Quote from: Jollity farm... on September 07, 2011, 05:32:16 PM


I am asking you because you are involved in a thread that is discussing the Constitutional right of Abortion. You have said the constitution has nothing to do with it, Then you said there is no right yet when faced the fact that the SCOTUS ruled based on the Constitution and cited specific sections of the Constitution you suddenly say "Why ask me?"

I didn't say the Constitution has nothing to do with it. I said SCOTUS decided that the law preventing a woman's access to abortion was unconstitutional. That's a simple fact. In no way do I need to prove that by quoting any part of the constitution.

Quote from: Jollity farm... on September 07, 2011, 05:32:16 PM
If there is no law then what guarantees an abortion? THE CONSTITUTION. The Law gives women a right or a guaranteed access to abortion. Now ALL laws based on the Constitution have to protect EVERYBODY. yet men cannot have abortions and no other medical procedure is protected by the Constitution. That violates the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.

You don't really understand our constitution and the concept of negative and positive rights. Our constitution offer no positive rights.

Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 05:29:54 PM
I'm not sure where you derive that. We kill people all the time. We kill animals all the time. We kill plants all the time.

Yes, for food, but we don't kill people for now, do we?

Before I answer this question I want you to tell me whether this is an absolute. Are we obligated to prevent any threat to human life?
I spelled it out quite clearly for you.
So I'll ask again, different circumstance.
If you see someone dying on the street, do uyou not have an obligation to help save their life?


I'm not sure where you derive that.

Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 05:19:02 PM
Life is all around us. It's everywhere. I appreciate life.

Justice, though... is a much more difficult concept.

It's pretty simple.  If you steal, die.  If you are treasonous, die.  If you attempt to hurt someone else, die.


Problems solved!

Quote from: Solar on September 07, 2011, 05:41:19 PM
Yes, for food, but we don't kill people for now, do we?

Before I answer this question I want you to tell me whether this is an absolute. Are we obligated to prevent any threat to human life?
I spelled it out quite clearly for you.
So I'll ask again, different circumstance.
If you see someone dying on the street, do uyou not have an obligation to help save their life?


I'm not sure where you derive that.

We kill things without the need for food all the time.

And to answer your question, I do feel an obligation to save a person's life if I encounter them on the street. That's because I am a trained EMS responder.

Let me ask you a question. If we all have the obligation to save life everywhere, what do you think about "collateral damage" in war? Are those people exempt?

Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 05:36:09 PM
I didn't say the Constitution has nothing to do with it. I said SCOTUS decided that the law preventing a woman's access to abortion was unconstitutional. That's a simple fact. In no way do I need to prove that by quoting any part of the constitution.

Read the ruling. it specifies sections of the Constitution. The suit is based on Clauses. Stop avoiding that.

QuoteYou don't really understand our constitution and the concept of negative and positive rights. Our constitution offer no positive rights.

more dodging. if you disagree explain how it does not violate the equal protection clause.

Quote from: Jollity farm... on September 07, 2011, 05:43:57 PM
Read the ruling. it specifies sections of the Constitution. The suit is based on Clauses. Stop avoiding that.

Ok. What is your problem with that? do you have some disagreement with SCOTUS? take it up with them.

Quote from: Jollity farm... on September 07, 2011, 05:43:57 PM
more dodging. if you disagree explain how it does not violate the equal protection clause.

Why have been arguing against a positive right all this time then, if it's dodging?

What does the equal protection clause have to do with what I've said?

Quote from: taxed on September 07, 2011, 05:42:24 PM

It's pretty simple.  If you steal, die.  If you are treasonous, die.  If you attempt to hurt someone else, die.


Problems solved!

I guess then only living would be the problem.

Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 05:46:23 PM
Ok. What is your problem with that? do you have some disagreement with SCOTUS? take it up with them.

Why have been arguing against a positive right all this time then, if it's dodging?

why can't you show me?

QuoteWhat does the equal protection clause have to do with what I've said?

What you said has nothing to with the issue. Either it violates it or not. If so explain.

Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 05:43:40 PM
We kill things without the need for food all the time.

And to answer your question, I do feel an obligation to save a person's life if I encounter them on the street. That's because I am a trained EMS responder.

Let me ask you a question. If we all have the obligation to save life everywhere, what do you think about "collateral damage" in war? Are those people exempt?

As I said earlier, we do not eat humans, so your point is moot.

If you own a dog and it bites someone, are you not responsible?
If your child hurts someone, no matter how innocent, are you responsible?

Of you make a baby, are you not responsible?
But to give the woman full say in a babies welfare is usurping a mans right!

If you can't see that, then you are either lying, or so damned liberal it has blinded your moral compass and responsibility as a man.

Quote from: Jollity farm... on September 07, 2011, 05:48:39 PM
why can't you show me?

Why should I show you? Google the ruling yourself. It's got nothing to do with my argument.

Quote from: Jollity farm... on September 07, 2011, 05:48:39 PM
What you said has nothing to with the issue. Either it violates it or not. If so explain.

Now you are just trying to lead me around into absurdity. I don't even know what you are talking about. The law? The protests? Be specific.

Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 05:51:24 PM
Why should I show you? Google the ruling yourself. It's got nothing to do with my argument.

Now you are just trying to lead me around into absurdity. I don't even know what you are talking about. The law? The protests? Be specific.

And scene!

Thank you Tenny for proving Liberals have absolutely no understanding of the Constitution. An thanks for running away like a prom queen on a date with Ron Jeremy. It was hilarious.

Quote from: Jollity farm... on September 07, 2011, 05:54:00 PM
And scene!

Thank you Tenny for proving Liberals have absolutely no understanding of the Constitution. An thanks for running away like a prom queen on a date with Ron Jeremy. It was hilarious.

The fact that you bail on the conversation and claim some kind of victory here proves nothing. Any truthful reading of this thread should prove embarrassing to you in your understanding of my country's constitution, our concept of rights, and our legal system.

But whatever. You said you won. It must be true.

After reading through this discussion, I have a few thoughts here:
1- Most states have a fetus protection law, ie if a pregnant woman is killed, the murderer is charged with two murders. Example: Scott Peterson. In these cases, what is referred to as "tissue", "a mass of cells", "a body part" etc. in the abortion debate suddenly becomes a life. The pro-choice crowd has no problem with this flexible definition.

2- If a woman can abort a child that the father had a part in conceiving without the father's consent, does the father have the right to not pay child support after the child is born? For example, let's say it's reversed, and the woman wants to have the child, the man doesn't. Can he choose not to pay child support? If not, why should he have less of a choice in what he does with his money (and it is concretely his money) than the woman has in what to do with "her" body (a flimsy assertion). 

Quote from: CubaLibre on September 08, 2011, 08:09:14 AM
After reading through this discussion, I have a few thoughts here:
1- Most states have a fetus protection law, ie if a pregnant woman is killed, the murderer is charged with two murders. Example: Scott Peterson. In these cases, what is referred to as "tissue", "a mass of cells", "a body part" etc. in the abortion debate suddenly becomes a life. The pro-choice crowd has no problem with this flexible definition.

2- If a woman can abort a child that the father had a part in conceiving without the father's consent, does the father have the right to not pay child support after the child is born? For example, let's say it's reversed, and the woman wants to have the child, the man doesn't. Can he choose not to pay child support? If not, why should he have less of a choice in what he does with his money (and it is concretely his money) than the woman has in what to do with "her" body (a flimsy assertion). 

Well said CL.
I don't know why libs are so set on denying equal protection under the law, but then, it was never about fairness, but rather appeasement to garner votes.

Quote from: CubaLibre on September 08, 2011, 08:09:14 AM
After reading through this discussion, I have a few thoughts here:
1- Most states have a fetus protection law, ie if a pregnant woman is killed, the murderer is charged with two murders. Example: Scott Peterson. In these cases, what is referred to as "tissue", "a mass of cells", "a body part" etc. in the abortion debate suddenly becomes a life. The pro-choice crowd has no problem with this flexible definition.

Killing a woman and her fetus isn't really her choice, now is it.

Quote from: CubaLibre on September 08, 2011, 08:09:14 AM
2- If a woman can abort a child that the father had a part in conceiving without the father's consent, does the father have the right to not pay child support after the child is born? For example, let's say it's reversed, and the woman wants to have the child, the man doesn't. Can he choose not to pay child support? If not, why should he have less of a choice in what he does with his money (and it is concretely his money) than the woman has in what to do with "her" body (a flimsy assertion).

This is an interesting point, and I'll have to think on it.