Is killing abortion doctors a moral right?

[Faun]

You are ignoring that a later Court can be persuaded otherwise and you are ignoring how the fetal homicide (and other pro-life) laws which have been passed since Roe will lead to that persuasion.

... will lead to that persuasion.

Republicans vow no hearings and no votes for Obama’s Supreme Court pick

Senate Republicans on Tuesday united behind an official position on how to deal with President Obama’s expected nominee to replace the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia: no hearings, no votes and no new justice until Obama is out of office.

you really mean not adhering to the Constitutional rule of Law to manipulate the outcome to suit your own "persuasion" you then will insist others should follow as though it were a fair and honest law ... can't do it without cheating chuz.

How do you plan on forcing women to carry babies against their will?

they can hardly wait, a return to old time religion, praise Jebus ...

.

No one has the right to violate the rights of any other person. Especially children. The Supreme Court will inevitably be persuaded to reverse their previous ruling on Roe in much the same way they were compelled to reverse their own ruling on Dred Scott.

Our fetal homicide laws are large part of that legislative process. It has nothing to do with religion.

Abortion is a constitutional right. The fetal protection laws you reference have never been constitutionally challenged. It's been over 10 years since such laws have been past. What's taking you numbnuts so long to get them reviewed by the Supreme Court?

Dear Faun No, Abortion is NOT a "constitutional right" as it is not in the Constitution.
Free choice is under free exercise of religion, and not depriving people of liberty without
conviction for a crime by due process.

What was struck down as unconstitutional was the violation of "substantive due process".

It is only that the govt enforcement and process of prosecuting for abortion after the fact
would violate the women's rights.

People still have freedom to choose due to religious freedom,
because lawmakers have not agreed how to legislate on this issue
without it violating Constitutional due process or equal protection of the laws
where the women are not affected more than the men
and thus discriminated against.

It's the legal and legislative complications in addressing abortion that
are unconstitutional, but this doesn't establish abortion as a right.

(for example, even if executions end up getting banned because they
can't be administered by govt without resulting in unlawful complications or violations,
doesn't mean people have a right to murder! It just means the process of capital punishment is unconstitutional and hasn't been resolved yet so no laws meet passable standards.)

Sorry, but I'm gonna side with the Supreme Court on this one.

 

[Chuz Life]

You are ignoring that a later Court can be persuaded otherwise and you are ignoring how the fetal homicide (and other pro-life) laws which have been passed since Roe will lead to that persuasion.

... will lead to that persuasion.

Republicans vow no hearings and no votes for Obama’s Supreme Court pick

Senate Republicans on Tuesday united behind an official position on how to deal with President Obama’s expected nominee to replace the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia: no hearings, no votes and no new justice until Obama is out of office.

you really mean not adhering to the Constitutional rule of Law to manipulate the outcome to suit your own "persuasion" you then will insist others should follow as though it were a fair and honest law ... can't do it without cheating chuz.

How do you plan on forcing women to carry babies against their will?

they can hardly wait, a return to old time religion, praise Jebus ...

.

No one has the right to violate the rights of any other person. Especially children. The Supreme Court will inevitably be persuaded to reverse their previous ruling on Roe in much the same way they were compelled to reverse their own ruling on Dred Scott.

Our fetal homicide laws are large part of that legislative process. It has nothing to do with religion.

Abortion is a constitutional right. The fetal protection laws you reference have never been constitutionally challenged. It's been over 10 years since such laws have been past. What's taking you numbnuts so long to get them reviewed by the Supreme Court?

Dear Faun No, Abortion is NOT a "constitutional right" as it is not in the Constitution.
Free choice is under free exercise of religion, and not depriving people of liberty without
conviction for a crime by due process.

What was struck down as unconstitutional was the violation of "substantive due process".

It is only that the govt enforcement and process of prosecuting for abortion after the fact
would violate the women's rights.

People still have freedom to choose due to religious freedom,
because lawmakers have not agreed how to legislate on this issue
without it violating Constitutional due process or equal protection of the laws
where the women are not affected more than the men
and thus discriminated against.

It's the legal and legislative complications in addressing abortion that
are unconstitutional, but this doesn't establish abortion as a right.

(for example, even if executions end up getting banned because they
can't be administered by govt without resulting in unlawful complications or violations,
doesn't mean people have a right to murder! It just means the process of capital punishment is unconstitutional and hasn't been resolved yet so no laws meet passable standards.)

Sorry, but I'm gonna side with the Supreme Court on this one.

The same branch of government that also once held that owning slaves was a constitutional right?

Yeah, we all know how infallible the SCROTUS is. Don't we.

 

[Faun]

... will lead to that persuasion.

you really mean not adhering to the Constitutional rule of Law to manipulate the outcome to suit your own "persuasion" you then will insist others should follow as though it were a fair and honest law ... can't do it without cheating chuz.

they can hardly wait, a return to old time religion, praise Jebus ...

.

No one has the right to violate the rights of any other person. Especially children. The Supreme Court will inevitably be persuaded to reverse their previous ruling on Roe in much the same way they were compelled to reverse their own ruling on Dred Scott.

Our fetal homicide laws are large part of that legislative process. It has nothing to do with religion.

Abortion is a constitutional right. The fetal protection laws you reference have never been constitutionally challenged. It's been over 10 years since such laws have been past. What's taking you numbnuts so long to get them reviewed by the Supreme Court?

Dear Faun No, Abortion is NOT a "constitutional right" as it is not in the Constitution.
Free choice is under free exercise of religion, and not depriving people of liberty without
conviction for a crime by due process.

What was struck down as unconstitutional was the violation of "substantive due process".

It is only that the govt enforcement and process of prosecuting for abortion after the fact
would violate the women's rights.

People still have freedom to choose due to religious freedom,
because lawmakers have not agreed how to legislate on this issue
without it violating Constitutional due process or equal protection of the laws
where the women are not affected more than the men
and thus discriminated against.

It's the legal and legislative complications in addressing abortion that
are unconstitutional, but this doesn't establish abortion as a right.

(for example, even if executions end up getting banned because they
can't be administered by govt without resulting in unlawful complications or violations,
doesn't mean people have a right to murder! It just means the process of capital punishment is unconstitutional and hasn't been resolved yet so no laws meet passable standards.)

Sorry, but I'm gonna side with the Supreme Court on this one.

The same branch of government that also once held that owning slaves was a constitutional right?

Yeah, we all know how infallible the SCROTUS is. Don't we.

Yes, that same body. I love how idiots think because that court isn't perfect, that equates to they must also be wrong regarding _________ (fill in the blank with your cause de celebre). That's the tactic folks on the losing side of a debate try when they can't prove their position.

 

[emilynghiem]

You are ignoring that a later Court can be persuaded otherwise and you are ignoring how the fetal homicide (and other pro-life) laws which have been passed since Roe will lead to that persuasion.

