May 31, 2012

War on Unborn Women: Second Video Shows Planned Parenthood Staffers Explaining How To Get a Sex-Selection Abortion
— Ace

And, of course, the White House opposes any law to outlaw sex-selection abortions.

I'm not sure if it makes constitutional sense, especially for federalists (or those who say they're federalists) to seek a federal law here. The principle of "But this is important!" is offered by all people seeking federal law.

"But this is important!" is, if accepted as a predicate justifying federal action, essentially a green light for untrammeled federal power. It's basically the system we've been living under for 40 years. "But this is important!" ends in ObamaCare.

That said, there is certainly no reason why a state couldn't pass a law protecting women, and there's damnsure no reason why federal tax dollars should be used to conduct a war on women.

Posted by: Ace at 08:39 AM | Comments (137)
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.

1 The banality of evil.

Posted by: toby928© at May 31, 2012 08:42 AM (NG097)

2 I'm not sure if it makes constitutional sense, especially for federalists (or those who say they're federalists) to seek a federal law here.

Given that Roe v. Wade effectively federalized the issue--one of a thousand practical reasons why it was a severe judicial error--I'm not sure anything short would hold.

If nothing else, it pins the Left down yet again as the monsters they are.

Posted by: Brother Cavil, New Caprica City DMV at May 31, 2012 08:42 AM (GBXon)

3 First!

Posted by: JDTAY at May 31, 2012 08:42 AM (sFP59)

4 Oops.

Posted by: JDTAY at May 31, 2012 08:42 AM (sFP59)

5
I like this move by Boehner.

It really puts the "stink" on "choice."

Posted by: Soothsayer at May 31, 2012 08:42 AM (9Q7Nu)

6 Did you guys already comment on the appeals court striking down defense of marriage act?

Posted by: Village Idiot at May 31, 2012 08:43 AM (utXSy)

7 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at May 31, 2012 08:43 AM (8y9MW)

8 Good point, ace. It made me rethink my stance on this. Hmm...

Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at May 31, 2012 08:44 AM (U08Mg)

9 Just remember kids.  Safe, legal and RARE.  If they had the information ready to go on who to go to to get a sex specific abortion, and knew the legal hurdles that one might encounter, this would have been far from the first time this "clinic" was advising people on how to obtain an abortion in this way.

But safe, legal and RARE.  You know, because they're an absolute necessity that can not, under any circomstances, be limited in any way, shape, or form.

Posted by: Dr. Mr. Badman at May 31, 2012 08:45 AM (D8pR3)

10 Obama doesn't oppose this measure because of constitutional reasons, as we all know. He opposes this bill because he finds no quarrel with gendercide.

Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at May 31, 2012 08:45 AM (U08Mg)

11 I don't want a Federal Law banning same-sex abortions.  I want a Federal Law handing it back to the States.

What I also want is a complete defunding of Planned Parenthood, anyone it subsidizes, and anyone who supports it.  Because they're evil, and evil shouldn't be getting my tax dollars.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at May 31, 2012 08:46 AM (8y9MW)

12

Abortion is legal... and the REASONS to get an abortion are not in the law...

 

Now, as abhorent as this situation is, the Right is trying to create a thought Crime.. ie making the REASON you do an Legal act, somehow against the Law...

 

This is NOT a Good Road to go Down...

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2012 08:46 AM (lZBBB)

13 HAHAHA Bush: It is my pleasure to introduce the greatest First Lady ever....sorry mom.

Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at May 31, 2012 08:47 AM (U08Mg)

14 I think the 14th amendment federalized this: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life"

Posted by: eb2im at May 31, 2012 08:47 AM (Tx7u+)

15 Once the supreme court made up a constitutional right to kill your child, it became a federal issue.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 31, 2012 08:47 AM (KwMW2)

16

"I'm not sure if it makes constitutional sense, especially for federalists (or those who say they're federalists) to seek a federal law here. The principle of "But this is important!" is offered by all people seeking federal law.

 

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ring a bell at all there Ace?

Posted by: GMB at May 31, 2012 08:47 AM (kPe9l)

17
another AoS first...

here's a new term:

boutique abortions

This is the future the Democrats have in store for us.

Posted by: Soothsayer at May 31, 2012 08:47 AM (9Q7Nu)

18 But, terror haircuts and fancy dancy horses!

Posted by: blaster at May 31, 2012 08:47 AM (7vSU0)

19 If you don't want a sex-selective abortion, don't have one.

Posted by: Sherri Lynn Shriller-Harridan at May 31, 2012 08:47 AM (bN5ZU)

20 Could they add a sunset clause for a law to ban sex selection abortions? Stating that the law would sunset when Roe V Wade is overturned.


Posted by: Buzzsaw at May 31, 2012 08:47 AM (tf9Ne)

21 If men hated baby girls, sex-selective abortion would be a sacrament.

Posted by: Sherri Lynn Shriller-Harridan at May 31, 2012 08:48 AM (bN5ZU)

22 Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2012 01:46 PM (lZBBB)

Okay... first off: who has actually called for a law on this?  I haven't seen anyone, but I've been busy looking at other things.

Second: assuming people really are calling for a law banning a specific type of infanticide, I agree with you.  They're letting their emotions (killing babies just because they're girls is soooper bad) get in the way of logic.

