Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Prestor Jon wrote:

The Consitution does not begin and end with the literal words on the page.

Yeah? It is a living document, though it seem like you don't want it to be.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't clearly understand your point but naturally an abortion is different to a tattoo in that you can wait nine months to become old enough for a tattoo but you can't wait nine months to be old enough to have an abortion.

The UK and practically every other western nation sorted out abortion in the 1970s. Why have certain US states got such a problem with it?

If abortion is a minor elective medical procedure that is relatively safe and simple then why is it illegal for states to restrict it in the same manner they restrict other minor elective medical procedures that are relatively safe and simple?

Why can't a state like Texas restrict your constitional right to your person in regards to obtaining an abortion to the same extent that a state like New Jersey can restrict your consitutional right to keep and bear arms?

Constitutional rights are all equally important and equally protected so the same level of undue burden of restrictions should apply to all of them.

Because the effects of not having an abortion are much, much more expensive, life altering and potentially dangerous than the effects of not having a tattoo.

How so? You can legally and easily give up a baby the day it's born. You can't just give away a tattoo. You don't need your parent's permission to get an abortion but you do need your parents' permission to get a tattoo. If tattoos are less harmful than abortions why are they more restricted? If you have a right to your own person why can states prohibit minors from getting tattoos?

Perhaps you first should explain to us how having a baby and having a tattoo are identical, then we will try to explain to you how they are different.

 dogma wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

The Consitution does not begin and end with the literal words on the page.

Yeah? It is a living document, though it seem like you don't want it to be.

You are misquoting me. Those words that you have removed from context were posted by LordofHats. Are you trying to address LordofHats or me?

Prestor Jon wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Abortion violates the morality of several modern religions. The religious want to impose their morality on everyone, whether they want it or not.

Religion doesn't explain why it's legal for NJ to restrict my 2A rights to the point of imprisoning me for traveling to see family there with my lawfully owned guns stored in my luggage in my car. That seems like a pretty heavy undue burden on my constitional rights. If that's legal then why isn't it legal for Texas to impose extremely harsh restrictions on abortion access? My right to my own person isn't afforded any stronger constitutional protection than my right to keep and bear arms. There's not much legal consistency there.

I never said religion explains gun control restrictions in NJ. I can imagine much of the gun control constituency is religious and has religion motivations for limiting access to guns, but I don't know if it's true.

Abortion is much murkier than gun control an issue since abortion is not directly mentioned in the Constitution.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't clearly understand your point but naturally an abortion is different to a tattoo in that you can wait nine months to become old enough for a tattoo but you can't wait nine months to be old enough to have an abortion.

The UK and practically every other western nation sorted out abortion in the 1970s. Why have certain US states got such a problem with it?

If abortion is a minor elective medical procedure that is relatively safe and simple then why is it illegal for states to restrict it in the same manner they restrict other minor elective medical procedures that are relatively safe and simple?

Why can't a state like Texas restrict your constitional right to your person in regards to obtaining an abortion to the same extent that a state like New Jersey can restrict your consitutional right to keep and bear arms?

Constitutional rights are all equally important and equally protected so the same level of undue burden of restrictions should apply to all of them.

Compelling interest. The court have (seemingly) decided that there is a compelling interest to regulate firearms to that level, but not abortions. Now, whether you agree with that is a different issue entirely, but that's the reason.

And I'd disagree that you rights are all equal at a fundamental level. Voting and free speech rights are far more important for the continuation of a free nation than making quartering soldiers in private home and excessive fines. And I'd argue that the 2nd amendment no longer fills the purpose of keeping the us a free nation. It may have at one time, but the reality is that it does no longer. That's not to say that I wish to ban guns or anything, or even getting rid of the 2nd. I'd like more intelligent gun legislation, that actually stops people who shouldn't have access from getting guns, not just more gun legislation, or stupid stuff like making attachable grips or barrel shrouds illegal. I'd actually like to see more access in many areas, and think that (as silly as the idea of having to carry a gun around to defend yourself is to me), there should be access to bear arms, be it CC or open carry. Although no stupid stuff like the government not being able to ban unautharised guns on it's premisis, or carrying your AR-15s into chipotle.

Prestor Jon wrote:
How so? You can legally and easily give up a baby the day it's born. You can't just give away a tattoo. You don't need your parent's permission to get an abortion but you do need your parents' permission to get a tattoo. If tattoos are less harmful than abortions why are they more restricted? If you have a right to your own person why can states prohibit minors from getting tattoos?

You've convinced me.

I no longer have a problem with minors getting tattoos.

Prestor Jon wrote:


How so? You can legally and easily give up a baby the day it's born. You can't just give away a tattoo. You don't need your parent's permission to get an abortion but you do need your parents' permission to get a tattoo. If tattoos are less harmful than abortions why are they more restricted? If you have a right to your own person why can states prohibit minors from getting tattoos?

You can legally give it up but that won't help you if you suffer a miscarriage or other pregnancy problem which puts the mother at risk.

Tattoos are more restricted than abortions because they are a permanent choice (well, almost) whilst also not serving an actual medical purpose. Simple as that.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps you first should explain to us how having a baby and having a tattoo are identical, then we will try to explain to you how they are different.

It has been argued in this thread that abortions are safe, minor elective medical procedures and shouldn't be subject to heavy state restrictions because of that fact. I am asking the question that if abortions are minor and safe why is it wrong for a state to restrict them in a manner consistent with the restrictions placed on other safe, minor elective medical procedures? The constitutional right to you own person that protects your ability to get an abortion should also protect your right to get tattoos, nonsurgical cosmetic procedures and other safe, minor elective medical procedures yet it doesn't appear that it does since many other safe, minor elective medical procedures are more restricted by states than abortions.

All constitutional rights should have the same protection and be safe from the same degree of undue burden by the state. The same argument for less restriction of abortion by the state should apply to all other elective medical procedures. Either we all have more liberty from state restrictions based upon our constitional rights or the state should have the ability restrict all of our constitutional rights to the same degree. Some rights shouldn't be protected from state restrictions more than others and the degree of restriction imposed by the state should apply to all instances equally. That's what the law is supposed to do, treat everyone equally and protect all of our rights equally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


How so? You can legally and easily give up a baby the day it's born. You can't just give away a tattoo. You don't need your parent's permission to get an abortion but you do need your parents' permission to get a tattoo. If tattoos are less harmful than abortions why are they more restricted? If you have a right to your own person why can states prohibit minors from getting tattoos?

You can legally give it up but that won't help you if you suffer a miscarriage or other pregnancy problem which puts the mother at risk.

Tattoos are more restricted than abortions because they are a permanent choice (well, almost) whilst also not serving an actual medical purpose. Simple as that.

So you're arguing that the state can impose more restrictions on your right to do what you want with your own body if you want to put art on your body for no medical purpose than it can for safe elective medical procedures? If an abortion is a medical procedure that is routinely done for the health of the patient why doesn't it need parental consent like other minor medical procedures like tonsilectomies? If a medical procedure needs to be done to save the patient from death or harm a doctor doesn't need parental permission but when it's an elective procedure parental permission is required for a minor, except for abortion where a judge can grant permission instead. A judge can't grant permission for a minor to get an elective tattoo but a judge can grant permission for an elective abortion. Why the double standard? A woman has just as much of a right to choose to get a tattoo then she does to get an abortion.

Prestor Jon wrote:
It has been argued in this thread that abortions are safe, minor elective medical procedures and shouldn't be subject to heavy state restrictions because of that fact. I am asking the question that if abortions are minor and safe why is it wrong for a state to restrict them in a manner consistent with the restrictions placed on other safe, minor elective medical procedures?

Come on, you're a smart guy. You know the difference is that in other minor medical procedures, the regulation is roughly commensurate with the expected risk and an eye towards reasonably mitigating that risk, and with abortion, the restrictions are with an eye towards restricting access and as a way of backdoor outlawing them. That's why you don't see states requiring admitting privileges for colonoscopies or vasectomies.

 Ouze wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
How so? You can legally and easily give up a baby the day it's born. You can't just give away a tattoo. You don't need your parent's permission to get an abortion but you do need your parents' permission to get a tattoo. If tattoos are less harmful than abortions why are they more restricted? If you have a right to your own person why can states prohibit minors from getting tattoos?

You've convinced me.

I no longer have a problem with minors getting tattoos.

Good. Having consistent limits on how the state can restrict our constitutional rights is a good thing. Equality of legal protection is better than arbitrary decisions about which rights get what degree of protection depending on what cases get heard by SCotUS and when the decisions are made.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
It has been argued in this thread that abortions are safe, minor elective medical procedures and shouldn't be subject to heavy state restrictions because of that fact. I am asking the question that if abortions are minor and safe why is it wrong for a state to restrict them in a manner consistent with the restrictions placed on other safe, minor elective medical procedures?

