NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems that comedian Doug Stanhope was so moved by the plight of Sarah Palin's pregnant teenaged daughter that he is offering to financially help her move out and get an abortion.

http://www.savingbristol.com/

to stop her exercising her constitutional right to terminate the pregnancy.

Right? I can understand. Constitutional right? Try reading it sometime.

well isnt that nice of him.

and if he get any money for this what is he going to do with it when she tells him to mind his own business?

well isnt that nice of him.

and if he get any money for this what is he going to do with it when she tells him to mind his own business?

use the money to help other teens terminate unwanted pregnancies i believe... possibly with a fund named after the palin family... or sarah palin... or something.

How assinine. "All the free time and disposable income that young mothers never know." I'm sure the daughter of a BP executive and the potential Vice President of the United States will certainly struggle to make ends meet.

What a moron.

Right? I can understand. Constitutional right? Try reading it sometime.

ummm.....what?

ummm.....what?

Comedian-dude called abortion a constitutional right. CM disagrees.

What a moron.i would never call a 17 year old kid who makes a few bad descisions a moron.

If she really wants to have an abortion, but feels like she can't because of the pressure that's on her, I don't see how offering her money, or even the impersonal support of some comedian, is going make things any better.

Comedian-dude called abortion a constitutional right. CM disagrees.

No, it seems CM called it a "right" just not a "constitutional right". Which, as a concept, confuses the fuck out of me.

Somehow I think he's doing it for a laugh. Perhaps it's the fact that he's a comedian.

If she really wants to have an abortion, but feels like she can't because of the pressure that's on her, I don't see how offering her money, or even the impersonal support of some comedian, is going make things any better.

well with 25 grand she could afford to get her own place as well as terminate her pregnancy.

Somehow I think he's doing it for a laugh. Perhaps it's the fact that he's a comedian.
except that its not funny and it is unkind to try to publicize yourself on the misfortune of a 17 year old girl.

No, it seems CM called it a "right" just not a "constitutional right". Which, as a concept, confuses the fuck out of me.

Oh. That I don't get. I thought you couldn't figure out the grammar of his sentence. I know it took me three or four reads.

ummm.....what?

No, it seems CM called it a "right" just not a "constitutional right". Which, as a concept, confuses the fuck out of me.

The consitution does not guarentee the right to have an abortion. Or have a gay marriage. It is, however, still arguably a right. Did that clear things up a little?

Poor taste.

Poor taste.

And as I posted on Fols Paradise: Who cares?

except that its not funny and it is unkind to try to publicize yourself on the misfortune of a 17 year old girl.not if you are trying to help her...

The consitution does not guarentee the right to have an abortion.

You're wrong, actually, but whatever.

Or have a gay marriage.

In all likelihood wrong on this one as well.

It is, however, still arguably a right. Did that clear things up a little?

Not in the slightest, because if it is a right, but not a right found within the constitution, where does this right come from? What authority recognizes this right? From what source is it derived?

not if you are trying to help her...
bullshit.

he is trying to publicize himelf. he doesnt know bristol palin. he doesnt know her feelings about being pregnant. its none of his business and way out of bounds to use her to advance either his career or his politics.

And as I posted on Fols Paradise: Who cares?satan cares jim... he wants everyone to have as many choices as possible... and he approves of children disobeying their parents... you should be all the way behind this... well i guess exercising ultimate personal freedom you don't have to get behind anything... still satan would approve.

bullshit.

he is trying to publicize himelf. he doesnt know bristol palin. he doesnt know her feelings about being pregnant. its none of his business and way out of bounds to use her to advance either his career or his politics.

why? people contribute money to help people they don't know all the time. he's just trying give her more options.

why? people contribute money to help people they don't know all the time. he's just trying give her more options.
because she isnt asking for it.

You're wrong, actually, but whatever.


Quote the Constitution and show me.
In all likelihood wrong on this one as well.
See above.

Not in the slightest, because if it is a right, but not a right found within the constitution, where does this right come from?
State or local governments.
From what source is it derived?
?
What authority recognizes this right?
Like I said, state or local governments.

Quote the Constitution and show me.

Alright then.

No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Those should do nicely.

State or local governments.

I see, and these state and local governments may, or may not, allow for abortions and they may, or may not, differ in their application and allowance of those.

