Jump to content

Updated: Roe v. Wade overturned


AUDub

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Didba said:

You do know that Trump paid multiple women to have abortions.

And?

Link to comment
Share on other sites





13 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

So, are you more upset that your female family members can’t get an abortion if raped, or that they were raped in the first place?

The option still exist to travel to a liberal state to get an abortion, even up until birth.  Then you can concentrate on the rape.

What a deranged question to ask. 

Here's a simple question that is more to the point. Do you believe a woman who is impregnated by rape should be able to have an abortion without driving to another state?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

I couldn’t say it better myself.  The original ruling was flawed.

Brit Hume is as biased as they come, so this is pretty funny.

 

Also,  it was a literal fundamental right along with the other rights to privacy. Under this precedent, any right to privacy derived under substantive due process is in jeopardy. Including things such as the right to procreate, the right to marry, the right to private education, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-family/atheist/views-about-abortion/

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-family/atheist/views-about-abortion/

 

About 11% of Atheists are against Abortion. yes, they exist, but they aren't statistically relevant when we're talking about nationwide attempts to make abortion illegal.

 

The Anti-Abortion movement in America is overwhelmingly a religious movement led by people who oppose Abortion based on religious and biblical grounds. 

 

53% of people who are absolutely certain of their belief in God oppose Abortion

32% of people who are fairly certain about their belief in God oppose Abortion

20% of people who are not very certain about their belief in God oppose Abortion

17% of people who are not sure if they believe in God oppose abortion.

11% of people who do not Believe in God at all oppose abortion

52% of people who oppose Abortion say they look to the Bible over philosophy, science, or reason for their opinions on what is right and wrong.

You just cited that only about half of people who oppose abortion "look to the Bible over philosophy, science, or reason for their opinions on what is right and wrong."  So clearly a sizeable amount of pro-life people are not deriving their view on human rights for the unborn from religious beliefs.  Pair that with the atheists and agnostics who are pro-life and I think it's clear that it isn't accurate to write the pro-life movement off this way.

But also I have to say that there's nothing inherently wrong with a person's views on right and wrong being shaped and influenced by religious beliefs.  There's nothing inherently superior about someone who claims to get their moral values from some other source.  All have the right to vote and influence law and policy in this country based on their values, ethics and morals.  As I said before, the notion that people who aren't religious are some kind of default or neutral arbitor while only religious folks are "forcing" beliefs on others through laws and policy is off base.  Everyone who weighs in on legislation and policy does so out of their values.  If enough people agree with you on that, those laws and policies carry the day.  There are no laws of any significance that exist in a vacuum, untainted by the charge of someone or some group of someones imposing their beliefs on others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I’m not forcing my beliefs on others.  Where do you get that?

So, are you more upset that your female family members can’t get an abortion if raped, or that they were raped in the first place?

The option still exist to travel to a liberal state to get an abortion, even up until birth.  Then you can concentrate on the rape.

This second argument is made in such bad faith and comepletely disingenuous to the burden that places on women that I refuse to even consider it.

The first two aren't even arguments just failed attempts at gotchas.

Edited by Didba
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I think you are pretending.  This was orchestrated by political professionals with intent of coalescing Christians more for their votes than for the cause itself.

This is 100% the truth, anyone saying otherwise is being disingenuous and arguing in bad faith

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Didba said:

Brit Hume is as biased as they come, so this is pretty funny.

 

Also,  it was a literal fundamental right along with the other rights to privacy. Under this precedent, any right to privacy derived under substantive due process is in jeopardy. Including things such as the right to procreate, the right to marry, the right to private education, etc.

The *right to an abortion* as found in Roe V Wade should have never been a Federal law as the current Supreme Court acknowledged today.  The court gave the right back to each individual state as it was before 1972.  What changed is it is no longer *abortion on demand* which morphed from *safe, legal and rare*.  The rare part was laughable.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You just cited that only about half of people who oppose abortion "look to the Bible over philosophy, science, or reason for their opinions on what is right and wrong."  So clearly a sizeable amount of pro-life people are not deriving their view on human rights for the unborn from religious beliefs.  Pair that with the atheists and agnostics who are pro-life and I think it's clear that it isn't accurate to write the pro-life movement off this way.

But also I have to say that there's nothing inherently wrong with a person's views on right and wrong being shaped and influenced by religious beliefs.  There's nothing inherently superior about someone who claims to get their moral values from some other source.  All have the right to vote and influence law and policy in this country based on their values, ethics and morals.  As I said before, the notion that people who aren't religious are some kind of default or neutral arbitor while only religious folks are "forcing" beliefs on others through laws and policy is off base.  Everyone who weighs in on legislation and policy does so out of their values.  If enough people agree with you on that, those laws and policies carry the day.  There are no laws of any significance that exist in a vacuum, untainted by the charge of someone or some group of someones imposing their beliefs on others.

