Women seeking abortions must view an ultrasound

[hugo]

I've never before seen so many faux conservatives, try to justify their hypocritical support for government tyranny in my entire life.

 

In the 60's there were basically two brands of conservatism. One was represented by Barry Goldwater, the other George Wallace. We got Wallace types here.

[Anna Perenna]

Anna, please take a second and read what I have to say, more often than not you seem to assume things and beliefs for me that I do not have and I would like a chance to really get along better with you.

 

I would like to not get angry every time I read your posts, but as it stands, this post is the only post of yours that hasn't angered me.

 

Me: completely independent, free-thinking, modern Australian woman. (I am not a 'radical liberal' as you would like to label me. I am simply a normal human being, living in the present)

 

You: parochial, conservative, religious American man who makes biased assumptions and is highly emotional.

 

I find your beliefs archaic, offensive, and often baseless. It's going to be very difficult for us to ever get along.

 

The only reason I get along with Hugo, despite his (irrational, IMHO) affection for the Constitution and ye olden days, is because he doesn't make assumptions or attack me, his opinions aren't based on hatred or emotion, and when I ask him a question, he tries his best to answer it.

[hugo]

 

The only reason I get along with Hugo, despite his (irrational, IMHO) affection for the Constitution and ye olden days, is because he doesn't make assumptions or attack me, his opinions aren't based on hatred or emotion, and when I ask him a question, he tries his best to answer it.

 

 

Thanks...I think. The Constitution defends my classical liberal principles. I guess if I was a modern liberal or archaic conservative I would not be quite as enamored with it. I just don't trust majority rule and see a constitutional republic as the best method to defend the individual against excesses from the left and right.

 

If we could bring back the olden days, minus the racism and sexism, I would be a happy man.

[ImWithStupid]

Thanks...I think. The Constitution defends my classical liberal principles. I guess if I was a modern liberal or archaic conservative I would not be quite as enamored with it. I just don't trust majority rule and see a constitutional republic as the best method to defend the individual against excesses from the left and right.

 

If we could bring back the olden days, minus the racism and sexism, I would be a happy man.

 

 

Hear, hear!

[ToriAllen]

But a liberal state might think it a good idea to insure the gun buyer is fully informed. Don't f with the Constitution.

 

No, the 'fully informed' analogy there would be more like someone saying, "I'm buying this gun to hunt deer", so they showed them a few minute of video of a deer running through a field. You guys are coming up with analogies that are further and further off base. This is as bad as the chicken analogy, which should have been: If you want to eat chicken they will show you the live chicken on a TV screen. You don't have to see it being killed. Don't they do something like that with lobster anyway? They are all alive in a big tank and you get to pick out the one you want...

[ImWithStupid]

No, the 'fully informed' analogy there would be more like someone saying, "I'm buying this gun to hunt deer", so they showed them a few minute of video of a deer running through a field. You guys are coming up with analogies that are further and further off base. This is as bad as the chicken analogy, which should have been: If you want to eat chicken they will show you the live chicken on a TV screen. You don't have to see it being killed. Don't they do something like that with lobster anyway? They are all alive in a big tank and you get to pick out the one you want...

 

I agree with one exception. The video would have to show the deer and chicken and imply that they will impart some form of unethical death so it can be food.

[ToriAllen]

I agree with one exception. The video would have to show the deer and chicken and imply that they will impart some form of unethical death so it can be food.

The redneck hunters I know would be laughing and making fun of the person showing the video the whole time, but I get what you're saying.

[timesjoke]

I would like to not get angry every time I read your posts, but as it stands, this post is the only post of yours that hasn't angered me.

 

Me: completely independent, free-thinking, modern Australian woman. (I am not a 'radical liberal' as you would like to label me. I am simply a normal human being, living in the present)

 

But why get angry? I have never gotten angry with you even when your tossing nasty names at me. We are sharing words, ideas, thoughts, nothing I say changes your life and nothing you say changes mine.

 

I might lable you a liberal, but as long as you believe the things liberals believe (based on my local use of the word, I know it is different in different places) there is no insult in that. I don't use a lable like that as an insult, just to help me identify where people are comming from on a political track.

