40% Of US Births Now Occur Outside Of Marriage

[Vern Humphrey]

The unborn child is a living human being:

1. If it were not living, we would not be having this discussion
2. If you don't believe it's human, check the DNA
3. If you don't believe its a being, check the DNA again. If it has its own DNA, it's a being.

The decision to allow abortion was based on a twisted reasoning -- that only "persons" are protected by the Constitution and somehow a living human being can be a "non-person." This is exactly the reasoning the Nazis used when they declared Jews to be "Unter Menschen."

[S.A. Boggs]

My niece is a foster mother, her and her husband have adopted 9 children + 4 of their own. One of their children, Arron gave his life in the line of duty as a LEO two years ago. As a clinician I dealt with "kids" who were foster just coming off the children's team. Their main challenge was a sense of abandonment and who could blame them. Mom/Dad thought more of their drugs then their children. "Legalizing" is going to just increase the problem and more abandoned/drug dependent children will be the result. It is bad enough that mom is an active alcoholic, now children are born directly withdrawing from mom's substance abuse. Yea, innocent drugs are just fine tell that to an infant going thru withdrawal. I just love hearing about their "rights" what about their responsibilities. Guess what guys and girls, active addicts/alcoholics have no responsibilities just "needs" that society need to fulfil.
Sam

[togor]

Shade tree literalism at work. The question isn't whether fetal hearts beat or what species they are if born. The question is at what point in a literal reading of the Constitution do they become separate in their own right from the born person that carries them. Miscarriages, stillbirths and other such pregnancy outcomes were a known reality to the founders, so a straightforward literal reading of the Constitution is that you have to get born for its benefits to reach you. Moreover given the biological relationship extant there, the only way to confer such independent rights on an unnamed cluster of cells is to deny rights to the woman who carries it, and is born and named and otherwise should be under the protection of the Constitution. Women understand this clearly if old men don't, that pregnancy under a pro-life regime in effect places the womb under the supervision of the state--a condition that any True Conservative should reject out of hand. If the committed literalist is also vehemently anti-abortion, then the proper course of action for them is to try to garner enough support for a constitutional amendment. Not to read something in that isn't there. This isn't even a close call. The True Conservative position when dealing with the state is Pro-Choice. If religions or other private social groups wish to enjoin their membership to have a different position, they can do that.

The religionists who are trying to bend the Constitution to the tenets of their faith are in clear violation of the First Amendment (which is a door that swings both ways), and if they ever put me in charge then I would make sure religions know that they disrespect that amendment at their own peril.

[Vern Humphrey]

Making points to win the Byng Award.

[togor]

We've established that anemic and obscure replies are your way of acknowledging a strong argument. So thanks for the recognition.

[S.A. Boggs]

We've established that anemic and obscure replies are your way of acknowledging a strong argument. So thanks for the recognition.

Togor, Vern applied the gauntlet to you what are you not understanding?
Sam

[togor]

Great example in this link below of the kind of First Amendment overreach that the so-called literalists apply. The bait-and-switch is their religious rights supposedly in collision with this woman's constitutional right to be secure in her own person. There wasn't even a second heartbeat involved and it made zero difference to the guy. It's a complete sham argument he is making and no True Constitutional Conservative should put up with it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/u...scarriage.html

He got fired and watch him sue his former employer, claiming he got hosed because of his religion.

[Vern Humphrey]

Some how the word "Constitutional" keeps getting tossed into this discussion -- but the people who toss it never quote the part of the Constitution to which they refer.

But if they do, I'll bet they try this tired old trick and quote the XIV Amendment:

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.

Now people who do not speak English very well sometimes claim that passage defines "person." It does not -- it defines "citizen." It sets up a general class called "persons" and tells us that some persons are citizens and some are not -- and tells us how we can tell which is which. The term "person" is nowhere defined in the Constitution.

[dryheat]

-I just love hearing about their "rights" what about their responsibilities.-

Good post Boggs. But why not make it easier for idiots to avoid their(and our) problem.

-Women understand this clearly if old men don't, that pregnancy under a pro-life regime in effect places the womb under the supervision of the state--a condition that any True Conservative should reject out of hand.-

A little fired up? Sometimes that makes for the best writing.

Hopefully, with more education the space between conservatives and religious kooks gets bigger.

[Vern Humphrey]

-I just love hearing about their "rights" what about their responsibilities.-

When you can commit murder -- murder of the most helpless, innocent victims -- merely for convenience sake, how can there be any such thing as "responsibilities?" Maybe next we'll make hit-and-run legal.

[blackhawknj]

In true Liberal/Leftist fashion they redefine words to suit themselves. A same-sex "marriage", calling a welfare litter of four a "family", "gender fluidity"-?
The womb under control of the state ? How about protecting the weak and defenseless ?
If you want to see unwanted children. visit a financial aid office, especially at a state of community college. The noted post-divorce researcher Judith Wallerstein found that TWO THIRDs of the divorced fathers she surveyed gave the children of their dissolved marriages NO help whatsoever with college expenses, when I quoted this figure to a financial aid officer at a community college she said the figure for her school was more like 90 %. And when asked for the financial disclosure forms from their fathers the kids usually say:
"My parents divorced when I was -- years old and we never heard from him again."

[bruce]

"we never heard from him again." Yep. Par for the course. All protest to the contrary not withstanding, divorce is a failure from which the man typicaly emerges better off, the woman emerges less well off and the children end up in a pup tent in the back yard w/ bathroom privileges and a raw deal for the future. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.

[Vern Humphrey]

"we never heard from him again." Yep. Par for the course. All protest to the contrary not withstanding, divorce is a failure from which the man typicaly emerges better off, the woman emerges less well off and the children end up in a pup tent in the back yard w/ bathroom privileges and a raw deal for the future. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.

I couldn't agree more. People take vows to marry for life, and they ought to keep those vows, not dump their problems on the children.

[togor]

There's no way around it. Giving blanket rights to fertilized eggs (who knows maybe eventually unfertilized ones too if the religionists get their way) subtracts from the rights of the mother. The pro-life people NEVER talk about that! In the days of the founders, pregnancy to a successful live birth was not a given. No one can dispute that. The only way that pro-lifers can pursue their cause is by making the mother to some degree invisible, which is inherently contrary to the Constitution as written. There is no "whadabout" that anyone can throw at this discussion that changes these immutable facts. Women, whether some old men like it or not, are entitled to considerable control over their bodies and destiny. You want one to bear your children or grandchildren? Make it worth her while to make that choice freely. Someone else's line in her belly? Then you have no say. Deal with it!

[Vern Humphrey]

"Braying is all the pleasure a jackass gets out of this life."