Friar Bijou wrote:
The 5th amendment prohibits the loss of life without due process by the Federal government. The 14th amendment extends that protection to all persons with regard to state actions as well (you get that someone thought of this stuff over the last few hundred years, right?).
Given that police kill people all the time without due process that argument is kind of, well, weak.
You're pivoting from the point though. The question was about a state having a law making it legal to kill babies and whether the federal government should intervene and override that law, and more to the point whether the federal government has the authority to do so. The amendments I listed give the federal government that authority. The decisions of a police officer in the midst of an encounter with someone is an entirely different scenario that has zero bearing on that question.
Um... But "babies" are "persons", and thus protected from loss of life without due process.
Seems to me that if states get to regulate themselves that each state is free to decide if a fetus is a "person", no?
Sure. Why not? Again, I think we're arguing different things. You're arguing based on outcomes you agree or disagree with. I'm arguing about the legal process by which those outcomes are derived. Currently, there is no constitutional definition of "person". The closest we have is the Fourteenth amendment, which speaks of "persons born or naturalized within the United States ... are citizens of the United States", and thus establishes that someone is a person if they have been born. The law does not technically state if personhood begins prior to that point and only citizenship
occurs when a "person" is born. That's honestly a subject for the courts to manage though.
But yes, in the absence of clear federal law establishing this, then it falls to the states to do so legislatively. Of course, the court system can decide that said law isn't constitutional, but that's a matter of interpretation of the law, and not something clearly stated within. I'll point out again that you seem to be thinking that I have some personal stake in the outcome and am arguing a position for that reason. I'm not. I'm looking at what the law actually says and applying it. You might actually want to read the Roe v. Wade decision and gain some insights as to what the court thinks in terms of rights and fetuses though. You would find it educational I think.
ALSO: Given that you and your ilk do not belive that babies (once born) need any federal assistance for food, housing or medicine once their born, do you begin to comprehend why so many think your stance on abortion is such a total pile of hypocrisy? oooooooof course you don't.
I think you don't have a clue what my stance on abortion is. I think you're also still applying the outcome based logic rather than methodological based. You want babies to be fed, thus anything that prevents something which might feed babies is "anti-baby". You also view abortion as "anti-baby", thus you see hypocrisy on the part of a conservatives who opposes abortion but also opposes federal food stamp programs. You're mistake is in thinking that conservatives view this as being "for or against" a given group (babies in this case).
That's not how we look at things. I know for a fact I've explained this to you like a dozen times in the past, but it seems as though you still don't understand what I'm talking about. A conservative does not oppose federal funding for food stamp programs because he wants people to go hungry. He opposes it because he believes that's the wrong part of our system in which such things should be funded. Period. I get that you don't want to believe this and would rather paint everything in the context of a simplistic moral "for/against" narrative, but that's why you will eternally fail to understand the conservative mind.
In this case though, it was because the activity was taking place in a private residence, and the court ruled (correctly) that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is their own business.
But the interior of a woman body is not private? Interesting train of thought, there, Liberty-man.
Huh? You missed the forest there. Could you please show me where the fetus is consenting to being aborted? No? Then it's not as simple as two adults engaging in consensual activities in a private residence.
Which didn't happen, which is his his point. You're as blind as Bijou.
*EDIT: "Funding" meaning "raising taxes".
No. Funding means funding. As in paying for the thing you're doing. Which absolutely did happen. How the money used to pay for it is obtained is a whole different question. I do find it odd that you seem to think that the only way is to "raise taxes". We could have an entire discussion just on what that one phrase actually means though. So. If I don't raise the tax rates at all, but due to economic growth, the total amount of tax revenue increases, did I "raise taxes"? I got more money to pay for things (that's "funding" in case you're confused), but I didn't "raise taxes".
You do get that conservatives believe that low tax rates tend to increase economic growth and thus generate more tax revenue over time, right? It's that whole Laffer curve thing. So it's not hypocritical when conservatives do not raise tax rates even when increasing spending on something (as long as spending is moderate). It is, in fact, completely consistent with conservative economic theory. You're free to disagree with that theory, but you can't call someone a hypocrite for consistently following their own ideology.
