Should Congress Legalize Abortion With An Amendment?

[beer]

Why would you need an amendment, a woman's right to choose is already in the Bill of Rights?

 

[TheDennis]

I don't personally believe in abortions. I don't think they are right and I don't women should do them. But I also don't think that the government should be able to make the decision for the woman. Granted I am Pro-Life not Pro-Choice but I just don't think the government should have a say here.

 

[DBL86]

DRGrim: So it's not a baby 5 mins earlier?!

 

[glenn1]

i think your idea is praiseworthy, and would finally open this issue to intellectual honesty. As the situation stands now, the Supreme Court's rationale behind the Roe v. Wade decision, the "right to privacy," exist nowhere in the Constitution, and is in direct conflict with the Tenth Amendment. In a way, this situation actually plays into the hands of both sides, pro-life and pro-choice, so that they can wring their hands, and say, 'it's out of our hands... the Supreme Court decision makes it the law of the land, and out of our hands."

Personally, i'm not in favor of abortion on demand. However, my Libertarian and intellectual side says that i would much rather have this issue (and any issue, for that matter) decided by the electorate, and an honest choice by the citizenry, than by having my preferrences imposed by other means.

Submit it either way... to legalize abortion, or to prohibit it, i don't care... but get the issue settled in a proper way.

 

[Russ]

A Constitutional Amendment, in either direction is a stupid idea for enough reasons to fill volumes. For one, it's a trampling of states rights. For another, it is NOT an issue Federal Piggy has any business even attempting to legislate. They should stay the hell out of it.

Russ, NCNE

 

[Netopia]

As opposed to Congress passing an amendment, I've been thinking over the following:

The President has the power, via Executive Order, to establish parameters of how ALL Government employees and agencies shall conduct business. Thus, what if George W. were to pass an Executive Order along the following lines:

Henceforth, all employees and agencies of the Federal Government of The United States of America shall, within the execution of their appointed duties adhere to the following definition of Human Life as that which begins at the moment of conception and that as such, any conceived Human shall be given those equal rights which we give to all. (or some such verbage)

My point is, that as EMPLOYEE's OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, the Justices of the Supreme Court are law bound to adhear to Executive Orders! What if they suddenly HAD to rethink Roe -v- Wade from a position that the unborn had FULL RIGHTS completly equal to the mother? In that situation, there isn't a court in the land that would say that one person's inconvenient pregnancy would given them the right to execute another human being (which is the truth anyway). I've just been mulling this over... think I'm gonna right a letter to President George W. in a few weeks and see what he thinks about it!

Joe

 

[shifrbv]

Russ - If "Federal Piggy" as you call it hadn't stuck their neck out for the lowliest and downtrodden in society, we would still have slaves in the south, child laborers, unsafe working conditions, dangerous food, a segregated society, people working for nothing or pennies a day instead of a federal minimum wage, etc. But because there were those who saw these deplorable conditions and reacted, enforcing new laws, society is the better for it today.

Actually, glenn1, I don't want it to go back to state's rights. There are some states, my own for the matter of fact, which I don't trust to uphold these rights. My state was the first state to legalize eugenics (forced sterilization on their perceived undesirables of society) a good 30 years before the Nazis. I really don't trust them to handle reproductive rights responsibly and feel that some sort of federal guideline is necessary.

Also, my state has tried to violate the constitution several times. Most recently with the illegal drug searches at various auto checkpoints throughout the city. These people have no respect for the constitution and almost need a federal mandate to make sure citizens rights aren't violated by the ultra-conservatives.

 

[glenn1]

Russ, i would agree with your assessment but for one thing... the Federal government has already ignored states' rights (as expressed by the Tenth Amendment) in passing the Roe v. Wade decision... and it would have been equally as incorrect a ruling if it had restricted abortion on the same grounds. The damage has already been done. I would agree with you - Roe v. Wade should be overturned on Tenth Amendment grounds, returning the issue to the states to decide as they saw fit, as Shifrbv described correctly. But i think both sides have a vested interest in not seeing this happen. I would much rather see this matter settled in a Constitutionally proper way, than any particular outcome result.

 

[Russ]

<< If &quot;Federal Piggy&quot; as you call it hadn't stuck their neck out for the lowliest and downtrodden in society >>



What EXACTLY did we do in this country before Nannie Fed was taking care of everyone? We took care of each other. In that case, 100% of our help went to those in need, instead of the 20% of crums left over after the DC Grand Larcenists get done taking their cut.

Of course, that requires a little more effort then sitting on one's ass and letting Uncle Govvy do it for you.



<< we would still have slaves in the south >>



Even the Piggy occasionally does something right. Of course, that statement sets aside the ridiculous assertion that we would STILL have slavery TODAY.



<< child laborers, unsafe working conditions, dangerous food >>



The states were already stepping up to the plate on these issues before the Logic Free Zone decided to, once again, intrude on their rights.



<< a segregated society >>



You think? You actually believe that the stupidity of segregation would not have been recognized by society and rectified without the interventionist ne'er do wells in DC? Have you been so brainwashed as to believe that ONLY the Feds are good, and that the PEOPLE are bad?



<< people working for nothing or pennies a day instead of a federal minimum wage >>



Every state has minimum wage laws. Tell me again why Federal Piggy should be interfering? Of course, I ask that question from your point of view.

Personally, I believe ALL minimum wage laws should be repealed. The government has no business interfering in private employment relationships at all. This is for workers, unions and businesses to decide.

Russ, NCNE

 

[jaydee]

shifrbv, you are living in the past. If you really think is was always the gov't looking into the people's interest, and saving the day, you have another thing coming. To look into some of your quotes:



<< If &quot;Federal Piggy&quot; as you call it hadn't stuck their neck out for the lowliest and downtrodden in society, we would still have slaves in the south, >>


Pure myth. If the South hadn't succeeded from the Union, there would have been slavery for a while longer, stopped by who knows who. Pick up a book, the South essentially ended there own slavery by picking a fight they couldn't win. And as for 'sticking their necks out' America was one of the last countries to end slavery.



<< child laborers, unsafe working conditions, dangerous food, segregated society >>


And without child labor laws, what company is going to put its reputation on the line by putting 8 year olds to 16 hour work days? Labor unions did away with working conditions not the gov't. And yeah, I know tons of people who are willing to buy dangerous foods, if only Clinton would let them. Last I knew the gov't was beating people non-violent protesters in the 60's, and it was MLK Jr. and the like who ended that mess.



<< But because there were those who saw these deplorable conditions and reacted, enforcing new laws, society is the better for it today >>


Society checks itself, they don't need help. Pick up a book.

 

[uncouth]

heres an idea: instead of setting the deadline for zapping the child @ birth, set it much higher, like @ age 18. Then if you feel that the kid is getting a bit out of hand you can abort the whole operation. In addition this allows the oppurtunity to cleanse the society of spooklike radicals who will eventually cause problems. Kids under 18 aren't allowed to vote and legally are not human and can morally be killed as long as its a quick, painless death.

 

[shifrbv]

Russ - Well, guess you must have never perused through the annals of history to see just how wonderful life was for so many people before federal laws started getting the job done where states and their local politicians had purposely or inadvertantly failed.

Maybe if you had died from eating poisoned meat, or had your limbs cut off from unsafe machinery, or had died from taking some type of concoction from your local quack you would understand. Or how about if your kids had to work in the local sweat shop because none of you could earn more than a few pennies a day to pay for basic necessities because you were all first-generation immigrants.

Yes, poor people did fend for themselves, but they lived in squalid conditions and had little to no food, with little access to education or healthcare. Some survived, but many, many, many died. Don't you ever read? There are plenty of books which detail the plight of poor people and first-generation immigrants in the early years of the 20th century. Thank God for people like the Roosevelts who stepped in to provide people with jobs and some stability through the great depression. Thank God for Johnson and his ideas of a &quot;Great Society&quot; making sure that old people didn't starve on the streets with social security and had access to healthcare through Medicare.

You think we wouldn't still have slavery today if we didn't have the 13th amendment? I think you're kidding yourself. Just as someone else said, some things have to be shoved down people's throats before they will be allowed in this country. We have to have affirmative action just to provide minorities with jobs in this country because when we look at the job business does by itself, we see they're all being run for white males by white males. We have to have court rulings to make sure blacks and whites can be in the same room with each other.

We have the ability to do so many things for everyone in the US today. We could provide everyone with basic healthcare, higher education, a livable wage, and more, but we choose not to. With this mentality, I'm sure if slavery would help IBM maintain it's corporate earnings and weren't outlawed, it would still be around in the US today. How many US businesses are going abroad to hire third-world workers to get around US labor laws while their CEO's live high off the hog. It's deplorable.

As far as state's minimum wage laws and other labor laws (such as safety laws), when FDR started evaluating this, there were plenty of state's not enforcing their laws. There were several high profile court cases where people were being severly underpaid and overworked. Businesses would adjust pay for whatever reason they saw fit. People were working in unsafe conditions and it was being overlooked because the people affected did not matter politically in those states. People running those businesses had plenty of methods and connections to get around whatever state labor law they chose. However, when this among other issues was brought to the national level, FDR won the election in a landslide as the nation clearly supported his New Deal for America. Federal labor laws have been enforced and maintained ever since to the benefit of millions of people.

The Constitution does charge the federal branch with looking out for the general welfare of the country. As broadly as the Constitution has been interpreted, IMO, if the states are not enforcing their own laws and people are suffering as a result, the federal government needs to step in.

More recently, we now see states aren't enforcing gun laws. Almost a million people have been shot to death in the US in the last few years. It's obvious the states don't have a handle on it and can't deal with the problem in an effective manner or don't have the ability or intelligence to enforce the current laws properly. I think this is threatening the general welfare of the country when citizens cannot feel safe due to maniacs with guns. My friend works in a federal building where 2 people have been caught bringing guns to work in the past couple of months alone. It's about time for some federal action to whip the states into shape because they clearly are clueless on their own.

Face it, if people were more honest and caring about others (love thy neighbor as thyself), we wouldn't have to worry about it. If states would take the initiative to solve these issues in an effective manner, we wouldn't be talking about this. But because evil persists at all levels, we have to have watchdogs.

Maybe I do believe the Feds are good and the people are bad, but if so, it's only from reading your sentiments, Russ. Your posts alone show me that I'm 100% justified in it.

 

[shifrbv]

jaydee - Your comments are assinine in and of themselves. Last time I checked, labor unions did not make laws in this country, congress does. You might want to review the legal process for your future posts.

Also, we all know the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery. Anyone who knows anything about it can tell you that. But we do have 2 ammendments dealing with issues which were brought on mainly for blacks in the South (abolition of slavery and abolition of the poll tax). These would never have been accomplished if left up to the southern states involved. They required a national level of intervention.

Same with the beatings and lynch mobs. MLK didn't end it. As any person knows, the situation only got worse as more violent groups like the Black Panthers and various others emerged inciting race riots around the nation afterwards. In these situations, the National Guard had to be called in to supervise from a federal level. Segregation had to be abolished with a Supreme Court decision at the federal level. States were incapable of providing their citizens with an acceptable middle-ground.

In response to what company would go around child or any labor law. Well we have plenty going down to third-world countries just so they can avoid US labor laws as well as environmental laws and a whole host of other laws. Ask Wal-mart who produces their clothing (child sweatshops in South America) or the Cruise industry who has been cited for registering their ships outside the US to avoid US wage and work hour laws.

Don't even get me started on bioengineered foods. We all know they're policing themselves because our government is too corporate controlled to do anything about it. I live next to a county which was growing and distributing the Starlink corn a few months back.

Why don't you pick up a damn book sometime or read a newspaper or watch the local news. You sound just as ignorant as you claim me to be.

 

[jaydee]

<< You might want to review the legal process for your future posts >>


I know the legal process, you have shown time and again that you do not.


<< Last time I checked, labor unions did not make laws in this country, congress does. You might want to review the legal process for your future posts. >>


You really believe that B.S. don't you? It was unions like the Knights of Labor, the AFL, and ILGWU, that changed the working conditions. If you were somewhat knowledgable in U.S. history, you would know that the government was behind business' until the Wagner Act of 1936. The government even used the Sherman Anti-trust laws against strikes intially. Again, I urge you to pick up a book.


<< Also, we all know the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery. Anyone who knows anything about it can tell you that. But we do have 2 ammendments dealing with issues which were brought on mainly for blacks in the South (abolition of slavery and abolition of the poll tax). These would never have been accomplished if left up to the southern states involved. They required a national level of intervention. >>


No crap it wasn't fought over slavery, it started by Abe Lincoln's election (primarily due to the split in the Democratic party which allowed Abe to easily win). Abe knew that preserving the union was more important than the slavery issue. He publically said it himself. The domino effect occurred after South Carolina succeeded, and to stop more border states from joining the confederacy, Abe announced the Proclaimation Declaration to ban slavery in the succeeded states, for the sole purpose of scaring border states in remaining neutral, or joining the North's side.


<< Same with the beatings and lynch mobs. MLK didn't end it. As any person knows, the situation only got worse as more violent groups like the Black Panthers and various others emerged inciting race riots around the nation afterwards. In these situations, the National Guard had to be called in to supervise from a federal level. Segregation had to be abolished with a Supreme Court decision at the federal level. States were incapable of providing their citizens with an acceptable middle-ground. >>


King played a HUGE role in it. Didn't stop it completely of course, but was very key. There is a reason Monday is a national holiday. Also, the Brown v. Board of Ed. Topeka, Ka Supreme Court case was in 1954. Are you suggesting that all segregation stopped at that point? It seems so, as you tend believe that whenever the feds step in, discussion is over.


<< Well we have plenty going down to third-world countries just so they can avoid US labor laws as well as environmental laws and a whole host of other laws. >>


I know! What right does a stupid immigrant have for being willing to harder for less money! The nerve he has.


<< Don't even get me started on bioengineered foods. We all know they're policing themselves because our government is too corporate controlled to do anything about it. I live next to a county which was growing and distributing the Starlink corn a few months back. >>


Please do get started on bio-engi foods. I'd like to hear all the nasty companies who found ways to make food for less money, and it's ALL THEIR FAULT if people buy them. Get it through your head. Companies PRODUCE things. People BUY things. If people don't like what a company PRODUCES, they can stop BUYING them any time. It's called a supply and demand economy concept. Not exactly the socialistic ideal your headed for.


<< Why don't you pick up a damn book sometime or read a newspaper or watch the local news. >>


Why don't you pick your sorry behind off the couch watching CNN, and stop spreading your Liberal propoganda while your at it, and learn history as it is, and not how the gov't wants you to believe.

 

[Shuxclams]

[/b]Abortion is already legal





SHUX

 

[PCAddict]

I'm with Viper GTS.

 

[Shuxclams]

I say we sterilize all the morons who are against arbortion. 🙂 That way they won't have to have one.





SHUX

 

[jaydee]

<< I say we sterilize all the morons who are against arbortion. 🙂 That way they won't have to have one. >>


Ummm...

 

[Deicide]

Get it through your head. Companies PRODUCE things. People BUY things. If people don't like what a company PRODUCES, they can stop BUYING them any time. It's called a supply and demand economy concept. Not exactly the socialistic ideal your headed for.

If there weren't federal regulations in place concerning that, then what the hell would stop companies from even telling you that their food is genetically altered? I doubt that any company would disclose their manufacturing methods if given the option not to, unless you believe that the companies actually give a damn about the consumer. I don't think that it's socialist to want to know what your feeding yourself and your family every day.

edit: grammar

 

[Russ]

shifrbv,

I'm curious, are you a college student? Your arguments all sound like they originated from a textbook in a Minority or Women's Study course. As I hope you will someday learn, there is a difference between the world of books, and the world of reality.

In the middle of your recitation, though, resides a gem. A single sentence that, in it's powerful message, serves to illustrate the one most important problem in this country:



<< As broadly as the Constitution has been interpreted >>



This is the crux, the foundation for the unlawful size and scope of Federal Piggy. We don't really need Amendments because, over the years, an activist judiciary has completely extirpated the intent and meaning of one of the greatest documents in the history of mankind.

Russ, NCNE

 

[Shuxclams]

[/b]Abortion is already legal





SHUX

 

[Moonbeam]

shifrvb, Russ of course refers to the flaming activist conservative court usurpation of the 2000 presidential election. Activism is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. Even in the case of the judicial restraint, of which the above example was the antithetical, there is activism. It requires active restraint. What is fundamentally important is not the activism or restraint, but the direction. It comes back to whether to conserve power to those who have it now or expand it liberally to those who don't. To me it's a grow or die issue. We have expanded from the dawn of time with the conservative anchors trying to drag us back. &quot;No, No; please don't change. I'm comfey the way things are.&quot; Same with religion: You get this man made religion and call it the absolute word of God and then sit around and fear every attempt to grow beyond an old chrysalis as the evil hand of the devilish intention. &quot;Oh, oh, man is evil. Secular humanism's gonna send us down the shute. Please don't make me feel unimportant by telling me I don't have the absolute truth. Please don't make me think my religion is just one of any number of other equally valid paths.&quot;

We will grow or die just like Iran or Afganistan will.

 

[glenn1]

Moonbeam, while i honor your opinions, some would assert that the growth of government is a limiting factor, working against empowering the citizenry and his liberties, rather than a positive influence. Without trying to speak for Russ (who is perfectly capable of doing it on his own), i think that's what he was trying to express.