Supreme Court blocks Louisiana abortion law as John Roberts joins liberal justices in 5-4 ruling

[txradioguy]

Again, why do you reject the right to privacy?   Is it your view that Griswold was a usurpation of Connecticut's right to police the marital bedroom?

This is such a false argument these days.  You the rest of the Progressives/Liberals in D.C. and int he State Houses pick and choose when the whole "marital bedroom" thing is important and when it's not.  Every other thing in the bedroom that's regulated by the government at any level you don't seem to have a problem with...but HOW DARE YOU invade my "marital bedroom" when it comes to killing babies!

They hypocrisy by you and your ilk on "privacy" is staggering.

[sneakypete]

So you think the right to privacy is meaningless, and that there is nothing in the Constitution to deny the State from arbitrarily poking into your private business?   You sure don't sound like any kind of conservative I recognize!   

Remember that this all this privacy rights stuff started with the case of (I think it was) Connecticut's law banning the use of contraceptives.  Griswold,  I think it was.   Is that the sort of power you want to give the state - that a couple in the privacy of their bedroom can't practice birth control, if the religion-obsessed yahoos in the state legislature say they can't?   

@Jazzhead

Dat de trubil wid 'murika today. Deys jist too many peep-pulls out dare making up dey one minds bout stuff!

[sneakypete]

Well, OK then, brave Sir Robin,

But before you go, I am curious why you reject the natural right to privacy.   I'm trying to understand your mindset as a self-proclaimed "conservative".    Because you appear to favor the State's authority to police a marital bedroom.

@Jazzhead @Bigun

He is not a conservative going by the political definition. He is a devout Christian,and no matter how much they deny it in public,would be just fine living in a Christian Police State where everyone lived by the Bible or got punished.

[Smokin Joe]

@Bigun

I would pay cash money to hear you explain that to a woman who has been raped,or to the father of a 13 year old girl that has been raped.

You gonna tell me there have been 60,000,000 babies created as the result of children being raped?


Bullsh*t, pete. weak argument.

Killing babies gone full term because they are inconvenient is what this is about.

The next step is to go for the live ones on the outside, any age, just because they are inconvenient?

Maybe they'll start with the ones who have some adjudged defect. Or maybe they're too old to be productive (statistically speaking, of course).

Either way, selling this as women's health when half or more of the victims of the procedure (the ones who die if it is a 'success') are female, and the ones who are effed up over having murdered their won child are all female, just doesn't wash.

Like I said, more Americans have been slaughtered in their mothers because they were inconvenient than have been killed in all the wars this country has had combined. Makes you wonder if the guys who died defending America would approve.

[txradioguy]

Whether you like it or not,  both the right to keep and bear arms and the right to choose whether to reproduce are rights protected under the Constitution.   As such,  if the SCOTUS were to uphold a state law that effectively bans abortions,  it would also uphold a state law that effectively bans guns.   It is the task of a WISE Justice to understand that some rights should not be more equal than others, and that by allowing a state's arbitrary denial of a Constitutional right you disfavor, precedent has been set providing Dems with a roadmap to deny arbitrarily the right you favor.

You ducked the question.  There is clear language in the 2nd Amendment about the right to keep and bear arms.  You're tossing out a straw man there.

The question was and still is...where is the language written in the Constitution that guarantees the right to an abortion?

[Smokin Joe]

@Jazzhead @Bigun

He is not a conservative going by the political definition. He is a devout Christian,and no matter how much they deny it in public,would be just fine living in a Christian Police State where everyone lived by the Bible or got punished.

So, which rules would you throw out?

Not murdering?

Not stealing?

Not screwing someone else's wife (or someone else screwing yours)?

Not lying about what other people do (bearing false witness--perjury)?


What laws would you throw out that are found in the Bible, too?

[sneakypete]

You gonna tell me there have been 60,000,000 babies created as the result of children being raped?

Bullsh*t, pete. weak argument.

Killing babies gone full term because they are inconvenient is what this is about.

@Smokin Joe

IF that is the argument,I'm with ya on it. Seems to me that I have spent a life time listening to fundie Christians claiming life begins at erection though,and that using birth control amounts to murder.

 

[Bigun]

@Bigun

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to claim there is no mention of the right of privacy in the Bill of Rights?

BTW,it sure sounds like you not only think that,but approve of it. Do you?

@sneakypete

Damned right I do!  If it's there someone should be able to show it to me! To date, that hasn't happened! 

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe

IF that is the argument,I'm with ya on it. Seems to me that I have spent a life time listening to fundie Christians claiming life begins at erection though,and that using birth control amounts to murder.

It isn't life until fertilization. Stop that, there is no life to take. Once the DNA combines, you have something new, a unique being, just developing.

[Smokin Joe]

@sneakypete

Damned right I do!  If it's there someone should be able to show it to me! To date, that hasn't happened!

Well, there is and there isn't. The 4th enumerates

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

While that doesn't use the word "privacy", it doe include a lot of personal things, Anything else could be considered reserved under the Ninth Amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Considering the duties and powers of thee Federal Government were specific and limited, anything falling outside that is reserved to the States, and to the People. (10th Amendment)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Bigun]

Until someone can show me where murder is incorporated in the list of things the founders tasked the fed. gov with taking care of you lose!

Either the plain words of the Constitution have meaning or they don't.

[sneakypete]

It isn't life until fertilization. Stop that, there is no life to take. Once the DNA combines, you have something new, a unique being, just developing.

@Smokin Joe

Another way to say the same thing is "you have a POTENTIAL human being,just developing."

[sneakypete]

Until someone can show me where murder is incorporated in the list of things the founders tasked the fed. gov with taking care of you lose!

Either the plain words of the Constitution have meaning or they don't.

@Bigun

If you are that proud of your religious bigotry/viewpoint,you should just come right out and admit it without trying to weasel your way to a "win" by trying to misuse the Constitution.

Your mind is made up and closed to all reason,so why even pretend to be open to reason?

[Smokin Joe]

Until someone can show me where murder is incorporated in the list of things the founders tasked the fed. gov with taking care of you lose!

Either the plain words of the Constitution have meaning or they don't.

The protection of those accused of crimes, even capital crimes, are laid out. If we would not propose to deprive even a heinous criminal of their life without first finding them guilty of that crime, with the protections of the accused inherent in the Rights set forth in the Bill of Rights, what evidence is put forth that a child, within its mother's womb, as yet incapable of any crime, should be subject to Capital Punishment. Ironically, many of those who call for the summary judgement of death upon these innocents, would quail at the thought of executing even the most vicious duly convicted murderer.

Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Don't know where a baby falls in that, but it sure seems to me the Founders and other folks of that age held life dear.

Of the unalienable Rights we are endowed with by our Creator, Life was mentioned first, followed by Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That order indicates a primacy of that Right to Life, above all others, first and foremost, and without which all others are moot.

In the absence of evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a developing baby had committed some crime worthy of their execution, I can see no Constitutional protection for the practice of aborting the developing child at any stage of development, and decidedly none for the execution of a baby which had been born, be that done by commission or omission (of care).

[sneakypete]

Until someone can show me where murder is incorporated in the list of things the founders tasked the fed. gov with taking care of you lose!

Either the plain words of the Constitution have meaning or they don't.

@Bigun

Show me were the plain words of the Constitution say aborting a fetus is murder.

[sneakypete]

In the absence of evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a developing baby had committed some crime worthy of their execution, I can see no Constitutional protection for the practice of aborting the developing child at any stage of development, and decidedly none for the execution of a baby which had been born, be that done by commission or omission (of care).

@Smokin Joe

It's not a child until it is born.

[Bigun]

@Smokin Joe

It's not a child until it is born.

You can repeat that till hell freezes over but you will never make it true!

[txradioguy]

@Bigun

Show me were the plain words of the Constitution say aborting a fetus is murder.

Why do you insist on using Liberal/Progressive terms when referencing a baby?

[txradioguy]

@Smokin Joe

It's not a child until it is born.

That's such bullshit.  Only someone with out a conscience or who has never seen an ultrasound or heard a fetal heartbeat would try and say some stupid leftist Nancy Pelosi crap like that.

You should be ashamed of yourself for repeating that leftist dogma.

[sneakypete]

Why do you insist on using Liberal/Progressive terms when referencing a baby?

@txradioguy

"Fetus" is a MEDICAL AND LEGAL term.

Why do YOU insist on using an emotional/religious term? Would it be because if you didn't you have no argument and know it?

[sneakypete]

That's such bullshit.  Only someone with out a conscience or who has never seen an ultrasound or heard a fetal heartbeat would try and say some stupid leftist Nancy Pelosi crap like that.

You should be ashamed of yourself for repeating that leftist dogma.

@txradioguy

No,but YOU should be ashamed of yourself for trying to use deceit to establish your religious superstitions as law.

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy

"Fetus" is a MEDICAL AND LEGAL term.

Why do YOU insist on using an emotional/religious term? Would it be because if you didn't you have no argument and know it?

I use a human term Progressive Pete.  A HUMAN term for what is growing inside the womb.  It's cold term that the pro choice baby killers use so they don't have to face the cold reality of what they are doing and what they are justifying.

Quit trying to throw the red herring of religion into this with me.  This has nothing to do with religion...my belief in it or your mockery of it. 

You're just trying to deflect.

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy

No,but YOU should be ashamed of yourself for trying to use deceit to establish your religious superstitions as law.

You're really pathetic.  You know that Progressive Pete?

You're throwing your favorite straw man argument into this because you ain't got jack sh*t to stand on in defense of your support of a clearly 100% liberal cause.

You're advocating murder of a living breathing human being.  And you're using the Liberal/Progressive terms and talking points to try and justify it.

It's sick.

[sneakypete]

I use a human term Progressive Pete.  A HUMAN term for what is growing inside the womb.  It's cold term that the pro choice baby killers use so they don't have to face the cold reality of what they are doing and what they are justifying.

Quit trying to throw the red herring of religion into this with me.  This has nothing to do with religion...my belief in it or your mockery of it. 

You're just trying to deflect.

@txradioguy

HorseHillary! It is ALL about your religious conditioning.

BTW,your toenails grow and so does your hair. Have you named them all?

[TomSea]

Fetus, one can get into a debate about it's meaning, am I to just take it from a dictionary anyway? We know what it means, an unborn child.

In the English language, the word fetus is defined as: “a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth” [1].

This definition alone recognizes the fact that a fetus is a human. Even though this human is not yet fully developed, the preborn fetus is a living member of the human species.

It is also interesting to note that, in Latin, “fetus” means “little one,” referring to the relatively small size of the preborn baby.

http://www.whyprolife.com/fetus-words-have-meanings/

Then, in fairness, you have other sources but I always heard it meant "little one" and that sounds a bit the way Latin languages translate into English, bambino and so on.

Fetus:

noun

    declension: 4th declension
    gender: masculine

Definitions:

    brood/litter
    children (of a parent)
    offspring/young (animals)

http://latin-dictionary.net/search/latin/fetus