Santorum: States Should Have The Right To Outlaw Birth Control [Archive] - Page 2

SicEmBaylor

1/9/2012, 12:53 AM

A few observations:

1. The Constitution clearly reserves any non-enumerated power for the individual states. The absence of a defined power within the Constitution does not mean that the Federal government reserves that power. The Federal government does not have a defined power to regulate healthcare therefore the regulation of healthcare is strictly a state power. Mandating coverage is clearly a policy issue in which the Federal government has no role. As is the limitation of birth control methods.

2. I would never ever hold GW Bush or one of his judicial apointees as stewards of conservatism. Bush is the antithesis of conservatism and although I'm not familiar with the specific judge that was cited, I am familiar with the general type of judge that he appointed.

3. Yes, our Founding Fathers were often in disagreement while also having vastly different opinions of the role, size, and scope of the state. The Founding Fathers and what they wanted is not germane to the topic of Constitutional intrepretation. The intent of the Framers, however, is very relevant. Judges often look to the their intent when trying to decide the Constitutionality of a case. This is why the Federalist Papers are often reviewed. It's also worth reading and studying Madison's own journals from the Constitutional Convention as it gives insight on the various debates that took place and why certain clauses were included and/or worded in the way that they were. Why is this relevant today? Because the Constitution was designed as a delicate (but rather beautiful) balance between the various political factions that existed in post-Revolutionary America. It may be surprising to most, but most of the conflict was between big states and small states as opposed to ideological divisions or slate state/free state. In any case, the Constitution only works when that delicate balance is respected and preserved. If any one part of the Constitution becomes off balance then the entire document is threatened. Liberty is best preserves by maintaining this balace; unbalance brings with it the threat of tyranny.

4. It is clear through the proper reading of the Constitution, the convention notes, and the Federalist Papers that clauses such as the elastic clause, the supremacy clause, etc. were written to be consistent with the rest of the document. In other words, those clauses were not written in contradiction to the rest of the document but in support of it. The Framers, for example, did not write the Supremacy Clause to be a carte blanche for the Federal government to enact whatever the hell it wanted. The Supremacy Clause must remain consistent with the enumerated powers of Congress.

5. In order for the government to outlaw abortion (at whatever level) it would have to define the point at which a fetus becomes life. There is absolutely no way to do that without using religion. Sure there are scientific ways to make that determination, but scientists differ in their opinions. If scientists can't come to a consensus then the state would have to favor one scientific theory over another. And then who is to determine which scientific theory is favored over another and what criteria were used to make that decision? In the ensuing law suits, it would easily be argued that policy makers favored one scientific theory over others using their own religious bias. I think abortion is a disgusting and immoral practice, but I see absolutely no way to determine when life beings without the use of religion which is unconstitutional both by the Federal Constitution and every state constitution that I'm aware of.

SicEmBaylor

1/9/2012, 01:01 AM

One more thing:

The Constitution is not difficult to understand. It is not all that difficult to understand what their intent was at the convention. It's fairly simple if you read the Constitution (as originally written), Madison's convention notes, and the Federalist papers. The Constitution is not some long tome of archaic legal language -- it's written in fairly clear English.

What has made the Constitution so difficult to understand, relate to, and apply to certain cases is centuries of judicial interpretation. Judicial interpretation should not be an issue due to the fairly clear wording of the document (though here and there an issue will arise that is not so clear cut). The problem is that judges are political beasts just as much as your back bench congressmen and the Senate Majority Leader. They have their own political beliefs and ideology; like it or not, it's impossible for a judge not to allow some of his/her own political bias to affect the way they decide the case. Some judges don't even try. Compound this with thousands of judges over the last couple of centuries along with libraries full of overlapping and contradictory state and federal laws and you have an absolute mess of a legal system. That is what makes understanding the Constitution so difficult.

SicEmBaylor

1/9/2012, 01:02 AM

Chuck Bao

1/9/2012, 03:34 AM

You just said a moufful, Sic'em. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as stated in the Declaration of Independence and subsequently enshrined in our BOR and Constitution is pretty much an open-ended ideal.

For the religious folks, you do know that it was tradition in Biblical times to leave unwanted newborns out exposed on trash heaps to die. Yet the devine word of God Almighty from our Bible never really condemns the practice. More importantly, there is no scriptural basis that a soul is created at the point of conception. But I agree that I'd very much like to think so.

Caboose

1/9/2012, 05:08 AM

A few observations:

1. The Constitution clearly reserves any non-enumerated power for the individual states. The absence of a defined power within the Constitution does not mean that the Federal government reserves that power. The Federal government does not have a defined power to regulate healthcare therefore the regulation of healthcare is strictly a state power. Mandating coverage is clearly a policy issue in which the Federal government has no role. As is the limitation of birth control methods.

2. I would never ever hold GW Bush or one of his judicial apointees as stewards of conservatism. Bush is the antithesis of conservatism and although I'm not familiar with the specific judge that was cited, I am familiar with the general type of judge that he appointed.

3. Yes, our Founding Fathers were often in disagreement while also having vastly different opinions of the role, size, and scope of the state. The Founding Fathers and what they wanted is not germane to the topic of Constitutional intrepretation. The intent of the Framers, however, is very relevant. Judges often look to the their intent when trying to decide the Constitutionality of a case. This is why the Federalist Papers are often reviewed. It's also worth reading and studying Madison's own journals from the Constitutional Convention as it gives insight on the various debates that took place and why certain clauses were included and/or worded in the way that they were. Why is this relevant today? Because the Constitution was designed as a delicate (but rather beautiful) balance between the various political factions that existed in post-Revolutionary America. It may be surprising to most, but most of the conflict was between big states and small states as opposed to ideological divisions or slate state/free state. In any case, the Constitution only works when that delicate balance is respected and preserved. If any one part of the Constitution becomes off balance then the entire document is threatened. Liberty is best preserves by maintaining this balace; unbalance brings with it the threat of tyranny.

4. It is clear through the proper reading of the Constitution, the convention notes, and the Federalist Papers that clauses such as the elastic clause, the supremacy clause, etc. were written to be consistent with the rest of the document. In other words, those clauses were not written in contradiction to the rest of the document but in support of it. The Framers, for example, did not write the Supremacy Clause to be a carte blanche for the Federal government to enact whatever the hell it wanted. The Supremacy Clause must remain consistent with the enumerated powers of Congress.

THIS.

The Federal government only has the authority to do what it is explicitly granted by the people. If you can pretend "regulate" means "force to buy" because it "doesn't say it cant force to buy" then you can pretend it means "force blonde people into the gas chamber" under the same dishonest pretense. Under Midtowner's Liberal view of the Constitution literally nothing, no matter how extreme, could ever be unconstitutional. You just find a clause and pretend one or all of the words in that clause mean something that they don't mean, and magically it is constitutional!

Caboose

1/9/2012, 05:10 AM

Caboose

1/9/2012, 05:20 AM

Dude.. really? I'll explain that one if you really want me to, but if you don't get it, then your knowledge or constitutional law is insufficient for you to be sitting at the big boys table.

Founders' intent is a little difficult to divine. Do you think they were some monolithic set of people whose intent was the same or even similar? If so, you'd be wrong.

That aside, they didn't tell us what the extent of their grant of power to the government was. They did, however, give us a way to amend the Constitution when we found that we needed new rights or new powers. That aside, the founders' intent is amorphous and irrelevant and of no legal effect. We have modern legal precedent to guide us.

Most bizarre line of reasoning yet.... up to this point your entire defense of this particular line of tyranny has been the commerce clause... now you are saying the intent of the authors of the clause you are citing is irrelevant. So tyranny is "ok" because of the clause they drafted... but at the same time it doesn't matter what they intended by drafting it.

ouflak

1/9/2012, 05:31 AM

Chuck Bao

1/9/2012, 05:44 AM

Why in the name that all is right and good in this world that there are these crazy people around here talking about ObamaCare as if that was such a huge deal.

Yeah, you go get all get outraged about how unfair seatbelts are, as well as state mandatory car insurance. I'm sure that you can deduce that it is all a conspiracy instigated by the federal government by tying highway funds in with compliance. Oh the constitutionally of it all!

The origins of Obamacare was passed by a Republican governor who is now the frontrunner in winning the Republican nomination. Odd that he doesn't even have the balls to back up to what he had backed up to before. Politics does do strange things to people.

Chuck Bao

1/9/2012, 05:50 AM

I have not read this thread and this is directed at no one in particular!

So if you ban condoms, and IUD's and of the assorted types of birth control, what happens when somebody is caught with this stuff. Do they force a woman to untie her fallopian tubes? Give you a ticket for having some Trojan Jamaican ticklers in your wallet? Slap around any teenagers who are public advocates and practicers of abstinence?

I have read this thread and I don't think I'm none the wiser. I am better off thinking that Singaporean kids have access at the local 7-Eleven to condoms with tiny watch batteries that hum a tune. How can anyone be against birth control that hums a tune?

SicEmBaylor

1/9/2012, 06:00 AM

Why in the name that all is right and good in this world that there are these crazy people around here talking about ObamaCare as if that was such a huge deal.
It's actually not a huge deal compared to, say, the recently passed NDA.

Yeah, you go get all get outraged about how unfair seatbelts are, as well as state mandatory car insurance. I'm sure that you can deduce that it is all a conspiracy instigated by the federal government by tying highway funds in with compliance. Oh the constitutionally of it all!
There's no conspiracy or secret as to why certain Federal highway funds are dependent upon the states enacting certain laws. This is actually not unconstitutional strictly speaking. I think it violates the spirit but not the letter of the Constitution. It's perfectly acceptable for the Federal government to support interstate roads (I mean interstate in the generic sense not just the highway system by the same name).

The origins of Obamacare was passed by a Republican governor who is now the frontrunner in winning the Republican nomination. Odd that he doesn't even have the balls to back up to what he had backed up to before. Politics does do strange things to people.

Yes, but this goes back to the 10th amendment issue. I don't understand why Romney hasn't strongly argued that his plan is a MA plan and perfectly constitutional whereas he does not support a Federal plan because it would be unconstitutional. There's nothing wrong, constitutionally, with RomneyCare. I think it's bad policy, but that is up to the people of the state of MA. This is why the states should and ought to be incubators for social change and new policy ideas free from Federal interference or duplicated Federal programs. The MA plan was fairly unique at the time, and it would not have been possible if there had been an existing Federal plan. The people of the individual states and their elected state representatives ought to be free to craft legislation and policy that is tailored to the people of that state and consistent with their beliefs and wishes.

THAT ^^ is why we have a Federal REPUBLIC. The decentralization of power allows policy experimentation that could not happen on the Federal level.

Dale Ellis

1/9/2012, 03:14 PM

actually you are only required to purchase automobile insurance if you plan to drive a car. The logic of "well the government makes my purchase auto insurance so they have the right to make me purchase healthcare" is very thin.
I guess by that logic, the government is forcing you to purchase oil and gas for your vehicle, because without them, you can not drive it.

Dale Ellis

1/9/2012, 03:15 PM

It's actually not a huge deal compared to, say, the recently passed NDA.

There's no conspiracy or secret as to why certain Federal highway funds are dependent upon the states enacting certain laws. This is actually not unconstitutional strictly speaking. I think it violates the spirit but not the letter of the Constitution. It's perfectly acceptable for the Federal government to support interstate roads (I mean interstate in the generic sense not just the highway system by the same name).

Yes, but this goes back to the 10th amendment issue. I don't understand why Romney hasn't strongly argued that his plan is a MA plan and perfectly constitutional whereas he does not support a Federal plan because it would be unconstitutional. There's nothing wrong, constitutionally, with RomneyCare. I think it's bad policy, but that is up to the people of the state of MA. This is why the states should and ought to be incubators for social change and new policy ideas free from Federal interference or duplicated Federal programs. The MA plan was fairly unique at the time, and it would not have been possible if there had been an existing Federal plan. The people of the individual states and their elected state representatives ought to be free to craft legislation and policy that is tailored to the people of that state and consistent with their beliefs and wishes.

THAT ^^ is why we have a Federal REPUBLIC. The decentralization of power allows policy experimentation that could not happen on the Federal level.

Ask the fine folks of MA. what they think of RomneyCare

bigfatjerk

1/9/2012, 03:37 PM

Sorry, but that is bs. The lungs aren't developed at 3 months. Maybe you got it wrong and the baby was six months along and 3 months premature.

If the baby was born at 3 months, it would have been nationwide news and all sorts of medical folks would have been debunking the story. 6 month gestation, while high risk, occurs all the time.

Secondly, just how is someone forced to deliver? Either the mom goes into premature labor or the mom elects to get an abortion. Neither are forced...well, unless she visited planned parenthood;).

It was 4.5 months, just found out from the mother herself not 6. It was way earlier than I've ever remembered hearing though.

Dale Ellis

1/9/2012, 05:37 PM

4.5 months is highly doubtful, too. 18 weeks gestation isn't viable. 20-22, maybe. 23,24 weeks is the low end, but I have heard a bit younger. More often it is the mother who messed up the conception date or the ultrasound was off because the fetus size was misinterpreted.

Not saying she is lying, but 4.5 months would still be considered a medical miracle.

That being said, your point is that a fetus in the second trimester can live and many abortions occur in the second trimester and that is a very valid point.

I don't like the whole pro choice viability argument. How can you place something in an environment it was never meant to survive in, subsequently resulting in it's death, then claim it's death (or causing it's death) is justifiable because it's not viable.

As I've stated if you placed a fully grown man on the surface of the moon with no type of protection from the elements, how viable would he be? If you then attempted to justify the killing of him by placing him in that environment, and you're only argument was "he wasn't viable" how would that argument stand up in court of law?

Kind of like killing your parents, then asking for sympathy because you're an orphan.

SicEmBaylor

1/9/2012, 05:46 PM

Ask the fine folks of MA. what they think of RomneyCare
Color me shocked that you entirely missed the point.

ictsooner7

1/9/2012, 07:28 PM

OK, caboose here we go answers to all your ignorance.

Show me a link to the arrested thing......this is just one example, I do remember another that the secret service removed or arrested another guy or couple.

IT'S CALLED GOOGLE....LEARN IT USE IT.

Couple Arrested at Bush Rally Settles Lawsuit for $80,000

by Andrew Clevenger

The federal government has agreed to pay $80,000 to a Texas couple arrested for wearing anti-President Bush T-shirts at a 2004 event with the president in Charleston.

Jeff and Nicole Rank went to Bush's Fourth of July speech at the state Capitol wearing homemade T-shirts with a red circle with a bar through it over the word "Bush."

On the back, hers read "Love America, Hate Bush" and his read "Regime Change Starts At Home."

When the couple refused to cover up their shirts, they were arrested and charged with trespassing. Those charges were later dropped by the city of Charleston, and city officials later apologized.

The American Civil Liberties Union subsequently filed a lawsuit on the Ranks' behalf in federal court in Charleston, alleging that the Ranks' First Amendment right to free political speech had been violated.

"This settlement is a real victory not only for our clients but for the First Amendment," state ACLU Director Andrew Schneider said in a news release Thursday.

Jeff and Nicole Rank said Thursday they never intended to be a big First Amendment case.

They came to West Virginia in 2004 because Nicole Rank was working as an environmental liaison officer with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. When they learned that the president was scheduled to speak in Charleston, they decided to get tickets to the event.

"We'd noticed that whenever you see Bush on television, he's always surrounded by fervent supporters," Jeff Rank said via telephone from Houston, where he and his wife were scrambling to avoid Tropical Storm Erin as they picked up their 13-month-old daughter, Abigaile.

"We decided that we wanted to go, no doubt about it, but we didn't want to be added to the throngs of supporters," he said.

As they made their way through security, they wore shirts over the white undershirts with the slogans, he said. Their intention was not to attract a lot of attention when they revealed their handiwork, but to avoid antagonizing Bush supporters as they stood in line.

"It's kind of ironic that we wore the outer shirts to minimize the impact of our shirts, not to maximize," he said.

About 10 minutes after they displayed their undershirts, two Shelley Moore Capito staffers who were working the event approached them and told the couple they had to take off their T-shirts or leave the event, Jeff Rank said.

"We tried to explain to them that it was well within our right to stand there and wear these T-shirts, just as people around us had the right to wear pro-Bush and Cheney T-shirts," he said.

When it became clear that they were going to be ejected, they sat down and made the officers handcuff them, he said, because they wanted it clear that they were being involuntarily removed.

"To add to the thickness of the irony, as we're being led out, 'America the Beautiful' is playing over the loudspeaker," Jeff Rank recalled.

According to an edited version of an October 2002 Presidential Advance Manual posted on the ACLU's Web site, organizers actively tried to prevent protesters from going to presidential appearances.

"Proper ticket distribution is vital to creating a well-balanced crowd and deterring potential protesters from attending events," the manual states.

"Rally squads" were also used to drown out protesters by creating a shield between demonstrators and the press, according to the manual.

When Nicole Rank returned to work after the holiday weekend, FEMA officials sent her home to Texas.

"I was told that my actions had compromised FEMA's mission in West Virginia and I was being relieved from duty," she said.

Shortly thereafter, the couple contacted the state branch of the ACLU.

"[The First Amendment] is a fundamental tenet of our nation, and it needs to be fought for," Jeff Rank said. "Surprisingly, it still needs to be fought for."

Jeff Rank, 32, now a third-year law student at the University of Houston, hopes to focus on civil rights law once he graduates. Nicole Rank, 33, is pursuing dual degrees in law and social work.

"People take for granted their ability to express their own opinions until something like this happens to them," Nicole Rank said.

The couple lived in Charleston for about a year to deal with the legal proceedings surrounding the lawsuit, and they still harbor a fondness for West Virginia and its citizens.

When asked if are glad they decided stand up for their beliefs, both answered "absolutely" without hesitation.

"We have thoroughly not enjoyed our 15 minutes [of fame]. It's cost us personally and professionally," Jeff Rank said. "The thing that we're fighting for, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, is just too important to this country to lay down on something like this."

© Copyright 2007 The Charleston Gazette

NEXT....anyone who has voted for bush twice and did not vote for obama and thinks that carter and obama are more incompetent than bush is a REPUBLICAN. It's like being a transvestite, you can put on the dress, get the matching purse and shoes, wear lipstick and call yourself a girl, but when you go into the stall and you stand up when you pee you are a MALE! Let me explain the analogy, you call yourself a dem but you vote pub and hold republican view on issues. You do not even understand the the right to free speech is the most vital and sacred of our rights. YOU are too damn dumb to understand how getting arrested for wearing a tshirt and being run out of a campaign event, romney in NH again google it, is a total and complete loss of personal liberty. These actions in contrast to the dems who put up with the screaming and yelling, cursing and spitting on us. AGAIN let me us small words and say it slow so you tiny brain can understand. The most sacred personal liberty that our country is founded on is THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH AND YOUR PARTY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ONLY BELIEVES IN IT WHEN THEY ARE USING IT. As for the other about the fetus, maybe I wasn't clear how I wrote it. The difference between five minutes before birth and five minutes after is the birth as i said. IN the womb a fetus is totally dependent on the mother to survive, never mind the weird cut the cord and hookup something to it blah, blah, blah...after birth a baby can survive, it can breath on its own with out anyone touching it. It happens all the time, you hear about babies being born and abandoned and living. NOW they are not going to survive a long time, but the point is in the womb it is totally dependent on the mother for living, PERIOD.

ictsooner7

1/9/2012, 10:47 PM

I don't like the whole pro choice viability argument. How can you place something in an environment it was never meant to survive in, subsequently resulting in it's death, then claim it's death (or causing it's death) is justifiable because it's not viable.

As I've stated if you placed a fully grown man on the surface of the moon with no type of protection from the elements, how viable would he be? If you then attempted to justify the killing of him by placing him in that environment, and you're only argument was "he wasn't viable" how would that argument stand up in court of law?

Kind of like killing your parents, then asking for sympathy because you're an orphan.

You just cant talk any logic to these people, if I hit your wife in the belly with a baseball bat 15 minutes before birth and you can cut the cord and connect it to the cord and keep it alive in the womb, now they are on the moon. What a joke. They make their own facts up as they go along to support their ignorant arguements. Freedom of choice.

If you think abortion is wrong DON'T HAVE ONE! Personal liberty.

Fraggle145

1/10/2012, 02:53 AM

Color me shocked that you entirely missed the point.

My name is Dale Ellis and I will come and take a giant **** on your thread. Relevant posts? Dont worry I'll wait.................................

Thanks Sic'em for being one of the few posters that actually provided relevant information, thoughts, and opinions to the thread.

Dale Ellis

1/10/2012, 04:40 PM

The whole abortion argument is based upon "viability". The flaw in the argument is that non baby regardless of when it is born is "viable" on it is own. So to say, "well it's okay to abort a pregnancy at 2 months because the baby isn't viable" is bullcrap. Of course it's not viable, it's not met to be viable outside the womb at that age, that doesn't mean it's not a living human being, it's just not developed enough to live outside the womb yet.
By that standard, someone who's born with a developmental birth defect isn't as valuable as a normal person.
If the stage of development is what we base the viability of a human life on, then a person who's born with a developmental birth defect, isn't,, by that standard as valuable or "alive" as a normal person.

Please point out the flaw in that argument. The question is, how did the law determine at what stage a woman, during her pregnancy could not have an abortion? It has to be based on the development of the child in her womb, and if it is based off of development of the child, then your logic states that the less developed a human being is, the less value that humans life has.
By that argument a newborn child's life is less valuable than a 5 year old child's life, because the newborn is not as developed.

Dale Ellis

1/10/2012, 04:42 PM

My name is Dale Ellis and I will come and take a giant **** on your thread. Relevant posts? Dont worry I'll wait.................................

Thanks Sic'em for being one of the few posters that actually provided relevant information, thoughts, and opinions to the thread.

I'm simply pointing out how ignorant the left's logic is, when it's used against them. Is the relevant enough for you kid?

SicEmBaylor

1/10/2012, 06:17 PM

I'm simply pointing out how ignorant the left's logic is, when it's used against them. Is the relevant enough for you kid?
Logic can't be ignorant, but that's neither here nor there...

The point of this thread wasn't to point out the fallacy of one side's logic; the point of this thread was to discuss Rick Santorum's position on birth control issues. I get the sense that you are lashing out in this thread because Santorum's position is indefensible so, rather than point out Santorum's high degree of suckitude (since he's on your 'side'), you'd rather attack the opposition than point out the stupidity of one of your own.

You've made about a hundred posts in this thread, but I still don't have a clear idea of what your opinion of Santorum's position is.

Caboose

1/10/2012, 08:34 PM

Wow... where to even start with this colossal pile of mouth-foaming lunacy and bull****.

Let's start at the top, I guess.

OK, caboose here we go answers to all your ignorance.

Show me a link to the arrested thing......this is just one example, I do remember another that the secret service removed or arrested another guy or couple.

IT'S CALLED GOOGLE....LEARN IT USE IT.

Couple Arrested at Bush Rally Settles Lawsuit for $80,000
^ This was your response when I asked for a citation and an explanation of relevance for this:

lets talk about who's party had people arrested by the secret service at campaign rallies for wearing a Kerry t-shirt

You claimed "someone" had people arrested for wearing a Kerry T-shirt...then when asked for a citation you provide a copy and paste about people who were arrested for trespassing. Do you know how a reference works? Let me guess, when the IRS asks you for a copy of your W2 you send them a photocopy of the back of a milk carton. Right? Because that is about the equivalent of what you did here. How it is relevant to the conversation still remains a mystery.

NEXT....anyone who has voted for bush twice and did not vote for obama and thinks that carter and obama are more incompetent than bush is a REPUBLICAN.

False. It may very well be that you are mentally incapable of conceiving of a world where not everything and everyone can be categorized into your antiquated and irrelevant Democrat vs Republican dichotomy, but the rest of the world can and has moved on. Time for you to catch up.

Most disconcerting about your paleolithic worldview is that is clouds your from seeing the obvious that is right in front of you. If you take everything about Bush's policies that made him a bad president and then magnify them by an order of 2 to 10 you have Obama. Every awful thing Bush did Obama has either continued or magnified.

It is also foolishly naive of you to presume that anything would have been done any differently under Gore or Kerry had Bush not been in office. 9/11 would have still happened, the dot.com and real estate bubble collapses would have still brought on a recession, outrageous government spending still would have compounded it, we still would have gotten into a quagmire in Afghanistan, and we still would have gotten into a war with Iraq. Most differences would have been inconsequential, other than the likelihood that Gore would have probably gotten us into some awful "Save the world" carbon cap and trade scheme that would have compounded the recession even more and put us at even more of a disadvantage with the rest of the world and which and taken away more of our freedoms and in the end wouldnt make a **** bit of difference to the environment.

It's like being a transvestite, you can put on the dress, get the matching purse and shoes, wear lipstick and call yourself a girl, but when you go into the stall and you stand up when you pee you are a MALE!

Inane blathering of a fool.

Let me explain the analogy, you call yourself a dem

False. I never called myself a dem.

but you vote pub and hold republican view on issues.

False. I hold views that are consistent valuing the rights of the individual and personal freedom above all else. If you are claiming that is synonymous with a "republican view" then you are simply wrong.

You do not even understand the the right to free speech is the most vital and sacred of our rights. YOU are too damn dumb to understand how getting arrested for wearing a tshirt and being run out of a campaign event, romney in NH again google it, is a total and complete loss of personal liberty.

Idiocy. Here we have someone who thinks being kicked out of a private event is related to the freedom of speech. Talk about a failure to understand.

These actions in contrast to the dems who put up with the screaming and yelling, cursing and spitting on us. AGAIN let me us small words and say it slow so you tiny brain can understand. The most sacred personal liberty that our country is founded on is THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH AND YOUR PARTY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ONLY BELIEVES IN IT WHEN THEY ARE USING IT.

This is utter fantasy. There are just as many anecdotes about harassment, assault, and intimidation by democrats as there are by republicans. To suggest democrats in general are any more supportive of free speech than republicans is joke. Take your own advice and google it. Nevermind the fact that the republicans arent "my party".

As for the other about the fetus, maybe I wasn't clear how I wrote it. The difference between five minutes before birth and five minutes after is the birth as i said.

You werent clear, but "as you said"? Maybe if by "not clear" you actually meant "retarded".

IN the womb a fetus is totally dependent on the mother to survive,

No it isnt. And even if it were, so what?

never mind the weird cut the cord and hookup something to it blah, blah, blah

Never mind it because it completely invalidates your bull**** answer?

...after birth a baby can survive
There are several ways to come at this...

1. Before birth a fetus can survive.
2. A baby can survive no better than can an extracted fetus.
3. What is the difference between a fetus and an infant other than where it is in relation to its mothers body?
4. If the moment of birth is what separates a non-valid entity with no rights from a valid human life with full rights, then you have to support abortion right up until 1 second prior to delivery and you have to concede that if I hit your pregnant wife in the belly with a baseball bat 5 minutes before she delivered your baby I could not be charged with murdering your child. And you would just turn to your wife and shrug and say "Oh well, it wasnt a person anyway. No loss, honey."

, it can breath on its own with out anyone touching it.
So can a fetus. So can an extracted fetus.

It happens all the time, you hear about babies being born and abandoned and living.
Hahahaha... no you dont.

NOW they are not going to survive a long time
Oh, you mean they die after a few minutes? So they dont survive then, the way you just said they do?
The same way a fetus would when extracted from it's mothers womb?
Oh well I guess the baby would survive if someone came along and found it and took care of it....you know, the same way an extracted fetus would.

