- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 12,687
- Reaction score
- 1,938
- Location
- Smackover, AR.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Yes. At least in anything where conferring a right is a matter of life or death.No, you didn't. It is a yes/no answer.
Yes. At least in anything where conferring a right is a matter of life or death.No, you didn't. It is a yes/no answer.
Then you are wrong.Yes. At least in anything where conferring a right is a matter of life or death.
Then you are wrong.
The SCOTUS is wrong too. But regardless, privacy is within the Constitution and multiple SCOTUS precedents besides Roe.And recently the Supreme Court has said that you are.
No, you keep asking about current legality and fairness etc., not the concept as presented. Face facts, regardless of your views on the myriad of issues, my premise is logical and rational, you simply don't like it because you don't agree with it.It's a debate. You cannot support your position at all. This is how discussions work...and you are the one that wants it black and white...not me. That's the science part you keep desperately clinging to..."all or nothing" if it's Homo sapiens, it has rights. Sorry...that's not the case.
I didnt make 'demands,' I asked you to answer questions and refute or counter my arguments or claims. And now that I'm directly sticking to the debate, you found you dont have any answers. Is it a shock to you to see there's a whole other side to this issue? LOL it all seems brand new to you, being confronted with 'the other side.'
The SCOTUS is wrong too. But regardless, privacy is within the Constitution and multiple SCOTUS precedents besides Roe.
A rational analysis as I presented need not be explained to a rational thinking person, you and she simply don't like the premise and seek to deflect.When one disagrees, one usually offer an explanation. Thats how a discussion works. Lursa explained why she disagrees and why she's right. It's you who is whining about it.
Yes they are, until overturned by new precedent. Or do you also think SCOTUS rulings carry no weight?Precedents are traditional but not constitutionally binding.
Still avoiding the issue as presented, how unsurprising.Yes they are, until overturned by new precedent. Or do you also think SCOTUS rulings carry no weight?
No, you've simply made no rational argument except in your own mind. Lursa's replies demonstrates that perfectly.A rational analysis as I presented need not be explained to a rational thinking person, you and she simply don't like the premise and seek to deflect.
No, just simple legal fact! It seems you are avoiding those.Still avoiding the issue as presented, how unsurprising.
Of course they carry weight. Which is why they are a big deal.Yes they are, until overturned by new precedent. Or do you also think SCOTUS rulings carry no weight?
It was never presented as current law, that's the point you seem to be either missing or avoiding.No, just simple legal fact! It seems you are avoiding those.
So it's rather silly to say they are not constitutionally binding.Of course they carry weight. Which is why they are a big deal.
Not at all. Neither did I imply that.Do you think Supreme Court rulings carry no weight when they are ones you disagree with?
Current law has already been explained. You seem to be avoiding that.It was never presented as current law, that's the point you seem to be either missing or avoiding.
For the last time, I never addressed or presented it as being or representing current law.Current law has already been explained. You seem to be avoiding that.
Then your argument is moot.For the last time, I never addressed or presented it as being or representing current law.
No, it's not, laws change all the time for various reasons, try reading Montesquieu's "The Spirit of Laws" sometime for a little enlightenment on the subject.Then your argument is moot.
No, you keep asking about current legality and fairness etc., not the concept as presented. Face facts, regardless of your views on the myriad of issues, my premise is logical and rational, you simply don't like it because you don't agree with it.
A rational analysis as I presented need not be explained to a rational thinking person, you and she simply don't like the premise and seek to deflect.
For the last time, I never addressed or presented it as being or representing current law.
No, that's your own biased interpretation of the issue, I presented a logical case with scientific and Constitutional justification. In response you've deflected to anything you imagine to support your views, regardless how irrelevant it may be to the premise as presented.Your concept has not been argued. All you write is..but but but...it has human DNA so it should have rights.
I presented a number of arguments and asked you a number of questions where I pointed out why that's not the case...and you have been unable to counter or argue any of them. This is now your argument: "but we could do it!" and nothing based in the law to support it. You could not answer my questions directly.
It's not about me not agreeing, It's about me proving your view is wrong and you not being able to come back with any viable counter-arguments. See posts 405, 433,, 445, 458...you cant directly counter any of that.
I already did, you simply refused to accept it like a petulant child.If it were rational, maybe...but it seems it's not. This is a discussion forum. You have demonstrated nothing but your personal opinion...the definition you provided does not apply to the law. If you think it should...when are you going to articulate how?
No, that's your own biased interpretation of the issue, I presented a logical case with scientific and Constitutional justification. In response you've deflected to anything you imagine to support your views, regardless how irrelevant it may be to the premise as presented.
I already did, you simply refused to accept it like a petulant child.