"Tolerant" NYC Liberals React to McCain Supporters

[Jim Johnson]

<I>"If Roe v. Wade is ever overturned I feel like it will open the door for even more of our freedoms to be taken away."</I>



This is a common misconception -- or perhaps, deliberate misdirection -- made by those apposed to repealing Roe vs. Wade.



In fact, repealing RvW <I>will not make abortion illegal</I>. It will simply return <I>to the individual states</I> the power to decide the issue, as it was before RvW, in accordance with the Constitution.



And this is what scares liberals the most, that the issue will be decided Constitutionally, democratically, on a state-by-state basis, rather than by liberal judicial fiat.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Jim Johnson,



I don't understand how you can say what you just said above. You are saying that liberals want abortion, and that before abortion was legal in all states it was MORE constititional?



I don't get that. Liberties to me mean freedoms. Freedoms and liberties are what our constitution protects. Putting abortion back to states as a decision that they can make will remove freedoms for some. Roe v Wade safeguarded a freedom. Moreso, it told the states that they could NOT restrict a particular freedom.



So, I don't see how you can say it was MORE constitutional before, and less so now.



TJR

 

[user 62394]

TJR,



I think that what Jim is saying is that RvW turned abortion into a "right" that is not actually enumerated by the constitution. According to the constitution, anything not specifically enumerated are delegated to the states. So . . . if RvW is overturned, it is now up to the states to decide if abortion should be legal, which I agree is how it should be. If the people of the state decide that they want abortion to be legal, so be it. But if they decide that they want it to be illegal, so be it.



That is why it is more constitutional -- because it shouldn't be decided by the federal government.



Rocks

 

[Dreman]

No one's saying it's "non-life". Clearly, it's living. But so are a chicken, wheat, your appendix, visuses, and sperm. And very few people cry when these "living" things are terminated, be it for human nourishment, health improvement, or natural process

Children are living, too, but few people think they are worth the same as a chicken! The only difference between an unborn child and a born child is the unborn child has an actual physical connection to their mother, and the born child only has a moral connection to their mother. Both are completely dependent on another for their care. A mother that ends the life of her unborn child is currently protected under the law. A mother that ends the life of a born child goes to jail because she broke the law.



Wait a few months, and an unborn child will become a born child. But that chicken is still a chicken.

 

[Bill V]

Children are living, too, but few people think they are worth the same as a chicken!

You must not have read the rest of my post, beyond the portion you quoted. Otherwise you'd realize that that's exactly what I said in my message.

The only difference between an unborn child and a born child is the unborn child has an actual physical connection to their mother, and the born child only has a moral connection to their mother. Both are completely dependent on another for their care.

This is a great example of what I was talking about when I commented on how people invent their own pseudoscience to try to rationalize their religious beliefs to be objective fact. Simply put, your statement here is completely false. There are far more differences between a fetus and a child than what you have listed. A child can physically exist outside the mother, a fetus (up to a certain point) cannot. A child can exist without any contact whatsoever from the mother (adoption, etc.), a fetus cannot. And this is just the beginning of the differences that you fail to acknowledge.



Please don't get me wrong--I have no problem with you having your religion-based beliefs on this subject, or with you living your life according to those beliefs--so long as you don't try to impose those beliefs on others who may not share them. I myself am morally "pro-life"--but I am able realize that I have those beliefs for religious reasons, and am able to acknowledge that the true science doesn't exist to unequivocally support that position. For this reason, I am politically "pro-choice". I will strongly discourage anyone from having an abortion, and will take what action I can to support those women who consider abortion but bravely opt to not follow that route--but I also completely defend their right to have it be their decision, and not one of any state or federal government.

 

[Dreman]

I'm not talking about religion. I'm talking about what people believe is right and wrong. If they get their belief from religion or somewhere else, few people think it is ok to kill an infant, but some people believe it is ok to kill the infant before it is born.

