What is going on with the Chief Justice John Roberts?

Jump to Last Post 1-4 of 4 discussions (90 posts)
  1. jackclee lm profile image85
    jackclee lmposted 12 months ago

    This latest 5/4 Supreme Court decision on DACA is inexplicable. John Roberts, as Chief Justice should know better. This is a series of miss steps by John Roberts ever since the decision on the ACA.
    Why is this happening to our high courts?
    It was John Roberts who claim there is no politics in the court and yet he is playing politics and leaving our Constitution shredded on the floor.
    DACA was an unConstitutional act by President Obama. Everyone agreed with that statement. Yet, we have a bunch of justices that are ruling based on their personal politics and not on the law. This is exactly why we are losing confidence in our government. Again and again, the people in power are failing us.
    Why can't they just do their job or resign?

    1. jackclee lm profile image85
      jackclee lmposted 12 months agoin reply to this
    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      And yet there is a small glimmer of hope; the decision was not based on whether DACA was a good program or even a legal one, only on the perceived fact that Trump's methodology of ending it was illegal.

      Whether that was merely a sneak around the back door to legislate from the bench or an honest opinion I'm not qualified to answer, but can hope that the court made the decision based on law rather than politics.  They DO do that some of the time, after all!

      1. jackclee lm profile image85
        jackclee lmposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Unfortunately not in this case. I place the blame squarely on John Roberts.
        Why isn't the job of the Supreme court to determine the Constitutionality of these orders? That is the elephant in the room. It is not the job of John Roberts to decide what part of this case the court will address. I am not a lawyer or a judge but I am not naive. His opinion is so lame, I just can't believe anyone is buying it.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          It might be the job of the SCOTUS to determine the constitutionality of DACA...if it were brought before them.  It wasn't; instead the constitutionality of Trump's orders was, and that is what they rule on.

          1. jackclee lm profile image85
            jackclee lmposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            you are splitting hairs...and trying to defend the indefensible.
            I was not born yesterday.
            The DACA was unConstitutional and even Obama, a Constitutional professor before he was President said so. Why did he issue the order in the first place? Because he knew no GOP will not touch it with a 10 foot pole.
            Trump is the only one outside of DC who is willing to take him on and all the insiders, including some members of the Supreme court are just too timid. They don't want to be an outcast and be labeled a racist for calling out the first black President.
            It is a shame our system has been so corrupted.
            If all parties would just follow the Constitution like they pledged in their oath, we will all be better off. A color-blind society will rule based on the rule of law and not the trend of the day.

            1. jackclee lm profile image85
              jackclee lmposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              Let me give you an extreme analogy.
              If Obama had issued an executive order freeing all murders in our prisons, and Trump comes along and cancel that order.
              Would the Supreme Court ruled the same way?

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              You seem to think that the court case was about whether DACA was constitutional or not (I agree that it doesn't seem to be).  But that is not the case; the matter before the court was whether the order to disband DACA was legal or not, and that is what was ruled on.

              As an extreme example, suppose a case of police brutality was before the court.  Should they then look at DACA and cancel DACA as it was unconstitutional even though it has absolutely nothing to do with police brutality? 

              It is not splitting hairs at all, for the case before the court did NOT concern the constitutionality of DACA, only whether Trump's order was legal.  And the majority decided it was not - something I cannot comment on, have not seen the actual order or heard the arguments for and against its legality.  That I believe DACA is unconstitutional does not have any effect on a decision as to the legality of Trump's order.

              It is rare that I find myself defending SCOTUS for a decision I don't like, but in this case they seem to have done the right thing (assuming that the order WAS illegal, anyway).

              1. jackclee lm profile image85
                jackclee lmposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                So in that case, why rule at all?
                It seems they could just refuse to hear the case...
                as with so many other cases.
                This argument of not providing sufficient evidence is a ruse.
                Anyone can say that.
                To me, a simple guy, when the premise of the case is wrong, anything else related to it have no legal basis one way or another.
                It was Obama that brought this on and we now have a terrible precedence on our hands.
                Any future president can copy this MO...with other issues. It will tie up our legal system in knots for years to come.

                1. jackclee lm profile image85
                  jackclee lmposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  My advice to Trump in this toxic environment.
                  Just propose the opposite what he wanted, regardless of the law, and the Democrats will reject it and he will end up getting what he really wants.
                  ie. Propose Defunding the Police, and see what happens...

        2. GA Anderson profile image92
          GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Just as surely as you think your opinion is right, I just as surely think you are wrong.

          I think this case is/was about nuances, not a black or white, (no play on words intended),  issue like a ruling on Constitutionality. It can only appear that you think you know more about the issue than five Supreme Court judges. (ouch) :-0 That is not a claim I would make.

          Wilderness already gave the reasons as an explanation.

          GA

          1. jackclee lm profile image85
            jackclee lmposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Sorry, not good enough.

            1. GA Anderson profile image92
              GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              Well, that's all I got. But it works for me, at this point.

              GA

    3. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      It explicable enough if you are not aligned with rightwingers, Jack.

      This is basically a conservative court, now. Are you now a Constitutional Law scholar qualified to second guess their rulings?

      1. jackclee lm profile image85
        jackclee lmposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Yes, it is a conservative court in name only. With justices like Robert, it might as well be a liberal activist court. It sure rules like one.
        In the old days, rulings used to be 7/2, or 6/3 but now it is consistently 5/4...not a good thing, if you asked me. How can 9 experienced judges interpret the Constitution so differently?
        The answer is simple - they are not abiding only by the Constitution.

    4. Sharlee01 profile image85
      Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      What I got from reading the ruling is that the Supreme Court does not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies, and that the agency did not comply with the procedural requirements.

      "The wisdom' of those decisions 'is none of our concern,'" Roberts wrote in his opinion. "We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action."

      Roberts made clear that the administration does indeed have the power to rescind DACA, just not in this fashion.

      https://www.foxnews.com/politics/suprem … ca-program

      1. jackclee lm profile image85
        jackclee lmposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        What do you think about DACA? and Obama's executive order?
        He had 8 years as President and part of that full control of both Houses of Congress. Why didn't he pass a new law to make it permanent?

        1. Sharlee01 profile image85
          Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

          I think Obama's DACA has put hundreds of thousands of immigrants in limbo.

          As you know under our Constitution, Congress has plenary authority over immigration and immigration laws.  A president only has the authority delegated to him by Congress – and Congress has never given the president the power to provide a pseudo-amnesty and government benefits to illegal aliens. President Barack Obama lacked the constitutional and legal authority to implement.such an order, and the Congress never took up the hot issue, leaving these people in limbo.

          How do we know Obama did not have the ability to make DACA permanent? Because even Obama admitted it – repeatedly.

          "Responding in October 2010 to demands that he implement immigration reforms unilaterally, Obama declared, "I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself." In March 2011, he said that with "respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case." In May 2011, he acknowledged that he couldn't "just bypass Congress and change the (immigration) law myself. ... That's not how a democracy works." Barack Obama

          The compassionate thing is to end the lawlessness, enforce our present laws, or if Congress chooses to make changes to those immigration laws, to do so through the process set forth by our Founders in a way that advances the interests of the nation.

          You have asked a great question, why did'ent Congress deal with the problem. In my view, because of our Congress men and women are nothing but political hacks, that sit on the fence in order to keep their jobs. Immigration is a hot potato that they are not willing to handle. It could lead to being political suicide.

          Just consider what is being said about President Trump for wanting DACA  ended. Sep 7, 2017, President Trump called on Congress to “legalize” DACA ... Given strong popular support for protecting the Dreamers. I am not sure why legislating on DACA so difficult for Congress.

    5. Sychophantastic profile image90
      Sychophantasticposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      President Trump needs to remove John Roberts from the Supreme Court or initiate an impeachment of John Roberts. He's not ruling the way I think he should rule and even though he's on the Supreme Court, I know more than he does about what is right and this isn't right. I have faith that President Trump can get rid of him. He should also get rid of Neil Gorsuch for his LGBGQT ruling. A business owner should be able to fire anybody for any reason. It's their business! The government should not tell business owners what to do!

