Gorsuch writes in his book: No constitutional basis for putting a mothers life in front of her child

[TheDude]

Liberals justify abortion with stories about health and crime concerns. This is another way of saying they lie and cannot support their position. What percentage of abortions are the result of health and crime? Without looking it's a fraction of 1%.

 

[jc456]

The only thing that would happen if Roe was overturned is that Abortion would go back to the States. Most places where the majorities actually WANT abortion rights have existing protections. The places that want to be assholes and ban it can do it, and maybe our country can concentrate on more important things at the federal level, and let people fight it out State by State.

Thanks for trying, but I already told him that and he didn't understand. I'm not sure he's smart enough for repetition to clarify that for him

The real fun is when I explain my position, where I wouldn't vote for or support an abortion ban, but I don't see where States are prevented from doing so in the constitution if they so choose

They really don't get strict constructionism, or a dedication to federalism.

Yes, that's my position. Roe v. Wade is without Constitutional authority, it's up to the States. But I think States should say out of abortion and let women decide for themselves

decide what exactly? the decision was needed when the woman wanted six inches in her va jay jay, and she surely has that choice. ruling out of course rape.

Women should decide whether they have an abortion or not. I mean duh

then they shouldn't have sex. It's really quite easy.

 

[jc456]

Liberals justify abortion with stories about health and crime concerns. This is another way of saying they lie and cannot support their position. What percentage of abortions are the result of health and crime? Without looking it's a fraction of 1%.

it's why they love the violence of an inner city, it justifies abortion.

 

[jillian]

Well I was wrong about Neil Gorsuch, he indeed needs to be fought all the way from here to HELL.

He wrote in his Assisted suicide book:

Gorsuch Notes In His Book on Assisted Suicide That There’s ‘No Constitutional Basis’ for Putting a Mother’s Life Ahead of the Child’s
Neil Gorsuch & Abortion: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

I guess it wouldn't matter if this same woman had two kids at home that she needed to raise.

The war on Women continues--write, call, email your Senators NOW, and raise HOLY HELL.

They apparently weren't paying attention to this on January 21, 2017

For pictures on all 50 state participation into this march go here.
Woman's march pictures

Gorsuch as a 10th district court judge ruled against an injunction against the Utah governor over denying Federal funding to a planned parenthood office there. Gorsuch was then slapped down by the 10th District court panel who reprimanded that the 10th district court put back the injunction on the Utah Governor, stating he was in violation of the 1st and 14th amendments.
Neil Gorsuch’s crusade against Planned Parenthood

Yeah you in the Reich wing have picked a real winner here.

he has no business being on the court.

Clearly this pick was made by Vice President Mike Pence who as governor of Indiana decided to sign his own abortion law into effect, that was overturned by a higher court one year later.
Pence signs new abortion restrictions into law with a prayer

These ******* idiots have no business being in politics much less picking Supreme Court nominees.

I would say that a sitting president has the right to pick his justice if the justice is qualified.

but they didn't do that, did they?

and now they think they should get this religious nutter?

Yeah, it's just unfair of a judge that wants to use the the actual text of the law and Constitution applied to a decision instead of personal opinions, how dare he.

the constitution is not some fundie's bible.... we live in a common law nation. our caselaw defines our statutes.

you could try reading Marbury v Madison, which addressed the issue of constitutional construction during the founders' day.

but why would you do anything that might prove you don't know what you're talking about

 

[kaz]

yeah so why do you think it's ok to force the Hobby Lobby corporation to hand out free contraceptives if they as a company rule don't believe in them? Are you saying your values should be everyones? I'm sorry, but you make no sense.

That's exactly what she's saying. She's pro-choice. You can follow her rules freely or at the point of a gun. Your choice ...

No, that's YOUR version of choice: strapping mothers to beds at the point of conception and making them baby farms.

Do you similarly support state-by-state "choices" regarding slavery?

how do you figure that? are you saying he's forcing them to have sex? You just confused the board. Laying strapped to a bed is most likely what resulted in fertilizing the egg.

