Proof of the Founding Fathers intent:

[Felicity]

Hah, no. The federal government can pass laws which the entire country has to follow. There's an issue with that at the moment, actually, with the federal government passing new laws regarding industrial relations that several states are opposed to.

The UK doesn't even have states.

So does the US--what is appropriately federal law is at issue and abortion is not appropriately federal law. The US effectively made federal law by a supreme court decision in the 1970s.
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/RP/1998-99/99rp01.htm


BTW--they are called counties in England...I believe--as in "county Kent" or "Sussex county."

 

[FutureIncoming]

Trajan Octavian Titus quoted: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

-and wrote: "Whether you believe that an invisible man in the sky is the creator or simply the man and the woman who engage in procreation the fact remains that the act of conception is creation and therfor the creator endows upon the created the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it makes no difference whether ones humanity is only determined upon birth due to the fact that it is not the human that is protected by the rights but rather the creation itself even if that creation is just a zygote . . . is that clear enough for you?"


NO, IT IS NOT CLEAR, BECAUSE YOU ARE MUDDLING THE FACTS.
1. "self evident" IS NOT NECESSARILY SO. The mere claim of self-evidence does not make a statement true. Perhaps you recall that back in the days of ancient Greece Euclid wrote down 10 "self evident" statements as the foundation of Geometry. Well, eventually 9 of them were actually proved to be more than self-evident, and do you know how it was done? Assume a statement is FALSE, and deduce the consequences. If a logical contradiction is reached, then the statement must actually be true. (Euclid's Fifth Postulate turned out to work even when assumed false; that's how non-Euclidean geometry was developed.) SO, DO THOSE SO-CALLED TRUTHS HOLD UP AS PROVABLE?
A) "all men are created equal" -- HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! When was the last time it looked to you that all men are identical clones? Even if you modify the statement to something NOT in the Declaration, "all men are created equal under the Law", you can find plenty of Laws with loopholes favoring some men over others. THE STATEMENT WORKS WHEN ASSUMED FALSE, however much you might wish it to be otherwise.
B) "all men are endowed with certain inalienable rights" (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) -- I already pointed out the problems with this in Messages #43 and #51, and YOU failed to offer any counter-argument. BECAUSE THE STATEMENT WORKS EVEN WHEN ASSUMED FALSE. For more evidence, just remember that Civilizations existed for thousands of years before any such "rights" were defined. Yes, they didn't last, but the reasons for that were OTHER than the fact these "rights" were ignored. OUR civilization doesn't look to last much longer than another decade, even WITH such "rights". (In Message #56 I indicate that one reason WHY our Civilization isn't going to last is because of the consequences of believing there is such a thing as "right to life", and THAT wasn't disputed, either!)
C) "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" -- DREAM ON! Governments for millenia have been instituted for other reasons entirely. "Might makes right" is a despised cliche BECAUSE of those other reasons, but the fact remains that THE STATEMENT WORKS EVEN WHEN ASSUMED FALSE.
D) "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it" -- WHY DID THIS HAPPEN SO SELDOM IN ALL OF HISTORY? Governments historically were abolished from without FAR more often than from within. BECAUSE THE STATEMENT WORKS EVEN WHEN ASSUMED FALSE.

2. "or simply the man and the woman who engage in procreation the fact remains that the act of conception is creation and therfor the creator endows" --HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! When humans engage in PROCREATION they are by definition of the word intending to endow offspring with a right to life, but any other "rights" those offspring are going to have to EARN (by learning responsibility and so on; a "right to pursue happiness", for example, does not mean thievery is acceptable). When humans engage in sex for reasons OTHER than procreation (like for the health benefits, or for pair-bonding), an unexpected offspring is NOT automatically endowed with even a right to life. Simply because there was no intention for that life to exist in the first place. You DO understand the difference between "procreation" and "sex", don't you?

 

[vergiss]

So does the US--what is appropriately federal law is at issue and abortion is not appropriately federal law.

Says who? You?

Btw, counties are not like states.

