saveliberty
Diamond Member
- Oct 12, 2009
- 58,756
- 10,842
- 2,030
Interesting how liberal POVs become settled law, while any law they oppose needs to be progressive.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They get around it by continuing to restrict abortion at the state level, in certain states, pushing the envelope on Roe in the process, to see what they can get away with.
Just like you do to the right to bear arms.
fyi
that makes you a hypocrite
True story
Liberals made it clear long ago that rights can be regulated at the state level.
And so heavily regulated that they become an expensive privilege.
Don't get mad when the RR plays the same game using your rules.
They get around it by continuing to restrict abortion at the state level, in certain states, pushing the envelope on Roe in the process, to see what they can get away with.
Just like you do to the right to bear arms.
fyi
that makes you a hypocrite
True story
Except the 2nd Amendment CLEARLY states that states can "regulate militias" and gun ownership.
Liberals made it clear long ago that rights can be regulated at the state level.
And so heavily regulated that they become an expensive privilege.
Don't get mad when the RR plays the same game using your rules.
Except the 14th Amendment states that certain things CAN'T be regulated at the state level, such as individual rights. And Roe falls into that category.
Much like the Bible, it really helps if you guys READ the constitution instead of worship it.
[
If its an individual's right, then individuals hold them without regulation by the federal government too. The federal government regulates abortion. Basically they are trying to tell us when you're alive and when you aren't. That will extend to the end of life soon enough.
[
If its an individual's right, then individuals hold them without regulation by the federal government too. The federal government regulates abortion. Basically they are trying to tell us when you're alive and when you aren't. That will extend to the end of life soon enough.
Why do you guys always go for the "slipper slope" argument when you can't win the argument you are having?
In the first place, the Supreme Court would have to agree to hear a case which challenges it's opinion on Roe v. Wade. No court typically revisits a decision UNLESS there is a case which raises serious issues about it. That's true no matter who sits on the bench. Historically, it's just not likely to happen, regardless of who Obama or any other President nominates.
Secondly, the Congress has the power to craft legislation which addresses the Constitutional issues raised by Roe. It might not be easy, but it still is well within their Constitutional authorities. That they have never attempted to do so, even during times when the GOP had full control of the government, should be instructive to you. They've had ample opportunity to present a bill overthrowing the Court's decision since 1973 and have not offered up one, single, solitary bill to do so.
Why? Because they have no intention of doing it. Abortion is an issue which almost literally splits this country right down the middle, and even the GOP would not DARE piss off half the electorate over it. They'll blather and moan and milk the base for money, but they are not going to directly challenge Roe v. Wade. The political cost would be too high.
The bottom line is that Roe is here to stay for the foreseeable future. To continue talking about it does nothing more than feed the divide because it amounts to little more than raging against the machine.
I always thought it should have been left to the states to decide...like it was before the SC decision. I do believe the Founding Fathers would have agreed with me on this one.
Just like you do to the right to bear arms.
fyi
that makes you a hypocrite
True story
Except the 2nd Amendment CLEARLY states that states can "regulate militias" and gun ownership.
The Constitution grants ALL rights to the individual and states not specifically granted to the federal government. Learn the Constitution.
[
If its an individual's right, then individuals hold them without regulation by the federal government too. The federal government regulates abortion. Basically they are trying to tell us when you're alive and when you aren't. That will extend to the end of life soon enough.
Why do you guys always go for the "slipper slope" argument when you can't win the argument you are having?
Because government is so good at following that route. I just crushed your recent point. Who is losing again?
[
If its an individual's right, then individuals hold them without regulation by the federal government too. The federal government regulates abortion. Basically they are trying to tell us when you're alive and when you aren't. That will extend to the end of life soon enough.
Why do you guys always go for the "slipper slope" argument when you can't win the argument you are having?
[
If its an individual's right, then individuals hold them without regulation by the federal government too. The federal government regulates abortion. Basically they are trying to tell us when you're alive and when you aren't. That will extend to the end of life soon enough.
Why do you guys always go for the "slipper slope" argument when you can't win the argument you are having?
Nobody is arguing Joe, except you. I hope you guys go abort ALL your children. Pile 'em up like cordwood if that's what floats your boat.
Only God knows how many future MLK's and Einsteins you've managed to murder.
GOOD JOB!
Who says the kids are unwanted?
You can't have a sensible discussion when defenders of abortion refuse to admit the unborn are baby's
You can't have a sensible discussion supporting murder
You can't have a sensible discussion when one of the two people involved doesn't have a say about what affects them
You can't have a sensible discussion when defenders of abortion refuse to admit the unborn are baby's
You can't have a sensible discussion supporting murder
You can't have a sensible discussion when one of the two people involved doesn't have a say about what affects them
Not everyone thinks that fetuses are babies... in fact, this has never been the case in science, law or even religion.
No one supports "murder", they simply recognize the law as it is.
That person had his say when he shot his wad. At that point he has no say. It would be the same if he wanted an abortion and she wanted to keep it. Too bad,buddy, get ready for that wage garnishment.
You can't have a sensible discussion when defenders of abortion refuse to admit the unborn are baby's
You can't have a sensible discussion supporting murder
You can't have a sensible discussion when one of the two people involved doesn't have a say about what affects them
Not everyone thinks that fetuses are babies... in fact, this has never been the case in science, law or even religion.
No one supports "murder", they simply recognize the law as it is.
That person had his say when he shot his wad. At that point he has no say. It would be the same if he wanted an abortion and she wanted to keep it. Too bad,buddy, get ready for that wage garnishment.
See I was right you can't have a sensible discussion because you refuse to admit the unborn have no say in what affects them.
You can't have a sensible discussion when defenders of abortion refuse to admit the unborn are baby's
You can't have a sensible discussion supporting murder
You can't have a sensible discussion when one of the two people involved doesn't have a say about what affects them