SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Crissi]

Because if it's not legal, a person can't legally get an abortion if their life is in danger from carrying the pregnancy. What are we even talking about here...

Think we went off on a tangent because I said most poeple are against post 20 week abortions that arent for medical reasons. Just gonna drop it cause I think he and I might just be talking past eachother.

[tehdang]

@tehdang (not quoting that entire monster post) Except denying people of different races from marrying because of wanting to preserve purity is by definition bigoted, dude. SStrict interpretationism tends to result in that, because many rights that ensure we dont treat others like shit based on how they;re born arent defined in the constitution, because at the fucming time the founders thought said people were lesser. Same with gay marriage, which Alito explicitly targeted.

I object not to your characterization of miscegenation, but what "shouldnt be left to [states]" from "historical bigotedness." You'd have the nation recovering from the civil war for every decade of the fifteen decades since. When Roe was enacted, thirty states were in the process of liberalizing abortion laws through the usual democratic form: legislators voting. But why have states and legislatures argue out the weeks of pregnancy/trimester and other states view the results/improvements/deteriorations when you can just have judicial fiat slam down on the table and shut it all down? I say the current rancor on judicial appointments is partly owed to the raw expression of judicial power that occurred in 1973. They wrote a trimester system that resembled an actual bill that might be passed by a legislature. No court deserves that power.

The "potential life" argument is also bullshit, because it's, at its base, a religious argument, which has no place in our jurisprudence.

What isn't up for argument is that it involves the private life of a woman, who does have that right to privacy. Just like gay men, and interracial couples.

You'll be displeased to note that the "potentiality of human life"/"potential life," and the state's interests in both it and the pregnant woman, are part of jurisprudence because they're part of the Roe vs Wade decision.

And almost all of your opinions and views are between terrible and just plain wrong. This is just another example of that.

Hence, I was confused by the post I quoted. I've stated my opinions on a broad number of topics over time, and been subjected to criticism for them. Is this Shrodinger's Poster: You both haven't stated your views on subjects, but have also stated terrible and wrong views on subjects?

[s_bushido]

Think we went off on a tangent because I said most poeple are against post 20 week abortions that arent for medical reasons.

Doesn't really matter if abortions are flat-out illegal in the first place. The right must be established/protected before debates about its limits can mean anything.

[jonnysensible]

but voting has consequences.
.

yea and the dems have the house, pres and senate if they nuke filibuster, it does have consequences. crying about past elections with some guilt bullshit is nonsense. Dems have the power right now.

[Vyndion]

The part that gets me the most is that there are exactly 0 birthing-capable women who have lived in a pre-roe world. Just set birthing age at puberty onset and Roe being 1973. That means the youngest ones are ~62ish years old now. Oldest natural birth is age 59.

Absolutely nuts.

[Crissi]

I object not to your characterization of miscegenation, but what "shouldnt be left to [states]" from "historical bigotedness." You'd have the nation recovering from the civil war for every decade of the fifteen decades since. When Roe was enacted, thirty states were in the process of liberalizing abortion laws through the usual democratic form: legislators voting. But why have states and legislatures argue out the weeks of pregnancy/trimester and other states view the results/improvements/deteriorations when you can just have judicial fiat slam down on the table and shut it all down? I say the current rancor on judicial appointments is partly owed to the raw expression of judicial power that occurred in 1973. They wrote a trimester system that resembled an actual bill that might be passed by a legislature. No court deserves that power.

Still reading it ...

Except the reason for many progress was because the court forced it. Texas would have never legalized inter racial marriage, gay sex, gay marriage, school integration, etc otherwise. The bigotry in the state legislature was too ingraned, and the voters were happy with it. Or are you ok for minority oppression to last much longer than it would if the court forced states to behave?

and considering we have current lawmakers trying to make such things illegal again, its just proof the states cant really be trusted

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

fetal birth defects that would result in the baby dying soon after birth fall under medical shit too. and most fetal birth defects that wouldnt result in death cna be detected before the 20 week cutoff, normally.

Not according to the kids of laws Republicans want to pass. They will only allow for abortion past 20 weeks if the mothers life is at risk.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...e-bill/36/text

“(B) EXCEPTIONS.—Subparagraph (A) does not apply if—

“(i) in reasonable medical judgment, the abortion is necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, but not including psychological or emotional conditions;

“(ii) the pregnancy is the result of rape against an adult woman, and at least 48 hours prior to the abortion—

“(I) she has obtained counseling for the rape; or

“(II) she has obtained medical treatment for the rape or an injury related to the rape; or

“(iii) the pregnancy is a result of rape against a minor or incest against a minor, and the rape or incest has been reported at any time prior to the abortion to either—

“(I) a government agency legally authorized to act on reports of child abuse; or

“(II) a law enforcement agency.

[Fugus]

It's been over 4 years but I hope all who chose to sat out 2016 don', can't say jack. Sadly this falls much on women than men, but voting has consequences.

The next thing is besides the good ole 20 plus states, but any blue state that may swing Republican will get these laws. Perhaps a 60 majority or ironically the Republicans killing the filibuster making it a national law.

Now there is always these polls where Rice v Wade was supported by almost 60%. Yet people who support seemed not to be the people who went out to vote. Personally I knew in 2016 there was a judge on the ticket.

@UnifiedDivide

Told ya again.

[s_bushido]

UnifiedDivide

Told ya again.

Maybe you should take your bullshit to private messages.

[unfilteredJW]

@UnifiedDivide

Told ya again.

Quit derailing.

[Paranoid Android]

yea and the dems have the house, pres and senate if they nuke filibuster, it does have consequences. crying about past elections with some guilt bullshit is nonsense. Dems have the power right now.

Yeah don't learn from history and realize elections have consequences.

Your reply is as much bullshit in that the Dems would nuke the filibuster for Pro choice righs and I bet at least 1or 2 Dem Senators would dump on this.

[Crissi]

Not according to the kids of laws Republicans want to pass. They will only allow for abortion past 20 weeks if the mothers life is at risk.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...e-bill/36/text

Well fuck them then.

[Fugus]

Maybe you should take your bullshit to private messages.

I was pointing out how he said that it wouldn’t be brought up if I hadn’t said it.

If you are mad at me for pointing it out, sorry but not really.

Be mad at the people I quoted for their bullshit as well if you take it that personal.

- - - Updated - - -

Quit derailing.

No more derailing than the ones I quoted.

Edit: I believe enough have posted to prove I was correct in what would be said.

I’m off.

Yes this is fucked up and shouldn’t have happened but those who blame the voters for not voting for someone who actively snubbed them instead of the politician who did it are blaming the wrong people.

Later.

[fwc577]

yea and the dems have the house, pres and senate if they nuke filibuster, it does have consequences. crying about past elections with some guilt bullshit is nonsense. Dems have the power right now.

They tried. But two “Democrat” senators, one who openly jokes about switching parties, told them they cannot nuke the filibuster.

[jonnysensible]

Yeah don't learn from history and realize elections have consequences.

Your reply is as much bullshit in that the Dems would nuke the filibuster for Pro choice righs and I bet at least 1or 2 Dem Senators would dump on this.

ok what if u voted obama, clinton, biden and this still happens

[tehdang]

Except the reason for many progress was because the court forced it. Texas would have never legalized inter racial marriage, gay sex, gay marriage, school integration, etc otherwise. The bigotry in the state legislature was too ingraned, and the voters were happy with it. Or are you ok for minority oppression to last much longer than it would if the court forced states to behave?

and considering we have current lawmakers trying to make such things illegal again, its just proof the states cant really be trusted

I wish I had your religious faith, or Nostradamus future telling, to declare what would've happened in the future had justices not intervened. I just stated how many states were already liberalizing their abortion laws when the Supreme Court cut the head off from the body in the middle of it. But now we're arguing by analogy into four different supreme court cases through several posts and talking past each other. I've already said the nation is not in reconstruction and civil rights era racial segregation and miscegenation. You're stuck there. You want each court to view every national issue through the lens that the gavel is our democracy. I say the court, through Roe vs Wade, started an era of political strife because it was a terrible exercise of raw judicial power. There are two separate individuals in abortion questions, that are different from racial fights and right to privacy precedent, and their intersections of rights are a fundamental question for legislatures.

The Supreme Court, from Roe to Casey, has been awful at adjudicating limitations on the state's interests and language on viability and undue burden. That's more evidence that legislatures need to debate and enact provisions weighing the competing interests. Nine judges cannot write the final say. You see that interracial marriage wasn't debated to be possible before the fifteenth week, or school integration to be limited to before the second trimester. Gay marriage doesn't ask about the moment of fetal viability or abnormalities. It's a very different cake you're trying to force a baker to bake, here.

[Kaleredar]

I object not to your characterization of miscegenation, but what "shouldnt be left to [states]" from "historical bigotedness." You'd have the nation recovering from the civil war for every decade of the fifteen decades since. When Roe was enacted, thirty states were in the process of liberalizing abortion laws through the usual democratic form: legislators voting. But why have states and legislatures argue out the weeks of pregnancy/trimester and other states view the results/improvements/deteriorations when you can just have judicial fiat slam down on the table and shut it all down? I say the current rancor on judicial appointments is partly owed to the raw expression of judicial power that occurred in 1973. They wrote a trimester system that resembled an actual bill that might be passed by a legislature. No court deserves that power.

Still reading it ...

"states rights" are not sufficient on the matter because it's obvious that some states do not possess the means to govern themselves on such matters. Like... with the entirety of the South, and slavery. Slavery was not going to be ended until it had to be ended for them. That was right, because slavery is wrong, no matter how many southerners at the time thought it was "right," and no matter how they tried to justify it.

Furthermore, states that have passed these restrictive abortion laws have also began to basically illegalize it in other states, which breaches their own supposed goal of "state's rights."

Because this isn't about state's rights, just like how the civil war wasn't about state's rights. This is clearly a moralistic move on the part of the GOP, in attempting to inflict their specific brand of morality on others, full-stop.

And those morals are wrong. There exist such things as right and wrong in this world. Slavery, "anti-miscegenation laws," laws that deny the existence of LGBTQ+ people, and laws that control what women can and can't do with their bodies are wrong. It doesn't matter how many people believe they're right or if they happen to all be clumped together, because their ability to impress them upon people that think they are wrong is unacceptable.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Well fuck them then.

But these are the reasons why people are against banning post 20 week abortions.

For one...we're talking about ~1% of all abortions. The woman that have abortions at that point of their pregnancy, in nearly all cases, wanted to have that child. It took something major to get them to decide to terminate their pregnancies.

For another...these are rules being put into place about medical procedures by politicians...not doctors.

And, pragmatically:

[Kaleredar]

ok what if u voted obama, clinton, biden and this still happens

Then at least you have a right to complain, because you actually tried doing something to the contrary, rather than sitting on one's hands just to bitch and moan that one's inaction didn't magically get one what one wanted.

[Paranoid Android]

No more derailing than the ones I quoted.

Edit: I believe enough have posted to prove I was correct in what would be said.

I’m off.

Yes this is fucked up and shouldn’t have happened but those who blame the voters for not voting for someone who actively snubbed them instead of the politician who did it are blaming the wrong people.

Later.

Next time actually give a reply to me instead @ someone else.

Honestly people have became very unsettled here since Trump left office. People bringing up silly replies for no reason.

As far as this perso,who can't come to grip that one side is willing to do anything to vote for the single issue of killing Roe v Wade needs to wake up.

You think im the end these crazies put Trump through a test if he is a good right wing fundamentalist. No,he promising judges.

My post was genuine in I went to vote in 2016 understanding the Supreme Cour, even after the Garland fiasco.

So waiting for a politician who you feel snubbed at but at least know that person would give you a half decent judge. On you then.