What I am seeing is renewed calls to stop sending my tax-dollars to an evil entity like Planned Parenthood.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at May 31, 2012 08:49 AM (8y9MW)

23 Keep your rosaries off my ovaries if there's a baby girl in them.

Posted by: Sherri Lynn Shriller-Harridan at May 31, 2012 08:49 AM (bN5ZU)

24 It just a clump of cells with identifiable female sex organs.

Posted by: Sherri Lynn Shriller-Harridan at May 31, 2012 08:50 AM (bN5ZU)

25 Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2012 01:46 PM (lZBBB)

Yeah, gotta agree, we can point out how disgusting getting an abortion just because you don't like the gender of the baby is, but making it illegal seems Orwellian, better to focus on abortion itself.

Posted by: booger at May 31, 2012 08:50 AM (HI6wa)

26
Ace and I do not concur and here's why.

This is Chinese.
We are not Chinese. We don't do things the Chinese way. We are Americans. We are better than the Chinese.

Posted by: Soothsayer at May 31, 2012 08:50 AM (9Q7Nu)

27 Sex selection abortions

One child left behind

Posted by: Buzzsaw at May 31, 2012 08:50 AM (tf9Ne)

28 The left haven't learned anything from Breitbart, have they? It was so obvious yesterday that Live Action had numerous videos lined up, but the leftist commentators all went with the 'isolated example/lone wolf employee' excuse, and so today of course the next video is released. it would be hilarious if the topic weren't so serious and the leftist reaction so evil.

Posted by: Adrian at May 31, 2012 08:51 AM (F4Szr)

29 Did I miss the post where Ace took back his plea for people to call their Congress critters about the whole Kimberlin thing?

Posted by: Jaynie59 at May 31, 2012 08:51 AM (4zKCA)

30

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at May 31, 2012 01:49 PM (8y9MW)

 

PREDNA

 

The bill would make it a federal offense to knowingly do any one of the following four things: (1) perform an abortion, at any time in pregnancy, “knowing that such abortion is sought based on the sex or gender of the child”; (2) use “force or threat of force. . . for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection abortion”; (3) solicit or accept funds to perform a sex-selection abortion; or (4) transport a woman into the U.S. or across state lines for this purpose. However, “A woman upon whom a sex-selection abortion is performed may not be prosecuted or held civilly liable for any violation . . .”

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2012 08:51 AM (lZBBB)

31 I think the problem here is logical inconsistency.  Either abortion should be legal, or it shouldn't.  Calling for a federal law (again: I've seen no calls for this) that bans sex-selective abortions specifically presupposes that abortion should be legal- just not for this reason.

And that's not a proper Conservative position.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at May 31, 2012 08:51 AM (8y9MW)

32 What mother would want to bring a baby girl into this world when there's a War on Women going on?

Posted by: Sherri Lynn Shriller-Harridan at May 31, 2012 08:51 AM (bN5ZU)

33 23 Keep your rosaries off my ovaries if there's a baby girl in them.

Posted by: Sherri Lynn Shriller-Harridan at May 31, 2012 01:49 PM (bN5ZU)


Go away, AJ. Old, stupid schtick.

Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at May 31, 2012 08:51 AM (RD7QR)

34 Department of state reporting 50 years of independence for Samoa

Posted by: Lampshade at May 31, 2012 08:51 AM (lkdo/)

35 If killing baby girls catches on with liberal women, will liberals become extinct?

Posted by: teh Wind at May 31, 2012 08:52 AM (HBU8E)

36 I find this appalling. If anyone is thinking of aborting a child just because it's female, I urge them to get in touch with me. I promise to raise the youngster with the tender, personal touch I'm famous for. That's why I'm known in Hollywood as such a swell guy!

Posted by: Roman Polanski at May 31, 2012 08:52 AM (VMcoS)

37
Selective infanticide is cool in China.

And when we do it here, we can call it boutique abortions. But it's still selective infanticide. It's sick and inhumane and it's the behavior of a deranged culture.

Posted by: Soothsayer at May 31, 2012 08:52 AM (9Q7Nu)

38 Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2012 01:51 PM (lZBBB)

Oh, jeez.  Yep, that's not right.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at May 31, 2012 08:52 AM (8y9MW)

39 I don't know how liberals can look themselves in the mirror in the AM

Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 31, 2012 08:53 AM (05RcU)

40 Killing a female fetus is a medical decision to be left between the woman and her doctor.

Posted by: Sherri Lynn Shriller-Harridan at May 31, 2012 08:53 AM (bN5ZU)

41 Selective infanticide is cool in China.

And when we do it here, we can call it boutique abortions. But it's still selective infanticide. It's sick and inhumane and it's the behavior of a deranged culture.

Posted by: Soothsayer at May 31, 2012 01:52 PM (9Q7Nu)



so general infanticide is cool, then?

Posted by: Oldcat at May 31, 2012 08:53 AM (z1N6a)

42 This IS the road to go down.  Sex selection abortion?  It is repugnant and evil on every level.

Where does it end?  How much further do we have to degrade life before people wake the hell up?

Posted by: mpfs at May 31, 2012 08:54 AM (iYbLN)

43 If we're going to borrow money from China (as Romney so eloquently puts it), I guess we might as well do it the Chinese way.

I'd rather not do it at all, though.
This plain old ordinary turns my stomach.

Posted by: jwb7605 at May 31, 2012 08:54 AM (Qxe/p)

44 true dat, boo, conservatives need to figure out this federalism thing. However, it would be amusing to take teh left's VAWA court briefs and use those to argue for this law, if it ever were litigated.

Posted by: joeindc44 at May 31, 2012 08:54 AM (S9InG)

45 Evil

Posted by: Jumbo Shrimp at May 31, 2012 08:55 AM (DGIjM)

46 I think it warrants Constitutional amendment because we're talking about recognizing a fundamental human right. It's acknowledging the personhood of unborn children.

Posted by: Y-not at May 31, 2012 08:55 AM (5H6zj)

47 It's sick and inhumane and it's the behavior of a deranged culture.

It is sick and inhumane, but so is abortion, generally.

It would be like saying, "Well, it's okay to steal generally, but not if you're going to steal someone's gun." (or whatever).

Either abortion is wrong- in which case you should be opposing abortion generally, or abortion is not wrong, in which case it's none of your business why someone gets an abortion.  But this "split the middle" thing doesn't work; it doesn't hold water.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at May 31, 2012 08:55 AM (8y9MW)

48 This makes me physically ill.

Posted by: mama winger at May 31, 2012 08:55 AM (P6QsQ)

49 Lib Logic Vol XIV, ed. 3

Salty foods & sodas? Appalling.

Gendercide? Meh...Shrugs.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at May 31, 2012 08:55 AM (pLTLS)

50

It certainly is important because we aren't too far from having tests that can determine eye color, skin color, hair color and other such physical traits. If it's OK to abort because you want to select the sex of your child, why shouldn't it be OK to abort because you want to have a strong, smart, blue-eyed blond-haired boy with a growth potential of 6' to 6'2" and 180 to 200 lbs? And if homosexual tendencies have some genetic component, how long before a prenatal test for that is developed?

 

 

This is bad.

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at May 31, 2012 08:56 AM (JxMoP)

51 hmmm. Chique d'Afrique's Chic Boutique Clique

Posted by: Underground Vulgarian at May 31, 2012 08:56 AM (oipCQ)

52

Why discriminate? Abort 'em all - especially those brown ones.

Posted by: Margaret Sanger at May 31, 2012 08:56 AM (VndSC)

53
so general infanticide is cool, then?

Yes, totally my point. Glad you got it.

Posted by: Soothsayer at May 31, 2012 08:56 AM (9Q7Nu)

54 50
+100 to the power of 10.

It smacks of eugenics in it's most evil form.

Posted by: mpfs at May 31, 2012 08:57 AM (iYbLN)

55 And by "it" I mean recognizing that unborn children are people in the Constitution. Once you've done that, the rest follows.

Posted by: Y-not at May 31, 2012 08:57 AM (5H6zj)

56 The federalism thing is easy.  Our Constitution provides protection for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  The mother's pursuit of happiness cannot take precedence over the daughter's right to life.  There are three people in the equation, not including the doctor, and only one of these three is facing death.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 31, 2012 08:57 AM (KwMW2)

57 http://tinyurl.com/7p7ozdo

Rethugs alienate Asian Americans

Posted by: Nancy Pelosi, Guest Hosting Sesame Street News at May 31, 2012 08:57 AM (vhwRj)

58 This IS the road to go down. Sex selection abortion? It is repugnant and evil on every level.

I think you're missing the forest for the trees.

Is abortion okay?  Then why is sex selective abortion somehow not?
Is abortion not okay?  Then why does whether it's sex selective or not make it any more or less evil?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at May 31, 2012 08:57 AM (8y9MW)

59  I don't know how liberals can look themselves in the mirror in the AM

Posted by: Nevergiveup

 

They just mimic Obama.

Posted by: Roy at May 31, 2012 08:58 AM (VndSC)

60 56 http://tinyurl.com/7p7ozdo Rethugs alienate Asian Americans Posted by: Nancy Pelosi, Guest Hosting Sesame Street News at May 31, 2012 01:57 PM (vhwRj) Are you fucking kidding me? What a racist shithead.

Posted by: Underground Vulgarian at May 31, 2012 08:58 AM (oipCQ)

61
I know none of read the posts, but...

My point was a rebuttal to Ace's position that it is unwise to make a federal law banning this particular practice.

Posted by: Soothsayer at May 31, 2012 08:58 AM (9Q7Nu)

62 There are reasons civilizations fall and disappear. 

Depravity and lack of respect for human life in all forms.


Posted by: mpfs at May 31, 2012 08:58 AM (iYbLN)

63 Its a TRAP!

Posted by: Admiral Ackhbar, Libertarian at May 31, 2012 08:59 AM (lZBBB)

64 48 This makes me physically ill. Posted by: mama winger at May 31, 2012 01:55 PM (P6QsQ) Me too.

Posted by: Jumbo Shrimp at May 31, 2012 08:59 AM (DGIjM)

65 Our Constitution provides protection for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Declaration of Independence does that.  Strangely, the Founders thought those things were so fundamental that they didn't have to specify them in the Constitution itself.

The only thing about that, though, is there are legitimate reasons why an abortion might be necessary.  They're incredibly rare, but they do happen.  So even I, who oppose elective abortion at all, am willing to stipulate that different States might handle the "mother's life is in danger" problem differently.  Even if those differences are slight, they shouldn't be ignored.

That makes abortion law (even for someone like me) a State issue, not a Federal one.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at May 31, 2012 09:00 AM (8y9MW)

66 But this "split the middle" thing doesn't work; it doesn't hold water.

^^^

Here's how I see it...

If we're going to play this game of 'will he/won't he' with something as trivial as whether Jon Lovitz will switch sides, the very least we can do is expose this. There are a lot of people that say they're 'pro-choice' but only because they're not really thinking of the ultimate consequences. I believe it's knee-jerk for a lot of people.

This is one more story that can make people say 'hmmm'. Perhaps it can wake a few more people up. The pro-life movement (esp amongst the young - cool, huh?) is gaining momentum and shedding light on these issues will only bring more over .

So yes, it's possible to 'split the middle'. And it's important to try to do so.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at May 31, 2012 09:00 AM (pLTLS)

67 The federalism thing is easy. Our Constitution provides protection for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The mother's pursuit of happiness cannot take precedence over the daughter's right to life. There are three people in the equation, not including the doctor, and only one of these three is facing death.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 31, 2012 01:57 PM (KwMW2)


-----


Exactly. And since when is it okay to sentence a human being to death without being charged, tried and convicted of a crime by a jury of its peers? Where is the due process?  Where is the child's advocate?  By what authority does one person get to arbitrarily end the life of another ?

Posted by: mama winger at May 31, 2012 09:01 AM (P6QsQ)

68

I'm not sure if it makes constitutional sense, especially for federalists (or those who say they're federalists) to seek a federal law here. The principle of "But this is important!" is offered by all people seeking federal law

 

Au contrair........allow me to make the conservative argument why it is o.k.

 

Start with the general proposition that Roe v. Wade was improperly decided, in otherwords, their is no constitutional right to an abortion and that each state is permitted to make its own laws regarding abortions (as there is no right to an abortion, that power is, by operation of the 10th Amendment, reserved to the state's).

 

How do we get from where we are to where we should be........well, you need 5 judges on the SCOTUS to reverse Roe......or, you take the leftist approach and implement incremental change.

 

When the left wants to implement a large, overburdening regulatory program, they generally do not go for it all in one swift swoop (the error Obama made with Obamacare,......and how his own narcassism will be his undoing). They do it be little steps at a time.  Thus, we too should reverse Roe v. Wade little steps at a time.

 

No abortions because of gender selection.

 

Then keep chipping away, excuse by excuse by excuse until we reach a point where most (if not all) of the permitted reasons for an abortion have been prohibited.

 

I'm not above playing the left's game on this issue.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at May 31, 2012 09:01 AM (OWjjx)

69
12 Abortion is legal... and the REASONS to get an abortion are not in the law...

Ahhh, and the immorality of the "pro-choice" position comes to the fore.

The law says you can kill a person, but the law can't say whether that homicide is murder or not.




Posted by: imp at May 31, 2012 09:01 AM (UaxA0)

70 58 This IS the road to go down. Sex selection abortion? It is repugnant and evil on every level.

I think you're missing the forest for the trees.

Is abortion okay? Then why is sex selective abortion somehow not?
Is abortion not okay? Then why does whether it's sex selective or not make it any more or less evil?


Allen,

I understand what your saying but this is too much.  Partial birth abortion? check. Sex selection abortion? check  Your child has Down's? check  Your child will have red hair and freckles? check

God Almighty what have we become as a nation and as a people? 

Posted by: mpfs at May 31, 2012 09:02 AM (iYbLN)

71

Sooo.... the Right, specificly Social Conservatives, are attempting to Legislate about the REASON people can do a Legal Act.

 

If'n you don't see the problem with that???  The PRECEDENT that sets?

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2012 09:02 AM (lZBBB)

72 Eh, that's kind of what they want. Abortions but just for approved reasons. It's like a lot of other positions, tax breaks but only for honorable industries, subsidies but only for specific people. It should be all or nothing, you just can't be a little evil.

Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at May 31, 2012 09:02 AM (tKFT6)

73

Even if this law never had a chance to pass, it was good to raise the issue to get the hypocrite liberals (sorry for the repetition)  on record opposing the ban.

This and the DOMA ruling are helpful to "get the red out" in November.

Posted by: Roy at May 31, 2012 09:02 AM (VndSC)

74

"Selective infanticide is cool in China."

 

Actually its not.  They outlawed ultrasound machines to prevent selective abortion.

Posted by: indigo child at May 31, 2012 09:02 AM (xXhWA)

75 It's just an non-viable female mass.

Posted by: irright at May 31, 2012 09:03 AM (RzLbD)

76 >>Is abortion okay? Then why is sex selective abortion somehow not?
Is abortion not okay? Then why does whether it's sex selective or not make it any more or less evil?


