Donnie appears to soften position on abortion tossing pro life evangelicals under the bus

[West]

Just now, robosmith said:

No, it DOESN'T.

Uh yeah it does. Go back to watching Maddow sprew her venom

[Five of swords]

10 hours ago, Rebound said:

No, “we” did not all want Roe v Wade overturned. Why would Trump want Roe v Wade overturned if he wanted to legalize abortion? 

Because overturning roe vs Wade does not outlaw abortion?

[robosmith]

19 hours ago, West said:

Uh yeah it does. Go back to watching Maddow sprew her venom

Prove your case here. You cannot.

16 hours ago, Five of swords said:

Because overturning roe vs Wade does not outlaw abortion?

Your question doesn't answer the question.

[Five of swords]

26 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Prove your case here. You cannot.

Your question doesn't answer the question.

Dude...Roe VS Wade simply demands that abortion be legal federally. Opposing it could easily mean that you also want abortion to be legal, but you accept state sovereignty on that question. So yes...a person could easily support legalizing abortion while opposing roe VS Wade, because they believe in state's rights.

 

Very simple logic here...almost a tautology. A person who wants abortion to be legal could also support anything that doesn't outlaw abortion without any contradiction. For example, a person could want legal abortion while also wanting to outlaw slavery, because outlawing slavery does not require that abortion becomes illegal. You can practice with other examples also, if you like.

 

Make any sense yet?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Five of swords said:

Dude...Roe VS Wade simply demands that abortion be legal federally.

No, it did not. This is often misunderstood. What roe versus Wade said was that under one interpretation of the terms of the constitution abortion could be considered to be constitutionally protected. Which means that no level of government can unreasonably interfere with a person's right to it. Not federal not state nobody

While it's not actually mentioned in the constitution certain provisions of the constitution do allow for non-specific things to be considered constitutionally protected under certain circumstances

The more late ruling simply said that the court was an error, and that abortion is not constitutionally protected. The conditions necessary are not met.

Given the nature of it as a medical issue, it therefore falls to the state to regulate it rather than the federal government. They couldn't do so before because it was considered constitutionally protected. But now that it isn't, the states have to pass their own individual legislation.

That's where we're at. Roe versus Wade was always a very controversial decision. It absolutely was not cut and dry and many felt that the decision was wrong. Has been re-examined and reevaluated and found not to be a constitutional issue any more than having your spleen removed is.

[Five of swords]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

No, it did not. This is often misunderstood. What roe versus Wade said was that under one interpretation of the terms of the constitution abortion could be considered to be constitutionally protected. Which means that no level of government can unreasonably interfere with a person's right to it. Not federal not state nobody

While it's not actually mentioned in the constitution certain provisions of the constitution do allow for non-specific things to be considered constitutionally protected under certain circumstances

The more late ruling simply said that the court was an error, and that abortion is not constitutionally protected. The conditions necessary are not met.

Given the nature of it as a medical issue, it therefore falls to the state to regulate it rather than the federal government. They couldn't do so before because it was considered constitutionally protected. But now that it isn't, the states have to pass their own individual legislation.

That's where we're at. Roe versus Wade was always a very controversial decision. It absolutely was not cut and dry and many felt that the decision was wrong. Has been re-examined and reevaluated and found not to be a constitutional issue any more than having your spleen removed is.

We have already determined that you are severely retarded so I am not terribly surprised that I need to point this out but.. if abortion were considered constitutionally protected as a right then it would follow it is legally protected federally

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Five of swords said:

We have already determined that you are severely retarded so I am not terribly surprised that I need to point this out but.. if abortion were considered constitutionally protected as a right then it would follow it is legally protected federally

I'm sure the voices in your head like to tell you that I'm all kinds of things. Anything to stop your crying  after one of our talks I'm sure

But no. It would mean it was constitutionally protected not federally protected at all.  Just the opposite, it would mean that the federal law had no right to regulate it one way or another. The law is subservient to the constitution.

I can see where you'd be confused about this, and I suppose there might be some who erroneously use the word legally protected in casual conversation but no. There would be no federal law, therefore it could not legally be protected federally. Because it is protected constitutionally federal law has absolutely no jurisdiction.

Remember, The constitution isn't the law, the constitution is the document And agreement that grants the government the right to pass laws and constrains the government as far as what laws it can or cannot pass.

And you might want to tell those voices in your head that before They make you look like a brain dead loser again they might want to do a few Google searches and make sure they understand what they're talking about..   lololol!!!! God you're a dumbass  

[CouchPotato]

2 hours ago, Five of swords said:

We have already determined that you are severely retarded so I am not terribly surprised that I need to point this out but.. if abortion were considered constitutionally protected as a right then it would follow it is legally protected federally

It would mean that congress could pass no law concerning it.

[Five of swords]

1 hour ago, CouchPotato said:

It would mean that congress could pass no law concerning it.

No, lol. The bill does concern it and declared it is constitutionally protected

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Five of swords said:

No, lol. The bill does concern it and declared it is constitutionally protected

??????

How does a bill declare something constitutionally protected. 

Yeash kid. 

[Five of swords]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

??????

How does a bill declare something constitutionally protected. 

Yeash kid. 

It doesn't. The Supreme Court is supposed to be who interprets what is constitutionally protected. As the name suggests, roe VS Wade was a court case. Bills were passed in light of that interpretation. It isn't complicated if your iq is more than single digits.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Five of swords said:

The bill does concern it and declared it is constitutionally protected

 

22 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

How does a bill declare something constitutionally protected?

13 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

It doesn't. 

Look kid.  If you could be so kind as to keep your story straight for at least 2 posts in a row i think it would make it a lot easier to NOT think of you as a complete tard. 

So what happened there?  You realized you were wrong, then tried to go back and rewrite it in a way that was less wrong hoping we wouldn't notice?

Your entire premise that i replied to and so did @CouchPotato  was that there was federal law protecting abortions.  There was not. Your claims that there was were wrong, there was no bill that 'declared' anything constitutionally protected.

Next time just pay attention. Everyone gets something wrong from time to time, if you do just own it and try not to double down on the stupid. 

 

[Five of swords]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

 

Look kid.  If you could be so kind as to keep your story straight for at least 2 posts in a row i think it would make it a lot easier to NOT think of you as a complete tard. 

So what happened there?  You realized you were wrong, then tried to go back and rewrite it in a way that was less wrong hoping we wouldn't notice?

Your entire premise that i replied to and so did @CouchPotato  was that there was federal law protecting abortions.  There was not. Your claims that there was were wrong, there was no bill that 'declared' anything constitutionally protected.

Next time just pay attention. Everyone gets something wrong from time to time, if you do just own it and try not to double down on the stupid. 

 

Just stupid, lol. Yes, abortion was legally protected federally. It isn't complicated.

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

Just stupid, lol.

Not just stupid, i think we all agree you're a little "slow" mentally and i think most posters here try to keep that in mind when replying to you. Nobody wants to be the guy who picks on the kid waiting for the short bus.  But c'mon, you've got to help us a little. 

Quote

Yes, abortion was legally protected federally. It isn't complicated.

sigh.  No.  No it wasn't. The constitution isn't 'federal law'.   I  mean you're right that it isn't complicated and yet you just can't understand it.  Disappointing. 

Edited August 26, 2024 by CdnFox

[Five of swords]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Not just stupid, i think we all agree you're a little "slow" mentally and i think most posters here try to keep that in mind when replying to you. Nobody wants to be the guy who picks on the kid waiting for the short bus.  But c'mon, you've got to help us a little. 

sigh.  No.  No it wasn't. The constitution isn't 'federal law'.   I  mean you're right that it isn't complicated and yet you just can't understand it.  Disappointing. 

You are the one saying a court case is a bill. I am not. I am saying bills absolutrly were passed, following roe VS Wade, ensuring access to abortion for almost citizens, and it was federal law. It's confusing to you, not to me.

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

You are the one saying a court case is a bill.

Your words kiddo - 

 

2 hours ago, Five of swords said:

No, lol. The bill does concern it and declared it is constitutionally protected

Those were your words. Not mine.  I'm not the one saying the bill declared anything at all. 

I was the one who asked how a bill could declare something constitutionally protected.  As you literally said. 

Sigh. Go back to your lego kid, this will make sense when you grow up. 

8 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

I am saying bills absolutrly were passed, following roe VS Wade, ensuring access to abortion for almost citizens, and it was federal law. 

Sorry kiddo you're wrong again. And getting slightly incoherent i might add  - go to bed it's a school night. 

First, nothing guaranteed access to abortion. What roe vs wade said was that the gov'ts could not pass a law blocking it, but that does not mean the state must guarantee someone provides it.  There's no law in canada blocking it but by choice canada's medical providers choose not to offer it after a certain point in almost all cases. 

So no it didn't guarantee it, it just prevented the gov't from interfering. 

and secondly the bill did nothing in that regard.  The feds helped out by coming up with a framework that states could rely on to ensure they didn't run afoul of the constitution. That did nothing to protect rights, it just gave guidance to states with regards to the charter rights. 

It is deeply concerning that you don't know the difference between a constitution and a federal law. 

Edited August 26, 2024 by CdnFox

[Five of swords]

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Your words kiddo - 

 

Those were your words. Not mine.  I'm not the one saying the bill declared anything at all. 

I was the one who asked how a bill could declare something constitutionally protected.  As you literally said. 

Sigh. Go back to your lego kid, this will make sense when you grow up. 

Sorry kiddo you're wrong again. And getting slightly incoherent i might add  - go to bed it's a school night. 

First, nothing guaranteed access to abortion. What roe vs wade said was that the gov'ts could not pass a law blocking it, but that does not mean the state must guarantee someone provides it.  There's no law in canada blocking it but by choice canada's medical providers choose not to offer it after a certain point in almost all cases. 

So no it didn't guarantee it, it just prevented the gov't from interfering. 

and secondly the bill did nothing in that regard.  The feds helped out by coming up with a framework that states could rely on to ensure they didn't run afoul of the constitution. That did nothing to protect rights, it just gave guidance to states with regards to the charter rights. 

It is deeply concerning that you don't know the difference between a constitution and a federal law. 

And I am simply I sitting that you are wrongabout that. For example, I believe it was ultimately determined that 3rd trimester abortions were not protected, and they were only legal under certain very special circumstances.

 

In fact I think you guys are literally just confused by the wording of a totally different bill in the bill of rights which said 'congress can pass no law regarding the establishment of religion', which means the usa has no set official religion. But that doesn't mean congress cannot pass bills about religion lol...as if this is some code of behavior vampires have to follow like not entering your house unless invited. I'm sure politics is confusing for you but it doesn't work that way.

 

You could consider, for example, the Hyde ammendment, which bans federal funds for abortion.  Congress was'allowed' to speak of abortion there and Joe famously voted yea on it.

 

And so yeah, ultimately, abortion was a federally protected right, legally protected, like I said. And all of the weird talmudry you are talking about is just stupid and isn't how things work in the real world.

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Five of swords said:

And I am simply I sitting that you are wrongabout that.

I told you to go to bed and get some sleep before typing any more. You're a mess. 

Quote

For example, I believe it was ultimately determined that 3rd trimester abortions were not protected, and they were only legal under certain very special circumstances.

You are wrong. 

Quote

In fact I think you guys are literally just confused by the wording

You provided the wording. No confusion on our part.

 

Quote

You could consider, for example, the Hyde ammendment, which bans federal funds for abortion.  Congress was'allowed' to speak of abortion there and Joe famously voted yea on it.

That has nothing to do with guaranteeing the rights to an abortion.  Who pays for it is a completely different issue. That does not in any way protect the right to it. If they pass a law saying congress does not have to buy you a gun, that does not in any way impact your 5th amendment right to keep and bear arms. 

 

Quote

And so yeah, ultimately, abortion was a federally protected right, 

No. You're an !diot. And worse - you're the kind of !diot that doubles down when he's shown he's being an !diot. 

Abortion was never protected as a right by federal law.  It was protected constitutionally.  Now they've determined it isn't and the states are addressing it.  End of story.  

All you're doing is signalling the intelligent world that 'blink blink, i'm stupid as hell!!!" 

[Five of swords]

16 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I told you to go to bed and get some sleep before typing any more. You're a mess. 

You are wrong. 

You provided the wording. No confusion on our part.

 

That has nothing to do with guaranteeing the rights to an abortion.  Who pays for it is a completely different issue. That does not in any way protect the right to it. If they pass a law saying congress does not have to buy you a gun, that does not in any way impact your 5th amendment right to keep and bear arms. 

 

No. You're an !diot. And worse - you're the kind of !diot that doubles down when he's shown he's being an !diot. 

Abortion was never protected as a right by federal law.  It was protected constitutionally.  Now they've determined it isn't and the states are addressing it.  End of story.  

All you're doing is signalling the intelligent world that 'blink blink, i'm stupid as hell!!!" 

As I said at the start and you keep needing me to repeat, when something is determined to be a constitutionally protected right, is it also protected under federal law. That is the simple concept you don't seem to get. It doesn't mean congress cannot talk about it, it means the states cannot outlaw it. By federal law. 

[CdnFox]

47 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

As I said at the start and you keep needing me to repeat, when something is determined to be a constitutionally protected right, is it also protected under federal law. 

And if you repeat from the start that the tooth fairy left money under your pillow when your molar fell out, the act of repeating it won't make that true either

You're wrong, more than one person has explained that you're wrong, if you repeat the wrong thing you said again it will still be wrong. 

A constitutional right is not federal law nor does federal law protect it.  Tell me  which federal law could be removed that would suddenly allow a constitutional right to not be protected any more?   Yeash. This is so basic. Go have a cookie and a nap and think about it again. 

[Five of swords]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And if you repeat from the start that the tooth fairy left money under your pillow when your molar fell out, the act of repeating it won't make that true either

You're wrong, more than one person has explained that you're wrong, if you repeat the wrong thing you said again it will still be wrong. 

A constitutional right is not federal law nor does federal law protect it.  Tell me  which federal law could be removed that would suddenly allow a constitutional right to not be protected any more?   Yeash. This is so basic. Go have a cookie and a nap and think about it again. 

I don't care what you guys say.its stupid. It is federal law that constitutional rights are protected. That is the whole point of thr constitution. There is plenty of info on this in thr civil rights acts in the 1960s if you want to study it

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Five of swords said:

I don't care what you guys say.its stupid.

LOL  well sure, never let facts or common sense get in your way kiddo!

Quote

It is federal law that constitutional rights are protected.

Really. Which federal law protects constitutional rights? Are you seriously suggesting there's such a thing as a law that if repealed would mean that constitutional rights WEREN'T protected  lololol

Quote

That is the whole point of thr constitution. 

No kiddo, the point of the constitution is to sit ABOVE federal law so that no federal law can affect the rights guaranteed by the constitution. THAT is the point.  No federal law guarantees the constitituion  The CONSTITUTION guarantees the constitution and determines what laws the feds and states can pass. 

The constitution is the fed's boss, no federal law can allow or ban any part of the constitution. 

Yikes. Where were you educated?

[Rebound]

On 8/24/2024 at 11:33 PM, Five of swords said:

Because overturning roe vs Wade does not outlaw abortion?

Overturning Roe v Wade immediately outlawed abortion in over a dozen states.  

[Nationalist]

@Libbies...

CANDIDATE SUMMARY

Trump was anti-abortion, with rape, incest, and life of the mother exceptions.

He supported overturning Roe v. Wade and defunding Planned Parenthood.

This was in 2016. His position has not wavered.

Yet you lyin' Libbies scream that he has.

What a pack o' filth Libbies are. 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Rebound said:

Overturning Roe v Wade immediately outlawed abortion in over a dozen states.  

no it did not. Those states passed laws, that did not happen in a vacuum. Overturning roe vs wade did NOTHNG to make abortion outlawed anywhere.  It simply said it wasn't constitutionally protected.  States, with elected officials performing their elected rolls, regulated abortion or didn't in all states.