• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Just maybe the beginnig of the end?

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
This is a very interesting situation in Indiana on the abortion issue......

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060106/NEWS02/601060475/1006/NEWS01

January 6, 2006


Lawmaker's goal: Overturn Roe v. Wade
Bill would make abortion illegal in Indiana
Related links
• Feedback: Should Indiana make most abortions illegal?

By Mary Beth Schneider and Michele McNeil
mary.beth.schneider@indystar.com
Abortion would be illegal for most women in Indiana, including victims of rape and incest, under a bill filed this week in the Indiana House.


Indiana's legislators have chipped away at abortion for decades, imposing waiting periods and other restrictions, but the measure proposed by Rep. Troy A. Woodruff, R-Vincennes, is the first direct attempt in years to outlaw most abortions.
The only exception allowed under House Bill 1096 would be for women whose health or life would be permanently impaired if a pregnancy continued. The bill would define life as beginning at conception and make it a felony to perform all other abortions. Anyone convicted would face up to eight years in prison.
 

FISHX

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
212
Reaction score
0
Location
uk
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
we can only hope and praythat this bill is passed:smile: :
 

Blind man

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
77
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
FISHX said:
we can only hope and praythat this bill is passed:smile: :
Yes, because we all know it's healthy for America when States take it as their responsiblity to violate the integrity of the American political system by intentionally spitting in the face of cases which have already been decided by the SCOTUS.

I always love it when people place their own personal agendas, whatever they may be, ahead of the principles and ideals upon which this country was founded.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Blind man said:
Yes, because we all know it's healthy for America when States take it as their responsiblity to violate the integrity of the American political system by intentionally spitting in the face of cases which have already been decided by the SCOTUS.

I always love it when people place their own personal agendas, whatever they may be, ahead of the principles and ideals upon which this country was founded.
The SCOTUS should have returned the RvW case back to the state of Texas to decide. THAT was a spit in the face of the constitution--specifically Amendment X
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.
 

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Felicity said:
The SCOTUS should have returned the RvW case back to the state of Texas to decide. THAT was a spit in the face of the constitution--specifically Amendment X
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.
Oh, yeah... what about the 4th Amendment?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This is privacy, as guaranteed in The Constitution, therefore the 10th Amendment does not apply.

Even if Indiana passes this law, SCOTUS will not let it stand.
 

Blind man

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
77
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Felicity said:
The SCOTUS should have returned the RvW case back to the state of Texas to decide. THAT was a spit in the face of the constitution--specifically Amendment X
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.

lol, I forgot, the SCOTUS is only doing their job when they agree with you. There's well over a hundred years of the highest level of law knowledge and interpretation on the SCOTUS, but who needs that? Felicity is here. You can go home now Justices, your work is through.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Blind man said:
lol, I forgot, the SCOTUS is only doing their job when they agree with you. There's well over a hundred years of the highest level of law knowledge and interpretation on the SCOTUS, but who needs that? Felicity is here. You can go home now Justices, your work is through.
The SCOTUS job is to interpret the Constitution and if there is a bad law like Roe V Wade change it......
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Felicity said:
The SCOTUS should have returned the RvW case back to the state of Texas to decide. THAT was a spit in the face of the constitution--specifically Amendment X
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.
:prof

Judicial Review, anyone? Marbury vs. Madison? The job of the Supreme Court is to judge the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress and the States, how is making a ruling on Roe vs. Wade unconstitutional?
 

blastula

Banned
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
495
Reaction score
31
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Oh, yeah... what about the 4th Amendment?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I don't see the 4th to be refering to privacy right to abortion.
Nowhere in Roe v Wade's testimony was any allegation made that Roe's person, houses, papers, and effects were violated by any searches or seizures.

Of course, if she did commit a crime, then a warrant could be issued upon probable cause and supported by oath or affirmation. So, the 4th actually affirm that there is no absolute right to privacy. If you commit an offence against the law, and with probable cause the govt can search your person and seize your property.
 

Blind man

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
77
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Navy Pride said:
The SCOTUS job is to interpret the Constitution and if there is a bad law like Roe V Wade change it......
Oh, wow, your so right, you changed my whole outlook on the subject. I guess IF Roe V Wade ever made it to the Supreme Court they would have to overturn it. Good thing that the Supreme Court hasn't had a chance to rule on the case before . . .
 

chucknorris

New member
Joined
Jan 10, 2006
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Blind man said:
Good thing that the Supreme Court hasn't had a chance to rule on the case before . . .
Yes they have you silly goose! There was this crazy big case back in like 1973, i cant quite remember the name of it...Row vs Wode or something like that.. anyhoo i think the supreme court said abortion is okay... eh im not really sure i think i read it in my history book or something once.

oh gosh you were being sarcastic? you are indeed a silly goose! i did not realize at all!
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
FISHX said:
we can only hope and praythat this bill is passed:smile: :
It'll give the ACLU something to do and let the State of Indiana pay the budget of ACLU. If that is something to hope and pray for, have at it.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Engimo said:
:prof

Judicial Review, anyone? Marbury vs. Madison? The job of the Supreme Court is to judge the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress and the States, how is making a ruling on Roe vs. Wade unconstitutional?
because constituional scolars on both side have said its flawed..........Why do you think Liberals are fighting so hard to keep Conservatives off the bench?
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
steen said:
It'll give the ACLU something to do and let the State of Indiana pay the budget of ACLU. If that is something to hope and pray for, have at it.
The ACLU is probably to busy defending the pedophile organizations...:roll:
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Navy Pride said:
because constituional scolars on both side have said its flawed..........Why do you think Liberals are fighting so hard to keep Conservatives off the bench?
Oh really? During the Alito confirmation hearings I remember hearing a senator say that there have been over 60 cases presented to the Supreme Court where they have had an opportunity to contradict/overturn Roe Vs. Wade. If it is so obviously flawed, why hasn't this happened yet?
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Engimo said:
Oh really? During the Alito confirmation hearings I remember hearing a senator say that there have been over 60 cases presented to the Supreme Court where they have had an opportunity to contradict/overturn Roe Vs. Wade. If it is so obviously flawed, why hasn't this happened yet?
Now I will tell you and I want you to concentrate like a laser beam........Its because the court has been divided 5-4 in the favor of liberal jurists.........

That will change as soon as Alito is confirmed.........
 

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
blastula said:
I don't see the 4th to be refering to privacy right to abortion.
Nowhere in Roe v Wade's testimony was any allegation made that Roe's person, houses, papers, and effects were violated by any searches or seizures.

Of course, if she did commit a crime, then a warrant could be issued upon probable cause and supported by oath or affirmation. So, the 4th actually affirm that there is no absolute right to privacy. If you commit an offence against the law, and with probable cause the govt can search your person and seize your property.
The basic idea of the 4th Amendment is privacy. Every detail of every aspect of privacy does not need to be stated. It would require far too much to do this and would lead to too much repression. Our Constitution was written to be somewhat vague for this reason. Only a narrow mind could not see that.

How about the 14th Amendment?
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What are the most fundamental concepts of "liberty"? They are privacy, free choice, and personal freedom. Abortion falls into any of these categories.

Why would someone want the government making decisions for people anyway? They do not like something and so they run to the government to make it illegal. "I do not like abortion so it must be illegal!" This gives the government far too much power over people. If you need someone making your decisions for you, so be it, but do not impose your childishness on anyone else.

Anti-abortionists only want to impose there will on other people. If abortion was ever to be illegal (big if), all prolifers would soon change their tune once their taxes go up to fund all the unwanted children.

There are questions that anti-abortionists can never answer:
  1. Who will care and pay for all these unwanted children?
  2. Do you really believe that women will just stop seeking abortions if they become illegal? Is the health, and possibly the life, of the women seeking an abortion better maintained in a regulated clinic or in an alley?
  3. Why is it really any of your business what someone else does with their body?
 

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Navy Pride said:
Now I will tell you and I want you to concentrate like a laser beam........Its because the court has been divided 5-4 in the favor of liberal jurists.........

That will change as soon as Alito is confirmed.........
Wrong. The last time Roe vs. Wade was reaffirmed by SCOTUS it was a 6-3 vote. Roberts replaced one vote against it so that would keep it at 6-3 if he votes against it also. Alito, if he voted against it, would make it 5-4.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
alex said:
Wrong. The last time Roe vs. Wade was reaffirmed by SCOTUS it was a 6-3 vote. Roberts replaced one vote against it so that would keep it at 6-3 if he votes against it also. Alito, if he voted against it, would make it 5-4.
We shall see.......;)
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I have just finished reading the U.S. Constitution......Can any of my liberal friends cite where I can find the right to privacy clause?


Thanks..........
 

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Navy Pride said:
I have just finished reading the U.S. Constitution......Can any of my liberal friends cite where I can find the right to privacy clause?


Thanks..........
Read post #17 in this thread.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Navy Pride said:
I see the word liberty not privacy.....The 2 words have totally different meanings.........

Definition of privacy
http://www.privacyinternational.org/survey/phr2003/overview.htm

Definition of liberty
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/liberty

I will be waiting for someone to show me where the word privacy
is quoted............
You obviously did not read your own sources. Click the liberty link in your post and read definitions #3 and #4.

You are so easy to debate, Navy_Pride, because you kill your own arguements.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
alex said:
You obviously did not read your own sources. Click the liberty link in your post and read definitions #3 and #4.

You are so easy to debate, Navy_Pride, because you kill your own arguements.

Don't just personal attack me........show me in the constitution the word privacy in the constitution.........

Thanks:roll:
 

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Navy Pride said:
Don't just personal attack me........show me in the constitution the word privacy in the constitution.........

Thanks:roll:
I already addressed this in post #17. Get a clue. Get a life. Get something.
 
Top Bottom