US Supreme Court Leak

[AngelSpeaks]

the damage was done and the unstable got the extreme message.

He should be banned.

 

[Pat Hartman]

But Twitter didn't take the message down. That says something all by itself. Twitter is for hate speech and violence as long as it is directed at people they disagree with.

More than being banned, he should be investigated by the FBI and perhaps charged with inciting violence if that is a crime somewhere.

Anyone posting the addresses of public figures so the angry mob can find their homes and terrorize their families should also be charged.

 

[JonXL]

View attachment 100360

"(V)arying developmental limits" would represent quite a range...

 

[Steve R.]

View attachment 100360

In an ironic manner, the map of "Abortion around the world" would mimic what overturning Roe vs. Wade would achieve. It would restore abortion decision making to the individual states. Consequently the abortion map can be "revised" (re-imagined??) to simply replace the name of a nation with the name of a state (The graphic outlines of each nation would also have to be revised for that of a state). This would be democracy in action. This also substantiates that those on the left want establish an Orwellian totalitarian state and have no interest in "protecting democracy" as they falsely claim.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

This is just a rational thought in general and not directed at anyone here but how deranged do you have to be to consider a baby developing inside of your body to be your body. In the later stages, the baby has it's own heart that beats and it can grab and squeeze its hands and kick its feet independently. To say that the developing baby is part of your body is just flat out wrong. A baby is growing inside your body is more of what is really happening. It's a different body growing inside a host body. To have the view that it is a non living being or mass of cells is to deny science and distort the true situation. Just because it depends on its host body to grow and develop does not mean that it is not living. If anyone really truly believes the baby is their body, then why is there no pain for you when the baby is mutilated alive with the tools used by the physicians who perform the killing of the baby to achieve the desired abortion of life? Did you ever stop to think that maybe the baby growing inside of you might be feeling a great deal of pain during that process?

Again, this is not directed at anyone. It is just that evil is clearly blind to any clear thinking on this matter. This court decision (assuming that's what happens) doesn't even prevent anyone from still having an abortion but seeing the reactions on the left makes it clear what their evil intentions are. The emotions to make it a decision that you have the right to decide another living beings fate simply because of location where the baby grows is pure evil in the making. And that is not even what the draft opinion is about anyway. Instead, the left has totally twisted things around to give the impression that woman cannot have an abortion if this opinion stands as ruling in June. It's as if they have chosen not to read the opinion and instead whip up the frenzied emotions about abortion in general. Even so, there is going to be even more evil unleashed if our court system is allowed to be attacked without penalty. God save the unborn.

Did you forget that for some religions, life only begins on birth, first breath, or severing of the umbilicus? How deranged do you have to be? You simply have to believe devoutly in the tenets of your faith.

When the 'Biblical View' for Evangelicals Was That Life Begins at Birth

Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg was recently castigated by evangelicals and other conservative Christians for saying that, according to his read of the Bible, life begins at first breath. But there was a time, not long ago, when that same belief was at the center of evangelical...

rewirenewsgroup.com

It would seem that the belief in "life begins at conception" was not widely shared even among Christianity. Further, both Judaism and Islam take the later beginnings of life. For Judaism, life begins at the severing of the umbilicus, when the fetus can no longer take nourishment from the mother and is thus on its own to live of die. I understand that Islam takes a similar viewpoint.

Mike, as it happens, my wife and I agreed that if we actually did start a child, we would keep it - but it never happened for us old fogies. But the truth for us is not the truth for everyone, because the Bible's translation makes a difference in interpretation. I could not abort a child unless I knew it was doomed by genetic conditions that would lead to a miserable life and a worse - but quick - death.

My complaint with your comment is the characterization of "wanting an abortion" as "evil" when in fact many religions would have condoned it before the Roe v. Wade decision caused the massive split. In essence, your position is one of denying others the right of freedom of religion when that religion disagrees with your viewpoint on abortion.

"To have the view that it is a non living being or mass of cells is to deny science and distort the true situation." You distorted that by using the term "living being" because THAT definition is not scientific. It is either a matter of legality, philosophy, or religion. A mass of cells that has a blood supply may well be living, but my adrenal adenoma is certainly not a fetus even though it IS a mass of cells attached to me and it has a blood supply. And it could be removed if needed without doing any more harm to me than ANY minor surgery. If it gets excised, should I invite a priest over to give it Last Rites?

