The Supreme Court should not be interfering on this matter of women's right to choose.

[rickc]

Just an example of religious people trying to force their moral code into our government.

Religion has no place in government!

 

[Fledermaus]

Can we please stay on thread!

Irony.

 

[OceanBlues1]

Of course both are LIES. You're applying left wing standards ( ie desired result ) which of course are not appropriate for a justice. We don't know if she's for or against the ACA . Her only concern is whether or not it's constitutional

 

[H. E. Panqui]

...HIGHLANDER, you have childishly avoided the obvious thrust of my question...

...AGAIN... i asked "WHAT 'ABORTION LAWS' DO YOU WANT? ALSO, WHAT PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF YOUR DESIRED LAW(s)?

YOU, wrote, "Well done, and thank you. I do not believe in abortion. But I understand if a woman's life is at risk, she must be protected, regardless of cost. you have no need to dumb anything down that wasn't the point I was making, it's the silly childish mannerisms that children do to get attention I found superfluous."

....apparently i must dumb it down even farther because--from what i can infer from your childish writings--we're going to need some bloated government official(s) to determine 'if a women's life is at risk', etc. ad nauseam, before they will issue, in essence, an 'abortion permit' ... get real man!!.. you know what i meant and you're squirming to avoid the consequences, realities, etc. of your naive authoritarian abortion prohibitionism...btw, i'm a sucker for 'monarch of the glen'..]

 

[Highlanders]

No, you didn't say that in that post, so no I am not repeating your comments.

As for being loud and obnoxious, most American women aren't. But most will stand up for themselves and speak their minds, not agree with their husband. Your post was attempt to disrespect American women, as is this one. It doesn't offer any real value to the thread.

Women have the right to control their bodies and anything living in or off of their bodies, just as men do.

The word you're avoiding to use is "targer"! I'm certainly not trying to disrespect American women, your more than capable of doing that yourselves. Case proven!
I agree American women are very forceful, but little but noise and argument being the result.
Any partnership is about love and respect, and I have yet to hear any one of you forceful "ladies" show respect to anything, or to any man but your wants, demands, selfishness and greed. I'm sure your bound to please your partner with such a demeanour. You have a nice day!
A man behaving like a pig, and a woman behaving like a pig, doesn't make you smell of roses!

 

[ttwtt78640]

NBC: “Sixty-six percent of adults say they don’t believe the Supreme Court should overturn the decision that established a woman’s right to an abortion nationwide.” Better yet why not let each woman make her own decision regarding her own health care? That's right a small number of judges should not go against a woman's right to choose. The Supreme Court should not be interfering on this matter. It’s been nearly 50 years since the landmark Roe v. Wade case protected the right to safe abortion, and Trump and the GOP remain hell-bent on controlling women’s bodies. These rights are more threatened than ever now that Trump has announced right-wing extremist Judge Amy Coney Barrett as his replacement for RBG. The Supreme Court should not be interfering on this matter. That's right a small number of judges should not go against a woman's right to choose. ss This ruling would go against the will of the people. Our best hope lies in the American public increasing their demand that the right to choose is protected. The Supreme Court should not be interfering on this matter. Do you support Roe v. Wade? You bet I do. Those who don't believe in abortion should never have one...... simple as that. The Supreme Court should not be interfering on this matter. ​

It is rather odd that you say the SCOTUS should not interfere in a matter created entirely by the SCOTUS supposedly by the wording of the 14A coupled with a (newfound?) privacy right, despite the word “privacy” appearing nowhere in the Constitution.

 

[roguenuke]

The word you're avoiding to use is "targer"! I'm certainly not trying to disrespect American women, your more than capable of doing that yourselves. Case proven!
I agree American women are very forceful, but little but noise and argument being the result.
Any partnership is about love and respect, and I have yet to hear any one of you forceful "ladies" show respect to anything, or to any man but your wants, demands, selfishness and greed. I'm sure your bound to please your partner with such a demeanour. You have a nice day!
A man behaving like a pig, and a woman behaving like a pig, doesn't make you smell of roses!

You aren't moving your argument further. You are simply trying to insult a woman that disagrees with you, that doesn't support your side.

I'm not from the country that uses that word. We don't use it. I had to look it up. I was providing info for others on what it means. It also does not apply to me nor most other American women simply because you don't like us, don't like our stances.

 

[Fledermaus]

The word you're avoiding to use is "targer"! I'm certainly not trying to disrespect American women, your more than capable of doing that yourselves. Case proven!
I agree American women are very forceful, but little but noise and argument being the result.
Any partnership is about love and respect, and I have yet to hear any one of you forceful "ladies" show respect to anything, or to any man but your wants, demands, selfishness and greed. I'm sure your bound to please your partner with such a demeanour. You have a nice day!
A man behaving like a pig, and a woman behaving like a pig, doesn't make you smell of roses!

