Little Posted July 7, 2018 Report Share Posted July 7, 2018 Leftists are VERY worried about that. Very. Must have been a crappy ruling if it could be so easy to overturn. Q for D is for the left wingers. What will be the legal criteria, the angle, the "hook" that the republicans will use to overturn the decision? “My happiness is not the means to any end. It is the end. It is its own goal. It is its own purpose.” Ayn Rand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dena Posted July 7, 2018 Report Share Posted July 7, 2018 10 mins ago, Little said: Leftists are VERY worried about that. Very. Must have been a crappy ruling if it could be so easy to overturn. Q for D is for the left wingers. What will be the legal criteria, the angle, the "hook" that the republicans will use to overturn the decision? It is my understanding their fear is that the decisions on abortion legality will be returned to the individual states. Now, say, Kansas can outlaw legal abortions, and the poor Kansas women can not afford to travel to an abortion legal state for the procedure. Libs are generally afraid of states rights when it might rule against them. Material abundance without character is the path of destruction. -Thomas JeffersonThere are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. -Soren Kierkegaard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddy Posted July 7, 2018 Report Share Posted July 7, 2018 23 mins ago, Little said: Leftists are VERY worried about that. Very. Must have been a crappy ruling if it could be so easy to overturn. Q for D is for the left wingers. What will be the legal criteria, the angle, the "hook" that the republicans will use to overturn the decision? oooh ohhh i got one if the government has no right to know if and why a woman is getting an abortion, then they have no right knowing how much money people earn in a year in order to tax them. "Ok, Eddy you were right" - minivin5 "Oddly enough, Eddy is right fairly often"- TimS "Eddy is correct" - TomT "Say what you will about Eh-ddy but he actually does know a few things." - The Commish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrock Posted July 7, 2018 Report Share Posted July 7, 2018 (edited) Science. And advances in science since Roev Wade. The leftists don’t have science on their side. Fetal viability Edited July 7, 2018 by jkrock "mother Theresa was a POS"-fish'nmagician Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Posted July 7, 2018 Author Report Share Posted July 7, 2018 Well the decision was based on some sort of right to privacy. It is shaky at best. That is why they are so worried, its a crap decision. I was wondering if they knoew anything about it, or are they just lashing out. Yes it will go back to the states. “My happiness is not the means to any end. It is the end. It is its own goal. It is its own purpose.” Ayn Rand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrock Posted July 7, 2018 Report Share Posted July 7, 2018 (edited) Colin Kaepernick and the black panthers at the NEA told the kids they have the right to be alive. #7 Alive happens way earlier now than 1972. At least one leftist here was arguing Kaepernick’s list are actual rights. If that is correct, you don’t need a conservative justice to overturn Roe Edited July 7, 2018 by jkrock "mother Theresa was a POS"-fish'nmagician Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albacized Posted July 7, 2018 Report Share Posted July 7, 2018 Not sure why they're so freaked out...in the worst case scenario (through their eyes), it'll just go back to the states and the more liberal ones will just keep the law in place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimP Posted July 7, 2018 Report Share Posted July 7, 2018 They are scared 'cause it's a **** decision - made up entirely. The "penumbras" and "emanations" was literally made up and then applied against medical technology of the time. I defy ANYONE to read that decision and rationally explain it. It is utter BS. I don't see it being overturned based upon stare decisis, but I DO see limitations being enacted at the federal several. The States are free to do what they deem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverboat33 Posted July 7, 2018 Report Share Posted July 7, 2018 1 hour ago, Little said: What will be the legal criteria, the angle, the "hook" that the republicans will use to overturn the decision? I think some man could sue to stop an abortion, on the grounds that the unborn baby is not part of the woman's body, since half the babies DNA is his. The biggest fish in the river gets that way by never being caught. Edward Bloom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted July 7, 2018 Report Share Posted July 7, 2018 13 mins ago, JimP said: They are scared 'cause it's a **** decision - made up entirely. The "penumbras" and "emanations" was literally made up and then applied against medical technology of the time. I defy ANYONE to read that decision and rationally explain it. It is utter BS. I don't see it being overturned based upon stare decisis, but I DO see limitations being enacted at the federal several. The States are free to do what they deem. I’d rather that they’d settle it along the lines of the equal protection clause as turning it back to the states really only affects the poor that can’t afford to travel. Laws shouldn’t have a disproportionate impact on a particular class. However, I’d also like to see abortions beyond 24 weeks (current line where a fetus can survive outside the womb) made illegal as I believe the fetus has become a legal person at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimP Posted July 7, 2018 Report Share Posted July 7, 2018 Rog, but the argument baselines at "what point does the "spark of life" transmit to the baby"? (my term). I.E., if you believe that life is started at conception, than you have no argument as to the rights of the woman if you are willing to ignore the rights of the child. If we are talking "convenience" and viability, than restrictions are appropriate. I don't "get" the "right to choose" argument fomented by pro-abortion folks since we are talking "choices"; the child has no-such choice. This is difficult stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted July 7, 2018 Report Share Posted July 7, 2018 1 min ago, JimP said: Rog, but the argument baselines at "what point does the "spark of life" transmit to the baby"? (my term). I.E., if you believe that life is started at conception, than you have no argument as to the rights of the woman if you are willing to ignore the rights of the child. If we are talking "convenience" and viability, than restrictions are appropriate. I don't "get" the "right to choose" argument fomented by pro-abortion folks since we are talking "choices"; the child has no-such choice. This is difficult stuff. Life is different than being considered a legal person. Obviously, life begins at conception. The question is when that life is a person. I have trouble calling a life that is fully dependent on someone else’s body to live a legal person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimP Posted July 7, 2018 Report Share Posted July 7, 2018 I used to think that way as well, in fact, I used a much harsher term for the child. Now I'm not so sure. Remember, a corporate entity is a "legal person" as well; we could probably do worse than admitting that a child is a "legal person." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverboat33 Posted July 7, 2018 Report Share Posted July 7, 2018 If someone kills a pregnant woman, they get charged with two counts of murder. How can you murder a nonperson ? The biggest fish in the river gets that way by never being caught. Edward Bloom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gotcow? Posted July 7, 2018 Report Share Posted July 7, 2018 (edited) Just now, The Dude said: . I have trouble calling a life that is fully dependent on someone else’s body to live a legal person. When a child is born that child is dependent on another body to live for several years. Is that child not a legal person? Edited July 7, 2018 by Gotcow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to register here in order to participate.
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now