"Pro-lifers" are not

[pecksniff]

I do not believe that life starts at conception.

It does not start, it continues. Two living cells come together to form something with a new genetic code. Life does not start or stop at any point in the process. But, we never concern ourselves about the rights of living cells, they are forming and dying all the time.

 

[ll74]

It does not start, it continues. Two living cells come together to form something with a new genetic code. Life does not start or stop at any point in the process. But, we never concern ourselves about the rights of living cells, they are forming and dying all the time.

Are you saying my liver does not deserve human rights?

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Yeah, I like George Carlin, but I think he's off on this one.

Conservatives view unborn fetuses as human beings that have human rights. They are not in favor of any human being being torn apart, limb from limb and thrown in a medical waste bag - from conception to natural death, they afford all human beings this protection. They also don't think that your welfare is anyone else's burden - from conception to natural death, no one else is a slave that should work for your benefit.

So, yes. When you are unborn, you should not be murdered. When you are born, you should not be murdered. They believe that human rights begin at conception.

Bullshit.

 

[pecksniff]

Are you saying my liver does not deserve human rights?

Depends on how badly you abuse it.

 

[ll74]

Depends on how badly you abuse it.

We shall not speak of such things

 

[Sean Renaud]

My liver wants to be emancipated from the rest of me.

 

[phrodeau]

It does not start, it continues. Two living cells come together to form something with a new genetic code. Life does not start or stop at any point in the process. But, we never concern ourselves about the rights of living cells, they are forming and dying all the time.

Right-wingers have been actively supporting the right of Covid19 to prosper and multiply.

 

[Comshaw]

It does not start, it continues. Two living cells come together to form something with a new genetic code. Life does not start or stop at any point in the process. But, we never concern ourselves about the rights of living cells, they are forming and dying all the time.

The only thing I'll say about this is to quote Ish: Picking fly shit out of the pepper.

Comshaw

 

[Rightguide]

Say you don't understand precedent without saying you don't understand precedent

This was a right that was precedent.....not some small law.

What I said is fully accurate, they overturned their own precedent over 300 times. LOOK IT UP.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

What I said is fully accurate, they overturned their own precedent over 300 times. LOOK IT UP.

Will you ever get a fact right? Maybe wrongway, maybe. If you attempt something enough times, the laws of average say you will eventually be correct....The number is 145 times not 300 so you were only off by half....it has overruled itself 232 times, maybe this is the number you were trying to reference?

 

[ll74]

What I said is fully accurate, they overturned their own precedent over 300 times. LOOK IT UP.

Do you understand precedent for unenumerated rights being a bit different than precedent for other things?

 

[adrina]

The debated point is and always has been: When is a woman not a human being?

One "minor" correction.

 

[neuroparenthetical]

Just wanted to quote this.

But it's not indirect. It's quite direct.

Without the right to abort, a woman is a sub citizen in service to a fetus and the state.

I think that's fair enough. A better characterization might have been "second-order," since I began with the burden most directly attached to female body - which, according to the arguments I'm addressing, is already a person. If you reject the idea that a fetus is a person, then all that's left is the state enslaving the woman.

 

[Comshaw]

Do you understand precedent for unenumerated rights being a bit different than precedent for other things?

Oh, you mean like:
The Constitution of The United States

THE PREAMBLE
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article IV , Section 2:
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

AND

Ninth Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Comshaw

 

[adrina]

I think that's fair enough. A better characterization might have been "second-order," since I began with the burden most directly attached to female body - which, according to the arguments I'm addressing, is already a person. If you reject the idea that a fetus is a person, then all that's left is the state enslaving the woman.

Actually if you believe a fetus is a person then it is more direct enslavement of the woman. Instead of a fetus however it is the "person" she is enslaved to.

I fail to understand how this is not patently obvious.

 

[neuroparenthetical]

Actually if you believe a fetus is a person then it is more direct enslavement of the woman. Instead of a fetus however it is the "person" she is enslaved to.

I fail to understand how this is not patently obvious.

Well, I think we're in complete agreement between each other. The opposing argument relies on the idea that certain state-enforced obligations between people don't amount to slavery. One of the ones they point to, obviously, is the obligation that a guardian has towards a child. So the theory goes, a mother is the legal guardian of her "child" at x weeks, or even from conception, which imposes upon her all the traditional obligations, without it amounting to slavery.

It's a difficult argument to confront head-on as the weeks go by. That's why so many battles are fought over premises - personhood, first and foremost.

 

[Rightguide]

Do you understand precedent for unenumerated rights being a bit different than precedent for other things.

What's clear is your lack of understanding of the precedent present in all decisions of the SCOTUS and what occurs when the SCOTUS reverses itself.

 

[ll74]

What's clear is your lack of understanding of the precedent present in all decisions of the SCOTUS and what occurs when the SCOTUS reverses itself.

If the SCOTUS reversed precedent on gun control, it would be just as big as this reversal.

You're an idiot

 

[Rightguide]

Specifically, what the "pro-lifers" want and will not admit is to control women's sexual behavior.

Society produces a body of law that is full of controls on destructive behavior dangerous to human life. Yes, we know you'd just as soon line your opposition up along a deep trench and put one through their head but we have laws against that kind of aberrant behavior as well.

 

[ll74]

What's clear is your lack of understanding of the precedent present in all decisions of the SCOTUS and what occurs when the SCOTUS reverses itself.

By the way, the number is not over 300....it's 145.

https://theconversation.com/the-sup...-when-it-struck-down-legal-segregation-168052

 

[adrina]

By the way, the number is not over 300....it's 145.

https://theconversation.com/the-sup...-when-it-struck-down-legal-segregation-168052

From the article:

In my forthcoming book, “Constitutional Precedent in Supreme Court Reasoning,” I point out that from 1789 to 2020 there were 25,544 Supreme Court opinions and judgments after oral arguments. The court has reversed its own constitutional precedents only 145 times – barely one-half of one percent.

 

[ll74]

What I said is fully accurate, they overturned their own precedent over 300 times. LOOK IT UP.

This has not aged well

 

[Rightguide]

By the way, the number is not over 300....it's 145.

https://theconversation.com/the-sup...-when-it-struck-down-legal-segregation-168052

This has not aged well

"A CNN analysis of data from the Congressional Research Service shows overruling Roe would be unusual but far from unprecedented: The Supreme Court has overruled more than 300 of its own cases throughout American history, including five dozen that lasted longer than the landmark abortion rights case to this point."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/05/app-politics-section/history-overruled-supreme-court-roe/index.html

"As of 2018, the Supreme Court had overruled more than 300 of its own cases."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

BTW, you need to go back to school and develop better study habits and be more rigorous in doing so.

 

[ll74]

"A CNN analysis of data from the Congressional Research Service shows overruling Roe would be unusual but far from unprecedented: The Supreme Court has overruled more than 300 of its own cases throughout American history, including five dozen that lasted longer than the landmark abortion rights case to this point."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/05/app-politics-section/history-overruled-supreme-court-roe/index.html

"As of 2018, the Supreme Court had overruled more than 300 of its own cases."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

BTW, you need to go back to school and develop better study habits and be more rigorous in doing so.

Precedent is not the same thing, cupcake.

Cases are not always precedent.

You're attempting to minimize a big fucking deal. Fuck off

 

[Rightguide]

Precedent is not the same thing, cupcake.

Cases are not always precedent.

You're attempting to minimize a big fucking deal. Fuck off

Shut up and apologize, you ignorant dunce. I just proved you to be wrong. Take your self-serving invented definition of "precedent" and shove it up your keester.