So exactly how is that a right, if said state and local governments can revoke at any time?

Are you sure you want want to go down this road with me, junior?

satan cares jim...

Perhaps.

he wants everyone to have as many choices as possible...

True, this is a Satanic Ideal.

and he approves of children disobeying their parents...

17 years old is not a child, let alone 17 years old and pregnant.

you should be all the way behind this...

If I cared I might be.

well i guess exercising ultimate personal freedom you don't have to get behind anything...

No, I don't.

still satan would approve.

Assuming for the moment that Satan existed, I am sure He wouldn't care either. Souls are dirt cheap these days, so whats two more?

because she isnt asking for it. gifts and offers of help don't require that someone ask for them, they only require that giver sees a need and makes an offer... besides how could bristol make a plea for help surrounded by republican shock troops and cristofascist goons, they'd probably kill her to improve their political stock if she tried...

Alright then.

CM got owned.

Assuming for the moment that Satan existed, I am sure He wouldn't care either. Souls are dirt cheap these days, so whats two more?
well i meant more in the jungian archetypal sense... i never thought you or other modern satanists were into the worship of an actually supernatural entity who is the coyote to jesus'
roadrunner.

How assinine. "All the free time and disposable income that young mothers never know." I'm sure the daughter of a BP executive and the potential Vice President of the United States will certainly struggle to make ends meet.
She would if she got kicked out of her house for having an abortion though.

Are you sure you want want to go down this road with me, junior?
I'm sure.
Alright then.





Those should do nicely.

without due process of law

I see, and these state and local governments may, or may not, allow for abortions and they may, or may not, differ in their application and allowance of those.

So exactly how is that a right, if said state and local governments can revoke at any time?

How can it be called a right, if the Federal government can revoke it at any time?
National Prohibition was accomplished by means of the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified January 16, 1919)
The Eighteenth Amendment was repealed later in 1933 with ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment, on December 5.

As you can see, they repealed an amendment. The Federal government could take away the first amendment, they'd just have to go through "Due process of law". Now, I'm not saying that they WOULD, I'm saying that they CAN.

CM got owned.

That's what you think.

How can it be called a right, if the Federal government can revoke it at any time?
Because for something to be a right it does not have to be immune from alteration or removal. If you think that that is the case, then I can only conclude that you don't think you have any of the rights mentioned in your constitution. If that is so, then why would you care what it says about anything?
That's what you think.
Yes. Yes it is.

Neo, this is getting uncomfortable, can I disclose your profession for the benefit of the readers?

Because for something to be a right it does not have to be immune from alteration or removal. If you think that that is the case, then I can only conclude that you don't think you have any of the rights mentioned in your constitution. If that is so, then why would you care what it says about anything?

*Sigh* I said that, because that's what Neo Art is saying. Look at this:
see, and these state and local governments may, or may not, allow for abortions and they may, or may not, differ in their application and allowance of those.

So exactly how is that a right, if said state and local governments can revoke at any time?

Neo, this is getting uncomfortable, can I disclose your profession for the benefit of the readers?

1. I know what he claims to be.

2. This is the internet. Anyone could be anything.

How can it be called a right, if the Federal government can revoke it at any time?


As you can see, they repealed an amendment. The Federal government could take away the first amendment, they'd just have to go through "Due process of law". Now, I'm not saying that they WOULD, I'm saying that they CAN.

1) the FEDERAL government? Do you actually know how a constitutional amendment gets repealed? How do you propose to have a conversation on the constitution when you don't even know how it works?

Here's a hint, the federal government doesn't repeal or add to the constitution

2) The problem with arguing the constitution with people who don't know anything about the constitution, is that they pick on certain terms that they think they know what it means, but don't.

"due process" doesn't mean what you think it means junior. But just to give you a chance to redeem yourself, do tell me, what is "substantive due process", in the context of constitutional analysis?

Neo, this is getting uncomfortable, can I disclose your profession for the benefit of the readers?
i will at least pretend to disbelieve you unless believing such a revelations is to my advantage... i assume everyone else will do much the same.

gifts and offers of help don't require that someone ask for them, they only require that giver sees a need and makes an offer... besides how could bristol make a plea for help surrounded by republican shock troops and cristofascist goons, they'd probably kill her to improve their political stock if she tried...
bullshit.

if you want to HELP someone, you dont publicize it all over the internet without talking to her first.

