Welcome to Gaia! ::

The goal is not to make abortion temporarily illegal. It is to make it unnecessary so that elective abortion can be permanently illegal.


Martial law is for public emergencies. A surgical procedure that kills a legal non-person does not constitute as an emergency. In order to make it an emergency, a fetus would need to be defined as a person, legally. If that happened, abortion would most likely be made illegal (though that isn't the basis of RvW anyway).


First off...abortion isn't murder.
Secondly, I know I had my schooling back in 2003 so I might be out of date, but doesn't it make more sense to just, you know, appoint judges that go by the constitution instead of trying to add meaning to the constitution that isn't there?


You can't throw people in jail for doing things within the law, even if it becomes illegal. If it becomes illegal to own dogs, and everyone gets rid of their dogs, should they be arrested because they owned dogs before? How about smoking? If that becomes illegal and companies stop selling cigarettes, should they still be thrown in jail even though they never broke the law?


It'll be repealed with the next president. All of this stuff you're saying? If it's so easy to do, then what's the stop the next president from undoing it? Your measures won't ensure a permanent end to abortion, just a temporary one. It'll be back in 4 years, with even more support behind it because of how horribly the president abused his powers to make it illegal.

If he managed to do all this, it wouldn't last, as I said.

I'm no expert on the constitution. I had all of my education pre-2005. Someone who knows better than I do can correct me. But it won't work in the long run. What you're talking about is a dictatorship. Those don't last and the rulings made during dictatorships don't last. Not in places like America, where we're so used to a democratic republic.

Don't make me defend Bush. I don't want to do it. I don't like doing it. I don't like the man.

1. Dictatorship =/= bad. Some dictators can be bad or good.
2. It is a national emergency as long as millions of americans are dying. (aka those being aborted). It is also a national emergency as the government is corrupted to the point of allowing people to die with little to no restraint, thus requiring the government to be cleansed of those willing to sell thier souls for political gain.
3. Martial law is proscribed in the constitution exactly for this type of purpose. The founding fathers were very big on overthrowing even thier own corrupted government. See second amendment for more examples.
4. You are sadly mistaken if you think we can win when the rules are being written by the other side. When you're saying we have to go by the lettre of the law when they have illegally and unconstitutionally changed the law via the United States Supreme Court.
5. Let me clarify my position on ex post facto, now that I do see a violation of the constitution. Judges and lawmakers that have pushed for and legalised abortion should be tried for treason. Naral, Planned Parenthood members, and Abortion doctors that practiced before Roe. v. Wade should be imprisoned and tried for murder. PP, Naral and abortionists that did not start thier practice until after Roe v. Wade should be detained on a temporary basis.
6. I can't say whether the next president would repeal it or not. But I know its not an abuse of power.
7. Any authoritarian ruler, temporarily or otherwise, knows that you must gain public support before you do any action, or at least rally the public around your actions. Thats why I said he really can't do it now. He might have been able to pull it off though in 2002 or so.
8. Bush.... I have mixed feelings about...

1. Good Dictator - Augustus Caesar, Alexander the Great. Bad Dictator- Hitler, Stalin. Dictators can be good or bad.
2. So you don't believe that fetuses are living individuals in the United States? By your logic, if we could declare black people animals and kill them at will.
3. Martial law is there for emergencies, I consider the mass killing of millions an emergancy.
4. Bush? Haha maybe not, I don't think he really fits the role of leader... But definitely could be done.
They changed the law by clearly violating the bounds of power of the court. In doing so they set upon a series of events that would lead to the deaths of millions, no better than genocide. If not tried in US courts than in international courts. I don't necessarily think that we can't win if we don't do my proscribed plan, but if we wait for the bureacracy to finally put through the changes necessary, millions more will die, something that should not be every allowed.
5. I didn't say it was unconstitutional to deny people rights, I'm saying that the president can use his constitutional powers of martial law to declare it illegal.
6. Its not an abuse of power if its perscribed within the bounds of the constitution. Counterproductive? How could putting an immediate end to the killing of millions be counterproductive? It'll only lose support if your cards aren't played right, the public is more easily swayed than you might imagine.
7. Its a possiblity it could have. And if he couldn't it would have been due to lack of sufficient charisma and not neccesarily the proposition itself.

1. Dictators using their power to single-handedly take away the rights of millions of women (even if they're wrong rights) =/= good. Demolishing entire cities full of civilians =/= good dictator. Killing your political opponent and rising to power using very violent means =/= good dictator.

2. I think they're living individuals in the US. But they aren't considered American citizens. An illegal alien isn't an American, because even though that individual is in the US, that individual is not a citizen. Fetuses are not citizens. If they were, then things would be different. And no, by YOUR logic a single person can declare black people animals and kill them at will. By my logic, it would take a lot more than one person to decide that, and would involve repealing an amendment (possibly two, I can't quite remember). It wouldn't happen because a chunk of the voters are black, and will not support politicians who say they'll do this.

3. If abortion was killing millions of legal people and the local authorities were failing to keep order, then yes. But it's not. Right now, it's classified as a surgical procedure that kills no one. It's completely legal. It's not classified as an emergency.

4. They didn't violate the bounds of the power of the court. They decided that the constitution protects a woman's right to privacy and that extended to allowing abortion. They have the right to decide that. It can be repealed in our system. If it was binding forever without being subject to change throughout all eternity, then they would be violating the bounds of the power of court. Making judgments about what's protected by the constitution? How is that outside the bounds of the court?

5. If it's constitutional to deny people rights, then what was unconstitutional about what the judges did in making abortion legal? What did the doctors and abortion advocates acting within the boundries of the law do that was unconstitutional? Are we not allowed to have free speech anymore? Should I stop doing any work at all in case it becomes unconstitutional at a later date and I want to protect myself from being punished for doing something that wasn't a crime?

6. Counterproductive because it won't last. I'm sorry, but dictatorships don't last long. This one certainly wouldn't, because the country is split down the middle. If I'm pro-life (very much so) and would be appalled by this, how do you think the choicers would react? What about other lifers like me? Divine? Miranda? The people supporting it would be in the minority. It would permanently connect the term pro-life with the word "Totalitarian Dictatorship." THAT is how it would be counterproductive. Do you realize how many years that could set things back? Do you realize how many millions would die because it would take longer to protect the unborn due to the stigma attached to the pro-life movement by such actions?

7. No. It is not a possibility, because look at the outcry people had when Bush decided to go into Iraq? Yes, at first he was supported, but now? If people feel it's not justified to do this stuff to people who are terrorizing others, why the heck would they feel it's justified to do it to people who are just doing their jobs and protecting a constitutional right (and yes, right now abortion is considered a constitutional right)?

Seriously. I mean, just look at the Swastika. Once a symbol of good luck, it's now permanently connected with Nazi Germany and antisemitism in western minds.

.... lyme you do realize that most of your arguments are relying on pro-choice philosiphy right...?

Wow I can see you guys really enjoy the corruption that exists in our government..... strange.....

Anyway its not even my idea, I just strongly support it.