# Bobby Cutts, the father of the unborn child, was arrested on two counts of murder.



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Updated: 9:59 p.m. PT June 23, 2007

"Cutts was taken into custody Saturday and was to be arraigned on charges of murder in the deaths of Davis and her unborn child."

First, I am saddened beyond words that yet another pregnant woman has been found murdered very close to her giving birth. [see Scott Peterson] If Mr. Cutts is ultimately found guilty, or pleads guilty, then I hope he gets the death penalty and that those overseeing it include someone like the character from the movie "The Green Mile," you know, the guard who purposely failed to put water on the sponge before electrocuting the convicted prisoner? Not very Christian of me, I know, but this sort of thing just sickens me, plus, I live in Coeur D' Alene, Idaho where that monster Joesph Duncan is currently awaiting trial.

My question is this, however? Why is Bobby Cutts, and why was Scott Peterson, being charged with a double homicide? Is not the justification for abortion in this country the fact that the life inside of the mother is not a life until it is born? Do not liberal, Pro-Choice advocates claim that it is nothing more than a glob of tissue, until it is actually born?

Abortion activists do not seem to have a problem with a doctor partially delivering a baby and then poking a hole in its skull and sucking the brains out. They do not call that murder because it is not a life until it is born, they say! Is Planned Parenthood, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and yes, FrankDC going to demand that Bobby Cutts be charged with a single count of murder rather than a double count? Is the ACLU going to jump in and defend him because of the charge he murdered her unborn baby, which is not a baby, but a glob of tissue, according to Planned Parenthood?

Okay, a pre-emptive strike here because I know it is coming. Some will say I am inconsistent in my support of life because I support the death penalty, especially for murders like this one. Let me write real slow for those who have trouble following. Abortion is the taking of an INNOCENT life, one that has harmed no one and has been convicted of no crime. The death penalty is the taking of a guilty, criminal life, one that is NOT INNOCENT.

So, what's up with this?


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

I find this inconsistency puzzling also.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

whomewhat said:


> My question is this, however? Why is Bobby Cutts, and why was Scott Peterson, being charged with a double homicide? Is not the justification for abortion in this country the fact that the life inside of the mother is not a life until it is born? Do not liberal, Pro-Choice advocates claim that it is nothing more than a glob of tissue, until it is actually born?
> 
> Abortion activists do not seem to have a problem with a doctor partially delivering a baby and then poking a hole in its skull and sucking the brains out. They do not call that murder because it is not a life until it is born, they say! Is Planned Parenthood, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and yes, FrankDC going to demand that Bobby Cutts be charged with a single count of murder rather than a double count? Is the ACLU going to jump in and defend him because of the charge he murdered her unborn baby, which is not a baby, but a glob of tissue, according to Planned Parenthood?
> 
> ...


For the record I am not pro-abortion, nor do I believe the state should fund abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life or long-term health of a woman is jeopardized by a pregnancy. And since you insist on harrassing me personally, I'll return the favor: a father who judges a son for something the son is neither responsible for nor is able to change is exactly the kind of father who would just assume see his own daughter sent to prison for having an abortion. In my view you're a very scary human being.

As for your question, the trend to assign rights to fetuses started after Roe v. Wade, which established certain state rights over a woman's reproductive system once a fetus reaches viability (i.e. is able to survive outside of woman's body). Roe v. Wade was a foot in the door for the pro-life movement, and they've been pushing for additional rights and protections for fetuses ever since. Laws which e.g. add a fetus as an additional count in murder cases are a direct result of this.

According to the current platform of the Republican Party, "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children." This would make abortion illegal in all cases, without exception, even in cases of rape, incest or when a womans life is jeopardized by a pregnancy. It would also make any doctor who performs an abortion for any reason liable for murder.

These hardline and blatently unconstitutional proposals are supported by less than 20% of the American people, which is why they haven't been made -- even during the former Republican control of both houses of Congress and the White House.

As for the abortion vs. capital punishment debate, I agree with the last Pope: both are a part of the "culture of death". Neither act is justifiable, except when the only alternative course of action is more immoral than the acts themselves. IMO government has no business in either issue: the rights of the state do not extend to intentionally killing any human being or potential human being, except in the few abortion cases noted at the start of this response, or intruding itself into what has to be one of the most difficult and private decisions a woman or family ever makes. If our own daughter has an unwanted pregnancy, it is our job to make her aware of the ramifications of her decision. It's OUR responsibility to do this. It is not George W. Bush's job, or Ralph Reed's job, or YOUR job. The only thing more heinous than her aborting the pregnancy would be Alberto Gonzales breaking down our door and sending her to jail for doing so.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> If our own daughter has an unwanted pregnancy, it is our job to make her aware of the ramifications of her decision. It's OUR responsibility to do this. It is not George W. Bush's job, or Ralph Reed's job, or YOUR job. The only thing more heinous than her aborting the pregnancy would be Alberto Gonzales breaking down our door and sending her to jail for doing so.


Ummm...if one believe life begins at conception, which I do, then abortion is no different from shooting someone on the street. However, for some reason you think we should provide police to protect people on the streets, but there should be no law enforcement effort to make sure the unborn are protected?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> Ummm...if one believe life begins at conception, which I do, then abortion is no different from shooting someone on the street. However, for some reason you think we should provide police to protect people on the streets, but there should be no law enforcement effort to make sure the unborn are protected?


People on the street do not reside inside other people's bodies. Like it or not, our Constitution has been interpreted to give rights to women which supercede claimed rights of fetuses. This is where Roe v. Wade erred in my view: it was a bad decision, but for the exact opposite reason Ralph Reed claims it was.

Generally, the "fetal rights" movement has not withstood judicial scrutiny. The more "rights" fetuses are given, the more absurd the notion becomes, e.g. https://cad.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/41/2/235

This, like the "Federal Marriage Amendment", is why Republicans need to push for a constitutional amendment to further their agenda: they simply don't have a legal leg to stand on.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Does "life" begin at conception? Of course it does. Is that little bundle of cells "human"? There is the question everyone needs to argue IMO. I know some of you will say, "Yes, it is human life". This is a very old line of thinking, going back to the concept of homunculus. It would be nice if we could move beyond the thought of the ancient Greeks. There was also a medieval concept of sperm being a homunculus. I guess Monty Python was right, every sperm is sacred.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> And since you insist on harrassing me personally, I'll return the favor: a father who judges a son for something the son is neither responsible for nor is able to change is exactly the kind of father who would just assume see his own daughter sent to prison for having an abortion. In my view you're a very scary human being.


I always find it somewhat humorous when the harasser begins to cry foul and claims the harassee is harassing him. You really do not want, nor does anyone else here, a rehashing of your previous posts Frank where you continually harassed me and I simply defended myself.

I dare you Frank, no, I double dare you to show me where in my post I "harassed" you?

"Is Planned Parenthood, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and yes, FrankDC going to demand that Bobby Cutts be charged with a single count of murder rather than a double count?"

This was a logical conuclusion on my part given what you have written in the past (which changes whenever convenient to you) and so would hardly be considered, even remotely, harasment.

That said, you freely admit that your statement WAS intended as harassment when you wrote:

"And since you insist on harrassing me personally, *I'll return the favor*: a father who judges a son for something the son is neither responsible for nor is able to change is exactly the kind of father who would just assume see his own daughter sent to prison for having an abortion. In my view you're a very scary human being."

For the last time Frank: you are free to call me whatever names you choose, such as "very scary human being," but leave my family and children out of this. I have never attacked your family, your children, brought them up in an attempt to attack you, yet you consistently do so. Where, anywhere, in my post, in this thread, do I mention your family and invite you to do the same? You know the answer Frank, I have not and did not. Stop bringing up my family Frank.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Does "life" begin at conception? Of course it does. Is that little bundle of cells "human"? There is the question everyone needs to argue IMO. I know some of you will say, "Yes, it is human life". This is a very old line of thinking, going back to the concept of homunculus. It would be nice if we could move beyond the thought of the ancient Greeks. There was also a medieval concept of sperm being a homunculus. I guess Monty Python was right, every sperm is sacred.


 :icon_smile_big:


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

whomewhat said:


> I always find it somewhat humorous when the harasser begins to cry foul and claims the harassee is harassing him. You really do not want, nor does anyojne else here, a rehashing of your previous posts Frnk where you continually harassed me and I simply defended myself.


Of course not, since the only harrassment that occurred toward your family exists only between your left ear and right ear. I made a reference to a widely distributed Hollywood film, and your conscience took it personally. Sorry, that's not my problem.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Of course not, since the only harrassment that occurred toward your family exists only between your left ear and right ear. * I made a reference to a widely distributed Hollywood film,* and your conscience took it personally. Sorry, that's not my problem.


What you presented, you presented as actual events that you seemed to feel happen on a regular basis. Only when you were threatened with being banned did you suddenly reveal is was a scene from a very low budget, barely watched film. You did not provide one source verifying Mormon elders were strapping electrodes onto the nads of their sons, let alone on a frequent basis.

No need to reply Frank, we flayed you over this enough already.


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Roe v. Wade was a foot in the door for the pro-life movement, ....


:icon_scratch:?????


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Roe v. Wade:

"The State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman ... and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life."

The court did not take this flawed logic to its conclusion. Why does the state have "another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life" with regard to abortion -- but not with regard to e.g. contraception, masturbation etc? There is no substantive difference, and in my view one claim is every bit as ridiculous as the next. IMO the state has no legitimate interest in intruding itself into what is one of, if not the most private and difficult decisions a woman and her family will ever make. Nor does the state have any legitimate business intruding itself between women and their physicians. Ever.

Still, the court's claim is the "foot in the door" I mentioned earlier. Not that the state has never claimed this "legitimate interest", only that the logic used to make this claim is flawed, and has been used since the 1970's to promote truly absurd and mostly unconstitutional legislation (such as "fetal rights" laws) across the U.S.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

It's a legal paradox, where statutes and the Constitution disagree. 

We live in a country where abortion is legal as a consentual medical procedure, but assisted suicide is illegal, and you can be convicted of a double murder when it's a pregnant woman. Morally you can't have all three.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The media is a intermittent barrage of stones grouted with celebrity morter thrown at us. These horrors are not something to pick up and throw again, unless we are ourselves without sin. A woman and her unborn child are dead. Using them to advance ANY social position or argument is corrupt. Would you put them in a specimen jar and parade the remains at a pro choice or pro life rally? A family is in mourning. respect their privacy.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

crazyquik said:


> It's a legal paradox, where statutes and the Constitution disagree.
> 
> We live in a country where abortion is legal as a consentual medical procedure, but assisted suicide is illegal, and you can be convicted of a double murder when it's a pregnant woman. Morally you can't have all three.


Constitutionally it's comparing apples and oranges. Euthanasia is a separate issue because it deals with constitutionally protected American citizens, not fetuses (who are potential American citizens and therefore not protected under our Constitution).


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> People on the street do not reside inside other people's bodies. Like it or not, our Constitution has been interpreted to give rights to women which supercede claimed rights of fetuses.


This is why allowing abortion and charging Mr Cutts with two counts of murder are NOT paradoxical.

This particular mother did not choose to allow her fetus' life to be terminated by a third party (Cutts, allegedly) without her consent. It is IN her body, it is dependent on HER and this baby was due to be born in a few days or weeks.

However, I think the result of charging someone with the murder of a pregnant woman is AS SEVERE as charging him with the murder or a woman and a fetus. The jurors will still judge the accused on the basis of the victim's status as a pregnant woman and give whatever weight to that status that they choose.

To me, whether someone kills the mother of his own child, a random grandma he's mugged on the way to the grocery store, or his annoying boss, he's still a despicable murderer.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

VS said:


> This is why allowing abortion and charging Mr Cutts with two counts of murder are NOT paradoxical.
> 
> This particular mother did not choose to allow her fetus' life to be terminated by a third party (Cutts, allegedly) without her consent. It is IN her body, it is dependent on HER and this baby was due to be born in a few days or weeks.


Sorry, but the paradox holds. If your argument were to hold true, then suicide, assisted or otherwise, would also have to be universally legal, which it is not.

The mother has the right to an abortion because, under the law, the life inside of her is not a life and thus is not protected under the Constitution. So, whether the baby was killed with her consent or without, if it is NOT a life then it does NOT enjoy the protection of the Constitution, if we were to be consistent. That is the problem I have here and had with Scott Petersen.

Kav, with all due respect, no one is invading the privacy of the family or disrespecting them, unless, of course, someone involved in this tragedy were to be a member of AAAC and had access to this forum. Not likely. I began the thread expressing horror over what had happened. In truth, this is an event so rare that when it does happen it begs the question asked.

"Using them to advance ANY social position or argument is corrupt. Would you put them in a specimen jar and parade the remains at a pro choice or pro life rally?"

Change occurs in society when events reach such a high level of unacceptability that the public re-evaluates its positions and demands change. Having a discussion about an issue that this rare a tragedy places in the forefront is hardly akin to "put[ing] them in a specimen jar and parad[ing] the remains at a pro choice or pro life rally." Such a spectacle would be grotesque, immoral, and unacceptable. That is not happening here, nor should it, and discussion is never "corrupt." Should we refrain from discussing the horrors of the holocaust because it, too, is morally corrupt and disrespectful to those who died? To the contrary, the victims demand that discussion continue so that it is never repeated. Discussing these things, looking for answers and solutions, brings some meaning to an otherwise unthinkable tragedy. I think your remarks go a bit too far, IMHO.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

whomewhat said:


> The mother has the right to an abortion because, under the law, the life inside of her is not a life and thus is not protected under the Constitution. So, whether the baby was killed with her consent or without, if it is NOT a life then it does NOT enjoy the protection of the Constitution, if we were to be consistent. That is the problem I have here and had with Scott Petersen.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one here has claimed a fetus isn't alive. No one here has claimed a fetus is something other than human. But it's most definitely not an American citizen, and _that_ is why it has no constitutional protections.

The simple fact is, where two humans exist in one body it's impossible logistically and legally (and even immoral IMO) to assign both beings equal rights. Women have always had control over their own reproductive systems and will continue to do so, regardless of what George W. Bush, Ralph Reed, and a bunch of guys on a computer bulletin board think about the issue.

Republicans have repeatedly threatened to pervert our Constitution by amending it, in order to use it as a weapon to restrict rights from large groups of Americans -- ranging from women to gay people. This has never been the intent of the Constitution; in fact its purposes are to LIMIT GOVERNMENT POWER and PROTECT RIGHTS OF MINORITIES OF AMERICANS. I sincerely hope, once Democrats regain control of the White House, instead of silly pointless things like marriage "protection" amendments, abortion amendments, flag burning amendment etc etc we get something that's actually useful: a PRIVACY AMENDMENT. In my view this is not only many decades overdue, it's desperately needed to shut the likes of Anton Scalia up once and for all, and *get government out of people's private lives once and for all*. I'd give anything to be on the committee that comes up with the language for this amendment. I believe if it's properly worded it would pass not only Congress but easily in most states -- especially (ironically) in "red" America.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Matricide and infanticide are hardly rare events, even in our benighted society. The sad truth is children and young women go missing or murdered in unacceptable numbers. What doesn't get national coverage are those of minority or poverty. But make it a white teen vanished on a caribean island, a white, child beauty queen found murdered in her home and it does. Now add the race card with an O.J. murdering his white wife and a white acquaintance, or this case with a black POLICEMAN as suspect and our society does everything but wave a red flag at Al Sharpton. People have AGENDAS, and horrific events are manipulated for those agendas. The death penalty, which arguably is VERY late term abortion does not dissuade others from murder of horrid crimes. Nor is it either fair in application or even 100% justified by the numbers of people later found innocent before and oftentimes enough after execution. It is REVENGE. And making a post wishing cruel and unusual suffering on a suspect and tieing it in to the abortion issue is merely picking up a stone to execute the adulteress by popular sentiment. I could easily apply the same mentality by shooting every Mormon Missionary who comes near me by invoking the events of Mountain Meadows and the inflammatory words of Brigham Young.


----------



## Benjamin.65 (Nov 1, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one here has claimed a fetus isn't alive. No one here has claimed a fetus is something other than human.


Lads,

How do all of us here -- not just old Frank -- define "human"? Surely not say, that consciousness is required, because then we might be able to justify offing the severely retarded, which surely (I hope) none of us would advocate.

Afraid I can't really reconcile the wish to execute someone with the 
Is anyone, by the bye, really "pro-abortion"? One of my chums back in Blighty is an abortion doctor, and he's not "pro" abortion. But he is for helping women who are in trouble. Be it medical, emotional (rapes), or otherwise. It's the otherwise that I sometimes find dubious, but so be it.

I'd also be interested in hearing from those who believe that a woman who is raped should not be entitled to an abortion. If you're "anti-abortion" and believe in this, then at least you appear to have some consistency in your beliefs.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> But it's most definitely not an American citizen, and that is why it has no constitutional protections.


You can kill illegal aliens with impunity?

Huh. News to me.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> we get something that's actually useful: a PRIVACY AMENDMENT. In my view this is not only many decades overdue, it's desperately needed to shut the likes of Anton Scalia up once and for all, and get government out of people's private lives once and for all. I'd give anything to be on the committee that comes up with the language for this amendment. I believe if it's properly worded it would pass not only Congress but easily in most states -- especially (ironically) in "red" America.


So, can I put you down as a supporter of economic liberty?

Or does your quest for privacy come to a screeching halt when you want to interfere with voluntary economic relationships and property?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> But it's most definitely not an American citizen, and _that_ is why it has no constitutional protections.


Wow, talk about being a person that thrives on exclusion. As Phinn pointed out, more than just "American citizen(s)" have constitutional protections in this country. I cannot imagine a more elitest statement than the one you just made.



FrankDC said:


> Women have always had control over their own reproductive systems...


That is just simply not true. It really shows you have no historical perspective.



FrankDC said:


> Republicans have repeatedly threatened to pervert our Constitution by amending it, in order to use it as a weapon to restrict rights from large groups of Americans -- ranging from women to gay people. This has never been the intent of the Constitution; in fact its purposes are to LIMIT GOVERNMENT POWER and PROTECT RIGHTS OF MINORITIES OF AMERICANS. I sincerely hope, once Democrats regain control of the White House...


Ahhh Francis, ya make me laugh. Quick question: what party was the President from that signed or created the following: a) The Emancipation Proclamation and b) ADA c) OSHA d) EPA. And yes, a Dem would *never, never* attempt to limit freedom, would they?

Just a hint there Frankie, more than just minorities need their rights protected from the government.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Phinn said:


> You can kill illegal aliens with impunity?
> 
> Huh. News to me.


Do illegal aliens live inside the bodies of American women? If so, the answer to your question is yes. If not, your argument is a non sequitur.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Do illegal aliens live inside the bodies of American women? If so, the answer to your question is yes. If not, your argument is a non sequitur.


I think perhaps you are under a mis-impression of what a _non sequitur_ is. You made a very specific argument, namely that the reason a fetus has no rights is because it is not an American citizen. Maybe the simplest thing to do would be to just admit you possibly did not say quite what you meant vs. trying to defend the statement?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Phinn said:


> So, can I put you down as a supporter of economic liberty?


Absolutely.



Phinn said:


> Or does your quest for privacy come to a screeching halt when you want to interfere with voluntary economic relationships and property?


The intent of a privacy amendment is not a "quest for privacy", it simply would codify a right to privacy which already exists in our Constitution (at least according to most people and our Supreme Court).

Would you as a professed anarchist be opposed to a privacy amendment? If so, why?


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one here has claimed a fetus isn't alive. No one here has claimed a fetus is something other than human. But it's most definitely not an American citizen, and _that_ is why it has no constitutional protections.


