Read an interesting comment why the oligarchy, Repugs, Federalist Soc, Heritage, etc want to dominate, pollute, taint, SCOTUS and the Federal judiciary with right wing politicians in robes.
Federal judges are unelected, so beyond the reach of citizens at the polls, adding to the total disenfranchisement of Americans.
Voting is a ing charade.
The oligarchy's judges will approve every disenfranchisement tactic,
so citizens can have their little amusements, deflections electing Congress and the Pres, maybe even both Dem, but the real, untouchable power is the Federal judiciary.
It's a beautiful, highly informed, intelligent, limitlessly financed strategy to America and Americans into total un ability.
"Over eight years, Reagan remade the federal judiciary from top to bottom by appointing 383 judges, more than any other president."
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/06...f-lost-resort/
St Ronnie the Diseased was a Useful Idiot, while The Power Behind The Throne was the oligarchy.
Uhhh... because it’s arbitrary...
Why did you choose it?
And so you give what sort of rights to a single cell?
Explain unalienable rights?
And Bull fckn to the bolded.
You say life like you know what it is. Like it’s just an obvious definition and it’s NOT.
Which is exactly why I started with viruses, etc.. which of course means nothing to you because you already know what life is... except you don’t. But it can be discussed, but you don’t want that.
I could go right into why I think this is such a tough topic.
Except I can’t Snakeboy.
Because you will have no idea why I think this way because it’s easy to say I do circles when in fact I have thought about this quite a bit. And have discussed this with philosophy types who know how science might help with definitions but still have the flexibility to deal with morals and where our laws arise out of moral code. Basically Because it disturbs them as well, just like you and I. Then you throw in the philosophy-religion types who actually dissect their religious beliefs and you gain even further insight which can confuse or lead to further questions. This is not easy.
As a very perfunctory statement I will say I am much more willing to listen to thoughtful people who have their own Biological children AND have adopted.
Because they will admit they are not sure about when humanity begins but are totally unwilling to take any chances. If a women is pregnant, she is responsible for a life. If she wants to terminate that possible life, they step up.
So far you...
don't know what life is
don't know what human is
don't know what abortion is
don't know what unalienable rights are
but you want to have a discussion about something (who the knows what) that I won't have
and you're back to viruses
like I said...tedious
dude
you're just unwilling to have a conversation that goes beyond tried and true talking points...So far you...
don't know what life is
don't know what human is
don't know what abortion is
don't know what unalienable rights are
but you want to have a discussion about something (who the knows what) that I won't have
and you're back to viruses
like I said...tedious
dude
Tedious, difficult, yes it is.So far you...
don't know what life is
don't know what human is
don't know what abortion is
don't know what unalienable rights are
but you want to have a discussion about something (who the knows what) that I won't have
and you're back to viruses
like I said...tedious
dude
Do you want to go into it or not?
Back in this thread I said you are stepping in it, but it's easy for you because you know what life is, know what a human life is, know what unalienable rights are... Except you don't. I have some conjectures, thoughts on what I need to examine further But I won't bore you.
Where have the true conservatives gone? The ones who will actually take something rigorous on...
And step up with those adoptions. Take on other life like people starving in other countries...oops MAGA...
Disingenous cowards. Ohh those people who are in a quandary love abortion. Uhhhh No. Many of them understand your passion. And then see it's fake... Which is disappointing.
Pretty much and I basically stated so at an earlier point.
Same over and over.
But I'm circling...
This was Jesus responding to who should not marry. Just saying.
The real answer to Supreme Court power politics that no one acknowledges
The simple fact is that
in the modern era Republicans have never confirmed a Supreme Court justice nominated by a Democratic President.
Contrary to popular belief, there has never been a bipartisan “norm” that Presidents get deference in appointing Supreme Court justices —
that has been a Democratic “norm” under Republican Presidents,
but that has never been reciprocated by Republicans.
The last time a Republican Senate confirmed a Democratic President’s Supreme Court nomination was 1895 —
which was 123 years ago (and involved a Republican party with little connection to today’s party).
All of the 13 Supreme Court nominations since 1945 that were eventually approved by an opposing party [the Democrats] in the Senate were made by Republican presidents.
everything you have been told about Supreme Court confirmation politics is utterly nuts and wrong.
The reality is:
For Democrats, the President — of either party — largely gets to appoint Supreme Court justices.
For Republicans, the Senate gets to pick Supreme Court justices, and if a Democrat is President, the seat can go unfilled as long as Republicans control the Senate.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...tail=emaildkre
Does a eunuch have functional testicles or not? Thanks.
The apostle Philip baptized an Ethiopian eunuch. According to Chris, he was wrong to do that.
mono trying to plug and play Bible verses
mono trying to plug and play Bible versesChris doing that exact thing and not realizing it because he’s a ty Christian.
Trump asked for extensive files on Supreme Court candidates which advisors admit he ‘does not care to read’
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/07/tru...e-read-report/
Collins: I Would Not Support A Nominee Who Demonstrated Hostility To Roe V. Wade
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewi...0%28TPMNews%29
Actually, Collins and maybe Murkowski voting in solidarity women is no problem for any misogynistic nominee.
Just LIE to the Senate, like "balls and strikes" Roberts did on "judicial activism", about your real position on Roe.
John Oliver right on the nose here
that roe v wade guy was hilarious, but seriously eat roe v wadeJohn Oliver right on the nose here
Hilarious
Trash and mafiya convinced Kennedy to retire, with bull that his legacy, rulings would be respected
How Trump’s Supreme Court Pick Could Undo Kennedy’s Legacy
he departed from their orthodoxy on some key issues in addition to gay rights, among them affirmative action, the death penalty, and, most notably, abortion rights. In the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Kennedy voted to uphold Roe v. Wade, and he remained a reluctant but steady advocate for maintaining the precedent.
The whole purpose of Trump’s Supreme Court selection process has been to eliminate the possibility of nominating someone who might commit Kennedy’s perfidies of moderation.
The activists from the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation who supplied the President’s list of twenty-five prospective nominees
are determined to tear down the monuments, on select issues, that Kennedy has built.
It will overrule Roe v. Wade, allowing states to ban abortions and to criminally prosecute any physicians and nurses who perform them.
It will allow shopkeepers, restaurateurs, and hotel owners to refuse service to gay customers on religious grounds.
It will guarantee that fewer African-American and Latino students attend élite universities.
It will approve laws designed to hinder voting rights.
It will sanction execution by grotesque means.
It will invoke the Second Amendment to prohibit states from engaging in gun control, including the regulation of
machine guns and bump stocks.
Kennedy’s words at the conclusion of the Obergefell opinion deserve to be his judicial epitaph.
“It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage,” he wrote.
“Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves.
Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest ins utions.
They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law.
The Cons ution grants them that right.”
But the Cons ution grants only those rights that the Supreme Court says it grants, and
a new majority can and will bestow those rights, and
take them away, in chilling new ways. ♦
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/07/09/how-trumps-supreme-court-pick-could-undo-kennedys-legacy?mbid=nl_Daily%20070218&CNDID=43758549&spMai lingID=13799847&spUserID=MTQzNTk4NzA3ODYzS0&spJobI D=1440153983&spReportId=MTQ0MDE1Mzk4MwS2
Oligarclhy/Christian Taliban SCOTUS gonna OVER all of Kennedy's "progressive, tolerant" rulings.
Trash and his mafiya PRANKED Kennedy into retiring.
AmeriKKKa is so ed and un able.
More meltdown from racist, intolerant Leftist Nazis...
Overturning Roe would probably be enough to fill Congress with liberals though, and they could pass a law establishing federal hard timelines for the state vs personal rights issue, possibly worse (looking at it from a pro-life viewpoint) than Roe, so that's unlikely going to be a wise move long term.although if something truly nutty happens and not only does SCOTUS overturn Roe but then also establishes that abortions themselves are uncons utional... i'd think you'd see a revolution tbh
Since we would be reaching amateur-hour, don't forget that Congress can also expand the SCOTUS... see Roosevelt's failed "court-packing plan" back in 1937...
"If you don't know, it must be God"... worked for a bunch of centuries, tbh...
What Mr King SnakeBoy is missing and apparently nobody pointed out yet, is that, even if we were to argue that science finds out tomorrow that life starts when that sperm hits the egg, such form of life is entirely parasitical, up until a certain point where it can be extracted and can live on it's own.
That means, that 'life' needs a 'host' for a certain period of time, and it just so happens that the 'host' has as many cons utional rights as this alleged 'life'.
This is about the point where the moral police alarms start sounding, and we get the erroneous 'but the right to life should trump any other right'. Wrong.
Now that we got that out of the way, and the fact that science has do ented pretty well the physical and emotional rollercoaster of pregnancy, we have then established the two competing rights: The privacy right of the host not to have to go through the hosting process, and the 'state interest in life' (which in a way is hilarious, because what would be the state interest outside of the religious/moral motive? The only justification left is 'another taxpayer!', hahaha... erm).
So we don't even need science to get to the 'viability' argument, and the competing interests, etc, etc etc.
The science angle is also interesting, but much more arguable, because science has this third state outside of true or false: we don't know. It's a perfectly reasonable state, but it's a state where you're encouraged to throw all sorts of theories at it and then required to prove them.
So we can argue that DNA = human, or we can argue that DNA is a map of how to build what ultimately will become a human (through the aforementioned hosting process). But unless you can test it and can reproduce the results (prove it, basically), it really has no scientific value, and it's just conjecture.
How about oligarchy/Christian supremacist SCOTUS banning abortion as murder, rather than punting it to "states rights"?
.. murder to include "medication abortion"
Heathen
We were going to get into implantation in the uterine lining. It was coming.
The discussion stopped well short of that.
I try to tell people what they are stepping into before we get into it.
You did need science to get into the viability argument. In fact, because we have such a demand from peeps that can afford it, we have figured out all sorts of ways to muddy the viability issue with frozen embryos etc... viability in vitro... And much more to really confuse.
Your point is well taken though and leads to a very simple perfunctory test of real interest in the subject:
Most in this thread think the taking of a human life is wrong. Once one has decided what a human life is, and we all have our definitions... then I can understand the passion involved. So it comes down to this simple first step for me in testing one’s passion and will:
Will one be willing to demand personally that a pregnant woman take a “child” to term, and then adopt the child? No? You will just give the government the power to attempt to force a woman to take a possible human life to term,and then...who knows after that?
Just hide behind a law with all its known ramifications of crossing state borders to get abortions, etc...
Then this person is NOT serious about the whole subject. I personally know too many couples who have adopted and still are not sure about the law. They step to the plate. Yet You get males pontificating on how wrong it is... they are not serious. Let the government take care of it... I immediately call BS.
BTW... the DNA= human issue continues long after the womb. If one asks why we consider ourselves so special “human” contemplation of one’s own existence, empathy, etc... then many people on this board still are not fully human. And never will be.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
