Jim Harbaugh
- Thread starter Knight Shift
- Start date
- Status
seems like some people get slightly perturbed if another isn't in lockstep with the agenda they bring forward and that means : the victim card must be used or my rights are being violated card
is put in play
I also always thought that Roe v Wade was decided on shakey consitutional grounds. I never believed that the Constitution gave women the right to have an abortion. I agree with our current Supreme Court that abortion rights should be decided by individual states.
Both sides do it but the Democrats do it a little differently from the Republicans. These days, the left trots out the Racist Boogeyman at every opportunity, which they make sure is all the time, a boogeyman which exists but is overplayed. The right tends to trot out boogeyman who don't exist--the war on christmas--or portray the left wing boogeyman as an existential threat to America, which is a hallmark of fascism. The left is not wrong or following policies that are bad for America in their minds, it hates America and wants to destroy it. That leads to very scary responses. This is no secret. Elected Republicans come out today all the time and say wokism is trying to destroy America. Before that it was anarchists, then communists, then the UN with black helicopters, then gays, then transgendered people, etc. But when you tell people the other side is trying to destroy the country it justifies anything in their minds to defend the country, including undemocratic or violent behavior. After all, its for a sacred cause. This is what lies behind Trump and Jan 6 and why so many still back him up. They think he's the only man who can save the country and that's how democracies often go down.
Let's flip that around and look at it from the "less government," libertarian, strict-constructionist perspective: what gives government the right to regulate abortion if it isn't in a constitution?
My conscience tell me to mind my own damn business and stop trying to tell others how to live if they're not hurting anybody. Also, my conscience would never allow me to believe in any "god" that hates the people he created for any reason, let alone for doing something he obviously designed into them.
So extremist liberals who helped get Dem SC nominees approved despite lying about how they would vote in the future are more to the point? Come on now. You can't be that stupid. The level of abuse leveled against SC nominees by Republicans is off the chart. You had crazy Dr Ford, who had her social media scrubbed in advance of her fantasy claims, being called a hero by the MSM. Her own father had to apologize to Kav's dad at their country club. And then they sought to pack the court by enlarging it during a Dem presidency. Fair play? But but but we are so virtuous. Look at us.
This is just an example of someone on the right pretending things happened "as they should" instead of because of decades-long action which wasn't the least bit secret. Is someone really pretending the GOP didn't run against abortion and promise Roe v Wade would be overturned for 50 years? Please.
That is not the current Supreme Court's position. Their position is that abortion should be decided legislatively. If in 2025 a Republican Congress and President enacted a law banning all abortions nationwide, I guaran-damn-tee you that this Court would not reverse it.
Yet that’s not what you said.
You blamed the evangelical boogeyman instead
You should work on trying to be more genuine when pushing an agenda.
Thanks.
You'd have to be more specific about who lied to get on the Supreme Court. But Democratic justices haven't been especially extreme for decades. Upholding longstanding SC decisions, which they've been mostly doing, is CONSERVATIVE. Overturning longstanding decisions is what's extreme and that's what the "conservatives" on the court have been doing with increasing frequency.
Lol go back and read what I wrote. Its very clear to those with reading comprehension and without bias.
And here is where right wing hypocrisy is present once again. Anti-abortion activists claim they think states should decide yet an effort is already underway in Congress to pass a federal law banning abortion. Also, efforts are underway to keep citizens in some states from going to other states to get legal abortions. No doubt an attempt will be made to give personhood to fetuses, which is nowhere whatsoever in the Constitution. All from a party that claims to be for state's rights, less government and strict construction. That's a lot of federal overreach, big government and loose interpretation.
Out of curiosity, at what moment in human development do you believe personhood attaches?
Thanks.
You didn't ask me, but I will answer, solely for myself.
As a practicing Catholic, I accept the doctrine of my Church that human life begins at conception. BUT, I also recognize that this religious belief is exactly that. It is not based on any scientific evidence or political consensus. I have no right to impose my religious beliefs on others.
My religious faith tells me that abortion is sinful. That does not mean it should be criminal.
This viewpoint is consistent with that of another devout Catholic, President Biden.
Thanks.
Are you saying that you believe that personhood attaches at the moment of conception?
That’s just a restatement of my question.
At what point does a fetus obtain all the rights of a person?
Please feel free to substitute the word “should” for does if it makes it easier.
My opinion is irrelevant. It has no bearing on law or Supreme Court decisions.
My personal feeling on the entire subject is that it is so complicated and personal and unlikely to ever have much agreement and so should be left to the individual, in keeping with my commitment to freedom and individual liberty. From a constitutional point of view, when it comes to people's private lives government has little mandate to intervene unless it has a compelling reason to do so and in this case it does not. In fact, it has a mandate to protect liberty and the pursuit of happiness which means people get to choose for themselves.
This will never happen. Please describe the "effort" you mention. One congressman? Just like the extreme congressmen who wanted to defund the police? Again, if abortion is restricted who ends up surviving? Primarily infants of color. Are you a hypocrite who wants to snuff them out? Great guy you are.
So you were against Covid restrictions and mask wearing you certifiable hypocrite? Oh no. That's different. I'm controlled by my politicians. Even if they don't obey the rules. They tell me what I can do. I'm stupid and a dunce. Thank you.
Not exactly. "When human life begins" is IMO purely a religious construct. I have the right to state my religious beliefs, and have done so.
"Personhood" is a legal construct and I don't think I have any right to go there. Even if I did, it's beyond my pay grade.
Great non-answer. Please describe the effort you cite to pass a Federal law banning abortions. You can't because you are an idiot. Pure and simple.
Whatever you infant. Go cry for your govt to save you from your failures. Boo hoo hoo.
Well there is no active effort right now, because it would have no chance of even being brought to the House or Senate floor.
However, Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has strongly hinted that if the R's retake the House, it's coming. He has stated "our work is far from done" and "first and foremost, I want to save every human life possible." When asked by CNN about a hypothetical 15 week abortion ban, he responded "I'd support that."
Lankford, Ernst, McCarthy to name a few among many who have already stated publicly they would support legislation to support a ban. But you’re the one calling people an idiot?
Overturning Roe was a political decision. It was activist. That’s why Roberts did not concur with the opinion to overturn Roe. Roe did not need to be overturned to decide Dobbs.
Add one other item. The opinion was leaked. As such, it was subject to review by historians, legal experts, medical experts, etc. Errors and flaws were pointed out. None were included in the final opinion.
Then you have the case of the football coach praying on the football field after a game, Gorsuch literally misrepresented the facts in his opinion. Just look at the dissent for photographic evidence.
Moore could end the republic, though. That’s the big one.
And the country was founded as a secular nation. How many reference to god exist in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights? If it were non-secular, do you think there would be at least one time god was referred to?
Many of the prominent founders were not Christian, They were Deists. Washington. Hamilton. Madison. Jefferson. Franklin.
Add one other item. The opinion was leaked. As such, it was subject to review by historians, legal experts, medical experts, etc. Errors and flaws were pointed out. None were included in the final opinion.
Then you have the case of the football coach praying on the football field after a game, Gorsuch literally misrepresented the facts in his opinion. Just look at the dissent for photographic evidence.
Moore could end the republic, though. That’s the big one.
And the country was founded as a secular nation. How many reference to god exist in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights? If it were non-secular, do you think there would be at least one time god was referred to?
Many of the prominent founders were not Christian, They were Deists. Washington. Hamilton. Madison. Jefferson. Franklin.
McConnell mentioned it could happen if Republicans retake Congress.
Jesus boys still thumbing their bibles in here?
They're thumbing something.
- Status