Updated: Roe v. Wade overturned

[icanthearyou 4,462]

20 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Funny how you say a crime drop in the 90s I’m inexplicable, and then proceed to try and explain it.  
 

A part of my “solution” is individual accountability for individual choices.  No one is forcing people to make a decision to violate laws.  Failing to hold people accountable only encourages more broken laws.  It’s silly that you refuse to understand that.  
 

You can continue to try to criticize me for being proud of my service to our country and humanity in general. I have no problem with that at all.   It takes people willing to take out the trash to provide you an environment where you can whine and moan in safety.  

Killing people because of the "genes" is called genocide.  It is a crime against humanity.  That is nothing to be proud of.

[Didba 5,256]

1 hour ago, GoAU said:

Since it is clear that abortion is not an enumerated constitutional right, it is absolutely a state issue.  The courts decision today is absolutely not a ban on abortion, it just corrects a mistake made by the court in the past.   The purpose of the court is not to legislate or grant new  “rights”.

Under that rationale the court legislated and created a new right for itself in Marbury v. Madison when it gave itself the power of judicial review.  Article 3 provides no enumerated power to SCOTUS to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional nor does it mention judicial review of congressional laws anywhere.

 

Obviously, I am not being serious but this is how your argument sounds to non-textualists/originalists

[GoAU 1,600]

4 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Killing people because of the "genes" is called genocide.  It is a crime against humanity.  That is nothing to be proud of.

You can’t be so simple that you don’t recognize the play on words there, right?  I assume next you’ll say that I am advocating for the use of chlorine gas too?  

[Didba 5,256]

1 hour ago, GoAU said:

That’s laughable.   You ascertain that a long term increase in crime and violence would be more due to abortion becoming a states rights issue than the criminal negligence of numerous DAs and liberal states?  And my argument is the straw man?   LOL

I know what you said is laughable, I am glad you agree.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

8 hours ago, Didba said:

Abortion was a fundamental right.

…Except for the 200 years that it was not. 

[GoAU 1,600]

16 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

The decision in Roe didn't sanction the killing of a person. When a woman has a miscarriage at 12 weeks, there is no funeral due to the fact that there is no person.  The viability test was devised to establish a point at which the mother's right to privacy must be balanced with a viable life. 

Is an unfertilized egg a person waiting to develop?  Is preventing that egg from being fertilized against the will of God?  Many believe that it is and would ban contraceptives if they thought women would sit quietly and allow them to do so.  I personally wouldn't choose abortion, but that doesn't mean that I think that a woman should lose control over her body the moment she becomes pregnant. 

The thing about morality is that it changes over time.  Adultery was a crime that one could be punished for at one time.  The accumulation of wealth is as immoral and sinful as any other act according to biblical teachings, yet we have chosen to ignore that one completely.  Legislating morality is not a sign of a healthy free society. 

The issue with Whether or not Roe legalized the killing of people all depends on the belief of when life begins - that’s what makes this topic so difficult to solve. 
 

Actually, there are people that have funerals for miscarriages as well. 
 

I haven’t heard any rational person arguments against birth control unless you get in the very fringe elements, and there isn’t enough pull there to pass anything that would become a law. 
 

My issue with Roe is in a couple of areas.  First is that I believe it is a clearly a state issue and not a Constitutional right.  Secondly is that the 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are clearly murder.  I think a “common ground” could likely be found for most people early enough, but the left is just as bad with the extremism they push.  

[TexasTiger 12,828]

8 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

…Except for the 200 years that it was not. 

Legal in common law until quickening.

[cbo 7,830]

5 hours ago, AU9377 said:

If people really want to fault someone for the outcome of this decision, they should look directly toward those that didn't think Hillary Clinton was left enough and therefore stayed at home and didn't vote at all in 2016. 

I’m so tired of blaming the common person instead of the worthless politicians and flawed political system. Maybe voters should have had a better option in 2016? Hillary ran an incompetent and lazy campaign because she thought she had it in the bag. 

We voted Obama in when he promised he would ratify Roe v Wade. Then he decided it wasn’t a priority. 

If Trump won in 2020, the Democrats would now be telling us that this never would have happened if we voted for Biden. 

It’s time for the Democratic leaders to step up and do the damn job their supporters want them to do. They can pick from a handful of very popular causes that would actually invigorate their base. Get something done. And quit telling us to vote harder until they do. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

14 hours ago, AUDub said:

From the dissent. 

How ironic. In 2003, the Court struck down sodomy laws. It promised that its rationale for doing so would not affect whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The dissent warned readers not to believe the Court’s promise; in fact, the dissent said the Court’s rationale would necessarily lead to that result. A decade later, the Court began the journey.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

5 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

How ironic. In 2003, the Court struck down sodomy laws. It promised that its rationale for doing so would not affect whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The dissent warned readers not to believe the Court’s promise; in fact, the dissent said the Court’s rationale would necessarily lead to that result. A decade later, the Court began the journey.

Should the court, the government, the law not reflect the majority of the population?  Is the sanctity of the system the law itself or, equal justice for all?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1 hour ago, Didba said:

Under that rationale the court legislated and created a new right for itself in Marbury v. Madison when it gave itself the power of judicial review.  Article 3 provides no enumerated power to SCOTUS to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional nor does it mention judicial review of congressional laws anywhere.

 

Obviously, I am not being serious but this is how your argument sounds to non-textualists/originalists

If/when, you have the time.  I would appreciate you explaining the textualist/originalist position.  I find it absolutely absurd to believe we should ignore over 200 years of history (and hopefully evolving as human beings) to consider the interpretation of the intent of our founders.  I just cannot fathom the rationale. 

Edited June 25, 2022 by icanthearyou

[Didba 5,256]

4 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

…Except for the 200 years that it was not. 

there are a ton of rights you don't want to get rid of that weren't around for 200 years... Miranda? Katz? Brown? This is an example of why straw-men are bad. Not enumerated either.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Didba

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

10 hours ago, Didba said:

Yeah, here ya go, she can get an abortion pill sent to her by a non-profit and be at risk of prison time for murder because she aborted a rapist's child.  Still a terrible solution.

So, you have no solution, you just want to complain.  

[DKW 86 7,419]

8 hours ago, cbo said:

I’m so tired of blaming the common person instead of the worthless politicians and flawed political system. Maybe voters should have had a better option in 2016? Hillary ran an incompetent and lazy campaign because she thought she had it in the bag. 

We voted Obama in when he promised he would ratify Roe v Wade. Then he decided it wasn’t a priority. 

If Trump won in 2020, the Democrats would now be telling us that this never would have happened if we voted for Biden. 

It’s time for the Democratic leaders to step up and do the damn job their supporters want them to do. They can pick from a handful of very popular causes that would actually invigorate their base. Get something done. And quit telling us to vote harder until they do. 

Yea, good luck with that view here. The Dem Leadership had 50 years to codify Roe, never even tried. Of course the ENTIRE problem with the Dems being lazy as hell and not doing their jobs is of course Trump. They will refer to him as the 50 Years Boogie Man, even though he was only in office for four years. They are 1000% absolved for their poor leadership and bad decisions. You see, the Dems around here can never ever say what you did. It is the God's Honest Truth, but it doesnt fit the Blue MAGA narrative. 

The facts are very clear. Given 50 years to secure Roe at a sane level, the Dem Leadership sat on their collective dumb asses and did nothing. 

I am hoping the states will write laws similar to Mississippi's with 15 weeks excptions and rape and incest too. 

Edited June 25, 2022 by DKW 86

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

10 hours ago, W.E.D said:

I'm sure you would spout this BS if the court went the other way

If the court upheld Roe, nothing would have changed.  Life would have been the same and I would still be against abortion.

[DKW 86 7,419]

ALL ABORTION RIGHTS ARE GONE FOREVER.....Excpet the states can now enact their own and local laws.

There are just some people that enjoy any reason to run around with their hair on fire...

[TitanTiger 20,472]

8 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Legal in common law until quickening.

Based on the best scientific knowledge they had at the time.  We know more now.  When you know better, you do better.

[DKW 86 7,419]

I know how the usual suspects hate facts and such, but here is me trying to get the facts out in front of the bull s***.

