Hello Righty's:

What's your wish list look like? Come on, don't hold back. Be as radical as you like. It IS a wish list after all... Rick Santorum wishes condoms were illegal. I have a bunch of stuff I THINK you're wishing for, but I'm going to hold back...

Ok, just one.. Certainly, you think ALL welfare recipients, from coast to coast, should be drug tested... You know, common sense solutions like that...

excon

Current picture ID in order to vote (plus homemade cookies for the judges).

(I'm kidding about the ID.)

I have one wish, Obama goes down in defeat this year.

I have one wishHello Steve:

Wait.. What? No repeal of Obamacare? No repeal of the EPA? No laws saying teachers can't swear? No repeal of Roe??

Okee doakee.

excon

Come on ex let's repeal it all, damn it all man it's time for revolution

Hello again,

So, you right wingers are just moderate people, huh... You don't want to drug test welfare recipients... You don't want to repeal ANYTHING...

How come I don't believe you?? How come NOBODY believes you?

excon

Roe can't be repealed .It can be overturned however.. or a new Amendment respecting the Constitutional rights of babies from being murdered can be adopted . I would favor both .

Yes Obamacare must be repealed because I kind of doubt SCOTUS will do the right thing. It may be too late to reverse some of the damage from some of Commissar Sebellius edicts .

I want a modest cut in spending .Oh let's say we start by bringing the Federal Budget down to 2008 levels.

Ex, I've told you over and over that Roe will never be repealed, but I would love to see Obamacare eliminated and the overall reach of the federal government scaled back to where "we the people" is not totally lost to big brother. That my friend is where Obama is taking us and I would think the libertarian in you would be fighting a government takeover instead of being a party to it.

Hello again,

So, I can count on you guys to rail against a proposed law in Virginia that says the doctor MUST stick something UP inside a woman and photograph her ova, BEFORE they'll let her have a legal abortion...

Ok, it's NOT proposed... It PASSED both houses and is on the gov's desk.. OF COURSE, he's going to sign it... And, I'm going to hear YOU guys decrying it...

Right...

excon

Most non-emergency operations require multiple visits and other diagnostic procedures before deciding on the surgery .
You would think that would be a given when the outcome is a life lost.

It is arguable that a sonogram is a necessary medical procedure .Most abortions are not 'necessary 'medical procedures.

Still I am uncomfortable with the law. Let's put the lib test to it. Is this a procedure that is subsidized by the state in any way ? If so then by the lib argument ,the state has the power to mandate any preconditions.

And by the way, it's an ultrasound - no one is required to "stick something UP inside a woman and photograph her ova". It's less invasive than going through airport security (http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/02/03/female-passengers-say-theyre-targeted-by-tsa/).

Forgot to add . I wish that the Repubics had a better field of candidates . Sad to say, we most likely will be supporting Obama-lite this summer.

Hello again, Steve:

I know what a sonogram is.. This ISN'T that. It's INTRAVAGINAL. It's UP inside a woman... I'm looking for a link.. I'll find it.. Meanwhile, you can take what I'm saying to the bank... Virginia REALLY wants to STOP women from doing what they want with their own bodies..

Plus, you guys are making all these sonograms and intravaginal photographs seem MEDICALLY necessary, when the TRUE reason for them is to GUILT TRIP the woman into NOT having an abortion.. That's the ONLY reason for it, and it's BIG GOVERNMENT gone mad. It's NOT the government business to guilt trip people... Make it illegal if you wish, but to do this to women is unconscionable..

excon

Plus, you guys are making all these sonograms and intravaginal photographs seem MEDICALLY necessary, when the TRUE reason for them is to GUILT TRIP the woman into NOT having an abortion.
Yup -- "OMG! That's a baby inside me (not just a lump of tissue)! How can I even think of getting an abortion????"

Ex, I'm in Virginia, and I had to sound off on this because it has been making me insane for the last couple of weeks. Speechless, the bill calls for a trans-vaginal ultrasound, as it sticking a probe up you know where. Link HERE (http://www.newser.com/story/139766/va-house-passes-bill-that-could-outlaw-abortions.html). I'm not sure what side of the debate they are one, but the facts are there at least.

This is wrong on so many levels that its sickening. If you take issue with a woman's right to seek a LEGAL abortion, change the law that protects that right. Work on overturning Roe v Wade, or a life at conception amendment. If there is so much popular support, pass a ballot initiative. The wrong way to handle this is to create a law that is obviously intended to guilt women out exercising their legal right to an abortion and will add anywhere from 100 to 1000 dollars to the cost of the procedure. Until having an abortion is illegal, the right to have one shouldn't be openly suppressed. We should not be passing laws that try to undermine what is already a legal right. Does a rape victim really need an ultrasound before having an abortion?

I'm neither a righty or a lefty. I make the best choice in a bad situation every election, whomever that may happen to be. I am however (the last time I peeked)a woman. It just seems that people who want less government would start with not governing what I can do with my uterus. They would not want to dictate that a physician MUST perform a (superfluous in my opinion) medical procedure. People who want less welfare recipients and no more food stamp presidents would support free access to birth control and would want women giving birth to children they planned and can actually support.

A lump of tissue ? OMG ! Who could think that ? If I had a "lump of tissue" ,like some cancerous growth inside me I'd want it removed too.

I thought we were talking of informed choice... you know... like teaching kids at an early age how to unroll a condum on a cuke . Guess I'm wrong .I would've thought all those children exposed to all that sex ed would know what a fetus is .

The truth is that such a procedure exposes that heinious lie .

Now ;as I said already ;I'm uncomfortable with this law . But ;I find it amazing how the left sometimes think instrusive mandates are good (like forcing churches and the religious to pay for or provide condoms and other sundries ) ;and other times it is a gross violation of rights.

Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.

Humanae Vitae - Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Paul VI on the regulation of birth, 25 July 1968 (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html)

@ kcomissiong, 50 greenies!

Thanks WG! I also would support your cookies. Bad choices are made when people are hungry.

a lump of tissue ? OMG ! who could think that ? If I had a "lump of tissue" ,like some cancerous growth inside me I'd want it removed too.
So then you must be for any kind of contraception that will prevent that lump of tissue from being created.

Then men can have sex with their women any time of day or night and not have to worry about what time of the month it is and is she fertile or not. Or maybe men don't worry about stuff like that...

I'd push for abstinence until age 21, but horny teen boys would dispatch me in the nearest alley.

When I was in college, the rumor was that the cafeteria cooks added saltpeter to the desserts. Maybe that should be a food additive now.

a lump of tissue ? OMG ! Who could think that ?

I think that is the point opponents are making. Nobody would think that. Women KNOW it's a fetus... they obviously don't need trans-vaginal ultrasound to know what is in there. The law serves another purpose, and its guilt tripping women out of abortions. If stopping abortions is the goal here (and it is), then the legal right to seek an abortion needs to be changed instead of throwing stumbling blocks in the way of a completely legal choice.

Funny thing is that the only time I've heard it described that way was by pro-abortion advocates . Is that how Planned Parenthood councils ?

I don't like this law. My point is that once you gave the state that power... watch out . This isn't much different than the whole mandates on what children can eat in school ;or dare I say... telling religious institutions they must provide contraception.

telling religious institutions they must provide contraception.
Are there insurance companies sympathetic to the Catholic Church and don't cover contraceptives or abortions?

Is that how Planned Parenthood councils ?

Not to my knowledge. It's what some females (and males -- esp. future fathers) say so that the pregnant one will have the abortion.

If stopping abortions is the goal here (and it is), then the legal right to seek an abortion needs to be changed instead of throwing stumbling blocks in the way of a completely legal choice.

I'm full in agreement with the reasoning behind this and the other law that is being considered, (which I do support) ,regarding abortion and protection of life in Va .But I don't like this law for other reasons.

Here is why changing the abortion laws are not so easy. Back in the day ;if a state like NY wanted to have legal abortions they would have that law. If Virginia didn't want one they would have a law outlawing it.
That's the way it worked until 1973 ;when the Supreme Court decided that the Texas law outlawing it was unconstitutional ;and imposed that on the whole nation.

Well here we are now ,some 50 million dead babies later , and the state of Virginia no longer has the power it had to make it's own law. And yet they would like their laws to limit the number of legal abortions .
I am instintively opposed to this because I oppose ALL unnecessary medical procedures ;especially ones that are done for other reasons than the best interest of the patient ( that would be the many CYA diagnostics done that are not needed ) . But I am very sympathetic to the reason behind it.

Are there insurance companies sympathetic to the Catholic Church and don't cover contraceptives or abortions?

Certainly... the self insured . Now they don't have that option anymore.

I know what a sonogram is.. This ISN'T that. It's INTRAVAGINAL.

Dude, that's not how WaPo reported it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/virginia-senate-passes-bill-requiring-women-to-undergo-ultrasound-before-abortion/2012/01/30/gIQAW3MviQ_story.html?hpid=z3). You mean WaPo isn't a reliable source? Shock.

I found nothing in the bill (http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?121+sum+HB462) referring to an intravaginal ultrasound. Maybe you can point it out for me. It does say this:


Except in the case of a medical emergency, at least 2 hours before the performance of an abortion a qualified medical professional trained in sonography and working under the direct supervision of a physician licensed in the Commonwealth shall perform fetal ultrasound imaging and auscultation of fetal heart tone services on the patient undergoing the abortion for the purpose of determining gestational age. The ultrasound image shall be made pursuant to standard medical practice in the community...

Oooh, "pursuant to standard medical practice in the community". That sounds fairly spooky.

You mean WaPo isn't a reliable source? Shock. "pursuant to standard medical practice in the community". That sounds fairly spookyHello again, Steve:

Transvaginal ultrasound (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/08/are-virginas-new-abortion-regs-worst-yet) is ANYTHING but standard...

excon

From the bill:

The medical professional performing the ultrasound must obtain written certification from the woman that the opportunity was offered and whether the woman availed herself of the opportunity to see the ultrasound image or hear the fetal heartbeat.

It sounds like she can refuse. Then no abortion?

Hello again, Steve:

Transvaginal ultrasound (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/08/are-virginas-new-abortion-regs-worst-yet) is ANYTHING but standard...

excon

I agree. What I asked was for you to show me in the bill where a transvaginal ultrasound is required. Otherwise your complaint is utterly invalid.

Hello Steve:

I read the law.. I didn't see the word "transvaginal". Nonetheless, people smarter than me DO see it somewhere, and that includes the Associated Press, Ms. Magazine and a few more outlets..

I don't think they're making it up...

excon

Well now I'm convinced, al-AP, Ms Magazine and Mother Jones are reporting a requirement that you admit isn't found in the bill. Yep, you have a solid case there, buddy.

So then you must be for any kind of contraception that will prevent that lump of tissue from being created.

Then men can have sex with their women any time of day or night and not have to worry about what time of the month it is and is she fertile or not. Or maybe men don't worry about stuff like that....

I'd push for abstinence until age 21, but horny teen boys would dispatch me in the nearest alley.

When I was in college, the rumor was that the cafeteria cooks added saltpeter to the desserts. Maybe that should be a food additive now.

I don't agree with the premise that a fetus is a "lump of tissue" .

Well speechless, I think the fact that the governor said that he would not support the trans-vaginal ultrasound requirement coupled with the senate bills' sponsor striking the bill due to backlash over the requirement says that it did in fact exist.

Hello again, righty's:

By the way, double greenie for you, K.

It's true. NOBODY is talking about outlawing birth control. There's nothing going on here, folks. Look over there. THAT is the excuse you use to poo poo that kind of talk. It's Santorum's deeply held religious views, but he'd NEVER impose them on the country, you say...

I say BS! You're trying to LULL us to sleep so you can remake this country into a theocracy!! YES you are.

Let me ask you this.. It IS true - nobody is talking about banning birth control NOW.. But, let's say that Santorum wins and you acquire a filibuster proof Senate, and some winger like Joe Walsh or Allen West submits a bill to DO that very thing...

What's going to happen with that bill?

excon

No doubt that is the party line for the progressives if Santorum is the nominee . David Gregory tried to corner Santorum with that line of reasoning too today on Meet the Press. It didn't work.

Are you now arguing that having deeply held religious views is a disqualifier for the Presidency ? I think you are . This is the same line of anit-Catholic propaganda that went on in the contests that had Al Smith ,and JFK as nominees . Kennedy got away with it because he never actually professed his faith .

Yes I fully expect the anti-Catholicism if he is the nominee just as I expect the anti-Mormon left to rear it's head if Romney is the nominee

As for a President Santorum . He was a two term Senator and in the House before that . Show me one piece of legislation he authored that says he wanted birth control outlawed.

Just one more observation. I note that the left initiated this recent fight about cultural issues and, today I learned that Daily Kos is spending big bucks to try to get Dems to vote in open primaries for Santorum .They call it Operation Hilarity .

They are trying to frame the election debate on cultural issues because the President's overall record as the leader of this country is indefensible.

Are you now arguing that having deeply held religious views is a disqualifier for the Presidency ? I think you are .Hello again, tom:

HAVING those views is fine. ACTING on them isn't. I think he's going to ACT. I think with a right wing congress, it'll PASS. That's what I think.

I'm asking what YOU think, and you're dodging because you know I'm RIGHT.

excon

What I think ? Of course I think that he would not attempt to outlaw birth control. Again ,you find nothing in his legislative history to suggest it.

But what I did find in 2008 is that as a legislator in Illinois ,the President voted for a law to wack babies who survived abortion attempts .

What I think ? Of course I think that he would not attempt to outlaw birth control.Hello again, tom:

You're dancing around pretty good.. But, I want a specific answer from you IF that's possible.. Let's say Santorum is the man and you have CONTROL of congress. Now, imagine that some right wing congressman writes a bill to ban contraceptives...

I'm not asking about some STUPID outcome that would NEVER happen.. I'm asking about something that has a real good chance of coming true..

In MY view, a right wing congress WOULD pass the bill and Santorum, not wanting to go against his principles AGAIN, would sign it.

You KNOW that to be true. You just don't want to admit it, and I don't blame you.

excon

I can only go by his legislative record . As a Senator he voted FOR contraception funding at the national level. When he was asked specifically by NBC 's Savannah Guthrie if he would outlaw it; he said no . This is a non-issue... move on .

This is a non-issue ...move on .Hello again, tom:

Said, the old white guy..

excon

Again I'd like to contrast that to the Obama preferrred method... which is to impose his pseudo-secular/liberation theology on the nation with edicts(unilaterally redefining what religion is ) and bureaucratic rulemaking.

Oh wait . He was given that authority from a Democrat majority House and a fillibuster proof Democrat Senate .

I can see your concern . Your guy does it so you think that Santorum naturally would also violate the Constitution.

Hello again, tom:

So, I guess your NON answer to my question means you absolutely believe that Santorum will instill a Theocracy, and you'll be THRILLED by it.

excon

Hello again, tom:

So, I guess your NON answer to my question means you absolutely believe that Santorum will instill a Theocracy, and you'll be THRILLED by it.

excon

Back to this old boogeyman, eh? No one, barring say Fred Phelps, WANTS a theocracy. I DO want my first amendment back.

Back to this old boogeyman, eh? No one, barring say Fred Phelps, WANTS a theocracy. I DO want my first amendment back.
People ARE talking about the issue:

Dear Rick Santorum, America Elects Presidents Not Popes (http://www.politicususa.com/en/rick-santorum-pope-president)

Rick Santorum Announces He Doesn’t Believe In the Separation of Church and State (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/santorum-says-he-almost-threw-up-after-reading-jfk-speech-on-separation-of-church-and-state/2012/02/26/gIQA91hubR_blog.html)

G'morning, Steve:

Since tom has stonewalled me, maybe YOU'LL be straightforward with me...

It IS true - nobody is talking about banning birth control NOW.. But, let's say that Santorum wins and you acquire a filibuster proof Senate, and some winger like Joe Walsh or Allen West submits a bill to DO that very thing...

What's going to happen with that bill?

If it's NOT the boogyman I think it is, why don't you allay my fears? Look, on the other website people are asking questions, like if Obama goes to Mars, what will Michelle do...

MY question, isn't one of those... The scenario I point out is a VERY REAL possibility. I want to know what would happen to that bill.

Yes, yes, yes. Santorum WOULDN'T bring up the bill himself.. But, he took a LOT of flack over the weekend for caving on his "integrity" and his "principals". He said he WON'T do it again... Given that statement, if a bill to ban contraceptives passed BOTH houses of a Republican congress, Santorum WOULD sign it.

Tell me that won't happen...

excon

People ARE talking about the issue:

Dear Rick Santorum, America Elects Presidents Not Popes (http://www.politicususa.com/en/rick-santorum-pope-president)

Rick Santorum Announces He Doesn’t Believe In the Separation of Church and State (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/santorum-says-he-almost-threw-up-after-reading-jfk-speech-on-separation-of-church-and-state/2012/02/26/gIQA91hubR_blog.html)

Exactly where in any of that did Santorum wish for a theocracy? Nowhere. I don't care what people are talking about, I'll welcome them back to reality if they'd like to join me.

