May We Begin to Live Up to the Nature of Our Creed...

[vesper]

All I know is before abortion was made legal, less than ten percent of all pregnancies sought an abortion. Since it was made legal it has become a means of birth control. Prior to the abortion becoming legal, birth control was scarce yet the rate of abortions was very low. Today we have a multitude of birth control means readily available, it just takes one having enough self control to follow the directions before engaging in sexual activity.... but instead of practicing protected sex, abortion allowed many to become reckless without personally paying the consequences.

I read not too long ago right before the fall of Rome, people who once lived opulent lives lost it and just to find enough food to eat to survive became a full time job. I forget which historian wrote about it, but during those dark times if a woman became pregnant she would deliver but the husband would take the baby from her and kill it. Further back in history, when prostitution and religion were one in temples of different pagan gods, when those prostitutes would become pregnant, they would offer the baby up as a sacrifice to their pagan gods. Often burned to death in a furnace or buried alive in an egg shaped coffin.

Abortion, ending the life of a child you never wanted is nothing new. What it boils down to is how much a person values life.

 

[Lursa]

An innate property of every organism of the species Homo sapiens. It is the basis for any law against homicide; creating and enforcing such laws are why we humans create governments.

Prove that every organism of the species Homo sapiens has this innate property and how and why no other species does? And if you can, then prove no other species has it.

Let's see you prove that "innate" rights are not some fantasy plucked from thin air from the hand of some higher authority.

 

[Lursa]

Some anti choicers are happy when women die from illegal abortion....

JD is proud to admit it, anytime he's asked.

 

[JayDubya]

Since the laws and fundamentals you are quoting are indeed part of our history and you just admitted you placed the post here in Abortion because you are applying it to that subject, you are lying or delusional in saying that Minnie's & CM Pancakes posts were off-topic.

Predictably, more bad faith posting on your part.

But let us pretend that you are somehow being earnest anyway...

1) This is an internet forum. You found it somehow using a search engine so we'll assume we can start there. People talk about stuff here. This one is focused on politics. See where it says "Forum * Political Forums * above? That's important, you'll need to remember it.

2) On this forum there are what are called subforums in which focused discussions occur. See where it says "Abortion" to the right of "Political Forums?" Yup, you're in one.

3) Within those subforums there are these specific things created called threads. See that title up there? See how there's a first post?

As the title and opening post indicate, this particular thread is about the mission statement of the United States - the Declaration of Independence, and specifically how its values inform the abortion debate.

4) Do you see how the thread and the subforum are two different concepts? Merely mentioning abortion doesn't make a post on topic within a thread.


So again, what does Minnie's random spam about abortion laws in the mid 1800s have to do with the Declaration of Independence? If you said "nothing!" you would be correct.

Unfortunately, you said it was on-topic. Which makes you incorrect. Objectively.

 

[JayDubya]

JD is proud to admit it, anytime he's asked.

I will indulge your off-topic callout only to say that when it comes to specifics, you are lying and being defamatory.

For the easiest possible frame of reference, I will draw upon recent events; when I heard Richard Matt was dead, I was not "happy." I was relieved to know that he was not going to be able to kill again. When I heard David Sweat had been apprehended, I was not "unhappy," I was relieved to know he was going back to prison where he would be unable to kill again.

There is no distinction to be drawn between those two killers and the ones you support. Even if you erroneously claim that there is, you should understand that I certainly do not draw any distinction.

 

[nota bene]

I guess the question is whether you are happy when women die from abortion. So I'll just ask--are you?

 

[Lursa]

Predictably, more bad faith posting on your part.

But let us pretend that you are somehow being earnest anyway...

1) This is an internet forum. You found it somehow using a search engine so we'll assume we can start there. People talk about stuff here. This one is focused on politics. See where it says "Forum * Political Forums * above? That's important, you'll need to remember it.

2) On this forum there are what are called subforums in which focused discussions occur. See where it says "Abortion" to the right of "Political Forums?" Yup, you're in one.

3) Within those subforums there are these specific things created called threads. See that title up there? See how there's a first post?

As the title and opening post indicate, this particular thread is about the mission statement of the United States - the Declaration of Independence, and specifically how its values inform the abortion debate.

4) Do you see how the thread and the subforum are two different concepts? Merely mentioning abortion doesn't make a post on topic within a thread.


So again, what does Minnie's random spam about abortion laws in the mid 1800s have to do with the Declaration of Independence? If you said "nothing!" you would be correct.

Unfortunately, you said it was on-topic. Which makes you incorrect. Objectively.

Totally subjective, since while you dont see it as on topic, Minnie and I do. Her post was far from random and was a logical response, esp. in light of your known postings.

So you really dont know what is objective and subjective, do you? You post more proof of that every time you respond.

 

[JayDubya]

I guess the question is whether you are happy when women die from abortion. So I'll just ask--are you?

I don't want to indulge this off-topic, call-out, defamatory nonsense by Scrabaholic any further.

Suffice to say, see above: I would feel about such news exactly the same as I did when learning that Richard Matt had died.

Nothing about the situation warrants joy or elation, and neither the death nor capture of a killer will save their previous victims. The news of a violent killer either being captured or dying as a consequence of their own malice and / or stupidity certainly does warrant a feeling of relief, because the news means they will not be killing anymore innocent human beings.

 

[JayDubya]

I see the bad faith posting by Lursa continues unabated. If you have a salient comment for a change, let me know and I can address it. I will not, of course, indulge you on any more of your tangential nonsense.

 

[Lursa]

I see the bad faith posting by Lursa continues unabated. If you have a salient comment for a change, let me know and I can address it. I will not, of course, indulge you on any more of your tangential nonsense.

I made several 'salient' comments. I am waiting for you to prove several things, which you have avoided by defensiveness.

Shall I list them for you again?

Very quickly:

--prove that people that believed the Holocaust was right were 'wrong.' (You stated that they were objectively wrong.)

--prove that there are innate rights, as you clearly stated.

An innate property of every organism of the species Homo sapiens. It is the basis for any law against homicide; creating and enforcing such laws are why we humans create governments.

Prove that every organism of the species Homo sapiens has this innate property and how and why no other species does? And if you can, then prove no other species has it.

Let's see you prove that "innate" rights are not some fantasy plucked from thin air from the hand of some higher authority.

--prove that rights are anything besides a man-made concept.

I can go back and repost for context if you like.

 

[minnie616]

All I know is before abortion was made legal, less than ten percent of all pregnancies sought an abortion. ...

Maybe less than 10 percent legal abortions.
Those would be the ones counted as abortions needed to save the woman's life.

Illegal abortions were taking in place in large numbers.

In the 1930s, 800,000 abortions were being performed annually.

In the 1950s about 1 million illegal abortions were being performed every year.

In the 1950s, about a million illegal abortions a year were performed in the U.S., and over a thousand women died each year as a result. Women who were victims of botched or unsanitary abortions came in desperation to hospital emergency wards, where some died of widespread abdominal infections. Many women who recovered from such infections found themselves sterile or chronically and painfully ill. The enormous emotional stress often lasted a long time.

Read more:

HISTORY OF ABORTION


From this article:

Repairing the Damage, Before Roe

< SNIP>

I am a retired gynecologist, in my mid-80s. My early formal training in my specialty was spent in New York City, from 1948 to 1953, in two of the city’s large municipal hospitals.

There I saw and treated almost every complication of illegal abortion that one could conjure,
done either by the patient herself or by an abortionist — often unknowing, unskilled and probably uncaring. Yet the patient never told us who did the work, or where and under what conditions it was performed. She was in dire need of our help to complete the process or, as frequently was the case, to correct what damage might have been done.

