Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
maj. tom wrote:
toyolink wrote:I hope that the impact of such a significant shift in rights, laws and values is indicative of the popular sentiment of citizens of the USA and not just what comes from political engineering to achieve a result for purposes of satisfing partisan interests.
The days ahead may provide some answers.
alfa wrote:Just out of curiosity in understanding how some people think, under what circumstances do you support abortion? Is it for rape and the like our just anyone anytime simply because they could? As an older conservative traditionalist I'm genuinely curious
maj. tom wrote:alfa wrote:Just out of curiosity in understanding how some people think, under what circumstances do you support abortion? Is it for rape and the like our just anyone anytime simply because they could? As an older conservative traditionalist I'm genuinely curious
I had this long, long discussion with you in another thread. Didn't you dust your hands and "won" that long ago? Why should I repeat everything here again for you to ignore and continue on your merry way knowing that you are right and deserve the right to control a woman's body and decisions? My opinion ever mattered to you? Don't you have some more Ben Shapiro and Paul Joseph Watson videos to watch to reassure yourself of your righteous conservative thinking?
alfa wrote:maj. tom wrote:
Just out of curiosity in understanding how some people think, under what circumstances do you support abortion? Is it for rape and the like our just anyone anytime simply because they could? As an older conservative traditionalist I'm genuinely curious
maj. tom wrote:You're still defending unborn fetuses that are not alive, over a woman's actual living life though, and never a whisper after these babies are born. Easier to call them cockroaches I guess. Never cease to amaze how selfish, unempathetic people like you exist locally and think that autonomy and rights of individuals is considered an extremist and radical idea.
...even scholars and lawyers who support legalized abortion as a policy matter have agreed that Roe was a bad decision. Writing in the Yale Law Journal in 1973, renowned law professor John Hart Ely, later dean of Stanford Law School, derided the decision as "bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be." Laurence Tribe observed in the Harvard Law Review that "one of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found."
Ed Lazarus, a former law clerk to Harry Blackmun—the Supreme Court Justice who authored Roe—and Obama-administration official, agreed: "as a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible." It's worth noting that Lazarus describes himself as "utterly committed to the right to choose." Even the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called Roe "heavy-handed judicial intervention," and the prominent progressive law professor and Obama administration official Cass Sunstein believes Roe "way over-reached."
Numb3r4 wrote:If Roe v. Wade is poor constitutional law does that pave the way for state to pass their own laws?
If allowing abortions is an "over reach" and heavy handed would the converse be true? That is wouldn't banning it be an over reach as well as it infringes on the right to choose, or would it allow for state and local authorities not under federal jurisdiction to pass laws allowing abortion based on locality?
alfa wrote:https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/california-diocese-warns-of-pro-abortion-night-of-rage-violence-following-roe-reversal/?utm_source=popular
Dizzy28 wrote:Roe v Wade wasn't a constitutional law. It was a landmark decision.
The constitution is composed of amendments like the ones we know - 2nd Amendment Right to bear Arms etc. They can make abortions a right in the constitution through an amendment.Numb3r4 wrote:If Roe v. Wade is poor constitutional law does that pave the way for state to pass their own laws?
If allowing abortions is an "over reach" and heavy handed would the converse be true? That is wouldn't banning it be an over reach as well as it infringes on the right to choose, or would it allow for state and local authorities not under federal jurisdiction to pass laws allowing abortion based on locality?
Numb3r4 wrote:Dizzy28 wrote:Roe v Wade wasn't a constitutional law. It was a landmark decision.
The constitution is composed of amendments like the ones we know - 2nd Amendment Right to bear Arms etc. They can make abortions a right in the constitution through an amendment.Numb3r4 wrote:If Roe v. Wade is poor constitutional law does that pave the way for state to pass their own laws?
If allowing abortions is an "over reach" and heavy handed would the converse be true? That is wouldn't banning it be an over reach as well as it infringes on the right to choose, or would it allow for state and local authorities not under federal jurisdiction to pass laws allowing abortion based on locality?
It seems that won't happen, making it a right that is, that being said can it be done at the state and local level and given the elections coming up will it?
teems1 wrote:Men have no say in this matter imo.
This argument is about women and women's bodies.
Let them figure this out.
Numb3r4 wrote:Dizzy28 wrote:Roe v Wade wasn't a constitutional law. It was a landmark decision.
The constitution is composed of amendments like the ones we know - 2nd Amendment Right to bear Arms etc. They can make abortions a right in the constitution through an amendment.Numb3r4 wrote:If Roe v. Wade is poor constitutional law does that pave the way for state to pass their own laws?
If allowing abortions is an "over reach" and heavy handed would the converse be true? That is wouldn't banning it be an over reach as well as it infringes on the right to choose, or would it allow for state and local authorities not under federal jurisdiction to pass laws allowing abortion based on locality?
It seems that won't happen, making it a right that is, that being said can it be done at the state and local level and given the elections coming up will it?
Dizzy28 wrote:Roe v Wade wasn't a constitutional law. It was a landmark decision.
The constitution is composed of amendments like the ones we know - 2nd Amendment Right to bear Arms etc. They can make abortions a right in the constitution through an amendment.Numb3r4 wrote:If Roe v. Wade is poor constitutional law does that pave the way for state to pass their own laws?
If allowing abortions is an "over reach" and heavy handed would the converse be true? That is wouldn't banning it be an over reach as well as it infringes on the right to choose, or would it allow for state and local authorities not under federal jurisdiction to pass laws allowing abortion based on locality?
De Dragon wrote:Dizzy28 wrote:Roe v Wade wasn't a constitutional law. It was a landmark decision.
The constitution is composed of amendments like the ones we know - 2nd Amendment Right to bear Arms etc. They can make abortions a right in the constitution through an amendment.Numb3r4 wrote:If Roe v. Wade is poor constitutional law does that pave the way for state to pass their own laws?
If allowing abortions is an "over reach" and heavy handed would the converse be true? That is wouldn't banning it be an over reach as well as it infringes on the right to choose, or would it allow for state and local authorities not under federal jurisdiction to pass laws allowing abortion based on locality?
Actually, it was the constitutional protection of a right to an abortion.
This whole allowing the states to decide charade is bullcrap, as states such as Texas and Oklahoma have had trigger laws banning abortion, so essentially for years, there were laws on the books in these Bible and gun states just waiting for Roe v Wade to fall.
The constitution defines the civil rights of US citizens.Dizzy28 wrote:Where in the constitution was it enshrined?De Dragon wrote:Dizzy28 wrote:Roe v Wade wasn't a constitutional law. It was a landmark decision.
The constitution is composed of amendments like the ones we know - 2nd Amendment Right to bear Arms etc. They can make abortions a right in the constitution through an amendment.Numb3r4 wrote:If Roe v. Wade is poor constitutional law does that pave the way for state to pass their own laws?
If allowing abortions is an "over reach" and heavy handed would the converse be true? That is wouldn't banning it be an over reach as well as it infringes on the right to choose, or would it allow for state and local authorities not under federal jurisdiction to pass laws allowing abortion based on locality?
Actually, it was the constitutional protection of a right to an abortion.
This whole allowing the states to decide charade is bullcrap, as states such as Texas and Oklahoma have had trigger laws banning abortion, so essentially for years, there were laws on the books in these Bible and gun states just waiting for Roe v Wade to fall.
teems1 wrote:The constitution defines the civil rights of US citizens.Dizzy28 wrote:Where in the constitution was it enshrined?De Dragon wrote:Dizzy28 wrote:Roe v Wade wasn't a constitutional law. It was a landmark decision.
The constitution is composed of amendments like the ones we know - 2nd Amendment Right to bear Arms etc. They can make abortions a right in the constitution through an amendment.Numb3r4 wrote:If Roe v. Wade is poor constitutional law does that pave the way for state to pass their own laws?
If allowing abortions is an "over reach" and heavy handed would the converse be true? That is wouldn't banning it be an over reach as well as it infringes on the right to choose, or would it allow for state and local authorities not under federal jurisdiction to pass laws allowing abortion based on locality?
Actually, it was the constitutional protection of a right to an abortion.
This whole allowing the states to decide charade is bullcrap, as states such as Texas and Oklahoma have had trigger laws banning abortion, so essentially for years, there were laws on the books in these Bible and gun states just waiting for Roe v Wade to fall.
Cutizens have the right to privacy. Be it within their bedroom, with their doctor, with their preacher, and even simply anything concerning their body.
You cannot remove a civil right unless due process occurs as stated in the 14th amendment.
Constricting a woman from removing a foetus is in violation of the due process clause and thus was found unconstitutional back in the 70s.
Dizzy28 wrote:dogg wrote:murican things.
Meaningless, pointless to tnt.
Why not just stay out of threads you not interested in?
dogg wrote:Dizzy28 wrote:dogg wrote:murican things.
Meaningless, pointless to tnt.
Why not just stay out of threads you not interested in?
You know abortion is illegal in TnT right?
Why you studying murican foolishnes.
If you so passionate about abortion, start at home before studying big bad murica
Abortion may be illegal in most of the Caribbean but it continues to be widespread and popular.alfa wrote:dogg wrote:Dizzy28 wrote:dogg wrote:murican things.
Meaningless, pointless to tnt.
Why not just stay out of threads you not interested in?
You know abortion is illegal in TnT right?
Why you studying murican foolishnes.
If you so passionate about abortion, start at home before studying big bad murica
That's the funny thing, it was always illegal in Trinidad but a bunch of SJWs on the socials beating up about Rowe and wade as if that affecting them but didn't realize what they're protesting was always law here
Then again how they go score woke points for their gender studies class coursework
dogg wrote:Dizzy28 wrote:dogg wrote:murican things.
Meaningless, pointless to tnt.
Why not just stay out of threads you not interested in?
You know abortion is illegal in TnT right?
Why you studying murican foolishnes.
If you so passionate about abortion, start at home before studying big bad murica
bluefete wrote:maj. tom wrote:You're still defending unborn fetuses that are not alive, over a woman's actual living life though, and never a whisper after these babies are born. Easier to call them cockroaches I guess. Never cease to amaze how selfish, unempathetic people like you exist locally and think that autonomy and rights of individuals is considered an extremist and radical idea.
Normally, I would agree with you on many things BUT you see that post above - Nah man maj.tom. I totally disagree with you.
You serious? What is the scientific proof /evidence that an unborn fetus is not alive?
maj. tom wrote:Some of you here live to just repeat yourselves. Like the other, in the other thread, this discussion has been completed. Reference it.
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: Dohplaydat, Google Adsense [Bot], nick5434, redmanjp and 151 guests