Well?
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
The left's different approach to rights it opposes
Collapse
X
-
The left's different approach to rights it opposes
Well?Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom
Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologistTags: None
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
Well?
For another thing, this quote is awfully misleading:
The court held that abortion is such a fundamental constitutional right that minimal health standards are an "undue burden" on women seeking an abortion, even if they might save women's lives.
"Minimal" health standards? Two of the main objections were that 1) The vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester and don't require surgical operations, which renders the ambulatory surgical center requirement moot in over 91% of cases, and 2) There are surgical procedures that carry higher risk factors than abortions, yet those don't have that requirement. The laws would not save women's lives and are not "minimal health standards."
For yet another thing, isn't Whole Woman's Health a group that provides gynecology services including abortion care? Why wouldn't they be allowed to sue on behalf of women over laws restricting abortion care?
the right to bear arms and the right to due process when the government denies you a right. (Both, unlike abortion, are rights spelled out in the Constitution)
Never mind that the Orlando slaughter -- the event that set off the House sit-in -- would not have been prevented if the Democrats had their way.
Justice Stephen Breyer argued that the Texas statute was unnecessary because "determined wrongdoers" like Gosnell wouldn't be deterred by new laws given that he was willing to violate existing laws.
Maybe so. But isn't that exactly the NRA's position on gun laws? Murderers, never mind terrorists, by definition don't care about the law.
And, of course, ambulatory surgical center requirements such as widening the hallways obviously would not have stopped a Kermit Gosnell, whereas proposed legislation such as increased background checks could have stopped an Omar Mateen.
President Obama, who hailed the court's decision, desperately craves the unilateral power to keep a list of people to whom he wants to deny guns without due process.
Those on the left -- in all three branches of the federal government, along with their cheerleaders in the media -- believe that the rights they like are sacred and the rights they dislike are negligible inconveniences at best and outrageous cancers on the body politic at worstLearn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17
I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 03:46 PM
|
0 responses
14 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by KingsGambit
Today, 04:11 PM
|
||
Started by Ronson, Today, 01:52 PM
|
1 response
14 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Today, 03:09 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 09:08 AM
|
6 responses
52 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by RumTumTugger
Today, 10:30 AM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 07:44 AM
|
0 responses
19 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 07:44 AM | ||
Started by seer, Today, 07:04 AM
|
29 responses
168 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Today, 02:59 PM
|
Comment