Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2021 15:58:27 GMT
In what part of the constitution says abortion is a rigt. Not only but also in America, there isn't Power separations, why Biden Administration intervention in The Justice is legal? Montesquieu pa febrero.- The Justice Department sued Texas over the law. The Judge who heard the case agreed with the plaintiff. I'm not sure what else you need to understand about that?
|
|
flasuss
Badass
Posts: 1,830
Likes: 1,615
|
Post by flasuss on Oct 7, 2021 16:17:55 GMT
In what part of the constitution says abortion is a rigt. Not only but also in America, there isn't Power separations, why Biden Administration intervention in The Justice is legal? Montesquieu pa febrero.- In which part of the American Constitution it says abortion IS NOT a right? It doesn't have to state it is, because the Bill of Rights is, by it's own text, merely exemplification of rights the people already have and the fact one right isn't there doesn't mean it's non-existent. Of course, any Constitution worth their salt in the world has similar provisions.
And of course Conservatives hate Judicial Review...unless of course it's blocking a law maybe those evil communists Democrats. Then it's all right.
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Oct 7, 2021 18:02:29 GMT
In what part of the constitution says abortion is a rigt. Not only but also in America, there isn't Power separations, why Biden Administration intervention in The Justice is legal? Montesquieu pa febrero.- In which part of the American Constitution it says abortion IS NOT a right? It doesn't have to state it is, because the Bill of Rights is, by it's own text, merely exemplification of rights the people already have and the fact one right isn't there doesn't mean it's non-existent. Of course, any Constitution worth their salt in the world has similar provisions.
And of course Conservatives hate Judicial Review...unless of course it's blocking a law maybe those evil communists Democrats. Then it's all right.
So why abortion was penalizated for 200 years after the bill of rights? Maybe because isn't a right, and 200 years then the doctrine and then jurisprudency invented or created that.-
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Oct 7, 2021 18:08:22 GMT
In what part of the constitution says abortion is a rigt. Not only but also in America, there isn't Power separations, why Biden Administration intervention in The Justice is legal? Montesquieu pa febrero.- The Justice Department sued Texas over the law. The Judge who heard the case agreed with the plaintiff. I'm not sure what else you need to understand about that? I don't know about the Texas Law, the US Law and the Justice Department, so that's why I ask the Question, specially after the Supreme Court said that was constitutional, at least part of the law? Also why the The Biden Administrations intervined over the justice, is this legal? Could Biden order the Texan Federal "Democratic Party" judge to declare inconstitutional a law from the Great State of Texas.- Maybe it's a missunderterpretation of Tyler words.- But still, I studied Comparative Law at the University, I have a degree of it, so I'm totally interested, in how the judicial system work in US.- I try to understand you, but maybe with a more pedagogic quotes, I can understand you better.- What is Justice Department, and from who depends on?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2021 18:40:57 GMT
The Justice Department sued Texas over the law. The Judge who heard the case agreed with the plaintiff. I'm not sure what else you need to understand about that? I don't know about the Texas Law, the US Law and the Justice Department, so that's why I ask the Question, specially after the Supreme Court said that was constitutional, at least part of the law? Also why the The Biden Administrations intervined over the justice, is this legal? Could Biden order the Texan Federal "Democratic Party" judge to declare inconstitutional a law from the Great State of Texas.- Maybe it's a missunderterpretation of Tyler words.- But still, I studied Comparative Law at the University, I have a degree of it, so I'm totally interested, in how the judicial system work in US.- I try to understand you, but maybe with a more pedagogic quotes, I can understand you better.- What is Justice Department, and from who depends on? The Supreme Court did not say the law was Constitutional - they have yet to rule there - they simply didn't block the law from going into effect.
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Oct 7, 2021 21:24:47 GMT
I don't know about the Texas Law, the US Law and the Justice Department, so that's why I ask the Question, specially after the Supreme Court said that was constitutional, at least part of the law? Also why the The Biden Administrations intervined over the justice, is this legal? Could Biden order the Texan Federal "Democratic Party" judge to declare inconstitutional a law from the Great State of Texas.- Maybe it's a missunderterpretation of Tyler words.- But still, I studied Comparative Law at the University, I have a degree of it, so I'm totally interested, in how the judicial system work in US.- I try to understand you, but maybe with a more pedagogic quotes, I can understand you better.- What is Justice Department, and from who depends on? The Supreme Court did not say the law was Constitutional - they have yet to rule there - they simply didn't block the law from going into effect. Yep I know that. That wasnt the Question. So please answer It. Whatvis the Justice Deparmant Who represents us, the Texas? From who depends? Is imparcial? Who Is the judge? Why him AND not other? Why not to the supreme court of Texas or US etc, or apelación? I Guess there aré Easy AND fair questions.
|
|
flasuss
Badass
Posts: 1,830
Likes: 1,615
|
Post by flasuss on Oct 8, 2021 0:55:11 GMT
In which part of the American Constitution it says abortion IS NOT a right? It doesn't have to state it is, because the Bill of Rights is, by it's own text, merely exemplification of rights the people already have and the fact one right isn't there doesn't mean it's non-existent. Of course, any Constitution worth their salt in the world has similar provisions.
And of course Conservatives hate Judicial Review...unless of course it's blocking a law maybe those evil communists Democrats. Then it's all right.
So why abortion was penalizated for 200 years after the bill of rights? Maybe because isn't a right, and 200 years then the doctrine and then jurisprudency invented or created that.- The Bill of Rights doesn't include right of privacy, or to clean water and air either, doesn't mean someone can access your internet history or poison the water supply. Moreover, society and jurisprudence evolve to find some things acceptable or not: in 1789 was perfectly fine for a 50 year old man marry a 15 year old girl if their parents got enough of a dowdry, that could have been paid in slaves, while a protestant marrying a catholic or a white person marrying a black one was an unforgivable sin.
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Oct 8, 2021 10:54:43 GMT
So why abortion was penalizated for 200 years after the bill of rights? Maybe because isn't a right, and 200 years then the doctrine and then jurisprudency invented or created that.- The Bill of Rights doesn't include right of privacy, or to clean water and air either, doesn't mean someone can access your internet history or poison the water supply. Moreover, society and jurisprudence evolve to find some things acceptable or not: in 1789 was perfectly fine for a 50 year old man marry a 15 year old girl if their parents got enough of a dowdry, that could have been paid in slaves, while a protestant marrying a catholic or a white person marrying a black one was an unforgivable sin. Sins is moralty. I never hear that a Quaquer wasn't allow to married a catholic by the Bill of rights . Penal Law, itsnt moral, just said what people cant do AND their punish. AND for 200 years abortion was a crime, AND was accepted pacifically. Seccond dont confuse doctrine with jurisprudency. there aré doctrines based on facts AND principales that aré against abortion AND also doctrines based in facts AND principles that aré un favor. AND both pacifically could exist together. Jurisprudency Is diferent. AND a obligarmtory prescedent forbthebcourtbof justice. But Amy way It can change. Because aré human interpretatons. If Wade vs Roe benefited women, while 50 years later still a controversy judment? Itsnt about 1% Is against It. Is More than 10%. How Many people Is tortally in favor. Maybe a Quarter. AND 2\3 dont care, or thinks something in between.
