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.
Not trying to argue, but genuinely curious why you assume that the Constitution applies to the unborn.
Because they are the moral equivalent of you and me. Talk me out of it.
Notwithstanding that moral equivalency is subject to debate, I'm moreso wondering if there is any authority (or other text) suggesting that the Constitution was intended to apply to any unborn.
Local media hyping Oregon companies which will pay for transportation for an abortion to an abortion state from a pro-life state. An obvious swell example of community caring by a business. Not every employer will pay $600 for an airplane ticket to avoid a $18,000 hospital bill for a baby delivery.
The question is whether this court decision makes the lunatic leftists so angry that they finally take off their masks in order for their voices to be heard
Local media hyping Oregon companies which will pay for transportation for an abortion to an abortion state from a pro-life state. An obvious swell example of community caring by a business. Not every employer will pay $600 for an airplane ticket to avoid a $18,000 hospital bill for a baby delivery.
Wait wait wait... they're going to promote crossing state lines
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.
Not trying to argue, but genuinely curious why you assume that the Constitution applies to the unborn.
Because they are the moral equivalent of you and me. Talk me out of it.
Notwithstanding that moral equivalency is subject to debate, I'm moreso wondering if there is any authority (or other text) suggesting that the Constitution was intended to apply to any unborn.
[Sigh]. At the risk of making another tedious, boring and paranoid rant, the issue is too important to sit idly by and allow it to be bungled by lesser men ... no offense intended.
1. The moral equivalency is not subject to debate. Well, ok, it is, but if you take the position that there is a point along the way at which the fetus has no moral agency, then you lose.
2. You mistake me for a Tug political hack whose thinking is limited to empiricism, sociology and politics. I appeal to Savery Hall and the bigger thinkers. Is there any doubt in your mind that the Constitution protects a 1 hour old child to the same extent it protects a handsome, 50-something swarthy Cuban (American!) philosopher king living in Seattle? I assume not.
3. Then the burden is on you to make a meaningful distinction between those two people and a newly conceived child. I've made my case.
4. As to this tedious "where is it written?" line of rhetoric, pick a place; I don't care. Read it into the made-up substantive due process line of jurisprudence. Read it into the equal protection clause like they have for other "special groups". Or take the better position that it is inherent in faciem suam in what was intended by the framers. It really doesn't matter to me because I come back to this: if that old piece of paper written by mere human beings long ago failed to protect ab initio the life of a wholly innocent child from the indifference of people like Bob, Pawz and the others who are ok with killing of the innocent for mere convenience, then count me out of the constitutional fan club. Or let's all agree to be nihilists.
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.
Not trying to argue, but genuinely curious why you assume that the Constitution applies to the unborn.
Because they are the moral equivalent of you and me. Talk me out of it.
Notwithstanding that moral equivalency is subject to debate, I'm moreso wondering if there is any authority (or other text) suggesting that the Constitution was intended to apply to any unborn.
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.
Firstly, the qualifier 'innocent' is yours and yours alone. Due to focused myopathy, on your part, it inherently discredits your want to use the preamble as a basis for your altruism.
If you are going to use the ubiquity of the preamble, then you must be against Capital Punishment and any War to the extent that a person or the state's involvement does not extend past purely self-defense mores. I will patiently await your equal condemnation of the aforementioned.
When was the last time you read the original Roe decision? Frankly, your position here is making me believe you may never have read it. The original decision was about the state's obligation to protect the life of the mother - full stop. Since the life of the mother is in fact the basis for the case, how can the claim of non-sequitur be anything less than a feeble red herring?
Speaking of red herrings and non-sequiturs, this debate has zero to do with the choice between your life and mine. It's about the inextricably linked lives of the mother and offspring in-utero. The off-spring who would not even be available for discussion without the mother. People forget that before modern medicine, the mother literally risked her own life to give birth to an offspring. You of course did not forget, but in the next paragraph you blamed her for being raped. Good luck explaining that position to your daughters.
While we continue to argue over black and white positions, your original position for all the gray matter in-between is still and will forever be the best - an unfortunate necessity.
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.
Not trying to argue, but genuinely curious why you assume that the Constitution applies to the unborn.
Because they are the moral equivalent of you and me. Talk me out of it.
Notwithstanding that moral equivalency is subject to debate, I'm moreso wondering if there is any authority (or other text) suggesting that the Constitution was intended to apply to any unborn.
[Sigh]. At the risk of making another tedious, boring and paranoid rant, the issue is too important to sit idly by and allow it to be bungled by lesser men ... no offense intended.
1. The moral equivalency is not subject to debate. Well, ok, it is, but if you take the position that there is a point along the way at which the fetus has no moral agency, then you lose.
2. You mistake me for a Tug political hack whose thinking is limited to empiricism, sociology and politics. I appeal to Savery Hall and the bigger thinkers. Is there any doubt in your mind that the Constitution protects a 1 hour old child to the same extent it protects a handsome, 50-something swarthy Cuban (American!) philosopher king living in Seattle? I assume not.
3. Then the burden is on you to make a meaningful distinction between those two people and a newly conceived child. I've made my case.
4. As to this tedious "where is it written?" line of rhetoric, pick a place; I don't care. Read it into the made-up substantive due process line of jurisprudence. Read it into the equal protection clause like they have for other "special groups". Or take the better position that it is inherent in faciem suam in what was intended by the framers. It really doesn't matter to me because I come back to this: if that old piece of paper written by mere human beings long ago failed to protect ab initio the life of a wholly innocent child from the indifference of people like Bob, Pawz and the others who are ok with killing of the innocent for mere convenience, then count me out of the constitutional fan club. Or let's all agree to be nihilists.
Home run. Classical liberal position in 4 easy steps. Mello the centrist will downvote.
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.
Not trying to argue, but genuinely curious why you assume that the Constitution applies to the unborn.
Because they are the moral equivalent of you and me. Talk me out of it.
Notwithstanding that moral equivalency is subject to debate, I'm moreso wondering if there is any authority (or other text) suggesting that the Constitution was intended to apply to any unborn.
[Sigh]. At the risk of making another tedious, boring and paranoid rant, the issue is too important to sit idly by and allow it to be bungled by lesser men ... no offense intended.
1. The moral equivalency is not subject to debate. Well, ok, it is, but if you take the position that there is a point along the way at which the fetus has no moral agency, then you lose.
2. You mistake me for a Tug political hack whose thinking is limited to empiricism, sociology and politics. I appeal to Savery Hall and the bigger thinkers. Is there any doubt in your mind that the Constitution protects a 1 hour old child to the same extent it protects a handsome, 50-something swarthy Cuban (American!) philosopher king living in Seattle? I assume not.
3. Then the burden is on you to make a meaningful distinction between those two people and a newly conceived child. I've made my case.
4. As to this tedious "where is it written?" line of rhetoric, pick a place; I don't care. Read it into the made-up substantive due process line of jurisprudence. Read it into the equal protection clause like they have for other "special groups". Or take the better position that it is inherent in faciem suam in what was intended by the framers. It really doesn't matter to me because I come back to this: if that old piece of paper written by mere human beings long ago failed to protect ab initio the life of a wholly innocent child from the indifference of people like Bob, Pawz and the others who are ok with killing of the innocent for mere convenience, then count me out of the constitutional fan club. Or let's all agree to be nihilists.
A) A "1 hour old child" implies - to anyone not reading this thread - life outside the womb.
Most of us? don't know Latin and don't have the time required to go look it up. Please to be explaining like we?re 4 years old.
C) Where did I say this is merely a decision of convenience?
Lastly, and the most important question from my view, why do you think it acceptable for the State to interject itself in ANY medical decision between individuals and their doctors?
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.
Not trying to argue, but genuinely curious why you assume that the Constitution applies to the unborn.
Because they are the moral equivalent of you and me. Talk me out of it.
Notwithstanding that moral equivalency is subject to debate, I'm moreso wondering if there is any authority (or other text) suggesting that the Constitution was intended to apply to any unborn.
[Sigh]. At the risk of making another tedious, boring and paranoid rant, the issue is too important to sit idly by and allow it to be bungled by lesser men ... no offense intended.
1. The moral equivalency is not subject to debate. Well, ok, it is, but if you take the position that there is a point along the way at which the fetus has no moral agency, then you lose.
2. You mistake me for a Tug political hack whose thinking is limited to empiricism, sociology and politics. I appeal to Savery Hall and the bigger thinkers. Is there any doubt in your mind that the Constitution protects a 1 hour old child to the same extent it protects a handsome, 50-something swarthy Cuban (American!) philosopher king living in Seattle? I assume not.
3. Then the burden is on you to make a meaningful distinction between those two people and a newly conceived child. I've made my case.
4. As to this tedious "where is it written?" line of rhetoric, pick a place; I don't care. Read it into the made-up substantive due process line of jurisprudence. Read it into the equal protection clause like they have for other "special groups". Or take the better position that it is inherent in faciem suam in what was intended by the framers. It really doesn't matter to me because I come back to this: if that old piece of paper written by mere human beings long ago failed to protect ab initio the life of a wholly innocent child from the indifference of people like Bob, Pawz and the others who are ok with killing of the innocent for mere convenience, then count me out of the constitutional fan club. Or let's all agree to be nihilists.
I still don't really care, or understand why I don't feel morally compelled to join the crusade, but not being able to point to a definitive line outside of conception is sort of a haymaker.
When did the clump of cells become life with rights, show me the line... That's going to blow some tops at the farmer's market.
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.
Not trying to argue, but genuinely curious why you assume that the Constitution applies to the unborn.
Because they are the moral equivalent of you and me. Talk me out of it.
Notwithstanding that moral equivalency is subject to debate, I'm moreso wondering if there is any authority (or other text) suggesting that the Constitution was intended to apply to any unborn.
[Sigh]. At the risk of making another tedious, boring and paranoid rant, the issue is too important to sit idly by and allow it to be bungled by lesser men ... no offense intended.
1. The moral equivalency is not subject to debate. Well, ok, it is, but if you take the position that there is a point along the way at which the fetus has no moral agency, then you lose.
2. You mistake me for a Tug political hack whose thinking is limited to empiricism, sociology and politics. I appeal to Savery Hall and the bigger thinkers. Is there any doubt in your mind that the Constitution protects a 1 hour old child to the same extent it protects a handsome, 50-something swarthy Cuban (American!) philosopher king living in Seattle? I assume not.
3. Then the burden is on you to make a meaningful distinction between those two people and a newly conceived child. I've made my case.
4. As to this tedious "where is it written?" line of rhetoric, pick a place; I don't care. Read it into the made-up substantive due process line of jurisprudence. Read it into the equal protection clause like they have for other "special groups". Or take the better position that it is inherent in faciem suam in what was intended by the framers. It really doesn't matter to me because I come back to this: if that old piece of paper written by mere human beings long ago failed to protect ab initio the life of a wholly innocent child from the indifference of people like Bob, Pawz and the others who are ok with killing of the innocent for mere convenience, then count me out of the constitutional fan club. Or let's all agree to be nihilists.
Enjoying Jeff Bridges in The Old Man on FX, streaming on Hulu.
Former President Donald Trump praised the Supreme Court's Friday ruling overturning Roe v. Wade as "the biggest win for life in a generation," noting that it was "only made possible" by his actions as president.
The court overturned the 1973 landmark decision that legalized abortion nationwide. The decision sends the issue back to the states to regulate.
In a statement issued by his Save America PAC, Trump said:
Today’s decision, which is the biggest WIN for LIFE in a generation, along with other decisions that have been announced recently, were only made possible because I delivered everything as promised, including
nominating and getting three highly respected and strong Constitutionalists confirmed to the United States Supreme Court. It was my great honor to do so! I did not cave to the Radical Left Democrats, their partners in the Fake News Media, or the RINOs who are likewise the true, but silent, enemy of the people. These major Victories prove that even though the Radical Left is doing everything in their power to destroy our
Country, your Rights are being protected, the Country is being defended, and there is still hope and time to Save America! I will never stop fighting for the Great People of our Nation!
The question is whether this court decision makes the lunatic leftists so angry that they finally take off their masks in order for their voices to be heard
They did for St. George Floyd so I'm assuming no problem. The crud is a SJW so its okay if your heart is pure.
I still don't really care, or understand why I don't feel morally compelled to join the crusade, but not being able to point to a definitive line outside of conception is sort of a haymaker.
When did the clump of cells become life with rights, show me the line... That's going to blow some tops at the farmer's market.
Former President Donald Trump praised the Supreme Court's Friday ruling overturning Roe v. Wade as "the biggest win for life in a generation," noting that it was "only made possible" by his actions as president.
The court overturned the 1973 landmark decision that legalized abortion nationwide. The decision sends the issue back to the states to regulate.
In a statement issued by his Save America PAC, Trump said:
Today’s decision, which is the biggest WIN for LIFE in a generation, along with other decisions that have been announced recently, were only made possible because I delivered everything as promised, including
nominating and getting three highly respected and strong Constitutionalists confirmed to the United States Supreme Court. It was my great honor to do so! I did not cave to the Radical Left Democrats, their partners in the Fake News Media, or the RINOs who are likewise the true, but silent, enemy of the people. These major Victories prove that even though the Radical Left is doing everything in their power to destroy our
Country, your Rights are being protected, the Country is being defended, and there is still hope and time to Save America! I will never stop fighting for the Great People of our Nation!
This
Conney Barrett knows better and should have led the court further. This wan an opportunity for a truly landmark decision and they blew it. I still like to look at her.
Comments
1. The moral equivalency is not subject to debate. Well, ok, it is, but if you take the position that there is a point along the way at which the fetus has no moral agency, then you lose.
2. You mistake me for a Tug political hack whose thinking is limited to empiricism, sociology and politics. I appeal to Savery Hall and the bigger thinkers. Is there any doubt in your mind that the Constitution protects a 1 hour old child to the same extent it protects a handsome, 50-something swarthy Cuban (American!) philosopher king living in Seattle? I assume not.
3. Then the burden is on you to make a meaningful distinction between those two people and a newly conceived child. I've made my case.
4. As to this tedious "where is it written?" line of rhetoric, pick a place; I don't care. Read it into the made-up substantive due process line of jurisprudence. Read it into the equal protection clause like they have for other "special groups". Or take the better position that it is inherent in faciem suam in what was intended by the framers. It really doesn't matter to me because I come back to this: if that old piece of paper written by mere human beings long ago failed to protect ab initio the life of a wholly innocent child from the indifference of people like Bob, Pawz and the others who are ok with killing of the innocent for mere convenience, then count me out of the constitutional fan club. Or let's all agree to be nihilists.
If you are going to use the ubiquity of the preamble, then you must be against Capital Punishment and any War to the extent that a person or the state's involvement does not extend past purely self-defense mores. I will patiently await your equal condemnation of the aforementioned.
When was the last time you read the original Roe decision? Frankly, your position here is making me believe you may never have read it. The original decision was about the state's obligation to protect the life of the mother - full stop. Since the life of the mother is in fact the basis for the case, how can the claim of non-sequitur be anything less than a feeble red herring?
Speaking of red herrings and non-sequiturs, this debate has zero to do with the choice between your life and mine. It's about the inextricably linked lives of the mother and offspring in-utero. The off-spring who would not even be available for discussion without the mother. People forget that before modern medicine, the mother literally risked her own life to give birth to an offspring. You of course did not forget, but in the next paragraph you blamed her for being raped. Good luck explaining that position to your daughters.
While we continue to argue over black and white positions, your original position for all the gray matter in-between is still and will forever be the best - an unfortunate necessity.
C) Where did I say this is merely a decision of convenience?
Lastly, and the most important question from my view, why do you think it acceptable for the State to interject itself in ANY medical decision between individuals and their doctors?
I still don't really care, or understand why I don't feel morally compelled to join the crusade, but not being able to point to a definitive line outside of conception is sort of a haymaker.
When did the clump of cells become life with rights, show me the line... That's going to blow some tops at the farmer's market.