Because for something to be a right it does not have to be immune from alteration or removal. If you think that that is the case, then I can only conclude that you don't think you have any of the rights mentioned in your constitution. If that is so, then why would you care what it says about anything?

True, but it does, at the very least, have to be immune from capricious and arbitrary removal. The state and local governments don't really define "rights" other than in the limited sense of state constitutions (which don't apply to local governments).

Legislative acts don't really create rights, in the real sense, at least, not any right that sits on any firm foundation.

bullshit.

if you want to HELP someone, you dont publicize it all over the internet without talking to her first.

You do, if the point is publicity for yourself, or your cause, not actually helping anyone else at all.

1) the FEDERAL government? Do you actually know how a constitutional amendment gets repealed? How do you propose to have a conversation on the constitution when you don't even know how it works?

Here's a hint, the federal government doesn't repeal or add to the constitution

2) The problem with arguing the constitution with people who don't know anything about the constitution, is that they pick on certain terms that they think they know what it means, but don't.

"due process" doesn't mean what you think it means junior. But just to give you a chance to redeem yourself, do tell me, what is "substantive due process", in the context of constitutional analysis?
a quick wiki search often comes in handy right about now... possibly even a little cutting and pasting

True, but it does, at the very least, have to be immune from capricious and arbitrary removal.

Quite. And I suspect somehow that altering the US Constitution is not a terribly easy thing to do.

bullshit.

if you want to HELP someone, you dont publicize it all over the internet without talking to her first.

he could never get through the layers of goons and thugs that sheild her from all access to the real world... the internet is his only hope, his only chance to save her.

You do, if the point is publicity for yourself, or your cause, not actually helping anyone else at all.
yes you do if what you really want is to make a political point and/or to publicize yourself.

the biggest proof of that is that bristol palin is 5+ months pregnant. she is not going to have an abortion now even if she might have chosen one 4 months ago if it had been her free choice.

Alright then.
Does it define what a person is? Because otherwise both sides can use that bit to claim why abortion should be banned/allowed.

You do, if the point is publicity for yourself, or your cause, not actually helping anyone else at all. jim sometimes you are a very cynical fellow, isn't it possible mr. stanhope is doing this from the goodness of his heart to say bristol from a life of misery forced upon her for political and ideological reasons by her evil and overbearing christite parents?

Not in the slightest, because if it is a right, but not a right found within the constitution, where does this right come from? What authority recognizes this right? From what source is it derived?

Well obviously from the Consti- ohshi-!

Does it define what a person is? Because otherwise both sides can use that bit to claim why abortion should be banned/allowed.

Defined by historical context really. Which is the problem with constitutional interpretation. People like CM basically claim "SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS ABORTION!" Well, the words "abortion" are not in the constitution. but other words are, and when those words are read in the historical context in which they were written, a right to privacy easily becomes manifest.

1) the FEDERAL government? Do you actually know how a constitutional amendment gets repealed? How do you propose to have a conversation on the constitution when you don't even know how it works?

Here's a hint, the federal government doesn't repeal or add to the constitution

2) The problem with arguing the constitution with people who don't know anything about the constitution, is that they pick on certain terms that they think they know what it means, but don't.

"due process" doesn't mean what you think it means junior. But just to give you a chance to redeem yourself, do tell me, what is "substantive due process", in the context of constitutional analysis?
Oh... Right...

Fine, you were right, I was wrong. Happy?

I don't remember the exact wording, but it has to do with rights that have roots in American history, in which case it is considered a fundamental right, and then the Surpreme court decides whether or not the state has a compelling interest in messing with it.

Quite. And I suspect somehow that altering the US Constitution is not a terribly easy thing to do.

a majority vote in favor by 3/4 of the state legislatures.

Note I said the state, hence my incredulity at someone who would try to argue the points of the constitution, while arguing how the federal government can simply repeal it.

The federal government has no power to add to, or remove from, the constitution. Congress may propose amendments to be voted on by state legislatures, but that is not the only avenue.

jim sometimes you are a very cynical fellow, isn't it possible mr. stanhope is doing this from the goodness of his heart to say bristol from a life of misery forced upon her for political and ideological reasons by her evil and overbearing christite parents?

You say cynical, I say realistic. Either way, thanks.

As for someone doing something out of the goodness of their hearts: I say BS. No matter how you sugar coat it, or attempt to decieve even yourself, ALL acts are selfish acts. The fact that someone else may benefit from them is, at best, a side effect. When you do something for someone else, Altruism isn't your core motivation: the fact that you feel good about it is.


BTW, I am using the "your" collectively, not as a personal attack.

I don't remember the exact wording, but it has to do with rights that have roots in American history, in which case it is considered a fundamental right, and then the Surpreme court decides whether or not the state has a compelling interest in messing with it.

The phrase I think you are looking for is "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty", or perhaps "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition". See, when you discuss a topic, it helps to KNOW what you're talking about.

And as for rights "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition", perhaps like...I dunno...privacy? Or what about marriage? those seem pretty deeply rooted in our history, no?

Remember what Obama said, "Leave the families out of this". Or words to that effect.

That comedian made a joke in poor taste gentlemen. Notice that none of the women posters are laughing?

I got his point but I didn't think it was funny - and the best advice I can give:
"Don't go there!"

a majority vote in favor by 3/4 of the state legislatures.

Note I said the state, hence my incredulity at someone who would try to argue the points of the constitution, while arguing how the federal government can simply repeal it.

The federal government has no power to add to, or remove from, the constitution. Congress may propose amendments to be voted on by state legislatures, but that is not the only avenue.

there could be a coupe and the constitution annulled and a new one imposed at the barrel of the gun by federal troops.

there could be a coupe and the constitution annulled and a new one imposed at the barrel of the gun by federal troops.

or by Canadian troops. Or Russian troops. Or aliens. Or giant mutant badgers. I was restricting my point to the legal means, not means by force.

You say cynical, I say realistic. Either way, thanks.

As for someone doing something out of the goodness of their hearts: I say BS. No matter how you sugar coat it, or attempt to decieve even yourself, ALL acts are selfish acts. The fact that someone else may benefit from them is, at best, a side effect. When you do something for someone else, Altruism isn't your core motivation: the fact that you feel good about it is.


BTW, I am using the "your" collectively, not as a personal attack. jim you live in new york? for some reason i thought you lived in the mid south.

The phrase I think you are looking for is "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty", or perhaps "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition". See, when you discuss a topic, it helps to KNOW what you're talking about.

And as for rights "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition", perhaps like...I dunno...privacy? Or what about marriage? those seem pretty deeply rooted in our history, no?
True, but some people might argue that only heterosexual marriage is deeply rooted in our history.

I, however, must find a funny topic to lift my spirits. *Iz off*

or by Canadian troops. Or Russian troops. Or aliens. Or giant mutant badgers. I was restricting my point to the legal means, not means by force. i would maintain that giant mutant badgers can within the context of their own laws change the american constitution any time they want to so it wouldn't on some level be illegal or even extralegal for them to do so... luckily for us they seem to have very little interest such the matters.

well with 25 grand she could afford to get her own place as well as terminate her pregnancy.
But she's not not getting an abortion because she can't afford it, or because she has no choice but to live with her mom. If fear for the political repercussions for her mom and a desire to live up to the expectations of the Republican party are what're keeping her from getting surgery*, these still exist, even if you give her money and a new home.

*Not that either of these necessarily are her reasons

Defined by historical context really. Which is the problem with constitutional interpretation.
Quite.
People like CM basically claim "SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS ABORTION!" Well, the words "abortion" are not in the constitution. but other words are, and when those words are read in the historical context in which they were written, a right to privacy easily becomes manifest.
Aye well a right to privacy also kicks this comedian's whole campaign in the face, but there we go.

Remember what Obama said, "Leave the families out of this". Or words to that effect.

That comedian made a joke in poor taste gentlemen. Notice that none of the women posters are laughing?

I got his point but I didn't think it was funny - and the best advice I can give:
"Don't go there!" obama isn't the boss of me, to use your family to inhance your image or to prove your straight, show your patriotism or general good nature or to do whatever politician do with their families they makes them fair game. obama doesn't want to attack his opponents families for two main reasons.

