The odd thing Justice Kennedy noticed about abortion in Texas

[minnie616]

Pro choice religions know the unborn of a human is of course human.
They also recoginize religious liberty.

The First Amendment makes clear that public policy is not to be based on faith alone – in a religiously diverse, pluralistic society, favoring any one religious worldview is wrong and inherently biased. Good policy is policy that allows for all people – regardless of their religious identity – to follow their own faith and conscience when directing the course of their life. When it comes to matters of reproductive health, RCRC believes that real religious liberty protects the right of a woman to make thoughtful decisions in private consultation with her doctor, her family, and her own faith. Politicians and the religious dogma of another faith should never interfere with religious liberty of an individual.

Religious Liberty | Religious Coalition For Reproductive Choice

 

[TheIceman]

How does allowing choice force anything on anyone?

It doesn't. The zealots just don't like that they are having a hard time forcing their religious rhetoric on the rest of the population. The law effectively swats them every single time they do it.

 

[Fishking]

Yea that. Why do you so conveniently disregard the last part, the most important part.

So tell me what you think it means.

 

[Fishking]

Is the unborn capable of making and articulating a choice?

Not a very solid premise. Newborns aren't capable of making and articulating choices, either. They operate on an instinctual level.

 

[Fishking]

Wrong.

Federal law has always trumped state law.

Roe v. Wade is never getting repealed and it is NOT a violation of just state laws. Abortion laws are not just.

Sounds to me like you might be confused as to the how the law works. It seems to me that you're also somebody who fails to understand why religion and government WILL ALWAYS BE SEPARATE INSTITUTIONS.

Sounds to me like you're overly emotional in your response, which is usually indicative of a weak position.

 

[Fishking]

Epic fail. Choice allows women to choose what they feel best based on their values and situation. Nobody is forced to abort and nobody is forced to gestate.

And that choice, if it happens, is at the expense of the life of another human. There is no level of force greater than the deprivation of another human's life.

 

[Fishking]

Really? What do you believe differently now?

What do I believe differently than what? Well, you have economic policies and differences in what private property rights are based purely on secular reasoning. This manifests in candidates like Bernie Sanders, and his supporters, who seem to think that just because someone has a lot of something that that gives the government the justification to take a lot more of it than anyone else.

Fact is, there is not a single form of government that does not force certain beliefs or ideology of one group, be it a minority or majority, on another. The entire concept of government is based around force, period.

 

[Fishking]

Wrong.

Federal law has always trumped state law.

Roe v. Wade is never getting repealed and it is NOT a violation of just state laws. Abortion laws are not just.

Sounds to me like you might be confused as to the how the law works. It seems to me that you're also somebody who fails to understand why religion and government WILL ALWAYS BE SEPARATE INSTITUTIONS.

You keep repeating yourself, and not in an intellectual, reasonable, or rational manner.

 

[minnie616]

Not a very solid premise. Newborns aren't capable of making and articulating choices, either. They operate on an instinctual level.

And since newborns are born they are Constitutional persons and are given rights under the US law.

 

[prometeus]

What do I believe differently than what?

Anything, you said beliefs are forced on you.

Well, you have economic policies and differences in what private property rights are based purely on secular reasoning.

Have you lost any property?

 

[Casper]

Since I am using the word correctly to criticize a federal government which has overstepped its lawful bounds and interfered in matters that by the rule of law belong under state jurisdiction, yes I not only get to say exactly that - something you have no control over in any event - but I am objectively correct.

On the contrary, when you stupidly and deceitfully claim that it is somehow authoritarian for a government to make laws regarding these homicides, you are just lying.

And when You refer to them as Homicides You are Lying, Again......

 

[JayDubya]

And when You refer to them as Homicides You are Lying, Again......

Considering that a human being is killed, you're just wrong as usual.

 

[Casper]

Considering that a human being is killed, you're just wrong as usual.

Nope not a human being either, so you are still wrong.

