End of Roe Vs Wade?

[Arthur Brain]

There was a specific reason for that at that time. I was not a general principle.

Why was it specifically for that time? Do you regard it as a command that all men should get married?

 

[Idolater]

And yet, what I said is a fact. If we went by the original intent of the Constitution, Clarence Thomas would not have any vote at all.

You're the only one who thinks "Originalism" means slavery is OK.

You're dumb.

 

[Idolater]

Only if it kills the baby.

You have your Biblical interpretation and Catholicism has ours.

 

[User Name]

You're the only one who thinks "Originalism" means slavery is OK.

You're dumb.

It's in the Constitution. (P.S.: Slavery is also in the Bible.)

 

[Idolater]

Sinful? Okay. Illegal? No. At least, it shouldn't be.

Never said it should be.

Just like abortion.

Not at all "just like" killing your kids. Not anything like that.

 

[Right Divider]

They do where I live and rightly so.

Great ... let's all move to your paradise.

So, once a child is born then what's it supposed to do if their parent doesn't meet those needs?

What if the government doesn't meet those needs?

 

[JudgeRightly]

They do where I live

Your government has legalized the taking of other people's wealth to provide those things to others who have not earned them, but that doesn't make them "rights."

and rightly so.

False. Question begging.

So, once a child is born then what's it

A child is not an "it." A child is a him or her, he or she.

supposed to do if their

"Their" only applies when multiple people are the subjects of the discussion. A single child is not a "they."

parent doesn't meet those needs?

Then we call that neglect.

What we DON'T do (read: what the government should not do) is kidnap the children and hold them hostage, or put them in a foster system.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I know what you mean, but the word "right" doesn't enter into it. Rights are God-given, inherent, "inbuilt" to use your word.

We can and do democratically decide to subsidize various welfare measures for our people, some of which are food, water, warmth, shelter and education. Our Constitution permits this.

That's quibbling over terminology isn't it? Do you agree that all children should have access to the necessities at least for survival once born? Otherwise all of this wrangling over abortion is empty and only underlines the point that the nun in UN's link alluded to. That many people are pro birth rather than pro life.

 

[Right Divider]

Why was it specifically for that time?

You need to study the Bible to find out.

Do you regard it as a command that all men should get married?

What is "it"?

 

[Idolater]

It's in the Constitution.

Again. You're dumb.

(P.S.: Slavery is also in the Bible.)

 

[Idolater]

Great ... let's all move to your paradise.

What if the government doesn't meet those needs?

Right. Does that make us all rights violators? No, it doesn't.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Great ... let's all move to your paradise.

What if the government doesn't meet those needs?

It's hardly a "paradise" and why on earth would you consider a country that declares that children have the right to essentials to life to be one exactly?

Then it would be held accountable for failing as has happened on occasion.

 

[Idolater]

That's quibbling over terminology isn't it?

No. Words mean things.

Do you agree that all children should have access to the necessities at least for survival once born?

That would be great. And I support subsidies that help children who need help, for whatever reason they need it. Nothing wrong in it.

Otherwise all of this wrangling over abortion is empty and only underlines the point that the nun in UN's link alluded to. That many people are pro birth rather than pro life.

You're not proposing that just because we can't or even won't help a person, that killing the person is a moral option?

That's what it sounds like.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Which apparently solely means the right to be born?

Nope.

See https://kgov.com/constitution for a list of rights that every human has, regardless of nationality.

 

[Jefferson]

If we went by the original intent of the Constitution, Clarence Thomas would not have any vote at all.

Then why did it take nearly 200 years for the Supreme Court to "find" the right for a woman to abort her child?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Your government has legalized the taking of other people's wealth to provide those things to others who have not earned them, but that doesn't make them "rights."



False. Question begging.



A child is not an "it." A child is a him or her, he or she.



"Their" only applies when multiple people are the subjects of the discussion. A single child is not a "they."



Then we call that neglect.

What we DON'T do (read: what the government should not do) is kidnap the children and hold them hostage, or put them in a foster system.

Rather, our government has a welfare system in place and not going down this pointless and irrelevant sidebar again thanks.

Frankly, if you don't support a child having access to the basic necessities for life then please stop pretending to care for children. I'm well aware that if a parent doesn't provide such then it's neglect. That's why there's measures in place to protect children and afford them those necessities, something which you seem to think shouldn't happen.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Do you agree that all children should have access to the necessities at least for survival once born?

Everything necessary for sustaining life should be provided for by the parents of the child, which is pretty hard to do (not impossible, but very difficult) when there's only a single parent. It's much easier when both parents are present to divide the workload of raising and providing for (a) child(ren).

 

[Arthur Brain]

Nope.

See https://kgov.com/constitution for a list of rights that every human has, regardless of nationality.

Unless that has a list of rights for children to have access to essentials (and I'm presuming it doesn't) then not interested thanks.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Rather, our government has a welfare system in place and not going down this pointless and irrelevant sidebar again thanks.

Of course you won't, because you know I thrash you every time the subject comes up.

Frankly, if you don't support a child having access to the basic necessities for life then please stop pretending to care for children. I'm well aware that if a parent doesn't provide such then it's neglect. That's why there's measures in place to protect children and afford them those necessities, something which you seem to think shouldn't happen.

See post #437.

 

[User Name]

Then why did it take nearly 200 years for the Supreme Court to "find" the right for a woman to abort her child?

Precisely. It was "opinioned" onto the Constitution by Supreme Court justices, and it is their constitutionally-appointed responsibility to do so. The Constitution is a relatively brief document. It cannot possibly touch upon literally every topic in human experience. SC justices are there to fill in the gaps.