US Supreme Court strikes down Roe V. Wade

[Yzermandius19]

4 minutes ago, West said:

The Supreme Court violated actual constitutionally protected rights, namely the state's ability to set their own laws in exchange for a made up right to an abortion

and now the SCOTUS corrected one of their worst mistakes

Donald Trump comes through in the clutch

6-3 SCOTUS

woop woop

Edited June 25, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Aristides]

23 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

you want to make the states choices for them

I don't

you have no moral high ground

particularly on me

Ya, you want to take away women’s choices. Don’t give me that BS. Be honest enough to own it.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Aristides

[eyeball]

19 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

nope

states issue now

just as it was prior to 1973

the assholes are the ones who want the federal government to decide for the states

not the ones who want the states to decide for themselves

Oh well then I guess I meant fucking assholes. Fucking assholes are even worse, they want the federal government to stop interfering in a state's right to dictate what people can and can't do.  A complete abrogation of the whole purpose of their high falutin' constitution near as I can tell.

[Scott Mayers]

6 minutes ago, West said:

What I find to be the dumbest pro abortion argument is the one that says folks will have abortions anyway therefore it should be legal. 

People murder as well even though it's illegal. Should murder also be legal? What about speeding? Not wearing a seatbelt? 

Yeah, like how the pro-gun argument that says criminals will find guns anyways, therefore guns should nevertheless be legal? 

Yes, I agree with your particular counter IF those argue that the normal behavior of it justies KEEPING it that way. That 'conservative' thinking is the issue. What the charitable intention regarding those who might be arguing that way could be that abortions, since they will occur anyway regardless of illegality, will foster both an underground branch of criminals that will harm those women for exploiting unhealthy abortions. 

Compare this to the gun argument that might go something like, criminals will still use alternate weapons that are more destructive and painful than a gun if guns were banned. That is, a criminal without a gun might use a dull kitchen bread knife and make what is a bad situation worse by the totality of pain and suffering that occurs. While you CAN argue this fair IF you expect the same people to become criminals under the present laws, the anti-abortion laws would be CREATING 'criminals' out of the same numbers with the assumption that abortion itself would be curbed. Note again the comparable argument of the same poltical view by the same poltical opposition to the gun lobby: guns don't kill people, people who use guns kill people.....becomes....abortion doesn't kill babies, people who opt to use abortion kills babies. Although not a completely fair argument regardless, if you support anti-abortion rights, you SHOULD non-hypocritically support anti-gun rights. 

Maybe a trade-off of 'rights' could be negotiated? ??

[BeaverFever]

9 hours ago, taxme said:

How many unwanted children have you personally adopted? Just asking. 

Zero. But I’m not an anti-abortionist claiming that unwanted babies will be adopted.   How about yot?
 

geti it? *sigh* of course you don’t 

[Yzermandius19]

53 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Ya, you want to take away women’s choices. Don’t give me that BS. Be honest enough to own it.

I don't want to take away choices

that's all you

it's a states issue

I am against the federalization of the issue

Edited June 25, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Yzermandius19]

56 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Oh well then I guess I meant fucking assholes. Fucking assholes are even worse, they want the federal government to stop interfering in a state's right to dictate what people can and can't do.  A complete abrogation of the whole purpose of their high falutin' constitution near as I can tell.

there is no right to an abortion in the constitution

the 10th amendment is a right in the constitution

you are the one running afoul of the constitution by supporting Roe v Wade

not me

there is nothing constitutional about Roe v Wade

Edited June 25, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[eyeball]

20 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

there is no right to an abortion in the constitution

Their stupid fucked up constitution is what really needs to be aborted.

Edited June 25, 2022 by eyeball

[Yzermandius19]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Their stupid fucked up constitution is what really needs to be aborted.

there is no better constitution

and it won't be aborted

Americans will however abort your opinion on the matter

woop woop

[Nationalist]

Well I've found this thread hugely entertaining, but Yzermandius is quite dead on. The issue of abortion is not a federal issue but a state issue. That's all the SCOTUS ruled. 

So you Libbies howling about this as some sort of tragedy, are ignorant of the US Constitution and complete hypocrites. 

Edited June 25, 2022 by Nationalist

[BeaverFever]

10 hours ago, West said:

He's more of a rule by decree type dictator.. actually allowing the people to govern themselves isn't an acceptable view

You two hypocrites don’t think the people should be allowed to govern themselves when it comes to owning guns now do you?  

You people are all for “rule by decree” when it comes to a woman’s  autonomy over her own body, but a man’s gun collecting hobby is sacrosanct in your hypocritical eyes 

 

And none of you Putin-lovers have any place accusing others of being undemocratic while you openly favour a brutal dictator over democratic governments. 

[Nationalist]

7 hours ago, eyeball said:

Oh well then I guess I meant fucking assholes. Fucking assholes are even worse, they want the federal government to stop interfering in a state's right to dictate what people can and can't do.  A complete abrogation of the whole purpose of their high falutin' constitution near as I can tell.

So...you dislike the US Constitution? 

[Nationalist]

17 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

You two hypocrites don’t think the people should be allowed to govern themselves when it comes to owning guns now do you?  

You people are all for “rule by decree” when it comes to a woman’s  autonomy over her own body, but a man’s gun collecting hobby is sacrosanct in your hypocritical eyes 

 

And none of you Putin-lovers have any place accusing others of being undemocratic while you openly favour a brutal dictator over democratic governments. 

Beave...are you ever gonna grow up?

The right for the American public to bear arms is right in their constitution. That constitution happens to be the base of their legal system. In order to change that, they'd have to re-write their constitution. Something they are not willing to do.

Nobody wants to rule over women. The same constitution does not assign abortion to the federal government. Thus, by express language in said constitution, the states take ownership of abortion rights. It's as simple as that. Now...in states like South Dakota, the state legislature openly ran on a promise to the people of South Dakota, to end legalized abortion in their state, should Roe V Wade be overturned. They won and I'd be willing to bet a lot of women in South Dakota voted for these people. 

Finally...grow up Sally. Nobody I've seen posting here is a "Putin-lover". We/They are Truth-lovers. The truth is not always a fuzzy new stuffy to cuddle. Often it's like hugging razor wire. But truth is truth. You should try to deal with that Sally.

[Nationalist]

6 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Zero. But I’m not an anti-abortionist claiming that unwanted babies will be adopted.   How about yot?
 

geti it? *sigh* of course you don’t 

No. You're a prototypical Libbie who ignores the mutilation of viable babies.

Now that we've got that straightened out...

[West]

8 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

Yeah, like how the pro-gun argument that says criminals will find guns anyways, therefore guns should nevertheless be legal? 

Yes, I agree with your particular counter IF those argue that the normal behavior of it justies KEEPING it that way. That 'conservative' thinking is the issue. What the charitable intention regarding those who might be arguing that way could be that abortions, since they will occur anyway regardless of illegality, will foster both an underground branch of criminals that will harm those women for exploiting unhealthy abortions. 

Compare this to the gun argument that might go something like, criminals will still use alternate weapons that are more destructive and painful than a gun if guns were banned. That is, a criminal without a gun might use a dull kitchen bread knife and make what is a bad situation worse by the totality of pain and suffering that occurs. While you CAN argue this fair IF you expect the same people to become criminals under the present laws, the anti-abortion laws would be CREATING 'criminals' out of the same numbers with the assumption that abortion itself would be curbed. Note again the comparable argument of the same poltical view by the same poltical opposition to the gun lobby: guns don't kill people, people who use guns kill people.....becomes....abortion doesn't kill babies, people who opt to use abortion kills babies. Although not a completely fair argument regardless, if you support anti-abortion rights, you SHOULD non-hypocritically support anti-gun rights. 

Maybe a trade-off of 'rights' could be negotiated? ??

What? 

You would create criminals with brand new gun laws as well. 99.9% of gun owners are responsible gun owners... would be like banning all cars because a few act irresponsible. 

