Jump to content

US Supreme Court strikes down Roe V. Wade


Recommended Posts

12 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 

It's strange that when it comes to a woman's right to have an abortion she should be allowed to have an abortion without question. Let the government mind it's own bloody ruthless business. After all, haven't we been told enough times by the leftist liberal democrats that it is a woman's body and it should be her choice to decide as to whatever she wants to do with her own body and to protect it for herself. No outside influence there allowed.  

But yet, when it came to the Covid vaccinations, a woman did not have any rights anymore. Many woman were forced to take the Covid jab or else. Suddenly, it's not her body or choice anymore. Either she takes the Covid vaccine jab or else a woman can have her rights and freedoms taken away from her by the government.

All of a sudden a woman has no right over her own body and has no choice but to take the jab or else a woman becomes a non-citizen with no rights and freedoms. Where are those leftist liberal democrats now on this one? Suddenly, we cannot find any of those lefty liberals. They all went into hiding. Where is Maxine Waters? 

But this is what liberalism is all about? Hypocrisy and bullshit. Liberalism believes that a woman should only have the rights that the liberals want her to have. She should have the right to an abortion but she should not be allowed to deny taking any Covid vaccine jabs. Liberalism is truly a sick and pathetic disease. 😛

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, eyeball said:

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

So, are you glad that your parents did not abort you or are you f'n well mad at them for not aborting you? What is it, lefty? 😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

saying morals are religious in origin

doesn't invalidate them

the government does not define what is moral

life begins at conception

jerking off kills no unborn children

abortion does

It DOES mean that you cannot prove (nor disprove) any claims about whether a fetus is 'moral' or 'immoral' to abort. If merely asserting one's opinion matters, then why do we not just leave it up to a Hitler-esk leader to dictate their opinion to us and have us all compelled to nod to him arbitrarily? Why not accept whatever status quo is being asserted anywhere? 

Your faith in yourself ignrores and disrespects the faith of those opting for abortion as though your own opinion should matter over theirs, let alone my own faith in myself who disagrees with you. I argue with logical appeal; you argue with emotional appeal. Given the 'Left' is already demonstrating doubt by the same standards by the caricatured representative extremes for their EMOTIONS getting in the way, should you not prefer to keep things LOGICAL instead?

Government is nothing more than a collective 'moral' legislator that PEOPLE, not gods, create to negotiate and set tentative laws that appeal to the most people. Because everyone has distinct backgrounds religiously, you cannot assume they share the same 'morals'. But even where they exist, religion itself is not proven any less a form of PRIVATE 'government' of one they particularly just gamble is 'good' for creating the label of this being as that which defines 'good' as an arbitrary dictator. [The word 'god' is a biased preference based on the same root as 'good'. It ignores though that evil has to also be a construct owned by this being or it BEGS the question. If God is 'good' just because it declares itself such, it begs why any 'evil' exists at all. "Eve", the root of the term, "evil" [Eve-al(l)] initially meant all that followed God, but Eve was also created by it. So who created 'evil'? If women did (as some propose of Eve as a particular historical figure), didn't God create Eve? 

Because of the contradictions, religions cannot be trusted as a root of morals but a reflection of what SOME subset of people belief. The creation of the religious Gods themselves are human creations relative to me as an athiest. So why would or should I accept having faith in particular claims that some person decrees is real when I too can just as easily assert that I am your God, and your lack of respect of me is not 'good' because I am the one defining what 'good' (and thus who 'God' is by proxy) means? [Note that God should be an atheist like me if it has no appeal to base its evaluation further than declaring it is so.]

 

...And I then created this post and at the end of it I saw that it was all 'good'; So it came to be that as the Aten fell to Adam, by Atum the perfect Sol(id) is to be returned to Eden the very next day, (for)Eve(r). And so now I will rest as I grant my Godness to Eve(eryting) fore Eve(ryone) and to carry forth my wishes for Eve(r). And thus, I am the creator of all that is Eve-El(ohim) too! Maybe I'm just too "Nile(istic)" about it all, but Nut(hing) exists above except (H)Eve(n) and (G)Od(den) before it. 

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

2 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

how many of those kids would prefer foster care to not being alive?

I'm guessing a lot

abortion is worse

attempting to justify abortion by pointing out the pitfalls of the foster care system is asinine

Abortion for many women is the only viable option – and I’m not talking rape or incest only.  Accidents happen, there are many circumstances that make it difficult for women to carry their babies to term.  Adoption isn’t the panacea some make it to be, the stories one hears from the foster care system are oftentimes horror stories. Incest, pedophilia, human trafficking, are baked into the system. But hey, eyes wide shut!

Pro-life people focus on and vehemently defend the fetus, but they shun the homeless, drug addict and sex worker.  Want to guess the common trait these people share? They were unwanted.

If you’ve got the time and interest, please check Mark Laita’s Youtube Channel “Soft White Underbelly” He interviews individuals within our society that America has turned their backs on, ridiculed and seen as untouchable.

https://conversations.indy100.com/soft-white-underbelly-youtube-docuseries#:~:text=Boasting over 2.3 million subscribers,ridiculed and seen as untouchable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

to be clear, the court has not said that abortion is illegal

all the court has rejected, is that a right to an abortion is actually in the constitution

that doesn't mean abortion couldn't be a right

all the court has said on that, is that you would have to pass a constitutional amendment to make it so

but since no such amendment has ever been passed, the mechanism in America is to send it back to the states

states can pass their own laws either way

then you decide which state you want to live in accordingly

this is how America is designed to work

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Luz P. said:

Abortion for many women is the only viable option – and I’m not talking rape or incest only.  Accidents happen, there are many circumstances that make it difficult for women to carry their babies to term.  Adoption isn’t the panacea some make it to be, the stories one hears from the foster care system are oftentimes horror stories. Incest, pedophilia, human trafficking, are baked into the system.

adoption > abortion

adoption isn’t perfect but it's clearly a big upgrade on abortion

most abortions are not carried out by women in circumstances that threaten their lives or health

these are extremely rare exceptions

and do not morally justify the vast majority of abortions

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Luz P. said:

Abortion for many women is the only viable option – and I’m not talking rape or incest only.  Accidents happen, there are many circumstances that make it difficult for women to carry their babies to term.  Adoption isn’t the panacea some make it to be, the stories one hears from the foster care system are oftentimes horror stories. Incest, pedophilia, human trafficking, are baked into the system. But hey, eyes wide shut!

Pro-life people focus on and vehemently defend the fetus, but they shun the homeless, drug addict and sex worker.  Want to guess the common trait these people share? They were unwanted.

If you’ve got the time and interest, please check Mark Laita’s Youtube Channel “Soft White Underbelly” He interviews individuals within our society that America has turned their backs on, ridiculed and seen as untouchable.

https://conversations.indy100.com/soft-white-underbelly-youtube-docuseries#:~:text=Boasting over 2.3 million subscribers,ridiculed and seen as untouchable.

 I 'liked' but question the apparent link. It doesn't appear to be a legit youTube link but a redirect. Can you post the original link so that me or others can verify securely? (It will open a window here if it is legit).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

to be clear, the court has not said that abortion is illegal

all the court has rejected, is that a right to an abortion is actually in the constitution

that doesn't mean abortion couldn't be a right

all the court has said on that, is that you would have to pass a constitutional amendment to make it so

but since no such amendment has ever been passed, the mechanism in America is to send it back to the states

states can pass their own laws either way

then you decide which state you want to live in accordingly

this is how America is designed to work

letting America work as it was designed ftw

Roe v Wade was a lame way to prevent that from happening

6-3 SCOTUS woop woop 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

letting America work as it was designed ftw

Roe v Wade was a lame way to prevent that from happening

6-3 SCOTUS woop woop 

the trajectory is that the left will get their constitutional amendment someday

but not any time soon

the contemporary lunatic left simply can't sell its agenda

but some future reordering of the left will probably get it done

after the useless af commie Millennials are dead & gone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

and do not morally justify the vast majority of abortions

I envy your self-righteous certainty.  Judging others without knowing what their circumstances are that led them to take such a difficult decision is the definition of a lack of empathy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

 I 'liked' but question the apparent link. It doesn't appear to be a legit youTube link but a redirect. Can you post the original link so that me or others can verify securely? (It will open a window here if it is legit).

Here's the link to the YouTube channel.  The testimonials are heart breaking, all these people had very difficult childhoods.

https://www.youtube.com/c/SoftWhiteUnderbelly/featured

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

the trajectory is that the left will get their constitutional amendment someday

but not any time soon

the contemporary lunatic left simply can't sell its agenda

but some future reordering of the left will probably get it done

after the useless af commie Millennials are dead & gone

the pro-life position is getting more popular

and the bar is quite high to pass a constitutional amendment

if that is the trajectory

I'm not seeing it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Luz P. said:

I envy your self-righteous certainty.  Judging others without knowing what their circumstances are that led them to take such a difficult decision is the definition of a lack of empathy.

difficult circumstances don't make most abortions moral

depends on the circumstances

and statistically the vast majority of abortions aren't to protect the life of the mother

those are the facts

has nothing to do with a lack of empathy

one can be empathetic to people who do immoral things

that doesn't make what is immoral the moral thing to do though

empathy is not morality

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

the pro-life position is getting more popular

and the bar is quite high to pass a constitutional amendment

if that is the trajectory

I'm not seeing it

it's a generational divide

74% of adults under thirty say abortion should be legal

the future is pro abortion by three to one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

it's a generational divide

74% of adults under thirty say abortion should be legal

the future is pro abortion by three to one

true

however going by the pew numbers 

70% under 30 say abortion should be illegal in some cases or all cases

and only 30% under 30 say abortion should be legal in all cases

almost two thirds of the under 30 pro-abortion side, still think it should be illegal in some cases

so if there is a constitutional amendment that allows a right to abortion

it's going to be limited quite a bit

even if today's under 30's get all the say and their views remain fixed

PF_05_06.22_abortion.views_1_2.thumb.png.72bd4984fafcc6feb06cb39da4494a38.png

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such fucked argument.

Proclaiming "God given rights" in the prelude, yet only those written down centuries ago are valid. Yet men claiming the right to decide what women can do with their bodies is in neither.

Praising that "rights" can differ from place to place and still call it a nation...

Quoting Biblical bullshit, calling women with unwanted pregnancies sluts even thinking 'not fucking' is the solution, well DUH.

No matter how high you estimate the number of stupid people there are, the actual number is far higher.

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

9 minutes ago, herbie said:

Such fucked argument.

Proclaiming "God given rights" in the prelude, yet only those written down centuries ago are valid. Yet men claiming the right to decide what women can do with their bodies is in neither.

Praising that "rights" can differ from place to place and still call it a nation...

Quoting Biblical bullshit, calling women with unwanted pregnancies sluts even thinking 'not fucking' is the solution, well DUH.

No matter how high you estimate the number of stupid people there are, the actual number is far higher.

Law is philosophical. There's obviously more to a human being than just "science". Only those with a seared conscience could claim that children in utero are just a clump of cells. We live in a very warped society where women are willing to kill for their careers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

true

however going by the pew numbers 

70% under 30 say abortion should be illegal in some cases or all cases

and only 30% under 30 say abortion should be legal in all cases

almost two thirds of the under 30 pro-abortion side, still think it should be illegal in some cases

so if there is a constitutional amendment that allows a right to abortion

it's going to be limited quite a bit

even if today's under 30's get all the say and their views remain fixed

PF_05_06.22_abortion.views_1_2.thumb.png.72bd4984fafcc6feb06cb39da4494a38.png

What's the difference between "legal with some exceptions" and "illegal with some exceptions"? 

Seems like an attempt to skew the poll for talking points. 

Seems like it's broken down as follows:

1. Moral or ethical issues: should a mother be able to do genetic testing ie for Down Sydrome or autism or sex then abort based on that? 

2. Medical issues: should a mother be able to abort where there's a high likelihood the child will die and there's significant pregnancy risk to the mother? 

3. Consensual sex: should a woman be able to terminate a pregnancy as a career move? 

4. Incidences of rape

These are societal issues as I don't believe we should tolerate leftist eugenics movements any longer. These lunatics like Anna Navarro should be charged with hate speech

Edited by West
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, West said:

What's the difference between "legal with some exceptions" and "illegal with some exceptions"? 

Seems like an attempt to skew the poll for talking points. 

indeed

the main difference would be self identification

but I suppose the legal with some exceptions crowd probably want less restrictions 

than the illegal with some exceptions crowd on average 

but in reality the vast majority of Americans support some restrictions on abortion

even most of the pro-choicers

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

to be clear, the court has not said that abortion is illegal

all the court has rejected, is that a right to an abortion is actually in the constitution

that doesn't mean abortion couldn't be a right

all the court has said on that, is that you would have to pass a constitutional amendment to make it so

but since no such amendment has ever been passed, the mechanism in America is to send it back to the states

states can pass their own laws either way

then you decide which state you want to live in accordingly

this is how America is designed to work

 

And I think it’s time once again, to point out something that should be repeated on at least every page of this thread.

This landmark ruling is brought to you by the People’s President, Donald J. Trump!  

Edited by sharkman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sharkman said:

And I think it’s time once again, to point out something that should be repeated on at least every page of this thread.

This landmark ruling is brought to you by the People’s President, Donald J. Trump!  

indeed

and there is not a thing the left can actually do about it

they are utterly defeated

mission accomplished, for real this time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

not the right of the militia

the British militia infringed on the American people's right to keep and bear arms

hence the second amendment existing in the first place

 

But but it doesn’t say AR-15 and they only had muskets and flintlocks back then so clearly it only applies to those kind of weapons tight?

 

Militias were a force of part-time citizen-soldiers who provided military and/or law enforcement services (often both) to their community on a part-time basis. Militiamen often used their own privately owned weapons for their duty. Clearly this law is the right of people to keep and bear arms for the purpose of allowing a well-reguted militia. But the point is the right wing judges are not “originalist” or “literalist” when it comes to interpreting the second amendment in the age of the AR-15.  They are progressive evolutionists.  They are only literalists and “originalists” when it comes to interpreting rights of women and minorities who weren’t even considered people by those who wrote the constitution over 200 years ago. 

Edited by BeaverFever
  • Thanks 1
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.

×
×
  • Create New...