1. #1021
    Quote Originally Posted by Glorious Leader View Post
    Clarence Thomas is crying about the courts getting bullied now.
    Their job is ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law, so I find it laughable that he calls it "bullying" when they’re literally taking away equal justice for women, especially when majority of Americans want abortion to stay legal under the current law.

    Oh, then there’s that whole thing about you guys lying under oath when you agreed that Roe v. Wade was a settled law…
    Fairy tales are more than true–not because they tell us dragons exist, but because they tell us dragons can be beaten. -G. K. Chesterton & Neil Gaiman

  2. #1022
    Quote Originally Posted by Splenda View Post
    Here's something I don't understand.

    Is someone who is "pro life" going to agree that allowing an abortion for an entopic pregnancy is okay? The fetus is not viable and the mother WILL die.

    Yeah cool? So murdering an "unborn" is okay in this case.

    If you say not even then, you are condemning a woman to death- the fetus is dead either way.
    If the mother's health is at risk abortion is justified.

  3. #1023
    Herald of the Titans D Luniz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    The Coastal Plaguelands
    Posts
    2,561
    Alito put that on page 34 of the brief as well
    "Law and Order", lots of places have had that, Russia, North Korea, Saddam's Iraq.
    Laws can be made to enforce order of cruelty and brutality.
    Equality and Justice, that is how you have peace and a society that benefits all.

  4. #1024
    Quote Originally Posted by enigma77 View Post
    If the mother's health is at risk abortion is justified.
    Gonna depend entirely on the law in the state they reside in. Already have a few moving to make any abortion, for any reason, illegal.

  5. #1025
    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)

    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.

    If the anecdote is a spectacularly bad optics play, I think you don't really believe this. Did he pass some disconnected legislation in Cancun or something?

    The court doesn't get to decide what's extreme or what's not. It has no relevance here in setting policy.

    Yes, we're going to disagree about a politicized court. They're taking good steps in removing some of the absolute insanity done by liberal majorities and some 5-4 decisions with a swing vote of yesteryear. But libs will always moan when they don't get to pass their legislative agenda through court decree, when their legislative program fails. Conservatives are used to it, it makes no difference.

    I can join you in criticism of state laws, but I think you're being awfully deceitful on calling '"muh state's right" drivel is a smokescreen.' Who gets to decide matters of extreme importance is a huge question in a constitutional republic. You may think doing everything all at once nationally, through the supreme court or congress, ought to be good (or, really, is good, but only when things go your way), but I'm very set against it in questions like the one before us. You want to talk smokescreen, and missing the point, but you're gliding over the point and trying to ignore the criticism. I can say "The Texas Law is a bad law, for reason of the private right of action." It doesn't pain me to say that. Whether or not you can settle it there, or want to allege state's issues need also to be a smokescreen for nefarious purposes, is a reflection of who you are in this debate.

    Something like 10k-12k abortions happen in the last trimester. Pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute. That's like the level of gun homicides in the same country. I'm not joining you in "it hardly ever happens, so keeping it legal doesn't matter." Very rare events like abortions due to incest and rape also lower than that 2% level, but exemptions based on those are talked about nonstop. So, sorry, but no dice from me. If third trimester, or last 4 weeks, or last 2 weeks, or last two minutes should be legal, rarity isn't the excuse.

    The constitution not guaranteeing the right of abortion, and why that's part of the slide towards fascism. Well, perhaps the unborn children will disagree. They don't exactly get to vote on what's a fascist instinct towards their life, but disregarding the most vulnerable is kind of the progressive position here.

    Now we've got the baby-growing-inside-mommy-is-the-same-as-a-blood-donor argument. How about we get some rights for the baby, then talk about how to find donors for blood and organs? There's a nasty transition, perhaps counted in hours, between when a baby may be receiving the blood transfusions you're trying to source, and when the baby's life may be ended with no legal repercussions.
    The court is very, very relevant in setting policy lol. In theory maybe not, in practice it absolutely is, and you being fine with it because they judge your way this time does not change the truth. In fact judging by the memo it takes pride in the fact that it's going after progressive policies. Hell they even withheld a verdict on the Texan law even you call bad, more than likely because they'd already decided Roe was getting kicked out the door and thus had no real issue with literal bounty hunting becoming legal so long as it served political needs. You choosing to ignore context because it is convenient is hardly my or anyone else's fault.

    Let's look at your claim about third trimester abortions as well. There's precious little research on the subject yet let's start with the fact that According to the CDC (I haven't seen the numbers in more recent reports), abortions after 21 weeks account for about 1.3% of them. They make no mentions of trimesters and I did not find the data you claimed at the Guttmacher Institude's website. The situation is also very complicated by the fact that abortions later than 21 weeks can happen due to medical necessity, or the mother not having easy access to an operation beforehand. To say nothing of the fact that, if removing the fetus is a crime because it's a person, the trimester hardly matters in the first place, any abortion would be a murder and miscarriage would be considered an accidental death.

    Furthermore, citation needed on abortion due to incest/rape being rare, and also medical conditions matter and can be an important drive for abortions as well. By a macabre coincidence my best friend's girlfriend just had an ectopic pregnancy detected literally yesterday so I did some research on the subject once home. More or less automatically fatal for the fetus, and happens in 1 to 2% of pregnancies. With no abortion, the mother is highly likely to die as well. That's just one condition that requires it. Any law that says no to that is full-on monstrous and there is no deflection to late-term abortion that will change my mind on the subject. No state should have the power to condemn a woman to death like this.

    And yes, state's right is a smokescreen for this kind of people and in this kind of debate. As it was for slavery, where slaving states clamored for it as a primary defense but had no problem passing the Fugitive Slave Act. It was used as a both shield and cudgel by opponents of gay rights, interracial marriage, and those in support of segregation, among other things. I'm not attacking the principle here, I'm attacking clear abuses of said principle in service of hypocritical and oppressive ideologies that will drop it like a sack of potato the second it becomes inconvenient. As I've said, any mention of state's right as a defense of anti-abortion law will evaporate when they move to ban it nationwide, likely after either the 2022 or 2024 elections. But by then it'll be far too late for anyone to say "I told you so".
    It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built -Kreia

    The internet: where to every action is opposed an unequal overreaction.

  6. #1026
    Moderator Crissi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Moon
    Posts
    31,773
    Quote Originally Posted by enigma77 View Post
    If the mother's health is at risk abortion is justified.
    too bad staztes like mine (Texas) have made iot vague and also require to see if the fetus can be saved first. Which means doctors may be too scared of Texas law to provide life saving services in time, much like what happened in ireland.

  7. #1027
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    "Why won't anyone respect our venomous and meritless bigotry" is the weirdest fuckin' take of the '20s.
    It's at least on the podium for sure.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ryom View Post
    The point is, nowadays a fetus has a good chance of surviving after week ~25, so basically for the entire last three months of a normal pregnancy. And that makes it a lot harder to argue for an abortion without medical reasons in this timeframe.
    And aside from a few states in US there's no jurisdiction on Earth that allows abortions this late for non-medical reasons. And even in those states late term abortions are 1. the stark minority of all abortions and 2. still performed basically only for medical reasons, because as shocking as it may be, women actually aren't inherently stupid and if they want to perform an abortion for non-medical reason they do it as soon as possible because the risks are lower the earlier you do it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ryom View Post
    The reason why people think abortions should be regulated is because they think this is not just a personal decision when there is a third party involved - the fetus. Yeah, a fetus isn't a baby with full human rights and all, but at least at the point where the birth is really all that seperates one from the other I find it hard to think that is deserves no rights whatsoever. Is that really so hard to comprehend?
    Come back to me when the people holding those views actually pass legislation granting fetuses personhood alongside their abortion bans. Because until then they are worthless hypocrites who only present themselves as the champions of fetal rights when it's convenient for pushing their medieval religious zealotry on people who dare not to live their lives according to a book written by iron age desert dwellers that knew nothing about anything, but then fail to actually walk the talk. All because they can't be arsed dealing with the clusterfuck of legal ramifications that their "deeply held" conviction in regards to treating fetuses as persons would create.

    See, it's not an issue of this dogshit viewpoint being hard to understand. Because it's not. It's an issue of "pro-life" folks being full of crap (as is conservative tradition) to the point that their "pro-life" facade collapses on itself within seconds all thanks to their monumental levels of inconsistency, exposing their real anti-women agenda they hide underneath. And you'll have to excuse me if I think this agenda deserves no consideration or respect.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ryom View Post
    If you can't see the difference between a situation where someone dies because noone goes out of their way to help them, and where someone is actively killed for someone's convenience then i can't help you.

    And I've never said women shouldn't have a choice about their pregnancy. But I think at some point they should make a decision and stand by it, to avoid abortions in the late stage of fetus development (there are exeptions of course).
    If you're not here to argue for the Republican position then how about you don't peddle their appeals to emotion that have no basis in reality? Because late term abortions aren't an issue of "convenience". Late term abortions are essentially exclusively done for medical reasons, oftentimes for reasons that literally can't be detected in earlier stages of pregnancy and are a result of tragic circumstances forcing women to make hard decision, even if they were otherwise willing to bring the pregnancy to term. If they wanted to abort out of convenience one would think they'd go for an early term abortion that nowadays has less risk than a colonoscopy (which itself is a rather routine procedure) rather than doing it much later when they can suffer dangerous complications.
    Last edited by Mehrunes; 2022-05-07 at 10:37 PM.

  8. #1028
    Bloodsail Admiral tehdang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    1,001
    Quote Originally Posted by Darththeo View Post
    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.
    States do all kind of ridiculous left-wing garbage against the second amendment, rights regarding religious expression, and free speech rights. I'm not standing for a holier-than-thou attitude on Republican-dominant legislatures. One distinction is you're talking about proposed bills, not passed bills, and still subject to debate and vote within the legislature. You're ignoring an important pruning process to raise hype on "they're trying to X!"

    Quote Originally Posted by infinitemeridian View Post
    Don't the democrats control the house / senate / presidency? How can they do nothing to combat this?
    They don't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. And they don't have the required House or Senate majorities for a constitutional amendment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    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.
    The good old "rights only exist in terms of government welfare" argument. You have the right to purchase a gun for lawful self-defense, but the government doesn't have to subsidize your purchase in order for your second-amendment rights to exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    The National Review, which pretty much is pro-life, is of the opinion that the GOP has lost the war on mifepristone and misoprostol. Anybody with internet access can click on Aidaccess.org and get them for free. The pills will be delivered in brown envelopes from any number of locations throughout the world. The one disadvantage is delivery can take 10 days. The vast majority of Aidaccess clients is from Texas.
    It's more appropriate to say the National Review knows widely available chemical abortion pills is a current issue for the pro-life movement to address. Remember that it also cheers reversals to chemical abortions, APR or Abortion-Pill Reversal, criticizes the FDA decisions and safety of them.

    According to the latest UC Berkeley poll, CA voters are overwhelmingly in support of pro-choice. Support in Central Valley is the lowest at over 70%. Surprisingly support in San Diego/Orange County is as high as the Bay Area - over 80%. Over 60% of GOP voters in CA support women’s right to have an abortion.

    Under Article 1, Section 1 of the state Constitution, which includes an explicit right to privacy, “all women in this state - rich and poor alike - possess a fundamental constitutional right to choose whether or not to bear a child.” Which is why as far back as 1969, three years before California’s voters had approved privacy rights and four years before the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, the state’s high court had recognized constitutional protections for the choice of childbirth or abortion.
    Amazing that California's voters were able to vote, through their representatives, on the issue of abortion. You'd get the impression from dozens of posters here that every state relied on a bunch of male judges for the last 50 years.

    Interestingly enough, if the pro-choice crowd had made actual attempts are persuasion and legislation in this time period across all states, they might be in a better position now. If this decision stands close to the leaked draft, they'll have to reboot efforts from next to nil, if they truly believe they have a persuasive argument regarding early-term abortions or full-9-month-legal abortions.

    The issue is expected to increase turnout and forced GOP candidates to make a choice between the two camps.
    It might drive some Dem turnout. On the flip side, senators like Tim Ryan running in purple states are forced to choose between the activists no-restrictions-whatsoever woman-and-doctor-only, and moderate positions that have better support. Tim Ryan specifically was asked if he supported any restrictions whatsoever in late-term abortions, and said 'you've got to leave it up to the woman.' I think his chances of election dropped significantly.

    Quote Originally Posted by enigma77 View Post
    We're just gonna have to agree to disagree here. Which is totally okay.
    Quote Originally Posted by enigma77 View Post
    I appreciate your viewpoint and your passion, but I do not think you'll change my mind, to me abortion is a form of murder, the deliberate destruction of human life, immature as it may be. No amount of talk about bodily autonomy will change that simple truth. And I really don't believe that the organ transplant analogy makes any sense, nobody wants to force people to donate organs against their will, people want to stop people from killing unborn children. And as I said previously forcing people to donate a kidney is not the same thing as stopping an abortion, since there is a difference between killing and not saving people. Another poster argued that an abortion is the same thing, i.e. choosing not to save the child. I disagree with that viewpoint strongly, you can't claim you're merely not saving a life when you are the direct cause of its death.

    Also for what it's worth I think comparing people who disapprove of abortion to proponents of slavery does not serve your side well.
    Strong disagreements, indeed. I don't think implicit comparison of developing babies to donated organs, or comparisons between pro-life and slavery, is going to help the pro-choice side politically.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mehrunes View Post
    "Future citizen" isn't a thing in law and, weirdly enough, no Bible-thumping state that gets triggered by abortion being legal is willing to bestow citizenship, or even personhood (with all the legal protection it entails) to fetuses. Because they are full of shit and this whole thing is about enforcing their religious dogma upon women and has squat to do with protecting lives. There's a reason why red states keep defunding prenatal or postnatal care.
    "Potential life" is in the law because it is in Roe. The rights of the developing baby are explicitly weighed against the pregnant woman's health in the decision. I don't care if you dislike how I term "future citizen," but there will be an explicit weighing of those interests in the law. Also, nice anti-religion-chest-thumping. Telling people they're wrong and they don't actually believe the side they're arguing for is part of the reason that the pro-choice argument never made any gains for decades, according to polling.

    People deserve only as much respect as they earned and right wingers do everything in their power to earn none. That's their choice, I suppose, but they don't get to then whine about not being respected.
    It's good to see you agree with my point. This is the current belief. Canpinter was wrong.

    Women's bodily autonomy is indeed a women's rights issue, shocking as it may be to people civilizationally stuck in the neolithic. And please drop this pretentious pearl clutching shtick about not all opinions being treated equally when not all opinions are equal to begin with. Opinions like yours where "Akshually it's OK for women to be subjugated a bit. Why can't liberals be reasonable and compromise on that?" deserve no appreciation whatsoever.
    Surprisingly enough, redoubling your efforts in justifying why you're doing this and feel fine doing this is absolutely confirmation that the pro-choice movement holds the following things and makes no attempts to hide them. I thank you for your honesty and confirmation. Twice in the same post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Splenda View Post
    Here's something I don't understand.

    Is someone who is "pro life" going to agree that allowing an abortion for an entopic pregnancy is okay? The fetus is not viable and the mother WILL die.

    Yeah cool? So murdering an "unborn" is okay in this case.

    If you say not even then, you are condemning a woman to death- the fetus is dead either way.
    Ectopic pregnancies are acknowledged as a medical necessity, and a non-viable pregnancy. They're already covered in life-of-the-mother exemptions (and both lives are threatened by them, the uterus is the only place for life to continue). The same goes for D&C to complete a miscarriage. No pro-life person I've met, nor pro-life law I've seen passed, prohibits medical treatment for the condition with life-threatening consequences for the mother, and no hope for life for the child.

    Quote Originally Posted by enigma77 View Post
    If the mother's health is at risk abortion is justified.
    You beat me to the main response.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryom View Post
    Yeah sure, I'm not arguing for Republican positions here, I'm just surprised and a bit bewildered by how many posters here seem to think abortion is not a debatable issue, that there are no ethical problems involved and there should be no restrictions at all. Or at least that how is comes across.
    Republicans are indeed happy for people that go further than the debate to declare this is not a debatable issue and no ethical problems are involved. If major pro-choice activists saw how much aid this gave Republicans politically, I think they'd drop that position immediately. Even if someone swears that they agree there are ethical issues implicated, they can't help the fact that rational observers see that the opposite comes across.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jastall View Post
    The court is very, very relevant in setting policy lol. In theory maybe not, in practice it absolutely is, and you being fine with it because they judge your way this time does not change the truth. In fact judging by the memo it takes pride in the fact that it's going after progressive policies. Hell they even withheld a verdict on the Texan law even you call bad, more than likely because they'd already decided Roe was getting kicked out the door and thus had no real issue with literal bounty hunting becoming legal so long as it served political needs. You choosing to ignore context because it is convenient is hardly my or anyone else's fault.
    So, you know I'm against the court having an active role in setting policy. I'm fine with states setting out an abortion policy that their constituents approve of in moral value and results. How else to chart the results to the court deciding that the constitution does not grant a fundamental right to abortion? I say that's a distinct move in the correct direction of relieving the court of it's policy-making project. You can argue "no policy, is a policy" if you want to get into semantics.

    "Withholding a verdict" is an absolutely poor way of saying "No verdict was actually made, they withheld a stay." Stays are granted under different criteria, and explicitly are made before any verdict is made.

    Let's look at your claim about third trimester abortions as well. There's precious little research on the subject yet let's start with the fact that According to the CDC (I haven't seen the numbers in more recent reports), abortions after 21 weeks account for about 1.3% of them. They make no mentions of trimesters and I did not find the data you claimed at the Guttmacher Institude's website. The situation is also very complicated by the fact that abortions later than 21 weeks can happen due to medical necessity, or the mother not having easy access to an operation beforehand. To say nothing of the fact that, if removing the fetus is a crime because it's a person, the trimester hardly matters in the first place, any abortion would be a murder and miscarriage would be considered an accidental death.
    For sake of argument, let's take under consideration 1.3%. It's an undercount, and states like New Mexico hit considerably higher. Taking the CDC number for sake of argument, that amounts to something around 8500-12000 viable babies every year. I use the gun violence analogy, because it's regularly claimed that there's too many guns and gun crimes are epidemic. 2020 involved gun murder/homicide numbers of 13,620. Very comparable numbers, and worth taking into the debate. On-the-order of 10,000 a year absolutely must be in the debate, and policies that forbid restrictions on them must be weighed on merits, not percent rarity.

    I was also bringing up late-term vs early-term, because Democrats are the furthest from the public on not supporting restrictions as the pregnant mother enters her final weeks of pregnancy. Terms of compromise center around "at least let the woman whose contraception fails, or just learned she was pregnant, to terminate at that point." As the weeks get closer to 40, and early deliveries of a healthy child imbued with a full set of constitutional and legal rights gain a high percentage, this argument collapses and adoption and restriction gain in force. This is a compromise from the personhood argument of developing life in the womb, not proof that it never mattered in the first place.

    Furthermore, citation needed on abortion due to incest/rape being rare, and also medical conditions matter and can be an important drive for abortions as well. By a macabre coincidence my best friend's girlfriend just had an ectopic pregnancy detected literally yesterday so I did some research on the subject once home. More or less automatically fatal for the fetus, and happens in 1 to 2% of pregnancies. With no abortion, the mother is highly likely to die as well. That's just one condition that requires it. Any law that says no to that is full-on monstrous and there is no deflection to late-term abortion that will change my mind on the subject. No state should have the power to condemn a woman to death like this.
    Guttmacher estimated rape at 1%, incest at 0.5%.A later survey concluded that both were overestimates. Read earlier in this post for my thoughts on ectopic pregnancies.

    And yes, state's right is a smokescreen for this kind of people and in this kind of debate. As it was for slavery, where slaving states clamored for it as a primary defense but had no problem passing the Fugitive Slave Act. It was used as a both shield and cudgel by opponents of gay rights, interracial marriage, and those in support of segregation, among other things. I'm not attacking the principle here, I'm attacking clear abuses of said principle in service of hypocritical and oppressive ideologies that will drop it like a sack of potato the second it becomes inconvenient. As I've said, any mention of state's right as a defense of anti-abortion law will evaporate when they move to ban it nationwide, likely after either the 2022 or 2024 elections. But by then it'll be far too late for anyone to say "I told you so".
    Sigh, same old just-like-slavery-before-it to you. Just state for the record whether my thoughts on the real debating ground for abortion in law make you suspect I want states to decide to reinstitute slavery, segregation, bans on interracial marriage, etc. The secret motives of evil men are an un-falsifiable topic. I could say, if I were as flippant, that people wanting the Supreme Court as their master legislator are the same kinds of people that secretly stan Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scott. You're happy to make comparisons to antebellum America when it comes to the Fugitive Slave Act, but what about the court? The Court's got the ruling scepter, after all, and the law's the law. Who are we to question? Never mind the denials, we're in un-falsifiable claims now, so it's only a smokescreen.
    Last edited by tehdang; 2022-05-07 at 10:20 PM.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  9. #1029
    The deranged minds of Republicans are truly a sight to behold. It's like an uncharted toxic wasteland of human depravity, always with a new fucked up surprise.


    Quote Originally Posted by Winter Blossom View Post
    She’s old enough to be in menopause. She’s not even worried about getting pregnant anymore.
    She does have four daughters though. Three of whom are of "domestic supply of infants" age. She should volunteer them as the progenitors of this broodmare program. The market demands it, after all.

  10. #1030
    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 do all kind of ridiculous left-wing garbage against the second amendment, rights regarding religious expression, and free speech rights. I'm not standing for a holier-than-thou attitude on Republican-dominant legislatures. One distinction is you're talking about proposed bills, not passed bills, and still subject to debate and vote within the legislature. You're ignoring an important pruning process to raise hype on "they're trying to X!"
    It isn't remotely the same thing. You are stretching and you know it. Liberal states are not passing laws in their states to apply to what people do in other states. It is not the same thing, you just are wanting something to pretend both sides as "the same."

    If the argument to remove Roe v Wade's decision because it isn't "rooted in tradition" the traditional view of the 2nd amendment was that it didn't really apply the way it was determined within the last couple of decades. They avoided saying it was specifically about individual gun owner for all purposes despite several cases going to the supreme court. So, if you support Roe v Wade being overturned to allow states to control it, this complaint of yours is garbage. And please note, I support the 2nd Amendment and common sense gun control as do the majority of gun owners. It is funny that this is another issue many conservatives are out of touch on. I mean it couldn't be some get big donations from gun manufacturers to avoid putting steps to slow down the purchase of a firearm, it is totally just defending individual ownership.

    Secondly, Freedom of Speech is not carte blanche to say or do whatever you want. It has never been view that way. And given that you have Republicans attempting to force speech (ie making people partake in the pledge and prayer groups.) Saying hey, you can't use your speech to harm another isn't remotely the same level.

    And as for religious expression, most people suppressing that aren't Left Wing. When the right says the left is "suppressing religious expression" it means they feel that Christianity isn't getting special treatment. You have the right to reasonable practice of religion. And you are not permitted to use the government to enforce your religion's doctrine as law. This is the "War on Christmas" nonsense.
    Last edited by Darththeo; 2022-05-07 at 10:47 PM.
    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

  11. #1031
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    It's more appropriate to say the National Review knows widely available chemical abortion pills is a current issue for the pro-life movement to address. Remember that it also cheers reversals to chemical abortions, APR or Abortion-Pill Reversal, criticizes the FDA decisions and safety of them.
    States can't even stop cocaine and fentanyl, which are illegal in all states, territories and at the Federal level. There is little chance that they can stop abortion pills which are legal in half the states and at the Federal level. Go to Plan C website, pick any anti-abortion states, and it will provide a whole range of options for getting abortion pills.

    We need to replace "Rich girls" from the old saying "Rich girls will always have access to abortion and get away with it" with "Girls with internet access." Since the pills will be coming from pharmacies in India, Canada and Mexico, the only way to stop this is by searching every single plain manila envelopes entering the US.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Heh. My wife just mentioned that both Mifepristone and Misoprostol are available with prescription from vets also. Same exact medicine used for human. They are dirt cheap. A bottle of sixty 100 mcg Misoprostol used to be less than a dollar.

  12. #1032
    The Insane Masark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    17,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    We need to replace "Rich girls" from the old saying "Rich girls will always have access to abortion and get away with it" with "Girls with internet access." Since the pills will be coming from pharmacies in India, Canada and Mexico, the only way to stop this is by searching every single plain manila envelopes entering the US.
    You speak as if Republicans have ever had any objection to turning the postal service into a censorship board.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur...inst_obscenity

    Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
    What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mind
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Tayler
    Political conservatism is just atavism with extra syllables and a necktie.
    Me on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW characters

  13. #1033
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    States do all kind of ridiculous left-wing garbage against the second amendment, rights regarding religious expression, and free speech rights.
    In the fever dreams of conservative propagandists.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Amazing that California's voters were able to vote, through their representatives, on the issue of abortion. You'd get the impression from dozens of posters here that every state relied on a bunch of male judges for the last 50 years.
    No part of what he quoted implied that CA voters directly voted for abortion. And it will be inconvenient to your "but just vote though!" narrative when it's pointed out to you how often these same old white men (who have taken it upon themselves to decide what happens to women's bodies) benefit from an election system that's set up to ensure they remain in power against the will of the majority of voters.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I don't think implicit comparison of developing babies to donated organs, or comparisons between pro-life and slavery, is going to help the pro-choice side politically.
    It's not a political detriment to the pro-choice crowd simply because the facts of the matter make you uncomfortable. A law requiring people to donate organs on pain of fines/imprisonment would never pass. The "becuz states' rights" argument has been made in favor of pretty much every heinous position that conservatives have held throughout the country's history. And when you say horseshit like "I'm fine with states setting out an abortion policy that their constituents approve of in moral value and results." you're saying that you'd be just fine with a state implementing slavery again if it was morally and pragmatically approved by the citizens of a state. Your reasoning is flawed, and everyone is going to keep laughing at the stupidity of it until you drop it.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    The secret motives of evil men are an un-falsifiable topic.
    No one is talking about secret motives of evil men. We're talking about the intentions those evil men have made loud and clear over the past decade+.

  14. #1034
    Step 1: Bigoted politicians start banning abortions and the morning after pills.
    Step 2: Local drug dealers start selling morning after pills while every taxi service under the sun starts giving rides outside of that state with many of their employers willing to help fund it.

    Also.....

    Step 1: Bigoted politicians ban birth control.
    Step 2: Drug dealers now have a new best selling product in virtually every state along with the easiest time on the planet resupplying just by leaving the state and purchasing it from other states which will have made it even easier.


    This will work even worse for them than the war on drugs and more on part with North Carolina's old war on fire works where we literally just drove to "South of the Border" every July and bought whatever we wanted as well as through out the year.
    Since we can't call out Trolls and Bad Faith posters and the Ignore function doesn't actually ignore it. Add
    "mmo-champion.com##li.postbitignored"
    to your ublock or adblock filter to actually ignore ignored posters. Now just need a way to ignore responses to them as well.

  15. #1035
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    You speak as if Republicans have ever had any objection to turning the postal service into a censorship board.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur...inst_obscenity
    I'll reserve judgement until they actually do that. Keep in mind, currently it is not illegal to ship those pills by mail.

    Also, the post office is not the only game in town anymore. Now we have UPS, FedEx, DHL, Sendle, ShipBob, EasyPost, etc.

    Not to mention scanning every single piece of US mails would be a colossal undertaking.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Fugus View Post
    Step 1: Bigoted politicians start banning abortions and the morning after pills.
    Step 2: Local drug dealers start selling morning after pills while every taxi service under the sun starts giving rides outside of that state with many of their employers willing to help fund it.

    Also.....

    Step 1: Bigoted politicians ban birth control.
    Step 2: Drug dealers now have a new best selling product in virtually every state along with the easiest time on the planet resupplying just by leaving the state and purchasing it from other states which will have made it even easier.


    This will work even worse for them than the war on drugs and more on part with North Carolina's old war on fire works where we literally just drove to "South of the Border" every July and bought whatever we wanted as well as through out the year.
    Generic Plan B pills are on sale for $9.99 on Amazon. Have a friend in California, or any other states where it is legal, buy them for you then send it through the mail.

  16. #1036
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    34,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    People voted for Trump and got this. It’s been a known outcome for years. Acting surprised now is fucking stupid.
    Me in 2016: "Trump is going to go after abortion rights, I don't care if you hate Hillary, we really need to protect abortion rights"

    Every liberal who hated Hillary: "I don't care, Trump won't go after abortion and neither will the judges he appoints, Hillary drinks baby blood and gets paid money by banks to give speeches"

    Liberals who hated Hillary NOW: "OH NO ABORTION RIGHTS ARE IN DANGER HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED?!?!?!?!?!11"
    Plenty of people have been holding their breath waiting for me to fail. I think they all suffocated years ago.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zython View Post
    Just came here to remind people that the right has no moral conscious. If they ever try to morally scold you, it's not because they think what you're doing is wrong. Is because it's effective, and want to discourage you from doing it.

  17. #1037
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    I'll reserve judgement until they actually do that. Keep in mind, currently it is not illegal to ship those pills by mail.

    Also, the post office is not the only game in town anymore. Now we have UPS, FedEx, DHL, Sendle, ShipBob, EasyPost, etc.

    Not to mention scanning every single piece of US mails would be a colossal undertaking.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Generic Plan B pills are on sale for $9.99 on Amazon. Have a friend in California, or any other states where it is legal, buy it for you then send it through the mail.
    Yep and for the guys who already have a system in plans to transport actual illegal contraband.

    Customer: Hey man, I would like a months supply of birth control, a box of plan b, a $20 bag of hydro and a weed vap pen.
    Seller: Sure thing.
    Since we can't call out Trolls and Bad Faith posters and the Ignore function doesn't actually ignore it. Add
    "mmo-champion.com##li.postbitignored"
    to your ublock or adblock filter to actually ignore ignored posters. Now just need a way to ignore responses to them as well.

  18. #1038
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    35,102
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    Heh. My wife just mentioned that both Mifepristone and Misoprostol are available with prescription from vets also.
    Let's not go Joe Rogan just yet.

  19. #1039
    The Unstoppable Force Kaleredar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    24,072
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    Me in 2016: "Trump is going to go after abortion rights, I don't care if you hate Hillary, we really need to protect abortion rights"

    Every liberal who hated Hillary: "I don't care, Trump won't go after abortion and neither will the judges he appoints, Hillary drinks baby blood and gets paid money by banks to give speeches"

    Liberals who hated Hillary NOW: "OH NO ABORTION RIGHTS ARE IN DANGER HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED?!?!?!?!?!11"
    Yeah, nothing Trump did should have come as a surprise to anyone. "Trump (and his various appointees, extended on to the GOP as a whole) could do this awful thing, but he wont!" is nothing but deluded hope at this point.
    “Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

  20. #1040
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    Me in 2016: "Trump is going to go after abortion rights, I don't care if you hate Hillary, we really need to protect abortion rights"

    Every liberal who hated Hillary: "I don't care, Trump won't go after abortion and neither will the judges he appoints, Hillary drinks baby blood and gets paid money by banks to give speeches"

    Liberals who hated Hillary NOW: "OH NO ABORTION RIGHTS ARE IN DANGER HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED?!?!?!?!?!11"
    Quote Originally Posted by Winter Blossom
    I honestly didn’t know anything about Trump prior to him becoming President. I thought he could be a good President, even saying it made me nervous but it could be the change we need.... then, after reading more about him, I changed my stance and said I wanted Hillary to win, only to have people tell me I was only wanting that because she had a vagina and I did too. Then I went against Hillary because of the whole Benghazi incident, which immediately meant I must be a Trump supporter then.

    I haven’t been a Dem my entire life, I’ll admit that, but I started to lean way more left after Trump became President, and it’s what I identify as now.
    Yeah, people like this are what frustrate me the most. Zero attention to the last 30+ years and then they get pissed when shit goes south.

Posting Permissions

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