End of Roe Vs Wade?
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Ideally the needs of the child should be met by his/her parents but when parenting fails what then JR? The child doesn't have food, water, shelter? Just bad luck of the draw that he/she got stuck with lousy parents?
There is a reason why the SC never noticed this alleged "gap" for 200 years. Because it wasn't there.
"The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution."
The Court and Constitutional Interpretation
www.supremecourt.gov
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
It shouldn't be great, it should be the norm and thankfully is. There's a glaring double standard going on however when those who claim to be pro life deny that a child has the basic rights to that needed for survival. I wasn't arguing what you suggest at all.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Again, the traditional paradigm doesn't work for everyone and your beliefs are not shared by the majority of society no matter how "truthful" you think they happen to be. It absolutely is derisory and unsupportable rubbish to claim that most mothers hate their children and simply saying "false" isn't a defence. If a woman wants to have sex without being married then that's her prerogative just the same as it is for a man but it's telling that your ire seems exclusively reserved for women with the "slut/whore" insults. If you think that patriarchal societies were healthy for women and children then think again.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
The Constitution says and I quofe, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land ... ."
The federal code is anything but brief.
Ah-hah! Do I see a dim light starting to shine in your thoughts?
How do the justices "fill in the gaps"? They can't just use the Constitution itself, so how do they base their decisions, when "filling in the gaps"?
Hint, one way is through the doctrine of "Originalism".
They're called "landmark decisions of the United States Supreme Court," and they can contradict themselves from one generation to the next. They are called "landmark decisions" because they substantially change the interpretation of existing law:
List of landmark court decisions in the United States - Wikipedia
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
He has the right to be safe from being murdered.
You'd think "air" would be the very first
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
And how do they make their decisions?They're called "landmark decisions of the United States Supreme Court," and they can contradict themselves from one generation to the next. They are called "landmark decisions" because they substantially change the interpretation of existing law:
List of landmark court decisions in the United States - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
See: Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden on a woman's "right" to murder her child
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Sad cases in point.
Then the parents have failed, and they shall face the natural consequences of it.
Therefore the government should step in? No.
The government stepping in as much as it has is a major reason parents don't care for their children as much as they used to, because they know "the government will take care of my child if I don't."
There's no double standard at all.
The standard is that parents be responsible and care for their children, not murder them in the womb.
Because "everyone" doesn't put in the effort to make it work. Laziness, selfishness, pride, lust, all these and more are fed at the expense of the child's future.
It's a good thing that how popular an idea is or how many people share it has nothing to do with whether it's correct or not, isn't it?
False.
Then she should be prepared to carry the child to term that results from that sex.
We call women who have sex outside of marriage "sluts," and rightfully so.
If a man has sex outside of marriage then he should be prepared to be the father of the child that is conceived in the woman's womb, AND be the husband to that woman.
If neither of them are prepared for that, then they shouldn't have sex, nor get married.
No, my ire is reserved for women who behave like sluts and whores, and then think they don't have to deal with the natural consequences of being sluts and whores.
This is called begging the question. You have not established that patriarchal societies are unhealthy for women and children.
Thus, I dismiss your claim, since arguments made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Obviously, the Supreme Court has the Constitution as its basis for rendering decisions. But over the centuries the Supreme Court has rendered contradictory decisions on various issues. This shows that the Supreme Court is a living, changing, dynamic institution and not one that is--or even can be--immovably fixed in the explicit written word of the Constitution.
You will no doubt claim that you disagree with Plessy v Ferguson, but it could very easily be argued that the Court's decision in Plessy, as well as Dred Scott, etc., was in keeping with the "original intent" of the Constitution.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
I can't read your mind... I'm sure that I wouldn't want to if I could.
What is "it"? Is that too difficult for you?
The answer to the first question (which you would know if you studied God's Word) was that there was a time of tremendous trouble coming; the time of Jacob's trouble. Marriage would be very difficult during that time.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well, nobody's arguing that the parent hasn't failed so that's kinda moot but the fact is that there's plenty who aren't ready and flat out unfit to be parents.
So who does step in JR? Or is it the child's lot to starve, go thirsty and be cold, maybe even die? What should happen to a child who's basic needs aren't being met?
Plenty of children are being raised responsibly out of that paradigm whether by single parents or couples who aren't married. Plenty are within also.
It absolutely is a double standard if you only care about a child up to it being born. You effectively don't care about children at all if you deny them the basic essentials to life post birth.
Saying that most mothers hate their children is derisory rubbish JR. It's a soundbite mired in hyperbole and ignorance. No wonder you can only say "false" time and again as you've no support for it in fact, else you provide some.
You might call such women sluts but what similar slurs do you have for men? I've no time for any of that sort of stuff frankly.
Patriarchal societies are by definition male dominated where women don't have equal rights or say.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Patriarchal societies have given us modern medicine, modern agriculture, modern technology. The highest standard of living ever achieved in history.
And idiots who want to implement socialism, want to tear it all down.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Yeah, you probably wouldn't but then I wouldn't wanna read yours either so...
You've read along easily enough haven't you? Are all men in supposedly non troubled times supposed to leave home and get married? Is that a command?
People study the Bible and have a myriad different takes on plenty of it so your say so doesn't mean anything in itself. First time I've heard this passage used in the way you describe.
Right Divider
Body part
No.
No.
Just because there are differing opinions doesn't make mine wrong.
That doesn't make it wrong.