I tend to lean to the right

[CrackRabbit]

True, but the issue you are commenting on is "Well, they are overreaching their bounds". Sorry, saying that it's easier so we should just do it now, despite it being wrong, is not the way to go.

I actually don't think abortion should be illegal, but it really should be left up to the state.

So in the scenario where states laws alone are the deciding factor on if abortion is legal or not;
A woman in a non-abortion state wants an abortion and goes to the next state over where it is legal and has the abortion performed. She then returns home.
Do you not care with what she did, or do you scream your head off because she did something that was perfectly legal in another state?

 

[nick1985]

So in the scenario where states laws alone are the deciding factor on if abortion is legal or not;
A woman in a non-abortion state wants an abortion and goes to the next state over where it is legal and has the abortion performed. She then returns home.
Do you not care with what she did, or do you scream your head off because she did something that was perfectly legal in another state?

She did something perfectly legal in another state

 

[Kappo]

She did something perfectly legal in another state

Exactly.

States can scream about it all they like. But when it comes down to it, it's the state's choice. For instance, 50% of the states think it should be illegal, the rest do not. 50% are unahappy? Or more like 80% (20% padding for the people who make it their job to tell others how to live)?

 

[CanOWorms]

I'm not the biggest fan of it either, but I still see it as a states rights issue. Feds need to butt out of this one.

Gay marriage seems that it's more involving individual rights rather than state rights. States need to butt out of this one.

 

[nick1985]

Gay marriage seems that it's more involving individual rights rather than state rights. States need to butt out of this one.

Dealing with marriage is not a congressional power, and there is no amendment dealing with marriage to the Constitution. Given this, you point to the 10th amendment. States have the power on this one. Your personal feelings disagree, but thats the way the law of the US is written. I urge you to write your congressmen to start work on an amendment to specify marriage.

 

[Ozoned]

yet I cannot understand many other rightie's stance on marriage/abortion.

I feel that the Constitution doesn't deal with civil issues such as these, so these issues should be up to the states. If a state wants to ban abortion and only allow for man/woman marriages, then thats great. If a state wants to allow abortion and allow for homosexual marriages, them thats fantastic as well, I love seeing the 10th amendment being used.

/shrug

Most "rightie's" view abortion as a moral issue. They aren't going to change their view, regardless of how the issue is handled,,,, as you say,,,civilly.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

nice dodge

I dodged nothing, but rather cut to the quick. Your question was disingenuous, to say the least.

My statement stands unrebutted.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'm pro-choice and even I'm rolling my eyes at you, asshole.

You don't seem to know what the word "fact" means you dumbfuck.

Then point out anything I've said which is not factually correct.

Oh, thats right. You didn't because you can't.

 

[CanOWorms]

Dealing with marriage is not a congressional power, and there is no amendment dealing with marriage to the Constitution. Given this, you point to the 10th amendment. States have the power on this one. Your personal feelings disagree, but thats the way the law of the US is written. I urge you to write your congressmen to start work on an amendment to specify marriage.

Dealing with marriage could be a constitutional power. There needs to be no explicit statement in the Constitution regarding marriage. In fact, marriage has been deemed to be a federal issue in cases.

Is the Air Force is unconstitutional? It's not mentioned in the Constitution, which explicitly only states Navy and Army. The Air Force certainly wasn't fathomed by the founding fathers and therefore is unconstitutional! Of course it isn't!

I urge you to follow the United States' constitution.

 

[CrackRabbit]

She did something perfectly legal in another state

:thumbsup;

 

[Moonbeam]

Wow, bigot much?

I was trying to be kind.

 

[Moonbeam]

Moonster, SCOTUS are suppose to have looked to the Constitution to derive their opinions. They were suppose to have been doing that since we adopted our form of government. Now then... Assuming they have, decisions flowing from that basis should have changed only to the extent the Constitution had been amended. I'm not too sure how they could have managed to opine as they have over the years and be true to the task at hand... They DO use their Political and Emotional bias to opine and that is wrong, imo. How can they sit there and fall sharply on the side of an issue that follows the obvious Political Agenda they support and still look in the judicial mirror?

As I see it, if it don't say it clearly it don't be so. Remember, the Constitution started out being a limit on the Central Government until the 14th tied the States into the mix and what Hamilton wanted came to pass.

The only aspect that is a given and although not explicit in the Constitution are the Fundamental Rights of Humankind... They are Axiomatic and without question the basis for the creation of the Government in the first place... But yet we've had to Amend to free the Slave make him a citizen and give him the vote... I can't imagine having to Amend to do that but there it is... Some 50ish years later we got around to woman folk... (by Amending again) And still the ERA goes by the wayside...

We is a funny lot!!

We think our thoughts are based on logic but they are just rationalizations governed by unconscious feelings. This is why I don't trust the thoughts of folk who do not know what is in their hearts. They lie to themselves and to me.

 

[ElFenix]

I dodged nothing, but rather cut to the quick. Your question was disingenuous, to say the least.

