Off Topic · OT - Roe V Wade overturned (page 4)

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:People who should be excluded from deciding on this issue:

1) Men
2) Women beyond their child bearing years
3) Married women

I find it interesting how people who will either never need to make this decision and people who are likely to have a system of support if they found themselves in an unwanted pregnancy, they have so much to say when imposing their beliefs on a small population of women who are confronted with having to actually deal with whether or not to carry out an unwanted pregnancy.

When people site god and religion for their anti-abortion stance, I always wonder why they do not equally advocate for outlawing divorce? Religiously it's just as frowned upon as abortion. Could it be that since half of marriages end in divorce more people are comfortable overlooking that sin since there's a strong chance it may directly affect them? But since abortion or gay rights only affects a small percentage of the population, those are the popular sins to focus on.

Again, I have no problem with people having their beliefs and living their life based on their beliefs. But when it comes to imposing on others, it needs to be based on facts, not your beliefs or religion. And referring to someone who has an abortion with the same terminology as a gang member who shoots someone in the head on the streets is very inappropriate.

Food for thought.

In 2019 the were 629,898 reported legal abortions to the CDC but states such as California, New Hampshire, and Maryland doesn't report to the CDC because it's voluntary. The World Health Organization estimates abortions in the US to be around 886,000. 629,898 is not a small number and for context, that's a tad below the entire population of Detroit and more than the populations of cities such as Baltimore, Milwaukee, Kansas City, and Atlanta. The number of abortions performed since 1973 is equivalent to the Holocaust happening 10 times.

Again, I get how framing things for sensationalism and shock value can be an effective way of advancing the agenda. Here are the straight facts minus injecting P.R. language. Let's go with your number: 629,898 legal abortions, there are almost 260 million adults in the U.S. over 18 years old. That's around 0.24% of the adult population.

Thanks for proving my point. That's around .24% of the US population on a YEARLY basis. Multiply by x number of years and the percentages increase. Since when is using fact P.R. language?

But what's the point? No matter how you slice it, it's still a very small percentage of the population having your belief system imposed on them.

SupremeCommander wrote:

DJMUSIC wrote:

dwiley20 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

dwiley20 wrote:great day for America....yall are murderers...plain n simple

I always thought you were a few cards short.. I always wondered how the product of incest would feel during discussion

you can try to justify murder all u want....the simple to the most extreme....im happy i wasnt aborted

Agree with you dwiley20

Many on this thread need go see " Unplanned " I wrote review for one of our word Catholic ministries, cried first 5 min. Of movie flick. Watching small innocent unborn fetus trying to swim around inside woman system. ALL until a Large Pro sports Gatorade tank & fetus pump sucked it out like melted tomato juice filling up Gatorade tank.

Yep I wrote article on Movie & cried in my editorial.
Peoples hurt people (even fetus) not science not laws but peoples!
And ya know what?? If Americans or any other countries going to F$%$K
AND SCREW EVERY ONE'S They want & produce babies & cant figure out bleeping contraceptives uses then blank%$$ the human side of decisions killing the unborns.

Shame on this country for the rapes, the uncles & dark sheep people banging anything they want & want. Sleeping with their own family relatives to justify killing fetus for rights. RIGHTS?.,Whom?
Agencies exist for Adopting unwanted accidents. Even by family sleeping around! Disgusting!
AND GOOD GOD Is and has WATCHED it all...when Earth was created

Little fetus avoiding death is NO accident.
NO different than an intruder breaking into yo' freaking home & trying to commit thefts & murder. Then your fighting for your LIFE. same as fetus.

CAUSE YOU HAVE NO FLIPPING RIGHT TO COMMIT WHAT GOD'S CREATED IN NEW LIFE BORN!

I said my peace best I 😌 can explain it
THINK ABOUT IT😶

This disgusts me. You think that you walk with God with this… maybe you and your ilk should focus on the fact that organized religion in the country protects the rights of serial child abusers and harbors child rapists.

If anti abortion was about the children of God you and your people would have extracted that societal cancer from your churches.

You are propagating a narrow, exclusive world view on everyone. Shame on you and your kind for perpetuating the trauma delivered to children and doing not a God dammed thing about it. And shame on you for judging women from a great height without hearing them testify. I thought church men had the kind of empathy you are devoid of

There going to after birth control next. At some point there will only be 1 choice left

wargames wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

wargames wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

martin wrote:This is reality in one state. Today.

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/NicoleClowneyAR/status/1540349909311832067?s=20&t=W2Wl70piZ6c_S-ClIkoxIw

Click here to view the Tweet

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/NicoleClowneyAR/status/1540349912956780547?s=20&t=W2Wl70piZ6c_S-ClIkoxIw

Click here to view the Tweet

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/NicoleClowneyAR/status/1540349925531168769?s=20&t=W2Wl70piZ6c_S-ClIkoxIw

Click here to view the Tweet

I personally think it's insane but it's a state issue and would like to think that rational and logical thinking/reasoning will prevail.

That’s bullshit because they just took away the states right to regulate gun licenses…

You can’t waive this away as a state issue the Supreme Court is a radical body and they are making choices based on their politics with no legal standing.

Negative sir. New York can no longer dictate the number of licenses provided to citizens who should have never been denied the right to carry a firearm. The denial was found to be unconstitutional.

Bullshit…. Also don’t call me Sir. It makes it seem like you’re trying to be reasonable when your argument is anything but.

It’s all the same issue regarding state rights. States are going to dictate the number of abortions that take place within them. Also don’t say “well the constitution” because the constitution isn’t sacred and that same argument was used to support other monstrous policies like slavery and segregation for most of this countries existence.

There is no justification for this change besides they wanted to do it. In literally a two day span this particular court has lost any legal justification for its decision making besides “we have power” which is fantastic because it’s the minority dictating terms on the majority.If they were a states right court they would have allowed NY to continue to dictate gun licenses within its borders. At least then what they did today could have been justified as them being a court that was supportive of states rights as you like to say.

I'm unreasonable because I you don't agree with my point of view?

I never said the constitution was sacred. If it were sacred there would be no way to ratify the constitution which eliminated policies like slavery and segregation. If the constitution were sacred Roe v Wade would have never been put into law in 1973.

"Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the majority opinion for the ideologically divided court, writing that New York's "proper-cause requirement" prevented law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment right, and its licensing regime is unconstitutional."

New York state can still prevent non-law-abiding citizens from carrying a firearm. What made the licensing unconstitutional is that New York State was providing licenses to some law-abiding citizens but not all law-abiding citizens using the proper clause requirement thus violating the 2nd Amendment.

"Under the law in place since 1913, a person applying for a license to carry a concealed handgun in public has to show "proper cause," or a specific need, to carry the weapon."

New York state can create restrictions as long as the state does not violate the constitution. Every state has its own constitution but it cannot infringe on the constitution of the U.S. State law cannot infringe upon federal law.

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:People who should be excluded from deciding on this issue:

1) Men
2) Women beyond their child bearing years
3) Married women

I find it interesting how people who will either never need to make this decision and people who are likely to have a system of support if they found themselves in an unwanted pregnancy, they have so much to say when imposing their beliefs on a small population of women who are confronted with having to actually deal with whether or not to carry out an unwanted pregnancy.

When people site god and religion for their anti-abortion stance, I always wonder why they do not equally advocate for outlawing divorce? Religiously it's just as frowned upon as abortion. Could it be that since half of marriages end in divorce more people are comfortable overlooking that sin since there's a strong chance it may directly affect them? But since abortion or gay rights only affects a small percentage of the population, those are the popular sins to focus on.

Again, I have no problem with people having their beliefs and living their life based on their beliefs. But when it comes to imposing on others, it needs to be based on facts, not your beliefs or religion. And referring to someone who has an abortion with the same terminology as a gang member who shoots someone in the head on the streets is very inappropriate.

Food for thought.

In 2019 the were 629,898 reported legal abortions to the CDC but states such as California, New Hampshire, and Maryland doesn't report to the CDC because it's voluntary. The World Health Organization estimates abortions in the US to be around 886,000. 629,898 is not a small number and for context, that's a tad below the entire population of Detroit and more than the populations of cities such as Baltimore, Milwaukee, Kansas City, and Atlanta. The number of abortions performed since 1973 is equivalent to the Holocaust happening 10 times.

Again, I get how framing things for sensationalism and shock value can be an effective way of advancing the agenda. Here are the straight facts minus injecting P.R. language. Let's go with your number: 629,898 legal abortions, there are almost 260 million adults in the U.S. over 18 years old. That's around 0.24% of the adult population.

Thanks for proving my point. That's around .24% of the US population on a YEARLY basis. Multiply by x number of years and the percentages increase. Since when is using fact P.R. language?

Yet the same party that wants to force birth could give a shit what happens to them once their born. You going to force child support at conception? You going to provide prenatal care? The same party voted against school lunches. The truth is they don't give 2 shits about what happens to those kids. They just want to force woman out of the workforce or even more sinsiter try to limit their abaility to vote. They can stop Millenials and Zoomers for voting if they are convicted of a felony.

How are you going to prosecute womans going out of state for abortions. Texas encourages neighbors to report on each other. How are they going to enforce that? A taskforce of old men charged with inspecting young girls to make sure they didn't get an abortion when they went on vacation?

Look at this.
Legal experts fear that prosecutors will use intimate pieces of evidence, such as text messages, internet search history and period tracking apps to build their cases, as well as, perhaps, information gathered from medical professionals.

You good with this?

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:People who should be excluded from deciding on this issue:

1) Men
2) Women beyond their child bearing years
3) Married women

I find it interesting how people who will either never need to make this decision and people who are likely to have a system of support if they found themselves in an unwanted pregnancy, they have so much to say when imposing their beliefs on a small population of women who are confronted with having to actually deal with whether or not to carry out an unwanted pregnancy.

When people site god and religion for their anti-abortion stance, I always wonder why they do not equally advocate for outlawing divorce? Religiously it's just as frowned upon as abortion. Could it be that since half of marriages end in divorce more people are comfortable overlooking that sin since there's a strong chance it may directly affect them? But since abortion or gay rights only affects a small percentage of the population, those are the popular sins to focus on.

Again, I have no problem with people having their beliefs and living their life based on their beliefs. But when it comes to imposing on others, it needs to be based on facts, not your beliefs or religion. And referring to someone who has an abortion with the same terminology as a gang member who shoots someone in the head on the streets is very inappropriate.

Food for thought.

In 2019 the were 629,898 reported legal abortions to the CDC but states such as California, New Hampshire, and Maryland doesn't report to the CDC because it's voluntary. The World Health Organization estimates abortions in the US to be around 886,000. 629,898 is not a small number and for context, that's a tad below the entire population of Detroit and more than the populations of cities such as Baltimore, Milwaukee, Kansas City, and Atlanta. The number of abortions performed since 1973 is equivalent to the Holocaust happening 10 times.

Again, I get how framing things for sensationalism and shock value can be an effective way of advancing the agenda. Here are the straight facts minus injecting P.R. language. Let's go with your number: 629,898 legal abortions, there are almost 260 million adults in the U.S. over 18 years old. That's around 0.24% of the adult population.

Thanks for proving my point. That's around .24% of the US population on a YEARLY basis. Multiply by x number of years and the percentages increase. Since when is using fact P.R. language?

But what's the point? No matter how you slice it, it's still a very small percentage of the population having your belief system imposed on them.

It's not my belief system being imposed on anyone. This is an issue of morality and society dictates morality.

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:People who should be excluded from deciding on this issue:

1) Men
2) Women beyond their child bearing years
3) Married women

I find it interesting how people who will either never need to make this decision and people who are likely to have a system of support if they found themselves in an unwanted pregnancy, they have so much to say when imposing their beliefs on a small population of women who are confronted with having to actually deal with whether or not to carry out an unwanted pregnancy.

When people site god and religion for their anti-abortion stance, I always wonder why they do not equally advocate for outlawing divorce? Religiously it's just as frowned upon as abortion. Could it be that since half of marriages end in divorce more people are comfortable overlooking that sin since there's a strong chance it may directly affect them? But since abortion or gay rights only affects a small percentage of the population, those are the popular sins to focus on.

Again, I have no problem with people having their beliefs and living their life based on their beliefs. But when it comes to imposing on others, it needs to be based on facts, not your beliefs or religion. And referring to someone who has an abortion with the same terminology as a gang member who shoots someone in the head on the streets is very inappropriate.

Food for thought.

In 2019 the were 629,898 reported legal abortions to the CDC but states such as California, New Hampshire, and Maryland doesn't report to the CDC because it's voluntary. The World Health Organization estimates abortions in the US to be around 886,000. 629,898 is not a small number and for context, that's a tad below the entire population of Detroit and more than the populations of cities such as Baltimore, Milwaukee, Kansas City, and Atlanta. The number of abortions performed since 1973 is equivalent to the Holocaust happening 10 times.

Again, I get how framing things for sensationalism and shock value can be an effective way of advancing the agenda. Here are the straight facts minus injecting P.R. language. Let's go with your number: 629,898 legal abortions, there are almost 260 million adults in the U.S. over 18 years old. That's around 0.24% of the adult population.

Thanks for proving my point. That's around .24% of the US population on a YEARLY basis. Multiply by x number of years and the percentages increase. Since when is using fact P.R. language?

But what's the point? No matter how you slice it, it's still a very small percentage of the population having your belief system imposed on them.

It's not my belief system being imposed on anyone. This is an issue of morality and society dictates morality.

Doesn't society favor legal abortion? Generally it is like ~65% of people who not in favor of overturning Roe vs Wade

By your own statement, society favors legal abortion.

martin wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:People who should be excluded from deciding on this issue:

1) Men
2) Women beyond their child bearing years
3) Married women

I find it interesting how people who will either never need to make this decision and people who are likely to have a system of support if they found themselves in an unwanted pregnancy, they have so much to say when imposing their beliefs on a small population of women who are confronted with having to actually deal with whether or not to carry out an unwanted pregnancy.

When people site god and religion for their anti-abortion stance, I always wonder why they do not equally advocate for outlawing divorce? Religiously it's just as frowned upon as abortion. Could it be that since half of marriages end in divorce more people are comfortable overlooking that sin since there's a strong chance it may directly affect them? But since abortion or gay rights only affects a small percentage of the population, those are the popular sins to focus on.

Again, I have no problem with people having their beliefs and living their life based on their beliefs. But when it comes to imposing on others, it needs to be based on facts, not your beliefs or religion. And referring to someone who has an abortion with the same terminology as a gang member who shoots someone in the head on the streets is very inappropriate.

Food for thought.

In 2019 the were 629,898 reported legal abortions to the CDC but states such as California, New Hampshire, and Maryland doesn't report to the CDC because it's voluntary. The World Health Organization estimates abortions in the US to be around 886,000. 629,898 is not a small number and for context, that's a tad below the entire population of Detroit and more than the populations of cities such as Baltimore, Milwaukee, Kansas City, and Atlanta. The number of abortions performed since 1973 is equivalent to the Holocaust happening 10 times.

Again, I get how framing things for sensationalism and shock value can be an effective way of advancing the agenda. Here are the straight facts minus injecting P.R. language. Let's go with your number: 629,898 legal abortions, there are almost 260 million adults in the U.S. over 18 years old. That's around 0.24% of the adult population.

Thanks for proving my point. That's around .24% of the US population on a YEARLY basis. Multiply by x number of years and the percentages increase. Since when is using fact P.R. language?

But what's the point? No matter how you slice it, it's still a very small percentage of the population having your belief system imposed on them.

It's not my belief system being imposed on anyone. This is an issue of morality and society dictates morality.

Doesn't society favor legal abortion? Generally it is like ~65% of people who not in favor of overturning Roe vs Wade

By your own statement, society favors legal abortion.

They don't care. They want to force their religious beliefs on the country. Republicans I know say I'm overreacting while I watch 1 by 1 they change established court decisions. This Supreme Court allowed tax money to go to religious schools, a blatant violation of separation of church and state. They will try to do a nationwide ban on abortion. You better fucking believe it. This court will pass it too.

Jmpasq wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:People who should be excluded from deciding on this issue:

1) Men
2) Women beyond their child bearing years
3) Married women

I find it interesting how people who will either never need to make this decision and people who are likely to have a system of support if they found themselves in an unwanted pregnancy, they have so much to say when imposing their beliefs on a small population of women who are confronted with having to actually deal with whether or not to carry out an unwanted pregnancy.

When people site god and religion for their anti-abortion stance, I always wonder why they do not equally advocate for outlawing divorce? Religiously it's just as frowned upon as abortion. Could it be that since half of marriages end in divorce more people are comfortable overlooking that sin since there's a strong chance it may directly affect them? But since abortion or gay rights only affects a small percentage of the population, those are the popular sins to focus on.

Again, I have no problem with people having their beliefs and living their life based on their beliefs. But when it comes to imposing on others, it needs to be based on facts, not your beliefs or religion. And referring to someone who has an abortion with the same terminology as a gang member who shoots someone in the head on the streets is very inappropriate.

Food for thought.

In 2019 the were 629,898 reported legal abortions to the CDC but states such as California, New Hampshire, and Maryland doesn't report to the CDC because it's voluntary. The World Health Organization estimates abortions in the US to be around 886,000. 629,898 is not a small number and for context, that's a tad below the entire population of Detroit and more than the populations of cities such as Baltimore, Milwaukee, Kansas City, and Atlanta. The number of abortions performed since 1973 is equivalent to the Holocaust happening 10 times.

Again, I get how framing things for sensationalism and shock value can be an effective way of advancing the agenda. Here are the straight facts minus injecting P.R. language. Let's go with your number: 629,898 legal abortions, there are almost 260 million adults in the U.S. over 18 years old. That's around 0.24% of the adult population.

Thanks for proving my point. That's around .24% of the US population on a YEARLY basis. Multiply by x number of years and the percentages increase. Since when is using fact P.R. language?

Yet the same party that wants to force birth could give a shit what happens to them once their born. You going to force child support at conception? You going to provide prenatal care? The same party voted against school lunches. The truth is they don't give 2 shits about what happens to those kids. They just want to force woman out of the workforce or even more sinsiter try to limit their abaility to vote. They can stop Millenials and Zoomers for voting if they are convicted of a felony.

How are you going to prosecute womans going out of state for abortions. Texas encourages neighbors to report on each other. How are they going to enforce that? A taskforce of old men charged with inspecting young girls to make sure they didn't get an abortion when they went on vacation?

Look at this.
Legal experts fear that prosecutors will use intimate pieces of evidence, such as text messages, internet search history and period tracking apps to build their cases, as well as, perhaps, information gathered from medical professionals.

You good with this?

Republicans want to force women out of the workforce and limit their ability to vote? How?! Allowing or not allowing felons to vote is a state issue and in only 9 states can a felon permanently lose their right to vote. Extending free school lunch was voted 376-42. 42 were republicans but not all republicans voted against it.

Most insurance companies cover prenatal care and for those who cannot afford prenatal care, there are non-profit organizations that provide no-cost assistance. Believe it or not, a child's father is responsible for costs medical costs associated with pregnancy, and in states like California, an unwed father can be required to begin child support payments prior to birth.

I'm great with people breaking laws being prosecuted and leaving it up to the legal system as to how those crimes are prosecuted as long as it's within the guideline of the law.

martin wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:People who should be excluded from deciding on this issue:

1) Men
2) Women beyond their child bearing years
3) Married women

I find it interesting how people who will either never need to make this decision and people who are likely to have a system of support if they found themselves in an unwanted pregnancy, they have so much to say when imposing their beliefs on a small population of women who are confronted with having to actually deal with whether or not to carry out an unwanted pregnancy.

When people site god and religion for their anti-abortion stance, I always wonder why they do not equally advocate for outlawing divorce? Religiously it's just as frowned upon as abortion. Could it be that since half of marriages end in divorce more people are comfortable overlooking that sin since there's a strong chance it may directly affect them? But since abortion or gay rights only affects a small percentage of the population, those are the popular sins to focus on.

Again, I have no problem with people having their beliefs and living their life based on their beliefs. But when it comes to imposing on others, it needs to be based on facts, not your beliefs or religion. And referring to someone who has an abortion with the same terminology as a gang member who shoots someone in the head on the streets is very inappropriate.

Food for thought.

In 2019 the were 629,898 reported legal abortions to the CDC but states such as California, New Hampshire, and Maryland doesn't report to the CDC because it's voluntary. The World Health Organization estimates abortions in the US to be around 886,000. 629,898 is not a small number and for context, that's a tad below the entire population of Detroit and more than the populations of cities such as Baltimore, Milwaukee, Kansas City, and Atlanta. The number of abortions performed since 1973 is equivalent to the Holocaust happening 10 times.

Again, I get how framing things for sensationalism and shock value can be an effective way of advancing the agenda. Here are the straight facts minus injecting P.R. language. Let's go with your number: 629,898 legal abortions, there are almost 260 million adults in the U.S. over 18 years old. That's around 0.24% of the adult population.

Thanks for proving my point. That's around .24% of the US population on a YEARLY basis. Multiply by x number of years and the percentages increase. Since when is using fact P.R. language?

But what's the point? No matter how you slice it, it's still a very small percentage of the population having your belief system imposed on them.

It's not my belief system being imposed on anyone. This is an issue of morality and society dictates morality.

Doesn't society favor legal abortion? Generally it is like ~65% of people who not in favor of overturning Roe vs Wade

By your own statement, society favors legal abortion.

Society is predominantly pro-choice which is why my belief system isn't being imposed on anyone. I believe in what I do and have my reasons why.

Roe V. Wade being overturned and being handed back to the states simply means that if society wants abortion rights then the fight will be at the state level.

After trigger laws go into effect and taking into account states that will place server restrictions approximately half of the states will still provide abortion rights with no change.

Jmpasq wrote:

martin wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:People who should be excluded from deciding on this issue:

1) Men
2) Women beyond their child bearing years
3) Married women

I find it interesting how people who will either never need to make this decision and people who are likely to have a system of support if they found themselves in an unwanted pregnancy, they have so much to say when imposing their beliefs on a small population of women who are confronted with having to actually deal with whether or not to carry out an unwanted pregnancy.

When people site god and religion for their anti-abortion stance, I always wonder why they do not equally advocate for outlawing divorce? Religiously it's just as frowned upon as abortion. Could it be that since half of marriages end in divorce more people are comfortable overlooking that sin since there's a strong chance it may directly affect them? But since abortion or gay rights only affects a small percentage of the population, those are the popular sins to focus on.

Again, I have no problem with people having their beliefs and living their life based on their beliefs. But when it comes to imposing on others, it needs to be based on facts, not your beliefs or religion. And referring to someone who has an abortion with the same terminology as a gang member who shoots someone in the head on the streets is very inappropriate.

Food for thought.

In 2019 the were 629,898 reported legal abortions to the CDC but states such as California, New Hampshire, and Maryland doesn't report to the CDC because it's voluntary. The World Health Organization estimates abortions in the US to be around 886,000. 629,898 is not a small number and for context, that's a tad below the entire population of Detroit and more than the populations of cities such as Baltimore, Milwaukee, Kansas City, and Atlanta. The number of abortions performed since 1973 is equivalent to the Holocaust happening 10 times.

Again, I get how framing things for sensationalism and shock value can be an effective way of advancing the agenda. Here are the straight facts minus injecting P.R. language. Let's go with your number: 629,898 legal abortions, there are almost 260 million adults in the U.S. over 18 years old. That's around 0.24% of the adult population.

Thanks for proving my point. That's around .24% of the US population on a YEARLY basis. Multiply by x number of years and the percentages increase. Since when is using fact P.R. language?

But what's the point? No matter how you slice it, it's still a very small percentage of the population having your belief system imposed on them.

It's not my belief system being imposed on anyone. This is an issue of morality and society dictates morality.

Doesn't society favor legal abortion? Generally it is like ~65% of people who not in favor of overturning Roe vs Wade

By your own statement, society favors legal abortion.

They don't care. They want to force their religious beliefs on the country. Republicans I know say I'm overreacting while I watch 1 by 1 they change established court decisions. This Supreme Court allowed tax money to go to religious schools, a blatant violation of separation of church and state. They will try to do a nationwide ban on abortion. You better fucking believe it. This court will pass it too.

This SC allowed parents to be able to use publicly-funded tuition assistance programs to send their children to private religious schools.

“A state need not subsidize private education,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “But once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”

A religious school is still a private school and if public funds subsidize tuition for private schools that include private religious schools. It's not a violation of the separation of church and state. It did however violate equal protection clauses and religion clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

How will this court pass a nationwide ban on abortion when they just ruled they have no jurisdiction over state abortion laws?

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:People who should be excluded from deciding on this issue:

1) Men
2) Women beyond their child bearing years
3) Married women

I find it interesting how people who will either never need to make this decision and people who are likely to have a system of support if they found themselves in an unwanted pregnancy, they have so much to say when imposing their beliefs on a small population of women who are confronted with having to actually deal with whether or not to carry out an unwanted pregnancy.

When people site god and religion for their anti-abortion stance, I always wonder why they do not equally advocate for outlawing divorce? Religiously it's just as frowned upon as abortion. Could it be that since half of marriages end in divorce more people are comfortable overlooking that sin since there's a strong chance it may directly affect them? But since abortion or gay rights only affects a small percentage of the population, those are the popular sins to focus on.

Again, I have no problem with people having their beliefs and living their life based on their beliefs. But when it comes to imposing on others, it needs to be based on facts, not your beliefs or religion. And referring to someone who has an abortion with the same terminology as a gang member who shoots someone in the head on the streets is very inappropriate.

Food for thought.

In 2019 the were 629,898 reported legal abortions to the CDC but states such as California, New Hampshire, and Maryland doesn't report to the CDC because it's voluntary. The World Health Organization estimates abortions in the US to be around 886,000. 629,898 is not a small number and for context, that's a tad below the entire population of Detroit and more than the populations of cities such as Baltimore, Milwaukee, Kansas City, and Atlanta. The number of abortions performed since 1973 is equivalent to the Holocaust happening 10 times.

Again, I get how framing things for sensationalism and shock value can be an effective way of advancing the agenda. Here are the straight facts minus injecting P.R. language. Let's go with your number: 629,898 legal abortions, there are almost 260 million adults in the U.S. over 18 years old. That's around 0.24% of the adult population.

Thanks for proving my point. That's around .24% of the US population on a YEARLY basis. Multiply by x number of years and the percentages increase. Since when is using fact P.R. language?

But what's the point? No matter how you slice it, it's still a very small percentage of the population having your belief system imposed on them.

It's not my belief system being imposed on anyone. This is an issue of morality and society dictates morality.

What? You realize all of this is the result of people of a certain political persuasion working the system to get judges of the same persuasion on the supreme court. None of this has much to do with what you just posted. It's about judges dying/retiring at the right time under the right president (not to mention that stunt McConnell pulled at the end of Obama's presidency). And like other's mentioned, the majority of people in this country do not support what happened this week.

So your morality/society statement holds very little merit.

CashMoney wrote:

martin wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:People who should be excluded from deciding on this issue:

1) Men
2) Women beyond their child bearing years
3) Married women

I find it interesting how people who will either never need to make this decision and people who are likely to have a system of support if they found themselves in an unwanted pregnancy, they have so much to say when imposing their beliefs on a small population of women who are confronted with having to actually deal with whether or not to carry out an unwanted pregnancy.

When people site god and religion for their anti-abortion stance, I always wonder why they do not equally advocate for outlawing divorce? Religiously it's just as frowned upon as abortion. Could it be that since half of marriages end in divorce more people are comfortable overlooking that sin since there's a strong chance it may directly affect them? But since abortion or gay rights only affects a small percentage of the population, those are the popular sins to focus on.

Again, I have no problem with people having their beliefs and living their life based on their beliefs. But when it comes to imposing on others, it needs to be based on facts, not your beliefs or religion. And referring to someone who has an abortion with the same terminology as a gang member who shoots someone in the head on the streets is very inappropriate.

Food for thought.

In 2019 the were 629,898 reported legal abortions to the CDC but states such as California, New Hampshire, and Maryland doesn't report to the CDC because it's voluntary. The World Health Organization estimates abortions in the US to be around 886,000. 629,898 is not a small number and for context, that's a tad below the entire population of Detroit and more than the populations of cities such as Baltimore, Milwaukee, Kansas City, and Atlanta. The number of abortions performed since 1973 is equivalent to the Holocaust happening 10 times.

Again, I get how framing things for sensationalism and shock value can be an effective way of advancing the agenda. Here are the straight facts minus injecting P.R. language. Let's go with your number: 629,898 legal abortions, there are almost 260 million adults in the U.S. over 18 years old. That's around 0.24% of the adult population.

Thanks for proving my point. That's around .24% of the US population on a YEARLY basis. Multiply by x number of years and the percentages increase. Since when is using fact P.R. language?

But what's the point? No matter how you slice it, it's still a very small percentage of the population having your belief system imposed on them.

It's not my belief system being imposed on anyone. This is an issue of morality and society dictates morality.

Doesn't society favor legal abortion? Generally it is like ~65% of people who not in favor of overturning Roe vs Wade

By your own statement, society favors legal abortion.

Society is predominantly pro-choice which is why my belief system isn't being imposed on anyone. I believe in what I do and have my reasons why.

Roe V. Wade being overturned and being handed back to the states simply means that if society wants abortion rights then the fight will be at the state level.

After trigger laws go into effect and taking into account states that will place server restrictions approximately half of the states will still provide abortion rights with no change.

Sounds pretty similar to what was happening that prompted the civil war. Let each state decide if people of dark complexion are humans or property.

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

martin wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:People who should be excluded from deciding on this issue:

1) Men
2) Women beyond their child bearing years
3) Married women

I find it interesting how people who will either never need to make this decision and people who are likely to have a system of support if they found themselves in an unwanted pregnancy, they have so much to say when imposing their beliefs on a small population of women who are confronted with having to actually deal with whether or not to carry out an unwanted pregnancy.

When people site god and religion for their anti-abortion stance, I always wonder why they do not equally advocate for outlawing divorce? Religiously it's just as frowned upon as abortion. Could it be that since half of marriages end in divorce more people are comfortable overlooking that sin since there's a strong chance it may directly affect them? But since abortion or gay rights only affects a small percentage of the population, those are the popular sins to focus on.

Again, I have no problem with people having their beliefs and living their life based on their beliefs. But when it comes to imposing on others, it needs to be based on facts, not your beliefs or religion. And referring to someone who has an abortion with the same terminology as a gang member who shoots someone in the head on the streets is very inappropriate.

Food for thought.

In 2019 the were 629,898 reported legal abortions to the CDC but states such as California, New Hampshire, and Maryland doesn't report to the CDC because it's voluntary. The World Health Organization estimates abortions in the US to be around 886,000. 629,898 is not a small number and for context, that's a tad below the entire population of Detroit and more than the populations of cities such as Baltimore, Milwaukee, Kansas City, and Atlanta. The number of abortions performed since 1973 is equivalent to the Holocaust happening 10 times.

Again, I get how framing things for sensationalism and shock value can be an effective way of advancing the agenda. Here are the straight facts minus injecting P.R. language. Let's go with your number: 629,898 legal abortions, there are almost 260 million adults in the U.S. over 18 years old. That's around 0.24% of the adult population.

Thanks for proving my point. That's around .24% of the US population on a YEARLY basis. Multiply by x number of years and the percentages increase. Since when is using fact P.R. language?

But what's the point? No matter how you slice it, it's still a very small percentage of the population having your belief system imposed on them.

It's not my belief system being imposed on anyone. This is an issue of morality and society dictates morality.

Doesn't society favor legal abortion? Generally it is like ~65% of people who not in favor of overturning Roe vs Wade

By your own statement, society favors legal abortion.

Society is predominantly pro-choice which is why my belief system isn't being imposed on anyone. I believe in what I do and have my reasons why.

Roe V. Wade being overturned and being handed back to the states simply means that if society wants abortion rights then the fight will be at the state level.

After trigger laws go into effect and taking into account states that will place server restrictions approximately half of the states will still provide abortion rights with no change.

Sounds pretty similar to what was happening that prompted the civil war. Let each state decide if people of dark complexion are humans or property.

Exactly. People like him want to wash their hands of everything at a federal level as if the Constitution was passed from God and anything not specificslly mentioned needs to go to the states. Woman who have miscarriages can now essentially be arrested under suspicion of abortion in some states.

CashMoney wrote:

wargames wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

wargames wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

martin wrote:This is reality in one state. Today.

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/NicoleClowneyAR/status/1540349909311832067?s=20&t=W2Wl70piZ6c_S-ClIkoxIw

Click here to view the Tweet

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/NicoleClowneyAR/status/1540349912956780547?s=20&t=W2Wl70piZ6c_S-ClIkoxIw

Click here to view the Tweet

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/NicoleClowneyAR/status/1540349925531168769?s=20&t=W2Wl70piZ6c_S-ClIkoxIw

Click here to view the Tweet

I personally think it's insane but it's a state issue and would like to think that rational and logical thinking/reasoning will prevail.

That’s bullshit because they just took away the states right to regulate gun licenses…

You can’t waive this away as a state issue the Supreme Court is a radical body and they are making choices based on their politics with no legal standing.

Negative sir. New York can no longer dictate the number of licenses provided to citizens who should have never been denied the right to carry a firearm. The denial was found to be unconstitutional.

Bullshit…. Also don’t call me Sir. It makes it seem like you’re trying to be reasonable when your argument is anything but.

It’s all the same issue regarding state rights. States are going to dictate the number of abortions that take place within them. Also don’t say “well the constitution” because the constitution isn’t sacred and that same argument was used to support other monstrous policies like slavery and segregation for most of this countries existence.

There is no justification for this change besides they wanted to do it. In literally a two day span this particular court has lost any legal justification for its decision making besides “we have power” which is fantastic because it’s the minority dictating terms on the majority.If they were a states right court they would have allowed NY to continue to dictate gun licenses within its borders. At least then what they did today could have been justified as them being a court that was supportive of states rights as you like to say.

I'm unreasonable because I you don't agree with my point of view?

I never said the constitution was sacred. If it were sacred there would be no way to ratify the constitution which eliminated policies like slavery and segregation. If the constitution were sacred Roe v Wade would have never been put into law in 1973.

"Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the majority opinion for the ideologically divided court, writing that New York's "proper-cause requirement" prevented law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment right, and its licensing regime is unconstitutional."

New York state can still prevent non-law-abiding citizens from carrying a firearm. What made the licensing unconstitutional is that New York State was providing licenses to some law-abiding citizens but not all law-abiding citizens using the proper clause requirement thus violating the 2nd Amendment.

"Under the law in place since 1913, a person applying for a license to carry a concealed handgun in public has to show "proper cause," or a specific need, to carry the weapon."

New York state can create restrictions as long as the state does not violate the constitution. Every state has its own constitution but it cannot infringe on the constitution of the U.S. State law cannot infringe upon federal law.

You’re unreasonable because on one hand your trying to sound polite while on the other hand arguing for taking away from your fellow citizen rights to appease a document that was written hundred of years ago because you know you would lose if you just said “I feel this way because a preacher told me too”. Your argument and points insults my intelligence because you’re trying to seem reasonable defending decisions that are anything but.

Going beyond changing the constitution. The 14th amendment still allowed for segregation and the court supported this with their Plessy v. Ferguson decision on the books until Brown vs. Board of Ed almost 60 years later. Certain prior decisions literally make up the fabric of our current society and saying something half assed like “let the states decide” is avoiding owning up to what just happened.

The court is made up of Radical Conservatives and that may align with your views but don’t come here and try to justify it as anything but a vocal minority forcing the rest of us to deal with your side’s bullshit. Now to the gun laws once again this is a over 100 year old law that was based on the state deciding who and how to give gun licenses. You could argue the 10th amendment gives states the right to decide how people get guns since the federal government doesn’t pass laws. Yet this state right isn’t on par for the radical conservative court to a state saying a woman cannot have abortions? If people in NY want to own guns with no hassle they could just move to another state right? This is a state issue right?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/06/miranda-warnings-supreme-court-alito-kagan.html They on the low began to gut Miranda rights.

CashMoney wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

smackeddog wrote:
Yeah, can you imagine the uproar if women decided that sperm were human lives and so banned whacking off or any form of ejeculation outside of baby making, using the justification "that's just where I think life begins- your murdering every time you crack one off!"?

Given that there are millions of sperm in a single ejaculate, whacking off would not be just murder, but mass genocide, exceeding the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot combined.

I honestly struggle with the concept of life beginning at conception. There is no way a fetus in the early stages of development is a distinct living creature, it is just a clot of unconscious organic matter, same as the mother's kidney or spleen. Life may well be considered to form before birth, but no way it forms right at conception. And I am a deeply religious man.

I hate the whacking-off argument because it's illogical. Every time a guy doesn't pull out his failure to do so does not result in pregnancy 100% of the time.

Interesting you used the term "early stages of development" and then used organic matter. If the organic matter is allowed to develop the result is life. However, purposely terminating the development is okay.

Very good that you are trying to apply Aristotelian teleological reasoning. Still, an acorn is not the same as an oak, organic is not the same as alive, alive is not the same as conscious, conscious is not the same as human.

wargames wrote:
The Court does not uphold the constitution they interpret it. That’s the difference between Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown vs. Board of Ed. An interpretation.

https://constitutioncenter.org/amp/blog/a-short-list-of-overturned-supreme-court-landmark-decisions

These are not apolitical acts though historically the SC has tried to justify their decision based on “trends” that both the public and scholars can see like state rights or support of businesses or support of federal authority or even a hard interpretation of the constitution.

This particular court are just radical conservatives.

When Clarence Thomas can write in his decision “let’s go after gay marriage next” you know what your dealing with. For example a 101 year rule that the court felt best to ignore was overturned a month after a psycho killed children in a school with the cops right outside his door. That isn’t upholding the constitution, that is being an activist court imposing your political views on the majority. The SC rarely does that because whenever they have… it leads to chaos and social unrest.

You can call it "uphold" or "interpret" - it won't change the gist of my argument. I do not think the SCOTUS is being partisan or maliciously pursuing conservative agenda here. The Constitution explicitly says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" and it does not say "the right of the people to have Abortions shall not be infringed". I am no consitutional scholar or jurist, but the fact that the SCOTUS upholds an explicitly stated constitutional right and overturns an earlier interpretation purporting a constitutional right not so explicitly stated does not stike me as being contrary to common sense.
Women have had a 100 years since gaining the right to vote and 50 years since Roe vs Wade to get the right to abortion worked into the Constitution. True, Consitutional amendments are a difficult process, but they offer much more solid ground that a SCOTUS ruling, and are worth pursing if abortion is such a fundamental issue.

ESOMKnicks wrote:

wargames wrote:
The Court does not uphold the constitution they interpret it. That’s the difference between Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown vs. Board of Ed. An interpretation.

https://constitutioncenter.org/amp/blog/a-short-list-of-overturned-supreme-court-landmark-decisions

These are not apolitical acts though historically the SC has tried to justify their decision based on “trends” that both the public and scholars can see like state rights or support of businesses or support of federal authority or even a hard interpretation of the constitution.

This particular court are just radical conservatives.

When Clarence Thomas can write in his decision “let’s go after gay marriage next” you know what your dealing with. For example a 101 year rule that the court felt best to ignore was overturned a month after a psycho killed children in a school with the cops right outside his door. That isn’t upholding the constitution, that is being an activist court imposing your political views on the majority. The SC rarely does that because whenever they have… it leads to chaos and social unrest.

You can call it "uphold" or "interpret" - it won't change the gist of my argument. I do not think the SCOTUS is being partisan or maliciously pursuing conservative agenda here. The Constitution explicitly says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" and it does not say "the right of the people to have Abortions shall not be infringed". I am no consitutional scholar or jurist, but the fact that the SCOTUS upholds an explicitly stated constitutional right and overturns an earlier interpretation purporting a constitutional right not so explicitly stated does not stike me as being contrary to common sense.
Women have had a 100 years since gaining the right to vote and 50 years since Roe vs Wade to get the right to abortion worked into the Constitution. True, Consitutional amendments are a difficult process, but they offer much more solid ground that a SCOTUS ruling, and are worth pursing if abortion is such a fundamental issue.

