Gorsuch writes in his book: No constitutional basis for putting a mothers life in front of her child

[Papageorgio]

TN, if you can't see that it is wrong, that the mother's life always precedes that of the fetus, then there is no hope for your moral development. Gorsuch supports murders of mothers whose lives are endangered by a pregnancy.

The lies are flowing hard today!

You are the one that said "always", not me.

Yup. It is the mother's choice.

Y

The lies are flowing hard today!

The mother's life precedes the child if there is a choice. To force a mother to have a child if it kills her is first degree murder.

I get it, just murder the child.

Are you prepared to tell a woman who may have two kids at home to raise along with husband that she needs to die, to give birth, & her husband can raise the two kids and baby by himself?

If not, shut the fuck up!

Are you prepared to tell the woman that she has to live and the baby needs to die?

There are reasons for abortions and everyone has their own circumstances. No woman wakes up and thinks, we'll I'll just trot on in and pay $1500--$1700 for an abortion today--(what fun.)

1. The life of the mother.
2. Are you going to tell a lucky to be alive woman, who again may have a husband and family members that may be opposed to her carrying a rape baby to full term, that she has too?
3. Are you going to tell the parents of a young girl that has been repeated raped by a relative that their daughter needs to risk her own life to give birth.

You know someone once told me that if men could get pregnant there would be abortion clinics in every Walmart across this country. I believe that.

You have no idea what-so-ever the complications that can arise during a pregnancy, nor the risk of one, yet again you're on here spouting your nonsense as if you do.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT--to intervene into the private personal decisions of women and their families in this country. It is none of your business. We can only Thank God that there is a U.S. Supreme court that insures you don't.

And you have no right to tell a woman she has to live and her child has to die. That's all I was saying. So all your blather was for not.

 

[Papageorgio]

TN, if you can't see that it is wrong, that the mother's life always precedes that of the fetus, then there is no hope for your moral development. Gorsuch supports murders of mothers whose lives are endangered by a pregnancy.

The lies are flowing hard today!

You are the one that said "always", not me.

Yup. It is the mother's choice.

Y

The lies are flowing hard today!

The mother's life precedes the child if there is a choice. To force a mother to have a child if it kills her is first degree murder.

I get it, just murder the child.

Are you prepared to tell a woman who may have two kids at home to raise along with husband that she needs to die, to give birth, & her husband can raise the two kids and baby by himself?

If not, shut the fuck up!

Are you prepared to tell the woman that she has to live and the baby needs to die?

That is the woman's call, papa, not yours or mine or oreo, certainly not that of the state.

Already said that, you reading comprehension is off.

 

[Chuz Life]

It's amazing how far out of context Gorsuch's words have been twisted in this thread.

In his book, he was speaking in a more general sense about the Roe v Wade ruling. He was not talking about a situation where the life of the mother is in peril if her pregnancy continues.

A justice as smart as he is would know already that if the mother dies the child would die too.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

No I don't buy that. There is nothing in his comment than could be construed in any other way.

Furthermore he has some real issues with Planned Parenthood, and was actually overruled by the 10th District court "panel" for violating the 1st & 14th amendments. The panel had to send it back to the court and demand that the injunction be enforced against Governor Herbert.
10th Circuit grants injunction against Herbert in Planned Parenthood case

And I really don't like this comment:

"This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary. In the legislative arena, especially when the country is closely divided, compromises tend to be the rule the day. But when judges rule this or that policy unconstitutional, there’s little room for compromise: One side must win, the other must lose. In constitutional litigation, too, experiments and pilot programs–real-world laboratories in which ideas can be assessed on the results they produce–are not possible. Ideas are tested only in the abstract world of legal briefs and lawyers arguments. As a society, we lose the benefit of the give-and-take of the political process and the flexibility of social experimentation that only the elected branches can provide.
Neil Gorsuch & Abortion: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

Social policy is exactly what the U.S. Supreme court is about. They are the protector of individual rights in this country--and his thinking is that religious extremists are somehow going to compromise on anything is truly absurd.

It's your stress level. Go ahead and work yourself into a frenzy.

Not like it's going to change any of the facts or his outcome.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[rdean]

You can't believe anything he says. Look at his funny joke when he was in school:

Guess who started a fun club called "Fascism Forever"?

So, knowing that would be in his yearbook forever, did he or didn't he think it was a joke, or was he "letting us know"?

 

[oreo]

It's amazing how far out of context Gorsuch's words have been twisted in this thread.

In his book, he was speaking in a more general sense about the Roe v Wade ruling. He was not talking about a situation where the life of the mother is in peril if her pregnancy continues.

A justice as smart as he is would know already that if the mother dies the child would die too.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

No I don't buy that. There is nothing in his comment than could be construed in any other way.

Furthermore he has some real issues with Planned Parenthood, and was actually overruled by the 10th District court "panel" for violating the 1st & 14th amendments. The panel had to send it back to the court and demand that the injunction be enforced against Governor Herbert.
10th Circuit grants injunction against Herbert in Planned Parenthood case

And I really don't like this comment:

"This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary. In the legislative arena, especially when the country is closely divided, compromises tend to be the rule the day. But when judges rule this or that policy unconstitutional, there’s little room for compromise: One side must win, the other must lose. In constitutional litigation, too, experiments and pilot programs–real-world laboratories in which ideas can be assessed on the results they produce–are not possible. Ideas are tested only in the abstract world of legal briefs and lawyers arguments. As a society, we lose the benefit of the give-and-take of the political process and the flexibility of social experimentation that only the elected branches can provide.
Neil Gorsuch & Abortion: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

Social policy is exactly what the U.S. Supreme court is about. They are the protector of individual rights in this country--and his thinking is that religious extremists are somehow going to compromise on anything is truly absurd.

It's your stress level. Go ahead and work yourself into a frenzy.

Not like it's going to change any of the facts or his outcome.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

There were women that showed up in their states on January 21, 2017, and if you look at the pictures they were in the millions. If you want to see the pictures you can go here, but they include all 50 states. Republicans have awoken a sleeping giant when it comes to women's rights.
Woman's march pictures

Regardless we'll see if the Niel Gorsuch that Democrats voted for in 2006 to appoint to 10th District court will show up at the Senate confirmation hearing or the book author.

Democrats who voted for Niel Gorsuch in 2006--a G.W. Bush appointee to the 10th District Court. Democrats could have turned him down in 2006 because they were the majority in the Senate. Clearly they liked him then. Even Chuck Schumer voted for him.

Here Are the Democrats Who Voted for Neil Gorsuch as a Circuit Court Judge in 2006

 

[deltex1]

Fact #8: Less than 1% of all abortions are performed to save the life of the mother.

 

[oreo]

Fact #8: Less than 1% of all abortions are performed to save the life of the mother.

Doesn't matter-- Less than 1% would cause an outrage in this country that would blow the top off of Mount Hood.

Since our laws do not discriminate women (mothers) in need of an abortion would also be included in an abortion ban. IOW if abortion is against the law, it's against the law regardless of any circumstance.

 

[Chuz Life]

Fact #8: Less than 1% of all abortions are performed to save the life of the mother.

Doesn't matter-- Less than 1% would cause an outrage in this country that would blow the top off of Mount Hood.

Since our laws do not discriminate women (mothers) in need of an abortion would also be included in an abortion ban. IOW if abortion is against the law, it's against the law regardless of any circumstance.

Bullshit.

We already have laws that allow abortions on some circumstances and not in others and despite the fact that some might want it banned with no exceptions ever... there is no reason to believe that view will prevail. Like it or not, there are some cases where an abortion can be Constitutionaly justified. The life of the mother being a perfect example

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[owebo]

Well I was wrong about Neil Gorsuch, he indeed needs to be fought all the way from here to HELL.

He wrote in his Assisted suicide book:

Gorsuch Notes In His Book on Assisted Suicide That There’s ‘No Constitutional Basis’ for Putting a Mother’s Life Ahead of the Child’s
Neil Gorsuch & Abortion: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

I guess it wouldn't matter if this same woman had two kids at home that she needed to raise.

The war on Women continues--write, call, email your Senators NOW, and raise HOLY HELL.

They apparently weren't paying attention to this on January 21, 2017

For pictures on all 50 state participation into this march go here.
Woman's march pictures

Gorsuch as a 10th district court judge ruled against an injunction against the Utah governor over denying Federal funding to a planned parenthood office there. Gorsuch was then slapped down by the 10th District court panel who reprimanded that the 10th district court put back the injunction on the Utah Governor, stating he was in violation of the 1st and 14th amendments.
Neil Gorsuch’s crusade against Planned Parenthood

Yeah you in the Reich wing have picked a real winner here.

You a baby killer?

 

[Papageorgio]

Fact #8: Less than 1% of all abortions are performed to save the life of the mother.

Yep, the stat they throw up all the time to justify killing.

 

[oreo]

Fact #8: Less than 1% of all abortions are performed to save the life of the mother.

Doesn't matter-- Less than 1% would cause an outrage in this country that would blow the top off of Mount Hood.

Since our laws do not discriminate women (mothers) in need of an abortion would also be included in an abortion ban. IOW if abortion is against the law, it's against the law regardless of any circumstance.

Bullshit.

We already have laws that allow abortions on some circumstances and not in others and despite the fact that some might want it banned with no exceptions ever... there is no reason to believe that view will prevail. Like it or not, there are some cases where an abortion can be Constitutionaly justified. The life of the mother being a perfect example

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

No you don't.

You even had several Knuckle dragging Neanderthals on the Republican debate stage that gave no exceptions, including for the mothers life. Scott Walker was even vocal about, when asked about his extreme stance. Megyn Kelly asked him, you mean you would let your wife die? Of course Walker couldn't answer that one, but went completely white, and then dropped out of the race. They were Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz gives an exception on the mother's life, but not rape, Rick Perry, & Rand Paul.

Women are just baby factories to them. When Reich wingers say they want to ban all abortions, that is exactly what they mean.

 

[Chuz Life]

The Constitution establishes that ALL PERSONS are entitled to the EQUAL PROTECTIONS of our laws.

Any laws (or rulings)which run contrary to that clause are therefore unconstitutional. Including Roe v Wade.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

This is not a "person"

No Shit.

 

[Chuz Life]

The Constitution establishes that ALL PERSONS are entitled to the EQUAL PROTECTIONS of our laws.

Any laws (or rulings)which run contrary to that clause are therefore unconstitutional. Including Roe v Wade.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

This is not a "person"

In your opinion

Thanks but he/she is trying to be clever.

That image is of an Elephant embryo. I've seen this kind of shit tried in other threads too. Simple minded people think they are being clever because many mammalian embryos do look similar. Especially when they are not shown to scale.

 

[JBond]

TN, if you can't see that it is wrong, that the mother's life always precedes that of the fetus, then there is no hope for your moral development. Gorsuch supports murders of mothers whose lives are endangered by a pregnancy.

So every abortion, particularly in black neighborhoods, is not about fulfilling the original mandate of PP? Dems firmly believe skin tone is the quintessential way of separating and dividing people with different skin pigmentation. From the old south to the new liberal, nothing has changed. LBJ was honest about his opinions.

 

[SavannahMann]

Well I was wrong about Neil Gorsuch, he indeed needs to be fought all the way from here to HELL.

He wrote in his Assisted suicide book:

Gorsuch Notes In His Book on Assisted Suicide That There’s ‘No Constitutional Basis’ for Putting a Mother’s Life Ahead of the Child’s
Neil Gorsuch & Abortion: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

I guess it wouldn't matter if this same woman had two kids at home that she needed to raise.

The war on Women continues--write, call, email your Senators NOW, and raise HOLY HELL.

They apparently weren't paying attention to this on January 21, 2017

For pictures on all 50 state participation into this march go here.
Woman's march pictures

Gorsuch as a 10th district court judge ruled against an injunction against the Utah governor over denying Federal funding to a planned parenthood office there. Gorsuch was then slapped down by the 10th District court panel who reprimanded that the 10th district court put back the injunction on the Utah Governor, stating he was in violation of the 1st and 14th amendments.
Neil Gorsuch’s crusade against Planned Parenthood

Yeah you in the Reich wing have picked a real winner here.

Actually, there isn't. Is there a Constitutional right that places my life as more valuable than yours? No. There is a longstanding and alluded to right for self defense, and actions taken in Self Defense are generally speaking justified. Yet, there is no list of who is more valuable than whom.

Even the argument for Abortion claims to be for choice. It is the Mother's choice if she is doing a greater service by aborting the fetus, or choosing to live to give birth knowing that her own death is almost certain.

We could take the argument to the next level. Let's say there is a house fire. The Mother arrives outside and finds that two of her children are present, but one is apparently inside. What does the average Mother do? Does she say well, I have two of the three, and I have to provide for those two? Or does she charge into the burning house desperate to save the one?

The Bible even asks this question. If you are missing a sheep, do you not go charging to save the one while leaving the ninety and nine? The natural response is that you are more thankful for the one you saved, than the ninety and nine who were never at risk. We as a species fret over what we may lose, not what we already have.

That's why when someone is lost in the wilderness, and the searchers lose one or two in the process of trying to save the lost child, nobody regrets the loss. So much so that the next time someone is lost, people will flood in to find them, knowing that there is a risk of death in doing so.

When Miners are trapped in a mine the rest who are out risk themselves to try and free their fellows. A soldier who is injured will see his mates risk their own lives to try and save him.

It is called Choice for a reason. The argument is that the woman should have the right to choose for herself what is right for her. Just as the individuals who hear about the lost child in the wilderness have the right to choose not to go out and risk themselves to try and find the child. Just as the people on the surface looking at the entrance to an unstable mineshaft have the right to walk away.

We can place ourselves first, but a majority of us don't. Because most of us put others ahead of ourselves. Love of self is the first step in evolution of a person. The baby knows no better, all it knows is that it is uncomfortable, or hungry, or dirty. The child learns, and learns love of family. The value of the family most often becomes more important than love of self. The willingness to sacrifice for the family, the idea that such sacrifices are worthy and proper.

Some assume the even greater love, the love of community, state, or nation. They become firefighters. Willing to risk themselves to protect people they don't even know. They join the military, willing to risk themselves for the still larger group, the state in the case of the Guard, or the Nation in the case of active duty or Reserves.

These rights to sacrifice yourself, or not, were not written into the Constitution. Sometimes the nation must demand such a sacrifice, we call it the Draft today, it's been called other things in the past. Your nation expects you to be willing to sacrifice yourself or risk such sacrifice for the good of the whole.

The right to protect, or risk yourself is not written in the Constitution. The requirement to do so is, as the Congress has the power to raise armies, including the power to demand such service of the people through the draft. We all sacrifice some money through taxes, theoretically for the good of the whole.

The Constitution can demand such sacrifice, but has no provision to excuse the possible sacrifice for the greater good.

 

[oreo]

Well I was wrong about Neil Gorsuch, he indeed needs to be fought all the way from here to HELL.

He wrote in his Assisted suicide book:

Gorsuch Notes In His Book on Assisted Suicide That There’s ‘No Constitutional Basis’ for Putting a Mother’s Life Ahead of the Child’s
Neil Gorsuch & Abortion: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

I guess it wouldn't matter if this same woman had two kids at home that she needed to raise.

The war on Women continues--write, call, email your Senators NOW, and raise HOLY HELL.

They apparently weren't paying attention to this on January 21, 2017

For pictures on all 50 state participation into this march go here.
Woman's march pictures

Gorsuch as a 10th district court judge ruled against an injunction against the Utah governor over denying Federal funding to a planned parenthood office there. Gorsuch was then slapped down by the 10th District court panel who reprimanded that the 10th district court put back the injunction on the Utah Governor, stating he was in violation of the 1st and 14th amendments.
Neil Gorsuch’s crusade against Planned Parenthood

Yeah you in the Reich wing have picked a real winner here.

Actually, there isn't. Is there a Constitutional right that places my life as more valuable than yours? No. There is a longstanding and alluded to right for self defense, and actions taken in Self Defense are generally speaking justified. Yet, there is no list of who is more valuable than whom.

Even the argument for Abortion claims to be for choice. It is the Mother's choice if she is doing a greater service by aborting the fetus, or choosing to live to give birth knowing that her own death is almost certain.

We could take the argument to the next level. Let's say there is a house fire. The Mother arrives outside and finds that two of her children are present, but one is apparently inside. What does the average Mother do? Does she say well, I have two of the three, and I have to provide for those two? Or does she charge into the burning house desperate to save the one?

The Bible even asks this question. If you are missing a sheep, do you not go charging to save the one while leaving the ninety and nine? The natural response is that you are more thankful for the one you saved, than the ninety and nine who were never at risk. We as a species fret over what we may lose, not what we already have.

That's why when someone is lost in the wilderness, and the searchers lose one or two in the process of trying to save the lost child, nobody regrets the loss. So much so that the next time someone is lost, people will flood in to find them, knowing that there is a risk of death in doing so.

When Miners are trapped in a mine the rest who are out risk themselves to try and free their fellows. A soldier who is injured will see his mates risk their own lives to try and save him.

It is called Choice for a reason. The argument is that the woman should have the right to choose for herself what is right for her. Just as the individuals who hear about the lost child in the wilderness have the right to choose not to go out and risk themselves to try and find the child. Just as the people on the surface looking at the entrance to an unstable mineshaft have the right to walk away.

We can place ourselves first, but a majority of us don't. Because most of us put others ahead of ourselves. Love of self is the first step in evolution of a person. The baby knows no better, all it knows is that it is uncomfortable, or hungry, or dirty. The child learns, and learns love of family. The value of the family most often becomes more important than love of self. The willingness to sacrifice for the family, the idea that such sacrifices are worthy and proper.

Some assume the even greater love, the love of community, state, or nation. They become firefighters. Willing to risk themselves to protect people they don't even know. They join the military, willing to risk themselves for the still larger group, the state in the case of the Guard, or the Nation in the case of active duty or Reserves.

These rights to sacrifice yourself, or not, were not written into the Constitution. Sometimes the nation must demand such a sacrifice, we call it the Draft today, it's been called other things in the past. Your nation expects you to be willing to sacrifice yourself or risk such sacrifice for the good of the whole.

The right to protect, or risk yourself is not written in the Constitution. The requirement to do so is, as the Congress has the power to raise armies, including the power to demand such service of the people through the draft. We all sacrifice some money through taxes, theoretically for the good of the whole.

The Constitution can demand such sacrifice, but has no provision to excuse the possible sacrifice for the greater good.

Are you going to raise the baby after the mother dies? Are you going to come to the rescue if she has two other kids at home that she needs to raise? Are you going to tell her husband and kids that she needs to die, and her husband can raise the baby and the two kids by himself?

You cannot legislate your version of morality from Washington D.C. This country was formed because Europeans were fleeing religious persecution. You have your freedom of religion, but you do not have the right to inflict your religious beliefs onto others.

 

[Rustic]

Well I was wrong about Neil Gorsuch, he indeed needs to be fought all the way from here to HELL.

He wrote in his Assisted suicide book:

Gorsuch Notes In His Book on Assisted Suicide That There’s ‘No Constitutional Basis’ for Putting a Mother’s Life Ahead of the Child’s
Neil Gorsuch & Abortion: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

I guess it wouldn't matter if this same woman had two kids at home that she needed to raise.

The war on Women continues--write, call, email your Senators NOW, and raise HOLY HELL.

They apparently weren't paying attention to this on January 21, 2017

For pictures on all 50 state participation into this march go here.
Woman's march pictures

Gorsuch as a 10th district court judge ruled against an injunction against the Utah governor over denying Federal funding to a planned parenthood office there. Gorsuch was then slapped down by the 10th District court panel who reprimanded that the 10th district court put back the injunction on the Utah Governor, stating he was in violation of the 1st and 14th amendments.
Neil Gorsuch’s crusade against Planned Parenthood

Yeah you in the Reich wing have picked a real winner here.

Actually, there isn't. Is there a Constitutional right that places my life as more valuable than yours? No. There is a longstanding and alluded to right for self defense, and actions taken in Self Defense are generally speaking justified. Yet, there is no list of who is more valuable than whom.

Even the argument for Abortion claims to be for choice. It is the Mother's choice if she is doing a greater service by aborting the fetus, or choosing to live to give birth knowing that her own death is almost certain.

We could take the argument to the next level. Let's say there is a house fire. The Mother arrives outside and finds that two of her children are present, but one is apparently inside. What does the average Mother do? Does she say well, I have two of the three, and I have to provide for those two? Or does she charge into the burning house desperate to save the one?

The Bible even asks this question. If you are missing a sheep, do you not go charging to save the one while leaving the ninety and nine? The natural response is that you are more thankful for the one you saved, than the ninety and nine who were never at risk. We as a species fret over what we may lose, not what we already have.

That's why when someone is lost in the wilderness, and the searchers lose one or two in the process of trying to save the lost child, nobody regrets the loss. So much so that the next time someone is lost, people will flood in to find them, knowing that there is a risk of death in doing so.

When Miners are trapped in a mine the rest who are out risk themselves to try and free their fellows. A soldier who is injured will see his mates risk their own lives to try and save him.

It is called Choice for a reason. The argument is that the woman should have the right to choose for herself what is right for her. Just as the individuals who hear about the lost child in the wilderness have the right to choose not to go out and risk themselves to try and find the child. Just as the people on the surface looking at the entrance to an unstable mineshaft have the right to walk away.

We can place ourselves first, but a majority of us don't. Because most of us put others ahead of ourselves. Love of self is the first step in evolution of a person. The baby knows no better, all it knows is that it is uncomfortable, or hungry, or dirty. The child learns, and learns love of family. The value of the family most often becomes more important than love of self. The willingness to sacrifice for the family, the idea that such sacrifices are worthy and proper.

Some assume the even greater love, the love of community, state, or nation. They become firefighters. Willing to risk themselves to protect people they don't even know. They join the military, willing to risk themselves for the still larger group, the state in the case of the Guard, or the Nation in the case of active duty or Reserves.

These rights to sacrifice yourself, or not, were not written into the Constitution. Sometimes the nation must demand such a sacrifice, we call it the Draft today, it's been called other things in the past. Your nation expects you to be willing to sacrifice yourself or risk such sacrifice for the good of the whole.

The right to protect, or risk yourself is not written in the Constitution. The requirement to do so is, as the Congress has the power to raise armies, including the power to demand such service of the people through the draft. We all sacrifice some money through taxes, theoretically for the good of the whole.

