Foxfyre wrote:That's cool. You have your take on it. I have mine. But you missed the chance to point out that comparing property rights and abortion rights are also comparing apples and oranges. Property rights are tangible. Abortion rights are based on the value we place on human life, moral center, and judgment of when life begins. These are not so tangible and thus must be delegated to the dictates of conscience.
And I don't even have to be insulting to say so.
Well, you're insulting our intelligence if you think the hypocrisy of your wishy-washy arguments fail to escape our notice. You are being dishonest, pure and simple.
You revived this thread by pointing to legislation that was recently passed by the South Dakota House of Representatives. You dishonestly claimed that the issue of abortion is a STATE ISSUE--one that ought to be debated by the people in each state.
I'll repost your statements here:
Foxfyre wrote: "
This issue should have been left with the states all along and perhaps this will get it back to the states where it ought to be."
AND
Foxfyre wrote: "
I do think these laws should be debated and decided by the people who will live under them and the only logical way that can be done is locally, not federally."
I pointed out the monumental hypocrisy of your positions with respect to individual dominion and control over one's private property versus individual dominion and control over one's private person.
With respect to individual protection over one's own private property, you proclaim that the issue of what constitutes a public purpose for government takings ought to be a FEDERAL issue. You think the United States Supreme Court ought to protect individual private property interests against state takings for economic development. You think the United States Supreme Court ought to deprive the people of each state from debating the issue of what constitutes a public interest sufficient enough to justify a taking of private property.
With respect to individual protection over one's own private person (body and procreative decisions), you DISHONESTLY stated the issue ought to be a STATE issue. You accused the United States Supreme Court of depriving the people of each state of the right to debate the issue and to decide for themselves what laws they will live under. To support your accusation, you set forth an argument that is merely a red herring:
Foxfyre wrote:And this is what the debate should be. Does one have to draw their first breath independent of the mother before he or she has unalienable rights? If so, precisely what is the difference between the hour before birth and the moment immediately after? These are questions the militant pro-abortion people will not even allow to be debated. I don't expect the SD initiative to survive as it is currently written, but maybe just maybe it will allow us to at least have the debate.
I pointed out the dishonesty of your argument:
Your attempt to differentiate between the time immediately before birth when the fetus is viable and the time immediately after birth is without merit. Your argument is a red herring because the Supreme Court has NEVER deprived the people of each state from having the debate you described.
The Supreme Court ruled that the state has a compelling interest in protecting potential life the moment that life is viable. When the fetus is viable, the state may prohibit abortions except when an abortion necessary to save the life or health of the woman. Accordingly, the people of your state may indeed debate the issue and decide to prohibit the abortion of viable fetuses.
I also pointed out the following with respect to property rights:
You ought to note that the people of your state may also debate the issue of whether takings of private property for economic development will be allowed or prohibited.
Your criticism of both the Roe case and the Kelo case is without merit.
The people in every state may indeed debate the issues and decide for themselves whether or not to legally allow or prohibit the abortion of viable fetuses or whether or not to legally allow or prohibit takings for economic development.
When you attempt to explain why the issue of property rights ought to be a FEDERAL issue (wherein individuals ought to constitutionally protected against state deprivations of their private property interests to benefit the economic welfare of the many) and why the issue of abortion rights ought to be a STATE issue (wherein individuals--women--ought NOT be constitutionally protected against state deprivations of their private liberty interests to the benefit of the moral beliefs of the many), your dishonesty becomes even more apparent. Why? Because you use the SAME argument to support the two different outcomes:
You argue the following:
The issue of private property ought to be a FEDERAL issue (and NOT debated by the people in each state) because the right to own property is an UNALIENABLE right.
and then you argue:
The issue of abortion ought to be a STATE issue (and debated by the people in each state) because the right to life is an UNALIENABLE right.
Well? What is it? Is the protection of an unalienable right a federal constitutional issue or a state issue subject to majority rule? Make up your mind.
Your dishonest argument about comparing apples and oranges is hilarious.
First you said:
Foxfyre wrote:No hypocrisy at all Debra. Property rights were considered part and parcel of and were included in the inalienable rights the Founders wrote into the Constitution. So was the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Both are damn near impossible for the aborted don't you think?
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."--John Adams
You treated a fetus's "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness," as equal to a property owner's "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." You treated both as part and parcel of the "inalienable rights" the Founders wrote into the Constitution. You even provided a quote by one of our founding fathers that makes private property interests as SACRED as life itself.
And don't forget, when you were making your dishonest argument about the supreme court depriving the people of the states the right to debate the issue, you tipped your hand and referred to a fetus's right to life as an unalienable right.
Here, I'll post your words again:
Foxfyre wrote:And this is what the debate should be. Does one have to draw their first breath independent of the mother before he or she has unalienable rights? If so, precisely what is the difference between the hour before birth and the moment immediately after? These are questions the militant pro-abortion people will not even allow to be debated. I don't expect the SD initiative to survive as it is currently written, but maybe just maybe it will allow us to at least have the debate.
Accordingly, your wishy-washy attempt to deflect attention away from your true agenda and your attempt to differentiate liberty interests from property interest is HILARIOUS:
Foxfyre wrote:But you missed the chance to point out that comparing property rights and abortion rights are also comparing apples and oranges. Property rights are tangible. Abortion rights are based on the value we place on human life, moral center, and judgment of when life begins. These are not so tangible and thus must be delegated to the dictates of conscience.
ROFL
Just a moment ago, you did not refer to property rights as "tangible," you referred to them as unalienable and as SACRED as the laws of God. Your attempt to distinquish the two rights that YOU have identified as part and parcel of the inalienable rights the Founders wrote into the Constitution in order to place one of those rights under federal constitutional protection and another one of those rights at the mercy of the electorate in each state is untenable and dishonest.
If life begins at conception and the fetus is deemed a person entitled to the unalienable right to life protected against extinquishment, then any state law that allowed abortion would be an unconstitutional deprivation of life in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. THAT IS A FEDERAL ISSUE, not a STATE ISSUE as you dishonestly insist that it is. And, the Supreme Court has spoken: A fetus is not a person and, in case you have forgotten, economic development is a legitimate public interest. A fetus does not have an unalienable right to life any more than a property owner has an unalienable right to retain property against public takings for economic development.