I agree wholeheartedly with what he said in the Post article:


“I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” Santorum said. “The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country."

Nothing wrong with that, he's spot on. Our constitution expressly forbids a state church, it does not ban God from government.

love how you cling to them strawmen Ex. Santorum has been clear that he would not move to ban birth control in a number of interviews now. Either you believe him or you don't .

His biggest weakness in this whole thing ,in my view ,is how easy it is for the left to goad him into talking straight talk about his values instead of the vague pablum most other pols. Say.

G'morning, Steve:

Since tom has stonewalled me, maybe YOU'LL be straightforward with me...

It IS true - nobody is talking about banning birth control NOW.. But, let's say that Santorum wins and you acquire a filibuster proof Senate, and some winger like Joe Walsh or Allen West submits a bill to DO that very thing...

It's a non-issue ex, I can't be any more straightforward than that. You admit repeatedly that no one is talking about it. It did not come up until Stephanoupolus blindsided the candidates at the debate. Shortly after that the mandate came about, so he knew something. You guys and the complicit media are making this crap up to make the Republicans look like knuckle-dragging neanderthals that want to ban birth control, ban abortion and put women at home. It's complete crap, ex.

WE didn't make it an issue, you did. And you're so scared of this boogeyman you're missing the bigger picture, and that is what your guy is doing right now in front of your eyes, abolishing our religious rights. Sorry, I won't worship at the altar of the state any more than you'll submit to a theocracy. If we both can't come to an agreement on that then I can't help you.

It's a non-issue ex, I can't be any more straightforward than that. You admit repeatedly that no one is talking about it. Hello again, Steve:

Neither you or tom can assure me that it won't happen.. All you're saying is that nobody is TALKING about it happening.

Well, I am. You COULD assure me that it won't happen, by saying that YOU wouldn't support such a move, that YOU'D fight it all the way, that you DON'T want a Theocracy..

You COULD say those things.. But, you don't. Neither of you will. Which leads me to believe that you're HOPING such a scenario presents itself.

excon

Yawn... you are all over the map here. So now it's not about Santorum ;it's about me.

The only change in law I have suggested is in abortion ;and that's because it kills babies. You have never seen anything from me that indicates I would want a ban on contraception either . You really do have to exorcise your boogymen.

I flat out said I don't want a theocracy. I've said that repeatedly at various junctures, the coming Bush theocracy where he wa going to cancel the elections, didn't happen. I said it when the talk of "dominionists" came up last summer, and I said it today. I've repeatedly said that Roe is settled, it's not going anywhere, it's a moot point. And I'll say now, I don't want anyone to ban birth control. I have no issue with birth control, I'm not Catholic so I don't care if women take the pill. I draw the line at supporting abortion and abortifacients but my opposition to that is not an indication I would ban contraceptives. Just don't force me to pay for yours.

You however still won't join me in fighting for our first amendment rights, which I repeat, are being undermined under your nose. So let's talk about real issues like that, a budget that thinks debt at 900 percent of GDP is no big deal and how Obama is going to battle high gas prices by talking about it in a different way and growing algae (http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20120226/business/702269979/), and the Obama scandals being swept under the rug by a complicit media.

So are you willing to discuss real problems are you content in fantasyland?

I have more... Again ;the only one in the political arena who is imposing his values on us is the President . He even went to the National Prayer Breakfast and spouted pseudo-Christianity to justify government actions . So who is the theocrat?

yawn ... you are all over the map here. So now it's not about Santorum ;it's about meHello again, tom:

You can say I'm all over the map. You can get bored.. But, it doesn't change the fact that you won't answer my very simple question.

What would happen to the bill?

Now, you COULD answer me, or you can dance around some more. I expect more dancing. We BOTH know why.

excon

Your hypothetical is not realistic so it doesn't require a serious answer. There is no chance that such a bill would make it out of Congress even if the Congress was 100% Republican . As you guys have delighted in pointing out... The majority of the people favor contraception being legal.

So are you willing to discuss real problems are you content in fantasyland?Hello again, Steve:

Santorum COULD win. Your wing is just a few seats away from obtaining a filibuster proof majority in the Senate... That's not fantasy. Obama going to Mars is fantasy. A Republican super majority ISN'T.

In SPITE of your denials above, you STILL didn't answer my question. What would happen to the bill? It's an easy question. Santorum would sign it, or he wouldn't.

Now, you COULD keep on saying I'm bonkers... Or, you could just answer it.

excon

What would happen to your hypothetical bill? It would never make it out of committee. No one wants to ban contraceptives. As tom said, a vast majority of Americans oppose the idea and non-Catholics (who typically don't have an issue with birth control) represent twice the percentage of Christians than Catholics, FACT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Religions_of_Ame rican_adults). It's a non-issue.

The only fact worth debating is the fact that your president wants to ban the church from the public square and as tom rightly said - and judging by his actions with the Obamacare mandate and past remarks - intends for the government to take over that role. He wants Big Brother to be our keeper and has no issue with trampling over our specifically enumerated rights in the process.

Again , I answered your questions more than once and I will not bow at the altar of government any more than you will a theocracy. Fantasyland or reality, your choice.

yawn ... you are all over the map here. So now it's not about Santorum ;it's about me.

The only change in law I have suggested is in abortion ;and that's because it kills babies.

Hi Tom, You might like to get rid of 'personhood' while you are at it. This is the core of the problem. That problem being that under the law a fetus needs to accumulate 'x' number of humanness points before it is legally able to be considered human enough to have rights.

This is just another reason why I am against this legal fiction. It provides a legal and fallacious account of what it is to be human.

Do you still want to embrace personhood?

Tut

Hi Tom, You might like to get rid of 'personhood' while you are at it. This is the core of the problem. That problem being that under the law a fetus needs to accumulate 'x' number of humanness points before it is legally able to be considered human enough to have rights.

This is just another reason why I am against this legal fiction. It provides a legal and fallacious account of what it is to be human.

Do you still want to embrace personhood?



Great idea ! We'll just suspend rights when people act collectively . Good plan. Let's start with labor unions which collect due almost exclusively for the purpose of influencing politics .

This is the law in US Code 1:1... [which means the country recognized the CONCEPT of corporate "personhood " from it's beginning ].

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-- the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

It in fact had always been a given in this country until the left realized that some corporations were supporting their opposition . So they added the caveat that corporations can be 'persons' except when it comes to their First Amendment rights. No doubt that's the thinking behind the President's decrees from above about what a religion is.I'm sure in his view Religious institutions have no rights because they aren't people . So all their constitutional protections are at the whim and will and pleasure of the Presidency .

Now a baby on the other hand has always had an indisputable and unalienable right to life. This I know because if a women is assaulted and miscarries it's called 'fetal homicide ' or 'feticide'... at least in the vast majority of the states .

There is also Federal Laws that protect the unborn babies called the 'Unborn Victims of Violence Act', which recognizes the "child in utero" as a legal victim if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any federal crimes of violence.

So in sum both corporations by their existence are entitled to constitutional guarantees... and babies are too.

Great idea ! We'll just suspend rights when people act collectively . Good plan. Let's start with labor unions which collect due almost exclusively for the purpose of influencing politics .

This is the law in US Code 1:1 ...[which means the country recognized the CONCEPT of corporate "personhood " from it's beginning ].

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-- the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

It in fact had always been a given in this country until the left realized that some corporations were supporting their opposition . So they added the caveat that corporations can be 'persons' except when it comes to their First Amendment rights. No doubt that's the thinking behind the President's decrees from above about what a religion is.I'm sure in his view Religious institutions have no rights because they aren't people . So all their constitutional protections are at the whim and will and pleasure of the Presidency .

Now a baby on the other hand has always had an indisputable and unalienable right to life. This I know because if a women is assaulted and miscarries it's called 'fetal homicide ' or 'feticide' ....at least in the vast majority of the states .

There is also Federal Laws that protect the unborn babies called the 'Unborn Victims of Violence Act', which recognizes the "child in utero" as a legal victim if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any federal crimes of violence.

So in sum both corporations by their existance are entitled to constitutional guarantees ....and babies are too.

What a fiction no corporation or legal entity other than a human is capable of acting on its "own". It is directed by humans and while it might be considered separate from the person who directs it, it cannot exist solely in its own right. If it could then a perpetuity has been created and that is against the basic tenets of law.

OK I get it... unions ,trade associations ,charitable organizations ,political parties , No humans have rights when they pool their resources ,and act in unison for a common puropse . Their total right to influence society is granted through the power of the government . Is that what you really believe ? Sounds more like Communist China to me.

Great idea ! We'll just suspend rights when people act collectively . Good plan. Let's start with labor unions which collect due almost exclusively for the purpose of influencing politics .



This is because you see individual rights as being of only one type; absolute. Am I correct in saying that you don't see entitlements as rights?

Corporation rights are important but they should not selectively be the rights a person enjoys. Corporations can enjoy 'rights' in the form of entitlements under state and or federal legislation. Corporations don't need to have selected absolute rights.

Jeremy Bentham said something like; Legal fiction is to law as theft to trade.




This is the law in US Code 1:1 ...[which means the country recognized the CONCEPT of corporate "personhood " from it's beginning ].

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-- the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;



It can be changed or modified, no?




It in fact had always been a given in this country until the left realized that some corporations were supporting their opposition . So they added the caveat that corporations can be 'persons' except when it comes to their First Amendment rights. No doubt that's the thinking behind the President's decrees from above about what a religion is.I'm sure in his view Religious institutions have no rights because they aren't people . So all their constitutional protections are at the whim and will and pleasure of the Presidency .



That's what I have been saying all along. Your rights are being subject to a change in status.




Now a baby on the other hand has always had an indisputable and unalienable right to life. This I know because if a women is assaulted and miscarries it's called 'fetal homicide ' or 'feticide' ....at least in the vast majority of the states .

There is also Federal Laws that protect the unborn babies called the 'Unborn Victims of Violence Act', which recognizes the "child in utero" as a legal victim if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any federal crimes of violence.

So in sum both corporations by their existance are entitled to constitutional guarantees ....and babies are too.

[/QUOTE]

Tom, I Googled the Unborn Victims Act. What good is this Act if it includes nearly everything but excludes abortion?

Even if what I have said above is completely and utterly wrong it still doesn't change the fact that abortion is legal and personhood is the basis of that legality

Tut

ok I get it ...unions ,trade associations ,charitable organizations ,political parties , No humans have rights when they pool their resources ,and act in unison for a common puropse . Their total right to influence society is granted through the power of the government . Is that what you really believe ? Sounds more like Communist China to me.

Tom, no one is saying they don't have rights. There are many countries in the world that don't have annunciated rights and are just as democratic as your own.

Your's is only one type of democratic system. Just because it doesn't follow your model this doesn't necessarily make it incapable of being democratic.

Isn't this a bit ethnocentric

Tut

Isn't this a bit ethnocentric

Tut

You've got it Tut, Tom is applying ethnocentric solutions, therefore for Tom, Europe is undemocratic, China is positively draconian, Eqypt has dared to accuse americans of interferring, and I cannot imagine what he thinks we are doing

Hello?! I am talking exclusively of the American system here . The 1st Amendment is quite clear that the national government SHALL NOT infringe on religious liberty or speech . No wiggle room .
Rights are absolute unless the infringe on competing rights.
In the case of abortion, the right to life is more important than... oh let's say.. the right to pursue happiness ?

