Supreme Court Watch

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pull out + BC/IUD is damn near close to 100%. Plus you can still just go out of state if you really want an abortion, beauty of living in a republic.
Not everyone can afford to go to another state for an abortion and some states (Texas, Oklahoma, Idaho and a few others) are trying to make it a felony to go to another state to get an abortion

Forcing euthenasia on everybody would all but eliminate car theft. If you want to eliminate car theft, that's the way to do it.
There is a fundamental difference between forcing people to do things, vs "forcing" them not to do something.
Except that vasectomies can be reversed.
That would be the best way to eliminate unwanted pregnancies and abortions, which you claim is your goal. Oh, right, you don't want to lose YOUR bodily autonomy. But you're fine taking away women's

HHH confirms he is a low test beta who is not into facials. Sad.
I like women with a thick ass, which means I am high test alpha male. Sorry, but that's the rule.
 
Except that vasectomies can be reversed.
That would be the best way to eliminate unwanted pregnancies and abortions, which you claim is your goal. Oh, right, you don't want to lose YOUR bodily autonomy. But you're fine taking away women's
The success rate of vasectomy reversal actually plummets after the 3 year mark. If you've been snipped for more than 7 it's effectively a ceremonial gesture.
 
The success rate of vasectomy reversal actually plummets after the 3 year mark. If you've been snipped for more than 7 it's effectively a ceremonial gesture.
I do wish they'd figure out birth control for men. I'd be all over that shit
 
Except that vasectomies can be reversed.
That would be the best way to eliminate unwanted pregnancies and abortions, which you claim is your goal. Oh, right, you don't want to lose YOUR bodily autonomy. But you're fine taking away women's
Lots of things can be reversed. That's not the point. The point is the difference between forcing a person, who hasn't made any irresponsible choices, to do something to help everyone else, vs. "forcing" a person who did make an irresponsible decision to not do something to help themselves.
 


I expect to see all you "states rights" people upset about this legislation if it gets proposed. I doubt I will see that, but maybe I will be surprised
As pro-life as I am, I am not interested in forcing my views on the entire country. Abortion is a complicated issue that we would be well served to try different approaches to and see what works best. Also we need to tone the rhetorical temperature down in this country if we want to fix the very real issues we should be focusing on.
 
Lots of things can be reversed. That's not the point. The point is the difference between forcing a person, who hasn't made any irresponsible choices, to do something to help everyone else, vs. "forcing" a person who did make an irresponsible decision to not do something to help themselves.
How is sex "irresponsible" and why is the state giving a crap about that? It's not the state's job to make people personally responsible. You want the state to get rid of abortions and I just showed you how. You are fine forcing your laws on everyone and removing bodily autonomy, but when it comes to doing it to you, you're super against it. That's hypocrisy, son.

Or you can find a wife and start popping out children like humans were designed to do.

Trying to bypass critical elements of the human experience usually has disastrous results.
Some people don't want kids.
 
Since McGirt v. Oklahoma it's become fashionable to try and use tribal sovereignty to skirt state jurisdiction...

tribal.jpg
 
How is sex "irresponsible" and why is the state giving a crap about that? It's not the state's job to make people personally responsible.
It's not. Just like investing in the stock market isn't irresponsible. But investing all of your money in penny stocks is. And you shouldn't be able to steal money from anyone else when you blow up your account. That's not the same as saying you shouldn't be able to invest, and it's not "forcing people to go bankrupt."

It's not even the same thing as saying you shouldn't be allowed to invest in penny stocks. But your actions have consequences.
 
How is sex "irresponsible" and why is the state giving a crap about that? It's not the state's job to make people personally responsible.
Nigga if you have sex and don't wear rubber then whatever happens, happens. I don't want the baby to pay the price just because it's mother couldn't close her legs.
 
Since McGirt v. Oklahoma it's become fashionable to try and use tribal sovereignty to skirt state jurisdiction...

View attachment 3432970
This is the shit I find hilarious.
AWFLs the country over: "Hey, you technically have sovereignty and hate Republicans, surely you're totally down to provide abortions to us in nearby red states!"
Natives: "We dislike all pale faces and this is weird and ghoulish what the fuck"
 
It's not. Just like investing in the stock market isn't irresponsible. But investing all of your money in penny stocks is. And you shouldn't be able to steal money from anyone else when you blow up your account. That's not the same as saying you shouldn't be able to invest, and it's not "forcing people to go bankrupt."

It's not even the same thing as saying you shouldn't be allowed to invest in penny stocks. But your actions have consequences.
And getting an abortion is one way of dealing with those consequences.

Nigga if you have sex and don't wear rubber then whatever happens, happens. I don't want the baby to pay the price just because it's mother couldn't close her legs.
A baby at 8 weeks isn't going to know or feel anything. What do you do to help those babies once they're born, anyway? Do you advocate for better welfare and healthcare for poor people?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back