SCOTUS opinion leaked: Roe v Wade

FreeSpeech1789 said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
This guy says it best.


Stop abortion at the source. Vasectomies are reversible. Make every young man have one. when he's deemed financially & emotionally fit to be a father it will be reversed. What's that? Did the idea of regulating a man's body make you uncomfortable? Then mind your fucking business!

- Stephen Szczerba
Click to expand...


Or how about we make Father's financially responsible for the children they sire? Oh wait we already do and they have no choice in the matter whatsoever in fact they don't have a say in anything to do with the child after insemination.
Click to expand...

Is this the half ass backwards way to bitch about the rare occasions when some clod finds out he impregnated a girl friend then suddenly gets a "I'll take responsibility of the child" attitude ... Despite the woman NOT wanting to go through the 9 months AND/OR have him as a father? In such cases, marriage wasn't even in the equation before the discovery.

And if the woman comes forth and proves, "you're the father, you're the financial responsibility", it usually after NEITHER party opted for contraception. And in the majority of the cases the man is NOT obligated for financial responsibility unless there are extenuating circumstances (long term live partners, for example).

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/preglimony_b_1554716

https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-c...o-pay-child-support-for-an-unwanted-baby.html

So NOTHING you put forth diminishes the rationality of Szczerba's statement.
 
FreeSpeech1789 said:
Originally Posted by christiefan915 View Post
I guess you missed the post where I showed that only two women were ever charged, and the last one was in 1922.
Click to expand...


So? That doesn't make it not murder. Tell us what is the philisophical difference between killing a 9 month old that has passed through a woman's vagina and one who hasn't?
Click to expand...

9th month abortions (unless decided it's necessary to save the life of the mother) are illegal and punishable with jail time .... has been that way for a LONG time. Do your homework before your fingers hit the keys, please.
 
volsrock said:
Since the woman has all the right to decide keep or not to keep....she should be 100% responsible for that choice!

If I decide to keep my old car, I am 100% responsible for its up keep. My neighbor who helped me work on it is not!




HER BODY >>>HER CHOICE>>>HER RESPONSIBILITY


not

HER BODY>>>HER CHOICE>>>SOMEONE ELSE RESPONSIBILITY
Click to expand...

So by your "logic", jackasses can just insist on no contraception, knock up as many women as possible, and just skip la-dee-da away? But then, your ilk want the same jackasses to have the power to insist the woman have an abortion or insist she bring an unwanted child to term.

A real paradise for cretins like you. You can have women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen (married or not), or YOU decide if an abortion is necessary...and of course YOU don't wear a condom, all that stuff is the woman's job...unless it interferes with your pleasure. :321:
 
volsrock said:
Who gets pregnant? The man or woman?

The woman should be more responsible! In the BC part of it

What if the woman lies to the man...Oh..I am on birth control ...but not on it
Click to expand...

What are you, fucking stupid?

It's 50/50, genius....no pregnancy without semen. Guess who provides that? Then it's on the woman for 9 months.

As for "lying", there have been court cases, and they don't always end with the guy carrying a financial burden. Deal with it.
 
dukkha said:
why would a woman lie?
and again there is the day after pill
Condoms are tolerable - id rather not but they are a choice as well.

PS I see no reason to overturn Roe v Wade.
Click to expand...

Didn't the same anti-abortion jokers fight against the morning after pill as well? I believed they lied and said it induced abortion when it actually prevented contraception.
 
christiefan915 said:
In the first case "He says the child's mother is even okay with him not paying child support because she doesn't want anything to do with him, but the state is forcing the issue."

In the second case "His ex-girlfriend’s attorney, Carel Stith, claimed that money was taken out of Cornejo’s paycheck several years ago and he didn’t contest it, and that in itself can satisfy a court argument that he should have handled the matter long ago. “There can be consequences, even if you don’t do anything,” Stith told local news.Cornejo and his attorney, Cheryl Coleman, must now persuade a judge to reopen the case — as the original court order cannot be amended. If that doesn’t happen, he must pay up or face time behind bars. The case is due back in court next month."

Your criticism should be of the states who made these one-sided laws and don't except evidence that the men aren't fathers.
Click to expand...

But these clowns NEED these laws so they can bull horn the usual "barefoot & pregnant in the kitchen" type nonsense. So lobbying such isn't in the cards...and I doubt the Christo-fascist factions in the country & gov't will be unified on this as well.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Those who want mass abortions should do what they always should have done....go to the work of putting it in the Constitution......properly.