The Constitution can demand such sacrifice, but has no provision to excuse the possible sacrifice for the greater good.

Are you going to raise the baby after the mother dies? Are you going to come to the rescue if she has two other kids at home that she needs to raise? Are you going to tell her husband and kids that she needs to die, and her husband can raise the baby and the two kids by himself?

You cannot legislate your version of morality from Washington D.C. This country was formed because Europeans were fleeing religious persecution. You have your freedom of religion, but you do not have the right to inflict your religious beliefs onto others.

Political correctness and morality are opposites...

 

[oreo]

Well I was wrong about Neil Gorsuch, he indeed needs to be fought all the way from here to HELL.

He wrote in his Assisted suicide book:

Gorsuch Notes In His Book on Assisted Suicide That There’s ‘No Constitutional Basis’ for Putting a Mother’s Life Ahead of the Child’s
Neil Gorsuch & Abortion: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

I guess it wouldn't matter if this same woman had two kids at home that she needed to raise.

The war on Women continues--write, call, email your Senators NOW, and raise HOLY HELL.

They apparently weren't paying attention to this on January 21, 2017

For pictures on all 50 state participation into this march go here.
Woman's march pictures

Gorsuch as a 10th district court judge ruled against an injunction against the Utah governor over denying Federal funding to a planned parenthood office there. Gorsuch was then slapped down by the 10th District court panel who reprimanded that the 10th district court put back the injunction on the Utah Governor, stating he was in violation of the 1st and 14th amendments.
Neil Gorsuch’s crusade against Planned Parenthood

Yeah you in the Reich wing have picked a real winner here.

Actually, there isn't. Is there a Constitutional right that places my life as more valuable than yours? No. There is a longstanding and alluded to right for self defense, and actions taken in Self Defense are generally speaking justified. Yet, there is no list of who is more valuable than whom.

Even the argument for Abortion claims to be for choice. It is the Mother's choice if she is doing a greater service by aborting the fetus, or choosing to live to give birth knowing that her own death is almost certain.

We could take the argument to the next level. Let's say there is a house fire. The Mother arrives outside and finds that two of her children are present, but one is apparently inside. What does the average Mother do? Does she say well, I have two of the three, and I have to provide for those two? Or does she charge into the burning house desperate to save the one?

The Bible even asks this question. If you are missing a sheep, do you not go charging to save the one while leaving the ninety and nine? The natural response is that you are more thankful for the one you saved, than the ninety and nine who were never at risk. We as a species fret over what we may lose, not what we already have.

That's why when someone is lost in the wilderness, and the searchers lose one or two in the process of trying to save the lost child, nobody regrets the loss. So much so that the next time someone is lost, people will flood in to find them, knowing that there is a risk of death in doing so.

When Miners are trapped in a mine the rest who are out risk themselves to try and free their fellows. A soldier who is injured will see his mates risk their own lives to try and save him.

It is called Choice for a reason. The argument is that the woman should have the right to choose for herself what is right for her. Just as the individuals who hear about the lost child in the wilderness have the right to choose not to go out and risk themselves to try and find the child. Just as the people on the surface looking at the entrance to an unstable mineshaft have the right to walk away.

We can place ourselves first, but a majority of us don't. Because most of us put others ahead of ourselves. Love of self is the first step in evolution of a person. The baby knows no better, all it knows is that it is uncomfortable, or hungry, or dirty. The child learns, and learns love of family. The value of the family most often becomes more important than love of self. The willingness to sacrifice for the family, the idea that such sacrifices are worthy and proper.

Some assume the even greater love, the love of community, state, or nation. They become firefighters. Willing to risk themselves to protect people they don't even know. They join the military, willing to risk themselves for the still larger group, the state in the case of the Guard, or the Nation in the case of active duty or Reserves.

These rights to sacrifice yourself, or not, were not written into the Constitution. Sometimes the nation must demand such a sacrifice, we call it the Draft today, it's been called other things in the past. Your nation expects you to be willing to sacrifice yourself or risk such sacrifice for the good of the whole.

The right to protect, or risk yourself is not written in the Constitution. The requirement to do so is, as the Congress has the power to raise armies, including the power to demand such service of the people through the draft. We all sacrifice some money through taxes, theoretically for the good of the whole.

The Constitution can demand such sacrifice, but has no provision to excuse the possible sacrifice for the greater good.

Are you going to raise the baby after the mother dies? Are you going to come to the rescue if she has two other kids at home that she needs to raise? Are you going to tell her husband and kids that she needs to die, and her husband can raise the baby and the two kids by himself?

