Acceptable registrations in the queue through April 26 at 9:00p ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
Parallels between the abortion debate and slavery
- audiophile
- Posts: 8595
- Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
- Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.
Re: Parallels between the abortion debate and slavery
Major contortions of the 14th amendment is an understatement Bryce, they did a houdini in 1973.
Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!
Re: Parallels between the abortion debate and slavery
Was Lacy Peterson before or after week 24? That’s where the line is and it’s murder after that. That’s my understanding of how they would determine that. Even getting an abortion after that point would violate the fetuses rights and therefore be murder.Bryce wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:32 amBMW's argument has some parallels, but his point doesn't really cover case law or the constitution, but is directed more at the slanted and biased media coverage this case is getting by the MSM.craig11152 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 7:38 amI don't see the slavery vs abortion comparison unless you are suggesting southern states should still have slavery. States rights vs Federal mandates.
If you're in Mississippi and want an abortion go to New York.
If you're in Alabama and don't want to be a slave go to California.
The Justice's certainly have a balancing act between the 14th and 10th Amendments in this case. On one hand an unborn child isn't afforded the right conferred by the 14th because of the wording,, yet the 10thAll persons born or naturalized in the United Stateswould certainly seem to reserve the power to regulate medical procedures within it's border.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,
My questions on the matter is how the 14th can be used to confer abortion rights to an individual. I don't think it can without some major contortions.
Another question. If you remember back to the Scott/Lacy Peterson case, Scott Peterson was convicted of Second Degree murder in the death of his unborn child. This case was heard in the state of California, certainly a pro abortion sate. How can the law convict someone of murder when a person can legally do the same thing at a Planned Parenthood Clinic? I mean, it would seem according to Roe v Wade, the most he should be charged with is destruction of property being as an unborn child has no rights and isn't treated as a person so to speak.
Re: Parallels between the abortion debate and slavery
You are correct. I would post cottage cheese but I can never get the image thing to work.Honeyman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:21 amRate just thinks Reagan (lovinlife) should not be allowed to post her since she/he/it has been banned multiple times for posting "ni--er" "fa--ot", etc.audiophile wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 7:17 amWhat what's wrong RT?
I know it's hard to compete with us Pro-Life folks, as deep down inside your conscience you know we're right...
Even TT is Pro-Life, C'mon join us!
Re: Parallels between the abortion debate and slavery
She was 7 1/2 months pregnant, so well over the 24 week mark.Rate This wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 10:22 amWas Lacy Peterson before or after week 24? That’s where the line is and it’s murder after that. That’s my understanding of how they would determine that. Even getting an abortion after that point would violate the fetuses rights and therefore be murder.Bryce wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:32 amBMW's argument has some parallels, but his point doesn't really cover case law or the constitution, but is directed more at the slanted and biased media coverage this case is getting by the MSM.craig11152 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 7:38 amI don't see the slavery vs abortion comparison unless you are suggesting southern states should still have slavery. States rights vs Federal mandates.
If you're in Mississippi and want an abortion go to New York.
If you're in Alabama and don't want to be a slave go to California.
The Justice's certainly have a balancing act between the 14th and 10th Amendments in this case. On one hand an unborn child isn't afforded the right conferred by the 14th because of the wording,, yet the 10thAll persons born or naturalized in the United Stateswould certainly seem to reserve the power to regulate medical procedures within it's border.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,
My questions on the matter is how the 14th can be used to confer abortion rights to an individual. I don't think it can without some major contortions.
Another question. If you remember back to the Scott/Lacy Peterson case, Scott Peterson was convicted of Second Degree murder in the death of his unborn child. This case was heard in the state of California, certainly a pro abortion sate. How can the law convict someone of murder when a person can legally do the same thing at a Planned Parenthood Clinic? I mean, it would seem according to Roe v Wade, the most he should be charged with is destruction of property being as an unborn child has no rights and isn't treated as a person so to speak.
The censorship king from out of state.
Re: Parallels between the abortion debate and slavery
So then the 24 week line fleshed out in Planned Parenthood V Casey which came AFTER Roe would be the applicable standard in that case and the fetus had rights at the time she and it were killed.Honeyman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 10:27 amShe was 7 1/2 months pregnant, so well over the 24 week mark.Rate This wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 10:22 amWas Lacy Peterson before or after week 24? That’s where the line is and it’s murder after that. That’s my understanding of how they would determine that. Even getting an abortion after that point would violate the fetuses rights and therefore be murder.Bryce wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:32 amBMW's argument has some parallels, but his point doesn't really cover case law or the constitution, but is directed more at the slanted and biased media coverage this case is getting by the MSM.craig11152 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 7:38 amI don't see the slavery vs abortion comparison unless you are suggesting southern states should still have slavery. States rights vs Federal mandates.
If you're in Mississippi and want an abortion go to New York.
If you're in Alabama and don't want to be a slave go to California.
The Justice's certainly have a balancing act between the 14th and 10th Amendments in this case. On one hand an unborn child isn't afforded the right conferred by the 14th because of the wording,, yet the 10thAll persons born or naturalized in the United Stateswould certainly seem to reserve the power to regulate medical procedures within it's border.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,
My questions on the matter is how the 14th can be used to confer abortion rights to an individual. I don't think it can without some major contortions.
Another question. If you remember back to the Scott/Lacy Peterson case, Scott Peterson was convicted of Second Degree murder in the death of his unborn child. This case was heard in the state of California, certainly a pro abortion sate. How can the law convict someone of murder when a person can legally do the same thing at a Planned Parenthood Clinic? I mean, it would seem according to Roe v Wade, the most he should be charged with is destruction of property being as an unborn child has no rights and isn't treated as a person so to speak.
Re: Parallels between the abortion debate and slavery
So, are these states in violation of the 14th Amendment?
States that allow for late-term abortions with no state-imposed thresholds are:
Alaska
Colorado
District of Columbia
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Oregon
Vermont
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: Parallels between the abortion debate and slavery
State laws are or are supposed to be superseded by the precedent in the two cases we’ve been bantering about. The laws on the books prior to Roe in 1973 would kick into effect were it to be overturned. So on the books they may allow for it but in practice they cannot.
Re: Parallels between the abortion debate and slavery
Let me sum my argument up this way: Hopefully 150 years from now, society will look back on this period in history on abortion the same way we look back on the 1800s on slavery. We will say "of course unborn children are equal to already born children" the same way we say today without any thought whatsoever "of course black people are equal to other people." Such a society in the future would look back on the BBC article snippet I posted the same way we would look back at a similarly worded piece from 150 years ago replacing abortion with slavery.
On that note, I never understand why the abortion debate focuses on the rights of the mother when it SHOULD focus on the rights of the unborn. If we determine that the unborn don't have rights, then the "right" of a woman to have an abortion comes as a natural consequence of such a determination. In other words, if a woman should be allowed to have an abortion, it wouldn't be because she has the "right" to do so; rather, it would be because such behavior wouldn't infringe on the rights of others.
- audiophile
- Posts: 8595
- Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
- Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.
Re: Parallels between the abortion debate and slavery
I think the Supreme Court would be more stable legal ground to say the unborn have certain unalienable rights, compared to the supposed right to abortion, which doesn't exist in any way, shape or form in the constitution.
A USC compromise would be just be to send it back to the states and wash their hands of it.
A USC compromise would be just be to send it back to the states and wash their hands of it.
Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!
Re: Parallels between the abortion debate and slavery
You really are a pathetic individual. To continue to make up fake names so you can return again and again and again to a website where you are not wanted. What a worthless, unfulfilling, meaningless life you must have.
The censorship king from out of state.
Re: Parallels between the abortion debate and slavery
![Image](https://i.ibb.co/k8TdzY3/Dbr.jpg)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
![Image](https://i.ibb.co/g61ms1w/Dbr2.jpg)
![Image](https://i.ibb.co/K7TZLsB/Dbr3.jpg)
I started out with nothing and I still have most of it.
-
- Posts: 260
- Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:07 pm
- Location: go ahead, I'm listening
Re: Parallels between the abortion debate and slavery
I thought the Court was talking about virgin births. Not once did anyone address the sperm side of the issue. My biology class said it took two items to create a human. It seems that those folks never took that class. Shouldn't the OTHER half be held responsible also?
- audiophile
- Posts: 8595
- Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
- Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.
Re: Parallels between the abortion debate and slavery
A man should have say on the life of their unborn child.
Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!
- audiophile
- Posts: 8595
- Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
- Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.
Re: Parallels between the abortion debate and slavery
Majority support Mississippi law:
The fact most democrats support the bill that allows normal birth at 9 months and then allows baby to die is just disgustingly evil.
The reality is most Americans see the democrat party as immoral and unethical slime now. Not a good look.
Democrats will lose even more in 2022 if they insist on pushing their "birth to abortion" bill.56% of respondents said they would support restricting abortions after 15 weeks, which is exactly what Mississippi’s "heartbeat" bill, the legislation at the center of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, aims to do.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... d=msedgntp
The fact most democrats support the bill that allows normal birth at 9 months and then allows baby to die is just disgustingly evil.
![Anger >:](./images/smilies/mad.gif)
The reality is most Americans see the democrat party as immoral and unethical slime now. Not a good look.
Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!
- audiophile
- Posts: 8595
- Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
- Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.
Re: Parallels between the abortion debate and slavery
Interesting discussion about stare decisis. Good read.
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Mississippi abortion case is likely to be one of the landmark cases of the 21st century. Many fascinating things came up during the arguments before the court, but here’s one thing that didn’t come up: the horror of abortion itself. The horror of abortion isn’t merely that a woman kills a child, but that a woman kills her own child.
From the dawn of history, this has been viewed, in many if not most cultures, as an abomination. Shakespeare puts these words into the mouth of Lady Macbeth, “I have suckled a baby, and I know how sweet it is to love the baby at my breast. But even as the baby was smiling up at me, I would have plucked my nipple out of its mouth, and smashed it brains out against a wall ….” For Shakespeare, this is intended to expose Lady Macbeth’s psychology as pure evil. A woman who would murder her own offspring is a scourge on the human race.
Perhaps recognizing the sheer baseness of defending abortion, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Biden administration, attempted to argue against the Mississippi law on the basis of the sanctity of precedent. The legal term for this is stare decisis, which means “let the decision stand.” Roe v. Wade has been recognized as a constitutional right since 1973, so let’s continue to affirm it as a constitutional right going forward.
Interestingly enough, the argument for stare decisis or precedent is a conservative one. It relies on the presumptive validity of tradition, of doing today and tomorrow what you did yesterday and the day before that. I once heard a student in my class argue this general position. If an institution has persisted for a very long time, he said, then even if the rationale for it is unknown or obscure, we should accord it a high degree of respect, because its very longevity shows that it must serve some important social purpose.
To which my professor replied, destroying the argument in a single sentence, “What about anti-Semitism?” The point is that longevity by itself can’t tell you whether a tradition should be cherished and upheld. There are good and bad traditions. Slavery and segregation are also American traditions that were not merely permitted in society but also upheld by the force of law.
With his customary clarity, Justice Clarence Thomas got to the heart of the matter when he raised the question of where the specific abortion right could be found in the Constitution.
“If we were talking about the Second Amendment, I know exactly what we’re talking about. If we’re talking about the Fourth Amendment, I know what we’re talking about, because it’s written. It’s there. What specifically is the right here that we’re talking about?” he said.
The simple truth is that there is no abortion right specified in the Constitution. Hence, the argument of the pro-choice camp can be summarized this way: Regardless of the original justification for Roe v. Wade, or even if there is no constitutional basis for the decision at all, nevertheless it’s a decision, and it has lasted for nearly half a century, and so this court should not overrule it.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised the point that the Supreme Court has, on multiple occasions, overturned precedents. He gave as examples Baker v. Carr, which created the basis for one person, one vote; Miranda v. Arizona, which required police to administer so-called Miranda rulings to suspects in criminal custody; and of course, Brown v. Board of Education, which outlawed “separate but equal” and ended legal segregation in public schools.
The Brown precedent was especially troublesome for the Biden administration, because it overturned a precedent, Plessy v. Ferguson, that has stood for more than half a century. Kavanaugh’s point is that if Plessy was wrongly decided, and the Court was right to uproot that longstanding precedent, why shouldn’t this court, if it holds Roe v. Wade to be wrongly decided, uproot it as well?
Here, Prelogar insisted that precedents can only be overturned if the court discovers new information unavailable to the court that decided the original case. The difficulty for Prelogar, and for the Biden administration, is that the Brown court had no new information in 1954 that the late-19th-century Plessy court lacked. Basically, the Brown court regarded segregation as morally wrong—a violation of basic human dignity as well as equal protection under the law—while the Plessy court regarded it as morally permissible.
Moreover, who can say that in the abortion case there has been no new information since 1973? The Roe decision was pegged to the concept of “viability,” the condition of the fetus being able to survive outside the womb. But the point of viability has moved up due to scientific advances over the past several decades, and we can reasonably expect that over time it will move up further still.
Additionally, while the Roe court muddleheadedly speculated over whether the fetus is a distinct human being, today we can see, through the technology of ultrasound, that the fetus, while attached to the mother, is nevertheless its own person, with its own heartbeat, its own organs, and its own distinctive genetic make-up. Conjoined twins too are attached to each other, but there are still two distinctive human beings there; we can’t say that this is a single individual with two heads, four eyes, and 20 toes.
For nearly 50 years, we’ve lived with the lies and atrocious arguments of those justifying abortion. From what I saw and heard at the Supreme Court, a clear majority of the justices have had enough. They’re ready to uphold the Mississippi law that would allow states to restrict abortions after 15 weeks. They might even be ready—I sure hope they are—to chop off the head of the snake. It’s time to end Roe v. Wade.
https://realnewsaggregator.com/news/202 ... -disaster/
Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!