Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

[chilon]

I’d be surprised if we don’t get another summer of “fiery but mostly peaceful protests” out of this, and all over the potential of having to drive a few hours to a blue state to get an abortion. Peak clown world. But today is a day for joy and a day for humanity. Potentially hundreds of thousands of lives saved until the Democrats figure out a workaround, who will then grow up and have babies of their own. Gen Z is already likely the smallest generation in our nation’s history and it will already cause massive problems. Hopefully this will help some.

Disgusting post but at least you show your true colors.

Wow... made me think...

You are posting an image that calls Obama a Sunni Muslim unironically? Wow...

Meanwhile, already we see violence from the right-wing with an Iowa pickup driver hit and run on a group of peaceful protesters, yet again showing which side is using violence:


"

• A truck drove into pro-choice protesters who were demonstrating against the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
• Videos of the incident show protesters trying to stop the car in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
• Witnesses said that at least one woman had to be hospitalized after the incident.

A truck drove into a group of pro-choice protesters in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on Friday, leading to at least one woman being hospitalized."
https://sports.yahoo.com/pickup-truc...100653951.html

[PointOfViewGun]

I said
Emphasis mine.

Article 3 doesn't change what the article 1 says.

[PointOfViewGun]

Anti-abortion stance is substantially hypocritical. Calling abortion murder means that all abortion are crime, regardless of the circumstances. Yet, most anti-abortion people are OK with certain exceptions. Yet, in a normal murder case we don't really consider exceptions other than self-defense which is not really applicable to abortion. In its core, anti-abortion stance does not stem from a moral standpoint. It mostly stems from being against pro-choice people. It's as pathetic as it gets.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Meanwhile, already we see violence from the right-wing with an Iowa pickup driver hit and run on a group of peaceful protesters, yet again showing which side is using violence:

Meanwhile the FBI is investigating attacks on Christian organizations and pro-life pregnancy centers as potential domestic terrorism.

The FBI National Press Office shared the following statement with News10NBC:
"The FBI is investigating a series of attacks and threats targeting pregnancy resource centers and faith-based organizations across the country. The FBI takes all threats seriously and we continue to work closely with our law enforcement partners and will remain vigilant to protect our communities. We would like to remind members of the public that if they observe anything suspicious or have information about potential threats to report it to law enforcement immediately, call their local FBI field office, or submit a tip to tips.fbi.gov."

https://www.whec.com/news/fbi-invest...nters/6502747/

There have been over 40 “incidents of violence, vandalism and intimidation” committed by pro-abortion activists since the Dobbs decision was leaked.

[Akar]

Equating vandalism to murders and firebombings, lol. Typical false equivalencies.

On and on. So if you really want the Bible to make the rules, just know your entire worldview would be obsolete.

Uhh, you do realize you're the one who wants the Bible to make the rules, right?

Or do you really think that I of all people is making the case for Biblical Sharia law? We both know that you're smarter than that. You can do better than blatant falsehoods and disingenuous statements..

I’d be surprised if we don’t get another summer of “fiery but mostly peaceful protests” out of this, and all over the potential of having to drive a few hours to a blue state to get an abortion. Peak clown world. But today is a day for joy and a day for humanity. Potentially hundreds of thousands of lives saved until the Democrats figure out a workaround, who will then grow up and have babies of their own. Gen Z is already likely the smallest generation in our nation’s history and it will already cause massive problems. Hopefully this will help some.

Well that's definitely one of the more reprehensible things I've seen posted here, nicely done.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Equating vandalism to murders and firebombings, lol. Typical false equivalencies.

Nothing there about murders or firebombings, unless you mean the arson of pro-life clinics and the attempted murder of Justice Kavanaugh since May.

Uhh, you do realize you're the one who wants the Bible to make the rules, right?

Or do you really think that I of all people is making the case for Biblical Sharia law? We both know that you're smarter than that. You can do better than blatant falsehoods and disingenuous statements..

I merely exposed disingenuous bait as sophistry.

[Akar]

Nothing there about murders or firebombings,

Are you trying to get an award for missing the point the most times in a conversation?

[Roma_Victrix]

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.

Try saying that to women who wanted pregnancy but then later learned the fetus wasn't viable, that they have Maternal Sepsis infection of the uterus, that the fetus has died, or that the mother has developed a chronic disease that will cause their deaths. Contraception is totally irrelevant in all of these cases, and for that matter is not always a 100% guarantee.

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).

So basically Iron Age socialism. Funny how American conservatives want to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they like or dislike and act according to their opinions rather than actual scripture. I'm not saying we should have a theocracy, and we are thankfully a secular country (for now), but the diehard hardcore religious nuts somehow never embrace the pacifism of Jesus or for that matter healing the sick and feeding the poor. Conservatives don't believe in any welfare of any kind aside from maybe hypocritical Boomer senior citizens who vote Republican and say that "the government" should keep their hands off their Medicare and Social Security (oh the irony).

The truly backwards thing about the overturn of Roe v Wade is the fact that the US not only doesn't have universal healthcare or universal childcare, but now has the dystopian nightmare of baby formula shortages and routine mass shootings at schools. More children born today means more in abject poverty and misery, and the Republican Party has no interest in actually looking out for these children once they are out of the womb, not even with school lunches. How are kids supposed to function in school on an empty stomach, the kids that conservatives want to be forcefully born? That's how warped and twisted the right-wing is in the US. At least British Tory conservatives take pride in their UK National Health Service. American conservatives are uniquely evil.

[Cope]

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.

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.

It was claimed that the ruling (which has been a major conservative objective for decades) will be a "prime example of conservative politics utterly backfiring". Yet this warning is paired with the contradictory claim that the GOP will win an historic filibuster-proof trifecta with which they will institute another major long-term objective. So according to this rationale, the GOP are somehow self-sabotaging by getting the ruling that they want, the elections that they want and the policies that they want.

Looks like Roe v Wade might be overturned. Not a good thing to happen before midterms. You might end up galvanizing the Democratic base and the many independent voters who are pro-choice

It's going to create a firestorm because the majority of Americans support the right for women to seek an abortion. Whenever you believe it's constitutional or not the majority of Americans will not support overturning Roe v Wade. The Republican strategy of turning the court conservative is now going to backfire. Republicans given the Democrats ammunition for the mid-terms and the next two years to the next presidential elections. The Democrats are going to argue very easily that Republicans are taking away American rights. And they technically are even if you don't believe it should have been a right in the first place.

Republicans may have also convinced Americans sitting on the fence about the Supreme Court that it has become to conservative and more people may support packing the court. The overturning if Roe v Wade alone is going to shame the court for years.

This is going to be a prime example of conservative politics utterly backfiring on them.

[Sir Adrian]

Article 3 doesn't change what the article 1 says.

Aticle 1 is not the article that mentions the right to life. Article 3 does on the other hand.

Anti-abortion stance is substantially hypocritical. Calling abortion murder means that all abortion are crime, regardless of the circumstances. Yet, most anti-abortion people are OK with certain exceptions. Yet, in a normal murder case we don't really consider exceptions other than self-defense which is not really applicable to abortion. In its core, anti-abortion stance does not stem from a moral standpoint. It mostly stems from being against pro-choice people. It's as pathetic as it gets.

So you think the baby's life is more important that the mother's then.

[PointOfViewGun]

Aticle 1 is not the article that mentions the right to life. Article 3 does on the other hand.

Article 1 is the article that basically defines a human being which it starts at birth, not before. The "everyone" in Article 3 are the human beings that are born in Article 1.

So you think the baby's life is more important that the mother's then.

Not sure how you could constitute what I said to mean as such.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Try saying that to women who wanted pregnancy but then later learned the fetus wasn't viable, that they have Maternal Sepsis infection of the uterus, that the fetus has died, or that the mother has developed a chronic disease that will cause their deaths. Contraception is totally irrelevant in all of these cases, and for that matter is not always a 100% guarantee.

Around 1% of abortions are due to rape, incest, fetal abnormality or a threat to the life of the mother. This is based on a 2018 survey over 70,000 abortions in Florida. This is consistent with the national samples that are available. If Democrats must rely on an extreme minority of cases to justify abortion, they could have crafted federal legislation in the last 50 years protecting abortion under those circumstances - or frankly any circumstances they chose, given they had a supermajority in Congress as recently as 2008 and 1993.

So basically Iron Age socialism. Funny how American conservatives want to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they like or dislike and act according to their opinions rather than actual scripture. I'm not saying we should have a theocracy, and we are thankfully a secular country (for now), but the diehard hardcore religious nuts somehow never embrace the pacifism of Jesus or for that matter healing the sick and feeding the poor. Conservatives don't believe in any welfare of any kind aside from maybe hypocritical Boomer senior citizens who vote Republican and say that "the government" should keep their hands off their Medicare and Social Security (oh the irony).

It’s as absurd to believe conservatives ought to support abortion as it is to see liberals appeal to purity in social matters of Biblical governance. There is no Constitutional, let alone Biblical, right to abortion. This shouldn’t be hard to grasp for people who like to pretend the 2A doesn’t say what it does.

The truly backwards thing about the overturn of Roe v Wade is the fact that the US not only doesn't have universal healthcare or universal childcare, but now has the dystopian nightmare of baby formula shortages and routine mass shootings at schools. More children born today means more in abject poverty and misery, and the Republican Party has no interest in actually looking out for these children once they are out of the womb, not even with school lunches. How are kids supposed to function in school on an empty stomach, the kids that conservatives want to be forcefully born? That's how warped and twisted the right-wing is in the US. At least British Tory conservatives take pride in their UK National Health Service. American conservatives are uniquely evil.

American conservatives would be very evil, backwards and hypocritical if they did advocate for the absolute right to euthanize human beings deemed a burden to their family or to society, or just because some people think the world is too y to be worth living in. That said, it’s a chilling yet common justification among abortion advocates.

[Sir Adrian]

Article 1 is the article that basically defines a human being which it starts at birth, not before. The "everyone" in Article 3 are the human beings that are born in Article 1.

This is objectively not true and an extremely weak strawman to boot. Besides the right life of every human being is stipulated in a lot more than just the UCRM. You might want to check the US Declaration of Independence.

But hey if you are ready to die on the hill "people who are not born free and equal in dignity are not human beings" be my guest. I am sure it will only end well.

Not sure how you could constitute what I said to mean as such.

Your argument is that anti-abortionists are hypocrites because they are willing to accept abortion when the mother's life is in danger and you are argue that such a position is incorrect. The opposite of accepting abortion when the life of the mother is in danger is to not accept it. By extension this means that you value the life of the child more.

They're your words Seth not mine, no idea why your own position has you confused.

[Vanoi]

It was claimed that the ruling (which has been a major conservative objective for decades) will be a "prime example of conservative politics utterly backfiring".

Going back pages to quote posts I haven't made in weeks? Really? Are you actually going to address my current post? You just ignored everything i said. Classic Cope.

Yet this warning is paired with the contradictory claim that the GOP will win an historic filibuster-proof trifecta with which they will institute another major long-term objective. So according to this rationale, the GOP are somehow self-sabotaging by getting the ruling that they want, the elections that they want and the policies that they want.

Not contradictory as I have explained. In fact you haven't addressed one part of my actual post All you did was quote posts I made weeks ago.

As I explained you can definitely hurt yourself and still win. The GOP can win this year and in 2024. And yet their abortion views can still harm they number of seats they can take or how well this when the Presidency. And funny enough there will be elections after 2024. We could see the aftermath then after years of GOP dominance.

EDIT: Just realized that you actually quoted my posts from almost two months ago. Really Cope?

[Coughdrop addict]

Just a few questions for the forced-birth crowd:

1. Were all the women and girls who have been raped and impregnated by Russian stormtroopers in Ukraine asking for it? Should they have just "laid back and enjoyed it"?

2. Would you jail them for seeking abortions?

3. Would you execute them for having one?

4. Should a raped 11-year old be allowed to abort?

5. Is the rape and pregnancy and forced birth her divine punishment for wearing a short skirt around a man?

6. Should she be jailed for seeking an abortion?

7. Should she be executed for having one?

8: If birth is always a positive thing and there is no reason to ever abort, then why should incest resulting in pregnancy be illegal?

[Sir Adrian]

What do brazilian rape victims have to do with the US Supreme Court allowing states to decide on abortion?

[Genava]

Around 1% of abortions are due to rape, incest, fetal abnormality or a threat to the life of the mother. This is based on a 2018 survey over 70,000 abortions in Florida. This is consistent with the national samples that are available. If Democrats must rely on an extreme minority of cases to justify abortion, they could have crafted federal legislation in the last 50 years protecting abortion under those circumstances - or frankly any circumstances they chose, given they had a supermajority in Congress as recently as 2008 and 1993.

It still a case to take in account in the law and the recent example of the abortion in Brazil where the judge did everything to delay the abortion of an 11 y-old girl is a reminder that in practice, asking for the justice to give you the authorization to abort is a bureaucratic nightmare.

[PointOfViewGun]

This is objectively not true and an extremely weak strawman to boot. Besides the right life of every human being is stipulated in a lot more than just the UCRM. You might want to check the US Declaration of Independence.

But hey if you are ready to die on the hill "people who are not born free and equal in dignity are not human beings" be my guest. I am sure it will only end well.

It's a matter of fact. You might want to make you check the subject before jumping the gun.

Human Rights Begin at Birth: International Law and the Claim of Fetal Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human RightsArticle 1 opens the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with the fundamental statement of inalienability: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” (Art.1). Significantly, the word “born” was used intentionally to exclude the fetus or any antenatal application of human rights. An amendment was proposed and rejected that would have deleted the word “born” , in part, it was argued, to protect the right to life from the moment of conception. The representative from France explained that the statement “All human beings are born free and equal…” meant that the right to freedom and equality was “inherent from the moment of birth” (p.116). Article 1 was adopted with this language by 45 votes, with nine abstentions. Thus, a fetus has no rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The deliberately gender-neutral term “everyone” (p.233), utilised thereafter in the Declaration to define the holders of human rights, refers to born persons only.

Your argument is that anti-abortionists are hypocrites because they are willing to accept abortion when the mother's life is in danger and you are argue that such a position is incorrect. The opposite of accepting abortion when the life of the mother is in danger is to not accept it. By extension this means that you value the life of the child more.
They're your words Seth not mine, no idea why your own position has you confused.

Sigh... When we evaluate whether something is hypocritical or not we use the logic used by those people, not our own. How this is not obvious is beyond me.

[Cope]

Your argument is that anti-abortionists are hypocrites because they are willing to accept abortion when the mother's life is in danger and you are argue that such a position is incorrect. The opposite of accepting abortion when the life of the mother is in danger is to not accept it. By extension this means that you value the life of the child more.

They're your words Seth not mine, no idea why your own position has you confused.

The accusation of hypocrisy raised in P#183 is incoherent. Emergency abortions and self-defence are predicated on the same reasoning: deadly force is justified as a last resort to protect oneself from death or serious bodily injury.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Never thought I'd live to see it. The American holocaust has been put on pause for now, but I am sure California will soon pass laws legalizing infanticide up to six months or something similarly objectively evil and insane.