Jump to content

US Supreme Court strikes down Roe V. Wade


Recommended Posts

If the second amendment can be creatively interpreted to mean not just owning a gun but carrying it concealed wherever you want, then the freedom from “any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States or…deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”can be interpreted as the right to not be forced by the state to carry a pregnancy to term against your will even though it might kill you. 
 

An interesting observation about your the USSC when they recently ruled a Christian conservative school coach Joseph Kennedy has a right to privacy when he hosts prayers at taxpayer funded school football games on the 50 yard line infront of the entire crowd; 
 

“But no matter where he prayed, coach Kennedy’s prayer was private and entitled to solicitude from the state….It says a lot about the new far-right supermajority that the sphere of personal privacy and dignity travels with men wherever they go, from the locker room to the middle of the football field, whereas there is quite literally nowhere a women can hide, once she is pregnant, from the state’s interest in regulating her if it so chooses. For a man, church is everywhere, and for a woman, there is no sanctuary…Indeed, Kennedy refused to accept any of the accommodations offered by the school district that would have allowed him to pray in private—because his privacy goes wherever he goes. The 50-yard line was his intimate spiritual place because he believed it was.…

In Dobbs, not only are women of reproductive age denied the personal freedom Kennedy enjoys to claim privacy wherever he goes; they are also denied his spiritual liberty. They are given no spiritual authority over their own bodies. Even their personal, private spiritual values are trammeled by the state’s theologically driven interests in “potential life” and “fetal life” and “personhood.” The state’s zone of religious control swallows the spiritual preferences of the mother herself. Whatever her own religious beliefs may be, they are immaterial if she lives in a state that claims that personhood begins at conception. If Kennedy’s very body is a church that travels wherever he goes, a Mississippi mother’s body is not even her own spiritual domain. As she moves from state to state, from public to private, she is a potential crime scene, in which her beliefs and preferences have no relevance. The state may not place itself between a football coach and his spiritual life, but it can insert itself squarely between a woman and hers.”

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/06/supreme-court-women-rights-versus-men.html?via=rss_flipboard
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

59 minutes ago, West said:

Oh yes.. I forgot how you justify it. 

Just like you would say black people are only half human if you were alive 200 years ago

lmao Only a “constitutional originalist” would say something like that!

Another idiotic comparison from you, keep it up!

A fertilized egg is not a baby, period 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

they don't

but after they do

they have four weeks

under a 6 week ban

so nowhere near all abortions are banned

again

90% of abortions are within 12 weeks

No. Yet another example of a conservative man knowing nothing women or their bodies. Shocker.   Womens periods are APPROXIMATELY every 4 weeks. Therefore a woman who misses her first period could already be 4 weeks pregnant before she even has reason to suspect anything 
 

 And for many/most women their periods aren’t perfectly regular and it would not be unusual  be a week late from time.
 

So a woman or girl could be in Week 5 of a 6 week abortion window before she suspects anything. All so some Christian can his force his religion on other people. 
 

Women should not have to constantly take pregnancy tests and then play beat the clock to get an appointment at a clinic that many red states have already made all but impossible to provide timely service due to regulatory harassment. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Aristides said:

And here I thought I didn't know much about women's health.  

you don't

menstruation happens two weeks after ovulation

women don't get pregnant prior to ovulation

there is a three day window every month for women to get pregnant

and it doesn't happen four weeks before the next period

it happens two weeks before their next period

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

No. Yet another example of a conservative man knowing nothing women or their bodies. Shocker.   Womens periods are APPROXIMATELY every 4 weeks. Therefore a woman who misses her first period could already be 4 weeks pregnant before she even has reason to suspect anything 
 

 And for many/most women their periods aren’t perfectly regular and it would not be unusual  be a week late from time.
 

So a woman or girl could be in Week 5 of a 6 week abortion window before she suspects anything. All so some Christian can his force his religion on other people. 
 

Women should not have to constantly take pregnancy tests and then play beat the clock to get an appointment at a clinic that many red states have already made all but impossible to provide timely service due to regulatory harassment. 
 

 

if they are more than a few days late and they had sex that month

they should take a pregnancy test

especially if they want an abortion if they are pregnant

especially if they are in a state where the cut off is 6 weeks, in most cases

Edited by Yzermandius19
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no rational argument here, if we assume the right of individual to have a control (liberty) over their body. One cannot impose restrictions based only on ideology without compromising the right in its entirety. And allowing such restrictions negates the right itself. Where some can be excluded, very much arbitrarily, what is the meaning of declaring it as a right? Just another step down the path of ideological division. And taking these steps is easy, while the possibility to go back, reversing the division, by no means guaranteed. A slow, but certain slide - to where?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, myata said:

There's no rational argument here, if we assume the right of individual to have a control (liberty) over their body. One cannot impose restrictions based only on ideology without compromising the right in its entirety. And allowing such restrictions negates the right itself. Where some can be excluded, very much arbitrarily, what is the meaning of declaring it as a right? Just another step down the path of ideological division. And taking these steps is easy, while the possibility to go back, reversing the division, by no means guaranteed. A slow, but certain slide - to where?

An oppressive theocracy. Iran, Christian style.

Edited by Aristides
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

if they are more than a few days late and they had sex that month

they should take a pregnancy test

especially if they want an abortion if they are pregnant

especially if they are in a state where the cut off is 6 weeks, in most cases

The hoops you expect other people to jump through just to satisfy your personal ideology yet you won't even support real background checks for people buying assault weapons.

Edited by Aristides
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Aristides said:

The hoops you expect other people to jump through just to satisfy your personal ideology yet you won't even support real background checks for people buying assault weapons.

if people want to behave irresponsibly

there will be negative consequences as a result

has nothing to do with me

that's life

denying reality doesn't help anyone

including women

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

if people want to behave irresponsibly

there will be negative consequences as a result

has nothing to do with me

that's life

denying reality doesn't help anyone

including women

As long as you get to decide what other people must do to be responsible in your eyes. Your reality is imposing your ideology on others, especially women. Don't say it has nothing to do with you, It has everything to do with you. 

Edited by Aristides
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Aristides said:

As long as you get to decide what other people must do to be responsible in your eyes. Your reality is imposing your ideology on others, especially women. Don't say it has nothing to do with you, It has everything to do with you. 

you are the one who wants to impose your ideology on the states

I don't want to impose my ideology on the states

as usual you project your faults on others

and throw stones from a glass house

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

you are the one who wants to impose your ideology on the states

I don't want to impose my ideology on the states

as usual you project your faults on others

and throw stones from a glass house

You are about taking the rights of others away. What you consider to be your rights are sacrosanct, others are expendable at your discretion. Not making something illegal is not imposing an ideology, it is the opposite.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

if people want to behave irresponsibly

there will be negative consequences as a result

has nothing to do with me

that's life

denying reality doesn't help anyone

including women

So you're fine with abortion for Rape and Incest? OR failed Contraception? 

Some of these states will look to ban Contraception that allow fertilization but prevent pregnancy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Boges said:

Some of these states will look to ban Contraception that allow fertilization but prevent pregnancy. 

You guys get away with these broad, claims too much. When one asks for specifics, more often than not, they turn out to be more just wishful thinking for some imagined thing to whine about based on some outlier comment.

Show us specifically what you're talking about or sell your new religion, Malthusian narrative at a another doorstep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

You are about taking the rights of others away. What you consider to be your rights are sacrosanct, others are expendable at your discretion. Not making something illegal is not imposing an ideology, it is the opposite.

Killing babies isn't a right.

If you're saying it isn't a baby at conception, very well, when is it? At some point it is a baby, right? When is that? When exactly do you lose what you seem to think is the right of you yours to endorse the ending of its life?

As I recall you get all waffly when asked to nail down specifics about what specifically you're talking about when it comes to you or yours perceived right to kill or endorse the killing of babies. Let's try one more time. When specifically to you lose this imagined right to end life?

Conception? Appearance of a heartbeat? Development of the nervous system? Start of brain activity? Viability outside of womb? First breath? Pre-School? Noticeable disagreement of you or yours political opinion?

Edited by Infidel Dog
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...