# If You Don't Like Abortion Threads, Don't Open This One



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

http://www.seeker.com/ruth-bader-gi...m=xpromo&utm_source=AOL&utm_campaign=carousel



> Ruth Bader Ginsburg Just Shut Down the Texas Argument for Their Restrictive Abortion Law
> 
> That's how it's done!
> 
> ...


I bet he feels foolish


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Since Texas can only pass laws that regulate things inside Texas borders, it doesn't sound foolish at all.
If someone chooses to go outside of that state, they are assuming their own risks, it's not Texas' responsibility anymore.
Having an option, doesn't mean the options are equal.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Texas is passing this law for the supposed welfare of their citizens. Using that excuse proves they are not thinking of their welfare. Royal fail and Ginsburg highlighted it.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Perhaps he hasn't been to one and assumed that they were as good as in Texas ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Since Texas can only pass laws that regulate things inside Texas borders, *it doesn't sound foolish at all.*
> If someone chooses to go outside of that state, they are assuming their own risks, it's not Texas' responsibility anymore.
> Having an option, doesn't mean the options are equal.


Yes, it does sound foolish when he's arguing clinics aren't safe unless they meet the more strict standards which are the entire basis of the new laws

You can't claim to be concerned with women's "safety" then say what he did.

They had options closer to home before the state took them away


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Perhaps he hasn't been to one and assumed that they were as good as in Texas ?


It's not very wise to be making assumptions while arguing your case to the 
Supreme Court


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not very wise to be making assumptions while arguing your case to the
> Supreme Court


Yeah, like never assume that those Authoritarians, in Black Robes, have any respect for the Constitution whatsoever. Never assume that they won't either twist the words of the Constitution, or, twist the words of the law to make it fit, whichever meets their political agenda.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Yeah, like never assume that those Authoritarians, in Black Robes, have any respect for the Constitution whatsoever. Never assume that they won't either twist the words of the Constitution, or, twist the words of the law to make it fit, whichever meets their political agenda.


That sounds like a whine just because one of those people in robes asked a very intuitive question and got a stupid answer.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> That sounds like a whine just because one of those people in robes asked a very intuitive question and got a stupid answer.


 No, that is in response to a long pattern of agenda driven rulings.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> No, that is in response to a long pattern of agenda driven rulings.


Or maybe law driven and you just don't like that so you try to justify.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Yeah, like never assume that those Authoritarians, in Black Robes, have any respect for the Constitution whatsoever. Never assume that they won't either twist the words of the Constitution, or, twist the words of the law to make it fit, whichever meets their political agenda.


Maybe, to use your own words, you can show me where in the constitution government gets the ability to dictate how wide a hallway is? That is one of the provisions of the law in question.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> Maybe, to use your own words, you can show me where in the constitution government gets the ability to dictate how wide a hallway is? That is one of the provisions of the law in question.


Excellent point.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

LMAO. I love how people in this country cry foul over "authoritarianism" and "totalitarianism" whenever they don't like the outcome. I love how they want their states to have virtually unlimited power to infringe on the individual rights of THE PEOPLE, because they're nothing more than little totalitarian monsters themselves, and they actually hate individual liberty and democracy....but they're just so mad at the "authoritarians." They'll say, "but abortion is a big deal." Yea, it is. But they want the same thing for gay marriage, they want the same thing for banning Islam, they want the same thing for stopping random people on the street to check their ID because they LOOK Hispanic....as if that isn't a massive infringement on the Fourth Amendment every time that person turns out to be a citizen. 

It's ridiculous. It really is.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Are abortion clinics not kept to the same standards are hospitals? Aren't the procedures performed in the clinic? Why shouldn't they be kept to the same standards as a hospital?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> Are abortion clinics not kept to the same standards are hospitals? Aren't the procedures performed in the clinic? Why shouldn't they be kept to the same standards as a hospital?


Abortions are not not cutting into the body. I believe that hospital setting are only required for major incisions.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Heritagefarm said:


> Are abortion clinics not kept to the same standards are hospitals? Aren't the procedures performed in the clinic? Why shouldn't they be kept to the same standards as a hospital?


Often the "procedure" is the administration of a couple of pills. Should the same standards for a hospital operating room be neccessary for this?

The other factor is that these requirements were written to be specific only to abortion clinics. There are many other clinics and medical providers in Texas that do procedures as invasive, if not more so, that will not have to follow these same guidelines. If safety, and not just reducing access to abortion, is the point of this law the law should be applied to all outpatient medical providers, should it not?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

An unborn child is a story that has yet to be told.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Maybe, to use your own words, you can show me where in the constitution government gets the ability to dictate how wide a hallway is? That is one of the provisions of the law in question.


Sure, 10th amendment. That was easy:rock:


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Sure, 10th amendment. That was easy:rock:


You've voiced objections to such citations in the past. Good to see you're coming around.

Deleted by me for wrongly addressing member.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> LMAO. I love how people in this country cry foul over "authoritarianism" and "totalitarianism" whenever they don't like the outcome. I love how they want their states to have virtually unlimited power to infringe on the individual rights of THE PEOPLE, because they're nothing more than little totalitarian monsters themselves, and they actually hate individual liberty and democracy....but they're just so mad at the "authoritarians." They'll say, "but abortion is a big deal." Yea, it is. But they want the same thing for gay marriage, they want the same thing for banning Islam, they want the same thing for stopping random people on the street to check their ID because they LOOK Hispanic....as if that isn't a massive infringement on the Fourth Amendment every time that person turns out to be a citizen.
> 
> It's ridiculous. It really is.


Yeah, I really don't like the outcome when the results are totalitarianism and authoritarianism. 

Don't even begin to tell me what I think. You have enough trouble figuring out what you think. 

Abortion is a big deal, because it ends a human life. 

I don't give a crap if homosexuals want to involve government in their unions. More power to them. It should have been a state matter, but, as per usual, the SCOTUS did a big ole power grab. 

I am for freedom of religion, that includes ALL religion. 

I am also in favor of nearly open boarders. (make immigration easy and open, but, know who we are letting in)

So, you intellectual giant, do the world a favor and worry about you, for a change. :catfight:


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> You've voiced objections to such citations in the past. Good to see you're coming around.


I have voiced objections to Federal overreach, of which there is much.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> I have voiced objections to Federal overreach, of which there is much.


Deleted by me for wrongly addressing member.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> You often conflate state and local statutes with federal overreach when it suits your purposes.


Examples?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Examples?


Deleted by me for wrongly addressing member.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> Every thread dealing with LGBT rights and public accomodations. Most laws regulating such things are local yet you always ask the "constitutional" question.


Absolutely, positively.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Is not that I don't like abortion threads.

I don't like the killing of the unborn.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Every thread dealing with LGBT rights and public accomodations. Most laws regulating such things are local yet you always ask the "constitutional" question.



I don't have much to say until the SCOTUS, or, lower Federal courts get involved. They have no jurisdiction. I also said examples, not your mistaken remembrances.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Absolutely, positively.


Care to find an example where this is "Absolutely, positively"? 

The only thing that I have voiced an opinion on is Federal involvement, with exception of things happening in my state. I have also posted, on numerous occasions that I support homosexual marriage,(well, as much as I support any government mating permit) I just don't believe that the SCOTUS should have decided as it did. It should have been left to individual states.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

But federal benefits and laws were under question.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Nope nope nope


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> Is not that I don't like abortion threads.
> 
> I don't like the killing of the unborn.


I suggest you not have an abortion. Easy peasy.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> I don't have much to say until the SCOTUS, or, lower Federal courts get involved. They have no jurisdiction. I also said examples, not your mistaken remembrances.


I came to the realization that I do owe you an apology for attributing some views to you held by another member. It took me a few moments to get back to you but I am sorry for conflating you with that other member and I will now go back and delete some posts that were more an attack on you than an attempt to address the issue. Again, I apologize.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

coolrunnin said:


> But federal benefits and laws were under question.


And that is how Federal over reach happens. The Federal government shouldn't speak to marriage, one way or another. This would include the allocation of any Federal benefits (most of which are, themselves, unconstitutional)


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> I came to the realization that I do owe you an apology for attributing some views to you held by another member. It took me a few moments to get back to you but I am sorry for conflating you with that other member and I will now go back and delete some posts that were more an attack on you than an attempt to address the issue. Again, I apologize.


 As per usual, you show much class. We could use more like you.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Forget it


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. You offer up the Constitution _all the time_ so there is no need for examples.
> 
> I'm not going through them but have it- http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/search.php?searchid=6007609


Perhaps you should read the most recent post by mmoetc posted today at 11:32 am EST.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Perhaps you should read the most recent post by mmoetc posted today at 11:32 am EST.


I did. I'm not getting sucked into another spitting match with you over abortion. That's what this thread is about- a woman's *right* to chose.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> And that is how Federal over reach happens. The Federal government shouldn't speak to marriage, one way or another. This would include the allocation of any Federal benefits (most of which are, themselves, unconstitutional)


Forget it until the SC gets things corrected after the liberals and liberal courts have messed things up in this country it won't change. But the WILL come when things will change and this crud that the liberals has bestowed upon this country will come to a abrupt end and they and all them will once and for find themselves outside of the mainstream thoughts and thinking of what the US is really like and free for all to live and let live without all this in fighting once and for all.
hey go their way and let the rest of the country go their way and all will shut the heck up once and for all.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> Are abortion clinics not kept to the same standards are hospitals? Aren't the procedures performed in the clinic? Why shouldn't they be kept to the same standards as a hospital?


Then why shouldn't all outpatient surgical clinics have those same standards? Why only abortion clinics?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> I did. I'm not getting sucked into another spitting match with you over abortion. That's what this thread is about- a woman's *right* to chose.


In this particular conversation, in which you inserted yourself, I didn't even mention abortion. This thread is about the SCOTUS.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Then why shouldn't all outpatient surgical clinics have those same standards? Why only abortion clinics?


Are they not?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> In this particular conversation, in which you inserted yourself, I didn't even mention abortion. This thread is about the SCOTUS.


In this particular conversation, what is the TX law that SCOTUS is discussing? Is it abortion?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Are they not?


"The court is looking at two provisions of the law. One requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital no more than 30 miles from clinics that provide abortion services. *The other requires the clinics to meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers that perform more complicated procedures than the typical first-trimester abortion*."

More information regarding the case: http://www.npr.org/sections/health-...n-texas-abortion-case-are-using-new-playbooks


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> In this particular conversation, what is the TX law that SCOTUS is discussing? Is it abortion?


 It makes no difference what law they are discussing, there is an overwhelming likelihood that they will get the decision wrong, once again. (Roe. V. Wade not withstanding, they really have no business discussing a Texas law anyway)


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> As per usual, you show much class. We could use more like you.


Almost no one wants more like me. Most say one is one too many.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> It makes no difference what law they are discussing, there is an overwhelming likelihood that they will get the decision wrong, once again. (Roe. V. Wade not withstanding, they really have no business discussing a Texas law anyway)


Wrong in your opinion, not in mine. But your posts never devolve into whether or not something is Constitutional, right?  

Like I said, I'm not having a spitting match with you about abortion, and that's the topic of this thread.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Wrong in your opinion, not in mine. But your posts never devolve into whether or not something is Constitutional, right?
> 
> Like I said, I'm not having a spitting match with you about abortion, and that's the topic of this thread.


You didn't even understand the conversation in which you inserted yourself? Wow!! 

How, pray tell, is discussing the Constitutionality of an issue/law, "devolving"


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> You didn't even understand the conversation in which you inserted yourself? Wow!!
> 
> How, pray tell, is discussing the Constitutionality of an issue/law, "devolving"


I understood completely, apparently you missed even the title, "If you don't like *abortion* threads, don't open this one." How did you miss that? 

Check out the original post again, perhaps you missed it: http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/7660232-post1.html


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Then why shouldn't all outpatient surgical clinics have those same standards? Why only abortion clinics?





nchobbyfarm said:


> Are they not?


From what I've read, other outpatient clinics aren't included in the new rules.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> I understood completely, apparently you missed even the title, "If you don't like *abortion* threads, don't open this one." How did you miss that?
> 
> Check out the original post again, perhaps you missed it: http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/7660232-post1.html


 No, not the thread, the conversation between mmoetc and myself. You know, the one where you inserted yourself? The thread is about an incident at the SCOTUS involving an abortion law in Texas. The conversation was different. Nowhere in that conversation did I say that I don't look for the constitutionality of laws. State laws are easy. The vast majority are Constitutional because of the 10th amendment. It is Federal encroachment that often runs afoul of the Constitution.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> No, not the thread, the conversation between mmoetc and myself. You know, the one where you inserted yourself? The thread is about an incident at the SCOTUS involving an abortion law in Texas. The conversation was different. Nowhere in that conversation did I say that I don't look for the constitutionality of laws. State laws are easy. The vast majority are Constitutional because of the 10th amendment. It is Federal encroachment that often runs afoul of the Constitution.


Oh, should I ask permission prior to butting into your private conversations? Sigh. SMH 

Again, _your_ opinion re the Constitutionality of almost everything. Not everyone else, including SCOTUS.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Oh, should I ask permission prior to butting into your private conversations? Sigh. SMH


I believe that if he responded to you then you are part of the conversation. Is that not how it works?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Oh, should I ask permission prior to butting into your private conversations? Sigh. SMH
> 
> Again, _your_ opinion re the Constitutionality of almost everything. Not everyone else, including SCOTUS.


