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

[Bigun]

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.

[txradioguy]

Both the Heller and Roe decisions were within the lawful authority of the Court.

Which enumerated Constitutional Right is abortion again?

[Sanguine]

@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

[Smokin Joe]

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
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.

[txradioguy]

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.

[txradioguy]

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?

[Sanguine]

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.

[XenaLee]

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.

 

[Jazzhead]

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.   

[Sanguine]

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.

[Jazzhead]

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.     

[Smokin Joe]

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.

[thackney]

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

[TomSea]

Wow, we're in a 1970s time warp, a lump of tissue. Tsk, tsk.

[Smokin Joe]

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!

[Jazzhead]

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.   

[TomSea]

@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

Absolutely so, the defenses set up are just antiquated, defenses of unspeakable violence against another human being.

[Jazzhead]

@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

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 .

[txradioguy]

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.

[TomSea]

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.

[thackney]

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?

[txradioguy]

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.

[TomSea]

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.

[TomSea]

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.

[txradioguy]

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.