Is Anyone Watching this Palin Disaster Unfold? What was McCain Thinking? - Page 30 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #291 of 423 (permalink) Old 09-02-2008, 12:02 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR View Post
You seem equally fixated on associating me with the ProLife movement, and thusly, it's "excuses".

I've been consistent in arguing that the uncertainty surrounding the moment of viability, or the absence of real tests that can be agreed upon to establish viability, mean that you have to err on the side of caution - meaning assume the child will gestate to term. Go ahead and argue that an unborn child doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt; or argue that you know empirically that a fetus is inviable and unable to respond to sensory stimulation before a certain date.

If a viability test can be agreed upon, I'm all behind it. Roe v. Wade isn't it.
I only associate you with ProLife because of what I have seen you write in the past year or so. Nothing to be ashamed of. You defend the position better than most anyone I talk with and I do not use the term as a slur. I simply use the term as THEY use it and as your writings have fit into that description. They fit like a glove.

We have talked about this issue from a Biology standpoint and you don't like the thresholds that most physicians and biologists have described because they don't fit your idea. We have talked about it from a Political standpoint and that is usually worthless as we both agree. We have talked about it from a Moral standpoint and you don't like that because it intertwines other moral issues that muddle your conviction somewhat. That leaves Legal which you have brought up several times. You suggest that it must be legally wrong. If that is your opinion, you are obligated to take action instead of just talking about it. I think, however you are going to be disappointed.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #292 of 423 (permalink) Old 09-02-2008, 12:15 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
I only associate you with ProLife because of what I have seen you write in the past year or so. Nothing to be ashamed of. You defend the position better than most anyone I talk with and I do not use the term as a slur. I simply use the term as THEY use it and as your writings have fit into that description. They fit like a glove......
McBear's corollary to the OJ Legal Principle of "If the glove don't fit you must acquit" seems to be "If the glove do fit you can't acquit."

Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #293 of 423 (permalink) Old 09-02-2008, 12:33 PM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,252
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove View Post
Nice moral argument, but where you err is in not realizing that abortion is a legal, not moral argument.

The COTUS does not concern itself with "viability", that question is already decided in the 14th Amendment, which specifies that a US citizen, a class of human beings the COTUS states is entitled to rights under the COTUS, is someone who has been "naturally born or naturalized". Read it yourself.

It gives no rights to anyone (or thing to you anti-zygotes) who has not actually been born yet- that is the settled law on which Roe v Wade is based, none of the actual legal arguments have anything to do with the "viability" red herring.

The second point of law is in the 13th Amendment, which states no citizen shall be forced to endure involuntary servitude. Motherhood, like it or not, is servitude. The very basis of the American Idea is the idea that we all have an ultimate right to control our own destiny if we live lawfully, and that the state has no business to decide what our destiny shall be other than to take that right to determine our own destiny away if we break the law - an idea born of The Revolution of 1776 against the idea that some of us are "noble" and others "commoners". Our revolution said there is no distinction legally from the rights of one person to those of another, and this idea emanating from the Declaration of Independence was finally codified directly in the COTUS in 1865 in the 14th Amendment.

If abortion was illegal, women would no longer have that right, their choice of personal destiny would not be that of their own, but of the state, which would command her to have a child and to spend a third of her life raising it. Abortion, which may or may not be immoral from one person to the next, is legal.
This is an interesting, if not somewhat skewed interpretation of the law. Using the COTUS as the sole benchmark to define crimes against others is fallacious; the COTUS does not contain the words "woman" nor "murder" for example, because it does not codify any of the laws designed to define and thusly protect the liberty of Americans. That's up to the states.

Speaking of which, in direct contradiction to the assertion that no unborn American is entitled to any such protections, there are numerous state laws which establish separate definitions for crimes committed against the unborn.

It is this contradiction that the Supreme Court must address. Either state laws which carry penalties for crimes committed against the unborn are unconstitutional, or the Roe v. Wade decision is fatally flawed (pardon the pun).

I won't dignify your 13th amendment angle with a response; it was humorous though.
Qubes is online now  
post #294 of 423 (permalink) Old 09-02-2008, 12:34 PM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,252
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
As an only myself, I know my parents went through that issue with questions all the time. "Health" was apparently not a good enough answer. And wifie and I have gotten it for years. Her spinal fusion keeps her from having kids and both of our travel schedules keeps us from being able to adopt [we have tried].

There is NO easy answer which is why I hold those who quickly say "haven't you people considered adoption as an alternative" to the fire. Seems many want it both ways. They don't want others to have choice but don't want to pick up the slack for adopting those kids that they want to force to be born themselves.
That adoption is drawn as an equivalent to an absence of choice is nauseating.
Qubes is online now  
post #295 of 423 (permalink) Old 09-02-2008, 12:37 PM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,252
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
You might want to check with state Foster Care agencies to see what the UNSCREENED children deal with. You only cherrypicked with those googles.

And remember, we are talking about US children here. THAT is the Roe v Wade issue at hand. Importing kids when US kids need adoption is another problem altogether.

As for companies making loans for adoptions, you don't think they might be doing that for profit do you? As I said, healthy white babies have no problem getting adopted.
1) I cherry-picked nothing; I didn't want to spend hours hashing through results that appeared identical in nature.

2) Loan companies wouldn't offer adoption loans if there WEREN'T a market for them. My point exactly. Giving a baby up for adoption is not only humane, it could be profitable to exactly the demographic being described (young, unemployed/unwealthy, probably living a somewhat difficult life), as there's no shortage of demand.
Qubes is online now  
post #296 of 423 (permalink) Old 09-02-2008, 12:40 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR View Post
This is an interesting, if not somewhat skewed interpretation of the law. Using the COTUS as the sole benchmark to define crimes against others is fallacious; the COTUS does not contain the words "woman" nor "murder" for example, because it does not codify any of the laws designed to define and thusly protect the liberty of Americans. That's up to the states.

Speaking of which, in direct contradiction to the assertion that no unborn American is entitled to any such protections, there are numerous state laws which establish separate definitions for crimes committed against the unborn.

It is this contradiction that the Supreme Court must address. Either state laws which carry penalties for crimes committed against the unborn are unconstitutional, or the Roe v. Wade decision is fatally flawed (pardon the pun).

I won't dignify your 13th amendment angle with a response; it was humorous though.
Both Amendments were cited in the Roe decision for the reasons I indicated, but it was the 14th that carried the greatest weight.

The laws you cite are routinely found unconstitutional.

The Supremecy Clause of the COTUS makes all decisions of the Supreme Court binding on the states, there is no "contradiction".

It's amazing what 30 years of volunteer computer work for the ACLU can teach you about the law.

From Roe V Wade:
Quote:

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; 53 in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. 54

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address

Last edited by FeelTheLove; 09-02-2008 at 12:50 PM.
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #297 of 423 (permalink) Old 09-02-2008, 12:41 PM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,252
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
I only associate you with ProLife because of what I have seen you write in the past year or so. Nothing to be ashamed of. You defend the position better than most anyone I talk with and I do not use the term as a slur. I simply use the term as THEY use it and as your writings have fit into that description. They fit like a glove.

We have talked about this issue from a Biology standpoint and you don't like the thresholds that most physicians and biologists have described because they don't fit your idea. We have talked about it from a Political standpoint and that is usually worthless as we both agree. We have talked about it from a Moral standpoint and you don't like that because it intertwines other moral issues that muddle your conviction somewhat. That leaves Legal which you have brought up several times. You suggest that it must be legally wrong. If that is your opinion, you are obligated to take action instead of just talking about it. I think, however you are going to be disappointed.
I still don't recall seeing agreed upon biological tests for fetal viability or response to sensory stimulation...I do recall reading that the latter happens far earlier than most would think.

I take exception to the classification of my stance with regard to abortion as being rooted in morality, or having it somehow nullified because of my beliefs regarding capital punishment, which I've already said can go away without objection.

As I responded to FTL, the next challenge (in my uneducated opinion) to Roe v. Wade will come in the form of resolving the conflicts which have cropped up at the state level. What these laws say today is that "Nobody can hurt a fetus except mom." That's asinine. Either it's to be protected, or it isn't. No double-standards. And none of this "it's a parasite" or "it's her body" or "you can't play God" bullshit - all of that is static. It's inaccurate, or just plain wrong.
Qubes is online now  
post #298 of 423 (permalink) Old 09-02-2008, 12:50 PM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,252
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove View Post
Both Amendments were cited in the Roe decision for the reasons I indicated, in fact the 13th carried the greatest weight.

The laws you cite are routinely found unconstitutional.

The Supremecy Clause of the COTUS makes all decisions of the Supreme Court binding on the states, there is no "contradiction".

It's amazing what 30 years of volunteer computer work for the ACLU can teach you about the law.
Indeed.

So, what's your thought on this?

States expand fetal homicide laws
States expand fetal homicide laws
By Christine Vestal, Stateline.org Staff Writer, and Elizabeth Wilkerson, Special to Stateline.org



A wave of new state fetal homicide laws recognizing a fetus “of any gestational age” as a person and potential crime victim has abortion rights advocates worried the statutes could undermine a woman’s right to end her pregnancy.
This year, Alabama, Alaska, Oklahoma, South Carolina and West Virginia passed new fetal homicide statutes making it a separate offense to kill a fetus when a pregnant woman is murdered or assaulted. All five new laws apply to fetuses starting at conception.

Among the 37 states with laws making death of a fetus a separate crime, language giving legal status to a fetus at the earliest stages of pregnancy is proliferating. While often enacted in response to a high-profile crime such as the 2002 Modesto, Calif., murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Connor, these laws are increasingly being drawn into the abortion debate.

States are using cookie-cutter language in fetal homicide laws, assigning legal rights to fetuses “at any gestational age,” said Sondra Goldschein, state strategies director for the American Civil Liberties Union’s Reproductive Freedom Project. A 2004 federal law -- the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act” -- takes the same approach.