 

[JayDubya]

Nope not a human being either, so you are still wrong.

You are in error as a matter of objective scientific fact.

What you have said is not even potentially valid as merely your ignorant opinion.

 

[TheIceman]

Sounds to me like you're overly emotional in your response, which is usually indicative of a weak position.

Not so. It's indicative of a former military service member who took an oath to protect this country from all enemies foreign and domestic. Zealot preachers are domestic terrorists that need to be stopped.

 

[JayDubya]

Not so. It's indicative of a former military service member who took an oath to protect this country from all enemies foreign and domestic. Zealot preachers are domestic terrorists that need to be stopped.

First rule of holes...

 

[Scrabaholic]

Not a very solid premise. Newborns aren't capable of making and articulating choices, either. They operate on an instinctual level.

My question only requires a yes or no answer. Is the unborn capable of making and articulating a choice? Y/N

And that choice, if it happens, is at the expense of the life of another human. There is no level of force greater than the deprivation of another human's life.

There is no "expense of the life of another human". A zef has never had a 'life' and legally, it is not a human being. Even if it was, no human being has the right to use the body of another for life support against their will.

 

[TheIceman]

You keep repeating yourself, and not in an intellectual, reasonable, or rational manner.

I am just trying to help you understand.

 

[Fishking]

My question only requires a yes or no answer. Is the unborn capable of making and articulating a choice? Y/N

Your question is based on a faulty premise, that has been demonstrated.

There is no "expense of the life of another human". A zef has never had a 'life' and legally, it is not a human being. Even if it was, no human being has the right to use the body of another for life support against their will.

Oh...so are you now positing that it is not living? So it's dead or inorganic? Interesting how you believe that is how babies are made. I mean, it's entirely wrong, but interesting. It's also interesting that you are using the law as a crutch to define what is a human being. Laws are historically not very good at that.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Your question is based on a faulty premise, that has been demonstrated.

Incorrect. You just don't want to answer it because you know I am going to make a valid point. YOU whined about the zef not having a choice, have the decency to answer questions that ensue from that.

Oh...so are you now positing that it is not living?

I never said that.

 

[TheIceman]

First rule of holes...

Most of the places where these zealots live and preach are holes. That is true.

 

[Fishking]

Incorrect. You just don't want to answer it because you know I am going to make a valid point. YOU whined about the zef not having a choice, have the decency to answer questions that ensue from that.

No, you're not making a valid point. You've constructed a question that has a faulty premise. Question, are crime rates higher among blacks than whites? A Y/N answer is all that is required.

I never said that.

There is no "expense of the life of another human". A zef has never had a 'life' and legally, it is not a human being. Even if it was, no human being has the right to use the body of another for life support against their will.

 

[minnie616]

No, you're not making a valid point. ...

Your original question was ....

Being pro-life isn't mutually inclusive of religion. Also, what choice does the unborn human get?
...

Fact is the unborn is incapable of making a choice.
An elective abortion is a medical choice that is left to the woman and her doctor to decide.

 

[Fishking]

Your original question was ....

Fact is the unborn is incapable of making a choice.
An elective abortion is a medical choice that is left to the woman and her doctor to decide.

Fact, a born child is incapable of making a choice. There is no choice/consideration/option for that baby, born or not to live because of those of you who have deemed it to be less than human. That's not a new practice among our race to give excuse to certain activities.

 

[Removable Mind]

Your question is based on a faulty premise, that has been demonstrated.



Oh...so are you now positing that it is not living? So it's dead or inorganic? Interesting how you believe that is how babies are made. I mean, it's entirely wrong, but interesting. It's also interesting that you are using the law as a crutch to define what is a human being. Laws are historically not very good at that.

Every aspect of our existence depends on the born - not the yet to be born. The born is responsible for making the best decisions and choices possible for the overall survival of our species. The yet to be born are a product of those decisions and choices - not partners in making those decisions and choices - because they aren't capable of doing so.