What am I missing with regard to SCOTUS roe v wade thing?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: some_stupid_name

Sorry Sook, I don't think that made it into the constitution.

Does the 2nd Amendment give you the constitutional right to blow the head off an unarmed teenager, who broke into your home and is in the act of stealing your TV and stereo? How about if the teenager is armed and aiming it at your wife/daughter/son? Do you have the right to kill them?

You bet you do! Then why wouldn't a pregnant woman have the same 2nd Amendment right to use lethal force to end a pregnancy that is killer her, or threatening her with kidney failure, or stroke, heart failure?

If you arm your fetus and claim self defense I would let it slide.
But the second amendment deals with the right to bear arms for defense. Local state laws dictate what level of lethal force is exceptable in 2 scenario you listed, and it varies from state to state.

a reply to: FlyersFan

This thread isn't about me, the question the OP asks is what he is missing, with regard to SCOTUS roe v wade thing?

What he's missing is that SCOTUS revoked a constitutional right, previously retained by the people, and handed that right to state legislators.

The OP added the question:
"So what do democrats mean when they claim they are "running on abortion"?

It means they'll oppose a federal abortion ban, a ban on chemical abortions by the FDA, states tracking women's health records from state to state, block law preventing the free interstate travel of pregnant women, support state level ballot initiatives that support a women's right to reproductive choice.

They'll continue to defend the federal protections and lifesaving standards set by EMTALA, that you oppose.

They'll defend IVF and fight against embryo/fetal personhood laws.

They'll defend contraception and Plan B.

a reply to: FlyersFan

I know, I want her to say it out loud.
If she believes in it, she shouldn't be ashamed to say it.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I know exactly who she is now. It's not a mystery. in fact, it might even be in my signature.

What is in your signature is nonsense.

I know, and you said it. LOL!

No, I sourced it from an expert. Do you know what the difference is there? That would be a grade 3 question.

so you quoted it, and attributed it to the author? Remember, I can go back and link to the post, so don't be a lying douchebag.

I sourced it from an expert for your self-education in the subject matter. Still didn't work, I see.

in the 3rd grade, you learn about plagiarism. If you look that up, taking another persons work as your own, as you did by not attributing the work to the author, or mentioning that those weren't your words, is just that.

a reply to: some_stupid_name

But the second amendment deals with the right to bear arms for defense.

SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd Amendment isn't just about the national defense through a well regulated militia. It ruled that the 2nd Amendment also protects the right to self-defense and to defend one's home and hearth. One doesn't need a gun to do that. Self defense involves more than just a gun and some bullets.

You can use poison. You can strangle the perp with a guitar string. You can hit 'em over the head with a frying pan, or a baseball bat.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

once again ...
reductio ad absurdum
You are flailing.
It's embarrassing to watch.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: matafuchs

WTF does this have to do with abortion

This is not a hard question.

Does a woman have a constitutional right to use lethal force against a pregnancy, or fetal person, that is threatening her life/limb?

where would you think that exists in the COTUS? Not saying I disagree, but if you are going to call it "constitutional" it would have to be in the document.

originally posted by: quintessentone
All I can say, is tread carefully when messing around with taking away a woman's liberty.

WTF are you going to do about it?

a reply to: network dude

It's the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't specifically say pregnant women are disqualified from their right to self-defense, does it?

Right now, states are fighting the federal law, EMTALA, because it requires ERs and hospitals to provide an abortion, if the doctors think it's necessary to save the life/limb of a pregnant woman.

According to the most recent SCOTUS leak, SCOTUS will be wimping out on an actual constitutional ruling, sending the case back to the lower courts, effectively upholding the EMTALA standard, for now.

What do you think? Why wouldn't a woman have a constitutional right to self-defense against a pregnancy that's threatening her life/health?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I think poison may not fly as legit self-defense but I would defer that question to an attorney as I am sure it can be argued as one. If someone is stealing your tv they may not have any intent to kill you. To use lethal force as self defense you do have to prove that your life was in danger and that would be you proving the assailant had the intention to kill you. Now is it that black and white cut and dry? No, that's why we have trials in courts. I agree it's worth looking into making it a constitutional right. I think for now it's a compromise that the states hold they keys as I stated before it blocks a single entity from hijacking it as the door swings both ways on this issue. I think you would find most people want a common since abortion law and maybe the politicians could use this issue to bring bipartisan legislation. I really do feel that the number of people that want it blanket banned are a minority vs the people who see it has it's place.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Christ's sake Sookie. I hope you didn't pull a muscle doing all those mental gymnastics.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I know exactly who she is now. It's not a mystery. in fact, it might even be in my signature.

What is in your signature is nonsense.

I know, and you said it. LOL!

No, I sourced it from an expert. Do you know what the difference is there? That would be a grade 3 question.

so you quoted it, and attributed it to the author? Remember, I can go back and link to the post, so don't be a lying douchebag.

I sourced it from an expert for your self-education in the subject matter. Still didn't work, I see.

in the 3rd grade, you learn about plagiarism. If you look that up, taking another persons work as your own, as you did by not attributing the work to the author, or mentioning that those weren't your words, is just that.

You are just being silly now.

a reply to: some_stupid_name

To use lethal force as self defense you do have to prove that your life was in danger and that would be you proving the assailant had the intention to kill you.

Not if they broke into your house, you don't. And, you don't need to prove that a person WANTED, or INTENDED to kill you. They could be unwittingly in a position where it's you or them, or someone you love or them. Sometimes, a drowning person can take you under, and then both of you wind up dead.

I think you would find most people want a common since abortion law

Most people thought that Roe provided common sense abortion law. That's why. in states where is it has been brought to the voter, voters vote to restore Roe's common sense abortion laws, every time.

originally posted by: Moon68
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Christ's sake Sookie. I hope you didn't pull a muscle doing all those mental gymnastics.

What is confusing you? What part of 2nd Amendment do you think disqualifies a pregnant woman from accessing lethal force against a pregnancy that's threatening her life?

Do you think it's crazy to think that a woman's pregnant body can lethally attack her? Or, is it because you think an innocent, unborn person in incapable of killing its mother?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Moon68
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Christ's sake Sookie. I hope you didn't pull a muscle doing all those mental gymnastics.

What is confusing you? What part of 2nd Amendment do you think disqualifies a pregnant woman from accessing lethal force against a pregnancy that's threatening her life?

Do you think it's crazy to think that a woman's pregnant body can lethally attack her? Or, is it because you think an innocent, unborn person in incapable of killing its mother?

wouldn't an "innocent, unborn person" also have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? If not, where is that mentioned in the COTUS?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Moon68
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Christ's sake Sookie. I hope you didn't pull a muscle doing all those mental gymnastics.

What is confusing you? What part of 2nd Amendment do you think disqualifies a pregnant woman from accessing lethal force against a pregnancy that's threatening her life?

Do you think it's crazy to think that a woman's pregnant body can lethally attack her? Or, is it because you think an innocent, unborn person in incapable of killing its mother?

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms"

Don't see it. You should probably get some help with that.

a reply to: network dude

They can't live if the pregnant woman dies.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: some_stupid_name

To use lethal force as self defense you do have to prove that your life was in danger and that would be you proving the assailant had the intention to kill you.

Not if they broke into your house, you don't. And, you don't need to prove that a person WANTED, or INTENDED to kill you. They could be unwittingly in a position where it's you or them, or someone you love or them. Sometimes, a drowning person can take you under, and then both of you wind up dead.

I think you would find most people want a common since abortion law

Most people thought that Roe provided common sense abortion law. That's why. in states where is it has been brought to the voter, voters vote to restore Roe's common sense abortion laws, every time.

Again the use of lethal force differs from state to state. In Illinois You can't just shoot someone for breaking into your home you have to prove they had intent to harm you, if they find that the victim turned to run and you shot them it's murder because the individual did not have the intent to harm. Where as in say Fl if they break into your home shoot them.

If Roe is what you want to be the standard you'll need a constitutional convention to get on the document, boy once that can worms gets opened it may turn to a pandora's box.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

They can't live if the pregnant woman dies.

at what stage? 5 months? 6 months? I think you need to do a little research before you speak anymore.

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Moon68
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Christ's sake Sookie. I hope you didn't pull a muscle doing all those mental gymnastics.

What is confusing you? What part of 2nd Amendment do you think disqualifies a pregnant woman from accessing lethal force against a pregnancy that's threatening her life?

Do you think it's crazy to think that a woman's pregnant body can lethally attack her? Or, is it because you think an innocent, unborn person in incapable of killing its mother?

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms"

Don't see it. You should probably get some help with that.

Do you think a person who beats an armed home intruder to death with a baseball bat is in violation of the 2nd Amendment because they didn't use a gun?