Abortion…..Oklahoma felony

[5GallonBucket]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

Well it is murder…

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, 5GallonBucket said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

Well it is murder…

Agree

[CardinalBacker]

I get so tired of seeing politicians whipping this dead horse just to get their supporters riled up. 

The people cheering this are too stupid too realize that it's no different than those whackos fighting for a woman's right to abort up until (and after, apparently) birth.  

Yeah, it gets your side whipped up, but it also energizes the other side to vote against you.  It's a net nothing, except tying up tons of time and money to fight about a settled issue.

 

[5GallonBucket]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

I get so tired of seeing politicians whipping this dead horse just to get their supporters riled up. 

The people cheering this are too stupid too realize that it's no different than those whackos fighting for a woman's right to abort up until (and after, apparently) birth.  

Yeah, it gets your side whipped up, but it also energizes the other side to vote against you.  It's a net nothing, except tying up tons of time and money to fight about a settled issue.

 

Your comparison is asinine and shows your immaturity.

It’s a LIFE…..PERIOD.  For those that don’t understand that doesn’t change that it is still a LIFE!

we weren’t created to kill the unborn.

[SmashMouth]

3 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

I get so tired of seeing politicians whipping this dead horse just to get their supporters riled up. 

The people cheering this are too stupid too realize that it's no different than those whackos fighting for a woman's right to abort up until (and after, apparently) birth.  

Yeah, it gets your side whipped up, but it also energizes the other side to vote against you.  It's a net nothing, except tying up tons of time and money to fight about a settled issue.

 

Apparently it is not completely settled. 

[LumRaiderFan]

4 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

I get so tired of seeing politicians whipping this dead horse just to get their supporters riled up. 

The people cheering this are too stupid too realize that it's no different than those whackos fighting for a woman's right to abort up until (and after, apparently) birth.  

Yeah, it gets your side whipped up, but it also energizes the other side to vote against you.  It's a net nothing, except tying up tons of time and money to fight about a settled issue.

 

Yea, let's not waste time trying to stop the indiscriminate slaughter of the unborn...it wastes too much time and money.

[CardinalBacker]

1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Yea, let's not waste time trying to stop the indiscriminate slaughter of the unborn...it wastes too much time and money.

And your argument means nothing to the 50% of Americans who believe it's their God-given right to do whatever they want with their own body.  

Has the Supreme Court ever reversed a key decision like Roe v. Wade?  I can't think of a single time, so there's that.  

 

The correct way to resolve this dilemma is with a Constitutional Amendment that would ban the practice.  But neither side has the voting power to do so, so the new plan will be to create new laws at the state level that will be challenged every single time there's a switch in the balance of power on the Supreme Court?  That's not how this is supposed to work. 

 

We've had 49 years to legislatively correct the decision in Roe v. Wade if we felt like the decision was wrong... but the pro lifers don't (and never have had) the votes to get it done.  

 

The Supreme Court has ruled... it is what it is.  There's a way to fix it, and it's not by making a run at having the Supreme Court re-hear the same old issue.  

I'm certain that the same people who oppose abortion are also the same ones raising hell about passing out rubbers at school, too.  

 

[LumRaiderFan]

12 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

And your argument means nothing to the 50% of Americans who believe it's their God-given right to do whatever they want with their own body.  

Has the Supreme Court ever reversed a key decision like Roe v. Wade?  I can't think of a single time, so there's that.  

 

The correct way to resolve this dilemma is with a Constitutional Amendment that would ban the practice.  But neither side has the voting power to do so, so the new plan will be to create new laws at the state level that will be challenged every single time there's a switch in the balance of power on the Supreme Court?  That's not how this is supposed to work. 

 

We've had 49 years to legislatively correct the decision in Roe v. Wade if we felt like the decision was wrong... but the pro lifers don't (and never have had) the votes to get it done.  

 

The Supreme Court has ruled... it is what it is.  There's a way to fix it, and it's not by making a run at having the Supreme Court re-hear the same old issue.  

I'm certain that the same people who oppose abortion are also the same ones raising hell about passing out rubbers at school, too.  

 

Wrong, the correct way to resolve this is put it in the hands of the states...most, if not all would vote to ban it, guaranteed.

I'm sure the millions of future babies that have the potential to be killed in the name of convenience appreciate that some folks are working to save them, sad that you're not one of them.

Keep proudly wearing your planned parenthood hat.

 

[CardinalBacker]

4 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Wrong, the correct way to resolve this is put it in the hands of the states...most, if not all would vote to ban it, guaranteed.

I'm sure the millions of future babies that have the potential to be killed in the name of convenience appreciate that some folks are working to save them, sad that you're not one of them.

Keep proudly wearing your planned parenthood hat.

 

No, sir…. If pro lifers had the support of the states, we’d have already had the amendment ratified. But pro lifers won’t even put up a bill in the house or senate because they are well aware that they can’t even get 2/3 of legislators to agree, much less 3/4 of the states to ratify. 

Isn’t it crazy that those “I know my rights!” voters on the right are the ones out here trying to eliminate a right that has been legal in the us for 49 years? When you sound off about taking away someone’s right to have an abortion, you sound like those yahoos that talk about repealing the second amendment.  “If you don’t like guns (abortions) don’t get one!” Isn’t that what they always say?

[LumRaiderFan]

4 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

No, sir…. If pro lifers had the support of the states, we’d have already had the amendment ratified. But pro lifers won’t even put up a bill in the house or senate because they are well aware that they can’t even get 2/3 of legislators to agree, much less 3/4 of the states to ratify. 

Isn’t it crazy that those “I know my rights!” voters on the right are the ones out here trying to eliminate a right that has been legal in the us for 49 years? When you sound off about taking away someone’s right to have an abortion, you sound like those yahoos that talk about repealing the second amendment.  “If you don’t like guns (abortions) don’t get one!” Isn’t that what they always say?

We'll see, I for one, am sure glad that folks like you weren't successful when issues such as slavery and women's rights were righted.

"It's too hard, it's been the law for years, don't rock the boat"

Such a cowardly, poor argument.

[CardinalBacker]

1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

We'll see, I for one, am sure glad that folks like you weren't successful when issues such as slavery and women's rights were righted.

"It's too hard, it's been the law for years, don't rock the boat"

Such a cowardly, poor argument.

So you're arguing that slavery and women's rights should be re-examined?

[LumRaiderFan]

5 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

So you're arguing that slavery and women's rights should be re-examined?

🤦 I’ve wasted enough time here.

[5GallonBucket]

There’s something more powerful than some man made law or amendment 

[LumRaiderFan]

4 minutes ago, 5GallonBucket said:

There’s something more powerful than some man made law or amendment 

No doubt, can’t imagine He is very pleased with a country that’s been so blessed that still chose to allow 50 million plus of His most innocent to be killed….even went through the process of making it “legal”.

[CardinalBacker]

20 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

No doubt, can’t imagine He is very pleased with a country that’s been so blessed that still chose to allow 50 million plus of His most innocent to be killed….even went through the process of making it “legal”.

I’ll be honest… I doubt that he feels any differently about those unborn children than He does every time we execute a murderer here in Texas. 
 

Kinda like I doubt He’s more bothered by homosexual acts than he is bothered by my sleeping around with loose women. 
 

Or that He’s offended because two gays want to get married, but doesn’t mind all of us going down to the courthouse to tear asunder what Gawd Himself had joined together. Nothing says “marriage is between one man and one woman” quite like a third marriage. 
 

i personally find abortion to be immoral. Luckily I’ll never have to make that choice. But I’m also smart enough to understand that well over half of our population has never lived in a period where abortion wasn’t allowed. It’s what we know, and it’s what we’re used to. And now most of us don’t even bother going to church. But somehow we collectively have some new moral objection to abortion and we’re finally ready to outlaw it as a group? You’d have to be a special kind of stupid to believe that. 
 

What’s next? Wait 40 years and then try to get the Supreme Court to ban gay marriage?

[tvc184]

15 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

I get so tired of seeing politicians whipping this dead horse just to get their supporters riled up. 

The people cheering this are too stupid too realize that it's no different than those whackos fighting for a woman's right to abort up until (and after, apparently) birth.  

Yeah, it gets your side whipped up, but it also energizes the other side to vote against you.  It's a net nothing, except tying up tons of time and money to fight about a settled issue.

