Jump to content

US Supreme Court strikes down Roe V. Wade


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Goddess said:

What is your proof that the girl, this State Rep, the doctor and the attorneys are all lying?

ignorance and fear are a helluva drug

if such a law did exist with no exceptions for the health or life of the mother

that would be incredibly stupid

and they should add such an exception asap

but this is very likely a complete over-reaction to an imaginary law

by all the parties in this story

and that exception already exists

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

ignorance and fear are a helluva drug

if such a law did exist with no exceptions for the health or life of the mother

that would be incredibly stupid

and they should add such an exception asap

but this is very likely a complete over-reaction to an imaginary law

by all the parties in this story

and that exception already exists

Again, you are lying.

South Carolina had a 6 week fetal heartbeat law in effect.....until only yesterday when the South Carolina Supreme Court temporarily blocked it.  The exceptions for rape or incest did not apply here.  The exception for a medical emergency, also did not apply as the woman was not in a medical emergency - yet.  This is the problem with your hard-nosed laws - the woman has to wait and suffer and risk death until her life is such grave danger - then doctors can act.

So the doctor and lawyers in this situation were not misunderstanding the law.  

You do not see how ridiculous that is?  You do not see how women are going to suffer and die under your beliefs?

 

Edited by Goddess
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Again, you are lying.

South Carolina had a 6 week fetal heartbeat law in effect.....until only yesterday when the South Carolina Supreme Court temporarily blocked it.  The exceptions for rape or incest did not apply here.  The exception for a medical emergency, also did not apply as the woman was not in a medical emergency - yet.  This is the problem with your hard-nosed laws - the woman has to wait and suffer and risk death until her life is such grave danger - then doctors can act.

So the doctor and lawyers in this situation were not misunderstanding the law.  

You do not see how ridiculous that is?  You do not see how women are going to suffer and die under your beliefs?

 

not my hard nosed laws

if you were theoretically correct about them being what you say they are

exceptions for the health and life of the mother should be included

any law that doesn't do so is dumb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

not my hard nosed laws

if you were theoretically correct about them being what you say they are

exceptions for the health and life of the mother should be included

any law that doesn't do so is dumb

Oh, aren't you merciful in the power you wield over women.

Pat yourself on the back there.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I think it's sad that women even have to share these very personal and harrowing stories, in the vain hope that self-righteous men who wield power but understand nothing about the issue, will possibly show mercy on them.

Any miscarriage now becomes a criminal investigation until such a time that the religious men with power can ensure that the woman didn’t abort, but actually had a miscarriage.    You can be sure that they won’t be taking a woman’s word for it.  
 

Edited by TreeBeard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Missouri has gone so far as having their heath department track women’s menstrual periods who attended an abortion clinic. 
 

Quote

The director of the Missouri state health department admitted to keeping a spreadsheet that monitored the menstrual periods of Planned Parenthood patients at an administrative hearing Tuesday over whether the clinic can remain open.

Dr. Randall Williams testified in front of the state's administrative hearing commission that he directed the state’s main investigator to compile a list of patients using accessible medical records that included dates of their last menstrual periods…

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/missouri-health-director-tracked-menstrual-periods-planned-parenthood-patients-n1073701

Edited by TreeBeard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

says the person who wants the power to kill unborn children for frivolous reasons

I'm not the one who wants "power" here. You are.  You want power over the choices other people make.

The only "power" I want is to be able to make my own life decisions and my own medical decisions.

It's not up to me to judge others' reasons for doing anything.

Even if I think it's "frivolous", it's their decision to make, not mine.

That's the point you're missing.

You want power over women to make their personal life and medical decisions for them, and you want to force women to make their decisions based on YOUR personal beliefs.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Missouri has gone so far as having their heath department track women’s menstrual periods who attended an abortion clinic. 
 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/missouri-health-director-tracked-menstrual-periods-planned-parenthood-patients-n1073701

Geez.  They actually did this in The Handmaid's Tale.

Blessed be the fruit.

01-16-the-handmaids-tale.thumb.jpg.bf5cc7dcf52c0ae0108a29b744b9e212.jpg

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I'm not the one who wants "power" here. You are.  You want power over the choices other people make.

The only "power" I want is to be able to make my own life decisions and my own medical decisions.

It's not up to me to judge others' reasons for doing anything.

Even if I think it's "frivolous", it's their decision to make, not mine.

That's the point you're missing.

You want power over women to make their personal life and medical decisions for them, and you want to force women to make their decisions based on YOUR personal beliefs.

 

not killing > choice to kill

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Fake news, you’ve been double suckered yet again 

First IRS “agents” are auditors and accountants, they’re not armed, although that’s been a popular Republican lie since Obama took office 

 

Second there’s no “army” of 87,000 new IRS “agents”. That’s just the most recent Republican lie  based on a year-old memo about how many total staff (including call centre reps, IT employees, etc) the IRS would need to hire over the next 10 years due to forecasted retirements and new compliance measures   

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2022/08/15/kevin-mccarthys-mostly-false-claim-about-an-army-of-87000-irs-agents/65401671007/
 

First, I hate to say it but as always, you're wrong. They gave a name to the IRS agents they armed to make it sound official - "Special Agents." But they are IRS and they are armed. 

In 2018 the GAO reported the IRS has more  than 2000 IRS enforcement agents with more than 4,000 weapons.

Quote

The folks at Openthebooks.com report that the IRS is armed with real weapons -- guns, ammunition and military equipment.

"The Internal Revenue Service, with its 2,159 'Special Agents,' spent $21.3 million on guns, ammunition and military-style equipment between fiscal years 2006 and 2019. The agency stockpiled 4,500 guns and five million rounds of ammunition."

 

How many of the new 87,000 employees will be armed? And why does a tax collection agency need guns, anyway?

This story gets more sordid as we dig deeper. The IRS employee union donates 99% of its money to Democrats. This scam to give the IRS tens of billions of dollars will pipeline millions of dollars into the coffers of Democratic candidates. Does anyone believe that an agency that gives almost every dollar from its PAC to one party is an unbiased referee of our tax system?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/08/16/an_irs_thats_armed_and_dangerous_148052.html

I'm not going to spend the rest of the day looking for it but Tucker claims OpentheBooks.com has found the IRS spent more than 20 million dollars on guns and ammo between 2006 and 20019. The IRS is currently hiring. Here's one of the qualifications.

Congressman Matt Gaetz just introduced the Disarm the IRS act.

87,000 new agents is based on Republican math and the Treasury department wants to quibble about who new agents would be and like to insinuate a significant portion are replacement personnel but there is no quibble over the fact they are using the bounty they just had poured on them from Biden's new bill to hire new personnel.

Now how much of that is going into their armed division and how many new "special agents" will they hire out of the 10s of thousands of new hires? There are different opinions but mine and many others are as valid as your "fact checker" 'nothing to see here' version.

My estimate on how many of the '87,00' will be armed "Special Agents" is as many as suits the IRS at the time.

The right wing Heritage organization makes this equally valid guesstimate:

Quote

Calculations conservatively assume that only 57.3% of the Treasury Department’s estimated 86,852 new IRS agents (49,754 in total) would be assigned to enforcement, based on $45.6 billion of the bill’s $79.6 billion increase for the Internal Revenue Service dedicated to enforcement.

https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/commentary/fact-checking-team-biden-who-those-87000-new-irs-agents-would-audit

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, sharkman said:

In some States, destroying turtle or eagle eggs is a crime punishable by jail time.   Weird, eh?

Why is that weird?

Is your contention that because one can’t destroy an eagle egg that abortion is wrong?  
 

I’d like to hear @Goddess’s opinion on that argument.  

Edited by TreeBeard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/18/2022 at 10:33 AM, Goddess said:

The exceptions for rape or incest did not apply here.

Does there need to be a rape or incest conviction before the abortion is allowed to happen?   Does anyone think a rape conviction could happen within a few short weeks?  The kid will be 2 years old by the time the trial is over. 
 

If  a conviction isn’t necessary, and the woman’s word is enough, is she then guilty of murder if the rapist gets away with it and isn’t convicted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Does there need to be a rape or incest conviction before the abortion is allowed to happen?   Does anyone think a rape conviction could happen within a few short weeks?  The kid will be 2 years old by the time the trial is over. 
 

If  a conviction isn’t necessary, and the woman’s word is enough, is she then guilty of murder if the rapist gets away with it and isn’t convicted?

I think it's pretty standard now that if a woman or girl presents to hospital after being raped, evidence is gathered and the "morning after pill" is prescribed to prevent pregnancy.  The anti-abortion movement wants the morning after pill banned.

I think most people know that our legal system isn't perfect, so I think if a rapist gets off legally, No - the woman would not be guilty of murder.  Most rapists get off - it's a big reason why a lot of rapes are not even reported.

The vast majority of rape and incest - is not reported.  There are various reasons for that.

I think it's best if we believe women when they say they were raped.  The problem IMO is that the anti-abortion movement is based on the idea that women are deviant and can't wait to kill babies and therefore should not be allowed to make their own decisions.

I feel that a large part of the anti-abortion movement is rooted in misogyny - the idea that women are bad, deviant, morally bankrupt creatures that must be told what to do and forced to make the "right" decisions, "right" being whatever men think women should do.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Goddess said:

I think it's pretty standard now that if a woman or girl presents to hospital after being raped, evidence is gathered and the "morning after pill" is prescribed to prevent pregnancy.  The anti-abortion movement wants the morning after pill banned.

I think most people know that our legal system isn't perfect, so I think if a rapist gets off legally, No - the woman would not be guilty of murder.  Most rapists get off - it's a big reason why a lot of rapes are not even reported.

The vast majority of rape and incest - is not reported.  There are various reasons for that.

I think it's best if we believe women when they say they were raped.  The problem IMO is that the anti-abortion movement is based on the idea that women are deviant and can't wait to kill babies and therefore should not be allowed to make their own decisions.

I feel that a large part of the anti-abortion movement is rooted in misogyny - the idea that women are bad, deviant, morally bankrupt creatures that must be told what to do and forced to make the "right" decisions, "right" being whatever men think women should do.

if you have to strawman your opposition in order to sell what you're pushing

it's a clear sign of a weak argument

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/3/2022 at 5:15 AM, Oksanna said:

No it doesn't. Rights don't belong to the states, and the Roe is absolutely an interpretation of the constitution. It will be overturned based on the bible and in defiance of the constitution. It will result in the erosion of other rights as well.

Life is the highest human right possible.  So the life of unborn babies is a human right.  The Constitution of course stands for the right to life.  If you don't have that right, you don't have anything.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, blackbird said:

Life is the highest human right possible.  So the life of unborn babies is a human right.  The Constitution of course stands for the right to life.  If you don't have that right, you don't have anything.

Should I be forced to give another person my blood if, without it, they’re going to die?

Edited by TreeBeard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Should I be forced to give another person my blood if, without it, they’re going to die?

no

but the real question is

should you give blood to someone if the only alternative is to murder them?

frame the question correctly

Edited by Yzermandius19
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
      10,355
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    JoshDotoli
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • whoshere earned a badge
      First Post
    • TomT earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • TomT went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Tony Hladun went up a rank
      Explorer
    • TomT earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

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