Gary Trudeau attacks Texas Abortion laws..

[svauto-erotic855]

Seriously, WTF does any of this have to do with government?

What a woman and man choose to do with their unborn child is between them, their family, and their god.

This state involvement to the max shit is old and way too damn expensive.

Government has gotten involved because a significant percentage of the population believes that abortion is murder the same way shooting someone in the head is.

Until Roe v Wade states regulated abortion as they saw fit. Roe v Wade is a perfect example of judicial activism and it was done to piss of the right and to appease the left.

I have never understood why lesbians are worried about being able to have an abortion but they will bitch a blue streak about it if you let them.

[Forever_frost]

You have completely opened my eyes! We should protect their lives so they can be born and starve to death. That way, no one plays judge and jury, except God, through natural selection. Pro-lifers are happy because another baby was born, and the anti-welfarers are happy because their tax dollars don't go to the poor, so there's no blood on anyone's hands. Brilliant!

So what you're saying is two people are perfectly capable of engaging in the action that creates life, have no problem with doing it knowing what the possibility is, but due to the fact that they engaged in an action that carries a responsibility, it makes me or anyone else a bad person for insisting that they pay for that action?

It's kind of like insisting that Newton is wrong. Every action has a reaction, but sex because if you have unprotected sex that you know can result in a child and a child results from the action, you can always kill the child.

Guess it would thin out liberals.

[Forever_frost]

Government has gotten involved because a significant percentage of the population believes that abortion is murder the same way shooting someone in the head is.

Until Roe v Wade states regulated abortion as they saw fit. Roe v Wade is a perfect example of judicial activism and it was done to piss of the right and to appease the left.

I have never understood why lesbians are worried about being able to have an abortion but they will bitch a blue streak about it if you let them.

Bingo. Roe vs Wade is as unconstitutional as you can get.

[svauto-erotic855]

I'm with Gary Trudeau on this one. Basically, the new law says that anyone wanting an abortion will be required counseling and an sonogram (to make them witness proof of life) and shame them into changing their mind.

In some instances, the woman will have to undergo a "transvaginal ultrasound" which is basically a 10" dildo shoved up their vagina to get to the uterus.

The problem with this is that my wife just had to have one of these and it cost us $500 for the copay, which most single females won't be able to afford, or if they can't us taxpayers will be footing the bill in addition to the woman being legally raped (penetration of the vulva without consent).

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_16...-scrap-series/

What about the legal rape via penetration of a vein with a needle without consent if you are suspected of DWI? I guess that is ok?

03trubluGT I am with you concerning allowing abortion.

Forever_frost I am with you concerning how abortion became universally legal in this country.

Damn it sucks being on both sides of an argument.

[Treasure Chest]

So what you're saying is two people are perfectly capable of engaging in the action that creates life, have no problem with doing it knowing what the possibility is, but due to the fact that they engaged in an action that carries a responsibility, it makes me or anyone else a bad person for insisting that they pay for that action?

It's kind of like insisting that Newton is wrong. Every action has a reaction, but sex because if you have unprotected sex that you know can result in a child and a child results from the action, you can always kill the child.

Guess it would thin out liberals.

They will find a way to get rid of an unwanted child, whether it's a surgical abortion, RU-486, oil of pennyroyal, a rusty coat hanger, or prom-momming it in a cold dumpster. You can't force irresponsible people into responsibility by making them keep a child. They're not going to wake up all of a sudden and decide to make good choices because you've strapped them with a child they can't take care of.

Go tour a third world orphanage and tell me that the children in their dying rooms are better off not having been aborted.

[racrguy]

That's the kicker Racr. I don't think the federal government should have a say. At all. It's a state's right issue per the 10th amendment. If Texas wants this law, the fed has no right to say a word.

The law that Texas adopts must also adhere to the federal constitution as well. That's why the SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional via the 14th amendment.

So what you're saying is two people are perfectly capable of engaging in the action that creates life, have no problem with doing it knowing what the possibility is, but due to the fact that they engaged in an action that carries a responsibility, it makes me or anyone else a bad person for insisting that they pay for that action?

It's kind of like insisting that Newton is wrong. Every action has a reaction, but sex because if you have unprotected sex that you know can result in a child and a child results from the action, you can always kill the child.

Guess it would thin out liberals.

Have you ever used any form of birth control, or had sex with a woman that was currently using birth control?

Edit: Do you all (pro-lifers) realize that abortion is regulated in EVERY state, or do you think it's just willy nilly "ABORTION TIME!" in the entire country?

[svauto-erotic855]

The law that Texas adopts must also adhere to the federal constitution as well. That's why the SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional via the 14th amendment.

That is why it is bad law. Section one of the 14th says:

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. nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Roe v Wade won because Justice Stevens convinced the others that there was a right to privacy written into the sec 1. If there was wouldn't that apply to drug use as well?