 

[ngdawg]

What the starter of this thread has conveniently forgotten is the entire purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to sever ties to the motherland-it is not a basis for law.
What the starter of this thread has conveniently ignored is the phrase 'all men are created equal'-not all people, not all humans. The unalienable right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a phrase against the tyranny they felt under the king's rule and has nothing to do with giving birth.
This so-called 'proof of intent' the starter of this thread portends to 'know' is a poorly executed fairy tale designed to back up his own agendas and has no bearing on anything related to the forum topic. Ditto on the views of the constitution; interpretation through courts is not foolproof, hence, amendments are written as a way of clarification and the courts, being occupied by mere humans, are left to interpret the laws as they would pertain to a given situation. Every amendment could be argued ad infinitum and is...the second amendment is case in point: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The fifteenth amendment gave blacks the right to vote, but women did not get it, so another amendment was written, even though the fifteenth makes no mention of gender, but does exclude gender as a matter of wording.
The starter of this thread seems to be thinking that literal wording is infallible-it is not and provisions within amendments address this. This thread has gotten several pages long and still, not ONE word of proof of intent as it relates to his views has been given.

 

[Felicity]

Says who? You?

The freakin' constitutions, vergiss...that's the thing being discussed--the intent of the founders who wrote the constitution....:doh

Btw, counties are not like states.

Whatever:roll: ....do some research.

 

[vergiss]

The freakin' constitutions, vergiss...that's the thing being discussed--the intent of the founders who wrote the constitution....:doh

The constitution specifically says that every state has the right to decide for itself its laws regarding abortion?

Whatever:roll: ....do some research.

I'm a British citizen! :lol:

 

[ngdawg]

States have governors, their own state contitutions, two legislative bodies consisting of elected officials, are divided into counties which then have their own seated councils overseeing the governing officials of the towns within. The US constitution makes allowances in most amendments for state law.
English counties are run by councils and are under the rule of Britain and are not seperate entities of law except in regional matters..
Now,who should do their research?

 

[Stace]

This is proof of intent:


Whether you believe that an invisible man in the sky is the creator or simply the man and the woman who engage in procreation the fact remains that the act of conception is creation and therfor the creator endows upon the created the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it makes no difference whether ones humanity is only determined upon birth due to the fact that it is not the human that is protected by the rights but rather the creation itself even if that creation is just a zygote . . . is that clear enough for you?

It's called a precedent one which the Supreme Court totally ignored.

Ah yes, but whatever is created, can also be destroyed. Look at our environment.....we've been destroying that for hundreds of years....and it needs to last a lot longer than those of us currently inhabiting the Earth....

 

[steen]

Good way to totally dismiss an argument without any contradictory evidence you're not very good at this whole debate thing. Do you have anything to actually add to the debate besides one line quips, opinions, and partisan rhetoric?

You should stop talking to the mirror

(or: Your argument is incredibly hypocritical)

 

[Felicity]

The constitution specifically says that every state has the right to decide for itself its laws regarding abortion?
:

Trajan Octavian Titus already quoted it for you in post 39 on page 4: Amendment X

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentx

 

[Felicity]

States have governors, their own state contitutions, two legislative bodies consisting of elected officials, are divided into counties which then have their own seated councils overseeing the governing officials of the towns within. The US constitution makes allowances in most amendments for state law.
English counties are run by councils and are under the rule of Britain and are not seperate entities of law except in regional matters..
Now,who should do their research?

Did you miss the context? Australian and US law is based in English common law--Australian states (territories) have the right to make laws restricting abortion if they choose--US states have had the right revolked by the Supreme Court of the US. In context, your comment makes little sense. maybe it is you who should research the posts to which you are responding.

 

[Saboteur]

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, maybe if you don't like it you should move to Red China.

Dude! You are such an ASS!

Also you are very good at twisting anything and everything to serve your belief system.

But still... Such an ASS!

I'll have to get back to you regarding the debate.

 

[Saboteur]

Okay... here we go again.