 

If it is settled, why does the SCOTUS have 3 cases currently pending a ruling?

It sure doesn’t sound settled.

[CardinalBacker]

12 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

If it is settled, why does the SCOTUS have 3 cases currently pending a ruling?

It sure doesn’t sound settled.

Can you think of a time where the SC has reversed its own self? I can’t. That’s an honest question. 
 

And do we really want to live in a country where the law of the land changed course 180 degrees every time the balance of power on the SC shifts to one side or the other. 
 

People talk about activist courts and I wouldn’t blame an administration from stacking the court to achieve their means if precedent means nothing because of partisan/activist justices. 
 

Denying a woman the right to an abortion was deemed unconstitutional in 1973. Nothing has changed since, other than the balance of power on the Supreme Court. The right way to handle the matter is to amend the constitution… not continuing to take bites at the same old apple. It’s crazy how righties blood runs cold when they think of the Supreme Court re-hearing cases on gun control, etc…. But they’re all for it on this issue. 
 

Here’s another question… what happens if the SC hears arguments and decides not to overturn Roe v Wade? Are y’all all gonna take your fetus posters home and get on with your life or continue to “fight the good fight” while completely avoiding the correct solution because you know that it’ll never fly?

[Unwoke]

7 hours ago, 5GallonBucket said:

There’s something more powerful than some man made law or amendment 

I agree… The Ten Commandments aren’t recommendations. Thou shall not kill is pretty self explanatory. 

[LumRaiderFan]

7 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

I’ll be honest… I doubt that he feels any differently about those unborn children than He does every time we execute a murderer here in Texas. 
 

Kinda like I doubt He’s more bothered by homosexual acts than he is bothered by my sleeping around with loose women. 
 

Or that He’s offended because two gays want to get married, but doesn’t mind all of us going down to the courthouse to tear asunder what Gawd Himself had joined together. Nothing says “marriage is between one man and one woman” quite like a third marriage. 
 

i personally find abortion to be immoral. Luckily I’ll never have to make that choice. But I’m also smart enough to understand that well over half of our population has never lived in a period where abortion wasn’t allowed. It’s what we know, and it’s what we’re used to. And now most of us don’t even bother going to church. But somehow we collectively have some new moral objection to abortion and we’re finally ready to outlaw it as a group? You’d have to be a special kind of stupid to believe that. 
 

What’s next? Wait 40 years and then try to get the Supreme Court to ban gay marriage?

If you think He sees no difference on the execution of a guilty individual and an unborn child, you need to reread the Bible. Don’t give me the Thou shalt not kill, that’s not the interpretation.

The rest of your post is simply more CB nonsense.

[Reagan]

I wonder if every person that is pro abortion thanks their Mother every day that she wasn’t?!  

[CardinalBacker]

3 hours ago, Unwoke said:

I agree… The Ten Commandments aren’t recommendations. Thou shall not kill is pretty self explanatory. 

 

2 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

If you think He sees no difference on the execution of a guilty individual and an unborn child, you need to reread the Bible. Don’t give me the Thou shalt not kill, that’s not the interpretation.

The rest of your post is simply more CB nonsense.

 

These posts are literally back to back and expose the typical hypocrisy on the Right.  

If the right ever got back to conservatism and away from trying force their morals, racism and phobias on everybody they'd be unbeatable.  

[tvc184]

6 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

Can you think of a time where the SC has reversed its own self? I can’t. That’s an honest question. 
 

And do we really want to live in a country where the law of the land changed course 180 degrees every time the balance of power on the SC shifts to one side or the other. 
 

People talk about activist courts and I wouldn’t blame an administration from stacking the court to achieve their means if precedent means nothing because of partisan/activist justices. 
 

Denying a woman the right to an abortion was deemed unconstitutional in 1973. Nothing has changed since, other than the balance of power on the Supreme Court. The right way to handle the matter is to amend the constitution… not continuing to take bites at the same old apple. It’s crazy how righties blood runs cold when they think of the Supreme Court re-hearing cases on gun control, etc…. But they’re all for it on this issue. 
 

Here’s another question… what happens if the SC hears arguments and decides not to overturn Roe v Wade? Are y’all all gonna take your fetus posters home and get on with your life or continue to “fight the good fight” while completely avoiding the correct solution because you know that it’ll never fly?

Your conservative wokeism gets the best of and sometimes emotionally blinds you.

Yes SCOTUS has overturned itself.

Also, it has modified (not completely reversed) itself at other times. In fact it has modified Roe already. That situation happened in Casey. Roe as was originally written was changed under Casey. Some of the current cases aren’t asking to overturn all rules not established under Roe (such as the current Dobbs case in Mississippi). 

This Court might use Casey and the established undue burden standard to uphold Dobbs (Mississippi 15 weeks limit) or they can set another limit of viability (I don’t expect that) or overturn Roe completely (which seems a long shot but within possibility) looking at the oral arguments/discussions. 

It seems very likely that Dobbs 15 weeks limit might be upheld using Casey which already allowed Pennsylvania to go outside of Roe.

As far as SCOTUS overturning or modifying itself, one of the most famous cases was Plessy v. Ferguson where SCOTUS said that the 14th Amendment under equal protection was not violated if Black and Whites had given “separate but equal” privileges. That as most people are at least responsibly familiar with, was overturned in Brown v. BoE where SCOTUS threw out separate but equal.

Another which directly had an effect on my job was Grady v. Corbin. Under Grady (1990) SCOTUS ruled that double jeopardy stopped any subsequent prosecutions if the same elements for which a person was previously convicted were used for the subsequent conviction. In that case Corbin was intoxicated and crossed into oncoming traffic and killed  a person. Corbin was issued citations for crossing the centerline and DWI. He pleaded guilty so was considered convicted. He was later indicted and convicted of the fatality.  SCOTUS overturned the conviction and said that Corbin could not be charged with crossing into oncoming traffic and killing someone because he was already convicted of crossing into oncoming traffic. We were immediately told by the DA to not issue citations in DWI cases or file any misdemeanor charges where a felony had also occurred for fear of losing the felony case. That had a huge impact on our protocol.

That last all of 3 years when SCOTUS said basically….. that was really a dumb decision we made in Corbin and overturned it in US v. Dixon. 

So your premise of, SCOTUS doesn’t overturn or modify itself is dead in the water and they have already done so on Roe as they did in Casey.

As far as your last question, you are again showing your emotions and prejudice. You apparently love Roe and have crafted a, “this case ends the debate” scenario (if a favorable to Roe ruling). First, these cases, including Texas (SB8 which I disagree with), I’m not asking to overtime Roe. Your stating that the cases look to overturn Roe are simply wrong. The cases like Dobbs look to modify viability or undue burden of a right. You have narrowly crafted the “overturn” scenario, not the state laws or SCOTUS. Under Roe states were only allowed to completely ban abortions (except danger to mother) in the third trimester. These current cases are asking to not overturn abortions but back up the time frame where a state can sanction limits. 

[tvc184]

3 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

 

 

These posts are literally back to back and expose the typical hypocrisy on the Right.  

If the right ever got back to conservatism and away from trying force their morals, racism and phobias on everybody they'd be unbeatable.  

You use two different people’s opinions to show hypocrisy?

Just for sake of the discussion, a death sentence is carried out on a person convicted of a heinous crime of taking another human life. A baby in the womb has committed the heinous crime of….. what?

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

 

 

These posts are literally back to back and expose the typical hypocrisy on the Right.  

If the right ever got back to conservatism and away from trying force their morals, racism and phobias on everybody they'd be unbeatable.  

It doesn’t expose anything, the interpretation is murder, actually it says thou shall not take an innocent life.  Folks use kill and that certainly doesn’t expose any hypocrisy.  What’s hypocritical is that you claim to be conservative, lol.

[CardinalBacker]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

You use two different people’s opinions to show hypocrisy?

Just for sake of the discussion, a death sentence is carried out on a person convicted of a heinous crime of taking another human life. A baby in the womb has committed the heinous crime of….. what?

I’m just saying. “Thou shalt not kill” is pretty specific. Not “Thou shalt not kill (unless the person is guilty of some heinous crime). 
 

If you don’t have a problem with murder, you don’t have a problem with murder. 
 

Kinda like people who are on their second or third marriage are in no position to criticize gay marriage because God would frown upon it. God wasn’t happy with your divorce, either.