ADVERTISEMENT

Alt right SCOTUS looks like will announce their decision on Roe v Wade this Friday? Miranda rights, pew pew and more

Nice, the settled law argument, so like Plessy V. Ferguson? I mean that was settled law too right? I mean I am obviously pro-life but there are much better pro-choice arguments. I don't think anyone should be ok letting badly decided constitutional law stand if it was wrongly decided to begin with, whether or not RvW was wrongly decided or not. My point being precedent or settled law should never be something that stands in the way of getting it right. Lastly the court doesn't in fact exist for the "Will of the people" That's why we have legislatures.
Legislatures that wrote laws.....that the current court is overturning.
The interpretation Thomas made of the 2nd amendment is an entirely modern take. It has nothing to do with original intent or history. It's just 6 people who were placed on the court to subvert the will of the people in order to appease a small, wealthy group.
 
Bullshit. These are your exact words:

"PS because the pro-choice people always go to the rape/incest card those are very rare cases"

Disgusting.
You’re an idiot if you think he was talking about rape/incest and not rape/incest resulting in pregnancy and abortions. Or an intricate troll.
 
Abstinence is not a solution.
It is if your goal is a dystopia puritan nation. You're not changing someone's mind when they genuinely believe abortion is murder. It's a non starter. Should abortion be birth control? In my opinion no. But birth control fails. What these dufuses don't understand is people can act reasonsibly and shit happens. Guess you're gonna be saddled for life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk
And it’s obvious what he was referring to in those exact words. Well, at least to some one not trying to find outrage with a microscope.
As I said - in any context it's disgusting.

Not surprised you're OK with it.
 
Why do you want less abortions? It's a legitimate question. If there is no moral issue with abortion why should there be less of them? Should we remove less polyps from people or not because it's just a medical procedure? I mean I would assume you would say no if someone has polyps they should be removed you wouldn't say I want less polyp removals. Your very comment about less abortion implies value to the "thing" being aborted does it not?
because many people who have abortions aren't having them because they don't want children. For many of them it's painful, but they just don't see anyway they can keep providing for the kids they already have, or continue to have a career, etc... I want a society where parents don't have to choose between careers and children or their baby and feeding their current children.

I'd like to see us develop policies that solve those problems, which would help to lower abortion requirements.

I'd also like to see policies that make certain birth control is easily available to all women and affordable so the need for an abortion procedure never becomes a requirement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk
As I said - in any context it's disgusting.

Not surprised you're OK with it.
Ok with what? Making sure you can discern between what he was talking about and what you came up with in your head? I didn’t take a stance one way or the other. You twisting peoples words is what you are known for. I’ll take a firm stance that your reading comprehension skills are severely lacking.
 
It's not because we know people are going to have sex. It's a stupid puritan philosophy that has never worked.

How about those of you not wanting abortions advocate freely and widely dispensing birth control and sex education?
Many people went without sex until they were financially able to have a child so your generalization is in fact not accurate. If you cant afford birth control which is very cheap, that's a good sign you aren't ready for sex. Humans have known how sex works long before "sex education" and it's also what parents are for, to teach children about life. So if I don't hand out condoms abortion is ok but if I do hand them out now it's bad? What does my actions have to do with another persons responsibilities? If I'm speeding and it causes me to get into an accident and someone dies because of that is it your fault because you didn't install better breaks for me on my car? Other people especially those not associated with you not helping you shouldn't give anyone a free out. Should more be done to help people avoid pregnancy before they are ready and is abortion ok aren't the same argument.
 
If we have to rank the people most responsible for this conservative Supreme Court, I think I’d have to rank, in order: 1. Harry Reid 2. Mitch McConnell 3. Trump and 4. RBG. What do we all think?
 
Legislatures that wrote laws.....that the current court is overturning.
The interpretation Thomas made of the 2nd amendment is an entirely modern take. It has nothing to do with original intent or history. It's just 6 people who were placed on the court to subvert the will of the people in order to appease a small, wealthy group.
Wait I'm confused now I have been told many times that the right are all a bunch of poor racists living in the racist south, are we all just wealthy people now? Also no Thomas' interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is not modern at all. Laws have been overturned by the Supreme Court forever, overturning what the court believes to be unconstitutional has also been going on forever, it literally is their job.
 
The courts are supposed to operate outside popular opinion when popular opinion operates outside of the Constitution, we are not a pure Democracy so we do not in fact operate under majority rule.
Instead we operate on a White Christian Nationalist, minority rule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: THE_DEVIL
Wait I'm confused now I have been told many times that the right are all a bunch of poor racists living in the racist south, are we all just wealthy people now? Also no Thomas' interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is not modern at all. Laws have been overturned by the Supreme Court forever, overturning what the court believes to be unconstitutional has also been going on forever, it literally is their job.
Well, we agree that you're confused.
It was only 2008 with Heller that the court recognized a clear individual right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. If that's not 'modern' I don't know what is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk
It is if your goal is a dystopia puritan nation. You're not changing someone's mind when they genuinely believe abortion is murder. It's a non starter. Should abortion be birth control? In my opinion no. But birth control fails. What these dufuses don't understand is people can act reasonsibly and shit happens. Guess you're gonna be saddled for life.
People can have sex with anyone they want within the context of the law, so I'm not sure where this dystopia you're speaking off exists. Yes certainly things happen when you engage reasonably in certain activities and "things happen" but you still have to deal with that in a moral way. I believe abortion is a great moral evil but I do not believe women that have them are murders I believe them to be victims of a culture that has convinced them that not only is it acceptable but in some cases even say it's a moral good. I do believe it's a discussion that can be had in a reasonable way, I understand that it's complicated to do that because it is a issue that many people who have opinions on it have strong opinions.
 
As I said - in any context it's disgusting.

Not surprised you're OK with it.
Saying something is statistically rare is not in anyway justifying said thing. It is in fact stating something that is true. Rape and incest, no matter how rare is disgusting and vile, pregnancy from it is unimaginable and I can certainly never grasp the feelings that could bring. But only in 2022 is a true statement considered disgusting when it is in no way meant as a justification for something evil.
 
Well, we agree that you're confused.
It was only 2008 with Heller that the court recognized a clear individual right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. If that's not 'modern' I don't know what is.
not really. the issue hadn't really been presented previously to scotus. so new decision? sure. 'modern' right? hardly...as Heller itself made clear .
 
Ironically the Mississippi law before the court that bans it after 15 weeks has pretty split polling.



A Marquette University Law School poll released Wednesday found respondents by a 2-1 ratio said Roe vs. Wade should not be overturned.

But when survey respondents were asked if they would favor or oppose a ruling to “uphold a state law that (except in cases of medical emergencies or fetal abnormalities) bans abortions after the 15th week of a pregnancy,” 37% said they favored upholding it, while 32% said they would oppose such a ruling.


Thanks for helping prove my point.
 
Ok with what? Making sure you can discern between what he was talking about and what you came up with in your head? I didn’t take a stance one way or the other. You twisting peoples words is what you are known for. I’ll take a firm stance that your reading comprehension skills are severely lacking.
Your defense of his statement minimizing rape is not a twist on my part. It's twisted on your part.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: SWIowahawks
Many people went without sex until they were financially able to have a child so your generalization is in fact not accurate. If you cant afford birth control which is very cheap, that's a good sign you aren't ready for sex. Humans have known how sex works long before "sex education" and it's also what parents are for, to teach children about life. So if I don't hand out condoms abortion is ok but if I do hand them out now it's bad? What does my actions have to do with another persons responsibilities? If I'm speeding and it causes me to get into an accident and someone dies because of that is it your fault because you didn't install better breaks for me on my car? Other people especially those not associated with you not helping you shouldn't give anyone a free out. Should more be done to help people avoid pregnancy before they are ready and is abortion ok aren't the same argument.
That is a bunch of gibberish that equates to "just say no to sex". It's wildly ignorant of the real world.

And the analogy is stupid.
 
Saying something is statistically rare is not in anyway justifying said thing. It is in fact stating something that is true. Rape and incest, no matter how rare is disgusting and vile, pregnancy from it is unimaginable and I can certainly never grasp the feelings that could bring. But only in 2022 is a true statement considered disgusting when it is in no way meant as a justification for something evil.
It's minimizing it - that's the point. And it's not so rare - study showed 5% of rapes end in pregnancy.

You are completely out of touch.
 
70% of Americans want stricter guns laws. This court just blew that up.
61% of American's want legal access to abortion. Tomorrow this court will blow that up.

Elections matter. Gerrymandering matters.
Then repeal the second amendment and add an amendment to the constitution making abortion a constitutional right. If this what the people want then let’s do it. It’s not the Supreme Courts job to legislate from the bench.
 
It's minimizing it - that's the point. And it's not so rare - study showed 5% of rapes end in pregnancy.

You are completely out of touch.
Ok you are a very dishonest person in your discussions, there is no reason for me and you in particular to discuss this issue because you seem hell bent on twisting the intention of my posts.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk
Then repeal the second amendment and add an amendment to the constitution making abortion a constitutional right. If this what the people want then let’s do it. It’s not the Supreme Courts job to legislate from the bench.
Correct.
 
Then repeal the second amendment and add an amendment to the constitution making abortion a constitutional right. If this what the people want then let’s do it. It’s not the Supreme Courts job to legislate from the bench.
And yet they appear to be doing just that.
 
That’s exactly my point Sockeyes! Thank you! The federal vaccine mandate was brilliantly based on who you worked for. Ergo, if you worked for someone with 99 employees it didn’t apply. But if you have 101 employees, it did apply.
There was no federal vaccine “mandate” for ANYONE in the private sector. Weekly testing was always an option instead. As usual, an American Conservative either didn’t do their homework, or is simply lying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk
There was no federal vaccine “mandate” for ANYONE in the private sector. Weekly testing was always an option instead. As usual, an American Conservative either didn’t do their homework, or is simply lying.
That was part of the mandate! Please keep up Sockeyes. I mean the mandate was struck down anyways.
 
That was part of the mandate! Please keep up Sockeyes. I mean the mandate was struck down anyways.
You think requiring a negative COVID test once a week at a place of employment of over 100 people, if you aren’t vaccinated, is ALSO violating autonomy over your own body? OR did you not really know that and pretend you did? I kind of hope for the latter, because that is at least an understandable human error. The alternative is that you’re a nutjob.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT