[quote][b]ppensyl[/b] - Again, the 14th amendment already addresses this issue. It's a shame people who have spent so much on their education (and are on the take from special interest groups) can't comprehend it.
But does the 14th Amendment get to dictate to the states on how to define marriage? I see this as a states rights issue. And I believe the 14th Amendment far from settles the matter.posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 08:46
[quote][b]Millionexus[/b] - I'm sorry. I'm not going to wait 2000 years for this.[/quote]
Read the above post of mine. The case (Baker vs. Nelson) was dismissed by the Supreme Court in 1972, "for want of a substantial federal question."
Of all the things I do, other than Softball and gaming, I study the law in great detail.
The concept of Strict scrutiny dictates that "the government interest at stake must be “compelling,” and not just “substantial,” and the method chosen to serve that interest must be “narrowly tailored” to do so. It is used when a law creates a “suspect classification.” It is the test that is used to protect individual rights that are considered “fundamental” to society; it has long been used to judge laws that treat people differently and less favorably on the basis of their race, country of birth, country of citizenship, and religion."
This was the basis of the ruling by the Supreme court 41 years ago.posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 08:15
I have a feeling (though historical studies) that Baker vs. Nelson (1972) will play a critical role in the Supreme Court's decision. It should trump Loving vs. Virginia (1967). But since then there have been various competing state level supreme court rulings on the subject.
I am puzzled by this remark by our president (then a Senator) 7 years ago. Which prompted the question: If that were the case, should he have no grounds to argue for marriage equality?
“...our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.”
Senator Barack Obama (2006)posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 08:08
@Millionexus: I am a speed reader. But in this instance, it would be more prudent to read the summary at length.posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 07:44
[quote][b]Millionexus[/b] - You didn't say anything about the statistics I linked, I noticed.[/quote]
Because I was in the middle of reading the ENTIRE study. Still am. I don't comment on things like that until I have read it in full.
Heck, I could come up and agree with it. But that is yet to be determined.posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 07:35
[quote][b]Millionexus[/b] - Bullpucky. Only my mother (and possibly my father) would have known about my existence.[/quote]
What about their families and friends?
[quote][b]Millionexus[/b] - Banning abortion doesn't -stop- abortion. It just makes it less safe. It would happen less, but it would still happen and would threaten the life of the woman MUCH more often.[/quote]
So the life of the child no longer matters? I see. I see.posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 07:21
“You want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones or the Internet?” he said. “I mean … we do not have the ability to see the future.”
Justice Samuel Alito
“We have five years of information [about same-sex marriage] to weigh against 2000 years of history or more... On the other hand, there is an immediate legal injury, or what you could call a legal injury, and that’s the voice of these children [of same-sex parents].… They want their parents to have full recognition and full status.”
“The problem with the case is that you’re really asking, particularly because of the sociological evidence you cite, for us to go into uncharted waters, and you can play with that metaphor, there’s a wonderful destination, it is a cliff"
Justice Anthony Kennedyposted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 07:17
[quote][b]melmarino[/b] - All the proof required for Darwin's Theory of Evolution is right here. Some people really still are monkeys.
If I am to be a monkey,
I will be this one!
All brawn, and perhaps little brain!posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 06:56
[quote][b]Millionexus[/b] - Women also own the issue because men, by far, are more likely to legislate and vote -against- abortion than women.[/quote]
Nonsense. You fail to realize that men contribute AN EQUAL amount of genetic material to the child as the woman does. So do women all of a sudden reproduce asexually now?
[quote][b]Millionexus[/b] - Women own the issue because it is their bodies, and women who are married are -far- less likely to have abortions than those who aren't married.[/quote]
Do you have links and data to back this up? Once again, the man doesn't exist after conception. If the couple has consensual sex, with the full intent of having a child, and suddenly the woman gets cold feet and wishes to have an abortion, what does that say for the man? He was in it for the child. He was prepared to dedicate his life to raising him/her. How can you just force him to sit on the sidelines while his significant other kills his child? All for the sake of "its her body"? How would you feel in a husband's position if your wife or partner wanted to kill YOUR CHILD? Do you not see anything wrong with that?!
Ahem.. sorry, you're right this is an emotional subject.
[quote][b]Millionexus[/b] - My life is valuable to me, but if I never lived, I wouldn't know the difference, would I?[/quote]
The people counting on your existence would have. When they saw you forming in the womb, they knew what you were. Life. A person with a future. Not some clump of cells.posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 06:53
[quote][b]Millionexus[/b] - I don't think it -is- hypocrisy if the pro-choice people don't see a fetus as a person. [/quote]
So, when is it a person? I see it as a person when it develops human characteristics. When the heart develops in the right place, the spine forms in the right area.. or in essence, very early in development.
I will ask you and pro choice advocates this: What makes it wrong for me to think the way I do? What makes my opinion always wrong? I mean, I've already explained to you my side of the coin. Now I'm asking that you explain yours. Why is it just a fetus and not a person? Is it not proof enough that the fetus is a human being simply because it develops within the womb of a human woman?
[quote][b]Millionexus[/b] - pro-lifers think we're murderers.[/quote]
And pro-choicers think we're oppressive. I'm wondering why you're allowed to define life and we aren't? What makes it wrong for a woman to carry a child to term when it was her (in some cases) her irresponsibility that got her in that position to begin with? Why do women act like they completely own the issue? Without a man's sperm (either through sex, or by artificial means), that egg in her uterus will soon be discarded during her menstrual cycle. Without a man's sperm where is her right to choose? Its as if men don't exist in this world after that first romp in the bedroom, and we live in the land of the fabled Greek Amazons.
Please tell me you don't see see something entirely lopsided about this?
[quote][b]Millionexus[/b] - So is life sacred or is it not? [/quote]
Apparently, we can define that now. It should be plainly obvious what life is. Yours should be extremely valuable to you. I find it quite odd that those favoring the right to abort a "fetus" are themselves already born. This is the double standard I see.
Frankly, if the woman is raped, and she waits a while to have an abortion, I can't honestly be merciful, since she waited, she has a life now growing inside of her. That child had no say so as to who it's parents would be, it had no control over the circumstances which brought it into this existence.
Its..Its like me telling you that I think you should die because I don't define you as a person. If I carried that desire out, everyone on these boards would define this as murder.
People will neg me now, but I honestly don't care. I knew I was almost aborted by my mother 25 years ago, had she gone through with it, you pro-choicer's would have seen that as her right to choose. Sure, you can sit there and say that now. The world would have been denied my uniqueness, the many people that I love would have never known what kind of person I could be or would have become. I am a blessing to so many people. But when I was forming inside of my mother's womb, I was life, I was a NOT a fetus. I find that definition to be dehumanizing.
So you can excuse me if I think abortion is wrong in some cases.
Good morning.posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 05:21
[quote][b]Ugles[/b] - Take your religion to church please.[/quote]
The one problem is that in this country we are able to worship wherever we please, not just in church.
"Where two or more of you gather in my name, there I will be also."posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 00:19
Ahh.. ok so I lied. So sue me.
This is how I see abortion. It may sound a bit barbaric to some of you, but there's a principle involved here.
First and foremost, the health of the mother should be considered. It should be determinate in whether she should be made to give birth, or abort.
A) Is she in poor health? Will the birth of the child present an even greater risk to her health as a whole? Is there a chance that she will die in childbirth? Will the child be a stillborn? Did the child acquire a fatal defect during development?
1.) If Yes, then by all means, save her life. Abortion is necessary.
2.) If No, she should not be given the right terminate the life of a perfectly normal human infant.
Second, the sex life of the woman should be assessed.
B) Did the mother engage in promiscuous sexual activity, such as prostitution? Did she simply sleep with multiple men? Did she initiate the sexual activity that led to her pregnancy? Was she raped? Did the woman take reasonable contraceptive measures to prevent the possibility of becoming pregnant? Did the condom break? Was the man wearing a condom? Did she willfully engage in unprotected sex?
1.) If the answer was yes to the first two questions, then she should be made to live with the consequences of her behavior. If the answer was no, then the choice should remain with the woman.
2.) If the answer to the third question was no, the obvious solution would be to let the woman choose to either go through with the pregnancy, or proceed with the abortion. If the answer was yes, then there is no excuse for her to perform an abortion. One will assume that the sex was consensual.
3.) If the answer to the fourth question is yes, the decision should be hers to make. If the answer was no, then she should be made to carry the child to term.
4.) If the answer to the fifth question is yes, then she should be allowed to have an abortion on the merits that the medications she took failed to do what they were designed for. If the answer is no, she should be made to carry the child to term.
5.) If the answer was yes to the sixth question, then she should be able to make the decision to carry on with the pregnancy, or have an abortion. If the answer was no, then there might be a possibility that she may have had multiple sexual partners beforehand, and that such possibility should be investigated further. The issue may need to be heard in court to resolve the matter.
6.) If the answer was yes to the seventh question, see the answer to #6. If no, and given that she did not request that the man wear a condom, she should be made to carry the child to term.
7.) If the answer to the eighth question is yes, she should be made to carry the child to term. If no, see answers to #4.
Simply put, barring any unmitigated circumstance to the woman, and if she is in good health, or if she willfully engaged in the activity which impregnated her, she should NOT be allowed to have an abortion.
If she was raped, seduced, or is otherwise in bad health, then by all means. Let her have an abortion.
Why didn't I say much about men? For some reason, men are not allowed to have an opinion on abortion. But they are by no means immune to the consequences of getting the woman pregnant as a result of their own irresponsible behavior. And by all means they should also be allowed to have a say so in regards to the life and/or death of the child.posted @ Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - 21:50
Ask your mom? [/quote]
Actually, she would have normally referred to me in the old grandmotherly vernacular as "heathen."
I speak from experience.posted @ Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - 17:54
@Thomas Jefferson Snodgrass: What if we had taken your approach of "law overrides morality" when the Jim Crow Laws were in effect? I wouldn't hesitate to assume that we would still be treating black men and women(and perhaps other minorities) with contempt; discriminating against them based off of their skin color, burning crosses in their front yards, throwing bricks through their windows, randomly snatching them from their homes and lynching them from trees, and et cetera.
It's the same now, here in the present, the gay marriage amendments that have already been passed during the previous decade are now law. So as per your philosophy, they should not be trumped by something so small and insignificant as a mere opinion, or by something you interpret to be your morals. I'm calling your bluff here Snod. I wonder where that strict adherence to the law goes when it's a law you don't agree with?posted @ Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - 17:34
[quote][b]crazy8golfer[/b] - Sorry about you having a bad day.[/quote]
Oh I wasn't angry.. (er well.. maybe a little) Kind of confused as to why the mods allow people to create accounts solely for the basis of harassing me. As soon as NiUnPasoAtras was banned, he retaliated by making his "Nemesis of (insert my name here)" moniker.
I have made suggestions to the powers that be about how to ban users by IP address. I really wish they would do it with this guy. He's bound to be back with his millionth and first account at some point or another. Admittedly this kind of behavior is getting old.
Each time he's tried to yank my chain, he gets banned instead. Go figure.posted @ Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - 17:18
...I thought about saying something here... but
I'm gonna stay outta this one.posted @ Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - 17:09
[quote][b]Thomas Jefferson Snodgrass[/b] - I cannot believe that anyone who has been awake through a high school civics class could seriously make such a statement. [/quote]
Going based off of what you said, we may as well. Since the law is the sole regulator of opinion. Therefore, the only logical recourse would be to throw voting rights laws out of the window. Because by making rulings overturning laws that were voted on by entire populations of people, votes no longer mean anything. What would be the point of voting then?
Let me be clear, I don't think we should end suffrage, Snod. But it's ridiculous for you to think that the law should in some way override someone's voice. I'd assumed the law was more flexible than that. But oh hey, we should just outlaw majority rule from now on.
Your problem is that you take everything at face value. We have laws that protect the minority from the majority, but why must it be so one sided? Looks that way to me. Id rather my vote mean something rather than to have it rendered meaningless by the court. It's like we cant be trusted with our own votes anymore.posted @ Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - 16:52
@nowheregirl: Oh I see.posted @ Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - 14:04
[quote][b]Athens Hi-Fi[/b] - @RightWingExtremist: What did he/she say???
No clue. I wasn't around to see it. I had other things to do.posted @ Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - 13:54
[quote][b]helligater69[/b] - So, get real and research your position and stop blaming every social ill on the democrats.[/quote]
First, you're the one that needs to get real. Second, stop blaming every social malfunction our society has on the Republicans, thirdly, try learning the concept of bipartisan criticism. Neither side is immune to blame, but not one side is completely to blame. But both sides need to take responsibility for their actions and quit blaming it on each other.
And lastly, where is a link to this information you posted?posted @ Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - 13:53
@nowheregirl: I have no children. What is meant by "problem child"?posted @ Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - 13:40
@crazy8golfer: I could care less who it was. It's absolute knee-slapping hilarity when I sit here and watch this person continue to make an absolute idiot on himself. Total self destruction over one person.posted @ Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - 13:38
[quote][b]helligater69[/b] - How do you look at yourself in the mirror everyday?[/quote]
Simple, he stands in front of it.posted @ Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - 13:30
I wont even ask who that was that got banned...hilarious at that might beposted @ Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - 13:27
I love how such a hapless encounter with a hammer and some aluminum foil turned into a gun control debate. Absolutely hilarious!
So much win!posted @ Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - 07:00
Summary: I'm not saying it's lonely to be a movie critic, but we often find ourselves seated alone in an empty theatre when we're watching new stuff. I know people who say they won't go see anything unless they have at least one other person to go with, but I've always enjoyed having the place to myself. I'm not saying it's lonely to be a movie critic, but we often find ourselves seated alone in an empty theatre when we're watching new stuff. I know people who say they won't go see anything unless they have at least one other person to go with, but I've always enjoyed having th