My statement stands unrebutted.

my question went right to the heard of the matter.

 

[LunarRay]

We think our thoughts are based on logic but they are just rationalizations governed by unconscious feelings. This is why I don't trust the thoughts of folk who do not know what is in their hearts. They lie to themselves and to me.

That is exactly what keeps the SCOTUS folks from being able to effect their oath of office! We are all plagued by the minds of the powerful in high office... What got them there? Why do they want being there? And why do we vote them in office knowing this and knowing especially that the President will affect our lives for decades with his SCOTUS choices and the driving forces that control their opinions... It can't be good... We need a pill that erases the sub-conscious and leaves the mind in a pristine state free from the turmoil that no one can see and therefore can't remedy... Assume the mind is tainted and take the pill.... hehehehehehhehe Blue or green or red... who cares... But for sure until the evil is gone the resulting behavior will be evil...

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

my question went right to the heard of the matter.

No, it didn't. There are many "natural consequences" of sex, the most likely of which is not pregnancy. Pregnancy is rather an anomalous result of sex, statistically speaking. The vast majority of abortions are in fact cases of people that intended the most common and probable -- dare I say, natural -- result of sex: a mutually gratifying experience that does not result in pregnancy.

Pregnancy is as much a "natural consequence" of sex as automobile collisions are a "natural consequence" of driving on public motorways, but when such collisions occur, we do not say "well, if you didn't want to get in a wreck, you shouldn't have been driving. Tough tits." No, persons have the right to seek restoration of the status quo ante from a violation of their rights.

Even assuming arguendo that pregnancy is the "natural consequence" of sex, it makes no difference because of what I've already said: Nobody owes a duty to a party that doesn't exist when performing an act that isn't negligent. A fetus exists in violation of a woman's fundamental rights under her provisional consent at best, or without it at all, and it is her right to revoke it at her discretion.

You are invited to demonstrate any or all of the following: sex is negligent, fetuses do not violate a woman's rights, and/or sex is somehow tantamount to an explicit waiver of those rights. Absent a demonstration of any of the above, you have no meaningful argument.

Good luck with that.

 

[BoberFett]

I certainly hope you cleanse your body of all of those bacteria that are infesting you right now Cerpin. They have no right to be there. Maybe the Scientologists can help you out.

 

[nick1985]

Dealing with marriage could be a constitutional power. There needs to be no explicit statement in the Constitution regarding marriage. In fact, marriage has been deemed to be a federal issue in cases.

Is the Air Force is unconstitutional? It's not mentioned in the Constitution, which explicitly only states Navy and Army. The Air Force certainly wasn't fathomed by the founding fathers and therefore is unconstitutional! Of course it isn't!

I urge you to follow the United States' constitution.

The problem with your argument is that an Air Force did not exist back then, marriage did and is STILL not mentioned in the Constitution. The conclusion I draw from this is that the framers had no intention of making marriage federally regulated.

Nice try with the Air Force thing though, seems to be a common defence for liberals trying to do stuff thats unconstitutional. "But but...No Air Force!" As if that gives them the green light to do anything they want. There is no Coast Guard or Marine Corps mentioned either, are those Constitutional? That is seriously some of the weakest stuff for an argument I have ever heard.

 

[Elfear]

No, it didn't. There are many "natural consequences" of sex, the most likely of which is not pregnancy. Pregnancy is rather an anomalous result of sex, statistically speaking. The vast majority of abortions are in fact cases of people that intended the most common and probable -- dare I say, natural -- result of sex: a mutually gratifying experience that does not result in pregnancy.

Pregnancy is as much a "natural consequence" of sex as automobile collisions are a "natural consequence" of driving on public motorways, but when such collisions occur, we do not say "well, if you didn't want to get in a wreck, you shouldn't have been driving. Tough tits." No, persons have the right to seek restoration of the status quo ante from a violation of their rights.

Even assuming arguendo that pregnancy is the "natural consequence" of sex, it makes no difference because of what I've already said: Nobody owes a duty to a party that doesn't exist when performing an act that isn't negligent. A fetus exists in violation of a woman's fundamental rights under her provisional consent at best, or without it at all, and it is her right to revoke it at her discretion.

You are invited to demonstrate any or all of the following: sex is negligent, fetuses do not violate a woman's rights, and/or sex is somehow tantamount to an explicit waiver of those rights. Absent a demonstration of any of the above, you have no meaningful argument.

Good luck with that.

That right there folks is the perfect example of why individuals need some moral framework to work off. Without a set of values and morals, "by the law" interpretations can become the basis for actions. The law does not encompass, nor is it meant to encompass, all things that are good or all things which are bad. There must be something above and beyond the law from which people build their moral framework. That moral framework can come from many places but something solid needs to be there.

As BobberFett mentioned, you can be pro-choice and recognize that pregnancy is not what Cerpin Taxt states (i.e. an opinion completely devoid of any human feeling).

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

That right there folks is the perfect example of why individuals need some moral framework to work off. Without a set of values and morals, "by the law" interpretations can become the basis for actions. The law does not encompass, nor is it meant to encompass, all things that are good or all things which are bad. There must be something above and beyond the law from which people build their moral framework. That moral framework can come from many places but something solid needs to be there.

I've never suggested that anyone should feel one way or another in particular with regard to abortion. I personally feel that all instances of abortion are unfortunate and regrettable, but that is rather irrelevant to the basis of the legality of abortion in our country.

As BobberFett mentioned, you can be pro-choice and recognize that pregnancy is not what Cerpin Taxt states (i.e. an opinion completely devoid of any human feeling).

Nothing in what I have posted is an opinion whatsoever. They are the facts, and they are irrefutable.

 

[Moonbeam]

That right there folks is the perfect example of why individuals need some moral framework to work off. Without a set of values and morals, "by the law" interpretations can become the basis for actions. The law does not encompass, nor is it meant to encompass, all things that are good or all things which are bad. There must be something above and beyond the law from which people build their moral framework. That moral framework can come from many places but something solid needs to be there.

As BobberFett mentioned, you can be pro-choice and recognize that pregnancy is not what Cerpin Taxt states (i.e. an opinion completely devoid of any human feeling).

This a perfectly valid moral framework, just not one that agrees with your moral framework. You need to demonstrate why yours is any better than his. To say there must be is pure nonsense. As humans we have no other tool than law to settle disputes between two folk who have differing only truths.

And abortion occurs when a woman feels it would be better not to have a child than have it, for her, for the child, or both. Again, you want to recognize as feeling only those feelings you include in your one and only truth.

 

[umbrella39]

First the birther's and now the 10ther's. Get over it and you total misunderstanding of the constitution OP.

 

[daishi5]

No, it didn't. There are many "natural consequences" of sex, the most likely of which is not pregnancy. Pregnancy is rather an anomalous result of sex, statistically speaking. The vast majority of abortions are in fact cases of people that intended the most common and probable -- dare I say, natural -- result of sex: a mutually gratifying experience that does not result in pregnancy.

Pregnancy is as much a "natural consequence" of sex as automobile collisions are a "natural consequence" of driving on public motorways, but when such collisions occur, we do not say "well, if you didn't want to get in a wreck, you shouldn't have been driving. Tough tits." No, persons have the right to seek restoration of the status quo ante from a violation of their rights.

Even assuming arguendo that pregnancy is the "natural consequence" of sex, it makes no difference because of what I've already said: Nobody owes a duty to a party that doesn't exist when performing an act that isn't negligent. A fetus exists in violation of a woman's fundamental rights under her provisional consent at best, or without it at all, and it is her right to revoke it at her discretion.

You are invited to demonstrate any or all of the following: sex is negligent, fetuses do not violate a woman's rights, and/or sex is somehow tantamount to an explicit waiver of those rights. Absent a demonstration of any of the above, you have no meaningful argument.

Good luck with that.

It seems we are getting very technical, so feel free to correct me if I misuse a word. Isn't negligent any action that you take or fail to take that has a reasonably obvious negative consequence for yourself or others. Such as, I know the roof of my store is not structurally sound, and I don't fix it or close my store. If the roof caves in, would it not be my fault due to negligence because I knew it was not sound, and collapse was an obvious consequence. I would expect pregnancy to be an obvious consequence of sex without contraceptives. It seems to me that the result of pregnancy is so obvious, that consenting participation in sex is an acceptance of the possible consequences. Sex is also the only activity that I know of that creates a completely new entity that is capable of thought and possessing of rights, so I am not sure that there is any other examples that could be used for a precedent of obligation to a party that did not exist before the act.

 

[Jaskalas]

First the birther's and now the 10ther's. Get over it and you total misunderstanding of the constitution OP.

Get over what, abuse of power? You can ask the Brits how that worked out for them. The constitution does not end in 2 or 3 words be they "necessary and proper" or "general welfare".

The document is a constraint of power, not a granted right to do everything to everyone as it is now used.

 

[nick1985]

First the birther's and now the 10ther's. Get over it and you total misunderstanding of the constitution OP.

What did I totally misunderstand?

/confused

 

[mattpegher]

yet I cannot understand many other rightie's stance on marriage/abortion.

I feel that the Constitution doesn't deal with civil issues such as these, so these issues should be up to the states. If a state wants to ban abortion and only allow for man/woman marriages, then thats great. If a state wants to allow abortion and allow for homosexual marriages, them thats fantastic as well, I love seeing the 10th amendment being used.

/shrug

But allowing each state to have different laws regarding these issues has practicle problems. Say Sally and Molly are married in one state but have to move to another that doesnot allow gay marriage, then they are nolonger married. How does that work. As for abortion, if one state does not allow it they this state is saying that it is murder, but you can go nextdoor to murder all you want.

Human rights are at the minimum federal issues and protection of equal protection under the law should be considered a federal mandate.