Big Lies for Abortion >>MOD WARNING<<

Neither does the state government have the right to make decisions for the people because individuals have rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Neither the federal government nor the state nor any other level of government has the right to infringe an individual's freedom. Different groups of people, indeed, different individuals, have different opinions and those groups and individuals have the right to make their own choices if they do not cause chaos in society or interfere with order in society.

 

I figured you realized the case was decided, not by congress, not signed into law by a president, not put to the public for it's vote, but a total blast for the Supreme Court. Men in robes doing legislating.

I certainly am not the only person to claim that. Justice Ginsburg herself laments this. She says it shut down debate and for that reason she says it is the right ruling, but she does not agree with the decision.

Why you ask? She says the abortion issue belonged in the states legislation.

 

So federal or state law can't protect children?

I understand Democrats see those not yet adults, as non persons.

Defined as a human able to make all choices.

Children by no means get to make all choices.

My question is why you accept that the Government cant legislate laws to protect children.

Yes, when she got pregnant, she carries a child. I am sick of the BS that the unborn is no child.

 

Misquoting another justice?

Ginsberg was pointing out that had Congress done it's job there would have been no need for RvW. She has made other pertinent points such as stating the the South African constitution is better than the US constitution. I recommend that you find WHY she said that BEFORE making any fallacious assumptions.

The job of Congress is to pass laws. They FAILED to pass laws protecting women's reproductive rights.

The job of the SCOTUS is to determine if laws are Constitutional. In both RvW and in today's decision the SCOTUS determined that the legislation passed in Texas was UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it VIOLATED the individual rights of women.

The SCOTUS was doing the job that it was assigned in RvW just as it did again today overturning the unconstitutional Texas law.

 

Laws can be passed to protect children, and that is because damaging children causes damaged adults, and that causes disorder in society. Abortion, OTOH, does not cause disorder in society. And no, zefs are not children.

 

Based on many years of argument, based on many people shedding tears, I don't agree that it does not cause disorder to society.

Were it not for disorder, nobody would talk of abortions.,

The very thought my kids in the womb were not children repels me. I never would tell my children that prior to birth, they were not already children.

 

Absolutely not misquoting a justice and it is disingenuous of you to ask that.

AS you proved, she believed it is the job for congress, not robed agents of the Democrats.

Hell, for that matter the Ukraine constitution is far more complex, far more complete than ours is. Yet they illegaly caused the president to flee for his life.

If you think laws are not being passed, watch this short video.

[video=youtube;p5-5a6Q54BM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5-5a6Q54BM[/video]

 

You seem to use "I" and "MY" as if they are important when discussing a "WE". <Rule 3> your opinion does not get to define societal law, <Mod Edit>

 

What does the growth of the government have to do with abortion?

Please try and stay on topic.

You are entitled to your opinion but the facts are the facts and no amount of deflections are going to alter them one iota.

 

Next time, do not bring up passing laws if you don't want to add that to the topic at hand. I go with the flow.

 

Utter nonsense!

It was your obvious confusion as to the roles played by the powers that caused me to explain how it worked.

Wandering off down a rabbit hole that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the topic and then trying to blame that on someone else is just plain deceitful IMO.

 

If it is a bad decision you have had 40 years to get it reversed. You have had plenty of time to stack the bench with conservatives, get a case brought to the court and have the decision overturned. But you can't? Why do you think that is?

 

Well, Roe v Wade drove a stake into the hearts of the unborn. When Reagan put Sandra Day O'Connor on the bench, he made a huge mistake. When Roe was ruled on, don't you think that precedence kept this out of courts? I do think so.

When a mistake like O'Connor is on the bench, though now gone, things are hard to change.

Ginsburg believes this belongs in the congress, and not the court.

I believe the same thing.

How long did it take in the USA to get slavery overturned?

Even Prohibition lasted something like 20 years and people love to drink.

I would love more than anything to overturn the 16th amendment. It really set this nation on a terrible path. Some of have spent the past 20 odd years trying to reverse that.

http://www.freedomabovefortune.com/

 

Since I implied nothing of the sort it is patently obvious that reading comprehension is lacking.

The OP topic is ABORTION. Try actually posting about that subject for a change.

 

There has never been a case in 40 years that has even seriously challenged the legality of abortion. That is not precedent. That is the will of the people. The people want abortion not only here but all over the free world. There is no movement ANYWHERE in the free world to outlaw all abortion. The people have spoken.

 

(1) You still offer no evidence that a zygote is a person.

(2) You do not really believe abortion is murder. I know this because you are unwilling to sentence the woman to execution or life in prison. If you cannot admit you would punish her as you would for any other premeditated murder, people are not going to believe the bumper sticker rhetoric.

 

Not an assumption, but an absolute observation because of Judicial legislation. Nothing in the constitution authorizes the supreme court to interpret something that is not there. The republican style of government has been usurped on many subjects based on the 9th and 10th amendment. If a state case goes to the supreme court the court can interpret the state constitution. The USSC should stay with what is written and abortion was never authorized as a federal issue. The people of each state should decide for themselves. The judicial system put the opinions of highly populated states allowing their opinions to over ride the other sovereign states citizens opinion. That can be defined as tyranny.

- - - Updated - - -

Your reality is a absurd denial of the republican form of government and the rights of people of the different states.

 

Sure
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...ias_abortion_law_a_road_not_taken_117773.html

 

This puzzles me. Why do you speak of person?

 

Good post! What people in the various states is their business, not the federal government.

 

http://www.governing.com/topics/politics/Challenges-Abortion.html

Actually, I do not recall telling the forum that in the past 40 years cases to overturn the Roe decision have been in court.

It is wiser for a person not to pretend I said such a thing.

http://wrtl.org/abortion/problems-after-abortion/

- - - Updated - - -

Thank you. At least it shut up one poster who claims I did not quote Ginsburg correctly.

 

Onus is entirely on YOU to PROVE that abortion was ILLEGAL when this nation was founded.

Since abortion was LEGAL that means that it was covered by the 9th as one of the unenumerated rights belonging to the PEOPLE.

[video=youtube;HuABhumm6fY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuABhumm6fY[/video]

 

More bogus allegations with ZERO substantiation.

Quote the specific post where you were allegedly told that you had not quoted Ginsberg correctly.

 

I was responding to dnsmith (follow the links to his claim that "Person hood is there at conception").

 

Thank you for clarifying that there has not been a serious challenge to make abortion illegal in 40 years.