 

 

 

 

You: parochial, conservative, religious American man who makes biased assumptions and is highly emotional.

 

And here is a great example, you say you do not like being called a liberal, but you toss insults like this in my direction without blinking an eye.

 

I am also a human being, but you have no problem with treating me like something less than human.

 

The only correct things you said there is I am religious and conservative, but I do not impose my religion on society, almost all of my possitions on a sociery level is about personal responsibility, not religion. I want people to take responsibility for their own actions, is that really so bad? Do you really believe it is the Government's responsibility to cover up and enable people to escape taking responsibility for their own actions? Do you really believe personal responsibility is only a religious concept?

 

Emotional? I am not the person tossing nasty names at people just because they do not share the same beliefs, you are, I have never said your a bad person or attacked your character, but you have done that to me Anna. Parochial? You are way, way off base there Anna.

 

Again, no need to toss insults just because we do not agree on things, I bet if you took the time to actually have a real open discussion with me you would see I am not the guy you have pictured in your mind.

 

I find your beliefs archaic, offensive, and often baseless. It's going to be very difficult for us to ever get along.

 

I do not agree with most of what you say because you filter everything with a very socialist mindset, but I do not dislike you for believing things I do not believe. Why is it I do not hate those who don't share my beliefs, but those who tend to hold very extreme beliefs as you and hugo, have to hate and call people nasty names?

 

The only reason I get along with Hugo, despite his (irrational, IMHO) affection for the Constitution and ye olden days, is because he doesn't make assumptions or attack me, his opinions aren't based on hatred or emotion, and when I ask him a question, he tries his best to answer it.

 

Well I have never dodged a single question on purpose, I am sure I can miss one now and again with several people posting but if I am asked a direct question I will answer it to the best of my ability because I take every question seriously Anna.

 

 

As far as you and hugo getting along, your kindred spirits, each on the outside edge of political beliefs so you share a certain bond in that reguard, remewmber, hugo believe we should turn isolationist, it does not get much more radical than that.

 

 

 

 

I agree with one exception. The video would have to show the deer and chicken and imply that they will impart some form of unethical death so it can be food.

 

Your still missing the case, the ultrasound will still be performed by the abortion clinics, those people will not be trying to create a air of an unethical death to their prospective client, these people have to perform abortions to make money, if women suddenly stopped having abortions because the ultrasound operator was manipulating the client the management would not tolerate it for one second.

 

 

There is nothing unethical about seeing what your about to kill. The choices of morals will be run inside the head of the mother, not externally.

 

 

In your hunting example the hunter has to put the animal in his sights and pull the trigger, he will see a bloddy and thrashing animal in all probabilities when he gors to gather his prize, everything done by the hunter is out in the open for him to see. But you and other pro-abortion groups want to keep what women do shrouded in darkness, shield the woman from the reality of her decision, protect her from the truth that she is not removing a wart but instead she is killing a baby, a life she has made.

[timesjoke]

 

In a democracy laws are formed when 50+% of the populace decide to deprive the rest of the populace of their liberty on one or more issues. The Constitution guarantees individuals liberty from the wouldbe tyrannical majority.

 

And the founding fathers created the system for creating new laws, why is it you always dodge that very important part? Why are you so scared of admitting that the same founders of the Constitution also made allowances to create new laws? A new law is not unconstitutional just because you say so, and it is most certainly not unconstitutional just because it infringes on rights "for cause".

 

 

Murder as a crime was adopted by our original colonies and has had various punnishments from place to place long before we ever had a constitution. After we did have a Constitution, these moral based laws were all adopted by each local State Government and again, the penalties varied greatly. Even in those very young days for America policical views of crime varied but we did not see any attempt by our founding fathers to write a constitutional amendment to regulate punnishment for murder because those same founding fathers understood that each State had the right to regulate their own people and their own laws just like each person could choose to move if the laws and morals of that State were not what they wanted. This is why the early days of America had the stealing of a horse in one place be punnished with death, while in other places it was hardly even a crime. Hugly different penalties for the same exact crime, and the founding fathers were okay with that.