... will lead to that persuasion.

Republicans vow no hearings and no votes for Obama’s Supreme Court pick

Senate Republicans on Tuesday united behind an official position on how to deal with President Obama’s expected nominee to replace the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia: no hearings, no votes and no new justice until Obama is out of office.

you really mean not adhering to the Constitutional rule of Law to manipulate the outcome to suit your own "persuasion" you then will insist others should follow as though it were a fair and honest law ... can't do it without cheating chuz.

How do you plan on forcing women to carry babies against their will?

they can hardly wait, a return to old time religion, praise Jebus ...

.

No one has the right to violate the rights of any other person. Especially children. The Supreme Court will inevitably be persuaded to reverse their previous ruling on Roe in much the same way they were compelled to reverse their own ruling on Dred Scott.

Our fetal homicide laws are large part of that legislative process. It has nothing to do with religion.

Abortion is a constitutional right. The fetal protection laws you reference have never been constitutionally challenged. It's been over 10 years since such laws have been past. What's taking you numbnuts so long to get them reviewed by the Supreme Court?

Dear Faun No, Abortion is NOT a "constitutional right" as it is not in the Constitution.
Free choice is under free exercise of religion, and not depriving people of liberty without
conviction for a crime by due process.

What was struck down as unconstitutional was the violation of "substantive due process".

It is only that the govt enforcement and process of prosecuting for abortion after the fact
would violate the women's rights.

People still have freedom to choose due to religious freedom,
because lawmakers have not agreed how to legislate on this issue
without it violating Constitutional due process or equal protection of the laws
where the women are not affected more than the men
and thus discriminated against.

It's the legal and legislative complications in addressing abortion that
are unconstitutional, but this doesn't establish abortion as a right.

(for example, even if executions end up getting banned because they
can't be administered by govt without resulting in unlawful complications or violations,
doesn't mean people have a right to murder! It just means the process of capital punishment is unconstitutional and hasn't been resolved yet so no laws meet passable standards.)

Sorry, but I'm gonna side with the Supreme Court on this one.

Dear Faun the Supreme Court has authority to strike down the law as unconstitutional. Only the Legislature has authority to write and pass laws. There is a difference! You can strike down the laws that criminalize drugs, and still keep it where drugs are illegal. This just hasn't been figured out yet how to do this for abortion and gay marriage. There was one state, I think ,Connecticut or another one in that region, that struck down laws Banning gay marriage but didn't rule in favor of Endorsing it. Just agreed it was unconstitutional to ban it. Get it? This takes a bit more intellectual distinction to separate striking down a ban but not making something formally legal.

It's very tricky if not impossible to do with abortion since people's personal space and beliefs are involved.

I envision it could take ppl agreeing to legislation recognizing a form of rape or abuse for acts of sex that result in unwanted pregnancy unwanted children or unwanted abortion as coercion and abuse, and perhaps passing health codes against abuse that hold men equally responsible for rape, incest, bullying or coercion abuses in sexual relations. Then maybe laws could get passed that don't discriminate unfairly by putting the legal burden only on the women.

As long as laws push for regulations after pregnancy has occurred that affect women more than men, those will always get struck down or blocked. So it would have to involve policing against sex abuse or relationship abuse in order for ppl to agree on a constitutional level that is equal and fair and would also have to be written carefully and by consensus since personal freedom and beliefs are involved. Maybe on a state or local level in conjunction with health care requirements for benefits, something like this could be agreed upon. Otherwise anything less than consensus would be blocked as unconstitutional since beliefs are involved in such personal matters.

 

[Faun]

... will lead to that persuasion.

you really mean not adhering to the Constitutional rule of Law to manipulate the outcome to suit your own "persuasion" you then will insist others should follow as though it were a fair and honest law ... can't do it without cheating chuz.

they can hardly wait, a return to old time religion, praise Jebus ...

.

No one has the right to violate the rights of any other person. Especially children. The Supreme Court will inevitably be persuaded to reverse their previous ruling on Roe in much the same way they were compelled to reverse their own ruling on Dred Scott.

Our fetal homicide laws are large part of that legislative process. It has nothing to do with religion.

Abortion is a constitutional right. The fetal protection laws you reference have never been constitutionally challenged. It's been over 10 years since such laws have been past. What's taking you numbnuts so long to get them reviewed by the Supreme Court?

Dear Faun No, Abortion is NOT a "constitutional right" as it is not in the Constitution.
Free choice is under free exercise of religion, and not depriving people of liberty without
conviction for a crime by due process.

What was struck down as unconstitutional was the violation of "substantive due process".

It is only that the govt enforcement and process of prosecuting for abortion after the fact
would violate the women's rights.

People still have freedom to choose due to religious freedom,
because lawmakers have not agreed how to legislate on this issue
without it violating Constitutional due process or equal protection of the laws
where the women are not affected more than the men
and thus discriminated against.

It's the legal and legislative complications in addressing abortion that
are unconstitutional, but this doesn't establish abortion as a right.

(for example, even if executions end up getting banned because they
can't be administered by govt without resulting in unlawful complications or violations,
doesn't mean people have a right to murder! It just means the process of capital punishment is unconstitutional and hasn't been resolved yet so no laws meet passable standards.)

Sorry, but I'm gonna side with the Supreme Court on this one.

Dear Faun the Supreme Court has authority to strike down the law as unconstitutional. Only the Legislature has authority to write and pass laws. There is a difference! You can strike down the laws that criminalize drugs, and still keep it where drugs are illegal. This just hasn't been figured out yet how to do this for abortion and gay marriage. There was one state, I think ,Connecticut or another one in that region, that struck down laws Banning gay marriage but didn't rule in favor of Endorsing it. Just agreed it was unconstitutional to ban it. Get it? This takes a bit more intellectual distinction to separate striking down a ban but not making something formally legal.

It's very tricky if not impossible to do with abortion since people's personal space and beliefs are involved.

I envision it could take ppl agreeing to legislation recognizing a form of rape or abuse for acts of sex that result in unwanted pregnancy unwanted children or unwanted abortion as coercion and abuse, and perhaps passing health codes against abuse that hold men equally responsible for rape, incest, bullying or coercion abuses in sexual relations. Then maybe laws could get passed that don't discriminate unfairly by putting the legal burden only on the women.

As long as laws push for regulations after pregnancy has occurred that affect women more than men, those will always get struck down or blocked. So it would have to involve policing against sex abuse or relationship abuse in order for ppl to agree on a constitutional level that is equal and fair and would also have to be written carefully and by consensus since personal freedom and beliefs are involved. Maybe on a state or local level in conjunction with health care requirements for benefits, something like this could be agreed upon. Otherwise anything less than consensus would be blocked as unconstitutional since beliefs are involved in such personal matters.

I said nothing about creating laws. Your entire post is built upon the strawman that I did.

 

[emilynghiem]

Perhaps breaking all his fingers over and over again would send a clear message to him?

Dear Vigilante a more lawful way to send a message
is to sue to separate health care policies completely.

Let the prolife believers fund a separate program and offer
to cover all costs of bearing children to term and in no way
be forced to fund any institution that touches or endorses abortion.

I like the PAIN but NO DEATH way better...just to always remind the bastard when arthritis sets in!

Dear Vigilante
Imposing cruel and unusual punishment without respect for due process of law is No Way to teach respect for life liberties and law.
Even when Allen West got a terrorist suspect to provide information on attacks, he didn't torture or harm the man as you propose to.do.

Be a real man. Stand up for Constitutional rights and freedom from any govt policy or program that imposes beliefs and biases in violation of your religious freedom and equal protection of Creed. If you ate so committed to right to life then join ppl like my friend Juda who wants to keep abortion illegal even I'm the case of rape and incest. At least she is consistent and doesn't use or threaten violence, just asks in the name of religious freedom. If you believe in separating funding and public institutions providing health care, redirecting your taxes to only prolife programs, so does Juda. We need to get a team together to sue and ask for separation from abortion policies and providers that prolife citizens don't agree or believe in funding.

Why not stand up speak out and fight like a man for what you believe Vigilante
Judas website and contact info are at www.choices4life.org she is looking for more support to defend her prolife views. Maybe you can be the one to make the difference

 

[emilynghiem]

No one has the right to violate the rights of any other person. Especially children. The Supreme Court will inevitably be persuaded to reverse their previous ruling on Roe in much the same way they were compelled to reverse their own ruling on Dred Scott.

Our fetal homicide laws are large part of that legislative process. It has nothing to do with religion.

Abortion is a constitutional right. The fetal protection laws you reference have never been constitutionally challenged. It's been over 10 years since such laws have been past. What's taking you numbnuts so long to get them reviewed by the Supreme Court?

Dear Faun No, Abortion is NOT a "constitutional right" as it is not in the Constitution.
Free choice is under free exercise of religion, and not depriving people of liberty without
conviction for a crime by due process.

What was struck down as unconstitutional was the violation of "substantive due process".

It is only that the govt enforcement and process of prosecuting for abortion after the fact
would violate the women's rights.

People still have freedom to choose due to religious freedom,
because lawmakers have not agreed how to legislate on this issue
without it violating Constitutional due process or equal protection of the laws
where the women are not affected more than the men
and thus discriminated against.

It's the legal and legislative complications in addressing abortion that
are unconstitutional, but this doesn't establish abortion as a right.

(for example, even if executions end up getting banned because they
can't be administered by govt without resulting in unlawful complications or violations,
doesn't mean people have a right to murder! It just means the process of capital punishment is unconstitutional and hasn't been resolved yet so no laws meet passable standards.)

Sorry, but I'm gonna side with the Supreme Court on this one.

Dear Faun the Supreme Court has authority to strike down the law as unconstitutional. Only the Legislature has authority to write and pass laws. There is a difference! You can strike down the laws that criminalize drugs, and still keep it where drugs are illegal. This just hasn't been figured out yet how to do this for abortion and gay marriage. There was one state, I think ,Connecticut or another one in that region, that struck down laws Banning gay marriage but didn't rule in favor of Endorsing it. Just agreed it was unconstitutional to ban it. Get it? This takes a bit more intellectual distinction to separate striking down a ban but not making something formally legal.

It's very tricky if not impossible to do with abortion since people's personal space and beliefs are involved.

I envision it could take ppl agreeing to legislation recognizing a form of rape or abuse for acts of sex that result in unwanted pregnancy unwanted children or unwanted abortion as coercion and abuse, and perhaps passing health codes against abuse that hold men equally responsible for rape, incest, bullying or coercion abuses in sexual relations. Then maybe laws could get passed that don't discriminate unfairly by putting the legal burden only on the women.

As long as laws push for regulations after pregnancy has occurred that affect women more than men, those will always get struck down or blocked. So it would have to involve policing against sex abuse or relationship abuse in order for ppl to agree on a constitutional level that is equal and fair and would also have to be written carefully and by consensus since personal freedom and beliefs are involved. Maybe on a state or local level in conjunction with health care requirements for benefits, something like this could be agreed upon. Otherwise anything less than consensus would be blocked as unconstitutional since beliefs are involved in such personal matters.

I said nothing about creating laws. Your entire post is built upon the strawman that I did.

You said it was a Constitutional right to have abortion, but this requires written laws or amendment passed by legislative or state convention process.
Courts do not have authority to amend the Constitition. That is what I was responding to Faun sorry this was not clear!

 

[Faun]

Abortion is a constitutional right. The fetal protection laws you reference have never been constitutionally challenged. It's been over 10 years since such laws have been past. What's taking you numbnuts so long to get them reviewed by the Supreme Court?

Dear Faun No, Abortion is NOT a "constitutional right" as it is not in the Constitution.
Free choice is under free exercise of religion, and not depriving people of liberty without
conviction for a crime by due process.

What was struck down as unconstitutional was the violation of "substantive due process".

It is only that the govt enforcement and process of prosecuting for abortion after the fact
would violate the women's rights.

People still have freedom to choose due to religious freedom,
because lawmakers have not agreed how to legislate on this issue
without it violating Constitutional due process or equal protection of the laws
where the women are not affected more than the men
and thus discriminated against.

It's the legal and legislative complications in addressing abortion that
are unconstitutional, but this doesn't establish abortion as a right.

(for example, even if executions end up getting banned because they
can't be administered by govt without resulting in unlawful complications or violations,
doesn't mean people have a right to murder! It just means the process of capital punishment is unconstitutional and hasn't been resolved yet so no laws meet passable standards.)

Sorry, but I'm gonna side with the Supreme Court on this one.

Dear Faun the Supreme Court has authority to strike down the law as unconstitutional. Only the Legislature has authority to write and pass laws. There is a difference! You can strike down the laws that criminalize drugs, and still keep it where drugs are illegal. This just hasn't been figured out yet how to do this for abortion and gay marriage. There was one state, I think ,Connecticut or another one in that region, that struck down laws Banning gay marriage but didn't rule in favor of Endorsing it. Just agreed it was unconstitutional to ban it. Get it? This takes a bit more intellectual distinction to separate striking down a ban but not making something formally legal.

It's very tricky if not impossible to do with abortion since people's personal space and beliefs are involved.

I envision it could take ppl agreeing to legislation recognizing a form of rape or abuse for acts of sex that result in unwanted pregnancy unwanted children or unwanted abortion as coercion and abuse, and perhaps passing health codes against abuse that hold men equally responsible for rape, incest, bullying or coercion abuses in sexual relations. Then maybe laws could get passed that don't discriminate unfairly by putting the legal burden only on the women.

As long as laws push for regulations after pregnancy has occurred that affect women more than men, those will always get struck down or blocked. So it would have to involve policing against sex abuse or relationship abuse in order for ppl to agree on a constitutional level that is equal and fair and would also have to be written carefully and by consensus since personal freedom and beliefs are involved. Maybe on a state or local level in conjunction with health care requirements for benefits, something like this could be agreed upon. Otherwise anything less than consensus would be blocked as unconstitutional since beliefs are involved in such personal matters.

I said nothing about creating laws. Your entire post is built upon the strawman that I did.

You said it was a Constitutional right to have abortion, but this requires written laws or amendment passed by legislative or state convention process.
Courts do not have authority to amend the Constitition. That is what I was responding to Faun sorry this was not clear!

Rights do not need to be written to be rights.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Faun No, Abortion is NOT a "constitutional right" as it is not in the Constitution.
Free choice is under free exercise of religion, and not depriving people of liberty without
conviction for a crime by due process.

What was struck down as unconstitutional was the violation of "substantive due process".

It is only that the govt enforcement and process of prosecuting for abortion after the fact
would violate the women's rights.

People still have freedom to choose due to religious freedom,
because lawmakers have not agreed how to legislate on this issue
without it violating Constitutional due process or equal protection of the laws
where the women are not affected more than the men
and thus discriminated against.

It's the legal and legislative complications in addressing abortion that
are unconstitutional, but this doesn't establish abortion as a right.

(for example, even if executions end up getting banned because they
can't be administered by govt without resulting in unlawful complications or violations,
doesn't mean people have a right to murder! It just means the process of capital punishment is unconstitutional and hasn't been resolved yet so no laws meet passable standards.)

Sorry, but I'm gonna side with the Supreme Court on this one.

Dear Faun the Supreme Court has authority to strike down the law as unconstitutional. Only the Legislature has authority to write and pass laws. There is a difference! You can strike down the laws that criminalize drugs, and still keep it where drugs are illegal. This just hasn't been figured out yet how to do this for abortion and gay marriage. There was one state, I think ,Connecticut or another one in that region, that struck down laws Banning gay marriage but didn't rule in favor of Endorsing it. Just agreed it was unconstitutional to ban it. Get it? This takes a bit more intellectual distinction to separate striking down a ban but not making something formally legal.

It's very tricky if not impossible to do with abortion since people's personal space and beliefs are involved.

I envision it could take ppl agreeing to legislation recognizing a form of rape or abuse for acts of sex that result in unwanted pregnancy unwanted children or unwanted abortion as coercion and abuse, and perhaps passing health codes against abuse that hold men equally responsible for rape, incest, bullying or coercion abuses in sexual relations. Then maybe laws could get passed that don't discriminate unfairly by putting the legal burden only on the women.

As long as laws push for regulations after pregnancy has occurred that affect women more than men, those will always get struck down or blocked. So it would have to involve policing against sex abuse or relationship abuse in order for ppl to agree on a constitutional level that is equal and fair and would also have to be written carefully and by consensus since personal freedom and beliefs are involved. Maybe on a state or local level in conjunction with health care requirements for benefits, something like this could be agreed upon. Otherwise anything less than consensus would be blocked as unconstitutional since beliefs are involved in such personal matters.

I said nothing about creating laws. Your entire post is built upon the strawman that I did.

You said it was a Constitutional right to have abortion, but this requires written laws or amendment passed by legislative or state convention process.
Courts do not have authority to amend the Constitition. That is what I was responding to Faun sorry this was not clear!

Rights do not need to be written to be rights.

Then by your definition the opponents Right to Life is also a right. They argue they have more grounds to enforce Right to Life because it is written in the founding documents .

The closest that the right to choice has in writing is free exercise of religion and right not to be derived of liberty without due process of laws. So again that's why R v W struck down laws banning abortion because of Substantive Due Process.

By the same laws, both the right to life and right to choice advocates have equal right to representation and protection of Creed from infringement by the other.

So the same laws that protect your and my belief in free choice also protect the belief in right to life. Technically no laws can be passed that infringe on EITHER belief, or it's argued as unconstitutional since beliefs are at stake on both sides. All laws on abortion involve and affect faith based beliefs, and that's why the conflict continues. No matter what laws we pass or rulings we uphold this involves faith based beliefs on both sides, belief in right to choose and belief in right to life as equal beliefs under law.

So as I have said and published before, until there is consensus on laws then as long as govt endorses one sides beliefs over the other, this is imposing an unconstitutional bias that is not protecting both sides beliefs equally. Not yet. We need a consensus on law or agreement to separate in order to resolve the ongoing conflicts because of this inability to pass laws by consensus so all beliefs are represented equally thank you Faun

This is why prochoice prevails, because lack of consensus on laws mean no restrictions get passed but keep getting struck down unless everyone agrees to them

 

[Faun]

Sorry, but I'm gonna side with the Supreme Court on this one.

Dear Faun the Supreme Court has authority to strike down the law as unconstitutional. Only the Legislature has authority to write and pass laws. There is a difference! You can strike down the laws that criminalize drugs, and still keep it where drugs are illegal. This just hasn't been figured out yet how to do this for abortion and gay marriage. There was one state, I think ,Connecticut or another one in that region, that struck down laws Banning gay marriage but didn't rule in favor of Endorsing it. Just agreed it was unconstitutional to ban it. Get it? This takes a bit more intellectual distinction to separate striking down a ban but not making something formally legal.

It's very tricky if not impossible to do with abortion since people's personal space and beliefs are involved.

I envision it could take ppl agreeing to legislation recognizing a form of rape or abuse for acts of sex that result in unwanted pregnancy unwanted children or unwanted abortion as coercion and abuse, and perhaps passing health codes against abuse that hold men equally responsible for rape, incest, bullying or coercion abuses in sexual relations. Then maybe laws could get passed that don't discriminate unfairly by putting the legal burden only on the women.

As long as laws push for regulations after pregnancy has occurred that affect women more than men, those will always get struck down or blocked. So it would have to involve policing against sex abuse or relationship abuse in order for ppl to agree on a constitutional level that is equal and fair and would also have to be written carefully and by consensus since personal freedom and beliefs are involved. Maybe on a state or local level in conjunction with health care requirements for benefits, something like this could be agreed upon. Otherwise anything less than consensus would be blocked as unconstitutional since beliefs are involved in such personal matters.

I said nothing about creating laws. Your entire post is built upon the strawman that I did.

You said it was a Constitutional right to have abortion, but this requires written laws or amendment passed by legislative or state convention process.
Courts do not have authority to amend the Constitition. That is what I was responding to Faun sorry this was not clear!

Rights do not need to be written to be rights.

Then by your definition the opponents Right to Life is also a right. They argue they have more grounds to enforce Right to Life because it is written in the founding documents .

The closest that the right to choice has in writing is free exercise of religion and right not to be derived of liberty without due process of laws. So again that's why R v W struck down laws banning abortion because of Substantive Due Process.

By the same laws, both the right to life and right to choice advocates have equal right to representation and protection of Creed from infringement by the other.

So the same laws that protect your and my belief in free choice also protect the belief in right to life. Technically no laws can be passed that infringe on EITHER belief, or it's argued as unconstitutional since beliefs are at stake on both sides. All laws on abortion involve and affect faith based beliefs, and that's why the conflict continues. No matter what laws we pass or rulings we uphold this involves faith based beliefs on both sides, belief in right to choose and belief in right to life as equal beliefs under law.

So as I have said and published before, until there is consensus on laws then as long as govt endorses one sides beliefs over the other, this is imposing an unconstitutional bias that is not protecting both sides beliefs equally. Not yet. We need a consensus on law or agreement to separate in order to resolve the ongoing conflicts because of this inability to pass laws by consensus so all beliefs are represented equally thank you Faun

This is why prochoice prevails, because lack of consensus on laws mean no restrictions get passed but keep getting struck down unless everyone agrees to them

Of course there's a right to life. That right is not extended to non-viable fetuses. No rights are.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Faun the Supreme Court has authority to strike down the law as unconstitutional. Only the Legislature has authority to write and pass laws. There is a difference! You can strike down the laws that criminalize drugs, and still keep it where drugs are illegal. This just hasn't been figured out yet how to do this for abortion and gay marriage. There was one state, I think ,Connecticut or another one in that region, that struck down laws Banning gay marriage but didn't rule in favor of Endorsing it. Just agreed it was unconstitutional to ban it. Get it? This takes a bit more intellectual distinction to separate striking down a ban but not making something formally legal.

It's very tricky if not impossible to do with abortion since people's personal space and beliefs are involved.

I envision it could take ppl agreeing to legislation recognizing a form of rape or abuse for acts of sex that result in unwanted pregnancy unwanted children or unwanted abortion as coercion and abuse, and perhaps passing health codes against abuse that hold men equally responsible for rape, incest, bullying or coercion abuses in sexual relations. Then maybe laws could get passed that don't discriminate unfairly by putting the legal burden only on the women.

As long as laws push for regulations after pregnancy has occurred that affect women more than men, those will always get struck down or blocked. So it would have to involve policing against sex abuse or relationship abuse in order for ppl to agree on a constitutional level that is equal and fair and would also have to be written carefully and by consensus since personal freedom and beliefs are involved. Maybe on a state or local level in conjunction with health care requirements for benefits, something like this could be agreed upon. Otherwise anything less than consensus would be blocked as unconstitutional since beliefs are involved in such personal matters.

I said nothing about creating laws. Your entire post is built upon the strawman that I did.

You said it was a Constitutional right to have abortion, but this requires written laws or amendment passed by legislative or state convention process.
Courts do not have authority to amend the Constitition. That is what I was responding to Faun sorry this was not clear!

Rights do not need to be written to be rights.

Then by your definition the opponents Right to Life is also a right. They argue they have more grounds to enforce Right to Life because it is written in the founding documents .

The closest that the right to choice has in writing is free exercise of religion and right not to be derived of liberty without due process of laws. So again that's why R v W struck down laws banning abortion because of Substantive Due Process.

By the same laws, both the right to life and right to choice advocates have equal right to representation and protection of Creed from infringement by the other.

So the same laws that protect your and my belief in free choice also protect the belief in right to life. Technically no laws can be passed that infringe on EITHER belief, or it's argued as unconstitutional since beliefs are at stake on both sides. All laws on abortion involve and affect faith based beliefs, and that's why the conflict continues. No matter what laws we pass or rulings we uphold this involves faith based beliefs on both sides, belief in right to choose and belief in right to life as equal beliefs under law.

So as I have said and published before, until there is consensus on laws then as long as govt endorses one sides beliefs over the other, this is imposing an unconstitutional bias that is not protecting both sides beliefs equally. Not yet. We need a consensus on law or agreement to separate in order to resolve the ongoing conflicts because of this inability to pass laws by consensus so all beliefs are represented equally thank you Faun

This is why prochoice prevails, because lack of consensus on laws mean no restrictions get passed but keep getting struck down unless everyone agrees to them

Of course there's a right to life. That right is not extended to non-viable fetuses. No rights are.

And likewise Faun the same prolife people would argue that right to choice does not extend to abortion which they consider murder.

so you are both equal in asserting your rights, your beliefs, and discounting the other side as not justified by law. Unless that law is written by consent.

Again, as long as there isn't consent, then because faith based beliefs are involved on both sides, both sides argue the law is unconstitutional if it infringes on their beliefs. Your beliefs are equal under law, but the laws fall short of representing both sides equally, thus the objections.

 

[Faun]

I said nothing about creating laws. Your entire post is built upon the strawman that I did.

You said it was a Constitutional right to have abortion, but this requires written laws or amendment passed by legislative or state convention process.
Courts do not have authority to amend the Constitition. That is what I was responding to Faun sorry this was not clear!

Rights do not need to be written to be rights.

Then by your definition the opponents Right to Life is also a right. They argue they have more grounds to enforce Right to Life because it is written in the founding documents .

The closest that the right to choice has in writing is free exercise of religion and right not to be derived of liberty without due process of laws. So again that's why R v W struck down laws banning abortion because of Substantive Due Process.

By the same laws, both the right to life and right to choice advocates have equal right to representation and protection of Creed from infringement by the other.

So the same laws that protect your and my belief in free choice also protect the belief in right to life. Technically no laws can be passed that infringe on EITHER belief, or it's argued as unconstitutional since beliefs are at stake on both sides. All laws on abortion involve and affect faith based beliefs, and that's why the conflict continues. No matter what laws we pass or rulings we uphold this involves faith based beliefs on both sides, belief in right to choose and belief in right to life as equal beliefs under law.

So as I have said and published before, until there is consensus on laws then as long as govt endorses one sides beliefs over the other, this is imposing an unconstitutional bias that is not protecting both sides beliefs equally. Not yet. We need a consensus on law or agreement to separate in order to resolve the ongoing conflicts because of this inability to pass laws by consensus so all beliefs are represented equally thank you Faun

This is why prochoice prevails, because lack of consensus on laws mean no restrictions get passed but keep getting struck down unless everyone agrees to them

Of course there's a right to life. That right is not extended to non-viable fetuses. No rights are.

And likewise Faun the same prolife people would argue that right to choice does not extend to abortion which they consider murder.

so you are both equal in asserting your rights, your beliefs, and discounting the other side as not justified by law. Unless that law is written by consent.

Again, as long as there isn't consent, then because faith based beliefs are involved on both sides, both sides argue the law is unconstitutional if it infringes on their beliefs. Your beliefs are equal under law, but the laws fall short of representing both sides equally, thus the objections.

Yes, I have my opinion and others have theirs.

The ones which count are the ones by the Supreme Court. And you know how they ruled.

 

[emilynghiem]

You said it was a Constitutional right to have abortion, but this requires written laws or amendment passed by legislative or state convention process.
Courts do not have authority to amend the Constitition. That is what I was responding to Faun sorry this was not clear!

Rights do not need to be written to be rights.

Then by your definition the opponents Right to Life is also a right. They argue they have more grounds to enforce Right to Life because it is written in the founding documents .

The closest that the right to choice has in writing is free exercise of religion and right not to be derived of liberty without due process of laws. So again that's why R v W struck down laws banning abortion because of Substantive Due Process.

By the same laws, both the right to life and right to choice advocates have equal right to representation and protection of Creed from infringement by the other.

So the same laws that protect your and my belief in free choice also protect the belief in right to life. Technically no laws can be passed that infringe on EITHER belief, or it's argued as unconstitutional since beliefs are at stake on both sides. All laws on abortion involve and affect faith based beliefs, and that's why the conflict continues. No matter what laws we pass or rulings we uphold this involves faith based beliefs on both sides, belief in right to choose and belief in right to life as equal beliefs under law.

So as I have said and published before, until there is consensus on laws then as long as govt endorses one sides beliefs over the other, this is imposing an unconstitutional bias that is not protecting both sides beliefs equally. Not yet. We need a consensus on law or agreement to separate in order to resolve the ongoing conflicts because of this inability to pass laws by consensus so all beliefs are represented equally thank you Faun

This is why prochoice prevails, because lack of consensus on laws mean no restrictions get passed but keep getting struck down unless everyone agrees to them

Of course there's a right to life. That right is not extended to non-viable fetuses. No rights are.

And likewise Faun the same prolife people would argue that right to choice does not extend to abortion which they consider murder.

so you are both equal in asserting your rights, your beliefs, and discounting the other side as not justified by law. Unless that law is written by consent.

Again, as long as there isn't consent, then because faith based beliefs are involved on both sides, both sides argue the law is unconstitutional if it infringes on their beliefs. Your beliefs are equal under law, but the laws fall short of representing both sides equally, thus the objections.

Yes, I have my opinion and others have theirs.

The ones which count are the ones by the Supreme Court. And you know how they ruled.

Again Faun by the First Amendment, Fourteenth and Civil rights laws against discrimination by creed, the Courts also cannot make laws favoring one sides' beliefs over another.

The shortfall of our current system is our inability to address Political Beliefs that cannot be separated from Govt so easily as with Religious Beliefs.

The two ways that conflicts over beliefs can be resolved constitutionally is either
(1) to reach a consensus on law so that all beliefs are represented protected and included equally
(2) to remove the policy in conflict from govt and separate it so people of different beliefs can fund and support their own programs

Since we have neither achieved 1 or 2, we do the best we can.
The best the court can do is rule in favor of prochoice and try to leave it open to both prochoice and prolife to pursue their own beliefs. The govt cannot fix this problem, so it is really up to people to resolve it.

This is still favoring abortion to be protected and governed by public institutions, which is still against the prolife beliefs that oppose this as sanctioning murder they don't believe should be endorsed by govt at all!

So we still do not have a perfectly constitutional solution and that is why people continue to protest.

 

[rdean]

A doctor is performing a late term abortion and killing a baby which is an objectively human life, then would an individual have a moral right to kill them in defense of human life? (Just as some may argue that abolitionists had a right to kill slave owners in defense of the lives of slaves?)

(The state is of course a social construct and has no inherent rights but what the people give it, so while it might be illegal to kill an abortion doctor, if it's done in defense of an innocent life, I don't see why someone wouldn't have a right to do it).

Is cutting school lunches for poor children a moral right?

Is blocking health care for children a moral right.

Is cutting food stamps for poor children a moral right?

They must be. That's what Republicans do whenever they get the opportunity.

 

[emilynghiem]

A doctor is performing a late term abortion and killing a baby which is an objectively human life, then would an individual have a moral right to kill them in defense of human life? (Just as some may argue that abolitionists had a right to kill slave owners in defense of the lives of slaves?)

(The state is of course a social construct and has no inherent rights but what the people give it, so while it might be illegal to kill an abortion doctor, if it's done in defense of an innocent life, I don't see why someone wouldn't have a right to do it).

Is cutting school lunches for poor children a moral right?

Is blocking health care for children a moral right.

Is cutting food stamps for poor children a moral right?

They must be. That's what Republicans do whenever they get the opportunity.

Dear rdean if you are going to cut something from govt, it makes sense to instill a replacement source for that program.

If we could agree first on better sources, then maybe we could agree HOW to replace govt programs with more SUSTAINABLE solutions that return and restore the control back to the people who want freedom from govt bureaucracy, waste and debts.

Why not replace welfare with microlending, and reward charities and businesses that can provide the same services more cost effectively creating jobs locally? Both Obama and Carson express support for microlending education and training as a long term solution to end cycles of poverty and dependence.

Why don't left and right support Obama and Carson in working together on sustainable solutions all sides can agree work better?

 

[Faun]

Rights do not need to be written to be rights.

Then by your definition the opponents Right to Life is also a right. They argue they have more grounds to enforce Right to Life because it is written in the founding documents .

The closest that the right to choice has in writing is free exercise of religion and right not to be derived of liberty without due process of laws. So again that's why R v W struck down laws banning abortion because of Substantive Due Process.

By the same laws, both the right to life and right to choice advocates have equal right to representation and protection of Creed from infringement by the other.

So the same laws that protect your and my belief in free choice also protect the belief in right to life. Technically no laws can be passed that infringe on EITHER belief, or it's argued as unconstitutional since beliefs are at stake on both sides. All laws on abortion involve and affect faith based beliefs, and that's why the conflict continues. No matter what laws we pass or rulings we uphold this involves faith based beliefs on both sides, belief in right to choose and belief in right to life as equal beliefs under law.

So as I have said and published before, until there is consensus on laws then as long as govt endorses one sides beliefs over the other, this is imposing an unconstitutional bias that is not protecting both sides beliefs equally. Not yet. We need a consensus on law or agreement to separate in order to resolve the ongoing conflicts because of this inability to pass laws by consensus so all beliefs are represented equally thank you Faun

This is why prochoice prevails, because lack of consensus on laws mean no restrictions get passed but keep getting struck down unless everyone agrees to them

Of course there's a right to life. That right is not extended to non-viable fetuses. No rights are.

And likewise Faun the same prolife people would argue that right to choice does not extend to abortion which they consider murder.

so you are both equal in asserting your rights, your beliefs, and discounting the other side as not justified by law. Unless that law is written by consent.

Again, as long as there isn't consent, then because faith based beliefs are involved on both sides, both sides argue the law is unconstitutional if it infringes on their beliefs. Your beliefs are equal under law, but the laws fall short of representing both sides equally, thus the objections.

Yes, I have my opinion and others have theirs.

The ones which count are the ones by the Supreme Court. And you know how they ruled.

Again Faun by the First Amendment, Fourteenth and Civil rights laws against discrimination by creed, the Courts also cannot make laws favoring one sides' beliefs over another.

The shortfall of our current system is our inability to address Political Beliefs that cannot be separated from Govt so easily as with Religious Beliefs.

The two ways that conflicts over beliefs can be resolved constitutionally is either
(1) to reach a consensus on law so that all beliefs are represented protected and included equally
(2) to remove the policy in conflict from govt and separate it so people of different beliefs can fund and support their own programs

Since we have neither achieved 1 or 2, we do the best we can.
The best the court can do is rule in favor of prochoice and try to leave it open to both prochoice and prolife to pursue their own beliefs. The govt cannot fix this problem, so it is really up to people to resolve it.

This is still favoring abortion to be protected and governed by public institutions, which is still against the prolife beliefs that oppose this as sanctioning murder they don't believe should be endorsed by govt at all!

So we still do not have a perfectly constitutional solution and that is why people continue to protest.

Actually, that's really simple to address ... religious beliefs play no role in ruling on Constitutional issues other than in cases where someone is suing over infringement of their religious beliefs, which are also Constitutionally protected. In terms of abortion, religion has nothing to do with a woman's right to have an abortion up until the point of viability. Abortion is a personal choice women make for themselves, regardless of their own personal beliefs. The day our judicial branch starts ruling based on religion is the day we are governed by the Taliban.

 

[emilynghiem]

Then by your definition the opponents Right to Life is also a right. They argue they have more grounds to enforce Right to Life because it is written in the founding documents .

The closest that the right to choice has in writing is free exercise of religion and right not to be derived of liberty without due process of laws. So again that's why R v W struck down laws banning abortion because of Substantive Due Process.

By the same laws, both the right to life and right to choice advocates have equal right to representation and protection of Creed from infringement by the other.

So the same laws that protect your and my belief in free choice also protect the belief in right to life. Technically no laws can be passed that infringe on EITHER belief, or it's argued as unconstitutional since beliefs are at stake on both sides. All laws on abortion involve and affect faith based beliefs, and that's why the conflict continues. No matter what laws we pass or rulings we uphold this involves faith based beliefs on both sides, belief in right to choose and belief in right to life as equal beliefs under law.

So as I have said and published before, until there is consensus on laws then as long as govt endorses one sides beliefs over the other, this is imposing an unconstitutional bias that is not protecting both sides beliefs equally. Not yet. We need a consensus on law or agreement to separate in order to resolve the ongoing conflicts because of this inability to pass laws by consensus so all beliefs are represented equally thank you Faun

This is why prochoice prevails, because lack of consensus on laws mean no restrictions get passed but keep getting struck down unless everyone agrees to them

Of course there's a right to life. That right is not extended to non-viable fetuses. No rights are.

And likewise Faun the same prolife people would argue that right to choice does not extend to abortion which they consider murder.

so you are both equal in asserting your rights, your beliefs, and discounting the other side as not justified by law. Unless that law is written by consent.

Again, as long as there isn't consent, then because faith based beliefs are involved on both sides, both sides argue the law is unconstitutional if it infringes on their beliefs. Your beliefs are equal under law, but the laws fall short of representing both sides equally, thus the objections.

Yes, I have my opinion and others have theirs.

The ones which count are the ones by the Supreme Court. And you know how they ruled.

Again Faun by the First Amendment, Fourteenth and Civil rights laws against discrimination by creed, the Courts also cannot make laws favoring one sides' beliefs over another.

The shortfall of our current system is our inability to address Political Beliefs that cannot be separated from Govt so easily as with Religious Beliefs.

The two ways that conflicts over beliefs can be resolved constitutionally is either
(1) to reach a consensus on law so that all beliefs are represented protected and included equally
(2) to remove the policy in conflict from govt and separate it so people of different beliefs can fund and support their own programs

Since we have neither achieved 1 or 2, we do the best we can.
The best the court can do is rule in favor of prochoice and try to leave it open to both prochoice and prolife to pursue their own beliefs. The govt cannot fix this problem, so it is really up to people to resolve it.

This is still favoring abortion to be protected and governed by public institutions, which is still against the prolife beliefs that oppose this as sanctioning murder they don't believe should be endorsed by govt at all!

So we still do not have a perfectly constitutional solution and that is why people continue to protest.

Actually, that's really simple to address ... religious beliefs play no role in ruling on Constitutional issues other than in cases where someone is suing over infringement of their religious beliefs, which are also Constitutionally protected. In terms of abortion, religion has nothing to do with a woman's right to have an abortion up until the point of viability. Abortion is a personal choice women make for themselves, regardless of their own personal beliefs. The day our judicial branch starts ruling based on religion is the day we are governed by the Taliban.

Wrong again Faun
it takes as much belief to believe that life begins at or before conception,
as it does to believe that life begins at birth.

Both are faith based, neither proven by science ie nobody has ever proven at what point does the SOUL/WILL of the person enter the body.

Both sides remain faith based and that is why prochoice prevails.

But technically our laws should represent both prochoice and prolife beliefs equally, either by consensus or by separation in policy if people can't agree how to write and enforce laws to be equally fair to both.

What I suggest is using the prochoice approach to completely eliminate abortion by prevention. That way even though our laws remain prochoice, we don't have any more abortions so the prolife standards against abortion are still met -- but by prochoice methods.

 

[Faun]

Of course there's a right to life. That right is not extended to non-viable fetuses. No rights are.

And likewise Faun the same prolife people would argue that right to choice does not extend to abortion which they consider murder.

so you are both equal in asserting your rights, your beliefs, and discounting the other side as not justified by law. Unless that law is written by consent.

Again, as long as there isn't consent, then because faith based beliefs are involved on both sides, both sides argue the law is unconstitutional if it infringes on their beliefs. Your beliefs are equal under law, but the laws fall short of representing both sides equally, thus the objections.

Yes, I have my opinion and others have theirs.

The ones which count are the ones by the Supreme Court. And you know how they ruled.

Again Faun by the First Amendment, Fourteenth and Civil rights laws against discrimination by creed, the Courts also cannot make laws favoring one sides' beliefs over another.

The shortfall of our current system is our inability to address Political Beliefs that cannot be separated from Govt so easily as with Religious Beliefs.

The two ways that conflicts over beliefs can be resolved constitutionally is either
(1) to reach a consensus on law so that all beliefs are represented protected and included equally
(2) to remove the policy in conflict from govt and separate it so people of different beliefs can fund and support their own programs

Since we have neither achieved 1 or 2, we do the best we can.
The best the court can do is rule in favor of prochoice and try to leave it open to both prochoice and prolife to pursue their own beliefs. The govt cannot fix this problem, so it is really up to people to resolve it.

This is still favoring abortion to be protected and governed by public institutions, which is still against the prolife beliefs that oppose this as sanctioning murder they don't believe should be endorsed by govt at all!

So we still do not have a perfectly constitutional solution and that is why people continue to protest.

Actually, that's really simple to address ... religious beliefs play no role in ruling on Constitutional issues other than in cases where someone is suing over infringement of their religious beliefs, which are also Constitutionally protected. In terms of abortion, religion has nothing to do with a woman's right to have an abortion up until the point of viability. Abortion is a personal choice women make for themselves, regardless of their own personal beliefs. The day our judicial branch starts ruling based on religion is the day we are governed by the Taliban.

Wrong again Faun
it takes as much belief to believe that life begins at or before conception,
as it does to believe that life begins at birth.

Both are faith based, neither proven by science ie nobody has ever proven at what point does the SOUL/WILL of the person enter the body.

.......

And the Supreme Court ruled on neither. So much for your diatribe. Nor did the Supreme Court rule on religious beliefs.

 

[emilynghiem]

And likewise Faun the same prolife people would argue that right to choice does not extend to abortion which they consider murder.

so you are both equal in asserting your rights, your beliefs, and discounting the other side as not justified by law. Unless that law is written by consent.

Again, as long as there isn't consent, then because faith based beliefs are involved on both sides, both sides argue the law is unconstitutional if it infringes on their beliefs. Your beliefs are equal under law, but the laws fall short of representing both sides equally, thus the objections.

Yes, I have my opinion and others have theirs.

The ones which count are the ones by the Supreme Court. And you know how they ruled.

Again Faun by the First Amendment, Fourteenth and Civil rights laws against discrimination by creed, the Courts also cannot make laws favoring one sides' beliefs over another.

The shortfall of our current system is our inability to address Political Beliefs that cannot be separated from Govt so easily as with Religious Beliefs.

The two ways that conflicts over beliefs can be resolved constitutionally is either
(1) to reach a consensus on law so that all beliefs are represented protected and included equally
(2) to remove the policy in conflict from govt and separate it so people of different beliefs can fund and support their own programs

Since we have neither achieved 1 or 2, we do the best we can.
The best the court can do is rule in favor of prochoice and try to leave it open to both prochoice and prolife to pursue their own beliefs. The govt cannot fix this problem, so it is really up to people to resolve it.

This is still favoring abortion to be protected and governed by public institutions, which is still against the prolife beliefs that oppose this as sanctioning murder they don't believe should be endorsed by govt at all!

So we still do not have a perfectly constitutional solution and that is why people continue to protest.

Actually, that's really simple to address ... religious beliefs play no role in ruling on Constitutional issues other than in cases where someone is suing over infringement of their religious beliefs, which are also Constitutionally protected. In terms of abortion, religion has nothing to do with a woman's right to have an abortion up until the point of viability. Abortion is a personal choice women make for themselves, regardless of their own personal beliefs. The day our judicial branch starts ruling based on religion is the day we are governed by the Taliban.

Wrong again Faun
it takes as much belief to believe that life begins at or before conception,
as it does to believe that life begins at birth.

Both are faith based, neither proven by science ie nobody has ever proven at what point does the SOUL/WILL of the person enter the body.

.......

And the Supreme Court ruled on neither. So much for your diatribe. Nor did the Supreme Court rule on religious beliefs.

Dear Faun the Supreme Court should not be ruling on religious beliefs. That is up to the people to respect those equally and quit dragging conflicts to govt to try to "decide for us." We the people are the ones to decide how to deal with our own beliefs and conflicts between them. The govt is not authorized to make such decisions for the people,
and it is an abuse of govt to keep forcing that on govt!

When Protestants and Catholics don't agree on rites of communion, they don't go and sue through govt to force their ways on others.
They separate congregations and conduct rituals and programs by their own beliefs. Why can't we show and practice the same respect for beliefs, and fund and manage our own programs without imposing these on others who don't share those same beliefs?

 

[Faun]

Yes, I have my opinion and others have theirs.

The ones which count are the ones by the Supreme Court. And you know how they ruled.

Again Faun by the First Amendment, Fourteenth and Civil rights laws against discrimination by creed, the Courts also cannot make laws favoring one sides' beliefs over another.

The shortfall of our current system is our inability to address Political Beliefs that cannot be separated from Govt so easily as with Religious Beliefs.

The two ways that conflicts over beliefs can be resolved constitutionally is either
(1) to reach a consensus on law so that all beliefs are represented protected and included equally
(2) to remove the policy in conflict from govt and separate it so people of different beliefs can fund and support their own programs

Since we have neither achieved 1 or 2, we do the best we can.
The best the court can do is rule in favor of prochoice and try to leave it open to both prochoice and prolife to pursue their own beliefs. The govt cannot fix this problem, so it is really up to people to resolve it.

This is still favoring abortion to be protected and governed by public institutions, which is still against the prolife beliefs that oppose this as sanctioning murder they don't believe should be endorsed by govt at all!

So we still do not have a perfectly constitutional solution and that is why people continue to protest.

Actually, that's really simple to address ... religious beliefs play no role in ruling on Constitutional issues other than in cases where someone is suing over infringement of their religious beliefs, which are also Constitutionally protected. In terms of abortion, religion has nothing to do with a woman's right to have an abortion up until the point of viability. Abortion is a personal choice women make for themselves, regardless of their own personal beliefs. The day our judicial branch starts ruling based on religion is the day we are governed by the Taliban.

Wrong again Faun
it takes as much belief to believe that life begins at or before conception,
as it does to believe that life begins at birth.

Both are faith based, neither proven by science ie nobody has ever proven at what point does the SOUL/WILL of the person enter the body.

.......

And the Supreme Court ruled on neither. So much for your diatribe. Nor did the Supreme Court rule on religious beliefs.

Dear Faun the Supreme Court should not be ruling on religious beliefs. That is up to the people to respect those equally and quit dragging conflicts to govt to try to "decide for us." We the people are the ones to decide how to deal with our own beliefs and conflicts between them. The govt is not authorized to make such decisions for the people,
and it is an abuse of govt to keep forcing that on govt!

When Protestants and Catholics don't agree on rites of communion, they don't go and sue through govt to force their ways on others.
They separate congregations and conduct rituals and programs by their own beliefs. Why can't we show and practice the same respect for beliefs, and fund and manage our own programs without imposing these on others who don't share those same beliefs?

I'm glad you feel that way since, as already stated, they didn't rule on religious beliefs.