you have replaced with ‘advice and consent’ with ‘search and destroy.'”

[Reynolds]

He has already stated that R v W is settled precedent and he would not vote to overturn it. This is not about R v W. This is about liberty. This is about freedom. This is about civil rights. This is about stopping the dictatorship of the radical left.

He will vote to overturn it.

 

[Wingman68]

I'm not really up to speed with the ins and outs of this, but it does seem to me that American democracy is shaking itself to pieces. This is from a UK blog: ' I came across an apposite quotation from philosopher Roger Scruton: “Democracy arises when people are prepared to renounce their political desires for the sake of agreement with those who do not share them.” It does not easily fit onto a placard, yet it has a fundamental wisdom which we need to assert, and, most especially, we need to teach our young.

It was accelerated to warp speed when we elected the first black president who vowed to fundamentally change us. All the people that thought they would help erase our past trespasses by voting for him, failed to see the real reason Barack Hussein Obama was handled to achieve that position. He’s not that bright, but he is narcissistic to the point of appearing capable. They knew that image is everything to shallow minds. It worked. They created, truly, their perfect candidate who could, under the auspices of racism, get a pass on ‘his’ agenda. It was highly successful. The leftist media assured it.
True patriots were not fooled, we are the reason there is still a chance to save our country. I’m sorry that I don’t see that outcome for your country, as the socialists are still in charge, & you, as a country, seem to think it will work this time. Those who don’t learn from history are destined to repeat it. Sorry, couldn’t help myself on the cliche.

 

[HankD]

But the personhood of the child in-utero has already been established by law. If a person kills or seriously injures a pregnant woman the perpetrator can be charged with homicide if the in-utero child is killed by the attack on the pregnant woman. But for some reason that principle does not apply if the mother is the attacker or if she approves of the attacker taking the infant's life.

Yes and that needs to change.The cry is "a woman has a right over her own body". The baby is NOT her own body but another body totally dependent on her for sustaining life.

 

[Wingman68]

Yes and that needs to change.The cry is "a woman has a right over her own body". The baby is NOT her own body but another body totally dependent on her for sustaining life.

This is always ignored, but IS he most salient point of the matter.

 

[TCassidy]

He will vote to overturn it.

No, he won't. He will do what should have been done in 1973. He will rule that the federal government has no jurisdiction and refer it back to the states. And the states can do whatever the majority of the people vote to do. And if the minority of voters don't like how their state voted then can vote with their feet and move to a state that stands where they stand.

 

[Reynolds]

No, he won't. He will do what should have been done in 1973. He will rule that the federal government has no jurisdiction and refer it back to the states. And the states can do whatever the majority of the people vote to do. And if the minority of voters don't like how their state voted then can vote with their feet and move to a state that stands where they stand.

That would be overturning it. All Roe did was take it from the individual states. Overturning it would be giving it back.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

But what sort of agreement might that be? The US is a large democratic republic where the tyranny of democracy always threatens. States rights and the will of the people were always intended to oppose it. Failure to retain the strict constitutional limits placed on the central government will lead to an extremely dysfunctional system. Those pushing Brexit seem to recognize this problem.

What I'm saying is that the losing side in an election has to accept that it lost. Yes, it can and should set about trying to win the next election, but it shouldn't be trying to bring down the democratically elected government.
And with regard to this Kavenaugh business, I think folk should wait on the evidence. It's worrying to see all the democrats shouting "Guilty!" and all the Republicans shouting "Innocent!"

We have a very similar problem in Britain. We had a referendum at which the majority voted to leave the E.U. But some of the losing side have been relentlessly undermining the vote and are demanding a second one. The E.U. negotiators have taken note of that and have realised that the more difficult they make it for us to leave, the better their chances that we won't leave at all. So the whole business is ending up as a complete dog's breakfast due to people subverting the revealed will of the people.

 

[TCassidy]

That would be overturning it.

No. It would be referring it back to the state courts. SCOTUS does that all the time.

All Roe did was take it from the individual states.

No, R v W overturned the state laws and declared them to be unconstitutional based on the so-called "right to privacy."

 

[Reynolds]

No. It would be referring it back to the state courts. SCOTUS does that all the time.

No, R v W overturned the state laws and declared them to be unconstitutional based on the so-called "right to privacy."

So, overturning Roe would send it back to the states.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

But the personhood of the child in-utero has already been established by law. If a person kills or seriously injures a pregnant woman the perpetrator can be charged with homicide if the in-utero child is killed by the attack on the pregnant woman. But for some reason that principle does not apply if the mother is the attacker or if she approves of the attacker taking the infant's life.

The wrinkle in this is the introduction in some states of other abortion exceptions, e.g., in cases of rape and incest, and when the mother’s life is endangered.

 

[Reynolds]

The wrinkle in this is the introduction in some states of other abortion exceptions, e.g., in cases of rape and incest, and when the mother’s life is endangered.

So, rape and incest for some strange reason make murdering an innocent person OK?
Life of the mother is a non issue. In that instance, it is a life saving medical procedure, not an elective issue. I once heard one Doctor say that in his history of delivering tens of thousands of babies, he never encountered a case where the baby could be saved by allowing the mother to die.

 

[TCassidy]

So, rape and incest for some strange reason make murdering an innocent person OK?

I have never understood how pro-abortion people can think that murdering a victim of rape or incest is "justice."

Life of the mother is a non issue. In that instance, it is a life saving medical procedure, not an elective issue.

I agree.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

What I'm saying is that the losing side in an election has to accept that it lost. Yes, it can and should set about trying to win the next election, but it shouldn't be trying to bring down the democratically elected government.
And with regard to this Kavenaugh business, I think folk should wait on the evidence. It's worrying to see all the democrats shouting "Guilty!" and all the Republicans shouting "Innocent!"

I get you on that, but you are missing the point. You state the MSM version for the gullible. The Republicans are crying, “Foul!” Kavanaugh and Graham are exactly right, and others agreed more mildly. Though they could have done so long ago, the Democrats did not launch any investigation nor participate in one, and the accuser has never called for a police investigation. Instead, after all their other foul efforts failed, they orchestrated this bizarre situation with zero substantiating evidence. They were never interested in fairness, rightness, or truth, but only in power for themselves. That you imagine otherwise just means their masterly manipulative messages work.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

So, rape and incest for some strange reason make murdering an innocent person OK?
Life of the mother is a non issue. In that instance, it is a life saving medical procedure, not an elective issue. I once heard one Doctor say that in his history of delivering tens of thousands of babies, he never encountered a case where the baby could be saved by allowing the mother to die.

OK, before my words get totally twisted, let me make it absolutely clear that I pointed out how the creep occurs. I did not advocate for any exceptions anywhere, including on this site.

But because exceptions were introduced in some states, the door was opened for more. The more happened in a few states. All the while, the media were making the argument in print and over the air, often fictionalizing and sensationalizing.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I have never understood how pro-abortion people can think that murdering a victim of rape or incest is "justice.".

Once it goes back to the states, if it goes back to the states, these points will have to be argued state by state. But we will need to be aware of the issues, and seek to understand how people think. From what I have heard regarding this, seeing is understanding. A mother seeking abortion being shown her baby in the womb via ultrasound will very often have a change of heart. The statistic is something like four out of five times.