< SNIP>
The worst case I saw, and one I hope no one else will ever have to face, was that of a nurse who was admitted with what looked like a partly delivered umbilical cord. Yet as soon as we examined her, we realized that what we thought was the cord was in fact part of her intestine, which had been hooked and torn by whatever implement had been used in the abortion.
It took six hours of surgery to remove the infected uterus and ovaries and repair the part of the bowel that was still functional.

It is important to remember that Roe v. Wade did not mean that abortions could be performed. They have always been done, dating from ancient Greek days.

What Roe said was that ending a pregnancy could be carried out by medical personnel, in a medically accepted setting, thus conferring on women, finally, the full rights of first-class citizens — and freeing their doctors to treat them as such.

read more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/he...DcWQfT4MEbi5A&
-------------------------------------------
The illegal abortions that took place before Roe are unfortunate not only for woman who were injured but for the doctors and nurses who ended up repairing the damage.

Each abortion that occurs is decided by an individual woman ..possibly with input
from her husband/lover and maybe her doctor.

This is about a woman or a couple having the right to privacy to decide whether or not to have a child at this time in her life, how many children to have and how far to space them apart.

Roe vs wade was also very much about doctors being able to take the best care of their patients as well as they could and as many wanted too like the doctor in the article I posted.

 

[nota bene]

I don't want to indulge this off-topic, call-out, defamatory nonsense by Scrabaholic any further.

Suffice to say, see above: I would feel about such news exactly the same as I did when learning that Richard Matt had died.

Nothing about the situation warrants joy or elation, and neither the death nor capture of a killer will save their previous victims. The news of a violent killer either being captured or dying as a consequence of their own malice and / or stupidity certainly does warrant a feeling of relief, because the news means they will not be killing anymore innocent human beings.

Thank you for answering. I thought this was where you were coming from.

 

[JayDubya]

Maybe less than 10 percent legal abortions...

Illegal abortions...

HISTORY OF ABORTION

From this article:

read more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/he...DcWQfT4MEbi5A&

Roe vs wade...

 

[Babylon_Drifter]

I aced "Civics class" in high school and aced the test required to place out of taking any coursework in college.

American education at its finest, right?

The Constitution is not a "living document." Some people do, of course, believe it is, and they use this to further dishonest "interpretations" of plain English.

Again, American education at it's finest. If not living, why did the Founders provide a process of changing it? Even the wording within the Constitution is never framed specifically.
The truth is that it is a living document...as it should be.

“The dead should not rule the living.” ― Thomas Jefferson

“The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will.” - John Marshall

“I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” ― Thomas Jefferson

Many of the founders believed that it would be immoral to bind future generations to some form of government without their permission.

It is the basis for any law against homicide; creating and enforcing such laws are why we humans create governments.

You still haven't explained where innate laws come from, so I'll accept your surrender in that category. That being said, the basis of laws is a primarily due to collective interest since human beings are communal. Abortion is legal because society has a valid interest in protecting a woman's access to abortion over preserving the life of the unborn.

 

[JayDubya]

American education at its finest, right?

Yes. I did well in the class because I knew the material. The Constitution is written in plain English; it is not particularly lengthy. It is not difficult to know its contents in their entirety.

I am well aware of your ignorant view of the Constitution and the harm it has done to our country.

Again, American education at it's finest. If not living, why did the Founders provide a process of changing it?

You're not talking about amendments. You're talking about "reinterpreting" plain English words into new meanings - you're talking about lying, and telling me you approve. That's somehow fitting.

Even the wording within the Constitution is never framed specifically.

Nonsense.

Many of the founders believed that it would be immoral to bind future generations to some form of government without their permission.

By Jefferson's writings and speeches, he presumed we would make a new one or have a revolution by now. The constitution even has a process for calling a constitutional convention of the states; we just haven't used it yet.

You still haven't explained where innate laws come from

I see you still don't understand the meaning of that word "innate."

The rest of your collectivist rhetoric I'll just ignore and dismiss.

