Since "you shall not murder" is in the 10 Commandments, does that make laws against murder unconstitutional?

[Crunchtime]

9th amendment

Exactly. Thank you.

 

[DarkWizard12]

It's only the general respect I have for the Abrahamic faiths that is stopping my from saying Christinanity is is ancient cult based on no truth whatsoever.

I don't care if you respect it or not, we shouldn't govern our laws on religion. Religion says we shall not murder, which would seem to be the perfect argument to legalize murder.

This doesn't follow.

but it does. Religion regulates murder, so we should govern ourselves without it.

 

[DarkWizard12]

So you think laws against murder are wrong.

Right, wrong.....it means nothing if they are unconstitutional. Do we really want to make law based on the bible?

 

[Deuce]

Right, wrong.....it means nothing if they are unconstitutional. Do we really want to make law based on the bible?

Do you think anyone is under the impression you are posting in good faith?

 

[Jredbaron96]

Religion says we shall not murder, which would seem to be the perfect argument to legalize murder.

I really you derive enjoyment from this, because otherwise you are wasting your time on this Earth.

but it does. Religion regulates murder, so we should govern ourselves without it.

You don't need religion to govern by the rule don't kill people.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Do you think anyone is under the impression you are posting in good faith?

if you don't think i'm in good faith, then don't respond, idk what you want.

 

[Crunchtime]

Right, wrong.....it means nothing if they are unconstitutional. Do we really want to make law based on the bible?

Are you really a communist? If so, what difference does a constitution make to you?

 

[Ethel2]

I find it somewhat humorous that someone that just got slapped in the face with the Constitution continues to stand on it to justify abortion which is never mentioned in it. You quote the 14th which is ambiguous at best as your standard, and which was just rejected by the Court. And then you say you’re willing to compromise. . Thanks but no deal.

I wasn’t offering a compromise to you, so you have nothing to decline..
Not surprisingly you totally missed the point. Let me spell it out for you: the solution to this issue (and every other substantive issue is compromise. Since you and I are not permitted significant input others will be making the decision for us. And as I proved to you earlier since the vast majority of people living here support a woman’s right to choose I anticipate that in some form abortions will be allowed.
Finally, please show me where in the constitution the words “fetus” or “unborn” are even mentioned, let alone provided the rights a person is granted.

 

[Hatuey]

Are you referring to the Great Flood in the Bible?
How many millions of people were alive then?
What did the census rolls show?

These people only remember selective instances of their chosen deity killing ... people ... or asking people to kill people... or allowing people to be killed to supposedly prove a point.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Ummm….abortions are going to continue. Many states have laws on the books to allow women to keep control of their bodies. The SC didn’t outlaw abortions. They simply ruled that the constitution didn’t provide a RIGHT for women to choose to abort their fetus. While I can see both sides of that ruling women will undoubtedly continue to get abortions. Some will travel to other states to get it done; some will obtain it illegally and possibly unsafely. Women will get hurt doing it; some will die. This point is lost to far right extremists and evangelicals.
Life goes on; so will abortions.

Good post, in particular the bolded.

I do not think, however, that those who seek to impose State power on women's reproductive rights will be content to allow them to travel to less restrictive states; look for movement to not only limit women to make that travel, but punish them for doing so.

 

[Crunchtime]

I wasn’t offering a compromise to you, so you have nothing to decline..
Not surprisingly you totally missed the point. Let me spell it out for you: the solution to this issue (and every other substantive issue is compromise. Since you and I are not permitted significant input others will be making the decision for us. And as I proved to you earlier since the vast majority of people living here support a woman’s right to choose I anticipate that in some form abortions will be allowed.
Finally, please show me where in the constitution the words “fetus” or “unborn” are even mentioned, let alone provided the rights a person is granted.

Fetus and unborn are mentioned in the same place as abortion is mentioned. You’re same dumb argument has gotten old. It was rejected by the court and sent to the states. Your abortion god’s armor has been dented.

 

[Crunchtime]

These people only remember selective instances of their chosen deity killing ... people ... or asking people to kill people... or allowing people to be killed to supposedly prove a point.

Untrue. We make no excuses for a righteous and holy God. When you look at things in one dimension you see them in one dimension. There’s a bigger picture to see. Intelligence seeks to see it. Understand it. Even in some cases appreciate it. But if you choose to see kneecaps you will see only kneecaps.

 

[Ethel2]

Fetus and unborn are mentioned in the same place as abortion is mentioned. You’re same dumb argument has gotten old. It was rejected by the court and sent to the states. Your abortion god’s armor has been dented.

As I have written here I understand the reasoning the SC made the decision they did. There are many sections of the constitution that could have been interpreted in a way to give women the right to control their own bodies. Women have rights. A fetus doesn’t because a fetus isn’t a person. There is no section of the constitution that refers to the rights of a non person.
There is also no section in it that confers the right of a woman to comb her hair or to use her left hand to clean herself, though there are sections that could be interpreted as conferring that right. When R v W was decided the SC ruled that the 14th amendment provided privacy to women sufficient to permit them control over their own bodies.
Please show me the sections that could be interpreted as conferring rights to a fetus, a non person.

 

[Hatuey]

Untrue. We make no excuses for a righteous and holy God. When you look at things in one dimension you see them in one dimension. There’s a bigger picture to see. Intelligence seeks to see it. Understand it. Even in some cases appreciate it. But if you choose to see kneecaps you will see only kneecaps.

Yeeesh, who couldn't tell this guy was unhinged? Lol, we all see the same 3 dimensions, my goof prone friend.

 

[Crunchtime]

As I have written here I understand the reasoning the SC made the decision they did. There are many sections of the constitution that could have been interpreted in a way to give women the right to control their own bodies. Women have rights. A fetus doesn’t because a fetus isn’t a person. There is no section of the constitution that refers to the rights of a non person.
There is also no section in it that confers the right of a woman to comb her hair or to use her left hand to clean herself, though there are sections that could be interpreted as conferring that right. When R v W was decided the SC ruled that the 14th amendment provided privacy to women sufficient to permit them control over their own bodies.
Please show me the sections that could be interpreted as conferring rights to a fetus, a non person.

Roe was overturned, but given to the states to decide what “reproductive rights” are. Like I said earlier, the day will come when the inalienable rights of the unborn will be recognized. How they will decide the terms, etc. will be determined by science.

People like you piss and moan about womens rights, and turn right around and allow transgenders to compete in womens sports when it’s obvious it’s not fair. Because of that you lose important leverage in your argument. It’s hypocritical. Also, most women choose to have their babies instead of aborting them. It’s pretty amazing to me that people that support a womens right to abortion are alive. Unlike the unborn that have been killed at Planned Parenthood, etc.

I oppose abortion after a heartbeat is detected. If a woman has sex let her take a pill to be sure she doesn’t conceive. Let her use an IUD or contraception of some form. Let her be responsible for her actions.

 

[Crunchtime]

Yeeesh, who couldn't tell this guy was unhinged? Lol, we all see the same 3 dimensions, my goof prone friend.

Like I said. Kneecaps.

 

[Ethel2]

Roe was overturned, but given to the states to decide what “reproductive rights” are. Like I said earlier, the day will come when the inalienable rights of the unborn will be recognized. How they will decide the terms, etc. will be determined by science.

People like you piss and moan about womens rights, and turn right around and allow transgenders to compete in womens sports when it’s obvious it’s not fair. Because of that you lose important leverage in your argument. It’s hypocritical. Also, most women choose to have their babies instead of aborting them. It’s pretty amazing to me that people that support a womens right to abortion are alive. Unlike the unborn that have been killed at Planned Parenthood, etc.

I oppose abortion after a heartbeat is detected. If a woman has sex let her take a pill to be sure she doesn’t conceive. Let her use an IUD or contraception of some form. Let her be responsible for her actions.

Another disingenuous post from you proclaiming that you can accurately enlighten all of us about the future.
The SC didn’t afford a fetus additional rights. They have none. Women are people and therefore have rights. Unfortunately some of the less enlightened states will restrict the choices women can make about their bodies. Whatever happened to “my body my choice”, the mantra of the covidiots who protested vaccine mandates? Where are those hypocrites now?
As for the drag queen story hour, I already won that debate against you.
I won’t rehash it here.

 

[Crunchtime]

Another disingenuous post from you proclaiming that you can accurately enlighten all of us about the future.
The SC didn’t afford a fetus additional rights. They have none. Women are people and therefore have rights. Unfortunately some of the less enlightened states will restrict the choices women can make about their bodies. Whatever happened to “my body my choice”, the mantra of the covidiots who protested vaccine mandates? Where are those hypocrites now?
As for the drag queen story hour, I already won that debate against you.
I won’t rehash it here.

In your mind. Ive been on this forum for awhile now. Of all the posters here you get a ribbon for most uninformed, disingenuous, and stubborn poster. And for being the busiest.

 

[American]

"..put in our very being..." is a supernaturalist position.

How do you think it got there?

 

[reinaert]

How do you think it got there?

I don't.

 

[American]

I don't.

So you have no explanation at all. Got it.

 

[Hatuey]

Like I said. Kneecaps.

Your divorce from reality is funny.

 

[reinaert]

So you have no explanation at all. Got it.

No, I don't think it's 'there' to have to have been placed 'there'.

Great imaginary Loki, bad polemic has rotted your ilk's reason.