Come on, you're a smart guy. You know the difference is that in other minor medical procedures, the regulation is roughly commensurate with the expected risk and an eye towards reasonably mitigating that risk, and with abortion, the restrictions are with an eye towards restricting access and as a way of backdoor outlawing them. That's why you don't see states requiring admitting privileges for colonoscopies or vasectomies.

Come on, you're the same guy that argues that states shouldn't be allowed to restrict gun rights to extreme degrees the same way some states (like Texas) want to restrict what you can choose to do with your own person/body. This is the same argument. If SCotUS says Texas can't restrict abortion than NJ shouldn't be able to restrict my gun rights to the degree that they do. We either have consistent constitutional protection of all our rights or we don't.

Prestor Jon wrote:
than arbitrary decisions about which rights get what degree of protection depending on what cases get heard by SCotUS and when the decisions are made.

I think we're circling back to "it sure would be better if Congress wasn't such a cesspool, so we didn't have to rely on those 9 unelected politicians in robes to pretend about precedent or not, so they can cast their partisan votes" discussion. If so, I agree.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Come on, you're the same guy that argues that states shouldn't be allowed to restrict gun rights to extreme degrees the same way some states (like Texas) want to restrict what you can choose to do with your own person/body. This is the same argument. If SCotUS says Texas can't restrict abortion than NJ shouldn't be able to restrict my gun rights to the degree that they do. We either have consistent constitutional protection of all our rights or we don't.

Except I agreed that NJ and NY's "bans in all but name" are totally unconstitutional! There is absolutely no disconnect here. I don't think there is a constitutional protection for concealed carry, but what those states have done is functionally remove the right to bear arms.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps you first should explain to us how having a baby and having a tattoo are identical, then we will try to explain to you how they are different.

It has been argued in this thread that abortions are safe, minor elective medical procedures and shouldn't be subject to heavy state restrictions because of that fact. I am asking the question that if abortions are minor and safe why is it wrong for a state to restrict them in a manner consistent with the restrictions placed on other safe, minor elective medical procedures?

You haven't answered the question.

 Ouze wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
than arbitrary decisions about which rights get what degree of protection depending on what cases get heard by SCotUS and when the decisions are made.

I think we're circling back to "it sure would be better if Congress wasn't such a cesspool, so we didn't have to rely on those 9 unelected politicians in robes to pretend about precedent or not, so they can cast their partisan votes" discussion. If so, I agree.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Come on, you're the same guy that argues that states shouldn't be allowed to restrict gun rights to extreme degrees the same way some states (like Texas) want to restrict what you can choose to do with your own person/body. This is the same argument. If SCotUS says Texas can't restrict abortion than NJ shouldn't be able to restrict my gun rights to the degree that they do. We either have consistent constitutional protection of all our rights or we don't.

Except I agreed that NJ and NY's "bans in all but title" are totally unconstitutional! There is absolutely no disconnect here.

I agree with no disconnect with us, I'm trying to point out to others the fallacy in valuing some rights more than others instead of championing more liberty for everyone across the board. People shouldn't tolerate excessive state restrictions on any of our rights. This train of posts from me started as a response to LordofHats about some minor disagreement about Thomas' dissenting opinion and just grew from there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps you first should explain to us how having a baby and having a tattoo are identical, then we will try to explain to you how they are different.

It has been argued in this thread that abortions are safe, minor elective medical procedures and shouldn't be subject to heavy state restrictions because of that fact. I am asking the question that if abortions are minor and safe why is it wrong for a state to restrict them in a manner consistent with the restrictions placed on other safe, minor elective medical procedures?

You haven't answered the question.

I thought I did. They're both safe, minor elective procedures that people are free to have done because we all have a constitutional right to our own person. A woman's right to choose to have a tattoo isn't somehow less protected or valid than a woman's right to have an abortion. Limits of the state to restrict on should apply to the other as well as a host of other options people should be free to choose to have done with their own body. Abortion isn't some special snowflake that gets extra constitutional protection. We either have constitionally protected rights or we don't.

on a side note, an anti-Trump, anti Wall claimer has built a wall around his property in Hawaii.

http://westhawaiitoday.com/news/local-news/some-kauai-residents-unhappy-about-wall-being-built-facebook-billionaire

Putting a wall up on your property is an equivalent to a continent stretching financial money pit?

