Republican Ideologically Motivated Policies Crashing and Burning

Uh... So what? As long as Roe VS Wade stands, who cares what the state of Illinois thinks? Even the state of Illinois acknowledges that the Abortion Law of 1975 has no force because it is unconstitutional. So by their own admission abortion is not homicide in Illinois.

 

Similarly, as an example, who cares what Vermont and Massachusetts say about gay marriage as long as federal law (DOMA) says its not recognized. States should have no say in the matter whatsoever, correct?

 

It's not similar at all. Marriage equality is in fact the law in Vermont and Massachusetts and same-sex couples get married there and their marriages have full force of law in those states. Same-sex marriage has not been ruled unconstitutional, the federal government simply does not recognize same sex marriage for federal purposes. On the other hand the abortion is murder laws are in fact unconstitutional and can not be enforced. Until the supreme court rules otherwise they are dead on the books.

 

So, if certain states say "marriage equality is in fact the law..." you find that acceptable. But, if certain states say "abortion is murder" that's unacceptable? Which is it going to be? Either states have the say or they don't. I don't believe you can have it both ways.

Also, there are restrictions on abortion per Roe v. Wade. A woman doesn't have an "absolute right" to abortion. The decision says that a state has two interests in regulating abortions: (1) Protecting pre-natal life and (2) Protecting the woman's health.

The Supreme Court has ruled that a state does have an interest in protecting pre-natal life (yes, I said "life" just as the Supreme Court said), therefore I question your "abortion is murder laws are unconstitutional" assertion.

Would you agree on the following points?

a. The Supreme Court has ruled that a state has an interest in protecting pre-natal life
b. The Supreme Court has ruled that a woman has a right to abortion until viability
c. Viability is usually placed at about 28 weeks, but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks
d. The word "homicide" is defined as "the killing of one human being by another human being"

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113

(1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with companion case Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests for regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting the woman's health. Saying that these state interests become stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the woman's current trimester of pregnancy.

The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.[1] The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[2]

 

I didn't "put it" any way whatsoever. The Supreme Court ruled it as such (read above).

 

Another inane argument from the superhero of pointless arguments. Remember his "We're all from Africa there for we're all African American" statement. He seems to have the unique ability to look at any issue from the most pointless perspective possible. He can ignore relevant facts with ease. Embrace tall tales in a single bound. He is faster than a speeding non sequitur. He is Captain Irrelevancy!

 

Hahahaha.. I know that when you attempt to make light of a topic, you realize you don't have grounds to stand on. The Supreme Court called pre-natal life "life", so I will too regardless of what you believe (which, by your own admission, is irrelevant anyway). Oh, and if your ancestors didn't come from Africa just where DID they come from? Never mind, your belief about that is irrelevant, too.

 

​

 

Actually, the Constitution doesn't protect anyone's "life". The Declaration of Independence states that we are endowed by our Creator with the right to life... and that to secure these rights, governments are instituted...

The Supreme Court has already ruled in Roe v. Wade that pre-natal life is, indeed, "life" and that a state has an interest in protecting that "life".

No Constitutional amendment is needed to protect pre-natal life. It's already endowed by its Creator with the right to "life" and government is instituted to secure that right. That is, unless you want to go against what the Declaration says.....

 

Moen, you need to check out
I LOVE AFRICA The mother of us all, the beginning of the human race


http://www.facebook.com/I.Love.Afica.The.Mother

Moen. stop thinking small. We are all brothers and sisters in the eyes of the universe so stop the labeling and embrace the cradle.

 

Go against the Declaration? How do you go against the Declaration? You seem to think that the Declaration of Independence is some sort of legal code or document. It's not. The Declaration establishes no law. It is simply a list of grievances against a legally established government and and attempts to justify treason against that government.

 

At least now I know that you two believe in evolution. I wasn't quite sure any science meant anything to you two.

 

As a founding document, the Declaration establishes certain foundations for our nation (other than just grievances against Great Britain). Among them, our government's ability to protect our right to life.

From the Declaration:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

 

That is the problem with the left, if someone does not accept things the way they want them to then that person at best must be a moron in their eyes. Sorry but I do not believe in the theory of evolution for it has too many holes in it which is why it is still a theory but I am interested in the story it tells and logic it trys to present.
However, that logic is just based upon what we know and how we view the world around us. New insight always brings down the old and ushers in the new. So sorry if I do not jump on any bandwagon and baa to the brainwashing music of the left. Talk about amino soup, lightening, metors leading to life and evolution should be studied and experimented upon for it does produce things to think about and explore more but unlike the left, it is not my religion.

 

To the extent that it establishes anything it does so only in as far as the sentiments expressed were later made into law. The Declaration is, btw, silent on the question of when life begins, but that's a separate issue. The Constitution, which does have force of law says nothing about life, (or fetuses or pregnancy) or Happiness. It does mention securing liberty in the preamble along with the goal of promoting the general welfare. Good luck with that combination.

 

When you go off on tangents, it's a bit difficult to follow you. Are you saying that the Declaration doesn't state that we are endowed... by our Creator... with life and that to secure that right, government is instituted?''

Sorry, Tak but the last time I read the Declaration, it stated that we are given rights by our Creator (and among those rights is "life") and that government is set up to secure those rights. If nothing else, the Declaration declared that we all have a right to life. But, you're right that the Declaration is silent on the questions of when "life" begins. That's what the majority of the abortion debate is about. However, I'll go with the Supreme Court's ruling that pre-natal life is, indeed, "life". You may see it differently but, if so, what is the basis of your assertion? I'm asking when YOU think life begins and, therefore, a "right to life" begins.

 

Let me get this straight. You don't believe in evolution but you do believe that we all came from Africa? You do know that the fossils that came from Africa such as Lucy are 3.2 million years old right? So you are saying that we all had a common ancestor in Africa some 3.2 million years ago but you don't believe that we evolved in any way? I don't think that you've really thought your support for Okie through very well.

 

Evolution and Creationism are not necessarily exclusive. There is a theory that a supreme being created the building blocks and allowed them to evolve.

Most people would agree that Homo Sapiens have evolved over time, but shared a common ancestor. The prevalent scientific theory is that the common ancestor originated in Africa. But, if you don't believe it originated in Africa, where do you believe it originated? Just askin'.

 

I know what the Declaration says. And all I'm pointing out that for all its high flown justifications for treason and revolt it does not have the force of law, while the Constitution does. It can grant or confer nothing.

As for when life begins I'm pretty arrogant but not arrogant enough to claim that I know the answer to that. I think perhaps we should leave that up to the woman in question in consultation with her god if she has one and any other advisors or confidants she might trust.

 

Agreed. However, the document does state that we have a right to life. As a founding document, we adhere to it and its guiding principles.

Neither do I. But, somewhere between conception and birth life begins. Whenever that moment is, terminating that human life should be considered homicide.

Even once it becomes a viable life, you would still leave it up the mother's discretion to kill it?