Abortion: wrong or just sort of wrong?

PostmodernProphet said:
your beliefs are meaningless......you can pretend its an unborn puppy for all we care, it makes it no less an unborn child.....
Click to expand...

and yet, you cannot understand how other people, with as much right to their opinion as you have to yours, might hold your beliefs meaningless as well.

fool.
 
christiefan915 said:
Comparing Three Ways of Overturning Roe v. Wade

The three ways to overturn Roe v. Wade are:

• A constitutional amendment — That requires a two-thirds majority vote in each House of Congress followed by ratification by three-fourths of the states.

• Getting the U.S. Supreme to reverse its previous decision — This is by far the hardest method of overturning Roe v. Wade, since judges are typically reluctant to reverse their own decisions or the decisions of their predecessors. Some have suggested appointing at least five solidly pro-life justices who would be willing to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. This has already shown itself to be unworkable.

• Passing a law based on Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution to limit the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court — This requires a simple majority of both Houses of Congress and the president’s signature. If the president vetoes the bill, the veto can be overridden by two thirds of each House.
Click to expand...

Or a potential fourth...

Based on genetics, we grant basic human rights protections to the unborn child.
 
isn't that mechanism contained in two of the other three choices already listed?

Oh wait....

there's a FIFTH way!

Congress could do something!

but hold on.... there's more.... let's not forget about CONGRESS!

good point.
 
christiefan915 said:
Comparing Three Ways of Overturning Roe v. Wade

The three ways to overturn Roe v. Wade are:

• A constitutional amendment — That requires a two-thirds majority vote in each House of Congress followed by ratification by three-fourths of the states.

• Getting the U.S. Supreme to reverse its previous decision — This is by far the hardest method of overturning Roe v. Wade, since judges are typically reluctant to reverse their own decisions or the decisions of their predecessors. Some have suggested appointing at least five solidly pro-life justices who would be willing to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. This has already shown itself to be unworkable.

• Passing a law based on Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution to limit the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court — This requires a simple majority of both Houses of Congress and the president’s signature. If the president vetoes the bill, the veto can be overridden by two thirds of each House.
Click to expand...

First, the GOP has not had the luxury, as Obama has had, of a 2/3 majority in both houses. Nor has the luxury existed of a simple majority of both houses with the president of said party having their support for a divided issue. Second, the naevity of believing that a president might limit SCOTUS in its authority over such a divided issue is ridiculous as a legitimate idea. If such were the case there would be chaos abounding with settled law(s).

The only legitimate solution is overturning, and or, limiting abortion by way of the same route used to write the law in the first place and I think you know that. Making your assertion that congress could handily change Roe untenable and therefor a real non starter.
 
XLVIII DOMINATORS said:
First, the GOP has not had the luxury, as Obama has had, of a 2/3 majority in both houses. Nor has the luxury existed of a simple majority of both houses with the president of said party having their support for a divided issue. Second, the naevity of believing that a president might limit SCOTUS in its authority over such a divided issue is ridiculous as a legitimate idea. If such were the case there would be chaos abounding with settled law(s).

The only legitimate solution is overturning, and or, limiting abortion by way of the same route used to write the law in the first place and I think you know that. Making your assertion that congress could handily change Roe untenable and therefor a real non starter.
Click to expand...

Please show me where Obama EVER had a 2/3rd majority in the Senate. I'll wait.
 
maineman said:
isn't that mechanism contained in two of the other three choices already listed?

Oh wait....

there's a FIFTH way!

Congress could do something!

but hold on.... there's more.... let's not forget about CONGRESS!

good point.
Click to expand...

She mentioned a constitutional amendment procedure via Congress. That is not the only way Congress can act maine. Take a look at the Unborn victims of Violence Act from 2004. It acknowledged that the unborn child is human and afforded it basic human rights protections in all cases except abortion.

Did that require a constitutional amendment maine? Nope.
 
Superfreak said:
She mentioned a constitutional amendment procedure via Congress. That is not the only way Congress can act maine. Take a look at the Unborn victims of Violence Act from 2004. It acknowledged that the unborn child is human and afforded it basic human rights protections in all cases except abortion.

Did that require a constitutional amendment maine? Nope.
Click to expand...

did that outlaw abortion?

if congress passed a law outlawing abortion, do you think that SCOTUS might get involved? just curious?
 
XLVIII DOMINATORS said:
First, the GOP has not had the luxury, as Obama has had, of a 2/3 majority in both houses. Nor has the luxury existed of a simple majority of both houses with the president of said party having their support for a divided issue. Second, the naevity of believing that a president might limit SCOTUS in its authority over such a divided issue is ridiculous as a legitimate idea. If such were the case there would be chaos abounding with settled law(s).

The only legitimate solution is overturning, and or, limiting abortion by way of the same route used to write the law in the first place and I think you know that. Making your assertion that congress could handily change Roe untenable and therefor a real non starter.
Click to expand...

maineman said:
Please show me where Obama EVER had a 2/3rd majority in the Senate. I'll wait.
Click to expand...

still waiting.... oddly enough.
 
maineman said:
did that outlaw abortion?

if congress passed a law outlawing abortion, do you think that SCOTUS might get involved? just curious?
Click to expand...

No moron. Which is why I specifically stated that it provided an exception to abortion. But they can certainly extend those basic human rights protections in the same fashion. I know you enjoy the fact that a million kids are killed each year... but do try not to gloat so much over their deaths.
 
bullshit. I am not gloating. I AM glad, however, that old white males have not been successful in their attempts to tell young women what to do with what's going on in their uteruses.
 
maineman said:
bullshit. I am not gloating. I AM glad, however, that old white males have not been successful in their attempts to tell young women what to do with what's going on in their uteruses.
Click to expand...

I am glad you endorse jamming metal spikes into the heads of unborn children or ripping them apart with suction... tearing their limbs off... yeah... good on ya Maine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top