This.  This is why Obama doesn't oppose it.  Same reason he voted against prohibiting clinics from shoving babies born alive (after the abortionist fucked up) into dirty closets to die slowly and painfully and alone:

If you admit it's a baby, you have to admit they're all babies.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at May 31, 2012 09:04 AM (/kI1Q)

77

Is abortion okay? Then why is sex selective abortion somehow not?
Is abortion not okay? Then why does whether it's sex selective or not make it any more or less evil?

 

 

It doesn't, but this is a fight that can easily be won. You win this fight, then you move on to the next one. Each incremental victory gets you closer to your final goal. Sometimes you hit a home run, sometimes you hit singles and doubles, but all runs count the same.

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at May 31, 2012 09:04 AM (JxMoP)

78 Allen, think triage.  If the choice is between the life of the mother or the baby, the choice can be made.  All other instances would fall under the "right to life" preventing the abortion.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 31, 2012 09:04 AM (KwMW2)

79 I think the scene from the dictator where Cohen throws away the baby girl would be a perfect Obama joke.

Posted by: joeindc44 at May 31, 2012 09:04 AM (S9InG)

80 Posted by: Mallamutt

^^^
Full. Of. Win.
You can collect your winnings now. Can I offer you some ice tea and skittles?

Posted by: laceyunderalls at May 31, 2012 09:04 AM (pLTLS)

81 So yes, it's possible to 'split the middle'. And it's important to try to do so.

Go back and read my first few posts.

To state my position bullet-point style:

* Planned Parenthood is Evil.  Not they, those who accept their support, nor those who support them should receive one single dollar of my tax money.
* Abortion is evil generally, and should be opposed on those grounds.
* If you are not going to oppose abortion generally, you don't have any room to oppose sex-selective abortions.

So I have no problem with it getting exposure, and renewed calls for doing away with Roe v. Wade, and renewed calls to defund PP.  I do have a problem with a law which makes sex-selective abortion illegal while leaving all other kinds of abortion legal.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at May 31, 2012 09:04 AM (8y9MW)

82 Federal law?  How about invoking the interstate commerce clause on this one?  The Abortion  biz is a billion dollar industry. 

Posted by: mama winger at May 31, 2012 09:04 AM (P6QsQ)

83 >>Actually its not. They outlawed ultrasound machines to prevent selective abortion.

...they kill the baby girls at birth.  Big improvement.  O_O

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at May 31, 2012 09:05 AM (/kI1Q)

84
"Your Honor, I only aborted the fetus that happened to be female because I would have been seven months pregnant at the time of my prom, NOT because it was a girl."

"Okay, you're off the hook. Next case."

Now conservatives are going to write hate-crime laws? How do you legally prove someone's reasoning for doing such-and-such? This proposed law seems impractical at least. I'm with AllenG and Romeo13. Go all the way or not at all, and get out of the hate crimes business.

Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 31, 2012 09:05 AM (7P/17)

85 So we're for "hate crime" statutes now?

The act of murder gets one punishment, but depending on the reason for the murder there may be an additional penalty?

Good to know.

Posted by: Andy at May 31, 2012 09:05 AM (5Rurq)

86

Posted by: imp at May 31, 2012 02:01 PM (UaxA0)

 

Actualy, the Law does say... because if you, through violence, force a woman to loose a baby, it can be MURDER under the Law... its only when its her Choice to kill that child, with a Drs. help, that it is not murder.

 

Whole thing is a mess... but I'm saying don't make it worse, by setting a THOUGHT CRIME Precedent.

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2012 09:06 AM (lZBBB)

87 I don't know how liberals can look themselves in the mirror in the AM Some years ago an older liberal women I was discussing abortion with answered whatever my point was with I'm pro-choice and I don't want to think about it. That's how.

Posted by: toby928© at May 31, 2012 09:06 AM (NG097)

88

"How much further do we have to degrade life before people wake the hell up?"

 

You reeealllly don't want an answer to that question. . .

Posted by: Adolf "Godwin" Hitler at May 31, 2012 09:06 AM (zF6Iw)

89 >>How about invoking the interstate commerce clause on this one? The Abortion biz is a billion dollar industry.

And men and women cross state lines to obtain them in states with looser laws (notably statutory rapists who don't want their victims' parents to learn she was pregnant, since that's proof a crime was committed).

When Democrats and feminists claim they care about the "health" of women and girls they are flat out lying to your face.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at May 31, 2012 09:06 AM (/kI1Q)

90 The only thing about that, though, is there are legitimate reasons why an abortion might be necessary. They're incredibly rare, but they do happen. So even I, who oppose elective abortion at all, am willing to stipulate that different States might handle the "mother's life is in danger" problem differently. Even if those differences are slight, they shouldn't be ignored. --- A Personhood Amendment is the way to go. That allows for the states to dictate when the death of the fetus is a criminal act, just as they do with the death of post-natal people.

Posted by: Y-not at May 31, 2012 09:06 AM (5H6zj)

91 It's my body - my rights.  Except when it comes to 16 ounce Slurpees. 
Then the government gets to make the choice for me.

Does no one see the ridiculousness of liberalism?

Posted by: mama winger at May 31, 2012 09:07 AM (P6QsQ)

92 This is one issue for me that is not black and white.  This isn't about law to me its about life. 

Posted by: mpfs at May 31, 2012 09:07 AM (iYbLN)

93

New Yorkers can choose to abort their baby because they didn't want a girl, but they can't choose to purchase a 32-oz. Big Gulp?

Wow.

Makes perfect sense.

Posted by: Sam Adams at May 31, 2012 09:07 AM (ReOEZ)

94 It's my body - my rights. Except when it comes to 16 ounce Slurpees.
Then the government gets to make the choice for me.

Does no one see the ridiculousness of liberalism?
Posted by: mama winger


Don't forget the evil trans fats and french fries! 


Posted by: mpfs at May 31, 2012 09:08 AM (iYbLN)

95

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at May 31, 2012 02:04 PM (JxMoP)

 

But the Precedent you are setting... that you can make a legal act illegal BECAUSE of WHY they are donig it... is giving THAT battle to the Left...

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2012 09:09 AM (lZBBB)

96 * If you are not going to oppose abortion generally, you don't have any room to oppose sex-selective abortions.

^^^

I can't really add to this other than to say I take Mallamutt's approach. In theory I'm in agreement with you. Practically speaking in terms of legislative action however, I am not.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at May 31, 2012 09:09 AM (pLTLS)

97 God Almighty what have we become as a nation and as a people?

That question applied just as much when Roe v. Wade was decided.

It doesn't, but this is a fight that can easily be won. You win this fight, then you move on to the next one.

No.  That assumes you'll still have both the House and Senate to win the future arguments.  It also assumes that the Left then won't take the same tactic on something else.  Beware of giving Congress new weapons- eventually they'll be turned on you.

If the choice is between the life of the mother or the baby, the choice can be made.

But how, exactly, is that choice made?  Who gets to make the choice?  If the mother is single is she the only one who gets to decide, or does the baby-daddy get a say?  These (and more) are all questions that would have to be answered, and different states might answer them differently.  Thus it should rest with the States.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at May 31, 2012 09:09 AM (8y9MW)

98 To be fair, execution isn't war. If someone not only can't fight back, but is killed with no opportunity to cry out in protest, that is murder, not war.

Posted by: Hydrocarbon Liberation Front at May 31, 2012 09:10 AM (NVu2l)

99 >>Don't forget the evil trans fats and french fries!

Or lightbulbs that don't induce migraines.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at May 31, 2012 09:10 AM (/kI1Q)

100 @93 I should add that to me the death of the fetus via abortion should only be justifiable or non-criminal via the same arguments that are applied to the rest of us. So to me "self-defense" would apply for cases of saving the mother's life abortions. The arguments would probably arise about when those abortions may take place. In my view, the abortions should be done as late as possible (within the bounds of what is deemed safe for the mom) in order to allow the physicians to try to save the infant upon premature delivery. It would also probably limit the means used to abort fetuses, at least in some states.

Posted by: Y-not at May 31, 2012 09:10 AM (5H6zj)

101 A Personhood Amendment is the way to go.

That allows for the states to dictate when the death of the fetus is a criminal act, just as they do with the death of post-natal people.

Posted by: Y-not at May 31, 2012 02:06 PM (5H6zj)

---

Yes, I have long advocated that approach, or a legal definition of human life, based on brain activity, which would define a human life on both ends of the life spectrum.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 31, 2012 09:11 AM (KwMW2)

102 I welcome this argument because it does in fact highlight the issue that what we are talking about is the WORTH OF INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEINGS.


Posted by: mama winger at May 31, 2012 09:11 AM (P6QsQ)

103 A Personhood Amendment is the way to go.

That allows for the states to dictate when the death of the fetus is a criminal act, just as they do with the death of post-natal people.


I completely agree with that, actually.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at May 31, 2012 09:11 AM (8y9MW)

104

"And if homosexual tendencies have some genetic component, how long before a prenatal test for that is developed?"

 

It's meant as a joke, but it's too bad you couldn't fool the left into thinking that test already exists.  Then they'd seize up like Norman, having to choose between their holy sacrament of death and their Gaia-given right to be faaaabbulous.

 

Deathcage match between gays and baby killers - who will win?

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Clitoris at May 31, 2012 09:12 AM (zF6Iw)

105 But the Precedent you are setting... that you can make a legal act illegal BECAUSE of WHY they are donig it... is giving THAT battle to the Left...

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2012 02:09 PM (lZBBB)

 

You mean like the difference between self-defense and murder?

Posted by: Hydrocarbon Liberation Front at May 31, 2012 09:12 AM (NVu2l)

106 I can't help but think @2 Brother Cavil is correct. The issue is federalized as part of our Constitution (per SCOTUS). Federal funds go to the major abortion provider. Should we hobble ourselves on fighting against unjust laws...when those laws are cemented into our Constitution by the other side?

Posted by: Crispian at May 31, 2012 09:13 AM (+r6FI)

107

I was wondering about the constitutionality of this too.  I think it falls under Congress' powers under the 14th amendment, if you accept that the 14th amendment can apply to sex discrimination.

But this really would be a good idea to do at the state level anyway.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at May 31, 2012 09:14 AM (epBek)

108

No. That assumes you'll still have both the House and Senate to win the future arguments.

 

 

The battleground I am talking about is not the US Congress, it's the hearts and minds of the American people.

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at May 31, 2012 09:14 AM (JxMoP)

109 Interestingly, at least to me, the counselor in the second PP gender inspired abortionpalooza video from Live Action is not an untrained employee at the shop.  She is an LMSW, master in social work.  PP should have a little more trouble with this explanation.  I'm waiting.

Posted by: huerfano at May 31, 2012 09:14 AM (bAGA/)

110

But how, exactly, is that choice made? Who gets to make the choice?

---

I would gladly offer to choose the mother's life 100% of the time, if in return I got all of the convenience abortions eliminated.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 31, 2012 09:14 AM (KwMW2)

111 I should add that to me the death of the fetus via abortion should only be justifiable or non-criminal via the same arguments that are applied to the rest of us. So to me "self-defense" would apply for cases of saving the mother's life abortions.

-----

I agree.  I believe that the right to defend our lives is inherent both civilly and religiously.  Mothers should have the option to decide on terms of self defense.  Many will decide for the child, as I did when told that my pregnancy was endangering my life.  I proceeded with the pregnancy and survived, as did my child.  He is now serving in the United States Army.  I am very grateful to God for that.

Posted by: mama winger at May 31, 2012 09:14 AM (P6QsQ)

112

It is legal to buy Oxycontin if you have a prescription for it.

 

It is illegal to buy it without one because you just want to get high.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 31, 2012 09:15 AM (+DMSZ)

113 At ten weeks, an abortion stops a beating human heart. Isn't that a good definition to killing a human?

Posted by: Hydrocarbon Liberation Front at May 31, 2012 09:15 AM (NVu2l)

114 >>"And if homosexual tendencies have somegenetic component, how long before a prenatal test for that is developed?"

I keep seeing this snotty bumpersticker at the gym: "If a fetus is gay, will you still fight for it's right to life?"

I keep forgetting to bring a big post-it note to add:  "This person wants to kill gay babies."

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at May 31, 2012 09:15 AM (/kI1Q)

115

IÂ’m not going to take a position on this either way until I get an American Indian perspective.

Posted by: jwest at May 31, 2012 09:15 AM (ZDsRL)

116 According to the liberals the following should be enacted:

Stand your ground laws repealed.
No salt allowed.
No trans fats.
No food to be donated to homeless shelters.
No sweetened drinks over 160z.
No plastic bags.
No metallic balloons.


Allowed:
Abortion on demand for ANY reason.
Partial birth abortion.
Sex selection abortion.

Free contraception for everyone.


Posted by: mpfs at May 31, 2012 09:16 AM (iYbLN)

117 Then keep chipping away, excuse by excuse by excuse until we reach a point where most (if not all) of the permitted reasons for an abortion have been prohibited. Yep, that's the practical way to go. I have to say that I am disappointed there hasn't been more of a push to restrict how late abortions may be done. Medical technology is making younger and younger preemies viable. Seems to me viability was written into Roe v Wade, so it should be easy enough to challenge every abortion that occurs after the earliest documented preemie survivor's gestational date. A quick check suggests fetuses younger than 24 wks gestation have survived.

Posted by: Y-not at May 31, 2012 09:17 AM (5H6zj)

118

Posted by: Hydrocarbon Liberation Front at May 31, 2012 02:12 PM (NVu2l)

 

Soooo... wrong.... Self defense happens when some other persons ACTION puts you in danger.  They do take State of Mind into it, as the standard is that a reasonable person must believe that it would be a dangerous sitution... it is not Carte Blanche to say I was scared, so I shot...

 

You would be cedeing the whole Hate Speach and Hate Crime debate to the Left.... which is based on Thought, not Action, being Criminalized.... which I for one am not willing to cede...

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2012 09:17 AM (lZBBB)

119 Good for you, mama winger!

Posted by: Y-not at May 31, 2012 09:18 AM (5H6zj)

120 At ten weeks, an abortion stops a beating human heart. Isn't that a good definition to killing a human? Posted by: Hydrocarbon Liberation Front at May 31, 2012 02:15 PM

------

Actually, the baby's heart starts beating between 18 and 22 days after conception. This is often before the woman is even aware that she is pregnant, and before she notices her menstrual period is late.

Posted by: mama winger at May 31, 2012 09:18 AM (P6QsQ)

121 At ten weeks, an abortion stops a beating human heart. Isn't that a good definition to killing a human?

Posted by: Hydrocarbon Liberation Front at May 31, 2012 02:15 PM (NVu2l)

--

Alpha waves are also present about that time, and cease when brain death occurs.  If we want to define life, we probably need to cover both ends of the spectrum.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 31, 2012 09:18 AM (KwMW2)

122 Coming soon to your local convenience store:

Sorry you can't have a drink more than 16 ounces.

Abortion on demand for any reason?  Sure, just go through that door!

Posted by: mpfs at May 31, 2012 09:20 AM (iYbLN)

123 >>IÂ’m not going to take a position on this either way until I
get an American Indian perspective.

