Roe overturned

[Man of Ethics]

I am sure you can show where that exists??

The Bible stresses the duty to help the poor. I am sorry I do not have sources off-hand.

 

[progressive hunter]

The Bible stresses the duty to help the poor. I am sorry I do not have sources off-hand.

the bible yes,, the constitution no,,

 

[Esdraelon]

The sad thing is most of the violence, if it occurs, will be in Blue States where Abortion rights are being protected above and beyond even fence sitters consider reasonable.

Yeah, they may seem stupid but when it comes to self-protection, they know where they stand. They won't be acting out in Red States.

 

[Captain Caveman]

I'll try this one more time: How do the needs of them men outweigh the needs of the woman? You were the one asking if I agreed that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. So, with my question, I'm asking HOW. I'm not asking about what you "hope" will happen.

I'm sure they all know how to prevent them but, unfortunately, if the woman is pregnant that ship has already sailed.

So, if a pregnant woman in Colorado wants to get an abortion, and ten pro-life men in Maine don't want her two, why should the "needs" of the men, who don't want her to have an abortion, take precedence.

I'm holding on to the thinnest of hopes that you'll actually be able to provide a real answer...



Wow. That'd be pretty stupid...



I've asked my question again, quite clearly.

I'm simply trying to get YOUR answer to MY question. Your "answer" responds to a question I haven't asked...

I'll try again too, people need to remember how to prevent unwanted pregnancies again because we ought to act always as to produce the greatest good for the greatest possible number.

The many do not seek abortions, the few do. Abortion causes psychological, moral, financial and long term problems on societies. The many suffer from the few because they need to learn how to prevent unwanted pregnancies again.

You do know the effects that abortions have on society, do you? I assumed you did, but evidently, obviously not due to your confusion.

So what's your answer to Spock's wisdom now that you know abortion impacts on society?

 

[woodwork201]

My first post on this site 14 years ago was on overturning Roe.

Thank you for that!

 

[woodwork201]

I see you are clueless... The judicial branch is not supposed to make laws. They aren't to control anything beyond their appointed status given in the Constitution. They are to judge a case base on the law and not their opinion, religious beliefs, politics or anything else. Roe sidestepped this because there is nothing about abortion in the Constitution. The 13th, 14th and 15th amendment have nothing to do with a woman's right to privacy. It was all about the freeing of slaves. Whatever is not expressly written in the Constitution must be given back to the States to decide. For 200 years, that's how this issue was decided. 200 years of precedence snuffed out in 1973. If's ironic that Democrats demand democracy when talking about Trump. But now, they don't want democracy. They want tyranny from the courts. This decisions strengthens democracy in which you Democrats claim you love. You keep saying we are a democracy when we are actually a Constitutional Republic with a democratic process. Now, the people in each state get to vote on propositions and elect their representatives to handle this question of abortion. Seems to make lots of sense.

Great post overall but I would like to point out one thing: The Constitution requires that all of the States have a republican form of government. Ballot propositions are democratic and are expressly unconstitutional.

 

[woodwork201]

The court kicked the can from the Supreme Court to 50 states

Each state will now run partisan opinions on whether Abortion should be allowed

Political power will determine

There may be alignment with majority opinions one way or the other but these are personal opinions people have and those moral questions are properly handled at the State level and aren't partisan.

Many Republicans support abortion. Many Democrats do not - though I will never understand how a person who believes in the value of the life of the unborn could ever vote for Democrats; there's no other thing that the Democrats might be for that is more important than saving human lives... But Democrats are hypocrites by definition so even supposed pro-life Democrats vote for killing babies.

Actually, I don't really believe any Democrat who claims to be pro-life. I think they only say that because it might be necessary to get elected in their districts.

 

[woodwork201]

Tell that to Justice Thomas who has already brought up doing so.

Justice Thomas was referring to the fact that the Federal Government has no authority to set marriage regulations and those also belong at the States. He didn't suggest making it illegal or legal but only to return them to the States - and he's absolutely right, that's where it belongs. All of these other rights he mentioned, were decided on the basis of a made up constitutional theory that is as fraudulent and made up as was the right to privacy - namely Substantive Due Process.

 

[woodwork201]

They will wait till after the mid-terms.

Then once it is gone birth control will be next.

Not sure if they will get to interracial marriage, somehow I think Thomas will not touch that one for some reason.

Interracial marriage is protected by the Constitution. It is, and should be, and will be, safe.

Birth control - I'm not against it. I think my religion was back in the 70s. But I suppose that it is still up to the States to decide for themselves. The States have a lot of freedom based on common law police powers limited mostly only by what's in the State Constitution or what's prohibited to the States by the Federal Constitution.

Substantive Due Process is the fake power of the Federal Government used to reverse State laws that the Supreme Court thinks goes beyond reasonable and, as Justice Thomas has indicated, it's time to revisit the entire concept of Substantive Due Process since there's no constitutional basis for it.

I would hate for us to have a 900 page constitution like some countries but perhaps both sides will realize that it is by changing the Constitution that many of the changes we all want can be done. Maybe we'll see more amendments. I'm not sure that's a good thing, though; it's that they're so difficult that makes our form of government work.

 

[woodwork201]

Yes that's why it's correct to take the control of their own bodies away.

Nobody takes away control of the woman's body - at least not legally. The woman has complete control of with whom she has consensual sex and anyone who violates that by rape should get the death penalty or, for the sissies in the room, life in prison without parole.

When she has consensual sex, she gave away control over her body, splitting it with the unborn baby inside her. The control wasn't taken; it was surrendered voluntarily - you know, by choice, her choice.

 

[gipper]

If Obama got a law passed that protected abortion rights, SCOTUS could have overturned it with Roe based on the same reasoning Thomas used in the majority opinion; the federal government does not have power to regulate abortion and there it must be left to the states.

Is this an excuse for O’s fallure?

The USG is doing numerous things not granted in the constitution and this has gone on for decades. Seldom does the SC declare these things unconstitutional.

Obama proclaimed many times during his 2008 campaign that he would enact an abortion law, then once in office he dropped it.

 

[woodwork201]

And even Thomas would not take it to interracial marriage for obvious reasons even though it falls under the same logic.

Interracial marriage does not fall under the same logic. The 14th Amendment clearly protects interracial marriage.

In Missouri is is now illegal after 8 weeks, many women do not even know they are pregnant at 8 weeks.

Well, hopefully that will change. But not the way you'd like. Hopefully it will become illegal at 0 weeks.

 

[woodwork201]

A baby is a born human. And once that human is born, they can get shot up by some idiot with an AR 15. This is how stupid people like you are.

I explained to you, proved beyond any possible doubt to you, that without abortion there would be over 100 million black Americans today and yet you continue to promote abortion. That's 50 million black lives on your hands.

I've proven to you that abortion has killed more black babies than there were slaves in the United States, black Americans lynched, black people killed in prisons, black people killed by crime, in the entire history of the United States.. Every single thing you spend your life complaining about what whitey did to black people, adds up to fewer dead, fewer injured, fewer affected, than the number of black babies killed by abortion.

You, and others like you, have caused more black genocide than every white racist or slave owner in the history of the United States. More blood on your hands than on the hands of every slave owner or lyncher or racist in the United States.

When are you going to recognize that you personally, in partnership with Planned Parenthood and the idol you worship more than Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.: Margaret Sanger, are the source of more evil against black people than every white person in the entire history of America?

 

[Lisa558]

Roe V Wade made it a right

And that was not constitutional, and this court corrected that.

 

[woodwork201]

I'm not really feeling the need to respond to such a hostile confrontation. However, I will say that the Constitutional argument in favor of permitting abortions in cases of rape has nothing to do with punishing the child for the sins of the father.

Wow. A bit on the defensive side.

I know you understand that abortion involves ripping apart, limb from limb, head, back, internals, from a living, often feeling, human being, right? So if you think there's constitutional or moral justification for ever doing that to another human being, I'd like to hear what that justification is.

If you think that it is never, ever, justified, for any reason except for emergency treatment to save the life of the mother and only then with explicit permission from the mother, I'd love to hear that, too.

I just have a problem with people (maybe you're not one of them; a simple answer would clear it up) who claim to be against ripping apart the body, limb from limb, head from the body, etc., of a living, feeling, human being but then say that there are cases where it's OK so we can protect someone's feelings.... Know what I mean?

So please, if I misread posts from you in the past, just clear it up: are you against all abortions no matter what except in the emergency care to save the life of the mother?

 

[woodwork201]

Empathy is bad, rational compassion is better. Like I said, empathy can cause evil, because it causes dehumanisation and objectification, and those are partly caused by empathy for the self.

Against Empathy was written by Paul Bloom. He talks about Rational Compassion and you can see this played out in life. It's just that I see more Left Wing leaning people go for empathy, and Right Wing leaning people display rational compassion. You see this particularly with illegal immigration.

So I see it that they apply empathy for the mother, we take the unborn baby into account due to rational compassion.

There are some critics to Against Empathy, but after reading the book, it's bang on.

I see your point now; thanks. But I'll argue that conservatives are capable of feeling empathy and still making the right logical choices. Real empathy understands the concept of give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

We have compassion and empathy for the poor but we understand that feeding them perpetuates their poverty. Fighting government to improve schools and demanding personal accountability and responsibility will lead them into a lifetime of success.

