Kavanaugh Asks if Texas Abortion Law Could Be Model for Bans on Gun Rights

[Rigby5]

Abortion is murder. It is, objectively, the killing of an innocent human being.

Wrong.
It the health and choices regarding an unborn, are totally and completely under the jurisdiction of the woman.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Wrong.
It the health and choices regarding an unborn, are totally and completely under the jurisdiction of the woman.

You're talking about a human being. And by speaking of that human being's health and choices being under the jurisdiction of his mother, you're arguing for the right of the mother to kill than human being in cold blood.

There is no spin that you can pout on it, to hide the murderous evil which you are defending, nor to hide what it very clearly tells us about your own murderous character.

 

[Kilroy2]

Constitutional rights can go both ways. You ban one persons rights in order to grant another's persons rights. Who's rights are more important. Definitely a circular argument.

If the court rules in one way then it is a model that can be used in different cases and it sets precedents. Unfortunately precedents can change over time when you have different people sitting on the court years later. Precedents work if you really do not want to think about it to much and just want to go with the flow.

 

[Rigby5]

You're talking about a human being. And by speaking of that human being's health and choices being under the jurisdiction of his mother, you're arguing for the right of the mother to kill than human being in cold blood.

There is no spin that you can pout on it, to hide the murderous evil which you are defending, nor to hide what it very clearly tells us about your own murderous character.

Absolutely.
The mother has the superior jurisdiction over anyone else.
If the mothers instincts aren't enough, no one else has anything better.
If a mother wants to murder her children, so be it.
The reality is that anyone else who claims otherwise is just a hypocrite.
There are thousands of infants dying due to poverty in the US every year, because no one cares.

 

[Rigby5]

Constitutional rights can go both ways. You ban one persons rights in order to grant another's persons rights. Who's rights are more important. Definitely a circular argument.

If the court rules in one way then it is a model that can be used in different cases and it sets precedents. Unfortunately precedents can change over time when you have different people sitting on the court years later. Precedents work if you really do not want to think about it to much and just want to go with the flow.

Usually it is not a right of one vs a right of another.
It is almost always government trying to impose its desires over the rights of a defenseless individual.
Like Prohibition, the War on Drugs, mandatory sentences, asset forfeiture, federal gun laws, and all sorts of illegal legislation the court has failed to stop.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

And nowhere does it give you the right to carry any weapon anywhere.

Seems like you are starting to catch on. The Constitution is often not very clear about things. So we have a SCOTUS that determines what is constitutional and what is not.

Shall not be infringed is pretty damn clear.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Absolutely.
The mother has the superior jurisdiction over anyone else.
If the mothers instincts aren't enough, no one else has anything better.
If a mother wants to murder her children, so be it.
The reality is that anyone else who claims otherwise is just a hypocrite.
There are thousands of infants dying due to poverty in the US every year, because no one cares.

The US spends billions every year on poverty.

 

[Kilroy2]

Usually it is not a right of one vs a right of another.
It is almost always government trying to impose its desires over the rights of a defenseless individual.
Like Prohibition, the War on Drugs, mandatory sentences, asset forfeiture, federal gun laws, and all sorts of illegal legislation the court has failed to stop.

Well whenever the government impose its desire it really is the desire of some and not all. The government has become the will of political parties or ideologies that determines what they can do and cannot do based on the majority of votes.

 

[Kilroy2]

Privacy is a Constitutional right, prohibiting government from interfering in personal matters, such as whether to have a child or not.

The right to privacy is about limited government, it’s about individuals – not the government – knowing best about how to conduct their private lives.

Conservatives once believed in limited government, in respecting the privacy of individuals – that’s clearly no longer the case; that hasn’t been the case for nearly 50 years.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It is the individuals decision but some seem to like to want to make that decision for others under the premise of deciding what makes them happy.

 

[JoeB131]

Like all British passenger liners, the HMS Lusitania was also registered as a naval warship. It was built with gun mountings that had been fitted with cannon when the war started. They were covered with canvas, but can be seen by divers going to the wreckage. And the whole point of the Lusitania going to the US was to pick up munition, so then it was a legal target. Haven't you read the NY Times warning yet, telling everyone the Lusitania was going to be sunk? Or how about reading that the HMS Queen Elizabeth liner was used for war in the Falklands?

Yes, and that was the point. Americans died on the Lusitania, Germany promised to not do that again, and then they kept doing it and even escalated.

When you give a release to a country like the US and the Zimmerman Letter, you do NOT translate it.
You have to give it to them intact, as proof.
We know exactly what the German wording was in the Zimmerman Letter given to the US.
And it was NOT in English and did not have just translation differences from the one actually cabled.
There are also differences in sentence order, length, etc.
The Zimmerman Letter the US was given came from Berlin, not from decrypting the cable.
Decrypting was the false cover story to protect Berlin sources.

The point is, Zimmerman did admit the cable was geniuine.

The cypher was numeric... so you'd have to decide which words those numbers meant in German vs. English.

There was not some Jewish conspriacy... The Germans fucked up. Then again, the Germans fucked up pretty much from the point Franz Ferdinand was shot up until the Kaiser got deposed because he wanted to send his navy on a suicide mission.

But your whole take on submarine warfare is totally wrong. Germany did not start submarine warfare and was never the main player. England had the larger submarine fleet, and the defeat of Germany came from British AND US submarines sinking civilian German shipping. So your condemnation of Germany is totally and completely misplaced, totally a product of anti German WWI propaganda. You probably also believe German soldiers barbecued and ate Belgian infants like the propaganda claimed?

The ironic thing. My grandfather fought in the Kaiser's army in World War I. (He immigrated to the US in 1925, and stopped calling himself Ludwig and started going by Louis). And, yes, the Germans were not only torpedoing British civilian ships, but AMERICAN ships. That's what America was upset about. AMERICANS WERE DYING.

And the ONLY reason why the British were considering partitioning Palestine was to appease the Zionists.
According to the original Mandate, the Zionists were to get nothing.
The Balfour Declaration only allowed facilitated immigration.
It gave Jews NOTHING else.

But that was the point, wasn't it? To put a population in Palestine that would require British protection.

Keep in mind, the main goal of the British was to keep the Suez Canal Open to keep cheap goods flowing in from India. While Egypt was essentially a British "Protectorate", it had its own government that at some point might throw the Brits out. So having a nearby population dependent on them was a boon.

And your political ignorance is very irritating.
YOU are the right winger.
I am a gazillion times more left wing than you could ever be.
And it is you who are babbling obvious propaganda, while I have carefully determined the facts from all possible sources.

Actually, you are kind of a crazy person... I mean, sometimes I have fun toying with crazies and their know it all attitudes...

 

[JoeB131]

You're talking about a human being. And by speaking of that human being's health and choices being under the jurisdiction of his mother, you're arguing for the right of the mother to kill than human being in cold blood.

There is no spin that you can pout on it, to hide the murderous evil which you are defending, nor to hide what it very clearly tells us about your own murderous character.

Fetuses aren't people.. if they were, then we would treat every miscarriage as a homicide investigation. (You know, instead of just the occasional poor person of color like Purvi Patel)

We would charge pregnant women with assault if they smoked or drank during their pregnancy.

At the end of the day, you can't give Fetuses human rights without deducting the human rights of the women they are inside.

A woman can give up her rights because she wants a baby, sure. But that's her choice just as much as ending a pregnancy is her choice.

 

[Unkotare]

Fetuses aren't people.. ...

Is a ten year-old a person?

 

[JoeB131]

Is a ten year-old a person?

Since a 10 year old can live outside it's mother's body, obviously.

Don't be stupid....

 

[2aguy]

Since a 10 year old can live outside it's mother's body, obviously.

Don't be stupid....

A 2 year old can't live outside the mothers body either........without care.....so we can now kill them too?

 

[Unkotare]

Since a 10 year old can live outside it's mother's body, obviously.

....

Is a 20 year-old a person?

 

[2aguy]

Is a 20 year-old a person?

Apparently not if they can't take care of themselves.......right? According to Joe......without someone else to care for them, there are 20 year olds who can't survive outside the womb.....right?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

With abortion we are on the same side, but I disagree the Constitution is what the SCOTUS says it is.
The principles are higher than the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS can and has gotten it wrong before.
Like the Dread Scott decision. That was truly awful. And just like I think all state or federal abortion laws are illegal, I think all drug laws and federal gun laws are illegal.

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, as originally intended by Framers, and as codified in Article VI of the Constitution.

The right to privacy is in the Constitution as determined by the Supreme Court, prohibiting the states from banning abortion; that the word ‘privacy’ isn’t in the Constitution is irrelevant.

The right to marry is in the Constitution as determined by the Supreme Court, prohibiting the states from banning interracial couples from marrying; that the word ‘marriage’ isn’t in the Constitution is irrelevant.

And the individual right to possess a firearm and the right to self-defense are in the Constitution as determined by the Supreme Court, prohibiting government from banning handguns; that the words ‘individual’ and ‘self-defense’ aren’t in the Constitution is irrelevant.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So what? We have courts that interpret the constitution. Abortion is a constitutionally protected right protected by right to privacy. Nowhere in the constitution does it say anyone can own an assault rifle, either. So you literalists undermine all of your own fantasies with this nonsense.

Correct.

If the Supreme Court holds that there is an individual right to possess a firearm in the Constitution, then there likewise exists a right to privacy, as held by the Supreme Court.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways just because they like guns and oppose the right to privacy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nowhere does the 2nd have an except for clause.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment does it say the right is ‘unlimited’ and not subject to regulations and restrictions.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Abortion is murder. It is, objectively, the killing of an innocent human being.

This is a lie.

Abortion is not ‘murder.’