|
Real0ne -> RE: Louisiana bans partial birth abortion (7/17/2007 7:52:04 PM)
|
gen reply
well i did not bother going back and reading all the previous posts on the subject however here is the position i have taken on it for the last 30 years.
First it is unconstitutional.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Oh but scientists never determined it was a life you say?
Ok so then neither did they determine it was NOT a life then did they?
So lets just enact legislation anyway as if it were determined it is NOT a life, (no determination or test of definition required to PASS the legislation), we only need that to reject it.
The point is that with the insufficient defintition (in either direction), of when and where "life" begins this never should have been legislated on in the first place and in the absence of legislation would make it neither legal nor illegal. Thus a moral decision made by the pareents as it was since the begining of time.
If my memory serves me correctly this whole push was to get abortions put into a controlled environment of a hospital rather than some butcher in a back alley because women were dying in the process of killing their babies.
So this is not an issue for the courts to legislate on and certainly not invent a legal premise with moral abandon.
How many women have been raped and have their fathers children or raped period and have a kid from the rapist by comparison to how many women are nothing more than morally bankrupt and simply use it as a means of birth control? According to Domiguys data 1.3 million rapes and incest problems per year roughly! Why arent all thos perps in prison? (sarcasm not quoting you domiguy) LOL
Of course we all know the answer to that is women use it primarily for birth control when in most cases proper prevention would have worked equally well. The last thing we would want anyone to be in society is RESPONSIBLE for their actions. (and fuckups). i am surprised the insurance companies dont sell abortion insurance.
Ok so now that we have unlawfully made it "legal", (get it?), and brought a moral decision into the court room everyone can replace their moral bankrupt consceince with a legal conscience and move to negative side of a conscience. Conscience debt.
We have a problem in dodge AGAIN with this.
Why its the womans right and "it belongs to the woman *thing*" . right? wrong.
It does not belong to the woman. The woman contributes an egg seed whatever and a landing zone and the male provides the fertilizer and activator and likewise all the way down to the genetic level.
Therefore a woman can properly be defined as a equal contributor in the "creation" process and additionally as an incubator not a sole creator or property owner as the courts have decided.
That child cannot come into existance by woman alone and since every child is totally unique creation from all other children ever to come into existance on this planet based on the combination of the genes from 2 PEOPLE "joint ownership" is immediately established between male and female.
We have serious problems with our justice system in that they violate the constitution on all levels. (for both the convenience of the government and as can be seen here a minority of people)
i suppose this will piss off most abortion proponents but before you blow your corks consider this. The reason as i remember it these laws were made to pull the unfortunate (exception to the rule), mother out of the back alley and into a legitimate health care facility because "moral" people and hospitals would not perform them.
Like most things everything goes to far in one direction or the other. Fact is that since it has not been determined when it is a "life" then it cannot by definition be murder even should rvw be overturned. What did you murder? an undetermination? You murdered nothing as far as the "legal" system is concerned if there is no precedence in law.
Morally of course that is a different story. There was never a need to create a law and rule on it in the first place, it should have been rejected.
To the best of my knowledge this country does not make laws to support the exceptions to the rule but the rule. abortion, (with few exception), is a instrument of the morally bankrupt.
It was run through as a womans right in violation of mens rights and many will hang on to that regardless of the infamy history will record when it was never necesary in the first place.
But then who gives a fuck about the constitution anyway? Its just a piece of paper.
|
|
|
|
