Author Topic: Is Abortion Legal?  (Read 2164 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rifleman61

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 109
missing the point
« Reply #30 on: January 27, 2006, 11:27:17 AM »
1. The Constitution is silent on abortion; it is silent on "privacy" because there is no such right "enumerated" in the document itself; therefore there is no such thing as a right to an abortion.
2. The Constitution deals specificly with how our government is "constituted" for governance.  Constitutions do not deal with rghts.
a. Legislativen [Upper and Lower Houses]
b. Executive [Presidency and executive powers]
c. Judiciary[the Supreme Court only] the Constitution is silent on the makeup and composituion of inferior courts
d. Full faith and Credit
e. Amendment power of the legislative and amendment procedures
f. Debts and contractual obligations and the "supremacy of the Constitution" as the "supreme law" of the land.
g. Ratificatiion Article attesting  to the signatures of the principals.
No where in the document is there any mention of "right" since this is not the business of a constitution.
The "Bill of Rights" is in may ways a historical recital of the 1689 English Bill of Rights concluding the Glorious Revolution instyalling William/Mary on the throne.  It is also in many ways inclusive of individual "bills ofm right" that existed in individual state constitutions.
The Constitution is senior to the "Bill of Rights" because it was written prior to the Bill of Rights and was ratified by the "various states" before there was a "bill of rights" and  therefore as a document of governance takes precedence to the "bill of rights".
The only reason that there is a"bill of rights" is because Madison and the Framers agreed on one thing only, and that was that they agreed on just about nothing; therefore there needed to be a document that proscribed the general [Federal] government from impinging on those rights that were fundamental to the conduct of government under the new charter. Artifical abortion [the correct term since abortion exists as biological a fact in nature] represents a substantive lifestyle choice and has nothing whatsoever to do with governance.
3. There will always be artificial abortion; as long as there are people there will always be artifical abortion. It exists as a fact in history from the dim past to the present and is likely to go on as a practice in the future.  This fact will exist irrespective of my own moral condemnation of it or anyone elses for that fact.  Artifical abortion exists inspite of overwhelming statistical evidence to the contrary [health of the mother].  It exists because children are no longer considered the end product of sexual intercourse but more as as a decoration or accessory much the same as a "Gucci" bag and are therefore there principally at the convenience of the sire and dame. Any of the currently fashionable rationalizations for artificial abortion have nothing whatsoever to do with coat hangars, and any arguments esdtablishing moral equivalancy with the "IInd" for its existence, are specious to be honest.  There is absolutely no connection or relevance to the "IInd" which I gather by the text and tone of the debate is roundly misunderstood too.
4. Barring a surge of heroism by Congress to deal with the topic of "Artifical Abortion", many of them are outright cowards, then the whole subject is best decided on a state level. States Rights are fundamental to the concept of Federalism; they are a cornerstone of it.  Each individual state has the power to enact legislation making artificial abortion  legal or making it illegal and that legislation has rock solid constitutional gaurantee by the fourth article of Constitution, the "full faith and credit" Article .
5. The "central evil" of Roe .v. Wade is that it is bad law.   The amendments  to the Constituion do not shade, or emanate and they have no "penumbras".  They each say what they say as specificly stated matters of law and nothing more.  You do not draw on anything but the Constitution when making a ruling in any of the courts, the plain language text and nothing else; that is interpretation; anything less is  heresy and anything more is "making law".   The Constituion is not what we would like to think that it is or imagine it to be.  It is what it is in the plain language of its worded text.  Roe fosters disrespect for Law, the making of Law [ a proper function of the people for the purposes assembled] by Congress,  it casts the Courts into the arena of legislation, that function not being assigned to them in the original grant of power in the Constitution and makes of them a "political" instrument that is at the beck and call of any interest group.  They are "unelected legislatures" unaccountable to anyone and therefore violate the "separations of power" that have been subsumed into the fabric of the Constitution, the government, and our culture.
6. The Amendments and the "Bill" are not in the Constitution because they are not a part of it.  They enumerate only those things that are accorded as rights, because they do not violate the "separations of powers"; therefore their collective and individual characters are best described as "constitutional", because if they did "violate" they would not  be rights.
And that is why artifical abortion is not a right.
7. If you want artificial abortion as a "right" thern the Constitution provides the mechanism to do that in "Article V" and it does not include the court, nowhere is the "Court" mentioned.

Anchor's Away/Semper Fi
CPO Bull

Offline dukkillr

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3428
    • The Daily Limit
Is Abortion Legal?
« Reply #31 on: January 27, 2006, 12:11:38 PM »
Quote
The Constitution is senior to the "Bill of Rights" because it was written prior to the Bill of Rights and was ratified by the "various states" before there was a "bill of rights" and therefore as a document of governance takes precedence to the "bill of rights".


This is simply wrong.  It's historically wrong, it's logically wrong, and it's actually wrong.

An understanding of the word "amendment" is all one needs to understand how wrong this is.

Offline rifleman61

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 109
B4
« Reply #32 on: January 27, 2006, 02:03:36 PM »
Before you jump to any conclusions to what has been stated I seriously suggest that you read "First of All" in its entirety the Constitution, secondly after reading the Constitution read all of the "Federalist Papers".  They are a compendium of all writings by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay.  They in no ways mention any rights; they are a set of detailed arguments, and explanations for the Constitution.  As a matter of fact Madison held forth that the Constitution was in its essence a statement of the rights of Americans.  In Federalist #84 Hamilton held that the movement for a Bill of rights was unnecessary: "the constitution is itself... a "Bill of Rights."
Secondly, you and all of the rest of you read all of the debates of the first session of Congress. There was no Bill of Rights because no body of government had the power to institute much less recognize that there was any such thing.  What we commonly call the "Bill" was not passed until the first session of Congress had adjourned and remanded the matter to the "various states" for ratification.  In particular check the dates of ratification; all dates are post September 17, 1787 the date on which the Philadelphia convention ratified the Constitution:
"...present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereofWe have hereunto subscribed our Names."  At no time in the hsitory of our beloved country were our civil rights more in peril than in that historical first session of Congress.  Madison in a letter to Jefferson likened it unto being "... in a forest without which there was naught to guide us..."
The problem with any debates concerning "rights", by most Americans, is that they generallty tend to view the amendments as set apart from the Constitution and as a second basic document that is to be interpreted as distinct from the Constitution.  The necssary result of this is that the "Bill" has become a fulcrum for a silent and overt war against the Constitution by dangerous interest groups, ACLU being a ready example,seeking to bring about a quantum overthrow of the Constitution for their own ulteriors of a perfectly engineeered society.  The "Bill of Rights" is the first instance in human history, as well as the history of this country, of a record of civil rights debates put down on paper.  All of the rights mentioned in the "Bill" are devolved rights and as such have no meaning in themselves unless they are contemplated in conjunction with the "Declaration of Independence" which is more correctly put as a declaration of right.  It is the "Declaration" which provides the driving moral force for rights and justifies then erection of the mechanisms and architecture of the Constitution.
If you have at hand or can get copies get "The Debates on the Constitution".  They are the complete record of all of the principlas to the Philadelphia Convention, Madison compiled them.  Anyone who reads them honestly, will find out that not one person who refused to ratify the Constitution refused on the grounds that there was no Bill of Rights; that was not a consideration.
It has been my general observation here that though there has been much fire and passion there has been generally little or no knowledge of the history of our Constitution, its mehcanics or architecture. Necessary to any debate on any political subject it is fitting to know "...the history..." if one is to debate with any degree of objectivity or credibility. I have followed the current of the debate here and I have not seen that.
That is not intended to be as an insult; it is simply an objective assesment.  Not to worry here though. I spent thirty six years in the Navy and I held up my hand and swore "... to ptrotect and defend the Constitution..." and I didn't have the slightest idea what it meant or the words in it.
hey " cuz" what part of Kansas ya'll from? I was born in Coffeyville and raised in Topeka.

Anchor's Away/Semper Fi
CPO Bull

Offline powderman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32823
  • Gender: Male
Is Abortion Legal?
« Reply #33 on: January 27, 2006, 04:53:39 PM »
Abortion unfortunately is legal. Roe vs wade was, and is, a terrible law. A lot of things started downhill in 1963, thats when God was kicked out of our classrooms, and courts. Since then we have had children raised in Godless homes, by Godless parents, educated in Godless schools, judged in Godless courtrooms, and had laws made by Godless politicians. Roe vs wade is a product of that.
I'm sick of hearing about a womans right to choose. There are only 2 choices, life, or death. They are pro life, or pro death. There is no in between. Even in the case of rape, killing the child is like saying, I'll kill my baby, that'll teach em a lesson. Killing the child is not the answer. Killing a child for the immorality or lack of good judgement of an adult is wrong. Abortion is murder, not birth control.
I used to go to church with a lady who killed her baby 30 years ago. She said she still cries over her dead baby daily. She wonders whether she would now have a son, or daughter, and how many grandchildren she would have had. She wonders what he, or she would have been. Dr, lawyer, maybe even a judge. She realizes that by killing her child, she killed more than one person, she killed everyone that might have been in it's future, she'll never know. God has forgiven her, now she must learn to forgive herself.
Dead babies are big business. In addition to paying the butcher to kill the baby, the dead baby is then sold for fetal tissue, experiments, etc, all perfectly legal. Money is why the butchers are in business, not to help women.
I'd hate to be in the butchers shoes, or their accomplices on judgement day. I can hear it now, uhhhhhhh, you mean that was a BABY I killed??? It sounds better to say, I terminated a fetus, than to tell the truth by saying, I killed my baby. You can call it anything you want, but it is still the intentional taking of a human life, I see that as murder. POWDERMAN.  :cry:  :cry:  :cry:  :cry:  :cry:  :cry:  :cry:  :cry:  :cry:  :cry:  :cry:  :cry:  :cry:   :cry:  :cry:
Mr. Charles Glenn “Charlie” Nelson, age 73, of Payneville, KY passed away Thursday, October 14, 2021 at his residence. RIP Charlie, we'll will all miss you. GB

Only half the people leave an abortion clinic alive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAiOEV0v2RM
What part of ILLEGAL is so hard to understand???
I learned everything about islam I need to know on 9-11-01.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDqmy1cSqgo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u9kieqGppE&feature=related
http://www.illinois.gov/gov/contactthegovernor.cfm

Offline rifleman61

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 109
note 2
« Reply #34 on: January 27, 2006, 04:54:42 PM »
"nomosendero"
You do not understand the "IInd"; that is plain to see by your text
It is late and the hour says, "...go to bed, you have got to go to the range tomorrow..."
I shall explain it to you at a later date.  Keep the explanation; it will be "ammunition" for You in the future.  There are bound to be some who are "well meaning" and then there are bound to be some who are "bad actors".  You must be able to make friends out of the former and hammer the latter with their own ignorance, unmercifully.
"We" who own guns and have taken the defense of ourselves as our own responsibility must be ready as always to be "apologists" for our cause.

Anchor's Away/Semper Fi
CPO Bull

Offline FWiedner

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1686
Is Abortion Legal?
« Reply #35 on: January 27, 2006, 05:49:38 PM »
Quote
...if the "Court" Rules that the 2nd Amendment means only the Nat.
Guard/Militia/Mil. can be armed, you will to be consistant have to say
this is how the Court interprets the Constitution...


That might be the case, that any political swing of the court could result in a partisan "re-interpretation" the Constitution, were it not for the concept of "Original Intent".

.
They may talk of a "New Order" in the  world, but what they have in mind is only a revival of the oldest and worst tyranny.   No liberty, no religion, no hope.   It is an unholy alliance of power and pelf to dominate and to enslave the human race.

Offline rockbilly

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3367
Is Abortion Legal?
« Reply #36 on: January 27, 2006, 06:03:30 PM »
:roll: Any way you slice it this is a touchy subject.  I would like to read the feed back from a bunch of women.  I am sure it would be just as diverst as we are, but just to test the waters and ger their opinion. :roll:

Offline dukkillr

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3428
    • The Daily Limit
Is Abortion Legal?
« Reply #37 on: January 27, 2006, 06:23:19 PM »
Wow.  I don't even know where to begin.  I suppose I could start by taking a cheap shot and say that you would not even be able to own and bear your precious rifle had the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution not given you the right to bear arms.  But, the Constitution doesn't deal with rights, right?  So I suppose the Constitution does not protect your right to bear arms then, right?  Wrong.  This is but one example of how flawed the logic is.  What is also flawed about your argument is your contention that Constitution does not deal with rights.  You speak in terms of the Bill of Rights being some special, separate document from the Constitution.  The Bill of Rights are the first 10 amendments to the constitution!  The term "amendment" is meant to incorporate into the COnstitution itself, not hold separate.  And the Federalist papers would not have dealt with the Bill of Rights because the Bill of Rights were conceived and formed after the Constitution was ratified.  

But the framers of the COnstitution were keeny aware of the need to reserve rights to individuals in the Constitution.  Let's take the Fifth Amendment, for example, or the eminent domain amendment.  Madison was keenly mindful of the need to create a form of government which would protect each person's property interests and rights. He stated this concern eloquently at the constitutional convention. "In future times a great majority of the people will not only be without landed, but any other sort of, property. These [may] . . . combine under the influence of their common situation;  in which case, the rights of property & the public liberty, [will not be secure in their hands]. . . ." 2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 203-04 (M. Farrand ed. 1911) (footnotes omitted). Madison also articulated this concept earlier during the constitutional convention: "The lesson we are to draw . . . is that where majority are united by a common sentiment and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure." 1 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, 136 (M. Farrend ed. 1911).

In 1787 Madison expressed his views to Thomas Jefferson concerning the need to protect minority rights from the acts of a majority that might seek to remedy unequal property distribution through legislative action:
No society ever did or can consist of [a] . . . homogeneous . . . mass of Citizens. . . . In all civilized societies, distinctions are various and unavoidable. A distinction of property results from that very protection which a free Government gives to unequal faculties of acquiring it. There will be rich and poor; creditors and debtors; a landed interest, a monied interest, a mercantile interest, a manufacturing interest. . . . These distinctions will produce dissention and faction. However erroneous or ridiculous these grounds of dissention and faction may appear to the enlightened Statesman or the benevolent philosopher, the bulk of mankind . . . will continue to view them in a different light. It remains then to  be enquired whether a majority having any common interest, or feeling any common passion, will find sufficient motives to restrain them from oppressing the minority.

Need more?  Okay:

Madison's distrust of government according to the will of a majority of the electorate was based on first hand observation:
In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current. Notwithstanding the explicit provision contained in that instrument for the rights of Conscience, it is well known that a religious establishment [would] have taken place in that State,  if the Legislative majority had found as they expected, a majority of the people in favor of the measure. . . . Wherever the real power in Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the Constituents.

But WAIT.  You said that the Federalist Papers did not contain anything about rights?  Au contraire:

In the Federalist papers Madison argued forcefully that a republican form of government was essential to preserve minority rights.
Complaints are every where heard . . . that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties; and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. . . .

. . . [Factions develop whereby] a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, . . . are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

* * *

. . . When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government . . . enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest, both the public good and the rights of other citizens. . . .. . . [In a pure democracy a] common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; . . . there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. . . .

A republic [i.e. Constitution] . . . promises the cure for which we are seeking. . . .

Alexander Hamilton was also a proponent of a Bill of Rights in the Constituion.  He wrote: "'Additional security to republican government, to liberty, and to property,'" is to be derived from the adoption of the Constitution[;] and, "[A strong executive is essential] to the protection of [rights] against those irregular and high-handed combinations, which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice. . . ."

--- Yes, the above was taken DIRECTLY from the Federalist Papers and taken from the mouth of James Madison.  YEAH.  to claim that the Constitution does not speak to rights nor mentions right is just plain ignorant.    

No, Madison did not initially publicly support a bill of rights. Prior to the ratification of the Constitution he "opposed all previous alterations as calculated to throw the states into dangerous contentions, and to furnish secret enemies of the Union with an opportunity of promoting its dissolution." Letter from James Madison to George Eve (Jan. 2, 1789), reprinted in 5 Writings of James Madison 319-21 n.1. Once the Constitution had been ratified by eleven states and "a very great majority of the people of America," he felt that "circumstances are now changed."  Madison reversed his position and supported the amendments as "providing additional guards in favor of liberty and individual rights." On June 8, 1789, Madison presented a draft of twelve proposed amendments to the first session of Congress. Stoebuck, 47 Wash. L. Rev. 553, 595 (1972).

So there you have it.  As a final matter, I would note that there is no enumerated "right" to abortion.  THat's true.  But what the courts HAVE found the Constitution to support is a right to privacy and included in that right to privacy is a woman's ability to make her own decisions regarding her medical health free from government interference.  But Roe did not hold that to be an absolute right.  In fact, Row noted that as a woman progresses through pregnancy, her right to make decisions becomes less and less and the government's interest in preserving the life of a viable fetus becomes greater and greater.  As a result, you end up with many  Consitutional state laws pertaining to late term abortion decisions.  Because late in term, the government's interest in preserving life of the fetus at times with outweigh the mother's interest in making her own decisions.  But my point is that the "right" to abortion comes from the right to privacy.  

And finally, the courts ARE subject to the series of checks and balances set forth in the Constitution.  Article III Judges may be impeached by the Senate, as outlined in Article III.  But seeing as how well you have reviewed the Federalist Papers, Constitutional Law, and COnstitutional History, I'm sure you just missed that part, too.

Offline nomosendero

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5760
  • Gender: Male
Is Abortion Legal?
« Reply #38 on: January 27, 2006, 07:11:12 PM »
Good points & I feel much better now, No joke.

I never said that you guys did not understand the Constitution, I have read it a couple of times myself.

I think you missed my point. Of course there is a difference in the 2 issues. But until now, I kept reading that the Court has made it Law,
& that should be good enough for us, deal with it. But by getting you guys fired up, I see that you will not roll over if the Court decides that we don't have gun rights Since some ofyou have impressed me with you knowledge of the Constitution, I hope you are concerned about our property rights & that the leftist Court hurt us bad.

Since some of you are OK with the Court ruling concerning abortion, it will be interesting to see your thoughts should this ruling get overturned.

Thanks for showing me that you care about our Constitution. Remember, I
don't know you & you don't know me. Nothing like getting a guy a little
miffed to show his true feelings.

Thanks!!!
You will not make peace with the Bluecoats, you are free to go.

Offline nomosendero

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5760
  • Gender: Male
Is Abortion Legal?
« Reply #39 on: January 27, 2006, 07:39:40 PM »
FWiedner
Good point, but consider this, to a Liberal Court "Original Intent" would not
be important to them anyway, was it recently concerning property rights?
You will not make peace with the Bluecoats, you are free to go.

Offline nomosendero

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5760
  • Gender: Male
Is Abortion Legal?
« Reply #40 on: January 27, 2006, 07:49:40 PM »
dukkillr
The right of abortion comes from the right of privacy, huh.
So does that mean we can kill in private (just between Mom & the Baby)or it is not killing as long as we can still call it a fetus. I would like to know the exact instant the "fetus" becomes a Human & what is it really right before it becomes a Human.
Somehow the term fetus just doesn't work for me, but I know it changes
things somehow, please explain.

I enjoyed the rest of your post, I just need a little help on this one little
part.
You will not make peace with the Bluecoats, you are free to go.

Offline powderman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32823
  • Gender: Male
Is Abortion Legal?
« Reply #41 on: January 28, 2006, 03:33:26 AM »
NOMOSENDERO. Fetus is a word the pro death folks like to throw around. Makes the killing of a child easier to swallow.
The right to murder a child in private?? At  what age does it become murder?? 6months, a year, maybe 10 years old??? No difference, it's still murder. POWDERMAN.  :cry:  :cry:  :cry:  :cry:  :cry:  :cry:
Mr. Charles Glenn “Charlie” Nelson, age 73, of Payneville, KY passed away Thursday, October 14, 2021 at his residence. RIP Charlie, we'll will all miss you. GB

Only half the people leave an abortion clinic alive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAiOEV0v2RM
What part of ILLEGAL is so hard to understand???
I learned everything about islam I need to know on 9-11-01.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDqmy1cSqgo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u9kieqGppE&feature=related
http://www.illinois.gov/gov/contactthegovernor.cfm

Offline rifleman61

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 109
note #3 dukkillr
« Reply #42 on: January 30, 2006, 04:46:09 PM »
Well I must say you have a nice expose' on the Federalist, but you have said nothing, yet. You haven't yet told me what the "Ist" says.
Secondly you have not yet shown where there is a specificly stated right to "privacy" in the Constitution.
Thirdly you have not rebutted the central contention that the Constitution does not deal in rights
Fourthly you have not told me what you know or what you think.  You have told me only what you have quoted from the Federalist, or from Madison's extraneous writings, anyone can do that.  Tell me what you know; you're not doing that.
I will tell you bluntly that you do not know what the right to privacy is; the "IVth" says nothing, not once is the word used.  What one can infer from the "IVth" is that the people have a right to be "secure"; therefore privacy can be said to exist as a result of that security.  Privacy is the creature of security not its parent.  Even allowing, for the sake of a debate, that  there is such a thing as privacy. It is not absolute; the "IVth" makes that perfectly clear.  Privacy to do what? engage in narcotics manufactory, prostitution, murder, conspiracy?
No, the arguments for artificial abortion do not go in anyway to specious arguments on privacy or made up rationalizations and manufactured heresies by judges, and the good thing is that they do not need them if that is indeed what is really wanted, artificial abortion.
If artificial abortion is really wanted, why then just put it to the legislative bodies to make it lawful, that is all.  If that is done, and I doubt that it can be because the majority of most Americans do not want it, but assuming that it can be done then it cannot be called "murder".  Murder is a term in law that is used to describe the unlawful and unwarranted taking of a life.   What you do not understand is that "Roe" is bad law and we can agree to disagree on that.
By the way you have not replied to my question, "...what part of Kansas..."

Anchor's Away/Semper Fi
CPO Bull

Offline dukkillr

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3428
    • The Daily Limit
Is Abortion Legal?
« Reply #43 on: January 30, 2006, 06:41:32 PM »
yeah, see my other post about the law as it actually is... if we could all choose to ignore laws we find different than our interpretation this would be an interesting place to live...

you see people with these types of claims in court every week... none of this is new to me...

It's really a matter of how you frame the debate.  If you frame the debate, "Is abortion legal?" then the discussion should center around the law as it actually is.  If you frame the debate "Should abortion be illegal, and why?" then your theories (while they have been tested and failed) could be pressed.  

But then there's the classic, "Well I follow god's law..." or some variation of the theme that says your only following laws as you see them.  Fine.  Good for you.  But it doesn't reflect the law as it exists in this country at this time.

Offline DakotaElkSlayer

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
Is Abortion Legal?
« Reply #44 on: January 31, 2006, 07:31:00 AM »
Quote from: powderman
NOMOSENDERO. Fetus is a word the pro death folks like to throw around. Makes the killing of a child easier to swallow.
The right to murder a child in private?? At  what age does it become murder?? 6months, a year, maybe 10 years old??? No difference, it's still murder. POWDERMAN.  :cry:  :cry:  :cry:  :cry:  :cry:  :cry:


Murder?????  Fetus=Child?????  :eek:

Jim
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.

- Albert Einstein

Offline rifleman61

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 109
A conclusion to Come
« Reply #45 on: January 31, 2006, 12:39:15 PM »
I shall drop off line for a couple of days, as it were, to think things through to a positive conclusion.  This is a dialogue and all dialogues are supposed to be learning processes; that has not happened here. "Duk" you have engaged in an absurdist adolescent fascination with "running around the room" so to speak and hitting everybody over the head with voluminous quotastions from Madison and in general telling everybody that they are wrong and that you are somehow the brightest person in the room.  Now screaming matches may well go that way, but not debates.  This type of behavior displays adolescence and a willingness to learn absolutely nothing in the least; your curt and sarcastic replies to "powder", "Dakota" and others both in the text and tone of your words display that, and cuts off any meaningful debate.  While this may mollify your own personal sense of ego it in no ways does anything to constructively contribute to a meaningful understanding of anything from tiddlywinks, to the "Ist", the "IInd" or Artificial Abortion./  My manner of both speaking and writing is "formal"; I prefer it that way, because it first formally structures what tit is I have to say and think and it is above all respectful to listeners and strangers.  I prefer the formal mode generally as I even do not lapse into colloquialism and corrupt English usages such as "con" except when dealing with only those who are closest to me, as I feel that this displays bad manners. This is not to be construed as an attack but as an objective assesment of your method of discourse, hopefully with an eye towards correcting it.


Anchor's Away/Semper Fi
CPO Bull

Offline dukkillr

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3428
    • The Daily Limit
Is Abortion Legal?
« Reply #46 on: January 31, 2006, 02:15:18 PM »
rifleman61 said:
Quote
Duk you have engaged in an absurdist adolescent fascination with "running around the room" so to speak and hitting everybody over the head with voluminous quotastions from Madison and in general telling everybody that they are wrong and that you are somehow the brightest person in the room. Now screaming matches may well go that way, but not debates


to be compared with when he said:
Quote
"nomosendero"
You do not understand the "IInd"; that is plain to see by your text
It is late and the hour says, "...go to bed, you have got to go to the range tomorrow..."
I shall explain it to you at a later date.


Also:
Quote
What I can tell "Dukkillr" is that you do not know what the "Ist" says, but that's not out of the ordinary most other people do not either. It does not say what you think it says.


Further:
Quote
You must be able to make friends out of the former and hammer the latter with their own ignorance, unmercifully.


I spent a great deal of time writing a piece that explained (with specific quotes and references) why I believe I'm right.  What made me angry and dismissive was the, "I'm too tired to tell you why, but you're wrong" type quotes.

Now for this bit:
Quote
My manner of both speaking and writing is "formal"; I prefer it that way, because it first formally structures what tit is I have to say and think and it is above all respectful to listeners and strangers. I prefer the formal mode generally as I even do not lapse into colloquialism and corrupt English usages such as "con" except when dealing with only those who are closest to me, as I feel that this displays bad manners. This is not to be construed as an attack but as an objective assesment of your method of discourse, hopefully with an eye towards correcting it.


to be compared with:
Quote
I will tell you bluntly that you do not know what the right to privacy is; the "IVth" says nothing, not once is the word used. What one can infer from the "IVth" is that the people have a right to be "secure"; therefore privacy can be said to exist as a result of that security. Privacy is the creature of security not its parent. Even allowing, for the sake of a debate, that there is such a thing as privacy. It is not absolute; the "IVth" makes that perfectly clear. Privacy to do what? engage in narcotics manufactory, prostitution, murder, conspiracy?

The point of this quote is to find the sentence fragments, abbreviations, run on sentences and misspellings... this is not to be construed as an attack but as an objective assesment [sic] of your method of discourse, hopefully with an eye towards correcting it.

I would love to discuss the topic at hand, and I promise I've written plenty of "formal" pieces in my life.  Lets not speak of writing style again, and lets confine this thread to the debate at hand.  I spent a great deal of time on a post that explained several of your objections and provided a great deal of explanation for why the law of our country is the way it is.  There are plenty who disagree (everyone disagrees to some extent, myself included) with the way things are.  Unfortunately that alone does not make things what we want them to be.  For instance I believe Kelo v New London was horrible.  I think the logic is horrible, the precedent seems unconstitutional on it's face, and the line of cases preceeding it are ripe for objections.  Unfortunately it's law.  Like abortion is.  Like the right to privacy is.  

I'm from Stilwell, south of Kansas City.  I've lived in Missouri, Connecticut, and Denver as well.  I turkey hunt every opening weekend near Coffeeville (Independence, Kansas).

Offline nomosendero

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5760
  • Gender: Male
Is Abortion Legal?
« Reply #47 on: January 31, 2006, 03:51:34 PM »
rifleman61
Actually I do understand the 2nd, sorry that I was not clear to you in my statement & question, but no biggie, just a misunderstanding.
You will not make peace with the Bluecoats, you are free to go.

Offline rifleman61

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 109
A conclusion to Come
« Reply #48 on: February 28, 2006, 04:11:46 PM »
Nomsendero, "mea culpa, mea maxima culpa".  My choice of wording in regards to the "IInd" was wrong to put the matter to you plainly and I do apologize sincerely.
As for further discussion I have penned a primer, so to speak, it is intended as a formal dispassionate discussion on the subject that has been bandied about here.  It is not opinion; it is in the way of historical fact and is intended to arm those who wish honest discussion and debate instead of animus and fury, especially on the issue of artificial abortion, its legality and its relationship tyo constitutional law.                                                             A CONCLUSION


     Abortion exists as a fact in nature.  Abortion is the natural result of the hostÂ’s body [the mother] rejecting the fetus [a fertilized embryo] from the symbiotic relationship established in the womb.  Abortion is a natural defense by the body against some condition, fundamental, in the pregnancy that makes the fetus morbid or threatens the life of the host mother.  Artificial abortion is that protocol or practice or practices taken individually or in some combination that induces the natural defensive mechanisms of the host mother to reject the fetus at any stage of development.  Artificial abortion mimics abortion and is not abortion in the truest sense.
     The term “abortion” is a political term expropriated by its proponents to define certain views, personal and social, with an end in view of making that which is a fact in nature a political end.
     Artificial abortion has been practiced by all members of the animal kingdom and exists as a fact reflective of their animal natures.  For the sentient cognitive animal known as man, artificial abortion has been, continues, and is generally expected in the future to be a condition resultant of the exercise of free will as well as a component of their lower animal natures.
     To raise arguments for or against the practice of artificial abortion, the efficacy of it, is to raise moral and ethical questions that quite possibly not be answered.  Those who demand the rescission of “Roe” by the Court are deluded.  The political reality is that though “Roe” is bad law by clause bound Constitutional interpretation it is nevertheless now settled law.  No Supreme Court in the history of the Republic has ever rescinded a decision by justices “en benc”; that is a fact in law and a political fact.  To do so would be far worse than the original “Roe” decision with ramifications that will destroy even the Constitution itself.
     Those who demand “Roe” at all costs do so in the face of statistical realities that demonstrably show that the vast majority of Americans are opposed to artificial abortion.  Arguments that have been
Propounded concerning a supposed “right to privacy” are specious at best.  For if indeed they were not all would see and accede to that position; the reality is that all do not.  It may be fairly put by those favoring artificial abortion that those who are opposed to it are somehow forcing their views, values and judgments on them.  That indeed is a fact that is not arguable and exists as a demonstrated fact in that peculiar exercise of human nature otherwise known as government.  All governments in all times and in all places in all of human history demonstrate the fact that government exists for nothing other of its purpose than the projection of the power of its majority and the protection of their power through the systematically conscionable codification of their judgments in a consistent body of law.  When it ceases to do so it is either altered or abolished, by that same majority.  The simple inarguable reality of this is that all minorities exist at the sufferance of the majority in any given government milieu and whenever they become destructive of the majority culture or their ends run counter to established government, they are dealt with, generally harshly or in such manner as restores political equilibrium and stable government thereby.  This occurs irrespective of any fictions, preconceptions or conceits regarding all constituted government charters, especially our own.
     Now, it may be that a constitutionally directed Republic cannot be adequately rationed or quantified by some equation, but it is understood and known as such by its peculiar architecture, the separations of powers.  What is generally understood through this is that the will of its majority culture is not systematically and consistently thwarted, for if it is those who are complicit and principal to that do so at their own peril.  The majority culture in the milieu of a constitutionally directed Republic in America is White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.  This is a cultural consideration and all who ascribe to those values associated with it are the same, by that association.  This occurs not respecting race, gender, religion or class; this reality cuts across all lines.  The religious tenets of all White Anglo-Saxon Protestants are Judaeo-Christian in character.  The cold wind that blew out of Germany in the 16th century [the Protestant Revolution] reformed nothing; it set future American feet on the path that inevitably led to the “Declaration” of Independence, the Revolutionary War and constitutional government.









The dynamic democratic theocracy of the Scots-Irish Presbyterian Kirk with its covenants by mutual consent was rooted in Judaeo-Christian traditions, the Torah, and the New Testament; it gave first to America and then to the world the writings of Locke, Hume, Harrington and Adam Smith.  This tradition is responsible, and none other, for free market capitalism, and from the bottom up covenant, mutual in character, of constitutionally directed Republican government.  Aside of the Judaeo-Christian teachings and traditions as reflected in the majority culture of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant America all other teachings; traditions and cultures are without value and have no meaning for the culture of our constitutionally directed republic.
     The “Declaration” is the first instance in human history of formal codification of Judaeo-Christian principles as matters of practical political consideration.  As much a declaration of independence it is first and foremost a declaration of right.  Rights, God and the connection which rights accrue thereby between man and God are stated first.  While battles over “Roe .v. Wade” have been lost, the war over it is nevertheless being won in the sea change of American opinion.  The battle over this issue goes deeper than isolated instances of court sanctioned killings.  It goes all the way back to the found of the Republic and its seminal document, the “Declaration”, that provided the driving moral force for that founding.  The admixture of religious principle to politics is quintessentially and American phenomenon.  It is conservative in its character, from the Mayflower Compact to present times; the covenanted charter
[Constitution] accompanied by its corpus of amendments in the Bill of Rights of our Republic cannot be understood and contemplated apart from that reality because it flows from it.  Artificial Abortion is the lynch pin of all contemporary American social issues.  These are not European or Asian issues because it is our “Declaration” that is the primeval document guaranteeing the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Its assertion is free from guile or art and directly states as sole authority among men the “Creator”; they are entitled by “…the laws of Nature and of NatureÂ’s God…”  The only reason that there is a right to life movement in America and not Europe goes to the reality of that document.  This is the unblinking glaring boundary, unavoidable in its presence, that separates principled Conservatives and the Republican Party from the Democratic Party, those seeking artificial abortion, and in the end makes it “the” patriotic party which reverences ancient traditions, institutions, ideals, government by laws not judges and life.  For Republicans, Conservatives and those aligned with the pro-life movement, the case of “: Roe” demonstrates nothing less than a naked grab for power by the judiciary.
     The fundamental premise of the Democratic non-filibuster of the PresidentÂ’s judicial nominees is that
“Roe” must never be questioned.  Â“Roe” as is the whole of the pro-choice position, is corrupt not only on
Its face but on a far greater scale, in that it is the matrix upon which a whole rotten panoply of
Contemporary liberal social and political issues in America are based.  With the review and rescission of
“Roe”, the whole edifice will crash.  American people cannot long adopt the stance that the
Constitution is a living document that the satraps of the Supreme Court and the grandees of the legal will
 From time to time tell “us” what it means.  The court then becomes political; disrespect for the rule
 Of law will be fomented, by discrete minorities seizing control of the judiciary and subverting government
 to their own ends.  Legally binding decision making on the question of artificial abortion is a function of
the original power of the people themselves;it is not the purview of the Courts or the clotured membership
 of the American legal professions.  From the very first “Roe” has corrupted the rule of law because it has
 had the effect of the state sanctioning killing for purposes private, and by hat has put public order in
 jeopardy and has loosened restraints on behavior personal and private.  As a sidebar, the court ordered
 killing of Terry Shciavo makes crystalline that those who feared the repercussions of “Roe” were not
 groundless in their fears and were absolutely on target.
             










                             
                               
                                For nearly two hundred years the “IXth” Amendment was treated as a judicial oddity.  The “IXth” has served as a warrant for the “Xth” Amendment, which amendments taken in tandem serve as a punctuated period to not only the amendment debates but to a positive conclusion of constitutional debates in the infant republic.  Madison sought with colleagues, like minded, to bring further constitutional debate to a conclusion as protracted debate on the line of amendment risked the disaffection of the states with the corpus of constituted articles.  MadisonÂ’s explanation of the rationale for the “IXth” followed on a line of argument, that considered delimitation from the Federal perspective.
                          Madison held in argument:
                          “…It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in the enumeration, and it might follow by implication, that those rights that were not placed in that enumeration, that those rights not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure.”  The thrust point of MadisonÂ’s disputation is acutely simple: straightaway the “IXth” guarantees that those rights already in the constituted governments of the several states could remain with the states exclusively and that the enumeration of rights in the “Bill” could not be construed as altering that arrangement.
                                In the cultural history of constituted government the “IXth” has been used in a most notable instance “Griswold .v. Connecticut” as a rationale in part for holding state legislation as unconstitutional.  Justice William O. Douglas created a veritable “Lazy Susan” cafeteria line of rationalizations from the first, third, fourth, fifth, and ninth amendments in derivation of the principle of an overarching principle of a right to privacy older than the “Bill of Rights” with respect to the privacy of the marriage bed.  Douglas writing for the majority:
                          “… specific guarantees, in the “Bill of Rights” have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.”  Therefore, the “zones of privacy” created by the first, third, fourth, fifth, and ninth amendments protect marital privacy.  This ruling on privacy held in Griswold was used to justify a womanÂ’s right to terminate her pregnancy, “Roe .v. Wade” of 1973:
                          “This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the fourteenth AmendmentÂ’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determines, in the Ninth AmendmentÂ’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a womanÂ’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”
                                It cannot be said with any degree of clause bound interpretation sense that there are such manifests as “penumbra” or “emanations”.  Both the text and structure of all amendments comprising the “Bill” mean to say what they do as specifically isolated statements of general principle; they are specific exceptions to the general grant of power to the general [Federal] government;  they do not emanate or shade.  No where in the text of the formal Constitution is the word “privacy” mentioned; judicially it is of indeterminate value and cannot be said to exist in any rationed quantifiable senses.  Privacy is a substantive quality, which quality is definitive of particular instances of human existence and behaviors.  Any senses to the contrary not withstanding, influenced by disparate factors, it is highly subjective and judgmental in character and is as much determined by social mores and considerations as personal prejudices and choices.  Therefore, privacy is not absolute, and lacking any rational or quantifiable senses there is no “overarching” principle to be gained either by implication or inference.  In particular the worded text of the “IVth” goes to security:
                          “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,, papers, and effects, shall not be violated…” .  That the people have privacy generally speaking is because they are held “secure” constitutionally speaking.  Privacy is not a right; it does not emanate, nor does it shade, create penumbra or zones; it is the creature of security and not the creator.  Any senses to the contrary extended to their natural end states jeopardize unfairly the autonomy of governance by the state in any matters: homosexual behavior, murder, prostitution, narcotic manufactory, treason, conspiracy, to randomly cite a few.  
                             







                              The net result of the Douglas decision in both “Griswold” and “Roe” was to create a judicial “tour de force” of legislation by judicature.  It is inconceivable that the Framers who viewed the judiciary as a separate and coequal branch would have devised a system of governance no where else known on earth whereby judges could exercise unbridled authority to override executive decisions and laws conjured under fair principles of democratic legislation by finding authority outside of the Constitution.  In a constitutionally directed Republic the moral content of the law is determined by the morality of the Framers or legislators and not the morality or policy preferences of judges.  The clause bound plain language interpretation of the “IXth” affirms this and goes to rights enumerated; it is not the font of rights hitherto undiscovered or not enumerated.  The Revolution and the carnage of the Civil War were not prosecuted to establish a heretic form of constitutionalism, unconditional judicial autocracy.  If Madison had intended otherwise than according to clause bound plain language interpretation the worded structure and text of the “IXth” may quite well have been penned differently:
                          “The Courts shall determine what rights, in addition to those enumerated here, are retained by the people, which courts shall determine as congenial to them any new rights as required by fair principles of Republican democratic government and further we say and do ordain that the American people believing in the laws of nature and those laws passed to them by natureÂ’s God, render to the courts and delegate to any of their assignees such tasks as determining rights other than those enumerated herein as retained by the people.”
                               Madison conjured none of these things, penned none of these things and the records of the Constitutional convention as well as the records of the first session of Congress show that the Framers ratified none of them.  If the Framers envisioned such a dynamism for the Courts, they were inestimably adept at not saying so.  Madison and the Framers, worthy eminences all, soundly convicted of Judaeo-Christian principle, were also pragmatic and fundamentally understood the realities of their epoch.  Differing profoundly among themselves on almost every issue they correctly knew that they could not immediately do away with the pernicious institutes of a general slavery and form a strong Union, nor could they treat of every matter particular to each state without being counterintuitive to the Spirit of the “Declaration” and the mechanics of the articles of Constitution.  What they correctly understood was that a politic society [what we call government by another name] resting on the consent of a majority of the governed and having nothing other of its purpose than securing the rights of the majority of the polity must exercise all of its power in subordination to those rights.  The problem for them was not whether rights hitherto undiscovered were as worthy of enforcement as enumerated rights but whether or not the courts should infer from the “Bill of Rights” rights worthy of respect, which rights the Framers would conceivably want to safeguard as principled by constitutional governance.
                               In the end, the protection afforded by the “IXth” amendment strengthens and reinforces rights for individual participation in the process of democratic government; it does not go to the protection of choices that reflect substantive values, artificial abortion.

Anchor's Away/Semper Fi
CPO Bull
PS Did you hunt in NM with a 25/06AI?