No, that is not why - the Court determined in Roe v. Wade that the fetus was not a "person" for the purposes of the 14th Amendment and thus had no right to life (at least before the point of "viability")



FrankDC said:


> The simple fact is, where two humans exist in one body it's impossible logistically and legally (and even immoral IMO) to assign both beings equal rights.


 So, adult conjoined twins can't each vote, for instance?



FrankDC said:


> Republicans have repeatedly threatened to pervert our Constitution by amending it, in order to use it as a weapon to restrict rights from large groups of Americans -- ranging from women to gay people.


Amending the Constituion could only be characterized as a perversion in your own warped thought process. If an amendment to the Constitution is lawfully ratified, it is an embrace of the legal process set forth in the text of the Constitution itself - it is an inherently Constitutional act. I know you have general disdain for the vast majoirty of America and Americans and prefer for your nation to be run by unelected and largely unaccountable elites (so long as they share you social vision, that is), but it's simply foolhardy to talk about perverting the Consitution by amending it when it's the one and singular explict way the founders gave us to make the Constitution "relevant to our times." Arguably, because they did provide for an amendment process, they did not foresee that Justices would, de facto, amend the Constitution by inventing rights which, apparently, emanated from certain penumbras in the Constitution.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

The reasoning that led me to become a professed anarchist is the same reasoning that leads me to the conclusion that a central government that is in charge of defining the scope of its own power will tend to define that power in favor of itself. 

It also leads me to conclude that making rights even more definitively a matter of federal law is a recipe for disaster. The most important feature of a limited government is the extent to which it is decentralized. Centralization of power leads to a loss of liberty. The history of the United States has been one of increasing centralization and, therefore, a loss of liberty. 

The Constitution already has a privacy provision. It's called the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers. It has been disregarded, however, pretty much within 5 minutes from the effective date of that document. 

The fact that this same government has disregarded its own founding charter too many times to even count means that it is a nullity. It is a dishrag. It is not worth the paper it is printed on. It is a non-factor. 

So, as I see it, a Constitutional "privacy" amendment as you propose would be (a) pointless so long as the meaning of any such clause is to be self-enforced, (b) a step in favor of centralization and therefore counterproductive, and (c) a ratification of the prior trampling of other, more important Constitutional provisions.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> The intent of a privacy amendment is not a "quest for privacy", it simply would codify a right to privacy which already exists in our Constitution (at least according to most people and our Supreme Court).


Interesting, I see my right to free speech, my right to assemble, my right to bear arms, my right to be free from unreasonable search - could you help me out FrankDC? Would you please point out where in the Constitution my right to privacy is located?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Interesting, I see my right to free speech, my right to assemble, my right to bear arms, my right to be free from unreasonable search - could you help me out FrankDC? Would you please point out where in the Constitution my right to privacy is located?


To help you and Phinn out: What FrankDC was thinking of when posting of a "right to privacy" was actually a scene in a fictional movie.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Phinn said:


> The reasoning that led me to become a professed anarchist is the same reasoning that leads me to the conclusion that a central government that is in charge of defining the scope of its own power will tend to define that power in favor of itself.
> 
> It also leads me to conclude that making rights even more definitively a matter of federal law is a recipe for disaster. The most important feature of a limited government is the extent to which it is decentralized. Centralization of power leads to a loss of liberty. The history of the United States has been one of increasing centralization and, therefore, a loss of liberty.
> 
> ...


By your logic our Constitution is a "dishrag" and "pointless"? The doctrine of enumerated powers had been completely disregarded by 1865, and our federal government had essentially been given all powers that were not explicitly denied it by the Constitution. What alternatives remain, except to further limit government power explicitly via constitutional amendments?


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Interesting, I see my right to free speech, my right to assemble, my right to bear arms, my right to be free from unreasonable search - could you help me out FrankDC? Would you please point out where in the Constitution my right to privacy is located?


My understanding is that the Constitution is about what governments can do, not what people can do. It sets limits on governmental powers. Privacy is not addressed, nor are many other common, usual rights enjoyed by people. There is no need for a privacy clause, much less an amendment. See the 9th Amendment. 
*Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution*

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That said, the usual tussles take place: communications, bedroom behavior, etc. It's a battle of me (the individual) vs. those-who-think-they-know-better. Always.

-big brother


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Interesting, I see my right to free speech, my right to assemble, my right to bear arms, my right to be free from unreasonable search - could you help me out FrankDC? Would you please point out where in the Constitution my right to privacy is located?


I always get a kick out of Americans who have absolutely no understanding of their own freedom. This mindset ("a right isn't a right unless it's explicitly defined in the Constitution") is precisely why a privacy amendment is not only necessary, but essential to prevent an obscenely bloated and overreaching government from intruding itself into the few remaining facets of our lives where it already hasn't.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments have been relegated to "truisms", what alternatives are there?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

tabasco said:


> My understanding is that the Constitution is about what governments can do, not what people can do. It sets limits on governmental powers. Privacy is not addressed, nor are many other common, usual rights enjoyed by people. There is no need for a privacy clause, much less an amendment.


So does a right to privacy exist in our Constitution or doesn't it? Rocker and Anton Scalia claim it doesn't.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> So does a right to privacy exist in our Constitution or doesn't it? Rocker and Anton Scalia claim it doesn't.


I guess it depends on how much you believe in "penumbras".


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> By your logic our Constitution is a "dishrag" and "pointless"? The doctrine of enumerated powers had been completely disregarded by 1865, and our federal government had essentially been given all powers that were not explicitly denied it by the Constitution. What alternatives remain, except to further limit government power explicitly via constitutional amendments?


Why would this "privacy" amendment would be more vigorously enforced than the prohibition against federal over-reaching?

Do you intend to include a "We really mean it this time" clause?


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> I always get a kick out of Americans who have absolutely no understanding of their own freedom. This mindset ("a right isn't a right unless it's explicitly defined in the Constitution") is precisely why a privacy amendment is not only necessary, but essential to prevent an obscenely bloated and overreaching government from intruding itself into the few remaining facets of our lives where it already hasn't.
> 
> The Ninth and Tenth Amendments have been relegated to "truisms", what alternatives are there?


Sophistry and arrogance.

Answer the Question.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Answer the Question.


He's not so big on that. Just an observation.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> I always get a kick out of Americans who have absolutely no understanding of their own freedom. This mindset ("a right isn't a right unless it's explicitly defined in the Constitution") is precisely why a privacy amendment is not only necessary, but essential to prevent an obscenely bloated and overreaching government from intruding itself into the few remaining facets of our lives where it already hasn't.
> 
> The Ninth and Tenth Amendments have been relegated to "truisms", what alternatives are there?


I NEVER stated a right isn't a right unless it's in the Constitution. I asked you to find in the Constitution where the alleged privacy right exists - that it does not exist in the Constitution does not mean that I may not have privacy rights under state law or federal statutes - see 10th Amendment.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

whomewhat said:


> Sorry, but the paradox holds. If your argument were to hold true, then suicide, assisted or otherwise, would also have to be universally legal, which it is not.
> 
> The mother has the right to an abortion because, under the law, the life inside of her is not a life and thus is not protected under the Constitution. So, whether the baby was killed with her consent or without, if it is NOT a life then it does NOT enjoy the protection of the Constitution, if we were to be consistent. That is the problem I have here and had with Scott Petersen.


Okay, I can live with that.

However, I'd add that suicide, assisted or otherwise, should also be universally legal. (As long as it can be shown that the person whose suicide was assisted legally consented to this.)


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Why would this "privacy" amendment would be more vigorously enforced than the prohibition against federal over-reaching?
> 
> Do you intend to include a "We really mean it this time" clause?


Again I ask, what alternative is there? Many people, including some on our Supreme Court and apparently quite a few on this board, believe no implicit right to privacy exists in our Constitution. Are you prepared for the inevitable and eventual results of that belief? I'm not.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Kav said:


> And making a post *wishing cruel and unusual suffering on a suspect *and tieing it in to the abortion issue is merely picking up a stone to execute the adulteress by popular sentiment. I could easily apply the same mentality by shooting every Mormon Missionary who comes near me by invoking the events of Mountain Meadows and the inflammatory words of Brigham Young.


I had thought that revisionist posting and religious intolerance were the domains of Frank, but I see I was wrong.

I know what I say is not always popular, but I do say what I mean and mean what I say so I would ask that you not change it.

"If Mr. Cutts is *ultimately found guilty, or pleads guilty*, then I hope he gets the death penalty . . . "

Again, I stated if he were "ultimately found guilty, or pleads guilty" then I wished for things that I admitted were not very Christian of me. NEVER did I wish for anything on a "SUSPECT." I also expressed my un-Christian wishes in the context of the father of a 9 year old daughter living in CDA, Idaho where we await the trial of Joseph Duncan, who tortured and slaughtered a family, kidnapped the son and daughter, raped the son and daughter, killed the son, before returning to Denny's in CDA with Shasta Groene.

Our community lived in absolute terror before this man was caught:

"Joseph Edward Duncan III was out on a $15,000 bond in Minnesota for molesting a 7-year-old boy, when three people were killed in an Idaho home and their two children kidnapped. Six weeks later, Duncan was arrested after he was spotted in a restaurant with eight-year-old Shasta Groene.

Duncan has been charged in Idaho state court with three counts of first-degree murder and first-degree kidnapping in the deaths of Brenda Groene, Slade Groene, and Mark Mckenzie. He will also face federal charges for the kidnappings of Dylan and Shasta Groene and for Dylan's murder.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants Joseph Edward Duncan extradited to California to face trial for the 1997 murder of a 10-year-old boy, but federal prosecutors in Idaho said they plan to pursue their case against the convicted sexual offender first.

The man charged with kidnapping Dylan and Shasta Groene and killing Dylan has confessed to the murders of three other children in Washington State and California."

Maybe the death penalty does not dissuade other like-minded people to kill, but it will certainly insure that this one man does not ever kill again, and that is good enough for me.

How are what you think are "the inflammatory words of Brigham Young," a man who is dead, justifying the killing of Mormon missionaries, and my wanting the death penalty carried out, albeit in a cruel way, on a man found guilty (if he is found so) of brutally killing a mother and her unborn child in any possible way related?

All I can say is that is some really amazing leaps of logic, leaps I thought were reserved for those whose minds were going or completely gone.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Many people, including some on our Supreme Court and apparently quite a few on this board, believe no implicit right to privacy exists in our Constitution. Are you prepared for the inevitable and eventual results of that belief? I'm not.


List some "inevitable and eventual results"


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Again I ask, what alternative is there? Many people, including some on our Supreme Court and apparently quite a few on this board, believe no implicit right to privacy exists in our Constitution. Are you prepared for the inevitable and eventual results of that belief? I'm not.


You should be.

In case it's not readily apparent, the alternative is accepting the fact that the government is not going to respect your rights, no matter how many constitutions you write or how many cleverly-worded amendments you enact. THEY DON'T CARE!!!

Expecting them to _enforce_ your rights is like asking a jewel thief to be in charge of monitoring your house's alarm system. You can cross your fingers, close your eyes and wish _really really_ hard, but it is not going to happen.

I generally go about my life with the full realization that the government is a bunch of criminals. You have to treat them the same way that you deal with all the other violent criminals out there -- be aware, take precautions, learn about security and safety, etc.

The practical problems of dealing with government are not all that difficult. It is much more important to get your mind around the situation. The mental hurdle is trickier than the practical one. Once you accept the truth, not just intellectually but truly understand it, it makes coping with government much easier.

You seem to be all upset by how the government acts, how it treats you, as though you expect otherwise. I, on the other hand, accept that dogs act like dogs, and governments act like governments.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> Ummm...if one believe life begins at conception, which I do, then abortion is no different from shooting someone on the street. However, for some reason you think we should provide police to protect people on the streets, but there should be no law enforcement effort to make sure the unborn are protected?


Fundamentally, I agree with you and agree life begins at conception. My wife and I have lost two children to miscarrage at 8 weeks. I've seen the ultrasound video at 8 weeks, that heart is beating (that was a person). So personally, I don't agree with abortion.

Now regarding this case and the counts of double homicide.

First, the girlfriend was 8 months pregnant, almost due to give birth. Even if she wanted to have an abortion at this point, I believe it would not be legally performed by a doctor. So even if she wanted to, she was past the point of being able to legally choose.

Second, it still is a matter of choice. Should a rape or incest victim be forced to have a child, I don't beleive so. I think in some instances there is some "acceptability" to aborting a pregnancy. Do I like that women can then use this freedom of choice as a means of birth control? No I don't, but I still don't think we should be able to tell a woman what to do with her body. That being said, I do agree we can limit her choices or freedom to have an abortion after a certain period (i.e. before 9 weeks etc.).

Lastly, I don't believe this woman wanted her baby killed. It seemed as though she had no intentions of aborting this baby, so then why should Cutts not be charged with the second homicide? Personally, I believe he should be held to a harsher standard considering the child was his own flesh and blood. How could anyone harm their own child?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

A child is not defined by the _intentions_ of the mother. It either is a person or it is not.

And a fertilized ovum is obviously a unique, discrete human being. If it were not for the _political_ ramifications of this obvious truth, every person with an IQ over 90 would instantly understand this.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Phinn said:


> You should be.
> 
> In case it's not readily apparent, the alternative is accepting the fact that the government is not going to respect your rights, no matter how many constitutions you write or how many cleverly-worded amendments you enact. THEY DON'T CARE!!!
> 
> ...


Your approach then is to throw a temper tantrum and stomp out of the room like an emotionally disturbed six year-old. Whatever. I refuse to take a defeatist attitude. In my view a properly worded privacy amendment would give the American people at least some degree of protection from government intrusion into places where it clearly doesn't belong. Probably not complete protection, but certainly more than we have now.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Phinn said:


> And a fertilized ovum is obviously a unique, discrete human being. If it were not for the _political_ ramifications of this obvious truth, every *person with an IQ over 90 would instantly understand this.*


Guess I've done pretty well in life then, given my low IQ.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> List some "inevitable and eventual results"


Good grief, just read the current platform of the Republican Party. Are you in a big hurry to have Alberto Gonzales break down your door and throw your daughter in jail for having an abortion? If you have any gay friends, are they in a big hurry to be enshrined formally in our Constitution as second-class citizens and have marriage rights prohibited to them via a constitutional amendment? Etc etc.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

VS said:


> However, I'd add that suicide, assisted or otherwise, should also be universally legal. (As long as it can be shown that the person whose suicide was assisted legally consented to this.)


I honestly cannot comment intelligently on assisted suicide. As someone who suffers from severe chronic pain at age 48, and has suffered for 14 years, I do sometimes wonder what my life will be like in 30 years. Of course, their are always improvements in medicine, but, pain can be a very difficult thing to quantify sometimes and so who gets the help they need? I do, for now, but I know some who have not.

My former neighbor across the street, a man who rushed me to the hospitial when I was 5 years old and was stabbed (accidentally), as an elderly man also suffered from chronic pain. He was unable to get the medical help he needed, not because he did not have healthcare, but because his doctors could not quantify his pain and justify the needed medication. He quantified it for them by hanging himself in his basement. His wife found him, ran across the street to get my elderly father, who cut him down. He died enroute to the hospital.

I have always stated, to the disbelief of my wife, that if my pain becomes more than I can bear or that the medication can handle, then I would, minimally, resort to the use of illegal drugs, if they would help.

I understand the mindset of someone in pain who wants the pain to end and finds suicide the only option. I am still opposed on moral grounds, but I believe that those who resort to assisted suicide are in such pain that their minds are not responsible for their actions. I know when my medication wears off and I sometimes forget to take it, or do not have it with me, I can say some pretty horrific things. It is as close to losing your mind as you can come.

That is why judgments such as these are best left for God, who clearly knows far more than we do. In the case of murder, however, I am confident that God has already spoken, sufficiently.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I am a big proponent of assisted suicide. Chronic pain can ruin any life. I have seen so many patients ravaged by pain, I do not know how anyone with an iota of compassion could not let them relieve their suffering by any means necessary. I find those that are the staunchest detractors of assisted suicide have usually never sat bedside and held the hand of someone as they deal with their pain. Never had to look into the sunken, hollowed eyes of someone that can no longer find rest in sleep due to pain. It is always easy to be holier-than-thou from a distance, the messy and often undignified life of people suffering are kept at arm's length.

I have developed sciatic pain secondary to some spinal stenosis brought on by my earlier contact sports. I have had flare ups where I get heart palpitations and my hands shake the pain is so bad. Thankfully, these are rare and 99% of the time very controlled. I cannot help but imagine if I could have any quality of life though if that pain was constant.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Your approach then is to throw a temper tantrum and stomp out of the room like an emotionally disturbed six year-old. Whatever. I refuse to take a defeatist attitude. In my view a properly worded privacy amendment would give the American people at least some degree of protection from government intrusion into places where it clearly doesn't belong. Probably not complete protection, but certainly more than we have now.


I'm cool as a cucumber. You are the only one here stomping and exhibiting emotional disturbances.

If you think that a government that has consistently disregarded the plain language of its own founding charter is going to suddenly change its modus operandi just because of a few of your own carefully chosen words, then you are an even bigger fool than I thought you were. As the man said, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice ... don't get fooled again.

But really, go ahead. Try adding the part I mentioned: "We really, really mean it this time!" That'll learn 'em. Maybe use a few exclamation points. Wait, I know what will work -- whatever language you use, put the words "Or else!" on the end. Nothing works like a well-placed "Or else!"


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Phinn said:


> I'm cool as a cucumber. You are the only one here stomping and exhibiting emotional disturbances.
> 
> If you think that a government that has consistently disregarded the plain language of its own founding charter is going to suddenly change its modus operandi just because of a few of your own carefully chosen words, then you are an even bigger fool than I thought you were. As the man said, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice ... don't get fooled again.
> 
> But really, go ahead. Try adding the part I mentioned: "We really, really mean it this time!" That'll learn 'em. Maybe use a few exclamation points. Wait, I know what will work -- whatever language you use, put the words "Or else!" on the end. Nothing works like a well-placed "Or else!"


If the only alternative is to whine about totalitarian government out of one side of my mouth, while doing nothing to fight it out of the other, I prefer a proactive approach.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

I am doing at least as much as you (and dare I say a far sight more) about the government that I dislike as you are about the government that you dislike.

You are proposing to amend its charter. Even if you could, which you can't, that is obviously an exercise in futility.

You may think that your short-sightedness and ignorance about the nature of government is a virtue. You may think that your pleas to the very government that is robbing you is somehow noble.

It's not. It's stupid.

*DO:* Just live your life. Express your opinions. Be productive. Protect yourself and your assets from theft. Make your customers happy -- that improves the quality of everyone's life more than anything else you can do.

*DON'T:* Don't validate their robbery and oppression of you by participating in the con game. But most importantly, don't try to use the instrument of government for your own benefit to the detriment of others. That's just becoming a co-conspirator, and thus no better than a thief.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Good grief, just read the current platform of the Republican Party. Are you in a big hurry to have Alberto Gonzales break down your door and throw your daughter in jail for having an abortion? If you have any gay friends, are they in a big hurry to be enshrined formally in our Constitution as second-class citizens and have marriage rights prohibited to them via a constitutional amendment? Etc etc.


Ah well - you see, I DO have a Constitutional right to prevent the federal government from breaking down my door (at least without a warrant) and of course I do have due process rights as well so, your paranoia aside - I'm not worried at this point. How many women were jailed for having an abortion pre Roe-v. Wade? - I'm guessing few to none. Can't the states provide abortion rights? It's the states that have been conferring gay marriage and civil union rights.

You certainly begrudge democracy in action - like I said, there's nothing more inherently Consititutional than an actual Constitution Amendment. Anyway, my understanding (and I haven't followed it closely) isn't that a proposed amendment would prohibit gay marriage, it would merely have the effect of not being recognized as a marriage for federal law purposes - in any case - what does gay marriage have to do with a consitutional right of privacy? And what of all the horrors you described occurred in this country prior to the invention of a Constitutional right of privacy in Griswold in 1965? I mean was the government actually more intrusive in 1965 than it is today post discovery of this alleged right?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Ah well - you see, I DO have a Constitutional right to prevent the federal government from breaking down my door (at least without a warrant) and of course I do have due process rights as well so, your paranoia aside - I'm not worried at this point. How many women were jailed for having an abortion pre Roe-v. Wade? - I'm guessing few to none. Can't the states provide abortion rights? It's the states that have been conferring gay marriage and civil union rights.


The Republican Party is not calling for states rights on these issues, it's calling for federal constitutional amendments -- the sole intent of which is to eliminate and preclude states rights on these issues. Again:

"We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children."

This would make abortion illegal in all cases, without exception, even in cases of rape, incest or when a womans life is jeopardized by a pregnancy. It would also make any doctor who performs an abortion for any reason liable for murder. The Republican Party can't get around the Constitution, so it intends to pervert it to suit their agenda.



Rocker said:


> You certainly begrudge democracy in action - like I said, there's nothing more inherently Consititutional than an actual Constitution Amendment. Anyway, my understanding (and I haven't followed it closely) isn't that a proposed amendment would prohibit gay marriage, it would merely have the effect of not being recognized as a marriage for federal law purposes - in any case - what does gay marriage have to do with a consitutional right of privacy?


What does any marriage have to do with a constitutional right to privacy? E.g. prior to 1960 our government dictated that we were not allowed to marry someone of a different race. Was that an invasion of privacy or not? IMO it certainly was, and the state did not have adequate justification to deny these couples marriage licenses. The same holds true for same-sex couples, who've been dealing with this same invasion of privacy for much longer than interracial couples.



Rocker said:


> And what of all the horrors you described occurred in this country prior to the invention of a Constitutional right of privacy in Griswold in 1965? I mean was the government actually more intrusive in 1965 than it is today post discovery of this alleged right?


Absolutely it is. Read the legislation passed by the former Republican-led Congress. Almost without exception it's repressive, intrusive and often subversive to the Constitution. We have a president who tapped phone lines, monitored bank accounts etc of the American people, after being told by his own Attorney General that what he was doing was unconstitutional. How much worse does it have to get in your view?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

So Frank, no doubt you are against the Brady Bill then?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> The Republican Party is not calling for states rights on these issues, it's calling for federal constitutional amendments -- the sole intent of which is to eliminate and preclude states rights on these issues.


*Fraud*, once again your prove your namesake by mis-representing the truth. Such laws were passed by State legislatures and over-ruled by the courts. This is why the Constitutional Amendments are being considered. Roe v. Wade overturned State law. Republicans would love to go back to the States for all of these issues. In fact, we dare you!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> *Fraud*, once again your prove your namesak by mis-representing the truth. Such laws were passed by State legislatures and over-ruled by the courts


"Such laws" were overturned because they were unconstitutional. But in any case the point is still valid: federal constitutional amendments would preclude the states from making their own laws on these issues.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> "Such laws" were overturned because they were unconstitutional.


Oh please.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> "Such laws" were overturned because they were unconstitutional. But in any case the point is still valid: federal constitutional amendments would preclude the states from making their own laws on these issues.


Man, it is like arguing with a pretzel. When he does not like a State law, it is "unconstitutional" and should be overturned by either an amendment of SC ruling. When he does not like an amendment, proposed amendment, or SC ruling, of course it is the Feds being intrusive in what should be a States' rights issue. Hard to lose if you're Frankie!

Notice no answer the the Brady Bill Frank. I have to assume you are against it?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Man, it is like arguing with a pretzel.


LOL

I have a friend that was one of the few people allowed to interview Ted Bundy. I may finally be able to understand his related experiences now! 

Speaking for myself, Fraud reminds me of the Clintons with his total lack of core beliefs.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> The Republican Party is not calling for states rights on these issues, it's calling for federal constitutional amendments -- the sole intent of which is to eliminate and preclude states rights on these issues.





> "Such laws" were overturned because they were unconstitutional. But in any case the point is still valid: federal constitutional amendments would preclude the states from making their own laws on these issues.


Amazing. Lefties work for _decades_ to nationalize every issue they can get their conniving little hands on, one of which is feticide, and then complain when opponents of feticide oppose the Lefty agenda at the national level.

I believe that's called "hypocrisy."


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Is Bobby Cutts a lefty or a righty? Does anyone have access to his party affiliation? What is the demographic breakdown of Ohio Voters? This thread started about a sworn police officer with a history of violence against a former female partner and posing the question of his family crisis resolution method compared to legal abortion. Anyone know if Rudolph has internet access for his opinion? How many children go to bed nightly without food? How many have disappeared into the nightmare of child pornography rings? What about the recent arrest of the Man who arranged polygamous marriages between underage girls and men in their 40s and 50s in Northern Arizona/ Southern Utah? We can't even keep poison laden chicom toothpaste out of our homes, secure our borders from illegal aliens yet demand our own people obtain passports to cross into Canada for affordable drugs to help the war on terrorism while our national highway system linked to our two land borders has slowed by measurable time with gas guzzling SUVs that will never see any sport or utility beyond further financing Hugo Chavez & friends. And yet we have the hubris to propose women go back to alleyways and coat hangers and argue constitutional law from the comfort of our male clothing forum. I'm so impressed I could just [email protected]#%


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Kav said:


> This thread started about a sworn police officer with a history of violence against a former female partner and posing the question of his family crisis resolution method compared to legal abortion.


There you go again misquoting what I wrote and meant. Having started the thread I think I know what my question was far better than you. I certainly NEVER compared what Mr. Cutts did to legal abortion. I asked a simple and reasonable question, given Mr.Cutts and Mr. Petersen: If it is legal to abort the unborn because the Supreme Court has said they are NOT human life and therefore NOT protected under the Constitution, how can Mr. Cutts be charged with murdering the unborn fetus? It is a contradiction, one that may find its way to the Supreme Court someday when some lawyer decides to appeal the conviction of his client on the basis that you cannot murder a non-human.

After previously misquoting me by suggesting I called for the execution of a "suspect," you went on to berate me for "politicizing" the death of this woman. Since making that accusation, you have argued just about every political issue of the decade, from immigration to polygamy to energy, having even brought race into the argument, which I never mentioned. So who is politicizing it now?

This is a forum. This forum happens to be called "The Interchange," where we are permitted to discuss the issues of the day. Like it or not, this is an issue of the day. If you have an opinion on the subject of the thread then by all means express your opinion. If you feel "The Interchange" does not belong on a "male clothing forum," then I suggest you tell Andy of your disatisfaction with his forum setup. Continuing to berate those of us who enjoy using this forum as the forum was intended, even getting in a few of your own political views in the process, seems both futile and disengenuous. I suggest, changing the channel to one that does not upset you so much.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Kav said:


> I'm so impressed I could just [email protected]#%


Make sure you do not get any on your good clothes!


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> According to the current platform of the Republican Party, "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children." This would make abortion illegal in all cases, without exception, even in cases of rape, incest or *when a womans life is jeopardized by a pregnancy*. It would also make any doctor who performs an abortion for any reason liable for murder.
> 
> .


That is a *LIE,* Frank. Abortions for ectopic pregnancies would be legal under the proposed amendment as they were before Roe. Support your positions logically,Frank not by promulgating untruths.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Why are you posting during family home evening? far from misquoting you, I've heard these same sideways arguments before, free, and without obligation.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Kav said:


> Why are you posting during family home evening? far from misquoting you, I've heard these same sideways arguments before, free, and without obligation.


Truly pathetic. You cannot speak to the facts so you engage in personal attacks. Let me guess . . . excommunicated?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Excommunicated? Do I look like a articulate supporter of NOW? Sorry, I merely know a great deal about LDS. For one, I know you see utterly no value or merit in people outside your cult the minute they even seem to question one iota of your Donny and Marie wet dream fantasies seen through magic glasses, gold plates or rocks in your prophets treasure seeking hat and overactive libido. These are hardly 'facts' I feel obliged to speak to. And if you tempered your reply to my past supportive posts spirit instead of pulling a Mountain Meadows retaliatory strike you'd enjoy reciprocal respect. Alas, your just another latter Day S---head with his watch turned back 100 years.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> That is a *LIE,* Frank. Abortions for ectopic pregnancies would be legal under the proposed amendment as they were before Roe.


Now _*that*_ is a lie. No such exception is made in the Republican Party platform. In fact NO exceptions are made in the Republican platform.

The fact is, assigning 14th Amendment equal protection to fetuses means, BY DEFINITION, NO CATEGORICAL EXCEPTIONS COULD BE MADE IN THE LAW. PERIOD. Before any abortion could be performed legally, a woman would be required to prove her life is in imminent danger either by continuing her pregnancy or bringing it to term. If your 10 year-old daughter gets raped, the Republican plan WOULD LEGALLY REQUIRE HER TO BRING HER PREGNANCY TO TERM, EVEN THOUGH DOING SO WOULD ALMOST CERTAINLY RESULT IN THE PERMANENT LOSS OF HER ABILITY TO BEAR ANY MORE CHILDREN.

Absolute, right-wing, reactionary lunacy at its worst.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Kav said:


> And if you tempered your reply to my past supportive posts spirit instead of pulling a Mountain Meadows retaliatory strike you'd enjoy reciprocal respect. Alas, your just another latter Day S---head with his watch turned back 100 years.


You cannot reciprocate what you do not have. And I see you have still not corrected your past mistakes, rather, you continue to make new ones. One mistake is in believing that I care one iota what you think. I do not. Another mistake was in revealing the teeth of the wolf beneath the sheeps clothing. Now we all know you are a bigot. Finally, you erred when you convinced yourself that you possessed the intellectual capacity to form a coherent thought. You do not.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Kav said:


> Sorry, I merely know a great deal about LDS. For one, I know you see utterly no value or merit in people outside your cult the minute they even seem to question one iota of your Donny and Marie wet dream fantasies seen through magic glasses, gold plates or rocks in your prophets treasure seeking hat and overactive libido. These are hardly 'facts' I feel obliged to speak to.


Please feel free to let me know when it was that I ever asked you to speak to any issues involving my faith or faith in general? You misquoted me, several times, and you have yet to respond to those facts. Tell me, do most people actually fall for your smoke and mirrors tactics? Do you always use misdirection to hide your inadequacies? If I did not know better, I would almost believe you had served in the military given the excessive attempted use of military tactics, but then you would also have to be honorable and what you wrote above is comtemptable and without honor.

PS You know absolutely nothing about my faith and even less about me.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

USCG serial # 413-997 11/11/71-11/12/77 and my name is online as it is on my DD 214. Show yours, or did Moroni hide them along with the archaeologic evidence for your plagiarised novel about israelites in South America. And you can contact Denise Miller at the Oakland temple or Judy Mann at the Northridge stake next to Saint Nicholas. Both tried the 'date em, dunk em and dump them' routine. So don't presume to think all your masonic handshakes in the temple are any great secret or your seige mentallity against 'gentiles' means diddly while your baptising holacoast victims. Your agenda with this thread was to bring up the abortion issue.The only thing you aborted was one more half symapthetic poster who actually finds some goodness in your goofy cult.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Kav said:


> USCG serial # 413-997 11/11/71-11/12/77 and my name is online as it is on my DD 214. The only thing you aborted was one more half symapthetic poster who actually *finds some goodness in your goofy cult*.


You call it a goofy cult while suggesting you were half sympathetic? BIGOT! You continue to err in your belief, possibly based on an unrealistic view of your own self worth, that I actually care what you think, want your sympathy, asked for it, and/or need it. I did not and certainly do not. You were a nameless nobody to me before and now you are simply a nobody with a serial number who shoots bullets of bigotry at all those who disagree with him. Your behavior is quite pathetic, actually.

You are a disgrace to the guard and your service was in vain by the dishonor you bring on that service now by daring to publicize your service after behaving and continuing to do so in total contempt of those who serve with honor. Serving does not make you honorable. Serving with honor does and you did not or you would not behave in this manner. Assuming you were 18 when you joined in 1971, that would make you 54 years old now. Don't you think it is time that you grew up and acted your age?

"1. No flames. Keep all debates clean and civil. This is a gentleman's (and ladies) Forum. Everyone is expected to behave accordingly. What constitutes flaming and incivility should be clear to all: no name-calling, ad hominem attacks, slurs, swearing, or personal insults."

You humiliate these two women, naming them personally on this forum where they have no dog in this fight and are unable to defend themselves, a clear violation of AAAC rules. To attack two women unable to defend themselves, you are not a man, you are a coward.

"You cannot justify a wanton, immoral act simply because you believe it is connected to some higher purpose."

"USCG serial # 413-997 11/11/71-11/12/77 and my name is online as it is on my DD 214."

Matthew, Chapter 6:

"1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. 
2 Therefore when thou doest _thine_ alms, *do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the **hypocrites* do in the synagogues and in the streets, *that they may have **glory** of men*. Verily I say unto you, *They have their reward*. 
3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: 
4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly."


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Now _*that*_ is a lie. No such exception is made in the Republican Party platform. In fact NO exceptions are made in the Republican platform.
> 
> The fact is, assigning 14th Amendment equal protection to fetuses means, BY DEFINITION, NO CATEGORICAL EXCEPTIONS COULD BE MADE IN THE LAW. PERIOD. Before any abortion could be performed legally, *a woman would be required to prove her life is in imminent danger either by continuing her pregnancy or bringing it to term*. If your 10 year-old daughter gets raped, the Republican plan WOULD LEGALLY REQUIRE HER TO BRING HER PREGNANCY TO TERM, EVEN THOUGH DOING SO WOULD ALMOST CERTAINLY RESULT IN THE PERMANENT LOSS OF HER ABILITY TO BEAR ANY MORE CHILDREN.
> 
> Absolute, right-wing, reactionary lunacy at its worst.


Oh, now you're a constitutional lawyer? Your statement doesn't wash with respect to the 14th Amendment or the Constitution generally. Keep to your fevered little dreams Frank, if it makes you happy. Reality is so inconvenient sometimes, isn't it. Gee, how different is this from what you first said:



> This would make abortion illegal in all cases, without exception, even in cases of rape, incest *or when a womans life is jeopardized by a pregnancy*.


Make up your mind please.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Oh, now you're a constitutional lawyer? Your statement doesn't wash with respect to the 14th Amendment or the Constitution generally.


Doesn't wash? What exactly do you think "equal protection" means?

"Columnist Michael Kinsley, writing in Time magazine (6/24/96), pointed out the logic of the 14th Amendment: "Under equal protection, you certainly couldn't have the death penalty for killing a post-birth human being, and a lesser punishment -- or no punishment at all -- for killing a fetus."

The New York Times cited the view of the Christian Coalition's Ralph Reed that "the current [platform] language is really silent on whether there are exceptions" to an abortion ban -- for example, for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. The Times didn't ask any legal experts to explain how you can have an "exception" to "equal protection of the laws."

https://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1362


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children."
> 
> This would make abortion illegal in all cases, without exception, even in cases of rape, incest or when a womans life is jeopardized by a pregnancy. It would also make any doctor who performs an abortion for any reason liable for murder. The Republican Party can't get around the Constitution, so it intends to pervert it to suit their agenda.





FrankDC said:


> Now _*that*_ is a lie. No such exception is made in the Republican Party platform. In fact NO exceptions are made in the Republican platform.
> 
> The fact is, assigning 14th Amendment equal protection to fetuses means, BY DEFINITION, NO CATEGORICAL EXCEPTIONS COULD BE MADE IN THE LAW. PERIOD. Before any abortion could be performed legally, a woman would be required to prove her life is in imminent danger either by continuing her pregnancy or bringing it to term. If your 10 year-old daughter gets raped, the Republican plan WOULD LEGALLY REQUIRE HER TO BRING HER PREGNANCY TO TERM, EVEN THOUGH DOING SO WOULD ALMOST CERTAINLY RESULT IN THE PERMANENT LOSS OF HER ABILITY TO BEAR ANY MORE CHILDREN.
> 
> Absolute, right-wing, reactionary lunacy at its worst.


Or; it could be more of the same - "Fraud's inability to DYOH"

Here's what Fraud posted and it does indeed come from the 2000 RNC Platform page. Here it is in its larger context:


> We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.
> 
> Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies, not to be punitive towards those for whose difficult situation we have only compassion. We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services, and we commend congressional Republicans for expanding assistance to adopting families and for removing racial barriers to adoption. The impact of those measures and of our Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 has been spectacular. Adoptions out of foster care have jumped forty percent and the incidence of child abuse and neglect has actually declined. We second Governor Bush's call to make permanent the adoption tax credit and expand it to $7,500.


Of course, it's been updated in the 2004 Republican Party Platform (again in larger context): on Abortion



> Human Life Amendment to the Constitution
> We must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.
> We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services, and we commend Congressional Republicans for expanding assistance to adopting families and for removing racial barriers to adoption.
> 
> We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services, and we commend Congressional Republicans for expanding assistance to adopting families and for removing racial barriers to adoption.





> *Every child born and unborn ought to be protected
> Bush opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the mother's life. *


And while we are discussing the competition between legislative and judicial interests, I would like to go ahead and claim the protection under the Mr. Alexander Kabbaz ruling that 'pointing out IQs less than 50' does not violate AAAC Forum Rules. 

Thanks! And; have a great day!


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Revelations 22: 18-19 .When two bimbos deceive someone by concealing their religous affiliation and intent to convert through sexual promise they ain't no ladies. At least L. Ron Hubbard wrote his own stuff while high on coke. And I have posted my name, city of residence and military I.D. while you hide in anonymity. I have indeed taken a classic military stance, while you my melchizidick minion hide behind the star the man turned your god lives on like a classic terrorist. Chew on that with your Weber enriched white bread and tap water communion. You are anathema to me.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Kav said:


> And I have posted my name, city of residence and military I.D..


"Stupid is as stupid does."


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Kav said:


> Revelations 22: 18-19


Doctrinal genius, I have a question for you? Do you know when the Book of Revelations was written? Do you know what other books of the New testament were written AFTER the Book of Revelations? Is it your contention that the Book of Revelations was the LAST book to be written in the New testament because it is placed last? When you find out then you can try and explain the passage your quoted.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children."
> 
> "We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion."


Those responsible for this agenda know perfectly well the two claims are absolutely and without qualification, mutually exclusive. The latter statement was added in response to overwhelming public opposition to the former.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Doesn't wash? What exactly do you think "equal protection" means?
> 
> "Columnist Michael Kinsley, writing in Time magazine (6/24/96), pointed out the logic of the 14th Amendment: "Under equal protection, you certainly couldn't have the death penalty for killing a post-birth human being, and a lesser punishment -- or no punishment at all -- for killing a fetus."


Aah, Michael Kinsley, - Noted Constitutional lawyer..

If a person born or not yet born is causing harm or danger of death then the woman has a right to protect herself. Settled law before Roe and would be the same after this. Take your alternate view of reality somewhere else please.. Your entertainment value is waning.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Those responsible for this agenda know perfectly well the two claims are absolutely and without qualification, mutually exclusive. The latter statement was added in response to overwhelming public opposition to the former.


Fraud, I hate to so repetitive, but *if you will read a little closer* (DYOH) perhaps you will see that statement is in both platform statements and was not "added in response" to anything - particularly so your paranoid imagination and B-movie viewership.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Aah, Michael Kinsley, - Noted Constitutional lawyer..


Aah, Yachtie -- a more noted consitutional lawyer?



yachtie said:


> If a person born or not yet born is causing harm or danger of death then the woman has a right to protect herself. Settled law before Roe and would be the same after this.


Guess again. Under equal protection, anything short of imminent threat of death would not be adequate legal grounds to allow an abortion. The one example I cited (a 10 year-old girl getting raped and pregnant, required by law to carry her pregnancy to term, and becoming permanently barren as a result) is one of hundreds of valid examples where the Republican agenda would impose restrictions on choice that are far more immoral than abortion itself.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> a 10 year-old girl getting raped and pregnant, required by law to carry her pregnancy to term, and becoming permanently barren as a result is one of hundreds of valid examples where the Republican agenda would impose restrictions on choice that are far more immoral than abortion itself.


A cartoon scenario, dreamt by a cartoon mind.

Reality: Planned Parenthood's own literature reports that almost all abortions are elective.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Kav* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=569034#post569034 
_I don't get hurt feelings. *I get even*, in fact I see that I come out ahead. *Posters who use inflamatory hate speach of any political stripe are pathetic heirs to the old black and white reels of the KKK marching in Washington*, Triumph of the Will and Uncle Joe clapping as the same Soviet regiments went around the block at Red Square._

So, given your current use of "inflamatory hate speach" and your proclamation that you "get even," I must conclude that you support seppuku? If you need a sword to fall on, send me your complete name, address, phone number, SS#, credit card#, photocopy of your military ID, and any other identifying information you have not already provided and I will be happy to send you one, indeed, a real samurai sword no less.

Seppuku--whether ordered as punishment or chosen in preference to a dishonorable death at the hands of an enemy--was unquestionable demonstration of their honor, courage, loyalty, and moral character.

Okay Kav--here's your big chance to prove you're a true warrior with "honor, courage, loyalty, and moral character."


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Phinn said:


> A cartoon scenario, dreamt by a cartoon mind.
> 
> Reality: Planned Parenthood's own literature reports that almost all abortions are elective.


Absolute nonsense. 50-70% of abortions are spontaneous, they're neither elective nor therapeutic.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Absolute nonsense. 50-70% of abortions are spontaneous, they're neither elective nor therapeutic.


Apples and oranges. Nice straw man. The obvious topic was medically induced abortions. A "spontaneous abortion" is just another name for a natural miscarriage, i.e. the woman's body self-aborts the fetus. Really Frank, you have hit a home run on this one.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Absolute nonsense. 50-70% of abortions are spontaneous, they're neither elective nor therapeutic.


Words fail me.

No, actually, they don't. Spontaneous abortions are not at issue because, by definition, they are not precipitated by an act of the mother, abortionist, or anyone else.

Arguing with you is a battle of wits with an unarmed man.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Words fail me.
> 
> No, actually, they don't. Spontaneous abortions are not at issue because, by definition, they are not precipitated by an act of the mother, abortionist, or anyone else.
> 
> Arguing with you is a battle of wits with an unarmed man.


He really did demonstrate exactly how foolish a Google search can make one look when one lacks some contextual knowledge, did he not? I mean, this one easily is the stupidest thing I have read all year. Can you just hear the thoughts in that empty chamber? "Spontaneous...AH HA! So maybe she's out having sushi and she *spontaneously* decides to go to a family planning clinic..."


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Absolute nonsense. 50-70% of abortions are spontaneous, they're neither elective nor therapeutic.


Fraud, DYOH



> Estimates report that up to 50% of all fertilized eggs abort spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. *Among known pregnancies, the rate is approximately 10%*


https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000907.htm

OOPS, I see I'm late to the 'party'


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Words fail me.
> 
> No, actually, they don't. Spontaneous abortions are not at issue because, by definition, they are not precipitated by an act of the mother, abortionist, or anyone else.
> 
> Arguing with you is a battle of wits with an unarmed man.


Likewise. Next time don't make a ridiculous and unqualified claim.

Look guys, public opinion is 80% against the current position in the Republican Party's platform. The longer it stays in the platform, the better in my view.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Likewise. Next time don't make a ridiculous and unqualified claim.
> 
> Look guys, public opinion is 80% against the current position in the Republican Party's platform. The longer it stays in the platform, the better in my view.


Look guy, you just made a complete and utter fool of yourself. Answer to that before you tell us someone else is making a "ridiculous and unqualified claim."


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Therapeutic?

As music plays softly in the background:
_Sit back and relax as we end your unwanted pregnancy for you. Our therapeutic abortion service will have you feeling revived, refreshed and renewed, and ready to face a new day. _


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

I don't know, Frank may be on to something here. About ten years ago my wife suffered her first and only partial miscarriage, that is, the fetus failed to expel. I called the number our HMO gave to me to arrange for the DNC to remove the unexpelled fetus and was told, in order:

1. "We cannot discuss your wife's abortion with you;"

After my wife left our bed where she was resting and reluctantly got on the phone she was told:

2. "You cannot have an abortion here because your husband is a federal employee and abortions are not funded by the federal government;"

After my wife dropped the phone in horror and through her sobs told me what happened, I got on the phone again. I asked for and got the name of the individual who had just traumatized my wife. I then calmly tried to explain that she was not having an abortion, bur rather a DNC to remove the remaining fetus that had not expelled when she miscarried. Undaunted, she replied:

3. "As I said, I cannot discuss your wife's abortion with you."

I put in a call to my then Congressman, Tom Campbell, who immediately called back from DC and explained that his office would make all the arrangements with my HMO and this problem would be resolved since clearly this was not an elective abortion, but a needed medical procedure. The procedure was completed the next day, with my wife's OBGYN and the hospital Chief of Staff in attendance.

This is the world that Planned Parenthood has created. When a wife suffers a partial miscarriage and her husband tried to arrange for the DNC to remove the unexpelled fetus, the husband is trampled on, has no rights, and a non-elective procedure to finish what nature was unable to complete is called an abortion. 

Apparently, calling miscarriages abortions now makes them feel better about what they are doing. I think Frank may actually be right this time, at least under this immoral definition.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> Therapeutic?
> 
> As music plays softly in the background:
> _Sit back and relax as we end your unwanted pregnancy for you. Our therapeutic abortion service will have you feeling revived, refreshed and renewed, and ready to face a new day. _


At least you're consistent in your ignorance.

The government has no business imposing itself into women's bodies, or between women and their physicians. Ever.

And to Phinn, I wish you'd explain your anarchist profession with your apparent support of the current Republican platform. It's astonishing, if not incredibly hypocritical.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> At least you're consistent in your ignorance.


You would be a perfect judge on consistent ignorance. Spontaneously.

ic12337:


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

whomewhat said:


> IThis is the world that Planned Parenthood has created. When a wife suffers a partial miscarriage and her husband tried to arrange for the DNC to remove the unexpelled fetus, the husband is trampled on, has no rights, and a non-elective procedure to finish what nature was unable to complete is called an abortion.


No, this is the world that lawyers and politicians have created. The former CYA non-disclosure confidentiality disaster, and the latter the usual power grab of holier-than-thou "compassionate convservatism" into medical decisions.

You are absolutely right: the procedure was a decision between your wife and her doc, disclosed to you by her. Her *choice.*

-guess what I believe?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> At least you're consistent in your ignorance.
> 
> The government has no business imposing itself into women's bodies, or between women and their physicians. Ever.
> 
> And to Phinn, I wish you'd explain your anarchist profession with your apparent support of the current Republican platform. It's astonishing, if not incredibly hypocritical.


First of all, how am I consistent in my ignorance? I don't really agree with abortion, but I also don't care what others want to do with their own bodies. My issue is that I don't want to pay for abortions for people that use it as some form of birth control. Rape, incest, life of the mother fine...I don't mind those being funded, but not because some girl got pregnant because her b/f was too stupid to wear a condom. I don't feel sorry for people like that.

Second, I was poking fun at your use of therapeutic in regards to abortions. It's not a spa treatment, Frank.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

tabasco said:


> No, this is the world that lawyers and politicians have created. The former CYA non-disclosure confidentiality disaster, and the latter the usual power grab of holier-than-thou "compassionate convservatism" into medical decisions.
> 
> You are absolutely right: the procedure was a decision between your wife and her doc, disclosed to you by her. Her *choice.*
> 
> -guess what I believe?


Thank you. This decision has always been between women, their families and doctors -- regardless of what George W. Bush and Ralph Reed want.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

tabasco said:


> You are absolutely right: the procedure was a decision between your wife and her doc, disclosed to you by her. Her *choice.*
> 
> -guess what I believe?


Interesting, because when I rushed my wife to the ER because of the pain she was having, a pain that the ultrasound revealed to be a miscarriage, the doctor called ME outside to explain what had happened and suggested it might be easier for my wife to hear it from ME.

Actually, the procedure was NOT a choice between my wife and her doctor, the doctor told us she HAD to have the procedure to remove the unexpelled fetus. I suppose my wife could have refused, and died, to save the unexpelled tissue from being expelled?

Wow, and the left calls the right uncompassionate.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> First of all, how am I consistent in my ignorance? I don't really agree with abortion, but I also don't care what others want to do with their own bodies. My issue is that I don't want to pay for abortions for people that use it as some form of birth control. Rape, incest, life of the mother fine...I don't mind those being funded, but not because some girl got pregnant because her b/f was too stupid to wear a condom. I don't feel sorry for people like that.
> 
> Second, I was poking fun at your use of therapeutic in regards to abortions. It's not a spa treatment, Frank.


Second point noted, and I agree 100% with that first part. I stated at the top of this discussion I do not support federal funding for abortion except in the cases you mentioned (and long-term health as well as life of the mother).


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> This decision has always been between women, their families and doctors -- regardless of what George W. Bush and Ralph Reed want.


Frank, I guess you missed it? The decision is NOT "between women, their *families* and doctors," unless of course you are not defining a husband as part of the family unit?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

whomewhat said:


> Frank, I guess you missed it? The decision is NOT "between women, their *families* and doctors," unless of course you are not defining a husband as part of the family unit?


We have two simultaneous discussions going on here. I'm talking about "the" decision in general, not "your" decision in particular.


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

whomewhat said:


> ... the doctor called ME outside to explain what had happened and suggested it might be easier for my wife to hear it from ME.


I'm not a lwayer, but I'd bet that under current laws (and w/o prior written spousal authorization), if push comes to shove, her doc stepped over the line. Better the old way....keep the governement out.

I'm sure that was a terrifying and confusing few moments, I hope she has recovered.

-sometimes a compassionate something or other


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Thank you. *This decision* has always been between women, their families and doctors -- regardless of what George W. Bush and Ralph Reed want.


So what percent of those decisions were "spontaneous" do you think? Frank, I am not going to drop this one, it is just too, too funny. Admit you totally fugged up and I'll drop it, until then, every chance I get....


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Oh, I see. My situation was an aberration, an isolated event, and not indicative of Planned Parenthood's position that the "choice" is exclusively the domain of the woman. I stand corrected, I guess.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> And to Phinn, I wish you'd explain your anarchist profession with your apparent support of the current Republican platform. It's astonishing, if not incredibly hypocritical.


I'll be glad to explain my position, just as soon as you explain why you thought it was at all helpful, pertinent or intelligent, in a discussion about the morality and legality of choosing to abort pregnancies, to interject a comment about the prevalence of embryos or fetuses that spontaneously die in utero.

It's like discussing the rules governing murder, and having someone mention the rate at which people die of heart disease.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Phinn said:


> I'll be glad to explain my position, just as soon as you explain why you thought it was at all helpful, pertinent or intelligent, in a discussion about the morality and legality of choosing to abort pregnancies, to interject a comment about the prevalence of embryos or fetuses that spontaneously die in utero.
> 
> It's like discussing the rules governing murder, and having someone mention the rate at which people die of heart disease.


Your exact claim

"Reality: Planned Parenthood's own literature reports that almost all abortions are elective."

was unqualified and highly misleading. Perhaps intentionally so.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Your exact claim
> 
> "Reality: Planned Parenthood's own literature reports that almost all abortions are elective."
> 
> was unqualified and highly misleading. Perhaps intentionally so.


And your answer was to quote an unsupported stat on the incidence of spontaneous abortions. Better known as "miscarriages". It made you look moronic on the topic of abortion. And now you are ignoring that you totally confused two completely different things while I laugh so hard my eyes tear up.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Absolute nonsense. 50-70% of abortions are spontaneous, they're neither elective nor therapeutic.


So Fraud, does "auto-amputation" mean cars are going around slicing parts off humans?


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Frank, this is a serious question. You have almost 800 posts now, which is no small accomplishment, and I would like to know, truthfully, in any of those 800 posts have you ever flatly admitted you were wrong about anything, without qualification, you simply screwed up? If you would rather not respond, fine, is anyone else aware of Frank having EVER admitted that he was wrong about something he said? This is an issue of character for me and I am sincerely curious about this. Please provide me with the link, if available.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I don't always agree with Frank, but there actually was a thread once that he titled in a way to make fun of one of the military mottoes. (A few Good men) or something like that.

Late in the thread, he admitted that it was needlessly incendiary.

I do actually have occasional moments where I agree with Frank.

I think he has middle of the road moments. However, tact can frequently be an issue. Also, he can sometimes have a way of turning any thread into a discussion of one of two or three of his pet topics.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I don't always agree with Frank, but there actually was a thread once that he titled in a way to make fun of one of the military mottoes. (A few Good men) or something like that.
> 
> Late in the thread, he admitted that it was needlessly incendiary.
> 
> ...


Excuse me, read this thread from the beginning and tell me who has the tact issues. To my probable detriment I'm already ignoring two of the main causes of personal attacks in this forum (one of whom has 4200+ posts -- 4000+ of which have contributed absolutely nothing to discussions except ad hominem attacks).


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Your's probably stand out a bit more because you frequently are the only one on your side. Liberals seem to either be banned or get tired of the forum.

Actually you are not always stridently liberal; this forum makes you appear much more so than you actually are, I think.

You are correct about the tact thing; a lot of people are inspired to ire by this forum, it seems.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Your's probably stand out a bit more because you frequently are the only one on your side. Liberals seem to either be banned or get tired of the forum.


I've received approximately three dozen PMs over the last six months, from members who expressed agreement with my views on various issues but were afraid of doing so publicly. It's downright repressive and sad.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I've received approximately three dozen PMs over the last six months, from members who expressed agreement with my views on various issues but were afraid of doing so publicly. It's downright repressive and sad.


I get that many in a week over people like you. However, I must say, I have to be a frightening and scary person that I can be repressive on an Internet forum. /flex

Frank, you need to go re-read many threads here. I have agreed with you and supported you on issues. I cannot remember a time you have done that for me. I have also offered you an "out" many times, asking you to just be human and admit you were wrong vs. continuing to defend a completely indefensible position. Not only do you never take me up on the truce offering, you continue to escalate in your patently incorrect positions. At that point, yes, I feel no pity for you and drive it home relentlessly.

Maybe next time an olive branch if proffered, you might accept it, and see if your treatment does not improve.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I don't know if Frank sees your posts. He has said you have been on his ignore list.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I don't know if Frank sees your posts. He has said you have been on his ignore list.


They all say that...yet mysteriously give answers that often indicate they have been reading my posts


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

Phinn said:


> Spontaneous abortions are not at issue because, by definition, they are not precipitated by an act of the mother, abortionist, or anyone else.


How can someone profess a belief in God and then claim a miscarriage is not an act of God? The end result in either case is the loss of the fetus.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I've noticed that about a number of people who place you on ignore, Wayfarer.

What's funny about your struggle with Frank is that he is not as liberal as a lot of the liberals and you are not a doctrinaire conservative.

I hope I'm not putting myself in danger with these comments. I'm a committed coward.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I've noticed that about a number of people who place you on ignore, Wayfarer.
> 
> What's funny about your struggle with Frank is that he is not as liberal as a lot of the liberals and you are not a doctrinaire conservative.
> 
> I hope I'm not putting myself in danger with these comments. I'm a committed coward.


I am repressive. Tread lightly :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

We could make quite a pair. I am occasionally accused of being passive agressive. (And I frequently enjoy and will get a quite shameful humorous charge over a well-pulled passive aggressive stunt! Since you have to hide your aggression behind a veneer of passivity, there can be a lot of imagination involved in a truly good one.)

Of course, I would NEVER stoop to this behavior myself.

Now about your spelling mistake three weeks ago - - - -


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I've received approximately three dozen PMs over the last six months, from members who expressed agreement with my views on various issues but were afraid of doing so publicly.


I forgot to ask, what positions were those that these anonymous supporters PM'ed you over? Mormons torturing the nads of homosexuals? Spontaneously aborted fetuses? Muslims from the 6th century? Pro gay-marriage, anti-polygamists? That Dean really did not say he would pull all troops out of Iraq on the Daily Show? This thread on Marines: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=68955 The list is endless.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

(Hands on hips) So you can respond to Frank, but not to me - - -


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> (Hands on hips) So you can respond to Frank, but not to me - - -


That would just play into your passive aggression...


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

But I'm not aggressive! I have the veneer, you know - -


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> But I'm not aggressive! I have the veneer, you know - -


Are you Rojo's NPA friend? LOL just kidding!


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> How can someone profess a belief in God and then claim a miscarriage is not an act of God? The end result in either case is the loss of the fetus.


I don't quite understand your post. I have not professed a belief in God.

Also, the exchange from which you quoted was part of a discussion about the legality of abortion (or more precisely, what the legality of abortion should be). I don't think I am going too far out on a limb when I say that most would agree that to the extent that God acts, He is not subject to the statutes or Constitution of the United States.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Phinn said:


> I don't quite understand your post. I have not professed a belief in God.
> 
> Also, the exchange from which you quoted was part of a discussion about the legality of abortion (or more precisely, what the legality of abortion should be). I don't think I am going too far out on a limb when I say that most would agree that to the extent that God acts, He is not subject to the statutes or Constitution of the United States.


I'm still wondering how it's possible to reconcile anarchy with apparent support for existing abortion laws, and even with apparent defense of the Republican Party's goal to bestow fetuses with 14th Amendment equal protection. I mean seriously, all sidestepping aside, how do you reconcile that logically?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

So then, do you agree with this statement?

"I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate."


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> So then, do you agree with this statement?
> 
> "I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, *so long as the result is in agreement with my position,* should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate, *unless that is required to bring errant states into line with my position*."


Fixed.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> So then, do you agree with this statement?
> 
> "I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate."


Not sure who your question is addressed to, but no I don't agree with that statement. As with dozens of other issues over the past 200+ years, with regard to abortion the states have passed and attempted to enforce unconstitutional laws. This leaves no alternative but intervention by our federal courts.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Not sure who your question is addressed to, but no I don't agree with that statement. As with dozens of other issues over the past 200+ years, with regard to abortion the states have passed and attempted to enforce unconstitutional laws. This leaves no alternative but intervention by our federal courts.


LOL, told you. Remember what I said ksinc, arguing with a pretzel.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> I'm still wondering how it's possible to reconcile anarchy with apparent support for existing abortion laws, and even with apparent defense of the Republican Party's goal to bestow fetuses with 14th Amendment equal protection. I mean seriously, all sidestepping aside, how do you reconcile that logically?


If you answer my earlier question, you won't have to wonder any longer.

For your convenience, I repeat it here:



> I'll be glad to explain my position, just as soon as you explain why you thought it was at all helpful, pertinent or intelligent, in a discussion about the morality and legality of choosing to abort pregnancies, to interject a comment about the prevalence of embryos or fetuses that spontaneously die in utero.
> 
> It's like discussing the rules governing murder, and having someone mention the rate at which people die of heart disease.


Intoxication and/or momentary confusion, if true, are perfectly acceptable answers.


----------