Georgia and Nebraska amended existing laws to specify that a fetus of any gestational age is considered a person and a potential victim, according to the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion rights research group. The previous law in Georgia included only viable fetuses, and in Nebraska, no gestational age was specified.

Among states that are part of this trend, Arizona passed a feticide law defining a fetus at any stage of development as a potential crime victim in 2005, and similar statutes were enacted in Kentucky and Mississippi in 2004 and in Colorado and Texas in 2003.

While fetal homicide statutes have been on some state law books since the early 1970s, many did not stipulate when a fetus became a person and potential crime victim, leaving courts to decide whether the death of an early-term fetus constituted a separate crime in maternal murder cases.

Abortion rights advocates argue the new laws are part of a legal strategy to establish that life begins at conception. “It’s the elevation of the status of the fetus that is going to erode the right to access abortion,” Goldschein said.

Anti-abortion groups promote the laws, saying fetuses should be recognized as living human beings. But there is disagreement about whether the laws are part of a legal strategy to chip away at abortion rights.

"In as many areas as we can, we want to put on the books that the embryo is a person. That sets the stage for a jurist to acknowledge that human beings at any stage of development deserve protection -- even protection that would trump a woman's interest in terminating a pregnancy," Samuel B. Casey, Executive Director of the Christian Legal Society was quoted saying in a 2003 Los Angeles Times article.

But Denise Burke, vice president of the anti-abortion advocacy group Americans United for Life, said the “laws specifically exclude abortion from coverage. They have nothing to do with the woman’s decision as to her pregnancy. These [laws] involve cases where women have chosen to have their children and to carry their children to term, and no one else has a right to end that pregnancy against their will.”

The link between state fetal homicide laws and the abortion debate has been made in the past.

In a 1984 presidential election debate, Ronald Reagan cited the California feticide law – passed in the early 1970s -- as support for regarding abortion as murder, asking: “Isn’t it strange that that same woman could have taken the life of her unborn child and it was abortion, not murder, but if somebody else does it, that’s murder?”

The new fetal homicide laws are among the most prevalent state legislation related to the abortion issue in recent years, according to Kathryn Prael of NARAL Pro-Choice America. In 2005, state lawmakers proposed more of these bills than bills directly restricting abortion, she said.

Though fetal homicide laws have faced legal challenges on the grounds they conflict with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion, none has been struck down.

The ACLU, NARAL and other abortion rights groups oppose laws that make fetal death a separate crime, but support stiffer penalties for those convicted of murdering or assaulting pregnant women. According to Goldschein, murder is the No. 1 cause of death in pregnant women.

“If lawmakers really wanted to stop violence against women, they could do other things like putting money into anti-domestic-violence programs and looking at why this is such a problem,” she said. “It’s no coincidence that the lawmakers introducing feticide bills are the same ones pushing anti-abortion bills,” she added.

Still, those in favor of fetal homicide laws say tougher penalties are not enough.

“Most people who murder two people are going to get a longer prison term than those who have murdered one. It sends a strong message to the families, to society and to the offenders that there were two lives lost here,” Burke said.

Several states have multiple feticide laws for manslaughter, first- and second-degree murder and recently states have passed laws protecting the fetus in vehicular murder while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

In all, 37 states have one or more fetal homicide laws, with 24 states defining a fetus as a person and a separate homicide victim. In Maine and 12 other states, the laws apply stiffer punishments for murdering a pregnant woman, but do not make the death of the fetus a separate crime.

While most fetal homicide laws in the last three years have given legal rights to fetuses starting at conception, two states have taken the opposite approach.

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) signed a feticide law last year that specifically stated legal rights were not conferred on a fetus, and Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich (R) signed a law that made clear “fetal personhood” was not established. Both laws make the death of only viable fetuses a second homicide in maternal murder cases.

Send your comments on this story to letters@stateline.org. Selected reader feedback will be posted in the Letters to the Editor section.
Contact Christine Vestal at cvestal@stateline.org.
Qubes is online now  
post #299 of 423 (permalink) Old 09-02-2008, 01:03 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Mar 2006
Vehicle: 1999 ML320
Location: Ratville
Posts: 24,029
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 310 Post(s)
This is one long commercial break.
mlfun is offline  
post #300 of 423 (permalink) Old 09-02-2008, 01:06 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR View Post
That adoption is drawn as an equivalent to an absence of choice is nauseating.
You are the one that posited that opinion. Not me. Earlier in this thread.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Sarah Palin DP Off-Topic 103 09-01-2008 01:16 AM
    rear seats fold & unfold, help !!! khmer00ml320 W163 M-Class 1 03-19-2006 01:12 PM
    An Unnatural Disaster Alfa Off-Topic 25 09-12-2005 09:19 AM
    DVD success - Michael Palin - Sahara flick is worth the wait Thomas.Schumacher G-Class 5 04-14-2005 08:39 PM
    Key for my '98 won't unfold shkeller55 W163 M-Class 8 12-25-2002 06:35 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome