All your womb are belong to us

correction: Pinko Commie Canuck

I love it. The irony of it all. The left used liberal, activist judges to create an unconstitutional law. And now they are crying about "activist judges" who are going to set things straight, according to the constitution. Yeah irony! weee haw...

I find 'constitutional originalists' distasteful. As should anyone else who prefers women have the right to vote and prefers that someone with dark skin should have the same rights as someone with light skin.

If you really want to go into literal interpretation that the only rights we have are those in the constitution, then you should also understand that the rights to consume food, drink water and use the toilet are not spelled out in the constitution.

Making a law against any of those is retarded. As is making laws concerning any of someone's personal, private choices. It is also exceptionally degrading to lower a woman's status to 'baby machine' from 'equal human being'.

If you think anything I have said is wrong, I will direct you here: http://christianexodus.org/
Yes you too can move to South Carolina and establish a state theocracy.

you don't understand sarcasm either do ya.

No, he doesn't, among other things.

HEY! Stop trying to derail our maple syrup thread!!! OMG!
But since you've already gone and done it...
The right for women to vote and the end of slavery were AMMENDMENTS. They weren't "found" hidden in the Constitution like the DaVinci Code or something. Like anything else this devisive there should be a clear ammendment.
...so that we can go back to fighting about it all over again...

Oh, and what about degrading the baby's status from human being to "unwanted pregnancy" or "group of cells" (I mean aren't we all a group of cells), or "potential stem cell harvest"?

But you're right-I think it is retarded that we have to have a law to say that murdering your baby is wrong. But if we have to have a law that says "forcing someone to have sex with you against their will is wrong" I suppose we should have seen it coming.

-Kiamat Dusk
...wants to get back to the maple syrup debate...

I do, I do. It's so much fun.

You are so fast, sarcasm and irony in one post. I'm impressed.

Good bye legal, safe abortion, good bye forever.

If you want to kill a child for convenience sake, suffer the consequences of back alley abortions. Just as drug addicts must suffer back alley drug dealers, even though drug use should be protected too.

If a right to privacy makes any law against abortion unconstitutional only because it would be invading privacy to find out if an abortion was done, then any law concerning drug use would also be unconstitutional, because it would invade privacy rights of drug users to find the drugs.

All drug laws must be found unconstitutional.

I agree.

I might have said similar things about your abilities, but it wouldn't be gentlemanly. But if you want to go there, I understand. It's how some people debate, because of a lack of other tools.

Good, then you admit the Supreme court is wrong.

I acknowledge the Supreme Court is wrong. I admit nothing.

I understand sarcasm, I just derive more enjoyment from pretending it's not.

Whatever floats your boat.

Let me post the definition of the word "Admit"....

To grant to be real, valid, or true; acknowledge: admit the truth. See Synonyms at acknowledge.


Wow, acknowledge means admit and visa verse.

Did they purposely remove your funny bone at birth, or is it a congenital defect?"

I bet he's got a tail.

Is it common to deny your statements with things like "I was being sarcastic".. I was being ironic"... I was being funny"..?

Why of course not, Data! Humans often employ humor in a variety of circumstances.
In this case to demean or belittle the opposing viewpoint!

Congrats to Ingrid!!! When are you due?



oh and a big BAH FUCKING HUMBUG to this thread. I wanna talk about something else. But I will just log out and go to work. Have fun and play nicely.

Interesting that you should bring up drug laws, because just like abortion bans they are nothing but legislated morality pushed through by the Christian right, and just like abortion bans are overreaching and unconstitutional... so yes, when the Supreme Court codifies Christian morality into law they are very often wrong.

There ya go.

Ok, I think so far this is what we can all agree on:

1. A fetus is a life form of some sort. Beyond that it becomes a matter of interpretation that varies wildly from person to person.

2. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnacy to term against her will is an imposition on her freedom. Disagreements stem from whether or not this is justified and to what degree.

3. Maple syurp from the US is inferior to canadian syurp. If it wasn't, there would be maple leaves on the US flag.

Argument: a fetus is a (potential) human life and must be protected on an equal footing with other human's lives.
Counter arguments: It is not human until (some criteria) - i.e. argument on definitions

Argument: a woman has a right to control what happens to and in her body, free from government influence
Counter argument: society places other restrictions on what a person may do with their body and this is no different

Argument: legal abortion makes sense because the other alternatives create psychological, social and/or economic burdens on the mother and child that society that the general population at large is unwilling to bear
Counter argument: unwanted pregnancy is the fault of the woman and the resulting burdens are her punishment


Have I missed any other arguments that are not: Leagal wrangling, emotional pleas or just nonsense?

NOBODY on this thread has said they want this. Can you not read?

Kevn has a tail.