RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again

RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomKen -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/2/2011 8:57:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen SCOTUS said the preamble had no bearing on the case and the lower court had erred by considering it at all. If they had wanted to say the lower court erred and the language was constitutional then that is what they would have said. If that is still unclear I will invite you to go talk to a constitutional law professor at the nearest law school And you are full of shit, not to mention dishonest. If that's unclear, too fucking bad. This would be the point in court, where I would rest my case and watch them drag you out kicking and screaming. I'll explain this once more. You claimed Missouri law defines human life as beginning at conception and that had survived a court challenge. In reality the staturory language says fetus shall be treated as human life except where that conflicts with federal court ruings and the US Constitution. The flat human life begins at conception language was in the preamble and was ruled unconstitutional by a federal appelate court. SCOTUS reviewed the case and said the lower court erred by reviewing the preamble at all. They did not rule the language constitutional and they did not reverse Akron v Akron Reproductive where they wrote this quote: Subsection (3) requires the physician to inform his patient that "the unborn child is a human life from the moment of conception," a requirement inconsistent with the Court's holding in Roe v. Wade that a State may not adopt one theory of when life begins to justify its regulation of abortions. Which of course confirms the court's ruling in Roe quote: In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. So any attempt to make it the actual enforced law that human life begins at conception is unconstitutional and has been held to be so twice. So this leaves you with a bit of fluff that cannot even be found in the Missouri statutes. IOW in Missouri and everywhere else in the USA human life legally begins at viability.

StrangerThan -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/2/2011 9:12:07 AM)
I don't care how many times you explain it. I stand on both cases,. A) you are full of shit and B) the language of the SD and Missouri Laws have withstood federal court challenges, and been upheld. Twist it all day into something it is not. All that suffices to raise is item C) you are full of shit - which mostly comes from the attempt to hide the language in the ruling that nails your ass to a cross. Like I have said over and over again, if you feel it has not been reviewed by the SC and not been upheld, get up and head your ass on over to court. Let me know when you go, because I will enjoy watching you tell them what they said. By all that is holy and unholy, watching you squirm around this is exactly why having any discussion with liberals is about as useful as trying to put out a house fire by pissing on it.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/2/2011 9:14:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan By all that is holy and unholy, watching you squirm around this is exactly why having any discussion with liberals is about as useful as trying to put out a house fire by pissing on it. Liberals could sue you for making that association.

StrangerThan -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/2/2011 9:17:18 AM)
LOL I'm sure they could find a lot of things they'd like to sue me over. That's ok. I don't care much for them either.

DomKen -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/2/2011 10:42:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan I don't care how many times you explain it. I stand on both cases,. A) you are full of shit and B) the language of the SD and Missouri Laws have withstood federal court challenges, and been upheld. Twist it all day into something it is not. All that suffices to raise is item C) you are full of shit - which mostly comes from the attempt to hide the language in the ruling that nails your ass to a cross. Like I have said over and over again, if you feel it has not been reviewed by the SC and not been upheld, get up and head your ass on over to court. Let me know when you go, because I will enjoy watching you tell them what they said. By all that is holy and unholy, watching you squirm around this is exactly why having any discussion with liberals is about as useful as trying to put out a house fire by pissing on it. Why would I go to court over something that has no effect? The court specifically ruled that unless the state tried to enact rules based on the preamble it had no effect and therefore could not be litigated or to quote the court yet again quote: until those courts have applied the preamble to restrict appellees' activities in some concrete way, it is inappropriate for federal courts to address its meaning. Which means as I've said over and over that SCOTUS said quite explicitly the preamble doesn't matter unless Missouri tries to enforce it as law. As a matter of fact it is a pretty clear statement that any attempt to do so would be overturned. I'm really trying to figure out what you think you're accomplishing, you made shit up and got called on it. If you believed some anti abortion groups bullshit then you could have just said you were misinformed but this staunch defence requiring you to ignore plain English is mind boggling.

StrangerThan -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/2/2011 10:53:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan I don't care how many times you explain it. I stand on both cases,. A) you are full of shit and B) the language of the SD and Missouri Laws have withstood federal court challenges, and been upheld. Twist it all day into something it is not. All that suffices to raise is item C) you are full of shit - which mostly comes from the attempt to hide the language in the ruling that nails your ass to a cross. Like I have said over and over again, if you feel it has not been reviewed by the SC and not been upheld, get up and head your ass on over to court. Let me know when you go, because I will enjoy watching you tell them what they said. By all that is holy and unholy, watching you squirm around this is exactly why having any discussion with liberals is about as useful as trying to put out a house fire by pissing on it. Why would I go to court over something that has no effect? The court specifically ruled that unless the state tried to enact rules based on the preamble it had no effect and therefore could not be litigated or to quote the court yet again quote: until those courts have applied the preamble to restrict appellees' activities in some concrete way, it is inappropriate for federal courts to address its meaning. Which means as I've said over and over that SCOTUS said quite explicitly the preamble doesn't matter unless Missouri tries to enforce it as law. As a matter of fact it is a pretty clear statement that any attempt to do so would be overturned. I'm really trying to figure out what you think you're accomplishing, you made shit up and got called on it. If you believed some anti abortion groups bullshit then you could have just said you were misinformed but this staunch defence requiring you to ignore plain English is mind boggling. Now you're just laughable dk. Twist, twist, scream it ain't so, it ain't so and plug your ears. Only a dunce or a liberal could take a point overturned in a lower court, reinstated in a higher court and claim it ain't so. I can't figure out which you are. The truth is, you tried to hide that language. Just admit it ace. The more you talk, the less believable you are.

DomKen -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/2/2011 12:21:01 PM)
I hid nothing. I provided the text relevant to the matter. Here is the brunt of the problem, you claim it is constitutional to define human life such that abortion is murder but that in all the time the law has been on the book sin Missouri not a single anti abortion group has brought an equal protection case. Do you really think the anti abortion groups are that incompetent? Or is it possible that they know there is no case since Missouri law actually says that human life does not begin at conception.

StrangerThan -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/2/2011 12:48:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I hid nothing. I provided the text relevant to the matter. Here is the brunt of the problem, you claim it is constitutional to define human life such that abortion is murder but that in all the time the law has been on the book sin Missouri not a single anti abortion group has brought an equal protection case. Do you really think the anti abortion groups are that incompetent? Or is it possible that they know there is no case since Missouri law actually says that human life does not begin at conception. I think the preamble framed the intent of the original law. I think that law enacted several provisions related to what doctors had to do and say with abortions. I think the law went to court. The preamble was struck as well as some of the provisions. I think it went to the supreme court and most of what was struck was reinstated. I think that, because that's what happened. I did not claim it constitutional to define life in such a way that would make abortion murder. That type of case would have met a different ending at the SC. What I said was, the preamble which generally as you noted, can contain many things, was attacked for it's effect in that statue - that being of requiring doctors to tell the woman that she was terminating the life of a unique human being. I said part of that intent was to frame it so as to highlight that indeed, we have a constitutional class of people we do murder. The fact that highlighting it was done in a manner that was not a constitutional challenge to RvW was actually, brilliant, but took a trip to SCOTUS to make it stand. I reiterate my stance, the law and preamble as is, has stood the test of the courts. And that's it. No mas.

DomKen -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/2/2011 2:33:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I hid nothing. I provided the text relevant to the matter. Here is the brunt of the problem, you claim it is constitutional to define human life such that abortion is murder but that in all the time the law has been on the book sin Missouri not a single anti abortion group has brought an equal protection case. Do you really think the anti abortion groups are that incompetent? Or is it possible that they know there is no case since Missouri law actually says that human life does not begin at conception. I think the preamble framed the intent of the original law. I think that law enacted several provisions related to what doctors had to do and say with abortions. I think the law went to court. The preamble was struck as well as some of the provisions. I think it went to the supreme court and most of what was struck was reinstated. I think that, because that's what happened. I did not claim it constitutional to define life in such a way that would make abortion murder. That type of case would have met a different ending at the SC. What I said was, the preamble which generally as you noted, can contain many things, was attacked for it's effect in that statue - that being of requiring doctors to tell the woman that she was terminating the life of a unique human being. I said part of that intent was to frame it so as to highlight that indeed, we have a constitutional class of people we do murder. The fact that highlighting it was done in a manner that was not a constitutional challenge to RvW was actually, brilliant, but took a trip to SCOTUS to make it stand. I reiterate my stance, the law and preamble as is, has stood the test of the courts. And that's it. No mas. No, you claimed several states had defined human life as beginning at conception and that the definition had survived a court challenge full stop. That claim is not now and was not then correct. Try and wrap your head around the idea that killing a human being is homocide. That is pretty much the definition of it in the law. For instance Missori's law states quote: A person commits the crime of murder in the first degree if he knowingly causes the death of another person after deliberation upon the matter. http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5650000020.HTM So if your claim about Missouri is correct then it is first degree murder to perform an abortion in Missouri. Since abortions are carried out everyday in Missouri and no murder prosecutions have been attempted and no equal protection civil rights cases have been brought the legal definition of a human life does not include non viable fetus no matter what fluff was included in a preamble to some law especially when that law goes on to include language that would be completely unnecessary if the preamble was actually intended to mean anything.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/2/2011 5:20:05 PM)
Missouri lawmakers have declared their answer. By withholding both his signature and his veto, Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon signaled that he agreed and recently allowed the legislative answer to become state law. "The life of each human being begins at conception," according to Senate Bill 793, which adds new regulations to the state's 24-hour informed-consent law for abortions. "Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being." The bill makes Missouri the second state to adopt such language after a similar provision became law in South Dakota in 2005, then survived a legal challenge in federal court in 2008.

StrangerThan -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/2/2011 8:07:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Try and wrap your head around the idea that killing a human being is homocide. You are insane. Now I understand why you put words in the mouths of Supreme Court Justices. Because you do it all the time. 90% of your quote above is nonsense. I left the piece that needs to make sense to you. Try it dk, try wrapping your head around the fact that killing a human is murder. Try wrapping your head around the fact that killing a fetus any other way except going to an abortion clinic is murder. Before you start bullshitting your way through that one too, go back and read the links I posted before because you noted that fact. Try wrapping your head around the fact that the only time it isn't murder is by arbitrary decision. That stance is stupid, insane and absolutely fucking hypocritical. The preamble says what it says. The language was struck down by a court of appeals and reinstated by the scotus that you like to quote so often, but which apparently know virtually nothing about. I hope to god you don't give legal advice in the real world. Someone is getting shafted if you do.

StrangerThan -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/2/2011 8:10:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Missouri lawmakers have declared their answer. By withholding both his signature and his veto, Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon signaled that he agreed and recently allowed the legislative answer to become state law. "The life of each human being begins at conception," according to Senate Bill 793, which adds new regulations to the state's 24-hour informed-consent law for abortions. "Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being." The bill makes Missouri the second state to adopt such language after a similar provision became law in South Dakota in 2005, then survived a legal challenge in federal court in 2008. I know, every fucking person in the world can read, except apparently one..

DomKen -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/2/2011 8:18:33 PM)
All right then here is all the laws of Missouri. http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/statutes.htm Where is that language? The closest you will find is in a section on Regulation of Abortions called Intent of General Assembly quote: It is the intention of the general assembly of the state of Missouri to grant the right to life to all humans, born and unborn, and to regulate abortion to the full extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States, decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and federal statutes. Notice the important caveat? Notice how it has no bearing anywhere else in the entire body of laws of the state?

EternalHoH -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/3/2011 10:08:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan Freedom and liberty do not constitute or infer a right to commit murder. I'm the first person to stand up for individual rights, but there comes a point when the "it's my body" defense falls flat on the fact you're killing another one. When the procedure becomes murder of a human being is really up to the court to decide. And they decided in RvW.. Earlier, you said "I don't see a need for sonograms, just as the left doesn't see a need to observe the child they're killing." Why is it a "child" and not a fetus? Generally speaking, the average person sorta draws the line at survivability outside the womb, which is why they are okay with abortion in the first tri (the fetus is otherwise not survivable), but is not too keen on the procedure later on. You can have some states do their "life begins at conception" declaration bullshit, but that is where religion starts to encroach and strong-arm secular government. And anyone that doesn't want to live in a theocracy should be willing to legally strike that down.

farglebargle -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/3/2011 11:27:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EternalHoH quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan Freedom and liberty do not constitute or infer a right to commit murder. I'm the first person to stand up for individual rights, but there comes a point when the "it's my body" defense falls flat on the fact you're killing another one. When the procedure becomes murder of a human being is really up to the court to decide. And they decided in RvW.. Earlier, you said "I don't see a need for sonograms, just as the left doesn't see a need to observe the child they're killing." Why is it a "child" and not a fetus? Generally speaking, the average person sorta draws the line at survivability outside the womb, which is why they are okay with abortion in the first tri (the fetus is otherwise not survivable), but is not too keen on the procedure later on. You can have some states do their "life begins at conception" declaration bullshit, but that is where religion starts to encroach and strong-arm secular government. And anyone that doesn't want to live in a theocracy should be willing to legally strike that down. Can I get some feedback here. About "Life Begins At Conception"? That's a very poorly constructed phrase. Since the egg and sperm are alive, then life DOESN'T begin at conception. Life is CONTINUOUS, and has no defined starting point, unless you want to go back 4 billion years or so... That aside, assuming the concept is really "The Soul Gets Implanted During Conception", that's clearly a religious concept, grounded in Christianity. Then answer this. WHY IS YOUR CHRISTIAN RELIGION MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY JEWISH HERITAGE, WHICH SAYS THAT THERE'S NO SOUL UNTIL THE QUICKENING OF THE FETUS? Well, fuck your crazy religious extremist bullshit masquerading as science... The FIRST FUCKING AMENDMENT says you're NEVER GOING TO HAVE LEGAL RECOGNITION FOR YOUR CRAZY IDEAS. Because that's a violation of the separation of church and state, if your religious views become law to the exclusion of my religious views. That's like... Sharia Law, innit?

Kirata -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/3/2011 12:05:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Because that's a violation of the separation of church and state, if your religious views become law to the exclusion of my religious views. I think ALL views on the subject derived from religious revelation should be declared incompetent and excluded from discussion. K.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/3/2011 1:12:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EternalHoH quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan Freedom and liberty do not constitute or infer a right to commit murder. I'm the first person to stand up for individual rights, but there comes a point when the "it's my body" defense falls flat on the fact you're killing another one. When the procedure becomes murder of a human being is really up to the court to decide. And they decided in RvW.. Earlier, you said "I don't see a need for sonograms, just as the left doesn't see a need to observe the child they're killing." Why is it a "child" and not a fetus? Generally speaking, the average person sorta draws the line at survivability outside the womb, which is why they are okay with abortion in the first tri (the fetus is otherwise not survivable), but is not too keen on the procedure later on. You can have some states do their "life begins at conception" declaration bullshit, but that is where religion starts to encroach and strong-arm secular government. And anyone that doesn't want to live in a theocracy should be willing to legally strike that down. ST already made it clear that whether it is murder or not depends on where the line is drawn and simply pointed out that the line is different. YOU may think that life doesnt begin at conception and that its bullshit, but it has nothing to do with religion encroaching on government. There is no freedom from religion in the Constitution, there is only freedom from a STATE religion.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/3/2011 1:13:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Because that's a violation of the separation of church and state, if your religious views become law to the exclusion of my religious views. No, it isnt.

DomKen -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/3/2011 1:33:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Because that's a violation of the separation of church and state, if your religious views become law to the exclusion of my religious views. No, it isnt. Yes it is. You need to read Lemon.

erieangel -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/3/2011 1:54:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy There is no freedom from religion in the Constitution, there is only freedom from a STATE religion. There is not freedom from a state religion, either; there is only freedom OF religion.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0470047