1. to protect his own family from, similar attacks

2. to avoid the inevitable public backlash from doing so

neither of which consideration affects me much... or it would seem Mr. Stanhope.

True, but some people might argue that only heterosexual marriage is deeply rooted in our history.

Oh, certainly, they can. And in fact, I'd say that they'd probably be right. The due process clause is not a very good part of the constitution for arguing that same sex partners should have a right to get married, for that reason.

The other part of the 14th amendment, that tricky "equal protection" part, however, is.

But she's not not getting an abortion because she can't afford it, or because she has no choice but to live with her mom. If fear for the political repercussions for her mom and a desire to live up to the expectations of the Republican party are what're keeping her from getting surgery*, these still exist, even if you give her money and a new home.

*Not that either of these necessarily are her reasons
and $25k is not enough for financial independence.

It seems that comedian Doug Stanhope was so moved by the plight of Sarah Palin's pregnant teenaged daughter that he is offering to financially help her move out and get an abortion.

http://www.savingbristol.com/

MAN, that guy is just not funny.

There's presenting a repellant idea in a humorous way, and then there's just being a douchebag.

Fail.

and $25k is not enough for financial independence. it would be a start and he is asking for more donations.

it would be a start and he is asking for more donations.
He's a massive douche ;)

MAN, that guy is just not funny.

There's presenting a repellant idea in a humorous way, and then there's just being a douchebag.

Fail.

nope... huge victory

He's a massive douche ;) that's why he's worth making a thread about... if he was just some wussy little semidouche who would care.

nope... huge victory

Okay. How?

Okay. How?
cuz we are talking about it

Why doesn't he raise money for the child?

Of course, anyone who donates money for an abortion and yet would never give a dime to aid her or anyone else to raise their child is pretty messed up. It doesn't surprise me that there are people out there who are willing to pay to kill a child (and let's be honest, this pregnancy is already late enough to basically make the child's brain and nervous system fully developed) but not to raise one. Sort of like the Republicans who are pro-life but not willing to take care of the children after they're born.

A good troll nonetheless.

cuz we are talking about it

Yeah, so people will think he's a douchebag. The problem with trolling IRL is that it costs you money and might get your ass kicked.

However, I do have to admit it's one hell of a good troll. I approve of his actions but I don't approve of the people who seriously believe it's a good idea to raise money for an abortion but not to raise a child, or vice versa.

A good troll nonetheless. i posted it a couple of other places last night when i first saw it but i almost resisted the impulse to post the link here, but it was just too perfect... a little gemstone of malice... so shiny

i posted it a couple of other places last night when i fist say it but i almost resisted the impulse to post the link here, but it was just too perfect... a little gemstone of malice... so shiny

The more I think about it, the more I like it. It could fish up all the assholes from both sides of the abortion debate for all of us to see, not to mention pay for a nice amount of pot and booze for the Doug Stanhope Fund.

i would never call a 17 year old kid who makes a few bad descisions a moron.

Well, if the kid is left-leaning and you're Bill O'Reilly you call her a pinhead.

If she's the daughter of a prominent Republican candidate, you call her "a private matter that everyone should respect".

i will at least pretend to disbelieve you unless believing such a revelations is to my advantage... i assume everyone else will do much the same.

He's not an illusion. Disbelieving won't help. Armor class will, though. :D

he could never get through the layers of goons and thugs that sheild her from all access to the real world... the internet is his only hope, his only chance to save her.

Proof please.

You know, as much as I hate Sarah Palin, did it occure to this guy, whoever the hell he is, that she might actually want to keep the baby? Some people actually come to love their unwanted pregnancies, which tends to lessen the desire to suck them out and throw them in the garbage. If the girl wanted an abortion and was being prevented from having one, then I would more likely sympathise.

As it is, this is probably going to be used by Palin to score points against "The evil baby-killing Liberals". And anything that helps Palin score points between now and November is a bad thing in my book.

or by Canadian troops. Or Russian troops. Or aliens. Or giant mutant badgers. I was restricting my point to the legal means, not means by force.

I, for one, welcome our new giant mutant badger overlords.

me-> :hail: giant mutant badgers

But she's not not getting an abortion because she can't afford it, or because she has no choice but to live with her mom. If fear for the political repercussions for her mom and a desire to live up to the expectations of the Republican party are what're keeping her from getting surgery*, these still exist, even if you give her money and a new home.

