Do liberals understand that the SCOTUS is not debating whether to ban abortion?

[candycorn]

It’s “per se”.

And get a grip. You libs always go to false extremes when you are losing an argument.

Care to discuss common sense gun control laws?

The issue is states’ rights,

So was slavery and the Civil War, right?

and NO state is going to keep you from your facelift.

Maybe...maybe not.
When you allow the State to now violate your privacy...the dominoes won't stop falling when the voters of that state find a new target.

 

[Lisa558]

Oh no! If the SCOTUS allows each state to set laws regarding abortion, that might mean I won’t be able to get a facial at Bloomingdales.

 

[candycorn]

That's the fees to the city, not the cost of the gun.

Again, infringement or not?

Not sure. What are the "fees" for?

 

[candycorn]

Oh no! If the SCOTUS allows each state to set laws regarding abortion, that might mean I won’t be able to get a facial at Bloomingdales.

Sounds like you're going to false extremes.

Again, the Roe decision was about privacy. Not abortion.

 

[Lisa558]

Care to discuss common sense gun control laws?

So was slavery and the Civil War, right?

Maybe...maybe not.
When you allow the State to now violate your privacy...the dominoes won't stop falling when the voters of that state find a new target.

Maybe I want to kill my next-door neighbor. How DARE the state interfere with my right to do so privately!

 

[candycorn]

Maybe I want to kill my next-door neighbor. How DARE the state interfere with my right to do so privately!

Sounds like you're going to ridiculous extremes....

 

[martybegan]

Not sure. What are the "fees" for?

They don't really explain, it's part of the process for you to get your license.

Here is the procedure described.

Getting a NYC Firearms Permit - New York City Guns

 

[Lisa558]

Sounds like you're going to false extremes.

Again, the Roe decision was about privacy. Not abortion.

Yes, and at Issue was the question as to whether the constitutional right to privacy, overriding states‘ rights, extended to killing one’s own fetus. One can argue that the right to privacy ends when others are harmed in the process, as happens when a woman who didn’t bother with birth control* wants to end the existence of the growing life inside her.

*99% of unwanted pregnancies occur because the woman was irresponsible; 1% due to birth control failure or rape

 

[candycorn]

Yes, and at Issue was the question as to whether the constitutional right to privacy, overriding states‘ rights, extended to killing one’s own fetus. One can argue that the right to privacy ends when others are harmed in the process, as happens when a woman who didn’t bother with birth control* wants to end the existence of the growing life inside her.

*99% of unwanted pregnancies occur because the woman was irresponsible; 1% due to birth control failure or rape

One could argue that.

But the Roe decision is about privacy...not abortion.

As for birth control...not every woman is medically eligible for hormone therapy. So the other options are the implants and trusting your partner. You covid denier types want to force people to get implants/IUDs now?

 

[Lisa558]

One could argue that.

But the Roe decision is about privacy...not abortion.

As for birth control...not every woman is medically eligible for hormone therapy. So the other options are the implants and trusting your partner. You covid denier types want to force people to get implants/IUDs now?

I was not eligible for the pill. There are other very effective methods, which I used religiously. If I could do it, there’s no reason any other woman couldn’t, other than being sloppy, lazy, or irresponsible.

And the Roe decision was about whether privacy extended to killing a growing human life. You can’t separate the two.

Also, why do you call me a COVID denier? Assigning traits or beliefs to individuals based on membership in a group is something racists do. I don’t deny COVID, but at this point, it’s basically a bad cold or flu, and we don’t close schools and shutter businesses for that.

 

[SavannahMann]

"I have decided that there are collective rights because I want them to exist, so you must just accept that as fact!"

See my previous post, re: try to make an argument from facts, instead of from your own agenda and hormones.

What is the first line of the First Amendment?

 

[SavannahMann]

Rights have never been absolute. One cannot yell “fire” in a movie theater, for example.

As far as aborting one’s own baby, the Founders never included it because they did not feel it necessary to the success of a free country that a woman should be able to kill an innocent, growing human life inside her. That we now have people claiming it’s a woman’s right to control her own body - conveniently ignoring the living human being inside her - perhaps speaks to the population’s more selfish “me, me, me!” attitude which really began in the 70s.

The laws which were used to arrest and prosecute among others Lenny Bruce don’t exist now because the Courts struck them down.

The courts created the right out of thin air.

So if we are going to an originalist view of the Constitution. The ideas that the Founders used, then don’t we have to do it for all rights, not just the one you find abhorrent?

 

[FA_Q2]

One could argue that.

But the Roe decision is about privacy...not abortion.

As for birth control...not every woman is medically eligible for hormone therapy. So the other options are the implants and trusting your partner. You covid denier types want to force people to get implants/IUDs now?

How can you possible read the decision and say that?

Do you lose your right to privacy in the third trimester because if that is what you think Roe is then that is what the decision says.

The right to privacy is established in the constitution. The right to seek an abortion was an EXTENSION of that right to a specific medical procedure. It did not create the right to privacy, it used that as a basis to create a right to obtain an abortion.

 

[bendog]

I swear, every time I talk to a liberal, I SMH at how misinformed they are - and how deceitful the liberal media is. Just yesterday I spoke to a liberal, and in addition to her usual moaning about Republicans (to me, knowing I am a Republican), she bemoaned the “fact” that “Trump’s Republican Supreme Court” (her words) may ban abortion. When I corrected her, she said that MSNBC made it sound as though all abortions would be banned.

Listen up: for any of you libtards getting your news through MSNBC, the SCOTUS is not debating a ban. It doesn’t even have that right, just as it didn’t have the fight to force states to make it legal. It is merely debating whether the decision in Roe v Wade was constitutional, and if not, THE DECISION GOES TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATES.

The sup ct is considering allowing states in the bible belt to ban abortion. (although, a president may be able to still force states to allow mail of abortifacient meds, if he/she is a democrat)

 

[Lisa558]

The sup ct is considering allowing states in the bible belt to ban abortion. (although, a president may be able to still force states to allow mail of abortifacient meds, if he/she is a democrat)

True - the Supreme Court is debating whether to leave the decision to the states, and it is POSSIBLE a few states in the Bible Belt might ban abortion entirely, but I doubt it. They might just come up with a very restrictive law, like in Texas, so it’s permitted - bit only within the first few weeks.

 

[Lisa558]

The laws which were used to arrest and prosecute among others Lenny Bruce don’t exist now because the Courts struck them down.

The courts created the right out of thin air.

So if we are going to an originalist view of the Constitution. The ideas that the Founders used, then don’t we have to do it for all rights, not just the one you find abhorrent?

What ”right” is being denied? There is no inherent right to murder a living human baby who is viable outside the womb. Where in the Constitution does it mention that?

 

[bendog]

True - the Supreme Court is debating whether to leave the decision to the states, and it is POSSIBLE a few states in the Bible Belt might ban abortion entirely, but I doubt it. They might just come up with a very restrictive law, like in Texas, so it’s permitted - bit only within the first few weeks.

oh it'll be more than a few. The Sup Ct is debating whether to find a woman does not have a const right to an abortion even in the first trimester and in the case of rape

 

[Lisa558]

oh it'll be more than a few. The Sup Ct is debating whether to find a woman does not have a const right to an abortion even in the first trimester and in the case of rape

Which states do you think will ban abortion entirely, even in the case of rape? Let’s start by naming the states that have restrictive time limits:

1. Texas

I’m also thinking Arkansas and Alabama.

 

[BlindBoo]

oh it'll be more than a few. The Sup Ct is debating whether to find a woman does not have a const right to an abortion even in the first trimester and in the case of rape

I see it as the courts are debating whether the States can take control over all the women's baby factories and force every successful implantation of a zygote to be brought to term, instead of leaving it up to the woman, her family and their doctor.

 

[Lisa558]

I see it as the courts are debating whether the States can take control over all the women's baby factories and force every successful implantation of a zygote to be brought to term, instead of leaving it up to the woman, her family and their doctor.

Naturally, you’d see it that way. Maybe the SCOTUS is debating whether to let states kill babies at the cusp of birth, once their body parts are fully developed and can be sold for top dollar.

Odd how the leftists, always saying they‘re for oppressed, poor, helpless victims, are so callus when it comes to torturing a viable fetus to death.