Why in the world would I clarify something you said - not I
IMHO you’ve taken a dive off the shallow end of the pool here… repealing Roe v Wade equates to a “police power”???
I believe there are minimum wage laws already in place. Your argument isn’t with me - if you think they are unfair.
Laws have / are given weight. The right to life out weights the right of privacy Even kids know this - they know my right to privacy doesn’t out weigh your right to life ]. No other ruling has put the right of privacy as an equal to OR as a trump over the right of life or liberty - except Roe v Wade… And that right given to a select population.
Jim your inventing up things. D of I has no place in Constitutional jurisprudence.
That is not the way the Court saw it in regards to the early fetus.
Quit playing around–if you do not have an argument then say so. You stated:=kimmielittle;6536790]Why in the world would I clarify something you said - not I
Quit trying to use " sayings" to try to make it look like something smart is being said. You can have the position that Roe should be overturned—fine. But the Court said in Roe that the " realm of privacy" prevents the govt from regulating the decision on early abortions-----ie criminalizing it (the state’s police power).
Yes, but they are not enough to lift a family out of poverty. A goal you indicated a Christian should support.
Yes it does, but that just states a broad goal. Another broad goal is a govt of limited powers. A context is needed to decide how to best balance these competing policies in a specfic context.
Yes, and you can have that view. But the Court did not see it that way here----the Court made the distinction that the early fetus just does not get the same type of protection as a born person. And further, it is the women’s responsibility to protect the early fetus–not society’s police power.
Maybe on life but no necessarily liberty issues—there are other cases but they are on other matters. But that makes no difference—this is the abortion context here.
In a historical time line yes—but not as a matter of the contemporary function and application of the law by the Court. The D of I is not a legal authority.
What most people don’t realize is that although the holding of Roe (the right to an abortion) has been maintained, the reasoning behind it has completely changed. Roe based its decision on a right to privacy - famously found in the Constitution’s “penumbra” - while Casey discarded that reasoning and based it’s finding on due process and the equal protection guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, generating its own wacky sentiment, this time from Justice O’Connor: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and the mystery of human life.” One has to think that this kind of “reasoning” puts abortion on no securer a footing than the one based on penumbras.
“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and the mystery of human life.”
Mega
That is exactly what I said! What I didn’t say was: It’s Governments job to eliminate poverty.
What I said was a personal opinion - last I checked, I can express my personal opinion, using any metaphor I think best describes those thoughts.
The sole reason for Government to exist is to protect / defend the weak - Murder is criminal.
It is not the Governments responsibility to lift a family out of poverty - that is an individuals responsibility. Government responsibility by a minimum wage ] is to protect the weak - against slavery… by providing a base wage.
And the Court had no Constitutional base.
Actually, they gave privileged rights of a selected population over the right of another selected human life.
Absolutely, and she should be accountable.
Governments responsibility is to protect the weak.
Well give a number. What minimum wage do you think is a " decent" wage?
Okay, but the govt can select different means to use to attempt this protection.
Well give a number? And whatever number you give why cannot it be a larger number? You are shifting to more general language to avoid the issue. (good technique by the way)
Right, so why is it the Govt obligation to make the moral decision that a women should properly make anyway.
Great, and you did that without the Govt needing to do anything. Viola!
Well the Court did not think so. It had the authority on this—not you.
No that split the duty to protect the life between the women and society.
And she will----by God. Govt need to take all that responsibility, or at least not a limited government.
In the ways that it chooses in order to protect and promote other competing policies.
$200,000,000,000.00 gold backed
Not when it goes against the Constitution or it’s amended articles.
Thank you
I followed your lead.Now, this is a good question.
Had the authority , yes.
Hello Comrade!kimmielittle;6538674]$200,000,000,000.00 gold backed
That is great answer----come on my friend, the language of the Constitution is broad–that is why we have a Court to interpret it. Your trying to avoid answering.
But those situations are not like the early fetus intrinsically connected to the body of the female. Are they?
Your characterization.
No, they are not.
Quit trying to turn it around. One can simply make the reverse statement to you. Bottom line is that you, or I, are not the Supreme Court—it has the authority to say what the Constitution means. And it means, whatever the Surpeme Court says it means—that is what courts do. This is not a scientific experiment where something can be " proved" or " disproved" (in fact science itself simply works as an explanation of parts of reality)