Page 9 of 14 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 273

Thread: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

  1. #161
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    14,875

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Thesaurian View Post
    Hale was referenced along with Coke and Blackstone because they were referenced in the Roe v Wade opinion of the court. The reason: “Roe either ignored or misstated this history, and Casey declined to reconsider Roe faulty historical analysis. It is therefore important to set the record straight.”




    Using a deliberately misconstrued reference to slander the Court during an internet rant is bad enough, but the worst part is it’s what passes for journalism in a media environment dominated by the liberal establishment.
    Oh no! God forbit it! Did I slander the poor little Supreme Court? How will they ever survive after that? They've done a great job recently of destroying their own legitimacy and reputation, with three of its justices appointed by a president who literally tried to overthrow the US government with a mob of rioters in John Deere hats. They're a bunch of hypocrites who aren't even consistent in relegating things to be decided by the states, with their recent ruling that states have no right to regulate concealed carry (a thing not mentioned in the Second Amendment, if we're going by Alito's wildly irresponsible thinking that everything must be so explicit and to the letter).

    You're also doing nothing but proving my point about Hale, i.e. the mere fact that this late Renaissance individual and his cases are brought up in the first place is a laughingstock. We're talking about a man who lived in the British Isles four centuries ago. His rulings on witches and warlocks and magic potions and dragons and goblins have no place in a modern American courtroom, in its rulings, or in its correspondences. It would be one thing if Alito was some historian educating the public about the history of common law; it's another thing entirely that he is a Supreme Court Justice citing Hale and other bygone jurists and their rulings in an argument that modern people living today do not have a positive right to procure an abortion. You know, that thing that has been the law of the land for five decades until now.

    It's just a cherry on top that Matthew Hale was a literal witch hunter who presided over the executions of two women for witchcraft.

  2. #162

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma Victrix
    They've done a great job recently of destroying their own legitimacy and reputation, with three of its justices appointed by a president who literally tried to overthrow the US government with a mob of rioters in John Deere hats.
    It’s a bit odd to accuse people of hypocrisy while claiming the government is illegitimate and characterizing those claims as a coup at the same time. However, it’s to be expected from press narratives shrieking about how what is protected by the constitution “isn’t” and what isn’t “is.”
    You're also doing nothing but proving my point about Hale, i.e. the mere fact that this late Renaissance individual and his cases are brought up in the first place is a laughingstock. We're talking about a man who lived in the British Isles four centuries ago. His rulings on witches and warlocks and magic potions and dragons and demons have no place in a modern American courtroom, in its rulings, or in its correspondences.
    Presumably, then, we can call Roe v Wade medieval barbarism for the same reasons. It’s ok to admit you made a mistake.
    Last edited by Lord Thesaurian; June 24, 2022 at 09:50 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    I'm convinced that if the U.S. wanted, they could solve the conflict in 48 hours.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    No, we don't care about your libertarian "evidence".

  3. #163

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    Oh no! God forbit it! Did I slander the poor little Supreme Court? How will they ever survive after that? They've done a great job recently of destroying their own legitimacy and reputation, with three of its justices appointed by a president who literally tried to overthrow the US government with a mob of rioters in John Deere hats.
    Justices are nominated by the president and appointed by the Senate. Had Democrats not started the process of deconstructing the filibuster with the so-called "nuclear option" in 2013 (which provoked McConnell to respond with similar measures), it's unlikely that any of Trump's SCOTUS nominations would have been confirmed.

    They're a bunch of hypocrites who aren't even consistent in relegating things to be decided by the states, with their recent ruling that states have no right to regulate concealed carry (a thing not mentioned in the Second Amendment, if we're going by Alito's wildly irresponsible thinking that everything must be so explicit and to the letter).
    States can "regulate concealed carry", just not in the manner prescribed by NY which required applicants to prove a special need for self-defense (a constitutionally protected right). The difference between the abortion and 2A rulings is that the right to keep and bear arms without infringement is a reasonably explicit constitutional provision. The right to abortion is not.



  4. #164
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    16,856

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    I'm sure most states will allow abortion in case of rape.
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/what-will...151639293.html

    According to this many of the states that have trigger laws don't provide exceptions for rape or incest. Missouri itself doesn't allow medical emergencies as an exception. In Missouri an unborn child's life is now worth more than the mother. Even in cases of medical complications.