 

 

 

You and Joe are a contradiction hugo, first you put down Obama for not listening to the people when he shoved his healthcare bill down our throats but at the same time you also say the people should not be allowed a voice in the shaping of their laws. The creation of laws is clear, our founding fathers set forth the system and made it possible for each State to create the moral based laws (and punnishments) they felt were right for them. The Federal Government should not be regulating the local laws of each State.

 

 

 

You and Joe are asking for big Government when you say the Federal Government should strike down this law, you feel States should not be allowed to control their own destiny and need to be nannied by big Government's heavy hand.

 

 

 

Should the Federal Government come into Texas and say you can no longer execute people hugo? There is no constitutional amendment allowing States to kill Americans so based on your own voiced standard, that means executions are illegal and unconstitutional. Executions are the State intruding on personal freedoms and removing the basic rights to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness guranteed in the Constitution.

 

 

In 2009 Texas killed 24 people, the most by far out of all the States in America. Each of these executions represent the ultimate of infringing on the rights of an American all without direct permission to do so in the Constitution. But you see no problem with that intrusion do you hugo, or you IWS? But the real question is why? Why do you feel even speeders deserve to have massive intrusion into their lives by Government but at the same time a mother killing her own child is not a big enough moral issue to have a small requirement to show the mother her child before she kills it? Neither of you have any real problem with the Government enforcing the moral based laws or you would be against executions, no instead your really against "this" moral possition being given the support of Government. You personally do not mind abortions so you see no reason for the Government to enforce this moral possition.

 

 

This is where I got someone else here one time, he complained about Government imposing their force on the people but at the same time he was willing to use the power of Government to protect him from a theif and get his stolen property back. Everyone likes to justify the power of Government from their own perspective including me but at least I allow for the "represenative" part. While we are not supposed to be governed by "mob rule" we at the same time are supposed to have a voice in the process, that is what our founding fathers intended. A direct control from the people is chaos, but a gradual adjustment based on consistent drive is not. There is one very consistent trend in all of America, almost all Americans want "small" controls placed on abortions to reinsert the human element in their decisions. Even the founding fathers knew this human element was vital to the survival of America. Why do you guys think we are required to have a jury of our peers in a trial against us? Because the founding fathers knew that humans needed to be part of the system, that pure Government could not allow for the most important thing, humanity.

 

 

 

 

You guys can call me and other people names like " faux conservatives" if you like, but both of you have already admitted to either not voting in the last election or wasting your vote on someone who could not win so in the realm of "real" conservatives, neither of you fit the bill so when you say I am not a conservative in your minds, that means I really am a conservative because you most certainly are not conservatives when it was you guys and other liked minded people who put Obama into office.

 

 

Comming from you two, " faux conservatives" is a compliment to all real conservatives.

[ImWithStupid]

 

You and Joe are a contradiction hugo, first you put down Obama for not listening to the people when he shoved his healthcare bill down our throats but at the same time you also say the people should not be allowed a voice in the shaping of their laws. The creation of laws is clear, our founding fathers set forth the system and made it possible for each State to create the moral based laws (and punnishments) they felt were right for them. The Federal Government should not be regulating the local laws of each State.

 

 

 

You and Joe are asking for big Government when you say the Federal Government should strike down this law, you feel States should not be allowed to control their own destiny and need to be nannied by big Government's heavy hand.

 

 

 

I don't believe I said this was un-Constitutional. Nor do I believe I said the federal government should intervene.

 

Not even sure Hugo said these things either.

[timesjoke]

I don't believe I said this was un-Constitutional. Nor do I believe I said the federal government should intervene.

 

Not even sure Hugo said these things either.

 

Hugo said something about it should be found unconstitutional by the courts, but more than that he has said countless times it is unconstitutional and while your fast to jump on people and call them names when they say something you do not agree with, you never said one word against hugo's claim, so that leads a certain support from you to him. If you do not agree with hugo that laws that impose restrictions on fredom are unconstitutional then I am sure you would have spoken against that part too, but maybe not, maybe I am putting too much importance in your name calling of those who say this is not unconstitutional, maybe you didn't even clearly understand that was our possition so let's clear this up right now with a clear question and answer:

 

 

Do you IWS agree with hugo that laws like this that limit or control freedoms are unconstitutional and should only be enforced if there is a constitutional amendment?

 

 

To be honest I already asked you this question in a different way earlier but you refused to answer. I simply pointed out the Government restricts freedoms all the time "for cause" like putting a speeder in jail, but even more than that, driving a car is not illegal but the Government forces everyone to buy insurance. Insurance is not a requirement to drive in reality but society has said it is immoral to drive without having insurance so they have imposed laws to force people to buy insurance if they want to drive a car. Someone else pointed out that owning a gun is not illegal, but individual States require permits and background checks as well as gun cabinets and locks as part of the responsibility of gun ownership. Time and time again Government places controls over our actions even if we are not breaking any laws IWS.

 

 

Your a cop, do you think gun permits and background checks are good things for the Government to impose? Do you think people who have not broken any law should be forced to buy car insurance?

[snafu]

In your hunting example the hunter has to put the animal in his sights and pull the trigger, he will see a bloddy and thrashing animal in all probabilities when he gors to gather his prize, everything done by the hunter is out in the open for him to see. But you and other pro-abortion groups want to keep what women do shrouded in darkness, shield the woman from the reality of her decision, protect her from the truth that she is not removing a wart but instead she is killing a baby, a life she has made

 

I don't know how you can argue with that. .

 

Not to mention harvesting an animal for consumtion is completly different than terminating a life for selfish reasons.

Edited April 2, 2016 by rem

[snafu]

I believe hugo was stating the fact that the constitution did not protect the fetus because it only protects people “Born� in the USA.

 

 

 

That doesn’t mean we can’t make a law to do so. Although I strongly believe we should adhere to the constitution it was written a long time ago and the people writing it were not Gods. We can amend it.

 

 

I’m curious how our forefathers thought about killing a fetus anyway. Was it a acceptable practice back then?

 

[snafu]

Hell were giving Miranda Rights to terrorists and combatants that haven’t even put foot in America!

[hugo]

The Basics

 

The Constitution is the highest law in the United States. All other laws come from the Constitution. It says how the government works. It creates the Presidency. It creates the Congress. It creates the Supreme Court. Each state also has a constitution. The constitutions of the states are their highest law for that state — but the United States Constitution is higher.

 

The Constitution can be changed. The Constitution is changed by an "amendment." Among the amendments is a list of the rights of the people. By listing these rights, they are made special. It is illegal for the government to violate those rights. As of 2006, there are 27 amendments. Not all of them involve rights, but many do. The first ten amendments are special. They are called the Bill of Rights.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The Framers worked for four months over the course of a hot summer in Philadelphia to craft the Constitution.

History

 

The Constitution was written in 1787. Yes, it is over 200 years old. We actually have old copies of what was created. The master copies are stored at the National Archives in Washington D.C. We also have pictures of the Constitution on this site.

 

From May to September 1787 a group of men known as the Framers met. The Framers talked about what should be in the Constitution. The United States was a brand new country. The United States had a government that did not work very well. The Framers met to find a new way of running the country. This meeting is called The Convention. Some of the Framers are famous to us today. They include James Madison, Ben Franklin, and George Washington.

 

At that time there were only 13 states. The men came from all the states except Rhode Island. Each state had ideas for the new government. The Framers had many debates. They talked a lot. They make a lot of speeches. By talking about it, they came up with a plan that everyone could agree with. They had to have a lot of compromises. Only by agreeing could all the arguments be worked out. Ben Franklin said the he was not sure if the plan was perfect. He said that it was probably as perfect as it could be.

 

 

This map of the United States was published in 1784 by William Faden.

After the Convention, the Constitution had to be approved. Actually, only nine states had to agree to, or ratify, the Constitution. But everyone wanted all 13 states to agree. Two states took a long time to decide to agree. These states were Rhode Island and North Carolina. In the end, they did agree. Once the first nine states agreed, we say the Constitution was "ratified." New Hampshire was the ninth state to ratify.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Amendments

 

When the Constitution was written, the Framers knew their creation was not perfect. They knew that other people would have good ideas for the Constitution. They wanted to be sure that it wasn't too hard to make changes. They also wanted to be sure that it wasn't too easy.

 

The Framers added an amendment process. An amendment to the Constitution is a change that can add to the Constitution or change an older part of it.

 

Originally, some people did not want to ratify the Constitution. One big reason was that it did not have a bill of rights. A bill of rights is a list of rights that belong to the people. The government is not allowed to break these rights. Some of these rights might sound familiar: the right of free speech; the right to practice your own religion; the right to be silent if you are arrested. The original Constitution had no bill of rights. Many of the Framers did not think it was needed. But many people wanted one. So, promises were made to add one, using the amendment process.

 

Soon, the new government started meeting. Congress proposed the Bill of Rights. A list of twelve changes was sent to the states. In 1791, ten of those changes were agreed to by the states. The ten changes were added to the Constitution. These ten changes are called the "Bill of Rights."

 

Other changes to the Constitution are discussed below. The last change to the Constitution was made in 1992. The 27th Amendment is actually one of the two left-over amendments from 1791. It is very unusual for an amendment to take that long to be accepted, but it is possible. Some, like the 26th Amendment, are accepted very quickly, in just 100 days. Most, though, take a little over a year to be ratified.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This image of a black slave appealed to the humanity of free whites, asking, "Am I not a man and a brother?" The image accompanied the antislavery poem "Our Countrymen in Chains" by John Greenleaf Whittier, published in 1837.

Slavery

 

In 1787, most of the black people in America were slaves. A slave is someone who is owned by someone else. Today, there are no legal slaves in America. It was common in 1787. As time went by, more people thought that slavery was wrong. Most of the people who wanted to end slavery were from the states in the north. They were called abolitionists. Most of the people who wanted to keep slavery were from the states in the south. Slavery was important in the South. A lot of how the people in the south made money involved slaves. Slaves were worth money. Slaves picked their crops, like cotton and tobacco.

 

The people in the North wanted to end slavery. They said it was an important step for America. The people of the South were afraid of losing slavery. They were afraid of losing business. They thought that having slavery was important for each state choose on its own. When President Lincoln was elected, the South got very angry. Lincoln had said he didn't like slavery. Most of the Southern states decided to break away from the United States. They created their own country. It was called the Confederate States of America. The USA did not agree that the states of the CSA could break away. The Civil War followed. The USA won that war. It was a terrible war. Many people died. Many buildings were destroyed.

 

Something good did happen, though. Slavery ended. With the 13th Amendment, slavery was made illegal. The 14th Amendment said that every person born in the United States was a full citizen. Even former slaves were full citizens. The 15th Amendment made sure that black people could vote.

 

These changes protected many freedoms. But it took a long time to change peoples' minds. Many people still did not like black people. They thought that white people were better. For 100 years, some laws reflected this feeling. Today, these laws are also gone. Most people do not think that anyone is better than someone else just because of their color.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

A portrait of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. Stanton and Anthony were leaders in the "suffragette" movement, the movement to give the vote to women.

Women

 

At the beginning, we talked about the men who were the Framers. For a long time, most of the people who shaped the country were men. This is not because women could not help. It is not because women did not want to help. Instead, men held all the positions of power. Men were the Presidents. Men were the members of Congress. Men were the mayors. Men were the owners of companies. Women had very little chance to advance in life. Today, many women like taking care of the home. Today, though, this is a choice. Before, this was the only option for a woman.

 

Women had no role in government. They had no role in politics. They were homemakers. They took care of their husbands or fathers. They took care of kids. Most men did not feel that women should vote. There were actually laws that said women could not vote. Many people decided this was wrong and many women and some men fought against it. Finally, in 1920, the 19th Amendment was passed. It says that women can vote in all elections.

 

Today, women are active in government and politics. Being able to vote is a big part of that. Without the ability to vote, women had no voice. Without a voice, there was no reason for politicians to care what women think. They did not care about issues that are important to women. Once women could vote, some got very interested in politics. Some women ran for office. There have not yet been any women as President. However, it is only a matter of time before the first woman President is elected.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The Bill of Rights protects the freedom of, and from, religion.

The Bill of Rights

 

We already talked about the Bill of Rights. It was passed because some people were afraid that the government would have too much power. They were afraid that some important things could be made illegal. They wanted to be sure to keep those things legal.

 

For example, you can say whatever you want about the President. You can say that you don't like his hair. You can say you don't like his voice. You can say you don't like the war in Iraq. You can say you don't like his tax ideas. It seems normal to us to be able to say these things. We can criticize the President. We can criticize a member of Congress. We can criticize a mayor. We can say what things they do that we don't like. This is only possible because of the Right of Free Speech. The Bill of Rights protects Free Speech.

 

 

The freedom to express yourself, in speech, in writing, and in protest, is also protected by the Bill of Rights.

Imagine if there was no right to free speech. A law could be passed that says that if you criticize the President's hair, you can spend a day in jail. Or worse, criticizing the President's taxes can get you a year in jail. These are the kinds of laws that the Framers were afraid of. The Bill of Rights protects us from such laws. We cannot be put in jail because of our opinions.

 

The Bill of Rights protects a lot of other freedoms. For example, you can believe in any religion you want. The government cannot force you to believe in something. You cannot be forced to house soldiers in your home. The police cannot come into your home without a good reason. The police may not take your papers without reason. The police cannot force you testify against yourself in court. In fact, the police cannot force you to tell them anything at all. This is called the "right to remain silent". And you cannot be given unusual punishments. You cannot be given twenty years in jail for speeding.

[timesjoke]

You know hugo, if your not posting a fast attack on someone, your always copy/pasting the work of other people, you just did it again:

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/constkids4.html

 

 

The constitution is about "basic" rights, but there is nothing about the specific times when Government sets aside those rights "for cause". Time and time again your asked direct questions about other times the Government sets aside the rights of people and you never respond. The only reason you dodge these questions is becuase you know that if you answer them honestly, you have to admit your wrong.

 

 

 

I agree in principle that the "basic" structure offered by the Constitution is to allow individual rights, where your going wrong is at the same time Government also has a responsibility to establish and support laws. The same creaters of the Constitution also created the system for the development and enforcement of new laws. Why would these men create a system of law creation if the Constitution was the beginning and ending of all laws? Why was punnishment for stealing a horse a capital offense in one place, while hardly even a crime in another place hugo? Your inconsistent in that you intentionally blind yourself from 85% of the system created by our founders and only let yourself see 15% because that is the only 15% you like.

 

 

At the same time you say there should be constitutional amendments for one form of rights infringement, you don't want to admit things like taking executions do not have their own seperate constitutional amendments allowing it, so why do you suddenly want a completely set of rules than has ever been implimented before?

 

 

Do we have a constitutional amendment requiring everyone to buy car insurance if they want to drive?

 

 

 

 

In this case there is no real intrusion on any rights, everything starts in choices by the adults involved to conduct themselves in various irresponsible behaviors that end up with the woman being pregnant with a child she did not want. Any number of contraceptive choices are available for both adults to use and some of them are even free from places like health departments. A actual "choice" must be made by both individuals to "not" use any of the available protection methods. Almost all women who get abortions already have children and are not stupid, they know what causes pregnancy. There is even a "day after" pill that women can take so even if the sexual romp was a unplanned event, another "choice" is there for the woman.

 

 

All sorts of choices and chances prior to the abortion trip, nobody forces the adults to have sex, nobody forces the sex to be without protection, nobody forces the woman to seek an abortion, up to that point all the "choices" are made by the adults involved. ONLY "after" all those other choices have been made is the system asking for the woman desiring to kill her baby actually see the child she wants to kill first. I would personally thing placing a camera on the hoover would be more accurate and allow the woman to "pull the trigger" with her baby in the sights just like any other person would do when killing another life. The ultrasound still allows a certain distance to be maintained by the mother but at the same time applies a reality of life into the decision of the mother.

[ImWithStupid]

 

Do we have a constitutional amendment requiring everyone to buy car insurance if they want to drive?

 

 

 

No need. Driving isn't a right. It's a privilage.

[timesjoke]

No need. Driving isn't a right. It's a privilage.

Gun ownership is not a privilige, but the Government still requires people to obtain permits and purchase safety devices like gun cabinets and trigger locks as part of the responsibility to owning a gun. You dodged that direct question, as usual, I ask you again, do you support these kiinds of laws and Government control over people who have not broken the law?

 

 

 

There is nothing in the Constitution making abortion a "right", so they are the same under the constitution, if one can be regulated and severe limitations and forced purchases of products/services is reasonable for Government to mandate, why do you have an issue about requiring a ultrasound for abortions?

 

 

An abortion is a voluntary medical procedure, it is not an accident or a function of Government but it is an attack on life and kills 1.4 million babies every year all by itself, if a voluntary procedure that kills 1.4 million children every year is not subject to Government guidelines then what is?

 

 

I see you dodged all the other questions, I guess that is an answer of a kind as well that you do believe as hugo believs, your just not willing to put it to words.

[hugo]

You can't form an unconstitutional law. A point someone continues to ignore. I cut and pasted a 5th grade level instruction on our Constitution because obviously someone never got to 5th grade. The Constitution limits both the power of the federal government and the states. That is why we ain't able to own negros anymore much to the dismay of Wallace type big government conservatives such as TJ.

 

Think I will continue to support the Bill of Rights.

 

Justice Scalia:

 

Essay; Scalia On Privacy

By WILLIAM SAFIRE

 

. .WASHINGTON— ''The question we confront today,'' wrote Justice Antonin Scalia in an opinion that places him up there with Louis (the right to be let alone) Brandeis, ''is what limits there are upon this power of technology to shrink the realm of guaranteed privacy.''

 

Cops in Oregon suspected a man of growing marijuana inside his house. They knew he would have to use high-intensity lamps, so they had this bright idea to place a thermal imaging machine across the street to measure the heat coming through his walls -- enabling them to ''see'' inside the house as if they had X-ray vision.

 

Unconstitutional, ruled the Supreme Court, in a 5-to-4 decision that crossed all ideological lines. To the lower court that held that the thermal search had revealed no ''intimate'' details, Scalia replied, ''In the home, all details are intimate details.'' He refused to ''leave the homeowner at the mercy of advancing technology,'' bottoming the majority's opinion on the original intent of the framers of the Fourth Amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches.

 

Your body is even more intimate. Scalia is a true small government conservative. He would throw out this law in a heartbeat.

[ImWithStupid]

I believe that since breast augmentation is a "elective/voluntary procedure", that the moral majority should be allowed to pass legislation mandating that anyone who chooses to get a boob job, should have to attend a counseling session where they are told how women who get fake jubblies are tramps, whores and harlets.

 

As long as the majority rules, this is fine because it's a law based on morals.

[ToriAllen]

I believe that since breast augmentation is a "elective/voluntary procedure", that the moral majority should be allowed to pass legislation mandating that anyone who chooses to get a boob job, should have to attend a counseling session where they are told how women who get fake jubblies are tramps, whores and harlets.

 

As long as the majority rules, this is fine because it's a law based on morals.

My dear, again, shouldn't the correlation be showing them flat, saggy, natural breasts and telling them this is what God and nature intended for them and they should not damage God's temple. I really think that is closer to the moral argument there. You can't just make up your own moral argument because it is more shocking....tisk tisk

[timesjoke]

You can't form an unconstitutional law. A point someone continues to ignore. I cut and pasted a 5th grade level instruction on our Constitution because obviously someone never got to 5th grade. The Constitution limits both the power of the federal government and the states. That is why we ain't able to own negros anymore much to the dismay of Wallace type big government conservatives such as TJ.

 

And that is your problem, you have a child's incomplete understanding of the Constitution and you narrowly only let yourself see 15% of the picture while completely ignoring the other 85%.