He's saying when he wants to get his rocks off, he doesn't want to get his wallet out and buy his own protection

try reading with comprehension

What part of what I said is not correct?

 

[OKTexas]

Clearly this pick was made by Vice President Mike Pence who as governor of Indiana decided to sign his own abortion law into effect, that was overturned by a higher court one year later.
Pence signs new abortion restrictions into law with a prayer

These ******* idiots have no business being in politics much less picking Supreme Court nominees.

I would say that a sitting president has the right to pick his justice if the justice is qualified.

but they didn't do that, did they?

and now they think they should get this religious nutter?

Qualified of course meaning "hard left" and mainstream meaning "hard left."

So you think Biden is a butt head too, huh? That seams to be occurring to a lot of hard leftists these days

well, if you weren't a rightwingnut loon, you'd know that my beliefs are mainstream, unlike yours.

I don't think anyone questioned Judge Roberts' qualifications.

but any judge who thinks corporations have religion doesn't belong on a federal bench.

explain

see, Hobby Lobby.... the decision was that hobby lobby had a religious "Character" that allowed it to deny it's female employees prescription medication despite it being covered by their insurance company. that case in the court below was gorsuch's case....

It was upheld by the supremes too, get over yourself.

 

[kaz]

Thanks for trying, but I already told him that and he didn't understand. I'm not sure he's smart enough for repetition to clarify that for him

The real fun is when I explain my position, where I wouldn't vote for or support an abortion ban, but I don't see where States are prevented from doing so in the constitution if they so choose

They really don't get strict constructionism, or a dedication to federalism.

Yes, that's my position. Roe v. Wade is without Constitutional authority, it's up to the States. But I think States should say out of abortion and let women decide for themselves

decide what exactly? the decision was needed when the woman wanted six inches in her va jay jay, and she surely has that choice. ruling out of course rape.

Women should decide whether they have an abortion or not. I mean duh

then they shouldn't have sex. It's really quite easy.

begging the question

 

[jc456]

Well I was wrong about Neil Gorsuch, he indeed needs to be fought all the way from here to HELL.

He wrote in his Assisted suicide book:

Gorsuch Notes In His Book on Assisted Suicide That There’s ‘No Constitutional Basis’ for Putting a Mother’s Life Ahead of the Child’s
Neil Gorsuch & Abortion: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

I guess it wouldn't matter if this same woman had two kids at home that she needed to raise.

The war on Women continues--write, call, email your Senators NOW, and raise HOLY HELL.

They apparently weren't paying attention to this on January 21, 2017

For pictures on all 50 state participation into this march go here.
Woman's march pictures

Gorsuch as a 10th district court judge ruled against an injunction against the Utah governor over denying Federal funding to a planned parenthood office there. Gorsuch was then slapped down by the 10th District court panel who reprimanded that the 10th district court put back the injunction on the Utah Governor, stating he was in violation of the 1st and 14th amendments.
Neil Gorsuch’s crusade against Planned Parenthood

Yeah you in the Reich wing have picked a real winner here.

he has no business being on the court.

Clearly this pick was made by Vice President Mike Pence who as governor of Indiana decided to sign his own abortion law into effect, that was overturned by a higher court one year later.
Pence signs new abortion restrictions into law with a prayer

These ******* idiots have no business being in politics much less picking Supreme Court nominees.

I would say that a sitting president has the right to pick his justice if the justice is qualified.

but they didn't do that, did they?

and now they think they should get this religious nutter?

Yeah, it's just unfair of a judge that wants to use the the actual text of the law and Constitution applied to a decision instead of personal opinions, how dare he.

the constitution is not some fundie's bible.... we live in a common law nation. our caselaw defines our statutes.

you could try reading Marbury v Madison, which addressed the issue of constitutional construction during the founders' day.

but why would you do anything that might prove you don't know what you're talking about

so have you posted up where in the constitution it says a woman can put herself ahead of her baby?

I'll take care of the crickets while I wait.

 

[kaz]

I would say that a sitting president has the right to pick his justice if the justice is qualified.

but they didn't do that, did they?

and now they think they should get this religious nutter?

Qualified of course meaning "hard left" and mainstream meaning "hard left."

So you think Biden is a butt head too, huh? That seams to be occurring to a lot of hard leftists these days

well, if you weren't a rightwingnut loon, you'd know that my beliefs are mainstream, unlike yours.

I don't think anyone questioned Judge Roberts' qualifications.

but any judge who thinks corporations have religion doesn't belong on a federal bench.

explain

see, Hobby Lobby.... the decision was that hobby lobby had a religious "Character" that allowed it to deny it's female employees prescription medication despite it being covered by their insurance company. that case in the court below was gorsuch's case....

It was upheld by the supremes too, get over yourself.

She thinks the Supremes are absolute only when they agree with her

 

[TheDude]

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says have been given to all human beings by their Creator, and which governments are created to protect.

Abortion violates these rights. Some kind of "liberal" huh?

 

[oreo]

I have already emailed BOTH my Senators, one Democrat the other Republican, next week I will call them, you do the same, and maybe we can stop this disaster.

 

[g5000]

The judges in the Roe v. Wade decision exerted a great deal of effort explaining how they determined "the point at which the embryo or fetus became 'formed' or recognizably human, or in terms of when a 'person' came into being, that is, infused with a 'soul' or 'animated'."

The reason they exerted this effort is because a "person" cannot be murdered. That would be violating their right to life.

So it was important to the judges that the embryo or fetus not be a person so that it could be legally extinguished.

And that is what the real debate has been ever since. "When does life begin?"

If the embryo or fetus is a legal person, then that person is endowed with the exact same rights as the mother. Neither trumps the other. That is what the judges in Roe v Wade were saying.

If the judges had decided you are a person from the moment of conception, abortion would be illegal.

THAT is what Gorsuch was explaining in his book.

Pro-lifers believe life begins at conception. You were a person from the moment you were conceived. And therefore your life was endowed with the same rights as your mother from that moment.


This is especially important when the mother's actual life is not at stake in 99 percent of all abortions.

 

[g5000]

I have already emailed BOTH my Senators, one Democrat the other Republican, next week I will call them, you do the same, and maybe we can stop this disaster.

Well, if you want to sound like an idiot, go right ahead. You have that right.

 

[TNHarley]

There’s ‘No Constitutional Basis’ for Putting a Mother’s Life Ahead of the Child’s
Care to elaborate on how that is wrong?

Perhaps if MEN were the ones who got pregnant, you would understand.

ahhh, because that would have some effect on a document.

 

[TheDude]

The judges in the Roe v. Wade decision exerted a great deal of effort explaining how they determined "the point at which the embryo or fetus became 'formed' or recognizably human, or in terms of when a 'person' came into being, that is, infused with a 'soul' or 'animated'.

The reason they exerted this effort is because a "person" cannot be murdered. That would be violating their right to life.

So it was important to the judges that the embryo or fetus not be a person so that it could be legally extinguished.

And that is what the real debate has been ever since. "When does life begin?"

If the embryo or fetus is a legal person, then that person is endowed with the exact same rights as the mother. Neither trumps the other.

THAT is what Gorsuch was saying. And THAT is what every pro-life person believes. Especially when the mother's actual life is not at stake in 99 percent of all abortions.

They're not human until the umbilical cord is cut. Until then they're more like an eggplant. These are the same people who claim they're the keepers of science and HUMAN rights.

 

[kaz]

View attachment 110294
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says have been given to all human beings by their Creator, and which governments are created to protect.

Abortion violates these rights. Some kind of "liberal" huh?

The Declaration isn't the law of the land, the Constitution is, and the Constitution says life liberty and property.

And you fundamentally don't grasp the Constitution. The Constitution is not granting life, liberty and property as a power of government, it is protecting those from government.

What that means is government is restricted in the case of life from taking your life without due process of law. You are granting the government a massive power to protect life, which means they could for example outlaw razor blades or anything else they want trying to use your contrived warping of the restriction of government as a power.

Granting them life, liberty and property as a power would be handing them total absolute power to do anything as long as they can contrive a scenario to claim that is what they are doing

 

[g5000]

The judges in the Roe v. Wade decision exerted a great deal of effort explaining how they determined "the point at which the embryo or fetus became 'formed' or recognizably human, or in terms of when a 'person' came into being, that is, infused with a 'soul' or 'animated'.

The reason they exerted this effort is because a "person" cannot be murdered. That would be violating their right to life.

So it was important to the judges that the embryo or fetus not be a person so that it could be legally extinguished.

And that is what the real debate has been ever since. "When does life begin?"

If the embryo or fetus is a legal person, then that person is endowed with the exact same rights as the mother. Neither trumps the other.

THAT is what Gorsuch was saying. And THAT is what every pro-life person believes. Especially when the mother's actual life is not at stake in 99 percent of all abortions.

They're not human until the umbilical cord is cut. Until then they're more like an eggplant. These are the same people who claim they're the keepers of science and HUMAN rights.

The Roe v Wade decision determined life begins at the onset of the third trimester. But they also opened the door to the regulation of abortions at 20 weeks.

Under Roe V. Wade, abortion is legal in the first and second trimester.

That's why I say 67 percent of Americans are opposed to Roe v Wade, and a lot of them don't even know it.

 

[TheDude]

View attachment 110294
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says have been given to all human beings by their Creator, and which governments are created to protect.

Abortion violates these rights. Some kind of "liberal" huh?

The Declaration isn't the law of the land, the Constitution is, and the Constitution says life liberty and property.

And you fundamentally don't grasp the Constitution. The Constitution is not granting life, liberty and property as a power of government, it is protecting those from government.

What that means is government is restricted in the case of life from taking your life without due process of law. You are granting the government a massive power to protect life, which means they could for example outlaw razor blades or anything else they want trying to use your contrived warping of the restriction of government as a power.

Granting them life, liberty and property as a power would be handing them total absolute power to do anything as long as they can contrive a scenario to claim that is what they are doing

You missed the part about "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" "and which governments are created to protect."

 

[g5000]

Liberals justify abortion with stories about health and crime concerns. This is another way of saying they lie and cannot support their position. What percentage of abortions are the result of health and crime? Without looking it's a fraction of 1%.

Pro-choicers use rape and incest victims as human shields. Less than 2 percent of abortions are caused by rape or incest. And yet any time a public figure says they are pro-life, a reporter grabs rape and incest victims as human shields to divert attention away from the fact that 99 percent of abortions are convenience abortions.

Another favorite tactic of pro-choicers is to hold their baby hostage. "Pay for my baby, or I'll kill it!"

These are the two chief tactics used by pro-choicers.

It's sickening.

 

[kaz]

View attachment 110294
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says have been given to all human beings by their Creator, and which governments are created to protect.

Abortion violates these rights. Some kind of "liberal" huh?

The Declaration isn't the law of the land, the Constitution is, and the Constitution says life liberty and property.

And you fundamentally don't grasp the Constitution. The Constitution is not granting life, liberty and property as a power of government, it is protecting those from government.

What that means is government is restricted in the case of life from taking your life without due process of law. You are granting the government a massive power to protect life, which means they could for example outlaw razor blades or anything else they want trying to use your contrived warping of the restriction of government as a power.

Granting them life, liberty and property as a power would be handing them total absolute power to do anything as long as they can contrive a scenario to claim that is what they are doing

You missed the part about "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" "and which governments are created to protect."

Again, that's the Declaration of Independence. That says our objective, it is not law.

The law of the land, the Constitution says how that is accomplished. They cannot be removed BY GOVERNMENT without due process. That is your legal right. That government cannot remove your life in this case without due process.

Government does not have the power to come in using protecting life, liberty and property as a power to force women to carry a baby to term in her body. It is not a power of government, it is a limit on government. You really don't grasp that?