I didn't notice you had a point but why didn't you include war? People die in war. People die from disease. People die in accidents. So?
Hiw many pregnancies are stopped due to birth control methods employed? Hiw about death do to old age? Why don,t you mention those? Don,t you care about old people?
Guns ownership should remain legal -- the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution ensures this right for American citizens. Abortion should remain legal -- making it illegal would simply drive the procedure underground, resulting in a major public health problem. Anybody disagree with either of these statements? If so, why? (With supporting evidence, please...).
Funny isn't it, you support one right decided by a bunch of judges but not another .... how "selective" of you.
Why are you worried about accomplices to murder getting the right care for it? - - - Updated - - - Rights are unalienable and are not given to us by the government. It is not legal for judges to legislate.
We are not talking about murder or accomplices to murder. Do stay on topic, k? Incorrect. There is no such thing as unalienable rights. Rights can be given and they can be taken away.
Rubbish, if as you suggest that rights were unalienable (impossible to take away or give up) then no court could give a death sentence, self-defence would be illegal and war could not happen. There is no such thing as unalienable rights, if you disagree then explain where these unalienable rights come from, because rights are founded on ethical value judgements, which may be empirical or rational and can only be "given" by a higher authority .. if you want to assert that the higher authority is a supreme being (God) then all you have to do is prove that God exists or at least did exist because if you cannot then there is not the slightest possibility of God conferring rights. Another 'higher authority' you might like to assert has given us rights is Nature itself, which is what is alluded to in the term natural rights. Nature is simply the whole universe, excluding any Supreme Beings that might exist. Nature is this self-perpetuating construct that can never be destroyed, except by a supra- Natural Supreme Being. Hence, in order to discover whether Natural Rights have been conferred by Nature, one must ask if there is anything that can be deduced from the workings of Nature that indicates a morality, and the obvious answer to that is no, Nature has no more respect for your life than it does for any other form of life on this planet and so finally we are left with the conclusion that it is man that confers rights and even then they are not unalienable. Don't forget it was a set of judges that legislated that the individual had the right to bear arms, and this was not finally legislated until District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (200
Absolute rubbish, murder is a legal term and nothing else. how childish, you have your so called argument trashed and so resort to pathetic little quips. Name one right you have that is unalienable please?
Gosh, doncha know in a civil world people behave civilly which doesn't include "post and run and hide".....they civilly defend/discuss their position or admit they were wrong...the civil thing to do
Nice. Look at all the gun deaths that were prevented by abortions!!!! If we could only convince more "at risk" parents to get abortions, we can prevent even more gun deaths. Thanks for pointing that out.
I almost got a brain cramp with your bloviating in that horror of a post. Judges legislating is illegal, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." (Article 1, Section 1) Please refer to Article 3 to catch up on the Judiciary. You seem to be in need of refreshing that memory of yours, or maybe you have never looked at it (the Constitution) before, which would not be surprising.
I would call the statement you made a trashy argument rather, "There is no such thing as unalienable rights. Rights can be given and they can be taken away." My right to call you the slave that you are. - - - Updated - - - Pretty correct I'd say.
That is pretty much fantasy, unfortunately. There is nothing that exists which created or bestows these unalienable rights on us. They are, by themselves, a belief only. They will never be more than that, unless man creates a system in which those rights are established. That is what a government is. Rights only exist when they are able to or willing to be enforced. A bear doesn't have a right to life which is why we don't arrest the other bears or mountain lions or whatever that may kill one. And, bears have not set up a system to enforce their right to life either. So they simply don't have it. Neither do bacteria. In fact, the only lifeforms that really have a right to life are human beings, because we're the only ones who've been able to set up a system which makes it so. And not all human beings enjoy this right, because not all human beings are lucky enough to live in a place which protects that right. It's one thing to believe that there are these rights that just exist without creation. It's quite another to think they will be respected without a system set up to enforce them.
As expected just more childish little quips, your evasion is obvious as is your ignorance. Just keep evading it is all you are good at
Judges do NOT legislate, they issues ruling about legislation passed by Congress. The fallacious alt-right meme about "legislating from the bench" is a load of malarky.
The judicial branch offers an important check to balance the efforts of pious anti-gun legislators who would like to take all guns out of the hands of all citizens AND against the efforts of pious anti-abortion legislators who would like to eliminate all abortions.
The courts, at the federal, state and local levels, certainly have the task of interpreting statutes, regulations, ordinances, etc., enacted into law by legislatures, administrative agencies (e.g., IRS, EPA, Health and state equivalents) and local bodies (e.g., city councils, county bodies). And there is another broad area that the courts deal with...the common law. These are not laws generated by the above referenced souces, but laws generated over the decades and centuries by the courts themselves. Courts sit in law and equity.
