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

[TomSea]

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.

[Jazzhead]

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.   

[Sanguine]

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. 

[txradioguy]

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.

[Jazzhead]

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.   

[INVAR]

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.

[Jazzhead]

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.     

[Jazzhead]

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.

 

[Smokin Joe]

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.

[thackney]

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.

[Oceander]

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. 

[Oceander]

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. 

[Cyber Liberty]

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.

[Hoodat]

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.

[WingNot]

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.

[Cyber Liberty]

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.   

[Oceander]

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.

[Sanguine]

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.

[musiclady]

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.

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.

[Oceander]

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?

[WingNot]

Wanna really light things up?  Mention the fact that abortion is legal in southern states because of the War of Northern Aggression.   

"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!

[Smokin Joe]

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.  (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.

[Hoodat]

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-

[DCPatriot]

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.

[thackney]

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.