 

[Mike Krailo]

No doc, to make a decision to kill is always bad no matter how you try and rationalize it. Just empathize with the life you are choosing to kill. Don't try and play games with another life. Don't you dare. If there is nothing good in you, then maybe you won't feel a thing watching a baby being aborted. War is bad enough, but this is trivializing an innocent life.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

No doc, to make a decision to kill is always bad no matter how you try and rationalize it. Just empathize with the life you are choosing to kill. Don't try and play games with another life. Don't you dare. If there is nothing good in you, then maybe you won't feel a thing watching a baby being aborted. War is bad enough, but this is trivializing an innocent life.

You STILL miss the point. You have put the cart before the horse. To people whose religion says a fetus is not yet a person, abortion IS NOT KILLING A PERSON. But YOU have already made that decision for someone else. You have already decided that someone else's fetus is actually a person, perhaps even before that person does. This is a question you may discuss from the sidelines, but don't YOU dare say that you have a right to decide for a woman what she must do. And until you (personally) get pregnant and face that decision, you cannot claim any superior knowledge. You can make that decision for your own fetus. Don't make it for anyone else.

To make a decision to kill is always bad? Perhaps so - but if I have to shoot an armed intruder, I won't be wrestling with my conscience when I put a slug in his brain. If someone finally takes Putin to a war crimes tribunal, it wouldn't bother me to participate in the firing squad if it came to that. And let's get closer to the issue.

You say that abortion is killing. It is a terrible decision to have to make, but many patients who come from Eastern and Central Europe have to test their fetuses for Tay-Sachs, a condition that would doom the new-born baby to an agonizing death after 3 to 5 years. It is no small wonder that many couples choose to abort and roll the dice again to hope that the next time around, that genetic deficiency will not occur. Or let's try another one - radical anencephaly, where the fetal brain never develops, leaving at most a barely functioning brain stem. The longest survival case on record is 28 months, and most don't make it past a few hours. Again, it can be detected in utero and it is no surprise that couples would abort such a fetus in order to roll the dice again. Can YOU stand in front of a couple who had such an agonizing choice to make and tell them they killed their child? (If you did so, I would advise you to duck.)

You try to take the high moral ground by surreptitiously implying that there might be nothing good in me. (I know you didn't come out and say it, but you left that phrase dangling.) Your position is the same as that of the Taliban, that just recently (past few days) imposed a dress code for women - full head-to-toe covering leaving only eye slits. That is ANOTHER bunch of men deciding what women must do because (obviously) they think men are superior to women and that women can't make rational decisions. And that is HOGWASH.

Your decision is TYPICAL of those who arrogantly believe that their religion allows them to decide things for others even when those choices SHOULD be left to the others. You want to talk about rationalization? Explain to me what gives you the right to choose the path of someone else's life. If you chose to justify your actions based on a 2000-year-old book written primarily by desert nomads with a primitive education, you'll have to give me a few minutes to stop laughing before we can continue any further debate.

 

[Mike Krailo]

To people whose religion says a fetus is not yet a person, abortion IS NOT KILLING A PERSON.

However, you have to be deranged to have that view IMO. That is my point. And I never mentioned religion, you did.

But YOU have already made that decision for someone else.

No, I have not make any decision at all other than to point out how deranged it is to dehumanize the living separate being that is growing and obviously developing in the mothers womb. If you think I am forcing someone's decision, then you are wrong. That was never the point so I think you may have missed my point and have pivoted to justification the deranged killing of the child in the womb being a choice or right.

The LEFT worships violence. Trying to justify it is pathetic and most definitely evil. To kill a person early in their life or later makes no difference unless you worship violence and feel you have a right to do so. This is real evil in the making.

Your position is the same as that of the Taliban, that just recently (past few days) imposed a dress code for women - full head-to-toe covering leaving only eye slits.

Not sure what line of reasoning this is. It makes no sense to me and has no relationship at all to what we are talking about here. Tell me again how we are not dealing with pure evil.

Your decision is TYPICAL of those who arrogantly believe that their religion allows them to decide things for others even when those choices SHOULD be left to the others. You want to talk about rationalization? Explain to me what gives you the right to choose the path of someone else's life.

