Abortion

[attofishpi]

The large number of abortions are evidence to the contrary.

The large number of abortions is evidence of lack of restraint, lack of forethought and lack of responsible interaction.

Whatever does reproduce, had to reproduce.

Whatever reproduced, reproduced.

There is no "must" or "had to" about it.

There are inclinations, organisms for whatever reason may feel compelled to, but there is no real imperative.

Edit: The fact there are abortions is evidence organisms do not "have to" reproduce.

Go back to bell-ringing you kristofuckwit. Get back when there is any chance of you actually needing an abortion.

I am starting to get to the idea that "Christian" aka (to U) "Kristo" are a common theme when it comes to aborting human life.

Let me just say as a Christian abortionist:-

Christ was PLACED within a womb.

ergo..God has THE utmost control over the life therein.

ergo..abort at will.

PS. The population is already overrun with delinquents per se of breeding where one should have not.

[Walker]

Because abortion opponents say that abortion kills a human life, and because states don’t have the right to legalize murder, then to say that states have the right to legalize abortion is an objective inconsistency.

You're not wrong.

But here, we're only talking about what the law allows, not what is moral. They're obviously not identical things...there can be immoral laws, and the laws favouring abortion are immoral.

Another objective inconsistency is charging the crime of double homicide when a pregnant woman is killed.

The entire package of our laws are nonsensical on this.

For example, why should a man be forced to pay child support for a child, if (as abortionists claim) it's "part of a woman's body," and (as the law says) it is her choice that the child exists at all? Of why should it be that two people got together and consensually created a child, but the man is supposed to have no opinion about what they created together?

The fact is that abortionists don't care about logic. They just want to justify their wickedness, or at least create enough incoherence in the law that they can get away with murder as often as they want. They know they're killing a human being -- in fact, that's the very thing they WANT. They want to stop a genuine human being from coming into the world, so that they do not have to love or care for it. That's their whole point!

So they know they're being evil, and they know they're committing murder. And all their nonsense to the contrary doesn't hold any water. How they can look their own children in the face, and then say, "I killed one of those," is beyond me.

If those SCOTUS people take the issue off the federal plate by overturning the federal jurisdiction over abortion, then individual states that legalize state-sanctioned killing that is not punishment, will put the issue right back on the federal plate.

No, it doesn't ever go back to the federal level. Legally, it remains at the state level. What SCOTUS has ruled is that the R v. W decision was not rightfully under federal jurisdiction in the first place. They've just put it back where they believe it belongs.

Personally, I would argue that this changes little. The states that favour abortion, like Californication, will continue and even expand the procedure, in defiance of morality. The more reasonable "flyover states" will have some that reduce access. But I doubt any jurisdiction will do anything like banning abortion. So the Leftist whining is nonsense.

I wish they would ban it, though. It would be the right and moral thing to do. And deep down, we all know that.

That’s correct. Abortion should not be under federal jurisdiction. Roe vs. Wade hinged on the right to privacy, which is considered to be a flimsy basis.

However, the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution doesn’t allow for a state law to supersede the constitution. If life in the womb is recognized as a human being … which Biden actually did with a slip of the tongue the other day when talking to a reporter and calling it a child (he probably got in trouble for that) … then killing that life is a violation of the Constitution, which would make a state law legalizing abortion, illegal, because it’s unconstitutional when the life that's killed in the womb, is legally a human being.

However, the state law must be written before it can be federally overturned. A lawsuit brought against the state law after it's written, on the basis that it's legalizing murder, is feasible as far as I know.

I haven't heard anyone mention this yet, and since I'm not a legal scholar, and have no need to do the research, I don't know if there's precedence to refute this reasoning. There could be.

[Walker]

The large number of abortions are evidence to the contrary.

The large number of abortions is evidence of lack of restraint, lack of forethought and lack of responsible interaction.

Whatever does reproduce, had to reproduce.

Whatever reproduced, reproduced.

There is no "must" or "had to" about it.

There are inclinations, organisms for whatever reason may feel compelled to, but there is no real imperative.

Edit: The fact there are abortions is evidence organisms do not "have to" reproduce.

The dictionary disagrees

"Must:
2 : be compelled by physical necessity to"

*

Everything you do, or anyone does, is done because of necessity ... even disagreeing with the dictionary is done out of necessity. Why you must disagree is your business, as is how you arrive at that disagreement, but the doing of disagreeing is done out of necessity.

On top of that, to include critters and also the inorganic realm, anything that happens, happens because it had to happen ... because of the confluence of the totality of elements leading to movement which is change.

Thus, the saying you've likely heard ... Be the change you wish to see.

[Immanuel Can]

However, the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution doesn’t allow for a state law to supersede the constitution.

The Constitution doesn't address abortion, of course. Nor does it define what a "person" is. Maybe it should: but it doesn't.

Neither are Joe Biden's slips legally binding. He's barely coherent, in fact.

The issue seems to be jurisdiction: which level, state or federal, has the right to adjudicate this one? Morally, I would argue it should be a basic human right to be allowed to live. But legally, this is now in the hands of individual states. That makes no sense to me, because whatever a person is in California, it can't be different in Texas or Minnesota. However, that's how powers are distributed, whether we agree with it or not.

[Walker]

That makes no sense to me, because whatever a person is in California, it can't be different in Texas or Minnesota.

Once a state law legalizing abortion is written, this reasoning could be one of the core arguments to overturn it.

[daniel j lavender]

The dictionary disagrees

"Must:
2 : be compelled by physical necessity to"

The dictionary is not suggesting that reproduction is necessary. That is simply an extracted dictionary definition of a term isolated, removed from the context of the discussion at hand. It's akin to saying the dictionary declares oranges are fruits so I must have oranges in my garden.

There is no physical necessity to reproduce.

Reproduction is not a necessity. Reproduction is not required. There is no law written among the stars proclaiming organisms must reproduce.

Reproduction, or more accurately intercourse, is an impulsive act, a biological inclination. It is not a requirement. There is no requirement to procreate. There is no requirement to participate in intercourse.

Just because biology may be inclined to do so does not make it a necessity.

Everything you do, or anyone does, is done because of necessity ... even disagreeing with the dictionary is done out of necessity. Why you must disagree is your business, as is how you arrive at that disagreement, but the doing of disagreeing is done out of necessity.

On top of that, to include critters and also the inorganic realm, anything that happens, happens because it had to happen ... because of the confluence of the totality of elements leading to movement which is change.

This is perhaps more absurd than the previous assertion.

Spotting and purchasing the candy bar in the checkout lane is impulsive, it is an impulse buy, not necessary nor a necessity.

Not every thing is done due to imperatives or because it had to happen a certain way. There certainly are influential factors. However the significant element among all this, thought or the decision making process, can act to oppose or go against those factors even if they, by some, are deemed to be imperatives.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Religious fuckturds don't give a rat's arse about embryos, just as woke fuckturds don't give a rat's arse about people. They are all frauds following religious dogma. Two sides of the same puritanical coin. Why don't they just try being honest for once in their pathetic, shallow little lives? Say what they REALLY think? Now that would be interesting. Enough of the boring, generic, predictable bullshit.
Don't be shy Mr. Lavender. Free yourself. Just say how much you hate women. How powerless you feel around them. How unattractive and awkward. It's only the internet. You are entitled to your opinion. I'm not against free speech.

[Immanuel Can]

That makes no sense to me, because whatever a person is in California, it can't be different in Texas or Minnesota.

Once a state law legalizing abortion is written, this reasoning could be one of the core arguments to overturn it.

Could be...if the federal government had any interest in taking jurisidiction back from the states. But this decision says they don't.

[Walker]

Could be...if the federal government had any interest in taking jurisidiction back from the states. But this decision says they don't.

Brown v. Board of Education says they do *, and "this" decision has yet to be made.

* also, the US Civil War says they do.

[Immanuel Can]

Could be...if the federal government had any interest in taking jurisidiction back from the states. But this decision says they don't.

Brown v. Board of Education says they do *, and "this" decision has yet to be made.

* also, the US Civil War says they do.

I agree that the question, "Who is a human?" or "Who is a person?" is so important it ought to be established at the highest possible level. In fact, I think it's nothing less than a question of universal human rights. But in this case, the flow is the opposite direction, from the higher court to the state courts.

So no, I doubt they're going to reverse that again. I think they'll leave it at the state level now.

[Walker]

Spotting and purchasing the candy bar in the checkout lane is impulsive, it is an impulse buy, not necessary nor a necessity.

If one spots chocolate and yet continues to deny oneself the experience of that delicious, creamy milk chocolate, it's because one must.

One must because one has learned that for oneself, renouncing chocolate has greater benefits than eating that delicious, yummy, "to-die-for" chocolate treat.

If one gets a thrill out of living by truth and thus discovers the necessity of thrill-seeking, then once it has been seen, the total truth of chocolate denied can't be unseen.

Some folks say to set your sights on the luxuries, and the necessities will follow along. Folks who walk that road don't have a choice in the matter, and will either fly or crash depending on their sobriety.

[Walker]

So no, I doubt they're going to reverse that again.

Excellent! I do think that dialogue has uncovered the gist.

Yes, it will be a reversal if the SCOTUS decides through a majority opinion that the Roe v Wade decision is federally unconstitutional.

However, a state making a law that legalizes murder, is a whole other ball of wax. It's a whole other can of beans. It's a whole other rationale.

Roe v Wade was an act of legislating from the bench.

However, the function of the SCOTUS is to settle disputes concerning laws that are created by representative legislatures. On that basis, if the foetus is determined by law to be a human life with the rights afforded, then legally the SCOTUS would have no rational legal alternative but to overrule legally legislated abortion.

Your view is based on the practicality of politics, not the duty of the SCOTUS. Your prediction is likely correct.

On a related note, the SCOTUS did not hear the case concerning the state of Pennsylvania ignoring its own voting laws in 2020. Pennsylvania laws says that the legislature makes the voting laws in that state. In the 2020 elections, the voting laws were not followed. The SCOTUS refused to hear the case because legally, they would have had to overturn the election ... and they didn't want the political fallout. Their political decisions outweighed their legal duty and determined what they had to do. Their political decisions could likely have been determined by considerations of personal survival, given that Leftist politicians such as Schumer are getting bolder with threats to individual SCOTUS justices.

[Walker]

All that objective folks want is the voice of the people to be heard.

The voice of 5 SCOTUS justices, is not the voice of the people.

Not under the US system of governance.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, it will be a reversal if the SCOTUS decides through a majority opinion that the Roe v Wade decision is federally unconstitutional.

Well, it will send the matter back to the state level. That's all it will do.

Besides, they're not saying anything about R v. W's constitutionality, I think; they're only addressing the issue of rightful jurisdiction. Those are not at all going to have the same consequences.

I don't think you can expect the SC to legislate on abortion itself at all. In fact, that's what they're saying they CANNOT do. What they're saying is, "It's not our problem, it's the states'." And that's all.

[Walker]

I don't think you can expect the SC to legislate on abortion itself at all. In fact, that's what they're saying they CANNOT do. What they're saying is, "It's not our problem, it's the states'." And that's all.

Exactly, as you've said.

And, also to further amplify, what I've said ...

... even when it does become their problem, which would happen if court decisions involving the state law legalizing abortion are appealed, the SCOTUS can still refuse to hear the case, just as they refused to hear the Pennsylvania election case even though it was their job-description duty to do so, a duty superseded by political considerations.