 No, but, at least understand what you are butting into.

Which is what started the conversation. The SCOTUS is corrupt and no longer guided by the Constitution, but, rather by their political leanings.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> No, but, at least understand what you are butting into.
> 
> Which is what started the conversation. The SCOTUS is corrupt and no longer guided by the Constitution, but, rather by their political leanings.


Again, your opinion on both counts and that doesn't make you correct on either.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Nevada said:


> From what I've read, other outpatient clinics aren't included in the new rules.


True. But it appears the outpatient clinics were already under these rules with prior regulations. 

I would agree with your premise entirely as I am not positive either way. Yes, all clinics and surgical units should be treated the same. IMO


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Yeah, like never assume that those Authoritarians, in Black Robes, have any respect for the Constitution whatsoever. Never assume that they won't either twist the words of the Constitution, or, twist the words of the law to make it fit, whichever meets their political agenda.


Most all of your posts on any subject are the same meaningless anti-Govt rhetoric and nothing more


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Are abortion clinics not kept to the same standards are hospitals? Aren't the procedures performed in the clinic? Why shouldn't they be kept to the same standards as a hospital?


No they aren't and there's no reason they should be when they don't offer the same services


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Is not that I don't like abortion threads.
> 
> I don't like the killing of the unborn.


That has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
This is about a court case


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Abortions are not not cutting into the body. I believe that hospital setting are only required for major incisions.


I thought it was basically a C section. I really don't know much about this topic. The whole national debate is overblown, though I am opposed to convenience abortions.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> I thought it was basically a C section. I really don't know much about this topic. The whole national debate is overblown, though I am opposed to convenience abortions.


No. It is all through the cervix.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> Yeah, I really don't like the outcome when the results are totalitarianism and authoritarianism.
> 
> Don't even begin to tell me what I think. You have enough trouble figuring out what you think.
> 
> ...


It takes a special kind of mentality to twist an entire state into a victim when that state is infringing on someone's rights. No, it should not have been left to the state. Homosexuals are doing nothing to infringe on anyone else' rights by getting married, they cause no imminent threat. You have no secular, non-religious grounds for believing a state should have the right to infringe upon their rights. You want to pretend that state is the victim, in reality they're the predator, they're preying on people who they don't agree with. You wanted to use your state's AUTHORITY over their life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property.....for nothing. You're like a coyote eating a calf and calling its mother an authoritarian when she kicks you in the face. 

SCOTUS didn't "do a power grab." The power to be given equal opportunity to a government service belonged to THE PEOPLE, not the states. They made the First Amendment to fight people like you, and states like yours.

So no. You don't believe in freedom, unless you agree with the exercise thereof. And yes, you DO believe in authoritarianism, when you don't believe in the exercising of a particular freedom. The great hypocrisy of your entire demographic knows few bounds. 

Abortion is taking a life....according to you. It's a battle over whose rights matter more, the mother, or unborn fetus. And the problem that none of you want to accept is that you can't prove the existence of a soul, and you can't prove the existence of consciousness. YOU don't get to choose for everyone else when life begins inside someone else' body. That's what you want. You want the authority because you don't like something. Without sufficient knowledge of what is happening inside SOMEONE ELSE' BODY, you want the authority to tell them what they can and cannot do. And much to that same degree, many of your conservative friends believe they have the right to tell dying people whether or not they can choose to end their own lives or take simply take themselves off life support and die. AUTHORITY. The audacity and the hubris of that makes people like me very angry, because if I am anything.......I am extremely prone to hatred of authority of every kind. I use logic to cope with authority and understand when it is absolutely necessary. You cope with it by deciding when authority should be applied based on how YOU feel emotionally.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> It makes no difference what law they are discussing, there is an overwhelming likelihood that they will get the decision wrong, once again. (Roe. V. Wade not withstanding, *they really have no business discussing a Texas law anyway*)


Yes, we certainly can't have *actual cases* going to the Supreme Court
What *were *they thinking? 

:huh:

http://www.ibtimes.com/whole-womans...about-us-supreme-courts-next-abortion-2325753



> In what could be one of the most important U.S. Supreme Court decisions about abortion rights since 1973âs Roe v. Wade, the country's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments Wednesday for Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, which examines state laws restricting the operation of women's health clinics providing abortion services.
> 
> *Specifically at stake is whether legislation in some states has placed an undue burden on women seeking an abortion, which the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional.*


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> It takes a special kind of mentality to twist an entire state into a victim when that state is infringing on someone's rights. No, it should not have been left to the state. Homosexuals are doing nothing to infringe on anyone else' rights by getting married, they cause no imminent threat. You have no secular, non-religious grounds for believing a state should have the right to infringe upon their rights. You want to pretend that state is the victim, in reality they're the predator, they're preying on people who they don't agree with. You wanted to use your state's AUTHORITY over their life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property.....for nothing. You're like a coyote eating a calf and calling its mother an authoritarian when she kicks you in the face.
> 
> SCOTUS didn't "do a power grab." The power to be given equal opportunity to a government service belonged to THE PEOPLE, not the states. They made the First Amendment to fight people like you, and states like yours.
> 
> ...


 For all of your high and mighty language, you don't get it, not even a little. You do little more than spray air freshener on cow pies. I'll waste no more time on you. :boring:


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, we certainly can't have *actual cases* going to the Supreme Court
> What *were *they thinking?
> 
> :huh:
> ...



And by that, it should be a state issue, not Federal. They should have simply left it at the State level.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> And by that, it should be a state issue, not Federal. They should have simply left it at the State level.


When state law violates the federal constitution it becomes a matter for federal courts. If not, why have them?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> And by that, it should be a state issue, not Federal. They should have simply left it at the State level.


The best answer to that is one you used yourself:



> For all of your high and mighty language, you don't get it, not even a little.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> When state law violates the federal constitution it becomes a matter for federal courts. If not, why have them?


But, it didn't. It violated a mistaken interpretation of the Constitution.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The best answer to that is one you used yourself:


I fully understand the agenda that has twisted the Constitution, I simply believe it is wrong.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> But, it didn't. It violated a mistaken interpretation of the Constitution.


And when you get appointed to the Supreme Coury your opinion that it was mistaken will carry some weight. Until then it is an opinion which in my opinion relies on a mistaken interpretation of the Constitution. And that opinion is equally as valid as yours.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> And when you get appointed to the Supreme Coury your opinion that it was mistaken will carry some weight. Until then it is an opinion which in my opinion relies on a mistaken interpretation of the Constitution. And that opinion is equally as valid as yours.


 And that is 100% accurate. My opinion is mine. You are free to disagree. I am here for the discussion.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> *For all of your high and mighty language*, you don't get it, not even a little. You do little more than spray air freshener on cow pies. I'll waste no more time on you. :boring:


That's how I know you know you're wrong. To me it's just debate. To you it's "high and mighty." You can try to be clever, but the reality is you're more authoritarian than every "liberal" on this site. Your entire point of view is backwards and illogical.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> That's how I know you know you're wrong. To me it's just debate. To you it's "high and mighty." You can try to be clever, but the reality is you're more authoritarian than every "liberal" on this site. Your entire point of view is backwards and illogical.


 I will try to explain again, because you don't seem to get it. You use flamboyant prose to try and dazzle people with BS. Most here get that. One day even you might get it. You don't debate, you find an alternative opinion and stop your foot and tell them how wrong they are. To you, it may be debate, to most of the rest of us it is a tantrum.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> I will try to explain again, because you don't seem to get it. You use flamboyant prose to try and dazzle people with BS. Most here get that. One day even you might get it. You don't debate, you find an alternative opinion and stop your foot and tell them how wrong they are. To you, it may be debate, to most of the rest of us it is a tantrum.


Not my argument really, but is what you're accusing him of really any different than repeatedly claiming, no matter the topic, that the Supreme Court is corrupt and almost any federal action is overreach?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I suggest you not have an abortion. Easy peasy.


I don't like you or anyone killing the unborn. Lemon squeezie.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> I don't like you or anyone killing the unborn. Lemon squeezie.


Back at you, and I've never killed the unborn. 

Thankfully it's not your _choice_.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Back at you, and I've never killed the unborn.
> 
> Thankfully it's not your _choice_.


An unfortunate choice for anyone.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Not my argument really, but is what you're accusing him of really any different than repeatedly claiming, no matter the topic, that the Supreme Court is corrupt and almost any federal action is overreach?


Not really, although I have been known to let my emotions get the better of me, on occasion. To your point, my position is easy to defend as all I have to do is show that the particular action that the Feds are taking is not written into the constitution, as a power of the Federal government. Also, the fact of the matter is that most actions, that the Federal government take, are not authorized by the Constitution as written.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Not really, although I have been known to let my emotions get the better of me, on occasion. To your point, my position is easy to defend as all I have to do is show that the particular action that the Feds are taking is not written into the constitution, as a power of the Federal government. Also, the fact of the matter is that most actions, that the Federal government take, are not authorized by the Constitution as written.


And, as always, you're free to offer your opinion, over and over and over. And wrap it in whatever language you wish. Even after others have offered repeated counters and refudiations to them. Accusations of corruption should be easily provable by more than opinion.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> And, as always, you're free to offer your opinion, over and over and over. And wrap it in whatever language you wish. Even after others have offered repeated counters and refudiations to them. Accusations of corruption should be easily provable by more than opinion.


It is easy to prove, for those who would see it. Take SCOTUS decision A, where they said that the Federal Government could do X. Look in Constitution. Is the issue, being decided, listed as a power of the Federal Government? Yes?: Not corrupt. No? Corrupt. Very simple. There is absolutely no need to go further than that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> But, it didn't. It violated a *mistaken *interpretation of the Constitution.


It's the Supreme Court's job to determine that, not yours


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> I fully understand the agenda that has twisted the Constitution, I simply believe it is wrong.


Now you're just falling back on the empty rhetoric, as usual


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> I will try to explain again, because you don't seem to get it. You use flamboyant prose to try and dazzle people with BS. Most here get that. One day even you might get it. You don't debate, you find an alternative opinion and stop your foot and tell them how wrong they are. To you, it may be debate, *to most of the rest of us* it is a tantrum.


How is that different from your anti-Govt rhetorical rants?
Who is "most of the rest of us" that says you can speak for them?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> I don't like you or anyone killing the unborn. Lemon squeezie.


I don't recall anyone ever saying they "liked" it.
Your fantasy pictures have nothing to do with the topic of this thread.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> How is that different from your anti-Govt rhetorical rants?
> Who is "most of the rest of us" that says you can speak for them?


How many times to I have to tell you that you, and/or, your opinion mean nothing to me? I am not interested in anything you think or have to say. :grin:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> How many times to I have to tell you that you, and/or, your opinion mean nothing to me? I am not interested in anything you think or have to say. :grin:


That makes no difference to me, and you still respond so I doubt your sincerity.
I think you just use it as a diversionary tactic


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't recall anyone ever saying they "liked" it.
> Your fantasy pictures have nothing to do with the topic of this thread.


Just one of those nasty, but necessary evils, right?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Just one of those nasty, but necessary evils, right?


Your silly pictures?
I wouldn't call them necessary nor evil
Maybe pointless and juvenile........certainly not topical

I suspect it's just an attempt to derail this thread *about a court case*


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

HDRider said:


> Just one of those nasty, but necessary evils, right?


Yes just another one trying to push some nonsense agenda onto us here and the USA in general.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Yes just another one trying to push some nonsense agenda onto us here and the USA in general.


You think constitutional laws are a "nonsense agenda"?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Yes just another one trying to push some nonsense agenda onto us here and the USA in general.


You think constitutional laws are a "nonsense agenda"?
Or were you talking about the "baby on a cloud" meme?


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Not really, although I have been known to let my emotions get the better of me, on occasion. To your point, my position is easy to defend as all I have to do is show that the particular action that the Feds are taking is not written into the constitution, as a power of the Federal government. Also, the fact of the matter is that most actions, that the Federal government take, are not authorized by the Constitution as written.



The way the constitution is written gives the federal government very extensive powers. The general welfare clause gives the government quite a bit of leeway in determining what would be beneficial for the general welfare.

After their experience under the Articles of Confederation they knew a weak federal government was unworkable. The X amendment had more to do with getting the bill of rights passed then actually giving the states wide reaching and unchecked power.

Jim


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Your silly pictures?
> I wouldn't call them necessary nor evil
> Maybe pointless and juvenile........certainly not topical
> 
> I suspect it's just an attempt to derail this thread *about a court case*


I wish you would never offer a reply to me. You spout such nonsense in your faux highbrow tone and then you add a twist of juvenile "huh?"

You know the evil of which I speak, and I could post pictures of that reality if you'd like.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> *I wish* you would never offer a reply to me. You spout such nonsense in your faux highbrow tone and then you add a twist of juvenile "huh?"
> 
> You know the evil of which I speak, and I could post pictures of that reality if you'd like.


I wish I was about 45 years younger and wealthy

Feel free to post any pictures you like, but it won't make *this* thread about abortion per se. It's about a court case.

If you don't want to see my replies, put me on ignore.
No one is forcing you to read anything you don't want to see.

