Five more faith-based lawsuits filed to overturn Florida’s 15-week abortion ban

[RayGravesGhost]

Do you have any idea why he may have stated that? Could it possibly be because the Supreme Court overstepped their authority and made legislative decisions they never had the authority to make given the constitutional separation of powers?

Wrong. Has nothing to do with what your stating

Thomas's opinion was based a controversial view of substantive due process

Please do your own homework and research Thomas & substantive due process
(One thing you'll find is that no other SCOTUS justice agrees with him)

That is why Roe was overturned. Not because the government had no power to determine if abortion was legal. But because the Supreme Court was not the proper vehicle to make such determinations.

Wrong. Please refer to the substantive due process information

That is why they put it back to the States. Why do people have such trouble understanding such a simple concept? If you want abortions on demand, take a trip to California or New York. No one banned it.

Wrong. Please refer to the prior due process information

The Supreme Court, for the first time in recent history, is actually trying to do what they are supposed to do and simply interpret and judge cases based on the laws passed by the legislature which comply with the Constitution instead of acting like a super legislature and inventing laws and rules which did not go through the proper legislative process.

Actually its one of the few times in history that the SCOTUS has taken away constitutional rights

I did not hear any leftists cry about the decisions regarding gay marriage (which are purely State issues) or any other left-leaning decisions which had no legislative authority. Why the outrage when the Supreme Court simply put these issues back in front of the people's representatives who actually are accountable directly to the populous? Isn't that how it should be?

No it shouldn't.

Constitutional rights aren't up to the approval of a certain political party or public referendum. They are rights

 

[Dr. Curmudgeon]

Wrong. Has nothing to do with what your stating

Thomas's opinion was based a controversial view of substantive due process

Please do your own homework and research Thomas & substantive due process
(One thing you'll find is that no other SCOTUS justice agrees with him)



Wrong. Please refer to the substantive due process information



Wrong. Please refer to the prior due process information


Actually its one of the few times in history that the SCOTUS has taken away constitutional rights




No it shouldn't.

Constitutional rights aren't up to the approval of a certain political party or public referendum. They are rights

No, gay marriage is a rationalization of sexual sin. It is not a right in fact certain sexual acts are a crime.

 

[RayGravesGhost]

Ok, I will try again. Just because a Jewish rabbi or person who says they are Jewish say they are in favor of abortion does not make it align with the Bible and traditional beliefs.

Who's "traditional" beliefs?

The bible in Genesis states that life begins at first breath.
Its what Jews believe

And since they're the authors of the old testament maybe we should listen to them

https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinio...ed-rr-abortion-law-letter-20180807-story.html
Life begins at birth — it says so in Genesis
Baltimore Sun
Aug 07, 2018 at 12:55 pm

Finally! A letter about abortion that actually makes sense. L.G. Connor of Ellicott City is absolutely right — before anyone can take a position on abortion they must first answer the question of when life begins (“When does life begin?” Aug. 6). And that's an easy one. The Bible tells us in no uncertain terms when life begins. In Genesis, chapter one, God answers that question himself. He forms a figure from the Earth, but it does not become Adam ("man" in Hebrew) until God "breathes into him the breath of life, and he became man.”

Clearly, life begins when you draw your first breath. That is when God places your soul in your body. Your soul enters your body with your first breath and it leaves with your last. The body is just a vessel — your being, your humanity, is your immortal soul. That's what the Bible says, and for the life of me I cannot understand why so many people, especially supposedly religious people, get this wrong. There is no question, no moral ambiguity. Abortion destroys an empty vessel, it does not kill a human being.


That is not to say that a fetus isn't alive, because it clearly is. So is a cow, or an earthworm, or a tree. However, simply being alive does not make something a human being. Having a soul is what sets us apart from other living things. Otherwise, every farmer and every lumberjack would be a murderer. And so would all of the rest of us who eat living things. Even the hardcore vegans would be murderers since they eat plants and plants are alive too.