*Not that either of these necessarily are her reasons

Or maybe she actually wants the child? Is that so hard to beleive?

God, how it pisses me off that some people are so determined to defend a woman's choice in this matter that they start acting like the desire to have an abortion is a natural feeling that everyone should want regardless of circumstances, as opposed to a nessisary right that should be available to those who need it.:rolleyes:

The consitution does not guarentee the right to have an abortion. Or have a gay marriage. It is, however, still arguably a right. Did that clear things up a little?

The Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to any kind of marriage.

Proof please. how would i possibly go about proving that statement even if it was true... produce documentation on the number and disposition of the goons, show a peer reviewed study showing that all other options aside from an internet appeal end in failure for an attempt to rescue bristol... come on, some things you have to take on faith.

Couldn't this guy think up another stunt?

Couldn't this guy think up another stunt?

Apparently not. Perhaps that lack of creativity is why I've never heard of this guy before today.

Apparently not. Perhaps that lack of creativity is why I've never heard of this guy before today.

Seconded, though there are so many people in America who call themselves comedians maybe I have seen him before.

Apparently not. Perhaps that lack of creativity is why I've never heard of this guy before today.
okay, i'll admit i only know about him because i have one friend who is a fan who put out a myspace bulletin about the site yesterday.

He's trying to go one better than Lenny Bruce - to push the boundaries of what constitutes good taste.
Also, Sara Palin is th egreat distraction of the campaign. "Humour" like this keeps her name circulating and could help get her elected.

he does have a few good quotes... my friend is a big fan of this one;

"Babies are like poems. They're beautiful to their creator, but to other people they're silly and f.cking irritating".

he does have a few good quotes... my friend is a big fan of this one;

"Babies are like poems. They're beautiful to their creator, but to other people they're silly and f.cking irritating".

I don't find it that good, but perhaps its a matter of taste.

how would i possibly go about proving that statement even if it was true... produce documentation on the number and disposition of the goons, show a peer reviewed study showing that all other options aside from an internet appeal end in failure for an attempt to rescue bristol... come on, some things you have to take on faith.

Proof that there ARE goons making her keep the baby would be nice. Also, proof that she doesn't want the baby would be nice.

I don't find it that good, but perhaps its a matter of taste.

No, you're right. It isn't that good.

Meh. Publicity stunts are what they are.

Somehow I think he's doing it for a laugh. Perhaps it's the fact that he's a comedian.

/threadwin Thus we bring you back to your scheduled boredom

CM got owned.

Well, 17 yr old kid vs. lawyer...who would've thought Neo would be right?

I didn't think it was very amusing.

In fact, I'm more amused by Sarah and Bristol Palin and the father of Bristol's baby who described himself on his Myspace page as 'a total fuckin' redneck' and the wonderful conversations that young man has probably had with GOP 'handlers' over when and where they'd let him out of whatever wooden crate they've confined him to. :p

No, you're right. It isn't that good.
is too... but i can't prove it :(

Proof that there ARE goons making her keep the baby would be nice. Also, proof that she doesn't want the baby would be nice.

well yeah that would kick ass.... but trying find evidence for something i just made up is difficult, even on the internet


okay her not wanting the baby was sorta implied by stanhope but the goons are mine...

but i'm sure she has handlers, they are like goons, but with more expensive suits... i'm not sure i can even prove she has handlers... meh tis the net, outrageous allegations don't require proof, unless the proof is just more allegation.

cuz we are talking about it

Uh...we were talking about Sarah and Bristol Palin well before some talentless crasshole decided to wallow into the mire.

Wow. This comedian is a total asshat. He should mind his own damn business.

7 pages and no Democrat has jumped up and down about how Chelsea Clinton was mauled by the Republicans. What's happened?

She's put up her credentials as a "soccer mum". Considering that she's basically only done any leadership in Elkshoot Alaska, she needed something. By virtually claiming raising a family while working as experience, and ascribing to the whole Christian Values, I'm one of you, blah, blah, blah, she brought her family in to it.

The fact that her 17 Year Old daughter, who, if she wasn't from a rich family, would be sucking from the welfare teat the republicans whinge so much about, is relevant. By an admittedly harsh standard, she has failed part of her duty as a mother. Considering she can't keep her 17 YO daughter in line, do you want her 1 blood clot away from the presidency?