I still say the silly pictures are juvenile, the same as trying to change the topic by posting them.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> It is easy to prove, for those who would see it. Take SCOTUS decision A, where they said that the Federal Government could do X. Look in Constitution. Is the issue, being decided, listed as a power of the Federal Government? Yes?: Not corrupt. No? Corrupt. Very simple. There is absolutely no need to go further than that.


Wrong is different than corrupt. Assigning motive and evil intent to every decision you disagree with does little to bolster your arguments. Those same corrupt justices must occasionally get some things right even in your world view. What happens to the corruption then? Is it still there but derided by the other side? Reasonable people can disagree on many things. Unreasonable people paint those that disagree with a variety of perjoratives that have little to do with why they disagree.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Jim Bunton said:


> The way the constitution is written gives the federal government very extensive powers. The general welfare clause gives the government quite a bit of leeway in determining what would be beneficial for the general welfare.
> 
> After their experience under the Articles of Confederation they knew a weak federal government was unworkable. The X amendment had more to do with getting the bill of rights passed then actually giving the states wide reaching and unchecked power.
> 
> Jim


 Again, there is no General Welfare Clause. There is a qualifier to the power to tax. All it means is that taxing and spending cannot be done for specific welfare. For example. The Feds have the power to create a navy. The power to tax gives them the power to fund it. The qualifier of "General Welfare" means that they are not allowed to tax everyone and only use the navy to protect a few, but, the whole population, in general. The mention of "the General Welfare is a LIMIT on power, not a power unto itself.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Wrong is different than corrupt. Assigning motive and evil intent to every decision you disagree with does little to bolster your arguments. Those same corrupt justices must occasionally get some things right even in your world view. What happens to the corruption then? Is it still there but derided by the other side? Reasonable people can disagree on many things. Unreasonable people paint those that disagree with a variety of perjoratives that have little to do with why they disagree.


A pattern of obvious "mistakes" rises to the level of corruption. My world view has nothing to do with it. I purely HATE the income tax. I would like to see it abolished. However, it is a constitutional tax because of the 16th amendment. It is not because I agree or disagree with a particular law, I just pains me to see the Feds grab power that they haven't the authority. 
Another example. I can't stand the hoops one has to jump through to move products across state lines, but, the Feds have the authority to make those laws and regulations because they are tasked with regulating interstate commerce so, those regulations are Constitutional. 

I can't stand abortion and would like to see it abolished. I feel that the Federal government, mistakenly / corruptly took powers, that should have been left to state and local governments, but, if Roe V. Wade were reversed tomorrow, the Feds couldn't make a law outlawing abortion because they do not have that power unless a new Constitutional amendment were to be enacted. 

I believe that the 17th amendment was a mistake, but, if someone authored a bill that tried to do away with the popular elections of Senators, I would have to come out against that bill. I may agree with the sentiment, but, it is an obvious violation of the Constitution.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> A pattern of obvious "mistakes" rises to the level of corruption. My world view has nothing to do with it. I purely HATE the income tax. I would like to see it abolished. However, it is a constitutional tax because of the 16th amendment. It is not because I agree or disagree with a particular law, I just pains me to see the Feds grab power that they haven't the authority.
> Another example. I can't stand the hoops one has to jump through to move products across state lines, but, the Feds have the authority to make those laws and regulations because they are tasked with regulating interstate commerce so, those regulations are Constitutional.
> 
> I can't stand abortion and would like to see it abolished. I feel that the Federal government, mistakenly / corruptly took powers, that should have been left to state and local governments, but, if Roe V. Wade were reversed tomorrow, the Feds couldn't make a law outlawing abortion because they do not have that power unless a new Constitutional amendment were to be enacted.
> ...


What you see as obvious mistakes and evidence of corruption aren't so obvious and evidential to everyone. They're not even that obvious to many who are far more learned than me and who have made it their life's work to look at such things. I'll repeat, using such "flamboyant" language to ascribe motive and meaning does little to further your arguments and is akin to what you accuse others of and deride them for.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Again, there is no General Welfare Clause. There is a qualifier to the power to tax. All it means is that taxing and spending cannot be done for specific welfare. For example. The Feds have the power to create a navy. The power to tax gives them the power to fund it. The qualifier of "General Welfare" means that they are not allowed to tax everyone and only use the navy to protect a few, but, the whole population, in general. The mention of "the General Welfare is a LIMIT on power, not a power unto itself.


And as long as the programs you often decry meet the qualifiers of taxing everyone and making everyone eligible to recieve the benefit nothing in that clause disqualifies such programs.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> And as long as the programs you often decry meet the qualifiers of taxing everyone and making everyone eligible to recieve the benefit nothing in that clause disqualifies such programs.


 That is not how the constitution is supposed to work. Among other things it is a list of powers granted the Federal Government. If those programs are not listed as powers of the Federal Government, the Federal government is not supposed to be allowed to enact such programs. The states, if not prohibited by their own Constitutions, can enact all of the social program that they wish.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> What you see as obvious mistakes and evidence of corruption aren't so obvious and evidential to everyone. They're not even that obvious to many who are far more learned than me and who have made it their life's work to look at such things. I'll repeat, using such "flamboyant" language to ascribe motive and meaning does little to further your arguments and is akin to what you accuse others of and deride them for.


 I guess if one wants to feed off of Federal largess, one would be blind to obvious mistakes. My point is that the Constitution is a very simple document. If it doesn't explicitly say that the Federal government can do X, then the Federal government cannot do X. Those who try to complicate the matter are likely trying to "muddy up the water" for their own ends.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> That is not how the constitution is supposed to work. Among other things it is a list of powers granted the Federal Government. If those programs are not listed as powers of the Federal Government, the Federal government is not supposed to be allowed to enact such programs. The states, if not prohibited by their own Constitutions, can enact all of the social program that they wish.


You really need to make up your mind. Does the constitution define only what government can do or does it define the limits of those powers? Where in the constitution does it say the federal government cannot raise taxes and spend them?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> You really need to make up your mind. Does the constitution define only what government can do or does it define the limits of those powers? Where in the constitution does it say the federal government cannot raise taxes and spend them?


Come on, I know you are smarter than this. It does both. It does say that the Federal Government can raise taxes and spend them, but, only on items listed as powers of the Federal government. Article 1 section 8 enumerates most of the powers, Article 1 section 9 lists some of the limits on those powers.

The short of it is that there are enumerated powers, the Federal government is not allowed to go beyond those powers. There are also limits to those enumerated powers, listed in the Constitution.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> I guess if one wants to feed off of Federal largess, one would be blind to obvious mistakes. My point is that the Constitution is a very simple document. If it doesn't explicitly say that the Federal government can do X, then the Federal government cannot do X. Those who try to complicate the matter are likely trying to "muddy up the water" for their own ends.


