RE: Democrat Death Panels

RE: Democrat Death Panels (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

rulemylife -> RE: Democrat Death Panels (12/7/2010 9:18:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse If everyone has the right to do as they wish with their own bodies ? Not hardly. If that were the case there would be no drug laws. There shouldn't be. Amazing how conservatives continually claim that liberals want to interfere in their lives but then make statements like this.

PyrotheClown -> RE: Democrat Death Panels (12/7/2010 10:28:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: Doesn't say nutt'n bout drinking and driving either, damn activist judges...now where did I put my flask, it's hard enough to drive while loading my shotgun And yet, we have plenty of State and local laws to deal with drunk drivers. What exactly is your point? I recommend not keeping a loaded shotgun in your vehicle. There are, I am quite certain, numerous State and local laws regarding that as well. Point?no point, more of a punchline

Marc2b -> RE: Democrat Death Panels (12/7/2010 11:09:00 AM)
quote: But slavery was legal by the original constitution. Until it was made illegal by Constitutional Amendment. quote: My point in commenting on state rights was that some states felt it was a right to own slaves, while others did not. Using your premise for abortions, some would feel its a right to be given and others would not. Yes that is exactly what would happen. That is exactly what should happen until the Constitution is amended to say otherwise. quote: Well, hold on to your hat. No one has the right to tell anyone what they must do or not do with their own bodies. The government tells us what we may or may not do with our bodies all the time (the government tells me that I may not inhale marijuana smoke). The pertinent question is what it may tell us to do or not do. quote: No state has the right to dictate reproductive rights. That is the question at hand although I would agree with you. But lacking a Constitutional Amendment that prohibits government from interfering, the matter falls to the States. quote: IF they could, do you realize what kind of problems would arise? Do states then have the right to determine who can and who cannot have children? Shall we start mass sterilizing people labled as retarded or those with psychiatric disorders? If so, which ones? Talk about a slippery slope. The slippery slope is another fallacy and has no bearing on the subject. Just because someone is opposed to abortion it does not automatically follow that they would be in favor of forced sterilization, nor does it automatically open to door to such.

Marc2b -> RE: Democrat Death Panels (12/7/2010 11:15:44 AM)
quote: No, it goes the other way around, if you don't want abortion, you need a constitutional amendment. It may or may not be that any one opinion of the supreme court regarding constitutional law is right or wrong, but it is what our constitution provides for and just like prohibiting slavery, prohibiting abortion requires the amendment. Malum in se is not malum prohibitum, and that is a vexation to all of us in one way or another. That would be true only if you equate slavery with abortion. I do not. Slavery is an abomination. No one of decent character would presume that we have a right to keep other people in slavery. Abortion may be morally dubious but the killing of a barely developed (likely unthinking and unfeeling) fetus does not equate with depriving a independently living (i.e. outside of the womb) person of their human dignity. The question of whether or not people have a right to an abortion is debatable. Slavery is not (or, at least, it shouldn’t be).

Marc2b -> RE: Democrat Death Panels (12/7/2010 11:17:53 AM)
quote: This entire argument is bullshit based around the fundamental abortion debate itself. If you think that a baby* isn't a separate human life until birth, then there's nothing in the constitution about abortion. If you think it is beforehand, then clearly it's a murder (sort of) thing, and is pretty solidly in the constitution. All these arguments about whether abortion is covered in various national or international laws, religious books, does or doesn't count as manslaughter* or whatever....depend on the individuals view of the situation itself. You can't say abortion is unconstitutional because of the right to not be killed amendment** because pro-abortion* people don't think it's killing a person, and ya can't say that abortion is fine by constitution because foetuses don't count as people because anti-abortion people DO think they're people, that's the whole damn point. You're just going round and round the foetuses are people after this point/no not until this point argument, but through a veil of irrelevent legal & historical crap. *I'm not american, I don't know. Before ya complain about phrasing or words being biased in one way or another, bear in mind that I do not give a shit. If you don't give a shit then there is no point in my replying.

tazzygirl -> RE: Democrat Death Panels (12/7/2010 11:20:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: No, it goes the other way around, if you don't want abortion, you need a constitutional amendment. It may or may not be that any one opinion of the supreme court regarding constitutional law is right or wrong, but it is what our constitution provides for and just like prohibiting slavery, prohibiting abortion requires the amendment. Malum in se is not malum prohibitum, and that is a vexation to all of us in one way or another. That would be true only if you equate slavery with abortion. I do not. Slavery is an abomination. No one of decent character would presume that we have a right to keep other people in slavery. Abortion may be morally dubious but the killing of a barely developed (likely unthinking and unfeeling) fetus does not equate with depriving a independently living (i.e. outside of the womb) person of their human dignity. The question of whether or not people have a right to an abortion is debatable. Slavery is not (or, at least, it shouldn’t be). The abomination wpuld be forcing women to return to the days of backstreet abortions and the subsequent rise in deaths as a result of withholding a medical treatment.

mnottertail -> RE: Democrat Death Panels (12/7/2010 11:20:42 AM)
Dude, you framed the situation in terms of the supreme courts judgements vis a vis the Dred Scott decision, not I. And you are welcome to see things as you see them, but it doesn't make those considerations constitutional, currently.

Marc2b -> RE: Democrat Death Panels (12/7/2010 11:21:41 AM)
quote: Point?no point, more of a punchline Oh. Okay then. Uhmmm... Ha. Ha, ha. Ha, ha, ha, ha. Ha, ha, ha. Ha.

Marc2b -> RE: Democrat Death Panels (12/7/2010 11:26:14 AM)
quote: The abomination wpuld be forcing women to return to the days of backstreet abortions and the subsequent rise in deaths as a result of withholding a medical treatment. Yes it would, which is why I advocate abortion being legal. What I am opposed to is trampling upon the Constitution to achieve that legallity when there are constitutionally valid methods for doing so.

tazzygirl -> RE: Democrat Death Panels (12/7/2010 11:32:32 AM)
Abortion is such a politically charged debate. Can you honestly see an admendment on such a matter being successful? Or would it flounder like all the other constitutional amendments that have never seen the light of Congress' floor? Please note that some proposed amendments are proposed over and over again in different sessions of Congress. For the sake of brevity, I have used the 102nd Congress as a "baseline" and each subsequent Congress has only new ideas for amendments listed. Also note that just because a proposed amendment is not listed in prior sessions does not mean it was not proposed in prior sessions. 109th Congress (2005-2006) •To ensure reproductive rights of women •To force the Congress and President to agree to a balanced budget, with overspending allowed only in the case of a three-fifths vote of Congress •To ensure that all children who are citizens have a right to a "free and adequate education" •To specifically permit prayer at school meetings and ceremonies •To allow non-natural born citizens to become President if they have been a citizen for 20 years •To specifically allow Congress to regulate the amount of personal funds a candidate to public office can expend in a campaign •To ensure that apportionment of Representatives be set by counting only citizens •To make the filibuster in the Senate a part of the Constitution •To provide for continuity of government in case of a catastrophic event •The "Every Vote Counts" Amendment - providing for direct election of the President and Vice President, abolishing the Electoral College •To clarify eminent domain, specifically that no takings can be transferred to a private person except for transportation projects •Providing a right to work, for equal pay for equal work, the right to organize, and the right to favorable work conditions •To allow the President to reduce any Congressional appropriation, or to disapprove of same (akin to a line-item veto) 102nd Congress (1991-1992) •To disallow the desecration of the U.S. Flag •To allow a line-item veto in appropriations bills •To expand the term of Representatives to four years •To force a balanced budget •To prohibit involuntary busing of students •To make English the official language of the United States •To set term limits on Representatives and Senators •To repeal the 22nd Amendment (removing Presidential term limits) •To guarantee a right to employment opportunity for all citizens •To grant protections to unborn children •To provide for "moments of silence" in public schools •To allow Congress to regulate expenditures for and contributions to political campaigns •To provide for the rights of crime victims •To provide for access to medical care for all citizens •To repeal the 2nd Amendment (right to bear arms) •To prohibit the death penalty •To protect the environment •To repeal the 26th Amendment (granting the vote to 18-year olds) and granting the right to vote to 16-year olds •To provide equal rights to men and women --------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.usconstitution.net/constamprop.html There are many, many more. This issue has been brought forward in many different ways. But, to force women to wait for abortions until Congress can make a constitutional amendment would be criminal and deadly.

Marc2b -> RE: Democrat Death Panels (12/7/2010 11:33:08 AM)
quote: Dude, you framed the situation in terms of the supreme courts judgements vis a vis the Dred Scott decision, not I. Yes I did and I stand by that. The Supreme Court erred in Roe vs. Wade. Not because I believe abortion should be illegal (I don't) but because the Constitution does not mention abortion and therefore the Federal Government has no authority over the matter. quote: And you are welcome to see things as you see them, but it doesn't make those considerations constitutional, currently. How we see things is the crux of the matter in every debate.

