11:15:36pm, Wednesday, April 17, 2024
|
Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Moderator Registered: 07/06/2008 Posts: 1,347 |
Hopefully the leak is correct and the abomination that is Roe v Wade will be overturned.
As for the leak itself, it's likely it came from either a clerk for one of the 3 liberals, or one of the three themselves. Even if a clerk leaked it, it's possible/probable it was done with the judge's blessing. Rumor mill is it was a Sotomayor clerk. Whoever did it should be removed, but MSNBC will probably offer that person a job as an analyst. Talk about destroying the trust within the court. Somebody said this on this off-topic forum months ago and it's true today: Democrats ruin everything they touch. |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
It's funny how so many radicals are getting this completely wrong and throwing a temper tantrum and threatening to burn the entire system down (which has been the goal of the radical left for a while). Overturning Roe v. Wade does not make abortion illegal, it simply makes this a state issue and not a federal issue. It kicks the power back to each individual state. Some will continue to allow abortion, some may ban it and some may just choose to regulate it tighter. Every American will still have access to getting an abortion, it just may mean they have to travel to get one.
I live in New York State and we already have laws on the books in the event that this happens and (sadly) NY will continue to be a pro-abortion state with abortions being legal up to the very point of birth. This ruling actually gives power back to the people on a more "local" level and each state will deal with it differently. Does anyone else think its an interesting coincidence how quick the protests started and how organized they seemed to be for something that just got "leaked". It's almost as if this was planned and funded. Nah, that would never happen. To me the real question is will this be the straw the breaks the camels back and will the Democrats pack the court and add more seats to the court. There is already currently stalled legislation to add four more justices, will that move forward? If it did what happens after the democrats lose power? The republican will do the same thing and add more justices. Countries don't recover from that type of rule. I told my wife a few weeks ago before all this leaked out, I can see a scenario where Steven Breyer decides not to retire and Jackson-Brown get appointed and then they simple say that they can't have an even number so they'll appoint another liberal justice. A back door way to pack the court. The radicals are going to come unhinged. Jake Morgan Owner, PULLOFF.COM Independent Pulling News This page is a free service. The cost is covered out of my pocket. It takes a great deal of time and a fair amount of money to keep this website going. Donations for: photos, classified ads, forum discussion, etc... are appreciated. Side Note: We are no longer accepting PayPal donations. They have changed their terms of service and stated they would fine PayPal users for spreading "misinformation" and "hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory". PayPal did not provide definitions for some of these vague terms. Woke corporate policies regarding "misinformation" could result in an automatic fine of $2,500 which would have been removed directly from the customer’s PayPal account. PayPal did backdown from some of their policies but quietly implemented portions of them in later terms of service. A financial institute has no right to monitor social media accounts or speech. This is unacceptable and I'll no longer do business with PayPal. |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
hope, come soon
|
Jake: "The radicals are going to come unhinged."
No. They are Always Unhinged!!! Radical idea, after another radical idea. It never stops. Nor does their selfish, whiny ways. They will ramrod any of their ideas down our throat, even when the masses of people do not want their scheme. But, of course, they think they are always right and the other side is always wrong. |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Registered: 11/24/2019 Posts: 241 |
The democrat way of doing things is to propose the completely crazy, then implement what is just radical, then tell us how much worse it could have been.
Then, in a few years, what was a completely crazy idea doesn’t seem quite as crazy, so something even MORE crazy is proposed, and they back up to the crazy idea. Incrementally, they get to what they want. Which is destroying our country. |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Registered: 08/16/2021 Posts: 303 |
Let's just hope they actually vote to overturn Roe v Wade and don't get scared when the libs start burning down cities.
On a more serious note this case if overturned is a great site to see. It gives states the power. The more we allow the governments of our individual states to govern and make decisions for us the better off we will all be. No offense to Jake as it seems we agree on things, but I don't want to live in a world where politicians from New York or California have any say in what happens in my life in Ohio. Give the States the power to establish abortion laws, heck while you're at it give the states the power to handle just about everything. There's more bull @#$%& coming out of DC than there is the 6666 ranch in Texas. |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
I don't want to live in that world either  . NY is a lot like Illinois, Chicago runs too much of the state, NY is the same, NYC has too much power. The area I live in is pretty conservative, my kids go to a small rural school and aren't being taught a bunch of Critical Theory nonsense. Unfortunately I fear that it's just a matter of time until our state starts mandating more and more or that garbage. I'm all for weakening the federal gov and giving rights back to the state, but I'd really love it if it didn't end there, I'd love it if states didn't dictate everything and they left more up to the counties. The more local our governments are the better.Jake Morgan Owner, PULLOFF.COM Independent Pulling News This page is a free service. The cost is covered out of my pocket. It takes a great deal of time and a fair amount of money to keep this website going. Donations for: photos, classified ads, forum discussion, etc... are appreciated. Side Note: We are no longer accepting PayPal donations. They have changed their terms of service and stated they would fine PayPal users for spreading "misinformation" and "hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory". PayPal did not provide definitions for some of these vague terms. Woke corporate policies regarding "misinformation" could result in an automatic fine of $2,500 which would have been removed directly from the customer’s PayPal account. PayPal did backdown from some of their policies but quietly implemented portions of them in later terms of service. A financial institute has no right to monitor social media accounts or speech. This is unacceptable and I'll no longer do business with PayPal. |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Registered: 01/03/2019 Posts: 280 |
States already make laws regarding abortions. (i.e. Texas and California)
Roe v Wade hasn't stopped that. Roe v Wade made it a constitutional right for women to do what they want with their body without excessive laws. |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Not her body
|
Science proves that the baby with a unique and different DNA then her mother is not her body. Why do you think the mother and childs blood cant mix? |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Registered: 09/23/2008 Posts: 632 |
thats do what you want is a bunch of bs, in most states you can't get high on drugs legally, you can't shoot someone for just being there can't go out and binge drink and drive home or for that matter be in public, There are a bunch more i am not that good of a typist but all that nonsense about a woman and here body tells me if she hadn't benn fornicating it wouldn't have benn necessary for an abortion or a live to kill for that matter, |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Registered: 01/03/2019 Posts: 280 |
So what about when she's raped or the birth endangers her life or the baby is likely going to be born with extreme suffering or no viable chance of living...etc? |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Registered: 09/23/2008 Posts: 632 |
now you are changing the parameter, in your initial it was a woman and her body. That has nothing to do with a criiminal action such as rape or a mother whose life could be lost. I find it fascinating when it is shown that you can't do what you want on other subjects how the argument changes |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Registered: 01/03/2019 Posts: 280 |
2/3 of those items I listed are not criminal. Your comment was very broad and so I suggested arenas where perhaps it doesn't make sense. So, yes I changed the parameters of what you said however, it doesn't change the parameters in what Roe v Wade established. "a constitutional right for women to do what they want with their body without excessive laws" Not zero law, "excessive" law. "It also ruled that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against governments' interests in protecting women's health and prenatal life." Roe v Wade is not about women "fornicating" as you so grossly described it. |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
? For anyone
|
Why, if a woman doesnt want to be a mother, ( fornicate, lol ) why doesn't either party ( man/woman ) use protection? Then there wouldn't be a decision to be made whether or not to terminate a living human being, ive never figured that out, theres ways to keep from getting pregnant. |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Registered: 09/23/2008 Posts: 632 |
i have not read the opinion but did get a synopsis from a reliable source, all this retraction from the supreme court says that this is not a federal issue but rather a state one, so unless a state moves to pass a law and then it is voted by the majority or\f this or that state then not much will change except for federal authority. |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
That's all fine and well but what about the rights of the unborn? When do we worry about those rights? Is it at "viability"? Do they get rights in the third trimester? Do they only get rights after birth? When are the rights of the unborn violated or valued? Jake Morgan Owner, PULLOFF.COM Independent Pulling News This page is a free service. The cost is covered out of my pocket. It takes a great deal of time and a fair amount of money to keep this website going. Donations for: photos, classified ads, forum discussion, etc... are appreciated. Side Note: We are no longer accepting PayPal donations. They have changed their terms of service and stated they would fine PayPal users for spreading "misinformation" and "hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory". PayPal did not provide definitions for some of these vague terms. Woke corporate policies regarding "misinformation" could result in an automatic fine of $2,500 which would have been removed directly from the customer’s PayPal account. PayPal did backdown from some of their policies but quietly implemented portions of them in later terms of service. A financial institute has no right to monitor social media accounts or speech. This is unacceptable and I'll no longer do business with PayPal. |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Registered: 11/24/2019 Posts: 241 |
The unborn can’t vote. Some only care about their voting block.
Once they can vote, then they care about their rights. |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 630 |
I find it very ironic the the pro choice groups are planning protest at churches on MOTHERS day...mothers day really!!!
S'no Farmer |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Moderator Registered: 07/06/2008 Posts: 1,347 |
One thing that is more and more obvious every day with the progressive types is they have absolutely no sense of irony or self-awareness. Case in point- Mary Poppins as the new disinformation czar when she called several things disinformation that were actually true. |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
Yeah, history has proven her wrong on almost every single opinion she's had in the past few years. Someone who's peddled disinformation is now in charge of safeguarding us against it? She's a joke. The problem is the left doesn't see the irony because they still believe in Russian collusion and they still believe in all the other nonsense that's been proven to be incorrect. To them there's no irony.
How about how the left bashed anyone who talked about Ivermectin and how even though the drug won the Noble prize for use in humans the left constantly called it a horse de-wormer despite numerous studies that showed some significant level of efficacy when used in conjunction with other treatments. Ironically some on the left are actually pushing a horse drug... there's an article about using a horse ulcer drug as an abortion pill option... not-so-subtle irony! [dailycaller.com] Jake Morgan Owner, PULLOFF.COM Independent Pulling News This page is a free service. The cost is covered out of my pocket. It takes a great deal of time and a fair amount of money to keep this website going. Donations for: photos, classified ads, forum discussion, etc... are appreciated. Side Note: We are no longer accepting PayPal donations. They have changed their terms of service and stated they would fine PayPal users for spreading "misinformation" and "hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory". PayPal did not provide definitions for some of these vague terms. Woke corporate policies regarding "misinformation" could result in an automatic fine of $2,500 which would have been removed directly from the customer’s PayPal account. PayPal did backdown from some of their policies but quietly implemented portions of them in later terms of service. A financial institute has no right to monitor social media accounts or speech. This is unacceptable and I'll no longer do business with PayPal. |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Registered: 01/03/2019 Posts: 280 |
It's good question. The same question applies to everyday life. What happens when your rights are in direct conflict of my rights? I'll give you an example. You happen to see me in your yard and you feel threatened so you shoot and kill me. You have a right to defend yourself, I have a right to life. The reason why I was in your yard in the first place is because someone mistook me as a "lib," kidnapped me and then threw me in your yard. It's was neither of our faults we were in the situation but we both suffered consequences because of it. In regards to Roe V Wade it was determined to be a sliding scale: It ruled that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against governments' interests in protecting women's health and prenatal life. The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother. |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Here's the biggest concerns I see with this. This nation already has too many children that end up in foster homes. Many states plan to make all abortions illegal . No exceptions for rape or other crimes that caused the pregnancy.
There is not enough foster parents in this nationthis is not a state by state issue. I wonder how many people who are supported that all abortions be banned, are going to step up and become foster parents or even adopt all these children? I pose this question as me and my wife have opened our home to many children over the last 7 years. When I tell people that, we sometimes called a bunch of liberals that only do it for the money... News flash the little we may get from state does nothing to cover the true costs of raising these children that often need more one on one time not mention many have been abused and arrive at our home with nothing more than the clothing on their backs. So I sincerely hope all that sit back and keep complaining about social services steps up to volunteer to help .... |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
take responsibility
|
Its n ot the innocent baby's fault who the father is. People need to task responsibility for once, too much of an inconvenience, murder the innocent baby that science proves is NOT the wom ens body. These people have no morals and are a burden on society, maybe we eliminate them in your eyes? |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
?
|
Not the babies fault if the result of a rape or otherwise period !!!! Killing a innocent baby is in know way right period !!! God doesn't make mistakes, babies are a blessing from heaven !!!! There's ways to prevent pregnancies !!! |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 630 |
I guess I have a few questions, first is it a myth that there aren't enough children up for adoption? If not why do people go to foreign countries to adopt? Aren't most foster children coming from dysfunctional families as opposed to unwanted infants? Why isn't there more emphasis put on the younger generation for birth control as opposed to looking at abortion as the solution?
I think abortion is wrong for the simple reason that it is a living being and yes in cases of rape or health of the mother it should be an option. The only other point that I somewhat agree with is that back room abortions are dangerous and that is what these irresponsible people will resort to. S'no Farmer |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Moderator Registered: 02/21/2012 Posts: 797 |
Some of my wife's family adopted from a foreign country because it was cheaper. I'm sure if it had been financially feasible to adopt from the States, they would have done so. John Murray Two-time Pedal Pull World Champion Let's Go Pulling, covering the sport of pulling in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama. Watch LGP on YouTube Like LGP on Facebook 
|
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Just Sayin’
|
John, that is outrageously SAD that it is cheaper to go outside the country to adopt cheaper. On another note, as the border becomes more and more WIDE OPEN, all taxpayers are, in a sense, foster parents, but I digress.
On the subject at hand, I do believe in a so-called “heartbeat bill”. The irony of the situation is the pro-choice liberal movement is marching and protesting for CHOICE….. but in all reality, they don’t want people to have CHOICE. It’s my way, or no way. Nowadays, if there’s something going against their thought process, they march, riot, threaten, vandalize, etc. - I mean from court cases to elections and on!! If you went and checked, I’m sure 75% or more of those marching are either on the government dole or George Soros or BOTH!! And THEN we have Pocahontas, Schumer, and Psaki all encouraging this type of behavior …. But let’s continue to bang the drum (no pun intended Nick Sandman) regarding January 6th and Trump’s “incitement”. Our country is a sad state of affairs. |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
libs suck
|
funny how libs like tripplealpha disappear when the conversation gets hard. why is adoption so expensive? where in the consititution does it say abortion is a right? cause roe doesnt make it constitutional it just forces it to be legal very different things. when does life begin? if its just a clump of cells why does it have differnt dna and blood type? libs cant answer those questions cause they know it kills there're argument. |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Registered: 01/03/2019 Posts: 280 |
1. I am not a liberal. In fact I voted for Trump in 2020. You don't even know who you're talking about. It's funny how people have to resort to insults when they don't have an intelligent contribution to a discussion. 2. I didn't disappear. I can't be on this forum every single day. Maybe you have nothing better to do but I chose not to be on the internet every day. 3. Here's the answers to your questions: Why is adoption so expensive?-Adoption from the foster care system is basically free for the adoptive parents, including healthcare until the child is 18. It's only expensive if you chose to go with a private agency and do infant adoption or foreign adoption. There are 1000's of kids available for adoption in the foster care system for no cost to the adoptive parents. Where in the consititution does it say abortion is a right?-According to the Supreme Court, the 14th amendment gives women the right to privacy and protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction. When does life begin?-Good question and one that has always been debated. If it's just basic life it begins when the first cell is formed. If it's about killing a life then we shouldn't have the death penalty or kill animals or eat fruit and vegetables because they all have living cells. if its just a clump of cells why does it have differnt dna and blood type?-If you believe in evolution this is obvious and doesn't need a further answer. If you believe in creation let me know what your god told you and let me know they told everyone else the same thing. |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
What the??????
|
You stated the baby is the womens body, it is not ,science proves it with out a doubt, what the hell does surviving by calorie intake have to do with anything??? Again, what does evolution have to do with the fact of the baby not being the mothers body?????? We all know Gods thoughts on murder. The 14 amendment is unconstitutional since it promotes murder. |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Registered: 01/03/2019 Posts: 280 |
Where did I state a baby is the womens (sic) body? Fear of backlash from the church or religion is one of the major reasons why women chose abortion. Maybe if those that preach acceptance and love and understanding would practice it more the rate of voluntary abortions would go down. |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
?????
|
What the?????? In your first post, are you serious? Go back and read it slowly. Backlash from Church, come on what a crock!!! Where the hell did you pull that one out, nothing b ut a bald faced lie. |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Registered: 01/03/2019 Posts: 280 |
Please quote where I said the baby was the mother's body. You can't because what I said was " Roe v Wade made it a constitutional right for women to do what they want with their body without excessive laws." Perhaps you should go back and read it slowly. Keep denying religion looking down on pre-martial sex or pregnancy out of wedlock but I could point you to several surveys by thousands of women where they state this was the reason for their choice. Send me your information and I will send them to you. Perhaps you'd see differently after hearing it directly from them. |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Funny
|
You just stated it again!!!!!! You obviously agree with the statement, so yes you are stating the baby is the womens body. So let me get this straight.... the women are afraid of being judged for a minor sin so they go out and commit a major sin of murder and that rectifies it??? Thats insane. No one in their right mind would c ome to this conclusion, it is an attack on the Church. When I go to church the only young people I see are couples with a family or are couples planning a family. These women in your so called survey are lying atheists, feminist or commies. I also was astounded by you comparing the killing of an innocent child to the killing of a rapist , kidnapping, serial killer for his crimes, that was rich! |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Moderator Registered: 03/19/2018 Posts: 662 |
You really have no idea with whom you are arguing and the thorough knowledge base he has, but by all means please continue.
CP |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
F-30puller
|
Doesn't mean they have to agree on an opinion. |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Just wondering
|
When did the Bible say Adam or eve came to life was it when he breathed the breath of life into them or what |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Registered: 01/03/2019 Posts: 280 |
They definitely don't have to agree with me but they shouldn't be telling my what my own opinion is or tell me what I believe. That's not for them to decide. When I state information to provide additional context doesn't mean I agree with the overall concept. This person is already assuming several positions and frankly (in my opinion) just makes them seem incapable of seeing any other view point. |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
????
|
You have not said one way or another, do you believe the baby is the woman's body? |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Registered: 01/03/2019 Posts: 280 |
Biologically speaking it's a parasite |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Still no answer
|
Oh for stupid! In nature the entire purpose of life is to reproduce offspring, it is not a frickin parasite, you are still avoiding the question. Your own flesh and blood is a parasite, Baizou Biden speaking??? |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Registered: 01/03/2019 Posts: 280 |
Back to insults I see. I answered the question. I can explain it to you but I can't comprehend it for you. I thought you already established it wasn't your own flesh and blood. Are you going back on your opinion now? |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
I’ve been short on time lately but I figured I take a few minutes today while it’s raining to chime-in.
TripleAlphaProcess… I’m going to be honest, I’m so confused by your discussion and debate on this topic that I truly don’t have any idea where you stand. I’m not sure when your sharing others opinions to enlighten us and when your sharing your own opinion. I’m not sure if your just not willing to share your opinion directly or if you’re not confident in defending your opinion. To me it feels a bit like a copout to say “When I state information to provide additional context doesn't mean I agree with the overall concept”. Are you debating on behalf of someone else with beliefs you don’t actually hold?
Unfortunately your info is extremely dated/incorrect. The overwhelming majority of women who have abortions are simply using abortion as a form of birth control. The majority of women who have abortions already have had one or more children. When polled about why they are getting an abortion women usually respond: that the timing is wrong, they can’t afford a baby, they are too old to have another baby, it will interfere with their education or career, etc... Getting an abortion because you’re scared of you’re overbearing religious parents/friends/family just isn’t common, it might sell on an ABC after-school special but it’s not a huge driver to abort a baby according to the majority of polls taken. Also, there’s less and less “shame” with abortions. There’s a current trend in this country to “shout your abortion”. Yell from the rooftops loud and proud. It’s not taboo anymore. Your posts have made it clear that you dislike religion/faith… we can have this discussion without even bringing that topic into it. In fact the data on religion is clear and it’s impact on society is waning drastically in the past two decades. The influence of the church is less and less in American society so blaming the Church for anything seems counter to all the statistical trends. Making the church your scapegoat rings hollow as the impact of the church wanes. Let’s discuss this without religion and see where that gets us. Dont' get me wrong... If you really want to talk religion feel free but know that it will ring hollow given the current trends of the American church.
I don’t have a right to defend myself with deadly force until I’ve exhausted all other alternatives or until my life is directly threatened. I can’t simply shoot you because you're in my yard. That’s murder. That would result in me loosing my rights when I go to prison. When our rights come in conflict with others there are still proper avenues to deal with those rights. The real question is does an unborn child have any rights? Do they only get rights outside of the mother? Or maybe not even then... Here’s the ultimate contradiction… If someone shoots a pregnant woman and she wants the child they usually get tried for double murder… because the fetal baby had rights… the right to life. However if the mother doesn’t want the pre-born baby and ends it’s life that’s not murder? That’s extremely inconsistent. Both actions end the babies life, both are the same. The only difference is whether the baby is wanted? So the litmus test for murder for the pro-abortion crowd is simple whether the mother wants the child? Seriously? The question then becomes is it murder if the baby is 1 day old and the mother decides she doesn’t want it? What about a month old? What about a 1 year old? How long does the mother get to decide? Again, when do rights begin?
If women’s health was the true metric to determine whether an abortion should take place then this wouldn’t be such an issue. Unfortunately “health” is seldom the reason for an abortion. Again, the vast majority of abortions happen because its “convenient” for the woman. For the vast majority abortion is a form of birth control when either individual or the couple didn’t think far enough in advance to use any other form of birth control. Abortions because of the mother’s heath are the extreme minority of abortions.
Incorrect, the answer is the Constitution doesn’t defend abortion in any form. That’s the point of the current abortion ruling, the Supreme Court perverted the 14th amendment with their initial ruling on Roe and many on both sides of the isle have historically said Roe was extremely problematic regarding the 14th amendment. The court got it wrong…. It happens. Using the “privacy” logic of Roe V. Wade assisted suicide should be legal because it’s private between you and your Dr. Or… Can you kill someone on your property privately when they are asleep and then claim I have the right to privacy (this is a very close analogy to abortion)? No. How about the right to privacy when you go to the Dr. for a gunshot wound… I’m pretty sure the Dr. is required to disregard your right to privacy and call the authorities (why did the privacy between you and your Dr. magically disappear?). Roe was always a perversion of the 14 amendment and the privacy argument is extremely weak. Please prove how it’s different for abortion but not anything/everything else.
No offense but this maybe your worst analogy ever unless your a crazed vegan (it’s OK if you are… it would just add context to the discussion). It’s never been illegal to kill fruit or vegetables. In general it’s not illegal to kill animals (except endangered animals) there are exceptions to that though: here in NY putting your own dog down is illegal… you need to take it to a vet. It’s a state law and much like abortion it should be left up to local government to make those decisions. Taking a human life without just cause is a very different discussion to killing an apple or eating a steak. The death penalty is just cause. Self-defense is just cause. Abortion as presently performed is very seldom just cause. When does human life begin? Subsequently when do rights begin? Those two questions are fundamental and you've avoided giving your opinion on either.
I think it’s nice to share additional context, but why would you consistently share views that you don’t hold? Would you add context to a flat Earther’s argument too? I’m guessing not. So why add context to something you say you don’t agree with the overall concept? It seems disingenuous. I think everyone on this page understands that there are people who believe differently. I think we all understand there are people who don’t think it’s life until it takes it’s first breath of air, or there are a growing group of radicals who believe that the mother has the right to take a babies life even after birth. We all get that. Many of us disagree. Many of us know that those stances are inconsistent. Babies in the womb feel pain. Twins in the womb intentionally avoid their counterparts face with their fists and feet. It’s not just some blob in the moms belly. It’s living, thinking, dreaming, kicking, moving, has brain function, heartbeat, etc… it just hasn’t taken a breath yet. The stance that it’s not alive in the womb is not supported by any scientific measure (and never has been) So again I’ll ask you... When does human life begin?
Last note biologically speaking… scientifically speaking an unborn baby is not a parasite. You can call it a parasite but it is a human being in an early developmental stage. Labeling a fetal stage of a human being a parasite is tone deaf and incorrect (it’s not scientifically a parasite… there’s some debate about this but it’s never historically ever been considered a parasite and the majority opinion is that any mammalian fetus is not a parasite. Generally speaking a parasite is a different species than the host… a parasite doesn’t generally provide a service to the host… there are many other reasons why we’ve never called a pre-born baby a parasite). Maybe you should call a baby that is solely breast feeding a parasite too… but it’s tone deaf and not accurate either. It’s not a parasite. This parasite claim is new and it’s generally a claim by radical abortion advocates… not Dr.s or scientists. Again, why parrot extremist rhetoric that you say don’t believe? You’re carrying the water for extremists… which either you are one or you’re acting as a naïve pawn. Again, credible scientists and Dr. have never supported this claim. Side note: it’s not “a fetus” (for those who want to parrot that singular vague term). Saying it’s a fetus intentionally de-humanizes. it’s a fetal stage of a HUMAN BEING, Homo sapien… person. It’s no different than any other developmental stage… infant is a stage… elderly is a stage… embryo is a stage… fetal is a stage. It’s a fetal human. The narrative that its’ just some random fetus (like that’s a separate thing is solely done to strip the pre-born baby of it’s humanity… to make it seem like you aborting a “thing” and not a pre-born person.
Mostly agree. However the point is that it’s not solely the woman's body once she's’ pregnant. Stating that she has the right to do whatever has the expressed implication that the pre-born baby/fetal human has no rights. The woman has the right to do with her own body but she surrenders a portion of that right once it effects another human life. From your consistent pushing of that comment you either believe the baby is part of the woman's body or the baby has zero rights and the mother has 100% of the rights. Those are the only two logical inferences from your comment. If you don’t want to answer when life begins then how about limits on abortions… should there be any limits? Should the federal gov set those limits or should it be left up to each individual state? Jake Morgan Owner, PULLOFF.COM Independent Pulling News This page is a free service. The cost is covered out of my pocket. It takes a great deal of time and a fair amount of money to keep this website going. Donations for: photos, classified ads, forum discussion, etc... are appreciated. Side Note: We are no longer accepting PayPal donations. They have changed their terms of service and stated they would fine PayPal users for spreading "misinformation" and "hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory". PayPal did not provide definitions for some of these vague terms. Woke corporate policies regarding "misinformation" could result in an automatic fine of $2,500 which would have been removed directly from the customer’s PayPal account. PayPal did backdown from some of their policies but quietly implemented portions of them in later terms of service. A financial institute has no right to monitor social media accounts or speech. This is unacceptable and I'll no longer do business with PayPal. |
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court leak
|
Just Sayin’
|
Jake, I think the “ultimate contradiction”, as you stated, is the number of media outlets and individuals that are grieving the victims in Texas, yet championing the Pro-Choice movement. Death to a child comes in many forms and they have created their own sense of what they believe of what a child is and when it begins.
Ultimately, I think that you and I would agree that there will be a time when they will have to answer for their actions. |
Website Statistics
Global: Topics: 38,571, Posts: 229,597, Members: 3,319.
This forum: Topics: 279, Posts: 2,500.
Global: Topics: 38,571, Posts: 229,597, Members: 3,319.
This forum: Topics: 279, Posts: 2,500.
Our newest member BadHabit2