We are conservatives because of our empathy for the poor. Liberals are liberal because of their pity for the poor.

 

[woodwork201]

Absolutely. That you would even ask such a question demonstrates how absolutely fucking stupid you are...



Does your church believe that sex outside of marriage is moral? Doesn't sex outside of marriage impact the lives of both individuals?

How can you be such a fucking hypocrite?



Go fuck yourself, you cocksucking little bitch.

I successfully raised a child who's now quite a successful woman. When my daughter's mother got pregnant, she and I were not married. So, what did I do? What did I, this person you seem to know so much about, do?

I married her. She and I were together for 27 years, and married for 26, when I lost her.

Don't pretend to know a single thing about me, you ignorant fuck, because it makes you look monumentally stupid when you do...



She and I have spoken of marriage but, at this point in our lives, neither of us are going anywhere and she can't have any more children. But, if she were to, somehow, magically get pregnant, I'd marry her in a New York minute, and she knows it.

No, I would not expect her to terminate the pregnancy, and nothing I've said on this forum would give even the slightest intelligent individual that impression.

You're ignorant and stupid and you know nothing about me.

But, again, keep pretending that you know what the fuck you're talking about...

You said that abortion is a moral question based on our religion. You're wrong. If moral questions come only from religion then rape would be in the same category. You claim you're ok with punishing rapists so is that because of your religion? Your anger just proves that you're a hypocrite and that I've proven it absolutely.

I'm pretty sure I've also never suggested that two people get married because they make a baby. I'm very careful to speak of commitment and not marriage. You don't need a piece of paper from the Church or State to make and be a family but you do need a forever commitment. I'm glad you and your baby's mother did that.

Just don't tell me that my objection to ripping apart, limb-by-limb, the body of a feeling, unborn, baby is invalid because leaders of my church also object to the ripping apart, limb-by-limb, the body of a feeling, unborn, baby, and then you don't apply the same logic to your own objection to rape. It shows you for the hypocrite that you are and makes you irrelevant in the discussion.

 

[woodwork201]

The reason I don't like abortion, and I assume the reason everyone else that hates abortion hates it, is that it kills a living baby, often a baby developed to the point of feeling pain. On Fox last week they showed video from an in-the-womb blood draw of a very small baby. When the needle went in, you could see the baby squirm in pain.

Abortion is ripping apart the body of a living, feeling, human being, limb from limb, pulling the head from the neck and spine, and sucking out the parts with a vacuum.

Last I heard, the abortion of babies created from rape or incest are aborted exactly the same. There's no special, not-painful, not violent, not evil, way to abort a rape baby or an incest baby. Aborting a rape or incest baby is every bit as cruel, painful, and evil as is aborting a baby for birth control.

Is the sin of a rape baby's conception justification to do this to the baby?

 

[woodwork201]

Absolutely. That you would even ask such a question demonstrates how absolutely fucking stupid you are...



Does your church believe that sex outside of marriage is moral? Doesn't sex outside of marriage impact the lives of both individuals?

How can you be such a fucking hypocrite?



Go fuck yourself, you cocksucking little bitch.

I successfully raised a child who's now quite a successful woman. When my daughter's mother got pregnant, she and I were not married. So, what did I do? What did I, this person you seem to know so much about, do?

I married her. She and I were together for 27 years, and married for 26, when I lost her.

Don't pretend to know a single thing about me, you ignorant fuck, because it makes you look monumentally stupid when you do...



She and I have spoken of marriage but, at this point in our lives, neither of us are going anywhere and she can't have any more children. But, if she were to, somehow, magically get pregnant, I'd marry her in a New York minute, and she knows it.

No, I would not expect her to terminate the pregnancy, and nothing I've said on this forum would give even the slightest intelligent individual that impression.

You're ignorant and stupid and you know nothing about me.

But, again, keep pretending that you know what the fuck you're talking about...

I apologize for the part about you asking your girlfriend to kill the baby. I was thinking about another member who has said specifically that he wants throw away women and would not marry them. I confused the two. I apologize.

 

[woodwork201]

And after you look into it that is UTTER BS. She is going after this crap under Title ix where they are using the 1972 law to force trans into the sport. The law pushed in her state would be nothing more than grandstanding. Her legal teams said it would be tied up in court and CHANGE NOTHING.

She is after a coalition of states to go after the NCAA...........And force the laws under Title ix. to be changed.

The Swamp doesn't like her.......so they are making up this BS against her like they always do.

Bull crap. The question about what her lawyers told her only came up after the outrage over her veto. Let it tie up in court. Don't let the opportunity to stand up go by but she buckled to pressure from the NCAA to keep games in her state. She's as reliable of a conservative as is GWB.