Is killing abortion doctors a moral right?

[emilynghiem]

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.

Where we disagree Faun is you don't treat prochoice
as a political BELIEF where right to life is equally a BELIEF.

I find this disparity causes "unintended" discrimination against people of prolife beliefs.

 

[Faun]

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.

Where we disagree Faun is you don't treat prochoice
as a political BELIEF where right to life is equally a BELIEF.

I find this disparity causes "unintended" discrimination against people of prolife beliefs.

There is no discrimination. That's a fallacy. The right to an abortion is a personal choice. For those who find it violates their personal religious beliefs, they are free to choose not to have an abortion.

Every pregnant woman has the right to choose for herself. None of them are discriminated against.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

Where we disagree Faun is you don't treat prochoice
as a political BELIEF where right to life is equally a BELIEF.

I find this disparity causes "unintended" discrimination against people of prolife beliefs.

There is no discrimination. That's a fallacy. The right to an abortion is a personal choice. For those who find it violates their personal religious beliefs, they are free to choose not to have an abortion.

Every pregnant woman has the right to choose for herself. None of them are discriminated against.

You are both fucking wrong.

Abortion laws should not be based on the beliefs (religious or not) of any group or individual.

Abortion laws should be based on personhood, when personhood begins and what the Constitution says about equal rights to due process and the equal protections of our laws.

So, it comes down to what a person is. (Our legal dictionaries simply say "A HUMAN BEING ")

The SCROTUS ignored that fact in ROE and injected their bias and BELIEFS instead.

They called it a COMPROMISE and they had no right nor authority to make compromises to the CONSTITUTIONAL rights of children in the womb.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Where we disagree Faun is you don't treat prochoice
as a political BELIEF where right to life is equally a BELIEF.

I find this disparity causes "unintended" discrimination against people of prolife beliefs.

There is no discrimination. That's a fallacy. The right to an abortion is a personal choice. For those who find it violates their personal religious beliefs, they are free to choose not to have an abortion.

Every pregnant woman has the right to choose for herself. None of them are discriminated against.

You are both fucking wrong.

Abortion laws should not be based on the beliefs (religious or not) of any group or individual.

Abortion laws should be based on personhood, when personhood begins and what the Constitution says about equal rights to due process and the equal protections of our laws.

So, it comes down to what a person is. (Our legal dictionaries simply say "A HUMAN BEING ")

The SCROTUS ignored that fact in ROE and injected their bias and BELIEFS instead.

They called it a COMPROMISE and they had no right nor authority to make compromises to the CONSTITUTIONAL rights of children in the womb.

WHOA!
I AGREE with you, that's what I'm saying that laws can't be made or be constitutional that are based on beliefs.

That is why I explained that prochoice positions prevail because govt cannot make faith based laws.

Where we disagree
1. Since govt. Laws should neither establish NOR prohibit/exclude/discriminate against beliefs either, I'm saying that's where the laws are still endorsing legal abortion which violates beliefs of those who don't believe in any abortion being permitted or protected legally.

The law goes BOTH ways and is supposed to not impose or exclude beliefs.

2. As for compromise

If ppl agree to compromise their beliefs, sure, we can agree to have govt endorse or enforce laws affecting issues of beliefs.

However, I find ppl on both sides NOT WILLING to compromise their beliefs.

That's why the conflict continues.

Don't ask other ppl to compromise if you aren't willing to do the same.

Or that isn't equal protection of the laws if you only expect the prolife views to keep compromising their beliefs all the time.

I think we can agree to keep the laws prochoice , but under the agreement to use free choice to prevent and end abortion so it doesn't need to be banned to get rid of this and the problems tied with govt. endorsement of it.

There are ways NOT to compromise either prochoice or prolife, so that's what I ask ppl to work toward so we can meet Constitutional standards on equal justice and equal protections of the law.

If anyone is going to compromise theur beliefs they should have the free choice to do so , if they consent anf agree thats the best we can do, not be forced by govt against their will.

 

[Faun]

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.

Where we disagree Faun is you don't treat prochoice
as a political BELIEF where right to life is equally a BELIEF.

I find this disparity causes "unintended" discrimination against people of prolife beliefs.

