The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: Wingnut on February 08, 2019, 04:57:17 am
-
Notorious RBG must be phoning it in from her coffin to get a 5-4 ruling.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-blocks-louisiana-abortion-law-1st-major-ruling-abortion-n968766 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-blocks-louisiana-abortion-law-1st-major-ruling-abortion-n968766)
-
Isn't this Roberts a gem. I want to be the first to say how awesome GW Bush is for nominating this piece of shit.
-
Isn't this Roberts a gem. I want to be the first to say how awesome GW Bush is for nominating this piece of shit.
The guy is a tool. A Rat tool.
-
Isn't this Roberts a gem. I want to be the first to say how awesome GW Bush is for nominating this piece of shit.
@Amb. Frank Cannon
What else did you expect from a member of Boy Jorge's homo love club?
-
@Amb. Frank Cannon
What else did you expect from a member of Boy Jorge's homo love club?
Well it could be worse. He could have nominated Harriet Myers......no. Wait. He did do that. Never mind.
-
The guy is a tool. A Rat tool.
He sure screwed the pooch on Obamacare. What a mess it made of health care. Prices rising ever since. It made health care ruinously unaffordable for the working middle class. *spit*
-
Roberts is a Conservative Judge not necessarily a political Conservative. When he was nominated the mantra of the right is that a Justice should not legislate from the bench.
Today that equation has changed and many on the right are fine with a the SC legislating from the bench as long as the decisions are "Conservative." Roberts believes, and his opinions reflect his view, that the Congress and not the SC should make law especially on social issues.
As CJ he has considerable power to influence the direction of the SC and I suspect he will disappoint political conservatives and liberals for another generation or two...and maybe at some point Congress will take the hint and begin do their job...... :shrug:
-
Mark Levin, rightfully, skewered John Roberts over this. Doofus Roberts. I believe I heard Kavanaugh came in on the correct side.
-
Isn't this Roberts a gem. I want to be the first to say how awesome GW Bush is for nominating this piece of shit.
Well, Roberts is the reason why I don't trust Trump's "conservative" justices. Roberts was sold as a conservative and he turned out to be anything but.
I also learned from the Roberts fiasco that "conservative" and "Republican" are not one and the same.
-
Today that equation has changed and many on the right are fine with a the SC legislating from the bench as long as the decisions are "Conservative." Roberts believes, and his opinions reflect his view, that the Congress and not the SC should make law especially on social issues.
And yet he issues a ruling blocking a duly legislated law.
The guy serves corporate interests, even if that corporation's Planned Parenthood. He's a Republican's Republican.
-
One way to look at the Constitutionality of a law like this is to pretend that the restriction instead applied to guns. Billed as "common sense safety", the LA law requires abortionists to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, notwithstanding the reality that almost all first trimester abortions do not require hospitalization. Pretend that's instead a "common sense public safety" rule intended to make it harder for gun stores to operate, say a rule that the gun store owner be strictly liable for the medical expenses of persons shot with the guns it sells. Most gun stores would be effectively forced to close.
Constitutional? I think you know the answer.
Pro-lifers would do better to enact laws that conform to the duality of interests set forth in Roe v. Wade. A woman must have a meaningful and effective right to choose. But the state can regulate or even ban the procedure following viability, since the woman will have had by that time up to four months to make her choice. Better, then, to pass laws banning abortion after 20 weeks. That fits within Roe v. Wade. But arbitrary procedures intended to shut down abortion clinics in the name of "safety", thereby reducing the entire State of Louisiana to having just 1 to 3 abortion clinics, effectively eviscerates the right to choose.
Just think if there were only 1 - 3 places in the State of Louisiana where you could buy a gun to protect your family!
-
And yet he issues a ruling blocking a duly legislated law.
The fact that a law is "duly legislated" doesn't make it Constitutional. The standard you propose would allow the left, were they to gain the power, to run roughshod over our rights.
-
One way to look at the Constitutionality of a law like this is to pretend that the restriction instead applied to guns. Billed as "common sense safety", the LA law requires abortionists to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, notwithstanding the reality that almost all first trimester abortions do not require hospitalization. Pretend that's instead a "common sense public safety" rule intended to make it harder for gun stores to operate, say a rule that the gun store owner be strictly liable for the medical expenses of persons shot with the guns it sells. Most gun stores would be effectively forced to close.
Constitutional? I think you know the answer.
Pro-lifers would do better to enact laws that conform to the duality of interests set forth in Roe v. Wade. A woman must have a meaningful and effective right to choose. But the state can regulate or even ban the procedure following viability, since the woman will have had by that time up to four months to make her choice. Better, then, to pass laws banning abortion after 20 weeks. That fits within Roe v. Wade. But arbitrary procedures intended to shut down abortion clinics in the name of "safety", thereby reducing the entire State of Louisiana to having just 1 to 3 abortion clinics, effectively eviscerates the right to choose.
Just think if there were only 1 - 3 places in the State of Louisiana where you could buy a gun to protect your family!
@Jazzhead
Amen,amen,and AMEN!
The "life begins at erection" crowd will never agree with this,though. It makes too much sense.
-
There are two possibilities.
1. Roberts is a weak Chief Justice who is so concerned about appearance and the false promise of legacy that he ends up voting in ways that he thinks history would want him to. He doesn't want "his" Court to be solidly right wing because he thinks people (present and future) will say bad things about him. IOW, he's a vain bleep.
2. He's compromised in some way and his cover is (1).
That's really it. The man has had too much experience with the legal world to really believe some of the things that he says (e.g. no such thing as a Trump or Obama judge).
-
Roberts believes, and his opinions reflect his view, that the Congress and not the SC should make law especially on social issues.
Sorry, but that doesn't work. By extension, that would result in a vote to allow this law to be implemented.
-
He sure screwed the pooch on Obamacare. What a mess it made of health care. Prices rising ever since. It made health care ruinously unaffordable for the working middle class. *spit*
I am sure his pooch is fine.
He broke with the Constitution in so many ways to rule the ACA "constitutional" he should have been removed from the bench.
-
The fact that a law is "duly legislated" doesn't make it Constitutional. The standard you propose would allow the left, were they to gain the power, to run roughshod over our rights.
That isn't his point. I'm sure he can defend himself, but it's quite obvious that he was pointing out the flaw in the argument made by the post he was responding to, not proposing his own standard.
-
One way to look at the Constitutionality of a law like this is to pretend that the restriction instead applied to guns. Billed as "common sense safety", the LA law requires abortionists to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, notwithstanding the reality that almost all first trimester abortions do not require hospitalization. Pretend that's instead a "common sense public safety" rule intended to make it harder for gun stores to operate, say a rule that the gun store owner be strictly liable for the medical expenses of persons shot with the guns it sells. Most gun stores would be effectively forced to close.
Constitutional? I think you know the answer.
Pro-lifers would do better to enact laws that conform to the duality of interests set forth in Roe v. Wade. A woman must have a meaningful and effective right to choose. But the state can regulate or even ban the procedure following viability, since the woman will have had by that time up to four months to make her choice. Better, then, to pass laws banning abortion after 20 weeks. That fits within Roe v. Wade. But arbitrary procedures intended to shut down abortion clinics in the name of "safety", thereby reducing the entire State of Louisiana to having just 1 to 3 abortion clinics, effectively eviscerates the right to choose.
Just think if there were only 1 - 3 places in the State of Louisiana where you could buy a gun to protect your family!
Mississippi, Missouri and other states already have only one clinic. You're way of thinking is why now, infanticide is part and parcel of the debate.
-
There are two possibilities.
1. Roberts is a weak Chief Justice who is so concerned about appearance and the false promise of legacy that he ends up voting in ways that he thinks history would want him to. He doesn't want "his" Court to be solidly right wing because he thinks people (present and future) will say bad things about him. IOW, he's a vain bleep.
2. He's compromised in some way and his cover is (1).
That's really it. The man has had too much experience with the legal world to really believe some of the things that he says (e.g. no such thing as a Trump or Obama judge).
What if he genuinely believes the LA law may be unConstitutional as an effective abrogation of a Constitutional right? If the State of Louisiana can effectively regulate abortion clinics out of existence on the pretense of "safety", what's to stop the State of New York to effectively ban commerce in guns using the same pretense?
One can either meaningfully exercise a Constitutional right or one cannot. What we need to decide for ourselves is whether a majority of the legislature can pass a law to impose the latter. I say that's a classic case of the tyranny of the majority, and what the courts allow the legislature to do to eviscerate the choice right will become precedent to allow a similar evisceration of your right to own a gun.
Perhaps Justice Roberts recognizes this.
-
Why are republicans such turncoats.
-
One way to look at the Constitutionality of a law like this is to pretend that the restriction instead applied to guns. Billed as "common sense safety", the LA law requires abortionists to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, notwithstanding the reality that almost all first trimester abortions do not require hospitalization. Pretend that's instead a "common sense public safety" rule intended to make it harder for gun stores to operate, say a rule that the gun store owner be strictly liable for the medical expenses of persons shot with the guns it sells. Most gun stores would be effectively forced to close....
You are comparing actions by the purchaser, as if the seller made them.
The doctor has to cover his own actions. Not the actions of his patient after he leaves the office.
-
One way to look at the Constitutionality of a law like this is to pretend that the restriction instead applied to guns. Billed as "common sense safety", the LA law requires abortionists to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, notwithstanding the reality that almost all first trimester abortions do not require hospitalization. Pretend that's instead a "common sense public safety" rule intended to make it harder for gun stores to operate, say a rule that the gun store owner be strictly liable for the medical expenses of persons shot with the guns it sells. Most gun stores would be effectively forced to close.
Constitutional? I think you know the answer.
Pro-lifers would do better to enact laws that conform to the duality of interests set forth in Roe v. Wade. A woman must have a meaningful and effective right to choose. But the state can regulate or even ban the procedure following viability, since the woman will have had by that time up to four months to make her choice. Better, then, to pass laws banning abortion after 20 weeks. That fits within Roe v. Wade. But arbitrary procedures intended to shut down abortion clinics in the name of "safety", thereby reducing the entire State of Louisiana to having just 1 to 3 abortion clinics, effectively eviscerates the right to choose.
Just think if there were only 1 - 3 places in the State of Louisiana where you could buy a gun to protect your family!
@Jazzhead
Can you show me the language in the Constitution that guarantees a right to an abortion? Or even privacy for that matter? I'll wait!
-
Pro-lifers should work for 20 week bills, how patronizing said by someone who has railed against Christians with bigoted language and might as well take his position as infanticide for how he's treated others. You really can make the same arguments for infanticide, it's sickening listening to this victory lap. Some states already have but one clinic but it's not surprising to know, once again, someone doesn't know what they are talking about.
-
Mississippi, Missouri and other states already have only one clinic. You're way of thinking is why now, infanticide is part and parcel of the debate.
Straw man. The states have always had the right to ban infanticide, as well as to ban abortion of viable fetuses. Partial birth abortion bans, for example, are not uncommon. The fact that Virginia has now, outrageously, banned the imposition of restrictions on late term abortions is, to sure, evidence of moral bankruptcy, but it is also a reflection of abortion politics. Pro-lifers are quite explicit in wanting to eviscerate a woman's Constitutional right to decide for herself whether to reproduce. Laws like Virginia's are tit for tat, countering that in states like Virginia and New York it is the viable unborn who are to be stripped of all rights.
-
I am sure his pooch is fine.
He broke with the Constitution in so many ways to rule the ACA "constitutional" he should have been removed from the bench.
IF Congress would do its damned job, even once, in this area we would be in a FAR better place now!
-
There are two possibilities.
1. Roberts is a weak Chief Justice who is so concerned about appearance and the false promise of legacy that he ends up voting in ways that he thinks history would want him to. He doesn't want "his" Court to be solidly right wing because he thinks people (present and future) will say bad things about him. IOW, he's a vain bleep.
2. He's compromised in some way and his cover is (1).
That's really it. The man has had too much experience with the legal world to really believe some of the things that he says (e.g. no such thing as a Trump or Obama judge).
@TIU
Hmmm,let's see if we can figure this out. He was nominated by that homo George Bush,he seems to have married the first girl he ever dated,and this was after law school,and he and his wife immediately adopted a pair of blonde-haired and blue-eyed children from Argentina so they could look like a family.
Hmmm,what could it be he has been hiding that has been held over his head,what COULD it be?
-
@Jazzhead
Can you show me the language in the Constitution that guarantees a right to an abortion? Or even privacy for that matter? I'll wait!
@Bigun
Sure. The guarantee of the pursuit of life,liberty,and freedom. You can have neither freedom nor liberty if you have no privacy.
-
Or is Planned Parenthood, such a big interest group, there could be that possibility as well.
-
@Bigun
Sure. The guarantee of the pursuit of life,liberty,and freedom. You can have neither freedom nor liberty if you have no privacy.
So how is allowing babies to be murdered protecting those rights? Inquiring minds and all that rot!
-
@Jazzhead
Can you show me the language in the Constitution that guarantees a right to an abortion? Or even privacy for that matter? I'll wait!
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.
-
So how is allowing babies to be murdered protecting those rights? Inquiring minds and all that rot!
@Bigun
It doesn't. WHERE does it say anywhere that it is legal to murder babies?
BTW,a fetus is NOT a baby. It is a POTENTIAL baby.
-
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.
Sure! And one can make a hell of a lot of decisions not to reproduce BEFORE another human life becomes involved!
Now how about answering the question I asked you!
-
Look at Kavanaugh, he was smeared, protested, it's really hard to get a justice through the process. I don't know how it was with Roberts but the whole thing is a tooth and nail battle. It kind of makes all decisions tainted because the Democrats do not vote on mere qualifications to the Court.
Democrats are not allowing the process to play out as our Founding Fathers anticipated and wanted.
-
@Bigun
Sure. The guarantee of the pursuit of life,liberty,and freedom. You can have neither freedom nor liberty if you have no privacy.
The whole point of our Republic is set forth in the Declaration - that government be instituted to ensure the rights of the people, not the other way around. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness represent the natural rights of the individual, and central to that is the idea of individual autonomy. Like you say, @sneakypete, individual autonomy cannot exist without the right to privacy.
-
@Bigun
It doesn't. WHERE does it say anywhere that it is legal to murder babies?
BTW,a fetus is NOT a baby. It is a POTENTIAL baby.
Right! That's why they are so busy harvesting their body parts!
Can a monkey have sex with a woman and produce a fetus?
-
Can a monkey have sex with a woman and produce a fetus?
Yes. And they become house democrats.
-
Sure! And one can make a hell of a lot of decisions not to reproduce BEFORE another human life becomes involved!
Spoken like a man. Just point and shoot, and leave the woman to deal with the problem.
During the first trimester, the choice whether to reproduce is solely that of the woman.
-
The whole point of our Republic is set forth in the Declaration - that government be instituted to ensure the rights of the people, not the other way around. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness represent the natural rights of the individual, and central to that is the idea of individual autonomy. Like you say, @sneakypete, individual autonomy cannot exist without the right to privacy.
Yet another punt avoiding the question! Which was @Jazzhead
Can you show me the language in the Constitution that guarantees a right to an abortion? Or even privacy for that matter? I'll wait!
-
Yes. And they become house democrats.
888high58888
-
Yes. And they become house democrats.
Or maybe Jazzheads!
-
Or maybe Jazzheads!
Proof of the infinite monkey theorem?
-
Yet another punt avoiding the question! Which was @Jazzhead
Can you show me the language in the Constitution that guarantees a right to an abortion? Or even privacy for that matter? I'll wait!
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?
-
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?
:boring: Answer the GD question or begone!
-
Answer the GD question or begone!
.
Article 3. Marbury v. Madison.
And if you don't accept that, then sit back like a good boy and let the State inventory your guns. After all, by your own admission you have no right to privacy.
-
.
Article 3. Marbury v. Madison.
Now sit back like a good boy and let the State inventory your guns. After all, you have no right to privacy.
Not gonna answer the question are you. Not surprised! The answer to my question is that neither the right to an Abortion or, for that matter, privacy is codified in the Constitution!
And BTW: Marbury vs Madison is yet more judicial usurpation!
I'll give you credit for one thing only! YOU are a sophist of the first order! buh bye
-
Well, Roberts is the reason why I don't trust Trump's "conservative" justices. Roberts was sold as a conservative and he turned out to be anything but.
I also learned from the Roberts fiasco that "conservative" and "Republican" are not one and the same.
Oh yeah? How did Cav vote on this?
BTW Roberts isn't even a GOPer so what's your point?
-
Oh yeah? How did Cav vote on this?
with the minority
-
with the minority
Seems like Cav isn't a W Bush appointee then.
-
Seems like Cav isn't a W Bush appointee then.
I wan't to know who voted for/inplace of Notorious RBG?
-
He broke with the Constitution in so many ways to rule the ACA "constitutional" he should have been removed from the bench.
@Smokin Joe
If not for that...then he should be removed for voting in the majority in Arizona v. United States.
-
Not gonna answer the question are you. Not surprised! The answer to my question is that neither the right to an Abortion or, for that matter, privacy is codified in the Constitution!
And BTW: Marbury vs Madison is yet more judicial usurpation!
I'll give you credit for one thing only! YOU are a sophist of the first order! buh bye
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.
-
@Smokin Joe
If not for that...then he should be removed for voting in the majority in Arizona v. United States.
It's the Constitution that provides for lifetime tenure. Don't you think it is violative of both the letter and spirit of that document to call for removal of a Justice just because he didn't vote the way you favor in a particular case?
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/51631905_2239038836158334_1043952325971935232_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_eui2=AeFkFxjiPnJUWS6gSSHHE5b1oq--SDvJS_b42dzESA_AJNKwWYnHtg7LGWaSCra93jMMPnRwJhYzxhED9SrSonfB-nZHgFyJkMp_uhBKTMQqog&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=0dc59d7d318e8dd38303899abc157704&oe=5CE734E3)
-
It's the Constitution that provides for lifetime tenure. Don't you think it is violative of both the letter and spirit of that document to call for removal of a Justice just because he didn't vote the way you favor in a particular case?
NO! I think they should be removed for violating their oath! I.E. To uphold the Constitution and not anything else!
-
NO! I think they should be removed for violating their oath! I.E. To uphold the Constitution and not anything else!
Roberts was part of a majority. So you are calling on all five to be removed? Is that how you see the Constitution as working?
What idiocy.
-
It's the Constitution that provides for lifetime tenure. Don't you think it is violative of both the letter and spirit of that document to call for removal of a Justice just because he didn't vote the way you favor in a particular case?
If he's clearly not voting within the guidelines of the Constitution...then proceeding need to begin for his or her removal.
Furthermore...idiotic rulings like the one about the Louisiana abortion law and Arizona v. United States are why there needs to be a Constitution amendment to end the lifetime appointments and put term limits on Federal Justices...to include the Supreme Court.
In the case of Arizona the state was merely trying to better enforce codified federal laws on immigration and Roberts voted in the majority to prevent that. How idiotic is that?
-
NO! I think they should be removed for violating their oath! I.E. To uphold the Constitution and not anything else!
Exactly.
-
Roberts was part of a majority. So you are calling on all five to be removed? Is that how you see the Constitution as working?
What idiocy.
When they find crap in penumbras, or foreign law, or just make it up out of whole cloth, you're damned right I do!
-
When they find crap in penumbras, or foreign law, or just make it up out of whole cloth, you're damned right I do!
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?
-
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?
Griswold was a usurpation of Connecticut's Tenth Amendment right to legislate medication sold within its state bounds.
-
Griswold was a usurpation of Connecticut's Tenth Amendment right to legislate medication sold within its state bounds.
@Jazzhead will never understand that the federal government is only empowered to act in17 specific areas. Those specifically delineated in Article I SECTION 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;-And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
-
Roberts is a lost cause. Not only is he consistently voting in favor of Democrat positions, he is also the main person behind covering for the fact that RBG is incapacitated. And he has the power to keep her position theoretically filled indefinitely to block out Trump. He will do this because with RBG gone the vote goes 5-4 to the Republicans. And Roberts will never allow that to happen.
-
Roberts is a lost cause. Not only is he consistently voting in favor of Democrat positions, he is also the main person behind covering for the fact that RBG is incapacitated. And he has the power to keep her position theoretically filled indefinitely to block out Trump. He will do this because with RBG gone the vote goes 5-4 to the Republicans. And Roberts will never allow that to happen.
I agree. Roberts is lost. Probably blackmailed and too scared to stand up. He should be removed. Such a shame.
-
I agree. Roberts is lost. Probably blackmailed and too scared to stand up. He should be removed. Such a shame.
Likely the same people who murdered Scalia have sent him a message.
-
This isn't a question of Republicans vs Democrats, although those Party alignments seem to be a predictive factor, more often than not. Party should be immaterial, irrelevant, moot.
It is a question of whether a ruling or piece of legislation is Constitutional or not.
Either the justices uphold the Constitution, as amended, or they do not.
In that context, case law may be a guide, but ultimately is irrelevant and insignificant compared to original intent as reflected in the letter of the law--in this case, the COnstitution. The latter is being ignored by half of the court, and often, one more.
Roberts' decisions, and those of the justices who voted to uphold Obamacare, through the most obscene contortions of jurisprudence, did not uphold the Constitution. Rewriting law in order to rule it Constitutional is not the purview of the SCOTUS, that duty is confined to the Congress. This was an egregious violation of their oaths of office.
Any who voted that abortion of an opinion to be Constitutional violated their oaths as well.
-
This isn't a question of Republicans vs Democrats, although those Party alignments seem to be a predictive factor, more often than not. Party should be immaterial, irrelevant, moot.
It is a question of whether a ruling or piece of legislation is Constitutional or not.
Either the justices uphold the Constitution, as amended, or they do not.
In that context, case law may be a guide, but ultimately is irrelevant and insignificant compared to original intent as reflected in the letter of the law--in this case, the COnstitution. The latter is being ignored by half of the court, and often, one more.
Roberts' decisions, and those of the justices who voted to uphold Obamacare, through the most obscene contortions of jurisprudence, did not uphold the Constitution. Rewriting law in order to rule it Constitutional is not the purview of the SCOTUS, that duty is confined to the Congress. This was an egregious violation of their oaths of office.
Any who voted that abortion of an opinion to be Constitutional violated their oaths as well.
:amen: and, as usual, very well said!
Congress is collectively violating their oaths as well when they fail to address this!
-
Wouldn't abortion fall under and outpatient procedure?
Aren't clinics/day hospitals who perform outpatient procedures required by law to have someone on staff who has admitting privileges, should something go wrong?
Why wouldn't an abortion provider be held under the same standard as any of these other places?
It's about women's "health" care, right?
At least, this is what we are being told it is about.
-
Wouldn't abortion fall under and outpatient procedure?
Aren't clinics/day hospitals who perform outpatient procedures required by law to have someone on staff who has admitting privileges, should something go wrong?
Why wouldn't an abortion provider be held under the same standard as any of these other places?
It's about women's "health" care, right?
At least, this is what we are being told it is about.
Women have died when these 'safe' procedures went awry, either directly from injury, or later from 'complications'.
I must note that in the 'ideal procedure' at least one human being is killed. **nononono*
-
The central issue here is whether or not the federal government has ANY jurisdiction in this matter at all. I say NO!
I cannot find anything in our Constitution that would grant it.
-
:amen: and, as usual, very well said!
Congress is collectively violating their oaths as well when they fail to address this!
Congress' oaths would be worth more written in longhand on toilet paper.
At least someone would get some utility of them.
When some don't even know the three branches of government, it is obvious they are oblivious to the nature and scope of their duties, and what's worse, they don't appear to care. They are the very sort of intellectually inbred oligarchy intoxicated on their power and self-importance the Founders sought to avoid.
-
Women have died when these 'safe' procedures went awry, either directly from injury, or later from 'complications'.
I must note that in the 'ideal procedure' at least one human being is killed. **nononono*
True, at least one.
I heard a statistic on twitter a few days ago from a pro-abortion doctor (her claim, not verified, as an Ob/Gyn), claiming 1 in 4 (25%) of women in the US have had abortions.
I replied that this number seemed awfully high.
The responses to me were typical, the US sucks in Sex Ed, the world is not family friendly, etc, blah, blah,.
One response was a bit striking.
It was that women were shamed into silence, and everyone knows someone, whether revealed or not, that has had an abortion.
Therefore, they were agreeing the 25% was an accurate number.
If that number is true, that's amazing, and sorrowful to me,
-
Right! That's why they are so busy harvesting their body parts!
Can a monkey have sex with a woman and produce a fetus?
@Bigun
Is a red bus faster than a blue bus,and which stops better than the green bus?
BTW,been shopping at Wal-Mart recently?
-
Sure! And one can make a hell of a lot of decisions not to reproduce BEFORE another human life becomes involved!
@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.
-
Spoken like a man. Just point and shoot, and leave the woman to deal with the problem.
During the first trimester, the choice whether to reproduce is solely that of the woman.
@Jazzhead
Unless the "woman" is a minor,and then it is the choice of her parents or guardians. A situation pretty much no one wants to find themselves ever facing.
-
Yet another punt avoiding the question! Which was @Jazzhead
Can you show me the language in the Constitution that guarantees a right to an abortion? Or even privacy for that matter? I'll wait!
@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?
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
@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.
-
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?
-
@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?
-
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
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
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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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?
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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!
-
@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?
-
@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.
-
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?
-
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
"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
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.
-
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?
-
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/ (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 (http://latin-dictionary.net/search/latin/fetus)
-
@txradioguy
HorseHillary! It is ALL about your religious conditioning.
What religious conditioning? Again your flailing there PP...you have to toss in your flaming straw man to avoid reality.
Oh and I'm lucky if I make it to church twice a year. But I get it that in your little twisted progressive mind that makes me some kind of spittle flinging bible thumping zealot.
Your hatred and bigotry won't let you see anything else. Your anti religious stance fits well with your progressive outlook on murdering an unborn child.
BTW,your toenails grow and so does your hair. Have you named them all?
Non Sequitur there Progressive Pete.
-
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.
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:
http://latin-dictionary.net/search/latin/fetus (http://latin-dictionary.net/search/latin/fetus)
@TomSea
Key words "DEVELOPING human form". In plain English,it means it is not a human yet.
-
@TomSea
Key words "DEVELOPING human form". In plain English,it means it is not a human yet.
Then what is it, an apple pie?
-
Then what is it, an apple pie?
A cancerous malignant growth no doubt.
-
Chief Judas Roberts strikes again.
-
@Smokin Joe
Another way to say the same thing is "you have a POTENTIAL human being,just developing."
If it isn't a human being, then what, pray tell, is it?
A cow? A duck? A rabid raccoon? One of Alec Badwin's gerbils?
It's a human being.
-
@TomSea
Key words "DEVELOPING human form". In plain English,it means it is not a human yet.
By that logic, no human is ever human. We develop through stages all our life.
So where do you draw the line? Suckling? Puberty? Twenties? Menopause? Senility? Is everyone else fair game?
Oh, wait, all you have to do is move the goalposts on who is considered 'human'.
The world has been there before, we fought it, and yet here it is here at home enshrined by misguided people as an alleged "Right". What people who practice genocide against themselves will survive?
-
@Smokin Joe
It's not a child until it is born.
Then tell me how someone who murders a pregnant woman, whose child does not survive, faces two counts of murder?
Can't have it both ways.
-
I worked as an RN in the operating room at a Catholic hospital and later at a surgery center. The Catholic Hospital did not perform abortions but did handle the death of a baby in utero and they did with respect for the life that ended.
The surgery center didn't perform abortions either but one day a doctor insisted on bringing in a fetal death at 14 weeks. Surgery centers do not have blood banks or an ICU. The staff was horrified that this procedure would be done in our facility. I had to assist or lose my job. The human heart starts to beat at three weeks and one day, and all organs are formed by eight weeks. Something went wrong with the pregnancy. The appearance was that of a baby. And it was too large to be delivered whole with the method used. It was my worst day in the OR. And if anything went wrong, there would be no way to transfuse the mother.
Abortion clinics have no access to the things needed in an emergency and this bill that the compromised Roberts blocked would have protected mothers.
-
I worked as an RN in the operating room at a Catholic hospital and later at a surgery center. The Catholic Hospital did not perform abortions but did handle the death of a baby in utero and they did with respect for the life that ended.
The surgery center didn't perform abortions either but one day a doctor insisted on bringing in a fetal death at 14 weeks. Surgery centers do not have blood banks or an ICU. The staff was horrified that this procedure would be done in our facility. I had to assist or lose my job. The human heart starts to beat at three weeks and one day, and all organs are formed by eight weeks. Something went wrong with the pregnancy. The appearance was that of a baby. And it was too large to be delivered whole with the method used. It was my worst day in the OR. And if anything went wrong, there would be no way to transfuse the mother.
Abortion clinics have no access to the things needed in an emergency and this bill that the compromised Roberts blocked would have protected mothers.
Interesting, thanks for the insight.
-
Interesting, thanks for the insight.
@TomSea
No problem. The left claims to worry about the mother yet don't want access to a nearby hospital if something goes wrong.
-
By that logic, no human is ever human. We develop through stages all our life.
So where do you draw the line? Suckling? Puberty? Twenties? Menopause? Senility? Is everyone else fair game?
Oh, wait, all you have to do is move the goalposts on who is considered 'human'.
The world has been there before, we fought it, and yet here it is here at home enshrined by misguided people as an alleged "Right". What people who practice genocide against themselves will survive?
You nailed it.
-
What if he genuinely believes the LA law may be unConstitutional as an effective abrogation of a Constitutional right? If the State of Louisiana can effectively regulate abortion clinics out of existence on the pretense of "safety"
The State of Louisiana can already regulate hospitals out of existence because of safety. They can also regulate factories, movie theaters, chemical plants, schools, and even your own house out of existence because of safety. Why is an abortion clinic any different?
-
Billed as "common sense safety", the LA law requires abortionists to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, notwithstanding the reality that almost all first trimester abortions do not require hospitalization.
There are instances that do require hospitalization - incidents where the uterus is perforated, or where uncontrolled hemorrhaging results. In those instances, a doctor will need admitting privileges to protect the life of a female patient who may not be conscious.
Pretend that's instead a "common sense public safety" rule intended to make it harder for gun stores to operate, say a rule that the gun store owner be strictly liable for the medical expenses of persons shot with the guns it sells.
I know of no medical procedure that takes place in a gun store. But if one did, the State would have every right to regulate it.
Constitutional? I think you know the answer.
Still waiting for you to show us what part of the Constitution denies a State the right to regulate medical clinics.
A woman must have a meaningful and effective right to choose.
Must have? Based on what, exactly?
Just think if there were only 1 - 3 places in the State of Louisiana where you could buy a gun to protect your family!
You obviously don't know squat about the State of Louisiana.
-
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.
I see the right to keep and bear arms written explicitly in Amendment II, but I can't find your right to abortion written anywhere. As for your silly "right to choose whether to reproduce" argument, it is clearly obvious that this right is granted to women, yet denied to men. Thus it violates equal protection, and thus violates the Constitution. Maybe when men are granted abortion rights as their choice whether to reproduced, then maybe your point can be taken seriously. But for now, there is absolutely positively nothing Constitutional about abortion. Not that this has anything to do with it. This case is purely about whether the State of Louisiana has a right to regulate abortion clinics. And per the Constitution, they do.
-
Isn't this Roberts a gem. I want to be the first to say how awesome GW Bush is for nominating this piece of shit.
W liked him so much he nominated him twice. Once for SC, then before confirmation hearings, did it again for CJ of SC.
-
@Bigun
Are you SERIOUSLY trying to claim there is no mention of the right of privacy in the Bill of Rights?
There is no mention of the right of privacy in the Bill of Rights. Not that any of this has a thing to do with privacy.
-
The fact that a law is "duly legislated" doesn't make it Constitutional. The standard you propose would allow the left, were they to gain the power, to run roughshod over our rights.
And the fact it is Constitutional does not mean it will not be overturned.
The liberal states are already recognizing the short shelf life remaining on R vs W Constitutionality and are enacting state legislation in response.
-
Spoken like a man. Just point and shoot, and leave the woman to deal with the problem.
During the first trimester, the choice whether to reproduce is solely that of the woman.
And the choice to reproduce is solely that of the woman unless rape is involved.
-
Chief Judas Roberts strikes again.
@dfwgator @Smokin Joe @txradioguy
As to what happened to Robert, this is the best compilation of stories about that that I have found to date.
How Roberts Was Blackmailed To Support ObamaCare
https://libertyborn.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/how-roberts-was-blackmailed-to-support-obamacare/?fbclid=IwAR3Q7PESA9TuXFtAEVoHHvlgYVmm1_kfDA0qtT146eoH788WxbP1bLyFRh8
-
Then what is it, an apple pie?
@goodwithagun
I don't know. Why don't you eat one and get back with us on that?
-
If it isn't a human being, then what, pray tell, is it?
