@mott-the-hoople saidWrong... again.
congress can pass any law it wants to as long as it doesnt violate what is written in the US constitution. It is up to congress to decide this, not the scotus
@averagejoe1 saidEver hear of the Hyde Amendment?
Since you weave all kinds of thought into the constitution to make it appear that the document favors all liberal positions of 2022, can you tell ole' averagejoe, since I have never received an answer, should ANY of my tax dollars be used for payment of any medicine, physicians, midwifes, tools scissors, skull punctures and fetus-dumping related to an abortion? Let's t ...[text shortened]... I guess I am talking about My rights, which you cherish so much.
We are all standing by......
@averagejoe1 saidDo you understand what 'welfare' means? Do you?
I guess I dont get it. It is like Wildgrass is saying the judges will read the constitution and not agree on the simplicity of it. It can only be read one way, as far as I can tell. But for instance, the libs do, indeed, see the word 'welfare' in those first few lines and lick their chops about getting free stuff, totally misunderstanding what the constitution is sayi ...[text shortened]... he word welfare, and everything else should fall into place.
Ahhh, I am so introspective.......
Buy a frigging dictionary. First 'baby', now 'welfare'. How embarrassing is that?
@averagejoe1 saidWhat? Why would anyone do that?
No, I am not talking about tax dollars. I am saying that in a normal setting a person comes up to me and asks would I pay for her abortion. Nothing to do with taxes. Should I pay for her abortion?
Can you pay for me to fly into space?
@sonhouse saidOh, you missed my apology for mentioning tax, I had two threads going at once. And, yes, I did modify. This question is, like, if no govt has any requirement for a citizen to pay for the abortion of another citizen, should a citizen pay for an abortion of another citizen?
@AverageJoe1
I guess you get asked that question ten times a week.....A modification of your previous post "My tax dollars"...
Thanks for helping me clarify. So, what do you say to this?
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidSilly twit.
Oh, you missed my apology for mentioning tax, I had two threads going at once. And, yes, I did modify. This question is, like, if no govt has any requirement for a citizen to pay for the abortion of another citizen, should a citizen pay for an abortion of another citizen?
Thanks for helping me clarify. So, what do you say to this?
What if everyone paid for their own abortion ?
We all know that the debate here is not about who is paying for it.
If you can't approach this debate with how you honestly feel, at least stop trying to deflect the issue.
2 edits
@mghrn55 saidNo problem. What we all know, mjm, is that none of you will answer the question. If you and I were sitting at Starbucks, I would begin by making the mistake of mentioning taxes. You would respond that govt can certainly use tax money for abortions. We get that. But then, follow me here, I would say, oops, I meant that if there was no provision for abortions in our tax, should I still pay for someone else's abortion.
Silly twit.
What if everyone paid for their own abortion ?
We all know that the debate here is not about who is paying for it.
If you can't approach this debate with how you honestly feel, at least stop trying to deflect the issue.
This is so simple.
So now the issue has boiled down to why you liberal people will not answer the simple question.
It is because you find it uncomfortable,... you think I Should pay, but you know that it does not make any sense.
So, by the failure of all of you to squeeze out a yes or no, that means that I win this debate.
Ask me a question. 😉
@wildgrass saidI would not pay for wildgrass to fly to space.
What? Why would anyone do that?
Can you pay for me to fly into space?
See how easy that was.??
@sh76 saidRE point 2. If a fetus has a prima facie right to life, is this equivalent to having an entitlement to be born? I think not. Not all pregnancies end in live births, even in the natural course of events. Moreover, more mothers die in childbirth than fetuses are aborted, worldwide. It therefore stands to reason that a fetus must be considered a potential life, whereas the life of the mother is actual. The potential should be subordinate to the actual, so long as the mother could survive without the fetus but not v.v. This is the position the Vatican does in fact take, hence the RCC position that if the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother, the fetus may be aborted. This shows that, if a fetus can be said to have a right to life, it is a) subordinate to that of the mother, and b) not equivalent to an entitlement to be born.
I finished reading the decision (I did skim some of it).
Even as a Republican, I'm very disappointed in it.
I don't give a damn what people thought were rights in 1868. I'm not saying I buy the whole "living document" business to the excess some take it to, but the Constitution can't be so dead that human rights ideas can't change at all ever without an Amendment.
As fa ...[text shortened]... ed in revisiting Griswold through Obergefell.
It was a poorly thought out strategy and decision.
@suzianne saidEasy, Suzianne. I have deduced that in certain circles, maybe yours, there is a broad sweeping definition , and those circles play their marbles on any and everything for the government to provide to make them happy and give them three square meals a day. It has gotten totally out of hand, losers are parasite-ing off of the federal government. Suzianne, do you think that that is what the Framers meant to happen.?? There are so many programs, that I could not find a site that undertakes to list them all. They may include baby-sitting, for god sakes.
Do you understand what 'welfare' means? Do you?
Buy a frigging dictionary. First 'baby', now 'welfare'. How embarrassing is that?
You don't need to click this link, it simply shows that welfare is for individuals or groups who cannot support themselves. Many people on welfare can support themselves. A reporter found a non-working guy on a Hawiian beach who pulls down $40k/yr. Suzianne, he can support himself. In summation, we all know what welfare is, but libs are applying that word to a LOT more than intended by the Preamble.
You now know what the Framers did NOT mean by Welfare. Glad to help. But keep up being a tough cookie, it becomes you!! 🤔
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/welfare.asp
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@averagejoe1 saidOK, here's one:
Ask me a question. 😉
Why, Joe - why, oh why, o why - are all your questions so dishonest? Is it the the fluorinated water you use to make your hominy grits, or did you just inherit an evasive personality disorder from your slave-owning grandparents?
@vistesd2 saidAbortion is, at best, a morally questionable elective procedure.
@sh76
Hi, Sh—
Why should only one group have to “shop” for policies that cover it – as opposed to shopping for policies that don’t?
I don’t understand your objection to, say, Medicaid coverage – except that you want the government to enforce your particular moral judgments. I’m against tax dollars supporting religious education of any kind. Is there a difference?
Please do not think that my response is intended to be in any way snarky.
I buy the argument that it's none of my damn business whether some woman out there has an abortion. That's why, within limits, I'm pro-choice (at least pre-viability-ish). But to make the federal taxpayer pay for it? I'd draw the line at that.
PS: Tax dollars don't support religious education. Religious schools giving general education is a different matter. But if you want to stop the government from paying for my kids' Bible lessons, go ahead. They don't pay for them anyway. The Maine case from last week was different. There's the state is paying for any school the parents choose. the Court just said if they're paying for any schools the parents choose, they just can't exclude religious ones. As far as I know, no state specifically supports religious instruction.