5th Circuit rules planned parenthood may be defunded, and also that they’re liars

[CFI302]

Then get rid of TARP, citizens United, minimum wage...in fact, abolish the FLSA, fdic, etc.

Citizens' United had to do with campaign contributions.

As far as TARP, minimum wage, and the rest, I'm OK with that. It's not the taxpayers place to fund things for which the government has no delegated authority to establish.

 

[CFI302]

Babies are human beings. The unborn are not. Legal abortion cannot be murder. Nobody is saying women have a right to commit murder.

Sure they are. Saying otherwise is trying to make yourself feel better about killing it.

When do you consider someone a human being? Is it when they come out of the womb?

 

[CFI302]

Which PP distributes.

PP is taxpayer funded. That means taxpayers are being forced to provide something to a woman that involves a body she says is solely her with which to make choices. Why is public money being used to fund things that are claimed to be a private matter?

 

[Lursa]

Actually I think a great portion of society does which is why pro-life candidates are fairly successful electorally and why SCOTUS had to basically launch a coup against the nation’s legislators to legalize it in the first place. Even people who agree abortion should be legal have to use euphemisms and lie to themselves to believe its right.

You've been informed that a primarily conservative bench agreed on RvW 7-2 and that it's supported by at least 10 precedents.

If you cannot argue honestly, IMO you should not argue.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

There will be a population explosion of women dying from infections from self-abortions and lots and lots of unwated babies in Texas, the majority of them will have brown or tan skin. Congrats, you just created a self-defeating monster.

I bunch of people dying is not a population explosion but let’s set that aside.

Your race hustling is very interesting, you want to accuse me of being racist by proclaiming the only reason you care about people is because of their race. Very interesting

 

[Lursa]

I can quote to you numerous points from scripture that directly contradict this, but the fact is, it is unlikely you are a Christian, you will not be convinced by scriptural arguments.

But if you get yourself a copy of the New Testament with a decent commentary you will understand that not only can we judge heresy, we must. It is not optional. This is crystal clear. In fact the only people who hide behind “we can’t judge” are people who should be judged, and probably more harshly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why is religion remotely important to the laws regarding abortion?

Any woman can choose according to her beliefs, no woman is prevented from doing that.

 

[Lursa]

That does happen when the will of legislators is to circumvent the intentions of the Constitution.

Please note that those caring for elderly, physically disabled, or infants do so entirely voluntarily. Anyone, usually multiple people share the task, can care for them and no one is forced to do so. That is quite different from a woman being forced to maintain a pregnancy. Please use the correct term for "abortion" which means the termination of a pregnancy, so it cannot be used to describe the death of a person who has been born.

Yes, we know the abortion law was once different; those laws were tried in the USA and failed completely to stop abortion or even reduce it. There is no law regulating abortion in Canada and yet their abortion rate is lower than the USA. Wonder why?

:applaud:applaud:applaud

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You've been informed that a primarily conservative bench agreed on RvW 7-2 and that it's supported by at least 10 precedents.

If you cannot argue honestly, IMO you should not argue.

“You have been informed” acting like a lawyer writing a letter... LOL

So what? First off this was not a conservative bench, it was a Republican bench but not a conservative one. Of the majority judges only Blackmun could be considered a conservative. The rest were democrat appointees or Rockefeller type liberal republicans, and they invented law that didn’t exist to justify the result they wanted.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Why is religion remotely important to the laws regarding abortion?

Any woman can choose according to her beliefs, no woman is prevented from doing that.

Ask Minnie, she brought it up.

You are not free however to commit kill an innocent baby because of your lack of religious belief so there is that.

 

[Lursa]

“You have been informed” acting like a lawyer writing a letter... LOL

So what? First off this was not a conservative bench, it was a Republican bench but not a conservative one. Of the majority judges only Blackmun could be considered a conservative. The rest were democrat appointees or Rockefeller type liberal republicans, and they invented law that didn’t exist to justify the result they wanted.

They were conservatives...show otherwise. And perhaps you dont understand what 'precedents' are, otherwise you wouldnt continue to write such ignorant, desperate comments labelling justices and decisions out of your angry imagination.

 

[Lursa]

Ask Minnie, she brought it up.

You are not free however to commit kill an innocent baby because of your lack of religious belief so there is that.

Of course not, a baby has rights. And to support, help, feed, enjoy, etc a baby doesnt require violating anyone's bodily sovereignty or Constitutional rights.

And what does 'innocence' have to do with it? Can you kill a guilty baby? Oh wait...that's just you trying to use emotional manipulation in your argument :roll:

 

[EMNofSeattle]

They were conservatives...show otherwise. And perhaps you dont understand what 'precedents' are, otherwise you wouldnt continue to write such ignorant, desperate comments labelling justices and decisions out of your angry imagination.

No, you have made the claim, YOU need to show otherwise.

In addition to showing why it’s even relevant

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Of course not, a baby has rights. And to support, help, feed, enjoy, etc a baby doesnt require violating anyone's bodily sovereignty or Constitutional rights.

And what does 'innocence' have to do with it? Can you kill a guilty baby? Oh wait...that's just you trying to use emotional manipulation in your argument :roll:

There is no such thing as a guilty baby, so.... no.

Considering all the work raising a baby is, I don’t think you can seriously make the argument that having to provide for a baby after birth is less a violation of “bodily sovereignty” (whatever that means) then carrying the baby before birth.

 

[Lursa]

No, you have made the claim, YOU need to show otherwise.

In addition to showing why it’s even relevant

It's relevant since you believe they were biased by a different 'liberal' perspective.

And there are loads of sources on this. Here's one and it shows that your claim that most were appointed by Democrats OR Republicans that you chose to label as 'unacceptably' conservative is wrong.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles...by-a-majority-republican-nominated-court.html

You invented all those creative descriptions of the appointees that didnt fit your agenda.

 

[Lursa]

There is no such thing as a guilty baby, so.... no.

So then is that an admission that you're just using 'innocent' in an attempt at emotional manipulation?

Considering all the work raising a baby is, I don’t think you can seriously make the argument that having to provide for a baby after birth is less a violation of “bodily sovereignty” (whatever that means) then carrying the baby before birth.

Then I guess a woman should be able to decide for herself if she should take that on, eh?

Or do you think it's ok for the govt to force that on her too?


Thanks, I think that was helpful!

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Then I guess a woman should be able to decide for herself if she should take that on, eh?

You can leave a baby at the hospital for adoption.

Or do you think it's ok for the govt to force that on her too?


Thanks, I think that was helpful!

If that’s the minimum necessary to preserve an innocent life then absolutely. It’s not about just you when someone else’s body is involved. They should have a say in your “choice”

 

[Lursa]

If that’s the minimum necessary to preserve an innocent life then absolutely. It’s not about just you when someone else’s body is involved. They should have a say in your “choice”

Thanks. That's all I ask, since I know I cant change your mind. I just need people to see what their stance truly means.

If you think the mother's will should be overcome to give birth, you do not value both equally. You are valuing the unborn over women.

(That's exactly what you just agreed to)


And as such, you dont hold the moral High Ground here at all.

 

[Lursa]

You can leave a baby at the hospital for adoption.

Yes and we've already discussed how unethical it is to encourage women to have MORE unwanted/unaffordable kids and add them to the more than 100,000 kids already awaiting adoption in the US.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Thanks. That's all I ask, since I know I cant change your mind. I just need people to see what their stance truly means.

If you think the mother's will should be overcome to give birth, you do not value both equally. You are valuing the unborn over women.

(That's exactly what you just agreed to)


And as such, you dont hold the moral High Ground here at all.

No, not at all. A situation with two survivors is equality, with one survivor is not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Yes and we've already discussed how unethical it is to encourage women to have MORE unwanted/unaffordable kids and add them to the more than 100,000 kids already awaiting adoption in the US.

It’s not 100,000 babies, babies get adopted fast, most kids in the system are older.

But under your definition of ethical we should kill kids waiting in foster care too long because it’s not ethical they be in foster care


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

No, not at all. A situation with two survivors is equality, with one survivor is not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not equal. There's no guarantee EITHER will survive the pregnancy. It cannot be predicted. You would allow govt force to demand the woman take that risk against her will. What part of 'against her will' dont you understand? And do you have zero comprehension of what the actual, practical enforcement of such a change would mean to society? :doh

YOU are choosing either/or. FOR someone else. The govt has chosen not to do so. It's immoral to force women to remain pregnant against their will. If you cant see that, fine...but you are not in the majority in this country, at all.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

It's not equal. There's no guarantee EITHER will survive the pregnancy. It cannot be predicted. You would allow govt force to demand the woman take that risk against her will. What part of 'against her will' dont you understand? And do you have zero comprehension of what the actual, practical enforcement of such a change would mean to society? :doh

I pay taxes against my will, including to pay for abortions, to pay for the imperial war machine, to pay for all kinds of things I disapprove of, saying “against her will” is really crying in the rain.

There is also no guarantee you’ll survive an abortion, there’s no guarantee you won’t die in a car crash going to the clinic, if you start demanding guarantees now you’ve become the extremist.

YOU are choosing either/or. FOR someone else. The govt has chosen not to do so. It's immoral to force women to remain pregnant against their will. If you cant see that, fine...but you are not in the majority in this country, at all.

We’re forced to do many things against our will, I think preserving life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not the worst of those things


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

It’s not 100,000 babies, babies get adopted fast, most kids in the system are older.

But under your definition of ethical we should kill kids waiting in foster care too long because it’s not ethical they be in foster care


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Still totally wrong.

And for every new infant added to that adoption pool, an older child loses out. And that child is aware, hoping, and waiting. They suffer, the unborn suffers nothing.

Drop the hyperbole just because you cant support your argument. The foster care system is out of necessity. You would FORCE women to ADD more kids to that system 'unnecessarily.'

And the foster care system is different than adoption. All kids in foster care (over 400,000 US) are not available for adoption. There are however, more than 100,000 kids awaiting adoption in the US.

There are 107,918 foster children eligible for and waiting to be adopted. In 2014, 50,644 foster kids were adopted — a number that has stayed roughly consistent for the past five years. The average age of a waiting child is 7.7 years old and 29% of them will spend at least three years in foster care.

https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-statistics

https://www.adoptex.org/meet-the-children/

 

[Lursa]

I pay taxes against my will, including to pay for abortions, to pay for the imperial war machine, to pay for all kinds of things I disapprove of, saying “against her will” is really crying in the rain.

Nope, you dont pay for abortions. Against federal law. Still wrong :roll:

But we all pay for stuff we object to.

 

[Lursa]

I think preserving life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not the worst of those things

Cool, why is the unborn more entitled to that than women?

Any law forcing women to remain pregnant against their will violates all those things for women, up to and including significant risk to her life.