Thread: Dear Conservatives

Originally Posted by steepconcrete

untill that freedom gets in the way of morals.

Can't people have the freedom to vote thier morals? Why do they have to accept your version of what's moral?

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

Can't people have the freedom to vote thier morals? Why do they have to accept your version of what's moral?

Like abortion rights?

Originally Posted by Rubicon

That's some sound logic backed up by facts right there.

example #1
crawford TX outlawed roadside parking to stop war protesters. stomping on free speech.

example #2
abortion, you want to take a womans freedom of choice away

Originally Posted by steepconcrete

example #1
crawford TX outlawed roadside parking to stop war protesters. stomping on free speech.

example #2
abortion, you want to take a womans freedom of choice away

example #1
But when my in-laws' town in NJ does it, it's to keep the town pretty! Fuck them! They're stomping on my freedom of speech by not letting me park my car where I want!!!! OMGZ!!!

example #2
abortion, you want to take a baby's right to life away!!!!

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

Like abortion rights?

Here we go. The debate is if the unborn is a human life and should be protected as if it were born, or not. If it is....abortion is wrong. If it isn't abortion is ok.

Reasonable people can disagree on that. But if you are one who thinks an unborn is a life, then IT also has Rights and Freedom from being killed.

The old saying that "My right to swing my fist ends at your nose" applies in that case.

The baby has rights that need to be fought for in many peoples eyes. And the womans right to "swing her fist" ends at the well being of the baby.

Two peoples FREEDOM are at stake, not just the mother.

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

Here we go. The debate is if the unborn is a human life and should be protected as if it were born, or not. If it is....abortion is wrong. If it isn't abortion is ok.

that is not really the debate, that is a attempt by anti-abortion people at a loophole.

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

Here we go. The debate is if the unborn is a human life and should be protected as if it were born, or not. If it is....abortion is wrong. If it isn't abortion is ok.

Reasonable people can disagree on that. But if you are one who thinks an unborn is a life, then IT also has Rights and Freedom from being killed.

The old saying that "My right to swing my fist ends at your nose" applies in that case.

The baby has rights that need to be fought for in many peoples eyes. And the womans right to "swing her fist" ends at the well being of the baby.

Two peoples FREEDOM are at stake, not just the mother.

Whether a fetus is alive doesn't matter one way or the other. Its not yet a citizen of the US so it doesn't have constitution rights. Much like the arguments of those ok with Gitmo and torture.

Can Fetuses legally own automatic weapons?

Originally Posted by rideit

Can Fetuses legally own automatic weapons?

God I hope so.

Originally Posted by gonehuckin

Whether a fetus is alive doesn't matter one way or the other. Its not yet a citizen of the US so it doesn't have constitution rights.

Wrong.

Constitutional Challenges to
State Unborn Victims (Fetal Homicide) Laws

November 26, 2007

(All challenges were unsuccessful. All challenges were based at least in part on Roe v. Wade and/or denial of equal protection, unless otherwise noted.)

California
In People v. Davis [872 P.2d 591 (Cal. 1994)], the California Supreme Court upheld the legislature's addition of the phrase "or a fetus" to the state murder law in 1970, but held that the term "fetus" applies "beyond the embryonic stage of seven to eight weeks." (California Penal Code 187(a) says, "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.") In People v. Dennis [950 P.2d 1035 (Cal. 1994)], the California Supreme Court upheld inclusion of fetal homicide under Penal Code 190.2(3), which makes a defendant eligible for capital punishment if convicted of more than one murder.

Georgia

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit unanimously upheld the conviction of Richard James Smith, Sr., under Georgia's "feticide" statute. Smith argued that the law conflicted with Roe v. Wade, but the court rejected this assertion as "without merit." The court held: "The proposition that Smith relies upon in Roe v. Wade -- that an unborn child is not a "person" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment -- is simply immaterial in the present context to whether a state can prohibit the destruction of a fetus." Smith v. Newsome, 815 F.2d 1386 (11th Cir. 1987). Related state supreme court decision: Brinkley v. State, 322 S.E.2d 49 (Ga. 1984) (vagueness/due process challenge).

Illinois

U.S. ex rel. Ford v. Ahitow, 888 F.Supp. 909 (C.D.Ill. 1995), and lower court decision, People v. Ford, 581 N.E.2d 1189 (Ill.App. 4 Dist. 1991).

People v. Campos, 592 N.E.2d 85 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 1992). Subsequent history: appeal denied, 602 N.E.2d 460 (Ill. 1992), habeas corpus denied, 827 F.Supp. 1359 (N.D. Ill. 1993), affirmed, 37 F.3d 1501 (7th Cir. 1994), certiorari denied, 514 U.S. 1024 (1995).

Louisiana

Re double jeopardy -- State v. Smith, 676 So.2d 1068 (La. 1996), rehearing denied, 679 So.2d 380 (La. 1996).

Minnesota

State v. Merrill, 450 N.W.2d 318 (Minn. 1990), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 931 (1990).

Re establishment clause -- State v. Bauer, 471 N.W.2d 363 (Minn. App. 1991).

Missouri

In the 1989 case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (492 U.S. 490), the U.S. Supreme Court refused to invalidate a Missouri statute (Mo. Rev. Stat. 1.205.1) that declares that "the life of each human being begins at conception," that "unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being," and that all state laws "shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development, all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state," to the extent permitted by the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court rulings. A lower court had held that Missouri's law "impermissibl[y]" adopted "a theory of when life begins," but the Supreme Court nullified this ruling, and held that a state is free to enact laws that recognize unborn children, so long as the state does not include restrictions on abortion that Roe forbids.

In State v. Knapp, 843 S.W. 2nd (Mo. en banc) (1992), the Missouri Supreme Court held that the definition of "person" in this law is applicable to other statutes, including at least the state's involuntary manslaughter statute.

Pennsylvania

On December 27, 2006, in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Bullock (J-43-2006), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously rejected an array of constitutional challenges to the Crimes Against the Unborn Child Act, 18 Pa. C.S. Sec. 2601 et seq., including claims based on Roe v. Wade and equal protection doctrine. Although the law applies "from fertilization until birth," a convicted killer, Matthew Bullock, had argued that U.S. Supreme Court precedents allowed such a law to apply only after the point that the baby is "viable" (able to survive indefinitely outside of the womb). The Pennsylvania justices rejected this argument, stating that "to accept that a fetus is not biologically alive until it can survive outside of the womb would be illogical, as such a concept would define fetal life in terms that depend on external conditions, namely, the state of medical technology (which, of course, tends to improve over time). . . viability outside of the womb is immaterial to the question of whether the defendant's actions have caused a cessation of the biological life of the fetus . . ."

Also: On January 24, 2003, in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Corrine D. Wilcott, the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County rejected challenges asserting that the law is unconstitutionally vague, violates U.S. Supreme Court abortion cases, violates equal protection clause, and conflicts with state tort law on definition of "person."

Texas

In the case of Terence Chadwick Lawrence v. The State of Texas (No. PD-0236-07), issued November 21, 2007, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the state's highest appellate court in criminal cases) unanimously rejected a convicted murderer's claims that the 2003 Prenatal Protection Act was unconstitutional for various reasons, including inconsistency with Roe v. Wade. In its summary of the case, the court explained that after learning that a girlfriend, Antwonyia Smith, was pregnant with his child, defendant Lawrence "shot Smith three times with a shotgun, causing her death and the death of her four-to-six week old embryo." For this crime, Lawrence was convicted of the offense of "capital murder," defined in Texas law as causing the death of "more than one person . . during the same criminal transaction." The court said that the abortion-related rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court have "no application to a statute that prohibits a third party from causing the death of the woman's unborn child against her will." The court noted, "Indeed, we have found no case from any state supreme court or federal court that has struck down a statute prohibiting the murder of an unborn victim, and appellant [Lawrence] cites none."

Utah

State of Utah v. Roger Martin MacGuire. MacGuire was charged under the state criminal homicide law with killing his former wife and her unborn child. He argued that the law, which covered "the death of another human being, including an unborn child," was unconstitutional because the term "unborn child" was not defined. The Utah Supreme Court upheld the law as constitutional, holding that "the commonsense meaning of the term 'unborn child' is a human being at any stage of development in utero. . ." MacGuire was also charged under the state's aggravated murder statute, which applies a more severe penalty for a crime in which two or more "persons" are killed; the court ruled that this law was also properly applied to an unborn victim and was consistent with the U.S. Constitution. January 23, 2004.

Wisconsin

Re due process -- State v. Black, 526 N.W.2d 132 (Wis. 1994) (upholding earlier statute).

http://www.nrlc.org/unborn_victims/statechallenges.Html

steepconcrete you paying attention?

Originally Posted by Rubicon

Wrong.






steepconcrete you paying attention?

Interesting...but can two fetuses in a same sex relationship be joined in a civil union?

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

Interesting...but can two fetuses in a same sex relationship be joined in a civil union?

Only in W Virginia?

Originally Posted by Rubicon

Wrong.

Its probably a bit nuanced for you but show me where any of those rulings uphold the US Constitutional rights of an unborn child? Absolutely zero of them. They do uphold state laws granting additional state rights to an unborn child or narrowly interpreted to uphold a mother's right to have her pregnancy uninterupted by a third party. Not the same thing no matter how much you'd like it to fit your argument.

Originally Posted by steepconcrete

untill that freedom gets in the way of morals.

Originally Posted by steepconcrete

example #1
crawford TX outlawed roadside parking to stop war protesters. stomping on free speech.

War protesters are connected with morals how? I'm not following your logic.

example #2
abortion, you want to take a womans freedom of choice away

Everybody's choices are limited in order to protect human life. It has been this way for thousands of years in nearly every society on earth. So again, I'm not following your logic.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

War protesters are connected with morals how? I'm not following your logic.





Everybody's choices are limited in order to protect human life. It has been this way for thousands of years in nearly every society on earth. So again, I'm not following your logic.

First, some people morally object to killing others. Hence "morals".

Second, fine but a fetus is not defined as a human life...so???

Originally Posted by gonehuckin

Its probably a bit nuanced for you but show me where any of those rulings uphold the US Constitutional rights of an unborn child? Absolutely zero of them. They do uphold state laws granting additional state rights to an unborn child or narrowly interpreted to uphold a mother's right to have her pregnancy uninterupted by a third party. Not the same thing no matter how much you'd like it to fit your argument.

We can play the nuance game if you want.

Originally Posted by gonehuckin

Whether a fetus is alive doesn't matter one way or the other. Its not yet a citizen of the US so it doesn't have constitution rights.

Whether or not the fetus is a citizen is irrelevant. At some point it becomes a human and is subject to the protection under the law that is fitting for a human life. The precedent for a fetus possessing human status has been set by the successful prosecution of people for manslaughter for causing the death of a fetus, and the laws that made those prosecutions possible have successfully survived repeated constitutional challenges.

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

First, some people morally object to killing others. Hence "morals".

What does that have to do with steepconcrete's post?

Second, fine but a fetus is not defined as a human life...so???

In many states it is.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

We can play the nuance game if you want.



Whether or not the fetus is a citizen is irrelevant. At some point it becomes a human and is subject to the protection under the law that is fitting for a human life. The precedent for a fetus possessing human status has been set by the successful prosecution of people for manslaughter for causing the death of a fetus, and the laws that made those prosecutions possible have successfully survived repeated constitutional challenges.

We are arguing at two sides of the same coin but it is important to understand the differences. You're refering to laws protecting an unborn fetus as being constitutionally acceptable. No where are you claiming that an unborn fetus is granted constitutional rights (Mother yes, unborn fetus no). And thats exactly what I'm pointing out.

Originally Posted by gonehuckin

We are arguing at two sides of the same coin but it is important to understand the differences. You're refering to laws protecting an unborn fetus as being constitutionally acceptable. No where are you claiming that an unborn fetus is granted constitutional rights (Mother yes, unborn fetus no). And thats exactly what I'm pointing out.

I do understand the difference. But the argument you are making, while accurate, doesn't seem particularly relevant to the abortion discussion since the law does not make a distinction between citizen and non citizen when it comes to the protection of human life.

I have heard people use the argument you are making as a blanket endorsement of all abortion(as well as basis for opposition to any restrictions placed on abortions), regardless of how far along it is, since the fetus was not entitled to protection under the constitution. Which is what I thought you were doing.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

What does that have to do with steepconcrete's post?

You asked:

Originally Posted by Rubicon

War protesters are connected with morals how? I'm not following your logic.

Some people object to killing people be it during war or otherwise, which to me seems like moral objection.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

In many states it is.

I thought the distinction was pointed out on this?

Those people are fewer in number than the "All life is sacred" crowd ignoring their stance on the death penalty -- you know, the killing of actual Citizens who are actually protected by the Constitution.

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

You asked:



Some people object to killing people be it during war or otherwise, which to me seems like moral objection.

Steepconcrete used the banning of war protesters as an example of conservatives valuing their morals above freedom.

So what does banning war protestors have to do with morals?

Originally Posted by Rubicon

Steepconcrete used the banning of war protesters as an example of conservatives valuing their morals above freedom.

So what does banning war protestors have to do with morals?

I get it, you're saying it's fine to morally object to something...but don't expect to be able to protest about it.

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

I get it, you're saying it's fine to morally object to something...but don't expect to be able to protest about it.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

I do understand the difference. But the argument you are making, while accurate, doesn't seem particularly relevant to the abortion discussion since the law does not make a distinction between citizen and non citizen when it comes to the protection of human life.

I have heard people use the argument you are making as a blanket endorsement of all abortion(as well as basis for opposition to any restrictions placed on abortions), regardless of how far along it is, since the fetus was not entitled to protection under the constitution. Which is what I thought you were doing.

Nope, the only assertion that I'm making is that all human life isn't protected under our constitution. Regardless of whether that life is in the form of a fetus or a prisoner in gitmo. And then the hypocritical nature of American conservatism as its known today. Citizens only, which neither a fetus or a tortured prisoner fits. In fact, for all the rights posturing, its clear that they'd like to use constitutional protections for one group while ignoring another. Isn't all life innocent until proven guilty?