 Eldarain wrote:
Putting a wall up on your property is an equivalent to a continent stretching financial money pit?

read the story, its worse, while a wall on the US border will help secure our borders a little more, all this wall does is block peoples views and interferes with the local environment.

Asterios wrote:
on a side note, an anti-Trump, anti Wall claimer has built a wall around his property in Hawaii.

And? Do you have a fence around your house?

Now I know you're trolling

 dogma wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

The Consitution does not begin and end with the literal words on the page.

Yeah? It is a living document, though it seem like you don't want it to be.

Simply stated: Living document doesn't mean that "since the times change, so the text means something different". The fact that the Constitution can be changed via the amendment process is by definition a living document.

Asterios wrote:
on a side note, an anti-Trump, anti Wall claimer has built a wall around his property in Hawaii.

http://westhawaiitoday.com/news/local-news/some-kauai-residents-unhappy-about-wall-being-built-facebook-billionaire

News flash: being against a multi-billion dollar construction boondoggle does not mean being against walls in places where they belong? I bet his house has walls as well! They probably even separate rooms!

Too much of a stretch.

The reason that there are laws that say a minor doesn't need a parent's permission to get an abortion is because there are parents that would harm their daughter if they found out she was pregnant.

A teen not being able to get a tatoo does not fall into the same category.

Plus abortions are actually safer than giving birth.

 skyth wrote:
The reason that there are laws that say a minor doesn't need a parent's permission to get an abortion is because there are parents that would harm their daughter if they found out she was pregnant.

A teen not being able to get a tatoo does not fall into the same category.

Plus abortions are actually safer than giving birth.

There are parents that might harm their child if he/she got a tattoo without permission so the state requires that minors obtain parental consent first. There are parents who might harm their child if she gets an abortion so judges can give consent instead of parents to circumvent parental consent. Why can't a judge give a minor permission to get a tattoo?

I'm not arguing that arbortion isn't safe. I'm arguing that why can the state place more restrictions on other procedures that are just as safe as abortion and that's ok but putting that same level of restriction on abortion is unconstitutional? A woman's right to choose is sacrosanct when it comes to abortion but not when it comes to choosing other procedures? That's inconsistent. Your ability to choose what you do with your body is equally protected regardless of the options you're choosing from.

You're really only serving to promote the idea that kids shouldn't need their parents permission to get a tattoo.

You've made a believer out of me, anyways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:
The reason that there are laws that say a minor doesn't need a parent's permission to get an abortion is because there are parents that would harm their daughter if they found out she was pregnant.

A teen not being able to get a tatoo does not fall into the same category.

Plus abortions are actually safer than giving birth.

I think we're meant to believe that there are no longer any parents who would ostracize or abuse their child if they learn the kid got pregnant.

Asterios wrote:
on a side note, an anti-Trump, anti Wall claimer has built a wall around his property in Hawaii.

http://westhawaiitoday.com/news/local-news/some-kauai-residents-unhappy-about-wall-being-built-facebook-billionaire

This kind of "side note" contributes nothing to any reasonable discussion, and is a symptom of the breakdown in public discourse.

If you want to talk with the adults, please stop this kind of nonsense.

Prestor Jon wrote:
I agree with no disconnect with us, I'm trying to point out to others the fallacy in valuing some rights more than others instead of championing more liberty for everyone across the board. People shouldn't tolerate excessive state restrictions on any of our rights. This train of posts from me started as a response to LordofHats about some minor disagreement about Thomas' dissenting opinion and just grew from there.

But your "fallacy" seems to be nothing more than the fact that people aren't going off on a tangent and talking about how awful gun control is in the middle of a discussion of abortion. You're making a whole lot of assumptions about everyone's positions on gun control based on nothing more than the fact that they aren't actively complaining about it.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

Asterios wrote:
on a side note, an anti-Trump, anti Wall claimer has built a wall around his property in Hawaii.

And? Do you have a fence around your house?

Now I know you're trolling

this is not a fence it is a wall around his whole property which has now obstructed views others have enjoyed long before he showed up. furthermore he condones Trump for wanting to build a wall, tell me why are you against the US building a wall?

If states were allowed to operate as intended this discussion would be a local one.

The fact that the Fed has basically become a totalitarian institution is the problem.

Most people completely misunderstand what the Constitution (specifically the Bill of Rights) is for. The Bill of Rights RESTRICT the government from infringing on your natural rights. You do not get your rights from the Constitution.