      1. jackclee lm profile image85
        jackclee lmposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Can you imagine what would happen if Trump did that? there will be civil war.
        This is what happens when a society begins to fall, just like the Roman Empire.
        Once a government body fails to perform and laws are not followed equally, you will end up with confusion and discord and eventually chaos. This is exactly what groups like Antifa wants.
        They are being assisted by the media and the courts and celebrities...and academis.

        1. Sychophantastic profile image90
          Sychophantasticposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          I agree! But it's hard to do the right thing sometimes and removing John Roberts is the right thing. He was appointed to uphold the Constitution and he's not doing that. Trump should have the right to remove Supreme Court judges just like he's able to appoint them. When people don't do their job, they should be fired.

          I don't know anything about the law, but I know that DACA decision was wrong.

          1. jackclee lm profile image85
            jackclee lmposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Chief Justice just did it again and voted 5/4 with the progressives on abortion restrictions.
            He is no friend of the Constitution or conservative.
            Time to call these justices out...

            1. jackclee lm profile image85
              jackclee lmposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              He proves to me again that the Constitution means little to these high court justices. They think they are gods and they are fallible and biased just like the rest of us.
              Our system is broken and there does not seem to be a way to fix it.
              How do you make people abide by the Constitution?

            2. Credence2 profile image81
              Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Oh for heavens sake, don't you ever stop, Jack?

              I think that the court called it correctly, Roe vs Wade is still the law of the land. Any attempt to legislate away those rights or whittle them down is a violation. So, what was going on in LA and TX is an attempt to restrict abortion going beyond provisions Roe vs. Wade and it is not acceptable.

              I consider this a thumb into the eye of conservatives that is well deserved.

              1. jackclee lm profile image85
                jackclee lmposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                credence, it is not a law. The Supreme Court does not make laws. It rules on the Constitutionality of laws. If you read the roe v wade decision, it allowed for abortion with restrictions. It was suppose to be rare and last resort.
                As we both know, that is not what is going on now with Planned Parenthood where abortion is used almost like another form of contraception. Nearly a million abortions are performed yearly...
                Justice Roberts knew better and he is no conservative. He was appointed by GW Bush to the disappointment of many conservatives.
                Once again, we lost even when we win at the ballot box.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  "As we both know, that is not what is going on now with Planned Parenthood where abortion is used almost like another form of contraception."

                  That seems a rather gross exaggeration.  How many condoms are sold each year, how many birth control pills, vs how many abortions are done?  The two are not even with a factor of 1000 of each other.

                  Nor is it reasonable to look at only PP when using abortions vs contraceptives in the same sentence; you don't go to WalMart pharmacy to buy an abortion.  PP undoubtedly has a MUCH higher percentage of abortions vs contraceptives than places that sell contraceptives but not abortions.  That isn't difficult to understand.

                  1. jackclee lm profile image85
                    jackclee lmposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    The actual number is the key.
                    With all the sex education, and contraception available, why in 2020 do we still have close to 1 million abortions a year?
                    Some are late term abortions...
                    PP has not done a good job in both prevention and adoptions as an alternative to abortion.
                    The answer is simple. They make money on abortions...

    6. Misfit Chick profile image81
      Misfit Chickposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Yeah it was a surprising siding by him. Especially since the scotus has been officially 'conservative' for awhile, now. Of COURSE you're going to be confused when one of 'your people' vote in opposition of your extreme bs:

      "It was John Roberts who claim there is no politics in the court..." I'd guess he really believes that and makes decisions with his own mind and not by the minds of right-wing extremists. I know you don't believe me, Jack - but not every conservative is an extreme right-winger like you. Some of them waddle in the middle, just like some 'lefties' waddle around in the middle. Mindboggling, huh?

      "...and yet he is playing politics and leaving our Constitution shredded on the floor. DACA was an unConstitutional act by President Obama. Everyone agreed with that statement."

      That's totally untrue. Just because you and your ilk believe that doesn't make it true. 'Everyone' has NEVER agreed with that statement.

      "Yet, we have a bunch of justices that are ruling based on their personal politics and not on the law." Talk about the kettle calling the pot black, lol! Trump and his cult followers don't understand the words 'democracy'. So, I can totally see how shocking it is to you when democracy and justice prevails, ha!

      "This is exactly why we are losing confidence in our government. Again and again, the people in power are failing us." Since when is this NEW? And here I thought Trump fans were fairly happy with his Dictatorship rule. Its not the job of politicians or judges to force the will of an extremist minority on everyone. That would be a real failure - cuz again, DEMOCRACY, not the one-sided perspective of a bunch of propaganda-ized extremists.

      "Why can't they just do their job or resign?" They don't resign just because extremists don't agree with them - simply BECAUSE they are doing their job. smile

      1. jackclee lm profile image85
        jackclee lmposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        DACA is unConstitutional and do you know who said it? President Barack Obama... and since then, even the Supreme court justices agreed. They just didn't rule on it or considered it in this latest case.
        What kind of twisted logic was that?
        It is not the extreme right that is destroying our country.
        We are the only sane people left to save it.

  2. Marie Flint profile image83
    Marie Flintposted 12 months ago

    It sounds like the old question, "Does the end result justify the means?" So, DACA is unconstitutional, but it's on the books. At the time it was illegally created, some compassion was behind the effort to allow those who had no voice be given time to choose a path "more acceptable" to the masses or be deported back to their native country.

    What a mess! As a second-generation American who didn't know the difference between the Slavic language and English until age 9, maybe I should be ripped in half and quartered so parts of me could be "sent back" to Finland, Czechoslovakia, and Germany.

    When people come here, it's because the Spirit has moved them. Such Spirit knows no boundary or limitations. It is Spirit.

    When the Constitution was created, the makeup of our country was very, very different. So, we've got checks and balances, and amendments.

    Slipping up isn't the end of the world. If anything, controversy makes people a little more aware and, hopefully, take more interest in what is happening. Voices count. Opinions do matter.

    So, it sounds to me that Justice Roberts didn't want to deal with the issue and decided to shove it under the rug. Eventually, though, that rug will have to be moved, cleaned, and the debris beneath it removed. That is, if we want angels in our world.

    Right now with persons damaging property and killing, the "illegal" young ones who are decent individuals are the least of our problems. We have to remove the perpetuated fear of the unknown by bringing into the open for discussion, perhaps compromise, and compassionate action.

    My two cents' worth by someone who knows nothing about politics.

    1. Carb Diva profile image94
      Carb Divaposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Thank you for a very heart-felt, calm, rational response. I agree with what you have said, and you have articulated it very well. As I understand it the question was not the constitutionality of DACA but the Trump administration efforts to remove it.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Not even Trump's efforts, but only the methodology he used.  They also made it crystal clear that Trump can end DACA, but only if he uses other methods

      2. jackclee lm profile image85
        jackclee lmposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        I don' think you and Marie understand how the Supreme Court has failed us in this case.
        I want a resolution to the immigrant problem as most of Americans when polled.
        Yet, again and again, Democrat and Republican administrations come and go and with the help of the media and the courts, nothing is ever changed.
        The problem just get bigger every year.
        Here is what needs to happen in my clear thinking mind.
        1. The Supreme court should rule that DACA is unConstitutional.
        2. Congress needs to write a bill to deal with the 700,000 dreamers, one way or another, they need to get a legal path to citizenship.
        3. The big picture is we cannot have this issue be used as a political football every election cycle.
        4. If Congress cannot come up with a bill, the citizens should vote them out of office. We need term limits. To use a sports analogy, when a team loses again and again, sooner or later we need to replace the teammates so they have a shot to win again.
        5. If the justices cannot follow the Constitution, they should be impeached and removed. Just like the President, there must be a way to get rid of justices when they are either too old or too incompetent, or break our laws.
        A Constitutional Amendments might be the only solution but it needs to be done. Else, we will end up with a dysfunctional 3rd branch of our government.
        How can we have a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court make a decision on the ACA that rewrite a law? Calling a penalty a tax...
        Word must have meaning or else we are left with the argument that Bill Clinton used in his impeachment - “It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is... such non-sense.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          On this we have no argument; the country desperately needs an end to the third class citizenry known as DACA, and our politicians are concerned only with using those poor people as political footballs.  It is shameful, it is disgraceful and we should not tolerate it.  It is my considered opinion that Trump has no intention of deporting them - only in forcing congress, kicking and screaming, into doing something about them towards citizenship.

          1. jackclee lm profile image85
            jackclee lmposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Yes, I agree with you on Trump and yet he is demonized to no end by the media and some activist judges and some politicians in his own party...the never Trumpers.
            Sooner or later, the underclass of our country will wake up and realize who their true friends are...and it is not the Democratic party.

        2. jackclee lm profile image85
          jackclee lmposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          BTW, one sure sign that the judicial branch is in trouble - when decisions are reached with a 5/4 vote. This should be rare in a well functioning court.
          Why do you suppose the nomination of judge Kavanaugh was so nasty?
          We have a politicized court for a very long time. The mere fact that Chief Justice Roberts deny that demonstrate to me that he is not living in the real world.

  3. IslandBites profile image90
    IslandBitesposted 12 months ago

    I was going to post this:

    https://i.imgflip.com/1fjyt9.jpg





    But I won't. smile

  4. GA Anderson profile image92
    GA Andersonposted 11 months ago

    "Your ideas about the nature and origins of life are not shared by all, why should your interpretation be the rule?"

    Yep. I agree. But . . .

    There is one consideration that must be recognized. Folks that hold the view jackclee holds, do not view abortion as a choice or a life/religious belief. They sincerely see it as murder.

    I would guess that if you, without the guide of any ideology, saw something as murdering a child, you would protest against it too. Would it be credible for me to call you a zealot, or claim you are forcing your values on me?

    I strongly disagree with the religious folks trying to outlaw abortions. And I strongly support a woman's Right to choose and her Right to control her own body, but I cannot condemn the religious folks for whom this a sincere issue. I can just tell them I don't agree and fight to ensure their view isn't forced on the rest of us.

    GA

    1. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

      I Don't condemn them, they just need to realize we don't live in a theocracy and their views and values are not supreme, be all end all. They should not expect this, living in so diverse a society.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        I like to believe that, diverse society or not, no one will calmly accept the murder of helpless children.  We ALL hold that value, I sincerely hope, with the only disagreement being "what is a child".

        1. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Never said that. The issue is at what point does a fetus qualify as a person, that is what is debatable. We don't murder persons, children. Conservatives like Jack cling on to the idea of "at conception". Well that view is not universally held. Roe has made the compromise between guarantees for the protection of the unborn vs a woman's right to a safe abortion. We should stick with that, with the pro life side to stop removing the available options for woman to access a safe abortion procedure.

          Yes, we ALL hold that value....

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            We do all hold that value.  And it therefore behooves us to make an attempt - a STRONG attempt - to understand where the other side is coming from and what drives them rather than declare that their "values are not supreme, be all end all" for we all have the same values here.

            Then BOTH sides can debate that point of "personhood" - something neither side will discuss so far because there is nothing but opinion to back either side.

            1. Credence2 profile image81
              Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Religious dogma is religious dogma and I really find most of this hypocritical on its face. How deeply do you consider an alternate side that you in principle do not agree? We are not going to agree on personhood and there is no objective standard, so all that is left is compromise.

              I have problems with people who do zero sum games, all or nothing. In this topic, there is no definitive answer, so compromise. And yes, still I am not willing and am going to resist a faction who forces me to subscribe to their values, I resist it and resent it.

              How much is their side listening to those that fundamentally disagree with them, Jack for instance?

              1. jackclee lm profile image85
                jackclee lmposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                It is a human rights issue. Protecting the unborn is what is behind my thinking and not necessarily religious. Science is on my side. The fetus is a whole individual being separate and different from the organs of the mother, if you analyze the DNA.
                Our Constitution provide each of us with certain inalienable rights...that of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
                The debate is who does that apply?
                It is clear it applies to all humans that are living and breathing.
                The debate is about a human fetus in the womb.
                At what point is that fetus able to survive independently?
                That is why historically, and ruled by the Supreme court, that they recognize the three tri-mester period. 
                Abortion was ruled safe and legal in the first trimester.
                Late term abortions is what is being contested.
                Advances in medicine has improved the survivability of premature babies.
                This is where the current debate lies...and it is inexplicable to me why anyone would support the killing of a fetus up to the point of natural birth.
                Yet, it is happening today.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  And there is the answer from the other side: "The fetus is a whole individual being separate and different from the organs of the mother, if you analyze the DNA."

                  This is false on the face of it, for the fetus is not a person, not an "individual" at all, merely a collection of homo sapien cells that may one day become a human being.  Yet here is the "lifer" claiming omnipotent knowledge without a shred of evidence.

                  As an example, you seem to believe the the SCOTUS defined the point as the first trimester, then drift off into survivability and decide that because medicine has improved the survivability of preemies they are "people" earlier than they were - something that makes exactly zero sense.

                  Nor is it only late term abortion that is contested; there is, and has been for years, a concerted effort to end virtually all abortions.  To say otherwise is beneath you, particularly as you yourself take the same stance in your posts here.

                  1. jackclee lm profile image85
                    jackclee lmposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    I don't deny there are groups that want to eliminate abortion all together. I am not one of them. I believe in an imperfect world we have today, abortion is a necessary procedure.
                    Take that as a baseline, where roe v wade came into being in 1973, it was made legal so that young girls would resort to back ally.
                    However, if you go read the opinion, it was debated and they thought abortion should be rare and a last resort...
                    Now, I ask you, honestly, has that been fulfilled in your unbiased opinion?
                    or has history shown us, once abortion was made legal, by the Supreme court, it became a cottage industry under the supervision of Planned Parenthood where they make lots of $$$ performing abortions and not much else.
                    That is where science comes in to the rescue.
                    In 2020, we know now that a fetus is not just another organ of the mother, to be cut out like a tumor.
                    It is an individual being with 23 pairs of chromosomes, different and distinct from the mother.

                    Therefore, I side with the Constitution and I believe the fetus, after first tri-mester, is a protected class and the court has ruled such in the past. Why are they changing their minds now?

                    On a side and related issue, when a pregnant lady is harmed in an auto accident caused by drunk driving, the baby in her stomach is considered a living being and the driver can be charged with involuntary manslaughter.
                    Why is that? if the fetus is just a piece of meat, why does the law treat it so harsh?

                2. Credence2 profile image81
                  Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Do you seek that the fetus has rights of personhood at the point of conception?

                  If the fetus can live outside the body of the mother is key in my opinion. I am against late term abortions and they are subject to restriction under the current ROe decision. But it seem that you lifer types want to control the narrative in all aspects, life at conception and no contraception. I will allow no one to impose upon me or my rights in such a way.

                  1. jackclee lm profile image85
                    jackclee lmposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    No, I don't. I go with the science. I think you have me confused with someone else. I never said anything about no contraception...
                    I just believe that a viable fetus has the right to life...and deserve our protection.
                    I just can't comprehend why a women would carry a pregnancy almost to term and then decide to abort...and some people on the pro-choice camp think it is OK. What's that all about?

              2. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                You're missing the point entirely.  How often, for instance, have you debated the beginning of "peoplehood" with anyone, let alone with a "lifer"?  You claim to understand that that's the only difference, but the only response is that "values are not supreme, be all end all".  And the circle goes round and round, endlessly, because no one will even try and discuss from the standpoint of understanding where the other side is coming from.

                1. Credence2 profile image81
                  Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  I am involved in such debates as to where protoplasm become people right here. I have been involved in such discussions. Do you look at the "race issues" with the standpoint of understanding as to where the other side is coming from?

                  My problem remains that many of these pro life types are against the termination of life at conception and make an  big deal about the very idea of contraception. I can understand the need to revere life of the unborn particularely when they can survive outside the womb. Removing the option  a woman has to safe and effective abortion procedures by closing all the clinics or reasonable access to same is not solving the problem, but exacerbates it.

                  There is nothing to understand, no more than fire and water can mix.

                  Maybe, I do not truly understand what these people stand for or what they really want?

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)