So, the abortion issue is now back in the limelight...

[BDKJMU]

Until we had a constitutional amendment outlawing it.
You want abortion to be constitutional? Have a constitutional amendment stating so. Otherwise, as the 10th Amendment states:
"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>"

So are you saying every amendment after 10 should be repealed and the decision left up to the states?

Sometimes, the states don't make the right decision and need a central government to step in when the public health and safety is at risk.

No. How in the world did you come up with that conclusion?

If its not a power granted to the fed govt under the Constitution, then it should be left up to the states (and abortion isn't even hinted at). If you want the Fed to decide on the legality of abortion, then have a 28th Constitutional Amendment stating that abortion is legal throughout the entire United States, or that abortion is illegal throughout the entire United States, or somewhere in between. Absent that, based on the 10th Amendment, there is no reason the fed govt should be ruling one way or the other. Let the states decide.

Yes, sometimes, the states don't make the right decision. And oftentimes the fed govt doesn't make the right decision.

[Ibanez]

So are you saying every amendment after 10 should be repealed and the decision left up to the states?

Sometimes, the states don't make the right decision and need a central government to step in when the public health and safety is at risk.

No. How in the world did you come up with that conclusion?

If its not a power granted to the fed govt under the Constitution, then it should be left up to the states (and abortion isn't even hinted at). If you want the Fed to decide on the legality of abortion, then have a 28th Constitutional Amendment stating that abortion is legal throughout the entire United States, or that abortion is illegal throughout the entire United States, or somewhere in between. Absent that, based on the 10th Amendment, there is no reason the fed govt should be ruling one way or the other. Let the states decide.

Yes, sometimes, the states don't make the right decision. And oftentimes the fed govt doesn't make the right decision.

You're an orginalist. I just took a leap. I know a lot of "originalits" that think everything after 10 is an overstep.

[∞∞∞]

Like slavery, right?

Until we had a constitutional amendment outlawing it.
You want abortion to be constitutional? Have a constitutional amendment stating so. Otherwise, as the 10th Amendment states:
"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>"

Except the Judicial branch has as equal a right as the Executive and Legislative branches to interpret the Constitution and laws however it pleases.

This right-wing myth that SCOTUS must strictly follow what Congress/President pass is just that, myth.

And that's why there's strong opposition to conservative judges. As the US becomes more progressive, the right wants to put in regressive judges that affect generations to come.

[89Hen]

I think that goes in line with most Americans thinking - abortion is a personal decision that should not be taken lightly, but should be just that, a personal decision.

Why isn't child abuse a personal decision for the parent? See, you've skipped ahead again.

[93henfan]

I think that goes in line with most Americans thinking - abortion is a personal decision that should not be taken lightly, but should be just that, a personal decision.

Why isn't child abuse a personal decision for the parent? See, you've skipped ahead again.

Because it’s illegal and harms a person.


What do I win?

[BDKJMU]

Until we had a constitutional amendment outlawing it.
You want abortion to be constitutional? Have a constitutional amendment stating so. Otherwise, as the 10th Amendment states:
"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>"

Except the Judicial branch has as equal a right as the Executive and Legislative branches to interpret the Constitution and laws however it pleases.

This right-wing myth that SCOTUS must strictly follow what Congress/President pass is just that, myth.

And that's why there's strong opposition to conservative judges. As the US becomes more progressive, the right wants to put in regressive judges that affect generations to come.

And it is a left wing myth that the Constitution is a "living, breathing, document" and somehow it means differently than it did in the 1800s or 1900s.

And it is a left wing myth that there is a right to privacy in the Constitution, which is what a liberal SCOTUS invented in Roe via the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

You mean as the US becomes more liberal, the right continues to want conservative justices. Its ok to use liberal, it not a dirty word..

[89Hen]

93 clearly won this debate. I also align with his stance on the abortion issue. I believe late term abortion is abhorrent and tend to side with medical science on this issue. As medical science/technology advancements make life outside the womb more viable at an earlier stage, I feel that the "allowable abortion timeline" (not really sure how else to put it) moves with it.

on 93 winning. He offered somebody else's opinion on abortion and the entire second post was one of the most flaccid positions I've ever heard.

A stance on moving abortion lines based on current science is nothing short of disgusting. Too bad we killed you, if only you were conceived a year later when science was more advanced.

[UNI88]

Why isn't child abuse a personal decision for the parent? See, you've skipped ahead again.

Because it’s illegal and harms a person.

What do I win?

A free foursome at 89's club.

It's ok for 89 to skip ahead a declare a zygote a person though.

[89Hen]

Why isn't child abuse a personal decision for the parent? See, you've skipped ahead again.

Because it’s illegal and harms a person.


What do I win?

Why don't you just come clean and say you do not believe the baby has any rights?

[89Hen]

Because it’s illegal and harms a person.

What do I win?

A free foursome at 89's club.

It's ok for 89 to skip ahead a declare a zygote a person though.

OK, give me the day, hour and minute it becomes a person.

I'll be the first to tell you, I have NO idea when that is. That is exactly why it is wrong to terminate it at any point.

[93henfan]

93 clearly won this debate. I also align with his stance on the abortion issue. I believe late term abortion is abhorrent and tend to side with medical science on this issue. As medical science/technology advancements make life outside the womb more viable at an earlier stage, I feel that the "allowable abortion timeline" (not really sure how else to put it) moves with it.

on 93 winning. He offered somebody else's opinion on abortion and the entire second post was one of the most flaccid positions I've ever heard.

A stance on moving abortion lines based on current science is nothing short of disgusting. Too bad we killed you, if only you were conceived a year later when science was more advanced.

You obviously missed my previous post. Yesterday, minutes before posting ECLA’s positions, was the first time I had ever read them.

And I’ve destroyed you in this debate.

I’d admire your resilience!

[GannonFan]

Extrapolate it out, and somewhere in the future viability will be at the point of conception. That's where the right gets into trouble.

I see that more as trouble for the pro-choice crowd.

Not from my viewpoint. I think one of the biggest hypocrisies of the anti-abortion/pro-life crowd is that often their caring stops at childbirth. They do a great job of protesting Planned Parenthood and getting in the way of abortions from being available and accessible, but that interest drops off precipitously once the baby is born. Sure, there are some places that aim to help struggling mothers who carried to term to cope with being mothers, often single mothers, but not nearly enough. And that problem will just multiply exponentially when science progresses to full viability outside of the womb and we have more and more children, a large percentage of which will be unwanted and potentially wards of the state. Putting up crosses to symbolize children lost to abortion is one thing - putting in time and money and effort to help with these kids who will now be born rather than aborted is a whole other level of commitment. I'm not encouraged that we'll have it if it ever gets to that point.

[Ibanez]

Except the Judicial branch has as equal a right as the Executive and Legislative branches to interpret the Constitution and laws however it pleases.

This right-wing myth that SCOTUS must strictly follow what Congress/President pass is just that, myth.

And that's why there's strong opposition to conservative judges. As the US becomes more progressive, the right wants to put in regressive judges that affect generations to come.

And it is a left wing myth that the Constitution is a "living, breathing, document" and somehow it means differently than it did in the 1800s or 1900s.

And it is a left wing myth that there is a right to privacy in the Constitution, which is what a liberal SCOTUS invented in Roe via the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

You mean as the US becomes more liberal, the right continues to want conservative justices. Its ok to use liberal, it not a dirty word..

It's all interpretation. The document should be "living and breathing" as the world has changed since 1788. Society has changed.

[Ibanez]

A free foursome at 89's club.

It's ok for 89 to skip ahead a declare a zygote a person though.

OK, give me the day, hour and minute it becomes a person.

I'll be the first to tell you, I have NO idea when that is. That is exactly why it is wrong to terminate it at any point.

If we consider someone dead when the heart stops beating...why not alive once it begins. Take the "is it human?" out of the equation. Is it alive?

[∞∞∞]

Except the Judicial branch has as equal a right as the Executive and Legislative branches to interpret the Constitution and laws however it pleases.

This right-wing myth that SCOTUS must strictly follow what Congress/President pass is just that, myth.

And that's why there's strong opposition to conservative judges. As the US becomes more progressive, the right wants to put in regressive judges that affect generations to come.

And it is a left wing myth that the Constitution is a "living, breathing, document" and somehow it means differently than it did in the 1800s or 1900s.

And it is a left wing myth that there is a right to privacy in the Constitution, which is what a liberal SCOTUS invented in Roe via the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

You mean as the US becomes more liberal, the right continues to want conservative justices. Its ok to use liberal, it not a dirty word..

Thomas Jefferson:

It is, that each department is truly independent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the Constitution, in the cases submitted to its action, and especially where it is to act ultimately and without appeal.

It sounds like a lot of power for people with lifetime appointments, but the founding fathers knew that. And so the SCOTUS' power is its word...and nothing else. The Executive/Legislative Branch can easily as ignore the SCOTUS if they want. But we don't because society has decided it'd be a Constitutional crisis.

But as Andrew Jackson famously said, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it."

I think that's what the founding fathers wanted - an epic tug of war. Their number one fear was for one person or body to gain unwielded power, not some well-oiled government. A Constitution with strict interpretations would fall under "well-oiled."

[Silenoz]

I see that more as trouble for the pro-choice crowd.

Not from my viewpoint. I think one of the biggest hypocrisies of the anti-abortion/pro-life crowd is that often their caring stops at childbirth. They do a great job of protesting Planned Parenthood and getting in the way of abortions from being available and accessible, but that interest drops off precipitously once the baby is born. Sure, there are some places that aim to help struggling mothers who carried to term to cope with being mothers, often single mothers, but not nearly enough. And that problem will just multiply exponentially when science progresses to full viability outside of the womb and we have more and more children, a large percentage of which will be unwanted and potentially wards of the state. Putting up crosses to symbolize children lost to abortion is one thing - putting in time and money and effort to help with these kids who will now be born rather than aborted is a whole other level of commitment. I'm not encouraged that we'll have it if it ever gets to that point.

That position never made any sense to me. "The kid could have a rough go of it after birth based on any number of societal issues, and the people pushing for it's birth start to rapidly give less fucks about once that happens."

Ah, ok. But at least the kid isn't, you know, dead.

[CAA Flagship]

OK, give me the day, hour and minute it becomes a person.

I'll be the first to tell you, I have NO idea when that is. That is exactly why it is wrong to terminate it at any point.

If we consider someone dead when the heart stops beating...why not alive once it begins. Take the "is it human?" out of the equation. Is it alive?

What if the person's heart is beating but he is brain dead. Ya know, like JSO?

[Ibanez]

If we consider someone dead when the heart stops beating...why not alive once it begins. Take the "is it human?" out of the equation. Is it alive?

What if the person's heart is beating but he is brain dead. Ya know, like JSO?

Hmmm...now that's a question that will fester...

[andy7171]

Why isn't child abuse a personal decision for the parent? See, you've skipped ahead again.

Because it’s illegal and harms a person.


What do I win?

I think you might be catching on.

[kalm]

Why isn't child abuse a personal decision for the parent? See, you've skipped ahead again.

Because it’s illegal and harms a person.


What do I win?

I already tried that excellent response and it went whoosh!

[Pwns]

Not from my viewpoint. I think one of the biggest hypocrisies of the anti-abortion/pro-life crowd is that often their caring stops at childbirth. They do a great job of protesting Planned Parenthood and getting in the way of abortions from being available and accessible, but that interest drops off precipitously once the baby is born.

At what point does welfare, food stamps, child support laws, among other things become generous enough that you can't say "the caring stops"? There's no real equivalency here unless pro-life people are actually trying to take away someone's right to life after they're born.

Well stated.

I think that goes in line with most Americans thinking - abortion is a personal decision that should not be taken lightly, but should be just that, a personal decision.

Also, highlighting the need to prevent the need for abortions in the first place. The most rabid forced-birthers are usually the same ones that refuse to address the issues, or allow discussion of what could be done to prevent unintended pregnancies in the first place - education, easy access to birth control, options for the mother both during and after the pregnancy, support to allow the child to be healthy and stay with the mom, expanded adoption avenues.

As far as I'm concerned we can make all forms of birth control over-the-counter and put them in vending machines at every convenience store. Most pro-life people are not the "we-don't-want-to-encourage-promiscuity" types.

[89Hen]

And I’ve destroyed you in this debate.

Claiming victory.... sure sign of ineptitude. But hey, if it makes you sleep better.

[89Hen]

I see that more as trouble for the pro-choice crowd.

Not from my viewpoint. I think one of the biggest hypocrisies of the anti-abortion/pro-life crowd is that often their caring stops at childbirth. They do a great job of protesting Planned Parenthood and getting in the way of abortions from being available and accessible, but that interest drops off precipitously once the baby is born. Sure, there are some places that aim to help struggling mothers who carried to term to cope with being mothers, often single mothers, but not nearly enough. And that problem will just multiply exponentially when science progresses to full viability outside of the womb and we have more and more children, a large percentage of which will be unwanted and potentially wards of the state. Putting up crosses to symbolize children lost to abortion is one thing - putting in time and money and effort to help with these kids who will now be born rather than aborted is a whole other level of commitment. I'm not encouraged that we'll have it if it ever gets to that point.

You're too smart to fall for this pro-choice talking point that was mentioned in the alpha post of this thread. Do you have any evidence of this?

[93henfan]

And I’ve destroyed you in this debate.

Claiming victory.... sure sign of ineptitude. But hey, if it makes you sleep better.

How many times do I have to say that nobody “wins” an abortion debate? Reading is obviously not a strong point for you.

[kalm]

Claiming victory.... sure sign of ineptitude. But hey, if it makes you sleep better.

How many times do I have to say that nobody “wins” an abortion debate? Reading is obviously not a strong point for you.

Pretty sure Cleets won with his “if men could get pregnant they’d be legal on demand at every airport...” line.