant at birth if she did. I doubt they are the only state with such a law.

So if you're going to get your britches in a snit about "Big Brother", you've got a litany of battles you should be waging now.

So, what have you done to reduce or eliminate abortion?

Or is it like slavery; it'll just go away on its own?

SFCraig wrote:So, what have you done to reduce or eliminate abortion?

Or is it like slavery; it'll just go away on its own?

Are you suggesting we need to resort to another bloody civil war to end abortion? I don't think so.

I will not have done anything. We will have reduced the number of abortions in this country by decreasing their availability. The federal government will no longer be paying for doctors to murder unborn children. Insurers will no longer be paying doctors and clinics to murder unborn children.

With your kind of reasoning, why outlaw or prohibit anything? People will always rape and murder, why make murderers and rapists criminals?

btw.......slavery still exists in America today. It is not commonly practiced in the USA as it was previously, however it still occurs.

SFCraig wrote:So, what have you done to reduce or eliminate abortion?

Or is it like slavery; it'll just go away on its own?

SFCraig,

Your question is irrelevant to the question of whether or not abortion should be legal. I have done nothing to reduce or eliminate murder, but I'm still against it.

BTW, I have challenged before, and do so now again, any woman considering abortion to let me adopt the child. Please understand that my interest is serious and the ability of my wife and myself to raise a child is able to be well established.

SFCraig wrote:So what would you do Stephanie? Would you follow Paul's "strong" right to life and allow the "murders" to occur in some states? That murder is a State's Rights issue? Following the "Slavery" concept, won't it just go away on it's lonesome without Government intervention?

Would those in states who border Choice-states need papers to prove they weren't going there to get an abortion?

What would the penalties be for those who got abortions in States were it was prohibited?

And what of spontaneous abortion? Lesser penalties?

Inquiring minds want to know!

YOU miss the point of Dr. Paul's position. Let's begin at the beginning. Roe v Wade was the Supreme Court overturning 180 some years of jurispudience. First, Abortion was illegal since the inception fo this naiton and the radification of the Constitution. Roe v Wade was based was based on a legal fiction, known as the right to privacy. That right does not exist, it never has. Roe v Wade was also based on a poor intrepurtation of the 14th amendment. Finally, Roe v Wade was the jusdicary legislating where it had no business. All Roe v Wade managed to do is deeply divide this nation and make shambles of state's rights.

Just as Ron Paul says, Roe v Wade should be overturned and the issue of abortion sent back to the states. Now, I have no idea what the states will do if the decision on abortion ends up there, but at the very least politicans will be held accountible for their stance and people will have input.

SheikBen wrote:

SFCraig wrote:So, what have you done to reduce or eliminate abortion?

Or is it like slavery; it'll just go away on its own?

SFCraig,

Your question is irrelevant to the question of whether or not abortion should be legal. I have done nothing to reduce or eliminate murder, but I'm still against it.

BTW, I have challenged before, and do so now again, any woman considering abortion to let me adopt the child. Please understand that my interest is serious and the ability of my wife and myself to raise a child is able to be well established.

But you're wrong. What you did in offering IS doing something. (We've had this discussion before, you and I). I've done the same. One was carried to term, and another was a false alarm.

I'm not advocating that right-to-lifers blow-up abortion clinics, but it seems odd to me that they can claim it's murder but go to pilates and soccer practice while so much murder is occurring around them?

When I reflect upon my most conventional "pro-life" days I realize something. I never browbeat anyone; I offered help including to raise the child as my own. I suppose I must never have really thought it murder or I would have done more. Wouldn't I?

So I put it to you all again: if you think it's the murder of an innocent child, why don't you fight that child's life the way you would the born?

(Stephanie: RE: slavery...I guess Paul's theory is wrong that slavery would have gone away on its own?)

Craig you're wrong. Paul didn't say slavery would go away on its own. If he said that provide proof.

I'll tell you what I have heard him say. He has said that every other major nation in the world abolished slavery but none of the others resorted to civil war to do it. Think about that. Other nations accomplished through peaceful means what cost us so many lives, property, shattered families, and ill will.

As far as the abortion issue is concerned, several years ago my husband and I did offer to raise the child of a 16 y/o girl we know who was being pushed into abortion by her parents. She aborted that child and was pregnant again within a matter of weeks. That pregnancy she carried to term and the little girl is 6 now.

We also limit our charitable donations to organizations that offer abortion options to women facing unplanned pregnancies or face crisis during pregnancy. In addition, we have donated 2 cribs, 2 bassinettes, strollers, double strollers, high chairs, playpens, etc to RI Right to Life rather than sell them in a yard sale or consignment shop.

I agree with you there are many constructive things average people can do to reduce the number of abortions in this country. One of the best strategies would be to criminalize abortion and incarcerate people who perform it.

Was World War II worth fighting? How could one procure the release of the Jews, Catholics, Homosexuals that were held by the Nazis? Could we have purchased their freedom?

The South struck first. Lincoln struck back. The south did not want to give up the institution of slavery, even to the point of treason and violating the constitution they ratified.

Cato wrote: Let's begin at the beginning. Roe v Wade was the Supreme Court overturning 180 some years of jurispudience. First, Abortion was illegal since the inception fo this naiton and the radification of the Constitution. Roe v Wade was based on a legal fiction, known as the right to privacy. That right does not exist, it never has.

Willy, if ya go back to the beginning, ...... the right of abortion has always existed, ..... and there is really not much anyone can do to change that.

Why even the Pilgrims that landed at Plymouth Rock ..... thought it was "a right".

Penny Royal:

Penny royal is useful in the treatment of congestion, colds and the flu.

Another herbal remedy from ancient times used for multiple purposes, including headaches and abortion. It's also useful as an insect repellent and has an odor reminiscent of citronella. Pennyroyal belongs to the mint family.

The plant has been introduced into North and South America. It is mentioned in the Herbals of the New World as one of the plants the Pilgrim Fathers introduced.

http://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/p/pennyr23.html

And you can find it growing "in the wild" ..... in Wild, Wonderful, West Virginia.

cheers

Cato wrote:YOU miss the point of Dr. Paul's position. Let's begin at the beginning. Roe v Wade was the Supreme Court overturning 180 some years of jurispudience. First, Abortion was illegal since the inception fo this naiton and the radification of the Constitution.

Oh really? By what authority? Since the inception of this nation? Did the Constituton make abortion illegal? Were there federal laws against abortion?

Most states laws against abortion did not come about until doctors and the "medical industry" became sufficiently organized to demand of states that laws be enacted to assure that "medical" procedures, including abortion, be performed by medical "professionals"- not by unlicensed midwives, other helpful females or by self-induced procedures. Medical professionals were some of the first "special interest" lobbyists to state legislatures.

"...a legal fiction, known as the right to privacy. That right does not exist, it never has. ..."

Above allegation is from Cato, aka "willie"....

My challenge to Cato (and other interested parties is to ponder the following:

"...The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...shall not be violated..."

Now to me that says we have a right to privacy.

A rose, by any other name, smells as sweet.

And, in case you did not recognize the language, it is right there in the Constitution as originally adopted.

Fourth Amendment.

So the question as to whether we have a right to privacy has been addressed.

I suppose you could make a separate argument about whether interfering with your medical decisions constitutes an infringement of that right, but that does not negate the fact that the Founders and Constructors and Authors of the Constitution did in fact include an expectation of privacy.

shermangeneral wrote:"...a legal fiction, known as the right to privacy. That right does not exist, it never has. ..."

Above allegation is from Cato, aka "willie"....

My challenge to Cato (and other interested parties is to ponder the following:

"...The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...shall not be violated..."

Now to me that says we have a right to privacy.

A rose, by any other name, smells as sweet.

And, in case you did not recognize the language, it is right there in the Constitution as originally adopted.

Fourth Amendment.

So the question as to whether we have a right to privacy has been addressed.

I suppose you could make a separate argument about whether interfering with your medical decisions constitutes an infringement of that right, but that does not negate the fact that the Founders and Constructors and Authors of the Constitution did in fact include an expectation of privacy.

You skipped the rest of the 4th amendment. Now, what was it talking about, oh yea, search and seizure. Sherman, just spare me, when you can show me the word privacy in the Bill of Rights we'll talk until, my mind is made up and common sence, not to mention over 180 years of laws that says doesn't recognize a right to privacy.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:YOU miss the point of Dr. Paul's position. Let's begin at the beginning. Roe v Wade was the Supreme Court overturning 180 some years of jurispudience. First, Abortion was illegal since the inception fo this naiton and the radification of the Constitution.

Oh really? By what authority? Since the inception of this nation? Did the Constituton make abortion illegal? Were there federal laws against abortion?

I know of no federal law, becasue the issue has always belonged to the states. anyways until 5 idiots in the Blackmum court over steped their bounds and took the issue away fromt he states.

ziggy wrote:Most states laws against abortion did not come about until doctors and the "medical industry" became sufficiently organized to demand of states that laws be enacted to assure that "medical" procedures, including abortion, be performed by medical "professionals"- not by unlicensed midwives, other helpful females or by self-induced procedures. Medical professionals were some of the first "special interest" lobbyists to state legislatures.

That all maybe so, but your beloved Supreme Court took the issue of Abortion away from the states, now didn't it. They did so in violation of the 10th amendment.