Too slow and too much work for these useless fucks I know!
Click to expand...

And on the flip side....those who bitch about a nanny state but want local gov't to enforce an invasion of privacy between doctor & patient are hypocrites. Also, they pretend that there are not other amendments that pertain to a right to medical procedures without outside religious interference. I would really like to see their "unless it's spelled out in no uncertain terms, it's not a law" applied to Constitutional law they do like. Hmmm?
 
Taichiliberal said:
And on the flip side....those who bitch about a nanny state but want local gov't to enforce an invasion of privacy between doctor & patient are hypocrites. Also, they pretend that there are not other amendments that pertain to a right to medical procedures without outside religious interference. I would really like to see their "unless it's spelled out in no uncertain terms, it's not a law" applied to Constitutional law they do like. Hmmm?
Click to expand...

I am more than fine with states doing their own thing except where the Federal Government has jurisdiction as outlined in the Constitution. If what your state is doing really bothers you then the remedy is for you to move to one which you like better.
 
Earl said:
Making abortion a legal right throughout the country is one of, if not the most important decisions made, that turned the ideology of our country from a people that honor and respect each individual human life to an ideology lacking morality and encompassing personal selfishness.

It's not lost on me that we also had a time in our history where other human lives were not respected, but as the moral people of society fought to eradicate such injustice and ideology, freeing slaves and the minds of individuals who were lacking a moral and righteous compass, evil once again infiltrated itself into society with the mind twist to kill babies instead of a certain ethnicity, race, or sex.

It is no coincidence that the ideology of abortion rights over human rights, is linked to the overall selfish me, me, me, generations that have been created.

Of course I believe the outlawing murder for all is the righteous decision for a country, but at the very least, to reverse Roe v wade, would allow a people within a state to democratically choose what kind of society they want to be part of. The Roe decision stole the right of people within every state in the country to choose a society that would protect and respect ALL human life. The Roe decision forced a self absorbed ideology on our country and our children without exception. People of a state that choose abortion to be legal will retain that option. Sovereign states.

Slavery was legal. It was NOT right. Abortion is currently legal, it is NOT right. The federal government has been raising our children to believe wiping out a human life is optional, acceptable and just fine if the child relies on your body for life. It took time for the government to convince all new generations, by law, that enslaving other humans is wrong. This will take time too.

Additionally I do believe it is not controlling or infringing on a woman's right to do what they want with their own body, to make it illegal to kill a child. Nothing wrong with creating a society that will say, "Sorry, you are not allowed to kill your child. It's against the law." It is horrible and sad that a woman would feel that killing her child is okay and morally legitimate.
Click to expand...

Man, that was a load of convoluted horse shit! Let me educate you on few points:

- premature "births" require all sorts of intense and heroic medical procedures to keep that fetus alive and developing to a child that can breathe and eat on its own. Without them, ALL premature births would end in death. The vast majority of abortions occur before a fetus can even reach the level of "pre-maturity" delivery status.

- Abortion laws under Roe vs. Wade has a cut off date for abortions. NO 9 MONTH CHILD CAN BE LEGALLY ABORTED UNLESS IT'S A CERTAIN THREAT TO MOTHER TO FOLLOW TO BIRTH. So the constant bull horn by anti-abortionist about "killing children" is a misleading statement, if not an out right lie. Apropos to this, anti-abortionists LIED when they wailed against the "morning after" pill, claiming it caused abortion. It didn't, it PREVENTED CONTRACEPTION. A standard dishonest tactic of idealist with fascist leanings.



- The sheer hypocrisy by people who on one hand wail against a "nanny state" in any form while beating the drum for gov't control of a woman's private medical decision is astounding. Also, the same folk want to eliminate all federal & state social service programs & unions and privatize everything. Which leave the working folk out in the financial cold.

- Roe vs. Wade is about CHOICE. No one is forced to have an abortion, no one is forced to give birth. That's how freedom and democracy work.

- Communist China has (or had) a "one child" rule. Pure gov't control. I wonder how the anti-abortionist feel about that? If you're willing to use the gov't to tell a women she must have a child regardless of the circumstances of impregnation (incest, rape), then why not tell them they can have only one child, then use contraception to prevent any further pregnancies?
 
Code1211 said:
So half a truth is better than none?
Click to expand...

It is not half a truth. If the story says abortion will be a decision made by state governments (if Roe is overturned) most people will know the state makes decisions through the state legislature and governor. The story does not need to include a civics lesson to explain that.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
And on the flip side....those who bitch about a nanny state but want local gov't to enforce an invasion of privacy between doctor & patient are hypocrites. Also, they pretend that there are not other amendments that pertain to a right to medical procedures without outside religious interference. I would really like to see their "unless it's spelled out in no uncertain terms, it's not a law" applied to Constitutional law they do like. Hmmm?
Click to expand...


I am more than fine with states doing their own thing except where the Federal Government has jurisdiction as outlined in the Constitution. If what your state is doing really bothers you then the remedy is for you to move to one which you like better.
Click to expand...

Are fucking kidding me? Yeah, let's eliminate ALL federal law, throw out the Constitution. Each state makes it's own rules, period.

So criminalize abortion? No problem! Ban interracial marriage and sex? Sure! Keep women out of the work force to a great degree and pay them less than a man for the same job? Why not? Your boss is God, and determines your hours and pay as he sees fit? Okay! No ACA or affordable health care of any kind? Yep! I mean, unless the Constitution ORIGINALLY and specifically spelled out in no-uncertain terms says otherwise, the States can jolly well bring back Jim Crow with the right Congress and SCOTUS.

And of course, EVERYONE CAN AFFORD TO MOVE TO ANOTHER STATE WITH BETTER OPTIONS (if one exists) AND START OVER WHEN THESE CHANGES OCCUR.

:|

Man, let me know what you're smoking, and where can I get some!
 
Taichiliberal said:
Are fucking kidding me? Yeah, let's eliminate ALL federal law, throw out the Constitution. Each state makes it's own rules, period.

So criminalize abortion? No problem! Ban interracial marriage and sex? Sure! Keep women out of the work force to a great degree and pay them less than a man for the same job? Why not? Your boss is God, and determines your hours and pay as he sees fit? Okay! No ACA or affordable health care of any kind? Yep! I mean, unless the Constitution ORIGINALLY and specifically spelled out in no-uncertain terms says otherwise, the States can jolly well bring back Jim Crow with the right Congress and SCOTUS.

And of course, EVERYONE CAN AFFORD TO MOVE TO ANOTHER STATE WITH BETTER OPTIONS (if one exists) AND START OVER WHEN THESE CHANGES OCCUR.

:|

Man, let me know what you're smoking, and where can I get some!
Click to expand...


No thank you.

I did not read further than this.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Are fucking kidding me? Yeah, let's eliminate ALL federal law, throw out the Constitution. Each state makes it's own rules, period.

So criminalize abortion? No problem! Ban interracial marriage and sex? Sure! Keep women out of the work force to a great degree and pay them less than a man for the same job? Why not? Your boss is God, and determines your hours and pay as he sees fit? Okay! No ACA or affordable health care of any kind? Yep! I mean, unless the Constitution ORIGINALLY and specifically spelled out in no-uncertain terms says otherwise, the States can jolly well bring back Jim Crow with the right Congress and SCOTUS.

And of course, EVERYONE CAN AFFORD TO MOVE TO ANOTHER STATE WITH BETTER OPTIONS (if one exists) AND START OVER WHEN THESE CHANGES OCCUR.

:|

Man, let me know what you're smoking, and where can I get some!
Click to expand...

Seems all on the left had no problem with states rights when it came time to legalize Cannabis. You lefties all talk out your ass.
 
LV426 said:
Roe wasn't Constitutional Law.

It was a decision that was based on Constitutional Law.

Roe was never a law that was passed by Congress.
Click to expand...

Roe was definitely constitutional law. They interpreted the Constitution to include abortion under the right to privacy changing the meaning of the Constitution to expand the right to privacy. Nobody thinks it was a law passed by Congress.

LV426 said:
Exactly, which is why even the Roe decision was flawed. But just because it was flawed in that way doesn't mean it should be overruled just because of 5 or 6 justices personal beliefs.

Also, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barret all perjured themselves during their confirmation hearings when they all said Roe was settled.
Click to expand...

That is the way the system has always worked. Supreme Court decisions are made by a majority vote of the justices.

Does that mean Brown, Loving, Lawrence, and Obergefell should not have overturned previous law just because of 5 or 6 justices personal beliefs?

All the justices perjure themselves during confirmation hearings. They have no real choice if they want to be confirmed because of the excessively partisan questioning by Democrats and Republicans trying to get them to commit themselves to issues on cases they have not heard.

In many cases justices just rule on the MS case without making the broader ruling on Roe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top