Agnostic.com

5 11

You should really pay attention to the ramifications to the abortion decision beyond just women's rights

glennlab 10 June 24
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

You can be for both at the same time if government mandated pregnancy is for women and personal freedom is for men.

1

It was Marbury vs. Madison.

Without it, Congress would decide what laws mean.

thanks I didn't have time to look it up.

1

Redistributing.

0

How exactly is the government mandating pregnancy???

If you have to ask that question, there is no hope for you.

@glennlab
If you can’t answer the question, you have to reason to support the argument.

1

Valid point. Defending personal freedoms means even defending certain freedoms/choices that you may not personally care for, because anything less is not truly being an advocate for individual liberties then.

The Supreme Court simply did what the founding fathers created them to do. To uphold the constitution (which does not mention or imply abortion anywhere within) and push those legal decisions back on the individual states to decide.
Had the founding fathers added abortion to the constitution, the Supreme Court would have set a federal requirement for it.

Thank Trump for putting three Justices in place that are Constitutional absolutists and let the states decide their own laws for items outside of the constitution. That’s actually pretty beautiful.

@CourtJester The supreme court took the right to interrupt the constitution in Mabry, it was not a right granted them in the constitution. If you want to go down that rabbit hole, the only arms that are protected by the second amendment are muskets and cannons. The three justices that Trump appointed are religious activist, no where near constitutionalists.

@glennlab the constitution doesn’t dictate a musket, sword, knife, ball bat, rope, or a cannon. It is supply stated “the right to bear arms”. They have upheld the right “to bear arms”.
You have no argument.

@CourtJester those were the arms that existed in 1796, any other arms were not included, you have no arguement,

@CourtJester You didn't address Maybry v Adams.

@glennlab they simply stated “arms” to protect against government overreach.
So maybe the US marines should only have muskets.

@glennlab And the Supreme Court is given the right to rule on all previous decisions. I don’t know much about Maybry vs Adams and I’m sure I don’t give two shits about it. If I recall it was in the 1800’s, so it’s changeable.
Give it few years and this ruling could be changed.

@CourtJester If you don't know Maybry, you have no knowledge of the supreme count, The entire constitutions dates to 1796, so you think that is out of date and needs to be changed too.

@glennlab I work in the medical field. I’ve had hundreds of autistic people teach me amazing things. I got to watch one end his life banging his head on the wall for joy.

By all means…. Freaken Enlighten me…

@CourtJester If you slept through high school history, it is beyond me to explain anything since you pick and choose what you'd like to see. I guess your combativeness comes from your inadequate ability to grasp facts from history and just like slogans.

@glennlab I can work with you on English classes if you’d like.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:673474
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.