Heinous

[rolling7]

Nice edit and twist.....

......and I won my bet.:P

 

[rolling7]

You completely misunderstood Roe v. Wade. This case allowed women's right to privacy to make a decision. Before - her right was being interfered by state and panels to decide whether or not she can have one. Now... women do not have to go thru humiliating and degrading farce to make a decision..... hence empowering women's rights to privacy.

The point was that stopping a beating heart is killing. Even you posted that stopping the beating heart of a cow is killing the cow. The Supreme Court has never made a decision specifically about stopping a beating heart. Even for "pull the plug" the issue was never stopping a beating heart. I very the Supreme Court would not take a case on this issue.

 

[Jiro]

Nice edit and twist.....

yes I had to add in more details otherwise it'll just continue into silly "no you misunderstood" farce.

and what twist?

 

[Jiro]

The point was that stopping a beating heart is killing. Even you posted that stopping the beating heart of a cow is killing the cow. The Supreme Court has never made a decision specifically about stopping a beating heart. Even for "pull the plug" the issue was never stopping a beating heart. I very the Supreme Court would not take a case on this issue.

point? what point? you have none. just more fallacious emotionally-charged arguments and comical examples.

and I don't even understand your post. not even going to ask for clarification because you will just bring in more fallacious arguments and comical examples. As I said in my Post #268

doctors, lawyers, hospitals, etc. have to follow the laws to the letter. that's why Dr. Kevorkian went to jail.

I don't know why would you even bring in speeding argument into this. it's not even same thing. Straw man perhaps? or non sequitor?

no wonder you people keep failing to convince Supreme Court otherwise. all you have to do is come up with a coherent argument. that's all I'm asking. I don't like abortion either and if I made a mistake, I wouldn't opt for abortion. and I especially don't like interfering with a woman's right to privacy. It's none of my business. The law is already there that it's illegal to perform abortion after third trimester unless her life is in serious danger due to pregnancy.

So yea - you're not giving me any single coherent reason to trample over woman's rights to privacy. I, in my good conscience, cannot support such unconstitutional act. That's why Supreme Court disagrees with you and continues to disagree since Roe v. Wade.

 

[TXgolfer]

yes I had to add in more details otherwise it'll just continue into silly "no you misunderstood" farce.

and what twist?

Already explained. You can continue to twist and spin if you want. In fact please do.....it's fun to watch.

 

[Jiro]

Already explained. You can continue to twist and spin if you want. In fact please do.....it's fun to watch.

you only explained about Roe v. Wade (which was incorrect) but you haven't explained what twist you're talking about.

and I have no need to twist and spin since I'm using facts. You are confusing yourself... pro-lifers are the one who twist and spin. That's why they lost the case and have continued to fail to convince Congress, White House, and Supreme Court to reconsider.

Focus Focus Focus.

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

So, if there is little rational basis for State intervention, is there also a general right to privacy which covers a woman's ability to decide whether or not her own pregnancy should go to full term? As to a general right to privacy, the Court held:

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment; in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments; in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights; in the Ninth Amendment; or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved.

...we recognized "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." That right necessarily includes the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

and here.... The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade (1973) | PBS

In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws and cited past cases ruling that marriage, contraception, and child rearing are activities covered in this "zone of privacy." The Court then argued that the "zone of privacy" was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This decision involved myriad physical, psychological, and economic stresses a pregnant woman must face.

Because abortions lie within a pregnant woman's "zone of privacy," the abortion decision "and its effectuation" are fundamental rights that are protected by the Constitution from regulation by the states, so laws regulating abortion must be sufficiently "important." Was Texas's law sufficiently important to pass constitutional muster? The Court reviewed the history of abortion laws, from ancient Greece to contemporary America, and therein found three justifications for banning abortions: "a Victorian social concern to discourage illicit sexual conduct"; protecting the health of women; and protecting prenatal life. The Court rejected the first two justifications as irrelevant given modern gender roles and medical technology. As for the third justification, the Court argued that prenatal life was not within the definition of "persons" as used and protected in the U.S. Constitution and that America's criminal and civil laws only sometimes regard fetuses as persons deserving protection. Culturally, while some groups regard fetuses as people deserving full rights, no consensus exists. The Court ruled that Texas was thus taking one "view" of many. Protecting all fetuses under this contentious "view" of prenatal life was not sufficiently important to justify the state's banning of almost all abortions.

once again.... Supreme Court disagrees with you and you and you. and this case was about women's rights to privacy.

 

[rolling7]

point? what point? you have none. just more fallacious emotionally-charged arguments and comical examples.

and I don't even understand your post. not even going to ask for clarification because you will just bring in more fallacious arguments and comical examples. As I said in my Post #268

The point was made by Txgolfer in post #224 which you made your point in post #240. You can lol all you want but TXgolfer's point is still valid. And your proof (Roe vs.Wade) is fallacious and comical.

 

[Reba]

I don't know what would you prefer - breaking a law for speeding or for killing.

that's why Dr. Kevorkian went to jail. and I got a ticket for speeding but I would go to jail for killing a person if I were speeding.

so I fail to see any point in your question. and I'll reiterate again - we follow the laws.

Does this "we" include you?

 

[rolling7]

you only explained about Roe v. Wade (which was incorrect) but you haven't explained what twist you're talking about.

and I have no need to twist and spin since I'm using facts. You are confusing yourself... pro-lifers are the one who twist and spin. That's why they lost the case and have continued to fail to convince Congress, White House, and Supreme Court to



and here.... The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade (1973) | PBS


once again.... Supreme Court disagrees with you and you and you. and this case was about women's rights to privacy.

Here the Court ruled on a woman's right to privacy and IN NO WAY ruled on the fetus and a beating heart. The Court has IN NO WAY rule on the beginning of a person life, the exact moment that a person heart is beating.

 

[TXgolfer]

you only explained about Roe v. Wade (which was incorrect) but you haven't explained what twist you're talking about.

and I have no need to twist and spin since I'm using facts. You are confusing yourself... pro-lifers are the one who twist and spin. That's why they lost the case and have continued to fail to convince Congress, White House, and Supreme Court to reconsider.

Focus Focus Focus.







and here.... The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade (1973) | PBS


once again.... Supreme Court disagrees with you and you and you. and this case was about women's rights to privacy.

Again nice twist...

But....

The Court then argued that the "zone of privacy" was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This decision involved myriad physical, psychological, and economic stresses a pregnant woman must face.

 

[TXgolfer]

What a feminist had to say....

Effect of the Roe v. Wade decision:

All state laws limiting women's access to abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy were invalidated by Roe v. Wade. State laws limiting such access during the second trimester were upheld only when the restrictions were for the purpose of protecting the health of the pregnant woman. Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the United States, which was not legal at all in many states and was limited by law in others.

Roe v. Wade - Overview

 

[TXgolfer]

Here the Court ruled on a woman's right to privacy and IN NO WAY ruled on the fetus and a beating heart. The Court has IN NO WAY rule on the beginning of a person life, the exact moment that a person heart is beating.

It didn't even rule a woman's right to privacy..... The right to privacy was already established. The court used that right to validate their decision on abortion.

 

[Foxrac]

you only explained about Roe v. Wade (which was incorrect) but you haven't explained what twist you're talking about.

and I have no need to twist and spin since I'm using facts. You are confusing yourself... pro-lifers are the one who twist and spin. That's why they lost the case and have continued to fail to convince Congress, White House, and Supreme Court to reconsider.

Focus Focus Focus.

and here.... The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade (1973) | PBS

once again.... Supreme Court disagrees with you and you and you. and this case was about women's rights to privacy.

Yup, his definition is based on pro-life, right wing view.

 

[Foxrac]

The point was made by Txgolfer in post #224 which you made your point in post #240. You can lol all you want but TXgolfer's point is still valid. And your proof (Roe vs.Wade) is fallacious and comical.

Your argument is fallacious and comical and there are no valid reason that abortion should be illegal.

 

[Foxrac]

Here the Court ruled on a woman's right to privacy and IN NO WAY ruled on the fetus and a beating heart. The Court has IN NO WAY rule on the beginning of a person life, the exact moment that a person heart is beating.

The court doesn't say about heart beating.

 

[airportcop]

I don't think telling parents what to do is right. Right now.... it's legal so it's not technically "killing".

So I guess if I shot you by accident while cleaning my gun technically it wouldn't be murder!

 

[Jiro]

Here the Court ruled on a woman's right to privacy and IN NO WAY ruled on the fetus and a beating heart. The Court has IN NO WAY rule on the beginning of a person life, the exact moment that a person heart is beating.

yes. because the State failed to find any justification to interfere... therefore you have failed to convince me.

 

[Foxrac]

So I guess if I shot you by accident while cleaning my gun technically it wouldn't be murder!

Oh no, I don't want my friend to die.

It is up to prosecutor and jurors on criminal charge, also the guns have lock trigger. Remove the bullet before clean the guns.

 

[Jiro]

It didn't even rule a woman's right to privacy..... The right to privacy was already established. The court used that right to validate their decision on abortion.

if right to privacy was already established... then why did States interfere with it by making it illegal?

Therefore.... women's rights to privacy was at stake and Supreme Court reaffirmed it.

 

[Jiro]

So I guess if I shot you by accident while cleaning my gun technically it wouldn't be murder!

please do keep coming up with fallacious reasonings. it's comical.