Is Planned Hamburger more important than the entire good of America?

[Rage Against the McKee]

I don't agree with soup kitchens getting federal funding, either, fwiw.

[Spracne]

I mean, it's ok to get an abortion as long as you are willing to work a little harder to get it. Is that what you're saying?

[Rage Against the McKee]

I mean, it's ok to get an abortion as long as you are willing to work a little harder to get it. Is that what you're saying?

Not at all.

[Spracne]

Sorry, was directed @Yarddog

[Mrs. Gooch]

I mean, it's ok to get an abortion as long as you are willing to work a little harder to get it. Is that what you're saying?

Yeah as long as you are willing to get your abortion from a hack with a dirty knife and a folding table, you should be able to find one.

[Yard Dog]

I mean, it's ok to get an abortion as long as you are willing to work a little harder to get it. Is that what you're saying?

Yeah as long as you are willing to get your abortion from a hack with a dirty knife and a folding table, you should be able to find one.

I am not. I think that abortion is abhorrent and should be illegal. But if we are talking about the shutdown of the federal government over funding PP, I am thinking objectively that the Democrats could spin this into a positive while silencing the GOP about PP.

Mrs. Gooch, are you implying that if PP was defunded that women who were interested in an abortion would no longer have access to abortions from clinics that have sterile environments and are up to code? Because it is easy to see that is not true at all.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Regarding the argument that the moment of birth is an arbitrary distinction as it pertains to the endowment of rights, proponents of that argument would need to resolve the discrepancy between that stance and the Constitution.  Is it fair to only espouse the Constitution when it fits your agenda? The framers of the 14th Amendment certainly felt that birth was the earliest point at which a person should be afforded the rights and protections of a citizen.  They felt it necessary to begin the first section of what would become the most important part of the Constitution with the assertion that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So, before the moment of birth, I don't see how anyone can assert that the rights of the mother are equal or subordinate to the rights of the unborn.

Are we back to making the (absurd) argument that only citzens have rights? That is simply not true. Non-citizens enjoy all sorts of legal protections in this country. If, for example, you went out and murdered an illegal immigrant, you would be prosecuted and convicted of the same murder as if he or she were a citizen.

So basing your argument on the 14th amendment citizenship standard is ridiculous. Moreover, what is the mother's competing "right" under the 14th Amendment to which you refer? Oh yes, that "right to privacy" that isn't actually in the 14th Amendment, but was created by liberal justices in response to a stupid contraception ban. Here's the thing they may not have taught you in ConLaw - there's a difference between stupid laws and unconsitutional laws.

It is particularly ironic that you point to the intent of the "framers of the 14th Amendment." Do you know what the intent of the 14th Amendment was? It was actually quite narrow, and I can guarantee you it didn't cover the "rights" to privacy, contraception, abortion, sodomy, or anything else liberal justices have managed to shoehorn into the Constitution through an absurd distortion of the 14th Amendment. But I guess that's why you call it "the most important part of the Constitution."

Seriously, did some law professor actually feed you this crap, or are you reading it off a blog?

[Spracne]

Regarding the argument that the moment of birth is an arbitrary distinction as it pertains to the endowment of rights, proponents of that argument would need to resolve the discrepancy between that stance and the Constitution.  Is it fair to only espouse the Constitution when it fits your agenda? The framers of the 14th Amendment certainly felt that birth was the earliest point at which a person should be afforded the rights and protections of a citizen.  They felt it necessary to begin the first section of what would become the most important part of the Constitution with the assertion that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So, before the moment of birth, I don't see how anyone can assert that the rights of the mother are equal or subordinate to the rights of the unborn.

Are we back to making the (absurd) argument that only citzens have rights? That is simply not true. Non-citizens enjoy all sorts of legal protections in this country. If, for example, you went out and murdered an illegal immigrant, you would be prosecuted and convicted of the same murder as if he or she were a citizen.

So basing your argument on the 14th amendment citizenship standard is ridiculous. Moreover, what is the mother's competing "right" under the 14th Amendment to which you refer? Oh yes, that "right to privacy" that isn't actually in the 14th Amendment, but was created by liberal justices in response to a stupid contraception ban. Here's the thing they may not have taught you in ConLaw - there's a difference between stupid laws and unconsitutional laws.

It is particularly ironic that you point to the intent of the "framers of the 14th Amendment." Do you know what the intent of the 14th Amendment was? It was actually quite narrow, and I can guarantee you it didn't cover the "rights" to privacy, contraception, abortion, sodomy, or anything else liberal justices have managed to shoehorn into the Constitution through an absurd distortion of the 14th Amendment. But I guess that's why you call it "the most important part of the Constitution."

Seriously, did some law professor actually feed you this crap, or are you reading it off a blog?

Illegal immigrants are persons. The unborn are not included in the definition of persons as used in the 14th Amendment. See Roe v. Wade.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

But is it the government's role to provide abortion services by funding planned hamburger?  If they, planned hamburger did not provide this service, there are others who provide it.  How is a right being denied?  Allies of Planned Hamburger want to spin the horrific of dead baby meat markets to another issue, and not address using public money for this.  Why can't the Hollywood death hounds provide the funding.   May be Bill the Thrill.

If they couldn't sell tissue (that would otherwise be wasted), wouldn't that mean they would have a greater dependence on public funding? Would you rather the fetal tissue be thrown away than used for important research or medical treatment? Abortion is legal; dead fetuses are a byproduct of that legal act; that byproduct can either be discarded or provide a benefit to society through research and treatment.  Revenue from that transaction reduces the need for other funding.  Seems like a win-win for me as a taxpayer and a citizen.

I agree with that line of thinking, but I also think abortion providers would get by just fine without getting taxpayer dollars, and it really shouldn't be our concern even if they can't.

This is not an issue that is near to me, so I don't know all the particulars about how the funding is directed as it relates to specific PP services.  I do know that the amount of funding in question has not reached the general threshold where I feel that I, as a taxpayer, am unduly burdened.  Therefore I defer to the judgment of the legislature that appropriating these funds to subsidize medical care for low-income individuals serves a reasonable policy interest and is probably better than the alternative. Even if there are public dollars subsidizing abortions and the majority thought it inappropriate, (1) abortion is a legal medical procedure, (2) I'm not sure what policy would be advanced by causing poor people to give birth to babies they don't want (at a substantially higher cost to the taxpayer; giving birth is much more expensive than getting an abortion, not to mention the cascade of other benefits that would accrue), and (3) the concept of a cottage industry of abortion loans to low-income individuals seems like it would be much worse than the status quo.

To me, it comes down to morality. I don't agree with legislating morality, therefore I think abortion should be legal. At the same time, I'd rather the US government itself not be immoral. Therefore, I don't support taxpayer dollars being used toward murdering unborn babies.

Do you realize that our entire legal system is based on morality? Are you ok with criminalizing murder? What do you think that's based on?

[Mrs. Gooch]

I mean, it's ok to get an abortion as long as you are willing to work a little harder to get it. Is that what you're saying?

Yeah as long as you are willing to get your abortion from a hack with a dirty knife and a folding table, you should be able to find one.

I am not. I think that abortion is abhorrent and should be illegal. But if we are talking about the shutdown of the federal government over funding PP, I am thinking objectively that the Democrats could spin this into a positive while silencing the GOP about PP.

Mrs. Gooch, are you implying that if PP was defunded that women who were interested in an abortion would no longer have access to abortions from clinics that have sterile environments and are up to code? Because it is easy to see that is not true at all.

No, I'm not saying that would immediately happen; I am taking that need to be "truly resolute" to an extreme. The anti-abortion goal is to make it a bit harder to get an abortion with each step and eventually they would like to make abortion illegal.....in which case you could still get an abortion if you are "truly resolute".

Also, that's a Dirty Dancing reference.

[Rage Against the McKee]

But is it the government's role to provide abortion services by funding planned hamburger?  If they, planned hamburger did not provide this service, there are others who provide it.  How is a right being denied?  Allies of Planned Hamburger want to spin the horrific of dead baby meat markets to another issue, and not address using public money for this.  Why can't the Hollywood death hounds provide the funding.   May be Bill the Thrill.

If they couldn't sell tissue (that would otherwise be wasted), wouldn't that mean they would have a greater dependence on public funding? Would you rather the fetal tissue be thrown away than used for important research or medical treatment? Abortion is legal; dead fetuses are a byproduct of that legal act; that byproduct can either be discarded or provide a benefit to society through research and treatment.  Revenue from that transaction reduces the need for other funding.  Seems like a win-win for me as a taxpayer and a citizen.

I agree with that line of thinking, but I also think abortion providers would get by just fine without getting taxpayer dollars, and it really shouldn't be our concern even if they can't.

This is not an issue that is near to me, so I don't know all the particulars about how the funding is directed as it relates to specific PP services.  I do know that the amount of funding in question has not reached the general threshold where I feel that I, as a taxpayer, am unduly burdened.  Therefore I defer to the judgment of the legislature that appropriating these funds to subsidize medical care for low-income individuals serves a reasonable policy interest and is probably better than the alternative. Even if there are public dollars subsidizing abortions and the majority thought it inappropriate, (1) abortion is a legal medical procedure, (2) I'm not sure what policy would be advanced by causing poor people to give birth to babies they don't want (at a substantially higher cost to the taxpayer; giving birth is much more expensive than getting an abortion, not to mention the cascade of other benefits that would accrue), and (3) the concept of a cottage industry of abortion loans to low-income individuals seems like it would be much worse than the status quo.

To me, it comes down to morality. I don't agree with legislating morality, therefore I think abortion should be legal. At the same time, I'd rather the US government itself not be immoral. Therefore, I don't support taxpayer dollars being used toward murdering unborn babies.

Do you realize that our entire legal system is based on morality? Are you ok with criminalizing murder? What do you think that's based on?

I'm fine with criminalizing murder because it is absolutely necessary to have a functioning society. I do not support the death penalty, though.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Regarding the argument that the moment of birth is an arbitrary distinction as it pertains to the endowment of rights, proponents of that argument would need to resolve the discrepancy between that stance and the Constitution.  Is it fair to only espouse the Constitution when it fits your agenda? The framers of the 14th Amendment certainly felt that birth was the earliest point at which a person should be afforded the rights and protections of a citizen.  They felt it necessary to begin the first section of what would become the most important part of the Constitution with the assertion that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So, before the moment of birth, I don't see how anyone can assert that the rights of the mother are equal or subordinate to the rights of the unborn.

Are we back to making the (absurd) argument that only citzens have rights? That is simply not true. Non-citizens enjoy all sorts of legal protections in this country. If, for example, you went out and murdered an illegal immigrant, you would be prosecuted and convicted of the same murder as if he or she were a citizen.

So basing your argument on the 14th amendment citizenship standard is ridiculous. Moreover, what is the mother's competing "right" under the 14th Amendment to which you refer? Oh yes, that "right to privacy" that isn't actually in the 14th Amendment, but was created by liberal justices in response to a stupid contraception ban. Here's the thing they may not have taught you in ConLaw - there's a difference between stupid laws and unconsitutional laws.

It is particularly ironic that you point to the intent of the "framers of the 14th Amendment." Do you know what the intent of the 14th Amendment was? It was actually quite narrow, and I can guarantee you it didn't cover the "rights" to privacy, contraception, abortion, sodomy, or anything else liberal justices have managed to shoehorn into the Constitution through an absurd distortion of the 14th Amendment. But I guess that's why you call it "the most important part of the Constitution."

Seriously, did some law professor actually feed you this crap, or are you reading it off a blog?

Illegal immigrants are persons. The unborn are not included in the definition of persons as used in the 14th Amendment. See Roe v. Wade.

Sorry bub, you had it right the first time. The 14th amendment does not define "person" - it defines what persons are "citizens." That was the whole point of the 14th Amendment, so that Southern states could not argue that former slaves were not citizens. (Not, by the way, that those slaves had the right to privacy, contraception, abortion, sodomy, etc., etc.).

You really need to sit this one out - you're not nearly as smart as you think you are and you're proving it by continuing this absurd line of argument. Go back to your ConLaw professor and see if you can get a little more help.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

But is it the government's role to provide abortion services by funding planned hamburger?  If they, planned hamburger did not provide this service, there are others who provide it.  How is a right being denied?  Allies of Planned Hamburger want to spin the horrific of dead baby meat markets to another issue, and not address using public money for this.  Why can't the Hollywood death hounds provide the funding.   May be Bill the Thrill.

If they couldn't sell tissue (that would otherwise be wasted), wouldn't that mean they would have a greater dependence on public funding? Would you rather the fetal tissue be thrown away than used for important research or medical treatment? Abortion is legal; dead fetuses are a byproduct of that legal act; that byproduct can either be discarded or provide a benefit to society through research and treatment.  Revenue from that transaction reduces the need for other funding.  Seems like a win-win for me as a taxpayer and a citizen.

I agree with that line of thinking, but I also think abortion providers would get by just fine without getting taxpayer dollars, and it really shouldn't be our concern even if they can't.

This is not an issue that is near to me, so I don't know all the particulars about how the funding is directed as it relates to specific PP services.  I do know that the amount of funding in question has not reached the general threshold where I feel that I, as a taxpayer, am unduly burdened.  Therefore I defer to the judgment of the legislature that appropriating these funds to subsidize medical care for low-income individuals serves a reasonable policy interest and is probably better than the alternative. Even if there are public dollars subsidizing abortions and the majority thought it inappropriate, (1) abortion is a legal medical procedure, (2) I'm not sure what policy would be advanced by causing poor people to give birth to babies they don't want (at a substantially higher cost to the taxpayer; giving birth is much more expensive than getting an abortion, not to mention the cascade of other benefits that would accrue), and (3) the concept of a cottage industry of abortion loans to low-income individuals seems like it would be much worse than the status quo.

To me, it comes down to morality. I don't agree with legislating morality, therefore I think abortion should be legal. At the same time, I'd rather the US government itself not be immoral. Therefore, I don't support taxpayer dollars being used toward murdering unborn babies.

Do you realize that our entire legal system is based on morality? Are you ok with criminalizing murder? What do you think that's based on?

I'm fine with criminalizing murder because it is absolutely necessary to have a functioning society. I do not support the death penalty, though.

That's fine. Just as long as we're clear that the "I don't agree with legislating morality" canard is silly.

[Spracne]

Regarding the argument that the moment of birth is an arbitrary distinction as it pertains to the endowment of rights, proponents of that argument would need to resolve the discrepancy between that stance and the Constitution.  Is it fair to only espouse the Constitution when it fits your agenda? The framers of the 14th Amendment certainly felt that birth was the earliest point at which a person should be afforded the rights and protections of a citizen.  They felt it necessary to begin the first section of what would become the most important part of the Constitution with the assertion that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So, before the moment of birth, I don't see how anyone can assert that the rights of the mother are equal or subordinate to the rights of the unborn.

Are we back to making the (absurd) argument that only citzens have rights? That is simply not true. Non-citizens enjoy all sorts of legal protections in this country. If, for example, you went out and murdered an illegal immigrant, you would be prosecuted and convicted of the same murder as if he or she were a citizen.

So basing your argument on the 14th amendment citizenship standard is ridiculous. Moreover, what is the mother's competing "right" under the 14th Amendment to which you refer? Oh yes, that "right to privacy" that isn't actually in the 14th Amendment, but was created by liberal justices in response to a stupid contraception ban. Here's the thing they may not have taught you in ConLaw - there's a difference between stupid laws and unconsitutional laws.

It is particularly ironic that you point to the intent of the "framers of the 14th Amendment." Do you know what the intent of the 14th Amendment was? It was actually quite narrow, and I can guarantee you it didn't cover the "rights" to privacy, contraception, abortion, sodomy, or anything else liberal justices have managed to shoehorn into the Constitution through an absurd distortion of the 14th Amendment. But I guess that's why you call it "the most important part of the Constitution."

Seriously, did some law professor actually feed you this crap, or are you reading it off a blog?

Illegal immigrants are persons. The unborn are not included in the definition of persons as used in the 14th Amendment. See Roe v. Wade.

Sorry bub, you had it right the first time. The 14th amendment does not define "person" - it defines what persons are "citizens." That was the whole point of the 14th Amendment, so that Southern states could not argue that former slaves were not citizens. (Not, by the way, that those slaves had the right to privacy, contraception, abortion, sodomy, etc., etc.).

You really need to sit this one out - you're not nearly as smart as you think you are and you're proving it by continuing this absurd line of argument. Go back to your ConLaw professor and see if you can get a little more help.

Did you seriously just hit me with that old "bub" canard?

[Mrs. Gooch]

 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Regarding the argument that the moment of birth is an arbitrary distinction as it pertains to the endowment of rights, proponents of that argument would need to resolve the discrepancy between that stance and the Constitution.  Is it fair to only espouse the Constitution when it fits your agenda? The framers of the 14th Amendment certainly felt that birth was the earliest point at which a person should be afforded the rights and protections of a citizen.  They felt it necessary to begin the first section of what would become the most important part of the Constitution with the assertion that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So, before the moment of birth, I don't see how anyone can assert that the rights of the mother are equal or subordinate to the rights of the unborn.

Are we back to making the (absurd) argument that only citzens have rights? That is simply not true. Non-citizens enjoy all sorts of legal protections in this country. If, for example, you went out and murdered an illegal immigrant, you would be prosecuted and convicted of the same murder as if he or she were a citizen.

So basing your argument on the 14th amendment citizenship standard is ridiculous. Moreover, what is the mother's competing "right" under the 14th Amendment to which you refer? Oh yes, that "right to privacy" that isn't actually in the 14th Amendment, but was created by liberal justices in response to a stupid contraception ban. Here's the thing they may not have taught you in ConLaw - there's a difference between stupid laws and unconsitutional laws.

It is particularly ironic that you point to the intent of the "framers of the 14th Amendment." Do you know what the intent of the 14th Amendment was? It was actually quite narrow, and I can guarantee you it didn't cover the "rights" to privacy, contraception, abortion, sodomy, or anything else liberal justices have managed to shoehorn into the Constitution through an absurd distortion of the 14th Amendment. But I guess that's why you call it "the most important part of the Constitution."

Seriously, did some law professor actually feed you this crap, or are you reading it off a blog?

Illegal immigrants are persons. The unborn are not included in the definition of persons as used in the 14th Amendment. See Roe v. Wade.

Sorry bub, you had it right the first time. The 14th amendment does not define "person" - it defines what persons are "citizens." That was the whole point of the 14th Amendment, so that Southern states could not argue that former slaves were not citizens. (Not, by the way, that those slaves had the right to privacy, contraception, abortion, sodomy, etc., etc.).

You really need to sit this one out - you're not nearly as smart as you think you are and you're proving it by continuing this absurd line of argument. Go back to your ConLaw professor and see if you can get a little more help.

Did you seriously just hit me with that old "bub" canard?

Well, I thought it was more polite than calling you a moron.

[Spracne]

A Constitution that could only be interpreted based on a backward-looking
reconstruction of what we think the framers thought at the time (people who among themselves held various opposing views) would be disastrous and not really a constitution at all.

I will concede that your view is not wrong. It just lost.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

A Constitution that could only be interpreted based on a backward - looking

You haven't even finished your thought and I can already tell you're scrambling to switch arguments. Sad.

[Spracne]

Hey Tom, stop being petty.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Sorry to you and others, I tend to get a little mean on this topic. Abortion just really strikes a nerve with me, more so than other things.

[OK_Cat]

Sorry to you and others, I tend to get a little mean on this topic. Abortion just really strikes a nerve with me, more so than other things.

Did your parents abort the Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) baby

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Here's a guide to the planned parenthood videos released so far, complete with easy links to pertinent portions of the videos.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/29/a-quick-and-easy-guide-to-the-planned-parenthood-videos/

These ghouls get $500mil of our money. Per year. They really have a passion for their work.

[wetwillie]

Here's a guide to the planned parenthood videos released so far, complete with easy links to pertinent portions of the videos.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/29/a-quick-and-easy-guide-to-the-planned-parenthood-videos/

These ghouls get $500mil of our money. Per year. They really have a passion for their work.

The DOD gets 100X that and commits many more atrocities, I'd rather focus on defunding them first

[michigancat]

Here's a guide to the planned parenthood videos released so far, complete with easy links to pertinent portions of the videos.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/29/a-quick-and-easy-guide-to-the-planned-parenthood-videos/

These ghouls get $500mil of our money. Per year. They really have a passion for their work.

THAT'S all you've been blabbering about? *Yawn*

[star seed 7]

lol