Supreme Court Watch

[Getting tard comed]

I'd need an example.

A baby outside the womb being breast fed.
A baby outside the womb who needs the parents(care givers) to do anything.
A disabled person who needs constant support to live their life due to any illness.
A person in a coma.

All of these situations are a person depending on at least one other person to sustain their life. The general consensus is you don't get to end their life because it is an inconvenience to the one doing the sustaining.

And that's before my issues with the father/child support come in. But all I'm asking for is why the exception for a baby growing in the womb. Is it simply the location of the baby?

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

It sure was. Roe v Wade was saying it was unconstitutional to ban abortions. Yet, Republican states still did it either by making abortions impossible to get or actual bans.

Abortion was never codified into Federal law nor was it ever added as an amendment to the Bill of Rights, it's a determination made at a Supreme Court hearing, and it was predicated on perjury.

Are you talking about the trigger laws? The ones that couldn't activate until Roe Vs. Wade was overturned? Well, Roe Vs. Wade was overturned, meaning that state legislation can ban it at their own discretion because it's no longer believed to be protected by the Bill of Rights.

It's telling that when someone mentions that Republicans are trying to ban going to another state for an abortion, all you say is "that's unconstitutional" instead of "that's retarded, thankfully it's unconstutitional"

Why the fuck would I need to say so when I'm already pointing out it violates the constitution?

 

[Netizennameless]

if I were a woman getting an abortion, I'd probably be skeeved out getting one when the fetus can be generally considered viable outside the womb.

Most women are emotionally fucked up by abortion because deep down they know they are killing their children. ×10 for the women who can't have kids after abortion.

yet if a woman chooses to have an abortion of that nature, while I may not agree with it, it is her decision, not mine.

Her decision, her problem. It's almost like if men get told to shut up enough, we start taking action instead. Women are the majority of the US population, it's time they started fixing their own problems.

compromise for either side seems like admitting loss, so as long as that seems to be the case, I don't think we're going to make much headway.

Once this childlike "I'm on the right side of history" subsides we can compromise again. But just like how democrats can't argue with fundies using the Bible as their cited source, lefties have taken racial equality and tried to spin it into tokenism. Maybe one day they'll get back to representing and caring about workers.

 

[Lurker]

A baby outside the womb being breast fed.
A baby outside the womb who needs the parents to do anything.
A disabled person who needs constant support to live their life due to any illness.
A person in a coma.

All of these situations are a person depending on at least one other person to sustain their life. The general consensus is you don't get to end their life because it is an inconvenience to the one doing the sustaining.

And that's before my issues with the father/child support come in. But all I'm asking for is why the exception for a baby growing in the womb. Is it simply the location of the baby?

the way I see it, none of your examples are forcing a person against their will to use their body to sustain another.

 

[contradiction of terns]

Except your GOPers are trying to ban all abortions, at any point. Most women don't even know until what, about 8-12 weeks in?\

Some people want to dash the brains of babies out on the sidewalk and some people want to ban all abortions. When either of these groups becomes large and influential enough to start getting legislation passed then I'll vote against it. In the mean time the strictest limit of any state that I know of is Florida at 15 weeks.

If you're genuinely curious -- and again, this is talking about women in good health and of an appropriate weight who are aware of their body -- then 2 months and two missed periods should be enough to know what's up. That's 8 weeks. Leaves you 4 weeks to make an appointment, show up, and do the thing.

In an effort to be fair I will concede there has to be something for in case primary/secondary birth control fails, because you're correct about the failure rates on the more common forms of BC. I just don't agree that a late stage abortion is the proper next step there.

Well, can't get anywhere unless you make concessions, so I appreciate it. There'll be no autistic screeching from me this morning, though I can't make that promise for anyone else.

I'm a big fan of compromise and if you can believe it this whole thing started with me saying that having abortion federally legal for 60 years before returning the decision to the individual states was a good compromise.

On that note, I'm going to back away slowly now because I definitely don't want to add to the screeching myself.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Why the fuck would I need to say so when I'm already pointing out it violates the constitution?

Again, it's telling that you won't. I think it's because you're fine with the states doing that despite what you said the other day

Abortion was never codified into Federal law nor was it ever added as an amendment to the Bill of Rights, it's a determination made at a Supreme Court hearing, and it was predicated on perjury.

Are you talking about the trigger laws? The ones that couldn't activate until Roe Vs. Wade was overturned? Well, Roe Vs. Wade was overturned, meaning that state legislation can ban it at their own discretion because it's no longer believed to be protected by the Bill of Rights.

The SC decided it was not legal for states to ban abortion with RvW, but the GOP did it, anyway, like Texas's law that made it so you could sue someone who got an abortion, or just shut down abortion clinics in general or make abortions so difficult to get that they're practically impossible.

In an effort to be fair I will concede there has to be something for in case primary/secondary birth control fails, because you're correct about the failure rates on the more common forms of BC. I just don't agree that a late stage abortion is the proper next step there.

Personally, I'd be fine with a 16 week ban as a compromise, although I'd be more wanting a 24 week ban (when the fetus is viable outside the womb).

 

[Getting tard comed]

the way I see it, none of your examples are forcing a person against their will to use their body to sustain another.

So the exception is the location? Because anybody doing anything in life is them using their bodies. Including breast feeding or taking a baby to a doctor or working to earn money to pay bills for medical care. All of that is them using their body to sustain another.

If your issue is "forced", I don't see how the consequences(pregnancy) of one's voluntary actions(having sex) is forcing them to do anything.

Rape/incest can be allowed idc, those numbers are a rounding error.

 

[contradiction of terns]

Personally, I'd be fine with a 16 week ban as a compromise, although I'd be more wanting a 24 week ban (when the fetus is viable outside the womb).

Well, damn. A Christmas miracle. We were able to all come together and at the very least agree that we'd prefer to avoid terminating fetuses that can survive on their own.

You're not so bad when you dial back the accusations of everyone wanting to gargle Trump's balls.

Edit: Sorry. I had to. It's the first time I've seen you make an argument that wasn't pure trolling.

 

[Vindeo]

i imagine this person is in a constant state of seethery.

i don’t know why but i think it’s so funny when they rag on my boy mitch. mitch really is a cold cutthroat motherfucker.

 

[Puff]

Personally, I think they should be legal up until the fetus is viable outside the womb. That's usually 24 weeks in.

Then you'll be happy to know that will almost certainly be legal in all blue states. I checked Gallup and for fully elective abortions that time period polls something like 45% (edit, can't math. 45% is at "three months" by the poll due to how people distribute, the states thing is still my best guess) , so all but one or two purple states will probably have it.
I don't know why you had to pretend to be retarded for 3 pages to get that from you.

One of the big problems with Roe from the pro abortion perspective (well, Casey really) is that viability is a poor legal metric, but a decent legislative one since it changes depending on area, income level, and moves earlier as time goes on. Further, what is viable? 22 weeks or so is the 50/50 survival rate. What happens if we get artificial wombs? Can you do a total ban with a viability limit?

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Then you'll be happy to know that will almost certainly be legal in all blue states. I checked Gallup and for fully elective abortions that time period polls something like 45% (edit, can't math. 45% is at "three months" by the poll due to how people distribute, the states thing is still my best guess) , so all but one or two purple states will probably have it.
I don't know why you had to pretend to be retarded for 3 pages to get that from you.

One of the big problems with Roe from the pro abortion perspective (well, Casey really) is that viability is a poor legal metric, but a decent legislative one since it changes depending on area, income level, and moves earlier as time goes on. Further, what is viable? 22 weeks or so is the 50/50 survival rate. What happens if we get artificial wombs? Can you do a total ban with a viability limit?

That's good and all that, but not every woman in a red state can afford to travel to a blue state for one. Not to mention that Republicans are trying to make it illegal to go to other states for abortions. Not to mention the cost of a procedure outside of their health insurance network; healthcare is expensive

Also, most purple states are gerrymandered out the ass by Republicans, so abortions will probably not be legal there anytime soon.

 

[Netizennameless]

Except like I said, that's never stopped them before.

Up until RvW was overturned, it was not constitutional to ban it at the state level, but they were still doing it. Now, RvW is obviously no longer a thing, but it was even just a few weeks ago.

It's not constitutional for states to have sanctuary cities either. The same logic applies to states that legalize marijuana. States telling the feds to pound sand is an age old tradition and probably the last thing left that liberals and conservatives agree on.

I see you're missing the point. Something being unconstitutional has never stopped your precious GOPers before. It was unconstitutional, via RvW, to ban abortions just a week ago, yet GOPers did it.

It wasn't unconstitutional you brainlet. Those laws were passed to challenge the roe v. Wade ruling and work their way up to the Supreme Court. Once the Supreme Court reviewed them, they upheld Mississippi's abortion ban as constitutional and by extension all abortion bans. They also affirmed California's right to provide abortion up to birth. In the long run, this ruling is good for both sides because it returns choice to the states and therefore the people.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

It wasn't unconstitutional you brainlet. Those laws were passed to challenge the roe v. Wade ruling and work their way up to the Supreme Court. Once the Supreme Court reviewed them, they upheld Mississippi's abortion ban as constitutional and by extension all abortion bans. They also affirmed California's right to provide abortion up to birth. In the long run, this ruling is good for both sides because it returns choice to the states and therefore the people.

It was unconstitutional at the time, retard. There was also the abortion bans that they tried a decade ago, by just closing abortion clinics or making abortions so hard to get that they are impossible. I think Alabama had a total of one abortion clinic because of all the red tape they made it so you had to go through.

Again, something being "unconstitutional" has never stopped states before, and when Republicans do try to push that, you'll be cheering it on despite what you're saying now. You "MAH STATES RIGHTS" folks always do that

And again, it doesn't give "the people" the choice. Blue states like Arizona, PA and WI are gerrymandered out the ass so Republicans have huge majorities despite the states voting blue overall.

 

[Puff]

That's good and all that, but not every woman in a red state can afford to travel to a blue state for one. Not to mention that Republicans are trying to make it illegal to go to other states for abortions. Not to mention the cost of a procedure outside of their health insurance network; healthcare is expensive

Also, most purple states are gerrymandered out the ass by Republicans, so abortions will probably not be legal there anytime soon.

Everywhere is gerrmandered by someone and always will be. None of the "illegal to leave for abortion" laws have any chance in the courts, and the people in those states want to ban something they view as murder. Any inconvenience to a murderer doesn't concern me.
My state, my choice. Don't like it? Move.
Edit: after that last spergout, you're just retarded, aren't you? You have to pass laws to figure out if it'll pass muster under the current court. It's the only game in town.
You're just pissed your team lost

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Everywhere is gerrmandered by someone and always will be. None of the "illegal to leave for abortion" laws have any chance in the courts, and the people in those states want to ban something they view as murder. Any inconvenience to a murderer doesn't concern me.
My state, my choice. Don't like it? Move.

People said that "illegal to ban abortion" will not have any chance in courts, yet your precious GOP still did it. And like I said, that shit is already going on with regards to abortions in another state. Idaho, Texas and Oklahoma made it so you can sue women who go to another state for an abortion. I don't see you outraged about that, and the laws are still happening.

It's fine you hate abortion, but stop being a coward and hiding behind "MAH STATES RIGHTS". I guarantee you if the GOP tried to push a national abortion ban you'd be cheering it on despite what you're saying now

 

[Vindeo]

New Programing folks

https://mobile.twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1541512995725000705

JUST IN - Pelosi, the speaker of the US House, labels the Supreme Court an "extremist" body that punishes the American people.
View attachment 3433378

oh shit.

god i hope this legislation doesn’t pass so we can see more chimp outs.

 

[Lurker]

So I'm seeing people mentioning how women should know when they're pregnant due to missed periods. Some fun facts:

1. Conception doesn't happen until 2 weeks into a pregnancy. Pregnancy is considered " started" on the first day of your last period.
2. Women miss periods for many reasons and sometimes no reason. Periods can be off by a week or two, some women just naturally have irregular periods.
3. So for states that have the 6 week ban, a woman may be pregnant for an entire month, which is 4 weeks, and not know it until the next missed period, which as stated above, can be missed for no reason or any reason, which makes it difficult for a woman to really know until it's too late.

 

[Puff]

People said that "illegal to ban abortion" will not have any chance in courts, yet your precious GOP still did it. And like I said, that shit is already going on with regards to abortions in another state. Idaho, Texas and Oklahoma made it so you can sue women who go to another state for an abortion. I don't see you outraged about that, and the laws are still happening.

Because I'm not. They're a good thing, but to calm your ass. I'm giving my honest opinion that those laws are truly unconstitutional and I would disagree with any unlikely court decision that said they were.

It's fine you hate abortion, but stop being a coward and hiding behind "MAH STATES RIGHTS". I guarantee you if the GOP tried to push a national abortion ban you'd be cheering it on despite what you're saying now

Yes. The courts said it was a legislative issue, not a state one, you tard.
If a national law passed in my favor I'd be happy with it. And either way the court ruled on that I would be happy with. For a ban, that's a policy win. The states rights issue has been fucked for a century and it's how they'd rule on any other law. Against it? We finally have a ruling for states against the feds for the first time in decades.

You assume a lot about people.

 

[Sho'nuff]

Disagree. It's the neo-cons that are NPCs. It's Bush Republicans that cry about conservative spending until they get into office and then spend like drunken sailors.

that's because Republicans lie just as much as democrats and can't be trusted with blind power. See the patriot act.

This isn't unique to the democrats. The authoritarian party just changes hands on occasion.

I don't think I can agree with the neocon, at least from the stand point of their values politically. I don't really see thoughtless NPC behavior in right of the aisle politics except on the fringes. I'm sure there is, but it's not enough to make an impact.

I agree on the Lord Acton-esque politicians lie and I'd say both parties will be as authoritarian as their followers will allow. Which brings back up the left being more infested with NPC who are constantly voting against their own interests as democrats continue to get away with as much control as possible, not wanting to lose grasp. This thread and the rvw reversal is perfect example of that. Dems have turned this into some kind "stripping your rights" when it simply means abortion isn't constitutionally protected. Many spout how women have less rights than guns and how abortion is completely illegal now... if you went out on a street corner and chanted all this, they'd all agree with you and cheer, and you would all be dead wrong.
Even here on this "right wing" website you have multiple members discussing multiple different levels of abortion legality, compromises being made, so on. Any somewhat left idea posted in here is always aggressive in tone and condescending, no compromise or understanding; it's that my way and no other way that encompasses the NPC mindset, and is highly represented in all walks of left leaning politics.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

Again, it's telling that you won't. I think it's because you're fine with the states doing that despite what you said the other day

No it's not, you're making assumptions and pulling shit from thin air.

The fact you're so desperate to grasp at straws like this just proves that you're not worth talking to in any capacity whatsoever, you have no point to be made and the only way my position is assailable is by putting words in my mouth. Naturally, pointing out that an action is unconstitutional would imply that I'm against the action, but you're so strained for a win that you have to skew a textually neutral statement into an oppositional one.

You do so because the only way you can stand your ground in an argument is by essentially calling everyone you disagree with a liar and accuse them of an ulterior motive because pigeonholing people into a single stereotype is easier for you to argue against because it culls nuances and broader context, it's the reason you accuse everyone you disagree with of being a fundamentalist Christian, not because it strengthens your position but simply because it weakens theirs. You don't need to debate the contents of what a person says if you can just dismiss it on account of character traits you imagined them to have, that's the sum of every argument you have with everyone.