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/UnNews:Sarah_Palin%27s_daughter%27s_unborn_child_is_pregnant . 'Nuff said.

Comedian Tells Joke; People Outraged.

But she's not not getting an abortion because she can't afford it, or because she has no choice but to live with her mom.
Why do you say that? Those sound like powerful reasons, but probably not her main reasons.

Originally Posted by Conserative Morality View Post
The consitution does not guarentee the right to have an abortion.
You're wrong, actually, but whatever.


Or have a gay marriage.
In all likelihood wrong on this one as well.


It is, however, still arguably a right. Did that clear things up a little?
Not in the slightest, because if it is a right, but not a right found within the constitution, where does this right come from? What authority recognizes this right? From what source is it derived?
Well, actually, the drafters of the U.S. Constitution adhered to the concept of Natural Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights) and the Constitution was designed, particularly the Bill of Rights, to protect those rights from government infringment. The Constitution does NOT guarrantee the right to an abortion. Rather, the Constitution has been interpreted as protecting a person's natural right of privacy from undue government infringment and the choice of whether to have an abortion has been determined to be a private decision and in that zone of privacy that the government may no infringe upon absent exigent circumstances. Likewise the Constitution does not guarrantee the right to a gay marriage. However, the Constitution, via the 14th Amendment, forbids discriminatory application of the law and as such, may require that if the legal privilege (not natural right) of marriage is extended to hetero couples, that it is a discriminatory practice to refuse the grant of that privilege to homosexual couples.

As to where do rights come from, that is a subject for philosphers. The founding fathers of the U.S. believed they derived from "natural law" ala the philosophical writings of John Locke, Immanuel Kant and Thomas Hobbes. Others assert that all rights are legal and the idea of "natural rights" is fallacious. Obviously, the law can grant rights, but if it can grant them, it can take them away. The U.S. was founded on the idea that some rights are natural and the government does not have the inherent right to take them away if it so chooses and that an attempt to do so is an affront to the people of the nation ruled by such a government and that sufficient denials of natural rights by a government give the people of that country the right and even obligation to overthrow that government.

The Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to any kind of marriage.

Uh. Yes, it does. It guarantees a right to marry. See Loving v. Virginia (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/1.html), 388 U.S. 1 (1967).

It is worth noting that the Court in Loving didn't simply hold that anti-miscegenation laws violated the Equal Protection Clause by discrimination on the basis of race, but also that they violated the Due Process Clause by denying a fundamental right.

It is more than arguable then that laws against same-sex marriage (1) violate the Due Process Clause by denying the fundamental right to marry and (2) violate the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating on the basis of gender.

Well, actually, the drafters of the U.S. Constitution adhered to the concept of Natural Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights) and the Constitution was designed, particularly the Bill of Rights, to protect those rights from government infringment. The Constitution does NOT guarrantee the right to an abortion. Rather, the Constitution has been interpreted as protecting a person's natural right of privacy from undue government infringment and the choice of whether to have an abortion has been determined to be a private decision and in that zone of privacy that the government may no infringe upon absent exigent circumstances. Likewise the Constitution does not guarrantee the right to a gay marriage. However, the Constitution, via the 14th Amendment, forbids discriminatory application of the law and as such, may require that if the legal privilege (not natural right) of marriage is extended to hetero couples, that it is a discriminatory practice to refuse the grant of that privilege to homosexual couples.

As to where do rights come from, that is a subject for philosphers. The founding fathers of the U.S. believed they derived from "natural law" ala the philosophical writings of John Locke, Immanuel Kant and Thomas Hobbes. Others assert that all rights are legal and the idea of "natural rights" is fallacious. Obviously, the law can grant rights, but if it can grant them, it can take them away. The U.S. was founded on the idea that some rights are natural and the government does not have the inherent right to take them away if it so chooses and that an attempt to do so is an affront to the people of the nation ruled by such a government and that sufficient denials of natural rights by a government give the people of that country the right and even obligation to overthrow that government.

Most of your analysis is both helpful and eloquent.

I would nit-pick with your assertions about abortion and marriage not being fundamental rights. As I noted above Loving disagrees with you regarding marriage: it is a fundamental right. Similarly, the Court's analysis in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=833), 505 U.S. 833 (1992) that a woman's decision whether to terminate her pregnancy is a protected liberty under the Due Process Clause.

Well, 17 yr old kid vs. lawyer...who would've thought Neo would be right?

Isn't CM 14?

The state and local governments don't really define "rights" other than in the limited sense of state constitutions (which don't apply to local governments).Since when?

Merrill v. Monticello (1891)
Hunter v. Pittsburgh (1907)

States are completely and totally supreme over local government. It's known as Dillon's Rule.

States are completely and totally supreme over local government. It's known as Dillon's Rule.

Sorry, I wasn’t clear in my wording. I meant in a discussion of whether state and local governments can create legal rights, states may be able to, through use of state constitutions.

Now while the constitution of the state most certainly does apply to the local governments within the state, what I was trying to say is, in a discussion of whether local governments can create (or recognize, depending on your philosophy) rights in any meaningful way, the existence of state constitutions is not relevant to that discussion, since the state constitution is a vehicle for the state, not local governments.

A state constitution applies to the local government, but the existence of a state constitution is not applicable in the analysis of whether LOCAL governments can create/recognize rights in a meaningful way.

Well, actually, the drafters of the U.S. Constitution adhered to the concept of Natural Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights) and the Constitution was designed, particularly the Bill of Rights, to protect those rights from government infringment. The Constitution does NOT guarrantee the right to an abortion. Rather, the Constitution has been interpreted as protecting a person's natural right of privacy from undue government infringment and the choice of whether to have an abortion has been determined to be a private decision and in that zone of privacy that the government may no infringe upon absent exigent circumstances.

True and fair enough. The political philosophy behind the bill of rights, and the theory of our constitution is quite interesting. However given the audience I was discussing with at the time, I chose to cut the analysis down to bare bones, rather than wax philosophical about the nature of rights, considering the argument of “it’s a natural right, but one the constitution doesn’t recognize” wasn’t where I thought he was going with the statement of “it’s a right, just not a constitutional right”.

In short, sometimes you have to dumb it down a bit. But from a technical perspective, yes you are quite correct


Likewise the Constitution does not guarrantee the right to a gay marriage. However, the Constitution, via the 14th Amendment, forbids discriminatory application of the law and as such, may require that if the legal privilege (not natural right) of marriage is extended to hetero couples, that it is a discriminatory practice to refuse the grant of that privilege to homosexual couples.

Actually Loving v. Virgina specifically stated that marriage is a fundamental right.

A state constitution applies to the local government, but the existence of a state constitution is not applicable in the analysis of whether LOCAL governments can create/recognize rights in a meaningful way.Ah, okay. I suspected there must be some confusion in meaning, since whatever interpretive disagreements we may sometimes have I don't ever recall an instance in which you were simply flat-out wrong about a point of American jurisprudence.

Glad we cleared that up. :)

Well obviously from the Consti- ohshi-!

http://catmas.com/images/2007/07/its-a-trap.jpg

or by Canadian troops. Or Russian troops. Or aliens. Or giant mutant badgers. I was restricting my point to the legal means, not means by force.

I'd keep my eye on the armored paratrooper bears, if'n I were you.

I, for one, welcome our new armored paratrooper bear overlords.

theres a sad attempt at being shocking and edgy.

he prides himself on his brand of cruel and unuausal humor.

cruel for those looking for a laugh, unusual he calls it humor.

he ought to call it "stool".

except that its not funny and it is unkind to try to publicize yourself on the misfortune of a 17 year old girl.

Also keep in mind that there are more acceptable ways to get rid of unplanned spawn. Bristol's mother is an enthousiast hunter, if I'm not mistaken. If the Palin girls would go on a hunting trip and an accident happens, that might do the trick as well. As long as you don't fuck up and do a "Cheney", it shouldn't be too difficult for situations to happen wherein a pregnancy is terminated without angering the evangelical constituency. Hell, it might even score a fair amount of sympathy votes! MISCARRIAGE FOR THE WIN!

Neo-Arts and Cat-Tribe, you are correct and I concede my error regarding Loving vs. Virginia and marriage as a fundamental right.

Cat-Tribe, I believe we are basically saying the same thing about abortion though, just using different words.