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

[IsailedawayfromFR]

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?

[Emjay]

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.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

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.

[Hoodat]

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?

[Emjay]

Attempt to hijack the thread with this nonsequitur?   

@musiclady   What is your problem?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

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.

[Hoodat]

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.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

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?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

 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]

@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. 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

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.

[DCPatriot]

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.

[Smokin Joe]

God bless you and your progeny, @Smokin Joe

Thanks! (and you and yours!) The battle is ever uphill.

[Smokin Joe]

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..

[Smokin Joe]

    Gotta get home before the sun gets high!

Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the noonday sun!

[DCPatriot]

Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the noonday sun!

 

[Hoodat]

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.

[DCPatriot]

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.

[Hoodat]

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.

[TomSea]

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

[TomSea]

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?

[Frank Cannon]

[TomSea]

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.

[TomSea]

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]

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.