# Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice



## C_Clayton_Jones

“America is a different place, with most of its population born after _Roe _was decided. And a decision to overturn _Roe_ — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate _Roe’s_ damage than to reverse it.

It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.

What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — *especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus*.”









						Opinion | Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice
					

An abrupt and profound change to an established law is utterly destructive to respect for the law.




					www.nytimes.com
				




Overturning _Roe_ is therefore repugnant to conservativism – it is radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible.


----------



## gipper

Why haven’t the Ds passed a law making abortion legal?  Simple fix. They’ve had majorities in both houses several times since 1973. O and Joe said they would, but didn’t. Strange no?


----------



## occupied

Yes, it's time to retire the world "conservative" from American politics. Is there anyone left on the right that prefers cautious incremental change?


----------



## scruffy

occupied said:


> Yes, it's time to retire the world "conservative" from American politics. Is there anyone left on the right that prefers cautious incremental change?


Is there anyone on the left who won't riot for instant gratification?


----------



## SweetSue92

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “America is a different place, with most of its population born after _Roe _was decided. And a decision to overturn _Roe_ — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate _Roe’s_ damage than to reverse it.
> 
> It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.
> 
> What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — *especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus*.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion | Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice
> 
> 
> An abrupt and profound change to an established law is utterly destructive to respect for the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overturning _Roe_ is therefore repugnant to conservativism – it is radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible.



Cry harder


----------



## SweetSue92

occupied said:


> Yes, it's time to retire the world "conservative" from American politics. Is there anyone left on the right that prefers cautious incremental change?



The Left implements vast societal change and then years later when we finally reap it's tragic devastation they whine about "incremental change".

I just saw a pic of a 10 year old "non-binary" girl with her head shaved. This is destructive. You own it. Probably in 10 years you all will cry about "incremental change" when these traumatized kids tell the stories of how they were sucked into a horrid fad....


----------



## whitehall

The creation of Roe v Wade was a radical issue. The Court found a "right to privacy" that did not exist in the Constitution and expanded it to justify the killing of millions of unborn. Democrats said abortion would be rare and here we are in the 21st century talking about killing newborn babies by neglect.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “America is a different place, with most of its population born after _Roe _was decided. And a decision to overturn _Roe_ — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate _Roe’s_ damage than to reverse it.
> 
> It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.
> 
> What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — *especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus*.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion | Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice
> 
> 
> An abrupt and profound change to an established law is utterly destructive to respect for the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overturning _Roe_ is therefore repugnant to conservativism – it is radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible.


So is any manner of gun control.

Go fuck your communist self. You have no credibility


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

occupied said:


> Yes, it's time to retire the world "conservative" from American politics. Is there anyone left on the right that prefers cautious incremental change?


Similarly, the word "liberal" has been hijacked by the communist filth on the left. None of you motherfuckers are even close to liberal.


----------



## occupied

SweetSue92 said:


> The Left implements vast societal change and then years later when we finally reap it's tragic devastation they whine about "incremental change".
> 
> I just saw a pic of a 10 year old "non-binary" girl with her head shaved. This is destructive. You own it. Probably in 10 years you all will cry about "incremental change" when these traumatized kids tell the stories of how they were sucked into a horrid fad....


Plenty of threads around where you people can trade scary stories that somehow justify being spiteful assholes in all matters. The world has never been improved by making it meaner and more uncaring but damned if "conservatives" are not going to make the attempt.


----------



## occupied

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Similarly, the word "liberal" has been hijacked by the communist filth on the left. None of you motherfuckers are even close to liberal.


People that say stuff like that usually have a long list of stuff they want to ban and criminalize. What's on your list?


----------



## iceberg

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “America is a different place, with most of its population born after _Roe _was decided. And a decision to overturn _Roe_ — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate _Roe’s_ damage than to reverse it.
> 
> It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.
> 
> What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — *especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus*.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion | Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice
> 
> 
> An abrupt and profound change to an established law is utterly destructive to respect for the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overturning _Roe_ is therefore repugnant to conservativism – it is radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible.


giving the states back power. 

I'm fine with that.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

occupied said:


> People that say stuff like that usually have a long list of stuff they want to ban and criminalize. What's on your list?


Absolutely nothing.

See, I am a true liberal.

You? You are a fucking communist. Kill yourself.


----------



## occupied

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Absolutely nothing.
> 
> See, I am a true liberal.
> 
> You? You are a fucking communist. Kill yourself.


I'm not looking to ban anything either. The only differnce between us is that you will fall in with people who do just for spite.


----------



## scruffy

occupied said:


> Plenty of threads around where you people can trade scary stories that somehow justify being spiteful assholes in all matters. The world has never been improved by making it meaner and more uncaring but damned if "conservatives" are not going to make the attempt.


Hey, you don't want me to get mean?

Then STAY OUT OF MY FACE.

And away from my children.

You get in our faces again with your goddamn "protests" and I'll eat you for lunch. And then throw what's left of your rotting carcass to the maggots


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

occupied said:


> I'm not looking to ban anything either. The only differnce between us is that you will fall in with people who do just for spite.


Right.  You're okay with zero firearm restrictions?


----------



## occupied

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Right.  You're okay with zero firearm restrictions?


That question is absurd.


----------



## Oddball

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “America is a different place, with most of its population born after _Roe _was decided. And a decision to overturn _Roe_ — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate _Roe’s_ damage than to reverse it.
> 
> It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.
> 
> What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — *especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus*.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion | Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice
> 
> 
> An abrupt and profound change to an established law is utterly destructive to respect for the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overturning _Roe_ is therefore repugnant to conservativism – it is radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible.


So "radical" that leftist superstars Alan Dershowitz and Ruth Bader Ginsburg considered Roe to be aberrant bad law.

Go  piss up a rope.


----------



## j-mac

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “America is a different place, with most of its population born after _Roe _was decided. And a decision to overturn _Roe_ — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate _Roe’s_ damage than to reverse it.
> 
> It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.
> 
> What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — *especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus*.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion | Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice
> 
> 
> An abrupt and profound change to an established law is utterly destructive to respect for the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overturning _Roe_ is therefore repugnant to conservativism – it is radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible.


That is ridiculous....No wonder it comes from the NYTimes....Look, it's real simple...In order to confer an actual right, that has to be done through a constitutional process via an amendment...ANYTHING other than that is an illusion subject to the whims of future courts or bodies of Congress....

Now, if the support for Roe is so popular as you and other libs say then an amendment shouldn't be a problem...In fact the only reason NOT to do so, is because you know it would fail to meet the standards.


----------



## Coyote

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “America is a different place, with most of its population born after _Roe _was decided. And a decision to overturn _Roe_ — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate _Roe’s_ damage than to reverse it.
> 
> It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.
> 
> What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — *especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus*.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion | Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice
> 
> 
> An abrupt and profound change to an established law is utterly destructive to respect for the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overturning _Roe_ is therefore repugnant to conservativism – it is radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible.


The Rightwing penchant overturning long established precedent and established late, for putting in political judges and creating tbe most politically activist court since FDR almost a century ago….is indeed reckless.

The Supreme Court is losing credibility as being an impartial judiciary is being eroded in the eyes of many American.  This isn’t good for our country.  Neither is the possible precedent of giving individual rights and then taking them away.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

occupied said:


> That question is absurd.


Why?  Because it demonstrates how you are not a liberal?


----------



## Oddball

Coyote said:


> The Rightwing penchant overturning long established precedent and established late, for putting in political judges and creating tbe most politically activist court since FDR almost a century ago….is indeed reckless.
> 
> The Supreme Court is losing credibility as being an impartial judiciary is being eroded in the eyes of many American.  This isn’t good for our country.  Neither is the possible precedent of giving individual rights and then taking them away.


Dred Scott overturned "long established precedent and established".

Oh wait....Democrts were all pissy when Jim Crow was overturned too.


----------



## j-mac

Coyote said:


> The Rightwing penchant overturning long established precedent and established late, for putting in political judges and creating tbe most politically activist court since FDR almost a century ago….is indeed reckless.
> 
> The Supreme Court is losing credibility as being an impartial judiciary is being eroded in the eyes of many American.  This isn’t good for our country.  Neither is the possible precedent of giving individual rights and then taking them away.


First, please be so kind as to point out in our Constitution where it says that the SCOTUS can 'give individual rights'....

Second, It is laughable that you complain about activist judges when we see activism from liberal judges ever increasing in our society today...

Face it Coyote, you don't like the decision if this leaked document holds as the final decision, but, will not advocate for the only real way to confer a new right through an amendment because you know you don't have the votes...IOW, it is YOU who want the judicial activism for your outcome.


----------



## Coyote

Oddball said:


> Dred Scott overturned "long established precedent and established".
> 
> Oh wait....Democrts were all pissy when Jim Crow was overturned too.


Dred Scott did.  Rightwingers had a meltdown when it was overturned.  But Dred Scott violated the individual rights of an entire group of Americans.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Coyote said:


> Dred Scott did.  Rightwingers had a meltdown when it was overturned.  But Dred Scott violated the individual rights of an entire group of Americans.


The NFA violates the individual rights of ALL Americans.


----------



## Oddball

Coyote said:


> Dred Scott did.  Rightwingers had a meltdown when it was overturned.  But Dred Scott violated the individual rights of an entire group of Americans.


Wrong....That was all left wing democrats in Dixie.....Roe violates the right to life of the unborn.

P.S....Your lame-assed "the parties switched" bullshit won't play here, hypocrite.


----------



## occupied

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Why?  Because it demonstrates how you are not a liberal?


No firearm restrictions is more of a libertarian pipedream than liberal. I believe people should be able to own firearms responsibly with that responsibility enforced by the rule of law.


----------



## iceberg

Coyote said:


> The Rightwing penchant overturning long established precedent and established late, for putting in political judges and creating tbe most politically activist court since FDR almost a century ago….is indeed reckless.
> 
> The Supreme Court is losing credibility as being an impartial judiciary is being eroded in the eyes of many American.  This isn’t good for our country.  Neither is the possible precedent of giving individual rights and then taking them away.


Yea, the dems never make political moves.


----------



## Oddball

occupied said:


> No firearm restrictions is more of a libertarian pipedream than liberal. I believe people should be able to own firearms responsibly with that responsibility enforced by the rule of law.


Libertarians are the only liberals left....You are an authoritarian, not a liberal.


----------



## j-mac

occupied said:


> No firearm restrictions is more of a libertarian pipedream than liberal. I believe people should be able to own firearms responsibly with that responsibility enforced by the rule of law.


Actually it is the Constitutional right period...


----------



## occupied

j-mac said:


> Actually it is the Constitutional right period...


So people should not be held legally responsible for having and using guns? Not sure what your objection is.


----------



## Coyote

j-mac said:


> First, please be so kind as to point out in our Constitution where it says that the SCOTUS can 'give individual rights'....


I don’t literally mean they give rights, but their decisions effect rights and how they are interpreted.



j-mac said:


> Second, It is laughable that you complain about activist judges when we see activism from liberal judges ever increasing in our society today...



You haven’t seen activism like this.   And a pretty good indicator is the measure of public trust in the institution which used to be considered above the political fray (and a good indication of this is how they didn’t “reliably” rule in the way partisans on either side expected them to, right?




j-mac said:


> Face it Coyote, you don't like the decision if this leaked document holds as the final decision, but, will not advocate for the only real way to confer a new right through an amendment because you know you don't have the votes...IOW, it is YOU who want the judicial activism for your outcome.


Fact is, you better believe I don’t like it.  A very fundamental right, control over the integrity of my own body, is being taken from me.  This is a right I have had for almost fifty years.   The only “activism” is those now deciding pregnant women lose all rights to their body, as an entire class of people.  Some of the trigger laws proposed would make abortion illegal in all cases except for “eminent threat to a woman’s life”….she would have to be on the verge of death to get a legal abortion.

Judicial activism?  Claiming that a being growing within another’s body, that maybe nothing more than a a few cells seeking a uterus has the same rights over that body as she does.  Nowhere in the constitution are embryos granted rights.


----------



## Coyote

iceberg said:


> Yea, the dems never make political moves.


Said who?  Honestly, do you just butt in to snark?  I made reference to FDR, he was a Dem you know.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “America is a different place, with most of its population born after _Roe _was decided. And a decision to overturn _Roe_ — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate _Roe’s_ damage than to reverse it.
> 
> It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.
> 
> What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — *especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus*.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion | Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice
> 
> 
> An abrupt and profound change to an established law is utterly destructive to respect for the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overturning _Roe_ is therefore repugnant to conservativism – it is radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible.



No, abortion is an abomination, worse than slavery.  We need to rectify our wrongs as a nation continually.


----------



## BS Filter

Coyote said:


> The Rightwing penchant overturning long established precedent and established late, for putting in political judges and creating tbe most politically activist court since FDR almost a century ago….is indeed reckless.
> 
> The Supreme Court is losing credibility as being an impartial judiciary is being eroded in the eyes of many American.  This isn’t good for our country.  Neither is the possible precedent of giving individual rights and then taking them away.


So if a ruling is bad law, it shouldn't be corrected?  Logically, you are saying that slavery should still be legal.


----------



## Coyote

Oddball said:


> Wrong....That was all left wing democrats in Dixie.....Roe violates the right to life of the unborn.
> 
> P.S....Your lame-assed "the parties switched" bullshit won't play here, hypocrite.
> 
> View attachment 641618


They were “left winger” Dixie’s?  Get real.  There was nothing leftwing about the southern Dems and they did not agree with the northern liberal wing.  But, like all political parties, including Republicans, political power trumps ideology.  I thought you studied history, was it infected with your own brand of bias?

 Or are just too cowardly to admit that conservatives can be despicable too?

Your cartoon is good…you still support choice?


----------



## Coyote

LordBrownTrout said:


> No, abortion is an abomination, worse than slavery.  We need to rectify our wrongs as a nation continually.


Worse than slavery???  You guys are nuts.


----------



## elektra

Overturning Roe vs Wade is minor, mild, action.

It changes no other abortion law. People can still kill babies


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Coyote said:


> Worse than slavery???  You guys are nuts.



Killing the unborn is not as bad as slavery?  Nuts?  No, they're both appalling but killing an innocent life is abhorrent.


----------



## elektra

Coyote said:


> Worse than slavery???  You guys are nuts.


Yes, in the sense that babies are killed and slaves were cared for as prized property.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “America is a different place, with most of its population born after _Roe _was decided. And a decision to overturn _Roe_ — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate _Roe’s_ damage than to reverse it.
> 
> It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.
> 
> What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — *especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus*.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion | Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice
> 
> 
> An abrupt and profound change to an established law is utterly destructive to respect for the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overturning _Roe_ is therefore repugnant to conservativism – it is radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible.


Your post makes no sense. You can’t complain about rulings coming from above when that ruling sends the power to decide back down to the states.

You people have been bitching about losing democracy like lunatics. This gets more democracy. The states get to vote on it. Roe prevented democracy from happening.


----------



## BackAgain

Overruling bad law badly decided is good solid conservatism.


----------



## Coyote

elektra said:


> Yes, in the sense that babies are killed and slaves were cared for as prized property.


Good God.  I can’t even come up with an appropriate answer for the abuse and murder of those “prized” possessions.


----------



## Coyote

BackAgain said:


> Overruling bad law badly decided is good solid conservatism.


Bad law according to who?  Rightwingers.


----------



## elektra

Coyote said:


> Good God.  I can’t even come up with an appropriate answer for the abuse and murder of those “prized” possessions.


Why would a slave owner kill a slave he just bought.

Financially, the farmer will lose money if the slave can not work.


----------



## BackAgain

Coyote said:


> Bad law according to who?  Rightwingers.


Bad law according to many legal scholars including some leftwingers.


----------



## iceberg

Coyote said:


> Said who?  Honestly, do you just butt in to snark?  I made reference to FDR, he was a Dem you know.


isn't that what this board does n advocates?

I get snarked all the time. no one cares.

going after the Repubs for being political is hilarious when the dems use the shit out of the filibuster, then it needs to go to save democracy.

or, just THEIR politics.

never saw you call out those politics.

it's hard to take you seriously when you attack others for doing exactly where the dems have led us to be.


----------



## Coyote

iceberg said:


> isn't that what this board does n advocates?
> 
> I get snarked all the time. no one cares.
> 
> going after the Repubs for being political is hilarious when the dems use the shit out of the filibuster, then it needs to go to save democracy.
> 
> or, just THEIR politics.
> 
> never saw you call out those politics.
> 
> it's hard to take you seriously when you attack others for doing exactly where the dems have led us to be.


The problem is..over and over you only seem to call out me, even though you don’t follow your own standards and rarely call out the right.  As I pointed out, the last time the Dem’s committed this level of overreach was FDR.  Take it or leave it.


----------



## Burgermeister

Always funny when libs try to tell people what conservative means, what Republicans need to do to win an election, etc.


----------



## iceberg

Coyote said:


> The problem is..over and over you only seem to call out me, even though you don’t follow your own standards and rarely call out the right.  As I pointed out, the last time the Dem’s committed this level of overreach was FDR.  Take it or leave it.


then you don't pay attention as I've got many on the right pissed at me too. they don't like to be countered when emotional either. 

again, you don't pay attention and take it personal.


----------



## Oddball

Coyote said:


> They were “left winger” Dixie’s?  Get real.  There was nothing leftwing about the southern Dems and they did not agree with the northern liberal wing.  But, like all political parties, including Republicans, political power trumps ideology.  I thought you studied history, was it infected with your own brand of bias?
> 
> Or are just too cowardly to admit that conservatives can be despicable too?
> 
> Your cartoon is good…you still support choice?
> 
> View attachment 641622


Overturning Roe won't make abortion illegal as a matter of course, the left's outright lies about that notwithstanding....It will devolve the power of the centralized State, which I'm consistently in favor of.

So stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.

Oh yeah....Almost forgot....


----------



## iceberg

Burgermeister said:


> Always funny when libs try to tell people what conservative means, what Republicans need to do to win an election, etc.


and do what? react and go too far the other way in response? 

that's what we are seeing now. it's like the climax of a shitty tragedy.


----------



## scruffy

Coyote said:


> The Rightwing penchant overturning long established precedent and established late, for putting in political judges and creating tbe most politically activist court since FDR almost a century ago….is indeed reckless.
> 
> The Supreme Court is losing credibility as being an impartial judiciary is being eroded in the eyes of many American.  This isn’t good for our country.  Neither is the possible precedent of giving individual rights and then taking them away.


Yes. No one ever said lefties were rocket scientists.


----------



## iceberg

Oddball said:


> Overturning Roe won't make abortion illegal as a matter of course, the left's outright lies about that notwithstanding....It will devolve the power of the centralized State, which I'm consistently in favor of.
> 
> So stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.
> 
> Oh yeah....Almost forgot....
> 
> View attachment 641631


I am anti abortion, but it's not my place to tell others how to live. ergo, pro choice. 

But I also agree this should be at a state level. Feds have too much power over our lives as it is. let each state define their own idealogy.


----------



## progressive hunter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “America is a different place, with most of its population born after _Roe _was decided. And a decision to overturn _Roe_ — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate _Roe’s_ damage than to reverse it.
> 
> It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.
> 
> What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — *especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus*.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion | Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice
> 
> 
> An abrupt and profound change to an established law is utterly destructive to respect for the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overturning _Roe_ is therefore repugnant to conservativism – it is radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible.


the premise of the OP is a lie,,


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

occupied said:


> No firearm restrictions is more of a libertarian pipedream than liberal. I believe people should be able to own firearms responsibly with that responsibility enforced by the rule of law.


You demonstrate your ignorance.  Liberal IS libertarian.


----------



## westwall

Coyote said:


> Worse than slavery???  You guys are nuts.





Millions of kids being killed, and institutionalized slavery through welfare?

I don't know.  That seems pretty bad to me.


----------



## progressive hunter

occupied said:


> No firearm restrictions is more of a libertarian pipedream than liberal. I believe people should be able to own firearms responsibly with that responsibility enforced by the rule of law.


the rule of law is the 2nd amendment which states "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,


----------



## Coyote

iceberg said:


> I am anti abortion, but it's not my place to tell others how to live. ergo, pro choice.
> 
> But I also agree this should be at a state level. Feds have too much power over our lives as it is. let each state define their own idealogy.


I don’t think fundamental rights should be determined at the state level….

What you said about pro-choice though, is the essence of what that means.


----------



## Oddball

elektra said:


> Yes, in the sense that babies are killed and slaves were cared for as prized property.


Slaves were never dismembered and sold off for spare parts.


----------



## Oddball

iceberg said:


> I am anti abortion, but it's not my place to tell others how to live. ergo, pro choice.
> 
> But I also agree this should be at a state level. Feds have too much power over our lives as it is. let each state define their own idealogy.


I was first trimester pro-choice, until the roaring silence from the left in the wake of the Veritas exposure.

This isn't about choice, it's rebranded eugenics....The abortionists are plain old evil.


----------



## iceberg

Coyote said:


> I don’t think fundamental rights should be determined at the state level….
> 
> What you said about pro-choice though, is the essence of what that means.


it means the same for keep your experimental shots away from me. 

fundamental rights are about as local as you can be. if you don't protect them at that level, you really don't have them. 

going to the feds seems to be an escalation of a decision you don't like. while I agree the right is going too far, I also feel the left has been pushing their idealogy for years. 

remove this statue. we just want this one statue gone, the left said. the problem is, that was bullshit n everyone knew it but played along. 

I'm sure you disagree, but what you are seeing today is a direct result of years of pushing "woke" bullshit. if I don't have a right to say you can't have an abortion, there's a lot of shit the left does to tell others how to live many don't care, because they agree. 

finding agreement in views isn't a justification of them. only validation others feel that way too. 

right or wrong is what you fight about. push hard one way, it eventually flips and never centralizes but goes extreme the other way. 

here we go.


----------



## iceberg

Oddball said:


> I was first trimester pro-choice, until the roaring silence from the left in the wake of the Veritas exposure.
> 
> This isn't about choice, it's rebranded eugenics....The abortionists are plain old evil.


I can agree neither side liked the "compromise"

so, here we are. the left has lost a ton of emotional support in their desire to shut down anything they don't like today.

they hold a weak hand moving forward and they will get uglier than they accuse others of being.

it's what children of all ages do.


----------



## Oddball

iceberg said:


> I can agree neither side liked the "compromise"
> 
> so, here we are. the left has lost a ton of emotional support in their desire to shut down anything they don't like today.
> 
> they hold a weak hand moving forward and they will get uglier than they accuse others of being.
> 
> it's what children of all ages do.


Devolving power from the centralized State is always a winner in my book.

Now the task  winning over hearts  and minds in the various states becomes a less onerous task, than doing so under an all-or-nothing scenario at a national level.


----------



## basquebromance

abortion rights are not a midterm pitch. People will die before November and Democrats have the majority now.

Act. NOOOOOOOOOW


----------



## Resnic

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “America is a different place, with most of its population born after _Roe _was decided. And a decision to overturn _Roe_ — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate _Roe’s_ damage than to reverse it.
> 
> It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.
> 
> What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — *especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus*.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion | Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice
> 
> 
> An abrupt and profound change to an established law is utterly destructive to respect for the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overturning _Roe_ is therefore repugnant to conservativism – it is radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible.



Radical? All it means is it's up to the states to decide if they want to allow abortion in their state. Some states will, some won't. You call that radical? Give me a break.

It's no different than some states allow marijuana and some don't, helmet laws, some kinds of traffic laws, and so on.


----------



## westwall

Coyote said:


> I don’t think fundamental rights should be determined at the state level….
> 
> What you said about pro-choice though, is the essence of what that means.





They aren't.   Government curtails rights wherever it can, thus, the Founders wanted the majority of power to be with the individual states.

Makes it a lot harder for dictators to take over that way.


----------



## Coyote

westwall said:


> They aren't.   Government curtails rights wherever it can, thus, the Founders wanted the majority of power to be with the individual states.
> 
> Makes it a lot harder for dictators to take over that way.


But not fundamental rights.


----------



## BackAgain

Coyote said:


> But not fundamental rights.


And the Constitution doesn’t make *any* reference to an allegedly fundamental “right” to abort a human life.


----------



## westwall

Coyote said:


> But not fundamental rights.





The Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what GOVERNMENT  can do to the individual.   And one final option.

Government confers NO RIGHTS.  Government takes Rights away.

That is all Governments have ever done.


----------



## Jets

It’s a reactionary choice. 

The idea being to go back to a time before Roe…


----------



## Mr Natural

Jets said:


> The idea being to go back to a time before Roe…


When all was right with the world.


----------



## westwall

Mr Clean said:


> When all was right with the world.
> [/QTemps.
> 
> 
> Why do you support killing black people?


----------



## scruffy

Jets said:


> It’s a reactionary choice.
> 
> The idea being to go back to a time before Roe…


Hey, abortion is racist.

It disproportionately affects black women, 5 to 1.

Are you supporting modern leftist racism?

The Democratic Party does


----------



## westwall

scruffy said:


> Hey, abortion is racist.
> 
> It disproportionately affects black women, 5 to 1.
> 
> Are you supporting modern leftist racism?
> 
> The Democratic Party does





They really are racist aren't they.   "Kill blacks" should be their motto.


----------



## Ropey

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Overturning _Roe_ is therefore repugnant


----------



## Jets

scruffy said:


> Hey, abortion is racist.
> 
> It disproportionately affects black women, 5 to 1.
> 
> Are you supporting modern leftist racism?
> 
> The Democratic Party does



Not at all. Just explaining why “reactionary” applies to this discussion rather than “radical”.


----------



## iceberg

Coyote said:


> But not fundamental rights.


when did birth control become a fundamental right? the scotus as I can see is simply saying there is no constitutional basis for the federal gov making this decision. 

calling something not in the constitution "fundamental" is when we start going sideways. 

show me where this fundamental right exists in the bill of rights and I can work to support it. 

calling something what it isn't won't work anymore. ASYLUM ruined that trick.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Coyote said:


> The Rightwing penchant overturning long established precedent and established late, for putting in political judges and creating tbe most politically activist court since FDR almost a century ago….is indeed reckless.
> 
> The Supreme Court is losing credibility as being an impartial judiciary is being eroded in the eyes of many American.  This isn’t good for our country.  Neither is the possible precedent of giving individual rights and then taking them away.


My god you're an idiot or the boldest liar humanly possible. Judicial activism is a leftist thing, correcting the leftist direction the court is going is not activism it's called constitutionalism.


----------



## basquebromance

Not sure where you stand on the abortion issue?

How about the fact that only seven countries in the world allow elective abortions after 20 weeks?

America is one of them, along with China and North Korea.

Clear enough for you?


----------



## Coyote

iceberg said:


> it means the same for keep your experimental shots away from me.


If the federal governmentforced all American's to have any vaccination against their will, I would not support that.  

My body, my choice.




iceberg said:


> fundamental rights are about as local as you can be. if you don't protect them at that level, you really don't have them.


I don't think so - what one locality might think of as a "fundamental right" might not be thought so by another.  It seems to me that fundamental rights must apply to all across the board.  It is one thing that is responsibility of the federal government to protect even when local levels reject them.




iceberg said:


> going to the feds seems to be an escalation of a decision you don't like. while I agree the right is going too far, I also feel the left has been pushing their idealogy for years.


You feel the left has been pushing their ideology for years....and I feel the right has.  So we aren't going agree on that whatsoever.

The feds, in the form of the Supreme Court SHOULD be the final abritor of fundamental rights but that seems to be eroding, evidenced by the increasing number of sharply ideologically split decisions that we've seeing for a while or things like the demonizing of Roberts for not ruling in line with conservative ideology.

The original Roe ruling was 7-2 in support of it.

For:
Henry Blackmun (Nixon)
Potter Stewart (Eisenhower)
William Brennan  (Eisenhower)
Thurgood Marshall (Johnson)
William Douglas (FDR)
Lewis Powell (Nixon)
Warren Burger (Nixon)

Opposed:
William Rehnquist (Nixon)
Byron White (Kennedy)

Compare that to the sharply ideological splits today...



iceberg said:


> remove this statue. we just want this one statue gone, the left said. the problem is, that was bullshit n everyone knew it but played along.
> 
> I'm sure you disagree, but what you are seeing today is a direct result of years of pushing "woke" bullshit. if I don't have a right to say you can't have an abortion, there's a lot of shit the left does to tell others how to live many don't care, because they agree.


The pendulum swings to far on both sides and then swings back.  Yes, the left goes too far which creates pushback from the right.  But yes, the right also goes too far which creates pushback from the left.  Just depends on the era.  What is happening now though (again, imo) is that the pushback from the right has turned into broad overreach (ie, for example pursuing women across state lines to prevent them from getting an abortion) and our political systems are so messed up there might not be a political pushback to this to match the cultural pushback.  That might be unduly pessamistic.

BUT I don't think the statue example is comparable, it's more a part of a litany of rightwing grievances against what they perceive as leftwing excess AND in some cases I do agree with them.  

But, IMO, there is a frequent blurring of the actions of culture and the actions of legislature when it's usually the legislative actions that most directly affect our rights and freedoms.  We can argue about statues (or more accurately...history, since at one time there was a push to install confederate monuments and now there is a push to remove them...) but has Congress passed any laws regarding these?  On the other hand Congress has passed laws that have substantially affected rights at one time or another.



iceberg said:


> finding agreement in views isn't a justification of them. only validation others feel that way too.
> 
> right or wrong is what you fight about. push hard one way, it eventually flips and never centralizes but goes extreme the other way.
> 
> here we go.


I tend to believe in the power of balance - push too far, too fast and there will be a counter move to it.  We are in the midst of multiple counter moves but (again, my opinion) within that rights countermove in regards to the culturewars - they trying to overturn something that is really not a part of the current culture war, and that is because they finally have the power to do it even though they LACK majority support from Americans to do so.


----------



## Coyote

bigrebnc1775 said:


> My god you're an idiot or the boldest liar humanly possible. Judicial activism is a leftist thing, correcting the leftist direction the court is going is not activism it's called constitutionalism.


You just keep on believing that hon'....you know what the rightwing definition of "judicial activism" is don't you?

"When the other guy does something I don't like".

'nuff said.


----------



## meaner gene

Resnic said:


> Radical? All it means is it's up to the states to decide if they want to allow abortion in their state. Some states will, some won't. You call that radical? Give me a break.
> 
> It's no different than some states allow marijuana and some don't, helmet laws, some kinds of traffic laws, and so on.


The argument that something is not explicitly enumerated in the constitution rings hollow, because the constitution clearly acknowledges the declaration of independences contention that all men are created equal, and endowed by their created with certain inalienable rights.  Rights that come from God and not from the constitution.  These being the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Some rights can't be the purview of states when they transit between states, in order for people to have the privileges and immunities of the several states.


----------



## meaner gene

BackAgain said:


> And the Constitution doesn’t make *any* reference to an allegedly fundamental “right” to abort a human life.


The constitution doesn't make *any* reference to an allegedly fundamental "right to marry" either.

Yet, without any mention at all, it's considered a fundamental right also.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Coyote said:


> You just keep on believing that hon'....you know what the rightwing definition of "judicial activism" is don't you?
> 
> "When the other guy does something I don't like".
> 
> 'nuff said.


Dumbass, you can lie too yourself all that you want but when you lie to me I will call you out. activism goals is to change the standard trying to re-correct  activism is a leftist thing. Conservatives trying to keep America in guidance of the Constitution is not activism.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

meaner gene said:


> The constitution doesn't make *any* reference to an allegedly fundamental "right to marry" either.
> 
> Yet, without any mention at all, it's considered a fundamental right also.


Right to marry isn't a fundamental right it's a man given privilege because it also need a license.


----------



## meaner gene

westwall said:


> The Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what GOVERNMENT  can do to the individual.   And one final option.
> 
> Government confers NO RIGHTS.  Government takes Rights away.
> 
> That is all Governments have ever done.


Starting with that premise, you realize that means those rights the government doesn't  explicitly have the power to deny, is an inalienable right that is preserved to the people.


----------



## iceberg

Coyote said:


> If the federal governmentforced all American's to have any vaccination against their will, I would not support that.
> 
> My body, my choice.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so - what one locality might think of as a "fundamental right" might not be thought so by another.  It seems to me that fundamental rights must apply to all across the board.  It is one thing that is responsibility of the federal government to protect even when local levels reject them.
> 
> 
> 
> You feel the left has been pushing their ideology for years....and I feel the right has.  So we aren't going agree on that whatsoever.
> 
> The feds, in the form of the Supreme Court SHOULD be the final abritor of fundamental rights but that seems to be eroding, evidenced by the increasing number of sharply ideologically split decisions that we've seeing for a while or things like the demonizing of Roberts for not ruling in line with conservative ideology.
> 
> The original Roe ruling was 7-2 in support of it.
> 
> For:
> Henry Blackmun (Nixon)
> Potter Stewart (Eisenhower)
> William Brennan  (Eisenhower)
> Thurgood Marshall (Johnson)
> William Douglas (FDR)
> Lewis Powell (Nixon)
> Warren Burger (Nixon)
> 
> Opposed:
> William Rehnquist (Nixon)
> Byron White (Kennedy)
> 
> Compare that to the sharply ideological splits today...
> 
> 
> The pendulum swings to far on both sides and then swings back.  Yes, the left goes too far which creates pushback from the right.  But yes, the right also goes too far which creates pushback from the left.  Just depends on the era.  What is happening now though (again, imo) is that the pushback from the right has turned into broad overreach (ie, for example pursuing women across state lines to prevent them from getting an abortion) and our political systems are so messed up there might not be a political pushback to this to match the cultural pushback.  That might be unduly pessamistic.
> 
> BUT I don't think the statue example is comparable, it's more a part of a litany of rightwing grievances against what they perceive as leftwing excess AND in some cases I do agree with them.
> 
> But, IMO, there is a frequent blurring of the actions of culture and the actions of legislature when it's usually the legislative actions that most directly affect our rights and freedoms.  We can argue about statues (or more accurately...history, since at one time there was a push to install confederate monuments and now there is a push to remove them...) but has Congress passed any laws regarding these?  On the other hand Congress has passed laws that have substantially affected rights at one time or another.
> 
> 
> I tend to believe in the power of balance - push too far, too fast and there will be a counter move to it.  We are in the midst of multiple counter moves but (again, my opinion) within that rights countermove in regards to the culturewars - they trying to overturn something that is really not a part of the current culture war, and that is because they finally have the power to do it even though they LACK majority support from Americans to do so.


since Biden took office, which side has been trying to change the rules solely for their benefit? 

which side was rioting in the streets, demanding social change? 

which senators n congressmen were helping tear down statues? 

which side doxes at will n demands we, cancel anyone disagreeing with their mindset? 

which side is pushing sex ed at a very young age? 

denying all this is happening doesn't mean it isn't.


----------



## BluesLegend

If the left can't manipulate the US Constitution they attack it or ignore it. Remember Dems have zero respect for the Constitution or our laws when it gets in the way of their radical Dem agenda.


----------



## meaner gene

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dumbass, you can lie too yourself all that you want but when you lie to me I will call you out. activism goals is to change the standard trying to re-correct  activism is a leftist thing. Conservatives trying to keep America in guidance of the Constitution is not activism.


You realize that the original constitution is in many way abhorrent to our way of life. It has been 27 times changed to make us a more perfect union.


----------



## meaner gene

Coyote said:


> You just keep on believing that hon'....you know what the rightwing definition of "judicial activism" is don't you?
> 
> "When the other guy does something I don't like".
> 
> 'nuff said.


Recognizing an inalienable right of the people, is now "judicial activism".


----------



## Coyote

iceberg said:


> when did birth control become a fundamental right? the scotus as I can see is simply saying there is no constitutional basis for the federal gov making this decision.


Access to birth control is fundamental right.  The ability of a woman to control how many children to have is a fundamental right.  Privacy is a fundamental right (otherwise the state could legally spy on us for any reason at any time).  It doesn't need to be specifically enumerated in the Constitution to be a right or we are royally screwed.




iceberg said:


> calling something not in the constitution "fundamental" is when we start going sideways.



Disagree.  The problem is we no longer live in the world of 1776 and 300 years have made tremendous changes in our view of what constitutes rights and a lot of other things.  The Constitution and Bill of Rights, are deliberately worded to be broad enough to acknowledge this without restricting us to the mores of a bygone era.


iceberg said:


> show me where this fundamental right exists in the bill of rights and I can work to support it.


There are a LOT of things not specifically enumerated that we take as rights but are interpreted by various legal scholars to be.  One example:

The 4th Article/2nd Amendment- which starts out with "A well regulated Militia..." does not specifically enumerate the idea of everyone being allowed to have a gun outside of the militia, yet a portion of Americans take that as a "right" (*not arguing 2A, just using it as an example)*...but that is really irrelevant because of Amendment X:

Amendment X​_The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people._

In other words, just because there is a list of rights in the Constitution, that doesn't mean those are the ONLY rights or that the government can take away other rights that are not listed.


----------



## Coyote

iceberg said:


> since Biden took office, which side has been trying to change the rules solely for their benefit?
> 
> which side was rioting in the streets, demanding social change?
> 
> which senators n congressmen were helping tear down statues?
> 
> which side doxes at will n demands we, cancel anyone disagreeing with their mindset?
> 
> which side is pushing sex ed at a very young age?
> 
> denying all this is happening doesn't mean it isn't.


You and I can agrue of which side blah blah blah til the cows come home, but is it really relevant?  We each have our biases and our points of view.


----------



## meaner gene

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Right to marry isn't a fundamental right it's a man given privilege because it also need a license.


Marriage is a fundamental right.  It existed long before governments existed to oversee it.  It was a right bestowed by the created upon the created.  And enjoys a historical record older than recorded records.


----------



## 2aguy

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “America is a different place, with most of its population born after _Roe _was decided. And a decision to overturn _Roe_ — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate _Roe’s_ damage than to reverse it.
> 
> It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.
> 
> What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — *especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus*.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion | Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice
> 
> 
> An abrupt and profound change to an established law is utterly destructive to respect for the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overturning _Roe_ is therefore repugnant to conservativism – it is radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible.




Since when is ending murder....in those states that end murder of babies...radical?


----------



## 2aguy

iceberg said:


> giving the states back power.
> 
> I'm fine with that.




Yep......we will then have baby killing states, states that limit, but allow baby killing, then states that stop killing babies.......

It really is that simple.


----------



## meaner gene

BluesLegend said:


> If the left can't manipulate the US Constitution they attack it or ignore it. Remember Dems have zero respect for the Constitution or our laws when it gets in the way of their radical Dem agenda.


You realize that the Constitution itself says that it's a flawed document, and requires changes in order to make us a more perfect union.

Attacking the Constitution is thus a requirement.  The difference is whether the attack is to make it better or worse.  Whether to take away rights, restore rights, or expand rights.


----------



## 2aguy

meaner gene said:


> You realize that the Constitution itself says that it's a flawed document, and requires changes in order to make us a more perfect union.
> 
> Attacking the Constitution is thus a requirement.  The difference is whether the attack is to make it better or worse.  Whether to take away rights, restore rights, or expand rights.




And there is a process to change the Constitution.........


----------



## bigrebnc1775

meaner gene said:


> You realize that the original constitution is in many way abhorrent to our way of life. It has been 27 times changed to make us a more perfect union.


No it hasn't but try a little harder next time.


----------



## meaner gene

2aguy said:


> Since when is ending murder....in those states that end murder of babies...radical?


Nobody is killing babies, they are terminating unviable fetuses.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

meaner gene said:


> Marriage is a fundamental right.  It existed long before governments existed to oversee it.  It was a right bestowed by the created upon the created.  And enjoys a historical record older than recorded records.


No it is not. You don't need a license to exercise a right.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

meaner gene said:


> Nobody is killing babies, they are terminating unviable fetuses.


Why was Scott Peterson charged and convicted of two counts of murder?


----------



## meaner gene

2aguy said:


> And there is a process to change the Constitution.........


And the process begins by attacking the portion of the constitution you consider to be flawed.


----------



## westwall

meaner gene said:


> Starting with that premise, you realize that means those rights the government doesn't  explicitly have the power to deny, is an inalienable right that is preserved to the people.






What Rights does the government have the power to deny?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

meaner gene said:


> And the process begins by attacking the portion of the constitution you consider to be flawed.


LoL


----------



## bigrebnc1775

meaner gene said:


> Starting with that premise, you realize that means those rights the government doesn't  explicitly have the power to deny, is an inalienable right that is preserved to the people.


Which government? State or federal?


----------



## meaner gene

meaner gene said:


> You realize that the original constitution is in many way abhorrent to our way of life. It has been 27 times changed to make us a more perfect union.





bigrebnc1775 said:


> No it hasn't but try a little harder next time.


Please keep up with history.








						The US Constitution has 27 amendments that protect the rights of Americans. Do you know them all?
					

What all of the 27 amendments to the US constitution are, when they were ratified, and which rights they establish.




					www.insider.com


----------



## Orangecat

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Overturning _Roe_ is therefore repugnant to conservativism – it is radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible.


Killing innocent humans in their first stages of life is repugnant to liberalism. 


occupied said:


> Yes, it's time to retire the world "conservative" from American politics. Is there anyone left on the right that prefers cautious incremental change?


Yes, it's time to retire the world "liberal" from American politics. Is there anyone on the left that prefers the right to life over the convenience of death?


----------



## Coyote

2aguy said:


> Yep......we will then have baby killing states, states that limit, but allow baby killing, then states that stop killing babies.......
> 
> It really is that simple.


You mean like states that support forced pregnancies...you know, woman gets raped and the state forces her to bear the child against her will?  And even rewards the rapists families by allowing them to sue if she tries to cross state lines to get a legal abortion?


----------



## meaner gene

bigrebnc1775 said:


> No it is not. You don't need a license to exercise a right.


Government is allowed to monitor without interference with rights.  Hence they can require governmental notification of their exercise.   Example a fundamental right is the right to reproduce, yet the government requires that when you exercise that right, you give the government notification, so they can keep a record, and issue a certificate of birth.


----------



## BluesLegend

meaner gene said:


> You realize that the Constitution itself says that it's a flawed document


No it does not stop making shit up. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that. Are you a Democrat? Because they LIE and make shit up all the time, just curious.


----------



## 2aguy

meaner gene said:


> Nobody is killing babies, they are terminating unviable fetuses.




They are killing babies....you can hide the truth, but the truth is still the truth.


----------



## BackAgain

meaner gene said:


> The constitution doesn't make *any* reference to an allegedly fundamental "right to marry" either.
> 
> Yet, without any mention at all, it's considered a fundamental right also.


That right already existed.


----------



## BluesLegend

Coyote said:


> You mean like states that support forced pregnancies...you know, woman gets raped and the state forces her to bear the child against her will?  And even rewards the rapists families by allowing them to sue if she tries to cross state lines to get a legal abortion?


That is what .0001% of total abortions right.


----------



## BluesLegend

meaner gene said:


> Nobody is killing babies, they are terminating unviable fetuses.


The baby was alive, then Dems ripped it's limbs off and killed it during an abortion.


----------



## 2aguy

Coyote said:


> You mean like states that support forced pregnancies...you know, woman gets raped and the state forces her to bear the child against her will?  And even rewards the rapists families by allowing them to sue if she tries to cross state lines to get a legal abortion?




She can give the baby up for adoption...why is the baby given the death penalty for the actions of the rapist?


----------



## meaner gene

westwall said:


> What Rights does the government have the power to deny?


The founding fathers gave the government the power to deprive people of life and liberty for one.


----------



## Coyote

2aguy said:


> She can give the baby up for adoption...why is the baby given the death penalty for the actions of the rapist?


So you support forced pregnancies on women then.


----------



## meaner gene

BluesLegend said:


> No it does not stop making shit up. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that. Are you a Democrat? Because they LIE and make shit up all the time, just curious.







__





						The 5th Article of the U.S. Constitution
					

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all...



					constitutioncenter.org
				




_The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress_


----------



## meaner gene

2aguy said:


> They are killing babies....you can hide the truth, but the truth is still the truth.


They are killing babies in Ukraine, but in the US there is no legal sanction under which that is done, except in self defense.


----------



## BluesLegend

meaner gene said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 5th Article of the U.S. Constitution
> 
> 
> The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all...
> 
> 
> 
> constitutioncenter.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress_


LMAO here's what YOU said idiot, "You realize that the Constitution itself says that it's a flawed document" I'll just save time and call you a liar. Now talk to the hand


----------



## meaner gene

BackAgain said:


> That right already existed.


So did the right of medical self determination.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

meaner gene said:


> Please keep up with history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US Constitution has 27 amendments that protect the rights of Americans. Do you know them all?
> 
> 
> What all of the 27 amendments to the US constitution are, when they were ratified, and which rights they establish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.insider.com


The constitution is still as relevant today as it was when it was first created.


----------



## BluesLegend

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The constitution is still as relevant today as it was when it was first created.


Democrats say the Constitution is garbage and should be scrapped.


----------



## BackAgain

meaner gene said:


> So did the right of medical self determination.


Still does. But that does NOT INCLUDE any alleged right to take an innocent human life.


----------



## meaner gene

BluesLegend said:


> The baby was alive, then Dems ripped it's limbs off and killed it during an abortion.


It wasn't a baby, it was a fetus.


----------



## meaner gene

2aguy said:


> She can give the baby up for adoption...why is the baby given the death penalty for the actions of the rapist?


You do know that pregnancy can be fatal.  Childbirth can be fatal.

_Sadly, about 700 women die each year in the United States as a result of pregnancy or delivery complications. During pregnancy, a woman's body goes through many changes. These changes are entirely normal, but may become very important in case there are complications or problems._


----------



## BluesLegend

The REAL ISSUE is that the radical left refuses to accept any outcome. Give them legal abortion at 14 weeks and they will demand 20 weeks. Hell give them late term baby abortions up until birth and they will demand the right to kill a baby up to 1 year after it's birth.

You can't negotiate with the radical left, they are insane.


----------



## BluesLegend

meaner gene said:


> It wasn't a baby, it was a fetus.


Said nobody with a brain.


----------



## meaner gene

BluesLegend said:


> LMAO here's what YOU said idiot, "You realize that the Constitution itself says that it's a flawed document" I'll just save time and call you a liar. Now talk to the hand


The constitution declares that it requires changing, hence that it is flawed (not perfect).

Just like I said.


----------



## BluesLegend

meaner gene said:


> The constitution declares that it requires changing, hence that it is flawed (not perfect).
> 
> Just like I said.


And yet again you are making shit up. It doesn't say that. I'll quote you to save time, "The constitution declares that it requires changing" wrong! Obviously you are a big fat liar and I'm done with you, you may go now I give you permission.


----------



## sartre play

The extremes of both major partys battle for winner take all. 
 USA history shows us some common colletive sense would serve us better.


----------



## meaner gene

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The constitution is still as relevant today as it was when it was first created.


Only because they corrected its flaws.



meaner gene said:


> You realize that the original constitution is in many way abhorrent to our way of life. It has been 27 times changed to make us a more perfect union.


The fact of which you ignored, or chose not to believe



bigrebnc1775 said:


> No it hasn't but try a little harder next time.


----------



## JWBooth

Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice​Since conservatism is nothing more than progressivism running 5mph under the speed limit in the inside lane on the freeway to oblivion with the emergency flashers on, I‘ll grant that overturning Roe is not conservative. Nor is it radical though. 
Reactionary, that greatest of sins in the communist doctrine, comes closer to an accurate description.


----------



## Lakhota

Here’s What GOP-Nominated Justices Said About Roe v. Wade During Their Senate Hearings​
They lied.


----------



## meaner gene

BackAgain said:


> Still does. But that does NOT INCLUDE any alleged right to take an innocent human life.



Interesting use of the term "innocent human".  The roman catholic church has as a fundamental tenet, that babies are not "innocent humans"


----------



## westwall

meaner gene said:


> The founding fathers gave the government the power to deprive people of life and liberty for one.





Only after "Due Process"  Or have you forgotten about that?


----------



## meaner gene

BluesLegend said:


> The REAL ISSUE is that the radical left refuses to accept any outcome. Give them legal abortion at 14 weeks and they will demand 20 weeks. Hell give them late term baby abortions up until birth and they will demand the right to kill a baby up to 1 year after it's birth.
> 
> You can't negotiate with the radical left, they are insane.


And the right, give them the right to bear firearms, they will demand the right to machine guns.  Give them that, and they will demand the right to destructive devices like cannon, or mortar, or bazooka.  Grant them that, and they will demand nuclear weapons.


You see where parallels lead.


----------



## meaner gene

BluesLegend said:


> Said nobody with a brain.


Actually that's how  it's defined by the entire medical community.


----------



## meaner gene

BluesLegend said:


> And yet again you are making shit up. It doesn't say that. I'll quote you to save time, "The constitution declares that it requires changing" wrong! Obviously you are a big fat liar and I'm done with you, you may go now I give you permission.


The constitution says it requires changing by explicitly setting out how that process is to be performed.

No different than the constitution recognizing members of the government will commit high crimes and misdemeanors by explicitly setting out how they are to be removed from government.


----------



## ThoughtCrimes

gipper said:


> Why haven’t the Ds passed a law making abortion legal? Simple fix. They’ve had majorities in both houses several times since 1973. O and Joe said they would, but didn’t. Strange no?


It's fairly obvious that the biggest reason is the filibuster, and the death grip the GOP fascists hold on that parliamentary device.


----------



## meaner gene

westwall said:


> Only after "Due Process"  Or have you forgotten about that?


You're referring to the 5th amendment, i'm talking about article 5.


----------



## meaner gene

gipper said:


> Why haven’t the Ds passed a law making abortion legal?  Simple fix. They’ve had majorities in both houses several times since 1973. O and Joe said they would, but didn’t. Strange no?





ThoughtCrimes said:


> It's fairly obvious that the biggest reason is the filibuster, and the death grip the GOP fascists hold on that parliamentary device.


As important, that such a law rests on the winds of political change.  That the following congress or even the same congress could reverse it.  

The law givith and the law taketh away.

You can't treat rights as changeable upon demand.


----------



## 2aguy

Coyote said:


> So you support forced pregnancies on women then.




No.....rapists should be put in prison for life.....I don't believe in killing a baby because the woman was raped....she should have full medical care for the baby and herself, and if she doesn't want to keep the baby, she should be able to put it up for adoption without cost.


----------



## 2aguy

ThoughtCrimes said:


> It's fairly obvious that the biggest reason is the filibuster, and the death grip the GOP fascists hold on that parliamentary device.



Dipshit.....the democrats use it when they are out of power too...you moron.  it is a check on the power of government.


----------



## 2aguy

meaner gene said:


> You do know that pregnancy can be fatal.  Childbirth can be fatal.
> 
> _Sadly, about 700 women die each year in the United States as a result of pregnancy or delivery complications. During pregnancy, a woman's body goes through many changes. These changes are entirely normal, but may become very important in case there are complications or problems._




The life of the mother is the only legitimate reason for abortion......a woman doesn't have to give up her life....

In this case, the abortion is triage, saving one life rather than losing two.


----------



## basquebromance

"I know there are times when abortions are necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white, or a rape. I just say that, matter of factly. You know what I mean. There are times."

—Richard Nixon, on tape in the Oval Office, 1973


----------



## 2aguy

basquebromance said:


> "I know there are times when abortions are necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white, or a rape. I just say that, matter of factly. You know what I mean. There are times."
> 
> —Richard Nixon, on tape in the Oval Office, 1973




And?   

Aborition outside of saving the life of the mother is murder.


----------



## Coyote

2aguy said:


> No.....rapists should be put in prison for life.....I don't believe in killing a baby because the woman was raped....she should have full medical care for the baby and herself, and if she doesn't want to keep the baby, she should be able to put it up for adoption without cost.


That is great.  Punish the rapist.  I am sure that makes the victim, who you are now FORCING to bear the child feel good about being FORCED to then give birth, and then make a horrible choice about whether to give it up or keep it when she could have gotten rid early in the pregnancy.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

meaner gene said:


> Only because they corrected its flaws.
> 
> 
> The fact of which you ignored, or chose not to believe


No it's been contaminated by extreme leftist activism. 
When you present some facts for the irrelevance of the Constitution you will have presented to reason to over throw the government.


----------



## Coyote

2aguy said:


> And?
> 
> Aborition outside of saving the life of the mother is murder.


So is a forced pregnancy, and that is exactly what a pregnancy from rape is.


----------



## 2aguy

Coyote said:


> That is great.  Punish the rapist.  I am sure that makes the victim, who you are now FORCING to bear the child feel good about being FORCED to then give birth, and then make a horrible choice about whether to give it up or keep it when she could have gotten rid early in the pregnancy.




So.....kill the baby.  The only death penalty case you guys love.....killing babies....

A crime was committed against the woman.  That doesn't mean she can kill another human being who did nothing wrong, broke no law.

It is a sad, tragic event, and the rapist needs to be punished...but killing the baby isn't part of that equation.


----------



## iceberg

Coyote said:


> Access to birth control is fundamental right.  The ability of a woman to control how many children to have is a fundamental right.  Privacy is a fundamental right (otherwise the state could legally spy on us for any reason at any time).  It doesn't need to be specifically enumerated in the Constitution to be a right or we are royally screwed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree.  The problem is we no longer live in the world of 1776 and 300 years have made tremendous changes in our view of what constitutes rights and a lot of other things.  The Constitution and Bill of Rights, are deliberately worded to be broad enough to acknowledge this without restricting us to the mores of a bygone era.
> 
> There are a LOT of things not specifically enumerated that we take as rights but are interpreted by various legal scholars to be.  One example:
> 
> The 4th Article/2nd Amendment- which starts out with "A well regulated Militia..." does not specifically enumerate the idea of everyone being allowed to have a gun outside of the militia, yet a portion of Americans take that as a "right" (*not arguing 2A, just using it as an example)*...but that is really irrelevant because of Amendment X:
> 
> Amendment X​_The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people._
> 
> In other words, just because there is a list of rights in the Constitution, that doesn't mean those are the ONLY rights or that the government can take away other rights that are not listed.


no. just the rights constitutionally defined as fundamental.


----------



## 2aguy

Coyote said:


> So is a forced pregnancy, and that is exactly what a pregnancy from rape is.




And killing an innocent baby is murder, even if the baby was created by rape.  Killing a baby is murder, that is exactly what it is when you kill a baby.


----------



## iceberg

Coyote said:


> You and I can agrue of which side blah blah blah til the cows come home, but is it really relevant?  We each have our biases and our points of view.


and I have solid extreme examples of the left being assholes over the last, several years pushing their agenda.


----------



## 2aguy

Coyote said:


> So is a forced pregnancy, and that is exactly what a pregnancy from rape is.




So.....genius....

If the mother kills the baby because she was raped, that murder is on the rapist....since it is a murder, the rapist should be executed as well....right?


----------



## basquebromance

We’re going to talk about the economy, about energy, about the failed Biden policies, about the open border, about destroying Putin's army, and that's how the GOP will win the midterms, not by talking about abortion


----------



## meaner gene

2aguy said:


> No.....rapists should be put in prison for life.....I don't believe in killing a baby because the woman was raped....she should have full medical care for the baby and herself, and if she doesn't want to keep the baby, she should be able to put it up for adoption without cost.


As you point out, she "should" have free medical care, but what if she doesn't?
You are forcing her to bear both the medical costs, plus other financial burdens, such as having to take time off from work.  
She could get her medical costs covered by becoming a burden on society.


----------



## jasonnfree

Here's a clip from yesteryear about the hypocrisy of conservatives.


----------



## meaner gene

2aguy said:


> The life of the mother is the only legitimate reason for abortion......a woman doesn't have to give up her life....
> 
> In this case, the abortion is triage, saving one life rather than losing two.


Of pregnant woman, you can expect 1 in 10,000 to die before or from childbirth.
Deaths from legal abortions are 0.07 in 10,000, many times safer than remaining pregnant.


----------



## Mashmont

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “America is a different place, with most of its population born after _Roe _was decided. And a decision to overturn _Roe_ — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate _Roe’s_ damage than to reverse it.
> 
> It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.
> 
> What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — *especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus*.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion | Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice
> 
> 
> An abrupt and profound change to an established law is utterly destructive to respect for the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overturning _Roe_ is therefore repugnant to conservativism – it is radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible.


Except Roe v Wade was a radical ruling itself.  It's reversal is restoring the former conservative situation.


----------



## Mashmont

jasonnfree said:


> Here's a clip from yesteryear about the hypocrisy of conservatives.


Ah, the leftwing's favorite drug addicted alcoholic life coach.    You did realize Carlin's life was such a trainwreck, he had to enter rehab at age 67, didn't you?


----------



## Mashmont

Coyote said:


> The Rightwing penchant overturning long established precedent and established late, for putting in political judges and creating tbe most politically activist court since FDR almost a century ago….is indeed reckless.
> 
> The Supreme Court is losing credibility as being an impartial judiciary is being eroded in the eyes of many American.  This isn’t good for our country.  Neither is the possible precedent of giving individual rights and then taking them away.


What about the court losing credibility as being an impartial judiciary when they made gay marriage the law of the land?  Even leftwing justice John Roberts was incredulous over that.


----------



## meaner gene

Coyote said:


> That is great.  Punish the rapist.  I am sure that makes the victim, who you are now FORCING to bear the child feel good about being FORCED to then give birth, and then make a horrible choice about whether to give it up or keep it when she could have gotten rid early in the pregnancy.


A raped woman who is forced to carry the child to term is more likely to die from pregnancy/childbirth, than a rapist to be sentenced to the death penalty.


----------



## ThoughtCrimes

meaner gene said:


> As important, that such a law rests on the winds of political change. That the following congress or even the same congress could reverse it.
> 
> The law givith and the law taketh away.
> 
> You can't treat rights as changeable upon demand.


Please send a couple of decoder rings to aid me. Your post lacks any sense relative to my response to another!  

As a loved one reminded me upon reading your thoughts, "It's a sad commentary on the education industry in this nation today."


----------



## Peace

No it isn’t actually and it is the correct course and why?

The reality is Roe vs Wade is in fact a State to State issue and it is your responsibility to have the changed to what you feel should reflect on abortion.

If you want California Laws and live in Texas then you will have to Convince the Hispanic and Black voting base that they need to elect candidates that will support your version of what types of abortion should be allowed.

This has nothing to do with Conservatism when it come to Fiscal but on Social it does and you know that but what it truly has to do with is Religious views and if Utah or Texas want a more conservative approach to Abortion rights, well truthfully that is their right until you pass that Amendment granting abortion equally across this country…


----------



## skews13

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “America is a different place, with most of its population born after _Roe _was decided. And a decision to overturn _Roe_ — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate _Roe’s_ damage than to reverse it.
> 
> It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.
> 
> What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — *especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus*.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion | Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice
> 
> 
> An abrupt and profound change to an established law is utterly destructive to respect for the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overturning _Roe_ is therefore repugnant to conservativism – it is radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible.



it isn't a choice. it's religious fanaticism waging war against Democracy. 

You can't have individual freedom and religious liberty. They are totally anathema to eachother.

So it comes down to a choice. 

Individual freedom

Or

Religious authoritarianism

You're going to have to choose one or the other.


----------



## ThoughtCrimes

2aguy said:


> Dipshit.....the democrats use it when they are out of power too...you moron. it is a check on the power of government.


Damn 2A, you get more obtuse and incapable of understanding simple English verbiage each and every time I encounter one of your posts on this board.  You and Chica would make quite a pair teaming up!


----------



## iceberg

the left has had plenty of time to make this law and be done with it. they choose instead to use to like now, fire up a base over an issue.

their own fault for making it political and  it resolving  problems.


----------



## westwall

meaner gene said:


> You're referring to the 5th amendment, i'm talking about article 5.






Article 5 is subject to the 5th, or do you not understand the COTUS?


----------



## easyt65

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “America is a different place, with most of its population born after _Roe _was decided. And a decision to overturn _Roe_ — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate _Roe’s_ damage than to reverse it.
> 
> It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.
> 
> What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — *especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus*.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion | Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice
> 
> 
> An abrupt and profound change to an established law is utterly destructive to respect for the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overturning _Roe_ is therefore repugnant to conservativism – it is radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible.


Removing legislative decision-making responsibility from the hands of politicians who have proven themselves in the last years to be the most corrupt, most criminal, most treasonous, most self-serving, most oppressive enemies of the state and placing that authority to self-legislate back into the hands of the people is somehow 'RADICAL' to extremists and snowflakes?!

The same politicians who demanded commitment to the USSC's rulings are now the same people are calling g for violence against them, attempting to undermine and destroy the court, and are declaring the entire USSC to be an ILLEGITIMATE Court.


The same people demand they get their way and have the authority to dictate their agenda on the rest of the country....

- Are the same ones who are throwing a treasonous insurrection now because they are not getting their way and demand 

The same ones who are declaring they are the best to decide Constitutionality of law are the very same ones who have and continue to violate both Constitition and Rule of Law:
- Russian Collusion Scandal 

- Faux Imprachment coup attempts during which Democrats were caught breaking laws

- Presidents, VPs, the NSA, CIA, FBI committing crimes against Americans and the nation

- Democrats inciting an assassination attempt on and shooting of fellow opposition party lawmakers ... and now are inciting the same type of violence against  USSC Justices

- Refusing to denounce the USSC Leak, doxxing of the court, 'insurrections' (and instead are calling for them), and violence against and intimidation of Justices

- Incited and encouraged violent BLM and Antifa terrorist activity that involved looting, burning, destroying, and killing while perpetrating billions of dollars in damage in property communities.... 

Democrats, Iberal extremists have done these yet they believe they are best to make laws and judge Constitutionality then force their agendas on us?

Democrats have demonstrated they either don't know the law and Constitution or don't care about ant of it:

- Federal Democrats - Pelosi and others - have been caught multiple times breaking Insider Trading Laws.  Each time they have claimed they did not know those laws applied to them, swore they would write new legislation  making it illegal for politicians to engage in Insider Trading EVEN THOSE LAWS ALREADY EXIST & refused to allow any of themselves to he charged with criminally making their millions
-- How can criminal repeat offenders be entrusted with making and forcing laws on the rest of us when they are continuous caught breaking the same laws and others?


The Democrats' Head of the Judicial Committee, the Guy who is supposed to know law and make sure the Justice system operates legally actually ORDERED the US AG TO BREAK US LAW...AND THEN LED DEMOCRATS IN ADMINISHING THE US AGFOR REFUSING TO BREAK THE LAW FOR DEMOCRAT BENEFIT.   Fat-ass Jerry Nadler riminally abused his Committee position and power.

And there are so many other examples, almost daily, showing how corrupt, criminal, treasonous, self-serving, US govt undermining they are while they insist to get their way and that they are the only ones who can be entrusted to run the country.

NOT taking more power from them, or at least power they have no Constitutional authority to wield, and giving it back to the states would be 'radical',, not to mention a mistake.


----------



## OKTexas

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “America is a different place, with most of its population born after _Roe _was decided. And a decision to overturn _Roe_ — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate _Roe’s_ damage than to reverse it.
> 
> It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.
> 
> What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — *especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus*.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion | Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice
> 
> 
> An abrupt and profound change to an established law is utterly destructive to respect for the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overturning _Roe_ is therefore repugnant to conservativism – it is radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible.




Wow, you just described perfectly how Roe was imposed on the nation, reversing that grievous error has been in the works ever since. It's you commies that are disrespecting our institutions and the rule of law by trying to intimidate judges that are simply following the Constitution.

.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Coyote said:


> The Supreme Court is losing credibility as being an impartial judiciary is being eroded in the eyes of many American.


True.

And the reason why this Court is losing credibility is the same reason why conservativism in general has lost credibility – hypocrisy, inconsistency, and capricious partisan politics in place of adhering to conservative dogma.


----------



## OKTexas

westwall said:


> Article 5 is subject to the 5th, or do you not understand the COTUS?




Article 5 is the methods by which the Constitution can be amended and has nothing to do with the 5th amendment, which says a defendant can't be compelled to testify against themselves.

.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Coyote said:


> I don’t think fundamental rights should be determined at the state level….


They shouldn’t be determined at any government level – it’s because our rights are fundamental and inalienable that they’re immune from attack by government or popular vote.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Jets said:


> It’s a reactionary choice.
> 
> The idea being to go back to a time before Roe…


It’s radical and extreme, anti-democratic and devoid of consensus, and clearly not ‘conservative.’


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Orangecat said:


> Killing innocent humans in their first stages of life is repugnant to liberalism.
> 
> Yes, it's time to retire the world "liberal" from American politics. Is there anyone on the left that prefers the right to life over the convenience of death?


What makes overturning _Roe_ radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible is that it enhances the authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty.

Actual conservativism – consistent with conservative dogma – would be to uphold _Roe/Casey_, limiting government authority.

But conservatives haven’t followed that dogma for at least the last 50 years; conservativism has instead become reactionary, extreme, neo-fascist, and authoritarian.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

BluesLegend said:


> The REAL ISSUE is that the radical left refuses to accept any outcome. Give them legal abortion at 14 weeks and they will demand 20 weeks. Hell give them late term baby abortions up until birth and they will demand the right to kill a baby up to 1 year after it's birth.
> 
> You can't negotiate with the radical left, they are insane.


The real issue is the hypocrisy of the right, the failure to consistently adhere to conservative doctrine and dogma.

Instead, conservatives pursue capricious, subjective partisan ideology: ‘ban’ abortion and violate the right to privacy because we don’t like abortion, because of our personal, subjective opinions as to when life begins, compel others through force of law to believe our personal, subjective opinions.


----------



## eddiew37

TRUMP: Pro-choice serial sexual assailant. 🟥 KAVANAUGH: Perjurer accused of sexual assaults. 🟥 THOMAS: Spouse of an insurrectionist leader. 🟥 GORSUCH: Lied under oath about deeming Roe “settled law.“ 🟥 BARRETT: Occupier of​ a stolen SCOTUS seat.
WHO ENDED ABORTION RIGHTS?


https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1523044527631736847


----------



## Orangecat

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> conservativism has instead become reactionary, extreme, neo-fascist, and authoritarian.


You project like a movie theater employee.


----------



## j-mac

Coyote said:


> I don’t literally mean they give rights, but their decisions effect rights and how they are interpreted.



That is literally what you said though...Their decisions should be ruling on Constitutionality of the case in front of them, nothing more...



> You haven’t seen activism like this. And a pretty good indicator is the measure of public trust in the institution which used to be considered above the political fray....



First off, we don't know what the decision will be, until June. So, cool it on the "activism" charge. But, what we have witnessed over say the past five years is a slew of Federal Judges inserting themselves into Presidential politics by ruling on cases based on their political beliefs instead of any judicial integrity...This, should it hold til June and be announced, is just a decision you don't like, but have no control to influence...



> ...and a good indication of this is how they didn’t “reliably” rule in the way partisans on either side expected them to, right?



How so? 

I expect our Justices to follow the Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less.



> Fact is, you better believe I don’t like it. A very fundamental right, control over the integrity of my own body, is being taken from me. This is a right I have had for almost fifty years.



And for all that time you were mistaken...It was never a right. Simply a decision made by a judicial stretch reading something in the Constitution that doesn't exist.



> The only “activism” is those now deciding pregnant women lose all rights to their body, as an entire class of people.



That is far from what would happen should the SC overturn Roe...All that means it that the issue is returned to the states, as it should have always been...If you don't like what will happen in your state, I suggest you vote for politicians that share your views.



> Some of the trigger laws proposed would make abortion illegal in all cases except for “eminent threat to a woman’s life”….she would have to be on the verge of death to get a legal abortion.



While I suspect that states like that will move quickly to rectify their laws to update them, I doubt your panic is warranted...



> Judicial activism? Claiming that a being growing within another’s body, that maybe nothing more than a a few cells seeking a uterus has the same rights over that body as she does. Nowhere in the constitution are embryos granted rights.



A "being" eh? What kind of being? Is it a dog? A cat? It's a being alright, a HUMAN BEING....And as such is protected under its right to life.

You don't want a baby, don't commit the act that makes a human being.


----------



## BackAgain

meaner gene said:


> Interesting use of the term "innocent human".  The roman catholic church has as a fundamental tenet, that babies are not "innocent humans"


I’m not a Catholic. And I don’t believe in original sin. And even the Catholic Church opposes abortion.


----------



## Mashmont

Here is a question.:How many rulings that undid previous rulings do we now believe were unwise reversals?

Answer:  None

And the repeal of the horrible Roe v Wade ruling will be the same.


----------



## Big Bend Texas

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “America is a different place, with most of its population born after _Roe _was decided. And a decision to overturn _Roe_ — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate _Roe’s_ damage than to reverse it.
> 
> It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.
> 
> What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — *especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus*.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion | Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice
> 
> 
> An abrupt and profound change to an established law is utterly destructive to respect for the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overturning _Roe_ is therefore repugnant to conservativism – it is radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible.


Roe was a horrible decision based on intentional misrepresentations and definitions.

The correct thing was and always will be to reverse it.

The conservative thing to do is to send the abortion question back to the states where it belongs for "The People" of each state to decide for themselves.

Why do you fear Democracy?


----------



## Big Bend Texas

meaner gene said:


> Interesting use of the term "innocent human".  The roman catholic church has as a fundamental tenet, that babies are not "innocent humans"


Since an aborted baby cannot be Christened or Baptized having that original sin washed away this is a pretty weak argument.

By any understanding of the word, they are by definition the most innocent of all of us.

Thankfully most of us don't' need or rely on Pope's to dictate such things to us.


----------



## Natural Citizen

Ever notice how the quislings pop off about privacy being fundamental in one breath when it serves their wants...yet they want you to have to show your medical records to go in and have some crappy sandwich some place in another breath? 

It's just a total lack of self-awareness at this point. It's laughable if it weren't so disturbing.


----------



## Esdraelon

occupied said:


> That question is absurd.


Only for those too chickenshit to answer.


----------



## Esdraelon

Natural Citizen said:


> Ever notice how the quislings pop off about privacy being fundamental in one breath when it serves their wants...yet they want you to have to show your medical records to go in and have some crappy sandwich some place in another breath?
> 
> It's just a total lack of self-awareness at this point. It's laughable if it weren't so disturbing.


They'd stand by and cheer while their political opponents were being dragged off and shot or put in forced labor camps as well.  And they KNOW IT'S TRUE.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> They shouldn’t be determined at any government level – it’s because our rights are fundamental and inalienable that they’re immune from attack by government or popular vote.


INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO ADEQUATE SELF-DEFENSE!!!


----------



## Lakhota

Critics Erupt After Clarence Thomas Tells Americans To Deal With It On Roe v. Wade​
Wow, talk about pompous arrogance!  He needs to deal with the backlash!


----------



## Natural Citizen

Esdraelon said:


> They'd stand by and cheer while their political opponents were being dragged off and shot or put in forced labor camps as well.  And they KNOW IT'S TRUE.



I specifically recall some of them openly calling for people who did not conform to the decrees to undergo invasive medical procedures like vaccination to be rounded up and put in camps similar to the way they did the Japanese.


----------



## 2aguy

meaner gene said:


> As you point out, she "should" have free medical care, but what if she doesn't?
> You are forcing her to bear both the medical costs, plus other financial burdens, such as having to take time off from work.
> She could get her medical costs covered by becoming a burden on society.




So...all of a sudden money is more important than the life of a child?   We use government money to pay for the child, versus allowing the baby to be murdered.......


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

occupied said:


> So people should not be held legally responsible for having and using guns? Not sure what your objection is.


"Held responsible"?

Don't sugar coat your authoritarian butt fucking bullshit!!!


----------



## 2aguy

meaner gene said:


> Of pregnant woman, you can expect 1 in 10,000 to die before or from childbirth.
> Deaths from legal abortions are 0.07 in 10,000, many times safer than remaining pregnant.




And?   Murdering a baby is 100% fatal.......an abortion kills almost every time...and when it doesn't immediately kill the baby, the Doctor, who took an oath to first do no harm, allows the baby who survived the abortion to simply die...


----------



## 2aguy

meaner gene said:


> A raped woman who is forced to carry the child to term is more likely to die from pregnancy/childbirth, than a rapist to be sentenced to the death penalty.




Sorry.....that's just crap.   

Do you support the death penalty for rape?


----------



## 2aguy

iceberg said:


> the left has had plenty of time to make this law and be done with it. they choose instead to use to like now, fire up a base over an issue.
> 
> their own fault for making it political and  it resolving  problems.




Yep, Derek Hunter pointed out that with obama, they had two years with a filibuster prove majority in the Senate to pass kill baby laws....they didn't......that's on them.


----------



## Coyote

j-mac said:


> That is literally what you said though...Their decisions should be ruling on Constitutionality of the case in front of them, nothing more...


Actually it is more than that, they have take into account the weight of precedent and case law as well.



j-mac said:


> First off, we don't know what the decision will be, until June. So, cool it on the "activism" charge. But, what we have witnessed over say the past five years is a slew of Federal Judges *inserting themselves into Presidential politics by ruling on cases based on their political beliefs *instead of any judicial integrity...



oh?  And who comprises this “slew”?  And who decides it is based on “political beliefs” instead of “judicial integrity”?



j-mac said:


> This, should it hold til June and be announced, is just a decision you don't like, but have no control to influence...



While it is true I can neither control it directly nor influence it, I can be part of the means to eventually overturn it much as conservatives are doing with Roe.  Eventually the make up of the court will change.




j-mac said:


> How so?
> 
> I expect our Justices to follow the Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less.



I think you expect them to follow your interpretation of the Constitution.



j-mac said:


> And for all that time you were mistaken...it was never a right. Simply a decision made by a judicial stretch reading something in the Constitution that doesn't exist.


 
How so?  Because it wasn’t specified in the Constitution?

Amendment IX​The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



j-mac said:


> That is far from what would happen should the SC overturn Roe...All that means it that the issue is returned to the states, as it should have always been...If you don't like what will happen in your state, I suggest you vote for politicians that share your views.
> 
> 
> 
> While I suspect that states like that will move quickly to rectify their laws to update them, I doubt your panic is warranted...



Have you looked at some of the proposed trigger laws?




j-mac said:


> A "being" eh? What kind of being? Is it a dog? A cat? It's a being alright, a HUMAN BEING....And as such is protected under its right to life.



It’s rights do not overuse that of a woman’s rights to her own body,



j-mac said:


> You don't want a baby, don't commit the act that makes a human being.


You don’t want an abortion, don’t have one.  I very much doubt rape victims had much choice in committing the act.


----------



## occupied

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> "Held responsible"?
> 
> Don't sugar coat your authoritarian butt fucking bullshit!!!


Take responsibility for your actions Mr. Libertarian.


----------



## Coyote

Mashmont said:


> Here is a question.:How many rulings that undid previous rulings do we now believe were unwise reversals?
> 
> Answer:  None
> 
> And the repeal of the horrible Roe v Wade ruling will be the same.


Citizens United.


----------



## Coyote

2aguy said:


> Yep, Derek Hunter pointed out that with obama, they had two years with a filibuster prove majority in the Senate to pass kill baby laws....they didn't......that's on them.


They had no idea Roe would ever be overturned.


----------



## Lakhota

Gee, ya think?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Coyote said:


> If the federal governmentforced all American's to have any vaccination against their will, I would not support that


They tried.  We, not you, resisted until they backed the fuck off. 

We even used the "my body, my choice" rally cry.


----------



## Coyote

iceberg said:


> the left has had plenty of time to make this law and be done with it. they choose instead to use to like now, fire up a base over an issue.
> 
> their own fault for making it political and  it resolving  problems.


With Roe as settled law, there would have been no reason to at the time.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Coyote said:


> With Roe as settled law, there would have been no reason to at the time.


It's never settled law when it comes to the Court.


----------



## Lakhota

*That certainly sounds fair and reasonable to me!*


----------



## eagle7-31

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 641832
> 
> *That certainly sounds fair and reasonable to me!*


TS. We are not one party leftist state much like you want.


----------



## Mashmont

Coyote said:


> Citizens United.


Another good reversal.


----------



## iceberg

Coyote said:


> With Roe as settled law, there would have been no reason to at the time.


if it was settled law, we'd not be here now would we?


----------



## iceberg

Coyote said:


> They had no idea Roe would ever be overturned.











						Fact Check: Obama Had Chance To Codify Roe v. Wade But Chose Not To Prioritize It
					

In 2007, when Barack Obama was running for president, he promised that “the first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act,” which would aff




					theworldnews.net
				




yes. they did. getting mad about it now doesn't change the fact they like to keep their political talking points alive and well and this blew up in their face.


----------



## Ringtone

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “America is a different place, with most of its population born after _Roe _was decided. And a decision to overturn _Roe_ — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate _Roe’s_ damage than to reverse it.
> 
> It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.
> 
> What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — *especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus*.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion | Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice
> 
> 
> An abrupt and profound change to an established law is utterly destructive to respect for the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overturning _Roe_ is therefore repugnant to conservativism – it is radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible.


Well, look at this stinking pile of shit.  Hey, everybody, overturning _Roe v. Wade_ is repugnant to conservatism.   

I'm done with any semblance of civility with he left.  Leftists are passive-aggressive, gaslighting sociopaths.   

One does not reason with evil.  One defeats evil.

It's past time for conservatives to take a flamethrower to their asses.


----------



## Ringtone

Coyote said:


> The Rightwing penchant overturning long established precedent and established late, for putting in political judges and creating tbe most politically activist court since FDR almost a century ago….is indeed reckless.
> 
> The Supreme Court is losing credibility as being an impartial judiciary is being eroded in the eyes of many American.  This isn’t good for our country.  Neither is the possible precedent of giving individual rights and then taking them away.


Bullshit!

See post #19 and #210.


----------



## lantern2814

Coyote said:


> Bad law according to who?  Rightwingers.


No dumbfuck, bad law according to noted leftists Alan Dershowitz and Ruth Bader Ginsberg among others.









						Roe v. Wade called into question by many Democrats, liberal scholars over the years
					

Since the ruling took effect in 1973, many liberal legal scholars have openly questioned the constitutionality of the Roe v. Wade decision which has been re-thrust back into the national spotlight after a leaked majority opinion suggested that the controversial abortion ruling is on the verge of...




					www.foxnews.com
				




This is where you refuse to acknowledge the truth because you can’t handle it..


----------



## lantern2814

Lakhota said:


> Here’s What GOP-Nominated Justices Said About Roe v. Wade During Their Senate Hearings​
> They lied.


No they didn’t. Not once did they respond to a question about how they would rule on any challenge to that decision. Cry harder.


----------



## lantern2814

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 641832
> 
> *That certainly sounds fair and reasonable to me!*


Shove it asshole. Nobody committed perjury no matter how much you lie. They never were asked how they would rule on any appeal. By the way “settled law” is only settled until the next case comes up. By your standards, Brown vs Board of Education and Dred Scott best both be reverted back to what was “settled law”.


----------



## Coyote

iceberg said:


> if it was settled law, we'd not be here now would we?


If the new SCOTUS appointees respected settled law.


----------



## Coyote

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> They tried.  We, not you, resisted until they backed the fuck off.
> 
> We even used the "my body, my choice" rally cry.


No they didn’t.  Yes, you hypocrites did steal that line.


----------



## struth

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “America is a different place, with most of its population born after _Roe _was decided. And a decision to overturn _Roe_ — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate _Roe’s_ damage than to reverse it.
> 
> It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.
> 
> What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — *especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus*.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion | Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice
> 
> 
> An abrupt and profound change to an established law is utterly destructive to respect for the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overturning _Roe_ is therefore repugnant to conservativism – it is radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible.


actually most legal scholars including RBG. think Roe was a poorly written illogical opinion.


----------



## Coyote

iceberg said:


> Fact Check: Obama Had Chance To Codify Roe v. Wade But Chose Not To Prioritize It
> 
> 
> In 2007, when Barack Obama was running for president, he promised that “the first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act,” which would aff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theworldnews.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes. they did. getting mad about it now doesn't change the fact they like to keep their political talking points alive and well and this blew up in their face.


Since precedent and settled law do not exist for right anymore (only selectively) I imagine a lot of rulings will come under scrutiny, like Heller.  It won’t always be a rightwing majority.


----------



## iceberg

Coyote said:


> If the new SCOTUS appointees respected settled law.


diversion.


----------



## iceberg

Coyote said:


> Since precedent and settled law do not exist for right anymore (only selectively) I imagine a lot of rulings will come under scrutiny, like Heller.  It won’t always be a rightwing majority.


"for right" 

this is funny as shit.


----------



## 2aguy

Coyote said:


> Citizens United.



Citizens United was a great ruling...fascists like you who want to censor speech hated it.


----------



## BS Filter

Coyote said:


> Worse than slavery???  You guys are nuts.


Yes, abortion is worse than slavery.  The descendants of slaves have a life in a society with opportunities.  The descendants of aborted babies?  Well.....


----------



## j-mac

Coyote said:


> Actually it is more than that, they have take into account the weight of precedent and case law as well.



SC Justices only decision should be to the Constitution of the United States....Saying that they need to uphold precedent is saying that no decision made by the court at any period in time should ever be overturned...Is that what you want? Should we bring back slavery? 



> oh? And who comprises this “slew”? And who decides it is based on “political beliefs” instead of “judicial integrity”?



Come on now, we saw a bunch during Trump....but, I understand you agreed with them so it was ok with you.



> While it is true I can neither control it directly nor influence it, I can be part of the means to eventually overturn it much as conservatives are doing with Roe. Eventually the make up of the court will change.



Your efforts should be in amending the Constitution if you believe that strongly in it being a right....Those of you on the pro abortion side love to quote stats and polls that point to the 2/3 majority you need, so why not do it? Are your polls a lie?



> How so? Because it wasn’t specified in the Constitution?
> 
> Amendment IX​The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



Your making the mistake of reading into the amendment what is not there....Does it specifically outline what rights these "others" are? Or are they talking about the other enumerated rights spelled out in the document?



> Have you looked at some of the proposed trigger laws?



Not all of them no...but, just because they exist at the moment, realize that the decision hasn't happened yet, and right now these legislatures should be scrambling to rectify what their constituents want. 



> It’s rights do not overuse that of a woman’s rights to her own body,



The woman made that choice the moment she consented to an act that has a singular purpose of creating another life.



> You don’t want an abortion, don’t have one. I very much doubt rape victims had much choice in committing the act.



True, and for the record I am in favor of 'rape, incest, and health of the mother' exceptions...


----------



## j-mac

Coyote said:


> They had no idea Roe would ever be overturned.


Well, how short sighted is that? Their push for the past 50 years should have been in amending the Constitution so that this couldn't happen...


----------



## lantern2814

Coyote said:


> If the new SCOTUS appointees respected settled law.


Cry harder. News flash: “settled law” is only settled until the next appeal is heard.


----------



## JoeB131

BackAgain said:


> Overruling bad law badly decided is good solid conservatism.



The bad laws were the unenforceable abortion laws no one was obeying by 1973.



Oddball said:


> I was first trimester pro-choice, until the roaring silence from the left in the wake of the Veritas exposure.
> 
> This isn't about choice, it's rebranded eugenics....The abortionists are plain old evil.



That you believe anything coming out of Project Veritas is kind of laughable.  



BackAgain said:


> And the Constitution doesn’t make *any* reference to an allegedly fundamental “right” to abort a human life.



The constitution wasn't written by anyone with a uterus.  Maybe we need a new constitution that isn't written exclusively by white men.


----------



## JoeB131

j-mac said:


> SC Justices only decision should be to the Constitution of the United States....Saying that they need to uphold precedent is saying that no decision made by the court at any period in time should ever be overturned...Is that what you want? Should we bring back slavery?



No, Anger Issues, the problem here is that slavery was ended by the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments.  The court was correct in that according to the constitution, slaves had no rights.  That's why it had to be amended. 

I do think the court made up a right to privacy out of the ninth and 14th amendments... because it was pragmatic to do so.  The real problem wasn't roe, it was Griswold v. Connecticut.  That decision got rid of all the archaic anti-contraception laws, and no one had a problem with it. 




j-mac said:


> our efforts should be in amending the Constitution if you believe that strongly in it being a right....Those of you on the pro abortion side love to quote stats and polls that point to the 2/3 majority you need, so why not do it? Are your polls a lie?



The problem here is that amending the constitution has become Nigh impossible with 50 states.   The last time it was legitimately amended was the 26th Amendment in the 1970's, which everyone thought was reasonable.  (Giving 18 year olds the right to vote after sending thousands of them into the meat grinder in Vietnam seemed more than fair.)


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Since when is ending murder....in those states that end murder of babies...radical?



Fetuses aren't babies. 

And since you are so for state rights and ending murder now, how about letting states ban guns if that's what they feel like doing.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Citizens United was a great ruling...fascists like you who want to censor speech hated it.



Rich people buying our elections is not a good thing.


----------



## BackAgain

JoeB131 said:


> The bad laws were the unenforceable abortion laws no one was obeying by 1973.
> 
> 
> 
> That you believe anything coming out of Project Veritas is kind of laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution wasn't written by anyone with a uterus.  Maybe we need a new constitution that isn't written exclusively by white men.


The bad law was the foundation less Roe v. Wade.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Coyote said:


> No they didn’t.  Yes, you hypocrites did steal that line.


You don't live by that line.  I do.  You're a filthy liar.  I don't think it's any of government's business what a woman does with her body. I also don't think it's any of the government's damn business what someone wears on their face or what they put or don't put into their body.

You are the worst miserable form of hypocrite ever imaginable. You are no liberal and never have been. You're a fucking communist. Authoritarian. Asshole.


----------



## JoeB131

BackAgain said:


> The bad law was the foundation less Roe v. Wade.



Naw, Roe just recognized reality...  women who don't want to be pregnant will find a way to not be pregnant.

It was easy for them to do in 1973, and it will be easier in 2022 when they've ALREADY ENJOYED THE RIGHT for 50 years.


----------



## BackAgain

JoeB131 said:


> Naw, Roe just recognized reality...  women who don't want to be pregnant will find a way to not be pregnant.
> 
> It was easy for them to do in 1973, and it will be easier in 2022 when they've ALREADY ENJOYED THE RIGHT for 50 years.


It is cretins such as you who conflate abortion with contraception.  

As for the legality of abortion, the States will be addressing that issue if the Dobbs draft decision stands.


----------



## JoeB131

BackAgain said:


> It is cretins such as you who conflate abortion with contraception.
> 
> As for the legality of abortion, the States will be addressing that issue if the Dobbs draft decision stands.



Abortion is contraception... as far as the women who have them are concerned, and they are the only ones who count.  

Dobbs will be the worst thing that happened to the Right Wing in this country... it shows how crazy you are.  

It's why Republicans avoided overturning Roe for 50 years.


----------



## g5000

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “America is a different place, with most of its population born after _Roe _was decided. And a decision to overturn _Roe_ — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate _Roe’s_ damage than to reverse it.
> 
> It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.
> 
> What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — *especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus*.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion | Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice
> 
> 
> An abrupt and profound change to an established law is utterly destructive to respect for the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overturning _Roe_ is therefore repugnant to conservativism – it is radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible.


So...I guess you would have been against _Brown v. Board of Education_ since it was a radical change from _Plessy v. Ferguson._

_Roe _was a horribly flawed decision. It was legislation from the bench.  It should be overturned.


----------



## BackAgain

JoeB131 said:


> Abortion is contraception... as far as the women who have them are concerned, and they are the only ones who count.
> 
> Dobbs will be the worst thing that happened to the Right Wing in this country... it shows how crazy you are.
> 
> It's why Republicans avoided overturning Roe for 50 years.


No you idiot. Abortion is absolutely NOT contraception.  How fucking ignorant are you?   

Abortions are only performed after conception. You idiot.


----------



## JoeB131

BackAgain said:


> No you idiot. Abortion is absolutely NOT contraception. How fucking ignorant are you?
> 
> Abortions are only performed after conception. You idiot.



Right.. they undo conception by putting little Globby into a medical waste container rather than sucking off the welfare teet for 18 years.   Given how much your side whines about welfare, you should be happy about that.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Coyote said:


> So you support forced pregnancies on women then.


Don’t like it why hadn’t Pelosi put a bill on Brandon’s desk legalizing abortions up to and after birth?
You whiners.


----------



## BackAgain

JoeB131 said:


> Right.. they undo conception by putting little Globby into a medical waste container rather than sucking off the welfare teet for 18 years.   Given how much your side whines about welfare, you should be happy about that.


You’re retarded. Contraception means to prevent conception. Once conception has occurred, you can’t prevent it (or “undo” it) you fucking imbecile. And no. My side doesn’t whine about welfare. Welfare cheating is another story. But some people do have a need for help and if we as a society agree to lend that hand, I’m ok with it. 

In any event, only utter vile scumbags like you place a dollar value on innocent human life.


----------



## JoeB131

BackAgain said:


> You’re retarded. Contraception means to prevent conception. Once conception has occurred, you can’t prevent it (or “undo” it) you fucking imbecile. And no. My side doesn’t whine about welfare. Welfare cheating is another story. But some people do have a need for help and if we as a society agree to lend that hand, I’m ok with it.
> 
> In any event, only utter vile scumbags like you place a dollar value on innocent human life.



Naw, man, if we didn't place a value on human life, we'd have universal health care.   We don't.  Fuck those poor people.  You guys have tried to cut welfare at every opportunity, this is why I don't take you seriously when you whine about THE BABIES!!!!! There are plenty of babies who go to bed hungry every night because our poverty relief programs are so fucking inadequate.  

Abortion ends pregnancy... Therefore, contraception.  There are women who use it as birth control.  In fact, that's why the majority of them ARE performed.  Personally, I'd rather they use other methods, but you idiots keep cutting funding to Planned Parenthood or insisting on abstinence instruction instead of teaching other forms of contraception.  So I won't take your whining about THE BABIES!!!! terribly seriously.


----------



## Big Bend Texas

JoeB131 said:


> *Naw, man, if we didn't place a value on human life, we'd have universal health care.   We don't.*  Fuck those poor people.  You guys have tried to cut welfare at every opportunity, this is why I don't take you seriously when you whine about THE BABIES!!!!! There are plenty of babies who go to bed hungry every night because our poverty relief programs are so fucking inadequate.
> 
> *Abortion ends pregnancy... Therefore, contraception. * There are women who use it as birth control.  In fact, that's why the majority of them ARE performed.  Personally, I'd rather they use other methods, but you idiots keep cutting funding to Planned Parenthood or insisting on abstinence instruction instead of teaching other forms of contraception.  So I won't take your whining about THE BABIES!!!! terribly seriously.



To the first, you just discredited your own argument.

To the second, Contraception is to prevent pregnancy you idiot, not to end it.  Terminating a pregnancy is an abortion.



> contraception​ noun
> Save Word
> To save this word, you'll need to log in.
> Log In
> 
> con·tra·cep·tion | \ ˌkän-trə-ˈsep-shən  \
> Definition of _contraception_​
> *: *deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation











						Definition of CONTRACEPTION
					

deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation… See the full definition




					www.merriam-webster.com


----------



## Big Bend Texas

JoeB131 said:


> 'd rather they use other methods, but you idiots keep cutting funding to Planned Parenthood or insisting on abstinence instruction instead of teaching other forms of contraception.


With PP not performing abortions anymore they won't need anymore gov't funding.

It's a private organization, why should it receive any gov't funding at all?


----------



## JoeB131

Big Bend Texas said:


> To the first, you just discredited your own argument.
> 
> To the second, Contraception is to prevent pregnancy you idiot, not to end it. Terminating a pregnancy is an abortion.



That's one fetus that will never bother us again...  So long, Globby!  

Women are using abortion as birth control.   That makes it contraception.  In fact, it's the only form of contraception that is 100% effective.


----------



## JoeB131

Big Bend Texas said:


> With PP not performing abortions anymore they won't need anymore gov't funding.
> 
> It's a private organization, why should it receive any gov't funding at all?



Same reason the government contracts out building roads... 

You outsource work to people who know what they are doing.  

Planned Parenthood prevents far more pregnancies than they perform abortions.  Abortions are only 3% of the services they provide. If you guys were serious about preventing unwanted pregnancies and abortions, you'd give PP everything they ask for, no strings attached.  

Instead, very time we get a Republican in there, we go through this kabuki dance of gag rules.


----------



## BackAgain

JoeB131 said:


> Naw, man, if we didn't place a value on human life, we'd have universal health care.   We don't.  Fuck those poor people.  You guys have tried to cut welfare at every opportunity, this is why I don't take you seriously when you whine about THE BABIES!!!!! There are plenty of babies who go to bed hungry every night because our poverty relief programs are so fucking inadequate.
> 
> Abortion ends pregnancy... Therefore, contraception.  There are women who use it as birth control.  In fact, that's why the majority of them ARE performed.  Personally, I'd rather they use other methods, but you idiots keep cutting funding to Planned Parenthood or insisting on abstinence instruction instead of teaching other forms of contraception.  So I won't take your whining about THE BABIES!!!! terribly seriously.


Wrong, shit head.  We place value on innocent human life. The costs of health care for a population of our size is massive. So we have private and public with private insurance and with some government assisted coverage. If you want to whine like the asshole you are that it’s not universal and free, go right ahead. But this is still not some fantasy land of liberal wetdreams. There is no utopia. 

Abortion kills preborn babies. It would control our population if people (after being born)  were free to kill other post-birth people, too. But that’s not how we roll, you cheesedick. 

And nobody gives a crap what an imbecile like you takes seriously. Go sit in a puddle and fart. Enjoy the bubbles.


----------



## JoeB131

BackAgain said:


> Wrong, shit head. We place value on innocent human life. The costs of health care for a population of our size is massive. So we have private and public with private insurance and with some government assisted coverage. If you want to whine like the asshole you are that it’s not universal and free, go right ahead. But this is still not some fantasy land of liberal wetdreams. There is no utopia.



You place value on keeping them women in their place.  

As far as universal health care, the US Spends more per capita than the socialized medicine countries, and we get much worse results.  That's the problem when you treat health care as a commodity instead of a right. Our system is more expensive, not less.  

And when a $300.00 abortion is weighed against a $10,000 live birth, that's an easy one to make.  



BackAgain said:


> Abortion kills preborn babies. It would control our population if people (after being born) were free to kill other post-birth people, too. But that’s not how we roll, you cheesedick.



Fetuses aren't babies... we don't have funerals for medical waste.


----------



## dudmuck

BackAgain said:


> Wrong, shit head.  We place value on innocent human life. The costs of health care for a population of our size is massive. So we have private and public with private insurance and with some government assisted coverage. If you want to whine like the asshole you are that it’s not universal and free, go right ahead. But this is still not some fantasy land of liberal wetdreams. There is no utopia.
> 
> Abortion kills preborn babies. It would control our population if people (after being born)  were free to kill other post-birth people, too. But that’s not how we roll, you cheesedick.
> 
> And nobody gives a crap what an imbecile like you takes seriously. Go sit in a puddle and fart. Enjoy the bubbles.








If God wanted us to know abortion is wrong … I think he wouldn’t have “designed” a system where 50% of fertilized eggs fail to attach or abort on thier own.

If there is a teaching in his design, it’s that abortion occurs naturally and is very common.


----------



## BackAgain

JoeB131 said:


> You place value on keeping them women in their place.


Stop projecting, you imbecile libtard. As a conservative, I am far more a champion of women’s’ rights than you could ever hope to be. 
But no claimed “right” of easy access to an abortion for the sake of convenience trumps the other person’s right to live. 

The balance of your imbecile post was unworthy of further rebuttal. All you’re doing is repeating your pointless claims.  


JoeB131 said:


> Fetuses aren't babies... we don't have funerals for medical waste.


Fetuses *are* preborn babies. 

Aborted preborn babies aren’t “medical waste” no matter how much you wish it were true. They are treated like garbage. But they were people.


----------



## BackAgain

dudmuck said:


> If God wanted us to know abortion is wrong … I think he wouldn’t have “designed” a system where 50% of fertilized eggs fail to attach or abort on thier own.
> 
> If there is a teaching in his design, it’s that abortion occurs naturally and is very common.


A piece of cotton need not become a shirt. Am I fertilized chicken egg is obviously not a chicken.  A nut that grows on a tree is a part of the tree. A zygote inside a woman’s womb is a human being and can never be anything else unless it dies naturally or is slaughtered in the womb. 

This is indeed a simple concept. Therefore I wouldn’t expect you to be able to grasp it.


----------



## JoeB131

BackAgain said:


> Stop projecting, you imbecile libtard. As a conservative, I am far more a champion of women’s’ rights than you could ever hope to be.
> But no claimed “right” of easy access to an abortion for the sake of convenience trumps the other person’s right to live.



Yeah, somehow I doubt that.  Conservatives don't believe in equal pay, don't support sexual harassment laws, fought against the VAWA.  



BackAgain said:


> Aborted preborn babies aren’t “medical waste” no matter how much you wish it were true. They are treated like garbage. But they were people.



No, they really weren't.  They didn't have names, and the people who created them didn't want them.  



BackAgain said:


> A piece of cotton need not become a shirt. Am I fertilized chicken egg is obviously not a chicken. A nut that grows on a tree is a part of the tree. A zygote inside a woman’s womb is a human being and can never be anything else unless it dies naturally or is slaughtered in the womb.
> 
> This is indeed a simple concept. Therefore I wouldn’t expect you to be able to grasp it.


You miss the point. 

Most chicken eggs never become chickens, they become omelets.  
most nuts never become trees, they get eaten by animals. 
2/3rds of zygotes never attach to the uterine wall, and of the ones that do, 20% end up as miscarriages, 20% end up as abortions.  

You see, it used to be that 10% of women died in childbirth, and 50% of children never saw the age of five.  

We've made incredible medical advances since then. But that comes with a cost of a need to control population growth...  Otherwise, we'd overrun the planet.


----------



## easyt65

dudmuck said:


> If God wanted us to know abortion is wrong … I think he wouldn’t have “designed” a system where 50% of fertilized eggs fail to attach or abort on thier own.
> 
> If there is a teaching in his design, it’s that abortion occurs naturally and is very common.


Ok, this wins 'stupid, fucked up liberal rant of the day"....

Gee,why didn't you add this photo to the moronic montages you started off with?





.....because this IS a BABY with a heartbeat in the womb, a viable human being inside the womb capable of surviving outside the womb.

You crazy fuckers want to call it a 'lump of cells'. Does that look like a 'lump of cells' to you, dumbass?  If so,ook in the mirror right now and understand that what you are looking at, according to the Drnocrat Death Cult is a 'LUMP OF CELLS WITH A HEARTBEAT'...worthy of and an abortion of which is justified.

The Democrat Death Cult:

- Refused to acknowledge a baby with a heartbeat is a living being

- Wanted to refuse the right to call a baby a 'baby' and have the right to kill it as long as the head remained in the mother

- We're caught dismembering babies and selling the parts for profit, leading many at one time to refer Planned Parenthood abortion clinics an 'infant chop shop' - instead of cars, bring in a viable baby, cut it into parts, and Sr them individually.

- Tried to make it legal to.kurder a baby fighting for its life outside the womb after a failed abortion.
-- The same a$$holes arguing how an illegal can walk 5 feet across our border, have a baby, & that baby has every Constitutional right an American has were arguing that a US citizen / American baby born in the US, surviving liberals attempt to kill it, somehow does NOT have the same Constitutionl rights of any other American in the US...or the same rights Democrats want to give that baby born of an illegal 5 feet on our side of the border.  WTF?!

Even now the Deatb Cult is attempting to pass legislation legalizing the murder of infants inside the womb through all 9 months of pregnancy.

Anyone who can look at all of this and NOT figure our for themselves that Democrats have no respect for life, especially those of children, are as mentally impaired as Joe Biden, if not more.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Mashmont said:


> Except Roe v Wade was a radical ruling itself.  It's reversal is restoring the former conservative situation.


Tyrants in black robes legislating from the bench ignoring the will of the people.


----------



## Rigby5

gipper said:


> Why haven’t the Ds passed a law making abortion legal?  Simple fix. They’ve had majorities in both houses several times since 1973. O and Joe said they would, but didn’t. Strange no?


Just because the US government and state governments have no authority to make abortions illegal, does not at all give the federal or state governments the authority to make abortions legally protected either.
You do not and should not pass legislation to ensure what is legal and supposed to be legal.
This is a question of individual rights, and no level of government has any authority over that.
Individual rights are not only infinite and can never all be listed, but are supposed to beyond the jurisdiction of any level of government.
Passing legislation is NOT how you make anything legal.
You make things legal by jailing anyone who would try to make something illegal, that is beyond their jurisdiction.


----------



## Rigby5

iceberg said:


> giving the states back power.
> 
> I'm fine with that.



No, states have no authority to arbitrarily restrict individual rights.
That would allow the major race to enslave any minority they do not like.
That would allow the major religion to abuse any minority religion.

States do not have legal authority to dictate to a woman about what medical procedures they can or can not have done.


----------



## Papageorgio

gipper said:


> Why haven’t the Ds passed a law making abortion legal?  Simple fix. They’ve had majorities in both houses several times since 1973. O and Joe said they would, but didn’t. Strange no?


Why? Because they would rather use it as a wedge issue than fix it. Democrats have played their base and now they will either need to pass a bill or let states decide. Not sure why the Dems aren't trying to push a bill through. 

I think they realize November is trouble for them and if they can divert, this wedge issue may keep them in power but don't expect them to pass a bill legalizing abortion.


----------



## Rigby5

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Right.  You're okay with zero firearm restrictions?



Yes, there really should be zero firearm restrictions.
We do not want juveniles to have firearm access, but that should be done through parental supervision, and not any legislative or executive body.
The tradition is the home defense weapon over the mantle, and children were not restricted from its use when necessary.

I can not think of a single firearm piece of legislation that is actually legal.
They are all criminal in effect and intent.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

easyt65 said:


> Removing legislative decision-making responsibility from the hands of politicians who have proven themselves in the last years to be the most corrupt, most criminal, most treasonous, most self-serving, most oppressive enemies of the state and placing that authority to self-legislate back into the hands of the people is somehow 'RADICAL' to extremists and snowflakes?!
> 
> The same politicians who demanded commitment to the USSC's rulings are now the same people are calling g for violence against them, attempting to undermine and destroy the court, and are declaring the entire USSC to be an ILLEGITIMATE Court.
> 
> 
> The same people demand they get their way and have the authority to dictate their agenda on the rest of the country....
> 
> - Are the same ones who are throwing a treasonous insurrection now because they are not getting their way and demand
> 
> The same ones who are declaring they are the best to decide Constitutionality of law are the very same ones who have and continue to violate both Constitition and Rule of Law:
> - Russian Collusion Scandal
> 
> - Faux Imprachment coup attempts during which Democrats were caught breaking laws
> 
> - Presidents, VPs, the NSA, CIA, FBI committing crimes against Americans and the nation
> 
> - Democrats inciting an assassination attempt on and shooting of fellow opposition party lawmakers ... and now are inciting the same type of violence against  USSC Justices
> 
> - Refusing to denounce the USSC Leak, doxxing of the court, 'insurrections' (and instead are calling for them), and violence against and intimidation of Justices
> 
> - Incited and encouraged violent BLM and Antifa terrorist activity that involved looting, burning, destroying, and killing while perpetrating billions of dollars in damage in property communities....
> 
> Democrats, Iberal extremists have done these yet they believe they are best to make laws and judge Constitutionality then force their agendas on us?
> 
> Democrats have demonstrated they either don't know the law and Constitution or don't care about ant of it:
> 
> - Federal Democrats - Pelosi and others - have been caught multiple times breaking Insider Trading Laws.  Each time they have claimed they did not know those laws applied to them, swore they would write new legislation  making it illegal for politicians to engage in Insider Trading EVEN THOSE LAWS ALREADY EXIST & refused to allow any of themselves to he charged with criminally making their millions
> -- How can criminal repeat offenders be entrusted with making and forcing laws on the rest of us when they are continuous caught breaking the same laws and others?
> 
> 
> The Democrats' Head of the Judicial Committee, the Guy who is supposed to know law and make sure the Justice system operates legally actually ORDERED the US AG TO BREAK US LAW...AND THEN LED DEMOCRATS IN ADMINISHING THE US AGFOR REFUSING TO BREAK THE LAW FOR DEMOCRAT BENEFIT.   Fat-ass Jerry Nadler riminally abused his Committee position and power.
> 
> And there are so many other examples, almost daily, showing how corrupt, criminal, treasonous, self-serving, US govt undermining they are while they insist to get their way and that they are the only ones who can be entrusted to run the country.
> 
> NOT taking more power from them, or at least power they have no Constitutional authority to wield, and giving it back to the states would be 'radical',, not to mention a mistake.


The fact is that overturning Roe is not conservative, it's radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible - which is what conservatism has become.


----------



## Rigby5

Oddball said:


> So "radical" that leftist superstars Alan Dershowitz and Ruth Bader Ginsburg considered Roe to be aberrant bad law.
> 
> Go  piss up a rope.



First of all, Dershowitz is no liberal at all, but extremely right wing and a sell out to the highest bidder.
Second is that Ginsburg was an extremely strong abortion rights proponent, and made no argument against abortion rights at all, in any way.
All she said is that Roe Vs Wade stopped any further analysis of women's rights issues that should have continued to a better popular understanding as to why abortion rights must always remain legal.

{...
In the drafted opinion, Alito quoted the late Justice Ginsburg, who was a famously strong defender of women's rights during her 27-year tenure on the court before her death in 2020. 

"_Roe_...halted a political process that was moving in a reform direction and thereby, I believed, prolonged divisiveness and deferred stable settlement of the issue," Alito quoted Ginsburg on the third page of his 98-page opinion. 

In a lecture published in the 1992 issue of the New York University Law Review, Ginsburg argued that in the 1970s, amid a wave of cases on gender issues, the Supreme Court "approved the direction of change through a temperate brand of decisionmaking, one that was not extravagant or divisive."

"_Roe_, on the other hand, halted a political process that was moving in a reform direction and thereby, I believe, prolonged divisiveness and deferred stable settlement of the issue," Ginsburg said. She added that the Roe decision "coupled with the rights of the pregnant woman the free exercise of her physician's medical judgment," instead of focusing on "the idea of the woman in control of her destiny and her place in society." 
...}


----------



## Oddball

Rigby5 said:


> First of all, Dershowitz is no liberal at all, but extremely right wing and a sell out to the highest bidder.
> Second is that Ginsburg was an extremely strong abortion rights proponent, and made no argument against abortion rights at all, in any way.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

BackAgain said:


> Fetuses *are* preborn babies.


In your personal, subjective opinion. 

Don't use the authority of the state to force your personal, subjective opinion on others.


----------



## Rigby5

j-mac said:


> That is ridiculous....No wonder it comes from the NYTimes....Look, it's real simple...In order to confer an actual right, that has to be done through a constitutional process via an amendment...ANYTHING other than that is an illusion subject to the whims of future courts or bodies of Congress....
> 
> Now, if the support for Roe is so popular as you and other libs say then an amendment shouldn't be a problem...In fact the only reason NOT to do so, is because you know it would fail to meet the standards.



Totally wrong.
Rights are not and can not ever be "conferred".
Rights have to already exist before any legislative body can legislation protection for those always existing, inherent, individual rights.
If rights can be arbitrarily "conferred", then there is nothing to prevent them from later be arbitrarily denied.
And rights are not supposed to be arbitrary at all.
They are supposed to be pre-existing and immutable.
If there was a legislative mistake, it can be corrected, but the abstraction is not supposed to change, ever.

There are NOT supposed to be any rights conferred by the Bill of Rights or any amendment.
Some rights are mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but that is just to explicitly ensure the federal government is prevented from having any jurisdiction that might be used to infringe upon them.

I agree some sort of Bill of Individual Rights would be useful sometimes, but was deliberately never done because it is impossible.  Individual rights are infinite, so can never be fully listed.
So the illusion of a Bill of Individual Rights must not be attempted, since it would allow many to incorrectly assume government grants rights, and that is wrong.
Government is supposed to obey rights, not grant them.
And government is supposed to be very limited in what they can have jurisdiction over at all.
Medical procedures by a woman, being something no government is supposed to have any jurisdiction over at all, in any way.

Does that leave abortion rights up to judicial precedent?
Yes of course, and that is the way is it supposed to be.
You let the experts handle it, with their appropriate appeals process.
You do not let the bull in the china shop politicians or executive start arresting people.


----------



## Rigby5

Papageorgio said:


> Why? Because they would rather use it as a wedge issue than fix it. Democrats have played their base and now they will either need to pass a bill or let states decide. Not sure why the Dems aren't trying to push a bill through.
> 
> I think they realize November is trouble for them and if they can divert, this wedge issue may keep them in power but don't expect them to pass a bill legalizing abortion.



Wrong.
Neither the federal nor state legislators have any authority to ever pen any legislation on abortion, either way.
It is a pre-existing personal and individual right that is supposed to be protected by Judicial Common Law Precedent.
Anyone who thinks you need physical legislation or that individual rights should be attempted to be documented, does not at all understand law in a republic.


----------



## Rigby5

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The fact is that overturning Roe is not conservative, it's radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible - which is what conservatism has become.



Correct.
A conservative should realize individual rights are supposed to always pre-exist, do not need legislation, and no government level has any authority to legislate.
Trying to make medical choices illegal is incredibly invasive and illegal.


----------



## Rigby5

BackAgain said:


> Stop projecting, you imbecile libtard. As a conservative, I am far more a champion of women’s’ rights than you could ever hope to be.
> But no claimed “right” of easy access to an abortion for the sake of convenience trumps the other person’s right to live.
> 
> The balance of your imbecile post was unworthy of further rebuttal. All you’re doing is repeating your pointless claims.
> 
> Fetuses *are* preborn babies.
> 
> Aborted preborn babies aren’t “medical waste” no matter how much you wish it were true. They are treated like garbage. But they were people.



Does not matter at all if fetuses are "preborn babies".
The rights of the woman are all that matter.
And you could just as easily claim any ovum is a "preborn baby" as well.
It is still legally totally up to a woman.
If a woman does not have the maternal instincts you wish they had, tough.
It can't be forced by law, police, prisons, etc.


----------



## marvin martian

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “America is a different place, with most of its population born after _Roe _was decided. And a decision to overturn _Roe_ — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate _Roe’s_ damage than to reverse it.
> 
> It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.
> 
> What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — *especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus*.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion | Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice
> 
> 
> An abrupt and profound change to an established law is utterly destructive to respect for the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overturning _Roe_ is therefore repugnant to conservativism – it is radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible.



