Question for pro-lifers

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Would you support an amendment which did the following two things:

1-outlawed abortion except in cases of rape, incest and threat to the mother's life
2-banned all states and municipalities from passing any regulations on strip clubs

[Jake]

So they could have little kids dance there?  Sick bastard.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

OK, bans all restrictions except a minimum age of 18. I was obviously talking about stuff like serving alcohol, distance requirements on restrictions on how naked they can get.

[Ebowed]

Yes, I would support it, but preferably the rape and incest exceptions would be removed from the amendment.  One wrong act doesn't excuse another.

[A18]

No. But if Roe v. Wade was overturned, I would support a law that outlawed abortion and repealed/banned all such regulations on strip clubs.

I would support both of those laws separately, though.

[DanielX]

No. It's not a constitutional matter. That's why Roe v. Wade was so ed up - there's nothing in the constitution that even vaguely mentions abortion.

[Redefeatbush04]

No. It's not a constitutional matter. That's why Roe v. Wade was so f**cked up - there's nothing in the constitution that even vaguely mentions abortion.

^ what he said

States should decide whether or not abortion is legal

States should decide whether or not they want to regulate strip clubs

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No. It's not a constitutional matter. That's why Roe v. Wade was so f**cked up - there's nothing in the constitution that even vaguely mentions abortion.

That's why Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific was so  f**cked up - there's nothing in the constitution that even vaguely mentions that corporations should all all the rights of individuals, and more.

[A18]

No. It's not a constitutional matter. That's why Roe v. Wade was so f**cked up - there's nothing in the constitution that even vaguely mentions abortion.

That's why Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific was so  f**cked up - there's nothing in the constitution that even vaguely mentions that corporations should all all the rights of individuals, and more.

You whine about that ruling a lot, and yet, you never explain what specifically the case was.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No. It's not a constitutional matter. That's why Roe v. Wade was so f**cked up - there's nothing in the constitution that even vaguely mentions abortion.

That's why Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific was so  f**cked up - there's nothing in the constitution that even vaguely mentions that corporations should all all the rights of individuals, and more.

You whine about that ruling a lot, and yet, you never explain what specifically the case was.

I've said it before. It was the SCOTUS deciding that somehow the rights given by the 14th amendmen, which didn't seem to apply to blacks at the time, somehow applied to corporations.

That ruling was 9-0, and at least one (might have been more than one) of the justices also voted for Plessy vs. Ferguson. Basically that (those) justice(s) decided that the 14th amendment applies only to corporations and not to blacks.

[A18]

First of all, Plessy v. Ferguson did not say that the rights given by the 14th amendment did not apply to blacks. They ruled that separate but equal was constitutional, and of course, if things are truly equal, it is, though that necessity has since been disproven.

Now, with regard to corporations, all Wikipedia says is that it applied equal protection to corporations. If the ruling was that corporations have to have the same rights as people, then that was obviously ridiculous. But again, what was the background to the case?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

First of all, Plessy v. Ferguson did not say that the rights given by the 14th amendment did not apply to blacks. They ruled that separate but equal was constitutional, and of course, if things are truly equal, it is, though that necessity has since been disproven.

Now, with regard to corporations, all Wikipedia says is that it applied equal protection to corporations. If the ruling was that corporations have to have the same rights as people, then that was obviously ridiculous. But again, what was the background to the case?

Southern Pacific didn't want to pay some property taxes.  Here's the meat of the ruling:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That was entered in by the court reporter, and not the actual justices, so the ruling may have been more pro-corporation than they intended.

http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html

[Platypus]

what was the ratio decidendi?

[opebo]

I'm not 'pro-life', but I do think we need more abortion and more strip clubs and brothels - and no government regulation of such from you freedom-haters. 

[A18]

We need more slavery - and no government regulation of such from you freedom-haters.

[Erc]

If I remember my Constitutional Law correctly, jfern, the Court has swung strongly back against corporate personhood over the past hundred years (not that I see anything particularly wrong with the concept in the first place).  Southern Pacific has since been superseded by othere precedents.

[Ebowed]

I'm not 'pro-life', but I do think we need more abortion and more strip clubs and brothels - and no government regulation of such from you freedom-haters. 

Why do you want MORE abortion?

[The Duke]

No.  And its obvious that BRTD didn't fully think this question through, or he'd not have put up a proposal that allows the building of strip clubs in residential areas.  having no restrictions on strip clubs means that they would actually be given zoning rights that other companies would be denied, since this would exempt strip clubs from commercial zoning requirements.

[opebo]

I'm not 'pro-life', but I do think we need more abortion and more strip clubs and brothels - and no government regulation of such from you freedom-haters. 

Why do you want MORE abortion?

I mean more redily available.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No.  And its obvious that BRTD didn't fully think this question through, or he'd not have put up a proposal that allows the building of strip clubs in residential areas.  having no restrictions on strip clubs means that they would actually be given zoning rights that other companies would be denied, since this would exempt strip clubs from commercial zoning requirements.

That wouldn't bother me too much to be honest. It would be nice to have most of the ones in Minneapolis in an area where I don't have to worry about my parked car being vandalized.

[beowulf]

I would support part one about abortion, but I wouldn't want strip clubs to go witout regulation.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I would support part one about abortion, but I wouldn't want strip clubs to go witout regulation.

package deal. That's the whole point of this question.