US Supreme Court strikes down Roe V. Wade

[Infidel Dog]

7 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Nope not wrong.
What you posted was just the 2008 conservative reimagining of the second amendment, not a fact. 

Don't be ridiculous, your majesty. Of course it's you that's wrong...again. Just by the odds best bet would be you blew another one.

Like he said the rights of the people to keep and bear arms is right in the American constitution. Now it's true they connected that to a regulated militia but the best evidence of what they meant by it is the fact the people had the right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves for the rest of that century and the one that followed and the one that followed that and the one that followed that, and this one so far.

It didn't start in 2008. The idea it did could only be one of those fantasies straight out of Beaveland via Prog World.

[Infidel Dog]

It's interesting though. Speaking of Prog world, I believe their last argument before the supreme court was the interpretation of 2nd amendment rights had to go to the states. As I recall they lost.

It's interesting because that argument of it being under state control is the same one they're pooh poohing regarding abortion. 

[Goddess]

On 7/5/2022 at 11:13 AM, Aristides said:

Letting state politicians continue to decide who has rights was their first mistake. Politicizing the Supreme Court and making it a lifetime appointment was their second.

All the rights women received in the 20th century were not in the Constitution. All the rights black people received since independence were not in the constitution. Nor were they granted by states.

Slavery was left up to individual states, too.

[Infidel Dog]

19 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Slavery was left up to individual states, too.

Up until the passing of the 13 amendment in 1865, you mean.

[Infidel Dog]

And Aristides might want to take a look at the 14th amendment ratified in 1868 and how that affected the women's rights movement.

A blanket assumption that says the constitution never supported rights for specific groups federally at any time is just silly.

The constitution is set up so amendments can be passed where it is found to be weak.

It is then the job of the Supreme court to settle arguments on how the constitution in its entirety needs to be interpreted. Not everybody believes that but that's their problem.

[BeaverFever]

22 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Don't be ridiculous, your majesty. Of course it's you that's wrong...again. Just by the odds best bet would be you blew another one.

Like he said the rights of the people to keep and bear arms is right in the American constitution. Now it's true they connected that to a regulated militia but the best evidence of what they meant by it is the fact the people had the right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves for the rest of that century and the one that followed and the one that followed that and the one that followed that, and this one so far.

It didn't start in 2008. The idea it did could only be one of those fantasies straight out of Beaveland via Prog World.

As usual you don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

The 2nd amendment clearly references “a well-regulated militia”. And it was only the controversial  5-4 decision that Scalia wrote in 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller that first ruled that the reference to militias  was completely irrelevant “decorative” language that had nothing to do with an  individuals right to bear arms. 

Edited July 31, 2022 by BeaverFever

[Infidel Dog]

Sorry King of Wrong, you're wrong again. That decision didn't write a law. Americans didn't all of a sudden get access to firearms for self-protection because Scalia thought it would be a good idea. They always had the right to such access and still do, with provisions.

The court didn't write the law. It interpreted the law as written in the constitution. It kept things as they'd pretty much always been. 

Edited July 31, 2022 by Infidel Dog

[Yzermandius19]

8 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

As usual you don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

The 2nd amendment clearly references “a well-regulated militia”. And it was only the controversial  5-4 decision that Scalia wrote in 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller that first ruled that the reference to militias  was completely irrelevant “decorative” language that had nothing to do with an  individuals right to bear arms. 

Scalia was an originalist

the ruling was originalist

it was not a new interpretation

it was the old interpretation applied to a new case

[BeaverFever]

3 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Scalia was an originalist

the ruling was originalist

it was not a new interpretation

it was the old interpretation applied to a new case

BS. There’s nothing original about Scalias interpretation 

 

“Originalist” isn’t a real thing anyway, it just a made up term for conservatives who want to go backwards to a time when women and blacks didn’t have rights. 

[Yzermandius19]

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

BS. There’s nothing original about Scalias interpretation 

 

“Originalist” isn’t a real thing anyway, it just a made up term for conservatives who want to go backwards to a time when women and blacks didn’t have rights. 

Scalia's position is far closer to the founding fathers than yourself

originalist is a real thing

you use this strawman because you have no rebuttal to the actual point being made

Scalia's interpretation reinforces people's rights

your interpretation takes away people's rights

you want to go back even further on time than any originalist

[Aristides]

Kansas voting overwhelmingly to keep abortion rights in state constitution.

https://www.npr.org/sections/2022-live-primary-election-race-results/2022/08/02/1115317596/kansas-voters-abortion-legal-reject-constitutional-amendment

Edited August 3, 2022 by Aristides

[Nationalist]

9 hours ago, Aristides said:

Kansas voting overwhelmingly to keep abortion rights in state constitution.

https://www.npr.org/sections/2022-live-primary-election-race-results/2022/08/02/1115317596/kansas-voters-abortion-legal-reject-constitutional-amendment

So it works then...having the states rule on abortion.

Gee...I suppose all this "protesters" can leave the SCOTUS judges alone now...eh?

[Aristides]

34 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

So it works then...having the states rule on abortion.

Gee...I suppose all this "protesters" can leave the SCOTUS judges alone now...eh?

Really? How many other states will be willing to put it to a vote like Kansas and let the people decide?

[Nationalist]

7 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Really? How many other states will be willing to put it to a vote like Kansas and let the people decide?

I don't know. Neither do you.

But in a month, Kansas has and the process worked out for the pro-abortionists.

But..."AHHH! THEY'VE DUMPED ON WOMEN!"

Idiots with too many sharpies and not enough brains.

[Yzermandius19]

16 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Really? How many other states will be willing to put it to a vote like Kansas and let the people decide?

all of them

they might not make it a referendum

but the voters of every state have the ability to vote for representatives and can choose their representatives based on their preferred abortion policy if they want

and no state will impede them from doing so

the process will become far more democratic than it was under Roe v Wade, that's for damn sure

Edited August 3, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Aristides]

11 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

all of them

they might not make it a referendum

but the voters of every state have the ability to vote for representatives and can choose their representatives based on their preferred abortion policy if they want

and no state will impede them from doing so

the process will become far more democratic than it was under Roe v Wade, that's for damn sure

Now that they have seen what happened in Kansas, they won't dare put it to a vote.

[Yzermandius19]

47 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Now that they have seen what happened in Kansas, they won't dare put it to a vote.

they don't have any choice

the electorate gets to vote on it whether they like it or not

restricting abortions aren't going to be imposed on states without the consent of the electorate

Edited August 3, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Nationalist]

9 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

they don't have any choice

the electorate gets to vote on it whether they like it or not

restricting abortions aren't going to be imposed on states without the consent of the electorate

This is absolutely true.

So...now that we've sorted that. Can we please dispense with the incessant lies and gross over reactions?

Its now just beating a dead horse.

[Yzermandius19]

6 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

This is absolutely true.

So...now that we've sorted that. Can we please dispense with the incessant lies and gross over reactions?

Its now just beating a dead horse.

they can't stop with that

the only way they can seem reasonable to the public

is by comparison of their ridiculous position to an even more ridiculous strawman of their opposition

if they give up the strawman

they will be as exposed as ridiculous radicals to the general public as they are to you and me

Edited August 3, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Goddess]

Abortion laws spark profound changes in other medical care | AP News

Is it really an over-reaction when women are now getting substandard healthcare and not being treated for medical issues until they're at death's door because doctors are afraid of being sued?

Is it really an over-reaction when women now can't get medication they've taken for years for health issues because  it MAY cause miscarriage, but men can still get that medication?

Women are already suffering needlessly and dying.

I understand that means nothing to men, they don't give a flying fig about actual women but claim to be desperately concerned about a clump of cells in a petri dish, but for women - this is not an over-reaction.

[Yzermandius19]

8 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Abortion laws spark profound changes in other medical care | AP News

Is it really an over-reaction when women are now getting substandard healthcare and not being treated for medical issues until they're at death's door because doctors are afraid of being sued?

Is it really an over-reaction when women now can't get medication they've taken for years for health issues because  it MAY cause miscarriage, but men can still get that medication?

Women are already suffering needlessly and dying.

I understand that means nothing to men, they don't give a flying fig about actual women but claim to be desperately concerned about a clump of cells in a petri dish, but for women - this is not an over-reaction.

overreaction to fake news

this is not a men v women issue

the vast majority of women support some restrictions on abortion

as do most men

and those positions are not due to not caring about women

grow up

[Goddess]

6 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

the vast majority of women support some restrictions on abortion

"Some" restrictions.  I doubt many women would support other women aborting full term babies for no reason other than inconvenience, which is what your crowd believes women want.

Your crowd is going way too far.

Women are suffering.  Women will die.

There is no reason why a woman with an ectopic pregnancy should be left to hemorrhage and get infection in a hospital hallway before she can be treated.

You should be ashamed of yourself.  Your hatred of women is disgusting.

For gawd's sake - women are choosing sterilization over carrying rapist's babies.  That should tell you something.  Women are not incubators.  

Edited August 3, 2022 by Goddess

[Aristides]

38 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

they don't have any choice

the electorate gets to vote on it whether they like it or not

restricting abortions aren't going to be imposed on states without the consent of the electorate

They will not put it to a separate vote. They don’t dare and you know it.

[Goddess]

Quote

 

Munoz said he faced an awful predicament with a recent patient who had started to miscarry and developed a dangerous womb infection. The fetus still had signs of a heartbeat, so an immediate abortion — the usual standard of care — would have been illegal under Texas law.

“We physically watched her get sicker and sicker and sicker” until the fetal heartbeat stopped the next day, “and then we could intervene,” he said. The patient developed complications, required surgery, lost multiple liters of blood and had to be put on a breathing machine “all because we were essentially 24 hours behind.’’

In a study published this month in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, doctors at two Texas hospitals cited the cases of 28 women less than 23 weeks pregnant who were treated for dangerous pregnancies. The doctors noted that all of the women had recommended abortions delayed by nine days because fetal heart activity was detected. Of those, nearly 60% developed severe complications — nearly double the number of complications experienced by patients in other states who had immediate therapeutic abortions. Of eight live births among the Texas cases, seven died within hours. The eighth, born at 24 weeks, had severe complications including brain bleeding, a heart defect, lung disease and intestinal and liver problems.

 

Tell me how this is not pure women hatred.

[Yzermandius19]

5 minutes ago, Goddess said:

"Some" restrictions.  I doubt many women would support other women aborting full term babies for no reason other than inconvenience, which is what your crowd believes women want.

Your crowd is going way too far.

Women are suffering.  Women will die.

There is no reason why a woman with an ectopic pregnancy should be left to hemorrhage and get infection in a hospital hallway before she can be treated.

You should be ashamed of yourself.  Your hatred of women is disgusting.

For gawd's sake - women are choosing sterilization over carrying rapist's babies.  That should tell you something.  Women are not incubators.  

women are not suffering

women are not dying

hardly anyone supports not terminating an ectopic pregnancy

and those who do, have no political power to ban such abortions

you invoke a fake doomsday to justify your lunatic position