The left are SO desperate to keep their black genocide program, they're resorting to violence again.


----------



## BackAgain

JoeB131 said:


> Yeah, somehow I doubt that.  Conservatives don't believe in equal pay, don't support sexual harassment laws, fought against the VAWA.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they really weren't.  They didn't have names, and the people who created them didn't want them.
> 
> 
> You miss the point.
> 
> Most chicken eggs never become chickens, they become omelets.
> most nuts never become trees, they get eaten by animals.
> 2/3rds of zygotes never attach to the uterine wall, and of the ones that do, 20% end up as miscarriages, 20% end up as abortions.
> 
> You see, it used to be that 10% of women died in childbirth, and 50% of children never saw the age of five.
> 
> We've made incredible medical advances since then. But that comes with a cost of a need to control population growth...  Otherwise, we'd overrun the planet.


Nobody cares what you doubt or the nonsense your ascribe to conservatism.


----------



## BackAgain

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> In your personal, subjective opinion.
> 
> Don't use the authority of the state to force your personal, subjective opinion on others.


I will absolutely try to get the authority of the state to compel the saving of lives. And I don’t need your permission for that. In fact, it can and should be done despite your mindless objection. It is only your personal subjective opinion that seeks to deny basic human rights to preborn babies.


----------



## BackAgain

Rigby5 said:


> Does not matter at all if fetuses are "preborn babies".
> The rights of the woman are all that matter.
> And you could just as easily claim any ovum is a "preborn baby" as well.
> It is still legally totally up to a woman.
> If a woman does not have the maternal instincts you wish they had, tough.
> It can't be forced by law, police, prisons, etc.


Wrong. It matters massively that preborn babies are people. Their right to life is the top priority on any sane and morally defensible hierarchy of values. The law must recognize that right as superseding your quibbling and illogical objection. It can indeed be accomplished by law.  And to the extent that you don’t like it, tough shit.


----------



## iceberg

Rigby5 said:


> No, states have no authority to arbitrarily restrict individual rights.
> That would allow the major race to enslave any minority they do not like.
> That would allow the major religion to abuse any minority religion.
> 
> States do not have legal authority to dictate to a woman about what medical procedures they can or can not have done.


seems like they can.

build a bridge, get over it.


----------



## lantern2814

JoeB131 said:


> Abortion is contraception... as far as the women who have them are concerned, and they are the only ones who count.
> 
> Dobbs will be the worst thing that happened to the Right Wing in this country... it shows how crazy you are.
> 
> It's why Republicans avoided overturning Roe for 50 years.


No job Joe showing his stupidity again. No dumbfuck, abortions and contraception are NOT interchangeable. This will do nothing to stop the Republican landslide in November. The only idiots worked up about this were voting Dem anyway. If they aren’t busy committing felonies by trying to attack SCOTUS justices like Upchuck Schmucker asked them to.


----------



## j-mac

Rigby5 said:


> Totally wrong.
> Rights are not and can not ever be "conferred".
> Rights have to already exist before any legislative body can legislation protection for those always existing, inherent, individual rights.
> If rights can be arbitrarily "conferred", then there is nothing to prevent them from later be arbitrarily denied.
> And rights are not supposed to be arbitrary at all.
> They are supposed to be pre-existing and immutable.
> If there was a legislative mistake, it can be corrected, but the abstraction is not supposed to change, ever.
> 
> There are NOT supposed to be any rights conferred by the Bill of Rights or any amendment.
> Some rights are mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but that is just to explicitly ensure the federal government is prevented from having any jurisdiction that might be used to infringe upon them.
> 
> I agree some sort of Bill of Individual Rights would be useful sometimes, but was deliberately never done because it is impossible.  Individual rights are infinite, so can never be fully listed.
> So the illusion of a Bill of Individual Rights must not be attempted, since it would allow many to incorrectly assume government grants rights, and that is wrong.
> Government is supposed to obey rights, not grant them.
> And government is supposed to be very limited in what they can have jurisdiction over at all.
> Medical procedures by a woman, being something no government is supposed to have any jurisdiction over at all, in any way.
> 
> Does that leave abortion rights up to judicial precedent?
> Yes of course, and that is the way is it supposed to be.
> You let the experts handle it, with their appropriate appeals process.
> You do not let the bull in the china shop politicians or executive start arresting people.


So, then you’ll agree if Roe is overturned?


----------



## JoeB131

j-mac said:


> So, then you’ll agree if Roe is overturned?



If Roe is overturned, women will keep getting abortions.


----------



## Rigby5

gipper said:


> Why haven’t the Ds passed a law making abortion legal?  Simple fix. They’ve had majorities in both houses several times since 1973. O and Joe said they would, but didn’t. Strange no?



That is not how law is supposed to work.
First of all, you are not supposed to or even need to ever make a law to legalize anything.
That is supposed to be the default, because rights are infinite and can NOT be listed.
Second is that the feds have zero medical jurisdiction, so congress can't legally pass such a law.


----------



## Rigby5

whitehall said:


> The creation of Roe v Wade was a radical issue. The Court found a "right to privacy" that did not exist in the Constitution and expanded it to justify the killing of millions of unborn. Democrats said abortion would be rare and here we are in the 21st century talking about killing newborn babies by neglect.



NO RIGHTS are created by or "exist in the Constitution".
The Bill of Rights has always just been limits on federal jurisdiction, and nothing more.
The right to privacy, like all rights, pre-existed the American Revolution and are the basis for the revolution and republic.
Abortions were perfectly legal in the US until about 1860, when a powerful coalition of male medical professionals and religious organizations took it on.
There is no basis for making abortion illegal.
No one else but the woman and her doctor have any standing.
So no, Roe Vs Wade is not at all "radical". 
Making abortion illegal is "radical".


----------



## Rigby5

iceberg said:


> giving the states back power.
> 
> I'm fine with that.



States are not supposed to, and never should have "power".
All government is only supposed to borrow the delegated authority that comes from individuals.
And since no individual has any right to say if someone else gets an abortion or not, then no government can have any say at all, ever.


----------



## Rigby5

occupied said:


> That question is absurd.



There should be no government imposed firearm restrictions.
It should be up to parents to keep juveniles safe from firearms,  not government.
Restricting ex-felons whose sentence is over, is totally and completely illegal, creatine a multi tiered population, and violating basic rights of defense.


----------



## hadit

Coyote said:


> The Rightwing penchant overturning long established precedent and established late, for putting in political judges and creating tbe most politically activist court since FDR almost a century ago….is indeed reckless.
> 
> The Supreme Court is losing credibility as being an impartial judiciary is being eroded in the eyes of many American.  This isn’t good for our country.  Neither is the possible precedent of giving individual rights and then taking them away.


The vast majority of those weeping and wailing about the possibility of Roe being overturned will see absolutely no difference in their lives regarding abortion.


----------



## Rigby5

j-mac said:


> So, then you’ll agree if Roe is overturned?



No, there is no legal way to over turn Roe Vs Wade.
There is no government that has any standing.
Government is not a source of legal authority, and instead only borrows our legal authority, in order to better defend individual rights.
So for government to be able to stop abortion, then all individuals would have to already have that authority to do it themselves.
And clearly they do not.
So then government can't have it to borrow.


----------



## Rigby5

JoeB131 said:


> If Roe is overturned, women will keep getting abortions.



If Roe vs Wade is over turned, then government needs to be over turned.
See why gun control is a really bad idea?


----------



## iceberg

Rigby5 said:


> States are not supposed to, and never should have "power".
> All government is only supposed to borrow the delegated authority that comes from individuals.
> And since no individual has any right to say if someone else gets an abortion or not, then no government can have any say at all, ever.


Now apply that universally and have fun with the inevitable "this is different" bullshit.


----------



## Rigby5

marvin martian said:


> The left are SO desperate to keep their black genocide program, they're resorting to violence again.



The question is where would any government authority over abortion come from?
If a woman and her doctor do not believe a fetus is a child, who has any authority above them?
Clearly no one can legally.
Only those who want to impose their religious beliefs on others are concerned about stopping abortions.
It does not harm them, so they have no authority or say.


----------



## Rigby5

iceberg said:


> Now apply that universally and have fun with the inevitable "this is different" bullshit.



No, that is the whole point.
Applying universally, the principle that government is not a source of legal authority, works perfectly for everything.
Once you realize that defense of individual rights is the only source of any legal authority, and gov is only borrowing that authority when there is a conflict, it all makes perfect sense.
Then things like Prohibition don't happen because it becomes obvious government has no say over that.
Prohibition defended the rights of no one.


----------



## Rigby5

hadit said:


> The vast majority of those weeping and wailing about the possibility of Roe being overturned will see absolutely no difference in their lives regarding abortion.



Doesn't matter.
The point is you don't let government make a bad precedent because it leads to more bad acts.
One should be against Prohibition even if one did not drink alcohol, just like males should also be against over turning Roe vs Wade.
Once government goes off the rails, anything becomes possible.
And any government restrictions on abortion would be wildly illegal.


----------



## WelfareQueen

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “America is a different place, with most of its population born after _Roe _was decided. And a decision to overturn _Roe_ — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate _Roe’s_ damage than to reverse it.
> 
> It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.
> 
> What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — *especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus*.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion | Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice
> 
> 
> An abrupt and profound change to an established law is utterly destructive to respect for the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overturning _Roe_ is therefore repugnant to conservativism – it is radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible.



You realize abortion will now be decided by the people State by State versus by Judicial Fiat.  


So tell me again what you object to?


----------



## iceberg

Rigby5 said:


> No, that is the whole point.
> Applying universally, the principle that government is not a source of legal authority, works perfectly for everything.
> Once you realize that defense of individual rights is the only source of any legal authority, and gov is only borrowing that authority when there is a conflict, it all makes perfect sense.
> Then things like Prohibition don't happen because it becomes obvious government has no say over that.
> Prohibition defended the rights of no one.


rights are nothing more than agreed upon actions from the society protecting them. 

on any level. 

there isn't a universal "right" to anything natively. how we define and protect rights is up to us all. 

when you start saying one group isn't worthy, you are the divide. 

now if we have state and federal rights, which we do, it's, because our society defines and protects them as such. 

we are in a dangerous area because the left doles out rights based on emotion, not mutual gain.


----------



## iceberg

WelfareQueen said:


> You realize abortion will now be decided by the people State by State versus by Judicial Fiat.
> 
> 
> So tell me again what you object to?


whatever he is told to.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

WelfareQueen said:


> You realize abortion will now be decided by the people State by State versus by Judicial Fiat.
> 
> 
> So tell me again what you object to?


Clayton objects to whatever the DNC programs his algorithm to object.


----------



## hadit

Rigby5 said:


> Doesn't matter.
> The point is you don't let government make a bad precedent because it leads to more bad acts.
> One should be against Prohibition even if one did not drink alcohol, just like males should also be against over turning Roe vs Wade.
> Once government goes off the rails, anything becomes possible.
> And any government restrictions on abortion would be wildly illegal.


Overturning Roe won't make abortion illegal.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

marvin martian said:


> The left are SO desperate to keep their black genocide program, they're resorting to violence again.


Conservatives are supposed to believe in limited government, clearly that's not the case.


----------



## hadit

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservatives are supposed to believe in limited government, clearly that's not the case.


If you believe an unborn baby is a human being, you have cause to want the government to restrict the freedom to kill them. It can be limited government even if the government protects life.


----------



## Correll

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservatives are supposed to believe in limited government, clearly that's not the case.




There is no right to an abortion. The decision in roe v wade was wrong. Bad precedent, needs to be overturned. 


you want abortions? PASS A LAW.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

iceberg said:


> rights are nothing more than agreed upon actions from the society protecting them.
> 
> on any level.
> 
> there isn't a universal "right" to anything natively. how we define and protect rights is up to us all.
> 
> when you start saying one group isn't worthy, you are the divide.
> 
> now if we have state and federal rights, which we do, it's, because our society defines and protects them as such.
> 
> we are in a dangerous area because the left doles out rights based on emotion, not mutual gain.


Yep.

We are talking about what should be a logical process to determine how one human life effects the life of another and the corresponding behaviors that should or should not be allowed to balance the needs of each life.

In the case of abortion, one human life ENDS the life of another.

What I find curious in this is how the DNC bot that created the thread fails to understand that protecting the week against the strong is a long-standing LIBERAL ideal. In the case of the two lives in question, the power dynamic is such that the woman has complete power and the developing human none.


----------



## WelfareQueen

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservatives are supposed to believe in limited government, clearly that's not the case.



Our Government is based on Rule by Consent of the Governed.  Period. The People will decide in each State through their duly elected Legislators. 

So tell me again what you are objecting to?


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “America is a different place, with most of its population born after _Roe _was decided. And a decision to overturn _Roe_ — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate _Roe’s_ damage than to reverse it.
> 
> It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.
> 
> What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — *especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus*.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion | Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice
> 
> 
> An abrupt and profound change to an established law is utterly destructive to respect for the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overturning _Roe_ is therefore repugnant to conservativism – it is radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible.


Conservative is following the Constitution. You can do all of the retarded mental gymnastics you want but the Constitution does not mention abortion so it is left to the States to decide the issue.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

Coyote said:


> The Rightwing penchant overturning long established precedent and established late, for putting in political judges and creating tbe most politically activist court since FDR almost a century ago….is indeed reckless.
> 
> The Supreme Court is losing credibility as being an impartial judiciary is being eroded in the eyes of many American.  This isn’t good for our country.  Neither is the possible precedent of giving individual rights and then taking them away.


Anything not covered in the Constitution falls to the States. That has been the precedent since the beginning.


----------



## WelfareQueen

Coyote said:


> The Rightwing penchant overturning long established precedent and established late, for putting in political judges and creating tbe most politically activist court since FDR almost a century ago….is indeed reckless.
> 
> The Supreme Court is losing credibility as being an impartial judiciary is being eroded in the eyes of many American.  This isn’t good for our country.  Neither is the possible precedent of giving individual rights and then taking them away.



Roe v Wade does stand up to legal scrutiny.  That's the problem.  Abortion needs to be decided by We the People.  That is our system of Government.  
Why are you unwilling to allow the people to decide?


----------



## j-mac

Rigby5 said:


> No, there is no legal way to over turn Roe Vs Wade.
> There is no government that has any standing.
> Government is not a source of legal authority, and instead only borrows our legal authority, in order to better defend individual rights.
> So for government to be able to stop abortion, then all individuals would have to already have that authority to do it themselves.
> And clearly they do not.
> So then government can't have it to borrow.



I don't know where you come up with this, but I can assure you that if the Supreme Court does indeed overturn Roe, then it will be up to the individual states to determine where the parameters of legality abortion is allowed whether you like it or not.

I don't think that Government is looking to "stop abortion" per se, rather limit the timeline as to when an abortion is to take place, and/or limit the use of abortion as a contraceptive measure.


----------



## JoeB131

Rigby5 said:


> If Roe vs Wade is over turned, then government needs to be over turned.
> See why gun control is a really bad idea?



That's fucking retarded.   Heck, I'm pro-choice and I find that retarded. 

Roe was a bad decision because the abortion issue SHOULD have been litigated through the legislative process.  Now it has to be.


----------



## JoeB131

j-mac said:


> I don't know where you come up with this, but I can assure you that if the Supreme Court does indeed overturn Roe, then it will be up to the individual states to determine where the parameters of legality abortion is allowed whether you like it or not.



And that's kind of the problem.  The laws that existed before Roe were unenforceable and rarely enforced.   What make you think the states will do a better job this time.  

Did you know that half of abortions today are done medically and not surgically?  True, the Religious crazies have put a bunch of hoops making women go to a doctor to get RU-486.   But once they overturn Roe, I imagine a lot of women will just say, "Screw you", and you'll see those RU-486 ads right next to the mail-order viagra



j-mac said:


> I don't think that Government is looking to "stop abortion" per se, rather limit the timeline as to when an abortion is to take place, and/or limit the use of abortion as a contraceptive measure.



None of which they should be doing.  

And if you don't think the American Taliban wants a national ban on abortion, you are kidding yourself.


----------



## JoeB131

Dogmaphobe said:


> What I find curious in this is how the DNC bot that created the thread fails to understand that protecting the week against the strong is a long-standing LIBERAL ideal. In the case of the two lives in question, the power dynamic is such that the woman has complete power and the developing human none.



And conservatives stand for the principle of limited, non-invasive government... so let's dispense with the notion of absolute philosophical stances when you want government small enough to fit in a woman's uterus. 

If you start with the notion of "life begins at conception", women by fiat become second class citizen.  

It's not just abortion.  Women could be investigated for murder for having miscarriages.  They could be arrested for child abuse for smoking, drinking or even eating the wrong foods during pregnancy.  Some forms of contraception could be just as illegal as abortion.


----------



## Coyote

WelfareQueen said:


> Roe v Wade does stand up to legal scrutiny.  That's the problem.  Abortion needs to be decided by We the People.  That is our system of Government.
> Why are you unwilling to allow the people to decide?


“We the people” supported Jim Crowe at one time.  Should basic rights be determined by a handful of states i.e. “we the people”?


----------



## WelfareQueen

Coyote said:


> “We the people” supported Jim Crowe at one time.  Should basic rights be determined by a handful of states i.e. “we the people”?



False.  Jim Crow legally came into existence in a Supreme Court decision Plessy v Furguson.   Look it up.  

Our Government is based on Rule by Consent of the Governed.  If the Legislature in your State rules abortion is legal the people have spoken.  The Legislature are We the People's elected representatives.  That is how our Government works.  

If the Legislature in your States votes to make abortion illegal and you don't like it, work to vote the bastards out.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

WelfareQueen said:


> You realize abortion will now be decided by the people State by State versus by Judicial Fiat.
> 
> 
> So tell me again what you object to?


Overturning _Roe_ Is a radical, not conservative, choice.

Conservativism is supposed to be about opposing abrupt and profound changes; that change, if allowed, should be slow and incremental, consistent with established laws and common expectations.

Most importantly, change should never be forced upon the people from above absent democratic consent and broad consensus – particularly from the courts; conservativism has always opposed tyrants in black robes legislating from the bench in opposition to the will of the people.

Conservativism is clearly dead – overturning _Roe_ is further proof of that; instead, we have radical rightwing extremism inconsistently administered by blind partisan ideologues.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Coyote said:


> Should basic rights be determined by a handful of states i.e. “we the people”?


If that’s the case then our rights are not inalienable, they’re subject to the capricious whims of partisan politics, not safeguarded by the Constitution, contrary to the intent of the Framers – indeed, our rights cease to exist altogether.


----------



## JoeB131

WelfareQueen said:


> False. Jim Crow legally came into existence in a Supreme Court decision Plessy v Furguson. Look it up.



Um, no.  Jim Crow laws were imposed almost as soon as Reconstruction ended...  Plessy just gave them judicial approval.  



WelfareQueen said:


> Our Government is based on Rule by Consent of the Governed. If the Legislature in your State rules abortion is legal the people have spoken. The Legislature are We the People's elected representatives. That is how our Government works.



So if your state legislature passes a law banning private gun ownership, then you are going to be totally cool with that, right?  



WelfareQueen said:


> If the Legislature in your States votes to make abortion illegal and you don't like it, work to vote the bastards out.



Which they will... but how many women are going to get maimed waiting for that to happen?


----------



## WelfareQueen

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Overturning _Roe_ Is a radical, not conservative, choice.
> 
> Conservativism is supposed to be about opposing abrupt and profound changes; that change, if allowed, should be slow and incremental, consistent with established laws and common expectations.
> 
> Most importantly, change should never be forced upon the people from above absent democratic consent and broad consensus – particularly from the courts; conservativism has always opposed tyrants in black robes legislating from the bench in opposition to the will of the people.
> 
> Conservativism is clearly dead – overturning _Roe_ is further proof of that; instead, we have radical rightwing extremism inconsistently administered by blind partisan ideologues.


Got it.  You believe in Left-Wing Totalitarianism where the Will of the People means nothing and is crushed under a Progressive jack boot.   

Fortunately for the rest of us, that is not our system of Government.


----------



## Rigby5

The whole point of the 14th amendment is to prohibit infringement of individual rights by states.
And what could possibly be more important of an individual right than the ability to choose your own religious, medical, family, and privacy beliefs over abortion?
How could states possibly have any standing at all, given that it is a personal, private, and family decision about medical procedures and religious beliefs?


----------



## Flash




----------



## Rigby5

WelfareQueen said:


> Got it.  You believe in Left-Wing Totalitarianism where the Will of the People means nothing and is crushed under a Progressive jack boot.
> 
> Fortunately for the rest of us, that is not our system of Government.



The polls say over 74% of the people want abortion rights and do NOT want Roe Vs Wade to be over turned.

The people who do want to over turn Roe Vs Wade are a small minority of wealthy elite or religious extremists who want to dictate.
States are NOT the will of the people.


----------



## Rigby5

Flash said:


> View attachment 664852



Embryos are not "kids".
And those who have abortions are just delaying families, and usually have them later.
So the population is the same.
No one is being killed.
Later families simply are more prosperous and healthy.


----------



## Rigby5

WelfareQueen said:


> False.  Jim Crow legally came into existence in a Supreme Court decision Plessy v Furguson.   Look it up.
> 
> Our Government is based on Rule by Consent of the Governed.  If the Legislature in your State rules abortion is legal the people have spoken.  The Legislature are We the People's elected representatives.  That is how our Government works.
> 
> If the Legislature in your States votes to make abortion illegal and you don't like it, work to vote the bastards out.



Wrong.
Plessy vs Ferguson was not until 1896, about 40 years after Jim Crow laws started.
And Plessy vs Ferguson did NOT rule in favor of discrimination, but instead the red herring of "separate but equal".
Separate but equal is not illegal, but was never the intend of the Jim Crow laws.
The Jim Crow laws always intended to infringe upon the rights of Blacks by discriminating against them with vastly unequal accommodations.


----------



## BS Filter

Rigby5 said:


> The whole point of the 14th amendment is to prohibit infringement of individual rights by states.
> And what could possibly be more important of an individual right than the ability to choose your own religious, medical, family, and privacy beliefs over abortion?
> How could states possibly have any standing at all, given that it is a personal, private, and family decision about medical procedures and religious beliefs?


What was the intent and purpose of the 14th Amendment?


----------



## Flash

This is great.  The last thing this country needs is for Liberals to reproduce.


*Vasectomies are up 900% since the Roe reversal.  Liberal men getting “fixed” gives me great hope for the future of our country.*
*
Will  (@notBilly) **July 1, 2022*


----------



## Mashmont

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “America is a different place, with most of its population born after _Roe _was decided. And a decision to overturn _Roe_ — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate _Roe’s_ damage than to reverse it.
> 
> It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.
> 
> What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — *especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus*.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion | Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice
> 
> 
> An abrupt and profound change to an established law is utterly destructive to respect for the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overturning _Roe_ is therefore repugnant to conservativism – it is radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible.


This post is a lie.  There is not, nor ever has been broad support for abortion.  Most people find sucking out a living baby with a vacuum repulsive.  Only the leftwing dimbulbs think it's this sanitary procedure that is about a woman only.


----------



## Mashmont

Coyote said:


> The Rightwing penchant overturning long established precedent and established late, for putting in political judges and creating tbe most politically activist court since FDR almost a century ago….is indeed reckless.
> 
> The Supreme Court is losing credibility as being an impartial judiciary is being eroded in the eyes of many American.  This isn’t good for our country.  Neither is the possible precedent of giving individual rights and then taking them away.


The  Supreme Court lost credibility when it allowed 0bamacare and the gay marriage.  It's now gaining credibility back.


----------



## WelfareQueen

Rigby5 said:


> The polls say over 74% of the people want abortion rights and do NOT want Roe Vs Wade to be over turned.
> 
> The people who do want to over turn Roe Vs Wade are a small minority of wealthy elite or religious extremists who want to dictate.
> States are NOT the will of the people.



Why are progressives so fearful of allowing the people to decide on abortion versus unelected judges?


----------



## JWBooth

WelfareQueen said:


> Why are progressives so fearful of allowing the people to decide on abortion versus unelected judges?


The people don’t always read from the progressives script.


----------



## hadit

Rigby5 said:


> The polls say over 74% of the people want abortion rights and do NOT want Roe Vs Wade to be over turned.
> 
> The people who do want to over turn Roe Vs Wade are a small minority of wealthy elite or religious extremists who want to dictate.
> States are NOT the will of the people.


Why do citizens of California think they have standing to overrule the will of the citizens in Alabama?


----------



## hadit

Rigby5 said:


> Embryos are not "kids".
> And those who have abortions are just delaying families, and usually have them later.
> So the population is the same.
> No one is being killed.
> Later families simply are more prosperous and healthy.


Dollars over lives. And you need to do a little biological research before you claim no one is being killed.


----------



## Rigby5

BS Filter said:


> What was the intent and purpose of the 14th Amendment?



The intent and purpose of the 14th amendment was to prevent states from abusing individual rights.  
The rights of Black ex-slaves in particular.
But individual rights are infinite.


----------



## Rigby5

Mashmont said:


> This post is a lie.  There is not, nor ever has been broad support for abortion.  Most people find sucking out a living baby with a vacuum repulsive.  Only the leftwing dimbulbs think it's this sanitary procedure that is about a woman only.



Wrong.
Abortion is necessary and 65% of the people want it to remain legal and at the discretion of the woman, according to all the polls.

It is totally about the woman's rights because a fetus without sentience, has no rights.


----------



## Rigby5

WelfareQueen said:


> Why are progressives so fearful of allowing the people to decide on abortion versus unelected judges?



Because individual rights are never supposed to be up for "majority rule".
If the white majority wants to enslave a Black minority, that does not make it legal, right, or something that is not work killing in order to stop.
The rights of a single person over ride the desires of all others.


----------



## Rigby5

WelfareQueen said:


> Why are progressives so fearful of allowing the people to decide on abortion versus unelected judges?



States are NOT the "will of the people", nor would I ever allow a majority to abuse anyone.


----------



## Rigby5

hadit said:


> Why do citizens of California think they have standing to overrule the will of the citizens in Alabama?



Rights are superior to the "will" of any number of people.
If Alabama wants to violate rights, then the whole state needs to be defeated so that no one's rights get abused.


----------



## Rigby5

hadit said:


> Dollars over lives. And you need to do a little biological research before you claim no one is being killed.



There are thousands of ovum, and if you kill early ovum, so that you can instead allow later ovum to be born, then you have done good.


----------



## BS Filter

Rigby5 said:


> The intent and purpose of the 14th amendment was to prevent states from abusing individual rights.
> The rights of Black ex-slaves in particular.
> But individual rights are infinite.


Who says individual rights are infinite?


----------



## buckeye45_73

Rigby5 said:


> Because individual rights are never supposed to be up for "majority rule".
> If the white majority wants to enslave a Black minority, that does not make it legal, right, or something that is not work killing in order to stop.
> The rights of a single person over ride the desires of all others.


Who is arguing this point? The 14th Amendment was designed to make sure we fixed the gaps in certain people having less rights than others.


----------



## BS Filter

Rigby5 said:


> Rights are superior to the "will" of any number of people.
> If Alabama wants to violate rights, then the whole state needs to be defeated so that no one's rights get abused.


You live in your own little world, huh.


----------



## 2aguy

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “America is a different place, with most of its population born after _Roe _was decided. And a decision to overturn _Roe_ — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate _Roe’s_ damage than to reverse it.
> 
> It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.
> 
> What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — *especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus*.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion | Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice
> 
> 
> An abrupt and profound change to an established law is utterly destructive to respect for the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overturning _Roe_ is therefore repugnant to conservativism – it is radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible.




So....genius......you obviously then believe that Plessy v Ferguson should never have been over turned?

Plessy v Ferguson, which stated that "separate but equal," was Constitutional, was decided in 1892........and stood as law until 1952.....62 years......so people who were born in 1892  so........according to you because of this.....

* with most of its population born after Roe was decided.

Then Plessy v Ferguson should have remained the law of the land......correct?*

*You idiot.*


----------



## 2aguy

Coyote said:


> The Rightwing penchant overturning long established precedent and established late, for putting in political judges and creating tbe most politically activist court since FDR almost a century ago….is indeed reckless.
> 
> The Supreme Court is losing credibility as being an impartial judiciary is being eroded in the eyes of many American.  This isn’t good for our country.  Neither is the possible precedent of giving individual rights and then taking them away.




This........

So....genius......you obviously then believe that Plessy v Ferguson should never have been over turned?

Plessy v Ferguson, which stated that "separate but equal," was Constitutional, was decided in 1892........and stood as law until 1952.....62 years......so people who were born in 1892 so........according to you because of this.....

*with most of its population born after Roe was decided.

Then Plessy v Ferguson should have remained the law of the land......correct?

You idiot.*


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

2aguy said:


> So....genius......you obviously then believe that Plessy v Ferguson should never have been over turned?
> 
> Plessy v Ferguson, which stated that "separate but equal," was Constitutional, was decided in 1892........and stood as law until 1952.....62 years......so people who were born in 1892  so........according to you because of this.....
> 
> * with most of its population born after Roe was decided.
> 
> Then Plessy v Ferguson should have remained the law of the land......correct?
> 
> You idiot.*


Overturning _Roe _Is a radical, not conservative, choice

Conservative dogma used to advocate for slow, incremental change through democratic consensus, not via radical, extreme judicial fiat contrary to the will of the people.

Over the last 50 years conservatism has become extreme, radical, illiberal, and anti-democratic – seeking to compel conformity; the radical choice to overturn _Roe_ is the culmination of that 50 year process of rightwing authoritarianism.


----------



## 2aguy

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Overturning _Roe _Is a radical, not conservative, choice
> 
> Conservative dogma used to advocate for slow, incremental change through democratic consensus, not via radical, extreme judicial fiat contrary to the will of the people.
> 
> Over the last 50 years conservatism has become extreme, radical, illiberal, and anti-democratic – seeking to compel conformity; the radical choice to overturn _Roe_ is the culmination of that 50 year process of rightwing authoritarianism.




So...again....you support Plessy v Ferguson, that "Separate is equal," since it had been the Supreme Court ruling for 62 years.............right?

Roe v Wade was only in place for 49 years......

So...answer the question...

Do you support the decision in Plessy v Ferguson because it was settled  Constitutional law for 62 years?

Yes or no?


----------



## BS Filter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Overturning _Roe _Is a radical, not conservative, choice
> 
> Conservative dogma used to advocate for slow, incremental change through democratic consensus, not via radical, extreme judicial fiat contrary to the will of the people.
> 
> Over the last 50 years conservatism has become extreme, radical, illiberal, and anti-democratic – seeking to compel conformity; the radical choice to overturn _Roe_ is the culmination of that 50 year process of rightwing authoritarianism.


So you believe that the Supreme Court should decide cases by the will of the people. You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you.


----------



## 2aguy

BS Filter said:


> So you believe that the Supreme Court should decide cases by the will of the people. You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you.




He is also a racist who supports the Plessy v Ferguson, Separate but equal Constitutional ruling that stood for 62 years.....while Roe only stood for 49.....


----------



## BS Filter

2aguy said:


> He is also a racist who supports the Plessy v Ferguson, Separate but equal Constitutional ruling that stood for 62 years.....while Roe only stood for 49.....


The ignorance around here is deplorable.


----------



## BackAgain

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “America is a different place, with most of its population born after _Roe _was decided. And a decision to overturn _Roe_ — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate _Roe’s_ damage than to reverse it.
> 
> It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.
> 
> What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — *especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus*.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion | Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice
> 
> 
> An abrupt and profound change to an established law is utterly destructive to respect for the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overturning _Roe_ is therefore repugnant to conservativism – it is radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible.


Overruling Roe was the only valid and proper Constitutional choice. It isn’t radical at all. It’s an accurate and *just* application of the law. Roe itself was simply lawless.


----------



## dudmuck

BackAgain said:


> Overruling Roe was the only valid and proper Constitutional choice. It isn’t radical at all. It’s an accurate and *just* application of the law. Roe itself was simply lawless.


did you forget our constitution has a right to privacy?

the "right to privacy" protects a woman's right to an abortion.


----------



## buckeye45_73

dudmuck said:


> did you forget our constitution has a right to privacy?
> 
> the "right to privacy" protects a woman's right to an abortion.


How so? Oh and it proteccts me from having to share my vax status......with anyone., but you didn't give a shit about that.


----------



## BS Filter

dudmuck said:


> did you forget our constitution has a right to privacy?
> 
> the "right to privacy" protects a woman's right to an abortion.


Who says?


----------



## BackAgain

dudmuck said:


> did you forget our constitution has a right to privacy?
> 
> the "right to privacy" protects a woman's right to an abortion.


No. We actually don’t have any “right to privacy” set forth *in* the Constitution, to be perfectly precise about it. You have been misled. If we did, you could cite the article and quote te section.

I recognize that there is an arguable _implicit_ right to some privacy. Thus, we have protections enumerated in the Constitution like the 4th Amendment which _suggest_ a right to privacy. But that right certainly yields (which explains how it can be overcome by a warrant) — and there’s zero implication in the Constitution that *any* implicit right we have to privacy (such as in our own homes) would give us the right to commit a homicide in the privacy of our houses.

So it is quite stupid, illogical and baseless to claim, as Roe tried to, that the “right to privacy” somehow could conceivably imply a “right to commit abortions.” 

Short answer to your stupid question:  no. I didn’t “forget” anything. You are merely hyperventilating about some bullshit you heard and believed but haven’t grasped and which you cannot comprehend.


----------



## Calypso Jones

Liberal Men getting vasectomies to protest Roe V Wade being sent back to states where it should have been IN THE FIRST PLACE.   Well...i think this is freakin' awesome!!!  









						Liberal Men Brag About Getting Vasectomies to Protest Overturning Roe v. Wade - LifeNews.com
					

The Tuesday tragicomic edition of CBS Mornings profiled a couple of men who had a suggestion on how men can do their part in the after of the Supreme Court’s ruling to strike down Roe v. Wade: get a vasectomy. Host Tony Dokopoul got things started by reporting, “more men are taking action...



					www.lifenews.com
				




They're bragging.   Please...none of you tell them they're complete idiots.   People this stupid should not be able to produce.


----------



## JoeB131

BackAgain said:


> No. We actually don’t have any “right to privacy” set forth *in* the Constitution, to be perfectly precise about it. You have been misled. If we did, you could cite the article and quote te section.
> 
> I recognize that there is an arguable _implicit_ right to some privacy. Thus, we have protections enumerated in the Constitution like the 4th Amendment which _suggest_ a right to privacy. But that right certainly yields (which explains how it can be overcome by a warrant) — and there’s zero implication in the Constitution that *any* implicit right we have to privacy (such as in our own homes) would give us the right to commit a homicide in the privacy of our houses.
> 
> So it is quite stupid, illogical and baseless to claim, as Roe tried to, that the “right to privacy” somehow could conceivably imply a “right to commit abortions.”
> 
> Short answer to your stupid question: no. I didn’t “forget” anything. You are merely hyperventilating about some bullshit you heard and believed but haven’t grasped and which you cannot comprehend.



Your entire premise is based on the assumption that a fetus is a person, and can be murdered. 

Except our law doesn't recognize people as being people until a certificate of birth is issued. 

We don't count fetuses in the Census
We don't let people claim their fetuses as tax deductions.  

Even when abortions were illegal, no one was charged with "homicide" for performing one.  

Counting fetuses/embryoes/zygotes as people would create all sorts of issues.    We'd have problems if we did that go beyond abortion laws people will ignore with impunity.  

Could we charge women with assault for smoking or drinking during pregnancy?  Even she smoked just one cigarette or had one sip of wine? 

Would we then have to investigate EVERY miscarriage as a homicide?   This means we'd go from 20,000 homicide investigations to 200,000!  

What about all the frozen embryos in fertility clinics, about 400,000 of them?  Would we have to insist that they all need to be implanted in women forthwith?  Seems keeping them frozen, if they have potential souls, would be unethical!


----------



## BackAgain

JoeB131 said:


> Your entire premise is based on the assumption that a fetus is a person, and can be murdered.
> 
> Except our law doesn't recognize people as being people until a certificate of birth is issued.
> 
> We don't count fetuses in the Census
> We don't let people claim their fetuses as tax deductions.
> 
> Even when abortions were illegal, no one was charged with "homicide" for performing one.
> 
> Counting fetuses/embryoes/zygotes as people would create all sorts of issues.    We'd have problems if we did that go beyond abortion laws people will ignore with impunity.
> 
> Could we charge women with assault for smoking or drinking during pregnancy?  Even she smoked just one cigarette or had one sip of wine?
> 
> Would we then have to investigate EVERY miscarriage as a homicide?   This means we'd go from 20,000 homicide investigations to 200,000!
> 
> What about all the frozen embryos in fertility clinics, about 400,000 of them?  Would we have to insist that they all need to be implanted in women forthwith?  Seems keeping them frozen, if they have potential souls, would be unethical!


Wrong. My argument says that the “personhood” issue is entirely beside the point. The fertilized little creature is a life. Genetically, although in an early stage of development, it is a human life. The right to life is guaranteed, as it ought to be. 

The balance of my argument has already been stated from those premises.


----------



## hadit

BackAgain said:


> Wrong. My argument says that the “personhood” issue is entirely beside the point. The fertilized little creature is a life. Genetically, although in an early stage of development, it is a human life. The right to life is guaranteed, as it ought to be.
> 
> The balance of my argument has already been stated from those premises.


Exactly. The first step is to agree on what exactly is growing inside the mother. Clearly, biology states it is a very early stage human. The only question then becomes, are we morally and ethically allowed to kill such a human? We place values on human life all the time and accept their loss with never a thought.

1. Those who commit heinous crimes are executed. Death is judgement, and we're okay with that.
2. We want to drive fast, even though it means 10's of thousands are killed every year in car crashes, and we're okay with that.
3. Abortion victims die silently and out of sight. Notice that no one, and I mean not even the hardest hard-core Sanger advocate, is televising late-term abortions as seen in ultra-sound. If there's no human life being killed in there, what's the problem?

Of course, they fight tooth and nail to avoid calling a developing baby a human.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> Your entire premise is based on the assumption that a fetus is a person, and can be murdered.
> 
> Except our law doesn't recognize people as being people until a certificate of birth is issued.
> 
> We don't count fetuses in the Census
> We don't let people claim their fetuses as tax deductions.
> 
> Even when abortions were illegal, no one was charged with "homicide" for performing one.
> 
> Counting fetuses/embryoes/zygotes as people would create all sorts of issues.    We'd have problems if we did that go beyond abortion laws people will ignore with impunity.
> 
> Could we charge women with assault for smoking or drinking during pregnancy?  Even she smoked just one cigarette or had one sip of wine?
> 
> Would we then have to investigate EVERY miscarriage as a homicide?   This means we'd go from 20,000 homicide investigations to 200,000!
> 
> What about all the frozen embryos in fertility clinics, about 400,000 of them?  Would we have to insist that they all need to be implanted in women forthwith?  Seems keeping them frozen, if they have potential souls, would be unethical!


Yeah, yeah, we've all been told about the Lawyer Fairy, who shows up when a baby is born, and after getting the go-ahead from the mother, sprinkles his magic dust on the child, transforming it instantly from a zebra into a human. Those of us who grew up stopped believing in him a long time ago.


----------



## JoeB131

BackAgain said:


> Wrong. My argument says that the “personhood” issue is entirely beside the point. The fertilized little creature is a life. Genetically, although in an early stage of development, it is a human life. The right to life is guaranteed, as it ought to be.
> 
> The balance of my argument has already been stated from those premises.



Well, it's a retarded fairy dust premise that would require you to take away rights from ACTUAL women.  



hadit said:


> Yeah, yeah, we've all been told about the Lawyer Fairy, who shows up when a baby is born, and after getting the go-ahead from the mother, sprinkles his magic dust on the child, transforming it instantly from a zebra into a human. Those of us who grew up stopped believing in him a long time ago.



Yet, that's how the law HAS to work.  Otherwise the police have to treat every tampon as a potential crime scene.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> 1. Those who commit heinous crimes are executed. Death is judgement, and we're okay with that.
> 2. We want to drive fast, even though it means 10's of thousands are killed every year in car crashes, and we're okay with that.
> 3. Abortion victims die silently and out of sight. Notice that no one, and I mean not even the hardest hard-core Sanger advocate, is televising late-term abortions as seen in ultra-sound. If there's no human life being killed in there, what's the problem?
> 
> Of course, they fight tooth and nail to avoid calling a developing baby a human.



1. Completely irrelevent. 
2. Not really related.  We'd have just as many car crashes if people all drove the speed limit. 
3.  Abortion doesn't have victims, it has medical waste.    Nobody televises abortions for the same reason they don't televise colonosopies.... because they're gross.


----------



## BackAgain

JoeB131 said:


> Well, it's a retarded fairy dust premise that would require you to take away rights from ACTUAL women.



No. It’s a matter of logic, so *you’d* have no hope of comprehending it. 


JoeB131 said:


> Yet, that's how the law HAS to work.  Otherwise the police have to treat every tampon as a potential crime scene.


Another ^example of how retarded your attempt at argument is.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> 1. Completely irrelevent.
> 2. Not really related.  We'd have just as many car crashes if people all drove the speed limit.
> 3.  Abortion doesn't have victims, it has medical waste.    Nobody televises abortions for the same reason they don't televise colonosopies.... because they're gross.


1. False. We execute criminals and are okay with it. That means that not all human life matters, some matter more than others.
2. Absolutely related. We would have very few traffic fatalities if everyone was limited to 35 mph or less. Do try to keep up when I'm talking about deaths and not crashes.
3. Oh, that's right, the old, "It's a zebra" defense. Why, pray tell, would it be gross to see a late-term baby on ultrasound, contentedly sucking his thumb, then watch as he gets ripped apart? No grossness, no ickyness, just watch him try to evade the pain. That wouldn't be gross, would it? Face it, you'd be crucified in the media for exposing terrifying things like that, and probably end up costing the industry several thousand abortions.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> Yet, that's how the law HAS to work.  Otherwise the police have to treat every tampon as a potential crime scene.


Did you miss that week in school? The need for tampons goes away when there's a baby onboard.


----------



## JoeB131

BackAgain said:


> No. It’s a matter of logic, so *you’d* have no hope of comprehending it.



You guys think your fairy stories are logic... too funny.  



BackAgain said:


> Another ^example of how retarded your attempt at argument is.



Not at all.. if Zygotes are people, we need to collect those bloody tampons as evidence.  



hadit said:


> 3. Oh, that's right, the old, "It's a zebra" defense. Why, pray tell, would it be gross to see a late-term baby on ultrasound, contentedly sucking his thumb, then watch as he gets ripped apart? No grossness, no ickyness, just watch him try to evade the pain. That wouldn't be gross, would it? Face it, you'd be crucified in the media for exposing terrifying things like that, and probably end up costing the industry several thousand abortions.



Actually, late trimester abortions are for deformed fetuses... what would be more gross is letting them be born...












hadit said:


> Did you miss that week in school? The need for tampons goes away when there's a baby onboard.



Except 2/3rd of zygotes never attach to the uterine wall.  So we need to treat that tampon as a crime scene and chemically analyze it to make sure she didn't take any RU-486 to keep that zygote who now has human rights from attaching... otherwise it's MURDER!!!!!


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> You guys think your fairy stories are logic... too funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.. if Zygotes are people, we need to collect those bloody tampons as evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, late trimester abortions are for deformed fetuses... what would be more gross is letting them be born...


Except, since you like to play the extremes as if they're the majority, obviously you want a woman to be able to decide on a whim to kill her perfectly healthy 7-month-old unborn child, so we're going with that one. Why is it again that you don't want such an abortion to be shown on TV as seen in ultra-sound? You know, since there's no life or anything in there, there should be no objection to watching a zebra be cut apart by a saw, right?


JoeB131 said:


> View attachment 669978
> View attachment 669979
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except 2/3rd of zygotes never attach to the uterine wall.  So we need to treat that tampon as a crime scene and chemically analyze it to make sure she didn't take any RU-486 to keep that zygote who now has human rights from attaching... otherwise it's MURDER!!!!!


Well, if that's how you want to play it, go ahead.


----------



## BackAgain

JoeB131 said:


> You guys think your fairy stories are logic... too funny.


No stupid. We think *your* claims are retarded and dishonest.  Not funny. More just pathetic. 