 

[iangb]

Thank you for answering. I thought this was where you were coming from.

Compare that with the following (full posts provided with links - I'm not taking these out of context):

I forgot that so called pro-life proponents have no problem with the deaths of women from illegal abortions. In fact they relish the thought.

How much would you have cared if David Sweat had been shot and killed?

Because as far as I'm concerned, his accomplice being dead is a good thing that saves taxpayer money.

Violent killers with no respect for the human rights of others. They belong in a prison cell, by law, but if they kill themselves due to their own stupidity or are killed by law enforcement or citizens defending themselves? Great! Saves on room and board for their worthless asses.

remind me how putting the mother of an aborted fetus in prison or forcing women into back alley abortions is good for society

No one "forces" a psycho bint to kill innocent human beings, be it legal or illegal, it's a homicide with malice aforethought, done deliberately and of one's own free will. A choice, yes, but a choice like the choice to rob a bank or rape.

But it is absolutely a good thing for such a human piece of **** to get such a greivous injury that she's sterilized or dead.

Because women WILL abort if that is what they want to do, legal or not

Yeah, but if it's illegal and highly dangerous, the scumbags might die from self-inflicted injuries that occurred during their homicide and we won't have to house them and feed them in prison, so that's a plus.

It's not a defect, it's a feature.

Making abortion illegal doesn't prevent abortion. I don't know how old you are but things could get very, very ugly back in the day.

What's wrong with things getting ugly for those who deserve it?

If Jay wants to protest his innocence that's his clarification to make, but his words so far certainly tell a different story. You can make your own mind up.

With regards the OP: two points
1) As part of the Declaration/Constitution, the Supreme court was set up. It has ruled in a manner you disagree with - this does not make it unConstitutional - but it's rulings are by their very nature supported by the Constitution. There's a phrase: "they're not final because they are right, they are right because they are final".
2) When a human being is created is a matter of opinion, not of science. Your particular point of view regarding this is just another opinion; on that the aforementioned supreme court did not consider to be valid enough to agree with.

 

[JayDubya]

Since your mass quote spam did a notification I decided to click "view post," iangb.

You're blatantly off-topic, but since it is a continuation of scrabaholic's personal attack callout nonsense, I nonetheless feel compelled to respond to your character assassination, and I ask it be dropped.

None of your quotes contain the words that were alleged. You may disagree with them, but none of them mention joy or happiness. I stand by my words and at the same time note that you are completely wrong.

This thread is not about whether it's good or bad for violent killers to die from self-inflicted wounds or those inflicted upon them in accident by their contracted agents or accessories. Not at all.


If you have nothing of merit to say regarding the topic, and you clearly do not, please move along. Even if you did, I will not be clicking "view post" on your text anymore.

scrabaholic started this derailing nonsense, but you have no excuse for continuing it.

 

[iangb]

Since your mass quote spam did a notification I decided to click "view post," iangb.

You're blatantly off-topic, but since it is a continuation of scrabaholic's personal attack callout nonsense, I nonetheless feel compelled to respond to your character assassination, and I ask it be dropped.

None of your quotes contain the words that were alleged. You may disagree with them, but none of them mention joy or happiness. I stand by my words and at the same time note that you are completely wrong.


If you have nothing of merit to say regarding the topic, and you clearly do not, please move along. Even if you did, I will not be clicking "view post" on your text anymore.

I wasn't really addressing you with that part of the post; although I'm happy you've had your chance to respond. Nota is free to make her own mind up, as I mentioned previously, your words speak for themselves.

Any comments on the rest of the post - my response to the OP? Having read through the rest of the thread I'm also happy to throw my hat into the ring with the "rights are a human-created construct" crowd, although that's more of a philosophical argument than an abortion one. I take the sceptical position simply because I don't see any evidence to the contrary - the assertions in the OP were enough to found a country, but they aren't enough to form an argument, which in general must be far more robust.

