7 to 1 scotus says no to abortion restrictions

SmarterthanYou said:
and you're just arbitrarily wrong. children do not belong to the state, unless you're a liberal. are you a liberal? are you a statist? authoritarian? do you support a dictatorship? empire? monarchy? because you certainly do not support freedom and liberty.
Click to expand...

Children belong to themselves. They are unique individuals who have as much right to life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as their parents do!

The states role is to protect the child's rights every bit as much as that of their parents. A parents religious liberty stops at the door of the child's right to life.

Your insistance that a parent has a right to sentence a child to death because of their faith is what's authoritarian.
 
J Craft said:
Children belong to themselves. They are unique individuals who have as much right to life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as their parents do!

The states role is to protect the child's rights every bit as much as that of their parents. A parents religious liberty stops at the door of the child's right to life.

Your insistance that a parent has a right to sentence a child to death because of their faith is what's authoritarian.
Click to expand...

this is also a fallacious argument that bears zero relevance to what I've said. it's equivalent to stating that parents who own guns should have their children removed because the kids are facing death at every corner. it's idiotic
 
SmarterthanYou said:
this is also a fallacious argument that bears zero relevance to what I've said. it's equivalent to stating that parents who own guns should have their children removed because the kids are facing death at every corner. it's idiotic
Click to expand...

no....it would be the equivalent of saying that parents who own guns and use their children for target practice should have their children removed......
 
SmarterthanYou said:
if it can be proven, yes. there certainly is no right to beat your children with a rake or shovel. how is that relevant?
Click to expand...

There's more to abuse than being beaten with blunt or sharp instruments. I'm thinking about a local Christian couple who lost their adopted kids because what they called "discipline" the courts called abuse.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
this is also a fallacious argument that bears zero relevance to what I've said. it's equivalent to stating that parents who own guns should have their children removed because the kids are facing death at every corner. it's idiotic
Click to expand...

That is nothing similar to the discussion!

The question was/is, "if a child will die without a medical treatment, but the parent refuses that treatment for religious purposes, does the state have legal grounds to intervene to SAVE the constitutional "right to life" of the child over the religious freedom of the parent.

There was never a question about a maybe the child might die scenario.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top