RvW Overturned - Abortions Now Illegal

[Binger]

Cool words. Can you be more specific? What minority, for example. What lies were told under oath and what evidence do you have that these lies were told "to pull this suppression of individual liberty"?

The court, in the case that we are discussing from the opening post, returned the decision to the individual states. Is it your point that if there is a majority "will" based on a poll of Americans across many or all states that this so-called will is more relevant than the actual majority within a state? This may be your point, and it may be valid. Hell, maybe a poll of Americans is more important than what people want within their state. Hellifino.

I shouldn’t have my civil rights abrogated by the good people of West Virginia, for example. Neither should a minority of people living in the state of West Virginia. Should, say, slavery be legal in some states? Child pornography? Should Catholicism be outlawed in some states? Or Islam? Should people of some religious groups have fewer rights or attenuated rights in some states? Should Baptists have preferred status in Georgia?

I don’t see what you think is advantageous about this stupid decision. I don’t see why you think the the Supreme Court candidates, who solemnly intoned the words “Roe v. Wade is settled law,” clearly suggesting they did not foresee it being overturned or pushing to overturn it, did not lie.

What the hell is your point in raising these questions? Is this some kind of dumb rhetorical exercise? A philosophical meditation? I’m really getting effing sick of this garbage.

No. Slavery should not be legal in some states.
No. Child pornography should not be legal in some states.
No. Catholicism should not be outlawed in some states. Neither should Islam be outlawed in some states.
People of any particular religious group should not have few rights or attenuated rights in some states.
Baptists should not have preferred status in Georgia.

Did you read my post here: viewtopic.php?p=2789308#p2789308

On abortion, the service. I think it should be legal everywhere.

I am still not sure what minority you referred to and I am not clear what lies were told. If I recall correctly, all the justices explained that they would look at Roe and apply some latin thing to it, stare decisis.

This was not rhetorical at all. I do not know what specific minority you are referring to or what lie was told. This is not a meditation. I am writing, and only a fraction of my posts see the light of day, so there is no guarantee that you will even see this. Garbage? Meaning, you don't agree so it is garbage? I have not disagreed with you on this topic.

[Vēritās]

I shouldn’t have my civil rights abrogated by the good people of West Virginia, for example. Neither should a minority of people living in the state of West Virginia. Should, say, slavery be legal in some states? Child pornography? Should Catholicism be outlawed in some states? Or Islam? Should people of some religious groups have fewer rights or attenuated rights in some states? Should Baptists have preferred status in Georgia?

I don’t see what you think is advantageous about this stupid decision. I don’t see why you think the Supreme Court candidates, who solemnly intoned the words “Roe v. Wade is settled law,” clearly suggesting they did not foresee it being overturned or pushing to overturn it, did not lie.

What the hell is your point in raising these questions? Is this some kind of dumb rhetorical exercise? A philosophical meditation? I’m really getting effing sick of this garbage.

No. Slavery should not be legal in some states.
No. Child pornography should not be legal in some states.
No. Catholicism should not be outlawed in some states. Neither should Islam be outlawed in some states.
People of any particular religious group should not have few rights or attenuated rights in some states.
Baptists should not have preferred status in Georgia.

Did you read my post here: viewtopic.php?p=2789308#p2789308

On abortion, the service. I think it should be legal everywhere.

I am still not sure what minority you referred to and I am not clear what lies were told. If I recall correctly, all the justices explained that they would look at Roe and apply some latin thing to it, stare decisis.

This was not rhetorical at all. I do not know what specific minority you are referring to or what lie was told. This is not a meditation. I am writing, and only a fraction of my posts see the light of day, so there is no guarantee that you will even see this. Garbage? Meaning, you don't agree so it is garbage? I have not disagreed with you on this topic.

Maybe, just maybe, if you didn't have a love/hate relationship with getting to the point.

[Res Ipsa]

No. Slavery should not be legal in some states.
No. Child pornography should not be legal in some states.
No. Catholicism should not be outlawed in some states. Neither should Islam be outlawed in some states.
People of any particular religious group should not have few rights or attenuated rights in some states.
Baptists should not have preferred status in Georgia.

Did you read my post here: viewtopic.php?p=2789308#p2789308


I am still not sure what minority you referred to and I am not clear what lies were told. If I recall correctly, all the justices explained that they would look at Roe and apply some latin thing to it, stare decisis.

This was not rhetorical at all. I do not know what specific minority you are referring to or what lie was told. This is not a meditation. I am writing, and only a fraction of my posts see the light of day, so there is no guarantee that you will even see this. Garbage? Meaning, you don't agree so it is garbage? I have not disagreed with you on this topic.

Maybe, just maybe, if you didn't have a love/hate relationship with getting to the point.

You should recognize the game. It's very similar to subby's. Not that I think Binger is subby, but it's the same game.

[Kishkumen]

On abortion, the service. I think it should be legal everywhere.

But only if each state legislature votes to make it so? In other words, every right should be established by the individual states, and the Bill of Rights should be abolished?

I am still not sure what minority you referred to and I am not clear what lies were told. If I recall correctly, all the justices explained that they would look at Roe and apply some latin thing to it, stare decisis.

You are capable of gathering the meaning from context, and if they had really told the truth, there would be no question about Roe v. Wade being overturned. They mislead the American people, and I would argue that they lied under oath.

This was not rhetorical at all. I do not know what specific minority you are referring to or what lie was told. This is not a meditation. I am writing, and only a fraction of my posts see the light of day, so there is no guarantee that you will even see this. Garbage? Meaning, you don't agree so it is garbage? I have not disagreed with you on this topic.

Quit wasting our time, Binger. You are playing word games, playing dumb, and wasting our time. That is garbage. It is not about disagreeing or not.

[Binger]

Quit wasting our time, Binger. You are playing word games, playing dumb, and wasting our time. That is garbage. It is not about disagreeing or not.

No. Actually.

What minority are you referring to? Minority of citizens? Minority of states? What minority?

Also, abortion does not appear in the Bill of Rights. That is relevant.

[Res Ipsa]

Quit wasting our time, Binger. You are playing word games, playing dumb, and wasting our time. That is garbage. It is not about disagreeing or not.

No. Actually.

What minority are you referring to? Minority of citizens? Minority of states? What minority?

Also, abortion does not appear in the Bill of Rights. That is relevant.

How is it relevant? Are your inalienable rights to, among other things, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness limited to the first eight amendments to the Constitution? If we take the right to free speech out of the Bill of Rights, does that inalienable right just vanish like a popped soap bubble?

[Binger]

No. Actually.

What minority are you referring to? Minority of citizens? Minority of states? What minority?

Also, abortion does not appear in the Bill of Rights. That is relevant.

How is it relevant? Are your inalienable rights to, among other things, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness limited to the first eight amendments to the Constitution? If we take the right to free speech out of the Bill of Rights, does that inalienable right just vanish like a popped soap bubble?

Abortion not being in the BoR or Constitution is relevant because of Amendment X. You may not like that. You may not agree with that. But it is still relevant. See the first answer. The hypothetical is not relevant because Amendment I.

[Res Ipsa]

How is it relevant? Are your inalienable rights to, among other things, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness limited to the first eight amendments to the Constitution? If we take the right to free speech out of the Bill of Rights, does that inalienable right just vanish like a popped soap bubble?

Abortion not being in the BoR or Constitution is relevant because of Amendment X. You may not like that. You may not agree with that. But it is still relevant. See the first answer. The hypothetical is not relevant because Amendment I.

It doesn't have anything to do with me liking it or not liking it.

The Bill of Rights can be amended, just like any other provision of the Constitution. Heck, we've deleted an entire amendment already. So, what if future Americans decide that religion is bad and amend the Constitution to delete the free exercise clause. Does the right to exercise one's religion vanish like a popped soap bubble? Simply punting to another level of government doesn't answer the question: are your inalienable rights limited to those that are listed in the first eight amendments to the Constitution? If so, doesn't that mean that those rights aren't inalienable at all?

[Binger]

The Bill of Rights can be amended, just like any other provision of the Constitution. Heck, we've deleted an entire amendment already. [1]So, what if future Americans decide that religion is bad and amend the Constitution to delete the free exercise clause[?] [2]Does the right to exercise one's religion vanish like a popped soap bubble? Simply punting to another level of government doesn't answer the question: [3]are your inalienable rights limited to those that are listed in the first eight amendments to the Constitution? [4]If so, doesn't that mean that those rights aren't inalienable at all?

1. That would be weird and unfortunate.
2. Don't care. Don't know. That is a hypothetical and I might have a different answer if this were Squid Games, Hunger Games or that town on Blazing Saddles.
3. Maybe. But if I do have a right to steal hot pastrami sandwiches named "Green Monster" then I need to know.
4. Yes. If they are alienable then they are not inalienable. If they are inalienable and limited in number and by definition then those rights are limited to those defined and described as inalienable.

Okay. Now what is the point?

[Res Ipsa]

The Bill of Rights can be amended, just like any other provision of the Constitution. Heck, we've deleted an entire amendment already. [1]So, what if future Americans decide that religion is bad and amend the Constitution to delete the free exercise clause[?] [2]Does the right to exercise one's religion vanish like a popped soap bubble? Simply punting to another level of government doesn't answer the question: [3]are your inalienable rights limited to those that are listed in the first eight amendments to the Constitution? [4]If so, doesn't that mean that those rights aren't inalienable at all?

1. That would be weird and unfortunate.
2. Don't care. Don't know. That is a hypothetical and I might have a different answer if this were Squid Games, Hunger Games or that town on Blazing Saddles.
3. Maybe. But if I do have a right to steal hot pastrami sandwiches named "Green Monster" then I need to know.
4. Yes. If they are alienable then they are not inalienable. If they are inalienable and limited in number and by definition then those rights are limited to those defined and described as inalienable.

Okay. Now what is the point?

The point? By your own reasoning, there are no inalienable rights. And there are no natural rights. Rights are whatever some land owning white men wrote down a couple hundred years ago.