- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Where my pro choice brothers at
Posted on 6/26/22 at 11:08 pm to texridder
Posted on 6/26/22 at 11:08 pm to texridder
quote:
If you think that men would allow themselves to be forced into having to carry a baby for 9 months (morning sickness, et.al. ); and be forced to have their careers interrupted in the prime of their "climbing the ladder" years.
All assumptions son! You mean to tell me you think all men think like you? I hate to tell you but you are in the minority in a bigly way!
0
Posted on 6/26/22 at 11:09 pm to rltiger
quote:
You realize the Federal Gov’t getting out of the abortion business and yielding to the states is the definition of “small gov’t”?
Amazing, isn’t it?
That's an amazing spin on what actually happened here.
Previously it was interpretted that the constitution already had given protection for this decision to the individual. Now they've reinterpreted to mean that right is given to the state, as it's in the states interest.
that's less freedom and more government involvement in individual decisions if you ask me.
Posted on 6/26/22 at 11:14 pm to texridder
quote:
Why was the Russian money laundering guy at the Trump Tower meeting with Trump Jr.
Because the Dem Law Firm set that up? I thought it was common knowledge that this fact came out a helluva long time ago!
Posted on 6/26/22 at 11:31 pm to oklahogjr
One of those things is not like the other. Also, you can’t hate what the USC did and still claim to be for states rights (aka small fed gov). You are confused my fellow TDer
Posted on 6/26/22 at 11:39 pm to TigerTowner
quote:
Also, you can’t hate what the USC did and still claim to be for states rights (aka small fed gov).
No My friend, i'm claiming to be in support of individual rights over state and federal government meddling.
Where you want the state government involved more than they are today. That's bigger government at the state level and potentially the federal level later down the road.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 12:12 am to ABearsFanNMS
Because the Dem Law Firm set that up?
Which Dem law firm was that?
Which Dem law firm was that?
Posted on 6/27/22 at 12:31 am to oklahogjr
quote:
I'm pro choice
quote:
small government views
Posted on 6/27/22 at 12:31 am to oklahogjr
quote:
i'm claiming to be in support of individual rights
No you aren't
Posted on 6/27/22 at 12:34 am to FooManChoo
quote:The Griswold Court found a right to Privacy by a straight-forward reading of the Constitution including amendments. They did not consult the Natural Law, which might well explain why the Griswold Court came to a different conclusion than the present court.
The “right” to kill your offspring was created out of thin air. Doesn’t matter what twisted justification was used.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 12:57 am to oklahogjr
quote:
vs previously where we had the right to decide individually. we've simply moved from a more rights based consitutional definition to a less rights interpretation.
So you’d be ok with one person murdering another person and the government not doing anything about it?
quote:
So now the power has been transferred to state governments from the individual.
I assume you also do not want the government to have any laws against murder.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 6:23 am to Buryl
quote:
The phrase "pro-choice" is a load of shite. How much more vague could it possibly be?
Just say pro-abortion. If there's nothing wrong with abortion, shouldnt be a problem.
It isn't any worse than "pro-life." Just say anti-choice. If you don't think women should ever have the choice to get an abortion, there shouldn't be a problem.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 7:12 am to texridder
quote:
What type of choices?
Oh just let your imagination run, Tex. Imagine you’re a young, strapping heterosexual male, who just got paid, and is about to hit the town on a Friday night. It may be difficult for you, but just pretend. Start counting the choices made between there, and the government forcing him to carry a child for 9 months. For extra points, count how many choices there are with the knowledge that you can’t murder your unborn child too.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 7:34 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Most Americans simply could not function, if their political views were too complex to fit on a bumper sticker.
The phrase "pro-choice" is a load of shite. How much more vague could it possibly be? Just say pro-abortion. If there's nothing wrong with abortion, shouldnt be a problem.quote:
It isn't any worse than "pro-life." Just say anti-choice. If you don't think women should ever have the choice to get an abortion, there shouldn't be a problem.
This post was edited on 6/27/22 at 7:41 am
Posted on 6/27/22 at 8:38 am to texridder
quote:The Dobbes decision points out that the right to privacy (that may be implicit) does not apply to taking life, which was the application that Roe provided. Casey didn’t support that reasoning, but based the support for abortion on the 14th amendment’s due process clause, stating the undue burden that limiting abortions poses to women.
The Griswold Court found a right to Privacy by a straight-forward reading of the Constitution including amendments. They did not consult the Natural Law, which might well explain why the Griswold Court came to a different conclusion than the present court.
Roe said that there is a broad constitutional right to abortion but didn’t cite the text of the constitution, history, or precedent to support the application of privacy to abortion. Their reasoning was that privacy as a right exists “somewhere” in the constitution but didn’t show where, and then used that ambiguous and unsupported belief as a basis for its decision about abortion, specifically.
The made up right was to abortion. The court during Roe provided a decision that was legislative in nature, which took the power from the legislative branch of our government. It overextended its mandate of deciding law rather than creating it, and it was shot down (finally!) by this new decision.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 4:57 pm to cajunandy
quote:That comes really close to an Appeal to the Extremes Fallacy.
Example: Do you think that the answers that Breyer, Sotomayor or Kagan get to their questions in a death penalty case would get them to change their position that the death penalty is unconstitutional?
Why don't you try giving a more reasonable example.
quote:I don't know. I'll have to find a study on it.
What value do you think asking question has?
The fact that Thomas didn't ask a question for 10 years -- what do you think it says about him?
Posted on 6/27/22 at 5:07 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Why ask questions, when you fully know the scripted answer you will receive before ever doing so? Honestly, I think that the justices who do ask questions are just grandstanding, as often as not.
That could very well be true in the Supreme Court. But Court of Appeals level judges ask lots of questions as soon as the light comes on, and they are not grandstanding. They are trying to make the lawyers sweat.
Posted on 6/27/22 at 5:14 pm to troyt37
quote:
Neither is in the Constitution.
quote:
I’d say the 4th and 5th Amendments are pretty close.
Shouldn't leave the 14th out of that discussion either.
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News