This is disgusting

[BackAgain]

I can smell "bluff".

Whatever. You’re irrelevant.

 

[The5thHorseman]

That's exactly what abortion is.

That you will not call it for what it is does not change the fact that murder is, in fact, exactly what you are defending.

That wasn't very predictable.


Except no US court holds it so...

 

[The5thHorseman]

Whatever. You’re irrelevant.

But I'm right, and you remain unqualified to comment.

 

[BackAgain]

But I'm right, and you remain unqualified to comment.

You’re incoherent. And I’m more qualified to comment on almost any topic than a dishonest, uninformed and petty dope like you.

Tell us. What exactly is it that you now claim to be “right” about, horseshit?

 

[The5thHorseman]

You’re incoherent. And I’m more qualified to comment on almost any topic than a dishonest, uninformed and petty dope like you.

Tell us. What exactly is it that you now claim to be “right” about, horseshit?

Again?

Why not tell me what I got wrong?

I cited the relevant precedent.

 

[BackAgain]

Again?

Why not tell me what I got wrong?

I cited the relevant precedent.

No. You cited a precedent that doesn’t discuss the actual issue.

 

[The5thHorseman]

No. You cited a precedent that doesn’t discuss the actual issue.

All you have done is assert.

Your original broad comment was entirely inconsistent with established law.

If there's some defense you can muster, go ahead....but your yapping has no currency.

 

[BackAgain]

All you have done is assert.

Your original broad comment was entirely inconsistent with established law.

If there's some defense you can muster, go ahead....but your yapping has no currency.

It is your citation to a case which is inapposite that lacks currency.

Do some homework, you absolutely ignorant lummox.

I posted this before but I believe I addressed it to the wrong member in relation to a different thread. That error is all on me. But

This still works to straighten out your ignorant ass.

Troxel v. Granville

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).​

It stands for the proposition that parents have the fundamental right to provide care and custody over their own children.

But wait! There’s more.

The Washington Supreme Court held that "[p]arents have a right to limit visitation of their children with third persons," and that between parents and judges, "the parents should be the ones to choose whether to expose their children to certain people or ideas." Id., at 21, 969 P. 2d, at 31. Four justices dissented from the Washington Supreme Court's holding on the constitutionality of the statute. Id., at 23-43, 969 P. 2d, at 32-42.

We granted certiorari, 527 U. S. 1069 (1999), and now affirm the judgment.

Id at 63.

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." We have long recognized that the Amendment's Due Process Clause, like its Fifth Amendment counterpart, "guarantees more than fair process." Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 719 (1997). The Clause also includes a substantive component that "provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests." Id., at 720; see also Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 301-302 (1993).

Id at 65.

In subsequent cases also, we have recognized the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. See, e. g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 651 (1972)

Id at 66. (Emphasis added.)

Accordingly, so long as a parent adequately cares for his or her children (i. e., is fit), there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of that parent to make the

69

best decisions concerning the rearing of that parent's children. See, e. g., Flores, 507 U. S., at 304.

Id at 68 a 69.

 

[80zephyr]

That wasn't very predictable.


Except no US court holds it so...

The law can say whatever it wants. Most biologists agree that human life begins at conception, so abortion is the taking of a human life.

That is reality.

 

[BackAgain]

It is your citation to a case which is inapposite that lacks currency.

Do some homework, you absolutely ignorant lummox.

I posted this before but I believe I addressed it to the wrong member in relation to a different thread. That error is all on me. But

This still works to straighten out your ignorant ass.



But wait! There’s more.



Id at 63.



Id at 65.



Id at 66. (Emphasis added.)



Id at 68 a 69.

The5thHorseman apparently isn’t as quick to admit his own clear error as he is in demanding admissions of (alleged) error from others.

The silence is actually refreshing though.

 

[The5thHorseman]

The law can say whatever it wants. Most biologists agree that human life begins at conception, so abortion is the taking of a human life.

That is reality.

Most biologists agree that human life begins at conception,

That's an assertion.

 

[80zephyr]

That's an assertion.

Nope. It is obvious that human life begins at conception.

https://lc.org/newsroom/details/071219-most-biologists-believe-life-begins-at-conception-1

 

[The5thHorseman]

The5thHorseman apparently isn’t as quick to admit his own clear error as he is in demanding admissions of (alleged) error from others.

The silence is actually refreshing though.

Your citation touches on the visitation rights of non-custodial relations.....I don't see that as more apt to the issue at hand than the jehova's witness matter.

But then, I didn't see reason in Aileen Cannon's twaddle either.

 

[The5thHorseman]

Nope. It is obvious that human life begins at conception.

https://lc.org/newsroom/details/071219-most-biologists-believe-life-begins-at-conception-1

They are biological ethicists speaking of "life" in a broad biological sense. It isn't "human" life....it's existence, undistinguished from a hen's egg.

 

[BackAgain]

Your citation touches on the visitation rights of non-custodial relations.....I don't see that as more apt to the issue at hand than the jehova's witness matter.

The law as it was very clearly and explicitly stated in Troxel doesn’t apply solely to the limited facts of that one case. I realize you don’t understand things. But the law doesn’t work that way.

But then, I didn't see reason in Aileen Cannon's twaddle either.

It wasn’t twaddle. And you are incapable of seeing reason in anything. So what you don’t see amounts to everything in life.

 

[martybegan]

You’re incoherent. And I’m more qualified to comment on almost any topic than a dishonest, uninformed and petty dope like you.

Tell us. What exactly is it that you now claim to be “right” about, horseshit?

He forgets there are no qualifications to comment in a free society, it's up to the person hearing the comment to judge it's validity themselves.

 

[BackAgain]

They are biological ethicists speaking of "life" in a broad biological sense. It isn't "human" life....it's existence, undistinguished from a hen's egg.

Of course it’s human life, you twit. The combination of a human ovum and a human sperm cell cannot be anything other than a human life.

No matter how you contort your alleged thinking, it will never be a giraffe.

 

[martybegan]

Of course it’s human life, you twit. The combination of a human ovum and a human sperm cell cannot be anything other than a human life.

No matter how you contort your alleged thinking, it will never be a giraffe.

Not until the Began-o-matic speciestwiso-ray is finally finished!

 

[BackAgain]

Not until the Began-o-matic speciestwiso-ray is finally finished!

Of course! What was I thinking!

 

[The5thHorseman]

The law as it was very clearly and explicitly stated in Troxel doesn’t apply solely to the limited facts of that one case. I realize you don’t understand things. But the law doesn’t work that way.

It wasn’t twaddle. And you are incapable of seeing reason in anything. So what you don’t see amounts to everything in life.

Blah, blah, .....is too.

It wasn’t twaddle.

Got smoked.