In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
All I am saying HighV is that the constitution should never have had to say that at all. It is probably our own biases that denied women a right to choose, but not the document.
Surely you understand YOUR bias is the one that provides women with this nonexistant right. This street runs both ways
Where would the constitution say that none of us has a right to choose ( any x)? I mean, would that even make sense? No.
I don't have a right to "choose" to kill my pregnant girlfriend. Nor do I have a right to "choose" to kick her in the stomach, thus ending the pregnancy. Michael Jackson does not have a right to "choose" to molest children, even if the child was willing.
But the idea, that someone had to sue in order to "gain" a right, shows that they had somehow been "denied" a right. Can you deny something that doesn't exist? Of course not. Roe shows that there is room in the constitution for that right.
Just because someone brings a lawsuit, doesn't mean that they have been denied ANY rights.
You're confusing a right with a law.
There is a law against that verified by a sanction. (the coocoo clock sanction in this case)
Not sure I follow you here......so your saying that I "do" have a right to slice my wrists, but since there is a law against it I can go to jail? Am I correct
quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
amsptcds, I think I am seeing where you are coming from. Let me make a few statements and see if we have some common ground.
1. The Supreme Court must rule only from the Constitution. In the event that the Constitution does not address the case at hand, the Federal government must defer the State's jurisdiction (ala the 10th Amendment).
2. A Supreme Court justice should never let their personal bias interfere with a legal ruling. All rulings must be derived from the Constitution, regardless of personal dissent.
3. For the sake of integrity and objectivity, it is best that a Supreme Court justice not be involved in political activities or express opinions on political or social issues outside of their duties within the confines of the Court.
Let me know what you think about these statements.
-WW
MOEUN EABE
"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced Patriots to prevent its ruin."
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer
I think I would agree to all three of these statements.
1. above talks about deferring to the state in any case not covered by the C, but I might add that once the state pulls something UnC then it is within their jurisdiction to do something... but unfortunately they cannot just act. Some has to bring asuit. Would that be right too?
The duty to preserve one's self ought never be denied.
Nothing in the Constitution protects the right to abortion, in fact, if anything, it is against it in it's references to God. All human beings are going to have opinions, this is true, however, those opinions must not ever effect a decision made by a Supreme Court Justice, unless it is also consistent with the Constitution. It is of the utmost importance that the integrity of the nomination be of the highest regard and that he/she be a strict constitutionalist. Anything else is just not acceptable.
As for the debate on abortion, it is quite simple, if we have to make up reasons as to why something may or may not be morally correct, we have probably already crossed the invisible line. Trying to pass off the reason or explaination that an unborn fetus is not eligible to be protected by our laws, is ludicrous and immoral. If it has a heartbeat, it is alive. PERIOD!
You may be surprised to know that my feelings on abortion tend to lean towards pro-choice but in relation to the lawfullness of such an act, I find it to be completely unconstitutional and immoral and in such a way as laws are based on morality.
Bottom line, if you are going to represent the people in the highest court in the land, you had better be a strict constitutionalist and have your snit together morally otherwise, forget it. JMHO
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
quote:Originally posted by HighVolumeOfFire
quote:Originally posted by amsptcds
You're confusing a right with a law.
There is a law against that verified by a sanction. (the coocoo clock sanction in this case)
Not sure I follow you here......so your saying that I "do" have a right to slice my wrists, but since there is a law against it I can go to jail? Am I correct
Molon Labe
Yes, I think that's the way the argument goes. (It isn't my srgument, but this gets discussed inpolitical philosophy classes.
Until there is a clause creating a negative right, ( a forbearance) then one may assume that the right exists.
But this doesn't mean that we have unlimited rights either. Inalienable is not the same thing as unlimited.
You and I could form an argument that says one doesn't have the right to cut their own wrists. But what would it be based on?
We would talk about how if you have dependants you "can't" do it But what is "can't"? We have to say one shouldn't do it.
We could say "It isn't right", but aren't we really espousing our opinions and sentiments about the issue?
Where is the real can't?
We can even form a law and set a punishment. But that doesn't speak to the issue of rights proper.
The ideas of rights supervenes over and is the guiding principle of the law. What are we going to do here?
The duty to preserve one's self ought never be denied.
Wow, 14 posts in 65 minutes. That's gotta be close to a record for the GR forum. I was gonna start responding with my opinions, but I respect all of you too much on the 2nd Amendment issue than to ruin some good relationships over abortions.
All I gotta say is ABORTION = DIVISIVNESS!
Let's all agree to disagree so we can move on and protect our gun rights. Abortion is a red herring used by the Liberals to distract us all. DON'T BUY INTO THE HYPE!
-WW
MOΛΩN ΛABE
"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced Patriots to prevent its ruin."
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer
Yes, I think that's the way the argument goes. (It isn't my srgument, but this gets discussed inpolitical philosophy classes.
So if congress passed a law banning abortions, it would be ok....because it's the law?
Two things that I'd like to say....then I'll drop this, since as usual, no one backs down on abortion, for or against.
1) Ask most women if they believe they have a "right" to have an abortion.....most will say yes, last I heard women were about 55% for 45% against........ask those same women if they would ever have an abortion. Nearly all will say no. The reason for this simple: most women know (deep down) that abortion is wrong, but they have been told for so long that it is their "right" that they believe it.
2) I have a belief in God (I'm not rabidly christian, by any means, nor do I even attend church....but I still believe) and I also believe that there is a special place in Hell for any mother (or father) who would kill her own child, regardless of what the law says
It may well be that the right to an abortion was already in the constitution. It simply wasn't "enumerated".
Man, what are you talking about. Yes, we do have many rights that are not enumerated in the constitution. But the CONSTITUTION proscribes that the rights that are not enumerated, are to be dealt with on a state level(see 9th and tenth amendmnets)But to suggest that the right to abortion is really in the constitution, it just doesnt say so-how the hell can anyone respond to such nonsense??
Where do any of us get off telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her body, in this case her pregnancy. It isn't any of our business. It may anger us (emotional), we may think it wrong (morality) we may think that it ought not happen (sentiment), but what we feel about it has nothing to do with principle. It seems to me that Roe was important to simply validate what may already reside within the constitution.
Well, thats all fine and good, we are all entitled to our opinions onb what we should tell who- BUT THAT DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH THE CONSTITUTION, and that constitution makes no mention of prohibiting telling a woman what she can do with her body. As a matter of fact the constitution specifically says that we as a people can in fact prohibit abortion.
It seems to me that Roe was important to simply validate what may already reside within the constitution.
Horse poop. Are you suggesting thayt the founders might have used invisible ink when they drafted the right to an abortion? It aint in there, it aint hiding behind some other words, it is NOWHERE in the constitution, which means the states are free to pass laws prohibiting abortion.
For us to start yelling about right and wrong and "Abortion! Murder!" and all that junk, has more to do with our christianity than anything else. My opinion is that if you believe in God and are one of the followers, then you know that God is the arbiter. It sure isn't me.
I dont think ANYONE has brought religion into the conversation. Nor has anyone brought their opinion with respect to the morality of abortion. It is a purely constitutional isue: Does the constitution prohibit the states from enacting laws that prohibit abortion? The answer is NO.
What I am trying to get you to see is that simply because something is not listed as a specific inalienable right, doesn't mean that we don't have that right, and in fact since it is unlisted, it may in fact mean that we do in fact have the right under the "inalienable" rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Ahhh boy. Again, I am well aware of the Lockian concept of free and unfettered rights, and I am well aware that we as humans enjoy rights that are not specifically enumerated in the constitution. But as far as limiting those unenumerated rights, THE CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT IN DEALING WITH THOSE RIGHTS, THE STATES WOULD DECIDE HOW MUCH OF THOSE RIGHTS, IF ANY, CAN BE ENJOYED. It does not say that the Supreme court will decide what unenumerated rights the people can enjoy-the states have the authority UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. And if a state decides that the "right" to abortion is a right that does not warrant protection, then the constitution gives the state that power. And you couldnt possibly be suggesting that one can find the right to an abortion in the "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" clause of the declaration of independence, could you? First, the DOI is not the law of the land, the constitution is. But if we were to take a trip to never never land, and pretend that clasue has any legal weight to it, how do you ignore the "right to life" mentioned in that clause?
I only want to say that the moment that if you add a clause to an "inalienable" right, (especially if it becomes a negative right) you limit that right and it is no longer "inalienable". That makes Bentham right in declaring that "inalienable" rights are Nonsense on Stilts.
[?][?][?]
Please get yourself a copy of the constitution, and read it.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
Let's not start shooting ourselves in the foot over this issue.
Think guns. GUNS! Woohoo GUNS! YAY GUNS!
Target: Gun-grabbers
[;)]
MOΛΩN ΛABE
"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced Patriots to prevent its ruin."
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer
I really fail to see why there ia a debate about this at all. The greatest gift one can receive is that of a child. We can go down many different streets about how that child came to be but bottom line is taht it is God's wish that she have that child, for whatever reason, who knows, maybe it is to be the next Sister Mary Katherine or even the second coming of Christ or maybe the anti-Christ. Are we to interfere with God's wishes? Boy, I don't think so. It is my opinion that all those who would approve of abortion, under ANY circumstance, are immoral and do not follow Christ.
By the way, I don't believe in God, per se, I do believe in a higher being though.
And that is the last I will say on the subject. Back to guns!
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
CEASE FIRE! CEASE FIRE!
THERE ARE FRIENDLIES HERE!
[:D]
Let's not start shooting ourselves in the foot over this issue.
Think guns. GUNS! Woohoo GUNS! YAY GUNS!
Target: Gun-grabbers
[;)]
I'm off my soap box........the question is: if the new supreme court nominee is as pro-gun as we think he is......and as anti-abortion as some are making him out to be, where do you stand on his nomination? Another nominee who is pro-gun to this extent may not pop up. If this one tanks in committee, we may end up with Alberto
Gonzales
For me and those like me....it's win-win.
Others may have to choose......Gun rights, or Abortion rights.
There is a reason why this is THE ISSUE for Liberals. Because it is the NUKE in their arsenal. They pull it out and their enemies tear themselves apart.
DON'T FALL FOR THE DIVIDE AND CONQUER MANUEVER!!!
Let's all be smarter than them. I know we are.
[;)]
MOΛΩN ΛABE
"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced Patriots to prevent its ruin."
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer
As I said, I am done. As far as the question posed by HVOF, I don't think we will see a better choice in our lifetimes. This guy isn't just pro-gun, he's pro-machine gun. I love him, I just wish I could vote on it. I really don't care about his personal opinions, he seems to understand the Constitution AS IT WAS WRITTEN. For some reason these folks are hard to find.
YES on Alito!
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
Others may have to choose......Gun rights, or Abortion rights.
When dealing with judges who deal with the constitution, and not personal "feelings", he will be pro second amendment, and anti Roe v. Wade.
It is simple-the constitution mentions a right to bear arms, therefore, the people have a right to bear arms.
The constitution DOES NOT mention a right to have an abortion, therefore, the right to abortion is not a right protected by the constitution.
In a nutshell-if a judge is "anti Roe" then dollars to donuts he will probably acknowlege there is indeed a right to bear arms.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
quote:Originally posted by salzo
quote:Originally posted by amsptcds
It may well be that the right to an abortion was already in the constitution. It simply wasn't "enumerated".
Man, what are you talking about. Yes, we do have many rights that are not enumerated in the constitution. But the CONSTITUTION proscribes that the rights that are not enumerated, are to be dealt with on a state level(see 9th and tenth amendmnets)But to suggest that the right to abortion is really in the constitution, it just doesnt say so-how the hell can anyone respond to such nonsense??
Where do any of us get off telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her body, in this case her pregnancy. It isn't any of our business. It may anger us (emotional), we may think it wrong (morality) we may think that it ought not happen (sentiment), but what we feel about it has nothing to do with principle. It seems to me that Roe was important to simply validate what may already reside within the constitution.