As abortion is not yet named in the Constitution then its a State issue.

Personally I believe in the right to chose up to the 3rd trimester. After that you are murdering a baby, not just scraping tissue out of a uterus. There is point that the fetus becomes a person, and killing it after that is murder.

 Peregrine wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
I agree with no disconnect with us, I'm trying to point out to others the fallacy in valuing some rights more than others instead of championing more liberty for everyone across the board. People shouldn't tolerate excessive state restrictions on any of our rights. This train of posts from me started as a response to LordofHats about some minor disagreement about Thomas' dissenting opinion and just grew from there.

But your "fallacy" seems to be nothing more than the fact that people aren't going off on a tangent and talking about how awful gun control is in the middle of a discussion of abortion. You're making a whole lot of assumptions about everyone's positions on gun control based on nothing more than the fact that they aren't actively complaining about it.

The only gun control positions I've brought up in my recent posts are the ones that have been taken up by state legislatures and SCotUS, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I'm making assumptions about individual forum members opinions.

Again, this whole "tangent" evolved from a few posts between me and LordofHats regarding the quote from Thomas' dissenting opinion that was posted by whembly. I brought up gun control because it's a clear example of some states restricting a constitional right to a much greater degree than other states which parallels what Texas was trying to do with the constitutional right to our own bodies. Constitutional rights exist and they are protected from unduly burdensome restrictions by states and since all constitutional rights are equally valid and important the degree to which the state can restrict them should also be equally enforced. That was the gist of Thomas' dissent, that the court shouldn't be inconsistent with it's protection of constitutional rights. Other members chimed in with their own posts and the tangent evolved.

@SickSix: One goal of the Bill of Rights was, indeed, to enumerate the rights of US citizens. Rights are an abstraction...they only exist because we define them for ourselves. If they are not codified in law, they are meaningless..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Preston John: since when were all rights equally important?

"Cry 'Havoc!', and let slip the dogs of war"


...and here's the final report broken down nicely in BEFORE/DURING/AFTER sections:
http://benghazi.house.gov/NewInfo

Some new snippets:

Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began. [pg. 141]

With Ambassador Stevens missing, the White House convened a roughly two-hour meeting at 7:30 PM, which resulted in action items focused on a YouTube video, and others containing the phrases “if any deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and “[w]ill not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli or Benghazi.” [pg. 115]

The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff typically would have participated in the White House meeting, but did not attend because he went home to host a dinner party for foreign dignitaries. [pg. 107]

A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times. [pg. 154]

None of the relevant military forces met their required deployment timelines. [pg. 150]

The Libyan forces that evacuated Americans from the CIA Annex to the Benghazi airport was not affiliated with any of the militias the CIA or State Department had developed a relationship with during the prior 18 months. Instead, it was comprised of former Qadhafi loyalists who the U.S. had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution. [pg. 144]

The report accuses longtime Hillary aide Cheryl Mills of undue influence over the Accountability Review Board, from the composition of the committee to access to information and witnesses...

In conclusion:

The Obama/Clinton policy in Libya was a disaster but for political purposes warnings were ignored and political ends were prioritized over security needs in the months leading up to the September 11 attacks.

During the attacks American lives could have been saved by the swift deployment of military assets, but political desires created a bureaucratic paralysis preventing key decisions from being made.

In the aftermath of the deadly terrorist attacks, the Obama/Clinton teams chose politics and deception rather than tell the American people the truth.

The absolute appalling display of incompetence here...

For giggles, the Democrats released their version of the report yesterday:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjq49C4ssvNAhWCbz4KHU6KD6gQFggtMAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdemocrats-benghazi.house.gov%2Fsites%2Fdemocrats.benghazi.house.gov%2Ffiles%2Fdocuments%2FReport_of_the_Benghazi_Select_Committee_Democratic_Members-Honoring_Courage_Improving_Security_and_Fighting_the_Exploitation_of_a_Tragedy.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEKLhim4HTX5i5vWmpKZY4hILzvAg&sig2=-yV4wgTzyRC9Dx8Ox5nRMw

That was a trainwreck.

But, the interesting flub here is that they released information on Sid Blumental cashing in from HRC's allies while acting as an informal advisor:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-benghazi-democrats-20160627-snap-story.html

If Trump were smart, he'd hammer this...

But, that requires a "smart" Trump.