Announcement

Collapse

Pro-Life Activism 301 Guidelines

This area is for pro-life activists to discuss issues related to abortion. It is NOT a debate area, and it is not OK for pro-choice activists to post here.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

New York celebrates legalizing abortion until birth

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    If abortion was declared to be illegal by the SCOTUS as they fear then it would not matter what the state laws said.
    That's what's really weird -- and it's almost like they are unwittingly causing a situation where SCOTUS will HAVE to act, and popular opinion would be changing to "yeah, this is getting WAY out of hand - something needs to be done to slow this* down". It appears that liberals almost ALWAYS overreach.


    *'this' being the culture of death
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      Report: More Unborn Babies In New York Identifying As Convicted Criminals So They Can't Legally Be Executed

      NEW YORK—According to a new report, unborn babies in New York have adopted a new strategy to help them stay alive under the state's barbaric new abortion laws: identifying as convicted criminals so they can't legally be executed under the state's constitution.

      Since capital punishment in the state has been banned but abortion is legal pretty much whenever and however you want, unborn babies quickly formulated the survival strategy of identifying as murderers, rapists, and genocidal maniacs.

      "I now identify as a serial killer indicted on five counts of murder," said one 6-month-old baby, whose mother was considering an abortion. "Therefore, under state law, I cannot be executed. Sorry, mom."

      "Guess you'll just have to like be a mom or something," he added, shrugging.

      State leaders were blindsided by the strategy and aren't sure whether they should restrict abortion or rescind the ban on capital punishment. "We're definitely in a bit of a pickle," Governor Andrew Cuomo said. "We must respect these babies' chosen identities as serial killers, and we obviously can't perform a lethal injection on a serial killer."

      "That would just be inhumane," he added, shaking his head.
      Source: Ultrasound Unable To Detect Heartbeat In New York State Legislators



      ALBANY, NY—After the New York State Legislature voted to greatly expand abortion rights all the way up until the point of birth Tuesday, doctors quickly ordered echocardiograms on every lawmaker who voted for the bill, but tragically, no heartbeats were found by any of the ultrasounds.

      Physicians desperately searched the chest cavities of the legislators for any sign of a heartbeat but found only a black void where normal human beings have a heart.

      "Not a single one of these legislators appears to have a heart," said one doctor gravely. "This is a known medical condition. When you try to justify the murder of infants, you slowly sear your conscience. As a side effect, your heart begins to harden. Finally, it becomes pure stone and eventually withers away into nothing, leaving you with a black void: a husk of a human."

      "It's really the only way you could possibly cheer on something like the murder of babies," he added as he performed another cardiac ultrasound. "Nope, this one's coming up negative too: just blackness where normal people have a heart."

      Doctors also ordered blood tests but found only cold hatred running through the veins of every legislator who voted to further oppress the unborn.


      Source

      © Copyright Original Source


      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        If abortion was declared to be illegal by the SCOTUS as they fear then it would not matter what the state laws said.
        An overruling of Roe v. Wade wouldn't declare abortion to be illegal. It would simply allow states that want to restrict abortions to do so.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
          An overruling of Roe v. Wade wouldn't declare abortion to be illegal. It would simply allow states that want to restrict abortions to do so.
          unless they replaced it with a new ruling saying no state can allow abortion.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            unless they replaced it with a new ruling saying no state can allow abortion.
            I think SCOTUS would recognize that's not in their purview.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              I think SCOTUS would recognize that's not in their purview.
              Yeah. If I'm not mistaken, murder is a state crime, and each state gets to determine the punishment for it.
              That's what
              - She

              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
              - Stephen R. Donaldson

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                Yeah. If I'm not mistaken, murder is a state crime, and each state gets to determine the punishment for it.
                Yes, the notable exception being - If, however, the victim is a federal official, an ambassador, consul or other foreign official under the protection of the United States, or if the crime took place on federal property or involved crossing state borders, or in a manner that substantially affects interstate commerce or national security, then the federal government also has jurisdiction.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  Yes, the notable exception being - If, however, the victim is a federal official, an ambassador, consul or other foreign official under the protection of the United States, or if the crime took place on federal property or involved crossing state borders, or in a manner that substantially affects interstate commerce or national security, then the federal government also has jurisdiction.
                  The "crossing state borders" could be interesting -- if a person goes to another state to murder their child...
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    I think SCOTUS would recognize that's not in their purview.
                    Aren't they basically doing that now?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      Aren't they basically doing that now?
                      I think many people realize that RvW was a flawed ruling, and I hope we have learned from that.