Roe v. Wade is overturned: What it means for abortion in California (sfgate.com)

What does such a change mean for California? THE STATE'S ABORTION LAWS WILL BECOME MORE PERMISSIVE, NOT LESS. In Roe, the court found a constitutional right to abortion that limited states seeking to restrict the procedure, and THE LOSS OF THE PRECEDENT WILL NOT COMPEL PRO-ABORTION RIGHTS STATES TO TIGHTEN SUCH LAWS. 

After the leak of the draft opinion, Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic leaders in the Legislature announced plans to add a constitutional amendment enshrining a right to abortion. The state Senate approved the amendment this week, and it now heads to the state Assembly, where it will likely also pass (Democrats have large majorities in both chambers). Once it clears the Assembly, it will appear on the November general election as a ballot measure.

Beyond serving as a way to juice turnout among Democratic voters, the amendment has two practical purposes: 1. A failsafe in case future leaders of California decide to restrict abortion access (it's highly unlikely Republicans win enough power at the state level to do that in a deep-blue state). 2. A way to stop conservative California localities from implementing anti-abortion policy (municipal abortion bans are on the rise across the country).

In addition to the constitutional amendment, Newsom has also proposed $125 million in new funds for a "Reproductive Health Package" that would, according to the governor's office, "maintain and improve availability of safe and accessible reproductive health care services and prepare for a potential influx of people from other states seeking reproductive health care and abortion services."

Edited June 25, 2022 by DKW 86

[homersapien 11,362]

16 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

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.

A narrative I like to push? 

Quote:  "Thank God for Trump!"

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

A narrative I like to push? 

Quote:  "Thank God for Trump!"

This is the original quote from you:

”since you think God bestowed Trump on us”

That is the narrative you push, that I think Tump was bestowed by God.  I just clarified my thoughts and not letting you dictate what I think.

[homersapien 11,362]

39 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

This is the original quote from you:

”since you think God bestowed Trump on us”

That is the narrative you push, that I think Tump was bestowed by God.  I just clarified my thoughts and not letting you dictate what I think.

You were thanking God for Trump.  That clearly means you think Trump was a gift from God, or as I put it, God bestowed Trump on us.

What else could it mean?

Just man-up. Take responsibility for your statements and stop trying to weasel out of them as you are doing above. 

(That would be a good lesson for your boys, btw.)

Edited June 25, 2022 by homersapien

[TexasTiger 12,828]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Based on the best scientific knowledge they had at the time.  We know more now.  When you know better, you do better.

Elaborate. 

[TexasTiger 12,828]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

ALL ABORTION RIGHTS ARE GONE FOREVER.....Excpet the states can now enact their own and local laws.

There are just some people that enjoy any reason to run around with their hair on fire...

Self portrait? 😉

[homersapien 11,362]

On 6/24/2022 at 11:24 PM, GoAU said:

You can continue to try to criticize me for being proud of my service to our country and humanity in general. I have no problem with that at all.   It takes people willing to take out the trash to provide you an environment where you can whine and moan in safety.  

I have spent my life watching my country "take out the trash".

(That's the exact sort of dehumanizing rhetoric used to promote inter cultural genocide.  They called Tutsi "cockroaches" to promote murdering them.)

We killed millions of people in Vietnam and Iraq, and for no good reason.  And in neither case did it provide any American more safety. 

You need to seriously re-consider your swaggering posturing regarding policing the world's "gene pool".  It reflects the worst human instincts.

We all recognize the need for an effective, ethical military, which at least in principle, does provide for our safety by addressing actual threats to our country when required. 

The military is a honorable profession and duty. But your bravado does nothing to credit it. Just the opposite.

Edited June 27, 2022 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

You were thanking God for Trump.  That clearly means you think Trump was a gift from God, or as I put it, God bestowed Trump on us.

What else could it mean?

Just man-up. Take responsibility for your statements and stop trying to weasel out of them as you are doing above. 

(That would be a good lesson for your boys, btw.)

For a man that does not believe in God you probably don’t understand the nuances.  I was thanking God, at that moment of the choosing of justices, that Trump was the President.  It does not mean I believe God bestowed Trump with some saint hood or ordained power to run the Country.