JoeB131 said:


> Not at all.. if Zygotes are people, we need to collect those bloody tampons as evidence.



Again, an argument only a retard would make.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> Except, since you like to play the extremes as if they're the majority, obviously you want a woman to be able to decide on a whim to kill her perfectly healthy 7-month-old unborn child, so we're going with that one. Why is it again that you don't want such an abortion to be shown on TV as seen in ultra-sound? You know, since there's no life or anything in there, there should be no objection to watching a zebra be cut apart by a saw, right?



No woman is having an abortion at 7 months on a whim.   If they are having an abortion at seven months, it's because something has gone wrong with a pregnancy where they already picked out baby names and decorated a nursery.  People like you need to mind your own business.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> No woman is having an abortion at 7 months on a whim.   If they are having an abortion at seven months, it's because something has gone wrong with a pregnancy where they already picked out baby names and decorated a nursery.  People like you need to mind your own business.


So there should be no problem codifying that into law then, yet you would fight tooth and nail to prevent that. And you're still not acknowledging the true reason why you never see even a mid-term abortion shown on ultra-sound. You can see full-blown surgeries done, you can see guts and gore, you just never see a baby being dismembered on ultrasound with no blood, no gore, no screams. You know why, you just don't want to acknowledge it.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> So there should be no problem codifying that into law then, yet you would fight tooth and nail to prevent that. And you're still not acknowledging the true reason why you never see even a mid-term abortion shown on ultra-sound. You can see full-blown surgeries done, you can see guts and gore, you just never see a baby being dismembered on ultrasound with no blood, no gore, no screams. You know why, you just don't want to acknowledge it.



No, I'd have a HUGE problem codifying that into law.   Because no matter how fucked up little Cletus the Fetus is, there'll be some religious nut saying, BUT GOD WANTS HIM TO LIVE OUT HIS LIFE IN PAIN FOR THE NEXT THREE DAYS!!!  

The only people who should make that decision are the woman and her doctor... Full. Fucking. Stop.  

As far as televising abortions, no problem, as long as we can make all your medical records public and judge you on those...


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> No, I'd have a HUGE problem codifying that into law.   Because no matter how fucked up little Cletus the Fetus is, there'll be some religious nut saying, BUT GOD WANTS HIM TO LIVE OUT HIS LIFE IN PAIN FOR THE NEXT THREE DAYS!!!
> 
> The only people who should make that decision are the woman and her doctor... Full. Fucking. Stop.


And again, you're being disingenuous, because I was talking about making it illegal for a woman to abort a healthy late-term baby. You say it doesn't happen, then why would you object to it being codified into law? Because you don't want to give an inch is why.


JoeB131 said:


> As far as televising abortions, no problem, as long as we can make all your medical records public and judge you on those...


You're ducking again. That's not why you never see a late-term abortion as seen in ultrasound televised, and you know it.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> And again, you're being disingenuous, because I was talking about making it illegal for a woman to abort a healthy late-term baby. You say it doesn't happen, then why would you object to it being codified into law? Because you don't want to give an inch is why.



You are right... because "healthy" is a subjective term.  You might think Corky the Downs retard is "Healthy", but you aren't the person who is going to have to live with his myriad of health problems before fobbing him off on the State at 18.  Any such "Codification" is politicians substituting THEIR judgement for those of patients and doctors... the only people qualified to make such a decision. 



hadit said:


> You're ducking again. That's not why you never see a late-term abortion as seen in ultrasound televised, and you know it.



There's a whole lot of things we don't see on television.  Frankly, I'd like to see autopsy and crime scene photos from a Sandy Hook or Uvalde on the split screen every time Wayne Lapierre opens his fucking trap about the Founding Fathers wanting us to have guns.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> You are right... because "healthy" is a subjective term.  You might think Corky the Downs retard is "Healthy", but you aren't the person who is going to have to live with his myriad of health problems before fobbing him off on the State at 18.  Any such "Codification" is politicians substituting THEIR judgement for those of patients and doctors... the only people qualified to make such a decision.


And now you're ducking again. I simply stated "healthy", and you tried to shuffle that off on my definition. Let's use YOUR definition of healthy. That means no congenital birth defects, no Down's, no nothing. Yet you will still fight to prevent making it illegal to abort a perfectly healthy late-term baby. You will try to dodge and weave around, offering up any number of distractions, personal attacks, side issues, etc. but the bottom line remains, you will oppose any effort to protect healthy late-term babies.


JoeB131 said:


> There's a whole lot of things we don't see on television.  Frankly, I'd like to see autopsy and crime scene photos from a Sandy Hook or Uvalde on the split screen every time Wayne Lapierre opens his fucking trap about the Founding Fathers wanting us to have guns.


And there you go again, dodging the issue. You KNOW why you will never see an abortion performed in ultrasound, and it has nothing to do with blood, gore or gross. You can bring in all your side issues and distractions, but they don't change the central reality at all.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> And now you're ducking again. I simply stated "healthy", and you tried to shuffle that off on my definition. Let's use YOUR definition of healthy. That means no congenital birth defects, no Down's, no nothing. Yet you will still fight to prevent making it illegal to abort a perfectly healthy late-term baby. You will try to dodge and weave around, offering up any number of distractions, personal attacks, side issues, etc. but the bottom line remains, you will oppose any effort to protect healthy late-term babies.



Fetuses aren't babies, and it's the woman's choice.  

The problem here is that "healthy" is subjective.  



hadit said:


> And there you go again, dodging the issue. You KNOW why you will never see an abortion performed in ultrasound, and it has nothing to do with blood, gore or gross. You can bring in all your side issues and distractions, but they don't change the central reality at all.



Again, same reason we won't see crime scene photographs of Uvalde. 

Shock value is exactly what it is... when you can't discuss the issue rationally.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> Fetuses aren't babies, and it's the woman's choice.
> 
> The problem here is that "healthy" is subjective.


No, it is not. A doctor can examine an unborn baby (because that's exactly what that is in there), run tests on him/her, and pronounce that as fae as can be determined medically, that is a healthy baby. You will still fight any attempt to protect that life. You're proving my point with all the ducking, dodging and weaving you're doing. Remove the entire health issue from the debate, that's where your true allegiance lies.


JoeB131 said:


> Again, same reason we won't see crime scene photographs of Uvalde.
> 
> Shock value is exactly what it is... when you can't discuss the issue rationally.


And the only reason it would be shocking is...?


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> No, it is not. A doctor can examine an unborn baby (because that's exactly what that is in there), run tests on him/her, and pronounce that as fae as can be determined medically, that is a healthy baby. You will still fight any attempt to protect that life. You're proving my point with all the ducking, dodging and weaving you're doing. Remove the entire health issue from the debate, that's where your true allegiance lies.



There's no ducking, dodging or weaving. 

Nobody is aborting health third trimester pregnancies. Less than 1% of abortions happen in the third trimester. The only reason why you guys obsess on it is because whatever you dig out of the medical waste container looks more like a baby than what the 99% performed in the first 12 weeks look like.  

And politicians should not be substituting their judgement for that of Doctors and Women. Because it's a camel's nose under the tent kind of thing.  First you are making doctors fill out forms proving the baby is fucked up, and next you're in the fucking Republic of Gilead! 

And I used to think that was a shitty book until Republicans started doing the live action version.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> There's no ducking, dodging or weaving.
> 
> Nobody is aborting health third trimester pregnancies. Less than 1% of abortions happen in the third trimester. The only reason why you guys obsess on it is because whatever you dig out of the medical waste container looks more like a baby than what the 99% performed in the first 12 weeks look like.
> 
> And politicians should not be substituting their judgement for that of Doctors and Women. Because it's a camel's nose under the tent kind of thing.  First you are making doctors fill out forms proving the baby is fucked up, and next you're in the fucking Republic of Gilead!
> 
> And I used to think that was a shitty book until Republicans started doing the live action version.


Annnnd you prove my point yet again. You will NOT protect the life of a perfectly healthy late-term baby, full stop. You are out on the fringe in the extreme minority.

Here's the thing, it SHOULD require a large burden of proof that a baby is terminally ill and will suffer extreme pain for a few short, miserable days before someone is allowed to butcher him/her alive. You want the butchering to happen with no burden of proof whatsoever. You have NO interest in protecting a healthy baby mere days or weeks from birth. Just admit it and stop dancing around. You say arbitrary abortions don't happen, fine, let's put it into law so it doesn't happen.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> Annnnd you prove my point yet again. You will NOT protect the life of a perfectly healthy late-term baby, full stop. You are out on the fringe in the extreme minority.


No, I won't let religious nuts make medical decisions.  



hadit said:


> Here's the thing, it SHOULD require a large burden of proof that a baby is terminally ill and will suffer extreme pain for a few short, miserable days before someone is allowed to butcher him/her alive. You want the butchering to happen with no burden of proof whatsoever. You have NO interest in protecting a healthy baby mere days or weeks from birth. Just admit it and stop dancing around. You say arbitrary abortions don't happen, fine, let's put it into law so it doesn't happen.



No, because again, once you guys get your camel's nose under the tent, you get the whole camel in.  You guys simply can't be trusted.   

The point is, late abortions are so rare that there are only a handful of doctors who perform them, like the late Doctor Tiller, who was called a baby killer until one of you nuts murdered him. These cases ALREADY have a lot of professional scrutiny.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> No, I won't let religious nuts make medical decisions.


You won't let DOCTORS make medical decisions. You won't protect a baby that an entire team of doctors has stated is perfectly healthy. You won't do it.


JoeB131 said:


> No, because again, once you guys get your camel's nose under the tent, you get the whole camel in.  You guys simply can't be trusted.
> 
> The point is, late abortions are so rare that there are only a handful of doctors who perform them, like the late Doctor Tiller, who was called a baby killer until one of you nuts murdered him. These cases ALREADY have a lot of professional scrutiny.


No, the point is, and always has been, all your excuses and smoke screens are just that, excuses and smoke screens. The bottom line remains, you are an abortion extremist who won't protect ANY baby that hasn't had the lawyer fairy dust with his magic powder. That's the bottom line and it would behoove you to just state that up front instead of all this hand-waving and pretending that you do now.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

JoeB131 said:


> 1. Completely irrelevent.
> 2. Not really related.  We'd have just as many car crashes if people all drove the speed limit.
> 3.  Abortion doesn't have victims, it has medical waste.    Nobody televises abortions for the same reason they don't televise colonosopies.... because they're gross.


Banning abortion has victims.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> You won't let DOCTORS make medical decisions. You won't protect a baby that an entire team of doctors has stated is perfectly healthy. You won't do it.



Why do you need a "team" of Doctors?  You see the gag here? You want to put a hurdle in front of women who are already making a difficult choice.  This is kind of why we don't trust you guys... because you are just looking for an angle.  You've been pulling this crap for 50 years.  Like making women get an ultrasound or waiting periods or making them get their parent's permission unless they can prove it's incest. 

We don't trust you.  



hadit said:


> No, the point is, and always has been, all your excuses and smoke screens are just that, excuses and smoke screens. The bottom line remains, you are an abortion extremist who won't protect ANY baby that hasn't had the lawyer fairy dust with his magic powder. That's the bottom line and it would behoove you to just state that up front instead of all this hand-waving and pretending that you do now.



I've made my point really clear.  I don't trust religious fanatics to make medical decisions.  

NOw, there could be a scenario where a woman is wanting to abort a supposedly healthy fetus... like she just found out her no-good man is cheating on her or something, but frankly, this isn't the kind of thing that I really want the government regulating.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> Why do you need a "team" of Doctors?  You see the gag here? You want to put a hurdle in front of women who are already making a difficult choice.  This is kind of why we don't trust you guys... because you are just looking for an angle.  You've been pulling this crap for 50 years.  Like making women get an ultrasound or waiting periods or making them get their parent's permission unless they can prove it's incest.
> 
> We don't trust you.
> 
> 
> 
> I've made my point really clear.  I don't trust religious fanatics to make medical decisions.
> 
> NOw, there could be a scenario where a woman is wanting to abort a supposedly healthy fetus... like she just found out her no-good man is cheating on her or something, but frankly, this isn't the kind of thing that I really want the government regulating.


You have said absolutely nothing that indicates you are willing to protect even the healthiest of late-term babies. A woman could be 2 weeks from delivering a perfectly healthy (as determined by her doctor, not you) baby and decide for whatever reason that she wants instead to kill the baby, and you do not want that to be illegal. You keep dancing around the baby being healthy or not, and I've removed that from consideration. Not talking about Down's, where a person can have a full life with a disability. Not talking about a cleft palate that can be corrected with minor surgery. Just plain, full-on healthy, not a thing wrong, all the fingers and toes. Perfectly capable of surviving and thriving outside the womb at this stage.

You will not protect that life, bottom line. You are an abortion extremist out on the fringe. Just accept that's who you are and state it up front in these discussions, it will save everyone a lot of time.


----------



## BS Filter

JoeB131 said:


> Why do you need a "team" of Doctors?  You see the gag here? You want to put a hurdle in front of women who are already making a difficult choice.  This is kind of why we don't trust you guys... because you are just looking for an angle.  You've been pulling this crap for 50 years.  Like making women get an ultrasound or waiting periods or making them get their parent's permission unless they can prove it's incest.
> 
> We don't trust you.
> 
> 
> 
> I've made my point really clear.  I don't trust religious fanatics to make medical decisions.
> 
> NOw, there could be a scenario where a woman is wanting to abort a supposedly healthy fetus... like she just found out her no-good man is cheating on her or something, but frankly, this isn't the kind of thing that I really want the government regulating.


Conservatives don't want the government regulating abortion either.  We agree.  Now the people of each state can choose.  Democracy.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> You have said absolutely nothing that indicates you are willing to protect even the healthiest of late-term babies. A woman could be 2 weeks from delivering a perfectly healthy (as determined by her doctor, not you) baby and decide for whatever reason that she wants instead to kill the baby, and you do not want that to be illegal.* You keep dancing around the baby being healthy or not, and I've removed that from consideration. Not talking about Down's, where a person can have a full life with a disability. Not talking about a cleft palate that can be corrected with minor surgery. *Just plain, full-on healthy, not a thing wrong, all the fingers and toes. Perfectly capable of surviving and thriving outside the womb at this stage.
> 
> You will not protect that life, bottom line. You are an abortion extremist out on the fringe. Just accept that's who you are and state it up front in these discussions, it will save everyone a lot of time.



But you see, you are making my point.   You haven't even gotten me to agree to the imaginary healthy babies being aborted and you are ALREADY trying to expand the discussion to deformed fetuses. 

You guys can't be trusted. 

Take fetal homicide laws.  Sounds great in principle, nobody likes anyone who hits pregnant ladies.  But you abused them.  It was bad enough you guys used these laws to railroad guys like Scott Peterson (whom there was ZERO physical evidence against, but you hung a dead baby around his neck.) Then you have people like Purvi Patel and Bei-Bei Shaui who suffered miscarriages and were charged with fetal homicide.


----------



## JoeB131

BS Filter said:


> Conservatives don't want the government regulating abortion either. We agree. Now the people of each state can choose. Democracy.



Um, are you some kind of fucking retard?  Do you suffer from a learning disability?  

States are run by GOVERNMENTS.  The people aren't deciding, GOVERNMENTS are.


----------



## BS Filter

JoeB131 said:


> Um, are you some kind of fucking retard?  Do you suffer from a learning disability?
> 
> States are run by GOVERNMENTS.  The people aren't deciding, GOVERNMENTS are.


The people will vote in each state for people to pass legislation. What the fuck is wrong with you?  Don't you understand democracy? Fucking moron.


----------



## San Souci

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “America is a different place, with most of its population born after _Roe _was decided. And a decision to overturn _Roe_ — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate _Roe’s_ damage than to reverse it.
> 
> It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.
> 
> What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — *especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus*.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion | Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice
> 
> 
> An abrupt and profound change to an established law is utterly destructive to respect for the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overturning _Roe_ is therefore repugnant to conservativism – it is radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible.


Since Baby Murder has become common , Feminazis now put a notch on their belt for every abortion they have. These whores are actually PROUD of the babies they murder.


----------



## San Souci

Coyote said:


> The Rightwing penchant overturning long established precedent and established late, for putting in political judges and creating tbe most politically activist court since FDR almost a century ago….is indeed reckless.
> 
> The Supreme Court is losing credibility as being an impartial judiciary is being eroded in the eyes of many American.  This isn’t good for our country.  Neither is the possible precedent of giving individual rights and then taking them away.


That "Precedent" was illegal. The COURT can't make Law. ROE was a bad decision with NO constitutional Precedent. And Dobbs sent it to the ash heap of History.


----------



## JoeB131

BS Filter said:


> he people will vote in each state for people to pass legislation. What the fuck is wrong with you? Don't you understand democracy? Fucking moron.



Okay.  Let's do that with guns.  You'd probably get bans on guns in most states by popular vote than you would abortion. 

Oh, wait, no, then you don't believe in Democracy!  

Nobody's rights should be up for a vote.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> But you see, you are making my point.   You haven't even gotten me to agree to the imaginary healthy babies being aborted and you are ALREADY trying to expand the discussion to deformed fetuses.
> 
> You guys can't be trusted.
> 
> Take fetal homicide laws.  Sounds great in principle, nobody likes anyone who hits pregnant ladies.  But you abused them.  It was bad enough you guys used these laws to railroad guys like Scott Peterson (whom there was ZERO physical evidence against, but you hung a dead baby around his neck.) Then you have people like Purvi Patel and Bei-Bei Shaui who suffered miscarriages and were charged with fetal homicide.


And you're being deliberately obtuse. I present the case where a woman decides she wants a late-term abortion. Whatever reason, she wants one. Her doctor says, "There is nothing wrong with your baby and you are less than one month from delivery." I want that baby protected by law, you do not. It's as simple as that. It has nothing to do with anyone deciding the health of the baby other than the doctor. Now, if you are honest and not just dancing again, you will state you either want that baby protected by law or you want that baby unprotected and legally torn apart.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> And you're being deliberately obtuse. I present the case where a woman decides she wants a late-term abortion. Whatever reason, she wants one. Her doctor says, "There is nothing wrong with your baby and you are less than one month from delivery." I want that baby protected by law, you do not. It's as simple as that. It has nothing to do with anyone deciding the health of the baby other than the doctor. Now, if you are honest and not just dancing again, you will state you either want that baby protected by law or you want that baby unprotected and legally torn apart.



1) That Scenario never happens. 
2) We've already seen how you guys abuse Fetal Homicide laws to go after women who have abortions or miscarriages. 
3) We don't trust you, for good reason.


----------



## Esdraelon

JoeB131 said:


> No, I won't let religious nuts make medical decisions.


SCOTUS just gave that decision back to the voters in the states.  Get over it.  If you want to help women you feel are being harmed, donate cash, give them rides to a state where they can get what they want.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> 1) That Scenario never happens.
> 2) We've already seen how you guys abuse Fetal Homicide laws to go after women who have abortions or miscarriages.
> 3) We don't trust you, for good reason.


You can't even give ANY scenario under which you would protect the life of the child. That's the bottom line. Like I've said multiple times now, you are an abortion extremist, on the fringe.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> You can't even give ANY scenario under which you would protect the life of the child. That's the bottom line. Like I've said multiple times now, you are an abortion extremist, on the fringe.



I don't think this is something the government should be involved in.  Fetuses aren't children.  Women and Doctors are the best people to make these decisions. 

So, um, yeah, I don't spend time worrying about mythical scenarios.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> I don't think this is something the government should be involved in.  Fetuses aren't children.  Women and Doctors are the best people to make these decisions.
> 
> So, um, yeah, I don't spend time worrying about mythical scenarios.


I know, your belief in the Lawyer Fairy is absolute and you are an abortion extremist. You are out on the fringe, and few agree with you.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> I know, your belief in the Lawyer Fairy is absolute and you are an abortion extremist. You are out on the fringe, and few agree with you.



I don't hold a poll to have an opinion.  

The reality is, the scenario you describe never happens, and making a law against it is just an open door to abuses by the religious fanatics.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> I don't hold a poll to have an opinion.
> 
> The reality is, the scenario you describe never happens, and making a law against it is just an open door to abuses by the religious fanatics.


Nope, because it's between a woman and her doctor. He says the baby is healthy, she doesn't get an abortion.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> Nope, because it's between a woman and her doctor. He says the baby is healthy, she doesn't get an abortion.


Then she finds a doctor who will. 

This is how Gosnell flew under the radar in one of the states with the strictest abortion laws in the country.  

They got the limit down to 24 weeks in PA.   Gosnell performed hundreds of these abortions, and frankly only got caught because of a drug sting.  If he had bothered to pay his medical waste disposal bills, he'd never have gotten caught. 

In any event, none of the government's damned business.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> Then she finds a doctor who will.
> 
> This is how Gosnell flew under the radar in one of the states with the strictest abortion laws in the country.
> 
> They got the limit down to 24 weeks in PA.   Gosnell performed hundreds of these abortions, and frankly only got caught because of a drug sting.  If he had bothered to pay his medical waste disposal bills, he'd never have gotten caught.
> 
> In any event, none of the government's damned business.


See, that's the thing about government. It can write the laws that make it their business. Gosnell was a butcher and deserved to get caught.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> See, that's the thing about government. It can write the laws that make it their business. Gosnell was a butcher and deserved to get caught.



No, Gosnell was a butcher who existed because the legitimate providers had their hands tied by stupid laws.


----------



## ding

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “America is a different place, with most of its population born after _Roe _was decided. And a decision to overturn _Roe_ — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate _Roe’s_ damage than to reverse it.
> 
> It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.
> 
> What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — *especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus*.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion | Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice
> 
> 
> An abrupt and profound change to an established law is utterly destructive to respect for the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overturning _Roe_ is therefore repugnant to conservativism – it is radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible.


As Hillary so famously said... what difference does it make now?


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> No, Gosnell was a butcher who existed because the legitimate providers had their hands tied by stupid laws.


He chose to exist; he chose to butcher women and innocent babies. He deserves what he got and the condemnation of society.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> He chose to exist; he chose to butcher women and innocent babies. He deserves what he got and the condemnation of society.



Actually, I suspect that at one point, Gosnell probably started out as someone who wanted to serve his community, and at some point lost his way, working with less and less resources.  He just got shoddier and shoddier in his practices.  

But end of the day, he took the patients that other doctors wouldn't touch.


----------