 

[prometeus]

American education at its finest, right?

I believe that it is called "uneducation" in this instance.

 

[prometeus]

You still haven't explained where innate laws come from

Don't expect anything intelligent or rational. It is just another buzz word that is used in an attempt to prop up the unsupportable. It is no different that the use of "objective" or "factual" or "scientific" as justification for uneducated extremist position based on hate and greed.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Compare that with the following (full posts provided with links - I'm not taking these out of context):

Thank you. As everyone can see, I do not lie.

I need to learn how to use the search feature better. I can find threads where terms are used, but not the posts, and don't have time to scroll through over 100 pages of posts.

 

[prometeus]

Thank you. As everyone can see, I do not lie.

Well... if it does not line up with some people's objective, factual, scientific or innate I mean inane assertions then it could be construed as less that truthful...:lol:

 

[matchlight]

Rights are always forged by people

So you assert. But this country and its Constitution incorporate the principle of natural rights that Jefferson asserted in the Declaration: That we endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights." It is those rights, formulated in the Constitution as the rights to life, liberty, and property, that the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendement guarantee against government.

the Constitution was never meant to treated as a concrete document that is accepted dogmatically. It was always intended to be treated as a living document which the people can change and reinterpret over time.

Of course. The best evidence for that is that the men who wrote it included right within it, in Article V, several procedures for amending it. Amendment is the only legitimate way for the people to "change and reinterpret" the Constitution over time. It does not mean only what the faction that is yelling loudest at the time says it means.

Lastly, the unborn honestly do not need a "right to life" and the state does not have an interest in protecting them.

Your assertion misstates the law. The Supreme Court made clear in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 that states have an interest in preserving the life of the fetus: "[T]he State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child. These principles do not contradict one another; and we adhere to each." 505 U.S. 833, 846 (1992). The Court also spoke of "Roe's statement that the State has a legitimate interest in promoting the life or potential life of the unborn . . . ." Id. at 870.

 

[nota bene]

Compare that with the following (full posts provided with links - I'm not taking these out of context):

If Jay wants to protest his innocence that's his clarification to make, but his words so far certainly tell a different story. You can make your own mind up.

I always do.

I don’t see any “relishing” or joy either. JayDubya himself used the word “relief.” He has always made clear his belief that elective abortion is, generally, active (or “aggressive”) homicide. We are all free to disagree, and those who are pro-choice generally do. He has just compared those who, in his view, wantonly destroy human life to other killers. About those other killers, many Americans do say, “Good riddance to bad rubbish.” Reading JayDubya’s words as they are, this seems to me what he’s saying. And this view is certainly pragmatic.

JayDubya’s rhetoric is often uncomfortably extreme, at least for me. But he’s entitled to express his views every bit as much as the other extremists who post in this forum. The hypocrisy of the criticisms of him by some is stunning. Many are absolutely vicious in their own bigotry and intolerance--harpies who swoop down on those who wander in, bullies who shamelessly and rudely repeat cheap and continually disavowed memes about how those who are pro-life hate women, care nothing for those who are born, care more for the unborn than their mothers and want exceptional and undeserved rights for them, and are all poorly educated and ignorant religious zealots.

I realize that for those who are “regulars” in the Abortion forum, JayDubya is an excellent scapegoat. But what you’re doing here is demonstrating that you aren’t nearly so much interested in the various issues as you are in internecine dramarama. If this forum is more than a “mean girls’” club, how about sticking civilly to the issues instead of shredding others? Forgoing the condescending snarks and insults altogether?

Crazy rhetorical questions, I know. As you were...unless, of course, you'd like to choose the high road.

 

[JayDubya]

Thank you. As everyone can see, I do not lie.

On the contrary, this entire exchange demonstrates yet another example of your defamatory lies.

I don't go into your threads and make off-topic false statements about you. Apparently you feel you can do this with impunity. Perhaps you can. Perhaps not.