Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ Markus_Katabri 2 years, 5 months ago
    I’m not as much Pro-Choice as I am Anti-Coercion. So there’s the rub.
    Seeing the hypocrisy on display by the Pro-Abortion camp is very mind blowing. Our Body’s our Choice, doesn’t mean what it used to mean before the mandates.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 2 years, 5 months ago
    Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution period, you know, as an inalienable right.
    Therefore, any restrictions as well as its legality period is up to each state and the legal citizens within it to decide what's what.
    Good decision.
    Wondering if the Democrat majority of both houses will try to pack the Supreme Court now. That could pretty well kill the USA as we know it.
    Just read elsewhere that Dick's Sporting Goods will pay the travel expenses of any employee who wants an abortion. Free country. So is where you want to shop.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ CBJ 2 years, 5 months ago
      RE: “Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution period, you know, as an inalienable right.” Neither is gay marriage or contraception. Ninth Amendment should apply here.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ allosaur 2 years, 5 months ago
        Me dino checked out the Ninth Amendment in one of my three little Constitution booklets the donation-seeking conservative groups have mailed me free over the last 10 or longer years.
        I could not see how the "Ninth Amendment should apply here."
        On my PC I found an interesting link if albeit for kids~~
        https://kids.laws.com/ninth-amendment
        Scroll down to "Modern Use of the Ninth Amendment"
        Read the second sentence, please, for the sake of polite argument.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ CBJ 2 years, 5 months ago
          Okay, I read the sentence you mention, which states: “Sometimes, courts try to use the Ninth Amendment as a way to provide and enforce rights that are not actually talked about in the Constitution.” I think this reinforces the point I was making – that the Ninth Amendment should have applied in this case, in regard to the right to terminate a pregnancy. As I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread, Ayn Rand considered this to be a “moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved . . .”

          Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by VetteGuy 2 years, 5 months ago
            The issue I see with the 9th amendment is that anyone can claim anything is a right. Health care, free college, 'equity'. Just for starters. Who gets to decide? On what basis?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 years, 4 months ago
              The 9th Amendment applies to "others retained by the
              people." That means natural rights, inborn, not granted by the government, and not given over to the State (or nation.) It does not mean just rights recognized by "tradition", as Alito mentioned, such as the English common law tradition which said a husband had the right to beat his wife "in moderation" .)(see
              Blackstone's Commentaries.) If all we have to depend on is "tradition", we have not much protection from the government at all. And if one is concerned with rights, there is hardly a right that could be named that is more fundamental than the right over one's own body.
              There still remains the question whether there is one body there, or whether another person's body is concerned there, in the womb.But how is it considered at the end of life? I believe that when a person is dying and on life suppport, when the brain waves cease, they pull the plug. If that is the standard at the end of life, isn't it logical that it should apply at the beginning?
              It is my understanding the brain waves appear in the fetus shortly before it is 3 months along. So wouuldn't that determine when it becomes a conscious being?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by VetteGuy 2 years, 4 months ago
                Brain waves would be a logical dividing line. Ability to feel pain might work. Ability to survive outside the womb would be logical as well. I take issue with the extremes of 'conception' and 'up until birth' as being not very objective, although the DNA argument presented elsewhere in this thread at least has some logic behind it.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ allosaur 2 years, 5 months ago
            Me dino agrees with almost everything Ayn Rand has said and written. On this? Not so much.
            While I sympathasize with women who have unexpected pregnacies, it's my opinion that abortion is murder~~and as an industry a grotesque massacre of innocents with sickening slaughterhouses that sell baby parts.
            The Catholic Church says people should not use contraceptives. I don't agree with that at all! And that's only one of several reasons me an old dino became an ex-Catholic when I was age 20 or so.
            Way, way back them me dino was no Mr. Perfect but found condoms to be very cheap.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ CBJ 2 years, 5 months ago
              You said earlier that you could not see how the Ninth Amendment should apply here. I replied with evidence showing why it should, citing the plain text of the amendment itself. The issue isn’t whether one “sympathizes” with women who have unexpected pregnancies, or whether abortion is “grotesque” or “sickening” – the issue is simply whether a woman has the moral right to terminate a pregnancy. If you disagree with Ayn Rand on this issue, then for the “sake of polite argument” you should spell out logically why you think she was mistaken, and why – based on Objectivist principles – you think abortion should not be a woman’s choice in a free society.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ allosaur 2 years, 5 months ago
                Had this conversation before. Someone no longer on this board once argued that Ayn Rand correctly contended that a baby is a fetus subject ot abortion until it is born and added, "It's that simple."
                Is it? There is something that did not occur to me back then. Premature births that do not enjoy the full span of a nine full months. Premature births that even required intensive emergency care have grown up to become productive citizens who father or mother children of their own.
                So what is a premature birth who manages to survive? A fetus or a baby? Well, I contend that it lies there hopefully able to cry outside of the womb-~breathing with a heart beating~ so therefore that's a baby. A human being baby who, in this country, has the same Constitutional rights as any other American baby for being a person.
                At what point does a baby, okay, call it still a fetus for being on the inside instead of the outside, becomes an individual with a human right to life? Such as a baby born prematurely? That's a question post Roe vs Wade states will have to deal with should abortion limitations be considered from state to state.
                And at what point does an abortion become a criminal murder or a justified homicide? The word homicide simply means the killing of a human being, by the way.
                So when does fetus or a baby become a human being. Nine months after conception when it pops out of mama? I don't think so.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ CBJ 2 years, 5 months ago
                  You didn’t really answer my question, or your own. You made the blanket statement, “Abortion is murder.” Do you really believe that a fetus is a human being (with rights) from the moment of conception? That a woman who chooses an abortion six weeks into her pregnancy is a murderer? If so, then for the “sake of polite argument” you need to justify this position using Objectivist principles, especially with reference to the rights of the pregnant woman.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ allosaur 2 years, 5 months ago
                    Believe I have answered the question. I don't know if I should chose the moment of conception when the heart starts to beat after six weeks (so I believe that's what I recently heard on TV).
                    And what if it's determined having a baby will kill the mother? I do believe she has a right to make a choice then.
                    I'm not going to pretend I'm a big time philosopher who knows everything. I do know one thing. Even a big time philosopher is an imperfect human being subject to error.
                    Saw a photo of three women (1 black, 2 white) in a composite photo on my PC screen yesterday.
                    All three escaped a late term abortion by being inconveniently born at the moment they were supposed to killed.
                    That's three times an abortionist (a doctor or not) decided not to commit infanticide aka first degree murder. I suppose that's three times that could have been covered up with some fetus disposal procedure. Bet that has happened plenty of times.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ CBJ 2 years, 5 months ago
                      I didn’t ask you to pretend you’re a big time philosopher (whatever that is). Since you made the blanket statement, “Abortion is murder,” I simply asked you whether you think that a woman who chooses an abortion six weeks into her pregnancy is a murderer.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ allosaur 2 years, 5 months ago
                        There's a school of thought that abortions should be restricted within six months before there is a heartbeat.
                        I find myself undecided about that. So I made a blanket statement without factoring in that uncertainty.
                        Me dino admits that I too am not perfect. So what?
                        I have better things to do than quibbling over this.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ gharkness 2 years, 5 months ago
              Once the product of an action becomes a sellable commodity, all the "morality" is stripped from it. Not that there's anything immoral about producing and selling a product, but to strip an unborn baby's status down to a "product" is very, very wrong. Depending on the price put on the parts, I can imagine a situation where someone who had no scruples could become a "factory" for such parts. I know that parts also aren't supposed to be paid for, but any time there's a "table," there's an "under the table situation.

              The only situation that I personally would consider to be a valid reason for aborting would be an ectopic pregnancy, but in that case, there LITERALLY is no way the baby could survive. If it could, then.... we should do that.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 years, 4 months ago
                And what about rape? (This was supposed to be an answer to to gharkness, but I often can't get the machine to print my remarks where I type them.)
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ gharkness 2 years, 4 months ago
                  1) It's immoral to decide the treatment of the 99.9% based on the circumstances of the .1%, and

                  2) I've said it before (was eviscerated by another user, and I don't care) and I'll say it again: Kill the perpetrator, not either of the victims.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 years, 4 months ago
                    But if it is in there, where it never was invited, the person whose body was invaded has a right to make it get out. (Not the fault of the entity in there?
                    Not the rape victim's fault, either.)----
                    However, I understand that a trial takes a long time, so chances are that unless there were some kind of judicial speed-up (I don't pretend to know much about those things), by the time the perpetrator was convicted, the offspring very likely would have been born anyway.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by CMBurton 2 years, 4 months ago
                      LibertyBelle I agree for so many reasons, not the least of which is that, in the state where I live, there is a presumption that it is in the child's best interest for both parents to have equal time with the child. So, in addition to the physical and mental trauma of rape, then having to go through 9 months of a pregnancy against her will, the victim could also end up battling for custody of the child for years or having to share custody with her rapist. And to anyone who thinks prosecuting the rapist is the solution to the whole problem, the hell a rape victim gets put through in a rape trial is just one more injury to endure and there is no guarantee of a conviction or that the sentence will be more than a slap on the wrist.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ gharkness 2 years, 4 months ago
                      Go back to (my) rule number 1. You don't decide policy on the .1% of the population. Also, life is not fair. Life will never be fair. Trying to make life "fair" is an exercise in insanity. Sometimes things are bad, and there's no relief for that. Killing another human is not the answer.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ allosaur 2 years, 5 months ago
                I'll never forget that captured on video Planned Parenthood woman sipping a cocktail and cheerfully prattling on with O'Keefe about selling the tissue of aborted babies.
                What a heartless sow!
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Dobrien 2 years, 5 months ago
    The price of baby parts are up the limit on commodity boards.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ allosaur 2 years, 5 months ago
      +1 for the 0 the dino saw.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Dobrien 2 years, 5 months ago
        Again Thanks , someone doesn’t like the fact that I expose the sale of freshly murdered Baby parts sold by Planned (destruction of) Parenthood.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ allosaur 2 years, 5 months ago
          Maybe that porno poster is beginning to engage. Bet he/she/it supports abortion.
          Besides, the selling of baby parts has been exposed by that guy (what's his name) who I understand still faces libtarded charges after secretly making an iPhone video of a Planned Parenthood banshee admitting to all that.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Dobrien 2 years, 5 months ago
            Project Veritas. James O’Keefe is the patriot who is
            Exposing some much truth.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ allosaur 2 years, 5 months ago
              Yeah, that's the one. "O'Keefe" and "Project Veritas" jogs me old dino memory. Completely forgot the "James" part.
              Worked off and on with an Officer Keefe at the prison. Now I wonder if his ancestral family to the "O'" off their surname to become more Americanized.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Dobrien 2 years, 5 months ago
                Having always had an O’ I can say it is a pain in the arse as some use it some don’t and they can’t find me and so on. Try an apostrophe, try leaving it out .
                Yes two capital letters O’B
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ allosaur 2 years, 5 months ago
                  Me dino can kinda relate. The first syllable of my Swedish name is "Hed" but people want to spell it "Head."
                  So I always spell my name when asked for it such as when I picked up my type 2 diabetes prescription medication at a CVS two days ago.
                  One day while working at that prison for about 18 of 21 years, I found the start of my name spelled "Head--" on a day's work roster. I was all like "Aw, c'mon!"
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 years, 4 months ago
                    Maybe you'd like to have my surname. (I'm not going to type what it is here.) It's a foreign name, simple to spell, but pronounced as written; I think that that is what throws people off; that they don't expect a foreign name to be pronounced as written.
                    I was complaining once to my father about it, and he said, "You'll change it, anyway." Man, what a dream world he was living in!
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 2 years, 5 months ago
    Mike Pence – Nation Wide Abortion Ban ~ Mike Pence Celebrates End Of Roe v. Wade, Calls For Nationwide Abortion Ban (yahoo.com)

    Clarence Thomas – reconsider contraception and gay marriage ~ https://www.foxnews.com/politics/clar...

