-
Washington (CNN) Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a key vote in the coming Supreme Court confirmation fight, said Sunday she would not support a nominee hostile to the landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade.
"I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law," Collins said on CNN's "State of the Union."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/01/politics/susan-collins-supreme-court/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/01/politics/susan-collins-supreme-court/index.html)
-
Washington (CNN) Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a key vote in the coming Supreme Court confirmation fight, said Sunday she would not support a nominee hostile to the landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade.
"I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law," Collins said on CNN's "State of the Union."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/01/politics/susan-collins-supreme-court/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/01/politics/susan-collins-supreme-court/index.html)
So, I take from this..... that if the nominee is not "hostile" to Roe v. Wade.... that the GOP will then have her vote? Who the hell is she kidding? We've seen her voting record.
-
Washington (CNN) Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a key vote in the coming Supreme Court confirmation fight, said Sunday she would not support a nominee hostile to the landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade.
"I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law," Collins said on CNN's "State of the Union."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/01/politics/susan-collins-supreme-court/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/01/politics/susan-collins-supreme-court/index.html)
Respect for precedent is a hallmark of a conservative jurist. Whatever you may think of Roe v. Wade, the Constitutional right it represents has been relied on for over forty years - by every woman today of child-bearing age, in fact. If Roe is to go, it must be done so by the peoples' elected representatives, not the courts. I think Justice Roberts especially knows this well, and I do not believe Roe will be overturned no matter who the President nominates to the Court. But I do not disagree with Sen. Collins' statement - a Justice that would overturn Roe is not acting as a conservative jurist.
-
So, I take from this..... that if the nominee is not "hostile" to Roe v. Wade.... that the GOP will then have her vote? Who the hell is she kidding? We've seen her voting record.
She is signaling not opposition to the President but rather her view that she will support a nominee who respects precedent. Whoever is nominated will face this question, and Sen. Collins is signaling that, to win her vote, he or she must answer it.
-
Collins: White House has expanded its list of potential Supreme Court picks
By Brett Samuels - 07/01/18 08:49 AM EDT
The White House has expanded its list of potential Supreme Court nominees after Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) urged President Trump to broaden his search, the GOP senator said Sunday.
"The White House counsel told me there have been a few additional, potential nominees added to that list," Collins said during an interview on ABC's "This Week" while discussing her meeting with Trump earlier this week.
Collins said that she suggested Trump broaden his search beyond the list of 25 candidates that the White House released in November. The senator told ABC that Trump has added five judges to that list.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Sunday.
<..snip..>
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/395048-collins-trump-should-not-feel-bound-by-pre-existing-list-of-supreme-court (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/395048-collins-trump-should-not-feel-bound-by-pre-existing-list-of-supreme-court)
-
As long as the candidate does not have a record on the issue, and states that he/she is unable to answer questions re: abortion because they may be required to rule on them, it should be OK.
-
I'm shocked!
-
In other words, Collins won't support a pick who believes in following the Constitution of the United States of America - an oath that she swore to uphold.
-
As long as the candidate does not have a record on the issue, and states that he/she is unable to answer questions re: abortion because they may be required to rule on them, it should be OK.
The question is whether it will be OK to Sen. Collins.
-
In other words, Collins won't support a pick who believes in following the Constitution of the United States of America - an oath that she swore to uphold.
The Constitution of the United States says that abortion is legal.
-
The Constitution of the United States says that abortion is legal.
No, it doesn't. The right to life is an unalienable right.
-
The Constitution of the United States says that abortion is legal.
This again. **nononono*
-
Collins said that she suggested Trump broaden his search beyond the list of 25 candidates that the White House released in November. The senator told ABC that Trump has added five judges to that list.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Sunday.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/395048-collins-trump-should-not-feel-bound-by-pre-existing-list-of-supreme-court (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/395048-collins-trump-should-not-feel-bound-by-pre-existing-list-of-supreme-court)
Last April.......
Mr. Trump said conservative voters should be assured that his next choice will be “really talented and of our views.†Asked specifically whether he would pick from the list of candidates he put forward in the campaign, Mr. Trump was unequivocal: “Yes,†he said, adding, “That list was a big thing.â€
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/30/trump-to-stick-with-conservative-list-for-next-sup/ (https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/30/trump-to-stick-with-conservative-list-for-next-sup/)
Days ago.....
President Trump said Wednesday that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's replacement will come from a list of 25 possible nominees that was released by the White House in November. Kennedy announced his retirement Wednesday, saying he will step down effective July 31.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/trumps-supreme-court-justice-list-justice-kennedy-retirement-president-replace-list-of-25-2018-06-27/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/trumps-supreme-court-justice-list-justice-kennedy-retirement-president-replace-list-of-25-2018-06-27/)
-
She is signaling not opposition to the President but rather her view that she will support a nominee who respects precedent.
Ah, yes. Precedent. That's what kept segregation alive in this country for over half a century. Precedent. How dare the Brown justices overturn the "precedent" of Plessy. How dare them look to the Constitution as their basis for ruling instead of simply choosing to ignore the Constitution while embracing "precedent".
Whoever is nominated will face this question, and Sen. Collins is signaling that, to win her vote, he or she must answer it.
So whoever is nominated must explain why it would have been better to rule in favor of the Topeka Board of Education instead of doing what the Constitution of the United States of America says. Good luck with that.
-
She is signaling not opposition to the President but rather her view that she will support a nominee who respects precedent. Whoever is nominated will face this question, and Sen. Collins is signaling that, to win her vote, he or she must answer it.
Yeah.... I know exactly what she is "signalling". Like the perfect little RINO twit, she's making a threat to Trump. Crystal clear. Her leftie buds are all, no doubt, applauding as we speak.
-
No, it doesn't. The right to life is an unalienable right.
So is the right to liberty.
-
This again. **nononono*
(https://texasguntalk.com/attachments/popefacepalm-meme-generator-aw-jeez-not-this-shit-again-949355-jpg-jpg.133563/)
-
The Constitution of the United States says that abortion is legal.
Where, exactly, does it say that?
-
Ah, yes. Precedent. That's what kept segregation alive in this country for over half a century. Precedent. How dare the Brown justices overturn the "precedent" of Plessy. How dare them look to the Constitution as their basis for ruling instead of simply choosing to ignore the Constitution while embracing "precedent".
The existing precedent is that women have the right to decide for themselves whether to reproduce. The examples you cite are of the courts overturning precedents that deny rights. Show me one where precedent establishing a fundamental right has been overturned and the right taken away.
You despise courts that would take away your precious gun right. Yet you demand the Court take away the right your daughter enjoys to live her own life free of interference from the State's diktat.
-
Ah, yes. Precedent. That's what kept segregation alive in this country for over half a century. Precedent. How dare the Brown justices overturn the "precedent" of Plessy. How dare them look to the Constitution as their basis for ruling instead of simply choosing to ignore the Constitution while embracing "precedent".
So whoever is nominated must explain why it would have been better to rule in favor of the Topeka Board of Education instead of doing what the Constitution of the United States of America says. Good luck with that.
"Precedent" is very important to people who have divorced themselves from the direct meaning of the words of the Constitution, and instead place their trust in the tender sensibilities of robed tyrants.
-
The Constitution of the United States says that abortion is legal.
If you want change one has to admit the reality of the situation (abortion was ruled constitutional by prior a court) and work from there.
-
Where, exactly, does it say that?
Where does it say it’s illegal?
-
Where, exactly, does it say that?
Marbury v. Madison.
-
Marbury v. Madison.
That's a court ruling.... based on the "interpretation" by judges.... on what the US Constitution guarantees. But "abortion is legal" is nowhere IN the constitution, nor was it ever intended to be.
-
That's a court ruling.... based on the "interpretation" by judges.... on what the US Constitution guarantees. But "abortion is legal" is nowhere IN the constitution, nor was it ever intended to be.
:bigsilly:
Marbury v. Madison is the only thing standing between an effective Second Amendment and that provision being ignored with impunity by gun-control friendly legislatures.
You cannot have your cake, and eat it, too.
-
"Precedent" is very important to people who have divorced themselves from the direct meaning of the words of the Constitution, and instead place their trust in the tender sensibilities of robed tyrants.
Yet that is how our Republic works. Who you call "robed tyrants" interpreted the Constitution to forbid the States from outlawing abortion, recognizing the fundamental natural right of self-determination as extending to the female of the species. That right has been relied on by women to order their lives for over 40 years. Yet you now want the "robed tyrants" to take it away.
Why not recognize the limits of the "robed tyrants" and work for a Constitutional amendment if you feel so strongly that the State compel women to reproduce? What clamor for such "tyrants" to do your dirty work for you?
-
:bigsilly:
Marbury v. Madison is the only thing standing between an effective Second Amendment and that provision being ignored with impunity by gun-control friendly legislatures.
You cannot have your cake, and eat it, too.
Ehh.... please explain how that ruling impacts gun-control friendly legislatures. I haven't had my caffeine yet and I'm a little "slow" this am.
-
Yet that is how our Republic works. Who you call "robed tyrants" interpreted the Constitution to forbid the States from outlawing abortion, recognizing the fundamental natural right of self-determination as extending to the female of the species. That right has been relied on by women to order their lives for over 40 years. Yet you now want the "robed tyrants" to take it away.
Why not recognize the limits of the "robed tyrants" and work for a Constitutional amendment if you feel so strongly that the State compel women to reproduce? What clamor for such "tyrants" to do your dirty work for you?
I am quite willing to recognize those limits. You first.
You must have me confused with somebody who wants unelected Judges to do my "dirty work."
-
:bigsilly:
Laughing at people is no way to convince them. But then, you wouldn't be you if you didn't.
-
"Precedent" is very important to people who have divorced themselves from the direct meaning of the words of the Constitution, and instead place their trust in the tender sensibilities of robed tyrants.
Its funny how the left now falls back on precedent, when they spent the past 60 years reading "penumbras and emanations" into the Constitution.
-
Its funny how the left now falls back on precedent, when they spent the past 60 years reading "penumbras and emanations" into the Constitution.
What were once penumbras are now precedents. It's how a ratchet works.
-
Ehh.... please explain how that ruling impacts gun-control friendly legislatures. I haven't had my caffeine yet and I'm a little "slow" this am.
This am is no different from any other time of day, then.
Marbury v. Madison says that the courts have the final say on what the law is, or is not. Remove that, and the courts would no longer be in a position to say, for example, that the Second is a personal right and not merely a collective right that the individual states can do away with if they do not wish to have a militia.
-
Laughing at people is no way to convince them. But then, you wouldn't be you if you didn't.
Some people deserve no more.
-
This am is no different from any other time of day, then.
Marbury v. Madison says that the courts have the final say on what the law is, or is not. Remove that, and the courts would no longer be in a position to say, for example, that the Second is a personal right and not merely a collective right that the individual states can do away with if they do not wish to have a militia.
Yup. Those who clamor for the judge-created right to abortion to be taken away after forty years better hope that same activist judge won't take away their judge-created individual right to bear arms after only about ten years.
-
Its funny how the left now falls back on precedent, when they spent the past 60 years reading "penumbras and emanations" into the Constitution.
It's a matter of whatever is convenient to them and to their agenda....
at any given moment.
-
The Constitution of the United States says that abortion is legal.
lol
-
The existing precedent is that women have the right to decide for themselves whether to reproduce.
Women already have that right. And that right has absolutely positively NOTHING to do with abortion or a State's right to regulate it.
-
This am is no different from any other time of day, then.
Marbury v. Madison says that the courts have the final say on what the law is, or is not. Remove that, and the courts would no longer be in a position to say, for example, that the Second is a personal right and not merely a collective right that the individual states can do away with if they do not wish to have a militia.
Well how really convenient for the idiot left, then..... since they have embedded the "courts" with rogue, leftist judges that they feel confident will rule in their favor. Sorry.... BUT.... that is NOT how the US Constitution is supposed to work. That is a recipe for judicial tyranny, in fact. And you damned well know that.... or should. But then, you being 'one of em' and all.... kind of explains it all.
And your lameazz insult is duly noted. Why did I think that just once I could converse with you in a civil manner without your usual bullshit. Silly moi.
-
Yup. Those who clamor for the judge-created right to abortion to be taken away after forty years better hope that same activist judge won't take away their judge-created individual right to bear arms after only about ten years.
I think the issue most people have is one (bearing arms) is specifically mentioned, while abortion is not.
-
Its funny how the left now falls back on precedent, when they spent the past 60 years reading "penumbras and emanations" into the Constitution.
Democrats did the same thing with Plessy. And with Everson, even though they actually lost that case.
-
Well how really convenient for the idiot left, then..... since they have embedded the "courts" with rogue, leftist judges that they feel confident will rule in their favor. Sorry.... BUT.... that is NOT how the US Constitution is supposed to work. That is a recipe for judicial tyranny, in fact. And you damned well know that.... or should. But then, you being 'one of em' and all.... kind of explains it all.
And your lameazz insult is duly noted. Why did I think that just once I could converse with you in a civil manner without your usual bullshit. Silly moi.
Yup. That's why leftists prefer the courts to enter the political atmosphere: It's so they can do the "dirty work," as it's been coined, without the ugliness of elections. The definition of "tyrant" is in there.
This is why the left is OK with SCOTUS Justices like Ginsberg openly declaring their intent to fashion all laws to meet their sensibility as to how things should be.
-
I think the issue most people have is one (bearing arms) is specifically mentioned, while abortion is not.
Butbutbutbut "Heller!" The "Predicate Clause!!!"
-
Some people deserve no more.
Then everybody you laugh at should put you on "Ignore." They don't deserve you either.
-
Well how really convenient for the idiot left, then..... since they have embedded the "courts" with rogue, leftist judges that they feel confident will rule in their favor. Sorry.... BUT.... that is NOT how the US Constitution is supposed to work. That is a recipe for judicial tyranny, in fact. And you damned well know that.... or should. But then, you being 'one of em' and all.... kind of explains it all.
And your lameazz insult is duly noted. Why did I think that just once I could converse with you in a civil manner without your usual bullshit. Silly moi.
You clearly don’t know how law works. And yet, that doesn’t stop you from opining to kingdom come.
-
You clearly don’t know how law works.
You clearly don't know what the Constitution says.
-
You clearly don’t know how law works. And yet, that doesn’t stop you from opining to kingdom come.
Your leftie-like air of superiority is also duly noted....
AS USUAL.
And.... in case you aren't bright enough to notice.... this is a political discussion forum...
where everyone "opines". (obligatory duh)
-
You clearly don't know what the Constitution says.
I know exactly what it says.
-
Your leftie-like air of superiority is also duly noted....
AS USUAL.
And.... in case you aren't bright enough to notice.... this is a political discussion forum...
where everyone "opines". (obligatory duh)
True, they do, but so rarely do they mistake their own ignorance for such a vast expanse of wisdom.
-
I know exactly what it says.
It is easier to understand than Tax code.
-
The Constitution doesn't mean jack shit people. That is no longer the law, or how 'law' works in this country anymore.
It's what judges in black robes say the law is, that is the law.
Enumerated rights are just government-granted privileges that can rightfully be reasonably regulated so as to abolish them in all practicality, and 'rights' not enumerated that were found in the penumbras and emanations of the ether of the text - are inalienable, unassailable and immutable divine rights that no one can touch, regulate or interfere with.
Like Abortion.
Welcome to Amerika - where the right to liberty outweighs any right to life. Even though it usually requires one to have life in order to have liberty. But hey - we're talking "the law" here, so if it makes no sense to us mere mortals, who cares? The precedents are law as interpreted by men who are of the correct political ideology.
-
Yup. That's why leftists prefer the courts to enter the political atmosphere: It's so they can do the "dirty work," as it's been coined, without the ugliness of elections. The definition of "tyrant" is in there.
This is why the left is OK with SCOTUS Justices like Ginsberg openly declaring their intent to fashion all laws to meet their sensibility as to how things should be.
Exactly.
While we're on the subject (lol).....
anybody got any good lawyer jokes? :laugh:
Here's one...
Q: What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 100?
A: Your Honor.
Q: What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50?
A: Senator.
Q: What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 20?
A: Some know-it-all schmuck on a political forum.
-
Exactly.
While we're on the subject (lol).....
anybody got any good lawyer jokes? :laugh:
Here's one...
Q: What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 100?
A: Your Honor.
Q: What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50?
A: Senator.
Q: What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 20?
A: Some know-it-all schmuck on a political forum.
That’s pretty good.
-
You clearly don’t know how law works. And yet, that doesn’t stop you from opining to kingdom come.
"Leave the law to lawyers! They know better!"
The best lawyer joke of the thread.
-
True, they do, but so rarely do they mistake their own ignorance for such a vast expanse of wisdom.
Projecting much?
-
Projecting much?
Not nearly as much as you.
-
The Constitution doesn't mean jack shit people. That is no longer the law, or how 'law' works in this country anymore.
Under Trump the Constitution is making a come back. A couple more conservatives on the Supreme
Court and we might just return to being a constitutional republic.
Very important, vote GOP this November.
-
"Leave the law to lawyers! They know better!"
The best lawyer joke of the thread.
Yeah, because self-represented people are so damned good at defending themselves. Why do you think the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to assistance of counsel? Do you think that maybe the Founders were cognizant of something? Or maybe this was just a way of guaranteeing themselves jobs in the future since so many were lawyers.
-
Very important, vote GOP this November.
I'd rather stick needles in my eyes.
The GOP gets no more votes from me.
-
"Leave the law to lawyers! They know better!"
The best lawyer joke of the thread.
I would like to see a law that says lawyers can not serve in legislatures. Lawyers making the laws
is a conflict of interests.
-
I'd rather stick needles in my eyes.
The GOP gets no more votes from me.
Yes I know, if the folks had listened to you Hillary would be picking judges instead of Trump. Thank
goodness enough of us did not listen and elected President Trump.
-
Exactly.
While we're on the subject (lol).....
anybody got any good lawyer jokes? :laugh:
Here's one...
Q: What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 100?
A: Your Honor.
Q: What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50?
A: Senator.
Q: What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 20?
A: Some know-it-all schmuck on a political forum.
That is harsh. You have to water people daily with a 20 IQ. Give them at least a 30!
-
Wow. What a train wreck thread over something a mentally challenged woman said. She speaks as though she had multiple strokes and then drank a half bottle of Ripple.
(https://whitenoiseinsanity.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/mccainsusancollins.jpg)
-
Yup. Those who clamor for the judge-created right to abortion to be taken away
No one here is clamoring for that, Mr. Strawman. For all those here who love the Constitution, we are only asking that it be followed. Absent any act of Congress, the abortion question should be left to each state. Even Roe says this after the 24th week. Your entire 'abortion-is-a-Constitutional-right' schtick is complete bullshit.
-
Yes I know, if the folks had listened to you Hillary would be picking judges instead of Trump. Thank
goodness enough of us did not listen and elected President Trump.
You have your reward. Trump is all yours.
-
I would like to see a law that says lawyers can not serve in legislatures. Lawyers making the laws
is a conflict of interests.
Include Presidents, and I will sign on. We've had five lawyers elected President. All five of them sucked.
-
I would like to see a law that says lawyers can not serve in legislatures. Lawyers making the laws
is a conflict of interests.
Anyone who legislates has an inherent conflict of interest because they have an incentive to game the rules to favor themselves. That hazard is not limited to lawyers.
-
I have never understood how Susan Collins could call herself a Republican. How could she continue to win over and over and over in her state when she seldom votes for anything put forth by Republicans?
-
I have never understood how Susan Collins could call herself a Republican. How could she continue to win over and over and over in her state when she seldom votes for anything put forth by Republicans?
You said the key phrase "in her state." It's an extreme-left state, and like Massachusetts, that's the best kind of Republican you can get rom there.
-
Anyone who legislates has an inherent conflict of interest because they have an incentive to game the rules to favor themselves. That hazard is not limited to lawyers.
I think that's basically true. It has me wondering if "Representation by Lot" might be a valid approach.
-
The "right to abort" was an invention of the courts. OF COURSE it's an example of judicial tyranny ... as was common with so many rulings in that era ... after two centuries of allowing states to regulate such matters. Due process clause? Yeah, try & imagine how that interpretation would have been received in 1868.
But what it boils down to is ... sure, a textualist would vote to overturn Roe. John Roberts would not, so until a progressive retires, this should not be used to disqualify a nominee.
-
That is harsh. You have to water people daily with a 20 IQ. Give them at least a 30!
Lol!
-
Include Presidents, and I will sign on. We've had five lawyers elected President. All five of them sucked.
Two of whom.... had their law-licenses revoked at some point. Both Democrats, of course.
-
I think that's basically true. It has me wondering if "Representation by Lot" might be a valid approach.
Doesn’t fix the problem. The lot-drawers are the ones who write the laws, and therefore have a conflict of interest.
-
Doesn’t fix the problem. The lot-drawers are the ones who write the laws, and therefore have a conflict of interest.
Yes, and they'd be practically powerless against the entrenched bureaucrats.
-
So, I take from this..... that if the nominee is not "hostile" to Roe v. Wade.... that the GOP will then have her vote? Who the hell is she kidding? We've seen her voting record.
What a total beeoch. I cannot stand her.
-
She is signaling not opposition to the President but rather her view that she will support a nominee who respects precedent. Whoever is nominated will face this question, and Sen. Collins is signaling that, to win her vote, he or she must answer it.
Any chance she could lose in 2018?
-
Any chance she could lose in 2018?
.
She sure can. To an out-and-out Communist, like the other Senator from Maine.
-
I would like to see a law that says lawyers can not serve in legislatures. Lawyers making the laws
is a conflict of interests.
@jpsb
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
James Madison, Federalist 47
I submit that his fears have been realized. All one needs to do is look at the composition of our federal government in recent times to confirm it.
-
I think the issue most people have is one (bearing arms) is specifically mentioned, while abortion is not.
Missing words in Constitution: Abortion, conception, quickening, birth
…. in case a "textualist" were to search
and would not an "originalist" seek to learn the extant common and acceptable practices at the time the document was drawn?
-
It's right there, in the Abortion Clause of the 14th amendment, as ratified by the necessary two thirds of states in the wake of the abolitionist movement. "No state shall make or enforce a law which shall deprive any woman of the right to stab and suck the brains out of her unborn child, up to the moment of viability."
-
No, it doesn't. The right to life is an unalienable right.
Ahhh, so all killing, even the most accidental, or most justified, is illegal?
-
Missing words in Constitution: Abortion, conception, quickening, birth
e the document wasdrawn?
…. in case a "textualist" were to search
and would not an "originalist" seek to learn the extant common and acceptable practices at the time the document was drawn?
Words missing from the Fourth Amendment: computer, car, cellphone, email .....
-
Words missing from the Fourth Amendment: computer, car, cellphone, email .....
Words of the Fourth Amendment that do not lose their meaning because of words like 'computer', 'car', 'cellphone', 'email', . . .
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.
-
Words of the Fourth Amendment that do not lose their meaning because of words like 'computer', 'car', 'cellphone', 'email', . . .
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.
I still don’t see the word “email†in there. Perhaps you could underline it?
-
What a total beeoch. I cannot stand her.
I can't stand ANY of the RINOs..... especially McCain.
-
It's right next to the word "musket" in the Second Amendment.
-
I still don’t see the word “email†in there. Perhaps you could underline it?
Covered by the word "effects".
-
It's right next to the word "musket" in the Second Amendment.
Why don’t you underline that one, too. Or are you suggesting that the Supreme Court engaged in noxious judicial tyranny when it held that the Second Amendment protected the right to keep and bear firearms, including muskets? After all, if the word isn’t there, it must have been read into the Constitution by the Court, and the premise here is that reading anything into the Constituion is judicial tyranny.
-
Why don’t you underline that one, too. Or are you suggesting that the Supreme Court engaged in noxious judicial tyranny when it held that the Second Amendment protected the right to keep and bear firearms, including muskets? After all, if the word isn’t there, it must have been read into the Constitution by the Court, and the premise here is that reading anything into the Constituion is judicial tyranny.
Covered by the word "arms".
-
Covered by the word "effects".
There is no ‘m’, ‘a’, ‘i’, or ‘l’ in the word “effects†so the word “email†cannot possibly be there.
Unless, of course, the word “effects†was interpreted by an unelected judge to include “emailâ€, but that would be reading into the Constitution something that isn’t there, and we all know that’s just judicial tyranny.
-
Ahhh, so all killing, even the most accidental, or most justified, is illegal?
You're really trying to equivocate abortion and an accidental death? Really?
-
There is no ‘m’, ‘a’, ‘i’, or ‘l’ in the word “effects†so the word “email†cannot possibly be there.
Unless, of course, the word “effects†was interpreted by an unelected judge to include “emailâ€, but that would be reading into the Constitution something that isn’t there, and we all know that’s just judicial tyranny.
More bs.
-
Covered by the word "arms".
The only letters the words “arms†and “musket†have in common are ‘m’ and ‘s’ so “musket†can’t possibly be covered by the word “armsâ€. Unless, of course, some unelected tyrants in black robes read that word into the word “armsâ€; but that would be verboten judicial tyranny.
-
You're really trying to equivocate abortion and an accidental death? Really?
No, I am trying to point out your logical inconsistencies. In particular, that how you throw around the word murder viz. abortion leads to silly results.
-
Why don’t you underline that one, too. Or are you suggesting that the Supreme Court engaged in noxious judicial tyranny when it held that the Second Amendment protected the right to keep and bear firearms, including muskets? After all, if the word isn’t there, it must have been read into the Constitution by the Court, and the premise here is that reading anything into the Constituion is judicial tyranny.
Now you are going to jazz-like extremes to twist my words. Game over, bye.
-
No, I am trying to point out your logical inconsistencies. In particular, that how you throw around the word murder viz. abortion leads to silly results.
Deliberate killing of an innocent person isn't murder in your book?
-
More bs.
Really? If the word wasn’t expressly written into the Constitution by the Founders, then it must have been read in there by a bunch of unelected judges. And that, by hypothesis in these parts, is always judicial tyranny.
I’m sorry if you think the logical conclusions of your own premises are “bs†but that’s the way it is.
-
.
She sure can. To an out-and-out Communist, like the other Senator from Maine.
Isn't that typical of the Democrats though? The only way they're ok with losing is by going from bad (leftist) to worse (full-blown commie)...lol.
-
Deliberate killing of an innocent person isn't murder in your book?
Killing a person who refuses to leave your house and demands that you feed him, clothe him, and serve him hand and foot isn’t murder, is it?
-
Killing a person who refuses to leave your house and demands that you feed him, clothe him, and serve him hand and foot isn’t murder, is it?
I'll bet you were an A+ legal sophistry student.
-
Killing a person who refuses to leave your house and demands that you feed him, clothe him, and serve him hand and foot isn’t murder, is it?
Of course it would be. Why would you feel otherwise?
-
I'll bet you were an A+ legal sophistry student.
If you say so. After all, you know the magic for getting “email†out of “effects†without resorting to interpretation.
-
Of course it would be. Why would you feel otherwise?
So there is no right to self-defense, then?
-
If you say so. After all, you know the magic for getting “email†out of “effects†without resorting to interpretation.
Or law councelor.
-
@Oceander
(https://mcguff1.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/catching_flak1.jpg?w=450)
-
I still don’t see the word “email†in there. Perhaps you could underline it?
What part of unreasonable searches and seizures do you not get?
-
I'll bet you were an A+ legal sophistry student.
"Were?"
:happyhappy:
-
Respect for precedent is a hallmark of a conservative jurist. Whatever you may think of Roe v. Wade, the Constitutional right it represents has been relied on for over forty years - by every woman today of child-bearing age, in fact. If Roe is to go, it must be done so by the peoples' elected representatives, not the courts. I think Justice Roberts especially knows this well, and I do not believe Roe will be overturned no matter who the President nominates to the Court. But I do not disagree with Sen. Collins' statement - a Justice that would overturn Roe is not acting as a conservative jurist.
Wonderfully, stated, @Jazzhead
-
@Oceander
(https://mcguff1.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/catching_flak1.jpg?w=450)
More like:
(http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4710/993/1600/wwcorrigan%20headline.jpg)
-
Wonderfully, stated, @Jazzhead
Segregation was a precedent established in 1896.
-
So there is no right to self-defense, then?
Of course there is a right to self-defense.
-
What part of unreasonable searches and seizures do you not get?
Where is the word “email†in that phrase? If it wasn’t written into the Constituion explicitly, then by the consensus of the wise here, it’s an act of judicial tyranny to read the word into the Constituion.
So, again, please underline the word “email†where it expressly appears in the Fourth Amendment.
-
Of course there is a right to self-defense.
Great, then you agree that a person can use deadly force if necessary to remove a trespasser from their home, even if they initially invited that person in.
-
Segregation was a precedent established in 1896.
Ownership of human slaves was a precedent established in 1857. It took an Amendment to the Constitution and the death of over 500,000 people to overturn it.
-
Great, then you agree that a person can use deadly force if necessary to remove a trespasser from their home, even if they initially invited that person in.
If that person decided to rob you, you betcha.
-
If that person decided to rob you, you betcha.
If someone tries take what you do not want to give, is that robbery?
-
Where is the word “email†in that phrase?
It isn't. Only a complete idiot would look for the word 'email' in a treatise on the limitations of government. The key phrase is about unreasonable searches and seizures, period.
If it wasn’t written into the Constituion explicitly, then by the consensus of the wise here . . .
Uh, no. That's your own made-up bullshit of an argument, and a very weak and stupid one at that. As Ayn Rand once wrote, the Constitution is not a charter of government power, but a charter of citizen's protection against its government. The people's protection against unreasonable search and seizure is not limited to what could be taken by force at the point of a musket, just as the freedom of the press not limited to what can be produced by a manual printing press, or as freedom of speech is not limited to what can be spoken from atop a wood crate in the public square.
. . . it’s an act of judicial tyranny to read the word into the Constituion.
