By the way, Troxel v. Granville did not establish that right you claim. It simply upheld the striking of a statute that allowed too much of an infringement on parental rights.
(emphasis added)Because the instant decision rests on §26.10.160(3)’s sweeping breadth and its application here, there is no need to consider the question whether the Due Process Clause requires all nonparental visitation statutes to include a showing of harm or potential harm to the child as a condition precedent to granting visitation or to decide the precise scope of the parental due process right in the visitation context. There is also no reason to remand this case for further proceedings. The visitation order clearly violated the Constitution, and the parties should not be forced into additional litigation that would further burden Granville’s parental right. Pp. 14—17.
Justice Souter concluded that the Washington Supreme Court’s second reason for invalidating its own state statute–that it sweeps too broadly in authorizing any person at any time to request (and a judge to award) visitation rights, subject only to the State’s particular best-interests standard–is consistent with this Court’s prior cases. This ends the case, and there is no need to decide whether harm is required or to consider the precise scope of a parent’s right or its necessary protections. Pp. 1—5.
It established no rights, whatsoever; it simply upheld a lower court decision on a truly ridiculous case that tried to limit a parent's visitation rights for no reason whatsoever. It does not state that you have the right to do whatever you dam' well please as long as you happen to be the father.
But the fact is, I'm tired of arguing with you. You are a very tiring opponent. You want to call my argument irrelevant and a straw man, that's fine. You want to believe that you have the right to enslave people, go ahead. You want to think you won and I went in a downward spiral, feel free. Have a happy New Year.
And in that, should she choose to abort the baby, the mother is indeed dictating how someone can/cannot live, creating a contradiction in the pro-choice position.
And you people thought this was a terrible topic.
1069 said, “Cupcake, I've watched the real thing.
And so have you.
And we both know the videos are bullsh!t... even if only one of us will admit it.
I don't mind watching videos of deformed full-term stillbirths and dismembered latex baby-dolls smeared with ketchup.
I watched "Saw II" with my son awhile back; trust me, if I can sit through that, there's nothing in your pitiful little antichoice propaganda flicks that's going to faze me.”
Hey lamb chops……..I felt the real thing BUT I DID NOT WATCH IT. I have never ever in all the woman that I talk to on a daily basis about this heard of a woman who watched her own abortion. What did you ask them to do, put a mirror down there so you could enjoy the procedure? Man oh man......
Most videos that show abortion are very realistic. Of course your side doesn't want to admit that fact and you won't. You dont want woman to see the pictures....because if they did they would know it was murder.
Honey nothing would faze you anyway. If you condone the dismemberment of any baby in the womb at any time…….you will CONDONE JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING. I can only imagine the things you condone.
Oh Nes...your hilarious. She loves the line about the world is flat. She uses it a lot.Nes said, “ Keep on lying you very liberal feminist. Do you lie because you can't use truths to debate with? You have replied with statements that are false, untrue, and unproven. You remind me when some people though the world was flat and refused to provide proof to back their claim”
I don’t know why 1069 keeps bringing up the church…….this topic can be debated on what medical science alone says. Who cares what the church said or says……..what do the experts say today?
Felicity said, “Quit the PATHETIC attempts to re-write history to suit your heathen agenda.”
Oh honey you made my day. You go girl !!!!!!
Hope your feeling better CaptainCourtesy, head aches can be brutal.
Enslave or kill innocent unborn babies? I'd rather enslave a woman for 9 short months then dismember a living human person alive. THAT IS KILLING AND YOU KNOW IT. Your position is the one that is barbaric.“You want to believe that you have the right to enslave people, go ahead. You want to think you won and I went in a downward spiral, feel free”
The sad thing is that you think this whole thing is about winning, thats what makes your position so pathetic. You think killing the unborn is winning.
You are the one who puts an X a bullseye on the babies forehead………if thats a win in your column then God help us all.
Unquestionably, it kills an innocent human life - the subjective and inconsistient "personhood" argument is their way to get past that.
Must be nice for the killers to be to able decide who can and can't be killed.
In any case, the "personhood" of the unborn baby is irrelevant as the issue revolves around what might happen after the baby is born.
Last edited by Goobieman; 12-27-06 at 12:04 PM.
Well then, I guess you're the "chicken" you accuse me of being.Hey lamb chops……..I felt the real thing BUT I DID NOT WATCH IT.
Perhaps Jesus will give you extra credit for averting your eyes.
That's why you're not in a policy-making position.I'd rather enslave a woman for 9 short months then dismember a living human person alive.
America has refused to elect those who would "rather enslave women" for any amount of time. America has rejected both the idea that slavery is okay, and the proponents of that idea.
Forced gestation and childbirth is barbaric.Your position is the one that is barbaric.
I am not defending the mother's motives, I am defending her right to act on whatever her motives may be, and that right does not change however ridiculously homophobic the mother is. As I said, she has the right to be stupid, as long as she is being stupid with her own body. The basis of her right to abort is the fact that the unborn child has no right to take over her body; the reasons why she refuses to sacrifice herself for the child are irrelevant.
I have to say, though, this topic has led to some useful pondering on my part, so for that, I thank you.
It isn't a person. It is human, but "innocent" is a pointless descriptor unless one is religious -- and I'm not, but more importantly, our government is not and our rights are not.Originally Posted by Goobieman
I am not a killer. I do not decide who lives or dies, because I do not dictate to a woman whether she should abort her fetus or not; the decision isn't up to me. I've never killed anything bigger than a mouse.
Actually, the personhood of the fetus is irrelevant because, as 1069 has pointed out many times, no person has the right to take over another person's body for his or her own benefit.
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing.I am not a killer. I do not decide who lives or dies, because I do not dictate to a woman whether she should abort her fetus or not; the decision isn't up to me. I've never killed anything bigger than a mouse.
Personhood is irrelevant because it's subjective and the government dictates who is and who isn't a person. No one takes over a pregnant woman's body. If a woman is healthy nothing is sacrificed in pregnancy and in fact bearing children has been medically proven to have health benefits! Describing pregnancy as some sort of hostile take over of ones body by that of another is sort of hysterical.Actually, the personhood of the fetus is irrelevant because, as 1069 has pointed out many times, no person has the right to take over another person's body for his or her own benefit.
And by the way one person is not legally allowed to take over the body of another person. But the unborn aren't people. So the rules don't apply to them! Right?