4 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Ok, so follow up question:  If you have the position that human life begins at conception, are you then conveying constitutional rights to a fertilized egg?  Because if so, then here are some follow up questions to that:

1) Would you then ban all abortions at all times for any reason?  i.e A woman is raped and impregnated and wants an abortion.  Are you saying that's not allowed since she'd be killing a human life in doing so?    What about etopic pregnancies?  Or a scenario where the mother's life is at risk if she carries the pregnancy through to term?

2) Would you then be in favor of banning the morning after pill? 

3) What happens with IVF then?  If we have the view that life begins at conception and thus nothing can ever be done to a fertilized egg that decreases the chance of birth, then this would make IVF illegal then, which would be a very odd unintended consequence considering IVF helps couples create life that are having difficulty of doing it on their own. 

Under most monotheistic religions, it's generally taught that the soul (which existed prior to conception) enters the fetus around 40 days after conception.  Kind of makes as much sense as other theories - probably more so.  So, if you believe that human beings are beings with a soul, is it wrong to kill a being with a soul even if it needs additional time in the womb to be able to physically develop?

12 hours ago, Procus said:

Under most monotheistic religions, it's generally taught that the soul (which existed prior to conception) enters the fetus around 40 days after conception.  Kind of makes as much sense as other theories - probably more so.  So, if you believe that human beings are beings with a soul, is it wrong to kill a being with a soul even if it needs additional time in the womb to be able to physically develop?

I don't remember any of that 40 day soul stuff being in the constitution. I do recall freedom of religion though, so if you believe such a thing you can go ahead and not have an abortion after the first 40 days and all is well.

Just because your religion tells you something doesn't mean that you are allowed to force that belief on someone else.

3 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I don't remember any of that 40 day soul stuff being in the constitution. I do recall freedom of religion though, so if you believe such a thing you can go ahead and not have an abortion after the first 40 days and all is well.

Just because your religion tells you something doesn't mean that you are allowed to force that belief on someone else.

Yeah, there’s nothing about a right to abortion in the constitution either.

again, there are numerous ways to avoid pregnancy, but .....

17 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

Yeah, there’s nothing about a right to abortion in the constitution either.

Do you believe the constitution was more about guaranteeing specific rights or limiting government so it couldn't make arguments like "if it's not in the constitution it's not a right?"

Search for Supreme Court leaker falls to former Army colonel

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-leak-investigation-gail-curley-48623ac2a3bafe36f39bbf5f68257dbf

 

 

Quote

Earlier this month, however, Curley was handed a bombshell of an assignment, overseeing an unprecedented breach of Supreme Court secrecy, the leak of a draft opinion and apparent votes in a major abortion case. Leaks to Politico suggest that the court seems ready to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that women have a constitutional right to abortion. That has sparked protests and round-the-clock security at justices’ homes,demonstrations at the court and concerns about violence following the court’s ultimate decision.

People who know Curley, 53, described the former Army colonel and military lawyer as possessing the right temperament for a highly charged leak investigation: smart, private, apolitical and unlikely to be intimidated.

Seems like a good choice.

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Do you believe the constitution was more about guaranteeing specific rights or limiting government so it couldn't make arguments like "if it's not in the constitution it's not a right?"

The constitution recognizes that we have rights given to us by God, that the government cannot infringe on, lays out the responsibilities of the federal government, and gives the rest of the responsibilities to the states. Decades ago, the Supreme Court pretended to find a new right in the constitution. Now it sounds like the Supreme Court might admit that right is not there, and turn the responsibility of regulating a horrendous practice back over to the states. Exactly as the signers of the constitution intended. 

1 hour ago, The_Omega said:

The constitution recognizes that we have rights given to us by God, that the government cannot infringe on, lays out the responsibilities of the federal government, and gives the rest of the responsibilities to the states. Decades ago, the Supreme Court pretended to find a new right in the constitution. Now it sounds like the Supreme Court might admit that right is not there, and turn the responsibility of regulating a horrendous practice back over to the states. Exactly as the signers of the constitution intended. 

The Constitution does not contain the word "God" or any reference to rights being granted by God. By design.

God was mentioned only in the Declaration of Independence. But that document was not the consensus of a challenging series of constitutional conventions. 

The Constitution outlines the right to be secure in our persons, which to me most certainly means the Constitution protects an individual's right to bodily autonomy. It's not exactly a stretch to see that as protecting a right not only to birth control but to terminating a pregnancy. 

I can absolutely sympathize with the moral argument against abortion. But it's not the government's role - state or federal - to codify morality into law. 

The natural laws that Jefferson mentions in the Declaration aren’t given to us by God either.  Fwiw

2 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

But it's not the government's role - state or federal - to codify morality into law. 

That's an interesting statement.  While they aren't a one to one it seems kind of odd to suggest that government's don't codify morality into law.  That's pretty much exactly what they do with a good chunk of the law.

1 hour ago, DrPhilly said:

That's an interesting statement.  While they aren't a one to one it seems kind of odd to suggest that government's don't codify morality into law.  That's pretty much exactly what they do with a good chunk of the law.

I don't disagree. But usually where it becomes a constitutional question is when a law is seen as being in potential conflict with a defined right. 

There's a lot of overlap in laws that are in place to prevent one citizen from depriving another of their rights because morality is derived largely from defining rules by which people can live together in a society.

I know religion plays a role there in modern times, but I'd argue it's more likely rules derived from people living in communities started to find their way into spiritual belief systems as a way to control populations using the leverage of omnipotent beings than the other way around. Though I'm not here to argue theology.

9 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

The Constitution outlines the right to be secure in our persons, which to me most certainly means the Constitution protects an individual's right to bodily autonomy. It's not exactly a stretch to see that as protecting a right not only to birth control but to terminating a pregnancy. 

Or having crap pumped into your bodies against ones will but here we are.

18 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

The natural laws that Jefferson mentions in the Declaration aren’t given to us by God either.  Fwiw

 

Trying to unpack this. T.J. did say that natural rights were given to men from their Creator, but I think people often fail to realize that this was more in a sense of natural laws as literally the laws of nature and "Creator" being something more akin to "the universe." Jefferson had a strong Rousseauian streak in him, where the "noble savage" and romanticized notions of humanity in a "state of nature" dominated. Natural laws were derived from a kind of dialectic that reasoned our rights back to the fundamental liberties humans had enjoyed before they formed complex societies. When it comes to "God," the Founders were often speaking of God in this highly abstract, all-encompassing sense of nature itself being the manifestation of God. Most of these guys were Diests; they distinguished themselves by breaking with orthodoxy regarding spirituality and man's relationship with his natural environment.

1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

Trying to unpack this. T.J. did say that natural rights were given to men from their Creator, but I think people often fail to realize that this was more in a sense natural laws as literally the laws of nature. Jefferson had a strong Rousseauian streak in him where the "noble savage" and romanticized notions of humanity in a "state of nature" dominated. Natural laws were derived from a kind of dialectic that reasoned our rights back to the basic liberties that humans had before they formed complex socieities. When it comes to God, they're speaking of God in this highly abstract, all-encompassing sense of nature itself being the manifestation of God. Most of these guys were Diests; they distinguished themselves by breaking with orthodoxy regarding spirituality and man's relationship with his natural environment.

I believe Jefferson mentions Laws of Nature and Nature's God in the Declaration.   You nailed Jefferson's and many of the Founder's deist beliefs.

 

If anything, there is a strong Masonic influence blended into the philosophies you listed.

Kind of doesn’t matter though. Whatever the supreme creator or energy or order, the reference to it means the same. They are inherent rights. 

28 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Kind of doesn’t matter though. Whatever the supreme creator or energy or order, the reference to it means the same. They are inherent rights. 

 

Yes, to you and me, but I think that the simply using the word "God" has led people across history to misinterpret them in thinking that they are referring to the "one, true God" that people personally believe in, and particularly as it relates to fundamentalist concepts of a Christian God. They see liberty as literally a gift given to us from some man in the sky. The Founders were open-minded men, however, who used the term very expansively, both within the context of their own times and that of our current era. Yet, people with a political axe to grind often use it in an opposite sense, as a means to limit and pigeonhole concepts of law and liberty according to extremist dogma.

I was mainly responding to an assertion that somehow at 40 days a fetus is infused with a soul.

Great pains were made to keep the state separate from religion, and for good reason. 

I don't support sharia law either. 

4 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I don't support sharia law either. 

 

"Ya'll Qaeda" is always lurking...

Let’s Sue Big Polluters Under Oklahoma’s Wacko Abortion Law

https://www.thedailybeast.com/lets-sue-big-polluters-under-oklahomas-wacko-abortion-law

 

This article has lots of good information, especially for those who do not understand the process of pregnancy.

In the end, none of us know what the Constitution says until the SCOTUS tells us, but just for fun, to me, the Constitution is all about powers and not about rights. It would be impossible to list all of a person's rights now and in the future. the founders figured that out and dealt with powers instead of rights. Under the US Constitution, all powers rest and originate with the people. The people then delegate certain powers to their States through State Constitutions. The States then delegate certain powers to the Federal Government via the US Constitution. The 9th and 10th Amendments make it clear where powers not given to the federal government or the States rest, with the people. 

In this model, which is upside down from almost every other government model, the national government (Federal) is the most subservient level of government we have. It serves both the States and the people. It doesn't rule them. How do we know this to be true? It only takes 38 States to instantly eliminate the federal government completely through a Convention of States. Personally, I love that. It presents a stark reminder that our elected officials are our servants, not our rulers, as it should be.

2 hours ago, PoconoDon said:

In the end, none of us know what the Constitution says until the SCOTUS tells us, but just for fun, to me, the Constitution is all about powers and not about rights. It would be impossible to list all of a person's rights now and in the future. the founders figured that out and dealt with powers instead of rights. Under the US Constitution, all powers rest and originate with the people. The people then delegate certain powers to their States through State Constitutions. The States then delegate certain powers to the Federal Government via the US Constitution. The 9th and 10th Amendments make it clear where powers not given to the federal government or the States rest, with the people. 

In this model, which is upside down from almost every other government model, the national government (Federal) is the most subservient level of government we have. It serves both the States and the people. It doesn't rule them. How do we know this to be true? It only takes 38 States to instantly eliminate the federal government completely through a Convention of States. Personally, I love that. It presents a stark reminder that our elected officials are our servants, not our rulers, as it should be.

Except a State cannot make/enforce a law the contradicts a federal law or ruling.

10 minutes ago, MidMoFo said:

Except a State cannot make/enforce a law the contradicts a federal law or ruling.

True and correct under the Supremacy Clause and Article III. My point is that the federal government cannot get rid of the states on a whim, but a 38 state compact can eliminate the Federal government in an instant. Certainly it would never happen, but the authority for Constitutional changes isn't the sole purview of Congress, and it's a feature of our system of government that I like a great deal. 

4 minutes ago, TEW said:

Why are you lying about my beliefs?

You posted it, and you posted it on several occasions on the old board.

On 5/7/2022 at 7:10 AM, Dave Moss said:

 Women are acting hysterical about losing the right to an abortion so let’s make the very rational choice to take away their right to vote.   

 

On 5/7/2022 at 5:39 PM, TEW said:

Very rational and level headed solution to most of the developed world’s problems. Women can’t pick between sushi or Italian for dinner but want to make decisions on the commander of our military and economic policies?

Nah. Their voting rights should be restricted to fabric softener brands and bread types for sammich making.

 

4 minutes ago, downundermike said:

You posted it, and you posted it on several occasions on the old board.

No, I didn’t, liar.

I said that their voting influence has been a disaster. Which, of course, is objectively true when you look at how the entitlement system got put into law.

My position on voting has been consistent: I believe that voting eligibility should be restricted to net tax payers.

Don't care if you’re male or female, black or white, just be a maker not a taker.