• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brainster said:
So they were derived from abortions, just many years ago and they've since been replicated, so it doesn't really count?
Click to expand...
There were some leaked emails way back in the pandemic where Pfizer were trying to keep exactly this secret because it did matter to people. This way the media and fact checkers lie is so tired and lazy, but why not if it works?
 
Ziggurat said:
Sure there is. Win elections. Get the laws you want passed. Amend the constitution if it's sufficiently important.

What you really mean is that you can't achieve your policy goals through ordinary democratic methods because they aren't actually sufficiently popular.
Click to expand...

I read this, then I laughed and laughed.
 
Brainster said:
It's the lying media as usual. Thomas was quoting the petitioners:
...snip
Click to expand...

If you quote someone else in a dissenting opinion, then yes, you are making the same argument.

shuttlt said:
There were some leaked emails way back in the pandemic where Pfizer were trying to keep exactly this secret because it did matter to people. This way the media and fact checkers lie is so tired and lazy, but why not if it works?
Click to expand...

My point is it only mattered for the COVID vaccine, not the other vaccines.
 
slyjoe said:
If you quote someone else in a dissenting opinion, then yes, you are making the same argument.
Click to expand...

Really? Is this a requirement of dissenting opinions? If Sotomayor and the other dissenters to the overturning of Roe quoted Alito's opinion at all they are making the same argument? Fascinating!
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
WTF are you talking about?

Have you been living under a rock for the last 25 years? The GOP is the better marketers and horrible legislators. The Democrats are terrible marketers and they can't get much passed the party of 'blocking every ******* thing whether it was originally their idea or not and whether it is good for the country or not'.

Mitch McConnell has been as bad for the country as Drumpf.

Perhaps you could describe this magical democracy you believe is possible when the minority is running the country.
Click to expand...

This is where they are heading: rig the system & if the rigging doesn't get the desired result, declare it null and void & substitute the desired result anyway. This "legal theory" gets you both.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/justices-will-hear-case-that-tests-power-of-state-legislatures-to-set-rules-for-federal-elections/
 
If it were just abortion, and then the court would stop there and do incremental changes like they are supposed to, we might recover. But no.


I have a couple of Finnish Americans telling me the politics is normal and he can't wait till the Nov election is over, we are freaking out too much. He will be happy for GOP taking the senate and he will just suffer the last two years under Biden, but in 2024 everything will be fine. Move along, nothing to see here!

No, it's not fine. A non-elected branch of government is basically writing law. Biden must act now. Election day will be too late. We will have no way to stop republicans at the state level in 2023 and 2024.
 
Radical liberals have only themselves to blame. The Dobbs decision resulted from a liberal Democratic legal challenge to Mississippi's perfectly sane, reasonable abortion law that allowed abortions up to week 15 but banned them after that point, with an exception for endangerment.

Sheesh, isn't 15 weeks enough time to figure out that you're pregnant and get an abortion? Never mind the moral issue of killing a 14-week-old baby in the womb.
 
mikegriffith1 said:
Radical liberals have only themselves to blame. The Dobbs decision resulted from a liberal Democratic legal challenge to Mississippi's perfectly sane, reasonable abortion law that allowed abortions up to week 15 but banned them after that point, with an exception for endangerment.

Sheesh, isn't 15 weeks enough time to figure out that you're pregnant and get an abortion? Never mind the moral issue of killing a 14-week-old baby in the womb.
Click to expand...

As soon as you can get knocked up, I'll consider your opinion on this matter.

Until then, I don't really give a ****.

BTW, you don't have to be a "radical liberal" to think that someone should have bodily autonomy, and it's one of the worst violations of human rights to take that away. Let me guess: you're one of those people who think that the Fourth Amendment is unneeded, too. "Hey, if you got nothing to hide, why do you need privacy?"
 
mikegriffith1 said:
Radical liberals have only themselves to blame. The Dobbs decision resulted from a liberal Democratic legal challenge to Mississippi's perfectly sane, reasonable abortion law that allowed abortions up to week 15 but banned them after that point, with an exception for endangerment.

Sheesh, isn't 15 weeks enough time to figure out that you're pregnant and get an abortion? Never mind the moral issue of killing a 14-week-old baby in the womb.
Click to expand...

Well, there are certain birth defects that render a pregnancy non-viable that don't show up that early, but the main reason was politics. Viability becomes possible at about 22 weeks (no premature baby in history before that has survived as far as we know), but the Mississippi law kicked in at 15 weeks in an effort to separate the idea of viability from the legality of abortion.

If viability is not an issue, why isn't 15 weeks enough? If 15 weeks is enough, why not 14? Why not 13? Why not 6? Politically speaking it was just another effort to chip away at abortion rights. You can either fight those or lose ground bit by bit by bit.

So it gets to the Supreme "Court" and the court said not only was a 15 ban OK, but there was no right to an abortion in the US. The court could have just said the first part, but they went all in on overturning Roe. Its not really liberals fault. With this "Court", if it had not been this case, it would have been another.
 
This is one of those uses of the words “perfectly sane” that show how words don’t mean anything to right-wing psychopartisans.
 
Tero said:
No, it's not fine. A non-elected branch of government is basically writing law.
Click to expand...

You have that backwards. Roe v. Wade was a non-elected branch writing law. Now that the decision has been reversed and that judicial law removed, the elected branches get to actually write the law on abortion.
 
mikegriffith1 said:
Radical liberals have only themselves to blame.
Click to expand...
That's basically just gaslightning.

Radical liberals, inasmuch as they even exist in the USA political landscape, have near zero influence. All of these lawsuits were, by design and intent, meant to be challenged. This was a feature, not a bug. If it had not been Dobbs that triggered the (de facto or, as it turned out, literal) repeal of Roe vs. Wade it would have been one of at least a dozen others waiting in the wings for their turn.
 
mikegriffith1 said:
Radical liberals have only themselves to blame. The Dobbs decision resulted from a liberal Democratic legal challenge to Mississippi's perfectly sane, reasonable abortion law that allowed abortions up to week 15 but banned them after that point, with an exception for endangerment.

Sheesh, isn't 15 weeks enough time to figure out that you're pregnant and get an abortion? Never mind the moral issue of killing a 14-week-old baby in the womb.
Click to expand...

The 15 weeks might be workable. But it also excluded rape and incest. Those are time consuming cases in courts and not easy for the victims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women's_Health_Organization
Contains Mississippi law and back ground. A single clinic had to handle all cases.
 
Gaetan said:
Most women abort to save money, if you abolish money you would save millions of babies.

96.50% of all abortions are therefore performed for social or economic reasons.

https://www.hli.org/resources/why-women-abort/
Click to expand...

Pro-forced birth propaganda that throws a multitude of legitimate reasons under a blanket "social" category. These would include:

1) I am not fit to be a parent.
2) I do not want to have children.
3) My Partner is not fit or willing to have children
4) I have already had enough children to handle
5) I am not ready in life to have children
6) etc. etc.

Money is a reason, but fact is a lot of folks just don't want to have a kid.
 
Gaetan said:
Most women abort to save money, if you abolish money you would save millions of babies.

96.50% of all abortions are therefore performed for social or economic reasons.

https://www.hli.org/resources/why-women-abort/
Click to expand...

"Human Life International is a Catholic, Pro-Life Mission"

I'm sure they're not biased at all.

So of that 96.5%, how many are 'economic', and how many are 'social'?

From your link:
hli.org said:
Tabulation of reports on “Induced Termination of Pregnancy” from Florida [1998-2020], Louisiana [1996-2018], Minnesota [1999-2019], Nebraska [2001-2019], South Dakota [1999-2019], and Utah [1996-2018].
Click to expand...
What about the rest (the vast majority) of the states?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom