- Joined
- May 25, 2024
- Messages
- 8,298
- Reaction score
- 1,782
I like making fun of irrational people.Why? What does that do for you?
I like making fun of irrational people.Why? What does that do for you?
That's what those states voted for.You said, "That's literally half a dozen appointees deciding it for the entire country." That's wrong. Roe said, "Hey, women, YOU decide." The majority simply said to women they had the RIGHT to make THEIR OWN decisions.
The anti-abortion states are the government telling women - YOU DECIDE NOTHING!!! WE in the GOVERNMENT will tell you what you can do. You can call that 'law and order' if you want, but it's the government dictating to women what their options are
Ever been the victim of it?I like making fun of irrational people.
No.Ever been the victim of it?
Whatever. You're not addressing my points so I'll quit.That's....
Your point is not a Constitutional argument. You're basically saying you like abortion because killing the unborn = more rights. I suppose there's nothing logically wrong with that argument; every additional right = more liberty for someone. Here that liberty at the expense of another. I'm not disagreeing with you. I support abortion, but from a property rights perspective, and respect the fact that it belongs in the hands of the states (or Congress if they ever feel strongly enough about it to do anything).Whatever. You're not addressing my points so I'll quit.
You weren't making a "Constitutional" argument - you were making a values argument, that the majority of SCOTUS decided for EVERYONE. It's nonsense, because Roe in fact provided freedom, choice, to women. Overturning it removed that freedom, reduced it, said to women - YOU cannot make your own decisions.Your point is not a Constitutional argument. You're basically saying you like abortion because killing the unborn = more rights. I suppose there's nothing logically wrong with that argument; every additional right = more liberty for someone. Here that liberty at the expense of another. I'm not disagreeing with you. I support abortion, but from a property rights perspective, and respect the fact that it belongs in the hands of the states (or Congress if they ever feel strongly enough about it to do anything).
In Roe the SCOTUS legislated from the bench (not their function). Dobbs reversed this and sent it back to Congress and the state legislatures, the things that are actually supposed to write laws.You weren't making a "Constitutional" argument - you were making a values argument, that the majority of SCOTUS decided for EVERYONE. It's nonsense, because Roe in fact provided freedom, choice, to women. Overturning it removed that freedom, reduced it, said to women - YOU cannot make your own decisions.
What does any of this have to do with the discussion?If you believe that's constitutionally sound, awesome. Maybe we ought to go back to the days when the majority could decide or not to criminalize interracial marriage, gay marriage, or jail gays for consensual homosexual behavior.
You can call it whatever you want. It is what it is.Obviously we should go back to the time when states can outlaw birth control. After all, women shouldn't be able to make any decisions like that without government approval, since last I checked, birth control isn't mentioned! Right to use birth control? LOLOLOL!!!
And I don't like abortion because 'killing the unborn' ===> more rights. Women getting to make critical decisions about their reproductive healthcare ====> more rights.
Duh. It was alive, and then it becomes dead due to certain actions. I'd call that "killing."If you believe abortion is killing the unborn, then say that.
Yes. I support it on the grounds of property rights, the same way I support quick evictions of non-paying tenants.You say you support abortion, so you support killing the unborn. Fine.
The court found that there was neither a guarantee of abortion rights nor an outlawing of them in the US Constitution.I don't really understand that position, but whatever. If the court believed that,
The courts? You mean, SCOTUS? Because there's no law against it in the US Constitution.then they should have decided that NO STATE can allow abortion, because clearly not being killed is sort of a fundamental right. They didn't do that - the court didn't conclude abortion was killing the unborn, because they allowed states to determine when women could, as you frame it, kill their unborn. IVF a process that inevitably kills the unborn, because the process predictably produced fertilized eggs - aka the 'unborn' that are discarded, killed as you frame it. Why should the courts allow IVF since it kills unborn children? Can you explain?
Why? Killing people is permitted in some cases.The point for me on the issue is if you believe as you say you do that abortion is killing the unborn, there's only ONE logical conclusion - abortion must be banned,
Well, is the right to abort anywhere in the Constitution?in every case, from the moment of conception, with the ONLY exception being possibly saving the life of a woman. After all, no state can legalize killing innocents. That is the logical conclusion of the anti-abortion movement, and it's clear. If that's your constitutional argument, again, that's fine, but let's be clear about THAT.
Otherwise, what the court did is effectively tell women - no, that fetus isn't a protected human life, but you have no 'right' to make decisions about if or when you can have an abortion - the government should make that call for YOU, because it's not a right.
You weren't making a "Constitutional" argument - you were making a values argument, that the majority of SCOTUS decided for EVERYONE. It's nonsense, because Roe in fact provided freedom, choice, to women. Overturning it removed that freedom, reduced it, said to women - YOU cannot make your own decisions.
If you believe that's constitutionally sound, awesome. Maybe we ought to go back to the days when the majority could decide or not to criminalize interracial marriage, gay marriage, or jail gays for consensual homosexual behavior. Obviously we should go back to the time when states can outlaw birth control. After all, women shouldn't be able to make any decisions like that without government approval, since last I checked, birth control isn't mentioned! Right to use birth control? LOLOLOL!!!
And I don't like abortion because 'killing the unborn' ===> more rights. Women getting to make critical decisions about their reproductive healthcare ====> more rights.
If you believe abortion is killing the unborn, then say that. You say you support abortion, so you support killing the unborn. Fine. I don't really understand that position, but whatever. If the court believed that, then they should have decided that NO STATE can allow abortion, because clearly not being killed is sort of a fundamental right. They didn't do that - the court didn't conclude abortion was killing the unborn, because they allowed states to determine when women could, as you frame it, kill their unborn. IVF a process that inevitably kills the unborn, because the process predictably produced fertilized eggs - aka the 'unborn' that are discarded, killed as you frame it. Why should the courts allow IVF since it kills unborn children? Can you explain?
The point for me on the issue is if you believe as you say you do that abortion is killing the unborn, there's only ONE logical conclusion - abortion must be banned, in every case, from the moment of conception, with the ONLY exception being possibly saving the life of a woman. After all, no state can legalize killing innocents. That is the logical conclusion of the anti-abortion movement, and it's clear. If that's your constitutional argument, again, that's fine, but let's be clear about THAT.
Otherwise, what the court did is effectively tell women - no, that fetus isn't a protected human life, but you have no 'right' to make decisions about if or when you can have an abortion - the government should make that call for YOU, because it's not a right.
You mean how did the Civil Rights Act(s) get passed?The "people" deciding if it's acceptable to create laws that violate someone's rights, esp. to equal treatment under the law, was made pretty clear when the feds ended Jim Crow, "separate but equal," and segregation in the South. Why didnt those states get to decide for black people?
Brown v. Board of Education was the death knell for Jim Crow laws, and it overturned Plessy. The 'right' to interracial marriage, for gays to have consensual sex, to obtain birth control, gay marriage are all rights recognized by the courts and removed from the whims of the majority. Maybe you agree with Thomas that ALL those decisions were wrongly decided and we should again put those things up to majority vote. Well, Thomas didn't mention the Loving decision for some reason, that I'm sure has nothing to do with him being in an interracial marriage....You mean how did the Civil Rights Act(s) get passed?
View attachment 67528554
By Congress. Do you not understand how laws are made in the United States?
Anyway, SCOTUS sent it back to the states/Congress with Dobbs (where it belongs), so the same thing can happen to abortion (it can be guaranteed country-wide). The Dems just weren't all on board with it, so it failed (never got further than the House).
View attachment 67528557
Brown v. Board of Education was the death knell for Jim Crow laws, and it overturned Plessy. The 'right' to interracial marriage, for gays to have consensual sex, to obtain birth control, gay marriage are all rights recognized by the courts and removed from the whims of the majority. Maybe you agree with Thomas that ALL those decisions were wrongly decided and we should again put those things up to majority vote.
Well, Thomas didn't mention the Loving decision for some reason, that I'm sure has nothing to do with him being in an interracial marriage....
I just looked up what ended Jim Crow and the act I referenced popped up. Not sure how Brown vs. Board of Ed are relevant here. You're welcome to start a thread on that.Brown v. Board of Education was the death knell for Jim Crow laws, and it overturned Plessy. The 'right' to interracial marriage, for gays to have consensual sex, to obtain birth control, gay marriage are all rights recognized by the courts and removed from the whims of the majority. Maybe you agree with Thomas that ALL those decisions were wrongly decided and we should again put those things up to majority vote. Well, Thomas didn't mention the Loving decision for some reason, that I'm sure has nothing to do with him being in an interracial marriage....
The reich wing is going to lose this fight. Due to the behavior of the reich-wing in the SCOTUS they will not be getting on it again anytime soon.Looks like someone did some quick research. But that won’t change the charge.
The Nazis, the most evil people to ever have existed out side of Ghengis Kahn, allowed 12 week abortions. The goose-stepping jackboots in the GQP will only allow 6 weeks.Which would place them somewhere between abortion-on-demand USSR and abortion mostly banned 1930s USA. So what is Nazi about it?
What about the segregationist and slave-owning Democrats of America? The Nazis were only around for a few years. The segregationist Democrats were doing their thing for ~100 years.The Nazis, the most evil people to ever have existed out side of Ghengis Kahn,
More duck tactics.What about the segregationist and slave-owning Democrats of America? The Nazis were only around for a few years. The segregationist Democrats were doing their thing for ~100 years.
You started the "most evil people" game. Now you don't wanna play no more?More duck tactics.
Referencing the Nazis does not help your argument.You started the "most evil people" game. Now you don't wanna play no more?
Says the guy who says 'commie' like it tickles his tongue.Just pointing out that it's not particularly "Nazi" despite how much the left likes making ridiculous Nazi references whenever they disagree with someone.
... and just one of many.This is more than sufficient reason to make sure they never hold office anywhere.
The left allows abortion, too. So left = Nazis?Referencing the Nazis does not help your argument.
As evil as they were, they allowed abortions
I use "commie" sparingly. Typically when someone deserves it.Says the guy who says 'commie' like it tickles his tongue.
Deserves it as in advocates class war and the revolution of the proletariat leading to government control of all aspects of production and abolishing private property or deserves it as in a juvenile schoolyard insult?I use "commie" sparingly. Typically when someone deserves it.
Cosmo has no inkling that is the meaning of Communist.Deserves it as in advocates class war and the revolution of the proletariat leading to government control of all aspects of production and abolishing private property
Ah there it is..... Cosmo's level of understanding.or deserves it as in a juvenile schoolyard insult?