You do understand though that Republicans push Christian ideological beliefs into law because it keeps them in power as politicians?  This is what we mean when we say religious beliefs are being forced upon others by the minority. Both Christians and Republicans are a minority in this country. Pro-life is almost exclusively a religious belief no matter the religion and establishing religious beliefs as law is enforcing those beliefs onto others.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

So now that you’ve obtained the single biggest issue driving your voting decisions, was it worth it? All the votes for folks over the years that ultimately enabled Trumpism— is the payoff worth it?

I’m not sure I understand the question completely. If you’re asking me whether I’m happy that more unborn children get to live, of course I’m happy.  That Trump ended up being part of the means by which it happened isn’t exactly thrilling to me, but does not take away from that happiness.

As far as the rise of Trumpism, I think you know how I feel about that.

I don’t know if that answers your question or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Didba said:

You do understand though that Republicans push Christian ideological beliefs into law because it keeps them in power as politicians?  This is what we mean when we say religious beliefs are being forced upon others by the minority. Both Christians and Republicans are a minority in this country. Pro-life is almost exclusively a religious belief no matter the religion and establishing religious beliefs as law is enforcing those beliefs onto others.

The stats he posted seem to indicate otherwise. But nonetheless, why is it OK in your mind to impose your values and beliefs on others through law and policy, But not OK when religious people do it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Didba said:

This second argument is made in such bad faith and comepletely disingenuous to the burden that places on women that I refuse to even consider it.

The first two aren't even arguments just failed attempts at gotchas.

I’m just trying get where your head is at.  Your so emotional about this you aren’t making sense.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I’m not sure I understand the question completely. If you’re asking me whether I’m happy that more unborn children get to live, of course I’m happy.  That Trump ended up being part of the means by which it happened isn’t exactly thrilling to me, but does not take away from that happiness.

As far as the rise of Trumpism, I think you know how I feel about that.

I don’t know if that answers your question or not.

Among other things, it took the delegitimization of the Supreme Court— that’s more on McConnell— to get to today’s decision. The fraying of the country’s fabric received a huge accelerant today— again, made so largely by a dysfunctional legislature that created an illegitimate Court. Worth it? Without those things, we’re not here.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You just cited that only about half of people who oppose abortion "look to the Bible over philosophy, science, or reason for their opinions on what is right and wrong."  So clearly a sizeable amount of pro-life people are not deriving their view on human rights for the unborn from religious beliefs.  Pair that with the atheists and agnostics who are pro-life and I think it's clear that it isn't accurate to write the pro-life movement off this way.

 

I think that's a very cherry picked way to look at the data. About half of Christians are willing to admit in a poll that the bible influences their thinking over reason, logic, science, and philosophy, which is higher than what I'd think. 

When you combine that with the very clear fact that the more religious a person is the more likely they are to oppose abortion, I think indicates a very very strong correlation between religion and opposition to abortion. 

You can argue that that's just a massive coincidence and that their religion really doesn't have much to do with it...but I'll disagree with you on that.  Yes, there are unreligious anti-abortion people, but they are in the small minority. 

 

27 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

But also I have to say that there's nothing inherently wrong with a person's views on right and wrong being shaped and influenced by religious beliefs.  There's nothing inherently superior about someone who claims to get their moral values from some other source.  All have the right to vote and influence law and policy in this country based on their values, ethics and morals.  As I said before, the notion that people who aren't religious are some kind of default or neutral arbitor while only religious folks are "forcing" beliefs on others through laws and policy is off base.  Everyone who weighs in on legislation and policy does so out of their values.  If enough people agree with you on that, those laws and policies carry the day.  There are no laws of any significance that exist in a vacuum, untainted by the charge of someone or some group of someones imposing their beliefs on others.

 

Voting  doesn't matter in this instance. 

 

The supreme court is a lifetime appointment of 9 unelected Judges. 

 

The "settled law" of row v wade has been overturned by a majority portion of the court that was nominated and placed by one overwhelmingly unpopular Republican president who lost the popular vote in his "election"

 

This supreme court and it's opinions are not Democratic, it's not a representation of the United states, it's not a representation of the opinions and wishes of a majority of the people or the constitutionality of anything. 

It's a Representation of the Religious, The Federalist Society, and the Republican Party...that's all this decision and this Court represent. 

 

 

Edited by CoffeeTiger
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

50 years ago the federal *right to abortion* was an ideological decision made out of whole cloth,

The court corrected that mistake today and allowed the states to dictated the right to abortion.

Actually, 50 years ago Roe was decided on the basis of a woman's constitutional right to privacy which is implicit in the liberty guarantee of the due process clause of the 14 amendment. 

This essentially meant the government had no business restricting a woman's right to make her own decisions regarding reproduction.  She had a constitutional right to make decisions regarding her own body without government intervention.

This decision - which you apparently support - takes that right of autonomy away from her.  It also deprives women of equal rights to men because of their gender. (Which is incidentally the logic RBG preferred.)