Well, thats all fine and good, we are all entitled to our opinions onb what we should tell who- BUT THAT DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH THE CONSTITUTION, and that constitution makes no mention of prohibiting telling a woman what she can do with her body. As a matter of fact the constitution specifically says that we as a people can in fact prohibit abortion.
It seems to me that Roe was important to simply validate what may already reside within the constitution.
Horse poop. Are you suggesting thayt the founders might have used invisible ink when they drafted the right to an abortion? It aint in there, it aint hiding behind some other words, it is NOWHERE in the constitution, which means the states are free to pass laws prohibiting abortion.
For us to start yelling about right and wrong and "Abortion! Murder!" and all that junk, has more to do with our christianity than anything else. My opinion is that if you believe in God and are one of the followers, then you know that God is the arbiter. It sure isn't me.
I dont think ANYONE has brought religion into the conversation. Nor has anyone brought their opinion with respect to the morality of abortion. It is a purely constitutional isue: Does the constitution prohibit the states from enacting laws that prohibit abortion? The answer is NO.
What I am trying to get you to see is that simply because something is not listed as a specific inalienable right, doesn't mean that we don't have that right, and in fact since it is unlisted, it may in fact mean that we do in fact have the right under the "inalienable" rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Ahhh boy. Again, I am well aware of the Lockian concept of free and unfettered rights, and I am well aware that we as humans enjoy rights that are not specifically enumerated in the constitution. But as far as limiting those unenumerated rights, THE CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT IN DEALING WITH THOSE RIGHTS, THE STATES WOULD DECIDE HOW MUCH OF THOSE RIGHTS, IF ANY, CAN BE ENJOYED. It does not say that the Supreme court will decide what unenumerated rights the people can enjoy-the states have the authority UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. And if a state decides that the "right" to abortion is a right that does not warrant protection, then the constitution gives the state that power. And you couldnt possibly be suggesting that one can find the right to an abortion in the "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" clause of the declaration of independence, could you? First, the DOI is not the law of the land, the constitution is. But if we were to take a trip to never never land, and pretend that clasue has any legal weight to it, how do you ignore the "right to life" mentioned in that clause?
I only want to say that the moment that if you add a clause to an "inalienable" right, (especially if it becomes a negative right) you limit that right and it is no longer "inalienable". That makes Bentham right in declaring that "inalienable" rights are Nonsense on Stilts.
[?][?][?]
Please get yourself a copy of the constitution, and read it.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
well look guy if all you want to do is be offensive, I don't see any reason to go further with you.
The duty to preserve one's self ought never be denied.
Thank Goodness. Quite honestly, it was quite difficult to muster up the effort to respond to all of the absurdity you were spewing. I probably would have been better off not saying anything, and chalking up your words as the rants of a lunatic.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
HEY, KNOCK IT OFF, like WW said this is exactly the reason we stand divided at times. We are here about our gun rights. We will all have to agree to disagree. No reason to get personal here. Just let it go!
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
quote:Originally posted by Comengetit
I really fail to see why there ia a debate about this at all. The greatest gift one can receive is that of a child. We can go down many different streets about how that child came to be but bottom line is taht it is God's wish that she have that child, for whatever reason, who knows, maybe it is to be the next Sister Mary Katherine or even the second coming of Christ or maybe the anti-Christ. Are we to interfere with God's wishes? Boy, I don't think so. It is my opinion that all those who would approve of abortion, under ANY circumstance, are immoral and do not follow Christ.
By the way, I don't believe in God, per se, I do believe in a higher being though.
And that is the last I will say on the subject. Back to guns!
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
well it just sort of got twisted on the rights issues. I should have raised gun issues rather than abortion opinions. I was just trying to follow what was typed to me. sorry Comengetit!
I'msorry that some folks cannot figure out the "use" and "mention" issue about phrases and words. Sometimes if someone mentions religion another thinks it is all about religion.
yuk
The duty to preserve one's self ought never be denied.
amsptcds- That was not aimed at one person, I was guilty too.
HighVolumeOfFire- I think there is no doubt as a gun loving American that just about anything with the exception of free speech can be sacrificed for our gun rights and before anyone blows a gasket, I'm not referring to those rights specifically mentioned within the official documents of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I am saying that if it had been determined that cigarette smoking were to be illegal, and I hate cigarette smoke, and in order for our gun rights to be 100% restored, I would easily sacrifice that law and everyone smoke away. It is a form of sacrifice but not in the Constitutional frame work.
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
the constitution is what it is. the way it reads, is what it means. Now think of this president bush nominates A simple basic avarage american to the supreme court. How would it look for congress to reject this person, use there own thing against them.
Comments
All I am saying HighV is that the constitution should never have had to say that at all. It is probably our own biases that denied women a right to choose, but not the document.
Surely you understand YOUR bias is the one that provides women with this nonexistant right. This street runs both ways
Where would the constitution say that none of us has a right to choose ( any x)? I mean, would that even make sense? No.
I don't have a right to "choose" to kill my pregnant girlfriend. Nor do I have a right to "choose" to kick her in the stomach, thus ending the pregnancy. Michael Jackson does not have a right to "choose" to molest children, even if the child was willing.
But the idea, that someone had to sue in order to "gain" a right, shows that they had somehow been "denied" a right. Can you deny something that doesn't exist? Of course not. Roe shows that there is room in the constitution for that right.
Just because someone brings a lawsuit, doesn't mean that they have been denied ANY rights.
Molon Labe
You're confusing a right with a law.
There is a law against that verified by a sanction. (the coocoo clock sanction in this case)
Not sure I follow you here......so your saying that I "do" have a right to slice my wrists, but since there is a law against it I can go to jail? Am I correct
Molon Labe
amsptcds, I think I am seeing where you are coming from. Let me make a few statements and see if we have some common ground.
1. The Supreme Court must rule only from the Constitution. In the event that the Constitution does not address the case at hand, the Federal government must defer the State's jurisdiction (ala the 10th Amendment).
2. A Supreme Court justice should never let their personal bias interfere with a legal ruling. All rulings must be derived from the Constitution, regardless of personal dissent.
3. For the sake of integrity and objectivity, it is best that a Supreme Court justice not be involved in political activities or express opinions on political or social issues outside of their duties within the confines of the Court.
Let me know what you think about these statements.
-WW
MOEUN EABE
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer
I think I would agree to all three of these statements.
1. above talks about deferring to the state in any case not covered by the C, but I might add that once the state pulls something UnC then it is within their jurisdiction to do something... but unfortunately they cannot just act. Some has to bring asuit. Would that be right too?
The duty to preserve one's self ought never be denied.
Neo-Jedi Order
Member
As for the debate on abortion, it is quite simple, if we have to make up reasons as to why something may or may not be morally correct, we have probably already crossed the invisible line. Trying to pass off the reason or explaination that an unborn fetus is not eligible to be protected by our laws, is ludicrous and immoral. If it has a heartbeat, it is alive. PERIOD!
You may be surprised to know that my feelings on abortion tend to lean towards pro-choice but in relation to the lawfullness of such an act, I find it to be completely unconstitutional and immoral and in such a way as laws are based on morality.
Bottom line, if you are going to represent the people in the highest court in the land, you had better be a strict constitutionalist and have your snit together morally otherwise, forget it. JMHO
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
quote:Originally posted by amsptcds
You're confusing a right with a law.
There is a law against that verified by a sanction. (the coocoo clock sanction in this case)
Not sure I follow you here......so your saying that I "do" have a right to slice my wrists, but since there is a law against it I can go to jail? Am I correct
Molon Labe
Yes, I think that's the way the argument goes. (It isn't my srgument, but this gets discussed inpolitical philosophy classes.
Until there is a clause creating a negative right, ( a forbearance) then one may assume that the right exists.
But this doesn't mean that we have unlimited rights either. Inalienable is not the same thing as unlimited.
You and I could form an argument that says one doesn't have the right to cut their own wrists. But what would it be based on?
We would talk about how if you have dependants you "can't" do it But what is "can't"? We have to say one shouldn't do it.
We could say "It isn't right", but aren't we really espousing our opinions and sentiments about the issue?
Where is the real can't?
We can even form a law and set a punishment. But that doesn't speak to the issue of rights proper.
The ideas of rights supervenes over and is the guiding principle of the law. What are we going to do here?
The duty to preserve one's self ought never be denied.
Neo-Jedi Order
Member
All I gotta say is ABORTION = DIVISIVNESS!
Let's all agree to disagree so we can move on and protect our gun rights. Abortion is a red herring used by the Liberals to distract us all. DON'T BUY INTO THE HYPE!
-WW
MOΛΩN ΛABE
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer
Yes, I think that's the way the argument goes. (It isn't my srgument, but this gets discussed inpolitical philosophy classes.
So if congress passed a law banning abortions, it would be ok....because it's the law?
Two things that I'd like to say....then I'll drop this, since as usual, no one backs down on abortion, for or against.
1) Ask most women if they believe they have a "right" to have an abortion.....most will say yes, last I heard women were about 55% for 45% against........ask those same women if they would ever have an abortion. Nearly all will say no. The reason for this simple: most women know (deep down) that abortion is wrong, but they have been told for so long that it is their "right" that they believe it.
2) I have a belief in God (I'm not rabidly christian, by any means, nor do I even attend church....but I still believe) and I also believe that there is a special place in Hell for any mother (or father) who would kill her own child, regardless of what the law says
Molon Labe
It may well be that the right to an abortion was already in the constitution. It simply wasn't "enumerated".
Man, what are you talking about. Yes, we do have many rights that are not enumerated in the constitution. But the CONSTITUTION proscribes that the rights that are not enumerated, are to be dealt with on a state level(see 9th and tenth amendmnets)But to suggest that the right to abortion is really in the constitution, it just doesnt say so-how the hell can anyone respond to such nonsense??
Where do any of us get off telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her body, in this case her pregnancy. It isn't any of our business. It may anger us (emotional), we may think it wrong (morality) we may think that it ought not happen (sentiment), but what we feel about it has nothing to do with principle. It seems to me that Roe was important to simply validate what may already reside within the constitution.
Well, thats all fine and good, we are all entitled to our opinions onb what we should tell who- BUT THAT DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH THE CONSTITUTION, and that constitution makes no mention of prohibiting telling a woman what she can do with her body. As a matter of fact the constitution specifically says that we as a people can in fact prohibit abortion.
It seems to me that Roe was important to simply validate what may already reside within the constitution.
Horse poop. Are you suggesting thayt the founders might have used invisible ink when they drafted the right to an abortion? It aint in there, it aint hiding behind some other words, it is NOWHERE in the constitution, which means the states are free to pass laws prohibiting abortion.
For us to start yelling about right and wrong and "Abortion! Murder!" and all that junk, has more to do with our christianity than anything else. My opinion is that if you believe in God and are one of the followers, then you know that God is the arbiter. It sure isn't me.
I dont think ANYONE has brought religion into the conversation. Nor has anyone brought their opinion with respect to the morality of abortion. It is a purely constitutional isue: Does the constitution prohibit the states from enacting laws that prohibit abortion? The answer is NO.
What I am trying to get you to see is that simply because something is not listed as a specific inalienable right, doesn't mean that we don't have that right, and in fact since it is unlisted, it may in fact mean that we do in fact have the right under the "inalienable" rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Ahhh boy. Again, I am well aware of the Lockian concept of free and unfettered rights, and I am well aware that we as humans enjoy rights that are not specifically enumerated in the constitution. But as far as limiting those unenumerated rights, THE CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT IN DEALING WITH THOSE RIGHTS, THE STATES WOULD DECIDE HOW MUCH OF THOSE RIGHTS, IF ANY, CAN BE ENJOYED. It does not say that the Supreme court will decide what unenumerated rights the people can enjoy-the states have the authority UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. And if a state decides that the "right" to abortion is a right that does not warrant protection, then the constitution gives the state that power. And you couldnt possibly be suggesting that one can find the right to an abortion in the "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" clause of the declaration of independence, could you? First, the DOI is not the law of the land, the constitution is. But if we were to take a trip to never never land, and pretend that clasue has any legal weight to it, how do you ignore the "right to life" mentioned in that clause?
I only want to say that the moment that if you add a clause to an "inalienable" right, (especially if it becomes a negative right) you limit that right and it is no longer "inalienable". That makes Bentham right in declaring that "inalienable" rights are Nonsense on Stilts.
[?][?][?]
Please get yourself a copy of the constitution, and read it.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
THERE ARE FRIENDLIES HERE!
[:D]
Let's not start shooting ourselves in the foot over this issue.
Think guns. GUNS! Woohoo GUNS! YAY GUNS!
Target: Gun-grabbers
[;)]
MOΛΩN ΛABE
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer
By the way, I don't believe in God, per se, I do believe in a higher being though.
And that is the last I will say on the subject. Back to guns!
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
CEASE FIRE! CEASE FIRE!
THERE ARE FRIENDLIES HERE!
[:D]
Let's not start shooting ourselves in the foot over this issue.
Think guns. GUNS! Woohoo GUNS! YAY GUNS!
Target: Gun-grabbers
[;)]
I'm off my soap box........the question is: if the new supreme court nominee is as pro-gun as we think he is......and as anti-abortion as some are making him out to be, where do you stand on his nomination? Another nominee who is pro-gun to this extent may not pop up. If this one tanks in committee, we may end up with Alberto
Gonzales
For me and those like me....it's win-win.
Others may have to choose......Gun rights, or Abortion rights.
Where do you stand?
Molon Labe
DON'T FALL FOR THE DIVIDE AND CONQUER MANUEVER!!!
Let's all be smarter than them. I know we are.
[;)]
MOΛΩN ΛABE
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer
Abortion as an issue is better dealt with...AFTER the war on guns/freedoms is dealt with.
I have no problem making enemies of those espousing gun control..even the weak ones advocating the NRA's position on gun control.
Making an enemy of a strong gun control supporter over issues that God will rectify...ain't cool.
YES on Alito!
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
[n.
Others may have to choose......Gun rights, or Abortion rights.
When dealing with judges who deal with the constitution, and not personal "feelings", he will be pro second amendment, and anti Roe v. Wade.
It is simple-the constitution mentions a right to bear arms, therefore, the people have a right to bear arms.
The constitution DOES NOT mention a right to have an abortion, therefore, the right to abortion is not a right protected by the constitution.
In a nutshell-if a judge is "anti Roe" then dollars to donuts he will probably acknowlege there is indeed a right to bear arms.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
quote:Originally posted by amsptcds
It may well be that the right to an abortion was already in the constitution. It simply wasn't "enumerated".
Man, what are you talking about. Yes, we do have many rights that are not enumerated in the constitution. But the CONSTITUTION proscribes that the rights that are not enumerated, are to be dealt with on a state level(see 9th and tenth amendmnets)But to suggest that the right to abortion is really in the constitution, it just doesnt say so-how the hell can anyone respond to such nonsense??
Where do any of us get off telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her body, in this case her pregnancy. It isn't any of our business. It may anger us (emotional), we may think it wrong (morality) we may think that it ought not happen (sentiment), but what we feel about it has nothing to do with principle. It seems to me that Roe was important to simply validate what may already reside within the constitution.
Well, thats all fine and good, we are all entitled to our opinions onb what we should tell who- BUT THAT DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH THE CONSTITUTION, and that constitution makes no mention of prohibiting telling a woman what she can do with her body. As a matter of fact the constitution specifically says that we as a people can in fact prohibit abortion.
It seems to me that Roe was important to simply validate what may already reside within the constitution.
Horse poop. Are you suggesting thayt the founders might have used invisible ink when they drafted the right to an abortion? It aint in there, it aint hiding behind some other words, it is NOWHERE in the constitution, which means the states are free to pass laws prohibiting abortion.
For us to start yelling about right and wrong and "Abortion! Murder!" and all that junk, has more to do with our christianity than anything else. My opinion is that if you believe in God and are one of the followers, then you know that God is the arbiter. It sure isn't me.
I dont think ANYONE has brought religion into the conversation. Nor has anyone brought their opinion with respect to the morality of abortion. It is a purely constitutional isue: Does the constitution prohibit the states from enacting laws that prohibit abortion? The answer is NO.
What I am trying to get you to see is that simply because something is not listed as a specific inalienable right, doesn't mean that we don't have that right, and in fact since it is unlisted, it may in fact mean that we do in fact have the right under the "inalienable" rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Ahhh boy. Again, I am well aware of the Lockian concept of free and unfettered rights, and I am well aware that we as humans enjoy rights that are not specifically enumerated in the constitution. But as far as limiting those unenumerated rights, THE CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT IN DEALING WITH THOSE RIGHTS, THE STATES WOULD DECIDE HOW MUCH OF THOSE RIGHTS, IF ANY, CAN BE ENJOYED. It does not say that the Supreme court will decide what unenumerated rights the people can enjoy-the states have the authority UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. And if a state decides that the "right" to abortion is a right that does not warrant protection, then the constitution gives the state that power. And you couldnt possibly be suggesting that one can find the right to an abortion in the "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" clause of the declaration of independence, could you? First, the DOI is not the law of the land, the constitution is. But if we were to take a trip to never never land, and pretend that clasue has any legal weight to it, how do you ignore the "right to life" mentioned in that clause?
I only want to say that the moment that if you add a clause to an "inalienable" right, (especially if it becomes a negative right) you limit that right and it is no longer "inalienable". That makes Bentham right in declaring that "inalienable" rights are Nonsense on Stilts.
[?][?][?]
Please get yourself a copy of the constitution, and read it.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
well look guy if all you want to do is be offensive, I don't see any reason to go further with you.
The duty to preserve one's self ought never be denied.
Neo-Jedi Order
Member
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
I really fail to see why there ia a debate about this at all. The greatest gift one can receive is that of a child. We can go down many different streets about how that child came to be but bottom line is taht it is God's wish that she have that child, for whatever reason, who knows, maybe it is to be the next Sister Mary Katherine or even the second coming of Christ or maybe the anti-Christ. Are we to interfere with God's wishes? Boy, I don't think so. It is my opinion that all those who would approve of abortion, under ANY circumstance, are immoral and do not follow Christ.
By the way, I don't believe in God, per se, I do believe in a higher being though.
And that is the last I will say on the subject. Back to guns!
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
well it just sort of got twisted on the rights issues. I should have raised gun issues rather than abortion opinions. I was just trying to follow what was typed to me. sorry Comengetit!
I'msorry that some folks cannot figure out the "use" and "mention" issue about phrases and words. Sometimes if someone mentions religion another thinks it is all about religion.
yuk
The duty to preserve one's self ought never be denied.
Neo-Jedi Order
Member
Do you trade a chance at Roe vs Wade being struck down for a chance to strike down Anti-gun laws?
You ask that we set aside abortion to unify on guns, will you do the same, now that the ball is in your court?
Remember, this guy might be our last best hope on this issue......
Molon Labe
HighVolumeOfFire- I think there is no doubt as a gun loving American that just about anything with the exception of free speech can be sacrificed for our gun rights and before anyone blows a gasket, I'm not referring to those rights specifically mentioned within the official documents of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I am saying that if it had been determined that cigarette smoking were to be illegal, and I hate cigarette smoke, and in order for our gun rights to be 100% restored, I would easily sacrifice that law and everyone smoke away. It is a form of sacrifice but not in the Constitutional frame work.
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
parabellem
Think they need to put some one like me on the supreme court[8]
parabellem
OK, I'll bite. Why? And welcome, I think!
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
parabellem
parabellem