Is there a right to abortion, and if so, where does the right come from?

You are agreeing with me because you know that, per legitimate yardsticks that everyone agrees with, including the very denizens --okay, the overwhelming majority of denizens -- of those bad countries.

It is not "vanilla is better than chocolate and the proof is that I like it better and millions agree."

Of course, vanilla actually is better than chocolate, but that's a different debate.

 

No, I am not joking. There are no Republican lawmakers or white house spokesmen supporting or who have supported right wing terrorism, and yes that's including January 6.

 

Funny the FBI says the same thing

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/fbi-dhs-domestic-terrorism-strategic-report.pdf

 

No. If I were to have broadly stated that "Democrats support crime," that would be a fair criticism. But I didn't, so it's not.

My recollection is that I cited specifically to the case of Rashida Tlaib as representative of "several", meaning "more than two," not "all":

[Me]: Actually, several prominent Dems certainly do "support" criminals by "understanding" and sympathizing with them and calling for their release from prison. Rashida Tlaib is the worst, supporting the closure of all federal prisons.

https://thedispatch.com/p/the-ghost-of-defund-comes-for-rashida?s=r

I hope I don't need to name the other Democrats who are either explicitly or implicitly in solidarity with Rep. Tlaib on this matter of dismantling the "Carceral state."

https://www.axios.com/2021/11/24/white-house-rashida-tlaib-prison-abolition

The left, by which I do not mean liberals, or "democrats", is demonstrably soft on crime. The reason is that they see the system as racist and classist and ascribe no agency to the criminal (unless he's a conservative, of course). On edit, I think it's funny -- literally -- the they don't see the carceral state as sexist as well, since men are overrepresented in the prison systems every where in the world. What's the opposite of misogynist?

But yeah, wherever you see a city in flames or with looters run amok, it isn't likely to be one run by Republicans.

 

The blood isnt taken. It passes through the baby and back to the mother. Only her oxygen and nutrients within the blood are taken.

 

Despite, as I said, the enumerated powers has long since been (unconstitutionally) discarded, the framers were quite clear and adamant that the enumerated powers is all and only that the federal government is allowed to do. However, you are correct and the COTUS explicitly states that rights may (and certainly do) exist that are not listed in it, though it is unclear if the federal government has any authority to enforce those rights -- although it is hard to imagine otherwise.

All quite true.

You are absolutely correct that the MD bill is quite muddled and unclear at the moment. However what is clear is that it is not talking of abortion per se or infanticide, but about abandonment. Plus it is not sanctioning abandonment but just not going to criminally prosecute (under what limitations is not clear, either). The interest and concern is that states and politicians are at least knocking on the door of what seems to be legalized infanticide as the next step of abortion rights.

 

You think Dred Scott should not have been abrogated, or Brown v. Board of Education should not have overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, for just two examples?

 

Precisely what I said, so I agree.

 

No right, even the inalienable God-given ones, is absolute.

 

Unfortunately there are very few feds with the inclination or backbone to stop the left.

 

Weak. Very weak.

You cite incident from nearly 2 yrs ago when a nation was upset with systemic racism and a cop killed a man while kneeling on the neck area.

 

True. They can and they will. Maybe voters will stop them.

The GOP is all about government control of the citizens.
They are against the choice of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for it's citizens.

 

There's no god given rights.
When push comes to shove. Might make right is the only true right there is.

 

Were any of those actually infringing on rights of other people?

 

Pathetic.

I'm citing a months-long orgy of terrorist violence that left a record amount of destruction in its wake from Richmond, VA to Seattle, WA.

And all the while and to this day, their terrorist apologists try to make excuses for their violence and try to minimize what they did.

I'm just getting started but I'm going to leave it there because it's not the subject of this discussion/debate thread. If you want to start a thread on that topic, knock yourself out.

 

Conception.. I am refering to the joining of the "half-individuals" into one.
You are right, we have no right; their purpose and destiny are not ours.

I will qualify here that I am reffering to viable fetuses.. but anything can happen, again, not our call.

This paragr and one above, are verify close to arguing the ezceptions rather than the rule

Let's narrow the rule to human lives, and recognize that "thou shall not kill" is better translated as "thou shall not murder" the definitiuon that can be inferred by the meaning in other verses.

Ut oh.. we are in trouble, we've raised billions of humans who could not survive without societies. If electricity and nothing else, disappeared for a month, the human population wouild be decimated (no, more like 95% would die... of Westerns)

Yes.. and if we could just erase poverty.. and a hundred other ills, the world would be better, but we can't. Jesus Christ said , "the poor will always be with us", that is written in the most infallible book known to mankind. Well that's the end of my argument, from here on it's theology, If you have a problem with the concept of God, save your argument, I've already had every variation of that debate. If you are open to learning the intricacies of what we have of the Word, PM me.

 

The argument of the tyrant.

 

You're citing a nation that was upset with systemic racism.
And a cop killing another person.

 

LoL. Another completely weak argument.

 

È

Socrates invalidated this position 2000+ years ago.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_(Plato)

 

It's completely valid. It goes to the heart of what makes a healthy society. Your "mght makes right" argument validates communist dictatorships and fascist regimes, when both rule without the consent of the governed, who are miserable.

 

We were arguing elsewhere this thread about whether leftists support crime. A few of you took offense. That post is supportive of crime. Upset at one cop in Minnesota? Let's destroy Minneapolis as well as cities in distant states.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans

 

Dred Scott and Plessy infringed the hell out of rights on millions. But the post I responded to was claiming no supreme court would appropriately overturn another SCOTUS' ruling.

 

In what way?