I'm kinda curious if the Wise Latina will have a different perspective than those dead white (and Oreo) males she works with.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at May 31, 2012 09:21 AM (/kI1Q)

124 Alpha waves are also present about that time, and cease when brain death occurs. If we want to define life, we probably need to cover both ends of the spectrum. I'm a little nervous about that one. I think we could bump into some religious issues at the back end. From a religious perspective, is what makes someone a person their brain or is it their soul? I am firmly against so-called mercy killing for religious reasons... which is not to say that you have to provide extraordinary means to keep someone alive. But I don't want anyone other than the person or their designated representative pulling plugs. It might be safer to go with a genetically-based definition of being human... but I admit being Catholic I consider zygotes to be human.

Posted by: Y-not at May 31, 2012 09:25 AM (5H6zj)

125 The battleground I am talking about is not the US Congress, it's the hearts and minds of the American people.

The Legislation isn't necessary.

I think the correct tactic in this is to broadcast far, wide, and loud that Planned Parenthood has admitted that abortion is the taking of a human life.  Only living things can have gender, after all, so that "fetus" or "clump of cells" has to be alive to have a gender.  More over, it has to be fairly complex- single celled organisms don't have a gender, either.

By pushing sex-selective abortions, they've admitted that's a human baby inside that woman/girl and that they're taking its life.  They've admitted to cold-blooded murder.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at May 31, 2012 09:25 AM (8y9MW)

126 By pushing sex-selective abortions, they've admitted that's a human baby inside that woman/girl and that they're taking its life. They've admitted to cold-blooded murder.

 

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at May 31, 2012 02:25 PM (8y9MW)

 

------------

 

Exactly, AllenG.

I've been waiting for someone to bring this up in the media. ....So far, I haven't seen anyone make this point.

 

If that 'mass of cells'  has  a  gender....then it is a person....and terminating it is a murder.

Posted by: wheatie at May 31, 2012 09:35 AM (YzQ1g)

127 Thought, not Action, being Criminalized.... which I for one am not willing to cede...

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2012 02:17 PM (lZBBB)

 

The action of killing the defenseless is criminal in all forms, except abortion, or state sanctioned execution.

Posted by: Hydrocarbon Liberation Front at May 31, 2012 09:36 AM (NVu2l)

128 Wow .. a real winner again, Ace...

".. that among these rights are LIFE ..."

Posted by: datsnotamore at May 31, 2012 09:48 AM (FeyKn)

129 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at May 31, 2012 09:51 AM (Xb3hu)

130 The argument isn't "but its important" but rather "the government is supposed to protect life." No person can be deprived of LIFE without due process... and all that.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 31, 2012 10:21 AM (r4wIV)

131 Its all evil. Use this to demonstrate just how evil. what next, kids that will be autistic, or have ADD or red hair, or may not be athletic. We shouldn't call for law to outlaw it, we should use it to show what the dems repulsive culture of death leads to.

Posted by: thunderb at May 31, 2012 10:23 AM (Dnbau)

132 No new law needed.  We are after all discussing murder.

Posted by: dogfish at May 31, 2012 10:31 AM (N2yhW)

133 Satan laughs

Posted by: Dagny at May 31, 2012 10:40 AM (9ybEY)

134 why can't we have uniform laws on an issue like this? it's not taxes we're talking about. i'm a little weirded out by conservatives who think "federalism!" has to be The #1 Priority across the board on absolutely every issue.

Posted by: Gangsta Santorum at May 31, 2012 10:58 AM (60GaT)

135 it's also the sign that you don't find this to be a particularly serious issue, as opposed to just a political one, with the Obamacare comparison

Posted by: Gangsta Santorum at May 31, 2012 10:58 AM (60GaT)

136 Second: assuming people really are calling for a law banning a specific type of infanticide, I agree with you. They're letting their emotions (killing babies just because they're girls is soooper bad) get in the way of logic.


I think it's more of a "lesser of two evils" choice.   You can peel off support for unrestricted abortion by appealing to the pet issues of normally unthinking liberals.   You're for women/gay rights?   What do you think about abortion specifically targeting girl/gay babies?  

I'd liken it to the lawfare waged against slavery leading up to the Civil War.   "No, our free state doesn't return fugitive slaves; and by the way, since there's no slavery in our state, that slave you brought in here is no longer property". 


But I do agree that it would best be returned to a state level decision.  That's where we decide the standard for murder/homicide and a myriad of other activities.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at May 31, 2012 11:11 AM (sGtp+)

137 To be fair, execution isn't war. If someone not only can't fight back, but is killed with no opportunity to cry out in protest, that is murder, not war. Posted by: Hydrocarbon Liberation Front at May 31, 2012 02:10 PM (NVu2l) Hey all, HLF, I am pro capital punishment. I think if you can think up a heinous murder-as, for example, those two fiends in Connecticut who robbed the doctor, raped his wife and daughter in front of him, and then killed them and burned their bodies-then you should pay with your life. You don't deserve to be kept alive, you should be rotting in a crate in the ground. Also, if you molest a child. Capital punishment. But I would be willing to give up capital punishment when the liberal freaks who scream about it are willing to give up abortion, except in extremely well documented cases of threat to the mother's health, rape or incest. Not just a wink and a nudge "threat to the mother's health." But I won't hold my breathe about it.

Posted by: moki at May 31, 2012 12:43 PM (dZmFh)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
143kb generated in CPU 0.08, elapsed 0.0969 seconds.
62 queries taking 0.0354 seconds, 324 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.