From this thread;

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=5588

There is this;

Here is a short, partial history of abortion.
"In ancient times, the "delayed ensoulment" belief of Aristotle (384-322 BCE) was widely accepted in Pagan Greece and Rome. He taught that a fetus originally has a vegetable soul. This evolves into an animal soul later in gestation. Finally the fetus is "animated" with a human soul. This latter event, called "ensoulment," was believed to occur at 40 days after conception for male fetuses, and 90 days after conception for female fetuses. The difference was of little consequence, because in those days, the gender of a fetus could not be determined visually until about 90 days from conception, and no genetic tests existed to determine gender. Ultrasound devices were millennia in the future. Thus contraception and abortion were not condemned if performed early in gestation. It is only if the abortion is done later in pregnancy that a human soul is destroyed. By coincidence, this 90 day limit happens to be approximately equal to the end of the first trimester, the point at which the US Supreme Court decided that states could begin to restrict a woman's access to abortion.

There were three main movements within early Christianity. Two did not succeed: Jewish Christianity and Gnostic Christianity. The third, Pauline Christianity, flourished and evolved into the Christian Church. It was surrounded by a mosaic of other competing religions within the Roman Empire, including Judaism, the Greek state religion, Mithraism, the Roman state religion, and various Mystery religions. With the exception of Judaism, most or all of the competing religions allowed women to have abortions and allowed parents to strangle or expose (abandon) new-born babies as methods of population control. There are many writings, letters and petitions of early Christian philosophers and Church Fathers which equated abortion with infanticide and condemned both as murder.

St. Augustine (354-430 CE) reversed centuries of Christian teaching in Western Europe, and returned to the Aristotelian concept of "delayed ensoulment." He wrote that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated). He wrote extensively on sexual matters, teaching that the original sin of Adam and Eve are passed to each successive generation through the pleasure generated during sexual intercourse. This passed into the church's canon law. Only abortion of a more fully developed "fetus animatus" (animated fetus) was punished as murder.

Early in the 13th century, Pope Innocent III stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) also considered only the abortion of an "animated" fetus as murder.

Pope Sixtus V issued a Papal bull "Effraenatam" in 1588 which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty. Pope Gregory XIV revoked the Papal bull shortly after taking office in 1591. He reinstated the "quickening" test, which he said happened 116 days into pregnancy (16½ weeks).

In the 17th century, the concept of "simultaneous animation" gained acceptance within the medical and church communities in Western Europe. 9 This is the belief that an embryo acquires a soul at conception, not at 40 or 80 days into gestation as the church was teaching. In 1658 Hieronymus Florentinius, a Franciscan, asserted that all embryos or fetuses, regardless of its gestational age, which were in danger of death must be baptized. However, his opinion did not change the status of abortion as seen by the church.

Pope Pius IX reversed the stance of the Roman Catholic church once more. He dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" in 1869. Canon law was revised in 1917 and 1983 and to refer simply to "the fetus." The tolerant approach to abortion which had prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church for centuries ended. The church requires excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

Copyright © 1997 to 2004 incl. by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance

Author: B.A. Robinson

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Since the Declaration of Independance sights God as an entity in regard to the human condition then the opinion of the church is valid in this debate. We can safley assume that the founding fathers were chritsian and this would have been what their thoughts on abortion would be influenced by.

As you can see it wasn't until the middle 1600's that the church considered the opinion of Hieronymus Florentiniu and it was the 1800's when Canon law was changed.

Therefore the founding fathers wisely left abortion out of the unamended constitution and bill of rights since the issue of abortion would fall in the freedom of religion catagory.

Hence, though it is now 2005 I am in agreement with the original belief of Aristotle;

"In ancient times, the "delayed ensoulment" belief of Aristotle (384-322 BCE) was widely accepted in Pagan Greece and Rome. He taught that a fetus originally has a vegetable soul. This evolves into an animal soul later in gestation. Finally the fetus is "animated" with a human soul. This latter event, called "ensoulment," was believed to occur at 40 days after conception for male fetuses, and 90 days after conception for female fetuses. The difference was of little consequence, because in those days, the gender of a fetus could not be determined visually until about 90 days from conception, and no genetic tests existed to determine gender. Ultrasound devices were millennia in the future. Thus contraception and abortion were not condemned if performed early in gestation. It is only if the abortion is done later in pregnancy that a human soul is destroyed. By coincidence, this 90 day limit happens to be approximately equal to the end of the first trimester, the point at which the US Supreme Court decided that states could begin to restrict a woman's access to abortion.

