I hope she isn't picked.  She's against abortion and too religious.  Religion should never have a part in government.  It's the one thing the right keeps fucking up. Along with freedom speech and rights.  (Patriot act, going after internet companiesfor users postings, etc)

I hope she isn't picked.  She's against abortion and too religious.  Religion should never have a part in government.  It's the one thing the right keeps fucking up. Along with freedom speech and rights.  (Patriot act, going after internet companiesfor users postings, etc)

We have lots of judges who are personally against abortion on demand (not necessarily against abortion in cases of rape, incest or if pregnancy is a risk to the mother).  They all are expected to put personal opinions aside and rule according to the law.

Ever since Roe, the judges have upheld abortion rights because of that precedence, not because of personal beliefs.

If Roe v Wade is ever reversed, it won't end abortion rights.  it'll simply push the legal decisions back down to the states, like they existed before Roe.

It's irrational to believe the federal courts will ban abortions.  They would simply stop the practice of using a bad law to force all states into compliance.  So, if CA decides after-birth abortions are okay, the rest of the states have the ability to prohibit the practice.

You seem to be forgetting that the nation was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs.  You can follow those beliefs without practicing religion.  I think most people agree with the 10 Commandments, the concept of forgiveness, and with treating others as you want to be treated.  Whether your acceptance of these moral concepts is based on what you learned from the Bible or from your parents is immaterial.  The result is the same:  a moral foundation that we all share.

Abortion is a very difficult issue.  While many Christians see abortion as murder at any stage of development, many others believe there is a window in early development where the woman can choose to terminate the pregnancy.  Others still believe the decision should be based on rational factors, not personal convenience.  Then there are those who think life has no meaning at any point on the timeline, and they can kill before, during or after birth.

When Roe v Wade was being debated, the mantra from the Left said abortion should be safe, legal and rare.  it has since become a call for abortions as a sign of normalcy.  We have celebrities talking about how their first abortion was the best one, or that they wish daily that they could get pregnant so she, too, can be part of the clique who've all terminated a pregnancy.  That's pretty sick.

There are extreme positions on both ends of the spectrum, but it all comes down to "what if".  What if that child you didn't want was the prodigy that develops a cure for cancer, discovers a viable, sustainable form of energy with none of the current disadvantages of fossil fuels, or develops the first ship capable of traveling at light speed? 

Millions of potential lives every year are terminated.  I'd say the odds are in favor of at least a few of them being a major loss to the the human race in terms of achievement.

Planned Parenthood was based on the mission to terminate the births of children to minority parents.  The Left has denied that truth for so long, they forgot how racist the organization is at its very roots.  This year, they finally admitted it, but instead of disbanding them, they are simply expunging Margaret Sanger's name from buildings and monuments.  Don't like the history of your racist group?  Just erase a few names from the charter and carry on.   


New York's Planned Parenthood will remove founder's name over her views on eugenics

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/22/us/margaret-sanger-planned-parenthood-trnd/index.html

in 2017, Diane Feinstein tried to attack Barrett on her religious beliefs as a Catholic.  I guess a Jew attacking a Christian isn't new, huh?

There is no religious litmus test for government positions, neither in favor of any particular religion nor opposed to any.  To argue that a judge must have no deeply held religious beliefs is a litmus test:  "only atheists and agnostics need apply."

I see Muslims in Congress and saw many surrounding the President, his cabinet, and Presidential candidate Clinton.  Obama was raised in a mostly Muslim environment outside the US during his formative years.  He's stated there's no more beautiful sound than the Call to Prayer announcements.   Should those people be barred from making laws and influencing the course of the nation's policies solely because they hold beliefs in a certain religion? 

But a Christian's faith is detrimental when seated on the bench?  The faith preaches forgiveness.  Seems like Liberals would welcome such an open-minded person to the courts.

We have lots of judges who are personally against abortion on demand (not necessarily against abortion in cases of rape, incest or if pregnancy is a risk to the mother).  They all are expected to put personal opinions aside and rule according to the law.

Ever since Roe, the judges have upheld abortion rights because of that precedence, not because of personal beliefs.

If Roe v Wade is ever reversed, it won't end abortion rights.  it'll simply push the legal decisions back down to the states, like they existed before Roe.

It's irrational to believe the federal courts will ban abortions.  They would simply stop the practice of using a bad law to force all states into compliance.  So, if CA decides after-birth abortions are okay, the rest of the states have the ability to prohibit the practice.

You seem to be forgetting that the nation was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs.  You can follow those beliefs without practicing religion.  I think most people agree with the 10 Commandments, the concept of forgiveness, and with treating others as you want to be treated.  Whether your acceptance of these moral concepts is based on what you learned from the Bible or from your parents is immaterial.  The result is the same:  a moral foundation that we all share.

Abortion is a very difficult issue.  While many Christians see abortion as murder at any stage of development, many others believe there is a window in early development where the woman can choose to terminate the pregnancy.  Others still believe the decision should be based on rational factors, not personal convenience.  Then there are those who think life has no meaning at any point on the timeline, and they can kill before, during or after birth.

When Roe v Wade was being debated, the mantra from the Left said abortion should be safe, legal and rare.  it has since become a call for abortions as a sign of normalcy.  We have celebrities talking about how their first abortion was the best one, or that they wish daily that they could get pregnant so she, too, can be part of the clique who've all terminated a pregnancy.  That's pretty sick.

There are extreme positions on both ends of the spectrum, but it all comes down to "what if".  What if that child you didn't want was the prodigy that develops a cure for cancer, discovers a viable, sustainable form of energy with none of the current disadvantages of fossil fuels, or develops the first ship capable of traveling at light speed? 

Millions of potential lives every year are terminated.  I'd say the odds are in favor of at least a few of them being a major loss to the the human race in terms of achievement.

Planned Parenthood was based on the mission to terminate the births of children to minority parents.  The Left has denied that truth for so long, they forgot how racist the organization is at its very roots.  This year, they finally admitted it, but instead of disbanding them, they are simply expunging Margaret Sanger's name from buildings and monuments.  Don't like the history of your racist group?  Just erase a few names from the charter and carry on.   


New York's Planned Parenthood will remove founder's name over her views on eugenics

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/22/us/margaret-sanger-planned-parenthood-trnd/index.html

Abortion on convenience isn't a bad thing.  No more than periods or shooting your load in a tissue. Or shedding hair. It's a collection of cells thats holds no real value scientifically.  Planned Parenthood in my opinion is great.  I've used their services before. I have no complaints. Just because poor people use it to cancel kids they don't want or can't even afford doesn't  make it bad.  I think it's far better than forcing them to have the child and brining that child into a life of poverty.

Also if they cancel it sure it won't ban it in say our state. But not everyone is fortunate to just pick where they live or get services. Especially if they are poor or young.  Those who need abortions the most can't get it.  It's your body, America is based on freedom for all not for those who live in X state.

Abortion on convenience isn't a bad thing.  No more than periods or shooting your load in a tissue. Or shedding hair. It's a collection of cells thats holds no real value scientifically.  Planned Parenthood in my opinion is great.  I've used their services before. I have no complaints. Just because poor people use it to cancel kids they don't want or can't even afford doesn't  make it bad.  I think it's far better than forcing them to have the child and brining that child into a life of poverty.

Also if they cancel it sure it won't ban it in say our state. But not everyone is fortunate to just pick where they live or get services. Especially if they are poor or young.  Those who need abortions the most can't get it.  It's your body, America is based on freedom for all not for those who live in X state.

I hope your abortion was completed without complications...

She's against abortion and too religious. 

I am glad access to abortions is important to you.

AFAIK, Ginsburg was a religious Jew, but that was fine?   Catholics bother you?

It seems the homo "community" really hates her.

the argument that changed my mind was that if you define when life started we should also define when life ends

I am glad access to abortions is important to you.

AFAIK, Ginsburg was a religious Jew, but that was fine?   Catholics bother you?

It seems the homo "community" really hates her.

Yeah, Little Chuckie Schumer said they were having  rosh hashanah dinner when the announcement came that Justice Greenberg, er, Ginsburg had died and his daughter turned to her wife and said "I wonder if our right to marry will be preserved?" [For real, there's video of him saying exactly that, including "Greenberg"...][https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/09/aint-sht-stop-lying-people-schumer-rattled-hecklers-disrupt-presser-ginsburgs-replacement-video/}

I hope your abortion was completed without complications...

You know they do stuff other than abortions.  Got my ex on the birth control and they do stuff like STD tests and condoms.  Important safe sex practices... Not that you would have any use of that....   

I am glad access to abortions is important to you.

AFAIK, Ginsburg was a religious Jew, but that was fine?   Catholics bother you?

It seems the homo "community" really hates her.

I do applaud her for not letting her religion influence her job.   I don't care what you believe in as long as you dont let those beliefs influence your job.   Your job is the interpret a non biased, non religious law.  If you let your beliefs dictate how you rule on law you are doing it wrong.

the argument that changed my mind was that if you define when life started we should also define when life ends

What?

Life begins when you can leave the womb and can breath and survive, life ends when you cant?  Pretty simple.

What?

Life begins when you can leave the womb and can breath and survive, life ends when you cant?  Pretty simple.

What if a person is in a coma, suffered a heart attack, near drowning. Do we attempt to resuscitate? How long do we keep a person in a coma?

What if a person is in a coma.

They are breathing and alive? Unless you mean vegetative state then if you take them off life support do they die?

If we really get into the thick. I believe consciousness matters,  but that's a harder concept to nail down. 

What?

Life begins when you can leave the womb and can breath and survive, life ends when you cant?  Pretty simple.

so a baby in the womb at what point can not be aborted? In your definition, an abortion can be performed right up until birth.

They are breathing and alive? Unless you mean vegetative state then if you take them off life support do they die?

If we really get into the thick. I believe consciousness matters,  but that's a harder concept to nail down.

Does that define life?

Does that define life?

Two parts of life,  physical and mental.  One can say to be truly alive you need both. But I think mental is the more important of the two.  Personally I believe if you dont have consciousness you are not "alive". 

FYI a non viable fetus has neither. 

  Got my ex on the birth control and they do stuff like STD tests

I see why she is your "ex"

As far as I’m concerned abortion is murder....period....no two ways about it.

I do applaud her for not letting her religion influence her job.   I don't care what you believe in as long as you dont let those beliefs influence your job.   Your job is the interpret a non biased, non religious law.  If you let your beliefs dictate how you rule on law you are doing it wrong.

please cite an instance or two when ACB let her beliefs dictate how she ruled on law...