US Supreme Court upholds partial birth abortion ban

[MDC 5,895]

I spell my name Stephen because I'm a phag.

[Snoopy1 0]

Yes, they would. But they stand a better chance going full term.

 

"Better Chance" is not the same as "Not at All", you focking dipshit.

 

 

You are the one who said they would survive. Not you are saying "better chance", and you have the gall to call me names.

 

If I open up a women's womb at 7 months, there is no gurantee the baby would survive...

[Snoopy1 0]

Also, since the second amendment is in the constitution, and does gaurantee the right to own handguns, why would I not have that "right" if I lived in Washington D.C.?

 

 

Completely different thread & I have argued and stated this many times and previous SC rulings agree with me on this.

 

The right to own a gun is not an individual right but one maintained by the state to determine. Presently there have been 7 SC rulings that have come to this conclusion.

 

 

Think the idea of different rights according to state's is an interesting one, but gun's according to SC rulings doesn't work as an arguement, despite all the recent propoganda we heard in other threads.

[Toro 1]

Looks like someone has been googling me!!!!

 

You focking phag!!!

[MDC 5,895]

Looks like someone has been googling me!!!!

 

You focking phag!!!

 

Nope. Back when you started posting my personal info I bothered to save your name, your wife's name, both your places of employment, your address, phone number, and some other assorted info. You know, just in case anyone from FFT ever gives me a hard time, I'll at least have a punching bag to take it out on.

 

Now STFU you small, whiny, insecure little focking beetch.

[Toro 1]

Nope. Back when you started posting my personal info I bothered to save your name, your wife's name, both your places of employment, your address, phone number, and some other assorted info. You know, just in case anyone from FFT ever gives me a hard time, I'll at least have a punching bag to take it out on.

 

Now STFU you small, whiny, insecure little focking beetch.

 

Too bad I didn't post anything. YOU DID.

 

Just remember that I have your info as well. I am sure a quick 20 bucks to some fairly reputable background check places would give me the same gold mine.

 

Now STFU you small, whiny, little welching mascara wearing secretary.

[Mrdirt73 0]

Completely different thread & I have argued and stated this many times and previous SC rulings agree with me on this.

 

The right to own a gun is not an individual right but one maintained by the state to determine. Presently there have been 7 SC rulings that have come to this conclusion.

Think the idea of different rights according to state's is an interesting one, but gun's according to SC rulings doesn't work as an arguement, despite all the recent propoganda we heard in other threads.

So, there is more than one definition for "right"and:

 

Aren't rights be definition something guranteed to all citizens of the US?

 

only applies to certain rights. Luckily the right to an abortion which is not in the constitution falls under this kind of right, but the right to own a handgun falls under a different definition?

 

What about the right to sell alcohol? Is it gauranteed to all citizens of the US too? Or is there a different definition for that?

[MDC 5,895]

Too bad I didn't post anything. YOU DID.

 

Uh no, I didn't. Some Sanctuary folks did. And you repeatedly threatened to repost it, and offered my full name to the Danzone, not that anyone there cared. This after all your crying when the same crowd of people were posting your info.

 

 

You are addicted to drama and conflict. It's why you've commit board suicide a dozen times instead of just leaving, you start sissy slapfights in otherwise unrelated threads, and you were the only person banned from the forearm over the QLaz thing who had nothing to do with their league.

 

Get the help you need.

[Snoopy1 0]

So, there is more than one definition for "right"and:

only applies to certain rights. Luckily the right to an abortion which is not in the constitution falls under this kind of right, but the right to own a handgun falls under a different definition?

 

I'm trying to follow this, but using the example of guns doesn't translate to more then one definition to a right as the SC has ruled over and over that this individual right does not exist.

 

What about the right to sell alcohol? Is it gauranteed to all citizens of the US too? Or is there a different definition for that?

 

Where in the constitution do you believe you have the right to sell alcohol?

[Toro 1]

Get the help you need.

 

What fun would that be?

 

(btw, I deleted, I would appreciate if you would do the same. Thanks)

[MDC 5,895]

What fun would that be?

 

(btw, I deleted, I would appreciate if you would do the same. Thanks)

 

[Mrdirt73 0]

I'm trying to follow this, but using the example of guns doesn't translate to more then one definition to a right as the SC has ruled over and over that this individual right does not exist.

Where in the constitution do you believe you have the right to sell alcohol?

I assume it is in the same paragraph as the right to an abortion, but I could be wrong.

[Toro 1]

 

Thanks, slutbag.

[MDC 5,895]

Thankth, sthlutbag.

 

No problem.

[Toro 1]

No problem.

 

 

I like my name.

[Snoopy1 0]

I assume it is in the same paragraph as the right to an abortion, but I could be wrong.

 

 

I was just thinking about this after I posted and to me our disagreement seems to be you don't think women "have a right" to abortion as read in the constitution or amendments, therefore it seems your opinion is it's up to the states. Obviously, I disagree about whether it's a right, spelled out our implied.

 

As far as rights go, it goes without saying that they can be restricted, but I don't think you can have a right in one state and not in another. As an example, the right to assembly, restrictions can be places such as you need a permit to assemble 100 people in public park, but I don't think a state could forbid peacable assembly.

 

[MDC 5,895]

 

I like my name.

 

It's OK I guess.

[Mrdirt73 0]

I was just thinking about this after I posted and to me our disagreement seems to be you don't think women "have a right" to abortion as read in the constitution or amendments, therefore it seems your opinion is it's up to the states. Obviously, I disagree about whether it's a right, spelled out our implied.

 

As far as rights go, it goes without saying that they can be restricted, but I don't think you can have a right in one state and not in another. As an example, the right to assembly, restrictions can be places such as you need a permit to assemble 100 people in public park, but I don't think a state could forbid peacable assembly.

 

But then, isn't the right to assembly spelled out in the constitution as a federal right, and the everything that isn't listed as a federal right left to the states?

 

And no, I don't think a woman should have a "right" to an abortion in any case. I have stated on here before though that I admit there is a problem area when rape and incest are involved, and would possibly be willing to compromise in those instances if necessary to otherwise limit abortions.

[GobbleDog 816]

As far as rights go, it goes without saying that they can be restricted, but I don't think you can have a right in one state and not in another. As an example, the right to assembly, restrictions can be places such as you need a permit to assemble 100 people in public park, but I don't think a state could forbid peacable assembly.

Each state should govern themselves, the way it was originally intended. Nowdays, EVERYTHING is under Federal jurisdiction.

 

[Snoopy1 0]

But then, isn't the right to assembly spelled out in the constitution as a federal right, and the everything that isn't listed as a federal right left to the states?

 

And no, I don't think a woman should have a "right" to an abortion in any case. I have stated on here before though that I admit there is a problem area when rape and incest are involved, and would possibly be willing to compromise in those instances if necessary to otherwise limit abortions.

 

 

The 10 amendment says The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people..

 

Each state should govern themselves, the way it was originally intended. Nowdays, EVERYTHING is under Federal jurisdiction.

 

 

 

Wouldn't that be 50 seperate countries then???

 

Interesting idea, how about we let Texas try this out first. Let's let them be thier own country, kick em out now!!!

[GobbleDog 816]

Wouldn't that be 50 seperate countries then???

 

Interesting idea, how about we let Texas try this out first. Let's let them be thier own country, kick em out now!!!

Well every state currently has different laws and yet it's still one country. Some have death penalty, some don't... etc. Why would allowing states to make more independent decisions make us less of a country?

[gocolts 300]

First off, no one is "pro baby killer"

 

 

Now then, in my view, abortion should be legal in these cases:

 

- Mother's life is in danger

- Mother's health is seriously in danger

The Captain

 

I would love to hear some examples of when "Mother's life is in danger".

 

I mean come on. If there is such a thing, and they have to get that baby out of there before the mother dies for reasons I have never heard anyone give, what sence does it make to stop the baby half way out, then take the time to suck the baby's brains out into a sink, then deliver a dead baby. That would take longer than to just deliver the baby normally. So by doing a partial birth abortion, you put the mother at even more risk, as it takes longer than a regular c-section or vaginal birth.

 

Has anyone ever heard of cases where the mothers life suddenly is in danger and the baby has to be killed and take way more time than just to deliver it in the first place???

 

Lastly, you say

no one is "pro baby killer"

. How do you figure that one I would love to know. A baby is a baby and if you are for these partial birth abortions, you are for the killing babies. Why do hate babies so much that you support killing them??

[Captain Goomy Noomy Roo 47]

I would love to hear some examples of when "Mother's life is in danger".

 

I mean come on. If there is such a thing, and they have to get that baby out of there before the mother dies for reasons I have never heard anyone give, what sence does it make to stop the baby half way out, then take the time to suck the baby's brains out into a sink, then deliver a dead baby. That would take longer than to just deliver the baby normally. So by doing a partial birth abortion, you put the mother at even more risk, as it takes longer than a regular c-section or vaginal birth.

 

Has anyone ever heard of cases where the mothers life suddenly is in danger and the baby has to be killed and take way more time than just to deliver it in the first place???

 

Colts,

 

You ask some good questions. Here is an example of a case where a woman's life would be in danger.

 

In general, embryos that implant themselves outside the uterus are unable to survive. The uterus is the only organ that can safely and successfully support a pregnancy. As a result, the organs carrying ectopic pregnancies often rupture when the pregnancy outgrows the site of implantation. This serious condition can result in severe bleeding and lead to shock. For this reason, ectopic pregnancies can never continue to term. Currently, physicians are unable to remove the embryo and transplant it into the uterus to grow normally.

 

In this case, its not even a question of the woman or the fetus. You either terminate the pregnancy or both the woman and the fetus die. Do nothing and they both die.

 

The answer would be clear to me if my wife had an ectopic pregnancy and the doc told me that if we don't terminate, then your wife will bleed severely and go into shock.

 

I would choose for my wife to LIVE.

 

Doesn't matter what percentage this happens. If it can happen, then you have to account for it and allow doctors to save the woman's life and terminate the pregnancy. That is PRO CHOICE.

[Thornton Melon 544]

By that logic, Roe vs. Wade is also unconstitutional and individual states should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they will allow any abortions at all- not just partial birth abortions.

 

Since the Federal Goverment long ago took it upon itself to pass legislation on regular abortions, it makes sense that they'd also decide on partial birth abortions.

 

State's rights activists problem should be with Roe v. Wade, not with the Partial Birth Abortion Ban.

 

No, the problem should be with both.

[Snoopy1 0]

Well every state currently has different laws and yet it's still one country. Some have death penalty, some don't... etc. Why would allowing states to make more independent decisions make us less of a country?

 

 

Who cares??? Let's just get rid of Texas!!!!

[Ravens 03 0]

so will the pro baby killers admit this is settled law like they want anti baby killers to say about roevwade?

 

I'm gonna guess 'NO'.

[ZeroTolerance 582]

Although overall I am pleased with the ruling, I feel that there should be medical options for terminating the pregancy in the case of endangerment of the mother's life.

Signed.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You are the one who said they would survive. Not you are saying "better chance", and you have the gall to call me names.

 

If I open up a women's womb at 7 months, there is no gurantee the baby would survive...

 

Major faux pas there Cyric. You are supposed to refer to the little fellas as a "fetus".

[Voltaire 4,564]

Aren't rights be definition something guranteed to all citizens of the US?

 

I'm starting to think the pro-life side has a real issue here. Finding a right to abortion in the Consitution is very dubious legally. It's not there, the Supreme Court -seriously if you look at it- made it up. And it's not what I like seeing hte court do, they overstepped their authority.

 

I'm not at all sure if banning or allowing abortion is best for the country. I really am conflicted, but Roe v. Wade was decided improperly. With no mention in the Constitution, the individual states have every right to regulate it. Texas in 1972 was well within their rigts to ban the procedure.

 

I just don't see how any reading of the Constitution can be interpreted as protecting abortion rights. It's a real, real big stretch. Protecting states rights though, the constitution is very, very clear.

[Riddlen 1]

I gave my opinion. Do you have a question?

If you have a serious question, I would be happy to reply.

Done with the stupid childish comments.

 

Do you have something intelligent to say?... didn't think so

baby killer

[TyCobb 0]

Here's my view:

The decision of how a women decides to continue her pregnancy or not is a decision that includes the women foremost, then the male partner, and then the physician. Not anyone else and least of all the government or any politician.

 

Maybe we should just let women vote on the abortion issue, then. Right?

 

But the left would never be okay with that, because then Roe vs. Wade would be overturned in a landslide. It's men who are for abortion on demand... and it's no surprise why.

[Snoopy1 0]

I'm starting to think the pro-life side has a real issue here. Finding a right to abortion in the Consitution is very dubious legally. It's not there, the Supreme Court -seriously if you look at it- made it up. And it's not what I like seeing hte court do, they overstepped their authority.

 

I'm not at all sure if banning or allowing abortion is best for the country. I really am conflicted, but Roe v. Wade was decided improperly. With no mention in the Constitution, the individual states have every right to regulate it. Texas in 1972 was well within their rigts to ban the procedure.

 

I just don't see how any reading of the Constitution can be interpreted as protecting abortion rights. It's a real, real big stretch. Protecting states rights though, the constitution is very, very clear.

 

 

Amendment IX

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

Amendment XIV

 

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

 

Doesn't the 9th give me or a women the right to decide what is best with their own body, or are you saying that by being born a citizen of the USA I have forfeited the right to decide what medical procedures I can undergo?

 

Amendment 14 says you are only a citizen by birth or naturalization, obviously the unborn do not have rights.

[Voltaire 4,564]

Amendment IX

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

Amendment XIV

 

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Doesn't the 9th give me or a women the right to decide what is best with their own body, or are you saying that by being born a citizen of the USA I have forfeited the right to decide what medical procedures I can undergo?

 

Amendment 14 says you are only a citizen by birth or naturalization, obviously the unborn do not have rights.

 

 

The part of Amendment 14 you highlighted just clairifies citizenship rules. Regarding the unborn, it only says the unborn aren't citizens but is silent on weather they have rights or not. That part is -or should be- irrelevent to abortion. If you go on to read the rest of it, you'll see what Judge Blackmun was looking at- "no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, property without due process of the law etc.... "

 

It was this 'due process' part that Judge Blackmun was looking at when he wrote Roe v. Wade not the part you cited. According to your logic, illegal Mexicans don't have rights either.

 

Maybe the fetus is a person, maybe not, it's open to interpretation. Also, the idea that the states are depriving a woman of Constitutional rights by passing anti-abortion laws is questionable. If you want to know what the sponsors of the 14th amendment thought of sabortin, take a look at history.

 

Those same states and people that were ratifying the 14th amendment were -at the same time- the generation of politicians that were laws outlawing abortion (abortions were very unsafe in the 19th century). In other words, the sponsors of the 14th ammendment's due process clause were the same people who had outlawed abortion in the first place. They certainly wouldn't have ratified it if they knew it would be interpreted in this manner. This is a clear indication of judicial overreach over the intent of ammendment.

 

As for Amendment 9, it clearly indicates more freedoms the founders didn't clearly specify could be found. This wasn't quoted by Blackmun in Roe vs Wade, it hardly ever is because it's so vague. Personally, I think it's more germaine than the 14th amendment though. Quoting the 14th to support abortion rights is beyond shaky, it's flat wrong. Abortion was banned by the same people who ratified the 14th amendment.

[Snoopy1 0]

 

As for Amendment 9, it clearly indicates more freedoms the founders didn't clearly specify could be found. This wasn't quoted by Blackmun in Roe vs Wade, it hardly ever is because it's so vague. Personally, I think it's more germaine than the 14th amendment though. Quoting the 14th to support abortion rights is beyond shaky, it's flat wrong. Abortion was banned by the same people who ratified the 14th amendment.

 

 

 

To be honest, I'd seen a few other people throw out the 14th as an argument, I really didn't think it helped the position but I just wanted to see how you'd react...just getting the discussion started.

 

 

I don't believe the framers would have ever denied us the ability to manage our own bodies and that the 9th gives that right to the people...it being so basic that it did not need to be enumerated.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

 

Amendment 14 says you are only a citizen by birth or naturalization, obviously the unborn do not have rights.

 

Given the fact that during this procedure the baby is half-born before they are murdered, shouldn't they have at least some rights?