Is Roe v Wade Finally At Deaths Door?

[BillsFanNC]

 

[SoCal Deek]

25 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

Right on SoCal...

There are terrible consequences when unlimited, no time limits etc are not considered. BUT  Women must have rights enshrined federally not by church driven doctrine by state. Sharia law by Christians as I see it. 

Church driven doctrine? You mean like the same doctrine upheld by virtually every civilized nation that thou shall not kill? That doctrine? Come on Niagara….this is way more existential than whether to honor the sabbath or eat meat on Friday. 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[sherpa]

9 hours ago, TH3 said:

 

you guys believe that life begins at conception?

 

Speaking for myself and our family, and nobody else.

The second my wife told me she was pregnant, and all three times, we considered it, and treated each as human life.

[Albwan]

I hope it goes away. One of my favorite hobbies is watching lefties go full ######.

Great stuff.

[Rockpile233]

There is low relative support for abortion bans in the country period. Within younger generational demographics even less. The fact this is a priority, a 50 year old ruling, is something anyone should be frustrated about. Now we’ll banter about this and distract from real issues.

 

Every time this comes up it’s typically being used politically. That’s what saddens me about SCOTUS picking this back up. I don’t see the net benefit. My mind wanders to cynical places trying to figure out the motivations.

Edited May 3, 2022 by Rockpile233

[Niagara Bill]

32 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

Speaking for myself and our family, and nobody else.

The second my wife told me she was pregnant, and all three times, we considered it, and treated each as human life.

I think most people without politics would agree with that sense if a couple is involved. BUT, often a couple wishing to have a family is not involved. 

If you believe a woman has domain over her body then some leeway must be considered. 

Always amazed that the political right, people who want max freedom, are more anti abortion are unwilling to be taxed to help pay for children who are not wanted. Complex. Just give women domain over their bodies with restrictions, time, etc.

 

[SoCal Deek]

23 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

I think most people without politics would agree with that sense if a couple is involved. BUT, often a couple wishing to have a family is not involved. 

If you believe a woman has domain over her body then some leeway must be considered. 

Always amazed that the political right, people who want max freedom, are more anti abortion are unwilling to be taxed to help pay for children who are not wanted. Complex. Just give women domain over their bodies with restrictions, time, etc.

 

It’s certainly very complex. The result of the leaked opinion is that the American people will finally have the opportunity to have this debate on a state by state basis. But to be clear, the center of the debate is NOT whether a woman has the right to choose… but instead whether the baby has the right to survive. 

[Buffarukus]

7 hours ago, Niagara Bill said:

I think most people without politics would agree with that sense if a couple is involved. BUT, often a couple wishing to have a family is not involved. 

If you believe a woman has domain over her body then some leeway must be considered. 

Always amazed that the political right, people who want max freedom, are more anti abortion are unwilling to be taxed to help pay for children who are not wanted. Complex. Just give women domain over their bodies with restrictions, time, etc.

 

 

it seems to go both ways as with all things political. the left seems ok with ending life before it begins but fighting to defend it when that life was used to destroy others (death penalty). of coarse we get the exact flip of the coin on the right. saving a mothers life aside which is not really in debate anyways. which seems more worthy to defend? a unborn child or a convicted felon?

 

just strange how even hypocracy on how "precious" life is can be changed quickly when looked  through a political lens. 

 

im personally ok with both. women can choose but so can a court if someone uses their life to cause nothing but pain and destruction on others...both should be concidered extreme and serious.

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by Buffarukus

[Doc Brown]

9 hours ago, Rockpile233 said:

There is low relative support for abortion bans in the country period. Within younger generational demographics even less. The fact this is a priority, a 50 year old ruling, is something anyone should be frustrated about. Now we’ll banter about this and distract from real issues.

 

Every time this comes up it’s typically being used politically. That’s what saddens me about SCOTUS picking this back up. I don’t see the net benefit. My mind wanders to cynical places trying to figure out the motivations.

Public opinion doesn't (or at least shouldn't matter) in Supreme Court decisions.  The SCOTUS isn't "picking this back up."  They finally have the numbers that allow them to overturn what many legal scholars (including those that are pro choice) as bad constitutional law.  There's nothing in the constitution that prohibits state governments from making abortion laws. 

 

What this does do is allow people the freedom to vote for representatives that best reflect their views on abortion and politicians can finally do something about it.  This should be a net positive in this country in the long run.

[Niagara Bill]

2 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Public opinion doesn't (or at least shouldn't matter) in Supreme Court decisions.  The SCOTUS isn't "picking this back up."  They finally have the numbers that allow them to overturn what many legal scholars (including those that are pro choice) as bad constitutional law.  There's nothing in the constitution that prohibits state governments from making abortion laws. 

 

What this does do is allow people the freedom to vote for representatives that best reflect their views on abortion and politicians can finally do something about it.  This should be a net positive in this country in the long run.

The problem begins Doc with the types of laws like Texas who want to punish someone for assisting a citizen to go to another state for the procedure even a mother or father of brother. It is equally nuts that organizations exists to encourage and help someone get an abortion. The extremes are sick!

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

12 hours ago, Niagara Bill said:

I think most people without politics would agree with that sense if a couple is involved. BUT, often a couple wishing to have a family is not involved. 

If you believe a woman has domain over her body then some leeway must be considered. 

Always amazed that the political right, people who want max freedom, are more anti abortion are unwilling to be taxed to help pay for children who are not wanted. Complex. Just give women domain over their bodies with restrictions, time, etc.

 

You’re on a good run here with sensible commentary.  I see @SoCal Deek addressed the right to life consideration, but suggesting right leaning folks “are unwilling to be taxed to help pay for children…” is complete nonsense. 
 

I think most people—including liberal lefty’s looking forward to having their debt obligations get the Jimmy Hoffa treatment— get uncomfortable when they realize they work for the govt until April or May when they are allowed to keep a bit for themselves.  
 

There’s plenty of money in the system, it just gets stepped on multiple times along the way.  

[Tiberius]

2 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Public opinion doesn't (or at least shouldn't matter) in Supreme Court decisions.  The SCOTUS isn't "picking this back up."  They finally have the numbers that allow them to overturn what many legal scholars (including those that are pro choice) as bad constitutional law.  There's nothing in the constitution that prohibits state governments from making abortion laws. 

 

What this does do is allow people the freedom to vote for representatives that best reflect their views on abortion and politicians can finally do something about it.  This should be a net positive in this country in the long run.

But there are certain fundamental rights that states should not be able to interfere with. And a women's decision to carry a pregnancy to term or not should be one of them 

[FireChans]

6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

But there are certain fundamental rights that states should not be able to interfere with. And a women's decision to carry a pregnancy to term or not should be one of them 

If enough people believed that, it would be ratified as an amendment in the constitution.

 

which will never happen.

[SoCal Deek]

16 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

But there are certain fundamental rights that states should not be able to interfere with. And a women's decision to carry a pregnancy to term or not should be one of them 

And among those inalienable rights are LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The constitution already very clear speaks to the issue. It’s right there in the beginning! 

[Tiberius]

17 minutes ago, FireChans said:

If enough people believed that, it would be ratified as an amendment in the constitution.

 

which will never happen.

In 1830 there was no Constitutional amendment banning slavery, and most said it would never happen. 

 

 

8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

And among those inalienable rights are LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The constitution already very clear speaks to the issue. It’s right there in the beginning! 

That's not the Constitution. 

 

Wow. You really are something 

[SoCal Deek]

5 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

In 1830 there was no Constitutional amendment banning slavery, and most said it would never happen. 

 

 

That's not the Constitution. 

 

Wow. You really are something 

Ha! Hey it’s really early here in California! 😂

[SoCal Deek]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

But there are certain fundamental rights that states should not be able to interfere with. And a women's decision to carry a pregnancy to term or not should be one of them 

 By the way Tibs….between the Declaration of Independence and the writing of the Constitution, which disappeared? The Creator? The self evident truths? The unalienable rights? Or is it your premise that the framers were going to include Life but it didn’t make the final cut? 😉

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

 By the way Tibs….between the Declaration of Independence and the writing of the Constitution, which disappeared? The Creator? The self evident truths? The unalienable rights? Or is it your premise that the framers were going to include Life but it didn’t make the final cut? 😉

If you were a black man, all of them 

[SoCal Deek]

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

If you were a black man, all of them 

So we agree here. At some point the country realized that it needed to clarify and correct that Liberty applied to all people….including blacks. Now, it’s apparently time to make another clarification and reinforce that Life applies to every life, including the yet born. 

Edited May 4, 2022 by SoCal Deek

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

So we agree here. At some point the country realized that it needed to clarify and correct that Liberty applied to all people….including blacks. Now, it’s apparently time to make another clarification and reinforce that Life applies to every life, including the yet born. 

You guys go with that, we will see what the people say at election time. 

 

Just so cynical of you people. Pretending to cry over a zygote getting aborted. Just to punish women 

[SoCal Deek]

25 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

You guys go with that, we will see what the people say at election time. 

 

Just so cynical of you people. Pretending to cry over a zygote getting aborted. Just to punish women 

In a word.....Yikes!   So in your view, Liberty is a definite "yes", but Life is a "no".  Got it.

[BillStime]

 

[B-Man]

 

 

Senator Liawatha is big mad because she might not be able to kill babies any longer. WATCH:

 

 

[BillStime]

1 minute ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Senator Liawatha is big mad because she might not be able to kill babies any longer. WATCH:

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

Answer:  NO.

 

 

 

[Niagara Bill]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

So we agree here. At some point the country realized that it needed to clarify and correct that Liberty applied to all people….including blacks. Now, it’s apparently time to make another clarification and reinforce that Life applies to every life, including the yet born. 

1 hellava point SoCal, but what is the moment? Morning after, heart beat, brain development, sperm finds a home, ??

Not suggesting you have the answer but a definition between abortion and murder needs clarity.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Tiberius]

Ahhhh....poor things. They feel forced to help parents 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2022/05/03/gop-families-roe-wade/Republican lawmakers are facing renewed internal pressure to support child benefit programs for parents after a leaked opinion on Monday showed the Supreme Court is prepared to strike down federal abortion protections.

The GOP has adamantly opposed President Biden’s proposals to provide cash payments for parents, universal prekindergarten and other family benefit programs such as expanded child-care subsidies. But with the Supreme Court appearing poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, even some Republican senators are acknowledging that the party may need to do more to provide support for parents.

[Big Blitz]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

 

 

 

 

 

Are we a country that was founded on our Hindu principles? 

 

Absolutely nothing against Hindus, you're free to worship here (for now), but the Founders and our legal systems were influenced by the Judeo-Christian world.   

 

 

Inalienable rights require a God.

 

"Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

 

--John Adams, he was important 

 

 

 

 

Thankfully, for now, you're free to choose and worship or not however you wish.  

 

If the immoral and the irreligious (the people that despise it) have their way, its over. 

 

 

[BillStime]

40 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

 

 

Are we a country that was founded on our Hindu principles? 

 

Absolutely nothing against Hindus, you're free to worship here (for now), but the Founders and our legal systems were influenced by the Judeo-Christian world.   

 

 

Inalienable rights require a God.

 

"Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

 

--John Adams, he was important 

 

 

 

 

Thankfully, for now, you're free to choose and worship or not however you wish.  

 

If the immoral and the irreligious (the people that despise it) have their way, its over. 

 

 

You are 100% wrong

 

[Tiberius]

42 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

 

 

Are we a country that was founded on our Hindu principles? 

 

Absolutely nothing against Hindus, you're free to worship here (for now), but the Founders and our legal systems were influenced by the Judeo-Christian world.   

 

 

Inalienable rights require a God.

 

"Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

 

--John Adams, he was important 

 

 

 

 

Thankfully, for now, you're free to choose and worship or not however you wish.  

 

If the immoral and the irreligious (the people that despise it) have their way, its over. 

 

 

Where are rights, democracy or liberty mentioned in the Bible? 

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, Niagara Bill said:

1 hellava point SoCal, but what is the moment? Morning after, heart beat, brain development, sperm finds a home, ??

Not suggesting you have the answer but a definition between abortion and murder needs clarity.

Correct, I don't have the answer. But I shouldn't.  That's what the various legislative bills in each state would determine.  It's no different from my previous email when I mentioned that states used to have (and maybe some still do) different drinking ages.  Each state will make their own determination.

18 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Where are rights, democracy or liberty mentioned in the Bible? 

The Declaration, and its sister document, the Constitution don't reference the Bible. They refer to a Creator.  What do you believe that term refers to?  Please don't tell me you've found yet another rabbit hole to go down. 

[Big Blitz]

21 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Where are rights, democracy or liberty mentioned in the Bible? 

 

 

Do some research on free will and it's relevance to the Judeo-Christian world 

[Tiberius]

6 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

Do some research on free will and it's relevance to the Judeo-Christian world 

Christianity was kind of a problem. That's why we had to have a first amendment. 

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, Tiberius said:

Christianity was kind of a problem. That's why we had to have a first amendment. 

Now what? My gosh, you have a really odd way of looking at our country.

[Tiberius]

13 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Correct, I don't have the answer. But I shouldn't.  That's what the various legislative bills in each state would determine.  It's no different from my previous email when I mentioned that states used to have (and maybe some still do) different drinking ages.  Each state will make their own determination.

The Declaration, and its sister document, the Constitution don't reference the Bible. They refer to a Creator.  What do you believe that term refers to?  Please don't tell me you've found yet another rabbit hole to go down. 

Do any of the documents quote the Bible? 

 

No 

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Now what? My gosh, you have a really odd way of looking at our country.

You just don't understand the country you live in 

[BillStime]

Gay marriage IS next

 

Hey @Doc - which party is transforming America?

[SoCal Deek]

9 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Do any of the documents quote the Bible? 

 

No 

You just don't understand the country you live in 

Quote the Bible?  No.....why?  Did you read ANYTHING that I wrote.  The right to life is described an unalienable. How much clearer did you want the authors to be? They already said that they hold these truths to be self-evident.  It was there way of saying.....DUH, NO *****! 

[Big Blitz]

9 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Do any of the documents quote the Bible? 

 

 

It's the world they were raised in.  

 

Did Buddhists or pagans develop the pillars of Western Civilization?

 

 

The parade of horribles in the history of Christianity does not take away from the fact this country is here in large part due to Judeo-Christian values.