1. #1061
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasRules View Post
    You mean free speech and gun ownership? At least they are going easy on criminals in Los Angeles and not charging them with felonious crimes. Or charging rioters and looters with crimes in several cities.

    I also noticed people here are glad justices are doxxed and harassed for doing their jobs.
    Not particularly interested in your paranoid delusions of persecution in the face of the actual abrogation of human/civil rights.

  2. #1062
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasRules View Post
    You mean free speech and gun ownership? At least they are going easy on criminals in Los Angeles and not charging them with felonious crimes. Or charging rioters and looters with crimes in several cities.

    I also noticed people here are glad justices are doxxed and harassed for doing their jobs.
    Where is anyone stripping anyone's free speech?

    You do know that you don't get free speech anywhere, but with the government, right? Please tell me you aren't that fucking ignorant.

    And funny, besides the assault weapons ban in 94, all of the gun laws, have been passed and done by Republicans.

  3. #1063
    Just visiting for my monthly infraction to say that this ruling is amazing but sadly doesn't go far enough. The power will be returned to the states so don't worry if you live in a Blue state, you can still scramble, boil and snip babies in the womb. For everyone else, you will just have to redouble your efforts into sexualising children instead with your degeneracy.

    Peace.

  4. #1064
    Quote Originally Posted by Reyuna View Post
    Just visiting for my monthly infraction to say that this ruling is amazing but sadly doesn't go far enough. The power will be returned to the states so don't worry if you live in a Blue state, you can still scramble, boil and snip babies in the womb. For everyone else, you will just have to redouble your efforts into sexualising children instead with your degeneracy.

    Peace.
    You do most abortions are done by a pill now, right? https://www.nbcnews.com/health/healt...inds-rcna17546

    And everything else you are talking about, they are coming for contraception, gay marriage, and interracial marriage next. Not to mention, that bodily autonomy is a thing that is protected by the constitution.

    Oh, and Republicans are literally passing bills allowing for child marriage.

  5. #1065
    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    And everything else you are talking about, they are coming for contraception, gay marriage, and interracial marriage next. Not to mention, that bodily autonomy is a thing that is protected by the constitution.
    It's nice of you to assume this isn't the sort of person user who would gladly post about how they think gay people should be executed if they didn't think they'd get permabanned for it.

  6. #1066
    Quote Originally Posted by Reyuna View Post
    Just visiting for my monthly infraction to say that this ruling is amazing but sadly doesn't go far enough. The power will be returned to the states so don't worry if you live in a Blue state, you can still scramble, boil and snip babies in the womb. For everyone else, you will just have to redouble your efforts into sexualising children instead with your degeneracy.

    Peace.
    How far would you personally like it to go?
    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

  7. #1067
    Quote Originally Posted by Reyuna View Post
    Just visiting for my monthly infraction to say that this ruling is amazing but sadly doesn't go far enough. The power will be returned to the states so don't worry if you live in a Blue state, you can still scramble, boil and snip babies in the womb. For everyone else, you will just have to redouble your efforts into sexualising children instead with your degeneracy.

    Peace.
    And soon you'll learn why it wasn't up to the states before.

    Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866

  8. #1068
    Quote Originally Posted by Winter Blossom View Post
    How far would you personally like it to go?
    I think that periods should be illegal. When you really think about it it's a human that you haven't allowed to live. /s
    If you are particularly bold, you could use a Shiny Ditto. Do keep in mind though, this will infuriate your opponents due to Ditto's beauty. Please do not use Shiny Ditto. You have been warned.

  9. #1069
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    National Abortion Ban Possible if Roe v. Wade Overturned: Mitch McConnell

    If that does not motivate the Democratic voters, nothing will.
    Anyone who still thinks the filibuster will survive the next republican president is delusional.

  10. #1070
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    Anyone who still thinks the filibuster will survive the next republican president is delusional.
    I agree Republicans will get rid of the legislative filibuster the fraction of a second it looks advantageous for them, but this is 100% a warning to Democrats not to do away with it. McConnell hates legislating, hates having his people on the record with their votes, hates platforms and articulated Republican policy positions alike (see Rick Scott)--why give Democrats anything to run against? He has his corrupt Court to do all the deeply unpopular legislating that voters can't do anything about--why paint targets on his caucus members' backs by having them do any legislating? The filibuster benefits Republicans because there's almost nothing they want to pass, and the stuff they do want to pass (tax cuts, more help for the rich, etc) doesn't need 60 votes.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Oh. https://www.azmirror.com/blog/gop-se...raception-use/

    "After the U.S. Supreme Court overturns women’s constitutional right to abortion this summer, one Arizona Republican candidate for U.S. Senate thinks judges should also take aim at the right to buy and use contraception.

    Blake Masters, a Tucson-based venture capitalist, boasts on his website that he will only vote to confirm federal judges “who understand that Roe and Griswold and Casey were wrongly decided, and that there is no constitutional right to abortion.” Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, decided in 1973 and 1992, respectively, both upheld a constitutional right to abortion access.

    ...

    President Donald Trump hasn’t yet endorsed an Arizona Senate candidate, but Masters is viewed as the favorite to receive his endorsement. His campaign is also being supported by his former boss and mentor, technology investor Peter Thiel, who is spending at least $10 million to bankroll a campaign to support Masters. Masters has already won the support of some extremist Republicans, most recently Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who spoke to a white nationalist conference earlier this year. Other media reports have noted his past praise for the Unabomber and Hermann Goering, one Hitler’s top military leaders and one of the most prominent members of the Nazi Party. "
    Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. --Frank Wilhoit

  11. #1071
    Quote Originally Posted by Winter Blossom View Post
    How far would you personally like it to go?
    For starters, if a woman menstruates she should be charged with murder since that egg could have been fertilized and become a human. She chose not to get pregnant that month and thus denied life to something that could have been. Denying life is the same as killing. It doesn't matter if she never had sex that month, or even if she had sex but was unsuccessful. If God didn't want her to go to jail he would've made it happen, so by not getting pregnant God must really want her to be in jail. Because of the aforementioned, conjugal visits are mandatory and a partner will be supplied in the event one isn't freely available. Male prison guards have been doing this service for years already in preparation. What visionaries!

    Also, if a man masturbates he should be charged with murder as well. I'm uncertain if it should be considered singular murder or mass murder. His sperm can realistically only be used for one pregnancy, but there are millions of sperm so maybe mass murder is still on the table. Oral sex and anal sex will be outlawed for the same reason. In fact, oral sex gets the additional charge of cannibalism. You might be wondering if forcing women to give birth to a child they're unable to provide for will result in an increase in a need for social welfare programs. The answer is yes, emphatically. Will additional funding be provided to those in dire need? Please, let's not be silly here.

  12. #1072
    They'll go after the LGBT next.

    GOP Senators Call For Warning Label On “Disturbing” LGBTQ Content In Kids’ TV Shows
    https://deadline.com/2022/05/gop-sen...ds-1235018212/
    A Fetus is not a person under the 14th amendment.

    Christians are Forced Birth Fascists against Human Rights who indoctrinate and groom children. Prove me wrong.

  13. #1073
    Quote Originally Posted by Nastard View Post
    For starters, if a woman menstruates she should be charged with murder since that egg could have been fertilized and become a human. She chose not to get pregnant that month and thus denied life to something that could have been. Denying life is the same as killing. It doesn't matter if she never had sex that month, or even if she had sex but was unsuccessful. If God didn't want her to go to jail he would've made it happen, so by not getting pregnant God must really want her to be in jail. Because of the aforementioned, conjugal visits are mandatory and a partner will be supplied in the event one isn't freely available. Male prison guards have been doing this service for years already in preparation. What visionaries!

    Also, if a man masturbates he should be charged with murder as well. I'm uncertain if it should be considered singular murder or mass murder. His sperm can realistically only be used for one pregnancy, but there are millions of sperm so maybe mass murder is still on the table. Oral sex and anal sex will be outlawed for the same reason. In fact, oral sex gets the additional charge of cannibalism. You might be wondering if forcing women to give birth to a child they're unable to provide for will result in an increase in a need for social welfare programs. The answer is yes, emphatically. Will additional funding be provided to those in dire need? Please, let's not be silly here.
    The first part is beautiful--chef's kiss! The second part misses the mark that this whole thing is anything besides punishing women while giving men a free pass. They would never do anything to interfere with their own rights or pleasure.
    Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. --Frank Wilhoit

  14. #1074
    Quote Originally Posted by Reyuna View Post
    Just visiting for my monthly infraction to say that this ruling is amazing but sadly doesn't go far enough. The power will be returned to the states so don't worry if you live in a Blue state, you can still scramble, boil and snip babies in the womb. For everyone else, you will just have to redouble your efforts into sexualising children instead with your degeneracy.

    Peace.
    It's not the Democrats that are trying to legalize marrying children.

    Just saying.
    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. #1075
    Quote Originally Posted by Levelfive View Post
    The first part is beautiful--chef's kiss! The second part misses the mark that this whole thing is anything besides punishing women while giving men a free pass. They would never do anything to interfere with their own rights or pleasure.
    Ah crap, you're right. I don't know what I was thinking! In all my indiscriminate punishment I lost sight of what is truly important; and that's that the RIGHT lives must be destroyed for the sake of preserving life. Okay, so a revision... In the event of a male masturbating a woman shall be chosen at random to receive punishment. If a man has to resort to handling things himself it's only because it's the fault of a woman for not servicing him and every woman shares that burden since they're all equally at fault. In the event a wealthy, famous, or republican's wife is randomly selected, that choice will be discarded and redrawn until the correct criteria is met.

  16. #1076
    Quote Originally Posted by Nastard View Post
    Ah crap, you're right. I don't know what I was thinking! In all my indiscriminate punishment I lost sight of what is truly important; and that's that the RIGHT lives must be destroyed for the sake of preserving life. Okay, so a revision... In the event of a male masturbating a woman shall be chosen at random to receive punishment. If a man has to resort to handling things himself it's only because it's the fault of a woman for not servicing him and every woman shares that burden since they're all equally at fault. In the event a wealthy, famous, or republican's wife is randomly selected, that choice will be discarded and redrawn until the correct criteria is met.
    THERE we go, covers everything--perfect!
    Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. --Frank Wilhoit

  17. #1077
    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!"

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    "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.

    It's good to see you agree with my point. This is the current belief. Canpinter was wrong.

    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.

    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.

    You beat me to the main response.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.
    You say you're against the court settling policy but the exact same court isn't even hiding that it has a policy and an agenda, and was nominated specifically to enact it. I don't particularly blame the American right here, it's how the bread has been buttered since at least the New Deal, but pretending otherwise when they rule in your favor is at best disingenuous. There are plenty of Supreme Courts around the world that aren't politicized up the whazoo, but SCOTUS is not one of them.

    21 weeks does not a viable baby make. The very link you posted rebuking Guttmacher estimates partial birth abortions from as low to 2K to as high as 5.5K; it's hard to determine what is and what isn't partial birth as it's not really a medical term, and due to the myriad of factors involved it's nigh on impossible to truly know how many of those were viable fetuses (which is also a varible definition). In short, it's a fraction of a percentage of abortions, and if the cases of rape/incest/etc are too rare to be legislated around then so should so-called late term abortions.

    That's not actually my position, by the way. I do think partial births are an ethical quandary. As are the other noted exceptions. Which is why a comprehensive national law taking all of this into account would be far, far better for women nationwide than a patchwork of 50+ legislations in 50+ states that may or may not take into account all of this and can and will be circumvented by a wide variety of means. Making abortion illegal, or partially so, in state X but fully legal in nearby state Y only disadvantages those women who do not have the means, time and/or capacity to move to get it. In the absence of such a comprehensive law, Roe v Wade was definitely the lesser ethical evil than some of the already abusive laws seen on display in some States, and Roe isn't even actually repealed yet.

    As for state's rights, McConnel has already said it would certainly be possible to ban abortion nationwide. He didn't bristle and say "oh but no that's a state right". This is the man who has driven conservative policy in America more than anyone else in the last decade+. The memo that started this whole discussion has a judge of the court say in no ambiguous terms that indeed, homosexual rights and interracial marriage may be next in the line of fire. This is not "the secret motives of evil men". This is the actual motives of people who actually exist and who have actual power and will to enact their policies. Again, context matters and you seem all to happy to ignore it when it serves your purposes.
    It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built -Kreia

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

  18. #1078

  19. #1079
    Quote Originally Posted by szechuan View Post
    They'll go after the LGBT next.

    GOP Senators Call For Warning Label On “Disturbing” LGBTQ Content In Kids’ TV Shows
    https://deadline.com/2022/05/gop-sen...ds-1235018212/
    Its basically the roadmap of the states Abortion - LGBTQ - School "indoctrination" - Segregation, the entire goal is to bring this country as close as they can to the days of slavery.

  20. #1080
    Quote Originally Posted by Reyuna View Post
    For everyone else, you will just have to redouble your efforts into sexualising children instead with your degeneracy.
    Is it a good time to revisit Daily KOS's GOP Sex Offender List? Why yes it is! Pt 31 is up.
    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/202...Enablers-Pt-31

    21 out of 25 involved crimes against children. Stay classy conservatives.

Posting Permissions

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