Breaking news - R v. W sells couch
Comments
-
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. -
If she needs to flush that thing outMikeDamone said:
To chose what?Pitchfork51 said:Should be my right to choose imo
-
The doom and gloom on Twitter is honestly hysterical. People calling it "one of the darkest days in American History".
Most of these people won't be even thinking about this as they watch their shitty Netflix this weekend. -
There's nothing on Netflix lolCuntWaffle said:The doom and gloom on Twitter is honestly hysterical. People calling it "one of the darkest days in American History".
Most of these people won't be even thinking about this as they watch their shitty Netflix this weekend. -
No quandary at all Pawz.pawz said:PM to Creep
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
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.
-
Male birth control would solve our problems
-
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.
-
@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.creepycoug said:
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.RaceBannon said:
No it doesn'tcreepycoug said:
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?RaceBannon said:
States have the power to take lifecreepycoug said:
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.RaceBannon said: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
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.
Hope this helps
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.
It has that power
I'm right your tedious and boring
But I'm probably being disingenuous now. Says the Duck pro-baby killer. -
Darker than Jan 6th? It cannot be.CuntWaffle said:The doom and gloom on Twitter is honestly hysterical. People calling it "one of the darkest days in American History".
Most of these people won't be even thinking about this as they watch their shitty Netflix this weekend. -
Oh. I thought you meant the baby had a right to choose if it lived. My bad.Pitchfork51 said:
If she needs to flush that thing outMikeDamone said:
To chose what?Pitchfork51 said:Should be my right to choose imo
