Should the American women revolt, if the male-dominated GOP Supreme Court indeed rules against their bodily integrity and free reproductive choice ?

[HangLow]

Worth reposting, as this is where many on the right want this to go.
Look for them to argue for parental rights for the rapists as well,
because, "hey, the father has rights too!"

sometimes all you can do is just smile... bless his heart...

 

[george48]

Yes.

In my opinion, the women of America should revolt and show the White men of America their place, which is the dustbin of history.

No 4 males should be able to decide the fate of 170 million American women and what or what not they dan do with their bodies !

If necessary, the women must occupy the Supreme Court and chase these unrepresentative White males out.

You are advocating for insurection...

You know that is illegal.

Don't ya....

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Worth reposting, as this is where many on the right want this to go. Look for them to argue for parental rights for the rapists as well, because, "hey, the father has rights too!"

I didn’t say anything about rape, I mentioned incest, which the person I responded to saw fit to add as a distinct category from rape.

 

[Lycanthrope]

I didn’t say anything about rape, I mentioned incest, which the person I responded to saw fit to add as a distinct category from rape.

I've no doubt if you have no issue with a daughter being forced to carry her father's child you'll have little issue with forcing a rape victim to carry the child to term and then grant the rapist parental rights.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I've no doubt if you have no issue with a daughter being forced to carry her father's child

Well, it seems to me that your opinion is that abortion should be legal always in all circumstances. And so when you start talking about rape and incest, that is nothing but emotionally loaded language. You would never support any legal regimen in which abortion was illegal except in cases of rape or incest. So even bringing these topics up as bad faith.

you'll have little issue with forcing a rape victim to carry the child to term

I reject the idea that carrying on a natural process is force.

and then grant the rapist parental rights.

Well, that would depend on the circumstance. If the man in question was convicted of rape Then maybe not, if this is just an allegation for which there’s no evidence then that doesn’t change the fact the father is entitled to parental rights.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Well, it seems to me that your opinion is that abortion should be legal always in all circumstances. And so when you start talking about rape and incest, that is nothing but emotionally loaded language. You would never support any legal regimen in which abortion was illegal except in cases of rape or incest. So even bringing these topics up as bad faith.

I reject the idea that carrying on a natural process is force.

Well, that would depend on the circumstance. If the man in question was convicted of rape Then maybe not, if this is just an allegation for which there’s no evidence then that doesn’t change the fact the father is entitled to parental rights.

Thank you for confirming. Disgusting.

 

[multivita-man]

The US Supreme Court is currently occupied by Taliban-style domestic terrorists if they pass this ruling.

You cannot have a democratic institution be run by white male far-right terrorists.

Therefore the women of America must get rid of these unrepresentative white male judges and make sure the SC is made up of 5 women.

I am pro-choice myself but legally speaking, Roe v Wade's legacy has always been complicated. According to the 5-4 majority that wrote the decision, an abortion is considered a "private", personal medical decision that individuals fundamentally possess and which is protected under the 9th Amendment, which states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The SCOTUS in that case more or less manufactured the Constitutional protection of abortion. There were, I think, maybe one or two of the more liberal states where abortion was legally practiced even before Roe v Wade, and it was permitted but restricted in others, but banned everywhere else. Roe just said that states couldn't ban it, and decided that "viability" was the threshold, and thanks to medical science, "viability" has always been a moving target.

The best way to protect abortion is to do what some countries have done an put it explicitly in the Constitution, but there's little chance of that happening here. In reality, abortion will probably exist but it won't receive Constitutional protection. Women will simply have to move to New York or California if the right to have an abortion means that much to them.

 

[Lycanthrope]

I am pro-choice myself but legally speaking, Roe v Wade's legacy has always been complicated. According to the 5-4 majority that wrote the decision, an abortion is considered a "private", personal medical decision that individuals fundamentally possess and which is protected under the 9th Amendment, which states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The SCOTUS in that case more or less manufactured the Constitutional protection of abortion. There were, I think, maybe one or two of the more liberal states where abortion was legally practiced even before Roe v Wade, and it was permitted but restricted in others, but banned everywhere else. Roe just said that states couldn't ban it, and decided that "viability" was the threshold, and thanks to medical science, "viability" has always been a moving target.

The best way to protect abortion is to do what some countries have done an put it explicitly in the Constitution, but there's little chance of that happening here. In reality, abortion will probably exist but it won't receive Constitutional protection. Women will simply have to move to New York or California if the right to have an abortion means that much to them.

"I'm pro-choice but if women feel their right to an abortion is that important they'll simply have to move to a state where it's legal."

Think about how that sounds, particularly in the context of women who lack the resources and support to uproot.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Is that your real position?
How do you see J6?

I see January 6 as a demonstration in support of Donald Trump, where some of the demonstrators -- too many - acted like complete maniacs, and gave the Left exactly what they needed - a way to ignore their own year long purge spree, and to just point fingers at 1/6 and blame it all on their political enemies. The folks that entered the capital building, went into offices and such, and put their feet up on desks and wandered around like idiots - those forcing their way in through doors and windows - were wrong and they deserve condemnation. Had they just protested and demonstrated outside, they would have gotten much more mileage.

That said, the crimes were not violent crimes. They were, as the Left reminded us for a year and half, property crimes. The only death was an unarmed woman at the hands of an armed officer not acting in self defense. But, she was acting like a maniac, climbing in a window with a mob. This kind of stuff, on the US capitol, is not acceptable in any form.

Was it some sort of revolution or "insurrection" - no, it wasn't. It was an out of control mob of idiots. I loathe them all. But, again - another but - they don't deserve years in jail for petty misdemeanors, which is all this was.

 

[multivita-man]

"I'm pro-choice but if women feel their right to an abortion is that important they'll simply have to move to a state where it's legal."

Think about how that sounds, particularly in the context of women who lack the resources and support to uproot.

I'm not saying I like it - I don't. But I think that's going to be the legal and political reality going forward, unless of course there is a massive sea change in public opinion against the Republican party and conservatism generally.

I am perpetually frustrated at how "centrists" and "independents" don't see the true end game of the Republican party, and how dangerous they are to the Republic. Far too many people believe that there are moderate, reasonable, centrist Republicans out there - maybe there are but they are so far and few in between it doesn't matter.

The Republican party is a dangerous political organization and it needs to be destroyed, and the only way to do that is for Americans to stop voting for them. But they won't because delusional "moderates" and "independents" believe "both sides do it" and they're suckered into the notion that they're voting for the person and not the party. **** that - you're voting for the party, even if you think you're voting for the individual candidate's charisma or whatever the hell else...

 

[jpevans]

I see January 6 as a demonstration in support of Donald Trump, where some of the demonstrators -- too many - acted like complete maniacs, and gave the Left exactly what they needed - a way to ignore their own year long purge spree, and to just point fingers at 1/6 and blame it all on their political enemies. The folks that entered the capital building, went into offices and such, and put their feet up on desks and wandered around like idiots - those forcing their way in through doors and windows - were wrong and they deserve condemnation. Had they just protested and demonstrated outside, they would have gotten much more mileage.

That said, the crimes were not violent crimes. They were, as the Left reminded us for a year and half, property crimes. The only death was an unarmed woman at the hands of an armed officer not acting in self defense. But, she was acting like a maniac, climbing in a window with a mob. This kind of stuff, on the US capitol, is not acceptable in any form.

Was it some sort of revolution or "insurrection" - no, it wasn't. It was an out of control mob of idiots. I loathe them all. But, again - another but - they don't deserve years in jail for petty misdemeanors, which is all this was.

I respectfully disagree.

 

[HangLow]

Not when Alito declares that fetuses are human beings. You are being facetious aren't you? The Christian taliban are far from done with this court.