It's not an explicitly stated right. The second amendment clearly states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This SCOTUS is clearly partisan. It will haro in the idea of state's rights in one end, but ignore the concept altogether in an attempt to appease the parties corporate donors. I'm no constitutional legal expert either, but I can smell BS when it's openly wafted in front of my face.

ESOMKnicks wrote:

wargames wrote:
The Court does not uphold the constitution they interpret it. That’s the difference between Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown vs. Board of Ed. An interpretation.

https://constitutioncenter.org/amp/blog/a-short-list-of-overturned-supreme-court-landmark-decisions

These are not apolitical acts though historically the SC has tried to justify their decision based on “trends” that both the public and scholars can see like state rights or support of businesses or support of federal authority or even a hard interpretation of the constitution.

This particular court are just radical conservatives.

When Clarence Thomas can write in his decision “let’s go after gay marriage next” you know what your dealing with. For example a 101 year rule that the court felt best to ignore was overturned a month after a psycho killed children in a school with the cops right outside his door. That isn’t upholding the constitution, that is being an activist court imposing your political views on the majority. The SC rarely does that because whenever they have… it leads to chaos and social unrest.

You can call it "uphold" or "interpret" - it won't change the gist of my argument. I do not think the SCOTUS is being partisan or maliciously pursuing conservative agenda here. The Constitution explicitly says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" and it does not say "the right of the people to have Abortions shall not be infringed". I am no consitutional scholar or jurist, but the fact that the SCOTUS upholds an explicitly stated constitutional right and overturns an earlier interpretation purporting a constitutional right not so explicitly stated does not stike me as being contrary to common sense.
Women have had a 100 years since gaining the right to vote and 50 years since Roe vs Wade to get the right to abortion worked into the Constitution. True, Consitutional amendments are a difficult process, but they offer much more solid ground that a SCOTUS ruling, and are worth pursing if abortion is such a fundamental issue.

The Roe Wade decision did not legslize abortion. Rather is protected a woman's right to an abortion under the 14th Amendment right to privacy provision. With the elimination of this precident, it leaves open related rulings rooted in the 14th amendment such as Gay Marriage. Interracial Marriage was not protected until 1967 under the 14th. Imagine if the SCOTUS reversed the Loving v Virginia ruling which left interracial marriage up to the states and trigger laws in southern states outlawed it? From a legal/constitutional standpoint, what you are arguing would be essentially the same as the Roe reversal. You're deluding yourself if you believe that the SCOTUS has not become politicized and polarized with decisions along party lines. There are lobbyists and dark money involved. The SCOTUS has never moved backwards like this in taking away rights in modern history.

foosballnick wrote:
The Roe Wade decision did not legslize abortion. Rather is protected a woman's right to an abortion under the 14th Amendment right to privacy provision. With the elimination of this precident, it leaves open related rulings rooted in the 14th amendment such as Gay Marriage. Interracial Marriage was not protected until 1967 under the 14th. Imagine if the SCOTUS reversed the Loving v Virginia ruling which left interracial marriage up to the states and trigger laws in southern states outlawed it? From a legal/constitutional standpoint, what you are arguing would be essentially the same as the Roe reversal. You're deluding yourself if you believe that the SCOTUS has not become politicized and polarized with decisions along party lines. There are lobbyists and dark money involved. The SCOTUS has never moved backwards like this in taking away rights in modern history.

I would not equate those cases. I think the link between equal rights under the law and right to marry is a lot more solid than the link between right to privacy and right to an abortion.

Having said that, I do not think that the whole institution of marriage should be legislated at all, neither on the federal, nor on the state level, and neither in terms of allowing or denying a right to marry. Marriage should be a private contract between individuals, I do not understand where the government needs to come in.

ESOMKnicks wrote:

foosballnick wrote:
The Roe Wade decision did not legslize abortion. Rather is protected a woman's right to an abortion under the 14th Amendment right to privacy provision. With the elimination of this precident, it leaves open related rulings rooted in the 14th amendment such as Gay Marriage. Interracial Marriage was not protected until 1967 under the 14th. Imagine if the SCOTUS reversed the Loving v Virginia ruling which left interracial marriage up to the states and trigger laws in southern states outlawed it? From a legal/constitutional standpoint, what you are arguing would be essentially the same as the Roe reversal. You're deluding yourself if you believe that the SCOTUS has not become politicized and polarized with decisions along party lines. There are lobbyists and dark money involved. The SCOTUS has never moved backwards like this in taking away rights in modern history.

I would not equate those cases. I think the link between equal rights under the law and right to marry is a lot more solid than the link between right to privacy and right to an abortion.

Having said that, I do not think that the whole institution of marriage should be legislated at all, neither on the federal, nor on the state level, and neither in terms of allowing or denying a right to marry. Marriage should be a private contract between individuals, I do not understand where the government needs to come in.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-reconsider-contraception-gay-marriage-rulings

Once again what you’re saying does not align with the radical conservative Supreme Court

wargames wrote:https://www.foxnews.com/politics/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-reconsider-contraception-gay-marriage-rulings

Once again what you’re saying does not align with the radical conservative Supreme Court

What I am saying does not align with what Fox News is saying. And there is no reason why it should.

I have actually cared to open the link to Justice Thomas's opinion referred to by Fox, and I think his point is entirely different that what Fox makes of it. Justice Thomas does not argue against individual rights not enumerated by the Constitution, but rather against the use of the due process clause as grounds for protecting them. His reasoning for not allowing the due process argument is as follows:

In practice the Court’s approach for identifying those “fundamental” rights “unquestionably involves policymaking rather than neutral legal analysis. The Court divines new rights in line with “its own, extraconstitutional value preferences” and nullifies state laws that do not align with the judicially created guarantees.

So he actually warns against partisan law-making via the SCOTUS, which he claims has been happening when the due process clause gets invoked as grounds for protecting individual rights on federal level. And there is some merit to his argument: try too much flimsy backdoor stuff, and eventually you may get called on it and it will backfire. This is exactly how we lost on women's right to choose right now.