Again, rather than acknowledging that rational minds can disagree you start with an attack. You wrap it in flowery language but you assign motive that you cannot prove exists. Many of the minds you disagree with have no need or desire to "feed off Federal largesse" yet that is how you dismiss them.

And it says the government can raise taxes and spend them as long as it's done with certain criteria.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Come on, I know you are smarter than this. It does both. It does say that the Federal Government can raise taxes and spend them, but, only on items listed as powers of the Federal government. Article 1 section 8 enumerates most of the powers, Article 1 section 9 lists some of the limits on those powers.


Yes I am smart enough to know what I think the founding document of our country says. I'm smart enough to disagree with you without calling you, or those who believe as you do, names or assigning motives. I'm smart enough to know that you have the right to argue passionately for what you think is right even though I know you are wrong.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Again, rather than acknowledging that rational minds can disagree you start with an attack. You wrap it in flowery language but you assign motive that you cannot prove exists. Many of the minds you disagree with have no need or desire to "feed off Federal largesse" yet that is how you dismiss them.
> 
> And it says the government can raise taxes and spend them as long as it's done with certain criteria.


 If you see what I am doing as an attack, I apologize. I meant no disrespect. It is just so blatantly obvious to me that there is a pattern of mistake after mistake that, sooner or later, one must see that it is not honest mistakes, but, corruption at work. For example, FDR's court stacking scheme used to bully the SC into giving the go ahead for his social programs. That was, by all definitions, a corrupt act. Much of our current law, as it pertains to social programs, is based on that corrupt act, so, the corruption continues, IMO. 

And yes, the government can raise taxes and spend within certain criteria. That criteria is that it is only to be spent on powers, enumerated in Article 1, section 8 (an funding of the other 2 branches) and that any spending, within those limits, go for the General Welfare.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> If you see what I am doing as an attack, I apologize. I meant no disrespect. It is just so blatantly obvious to me that there is a pattern of mistake after mistake that, sooner or later, one must see that it is not honest mistakes, but, corruption at work. For example, FDR's court stacking scheme used to bully the SC into giving the go ahead for his social programs. That was, by all definitions, a corrupt act. Much of our current law, as it pertains to social programs, is based on that corrupt act, so, the corruption continues, IMO.
> 
> And yes, the government can raise taxes and spend within certain criteria. That criteria is that it is only to be spent on powers, enumerated in Article 1, section 8 (an funding of the other 2 branches) and that any spending, within those limits, go for the General Welfare.


No, it was an act by a person who had a different view of what is good for this country than you and found a way to apply pressure to get it done. It's not much different than the current blockage of a legitimate nomination to replace a Supreme Court justice. I disagree with what those politicians are doing but I won't call them evil, corrupt or assign any other motive than they feel they are doing what is right for the country. By your own standards your pattern of continuing to assign motives to others you don't know and claiming corruption by officials you disagree with is enough to show you do mean disrespect. No need to apologize to me, though.

General Welfare means different things to different people. Because they differ makes neither side corrupt.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> No, it was an act by a person who had a different view of what is good for this country than you and found a way to apply pressure to get it done. It's not much different than the current blockage of a legitimate nomination to replace a Supreme Court justice. I disagree with what those politicians are doing but I won't call them evil, corrupt or assign any other motive than they feel they are doing what is right for the country. By your own standards your pattern of continuing to assign motives to others you don't know and claiming corruption by officials you disagree with is enough to show you do mean disrespect. No need to apologize to me, though.
> 
> General Welfare means different things to different people. Because they differ makes neither side corrupt.


Ok, what would rise to the level of corruption, in your opinion?

Also, what, in your opinion, is the logical basis for having a specific set of powers listed if one qualifier gives the government nearly unlimited power?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Ok, what would rise to the level of corruption, in your opinion?
> 
> Also, what, in your opinion, is the logical basis for having a specific set of powers listed if one qualifier gives the government nearly unlimited power?


Richard Nixon broke the law in his quest to be reelected. That was corruption. Many politicians have taken money in exchange for a vote . They were corrupt. Example of corruption abound. Because you disagree with another on almost everything isn't evidence they are corrupt. They just see things differently than you.


As to why the founders put in such qualifiers. You'd have to ask them but it probably does have something to do with their first failed attempt at governance with a weak central government and their realization that they weren't omnipotent and couldn't foresee everything.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Richard Nixon broke the law in his quest to be reelected. That was corruption. Many politicians have taken money in exchange for a vote . They were corrupt. Example of corruption abound. Because you disagree with another on almost everything isn't evidence they are corrupt. They just see things differently than you.
> 
> 
> *As to why the founders put in such qualifiers. You'd have to ask them but it probably does have something to do with their first failed attempt at governance with a weak central government and their realization that they weren't omnipotent and couldn't foresee everything*.


Which is why, IMO, they put in an amendment process so that the Constitution could be changed if it failed to meet the needs of future generations. That, the listing of specific powers, the political atmosphere of the day, the 10th amendment, and other things make it impossible for me to find the logic of having a qualifier to tax be an over-arching "super power" for the Federal Government.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Which is why, IMO, they put in an amendment process so that the Constitution could be changed if it failed to meet the needs of future generations. That, the listing of specific powers, the political atmosphere of the day, the 10th amendment, and other things make it impossible for me to find the logic of having a qualifier to tax be an over-arching "super power" for the Federal Government.


Because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I've never seen god but many good people tell me on a daily basis he exists.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I've never seen god but many good people tell me on a daily basis he exists.


 Could you give me a logical basis for it?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Could you give me a logical basis for it?


I gave you two earlier. You seem to have rejected them.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> I gave you two earlier. You seem to have rejected them.


Fair enough, I guess.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> Could you give me a logical basis for it?


There is no logical basis for it.... Although I have heard a great many illogical arguments that try to support it.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

If none of y'all live in Texas, why do you care what we do? it doesn't bother me that New York screwed up their gun laws and forgot to put law enforcement exemptions in. It makes me laugh but I don't care. A bunch of states have allowed legal marijuana even though the federal government spends billions fighting it, doesn't make sense to me but it's not my problem. If you don't live here in Texas why care and what are you going to do to change it? The real reason for HB2 is a round about way to slow abortions down or stop them. It shouldn't be that hard to see, it's no different than making it mandatory to have a permit to buy ammo. It takes more time and you have to jump through more hoops and many will just give up and skip it all.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> If none of y'all live in Texas, why do you care what we do? it doesn't bother me that New York screwed up their gun laws and forgot to put law enforcement exemptions in. It makes me laugh but I don't care. A bunch of states have allowed legal marijuana even though the federal government spends billions fighting it, doesn't make sense to me but it's not my problem. If you don't live here in Texas why care and what are you going to do to change it? The real reason for HB2 is a round about way to slow abortions down or stop them. It shouldn't be that hard to see, it's no different than making it mandatory to have a permit to buy ammo. It takes more time and you have to jump through more hoops and many will just give up and skip it all.