The anti crowd sees an unborn fetus as a person whose rights are being violated when they should be protected via the last sentence of section 1 that says " nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Wouldn't that mean protecting them from being murdered? And murder is exactly what abortion is IF the unborn fetus is actually a person.

[racrguy]

That is why it is bad law. Section one of the 14th says:

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. nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Roe v Wade won because Justice Stevens convinced the others that there was a right to privacy written into the sec 1. If there was wouldn't that apply to drug use as well?

The anti crowd sees an unborn fetus as a person whose rights are being violated when they should be protected via the last sentence of section 1 that says " nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Wouldn't that mean protecting them from being murdered? And murder is exactly what abortion is IF the unborn fetus is actually a person.

The privacy part I think would be classified under the "liberty" portion of things. And that's the point where abortion bans are already in effect, at the point of viability. If it can't survive outside of the womb, it's not a person. And I agree with the post viability bans. If the then child can survive outside the womb, it should be protected just like every other life. Until such time, it's fair game.

Edit: added another picture
Like I asked someone on Facebook, which of these two cells is human, and how do you differentiate them?

[Forever_frost]

The law that Texas adopts must also adhere to the federal constitution as well. That's why the SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional via the 14th amendment.


Have you ever used any form of birth control, or had sex with a woman that was currently using birth control?

Edit: Do you all (pro-lifers) realize that abortion is regulated in EVERY state, or do you think it's just willy nilly "ABORTION TIME!" in the entire country?

Not at all. With states regulating it, I disagree with it happening but doesn't concern me. When the federal government pops in on it, it's a constitutional violation and concerns every American

[Forever_frost]

The privacy part I think would be classified under the "liberty" portion of things. And that's the point where abortion bans are already in effect, at the point of viability. If it can't survive outside of the womb, it's not a person. And I agree with the post viability bans. If the then child can survive outside the womb, it should be protected just like every other life. Until such time, it's fair game.

So what you're saying is that if I shoot a pregnant woman, I'll get charged with one crime and not for both, correct? So these instances are completely wrong and the guy who beat his gf until she miscarried should only have been charged with assault, not murder right?

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/02/man-may-get-10-years-for-killing-girlfriends-unborn-baby/

[racrguy]

Not at all. With states regulating it, I disagree with it happening but doesn't concern me. When the federal government pops in on it, it's a constitutional violation and concerns every American

It doesn't matter if a state enacts a law, it's still got to abide by the Constitution of the United States of America. States dont have carte blanche ability to make laws as they see fit.

So what you're saying is that if I shoot a pregnant woman, I'll get charged with one crime and not for both, correct? So these instances are completely wrong and the guy who beat his gf until she miscarried should only have been charged with assault, not murder right?

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/02/m...s-unborn-baby/

False analogy, try again.

[Treasure Chest]

That is why it is bad law. Section one of the 14th says:

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. nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Roe v Wade won because Justice Stevens convinced the others that there was a right to privacy written into the sec 1. If there was wouldn't that apply to drug use as well?

The anti crowd sees an unborn fetus as a person whose rights are being violated when they should be protected via the last sentence of section 1 that says " nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Wouldn't that mean protecting them from being murdered? And murder is exactly what abortion is IF the unborn fetus is actually a person.

The caveat is 'born or naturalized.' It's not a citizen until birth. Hell, you can't even get a birth or death certificate for a fetus that is miscarried prior to viability.

[Forever_frost]

It doesn't matter if a state enacts a law, it's still got to abide by the Constitution of the United States of America. States dont have carte blanche ability to make laws as they see fit.


False analogy, try again.

Not at all. You're saying a fetus is not a person, thus it is not protected by the Constitution, has no expection of life, liberty or pursuit of happiness and is okay to be destroyed.

However, if you're right, then how can someone be charged with destroying said fetus as if it's a person? If the Constitution is incorporated to the states, then all of it is and no state or locality can enact any law abridging the right to keep and bear arms in accordance with the second amendment

[racrguy]

Not at all. You're saying a fetus is not a person, thus it is not protected by the Constitution, has no expection of life, liberty or pursuit of happiness and is okay to be destroyed.

Do I really need to explain to you how it's a false analogy? I'm hoping you're smarter than that.

However, if you're right, then how can someone be charged with destroying said fetus as if it's a person? If the Constitution is incorporated to the states, then all of it is and no state or locality can enact any law abridging the right to keep and bear arms in accordance with the second amendment

And they shouldn't be able to, yet we've allowed liberal policies to come into place that have placed restrictions on our rights. You're displaying a liberal point of view on the topic at hand.

[Forever_frost]

Not at all. When the Constitution was written it was never intended to list all of our rights. In the 1790's the states put in the bill of rights to prevent the FEDERAL government from acting against them (thus the 10th amendment). Nothing liberal in anything I say.

And yes, tell me how using a drill and vaccum on a fetus isn't murder but punching the storage facility in which it is housed until the fetus dies is.