So really, without some sort of religious or moral framework, there isn't any difference between killing a person and cutting down a tree. And that sounds like a pretty stupid position to be arguing. But if you follow your religious beliefs, the answer to the abortion question is crystal clear to anyone who can read. Abortion is not murder, as it does not take the life of another human being. It isn't any sort of moral question at all, it's simply a medical issue. I'm just mystified why the Pope doesn't get this one right. I'm sure he has a Bible kicking around the Vatican somewhere. If only he would take the time to read it.

That is like saying that just because some "Christian" pastors believe in gay marriage and that there is no hell, despite clear passages in the Bible, opens it up for debate. Those people are making up their own religions by borrowing bits and pieces. You cannot do that. Either you believe all of it or you don't believe any of it. You cannot pick and choose and then still call yourself a believer of that particular faith.

So you better question yourself on the "Either you believe all of it or you don't believe any of it." comment you just made because Genesis doesn't agree with you

Conservatives do believe in religious freedom. You can practice whatever religion you want. However, you do not have the right to use your religion to take away or infringe on the established rights of others. And before you say that abortion was an established right, no it was not. It was a dreamed up right from negative space in the Constitution which even RBG understood and stated was wrong.

Embryos don't have "established rights"

You make a claim about most people being in favor of abortion, but you have to look at the actual polls. I agree most people would be in favor of abortion in three cases: health of the mother (potential death not just inconvenience) rape, or incest. Since all three of these things account for less than 5% on abortions on a good day, they are outliers and not really even worth mentioning in the broader question of abortion.

Glad you're comfortable with disregarding the rights of minority views that you don't agree with.

Very American of you

You don keep revisiting things in court to get a certain outcome. That is what leftists do. You enact legislation through the proper channels. Had abortion advocates done this, then abortion would have been properly decided, regardless of what I believe to be morally right. I think it is immoral for people to engage in plenty of things the government says is legal.

So court cases that apply that legislation (the Constitution) have no place?

Again, what is so wrong with allowing the people of each state to determine what constitutes life and protected life? Would you make this same argument about slavery? A similar misreading of the Bible gave us the asinine position that the Bible condoned chattel slavery. (Slaves obey your masters) Slavery was an established "right" of white people for hundreds of years. Was that "settled" law which should not be overturned or was it immoral? Be careful how you argue and from what basis...it can be easily turned back on you.

What?

Those who argued for slavery to be legal based their view on what you believe

"States Rights" was the idea that each state had a right to be a "free" state or a slave state based on that state's preference.

The US Constitution struck that down because it violated the basic idea of the inalienable rights of "life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence

https://www.idahopress.com/opinion/...cle_a83c6455-edff-55de-814a-d372d3016e81.html
The unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Slaves did not begin to enjoy any unalienable rights until after the Civil War, despite the Emancipation Proclamation issued by President Lincoln on January 1, 1863. Slavery was abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865. States were required to accord equal rights to all under the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866. In 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment prohibited denial of the right to vote to citizens based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

The freed slaves were able to exercise their unalienable rights for a number of years but slowly and relentlessly those rights were taken away by white supremacists. Laws were enacted at the state and local level to establish racial segregation and keep Blacks from voting, receiving a decent education and exercising other basic rights. These laws continued in effect through the first half of the 20th Century.

Business and social practices took hold across the country through mid-century to keep Blacks from living in white communities. Blacks could not get housing loans for certain areas through a practice called redlining. Restrictions in deeds and covenants kept Blacks out of many neighborhoods. Those restrictions could still be found in Idaho property documents into the second half of the last century.

In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that separate schools for black kids were not permissible. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited a broad range of discriminatory practices, including in employment, housing and public accommodations. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was designed to provide people of color equal access to the polls.

 

[Dr. Curmudgeon]

Who's "traditional" beliefs?

The bible in Genesis states that life begins at first breath.
Its what Jews believe

And since they're the authors of the old testament maybe we should listen to them

https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinio...ed-rr-abortion-law-letter-20180807-story.html
Life begins at birth — it says so in Genesis
Baltimore Sun
Aug 07, 2018 at 12:55 pm

Finally! A letter about abortion that actually makes sense. L.G. Connor of Ellicott City is absolutely right — before anyone can take a position on abortion they must first answer the question of when life begins (“When does life begin?” Aug. 6). And that's an easy one. The Bible tells us in no uncertain terms when life begins. In Genesis, chapter one, God answers that question himself. He forms a figure from the Earth, but it does not become Adam ("man" in Hebrew) until God "breathes into him the breath of life, and he became man.”

Clearly, life begins when you draw your first breath. That is when God places your soul in your body. Your soul enters your body with your first breath and it leaves with your last. The body is just a vessel — your being, your humanity, is your immortal soul. That's what the Bible says, and for the life of me I cannot understand why so many people, especially supposedly religious people, get this wrong. There is no question, no moral ambiguity. Abortion destroys an empty vessel, it does not kill a human being.


That is not to say that a fetus isn't alive, because it clearly is. So is a cow, or an earthworm, or a tree. However, simply being alive does not make something a human being. Having a soul is what sets us apart from other living things. Otherwise, every farmer and every lumberjack would be a murderer. And so would all of the rest of us who eat living things. Even the hardcore vegans would be murderers since they eat plants and plants are alive too.

So really, without some sort of religious or moral framework, there isn't any difference between killing a person and cutting down a tree. And that sounds like a pretty stupid position to be arguing. But if you follow your religious beliefs, the answer to the abortion question is crystal clear to anyone who can read. Abortion is not murder, as it does not take the life of another human being. It isn't any sort of moral question at all, it's simply a medical issue. I'm just mystified why the Pope doesn't get this one right. I'm sure he has a Bible kicking around the Vatican somewhere. If only he would take the time to read it.




So you better question yourself on the "Either you believe all of it or you don't believe any of it." comment you just made because Genesis doesn't agree with you




Embryos don't have "established rights"



Glad you're comfortable with disregarding the rights of minority views that you don't agree with.

Very American of you




So court cases that apply that legislation (the Constitution) have no place?



What?

Those who argued for slavery to be legal based their view on what you believe

"States Rights" was the idea that each state had a right to be a "free" state or a slave state based on that state's preference.

The US Constitution struck that down because it violated the basic idea of the inalienable rights of "life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence

https://www.idahopress.com/opinion/...cle_a83c6455-edff-55de-814a-d372d3016e81.html
The unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Slaves did not begin to enjoy any unalienable rights until after the Civil War, despite the Emancipation Proclamation issued by President Lincoln on January 1, 1863. Slavery was abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865. States were required to accord equal rights to all under the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866. In 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment prohibited denial of the right to vote to citizens based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

The freed slaves were able to exercise their unalienable rights for a number of years but slowly and relentlessly those rights were taken away by white supremacists. Laws were enacted at the state and local level to establish racial segregation and keep Blacks from voting, receiving a decent education and exercising other basic rights. These laws continued in effect through the first half of the 20th Century.

Business and social practices took hold across the country through mid-century to keep Blacks from living in white communities. Blacks could not get housing loans for certain areas through a practice called redlining. Restrictions in deeds and covenants kept Blacks out of many neighborhoods. Those restrictions could still be found in Idaho property documents into the second half of the last century.

In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that separate schools for black kids were not permissible. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited a broad range of discriminatory practices, including in employment, housing and public accommodations. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was designed to provide people of color equal access to the polls.

But you lefties wanted afterbirth abortions? You kept pushing this murder of innocent babies until Roe vs Wade was overturned.

 

[NavigatorII]

DNR/

 

[park_mike]

Wrong. Has nothing to do with what your stating

Thomas's opinion was based a controversial view of substantive due process

Please do your own homework and research Thomas & substantive due process
(One thing you'll find is that no other SCOTUS justice agrees with him)



Wrong. Please refer to the substantive due process information



Wrong. Please refer to the prior due process information


Actually its one of the few times in history that the SCOTUS has taken away constitutional rights




No it shouldn't.