Your positioning the issue as strictly a woman's right to an abortion simply reveals the religious basis of the anti-abortion argument by you and others. 

You have children, right?  I hope at least one of your children is female and she discovers your support of this politicized, theocratic court decision when she is old enough to understand what it really means.  She has no fundamental right to make her own decisions about her own body.

Only a cultist would say "Thank God for Trump!"  You've been duped by one of the greatest hucksters in American history.

 

Edited by homersapien
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, cbo said:

What a deranged question to ask. 

Here's a simple question that is more to the point. Do you believe a woman who is impregnated by rape should be able to have an abortion without driving to another state?

What was deranged is he seems to put more of a concern about abortion than the true crime of rape.

Your question depends on the state she resides.  If you don’t like the laws in your state petition the state legislator to change the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

What was deranged is he seems to put more of a concern about abortion than the true crime of rape.

Your question depends on the state she resides.  If you don’t like the laws in your state petition the state legislator to change the law.

In the United States less than 1% of Reported rapes ever lead to conviction or punishment for the rapist. 

For any given woman who is raped, there is a very, very low likelihood that the justice system will ever punish her rapist no matter what she does. 

Safe and reliable access to abortion for the pregnancy for the rape is the very least our society can offer. 

 

That you don't care if that is made harder, more difficult, more expensive for rape victims says something. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I know you libs like to bring race into every conversation. I’ll ignore it every time.

It wasn't about race, but that isn't surprising that you thought it was.  I'll explain why, even though you will just ignore it.

you said: "If you think the decision was incorrect it can be overruled by Congress by legislation.  This how it is supposed to work, not having the SCOTUS make legislative rulings." 

If you knew the history behind Brown v Board, you'd get it. So in the 50s, Congress couldn't get a civil rights act passed because of the obstructionist southern states who wanted to keep segregation laws on the books.  So the ACLU sued all the way up to SCOTUS and SCOTUS had to basically make a legislative ruling saying segregation is unconstitutional and then told the states if they don't comply with this ruling a whole bunch of bad times are gonna happen so you better desegregate your schools. 

That was in 1954. After that the executive branch utilized the national guard to enforce segregation and 10 years later when support was trending downward in the southern states for segregation, congress was finally able to pass CRA of 1964. 

As such, my response to your "not having the SCOTUS make legislative rulings" was not based on race but simply based on SCOTUS making legislative rulings is necessary at times for the furthering of social rights.  Had SCOTUS not made a legislative ruling in Brown who knows how long it would have taken to end segregation.

Nice try though, you really thought you got me with the "libs like to bring race into every conversation" to bad you were too blinded by ignorance to see the actual point of my comment.

Edited by Didba
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

And?

Just pointing out your hypocrisy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You have children, right?  I hope at least one of your children is female and she discovers your support of this politicized, theocratic court decision when she is old enough to understand what it really means.  She has no fundamental right to make her own decisions about her own body.

Yes, I have children and they were all boys.  If I had a daughter I would teach her personal responsibility and that her actions have consequences.  If something happened unexpected she would have to make the decision and I would suppose to that decision.  I would hope I had taught her good moral values to make the best decision considering her, the baby and the scum that got her pregnant. :realmad:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

What was deranged is he seems to put more of a concern about abortion than the true crime of rape.

Your question depends on the state she resides.  If you don’t like the laws in your state petition the state legislator to change the law.

Maybe he assumed we were all on the same page when it comes to rape. Maybe he focused on abortion since that is kind of the topic of discussion today. 

Of course you refuse to answer my very simple question. I asked for your belief, which does not depend on state laws. 

But I'm sure it will be great comfort to the next pregnant rape victim that they can always petition the state legislator!

Like I said, deranged. 

  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The *right to an abortion* as found in Roe V Wade should have never been a Federal law as the current Supreme Court acknowledged today.  The court gave the right back to each individual state as it was before 1972.  What changed is it is no longer *abortion on demand* which morphed from *safe, legal and rare*.  The rare part was laughable.

You know putting asterisks on things doesn't make your arguments any more compelling, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, since you think God bestowed Trump on us, then He must not really care about abortions, right?

 

Trump is a flawed individual, but even flawed individuals make Godly decisions every once in a while.  I don’t think God bestowed Trump on us, that’s a narrative you like to push.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, since you think God bestowed Trump on us, then He must not really care about abortions, right?

 

Eh, I can answer this one. 

 

The logic goes that God will use bad people to accomplish "good" things but if a bad person does bad things then that's satans influence. There are multiple instances in the Bible of God elevating or giving power to formerly or currently evil men to fulfill his will.

 

If a US president is someone Christians like or does things Christians like = Gods will/nobodys perfect/God uses bad people for his will etc. 

If a US President is someone Christians dislike= Satans influence on this lost world. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

If I had a daughter I would teach her personal responsibility and that her actions have consequences. 

This is disgusting.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...