Wonderful story. I feel so sorry for people that can internally rationalize the taking of a human life so easily.
Supreme Court hearing on abortion...
- Thread starter Gator Fever
- Start date
I think it's also that we disagree on the protection of human life. Unfortunately, it's become political, the same people that have wrung their hands for the last 18 months over 700k people dying (assuming the figures are correct) from covid, don't bat an eye at 800k dying every year from abortion. Or notice that dozens are murdered every weekend in Chicago.
A society that doesn't protect its most defenseless is doomed to damnation. The devil smiles at this country's stance on abortion.
Thank God for your voice and the fact that you can be heard. God Bless you, Sir.
This^^^we have made this issue a partisan issue by placing labels on it that hide the horrors from the masses of the voting public. Most people that decide to abort carry that guilt for the rest of their life.
I have no issue with that but think abortion should be illegal.
Does the constitution talks about health choices? Do we really want states deciding which health/body decisions we can or can not make? That has always been my issue with overturning it fully. I am ok with re-visiting the viability aspect.
Care to address the original reason for the issue and the people who put it front and center? Crickets.
Then what is your point in mentioning the scoreboard? Look, the current law will never be fully overturned. Chuck Schumer has already threatened Gorsuch and Kavanajgh, by name, at the Supreme Court building to intimidate them on abortion votes.
Last edited:
The issue legally is that health care has always been a state issue. It was never a national issue. If people wanted to make abortion legal, then the state legislature would be the place to do it. We have all kinds of laws, family law especially, where the law varies state to state, even when defining what is necessary to constitute a marriage.
The problem with Roe is that the proponents used inference based on inference in the constitution to create a national right to abortion which was never the purpose of the constitution. The constitution is designed to provide a framework upon which the legislature could build. It has been used by activist judges to essentially rule into being legislative action which would never pass in the normal legislature. This is because the court is picked by sitting presidents with specific goals and then those nine judges sit for life. They are not a legislative body and should not be making law.
If the state legislature of any state passed laws through the normal process defining life as existing only outside the womb, I would still think it immoral and somewhat crazy given what medical science tells us, but I would not have a problem with the legal mechanism. Sorry for the long post.
The problem with Roe is that the proponents used inference based on inference in the constitution to create a national right to abortion which was never the purpose of the constitution. The constitution is designed to provide a framework upon which the legislature could build. It has been used by activist judges to essentially rule into being legislative action which would never pass in the normal legislature. This is because the court is picked by sitting presidents with specific goals and then those nine judges sit for life. They are not a legislative body and should not be making law.
If the state legislature of any state passed laws through the normal process defining life as existing only outside the womb, I would still think it immoral and somewhat crazy given what medical science tells us, but I would not have a problem with the legal mechanism. Sorry for the long post.
Please read this article which I think is well threaten and supports what you are saying and why Roe vs Wade is bad law. And not making it a moral issue but a Constitutional issue.
Yes, Overturn Roe | National Review
The case against Roe is not that abortion is a great evil. The case against Roe is that it is bad law.
www.nationalreview.com
Wrong or right, different spectrum of ideas came to that conclusion.Care to address the original reason for the issue and the people who put it front and center? Crickets.
Oh stop it. Both sides have been trying to intimidate the judges for like 50 years with this decision.
I hate when you guys try to make it like it's just the democrats.
This is a really good explanation but the problem is the courts became too political.
McConnell said that "we need to appoint more conservative judges to stop the democrats agenda".
So the courts are now used as a way to ensure that even without control of congress, you can stop the other side from having passed laws through congress becoming/staying law.
Every law (Voting, gerrymandering, ACA, etc) passed through normal order gets challenged nowadays. It's truly out of control.
Personally I really don't care. I just like poking the hypocrite finger in Dimtard eyes. (This is not even remotely pointed at you). An issue that began with eugenics is now the darling of the left. Seriously, we can't make this stuff up. 😂
Maybe they have, but I don't ever remember hearing about any Republicans marching outside the supreme court and basically threatening 2 judges by name like Schumer did.
Schumer, the Supreme Court, and the Mob | National Review
We are not a rule-of-law society. We just pretend to be. In a rule-of-law society, a mob would not gather on the steps of the courthouse in the first place.
www.nationalreview.com
Schumer, the Supreme Court, and the Mob | National Review
We are not a rule-of-law society. We just pretend to be. In a rule-of-law society, a mob would not gather on the steps of the courthouse in the first place.
www.nationalreview.com
Judge Napolitano: Schumer's threat toward Supreme Court justices 'very dangerous'
Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano warned on “Fox & Friends” on Thursday that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., politicizing the Supreme Court is “very dangerous.”
You are famous for making the above kind of statements with zero evidence. So I will provide you my evidence below in a link and I will wait for your apparently easily obtainable evidence since you have 50 years of examples to pick from. I'm waiting.
Last edited:
The left will definitely weaponize their positions more than the right. The right is too busy trying to kiss the media's behind to weaponize their power like the left does. A clear difference was that Russian collusion made up nonsense. If the FBI did that to spy on a Dem candidate/POTUS they would have been in jail and it would be considered much bigger than Watergate.
For those that are Pro-Abortion, I await an answer to this question:
If you call 6 Million Jewish murders of men, women, and children a HOLOCAUST,,,,
THEN WHAT DO YOU CALL 62+ MILLION MURDERS BY INFANTICIDE?
If you call 6 Million Jewish murders of men, women, and children a HOLOCAUST,,,,
THEN WHAT DO YOU CALL 62+ MILLION MURDERS BY INFANTICIDE?
I'd call it yet another Dim-moe-RAT policy of RACIST actions.
Like the Jim Crow Laws.
Like the Trail of Tears.
Like what the Rats have been doing one way or another for the past 2 centuries.
Now they would like to put us all back on their plantations, in Socialist/Communist tyranny and slavery.
But this time around, they are in for one HELL of a surprise instead....
Like the Jim Crow Laws.
Like the Trail of Tears.
Like what the Rats have been doing one way or another for the past 2 centuries.
Now they would like to put us all back on their plantations, in Socialist/Communist tyranny and slavery.
But this time around, they are in for one HELL of a surprise instead....
When God, souls, and religious morality are not relevant, What the Hell is?