Constitutional rights aren't up to the approval of a certain political party or public referendum. They are rights

I don't even know where to start, lol. I actually happen to be a lawyer with decades of experience and am an appellate expert. I know a thing or two about reading and understanding cases. Thomas was not even the author of the majority opinion. Roe was overturned because there is no enumerated right to an abortion in the Constitution. Simple as that. It put the debate back to the States where it always belonged.

You said embryos don't have established rights. Perhaps, but that is not the point. The question is what is considered protected human life. Some people believe a fertilized embryo is a human life, some don't. That is the real question about abortion. What is protected human life.

As for your comments about Genesis, boy, does that article take those verses out of context, lol. Show me the passage in Genesis where it says life begins only at a baby's first breath. The Genesis account you are referencing says God made Adam from the elements of the Earth and then breathed life into him. God gave Adam life. It does not say the same thing about Eve. Was she not alive then? Are you really arguing that a full term baby in the womb is not a human being until they take their first breath outside the womb? If so, you are in the vast minority of all people, including those who support abortion and even the Roe Court from the 70s. On this subject, if we get to make up definitions about what is actually human life, what was wrong with the past generations defining black people as not human? According to your logic, that was perfectly fine. Just so we are clear, I believe that since God created us, we all have the same rights as humans regardless of skin tone or anything else. But to start going down the road where society gets to define human life according to their own ideology has had pretty bad results so far.

Funny you mentioned minority views. Do I disregard them? No. But they are in the minority by definition. The whole point of this democratic Republic is to allow everyone's voice to be heard but then make laws based on the majority view. That is kinda how this whole democratic Republic thing works.

SCOTUS did not take away a constitutional right. The whole opinion was about the fact that there never was a constitutional right to an abortion. I mean, come on! The ability to terminate a pregnancy is a decision that is either legal or not depending on what state you live in and under certain circumstances. It was never even thought about by the Founding Fathers and certainly was not contemplated by the Constitution.

 

[jfegaly]

Lol. Little dickey getting smacked down again. Maybe he should have kept his word on his permaban bet. What a loser.

 

[RayGravesGhost]

I don't even know where to start, lol. I actually happen to be a lawyer with decades of experience and am an appellate expert. I know a thing or two about reading and understanding cases. Thomas was not even the author of the majority opinion. Roe was overturned because there is no enumerated right to an abortion in the Constitution. Simple as that. It put the debate back to the States where it always belonged.

Alito was author but Thomas wrote a concurring opinion that no other justice signed on to

Ninth Amendment matter since your an appellate expert?

Ninth Amendment​

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You said embryos don't have established rights. Perhaps, but that is not the point. The question is what is considered protected human life. Some people believe a fertilized embryo is a human life, some don't. That is the real question about abortion. What is protected human life.

Yes that's why the term of viability has always been of issue.

As for your comments about Genesis, boy, does that article take those verses out of context, lol. Show me the passage in Genesis where it says life begins only at a baby's first breath. The Genesis account you are referencing says God made Adam from the elements of the Earth and then breathed life into him. God gave Adam life. It does not say the same thing about Eve. Was she not alive then? Are you really arguing that a full term baby in the womb is not a human being until they take their first breath outside the womb? If so, you are in the vast minority of all people, including those who support abortion and even the Roe Court from the 70s.

Well the Jewish faith finds your interpretation to be wrong.

This from the rabbi bringing the lawsuit:

https://www.vox.com/2022/7/3/23190408/judaism-rabbi-abortion-religion-reproductive-rights
What does Judaism say about abortion?