Evidently Article VI, paragraph 3 has been Amended while I wasn't paying attention . Now it says "....but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States ....except ;devout Catholics need not apply." Catholic candidates for office will be considered only if they deny their faith in public

Uh yeah, I thought it was pretty clear that this particular thread was on U.S. politics. The only ethnocentrism I see is coming from non-Americans.

Persecution complex... http://images.proboards.com/new/rolleyes.gif

Persecution complex.... http://images.proboards.com/new/rolleyes.gif

What is this inexplicable need you have to make crap up? Are you thirteen and incapable of an adult discussion?

What is this inexplicable need you have to make crap up? Are you thirteen and incapable of an adult discussion?
You mean making crap up like tom's post? Why didn't didn't you set your indignation on him?

You mean making crap up like tom's post? Why didn't didn't you set your indignation on him?

No I mean like making crap up about us personally. I'm not playing your juvenile games, unlike you I have things to discuss that are real and that matter.

So tom is allowed to make up crap and you give him a free pass? Gotcha.

Anyway your "discussions" are always the same: attacking anything liberal. Over and over again.

Not sure what cr@p I made up. If you mean my sarcasm about the changing of the religious test in the Constitution ,my only real fault was not engaging the sarcasm font.

So tom is allowed to make up crap and you give him a free pass? Gotcha.

Anyway your "discussions" are always the same: attacking anything liberal. Over and over again.

See what I mean, that inexplicable need to make crap up about me? You've told that lie over and over and it's no more true today than it was the first time you said it.

I fail to see how defending my specifically enumerated constitutional right to freedom of religion is "attacking anything liberal". The first amendment is no respecter of political ideology and I welcome all who choose to defend it with me.

Not sure what cr@p I made up. If you mean my sarcasm about the changing of the religious test in the Constitution ,my only real fault was not engaging the sarcasm font.I was being sarcastic as well. Not sure what speech is all up in arms about.

I was being sarcastic as well. Not sure what speech is all up in arms about.

Geez, third time today making up crap about me. I'm just setting the record straight, I don't know what this "up in arms" nonsense is about. So do you have anything to add to the discussion or talking about me all you've got?

Hello???!!! I am talking exclusively of the American system here .



Of course you are.




The 1st Amendment is quite clear that the national government SHALL NOT infringe on religious liberty or speech . No wiggle room .



"No wriggle room"--Not unless someone tries to change the status of those rights.




Rights are absolute unless the infringe on competing rights.
In the case of abortion, the right to life is more important than ....oh let's say ..the right to persue happiness ?


Tom, what good are these rehetorical speeches when one of the most dangerous places for the unborn is in the womb.

Can someone explain to me why a corporation, ENTITY, THING, perhaps something registered under some corporations act has more rights than the unborn in terms of being a person.

We have a situation where an ACTUAL living organism (fetus) carn't even get past first base when it comes to personhood.

We can say, well a fetus that is six weeks old lacks most of the essential features of being a person, e.g. it isn't conscious or it doesn't feel pain-- Like--corporations actually have these attributes.

Again, can someone please explain this apparent absurtity? Perhaps it is the case that a corporation's right to free speech is more important.


Tut

TUT ,I have given my opinion of the court decision on abortion numerous times in the most graphic way permissible on this forum . When the government can remove such rights it slips from a land of liberty to a land of tyranny .
The only Constitutional way to change the status of enumernated rights is in the amendment process.

TUT ,I have given my opinion of the court decision on abortion numerous times in the most graphic way permissible on this forum . When the government can remove such rights it slips from a land of liberty to a land of tyranny .
The only Constitutional way to change the status of enumernated rights is in the amendment process.


You are right about the amendment process in relation to enumerated rights. I think you are discovering that no legal system can function just on natural rights alone. The amendment process is an ongoing discovery when natural rights seem inadequate in particular situations. If this wasn't the case then you wouldn't have admendments. It is an ongoing discovery of what rights people ought to have.


Corporate personhood was concocted as means of making sure corporations were not disadvantaged in terms of natural rights. OK,so we let in one piece of legal fiction to overcomes legal disadvantages corporations might come up against when it comes to free speech, right to own property, etc etc.

However, when we attempt to introduce the same legal fiction in terms of rights of the unborn, it is far too impractical. Arguments such as there are too many problems with negative rights when it comes to the unborn.

Nothing is too hard when it is a corporation that wants these rights, but when it comes to the unborn we say, Oh, well; too many difficuilties make this impractical.

Bentham actually said, " Legal fiction is to the law as fraud is to property"

There are a number of fraudes going on here.


Tut

Tut give up, the whole thing is based on a fiction that we actually have rights. The only rights anyone has are those that have been forced on government. So let Tom have his fiction that he lives in a democratic utopia which is so good at defending rights that everyone needs a gun to survive

Let me make it simple . Neither a corporation nor a fetus should be denied their rights without due process . Due process does not mean that the state has the power to wack a baby or a corporation . Is it really a good idea to let government, for example, raid and seize property from businesses without a search and seizure warrant? The Bill of Right ensures that doesn't happen. It can only happen as a right if the corporation has that right.
Let me make this other observation about those ought rights (this is a new concept to me) . The constitution limits the government to only enumerated powers. Therefore the rights are also restraints on the government and not the people... or in the case of corporations ,the persons who assemble to incorporate.

So... would you feel better if said corporations are PERSONS entitled to their rights ?

Clete ,no it is not a utopia. I would not want to live in humans concepts of utopia like lefties do . They are the utopians .
I on the other hand know humans are imperfect and that the only way to guarantee the rights of humans is to restrain the governments formed by them.

Hello wingers:

Here's a great addition to your wish list.. Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend), Wisconsin proposes Bill (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/29/wisconsin-republican-senator-proposes-bill-that-labels-single-parenthood-as-child-abuse/) that labels single-parenthood as child abuse.

"48.982 (2) (g) 2. Promote statewide educational and public awareness campaigns and materials for the purpose of developing public awareness of the problems of child abuse and neglect. In promoting those campaigns and materials, the board shall emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect."

Could this be an attack on gays?? We're just getting warmed up here, aren't we?

excon

I'm sure this will be yanked soon so let's post it now. From the US Dept of Health and Human Services (http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/foundation/foundatione.cfm):


Family Factors

Specific life situations of some families—such as marital conflict, domestic violence, single parenthood, unemployment, financial stress, and social isolation—may increase the likelihood of maltreatment. While these factors by themselves may not cause maltreatment, they frequently contribute to negative patterns of family functioning.

Family Structure

Children living with single parents may be at higher risk of experiencing physical and sexual abuse and neglect than children living with two biological parents.45 Single parent households are substantially more likely to have incomes below the poverty line. Lower income, the increased stress associated with the sole burden of family responsibilities, and fewer supports are thought to contribute to the risk of single parents maltreating their children. In 1998, 23 percent of children lived in households with a single mother, and 4 percent lived in households with a single father.46 A strong, positive relationship between the child and the father, whether he resides in the home or not, contributes to the child's development and may lessen the risk of abuse.

In addition, studies have found that compared to similar non-neglecting families, neglectful families tend to have more children or greater numbers of people living in the household.47 Chronically neglecting families often are characterized by a chaotic household with changing constellations of adult and child figures (e.g. a mother and her children who live on and off with various others, such as the mother's mother, the mother's sister, or a boyfriend).48

The Child Abuse and Father Absence Connection

The rate of child abuse in single parent households is 27.3 children per 1,000, which is nearly twice the rate of child abuse in two parent households (15.5 children per 1,000).

An analysis of child abuse cases in a nationally representative sample of 42 counties found that children from single parent families are more likely to be victims of physical and sexual abuse than children who live with both biological parents. Compared to their peers living with both parents, children in single parent homes had:

77 percent greater risk of being physically abused
87 percent greater risk of being harmed by physical neglect
165 percent greater risk of experiencing notable physical neglect
74 percent greater risk of suffering from emotional neglect
80 percent greater risk of suffering serious injury as a result of abuse
120 percent greater risk of experiencing some type of maltreatment overall.

A national survey of nearly 1,000 parents found that 7.4 percent of children who lived with one parent had been sexually abused, compared to only 4.2 percent of children who lived with both biological parents.

Using data from 1,000 students tracked from seventh or eighth grade in 1988 through high school in 1992, researchers determined that only 3.2 percent of the boys and girls who were raised with both biological parents had a history of maltreatment. However, a full 18.6 percent of those in other family situations had been maltreated.

A study of 156 victims of child sexual abuse found that the majority of the children came from disrupted or single-parent homes; only 31 percent of the children lived with both biological parents. Although stepfamilies make up only about 10 percent of all families, 27 percent of the abused children in this study lived with either a stepfather or the mother's boyfriend.49

He is just acknowledging the feds' assessment and trying to raise awareness. So what's the problem?

He is just acknowledging the feds' assessment and trying to raise awareness. So what's the problem?Hello again, Steve:

So, this is an information only bill that requires NO action by anybody?? I didn't send my congressmen to Washington to TEACH me. I'll make myself aware of what I WANT to make myself aware of. I sent 'em there to pass a jobs bill. The feds are fully capable of spreading their truths.

excon

It was from your quote: "Promote statewide educational and public awareness campaigns."

Geez, I thought you knew Congressmen from both sides of the aisles put out BS bills like this all the time. What, you've never read the Daily Digest? Heck, I thought raising awareness was the in thing for lefties.

Hello again:

I can't remember which one of our threads where you were trying to assure me that NOBODY is talking about banning contraception...

But, isn't that exactly what the Blunt amendment was about?

excon

Let me make it simple . Neither a corporation nor a fetus should be denied their rights without due process . Due process does not mean that the state has the power to wack a baby or a corporation . Is it really a good idea to let government, for example, raid and seize property from businesses without a search and seizure warrant? The Bill of Right ensures that doesn't happen. It can only happen as a right if the corporation has that right.
Let me make this other observation about those ought rights (this is a new concept to me) . The constitution limits the goverment to only enumerated powers. Therefore the rights are also restraints on the government and not the people ...or in the case of corporations ,the persons who assemble to incorporate.

So .....would you feel better if said corporations are PERSONS entitled to their rights ?

Hi Tom,

Now I am confused. I thought you were opposed to 'oligargical' due process and the idea that judges can hand down decisions that impinge one someone's rights. You often cite the Dred Scott case as an example.

What we have are judges addressing 'is' issues over 'ought' issues, ciivil code over common law code, substance instead of process, natural rights over entitlements ; whatever you want to call it all means the same thing.

When it comes to personhood I will be very surprised if the same ridiculous process is not carried out again. The fate of the unborn will be played out by bouncing legal fiction off natural rights.

Tom, I think it will be a long dark day in June before we see an amendment in this regard.

P.S

No, I am NOT saying natural rights are legal fiction. Just thought I would get that out of the way.

Tut

Tom that is a little sideways the way to ensure rights is to restrain the humans who would otherwise do whatever they felt like. For that purpose we invented governments

No Clete , Governments are formed to secure rights . But the people also need protection from the government and that is why governments need to be limited in their power.

No Clete , Governments are formed to secure rights . But the people also need protection from the government and that is why governments need to be limited in their power.


That's only true in a Republican system of government such as your own. As I keep saying there are other forms of governments that are just as demoncratic. For example, parliamentary systems of governments such as Australia and England form a government then rights are secured. They have no need for an overriding civil code.

Your reference to governments in the plural sense suggests that you are talking about governments in general.

Tut

Yes well I could hardly be talking about your government could I?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. The Declaration of Independence


If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. James Madison 'Federalist 51 '

Hello again,

When the threads move on to philosophical matters, my eyes begin to close.. I'm NOT a real philosophical exconvict... I'm NOT criticizing. I'm just saying you lose me..

So, I'd like to bring it back to ground level where I operate. The right wing threat that we face is just TOO important to let devolve into intellectual back and forth..

Does this PREVIEW of the right wing wish list scare ANYONE but me? This is what the right wing will do WHEN and IF they get control of government. If they'll try to ban birth control when they DON'T have a majority, you can guess what they'll do when and if they get control...

excon

Hello again:

I can't remember which one of our threads where you were trying to assure me that NOBODY is talking about banning contraception...

But, isn't that exactly what the Blunt amendment was about?

excon

LOL, seriously? Maybe because I didn't go to college I can still tell the difference between banning something and making someone else pay for their own stuff.

I can still tell the difference between banning something and making someone else pay for their own stuff.Hello Steve:

First they said birth control was bad, but they're not going to DO anything about it.. Then they said a hospital SHOULDN'T have to OFFER it.. Then they said NOBODY should have to offer it...

This all took place over a weeks time, and the Republicans AREN'T even in control. Should they GET control, you're telling me that you can't see what's coming??

Bwa ha ha ha ha.

excon

Hello Steve:

First they said birth control was bad, but they're not gonna DO anything about it.. Then they said a hospital SHOULDN'T have to OFFER it.. Then they said NOBODY should have to offer it...

Are you really that disconnected from reality?

Are you really that disconnected from reality?Hello again, Steve:

One of us is.

excon

It ain't me. None of us have said contraceptives should be banned, just that you don't have the right to force me to buy yours.

It ain't me. None of us have said contraceptives should be banned, just that you don't have the right to force me to buy yours.Hello again, Steve:

Look. I got it, that wingers can't foresee the dangers of the things they do. So, let's take another tack.

I understand you don't want to PAY for contraceptives... But, the church HANDS their employees money in the form of their paycheck, and they're going to BUY contraceptives with it... How is THAT not paying for contraceptives??

excon

The church is just paying their salary, not dictating what they do with it. With that logic, when I pay my Sprint bill someone who works at Sprint gets a paycheck and if they have an abortion I'm paying for it.

I bet that somewhere down the line you bought something at a store, that money helped pay someone's salary who then bought something at a store and helped pay someone else's salary who then bought something to help pay for someone else's salary who spent his money somewhere that helped pay someone's salary at Sentrol which used used to be in Oregon and then I bought something from Sentrol which was then sold to help pay my salary. You just paid for my gas to drive to a Tea Party rally.

The church is just paying their salary, not dictating what they do with it. Hello again, Steve:

Then paying for their insurance, and not dictating what they do with it, would be the SAME... No?

excon

But, the church HANDS their employees money in the form of their paycheck, and they're going to BUY contraceptives with it... How is THAT not paying for contraceptives??

It's that free will thing. The church can't force people what they spend their wages on. Once the transaction of pay for service is complete ,it is no longer the church's money .

Look ,I get it . We see it as a 1st amendment violation . You see it as not covering "women's health care" as a 14th amendment violation of the equal protection clause. Unless it is overturned in court ;or a new administration and Senate are elected ;then the Obots win.

The church facing that choice will have to provide it through their insurance... or most likely stop offering coverage to all their employees . That suits the Obots well because the whole idea behind Obamacare is the destruction of the private health insurance industry and drive everyone into a European government run single payer system.

OK, if I have to pay for your contraception I want a say in what goes on in your sex life.

“If you don’t want Uncle Sam in your bedroom, don’t ask Uncle Sam to pay for what goes down in your bedroom.” -Tina Korbe

OK, if I have to pay for your contraception I want a say in what goes on in your sex lifeHello again, Steve:

Yeah, what the Limpone said... He also said that women who take 'em are whores... I wouldn't be getting NEAR what that guy says.

Viagra is covered... I'll send you a tape.

excon

But if contraceptives are paid for by health insurance, that will cut down on abortions and even on births that produce babies who will demand taxpayer help because of illness/infirmities/handicaps and because they were born to single moms or into poor families. Win-win?

How has Limbaugh avoided having children all these years through four marriages?

If government can force the church to provide contraception do they also have the power to force you to take it ? Why not ? If they have that right don't they also have the right to deny you services when you get old ?

Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, what the Limpone said... He also said that women who take 'em are whores... I wouldn't be getting NEAR what that guy says.

Viagra is covered... I'll send you a tape.

excon

You'll note I quoted Tina Korbe. I'm sure you'd enjoy being near her.

The Declaration of Independence

James Madison 'Federalist 51 '

Hi Tom,

I'm more than happy with this and I am not disputing its validity.

All I am saying is that natural rights are not a prerequisite for democrarcy.

Tut

OK, if I have to pay for your contraception I want a say in what goes on in your sex life.


Each to their own I guess.




“If you don’t want Uncle Sam in your bedroom, don’t ask Uncle Sam to pay for what goes down in your bedroom.” -Tina Korbe

[/QUOTE]

That's just more legal fiction. Uncle Sam in the bedroom is just a persona.

Tut

Each to their own I guess.





That's just more legal fiction. Uncle Sam in the bedroom is just a persona.

Tut[/QUOTE]

Tut, it's no more silly than the arguments being made for the mandate.

Tut, it's no more silly than the arguments being made for the mandate.[/QUOTE]


Hi Steve,

Sorry, my post was a poor attempt at humor.

When it comes to mandates in my country the party in power gives the impression that mandates are the least of their worries. Sounds the same everywhere.

Tut

Now tut you know every elected government has a mandate it is just we are governed by an unelected government