The fact is that despite spending money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the total public debt of the US as a percentage of GDP stayed quite steady within a few percentage points for the first 7 years of Bush's administration (which, in case you weren't paying attention was when we were spending the most money on those wars). It was only because of the housing bubble crash that our debt started to skyrocket. And that got much much worse when Obama got into office and started spending money like a kid with his parents credit card.
The claim that the wars were "unfunded" is a complete and utter myth.
So rich local areas get great schools and poor ones get crap schools with no money sharing from the first to the second because...liberty? Is liberty the right answer?
Um... That's how it is right now. Go take a gander at the difference between a public school in the rich neighborhood of your town and one in the poor neighborhood. Huge difference, right? So all the big state and federal education programs and shuffling around of dollars hasn't corrected this problem at all. You know what might? Maybe if the principles in those poor neighborhoods had more decision making power? Maybe if so many of the dollars they receive didn't come with strings attached that require them to spend those dollars in ways that are completely absurd and counter productive for the specific conditions of his school, he could make better choices and make the school better? And maybe, if dollars weren't attached to such "one size fits all" programs and were instead attached to vouchers spent by the parents of the children attending the school, he'd have his hands untied and a massive incentive to actually make his school work. And maybe those parents would actually have some say in the decisions made at the school their children attend. You know, like how the parents in the wealthy areas do? Heaven forbid we actually even the playing field a bit here.
So yeah. Liberty. When you give people the power to make their own choices and then hold them responsible for those choices, they tend to actually make better choices than when they are forced to do what some other authority thinks is best. I know, this flies in the face of the liberal mindset, but oddly enough, it's actually true most of the time. Some people will make poor choices no matter what, but here's the funny thing. That group will tend to find ways to make poor choices no matter how much you try to force them otherwise. But along the way to attempting to use increasingly authoritarian methods to force positive outcomes, you totally hose over a much larger group of people.
Classic example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
If Bush Sr and his cronies had got it right on the first go-round it's unlikely the rest would have followed. Frankly I blame not him (Bush Sr) so much as the assholes advising him and the businessmen manipulating the situation...incidentally the same advisors and businessmen manipulating Bush Jr. Funny that last bit, eh?
I'm not sure what sort of conspiracy theory you're spinning now, but do you honestly think those factors and forces are any less present under any other administration and in the context of any other decision? Obsessing over "manipulation by big business" only in one aspect of government is myopic to the extreme. You don't honestly think the same sort of corrupt influence doesn't occur in say health care, or housing, or education, or frankly anything that government might be involved in? I would hope you can see that this is a constant in anything that government does. So its presence should not be a consideration when looking at what level of government should be doing what.
Specifically, in the context of a discussion about federal spending on the military versus federal spending on foodstamps or public education or health care, that factor is a wash. We should only consider the earlier point I made about whether said spending *must* be done at the federal level. And, as I mentioned earlier, maintaining a military is actually one of the few things that our federal government is required to do. Providing people with food, education, health care, or housing is *not*. Countering that with vague comments about possible business influence is meaningless to that question.
Oh. And I'll also point out that the biggest mistake Bush made with regard to Iraq was failing to win reelection. Had he done so, it's almost certain he would have continued the process with Iraq. It was Clinton taking office and not really caring about the middle east that put the whole thing on the back burner for 8 years. And I would argue that was the single largest contributing factor to the rise of Al Queda as a major terrorist organization and the 9/11 attacks specifically. You kinda can't blame Bush for failing to enforce the terms of a cease fire agreement which were not yet violated when he lost reelection. It was up to whomever won the 1992 election to decide what to do about Iraq's lack of compliance. And Bush didn't win that election. Clinton did. Thus, the blame for the resulting lack of action falls squarely on his shoulders.
To be fair, we could also talk about his decision not to topple Iraq at the time. But that's a whole topic of itself. Again though, the rise of OBL as an opponent of the US didn't come about because of that decision, but the later decision to keep troops in SA for a decade or so with no end in sight. There was plenty of time to have made a correction in our policy with regard to Iraq which would have averted 9/11. But that "time" occurred during Clinton's administration, not Bush's.