As for abortion, what you folks don't acknowledge is you are taking human life through your action. Of course you twist yourself into a pretzel by claiming its a clump of cells just to refuse to address that point

Edited June 25, 2022 by West

[Scott Mayers]

23 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

7 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Zero. But I’m not an anti-abortionist claiming that unwanted babies will be adopted.   How about yot?
 

geti it? *sigh* of course you don’t 

No. You're a prototypical Libbie who ignores the mutilation of viable babies.

Now that we've got that straightened out...

Many adoptees are abused or neglected by those fewer parents who choose to adopt but then realized too late that they are NOT pets; Once the initial thrill (?) of having the children they couldn't have of their own are realized to live beyond 126 dog years (18 human years) and they seem to be less 'appreciative' of them as masters than a real dog, they prefer NOT to have adopted in the first place, divorce and remarry new spouses who also don't like children and become Evangelical or Fundamental Christians to help them justify their criminal negligence given they can be 'saved' by mere incantations of 'belief THAT Jesus exists' before they die.

Putting the onus on unknown hopefully 'good' parents to take on the burden of these unwanted children doesn't guarantee anything and more than likely not attracts those potential 'parents' who think that they needed children to 'save' their marriage, NOT an appropriate reason to adopt. They are not pets and do not require being 'saved' by adult chiidren who can't feel 'whole' without playing pretend grown ups.

[West]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

You two hypocrites don’t think the people should be allowed to govern themselves when it comes to owning guns now do you?  

You people are all for “rule by decree” when it comes to a woman’s  autonomy over her own body, but a man’s gun collecting hobby is sacrosanct in your hypocritical eyes 

 

And none of you Putin-lovers have any place accusing others of being undemocratic while you openly favour a brutal dictator over democratic governments. 

You are all for a rule by death decree when it comes to taking a baby's life. 

Pretty sick when abortionists are trying to take senators hostage and intimidate SC justices. They are deranged

[West]

17 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Many adoptees are abused or neglected by those fewer parents who choose to adopt but then realized too late that they are NOT pets; Once the initial thrill (?) of having the children they couldn't have of their own are realized to live beyond 126 dog years (18 human years) and they seem to be less 'appreciative' of them as masters than a real dog, they prefer NOT to have adopted in the first place, divorce and remarry new spouses who also don't like children and become Evangelical or Fundamental Christians to help them justify their criminal negligence given they can be 'saved' by mere incantations of 'belief THAT Jesus exists' before they die.

Putting the onus on unknown hopefully 'good' parents to take on the burden of these unwanted children doesn't guarantee anything and more than likely not attracts those potential 'parents' who think that they needed children to 'save' their marriage, NOT an appropriate reason to adopt. They are not pets and do not require being 'saved' by adult chiidren who can't feel 'whole' without playing pretend grown ups.

So they are better off dead is what you are saying. 

Kinda like Anna Navarro wishing family members with Down Syndrome and Autism were never born... too much work she claims. Such statements should be considered hate speech

Edited June 25, 2022 by West

[Scott Mayers]

9 minutes ago, West said:

8 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

Yeah, like how the pro-gun argument that says criminals will find guns anyways, therefore guns should nevertheless be legal? 

Yes, I agree with your particular counter IF those argue that the normal behavior of it justies KEEPING it that way. That 'conservative' thinking is the issue. What the charitable intention regarding those who might be arguing that way could be that abortions, since they will occur anyway regardless of illegality, will foster both an underground branch of criminals that will harm those women for exploiting unhealthy abortions. 

Compare this to the gun argument that might go something like, criminals will still use alternate weapons that are more destructive and painful than a gun if guns were banned. That is, a criminal without a gun might use a dull kitchen bread knife and make what is a bad situation worse by the totality of pain and suffering that occurs. While you CAN argue this fair IF you expect the same people to become criminals under the present laws, the anti-abortion laws would be CREATING 'criminals' out of the same numbers with the assumption that abortion itself would be curbed. Note again the comparable argument of the same poltical view by the same poltical opposition to the gun lobby: guns don't kill people, people who use guns kill people.....becomes....abortion doesn't kill babies, people who opt to use abortion kills babies. Although not a completely fair argument regardless, if you support anti-abortion rights, you SHOULD non-hypocritically support anti-gun rights. 

Maybe a trade-off of 'rights' could be negotiated? ??

Expand  

What? 

You would create criminals with brand new gun laws as well. 99.9% of gun owners are responsible gun owners... would be like banning all cars because a few act irresponsible. 

As for abortion, what you folks don't acknowledge is you are taking human life through your action. Of course you twist yourself into a pretzel by claiming its a clump of cells just to refuse to address that point

And you missed the whole point!? The fact THAT you think that 99.9% of gun owners are 'responsible' gun owners should then be extended to the abortion PROVIDERS AND those who opt for abortion that you favor making illegal. The health care providers who do the abortions are also ignored for their input on this as though you oppositely think that educated professional physicians are somehow less qualified than the Hick who thinks they are more morally upright and less likely to be stupid neglectful or abusive gun owners.

Hypocritically, you also don't mind killing chiildren who transition to adulthood by being sent off to your love of war as a means to 'cull' overpopulation. That is, you could care less about terminating the life of a being that has certainly outgrown their puppyhood cuteness and coincidental 'innocence'. 

 

The ONLY real reason that conservative's do not want abortion is because they favor a DEMAND of desperate poor people they hate who can be forced by their OVER-SUPPLY to become literal servile slaves, fodder to make the self-interested capitalist to PROFIT more! Furthermore, you need religion to foster false hope to keep these slaves respectful of your arrogant 'superiority' for being the authorities of these superstitious artificial constructs. 

[West]

My guess is in a few years Democrats will finally realize the vast majority dont share their radical baby killing views. They will quietly change course then claim falsely they switched sides with Republicans similar revisionist history as slavery. 

Democrats are the party of death. 

[West]

5 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

And you missed the whole point!? The fact THAT you think that 99.9% of gun owners are 'responsible' gun owners should then be extended to the abortion PROVIDERS AND those who opt for abortion that you favor making illegal. The health care providers who do the abortions are also ignored for their input on this as though you oppositely think that educated professional physicians are somehow less qualified than the Hick who thinks they are more morally upright and less likely to be stupid neglectful or abusive gun owners.

Hypocritically, you also don't mind killing chiildren who transition to adulthood by being sent off to your love of war as a means to 'cull' overpopulation. That is, you could care less about terminating the life of a being that has certainly outgrown their puppyhood cuteness and coincidental 'innocence'. 

 

The ONLY real reason that conservative's do not want abortion is because they favor a DEMAND of desperate poor people they hate who can be forced by their OVER-SUPPLY to become literal servile slaves, fodder to make the self-interested capitalist to PROFIT more! Furthermore, you need religion to foster false hope to keep these slaves respectful of your arrogant 'superiority' for being the authorities of these superstitious artificial constructs. 

1. No I didn't.. you just don't understand. 

2. I'm not pro war at all. I oppose war including our current obsession with the Ukraine

3. And businesses are pro abortion as it means they don't have to add any more people to insurance policies or pay out parental leaves

[sharkman]

16 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

I do loves me some DeSantis

but Trump has delivered

I was skeptical at first, I didn't endorse him at first

but he's won me over on the merits

no Republican President has achieved as much on the big issues, since Teddy Roosevelt

Trump is the Bull Moose, the TR of our generation

Very true, Trump has delivered yet again.  His reach from back in 2020 has flipped Roe v Wade on its head!  What’s he going to do next?!

He fired up the economy, gave blacks and latinos more employment than they’d had in history, brought NATO, China and NK to heel,  and gave people all over the world hope.

And now federal abortion law has been struck down.  Trump will go down in history as the second greatest president in American history, behind Lincoln.

[rectum]

8 minutes ago, sharkman said:

Very true, Trump has delivered yet again.  His reach from back in 2020 has flipped Roe v Wade on its head!  What’s he going to do next?!

He fired up the economy, gave blacks and latinos more employment than they’d had in history, brought NATO, China and NK to heel,  and gave people all over the world hope.