Abortion is permitted in Judaism, and when the life of the pregnant person is at stake, it is required. Judaism’s approach to abortion finds its basis in the book of Exodus. There’s a case where two people are fighting, and one person knocks over a pregnant person and causes a miscarriage. It says very clearly, if it’s only a miscarriage, then the person who caused the harm is obligated to pay monetary fines as damages, and if a pregnant person dies, then it is treated as manslaughter. So we see right away that in the book of Exodus it’s very clear that the fetus and pregnant person have different statuses, and causing a miscarriage is not treated as manslaughter. The fetus does not have the same status as a born human. It’s treated as potential life, rather than actual life.

There are two statements in the Talmud, codified in roughly 500 CE, that say for the first 40 days of pregnancy the fetus is “mere water” and doesn’t have any legal status at all, which incidentally is the same in Islam. For the first 40 days, the fetus has zero status, and from then on the fetus is considered a part of the pregnant person’s body — it is “as its mother’s thigh.” The fetus is an extension of the pregnant person until birth. It’s like that old slogan “my body, my choice”: it is literally her body! That makes intuitive sense and resonates with Roe and Casey’s delineation that abortion is permitted until viability. There’s a certain logic to all of that.

I could cite millions of texts through the centuries. We see language stating that emotional pain is just as serious as physical pain in making decisions about abortion. We see that dignity and suffering are legitimate reasons for having an abortion.

Judaism has said again and again that the life, health, and safety of the pregnant person is paramount. Her rights come first.

On this subject, if we get to make up definitions about what is actually human life, what was wrong with the past generations defining black people as not human? According to your logic, that was perfectly fine. Just so we are clear, I believe that since God created us, we all have the same rights as humans regardless of skin tone or anything else. But to start going down the road where society gets to define human life according to their own ideology has had pretty bad results so far.

Not according to my logic...that would seem to be according to you
Black people did not have an enumerated right to freedom...

Is it your belief then that their freedom should be a matter of state's rights then?

Funny you mentioned minority views. Do I disregard them? No. But they are in the minority by definition. The whole point of this democratic Republic is to allow everyone's voice to be heard but then make laws based on the majority view. That is kinda how this whole democratic Republic thing works.

Within a paragraph you're now arguing that majority view at the state level alone should be the basis for laws. Was that the case in regards to slavery?

Weren't there states where the majority view was black people were property?

Didn't black people have a non enumerated right to freedom?

SCOTUS did not take away a constitutional right. The whole opinion was about the fact that there never was a constitutional right to an abortion. I mean, come on! The ability to terminate a pregnancy is a decision that is either legal or not depending on what state you live in and under certain circumstances. It was never even thought about by the Founding Fathers and certainly was not contemplated by the Constitution.

Wrong. I'll refer you to the 9th amendment info regarding enumerated & non enumerated rights both existing legitimately.

The idea of enumerated and non enumerated rights was very directly thought of by the founding fathers

In particular Jefferson & Madison...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidm...e-of-our-unenumerated-rights/?sh=23f8fb02f604
The Ninth Amendment: The Value of Our Unenumerated Rights

Thomas Jefferson did not take part in the Constitutional Convention. He wrote to James Madison that the omission of a Bill of Rights would be a major mistake. "A bill of rights," he said, "is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth."


Madison wasn't convinced. He called specifying rights a "parchment barrier." In other words, a Bill of Rights is just dried ink on paper. History has taught us that despots worry more about controlling the military and defeating freedom-loving gun owners than about words on a piece of paper.

Madison's primary strategy to preserve our rights was to give Congress an unlimited veto over state laws. A second tactic was to create a council made up of the executive and judicial branches whose sole job was to veto federal laws. It is interesting to consider Madison's emphasis on vetoing laws that encroach on rights and freedoms. Today too many people's first reaction to problems is to exclaim, "There ought to be a law!"

Ultimately, Madison favored the Bill of Rights. He thought it would be educational and believed breaking the paper barrier might rally revolution against an oppressive government in the future. Jefferson had persuaded Madison it would help make the judicial branch the guardian of individual rights. All these arguments have proven useful to help maintain our liberty.

The Ninth Amendment is my favorite: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Many of us are familiar with our First Amendment rights. Much political debate surrounds our Second Amendment rights. But few of us ever think about how the Ninth Amendment preserves all of our rights not cited in the Constitution.

 

[JimGaster]

Not all Democrats are Satanist!

All Satanists are Democrats…

 

[jfegaly]

I don't even know where to start, lol. I actually happen to be a lawyer with decades of experience and am an appellate expert. I know a thing or two about reading and understanding cases. Thomas was not even the author of the majority opinion. Roe was overturned because there is no enumerated right to an abortion in the Constitution. Simple as that. It put the debate back to the States where it always belonged.

You said embryos don't have established rights. Perhaps, but that is not the point. The question is what is considered protected human life. Some people believe a fertilized embryo is a human life, some don't. That is the real question about abortion. What is protected human life.

As for your comments about Genesis, boy, does that article take those verses out of context, lol. Show me the passage in Genesis where it says life begins only at a baby's first breath. The Genesis account you are referencing says God made Adam from the elements of the Earth and then breathed life into him. God gave Adam life. It does not say the same thing about Eve. Was she not alive then? Are you really arguing that a full term baby in the womb is not a human being until they take their first breath outside the womb? If so, you are in the vast minority of all people, including those who support abortion and even the Roe Court from the 70s. On this subject, if we get to make up definitions about what is actually human life, what was wrong with the past generations defining black people as not human? According to your logic, that was perfectly fine. Just so we are clear, I believe that since God created us, we all have the same rights as humans regardless of skin tone or anything else. But to start going down the road where society gets to define human life according to their own ideology has had pretty bad results so far.

Funny you mentioned minority views. Do I disregard them? No. But they are in the minority by definition. The whole point of this democratic Republic is to allow everyone's voice to be heard but then make laws based on the majority view. That is kinda how this whole democratic Republic thing works.

SCOTUS did not take away a constitutional right. The whole opinion was about the fact that there never was a constitutional right to an abortion. I mean, come on! The ability to terminate a pregnancy is a decision that is either legal or not depending on what state you live in and under certain circumstances. It was never even thought about by the Founding Fathers and certainly was not contemplated by the Constitution.

Hey Mike. You’re arguing with a troll that has created multiple accounts Everytime he loses credibility. He literally googles everything, and takes all his information from liberal sources. He has been caught lying numerous times. Just wanted you to know you’re basically debating a kid who lives in mommas basement and works the fryer at a Whataburger. Might save you some grief.

 

[bmoregator95]

It has never been about the life of the mother. That is a straw man set up by abortion advocates. Depending on the provider of the statistic, life of the mother accounts from anywhere from 4 percent to less than 1 percent of abortions. The vast majority, over 90 percent, are either due to an inconvenient time for a child or lack of financial stability. Neither are good reasons to kill a child.

That is like saying we should ban all automobiles since a fraction of the people driving them die in a car accident each year. You cannot take an outlier statistic and use it to argue for the majority. That is what many people do to try and justify their positions which have no statistical validity.

And I am not sure why you would bring my "wife" into it. How do you know I am married? How do you know I am straight? You are making a ton of assumptions for someone of your political persuasion, lol. I guess it is only biased, bigoted, and intolerant when done by a conservative.

So how many children have you adopted? I hope at least 2....

 

[bmoregator95]

So how many of you on this board have served as foster parents or adoptive parents? There are over 400,000 kids in foster care each year (thank goodness their moms made the right choice), where are all the pro-lifers to rescue them from "the system"?

 

[goldmom]

Vote No for Her = Yes for Satan.

There are MANY voters who came out to vote on the Kansas referendum-and it was decided by voters across the spectrum. I was surprised to see the very large number of independents in a State continually referred to as “reliably red”.

SCOTUS - as we should not forget - found that bottom line the issue lay with the individual states. Kansas voters have indicated how they want their legislators (remember that Kansas is also unique with its unicameral legislative construct) to enact laws going forward on this issue.

 

[GatorshimesSubParMember]

Not all Democrats are Satanist!

All Satanists are Democrats…

I'm pretty sure E-Dub would have something to say about this.

Where is he, anyways?

 

[jfegaly]

There are MANY voters who came out to vote on the Kansas referendum-and it was decided by voters across the spectrum. I was surprised to see the very large number of independents in a State continually referred to as “reliably red”.

SCOTUS - as we should not forget - found that bottom line the issue lay with the individual states. Kansas voters have indicated how they want their legislators (remember that Kansas is also unique with its unicameral legislative construct) to enact laws going forward on this issue.

All true. Also true, we are a constitutional republic. Meaning, our founders were intelligent enough to realize that the populace shouldn’t make laws. We are not a democracy, but I do find it interesting that the board Romneys seem to see this issue similarly.

The legislature can, but does not have to side with the wishes of the people. Then it’s up to the people to vote accordingly.

Hell, term limits would have been enacted long ago if (at a federal level) our legislators had passed laws based on the peoples wishes.

 

[Dr. Curmudgeon]

All true. Also true, we are a constitutional republic. Meaning, our founders were intelligent enough to realize that the populace shouldn’t make laws. We are not a democracy, but I do find it interesting that the board Romneys seem to see this issue similarly.

The legislature can, but does not have to side with the wishes of the people. Then it’s up to the people to vote accordingly.

Hell, term limits would have been enacted long ago if (at a federal level) our legislators had passed laws based on the peoples wishes.

Yes, a strong central government not an overreaching big government that doles out everything with no regard for personal freedom.

 

[BillCutting4585]

 

[Timmer5]

Libbies attack Christians but stay away from Jews and Muslims. I wonder why?

Dems/L'tards hate Christians because they cant control them and their beliefs.

 

[park_mike]

So how many children have you adopted? I hope at least 2....

actually 1 and my siblings have adopted and fostered and I was adopted, so I guess there goes your theory about me...

 

[park_mike]

So how many of you on this board have served as foster parents or adoptive parents? There are over 400,000 kids in foster care each year (thank goodness their moms made the right choice), where are all the pro-lifers to rescue them from "the system"?

This is the dumbest argument ever. I cringe whenever an abortion advocate mentions it.

You are basically saying that we should kill people if we don't feel like caring for them. Should we use this same argument with old people...handicapped people...people who rely entirely on government assistance? The list goes on. Who gets to decide which life is worth letting them live and who should die for convenience? That was the same thinking Hitler used in the 30s to get people to buy into the Holocaust.

 

[park_mike]

Hey Mike. You’re arguing with a troll that has created multiple accounts Everytime he loses credibility. He literally googles everything, and takes all his information from liberal sources. He has been caught lying numerous times. Just wanted you to know you’re basically debating a kid who lives in mommas basement and works the fryer at a Whataburger. Might save you some grief.

I am starting to find that out. I am all for a good debate. But when someone just abandons logic and relies on strawman arguments then there really is no use.

 

[RayGravesGhost]

Awww, the resident appeals "expert" surrenders when he finds out the forefathers did debate & write about non enumerated rights... or the 9th amendment for that matter.

And he conveniently ignores Genesis, Exodus, and the Talmud to misstate what the Jewish community believes about abortion

Other than that....his view is perfectly logical

 

[Dr. Curmudgeon]

Awww, the resident appeals "expert" surrenders when he finds out the forefathers did debate & write about non enumerated rights... or the 9th amendment for that matter.

And he conveniently ignores Genesis, Exodus, and the Talmud to misstate what the Jewish community believes about abortion

Other than that....his view is perfectly logical

The constitution was designed so that you would have freedom from persecutions by religions as well as allow each individual to worship any religion they wanted to without persecution. But, no person that believes in the almighty God would desecrate his creations.

 

[RayGravesGhost]

Thank you disavowing the Jewish faith as not believing in the almighty God