Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Correct. American was not founded on brutal and barbaric paganism or communism. If you seek a society that is run by atheists there is China and N.Korea just to name a few. But will you move there? Nope! You would never want to live your own worldview. Why should we Americans support what you cannot live?
In your last two sentences I think you meant to write, We would never want to live your own world view. Why should we support what we cannot live?" So it seems you certainly don't agree with the notion of live and let live. Seems like you would be better suited to a far Christian Right version of North Korea.
Which brings up an intersting questio, which countries allow late term abortions? Which countries laws allow an elective abortions of healthy fetus by a healthy mother past the firat rimester.
This paper has really good research into that question:
Quote:
and/or on request
Thirty-two countries allow second trimester abortions on broad socio-economic grounds. All of these countries also permit abortions for other reasons; 81% are developed countries or former Soviet republics or Soviet bloc countries that have long had liberal abortion laws. They include Great Britain, India, Japan, Russian Federation, South Africa and Ukraine. 69% set specific time limits for such abortions, ranging from 16 weeks (two countries) to 22 weeks (ten countries) to “viability” (two countries).
Some of the countries with this indication, including Denmark, Guyana, Norway, Russian Federation, South Africa, and most former Soviet republics, allow abortion on request in the first trimester of pregnancy; others, includ- ing Great Britain, Iceland, India and Zambia do not. A few countries authorise second trimester abortions for specific, limited socio-economic
reasons, e.g. the pregnant woman/girl is of unsound mind (Bhutan, Hungary, New Zealand, Norway); the pregnancy is due to contracep- tive failure (Guyana, India); the woman is HIV- positive (Guyana); the woman is over a specified age (Estonia, Israel); the pregnancy is the result of extramarital relations (Israel); the pregnancy was not discovered earlier (Hungary); the preg- nant woman/girl or the father suffers from a genetic disease (Republic of Korea, Taiwan); the pregnant woman/girl is unable to care for a child (Denmark, Estonia, Ethiopia, Guyana); and the pregnant girl/woman is under a specified age (Austria, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Hong Kong, Israel, Liechtenstein). The specified age varies from under 14 to under 18, to under the age of marriage. The last of these is notable in light of arguments for and against parental consent for minors to obtain an abortion in many countries.
Ten countries permit second trimester abor- tion on request. This contrasts with 54 countries that allow abortion on request only in the first trimester.21 Four of the ten do not set upper time limits on second trimester abortions. Sweden specifies 18 weeks, Singapore 24 weeks, and the Netherlands and the United States “via- bility,” but all allow some abortions on specific grounds after that. Eight of the ten countries are either developed countries or former Soviet bloc countries. With notable exceptions, such as India and South Africa, countries allowing abortion for socio-economic reasons or on request in the second trimester are places where obtaining a second trimester abortion is rela- tively easy and safe.
Maybe you should wait until everything settles down before making assumptions. The fact is ROE is a bad law made up by judges shoved down the nation ignoring the 10th amendment which to me is the bigger picture here because if they can do it with Roe, they can do it on everything.
If the worst case scenario is that a state bans all abortions after the first trimester except for exceptions, I'm sure pro abortionists will provide transportation and stay and even have the state taxpayers pay for it at any of the states that will allow it all the way to the 9th month.
All the time? You are saying women get abortions all the time? I thought it was a rare occasion. Maybe 1 or 2 max in their lifetime. You are saying they do it so much after the first trimester that they need their travel pay if it gets down to your assumption? ok
That's not the worst case scenario. That's not even the worst case scenario now. The worst case scenario is that states will ban all abortion with limited exceptions for the life of the mother. No exceptions for sever fetal abnormalities in the third trimester. No exceptions for rape or incest. Followed by banning of Plan B, IUD's RU486, birth control pills, condoms, etc.
That's not the worst case scenario. That's not even the worst case scenario now. The worst case scenario is that states will ban all abortion with limited exceptions for the life of the mother. No exceptions for sever fetal abnormalities in the third trimester. No exceptions for rape or incest. Followed by banning of Plan B, IUD's RU486, birth control pills, condoms, etc.
isn't that the Democrat wet dream to win permanent power? Keep the scare tactics. Let's get rid of a bad law and take it back to the people and democratic legislation and then you can comeback to me.
14th Amendment prohibits distinctions in state law based upon race.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
The 14th Amendment does not mention race.
The only place that race is mentioned in the Constitution is the 15th Amendment.
What on earth does your above comment have to do with WHAT I WROTE and you quoted?
What I wrote documented and explained the purpose of the Tenth Amendment and Bill of Rights.
Additionally, and in that post, I also correctly pointed out:
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
I then went on to correctly point out:
Of course, there are specific exceptions and limitations to such powers, and they are enforceable upon the states by the federal government. One such exception is the Fourteenth Amendment which prohibits State laws which make distinctions based upon race, color or previous condition of slavery, and is part of the intended purpose for adding this amendment to our constitution."
Did you miss "intended purpose" for adding this amendment to our Constitution"?
How do I know what I wrote above is the intended purpose of the 14th Amendment? Because in addition to a wide variety of comments made by members of the 39th congress which framed the amendment and passed it, one of the principal supporters summarizes its purpose as follows:
“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Representative Shallabarger, a supporter of the amendment Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293
The bottom line is, one of the intended purposes of the 14th Amendment is to prohibit distinctions in state law based upon race, just as I stated. Why do you make this an issue of contention?
What on earth does your above comment have to do with WHAT I WROTE and you quoted?
What I wrote documented and explained the purpose of the Tenth Amendment and Bill of Rights.
Additionally, and in that post, I also correctly pointed out:
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
I then went on to correctly point out:
Of course, there are specific exceptions and limitations to such powers, and they are enforceable upon the states by the federal government. One such exception is the Fourteenth Amendment which prohibits State laws which make distinctions based upon race, color or previous condition of slavery, and is part of the intended purpose for adding this amendment to our constitution."
Did you miss "intended purpose" for adding this amendment to our Constitution"?
How do I know what I wrote above is the intended purpose of the 14th Amendment? Because in addition to a wide variety of comments made by members of the 39th congress which framed the amendment and passed it, one of the principal supporters summarizes its purpose as follows:
“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Representative Shallabarger, a supporter of the amendment Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293
The bottom line is, one of the intended purposes of the 14th Amendment is to prohibit distinctions in state law based upon race, just as I stated. Why do you make this an issue of contention?
JWK
.
There is nothing about race in the 14th Amendment. If we look at the plain text, race appears nowhere. I don't care what some random dweeb is alleged to have said in 1866, it's irrelevant.
Here's the text of the Amendment:
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Please point out where it mentions race, or that the amendment only applies to racial based discrimination. It doesn't.
What on earth does your above comment have to do with WHAT I WROTE and you quoted?
What I wrote documented and explained the purpose of the Tenth Amendment and Bill of Rights.
Additionally, and in that post, I also correctly pointed out:
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
I then went on to correctly point out:
Of course, there are specific exceptions and limitations to such powers, and they are enforceable upon the states by the federal government. One such exception is the Fourteenth Amendment which prohibits State laws which make distinctions based upon race, color or previous condition of slavery, and is part of the intended purpose for adding this amendment to our constitution."
Did you miss "intended purpose" for adding this amendment to our Constitution"?
How do I know what I wrote above is the intended purpose of the 14th Amendment? Because in addition to a wide variety of comments made by members of the 39th congress which framed the amendment and passed it, one of the principal supporters summarizes its purpose as follows:
“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Representative Shallabarger, a supporter of the amendment Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293
The bottom line is, one of the intended purposes of the 14th Amendment is to prohibit distinctions in state law based upon race, just as I stated. Why do you make this an issue of contention?
JWK
.
More than a century of boneheaded state laws related to race.
Well, this thread has been derailed!!!
But it bolsters a statement made by the Supremes themselves in their draft opinion - pg 64 at the tab - that this Court will never be able to settle the debate, something that should have been anticipated, and thus the matter is returned to where it rightly belongs.....the States.
Well, this thread has been derailed!!!
But it bolsters a statement made by the Supremes themselves in their draft opinion - pg 64 at the tab - that this Court will never be able to settle the debate, something that should have been anticipated, and thus the matter is returned to where it rightly belongs.....the States.
Yep. The fact that the Court regularly hears abortion related cases and states continue to pass abortion related legislation that runs contrary to Roe shows that this issue is FAR from settled.
The Majority in Roe vs Wade engaged in the very definition of tyranny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riley.
Well, this thread has been derailed!!!
But it bolsters a statement made by the Supremes themselves in their draft opinion - pg 64 at the tab - that this Court will never be able to settle the debate, something that should have been anticipated, and thus the matter is returned to where it rightly belongs.....the States.
Alito's DRAFT OPINION also confirms the Majority in Roe engaged in the very definition of tyranny as stated by Madison, i.e, exercising executive, judicial and legislative powers.
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47
Here is what Alito wrote in the draft opinion about Roe:
“Even though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the Court held that it confers a broad right to obtain one. It did not claim that American law or the common law had ever recognized such a right, and its survey of history ranged from the constitutionally irrelevant (e.g., its discussion of abortion in antiquity) to the plainly incorrect (e.g., its assertion that abortion was probably never a crime under the common law). After cataloguing a wealth of other information having no bearing on the meaning of the Constitution, the opinion concluded with a numbered set of rules much like those that might be found in a statute enacted by a legislature.”
JWK
Last edited by johnwk1; 05-18-2022 at 07:13 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are saying women get abortions all the time? I thought it was a rare occasion. Maybe 1 or 2 max in their lifetime. You are saying they do it so much after the first trimester that they need their travel pay if it gets down to your assumption? ok
14th Amendment prohibits distinctions in state law based upon race.
