(06-26-2022 05:26 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 04:53 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 04:32 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 04:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/w...ar-AAYPQUi
In case Turley's article hasn't been posted:

"...While a strong majority support Roe v. Wade, they also support limitations on abortion. Polls also show that 65% of Americans would make most abortions illegal in the second trimester, and 80% would make most abortions illegal in the third trimester. (The United States is one of only 12 among the world’s 198 countries that allow abortions for any reason after 20 weeks.)..."

That's not what anyone dancing over this decision supports though. It's going to be interesting what the GOP does now, because they are the dog that caught the car. If you are someone that truly believes Abortion is Murder then why on earth would you be okay with it being up to each individual state? When the GOP takes back both houses and the presidency that part of the base is likely to demand that they outlaw abortion nationwide, and sure that's not an extremely large % of the nationwide population you can't just ignore those people as GOP politicians because they are dedicated, well funded, and a powerful portion of the GOP base. So I'm curious to see what happens next.

It is a State issue. The work must be done State to State. Only thing Federal is no Federal $$ going to any State "services" for child murder. No international payments for child murder abroad. No military child murders, stuff like that. Most of those things have always been done with a wink and a nod to date despite the regulations against them. Time to make sure that only a state pays for it/supports it if that is the case within their voters. Then work in those States with women in crisis one by one just like what helped turn the tide and continue to expose corporate Planned Murder for what it is.

And tell the truth. Right now, today, the Left is openly fundraising by outright lying to people that abortion has been suddenly outlawed everywhere. Unfortunately that is simply not true. Yes it has been allowed to be limited by the Dobbs decision, as there was NEVER a constitutional Federal "right" to murder your child willfully., But each State now has to take the issue up and see where they are and where their voters want to go. Some have already done so. In the end, about half will place either severe limits or a few an outright ban within their borders.

The issues will come from all the public and corporate posturing about paying for travel to states where child murder remains a possibility. Interstate Commerce, federal child Murder regulations, comity, reciprocation et cetera will come into play. Bottom line would seem to be: if you want the option to murder your child, move to a State that allows it BEFORE you have sex. If you become pregnant after and try to cross a State border for purposes of obtaining a child murder then you and anyone (or any company) who assists you is guilty of a Federal Crime. Corporations will have to re-think this. They're gonna have to put their "woke" back in the box where it has always belonged or it will eventually cost them bigtime, and most corporations don't like to lose big money.

Why? Because all States have reciprocation laws in order to do business. If child murder is a crime in the State where the person is traveling from, then by law others will be forced to uphold that for non-state residents, and anyone helping them will be guilty of a federal Felony, and need to be extradited back to the residential State. This can and by right s should get that ugly. Why? To expose the lie for what it is: Child Murder is child murder no matter how small. Everyone who read Dr. Seuss knows this already.

Eventually, a Great resettling of the country based primarily on ideology may well occur to the point of being able to divide. I'll take Alberta, Canada with us, as they have oil, like IC engines, are generally conservative, have two great hockey teams, and want to get away from paying for all of Canada as it is.

So I'm pretty certain it would take a massive law change to make abortion considered "federal child murder" and yes I am certain some states are going to make traveling to another state to get an abortion illegal and try to make it illegal to help a person do that, but those won't be federal crimes in any way unless federal laws are changed and we'll see if those state laws hold up when they are challenged (I suspect with this ideological Supreme Court they will find a justification to allow 1 state to essentially dictate law to another).

I'm going to share some posts from elsewhere on this topic since they deal with this. But I will say that transporting a child across State lines for purposes of obtaining a Murder of that child is Already a Federal Crime, as is conspiring with, and aiding and/or abetting that crime. No new laws need be passed. The way interstates deal with interstate crime already sets this up. Just takes one to pursue it, and I'm pretty sure some will.

(06-24-2022 01:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 01:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  This is going to be a major issue and a challenge for the Federal government.

Their options are to pass a Federal law which most people can get behind. My guess is that this will be something like a ban (excepting the life of the mother) after some period that is shorter than 24 weeks. Probably more like 16. It may take a Constitutional amendment.... which if the left is correct that such a right already exists, then it should be easy to pass SOMETHING.

Whatever the Federal legislature passes cant stand. I cannot think of a single reason or rationale that allows Federal legislation into abortion timing, banning, or permission issues.

Quote:Or to prepare for 'interstate war' (of some sort)

I can EASILY see this devolving into a much larger issue, especially with California already putting HIPAA at issue and healthcare as an issue of (in this case, interstate) commerce. The ramifications of a state failing to cooperate in a legal investigation in another state is potentially a HUGE issue. In the simplest example, Texas could refuse to extradite a parent seeking custody or a state bank levy or any of a number of other issues in response/retaliation. The entire concept of a 'sanctuary' throws 'The United States' out the window.

The comity clause kills such legislation.

It was the comity clause that killed gay marriage being illegal.

In short, each of the states is *required* to observe legal findings and such of other states. In the gay marriage issue, once one state allowed gay marriage, every other state was forced to recognize that marriage from another state.

The case that was the endpoint was centered around a Federal bill that suspended the comity clause for the purposes of gay marriage. SCOTUS found that law unconstitutional for two reasons: a) a federal bill cannot usurp the comity clause; and b) the bill was violative of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

The real danger is if the progressives go full bore 'expansive'.

I had heard some people put out that Biden should 'deputize' abortion providers through the Executive branch --- giving them Federal immunity from state prosecution and torts.

Another is to use the Interior Department to help abortion providers move onto reservation lands.

Of course, the downside occurs when a conservative administration does the same thing for its pet projects to get them out of progressive policies harms way.

I would not be surprised if a progressive administration did this. Progressives have this amazing ability to move the bars of exercising power to achieve their ends (think using the filibuster to kill off judicial appointments, then nixing the filibuster when their candidates are at risk, Obama unilaterally putting DACA into play with no statutory authorization, etc, etc.)

But progressives also dont seem to think about the 2nd order effects of their power moves, and vent like holy hell when the opposition gets into that boat with them on their move.

(06-24-2022 02:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 01:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 01:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  This is going to be a major issue and a challenge for the Federal government.
It may take a Constitutional amendment.... which if the left is correct that such a right already exists, then it should be easy to pass SOMETHING.

Whatever the Federal legislature passes cant stand. I cannot think of a single reason or rationale that allows Federal legislation into abortion timing, banning, or permission issues.

So an amendment

Quote:Or to prepare for 'interstate war' (of some sort)

The comity clause kills such legislation.

It was the comity clause that killed gay marriage being illegal.

In short, each of the states is *required* to observe legal findings and such of other states. In the gay marriage issue, once one state allowed gay marriage, every other state was forced to recognize that marriage from another state.

The case that was the endpoint was centered around a Federal bill that suspended the comity clause for the purposes of gay marriage. SCOTUS found that law unconstitutional for two reasons: a) a federal bill cannot usurp the comity clause; and b) the bill was violative of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

The real danger is if the progressives go full bore 'expansive'.

I had heard some people put out that Biden should 'deputize' abortion providers through the Executive branch --- giving them Federal immunity from state prosecution and torts.

Another is to use the Interior Department to help abortion providers move onto reservation lands.

Of course, the downside occurs when a conservative administration does the same thing for its pet projects to get them out of progressive policies harms way.

I would not be surprised if a progressive administration did this. Progressives have this amazing ability to move the bars of exercising power to achieve their ends (think using the filibuster to kill off judicial appointments, then nixing the filibuster when their candidates are at risk, Obama unilaterally putting DACA into play with no statutory authorization, etc, etc.)

But progressives also don't seem to think about the 2nd order effects of their power moves, and vent like holy hell when the opposition gets into that boat with them on their move.

Hence a 'war' of some sort
[/quote]

The above reposts should get you started in understanding how complicated this can become.

(06-26-2022 05:35 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 05:26 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 04:53 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 04:32 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 04:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/w...ar-AAYPQUi
In case Turley's article hasn't been posted:

"...While a strong majority support Roe v. Wade, they also support limitations on abortion. Polls also show that 65% of Americans would make most abortions illegal in the second trimester, and 80% would make most abortions illegal in the third trimester. (The United States is one of only 12 among the world’s 198 countries that allow abortions for any reason after 20 weeks.)..."

That's not what anyone dancing over this decision supports though. It's going to be interesting what the GOP does now, because they are the dog that caught the car. If you are someone that truly believes Abortion is Murder then why on earth would you be okay with it being up to each individual state? When the GOP takes back both houses and the presidency that part of the base is likely to demand that they outlaw abortion nationwide, and sure that's not an extremely large % of the nationwide population you can't just ignore those people as GOP politicians because they are dedicated, well funded, and a powerful portion of the GOP base. So I'm curious to see what happens next.

It is a State issue. The work must be done State to State. Only thing Federal is no Federal $$ going to any State "services" for child murder. No international payments for child murder abroad. No military child murders, stuff like that. Most of those things have always been done with a wink and a nod to date despite the regulations against them. Time to make sure that only a state pays for it/supports it if that is the case within their voters. Then work in those States with women in crisis one by one just like what helped turn the tide and continue to expose corporate Planned Murder for what it is.

And tell the truth. Right now, today, the Left is openly fundraising by outright lying to people that abortion has been suddenly outlawed everywhere. Unfortunately that is simply not true. Yes it has been allowed to be limited by the Dobbs decision, as there was NEVER a constitutional Federal "right" to murder your child willfully., But each State now has to take the issue up and see where they are and where their voters want to go. Some have already done so. In the end, about half will place either severe limits or a few an outright ban within their borders.

The issues will come from all the public and corporate posturing about paying for travel to states where child murder remains a possibility. Interstate Commerce, federal child Murder regulations, comity, reciprocation et cetera will come into play. Bottom line would seem to be: if you want the option to murder your child, move to a State that allows it BEFORE you have sex. If you become pregnant after and try to cross a State border for purposes of obtaining a child murder then you and anyone (or any company) who assists you is guilty of a Federal Crime. Corporations will have to re-think this. They're gonna have to put their "woke" back in the box where it has always belonged or it will eventually cost them bigtime, and most corporations don't like to lose big money.

Why? Because all States have reciprocation laws in order to do business. If child murder is a crime in the State where the person is traveling from, then by law others will be forced to uphold that for non-state residents, and anyone helping them will be guilty of a federal Felony, and need to be extradited back to the residential State. This can and by right s should get that ugly. Why? To expose the lie for what it is: Child Murder is child murder no matter how small. Everyone who read Dr. Seuss knows this already.

Eventually, a Great resettling of the country based primarily on ideology may well occur to the point of being able to divide. I'll take Alberta, Canada with us, as they have oil, like IC engines, are generally conservative, have two great hockey teams, and want to get away from paying for all of Canada as it is.

So I'm pretty certain it would take a massive law change to make abortion considered "federal child murder" and yes I am certain some states are going to make traveling to another state to get an abortion illegal and try to make it illegal to help a person do that, but those won't be federal crimes in any way unless federal laws are changed and we'll see if those state laws hold up when they are challenged (I suspect with this ideological Supreme Court they will find a justification to allow 1 state to essentially dictate law to another).

I'm going to share some posts from elsewhere on this topic since they deal with this. But I will say that transporting a child across State lines for purposes of obtaining a Murder of that child is Already a Federal Crime, as is conspiring with, and aiding and/or abetting that crime. No new laws need be passed. The way interstates deal with interstate crime already sets this up. Just takes one to pursue it, and I'm pretty sure some will.

(06-24-2022 01:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 01:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  This is going to be a major issue and a challenge for the Federal government.

Their options are to pass a Federal law which most people can get behind. My guess is that this will be something like a ban (excepting the life of the mother) after some period that is shorter than 24 weeks. Probably more like 16. It may take a Constitutional amendment.... which if the left is correct that such a right already exists, then it should be easy to pass SOMETHING.

Whatever the Federal legislature passes cant stand. I cannot think of a single reason or rationale that allows Federal legislation into abortion timing, banning, or permission issues.

Quote:Or to prepare for 'interstate war' (of some sort)

I can EASILY see this devolving into a much larger issue, especially with California already putting HIPAA at issue and healthcare as an issue of (in this case, interstate) commerce. The ramifications of a state failing to cooperate in a legal investigation in another state is potentially a HUGE issue. In the simplest example, Texas could refuse to extradite a parent seeking custody or a state bank levy or any of a number of other issues in response/retaliation. The entire concept of a 'sanctuary' throws 'The United States' out the window.

The comity clause kills such legislation.

It was the comity clause that killed gay marriage being illegal.

In short, each of the states is *required* to observe legal findings and such of other states. In the gay marriage issue, once one state allowed gay marriage, every other state was forced to recognize that marriage from another state.

The case that was the endpoint was centered around a Federal bill that suspended the comity clause for the purposes of gay marriage. SCOTUS found that law unconstitutional for two reasons: a) a federal bill cannot usurp the comity clause; and b) the bill was violative of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

The real danger is if the progressives go full bore 'expansive'.

I had heard some people put out that Biden should 'deputize' abortion providers through the Executive branch --- giving them Federal immunity from state prosecution and torts.

Another is to use the Interior Department to help abortion providers move onto reservation lands.

Of course, the downside occurs when a conservative administration does the same thing for its pet projects to get them out of progressive policies harms way.

I would not be surprised if a progressive administration did this. Progressives have this amazing ability to move the bars of exercising power to achieve their ends (think using the filibuster to kill off judicial appointments, then nixing the filibuster when their candidates are at risk, Obama unilaterally putting DACA into play with no statutory authorization, etc, etc.)

But progressives also dont seem to think about the 2nd order effects of their power moves, and vent like holy hell when the opposition gets into that boat with them on their move.

(06-24-2022 02:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 01:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 01:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  This is going to be a major issue and a challenge for the Federal government.
It may take a Constitutional amendment.... which if the left is correct that such a right already exists, then it should be easy to pass SOMETHING.

Whatever the Federal legislature passes cant stand. I cannot think of a single reason or rationale that allows Federal legislation into abortion timing, banning, or permission issues.

So an amendment

Quote:Or to prepare for 'interstate war' (of some sort)

The comity clause kills such legislation.

It was the comity clause that killed gay marriage being illegal.

In short, each of the states is *required* to observe legal findings and such of other states. In the gay marriage issue, once one state allowed gay marriage, every other state was forced to recognize that marriage from another state.

The case that was the endpoint was centered around a Federal bill that suspended the comity clause for the purposes of gay marriage. SCOTUS found that law unconstitutional for two reasons: a) a federal bill cannot usurp the comity clause; and b) the bill was violative of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

The real danger is if the progressives go full bore 'expansive'.

I had heard some people put out that Biden should 'deputize' abortion providers through the Executive branch --- giving them Federal immunity from state prosecution and torts.

Another is to use the Interior Department to help abortion providers move onto reservation lands.

Of course, the downside occurs when a conservative administration does the same thing for its pet projects to get them out of progressive policies harms way.

I would not be surprised if a progressive administration did this. Progressives have this amazing ability to move the bars of exercising power to achieve their ends (think using the filibuster to kill off judicial appointments, then nixing the filibuster when their candidates are at risk, Obama unilaterally putting DACA into play with no statutory authorization, etc, etc.)

But progressives also don't seem to think about the 2nd order effects of their power moves, and vent like holy hell when the opposition gets into that boat with them on their move.

Hence a 'war' of some sort

The above reposts should get you started in understanding how complicated this can become.
[/quote]

Kavanaugh disagrees with you

"Second, as I see it, some of the other abortion-related legal questions raised by today’s decision are not especially
difficult as a constitutional matter. For example, may a
State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another
State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no
based on the constitutional right to interstate travel. May
a State retroactively impose liability or punishment for an
abortion that occurred before today’s decision takes effect?
In my view, the answer is no based on the Due Process
Clause or the Ex Post Facto Clause. Cf. Bouie v. City of
Columbia, 378 U. S. 347 (1964).
Other abortion-related legal questions may emerge in the

Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 11
KAVANAUGH, J., concurring
future. But this Court will no longer decide the fundamental question of whether abortion must be allowed throughout the United States through 6 weeks, or 12 weeks, or 15
weeks, or 24 weeks, or some other line. The Court will no
longer decide how to evaluate the interests of the pregnant
woman and the interests in protecting fetal life throughout
pregnancy. Instead, those difficult moral and policy questions will be decided, as the Constitution dictates, by the
people and their elected representatives through the constitutional processes of democratic self-government."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/19-1392.pdf

I also like how Thomas cites himself almost exclusively.

Lol

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

(06-26-2022 05:44 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 05:35 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  The above reposts should get you started in understanding how complicated this can become.

Kavanaugh disagrees with you

"Second, as I see it, some of the other abortion-related legal questions raised by today’s decision are not especially
difficult as a constitutional matter. For example, may a
State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another
State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no
based on the constitutional right to interstate travel. May
a State retroactively impose liability or punishment for an
abortion that occurred before today’s decision takes effect?
In my view, the answer is no based on the Due Process
Clause or the Ex Post Facto Clause. Cf. Bouie v. City of
Columbia, 378 U. S. 347 (1964).
Other abortion-related legal questions may emerge in the �

Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 11
KAVANAUGH, J., concurring
future. But this Court will no longer decide the fundamental question of whether abortion must be allowed throughout the United States through 6 weeks, or 12 weeks, or 15
weeks, or 24 weeks, or some other line. The Court will no
longer decide how to evaluate the interests of the pregnant
woman and the interests in protecting fetal life throughout
pregnancy. Instead, those difficult moral and policy questions will be decided, as the Constitution dictates, by the
people and their elected representatives through the constitutional processes of democratic self-government."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/19-1392.pdf

This will be litigated, because this will happen and some will push it through the courts. Now "In my view" is clearly not the same thing as saying "No, never." And it always rests on the circumstances in the case. I think that is why this Justice was careful enough to say that it was his view. Other Justices may well differ, it will depend on the cases presented for review. And I agree with Justice Kavanaugh that people do have the right to Interstate Travel, but even the UCCJEA distinguishes from the mere right to Interstate Travel and doing so for nefarious purposes. Although, to be fair, Justice Scalia famously pointed out that is sometimes ignored. Murder and a day at then beach are two relatively different enough things that it will at the least need to be specifically clarified by the courts through litigation. Even if Federal legislation to this end is passed I'd expect it to be tested in the courts to at least some level.

I do think anyone using Justice Kavanaugh's view you quoted above in his statement to justify why they should be found not guilty for murder when traveling interstate would at least have some 'splainin' to do. Murder is Murder. Crossing a State line is crossing a State line. Combine the two and it's not gonna be a day at the beach.

I can’t believe some of the things I’ve read in this thread. It’s one thing to debate views of the Left or the Right, the debate in this thread is crazy.

The decision does nothing but send the responsibility of abortion legality back to the states. I can’t tell if the comments about having to leave the country for an abortion are sincere or if it’s just trolling.
If your state has laws making abortion legal, nothing has changed.

In states with trigger laws the decision automatically made abortion illegal in some states and further regulated it in others. If you live in one of those states, you have two choices: travel to a state where the procedure is still legal or work to take control of the state legislature in your state to change abortion laws.

As a Christian living in Kentucky I’m glad it was made illegal. Now if we could just get rid of the death penalty, I would be even happier.

My opinion: you can’t be Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty. Differ sides of the same coin.

(06-26-2022 06:14 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I can’t believe some of the things I’ve read in this thread. It’s one thing to debate views of the Left or the Right, the debate in this thread is crazy.

The decision does nothing but send the responsibility of abortion legality back to the states. I can’t tell if the comments about having to leave the country for an abortion are sincere or if it’s just trolling.
If your state has laws making abortion legal, nothing has changed.

In states with trigger laws the decision automatically made abortion illegal in some states and further regulated it in others. If you live in one of those states, you have two choices: travel to a state where the procedure is still legal or work to take control of the state legislature in your state to change abortion laws.

As a Christian living in Kentucky I’m glad it was made illegal. Now if we could just get rid of the death penalty, I would be even happier.

My opinion: you can’t be Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty. Differ sides of the same coin.

Jim, I understand where you're coming from, but in the end there may well be a situation where you not only have to travel to another state where child murder is still legal, you may have to establish legal residency in that state. Then, similar to UCCJEA transport, you will probably be held to some standard of actually desiring to reside in that state and not solely for purposes of obtaining a child murder. And ye, it will be classified as murder in some states, which makes it a State crime in that State and a federal crime once crossing State lines. I'm sure the wheels are already turning on how to handle this, but it might not be as simple as some are making it out to be.

The "Good News:" we have turned the conversation a bit where personal responsibility is at the very least being openly discussed somewhat more than before the ruling, and hopefully promiscuity to the levels the Left has promoted will be somewhat mitigated, at least in some places.

Again, let the crazy leftists all move to California then let the Big One take 'em out. We are a conservative nation by and large , and even more so without them. It'd be worth it to watch them fail and laugh from afar. replace Kalifornia with Alberta and get that keystone Pipeline running and get those oil rigs pumpin'. Go Flames and Oilers, eh?

(06-26-2022 06:14 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I can’t believe some of the things I’ve read in this thread. It’s one thing to debate views of the Left or the Right, the debate in this thread is crazy.

The decision does nothing but send the responsibility of abortion legality back to the states. I can’t tell if the comments about having to leave the country for an abortion are sincere or if it’s just trolling.
If your state has laws making abortion legal, nothing has changed.

In states with trigger laws the decision automatically made abortion illegal in some states and further regulated it in others. If you live in one of those states, you have two choices: travel to a state where the procedure is still legal or work to take control of the state legislature in your state to change abortion laws.

As a Christian living in Kentucky I’m glad it was made illegal. Now if we could just get rid of the death penalty, I would be even happier.

My opinion: you can’t be Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty. Differ sides of the same coin.

No it isn't. The unborn are innocent. They will sin, but haven't. Murderers and rapists have judged themselves by action. There are 3 words in Hebrew which mean to kill. One is in defense of family, self, or nation. One is in execution. The third is in murder and manslaughter. The 10 commandments "Thou shalt not kill" only used the third word. Thou shalt not murder, or through willful negligence cause the death of another. Defense and execution were not in the prohibition. Stopping murderers is preserving life. Stopping rapists is preserving the sanctity of life. In order to uphold life we must first be willing to defend it. Capital punishment is not the opposite of sanctity of life, it is the upholding of it!

(06-26-2022 06:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 06:14 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I can’t believe some of the things I’ve read in this thread. It’s one thing to debate views of the Left or the Right, the debate in this thread is crazy.

The decision does nothing but send the responsibility of abortion legality back to the states. I can’t tell if the comments about having to leave the country for an abortion are sincere or if it’s just trolling.
If your state has laws making abortion legal, nothing has changed.

In states with trigger laws the decision automatically made abortion illegal in some states and further regulated it in others. If you live in one of those states, you have two choices: travel to a state where the procedure is still legal or work to take control of the state legislature in your state to change abortion laws.

As a Christian living in Kentucky I’m glad it was made illegal. Now if we could just get rid of the death penalty, I would be even happier.

My opinion: you can’t be Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty. Differ sides of the same coin.

No it isn't. The unborn are innocent. They will sin, but haven't. Murderers and rapists have judged themselves by action. There are 3 words in Hebrew which mean to kill. One is in defense of family, self, or nation. One is in execution. The third is in murder and manslaughter. The 10 commandments "Thou shalt not kill" only used the third word. Thou shalt not murder, or through willful negligence cause the death of another. Defense and execution were not in the prohibition. Stopping murderers is preserving life. Stopping rapists is preserving the sanctity of life. In order to uphold life we must first be willing to defend it. Capital punishment is not the opposite of sanctity of life, it is the upholding of it!

Exscellent explanation, JRSEC. There certainly is a difference and in the old days people knew it.

(06-26-2022 10:57 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 10:50 AM)boss man Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 10:38 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-25-2022 01:08 PM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(06-25-2022 12:36 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  Why not link a Phd in history instead of English composition

“Linda Sue Grimes
Devotee of Paramahansa Yogananda's teachings, I compose poems, songs, essays, & veggie recipes.”

Try digging a little deeper

I guess to you Carol Swain is not qualified.

First off both parties have blood on their hands…

The same Carol Swain who spoke of values in that video but is controversial for being anti gay and Muslim? Let’s see what she might have left out:

Fact: Democrats introduced and led the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Fact: it was the bloc of conservative Southern Democrats in the Senate who filibustered and voted against the act. The same democrats that thought it was okay to beat, sic dogs onto and shoot water hoses at the people protesting/advocating for those same rights

Fact: The act passed with a Democrat majority in both houses.

One final FACT, reemphasizing one of Swain's final points: the South is now overwhelmingly conservative today.

The last vestiges of pure hard core liberalism is on the Left coast, Hawaii, Illinois (Chicago), Wisconsin, Michigan, New York (NYC; rest of that state is fairly conservative), and the NE USA.

What part of “Conservative Southern Democrat” is so hard to understand? They were trying to conserve their way of life in the south. But keep deluding your self with the idea that only the party name matters.

You cannot be this obtuse.

(06-26-2022 11:34 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 11:17 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 11:00 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 10:55 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 10:40 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  Neither is “AR”, “semi” or “automatic” but that does not stop you.

Because guns are in the constitution, abortion is not.

Telll me where those words are in the Constitution? The heads exploding when the two party will swings back the other way is going to be fun.

Stop crying like a little girl for the 3rd straight day and take the loss. Abortion is not in the constitution and you know its not.

Throwing a perpetual temper tantrum just makes you look weak and pathetic.

No no. Im enjoying watching the baby killers suffer

More crying.

(06-26-2022 06:02 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 05:44 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 05:35 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  The above reposts should get you started in understanding how complicated this can become.

Kavanaugh disagrees with you

"Second, as I see it, some of the other abortion-related legal questions raised by today’s decision are not especially
difficult as a constitutional matter. For example, may a
State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another
State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no
based on the constitutional right to interstate travel. May
a State retroactively impose liability or punishment for an
abortion that occurred before today’s decision takes effect?
In my view, the answer is no based on the Due Process
Clause or the Ex Post Facto Clause. Cf. Bouie v. City of
Columbia, 378 U. S. 347 (1964).
Other abortion-related legal questions may emerge in the �

Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 11
KAVANAUGH, J., concurring
future. But this Court will no longer decide the fundamental question of whether abortion must be allowed throughout the United States through 6 weeks, or 12 weeks, or 15
weeks, or 24 weeks, or some other line. The Court will no
longer decide how to evaluate the interests of the pregnant
woman and the interests in protecting fetal life throughout
pregnancy. Instead, those difficult moral and policy questions will be decided, as the Constitution dictates, by the
people and their elected representatives through the constitutional processes of democratic self-government."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/19-1392.pdf

This will be litigated, because this will happen and some will push it through the courts. Now "In my view" is clearly not the same thing as saying "No, never." And it always rests on the circumstances in the case. I think that is why this Justice was careful enough to say that it was his view. Other Justices may well differ, it will depend on the cases presented for review. And I agree with Justice Kavanaugh that people do have the right to Interstate Travel, but even the UCCJEA distinguishes from the mere right to Interstate Travel and doing so for nefarious purposes. Although, to be fair, Justice Scalia famously pointed out that is sometimes ignored. Murder and a day at then beach are two relatively different enough things that it will at the least need to be specifically clarified by the courts through litigation. Even if Federal legislation to this end is passed I'd expect it to be tested in the courts to at least some level.

I do think anyone using Justice Kavanaugh's view you quoted above in his statement to justify why they should be found not guilty for murder when traveling interstate would at least have some 'splainin' to do. Murder is Murder. Crossing a State line is crossing a State line. Combine the two and it's not gonna be a day at the beach.

It may not be a day at the beach (unless the state they travel to has a coastline), but it won't be a crime under current law. Obviously the state with the abortion clinic permits the termination of pregnancies, so no crime there so long as the laws on gestational limits, etc. are followed. And no federal crime is involved. Crossing a state line is a currently recognized Constitutional right, and murder is the intentional killing of a person. A fetus is not a person under federal law, and thus cannot be "murdered" under the regular statute. A person under federal law must be born alive -

"1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

(a)In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b)As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
©Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)"

In 2004 W Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which does make it a federal crime to injure or kill a fetus during the commission of a violent federal crime. But that doesn't apply to your scenario, as it specifically excludes any abortion or other medical care that the mother has consented to -

"10 U.S. Code § 919a - Art. 119a. Death or injury of an unborn child

(a)
(1)Any person subject to this chapter who engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section and shall, upon conviction, be punished by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct, which shall be consistent with the punishments prescribed by the President for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother.
(2)An offense under this section does not require proof that—
(i)the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
(ii)the accused intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.
(3)If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall, instead of being punished under paragraph (1), be punished as provided under sections 880, 918, and 919(a) of this title (articles 80, 118, and 119(a)) for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
(4)Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.
(b)The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are sections 918, 919(a), 919(b)(2), 920(a), 922, 926, 928, and 928a of this title (articles 118, 119(a), 119(b)(2), 120(a), 122, 126, 128, and 128a).
©Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1)of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2)of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3)of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
(d)In this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.
(Added Pub. L. 108–212, § 3(a), Apr. 1, 2004, 118 Stat. 569; amended Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LX, § 5401(13)(B), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2939; Pub. L. 115–91, div. A, title X, § 1081©(1)(N), Dec. 12, 2017, 131 Stat. 1598.)"

There was a time the kind of threats libtards are making toward the SCOTUS Justices would land them in jail for a long time, now it's like meh. I think states need to put laws on the books than ban protests from residential neighborhoods with 1 year prison term minimum for those who violate.

(06-26-2022 07:14 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  There was a time the kind of threats libtards are making toward the SCOTUS Justices would land them in jail for a long time, now it's like meh. I think states need to put laws on the books than ban protests from residential neighborhoods with 1 year prison term minimum for those who violate.

Who needs the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

(06-26-2022 05:54 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I also like how Thomas cites himself almost exclusively.

Yes, it’s awesome to have such a great SCJ like Thomas. Someone with integrity something the left sorely lacks. And, Who better to cite Sotomayor? Plz

(06-26-2022 06:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 06:14 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I can’t believe some of the things I’ve read in this thread. It’s one thing to debate views of the Left or the Right, the debate in this thread is crazy.

The decision does nothing but send the responsibility of abortion legality back to the states. I can’t tell if the comments about having to leave the country for an abortion are sincere or if it’s just trolling.
If your state has laws making abortion legal, nothing has changed.

In states with trigger laws the decision automatically made abortion illegal in some states and further regulated it in others. If you live in one of those states, you have two choices: travel to a state where the procedure is still legal or work to take control of the state legislature in your state to change abortion laws.

As a Christian living in Kentucky I’m glad it was made illegal. Now if we could just get rid of the death penalty, I would be even happier.

My opinion: you can’t be Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty. Differ sides of the same coin.

No it isn't. The unborn are innocent. They will sin, but haven't. Murderers and rapists have judged themselves by action. There are 3 words in Hebrew which mean to kill. One is in defense of family, self, or nation. One is in execution. The third is in murder and manslaughter. The 10 commandments "Thou shalt not kill" only used the third word. Thou shalt not murder, or through willful negligence cause the death of another. Defense and execution were not in the prohibition. Stopping murderers is preserving life. Stopping rapists is preserving the sanctity of life. In order to uphold life we must first be willing to defend it. Capital punishment is not the opposite of sanctity of life, it is the upholding of it!

JR, I agree with Jim about the death penalty. I don’t believe Government should execute it’s citizens. That being said I have no problem with labor camps and prison self sufficiency and if inmates don’t work they don’t eat. I do not like the idea of using tax dollars in effect punishing law abiding citizens to fund inmates. Remember Cain was not executed by ostracized.

Now comparing the number of death penalty executions to the number of abortions annually is ludicrous.

But, if it’s life and death to defend yourself desperate times call for desperate measures and you have every right to defend yourself even if it means having to kill someone. Hopefully no one will ever be put in this situation.

Vengeance is mine says our Father.

(06-26-2022 08:23 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 07:14 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  There was a time the kind of threats libtards are making toward the SCOTUS Justices would land them in jail for a long time, now it's like meh. I think states need to put laws on the books than ban protests from residential neighborhoods with 1 year prison term minimum for those who violate.

Who needs the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There are very specific federal laws that prohibit trying to intimidate or stalking justices, particular at their private residence.

The first amendment does not protect people who engage in stalking and intimidating justices at their homes.

(06-26-2022 09:55 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 06:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 06:14 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I can’t believe some of the things I’ve read in this thread. It’s one thing to debate views of the Left or the Right, the debate in this thread is crazy.

The decision does nothing but send the responsibility of abortion legality back to the states. I can’t tell if the comments about having to leave the country for an abortion are sincere or if it’s just trolling.
If your state has laws making abortion legal, nothing has changed.

In states with trigger laws the decision automatically made abortion illegal in some states and further regulated it in others. If you live in one of those states, you have two choices: travel to a state where the procedure is still legal or work to take control of the state legislature in your state to change abortion laws.

As a Christian living in Kentucky I’m glad it was made illegal. Now if we could just get rid of the death penalty, I would be even happier.

My opinion: you can’t be Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty. Differ sides of the same coin.

No it isn't. The unborn are innocent. They will sin, but haven't. Murderers and rapists have judged themselves by action. There are 3 words in Hebrew which mean to kill. One is in defense of family, self, or nation. One is in execution. The third is in murder and manslaughter. The 10 commandments "Thou shalt not kill" only used the third word. Thou shalt not murder, or through willful negligence cause the death of another. Defense and execution were not in the prohibition. Stopping murderers is preserving life. Stopping rapists is preserving the sanctity of life. In order to uphold life we must first be willing to defend it. Capital punishment is not the opposite of sanctity of life, it is the upholding of it!

JR, I agree with Jim about the death penalty. I don’t believe Government should execute it’s citizens. That being said I have no problem with labor camps and prison self sufficiency and if inmates don’t work they don’t eat. I do not like the idea of using tax dollars in effect punishing law abiding citizens to fund inmates. Remember Cain was not executed by ostracized.

Now comparing the number of death penalty executions to the number of abortions annually is ludicrous.

But, if it’s life and death to defend yourself desperate times call for desperate measures and you have every right to defend yourself even if it means having to kill someone. Hopefully no one will ever be put in this situation.

Vengeance is mine says our Father.

I would have to side with JR on this. There are some cases where the death penalty should be avaible, the death penalty was certainly a thing under the OT law.

I don't think we can suggest its ungodly if it was a part of God's law in the OT.

I don't think it should be used very often, but premeditated mass murder? Yeah, it should be at least an option. A rare one to be sure, but at least an option.