Will Anthony Kennedy’s replacement really end Roe v. Wade?

[Sanguine]

It’s not murder.

Ending the life of another, innocent human is not murder? 

[mystery-ak]

She has as much right to remove a trespasser from her body, by force if necessary, as you do to remove a trespasser from your house, by force if necessary.

*trespasser*....OMG it's a human being a baby...

[Cyber Liberty]

Now there's the sexist observation of the year!

Thanks for keeping your part in all this crystal clear, for any who may have forgotten.

[Sanguine]

Now there's the sexist observation of the year!

It applies to those who are pro-abortion.

[Cyber Liberty]

*trespasser*....OMG it's a human being a baby...

One would hope the trespasser would have the decency to wipe his/her feet.

[jpsb]

Murder?  C'mon, that's your particular moral values in overdrive.  During the first trimester,  a fetus has no separate existence apart from the mother.   At such time, the moral status of the fetus is a matter of individual conscience.   

And you entitled to your moral values,  including to hyperventilate by using the term "murder"   But what you don't have is the right to demand the state to impose your moral values on others.   

Abortion as a form of birth control is immoral (evil) and it is murder. Our founding documents state
that each of us have a right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Please note the word
LIFE. Claiming the constitution grants the right to MURDER and unborn child is an obscenity.

There are valid reasons to abort a child, life of the mother for example, but not birth control. Give
the child up for adoption, perhaps the father will take it. There are options other than killing it.

Will RvW be over turned? No, the precedent is set however abortions can be curtailed and limited
without overturning RvW.

[Cyber Liberty]

It applies to those who are pro-abortion.

I happen to think that those who strive to keep women available for easy sex are the biggest misogynists of them all.

[Oceander]

Ending the life of another, innocent human is not murder? 

Happens all the time.  Is it murder when the brakes of your car fail because you were ignoring the schreeching from them and you run an innocent pedestrian over and kill him with your car?

[Sanguine]

I happen to think that those who strive to keep women available for easy sex are the biggest misogynists of them all.

Yes, definitionally so.

[Oceander]

Abortion as a form of birth control is immoral (evil) and it is murder. Our founding documents state
that each of us have a right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Please note the word
LIFE. Claiming the constitution grants the right to MURDER and unborn child is an obscenity.

There are valid reasons to abort a child, life of the mother for example, but not birth control. Give
the child up for adoption, perhaps the father will take it. There are options other than killing it.

Will RvW be over turned? No, the precedent is set however abortions can be curtailed and limited
without overturning RvW.

You can’t have it both ways:  either abortion is murder and unacceptable under all circumstances, or it is not, in which case we’re merely arguing over where the line should be drawn.

[Sanguine]

Happens all the time.  Is it murder when the brakes of your car fail because you were ignoring the schreeching from them and you run an innocent pedestrian over and kill him with your car?

That would be a subset of murder, manslaughter, if it were proven that you were negligent in maintaining your vehicle.  Come on, that's not even a halfway decent argument!

[Oceander]

It applies to those who are pro-abortion.

Absolutely does not. 

[Sanguine]

Absolutely does not.

Yeah, it really does. 

[Oceander]

That would be a subset of murder, manslaughter, if it were proven that you were negligent in maintaining your vehicle.  Come on, that's not even a halfway decent argument!

Manslaughter is not a subset of murder, and no, it wouldn’t even be manslaughter.  It would be a tragic accident. 

[roamer_1]

She has the right to choose right up to the moment of birth.

Until and unless the State can take over the gestation of the fetus, and stands ready to do so, it has no business forcing a woman to continue with a pregnancy she does not want.

If she did not want a pregnancy, then she should not have engaged in sex. The math is simple. 

She has as much right to remove a trespasser from her body, by force if necessary, as you do to remove a trespasser from your house, by force if necessary.

The baby is not a trespasser. The baby was invited.

And your view of marriage is surreal. Ever heard of marital rape?

marital rape is a crime. Lets stick to the concept for a while before hauling out exceptions.

[Oceander]

Yeah, it really does. 

No, it really doesn’t. 

[Sanguine]

Manslaughter is not a subset of murder, and no, it wouldn’t even be manslaughter.  It would be a tragic accident.

You're flailing.  Your argument is weak and not relevant to the question of right to life.

[Oceander]

If she did not want a pregnancy, then she should not have engaged in sex. The math is simple. 

The baby is not a trespasser. The baby was invited.

marital rape is a crime. Lets stick to the concept for a while before hauling out exceptions.

Even a guest can become a trespasser if he overstays his welcome.  If you can remove, by force if necessary, a guest who has decided to take up permanent residence in your house, then the analogy is quite apt. 

[jpsb]

Why even speculate on this?  We don't know who is going to be chosen, whether or not they will be confirmed, and what cases may come up to the SCOTUS in the future.  Way too early to be arguing this one.

 


I think I will make an attempt to stay out of the debate. You right it serves no purpose untill we
have a nominee.

[Sanguine]

Even a guest can become a trespasser if he overstays his welcome.  If you can remove, by force if necessary, a guest who has decided to take up permanent residence in your house, then the analogy is quite apt.

Actually, depending on the jurisdiction, the invited guest may have rights even after they become unwelcome. 

[Sanguine]

I think I will make an attempt to stay out of the debate. You right it serve no purpose untill we
have a nominee.

And, I think I will now take my own (forgotten) advice.   

[Oceander]

You're flailing.  Your argument is weak and not relevant to the question of right to life.

No, you’re trying to dodge the issue.  Do we sanction, or excuse, killing?  All the time.  Killing is not the same as murder.  You’re using the word “murder” the same way liberals use the word “racism”: to shut down a discussion you can’t win.

[Oceander]

Actually, depending on the jurisdiction, the invited guest may have rights even after they become unwelcome. 

Really?  To sleep in your bed, eat your food, and have you cater to his every whim?   Permanently?

[roamer_1]

But note that marriage is not compelled by the State.   You know, that pesky right of self-determination and all.

Too bad it isn't. It is the natural remedy to a bastard child that will likely be a burden and ward of the state in some capacity.

[roamer_1]

The entire purpose of abortion is to keep women available for easy sex.

That's right.

[Oceander]

Too bad it isn't. It is the natural remedy to a bastard child that will likely be a burden and ward of the state in some capacity.

Yeah.  Because imprisoning a woman and child to slavery with an abusive man has worked so damned well in the past. 

[roamer_1]

Now there's the sexist observation of the year!

But it is perfectly true, and has turned the life of a generation or better into a gigantic frat party, with all of the shortsightedness and endemic problems that result from such a lifestyle.

[roamer_1]

*trespasser*....OMG it's a human being a baby...

IKR???   

[Oceander]

But it is perfectly true, and has turned the life of a generation or better into a gigantic frat party, with all of the shortsightedness and endemic problems that result from such a lifestyle.

Yeah, because before Roe v Wade all men were perfect gentlemen who never, not once, ever thought of having sex outside the bounds of lawful wedded matrimony.

[Oceander]

*trespasser*....OMG it's a human being a baby...

And the uninvited guest in your house is just as much a human being.  Why is it ok to murder the no-longer-welcome guest?

[roamer_1]

Even a guest can become a trespasser if he overstays his welcome.  If you can remove, by force if necessary, a guest who has decided to take up permanent residence in your house, then the analogy is quite apt.

But it is not a permanent residence - It is transitory by nature, with the predictable length-of-stay known beforehand. The invitation assumes the risk.

[Cyber Liberty]

Yeah.  Because imprisoning a woman and child to slavery with an abusive man has worked so damned well in the past.

It's a pity your revulsion to slavery does not extend to men forced to pay child support.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Oceander]

But it is not a permanent residence - It is transitory by nature, with the predictable length-of-stay known beforehand. The invitation assumes the risk.

Really?   You ask someone to come in for a few minutes, and they now have an enforceable right against you to live in your house, and be served hand and foot by you?

[Oceander]

It's a pity your revulsion to slavery does not extend to men forced to pay child support.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Maybe you should have hired a better lawyer to get your child support reduced. 

[roamer_1]

Yeah.  Because imprisoning a woman and child to slavery with an abusive man has worked so damned well in the past.

That is hyperventilating. Real abuse is grounds for divorce, even according to the most fundamental Christians.

And what we are doing now, with 60m abortions, and bastard children literally everywhere, a massive burden and welfare state, is working so much better?

You can't be serious.

[Cyber Liberty]

Maybe you should have hired a better lawyer to get your child support reduced.

LOL.  It lakes a lawyer to hold the key that opens the lock of justice.  Nice work, if you can get it.

[Cyber Liberty]

Really?   You ask someone to come in for a few minutes, and they now have an enforceable right against you to live in your house, and be served hand and foot by you?

Oh, so you've been to California?

[roamer_1]

Really?   You ask someone to come in for a few minutes, and they now have an enforceable right against you to live in your house, and be served hand and foot by you?

The invitation is not for 'a few minutes' the entire risk is realized before the fact. Just as it is for the man. The cost for the man, if the woman decides to keep the baby, cannot be rejected, and is enforced upon his treasure for twenty years. It is not too much to ask 9 months from the woman. In fact, the whole twenty years is suitable for her too, just the same.

[Oceander]

The invitation is not for 'a few minutes' the entire risk is realized before the fact. Just as it is for the man. The cost for the man, if the woman decides to keep the baby, cannot be rejected, and is enforced upon his treasure for twenty years. It is not too much to ask 9 months from the woman. In fact, the whole twenty years is suitable for her too, just the same.

It is entirely too much to ask of a woman.  It is enforced bondage.  If you don’t like it, then figure out how the State can take over the gestation; otherwise, keep your nose out of other people’s private affairs.

[Oceander]

That is hyperventilating. Real abuse is grounds for divorce, even according to the most fundamental Christians.

And what we are doing now, with 60m abortions, and bastard children literally everywhere, a massive burden and welfare state, is working so much better?

You can't be serious.

Yeah, Roe v Wade is the sole cause of the massive welfare state. 

[roamer_1]

It is entirely too much to ask of a woman.  It is enforced bondage.  If you don’t like it, then figure out how the State can take over the gestation; otherwise, keep your nose out of other people’s private affairs.

And child support payments for twenty years is NOT forced bondage?

[Oceander]

LOL.  It lakes a lawyer to hold the key that opens the lock of justice.  Nice work, if you can get it.

The Founders enshrined the right to assistance of a lawyer in the Sixth Amendment.  Was that just payola to get the lawyers to support ratification of the Constitution, or do you think they were on to something. 

[Oceander]

And child support payments for twenty years is NOT forced bondage?

That’s not relevant to whether forcing a woman to reproduce is bondage.  That’s just the same as saying that Obama ruled unconstitutionally by executive order, and therefore Trump can, too. 

[Bigun]

The Constitution says not a word about abortion and has not been amended regarding that matter.  That being the case, the fed gov has no dog in the hunt and the individual states are free to deal with the matter as they choose. Period.  End of sentence.

[roamer_1]

Yeah, Roe v Wade is the sole cause of the massive welfare state.

It most certainly is the lion's share of the welfare state. Single-parent households are a huge burden. And that percolates down into crime too... Fatherless houses are an immense problem.

[Oceander]

Oh, so you've been to California?

And California is the benchmark for all that is wise and just?

[Oceander]

It most certainly is the lion's share of the welfare state. Single-parent households are a huge burden. And that percolates down into crime too... Fatherless houses are an immense problem.

Please do explain how Roe v Wade is the sole and sufficient cause of all that.

[mystery-ak]

And the uninvited guest in your house is just as much a human being.  Why is it ok to murder the no-longer-welcome guest?

Who said I would murder an un-welcomed guest

[Oceander]

The Constitution says not a word about abortion and has not been amended regarding that matter.  That being the case, the fed gov has no dog in the hunt and the individual states are free to deal with the matter as they choose. Period.  End of sentence.

The Constitution is silent regarding cellphones and computers, too, so they can be searched and seized without having to comply with the Fourth Amendment.

[Oceander]

Who said I would murder an un-welcomed guest

So you are willing to concede that you have no right to use force if necessary to remove someone from your house, even if that person is living in your house as if it were his own, and demanding that you serve him hand and foot?   You have no right to defend home and hearth with deadly force?