Posted on 07/07/2018 6:47:42 AM PDT by Boomer
Yeah. They had already covered that “life” thing in the Declaration of Independence. To most people it would be obvious.
First, legal life has its own timing; No one 'decides' to overturn a precedent. A case makes it's way through the system which is ripe for examination or not.
Overturning Roe will be a process, not an event. It could take ten, twenty years and several decisions to lay the groundwork..
Let’s go after sanctuary cities, and push for voter ID laws. We lose when we start messing with social issues.
RATs think immigration and sanctuary cities are social issues. Conservatives think abortion is murder. Tomi, however, believes...This isn’t a black and white issue and I would never judge anyone in that position.
No, I don't think she "understands the passion."
I think it would be a huge step forward to send it back to the states as not being one of the ‘enumerated powers’
She may now. I know I do. Those who believe life starts when the tadpole penetrates the egg are very set in their belief. Nothing is going to shake them from this. An immovable object. The other side firmly believes the woman has every right to choose what they do with their own body; including aborting a fetus and/or a baby.
When there's no possibility of compromise; there's no possibility of discussion. I predict you're right in that it would take up to 20 years before anything was changed because of the intense passion on both sides.
I think it's more likely no change at all will happen. None of the courts want to touch it. Congress wants no part of it. R v W will stand indefinitely because both side are unwilling to budge from their positions of all or nothing. Sad; because something good could happen even if it isn't what either side wants.
I agree there's a political component we ignore at our peril. That's why nominees should talk about constitutional principles and refuse to discuss Roe. They talk about Roe, we talk about constitutional principles. Until one day Roe is overturned as a natural consequence of constitutional originalism.
Allowing babies to be murdered by their mothers between conception and birth is losing not winning.
Babies have fathers too.
Fatherhood begins at the conception of each baby.
Fathers have a natural right to protect their baby daughters and sons between conception and birth.
You are advocating surrender.
Good point.
7 tyrants is not better than 5 tyrants.
Well said.
Murdering babies for five months after conception is not a compromise.
Murdering babies for five months after conception is murdering babies.
It is unacceptable.
Interesting comparison.
That’s one opinion. There are others.
There are robbers who want to steal people’s stuff.
The people, however, don’t want their stuff stolen.
You would advocate, based on proclaiming compromise a virtue in and of itself when different points of view exist, that the robbers be permitted to steal 50% of the people’s stuff.
Thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.