Supreme Court Is 'Lawless'

[Wandering Monk]

Court packing frequently doesn't work the way the the appointing presidents hoped it would.

We all have to learn to be patient and work for our ideals, but if we start flaying our institutions because we don't like the way things currently are, I guarantee that things will get much worse, more violent. We either learn to live peaceably together or we destroy our democracy. That never ends well.

 

[Kenny]

That doesn't make any sense. How can it not be her body? Who's else is it? Who's else should it be?

Well.... they have different brain wave lengths, different blood types, different finger prints and, as a matter of fact (medically) everything is separate and distinct. The only thing that connects the two is an umbilical cord where the baby is fed and and the waste products are sent back to the mother.

Medically speaking, it isn't the same body nor the same person.

I said Reps and Cons, and in Republicans and Conservatives. And how they built up a fallacy to campaign on something that doesn't exist.

Yes... anything can be made political but that doesn't mean the Supreme Court is political.

It is banned by the time tons of women find out their pregnant. And they are banned after six weeks. Same with treatment vs procedure.
I don't play this semantics crap.

That is definitely a misuse of terms - a play with semantics so to speak

Cars can not be driven by anyone under the age of 15. Cars are not banned nor is driving banned, it is just limited to a certain time.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Cars can not be driven by anyone under the age of 15. Cars are not banned nor is driving banned, it is just limited to a certain time.

Driving is banned for minors and those without a license. Minors are prohibited, forbidden, and banned from driving cars on public roads.

Well.... they have different brain wave lengths, different blood types, different finger prints and, as a matter of fact (medically) everything is separate and distinct. The only thing that connects the two is an umbilical cord where the baby is fed and and the waste products are sent back to the mother.

It's the mother's bodily autonomy that is being denied when she can't get an abortion, especially for things like rape, difficult pregnancy, or if the child will have defects beyond the mother's ability to care for.
The fetus growing in her doesn't even have a sense of self, it doesn't even have a heart at six weeks.

Yes... anything can be made political but that doesn't mean the Supreme Court is political.

Except with this they fast tracked something that isn't based on evidence or facts amd going through the normal process.
That seems rather politically motivated.

 

[Kenny]

Driving is banned for minors and those without a license. Minors are prohibited, forbidden, and banned from driving cars on public roads.

that is a play on words, IMO, and you are making apples out of oranges. Driving is limited not banned. Abortions are limited, not banned.

It's the mother's bodily autonomy that is being denied when she can't get an abortion, especially for things like rape, difficult pregnancy, or if the child will have defects beyond the mother's ability to care for.
The fetus growing in her doesn't even have a sense of self, it doesn't even have a heart at six weeks.

1) Your opinion doesn't change the medical differences that I support. We go by science and your viewpoint actually didn't factually counter my position
2) And just how do you know when a baby has a sense of self?

Except with this they fast tracked something that isn't based on evidence or facts amd going through the normal process.
That seems rather politically motivated.

If it has reached the Supreme Court, it hasn't been fast tracked. It has gone up the ladder and the Supreme Court heard argument pro and con... they based it on evidence given.

What is sounds like is that you are trying to politicize it. IMV

 

[Kenny]

Court packing frequently doesn't work the way the the appointing presidents hoped it would.

We all have to learn to be patient and work for our ideals, but if we start flaying our institutions because we don't like the way things currently are, I guarantee that things will get much worse, more violent. We either learn to live peaceably together or we destroy our democracy. That never ends well.

great point.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

that is a play on words, IMO, and you are making apples out of oranges. Driving is limited not banned. Abortions are limited, not banned.

You're the one who brought this up, even though abortions are banned after six weeks. Saying they are "restricted" changes absolutely nothing.

1) Your opinion doesn't change the medical differences that I support. We go by science
2) And just how do you know when a baby has a sense of self?

Self-Awareness: How It Develops and Why It Matters

Studies have demonstrated that a more complex sense of the awareness of the self begins to emerge at around one year of age and becomes much more developed by approximately 18 months of age. Researchers Lewis and Brooks-Gunn performed studies looking at how self-awareness develops.2

1) Your opinion doesn't change the medical differences that I support. We go by science

You've not going by science.

If it has reached the Supreme Court, it hasn't been fast tracked. It has gone up the ladder and the Supreme Court heard argument pro and con... they based it on evidence given.

They didn't even really hear it and the majority opinion is unsigned.

 

[Kenny]

You're the one who brought this up, even though abortions are banned after six weeks. Saying they are "restricted" changes absolutely nothing.

I thought you didn't like play on words... when did you change?

Self-Awareness: How It Develops and Why It Matters

Ok... your post...

"People are not born completely self-aware. Yet research has also found that infants do have a rudimentary sense of self-awareness.:

So, according to your post, the have a rudimentary sense of self-awareness... (If that is the standard which you have supported WHY that is the standard) - It doesn't tell WHEN it starts.

You've not going by science.

au contraire - I gave you science - brain waves, finger prints, blood type et al... you haven't expressed how the baby is part of a mother's body with all these differences. Incidentally, if the mother's blood seeps into the baby and it has a difference in the Rn factor - it attacks the baby in the womb

They didn't even really hear it and the majority opinion is unsigned.

OK... must have been an open and shut case.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

au contraire - I gave you science - brain waves, finger prints, blood type et al... you haven't expressed how the baby is part of a mother's body with all these differences. Incidentally, if the mother's blood seeps into the baby and it has a difference in the Rn factor - it attacks the baby in the womb

I never claimed that baby is a part of the mother. That's more of your nonsense like trying to make a big deal out me saying abortions are banned.

OK... must have been an open and shut case.

Why not actually look into the case instead of making all these wrong assumptions?
Because they didn't take it the case will inevitably be brought back up.

So, according to your post, the have a rudimentary sense of self-awareness... (If that is the standard which you have supported WHY that is the standard) - It doesn't tell WHEN it starts.

I can't read what I provided for you.

 

[Kenny]

[
QUOTE="Shadow Wolf, post: 7335651, member: 2558"]I never claimed that baby is a part of the mother. That's more of your nonsense like trying to make a big deal out me saying abortions are banned.[/QUOTE]

Yes you did...

That doesn't make any sense. How can it not be her body? Who's else is it? Who's else should it be?

Right above.

Why not actually look into the case instead of making all these wrong assumptions?
Because they didn't take it the case will inevitably be brought back up.

Ok??? So we wait.

I can't read what I provided for you.

If you can't read what you provided... how can you us it?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Right above.

That isn't me thinking the two are the same. Try sticking with things I actually claimed and stated. That post you quoted was after you made this absurd claim that I said they are the same.

If you can't read what you provided... how can you us it?

I can't read it for you. I provided it. That's all I can do for you.

 

[Kenny]

That isn't me thinking the two are the same. Try sticking with things I actually claimed and stated. That post you quoted was after you made this absurd claim that I said they are the same.
.

Please quote where I said they are the same....

And, since you said it, it was what you claimed.

You might want to restate your claim.

My claim, they aren't the same body... two different entities. (different blood, brain-waive lengths, finger prints et al.)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Please quote where I said they are the same....

You kept trying to say I said they are. Even after I explicitly told you that you are wrong about my position.
Bearing false witness is what you are doing.