 

 

Again, where is the amendment that governs executions?

 

 

Answer, there is none, the Federal Government and the Constitution was designed for general structure while local States were designed for direct governing of the people. That is why stealing a horse was a death sentence in one American State while in another it was barely a crime.

 

 

The Government puts speeders in prison, forces people to jump through hoops just to own a gun or drive a car without a single amendment to the Constitution, there was a system designed for creating new laws by the same people who helped to create this great experiment called America, how can you respect 15% of their work and at the same time disrespect the other 85% of their work?

 

 

 

I believe that since breast augmentation is a "elective/voluntary procedure", that the moral majority should be allowed to pass legislation mandating that anyone who chooses to get a boob job, should have to attend a counseling session where they are told how women who get fake jubblies are tramps, whores and harlets.

 

As long as the majority rules, this is fine because it's a law based on morals.

 

 

Taking shots Joe?

 

Tori, just to let you know my girlfriend has implants, Joe is digging into the nasty bag and trying to be hurtful and insulting to someone I love in his need to strike out at me.

 

 

 

"IF" the majority of Americans voiced a moral outrage similar to the way they have for things like murder and abortion Joe, sure, then it would be local laws fitting the morals of the community as all laws have always been made. You don't want to discuss laws and how they are made because then there must be an admission that our founding fathers created this system to do exactly what we see now, for communities to express their values and morals and have the Government "represent" those values and morals.

 

 

Just like murder, communities have spoken out against something it sees as wrong, not a flash in the pan short term vision, but a long term core value expression. If the Government is not supposed to folow the beliefs and morals of Americans, then we don't have a represenative form of Government, we have the few Elite dictating to the masses what they feel we should have, not what we want. In your possition, your advocating the exact same kind of elitist governing as Obama just executed in ignoring the people to do as he pleased.

[ToriAllen]

Alright children, that's just about enough of that sh t. I deal with whiney brats all day; I have no intention of doing the same on what is supposed to be my 'personal relaxation' time. There is absolutely no reason to start drama on a freakin' debate site, or at least no reason to take it so seriously. I have argued with a lot of irrational, hard-headed people, but being that this is a debate/discussion board, you kind of have to expect differing views. You can’t get so bent out of shape when someone disagrees with you. That is the whole point of the board after all. How boring is it and how quickly do threads die out when everyone agrees. Variety is what keeps a board alive (that is meant for more than one person, so don’t even try to start pointing fingers). I have had a lot of sh t said about me, and you know what, I don’t give a fukk. Simple message: Grow Up. Quit trying to win arguments with insults. Quit acting like insults are the end of the world. QUIT ACTING LIKE FUKKING SORORITY SISTERS ON CRACK DURING THEIR MENSTRUAL CYCLE!!!!

This thread has been a perfect example of all of the above.

 

Okay, so, back to the abotion/personal rights debate...

[ImWithStupid]

 

Taking shots Joe?

 

Tori, just to let you know my girlfriend has implants, Joe is digging into the nasty bag and trying to be hurtful and insulting to someone I love in his need to strike out at me.

 

 

 

First of all that was not a shot, it was an example, a description, like blue as a clear shy, warm as the sun, old as dirt, running away like a scared little girl was not calling anyone a scard (sic) girl, just offering an example of running away, viewing an ultrasound before an abortion is LIKE being counseled of the whoreishness of fake boobs before a breast augmentation, isn't a shot, just offering an example of a moral requirement, under the force of government, before a legal medical procedure.

[ToriAllen]

First of all that was not a shot, it was an example, a description, like blue as a clear shy, warm as the sun, old as dirt, running away like a scared little girl was not calling anyone a scard (sic) girl, just offering an example of running away, viewing an ultrasound before an abortion is LIKE being counseled of the whoreishness of fake boobs before a breast augmentation, isn't a shot, just offering an example of a moral requirement, under the force of government, before a legal medical procedure.

Personally, I think it was a shot at me. I told you guys a while ago that I planned to have the procedure done....That's what I get for questioning your analogies...