    Nether of these are Supreme court issues because no one has brought a law suite up in a lower court first. The Supreme court doesn’t make law and can take no action on their own, both of these guys know this, I don’t know why they would say this now? Is it to inflame? The Supreme court doesn’t have standing.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CMBurton 2 years, 5 months ago
      Yeah, I think he’s signaling. I’m sure he is aware of a case somewhere that is teed up for them to consider. His comments are completely unethical. Judges are not supposed to comment on how they might rule on a case that could come before them. By saying they should reconsider these issues, he’s basically saying he thinks they’ve been decided wrongly and should be overturned. JMO
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 2 years, 5 months ago
    Samuel Alito: “. . . rights regarding contraception and same-sex relationships are inherently different from the right to abortion because the latter (as we have stressed) uniquely involves what Roe and Casey termed 'potential life.'"

    Ayn Rand: “An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

    "Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?"
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ gharkness 2 years, 4 months ago
      I get that this is her moral stance. And I am completely unimpressed. She's not a "pope" and that stance borders to me on the religious. Then again, concerning herself with the rights of others was never her strong suit. There are plenty of things about her that I admire, but this is definitely not one of them.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ CBJ 2 years, 4 months ago
        Okay, so what, specifically, do you disagree with in her quote above, and why?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ gharkness 2 years, 4 months ago
          Very simple. Specifically we disagree on the definition of a human being.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ CBJ 2 years, 4 months ago
            What's your definition? Moment of conception, heartbeat, brain, other?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 2 years, 4 months ago
              Late arrival. My 2 bits (and I think its reasonable) I am in no way an authority on this subject and differ to someone with better knowledge when it comes to DNA.

              I contend that the moment the reaction occurs that begins the development of new DNA, uniquely independent, but comprised from, the male and female, is the moment life begins. I do not think any sentience is needed for some to be considered living it his/her earliest stages. The process begun, if left alone, would amount to a human being short of a catastrophe.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ CBJ 2 years, 4 months ago
                A single-cell embryo is alive, but at that stage is it a human being with the same rights as an infant? Should its intentional destruction be morally and legally considered to be murder?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 2 years, 4 months ago
                  The point of unique DNA separates the child from the mother as an entity. Wherever that unique chain occurs is the start of the process of an individual. That individual, even without sentience, can be murdered. Just because it has voice and can't express itself doesn't erase the individual.

                  We can agree to disagree. But a unique DNA strand, to me, is the deciding factor separating the entity from its host and that makes it murder.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 years, 4 months ago
                    I feel no remorse whatever for the numbers of ova I flushed down the toilet about once a month since shortly before I was 13; I had no obligation to them to hook up with a man and fertilize them, even though that could potentially have been done.They had human DNA in them, too.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by CMBurton 2 years, 4 months ago
                      LibertyBelle and I think even the Catholic Church has acknowledged that neither ova NOR sperm are people. I have never heard a man express regret or remorse for the sperm he spilled that never became a person.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 2 years, 4 months ago
                      I think the point is that is only half of a DNA strand and is in itself incapable of becoming a human. No offence but I don't think half of you can still be considered human.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ CBJ 2 years, 4 months ago
                    Re: "a unique DNA strand, to me, is the deciding factor separating the entity from its host and that makes it murder."

                    Given this position, what are your views regarding the rights and obligations of pregnant women? Should any woman who voluntarily has an abortion be tried for murder?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 2 years, 4 months ago
                      By my view, was a life taken? Your question answers itself.

                      Got to appreciate the hypocrisy of the women's liberation movement. A doesn't equal A unless I say it does.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ CBJ 2 years, 4 months ago
                        Okay, you answered my second question. (I assume that's a "yes".) What about the first? What are your views regarding the rights and obligations of pregnant women?
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • -1
                          Posted by $ AJAshinoff 2 years, 4 months ago
                          I went on about this ad nauseum some time ago. I'd have to dig to find the posts where it was more thoroughly explained.

                          My take is akin to contract law. Two parties mutually agree to a service knowing full well the profit and loss, the service is completed, the two go their ways each profiting. Acceptable. However, one party decides that their end didn't work out as it had hoped. Said party decides the contract can't apply because this time didn't go as planned and seeks restitution.

                          A woman is either equal or not. If yes, then her decision to engage in sex and the protections taken before during and after sex and the consequences of those actions if they aren't sufficient are her own. This also includes her insistence on her chosen male to take measures to prevent an unwanted outcome. With the ability to seek damages (child support) a woman owns the situation entirely due to having the options of birth control and abortion.

                          Men, equal partners in consensual sex, shouldn't have to pay because they have no voice in the end result. Naturally, this argument cannot apply to broken or common law marriages as that's a different set of circumstances entirely.

                          Equality. What a concept.

                          I'll look to see if I can find the old posts but I think I got the gist of it.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by $ CBJ 2 years, 4 months ago
                            Suppose the sex is non-consensual. Would the woman then have the right to seek an abortion? Would you still consider it to be a crime?
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 2 years, 4 months ago
                              You're making it sound like abortion is outlawed/illegal? Moloch would never approve. Removing R vs W only put it in the 'practice' hands of the states. People can still murder their unborn children but they may have to pay for it themselves and drive bit. As for it being a crime, it would be in a state where the 'practice' isn't permitted but it in state where it is still is I would think its between the establishment and the patient, a private matter (because it's not subsidized with tax dollars).

                              As I said prior, there are pre- and post- coitus birth control methods readily available for a price without crossing state lines. I highly doubt a rape victim is going to wait very long to get whats needed to ensure noting take hold. And, birth control shouldn't be subsidized either.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 years, 4 months ago
                                In the case of victims of violent crime, does the government not have an obligation to rectify its failure? It tells people not to take private revenge, and, in many cases, tries to prohibit even the right of self-defense.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 2 years, 4 months ago
                                  Post RvW, each state will be different in how it handles situations, as it should have always been. Keeping the decision close to the local populace is correct since not all of us believe the same things.
                                  99% of the abortions have nothing to do with violence rape or incest.

                                  Instead of the tax payer paying, I rather the victim had the option to neuter the prick(s) to violated her. As a dad, I'd gladly decimate anyone attempting anything on my family.

                                  Source a liberal rag.
                                  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...

                                  side note: I know a woman who was the product of violent rape. She's a good person who raised three good kids. She doesn't define who she is by her origin.And, I personally think the world would be worse off without her and her influence.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 2 years, 5 months ago
    Pleased. R vs W was entirely unconstitutional and out of the jurisdiction of the fedgov. We don't all think the same, then this best way to approach this is locally. If abortion has to be it should be at at state level or perhaps a city level where it can be malleable to the local communities and footing the cost should be on the individuals, not the community and certainly not with other peoples money.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 years, 4 months ago
      Why was it Roe vs. Wade, and not "Roe vs. the State of____"? Who was Roe and who was Wade? And which state was it from?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CMBurton 2 years, 4 months ago
        LibertyBelle as I recall, Wade was the prosecutor and Roe was the woman charged criminally for trying to get an abortion. "Roe" is what lawyers use for unnamed defendants (such as "Doe" for plaintiffs). She appealed the criminal case, hence Roe (the defendant/appellant) v. Wade (prosecutor/appellee).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo