Collins: Won’t Support SCOTUS Pick Hostile To Abortion Rights

[Sanguine]

So there is no right to self-defense, then?

Oh, please.  No, there is no right to murder someone who is sleeping in your living room.   

[Chosen Daughter]

The Constitution of the United States says that abortion is legal.

No it doesn't.  To believe that you would have to say a fetus is not human, not deserving of rights.

[Chosen Daughter]

So is the right to liberty.   

Pregnant women have choices.  Liberty to kill?

[Oceander]

Oh, please.  No, there is no right to murder someone who is sleeping in your living room.   

So there is no right to use force, including lethal force, to remove an unwanted person from your house when that person takes over, demands you feed and clothe him, and serve him hand and foot?  That, in other words, one must cater to such an unwelcome guest and cannot do anything about it?

[Oceander]

Pregnant women have choices.  Liberty to kill?

Are you saying that nobody has the right to kill another person, under any circumstances?

[Hoodat]

Obviously it’s a pedantic position, but it clearly demonstrates that understanding and applying the Constitution is not some mechanical task that only requires one to read the words written there, and that interpretation of the text, including reading into it, are inescapable facts.

Could you at the very least identify what part of the Constitution was interpreted for Roe?  I am extremely interested in learning anything about what part of the Constitution was used to derive an abortion right (that only exists up to the 24th week) which supersedes the Bill of Rights.

Do you disavow the current reach of the Fourth Amendment as unwarranted judicial activism?

I am not understanding your question here.  I see no problem with the Fourth Amendment.  It acknowledges a pre-existing right of the people, places a limit on government, and provides a set of rules that must be followed for reasonable searches. 

[Hoodat]

So there is no right to use force, including lethal force, to remove an unwanted person from your house when that person takes over, demands you feed and clothe him, and serve him hand and foot?  That, in other words, one must cater to such an unwelcome guest and cannot do anything about it?

What does that have to do with the Constitution?

[Oceander]

Could you at the very least identify what part of the Constitution was interpreted for Roe?  I am extremely interested in learning anything about what part of the Constitution was used to derive an abortion right (that only exists up to the 24th week) which supersedes the Bill of Rights.


I am not understanding your question here.  I see no problem with the Fourth Amendment.  It acknowledges a pre-existing right of the people, places a limit on government, and provides a set of rules that must be followed for reasonable searches. 

With respect to the Fourth Amendment:  where does the “reasonable expectation of privacy” arise from?  It is that expectation that is used to justify providing protection for communications that in fact have been fully disclosed to third parties - the phone companies - that have no fiduciary obligation to respect the privacy of those communications.  It requires a leap in logic that is not necessarily implied by the words as written. 

[Chosen Daughter]

Are you saying that nobody has the right to kill another person, under any circumstances?

You are trying to trick me.  I think there could be a very small percentage of abortions that may be medically necessary.  I definitely would not judge a parent who has to make a heart wrenching decision on a medically necessary abortion.  I also believe in the death penalty.  Other than those, yes, that is what I am saying.

And if someone is threatening my life or the life of others.  Yes, I would fire without hesitation.

[Oceander]

You are trying to trick me.  I think there could be a very small percentage of abortions that may be medically necessary.  I definitely would not judge a parent who has to make a heart wrenching decision on a medically necessary abortion.  I also believe in the death penalty.  Other than those, yes, that is what I am saying.

How does a doctor’s belief that an abortion is “medically necessary” ( putting aside for now what that term even means) turn a murder (to use the pejorative term employed here) into an acceptable act?

[Hoodat]

So using lethal force to evict a guest who refuses to leave, and who has taken over your house, helped himself to everything, and demands that you serve him hand and foot for the next 18 to 20 years is murder?

It is possible to use lethal force against someone without killing them.  Our government does that all the time.  Government agents are equipped with guns that are lethal.  And they utilize these guns in such a way to force submission, or eviction for that matter.  In fact, government happens to be in the eviction business, provided a judge has given it the OK.

Not sure what any of this has to do with the Constitution though.

[Hoodat]

Are you saying that nobody has the right to kill another person, under any circumstances?

Good grief, enough with the strawmans already.  Under any circumstances?  Geez, why not simply answer the question and tell us where in the Constitution we can find that abortion right.

[Oceander]

It is possible to use lethal force against someone without killing them.  Our government does that all the time.  Government agents are equipped with guns that are lethal.  And they utilize these guns in such a way to force submission, or eviction for that matter.  In fact, government happens to be in the eviction business, provided a judge has given it the OK.

Not sure what any of this has to do with the Constitution though.

The threat is utterly irrelevant unless it’s a real threat and not an empty bluff.  So, the relevant question remains, can one permissibly kill in self-defense (or is one limited to brandishing)?

[Oceander]

Good grief, enough with the strawmans already.  Under any circumstances?  Geez, why not simply answer the question and tell us where in the Constitution we can find that abortion right.

If you jump into the middle of a conversation with multiple threads, don’t expect everyone else to drop one thread just because you’re only interested in another thread. 

There are multiple conversations going on here. 

[Hoodat]

With respect to the Fourth Amendment:  where does the “reasonable expectation of privacy” arise from?

The 'right to privacy' arises from some liberal unhappy with what the Constitution actually says and trying to invent some right that simply is not there.  Our Founding Fathers had the intelligence to realize that we all share this continent and that it would be virtually impossible to live a life totally free of the notice of anyone else, much less an Almighty all-knowing God.

But then of course our Constitution is not a limitation on private individuals.  It is a limitation on government.  Thus it does not derive rights of the people, but instead places limitations on government acting against those rights.

It is that expectation that is used to justify providing protection for communications that in fact have been fully disclosed to third parties - the phone companies - that have no fiduciary obligation to respect the privacy of those communications.  It requires a leap in logic that is not necessarily implied by the words as written.

That's really beautiful and all, but it doesn't have a thing to do with the Fourth Amendment.

[Silver Pines]

So is the right to liberty.   

@Jazzhead

When you take a human life, he/she doesn't have much of a chance to experience liberty.

[TomSea]

   @Oceander

Oh, look at the contributions of the so-called Ted Cruz supporters.

 

@corbe

[Hoodat]

If you jump into the middle of a conversation with multiple threads, don’t expect everyone else to drop one thread just because you’re only interested in another thread. 

There are multiple conversations going on here.

There is a common denominator at play here.  It is called "Oceander's bullshit".

But for the record, it should be noted that Oceander was unable to identify any such part of the Constitution.

So, boys and girls, can you say F-I-A-T?  Sure, you can.

[TomSea]

The Constitution of the United States says that abortion is legal.

It does not. Your Supreme Court also stood up for slavery? So, we assume you see no wrong with that either.

[Chosen Daughter]

How does a doctor’s belief that an abortion is “medically necessary” ( putting aside for now what that term even means) turn a murder (to use the pejorative term employed here) into an acceptable act?

"Medically necessary" would have to be defined by law based on severe medical conditions. 

[Hoodat]

I definitely would not judge a parent who has to make a heart wrenching decision on a medically necessary abortion.

That is a judgment that should be left to each State - one of which you are a member.  It should be up to the members of a society to decide how their laws should be set up.  At least that was the intent of our Founding Fathers.  Unfortunately, we are now subject to tyrants hungry for power who wish to bypass this societal decision and instead impose their beliefs on the masses, the Constitution be damned.

[Oceander]

There is a common denominator at play here.  It is called "Oceander's bullshit".

But for the record, it should be noted that Oceander was unable to identify any such part of the Constitution.

So, boys and girls, can you say F-I-A-T?  Sure, you can.

We haven’t even gotten to that part of the discussion yet.  We haven’t even established that reading anything into the Constitution is permissible and not simply judicial tyranny.  Once that is established, then perhaps a discussion of the basis on which the Court read in the abortion right can be analyzed and critiqued.

[Oceander]

It does not. Your Supreme Court also stood up for slavery? So, we assume you see no wrong with that either.

Where does it say that it’s illegal?

[Oceander]

"Medically necessary" would have to be defined by law based on severe medical conditions. 

It’s all fun and games until actual details are required.  What counts as the dividing line between perfidious murder and a good medical procedure?

[Suppressed]

She sure can.   To an out-and-out Communist, like the other Senator from Maine.

If we work hard against Sen. Collins, we can make it happen!