Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

[GummyVitamins]

if you buy farm fresh eggs they might be.

Touche

 

[jmotivator]

But that's a personal judgment... there is no constitutional basis for deciding that life begins before birth. In point of fact, everything within the Constitution points to life beginning at birth. Citizenship, age eligibilities for holding office - they're all measured from birth. A fetus has no enshrined rights within the Constitution... a pregnant woman, on the other hand, does. Whatever rights a fetus possesses under the Constitution can only held to be derived from what the mother chooses to give it, if any at all.

Well, yes and no. Your brand of moral relatism is easily dismantled when we try to apply your logic to the rest of the world and the rest of Human history.

When we do that we arrive at positions that are nearly universally reviled, but use the exact same logic. Being against Slavery is a personal judgement. Being against genocide is a personal judgement. These personal judgemnts aren't shared by the slavers or the genocidal maniacs... so who are you and I to judge, right?

 

[OscarLevant]

Yes, many states are, and that’s the point.

Okay, give some links to quotes, in print, speech, etc. Let's see you back up the claim.

 

[CaughtInThe]

So you don't have evidence of her lying? I figured as much.

You guys have literally unleashed millions of women who will now become militant.

Don't say you weren't warned about killing your own party.

 

[tres borrachos]

Jordan seems to forget that his crush Trump supported abortion in 1999, boasting about how pro-choice he was and how he even supported partial birth abortion.

I'm sure that was very different because reasons.

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/trump-in-1999-i-am-very-pro-choice-480297539914

 

[Luce]

Well, yes and no. Your brand of moral relatism is easily dismantled when we try to apply your logic to the rest of the world and the rest of Human history.

So what you're saying is, if you build a proper strawman, argument invalid.

 

[CaughtInThe]

It's funny isn't it. At the exact moment when dumb republicans are talking about toasting their balls (to become more manly) that means more sex/more teenage fathers.

Get ready red states. Many of you will have grandkids from your teenage boys while you're in your 30s.

 

[tanj]

Please post any support that the "left" supports this, your wild claims about this being "democratic".

Pretty sure the left argues pretty consistently that states violate individual rights, going against the Constitution far more often than the federal government does and that is why states' rights arguments are a sham, based on a small group of people wanting control over everyone else's rights, lives.

are you saying the democrats do *not* support democracy or protecting democracy? that seems to go against alot of what we have been hearing.
I didn't say that democrats supported this action as democratic. obviously they dont support it in any way at all.

you can find examples of violating individual rights all over the political spectrum, up, down left and right. not just at the state level. since there are 50 states, that is 50 times more opportunities to bump into the issue of constitutionality. the US congress has its share as well. as does the executive branch. under republicans and democrats alike.

states were always intended to have a large part in the way this country was made. it has been the work of democrats over the decades to slowly erode their presence and influence.
the tenth amendment regards powers that aren't expressly given to the federal government in the constitution. the right to guarantee a right to abortion is one of those things that the constitution does not give to the federal government.

who is trying to "control rights" in this case? no one is eliminating a right and no one is controlling a right. those are simply hyperbolic arguments.

to me, allowing the people to have a say in the matter is what made it "democratic". having this in the individual states means more people had a more direct say in the matter than they would if it were in one centralized point of control at the federal level.

I believe what you are calling "going against the constitution" are merely instances where there are cases that test the validity of existing laws and court rulings. those instances show that the system, as designed, works.

I'd like to revisit this idea of "... a small group of people wanting control over everyone else's rights..." statement the next time the topic of gun control comes up.
if its a bad thing then its bad no matter what issue it emerges from.

 

[tanj]

This can of worms leads right back to SCOTUS. This doesn't solve anything.

it leaves the issue right where it was when the eroneous RvW decision was made. it also leaves it in the hands of the states, where it always belonged.

 

[jmotivator]

They will lose women in their own States. That's the point.

Will they? I would argue that women who voted Republican prior to this leak won't suddenly vote for all of the Dmeocrats bullshit because Roe was overturned. We'll see.

 

[CaughtInThe]

He
Just
Nails
It
Again!!!!!!


Language alert...

 

[uptower]

 

[tanj]

This decision, if it happens like presented, would be the Dred Scott decision, destined to be overturned later.

so, the issue established in RvW, then overturned with this, and then overturned again?
has that ever happened before?

 

[CaughtInThe]

Will they? I would argue that women who voted Republican prior to this leak won't suddenly vote for all of the Dmeocrats bullshit because Roe was overturned. We'll see.

Yes. Young women in red states wil go along will this.

You guys are toast. You just don't know it yet.

 

[tres borrachos]

it leaves the issue right where it was when the eroneous RvW decision was made. it also leaves it in the hands of the states, where it always belonged.

Like gun rights belong to the states, yes?

Do tell though why "privacy" is a state issue. You do know that's what RvW was about, yes? The right to privacy.

 

[Dayton3]

The discussion was about one variable, the number of people in the household, holding all other variables constant, to determine the effect more members of a household have on the measurement of poverty.

If you want to abandon your demand, I'm fine with that.

Fine. My revised demand is that you prove all the other variables remain constant.

hey, you brought it up.

 

[tanj]

View attachment 67388788

no one is banning abortions. it is just to be left up to the states to decide for themselves.
banning assault weapons, on the other hand, has actually been tried.

 

[Rawley]

Yes. Young women in red states wil go along will this.

You guys are toast. You just don't know it yet.

Blue Tsunami in November huh? Want to place a bet?

 

[vegas giants]

no one is banning abortions. it is just to be left up to the states to decide for themselves.
banning assault weapons, on the other hand, has actually been tried.

Uh....no

 

[Jredbaron96]

it leaves the issue right where it was when the eroneous RvW decision was made. it also leaves it in the hands of the states, where it always belonged.

That's not where the issue will stay, which is what I've been pointing out.

What happens when Texan women start crossing into new Mexico for an abortion?

 

[CaughtInThe]

 

[Rawley]

That's not where the issue will stay, which is what I've been pointing out.

What happens when Texan women start crossing into new Mexico for an abortion?

Hotels near the border raise their rates?

 

[CaughtInThe]

Blue Tsunami in November huh? Want to place a bet?

We've already done this before and it took decades. You guys are toast.

And the funny part is women are going to take you down.

 

[Rawley]

Brilliant plan.

 

[CaughtInThe]