Updated: Roe v. Wade overturned

[icanthearyou 4,463]

US Army Rangers - Chlorine for the world's gene pool

[CoffeeTiger 5,135]

 

 

 

I'll just throw this in here....

 

[AUDub 11,157]

6 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

 

 

I'll just throw this in here....

 

I'll see your Ben Shapiro and raise you a former editor of the National Review. 

 

[DKW 86 7,430]

4 hours ago, AUDub said:

Because Alito essentially said that the basis for that being a right doesn't exist in the following passage:

The due process clause of the 14th Amendment “has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be ‘deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition.’”

Now I don't think the court will necessarily grant cert on a case challenging Loving, but the basis of that being a protected right no longer exists if this draft becomes the opinion of the court. 

More likely, they'll move on to contraceptives (Griswold) and gay marriage (Obergefell) in the next stage of the culture war. 

You are just arguing YOUR version of semantics. There is no way they are undoing interracial marriage nor want to. Gay and Interracial Marriage is now the norm legally and culturally. 

[AUDub 11,157]

1 minute ago, DKW 86 said:

You are just arguing YOUR version of semantics. There is no way they are undoing interracial marriage nor want to. Gay and Interracial Marriage is now the norm legally and culturally. 

So is abortion, which polling indicates has 70% favor. Know what else maintains roughly 70% favor? Gay marriage. 

[DKW 86 7,430]

2 minutes ago, AUDub said:

So is abortion, which polling indicates has 70% favor. Know what else maintains roughly 70% favor? Gay marriage. 

And there you go again. Abortion with restrictions has a lot of support. Even the MS Law has a 15 week clause in it. Almost no one  supports true non-restricted abortion. Americans are a sane people, by and large. They understand that reasonable, early ending of the pregnancy is okay. Only the true bat rappers want fertility laws. 

[AUDub 11,157]

10 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

And there you go again. Abortion with restrictions has a lot of support. Even the MS Law has a 15 week clause in it. Almost no one  supports true non-restricted abortion. Americans are a sane people, by and large. They understand that reasonable, early ending of the pregnancy is okay. Only the true bat rappers want fertility laws. 

This bill just advanced 7-2 out of commitee in Louisiana. 

https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1259299

This, should it become law, can essentially undermine Griswold too. Note the language, "from the moment of fertilization." That can be applied to most forms of birth control due to "something something abortifacients."

And before you say "no, birth control isn't an abortifacient," I'll direct you to the majority opinion in the Hobby Lobby case. 

[homersapien 11,393]

23 hours ago, autigeremt said:

Both sides have their own issues with the background of abortion. Here in the middle we see the pros and cons and would like to see adults take care of the issue once and for all. Unfortunately it's used as a political tool too often and nothing ever gets done for the betterment of the "entire" nation. 

My opinion? Let the states decide. If California wants to be abortion central let them have at it. If Mississippi doesn't, let them have at it. I see issues with how both handle it myself. 

Well, generally speaking, the incidence of abortion was already declining. 

https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2019/us-abortion-rate-continues-decline-reaching-historic-low-2017

There are positive ways to limit abortions that are apparently effective, such as providing economic and practical support to mothers who simply cannot afford the pregnancy - or afford a trip to California for that matter. 

And then, there's the 14th amendment.

This is more about exerting direct control over women - particularly  poor or disadvantaged women - than it is about "improving the situation".

 

Edited May 6, 2022 by homersapien

[AUDub 11,157]

So the distinction is literally “the other don’t deal with abortion,” but they are founded on the same exact legal principles, amendments, and philosophy.

You can just take their word that in the future other unenumerated rights will remain fundamental because they aren’t abortion. I do not.  

[icanthearyou 4,463]

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, generally speaking, the incidence of abortion was already declining. 

https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2019/us-abortion-rate-continues-decline-reaching-historic-low-2017

There are positive ways to limit abortions that are apparently effective, such as providing economic and practical support to mothers who simply cannot afford the pregnancy - or afford a trip to California for that matter. 

And then, there's the 14th amendment.

This is more about exerting direct control over women - particularly  poor or disadvantaged women - than it is about "improving the situation".

 

Excellent point.  This will ONLY affect the poor and disadvantaged.

[CoffeeTiger 5,135]

39 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

You are just arguing YOUR version of semantics. There is no way they are undoing interracial marriage nor want to. Gay and Interracial Marriage is now the norm legally and culturally. 

 

what are you talking about? 

Abortion has been legal federally for almost 50 years 

Gay marriage has been legal federally for.....7 years.

 

you're delusional if you don't think there are States in the United States that wouldn't outlaw gay marriage again at the drop of a hat if the supreme court gave them the go ahead. 

 

And if you'd be fine with that then I'll just say that Allowing "States rights" to overrule basic human rights is not a good path to go down. 

 

 

[abw0004 10,125]

Just thought this was funny.  

Edited May 6, 2022 by abw0004

[homersapien 11,393]

21 hours ago, GoAU said:

So your approach of cramming one set of values down everyone’s throats from a federal level is better?   Kind of a conform or die approach?   Seems a little authoritative, don’t ya think?

why bother with states at all?  Disband states, overturn the courts and just install a monarch…..

Hell, yeah. States Rights! 

Let's bring back segregation!  Reintroduce laws banning miscegenation!  Outlaw homosexuality!  All it takes is popular support in a given state.

Make America Great Again!

(But I love the irony of your supporting new laws allowing the state to control a woman's body while accusing the other side of "seeming authoritarian".   Now, that's laughable. )  

Edited May 6, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,393]

17 hours ago, GoAU said:

I happen to think your an idiot as wellbut it doesn’t have much bearing on the conversation.  However, if you want to resort to name calling we can certainly go there.  

Nah,  name calling is superfluous. The quality of one's arguments speak for themselves.

[homersapien 11,393]

20 hours ago, GoAU said:

See, typical leftist - someone that doesn’t agree with you can’t think critically.  
 

Libs like you want to push centralized rules on everyone, squash dissenting opinions and then have the audacity to call the other side fascists.  Kind of comical. 

So allowing a person to make decisions about their own body is "pushing centralized rules on everyone"?

If the status quo involved forcing a women to have an abortion, you might have a point.

But allowing for everyone to have freedom of choice to do whatever they decide is hardly about "pushing centralized rules on everyone", just the opposite.  It's providing everyone the freedom to make their own personal choice.

You arguments are 'comically" confused and philosophically contradictory.

And yes, forcing women to give birth against her will, because some in government (actually a minority) is extremely authoritarian or theocratic, if not fascist.

[homersapien 11,393]

17 hours ago, AUDub said:

I think, @GoAU, that you're so committed to a shibboleth like "state's rights," that you'd see individual liberty smashed in favor of it. 

Well, that is the classic use "of state rights" in our recent history.

I had a grammer school teacher back in the 60's explain to the class that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, it was about state rights.

Make America Great AGAIN! 
 

[AUDub 11,157]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I had a grammer school teacher back in the 60's explain to the class that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, it was about state rights.

The Lost Cause mythos is alive and well to this day. 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

On 5/4/2022 at 6:40 AM, AU9377 said:

Pass a law telling men what they can and cannot do with their sperm.  See how long that takes.

Question.... Are fertility doctors actually murderers?  After all, they discard frozen embryos.

There already are laws telling men what they can and cannot do with their sperm.  More than one.  Men can't do anything with their sperm that poses an unwanted or harmful externality to another human being.

[AUDub 11,157]

Just now, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

There already are laws telling men what they can and cannot do with their sperm.  More than one.  Men can't do anything with their sperm that poses an unwanted or harmful externality to another human being.

You're a strange one 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

3 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

what are you talking about? 

Abortion has been legal federally for almost 50 years 

Gay marriage has been legal federally for.....7 years.

 

you're delusional if you don't think there are States in the United States that wouldn't outlaw gay marriage again at the drop of a hat if the supreme court gave them the go ahead. 

 

And if you'd be fine with that then I'll just say that Allowing "States rights" to overrule basic human rights is not a good path to go down. 

 

 

The distinction is that no states ever outlawed gay marriage.  They just didn't sanction it.  No one went to prison for holding a same-sex marriage.  It just wasn't granted legal status.

People talk about the US on this board almost universally as being a democracy.  Did same-sex marriage ever win even a single state referendum in any state in which one was ever held?

I guess it's only a democracy when convenient.  

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

3 minutes ago, AUDub said:

You're a strange one 

Well, you're riding a corndog on a lake.

[homersapien 11,393]

21 hours ago, GoAU said:

1) I think buying condoms is great, and I highly encourage it.  There is nothing in my reasoning that would allow a state to ban condoms or any other form of preventative contraception.   Nice try. 
 

2) I have no issue with gay marriage at all.  If two people want to have a committed relationship, that’s between them. 
 

3) Have no issue with interracial marriage at all.  See #2 above.  
 

Ooohh buddy your attempt at the feeble branding of racist homophobia sure failed there didn’t it?   Once again, you are nowhere near as smart as you think you are.  

I think you missed the point.

It's not about how you feel about any given issue.  It's about your support of the legal basis Alito based his decision on.  That basis would also allow for making these things illegal. 

You have also explicitly supported state's ability to negate or rescind such  unenumerated rights - as mentioned above -  by popular vote - which is exactly what this ruling will do. 

Your personal position on any given issue is not really relevant.  Your support for Alito's legal basis is the issue here.

So, presumably, if a state did outlaw contraception, or interracial marriage, or homosexuality then you would have "no issue" with that either.   That would be the logical extension of your arguments.

 

Edited May 7, 2022 by homersapien

[AUDub 11,157]

5 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

The distinction is that no states ever outlawed gay marriage.  They just didn't sanction it.  No one went to prison for holding a same-sex marriage.  It just wasn't granted legal status.

Homosexual sex itself was criminal. This is the problem that Lawrence v. Texas resolved. 

5 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

People talk about the US on this board almost universally as being a democracy.  Did same-sex marriage ever win even a single state referendum in any state in which one was ever held?

Yes. 

5 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I guess it's only a democracy when convenient.  

We have a Constitution for a reason. 

[AUDub 11,157]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So, presumably, if a state did outlaw contraception, or interracial marriage, or homosexuality then you would have "no issue" with that either.   That would be the logical extension of your arguments.

That came up. He's fine with it. 🤪

[CoffeeTiger 5,135]

20 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

 

I guess it's only a democracy when convenient.  

 

The Electoral College says hello.