We will disagree. You and I have a different view on "life". I have no problem with the morning after pill and you would be in the small minority of Americans that would view that as taking a life. I'll go along with the 3 or 4 month rule.
We lost our democracy today when an unelected court suggested they don’t have the power to legislate and that elected officials should determine the law. Sad day really.
“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, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
I still cannot understand how people applaud handing this over to the states, which will leave us? with a patch-work of laws that will run the spectrum.
There's a reason that no state, not even Mississippi, can legalize slavery. Same applies here.
But, but, but social strife is irrelevant.
Sounds like you'd be in favor of a legislative federal ban on abortion. Get rid of the filibuster, flip congress red and it can happen.
I'm pure. You know that. Sure, I'd be in favor, but I don't think I need it. The preamble makes it clear, and if there is a notion that the Constitution, as currently drafted, allows for the taking of innocent life if in the infinite wisdom of the state legislature it is decided so, then the Constitution is a useless piece of shit for a document.
The SCOTUS should have decided that abortion, under any circumstances, is unconstitutional on its face.
I don't expect the Ducks to understand. You do. Sleddy does. Roadtrip does. I think my hermano Doog_bot gets it. Why are my other DWAGs struggling so mightily?
That's a moral dilemma. Let me know if you are ever open to discussing it further. I think in time you'll come to see the error of your view here. I did. Time and perspective led me to the right answer.
Agreed. If the court can read abortion as a guaranteed right under the mythical substantive due process analysis, then why can't it read life as a guaranteed right using the same analysis? At least with the pro life argument, you have the unambiguous reference to "life" as an inalienable right in the preamble, even if the latter is neither a source of power nor a limitation on government ... it's a helluva indication of the drafters' intent.
When you unleashed your paranoid rant about the how the "Christian Right might do something" the example you gave of what you feared they might do was the banning of abortion in a particular state.
Now unless your position has completely changed in the last 18 months, you're dishonestly arguing a position you don't really believe in.
You've unleashed more rants, paranoid and otherwise, than there are grains of sands on all the world's beaches, and I don't hold it against you.
Maybe as a Duck it takes you longer to move off of your block and evolve your thinking. As for me, I don't suffer from that shortcoming. I've changed my mind. I've said so several times in the last few weeks as this discussion was unleashed again on the boards.
I have the right view here, and it needn't be, and isn't, necessarily based on Christian morality. The Earth freaks can come to the same conclusion. The Catholics just happen to be right on this one, and they were first out of the gates: the biological beginning is the biological beginning. You, on the other hand, condone a moral compromise that places you squarely with the rest of the baby killers. Apparently you are comfortable with your stance. Good for you.
Nothing wrong with rants. It's the paranoid ones about how the Christian Right might do something, that I'm mocking.
But please continue with your rhetorical masterbation session.
Not your best work. Nothing rhetorical about it, as evidenced by the fact that you won't touch the substance of the debate and would rather continue entertaining yourself with your "might do something" line of humor.
Rather thank laughing at your own jokes, you should spend your energy finding your moral compass. You've got some work to do.
I missed the qualifier 'innocent' in the preamble.
Therefore,
The end of capital punishment.
The end of any/all war.
Moreover, that you have no regard for the life of the birthing person runs a foul your seeming altruistic position for life. Would really like to know how you make that round circle square. TIA.
Quite the quandary you've found for yourself.
"Unfortunate necessity" was always the correct answer
We lost our democracy today when an unelected court suggested they don’t have the power to legislate and that elected officials should determine the law. Sad day really.
“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, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
I still cannot understand how people applaud handing this over to the states, which will leave us? with a patch-work of laws that will run the spectrum.
There's a reason that no state, not even Mississippi, can legalize slavery. Same applies here.
But, but, but social strife is irrelevant.
Sounds like you'd be in favor of a legislative federal ban on abortion. Get rid of the filibuster, flip congress red and it can happen.
I'd be 100% in favor of a federal ban after 10 weeks myself!
When you unleashed your paranoid rant about the how the "Christian Right might do something" the example you gave of what you feared they might do was the banning of abortion in a particular state.
Now unless your position has completely changed in the last 18 months, you're dishonestly arguing a position you don't really believe in.
You've unleashed more rants, paranoid and otherwise, than there are grains of sands on all the world's beaches, and I don't hold it against you.
Maybe as a Duck it takes you longer to move off of your block and evolve your thinking. As for me, I don't suffer from that shortcoming. I've changed my mind. I've said so several times in the last few weeks as this discussion was unleashed again on the boards.
I have the right view here, and it needn't be, and isn't, necessarily based on Christian morality. The Earth freaks can come to the same conclusion. The Catholics just happen to be right on this one, and they were first out of the gates: the biological beginning is the biological beginning. You, on the other hand, condone a moral compromise that places you squarely with the rest of the baby killers. Apparently you are comfortable with your stance. Good for you.
There is an atheist classical liberal view that is anti abortion.
The dementia patient now wants Congress to codify a right to abortion in federal law on Friday, saying the “health and life of women” are “at risk” hours after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. “Now with Roe gone, let’s be very clear: the health and life of women in this nation are now at risk,” Biden said in a speech at the White House. It's interesting that the left has a hard time calling itself pro-abortion and goes to pro choice or the euphemism of women's reproductive health.
Trying to figure out exactly what Constitutional power women's reproductive health comes under.
I missed the qualifier 'innocent' in the preamble.
Therefore,
The end of capital punishment.
The end of any/all war.
Moreover, that you have no regard for the life of the birthing person runs a foul your seeming altruistic position for life. Would really like to know how you make that round circle square. TIA.
Quite the quandary you've found for yourself.
"Unfortunate necessity" was always the correct answer
No quandary at all Pawz.
Firstly, if the reference to "life" in the preamble doesn't apply to innocent life, then to what kind of life would it apply? If you want to make the argument that it doesn't apply to non-innocent lives, then have at it. It's beyond the scope of necessity to substantiate my view; the fetus is unambiguously innocent. Even the one that threatens the mother's life. Get ye to Savery Hall stat.
Capital Punishment, war, etc. ... there are many people who view those killings as morally objectionable. Ask Damone how he feels about capital punishment and the state's power to take life, even in the most severe of criminal circumstances. And we would surely agree, even though Race would not, that if we somehow knew that a defendant were innocent, the taking of its life by the state would be an abhorrent affront to moral decency. War is more complicated, but at least at the individual soldier level there is some aspect of a self-defense claim. But, again, a lot of people view war killing as killing. YMMV.
The charge that I have no regard for the life of the birthing person is a non-sequitur. I have sufficient regard for that person. But let's consider an analogy: let's say we could save your life by taking mine. Does it follow, then, that you or your loved ones, or the state, are justified in taking my life in the name of saving yours? No. That argument is a loser and gets blown up in 5 seconds in any intro to moral philosophy class ... even one at Oregon.
And, of course, none of that compromises my argument in the least. The fetus is not an armed enemy soldier, nor is it on trial for a capital crime. Moreover, the fetus did not place itself in the position to threaten the mother's life; the mother did. It's as innocent as any life form can be.
Genuine or not I find @creepycoug arguments and logic interesting. If you can't beat him at this game then your arguments are shitty regardless of if he personally feels that way or not.
The same folks who tell you that Shall Not Be Infringed means go ahead and infringe think there is language in the constitution that protects abortion
There isn't. Nothing to stop it either
If we had a right to privacy 81% of police work would be illegal and 100% of internet companies would be as well
I'm not even a pretend lawyer like creep or a shitty lawyer like H but I think that things that are not covered specifically as a federal law revert to the states
Then you weren't paying attention to the arguments in the abortion thread. It's ok. Even you can be wrong once every 100 years or so.
Unless you are convinced the states currently enjoy the freedom to legislate the taking of innocent life. That's a mighty big delegation of power. I hold it as self-evident our Creator thinks otherwise. A few guys in Philadelphia thought so too.
States have the power to take life
Hope this helps
No, it doesn't. It has that power in narrowly prescribed circumstances. Certainly the state of WASHINGTON lacks the power to randomly walk into my home and kill me for no reason. Or is that up for a vote?
Sounds like this Constitution is a flimsy piece of paper. Not sure what was ever united about the united states. Sad to realize I guess.
No it doesn't
It has that power
I'm right your tedious and boring
The state has the power to kill me indiscriminately? I wouldn't have guessed. It seems weird that I'm protected from a law that would allow my enslavement but not from one allowing the state or anyone else to knock me off for whatever reason it chooses.
But I'm probably being disingenuous now. Says the Duck pro-baby killer.
@creepycoug: I respect and appreciate your viewpoint, but if ever there was a time to take the proverbial "L," this is it. At the end of the day, women own this issue, morally correct or not.
Comments
Maybe as a Duck it takes you longer to move off of your block and evolve your thinking. As for me, I don't suffer from that shortcoming. I've changed my mind. I've said so several times in the last few weeks as this discussion was unleashed again on the boards.
I have the right view here, and it needn't be, and isn't, necessarily based on Christian morality. The Earth freaks can come to the same conclusion. The Catholics just happen to be right on this one, and they were first out of the gates: the biological beginning is the biological beginning. You, on the other hand, condone a moral compromise that places you squarely with the rest of the baby killers. Apparently you are comfortable with your stance. Good for you.
But please continue with your rhetorical masterbation session.
Rather thank laughing at your own jokes, you should spend your energy finding your moral compass. You've got some work to do.
I missed the qualifier 'innocent' in the preamble.
Therefore,
The end of capital punishment.
The end of any/all war.
Moreover, that you have no regard for the life of the birthing person runs a foul your seeming altruistic position for life. Would really like to know how you make that round circle square. TIA.
Quite the quandary you've found for yourself.
"Unfortunate necessity" was always the correct answer
It's not religious.
Trying to figure out exactly what Constitutional power women's reproductive health comes under.
Most of these people won't be even thinking about this as they watch their shitty Netflix this weekend.
Firstly, if the reference to "life" in the preamble doesn't apply to innocent life, then to what kind of life would it apply? If you want to make the argument that it doesn't apply to non-innocent lives, then have at it. It's beyond the scope of necessity to substantiate my view; the fetus is unambiguously innocent. Even the one that threatens the mother's life. Get ye to Savery Hall stat.
Capital Punishment, war, etc. ... there are many people who view those killings as morally objectionable. Ask Damone how he feels about capital punishment and the state's power to take life, even in the most severe of criminal circumstances. And we would surely agree, even though Race would not, that if we somehow knew that a defendant were innocent, the taking of its life by the state would be an abhorrent affront to moral decency.
War is more complicated, but at least at the individual soldier level there is some aspect of a self-defense claim. But, again, a lot of people view war killing as killing. YMMV.
The charge that I have no regard for the life of the birthing person is a non-sequitur. I have sufficient regard for that person. But let's consider an analogy: let's say we could save your life by taking mine. Does it follow, then, that you or your loved ones, or the state, are justified in taking my life in the name of saving yours? No. That argument is a loser and gets blown up in 5 seconds in any intro to moral philosophy class ... even one at Oregon.
And, of course, none of that compromises my argument in the least. The fetus is not an armed enemy soldier, nor is it on trial for a capital crime. Moreover, the fetus did not place itself in the position to threaten the mother's life; the mother did. It's as innocent as any life form can be.