Justices signal they’ll OK new abortion limits, may toss Roe

[EMNofSeattle]

Abandonment yes and I said nothing whatsoever about abandonment. Abortion no. As previously stated abortion in the west was often a crime against the father not the unborn.

The mechanism of enforcement is not at issue, you are admitting it was a crime

 

[Cassandra]

It seems I've struck a nerve. It's not my fault you've made blatantly sexist posts on a public forum.

"complaining that the wrong gender has a say on an issue you care about."

This typo wasn't difficult to figure out by anyone with a reading level above a second grader. If having misandrist posts pointed out is bothersome the solution is to stop putting bigotry on display.

Yes you struck a nerve. The nerve that says;"what the h*ll is this person talking about?"

Facts are not sexist. Do you require links to all of my statements of fact because you don't seem to dispute them. Calling someone names is not a debate tactic.

 

[Gaius46]

The mechanism of enforcement is not at issue, you are admitting it was a crime

It’s not a “mechanism of enforcement”. They didn’t care about the child. They only cared that the father was denied an heir. It negates your immorality argument unless you want to suggest abortion is wrong because it denies men heirs. Is that your position?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

It’s not a “mechanism of enforcement”. They didn’t care about the child. They only cared that the father was denied an heir. It negates your immorality argument unless you want to suggest abortion is wrong because it denies men heirs. Is that your position?

You are assuming they never cared about the child but that is a politically motivated assumption you have no evidence for.

Abortion is certainly wrong if it denies a father an heir, but that is only a secondary reason it is wrong, the primary reason is because it is the murder of a defenseless child

 

[Gaius46]

You are assuming they never cared about the child but that is a politically motivated assumption you have no evidence for.

Abortion is certainly wrong if it denies a father an heir, but that is only a secondary reason it is wrong, the primary reason is because it is the murder of a defenseless child

If crime is against the father and not the child the best you can say is that the kid was a secondary consideration. Of course they could have made a crime against both but didn’t and we aren’t talking about all societies since abortion was legal in many societies long before the sexual revolution
Including the British colonies that became the United States and in the early US itself.

So again you want say that abortion is immoral you need to tell us why because for much of history in most places it vlesrly wasn’t considered immoral.

 

[cpwill]

Can you please explain how 'yes' posed as a question answers my questions? I didnt understand your reply.

Certainly . I was addressing your last (bolded) question:

Does the govt have the right to force women to roll the dice when there's a safer option available?

the answer is "Yes". As an example of other places where Government does this, I pointed to the draft.

 

[LostInSeattle]

That clause starts out with the words "Congress shall not ...".

Since the majority of the founding states DID have "established religions" and since the clause did NOT start out with the words "NEITHER Congress NOR any of the States shall ..." the rule of "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius" ("one thing having been mentioned the other is excluded") means that there is no constitutional prohibition on the States having an "established religion" within their own, respective, borders.

Since a majority of the founding states DID want (at that time) to have an "established religion", you can wonder why "Congress" was expressly prohibited from establishing a national one. The answer to that question is actually quite simple - there was no majority opinion favouring any ONE particular religion to become the national religion and the delegates took a position that can be summed up as "Well if we can't have MY religion as the established national religion, you can damn well be certain that we aren't going to have YOUR religion as the established national religion.". Additionally, picking any ONE particular religion to be the established national religion would have resulted in the Constitution of the United States of America NEVER getting ratified by the requisite number of states.

It does not say it in the Constitution itself but was later adjudicated by the Supreme Court. If you go to the Wikipedia article on the Estalbishment Clause and click the link for footnote #2, it goes to a legal analysis that says this"

"a. State and local government included. The clauses apply equally to actions of both state and local governments, because the Supreme Court has ruled that the 14th Amendment’s dictum that states are not to deprive any person of liberty makes the First Amendment applicable to the states."

I can't cite you the decision but it makes absolute sense. This question was bound to have come up at an earlier time.

 

[Kpuppy0001]

I don't know, my friend. They've taken over the election process in several states. They're fixing the system so they can't lose.

You know who I blame? The ****ing Bernie Bros in 2016 that were pissed that Hillary was the nominee. These selfish, fascist stupid ****s stayed home or voted 3rd party. Had they been thinking with their heads instead of their egos Hillary would have been president and none of those ****ing right wing neaderthals would have been appointed.

****ing Bernie and his bros. They destroyed this nation.

Are you sure is wasnt the DNC rigging it against Bernie cause he was killing it. If they hadnt screwed Bernie therr wouldnt have been a Donald.

 

[lurchadams]

Are you sure is wasnt the DNC rigging it against Bernie cause he was killing it. If they hadnt screwed Bernie therr wouldnt have been a Donald.

Bernie was never electable. His ideas are great but too extreme for the mainstream. He never had a chance.

 

[Kpuppy0001]

Bernie was never electable. His ideas are great but too extreme for the mainstream. He never had a chance.

Thats not what the polling showed at the time and Im not s bernie fan Im from the other side of the street. Hillary was s terrible candidate. Thats why Trump won. He was bad, but Hillary was worse.

 

[GummyVitamins]

Facts are not sexist.

Complaining about men having a say on an issue of societal importance is sexist. It's wrong to be sexist.

Do you require links to all of my statements of fact because you don't seem to dispute them. Calling someone names is not a debate tactic.

Whining about men having a role in government is not a "fact." It's a prejudicial opinion.

 

[Kpuppy0001]

This is a good point. Returning the right to abortion back to the state begs the question then: is abortion wrong? Immoral? If not, why is SCOTUS or the law at all interfering with it? And if it is wrong...why would the the govt be allowing the blue states to maintain its legality?

Why would they overturn RvW or uphold abortion at 15 weeks if abortion isnt wrong? Why wouldnt they ban it if it is?

 

[Plasmaball]

Complaining about men having a say on an issue of societal importance is sexist. It's wrong to be sexist.


Whining about men having a role in government is not a "fact." It's a prejudicial opinion.

What a wierd hill to die on..

 

[Kpuppy0001]

Morality aside, the courts role is deciding the constitutionality of the Mississippi law.

Whether the uphold it or not will not overturn or uphold ROE. ROE is not part of this case.

Upholding it may weaken ROE in Some aspects, but overall it will remain intact.

Everybody breath, we put limits on lots of rights, you cant yell fire in a theater, unless there is one etc.

Im not going to get into ROE, it was badly decided based upon a radical reinterpretation rights.

That said I don't have a dog in the hunt. But please dont say its overturning ROE, because it isnt.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The mechanism of enforcement is not at issue, you are admitting it was a crime

It was a crime because the people who would never have any possible need for one made it so WITHOUT the consent (or even without consulting with) the people who might have a possible need for one.

Besides, "abortion" interfered with the orderly patriarchal transfer of power and wealth.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It does not say it in the Constitution itself but was later adjudicated by the Supreme Court. If you go to the Wikipedia article on the Estalbishment Clause and click the link for footnote #2, it goes to a legal analysis that says this"

"a. State and local government included. The clauses apply equally to actions of both state and local governments, because the Supreme Court has ruled that the 14th Amendment’s dictum that states are not to deprive any person of liberty makes the First Amendment applicable to the states."

I can't cite you the decision but it makes absolute sense. This question was bound to have come up at an earlier time.

What you are talking about is "judge made law" and NOT either "constitutional law" or "legislative law". And the thing about "judge made law" is that it can become "judge UNmade law" overnight and with no input from the populace (or the legislatures for that matter).

Yes, it does make sense that the laws that bind the senior level of government also bind the junior levels of government. Of course both levels of government had "police powers" (as the term is used in the article and it does NOT make sense that the junior levels of government should have GREATER "police powers" than the senior one.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Morality aside, the courts role is deciding the constitutionality of the Mississippi law.

Whether the uphold it or not will not overturn or uphold ROE. ROE is not part of this case.

Upholding it may weaken ROE in Some aspects, but overall it will remain intact.

Everybody breath, we put limits on lots of rights, you cant yell fire in a theater, unless there is one etc.

Im not going to get into ROE, it was badly decided based upon a radical reinterpretation rights.

That said I don't have a dog in the hunt. But please dont say its overturning ROE, because it isnt.

I guess that you don't quite realize that the courts have the power to consider issues "on the merits of the motion" REGARDLESS of whether or not the issue was the main point being argued in the case (and sometimes do IF the main issue being argued in the case points unerringly at another, related, and even more important, issue. That means that, aside from its ruling on the specific statute, the Supreme Court has the power to rule "on the merits of the motion" that "The issue of Abortion is one which is SOLELY within the legislative competence of the several states and is NOT within the legislative competence of the federal government.".

At which point some people will begin consideration of fitting some Supreme Court justices with hemp neckties.

 

[LostInSeattle]

Bernie was never electable. His ideas are great but too extreme for the mainstream. He never had a chance.

We'll never know for sure.

 

[Cardinal]

We'll never know for sure.

We know for sure. He can’t win a Primary. He couldn’t win a Primary under normal circumstances and he couldn’t win a Primary in 2020.

 

[LostInSeattle]

What you are talking about is "judge made law" and NOT either "constitutional law" or "legislative law". And the thing about "judge made law" is that it can become "judge UNmade law" overnight and with no input from the populace (or the legislatures for that matter).

I have to disagree here. When you're talking about the Supreme Court ruling on constitutional issues, that is the key pillar of constitutional law. The Constitution is a set of (mostly) general rules which has been fleshed out in the particulars over time as the nation evolves and times change. That body of constitutional case law IS constitutional law. Yes, it can be unmade (so can the Constitution for that matter) but not "overnight." SCOTUS is generally a slow-moving, deliberative institution that revisits questions infrequently.

Yes, it does make sense that the laws that bind the senior level of government also bind the junior levels of government. Of course both levels of government had "police powers" (as the term is used in the article and it does NOT make sense that the junior levels of government should have GREATER "police powers" than the senior one.

Agreed.

 

[LostInSeattle]

We know for sure. He can’t win a Primary. He couldn’t win a Primary under normal circumstances and he couldn’t win a Primary in 2020.

I was thinking more of 2016 when the Party superdelegates gave the nomination to Bernie. I honestly think that Bernie could have beaten Hillary. The electorate wanted change not business as usual, which is a big reason Trump was elected.

 

[Cardinal]

I was thinking more of 2016 when the Party superdelegates gave the nomination to Bernie. I honestly think that Bernie could have beaten Hillary. The electorate wanted change not business as usual, which is a big reason Trump was elected.

A primary, for all its flaws (and there are many), is a relatively straightforward way to determine if somebody is electable in the General. If you can’t win a Primary, you can’t win the General. I like Bernie, but he’s not electable. As awful a candidate as Hillary was, she was technically more electable than Bernie. That really ought to tell you something.

 

[lurchadams]

We'll never know for sure.

We'll never know whether aliens have landed on Earth. All we have is our opinions based on both our observations and life experiences. My life experience tells me that Bernie never had a prayer of being elected and that the "Bernie or bust" crowd handed Roe over to the medieval Republicans on a silver platter.

 

[gboisjo]

Women have been trying to abort unwanted children for millenia. Even when it was illegal it was a crime against the husband for potentially denying him an heir. So it’s not like there’s ever been some ethical/moral regard for unborn children or something encoded in our genes that women who get abortions are rebelling against. The idea that there is a moral obligation is a fabrication.

No other animal in nature kills the life growing inside of it, for humans its an assault on our nature IMO, an aberration born out of premeditated, selfish intellect.

Your not going back far enough, we've lost touch with our nature as animals, hunters and gatherers who were here for tens of thousands of years weren't
motivated to kill the life inside. Its a rather new phenomenon when considering the 300,000 years we've been around.

Bones of primitive Homo sapiens first appear 300,000 years ago in Africa, with brains as large or larger than ours. They're followed by anatomically modern Homo sapiens at least 200,000 years ago.

 

[lurchadams]

No other animal in nature kills the life growing inside of it, for humans its an assault on our nature IMO, an aberration born out of premeditated, selfish intellect.

Your not going back far enough, we've lost touch with our nature as animals, hunters and gatherers who were here for tens of thousands of years weren't
motivated to kill the life inside. Its a rather new phenomenon when considering the 300,000 years we've been around.

Cats kick live kittens out of the nest if they think they're ill and leave them to die. I'm sure they're not the only animals that do that.

Would you like to create another analogy for making a 13 year-old girl carry her rape baby to term?