I never even brought up religion, you did. You have twisted what I said to meaning that I chose something for someone else and that is simply not the case. I merely pointed out "How deranged do you have to be to make that choice that kills a vulnerable innocent child who is wholly dependent on their mother to survive in the early stages of life?" Please don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Calling people names isn't going to change their opinion or encourage further discussion. We understand how you feel about this and many will agree but not all. Even major religions differ in their opinion on when life begins.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

1. Thanks, Pat, for seeing the point I was making.

2. Mike, the whole abortion debacle started over some religions who decided to declare that life begins at conception. Are you not old enough to remember that? Do you know the statistics for the so-called "coat-hanger" abortions? Do you even KNOW about those? Roe v Wade was meant to stop the back-alley botched abortions that permanently sterilized women, crippled them, or killed them because there was no legal way to end a pregnancy in many states. Women have sought abortions for millennia.

If you go back through history, you would find references to abortions occurring in ancient Egypt, Sumeria, Rome, Greece, ... many cultures that go back even before the Bible. Solomon discussed the penalty for interfering with a pregnancy and didn't count the fetus as a life. When folks say that Jesus overrode a lot of that, ... no He did not. Matt 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

My point, plainly and simply, is that "defining that life begins at conception" is a position not shared by all. It is DEFINITELY not in the U.S. Constitution because there, rights accrue to natural-born citizens. Which means you have to be BORN to automatically become a legal person. Naturalization doesn't help because you have to take an oath which requires you to be old enough to understand the meaning of "oath." Philosophically, there are debates on the beginning of life - debates that require you to define terms, and that becomes the sticking point. If you want to talk about life scientifically, we could never excise a tumor under really broad definitions. And science doesn't talk about rights, which is the true delineator here anyway. There are scientific arguments that suggest that even after birth, there is nothing there for a while longer, something like about 3-6 months, during which the brain, now in vivo, finishes developing. AND if you want to talk about disgusting choices, consider those religions under which a parent may decide to withhold medical treatment from a child because "God will provide."

I brought in religion because a lot of the current push is based in religious viewpoints. Which is WHY I suggested that you only believe abortion is murder based on your religious upbringing. If you CAN bring in an explanation of your position that doesn't start from religious influences in your childhood, explain it and we can debate that point. Who told you that a fetus is a person in the legal sense?

The "Taliban" reference is to another group of men decided what is right for their women, as though their women don't have any rights or any brains in their heads. Just like MEN passing laws saying that abortion is illegal.

 

[Mike Krailo]

Doc, none of what you said there matters one iota to the child while it is being aborted. Again, any rationalizations to continue the dehumanization of infants in their most vulnerable state is sickening. You have to take the clump of cells position to be that callous about it.

Here is my original statement lest anyone forget.

This is just a rational thought in general and not directed at anyone here but how deranged do you have to be to consider a baby developing inside of your body to be your body. In the later stages, the baby has it's own heart that beats and it can grab and squeeze its hands and kick its feet independently.

I'm not calling anyone names Pat. If you took it that way, then it would be very difficult to describe or use another word that sums up my view. It is what it is and I'm not going to sugar coat it. I'm also not arguing edge cases, the majority of Abortions are not for edge cases, it is for other benign reasons. A child always starts out as one cell, that divides into two, into four etc... and through out the process completely depends on it's mother for survival in the early stages. If the baby makes it to day of birth and actually takes a breath of air it still cannot live on it's own without it's mothers continued support or an adopted mothers support. Usually a child is not truly on their own until age 18. Trying to rationalize or trivialize this processes as something that is owned by the mother like a piece of property that they can send to the shredder whenever they feel like it for ANY reason is only possible if the baby has been de-humanized. Our society has done a good job of that over the years unfortunately. And that's why I consider it as evil as evil comes. I'm calling a spade a spade here.

A mother does have a real choice over things like what she eats, drinks, or otherwise ingests while she is pregnant with the child. If she chooses to smoke, that is her choice (not a good one but her choice). If she chooses to drink liquor or take lots of drugs during the pregnancy, that's her choice (again, not a good one but her choice).

There is an obvious relationship between mother and child that is present the moment she realizes she is pregnant with child. She immediately will begin to think about this other person that is living inside of her as her child (immediately). It doesn't happen when the child takes its first breath. This relationship happens as soon as the mother is aware that she is pregnant. If there is any mother out there that thinks it's something else, then the only explanation is the dehumanization of child.

It's amazing that since we are not talking about evolution here, that suddenly life doesn't begin with a cell dividing. Simply amazing.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

There is an obvious relationship between mother and child that is present the moment she realizes she is pregnant with child. She immediately will begin to think about this other person that is living inside of her as her child (immediately).

OK, I will totally avoid name-calling. I will simply say that I strongly believe you have an idealized view of reality. It seems to me that a woman who feels the way you describe would not seek an abortion - and yet so many women throughout history DO (or did) seek an abortion. I sense you have on blinders because you don't want to believe that someone COULD feel that way. Yet they do. Reality stares you in the face. I gather from your statement that you do not understand how it can happen - but it does.

In this, I am taking the Zen approach to analyze the fact that women seek abortions. Here is this undesirable thing that happens for reasons I don't understand. So the next question is, "Does it directly affect me?" If the answer is no, then: "What else can/should I do about it?" If the answer is "step in to prevent it" you have to ask, "Does someone else perceive harm to themselves if I do so?" And here, you face the dilemma. The answer is "Yes" regardless of the direction you take. You can't take one path without hurting someone else. Now we are dealing with relative ethics. Whom do you wish to hurt? In Judaism and Islam, religious authorities agree that you CAN side with the pregnant woman.

You asked this question earlier:

how deranged do you have to be to consider a baby developing inside of your body to be your body.

I repeat the answer: You have to be deranged enough to believe devoutly in a religion that does not consider the fetus to be a person. And I named Judaism, Islam, and some old-style Evangelical Christian denominations that seriously follow King Solomon's decree, "The breath is the life." Those religions do NOT have an early beginning to life.

How deranged do you have to be? You simply have to be deranged enough to believe in a particular religion and have this silly idea that in the USA, you have freedom of religion INCLUDING living according to the teachings of that religion. You may have dismissed my previous answer. You also wanted to know where religion comes into play. I have just answered two of your questions with one answer.

 

[Mike Krailo]

I see what's going on here and the left will do their evil deeds in spite of the fact that they can choose to live in any killer state they want to. They are free to do so, and nobody will stop them but themselves. But when the very lives of the Supreme Court justices are threatened, and churches attacked by protesters, we know who worships violence. The court did not even make an actual decision yet and out comes the pitch forks and suggestions to kill the justices complete with addresses of their homes. This is pure evil in the making. Is anyone surprised by this?

Whom do you wish to hurt?

That's a question you should be asking the mothers who wish to abort their child.

"Does it directly affect me?"

I don't consider that a question the child will particularly like. It is simply and excuse to ignore the fact that it will stop another beating heart in the most cruel way. Many have sought to trivialize and dehumanize the child, but this is necessary to justify their ability to commit a crime against those who are most vulnerable. They might not even be properly counseled with necessary details as to how the process works exactly before simply taking their first pill and wonder what is going on.

Are there edge cases that warrant saving the mother over the child or other special circumstances? Of course, but that's not what all the whining is about right now. They want full killing rights whenever and under any and all circumstances to the exclusion of any consideration for the child itself. We all depended on our mothers to take care of us during our most vulnerable stage of development. Just how many lives have been snuffed out already for convenience sake? There will never be coat hanger abortions again but the methods used although safer for the mother still kill the child, they have made it far too easy for anyone to kill their child thanks to a poison pill and a vacuum suction device. If you dare to look at some of the medical instrumentation involved, click here: Abortion Tools

Answer this: Is it the mother kicking herself inside the womb or is it the child? How a mother will conclude it is their body kicking themselves and can do with it as they please including mutilation and suction right out of the womb is the most evil thing being done legally right now. I'm sure this is traumatic for the mother to go through. But why is it so traumatic? What exactly is the mother going through? I cannot imagine what is going through her mind during this process but it cannot be happy thoughts.

So I wonder what the medical professionals who administer the abortions think about whether the baby is living or not? Let's have a look shall we. Here is Dr. Anthony Levatino (Obstetrician-Gynecologist) and he clearly states that giving the pill that blocks progesterone causes the baby to DIE from lack of nourishment (sounds like starving to death to me). Now how exactly can the baby die if it is not living? Hmmmmm, maybe it was a slip of the tongue. No, it wasn't, he says something similar again later in the video at 1:24 (force the dead baby out of the womb). The method used for the late term abortion is the most gruesome IMO as the child is simply hacked up and sucked out in pieces and destroyed like a tree limb in a wood chipper.

 

[AccessBlaster]

The programming has changed.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Mike, you are fixated on a position that is not held by everyone. I sense that you are unalterably opposed to abortion. It is your right to have an opinion, but I reiterate that it is NOT your right (or anyone else's) to take the step of making a decision about someone else's life choices. Sadly, that delusion is held by many legislators today, entirely too many of them men for whom the abortion decision will NEVER be personal. Just like you wonder how a celibate priest can offer marriage counseling, you have to wonder how someone can offer a valid opinion on something that can never happen to them.

There is an old saying: "If men could have babies, abortion would be a sacrament."

 

[Isaac]

What I fear is that women won't stop getting abortions but they will now have to leave the country or find someone with a back-alley coat-hanger. I know that sounds brutal, but that brutality would be the effect of overturning Roe v Wade.

You have to admit though that is such a weak argument in favor of abortion. The idea that we can't prohibit anything that people might do on the dangerous black market, I mean, I don't think I even need to go any further with this post. You can easily imagine the plethora of things that that could be applied to that it wouldn't make any sense to apply it to.
In fact, what might be more interesting is whether or not there's anything it doesn't apply to. I'm thinking pretty much anything that is against the law is something that still done. But the fact that it's still done doesn't mean it ought to be allowed.

 

[Isaac]

There is an old saying: "If men could have babies, abortion would be a sacrament

I've debunked this and a myriad of other pro-abortion arguments in a separate thread that you can easily find and may even be referenced at the bottom of this page, so I won't do that now.

Suffice it to say all you have to do is learn and become informed of the fact that most of the pro-life movement is female and that argument pretty much dissolves.
There is an old saying, "some old sayings are just bullshit". Nah, I just made that one up

 

[NauticalGent]

So...where is this at? Has RvW been appealed?

 

[moke123]

Suffice it to say all you have to do is learn and become informed of the fact that most of the pro-life movement is female and that argument pretty much dissolves.

Maybe the loudest ones but ...

'Pro-Choice' or 'Pro-Life' Demographic Table

Americans' identification as "pro-choice" or "pro-life" on abortion is provided here in tabular form, with breakouts by key population subgroups.

news.gallup.com

 

[Pat Hartman]

I agree that Roe V Wade was a bad decision. It created a "right" where none existed in the Constitution. The good thing it did was to set rational limits (at the time) on when abortions would be permitted. Given improvements in medical technology, those limits are out of date and so some states are trying to impose limits earlier in gestation such as "when a heartbeat" can be distinguished. It is a case such as this that brought this contentious subject up again. This time, the Supreme Court contains more Constitutional purists. Judgments by the court should not be political. They shouldn't lean conservative or liberal. They should be based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution and it is those decisions which deviate that cause all the contention. It was while discussing the other case that the Court realized that they had a 5-4 majority and could overturn Roe V Wade as a result of this other case.

I don't believe that the conservatives should get all happy about Roe V Wade being overturned. At least it placed limits. They have been eroded over the years and states like New York have passed state laws that allow abortion up to and including through labor. So, we may end up with some states where abortions will be banned for any reason (which will make Mike happy) but then we'll end up with other New York's where you can kill a fetus that could survive outside the womb without any artificial help if it were only allowed to be born. I remember being nauseous when I saw the video of the people on the floor of the NY House when the bill was passed and the people all cheered. I have no idea if that law has ever been challenged but without Roe V Wade, I'm not sure it could be over turned.

Keep in mind that 10 years prior to Roe V Wade, unmarried women couldn't get a prescription for birth control and we all know how men feel about condoms. So, today the issue of abortion should be moot. Contraceptives are free or low cost, the morning after pill is freely available. You need to be stupid to find yourself in the position of needing an abortion. unless you are one of the unlucky people whose contraception method fails. And I would personally take that as a sign that this child needs to be born.

@moke123 Don't confuse Pro Choice with Pro Abortion. I am very much anti-abortion. This is the left playing with words again. I think abortion is evil when used as a form of birth control especially multiple times. I think if a women finds herself pregnant for a second time, her choice should be get the abortion and be sterilized or carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption. But I am willing to go along with allowing abortion to be legal up until the fetus is viable so that would put me in the Pro Choice column. This is like many surveys. It is intended to get a specific response and it does. It forces me to put myself on the wrong side of the issue because I don't feel I should make the choice for someone else, at least not in the first trimester. Beyond that, my vote changes to Pro Life. I don't believe I know anyone who is Pro Choice who would condone late term abortions as allowed by NY state law.