  5. #165
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    15,118

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/what-will...151639293.html

    According to this many of the states that have trigger laws don't provide exceptions for rape or incest. Missouri itself doesn't allow medical emergencies as an exception. In Missouri an unborn child's life is now worth more than the mother. Even in cases of medical complications.
    Its critical to get those kids born so they can go to school and be killed by no regulation gun buyers
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  6. #166
    Akar's Avatar I am not a clever man
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    a 7/11 parking lot with Patron and LaCroix
    Posts
    19,774
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    'The unborn' are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.

    Check out the TWC D&D game!
    Join the Thema Devia Discord here
    Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan







  7. #167
    irontaino's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Behind you
    Posts
    4,470

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    If there's anything right-wing Christians in America hate, it's actually following Jesus' teachings.
    Last edited by irontaino; June 25, 2022 at 10:54 AM.
    Fact:Apples taste good, and you can throw them at people if you're being attacked
    Under the patronage of big daddy Elfdude

    A.B.A.P.

  8. #168

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/what-will...151639293.html

    According to this many of the states that have trigger laws don't provide exceptions for rape or incest. Missouri itself doesn't allow medical emergencies as an exception. In Missouri an unborn child's life is now worth more than the mother. Even in cases of medical complications.
    This isn't true, but the wording of the article is ambiguous. From the text of the legislation:

    188.026.

    1. Except in cases of medical emergency, no abortion shall knowingly be performed or induced upon a pregnant woman if the fetal heartbeat of the unborn child has been detected in accordance with the provisions of this section.

    3. If a fetal heartbeat is detected, the physician shall, in writing, inform the pregnant woman that a fetal heartbeat has been detected and that an abortion may not be performed under Missouri law except in cases of medical emergency

    https://house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills191/hlrbillspdf/0461H.01I.pdf



  9. #169
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    16,856

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    This isn't true, but the wording of the article is ambiguous. From the text of the legislation:
    My article seems to be misquoting one of the sources it has mentioned. Indeed Missouri does allow exceptions for medical emergencies. But not incest or rape.

  10. #170

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by Laser101 View Post
    That's not what conservatism means by any definition.
    Of course it is. Tyranny and oppression are ends in themselves on the right. Only the groups that are subjugated or exterminated change.

    In conservative US it is Blacks, Hispanics, LGBTQ+, and especially women.

    In conservative Russia it is all peoples living in nations that used to be under Russian occupation.

    In conservative China it is Uyghurs, Tibetans, and all other non-Han ethnic groups.

    I'd say this is a strawman argument, but frankly that seems like a gross understatement. Is any of this even remotely considered anywhere in the US?

    Rightly or wrongly, the only effect this decision has is to state that abortion is not a constitutional right. It does not stipulate whether or not it is legal, which is a legislative issue rather than a judicial one.
    https://thehill.com/regulation/court...-lgbtq-rights/

    Straight from the sociopath monster's mouth. Now that they have their foot in the door it's all already as good as done, to jubilant conservative support.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    My article seems to be misquoting one of the sources it has mentioned. Indeed Missouri does allow exceptions for medical emergencies. But not incest or rape.
    Almost like conservatives don't see incest and rape as bad things, like their spiritual brothers in ISIS and Russia.
    Last edited by Coughdrop addict; June 25, 2022 at 02:02 AM.

  11. #171
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    16,856

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/roe-dead-...160423833.html

    Republicans are now calling for a nation wide abortion ban. So much for small government. A minority forcing it's views upon the majority will backfire.

  12. #172

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar
    The unborn' are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe.
    The unborn' are a convenient group of people to dismiss. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike conservatives of color, pro life women, or the working class; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are too politically correct; unlike parents, they don’t ask you to question CRT in schools; unlike Christian churches, they don’t provide money, education, or childcare in ways you dislike; unlike born white people, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and you can forget about them, because they are silent. You can kill the unborn and dismiss them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to disregard if you want to claim you love human rights, but actually dislike humans.
    Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



    If we were to establish a government based on the teachings of the New Testament, we’d have a much more robust social safety net and most forms of personal wealth would be communal property of some sort, to be distributed by the Church (Acts 2:42-45, 4:32). We’d also be tying millstones around the necks of abortionists and people who take kids to drag shows, make films about child strippers, or indoctrinate kids with CRT, for example, and throwing them in the ocean (Luke 17 1-2). Adultery and fornication would be outlawed on pain of amputation or worse (Matthew 5:27-32), as would homosexuality (Romans 1:20-32). Anyone who resists the government would be charged with a crime, unless resistance is compelled by divine law. (Mark 12:15-17, I Peter 2:13-15) There would be no such thing as transgenderism (Mark 10:6-9). Everyone would keep weapons for the purposes of self defense in case the community is attacked (Luke 22:35-38). American citizens would be under pressure to convert to Christianity, to live by it and spread it all over the world (Matthew 28:16-20). International borders would be inviolate (Acts 17:24-27) and restrictions established by the authorities must be obeyed (Romans 13:1-7), causing millions of immigrants to be deported back to their home countries. On and on. So if you really want the Bible to make the rules, just know your entire worldview would be obsolete.
    Last edited by Lord Thesaurian; June 25, 2022 at 07:39 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    I'm convinced that if the U.S. wanted, they could solve the conflict in 48 hours.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    No, we don't care about your libertarian "evidence".

  13. #173

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/roe-dead-...160423833.html

    Republicans are now calling for a nation wide abortion ban. So much for small government. A minority forcing it's views upon the majority will backfire.
    With all of their gerrymandering, voter suppression, and new laws that essentially allow them to hand themselves the win by merely alleging fraud, the Republicans have assured permanent minority rule. They no longer need voters. I doubt there will by any further elections after 2024.

    The one silver lining is that all of the conservatives cheering right now, their usefulness to the party has now ended. They will be surprised to find themselves in line for oppression before too long, simply because they no longer have anything the party wants. They will be subjugated, impoverished, stripped of their civil rights, and reduced to what will basically be serfdom. Because to the Republican elite they are, and have always been, no different than any other peasant.

  14. #174

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/roe-dead-...160423833.html

    Republicans are now calling for a nation wide abortion ban. So much for small government. A minority forcing it's views upon the majority will backfire.
    Even an insubstantial majority "forcing its views" on the majority will cause polarization and agitation. This is why the Senate filibuster is such a useful tool. And since the GOP lacks even a majority in either chamber or an ally in the White House, there will be no "nationwide abortion ban" anytime soon.



  15. #175
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    16,972

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    I said

    Emphasis mine.


    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    But only if one invokes religion does it make sense to define personhood biologically. Otherwise the foundation of rights is a social contract, and how can something that isn't born be a participant in a social contract?
    An unborn person participates in the social contract the same way a child participates in a social contract, via the potential contribution it will make to society and our species in general. If we do not perpetuate our species, our species will not survive. This is the reason why we invest so much in children, it's the reason why civilized countries invest resources in caring for pregnant and young mothers so they can focus exclusively on the child.

    Contraception now is easier, better and more widely available that it has ever been in history. If you get an unwanted pregnancy, that's on you.
    Last edited by Sir Adrian; June 25, 2022 at 09:01 AM.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  16. #176

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade





    Wow... made me think...
    Ignore List (to save time):

    Exarch, Coughdrop addict

  17. #177
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    16,856

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    Even an insubstantial majority "forcing its views" on the majority will cause polarization and agitation. This is why the Senate filibuster is such a useful tool. And since the GOP lacks even a majority in either chamber or an ally in the White House, there will be no "nationwide abortion ban" anytime soon.
    You and I both know the Republicans will win in mid-terms and likely the the Presidency. So it's simply a matter of time honestly.

    And you can hash it anyway you want. A nationwide abortion ban is not popular in anyway. The only hing that will do is hurt Republicans. As it is now when it comes to abortion single issue voters tend to be very Republican. Democrats don't tend to vote on candidates solely based on their abortion. That's going to change as it is now. A nationwide abortion would make it even worse for Republicans. That's not going to matter in red states. But swing states? Most definitely.

  18. #178

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    'The unborn' are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.
    Supporting the right to life is indeed morally uncomplicated. And everyone's favourite anti-theist agrees:


    What about the feminist claim that abortion is an issue of a woman’s right to control her own body?


    Look, once you allow that the occupant of the womb is even potentially a life, it cuts athwart any glib invocation of “the woman’s right to choose.” If the unborn is a candidate member of the next generation, it means that it is society’s responsibility. I used to argue that if this is denied, you might as well permit abortion in the third trimester. I wasn’t as surprised as perhaps I ought to have been when some feminists—only some, and partly to annoy—said yes to that. They at least were prepared to accept their own logic, and say that the unborn is nobody’s business but theirs. That is a very reactionary and selfish position, and it stems from this original evasion about the fetus being “merely” an appendage.

    But it’s only an evasion if we have some firm grounds for suspecting that the fetus is a human being.


    True. But I think that by now we know where babies come from. And dialectics will tell you that you can’t be meaningfully inhuman unless you are actually or potentially human as well. Pointless to describe a rat or a snake, say, as behaving in an inhuman fashion. I put the question like this. You see a woman kicked in the stomach. Your instinct is properly one of revulsion. You learn that the woman is pregnant. Who will reply that this discovery does not multiply their revulsion? And who will say that this is only because it makes it worse for the woman? I don’t think this is just an instinctive or an emotional reaction (not that we should always distrust our instincts and emotions either). We are stuck with a basic reverence for life.

    But aren’t all these notions of the sanctity of human life and so on alien to your otherwise Marxist view of the world?


    Hitchens: On the contrary. As a materialist I hold that we don’t have bodies, we are bodies. And as an atheist I believe that we do not have the consolation of the afterlife. We have only one life to live, so it had better be good. All the nonsense we hear about mediate and immediate animation, the point where a soul enters the unborn and so on, is at best beside the point. It has in common with the sectarian feminist view a complete contempt for science and the theory of evolution—which establishes beyond reasonable doubt that life is a continuum that begins at conception because it can’t begin anywhere else.


    https://www.crisismagazine.com/2019/...ainst-abortion



  19. #179

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    You and I both know the Republicans will win in mid-terms and likely the the Presidency. So it's simply a matter of time honestly.

    And you can hash it anyway you want. A nationwide abortion ban is not popular in anyway. The only hing that will do is hurt Republicans. As it is now when it comes to abortion single issue voters tend to be very Republican. Democrats don't tend to vote on candidates solely based on their abortion. That's going to change as it is now. A nationwide abortion would make it even worse for Republicans. That's not going to matter in red states. But swing states? Most definitely.
    On it's face, this argument seems self-contradictory. On the one hand there is an expectation that the GOP is going to regain both chambers of Congress and the presidency; on the other there is an expectation that the repeal of Roe and Casey combined with the conservative view on abortion is going to damage the GOP (already in a minority position) electorally.

    The picture right now is that the GOP will likely take control of the House, and possibly (but not probably) the Senate. It is very unlikely that they will achieve a filibuster proof majority. The presidency is an unknown until we know the candidates.

    As to the point about a prospective "nationwide abortion ban" hurting Republicans, the obvious retort is twofold: (1) if the electorate deliver the GOP filibuster-proof control of Congress and the WH (a requirement to ban abortion federally), they would have a clear mandate to proceed in introducing federal limitations and; (2) the point of attaining office is not simply to occupy the space, it is to advance specific priorities.



  20. #180
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    16,856

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    On it's face, this argument seems self-contradictory. On the one hand there is an expectation that the GOP is going to regain both chambers of Congress and the presidency; on the other there is an expectation that the repeal of Roe and Casey combined with the conservative view on abortion is going to damage the GOP (already in a minority position) electorally.
    I didn't realize winning an election and doing something to damage your election chances were mutually exclusive. Funny enough the GOP can win the mid-terms but not win as many seats as they could have due to the political issue of abortion. Didn't really think I needed to explain that.


    The picture right now is that the GOP will likely take control of the House, and possibly (but not probably) the Senate. It is very unlikely that they will achieve a filibuster proof majority. The presidency is an unknown until we know the candidates.

    As to the point about a prospective "nationwide abortion ban" hurting Republicans, the obvious retort is twofold: (1) if the electorate deliver the GOP filibuster-proof control of Congress and the WH (a requirement to ban abortion federally), they would have a clear mandate to proceed in introducing federal limitations and; (2) the point of attaining office is not simply to
    occupy the space, it is to advance specific priorities.
    Sure if people only elect candidates to Congress based solely on their positions on abortion. And yet most voters aren't single issue voters so that doesn't make much sense and contradicts current public opinion to access to abortion. I highly doubt over time Americans are going to be more pro-life.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •