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

[Coyote]

Not comparable. The right to bear arms is delineated in the Constitution, thus it is at the federal level. There is nothing mentioned about the right to have an abortion in the Constitution, thus it is decided at the state level.

Very comparable…14th Amendment.

 

[Coyote]

But, there IS more than one body involved.

Not in terms of rights. Until viability.

 

[Lisa558]

Very comparable…14th Amendment.

The Atlantic?? You’re going to post from a left-wing rag as “evidence”?

 

[Coyote]

The Atlantic?? You’re going to post from a left-wing rag as “evidence”?

Hey, aI have to put. Up with your rightwing rags. Regardless, it fits.

 

[Lisa558]

Hey, aI have to put. Up with your rightwing rags. Regardless, it fits.

No, that’s just the argument from the leftist position - one that conveniently ignores that another life is at stake. Me, me, me!

The SCOTUS will review and determine if Roe v Wade should be reversed. I’m willing to wait for the decisiom.

 

[Coyote]

No, that’s just the argument from the leftist position - one that conveniently ignores that another life is at stake. Me, me, me!

The SCOTUS will review and determine if Roe v Wade should be reversed. I’m willing to wait for the decisiom.

Reality: every one of us understands there is another life involved. The issue is does that life have greater rights over another’s body than that person herself? No.

 

[Lisa558]

Reality: every one of us understands there is another life involved. The issue is does that life have greater rights over another’s body than that person herself? No.

Greater rights? These aren’t equal. One is about to lose its life; the other has to go through a major inconvenience. So the question is: does the right to continue with one’s life take priority over another’s right to decide to end it? The STATE should make the call.

Riddle me this: if an unborn child isn’t a “person,“ then why is a murderer who kills a pregnant woman charged with TWO murders?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Are saying then that gun ownership should be up to the states?

There's something about the concept of "in the Constitution" that just doesn't register with you, isn't there?

 

[Coyote]

Greater rights? These aren’t equal. One is about to lose its life; the other has to go through a major inconvenience. So the question is: does the right to continue with one’s life take priority over another’s right to decide to end it?

Riddle me this: if an unborn child isn’t a “person,“ then why is a murderer who kills a pregnant woman charged with TWO murders?

Pregnancy and the decision to have a child is not based on “convenience”. It is a life changing event.

If a child is dying of kidney failure and you have a match, should you be forced to donate a kidney? After all….it is a life vs “inconvenience”,

 

[Cecilie1200]

Very comparable…14th Amendment.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Funny, I don't see abortion in there anywhere. Point it out?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Are saying then that gun ownership should be up to the states?

Nope, gun ownership is an enumerated constitutional right, that says we should be able to bear (carry) arms, not to be infringed. States are currently infringing on the constitution. So, if you agree with that, then the states should also be able to infringe on abortion (a non enumerated right).

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not in terms of rights. Until viability.

I always love the "This should be the law, because it's the law right now!" arguments.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Pregnancy and the decision to have a child is not based on “convenience”. It is a life changing event.

If a child is dying of kidney failure and you have a match, should you be forced to donate a kidney? After all….it is a life vs “inconvenience”,

Analogies are not your strong suit. "Being prevented from killing the child I made is just like being forced to give away my kidney!"

 

[Lisa558]

Pregnancy and the decision to have a child is not based on “convenience”. It is a life changing event.

If a child is dying of kidney failure and you have a match, should you be forced to donate a kidney? After all….it is a life vs “inconvenience”,

Not comparable, once again

But you didn’t answer the question: if an unborn baby isn’t a person with rights not to be murdered, then why is someone who murders a pregnant woman - oops, pregnant birthing person - charged with TWO murders?

 

[Lisa558]

Analogies are not your strong suit. "Being prevented from killing the child I made is just like being forced to give away my kidney!"

Thanks.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Thanks.

It'd be faster and easier if "women" like that would just admit that they loathe and despise being female.

 

[Coyote]

Not comparable, once again

But you didn’t answer the question: if an unborn baby isn’t a person with rights not to be murdered, then why is someone who murders a pregnant woman - oops, pregnant birthing person - charged with TWO murders?

How is it not comparable?

How the murder of a pregnant person is charged depends on state law, not the Constitution.

 

[Lisa558]

It'd be faster and easier if "women" like that would just admit that they loathe and despise being female.

I don’t know if she IS a woman. After all, I’m not a biologist.

 

[Coyote]

I don’t know if she IS a woman. After all, I’m not a biologist.

Dumb.

 

[Lisa558]

How is it not comparable?

How the murder of a pregnant person is charged depends on state law, not the Constitution.

Ah…..so the STATE decides on whether the unborn child has rights, and thus its killer can be charged with its murder, depending on the STATE law.

Get where I’m going with this, hon? You can’t say in one instance that a state can decide whether an unborn child is deserving of protection from being killed on one hand, and then say states don’t get to decide on allowing unborn children to be killed on the other,

You walked right into that one.