For Republicans life begins at conception and ends at birth

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

I know it has been a controversial ruling by the Supreme Court and there have been some judges who dissented, but it still the law.

There needs to be balance to the law. The issue cannot be decided all by the woman or all by the state.

Both parties have legitimate interests and it remains a volatile issue and it still divides the country.

This is what happens when we allow courts to make law. Viability occurs much earlier now than then, but this is the law. Laws should be made by legislators, not courts.

[nevergaveitathought]

dont want to get into an abortion debate but....

having a set of laws establishing the death penalty that are for all to understand in advance that isnt arbitary or capricious and are applied equally have zero to do with protections for the youngest or least able or a baby in the womb. having one while detesting the other is quite logical. it takes a mind that is blind to think so or one that wishes to merely spout slogans to obfuscate honest debate.

while i understand the desire to protect a baby in the womb, what is more at odds with consistency are laws regarding harm done to a foetus on the one hand while allowing abortion on the other.

life beginning at conception is based on science and logic, life beginning at birth or some other arbitrary point along the gestation period is based on self's desire and compromise.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

This is what happens when we allow courts to make law. Viability occurs much earlier now than then, but this is the law. Laws should be made by legislators, not courts.

What about laws that restrict your liberty?

Who should those be made by?

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

dont want to get into an abortion debate but....

having a set of laws establishing the death penalty that are for all to understand in advance that isnt arbitary or capricious and are applied equally They have not been applied equally. Debunked. have zero to do with protections for the youngest or least able or a baby in the womb. The day after pill is not killing a baby. It is getting rid of cells that could form a baby. having one while detesting the other is quite logical. No it is not, or maybe to you. it takes a mind that is blind to think so or one that wishes to merely spout slogans to obfuscate honest debate. Honest debate, now that is a novel concept around these parts.

while i understand the desire to protect a baby in the womb, what is more at odds with consistency are laws regarding harm done to a foetus on the one hand while allowing abortion on the other.

life beginning at conception is based on science and logic, no it is not, your logic would outlaw birth control or the day after pill. life beginning at birth or some other arbitrary point along the gestation period is based on self's desire and compromise. And people like you have proven over and over that compromise is an evil word

WTF is wrong with compromise? The alternative is war. Or enslavement to others world views. JD do you want to tell him to go fuc himself or should I?

[nevergaveitathought]

you reply to things i dont say or say things i'd maybe have agreement with as if it was some counterpoint.

i really dont think you read well.

[WTF]

Be more concise in what you say is all I can say

It all harkens back on just which side of the fence one sits as to how they view things.

There is no doubt that we sit on the opposite side on a many of issues.

[nevergaveitathought]

reading comprehension has always been the issue, from ancient days till now

[WTF]

I always read better on the toilet...

[CuteOldGuy]

Thanks, WTF. That explains a lot. We now understand why you post so much shit.

[WTF]

Now that was kinda funny..

...way better than those feely type posts!

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Thanks, WTF. That explains a lot. We now understand why you post so much shit.

yup toilet paper friendly!

[Fast Gunn]

I don't always agree with the Supreme Court, but I think they ruled very wisely on this particular case.

The explosive case badly needed to be settled and the Supreme Court used a scalpel and not a buzz saw to do it which was exactly what was needed.

. . . On the other hand, I don't think they had any business getting in deciding the election between Gore and Bush, but that is another story and don't get me started on that!

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

This is what happens when we allow courts to make law. Viability occurs much earlier now than then, but this is the law. Laws should be made by legislators, not courts.

[CuteOldGuy]

So you support the Court when it pleases you, but not when it doesn't.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

So you support the Court when it pleases you, but not when it doesn't.

Both sides are guilty of that? That ain't no big deal. But it is funny to hear Repub's complain about actvist judges!

[CuteOldGuy]

I'm not a Repub. But Roe v Wade was a godawful decision. And much as I hate to say it, the Court came down right on Bush v Gore. Don't always have to agree to know they did the right thing. It's just rare when they get one right.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I'm not a Repub. But Roe v Wade was a godawful decision. And much as I hate to say it, the Court came down right on Bush v Gore. Don't always have to agree to know they did the right thing. It's just rare when they get one right.

See we just do not agree, on either....and that is ok.