No, Justice Thomas did not say that the government should not be allowed to tell you what to do. He was saying that the right to abortion should not have been created by the Supreme Court through a stretch clause in the Constitution. It should be legislated and in my opinion legislated at the state level.The Constitution is silent on assault rifles and butt sex yet you don't like government telling you what you can or can't do with regard to either of those.
RvW Overturned - Abortions Now Illegal
Re: RvW Overturned - Abortions Now Illegal
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
Re: RvW Overturned - Abortions Now Illegal
No because it's in line with the Constitution. A legislator would have to state his position on the issue and campaign on it. He wouldn't be able to do whatever without facing an election.With regard to abortion availability overall, this seems like a diversionary aspect.
When the State decides to legislate on the matter, how does their decision differ - in practical means - for the residents of the State? Isn’t the decision at this level basically the same sort of ‘government overreach’ that you would label for SC or Federal-level decisions?
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
Re: RvW Overturned - Abortions Now Illegal
Emma Silverman's powerful take on the recent decision. Mainly fueled by hate and power.
No precept or claim is more suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
Re: RvW Overturned - Abortions Now Illegal
ajax18 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 9:56 pmNo because it's in line with the Constitution. A legislator would have to state his position on the issue and campaign on it. He wouldn't be able to do whatever without facing an election.With regard to abortion availability overall, this seems like a diversionary aspect.
When the State decides to legislate on the matter, how does their decision differ - in practical means - for the residents of the State? Isn’t the decision at this level basically the same sort of ‘government overreach’ that you would label for SC or Federal-level decisions?
That doesn’t mean that it isn’t ‘government overreach’ all the same. It just means that you might have a more direct remedy to the perceived overreach, provided that you are fairly represented in your state and that your particular opinion stands a chance of being presented and acted upon by that representation.
-
- God
- Posts: 3762
- Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am
Re: RvW Overturned - Abortions Now Illegal
And Chief Justice Roberts said the majority was abandoning judicial neutrality in the decision. So.ajax18 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 9:49 pmNo, Justice Thomas did not say that the government should not be allowed to tell you what to do. He was saying that the right to abortion should not have been created by the Supreme Court through a stretch clause in the Constitution. It should be legislated and in my opinion legislated at the state level.The Constitution is silent on assault rifles and butt sex yet you don't like government telling you what you can or can't do with regard to either of those.
- Some Schmo
- God
- Posts: 2469
- Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:21 am
Re: RvW Overturned - Abortions Now Illegal
While the fetus is entirely dependent on the mother to live, I don't see how it has any rights. It's a fetus. It's sponging off the mother's womb and turning her life upside-down. It seems to me a prerequisite of any pregnancy is consent on the part of the mother who's being asked to lend her body to this process.honorentheos wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 9:17 pmThere is a legitimate question beyond this regarding where the rights of the unborn establish such that the state has an obligation to protect those rights including a right to life.Some Schmo wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:54 pmPart of the problem is how many people seem to worry about the rights of a non-baby/potential baby/non-conscious entity and don't give a crap about the rights of the pregnant family.
But frankly, as I said before, I don't see this as an argument over the life of the unborn. It's an argument over freedom for the people who have actually been born, think, and feel in the present. They are the ones who have to live with the consequences of asshole strangers with no real vested interest in any fetus (other than maybe their own) trying to tell them what to do.
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense.
The god idea is popular with desperate people.
The god idea is popular with desperate people.
-
- God
- Posts: 3762
- Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am
Re: RvW Overturned - Abortions Now Illegal
Freedom of choice arguments have long acknowledged there is a point where the decision to terminate a pregnancy is more impactful than a form of contraception. It would be damaging to reduce the argument to this degree. There is no abortion debate without a debate regarding personhood and when the developing human should be seen as a person which, by definition grants them rights that would be even scarier to reject, in fact more in line with Justice Thomas' position.Some Schmo wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 10:56 pmWhile the fetus is entirely dependent on the mother to live, I don't see how it has any rights. It's a fetus. It's sponging off the mother's womb and turning her life upside-down. It seems to me a prerequisite of any pregnancy is consent on the part of the mother who's being asked to lend her body to this process.honorentheos wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 9:17 pm
There is a legitimate question beyond this regarding where the rights of the unborn establish such that the state has an obligation to protect those rights including a right to life.
But frankly, as I said before, I don't see this as an argument over the life of the unborn. It's an argument over freedom for the people who have actually been born, think, and feel in the present. They are the ones who have to live with the consequences of asshole strangers with no real vested interest in any fetus (other than maybe their own) trying to tell them what to do.
It's not that simple.
Re: RvW Overturned - Abortions Now Illegal
While the illegal immigrant is entirely dependent upon the taxpayer to live, I don't see how he has any rights. He's not a citizen. He's sponging off the taxpayers earnings and turning his society upside-down. It seems to me a prerequisite of any immigration is consent on the part of the taxpayers who's being asked to lend provide for his support and the support of his family.While the fetus is entirely dependent on the mother to live, I don't see how it has any rights. It's a fetus. It's sponging off the mother's womb and turning her life upside-down. It seems to me a prerequisite of any pregnancy is consent on the part of the mother who's being asked to lend her body to this process.
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
-
- God
- Posts: 6133
- Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am
- Location: That's the difference. I actually have a Blue Heeler
Re: RvW Overturned - Abortions Now Illegal
I understand abortion is legal in the United States and that the abortion laws are more liberal than most European countries.
-
- God
- Posts: 3762
- Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am
Re: RvW Overturned - Abortions Now Illegal
Good Jesus, ajax. What a poorly framed comment. Your salad and home construction costs blatantly disagree with the premise of your statement. You may not get this, but your ideas about economic isolation and protectionism are insane. You think inflation is bad now...ajax18 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 11:19 pmWhile the illegal immigrant is entirely dependent upon the taxpayer to live, I don't see how he has any rights. He's not a citizen. He's sponging off the taxpayers earnings and turning his society upside-down. It seems to me a prerequisite of any immigration is consent on the part of the taxpayers who's being asked to lend provide for his support and the support of his family.While the fetus is entirely dependent on the mother to live, I don't see how it has any rights. It's a fetus. It's sponging off the mother's womb and turning her life upside-down. It seems to me a prerequisite of any pregnancy is consent on the part of the mother who's being asked to lend her body to this process.