You cannot legislate your version of morality from Washington D.C. This country was formed because Europeans were fleeing religious persecution. You have your freedom of religion, but you do not have the right to inflict your religious beliefs onto others.

Political correctness and morality are opposites...

I just love these "lil Einstein comments" on this board. They run out of things to say so they come up with some kind homemade quote--that is supposed to make sense.--LOL

 

[Rustic]

Well I was wrong about Neil Gorsuch, he indeed needs to be fought all the way from here to HELL.

He wrote in his Assisted suicide book:

Gorsuch Notes In His Book on Assisted Suicide That There’s ‘No Constitutional Basis’ for Putting a Mother’s Life Ahead of the Child’s
Neil Gorsuch & Abortion: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

I guess it wouldn't matter if this same woman had two kids at home that she needed to raise.

The war on Women continues--write, call, email your Senators NOW, and raise HOLY HELL.

They apparently weren't paying attention to this on January 21, 2017

For pictures on all 50 state participation into this march go here.
Woman's march pictures

Gorsuch as a 10th district court judge ruled against an injunction against the Utah governor over denying Federal funding to a planned parenthood office there. Gorsuch was then slapped down by the 10th District court panel who reprimanded that the 10th district court put back the injunction on the Utah Governor, stating he was in violation of the 1st and 14th amendments.
Neil Gorsuch’s crusade against Planned Parenthood

Yeah you in the Reich wing have picked a real winner here.

Actually, there isn't. Is there a Constitutional right that places my life as more valuable than yours? No. There is a longstanding and alluded to right for self defense, and actions taken in Self Defense are generally speaking justified. Yet, there is no list of who is more valuable than whom.

Even the argument for Abortion claims to be for choice. It is the Mother's choice if she is doing a greater service by aborting the fetus, or choosing to live to give birth knowing that her own death is almost certain.

We could take the argument to the next level. Let's say there is a house fire. The Mother arrives outside and finds that two of her children are present, but one is apparently inside. What does the average Mother do? Does she say well, I have two of the three, and I have to provide for those two? Or does she charge into the burning house desperate to save the one?

The Bible even asks this question. If you are missing a sheep, do you not go charging to save the one while leaving the ninety and nine? The natural response is that you are more thankful for the one you saved, than the ninety and nine who were never at risk. We as a species fret over what we may lose, not what we already have.

That's why when someone is lost in the wilderness, and the searchers lose one or two in the process of trying to save the lost child, nobody regrets the loss. So much so that the next time someone is lost, people will flood in to find them, knowing that there is a risk of death in doing so.

When Miners are trapped in a mine the rest who are out risk themselves to try and free their fellows. A soldier who is injured will see his mates risk their own lives to try and save him.

It is called Choice for a reason. The argument is that the woman should have the right to choose for herself what is right for her. Just as the individuals who hear about the lost child in the wilderness have the right to choose not to go out and risk themselves to try and find the child. Just as the people on the surface looking at the entrance to an unstable mineshaft have the right to walk away.

We can place ourselves first, but a majority of us don't. Because most of us put others ahead of ourselves. Love of self is the first step in evolution of a person. The baby knows no better, all it knows is that it is uncomfortable, or hungry, or dirty. The child learns, and learns love of family. The value of the family most often becomes more important than love of self. The willingness to sacrifice for the family, the idea that such sacrifices are worthy and proper.

Some assume the even greater love, the love of community, state, or nation. They become firefighters. Willing to risk themselves to protect people they don't even know. They join the military, willing to risk themselves for the still larger group, the state in the case of the Guard, or the Nation in the case of active duty or Reserves.

These rights to sacrifice yourself, or not, were not written into the Constitution. Sometimes the nation must demand such a sacrifice, we call it the Draft today, it's been called other things in the past. Your nation expects you to be willing to sacrifice yourself or risk such sacrifice for the good of the whole.

The right to protect, or risk yourself is not written in the Constitution. The requirement to do so is, as the Congress has the power to raise armies, including the power to demand such service of the people through the draft. We all sacrifice some money through taxes, theoretically for the good of the whole.

The Constitution can demand such sacrifice, but has no provision to excuse the possible sacrifice for the greater good.

Are you going to raise the baby after the mother dies? Are you going to come to the rescue if she has two other kids at home that she needs to raise? Are you going to tell her husband and kids that she needs to die, and her husband can raise the baby and the two kids by himself?

You cannot legislate your version of morality from Washington D.C. This country was formed because Europeans were fleeing religious persecution. You have your freedom of religion, but you do not have the right to inflict your religious beliefs onto others.

Political correctness and morality are opposites...

I just love these "lil Einstein comments" on this board. They run out of things to say so they come up with some kind homemade quote--that is supposed to make sense.--LOL

To be politically correct, is to be morally corrupt… Fact

 

[oreo]

Well I was wrong about Neil Gorsuch, he indeed needs to be fought all the way from here to HELL.

He wrote in his Assisted suicide book:

Gorsuch Notes In His Book on Assisted Suicide That There’s ‘No Constitutional Basis’ for Putting a Mother’s Life Ahead of the Child’s
Neil Gorsuch & Abortion: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

I guess it wouldn't matter if this same woman had two kids at home that she needed to raise.

The war on Women continues--write, call, email your Senators NOW, and raise HOLY HELL.

They apparently weren't paying attention to this on January 21, 2017

For pictures on all 50 state participation into this march go here.
Woman's march pictures

Gorsuch as a 10th district court judge ruled against an injunction against the Utah governor over denying Federal funding to a planned parenthood office there. Gorsuch was then slapped down by the 10th District court panel who reprimanded that the 10th district court put back the injunction on the Utah Governor, stating he was in violation of the 1st and 14th amendments.
Neil Gorsuch’s crusade against Planned Parenthood

Yeah you in the Reich wing have picked a real winner here.

Actually, there isn't. Is there a Constitutional right that places my life as more valuable than yours? No. There is a longstanding and alluded to right for self defense, and actions taken in Self Defense are generally speaking justified. Yet, there is no list of who is more valuable than whom.

Even the argument for Abortion claims to be for choice. It is the Mother's choice if she is doing a greater service by aborting the fetus, or choosing to live to give birth knowing that her own death is almost certain.

We could take the argument to the next level. Let's say there is a house fire. The Mother arrives outside and finds that two of her children are present, but one is apparently inside. What does the average Mother do? Does she say well, I have two of the three, and I have to provide for those two? Or does she charge into the burning house desperate to save the one?

The Bible even asks this question. If you are missing a sheep, do you not go charging to save the one while leaving the ninety and nine? The natural response is that you are more thankful for the one you saved, than the ninety and nine who were never at risk. We as a species fret over what we may lose, not what we already have.

That's why when someone is lost in the wilderness, and the searchers lose one or two in the process of trying to save the lost child, nobody regrets the loss. So much so that the next time someone is lost, people will flood in to find them, knowing that there is a risk of death in doing so.

When Miners are trapped in a mine the rest who are out risk themselves to try and free their fellows. A soldier who is injured will see his mates risk their own lives to try and save him.

It is called Choice for a reason. The argument is that the woman should have the right to choose for herself what is right for her. Just as the individuals who hear about the lost child in the wilderness have the right to choose not to go out and risk themselves to try and find the child. Just as the people on the surface looking at the entrance to an unstable mineshaft have the right to walk away.

We can place ourselves first, but a majority of us don't. Because most of us put others ahead of ourselves. Love of self is the first step in evolution of a person. The baby knows no better, all it knows is that it is uncomfortable, or hungry, or dirty. The child learns, and learns love of family. The value of the family most often becomes more important than love of self. The willingness to sacrifice for the family, the idea that such sacrifices are worthy and proper.

Some assume the even greater love, the love of community, state, or nation. They become firefighters. Willing to risk themselves to protect people they don't even know. They join the military, willing to risk themselves for the still larger group, the state in the case of the Guard, or the Nation in the case of active duty or Reserves.

These rights to sacrifice yourself, or not, were not written into the Constitution. Sometimes the nation must demand such a sacrifice, we call it the Draft today, it's been called other things in the past. Your nation expects you to be willing to sacrifice yourself or risk such sacrifice for the good of the whole.

The right to protect, or risk yourself is not written in the Constitution. The requirement to do so is, as the Congress has the power to raise armies, including the power to demand such service of the people through the draft. We all sacrifice some money through taxes, theoretically for the good of the whole.

The Constitution can demand such sacrifice, but has no provision to excuse the possible sacrifice for the greater good.

Are you going to raise the baby after the mother dies? Are you going to come to the rescue if she has two other kids at home that she needs to raise? Are you going to tell her husband and kids that she needs to die, and her husband can raise the baby and the two kids by himself?

You cannot legislate your version of morality from Washington D.C. This country was formed because Europeans were fleeing religious persecution. You have your freedom of religion, but you do not have the right to inflict your religious beliefs onto others.

Political correctness and morality are opposites...

I just love these "lil Einstein comments" on this board. They run out of things to say so they come up with some kind homemade quote--that is supposed to make sense.--LOL

To be politically correct, is to be morally corrupt… Fact

To be politically correct, is to be morally corrupt? Hmmm. Would you care to give an example to that.