 

[Bill V]

...but some people believe it is ok to kill the infant before it is born.

No, they don't. That's a big flaw in the arguements of so many "pro-life" supporters.



Very, VERY few people who are "pro-choice" believe it's OK to kill infants, at any point. But they believe that at the point in gestation when abortions typically occur, it's not an infant.



This is a subtle but VERY important differentiation to make.

 

[Les]

infant before it is born.

A contradiction...

An infant is the term used to characterize a human baby. The term "infant" derives from the Latin word in-fans, meaning "unable to speak." "Infant" is also a legal term referring to minors;[1] that is, any child under the age of legal adulthood.



A human infant less than a month old is a newborn or a neonate.[2] The term "newborn" includes premature infants, postmature infants and full term newborns.



Upon reaching the age of one or beginning to walk, infants are referred to as "toddlers" (generally 12-36 months).

 

[Tom Schindler]

I myself am morally "pro-life"--but I am able realize that I have those beliefs for religious reasons, and am able to acknowledge that the true science doesn't exist to unequivocally support that position. For this reason, I am politically "pro-choice". I will strongly discourage anyone from having an abortion, and will take what action I can to support those women who consider abortion but bravely opt to not follow that route--but I also completely defend their right to have it be their decision, and not one of any state or federal government.

This is exactly the way I feel.



Big government is bad. At the same time, give them the power to intrude in our lives.



You can't have it both ways.





Tom

 

[Dreman]

I understand you do not agree that a child becomes a child at the moment of conception. I don't understand how you would think that way, but I don't have to understand how, I only have to understand that you do think that way. But for me, I don't see any difference between killing an unborn fetus or a 2 year old toddler. And I don't understand how it could be ok for a woman to agree to kill either one.

 

[Bill V]

Caymen, a few years ago, there was a pro-life ad campaign on TV (not sure if it was nationwide, or just local) which was trying to sway people to contact your legislator to change a law that would effectively render Roe v. Wade moot. I forget the exact details, but I remember the ad ending with the tagline, "Life: What a beautiful choice".



Although I disagreed with most of the ad, I loved that tagline, as it (unintentionally) summarized my opinion on the subject in just five words. Those five words stated that life is the right choice to make, but they also stated that in the end, it needs to be a choice.



Sounds like you would appreciate that slogan as well.

 

[Les]

I don't see any difference between killing an unborn fetus or a 2 year old toddler. And I don't understand how it could be ok for a woman to agree to kill either one.

The point is you don't have to understand, no more than she has to understand your position. As far as I'm concerned, my opinion as a male counts the least, and the woman's opinion counts the most...

 

[Tom Schindler]

My favorite slogan is this...



"Against abortion? Don't have one."





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

MTURocks said:

I think that what Jim is saying is that RvW turned abortion into a "right" that is not actually enumerated by the constitution. According to the constitution, anything not specifically enumerated are delegated to the states.

You are kidding, right? The SCOTUS is constantly ruling as to what those "specifically enumerated" items in the Constitution mean.



You need look no further than the 2nd Amendment to see what I mean:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Clearly the above is very specific. The reason stated for our right to keep and bear arms is for the purposes of a well regulated militia. That is exactly, specifically what the amendment says. However very few today see the right to bear arms defined souly for the purposes of maintaing a well regulated Militia.



So, that specifically enumerated right defined in the 2nd Amenment has become more general by rulings of the SCOTUS. If you are a gun-proponent you are probably supportive of such rulings and interpretations.



Similarly, the SCOTUS struck down states abilities to make abortions illegal. They found in Roe v. Wade that abortion IS a fundamental right of the constitution and therefore state laws that made abortion illegal were unconstitutional.



So, I stand by what I said and against what Jim said. Roe v Wade promoted the constitution.



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Dreman said:

But for me, I don't see any difference between killing an unborn fetus or a 2 year old toddler.

Consider this:



I've had the unfortunate experience of having gone through a miscarriage with my wife.



The unborn child (or fetus if you will) was 12 weeks old. We mourned the loss of what might have been, and it hurt for some time.



However, the loss of a 2 year old toddler, I can only assume would be so much more devastating.



However, again, we are talking about "death" in the above examples. Not what you called "killing."



When it comes to abortion, women do mourn what might have been. But at the same time, they often don't view the unborn child the same way they would a child that they want and are ready to have. They certainly wouldn't view the unborn child the same way as they would a child of their own that was two years old.



Your moral code doesn't allow for there to be a difference between an unborn child and a child of 2. However, I am sure that you would mourn the two quite differently if you lost each. Therefore there is a difference at some level between the so-called deaths.



TJR

 

[Dreman]

I'm sorry for your loss. Even though it was some time ago, I'm sure you still feel it.



I agree that the impact probably wouldn't be the same. Mostly it would be simply the length of time I got to spend with each one. It works the same if I lose a friend I met a week ago or a friend I've known for years. But that there would be an impact is without question. As for the miscarriage, I see it the same as if a child died of natural causes.



I understand that many women do not see a fetus as a child. I also understand that many of them suddenly realize there is a child there if they see an ultrasound of the fetus. An ultrasound can quite often change a woman's mind about aborting a child.

 

[Jim Johnson]

MTURocks said:



<I>"I think that what Jim is saying is that RvW turned abortion into a "right" that is not actually enumerated by the constitution. According to the constitution, anything not specifically enumerated are delegated to the states. So . . . if RvW is overturned, it is now up to the states to decide if abortion should be legal, which I agree is how it should be. If the people of the state decide that they want abortion to be legal, so be it. But if they decide that they want it to be illegal, so be it.



That is why it is more constitutional -- because it shouldn't be decided by the federal government. "</I>



Precisely. And from the responses, it's easy to see that those who believe in the supremacy of the Constitution over the branches of government understood the post; those who believe that activist judges should have the power to usurp the Constitution (i.e., re-interpret it to fit their own socio-poliical agendas) did not.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Jim Johnson,



Row v. Wade passed a law that protected freedoms and made it illegal for states to pass laws removing those freedoms. We can agree to disagree that abortion is a right as defined by the Constitution, but our opinions on the subject really don't matter. The SCOTUS has spoken and they say there is such a right provided by the Constitution.



You claim activist judges should NOT have the power to usurp the Constitution. Well consider that Roe v Wade has been the law of the land for 35 years. That is more than a lifetime for many SCOTUS judges. Many have come and gone, and yet RvW still stands; so clearly abortion rights are not simply provided at the whim of some recent activist judges.



I believe in the supremecy of the Constitution. But I also understand that all laws need to be adjusted from time to time, that's what our amendments are for, and that's why we have judges to guide things and to make rulings on aspects of the Constitution. Thank goodness we do.



As I said, the 2nd Amendment is a great example of why we need judges and why there really is no strict, supreme, singular interpretation to our amendments or our Constitutional laws. You seem to claim there is. But I submit there is not, and for very good reason. For if those specific, clear, non-vague supreme laws within the Constitution existed we would have to enforce them as written. If that were the case we could CONSTITUTIONALLY go from house to house today and take any an all weapons that aren't required for the sake of a well regulated militia. We could do that because that's exactly what the 2nd Amendment states.



However, the SCOTUS has interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean more and to deliver more rights than it explicitely states. Current interpretation dismisses the "well regulated militia" clause of the 2nd amendment as moot. The amendment and its meaning has evolved over time.



The SCOTUS has done the exact same thing to reason that a woman has a right to an abortion. If you like guns, you have to like abortion as those rights come from the same Constitutional cloth.



Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.



Hopefully you get the picture.



TJR

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

I don't flat out want abortions banned, they will still happen, I know that. Cocaine is illegal, but still is used. My contention is that Abortion is a States Right's issue. Firearms ownership, is not a State's issue as it is specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States.

However, the SCOTUS has interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean more and to deliver more rights than it explicitely states. Current interpretation dismisses the "well regulated militia" clause of the 2nd amendment as moot. The amendment and its meaning has evolved over time.

It has evolved strictly at the whim of judgeships and politicans, not by definition or by amending the amendment. The Bill Of Rights says today what it said 200+ years ago and the meanings of the words have not changed. You need to consult dictionaries and documents of the period. You cannot interpret a word like "militia" that was used 200 years ago with a dictionary from 2008.



One only needs to understand history to know that in the time of the founding, all firearms were suitable for militia use and all men over the age of I believe 16 were part of an "unofficial" militia.



That being the case, the 2nd Amendment applies to ALL FIREARMS and ALL CITIZENS. Any other interpretation is contrary to how the founders wrote and interpreted the law at the time of the founding. That being said, obviously firearms, war and tactics have all changed. Weapons have become much more advanced and I contest the citizenry a whole lot dumber when it comes to what is a right vs freedom vs responcibility vs what the Goberment can and can not do.



I don't want to see everyone with automatic weapons and I don't want to unequivically provide all 6 year-olds with firearms, but the Supreme Court got the decision correct. It is sad that 4 justices decided that the Constitution was incorrect and that international opionions are much more important than how our country was founded 200+ years ago.



It's amazing to me that "rights" that do not exist in the constitution are held to high reguard (Abortion) but the rights that specifically enumerated are routinely attacked and attempts to curtail them are constant.



If you have the right to terminate a baby, I have the right to own firearms. Actually, I have the right to own firearms (and I do, lots of them) wither or not you have the right to an abortion.



Abortion does not come from a Constitutional Cloth, it comes from an activist set of judges digging into a supposed "right" to privacy that does not exist and never has existed in the Constitution.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

R Shek,



You talk about specific enumerations in the Constitution and "intent of the found fathers" in the same breath.



As I said, be GLAD that we aren't taking a strict interpretation of the Constitution and only considering original intent, for if we were, we would NOT have the same gun rights we do today. They would be very different.



If there were a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment based on the intent of our founding fathers then would see gun ownership rights primarily for the purposes of protecting this country as this was the express stated intent of the amendment. With such an intent, if followed today in a strict fashion, that would mean that Joe and Jane gun-owner should be able to legally have anti-aircraft and tank weapons; scud missles; and nukes. because that is what it takes today to protect this country. But as we can see, we don't have such gun ownership rights; so clearly the intent of the original amendment isn't what is defining our rights associated with that amendment today. We have proof in today's gun laws of interpretation that has actually all but dismissed the original intent. So much so that the original intent is all but lost.



To say that "times change" and "wars change" and as such the preamble of the 2nd Amendment ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...") is no longer meaningful or that it has no teeth, or to furrther say that the 2nd Amendment is really about "all guns" and "all people" is all well and fine. Go ahead! I support you and the justices in interpreting the amendment in that way. But be clear. In doing so you have just INTERPRETED, and REDEFINED something that had probably had a specific intent when written to mean something else...something more meaningful for the time and place we live today.



That interpretation DOES happen. It IS happening with the 2nd amendment. If you like the gun rights you have today then I submit you should not look at abortion as some peculiarity and make statements like "I don't understand how it can be constitutional?", or make the statement that "there is no such right specified in the constitution!". No. Instead, if a gun advocate who supports the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment, I suggest you would be hypocritical if you don't appreciate abortion rights. You may not agree with them, but to discount them as unconstitional displays an inability to look at the Constitutional objectively.



Said another way, try not to be one of those that is fine with Constititional interpretation when the interpretation fits your desires/opinion but against such interpretation when it doesn't.



Yeah, I know, you probably don't think the 2nd Amendment as been (re)interpreted. Well, clearly it has.



TJR