- Joined
- Jun 20, 2018
- Messages
- 48,918
- Reaction score
- 28,829
- Location
- Somewhere in the Low Country
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
even God's rules don't say that abortion is murder...what does that tell you?
even God's rules don't say that abortion is murder...what does that tell you?Separation of church and state, simple as that. Not everyone plays by god's rules, therefore we can't make god's rules the baseline.
This is EXACTLY the back side of their want to dictate over women, and then turn an attack her from every angle they can conjure up.
If it is legal, it can't be murder. Murder means unlawful killing of a person.I'd never shoot holes in abortion. It's a woman's right to kill her offspring. Some would even call it murder. But it is legal, and rightfully so.
And there are many, a majority throughout the US that does not. But even better the US Constitution gives rights regarding a person's body to that person, not to the states or the conservatives of those states.A very large majority in many conservative states want women to be forbidden from having abortions. I think those majorities should be respected.
I am not a lawyer. If you are present a legal argument in favor of abortion rights. I am sure an anti abortion lawyer could compose a legal argument as good as you. I do not care about what you consider to be a legal argument. I want the voters to decide this issue.We already discussed that that is a charge, not a legal argument.
But how about answering the actual questions in my post? I'm really interested in the 'conservative' views that you claim.
I have read the Constitution many times. If it says that it opposes the "tyranny of the majority over the minority" I missed it. Help me out. Quote the words "tyranny of the majority" in the Constitution.We discussed this all this already. I refuted your first paragraph with sources.Posts 52, 59, 70, 101 (101 is a good summary)
Millions of people were against civil rights, the ending of Jim Crow, and SSM. I provided the substance supporting how our Const is designed to avoid 'tyranny of the majority over the minority."
Yeah
If you quote me, quote me accurately.Smurt cat is probably lying here too. Hes very pro abortion for certain people.
Back in 2019 when there was a 'new trend' in banning abortions in the red states, a couple of blue states said that they'd start funding an 'underground railroad' for women that needed it. There would likely be a lot of private donations...PP gets a huge amount and that could be funneled from PP in those red states to the programs.Overturning Roe won't end abortions. Women of means will always be able to travel to states where it is legal to get them. Women not of means will take their chances on illegal ones.
And yet you are positive RvW can be overturned.I am not a lawyer. If you are present a legal argument in favor of abortion rights. I am sure an anti abortion lawyer could compose a legal argument as good as you. I do not care about what you consider to be a legal argument. I want the voters to decide this issue.
I have read the Constitution many times. If it says that it opposes the "tyranny of the majority over the minority" I missed it. Help me out. Quote the words "tyranny of the majority" in the Constitution.
TL;dr Esp. since you cant bother to directly answer my questions and even pretend not to have seen my responses.The results of the civil rights legislation should have disappointed its advocates. I used to be an advocate myself. I am disappointed with the black response. Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed into law and since the War on Poverty was declared, black rates of crime and illegitimacy have risen. Black academic performance has improved little, despite expensive government spending programs like Head Start and No Child Left Behind. This substantiates the arguments of those who defended Jim Crow legislation.
Six Republican Supreme Court Justices can do anything they want. I want them to overturn Roe in order to keep a long overdue promise made to the religious right.And yet you are positive RvW can be overturned.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I havent had any problem finding resources for info on the Internet or other media.
And you also dont understand why the voters cant decide this issue, cannot ban women having an abortion, which is odd, it's something kids learn...or should be...in civics classes in school.
What a facile, empty comment. No, they cant.Six Republican Supreme Court Justices can do anything they want. I want them to overturn Roe in order to keep a long overdue promise made to the religious right.
Six Republican Supreme Court Justices can do anything they want. I want them to overturn Roe in order to keep a long overdue promise made to the religious right.And yet you are positive RvW can be overturned.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I havent had any problem finding resources for info on the Internet or other media.
And you also dont understand why the voters cant decide this issue, cannot ban women having an abortion, which is odd, it's something kids learn...or should be...in civics classes in school.
No, they cant.Six Republican Supreme Court Justices can do anything they want. I want them to overturn Roe in order to keep a long overdue promise made to the religious right.
I have read the Constitution many times. If it says that it opposes the "tyranny of the majority over the minority" I missed it. Help me out. Quote the words "tyranny of the majority" in the Constitution.
The results of the civil rights legislation should have disappointed its advocates. I used to be an advocate myself. I am disappointed with the black response. Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed into law and since the War on Poverty was declared, black rates of crime and illegitimacy have risen. Black academic performance has improved little, despite expensive government spending programs like Head Start and No Child Left Behind. This substantiates the arguments of those who defended Jim Crow legislation.
A very large majority in many conservative states want women to be forbidden from having abortions. I think those majorities should be respected.
How about this one? A very large majority in many conservative states want to put restrictions (not ban) on African Americans having kids.A very large majority in many conservative states want women to be forbidden from having abortions. I think those majorities should be respected.
They have the right to vote. They chose to vote to prevent women from committing a crime they consider to be nearly as evil as infanticide.No, they cant.
And screw the religious right...what "right" do they have to impose their will on women that dont believe the same? That's been interpreted by the bench clearly for centuries now...they dont.
Care to answer the bold? No? Why not?
It seems you've been unable support your own OP with anything besides baseless nonsense so far. You demonstrate no knowledge at all of the legal aspects of the issue or the Constitutionand havent shown the ability to learn more as the thread progressed, lol. Now you make a personal complaint about religious belief...
They have the right to voteThey have the right to vote. They chose to vote to prevent women from committing a crime they consider to be nearly as evil as infanticide.
I think the slave trade and slavery were the worst mistake European settlers and their descendants made in the Americas.You sure would have fit in in the South during slavery days.
There are several cases that have already made it to the Supreme court and the court refused to hear the cases.. But when the right case comes along, Roe v Wade will likely be overturned returning the issue of abortion to the states. It will then be determined by the voters on which way they will go.Mississippi Is Trying To Get The Supreme Court To Reverse Roe, NPR
July 23, 202112:35 PM ET
But this week, the state reframed its argument, abandoning its earlier and narrower attack, to take direct aim at Roe and its holding that women have a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy before the fetus is able to survive outside the womb.
Mississippi Is Trying To Get The Supreme Court To Reverse Roe
Abortion-rights defenders promptly seized on the state's brief, noting that until now Mississippi had portrayed its appeal as far more limited.www.npr.org
The Supreme Court may be about to honor a long ignored promise to the religious right to overturn Roe vs Wade. Since 1980 presidential platforms of the the Republican Party have pledged to overturn the Roe decision, but nothing has been done. In 1980 Jerry Falwell convinced most Christian conservatives that they should abandon the most sincerely Christian president the United States has probably ever had to vote for Ronald Reagan. The election of 1980 was close enough that the support of the Moral Majority probably elected Ronald Reagan. Nevertheless, when anti abortion groups demonstrated in Washington, DC President Reagan did not speak before the groups. He did not invite the leaders to meet him in the White House.
This is an issue the Republican Donor Class would like to avoid. I am not sure how they can this time. Six of the Supreme Court Justices are Republicans. Since 1980 Evangelicals have been a constituency that has been important to Republican electoral victories. For most Evangelical Republicans outlawing abortion is the single most important issue. If the GOP disappoints them this time, I predict a large percentage of them will stop voting Republican.
Here's some reading you should do, maybe before you dictate to others.Yes, SCOTUS opinions are based on legal bases, legal arguments. Your idea about greater protection for unborn than women has no foundation in law...unless you can link to something?
And I only brought up the value of women in society to demonstrate that your idea of 'protection' of the unborn becoming a priority was not legally based and then...not even logically based. There are times when SCOTUS does need to balances rights for the good of society tho. So it was not a legal argument, merely a rebuttal of your idea.
That has nothing to do with 'precedents.' They are legal precedents, not opinions that just preceded something in time.
This statement clearly shows you dont understand what a 'precedent' is.
See all the posts in this thread discussing the 9th and 10th Amendments. That's why it's not a state issue to 'ban' abortion. See post 101, that's a good summary.
It could send it back to the states but the states cannot violate federal laws, state laws cannot supersede the rights set forth in the Const. And many states would keep elective abortion legal and available as needed and there's no way for other states to keep women from getting one there.
And please, read the actual legal precedents that RvW is based on. @minnie616 do you have those handy?
His first objection is that the plaintiff had no standing; this alone might be grounds for a new look at the issue.While the opinion thus commands my respect, I find myself nonetheless in fundamental disagreement with those parts of it that invalidate the Texas statute in question, and therefore dissent.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?