when you can’t win according to the rules, throw a tantrum and change the rules…

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I listened to almost all of the oral arguments and was utterly effing dismayed by what I heard from the conservative justices who pretty much unilaterally flip flopped from the positions on precedent they testified to during their confirmation hearings.

This ruling has the potential to invalidate the credibility of the Supreme Court.

was it wrong when judges reversed precedent on slavery and segregation? where do people
get the idea that once there’s a precedent, that it’s carved in stone?

every line real argument i’ve heard this week, has to do with how intrusive it would be to moms if restrictions are implemented. the supreme court doesn’t care about that. they only care about whether or not it’s constitutional.

i don’t deny that any restrictions would be burdensome on women. but if you think on the court is supposed to decide cases based on what makes life easier for who, you need to take a civics class.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

was it wrong when judges reversed precedent on slavery and segregation? where do people
get the idea that once there’s a precedent, that it’s carved in stone?

You're referring to cases that are regarded as the worst in history where significant changes in our country have taken place. Roe wasn't perfect but Casey validated it along with countless associated cases. Not much has changed since Roe and the public opinion strongly supports it.

I don't think they will overturn it to be honest, the disruption to our system would be huge, it would dominate every Gov race for the next 20 years, I really don't think Roberts wants this as his legacy.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You're referring to cases that are regarded as the worst in history where significant changes in our country have taken place. Roe wasn't perfect but Casey validated it along with countless associated cases. Not much has changed since Roe and the public opinion strongly supports it.

I don't think they will overturn it to be honest, the disruption to our system would be huge, it would dominate every Gov race for the next 20 years, I really don't think Roberts wants this as his legacy.

yes i referred to horrible judicial
mistakes. to those who think babies in the womb are human beings, roe v wade is right there.

again, the impact on gubernatorial races has zero bearing on whether or not roe was decided on the constitutional merits, or whether it was judicial activism, which judges ( who aren’t elected and therefore aren’t accountable to citizens) have zero business ever engaging in. ever.

have there been 50-60 million abortions in the us since roe? again, look at that through the lens of a hime who (1) thinks those are human beings, and who (2) thinks it was a horribly decided case.

this is the issue liberals are most dishonest on. they paint pro life as anti women. liberals never say that we have empathy for the unborn, no no, we want to enslave women. they know that an honest discussion of what each side believes, makes them look very very ugly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

yes i referred to horrible judicial
mistakes. to those who think babies in the womb are human beings, roe v wade is right there.

again, the impact on gubernatorial races has zero bearing on whether or not roe was decided on the constitutional merits, or whether it was judicial activism, which judges ( who aren’t elected and therefore aren’t accountable to citizens) have zero business ever engaging in. ever.

have there been 50-60 million abortions in the us since roe? again, look at that through the lens of a hime who (1) thinks those are human beings, and who (2) thinks it was a horribly decided case.

this is the issue liberals are most dishonest on. they paint pro life as anti women. liberals never say that we have empathy for the unborn, no no, we want to enslave women. they know that an honest discussion of what each side believes, makes them look very very ugly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Republic of Ireland has voted overwhelmingly to overturn the abortion ban by 66.4% to 33.6%.

But Republicans want to go backwards in time .. twisting science when it’s convenient and ignoring it when it’s inconvenient


You will never see abortion ban on any Red states ballot as a referendum Or ballot initiative.. why because it will lose ….

Vaccine mandates in Republicans and conservatives eyes

Is Government Control and an attack on freedom

But conservatives and Republicans on Abortion is about life … not control.

Jim seeing this issues thru religious glasses is as dishonest as it gets
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

yes i referred to horrible judicial
mistakes. to those who think babies in the womb are human beings, roe v wade is right there.

again, the impact on gubernatorial races has zero bearing on whether or not roe was decided on the constitutional merits, or whether it was judicial activism, which judges ( who aren’t elected and therefore aren’t accountable to citizens) have zero business ever engaging in. ever.

have there been 50-60 million abortions in the us since roe? again, look at that through the lens of a hime who (1) thinks those are human beings, and who (2) thinks it was a horribly decided case.

this is the issue liberals are most dishonest on. they paint pro life as anti women. liberals never say that we have empathy for the unborn, no no, we want to enslave women. they know that an honest discussion of what each side believes, makes them look very very ugly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, quite simply you want to impose your religious beliefs on others

Sotomayor: “the issue of when life begins has been hotly debated by philosophers, and it’s still debated by religions. That’s a religions issue, isn’t it?” DING DING DING

In Judaism, the fetus is regarded as part of the pregnant person’s body until birth. This is a 1A issue.

In Catholic history, the definition of at what point abortion is a sin has changed in both directions over the history of the Church.

History shows that the Catholic Church has changed its moral teachings over the years on a number of issues (without admitting its previous position had been wrong).

A very sorry page in Catholic history, for example, is the fact that for over 1,800 years the popes and the church did not condemn slavery. And until the 17th century, popes, in the strongest terms, condemned loans with interest as violating God's law.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

No, quite simply you want to impose your religious beliefs on others

Sotomayor: “the issue of when life begins has been hotly debated by philosophers, and it’s still debated by religions. That’s a religions issue, isn’t it?” DING DING DING

In Judaism, the fetus is regarded as part of the pregnant person’s body until birth. This is a 1A issue.

In Catholic history, the definition of at what point abortion is a sin has changed in both directions over the history of the Church.

History shows that the Catholic Church has changed its moral teachings over the years on a number of issues (without admitting its previous position had been wrong).

A very sorry page in Catholic history, for example, is the fact that for over 1,800 years the popes and the church did not condemn slavery. And until the 17th century, popes, in the strongest terms, condemned loans with interest as violating God's law.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

has nothing to do with religion. i’ve been opposed to infanticide longer than i’ve been catholic.

if the baby is a person, then abortion is murder. therefore, that’s literally the only issue surrounding abortion. nothing else matters. every other aspect of the debate is a meaningless distraction. because if that baby is human, abortion is infanticide. this is why liberals will do anything to avoid discussing this detail, when it’s really all that matters. so it’s not just a religious question that has no place in setting policy. it’s vital.

that was a weak argument even for you.



Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

has nothing to do with religion. i’ve been opposed to infanticide longer than i’ve been catholic.

if the baby is a person, then abortion is murder. therefore, that’s literally the only issue surrounding abortion. nothing else matters. every other aspect of the debate is a meaningless distraction. because if that baby is human, abortion is infanticide. this is why liberals will do anything to avoid discussing this detail, when it’s really all that matters. so it’s not just a religious question that has no place in setting policy. it’s vital.

that was a weak argument even for you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As a woman said:
That is why I have maintained my "save the zygote if you want after removing it" stance. If life begins at conception, carefully remove it from my body, and place it in an incubator. Good luck in its survival
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

As a woman said:
That is why I have maintained my "save the zygote if you want after removing it" stance. If life begins at conception, carefully remove it from my body, and place it in an incubator. Good luck in its survival
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that’s one argument it’s a very self centered, sick argument in my opinion.

would that woman be ok with abortion bans after viability then?

i know you don’t like
answering questions, but here goes…when would you consider it a human being?

the developing baby is the same one day as it is the next. so unless you say life begins at conception, it seems illogical
and arbitrary to pick some random date and say life begins here. doesn’t make sense to me. curious to know your answer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device