This should give the...

[ElNono]

The law imposes all sorts of views on a populace. That you continue to call it a moral issue is not any more persuasive than calling armed robbery a moral issue. Are you suggesting armed robbery should be legal because someone can make that moral argument?

I'm calling it a moral issue because that's what you called it:

Convenience abortions are the absolute epitome of moral bankruptcy.

And it's not a legal issue because the justice system already addressed it and ruled it legal.

[ElNono]

SCOTUS is no longer part of the government?

Did they leave the decision to the citizen?

[MannyIsGod]

federally mandated abortion tbh

[CuckingFunt]

Let me put it in the context of the larger debate.

Planned Parenthood was founded by a racist, Margaret Sanger, who preached eugenics. Planned Parenthood is one of the largest (if not the largest) abortion mill in the United States.

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population." --Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.

I don't think Dr. Virmani's statements are that out of the ordinary among the abortion crowd, AussieFanKurt. And, frankly, I don't understand the why anyone would support Planned Parenthood or fight, as hard as has been fought, to keep my taxpayer dollars flowing into that morally bankrupt organization.

It's bigger than "one stupid thing one idiot says."

Let me put it in the context of the larger debate by presenting truncated quotes taken out of context and using the words of two individuals spoken 80 years apart to damn an entire organization...

[Yonivore]

Oh, OK.

I'm surprised you find that funny.

[CuckingFunt]

Convenience abortions are the absolute epitome of moral bankruptcy.

Until you develop ovaries and a uterus, you're not allowed to dismiss ANY abortion as convenient.

[CuckingFunt]

Dr. Virmani is an abortion doctor who believes he's doing the world a favor by killing black babies. Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood on the premise that controlling the black population, through abortion, is a good thing.

It's a pretty direct link, if you ask me.

Is Dr. Virmani an "abortion doctor" working for Planned Parenthood?

[Yonivore]

I'm calling it a moral issue because that's what you called it:

And, as I pointed out, there are other moral issues addressed in the law which I don't think you would find fault.

And it's not a legal issue because the justice system already addressed it and ruled it legal.

The justice system is just as free to revisit the issue and change it. Just look at same-sex marriage...back and forth, back and forth.

I wouldn't have taken you for a "the-courts-have-ruled-and-that's-that" kind of person but, I guess when it suits you.

[Spurminator]

The justice system will not revisit it until we are able to replicate a 40-week pregnancy outside the womb. You can pretend to give a about it until then if you want, but the only thing this discussion is good for is getting the emotions all riled up (which, admittedly, is good for getting people to the voting booth, which is why we have a national abortion debate every 2 years followed by absolutely no change in policy.)

[ElNono]

And, as I pointed out, there are other moral issues addressed in the law which I don't think you would find fault.

What law? In Roe vs Wade the SCOTUS ruled that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion.

The justice system is just as free to revisit the issue and change it.

Not without a Cons utional amendment.

[ElNono]

I wouldn't have taken you for a "the-courts-have-ruled-and-that's-that" kind of person but, I guess when it suits you.

I'm not, actually. But I also understand this isn't just a matter of laws, it involves rights granted under the cons ution.

[Yonivore]

I'm not, actually. But I also understand this isn't just a matter of laws, it involves rights granted under the cons ution.

I agree. The right to life.

[Yonivore]

What law? In Roe vs Wade the SCOTUS ruled that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion.

The law as a body.

Not without a Cons utional amendment.

Not necessarily.

Just which provision of the Cons ution guarantees the right to an abortion?

[LnGrrrR]

I agree. The right to life.

You know, you should really reword that as "the right to be born". The right to life might make it sound like you're in favor universal health care, extended welfare, etc etc.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I agree. The right to life.

the govt getting to tell you what to do with your body

[Yonivore]

the govt getting to tell you what to do with your body

The SCOTUS is telling an unborn child it has no such right. I think that is the view that is most likely to be the basis on which Roe vs. Wade and all other laws, permitting abortion, will eventually be overturned.

How is a fetus shot by a robber any different than a fetus killed by an abortionist? Why is a woman allowed to decide what is murder and what is simply a medical procedure?

I simply don't believe the argument is settled.

[ElNono]

I agree. The right to life.

The Court explicitly rejected a fetal "right to life" argument.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...0_0113_ZO.html

Just which provision of the Cons ution guarantees the right to an abortion?

In Roe vs Wade the SCOTUS ruled that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion.

[Yonivore]

the govt getting to tell you what to do with your body

You would agree, I assume, the government should be able to tell you what you cannot do to another person's body.

[Yonivore]

The Court explicitly rejected a fetal "right to life" argument.

The Court has explicitly done many things that eventually are overturned.

[ElNono]

The Cons ution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Cons ution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; [n53] in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

[ElNono]

The Court has explicitly done many things that eventually are overturned.

How many? It's exceedingly rare to see the SCOTUS go against precedent and reasoning from a previous SCOTUS unless there's significant new information.

Off the top of my head I only remember "separate but equal"...

[Yonivore]

How many? It's exceedingly rare to see the SCOTUS go against precedent and reasoning from a previous SCOTUS unless there's significant new information.

Off the top of my head I only remember "separate but equal"...

So, it happens. There's hope.

[Yonivore]

The Cons ution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Cons ution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; [n53] in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

Then, why aren't murder charges, filed in cases of prenatal death caused by an assailant, not struck down? Can you murder a non-person?

[ElNono]

good luck with that

[Yonivore]

Why are late-term abortions not cons utionally protected rights to privacy?