US Supreme Court strikes down Roe V. Wade

[Goddess]

Just now, Infidel Dog said:

If it's the one I'm thinking of, that only appears to be the case in the click bait title. Add a little context and that not exactly what it shows.

It's referencing cases involving illicit drug use.

This one, right?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59214544

"Substance use during pregnancy is considered child abuse under civil child-welfare statutes in 23 states, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-choice research institute."

 

And others.

Every one of you want to comment on that one case, but not one of you will touch the Malta cases. ?

I know why though.  Because it proves that women are going to die needlessly, as they did before Roe.

[Infidel Dog]

2 minutes ago, Goddess said:

And others.

Every one of you want to comment on that one case, but not one of you will touch the Malta cases. ?

I know why though.  Because it proves that women are going to die needlessly, as they did before Roe.

You mean this Malta:

Quote

Malta, officially known as the Republic of Malta, is an island country in the European Union consisting of an archipelago in the Mediterranean Sea, and considered part of Southern Europe

Yeah, I didn't bother reading that one past where it said "Malta," because it wouldn't have anything to do with an American Supreme Court decision. 

I went back to look though. This one, right?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-61898437

Not sure what that has to do with American statistics on abortion. Best guess though is, nothing.

[Infidel Dog]

14 minutes ago, Goddess said:

But again, my point was that abortion numbers should not be used to show that women are deviants who need to be controlled by the government or state.

They're doing that? Who is? How so? Can you show me?

The only stats I can think of that anti-abortionists use to scare people straight (so to speak) are the ones from Planned Parenthood.

[Goddess]

Just now, Infidel Dog said:

They're doing that? Who is? How so? Can you show me?

The only stats I can think of that anti-abortionists use to scare people straight (so to speak) are the ones from Planned Parenthood.

Miscarriages are medically termed "abortions."

‘Miscarriage or abortion?’ Understanding the medical language of pregnancy loss in Britain; a historical perspective - PMC (nih.gov)
 

Quote

 

‘It is curious’, began a letter to the Lancet published in 1985, ‘that, in a language as descriptively rich as English, no clear distinction is made between a spontaneous and an induced expulsion of the contents of the uterus in early pregnancy.’ The communication, printed under the heading ‘Miscarriage or Abortion?’, came from a group at St Mary's Hospital London led by Richard Beard, then Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.¹ It continued: ‘Doctors use the word ‘abortion’ regardless of whether it was a spontaneous or induced event, yet our patients always speak of 'miscarriages’ unless they have had a termination of pregnancy.

Medical journals in fact appear slow to have acknowledged the changing use of language by their readers: ‘Miscarriage’ appears for the first time in the index of the BMJ in 1978, and until 1999 readers looking under ‘M’ were advised ‘Miscarriage—see abortion’. In the indices of the Lancet, ‘miscarriage’ only appears after 1988 and readers were referred to ‘abortion’ until 1994.

 

Nothing has changed, really.

Abortion Vs. Miscarriage: Why Terminology Is Crucial Post-Roe (scarymommy.com)

[Infidel Dog]

I was having another discussion here with somebody else on this issue of Abortion law being returned to the states. I was suggesting new cultural and technological advancements would facilitate options for the contemporary girl or woman they didn't have in the days of back alley abortions.

He didn't seem to think that was possible. I gave him a couple of examples. Here's another one:

Biden’s HHS Unveils Website Directing Underage Women to Resources to Obtain an Abortion

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

If it's the one I'm thinking of, that only appears to be the case in the click bait title. Add a little context and that not exactly what it shows.

It's referencing cases involving illicit drug use.

This one, right?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59214544

"Substance use during pregnancy is considered child abuse under civil child-welfare statutes in 23 states, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-choice research institute."

 

Just another way of criminalizing addiction. 

[West]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

And others.

Every one of you want to comment on that one case, but not one of you will touch the Malta cases. ?

I know why though.  Because it proves that women are going to die needlessly, as they did before Roe.

How do you feel about employers paying women to abort their babies? 

 

Edited June 29, 2022 by West

[Aristides]

3 minutes ago, West said:

How do you feel about employers paying women to abort their babies? 

 

Freedom of choice. Thought you believed in it. Apparently not.

Edited June 29, 2022 by Aristides

[West]

2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Freedom of choice. Thought you believed in it. Apparently not.

So you are okay with a corporation bribing a women, maybe coercion to abort through job loss or lost promotion but not the state? Interesting

Edited June 29, 2022 by West

[Aristides]

Just now, West said:

So you are okay with a corporation bribing a women, maybe coercion to abort through job loss but not the state? Interesting

Corporations sticking up for women's rights? I'm good with that. You won't.

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, West said:

So you are okay with a corporation bribing a women, maybe coercion to abort through job loss but not the state? Interesting

You are the last person here who should be talking about coercion.

[West]

4 minutes ago, Aristides said:

You are the last person here who should be talking about coercion.

You are willing to kill a child for $4,000. About says it all.

[Aristides]

3 minutes ago, West said:

You are willing to kill a child for $4,000. About says it all.

I'm not willing to do anything. None of my business, or yours.

[West]

10 minutes ago, Aristides said:

I'm not willing to do anything. None of my business, or yours.

What about your employers?

[BeaverFever]

8 hours ago, West said:

Think you are paranoid. Republicans ended slavery therefore I doubt they will impose it again. 

What I find from your ilk is you do not seem to understand, either through dishonesty or ignorance, the political system in the US. 

The constitution is set up in such a way that the basics are protected, such as your right not to be forced to forego your religion because it hurts peoples feelings, while allowing for legislation to be swayed by public opinion so long as it's not violating the Charter. As abortion is not found in the Charter, it's a matter for elections. 

You don’t understand.

 

Concealed carry permits aren’t found in the constitution either. These activist right wing judges creatively interpreted the 2nd amendment to include them.  

By the same way, being forced to carry and give birth to your rapists baby even if it kills you or prevents you from ever voluntarily having a baby of your own…such a law arguably “abridges the privileges or immunities of a citizen of the United States” and “deprives them of life, liberty, or property” as prohibited  in the 14th amendment. 
 

Like I said you conveniently pick and chose when to interpret literally and when to interpret creatively in order to push your partisan agenda 

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, West said:

What about your employers?

What about them. You maintain employers are coercing women to get abortions. You will have to back that up because it is nothing compared to what you want to do when it comes to coercion.

[BeaverFever]

On 6/28/2022 at 12:46 PM, Yzermandius19 said:

there is only 8% who oppose abortions in all circumstances

and even among the most conservative Republicans

only 17% oppose abortions in all circumstances

it is not popular, even in the reddest states

banning contraception is even less popular than that

you're too paranoid

And yet conservatives are celebrating the USSC ruling anyway just to pwn the libs. Pwning the libs by any means necessary  is all that remains of “conservative principles” these days

Edited June 30, 2022 by BeaverFever

[West]

16 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

You don’t understand.

 

Concealed carry permits aren’t found in the constitution either. These activist right wing judges creatively interpreted the 2nd amendment to include them.  

By the same way, being forced to carry and give birth to your rapists baby even if it kills you or prevents you from ever voluntarily having a baby of your own…such a law arguably “abridges the privileges or immunities of a citizen of the United States” and “deprives them of life, liberty, or property” as prohibited  in the 14th amendment. 
 

Like I said you conveniently pick and chose when to interpret literally and when to interpret creatively in order to push your partisan agenda 

Your right to a firearm is found in the constitution absolutely. Your right to an abortion is not.. therefore if you want baby murder legalized then go through the legislation process, convince others why $4,000 paid by the employer to abort your child is a good idea and win an election. 

Bottom line is the hard line abortionists cannot pass their policy so they claim every absurd idea as a "right". Easier to convince a few crazy activists on the bench that it's a right than millions of voters I guess. It's your right to drill a hole in the skull of a living organism inside your body and rip it from limb to limb I guess.

Edited June 29, 2022 by West

[myata]

On 5/3/2022 at 8:45 AM, ExFlyer said:

Supreme court appointments made on political beliefs is problematic, in Canada too.

 

On 5/3/2022 at 7:04 PM, Aristides said:

Forcing women to do something they will never have to do is about men using women.

Wow. I hailed both, maybe the first and the last time. But to the point, I'm not familiar with the wording but if there's anything in the Constitution that protects the right of an individual to control their body, the decision is wrong. I'm not in favor of activist judiciary, rights must be defined by the representatives of the people. However one has to interpret any text and rights in the context of these days, not long past. And in the context of today body integrity means there's no legal grounds to prohibit help to an individual exercising control over their own body. This is not a great day for American democracy that stood up to many challenges. When courts go down the ideological divide, the democracy can suffer irreparable harm.

BTW, funny and hypocritical how same folks object so vehemently when government wants to inject them with something for their own good. Wait, surely somebody knows better what needs to be done to your body? But see, ideology knows no logic, it's the opposite of reason and logic actually.

[Scott Mayers]

On 6/28/2022 at 9:56 AM, WestCanMan said:

You can repeat what you hear on CNN, good for you. Unfortunately, none of it is true, and every adult in NA with an IQ over 80 knows that by now. 

UNLIKE you, I am not influenced by what I merely 'hear'. I don't fall the absurd caricatured news outlets that act as rag magazine entertainment.  As one WITH a high technical 'I.Q.', I think for myself and default NOT to trusting ANY UNIQUE sources of news. 

FACT: ALL television 'news' is biased and FAVORS the Republican ideals with respect to PROFIT by default. I interpret CNN as an alternate class of 'conservatives' who just happen to represent mostly catholic liberalism or 'moderate' forms of religions. Their relative 'liberalism' contrasts with the intollerant exploiters on th e Right who just happen to be most extreme given they chose beliefs based upon direct inheritance and not democratic choice. 

Your idea of 'news' is DISCRETELY authoritative by those you like emotionally. Don't impose upon me your own DISCRETE prefernce. I don't hve BLIND FAITH in any diescrete autority so don't think like your one track minded mentatlity. You are like the religious who think that the 'athiest' is just a form of your own religion that just favors your god's opponent demigod or devil. The fact that we don't believe in ANY 'gods' means we also don't believe in your DISCRETE Satanic demigod. 

[Scott Mayers]

12 minutes ago, myata said:

 

Wow. I hailed both, maybe the first and the last time. But to the point, I'm not familiar with the wording but if there's anything in the Constitution that protects the right of an individual to control their body, the decision is wrong. I'm not in favor of activist judiciary, rights must be defined by the representatives of the people. However one has to interpret any text and rights in the context of these days, not long past. And in the context of today body integrity means there's no legal grounds to prohibit help to an individual exercising control over their own body. This is not a great day for American democracy that stood up to many challenges. When courts go down the ideological divide, the democracy can suffer irreparable harm.

BTW, funny and hypocritical how same folks object so vehemently when government wants to inject them with something for their own good. Wait, surely somebody knows better what needs to be done to your body? But see, ideology knows no logic, it's the opposite of reason and logic actually.

The Constitutional 'right' in U.S. politics is to have a system that does NOT accept those elected to represent one's PARTICULAR religious belief to impose upon all others. The beliefs against abortion, a choice of conscience based ONLY on a religious belief that anything biologically conceived at conception is God's will, is not 'constitutional' because it violates the right of those OTHER people's beliefs about what constitutes a 'person'. 

You Rightwing nuts don't question how Corporations are arbitrary CREATIONS of 'persons' ["incorporate" means to make a company into a 'person' in law]. Should we then not question whether 'person' itself of non-living beings could have a 'right' to have LIMIITED LIABILITY [They get to profit upon investment but are only liable to lose what they put in but not any DEBT they create, enabling them to ABORT their entity's existence with the debt being imposed upon the whole. 

You can't be hypocritical if you are arguing for some right of your discrete beliefs that dominate your reasons for being against abortion. If you think that some magical essence 'suffers' where it lacks life experience and proof of its conscious existence and worth of a 'being', you cannot bias laws that favor YOUR beliefs upon OTHERS that the rest of us are simultaneously NOT permitted to impose upon you for other's DIFFERENT beliefs, religious or not.

[myata]

"Baby" is a cheap, purely ideological tactic. So old and tired it's not even funny just boring. You want to brand some issue in terms of ideology you call it "a baby". Your little finger a baby, sure. Circumcision skin, but of course! A modern, impartial and non-partisan court should be able to see past that; it shouldn't have allowed ideologically motivated interfering with basic rights - if such a right exists, granted. Not a great day for America.

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, West said:

Your right to a firearm is found in the constitution absolutely. Your right to an abortion is not.. therefore if you want baby murder legalized then go through the legislation process, convince others why $4,000 paid by the employer to abort your child is a good idea and win an election. 

Bottom line is the hard line abortionists cannot pass their policy so they claim every absurd idea as a "right". Easier to convince a few crazy activists on the bench that it's a right than millions of voters I guess. It's your right to drill a hole in the skull of a living organism inside your body and rip it from limb to limb I guess.

What idiocy and gaslighting. Roe was not “overturned by millions of voters”. It was literally overturned by a few crazy activists on the bench. 
 

 

[West]

5 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

What idiocy and gaslighting. Roe was not “overturned by millions of voters”. It was literally overturned by a few crazy activists on the bench. 
 

 

And was passed not on a legitimate vote but by claiming killing a baby is a "right"

[Aristides]

10 minutes ago, West said:

And was passed not on a legitimate vote but by claiming killing a baby is a "right"

No, a women's right cancelled by foetus worshipers.