• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Roe is just the beginning.... Griswold will be next

faux claim. try again. I realize the left pretends they have a monopoly on caring-at least when it comes to collectivist authoritarianism . You want other people to be forced to wear masks when the duty is upon you to protect yourself.

Indeed.
The only thing they seem to care about is obtaining and keeping power.
If one doubts it, read all their posts on the SC leak. They're acting is hysterical and political.
Oh the irony is so delicious! If they truly cared about keeping democracy intact, they'd care more about the force behind the leak, the purposeful politically driven assault on our courts.
 
The Bill of Rights for the nation should supersede any states ability to restrict them.

Not having the government look into the wombs of woman is a privacy issue is it not
I understand that sentiment but there is also a strong counterargument that there is another human life after a certain point-a point that changes based on medical science. And I honestly cannot tell you where the exact point is. I don't support laws that ban abortions in the first trimester for example. I oppose bans on abortion where there is rape or incest or medical issues involved concerning the health of the mother. But I have a jaundiced view of people who have multiple abortions because they made no effort to use birth control and those who wait until fetal viability is pretty much a given
 
I understand that sentiment but there is also a strong counterargument that there is another human life after a certain point-a point that changes based on medical science. And I honestly cannot tell you where the exact point is. I don't support laws that ban abortions in the first trimester for example. I oppose bans on abortion where there is rape or incest or medical issues involved concerning the health of the mother. But I have a jaundiced view of people who have multiple abortions because they made no effort to use birth control and those who wait until fetal viability is pretty much a given


In general I feel about the same, in the case of a fetal viability, instead of abortion, induced labour and premature birth should be the option with the baby given up for adoption
 
Indeed.
The only thing they seem to care about is obtaining and keeping power.
If one doubts it, read all their posts on the SC leak. They're acting is hysterical and political.
Oh the irony is so delicious! If they truly cared about keeping democracy intact, they'd care more about the force behind the leak, the purposeful politically driven assault on our courts.
"hysterical and political"???? Uh huh. Considering the Supreme Court will likely gut a law that 60% of Americans are FOR, might call for a bit of an emotional response. Related to all the voting suppression/restriction laws the GOP are installing in their states as well. That would be exactly for staying in power.
 
Right, because they want to waive student loans to specifically help doctors and lawyers. :rolleyes:

If someone doesn't care enough about their college education to pay off their own debt then why should I?
 
"hysterical and political"???? Uh huh. Considering the Supreme Court will likely gut a law that 60% of Americans are FOR, might call for a bit of an emotional response. Related to all the voting suppression/restriction laws the GOP are installing in their states as well. That would be exactly for staying in power.

Abortion legislation has been returned to the states. Read the draft. It explains it in detail. I highly doubt anyone will prevent you from getting an abortion nor will they take away your contraceptives. The purpose of the SC is not to moralize. The purpose of the SC is to stay apolitical, and to enforce the laws in accordance with the Constitution.

Stay on the subject and stop misplacing the blame onto a political party. The SC has not suppressed or restricted your voting rights either.
 
Abortion legislation has been returned to the states. Read the draft. It explains it in detail. I highly doubt anyone will prevent you from getting an abortion nor will they take away your contraceptives. The purpose of the SC is not to moralize. The purpose of the SC is to stay apolitical, and to enforce the laws in accordance with the Constitution.

Stay on the subject and stop misplacing the blame onto a political party. The SC has not suppressed or restricted your voting rights either.
You have to admit it's at least interesting that the GOP wants to make it more difficult to vote for some under the guise of fighting voter fraud. Meanwhile there's more than enough evidence out there already that it was in fact the GOP who was carrying out a plan to overthrow an election they lost and with the election loser himself caught on a recording asking the Georgia Secretary of State to find him 11,780 votes that did not exist so he could illegally win the state. Stop blaming a political party indeed! :rolleyes:
 
Now that the precedent is going to be "let the states decide"...interracial and gay marriage will be at the prerogative of the states as well. Look for this in the next few decades.
Decades? More likely we see it in the next few years imo. Time for Congress to get into the courts business.
 
You have to admit it's at least interesting that the GOP wants to make it more difficult to vote for some under the guise of fighting voter fraud. Meanwhile there's more than enough evidence out there already that it was in fact the GOP who was carrying out a plan to overthrow an election they lost and with the election loser himself caught on a recording asking the Georgia Secretary of State to find him 11,780 votes that did not exist so he could illegally win the state. Stop blaming a political party indeed! :rolleyes:

The thread is not about the GOP, voting, insurrection, the GA. SOS,
 
You have to admit it's at least interesting that the GOP wants to make it more difficult to vote for some under the guise of fighting voter fraud. Meanwhile there's more than enough evidence out there already that it was in fact the GOP who was carrying out a plan to overthrow an election they lost and with the election loser himself caught on a recording asking the Georgia Secretary of State to find him 11,780 votes that did not exist so he could illegally win the state. Stop blaming a political party indeed! :rolleyes:
she is under the spell of the Trump Cult, and making delusional statements about what the SC is all about and trying to do. Besides, it probably won't be long before GOP led states do outlaw contraceptives,the way they are cracking down on everything. Think books, "don't say gay" and so on.
 

Conservative women... What size robe y'all wear? Place your orders now!​

soz5YvVjQzX4GzXylsHGF8PPdp7ShMDBHeoG8lsNybI.jpg
 
Decades? More likely we see it in the next few years imo. Time for Congress to get into the courts business.

No, it's not. The courts must remain apolitical. We may not like how the SC rules, but the SC is a vital part of our democracy, insuring this country's survival.

You can go protest to your heart's content, but congress will never get into the court's business as a result.
 
No it won’t. Both decisions relied on an enumerated right to equal protection unlike the Roe decision which invented a right to abortion out of whole cloth.

Point of order: Roe v. Wade was not a right to abortion. It was a right to privacy and body autonomy.
 
That has already been settled for years. Nothing can legally stop a gay or lesbian couple from marrying.

That was 7 years ago. Roe v. Wade was 50 years ago.

Come again?
 
Point of order: Roe v. Wade was not a right to abortion. It was a right to privacy and body autonomy.
So since people no longer have privacy or body autonomy their states can now make medical decisions for them.
 
The par
I understand that sentiment but there is also a strong counterargument that there is another human life after a certain point-a point that changes based on medical science. And I honestly cannot tell you where the exact point is. I don't support laws that ban abortions in the first trimester for example. I oppose bans on abortion where there is rape or incest or medical issues involved concerning the health of the mother. But I have a jaundiced view of people who have multiple abortions because they made no effort to use birth control and those who wait until fetal viability is pretty much a given
Good points.
 
A right to abortion doesn't supersede preventing civilization from collapsing.
Civilization is currently collapsing because we have too many people living in areas where there are insufficient natural resources to sustain human life; because the human footprint on the planet has jeopardized aquatic and terrestrial systems leading to climate change that is having catastrophic effects on the ability to support human life on the planet. We need less people not more and those people need to be respectful and learn to live with limitations that will enhance survivability of humans.
 

Griswold will be next​


Can you identify a single state where there is significant support for banning contraception?
 
Civilization is currently collapsing because we have too many people living in areas where there are insufficient natural resources to sustain human life; because the human footprint on the planet has jeopardized aquatic and terrestrial systems leading to climate change that is having catastrophic effects on the ability to support human life on the planet. We need less people not more and those people need to be respectful and learn to live with limitations that will enhance survivability of humans.

The US is hardly the crux of that problem, and abortion is legal in India and China.
 
Now that the precedent is going to be "let the states decide"...interracial and gay marriage will be at the prerogative of the states as well. Look for this in the next few decades.
Hopefully Citizens is next.
 
So what? It happened. When it happened is irrelevant.

Are you paying attention to what you are saying? You literally said this yesterday evening:

That has already been settled for years.

So is when it happened irrelevant or not? Because I can't keep up with your flip-flopping.
 
Can you identify a single state where there is significant support for banning contraception?
10 or 15 years ago, I could not have envisioned batshit crazy stuff like the republicans have trotted out recently. So this question is kind of silly.

Apart from prohibition, I cannot recall a time when the court rolled back constitutional protections. And of course, that required an amendment.
 
Back
Top Bottom