,
but the point is in the womb it is totally dependent on the mother for living, PERIOD.

No, it is totally dependent on oxygen, nourishment, and warmth for living, PERIOD. The same way a newborn baby is. Period. PERIOD. PERIOD!!!!!....dot (period)

So again.... what is the difference between a fetus five minutes before birth and an infant five minutes after birth other than their location relative to their mothers body?

SCOUT

1/10/2012, 08:45 PM

Logic can't be ignorant, but that's neither here nor there...

The point of this thread wasn't to point out the fallacy of one side's logic; the point of this thread was to discuss Rick Santorum's position on birth control issues. I get the sense that you are lashing out in this thread because Santorum's position is indefensible so, rather than point out Santorum's high degree of suckitude (since he's on your 'side'), you'd rather attack the opposition than point out the stupidity of one of your own.

You've made about a hundred posts in this thread, but I still don't have a clear idea of what your opinion of Santorum's position is.
I am no supporter of Santorum and I surprised to hear you call his position indefensible. Now, I am relying on the thread title so if that is incorrect, never mind. I do think the states should have the right to outlaw birth control. I think that would be an epically bad decision but they should have the right to make it.

Dale Ellis

1/10/2012, 09:28 PM

Logic can't be ignorant, but that's neither here nor there...

The point of this thread wasn't to point out the fallacy of one side's logic; the point of this thread was to discuss Rick Santorum's position on birth control issues. I get the sense that you are lashing out in this thread because Santorum's position is indefensible so, rather than point out Santorum's high degree of suckitude (since he's on your 'side'), you'd rather attack the opposition than point out the stupidity of one of your own.

You've made about a hundred posts in this thread, but I still don't have a clear idea of what your opinion of Santorum's position is.

I never said I was in favor of banning over the counter birth control, EVER. Read the thread again skippy.

Dale Ellis

1/10/2012, 09:31 PM

Wow... where to even start with this colossal pile of mouth-foaming lunacy and bull****.

Let's start at the top, I guess.

^ This was your response when I asked for a citation and an explanation of relevance for this:

You claimed "someone" had people arrested for wearing a Kerry T-shirt...then when asked for a citation you provide a copy and paste about people who were arrested for trespassing. Do you know how a reference works? Let me guess, when the IRS asks you for a copy of your W2 you send them a photocopy of the back of a milk carton. Right? Because that is about the equivalent of what you did here. How it is relevant to the conversation still remains a mystery.

False. It may very well be that you are mentally incapable of conceiving of a world where not everything and everyone can be categorized into your antiquated and irrelevant Democrat vs Republican dichotomy, but the rest of the world can and has moved on. Time for you to catch up.

Most disconcerting about your paleolithic worldview is that is clouds your from seeing the obvious that is right in front of you. If you take everything about Bush's policies that made him a bad president and then magnify them by an order of 2 to 10 you have Obama. Every awful thing Bush did Obama has either continued or magnified.

It is also foolishly naive of you to presume that anything would have been done any differently under Gore or Kerry had Bush not been in office. 9/11 would have still happened, the dot.com and real estate bubble collapses would have still brought on a recession, outrageous government spending still would have compounded it, we still would have gotten into a quagmire in Afghanistan, and we still would have gotten into a war with Iraq. Most differences would have been inconsequential, other than the likelihood that Gore would have probably gotten us into some awful "Save the world" carbon cap and trade scheme that would have compounded the recession even more and put us at even more of a disadvantage with the rest of the world and which and taken away more of our freedoms and in the end wouldnt make a **** bit of difference to the environment.

Inane blathering of a fool.

False. I never called myself a dem.

False. I hold views that are consistent valuing the rights of the individual and personal freedom above all else. If you are claiming that is synonymous with a "republican view" then you are simply wrong.

Idiocy. Here we have someone who thinks being kicked out of a private event is related to the freedom of speech. Talk about a failure to understand.

This is utter fantasy. There are just as many anecdotes about harassment, assault, and intimidation by democrats as there are by republicans. To suggest democrats in general are any more supportive of free speech than republicans is joke. Take your own advice and google it. Nevermind the fact that the republicans arent "my party".

You werent clear, but "as you said"? Maybe if by "not clear" you actually meant "retarded".

No it isnt. And even if it were, so what?

Never mind it because it completely invalidates your bull**** answer?

There are several ways to come at this...

1. Before birth a fetus can survive.
2. A baby can survive no better than can an extracted fetus.
3. What is the difference between a fetus and an infant other than where it is in relation to its mothers body?
4. If the moment of birth is what separates a non-valid entity with no rights from a valid human life with full rights, then you have to support abortion right up until 1 second prior to delivery and you have to concede that if I hit your pregnant wife in the belly with a baseball bat 5 minutes before she delivered your baby I could not be charged with murdering your child. And you would just turn to your wife and shrug and say "Oh well, it wasnt a person anyway. No loss, honey."

So can a fetus. So can an extracted fetus.

Hahahaha... no you dont.

Oh, you mean they die after a few minutes? So they dont survive then, the way you just said they do?
The same way a fetus would when extracted from it's mothers womb?
Oh well I guess the baby would survive if someone came along and found it and took care of it....you know, the same way an extracted fetus would.

,

No, it is totally dependent on oxygen, nourishment, and warmth for living, PERIOD. The same way a newborn baby is. Period. PERIOD. PERIOD!!!!!....dot (period)

So again.... what is the difference between a fetus five minutes before birth and an infant five minutes after birth other than their location relative to their mothers body?

That's the exact point I've been trying to make. If the law says, you can abort a fetus up to 20 weeks old, I would like someone in the medical profession that is pro-choice to point out to me the physiological difference between a fetus that is 20 weeks old and one that is 20 weeks +_1 day old.
Explain to me how one is not a viable human life and therefor can be killed and the other IS a viable human life and therefore must be protected under the law.

Caboose

1/10/2012, 09:44 PM

That's the exact point I've been trying to make. If the law says, you can abort a fetus up to 20 weeks old, I would like someone in the medical profession that is pro-choice to point out to me the physiological difference between a fetus that is 20 weeks old and one that is 20 weeks +_1 day old.
Explain to me how one is not a viable human life and therefor can be killed and the other IS a viable human life and therefore must be protected under the law.

ict says that birth is the difference (I guess)... but he has yet to point out a difference between a fetus 1 minute before birth and an infant 1 minute after birth, He has also failed to reconcile the various problems and contradictions that it creates.

But then he also claims it isn't birth that is the difference, it is that one is able to survive on its own and the other isnt... even though they both have the exact same survivability outside the womb. Interestingly, a fetus can survive inside the womb but if you were to surgically insert a newborn infant into the womb and sew that baby shut (no pun intended) it most certainly would not survive, doomed to a death of asphyxiation.

Seems like the fetus actually has a more versatile range of survival. Having that umbilical cord snipped, by ict's own logic, ironically reduces your viability based on survival, therefore strips you of your right to life.

SicEmBaylor

1/10/2012, 09:47 PM

I am no supporter of Santorum and I surprised to hear you call his position indefensible. Now, I am relying on the thread title so if that is incorrect, never mind. I do think the states should have the right to outlaw birth control. I think that would be an epically bad decision but they should have the right to make it.

I agree with this. When I said "indefensible" I didn't mean the position in and of itself. It's indefensible because it's inconsistent with Santorum's entire political career -- suddenly taking a position that is counter to everything you've ever stood for makes it indefensible.

SicEmBaylor

1/10/2012, 09:49 PM

I never said I was in favor of banning over the counter birth control, EVER. Read the thread again skippy.
I never said you did. Once again, you're reading into a post what is not there.

Caboose

1/10/2012, 09:54 PM

I agree with this. When I said "indefensible" I didn't mean the position in and of itself. It's indefensible because it's inconsistent with Santorum's entire political career -- suddenly taking a position that is counter to everything you've ever stood for makes it indefensible.

Disagree entirely. I find it refreshing when people admit they were wrong and change course when the evidence dictates they should. To say it is indefensible is a real puzzler. Would you say the same thing if Osama had denounced his previous terrorist actions and turned himself in after a couple of years of self-reflection in a cave?

Maybe Santorum just realized his previous position didn't fit with his overall ideology. Or maybe he will flip flop back to his previous mode a week from now. Who knows?

Dale Ellis

1/10/2012, 09:55 PM

I never said you did. Once again, you're reading into a post what is not there.
I say keep the feds out and let the states decide. There, we can put this horse down.

Dale Ellis

1/10/2012, 09:59 PM

but he has yet to point out a difference between a fetus 1 minute before birth and an infant 1 minute after birth
He can't because if he does or attempts to, his whole argument will collapse on itself. Birth has nothing to do with life, birth is simply the process by which the body removes the baby from itself, be it alive or still born. Anyone that would advocate killing a full term baby just because it hasn't passed through the birth canal yet, is sick bastard and should never be allowed around children or to father a child.

SicEmBaylor

1/10/2012, 10:14 PM

He can't because if he does or attempts to, his whole argument will collapse on itself. Birth has nothing to do with life, birth is simply the process by which the body removes the baby from itself, be it alive or still born. Anyone that would advocate killing a full term baby just because it hasn't passed through the birth canal yet, is sick bastard and should never be allowed around children or to father a child.

This has given me a thought. Surely, there is or nearly is a consensus that a baby passing through the birth canal is alive. What makes regulating abortion impossible (in my mind) is the inability to define when life begins without using religion as a guide. HOWEVER, perhaps we can "walk it back" from the point at which everyone agrees a baby is alive.

A baby is alive as it is passing through the birth canal -- abortion at this point is illegal.
A baby within hours of birth is alive -- abortion at this point is illegal
A baby within days of birth is alive -- abortion at this point is illegal

So why not ban abortion at the point at which the scientific community breaks its consensus on when there is existing life?

okie52

1/10/2012, 10:18 PM

With all of the C sections these days even that could strain the birth canal definition.

Caboose

1/10/2012, 10:21 PM

With all of the C sections these days even that could strain the birth canal definition.

I mentioned that earlier in the thread. What is a C section in reality? Surgically extracting a fetus from a womb.

SicEmBaylor

1/10/2012, 10:21 PM

With all of the C sections these days even that could strain the birth canal definition.
True...

I was a C-section kid. In fact, my dad did the surgery.

Caboose

1/10/2012, 10:22 PM

This has given me a thought. Surely, there is or nearly is a consensus that a baby passing through the birth canal is alive. What makes regulating abortion impossible (in my mind) is the inability to define when life begins without using religion as a guide. HOWEVER, perhaps we can "walk it back" from the point at which everyone agrees a baby is alive.

A baby is alive as it is passing through the birth canal -- abortion at this point is illegal.
A baby within hours of birth is alive -- abortion at this point is illegal
A baby within days of birth is alive -- abortion at this point is illegal

So why not ban abortion at the point at which the scientific community breaks its consensus on when there is existing life?

ict is going to flip out when he learns he cant abort babies 1 minute before birth.

okie52

1/10/2012, 10:24 PM

I mentioned that earlier in the thread. What is a C section in reality? Surgically extracting a fetus from a womb.

What about a brain dead mother that is kept alive to sustain her fetus? Not particularly relevant but I just thought I'd throw it in the conversation.

okie52

1/10/2012, 10:27 PM

True...

I was a C-section kid. In fact, my dad did the surgery.

No midwife?lol. They are probably having too many C section babies these days. Alas, a reduction in coneheads. I wonder if dr.s still go by once a c section always a c section?

SanJoaquinSooner

1/10/2012, 10:41 PM

Well the idea of outlawing birth control is not realistic in this day and age.

For me, one interesting question for Santorum, who is the pro-life of all pro-life candidates is:

If abortion is premediated murder, should a 16-year-old girl who gets an illegal abortion be given the death penalty?

A 21-year-old?

Caboose

1/10/2012, 10:54 PM

Well the idea of outlawing birth control is not realistic in this day and age.

Agreed.

For me, one interesting question for Santorum, who is the pro-life of all pro-life candidates is:

If abortion is premediated murder, should a 16-year-old girl who gets an illegal abortion be given the death penalty?

A 21-year-old?

Seems like they would be pretty easy for an ardent pro-lifer to answer.

Turd_Ferguson

1/10/2012, 10:56 PM

I wonder if dr.s still go by once a c section always a c section?It depends on the Physician. The wife works for a couple that will do them under the right circumstances. OU Medical "specializes" in Vaginal Deliver After C-section.

Chuck Bao

1/10/2012, 10:59 PM

This Sharia case is exactly why states can't be left to themselves to decide and protect our freedoms.

Analysts told everyone wanting to vote for this measure that if passed the law would be quickly overturned by the courts. They were right: what a waste of time and money! More importantly, it frightens me when politicians turn to scare tactics to grab headlines and win elections, playing off the fear and insecurities of voters.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/10/10097954-federal-appeals-court-delivers-blow-to-anti-sharia-efforts

okie52

1/10/2012, 11:07 PM

It depends on the Physician. The wife works for a couple that will do them under the right circumstances. OU Medical "specializes" in Vaginal Deliver After C-section.

Thanks.

SicEmBaylor

1/10/2012, 11:32 PM

This Sharia case is exactly why states can't be left to themselves to decide and protect our freedoms.

This is nonsense. The law had absolutely no negative impact in any shape, form, or fashion on liberty. The law absolutely has nothing to do with whether someone wants to follow Sharia law themselves. The law does absolutely nothing that would bar any muslim from practicing their religion.

The law simply ensures that the state court system will only use state law when deciding a case and not Sharia law. This is no different than ensuring that the Federal courts do not use international law or precedents when deciding cases.

Sharia Law is the antithesis of liberty -- if anything, the law upholds liberty by ensuring Sharia Law can never be implemented. God help us if it ever is...

SicEmBaylor

1/10/2012, 11:35 PM

No midwife?lol. They are probably having too many C section babies these days. Alas, a reduction in coneheads. I wonder if dr.s still go by once a c section always a c section?
The idea of my father allowing a midwife anywhere near my mother is highly amusing. No. No midwife.

He actually wasn't supposed to do the surgery himself, but my mother went into labor earlier than expected and her doctor and the surgeon who was supposed to perform the surgery were both on vacation. My dad was a resident surgeon in the hospital, and he was the only one left who could do it. I'd have been scared ****less to cut into my own wife (unless she was a bitch ;))

The only reason my mother had a c-section for both my sister and I is because she didn't want to deal with the pain of child birth. Neither of my parents are particularly holistic. :D

SicEmBaylor

1/10/2012, 11:37 PM

This is nonsense. The law had absolutely no negative impact in any shape, form, or fashion on liberty. The law absolutely has nothing to do with whether someone wants to follow Sharia law themselves. The law does absolutely nothing that would bar any muslim from practicing their religion.

The law simply ensures that the state court system will only use state law when deciding a case and not Sharia law. This is no different than ensuring that the Federal courts do not use international law or precedents when deciding cases.

Sharia Law is the antithesis of liberty -- if anything, the law upholds liberty by ensuring Sharia Law can never be implemented. God help us if it ever is...

Let me put this another way: It is entirely appropriate to ensure the state courts do not use Sharia Law -- what may not be appropriate is legislation targeting JUST Sharia Law. If the legislation had been more broad and generalized then it may not have been a problem. But the problem isn't with the law itself; the problem is that it was too narrow.

Chuck Bao

1/10/2012, 11:39 PM

This is nonsense. The law had absolutely no negative impact in any shape, form, or fashion on liberty. The law absolutely has nothing to do with whether someone wants to follow Sharia law themselves. The law does absolutely nothing that would bar any muslim from practicing their religion.

The law simply ensures that the state court system will only use state law when deciding a case and not Sharia law. This is no different than ensuring that the Federal courts do not use international law or precedents when deciding cases.

Sharia Law is the antithesis of liberty -- if anything, the law upholds liberty by ensuring Sharia Law can never be implemented. God help us if it ever is...

I'm glad that you realize it. If it had no affect whatsoever, then why did the state nincompoops put the referendum up and why did Oklahomans vote for it? Just plain stupid and we were all told in advance that it was stupid. THAT IS WHY STATES CAN GET IT SO WRONG SOMETIMES.

Caboose

1/10/2012, 11:40 PM

This is nonsense. The law had absolutely no negative impact in any shape, form, or fashion on liberty. The law absolutely has nothing to do with whether someone wants to follow Sharia law themselves. The law does absolutely nothing that would bar any muslim from practicing their religion.

The law simply ensures that the state court system will only use state law when deciding a case and not Sharia law. This is no different than ensuring that the Federal courts do not use international law or precedents when deciding cases.

Sharia Law is the antithesis of liberty -- if anything, the law upholds liberty by ensuring Sharia Law can never be implemented. God help us if it ever is...

If this measure had specified christian law the Liberals would be falling all over themselves to defend it.
The unspoken alliance between muslims and the American Left has always puzzled given how hostile to liberty, specifically the liberty of women, Islam and Sharia law is. I would think nothing of it if the reason were as simple as defending general religious freedom, but I know that isn't it because they go out of their ware to attack, marginalize, and demean Christians at the same time.

Caboose

1/10/2012, 11:41 PM

I'm glad that you realize it. If it had no affect whatsoever, then why did the state nincompoops put the referendum up and why did Oklahomans vote for it? Just plain stupid and we were all told in advance that it was stupid. THAT IS WHY STATES CAN GET IT SO WRONG SOMETIMES.

If it had no effect how is it unconstitutional? The plaintiff claims it would affect every aspect of his life. Yet you are saying it would have no effect whatsoever. The court said the plaintiff made a strong showing of potential harm. Why do you disagree with their ruling?

okie52

1/10/2012, 11:44 PM

The idea of my father allowing a midwife anywhere near my mother is highly amusing. No. No midwife.

He actually wasn't supposed to do the surgery himself, but my mother went into labor earlier than expected and her doctor and the surgeon who was supposed to perform the surgery were both on vacation. My dad was a resident surgeon in the hospital, and he was the only one left who could do it. I'd have been scared ****less to cut into my own wife (unless she was a bitch ;))

The only reason my mother had a c-section for both my sister and I is because she didn't want to deal with the pain of child birth. Neither of my parents are particularly holistic. :D

Delivered by your own father...a rare event indeed. My kids would have been in real trouble had we been in that situation.

SicEmBaylor

1/10/2012, 11:55 PM

Delivered by your own father...a rare event indeed. My kids would have been in real trouble had we been in that situation.
Eh, you'd have been fine. All you need is a good sharp filet knife, a big pair of tongs, and some duct tape.

Caboose

1/11/2012, 12:01 AM

Let me put this another way: It is entirely appropriate to ensure the state courts do not use Sharia Law -- what may not be appropriate is legislation targeting JUST Sharia Law. If the legislation had been more broad and generalized then it may not have been a problem. But the problem isn't with the law itself; the problem is that it was too narrow.

It doesn't target just Sharia Law.

Chuck Bao

1/11/2012, 12:19 AM

If it had no effect how is it unconstitutional? The plaintiff claims it would affect every aspect of his life. Yet you are saying it would have no effect whatsoever. The court said the plaintiff made a strong showing of potential harm. Why do you disagree with their ruling?

That is a good question. If you live by a very strict moral code (in this case Sharia law) and your state of residence votes that it can never be used in the court system, you would think that you are being persecuted for your religious faith. However, the new law wouldn't ever be applied anyway, so it is a worthless exercise. As Sic'em mentioned, it does give the impression that it is targetted against one religion.

Caboose

1/11/2012, 12:45 AM

That is a good question. If you live by a very strict moral code (in this case Sharia law) and your state of residence votes that it can never be used in the court system, you would think that you are being persecuted for your religious faith.

You might think that, but it wouldn't make it so.

However, the new law wouldn't ever be applied anyway, so it is a worthless exercise. As Sic'em mentioned, it does give the impression that it is targetted against one religion.

Sharia Law isnt a religion.

StoopTroup

1/11/2012, 12:47 AM

Results for New Hampshire Republican Primary (U.S. Presidential Primary)

Jan 10, 2012 (94% of precincts reporting)

Mitt Romney
93,760
39.4%
https://ssl.gstatic.com/onebox/minor/elections/us_2012/color_cc6666.png

Ron Paul
54,204
22.8%
https://ssl.gstatic.com/onebox/minor/elections/us_2012/color_cc6666.png

Jon Huntsman
39,991
16.8%
https://ssl.gstatic.com/onebox/minor/elections/us_2012/color_cc6666.png

Newt Gingrich
22,377
9.4%
https://ssl.gstatic.com/onebox/minor/elections/us_2012/color_cc6666.png

Rick Santorum
22,196
9.3%
https://ssl.gstatic.com/onebox/minor/elections/us_2012/color_cc6666.png

Rick Perry

1,648

0.7%

https://ssl.gstatic.com/onebox/minor/elections/us_2012/color_cc6666.png

Michele Bachmann

335

0.1%

https://ssl.gstatic.com/onebox/minor/elections/us_2012/color_cc6666.png

Other

3,175

1.3%

https://ssl.gstatic.com/onebox/minor/elections/us_2012/color_cc6666.png

StoopTroup

1/11/2012, 12:48 AM

Ron F'ing Paul Baby!

StoopTroup

1/11/2012, 12:49 AM

Other did better than Rick Perry.....lol

SCOUT

1/11/2012, 12:56 AM

Other did better than Rick Perry.....lol
This is actually sad. Other should have done exponentially better than Rick Perry.

StoopTroup

1/11/2012, 01:11 AM

This is actually sad. Other should have done exponentially better than Rick Perry.

lol

Chuck Bao

1/11/2012, 03:32 AM

For those of you who said that ObamaCare is an affront to your civil liberties, so check that or rationalize it a bit. It is entirely like auto insurance and seat belt laws. You may think that you are forever covered under your plan, but I don't think so. So many US companies are laying off workers and hiring them back as contract workers without benefits. Federal, state and couty workers are going to join the private sector as unemployeed or contract employees without benefits.

The net of it is that the US health care industry is on the verge of collapse with prices spiralling upward and fewer and fewer people being able to pay.

State rights movement will only accentuate the movement of capital and people and that is not a good thing.

SicEmBaylor

1/11/2012, 05:31 AM

Nevermind. I thought better of it.

Caboose

1/11/2012, 08:26 AM

For those of you who said that ObamaCare is an affront to your civil liberties, so check that or rationalize it a bit. It is entirely like auto insurance and seat belt laws.

It is entirely unlike auto insurance and seatbelt laws, which are imposed at the state level and are entirely optional. No one is mandated to own or ride in a car.

You may think that you are forever covered under your plan, but I don't think so.

So? You arent entitled to be.

So many US companies are laying off workers and hiring them back as contract workers without benefits. Federal, state and couty workers are going to join the private sector as unemployeed or contract employees without benefits.

So?

The net of it is that the US health care industry is on the verge of collapse with prices spiralling upward and fewer and fewer people being able to pay.

The irony of which is that health care prices are going up due to ObamaCare and fewer people are able to pay (for anything) in the Obama Economy.

State rights movement will only accentuate the movement of capital and people and that is not a good thing.

No clue what this even means.

Dale Ellis

1/16/2012, 12:31 AM

That is why I don't think you can be rigid about abortion. There are multiple extenuating circumstances.

Yes and the pro-choice crowd uses those circumstances to hold up the weight of their entire pro-choice argument. I find it a bit disingenuous when someone from the pro-choice side of the debates starts talking about "what if the mothers life is in danger?" or "what if the baby is horribly deformed?" when they know darn good and well that in the overwhelming majority of instances when a woman has an abortion it has nothing to do with her concern for her health or some deformation the child may have.

I'd pose this question to you, if the pro-life crowd would be willing to concede that abortion, was justified in extreme cases where the mother's life was at risk or the baby was suffering from some deformity that could threaten it's life, would you be willing to concede that a woman who wants an abortion just because she doesn't want to have a child, should not be allowed to?

There in lies the shallowness in your argument. You take the cases that are extreme then try to sneak all the others in with them.

SicEmBaylor

1/16/2012, 01:19 AM

Have you ever seen an anencephalic baby? Have you ever seen a stillborn? Have you ever seen a baby so malformed that it only survived minutes? Those are some of the most heartwrenching experiences I have ever seen in person.
Not in person, no. I don't know what the hell that has to do with whether or not the states should be allowed to limit birth control whether it be condoms, the pill, abortion, etc.

Have you ever seen a woman die due to the changes of pregnancy, or due to rupturing an aneurysm or dying of cancer? I have. Again, heartwrenching.
No. Again, it's irrelevant. Public policy shouldn't be made on the basis of emotion.

SicEmBaylor

1/16/2012, 01:21 AM

Yes and the pro-choice crowd uses those circumstances to hold up the weight of their entire pro-choice argument. I find it a bit disingenuous when someone from the pro-choice side of the debates starts talking about "what if the mothers life is in danger?" or "what if the baby is horribly deformed?" when they know darn good and well that in the overwhelming majority of instances when a woman has an abortion it has nothing to do with her concern for her health or some deformation the child may have.

I'd pose this question to you, if the pro-life crowd would be willing to concede that abortion, was justified in extreme cases where the mother's life was at risk or the baby was suffering from some deformity that could threaten it's life, would you be willing to concede that a woman who wants an abortion just because she doesn't want to have a child, should not be allowed to?

There in lies the shallowness in your argument. You take the cases that are extreme then try to sneak all the others in with them.
Have you ever read Freakenomics? He makes a fairly compelling case, in my mind, for abortion. Now, I find the practice abhorrent. However, I find having my **** stolen by poor minority kids that should have been given the coat hangar treatment a lot more abhorrent. Considering how many of them end up committing murder, we're also saving the taxpayers the expense of having to prosecute and incarcerate these people for dozens of crimes up to and including murder. It's cheaper to kill 'em as a fetus than as adults at Big Mac.

SouthCarolinaSooner

1/16/2012, 01:32 AM

My $.02 on the legality/morality of abortion

Parents have a legal obligation to care for a child, they owe the child support since they created the child and the child's needs.

Every human must live in the womb for 40 or so weeks, cooking in the oven is a basic necessity.

Therefore in my mind, the fetus has a claim against the mother to be allowed to live in the womb.

I would draw exceptions for rape, incest and if the mother's life is threatened.

Fraggle145

1/16/2012, 02:52 AM

Still not supposed to be an abortion thread... Carry on.

ouflak

1/16/2012, 03:00 AM

I still haven't gotten a response to some basic questions from some of the more active posters on this thread. I think it would be really interesting to hear from some of you on this, so I'll just pose the questions again in a more organized manner and hope that perhaps they will be picked up for response:
What happens if a woman is found to have an illegal IUD implant? Will it be removed against her consent? What will the other legal punishment(s) be?
What if a cop pulls some teenager for a minor traffic offense and finds a condoms in the kid's wallet? Is this a misdemeanor? Will he be arrested?
What happens if a woman has had her tubes tied, or a man has had a vasectomy, either/both illegally? Will they be forced to have reversal procedures? What are the other legal ramifications?
What happens if a sizable group of highschool kids decide to have a public announcement of their intentions to practice abstinence until marriage? Would they be expelled from school? What would the legal penalties be? Would they be treated as juveniles?
What happens if a married couple that have already had 3 or 4 children, let it be known that they will be using the timing method to ensure that they have no more children and a neighbor/friend/relative reports them to the police or DA? What would the resulting punishments be? How can the enforcement be implemented such that there is insurance that the couple is no longer violating state law?

I see that this thread has sort of devolved into some kind of abortion debate. In my opinion, if you're talking about abortion, you have already passed the birth control discussion (yes, I understand there is a debatable point there). So I'd really like to hear from some of the more active posters on that topic discuss the topic of birth control, and its legality. In particular I'd really be interested in hearing some answers to some of the questions posed above. Thanks!

SicEmBaylor

1/16/2012, 03:01 AM

Still not supposed to be an abortion thread... Carry on.
I know abortion is often lumped into a general birth control debate (clearly), but how many people actually consider abortion a legitimate form of birth control? I'm guessing not many. The issues are really completely separate. I'm sure there is some cracked out insane ho out there having unprotected sex with a different dude every night and then runs down to the abortion clinic when she gets knocked up, but I'm guessing that's the extreme exception to the rule.

KantoSooner

1/16/2012, 09:58 AM

Of course it is, SicEm. But that detracts from the 'pro-life' desire to control sex and women's bodies. The antipathy shown in some earlier posts to sex 'without consequences' was pretty revealing regarding the actual agenda.

We allow killing of human beings in a number of other circumstances without legal repercussions. We also allow decisions to be made that have easily predictable lethal consequences for others....without legal concern. (think about the engineer who specs seatbelt holddown bolts. He KNOWS that deciding on anything less than the ultimate WILL result in some number of lethal failures....and he makes the decision anyway.) What's special with abortion? It's a decision that we, as a society, allow to a certain class of people we have deemed to have, by virtue of their peculiar relationship to the circumstance, legal standing to make that decision.

KantoSooner

1/16/2012, 11:19 AM

Ouflak, In response to your questions and your pm, I would guess that, if a state banned contraception, all the cases you mention would theoretically be possible. I think that any state authority who tried to enforce 'the law' in such a way, however, would be more likely to be working for repeal than out of zeal. (much like Oklahoma law men who began enforcing, strictly, the liquor laws in the late 1950's to get people riled up to support legalization.)
More likely, any state that decided to ban contraception would end up like Ireland was for a long time; you couldn't get it there but the cops didn't start bedroom searches and didn't even confiscate condoms or pills in people's luggage.
Although Santorum is a frightening religio-facist, his point on this issue is pretty valid. There are a number of decisions currently exercised by the federal government which should more appropriately be made by the state or local governments. It was in this context, I believe, that he made the comment that kicked off this thread.

Dale Ellis

1/16/2012, 11:39 AM

We allow killing of human beings in a number of other circumstances without legal repercussions.

We do not "allow" the killing of other human beings with the exception of abortion. As far as your little seat belt hold analogy, that is far and way the most ignorant attempt at justifying the taking of human life that anyone on this board has ever made. I'll tell you what's special with abortion, abortion is a procedure specifically designed to kill a human being.

With the exception of the death penalty or in some self defense cases, or in instances when someone is defending their life or property from another person, there are absolutely no cases you can site where the knowing and willful murder of another human being is accepted. Hell, if you kill your dog because you decided you don't want to be a dog owner anymore, you can get thrown in jail.

Of course it is, SicEm. But that detracts from the 'pro-life' desire to control sex and women's bodies.

Again, show me where anyone on the pro life side has ever forced a woman to have sex or not have sex. Show me one documented case where any woman was forced by the federal government to get pregnant and have and raise a child. I don't want to control a woman's sex life or her body, I want her to have self control so she doesn't have to murder her unborn child because she doesn't feel like getting fat during bikini season.

The left is all about doing what you want to do, then creating some law that gives you an out. If your a woman that does not want to get pregnant, don't engage in an activity that can cause you to become pregnant. You don't want to get hit by a car, don't stand in the street dumb ***.
"Well what about a woman that uses birth control and the birth control fails?" She should know that no birth control is 100% fool proof, so when she decides to have sex, she does so knowing there is a chance her birth control could fail.

Look, I'm 52 years old, a year and a half ago I had a vasectomy, my wife was on a low dose birth control medication and guess what? She came up pregnant. My vas regenerated and despite the fact my wife was also on a low dose birth control, she still go pregnant. We did not run out and get an abortion, because it "wasn't our fault", and now we have a beautiful 3 week old baby girl.

It has nothing to do with "controlling" anyone's behavior, it has to do with controlling your own behavior and knowing and accepting the responsibilities of the consequences of your behavior.

KantoSooner

1/16/2012, 12:04 PM

Dale, I'll stoop to addressing you directly, though I know you to be pitifully stupid. (Imagine I'm speaking very slowly with careful enunciation, it may help.)

We allow people to kill in numerous circumstances in our society. Self defense, as you cited, immediately after asserting that there were no such exceptions, is one of those. In all such circumstances, the justification is that, in one way or another, the actor has a special relationship to the circumstance. We, as a society, have made the same determination regarding a foetus up to a certain age. The mother has the legal privilege of choosing to terminate the pregnancy.

To place abortion into a different category is to, firstly, make a legal distinction without defining a difference. I choose to call abortion what it is: a killing. I also choose to take the stance that it is a killing that is permissible, like other killings that are legally sanctioned.

Your continued fixation with the supposed 'guilt' of women who get pregnant indicates to me that you are not so much concerned with the life of the foetus as you are with enforcing the 'consequences' of non-procreative sex. That is, you have a perverse concern with what other people are doing sexually and want to have some say in their actions. That, it appears to me is your not so hidden agenda.

By the way, my 20 year old daughter is happy, healthy and beautiful. Japanese latex is not to be trusted.

ouflak

1/16/2012, 03:17 PM

What happens if a woman is found to have an illegal IUD implant? Will it be removed against her consent? What will the other legal punishment(s) be?
What if a cop pulls some teenager for a minor traffic offense and finds a condoms in the kid's wallet? Is this a misdemeanor? Will he be arrested?
What happens if a woman has had her tubes tied, or a man has had a vasectomy, either/both illegally? Will they be forced to have reversal procedures? What are the other legal ramifications?
What happens if a sizable group of highschool kids decide to have a public announcement of their intentions to practice abstinence until marriage? Would they be expelled from school? What would the legal penalties be? Would they be treated as juveniles?
What happens if a married couple that have already had 3 or 4 children, let it be known that they will be using the timing method to ensure that they have no more children and a neighbor/friend/relative reports them to the police or DA? What would the resulting punishments be? How can the enforcement be implemented such that there is insurance that the couple is no longer violating state law?

Ouflak, In response to your questions and your pm, I would guess that, if a state banned contraception, all the cases you mention would theoretically be possible. I think that any state authority who tried to enforce 'the law' in such a way, however, would be more likely to be working for repeal than out of zeal. (much like Oklahoma law men who began enforcing, strictly, the liquor laws in the late 1950's to get people riled up to support legalization.)
More likely, any state that decided to ban contraception would end up like Ireland was for a long time; you couldn't get it there but the cops didn't start bedroom searches and didn't even confiscate condoms or pills in people's luggage.

Well I wasn't exactly proposing any situations as much as I was interested in actually knowing what people on here felt the penalties for the various types of (possibly) banned birth control would be and what Santorum himself would propose as penalties.

Although Santorum is a frightening religio-facist, his point on this issue is pretty valid. There are a number of decisions currently exercised by the federal government which should more appropriately be made by the state or local governments. It was in this context, I believe, that he made the comment that kicked off this thread.

Thanks for this opinion. I asked for context earlier in this thread, but since my post didn't immediately begin by blasting somebody's abortion stance, I was promptly ignored. I think specific answers to the questions would really shed some light on Santorum's context.

KantoSooner

1/16/2012, 03:40 PM

As I understand it, Santorum was being pressed on the general issue of Federalism and was fed a specific application which was designed by the reporter to be inflammatory. To his credit, Santorum gave an intellectually consistent answer. That is, that items like contraception law should be questions decided by the states rather than the federal government. We could disagree, but at least he didn't duck.

ouflak

1/16/2012, 03:52 PM

JohnnyMack

1/16/2012, 03:53 PM

I think SicEm is a Tolkien hating poopy head who should be negged at every opportunity.

Carry on.

Ton Loc

1/16/2012, 04:20 PM

Well if that's the case, it's truly startling how this thread drifted so far away from the actual/original topic.

Not that startling, considering the contributors to the thread. Dale Ellis, Caboose and the other nincompoops have a silent agreement that no political thread shall pass without mention of at least Obama, Abortion, or Illegal immigration.

Dale Ellis

1/16/2012, 06:31 PM

Dale, I'll stoop to addressing you directly, though I know you to be pitifully stupid.
You're obviously too stupid to recognize the difference between killing someone in self defense because that someone is knowingly and willfully, putting your life in danger, and killing an innocent, unborn child because you "feel " like it. This is a typical case of a loud mouth liberal being intellectually dishonest because it's the only way they can justify their opinion.

You have to pretend that killing an unborn child is the same as killing someone who's threatening your life or the life of your loved ones.

We, as a society, have made the same determination regarding a foetus up to a certain age.

This statement shows what a liar you are as well. We as a society have NOT made this determination, a COURT made this determination. Another example of intellectual dishonesty on your part.

Your continued fixation with the supposed 'guilt' of women who get pregnant indicates to me that you are not so much concerned with the life of the foetus as you are with enforcing the 'consequences' of non-procreative sex. That is, you have a perverse concern with what other people are doing sexually and want to have some say in their actions. That, it appears to me is your not so hidden agenda.

Again, you must pretend you don't understand the point I'm making (intellectually dishonest) because you know I'm right. Having sex is an act that has consequences, and if you're not ready to deal with those consequences, don't have sex. It's called being responsible for your actions, something you on the left refuse to accept.

Please provide to me one law, on the books, other than abortion where the killing of innocent life is "sanctioned". You can't because it doesn't exist. Now if you can provide the law, other than abortion, that allows for the killing of an innocent person, do so, otherwise you're just flapping your lips pal. I don't want to hear about seat belt tie down bolts. I want the actual law that gives me permission to kill an innocent person.

KantoSooner

1/17/2012, 10:02 AM

Okay, Pal,
You can shoot a person who you think is a threat, but who it completely innocent and walk.

You can engage in behavior that has known risks, resulting in death of an innocent and walk.

Those are two for instances. As to statute law, go do your own research. I'd suggest the OK criminal code sections on manslaughter and the uniform jury instructions as good jumping off places. A ruler or other straight edge to keep track as you sound out the bigger words might also be of help.

Oh, and a civics 101 brush up pointer: the Supreme Court is part of our society. In fact, hold your breath here, the Supreme Court is that part of our society that is tasked with making precisely this sort of decision.

My 'permissible killing' argument, however, is not what the court used. They cobbled together a 'penumbra of privacy' (if memory serves) argument which, to my mind is not as strong as simply facing the issue squarely.

Buh bye.

Dale Ellis

1/17/2012, 10:17 AM

You can engage in behavior that has known risks, resulting in death of an innocent and walk.

Like rock climbing, or scuba diving or sky diving? Again, a classic case of a liberal stooping to intellectual dishonesty because you know if you accept reality and use logic and common sense, your argument will collapse upon itself.

There's just one tiny little flaw in your argument (and you damn well know it) all these so called behaviors you're citing are entered into by people who know the risks and assume those risks. Your idiotic "seat belt tie down bolt" argument for instance, when I choose to drive my car I do so knowing the risks involved. Do I expect my seat belt to hold and work properly? YES! Do I expect a 0 failure rate for every seat belt in every car on the road? NO!

When I climb on an airplane I do so knowing there is a risk, however slight, that the damn thing could crash. Please explain to me how an unborn child has, by their actions, knowingly put themselves at risk do to a certain behavior they've engaged in, despite the risks. Again, show me the law that allows me to knowingly and purposely kill an innocent person. You can't because it doesn't exist.

Again, you're being intellectually dishonest in an effort to give weight to your argument.

Dale Ellis

1/17/2012, 04:44 PM

Oh, and a civics 101 brush up pointer: the Supreme Court is part of our society. In fact, hold your breath here, the Supreme Court is that part of our society that is tasked with making precisely this sort of decision.

The same way population of inmates in a prison can be considered "part of our society". You said "our society" not the supreme court acting on behalf of our society. By the way, I can't remember when the last time I voted on a supreme court justice, can you?

SicEmBaylor

1/17/2012, 04:45 PM

To be fair, the Supreme Court "tasked" themselves with that responsibility.

Midtowner

1/17/2012, 04:47 PM

The same way population of inmates in a prison can be considered "part of our society". You said "our society" not the supreme court acting on behalf of our society. By the way, I can't remember when the last time I voted on a supreme court justice, can you?

I'm glad...so damned glad that at least one branch is shielded from B.S. politics and punditry which seem to so motivate folks like you.

Midtowner

1/17/2012, 04:49 PM

To be fair, the Supreme Court "tasked" themselves with that responsibility.

And Marbury v. Madison gives a pretty strong argument for the Constitution tasking them with that authority. Besides... you can't really argue that a case which has been unchallenged for over 200 years and which nearly every single SCOTUS case in existence (also not objected to) relies on for jurisdiction.

Well, I guess you can argue that, but you're making an academic argument, not anything which will ever have any effect on the way the government works.

SicEmBaylor

1/17/2012, 04:53 PM

And Marbury v. Madison gives a pretty strong argument for the Constitution tasking them with that authority. Besides... you can't really argue that a case which has been unchallenged for over 200 years and which nearly every single SCOTUS case in existence (also not objected to) relies on for jurisdiction.

Well, I guess you can argue that, but you're making an academic argument, not anything which will ever have any effect on the way the government works.

I don't necessarily have a problem with M v. M so long as states have the right of nullification. The Supreme Court needs a non-Federal counterweight to its power of judicial review.

Dale Ellis

1/17/2012, 05:34 PM

I'm glad...so damned glad that at least one branch is shielded from B.S. politics and punditry which seem to so motivate folks like you.

Yes, and you're so above the punditry aren't you!!! You're about as big a left wing, liberal pundit as there is on this board. Stop being a snob, it's very unbecoming.

Are of the same mindset that someone dying in an auto accident because of a seat belt tie down bolt failure is the same as someone walking into an abortion clinic and aborting her baby?

KantoSooner

1/17/2012, 05:44 PM

...knowingly taking action that will result in death...

But state option would be just fine.

In need, you could always just drive a few states over, do your business and then drive home.

Midtowner

1/17/2012, 06:11 PM

I don't necessarily have a problem with M v. M so long as states have the right of nullification. The Supreme Court needs a non-Federal counterweight to its power of judicial review.

We live in a federal system. That'd go against the basic precepts of federalism.

SicEmBaylor

1/17/2012, 06:21 PM

We live in a federal system. That'd go against the basic precepts of federalism.
Absolutely not true. We have a federalist system created by the individual states. It strengthens not only federalism but the very principles the document was founded upon by providing a "check" on the centralization of power.

Frozen Sooner

1/17/2012, 06:34 PM

Nullification does not fit into the Constitutional scheme, no matter how much you wish it to.

First, it would have the effect of making decisions of the Supreme Court regarding the Constitution subject to the whims of the states. This contradicts the text of the Constitution, extending the judicial power of the federal government to cases arising under the Constitution. The judicial power implies that judgments are binding.

Second, the Constitution provides an explicit method for overruling decisions of the Supreme Court that's available to the States: Constitutional Convention. They made it difficult for a reason.

While both Jefferson and Madison talked about nullification later, it's somewhat telling that the concept doesn't appear in the Farrand Reports, while judicial review does numerous times. If I remember right, nullification also doesn't appear in the Federalist, while judicial review does.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Allowing each state to interpret the document as it will makes that statement a nullity.

47straight

1/17/2012, 07:42 PM

Frozen Sooner

1/17/2012, 07:57 PM

Perhaps if it were completely at odds with Constitutional design a convenient metaphor wouldn't have been adopted.

Midtowner

1/17/2012, 08:41 PM

Dale Ellis

1/17/2012, 09:03 PM

Kanto, I see you are not addressing any of the points of my last argument. Please explain to me how an unborn child has knowingly engaged in some sort of behavior that can cause it's death. Please provide the statute that states it is alright for one person to knowingly and willfully take the life of an innocent person.
Please explain to me how the taking of a life via abortion is the same as the taking of a life via a faulty seat belt tie down bolt. You made that argument, now are you going to man up and defend it or are you going to just continue to hide from your stupidity in hopes no one will notice it?

SicEmBaylor

1/17/2012, 09:51 PM

Perhaps if it were completely at odds with Constitutional design a convenient metaphor wouldn't have been adopted.
The idea of judicial review as the sole means of constitutional interpretation is totally at odds with constitutional design...at least as indicated by the convention itself and a common sense reading of the original document.

The argument that the amendment process is supposed to be the counter-weight to judicial review is patently absurd for any number of reasons:

1) The amendment process requires, in part, Congressional approval which is at odds with the two-tiered "check" philosophy of the Constitution that not only provides checks between the branches but between the state and federal governments. In checking Federal power, you can't require approval from a branch of the Federal government. That is absurd. The Federal government's power can only be checked by state power. The Supreme Court, as a branch of the Federal government, cannot check its own power and Congressional approval should not be the only way to check Federal power in general. Why would the Congress agree to a Constitutional amendment striking a law that it itself passed?

Now, yes, the states themselves can call for a convention and ratify an amendment themselves but that route is impossible for all intents and purposes.

2)The amendment process was not intended to be the means by which the states could repeal an unconstitutional bill that an activist Supreme Court (itself a part of the Federal government) decided is constitutional. If that happened, the US Constitution would be at least as long as the Texas state Constitution and possibly as long as the US tax code. The amendment process was intended to be a means by which the Constitution's framework could be altered for the purpose of further protecting liberty, limiting the scope of government, or in the most extreme cases meeting some sort of major national crisis.

The theory was that Congress would dictate national policy while the President's veto power served as a "check" against Congressional power that overstepped its limits. Judicial review would be a lot easier to accept in place of nullification if the 17th Amendmant had not been ratified. If the states themselves, directly, still had an active partnership in the Federal government (even if only 1/4) then there would be less of an argument for nullification.

As for the Constitution being the supreme law of the land -- yes, it is assuming the laws that are enacted under its guise are fair and constitutional. But unconstitutional acts should not be considered "supreme" by any state or citizen regardless of whether it comes from our bloated out of control centralized government in Rome err Washington.

Dale Ellis

1/17/2012, 11:07 PM

Kanto, you're a coward.

Frozen Sooner

1/18/2012, 12:51 AM

The idea of judicial review as the sole means of constitutional interpretation is totally at odds with constitutional design...at least as indicated by the convention itself and a common sense reading of the original document.

Who said it was? The president can veto legislation that's unconstitutional. Congress can pass legislation circumscribing executive power (so long as it's something not committed to executive discretion).

The argument that the amendment process is supposed to be the counter-weight to judicial review is patently absurd for any number of reasons:

1) The amendment process requires, in part, Congressional approval which is at odds with the two-tiered "check" philosophy of the Constitution that not only provides checks between the branches but between the state and federal governments. In checking Federal power, you can't require approval from a branch of the Federal government. That is absurd. The Federal government's power can only be checked by state power. The Supreme Court, as a branch of the Federal government, cannot check its own power and Congressional approval should not be the only way to check Federal power in general. Why would the Congress agree to a Constitutional amendment striking a law that it itself passed?

Straw man. I specifically said the Constitutional Convention, which does not require the approval of any branch of the federal government.

Now, yes, the states themselves can call for a convention and ratify an amendment themselves but that route is impossible for all intents and purposes.

Simply because the states have not exercised their political will to do so. The Framers made it hard to do for a reason.

The amendment process was not intended to be the means by which the states could repeal an unconstitutional bill that an activist Supreme Court (itself a part of the Federal government) decided is constitutional. If that happened, the US Constitution would be at least as long as the Texas state Constitution and possibly as long as the US tax code. The amendment process was intended to be a means by which the Constitution's framework could be altered for the purpose of further protecting liberty, limiting the scope of government, or in the most extreme cases meeting some sort of major national crisis.

The very first amendment to the Constitution after the Bill of Rights was a response to a case the Supreme Court decided wrongly. Apparently the people who were around contemporaneous to the ratification of the Constitution disagree with you. I don't think the 11th Amendment protected liberty or limited the scope of government. Georgia deciding it wasn't going to pay its bonds to an out-of-state resident wasn't really a major national crisis (well, I guess you could say it was, since Georgia would have ended up defaulting on debts). Anyhow, the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution incorrectly. Congress and the States amended the Constitution to make it clear that sovereign immunity applied even in the diversity case, notwithstanding the language of Article III.

The theory was that Congress would dictate national policy while the President's veto power served as a "check" against Congressional power that overstepped its limits. Judicial review would be a lot easier to accept in place of nullification if the 17th Amendmant had not been ratified. If the states themselves, directly, still had an active partnership in the Federal government (even if only 1/4) then there would be less of an argument for nullification.

There'd probably be more of an argument for nullification if two of the three serious pushes for it weren't naked attempts to oppress people. Or if there was a shred of textual support for it. Or if even the time that Madison and Jefferson attempted it, the majority of states thought it was stupid and said they were wrong.

There'd be a great argument for nullification under the Articles of Confederation, but the framers drafted the Constitution as a response the the AoC not working. They envisioned a document that unified several states into one nation. You don't have a nation when you have fifty different states deciding what is and what isn't the national law.

As for the Constitution being the supreme law of the land -- yes, it is assuming the laws that are enacted under its guise are fair and constitutional. But unconstitutional acts should not be considered "supreme" by any state or citizen regardless of whether it comes from our bloated out of control centralized government in Rome err Washington.

Thanks for the rhetorical flourish and tautology. I didn't say the laws (though of course laws enacted pursuant the Constitution are supreme over state law), I said the Constitution. The Constitution says the judicial power of the federal courts extends to cases arising under the Constitution. That means the states don't have the power to tell the federal courts what the Constitution means or ignore what the federal courts say it means. You can't with one hand say "This body has the power to adjudicate matters arising under this law" then with the other say "But if someone disagrees with that, they don't have to abide by it."

And there is a check on the power to adjudicate constitutional claims, by the way: Congress can withdraw the original jurisdiction of the inferior courts to hear constitutional claims and the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear them. Your boy Ron Paul, in fact, sponsored a bill to do just that a while ago. Orrin Hatch used to do it every so often as well. The bills fail as a matter of course, but hey, that's the democratic process for you. Inferior federal courts have no jurisdiction over ANYTHING without a specific grant of jurisdiction from Congress (subject to bicameralism and presentment, another check) and the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may be modified by Congress (again, subject to bicameralism and presentment).

ouflak

1/18/2012, 03:27 AM

Anybody (besides Kanto) want to give a try at answering some of these hypothetical questions?

What happens if a woman is found to have an illegal IUD implant? Will it be removed against her consent? What will the other legal punishment(s) be?
What if a cop pulls some teenager over for a minor traffic offense and finds a condom in the kid's wallet? Is this a misdemeanor? Will he be arrested?
What happens if a woman has had her tubes tied, or a man has had a vasectomy, either/both illegally? Will they be forced to have reversal procedures? What are the other legal ramifications?
What happens if a sizable group of highschool kids decide to have a public announcement of their intentions to practice abstinence until marriage? Would they be expelled from school? What would the legal penalties be? Would they be treated as juveniles?
What happens if a married couple that have already had 3 or 4 children, let it be known that they will be using the timing method to ensure that they have no more children and a neighbor/friend/relative reports them to the police or DA? What would the resulting punishments be? How can the enforcement be implemented such that there is insurance that the couple is no longer violating state law?

Dale Ellis

1/18/2012, 08:50 AM

Anybody (besides Kanto) want to give a try at answering some of these hypothetical questions?

What happens if a woman is found to have an illegal IUD implant? Will it be removed against her consent? What will the other legal punishment(s) be?
What if a cop pulls some teenager over for a minor traffic offense and finds a condom in the kid's wallet? Is this a misdemeanor? Will he be arrested?
What happens if a woman has had her tubes tied, or a man has had a vasectomy, either/both illegally? Will they be forced to have reversal procedures? What are the other legal ramifications?
What happens if a sizable group of highschool kids decide to have a public announcement of their intentions to practice abstinence until marriage? Would they be expelled from school? What would the legal penalties be? Would they be treated as juveniles?
What happens if a married couple that have already had 3 or 4 children, let it be known that they will be using the timing method to ensure that they have no more children and a neighbor/friend/relative reports them to the police or DA? What would the resulting punishments be? How can the enforcement be implemented such that there is insurance that the couple is no longer violating state law?

do any of these questions have anything to do with over the counter birth control or aborting an innocent child as opposed to someone dying in an accident because they knowingly participated in an activity they knew could potentially be fatal?

Midtowner

1/18/2012, 08:55 AM

You think over-the-counter birth control is abortion???

Read books.

ouflak

1/18/2012, 09:17 AM

Anybody (besides Kanto) want to give a try at answering some of these hypothetical questions?

1. What happens if a woman is found to have an illegal IUD implant? Will it be removed against her consent? What will the other legal punishment(s) be?
2. What if a cop pulls some teenager over for a minor traffic offense and finds a condom in the kid's wallet? Is this a misdemeanor? Will he be arrested?
3. What happens if a woman has had her tubes tied, or a man has had a vasectomy, either/both illegally? Will they be forced to have reversal procedures? What are the other legal ramifications?
4. What happens if a sizable group of highschool kids decide to have a public announcement of their intentions to practice abstinence until marriage? Would they be expelled from school? What would the legal penalties be? Would they be treated as juveniles?
5. What happens if a married couple that have already had 3 or 4 children, let it be known that they will be using the timing method to ensure that they have no more children and a neighbor/friend/relative reports them to the police or DA? What would the resulting punishments be? How can the enforcement be implemented such that there is insurance that the couple is no longer violating state law?

do any of these questions have anything to do with over the counter birth control Yes!

or aborting an innocent child as opposed to someone dying in an accident because they knowingly participated in an activity they knew could potentially be fatal?

Not so much. In my opinion, if you are talking about abortion, you've already left the birth control discussion behind (yes, I do know there is a very particular debatable example in there).

Any possible answers you or anybody would like to hazard to these questions? I think it would be really interesting seeing the different opinions on state control of birth control.

jkjsooner

1/18/2012, 09:35 AM

Edit: Backtracking. I didn't read the full article. It appears this is more about anti-birth control than state's rights.

KantoSooner

1/18/2012, 09:37 AM

Kanto, you're a coward.

No, I just go home at night and do things like have dinner with my family and talk about what we did today and our plans for tomorrow. Same reason I am not on here much duringn the weekends. Since you appear to be obcessed with me, I'd have thought you'd have noticed the pattern.

Go back and reread my previous posts, I've addressed all your issues. In point of fact, I kept condensing my answers to your posts to the point where further shortening is impossible.

You've got your views, I"ve got mine. Happily, the SC and the legal system are on my side, at least for now. I view that as a small evolutionary step on the way better human freedom from the dead hand of mindless traditionalism.

Have a nice life, don't bump into any pointy objects.

Dale Ellis

1/18/2012, 09:46 AM

You think over-the-counter birth control is abortion???

Read books.

where the HELL did I ever say that?

Frozen Sooner

1/18/2012, 09:49 AM

Anybody (besides Kanto) want to give a try at answering some of these hypothetical questions?
What happens if a woman is found to have an illegal IUD implant? Will it be removed against her consent? What will the other legal punishment(s) be?
What if a cop pulls some teenager over for a minor traffic offense and finds a condom in the kid's wallet? Is this a misdemeanor? Will he be arrested?
What happens if a woman has had her tubes tied, or a man has had a vasectomy, either/both illegally? Will they be forced to have reversal procedures? What are the other legal ramifications?
What happens if a sizable group of highschool kids decide to have a public announcement of their intentions to practice abstinence until marriage? Would they be expelled from school? What would the legal penalties be? Would they be treated as juveniles?
What happens if a married couple that have already had 3 or 4 children, let it be known that they will be using the timing method to ensure that they have no more children and a neighbor/friend/relative reports them to the police or DA? What would the resulting punishments be? How can the enforcement be implemented such that there is insurance that the couple is no longer violating state law?

All too speculative to answer, since Santorum proposes no particular legislation here. Before Griswold, some states made sale or possession of contraceptives a felony, some made it a misdemeanor, some didn't care.

I doubt any state law would be worded in such a way as to make 4 or 5 a crime, though state legislatures do churn out some pretty stupid stuff from time to time.

Regardless, moot point.

Dale Ellis

1/18/2012, 09:53 AM

Go back and reread my previous posts, I've addressed all your issues.

Nice try ****** bag, but you didn't address any of my issues. I asked you to provide the law that states it is okay for one person to kill another innocent person, you have not. I asked to explain why you think aborting and innocent unborn child is the same as some one dying in an automobile accident due to a seat belt tie down bolt failure (your argument) and you did not.

I already debunked your "people engage in behaviors that result in the deaths of others" argument, and you had no rebuttal.

You're like most of the liberals on this board, you're very quick to employe the words of others via quoting something you read in a book in one of your college courses yet when you have to actually think on your own, and intelligently present an argument in your own words, you're lost.

I will ask for the fifth time, Please cite the law that states it's legal for me to kill a another innocent person. You can not, because no such law exists. Not even that dim bulb lawyer Midtown is willing to attempt to argue that. I will give him credit for one thing, he knows when he's lost and when he needs to shut his big mouth and move on.

You would be well served to learn the same thing. Hope diner with the family was swell.

ouflak

1/18/2012, 09:57 AM

Anybody (besides Kanto) want to give a try at answering some of these hypothetical questions?

1. What happens if a woman is found to have an illegal IUD implant? Will it be removed against her consent? What will the other legal punishment(s) be?
2. What if a cop pulls some teenager over for a minor traffic offense and finds a condom in the kid's wallet? Is this a misdemeanor? Will he be arrested?
3. What happens if a woman has had her tubes tied, or a man has had a vasectomy, either/both illegally? Will they be forced to have reversal procedures? What are the other legal ramifications?
4. What happens if a sizable group of highschool kids decide to have a public announcement of their intentions to practice abstinence until marriage? Would they be expelled from school? What would the legal penalties be? Would they be treated as juveniles?
5. What happens if a married couple that have already had 3 or 4 children, let it be known that they will be using the timing method to ensure that they have no more children and a neighbor/friend/relative reports them to the police or DA? What would the resulting punishments be? How can the enforcement be implemented such that there is insurance that the couple is no longer violating state law?
All too speculative to answer, since Santorum proposes no particular legislation here. Before Griswold, some states made sale or possession of contraceptives a felony, some made it a misdemeanor, some didn't care.

I doubt any state law would be worded in such a way as to make 4 or 5 a crime, though state legislatures do churn out some pretty stupid stuff from time to time.

Regardless, moot point.

Thanks for replying! And fair enough. Though there do seem to be a couple of opinions within just the last couple of pages of this thread on whether Santorum was referring to state's rights (in which case my questions are not relevant to him in particular) or birth control rights (in which case, he'd have to answer some of these kind of questions, even if the answer was, "We wouldn't go there.").

Anybody else want to give a try at answering some of these questions?

Dale Ellis

1/18/2012, 09:58 AM

No, I just go home at night and do things like have dinner with my family and talk about what we did today and our plans for tomorrow.

Pffft.

"Hey honey how was your day?"
"Swell, how was yours?"
"Swell, tomorrow I'm going to get up and go to work, what are you going to do?"
"The same"
"swell"

That about sum it up pal?

jkjsooner

1/18/2012, 10:07 AM

Yes and the pro-choice crowd uses those circumstances to hold up the weight of their entire pro-choice argument. I find it a bit disingenuous when someone from the pro-choice side of the debates starts talking about "what if the mothers life is in danger?" or "what if the baby is horribly deformed?"

It isn't always the pro-choice people bringing these topics up. In case you've missed it, there have been plenty of attempts to pass laws that would in fact limit the person at risk's option. If you don't want these topics to sway the argument then you need to make sure the pro-life people avoid this topic by not attempting to pass legislation tht would put the mother at risk.

Some pro-life people also argue that these risk cases don't exist or are very rare. This is absoutely false.

I have a SIL who had a tubal pregnancy. She desperately wanted children. If there would have been a way to move that fetus from the tubes to the uterus she would have done it in a heartbeat. That's currently not feasible. In addition, if the baby remains in the tubes and continues to grow, it WILL kill the mother. Period.

There are pro-choice people who are attempting to pass laws that would force a mother of an unviable fetus into death. Maybe you don't agree with their stance but they exist and it's not disingenuous to argue against them.

jkjsooner

1/18/2012, 10:15 AM

Now, I find the practice abhorrent. However, I find having my **** stolen by poor minority kids that should have been given the coat hangar treatment a lot more abhorrent.

You find abortion abhorrent but since it provides economic or social benefits it's justifiable?

Dale Ellis

1/18/2012, 10:23 AM

It isn't always the pro-choice people bringing these topics up. In case you've missed it, there have been plenty of attempts to pass laws that would in fact limit the person at risk's option. If you don't want these topics to sway the argument then you need to make sure the pro-life people avoid this topic by not attempting to pass legislation tht would put the mother at risk.

Some pro-life people also argue that these risk cases don't exist or are very rare. This is absoutely false.

I have a SIL who had a tubal pregnancy. She desperately wanted children. If there would have been a way to move that fetus from the tubes to the uterus she would have done it in a heartbeat. That's currently not feasible. In addition, if the baby remains in the tubes and continues to grow, it WILL kill the mother. Period.

There are pro-choice people who are attempting to pass laws that would force a mother of an unviable fetus into death. Maybe you don't agree with their stance but they exist and it's not disingenuous to argue against them.

I'm not arguing that they do not exist, I'm arguing that it's disingenuous for the pro choice crowd to justify abortion based off of these arguments, when they also want to afford the same right to abort to a woman who just wants an abortion because she doesn't want to get fat. An over simplification? Maybe. However, you can not use one extreme to justify you're behavior then when that extreme circumstance is removed, argue that you should still be afforded the luxury of participating in that same behavior.

The large majority of abortions that women have, have nothing do to with the well being of the mother or with any type of horrible birth defect the child may have. That is a fact.

ouflak

1/18/2012, 10:33 AM

So Dale, jksooner, et al, *IF* the states did start banning birth control of any kind: contraceptives, IUD's, tubal ligation and vasectomies, abstinence, timing method, etc.... What effect do you think this would have on abortion? Should I start a thread on the subject?

Dale Ellis

1/18/2012, 11:03 AM

Frozen Sooner

1/18/2012, 11:08 AM

Don't bother. Dale's gone.

Frozen Sooner

1/18/2012, 11:29 AM

Thanks for replying! And fair enough. Though there do seem to be a couple of opinions within just the last couple of pages of this thread on whether Santorum was referring to state's rights (in which case my questions are not relevant to him in particular) or birth control rights (in which case, he'd have to answer some of these kind of questions, even if the answer was, "We wouldn't go there.").

Anybody else want to give a try at answering some of these questions?

Well, again, it's a moot point. Unless Rick Santorum has absolutely no idea what he's talking about, he knows darn well that those questions will never have to be answered. Why? Because states don't have the power to issue blanket regulations on birth control. Neither do the feds, for that matter. So he gets to issue a neat-sounding snippet to get the state's rights crowd all riled up knowing he's never going to be called to account for it.

47straight

1/18/2012, 11:34 AM

Perhaps if it were completely at odds with Constitutional design a convenient metaphor wouldn't have been adopted.

And thus anything that can't be reduced to jingo-ism won't make the cut.

Frozen Sooner

1/18/2012, 11:41 AM

I'm not sure how jingoism enters this discussion at all. At least how I understand the term.

47straight

1/18/2012, 11:44 AM

And really, at this point, it's an academic discussion, as the Courts aren't about to reverse 200+ years of precedent, nor are they likely to allow 47 and his folks to establish a Christian theocracy.

But maybe you'll get your wish and lock up all them nasty Christians who vote their conscience.

47straight

1/18/2012, 11:46 AM

I'm not sure how jingoism enters this discussion at all. At least how I understand the term.

Of course you don't.

Frozen Sooner

1/18/2012, 11:48 AM

Of course you don't.

Quite the illuminating response. Thanks.

Ton Loc

1/18/2012, 12:28 PM

Jingoism = belligerent nationalism: extreme patriotism expressing itself especially in hostility toward other countries.

I'm not seeing it either.

Of course, I don't know why abortion stuck its ugly head in here either. But if it led to Dale being aborted from the forum....Then I'm definitely for Abortion.

ouflak

1/18/2012, 12:30 PM

I have never argued that the states SHOULD ban birth control. Why do you keep making that leap?

Well.. the title of the thread states: "Santorum: States Should Have The Right To Outlaw Birth Control".

So I'm not actually making a leap. I'm trying to steer this thread on-topic. Sorry I couldn't get this thread civil and on-topic without someone getting banned.

Even if he is just making a useless sound-bite, I still think the topic is an interesting one and worthy of political discussion.
Certainly the questions I chose were 'loaded' to some extent. But I do wonder, what would happen if the states (or the Feds) tried to ban birth control. How would those who suggest such a thing, even in complete absence of reality with respect to state or federal power (and knowing this full well), deal with these kind of questions. If some kind of government were elected that could make the changes to our current laws allowing such a possibility, would it even be practical? Where do you draw the line? Abstinence and Timing methods? Condoms and the pill? IUD and surgical procedures? Knowing what we know now from the experience of a society that has gone through periods of very relaxed sexual attitudes and the opposite, would their be provisions for almost-certain consequences of these laws (increased STDs, increased unwanted pregnancies, underground smuggling of these items and back-alley performance of some presumably illegal procedures)? And it's not like we can't look at other societies and learn from them. There are other countries that have or have had until recently such bans.

I understand it may be 'state's right' issue for Santorum to grand stand. But it is also more than that.

And jeez! This thread has gone on for 20 pages and 90+ percent of it has not even been about the topic in the subject line! Maybe a few posts that are actually on topic would be refreshing.

Frozen Sooner

1/18/2012, 12:46 PM

Dale wasn't banned specifically for what he said in this thread. It was a body-of-work banning. Considering it was just someone who'd already been banned who reregistered the next day under a new handle, he'd played out his rope enough.

Midtowner

1/18/2012, 01:30 PM

But maybe you'll get your wish and lock up all them nasty Christians who vote their conscience.

Nah, I'll just go to court (or rather donate to the ACLU to do it for me) and have whatever the unconstitutional cockamamie of the week they try to legislate declared unconstitutional. I'm not the one trying to lock up anyone for their beliefs.

Fraggle145

1/18/2012, 02:32 PM

Don't bother. Dale's gone.

Thank you. Now the adults can talk.

47straight

1/18/2012, 07:21 PM

Jingoism = belligerent nationalism: extreme patriotism expressing itself especially in hostility toward other countries.

I'm not seeing it either.

My mistake and my apologies. I've used "jingoism" incorrectly.

47straight

1/18/2012, 07:23 PM

Nah, I'll just go to court (or rather donate to the ACLU to do it for me) and have whatever the unconstitutional cockamamie of the week they try to legislate declared unconstitutional. I'm not the one trying to lock up anyone for their beliefs.

Sure you are. If I'm trying to institute a Christian theocracy, you're auditioning to be the counselor at camp reeducation when they're all locked up. And I'm sure you'll remind them that they didn't get locked up for their beliefs, but for being nasty little theocrats and voting their conscience.

Frozen Sooner

1/18/2012, 07:45 PM

My mistake and my apologies. I've used "jingoism" incorrectly.

Fair enough. If you don't mind explaining what you meant, though, I'd appreciate it. While we rarely agree on a lot of these things, as a general rule I value what you have to say.

47straight

1/18/2012, 07:55 PM

Fair enough. If you don't mind explaining what you meant, though, I'd appreciate it. While we rarely agree on a lot of these things, as a general rule I value what you have to say.

My hillbilly ignorance had led me to believe that jingoism meant blindly following a slogan, to ends that fail to even question the meaning of the slogan.

So, when you referenced nullification not being mentioned in the Federalist papers, etc., and I pointed out that maybe if it had just been written into a private letter instead it would have had a chance, and you said "Perhaps if it were completely at odds with Constitutional design a convenient metaphor wouldn't have been adopted," I was disparaging the weight of convenient metaphors. We're left worshipping cute phrases devoid of whatever meaning they might have originally meant.

Windy enough?

Frozen Sooner

1/18/2012, 08:12 PM

47straight

1/18/2012, 08:15 PM

Ah. Well, if you're accusing me of doing so with respect to the "wall of separation", you'll notice I rarely if ever use the phrase. I wouldn't dispute that many out there tend to seize upon bits and pieces to support their view without trying to understand context.

No, it wasn't an accusation that you had done it. Just saying that if we're going to depend on convenient metaphors, to hell with it. Indeed, I was meaning the "many out there" had done it.

My "of course you don't" was reacting to the thought that you hadn't recognized, as you described, the many out there that tend to seize upon bits and pieces.

Frozen Sooner

1/18/2012, 08:19 PM

Something I've noticed about Constitutional law in particular: lay people tend to screw it up a lot.
Another something I've noticed about Constitutional law in particular: so do people with legal or historical training.

Midtowner

1/19/2012, 01:41 PM

Sure you are. If I'm trying to institute a Christian theocracy, you're auditioning to be the counselor at camp reeducation when they're all locked up. And I'm sure you'll remind them that they didn't get locked up for their beliefs, but for being nasty little theocrats and voting their conscience.

Who is talking about locking up anyone? I've never once called for that or for the criminalization of anything aside from better regulation of Wall Street and of the environment (unlike Christianists). I'm for maximum freedom and I'm against Christianists trying to impose their minority world view on the rest of us. I've never suggested they should be locked up, only that their views often run contra to our Constitutional principles and therefore, even when blessed by the legislative process, their actions and views should be struck down by the courts.

Sally Kern anyone?

Midtowner

1/19/2012, 01:51 PM

Speaking of Christianist nutters, OKC's very own Ralph Shortey, Senator for South OKC filed this marvelous bill for the 2012 session:

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

2nd Session of the 53rd Legislature (2012)

SENATE BILL 1418 By: Shortey

AS INTRODUCED

An Act relating to food; prohibiting the manufacture or sale of food or products which use aborted human fetuses; providing for codification; and providing an effective date.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:
SECTION 1. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 1-1150 of Title 63, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
No person or entity shall manufacture or knowingly sell food or any other product intended for human consumption which contains aborted human fetuses in the ingredients or which used aborted human fetuses in the research or development of any of the ingredients.
SECTION 2. This act shall become effective November 1, 2012.

53-2-3065 JM 1/19/2012 12:43:02 PM

These are your people. Wow.. human fetus consumption by people and livestock. Who knew this was a problem?

47straight

1/19/2012, 02:22 PM

Who is talking about locking up anyone? I've never once called for that or for the criminalization of anything aside from better regulation of Wall Street and of the environment (unlike Christianists). I'm for maximum freedom and I'm against Christianists trying to impose their minority world view on the rest of us. I've never suggested they should be locked up, only that their views often run contra to our Constitutional principles and therefore, even when blessed by the legislative process, their actions and views should be struck down by the courts.

Sally Kern anyone?

Riddle me this, then. Who is talking about instituting a Christian theocracy, as you've accused me? I've never once called for that or the criminalization of believing other things.

Oh, you don't like it when someone exaggerates your views and puts words in your mouth? Well then, pathetic hypocrite, don't do it to me.

Joseph Stalin anyone?

KantoSooner

1/19/2012, 03:41 PM

Speaking of Christianist nutters, OKC's very own Ralph Shortey, Senator for South OKC filed this marvelous bill for the 2012 session:

These are your people. Wow.. human fetus consumption by people and livestock. Who knew this was a problem?

I would think that Shorty is trying to get at stem cell research by combining the R&D clause with baby eating.
I have to admit, I kind of admire the sheer off-the-wall wording.

Wonder if he's aware that some of the enzymes used in commercial baking are derived from...human hair. That one's for real, not an overblown fantasy.

Midtowner

1/19/2012, 03:43 PM

I would think that Shorty is trying to get at stem cell research by combining the R&D clause with baby eating.
I have to admit, I kind of admire the sheer off-the-wall wording.

Wonder if he's aware that some of the enzymes used in commercial baking are derived from...human hair. That one's for real, not an overblown fantasy.

Well he also filed the R&D bill.

Guess I'm going to have to move my fetus tissue barbecue up to sometime before session starts. Bummer.

ouflak

1/20/2012, 03:50 AM

Frozen Sooner

1/20/2012, 12:06 PM

The Court would have to explicitly overrule Griswold v. Connecticut. Since there's a huge body of law that's predicated on Griswold, that would have the effect of calling into question whether states could outlaw homosexuality and abortion, among other things. It might even overturn some of the search and seizure jurisprudence, since I think some of the Fourth Amendment cases cite Griswold (don't quote me on that though.)

An amendment stating that the 9th, 4th, and 15th amendments should not be construed to imply a right of privacy would also do it, or even more narrowly an amendment stating that states have the right to regulate birth control.

Midtowner

1/20/2012, 01:55 PM

Frozen Sooner

1/20/2012, 03:03 PM

Whoops. Typo. 5th Amendment, not 15th Amendment, obviously. Sorry about that.

SicEmBaylor

1/20/2012, 10:42 PM

I'm going to leave Dr. Woods and his new book right here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2YaTVRR90g

SicEmBaylor

1/20/2012, 10:45 PM

Let me say that I haven't read his book yet, but I stumbled upon this video tonight and it's in line with some of the things I was arguing.

StoopTroup

1/20/2012, 11:47 PM

Birth Control? Legality? Anything?

Ok, how about this. What kind of changes to constitutional law/precedent would have to occur such that it would be possible for the states to outlaw birth control? Anyone?

1 hour and 27 minutes and 35 seconds into this.....John King asks the Candidates about Abortion. Newt basically tries to doosh King for how he poses the question but then Newt tries to doosh the other candidates as to whether they are Pro-Life. No question as to what kind of changes to constitutional law/precedent would have to occur such that it would be possible for the states to outlaw birth control/abortion....lol. Santorum basically says that Newt and Romney have side-stepped the question of Pro-Life for years.

At 1 hour and 35 minutes and 30 seconds the room erupts as John King nearly tries to keep Ron Paul out of the conversation....that changes. :D

Then Ron Paul (The only guy that's a Doctor) pipes in and basically says he can reverse Row v Wade by calling abortion a violent act and allowing the States to deal with it as such. You then don't have the Government involved in Birth Control or Abortion and you don't need any change to Constitutional Law.

I'm not sure that will fly in this Country as Ron I believe is right that in the 1960's it wasn't the law that changed about abortion....it was the morality of Americans that changed. As a Doctor he believes that if a Woman comes to see him and she's pregnant.....he has two patients. I believe he's right and when you abort your child.....you are killing it. So to keep you from being charged with Murder....the Congress got involved and changed the law. The law won't ever change as to do so....you need to change the morality of the people.

Basically Rick, Newt and Mitt are all full of hot air and using abortion and Pro-Life just shouldn't be a political topic as they lack the will of the people to change and unless the people change you won't change the law.

The best way for them as Pro-Lifers / Christians to change people is to convince folks to be Christians and follow the morality that a Christian Life asks of us. If that occurred...the law wouldn't even matter as most folks would just see the law as something immoral people use to kill their babies to keep from spending the rest of their life in jail. If you as a Christian believe they will answer to God for these acts.....then they are in much bigger trouble than the 25 to Life that murdering your child would probably bring.

Now....were do we go from there? :D

Also...if we took Ron's approach and let States decide....will it lead to also ending the need for Congressional Law to address Stem Cell Research, or cloning etc?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-fU-knxT0U

StoopTroup

1/21/2012, 12:08 AM

I of course remember my Father and Uncle (Both Doctors) discussing these topics in the 1960s. Then girls were I think going to Arkansas to get an abortion and they could get it as long as their Mother or Father was there. I remember the stories they would tell about girls who couldn't or wouldn't tell their Parents and then the Parents were calling them or other Doctors out to try and keep their daughters from hemoraghing to death because they went to someone that said they could help them with their problem. They indeed would abort the child but the Mother would go Home bleeding sometimes and or die of infection or end up sterile for the rest of her life. Some really horrible stories I heard.

I like Ron Paul and Rick Santorum but either of their approach surely can't be the best solution as to go backwards in time and change the law to States law and avoid the entire Morality Issue will lead to mass hysteria.

These are awful solutions they both have as they intend to try and say that this is a Dirty Lib vs Pure Christian Issue and it is an issue of morality and a health issue unfortunately.

The whole thing got out of control back in the 1960-70s and we seem to be stuck with these idiots all trying to use it as a Political Issue instead of them truly trying to do something that is good medicine and good policy and addresses Morality vs your Reproductive Rights as an American.

Chuck Bao

1/21/2012, 01:53 AM

Well.. the title of the thread states: "Santorum: States Should Have The Right To Outlaw Birth Control".

So I'm not actually making a leap. I'm trying to steer this thread on-topic. Sorry I couldn't get this thread civil and on-topic without someone getting banned.

Even if he is just making a useless sound-bite, I still think the topic is an interesting one and worthy of political discussion.
Certainly the questions I chose were 'loaded' to some extent. But I do wonder, what would happen if the states (or the Feds) tried to ban birth control. How would those who suggest such a thing, even in complete absence of reality with respect to state or federal power (and knowing this full well), deal with these kind of questions. If some kind of government were elected that could make the changes to our current laws allowing such a possibility, would it even be practical? Where do you draw the line? Abstinence and Timing methods? Condoms and the pill? IUD and surgical procedures? Knowing what we know now from the experience of a society that has gone through periods of very relaxed sexual attitudes and the opposite, would their be provisions for almost-certain consequences of these laws (increased STDs, increased unwanted pregnancies, underground smuggling of these items and back-alley performance of some presumably illegal procedures)? And it's not like we can't look at other societies and learn from them. There are other countries that have or have had until recently such bans.

I understand it may be 'state's right' issue for Santorum to grand stand. But it is also more than that.

And jeez! This thread has gone on for 20 pages and 90+ percent of it has not even been about the topic in the subject line! Maybe a few posts that are actually on topic would be refreshing.

I will not answer your questions, ouflak. Okay, I may not get any cred from you, but frankly speaking the questions just seem too silly. And, I know that I shouldn't over estimate the intelligence of some state legislatures.

I can show disdain even if I recognize that some people believe that a soul is created at the time of conception.

I don't think that there is anything in the Bible that supports that idea, but I am obviously not a biblical scholar.

I can appreciate the fact that the Catholic church disapproves of contraceptives. Again, nothing scholarly here. I just wonder with 6 billion people on the planet whether we should be so worried and willing to apply morals in terms of contraceptives.

Although I would very much hate that the topic went back to abortion, that isn't supported by biblical and

Frozen Sooner

1/21/2012, 02:26 AM

I'm going to leave Dr. Woods and his new book right here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2YaTVRR90g

No offense man, but I'm not going to waste 38 minutes of my life watching someone from the von Mises Institute explain how his fantasies are actually real. If he's not raising any more points that you've discussed, we've already gone over that ground. If he's got something new, tell me what it is.

Seriously, this is a guy who wants to return to the Articles of Confederation. I'm probably not going to take his interpretation of the Constitution very seriously.

StoopTroup

1/21/2012, 04:42 PM

No offense man, but I'm not going to waste 38 minutes of my life watching someone from the von Mises Institute explain how his fantasies are actually real. If he's not raising any more points that you've discussed, we've already gone over that ground. If he's got something new, tell me what it is.

Seriously, this is a guy who wants to return to the Articles of Confederation. I'm probably not going to take his interpretation of the Constitution very seriously.

Same thing I was trying to say about Ron Paul and his Idea that he could repeal Roe v Wade by just doing a Presidential Order that would end Government's Role in Abortion and Birth Control and allow each individual State to decide if they wanted to fund it and allow it.

You might do that but it's been around 40 years since 1973 (39 years) since the morality these guys are talking about changed in this Country. It might end Government's Role in paying into these funds but it doesn't address the problems that we have in our Society and that is why Roe v Wade was supported and passed in the first place as we as People saw that people were not only killing their kids but risking their own lives over it. Religions may feel they have better answers now and maybe are willing to use money to help and support Women to bring their baby to Term and then put it up for Adoption as a viable option. The thing where Families felt that their Daughter was a Ho, Tramp, Slut...ect seems to have subsided and the pressure that Society put on these girls during Jr. High and HS seems to have subsided. Also....I know The Catholic Church has been much more successful in convincing many young Kids to wait until they are a little older and ready to have Children through their promoting abstinence.

Possibly it would be better to do what Ron Paul is suggesting.

I agree though that these guys who want to return to the Articles of Confederation might be very long gone into some fantasy they have created in their heads.

5thYearSooner

1/23/2012, 09:49 AM

Can we please get back to talking about faggots and whether or not they have the right to get married? They're much more fun to mock, ridicule and make fun of.

WHat would you do if your 4 year old turns out to be a homosexual? Just curious

Midtowner

1/24/2012, 03:18 PM

Anybody (besides Kanto) want to give a try at answering some of these hypothetical questions?

What happens if a woman is found to have an illegal IUD implant? Will it be removed against her consent? What will the other legal punishment(s) be?

By "illegal IUD implant," I guess you'd have to provide more context. I'd say that the answer would depend on how she came across it and how you say it's illegal. If it's not FDA-approved, that's one thing. If someone passes a new law stating that all IUDs are illegal, I'd say that's quite another thing. Different Constitutional and regulatory ramifications all 'round. I'd have a hard time seeing how the government could remove a non-compliant IUD without her consent or punishing her though. Maybe if she had a non-approved IUD implanted in the U.S. by a U.S. doctor, there could be some implications for the doctor, but that's all I can really see happening.

What if a cop pulls some teenager over for a minor traffic offense and finds a condom in the kid's wallet? Is this a misdemeanor? Will he be arrested?

That really can't happen. Connecticut vs. Griswold and progeny (mostly the progeny) would make such a law unconstitutional.

What happens if a woman has had her tubes tied, or a man has had a vasectomy, either/both illegally? Will they be forced to have reversal procedures? What are the other legal ramifications?
What happens if a sizable group of highschool kids decide to have a public announcement of their intentions to practice abstinence until marriage? Would they be expelled from school? What would the legal penalties be? Would they be treated as juveniles?
What happens if a married couple that have already had 3 or 4 children, let it be known that they will be using the timing method to ensure that they have no more children and a neighbor/friend/relative reports them to the police or DA? What would the resulting punishments be? How can the enforcement be implemented such that there is insurance that the couple is no longer violating state law?

Like I said, no state action in any of these cases would be constitutional. I mean Santorum's words are just dead-*** wrong. The states don't have that power.