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

[AvgGuyIA]

Murdering a baby or letting the mother die giving birth. Why should the latter have protectio to live over the former? Who got themselves pregnant, her or the baby?

 

[g5000]

One of the most mealy-mouthed arguments by pro-choice men always begins, "I personally don't like murdering the unborn abortions, but..."

 

[oreo]

There’s ‘No Constitutional Basis’ for Putting a Mother’s Life Ahead of the Child’s
Care to elaborate on how that is wrong?

There are reasons for abortions. Cancer and the sudden onset of type 1 diabetes that was brought on by a pregnancy.

SO:

1. Is the Republican party going to tell her Husband and her two kids that their mother has to die to give birth, and the husband can raise the baby and the two kids by himself?

2. Is the Republican party going to tell the parents of a young girl who has been repeatedly raped by a relative that their daughter has to risk her life to give birth?

3. Is the Republican party going to tell a lucky to be alive woman, (whom may also have a Husband and family members that would object) to her carrying a rape baby to full term, that she has to give birth?

These are your OPTIONS.

Women are much more than just baby factories. Women die everyday giving birth, it just doesn't make the headline news.

You do realize that none of these stellar arguments have a constitutional basis?

This Gorsuch is also using his religious beliefs and he did NOT use the LAW in a Planned Parenthood decision as a judge on the 10th district court. He had to be slapped down by the 10th DISTRICT court panel for violating the 1st and 14th amendments.

GORSUCH is UNFIT to be a Supreme Court Justice. He shouldn't even be a district court judge.
http://arizanta.com/planned-parenth...ominee-neil-gorsuch-hell-overturn-roe-v-wade/

 

[jillian]

The judges in the Roe v. Wade decision exerted a great deal of effort explaining how they determined "the point at which the embryo or fetus became 'formed' or recognizably human, or in terms of when a 'person' came into being, that is, infused with a 'soul' or 'animated'."

The reason they exerted this effort is because a "person" cannot be murdered. That would be violating their right to life.

So it was important to the judges that the embryo or fetus not be a person so that it could be legally extinguished.

And that is what the real debate has been ever since. "When does life begin?"

If the embryo or fetus is a legal person, then that person is endowed with the exact same rights as the mother. Neither trumps the other. That is what the judges in Roe v Wade were saying.

If the judges had decided you are a person from the moment of conception, abortion would be illegal.

THAT is what Gorsuch was explaining in his book.

Pro-lifers believe life begins at conception. You were a person from the moment you were conceived. And therefore your life was endowed with the same rights as your mother from that moment.


This is especially important when the mother's actual life is not at stake in 99 percent of all abortions.

brennan actually went to far. the basis for the decision that still stands is that there comes a point where the governmental interest overrides the pregnant woman's interests. that isn't at week 1 one or at week 41, but somewhere in between.

but mostly I love the gubmint haters wanting gubmint to interfere in people's personal decisions on the pretense that they're pro-life.

 

[g5000]

Murdering a baby or letting the mother die giving birth. Why should the latter have protectio to live over the former? Who got themselves pregnant, her or the baby?

In this day and age, that scenario is such an extreme unlikelihood as to be negligible.

Besides, that is not what Gorsuch was saying. He was explaining how and why the judges had to make a legal opinion as to when life begins.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

. Is the Republican party going to tell her Husband and her two kids that their mother has to die to give birth, and the husband can raise the baby and the two kids by himself

Snipped ...


The republican party isn't going to tell anybody anything. The Supreme Court is.

Elections have consequences. Gosh it is fun to remind libs of that.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

he has no business being on the court.

Clearly this pick was made by Vice President Mike Pence who as governor of Indiana decided to sign his own abortion law into effect, that was overturned by a higher court one year later.
Pence signs new abortion restrictions into law with a prayer

These fucking idiots have no business being in politics much less picking Supreme Court nominees.

I would say that a sitting president has the right to pick his justice if the justice is qualified.

but they didn't do that, did they?

and now they think they should get this religious nutter?

Yeah, it's just unfair of a judge that wants to use the the actual text of the law and Constitution applied to a decision instead of personal opinions, how dare he.

the constitution is not some fundie's bible.... we live in a common law nation. our caselaw defines our statutes.

you could try reading Marbury v Madison, which addressed the issue of constitutional construction during the founders' day.

but why would you do anything that might prove you don't know what you're talking about

What am I suppose to be impressed where the court granted itself powers not granted them by the Constitution?

 

[g5000]

The judges in the Roe v. Wade decision exerted a great deal of effort explaining how they determined "the point at which the embryo or fetus became 'formed' or recognizably human, or in terms of when a 'person' came into being, that is, infused with a 'soul' or 'animated'."

The reason they exerted this effort is because a "person" cannot be murdered. That would be violating their right to life.

So it was important to the judges that the embryo or fetus not be a person so that it could be legally extinguished.

And that is what the real debate has been ever since. "When does life begin?"

If the embryo or fetus is a legal person, then that person is endowed with the exact same rights as the mother. Neither trumps the other. That is what the judges in Roe v Wade were saying.

If the judges had decided you are a person from the moment of conception, abortion would be illegal.

THAT is what Gorsuch was explaining in his book.

Pro-lifers believe life begins at conception. You were a person from the moment you were conceived. And therefore your life was endowed with the same rights as your mother from that moment.


This is especially important when the mother's actual life is not at stake in 99 percent of all abortions.

brennan actually went to far. the basis for the decision that still stands is that there comes a point where the governmental interest overrides the pregnant woman's interests. that isn't at week 1 one or at week 41, but somewhere in between.

That was their justification for deciding when life begins despite not being scientists or theologians.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anyone who would preserve the fetus's life and let the mother die is a murderer, and under our laws today could be charged with murder. That is why abortion is legal, clowns.

 

[JakeStarkey]

he has no business being on the court.

Clearly this pick was made by Vice President Mike Pence who as governor of Indiana decided to sign his own abortion law into effect, that was overturned by a higher court one year later.
Pence signs new abortion restrictions into law with a prayer

These fucking idiots have no business being in politics much less picking Supreme Court nominees.

I would say that a sitting president has the right to pick his justice if the justice is qualified.

but they didn't do that, did they?

and now they think they should get this religious nutter?

Yeah, it's just unfair of a judge that wants to use the the actual text of the law and Constitution applied to a decision instead of personal opinions, how dare he.

the constitution is not some fundie's bible.... we live in a common law nation. our caselaw defines our statutes.

you could try reading Marbury v Madison, which addressed the issue of constitutional construction during the founders' day.

but why would you do anything that might prove you don't know what you're talking about

What am I suppose to be impressed where the court granted itself powers not granted them by the Constitution?

And you have no way to prove that you know what you are talking about.

 

[jillian]

he has no business being on the court.

Clearly this pick was made by Vice President Mike Pence who as governor of Indiana decided to sign his own abortion law into effect, that was overturned by a higher court one year later.
Pence signs new abortion restrictions into law with a prayer

These fucking idiots have no business being in politics much less picking Supreme Court nominees.

I would say that a sitting president has the right to pick his justice if the justice is qualified.

but they didn't do that, did they?

and now they think they should get this religious nutter?

Yeah, it's just unfair of a judge that wants to use the the actual text of the law and Constitution applied to a decision instead of personal opinions, how dare he.

the constitution is not some fundie's bible.... we live in a common law nation. our caselaw defines our statutes.

you could try reading Marbury v Madison, which addressed the issue of constitutional construction during the founders' day.

but why would you do anything that might prove you don't know what you're talking about

What am I suppose to be impressed where the court granted itself powers not granted them by the Constitution?

it's settled law for over 200 years.

should that impress you? yes, unless you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

the point, is that our laws are INTENDED to be interpreted by courts. or they have no purpose.

and the founders clearly intended them to have purpose.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Murdering a baby or letting the mother die giving birth. Why should the latter have protectio to live over the former? Who got themselves pregnant, her or the baby?

In this day and age, that scenario is such an extreme unlikelihood as to be negligible.

Besides, that is not what Gorsuch was saying. He was explaining how and why the judges had to make a legal opinion as to when life begins.

I figured so. Libs over-react so I wanted them to fret over their biggest fear for awhile.

 

[OKTexas]

The judges in the Roe v. Wade decision exerted a great deal of effort explaining how they determined "the point at which the embryo or fetus became 'formed' or recognizably human, or in terms of when a 'person' came into being, that is, infused with a 'soul' or 'animated'."

The reason they exerted this effort is because a "person" cannot be murdered. That would be violating their right to life.

So it was important to the judges that the embryo or fetus not be a person so that it could be legally extinguished.

And that is what the real debate has been ever since. "When does life begin?"

If the embryo or fetus is a legal person, then that person is endowed with the exact same rights as the mother. Neither trumps the other. That is what the judges in Roe v Wade were saying.

If the judges had decided you are a person from the moment of conception, abortion would be illegal.

THAT is what Gorsuch was explaining in his book.

Pro-lifers believe life begins at conception. You were a person from the moment you were conceived. And therefore your life was endowed with the same rights as your mother from that moment.


This is especially important when the mother's actual life is not at stake in 99 percent of all abortions.

What they failed to recognize is without conception, life doesn't exist. So it follows that life begins at conception.

 

[g5000]

I think the judges in the majority had a predetermined outcome to which they were trying to arrive. They wanted abortions to be legal, and had to reverse engineer their way there.

They were not interpreting the Constitution. They abused the shit out of two words in the Constitution, and crafted the rest out of thin air.

 

[yiostheoy]

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.

I was going to give you an "informative" rating but after reading the rest of your post "funny" is going to need to do.

The U.S. Constitution does not mention women anywhere.

It also does not mention abortion.

And it also does not mention euthanasia.

Negro slaves are rated as 3/5th of a free man for census purposes.

But women are not mentioned at all.

Either the Founding Freemasons did not think about women, abortion, or euthanasia or else they intended to leave those issues to the various States.

Roe is very bad law. But it would take a Constitutional amendment to restore States' Rights on this issue after Roe.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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.

I'm pro-choice, but Roe v. Wade was a Constitutional abomination with no basis in the Constitution. Murder is not there, ergo it's a State right. As long as he limits to overturning that Constitutional monstrosity and returning the decisions to the States where it Constitutionally belongs, that's fine. And in most States they will continue to stay out of abortions. And in conservative States, they should have their own choice

I'm against abortions but I agree it is a state level issue.

 

[yiostheoy]

What they failed to recognize is without conception, life doesn't exist. So it follows that life begins at conception.

That's a really bad and false analysis.

See "red herring".

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

 

[g5000]

The judges in the Roe v. Wade decision exerted a great deal of effort explaining how they determined "the point at which the embryo or fetus became 'formed' or recognizably human, or in terms of when a 'person' came into being, that is, infused with a 'soul' or 'animated'."

The reason they exerted this effort is because a "person" cannot be murdered. That would be violating their right to life.

So it was important to the judges that the embryo or fetus not be a person so that it could be legally extinguished.

And that is what the real debate has been ever since. "When does life begin?"

If the embryo or fetus is a legal person, then that person is endowed with the exact same rights as the mother. Neither trumps the other. That is what the judges in Roe v Wade were saying.

If the judges had decided you are a person from the moment of conception, abortion would be illegal.

THAT is what Gorsuch was explaining in his book.

Pro-lifers believe life begins at conception. You were a person from the moment you were conceived. And therefore your life was endowed with the same rights as your mother from that moment.


This is especially important when the mother's actual life is not at stake in 99 percent of all abortions.

What they failed to recognize is without conception, life doesn't exist. So it follows that life begins at conception.

I think it is fairly safe to assume Gorsuch believes life begins at conception. But it can only be an assumption since I have not seen evidence of him saying that directly. However, I have been reading as much as I can about him these past few days and it is a reasonable inference based on what I have found.

If Gorsuch does believe life begins at conception, then he believes that newly conceived life is a person. Therefore, he believes the life in the womb is endowed with all the same rights as the mother.

I think all this panic over that is a smokescreen. No rational person would believe we're going to be slaughtering mothers left and right if Roe v. Wade is overturned. As I said above, that scenario in this day and age is negligible. Deaths during childbirth are almost at parity with deaths during abortions. Both are extremely low.

It's just another bogus red flag to keep the abortion mills going full steam. They aren't really worried about mothers dying on the birthing table. They are worried the abortion mills will be shut down, period.

We can't let them divert attention away from the mass murder mills.

 

[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.

I was going to give you an "informative" rating but after reading the rest of your post "funny" is going to need to do.

The U.S. Constitution does not mention women anywhere.

It also does not mention abortion.

And it also does not mention euthanasia.

Negro slaves are rated as 3/5th of a non-negro for census purposes.

But women are not mentioned at all.

Either the Founding Freemasons did not think about women, abortion, or euthanasia or else they intended to leave those issues to the various States.

Roe is very bad law. But it would take a Constitutional amendment to restore States' Rights on this issue after Roe.

It's clearly noted that Gorsuch didn't say that there is no constitutional basis for putting a FATHERS life ahead of their child. Did you see that anywhere in that comment, I didn't.

This guy is just another fucking nutcase, that Trump has strewn around his administration, certain to be a special pick of Mike Pence, who signed his own abortion law in Indiana that was immediately overturned by a higher court.
Pence signs new abortion restrictions into law with a prayer

You want to use a Nuclear option, we'll use a Nuclear option in the voting booth in 2018 and again in 2020.

Then Gorsuch complains that too many social issues are showing up in front of the courts, and believes states should decide these issues.

Many of you voted for Rick Santorum in 2012, who is actually on record stating that States have the right to ban birth control contraceptives. IOW your next door neighbor via a ballot will decide for you if you use them or not.
He's still arguing against a Supreme Court decision. Connecticut V Griswold.
Griswold v. Connecticut - Wikipedia

The U.S. Supreme court is there to protect the individuals rights against religious extremists, bigotry and whatever else, and this moron wants to give it to the states to make "their own decisions" on what you do in your PERSONAL LIFE.

 

[yiostheoy]

Murdering a baby or letting the mother die giving birth. Why should the latter have protectio to live over the former? Who got themselves pregnant, her or the baby?

Unwanted pregnancy is normally the result of excessively wanted sexual pleasure.

Medical procedures to "save the mother" are normally irrelevant to the abortion issue.

The only true justification for abortion is unwanted sex, such as in the case of rape or incest.