The main difference here is that you nor anyone else sharing your views are 100% unable to read the word 'abortion' into the Constitution. This is self evident. Ever since first joining this forum, I have challenged any and all of the Roe-tyranny supporters to cite the Constitutional basis for that decision. And not one has ever taken me up on it. Not a single one. And why do you think that is? Could it be because no such Constitutional basis exists?
Yet here you are with your 'email' bullshit, hoping that it suffices as a substitute for something you know in your heart does not exist - a Constitutional basis for Roe.
So, again, please underline the word “email†where it expressly appears in the Fourth Amendment.
It's right beside the word 'segregation'. (See: Plessy)
-
Great, then you agree that a person can use deadly force if necessary to remove a trespasser from their home, even if they initially invited that person in.
No. I said that a person has the right to self-defense. Not sure where that other crap came from.
-
It isn't. Only a complete idiot would look for the word 'email' in a treatise on the limitations of government. The key phrase is about unreasonable searches and seizures, period.
Uh, no. That's your own made-up bullshit of an argument, and a very weak and stupid one at that. As Ayn Rand once wrote, the Constitution is not a charter of government power, but a charter of citizen's protection against its government. The people's protection against unreasonable search and seizure is not limited to what could be taken by force at the point of a musket, just as the freedom of the press not limited to what can be produced by a manual printing press, or as freedom of speech is not limited to what can be spoken from atop a wood crate in the public square.
The main difference here is that you nor anyone else sharing your views are 100% unable to read the word 'abortion' into the Constitution. This is self evident. Ever since first joining this forum, I have challenged any and all of the Roe-tyranny supporters to cite the Constitutional basis for that decision. And not one has ever taken me up on it. Not a single one. And why do you think that is? Could it be because no such Constitutional basis exists?
Yet here you are with your 'email' bullshit, hoping that it suffices as a substitute for something you know in your heart does not exist - a Constitutional basis for Roe.
It's right beside the word 'segregation'. (See: Plessy)
:thumbsup:
-
No. I said that a person has the right to self-defense. Not sure where that other crap came from.
It came from an extended discussion you jumped into the middle of without reading the start.
-
Ownership of human slaves was a precedent established in 1857. It took an Amendment to the Constitution and the death of over 500,000 people to overturn it.
Yet it only took seven Supreme Court justices to give us segregation. Same Constitution. Same amendments. But somehow, seven Justices invented a right to segregation out of thin air. It is no different from the Roe Justices inventing a right to abortion out of thin air. Same Constitution. Same amendments.
And all it took to overcome segregation was five supreme court justices using the Constitution as a basis for law. Go figure. Yet we have members here on a Conservative board extolling the virtues of ditching the Constitution just like the segregationists did, and replacing it with tyranny from the bench.
-
It came from an extended discussion you jumped into the middle of without reading the start.
It is still quite a leap from 'self-defense' to murdering a house guest that has overstayed his welcome. From a logic standpoint, it could not go unaddressed.
-
It isn't. Only a complete idiot would look for the word 'email' in a treatise on the limitations of government. The key phrase is about unreasonable searches and seizures, period.
Uh, no. That's your own made-up bullshit of an argument, and a very weak and stupid one at that. As Ayn Rand once wrote, the Constitution is not a charter of government power, but a charter of citizen's protection against its government. The people's protection against unreasonable search and seizure is not limited to what could be taken by force at the point of a musket, just as the freedom of the press not limited to what can be produced by a manual printing press, or as freedom of speech is not limited to what can be spoken from atop a wood crate in the public square.
The main difference here is that you nor anyone else sharing your views are 100% unable to read the word 'abortion' into the Constitution. This is self evident. Ever since first joining this forum, I have challenged any and all of the Roe-tyranny supporters to cite the Constitutional basis for that decision. And not one has ever taken me up on it. Not a single one. And why do you think that is? Could it be because no such Constitutional basis exists?
Yet here you are with your 'email' bullshit, hoping that it suffices as a substitute for something you know in your heart does not exist - a Constitutional basis for Roe.
It's right beside the word 'segregation'. (See: Plessy)
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.
And the broader point about the Fourth Amendment is that application goes further than merely realizing that a cellphone or a computer is an “effect†which is protected from unreasonable searches and seizures under the amendment. For example, letting a third party get involved will often vitiate the protection; however, that general rule does not apply to communications like telephone calls that pass through equipment owned by independent third parties who have no necessary obligation to maintain the speaker’s confidences. Nonetheless, telephone calls are also protected under the Fourth Amendment, under the general rubric of a “reasonable expectation of privacy†which does not itself appear in the Constitution, and which cannot be easily read into it the way that a cellphone or computer can be read into he term “effects.â€
Do you disavow the current reach of the Fourth Amendment as unwarranted judicial activism?
-
Yes, it took a Civil War and 5 Jurist to overcome that 3/5th $hit compromise of our Founding Fathers.
-
It is still quite a leap from 'self-defense' to murdering a house guest that has overstayed his welcome. From a logic standpoint, it could not go unaddressed.
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?
-
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. *****rollingeyes*****
-
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.
-
So is the right to liberty.
Pregnant women have choices. Liberty to kill?
-
Oh, please. No, there is no right to murder someone who is sleeping in your living room. *****rollingeyes*****
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?
-
Pregnant women have choices. Liberty to kill?
Are you saying that nobody has the right to kill another person, under any circumstances?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
@Oceander
(https://mcguff1.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/catching_flak1.jpg?w=450)
Oh, look at the contributions of the so-called Ted Cruz supporters.
:silly:
@corbe
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
"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?
-
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!
-
Oh, look at the contributions of the so-called Ted Cruz supporters.
:silly:
@corbe
Don't pigeon hole me @TomSea, I'm drunk and have a tendency to lash out at Trumpers in this condition, drawing Mods ire..
-
It does not. Your Supreme Court also stood up for slavery? So, we assume you see no wrong with that either.
Jazzhead might as well be writing amicus briefs for the defense in Brown v. Board of Education, arguing how the Constitution says that segregation is legal.
-
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.
That's really beautiful and all, but it doesn't have a thing to do with the Fourth Amendment.
Ask the Supreme Court, because that’s the basis on which Fourth Amendment cases are generally decided. And it’s the only basis on which a communication that passes through the control of an independent third party could be covered by the Fourth Amendment.
Or has the Court also gone wildly off base with the Fourth Amendment as well?
-
Ask the Supreme Court, because that’s the basis on which Fourth Amendment cases are generally decided.
That's a mistake. The Supreme Court should only decide Fourth Amendment cases based on what the Fourth Amendment says.
-
Don't pigeon hole me @TomSea, I'm drunk and have a tendency to lash out at Trumpers in this condition, drawing Mods ire..
There's hardly an issue President Cruz is more passionate about.... so, again, with some, it's not really about principle and echoing or agreeing with the same stances.
@corbe
-
Oh, look at the contributions of the so-called Ted Cruz supporters.
:silly:
@corbe
@TomSea
You're not helping. Try to get a handle on your obsession long enough to post.
-
That's a mistake. The Supreme Court should only decide Fourth Amendment cases based on what the Fourth Amendment says.
So then, you would agree that phone calls are not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Similarly, emails, at least while in transit or on a mail server, are also not protected from seizure. Nor are cellphone signals.
-
Missing words in Constitution: Abortion, conception, quickening, birth
…. in case a "textualist" were to search
and would not an "originalist" seek to learn the extant common and acceptable practices at the time the document was drawn?
The Constitution is a limit on the government. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the government to limit a person's access to abortion.
And considering that abortion was accepted during Colonial times, this makes sense to Originalists.
We can argue how we think things should be, but the way it is, the Constitution has been deemed to protect the right.
Remember, the "tyrants" were in their positions in accordance with the procedures or our republuc enshrined in our Constitution. They legally provided an interpretation of our Constitution. If we don't like it, we need to change the Constitution via the federal republican means in our Constitution.
-
So then, you would agree that phone calls are not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Similarly, emails, at least while in transit or on a mail server, are also not protected from seizure. Nor are cellphone signals.
Help me out here, Oceander. What part of this are you not getting?
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.
-
Help me out here, Oceander. What part of this are you not getting?
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.
There isnt much help for you because you do not wish to discuss the issue.
Where in the language does it contain the word “email�
Otherwise, if I pass a document to a stranger and ask him to give it to my friend (and conspirator), the police have violated the Fourth Amendment if they seize the document from this stranger while he possesses it?
-
We can argue how we think things should be, but the way it is, the Constitution has been deemed to protect the right.
Please show me this part of the Constitution that is "deemed" to override Amendment X.
-
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?
I know what it isn't. Oops, I made a mistake. I had sex without protection and now I am pregnant.
-
I know what it isn't. Oops, I made a mistake. I had sex without protection and now I am pregnant.
What is it about a doctor’s sayso that can magically convert a murder into a good thing?
If abortion is murder, then it is murder regardless of whether some doctor says it’s medically necessary.
Your view, BTW, doesn’t respect the child as a child, but merely treats it as a punishment to be visited on a woman who has sex.
-
There isnt much help for you because you do not wish to discuss the issue.
The issue here is Amendment IV. I just posted it for you. Again. I asked you a direct question regarding that amendment - a question which you failed to answer. So tell me exactly how is it that I am the one not wishing to discuss an issue that I just asked about and one that you did not wish to answer? Maybe logic isn't your strong suit.
Where in the language does it contain the word “email�
It doesn't. You won't find words like internet, stealing, murder, or gun either. Nor does the status of the word "email" absolve the government of any restrictions placed upon it by Amendment IV. And only a complete fool would keep bringing it up.
Otherwise, if I pass a document to a stranger and ask him to give it to my friend (and conspirator), the police have violated the Fourth Amendment if they seize the document from this stranger while he possesses it?
That would depend on whether their seizure was reasonable. (See: Amendment IV)
-
What part of the Constitution allows murder to be a crime?
-
Please show me this part of the Constitution that is "deemed" to override Amendment X.
Nothing is overriding Amendment X. In fact, that amendment is part of my point. But you can't ignore IV and XIV.
-
Nothing is overriding Amendment X. In fact, that amendment is part of my point. But you can't ignore IV and XIV.
Depriving a State of the right to decide its own laws regarding abortion, murder, etc. is a violation of Amendment X.
Just curious though. What do Amendments IV and XIV have to do with depriving the state of Texas the right to formulate its own abortion laws?
-
Justice Byron White, a JFK appointee to the SCOTUS by the way, penned the dissent to Roe V. Wade:
No Historical Support
With all due respect, I dissent. I ï¬nd nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judg-ment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new con-stitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufï¬-cient substance to override most existing state abortion stat-utes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible im-pacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.
https://www.scribd.com/document/217330653/Dissent-White (https://www.scribd.com/document/217330653/Dissent-White)
So, even some justices didn't see these rights.
-
Depriving a State of the right to decide its own laws regarding abortion, murder, etc. is a violation of Amendment X.
So you'd be okay with a state passing laws outlawing gun ownership, private cellphone use, newspaper publication, etc.? After all, "Amendment X!"
-
Justice Byron White, a JFK appointee to the SCOTUS by the way, penned the dissent to Roe V. Wade:
So, even some justices didn't see these rights.
And according to the majority opinion in Roe, it is only a temporary right. Once a baby hits the 24th week, States magically gain the right to regulate abortion. Go figure.
-
So you'd be okay with a state passing laws outlawing gun ownership
No. It violates Amendment II.
private cellphone use
That is their right. As a citizen of such a state, I would not be in favor of them doing so, but it is still within their right under the Constitution.
newspaper publication
Again, that is their right. As a citizen of such a state, I would not be in favor of them doing so, but it is still within their right under the Constitution. Furthermore, Congress holds the power to establish federal law guaranteeing that right, just as they do with abortion. But in the absence of federal law, it is up to the States. And while I may not agree with what a State chooses to do, I uphold their right to do it.
-
And according to the majority opinion in Roe, it is only a temporary right. Once a baby hits the 24th week, States magically gain the right to regulate abortion. Go figure.
At the point of viability is when the State’s alleged interests only become weighty enough to outweigh the woman’s right to personal liberty. No mystery or magic there, it’s a classic balancing test, anchored in practicalities.
-
Justice Byron White, a JFK appointee to the SCOTUS by the way, penned the dissent to Roe V. Wade:
So, even some justices didn't see these rights.
Dickerson v. United States: “Whether or not we agree with Miranda’s reasoning and its resulting rule, were we addressing the issue in the first instance, the principles of stare decisis weigh heavily against overruling it now.â€
-
No mystery or magic there, it’s a classic balancing test, anchored in practicalities.
But not anchored in the Constitution of the United States of America.
-
But not anchored in the Constitution of the United States of America.
Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000).
-
There's hardly an issue President Cruz is more passionate about.... so, again, with some, it's not really about principle and echoing or agreeing with the same stances.
@corbe
And, thankfully, Cruz showed Trump how to be pro-life.
-
Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000).
Constitution
(https://www.brainscape.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/united-states-constitution.jpg)
-
And, thankfully, Cruz showed Trump how to be pro-life.
@Sanguine
So, actually, Cruz is responsible for Trump being the most pro-life president, then. I never thought of it that way, but you're right!
-
If Sen. Collins is correct (which is probable) Trump is about to 'deviate' from that list he promised Sen. Cruz he'd adhere to for ALL nominees to the SC in exchange for the Mythical, Magical Endorsement tour in 2016.
-
Constitution
(https://www.brainscape.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/united-states-constitution.jpg)
Dickerson says Miranda is in the Constitution. Roe v. Wade said the right to privacy was in the Constituion and that will almost certainly be confirmed by the Court if someone is foolish enough to raise the issue.
Therefore, it is in the Constitution.
-
Dickerson v. United States: “Whether or not we agree with Miranda’s reasoning and its resulting rule, were we addressing the issue in the first instance, the principles of stare decisis weigh heavily against overruling it now.â€
So we should keep segregation because it has already been decided. Stare decisis outweighs the Constitution, right?
-
So we should keep segregation because it has already been decided. Stare decisis outweighs the Constitution, right?
Read Dickerson. Stare decisis will justify not overruling a prior case unless there are special circumstances. Keeping millions of people in quasi-bondage under segregation would certainly count as sufficient circumstances justifying the overruling of a precedent that permitted segregation.
No such special circumstances of the same order of magnitude arise here.
-
@Sanguine
So, actually, Cruz is responsible for Trump being the most pro-life president, then. I never thought of it that way, but you're right!
I didn't realize it either until Tom pointed it out to us.
-
Dickerson says Miranda is in the Constitution.
Dickerson says no such thing.
Roe v. Wade said the right to privacy was in the Constituion
Plessy says 'separate but equal' is in the Constitution.
Therefore, it is in the Constitution.
So by that argument, segregation is also in the Constitution. Good luck with that reasoning. It didn't work out for the Klan, but you seem to be an optimist.
-
Read Dickerson.
Read the Constitution. You seem to be doing everything but.
Stare decisis will justify not overruling a prior case unless there are special circumstances.
So Brown was incorrect? Instead of reading the Constitution, the Court should have relied on stare decisis to justify upholding segregation?
Keeping millions of people in quasi-bondage under segregation would certainly count as sufficient circumstances justifying the overruling of a precedent that permitted segregation.
Killing millions of unborn babies would certainly count as sufficient circumstances justifying the overruling of a precedent that denied states the right to establish their own laws.
-
Dickerson says no such thing.
Plessy says 'separate but equal' is in the Constitution.
So by that argument, segregation is also in the Constitution. Good luck with that reasoning. It didn't work out for the Klan, but you seem to be an optimist.
You clearly didn’t read Dickerson then.
-
Read the Constitution. You seem to be doing everything but.
So Brown was incorrect? Instead of reading the Constitution, the Court should have relied on stare decisis to justify upholding segregation?
Killing millions of unborn babies would certainly count as sufficient circumstances justifying the overruling of a precedent that denied states the right to establish their own laws.
<NOPE. If you have to accuse another poster of lying, you need to examine your argument.>
-
Constitution
(https://www.brainscape.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/united-states-constitution.jpg)
@Hoodat
Some apparently cannot distinguish court opinions from fundamental law.
-
You clearly didn’t read Dickerson then.
Miranda is a constitutional decision of the court - not part of the Constitution. The gist of Dickerson is that Congress cannot pass a law that overrules a constitutional decision made by the court. Not that any of this has a damn thing to do with Roe. Your desperation is showing.
-
Lying about the statistics doesn’t do much for your weak case.
Lying? Moi? Please do tell. What falsehood did I utter?
As for weak cases, I still have yet to hear a Constitutional basis for Roe.
-
@Hoodat
Some apparently cannot distinguish court opinions from fundamental law.
Some apparently can’t distinguish the weight to be given their opinions of what the Constitution means over what the duly constituted Court with that responsibility says it means.
Let me give you a hint: the Constitution doesn’t give a fig what your opinion is; it cares what the Supreme Court’s opinion is; that’s the purpose of the Court.
-
Miranda is a constitutional decision of the court - not part of the Constitution. The gist of Dickerson is that Congress cannot pass a law that overrules a constitutional decision made by the court. Not that any of this has a damn thing to do with Roe. Your desperation is showing.
Now, sport, what does it say about the weight to be given to precedent? Even if the Court would not hold the same again.
Come on sport. It ain’t that hard to read.
-
Let me give you a hint: the Constitution doesn’t give a fig what your opinion is; it cares what the Supreme Court’s opinion is; that’s the purpose of the Court.
The Constitution doesn't care what the Supreme Court says either. Just sayin'
-
Some apparently can’t distinguish the weight to be given their opinions of what the Constitution means over what the duly constituted Court with that responsibility says it means.
Let me give you a hint: the Constitution doesn’t give a fig what your opinion is; it cares what the Supreme Court’s opinion is; that’s the purpose of the Court.
Show me in the Constitution where that power is granted to SCOTUS or any other court for that matter. I'll wait.
-
Lying? Moi? Please do tell. What falsehood did I utter?
As for weak cases, I still have yet to hear a Constitutional basis for Roe.
Millions of babies. Hardly. Significantly less than a million, and many unviable.
-
@Sanguine
So, actually, Cruz is responsible for Trump being the most pro-life president, then. I never thought of it that way, but you're right!
Another poster in full agreement with me........Trump is GOD!!!!
More people hopping on the Trump Train on a daily basis now.
-
Now, sport, what does it say about the weight to be given to precedent?
It says that said precedent could not be overturned by an act of Congress.
-
Show me in the Constitution where that power is granted to SCOTUS or any other court for that matter. I'll wait.
Show me where in the Constitution your opinion is given an weight at all. Heck, even your vote only counts if your state says it does.
-
It says that said precedent could not be overturned by an act of Congress.
No, sport. Now you’re just dodging the inevitable. What did it say about the Court overruling its own precedent.
-
Millions of babies. Hardly. Significantly less than a million, and many unviable.
And the "number count" makes a difference? You suck at abortion promotion.
-
It says it right here in paragraph 2:
(a) Miranda, being a constitutional decision of this Court, may not
be in effect overruled by an Act of Congress.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/428/case.pdf
-
And the "number count" makes a difference? You suck at abortion promotion.
I’m not the one who started throwing number counts around sport. Get your facts straight.
-
Millions of babies. Hardly. Significantly less than a million, and many unviable.
Is it your position that significantly fewer than one million abortions have occurred in the US since 1973? Or are you arguing about the nature of the fetus by suggesting that out of tens of millions of abortions, significantly fewer than one million terminated babies?
-
Show me where in the Constitution your opinion is given an weight at all. Heck, even your vote only counts if your state says it does.
Nice dodge! And, under our Constitution, the congress and the president can overrule any court opinion ever rendered!
-
It says it right here in paragraph 2:
(a) Miranda, being a constitutional decision of this Court, may not
be in effect overruled by an Act of Congress.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/428/case.pdf
Ahhh yes, more Bullshit from hoodat. Try the first full paragraph on page 443 of the official report.
-
Nice dodge! And, under our Constitution, the congress and the president can overrule any court opinion ever rendered!
Really? So why was it in Dickerson Congress was unable to overrule Miranda by statute?
-
Is it your position that significantly fewer than one million abortions have occurred in the US since 1973? Or are you arguing about the nature of the fetus by suggesting that out of tens of millions of abortions, significantly fewer than one million terminated babies?
To quote one of the gang: does the count matter?
-
To quote one of the gang: does the count matter?
I'm just trying to understand your statement in 194. Are you willing to clarify?
-
I’m not the one who started throwing number counts around sport. Get your facts straight.
And that matters ? And you seem to be on the wrong side 24/7/365 lately.
-
Really? So why was it in Dickerson Congress was unable to overrule Miranda by statute?
Because Lawyers in black robes have been allowed to color FAR outside the lines for a very long time. THAT is the precise root of the problem!
Under the Constitution the congress writes law and the president signs them into law or not. Courts have no dog in that hut period!
They can render opinions only.
-
I’m not the one who started throwing number counts around sport. Get your facts straight.
Good grief, I was paraphrasing your post (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,322711.msg1729957.html#msg1729957).
-
Ahhh yes, more Bullshit from hoodat. Try the first full paragraph on page 443 of the official report.
So now you're calling Dickerson "bullshit"? I quoted it verbatim.
btw, the entire decision is only 38 pages long.
-
Really? So why was it in Dickerson Congress was unable to overrule Miranda by statute?
Again,
(a) Miranda, being a constitutional decision of this Court, may not
be in effect overruled by an Act of Congress.
-
Because Lawyers in black robes have been allowed to color FAR outside the lines for a very long time. THAT is the precise root of the problem!
Under the Constitution the congress writes law and the president signs them into law or not. Courts have no dog in that hut period!
The can render opinions only.
This man is 100% correct. The problem with the country is lawyers.
-
Keep it above the belt, gentlemen.
-
This is the reason I prefer no women in politics.
I know a few are conservative and worth a vote, and I would certainly pick up the banner for a Maggie Thatcher clone; however, they are so few and far between, it is not worth the risk of placing onto the Supreme Court, a lifetime appointment or voting them into office. which essentially turns into the same tenure.
-
What is it about a doctor’s sayso that can magically convert a murder into a good thing?
If abortion is murder, then it is murder regardless of whether some doctor says it’s medically necessary.
Your view, BTW, doesn’t respect the child as a child, but merely treats it as a punishment to be visited on a woman who has sex.
That is not my view that is the lefts view. Exactly what Obama said while defending abortion. He wouldn't want his daughter to be punished. I never said I would choose abortion in any instance. And based on some of the things a child would have to live with it would take a lot of prayer. I said I wouldn't judge parents for heart wrenching decisions that they make when there is severe medical problems with a pregnancy. Some don't even have heartbeats in the womb so instead of waiting for miscarriage which could cause hemorrhage they abort the already dead fetus. There are severe medical issues like part of the brain and skull missing. That decision is between them and God.
That is very much different than the abortion industry of oops mistake. Go to Planned Parenthood and get rid of it.
-
@Oceander
In the case you claim to have read, this paragraph summarizes your argument in part:
Whether or not we would agree with Miranda’s reasoning
and its resulting rule, were we addressing the issue in the
first instance, the principles of stare decisis weigh heavily
against overruling it now. . . . While “ ‘stare decisis is
not an inexorable command, . . . particularly when we are
interpreting the Constitution, . . . “even
in constitutional cases, the doctrine carries such persuasive
force that we have always required a departure from
precedent to be supported by some ‘special justification.’ â€
Note how it describes stare decisis as a persuasive force, but not an inexorable command. It also argues that a departure from it should be supported by some special justification.
With this case, there is no special justification, nor should there be since it was never a challenge to Miranda, but instead a case on whether Miranda could be overturned by Congressional action. This is distinctly different from Roe, where medical advances more than suffice for special justification.
From a legal standpoint, Dickerson is an extremely poor choice for upholding the Constitutionality of Roe. It smacks of desperation for someone with no other avenues. As Justice Rehnquist stated:
No constitutional rule is immutable,
and the sort of refinements made by
such cases are merely a normal part
of constitutional law.
-
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
James Madison, Federalist 47
His fears have been realized and THAT is the problem!
-
There are severe medical issues like part of the brain and skull missing. That decision is between them and God.
That is very much different than the abortion industry of oops mistake. Go to Planned Parenthood and get rid of it.
Sarah Palin refused to abort Trig. This is why the Left hates her so much.
-
Keep it above the belt, gentlemen.
Abortion is blood sport. There is no belt.
-
Some apparently can’t distinguish the weight to be given their opinions of what the Constitution means over what the duly constituted Court with that responsibility says it means.
Let me give you a hint: the Constitution doesn’t give a fig what your opinion is; it cares what the Supreme Court’s opinion is; that’s the purpose of the Court.
That is just complete and utter nonsense.
You actually believe the Constitution of the United States cares more about a few unelected judges rendering opinions than anything else?
If you believe that, then that is the most chilling statement I have read on these threads in a long time. Or, maybe just babbling by an uninformed individual.
I was taught in grade school that the Constitution was about governance of this country and framed the entire document in such a way that ensured that the people of this country through its elected representatives would be able to manage the affairs of this country. Judges were never intended to be as important in that management as you pretend they are.
-
Abortion is blood sport. There is no belt.
"On July 1, Wingnut was asked to remove himself from his place of posting; that request came from his Mod. Deep down, he knew she was right, but he also knew that some day he would return to the forum. With nowhere else to go, he appeared at the home of his friend, Oscar Madison. Several years earlier, Madison's Mod had thrown HIM out, requesting that HE never return. Can two zotted men share an apartment without driving each other crazy?
-
Only if one is named Pee Wee
(https://thisstage.la/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/pee-wee_2.jpg)
-
(http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2088/2881/1600/oddcouple_13.jpg)
-
Keep it above the belt, gentlemen.
There was below the belt punching? I didn't notice. I put the guy who was doing all the dirty fighting on Ignore for a couple days, so I didn't see anything....
-
Another poster in full agreement with me........Trump is GOD!!!!
More people hopping on the Trump Train on a daily basis now.
@Frank Cannon
Official confirmation of your hardcore Trump fan status?
-
Sarah Palin refused to abort Trig. This is why the Left hates her so much.
I don't think of Down Syndrome as severe medical diagnosis. I am talking about conditions like microcephaly where the child will be missing part of the brain and skull. I honestly can't bring myself to judge a person. In some cases like this it might be merciful. As a Christian I even struggle with that because I believe God has a purpose for all life. All I am saying is I won't judge a person for that kind of medical abortion.
-
"On July 1, Wingnut was asked to remove himself from his place of posting; that request came from his Mod. Deep down, he knew she was right, but he also knew that some day he would return to the forum. With nowhere else to go, he appeared at the home of his friend, Oscar Madison. Several years earlier, Madison's Mod had thrown HIM out, requesting that HE never return. Can two zotted men share an apartment without driving each other crazy?
I can't take it anymore, I'm cracking up. Everything you do irritates me. And when you're not here, the things I know you're gonna do when you come in irritate me. You leave me little notes on my pillow. Told you 158 times I can't stand little notes on my pillow. "We're all out of cornflakes. F.U." Took me three hours to figure out F.U. was Felix Ungar!
-
I don't think of Down Syndrome as severe medical diagnosis. I am talking about conditions like microcephaly where the child will be missing part of the brain and skull. I honestly can't bring myself to judge a person. In some cases like this it might be merciful. As a Christian I even struggle with that because I believe God has a purpose for all life. All I am saying is I won't judge a person for that kind of medical abortion.
I think reasonable minds can make a distinction between babies like that, and ones who are suctioned out because they're inconvenient.
The fact remains the liberals hate Palin because she would not abort a Downs baby.
-
@Frank Cannon
Official confirmation of your hardcore Trump fan status?
You needed that post for confirmation? Good God woman.
-
I think reasonable minds can make a distinction between babies like that, and ones who are suctioned out because they're inconvenient.
The fact remains the liberals hate Palin because she would not abort a Downs baby.
Most liberals don't have reasonable minds.
-
As a Christian I even struggle with that because I believe God has a purpose for all life.
A third to a half of all conceptions (i.e., "lives" to some people) pass from a woman's body before she even realizes she was pregnant.
Why does God create such lives only to pass them that way, if all life must have a purpose?
I submit that perhaps a zygote doesn't yet have a soul. Perhaps a soul doesn't enter even a blastocyst. Who are we to know when?
-
A third to a half of all conceptions (i.e., "lives" to some people) pass from a woman's body before she even realizes she was pregnant.
Why does God create such lives only to pass them that way, if all life must have a purpose?
I submit that perhaps a zygote doesn't yet have a soul. Perhaps a soul doesn't enter even a blastocyst. Who are we to know when?
Interesting read on the subject
https://probe.org/when-does-a-fetus-receive-a-soul/
That's true in wildlife also. For instance in fish and birds not all eggs hatch.........
So what is the argument? That you can't determine a soul so there is no worth?
-
Interesting read on the subject
https://probe.org/when-does-a-fetus-receive-a-soul/
That's true in wildlife also. For instance in fish and birds not all eggs hatch.........
So what is the argument? That you can't determine a soul so there is no worth?
Thanks for the link. There are gaps in her reasoning, but it brings up some relevant points.
I think it means we can't assume God is a huge mass killer.
-
I think reasonable minds can make a distinction between babies like that, and ones who are suctioned out because they're inconvenient.
The fact remains the liberals hate Palin because she would not abort a Downs baby.
You're right -- reasonable minds can do that. But it isn't always so easy to draft laws that will end up doing what those reasonable minds desire.
-
As long as the candidate does not have a record on the issue, and states that he/she is unable to answer questions re: abortion because they may be required to rule on them, it should be OK.
I think you're right. In that case, she'll just ask the nominee if he/she respects precedent, and of course they'll say 1) "Yes, I do", but 2) "But that isn't an absolute rule, or else we'd still have Plessy v. Ferguson rather than Brown v. Board of Education." To get her vote, the nominee just can't be on the record saying Roe is bad law. That shouldn't be too tough to do.
Collins isn't stupid. Okay, she is kind of stupid, but even she knows that Roberts won't vote to overturn Roe. So she's making this statement as her version of virtue signalling -- "Yes, I know that Roe really won't be overturned, but this is my chance to show everyone how pro-choice I am."
I'd be shocked if she didn't vote for the nominee.
-
You're right -- reasonable minds can do that. But it isn't always so easy to draft laws that will end up doing what those reasonable minds desire.
As @libertybele mentioned upthread...the leftist mind is often not "reasonable." That is the seed of disagreement.
-
That is just complete and utter nonsense.
You actually believe the Constitution of the United States cares more about a few unelected judges rendering opinions than anything else?
If you believe that, then that is the most chilling statement I have read on these threads in a long time. Or, maybe just babbling by an uninformed individual.
I was taught in grade school that the Constitution was about governance of this country and framed the entire document in such a way that ensured that the people of this country through its elected representatives would be able to manage the affairs of this country. Judges were never intended to be as important in that management as you pretend they are.
@IsailedawayfromFR he also seems to think that it's perfectly ok for 9 black robes to create rights where there are none...as was the case in Roe.
Liberals who just looooove them some activist judges would probably just prefer we chance the name of the Supreme Court to the Politburo and call it a day.
Because the majority of the time that's how the court acts. That's exactly what the left wants.
-
Thank you Trump/Pence for bringing this to the fore. He said over the weekend, it should be a state issue.
-
@IsailedawayfromFR he also seems to think that it's perfectly ok for 9 black robes to create rights where there are none...as was the case in Roe.
Liberals who just looooove them some activist judges would probably just prefer we chance the name of the Supreme Court to the Politburo and call it a day.
Because the majority of the time that's how the court acts. That's exactly what the left wants.
LOL. I missed half of that conversation, except for where that half gets quoted by somebody else. I got tired of being trolled yesterday.
-
That is just complete and utter nonsense.
You actually believe the Constitution of the United States cares more about a few unelected judges rendering opinions than anything else?
If you believe that, then that is the most chilling statement I have read on these threads in a long time. Or, maybe just babbling by an uninformed individual.
I was taught in grade school that the Constitution was about governance of this country and framed the entire document in such a way that ensured that the people of this country through its elected representatives would be able to manage the affairs of this country. Judges were never intended to be as important in that management as you pretend they are.
:bigsilly:
So the Supreme Court should have STFU about gun control and let the people and their elected leaders decide whether the Second Amendment was an individual right or a collective right.
That is the only logical conclusion to draw from your statement. And the fact that you, like just about everyone else here, swooned and cried hosannas of joy over that case simply means that you are a grade A hypocrite, no better than the liberals you excoriate when it comes to using the courts as just another means of oppression.
<NOPE>
-
LOL. I missed half of that conversation, except for where that half gets quoted by somebody else. I got tired of being trolled yesterday.
@Cyber Liberty
The EXSUM is that he and Jazz are in complete agreement about judicial activism when it comes to their favorite Progressive policies.
-
"Unelected judges" is a democrat slur.
We live in a republic, where we have an elected President and Senators appointing those judges. Would we look with disdain on laws not passed via referendum?
-
@Cyber Liberty
The EXSUM is that he and Jazz are in complete agreement about judicial activism when it comes to their favorite Progressive policies.
<NOPE>
-
@Cyber Liberty
The EXSUM is that he and Jazz are in complete agreement about judicial activism when it comes to their favorite Progressive policies.
So tell me a new thing. :laugh:
-
@Cyber Liberty
The EXSUM is that he and Jazz are in complete agreement about judicial activism when it comes to their favorite Progressive policies.
Either you advocate judicial activism or you don't. If you support judicial activism re the causes and rights you favor, and decry judicial activism re the causes and rights you don't, then you're a hypocrite.
Yes, Roe was an example of judicial activism that extended rights where none had clearly existed before. BUT SO WAS HELLER. Now forget for a moment whether you agreed or disagreed with those cases when they were decided. The reality is that millions now rely on the Heller decision which found an individual RKBA. Millions now rely on Roe which found a woman's individual right to decide for herself whether to bear a child.
A conservative jurist respects precedent and allows BOTH those decisions to stand because so many rely on them. An activist jurist doesn't give a damn, and will upset the applecart no matter how many folks' established liberty is denied. The jurist who overturns Roe or Heller is a "tyrant in black robes". The jurist who respects precedent understands the proper role of the judiciary in our Republic.
-
So tell me a new thing. :laugh:
! No longer available (http://youtube.com/watch?v=pR--nDR88b0#)
-
I'm shocked!
Yeah, Collins has long been a reliable Democrat presence in the Senate, no matter what the party letter is after her name.
-
LOL. I missed half of that conversation, except for where that half gets quoted by somebody else. I got tired of being trolled yesterday.
Don't look now... but.....
apparently, the trolling continues today.
Offhand, I'd have to say the left is acting like a disturbed hornet's nest. (kicked-in antbed?) lolol
The very thought of having yet another Scalia-type justice nominated has driven them quite out of their minds (I know, I know.... how can you tell).
-
Either you advocate judicial activism or you don't. If you support judicial activism re the causes and rights you favor, and decry judicial activism re the causes and rights you don't, then you're a hypocrite.
Yes, Roe was an example of judicial activism that extended rights where none had clearly existed before. BUT SO WAS HELLER. Now forget for a moment whether you agreed or disagreed with those cases when they were decided. The reality is that millions now rely on the Heller decision which found an individual RKBA. Millions now rely on Roe which found a woman's individual right to decide for herself whether to bear a child.
A conservative jurist respects precedent and allows BOTH those decisions to stand because so many rely on them.
Reliance in the constitutional context is different than that, and frankly, it doesn't apply to either Roe or Heller.
Reliance that may justify stare decisis exists when you have a decision that upon which other laws/practices are based, that would be disrupted if you overruled that decision. And the disruption has to be of a kind different from if the decision had never been rendered at all. An example of that would be reversing decisions like National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, and essentially eliminating more than 20,000 pages of regulations overnight -- regulations upon which Congress and businesses have relied for decades. There, you could say that Congress didn't make laws because it relied on the existence of those regulations, and you'd end up with a chaos that nobody would have intended.
Roe and Heller both could be reversed without impacting that at all because they are singular issues that aren't tied to any others. The only "reliance" in Roe would be for women who became pregnant while it was valid law, under the expectation that they could get an abortion. But you could address that easily by saying in the reversal that state anti-abortion laws cannot apply to someone who is already pregnant. If you only apply it to pregnancies that occur after you toss Roe, reliance isn't an issue. Because anyone who has not yet gotten pregnant will know the law has changed, and therefore won't rely on it in making their decisions.
And the same is really true for Heller. Nobody really changed their behavior in reliance on Heller in a way that could not be remedied.
-
Roe and Heller both could be reversed without impacting that at all because they are singular issues that aren't tied to any others. The only "reliance" in Roe would be for women who became pregnant while it was valid law, under the expectation that they could get an abortion. But you could address that easily by saying in the reversal that state anti-abortion laws cannot apply to someone who is already pregnant. If you only apply it to pregnancies that occur after you toss Roe, reliance isn't an issue.
That's a rather crabbed view of "reliance". It is not just women who are pregnant who "rely" on the liberty confirmed by Roe. Liberty includes the ability to order one's life knowing that the choices I make in the future, should I become pregnant, are not circumscribed by the State. So too the individual RKBA found by Heller - that decision's confirmation of individual liberty is valuable not only to current gunowners who keep guns unrelated to any militia, but to any American concerned that his right to individual self-defense be Constitutionally protected.
A deprivation of liberty is not just an affront to those currently exercising that liberty.
-
Don't look now... but.....
apparently, the trolling continues today.
Offhand, I'd have to say the left is acting like a disturbed hornet's nest. (kicked-in antbed?) lolol
The very thought of having yet another Scalia-type justice nominated has driven them quite out of their minds (I know, I know.... how can you tell).
My wife brought this up with me yesterday. I told her that they reminded me of a bunch of 13 year old girls in 7th grade. She laughed and agreed.
-
That's a rather crabbed view of "reliance". It is not just women who are pregnant who "rely" on the liberty confirmed by Roe. Liberty includes the ability to order one's life knowing that the choices I make in the future, should I become pregnant, are not circumscribed by the State. So too the individual RKBA found by Heller - that decision's confirmation of individual liberty is valuable not only to current gunowners who keep guns unrelated to any militia, but to any American concerned that his right to individual self-defense be Constitutionally protected.
A deprivation of liberty is not just an affront to those currently exercising that liberty.
I doubt the 50 million plus who were denied life would see overturning overturning Roe as a "deprivation of liberty", only the selfish bitches who murdered them.
-
I doubt the 50 million plus who were denied life would see overturning overturning Roe as a "deprivation of liberty", only the selfish bitches who murdered them.
*****rollingeyes*****
-
*****rollingeyes*****
At least you CAN roll your little virtual eyes at my comment, unlike the ones who never got the chance. Who knows, maybe some day someone will decide certain other groups of people are
just lumps of tissue', too.
-
I doubt the 50 million plus who were denied life would see overturning overturning Roe as a "deprivation of liberty", only the selfish bitches who murdered them.
Dog-whistle.
-
Dog-whistle.
Go sit on a writ, counselor.
-
Go sit on a writ, counselor.
Get off your religious crusade, <NOPE>
-
My wife brought this up with me yesterday. I told her that they reminded me of a bunch of 13 year old girls in 7th grade. She laughed and agreed.
13 year old "mean girls" (they obviously love the Lohan).....lololol!
-
I doubt the 50 million plus who were denied life would see overturning overturning Roe as a "deprivation of liberty", only the selfish bitches who murdered them.
Funny (or not so funny) how weeping over the agonizing deaths of millions of innocent children is looked upon by the left as nothing more than religious bigotry.
There is no "right" in the Constitution to murder children.
-
At least you CAN roll your little virtual eyes at my comment, unlike the ones who never got the chance. Who knows, maybe some day someone will decide certain other groups of people are
just lumps of tissue', too.
Well, yeah, I'm sure there are people who would love to deny existence to the low intelligence people who support Trump.
-
Well, yeah, I'm sure there are people who would love to deny existence to the low intelligence people who support Trump.
Attempt to hijack the thread with this nonsequitur? :shrug:
-
A conservative jurist respects precedent and allows BOTH those decisions to stand because so many rely on them.
A Conservative jurist rejects Roe because it created a right from whole cloth that wasn't there in the Constitution in any section clause or sub paragraph.
And it's laughable that you look at the Heller decision as some kind of judicial activism. Because it's not. To believe that Heller is judicial activism is to believe the Second Amendment is as well.
But then again <NOPE> like yourself don't care one iota for the Constitution.
-
Get off your religious crusade, <NOPE> .
Did I mention religion? Why no. No, I didn't.
If you are worth a cheap cheeseburger as an attorney, you should recognize this quote:
(Hint: While not from the Constitution, it is from one of the seminal documents in the founding of this nation, and a clear statement of the intent of the Founders)
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
Because even then, people recognized that all else is moot if you don't live to enjoy it.
Get off your anti-American crusade, lawyer.
-
Attempt to hijack the thread with this nonsequitur? :shrug:
@musiclady more like a purposeful attempt to a) derail the thread and b) play the victim card when someone told her to shut up.
-
@musiclady more like a purposeful attempt to a) derail the thread and b) play the victim card when someone told her to shut up.
Sometimes the most beautiful words around:
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.
I'm not a big fan of that, but sometimes I have to in order to keep from being goaded into doing something I'll regret later.
-
Sometimes the most beautiful words around:
I'm not a big fan of that, but sometimes I have to in order to keep from being goaded into doing something I'll regret later.
Yes they are. Which is why it's confusing because it was my understanding we were all on ignore. :shrug:
-
Sometimes the most beautiful words around:
I'm not a big fan of that, but sometimes I have to in order to keep from being goaded into doing something I'll regret later.
I have exactly two people in that category and there they shall remain. Can't stand those who claim to be what they continue to prove they are not.
-
A Conservative jurist rejects Roe because it created a right from whole cloth that wasn't there in the Constitution in any section clause or sub paragraph.
And it's laughable that you look at the Heller decision as some kind of judicial activism. Because it's not. To believe that Heller is judicial activism is to believe the Second Amendment is as well.
It is laughable to see you try to justify your hypocrisy. You support judicial activism when it suits you, decry it when it doesn't. Of course Heller represents judicial activism - it holds 0f the first time in 200 years - that the 2A right is an individual right, notwithstanding the predicate clause. Like Roe, it extends the liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.
Court decisions create precedents - ESPECIALLY when they expand the realm of personal liberty. Whether you support or decry them, both Heller and Roe are relied on by millions in the ordering of their lives. It is the role of the peoples' elected representatives to take such liberties away, not the courts.
-
It is laughable to see you try to justify your hypocrisy. You support judicial activism when it suits you, decry it when it doesn't. Of course Heller represents judicial activism - it holds 0f the first time in 200 years - that the 2A right is an individual right, notwithstanding the predicate clause. Like Roe, it extends the liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.
Court decisions create precedents - ESPECIALLY when they expand the realm of personal liberty. Whether you support or decry them, both Heller and Roe are relied on by millions in the ordering of their lives. It is the role of the peoples' elected representatives to take such liberties away, not the courts.
The predicate clause of the second merely states why it is imperative for the people to remain armed and that Right to remain uninfringed. That it was not ruled on for 200 years is not a creation of a right which was already present, but the first time that politicians and the like had been so fricking stupid as to assume they could run roughshod over that right. Had it been so infringed at an earlier date, perhaps the ruling would have antedated Heller, but it would have been the same because the Right exists.
Heller didn't create a "right" out of whole cloth like Roe (to murder your get), but affirmed a Right which already existed.
-
It is laughable to see you try to justify your hypocrisy. You support judicial activism when it suits you, decry it when it doesn't. Of course Heller represents judicial activism - it holds 0f the first time in 200 years - that the 2A right is an individual right, notwithstanding the predicate clause. Like Roe, it extends the liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.
Court decisions create precedents - ESPECIALLY when they expand the realm of personal liberty. Whether you support or decry them, both Heller and Roe are relied on by millions in the ordering of their lives. It is the role of the peoples' elected representatives to take such liberties away, not the courts.
Court opinions are just that and nothing else. Our system of government nowhere grants judges the power to create law.
-
At least you CAN roll your little virtual eyes at my comment, unlike the ones who never got the chance. Who knows, maybe some day someone will decide certain other groups of people are
just lumps of tissue', too.
It is the woman's choice, and hers alone, to decide whether it is a life or a lump of tissue. Period. Not yours. Not your religion's. Not the government's.
That is the essence of liberty and self-determination. A pre-viable fetus has no legal rights whatsoever vis a vis the mother.
-
Court opinions are just that and nothing else. Our system of government nowhere grants judges the power to create law.
Both the Heller and Roe decisions were within the lawful authority of the Court.
-
It is laughable to see you try to justify your hypocrisy. You support judicial activism when it suits you, decry it when it doesn't. Of course Heller represents judicial activism - it holds 0f the first time in 200 years - that the 2A right is an individual right, notwithstanding the predicate clause. Like Roe, it extends the liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.
Court decisions create precedents - ESPECIALLY when they expand the realm of personal liberty. Whether you support or decry them, both Heller and Roe are relied on by millions in the ordering of their lives. It is the role of the peoples' elected representatives to take such liberties away, not the courts.
There is no hypocrisy in what I say or what I believe.
Roe is pure politics handed down from the bench plain and simple.
It is the very definition of judicial activism.
And maybe it's because you constantly cite the dissent...the losing side if you will...in Heller that you see it as judical activism instead of what it really is... reaffirmation of the 2nd Amendment and the people's right to keep and bear arms.
There is no judicial activism anywhere in confirming what is plainly written in the Second Amendment.
The only people who do that are Progressives that believe that Social expediency, rather than natural right, is thus to determine the sphere of individual freedom of action.
You reject natural rights like what are outlined in the Declaration and the Constitution specifically the Bill of Rights because you believe people need an overarching all powerful State to dictate our rights to us based on the prevailing social and political winds of the time.
It's how you can justify your support of abortion but lament the children of illegals being separated.
It's why you can call any Christian on TBR a bigot and tirn around and defend Islam the way you do.
-
Both the Heller and Roe decisions were within the lawful authority of the Court.
Not really. Only one is. But, in any case, they remain opinions only.
-
Both the Heller and Roe decisions were within the lawful authority of the Court.
Which enumerated Constitutional Right is abortion again?
-
@musiclady more like a purposeful attempt to a) derail the thread and b) play the victim card when someone told her to shut up.
I think she was talking about the left who do consider Trump voters low intelligence and should be gotten rid of. I didn't take it as a slam at anyone here. In fact, I'm not sure how you could. But, I'm sure Emjay could explain.
@musiclady @Emjay @txradioguy
-
It is the woman's choice, and hers alone, to decide whether it is a life or a lump of tissue. Period. Not yours. Not your religion's. Not the government's.
That is the essence of liberty and self-determination. A pre-viable fetus has no legal rights whatsoever vis a vis the mother.
So....if a woman decides you are a "lump of tissue" she can snuff you out? How disingenuous, counsellor.
I would suggest the decision is not generally made on the basis of whether there is a viable offspring developing, but upon the convenience of the presence thereof.
That's a damned dangerous precedent, when we start eliminating the inconvenient for being inconvenient.
I must note, also, that it takes two to produce an offspring, and that you give the other contributor to that unique DNA arrangement absolutely no say as to what happens to their progeny.
Ultimately, we both know that the woman has had that choice as long as there have been pregnancies, but since Roe, for every thousand live births, there have been 210 abortions. source (http://www.lifenews.com/2016/01/14/58586256-abortions-in-america-since-roe-v-wade-in-1973/)
BAN MOTHERHOOD! It seems the greatest single threat to the life of children is their mothers. Not Guns, Drugs, or rattling around the front seat of the car unrestrained, but dear ol' mom.
It isn't as if there are not myriad ways to prevent pregnancy, something a responsible person would do, and always ultimately the provenance of the prospective mother.
I simply fail to see wholesale murder as a solution for irresponsibility, especially with the sanction of any court or State.
-
A pre-viable fetus has no legal rights whatsoever vis a vis the mother.
Heartbeat begins at 4 weeks. From then on it's a human being.
Funny that you have such callous disregard for an unborn baby but you stick up so adamantly for people not from this country having their children "ripped" from them.
-
Not the government's
Again your Progressive hypocrisy shines through.
You hide behind the governmental rule that says abortion is legal...and in the same breath turn around and say the government doesn't have the right to decide.
Which is it? Which side of your mouth that you're talking out of are we to believe counselor?
-
It is the woman's choice, and hers alone, to decide whether it is a life or a lump of tissue. Period. Not yours. Not your religion's. Not the government's.
That is the essence of liberty and self-determination. A pre-viable fetus has no legal rights whatsoever vis a vis the mother.
No, we've already established that the fetus (which = baby in Latin) is an unique being of the human type, or a "human being". They do tend to look a bit lumpy at first, but their humanity is undeniable.
I won't discuss the issue of a soul, because that seems to go right over your head.
Gotta keep up, Councilor.
-
No, we've already established that the fetus (which = baby in Latin) is an unique being of the human type, or a "human being". They do tend to look a bit lumpy at first, but their humanity is undeniable.
I won't discuss the issue of a soul, because that seems to go right over your head.
Gotta keep up, Councilor.
:thumbsup:
-
No, we've already established that the fetus (which = baby in Latin) is an unique being of the human type, or a "human being". They do tend to look a bit lumpy at first, but their humanity is undeniable.
I won't discuss the issue of a soul, because that seems to go right over your head.
Gotta keep up, Councilor.
Use your powers of persuasion then. Because it is not up to you, me, your religion, my religion, the Government, or the Government's religion to decide.
It's up to the woman. That is the essence of liberty and self-determination. That is the natural right secured by the Constitution.
-
Use your powers of persuasion then. Because it is not up to you, me, your religion, my religion, the Government, or the Government's religion to decide.
It's up to the woman. That is the essence of liberty and self-determination. That is the natural right secured by the Constitution.
No, "self-determination" isn't there. LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are.
-
Again your Progressive hypocrisy shines through.
You hide behind the governmental rule that says abortion is legal...and in the same breath turn around and say the government doesn't have the right to decide.
Which is it? Which side of your mouth that you're talking out of are we to believe counselor?
In our Republic, the Constitution protects our natural rights and liberties from encroachment by the State. It's not that the government "says" that abortion is legal. It is that the government cannot deprive an individual of her natural right to decide for herself whether to reproduce.
Yes, there are better ways to accomplish that than abortion. But ultimately, this isn't about abortion, it is about self-determination.
-
Use your powers of persuasion then. Because it is not up to you, me, your religion, my religion, the Government, or the Government's religion to decide.
It's up to the woman. That is the essence of liberty and self-determination. That is the natural right secured by the Constitution.
The law did not completely stop abortions, but did eliminate that as a ready and viable alternative to ensuring that contraceptives were in use sufficiently to prevent inconvenient pregnancy. If you don't have a parachute, you are more likely to be a careful pilot.
If abortion was not legal, it is highly likely that other means of preventing pregnancy would be more judiciously employed, removing much of the perceived 'need' to resort to murder to keep from adding to the population.
Abstinence
"The Pill"
Hormonal Implants
IUDs
Condoms
Spermicides
'Rhythm' methods
"pull and pray"
etc.
Are all viable ways to avoid the murder of a developing child.
-
It is the woman's choice, and hers alone, to decide whether it is a life or a lump of tissue. Period. Not yours. Not your religion's. Not the government's.
@Jazzhead
Then why does killing a unborn child often carry a homicide charge? Is that not a government deciding it is a life?
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx (http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx)
-
Wow, we're in a 1970s time warp, a lump of tissue. Tsk, tsk.
-
Wow, we're in a 1970s time warp, a lump of tissue. Tsk, tsk.
Why! We're just all little toomahs walking around, don'tcha know! **nononono*
-
No, "self-determination" isn't there. LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are.
With two born individuals, life may trump liberty. But between a woman and a pre-viable fetus? Liberty trumps life. There's simply no other alternative.
Again - that's only with respect to the authority and power of the State. That's not a bar that applies to you. I urge you to persuade that single pregnant woman to do the right thing and give birth. Help her to decide, help her to address the money she lacks, her future that's at risk, and the partner that's abandoned her. It's not easy - but that's no excuse for demanding the government do the work for you.
-
@Jazzhead
Then why does killing a unborn child often carry a homicide charge? Is that not a government deciding it is a life?
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx (http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx)
Absolutely so, the defenses set up are just antiquated, defenses of unspeakable violence against another human being.
-
@Jazzhead
Then why does killing a unborn child often carry a homicide charge? Is that not a government deciding it is a life?
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx (http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx)
The fetus' legal rights are derivative of the mother's. The mother's right and expectation are the same as her child's - with respect to a third party tortfeasor .
-
With two born individuals, life may trump liberty. But between a woman and a pre-viable fetus? Liberty trumps life. There's simply no other alternative.
So in your warped mind..."liberty" = "abortion"
You're the poster child for a NARAL ad. That's just ghoulish to equate one to the other.
And to also try to equate being pregnant to having your liberty...your freedom taken away.
Again - that's only with respect to the authority and power of the State. That's not a bar that applies to you. I urge you to persuade that single pregnant woman to do the right thing and give birth. Help her to decide, help her to address the money she lacks, her future that's at risk, and the partner that's abandoned her. It's not easy - but that's no excuse for demanding the government do the work for you.
Fascinating how you always assume the woman getting the abortion is poor...uneducated...single and abandoned by her significant other.
You set up this poor pitiful stereotype of your typical abortion mill customer in order to justify your liberal stance on abortion.
You also like to omit the personal responsibility of the woman who got pregnant in the first place. You like to paint this grim picture like she had no choice to not spread her legs and this happened against her will.
It's a pattern with you. And it's right out of the Liberal as well as the Alinsky playbook.
-
Roe v Wade is just judicial tyranny or a bad decision, bad law.
Anyway central to this, is we don't need the Federal Government deciding what obviously should be left to the states.
-
The fetus' legal rights are derivative of the mother's. The mother's right and expectation are the same as her child's - with respect to a third party tortfeasor .
They typically carry a second charge. How does a criminal commit two homicides if it is not a life separate from the mother?
-
The fetus' legal rights are derivative of the mother's. The mother's right and expectation are the same as her child's - with respect to a third party tortfeasor .
IF that's the case then why charge someone who murders a woman and her unborn baby with two counts of murder?
If what you say is true it should only be one count since in your Liberal way of thinking the baby's rights are derived from the mother and not separate or equal.
-
Persuasion should be left to the Pro-Choicers to make law in the up to 22 states which would make abortion illegal, that's where your persuasion goes, same old broken record argument.
-
Religion is a scapegoat to justify dismemberment abortions and saline abortions or heaven forbid, partial-birth abortions, pretty weak really....oh, it all centers on people using their religious beliefs that see these things as wrong....now, we know what bigotry is. One can't put up a good argument so scapegoats religion.
-
Roe v Wade is just judicial tyranny or a bad decision, bad law.
Anyway central to this, is we don't need the Federal Government deciding what obviously should be left to the states.
But to give the decision back to the states you have to abolish Roe at the federal level...which means bringing it before the SCOTUS to be retried.
And the Liberals won't let that happen ever. They'll do what Jazzy is doing and start hysterically screaming "judicial activism" even though that's exactly what got us to this point where abortion is concerned.
-
With two born individuals, life may trump liberty. But between a woman and a pre-viable fetus? Liberty trumps life. There's simply no other alternative.
You might consider that a hierarchy in which one trumps the other, but I believe it is a progression of thought.
Without Life, the others cannot exist.
Without Life and Liberty, the possibility of the Pursuit of Happiness is greatly diminished.
It appears that Roe has no qualms about eliminating the first two in the quest for the latter, at the expense of the first two for another party. (The word is Liberty, not Libertine).
Again - that's only with respect to the authority and power of the State. That's not a bar that applies to you. I urge you to persuade that single pregnant woman to do the right thing and give birth. Help her to decide, help her to address the money she lacks, her future that's at risk, and the partner that's abandoned her. It's not easy - but that's no excuse for demanding the government do the work for you.
I have done so in the past and will continue to do so. In view of the circumstances, I agreed with her decision to remain unwed and continue with the pregnancy, and she went into labor on my back steps.
The result was a wonderful great-granddaughter I love dearly.
The prospective husband and father was 'entangled' with an old flame even as the wedding plans were being finalized, and was caught thus, in flagrante delicto. Needless to say, the wedding was cancelled, but the GGD was on the way.
Abortion was never really considered: Traditional Chippewa women value life, without which there can be nothing else.
-
The fetus' legal rights are derivative of the mother's. The mother's right and expectation are the same as her child's - with respect to a third party tortfeasor .
"Individual" means a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.1.htm#1.07
Some other states have other legal definitions.
-
I urge you to persuade that single pregnant woman to do the right thing and give birth. Help her to decide, help her to address the money she lacks, her future that's at risk, and the partner that's abandoned her. It's not easy - but that's no excuse for demanding the government do the work for you.
As my wife and I have done. And today, over 9 years later, we continue to raise that child as our own.
-
So in your warped mind..."liberty" = "abortion"
You're the poster child for a NARAL ad. That's just ghoulish to equate one to the other.
And to also try to equate being pregnant to having your liberty...your freedom taken away.
Fascinating how you always assume the woman getting the abortion is poor...uneducated...single and abandoned by her significant other.
You set up this poor pitiful stereotype of your typical abortion mill customer in order to justify your liberal stance on abortion.
You also like to omit the personal responsibility of the woman who got pregnant in the first place. You like to paint this grim picture like she had no choice to not spread her legs and this happened against her will.
It's a pattern with you. And it's right out of the Liberal as well as the Alinsky playbook.
In all fairness to Jazzhead, that is the population that Planned Parenthood specifically targets. Well, it would be if you added "and minority".
-
In all fairness to Jazzhead, that is the population that Planned Parenthood specifically targets. Well, it would be if you added "and minority".
It's a mechanism he uses in all his defenses of Liberal pet projects. Whether it's abortion...guns...illegal aliens or religion.
He always paints the protagonist in such a way he's able to always justify his Liberal point of view on the issue.
-
No, we've already established that the fetus (which = baby in Latin) is an unique being of the human type, or a "human being". They do tend to look a bit lumpy at first, but their humanity is undeniable.
I won't discuss the issue of a soul, because that seems to go right over your head.
Gotta keep up, Councilor.
:hands:
-
Attempt to hijack the thread with this nonsequitur? :shrug:
Heck....read the damned title.
'You've' hijacked this thread a dozen pages ago.
Move this crap to Members Only.
-
In all fairness to Jazzhead, that is the population that Planned Parenthood specifically targets. Well, it would be if you added "and minority".
As part of their "progressive" effort to rid the world of undesirable people.
Planned Parenthood has succeeded in doing long term what the Nazis only could do for a while before they were stopped....
-
As my wife and I have done. And today, over 9 years later, we continue to raise that child as our own.
God bless you @thackney !!!
-
With two born individuals, life may trump liberty. But between a woman and a pre-viable fetus? Liberty trumps life. There's simply no other alternative.
Pre-viable fetus?
There is nothing 'pre-viable' about that baby.
It is perfectly viable if you leave it alone.
-
Heck....read the damned title.
'You've' hijacked this thread a dozen pages ago.
Move this crap to Members Only.
Not even close to true.
Not even close.
A significant part of the subject is abortion "rights" and that's what the discussion should be about.
(Just curious......... do you want this valuable discussion moved because you don't want visitors to know we have a bunch of pro-life people on this forum? If so, that's a bit odd....)
-
Move this crap to Members Only.
RiV is that you?
-
I think she was talking about the left who do consider Trump voters low intelligence and should be gotten rid of. I didn't take it as a slam at anyone here. In fact, I'm not sure how you could. But, I'm sure Emjay could explain.
@musiclady @Emjay @txradioguy
You may be right. I was just basing it on posting history. :shrug:
-
RiV is that you?
As you're always prone to utter: "How does your post add anything of value to the discussion"
This entire debate is bullshit.
If it had been about NTs.....Nancy would have locked it days ago.
-
Traditional Chippewa women value life, without which there can be nothing else.
-
Pre-viable fetus?
There is nothing 'pre-viable' about that baby.
It is perfectly viable if you leave it alone.
Yeah, I never understood that argument either. If you don't provide food, water, shelter for anyone, they don't survive. Does that make all of us pre-viable?
-
As you're always prone to utter: "How does your post add anything of value to the discussion"
This entire debate is bullshit.
If it had been about NTs.....Nancy would have locked it days ago.
If you have a complaint about the administration of this site, please submit a MOD report.
-
Move this crap to Members Only.
Why? Is someone losing an argument, here?
-
As you're always prone to utter: "How does your post add anything of value to the discussion"
It adds as much as yours did...except mine with the little tinge of sarcasm was much funnier.
This entire debate is bullshit.
To you it is. To others it's not.
Don't like the topic...there are hundreds of others here you can read.
Or maybe you can get back to that answer I gave you to your call for thoughtful discussion about the media.
I put a lot of time and effort into my reply to you.
If it had been about NTs.....Nancy would have locked it days ago.
Nice try at playing the victim card. But you're wrong. And you know it.
-
Yeah, I never understood that argument either. If you don't provide food, water, shelter for anyone, they don't survive. Does that make all of us pre-viable?
Until we are old enough to rustle up our own supper, get shelter, clothing, etc., I reckon. :shrug:
-
Yeah, I never understood that argument either. If you don't provide food, water, shelter for anyone, they don't survive. Does that make all of us pre-viable?
It's a word creation by the left to avoid any mention of the word "baby".
I guess it helps them sleep better at night.
-
Yeah, I never understood that argument either. If you don't provide food, water, shelter for anyone, they don't survive. Does that make all of us pre-viable?
The only way to argue the 'rightness' of abortion is to completely suspend reality.
There is no way to defend it with consistent rational thought because it's an emotional argument about imaginary "rights."
-
Not even close to true.
Not even close.
A significant part of the subject is abortion "rights" and that's what the discussion should be about.
(Just curious......... do you want this valuable discussion moved because you don't want visitors to know we have a bunch of pro-life people on this forum? If so, that's a bit odd....)
Does that mean this isn't a good time to mention that I am fond of Pumpkin pie? Sometimes I like a good Buttermilk pie. Always room for Pecan Pie. :seeya:
-
It's a word creation by the left to avoid any mention of the word "baby".
I guess it helps them sleep better at night.
They just don't want to "punish a woman with a baby."
-
Until we are old enough to rustle up our own supper, get shelter, clothing, etc., I reckon. :shrug:
And if that is what they are arguing, they should all use Peter Singer's argument that we should be able to kill children until they are two years old.
It's absurd, but at least it's more consistent than arguing about "viability" as a reason to let a human being stay alive.
-
I have done so in the past and will continue to do so. In view of the circumstances, I agreed with her decision to remain unwed and continue with the pregnancy, and she went into labor on my back steps.
The result was a wonderful great-granddaughter I love dearly.
Good for you, @Smokin Joe ! I'm sure she's the apple of your eye!
-
@Jazzhead
You should try to persuade us that dismemberment and saline abortions are viable alternatives to life, since you are always preaching to others about persuading.
-
Yeah, I never understood that argument either. If you don't provide food, water, shelter for anyone, they don't survive. Does that make all of us pre-viable?
In effect, yes... Until we are post-viable...
And it ain't funny... The concept is there.
-
@Jazzhead
You should try to persuade us that dismemberment and saline abortions are viable alternatives to life, since you are always preaching to others about persuading.
Hear! Hear!
-
They just don't want to "punish a woman with a baby."
I don't know a single woman that considers her children to be anything but a blessing. The problem is that the child has to be born for a woman to figure that out.
-
No, we've already established that the fetus (which = baby in Latin) is an unique being of the human type, or a "human being". They do tend to look a bit lumpy at first, but their humanity is undeniable.
"Viability outside the womb" is the legal line in the sand ... the point at which the mother is (in a sense) held accountable for harming the life she is carrying, because it can survive without her. Prior to the point of viability outside the womb the fetus is legally considered a clump of foreign cells living off the woman.
-
LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are.
Actually @Sanguine these words are from the American Declaration of Independence (or Declaration of War) .... they are not a part of the US Constitution.
-
"Viability outside the womb" is the legal line in the sand ... the point at which the mother is (in a sense) held accountable for harming the life she is carrying, because it can survive without her. Prior to the point of viability outside the womb the fetus is legally considered a clump of foreign cells living off the woman.
Oh, I don't know about "the" legal line in the sand. Certainly some will argue so. Some would argue that when they are old enough to make their own peanut butter sandwich they are "viable". Perhaps a better argument might be when they are old enough to survive on their own. Probably 9 or 10.
However, none of that negates the idea that they are human beings.
-
Actually @Sanguine these words are from the American Declaration of Independence (or Declaration of War) .... they are not a part of the US Constitution.
That is correct, @Right_in_Virginia, as most of us have already noted.
-
Heartbeat begins at 4 weeks. From then on it's a human being.
I know this is a difficult subject, but the legal question is not one of the humanity --- but the viability of the fetus. At four weeks the fetus cannot survive outside the woman's womb, even with its own heartbeat.
-
That is correct, @Right_in_Virginia, as most of us have already noted.
My sincerest apologies if you corrected yourself @Sanguine and I missed that later post.
-
Actually @Sanguine these words are from the American Declaration of Independence (or Declaration of War) .... they are not a part of the US Constitution.
The US Constitution is beholden to the DoI, and every other commitment made prior to it's inception.
-
I know this is a difficult subject, but the legal question is not one of the humanity --- but the viability of the fetus. At four weeks the fetus cannot survive outside the woman's womb, even with its own heartbeat.
No, it's not about viability. It might be easier for the pro-abortion supporters to try to make it so.
-
My sincerest apologies if you corrected yourself @Sanguine and I missed that later post.
No, I didn't need to correct myself. Just you.
-
RiV is that you?
If you're going to try and get a laugh at my expense @txradioguy don't you think I should at least be in on the joke?
-
As you're always prone to utter: "How does your post add anything of value to the discussion"
This entire debate is bullshit.
If it had been about NTs.....Nancy would have locked it days ago.
There is a new and curious pattern of locking threads where NT's can't carry their own weight. I'm starting to wonder who the scout is reporting back to the Mods @DCPatriot ^-^
-
The US Constitution is beholden to the DoI, and every other commitment made prior to it's inception.
Everybody's always trying to Diss Jefferson. Poor guy only got the $2 Bill.
-
As my wife and I have done. And today, over 9 years later, we continue to raise that child as our own.
Very loving and admirable of you and your wife @thackney ... And one lucky kid.
-
There is a new and curious pattern of locking threads where NT's can't carry their own weight. I'm starting to wonder who the scout is reporting back to the Mods @DCPatriot ^-^
You're on the wrong thread. This isn't an NT/ET thread.
-
There is a new and curious pattern of locking threads where NT's can't carry their own weight. I'm starting to wonder who the scout is reporting back to the Mods @DCPatriot ^-^
Again, if you have a problem with the administration of the site, submit a MOD report.
-
Everybody's always trying to Diss Jefferson. Poor guy only got the $2 Bill.
That's right.
The very first breath of our nation defines what it is for. That is not redrawn by the Constitution, but rather, must edify it. Precedent and all.
-
The only way to argue the 'rightness' of abortion is to completely suspend reality.
I don't think anyone here is trying to argue the "rightness" of abortion. Much of the discussion has been about the legality of abortion and how to determine that when Lady Justice must be blind to any particular race, gender or creed.
-
Very loving and admirable of you and your wife @thackney ... And one lucky kid.
So @thackney s is a lucky kid. All the rest, complete with their individual DNA, are just unviable tissue masses. Interesting reasoning there @Right_in_Virginia.
-
Again, if you have a problem with the administration of the site, submit a MOD report.
I've no problem with this @Mod5 --- and any other Mod. Truth be told -- I find it rather entertaining. :laugh:
-
There is a new and curious pattern of locking threads where NT's can't carry their own weight. I'm starting to wonder who the scout is reporting back to the Mods @DCPatriot ^-^
...a bleeping joke.
-
So @thackney s is a lucky kid. All the rest, complete with their individual DNA, are just unviable tissue masses. Interesting reasoning there @Right_in_Virginia.
I want your post to make sense, I know there's an insult for me in there ... I just don''t understand what you're saying.
But, rest assured, I feel adequately chastised so you needn't try again.
Thanks for the ping.
-
Please stop the insults and trolling.
-
Creed - a set of beliefs or aims that guide someone's actions.
US Justice must not blind to creed; for example the Muslim belief in honor killing.
No. The Justices must focus on the act itself, killing, without regard to its religious roots.
-
I want your post to make sense, I know there's an insult for me in there ... I just don''t understand what you're saying.
But, rest assured, I feel adequately chastised so you needn't try again.
Thanks for the ping.
Somehow I knew you wouldn't. Thanks for playing! :whistle:
-
US justice is a weeping willow. Swaying at the touch of a breeze
Spit...
-
It seems to be shaping up that way.
Which is odd, because the vast majority of us should be in agreement that if Trump picks a pro-life nominee, we are on the side of Trump, and not of Collins.
How anyone can turn that into an NT/AT argument is a wonderment.....
-
The only way to argue the 'rightness' of abortion is to completely suspend reality.
There is no way to defend it with consistent rational thought because it's an emotional argument about imaginary "rights."
No one is defending the "rightness" of abortion. I believe everyone participating on this thread considers it morally wrong in most circumstances.
The issue is whether a woman has the right to decide whether to reproduce, and when that right can lawfully be exercised. Roe says she has that right, and that the State cannot interfere in her exercise of sovereignty over her own body at least until after the first trimester. (That formulation has been tinkered with over the years, but the concept remains - she must have the "meaningful" ability to exercise sovereignty; that is, self-determination.)
IMO that is entirely in keeping with the Constitution's letter and spirit to protect one's individual liberty from arbitrary encroachment by the State. But that hardly means the fetus is doomed.
-
As my wife and I have done. And today, over 9 years later, we continue to raise that child as our own.
Bravo, @thackney !
-
No one is defending the "rightness" of abortion. I believe everyone participating on this thread considers it morally wrong in most circumstances.
The issue is whether a woman has the right to decide whether to reproduce, and when that right can lawfully be exercised. Roe says she has that right, and that the State cannot interfere in her exercise of sovereignty over her own body at least until after the first trimester. (That formulation has been tinkered with over the years, but the concept remains - she must have the "meaningful" ability to exercise sovereignty; that is, self-determination.)
IMO that is entirely in keeping with the Constitution's letter and spirit to protect one's individual liberty from arbitrary encroachment by the State. But that hardly means the fetus is doomed.
The majority of people who are pro-abortion claim they're not pro-abortion, just like you do.
We've been through all this before, and I'm sure you're mind is still sealed shut to the reality of what abortion is, and the damage it does to the woman (whom pro-abortionists don't give a rip about).
And has been clearly stated before by many others who actually care about the Constitution, there is nothing in it about any imaginary "liberty" to destroy the life of another human being.
Just know that when you claim that abortion is about a woman's "right" to reproduce (which she, of course has before she has unprotected sex), that you are repeating the vilest leftist lie on record.
Abortion is entirely destructive. It harms women physically, mentally and emotionally.
And people who promote it and defend it, just don't care.
-
I got called a misogynist for pointing this out: The purpose of abortion is to keep women available for easy sex.
Fact.
-
I got called a misogynist for pointing this out: The purpose of abortion is to keep women available for easy sex.
Fact.
What gets lost in the shuffle with leftists arguing that abortion is pro-woman is not only that it gives men an even greater power over women, but also that it is extremely detrimental to the health and well-being of a woman overall.
This filthy lie that the left promotes that abortion is in ANY way good for women makes me sick.
Not only does it painfully destroy an innocent child's life in a number of heinous ways, but it also does irreparable harm to the women who have abortions.
The bogus "Constitutional right" and the bogus argument that it is pro-woman are joint lies that have fooled far too many gullible people.
-
Good for you, @Smokin Joe ! I'm sure she's the apple of your eye!
She is a bright and shining child, and has been a source of joy to us all. The world would be a darker (and duller) place without her.
Sad that so many think of children as something which takes from their lives, when really, they do enrich them.
-
No one is defending the "rightness" of abortion. I believe everyone participating on this thread considers it morally wrong in most circumstances.
The issue is whether a woman has the right to decide whether to reproduce, and when that right can lawfully be exercised. Roe says she has that right, and that the State cannot interfere in her exercise of sovereignty over her own body at least until after the first trimester. (That formulation has been tinkered with over the years, but the concept remains - she must have the "meaningful" ability to exercise sovereignty; that is, self-determination.)
IMO that is entirely in keeping with the Constitution's letter and spirit to protect one's individual liberty from arbitrary encroachment by the State. But that hardly means the fetus is doomed.
The right to decide whether to reproduce should be exercised before reproduction is a fait accompli.
Those means exist in many forms to prevent such, and should be used by those who wish exercise that right.
While women have reserved the right to change their minds forever, that right should not extend to ending a life, once started. The reproduction is already done.
-
The right to decide whether to reproduce should be exercised before reproduction is a fait accompli.
Those means exist in many forms to prevent such, and should be used by those who wish exercise that right.
While women have reserved the right to change their minds forever, that right should not extend to ending a life, once started. The reproduction is already done.
Such a simple truth made so messy and complicated by the distortions of the left.
She has had no rights denied her. She has made the choice to reproduce, has succeeded, and now has changed her mind.
It's not "religious bigotry" to make that statement. It's understanding what should be obvious to anyone who is actually thinking.
-
Such a simple truth made so messy and complicated by the distortions of the left.
She has had no rights denied her. She has made the choice to reproduce, has succeeded, and now has changed her mind.
It's not "religious bigotry" to make that statement. It's understanding what should be obvious to anyone who is actually thinking.
Indeed. Simple and mechanical biology. Not to be denied.
-
Indeed. Simple and mechanical biology. Not to be denied.
And yet................... **nononono*
-
And people who promote it and defend it, just don't care.
Ah, bullshit. No one's promoting or defending abortion. Attitudes like yours just harden hearts. The issue is simple: Human liberty demands that a woman have dominion over her body. Persuade her, support her to do the right thing. If you're so right about the damage caused by abortion, then make your case and she'll likely listen. But keep the damn State's hands off.
-
I got called a misogynist for pointing this out: The purpose of abortion is to keep women available for easy sex.
Fact.
I grew up in the 50's and what you say is the plain truth. 100% true. Back in the 50's early 60's
you were not getting much without a ring. Back then girls took sex very seriously. Now with birth
control pills and abortions not so much. My girl friend and I both graduated high school as virgins.
Damn the bad luck, lol.
-
I grew up in the 50's and what you say is the plain truth. 100% true. Back in the 50's early 60's
you were not getting much without a ring. Back then girls took sex very seriously. Now with birth
control pills and abortions not so much. My girl friend and I both graduated high school as virgins.
Damn the bad luck, lol.
THat makes you a few years ahead of me--post pill, pre herpes, life was good.
-
Ah, bullshit. No one's promoting or defending abortion. Attitudes like yours just harden hearts. The issue is simple: Human liberty demands that a woman have dominion over her body. Persuade her, support her to do the right thing. If you're so right about the damage caused by abortion, then make your case and she'll likely listen. But keep the damn State's hands off.
Persuade us to accept dismemberment abortion. Some states don't want to. I think it's clear, every state should have the right to decide. Not the central government.
-
THat makes you a few years ahead of me--post pill, pre herpes, life was good.
70 this Oct. Sucks to get old, but I can still do a days work, until 11AM that is.
-
70 this Oct. Sucks to get old, but I can still do a days work, until 11AM that is.
I'm something less that one month older than you.
-
Persuade us to accept dismemberment abortion. Some states don't want to. I think it's clear, every state should have the right to decide. Not the central government.
I'm pretty sure that is how it is going to go, if Trump can get some good Judges on the court. RvW
will not be over turned but states will be allowed to regulate.
-
I'm something less that one month older than you.
Hi grand Pa, ;)
-
Hi grand Pa, ;)
:beer:
-
70 this Oct. Sucks to get old, but I can still do a days work, until 11AM that is.
888high58888 Gotta get home before the sun gets high!
-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjzz9WK0YHcAhWHGDQIHRLpAjwQqUMIKjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs%2Fpost-partisan%2Fwp%2F2018%2F07%2F02%2Fsusan-collinss-grand-delusion%2F&usg=AOvVaw0bXdrJCLEWlX_3P5Qpn0Fw (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjzz9WK0YHcAhWHGDQIHRLpAjwQqUMIKjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs%2Fpost-partisan%2Fwp%2F2018%2F07%2F02%2Fsusan-collinss-grand-delusion%2F&usg=AOvVaw0bXdrJCLEWlX_3P5Qpn0Fw)
None of this passes the laugh test. “Respect precedent� Last week five justices overturned four decades of precedent in labor law. Collins voted for three of them.
This may be posted as a separate thread.
-
I admit it. I'll be 57 next month. I could only do 53 1/2 hours last week. In four days. (hangs head)
-
I admit it. I'll be 57 next month. I could only do 53 1/2 hours last week. In four days. (hangs head)
You should, you whippersnapper! :laugh:
(You know me...I'd be thrilled for you if you could spend more time at the river with a graphite rod in your hand.)
-
Okay, nice chitchat but it's not on topic of this very serious subject.
-
You should, you whippersnapper! :laugh:
(You know me...I'd be thrilled for you if you could spend more time at the river with a graphite rod in your hand.)
After that no bonus Saturday BS I am cutting my hours back to 50-55. I went to the river on Saturday. Caught a 2 lb. Brown and some smaller ones. River is still too high, but low enough if I fell in and drowned there would be a fair chance they could do a recovery.
-
Okay, nice chitchat but it's not on topic of this very serious subject.
Right. And it should be one reserved to each individual state.
FWIW, I consider the SCOTUS to be a Coven of black-robed witches.
-
That is just complete and utter nonsense.
You actually believe the Constitution of the United States cares more about a few unelected judges rendering opinions than anything else?
If you believe that, then that is the most chilling statement I have read on these threads in a long time. Or, maybe just babbling by an uninformed individual.
I was taught in grade school that the Constitution was about governance of this country and framed the entire document in such a way that ensured that the people of this country through its elected representatives would be able to manage the affairs of this country. Judges were never intended to be as important in that management as you pretend they are.
:bigsilly:
So the Supreme Court should have STFU about gun control and let the people and their elected leaders decide whether the Second Amendment was an individual right or a collective right.
Here is a textbook example of non-rational persuasion. There is no connection between @IsailedawayfromFR 's statement and the statement attributed by @Oceander .
The one attributed by Oceander is in regard to a right specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights. It is not comparable to a 'right' [sic] to abortion that is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. A substantial degree of dishonesty was required to make such a comparison. Because there is nothing in any of Isailedaway's posts that even hints at such a position on any right so mentioned in the Constitution.
That is the only logical conclusion to draw from your statement.
Same degree to make this statement as well.
And the fact that you, like just about everyone else here, swooned and cried hosannas of joy over that case simply means that you are a grade A hypocrite, no better than the liberals you excoriate when it comes to using the courts as just another means of oppression.
Oppression? Seriously? YOU are the one insisting that the courts ignore the Constitution in order to impose tyranny over the rest of us based on a precedent that you happen to like. Oppression? The position of most everyone here is that the power of the Court, and for that matter Congress and the Presidency as well, should be limited by the wording of the Constitution of the United States of America. There is nothing at all oppressive in that. Because the Constitution does not place limits on the citizenry. It places limits on government.
-
888high58888 Gotta get home before the sun gets high!
LOL, yeah here in SE Texas that is a definite yes. Particularly in June, July and August.
-
:bigsilly:
So the Supreme Court should have STFU about gun control and let the people and their elected leaders decide whether the Second Amendment was an individual right or a collective right.
Here is a textbook example of non-rational persuasion. There is no connection between @IsailedawayfromFR 's statement and the statement attributed by @Oceander .
The one attributed by Oceander is in regard to a right specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights. It is not comparable to a 'right' [sic] to abortion that is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. A substantial degree of dishonesty was required to make such a comparison. Because there is nothing in any of Isailedaway's posts that even hints at such a position on any right so mentioned in the Constitution.
Same degree to make this statement as well.
Oppression? Seriously? YOU are the one insisting that the courts ignore the Constitution in order to impose tyranny over the rest of us based on a precedent that you happen to like. Oppression? The position of most everyone here is that the power of the Court, and for that matter Congress and the Presidency as well, should be limited by the wording of the Constitution of the United States of America. There is nothing at all oppressive in that. Because the Constitution does not place limits on the citizenry. It places limits on government.
Because the Constitution does not place limits on the citizenry. It places limits on government.
:thumbsup:
-
Either you advocate judicial activism or you don't. If you support judicial activism re the causes and rights you favor, and decry judicial activism re the causes and rights you don't, then you're a hypocrite.
Yes, Roe was an example of judicial activism that extended rights where none had clearly existed before.
Then if you support Roe, you advocate judicial activism. Glad to see you finally admit it.
BUT SO WAS HELLER.
How so? Heller was based on Amendment II. Nothing activist about that. It is the same Amendment II that has been in existence for over 230 years. Compare that to Roe which is based upon . . . uh . . . um . . . gee, what exactly is it based upon?
Now forget for a moment whether you agreed or disagreed with those cases when they were decided. The reality is that millions now rely on the Heller decision which found an individual RKBA. Millions now rely on Roe
Millions also relied upon Plessy. And Dred Scott. So by your asinine reasoning, those rulings should still be in effect today.
Roe which found a woman's individual right to decide for herself whether to bear a child.
Enough with the lies, Jazzhead. You know damn well that is not true. Roe is about whether a state has the right to regulate abortion before the baby is 24 weeks old. It has nothing to do with a woman's right to get pregnant.
A conservative jurist respects precedent and allows BOTH those decisions to stand because so many rely on them.
Uh, no. A Conservative jurists places self-imposed limits on his power by relying on the Constitution as the basis for his/her rulings instead of imposing his/her will on a nation. A Conservative jurist puts his/her opinions aside on how they want a case to go, yielding instead to the contract that this nation adopted over two centuries ago.
An activist jurist doesn't give a damn, and will upset the applecart no matter how many folks' established liberty is denied.
Not sure what apple carts have to do with this. But the Roe court invented a temporary right out of thin air. That fact is certain. Their reason for doing so is irrelevant.
The jurist who overturns Roe or Heller is a "tyrant in black robes". The jurist who respects precedent understands the proper role of the judiciary in our Republic.
I had no idea that the unanimous Brown v. Board of Education decision was handed down by nine tyrants. But I'll put you down as one vote against the Constitution, one vote in favor of the precedent of Plessy v. Ferguson.
-
That's a rather crabbed view of "reliance". It is not just women who are pregnant who "rely" on the liberty confirmed by Roe.
Liberty? You call Roe 'liberty'? Roe deprives the people the right to shape and mold their society. Roe denies the right of the people to formulate their government in accordance with a set of moral standards upon which that society can thrive. Roe imposes a death culture upon society where human life is devalued - a culture backed by the force of the federal government against each State. Liberty? I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Liberty includes the ability to order one's life knowing that the choices I make in the future, should I become pregnant, are not circumscribed by the State.
To you, liberty is the right to kill one's child.
So too the individual RKBA found by Heller - that decision's confirmation of individual liberty is valuable not only to current gunowners who keep guns unrelated to any militia, but to any American concerned that his right to individual self-defense be Constitutionally protected.
What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" do you not get?
-
There is no "right" in the Constitution to murder children.
While insisting that there is such a right in the Constitution, Jazzhead openly admits that the decision is based upon judicial activism? Confused?
-
Both the Heller and Roe decisions were within the lawful authority of the Court.
Yet only the former was based on the Constitution. The latter was pure fiat.
-
We shouldn't be concerned about this abortion issue.
The litmus test...especially for a woman, is how they feel about the Second Amendment without restriction.
For I have no doubt that during Hillary Clinton's 1st term, the 2nd would be history.
-
We shouldn't be concerned about this abortion issue.
The litmus test...especially for a woman, is how they feel about the Second Amendment without restriction.
For I have no doubt that during Hillary Clinton's 1st term, the 2nd would be history.
Think she would have lived long enough to see that goal made?
-
It is the woman's choice, and hers alone, to decide whether it is a life or a lump of tissue. Period. Not yours. Not your religion's. Not the government's.
Uh, no. It is society's choice. Just as it is society's choice to decide whether YOU are a life or a lump of tissue. Fortunately for you, society has chosen that you are a life. Yet society is now denied that right to choose for a new specially designated protected class.
THAT is the essence of denying societal liberty and self-determination.
-
Use your powers of persuasion then. Because it is not up to you, me, your religion, my religion, the Government, or the Government's religion to decide.
Who should decide whether or not there should be a rule against murdering you?
-
We shouldn't be concerned about this abortion issue.
The devaluation of human live, and the societal (and sociopathic) costs associated with that should always be a concern. Not to mention the tyranny behind it.
-
We shouldn't be concerned about this abortion issue.
The litmus test...especially for a woman, is how they feel about the Second Amendment without restriction.
For I have no doubt that during Hillary Clinton's 1st term, the 2nd would be history.
This has been touched on before, heck, look at what Trump says, it's important to him, it's important to Pence, it's important enough to Paul, Cruz and Cotton, Governor Walker, Sarah Palin and so on and excuse me for omitting anyone, Rubio, even imho, Kasich has been a good governor for the pro-life cause.
I think, among other causes, society is in a down spiral because of the way life is treated as cheap, the disposable nature of life, abortion for the sake of convenience.
It's related to the whole sexual revolution movement. It needs to be reined in.
-
Who should decide whether or not there should be a rule against murdering you?
I was having this debate in my head at work today. Do, or should, people who contribute nothing to the well-being of society, and are, in fact, merely parasitical, have the right to exist? Compared to a "fetus". PS: I really hate that word.
-
The fetus' legal rights are derivative of the mother's. The mother's right and expectation are the same as her child's - with respect to a third party tortfeasor .
So basically, you are making it up as you go. Except that there are laws in place against the mother killing herself.
But hey, at least you correctly recognized the woman carrying an unborn child as "mother". I wonder what the father thinks about all of this? Does he get any of those "equal protection" rights you are always clamoring about? Or are some parents more equal than others?
-
The only way to argue the 'rightness' of abortion is to completely suspend reality.
There is no way to defend it with consistent rational thought because it's an emotional argument about imaginary "rights."
@musiclady
To me, this isn't even about abortion. It is about the right of people of the State of Georgia to come together to formulate its own laws regarding the valuation of human life. Because until that Constitutional right is returned to us, any discussion on the pros and cons of abortion is futile.
Listen to the argument of the pro-Roe crowd (all of them men). They seem to have a vested interest in keeping abortion legal by any means necessary. They utter statements like "abortion must remain legal" despite what the Constitution says. The last thing they would ever want is for the people to have the power to establish laws contrary to their wishes.
-
So basically, you are making it up as you go. Except that there are laws in place against the mother killing herself.
But hey, at least you correctly recognized the woman carrying an unborn child as "mother". I wonder what the father thinks about all of this? Does he get any of those "equal protection" rights you are always clamoring about? Or are some parents more equal than others?
@Hoodat in his telling of things there is never a father...they are always delinquent...leaving the woman with one choice and one choice only.
And when pressed he says the father has no say in the matter because the woman carries the baby therefore the man has no rights.
-
So too the individual RKBA found by Heller
Someone was asleep during United States Constitution 101 in college.
RKBA was established in the 2nd Amendment not in Heller.
-
:bigsilly:
So the Supreme Court should have STFU about gun control and let the people and their elected leaders decide whether the Second Amendment was an individual right or a collective right.
That is the only logical conclusion to draw from your statement. And the fact that you, like just about everyone else here, swooned and cried hosannas of joy over that case simply means that you are a grade A hypocrite, no better than the liberals you excoriate when it comes to using the courts as just another means of oppression.
<NOPE>
Where do you get the joy <Stop that>?
The ONLY logical conclusion to draw from my statement is that people elect who decides what is good for them in this country, and those unelected are subservient to them.
The Supreme Court is not GOD in this country, no matter what you think it is.
Hypocrite? I believe the term is Patriot. I have zero interest in allowing unelected judges to decide how I wish to live.
What are you BTW?
-
I think she was talking about the left who do consider Trump voters low intelligence and should be gotten rid of. I didn't take it as a slam at anyone here. In fact, I'm not sure how you could. But, I'm sure Emjay could explain.
@musiclady @Emjay @txradioguy
@Sanguine I have no idea what anyone is talking about. I cannot recall making a controversial post at all. Enlighten me if you can.
-
Dog-whistle.
That is about a callous statement as I ever seen.
You call kids denied the right of life like that is evil. PERIOD.
-
No one is defending the "rightness" of abortion.
You have on numerous occasions. Both legally and in practice. According to you, abortion must remain legal. It is the 'right' thing to do.
I believe everyone participating on this thread considers it morally wrong in most circumstances.
It's not a matter of whether it is right or wrong. It is a matter of whether the people of the State of Pennsylvania have the right to establish their own laws when it comes to abortion.
The issue is whether a woman has the right to decide whether to reproduce, and when that right can lawfully be exercised.
Again, no one is disputing a woman's right to reproduce. Nor is anyone disputing a woman's right to allow (or not allow) a man to ejaculate inside of her. It is called "having control over her body". But should a woman because of her own free willful decision become pregnant, then she has already reproduced, i.e. the creation of a new singular miraculous human life.
Roe says she has that right, and that the State cannot interfere in her exercise of sovereignty over her own body at least until after the first trimester.
Roe may say it, but the Constitution certainly does not.
IMO that is entirely in keeping with the Constitution's letter and spirit to protect one's individual liberty from arbitrary encroachment by the State.
So the letter and spirit of the Constitution is to protect the freedom to murder my neighbor from arbitrary [sic] encroachment by the State?
-
Attempt to hijack the thread with this nonsequitur? :shrug:
@musiclady What is your problem?
-
It is the woman's choice, and hers alone, to decide whether it is a life or a lump of tissue. Period. Not yours. Not your religion's. Not the government's.
That is the essence of liberty and self-determination. A pre-viable fetus has no legal rights whatsoever vis a vis the mother.
Absolutely, positively, the worst statement you have ever had. And there have been many.
Women do not decide what they wish. A higher order, GOD, decides that.
-
The issue is simple: Human liberty demands that a woman have dominion over her body.
But we're not talking about a woman's body here. We're talking about the body of an unborn baby.
And no, the woman is not a victim here. She has control over her body. But she also bears responsible for the results.
-
The fetus' legal rights are derivative of the mother's. The mother's right and expectation are the same as her child's - with respect to a third party tortfeasor .
Bingo - we have learned the legal person's rationale, not the moral factor.
I wonder when God judges which will be more important?
-
I have done so in the past and will continue to do so. In view of the circumstances, I agreed with her decision to remain unwed and continue with the pregnancy, and she went into labor on my back steps.
The result was a wonderful great-granddaughter I love dearly.
The prospective husband and father was 'entangled' with an old flame even as the wedding plans were being finalized, and was caught thus, in flagrante delicto. Needless to say, the wedding was cancelled, but the GGD was on the way.
Abortion was never really considered: Traditional Chippewa women value life, without which there can be nothing else.
God bless you and your progeny, @Smokin Joe
-
@Sanguine I have no idea what anyone is talking about. I cannot recall making a controversial post at all. Enlighten me if you can.
Emjay, looks like it was just a misunderstanding. Please ignore my ping.
-
:bigsilly:
So the Supreme Court should have STFU about gun control and let the people and their elected leaders decide whether the Second Amendment was an individual right or a collective right.
Here is a textbook example of non-rational persuasion. There is no connection between @IsailedawayfromFR 's statement and the statement attributed by @Oceander .
The one attributed by Oceander is in regard to a right specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights. It is not comparable to a 'right' [sic] to abortion that is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. A substantial degree of dishonesty was required to make such a comparison. Because there is nothing in any of Isailedaway's posts that even hints at such a position on any right so mentioned in the Constitution.
Same degree to make this statement as well.
Oppression? Seriously? YOU are the one insisting that the courts ignore the Constitution in order to impose tyranny over the rest of us based on a precedent that you happen to like. Oppression? The position of most everyone here is that the power of the Court, and for that matter Congress and the Presidency as well, should be limited by the wording of the Constitution of the United States of America. There is nothing at all oppressive in that. Because the Constitution does not place limits on the citizenry. It places limits on government.
TY, @Hoodat .
I intend to post against each and every time a falsehood comes out from the libs on this site.
-
The devaluation of human live, and the societal (and sociopathic) costs associated with that should always be a concern. Not to mention the tyranny behind it.
I meant it shouldn't be THE issue.
It's political suicide to overturn Roe-v-Wade...even if the 'goal' is to turn it over to the individual states.
But President Trump has an opportunity to leave a lasting legacy...'The Trump Court', that will ensure a Constitutional high court for a generation or more.
At the risk of appearing chauvinist, women are biological nurturers, and I want a strict hard-ass when it comes to defending the 2nd Amendment.
-
God bless you and your progeny, @Smokin Joe
Thanks! (and you and yours!) The battle is ever uphill.
-
70 this Oct. Sucks to get old, but I can still do a days work, until 11AM that is.
I reckon getting old is better than any alternative, until I find that out for certain.
I may not be as good as I once was, but I'm as good once as I ever was.. :laugh:
-
888high58888 Gotta get home before the sun gets high!
Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the noonday sun!
-
Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the noonday sun!
:laugh:
-
I meant it shouldn't be THE issue.
It's political suicide to overturn Roe-v-Wade...even if the 'goal' is to turn it over to the individual states.
If following the Constitution of the United States of America is political suicide, then there no longer is a United States of America.
-
If following the Constitution of the United States of America is political suicide, then there no longer is a United States of America.
In today's western civilization, a woman's right to choose is established law.
Rolling back Roe v Wade would feed into the fear mongering currently being done by the Rat leadership and their allies in the MSM.
I admire your moral stance. Share it with you. But that ship has sailed.
-
In today's western civilization, a woman's right to choose is established law.
That's the exact same argument the Klan put up in 1954 against overturning Plessy.
Rolling back Roe v Wade would feed into the fear mongering currently being done by the Rat leadership and their allies in the MSM.
The one here reacting to fear is you. As for the Dems, I really don't give a damn how they 'feel' about it.
I admire your moral stance.
It's not a moral stance. It is a legal one. Either the Constitution matters, or it does not.
Share it with you.
By your comments, clearly you do not.
-
In today's western civilization, a woman's right to choose is established law.
Rolling back Roe v Wade would feed into the fear mongering currently being done by the Rat leadership and their allies in the MSM.
I admire your moral stance. Share it with you. But that ship has sailed.
You reject what Trump has said, that is as clear as a bell. You might as well be a Hillary supporter.
Trump has said he is out to reverse Roe, Romney said it, Reagan said it.
Your stance is just a cop-out.
@DCPatriot
-
It's also a reason for the decline of the West... and in fact, Russia, if one can call them the West...
They had so many abortions under communism, they might not be able to overcome the demographics per becoming a Muslim Nation.
The West is in decline, notice that?
-
(https://www.shakeitdrinkit.com/recette/tom-collins-cocktail-671.png)
-
It should be down to the States, Maryland is a high abortion state, New York, California.
There should be no size fits all on this issue.
Texas, the Dakotas, Utah, Tennessee, Alabama, a lot of states see it way, way differently. It was a decision that was tyranny by the Federal court.
What's wrong with the local level legislating? Just like there are still some dry counties in the US, why should that be a concern of mine? Sure, there are those who want to make it illegal across the nation. They can try for a Constitutional amendment, as of now, that is not practical.
-
(http://img2.imagesbn.com/p/9780312302597_p0_v2_s260x420.jpg)
Yeah, a Western value alright..... how about England, Muslims moving in, 4 kids a family and in 2 generations? Vs. typical English families with 2 kids? It doesn't mean it will happen, it seems like it could happen.
Enough scholars, not all conservative but across the board say Roe v Wade is an error.... that taking away States' rights to legislate this issue, perhaps marriage is another such issue. The Supreme Court notoriously, stood up for the moral wrong of slavery as well. That only cost about 700,000 American lives.
-
Emjay, looks like it was just a misunderstanding. Please ignore my ping.
Apparently, I made one post on this thread and it was totally misunderstood. That'll teach me.
-
@musiclady What is your problem?
What you posted was a non sequitur, but I misunderstood its purpose.
My apology.
I hope you consider my "problem" solved....
@Emjay
-
Ah, bullshit. No one's promoting or defending abortion. Attitudes like yours just harden hearts. The issue is simple: Human liberty demands that a woman have dominion over her body. Persuade her, support her to do the right thing. If you're so right about the damage caused by abortion, then make your case and she'll likely listen. But keep the damn State's hands off.
I see........... attitudes like mine......... that babies are precious and deserve not to be tortured, mutilated and killed........... "harden hearts."
Attitudes like mine........... that abortion destroys women's (and sometimes men's) lives because of the physical, emotional and psychological effects of slaughtering your own child, and is harmful to women..........."harden hearts."
I sometimes feel that dealing with you is like dealing with an obstinate child....
You KNOW that the baby is not part of the woman's body, and yet you argue the absolutely senseless and stupid point over and over again. You KNOW that killing children is not in the Constitution, and yet you argue the point ad nauseam.
You are an abject failure at "persuasion" here, because what you preach here is the opposite of reality, and opposed to truth. You cannot "persuade" people who know the truth to believe a lie.
But you should be credited at least for being stubborn in arguing the leftist lies you have swallowed and continue to regurgitate, even though it indicates a heart of stone completely devoid of compassion for the weak and helpless.
Very few people are so confident in being obtuse and uncaring............so bully for you. You win the prize.
@Jazzhead
-
No one's promoting or defending abortion.
No one...except you counselor.
-
I see........... attitudes like mine......... that babies are precious and deserve not to be tortured, mutilated and killed........... "harden hearts."
I am sick and tired of your virtue signaling. Of course babies are precious, but your statement was that by acknowledging the liberty of women I was "defending abortion", which you insist is "murder".
How is it "defending abortion" to suggest that lives be saved by persuasion? How am I condoning "murder" by suggesting the Constitution permits women to choose and fulfill their own destinies? Abortion will, I trust and believe, wither on the vine due to a combination of persuasion and support, and the increasing availability of effective contraception that does not fail.
NO WOMAN IN A PERFECT WORLD WANTS AN ABORTION. The circumstances that compel women to abort are tragic, and unique to the life of each woman. No money. A dashed future. Abandonment by parents or partner. Plain and simple fear. There is no size fits all solution. But hectoring those who advocate persuasion rather than coercion as "defending" the practice is obnoxious. Yes, your attitude hardens hearts, because your fundamental argument is that people who don't agree with you are evil. Did it ever occur to you that those who don't advocate criminalizing abortion are as troubled by the practice as you are? Of course not - you're all about virtue signaling, not saving lives.
-
I am sick and tired of your virtue signaling. Of course babies are precious, but your statement was that by acknowledging the liberty of women I was "defending abortion", which you insist is "murder".
How is it "defending abortion" to suggest that lives be saved by persuasion? How am I condoning "murder" by suggesting the Constitution permits women to choose and fulfill their own destinies? Abortion will, I trust and believe, wither on the vine due to a combination of persuasion and support, and the increasing availability of effective contraception that does not fail.
NO WOMAN IN A PERFECT WORLD WANTS AN ABORTION. The circumstances that compel women to abort are tragic, and unique to the life of each woman. No money. A dashed future. Abandonment by parents or partner. Plain and simple fear. There is no size fits all solution. But hectoring those who advocate persuasion rather than coercion as "defending" the practice is obnoxious. Yes, your attitude hardens hearts, because your fundamental argument is that people who don't agree with you are evil. Did it ever occur to you that those who don't advocate criminalizing abortion are as troubled by the practice as you are? Of course not - you're all about virtue signaling, not saving lives.
888high58888 QFT!
-
I am sick and tired of your virtue signaling. Of course babies are precious, but your statement was that by acknowledging the liberty of women I was "defending abortion", which you insist is "murder".
How is it "defending abortion" to suggest that lives be saved by persuasion? How am I condoning "murder" by suggesting the Constitution permits women to choose and fulfill their own destinies? Abortion will, I trust and believe, wither on the vine due to a combination of persuasion and support, and the increasing availability of effective contraception that does not fail.
NO WOMAN IN A PERFECT WORLD WANTS AN ABORTION. The circumstances that compel women to abort are tragic, and unique to the life of each woman. No money. A dashed future. Abandonment by parents or partner. Plain and simple fear. There is no size fits all solution. But hectoring those who advocate persuasion rather than coercion as "defending" the practice is obnoxious. Yes, your attitude hardens hearts, because your fundamental argument is that people who don't agree with you are evil. Did it ever occur to you that those who don't advocate criminalizing abortion are as troubled by the practice as you are? Of course not - you're all about virtue signaling, not saving lives.
<Cut out the personal attacks> In your attempt to attack those of us on the side of truth, you once again fail to persuade anyone that you are on the side of compassion.
Abortion is evil. Planned Parenthood is evil. Killing innocent babies because of the lies of the left is evil. YOU are not evil (even though you obstinately oppose the well-being of babies and women).
Just duped.
And since you choose to stay ignorant and self-righteous, my conversation with you here is over.
-
I am sick and tired of your virtue signaling. Of course babies are precious, but your statement was that by acknowledging the liberty of women I was "defending abortion", which you insist is "murder".
How is it "defending abortion" to suggest that lives be saved by persuasion? How am I condoning "murder" by suggesting the Constitution permits women to choose and fulfill their own destinies? Abortion will, I trust and believe, wither on the vine due to a combination of persuasion and support, and the increasing availability of effective contraception that does not fail.
NO WOMAN IN A PERFECT WORLD WANTS AN ABORTION. The circumstances that compel women to abort are tragic, and unique to the life of each woman. No money. A dashed future. Abandonment by parents or partner. Plain and simple fear. There is no size fits all solution. But hectoring those who advocate persuasion rather than coercion as "defending" the practice is obnoxious. Yes, your attitude hardens hearts, because your fundamental argument is that people who don't agree with you are evil. Did it ever occur to you that those who don't advocate criminalizing abortion are as troubled by the practice as you are? Of course not - you're all about virtue signaling, not saving lives.
Terrific post @Jazzhead
I have said for years the burden is on the pro-life contingent because we are being asked to bring one life at a time into this world. There will be no sweeping revival; no Supreme Court decision to erase this plague. There will be what we have today: One soul connecting with another and providing the compassion and help the pregnant woman desperately seeks.
In all candor, if I were a pregnant woman considering an abortion and I heard the speech @musiclady regularly posts, I wouldn't be able to get her the hell out of my way fast enough. That judgment, that dissertation on good v evil, and which evil is the most evil will not change one woman's mind and save one child. Compassion and a hand held out will --- not a cross held at her neck.
-
@Mod5 - would you mind sending me a PM letting me know what you considered a personal attack relative to the entire conversation?
I'm not sure what I said and would like to avoid doing so again, because I don't know what the difference is between other comments and what you deleted.
Thanks. (I won't say any more about it here).
-
888high58888 QFT!
I'm curious, @DCPatriot , if this means that you will stand with Susan Collins and in opposition to Trump should his SCOTUS nominee be a dreaded Pro-Life So-Con.
If so, this would be quite an ironic turn of events, wouldn't it? ^-^
-
I'm curious, @DCPatriot , if this means that you will stand with Susan Collins and in opposition to Trump should his SCOTUS nominee be a dreaded Pro-Life So-Con.
If so, this would be quite an ironic turn of events, wouldn't it? ^-^
:2popcorn:
Oh this is gonna be good.
@musiclady same question needs to be asked of DCP's twin sister RiV since she rah rah'd the answer Jazzy gave as well.
-
:2popcorn:
Oh this is gonna be good.
@musiclady same question needs to be asked of DCP's twin sister RiV since she rah rah'd the answer Jazzy gave as well.
It's gonna be rough on them. Pass the popcorn. ^-^
-
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,
who put darkness for light and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight. - Isaiah 5:20-21
-
In today's western civilization, a woman's right to choose is established law.
Rolling back Roe v Wade would feed into the fear mongering currently being done by the Rat leadership and their allies in the MSM.
I admire your moral stance. Share it with you. But that ship has sailed.
That ship can only go so far before it is on its way back.
In 1859 Slavery was established law. Abolition would feed into.... Yadda, yadda, yadda.
It is never too late to do what is right, unless you are one of the 58,000,000 who will never get the chance to deal with their own moral dilemmas. I wonder how they would have voted?
-
How is it "defending abortion" to suggest that lives be saved by persuasion?
When you argue that abortion not only "should be legal", but go a step further to say it "must remain legal", then you are defending abortion.
How am I condoning "murder" by suggesting the Constitution permits women to choose and fulfill their own destinies?
When you say the Constitution grants the unalienable right to have abortions, you are lying. And when you champion a fulfillment of desires at the expense of someone else's life, you are advocating murder. The destiny I choose may be to live in your house without you in it. So if I kill you in the process of making that dream come true, is it murder? Who decides if it is murder? Who gets to make that rule? The State?
Abortion will, I trust and believe, wither on the vine due to a combination of persuasion and support, and the increasing availability of effective contraception that does not fail.
Yeah, I've heard this lie before. We were told after Roe that the number of unwanted pregnancies would only decrease because of better birth control. The exact opposite has been the case. We now have patches and shots that prevent pregnancy for months at a time. Yet today the illegitimate birth rate has never been higher. We have seen a marked increase in the number of abortions since Roe, and we have also seen a marked increase in violent crime since the Supreme Court imposed the devaluation of human life upon society.
NO WOMAN IN A PERFECT WORLD WANTS AN ABORTION.
No woman in a perfect world wants lung cancer either. Yet women still smoke. The only difference is that when a woman gets lung cancer, she doesn't get to kill her child.
The circumstances that compel women to abort are tragic, and unique to the life of each woman.
The circumstances that compel a woman to abort are purely selfish. Women are not the victims here. The unborn babies are the victims.
-
@Jazzhead, you have a remarkably low opinion of women if you think that we need the option of maintaining our liberty by killing another human being who is the result of our own deliberate actions. Wow.
-
That ship can only go so far before it is on its way back.
In 1859 Slavery was established law. Abolition would feed into.... Yadda, yadda, yadda.
It is never too late to do what is right, unless you are one of the 58,000,000 who will never get the chance to deal with their own moral dilemmas. I wonder how they would have voted?
It took 58 years to dispose of the horrible decision made in Plessey. Roe has only been around for 45.
And it's funny how some people who at one point wanted to have a jihad against the MSM cower away and are suddenly fearful of the same MSM and the "fear mongering currently being done by the Rat leadership and their allies" when Roe is brought up.
:shrug:
-
@Jazzhead, you have a remarkably low opinion of women if you think that we need the option of maintaining our liberty by killing another human being who is the result of our own deliberate actions. Wow.
Like you and I discussed yesterday...in ever single debate about abortion look at how he portrays women in his scenarios.
-
I am sick and tired of your virtue signaling. Of course babies are precious, but your statement was that by acknowledging the liberty of women I was "defending abortion", which you insist is "murder".
How is it "defending abortion" to suggest that lives be saved by persuasion? How am I condoning "murder" by suggesting the Constitution permits women to choose and fulfill their own destinies? Abortion will, I trust and believe, wither on the vine due to a combination of persuasion and support, and the increasing availability of effective contraception that does not fail.
NO WOMAN IN A PERFECT WORLD WANTS AN ABORTION. The circumstances that compel women to abort are tragic, and unique to the life of each woman. No money. A dashed future. Abandonment by parents or partner. Plain and simple fear. There is no size fits all solution. But hectoring those who advocate persuasion rather than coercion as "defending" the practice is obnoxious. Yes, your attitude hardens hearts, because your fundamental argument is that people who don't agree with you are evil. Did it ever occur to you that those who don't advocate criminalizing abortion are as troubled by the practice as you are? Of course not - you're all about virtue signaling, not saving lives.
:thumbsup:
-
Article IV Section 3 U.S. Constitution:
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
It's right there in plain English all the motivation Congress needs to do away with Roe...regardless of what the 9 black robes in D.C. say.
-
@Jazzhead, you have a remarkably low opinion of women if you think that we need the option of maintaining our liberty by killing another human being who is the result of our own deliberate actions. Wow.
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
T H I S
-
@Jazzhead, you have a remarkably low opinion of women if you think that we need the option of maintaining our liberty by killing another human being who is the result of our own deliberate actions. Wow.
You have a remarkably low opinion of women if you think that they are so weak-willed and evil that they can only be constrained from abortion though threats of government compulsion and punishment.
-
Article IV Section 3 U.S. Constitution:
It's right there in plain English all the motivation Congress needs to do away with Roe...regardless of what the 9 black robes in D.C. say.
Do explain.
-
I'm still pondering the "TRAGIC" situation of a woman who wants to wear a bikini on her Bahamas vacation and decides to kill her child for it.
It may not be a common motive for destroying the life of another human being, but it IS a motive of some.
This apologetic pretense for caring about women and "liberty" while defending (yes, defending) their harm and the lives of millions of innocent human beings is what is sickening.
The left has done a stellar job of brainwashing a gullible public in thinking that abortion is a good, and not an evil.
But it is the greatest evil in American history, and I believe we will pay dearly for allowing it to go on so long.
-
I think we should all just shut the hell up and let the Margaret Sanger genocide continue unabated! The whole world will be better off! /s
-
@Jazzhead, you have a remarkably low opinion of women if you think that we need the option of maintaining our liberty by killing another human being who is the result of our own deliberate actions. Wow.
Word
-
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
T H I S
Jazzy likes to paint the women in his scenarios as having no control over what happens in order to get pregnant too. He never concedes to them any kind of personal responsibility at all.
@Sanguine is correct he does have a very low opinion of women.
-
I'm still pondering the "TRAGIC" situation of a woman who wants to wear a bikini on her Bahamas vacation and decides to kill her child for it.
It may not be a common motive for destroying the life of another human being, but it IS a motive of some.
This apologetic pretense for caring about women and "liberty" while defending (yes, defending) their harm and the lives of millions of innocent human beings is what is sickening.
The left has done a stellar job of brainwashing a gullible public in thinking that abortion is a good, and not an evil.
But it is the greatest evil in American history, and I believe we will pay dearly for allowing it to go on so long.
So you believe that the only motivation for an abortion is the ability to wear a bikini? Seriously?
-
Jazzy likes to paint the women in his scenarios as having no control over what happens in order to get pregnant too. He never concedes to them any kind of personal responsibility at all.
@Sanguine is correct he does have a very low opinion of women.
He does nothing of the kind.
-
@Jazzhead, you have a remarkably low opinion of women if you think that we need the option of maintaining our liberty by killing another human being who is the result of our own deliberate actions. Wow.
Thank you for pointing that out.
The left has a despicably low opinion of women and their arguments in favor of abortion put it on full display.
-
What you posted was a non sequitur, but I misunderstood its purpose.
My apology.
I hope you consider my "problem" solved....
@Emjay
That's okay. Apparently you weren't the only one.
-
That ship can only go so far before it is on its way back.
In 1859 Slavery was established law. Abolition would feed into.... Yadda, yadda, yadda.
It is never too late to do what is right, unless you are one of the 58,000,000 who will never get the chance to deal with their own moral dilemmas. I wonder how they would have voted?
Since all persons have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress needs to
define just what a person is. Just when does a person become a person? I would argue that
a person become a person when he/she becomes self aware (working brain).
-
I think we should all just shut the hell up and let the Margaret Sanger genocide continue unabated! The whole world will be better off! /s
Before God wiped out His own people in Israel for this wickedness, the people considered it a morally righteous thing to toss their infants into the burning fires to the god Moloch.
Nothing new under the sun.
-
I am sick and tired of your virtue signaling. Of course babies are precious, but your statement was that by acknowledging the liberty of women I was "defending abortion", which you insist is "murder".
How is it "defending abortion" to suggest that lives be saved by persuasion? How am I condoning "murder" by suggesting the Constitution permits women to choose and fulfill their own destinies? Abortion will, I trust and believe, wither on the vine due to a combination of persuasion and support, and the increasing availability of effective contraception that does not fail.
NO WOMAN IN A PERFECT WORLD WANTS AN ABORTION. The circumstances that compel women to abort are tragic, and unique to the life of each woman. No money. A dashed future. Abandonment by parents or partner. Plain and simple fear. There is no size fits all solution. But hectoring those who advocate persuasion rather than coercion as "defending" the practice is obnoxious. Yes, your attitude hardens hearts, because your fundamental argument is that people who don't agree with you are evil. Did it ever occur to you that those who don't advocate criminalizing abortion are as troubled by the practice as you are? Of course not - you're all about virtue signaling, not saving lives.
I would take issue with most of what you have said here. The short version is this: There were fewer abortions when clinics were not like a starbucks, walk in and go, and common as cat crap in a litter box.
There were fewer abortions when the procedure was illegal. It was not an option generally to even be considered.
As I have said, there is a time to choose. Before conception, generally the act leading to which is a consensual and conscious act which has a predictable possible outcome. Enough money is spent to ransom the royal families of the world multiple times to ensure that children are aware of this, commonly well before puberty.
When abortion was not an option, that choice was made at the appropriate time. Even before Roe, the means to prevent the "need" for an abortion were in place: abstinence, the condom, the Pill, and IUDs were available, and even more methods since then have been developed. 'Moments of immoral or simply sexual abandon could still be had, without taking a significant chance that a life would be produced, and people desiring that 'freedom', used those methods--not all, but most.
One of the great whines in support of Obamacare was made by a Georgetown student (Sandra Fluke) so contraception would be available (as if it wasn't already).
Contraception": preventative measures, not the slaughter of the unborn, which is not prevention of pregnancy, but the termination of one established, (frankly, I view RU-486 as an abortion device also).
The time for choice is before a life is created: after that life has been created, the "choice" has already been made. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube, counselor.
As for a perfect world, we don't live in one, so what any woman wants there is irrelevant. What we have is a world in which there are a host of means to prevent pregnancy, and in a "perfect" world, they'd be used, as they are in this imperfect one.
In a world without legal abortions, the emphasis was and would again be on prevention of inconvenient and 'unwanted' pregnancy--where it belongs, a choice made at the appropriate time, and not on 'mitigation' by murder.
-
You have a remarkably low opinion of women if you think that they are so weak-willed and evil that they can only be constrained from abortion though threats of government compulsion and punishment.
Punishment? Sounds like something Obama would say.
Allow me to clue you in. The only compulsion here is a federal judiciary denying States the Constitutional right to establish their own laws. The abortion argument isn't about punishing women. It is about protecting and valuing life.
-
That's okay. Apparently you weren't the only one.
No problem. It's easy to be confused when you just see black and white on a page.
I should have left it alone.
-
I would take issue with most of what you have said here. The short version is this: There were fewer abortions when clinics were not like a starbucks, walk in and go, and common as cat crap in a litter box.
There were fewer abortions when the procedure was illegal. It was not an option generally to even be considered.
As I have said, there is a time to choose. Before conception, generally the act leading to which is a consensual and conscious act which has a predictable possible outcome. Enough money is spent to ransom the royal families of the world multiple times to ensure that children are aware of this, commonly well before puberty.
When abortion was not an option, that choice was made at the appropriate time. Even before Roe, the means to prevent the "need" for an abortion were in place: abstinence, the condom, the Pill, and IUDs were available, and even more methods since then have been developed. 'Moments of immoral or simply sexual abandon could still be had, without taking a significant chance that a life would be produced, and people desiring that 'freedom', used those methods--not all, but most.
One of the great whines in support of Obamacare was made by a Georgetown student (Sandra Fluke) so contraception would be available (as if it wasn't already).
Contraception": preventative measures, not the slaughter of the unborn, which is not prevention of pregnancy, but the termination of one established, (frankly, I view RU-486 as an abortion device also).
The time for choice is before a life is created: after that life has been created, the "choice" has already been made. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube, counselor.
As for a perfect world, we don't live in one, so what any woman wants there is irrelevant. What we have is a world in which there are a host of means to prevent pregnancy, and in a "perfect" world, they'd be used, as they are in this imperfect one.
In a world without legal abortions, the emphasis was and would again be on prevention of inconvenient and 'unwanted' pregnancy--where it belongs, a choice made at the appropriate time, and not on 'mitigation' by murder.
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/013/974/clap.gif)
-
The time for choice is before a life is created: after that life has been created, the "choice" has already been made.
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
T H I S
-
So you believe that the only motivation for an abortion is the ability to wear a bikini? Seriously?
So you think you can read? Seriously??
Oy.
-
Since all persons have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress needs to
define just what a person is. Just when does a person become a person? I would argue that
a person become a person when he/she becomes self aware (working brain).
At the point where the DNA of the donors combines, you have a person, unique, developing, and once that embryo is implanted in the uterine wall, on the way.
If we used the 'self aware/working brain' definition to define life, it'd be open season on liberals.
There is also the difficulty of defining how to know that person is self aware when they are lacking the language skills to express it, a problem that can extend beyond infancy and reach to accident victims (Terry Schiavo, for instance) and the elderly. We only know when they are capable of communicating that they feel pain, etc. We have no idea when that actually starts, only when we can interpret a reaction. Should our inability to communicate be a potential death sentence? Because that opens up a lot of other kettles of worms, too.
-
At the point where the DNA of the donors combines, you have a person, unique, developing, and once that embryo is implanted in the uterine wall, on the way.
Like I pointed out yesterday...the heartbeat begins at 3-4 weeks.
-
At the point where the DNA of the donors combines, you have a person, unique, developing, and once that embryo is implanted in the uterine wall, on the way.
Once you define things that way, now you have a separate "person" imposing himself on another person by emplanting against the woman's will.
A kettle of worms, indeed.
-
You have a remarkably low opinion of women if you think that they are so weak-willed and evil that they can only be constrained from abortion though threats of government compulsion and punishment.
No, that doesn't work, O.
-
Once you define things that way, now you have a separate "person" imposing himself on another person by emplanting against the woman's will.
A kettle of worms, indeed.
Well, if you want to go there, you would be blaming her biology for not rejecting the embryo, (which has a component of her DNA). You could blame the little wigglers that imposed upon the egg, too. If it was a question of will, that should have worked, too, right?
The time for willpower ended at the gate, so to speak. --And yes, it takes two to tangle.
-
At the point where the DNA of the donors combines, you have a person, unique, developing, and once that embryo is implanted in the uterine wall, on the way.
If we used the 'self aware/working brain' definition to define life, it'd be open season on liberals.
There is also the difficulty of defining how to know that person is self aware when they are lacking the language skills to express it, a problem that can extend beyond infancy and reach to accident victims (Terry Schiavo, for instance) and the elderly. We only know when they are capable of communicating that they feel pain, etc. We have no idea when that actually starts, only when we can interpret a reaction. Should our inability to communicate be a potential death sentence? Because that opens up a lot of other kettles of worms, too.
I'm certainly open to other folks ideas of just when a person becomes a person. RvW is settled law
but what is not settled is when does a person get the protections afforded to persons in our
constitution. I suggest the answer to that question might open an avenue towards protecting
the unborn. I'd like to hear that doctors and science has to say.
Time for lunch, later all.
-
No, that doesn't work, O.
I think I said something wayyyy upthread about "twisting words." Irritating, isn't it?
-
Punishment? Sounds like something Obama would say.
Allow me to clue you in. The only compulsion here is a federal judiciary denying States the Constitutional right to establish their own laws. The abortion argument isn't about punishing women. It is about protecting and valuing life.
Liberty trumps the prerogative of the states establishing their own laws to deny liberty.
Do you want the states to ban your right to own a gun? Oh the horror - that's, that's UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Well, yes it is. And so would be your state telling your daughter she no longer has dominion over her own body.
-
Do explain.
Ah, so you were so-self righteous about your signature about what Trump was caught saying on a hot mic, but no problem at all with tearing little girls apart in abortion. Another hypocrite.
-
Once you define things that way, now you have a separate "person" imposing himself on another person by emplanting against the woman's will.
A kettle of worms, indeed.
Indeed, as a legal matter. How can the State impose a duty of care without the person's express or implied consent? I can accept that by allowing a pregnancy to continue to term a woman has assumed that duty of care. But simply by reason of having sex? That's, well, tyrannical.
-
You have a remarkably low opinion of women if you think that they are so weak-willed and evil that they can only be constrained from abortion though threats of government compulsion and punishment.
No, that isn't the only constraint. We have laws to define boundaries for civilized behaviour in a lot of other areas of life, too. We still have door locks.
Making something widely available, even subsidized, is hardly a deterrent.
If a society wishes to deter behaviour, they make it evident that such is unacceptable, legally and morally. They don't parade for it to be free and widely available.
-
Liberty trumps the prerogative of the states establishing their own laws to deny liberty.
Please explain how abortion = liberty?
Do you want the states to ban your right to own a gun? Oh the horror - that's, that's UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
It is unconstitutional! Thank you for finally admitting what's been clearly written in the U.S. Constitution for 229 years.
Well, yes it is. And so would be your state telling your daughter she no longer has dominion over her own body.
No it wouldn't. Because abortion on demand isn't a constitutional right.
-
Liberty trumps the prerogative of the states establishing their own laws to deny liberty.
Do you want the states to ban your right to own a gun? Oh the horror - that's, that's UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Well, yes it is. And so would be your state telling your daughter she no longer has dominion over her own body.
Right to bear arms is the 2nd amendment to the Constitution.
What a weak statement, the Constitution says nothing about abortion.
Also, this country guarantees freedom of religion, one seems to rail against one expressing their freedom of religion.
-
I'm certainly open to other folks ideas of just when a person becomes a person. RvW is settled law
but what is not settled is when does a person get the protections afforded to persons in our
constitution. I suggest the answer to that question might open an avenue towards protecting
the unborn. I'd like to hear that doctors and science has to say.
Time for lunch, later all.
Those are reasonable questions. We know that, by giving birth, the woman has assumed a legal duty of care. She cannot toss the baby in the trash. She must as a minimum relinquish it in a way that does it no harm.
But when is the duty assumed before birth? Reasonable minds differ. At viability? At quickening? When the fetus can feel pain?
The bottom line is that, as a matter of law, the states can regulate the abortion right but cannot deny it. The woman must have a reasonable opportunity to decide whether to assume responsibility for a child, and no "undue burden" can be placed on her in making that decision.
-
Those are reasonable questions. We know that, by giving birth, the woman has assumed a legal duty of care. She cannot toss the baby in the trash. She must as a minimum relinquish it in a way that does it no harm.
But when is the duty assumed before birth? Reasonable minds differ. At viability? At quickening? When the fetus can feel pain?
The bottom line is that, as a matter of law, the states can regulate the abortion right but cannot deny it. The woman must have a reasonable opportunity to decide whether to assume responsibility for a child, and no "undue burden" can be placed on her in making that decision.
There's an easy way to cut through that Gordian knot - when the new human is created, and that would be at conception.
-
Right to bear arms is the 2nd amendment to the Constitution.
What a weak statement, the Constitution says nothing about abortion.
Also, this country guarantees freedom of religion, one seems to rail against one expressing their freedom of religion.
Excellent point.
-
Right to bear arms is the 2nd amendment to the Constitution.
The INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms was only recently established, by a court decision that some characterize as judicial activism. A state could ban guns tomorrow outside the context of a militia, and appeal to the SCOTUS to overturn Heller.
What a weak statement, the Constitution says nothing about abortion.
The right to abortion is as firmly established in the Constitution as the individual RKBA. And just as fragile.
Also, this country guarantees freedom of religion, one seems to rail against one expressing their freedom of religion.
With respect to the State, the Constitution guarantees freedom FROM religion as well as freedom of religion. The State cannot deprive a citizen of his or her liberty in the name of religion.
-
But it is the greatest evil in American history, and I believe we will pay dearly for allowing it to go on so long.
It was widely thought among better men than us, that the horrors of the Civil War was the Judgment in Blood by Almighty God for the sin of slavery, and the mockery of God's Name tied to liberty.
If that sentiment is true (and I subscribe to it), then I shudder to think what God will require in Judgment for the sin of aborting more than an entire generation of Americans in the womb so people can have illicit and non-marital sex without consequence.
-
There's an easy way to cut through that Gordian knot - when the new human is created, and that would be at conception.
So a woman assumes a legally enforceable duty of care just by having sex?
That's preposterous.
-
It was widely thought among better men than us, that the horrors of the Civil War was the Judgment in Blood by Almighty God for the sin of slavery, and the mockery of God's Name tied to liberty.
If that sentiment is true (and I subscribe to it), then I shudder to think what God will require in Judgment for the sin of aborting more than an entire generation of Americans in the womb so people can have illicit and non-marital sex without consequence.
*****rollingeyes*****
-
Indeed, as a legal matter. How can the State impose a duty of care without the person's express or implied consent? I can accept that by allowing a pregnancy to continue to term a woman has assumed that duty of care. But simply by reason of having sex? That's, well, tyrannical.
Tyrannical? Counselor, how can a person be required to walk on the planet's surface?
Gravity is repressive.
It's holding my people down!
Repeal the Law of Gravity!
For a Nation founded on the principles of being able ... to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...
we sure forget that there are things even more compelling than the prattlings of jurists and the scribblings of the legislature. To wit: natural forces.
It is well understood that having sex can lead to pregnancy--in fact, that is the long practiced and widely accepted method of achieving progeny. Those progeny will require care, and that, too, is well understood. Humans have been aware of the practice and results as long as there have been humans. In fact, that's why there are humans.
It is not a question of consent, but a predictable outcome. Just as hauling water to high places and that same water, once released, running downhill, sex leads to pregnancy, if means are not taken to prevent pregnancy.
This should be no secret--we have spent fortunes ensuring that our progeny are informed of this years before they are capable of producing offspring. Any possibility of 'being burdened' with the care of progeny is well understood, long before the act which leads to those progeny, and the duty to care for those progeny not only instinctive in at least the lower orders of animals, but in humans as well. Y'all lawyers crack me up. This natural outcome need not be explained in fine print nor a disclaimer nor some terms of service agreement on a vagina, it is a well known possible outcome, with all it implies, and such common knowledge as to be understood, even by those less intellectually endowed.
-
So a woman assumes a legally enforceable duty of care just by having sex?
That's preposterous.
Strange, we agree the man has a legally enforceable duty of care, or at least pay for that care, just by having sex.
-
Punishment? Sounds like something Obama would say.
Allow me to clue you in. The only compulsion here is a federal judiciary denying States the Constitutional right to establish their own laws. The abortion argument isn't about punishing women. It is about protecting and valuing life.
More pure, unadulterated bs from you.
-
Strange, we agree the man has a legally enforceable duty of care, or at least pay for that care, just by having sex.
Oh dearie me; he might have to pay for the privilege. Get your pearls in a clutch! Having your body commandeered for the sake of religious zealotry is so many orders of magnitude greater than that, the comparison itself is twisted.
-
So a woman assumes a legally enforceable duty of care just by having sex?
That's preposterous.
That's "preposterous" only because somebody got the notion life doesn't begin until the baby's head has actually cleared the birth canal.
Strange, we agree the man has a legally enforceable duty of care, or at least pay for that care, just by having sex.
That's because there's this persistent belief that men are stronger and more able than women. He's the responsible one. She's just a victim of patriarchal circumstances.
-
Indeed, as a legal matter. How can the State impose a duty of care without the person's express or implied consent?
Gee, I dunno. How is it that parents can be charged with neglect and manslaughter if they lock their two-year-old in the closet until they starve to death.
-
And we're off to the races folks. Welcome back, my friends to the show that never ends
We're so glad you could attend! Come inside! Come inside! Step right up friends and watch the show. For one thin dime, a tenth of a dollar you can watch the show that never ends.
-
And we're off to the races folks. Welcome back, my friends to the show that never ends
We're so glad you could attend! Come inside! Come inside! Step right up friends and watch the show. For one thin dime, a tenth of a dollar you can watch the show that never ends.
Wanna really light things up? Mention the fact that abortion is legal in southern states because of the War of Northern Aggression. 88devil
-
Truly amazing. A woman’s body can be commandeered by the government for the sake of an unviable zygote, but it’s the end of Western civilization if a baker who is in the business of baking cakes can be required to bake a cake for a gay couple.
:facepalm2:
-
So a woman assumes a legally enforceable duty of care just by having sex?
That's preposterous.
Is it? That's the way it's been since the beginning of time.
-
Truly amazing. A woman’s body can be commandeered by the government for the sake of an unviable zygote, but it’s the end of Western civilization if a baker who is in the business of baking cakes can be required to bake a cake for a gay couple.
:facepalm2:
And you also are intelligent enough to know that we’re not talking about a woman’s body. We’re talking about a separate human being.
How you degrade humanity when you believe that human children are not worth anything until a more powerful human declares it to be so.
Leftist lies are insidious and unscientific and you are too bright to actually believe them.
-
And you also are intelligent enough to know that we’re not talking about a woman’s body. We’re talking about a separate human being.
How you degrade humanity when you believe that human children are not worth anything until a more powerful human declares it to be so.
Leftist lies are insidious and unscientific and you are too bright to actually believe them.
So the woman has absolutely no interest in her own body that would trump any other interest, no matter how remote? Your religious beliefs trump her control over her own body?
-
Wanna really light things up? Mention the fact that abortion is legal in southern states because of the War of Northern Aggression. 88devil
"if'n we'd had enough bullets, all you Yankees would be dead!" as my granpappy always used to say! Then there would be no abomination called the Roe v Wade decision!
-
Oh dearie me; he might have to pay for the privilege. Get your pearls in a clutch! Having your body commandeered for the sake of religious zealotry is so many orders of magnitude greater than that, the comparison itself is twisted.
Religious zealotry?
I would postulate that the prohibitions on murder are indeed the result of religious zealotry, counselor. But without them, the streets would run red. Haven't you ever entertained, no matter how dismissively, the thought of killing some rotten SOB who desperately needed it?
(If not, your social circles must have been severely limited, and encounters with the more vile elements of our species nonexistent. )
Without some sort of reprisal, either by the State or family, without the perception of consequence, what would stop you? Not wanting to clean up the mess or ruin the carpet?
But there it is, right there in the midst of the Old Testament's Big 10, and found in other religious writings as well, a prohibition we have also carried over to our secular laws. One which is relevant here, for the helpless and unrepresented, for those who have yet to have a voice but exist nonetheless.
Such limitations, such boundaries on human behaviour are perhaps the reason Shakespeare's admonition (Dick, Henry VI, Part II, Act 4, scene II) hasn't been acted upon. :shrug: (DISCLAIMER: no, that is not a threat, nor the implication of one, merely a reference to a line in a 400 year old stage play).
So, one way or the other, you could point a finger at religious zealotry for most any law which makes a modicum of good sense. But otherwise, life would be a free-for-all for the survivors, nasty, brutish, and short.
-
Punishment? Sounds like something Obama would say.
More pure, unadulterated bs from you.
This from the person who tried to BS us about Dickerson being the Constitutional basis for Roe.
Here are Obama's own words. Do they sound familiar?
"I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
-B. Obama, April 2008-
-
I'm curious, @DCPatriot , if this means that you will stand with Susan Collins and in opposition to Trump should his SCOTUS nominee be a dreaded Pro-Life So-Con.
If so, this would be quite an ironic turn of events, wouldn't it? ^-^
My position is crystal clear. I'm staunchly Pro-Life. American culture isn't.
Changing Roe v Wade MUST be done by first persuading the woman.
And, a Republican has a better chance of shaking hands with Jesus before that ever happens.
Standing on your principles, while admirable....and $1.89 will get you a 16 oz coffee at your local 7-11.
-
Oh dearie me; he might have to pay for the privilege. Get your pearls in a clutch! Having your body commandeered for the sake of religious zealotry is so many orders of magnitude greater than that, the comparison itself is twisted.
While I agree the woman's burden is greater, it is for 9 months. The man's is 18 years.
-
Religious zealotry?
I would postulate that the prohibitions on murder are indeed the result of religious zealotry, counselor. But without them, the streets would run red. Haven't you ever entertained, no matter how dismissively, the thought of killing some rotten SOB who desperately needed it?
(If not, your social circles must have been severely limited, and encounters with the more vile elements of our species nonexistent. )
Without some sort of reprisal, either by the State or family, without the perception of consequence, what would stop you? Not wanting to clean up the mess or ruin the carpet?
But there it is, right there in the midst of the Old Testament's Big 10, and found in other religious writings as well, a prohibition we have also carried over to our secular laws. One which is relevant here, for the helpless and unrepresented, for those who have yet to have a voice but exist nonetheless.
Such limitations, such boundaries on human behaviour are perhaps the reason Shakespeare's admonition (Dick, Henry VI, Part II, Act 4, scene II) hasn't been acted upon. :shrug: (DISCLAIMER: no, that is not a threat, nor the implication of one, merely a reference to a line in a 400 year old stage play).
So, one way or the other, you could point a finger at religious zealotry for most any law which makes a modicum of good sense. But otherwise, life would be a free-for-all for the survivors, nasty, brutish, and short.
There are plenty of non-religious reasons for outlawing murder, not the least of which is avoiding feuds such as the Hatfield McCoy feud. Those reasons apply, if at all, with much weaker force when it comes to abortion. Other than riots by religious zealots, abortion doesn’t generally engender feuds.
And more to the point, even most religious zealots do not categorically deny the right of one person to kill another person. Only a few hardcore pacifists would argue that one can never kill in self-defense, for example.
So for the rest, it’s not even a categorical question, it’s just a question of where the line is drawn, and that is all about balancing competing interests. On that basis, there nothing illogical or immoral to drawing the line at the point of real viability.
-
Libertyville trumps the prerogative of the states establishing their own laws to deny liberty.
Do you want the states to ban your right to own a gun? Oh the horror - that's, that's UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Well, yes it is. And so would be your state telling your daughter she no longer has dominion over her own body.
I don't think your argument necessarily follows properly.
Sometimes people gain responsibilities based on their actions. Should a woman decide to give birth, she has gained a responsibility and can't just dump a child into a dumpster. Likewise, a man gains responsibility to help support that child.
It's therefore easy to say that, should a woman have sex, she might gain a responsibility for whatever the result is.
-
So the woman has absolutely no interest in her own body that would trump any other interest, no matter how remote? Your religious beliefs trump her control over her own body?
Okay, I'll bite.
We do acknowledge such an interest, but only if the life of the woman hangs in the balance.
It hearkens from the days when motherhood was considered a blessing and not a curse, as were children.
The idea that the member of the family who bore the offspring should survive a truly nonviable pregnancy at the expense of that particular offspring, for the sake of producing future progeny (and her own edification and enjoyment) is well enough engrained that abortions ('clinical terminations') were rarely carried out to end ectopic and other completely nonviable pregnancies for the express purpose of saving the life of the mother, as determined to be medically necessary.
Roe didn't make that happen, counselor. In virtually every state, such laws were already in place, and in enough States that such care could be sought if the need arose. Yet even today, mothers have died rather than receive treatment for lethal conditions in order to preserve the life of a child who would not have survived the treatment for the mother.
Big difference between that and getting the kid shredded so it is easier to afford that new Escalade.
-
While I agree the woman's burden is greater, it is for 9 months. The man's is 18 years.
Men are the responsible party, women are innocent bystanders, so the logic goes.
-
It was widely thought among better men than us, that the horrors of the Civil War was the Judgment in Blood by Almighty God for the sin of slavery, and the mockery of God's Name tied to liberty.
If that sentiment is true (and I subscribe to it), then I shudder to think what God will require in Judgment for the sin of aborting more than an entire generation of Americans in the womb so people can have illicit and non-marital sex without consequence.
@INVAR
I agree with every word you've said.
As there has been judgment for slavery, there will be greater judgment for abortion.
-
Well, if you want to go there, you would be blaming her biology for not rejecting the embryo, (which has a component of her DNA). You could blame the little wigglers that imposed upon the egg, too. If it was a question of will, that should have worked, too, right?
The time for willpower ended at the gate, so to speak. --And yes, it takes two to tangle.
Sorry, but that doesn't fly. If you have an unwanted home invader, it's not the woman's fault for not ejecting him forcibly. A request to leave should be sufficient. If he doesn't leave, the squatter is a trespasser, and in fact violating the woman bodily. As soon as he is norn, he should be put on trial and sentenced.
Patently absurd.
-
There are plenty of non-religious reasons for outlawing murder, not the least of which is avoiding feuds such as the Hatfield McCoy feud. Those reasons apply, if at all, with much weaker force when it comes to abortion. Other than riots by religious zealots, abortion doesn’t generally engender feuds.
And more to the point, even most religious zealots do not categorically deny the right of one person to kill another person. Only a few hardcore pacifists would argue that one can never kill in self-defense, for example.
So for the rest, it’s not even a categorical question, it’s just a question of where the line is drawn, and that is all about balancing competing interests. On that basis, there nothing illogical or immoral to drawing the line at the point of real viability.
So you would say the entire argument hangs on the definition of viability?
But we best know a culture by how it treats those among it who are truly helpless.
Is an infant "viable"? A toddler? A five year-old? We don't even let kids run the french fry machine at 13, and though capable of reproduction, are they really "viable"?
That's a sliding scale you can put anywhere, a word game. At the point where, with reasonable and normal natural care, the outcome will be an adult human, the offspring should be considered viable. Otherwise, 'birth control' (not conception control) could be retroactive until such time as the child has reached some accepted level of maturity, perhaps the ability to enter into contractual obligations.
That concept, too, opens the other end of the argument--at which age is a person no longer "viable"? So you would kill them off at both ends of the age spectrum using that standard.
Tell me, counselor, do you really want to go there? Do you think this is a good idea?
-
My position is crystal clear. I'm staunchly Pro-Life. American culture isn't.
Changing Roe v Wade MUST be done by first persuading the woman.
And, a Republican has a better chance of shaking hands with Jesus before that ever happens.
Standing on your principles, while admirable....and $1.89 will get you a 16 oz coffee at your local 7-11.
Tell that to people, mostly Mormons, in Utah, that they should have the one size fits all law that is the same in New York, Maryland, Massachusetts and California. That doesn't fly at all.
That's all reversing Roe V Wade is, is giving back legislation to the states.
-
So the woman has absolutely no interest in her own body that would trump any other interest, no matter how remote? Your religious beliefs trump her control over her own body?
I'll say it louder since you've got your eyes shut and your ears covered.....
IT IS NOT HER BODY. THE BABY IS A SEPARATE HUMAN BEING.
As long as you keep arguing what you SCIENTIFICALLY know is false, you will lose.
And you are losing badly here.
When I was pregnant with our four children, I did not kick myself from the inside with my own feet. I did not have two hearts, one of which beat faster than mine. I was privileged to have an entirely different person inside of me, for which I was responsible to nurture, feed and allow to thrive.
Those four babies are now in their thirties, and strangely enough, they are STILL separate human beings and the SAME human beings that their DNA carried when I felt their tiny feet kick me.
You are wrong. The left is wrong. It is a lie that you have chosen to swallow, even though you, as an intelligent human being (who was, not incidentally NEVER your mother's "body") ought to be able to figure out.
Work on it.
-
Sorry, but that doesn't fly. If you have an unwanted home invader, it's not the woman's fault for not ejecting him forcibly. A request to leave should be sufficient. If he doesn't leave, the squatter is a trespasser, and in fact violating the woman bodily. As soon as he is norn, he should be put on trial and sentenced.
Patently absurd.
My point is, that in the instance of all but non-consensual sex, she invited the 'invader' in, with predictable results.
That a baby develops out of that natural progression of events does not make the baby an invader, but as natural a consequence of inviting that presence as footprints on the carpet. If she doesn't want that consequence, then measures should be taken to prevent it--either way.
At that point, though, once the baby has been created, the one life everyone is talking about ending for the 'crime' of existing is the one who had NOTHING to say about its existence, a circumstance brought about by two other people.
So the only one here who can be incontrovertibly determined to be 100% innocent is the one who gets capital punishment, something we don't even give axe murderers in most states, while those who imposed the circumstance on the innocent (to be murdered) victim skate.
Talk about stuff that won't fly....
In the meantime, there are plenty of people who would willingly embrace that baby and the responsibilities for its care and nurturing who languish in the wings while the sentence is carried out.
-
I'll say it louder since you've got your eyes shut and your ears covered.....
IT IS NOT HER BODY. THE BABY IS A SEPARATE HUMAN BEING.
As long as you keep arguing what you SCIENTIFICALLY know is false, you will lose.
And you are losing badly here.
When I was pregnant with our four children, I did not kick myself from the inside with my own feet. I did not have two hearts, one of which beat faster than mine. I was privileged to have an entirely different person inside of me, for which I was responsible to nurture, feed and allow to thrive.
Those four babies are now in their thirties, and strangely enough, they are STILL separate human beings and the SAME human beings that their DNA carried when I felt their tiny feet kick me.
You are wrong. The left is wrong. It is a lie that you have chosen to swallow, even though you, as an intelligent human being (who was, not incidentally NEVER your mother's "body") ought to be able to figure out.
Work on it.
@musiclady
Do you find it odd that the only ones here championing abortion rights are men?
-
I'll say it louder since you've got your eyes shut and your ears covered.....
IT IS NOT HER BODY. THE BABY IS A SEPARATE HUMAN BEING.
As long as you keep arguing what you SCIENTIFICALLY know is false, you will lose.
And you are losing badly here.
When I was pregnant with our four children, I did not kick myself from the inside with my own feet. I did not have two hearts, one of which beat faster than mine. I was privileged to have an entirely different person inside of me, for which I was responsible to nurture, feed and allow to thrive.
Those four babies are now in their thirties, and strangely enough, they are STILL separate human beings and the SAME human beings that their DNA carried when I felt their tiny feet kick me.
You are wrong. The left is wrong. It is a lie that you have chosen to swallow, even though you, as an intelligent human being (who was, not incidentally NEVER your mother's "body") ought to be able to figure out.
Work on it.
Well said!
-
Changing Roe v Wade MUST be done by first persuading the woman.
Personally, I prefer doing it by following the Constitution. Clearly, you are opposed to following the Constitution.
-
Tell that to people, mostly Mormons, in Utah, that they should have the one size fits all law that is the same in New York, Maryland, Massachusetts and California. That doesn't fly at all.
Sadly, there are a few here who prefer fascism over the Constitutional government our Founding Fathers endowed us with.
-
Sadly, there are a few here who prefer fascism over the Constitutional government our Founding Fathers endowed us with.
Unfortunately, people forget the purpose of the Constitution: to establish and define the limited power of a Federal Government, and to secure the Rights and Powers of the State governments and the People. They have been trying to get around it since the ink was still wet.
-
@musiclady
Do you find it odd that the only ones here championing abortion rights are men?
Doesn't seem odd to me at all. I mentioned a couple of times the purpose of abortion isn't for the "health of the Mother."
-
Mike Lee met with Trump about Supreme Court opening
By Brett Samuels - 07/03/18 01:28 PM EDT
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) interviewed with President Trump about the looming Supreme Court vacancy, the senator’s communications director confirmed Tuesday.
Conn Carroll tweeted confirmation of a Deseret News story that said Lee met with Trump on Monday about the opening that will be created by Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement at the end of the month.
<..snip..>
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/395386-mike-lee-met-with-trump-about-supreme-court-opening (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/395386-mike-lee-met-with-trump-about-supreme-court-opening)
-
I'll say it louder since you've got your eyes shut and your ears covered.....
IT IS NOT HER BODY. THE BABY IS A SEPARATE HUMAN BEING.
As long as you keep arguing what you SCIENTIFICALLY know is false, you will lose.
And you are losing badly here.
When I was pregnant with our four children, I did not kick myself from the inside with my own feet. I did not have two hearts, one of which beat faster than mine. I was privileged to have an entirely different person inside of me, for which I was responsible to nurture, feed and allow to thrive.
Those four babies are now in their thirties, and strangely enough, they are STILL separate human beings and the SAME human beings that their DNA carried when I felt their tiny feet kick me.
You are wrong. The left is wrong. It is a lie that you have chosen to swallow, even though you, as an intelligent human being (who was, not incidentally NEVER your mother's "body") ought to be able to figure out.
Work on it.
Well said, @musiclady It infuriates me when people keep using that 'her body, her choice' thing. And you explained it perfectly. I named my children before they were born and they were always separate and loved beings to me.
-
My position is crystal clear. I'm staunchly Pro-Life. American culture isn't.
Changing Roe v Wade MUST be done by first persuading the woman.
And, a Republican has a better chance of shaking hands with Jesus before that ever happens.
Standing on your principles, while admirable....and $1.89 will get you a 16 oz coffee at your local 7-11.
You're making the false assumption that the majority of women aren't already persuaded.
And because you assume falsely "American Culture" isn't behind overturning Roe you're more than happy to chuck your "staunchly pro life views" instead of standing up for them.
You've bought completely into the media narrative on this issue which is surprising given your comment's the other day about the media.
It's a good thing at crucial times in our nation's history people who stood on their principles for something they believed in didn't cave as easily as you seem willing to do.
-
So for the rest, it’s not even a categorical question, it’s just a question of where the line is drawn, and that is all about balancing competing interests. On that basis, there nothing illogical or immoral to drawing the line at the point of real viability.
You so cavalierly call the killing of a living being 'balancing competing interests'.
Symptomatic of the disease liberalism has become.
-
You're making the false assumption that the majority of women aren't already persuaded.
And because you assume falsely "American Culture" isn't behind overturning Roe you're more than happy to chuck your "staunchly pro life views" instead of standing up for them.
You've bought completely into the media narrative on this issue which is surprising given your comment's the other day about the media.
It's a good thing at crucial times in our nation's history people who stood on their principles for something they believed in didn't cave as easily as you seem willing to do.
It is indeed sad that a few hundred or even thousand people with good camera angles and media repetition can assume the mantle of authority for 150,000,000 plus women, whether or not the rest agree. Unfortunately, something the communists learned when the Bolsheviks declared themselves (by name) to be the "Majority Party", is that those who believe they are seriously outnumbered will capitulate, even though the impression is a media trick.
-
Is an infant "viable"? A toddler? A five year-old? We don't even let kids run the french fry machine at 13, and though capable of reproduction, are they really "viable"?
That's a sliding scale you can put anywhere, a word game.
Viability is not an obscure concept @Smokin Joe Viability of a fetus (not a toddler, not a teenager, not the fireman, doctor, grocer or grandparent) is the point at which the fetus can survive outside the womb--and yes, the legal interpretation allows for, encourages, every from of neonatal care currently available to assist the baby.
The earliest a fetus will survive outside the womb is 23 weeks of gestation (5+ months) with 20--35 percent of babies born at this stage of the pregnancy surviving with long term medical assistance.
The definition of viability is not arbitrary or complicated --- and neither is it a subject for ridicule and sarcasm.
-
@musiclady
Do you find it odd that the only ones here championing abortion rights are men?
It's also odd to find people championing something that was the idea first championed by an unapologetic racist with designs on using abortion to rid America of blacks. There's a reason Margaret Sanger opened her first clinic in Harlem.
Hint: It wasn't because she was championing a woman's liberty via abortion.
-
You so cavalierly call the killing of a living being 'balancing competing interests'.
Symptomatic of the disease liberalism has become.
Murder most foul, "Sanitized for your protection".
-
Viability is not an obscure concept @Smokin Joe Viability of a fetus (not a toddler, not a teenager, not the fireman, doctor, grocer or grandparent) is the point at which the fetus can survive outside the womb--and yes, the legal interpretation allows for, encourages, every from of neonatal care currently available to assist the baby.
The earliest a fetus will survive outside the womb is 23 weeks of gestation (5+ months) with 20--35 percent of babies born at this stage of the pregnancy surviving with long term medical assistance.
The definition of viability is not arbitrary or complicated --- and neither is it a subject for ridicule and sarcasm.
So the right for the baby not to be intentionally killed is based upon available technology? And changes with the advancements in medicine?
-
When I was pregnant with our four children, I did not kick myself from the inside with my own feet. I did not have two hearts, one of which beat faster than mine. I was privileged to have an entirely different person inside of me, for which I was responsible to nurture, feed and allow to thrive.
@musiclady Have you ever asked a woman what is compelling her to choose to end the experience you have described?
-
So the right for the baby not to be intentionally killed is based upon available technology? And changes with the advancements in medicine?
Of course viability changes with advancements in medicine. I rather expected this would give you reason to rejoice.
-
Viability is not an obscure concept @Smokin Joe Viability of a fetus (not a toddler, not a teenager, not the fireman, doctor, grocer or grandparent) is the point at which the fetus can survive outside the womb--and yes, the legal interpretation allows for, encourages, every from of neonatal care currently available to assist the baby.
The earliest a fetus will survive outside the womb is 23 weeks of gestation (5+ months) with 20--35 percent of babies born at this stage of the pregnancy surviving with long term medical assistance.
The definition of viability is not arbitrary or complicated --- and neither is it a subject for ridicule and sarcasm.
Well, that's one definition.
As technology develops, that can change.
At day 1, there is a unique being with a unique DNA structure. It's heart starts beating 3-4 weeks later. With those on the 'outside' that heartbeat is something we use to determine whether or not life is present.
Note the rest of my comment there, because when you let lawyers play with words like "viability", then any organism incapable of feeding itself, cleaning itself, and communication is fair game for not being "viable".
Organisms like those found in old folks' homes, for instance. Special needs individuals, those who have suffered injuries, etc. Please don't forget that the driving force behind legalized abortion in the US came from eugenicists like Margaret Sanger, and suddenly we're back to German health care from the first half of the 20th century. When the standard for 'elimination' becomes so capricious as being inconvenient, the stage is set for the potential elimination of any one individual or group. Let's just not go there.
As I have repeated, there are plenty of ways to avoid this circumstance, without resorting to using murder as a cleanup tool.
-
So the right for the baby not to be intentionally killed is based upon available technology? And changes with the advancements in medicine?
There are still places that permit partial birth abortions. According to adherents to that practice, viability does not occur until the baby draws the first breath.
-
While I agree the woman's burden is greater, it is for 9 months. The man's is 18 years.
Oh yeah, after that first 9 months the lady gets off scot-free. She doesn’t have to do a damned thing or pay a single penny for those next 18 years.
Seriously?
:facepalm2:
-
Oh yeah, after that first 9 months the lady gets off scot-free. She doesn’t have to do a damned thing or pay a single penny for those next 18 years.
Seriously?
:facepalm2:
Depends on who gets custody, now, doesn't it?
-
Of course viability changes with advancements in medicine. I rather expected this would give you reason to rejoice.
I don't believe the right not to be murdered should be based upon available technology. While technology can expand the ability to live, it should not vary the right of one individual to intentionally take another's life.
-
Oh yeah, after that first 9 months the lady gets off scot-free. She doesn’t have to do a damned thing or pay a single penny for those next 18 years.
Seriously?
Yes, if she chooses. People are literally waiting in line to pay all the associated expenses with removing that burden from her.
She has to choose to keep it.
-
It was widely thought among better men than us, that the horrors of the Civil War was the Judgment in Blood by Almighty God for the sin of slavery, and the mockery of God's Name tied to liberty.
If that sentiment is true (and I subscribe to it), then I shudder to think what God will require in Judgment for the sin of aborting more than an entire generation of Americans in the womb so people can have illicit and non-marital sex without consequence.
You do have a point, I fear for our republic
-
So a woman assumes a legally enforceable duty of care just by having sex?
That's preposterous.
It's a very well established precedent, and commonly considered the ideal outcome.
-
So a woman assumes a legally enforceable duty of care just by having sex?
That's preposterous.
1) She chose to have sex unprotected knowing the risks and the responsibilities at a future date by taking that risk.
2) She could have very easily chose not to have sex because of lack of protection and thus avoided putting herself in that situation where she'd be responsible for 18 years for a life she helped create.
3) What is truly "preposterous" is that you totally strip a woman's ability to exercise self control and restraint in order to try and defend your "preposterous" defense and support of abortion on demand.
-
Gosnell: The Trial of America's Biggest Serial Killer (2018)
I think it is coming this fall.
Wouldn't know how to verify it, but I heard a claim made on a show I was watching on Youtube last night that since roe v wade the worldwide number of abortions is at the ONE BILLION mark.
As a species...YAY FOR US!
-
At day 1, there is a unique being with a unique DNA structure. It's heart starts beating 3-4 weeks later. With those on the 'outside' that heartbeat is something we use to determine whether or not life is present.
Note the rest of my comment there, because when you let lawyers play with words like "viability", then any organism incapable of feeding itself, cleaning itself, and communication is fair game for not being "viable".
Lawyers "play with" such concepts because it is insisted that a moral question become a legal one. Why do folks have such a lack of faith in their ability to persuade that they insist that the State criminalize a personal matter of individual conscience?
Whether a fetus possesses a soul is a moral/religious matter, and whether a woman is justified in terminating her pregnancy after conception and prior to viability is likewise a moral question. What is undisputed fact is that a fetus, before the 20-23rd week or so, cannot survive independent of the mother. Not even God himself can will such a fetus to survive - it is part and parcel of the mother's body. Given such reality, as a LEGAL matter, the woman must have the liberty to exercise dominion over her own body. There is not as yet any separate and independent existence for the State to protect.
The woman must be appealed to with moral arguments, not bludgeoned by legal sanction.
-
The woman must be appealed to with moral arguments, not bludgeoned by legal sanction.
Funny how your opinion on that changes depending on what ruling we're discussing.
-
1) She chose to have sex unprotected knowing the risks and the responsibilities at a future date by taking that risk.
2) She could have very easily chose not to have sex because of lack of protection and thus avoided putting herself in that situation where she'd be responsible for 18 years for a life she helped create.
3) What is truly "preposterous" is that you totally strip a woman's ability to exercise self control and restraint in order to try and defend your "preposterous" defense and support of abortion on demand.
Again, you make moral arguments, that are entirely unsuitable for the State to enforce by criminalization. A woman cannot assume a LEGAL duty of care merely by having sex.
-
Again, you make moral arguments, that are entirely unsuitable for the State to enforce by criminalization. A woman cannot assume a LEGAL duty of care merely by having sex.
But a man can???
-
Again, you make moral arguments, that are entirely unsuitable for the State to enforce by criminalization
And what do you think our laws were founded on? There is a moral code...a moral thread that runs through our legal system.
If that's the case if what you say is true...then no one should ever be convicted of murder ever. It's in the Bible "Thou Shall Not Kill"...morally you are not to commit murder. But according to you...I'd be making " moral arguments, that are entirely unsuitable for the State to enforce by criminalization" by pointing to the 10 Commandments as the basis for our legal penalties against murder.
. A woman cannot assume a LEGAL duty of care merely by having sex.
If she becomes pregnant...then yes she can. Just the same as the man who will have to pay child support until the age of 18 because he and the woman both chose to be careless and have unprotected sex out of wedlock.
-
But a man can???
@thackney
In his scenario that he paints every time in his defense and justification of abortion...the man is just a pump and dump chump who disappears into the ether after the deed is done.
-
@thackney
In his scenario that he paints every time in his defense and justification of abortion...the man is just a pump and dump chump who disappears into the ether after the deed is done.
We have already agreed that for merely having sex, the man can be forced by government to carry a lasting burden to provide care.
-
Gosnell: The Trial of America's Biggest Serial Killer (2018)
I think it is coming this fall.
Wouldn't know how to verify it, but I heard a claim made on a show I was watching on Youtube last night that since roe v wade the worldwide number of abortions is at the ONE BILLION mark.
As a species...YAY FOR US!
Voluntary Human Extinction, Bro. It's a thing.
http://vhemt.org/ (http://vhemt.org/)
-
But a man can???
It's an admission men are inherently superior. Being "pro-abortion" is probably as misogynistic as one can get.
-
Oh yeah, after that first 9 months the lady gets off scot-free. She doesn’t have to do a damned thing or pay a single penny for those next 18 years.
Seriously?
In many States, she doesn't. A woman can step into any hospital with a newborn baby, say to the receptionist, "Here, I don't want this", and walk right back out. No questions asked. No threat of prosecution.
-
I am sick and tired of your virtue signaling. Of course babies are precious, but your statement was that by acknowledging the liberty of women I was "defending abortion", which you insist is "murder".
In fact, she is right. It is not the liberty of women to kill their children in the womb. That @Jazzhead , is a damnable lie, though I count you as merely deceived...
NO WOMAN IN A PERFECT WORLD WANTS AN ABORTION. The circumstances that compel women to abort are tragic, and unique to the life of each woman. No money. A dashed future. Abandonment by parents or partner. Plain and simple fear. There is no size fits all solution.
All basically wrong-headed... The fears of a young girl that knows no better. I have seen it over and over again.
Sure no money - I get that. But compared to that child, money doesn't even matter. A dashed future? No. Her whole world. 99 times out of 100, all she has to do is get through the birth and hold that child in her arms, and she will know that vital truth with every fiber of her being.
Abandonment? Likely a temporary situation, or not true at all, at least around here. Sure, her lover will often flee, but often, in fact mostly, she will return to her father's house, or to her grandfather's house. Family will usually help pick up the slack.
But hectoring those who advocate persuasion rather than coercion as "defending" the practice is obnoxious.
It is not coercion. The coercion is in the intervention of a natural process which must necessarily reach it's just and proper end - convincing the woman to do otherwise damages her right down to her soul. I have seen that too, over and again.
Yes, your attitude hardens hearts, because your fundamental argument is that people who don't agree with you are evil.
It is in fact evil. There is nothing more evil on this entire earth, than to cut an innocent child out of the womb. It is the ACT and the ADVOCACY that are evil. By far and away, the actual victims are the child of course, and that child's mother, who, either way, will learn the truth of it, and the deception in what you advocate.
Did it ever occur to you that those who don't advocate criminalizing abortion are as troubled by the practice as you are? Of course not - you're all about virtue signaling, not saving lives.
Did it ever occur to you that it is you that is virtue signaling? Your advocacy does nothing to save lives - it destroys them. Pure and simple truth.
I have often said I went the wrong way back in my misspent youth, and I know a whole lot of women who did the same in their youth... to a woman, those gals, every one I can think of, once they actually passed a child into life, became absolutely dead set against abortion. And they know the difference better than most.
-
In many States, she doesn't. A woman can step into any hospital with a newborn baby, say to the receptionist, "Here, I don't want this", and walk right back out. No questions asked. No threat of prosecution.
Yup and in other states they can do the same thing at the local police precinct or fire house.
-
In many States, she doesn't. A woman can step into any hospital with a newborn baby, say to the receptionist, "Here, I don't want this", and walk right back out. No questions asked. No threat of prosecution.
In all states. But the time varies how long she has to decide, 3 day up to 1 year.
http://safehaven.tv/states/ (http://safehaven.tv/states/)
-
@thackney
In his scenario that he paints every time in his defense and justification of abortion...the man is just a pump and dump chump who disappears into the ether after the deed is done.
His scenario encourages men to be pump and dump chumps who disappear into the ether after the deed is done. All the woman has to do is get an abortion, right?
-
Well said, @musiclady It infuriates me when people keep using that 'her body, her choice' thing. And you explained it perfectly. I named my children before they were born and they were always separate and loved beings to me.
Any aware, caring mother should know that the little human being inside her is not ‘her body.’
You and I both heard those little hearts beating (even before the technology of today we could hear them when their ages were counted in weeks). We loved our children and respected them long before they were born. And some of us sang to them and played Bach for them too. ^-^
The idea that they were just cells that were part of our own bodies is simply preposterous.
-
His scenario encourages men to be pump and dump chumps who disappear into the ether after the deed is done. All the woman has to do is get an abortion, right?
Yup
-
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,
who put darkness for light and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight. - Isaiah 5:20-21
Bravo! That path is long and dark, and I have been down it far enough to know where it goes.
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyRZTAmcW7c#)
-
The circumstances that compel a woman to abort are purely selfish. Women are not the victims here. The unborn babies are the victims.
Almost true. The mother winds up being a victim too. They are usually young and do not know the preciousness of the life that stirs within them. What they do in ignorance, taking the 'easy' way out, listening to advocates for that way, they will inevitably find out was a deception, and it haunts them forever more.
-
Again, you make moral arguments, that are entirely unsuitable for the State to enforce by criminalization. A woman cannot assume a LEGAL duty of care merely by having sex.
Actually, the States were doing just fine until Roe, as far as criminalizing abortion. Most had.
It was the usurpation of the States' authority to do so by seven people which complicated matters.
By their leave, over 58,000,000 babies have died.
Before Roe, we didn't have to play games with a definition of 'viability'. Unless the life of the mother would be foreseeably lost by continuing the pregnancy, the baby could proceed to develop and enter daylight in one piece with the full protection of the law. Mom could even take her chances if she so chose (still can now, for that matter).
-
@musiclady
Do you find it odd that the only ones here championing abortion rights are men?
Actually, not too odd...
Abortion is anti- woman, harmful in every way possible.
It makes sense in a cockeyed sort of way that the women here oppose self harm and that the only people supporting it are those who have been inculcated with leftist thought.
Look at the language they use. They are parroting leftist propaganda.
The women on this forum think for themselves. The men on the left clearly do not.
-
Almost true. The mother winds up being a victim too. They are usually young and do not know the preciousness of the life that stirs within them. What they do in ignorance, taking the 'easy' way out, listening to advocates for that way, they will inevitably find out was a deception, and it haunts them forever more.
I don't think the man who just dodged 18 years of child support payments gives a damn about the long-term emotional effects on the woman.
-
Liberty trumps the prerogative of the states establishing their own laws to deny liberty.
This is not liberty. This is consequence.
Liberty has responsibilities.
Freedom has consequences.
Do you want the states to ban your right to own a gun? Oh the horror - that's, that's UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Correct. It is unconstitutional.
Well, yes it is. And so would be your state telling your daughter she no longer has dominion over her own body.
What a relief that would be... As I would be telling her the same thing, as would just about any mother, were she inclined to ask.
All of that would be a remarkable bulwark against her making the absolutely worst mistake of her life - One she will grow to regret as she comes to know better.
-
We have already agreed that for merely having sex, the man can be forced by government to carry a lasting burden to provide care.
The man does not even have to be the biological father--such precedents have been set.
Where is the 'equality' in compelling some man to pay for someone else's procreative results?
Fifty eight million....and counting. More than any regime ever except (maybe) Communist China.
-
Indeed, as a legal matter. How can the State impose a duty of care without the person's express or implied consent? I can accept that by allowing a pregnancy to continue to term a woman has assumed that duty of care. But simply by reason of having sex? That's, well, tyrannical.
Funny. Because with the same breath you would demand the father be coerced into fiduciary care for most of his productive life, simply for having sex...
-
So a woman assumes a legally enforceable duty of care just by having sex?
That's preposterous.
Yet you insist the man does.
-
I don't think the man who just dodged 18 years of child support payments gives a damn about the long-term emotional effects on the woman.
There is a pretty good chance that his opinion of her and her needs stopped where his desire for a semen receptacle began. I'd wager that many of the wealthy and powerful males who supported Roe saw it as an 'easy' way out of potentially problematic situations.
(Mary Jo, are you sure....)
-
So a woman assumes a legally enforceable duty of care just by having sex?
That's preposterous.
Sure. If you create a life when you didn't intend to, you ARE responsible for that life. It ain't that complicated, except for idiots on the left that .... not only don't believe in God, but probably go out of their way to do anything they can against God.
And.....with all of the forms of birth control that are available... there is really NO excuse for a woman to have sex and get pregnant as a result of that sex (her choice, of course) and then require an abortion.... taxpayer funded, or not. For instance.... even if she was too stupid and/or lazy to take precautions before having sex.....she could have taken the morning after pill. But if she was even too lazy and irresponsible to have not taken that simple precaution, then using abortion as her version of "birth control" is unacceptable. And that woman will pay the consequences of her choices and her actions..... some day.
-
Another bit of info for the men here advocating that abortion is good for women.....
Far more babies aborted world wide are female than are male. As misogynistic abortionists have no problem with wiping out the female population because the culture perceives women to be inferior, there is a worldwide femicide.....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2539648/Thousands-girls-aborted-gender-Study-finds-couples-cultures-sons-deemed-desirable-terminating-female-pregnancies.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2539648/Thousands-girls-aborted-gender-Study-finds-couples-cultures-sons-deemed-desirable-terminating-female-pregnancies.html)
THIS is abortion. Killing far more women than men, and doing irreparable harm to the women who have them.
-
ALL abortion is murder. All of it. The circumstances do not matter.
The important part is who gets the credit for the kill. :smokin:
-
Yes, if she chooses. People are literally waiting in line to pay all the associated expenses with removing that burden from her.
She has to choose to keep it.
Bullshit. If she keeps it - the premise of your whinging - then she has the obligation to raise the child and pay for the expenses that the cheapskate “father†won’t. On the other hand, if she gives it up for adoption, so that she doesn’t have to pay those expenses or bear those obligations, then neither does he. Perfect symmetry.
And, quite frankly, if she aborts it, then his financial expense goes away, so your position is frankly pro-abortion in a very tawdry sense, because it would justify abortion solely to protect the genetic father from out-of-pocket expenses for his own progeny.
-
Sure. If you create a life when you didn't intend to, you ARE responsible for that life. It ain't that complicated, except for idiots on the left that .... not only don't believe in God, but probably go out of their way to do anything they can against God.
And.....with all of the forms of birth control that are available... there is really NO excuse for a woman to have sex and get pregnant as a result of that sex (her choice, of course) and then require an abortion.... taxpayer funded, or not. For instance.... even if she was too stupid and/or lazy to take precautions before having sex.....she could have taken the morning after pill. But if she was even too lazy and irresponsible to have not taken that simple precaution, then using abortion as her version of "birth control" is unacceptable. And that woman will pay the consequences of her choices and her actions..... some day.
Those facts don't matter to the men who have such low regard for women that they don't think we can be responsible for our own behavior.
That is what has been argued here. That women are too stupid and helpless to behave responsibly.
-
Funny. Because with the same breath you would demand the father be coerced into fiduciary care for most of his productive life, simply for having sex...
... Ouch! That NAILED the insipidness of his testiscular argument to the floorboards right there.
-
Another bit of info for the men here advocating that abortion is good for women.....
Far more babies aborted world wide are female than are male. As misogynistic abortionists have no problem with wiping out the female population because the culture perceives women to be inferior, there is a worldwide femicide.....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2539648/Thousands-girls-aborted-gender-Study-finds-couples-cultures-sons-deemed-desirable-terminating-female-pregnancies.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2539648/Thousands-girls-aborted-gender-Study-finds-couples-cultures-sons-deemed-desirable-terminating-female-pregnancies.html)
THIS is abortion. Killing far more women than men, and doing irreparable harm to the women who have them.
Ahhh, so what they do in China should determine what the US Constitution says about the fundamental rights of American citizens?
And here I thought conservatives were so opposed to letting foreigners and foreign law be used to decide American law. Guess I was wrong; the ends justify the means, no matter the hypocrisy.
-
Bullshit. If she keeps it - the premise of your whinging - then she has the obligation to raise the child and pay for the expenses that the cheapskate “father†won’t. On the other hand, if she gives it up for adoption, so that she doesn’t have to pay those expenses or bear those obligations, then neither does he. Perfect symmetry.
And, quite frankly, if she aborts it, then his financial expense goes away, so your position is frankly pro-abortion in a very tawdry sense, because it would justify abortion solely to protect the genetic father from out-of-pocket expenses for his own progeny.
Which is the reality of what abortion is doing. Giving both men and women less responsibility for their own behavior. Allowing men to pressure women to have abortions to avoid the consequences of their own actions.
No matter how you cut it, abortion is evil.
And it is extremely harmful to women.
-
Ahhh, so what they do in China should determine what the US Constitution says about the fundamental rights of American citizens?
And here I thought conservatives were so opposed to letting foreigners and foreign law be used to decide American law. Guess I was wrong; the ends justify the means, no matter the hypocrisy.
Whoa.............. you had to work hard to twist what I said into that nonsense, didn't you?
Desperation has clearly set in because the FACTS don't match up with your science denial.
-
Funny. Because with the same breath you would demand the father be coerced into fiduciary care for most of his productive life, simply for having sex...
Boo, hoo, hoo. So a couple of dollars to a man is more important than giving a woman control over her own body.
And quite frankly, the comparison is utterly inapposite because if the woman chooses to abort, then there is no child, and no financial obligation for the traveling dick or anyone else. On the other hand, if we let the dick off the hook because it’s not fair to make him pay for his sexual flings, then the costs of raising the child are still there - they don’t go away just because “daddy†runs off - which means that more likely than not the taxpayers will be called upon to pay for some of those. It may not be fair in some universe to make “daddy†pay for his progeny, but it’s much fairer than putting the burden on the taxpayers who had nothing to do with the conception at all.
-
Whoa.............. you had to work hard to twist what I said into that nonsense, didn't you?
Desperation has clearly set in because the FACTS don't match up with your science denial.
Stating the necessary, logical, implications of your statement wasn’t that hard; all it required was thinking through what you posted (something you apparently did not do).
-
Bullshit.
Everything I stated is true.
If she keeps it - the premise of your whinging - then she has the obligation to raise the child and pay for the expenses that the cheapskate “father†won’t.
The father also has the obligation. If he won't help raise the child he can be forced legally to pay a significant portion of the expense.
On the other hand, if she gives it up for adoption, so that she doesn’t have to pay those expenses or bear those obligations, then neither does he. Perfect symmetry.
Correct. But she alone has the choice in that matter.
And, quite frankly, if she aborts it, then his financial expense goes away, so your position is frankly pro-abortion in a very tawdry sense, because it would justify abortion solely to protect the genetic father from out-of-pocket expenses for his own progeny.
I make no suggestion the father should be protected from his obligations. I am stating the opposite. He absolutely has responsibility from his decision to have sex to provide for the child created. I am also saying the mother has obligations as well, but she has more opportunity to end it at birth.
-
Which is the reality of what abortion is doing. Giving both men and women less responsibility for their own behavior. Allowing men to pressure women to have abortions to avoid the consequences of their own actions.
No matter how you cut it, abortion is evil.
And it is extremely harmful to women.
Just one of the many conflicting interests that have to be balanced. If you think a couple of extra dollars to a man has more moral worth than a woman’s control over her own body, so be it.
-
When you argue that abortion not only "should be legal", but go a step further to say it "must remain legal", then you are defending abortion.
When you say the Constitution grants the unalienable right to have abortions, you are lying. And when you champion a fulfillment of desires at the expense of someone else's life, you are advocating murder. The destiny I choose may be to live in your house without you in it. So if I kill you in the process of making that dream come true, is it murder? Who decides if it is murder? Who gets to make that rule? The State?
Yeah, I've heard this lie before. We were told after Roe that the number of unwanted pregnancies would only decrease because of better birth control. The exact opposite has been the case. We now have patches and shots that prevent pregnancy for months at a time. Yet today the illegitimate birth rate has never been higher. We have seen a marked increase in the number of abortions since Roe, and we have also seen a marked increase in violent crime since the Supreme Court imposed the devaluation of human life upon society.
No woman in a perfect world wants lung cancer either. Yet women still smoke. The only difference is that when a woman gets lung cancer, she doesn't get to kill her child.
The circumstances that compel a woman to abort are purely selfish. Women are not the victims here. The unborn babies are the victims.
:amen:
-
Lawyers "play with" such concepts because it is insisted that a moral question become a legal one.
There is no 'moral neutral'. There is no such thing. What you advocate is in fact a change in morality to suit the sophistry of modern living. IN FACT, Roe v Wade is a moral position in and of itself - one way to the side of immorality, but in fact it is a stand upon a 'moral' cause, as most law is.
So your gripe is made moot. You just want your 'moral' position to prevail.
-
There is no 'moral neutral'. There is no such thing. What you advocate is in fact a change in morality to suit the sophistry of modern living. IN FACT, Roe v Wade is a moral position in and of itself - one way to the side of immorality, but in fact it is a stand upon a 'moral' cause, as most law is.
So your gripe is made moot. You just want your 'moral' position to prevail.
That stands history on its head. Previability abortion was historically permitted until the mid 1800s.
-
That stands history on its head. Previability abortion was historically permitted until the mid 1800s.
Of course this makes it right....lol.
-
That stands history on its head. Previability abortion was historically permitted until the mid 1800s.
So was slavery. But I'm sure we agree that isn't reason enough to permit it today.
-
Those facts don't matter to the men who have such low regard for women that they don't think we can be responsible for our own behavior.
That is what has been argued here. That women are too stupid and helpless to behave responsibly.
I've been pointing that out through this whole thread. The only answer I got was I was the biggest misogynist in the Forum for saying: "Abortions are for the purpose of keeping women ready and available for free sex."
The other thing I noticed is the tacit proclamation: Men are therefore more responsible than women for the act of procreation." I've also noticed the word-twisting by the lawyers is at record highs.
-
So was slavery. But I'm sure we agree that isn't reason enough to permit it today.
Fair enough. But I quite agree that turning women into baby-slaves is a bad thing to do.
-
I've been pointing that out through this whole thread. The only answer I got was I was the biggest misogynist in the Forum for saying: "Abortions are for the purpose of keeping women ready and available for free sex."
The other thing I noticed is the tacit proclamation: Men are therefore more responsible than women for the act of procreation." I've also noticed the word-twisting by the lawyers is at record highs.
Quite the contrary, the only people abusing women are those who feel that they have no right to control their own bodies and can willy-nilly be turned into involuntary incubators for unviable zygotes because it makes those people feel virtuous about themselves.
-
Of course this makes it right....lol.
No one said it was "right". The moral issue is not what is being discussed. At stake is a woman's liberty to choose her own destiny. That liberty interest is vital and it is not going away. Women have been freed from the patriarchy - that genie isn't going back in the bottle. Nor should it. The State's coercion with respect to a matter of individual conscience is wholly inappropriate and un-American.
Meanwhile, advances in contraceptive effectiveness, combined with effective AND EMPATHIC persuasion regarding the moral issues and responsibilities involved, should reduce the incidence of abortion. (In this regard, I think, it would help a great deal if the pro-life harpies would stop labeling women as selfish murderers who kill their babies so they can retain their bikini bodies.)
-
Boo, hoo, hoo. So a couple of dollars to a man is more important than giving a woman control over her own body.
A few dollars? I know men who have been made destitute because of child support. I can point to a man right now who lived most of his adult life in a camp trailer directly because of child support payments... Unable to marry, unable to have a house of his own. And when his father died, and he inherited, long after those children were raised, the state confiscated that inheritance to pay for the overage across those years that he was unable to pay.
It is not a case of merely 'a few dollars'.
And quite frankly, the comparison is utterly inapposite because if the woman chooses to abort, then there is no child, and no financial obligation for the traveling dick or anyone else.
A remarkably opportune decision except in that a life is snuffed out.
On the other hand, if we let the dick off the hook because it’s not fair to make him pay for his sexual flings, then the costs of raising the child are still there - they don’t go away just because “daddy†runs off - which means that more likely than not the taxpayers will be called upon to pay for some of those. It may not be fair in some universe to make “daddy†pay for his progeny, but it’s much fairer than putting the burden on the taxpayers who had nothing to do with the conception at all.
That is wholly untrue. That gal can drop that kid at any hospital or church, and that child will find a home.
The hilarity of this whole argument is that society had a remarkable solution to ALL of this, but a generation or two ago ... Marriage, and sex only within the bonds thereof.
But Lord knows we can't go back to that... even though there were few bastard children. and few single parent households, and the wealth of one generation passed on to the next... Like it has been for all time.
-
Fair enough. But I quite agree that turning women into baby-slaves is a bad thing to do.
The difference is so simple. So basic, counselor, in that the decision to engage in activity which can lead to pregnancy is one generally conducted with full foreknowledge of the potential results and consent of the actors.
It is not servitude entered initially into in an involuntary manner, the consequences of unprotected sexual acts are very well known, completely avoidable, either by refusing to engage in sexual activity or preventing conception.
-
No one said it was "right". The moral issue is not what is being discussed. At stake is a woman's liberty to choose her own destiny. That liberty interest is vital and it is not going away. Women have been freed from the patriarchy - that genie isn't going back in the bottle. Nor should it. The State's coercion with respect to a matter of individual conscience is wholly inappropriate and un-American.
Meanwhile, advances in contraceptive effectiveness, combined with effective AND EMPATHIC persuasion regarding the moral issues and responsibilities involved, should reduce the incidence of abortion. (In this regard, I think, it would help a great deal if the pro-life harpies would stop labeling women as selfish murderers who kill their babies so they can retain their bikini bodies.)
I stand in support of the unborn child.
-
The difference is so simple. So basic, counselor, in that the decision to engage in activity which can lead to pregnancy is one generally conducted with full foreknowledge of the potential results and consent of the actors.
It is not servitude entered initially into in an involuntary manner, the consequences of unprotected sexual acts are very well known, completely avoidable, either by refusing to engage in sexual activity or preventing conception.
Arguing with some people is like arguing with a turnstile at the ball park. No matter how many times you blow their BS out of the water they come right back with it again and again. Like a dog returns to his vomit.
-
I pray no woman in the throes of making the most monumental decision of her life finds herself reading this thread.
-
I pray no woman in the throes of making the most monumental decision of her life finds herself reading this thread.
What's that? Deciding what handbag goes with her heels?
-
The hilarity of this whole argument is that society had a remarkable solution to ALL of this, but a generation or two ago ... Marriage, and sex only within the bonds thereof.
But Lord knows we can't go back to that... even though there were few bastard children. and few single parent households, and the wealth of one generation passed on to the next... Like it has been for all time.
How dare you type that and remind everyone what morality once was regarded as in this country!
Insensitive morally-superior/holier-than-thou Christian Extremist bastard!
(There, got it in before anyone else did).
-
Someone needs to ask Collins about why she was only one of three Republicans to vote against the partial birth abortion ban.
And for those in here that insist abortion on demand is the law of the land and no part of it can ever be overturned by the SCOTUS...I might suggest you read up on Gonzales v Carhart and Gonzales vPlanned Parenthood.
Finally I wonder how many here realize that Justice Blackmon didn't actually write his majority opinion...that his law clerks admitted years later to writing it for him?
-
A few dollars? I know men who have been made destitute because of child support. I can point to a man right now who lived most of his adult life in a camp trailer directly because of child support payments... Unable to marry, unable to have a house of his own. And when his father died, and he inherited, long after those children were raised, the state confiscated that inheritance to pay for the overage across those years that he was unable to pay.
It is not a case of merely 'a few dollars'.
A remarkably opportune decision except in that a life is snuffed out.
That is wholly untrue. That gal can drop that kid at any hospital or church, and that child will find a home.
The hilarity of this whole argument is that society had a remarkable solution to ALL of this, but a generation or two ago ... Marriage, and sex only within the bonds thereof.
But Lord knows we can't go back to that... even though there were few bastard children. and few single parent households, and the wealth of one generation passed on to the next... Like it has been for all time.
Yeah, abortion was nonexistent right up until 1970.
-
How dare you type that and remind everyone what morality once was regarded as in this country!
Insensitive morally-superior/holier-than-thou Christian Extremist bastard!
(There, got it in before anyone else did).
LOL!
:seeya:
Don't worry, it'll all work out. Since we abort so many, we are no longer sustaining a viable population, which is another aspect the liberals have not considered.
And the destruction of the family has weakened the generation that actually DID get born that might have defended us. And the destruction of inherited wealth has left them without means even if they do escape the moral turpitude.
Soon enough it will all be over... And the great American experiment will be thrown on the dust-heap of decadence, like a common democracy.
Congratulations, y'all. so much 'winning'.
-
Someone needs to ask Collins about why she was only one of three Republicans to vote against the partial birth abortion ban.
And for those in here that insist abortion on demand is the law of the land and no part of it can ever be overturned by the SCOTUS...I might suggest you read up on Gonzales v Carhart and Gonzales vPlanned Parenthood.
Finally I wonder how many here realize that Justice Blackmon didn't actually write his majority opinion...that his law clerks admitted years later to writing it for him?
Big deal. About 30 percent of the opinions issued by the Supreme Court are almost completely drafted by a law clerk.
-
Just one of the many conflicting interests that have to be balanced. If you think a couple of extra dollars to a man has more moral worth than a woman’s control over her own body, so be it.
I said nothing even remotely close to this, @Oceander - and you KNOW it.
It is obvious that you understand that you are losing this argument in spades, so you have to resort to distortions, contortions and deception.
Shame on you for that.
If you get one point out of all of this, I hope you realize that you, Oceander, were, from the moment of conception, YOU. You were never your mother's body. You were never someone who should have been tortured, dismembered and your tiny body destroyed because your mother didn't think you were worth bothering with.
You were worth something special, as is every child who is and has been discarded into a Mengele trash can.
Abortion is evil. It harms women. It harms men. It destroys culture. It destroys society. And it is destroying the country we all care about.
If you can live with yourself after supporting it and arguing all day for it with leftist propaganda, so be it.
But I still think you are better than what you have said and done here.
In fact, I know you are.
-
The difference is so simple. So basic, counselor, in that the decision to engage in activity which can lead to pregnancy is one generally conducted with full foreknowledge of the potential results and consent of the actors.
It is not servitude entered initially into in an involuntary manner, the consequences of unprotected sexual acts are very well known, completely avoidable, either by refusing to engage in sexual activity or preventing conception.
And the moment you refuse to let her abort it, it becomes servitude. It really is just that simple.
-
I said nothing even remotely close to this, @Oceander - and you KNOW it.
It is obvious that you understand that you are losing this argument in spades, so you have to resort to distortions, contortions and deception.
Shame on you for that.
If you get one point out of all of this, I hope you realize that you, Oceander, were, from the moment of conception, YOU. You were never your mother's body. You were never someone who should have been tortured, dismembered and your tiny body destroyed because your mother didn't think you were worth bothering with.
You were worth something special, as is every child who is and has been discarded into a Mengele trash can.
Abortion is evil. It harms women. It harms men. It destroys culture. It destroys society. And it is destroying the country we all care about.
If you can live with yourself after supporting it and arguing all day for it with leftist propaganda, so be it.
But I still think you are better than what you have said and done here.
In fact, I know you are.
:bigsilly:
Thanks for so much virtue-signaling.
-
Yeah, abortion was nonexistent right up until 1970.
It was exceedingly rare and shameful, all the way back to Egypt. Not just a Christian thing, mind you. It is industrialization that made the notion possible that a child was a burden and another mouth to feed.
In normative agrarian and nomadic terms, the child is valuable. Priceless even.
-
It was exceedingly rare and shameful, all the way back to Egypt. Not just a Christian thing, mind you. It is industrialization that made the notion possible that a child was a burden and another mouth to feed.
In normative agrarian and nomadic terms, the child is valuable. Priceless even.
Actually no, it wasn’t. In fact, the ancients also practiced infanticide. A Roman father had the right to expose a newborn to the elements, invariably killing it.
-
:bigsilly:
Thanks for so much virtue-signaling.
I never realized until this moment how narrow minded, self-righteous and ideologically motivated and downright callous you are.
I suppose I should have noticed it before, but I actually thought you could think reasoned thoughts and have adult conversations............. until now.
My bad. :shrug:
Liberalism truly DOES destroy brain cells.......
-
Actually no, it wasn’t.
Actually, yes, it was.
and another remarkable historical fact: A nation that kills it's own children doesn't have far to go.
-
I never realized until this moment how narrow minded, self-righteous and ideologically motivated and downright callous you are.
I suppose I should have noticed it before, but I actually thought you could think reasoned thoughts and have adult conversations............. until now.
My bad. :shrug:
Liberalism truly DOES destroy brain cells.......
As you wish. If you want a conversation, try having one instead of throwing around dog-whistle words that are intended to stop conversation (the way that liberals throw around racism) and grasp that your little subjective feelings on things are not genetically universal and others may not feel the same way you do.
-
Actually, yes, it was.
and another remarkable historical fact: A nation that kills it's own children doesn't have far to go.
Actually, no, it wasn’t. And it was accompanied by infanticide as well.
-
As you wish. If you want a conversation, try having one instead of throwing around dog-whistle words that are intended to stop conversation (the way that liberals throw around racism) and grasp that your little subjective feelings on things are not genetically universal and others may not feel the same way you do.
Dog whistle words like "virtue signaling?"
You have done nothing here but vomit leftist, thoughtless propaganda, and denied the science and reality of what abortion is.
It is YOU who have done nothing but repeat the subjective emotions of the pro-abortion crowd, but down deep......... somewhere............ I still believe you understand that killing babies is wrong, and that this country needs to stop doing it.
btw, you have lied about what I've said multiple times, so the self-righteousness you have on display here is paper thin.
Learn to tell the truth about this subject, or leave it alone.
-
Dog whistle words like "virtue signaling?"
You have done nothing here but vomit leftist, thoughtless propaganda, and denied the science and reality of what abortion is.
It is YOU who have done nothing but repeat the subjective emotions of the pro-abortion crowd, because down deep......... somewhere............ you understand that killing babies is wrong, and that this country needs to stop doing it.
btw, you have lied about what I've said multiple times, so the self-righteousness you have on display here is paper thin.
Learn to tell the truth about this subject, or leave it alone.
I have advocated for the view that a woman still has the right to control her body, even if she becomes pregnant, and does not become a mere tool for the implementation of someone else’s religious ideology the moment she becomes pregnant.
I guess individual liberty really isn’t much of a conservative value after all.
-
No one on this thread is advocating killing babies.
The debate seems to have settled on the best way to pave their way into this world.
Some think beating the woman as uncaring and selfish with an added punch in the mouth from God should be cemented into American law.
The other half thinks there's a better way.
But no one is advocating killing babies. Those who claim some are or intimate others don't care are flat out wrong, and they know it.
-
I have advocated for the view that a woman still has the right to control her body, even if she becomes pregnant, and does not become a mere tool for the implementation of someone else’s religious ideology the moment she becomes pregnant.
I guess individual liberty really isn’t much of a conservative value after all.
Now it's my turn to laugh. **nononono*
Except that you once again deny the SCIENTIFIC REALITY that the child is NOT the mother's body. and that she doesn't have ANY "right" to control that child by killing it. And that using the word "liberty" to describe abortion is an outright lie.
On this subject, you are willfully blind.
I would suggest that you put aside your hatred for all things religious, and for people of faith, and actually look at the SCIENCE of abortion.
Many atheists understand the abject horror of ripping apart a human being for convenience.
Try actually thinking for a change, and stop advocating the death of the innocent. You can distort all you want and deny what you are doing, but that is exactly what you are doing here.
Think.
-
stop advocating the death of the innocent.
Stop the damn virtue signaling :bs: @musiclady No one is doing that.
-
No one on this thread is advocating killing babies.
The debate seems to have settled on the best way to pave their way into this world.
Some think beating the woman as uncaring and selfish with an added punch in the mouth from God should be cemented into American law.
The other half thinks there's a better way.
But no one is advocating killing babies. Those who claim some are or intimate others don't care are flat out wrong, and they know it.
There is no half vs half on this thread as far as I have been able to determine. It's you and a couple of others vs everyone else.
-
Actually, no, it wasn’t. And it was accompanied by infanticide as well.
nope.
Among elites perhaps. Among nomadic war tribes, yes - girls were killed at birth. And they swelled themselves with rape and slaves. Which is widely why they often suffered depredation and decimation.
But to your average agrarian or hunter/gatherer, big families made for more range and less work, as it is to this very day. And peace time farming and hunting are the norm.
Chastity in women has always been a virtue. Periods of rampant sex never have lasted long, because rampant sex causes disease and it's participants would suffer that consequence - you forget that there was no cure for any of it until very recently.
So a society entering into a sexually liberal condition was in fact, sealing it's own fate.
-
No one on this thread is advocating killing babies.
The debate seems to have settled on the best way to pave their way into this world.
Some think beating the woman as uncaring and selfish with an added punch in the mouth from God should be cemented into American law.
The other half thinks there's a better way.
But no one is advocating killing babies. Those who claim some are or intimate others don't care are flat out wrong, and they know it.
:thumbsup:
-
Dog whistle words like "virtue signaling?"
They sure like the term, don't they? Same crowd likes 'hater' and 'bigot'
No one I know use those terms, and certainly not in that fashion.
-
And the moment you refuse to let her abort it, it becomes servitude. It really is just that simple.
As a guy, I have the option to insist that I wear something that will prevent that outcome. Both parties can prevent that, so I'm not buying that argument, from its inception.
I know others who have gone even beyond the barrier method, and had the tubes cut so they cannot become daddies (or create more lives, in addition to the ones they already started).
And there is no obligation to engage in coitus, no matter how great the moment of desire.
So, again, counselor, the time to decide not to father a child is before creating that life.
Afterwards, you are just setting a price on an innocent little head.
-
Stop the damn virtue signaling :bs: @musiclady No one is doing that.
Yes, @Right_in_Virginia . To advocate for abortion is exactly that, by definition.
-
There is no half vs half on this thread as far as I have been able to determine. It's you and a couple of others vs everyone else.
There's gonna be some real tap dancing going on by a handful of people on this forum if the justice Trump picks and gets approved is very pro life and doesn't believe in this made up "right" that Harry Blackmon's clerks ginned up for him in the majority decision in Roe.
-
nope.
Among elites perhaps. Among nomadic war tribes, yes - girls were killed at birth. And they swelled themselves with rape and slaves. Which is widely why they often suffered depredation and decimation.
But to your average agrarian or hunter/gatherer, big families made for more range and less work, as it is to this very day. And peace time farming and hunting are the norm.
Chastity in women has always been a virtue. Periods of rampant sex never have lasted long, because rampant sex causes disease and it's participants would suffer that consequence - you forget that there was no cure for any of it until very recently.
So a society entering into a sexually liberal condition was in fact, sealing it's own fate.
Go read some history. Abortion was limited in many places due to the lack of abortifacients, but where they existed, it was practiced. And infanticide was practiced, probably in part to make up for the lack of abortifacients. Again, go read some history.
-
It was exceedingly rare and shameful, all the way back to Egypt. Not just a Christian thing, mind you. It is industrialization that made the notion possible that a child was a burden and another mouth to feed.
In normative agrarian and nomadic terms, the child is valuable. Priceless even.
It was also a decision rarely made only to save the life of the mother, seriously and painfully deliberated, not taken lightly. As an elective to hide surreptitious sexual activity, something accompanied by shame and stigma, if found out.
-
They sure like the term, don't they? Same crowd likes 'hater' and 'bigot'
No one I know use those terms, and certainly not in that fashion.
Who created the absurd term "Virtue signaling" anyway? Talk about dog whistles and distortions.
Yikes.
It's used any time they lose an argument to someone using morality (and reason).
IMO, it's just a knee jerk response when the argument has been lost.
Downright Pavlovian.
And dumb. **nononono*
-
Actually no, it wasn’t. In fact, the ancients also practiced infanticide. A Roman father had the right to expose a newborn to the elements, invariably killing it.
Because we have finally reached the point where we are as civilized as people who fed Christians to wild beasts for entertainment?
-
There's gonna be some real tap dancing going on by a handful of people on this forum if the justice Trump picks and gets approved is very pro life and doesn't believe in this made up "right" that Harry Blackmon's clerks ginned up for him in the majority decision in Roe.
You know, I've been thinking about that.
One in particular adores Trump, and yet has spent half the day arguing on Collins' side of the debate.
It's a moral sticky wicket for the pretend "right" crowd.....
-
As a guy, I have the option to insist that I wear something that will prevent that outcome. Both parties can prevent that, so I'm not buying that argument, from its inception.
I know others who have gone even beyond the barrier method, and had the tubes cut so they cannot become daddies (or create more lives, in addition to the ones they already started).
And there is no obligation to engage in coitus, no matter how great the moment of desire.
So, again, counselor, the time to decide not to father a child is before creating that life.
Afterwards, you are just setting a price on an innocent little head.
Sorry, but you seem to think that initial consent is some magical pixie dust that forever after prevents one from changing ones mind. That means you are logically committed to the position, for example, that you cannot robbed or trespassed upon if you initially invited the robber or trespasser in, even if for just a moment or two. In other words, your position necessarily entails logical absurdities, which means it is incorrect.
-
Because we have finally reached the point where we are as civilized as people who fed Christians to wild beasts for entertainment?
Zing!!!!!!!
(Those lovely Romans also covered Christians in wax and set them on fire to entertain themselves at garden parties. Now THAT is a civilization to look up to!)
-
Because we have finally reached the point where we are as civilized as people who fed Christians to wild beasts for entertainment?
That’s another issue, but don’t make false claims about history as a way of justifying a given position.
And I agree that infanticide was barbaric and best left to the past. I also believe that turning a woman into a reproductive slave for the sake of a zygote that isn’t even viable yet is also barbaric.
-
Fair enough. But I quite agree that turning women into baby-slaves is a bad thing to do.
Will you also agree they have lots of choices to being in that position, which slaves don't have?
Abstinence, contraception, morning after contraception for example.
-
It was also a decision rarely made only to save the life of the mother, seriously and painfully deliberated, not taken lightly. As an elective to hide surreptitious sexual activity, something accompanied by shame and stigma, if found out.
Nonsense. Go read some history.
-
Yes, @Right_in_Virginia . To advocate for abortion is exactly that, by definition.
And you also know no one is advocating for abortion. This "argument" is disingenuous, at best.
We have been discussing the most appropriate ways to make abortion a rarity. Twisting the legal system to handle this will only push women who seek an abortion underground. Not one life will be saved.
We all want the babies born @roamer_1 I can only pray the time is approaching when we will discuss the alternatives and the ways to help make this a reality without pushing for punitive legal dictates --- that will not happen and would not work.
-
That’s another issue, but don’t make false claims about history as a way of justifying a given position.
And I agree that infanticide was barbaric and best left to the past. I also believe that turning a woman into a reproductive slave for the sake of a zygote that isn’t even viable yet is also barbaric.
Reproductive slave???? ROFLOL!!!!
Not a bad cover for someone who doesn't respect women one little bit.
(You do throw about that dog whistle "virtue signaling" leftist propaganda stuff with the best of them, though! :silly:)
-
Will you also agree they have lots of choices to being in that position, which slaves don't have?
Abstinence, contraception, morning after contraception for example.
I agree that they have choices to avoid the risk altogether. And I wish that humans were such that we could count on them to always do the wisest thing. But we cannot, which is why we end up with bad situations. And bad situations always require a balancing of the relative merits and demerits of the situation. And up until the point at which the fetus is viable, the woman’s rights and interests are paramount.
-
Go read some history. Abortion was limited in many places due to the lack of abortifacients, but where they existed, it was practiced. And infanticide was practiced, probably in part to make up for the lack of abortifacients. Again, go read some history.
I am quite informed in ancient history - It's what I do. And I am likewise very informed in occult practices where those abortifacients were to be found (witchcraft, shamanism).
-
There's gonna be some real tap dancing going on by a handful of people on this forum if the justice Trump picks and gets approved is very pro life and doesn't believe in this made up "right" that Harry Blackmon's clerks ginned up for him in the majority decision in Roe.
:2popcorn:
-
Afterwards, you are just setting a price on an innocent little head.
That is truth.
As uncomfortable as it makes some.
-
Reproductive slave???? ROFLOL!!!!
Not a bad cover for someone who doesn't respect women one little bit.
(You do throw about that dog whistle "virtue signaling" leftist propaganda stuff with the best of them, though! :silly:)
You have no clue whom I respect or disrespect.
-
I am quite informed in ancient history - It's what I do. And I am likewise very informed in occult practices where those abortifacients were to be found (witchcraft, shamanism).
Not based on your statements here you aren’t.
-
And you also know no one is advocating for abortion. This "argument" is disingenuous, at best.
Oh horseshit. Come out from behind that thin veil of 'a woman's right to choose'. It hides nothing. To evoke a woman's right to choose is to evoke abortion. Period. It is the same damn thing. Your advocating a splitting of hairs aside.
We have been discussing the most appropriate ways to make abortion a rarity. Twisting the legal system to handle this will only push women who seek an abortion underground. Not one life will be saved.
Baloney. There was nowhere near the trade in abortion prior to RvW, @Right_in_Virginia The statistics alone blow your argument out of the water by several orders of magnitude.
We all want the babies born @roamer_1 I can only pray the time is approaching when we will discuss the alternatives and the ways to help make this a reality without pushing for punitive legal dictates --- that will not happen and would not work.
You will find no such arrangement, or it would have been settled thousands of years ago. What you so blithely say will not work has been the natural order of things through all time.
-
So, again, counselor, the time to decide not to father a child is before creating that life.
Afterwards, you are just setting a price on an innocent little head.
That is the bare fact.
:beer:
-
Sorry, but you seem to think that initial consent is some magical pixie dust that forever after prevents one from changing ones mind. That means you are logically committed to the position, for example, that you cannot robbed or trespassed upon if you initially invited the robber or trespasser in, even if for just a moment or two. In other words, your position necessarily entails logical absurdities, which means it is incorrect.
We aren't talking about a robber, we are talking about creating a life. Once done, it is done.
Regardless of changing your mind, you will not UN-create that life, you can only permit it to continue or end it.
Jump off a tall building. Change your mind on the way down.
Some decisions are irrevocable, like squeezing a trigger. You can't take it back.
You can only decide not to in the first place.
-
Ahhh, so what they do in China should determine what the US Constitution says about the fundamental rights of American citizens?
The US Constitution? This ought to be good. Now all of a sudden you want to bring up the US Constitution. So tell me. What does the Constitution have to say about the fundamental right of a State to establish its own laws?
-
But I quite agree that turning women into baby-slaves is a bad thing to do.
How do women get turned into baby-slaves? Do they not have control over whether they get pregnant or not? You certainly have a very low opinion of women.
-
We aren't talking about a robber, we are talking about creating a life. Once done, it is done.
Regardless of changing your mind, you will not UN-create that life, you can only permit it to continue or end it.
Jump off a tall building. Change your mind on the way down.
Some decisions are irrevocable, like squeezing a trigger. You can't take it back.
You can only decide not to in the first place.
Great post @Smokin Joe.
Should settle the matter but it won't.
-
You have no clue whom I respect or disrespect.
Actually, there are two things I know you don't respect....
The lives of the weakest and most vulnerable human beings.
And the truth about abortion.
Other than that, I sure did get a kick out of that 'reproductive slave' silliness LOL!
You've surpassed your buddy Jazzhead with that one. He could only come up with "chattel."
Just because we don't want innocent babies to be slaughtered.
You're a real hoot.
Except that what you're advocating is not funny in the least, and your regurgitation of anti-woman propaganda is disgusting.
-
Not based on your statements here you aren’t.
Yes, in fact, I am. Too ancient for most - The Venerable Bede is too contemporary for me... But I have spent considerable time peeling away the facade of elitism in history to look at the common man... with a peculiar bent toward bardic lore all the way back to the Occitaine, and Celtic lore as it carries along the Common Law across fifteen hundred years or more before the English were even a people.
Which is why I am often at odds with you wrt your sciences - I know what they come from.
Maybe it is you that is lacking the historical context.
-
No one on this thread is advocating killing babies.
The debate seems to have settled on the best way to pave their way into this world.
Some think beating the woman as uncaring and selfish with an added punch in the mouth from God should be cemented into American law.
The other half thinks there's a better way.
But no one is advocating killing babies. Those who claim some are or intimate others don't care are flat out wrong, and they know it.
Take it up with Trump, he made it known he was pro-life the whole campaign. Now, some of his supporters, one really has to question. Do us a favor of not scolding others who supported Trump since his pro-life stand won a lot of voters.
-
That is the bare fact.
:beer:
Dog-whistles. If you want to use the term, we’re setting the price of a woman’s fundamental right to bodily freedom against the price of an unformed, nonviable zygote.
-
Yes, in fact, I am. Too ancient for most - The Venerable Bede is too contemporary for me... But I have spent considerable time peeling away the facade of elitism in history to look at the common man... with a peculiar bent toward bardic lore all the way back to the Occitaine, and Celtic lore as it carries along the Common Law across fifteen hundred years or more before the English were even a people.
Which is why I am often at odds with you wrt your sciences - I know what they come from.
Maybe it is you that is lacking the historical context.
Sure you are. What you aren’t, based on your statements here, is much of a student of history.
-
Dog-whistles. If you want to use the term, we’re setting the price of a woman’s fundamental right to bodily freedom against the price of an unformed, nonviable zygote.
Use that term after you've been kicked from the inside and heard the heartbeat of "an unformed, nonviable zygote" who has completely unique DNA and personal characteristics, different from his or her mother.
You are ignorant.
Stop putting it on display. It's getting embarrassing.
(As is your incessant accusation of others for doing what you yourself alone are doing.......... dog whistles, arrogance, virtue signaling...... etc .)
-
No one said it was "right". The moral issue is not what is being discussed.
You have been offering your own moral argument since the very beginning, while pointedly avoiding the legal one. So to say that the moral issue is not what is being discussed is preposterous. You have painted women as weak helpless victims and have championed that moral cause as the reason abortion must remain legal.
At stake is a woman's liberty to choose her own destiny.
A woman already chose her own destiny when she made the decision to exercise her self-driven control of her body by allowing a man to ejaculate inside of her. And as with any action, there are consequences. It is called "Personal Responsibility".
That liberty interest is vital and it is not going away.
The baby also has a liberty interest that is also vital - in this case literally. And it's not going away either.
The State's coercion with respect to a matter of individual conscience is wholly inappropriate and un-American.
So if my individual conscience is to kill you, it would be wholly inappropriate and un-American for the State to coerce me.
Meanwhile, advances in contraceptive effectiveness, combined with effective AND EMPATHIC persuasion regarding the moral issues and responsibilities involved, should reduce the incidence of abortion.
But they haven't. Again, there are patches and shots that prevent pregnancy for months at a time. Yet we still have abortions. Your moral argument is again flat out wrong.
And of course none of this has a thing to do with the Constitutional right of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to formulate its own set of laws with regard to abortion.
-
Dog-whistles. If you want to use the term, we’re setting the price of a woman’s fundamental right to bodily freedom against the price of an unformed, nonviable zygote.
Funny that... I have never heard a woman say, "I'm having an 'unformed, nonviable zygote'!!! "
It is not 'bodily freedom'. It is pain and shame that you defend. Often foisted on a teenage girl who has no idea what she is doing. 'Making it go away' doesn't make it go away.
-
And you also know no one is advocating for abortion. This "argument" is disingenuous, at best.
We have been discussing the most appropriate ways to make abortion a rarity. Twisting the legal system to handle this will only push women who seek an abortion underground. Not one life will be saved.
We all want the babies born @roamer_1 I can only pray the time is approaching when we will discuss the alternatives and the ways to help make this a reality without pushing for punitive legal dictates --- that will not happen and would not work.
Well, permit me to say that the status quo appears to be somewhat ineffective as a deterrent. When something is legal, it becomes commonplace--the taboo is gone, the excuse that it is legal prevails, and morality is lost to the discussion.
I also find reason to question that as many underground abortions would be conducted as currently are with publicly funded franchisees widely distributed and advertising their services. Just maybe people would take advantage of the myriad preventative alternatives and not need the services which are so readily available and even subsidized at present. Certainly there would be less counselling in advocacy of the services of abortion mills.
So, in the interest of saving lives, and what, frankly, has worked in the past, I would go so far as letting the States, in accordance with the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, make their own laws in this matter, which would for large areas of the country be far more restrictive on this claimed 'right' to murder offspring in the womb. This requires no legal contortions, only a reading of the tenth Amendment and the confirmation that nowhere in the Constitution is the Federal Government given the power to make abortion legal.
I think that would work, if that is the objective, reducing the number of abortions first, and second, encouraging people to make more responsible decisions and thus reducing the number of incidents leading to seeking such services.
What we are doing now hardly seems to be effective.
-
Dog whistle words like "virtue signaling?"
As a general rule, any time liberals accuse you of doing something wrong, it is because they are already doing it themselves.
-
Nonsense. Go read some history.
Read some medicine, counselor.
About 11 in 1000 pregnancies is ectopic. Rare enough, and a medical issue.
-
I guess individual liberty really isn’t much of a conservative value after all.
I had no idea that individual liberty included killing someone.
-
I had no idea that individual liberty included killing someone.
Someone who never did a thing to anyone... ever.
But WTF. The law is the law.
-
I had no idea that individual liberty included killing someone.
Guess you don’t believe in self-defense, ever, under any circumstances, then.
-
Guess you don’t believe in self-defense, ever, under any circumstances, then.
/snicker
-
/snicker
Nor do you, apparently.
-
Nor do you, apparently.
:bigsilly:
-
Guess you don’t believe in self-defense, ever, under any circumstances, then.
Because this one will beat you like a rented mule?
(https://img.webmd.com/dtmcms/live/webmd/consumer_assets/site_images/articles/health_tools/fetal_development_slideshow/phototake_photo_of_8_week_fetus.jpg)
To everything there is a season...
There are times when self defense is appropriate, and times when it is not.
-
Guess you don’t believe in self-defense, ever, under any circumstances, then.
Nor do I believe in killing for convenience in self defense.
-
Because this one will beat you like a rented mule?
(https://img.webmd.com/dtmcms/live/webmd/consumer_assets/site_images/articles/health_tools/fetal_development_slideshow/phototake_photo_of_8_week_fetus.jpg)
To everything there is a season...
There are times when self defense is appropriate, and times when it is not.
So then the concept of individual liberty is not inconsistent with the concept that not all killing is of should be proscribed?
-
Nor do I believe in killing for convenience in self defense.
Well, it is generally convenient to not be the one under the sheet or in the bag, but paperwork sucks.
-
Nor do I believe in killing for convenience in self defense.
What does that even mean?
It’s a very simple point: is the concept of individual liberty consistent, or not, with the concept that not all killing is or should be proscribed?
-
Dear All: this thread has been quite ... invigorating, but I would like to motion for a truce for the rest of tonight and tomorrow in honor of the Fourth of July.
Any seconds?
-
What does that even mean?
It’s a very simple point: is the concept of individual liberty consistent, or not, with the concept that not all killing is or should be proscribed?
My point is your's is a red herring.
-
Guess you don’t believe in self-defense, ever, under any circumstances, then.
lol, this is like arguing with an eight-year-old.
I know you are, so what am I?
I know you are, so what am I?
I know you are, so what am I?
I know you are, so what am I?
-
Dear All: this thread has been quite ... invigorating, but I would like to motion for a truce for the rest of tonight and tomorrow in honor of the Fourth of July.
Any seconds?
Guess not. Ah well. Enjoy the Fourth, everyone.
-
It’s a very simple point: is the concept of individual liberty consistent, or not, with the concept that not all killing is or should be proscribed?
So who gets to decide whether a killing is legal or not? State law, perhaps?
-
So then the concept of individual liberty is not inconsistent with the concept that not all killing is of should be proscribed?
The concept that lethal force may be employed to mitigate an immediate and unprovoked threat of lethal force against one's person is well ensconced in American jurisprudence. We consider defending against an attacker to be acceptable, provided we did not instigate the issue, and that we are responding to a similar level of force.
If a little old lady attacks me with a stuffed animal, shooting her is out of the question.
If she draws down on me with a firearm, it's a different story.
Implicit in the situation, however, is the concept that an unprovoked (especially by physical action or illegal behaviour) attack employing potentially lethal force or with a weapon capable of serious injury or death may be responded to legally using lethal force.
That does not mean you must respond to the degree the threat is killed, but is an affirmative defense or legal justification if they are.
-
Dear All: this thread has been quite ... invigorating, but I would like to motion for a truce for the rest of tonight and tomorrow in honor of the Fourth of July.
Any seconds?
Maybe a Mod could hit the pause button. Then we could hit it again on the 5th..or hit a 5th.
-
So who gets to decide whether a killing is legal or not? State law, perhaps?
Yes, actually. Concealed carry laws work hand-in-glove with lethal force laws, and it pays to know what the laws are. Some places only permit the use of lethal force to defend self or another party who cannot defend themselves, others permit the defense of property using lethal force, too.
If you think you may ever be in that position, know your State's laws on the matter.
-
Maybe a Mod could hit the pause button. Then we could hit it again on the 5th..or hit a 5th.
...to be continued on the 5th...
-
Guess not. Ah well. Enjoy the Fourth, everyone.
Have an enjoyable holiday, @Oceander