politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Donald Trump: Actually, Now That I Think About It, Let's Leave the Abortion Laws As They Are [CBS]
Source:
Ace Of Spades
URL Source: http://ace.mu.nu/#362525
Published: Apr 1, 2016
Author: Ace
Post Date: 2016-04-02 09:46:31 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 35499
Comments: 253
I'm changing, I'm changing. I'm softening that position. However, he then added that abortion is murder. "I would've preferred states' rights," he added. "I think it would've been better if it were up to the states. But right now, the laws are set....At this moment, the laws are set. And I think we have to leave it that way." "Do you think abortion is murder?" Dickerson asked. "I have my opinions on it, but I'd rather not comment on it," Trump replied. "You said you were very pro-life," Dickerson followed up. "Pro-life means that...abortion is murder." "I mean, I do have my opinions on it. I just don't think it's an appropriate forum," said Trump. "But you don't disagree with that proposition, that it's murder?" Dickerson asked. "No, I don't disagree with it," Trump eventually replied. Okay. As long as you're giving the proper amount of thought to these issues. There was once a very intelligent man who said, "The moment Trump gets into trouble, he's going to start pandering like crazy to liberals, because he just doesn't know any better." Here we see Trump finally realizing the damage he caused to himself with Michelle Fields and Heidi Cruz, plus his own goal on abortion, so his response, to get back those women he cherishes so much, is to say "Hey, let's leave the abortion laws as they are. But privately, I think abortion is murder. FYI." I seriously can't think of a worse political position: On one hand, he's telling the pro-life people I'm not changing any abortion laws. Fine, okay, most presidents won't try, but few are as upfront in telling a key part of the conservative movement they're getting the goose-egg. Simultaneously, on the other hand, he pisses off the pro-choice people, by telling them that, while he won't be changing the abortion laws, that abortion is murder. It's lose-lose. With a bonus lose for it being dreadfully obvious that he simply hasn't given the issue a lick of thought and is now just basically button-mashing (as Allah puts it) in hopes that some combination of inputs gets him past the boss on this level. Posted by Ace at 07:27 PM Comments Poster Comment: The carnival barker executes another double-backflip on abortion. It takes real courage to confuse yourself with all these "hypotheticals" four times in less than four days. But it's only murder. Well, unless it isn't. Who really knows anyway? You keep thinking the rats will realize they're following the Pied Piper but ... Let the Trumpsplaining commence!Donald Trump: Actually, Now That I Think About It, Let's Leave the Abortion Laws As They Are
Asked how he'd like to change the law to further restrict access to abortions, Trump replied, "The laws are set now on abortion and that's the way they're going to remain until they're changed." Donald Trump: About That Thing I Just Said A Few Hours Ago-- Nevermind
—Ace
The woman will, or rather will not be punished, and the laws will not, or rather will, be changed.
Hey, by ten o'clock we might have another Trump position on abortion, so stay tuned. .@realDonaldTrump spox Hope Hicks walks back Trump abortion comments to CBS. Says Trump WILL change law on abortion pic.twitter.com/1oedertZbC— Jeremy Diamond (@JDiamond1) April 2, 2016
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-41) not displayed.
.
.
.
#42. To: ConservingFreedom, misterwhite (#39)
Dare we ask where Trump stands (today) on a federal abortion-restricting amendment? Who cares? He likely will not be relevant in a few months. But if he is he will likely change his mind.....again......and again......and again. "Or work to change your state's law, or engage in civil disobedience against it." I have no inherent problem with either. But effectiveness always comes down to enforcement. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Again? It won't get any less stupid.
Again? It won't get any less stupid. Perhaps but it certainly would prove that you are not lying. Right now you act as a dickless wonder that doesn't have any balls either to defend himself. So if you do not post my statement proving you claim please just slink away and hope nobody else sh*ts on you. Over and out, eunuch. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
You sure think about dick a lot.
I never said anything about the legality or illegality of abortions. You said "To have 50 different determinations of the nature of the unborn fetus and the legal protections ..." and I responded that there WERE different determinations at the state level for 200 years.
These latest several positions are consistent with the theory that The Donald never wanted to be the nominee. Just sayin' ...
Why would you? The President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process.
The presidency is a bully pulpit. I'd like to know how it will be used.
How did the last five Presidents -- both pro-life and pro-choice -- over the last 40 years use the bully pulpit when it came to abortion? Answer: They didn't.
Answer: They didn't. Doesn't make the question irrelevant as regards the next president. And by my count, the last five includes Reagan. Did I get that wrong - or did you - or are you seriously claiming that Reagan didn't use the bully pulpit when it came to abortion?
Sure it does.
We'll have to agree to disagree. By my count, the last five includes Reagan. Did I get that wrong - or did misterwhite - or is he seriously claiming that Reagan didn't use the bully pulpit when it came to abortion?
You can count? Who knew. What anti-abortion amendment to the Constitution was ratified when he was President?
Document that. You can't because it is likely not true. No state prohibited abortion prior to the mid-1800s or so. More to your point, which is a valid one, I have tried to find authoritative sources as to what is now called fetal rights were legislated either at the federal or state level in the early 1800s and prior times in colonial America with not much success. So I concede that absent finding such documentation that your position is quite plausible but note the following: In 1821, Connecticut became the first state to enact abortion legislation for women who had reached quickening, but abortion before quickening did not become illegal in Connecticut until 1860. New York, in 1828, adopted legislation that was followed by many states between 1830 and 1850; most of these statutes dealt more severely with abortion after quickening than before. So it seems that whatever fetal rights that may have existed in law in the U.S. were based on the notion of quickening. Further, "These anti-abortion laws were enacted for three basic reasons: a Victorian obsession to discourage illicit sexual conduct; a health concern, because at the time abortions were dangerous; and a newfound interest in protecting prenatal life. By the end of the 1950s, however, a large majority of states had banned all abortion except for instances where the woman's life was in danger." So the evidence that I have be able to find suggests that interest in protecting prenatal life was not prevalent prior to the mid-late 1800s. Another reference states that, "at the turn of the nineteenth century most people in Western Europe and the United States did not believe human life was present until a pregnant woman felt the first fetal movements, a phenomenon referred to as quickening. In the United States and England, abortion was legal in the early 1800s as long as it was performed prior to quickening. During later stages of pregnancy, abortion was a crime, but distinct from other forms of murder and punished less harshly." But for the sake of discussion let's assume that you are correct. Doesn't a state of affairs where there are 50 different legal determinations of what a fetus is and what rights it may have seem absurd to you? At the minimum each state needs to adhere to Federal law as to the constitutional rights of the unborn fetus. A state may go beyond that but cannot diminish the constitutional rights of a fetus. For example, in 2007 SCOTUS upheld a nationwide ban on partial birth abortion, a form of late term abortion. "In its April 2007 decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 and, in the process, set a major jurisprudential precedent. The federal law includes no health exception. Moreover, although the law does not include a precise medical definition of what is banned, the Court found the federal law’s definition sufficient to pass constitutional muster. The federal law is currently in effect and the Supreme Court precedent may bring consistency to state laws, which are still important as they allow for state and local law enforcement and, potentially, stiffer penalties. •32 states have enacted bans on “partial-birth” abortions. ◦13 state laws have been specifically blocked by a court and are not in effect. ◦ 19 state laws are in effect; 7 of them remain unchallenged but, because of the broad nature of their language, are presumably unenforceable under the Supreme Court’s 2000 decision in Stenberg v. Carhart, which struck down a Nebraska ban. •The definition of what constitutes a “partial-birth” abortion varies from state to state. ◦11 states laws mirror the definition in federal law, with 10 of these laws in effect. ◦ 21 state laws have definitions not patterned after federal law, but only 9 of these laws are in effect. •All 32 state laws include some sort of exception. ◦3 states have bans that include a health exception. ◦1 state includes a broad health exception that allows a physician to perform a “partial-birth” abortion if necessary to protect against physical or mental impairment of the pregnant woman. ◦ 2 states include a narrow health exception that allows a physician to perform a “partial-birth” abortion to protect only against bodily harm to the pregnant woman. ◦ 29 states have bans that allow for an exception only when a woman’s life is in danger, with 16 of these bans in effect." IMO this is an unacceptable state of law that does not serve the character of our country well. As things stand what SCOTUS has foisted on us is a disgraceful abdication of judicial duty, as well as logic. RvW was an expedient construct for political reasons. The notion of viability is a totally illogical sham. So I will stand by my position that there were not 50 determinations as to the legal status of an unborn fetus for 200 years and there should not be. Human life is human life no matter where it happens to reside at the moment and the legal protections that life has should not be location dependent. I will go further, whether an unborn fetus is just a thing that can be discarded at will or human life with protected rights should not be at the sole discretion of the pregnant woman. Nor should be at the independent sole discretion of 50 different states. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Your usual deceptive straw-man subterfuges.
Your usual projection.
Roe v wade dissent, Justice William Rehnquist: Jurisdictions having enacted abortion laws prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868: 1. Alabama -- Ala. Acts, c. 6, § 2 (1840). 2. Arizona -- Howell Code, c. 10, § 45 (1865). 3. Arkansas -- Ark.Rev.Stat., c. 44, div. III, Art. II, § 6 (1838). 4. California -- Cal.Sess.Laws, c. 99, § 45, p. 233 (1849-1850). 5. Colorado (Terr.) -- Colo. Gen.Laws of Terr. of Colo. 1st Sess., § 42, pp 296-297 (1861). 6. Connecticut -- Conn.Stat., Tit. 20, §§ 14, 16 (1821). By 1868, this statute had been replaced by another abortion law. Conn.Pub. Acts, c. 71, §§ 1, 2, p. 65 (1860). 7. Florida -- Fla.Acts 1st Sess., c. 1637, subc. 3, §§ 10, 11, subc. 8, §§ 9, 10, 11 (1868), as amended, now Fla.Stat.Ann. §§ 782.09, 782.10, 797.01, 797.02, 782.16 (1965). 8. Georgia Pen.Code, 4th Div., § 20 (1833). 9. Kingdom of Hawaii -- Hawaii Pen.Code, c. 12, §§ 1, 2, 3 (1850). 10. Idaho (Terr.) -- Idaho (Terr.) Laws, Crimes and Punishments §§ 33, 34, 42, pp. 441, 443 (1863). 11. Illinois -- Ill.Rev. Criminal Code §§ 40, 41, 46, pp. 130, 131 (1827). By 1868, this statute had been replaced by a subsequent enactment. Ill.Pub.Laws §§ 1, 2, 3, p. 89 (1867). 12. Indiana -- Ind.Rev.Stat. §§ 1, 3, p. 224 (1838). By 1868, this statute had been superseded by a subsequent enactment. Ind.Laws, c. L410I, § 2 (1859). 13. Iowa (Terr.) -- Iowa (Terr.) Stat., 1st Legis., 1st Sess., § 18, p. 145 (1838). By 1868, this statute had been superseded by a subsequent enactment. Iowa (Terr.) Rev.Stat., c. 49, §§ 10, 13 (1843). 14. Kansas (Terr.) -- Kan. (Terr.) Stat., c. 48, §§ 9, 10, 39 (1855). By 1868, this statute had been superseded by a subsequent enactment. Kan. (Terr.) Laws, c. 28, §§ 9, 10, 37 (1859). 15. Louisiana -- La.Rev.Stat., Crimes and Offenses § 24, p. 138 (1856). 16. Maine -- Me.Rev.Stat., c. 160, §§ 11, 12, 13, 14 (1840). 17. Maryland -- Md.Laws, c. 179, § 2, p. 315 (1868). 18. Massachusetts -- Mass. Acts & Resolves, c. 27 (1845). 19. Michigan -- Mich.Rev.Stat., c. 153, §§ 32, 33, 34, p. 662 (1846). 20. Minnesota (Terr.) -- Minn. (Terr.) Rev.Stat., c. 100, § 10, 11, p. 493 (1851). 21. Mississippi -- Miss.Code, c. 64, §§ 8, 9, p. 958 (1848). 22. Missouri -- Mo.Rev.Stat., Art. II, §§ 9, 10, 36, pp. 168, 172 (1835). 23. Montana (Terr.) -- Mont. (Terr.) Laws, Criminal Practice Acts § 41, p. 184 (1864). 24. Nevada (Terr.) -- Nev. (Terr.) Laws, c. 28, § 42, p. 63 (1861). 25. New Hampshire -- N.H.Laws, c. 743, § 1, p. 708 (1848). 26. New Jersey -- N.J.Laws, p. 266 (1849). 27. New York -- N.Y.Rev.Stat., pt. 4, c. 1, Tit 2, §§ 8, 9, pp. 12-13 (1828). By 1868, this statute had been superseded. N.Y.Laws, c. 260, §§ 1, pp. 285-286 (1845); N.Y.Laws, c. 22, § 1, p. 19 (1846). 28. Ohio -- Ohio Gen.Stat. §§ 111(1), 112(2), p. 252 (1841). 29. Oregon -- Ore. Gen.Laws, Crim.Code, c. 43, § 509, p. 528 (1845-1864). 30. Pennsylvania -- Pa.Laws No. 374, §§ 87, 88, 89 (1860). 31. Texas -- Tex. Gen.Stat. Dig., c. VII, Arts. 531-536, p. 524 (Oldham & White 1859). 32. Vermont -- Vt. Acts No. 33, § 1 (1846). By 1868, this statute had been amended. Vt.Acts No. 57, §§ 1, 3 (1867). 33. Virginia -- Va.Acts, Tit. II, c. 3, § 9, p. 96 (1848). 34. Washington (Terr.) -- Wash. (Terr.) Stats., c. II, §§ 37, 38, p. 81 (1854). 35. West Virginia -- See Va. Acts., Tit. II, c. 3, § 9, p. 96 (1848); W.Va.Const., Art. XI, par. 8 (1863). 36. Wisconsin -- Wis.Rev.Stat., c. 133, §§ 10, 11 (1849). By 1868, this statute had been superseded. Wis.Rev.Stat., c. 164, §§ 10, 11; c. 169, §§ 58, 59 (1858).
You, trully, are a god-damed dumb fuck. Don't worry about it.
I told you before. I don't care. My entire point was that the states had the power to ban or permit abortions until 1973.
He's lying anyway. "In colonial America, abortions were prosecuted under the common law. After the Revolution, the new American states adopted the common law of England as the basis of their own law, including common law crimes. Within a generation, the independent states began to outgrow the English common law, and state legislatures increasingly defined crimes in their states. However, common law crimes survived until superseded by legislative enactment, and in a few states common law crimes have survived into the present day."
That was not at all clear. But it is a mute point as up to well into the 1800s no so state had laws prohibiting abortion prior to quickening. My original statement stands, i.e. - to have 50 different determinations of the nature of the unborn fetus and the legal protections it is due is indefensible on any ground. Do you agree or not? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I disagree. For three reasons. 1) If abortion is murder, then that's a state crime, not a federal crime. 2) The Founding Fathers established a federal republic and it was their intent that each state have it's own constitution and laws. 3) Prior to 1973, each state had laws on abortion -- either permitting it or prohibiting it. We did it before and it worked.
LMAO. Nice try ass wipe but no cigar. " VI It perhaps is not generally appreciated that the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage. Those laws, generally proscribing abortion or its attempt at any time during pregnancy except when necessary to preserve the pregnant woman's life, are not of ancient or even of common-law origin. Instead, they derive from statutory changes effected, for the most part, in the latter half of the 19th century. [410 U.S. 113, 130] 3. The common law. It is undisputed that at common law, abortion performed before "quickening - the first recognizable movement of the fetus in utero, appearing usually from the 16th to the 18th week of pregnancy 20 - was not an indictable offense. Whether abortion of a quick fetus was a felony at common law, or even a lesser crime, is still disputed. Bracton, writing early in the 13th century, thought it homicide. 23 But the later and predominant view, following the great common- law scholars, has been that it was, at most, a lesser offense. In a frequently cited [410 U.S. 113, 135] passage, Coke took the position that abortion of a woman "quick with childe" is "a great misprision, and no murder." 24 Blackstone followed, saying that while abortion after quickening had once been considered manslaughter (though not murder), "modern law" took a less severe view. 25 A recent review of the common-law precedents argues, however, that those precedents contradict Coke and that even post-quickening abortion was never established as a common-law crime. ...........(due probably to the paucity of common-law prosecutions for post- quickening abortion), makes it now appear doubtful that abortion was ever firmly established as a common-law crime even with respect to the destruction of a quick fetus. 5. The American law. In this country, the law in effect in all but a few States until mid-19th century was the pre-existing English common law. .................Connecticut, the first State to enact abortion legislation, adopted in 1821 that part of Lord Ellenborough's Act that related to a woman "quick with child." 29 The death penalty was not imposed. Abortion before quickening was made a crime in that State only in 1860. In 1828, New York enacted legislation 31 that, in two respects, was to serve as a model for early anti-abortion statutes. First, while barring destruction of an unquickened fetus as well as a quick fetus, it made the former only a misdemeanor, but the latter second-degree manslaughter. Second, it incorporated a concept of therapeutic abortion by providing that an abortion was excused if it "shall have been necessary to preserve the life of such mother, or shall have been advised by two physicians to be necessary for such purpose." By 1840, when Texas had received the common law, 32 only eight American States [410 U.S. 113, 139] had statutes dealing with abortion. 33 It was not until after the War Between the States that legislation began generally to replace the common law. So sayeth verbatim MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN in the opinion he delivered for the Court. He continues to say in the opinion: VII Three reasons have been advanced to explain historically the enactment of criminal abortion laws in the 19th century and to justify their continued existence. [410 U.S. 113, 148] The third reason is the State's interest - some phrase it in terms of duty - in protecting prenatal life. Some of the argument for this justification rests on the theory that a new human life is present from the moment of conception. 45 The State's interest and general obligation to protect life then extends, it is argued, to prenatal life. Only when the life of the pregnant mother herself is at stake, balanced against the life she carries within her, should the interest of the embryo or fetus not prevail. Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth. In assessing the State's interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the State may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman alone. [410 U.S. 113, 151] Parties challenging state abortion laws have sharply disputed in some courts the contention that a purpose of these laws, when enacted, was to protect prenatal life. 46 Pointing to the absence of legislative history to support the contention, they claim that most state laws were designed solely to protect the woman. ..............It is with these interests, and the weight to be attached to them, that this case is concerned. IX A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person."..............But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. 54 [410 U.S. 113, 158] All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." I suggest that you find a competent adult to explain to you what Blackman said. If still have problems with it take them up with SCOTUS. I am done with you on this issue. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Not true in all cases. There is a federal crime of murder. "2) The Founding Fathers established a federal republic and it was their intent that each state have it's own constitution and laws." True but only as long as any of such law did not trump the Constitutional rights that would restrict same. In other words, sate law could not deprive a citizen or a person as the case may be of their Consitutional rights. "3) Prior to 1973, each state had laws on abortion -- either permitting it or prohibiting it. We did it before and it worked. All I will point out to you is the same can be said about slavery - enough said I trust. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Have fun with this one. "9. Murder for Hire (18 U.S.C. Section 1958) Why is murder-for-higher potentially a federal crime? Congress has legal jurisdiction over interstate commerce. Interstate commerce includes not only the paths that people can travel between states, but also the use of communication pathways such as the postal service, telephone lines, cellular towers, and other electronic communication. If the killing can only be accomplished by causing a person to travel over state lines (including the victim), or by communicating the request by phone, mail, or the Internet, the murder-for-hire could be a federal crime." So if you call, text or email to make an appointment with the abortionist you hire it could be a federal crime. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
2. Instead, they derive from statutory changes effected, for the most part, in the latter half of the 19th century. Nice foot shot. You just proved yourself a liar.
Followed by a lame and disingenuous attempt to move the goal posts.
For pro life Christians there is no ambiguity. Abortion in most cases is the premeditated taking of human life. There is only one word in the Hebrew for this and that is murder. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
Congress can act using the 14Th amendment. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/816/text http://www.prolifealliance.com/end_roevwade.html A statement from Paul elaborated on both the timeliness and the subject matter of the bill: "As thousands of Americans prepare to participate in the annual March for Life, it is time for Congress to recognize the right to life is guaranteed to all Americans in the Declaration of Independence, and it is the constitutional duty of all members of Congress to ensure this belief is upheld,” Sen. Paul said. “The Life at Conception Act legislatively declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known - that human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore, is entitled to legal protection from that point forward. Only when America chooses, remembers, and restores her respect for life will we rediscover our moral bearings and truly find our way." For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
Have no idea what you are rambling on about. Morals are absolute. There's no getting around an innocent human life is terminated with abortion. It is premeditated murder. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
The States applied English Common Law to restrictions on abortion. At the adoption of the Declaration of Independence 236 years ago on July 4, 1776, abortion was banned in all of the 13 American colonies. The colonies inherited English Common Law and largely operated under it until well into the 19th century. English Common Law forbade abortion. Abortion prior to quickening was a misdemeanor. Abortion after quickening (feeling life) was a felony. This bifid punishment, inherited from earlier ecclesiastic law, stemmed from earlier “knowledge” regarding human reproduction. In the early 1800s it was discovered that human life did not begin when she “felt life,” but rather at fertilization. As a direct result of this, the British Parliament in 1869 passed the “Offenses Against the Persons Act,” eliminating the above punishment and dropping the felony punishment back to fertilization. One by one, across the middle years of the 19th century, every then-present state passed its own law against abortion. By 1860, 85% of the population lived in states which had prohibited abortion with new laws. These laws, preceding and following the British example, moved the felony punishment from quickening back to conception. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
And you will see that even in Colonial America they took abortion and infanticide seriously : Even though states enacted laws in the 19th century, by the still used English Common Law in the US restricted abortion. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
Most pregnancies were not confirmed until quickening. Quickening varies. What is clear in the 21st century is human life begins at conception. Science is clear on that matter: Abortion: Scientific evidence for new human being at conception: http://www.christianforums.com/threads/can-we-reach-a-compromise-regarding- abortion.7926139/page-28#post-69098593 http://www.christianforums.com/threads/can-we-reach-a-compromise-regarding- abortion.7926139/page-27#post-69097465 http://www.christianforums.com/threads/can-we-reach-a-compromise-regarding- abortion.7926139/page-28#post-69098685 http://www.christianforums.com/threads/why-abortion-is-immoral.7923648/page- 42#post-69092147 http://www.christianforums.com/threads/liberals-who-are-pro-choice-explain- why-a-womans-choice-is-more-important-than-a-fetuss-life.7915201/page- 10#post-69082245 For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
Science is clear on that matter: If that were the case RvW could not still be the law of the land. Read post #66, especially that part of the majority opinion that says: "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person."..............But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. 54 [410 U.S. 113, 158] " Get back to me when you read the entire post. It is clear that the majority of SCOTUS disagreed with your references in 1972 and in spite of all the cases it heard on the subject subsequently SCOTUS still does not agree. Don't you think that if the science was clear that all the pro-life groups would by now have sued for the overturn of RvW, especially since the majority opinion specifically acknowledge that by stating "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment {14th}. The appellant {Roe} conceded as much on reargument." C'mon, Ram, you should know better. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Science has advanced since 73. No more excuses.
For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
What has changed is that in recent years a substantial population has developed that is so calloused that it it regards pregnancy and partial birth abortion with the same degree of concern that it has for a bad bowel movement.
So, do these "pro-life Christians" believe in punishing the mother for murdering her unborn child? If they represent a large voting bloc (I assume they do, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up), then Trump just scored big with them.
First, they haven't acted in 43 years. Why not? Second, a future pro-choice Congress could simply reverse that decision. And I doubt we'll ever see a pro-life Republican Congress again. Maybe that's "why not".
Thank you for pointing out that .0001% of murders are federal crimes. It totally destroys the point I was trying to make. I give up. You win. "True but only as long as any of such law did not trump the Constitutional rights that would restrict same. In other words, sate law could not deprive a citizen or a person as the case may be of their Consitutional rights." False. It wasn't until the Warren court in the 1960's that the Bill of Rights began limiting state laws (via the 14th amendment). "All I will point out to you is the same can be said about slavery" I fail to see the connection, but thanks for the history lesson.
Comments (83 - 253) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#43. To: SOSO (#41)
Simply post my statement
#44. To: Roscoe (#43)
Simply post my statement
#45. To: SOSO (#44)
#46. To: SOSO (#37)
"The problem is that it was not at all illegal at the state level 200 years ago."
#47. To: TooConservative (#0)
The carnival barker executes another double-backflip on abortion. It takes real courage to confuse yourself with all these "hypotheticals" four times in less than four days. But it's only murder. Well, unless it isn't. Who really knows anyway?
#48. To: ConservingFreedom (#39)
"Dare we ask where Trump stands (today) on a federal abortion-restricting amendment?"
#49. To: misterwhite (#48)
Why would you? The President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process.
#50. To: misterwhite (#48)
Why would you? The President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process.
#51. To: ConservingFreedom (#49)
"The presidency is a bully pulpit. I'd like to know how it will be used."
#52. To: misterwhite (#51)
How did the last five Presidents -- both pro-life and pro-choice -- over the last 40 years use the bully pulpit when it came to abortion?
#53. To: ConservingFreedom (#52)
Doesn't make the question irrelevant as regards the next president.
#54. To: Roscoe (#53)
#55. To: ConservingFreedom (#54)
By my count, the last five includes Reagan.
#56. To: misterwhite (#46)
You said "To have 50 different determinations of the nature of the unborn fetus and the legal protections ..." and I responded that there WERE different determinations at the state level for 200 years.
#57. To: Roscoe (#55)
What anti-abortion amendment to the Constitution was ratified
#58. To: ConservingFreedom (#57)
Your usual deceptive straw-man subterfuges.
#59. To: SOSO (#56)
#60. To: Roscoe (#59)
#61. To: SOSO (#56)
"No state prohibited abortion prior to the mid-1800s or so."
#62. To: misterwhite (#61)
#63. To: misterwhite (#61)
My entire point was that the states had the power to ban or permit abortions until 1973.
#64. To: SOSO (#63)
But it is a mute point as up to well into the 1800s no so state had laws prohibiting abortion prior to quickening.
#65. To: SOSO (#63)
"My original statement stands, i.e. - to have 50 different determinations of the nature of the unborn fetus and the legal protections it is due is indefensible on any ground. Do you agree or not?"
#66. To: Roscoe, misterwhite (#59)
#67. To: misterwhite (#65)
1) If abortion is murder, then that's a state crime, not a federal crime
#68. To: misterwhite (#67)
#69. To: SOSO (#66)
1. No state prohibited abortion prior to the mid-1800s or so.
#70. To: SOSO (#66)
It is undisputed that at common law, abortion performed before "quickening - the first recognizable movement of the fetus in utero, appearing usually from the 16th to the 18th week of pregnancy - was not an indictable offense.
#71. To: misterwhite (#4)
Pro-life" is a convenient description given to those who want to make most, or all, abortions illegal. It says nothing about whether or not the individual considers it murder.
#72. To: misterwhite (#5)
No President ... no Congress ... no State ... can change our abortion laws.
#73. To: Fred Mertz (#24)
#74. To: SOSO (#56)
#75. To: SOSO (#56)
#76. To: SOSO (#63)
That was not at all clear. But it is a mute point as up to well into the 1800s no so state had laws prohibiting abortion prior to quickening.
#77. To: redleghunter (#76)
What is clear in the 21st century is human life begins at conception.
#78. To: SOSO (#77)
#79. To: redleghunter (#75)
And you will see that even in Colonial America they took abortion and infanticide seriously :
#80. To: redleghunter (#71)
(Edited)
"Abortion in most cases is the premeditated taking of human life."
#81. To: redleghunter (#72)
"Congress can act using the 14Th amendment."
#82. To: SOSO (#67)
"Not true in all cases. There is a federal crime of murder."
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]