 

[Stace]

Okay... here we go again.

From this thread;

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=5588

There is this;



Since the Declaration of Independance sights God as an entity in regard to the human condition then the opinion of the church is valid in this debate. We can safley assume that the founding fathers were chritsian and this would have been what their thoughts on abortion would be influenced by.

As you can see it wasn't until the middle 1600's that the church considered the opinion of Hieronymus Florentiniu and it was the 1800's when Canon law was changed.

Therefore the founding fathers wisely left abortion out of the unamended constitution and bill of rights since the issue of abortion would fall in the freedom of religion catagory.

Hence, though it is now 2005 I am in agreement with the original belief of Aristotle;

"In ancient times, the "delayed ensoulment" belief of Aristotle (384-322 BCE) was widely accepted in Pagan Greece and Rome. He taught that a fetus originally has a vegetable soul. This evolves into an animal soul later in gestation. Finally the fetus is "animated" with a human soul. This latter event, called "ensoulment," was believed to occur at 40 days after conception for male fetuses, and 90 days after conception for female fetuses. The difference was of little consequence, because in those days, the gender of a fetus could not be determined visually until about 90 days from conception, and no genetic tests existed to determine gender. Ultrasound devices were millennia in the future. Thus contraception and abortion were not condemned if performed early in gestation. It is only if the abortion is done later in pregnancy that a human soul is destroyed. By coincidence, this 90 day limit happens to be approximately equal to the end of the first trimester, the point at which the US Supreme Court decided that states could begin to restrict a woman's access to abortion.

For a second there, I thought I was gonna have to not like you.....saying that the church's opinion is valid *scoff*

But since you went back and said that this would fall under freedom of religion, it's ok. Because you're correct in that, seeing as how a)not all religions have the same stance on abortion; b)not all people agree with their religion's stance on abortion; c)not all people follow the same relgion; and d)some people don't follow any religion at all.

I mean, sure, from a personal standpoint, use religion all you like. But leave it out of the legal and medical aspects!

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The constitution specifically says that every state has the right to decide for itself its laws regarding abortion?

Yes it does:

From the Bill of Rights:

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.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Okay... here we go again.

From this thread;

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=5588

There is this;



Since the Declaration of Independance sights God as an entity in regard to the human condition then the opinion of the church is valid in this debate. We can safley assume that the founding fathers were chritsian and this would have been what their thoughts on abortion would be influenced by.

As you can see it wasn't until the middle 1600's that the church considered the opinion of Hieronymus Florentiniu and it was the 1800's when Canon law was changed.

Therefore the founding fathers wisely left abortion out of the unamended constitution and bill of rights since the issue of abortion would fall in the freedom of religion catagory.

Hence, though it is now 2005 I am in agreement with the original belief of Aristotle;

"In ancient times, the "delayed ensoulment" belief of Aristotle (384-322 BCE) was widely accepted in Pagan Greece and Rome. He taught that a fetus originally has a vegetable soul. This evolves into an animal soul later in gestation. Finally the fetus is "animated" with a human soul. This latter event, called "ensoulment," was believed to occur at 40 days after conception for male fetuses, and 90 days after conception for female fetuses. The difference was of little consequence, because in those days, the gender of a fetus could not be determined visually until about 90 days from conception, and no genetic tests existed to determine gender. Ultrasound devices were millennia in the future. Thus contraception and abortion were not condemned if performed early in gestation. It is only if the abortion is done later in pregnancy that a human soul is destroyed. By coincidence, this 90 day limit happens to be approximately equal to the end of the first trimester, the point at which the US Supreme Court decided that states could begin to restrict a woman's access to abortion.

God is not relevant to the debate the Decleration of Independence only mentions the creator that could mean a god but it could also mean the man and the woman who engage in procreation but regardless who that creator is when the act of conception is performed the creator/creators endow upon the created the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And Jefferson was an Agnostic just like me it's not a religous issue it's a moral one but the pro-deathers are moral relativists I on the other hand am a moral absolutest I don't need religion to tell me what is right and wrong, I believes ones humanity should simply be enough.

 

[Saboteur]

For a second there, I thought I was gonna have to not like you.....saying that the church's opinion is valid *scoff*

He he!:lol:

But since you went back and said that this would fall under freedom of religion, it's ok. Because you're correct in that, seeing as how a)not all religions have the same stance on abortion; b)not all people agree with their religion's stance on abortion; c)not all people follow the same relgion; and d)some people don't follow any religion at all.

I mean, sure, from a personal standpoint, use religion all you like. But leave it out of the legal and medical aspects!

I agree, aside from recognising that a person should be free to persue what ever religion they want to (or none at all) is what is meant by freedom of religion.

I don't think it's okay to use religion or it's teachings as a political tool either.

 

[Saboteur]

God is not relevant to the debate the Decleration of Independence only mentions the creator that could mean a god but it could also mean the man and the woman who engage in procreation but regardless who that creator is when the act of conception is performed the creator/creators endow upon the created the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And Jefferson was an Agnostic just like me it's not a religous issue it's a moral one but the pro-deathers are moral relativists I on the other hand am a moral absolutst I don't need religion to tell me what is right and wrong ones humanity should simply be enough.

hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

God... God God God God. God God God God God.

I'm agnostic (kind of) too, big deal. Moral or whatever, it is still up to the individual and their values, beliefs and morals. Lots of people don't need religion to tell them what is right or wrong. Many don't even need law to tell them what is right or wrong.

However forcing people to believe what you think is right and what is wrong... is wrong.

Oh and I bet you wouldn't mind me bringing in God if I were Pro-Life rather than, as you so tactfully put it, Pro-Death. But because you don't agree with what I posted you just want to ignore that they meant God when refering to Nature's God or Man's Creator.

Once again you're ignoring the fact that you twist things to serve your purpose and have resorted to digging at emotion by calling me as a known Pro-Choice forum member, Pro-Death.

You support the death penalty right? Yeah I think you do.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=6463

Oh and agnostic?

Well then I guess you were being sarcastic when mentioning God's mercy.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

God... God God God God. God God God God God.

I'm agnostic (kind of) too, big deal. Moral or whatever, it is still up to the individual and their values, beliefs and morals. Lots of people don't need religion to tell them what is right or wrong. Many don't even need law to tell them what is right or wrong.
However forcing people to believe what you think is right and what is wrong... is wrong.

Jefferson was reffering to the laws of nature, natural law, and the god of absolutist morality NOT the god of the Christians Jefferson WAS an Agnostic.

It's not what I believe to be what is right and wrong it is what absolute morality deems to be right and wrong it is what the natural law deems to be right and wrong, however, to a moral relativist this will fall on deaf ears, but the Founding Fathers were NOT moral relativists they were moral absolutests that is they believed that for ALL men and for all times there was a moral code an underlying thread of humanity that is never changing yet continous in the course of human events.

And the bolded statement above proves that you are a moral relativist in that you think ones morality should not be judged on natural law but on what YOU think is right and wrong. That's like saying that Hitler was a moral man because in his own mind what he did to the Jews was ethical and right because it was in accordance to his own values, beliefs and morals. Well what he did, is not, and never could be considered morally just because there is an absolute right and wrong that does not change with the circumstances or the person.

 

[Saboteur]

Jefferson was reffering to the laws of nature, natural law, and the god of absolutist morality NOT the god of the Christians Jefferson WAS an Agnostic.

It's not what I believe to be what is right and wrong it is what absolute morality deems to be right and wrong it is what the natural law deems to be right and wrong, however, to a moral relativist this will fall on deaf ears, but the Founding Fathers were NOT moral relativists they were moral absolutests that is they believed that for ALL men and for all times there was a moral code an underlying thread of humanity that is never changing yet continous in the course of human events.

And the bolded statement above prooves that you are a moral relativist that you think ones morality should not be judged on natural law but on what YOU think is right and wrong. That's like saying that Hitler was a moral man because in his own mind what he did to the Jews was ethical and right. Well it's not and never could be because there is a absolute right and wrong that does not change with the circumstances.

Wow you are a pro at reading into things. I'm sure you get all kinds of women that way.:2razz:

Anyway, speaking of nature (which is my god) and natural law. How about natural selection? or the nature of animals regarding their young, is it moral for a lion to kill another lion's off spring?

I think your argument has a hole, I am a product of nature... It is my creator. My morals too follow your absolutist approach but those morals require a victim not a living mass of cells that has no awareness of it's being alive. Therefore morals are not a product of nature they have been created by man.

It wasn't a crime to kill someone you didn't like until someone made a law saying it was.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Wow you are a pro at reading into things. I'm sure you get all kinds of women that way.:2razz:

Anyway, speaking of nature (which is my god) and natural law. How about natural selection? or the nature of animals regarding their young, is it moral for a lion to kill another lion's off spring?

I think your argument has a hole, I am a product of nature... It is my creator. My morals too follow your absolutist approach but those morals require a victim not a living mass of cells that has no awareness of it's being alive. Therefore morals are not a product of nature they have been created by man.

It wasn't a crime to kill someone you didn't like until someone made a law saying it was.

You are not a moral absolutest and as such you do not follow the natural law you believe in positive law in that you believe laws should center around ones own values and morals according to the circumstance and not the underlying morality that is inherent to all man kind you are a moral relativist as your comment: "Therefore morals are not a product of nature they have been created by man," clearly demonstrates. The fact of the matter that if we are to follow the constiution as it was intended then we must follow the philosophy to which the Founding Fathers prescribed to which is that of the, that of the natural law, not the laws of man. The job of the Supreme Court is not to reinterpret the Constitution but only to interpret the Original intent of the Founding Fathers which is not what the Supreme Court did in the RVW decision.

As for your comparison of Natural Law to natural selection, lions do not have the capacity for morality so it is a fallacious analogy.

 

[ngdawg]

Did you miss the context? Australian and US law is based in English common law--Australian states (territories) have the right to make laws restricting abortion if they choose--US states have had the right revolked by the Supreme Court of the US. In context, your comment makes little sense. maybe it is you who should research the posts to which you are responding.

When one rolls their eyes at someone's post and says 'whatever, do the research' when stating counties in England are the same as states, it screams 'answer this':roll:
The Constitution was based on the Magna Carta, btw, not common English law. At any rate, when answering believing you are stating fact, it would be wise to double-check that you indeed, are. I love the little game of looking things up to see if what's said is correct-you weren't, but 5 points for tenacity..

 

[ngdawg]

ARRGGH!!! I hate it that I can't edit, but at any rate....I was referring to your:

BTW--they are called counties in England...I believe--as in "county Kent" or "Sussex county."

Quite frankly some of your posts are so long and repetitious that I have to self-edit or else my eyes would fall out.....

 

[vergiss]

Did you miss the context? Australian and US law is based in English common law--Australian states (territories) have the right to make laws restricting abortion if they choose

No they don't. I keep telling you this, and I live there!

 

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by Felicity
Did you miss the context? Australian and US law is based in English common law--Australian states (territories) have the right to make laws restricting abortion if they choose

No they don't. I keep telling you this, and I live there!

Vergiss--I gave you this link already. Did you look at it?

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/RP/1998-99/99rp01.htm#changing

(1) Laws that create the crime of 'unlawful abortion'

Statutory provisions in every State and Territory-except now Western Australia-make it a crime 'unlawfully' to administer any poison or noxious thing, or use any instrument or other means, with intent to procure miscarriage. The wording of these statutory provisions is based directly on legislation enacted in England in the nineteenth century. The crime of 'unlawful abortion' may be committed by the pregnant woman herself (except in the Northern Territory), by the person performing the abortion, or by anyone else who assists.

In Western Australia, the recent changes to the law repealed the old statutory provisions establishing the crime of 'unlawful abortion' and replaced them with a differently worded provision. This new provision makes it unlawful to perform an abortion unless it is justified under Western Australia's health legislation. This new offence of 'unlawful abortion' may only be committed by the person(s) involved in performing the abortion.

In any State and Territory, the statutory provisions that prohibit 'unlawful abortion' can apply to an abortion performed at any stage of pregnancy. The legal test for when an abortion is not unlawful-and therefore permitted-is different in each State and Territory of Australia.