There is no discrimination. That's a fallacy. The right to an abortion is a personal choice. For those who find it violates their personal religious beliefs, they are free to choose not to have an abortion.

Every pregnant woman has the right to choose for herself. None of them are discriminated against.

You are both fucking wrong.

Abortion laws should not be based on the beliefs (religious or not) of any group or individual.

Lay off the smack. Maybe then you'll understand that's what I said. Hell, it's even in the quote you posted....

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

 

[BreezeWood]

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.

Where we disagree Faun is you don't treat prochoice
as a political BELIEF where right to life is equally a BELIEF.

I find this disparity causes "unintended" discrimination against people of prolife beliefs.

There is no discrimination. That's a fallacy. The right to an abortion is a personal choice. For those who find it violates their personal religious beliefs, they are free to choose not to have an abortion.

Every pregnant woman has the right to choose for herself. None of them are discriminated against.

You are both fucking wrong.

Abortion laws should not be based on the beliefs (religious or not) of any group or individual.

Abortion laws should be based on personhood, when personhood begins and what the Constitution says about equal rights to due process and the equal protections of our laws.

So, it comes down to what a person is. (Our legal dictionaries simply say "A HUMAN BEING ")

The SCROTUS ignored that fact in ROE and injected their bias and BELIEFS instead.

They called it a COMPROMISE and they had no right nor authority to make compromises to the CONSTITUTIONAL rights of children in the womb.

.

They called it a COMPROMISE and they had no right nor authority to make compromises to the CONSTITUTIONAL rights of children in the womb.

... in the womb


grow up chuz, in the womb makes all the difference whether you like it or not because of that fact is why there is a reasonable compromise suitable to both sides who are rational adults.

.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

Where we disagree Faun is you don't treat prochoice
as a political BELIEF where right to life is equally a BELIEF.

I find this disparity causes "unintended" discrimination against people of prolife beliefs.

There is no discrimination. That's a fallacy. The right to an abortion is a personal choice. For those who find it violates their personal religious beliefs, they are free to choose not to have an abortion.

Every pregnant woman has the right to choose for herself. None of them are discriminated against.

You are both fucking wrong.

Abortion laws should not be based on the beliefs (religious or not) of any group or individual.

Abortion laws should be based on personhood, when personhood begins and what the Constitution says about equal rights to due process and the equal protections of our laws.

So, it comes down to what a person is. (Our legal dictionaries simply say "A HUMAN BEING ")

The SCROTUS ignored that fact in ROE and injected their bias and BELIEFS instead.

They called it a COMPROMISE and they had no right nor authority to make compromises to the CONSTITUTIONAL rights of children in the womb.

.

They called it a COMPROMISE and they had no right nor authority to make compromises to the CONSTITUTIONAL rights of children in the womb.

... in the womb


grow up chuz, in the womb makes all the difference whether you like it or not because of that fact is why there is a reasonable compromise suitable to both sides who are rational adults.

.

Our fetal HOMICIDE laws have it right. And eventually, Roe v Wade will be overturned in part because of them.

 

[BreezeWood]

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

Where we disagree Faun is you don't treat prochoice
as a political BELIEF where right to life is equally a BELIEF.

I find this disparity causes "unintended" discrimination against people of prolife beliefs.

There is no discrimination. That's a fallacy. The right to an abortion is a personal choice. For those who find it violates their personal religious beliefs, they are free to choose not to have an abortion.

Every pregnant woman has the right to choose for herself. None of them are discriminated against.

You are both fucking wrong.

Abortion laws should not be based on the beliefs (religious or not) of any group or individual.

Abortion laws should be based on personhood, when personhood begins and what the Constitution says about equal rights to due process and the equal protections of our laws.

So, it comes down to what a person is. (Our legal dictionaries simply say "A HUMAN BEING ")

The SCROTUS ignored that fact in ROE and injected their bias and BELIEFS instead.

They called it a COMPROMISE and they had no right nor authority to make compromises to the CONSTITUTIONAL rights of children in the womb.

.

They called it a COMPROMISE and they had no right nor authority to make compromises to the CONSTITUTIONAL rights of children in the womb.

... in the womb


grow up chuz, in the womb makes all the difference whether you like it or not because of that fact is why there is a reasonable compromise suitable to both sides who are rational adults.

.

Our fetal HOMICIDE laws have it right. And eventually, Roe v Wade will be overturned in part because of them.

.

Our fetal HOMICIDE laws have it right. And eventually, Roe v Wade will be overturned in part because of them.

Republicans vow no vote, hearing on Obama Supreme Court pick | Fox News

Republicans vow no vote, hearing on Obama Supreme Court pick

Our fetal HOMICIDE laws have it right ...


just like YOUR judges that you chose will have it right rather than a collective Constitution you willfully ignore, Drama Queen.

.

 

[Chuz Life]

Where we disagree Faun is you don't treat prochoice
as a political BELIEF where right to life is equally a BELIEF.

I find this disparity causes "unintended" discrimination against people of prolife beliefs.

There is no discrimination. That's a fallacy. The right to an abortion is a personal choice. For those who find it violates their personal religious beliefs, they are free to choose not to have an abortion.

Every pregnant woman has the right to choose for herself. None of them are discriminated against.

You are both fucking wrong.

Abortion laws should not be based on the beliefs (religious or not) of any group or individual.

Abortion laws should be based on personhood, when personhood begins and what the Constitution says about equal rights to due process and the equal protections of our laws.

So, it comes down to what a person is. (Our legal dictionaries simply say "A HUMAN BEING ")

The SCROTUS ignored that fact in ROE and injected their bias and BELIEFS instead.

They called it a COMPROMISE and they had no right nor authority to make compromises to the CONSTITUTIONAL rights of children in the womb.

.

They called it a COMPROMISE and they had no right nor authority to make compromises to the CONSTITUTIONAL rights of children in the womb.

... in the womb


grow up chuz, in the womb makes all the difference whether you like it or not because of that fact is why there is a reasonable compromise suitable to both sides who are rational adults.

.

Our fetal HOMICIDE laws have it right. And eventually, Roe v Wade will be overturned in part because of them.

.

Our fetal HOMICIDE laws have it right. And eventually, Roe v Wade will be overturned in part because of them.

Republicans vow no vote, hearing on Obama Supreme Court pick | Fox News

Republicans vow no vote, hearing on Obama Supreme Court pick

Our fetal HOMICIDE laws have it right ...


just like YOUR judges that you chose will have it right rather than a collective Constitution you willfully ignore, Drama Queen.

.

Our Constitution says that all persons are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

Any justice who rules contrary to that principle is a discredit to themself.

 

[emilynghiem]

There is no discrimination. That's a fallacy. The right to an abortion is a personal choice. For those who find it violates their personal religious beliefs, they are free to choose not to have an abortion.

Every pregnant woman has the right to choose for herself. None of them are discriminated against.

You are both fucking wrong.

Abortion laws should not be based on the beliefs (religious or not) of any group or individual.

Abortion laws should be based on personhood, when personhood begins and what the Constitution says about equal rights to due process and the equal protections of our laws.

So, it comes down to what a person is. (Our legal dictionaries simply say "A HUMAN BEING ")

The SCROTUS ignored that fact in ROE and injected their bias and BELIEFS instead.

They called it a COMPROMISE and they had no right nor authority to make compromises to the CONSTITUTIONAL rights of children in the womb.

.

They called it a COMPROMISE and they had no right nor authority to make compromises to the CONSTITUTIONAL rights of children in the womb.

... in the womb


grow up chuz, in the womb makes all the difference whether you like it or not because of that fact is why there is a reasonable compromise suitable to both sides who are rational adults.

.

Our fetal HOMICIDE laws have it right. And eventually, Roe v Wade will be overturned in part because of them.

.

Our fetal HOMICIDE laws have it right. And eventually, Roe v Wade will be overturned in part because of them.

Republicans vow no vote, hearing on Obama Supreme Court pick | Fox News

Republicans vow no vote, hearing on Obama Supreme Court pick

Our fetal HOMICIDE laws have it right ...


just like YOUR judges that you chose will have it right rather than a collective Constitution you willfully ignore, Drama Queen.

.

Our Constitution says that all persons are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

Any justice who rules contrary to that principle is a discredit to themself.

Dear Chuz Life
* I find the prolife will have more success by defending prolife views as a BELIEF since that is Constitutionally protected by law regardless if you can prove it or not. Faith in a belief does not require proof, but trying to ban abortion by stating "life begins at conception" is a faith based argument and people keep rejecting it as such.

* The reason I find that abortion laws are being struck down
is that the laws run into complications that end up imposing on the woman's "substantive due process" and get into private personal matters
just to prove that a crime was committed.
it is hard enough to prove murder when the child is already outside the womb (see case of Casey and Caylee Anthony where intent could not be proven
but all it took was "reasonable doubt" to avoid a murder conviction).

* It may be more enforceable to create laws banning the ABUSE where it isn't just targeting the women more than the men,
but holding MEN equally accountable for RELATIONSHIP ABUSE, SEXUAL ABUSE, RAPE INCEST etc.

For Example, if Sex were banned as form of rape or abuse if an act of sex leads to
unwanted sexual contact or sexual intercourse, unwanted PREGNANCY, unwanted CHILDREN, or unwanted ABORTION
where the ***MEN*** could be held legally accountable and not just targeting the women,
maybe we'd get somewhere with these laws.

As long as the laws involve govt intervention AFTER the fact AFTER pregnancy occurs
then the laws discriminate against women, by targeting and affecting them MORE than the men.

And this causes MAJOR problems in cases of coercion, rape, incest by men.

Note: As I mentioned before I have friends who are prolife, even in the case of rape/incest,
and they also agree that the laws ought to go after the men and not just target the women.

So why not try that approach, create a health and safety law against rape and relationship abuse
where abortion can be considered a sign of relational abuse and coercion so the men can be deterred
equally as the women from engaging in sex if they don't want pregnancy or children. Something like that.
(Maybe not a civil violation but violation of health codes where drug addictions can also be addressed this way
before they become a civil or criminal violation by harming other people.)

What do you think Chuz Life

 

[emilynghiem]

BTW Chuz Life I am committed to supporting coalitions and partnerships to work on preventing abortion 100% in ways that respect both prochoice and prolife beliefs equally.

The other way I'd like to propose reform is to separate health care and tax funding by party lines: let taxpayer check a box
A = for health insurance mandates and prochoice funding if they want taxes to go into a health care system that is run by govt and includes abortion
B = no mandates, free market choices of health care, but no abortions

That way taxpayers can have a choice which system to fund. Currently the Republicans have presented proposed reforms to ACA that don't have mandates. If the Democrats block this, why not give people a choice of the two plans?

A = current ACA law as voted on and passed by prochoice Democrats so let all other taxpayers who support this be under it and fund it themselves by CHOICE

B = revised health care laws without the mandates (then add prolife to it and give prolife citizens equal choice to fund this health care option)

 

[BreezeWood]

BTW Chuz Life I am committed to supporting coalitions and partnerships to work on preventing abortion 100% in ways that respect both prochoice and prolife beliefs equally.

The other way I'd like to propose reform is to separate health care and tax funding by party lines: let taxpayer check a box
A = for health insurance mandates and prochoice funding if they want taxes to go into a health care system that is run by govt and includes abortion
B = no mandates, free market choices of health care, but no abortions

That way taxpayers can have a choice which system to fund. Currently the Republicans have presented proposed reforms to ACA that don't have mandates. If the Democrats block this, why not give people a choice of the two plans?

A = current ACA law as voted on and passed by prochoice Democrats so let all other taxpayers who support this be under it and fund it themselves by CHOICE

B = revised health care laws without the mandates (then add prolife to it and give prolife citizens equal choice to fund this health care option)

.

The other way I'd like to propose reform is to separate health care and tax funding by party lines: let taxpayer check a box
A = for health insurance mandates and prochoice funding if they want taxes to go into a health care system that is run by govt and includes abortion
B = no mandates, free market choices of health care, but no abortions

to separate health care and tax funding by party lines:


brilliant, receive health care while choosing not to pay for it ... and why not include the pentagon budget incrementally as well to not fund "wasteful" projects or wars with the same legislation.

.