Do liberals understand that the SCOTUS is not debating whether to ban abortion?

[Lisa558]

OR she could just not put her entire future in the hands of an unreliable stranger because she has an overwhelming need to be his fuckstick. I don't go around making myself vulnerable to garbage people, but for some reason, leftists think women in general are incapable of living without doing so.

Leftists have a low opinion about women, just as they do about blacks. Think about it: aaawww….dumb woman can’t figure out birth control, and dumb blacks can’t go no ID.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I swear, every time I talk to a liberal, I SMH at how misinformed they are - and how deceitful the liberal media is. Just yesterday I spoke to a liberal, and in addition to her usual moaning about Republicans (to me, knowing I am a Republican), she bemoaned the “fact” that “Trump’s Republican Supreme Court” (her words) may ban abortion. When I corrected her, she said that MSNBC made it sound as though all abortions would be banned.

Listen up: for any of you libtards getting your news through MSNBC, the SCOTUS is not debating a ban. It doesn’t even have that right, just as it didn’t have the fight to force states to make it legal. It is merely debating whether the decision in Roe v Wade was constitutional, and if not, THE DECISION GOES TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATES.

I love it when people complain about "misinformation" and then use misinformation.

The Supreme Court doesn't have any rights. It has POWERS. It does have the power to ban abortions. It has the power to interpret the Constitution and laws. It could make a decision which would allow states to ban abortion. Right now the ONLY thing stopping regressive religious states from banning abortion is the Supreme Court.

You could get by on a technicality saying that they're not technically banning abortions, because they don't make laws, however it's just a technicality.

But then you go an insult people..... do you really think this enhances your position?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Leftists have a low opinion about women, just as they do about blacks. Think about it: aaawww….dumb woman can’t figure out birth control, and dumb blacks can’t go no ID.

Are you really coming on here with these childish arguments?

Yes, people can use birth control or not. But in a free society it's not about that.

It's not "well you didn't use this so now you have no choices". Especially in a world with TOO MANY PEOPLE already.

 

[Lisa558]

I love it when people complain about "misinformation" and then use misinformation.

The Supreme Court doesn't have any rights. It has POWERS. It does have the power to ban abortions. It has the power to interpret the Constitution and laws. It could make a decision which would allow states to ban abortion. Right now the ONLY thing stopping regressive religious states from banning abortion is the Supreme Court.

You could get by on a technicality saying that they're not technically banning abortions, because they don't make laws, however it's just a technicality.

But then you go an insult people..... do you really think this enhances your position?

You said the same thing I did. The SCOTUS does not have the right to ban abortions, as the woman I was talking with was led to believe by MSNBC. At most, they will simply decide to return the decision to the states, as per a strict reading of the Constitution.

And it’s not just a “technicality“ that they’re not banning abortions. If they were, there would BE no legal abortions available anywhere in the country! Clearly, that’s not about to happen. At worst, a woman is in a no-abortion state, doesn’t use birth control, gets pregnant, and has to take the bus to a neighboring state.

 

[Lisa558]

Are you really coming on here with these childish arguments?

Yes, people can use birth control or not. But in a free society it's not about that.

It's not "well you didn't use this so now you have no choices". Especially in a world with TOO MANY PEOPLE already.

Its not thae people can use birth control or not - as if either is just as good a choice. If a woman is having sex and doesn’t want to get pregnant, she SHOULD use birth control. Possibly she will be more responsible that way if it turns out she lives in a no-abortion state. If not, a bus ticket is pretty cheap.

So, she still has choices, even if she was irresponsible. She just goes to a different state. Such total concern and sympathy for a woman who was irresponsible, when she STILL will be able to get an abortion, and absolutely no acknowledgment that another life is involved - and about to be ended.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So being responsible with birth control and not opening your legs to every lowlife guy who will vanish at the first hint of “trouble,” if he has t already moved on, means one is “lonely”?

So, let’s see if I get this right….in order not to be lonely, I need to forsake birth control and bed down with every irresponsible guy who buys me a cup of coffee?

You need to learn something about self-esteem.

No, the fact that no human cares enough to remember SHE exists means that she spends a lot of time trying to project her worthless existence onto me. She hates that I have a husband and children and grandchildren and an extended family to whom I actually matter, while she has a bunch of cats who will eat her dead body if it's not found fast enough.

 

[Lisa558]

No, the fact that no human cares enough to remember SHE exists means that she spends a lot of time trying to project her worthless existence onto me. She hates that I have a husband and children and grandchildren and an extended family to whom I actually matter, while she has a bunch of cats who will eat her dead body if it's not found fast enough.

There are plenty of people without a husband and children who don’t feel they have a worthless existence. Just saying.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You said the same thing I did. The SCOTUS does not have the right to ban abortions, as the woman I was talking with was led to believe by MSNBC. At most, they will simply decide to return the decision to the states, as per a strict reading of the Constitution.

And it’s not just a “technicality“ that they’re not banning abortions. If they were, there would BE no legal abortions available anywhere in the country! Clearly, that’s not about to happen. At worst, a woman is in a no-abortion state, doesn’t use birth control, gets pregnant, and has to take the bus to a neighboring state.

Let's try it another way.

If the Supreme Court says "You can ban abortions", what will be the impact? Will abortions be allowed in Texas?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Its not thae people can use birth control or not - as if either is just as good a choice. If a woman is having sex and doesn’t want to get pregnant, she SHOULD use birth control. Possibly she will be more responsible that way if it turns out she lives in a no-abortion state. If not, a bus ticket is pretty cheap.

So, she still has choices, even if she was irresponsible. She just goes to a different state. Such total concern and sympathy for a woman who was irresponsible, when she STILL will be able to get an abortion, and absolutely no acknowledgment that another life is involved - and about to be ended.

But then you're making the case that people shouldn't have abortions. I'm saying they can have abortions if they want, if they get pregnant and don't want the child, then they have that option.

500 years ago it made sense to discourage abortions. On a planet that has too many humans, it doesn't make sense to limit abortions.

 

[Lisa558]

Let's try it another way.

If the Supreme Court says "You can ban abortions", what will be the impact? Will abortions be allowed in Texas?

Yeah, maybe not. So then the woman might have to take the bus to another state. She can still get an abortion.

You‘re acting as if all 50 states will ban abortion. It will still be widely available.

 

[Lisa558]

But then you're making the case that people shouldn't have abortions. I'm saying they can have abortions if they want, if they get pregnant and don't want the child, then they have that option.

500 years ago it made sense to discourage abortions. On a planet that has too many humans, it doesn't make sense to limit abortions.

Ok….so you think women should be able to get abortions. A lot of people don’t, especially in conservative states. Why should want you want to be available for women in conservative states overrule what others in that state think it morally unacceptable? Why is your opinion more important?

And you keep skipping over an important detail: the woman can still kill her kid! She just has to buy a bus ticket.

P.S. And what’s this bit about too many people in this country? I thought that’s why libs keep saying it’s good to let the illegals swarm in here - that we aren’t replacing ourselves,

 

[Coyote]

Yeah, maybe not. So then the woman might have to take the bus to another state. She can still get an abortion.

You‘re acting as if all 50 states will ban abortion. It will still be widely available.

It may as well be banned for the women in that state.
The cost of a bus ride, the cost of time off work.
The cost of the abortion.

If you look at states likely to ban abortion, where is a poor woman in eastern Texas going to go, for example?

 

[Lisa558]

It may as well be banned for the women in that state.
The cost of a bus ride, the cost of time off work.
The cost of the abortion.

If you look at states likely to ban abortion, where is a poor woman in eastern Texas going to go, for example?


View attachment 595863

As far as the cost, Planned Parenthood can fund it. And in Texas, she can go to Colorado. Is it convenient? No. But the baby being aborted is paying a bigger price.

What all you libs are missing Is that many, MANY people are opposed to abortion, and if a majority in any given state is so opposed, then their elected officials can - and very well may - enact laws to meet their values. That’s why the Constitution left so much to the states - so that people could have their own preferences represented.

And again, all the concern goes to the woman, who in 99% of the cases brought it on herself for not using birth control. You all completely ignore that there is another life involved here, too, one that sadly is going to end. It’s not like getting a nose job.

 

[Rigby5]

I swear, every time I talk to a liberal, I SMH at how misinformed they are - and how deceitful the liberal media is. Just yesterday I spoke to a liberal, and in addition to her usual moaning about Republicans (to me, knowing I am a Republican), she bemoaned the “fact” that “Trump’s Republican Supreme Court” (her words) may ban abortion. When I corrected her, she said that MSNBC made it sound as though all abortions would be banned.

Listen up: for any of you libtards getting your news through MSNBC, the SCOTUS is not debating a ban. It doesn’t even have that right, just as it didn’t have the fight to force states to make it legal. It is merely debating whether the decision in Roe v Wade was constitutional, and if not, THE DECISION GOES TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATES.

Wrong.
We already know a lot of states are racist, bigoted, fascist, etc.
The POINT is the 14th Amendment is supposed to force the federal government to prevent states abusing INDIVIDUALS against false lies like "states rights".
It does not at all matter if Roe v Wade is constitutional or not, no state has any authority over what a woman does with her body.

 

[Rigby5]

As far as the cost, Planned Parenthood can fund it. And in Texas, she can go to Colorado. Is it convenient? No. But the baby being aborted is paying a bigger price.

What all you libs are missing Is that many, MANY people are opposed to abortion, and if a majority in any given state is so opposed, then their elected officials can - and very well may - enact laws to meet their values. That’s why the Constitution left so much to the states - so that people could have their own preferences represented.

And again, all the concern goes to the woman, who in 99% of the cases brought it on herself for not using birth control. You all completely ignore that there is another life involved here, too, one that sadly is going to end. It’s not like getting a nose job.

Wrong.
The desires of any group of other people, no matter how large or small, are totally and completely irrelevant.
Only the woman has any say in what happens to her body.
There is no possible legal way to criminalize abortion.
Anyone who thinks you can, is a clear and present danger to a democratic republic.

 

[Rigby5]

Ok….so you think women should be able to get abortions. A lot of people don’t, especially in conservative states. Why should want you want to be available for women in conservative states overrule what others in that state think it morally unacceptable? Why is your opinion more important?

And you keep skipping over an important detail: the woman can still kill her kid! She just has to buy a bus ticket.

P.S. And what’s this bit about too many people in this country? I thought that’s why libs keep saying it’s good to let the illegals swarm in here - that we aren’t replacing ourselves,

Wrong.
It is still an operation, with pain, stress, complications, side effects, risks, danger, etc.
No one should have to "buy a bus ticket" to a distant state in order to exercise their personal rights.

 

[Coyote]

As far as the cost, Planned Parenthood can fund it. And in Texas, she can go to Colorado. Is it convenient? No. But the baby being aborted is paying a bigger price.

What all you libs are missing Is that many, MANY people are opposed to abortion, and if a majority in any given state is so opposed, then their elected officials can - and very well may - enact laws to meet their values. That’s why the Constitution left so much to the states - so that people could have their own preferences represented.

And again, all the concern goes to the woman, who in 99% of the cases brought it on herself for not using birth control. You all completely ignore that there is another life involved here, too, one that sadly is going to end. It’s not like getting a nose job.

Actually with you cons, none of your concern goes to the woman. You cons completely ignore tha fact she has rights to her own body, and you strip her of those rights from the moment of conception. Worse, you call her a slut and complain about her having kids she can't, dropping out school or losing her job and costing taxpayers money. And 17% of you want no exceptions, even if her life is in danger.

 

[Lisa558]

Actually with you cons, none of your concern goes to the woman. You cons completely ignore tha fact she has rights to her own body, and you strip her of those rights from the moment of conception. Worse, you call her a slut and complain about her having kids she can't, dropping out school or losing her job and costing taxpayers money. And 17% of you want no exceptions, even if her life is in danger.

Wht? Because I called “Roe” a slut? She was. Multiple affairs with various men as a teen, married briefly at 16, and pregnant - unwanted - three times by age 22. How many times does someone keep making the same mistake? She was an idiot AND a slut.

And are you saying that *I* want to strip her of “rights to her own body” from the moment of conception? I never said that. But you liberals have your typical “my way or the highway” attitude, and demand that abortion should be allowed four and five months into a pregnancy - despite the fact that the majority of people (in a particular state) may be opposedl

And again….like all leftists….you are ignoring the fact that it isn’t ONLY about her! i hear that “rights to her own body” shit all the time, as if she’s having a nose job, with never a mention that there are two bodies at stake.

If a woman lives in a state where the majority is opposed to abortion, then she has even more of a reason to be responsible and use birth control, because if she doesn’t and ends up pregnant, she will have to take a bus to a different state to kill the fetus.

 

[Lisa558]

….and finally, it isn’t whether or not a woman should be able to have a convenient abortion, or have to take a bus ride. It is whether the Constitution allows that decision to be taken away from the states or remain with the states.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yeah, maybe not. So then the woman might have to take the bus to another state. She can still get an abortion.

You‘re acting as if all 50 states will ban abortion. It will still be widely available.

The people most likely to get abortions are poorer people. People for whom a bus ride is a significant expense. But in a FREE COUNTRY, why should someone have to go to another state to get something that should be available in their own state?

Conservatives say they want less government in their lives, and then set about create MORE government in everyone else's lives. Why?