A cow? A duck? A rabid raccoon? One of Alec Badwin's gerbils?
It's a human being.
@Smokin Joe
You know damn well it isn't a human being until it is born,but your religious bias will never allow you to even admit it to yourself,so I am done wasting my time trying to discuss it with you.
-
@TomSea
No problem. The left claims to worry about the mother yet don't want access to a nearby hospital if something goes wrong.
@austingirl
The one thing the left and the religious right share is a love of dogma. Neither will EVER admit to even the possibility of being wrong.
-
@Smokin Joe
You know damn well it isn't a human being until it is born,but your religious bias will never allow you to even admit it to yourself,so I am done wasting my time trying to discuss it with you.
You assert religious bias, but I am talking about simple genetics. Hardly a religious bias.
Pete, the only religious bias here is your ANTI-religious bias. I get that, you have run into some hypocrites who have not only not lived up to their pious claims, but maybe used that position to injure people, perhaps getting very personal, and you hate them and the God they claimed to represent over it. That makes as much sense as hating Ford or Chevy or Dodge because you ran into some dealers who were crooks and jerks, but it's your Right to believe what you believe, for whatever reason you believe it.
But, since I am a scientist, let's get something straight.
Regardless of what I may believe about how everything came into being, it doesn't change the fact that a human sperm and a human egg combined produce a human being and nothing else.
It works the same way for any species which engages in sexual reproduction.
In fact, it is so specific, that for most species, you can't combine two different species and get a critter at all, and with critters with similar DNA, if you do, it is a hybrid that can't reproduce. (Ligers, Hinnies, Zorses, mules, beefalos), but get dissimilar enough, and you won't get anything at all.
In nature, it takes a genetic contribution from one of each sex, and when those are combined, you get another member of that species. Whatever embryo that results is known by its species, It might be a chicken embryo, a dog embryo, but it is still a chicken or a dog. Nothing else will result, unless you kill it. The fetal pigs dissected in comparative anatomy classes in pre-med are still pigs.
That isn't religion, it isn't a religious bias, it's Biology.
The genetics determine the nature of the offspring.
Incidentally, those same genetics determine whether a child is male of female, and no amount of addadictomie/lopitoff surgery, hormone manipulation, mental illness, and social cruelty will make it anything else. The process isn't completely perfect, there are mutations, genetic damage, even bad genes contributed by one parent or the other which can lead to variations in human form, but the whole genetic thing has been pretty well mapped out, at least at the basic level.
You can play games with when you call the result of two humans mating a human being, but either that ovum and sperm combine or they don't. If they don't--nothing happens. If they do, a human being results whether you decide to play definition games and not consider them "human" when they are conceived, until they are born, until they wear long pants, until they can vote, until their IQ reaches a certain level, whatever games you want to play with deciding to call the result "human" the result is the same: a human.
The deception of calling the result less than human just makes it more palatable to the average person who doesn't want the actual blood on their hands to farm out a license to kill, whether the 'subhumans' be the unborn, people from another tribe of humans, or another race, that gimmick has been used to justify subjugation, robbery, enslavement, and slaughter since people started killing people.
Now, though, it is being used to kill three times as many Americans as were killed in the industrially efficient genocide mills of the 1940s, which incidentally, used the same logic to justify their actions--that the victims were less than human.
Once you let that argument stand, all you have to do to justify killing anyone is move the goalposts and change the definition of who is or isn't "human". It is almost always someone the people writing the definition want to rip off, whether that be for their land, their gold, their art, or their very lives.
Aside from that biological argument, though, there is the fact that legally, (as I mentioned), if someone kills a pregnant woman, they can be charged with two murders--one for the mom, and one for the infant.
Legally, that victim of murder is considered human; another human life has been taken.
Otherwise, it'd be like shooting a tumor, a "mass of tissue", and from warts to cancer, we kill tumors--"masses of tissue"-- every day.
How, in the one case, can killing the little human inside be deemed cause for a murder charge, and in another case, be just shredded "tissue" in the waste bin--even if you can count the fingers and toes? That's legally inconsistent.
So, from implanted zygote to embryo to fetus to newborn to toddler to child to teenager (pre- and post-pubescent) to premenopausal (reproductively viable) adult to to postmenopausal adult to senior to rickety old fart, the result is still genetically (scientifically) human, all else is just a matter of terminology and legal definition.
Even defining that embryo, less visually recognizable as a human being at that stage of development a 'less than human' doesn't justify the destruction of those after 8 weeks of development (now called a fetus) who are recognizably human, who have developed genitalia, fingers, toes, etc., and definitely not those who could survive a natural birth (or c-section), given basic support given to those born early. Two of my great grandchildren were born at 33 weeks due to complications (twins). They continued to develop and are in school now. The latest laws would allow the killing of children older, more fully developed, and even more likely to survive without any neonatal care beyond that given for a 'natural' full term birth.
While any sub group of humans can be excluded from that semantic definition of "human", and historically have been to justify murder on a grand scale, no slaughter so has been so grand in the history of the planet as that of the abortion mills right here in the USA. Keep in mind that other instances of slaughter on a grand scale were justified by first defining those to be killed as somehow less than "human", and it would be inconsistent to say that this is any different, just this time the victims can't fight back.
-
The big problem I have with legalized abortion, as Ii have with other issues, is that once one previously unacceptable thing is legitimized, there is this tendency to want to legalize even more odious things. In PA, medical marijuana has been legalized. Now there is a push to legalize recreational marijuana. Give an inch, they will take a yard.
We are seeing this with abortion. First, abortions were restricted to the first trimester. Now we have laws that make it ok to kill the baby after it's born. What next? Do we do away with the mentally deficient, the disabled, the old people? Government-run health care in many parts of the world already restricts care for those who "cost too much." And with euthanasia gaining acceptance in some parts of the world, before long those who are too sick (the "undesirables") will simply be killed off. Don't think it won't happen here. If our government assumes complete control over our health care, you can be sure Grandpa with the bad heart won't be around much longer.
Legalizing abortion has put this country on a slippery slope. We are rapidly sliding down the hill into the abyss.
-
@goodwithagun
I don't know. Why don't you eat one and get back with us on that?
You’re a $&*#ing lunatic. Get help.
-
You’re a $&*#ing lunatic. Get help.
@goodwithagun
What does the Big Guy in the Sky think of you using language like that?
-
@goodwithagun
What does the Big Guy in the Sky think of you using language like that?
Nice deflection from defending baby killing.
-
Even if I did not have faith that God existed, I would still be pro life.
In other words, there are good and moral reasons to oppose taking the life of a baby because of it’s inconvenience, that are outside of religious objections.
-
@austingirl
The one thing the left and the religious right share is a love of dogma. Neither will EVER admit to even the possibility of being wrong.
