[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past? Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues [FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin Status: Not Logged In; Sign In 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: 35157 Comments: 253 Donald Trump: Actually, Now That I Think About It, Let's Leave the Abortion Laws As They Are I'm changing, I'm changing. I'm softening that position. However, he then added that abortion is murder. 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." "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 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. .@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 Hey, by ten o'clock we might have another Trump position on abortion, so stay tuned. Posted by Ace at 09:03 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! Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-56) not displayed.       .       .       . #57. To: Roscoe (#55) What anti-abortion amendment to the Constitution was ratified Your usual deceptive straw-man subterfuges. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-02   15:37:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #58. To: ConservingFreedom (#57) Your usual deceptive straw-man subterfuges. Your usual projection. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-02   16:19:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #59. To: SOSO (#56) 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). Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-02   16:29:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #60. To: Roscoe (#59) You, trully, are a god-damed dumb fuck. Don't worry about it. buckeroo  posted on  2016-04-02   16:33:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #61. To: SOSO (#56) "No state prohibited abortion prior to the mid-1800s or so." 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. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-02   16:42:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #62. To: misterwhite (#61) 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." http://www.missourilife.or g/ law/preroe.htm Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-02   16:44:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #63. To: misterwhite (#61) My entire point was that the states had the power to ban or permit abortions until 1973. 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 SOSO  posted on  2016-04-02   18:15:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #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. Liar. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-02   18:28:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #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?" 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. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-02   18:31:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #66. To: Roscoe, misterwhite (#59) 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 SOSO  posted on  2016-04-02   19:00:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #67. To: misterwhite (#65) 1) If abortion is murder, then that's a state crime, not a federal crime 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 SOSO  posted on  2016-04-02   19:16:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #68. To: misterwhite (#67) 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 SOSO  posted on  2016-04-02   19:25:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #69. To: SOSO (#66) 1. No state prohibited abortion prior to the mid-1800s or so. 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. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-02   21:30:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #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. Followed by a lame and disingenuous attempt to move the goal posts. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-02   21:32:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #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. 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) redleghunter  posted on  2016-04-02   23:20:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #72. To: misterwhite (#5) No President ... no Congress ... no State ... can change our abortion laws. 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." Rand Paul Life at conception act 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) redleghunter  posted on  2016-04-02   23:33:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #73. To: Fred Mertz (#24) 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) redleghunter  posted on  2016-04-02   23:38:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #74. To: SOSO (#56) 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. Early US abortion laws 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) redleghunter  posted on  2016-04-02   23:50:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #75. To: SOSO (#56) And you will see that even in Colonial America they took abortion and infanticide seriously : Abortion Colonial America 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) redleghunter  posted on  2016-04-03   0:01:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #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. 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) redleghunter  posted on  2016-04-03   0:07:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #77. To: redleghunter (#76) What is clear in the 21st century is human life begins at conception. 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 SOSO  posted on  2016-04-03   1:24:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #78. To: SOSO (#77) 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) redleghunter  posted on  2016-04-03   1:32:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #79. To: redleghunter (#75) And you will see that even in Colonial America they took abortion and infanticide seriously : 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. rlk  posted on  2016-04-03   2:28:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #80. To: redleghunter (#71) (Edited) "Abortion in most cases is the premeditated taking of human life." 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. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-03   10:26:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #81. To: redleghunter (#72) "Congress can act using the 14Th amendment." 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". misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-03   10:52:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #82. To: SOSO (#67) "Not true in all cases. There is a federal crime of murder." 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. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-03   11:10:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #83. To: misterwhite (#82) It wasn't until the Warren court in the 1960's that the Bill of Rights began limiting state laws (via the 14th amendment). Not that it will matter to you but the 14th Amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights. ""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." I'm not too surprised. Just because something in the past was tolerated or codified in law or was comfortable etc. etc. etc. doesn't make it right, much less a rational basis to continue it. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-03   11:41:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #84. To: redleghunter (#78) Science has advanced since 73. No more excuses. So why hasn't there been so much more action to overturn RvW on the basis that life begins at conception? Why hasn't personhood legislation proliferated in every state? You need to read the RvW majority opinion. It did not claim that a fertilized human egg was not life. It never addressed that question. The court concluded that a fertilized egg is not a person within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. Science hasn't advanced nearly far enough to make the definitive claim that a fertilized egg is a person. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-03   11:46:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #85. To: redleghunter, SOSO (#78) Science has advanced since 73. No more excuses. Amniocentesis, ultrasound, care standards for premature fetuses infants which has lowered the age of viability outside the womb by months, abortion for sex selection, etc. Yes, Roe is very overdue to be revisited by the Court strictly on the grounds of the advances in knowledge and technology since the Sixties. In no other area of medicine other than abortion has the Court imposed 1973 as the last year in which medical science should be considered. Tooconservative  posted on  2016-04-03   11:51:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #86. To: SOSO (#83) "Not that it will matter to you but the 14th Amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights.' The Due Process clause of the 14th amendment was used by the U.S. Supreme Court to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. Go here (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html) and read under "Bar to Federal Action" and "Incorporation". It's short and to the point. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-03   11:53:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #87. To: TooConservative, redleghunter (#85) Yes, Roe is very overdue to be revisited by the Court strictly on the grounds of the advances in knowledge and technology since the Sixties. In no other area of medicine other than abortion has the Court imposed 1973 as the last year in which medical science should be considered. So why hasn't it happened? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-03   12:10:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #88. To: misterwhite (#86) Thanks for the link. There is something inherently wrong about the position that from the git-go the states can ignore the Bill of Rights and thereby deny those rights to anyone within the state jurisdiction. The position of Hamilton and Madison re: the the Alien and Sedition Act: "As to the Bill of Rights being a bar to federal acts, the Bill took some knocks in the first years of the new nation. The 1798 Alien and Sedition Act, for example, made nationals of countries the United States was at war with subject to summary arrest, and also made "false, scandalous and malicious" writings about the government a crime, with the burden of proof placed squarely on the shoulders of the defendant rather than the state. Madison and Thomas Jefferson were both adamantly opposed to the Act, and said that being unconstitutional, states were free to ignore (or nullify) the law. The Act, repealed in 1801, was never ruled unconstitutional." What then is the value of a constitutional law if any state can ignore it at will? Are you claiming that since the end of the Civil War and the 1960s any state could have reinstituted slavery or denied women the right to vote? There is an awful lot of nuance that is ignored in your reference. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-03   12:23:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #89. To: SOSO (#88) There is something inherently wrong about the position that from the git-go the states can ignore the Bill of Rights Constitution-haters, such as yourself, always spew some variation of the ignorance. But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-03   12:28:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #90. To: SOSO (#88) "What then is the value of a constitutional law if any state can ignore it at will?" I believe you mean to ask, "What then is the value of a constitutional federal law if any state can ignore it at will?" The value is that the federal government cannot violate it. The states, however, are not required to enforce it (which is what Madison and Jeffersom were alluding to). "any state could have reinstituted slavery or denied women the right to vote?" Those issues are not in the Bill of Rights. I was only referring to the Bill of Rights. My link only addressed the Bill of Rights. Let's stay with that, shall we? If you read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, you see that they were written as a limitation of the federal governent only. No such limitation applies to other amendments. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-03   12:44:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #91. To: Roscoe (#89) Or, it's in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights: THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-03   12:47:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #92. To: misterwhite (#90) Those issues are not in the Bill of Rights. You have more patience than I do. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-03   12:49:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #93. To: misterwhite (#91) Like any of them have ever read the Preamble. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-03   12:50:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #94. To: Y'ALL, misterwhite, redleghunter (#5) No President ... no Congress ... no State ... can, acting alone,change our abortion laws. ---- misterwhite No President ... no Congress ... no SCOTUS... no State ... can, acting alone,change our abortion laws. ---- Under our constitution, acting as a republican form of government with divided powers, --- no single branch of government has that power... tpaine  posted on  2016-04-03   13:24:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #95. To: SOSO (#77) I do know better. I debate pro life issues daily on another forum which has thousands of active posters. Up thread I posted a link to the efforts of Rand Paul in the Senate reference the life at conception act. It is not my imagination. Pro Life conservatives like Paul know the weaknesses of Roe and are now using the Blackmund loop hole to drive legislation. What is missing is not a legal argument but political backbone. 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) redleghunter  posted on  2016-04-03   13:31:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #96. To: rlk (#79) 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. Indeed. 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) redleghunter  posted on  2016-04-03   13:33:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #97. To: misterwhite (#80) 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. I think this has been answered many times. The pro life movement is focused on preserving innocent human life and that means shutting down those who provide the service. 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) redleghunter  posted on  2016-04-03   13:35:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply         .       .       . Comments (98 - 253) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com