People care because, if this law is allowed to stand, it sets a dangerous precedent. Other states can decide to enact laws to make a legal and necessary procedure virtually unobtainable based on that precedent. Now I know you think it's fine and dandy to try to legislate women to be forced incubators but it's just a quick hop from making abortions virtually unobtainable to making something important to you unobtainable. What would you like to lose access to for the simple reason that someone objects to you having it?


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

SLFarmMI said:


> People care because, if this law is allowed to stand, it sets a dangerous precedent. Other states can decide to enact laws to make a legal and necessary procedure virtually unobtainable based on that precedent. Now I know you think it's fine and dandy to try to legislate women to be forced incubators but it's just a quick hop from making abortions virtually unobtainable to making something important to you unobtainable. What would you like to lose access to for the simple reason that someone objects to you having it?


Forced incubators? The outcome and reason for sex in general is procreation. If you do the deed and get pregnant, that is how it works. Everyone who has sex knows this. So you should assume the responsibility for your actions. Don't want children? Don't have sex. Really very simple. It's the only thing full proof.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> I will try to explain again, because you don't seem to get it. You use flamboyant prose to try and dazzle people with BS. Most here get that. One day even you might get it. You don't debate, you find an alternative opinion and stop your foot and tell them how wrong they are. To you, it may be debate, to most of the rest of us it is a tantrum.


I provided direct counterpoints to every point you tried to make. I provided direct arguments with supporting details pulled from the exact context that our conversation was taking place within; the Constitution. That's called debate. What you're doing right now is stomping your foot and retreating to your "feelings," using the age old tactic of debate losers to cover your retreat; character assassination. 



mmoetc said:


> Not my argument really, but is what you're accusing him of really any different than repeatedly claiming, no matter the topic, that the Supreme Court is corrupt and almost any federal action is overreach?


No it isn't, and I'm glad you said something.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Forced incubators? The outcome and reason for sex in general is procreation. If you do the deed and get pregnant, that is how it works. Everyone who has sex knows this. So you should assume the responsibility for your actions. Don't want children? Don't have sex. Really very simple. It's the only thing full proof.


Procreation is the only reason and outcome for sex? Oh, so that's why humans were created with heat cycles like goats and sheep, etc. and only are receptive for sex during those times. But, wait, we aren't. So maybe, just maybe there are other reasons and outcomes for sex. What a sad existence it would be if the only reason to have sex would be for procreation.

BTW, seeking to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is assuming responsibility. It just isn't in a format that you approve of. And yes, when you seek to force women to carry an unwanted pregnancy, then the term "forced incubator" is an apt term.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> Again, there is no General Welfare Clause. There is a qualifier to the power to tax. All it means is that taxing and spending cannot be done for specific welfare. For example. The Feds have the power to create a navy. The power to tax gives them the power to fund it. The qualifier of "General Welfare" means that they are not allowed to tax everyone and only use the navy to protect a few, but, the whole population, in general. The mention of "the General Welfare is a LIMIT on power, not a power unto itself.


Your false logic is the only weak link here. It doesn't matter if you think it is a "clause" or a "power." The simple fact is that Congress was given the power to tax for the purpose of providing the general welfare, and they were also given the power to create any laws necessary to execute that power to tax for the General Welfare. Social Security, though y'all have tried to argue against this, is one of the most obviously constitutional institutions ever created because of this. It is general in scope, and created in order to tax (and spend...since spending is implied by taxing) for the general welfare. The only limit to something so obviously constitutional is Democracy. Your side lost. Your side will continue to lose. Yet your broken logic will continue to stink up these threads.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

SLFarmMI said:


> Procreation is the only reason and outcome for sex? Oh, so that's why humans were created with heat cycles like goats and sheep, etc. and only are receptive for sex during those times. But, wait, we aren't. So maybe, just maybe there are other reasons and outcomes for sex. What a sad existence it would be if the only reason to have sex would be for procreation.
> 
> BTW, seeking to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is assuming responsibility. It just isn't in a format that you approve of. And yes, when you seek to force women to carry an unwanted pregnancy, then the term "forced incubator" is an apt term.


Forced incubator is a dandy term....I know quite a few women that never had kids or an abortion because of their personal responsibility for their sex life.

Aborting a child is not responsibility.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

elevenpoint said:


> Forced incubator is a dandy term....I know quite a few women that never had kids or an abortion because of their personal responsibility for their sex life.
> 
> Aborting a child is not responsibility.


That you know some people who have never had an unwanted pregnancy means absolutely nothing about their responsibility. At most it means they have been fortunate enough to not have had a birth control failure. And because you don't agree with a woman's choice to have an abortion means absolutely nothing about their responsibility either.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

SLFarmMI said:


> That you know some people who have never had an unwanted pregnancy means absolutely nothing about their responsibility. At most it means they have been fortunate enough to not have had a birth control failure. And because you don't agree with a woman's choice to have an abortion means absolutely nothing about their responsibility either.


Nope...it's all about responsibility.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

How about if i told you the abortion debate was just cooked up to get evangelicals politically concerned about the tax exempt status of racially segregated establishments?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> Nope...it's all about responsibility.


Responsible people should mind their own business, since they aren't responsible for anyone else

This thread isn't about the pros and cons of abortion
This is about a court case


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> *Responsible people should mind their own business, since they aren't responsible for anyone else*
> 
> This thread isn't about the pros and cons of abortion
> This is about a court case


Hmmmmmmmm...................

Using your definition, is Ruth Ginsberg (one of the focal points of this case and this thread) a "responsible person", in your opinion?
To be fair, also weigh in on the Texas governor and legislature.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Responsible people should mind their own business, since they aren't responsible for anyone else
> 
> This thread isn't about the pros and cons of abortion
> This is about a court case





farmrbrown said:


> Hmmmmmmmm...................
> 
> Using your definition, is Ruth Ginsberg (one of the focal points of this case and this thread) a "responsible person", in your opinion?
> To be fair, also weigh in on the Texas governor and legislature.


I like HB2...finally someone...Texas...is stepping up to the plate to protect the defenseless...hopefully every state jumps on the band wagon.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

elevenpoint said:


> Forced incubator is a dandy term....I know quite a few women that never had kids or an abortion because of their personal responsibility for their sex life.
> 
> Aborting a child is not responsibility.


perhaps you can explain the difference in outcomes from the child's point of view between an abortion and other successful forms of birth control?


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> perhaps you can explain the difference in outcomes from the child's point of view between an abortion and other successful forms of birth control?


In one instance there is no child. So no point of view. In the other there is a child that you created through acts meant to do just that. The mother willing took that chance when she had sex. Regardless of her precautions. So the child is now relying on the mother who willingly created it to keep it safe and healthy. It has one goal. To survive and prosper until the day it dies at an old of age as possible. Like any living thing. Survival is it's point of view. And no child expects is mother to be the one to kill it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Hmmmmmmmm...................
> 
> Using your definition, is Ruth Ginsberg (one of the focal points of this case and this thread) a "responsible person", in your opinion?
> To be fair, also weigh in on the Texas governor and legislature.


Court cases are her business
The Gov and legislature are a part of the case.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> I like HB2...finally someone...Texas...is stepping up to the plate to protect the defenseless...hopefully every state jumps on the band wagon.


They aren't trying to "protect the defenseless".

They are trying to force their religious morals on others and condemning some of those children to a horrific life which is often cut short anyway.

And again, this isn't about the morality of abortions.

It's about whether or not the state has a right to arbitrarily enforce unreasonable standards on abortion clinics

If you want to discuss abortion, start your own thread


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They aren't trying to "protect the defenseless".
> 
> They are trying to force their religious morals on others and *condemning some of those children to a horrific life which is often cut short anyway.*
> 
> ...


Any supporting information regarding the proportion of these "horrific" lives that children are being saved from? Or is this just something to say as an excuse?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Any supporting information regarding the proportion of these "horrific" lives that children are being saved from? Or is this just something to say as an excuse?


What quality of life do you think a child will have with a low income mother that didn't want it? 



> The father of 5-year-old Shaniya Davis told Oprah Winfrey today that the girl's mother trafficked the child to pay off a drug debt.


http://www.bing.com/search?q=mother...=-1&sk=&cvid=84E8D302E38F4132B97C6DF22DA601E3


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Vahomesteaders said:


> In one instance there is no child. So no point of view. In the other there is a child that you created through acts meant to do just that. The mother willing took that chance when she had sex. Regardless of her precautions. So the child is now relying on the mother who willingly created it to keep it safe and healthy. It has one goal. To survive and prosper until the day it dies at an old of age as possible. Like any living thing. Survival is it's point of view. And no child expects is mother to be the one to kill it.


I hate to tell you this but any successful form of birth control results in exactly the same result as an abortion..... There is no child playing with a puppy in the back yard.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I hate to tell you this but any successful form of birth control results in exactly the same result as an abortion..... There is no child playing with a puppy in the back yard.


It _does _seem to be thwarting the will of God. He did give us those pesky hormones and it seems like we should either be choosing to be "master of our own domains" or else have sex and let him do the deciding of whether a baby results.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Shine said:


> Any supporting information regarding the proportion of these "horrific" lives that children are being saved from? Or is this just something to say as an excuse?


It's not really my place to decide if someone else's choice is right or wrong but I do help a friend who has sole custody of a group of kids of her ex husband's daughter. 

A were born crack addicted, all have significant health issues, the oldest son has been killing family pets and small farm animals (generally pets and lambs by suffocation) for quite some time as well as having repeatedly sexually molested at least two much younger cousins and has been known to duct tape his younger brother genitals to their bodies. He also has a fondness for lighting fires. 

The oldest daughter was already an addict at the age of 12 and paid for her drugs exactly the same way her mother did, she's been charged at least 3 times that I know of for beating the stuffing out of her grandmother, one teacher, one drug counselor and has stolen her grandfather's truck twice.

One has rage issues to the extent that there are no schools in the county left that will take him after he beat up a teacher with a hockey stick at the age of 7, broke another child's arm and kicked a principal in the groin and stabbed the youngest brother with a meat fork while doing dishes. 

The youngest may turn out okay but right now, he's the best safe cracker I know and with fight like a rabid do to avoid going to school and that includes beating on a few bus drivers. 

All are under serious psychiatric care and the general consensus is that one has sexual urges that can't be managed and will end up in jail and hopefully it happens before he kills someone. It is almost assumed that one of two will probably kill the woman or someone else. 

The daughter left home at 16 and is already working a street corner to buy the crack she was born addicted to and can't come back home because her grandmother had to take out a restraining order. 

These are not discipline but deeply complex psychological issues and the house they live in is literally destroyed by small fires and holes bashed in the walls from rage issues and when one has thrown another or their 60 year old grandmother through walls. 

It's not my place to suggest they should have been aborted because that's not my business but it's not a good scene.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

wr said:


> It's not my place to suggest they should have been aborted because that's not my business but it's not a good scene.



That sounds like the toughest of the tough situations. The premise was bantered about that an abortion will allow a child to not go through a life as you have described. I thought about that. 

There are those that will not allow one to posit what "might" have been so I wondered how one could be so certain that this is indeed a valid reason to allow one to kill their unborn child. 

To act as saving someone the trouble of experiencing what you have related to us would seem to me to be a "what if" situation because we will never know what the outcome would have been. No chance to understand if that unborn child might have had a wonderful life.

You know, not everyone that finds themselves in a tough situation says that there is no use and then commits suicide. 

Seems to me to be someone making decisions that ultimately affect someone else.

And... - Most birth control does not allow the sperm and the ova to join so the argument that this is the same as an abortion is a non *sequitur*.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Shine said:


> That sounds like the toughest of the tough situations. The premise was bantered about that an abortion will allow a child to not go through a life as you have described. I thought about that.
> 
> There are those that will not allow one to posit what "might" have been so I wondered how one could be so certain that this is indeed a valid reason to allow one to kill their unborn child.
> 
> ...


Surely you see that attempting to restrict access to or outlaw abortion is doing exactly what the bolded sentence describes. Surely you can see that the only person truly qualified to decide whether or not to continue the pregnancy is the woman herself.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> To act as saving someone the trouble of experiencing what you have related to us would seem to me to be a "what if" situation because we will never know what the outcome would have been.


There's no "what if" about the fact that those *prevented* from having an abortion don't want the child. 

I showed you multiple stories of young children being sold, tortured and raped for drugs. It seems obvious they weren't wanted either.



> And... - Most birth control does not allow the sperm and the ova to join so the argument that this is the same as an abortion is a non sequitur.


'

You object to gays because they don't reproduce when they have sex, so why don't you object to birth control as well?

The end result is still the woman isn't *forced* to have a child she doesn't want, and she is allowed to make her own decisions.

But this thread isn't about abortions. 
It's about a court case.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Shine said:


> That sounds like the toughest of the tough situations. The premise was bantered about that an abortion will allow a child to not go through a life as you have described. I thought about that.
> 
> There are those that will not allow one to posit what "might" have been so I wondered how one could be so certain that this is indeed a valid reason to allow one to kill their unborn child.
> 
> ...



As I stated, I have no opinion because it was not my choice to make but it does concern me that those kids are already harming others and are expected to continue harming others until they harm someone to the point they can be incarcerated.


----------

