Author Topic: Tomi Lahren: Conservatives Who Go After Roe “Might as Well Spit on the Constitution”  (Read 8186 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Oceander

  • Guest
Your opinion, no one needs the high abortion rates of Maryland in Arkansas. Why do you want to force it on other people?

One can see, high abortion states, NY, California, Planned Parenthood's research arm even stopped giving out that info because there are such big differences. States should legislate, not have it forced on them.

Roe v . Wade doesn’t “force” abortion on anyone; it prevents the states from prohibiting it.  Whether an abortion happens then depends on the decisions made by the women involved. 

Offline endicom

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,115
So not only do you have zero regard for a woman as a human being, you feel the same way about your kids.

Good to know.


I'm making a point. A point of law. If the sperm donor has no say in the matter then the sperm donor has also no responsibilities. As a matter of law. Right?


Oceander

  • Guest
For so long as women have the option of abortion, no man should be liable for child support.



Nonsense.  Just because you don’t want to pay for the results of your wild oats doesn’t mean the rest of us have to. 

Oceander

  • Guest

I'm making a point. A point of law. If the sperm donor has no say in the matter then the sperm donor has also no responsibilities. As a matter of law. Right?



You’re not making a point of law, you’re stating your own opinion. 

Offline endicom

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,115
Nonsense.  Just because you don’t want to pay for the results of your wild oats doesn’t mean the rest of us have to.


Why would the rest of us have to?


Offline TomSea

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 40,515
  • Gender: Male
  • All deserve a trial if accused
Who knows?  Perhaps I do.  Perhaps what it indicates is a difference of opinion on what is a fundamental right, whether such rights exist independent of the express terms of the Constitution (although the Ninth Amendment makes it clear there are), and whether substantive due process exists to protect those rights from any interference by the State at all. 

I, for one, do not see a lot of difference between the process the Roe court used to apply substantive due process protection to the right to one’s body and the process the Supreme Court has used in any number of other cases to apply the limitations of the Bill of Rights to the states through substantive due process under the fourteenth amendment. 

In both cases, the Court relied on emanations and penumbras to reach the conclusions it did.  The concept “ordered liberty” which is the touchstone of much of the cases that impose the Bill of Rights on the states is just as much an emanation or penumbra as is the right to privacy articulated in Roe v. Wade.

Justice Blackmun wrote a memorandum that the way the Court's decision is interpreted is not the way he intended it. It was meant up to be between a doctor and a woman; and only in certain cases.

Also, again, the State should regulate it as they regulated marriage. Iowa should not have to have the same laws as California.

Oceander

  • Guest

Why would the rest of us have to?



Because your irresponsibility means that there is a much greater likelihood that the child will need welfare, which the taxpayers pay for. 

Offline endicom

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,115
You’re not making a point of law, you’re stating your own opinion.


How can a man be stuck with child support if the woman could have ended the pregnancy but chose not to?


Oceander

  • Guest
Justice Blackmun wrote a memorandum that the way the Court's decision is interpreted is not the way he intended it. It was meant up to be between a doctor and a woman; and only in certain cases.

Also, again, the State should regulate it as they regulated marriage. Iowa should not have to have the same laws as California.

Iowa doesn’t have to have the same laws as California.  It just cannot to past a certain point with whatever laws it does have. 

Offline endicom

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,115
Because your irresponsibility means that there is a much greater likelihood that the child will need welfare, which the taxpayers pay for.


This doesn't apply to me, I was thinking more of you.

Welfare? You're in favor of welfare?


Oceander

  • Guest

How can a man be stuck with child support if the woman could have ended the pregnancy but chose not to?



Because they both have an obligation to pay for the support of their offspring.  An equal obligation.

Just as the man had the exact same right to not have his body commandeered and used as an involuntary incubator for a nonviable fetus he didn’t want. 

Offline Frank Cannon

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 26,212
  • Gender: Male
Because they both have an obligation to pay for the support of their offspring.  An equal obligation.

Just as the man had the exact same right to not have his body commandeered and used as an involuntary incubator for a nonviable fetus he didn’t want.

So why are men not on the hook for the abortion fees?

Oceander

  • Guest

This doesn't apply to me, I was thinking more of you.

Welfare? You're in favor of welfare?



Whether I am or not, the general result of an irresponsible man impregnating a woman is an increase in the cost to the taxpayer. 

Why are you in favor of irresponsibility?

Oceander

  • Guest
So why are men not on the hook for the abortion fees?

Maybe they should be.  Take it up with your local legislature. 

Offline TomSea

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 40,515
  • Gender: Male
  • All deserve a trial if accused
Not to be off-topic but obviously, many say Evangelicals elected Trump, the way, Hispanics may have been pivotal in helping Obama into office.

Quote
Trump Elected President, Thanks to 4 in 5 White Evangelicals
Dramatic election ends with historic victory for Donald Trump.
KATE SHELLNUTT NOVEMBER 09, 2016

Exit polls suggest that “Never Trump” was never a likely outcome for white evangelical voters, who showed up to support President-elect Donald Trump at their highest margin since 2004.

Despite reservations expressed by many evangelical and Republican leaders, white born-again/evangelical Christians cast their ballots for the controversial real estate mogul-turned-politician at an 81 percent to 16 percent margin over Hillary Clinton.

Evangelicals of color—who represent 2 in 5 evangelicals, but aren’t segmented out in most national political polls—largely preferred Clinton leading up to the election. But she ultimately underperformed among Hispanics and African Americans compared to President Barack Obama before her.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2016/november/trump-elected-president-thanks-to-4-in-5-white-evangelicals.html

It needs to be mentioned, so also when folks use the hateful terminology of the Democratic party, Michael Moore left and so on. Revolting, despite the "Amen" corner.



There's even a book called this.

Dog whistle I guess.

Offline TomSea

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 40,515
  • Gender: Male
  • All deserve a trial if accused
Roe v . Wade doesn’t “force” abortion on anyone; it prevents the states from prohibiting it.  Whether an abortion happens then depends on the decisions made by the women involved.

It forces the same laws on everyone and plenty of legal scholars say it's nowhere in the Constitution, Scalia, Dershowitz.

Oceander

  • Guest
It forces the same laws on everyone and plenty of legal scholars say it's nowhere in the Constitution, Scalia, Dershowitz.

It does not force the same laws on everyone.  It sets limits to what those laws can do, but as long as those limits are respected, the laws themselves can differ.  What those laws cannot do is prohibit abortion before viability. 

I have no problem having a different view from what you say Dershowitz and Scalia have.

Beyond that, of course the word “abortion” isn’t in the Constitution, and neither is the word “privacy” however, the phrase “ordered liberty” isn’t in the Constitution either, but neither of those two gents have any problem for the most part imposing the Bill of Rights on the states on the basis of “ordered liberty” so perhaps it’s a policy issue with them.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2018, 03:11:42 PM by Oceander »

Offline musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 22,850
The larger point is that arguing the issue feeds right into the media-fed belief that the GOP wants to take away the woman's right to choose.

WTF is so hard for Republican strategists to understand about that.   Oh wait, it's not them.

Nope...it's a certain type of Conservative...the 'Taliban' of the Republican Party.

Don't like the analogy?  Leave women alone.

It is a distortion beyond belief that protecting the unborn (more than half of whom are women, btw) from butchery is related to the Taliban, which butchers women.

It's almost like you take the truth and deliberately turn it on its head to make a leftist point with no bearing in reality.

I'm going to repeat here what is TRUE.

Abortion is TERRIBLE for women.  It harms body and soul and leads to lifelong guilt that you have killed an innocent human being who is NOT your "own body."

The lies of the left are vile and reprehensible.

And anyone who defends abortion on the basis that it is for women is parroting pure evil.
Character still matters.  It always matters.

I wear a mask as an exercise in liberty and love for others.  To see it as an infringement of liberty is to entirely miss the point.  Be kind.

"Sometimes I think the Church would be better off if we would call a moratorium on activity for about six weeks and just wait on God to see what He is waiting to do for us. That's what they did before Pentecost."   - A. W. Tozer

Use the time God is giving us to seek His will and feel His presence.

Offline Right_in_Virginia

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 45,478
@Oceander 

Dershowitz and Scalia said that abortion is not in the constitution.

Does a right not exist if it isn't enumerated?
"January 20th 2017 will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again."  --  President Donald J. Trump

Offline musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 22,850
Whether I am or not, the general result of an irresponsible man impregnating a woman is an increase in the cost to the taxpayer. 

Why are you in favor of irresponsibility?

And once again, you show your utter and complete DISRESPECT for women in saying that they are not capable of being responsible for themselves.

Of all the people on this forum, you should be the last person who degrades women like this.
Character still matters.  It always matters.

I wear a mask as an exercise in liberty and love for others.  To see it as an infringement of liberty is to entirely miss the point.  Be kind.

"Sometimes I think the Church would be better off if we would call a moratorium on activity for about six weeks and just wait on God to see what He is waiting to do for us. That's what they did before Pentecost."   - A. W. Tozer

Use the time God is giving us to seek His will and feel His presence.

Oceander

  • Guest
Does a right not exist if it isn't enumerated?

Nope.   Ninth Amendment makes that clear.

Offline Right_in_Virginia

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 45,478
I'm going to repeat here what is TRUE.

Abortion is TERRIBLE for women.  It harms body and soul and leads to lifelong guilt that you have killed an innocent human being who is NOT your "own body." 

Are you saying this thesis is sufficient reason to deny a woman full and sovereign humanity in the eyes of the law? 

@musiclady
"January 20th 2017 will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again."  --  President Donald J. Trump

Offline DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 39,470
  • Gender: Male
  • "...and the winning number is...not yours!
It is a distortion beyond belief that protecting the unborn (more than half of whom are women, btw) from butchery is related to the Taliban, which butchers women.

It's almost like you take the truth and deliberately turn it on its head to make a leftist point with no bearing in reality.

I'm going to repeat here what is TRUE.

Abortion is TERRIBLE for women.  It harms body and soul and leads to lifelong guilt that you have killed an innocent human being who is NOT your "own body."

The lies of the left are vile and reprehensible.

And anyone who defends abortion on the basis that it is for women is parroting pure evil.

My use of 'Taliban' is limited to their penchant to want to impose their own version of Islam into the mainstream culture.

Personally, I'm pro life.  But, I'm smart enough to know that the dream of overturning RvW is a fantasy.



"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news.  With a pillow.  Until it stops moving."    - Iowahawk

When I say "...give me 5 minutes", it's 'basketball minutes and both teams still have all their timeouts!!

Offline Right_in_Virginia

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 45,478

I'm making a point. A point of law. If the sperm donor has no say in the matter then the sperm donor has also no responsibilities. As a matter of law. Right?

I have spent my adult life defending American men as people who ... with rare exception ... do not consider women property, including their reproductive systems.

The discussions here for the past few days have been a disturbing eye-opener on just how misguided my defense has been.

You may be trying to make a point, but it's not one of law.  At its essence yours is a point of who has ultimate control over the functions of a woman's body.

I feel so sad and so stupid for having defended the indefensible for so damn long.
"January 20th 2017 will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again."  --  President Donald J. Trump

Offline Frank Cannon

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 26,212
  • Gender: Male
I have spent my adult life defending American men as people who ... with rare exception ... do not consider women property, including their reproductive systems.

The discussions here for the past few days have been a disturbing eye-opener on just how misguided my defense has been.

You may be trying to make a point, but it's not one of law.  At its essence yours is a point of who has ultimate control over the functions of a woman's body.

I feel so sad and so stupid for having defended the indefensible for so damn long.

Oh for Christs sakes. Don't get hurt falling off your high horse.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf