1. #901
    Quote Originally Posted by gondrin View Post
    Here are some of the worst parts of it.
    Holy shit, that's Nullification all over again.

  2. #902
    I am Murloc! Darththeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away
    Posts
    5,748
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    States don't have jurisdiction on actions taken in other states. If any of them hit law, the sections on that die on lawsuit. The only thing they can do is stop people from importing abortion pills into the state (again, proposed legislation subject to change)
    Again, these people don't care. It is meant as a scare tactic. And the people who will be impacted the most by it can't afford a lawsuit.

    The idea of "They can't do it, so it won't happen" is false when they are literally already trying to do it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by enigma77 View Post
    Yeah well many people do consider abortion to be murder. So people want to ban it, just like murder.

    Whether to commit murder or not shouldn't be a decision individuals make for themselves.
    Yeah, but it isn't murder. Just because people call it murder doesn't make it murder. Homicide? Sure, but Homicide isn't murder.

    There are people who think killing at all in murder, but I don't see people moving to strike the self defense laws.

    Also, the technical name for a miscarriage is "Spontaneous Abortion." And these laws include investigating women who have miscarriages to determine if they DID anything to cause the miscarriage. Remember when people were saying the cure can't be worse than the poison with all the covid measures? This is that.
    Peace is a lie. There is only passion. Through passion I gain strength. Through strength I gain power.
    Through power I gain victory. Through victory my chains are broken. The Force shall set me free.
    –The Sith Code

  3. #903
    Quote Originally Posted by Darththeo View Post
    We love the founding fathers, but most wanted the Constitution to be rewritten as they did not want to chain the present generation to the past generations.
    As they should. IIRC, you (general you) consider it a "living" document because amendments can be made, so that it can be updated to some degree. Meanwhile in over 200 years, there have only been what, 27 amendments? With the last one being around 30 years ago. It definitely needs some love and bringing up to speed.

  4. #904
    I am Murloc! Darththeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away
    Posts
    5,748
    Quote Originally Posted by UnifiedDivide View Post
    As they should. IIRC, you (general you) consider it a "living" document because amendments can be made, so that it can be updated to some degree. Meanwhile in over 200 years, there have only been what, 27 amendments? With the last one being around 30 years ago. It definitely needs some love and bringing up to speed.
    Yeah, only the first 10 were passed together and one was removed by a later one.

    So there are really only 26 Amendments. And the last one is literally just just that pay changes don't go into effect until the next congressional session.
    Peace is a lie. There is only passion. Through passion I gain strength. Through strength I gain power.
    Through power I gain victory. Through victory my chains are broken. The Force shall set me free.
    –The Sith Code

  5. #905
    Quote Originally Posted by Darththeo View Post
    It is more than they are charging the women with a crime that occurred in an area they lack jurisdiction to charge a crime for.

    It isn't that she "traveled" but she broke the law by having an abortion. Essentially saying she can be charged for actions in another state that aren't actually against that state's laws. Essentially, these states are attempting to argue that they ALWAYS have jurisdictions on their citizens regardless of where they are.

    - - - Updated - - -



    We love the founding fathers, but most wanted the Constitution to be rewritten as they did not want to chain the present generation to the past generations.
    Problem is there are laws on the books in my state(Ohio) that states if I go out of state to do something that would normally be illegal in Ohio but not elsewhere, I can be charged with it.

    Case in point. Sex Tourism. Lets say I go out to Nevada or Germany or any other location where the ability to pay for sex is legal with a consenting adult in an appropriate place. Not that I would but if I were to do that and was found out, I could be charged with solicitation among other things and would also have to register as a sex offender on top of it. Sad thing is this isn't the only laws that this applies to.

    This is just an example of laws that follow a citizen regardless where they are at and not a discussion about sex or sexual activity.

  6. #906
    Don't the democrats control the house / senate / presidency? How can they do nothing to combat this?

  7. #907
    Quote Originally Posted by infinitemeridian View Post
    Don't the democrats control the house / senate / presidency? How can they do nothing to combat this?
    Sinema and Manchin will stand in the way.

  8. #908
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    Sinema and Manchin will stand in the way.
    Sinema is pro-choice isn't she?

  9. #909
    Quote Originally Posted by infinitemeridian View Post
    Sinema is pro-choice isn't she?
    Sinema is pro-Sinema.

  10. #910
    Quote Originally Posted by infinitemeridian View Post
    Don't the democrats control the house / senate / presidency? How can they do nothing to combat this?
    Republicans will filibuster it in the senate. I don't see getting 10 republicans on board with codifying Roe v Wade.

  11. #911
    Quote Originally Posted by UnifiedDivide View Post
    As they should. IIRC, you (general you) consider it a "living" document because amendments can be made, so that it can be updated to some degree. Meanwhile in over 200 years, there have only been what, 27 amendments? With the last one being around 30 years ago. It definitely needs some love and bringing up to speed.
    Here's the thing. Before the 1970's we used to amend the constitution about every 10 year or so. Considering the consequential nature of constitutional amendments, that's actually a pretty decent rate.
    Quote Originally Posted by Orlong View Post
    It doesnt destroy the land to bury styrofoam 25 feet below the ground
    Today Obama once again kneeled at the altar of environmental naziism and hurt this once great country. He has now banned all drilling in the Atlantic Ocean

  12. #912
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    72,148
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    You manage to criticize a quote about willingness to compromise, in a post section about possibility of compromise, without talking about the compromise. Ok, you want to remind people that a decision that overturns Roe changes more than just the 15 weeks law? Fine. Don't pretend that's a response to me.
    There is no "compromise".

    The "compromise" you describe is "how much can we subjugate and oppress women?" The counter-position is "women should not be subjugated and oppressed, at all." What you're describing is not a compromise. It's a victory for those who want to subjugate and oppress women, to treat them as lesser and deny them basic human rights.

    Now we've got the baby-growing-inside-mommy-is-the-same-as-a-blood-donor argument.
    It's literally the same argument. In every respect. If you're not treating them the same, it's because even you know the core premises of your argument are horse shit that not even you believe to actually be true or reasonable.

    How about we get some rights for the baby, then talk about how to find donors for blood and organs?
    1> Not a "baby".
    2> Even if it were, and even if it had rights, that means nothing with regards to abortion rights for the pregnant. Literally the point of the blood-donor argument, where there's an actual person that's gonna die without the transfusion, and their right to life never overrules the rights of any potential donors to say "no".


  13. #913
    Quote Originally Posted by infinitemeridian View Post
    Sinema is pro-choice isn't she?
    Sinema is pro choice, but anti-filibuster breaking
    Manchin is pro life, and anti-filibuster breaking
    Collins will vote against codifying roe, because she says the law is too broad and allows too late term abortions
    Murkowski hasn't commented yet

    So at best they have 48 (maybe 49) votes. So nothing will happen unless we get more dem senators.

  14. #914
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Even if it were, and even if it had rights, that means nothing with regards to abortion rights for the pregnant. Literally the point of the blood-donor argument, where there's an actual person that's gonna die without the transfusion, and their right to life never overrules the rights of any potential donors to say "no".
    But...but...compromise...BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYBEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEE.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orlong View Post
    It doesnt destroy the land to bury styrofoam 25 feet below the ground
    Today Obama once again kneeled at the altar of environmental naziism and hurt this once great country. He has now banned all drilling in the Atlantic Ocean

  15. #915
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    72,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihalik View Post
    But...but...compromise...BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYBEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEE.
    I'm just so fuckin' tired of the "can't we abuse women a little? C'mon, compromise with us here" bullshit.

    Misogynistic evil bastards.

    Feel free to insert "the gays" or "visible minorities" or "non-Christians" or whatever other oppressed group you feel like in there instead of women.


  16. #916
    I am Murloc! Darththeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away
    Posts
    5,748
    Quote Originally Posted by gondrin View Post
    Problem is there are laws on the books in my state(Ohio) that states if I go out of state to do something that would normally be illegal in Ohio but not elsewhere, I can be charged with it.

    Case in point. Sex Tourism. Lets say I go out to Nevada or Germany or any other location where the ability to pay for sex is legal with a consenting adult in an appropriate place. Not that I would but if I were to do that and was found out, I could be charged with solicitation among other things and would also have to register as a sex offender on top of it. Sad thing is this isn't the only laws that this applies to.

    This is just an example of laws that follow a citizen regardless where they are at and not a discussion about sex or sexual activity.
    It is likely because those laws haven't been challenged to a higher court or they are so rarely enforced.

    My state has laws on the books that no one bothers to enforce, but they are still there.
    Peace is a lie. There is only passion. Through passion I gain strength. Through strength I gain power.
    Through power I gain victory. Through victory my chains are broken. The Force shall set me free.
    –The Sith Code

  17. #917
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    33,290
    Quote Originally Posted by Xyonai View Post
    Speaking of 'Maybe States Shouldn't have all the power to decide what someone does with their body': Louisiana bill would allow murder charges for abortions
    And that's before Roe is even overturned.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by szechuan View Post
    BREAKING: Louisiana Republicans have voted HB 813 out of committee (7-2), defining a fertilized egg as a human. HB 813 makes abortion at any point a homicide, with no exception for minors, rape, incest, or ectopic pregnancies. This is beyond horrific.
    https://twitter.com/QasimRashid/stat...H3diqy7zg&s=19
    Quote Originally Posted by gondrin View Post
    Here are some of the worst parts of it.
    E.(1) Any federal statute, regulation, treaty, executive order, or court ruling
    11 that purports to supersede, stay, or overrule this Section shall be in violation of the
    12 United States Constitution and the Constitution of Louisiana and is therefore void.
    13 (2) This state and its political subdivisions, and agents thereof, may disregard
    14 any part or whole of any federal court decision which purports to enjoin or void any
    15 provision of this Section.
    16 F. Pursuant to the powers granted to the Legislature by Article X, Part III,
    17 of the Constitution of Louisiana, any judge of this state who purports to enjoin, stay,
    18 overrule, or void any provision of this Section shall be subject to impeachment or
    19 removal.
    This means they are stating the Supremacy Clause is invalid and won't be followed and if any judge in the state tries to enforce it, they will be removed.

    EDIT: Ironic part is where they try and state that any federal statute would be in violation of the US Constitution but somehow also stating that the Supremacy Clause, which in is the Constitution, is unconstitutional. This has gone full Ouroboros.
    Most of that section is ridiculous beyond belief, even though the horror show of the charging women with murder for getting an abortion will probably stand. The Legislature can't invalidate the function of another branch of legislature (Marbury vs Madison (only lawschool grads will understand the sunglasses emote)).

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by enigma77 View Post
    Personally I think abortion is wrong, but what's more important I think it's exactly the kind of situation where it should be a state decision. People obviously have very different opinions about it.
    So states should decide whether you have to donate your kidney to save another person, rather than yourself deciding?

  18. #918
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    So states should decide whether you have to donate your kidney to save another person, rather than yourself deciding?
    I asked this question four days ago:

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain N View Post
    So now that bodily autonomy is all but gone -- at what point can we start expecting forced blood, tissue, and organ donations? The whole concept behind Roe was that you couldn't force one person to keep another alive.
    It seems that the men against abortions don't realize that a shot to Roe could have implications beyond termination of pregnancy. But like every other Conservative punishment...ahem I mean legislation they don't believe it will effect them personally.
    “You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.”― Malcolm X

  19. #919
    Quote Originally Posted by infinitemeridian View Post
    Don't the democrats control the house / senate / presidency? How can they do nothing to combat this?
    Only in the most technical sense possible. The Senate is tied 50-50, with the Vice President having the tie-breaking vote. This technically gives them control, insofar as we don't have Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, but for two very important things:
    1. Due to the filibuster, virtually any actual legislation requires 60 votes.
    2. Senators Manchin and Sinema, despite nominally being Democrats, generally tend to vote with Republicans on most things. Including their refusal to remove the filibuster. The only things they really reliably vote on are confirming judges.
    Last edited by DarkTZeratul; 2022-05-06 at 04:37 PM.

  20. #920
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    35,102
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    How about we get some rights for the baby
    I tell you what: you find literally one single case of government that gives any kind of government benefit to any unborn children. Any instance of Medicare of Medicaid for the child (I said child not mother), unborn children being counted in the census, unborn children getting food stamps, that kind of thing.

    Oh, and don't think you can get away with "you can't murder them" because you can't murder a tourist or illegal immigrant, either.

    Literally one single case where an unborn child is treated as a citizen. One. Then, we'll talk about their rights.

    You have 24 hours. Clock started 9 months ago.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •