Supreme Court Watch

Status
Not open for further replies.
The thing is, even if people are pro-abortion, they should be against Roe V Wade. It's not because of the implications of it, but it just gives precedence for the Supreme court to pass laws. Supreme court DOES NOT pass or make laws. They only INTERPRET the laws. They can declare laws either constitutional or Unconstitutional and they should NEVER have this much power when it comes to lawmaking. They are on the stand for life and it will essentially give them way too much power.
 
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Rivalo, LilShotaBoy and 8 others
thegooddoctor said:
Seriously? We should let literal kids go through with it and go through the agonies of labour for 9 months only to see their child and either give it away for adoption or become a miserable teen mom and go through phycological agonies because for superficial moral reason that ‘killing is wrong no matter what’

I’m sorry but that is absolute lunacy and there absolutely should be exceptions made in cases of those that have been abused and the child inside of them was a literal rape baby. You are literally punishing a victim and seemingly encouraging fucking pedophiles that they can get away with impregnating innocent kids with their seed if you do that. There have to be exceptions made for these cases at the very least.
Click to expand...
Did you not read this?
Mayor Adam West said:
Yeah especially after I show them images of abortions to traumatize them so they repent. It’s much better for their mental health in the long run that they don’t get the abortion.
Click to expand...
 
Welsh Catgirl Enjoyer said:
And tbh, I've noticed that pro-choicers tend to have this big problem of taking something to the logical extreme and saying "this is what would happen" when it's pretty clear to me that most of the pro-life crowd will make exceptions for extreme circumstances. I don't really buy the whole thing of "rape victims will be forced to birth their rape child" or "14 year olds will be forced to birth a child" since those fall under the extreme exceptions.
Click to expand...
Not only do they claim this about their opposition, but they do it while outright fetishizing and celebrating abortion as if it's a super awesome woman-empowering lifestyle, rather than being at best an unfortunate necessity.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, LilShotaBoy, DicksOutForKiwigglers and 6 others
Getting tard comed said:
I don't.
Click to expand...
I don't either but I'm trying to get at on what basis people make that assertion. It is notable he used the word believe, which can connote a sense of faith or religion (such as I believe in God or I believe in people). Although it is a lot cause with most, I do believe some can still be walked though the logical process to understand there is no solid rational basis to the conclusion that abortion is a right, Constitutional or otherwise. As a policy preference, they thus need to adjust accordingly, go through state legislatures etc..
 
Welsh Catgirl Enjoyer said:
I'm in two minds about this.

Unfortunately, being born a brit-cuck I have had about 20% of my blood replaced with soy, so I would be considered to be "pro-choice" to many yanks. I just think that the pro-life stance leads to more issues as bureaucracies tend to fuck up so it'd probably just be best to let people sort themselves out. Not to mention I'd rather people just didn't have the child to begin with rather than having the child and ending up with a bunch of neglectful parents.

That said. I don't like late-term abortions for the most part. At about 10 or 12 weeks, it's much less of an issue as the child does not even have any developer level of sentience, and is more just of a set of biological processes that is building itself into a human (and at that stage, it's more a case of halting a life before it begins rather than murder).

And tbh, I've noticed that pro-choicers tend to have this big problem of taking something to the logical extreme and saying "this is what would happen" when it's pretty clear to me that most of the pro-life crowd will make exceptions for extreme circumstances. I don't really buy the whole thing of "rape victims will be forced to birth their rape child" or "14 year olds will be forced to birth a child" since those fall under the extreme exceptions.

Also, straight up, I don't think that a lot of people outside the US who tend to cast judgement really understand what this means. Abortion rights inside of places like California aren't going anywhere.
Click to expand...
The Dems could have cut a deal any time they wanted if they'd agreed to limit abortion to 12 weeks. Throw in some exemptions for the life of the mother, rape victims or severe abnormalities. Evangelicals wouldn't have been happy, personally I view all abortion as murdering babies, but the RINOs would have gone along. They'd have gotten themselves a codified law guaranteeing a wamins right to choose, and the whole issue would have been put to bed.

But the politics didn't line up. They needed to keep the part of their base who gives a fuck about abortion agitated and motivated. So instead we saw them push for abortion until birth and even infanticide which meant even normie Republicucks ran a mile.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Nypical Haterade Comment, StevieLasVegas and 11 others
borsabil said:
The Dems could have cut a deal any time they wanted if they'd agreed to limit abortion to 12 weeks. Throw in some exemptions for the life of the mother, rape victims or severe abnormalities. Evangelicals wouldn't have been happy, personally I view all abortion as murdering babies, but the RINOs would have gone along. They'd have gotten themselves a codified law guaranteeing a wamins right to choose, and the whole issue would have been put to bed.

But the politics didn't line up. They needed to keep the part of their base who gives a fuck about abortion agitated and motivated. So instead we saw them push for abortion until birth and even infanticide which meant even normie Republicucks ran a mile.
Click to expand...
Yeah I’m of the same position. I’m glad they did that though. Now we can win.
 
My biggest issue, and why I support rvw being overturned boils down to one word: CONSISTENCY.

Apparently babies don't have rights until they are born, except:
1) drunk driver causes miscarriage. Added murder charge for fetus.
2) inheritance where fetuses have a right to inherit things before they are born

Also, is "not being ready for a child" a legitimate reason to abort? If so, child support should be illegal unless the father wants parental rights. Otherwise, that's unequal rights.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, InwardsStink, Dr. Henry Armitage and 35 others
Barry McKockner said:
My biggest issue, and why I support rvw being overturned boils down to one word: CONSISTENCY.

Apparently babies don't have rights until they are born, except:
1) drunk driver causes miscarriage. Added murder charge for fetus.
2) inheritance where fetuses have a right to inherit things before they are born

Also, is "not being ready for a child" a legitimate reason to abort? If so, child support should be illegal unless the father wants parental rights. Otherwise, that's unequal rights.
Click to expand...
Didn’t know about point 2. That’s epic. Also I unironically believe child support should start at conception or whenever someone finds out they’re pregnant.
Matt Damon said:
I refuse to believe anyone is fucking this psycho broad in the first place.
Click to expand...
I mean I might but then again I’m just really really fucked up. Like I have a bunch of wire coat hangers and I’m probably gonna go out on the town and pass them out to annoy people fucked up.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, DicksOutForKiwigglers and cuddle striker
thegooddoctor said:
Seriously? We should let literal kids go through with it and go through the agonies of labour for 9 months only to see their child and either give it away for adoption or become a miserable teen mom and go through phycological agonies because for superficial moral reason that ‘killing is wrong no matter what’

I’m sorry but that is absolute lunacy and there absolutely should be exceptions made in cases of those that have been abused and the child inside of them was a literal rape baby. You are literally punishing a victim and seemingly encouraging fucking pedophiles that they can get away with impregnating innocent kids with their seed if you do that. There have to be exceptions made for these cases at the very least.
Click to expand...
The baby didn't rape the mom, why does it have to die?
 
  • Winner
  • Disagree
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Gorube, madethistocomment, DicksOutForKiwigglers and 6 others
borsabil said:
The Dems could have cut a deal any time they wanted if they'd agreed to limit abortion to 12 weeks. Throw in some exemptions for the life of the mother, rape victims or severe abnormalities. Evangelicals wouldn't have been happy, personally I view all abortion as murdering babies, but the RINOs would have gone along. They'd have gotten themselves a codified law guaranteeing a wamins right to choose, and the whole issue would have been put to bed.

But the politics didn't line up. They needed to keep the part of their base who gives a fuck about abortion agitated and motivated. So instead we saw them push for abortion until birth and even infanticide which meant even normie Republicucks ran a mile.
Click to expand...
Aren’t rape claims the crux of this problem since if a woman only has to say they were raped and it stays anonymous then it’s basically a loophole but if they need proof then it’s the Roe vs Wade argument of right to privacy as stated in the constitution?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: spiritofamermaid and Nypical Haterade Comment
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back