FoxHastings said: ↑ Why do you hate everyone, even women, having rights?? I don't demand people take vaccine but think they're stupid and uncaring about others especially CHILDREN. Vaccines protect OTHERS, they protect society...now you just stop advocating that people take smallpox vaccine so they die a horrible death....and all other vaccines that protect the PUBLIC. Abortion does NOT affect society or anyone but the woman having one. It is part of her body just like your heart is so NO one can make you give them your heart if they need a new one.. Why do you hate everyone, even women, having rights??
I think morally government does not have the right to ban abortion, legally is a different matter. Where are all you guys screaming "Objective morality isn't relevant in the matter, abortion is legal"? Well, now that state governments can legally ban abortions, how's that "it's legal" argument working out for you?
Maybe - and one could certiainly make a moral argument .. but this is not a moral question w/r to Gov't involvement .. its a legal one. Under the "Rules"/ "Principles" of "OUR" constitutional republic - gov't has no legitimate authority to mess with essential liberty .. the constitution just outlines a few .. and by no means is all inclusive .. and was never intended as such. There is no debate as to whether or not a woman's ability to do what she wishes with her own body is "Essential Liberty" Thus - Gov't has no legitimate authority to mess with it "OF its OwN VOLITION" .. the vast majority don't understand the "OFits own Volition" part.. In such cases - having no legit authority of its own .. if Gov't wants to make such law it must appeal to "We the People" for consent. The bar for this appeal however is NOT 50+1 .. NOT Simple Majority Mandate .. the bar is overwhelming majority .. at least 2/3rds. "Why people Cry" Why not 50+1 .. or because some dude got elected. and here we come to the educational part of the program .. Why ? Why not 50+1 or SSM ..
Yes it does in the context in which I answered. See what happens when a non-American tries to criticize the country in which they have little knowledge? The Constitution was not our founding document. The Declaration of Independence was. Yet you do not operate under our Constitution, we do. This is about abortion "law" we can continue to debate or we can debate abortions themselves I am wide open for both. What I find is that the pro-abortion side does not want to discuss either on civil and rational and legal terms in the former and scientific in the latter because their arguments fail to be sustained.
Abortion was an issue then and it was an issue before then and an issue after then. The RvW decision was bad from the day it was create 50 years ago. That is why it has been repeatedly challenged and redressed and fitted with all sorts of baseless standards and statements. And to claim abortions did not occur in 1789 is just raw uninformed nonsense. And our founding document is quite clear 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, My interpretation has nothing to do with religion so your arguments for sustaining abortion because to not to is religious is fallacious on it's face. And if my pursuit of happiness is molesting young children I don't have a constitutional right to do so do I? There is no right to abortion in the Constitution, period. It is not something delegated to the Federal Government so it is left to the people in their respective states. You do know this ruling did NOT make a mother killing her unborn baby ILLEGAL. It was a pure constitutional matter. And with all the modern day HIGHLY effective birth control methods, women can still monitor their cycles and know when they would be fertile, BC prevents that but in that extremely rare case there is no constitutional right to an orgasm through heterosexual intercourse so sustain, and even over the counter cheap morning after pills that prevent the woman from becoming fertile and conception taking place. So stop with the phony hysterics and Handmaid Tails comparisons.
Abortion laws will be determined by the fifty separate states according to the will of THEIR people, not people of the entire country. California and New York will not be able to bully the rest of the states.
My God what a preposterous bout of projecting what you are doing onto others. You are the one deflecting from the "Fact" what what you claim is a fact .. is not a fact. Your claim that a single human cell is a human .. claiming this a fact in a debate over whether or not this cell is a human .. is as nosensical as it gets. Restating a position over and over .. be it dumb or stupid or otherwise .. is not support for claim. Who told you the soul arrives at conception .. where do you get this nosensical idea from .. that a single human cell is "A Child" Support this ridiculous claim of yours .. rather than running around crying "its a fact .. its a fact"
We as a society through our government retain that right under the Constitution to do so. The federal government can no longer ban the people in their respective states from determining what the law should be, where in our moral and ethical society should the law be concerning a mother killing her unborn baby. Former US Attorney Andrew McCarthy stated what actually occurred with this ruling quite well especially pointing out that Roe Was Never Law A controversial subject that should never have been wrested from the people in the states has now been returned to them. There is no mincing words: The Supreme Court’s historic Dobbs ruling made Friday a great day for life. A great day for the restoration of American constitutional law, too. And a great day for democracy in our republic. It marks a high moment for the United States Supreme Court, which has been tested as never before. It stood firm and yet restrained, acknowledging that the great public-policy decisions in our society are to be made by free, self-determining people, not unelected judges.... ..... In Roe, seven willful politicians in robes usurped the power of the putatively sovereign states to regulate abortion. Unless a constitutional right was at stake, the federal judiciary had no business intruding on the internal governance of the states, particularly over matters of health and safety that are the traditional domain of the states. But the Constitution does not speak to abortion. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s Dobbs concurrence reminds us of Justice Antonin Scalia’s bracing but inarguable point in Casey: the “States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so.” Permit it on demand, forbid it entirely, or implement some regulatory regime between those two polar opposites. It is simply not a constitutional question. Ergo, a judicial edict on it, Roe, has always been a usurpation of authority under the guise of law, not an authoritative explication of the law. [he goes on to note Scalia in the Dobb's decision referencing] .... the eminent liberal legal scholar John Hart Ely memorably described the salient feature of the Roe excrescence when it first appeared: The decision is not merely “bad constitutional law”; rather “it is not constitutional law and gives no sense of an obligation to try to be.” It was never law at all. The very able lawyers who have defended Roe over the decades have eschewed arguments rooted in the Constitution. Roe has been defended as precedent: The decision commanded deference because it happened, not because it was compelling — or even coherent. It could never be justified on its own terms as linear, logical, legitimately rooted law. worth reading entire article here by have to be a subscriber..https://www.nationalreview.com/2022...aign=hero&utm_content=related&utm_term=second He also goes on to note that Roe was actually not even in "effect", that it's reasoning and lack of basis was so unsustainable that it had been replace thirty years ago by Casey in order to save it and a razor thin majority court came up with the "undue burden" standard without and clear definition of what is an "undue burden" which has required constant court challenges and shifting opinions. As former justice Ginsberg intimated, RvW was headed to this point from the day it was issued.
Did you not understand the question ? Why not 50+1 .. or SSM .. I understand that the States will decide this by 50+1 or SSM .. what you don't understand is why this is an anathema to a Constitutional Republic.
To outlaw after deliberation and debate? That beats hell out of 9 lawyers in robes setting abortion policy by fiat. Welcome to democracy. Ain't it great?
This ruling is a State vs Federal Government issue. I believe the smaller a government, the more rights an individual has. To allay the fears of the colonies that a national Church might impose itself on the different faiths, our enlightened Founding Fathers gave the States more rights than the Federal Government. Little by little those rights and freedoms have been taken away by liberal judges legislating from the bench, when it's something that should have been left to the American people and their elected representatives. Today of course with the Globalist World Economic Forum and its Great Reset, our rights are being completely taken away as is our sovereignty, while we're being deceived more and more into submission by a controlled and compliant press. This land we love so mightily, should not be handed readily, to selfish men with hearts of stone, who carest only for their own. And who will come so angrily to tellest us so blatantly that we should never dare to stray. For only they should have a say. And that we not do as we please, while forcing us upon our knees, to worship gods of lust and greed. And things that we can never heed. Now these are things we did not choose. And freedoms something we can't lose. To liberal laws and swords so cruel and brandished 'bout by those who rule. - Jeannette
"I believe the smaller a government, the more rights an individual has." Meanwhile you are cheerleading Putin which is the exact opposite of that statement...lol. How interesting.
Ah, it's actually not. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro.6-2-3/ALDE_00000032/ "Another basic concept embodied in the Constitution is federalism, which refers to the division and sharing of power between the national and state governments. By allocating power among state and federal governments, the Framers sought to establish a unified national government of limited powers while maintaining a distinct sphere of autonomy in which state governments could exercise a general police power. Although the Framers' sought to preserve liberty by diffusing power, Justices and scholars have noted that federalism has other advantages, including that it allows individual states to experiment with novel government programs as laboratories of democracy5 and increases the accountability of elected government officials to citizens."
Many states have passed legislation banning abortion after a certain number of weeks. So yes it has. Regardless ... I agree with your position that Gov't -- be it Fed - State- Muni - has no legitimate authority to make laws restricting abortion .. and that the best solution for this abortion issue is to get Gov't out .. no business being there to begin with
Ah - Actually you are way out in left field .. on a different page .. this has nothing to do with federalism .. how power is divided in general . Doesn't matter whether its the Feds - State - Muni ---- none has the legit authority to make law messing with essential liberty -- "of its own volition". This is not about who's ballpark it is in -- but about whether the law is decided by 50+1 - Simple majority mandate - or "something else" and from my last post which was 2 sentences .. "Did you not understand the question" ? 50+1 SMM or "something else" .
How do you know what rights the people in the different oblasts, Republics and Krais have in the Russian Federation? All you know is what the media tells you, and they lie. I was criticizing the imposition of one's beliefs on others, and here you come back with wanting to impose your own beliefs on how the largest nation on earth should be run. Talk about hubris. H U B R I S Take that you fools of misery. For we the gods of lofty see, who look at you from our great height? and snicker at the motley sight of lesser beings, not as bright as we. As you well know, we own your State and are the masters of your fate. But's that's because we weren't fools who followed banal moral rules. We made our own, it was our right. that's why we now reign in our height. And not on earth, but in our stead of hubris and of bloated head. - Jeannette
Covid vaccines doesn't even stop the person who was vaccinated from getting Covid. Much less anyone else. But you weren't so vocal when Biden tried to mandate it. Neither does murder but we have laws against it, don't we. Wrong, its not part of her body like a heart. Its a separate entity living inside her with its own heart. But you are fine with taking the babies heart. Aren't you.
It takes two mate. If you had nor forced abused or drugged her, she wouldn't be in you power to condemn her. The whole idea is répulsive.
It depends. If you owned a house in California, your wealth may have increased dramatically. If the country breaks up, California will remain intact. If you want to live in Jesusland, you'll have to move.