|
|
|
Post by jakesully on Oct 8, 2021 15:10:10 GMT
Abortion should be strictly up to the woman's choice. Not a man's choice at all imo. I guarantee you if men were able to get pregnant, there wouldn't ever be any anti abortion advocates left out there (or else it'd be such a small % imo) I'm tired of these ultra powerful male politicians like Greg Abbott passing laws like this that strictly effect women in negative ways. Its total bullshit. Fuck Greg Abbott. Its already blowing up in his face and other politicians like him. Glad its backfiring on them
|
|
|
Post by jakesully on Oct 8, 2021 15:49:11 GMT
The Bill of Rights doesn't include right of privacy, or to clean water and air either, doesn't mean someone can access your internet history or poison the water supply. Moreover, society and jurisprudence evolve to find some things acceptable or not: in 1789 was perfectly fine for a 50 year old man marry a 15 year old girl if their parents got enough of a dowdry, that could have been paid in slaves, while a protestant marrying a catholic or a white person marrying a black one was an unforgivable sin. Sins is moralty. I never hear that a Quaquer wasn't allow to married a catholic by the Bill of rights . Penal Law, itsnt moral, just said what people cant do AND their punish. AND for 200 years abortion was a crime, AND was accepted pacifically. Seccond dont confuse doctrine with jurisprudency. there aré doctrines based on facts AND principales that aré against abortion AND also doctrines based in facts AND principles that aré un favor. AND both pacifically could exist together. Jurisprudency Is diferent. AND a obligarmtory prescedent forbthebcourtbof justice. But Amy way It can change. Because aré human interpretatons. If Wade vs Roe benefited women, while 50 years later still a controversy judment? Itsnt about 1% Is against It. Is More than 10%. How Many people Is tortally in favor. Maybe a Quarter. AND 2\3 dont care, or thinks something in between. You seem very passionate about this subject but I honestly just don't think any men should have a say in what a woman does with her body. Its just not our place to speak on it tbh. Women haven't even had equal rights for that long either so these very powerful male politicians (with bad dishonest intentions) and anti abortion activists need to cool it with them intruding on something that doesn't have anything to do with them. The government overreaching & getting so overly involved in peoples' personal lives (esp women's) just doesn't sit well at all with me. Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Oct 8, 2021 16:11:53 GMT
Sins is moralty. I never hear that a Quaquer wasn't allow to married a catholic by the Bill of rights . Penal Law, itsnt moral, just said what people cant do AND their punish. AND for 200 years abortion was a crime, AND was accepted pacifically. Seccond dont confuse doctrine with jurisprudency. there aré doctrines based on facts AND principales that aré against abortion AND also doctrines based in facts AND principles that aré un favor. AND both pacifically could exist together. Jurisprudency Is diferent. AND a obligarmtory prescedent forbthebcourtbof justice. But Amy way It can change. Because aré human interpretatons. If Wade vs Roe benefited women, while 50 years later still a controversy judment? Itsnt about 1% Is against It. Is More than 10%. How Many people Is tortally in favor. Maybe a Quarter. AND 2\3 dont care, or thinks something in between. You seem very passionate about this subject but I honestly just don't think any men should have a say in what a woman does with her body. Its just not our place to speak on it tbh. Women haven't even had equal rights for that long either so these very powerful male politicians (with bad dishonest intentions) and anti abortion activists need to cool it with them intruding on something that doesn't have anything to do with them. The government overreaching & getting so overly involved in peoples' personal lives (esp women's) just doesn't sit well at all with me. Just my 2 cents. As Jack the Ripper said pieces by pieces my Question Is about how the juditial System works in US, not about abortion. Fortunately my country Is centralist AND not federalist. Still, there aré Big lagoons un my mind about federalist juditial System. AND I Guess most of US have not clue about how works this.
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Oct 8, 2021 16:48:57 GMT
I think you confuse Some points. Men as women could be doctors AND nurses AND medical student, their opinión AND their choice, their moral objection Is More important than women choice. If they could save both ññlives
Men could be fathers, men AND women could be grandpas, uncles aunt, AND have the right to fight for their relative unborn rights. I dont say they aré right ir Will win, but they hace the right to fight
These people needs lawyers that could be men or women. AND a judge Will resolver this
AND people in US choice presidents, Governators AND legislator, AND even sometimes prosecutors.
Abott (the texan governor?)was a guy who was elected by men AND women, so as a governor by the law has no sex, race, sexual orientation or religión. Is the main State administrator, as Biden Is the US main administrator. AND he govern according the US Law, The Texan Las, the US People AND the Texan People. AND he fomented all the política that the Texan People want, specially, but not only, what Abbot voters wants.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,712
Likes: 2,132
|
Post by cherry68 on Oct 8, 2021 16:59:39 GMT
A child has a mother and a father. If the life of the mother isn't in danger, I don't see why she can decide to abort if the father wants the baby.
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Oct 8, 2021 17:05:34 GMT
States were created in order to protect their people, not to kill them. Of curse there are wars AND in Some countries death penalties.
But still aré the exeptions AND are regulated by Law, ay first AND seccond by judges.
So said that polítics shouldnt be involve in abortions has no Sense because protection Is the origin of a State , Is part of health care. To protect the unborn lives AND or their mother rights/choice.
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Oct 8, 2021 17:10:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Oct 8, 2021 17:12:53 GMT
Miterrand, Sarkozy or Hollande? Los políticos franceses son más fáciles que la tabla del 1, menos el eunuco actual mitad Edipo mitad Napoleón. Any way thats worked for Evita Perón, Carla Bruni, Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama and Melania Trump, Dewi Sukarno AND Imelda Marcos among others
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Oct 8, 2021 17:23:24 GMT
A child has a mother and a father. If the life of the mother isn't in danger, I don't see why she can decide to abort if the father wants the baby. While most of the fathers wanted that Childrens with them to take care. To be fair they could be tóxic in both ways, fathers that want Children in orden to controlated their women, while there aré women who wanted abortion to felt humiliated their parents. Yesterday a woman could claim that her Children werent from their abusive ex. But now with DNA,every biological father could claim their fatherhood 10 years later with a DNA test. AND thats sucks!!!
|
|
|
Post by Lord_Buscemi on Oct 8, 2021 20:45:12 GMT
hugobolso's posting in this thread is absolutely unhinged
|
|
|
Post by Lord_Buscemi on Oct 8, 2021 20:46:04 GMT
A child has a mother and a father. If the life of the mother isn't in danger, I don't see why she can decide to abort if the father wants the baby. Because the father isn't giving birth to the child. Quite simple lmao
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Oct 8, 2021 21:20:53 GMT
hugobolso's posting in this thread is absolutely unhinged Whatever none explains what happened. It's all I heard.
|
|
flasuss
Badass
Posts: 1,830
Likes: 1,615
|
Post by flasuss on Oct 8, 2021 21:45:31 GMT
A child has a mother and a father. If the life of the mother isn't in danger, I don't see why she can decide to abort if the father wants the baby. Except of course every birth, without exception, carries a risk for the mother, specially in the age of COVID. Plus, if the father really wants a child and the mother doesn't, he can always adopt or find a woman that's willing
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,712
Likes: 2,132
|
Post by cherry68 on Oct 8, 2021 22:15:00 GMT
A child has a mother and a father. If the life of the mother isn't in danger, I don't see why she can decide to abort if the father wants the baby. Except of course every birth, without exception, carries a risk for the mother, specially in the age of COVID. Plus, if the father really wants a child and the mother doesn't, he can always adopt or find a woman that's willing If the woman doesn't want a child, she can use contraceptive pills for instance. No need for abortion. Pills are like 99.99% effective.
|
|
|
Post by Lord_Buscemi on Oct 8, 2021 22:35:23 GMT
Except of course every birth, without exception, carries a risk for the mother, specially in the age of COVID. Plus, if the father really wants a child and the mother doesn't, he can always adopt or find a woman that's willing If the woman doesn't want a child, she can use contraceptive pills for instance. No need for abortion. Pills are like 99.99% effective. If a man wants a child, he should date/marry a partner who also wants one. If a woman wants an abortion, it's her decision to have bodily autonomy. People in this thread need to stop pretending this is some "balanced, complex" issue when it's actually really, really simple.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Oct 9, 2021 1:54:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Oct 9, 2021 1:57:05 GMT
"If I wanted the government in my uterus, I'd fill it with oil and Hispanic voters"- Britta Perry
|
|