                      Historical Misinterpretation in Roe v. Wade


                      After nearly thirty years, the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and its repercussions continue to rile divisive passions across America. As an unprecedented federal abortion ruling, it overturned longstanding anti-abortion laws in each of the fifty states and announced a departure from American mores. Roe fundamentally altered the terms of the abortion dialogue by asserting a federal power over what had been understood as a state right. To justify the federal ruling, the Court argued that abortion was a constitutional right; to justify the break with tradition, it explained abortion as a historically accepted practice. However, Roe sets forth a terse and incomplete view of abortion in history, omitting recalcitrant facts. Further, it employs the Fourteenth Amendment recklessly: the Court misrepresents its meaning and never demonstrates its relevance to abortion....
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        I think many people realize that RvW was a flawed ruling, and I hope we have learned from that.


                        Historical Misinterpretation in Roe v. Wade


                        After nearly thirty years, the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and its repercussions continue to rile divisive passions across America. As an unprecedented federal abortion ruling, it overturned longstanding anti-abortion laws in each of the fifty states and announced a departure from American mores. Roe fundamentally altered the terms of the abortion dialogue by asserting a federal power over what had been understood as a state right. To justify the federal ruling, the Court argued that abortion was a constitutional right; to justify the break with tradition, it explained abortion as a historically accepted practice. However, Roe sets forth a terse and incomplete view of abortion in history, omitting recalcitrant facts. Further, it employs the Fourteenth Amendment recklessly: the Court misrepresents its meaning and never demonstrates its relevance to abortion....
                        from that same cite...

                        While the Roe Court claims interest in historical attitudes, it directly affronts the traditional consensus, Western culture, and, most grievously, American state laws and mores shared nationwide.

                        While the Roe Court claims that permissive abortion culture and laws surround the 1868 Amendment, that era held a public, medical, and legislative agreement that feticide was murder.

                        While the Roe Court claims that abortion is among personal liberties, no amendments intended to, or are equipped to, broach the abortion issue.

                        Perhaps abortion is a requisite right for a free and pluralistic society, but if so it should be introduced according to the proper governmental channels. In a democracy where representatives of the people vote general principles into law and the judiciary is commissioned to apply those principles to individual cases, it is unlawful and contrary to the good order of society for the judicial branch to introduce new and unintended principles. The Supreme Court should have declined to hear Roe v. Wade, allowing the proper legislative channels or Constitutional amendment procedures to democratically consider proper abortive rights.


                        This is the kind of abuse of the system one gets when you have activist judges. So glad Hillary is not POTUS and SCOTUS is not Hillary's.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          I think many people realize that RvW was a flawed ruling, and I hope we have learned from that.
                          Even at the time, people were calling out for how absurd a decision it was, even those who would have liked to see its resulted achieved by legislation. I posted it in another topic, but I still heartily recommend the article "The Wages of Crying Wolf" that was issued the same year as Roe v. Wade (as a response). It is out of date in a few areas. Its argument of "if a right to privacy is so strong that abortion cannot be prohibited, then why in the world are laws banning sodomy or drug use allowed?" is partially obviated by Lawrence v. Texas (its point concerning drug use is still valid), and its criticism of the trimester framework for allowance of abortion restrictions, while a valid criticism of Roe v. Wade, is no longer applicable because Planned Parenthood v. Casey dispensed with that and replaced it with the more arbitrary but more reasonable "undue burden" standard. But other than that, I think it holds up very well.

                          An especially good passage:
                          Of course a woman's freedom to choose an abortion is part of the "liberty" the Fourteenth Amendment says shall not be denied without due process of law, as indeed is anyone's freedom to do what he wants. But "due process" generally guarantees only that the inhibition be procedurally fair and that it have some "rational" connection-though plausible is probably a better word-with a permissible governmental goal. What is unusual about Roe is that the liberty involved is accorded a far more stringent protection, so stringent that a desire to preserve the fetus's existence is unable to overcome it-a protection more stringent, I think it fair to say, than that the present Court accords the freedom of the press explicitly guaranteed by the First Amendment. What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers' thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation's governmental structure.


                          Anyone who doesn't want to read through the 30-some pages of the article (to be fair, a lot of that is footnotes...) and wants a shorter refutation can see Justice Rehnquist's dissent in the original decision.
                          Last edited by Terraceth; 02-06-2019, 01:03 AM.

                          Comment

                          widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                          Working...
                          X