View Poll Results: Which terms are sufficient qualifiers associated with this identifier , SEE THREAD

Voters
3. You may not vote on this poll
  • such political pundits promote an elimination of negative liberties for abortion

    1 33.33%
  • such political pundits expect violations of us 10th and 9th amendments

    2 66.67%
  • such political pundits seek a violation of non aggression principles to forsake negative liberties

    1 33.33%
  • such political pundits seek a violation of non aggression principles to forsake positive liberties

    0 0%
  • such political pundits promote strict control over positive liberties

    1 33.33%
  • such political pundits represent a majority of public opinion

    0 0%
  • such political pundits represent a majority of registered and active voters

    0 0%
  • such political pundits represent an inconsistency for constitution lists regarding abortion wrights

    1 33.33%
  • such political pundits should seek non nomian legalism

    1 33.33%
  • such political pundits do represent entitlements to participate in abortion

    1 33.33%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: Abortion : Anti US Tenth Ninth Amendment Polity Pundits : Description Distribution

  1. #11
    Moderator libertariat720's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5,616
    Thanks
    1786

    From
    ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by GordonGecko View Post
    I think the basic premise is this...

    Since an abortion ban would effect ONLY women (obviously, from a biological standpoint)....it would be inherently discriminatory. One group of Americans would be denied rights based on gender (same as basing it on race or ethnicity or religion or sexual orientation or whatever).

    Ruling after ruling from the Courts for decades have stated that States do NOT have the right to engage in discriminatory laws. "Equal protection" from the 14th Amendment clearly upholds that.

    So since you can't "ban men from having abortions" as a legitimate and serious legal premise and thus create a law that would effect ALL citizens....it is un-Constitutional to ban abortion, as it creates UN-equal protection under the law for women.

    So Roe trumps (no pun) federalism.
    It is not discriminatory because it is protecting the life of the baby, it has nothing to do with denying women's rights.

    You don't have the right to end a human life.

    This is a states issue. Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned. It's unconstitutional.

  2. #12
    Polemicist Supremum Monk-Eye's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,433
    Thanks
    329

    From
    Yesod

    Grinning Machine Lathe

    " Grinning Machine Lathe "

    Quote Originally Posted by libertariat720 View Post
    It is not discriminatory because it is protecting the life of the baby, it has nothing to do with denying women's rights.
    You don't have the right to end a human life.
    This is a states issue. Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned. It's unconstitutional.
    * Buffing Waxing *

    For those lauding themselves as antifederalists , welcome to individualists lauding themselves as antistatists , as well .

    It is not a state issue it is an individual citizen issue , per the 9th , 10th and 14th constitutional amendments of us .

    As individualism emphasizes negative liberties as independence from government and independence from other individuals , whereby , each individual citizen is entitled to self ownership .

    Now , are your interests in violating non aggression principles to affect an individual responsibility for self determination ?


    * Fore Nubile Ideologues *

    Quote Originally Posted by Monk-Eye View Post
    "Constitutional Review Of Abortion"

    At the inception of the constitution, when natural freedoms are exchanged for wrights of citizenship, the citizen is the sole, primary, principle and exclusive recipient of protections as constructed through the legalism of its doctrine.

    The 14th amendment directly implies that a citizen receives wrights at birth; thus, the point of inception whereby the state concerns itself with an obligation to reprise a violation to a wright to life begins for a citizen at birth.

    According to the 14th amendment, the extension of equal protection to any other being, whether it be described as a person, a non-citizen, or otherwise, cannot have any greater rights than that of a citizen.

    Since a citizen must be born to receive protected wrights, any other being must also be born to receive protected wrights, else that other would be receiving greater wrights than those received by that of a citizen.

    The premise for equal protection, as being based upon a requirement of birth, was clearly understood and forwarded within the opinion of Blackmun, Roe V. Wade, in the statement, "Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth."

    Ultimately, through judicial activism, Roe V Wade modified the meaning of birth from parturition to viability, which was estimated to begin at the end of the second trimester.

    Viability is consistent on a time line with the onset of foetal pain as evidenced from the JAMA, which concludes a necessary presence for thalamocortical radiations.

    Pain implies the onset of sentience, and sentience is a prerequisite for sapience, as a minimum prerequisite for conscientious objection by a foetus, which is a philosophical birth, whereby a foetus may initially qualify as a legal victim that may be represented by legal proxy.

    Otherwise, by constitution and philosophical reason, prior to birth, the foetus is the private property of the mother, by intrinsic possession, for which privacy protections of the constitution apply.

    Unborn foetal protection laws must be consistent with the constitution, and any law must define violations and penalties as consequences to actions against the mother, which may include elevated penalties for special circumstances.
    Last edited by Monk-Eye; 17th November 2016 at 07:27 PM.

  3. #13
    Veteran Member GordonGecko's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    29,595
    Thanks
    22321

    From
    VA
    Quote Originally Posted by libertariat720 View Post
    It is not discriminatory because it is protecting the life of the baby, it has nothing to do with denying women's rights.

    You don't have the right to end a human life.

    This is a states issue. Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned. It's unconstitutional.
    1. An abortion ban ONLY effects women, since men cannot become pregnant. That's a fact.

    2. Is a fertilized human egg one second after fertilization a "baby"? Yes or No? NO...not "human life" or "potential life"....you used the word "BABY"....is it a "baby"? Yes or No?

    3. Under a situation where abortion is banned? Explain IN DETAIL...not just "same as any other crime"....what METHODS a State could use to enforce and punish violators of an aboriton ban?

    4. Roe has stood for 43 years....through Republican Presidents, Republican Congresses, Republican Presidents WITH Republican Congresses, and a Supreme Court where the MAJORITY were nominated by a "pro life" Republican President.

  4. #14
    Veteran Member GordonGecko's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    29,595
    Thanks
    22321

    From
    VA
    BTW, a clear example of how an abortion ban would be discriminatory on gender?


    Suppose some radical anti-sterilization group passed a ban on....voluntary vasectomies?

    Would that be Constitutional?

  5. #15
    Polemicist Supremum Monk-Eye's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,433
    Thanks
    329

    From
    Yesod

    Gaming Rules Changers

    " Gaming Rules Changers "

    Quote Originally Posted by GordonGecko View Post
    BTW, a clear example of how an abortion ban would be discriminatory on gender?
    Suppose some radical anti-sterilization group passed a ban on....voluntary vasectomies?
    Would that be Constitutional?
    * Playing Population Control Twister *

    An after life means literally - the passing on of ones identity through genetics that includes those opportunities to secure\/assure continued introspection as some sophisticated physical state of a haploid resemblance .

    A wright to life is dependent upon a greater individual such as a state of government to implement retorsion\//\reprisal against a perpetrator .

    A perpetrator violating a wright to life loses its own wright to life through a law of equal protection ; and , it is dependent upon social justices whether to issue a reprieve from retorsion/\\/reprisal .


    * Forth Hence Fourth *

    If a vasectomy were a guaranteed benign and reversible , perhaps as some tubal ligation , would it be possible to issue a legal order requiring a reversible vasectomy until such time as is allowable to procreate , such as an inclusion as part of criminal punishment for violating a wright to life of some other individual entitled with equal protection ?

    http://politicalhotwire.com/opinion-polls/136405-sterilization-murder-equivalent-double-entendre-life-wright-removal.html?highlight=
    Last edited by Monk-Eye; 18th November 2016 at 12:08 PM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Goodbye Anti-2nd Amendment Maryland
    By Libertine in forum Current Events
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 14th April 2016, 09:11 AM
  2. Question for those of you whom are anti-abortion/ anti-choice .
    By justagurlinseattle in forum Current Events
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 19th July 2014, 05:57 AM
  3. Wisconsin Enforces Tenth Amendment, Reopens Parks
    By michaelr in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 8th October 2013, 08:34 AM
  4. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10th May 2013, 11:00 AM
  5. The Ninth Amendment
    By sparsely in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 29th September 2012, 03:42 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed