Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
read it in context as the points I’ve made against Saint beagle9 who argues life is life with no distinctions between the stage of conception and the stage of first breath,What are you talking about ?
read it in context as the points I’ve made against Saint beagle9 who argues life is life with no distinctions between the stage of conception and the stage of first breath,
You search for snippets and complain you don’t understand.
Read St bvvgl and try to stand by his Jesus based view of society’s role in controlling outcomes of pregnancy in Biblical terms.
A pig flew past my bedroom window.....so maybe.
This is in the Constitution section and your blatherings about "the government has no right...." don't hold water.
I asked you to support your claim about women being forced to suffer.
I'd be as pissed at him as I get when I read Roe.
The SCOTUS rules on LAW. •••• What has been going on here is a moral discussion. •••• I don't want the SCOTUS ruling based on morals. That is not their job.
Don't think the SCOTUS really does much with common law.....not that I recall.
Legislators can pass laws for whatever reason they want as long as they don't violate anything
Legislatures pass laws. •••• That's what they do. •••• If there is something unconstutitonal about them (state or federal) the courts respond. •••• They respond based on legal reasoning. •••• Not moral reasoning.
1. There is no such right (to avoid physical harm).
3. This is about the 10th amendment and the lack of anything in the Constitution that connects the federal government to abortion. It was that way for almost 200 years. Dobbs put it back where it belonged.
ALL I have said is that this belongs to the states. I never have defended it.
Show where I said I was anit/pro abortion. •••• I said courts rule based on the law. •••• End of that discussion.
As you on the left like to say....."The courts don't agree". In this case they rarely don't agree as it looks like the states, for the most part, will keep it legal. •••• Paint it any color you like, states are exercising that right. •••• That you don't agree, makes it a fallacy. •••• No legal argument whatsoever.
What I said was based on the Constitution.
It is not a private right. It never was and the court set it straight.
Prior to Roe, all states had some form of abortion law. That is their perogative.
I never said I was pro/anti abortion. In other words, I've never commented on the morality of it.
I also have never said I wanted the states to be anti-abortion
If you can show me where the Constitution says they have that protection {right not to be harmed by a government} , I'll gladly change my mind (and you can spare me the "right to privacy"
It's not my argument.
The SC will rule that the federal government should not be involved. •••• States will then do the will of the people in the state and determine if they can have an abortion. ••••
From what I have read, more than 30 states will allow it with little or no restriction.
how'z about the one with the uterus gets to make that decision?
I think the general response (right or wrong) is that there is someone in that uterus who might have a vested interest in the decision....but who has no voice.
Overturning Roe v. Wade would be such a significant decision because it would be the first time in the history of the Constitution that precedent would be overturned to limit civil rights, not expand them," according to Neama Rahmani, the president of West Coast Trial Lawyers and a former federal prosecutor.
It is certainly no discussion about the constitution.
What the ?..... ROTFLMBODuring Roe No states could harm women
In Dobbs, Catholics on the USSC made the immoral decision to allow states have a right to harm law abiding women by popular rule.
Under Dobbs Red States now once again can harm women. Blue states do not harm women
Before Roe Red States harmed women. Blue States did not harm women.
HikerGuy83 is on record leaning favorable to allowing Government to harm Women again but we have to guess where Mr HikerGuy stands on abortion.
hkrgy.22.05.22 #3,531
hkrgy.23.06.19 #9,323
hkrgy.23.06.19 #9,318
hkrgy.22.05.27 #3,560
hkrgy.23.05.22 #3,562
hkrgy.23.06.13 #9,193
hkrgy.23.06.15 #9,211
hkrgy.23.06.15 #9,212
hkrgy.23.06.15 #9,212
hkrgy.23.06.15 #9,217
hkrgy.23.06.15 #9,217
hkrgy.23.06.15 #9,228
hkrgy.23.06.15 #9,230
hkrgy.23.06.15 #9,234
hkrgy.23.06.15 #9,236
hkrgy.23.06.15 #9,236
hkrgy.23.06.15 #9,236
hkrgy.23.06.15 #9,236
hkrgy.23.06.15 #9,237
hkrgy.22.01.10 #427
nf.23.06.20 #9,324
HikerGuy83 is on record leaning favorable to allowing Government to harm Women again but we have to guess where Mr HikerGuy stands on abortion.What the ?..
Hereby seeking permission from Universal Chief Justice Hikerguy the matter of major precedent being overturned by six Catholics on the US Supreme Court. Half of which were appointed by Trump in one presidential term after much shenanigans going on in the United States Senate. Can we?
skvws.22.05.22 #1
hkrgy.23.06.18 #9,308
nf.23.06.20. #9,326
Current legal personhood occurs at birth, but current legal personhood is discriminatory bullshit and we can change the fucking law.
Hereby seeking permission from Universal Chief Justice Hikerguy the matter of major precedent being overturned by six Catholics on the US Supreme Court.
Sure. Start a thread on it.
Who cares if they are catholics, jews, or athiests
Catholics who care about the reputation of the Church being soiled by its high profile adherents like Justice Alito.
In early July 2008, Samuel Alito stood on a riverbank in a remote corner of Alaska. The Supreme Court justice was on vacation at a luxury fishing lodge that charged more than $1,000 a day, and after catching a king salmon nearly the size of his leg, Alito posed for a picture. To his left, a man stood beaming: Paul Singer, a hedge fund billionaire who has repeatedly asked the Supreme Court to rule in his favor in high-stakes business disputes. •••• Singer was more than a fellow angler. He flew Alito to Alaska on a private jet. If the justice chartered the plane himself, the cost could have exceeded $100,000 one way. •••• In the years that followed, Singer’s hedge fund came before the court at least 10 times in cases where his role was often covered by the legal press and mainstream media. In 2014, the court agreed to resolve a key issue in a decade-long battle between Singer’s hedge fund and the nation of Argentina. Alito did not recuse himself from the case and voted with the 7-1 majority in Singer’s favor. The hedge fund was ultimately paid $2.4 billion. •••• Alito did not report the 2008 fishing trip on his annual financial disclosures. By failing to disclose the private jet flight Singer provided, Alito appears to have violated a federal law that requires justices to disclose most gifts, according to ethics law experts. •••• Experts said they could not identify an instance of a justice ruling on a case after receiving an expensive gift paid for by one of the parties. ••••Justice Samuel Alito took luxury fishing vacation with GOP billionaire who later had cases before the court 23.06.21^alito Learjet fishing ••••“If you were good friends, what were you doing ruling on his case?” said Charles Geyh, an Indiana University law professor and leading expert on recusals. “And if you weren’t good friends, what were you doing accepting this?” referring to the flight on the private jet.
hkrgy.23.06.20 #9,329
nf.23.06.22 #9,331
You didn’t just miss the point of that quote, you literally quoted the relevant part and maliciously ignored it.if you agree with Brave Cplus6 that “current legal personhood occurs at birth”
Viability is again completely irrelevant. •••• Your current ability to breathe doesn’t make you alive, it doesn’t make you a human being, and it doesn’t make you a person, either.
Current legal personhood occurs at birth, •••• but current legal personhood is discriminatory bullshit and we can change the fucking law. This stark raving fucktard is basically arguing that the law is correct because it is the law, which doesn’t remotely account for the times and locations where many born humans weren’t given legal personhood.
Moreover, anyone who reads back through the history of this thread - and I would pity any such suffering soul having to read his drivel - can easily notice that this fucktard only started blathering about “viability” once he was backed into a corner over his stupid fucktard lies.
I've Stated my position on it. Actually with Roe gone the chance of fetal personhood (complete personhood) laws passing is LESS because now States can legislate abortion restrictions as they see fit.
’ve run out of ways to tell you to go fuck yourself, to kill yourself, and preferably do them at the same time. •••• The abortion debate is a personhood debate, you vindictively ignorant shitcunt.
Current legal personhood occurs at birth,
All abortions involve the health of a mother, as it's her body being assaulted.
A human being who has done no wrong and harmed no one is innocent. You cannot justify violence against an innocent and helpless human being.
Getting an "abortion" is the assault.
I've Stated my position on it. Actually with Roe gone the chance of fetal personhood (complete personhood) laws passing is LESS because now States can legislate abortion restrictions as they see fit.
approximately 98.7% of abortions occur in the first trimester (first 20 weeks) of pregnancy. ref^23.06.16
The abortion debate is a personhood debate
its on you to say what they are guilty of that they need to be killed??
You dishonest piece of shit.If the abortion debate is a personhood debate then there is no constitutional or lawful justification for a state to ban the abortion medical procedure when the only recognized human being who is qualified to be a person is involved under the law.
