Jump to content

US Supreme Court strikes down Roe V. Wade


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, sharkman said:

  Trump will go down in history as the second greatest president in American history, behind Lincoln.

for me, that's Dutch Reagan

we were in this kind of malaise in 1980

Reagan put Paul Volcker in charge, took the hit to beat inflation

then he stood up to the Soviets and brought them to heel

then it was morning in America

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Jack9000 said:

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 

Sad day when propaganda stats like that 68% nonsense get thrown around, as if they weren’t made up out of thin air to enrage the brick throwers.

A solid majority of Americans wanted Roe struck down.  That’s one of the reasons the Supremes did it.

Edited by sharkman
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Aristides said:

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

Is the right to abortion a world wide right for women everywhere? Would you dare to be critical of any Muslim country for their abortion stance?  How about Muslims that live in Canada or the US?

Just out of curiosity did you feel there should be any limits on abortion or do you think it should have been allowed right up to the moment of birth ?

Dems Bring Abortion on Demand until Birth Act to Vote (frc.org)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

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'? 

I'd say what's selfish is claiming your career is more important than a life. 

As for guns, I am not a gun owner but I'm also not a loon who thinks every gun owner is trying to kill me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, sharkman said:

Sad day when propaganda stats like that 68% nonsense get thrown around, as if they weren’t made up out of thin air to enrage the brick throwers.

A solid majority of Americans wanted Roe struck down.  That’s one of the reasons the Supremes did it.

Lmao no it's clear the majority don't want it turned down stop making up bs you fool 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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.

Well then. That's certainly a limp argument. 

There are good parents and bad parents. Go figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours 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. 

the second amendment is a constitutional right

there is no constitutional right to an abortion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, West said:

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. 

Stop being hypocritical. If you abore 'death' so much, take your issue up with your God. Wasn't death itself the sad inherent 'secret of the gods' that the Tree of Wisdom 'cursed' Earthlings to accept? If you are not faking your religion, do the 'dead' fetus' not also get salvation regardless? Is your God NOT the one in command and control of the FATE of those who live and die? WHY are you in favor of a need for weapons and a desperate need to KEEP political power AS THOUGH you are athiests like me but who prefer to pretend that you are devout Christians instead? You are cowards who lack respect for the LIVING when you IMPOSE slavery predefined upon those OTHER children you want to 'save' to serve YOU later. You hate the free thinking liberties of others but demand that we should respect you as though you are 'superior' simply for declaring that God works for your wishes....your commands, .....your 'prayers'...that beg IT sucks your dick when you call.

And to add, ....I was adopted! While I enjoyed my life up to today, I would still not condemn my parent(s) had they opted to abort. So shut your mouth about whom you are having 'compassion' for. If you want to stop the need for abortion, become a scientist to seek technilogical means to try to prevent accidental births. You might even profit by it if you can find a means that serves to remove the religious pretentiousness you use to argue against killing that you hypocritically support in most other political issues elsewhere. Hunting, war, anti-science, pro-relgious beliefs about things like DEATH sentences for criminal convicts you (or the conservative religious mindset in general) that you hold are far more PRO-death than the prevention of birth of a fetus that cannot live independently of necessary supports. And if you are against technology interfering with 'nature', understand that less than half of all births prior to the last hundred and fifty years did not survive and women with more than a few births often died as well. Guns are also 'unnatural' as already mentioned. So prove you have the supposed uprightous virtue of 'God's favor' by going back to the woods (without the artificial tools that demonstrate you as weak) and show us that you can compete with the bears in the woods without the progress you take for granted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

the second amendment is a constitutional right

there is no constitutional right to an abortion

Half a century of jurisprudence says the 14th amendment applies to abortion.

Moreover, The second amendment doesn’t mention anything about bump stocks, assault rifles or concealed carry permits. It also clearly states that the right to bear arms is within the context of a “well-regulated militia”…but the current right wing judges “interpret” the second amendment to apply to nearly all  modern firearms and accessories and that the militia reference as irrelevant in modern times.  They seem to be pretty selective and biased when deciding when to take the constitution literally and when to be interpretive, don’t you think?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Check out the clip above your post. Shapiro makes a good point about "potential sentience" and how it creates the existence of humanity.

He asks the question of a questioner, "if you're in a coma can I stab you?"

A fertilized egg is not a baby. And is in mo way similar  to a person in a coma. Shapiro is so fucking stupid.  


Isn’t he the guy who so proudly boasted that he’s never made his wife’s pussy wet?  That was during his pathetic attempt to censor a female rap song that he found too vulgar. So much for being  a “free speech activist ”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BeaverFever said:

A fertilized egg is not a baby. And is in mo way similar  to a person in a coma. Shapiro is so fucking stupid.  


Isn’t he the guy who so proudly boasted that he’s never made his wife’s pussy wet?  That was during his pathetic attempt to censor a female rap song that he found too vulgar. So much for being  a “free speech activist ”

You wouldn't last ten seconds in a debate with Shapiro that relied on more than vilification and defamation. Unfortunately for you after they're gone your debating toolbox is empty.

I notice you can't actually challenge Ben's contention that potential for sentience implies intrinsic human moral value. If you're in a coma from which you may awake somebody can't just come along and stab you dead under the law. Why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

A fertilized egg is not a baby. And is in mo way similar  to a person in a coma. Shapiro is so fucking stupid.  


Isn’t he the guy who so proudly boasted that he’s never made his wife’s pussy wet?  That was during his pathetic attempt to censor a female rap song that he found too vulgar. So much for being  a “free speech activist ”

Were you pro choice about being vaxxed or not too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

Every women who dies having a back alley abortion will be on you self righteous morons. 

Hundreds of millions of babies against the odd "back alley abortion" that may or may not happen in the hysterical manner your rhetoric implies.

Women die during clinical abortions too. But wouldn't the risk be "her body, her choice?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

The nervous system begins developing at 6 weeks. Nothing you say matters much after that.

There is more. From science:

Anesthetics work by blocking memory access that prevents you from associating your stored experiences. This is also why we do not remember great details and I do not know ONE who could claim to remember 'feeling' much when they were still unborn fetuses, although traces of this may exist trivially. So before we are two, our systems are LEARNING to both 'evalutate' something environmentally as being pain/pleasure as well as those thought processes that derive interpretation of what is or is not good/bad. While two year olds certainly 'feel' sensations, before that, a gradual process of LEARNING what to assign to feelings has to be developed BY the environement.

A baby has to LEARN to sense what is pain and it requires windows of develoment that arbitrarily assign what is in the present post birth environement. A baby doesn't initally cry, for instance, because it is sad or in pain or some other discomfort but is a genetic set of reactions that WE as parents put 'value' into. For instance, the first cry may be the reaction needed to clear the amniotic fluid out of the lungs. The baby only learns the association of crying as 'discomfort' when its environment teaches them how to assign the event as something by reactive parent's. They also need time for their brain to assign which spaces the baby  should hold the memories that are also needed as mentioned above is needed for sensation. Many animals, like cats, do not have memory placed aside for sight and so can become blind AFTER they are born if the window of development lacks information during that period. The same goes for baby development long AFTER they are born and why we do not remember details of those periods. 

Babies do not have 'preferences'. Think for instance about how odd that many presume about their premature child's power to know whether they prefer homosexual behaviours or not. I'm on the side that says they LACK such assignments early on and so would, if any feelings existed at all, lack a desire for sexual favor nor disfavor. 

You likely do not remember how you learned to walk. This is because the brain of a child is undefined by having strong variable connections that lack strict pathways. So the baby needs time to PRUNE the hardwired excess of neural connections to DEFINE the shortcuts that our emotional sense of comforts and values. So such children may lack complete assignments of sensation not being able to differentiate between what would eventually be defining of one's sense of pain or pleasure. 

Babies have genetic defaults that permit them to go into a protection mode when harmed by overwhelming signals. Even a two year old may survive certain events that would doom more mature ones. This explains why for instance children can survive a drowning by being revived: their system is predefined like many other animals in the wild to NOT interpret the shock of traumatic sensations to the same degree we have when older. They are also more 'plastic' and this flexibility is also due to the excessive connections. 

These rational non-religious arguments demonstate at least a potential justification based upon evolutionary logic that far superceeds any opinion based upon some mystical religioius interpretation. 

While it is not to be favored is an excuse to not use other birth control preventions at all, and may permit the pychological supports one may include in one's familiar religions, But the overconcern about a fetus by you guys is fucking SUSPECT when you believe in other odd beliefs that suggest you are only preferring OTHER children not to be aborted for some ulterior interests and NOT the child's welfare. The 'liberals' have far more compassion universally  IN ACTION than the subjective IN-GROUP mindset of the conservatives who believe in intrinsic rights to 'family' autonomy exclusive of other's right to overrule. Your side supports exploiting any advantages that empowers you economically also. Thus, you prove suspect when pretending an odd sudden compassion for the unborn of OTHERS outside your own family.(?)

An unborn child is certainly less significant than one who is born and an older person who has been here longer also has more 'value' for demonstrating maturity. So why would you guys favor destroying the lives of adults unless you have some sick fetish about dumb pre-intellectualized beings that babies represent in the same way one favors irrationally a puppy versus a full grown dog who has 'earned' the experience that gives them their personality. If you have preference for immaturity over a being that is not even fully developed until it is already born and still requires years just to begin to speak, what higher virtue can we expect of your opinion about mature things?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ironstone said:

Is the right to abortion a world wide right for women everywhere? Would you dare to be critical of any Muslim country for their abortion stance?  How about Muslims that live in Canada or the US?

Just out of curiosity did you feel there should be any limits on abortion or do you think it should have been allowed right up to the moment of birth ?

Dems Bring Abortion on Demand until Birth Act to Vote (frc.org)

At least you’re finally admitting that Republicans are trying to make America similar to Muslim countries.  That’s something we’ve been saying about them for a couple of decades now. 
 

Abortion is a medical procedure and it is regulated the same way as any other medical procedure.  What’s “allowed” is what is determined by medical regulations…NOT CRIMINAL LAW.   For example there aren’t criminal laws that explicitly prevent a doctor from amputating your hand to treat a paper cut.  That doesn’t mean it’s allowed or that it happens or that silly women will seek it out unless conservative men threaten them with imprisonment. Get it? 

 

In Canada we have no criminal laws against abortion but late abortions are extremely, extremely, extremely rare and for very very very extreme and rare reasons that require extensive documentation…not because criminal law requires it but because medical standards do.  
 

One of the things that makes conservatives so fascist is their need to criminalize everything they don’t like. In their fascist eyes, the only way to regulate something that needs regulating is to make it punishable by death or imprisonment. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Hundreds of millions of babies against the odd "back alley abortion" that may or may not happen in the hysterical manner your rhetoric implies.

Women die during clinical abortions too. But wouldn't the risk be "her body, her choice?"

What do you think happened before legalized abortions? Why do you think it will be any different now? Women dying during clinical abortions is extremely rare. Yes her body, her  choice. You make the choice a back alley abortion with no risk you will ever have to take. What a hero, you must be so proud of yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...