@sneakypete
I would rather err on the side of innocent life. Also I am not in the least religious.
-
The State of Louisiana can already regulate hospitals out of existence because of safety. They can also regulate factories, movie theaters, chemical plants, schools, and even your own house out of existence because of safety. Why is an abortion clinic any different?
Question of the month!!! Please let me know when you get an answer to that @Hoodat.
-
Lots of emotional responses, understandably so, when the issue of abortion comes up, and the usual hand wringing over Roberts....
If the US Congress did its job and passed legislation that said jurisdiction in abortion cases rests with the individual states and not the Federal Courts, then Roberts would find that statute Constitutional and would support it.... :shrug:
There would be no need to overturn Roe and individual States could deal with the issue...
-
Isn't this Roberts a gem. I want to be the first to say how awesome GW Bush is for nominating this piece of shit.
Seems every Republican POTUS makes this 'mistake'.
Stevens, Souter, Kennedy, Roberts.
We were ALL cheering the Roberts' nomination at the time. We were all fooled.
-
Seems every Republican POTUS makes this 'mistake'.
Stevens, Souter, Kennedy, Roberts.
We were ALL cheering the Roberts' nomination at the time. We were all fooled.
You can say that again...so disappointed in him...especially since he and his wife adopted their children you would think he would be more sensitive to the issue.
-
You can say that again...so disappointed in him...especially since he and his wife adopted their children you would think he would be more sensitive to the issue.
@mystery-ak
Did you read the article at the link I posted above?
-
You can say that again...so disappointed in him...especially since he and his wife adopted their children you would think he would be more sensitive to the issue.
I don't think "the issue" enters his mind. Quite simply, he's being blackmailed.
Something in the adoption records or process...he loves his children and doesn't want the "real mother" or father coming forward making it a global circus. It would destroy their lives forever.
Goddamned right, it's a "tax"! Whatever you say?
-
@mystery-ak
Did you read the article at the link I posted above?
No I was replying to DC's post.....link please
-
No I was replying to DC's post.....link please
edited...after checking your link yes I have read that article a couple of years ago at another site..very interesting..
-
edited...after checking your link yes I have read that article a couple of years ago at another site..very interesting..
888high58888
-
Isn't this Roberts a gem. I want to be the first to say how awesome GW Bush is for nominating this piece of shit.
Sorry you are not the first, not even close to being the first.
-
If the US Congress did its job and passed legislation that said jurisdiction in abortion cases rests with the individual states and not the Federal Courts
We already have a Constitution that does exactly that. If Roberts won't respect the Constitution, then he won't respect any law.
Lots of emotional responses, understandably so, when the issue of abortion comes up
Exactly. There is no point in arguing for or against abortion when our endowed right to self-determination as a society is being denied. The real issue here is that we as members of society are prohibited from determining our own abortion laws by a tyrannical judiciary with zero regard to the Constitution of the United States of America.
-
We already have a Constitution that does exactly that. If Roberts won't respect the Constitution, then he won't respect any law.
Exactly. There is no point in arguing for or against abortion when our endowed right to self-determination as a society is being denied. The real issue here is that we as members of society are prohibited from determining our own abortion laws by a tyrannical judiciary with zero regard to the Constitution of the United States of America.
888high58888
-
Nice deflection from defending baby killing.
@goodwithagun
WHAT baby? Show us the birth certificate,or STFU about it.
-
Seems every Republican POTUS makes this 'mistake'.
We were ALL cheering the Roberts' nomination at the time. We were all fooled.
@DCPatriot
I wasn't. I was calling him a closeted homo that would do and say whatever his handlers told him to do and say on FR,and the Bush-Bots were losing their minds over it.
-
I don't think "the issue" enters his mind. Quite simply, he's being blackmailed.
@DCPatriot
And there it is.
-
It's a human being.
It is a developing, pre-viable human being, that as a biological reality is under the complete dominion and control of the mother.
The question isn't whether it's a potential human being. Of course it is. The question is who gets to decide whether the woman will bear it. The woman herself, or the government?
The correct answer is the woman, with the wise counsel of her loved ones and her spiritual community.
Not the government.
-
@goodwithagun
WHAT baby? Show us the birth certificate,or STFU about it.
None of my grandparents had birth certificates. Your logic means we could have aborted them and gotten their savings before the nursing home did.
-
It is a developing, pre-viable human being, that as a biological reality is under the complete dominion and control of the mother.
The question isn't whether it's a potential human being. Of course it is. The question is who gets to decide whether the woman will bear it. The woman herself, or the government?
The correct answer is the woman, with the wise counsel of her loved ones and her spiritual community.
Not the government.
Yet the government pays for abortions.
-
None of my grandparents had birth certificates. Your logic means we could have aborted them and gotten their savings before the nursing home did.
@goodwithagun
So what? That was then,this is now. Everybody born in the US in the last couple of generations have birth certificates. You can't even enroll a child in school if they don't have a birth certificate.
Did your grandpartents live to draw SS? If they did,they had birth certificates.
-
@goodwithagun
So what? That was then,this is now. Everybody born in the US in the last couple of generations have birth certificates. You can't even enroll a child in school if they don't have a birth certificate.
Did your grandpartents live to draw SS? If they did,they had birth certificates.
Keep moving those goal posts Progressive Pete.
-
Even if I did not have faith that God existed, I would still be pro life.
In other words, there are good and moral reasons to oppose taking the life of a baby because of it’s inconvenience, that are outside of religious objections.
@aligncare
QFT
-
You assert religious bias, but I am talking about simple genetics. Hardly a religious bias.
Pete, the only religious bias here is your ANTI-religious bias. I get that, you have run into some hypocrites who have not only not lived up to their pious claims, but maybe used that position to injure people, perhaps getting very personal, and you hate them and the God they claimed to represent over it. That makes as much sense as hating Ford or Chevy or Dodge because you ran into some dealers who were crooks and jerks, but it's your Right to believe what you believe, for whatever reason you believe it.
But, since I am a scientist, let's get something straight.
Regardless of what I may believe about how everything came into being, it doesn't change the fact that a human sperm and a human egg combined produce a human being and nothing else.
It works the same way for any species which engages in sexual reproduction.
In fact, it is so specific, that for most species, you can't combine two different species and get a critter at all, and with critters with similar DNA, if you do, it is a hybrid that can't reproduce. (Ligers, Hinnies, Zorses, mules, beefalos), but get dissimilar enough, and you won't get anything at all.
In nature, it takes a genetic contribution from one of each sex, and when those are combined, you get another member of that species. Whatever embryo that results is known by its species, It might be a chicken embryo, a dog embryo, but it is still a chicken or a dog. Nothing else will result, unless you kill it. The fetal pigs dissected in comparative anatomy classes in pre-med are still pigs.
