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

The radical Left won't stop unless the Feds stop them.



The radical Left won't stop unless the Feds stop them.



The radical Left won't stop unless the Feds stop them.



Shall I keep going?!?!?!?!

 

In response to your points in boldface:

1) I'm not so sure it would be illegal, and Collins and Murkowski submitted a bill back in February that pretty much seeks to codify Roe and Casey where they stand:

S. 3713
https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/s3713/BILLS-117s3713is.pdf

So far, there hasn't been any support and maybe it will die on the vine, but who knows?

One of the problems I see here is that Dems seem happier not to resolve this issue so they can continue to use it as a cudgel against Republicans. They had the power to codify Roe in 2009 but they blew it off.

2) The government is already neck deep in healthcare. It already runs a HC system under the Veterans Administration and it has got two massive HC programs in Medicare and Medicaid (though they don't provide the care like VA does).

Secondly, there is the question concerning whether or not abortion-as-contraception qualifies as healthcare. I question that it does even though I think abortion to save a mother's life clearly qualifies as healthcare.

Third, it appears that your argument asserts that the Democratic holy grail of establishing a government-run HC system that all Americans would be forced to participate in would be unconstitutional. As much as I wish that is true I'm not convinced that it is.

 

If they are young and can’t afford it and it’s there FIRST abortion, sure!

 

I said BIRTH CONTROL, NOT ABORTION.

 

Translations: You can't because you know it is all subjective. Now that doesn't mean that a majority of people don't all agree with a particular opinion, but that is still an opinion.

No all do not acknowledge that, especially since you want to claim that "the left" wants the opposite of that. Which still puts it firmly in the realm of subjective opinion.

Look here is how this works.

Paying your food servers/waitstaff/whatever at the tip wage is the better business model - opinion as the opposite (paying them at full wages) is also seen by others as the better business model.

There are businesses who pay their staff full wages and not tip wages and have been successful without an increase in their food prices. - Fact. It's demonstrable. Whether that is the better business model or the worst or anything in between, is all subjective opinion. Better and worse are always subjective opinion values.

 

In my mind the mother has a legitimate right to an abortion to preserve her life.

We have an inherent right to lethal self defense.

A Conservative conserves our constitutional liberal democracy. Judicially, Alito is a textualist as opposed to a consequentialist. A textualist follows the law and constitution as written even if it leads to an outcome that they do not like. They aren't law writers. Law writers proscribe future behavior and in a Free System, the people are entitled to notice so that they have the opportunity to order their lives in a law abiding fashion. When Judges write law, not only is it an illegitimate act, in that they are not elected representatives, but there is no opportunity for notice. Judges, in the textualist view, apply the law to past facts. They do not proscribe future acts.

Now a consequentialist sees this much differently. My favorite consequentialist currently on the Bench is Breyer. He looks at the consequences of the case being heard and works for a just outcome.

Yes. In a monarchy, the Conservatives are Monarchists. In our Constitutional Liberal Democracy, our Conservatives are Constitutionalists and our Constitution forbids a monarchy, so yes, the term Conservative is only meaningful within context.

I think your source completely misses the mark. If Alito's draft is the final, it simply points out that since the Federal Government is not empowered to act in the area of Abortion, it's reserved to the States and the People. If the State has no regulation, then the choice is hers, but, States do have the right to regulate if they can demonstrate a legitimate interest for doing so and the regulation is tailored to that interest. Alito would return the case to the lower court to evaluate Dobbs on that basis, and certainly Dobbs meets that standard and would be upheld.

 

Well, maybe you have a better value system.
Reading of the deficiencies in my view tells me little about your own.

 

I don't think that's exactly right. It is not my position that the left wants the opposite of peace, security and harmony. I think that their philosophy and methods are least likely to get us there. And if they don't want those things, then they are nihilist and that's bad too.

Another thing I'll mention is that the good conservative accepts defeat and moves on. Compare a pro life rally to a pro abortion rally. Pro lifers aren't, I don't think, protesting outside Sotomayor's home and screaming vulgarity through bullhorns. If they are, I condemn it.

And you really will not acknowledge that Zimbabwe, Angola, Haiti, Venezuaela and Somalia are worse countries -- measurably worse, not just subjectively -- than Sweden, Taiwan, Switzerland and Costa Rica?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/227162/most-miserable-countries-in-the-world/


Wow.

 

You did, sorry, my bad. Yes, I don't see a problem with that

 

Yes please, I think you should. Its funny to me they want to milk one riot vs their 300+ riots within 2 years
I think it needs way more pictures and examples (and they are easy to find being that they had so many riots)

 

No “pro- lifers” have been protesting outside of abortion clinics, bombing abortion clinics, shooting staff of abortion clinics for decades
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

Bit more extreme than writing in chalk on a pavement

 

Oh! Dear Gods! This twaddle about “abortion used as birth control” rears its ugly head AGAIN. Yes a large number of women have had more than one abortion but that is over 20-30 years when they had active ovaries

 

And the same entity of 9 robes doing so again.
Is that right? If the 9 robes can't make a constitutional decision that stands, they are pretty worthless. Or the constitutional words written are worthless.
But, word meanings change with the times.

What's wrong with people having a choice? Born people that is.

 

But science has determined, a heartbeat can stop and then be restarted. And those with a stopped heartbeat can recover to a quality form of life.
So a stopped heartbeat was not the correct thinking, if the brain hadn't died.

So now, brainwave activity reflected the new science that proved a stopped heart actually didn't end life.
In the future, maybe it will change again. Actually, someday, it WILL change again.

The only constant in life is, change.

 

So, no gov't can take away a woman's right to choice. To pursue life, liberty, and happiness.

thx

 

"This analysis makes several arguments. First, far-right terrorism has significantly outpaced terrorism from other types of perpetrators, including from far-left networks and individuals inspired by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. Right-wing attacks and plots account for the majority of all terrorist incidents in the United States since 1994, and the total number of right-wing attacks and plots has grown significantly during the past six years. Right-wing extremists perpetrated two thirds of the attacks and plots in the United States in 2019 and over 90 percent between January 1 and May 8, 2020."
https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states

 

And the "Progressive" Summer of Terrorism began in late May 2020.

Did anyone mention that those LW terrorists caused a record amount of damage during their lengthy terrorism campaign?

Yes, someone did.

And Democrats and the "progressive" sturmabteilung are gearing up for another round as we speak...



"Today"

Are you ready to get back on-topic now?

If not, you're free to start your own separate thread on this subject instead of derailing this thread. Thank you.

 

Maybe you are not familiar with what is going on. In order for the Senate to pass a bill, that is not budgetary, they need a 2/3rd majority. Since there are currently 50 Senators that caucus with the Democrats, they need 17 Republicans to go along with the Democrats. So, two are far short of what they need. Additionally, the Democrats cannot agree among themselves. The Congress is even more daunting. They need 286 votes to pass a bill. Currently, there are 220 Democrats in Congress. That means that 66 Republicans would have to vote for the bill. Not very likely before the new Congress is seated in January.

On your third item, the 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Health Care regulating is not a power delegated to the Federal Government. Therefore, that right is reserved to the States and the people. Further, Obamacare did not regulate the Health Care Industry. It regulated the Health Insurance Industry. What many people do not realize is that Health Insurance cannot be sold across state lines. That means that the industry is an Intrastate industry as opposed to an Interstate industry. The Federal Government can regulate Interstate Commerce but not Intrastate Commerce. So yes, Obamacare was not constitutional. If there had been a conservative majority in the SCOTUS at the time, it would have been struck down. Instead, it failed because the law contained illegal provisions. Basically, the provision of bailing out Insurance Companies that suffered losses by adding previously uninsured patients. That provision was ruled illegal because it was not appropriated funds. Even after the courts struck down the provision, the Obama Administration tried to make the payments anyway. The court ended up issuing an injunction that contained an incarceration penalty for noncompliance. Once the payments stopped, insurance companies started pulling out of the program in droves. Many state exchanges ended with few to none choices available to residents. As a result, the courts struck down the mandatory requirement. Obamacare was basically dead at that point.

 

You are shifting the argument. The argument is whether Democrats support criminals. I've shown where and how they do. To make an equivalent argument about my side, you'd have to find a prominent Republicans supporting those plots you describe.

The left usually at the point cites Trump's "very fine people on both sides" remark on that point, but he was obviously referring to people who opposed as well as people who supported the removal of statues, and that's all.

 

Again, the better or worse of something is subjective. I might view my value system as better, but another might view it as worse. Subjective. BTW, the use of the word "value" in context of a "value system" is different from the use of the word in the context of "subjective value"

I happen to agree with you that these are bad countries. However, that is my opinion. Remember that a majority shared opinion is still an opinion. For example, in radical Muslim countries, we consider them worse than our country because of the way they treat women, yet they see our country (and many others) as worse because of the way we treat women. Opinion; subjective view. Sure if I set out a criteria that preventing women from voting is a negative (just as an example criteria) then I can measure which countries are better or worse at allowing women to vote. But that criteria is, in and of itself, an opinion, a subjective view.

 

Oh but they can. They may not be allowed per the constitution, but they still can. We saw it for decades until the fight to end those right violations finally won out.

 

Not with the support of any prominent
conservative lawmaker or of any white house spokesman they haven't. And obviously the chalk was incidental to Sen. Collins' concerns, which were death threats left on her phone. The Democratic media is making light of those threats in light of their focus on the chalk.

 

Biased narrative from a biased website. One of the chief complaints that I have seen of CSIS is that they claim that they have reviewed more than 893 terror plots, but they do not allow access to their databases. Take the Las Vegas mass shooting for instance. It was initially believed that the shooter has a right-wing motivation. Yet, follow-up investigations found that the shooter was in fact a left-winger. So, was this incident attributed as a right-wing or left-wing terrorist attack? Without access to their database, we cannot tell.

Three days before CSIS published your reference article they published an analysis of the threat ANTIFA posed. They started to by claiming that ANTIFA is a decentralized network. So, they cannot know what the intent of the individuals that committed violent acts were. So, they cannot attribute the violence to ANTIFA. I am sorry, but if someone arrives at a riot dress in ANTIFA sanctioned attire, and spouting ANTIFA rhetoric, then it is easy to understand the attacker is supporting ANTIFA. Therefore, it qualifies as a left-wing terrorist attack. But did CSIS count it as a left-wing terrorist attack? Or did they lump them under "other". What about the BLM riots?

Sorry, this source of yours, is completely debatable, and in my opinion, unreliable.

 

You're broadbrushing. It's like saying that Republicans support pedophiles while pointing to those who have supported the Catholic church in moving priests or engaging in pedophilia themselves.

 

You are joking right?