Your opinion of American women is held in the same high regard as your opinion about other matters....

Round file material.

 

[Highlanders]

...HIGHLANDER, you have childishly avoided the obvious thrust of my question...

...AGAIN... i asked "WHAT 'ABORTION LAWS' DO YOU WANT? ALSO, WHAT PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF YOUR DESIRED LAW(s)?

YOU, wrote, "Well done, and thank you. I do not believe in abortion. But I understand if a woman's life is at risk, she must be protected, regardless of cost. you have no need to dumb anything down that wasn't the point I was making, it's the silly childish mannerisms that children do to get attention I found superfluous."

....apparently i must dumb it down even farther because--from what i can infer from your childish writings--we're going to need some bloated government official(s) to determine 'if a women's life is at risk', etc. ad nauseam, before they will issue, in essence, an 'abortion permit' ... get real man!!.. you know what i meant and you're squirming to avoid the consequences, realities, etc. of your naive authoritarian abortion prohibitionism...btw, i'm a sucker for 'monarch of the glen'..]

Mmm.... let me tell you.... doctors do that already, it's called diagnosed and "treatment"! No government officials required! I'm having to dumb down my comments, I have no wish to lose you in intricate analogies!
My simple friend, you can infer anything you like!
The realities are YOU, accepting infanticide, women behaving like like dogs on heat? With the associated anti social diseases, mental health, disabilities and horrific destruction of humanity.
Nope, I'm not ever going to get in the sewer in which you wish to live!
Yes, I quite believe your a sucker.....lead up the garden path, creating hell on earth, because YOU cannot have aspirations, humanity, decency, honour, duty, morality..... other nations, expect nothing less! But then, your American!

 

[Highlanders]

You aren't moving your argument further. You are simply trying to insult a woman that disagrees with you, that doesn't support your side.

I'm not from the country that uses that word. We don't use it. I had to look it up. I was providing info for others on what it means. It also does not apply to me nor most other American women simply because you don't like us, don't like our stances.

While it's a generic term, for a type, many feminists attain that term, without difficulty. I'm not looking for support, I find that something's is either right or wrong! The manner in which women attempt to deflect from the argument, its cells, it's not infanticide, it's not a child, is pathetic self serving rhetoric! To ease the guilty mind! It's the murder of a child! An indisputable fact! I have no interest in any targer! It's your democratic and human right to have any opinion you wish! But deal in facts, the butchery of the fetus selling the body parts, making profits from children to sell cells in cosmetic injections, to rich people are all part of the same hideous argument! No part should be restricted, or not openly discussed, deal in facts, and facts only, I'm not prepared to understand of mitigate something I detest for your emotional well being! Commit the crime, face up to it! No piece of paper gives you absolution from that criminal act, even though RBG gave permission, common decency didn't, human values didn't! Your stance demands humanity should lower itself to your level, where I think, you and humanity should have ideas and aspirations, I have no interest in getting into the gutter of you or you're ilks making! Black and white.....simple and truthful.
You look, time and time again, those same people discussing abortion, hiding behind those same regurgitated nonsense to hide there own guilt. words......to mitigate there own actions.....there are various and many variation of contraceptives, why should some lazy slob have the right to destroy life, which I consider sacrosanct! I hear.... because she is a woman.... I have the right.....because I'm a lazy slob and cannot be bothered to take or use contraceptives! Yes I know, there are exceptions! But 15 abortions or 25 abortions.... come on!

 

[Fledermaus]

Mmm.... let me tell you.... doctors do that already, it's called diagnosed and "treatment"! No government officials required! I'm having to dumb down my comments, I have no wish to lose you in intricate analogies!
My simple friend, you can infer anything you like!
The realities are YOU, accepting infanticide, women behaving like like dogs on heat? With the associated anti social diseases, mental health, disabilities and horrific destruction of humanity.
Nope, I'm not ever going to get in the sewer in which you wish to live!
Yes, I quite believe your a sucker.....lead up the garden path, creating hell on earth, because YOU cannot have aspirations, humanity, decency, honour, duty, morality..... other nations, expect nothing less! But then, your American!

You might try discussion instead of the ranting, name calling and general BS...

 

[Highlanders]

You might try discussion instead of the ranting, name calling and general BS...

It's not ranting my german friend of Zion, please stick to the subject, thread..... as the comment wasn't directed at you!

 

[Fledermaus]

It's not ranting my german friend of Zion, please stick to the subject, thread..... as the comment wasn't directed at you!

When you produce large paragraphs of lies, distortions and name calling and a scant few words addressing the post you quote it is indeed ranting.

Oh, and PUBLIC FORUM....

 

[Lursa]

And you’re wrong. I quoted directly from the majority decision and that is a Holding by the majority in Roe v Wade.

LOLOLOL Why are you lying?

It's not from the majority opinion, It is included...at the very end...of the decision and clearly labeled dissent and clearly he was in the minority of the 7-2 decision.

There are many arguments I could use against 'your opinion' of Renquist's dissent, but I like this one:



I like these too:

[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This "liberty" is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment.
Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 543

Great concepts like . . . "liberty" . . . were purposely left to gather meaning from experience. For they relate to the whole domain of social and economic fact, and the statesmen who founded this Nation knew too well that only a stagnant society remains unchanged.

Several decisions of this Court make clear that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12; Griswold v. Connecticut, supra; Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra; Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.See also Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166; Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541. As recently as last Term, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453, we recognized
the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person[p170] as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.
That right necessarily includes the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

Obviously there are some that support the minority dissent. Obviously I disagree, I dont think we'll agree on this.

 

[Lursa]

So, your critique of my position, attempted critique, begins with a false premise. RvW is about a right. Indeed, RvW is about a right the Court created because the DPC meaning doesn’t support the right of privacy in any manner stated by the Court. The Court isn’t entitled to make up meanings for clauses in the Constitution.

Nope it's not...it's tasked with interpreting those clauses.

 

[Highlanders]

When you produce large paragraphs of lies, distortions and name calling and a scant few words addressing the post you quote it is indeed ranting.

Oh, and PUBLIC FORUM....

I understand, you don't understand honour, morality, honesty, integrity, just by the friendship you have supporting the Zionist crimes against America..... and Americans.....my german friend, now can you pick up me on a point, or just ignore the posts altogether when not addressed to you!

 

[Fledermaus]

I understand, you don't understand honour, morality, honesty, integrity, just by the friendship you have supporting the Zionist crimes against America..... and Americans.....my german friend, now can you pick up me on a point, or just ignore the posts altogether when not addressed to you!

Someone who believes a nation where honor killings, the abuse of LGBT and persecution of "heretics" is a paragon of "honour, morality, honesty, integrity"!

 

[Logical1]

If liberals were not so irresponsible when they had sex and used protection, there would be no "need" for abortion.

 

[Highlanders]

Someone who believes a nation where honor killings, the abuse of LGBT and persecution of "heretics" is a paragon of "honour, morality, honesty, integrity"!

I never said the America or Israel, but well, they both torture, imprison without trial, kill there presidents, assassinate there own people, don't prosecute those members of there armed forces that murder children, or those that murder civilians! Nope... LGBT.... heretics.... what no antisemetic..... I know when you've list the argument.....

 

[Fledermaus]

I never said the America or Israel, <Snipped rote repetitive rant>

Did anyone say you "said America or Israel"?

Nope.

 

[VanceMack]

This might be it: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274_new_e18f.pdf

That case doesnt overturn Roe V Wade. It involves a state ruling to ensure abortion providers are adequately capable of admitting patients in case of emergency care requirement

Can you please answer my direct questions, as they would guide the discussion somewhat. I write this because you seem to have missed or skipped a key premise: what is the justification for protecting the life of the unborn over that of women? The 14th makes it clear that women are protected, at least to some extent, by due process. Since the unborn have no rights, what justification would the court need to use to violate women's rights...in this case Due Process but also Privacy, in order to protect the unborn?

As you mentioned elsewhere, animals/livestock and property are dealt with differently and in terms of status, the unborn is similar to these. They can be protected on behalf of their owners and/or the state but are not recognized with rights and not protected on their own behalf.

I hope you understand my reason for trying to re-focus the discussion...it seems to need a starting point and I would like to adjust it because, as you mentioned, it seemed circular. Hopefully this will direct it in a more straightforward fashion.

The "Unborn" what?

 

[Lursa]

The "Unborn" what?

If you have to ask in a thread with this title, then (as previously noted) you are not informed enough to discuss it. And perhaps also struggled with basic biology.

 

[VanceMack]

If you have to ask in a thread with this title, then (as previously noted) you are not informed enough to discuss it. And perhaps also struggled with basic biology.

I dont have to ask...I choose to ask. I also note that you refuse to answer.

Which speaks volumes.

 

[Lursa]

I dont have to ask...I choose to ask. I also note that you refuse to answer.

Which speaks volumes.

Looking for a gotcha? Good luck

The unborn discussed in this thread are unborn Homo sapiens. And if you are going to try and resort to science in your argument, it would be hysterically hypocritical to be offended or accusatory by use of the accurate scientific categorization.

 

[VanceMack]

Looking for a gotcha? Good luck

The unborn discussed in this thread are unborn Homo sapiens. And if you are gong to try and resort to science in your argument, it would be hysterically hypocritical to be offended or accusatory by using the accurate scientific categorization.

Its not a gotcha. Its just an expression of fact. You used the term "the killing of the unborn". I think its important to finish the phrase. You advocate for the killing of unborn human babies.

that wasnt that hard, was it?