Collins: Won't support SCOTUS pick hostile to abortion rights

[OldLady]

From a purely logical standpoint, the argument that abortion murders a child cannot justify excluding rape or incest. Those children have as much right to live as any other child. Rape and incest exclusions show this argument for what it is--passing moral judgment on women's behavior.

No. Has nothing to do with that. It's simply that if one is raped, they shouldn't have to parent a kid whose face looks just like the rapist. Would you want to ? Every time you look at the kid whom you should love, you're going to see the rapist whom you hate.

That is still an emotional, not a logical, argument.

 

[Lysistrata]

Two more SCOTUS Democrats are in their 80s. How many more picks will Donald Trump get ?

Could be 7-2 before long. Goodbye Roe vs Wade. Goodbye Same Sex marriage. Goodbye Affirmative Action. Goodbye gun-free zones. Hello nationwide CCW.

Goodbye, civil rights of Americans. We will survive only as a fascist state.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some arguments have that abortion should not be permissable after 12 weeks.

Others argue that an abortion should not be performed even in case of pregnancy by rape or incest.

From a purely logical standpoint, the argument that abortion murders a child cannot justify excluding rape or incest. Those children have as much right to live as any other child. Rape and incest exclusions show this argument for what it is--passing moral judgment on women's behavior.

Current regulations governing bortion of a fetus is not murder if a mother so decides, according to the law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some arguments have that abortion should not be permissable after 12 weeks.

Others argue that an abortion should not be performed even in case of pregnancy by rape or incest.

I hold that view. What did a baby who is a product of rape or incest do to be executed?

It's a fetus not a human baby.

 

[JakeStarkey]

From a purely logical standpoint, the argument that abortion murders a child cannot justify excluding rape or incest. Those children have as much right to live as any other child. Rape and incest exclusions show this argument for what it is--passing moral judgment on women's behavior.

No. Has nothing to do with that. It's simply that if one is raped, they shouldn't have to parent a kid whose face looks just like the rapist. Would you want to ? Every time you look at the kid whom you should love, you're going to see the rapist whom you hate.

That is still an emotional, not a logical, argument.

And an acceptable one.

 

[task0778]

Some arguments have that abortion should not be permissable after 12 weeks.

Others argue that an abortion should not be performed even in case of pregnancy by rape or incest.

From a purely logical standpoint, the argument that abortion murders a child cannot justify excluding rape or incest. Those children have as much right to live as any other child. Rape and incest exclusions show this argument for what it is--passing moral judgment on women's behavior.

Understand the thought, but one might also say that excluding rape or incest shows compassion for a young woman who has been brutalized. Many of whom are underage. Should we then not allow her that choice?

They should ALL be allowed that choice, in my opinion.

What about the unborn fetus? Where's your compassion for them? Why shouldn't they also have a right to life?

 

[OldLady]

Some arguments have that abortion should not be permissable after 12 weeks.

Others argue that an abortion should not be performed even in case of pregnancy by rape or incest.

From a purely logical standpoint, the argument that abortion murders a child cannot justify excluding rape or incest. Those children have as much right to live as any other child. Rape and incest exclusions show this argument for what it is--passing moral judgment on women's behavior.

Current regulations governing bortion of a fetus is not murder if a mother so decides, according to the law.

I know, Jake, I know.

 

[OldLady]

Some arguments have that abortion should not be permissable after 12 weeks.

Others argue that an abortion should not be performed even in case of pregnancy by rape or incest.

From a purely logical standpoint, the argument that abortion murders a child cannot justify excluding rape or incest. Those children have as much right to live as any other child. Rape and incest exclusions show this argument for what it is--passing moral judgment on women's behavior.

Understand the thought, but one might also say that excluding rape or incest shows compassion for a young woman who has been brutalized. Many of whom are underage. Should we then not allow her that choice?

They should ALL be allowed that choice, in my opinion.

What about the unborn fetus? Where's your compassion for them? Why shouldn't they also have a right to life?

I came back here to make a contribution on the Supreme Court pick, not to get entangled in an abortion thread. I know I stuck my foot in, but I am now taking it out. We can talk about Roe v. Wade somewhere else.

 

[DarkFury]

Doesn't matter what the Alt and Far Right think: they are anti-American.

It will matter with the nominees think.

And if the nom refuses to reply? Then what?

 

[OldLady]

There is nothing the Democrats can do about the fact that they have lost the Supreme Court. They blew that when they lost the 2016 election. They made choices about Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, about their candidate, about a lot of things, and they blew it. They lost to Donald Trump, for Goddsake. Think about that for a minute. smh

Anyway, on Meet the Press this morning, Kim Atkins said something sane about all the Dem's brave talk about "blocking" the nomination and perhaps getting a couple of Republicans to reject whoever is nominated by the Pres next week. She said, rightly I think:
for Democrats, the fight was in 2016. They missed the fight. That is when there was a Supreme Court justice being held up. But maybe because Merrick Garland wasn't the progressive firebrand that really stirred them up, or maybe they missed the fact that there was a path to Donald Trump to 270, they didn't fight that fight then. Now it's too late and they can only message the way we saw Senator Cantwell do as best as she could. But that's all Democrats have right now.

It's too late. There is nothing the Dems can do to stop this train. It's time to start pulling themselves together and planning how to survive. Resist and Reject are not going to get us anywhere. It hasn't gotten us anywhere yet.

 

[task0778]

Some arguments have that abortion should not be permissable after 12 weeks.

Others argue that an abortion should not be performed even in case of pregnancy by rape or incest.

From a purely logical standpoint, the argument that abortion murders a child cannot justify excluding rape or incest. Those children have as much right to live as any other child. Rape and incest exclusions show this argument for what it is--passing moral judgment on women's behavior.

Understand the thought, but one might also say that excluding rape or incest shows compassion for a young woman who has been brutalized. Many of whom are underage. Should we then not allow her that choice?

They should ALL be allowed that choice, in my opinion.

What about the unborn fetus? Where's your compassion for them? Why shouldn't they also have a right to life?

I came back here to make a contribution on the Supreme Court pick, not to get entangled in an abortion thread. I know I stuck my foot in, but I am now taking it out. We can talk about Roe v. Wade somewhere else.

Okay. Back to RvW, in the eyes of some people the SCOTUS seems to have exercised quite a bit of judicial discretion in this case. Using the right to privacy does seem a stretch to me. OTOH, I am also not sure we should have a federal law that says abortion is illegal either. Obviously I am somewhat conflicted on this, because we have the question of the rights to consider of the unborn person. Maybe it would be best left up to the individual states to decide.

In any event, I would not want to confirm a person who has already made their decision on this issue, independent of the situation and circumstances of the case brought before the Court.

 

[HenryBHough]

Great opportunity here for people in Maine and Alaska to learn the true meaning of: "To suck hind tit". Count on RINOs Collins and Murklownski to **** over their own voters.

 

[task0778]

There is nothing the Democrats can do about the fact that they have lost the Supreme Court. They blew that when they lost the 2016 election. They made choices about Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, about their candidate, about a lot of things, and they blew it. They lost to Donald Trump, for Goddsake. Think about that for a minute. smh

Anyway, on Meet the Press this morning, Kim Atkins said something sane about all the Dem's brave talk about "blocking" the nomination and perhaps getting a couple of Republicans to reject whoever is nominated by the Pres next week. She said, rightly I think:
for Democrats, the fight was in 2016. They missed the fight. That is when there was a Supreme Court justice being held up. But maybe because Merrick Garland wasn't the progressive firebrand that really stirred them up, or maybe they missed the fact that there was a path to Donald Trump to 270, they didn't fight that fight then. Now it's too late and they can only message the way we saw Senator Cantwell do as best as she could. But that's all Democrats have right now.

It's too late. There is nothing the Dems can do to stop this train. It's time to start pulling themselves together and planning how to survive. Resist and Reject are not going to get us anywhere. It hasn't gotten us anywhere yet.

Take heart - the GOP will find a way to screw it up, they can't seem to get their act together. The question is whether the Dems will have a viable candidate to oppose Trump, assuming he runs for re-election. Right now the Dems appear to be moving further to the Left and that isn't going to win them many votes out there in flyover country.

 

[HenryBHough]

Democrats DO have viable candidate to oppose President Trump. Her friends call her "Hillary". Both of them.

 

[OldLady]

From a purely logical standpoint, the argument that abortion murders a child cannot justify excluding rape or incest. Those children have as much right to live as any other child. Rape and incest exclusions show this argument for what it is--passing moral judgment on women's behavior.

Understand the thought, but one might also say that excluding rape or incest shows compassion for a young woman who has been brutalized. Many of whom are underage. Should we then not allow her that choice?

They should ALL be allowed that choice, in my opinion.

What about the unborn fetus? Where's your compassion for them? Why shouldn't they also have a right to life?

I came back here to make a contribution on the Supreme Court pick, not to get entangled in an abortion thread. I know I stuck my foot in, but I am now taking it out. We can talk about Roe v. Wade somewhere else.

Okay. Back to RvW, in the eyes of some people the SCOTUS seems to have exercised quite a bit of judicial discretion in this case. Using the right to privacy does seem a stretch to me. OTOH, I am also not sure we should have a federal law that says abortion is illegal either. Obviously I am somewhat conflicted on this, because we have the question of the rights to consider of the unborn person. Maybe it would be best left up to the individual states to decide.

In any event, I would not want to confirm a person who has already made their decision on this issue, independent of the situation and circumstances of the case brought before the Court.

My greatest hope is that any individual chosen for the Supreme Court would do exactly that--make their decision based on the situation and the circumstances of the case brought before the Court. And I still have hope that indeed most of the Justices, realizing the gravity of their positions and the historic responsibility of their decisions, do exactly that. We know Scalia had said, "It's a law. It's a stupid law, but it's a law."
I am hoping that a lot of this screeching is fear mongering to get the Dems inspired to vote, although voting isn't going to do a damned thing for them, so I'm not sure why it would.
I'm going to pull the old lady routine and hope my government and my Court are far better people than the politicians will admit.

 

[OldLady]

Great opportunity here for people in Maine and Alaska to learn the true meaning of: "To suck hind tit". Count on RINOs Collins and Murklownski to **** over their own voters.

Go soak your head.

 

[saveliberty]

I see some people are pretty upset at the possibility we can't kill babies at will.

 

[OldLady]

There is nothing the Democrats can do about the fact that they have lost the Supreme Court. They blew that when they lost the 2016 election. They made choices about Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, about their candidate, about a lot of things, and they blew it. They lost to Donald Trump, for Goddsake. Think about that for a minute. smh

Anyway, on Meet the Press this morning, Kim Atkins said something sane about all the Dem's brave talk about "blocking" the nomination and perhaps getting a couple of Republicans to reject whoever is nominated by the Pres next week. She said, rightly I think:
for Democrats, the fight was in 2016. They missed the fight. That is when there was a Supreme Court justice being held up. But maybe because Merrick Garland wasn't the progressive firebrand that really stirred them up, or maybe they missed the fact that there was a path to Donald Trump to 270, they didn't fight that fight then. Now it's too late and they can only message the way we saw Senator Cantwell do as best as she could. But that's all Democrats have right now.

It's too late. There is nothing the Dems can do to stop this train. It's time to start pulling themselves together and planning how to survive. Resist and Reject are not going to get us anywhere. It hasn't gotten us anywhere yet.

Take heart - the GOP will find a way to screw it up, they can't seem to get their act together. The question is whether the Dems will have a viable candidate to oppose Trump, assuming he runs for re-election. Right now the Dems appear to be moving further to the Left and that isn't going to win them many votes out there in flyover country.

Nor among Independents, if I'm any indication. While I wholly support universal healthcare and investing more in bringing the poor out of poverty, there is an awful lot of theatrics going on right now that is way beyond what brings out my sympathy. Maybe it's more the radical rhetoric than the underlying ideals, but I've never completely agreed with the Dems, anyway, and it is becoming harder to say yeah, I like that.

 

[Synthaholic]

'Washington (CNN)Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a key vote in the coming Supreme Court confirmation fight, said Sunday she would not support a nominee hostile to the landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade.

"I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law," Collins said on CNN's "State of the Union."'

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Interesting.

We’ll see if she actually sticks to her guns. She didn’t say boo about the last pick or when mitch stole our judge

She’s a gullible dope. Or she has diminished capacity.

 

[OldLady]

I see some people are pretty upset at the possibility we can't kill babies at will.

Who's that? I must have missed it.