That isn't religion, it isn't a religious bias, it's Biology.
The genetics determine the nature of the offspring.
Incidentally, those same genetics determine whether a child is male of female, and no amount of addadictomie/lopitoff surgery, hormone manipulation, mental illness, and social cruelty will make it anything else. The process isn't completely perfect, there are mutations, genetic damage, even bad genes contributed by one parent or the other which can lead to variations in human form, but the whole genetic thing has been pretty well mapped out, at least at the basic level.
You can play games with when you call the result of two humans mating a human being, but either that ovum and sperm combine or they don't. If they don't--nothing happens. If they do, a human being results whether you decide to play definition games and not consider them "human" when they are conceived, until they are born, until they wear long pants, until they can vote, until their IQ reaches a certain level, whatever games you want to play with deciding to call the result "human" the result is the same: a human.
The deception of calling the result less than human just makes it more palatable to the average person who doesn't want the actual blood on their hands to farm out a license to kill, whether the 'subhumans' be the unborn, people from another tribe of humans, or another race, that gimmick has been used to justify subjugation, robbery, enslavement, and slaughter since people started killing people.
Now, though, it is being used to kill three times as many Americans as were killed in the industrially efficient genocide mills of the 1940s, which incidentally, used the same logic to justify their actions--that the victims were less than human.
Once you let that argument stand, all you have to do to justify killing anyone is move the goalposts and change the definition of who is or isn't "human". It is almost always someone the people writing the definition want to rip off, whether that be for their land, their gold, their art, or their very lives.
Aside from that biological argument, though, there is the fact that legally, (as I mentioned), if someone kills a pregnant woman, they can be charged with two murders--one for the mom, and one for the infant.
Legally, that victim of murder is considered human; another human life has been taken.
Otherwise, it'd be like shooting a tumor, a "mass of tissue", and from warts to cancer, we kill tumors--"masses of tissue"-- every day.
How, in the one case, can killing the little human inside be deemed cause for a murder charge, and in another case, be just shredded "tissue" in the waste bin--even if you can count the fingers and toes? That's legally inconsistent.
So, from implanted zygote to embryo to fetus to newborn to toddler to child to teenager (pre- and post-pubescent) to premenopausal (reproductively viable) adult to to postmenopausal adult to senior to rickety old fart, the result is still genetically (scientifically) human, all else is just a matter of terminology and legal definition.
Even defining that embryo, less visually recognizable as a human being at that stage of development a 'less than human' doesn't justify the destruction of those after 8 weeks of development (now called a fetus) who are recognizably human, who have developed genitalia, fingers, toes, etc., and definitely not those who could survive a natural birth (or c-section), given basic support given to those born early. Two of my great grandchildren were born at 33 weeks due to complications (twins). They continued to develop and are in school now. The latest laws would allow the killing of children older, more fully developed, and even more likely to survive without any neonatal care beyond that given for a 'natural' full term birth.
While any sub group of humans can be excluded from that semantic definition of "human", and historically have been to justify murder on a grand scale, no slaughter so has been so grand in the history of the planet as that of the abortion mills right here in the USA. Keep in mind that other instances of slaughter on a grand scale were justified by first defining those to be killed as somehow less than "human", and it would be inconsistent to say that this is any different, just this time the victims can't fight back.
@Smokin Joe out freaking standing! 888high58888
-
It is a developing, pre-viable human being, that as a biological reality is under the complete dominion and control of the mother.
Are you really that obtuse when it comes to biology?
-
Are you really that obtuse when it comes to biology?
For clarification:
ob·tuseDictionary result for obtuse
adjective
annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
"he wondered if the doctor was being deliberately obtuse"
synonyms: stupid, dull, slow-witted, slow, dull-witted, unintelligent, witless, half-baked, halfwitted, doltish, lumpish, blockish, imperceptive; uncomprehending, bovine, stolid, crass, insensitive, thick-skinned; informaldim, dense, thick, thickheaded, dimwitted, slow on the uptake, dumb, dopey, dead from the neck up, boneheaded, blockheaded, lamebrained, chuckleheaded, dunderheaded, wooden-headed, pig-ignorant, log-headed, muttonheaded; informaldivvy, dozy; informalglaikit; informaldumb-ass, chowderheaded; informaldof; informaldotish; rarehebete
-
I would still like for someone to answer the question @Hoodat posed about two pages back.
Louisiana can already regulate hospitals, movie theaters, chemical plants, schools, and even your own house out of existence because of safety. Why is an abortion clinic any different?
-
I would still like for someone to answer the question @Hoodat posed about two pages back.
Louisiana can already regulate hospitals, movie theaters, chemical plants, schools, and even your own house out of existence because of safety. Why is an abortion clinic any different?
@Bigun
Excellent question,and I don't have a clue why they can't. At a bare minimum the state should be able to force them to follow every health and safety law on the books.
-
Excellent question,and I don't have a clue why they can't. At a bare minimum the state should be able to force them to follow every health and safety law on the books.
As I recall, "Dr." Gosnell's clinic in Philadelphia was completely unsanitary and should have been shut down for that reason alone. This is from the WashPost:... What happened at his abortion clinic?
The grand jury report is full of horrific and gruesome details about the clinic that Gosnell ran for more than three decades. Patients were neglected; providers were not certified; and cats were allowed to roam and defecate in the clinic.
"The walls appeared to be urine-splattered," the Philadelphia district attorney's office found when it inspected the clinic in August 2010, months after it had closed that February. "The procedure tables were old and one had a ripped plastic cover. Suction tubing, which was used for abortion procedures – and doubled as the only available suction source for resuscitation – was corroded." ...
"The Pennsylvania Department of Health has records as far back as the 1980s documenting Gosnell’s dangerous practices," the grand jury found. "For decades, Gosnell did not staff his facility with licensed or qualified employees. He never properly monitored women under sedation. He botched surgeries and then failed to summon emergency help when it was needed." ...
More, from 2013 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/15/the-gosnell-case-heres-what-you-need-to-know/?utm_term=.c7a08663e80a).
Authorities in every state must thoroughly inspect - and sanction - abortion clinics for such practices, if found.
-
@Bigun
Excellent question,and I don't have a clue why they can't. At a bare minimum the state should be able to force them to follow every health and safety law on the books.
As it happens @sneakypete, I know the answer to @Hoodat's question.
Planned Parenthood is a MAJOR conduit through which money is siphoned from the U.S. Treasury into the campaign coffers of the Democrat party!
-
As it happens @sneakypete, I know the answer to @Hoodat's question.
Planned Parenthood is a MAJOR conduit through which money is siphoned from the U.S. Treasury into the campaign coffers of the Democrat party!
@Bigun
I have heard that before,but not all judges are Dims.