GOP talking point: if you oppose SCOTUS decision, you're against democracy

[Into the Night]

USA Today IIRC, I'll look for a link.

OK it was 1.5% not 1.5:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ew-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/

You should be aware that USA Today consistently just makes stuff up. It is not a newspaper. It is a work of fiction in many cases.

Don't care if it was unplanned, still a voluntary act to have sex, live with the consequences of your actions even unintended consequences or put the kid up for adoption.

Bingo. Couldn't have said it better myself.

No, you don't have the right to murder babies, that were created through your own bad decisions,

Quite right.

science demonstrates that a new human life with completely unique DNA is formed at Inception,

Not science. An observation. Science is a set of falsifiable theories, not any observation. Remember that all observations (even those augmented by instrumentation) are subject to the problems of phenomenology. Nobody has ever fully sequenced the DNA of any fertilized egg.

I would be willing to bend on rape and statutory rape as it is the result of force and coercion

So would I. The result is the child of another.

but the DNC won't even bend on late term abortions as proven by supposed moderates like Senator Ryan out of Ohio who reiterated that on Bret Baier the other day.

They are actually arguing for infanticide, murdering the child AFTER it is born.

 

[Into the Night]

People who support late-term (when the mother's life isn't threatened) are just as extreme and fringe as those who don't support choice in the 1st trimester.

False dichotomy fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes, I am all for that individual liberty but some believe liberty involves protecting life. I don't agree,

So you don't want to protect life. Gotit.

but in a democracy all of our votes are equal.

The United States was never a democracy.

Also, there are many examples of America not supporting individual liberty.

Of course there is. So?

Comparing it to the dark ages is also not a good comparison because that implies women have long had the right to abortion.

No, it's just a buzzword. Women have never had the right to murder their own children.

But, as the history of this issue is described in the draft, it has not even been a long-standing debate or fight in the U. S.

So?

Most people support a court decision if they like the results, but I think that is poor constitutional law.

That is not constitutional law. No court has the authority to change a constitution.

The court took a convoluted path to reach its conclusion. And, they stretched it even further when they divided it into trimesters--certainly, there is no justification in our Constitution for claiming a woman's right to end her pregnancy differs by trimester.

The Constitution of the United States is silent on the matter, meaning the federal government has NO authority here. Rights do not come from a piece of paper.

 

[Flash]

The Constitution of the United States is silent on the matter, meaning the federal government has NO authority here. Rights do not come from a piece of paper.

The 9th Amendment says we retain certain rights not mentioned in 1-8--the Constitution is also silent on what those rights include, but they still exist.

The Constitution is silent on the matter of sending your kids to private schools, living with relatives, interracial marriage, the right to marry in prison, obtain contraceptives, live with relatives, against forced sterilization, and consensual sex.

These are not in the Constitution but unless you favor an oppressive government that can deprive you of these rights they are protected by the right to privacy in the 9th amendment.

Do you support the SC voting to overturn Row as in the draft opinion?

 

[Flash]

You do not have a right to murder your own children.

Abortion is not murder under any state law.

 

[Grokmaster]

Because, hey - now the VOTERS get to decide if a woman has rights nor not. Why would anyone be opposed to that? Don't you trust voters to do the right thing?

I've already heard it a half dozen times in the past day. If you oppose overturning a 50+ year old precedent and what has been the law of the land for a generation, you're against democracy. You're against Americans.

They really play us all for fools.

MORE LIES, AS USUAL.

NO ONE IS BUYING THE LEFT'S BULLSHIT ANYMORE.

 

[Into the Night]

The 9th Amendment says we retain certain rights not mentioned in 1-8--the Constitution is also silent on what those rights include, but they still exist.

So you agree with me.

The Constitution is silent on the matter of sending your kids to private schools, living with relatives, interracial marriage, the right to marry in prison, obtain contraceptives, live with relatives, against forced sterilization, and consensual sex.

The federal government has NO authority in any of these matters either.

These are not in the Constitution but unless you favor an oppressive government that can deprive you of these rights they are protected by the right to privacy in the 9th amendment.

No. You are assuming these are rights. Compositional error fallacy.

Do you support the SC voting to overturn Row as in the draft opinion?

Yes. RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

Abortion is not murder under any state law.

WRONG. There are some 38 States (including my own) that use this language specifically. You are killing your own offspring for the sake of convenience. There is no other word for it. THAT one is going into my sig!

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello BartenderElite,

Because, hey - now the VOTERS get to decide if a woman has rights nor not. Why would anyone be opposed to that? Don't you trust voters to do the right thing?

I've already heard it a half dozen times in the past day. If you oppose overturning a 50+ year old precedent and what has been the law of the land for a generation, you're against democracy. You're against Americans.

They really play us all for fools.

The right wing would be nothing without spin.

They can't some up with sound reasoning, so they just have to control the messaging.

And they are very good at it.

Democrats are stuck with boring old facts. Republicans are limited only by their imagination and their best word smiths.

 

[Flash]

So you agree with me.

I don't know. What rights do you think are contained in the 9th Amendment

The federal government has NO authority in any of these matters either.

The was no federal action involved. All those freedoms were denied by the states and the Supreme Court ruled those restrictions were unconstitutional.

Yes. RQAA.

That would involve the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution to say the right to privacy does not protect abortion.

You have been telling us the SC cannot interpret the Constitution; yet, that is exactly what you say you want if they overturn Roe.

 

[Flash]

WRONG. There are some 38 States (including my own) that use this language specifically. You are killing your own offspring for the sake of convenience. There is no other word for it. THAT one is going into my sig!

Your state includes abortion under its definition of murder that is currently in effect? Can you cite that law?

 

[gfm7175]

Do you support the SC voting to overturn Row

Yes.

 

[gfm7175]

WRONG. There are some 38 States (including my own) that use this language specifically. You are killing your own offspring for the sake of convenience. There is no other word for it. THAT one is going into my sig!

Wisconsin is probably one of them... I don't know the specific language used, but I do know that Wisconsin law considers abortion to be a felony offense. -- I can tell you right now that our useless ideological State AG would not prosecute anyone on the basis of that law, however. I hope that we get a conservative AG again come November... Our useless tyrannical Governor needs to go as well...

 

[zymurgy]

Women did not have the right to an abortion until the Supreme Court interpreted a piece of paper to say the 9th amendment protects the right to privacy between a woman and her doctor to have an abortion. That right did come from a piece of paper called the Constitution.

that is a massive simplification.

we also had to fight a war, and amend the constitution to incorporate the bill of rights.

 

[Flash]

that is a massive simplification.

we also had to fight a war, and amend the constitution to incorporate the bill of rights.

True, the interpretation was complicated, but the basic idea is simple. The court interpreted the Constitution to provide a right to privacy which protects abortion the first two trimesters.

The 9th Amendment was never incorporated.

 

[AProudLefty]

false equivalence

Explain how it is false equivalence.

 

[zymurgy]

True, the interpretation was complicated, but the basic idea is simple. The court interpreted the Constitution to provide a right to privacy which protects abortion the first two trimesters.

The 9th Amendment was never incorporated.

odd flex - this was the amendment that involved the states prior to incorporation

 

[AProudLefty]

They don't have inherent rights over the life and death of other human bodies and becoming pregnant is a voluntary act, voluntary actions have consequences.

Did you seriously just say that?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Explain how it is false equivalence.

because NOBODY is REGULATING anyones body.............unless you consider dealing with the consequences of ones actions 'regulating'

 

[BartenderElite]

because NOBODY is REGULATING anyones body.............unless you consider dealing with the consequences of ones actions 'regulating'

Well, that's simply incorrect. When the state forces a woman to carry a fetus to term when she has other options, they are absolutely regulating her body.

Not much ambiguity about it. And it puts us at odds w/ most of the modern western world.