Supreme Court Watch

Status
Not open for further replies.
This whole thread, I've disclosed a few minor details about my sexual life with my girlfriend. i.e. what birth control we use and what not. This entire time they've been chimping at me on what i'm doing wrong, what I SHOULD be doing and the hilarious part is that they really do think they have a god given birth right to instruct everyone else what to do. Calling us murderers (even though we've never had an abortion).
@Make Anime Illegal you really need to toss your bible, pick up a beer and sin, brother. You'll thank me later.
You remind me of Kyle from Dead Man on Campus who has become so horny he's turned mean.
 
How is sex "irresponsible" and why is the state giving a crap about that?
having sex isn't irresponsible. Having sex knowing you are in no position to be a parent is what's irresponsible. No amount of screeching changes the basic reality that sexual intercourse is a reproductive act.
It's not the state's job to make people personally responsible.
so should they be allowed to kill their chidren to avoid being responsible for them?
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.
Leave it up to the states so that neither side can fully impose their views on the other.
Some people don't want kids.
There are so many forms of birth control available that there is no excuse.
 
But most laws originate from some sort of moral assessment (eg theft and murder, age of consent laws,). The state has a legitimate interest in protecting families, and it certainly should have an interest in pro natalism.
If you create some sort of mechanism whereby gay couples can leave an estate to the survivor, have medical rights when one is in a hospital etc, there should be no equal protection issues. To be flippant about it, since marriage is between a man and a woman, a gay air lesbian can always still marry someone of the opposite sex (just like everyone else).
It is unfortunately a moot issue because the genie is out of the bottle, but mark my words gay marriage and the normalization of LGBTQ-YUCK will unleash the law of unintended consequences in the worst way since single moms became mainstream. Hear me now and believe me later.
Sooo the state is protecting the families because the gays are getting married? Are you stupid or did you get dropped on the head as a child?
 
notorious fear baiting he’s just a more tame secular alex jones.
Beanie Boy's endless fence-sitting is annoying as shit. But he does end up being more informative than most sources. Sad state of media.
Tim's less informed than Alex Jones. When he first had him he kept stopping him to fact check him only to be BYFOd. And unlike Alex, Tim let's others censor him while demanding others let their children starve for his causes.
Beanie Boy's hyperventilation about the impending Race... I mean Civil War does have one very salient point to it though. He correctly points out that the critical junction that ultimately led to the Civil War was when Congress legislated the Fugitive Slave Act. This act embodied an agreement of all states in the union that wayward slaves from the states that allowed slavery would be returned to their owners and the member states and their local authorities would aid in this effort. Something that passed through both bodies of the legislature and was signed by the President.

As sentiments in the North gradually changed they began to simply disregard existing law because it didn't suit their politics. Furthermore, they were never punished for this. This very quickly created an impossible divide in the nation as one side could undermine laws that didn't suit them but still held the other side to other laws. Once the Southern leadership recognized this they sussed that if that was the case being in such a Union served no purpose. This coalesced into Civil War in just a few years.

In 2022 we had the DoD and DoJ, along with prominent members of Congress all publicly state that they have no intention to follow the highest court in the and will actively undermine it in the states that have deemed abortion illegal. This is going down the exact same road. We don't know what form this will take but a likely route is that all federal properties and facilities in various states will move to offer planned parenthood or something completely against the local state laws. Like, whores can go onto military bases for abortions (something that they were previously prevented from doing by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment). But if they can simply ignore the highest court in the land when it doesn't suit their politics, what makes you think they'll follow existing statutes?
There is always a possibility of an impending civil war in any country. Given a long period of time, waring factions will end up fighting. Tim's problem is that he's been saying it while bot giving out specifics. While I do believe it's possible, there's also one aspect he never takes for granted; nobody worth anything would want it. The elites will gladly stop in their tracks once they realize it will affect their bottom line, and normies are content as long as they have their necessities. But since Tim doesn't have any family and no non-political friends he only sees one side. It's why he said Trump would win in a 49 state landslide. He poorly reacts to news and not people. Had he done his original stint where he would interview regular people like his IRL podcast was originally gonna be, he'd be better informed and less doom and gloom
 
Sooo the state is protecting the families because the gays are getting married? Are you stupid or did you get dropped on the head as a child?
Look at what's happened since Obergefell. Do you even know what Defining Deviancy Down is? Are you aware that the idea that homosexuality is an immutable inherited characteristic has been debunked by skyrocketing numbers of zoomers identifying d something on the rainbow flag. A cursory look at the ancient world or female sexuality, malleable as it is, already told many of us this was a lie.
 
I see you are missing the point.

You want the government to get rid of abortions. The best way to do that is to force vasectomies on men. We are removing women's bodily autonomy, so why not men's, too? Oh, right, because that'd affect you
Oh come on, we both know that's not true. There's a much better way.
menintights.png
 
having sex isn't irresponsible. Having sex knowing you are in no position to be a parent is what's irresponsible. No amount of screeching changes the basic reality that sexual intercourse is a reproductive act.
People are gonna fuck. It's in our biology.
so should they be allowed to kill their chidren to avoid being responsible for them?
A fetus doesn't feel anything. It's not sentient until pretty far along in the pregnancy. You want to force women to have babies and not give them any means to provide for them.

Leave it up to the states so that neither side can fully impose their views on the other.
That's all well and good but some states are also trying to make it illegal to travel to other states to have an abortion.

There are so many forms of birth control available that there is no excuse.
Birth control can and does fail. You do know that, right?

@Hollywood Hulk Hogan If you think long and hard about it, can you figure out what the problem is with simultaneously accusing people of trying to "stop people from having sex" and "forcing people to give birth?"
People are going to have sex. It's in our biology.

You want to remove a way to deal with accidental pregnancies, and thus are forcing women to give birth, but you also are anti-welfare and anti-subsidized healthcare for the women you want to force to have babies.
 
They will advocate for wellfare, headstart, food assistance, educational scholarships... I'M FUCKING JOKING OFC! The answer from pro lifers is "GET A JOB YOU WASTE OF LIFE"
The actual answer is: If you are in such a precarious financial situation an unexpected pregnancy would LITERALLY ruin your life, be selective about how and who you have sex with. No one is forcing anybody to have sex or get pregnant.
 
You want to remove a way to deal with accidental pregnancies, and thus are forcing women to give birth, but you also are anti-welfare and anti-subsidized healthcare for the women you want to force to have babies.
Your problem is that you think in slogans rather than logically. For instance,
you don't want to help them have them at all via affordable healthcare

Back in the 70s a bunch of nice people just like you decided to "help" people via "affordable higher education." How did that work out?
 
I am grateful this discussion has remained largely civil, but also would like to remind everyone ITT that one of our new board goals is to agree to disagree, when it's become apparent one party will not convince the other.
Thanks for the reminder fren. I think your overall moderation policy has been working wonders for A&N and I hope you stick around for a while.

I still might shit on you from time to time because fuck jannies but that's nothing personal
 
Your problem is that you think in slogans rather than logically. For instance,


Back in the 70s a bunch of nice people just like you decided to "help" people via "affordable higher education." How did that work out?
Well, yeah, but Republicans cutting education funding doesn't have much to do with this thread.
 
The actual answer is: If you are in such a precarious financial situation an unexpected pregnancy would LITERALLY ruin your life, be selective about how and who you have sex with. No one is forcing anybody to have sex or get pregnant.
Its really creepy how Pro lifers view themselves as the gate keeper to people's sexual habbits.
 
If that happens, I vote we move Black History Month to June to honor Clarence Thomas. As for Pride, well, no one important was celebrating it anyway, right?
I believe a bunch of degenerates like to flash their genitals at children and bike around naked during pride but no: You’re right.

Perhaps we could move Black History month to June AND simultaneously designate June 19th as Clarence Thomas day?

I can’t think of a better example to Black Americans and citizens of all races alike, than a Black man, born in poverty who grew up in a dirt shack, who went on to become a judge on the highest court in the land!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back