And now federal abortion law has been struck down.  Trump will go down in history as the second greatest president in American history, behind Lincoln.

 

Trump is better Jesus 100X time. 

Jesus did nothing to help the US economy. 

[Jack9000]

Sad day in history 68 percent didn't want it overturned but these judges decide there personal opinion is more important then the public's view .  Now Clarence Thomas mentioning should go after same sex marriage and same sex relations comments like that just gonna cause chaos this man should be expelled from the supreme Court 

[Scott Mayers]

3 minutes ago, West said:

18 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Many adoptees are abused or neglected by those fewer parents who choose to adopt but then realized too late that they are NOT pets; Once the initial thrill (?) of having the children they couldn't have of their own are realized to live beyond 126 dog years (18 human years) and they seem to be less 'appreciative' of them as masters than a real dog, they prefer NOT to have adopted in the first place, divorce and remarry new spouses who also don't like children and become Evangelical or Fundamental Christians to help them justify their criminal negligence given they can be 'saved' by mere incantations of 'belief THAT Jesus exists' before they die.

Putting the onus on unknown hopefully 'good' parents to take on the burden of these unwanted children doesn't guarantee anything and more than likely not attracts those potential 'parents' who think that they needed children to 'save' their marriage, NOT an appropriate reason to adopt. They are not pets and do not require being 'saved' by adult chiidren who can't feel 'whole' without playing pretend grown ups.

Expand  

So they are better off dead is what you are saying. 

Kinda like Anna Navarro wishing family members with Down Syndrome and Autism were never born... too much work she claims. Such statements should be considered hate speech

They were never 'alive' neurologically in the first place. It is only your religious dictatorial declarations of pretentious compassion for some magical 'soul' you think God IMPOSED upon these accidents of nature that grant you your delusion. You have to also explain WHY the fuck it is of YOUR personal interest to care about the FREE CHOICES of others that do NOT infringe on YOUR OWN! You seem to think that your OWN children are YOUR personal a private privilige to rule independent of government but are willing to USE government hypocritically to IMPOSE generic laws that demand that OTHER people's children need to be controlled.

You think you are a 'superior' being that knows 'better' than even your own God or that you believe that your God has granted you SPECIAL status of uprighteousness to have exception to rule over others' existence WITHOUT THE LIABILITY that those unwanted children are imposed to be raised in. 

You think you NEED guns yet hypocritically assert some pretence of 'faith' in a powerful almighty God? Why would the faithful be so unfaithful of the 'free choice' power that their supposed god gives to ALL people? Why do you pretend some faith in something you actually spit at....insulting its own superiority at granting 'free choice'. It is certainly NOT 'free choice' for those pre-slaves you want to see raised on someone else's dime: AND, yet you further hypocritically  hate things like government daycare centers. 

It all adds up to one big fucking selfish con by pretentious spoiled brats who think that the world should serve them simply for their own accidental fortune. You use your religion FOR control of others while justifying your own default behavior as inherently 'virtuous'. 

Get off your high horses or stop being hypocritical. If you claim to have God on your side, then prove it by ACTIONS that demonstrate that you TRUST in God's supposed 'gift' of free will; You shouldn't NEED guns if you actually believed either! And that love of hunting you need for 'sport' only demonstrative of virtue to the act of KILLLING as somehow still NECESSARY rather than some mere hobby. You guys have the blood on your hands for more destruction and death than any one of those aborting their fetuses have. 

So PROVE that you have a FAITH in God that you are excusing as uniquely being concerned about unborn fetuses. You fuckwads have a sick fetish about OTHER people's children's preservation uniquely of more concern than whether they might suffer or be torchered AFTER they are born. ???

If you have a non-religious and non-hypocritical justification for your misplaced interests in others' children's existence but not their continous state of impoverishment,, can you express this? Do you think it is MORE virtuous to live a torchered life just because one is alive than to have them snuffed out prior to their capacity to even think, feel, or reflect on what is or is not pain, pleasure, 'good', nor 'bad'?