Posted on 07/07/2018 6:47:42 AM PDT by Boomer
I’m saying let our system work with our elected representatives. The problem with letting SCOTUS decide anything is they are not elected and not answerable to anyone (within reason).
Wouldn’t you rather our elected lawmakers make law instead of judges? That is their purpose after all.
This “don’t judge” crap is getting out of hand.The Left have been effectively using that line since the 60s. The “judging” that is the province of God sends a soul to hell. The judging of immorality and sin belongs as much to men as it does to God. Even as a schoolboy in the 60s I noticed that those who asked “Who is to judge” had no damn problem doing just that on any subject presented.
Here's the 5th Amendment...pay attention...
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The question must be addressed by society: When does human life begin? It can be done at the federal level or at the state level, but it's for the people to decide...not 5-out-of-9 philosopher-kings sitting on the Supreme Court.
Ok, but you said “Government has a role to play but regulating social issues is where it fails miserably.” All laws involve “social issues” to some degree. They protect what society deems as important and outlaws those thing generally views as malignant enough to deserve it. You gave me the impression that you wanted to leave it in the hands of the Court by letting Roe v. Wade stand. If that’s not what you meant ok...I agree...let the federal and/or state legislatures deal with the issue.
This is the sticking point. First, I'm not pro-abortion, but I don't have a closed mind about when human life begins either.
Until we, as a people, can agree on when a fetus becomes an unborn child we are stuck at a standstill.
I posit, as a compromise, 20 weeks (5 months) is when the neurological system enables the fetus to feel pain. To feel pain the brain must be developed enough. This 'could' be the moment the fetus becomes an unborn baby (or child as you say).
If the pro-life side is stuck on the moment of conception; this issue will never find a compromise. If the pro-abortion side is stuck on 'up to the moment of birth'; that won't work either.
I know this is an emotional and passionate issue for some people. Heck; it's the only issue that matters for some folks. Without a compromise and both sides saying all or nothing; we might as well hang this issue on the clothesline and forget about it because nothing will happen going forward.
Life begins at conception.
Period. End of story. No compromise.
This life support you speak of was not invented or put in place by men. It IS life. The life concerned has nothing BUT potential. Even if it were artificial it would be arguably correct as it would be in support of a life that would grow beyond just lying there, drooling.
No, Tomi, you don't. You think abortion is "choice".
We know it's murder.
60 million murdered babies cry out against you, Tomi.
Personally, I'm tired of the issue costing us elections.
Poor Tomi just doesn’t get it. Roe V Wade was decided for the wrong reasons on a fiction not in the Constitution.The right decision would have been for the court to have declined to hear the case. That would have put the issue back at the state level where it belonged and allowed them to decide how to proceed. Yes that would have meant 50 potentially different ways to deal with it but that is the way the system was set up.
That's one opinion. Do you eat eggs? Then you are eating unborn chickens.
Now if your opinion was that those eggs are not living beings yet but can be given enough time to bake in the oven (under the hen) then there's room for compromise.
“Isn’t mostly Democrats talking about overturning Roe V. Wade?”
Not “mostly”, ONLY! Until this thread.
How easily we are manipulated. Stirring up trouble here on FR over an issue whose name need not be mentioned.
No one is TRYING to overturn RvW. It will just “happen” as Trump nominates conservative judges to the courts.
Sit back and enjoy the show.
Personally, I’m tired of the issue costing us elections.
__________________________________________________
It hasn’t cost us anywhere near as many elections as war-mongering, crony-capitalism, and moral indifference.
You stated that you agreed with this chick. Thus, you are hypocritical and convoluted. Playing around, i.e. decisions such as Roe v. Wade is a social experiment that the government DIRECTLY dictates. “Regulations” dealing with the prevention of homosexuals and transsexuals to openly serve in the military is the government DIRECTLY dictating too. Again, your thinking and beliefs are contradictory as well as convoluted. What is the purpose of government and why was the institution established in the first place?
TALKING about it is the big mistake! This PRO abort faux-conservative should just STFU.
Eggs are unborn chickens.
Not human beings.
Your argument is growing more absurd by the second.
Personally, I’m tired of the issue costing us elections.
Personally....I’m tired of this ‘issue’ costing us millions of lost of lives.
Because not talking about hot button issues is the best way to resolve them?
If you were talking to black people and telling them to just STFU about their constant whining about race and just be a person; I'd agree with you.
Some here believe this issue will resolve itself with a more conservative court. I don't think so as long as it is an either/or solution. Compromise is the key. Unfortunately so many on both sides are dug in with flak jackets on.
Now, I have already concluded that the experiment of self-government in a setting like ours has failed and needs to be wound up, but if you haven't - if you still believe meaningful self-government can be restored - then you MUST support overturning the Roe v. Wade decision, NOT because of the baby killing that follows from it but because of the dictatorship of relativism that is its sole foundation.
Yes; I do agree with Tomi in that it should not be an issue we pursue politically. Nothing convoluted or hypocritical about that at all except in your mind.
If we (conservatives) push this issue too hard; it could cost us in congress and Presidential elections. We have bigger fish to fry; including the immigration issue. Until it’s resolved we shouldn’t push too hard on the other issues bothering us.
I obviously believe the (illegal) immigration issue is a bigger problem than abortions right now.
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.