Marc2b -> RE: Democrat Death Panels (12/7/2010 11:43:21 AM)
quote: Abortion is such a politically charged debate. Can you honestly see an admendment on such a matter being successful? Or would it flounder like all the other constitutional amendments that have never seen the light of Congress' floor? You can't always get what you want. But that isn't really the point. The point is that just because we don't always get the outcome we want, that does not justify us from tossing aside the "rulebook" and substituting our personal whim. Rule of law is incompatable with rule by the personal whim of a few. Consider this: if power were devolved away from the Federal Government and the States were allowed to actually exercise the authority granted to them by the Constitution; would it not be easier to affect change? You would only have to convince a majority of the voters in your own State, rather than the entire nation. If you do not like the outcome, if you do not care for how things are being run in your State, you have forty-nine others to choose from.

tazzygirl -> RE: Democrat Death Panels (12/7/2010 11:46:50 AM)
Not everyone can just up and move. And regardless of how you feel about the constitutionality of the abortion issue, it will stand. Will it become an amendment one day? I certainly hope so if for no other reason than to shut up people who feel they can dictate the medical issues related specifically and only to a woman by a government dominated by men with a religious agenda that keeps their pockets full of money.

Marc2b -> RE: Democrat Death Panels (12/7/2010 12:10:01 PM)
quote: Not everyone can just up and move. True, but irrelevant. Society does not exist for the purpose of satisfying our every need and desire. Sometimes we are just shit outta luck. quote: And regardless of how you feel about the constitutionality of the abortion issue, it will stand. I am under no delusions otherwise but I do not let the popularity (or lack thereof) of any particular issue, idea, etc. stop me from forming an opinion on the matter. quote: Will it become an amendment one day? I certainly hope so if for no other reason than to shut up people who feel they can dictate the medical issues related specifically and only to a woman by a government dominated by men with a religious agenda that keeps their pockets full of money. I agree.

mnottertail -> RE: Democrat Death Panels (12/7/2010 12:10:14 PM)
But the Roe v Wade says: The first tri-mester is womans choice. The *state* (not Federal Government) has a vital interest in the second and third tri-mester and may choose to exercise it. So, there is a balance between the vital interests of the individual and the state. What am I saying? I dunno. But by god, I just said it. In any case, it is a long way from a democratic death panel OP, since every supreme court since 1973 has not found cause to revisit it.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Democrat Death Panels (12/7/2010 4:47:20 PM)
Isn't it ironic, though, that the SCOTUS that handed down the Roe V Wade decision was predominantly appointed by Republican presidents and therefore supposedly "Conservative"?

rulemylife -> RE: Democrat Death Panels (12/7/2010 4:57:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b The Supreme Court erred in Roe vs. Wade. Not because I believe abortion should be illegal (I don't) but because the Constitution does not mention abortion and therefore the Federal Government has no authority over the matter. The Constitution does not mention many things that the federal government has authority over. You mentioned drunk driving laws earlier. The Supreme Court has upheld sobriety checkpoints. Where is that in the Constitution?

Lucylastic -> RE: Democrat Death Panels (12/7/2010 5:47:09 PM)
What is sure as hell, they have no right to force a woman to carry a child. well yet anyway

rulemylife -> RE: Democrat Death Panels (12/7/2010 6:07:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic What is sure as hell, they have no right to force a woman to carry a child. well yet anyway Which was my point Lucy. But this argument that is being made is meant to circumvent federal law by giving authority to the states. South Dakota has already tried to pass its own abortion legislation, twice, in 2006 and 2008. South Dakota Abortion Ban, Initiated Measure 11 (2008) - Ballotpedia An Abortion Ban Initiative appeared on the November 2008 ballot in South Dakota as an initiated constitutional amendment. The ban measures was known as Initiated Measure 11. If the state's voters had approved it, the South Dakota Constitution would have banned all abortions in the state except for those performed because of rape, incest or to protect the woman's health. Doctors who perform an abortion in violation of this initiative's provisions could have been charged with a Class 4 felony, which in South Dakota carries a maximum punishment of 10 years in jail and a $20,000 fine.

Lucylastic -> RE: Democrat Death Panels (12/7/2010 6:13:42 PM)
and yet people whine about having to show picture ID to send a parcel

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875