Va. Lawmaker: Disabled Kids are God's Punishment for Abortion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Banjo said:
God should had stopped on the 5th day so we wouldn't have this debate.
Click to expand...

:hmm: God may agree.......maybe not. :dunno:
 
TXgolfer said:
Do they? Do they not? Who decides? Can a woman decide a fetus doesn't have constitutional rights? Only the courts get to decide what is constitutional.

And they did decide......are they allowed to reconsider? I am pretty sure the allows the to reconsider if a case is brought before them.
Click to expand...

They don't. The Constitution makes it clear that those who are BORN on US soil or naturalized have Constitutional rights bestowed by our Constitution. Since a fetus is not yet born, it doesn't have the rights.

Why do we need courts to get involved with women's decisions on her reproductive choices? It's not yours to decide.

Illegal immigrants are a good example.....do they have con rights?
Click to expand...

Constitutionally, no however we cannot assume that an immigrant is illegal or not and if we just make assumptions about immigrants, we'd be in big trouble. I mean, imagine a cop telling the immigrant, "I think you're illegal therefore I'll treat you like a criminal!" only to find out that the immigrant is naturalized and have Constitutional rights... can you imagine big lawsuits? It's better to assume that he has constitutional rights rather than to be faced with legal lawsuits or have the immigrant get away if he did commit the crime based on a technicality.
 
TXgolfer said:
Sounds very much like a pro states rights argument .....

I have often said that if you let states decide then people migrate to states that fit them......especially on issues they considered important. Make sense for abortion, capital punishment,drugs and many other areas. It would also be one great sociological experiment to watch.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I would rather have it at a city-state level.

Dunno... the Hutterites and Amish kinda influence the miniarchist in me. I am glad that in Canada, provinces have more rights than the federal government does-- unlike what seems to be going on in the States.
 
souggy said:
We're like cockroaches: impossible to eradicate!
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but there is one way to reduce the worldwide population to roughly 400 to 600 million.

How?

By getting rid of the coal factories and oil refineries.
 
netrox said:
They don't. The Constitution makes it clear that those who are BORN on US soil or naturalized have Constitutional rights bestowed by our Constitution. Since a fetus is not yet born, it doesn't have the rights.

Why do we need courts to get involved with women's decisions on her reproductive choices? It's not yours to decide.



Constitutionally, no however we cannot assume that an immigrant is illegal or not and if we just make assumptions about immigrants, we'd be in big trouble. I mean, imagine a cop telling the immigrant, "I think you're illegal therefore I'll treat you like a criminal!" only to find out that the immigrant is naturalized and have Constitutional rights... can you imagine big lawsuits? It's better to assume that he has constitutional rights rather than to be faced with legal lawsuits or have the immigrant get away if he did commit the crime based on a technicality.
Click to expand...

I am not trying to "decide". This is not a high priority issue to me.

Apparently the courts disagree with you and have found cases relevant enough to hear.

On your illegal immigrant stance.....two ?s

A) How about IDs

B) Are you saying if an II walked into an ER and said I am an II but I need help the hospital could LEGALLY deny that person help? I mean the issue of assumption is moot in this case????
 
Reba said:
That's what Americans used to ask about black slaves. :(
Click to expand...

True, but the problem with the whole fetal right is that there's no clear distant line where the rights of the mother ends and where the rights of the fetus begins.

With slavery, it's an ownership of property problem (and scientific racism after Galton brought up his dumb theory.)
 
Banjo said:
Perhaps, but there is one way to reduce the worldwide population to roughly 400 to 600 million.

How?

By getting rid of the coal factories and oil refineries.
Click to expand...

but aren't those things bad for our health?
 
netrox said:
They don't. The Constitution makes it clear that those who are BORN on US soil or naturalized have Constitutional rights bestowed by our Constitution. Since a fetus is not yet born, it doesn't have the rights.
Click to expand...
Not quite right.

Certain rights, such as voting and holding federal offices, have citizenship requirements. Other rights, such as relating to speedy trials and Miranda statements, cover all who are on American soil. (Note, that's why the big argument about trying foreign terrorists in American courts.)

Also, rights are not bestowed by the Constitution. The "Bill of Rights" assume rights in existence and list them with the admonishment that these existing rights shall not be abridged or hindered in any way by the government. Read especially # IX.

The Constitution is not giving those rights but protecting them from the government and providing an orderly way to maintain them.
 
Lighthouse77 said:
but aren't those things bad for our health?
Click to expand...

Yes... however, the irony is that they are the very reason why we have a population of 6 billion. With oil and coals, we can sustain more life on Earth. WIthout them, we wouldn't be able to sustain more than a population of 500 million...
 
souggy said:
True, but the problem with the whole fetal right is that there's no clear distant line where the rights of the mother ends and where the rights of the fetus begins.
Click to expand...
The rights of one individual stop at the point where they interfere with the rights of another.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

With slavery, it's an ownership of property problem (and scientific racism after Galton brought up his dumb theory.)
Click to expand...
Isn't that the same with abortion? Women claim ownership of whatever is in the uterus? Who owns the fetus/baby?

:hmm:
 
Reba said:
The rights of one individual stop at the point where they interfere with the rights of another.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."


Isn't that the same with abortion? Women claim ownership of whatever is in the uterus? Who owns the fetus/baby?

:hmm:
Click to expand...

Right, but when they share the same body... it's a grey area. Nice libertarian quote there by the way.

Slaves and their owners don't share the same body.
 
Is anyone here familiar with the history of Home Children? Just asking since nobody commented on that one.
 
Banjo said:
Is anyone here familiar with the history of Home Children? Just asking since nobody commented on that one.
Click to expand...

The ones that Stephen Harper refused to apologize for because it's a British policy, not Canadian policy?
 
souggy said:
The ones that Stephen Harper refused to apologize for because it's a British policy, not Canadian policy?
Click to expand...

Yep, that one. It was Canadian Immigration Minister Jason Kenney who refused to apologize, not Stephen Harper.
 
souggy said:
Right, but when they share the same body... it's a grey area. Nice libertarian quote there by the way.

Slaves and their owners don't share the same body.
Click to expand...

That gray area is the reason an independent decision is needed.
 
TXgolfer said:
That gray area is the reason an independent decision is needed.
Click to expand...

:gpost: That's why the line should be drawn by the mother, who knows the number of weeks gestation, and other circumstantial information that the government simply could never keep track of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top