Roe is just the latest example of all-or-nothing politics

[JoeB131]

So you blame "the right" for women getting pregnant?

I guess this is why they call you guys "deranged".

Yeah, that's what you need to do, go down to the Rape Crisis Center and tell those sluts what is what.

 

[Mac1958]

I don't see where this is all or nothing. The scotus is simply saying that this was never supposed to be a decision for the federal government. It was supposed to be a state issue, and that's what the draft was saying.

I don't really have an argument with this ruling per se, assuming it's the final argument. Abortion is not a fundamental component of our system, it's a specific outlying issue and appropriate for individual state jurisdiction.

The question, as always, will be in its application. And, right along the lines of the all-or-nothing politics in which we're mired, we're going to see states go too far. We've already seen it happen in Texas, with its insane, otherworldly, hyper-aggressive, blatantly punitive approach, and we know damn well that more is on the way.

As with virtually everything else, binary thinking and an unwillingness to collaborate is killing us, dividing us further. And it's very clear that many are just fine with that. This as much about getting the other guys as it is about anything else.

 

[scruffy]

Yeah, that's what you need to do, go down to the Rape Crisis Center and tell those sluts what is what.

You blame "the right" for rape too?

You really are deranged.

Have you seen a psychiatrist lately?

 

[JoeB131]

I don't really have an argument with this ruling per se, assuming it's the final argument. Abortion is not a fundamental component of our system, it's a specific outlying issue and appropriate for individual state jurisdiction.

The question, as always, will be in its application. And, right along the lines of the all-or-nothing politics in which we're mired, we're going to see states go too far. We've already seen it happen in Texas, with its insane, otherworldly, hyper-aggressive, blatantly punitive approach, and we know damn well that more is on the way.

As with virtually everything else, binary thinking and an unwillingness to collaborate is killing us, dividing us further. And it's very clear that many are just fine with that. This as much about getting the other guys as it is about anything else.

Yes, Mac, it's all about a lack of moderation, not an attempt to deprive women of their rights.

This never should have been a left vs. right issue. When Roe was passed, you had pro-Choice Republicans and Pro-Life Democrats. What made it a left vs. right issue is the crazies on the religious right deciding that this was their next big issue. Prior to Roe, Evangelicals considered abortion to be a "Catholic" issue they didn't care about.

ou blame "the right" for rape too?

You really are deranged.

Have you seen a psychiatrist lately?

Deranged is making a rape victim have her rapist's baby because you think a glob of cells is a person.

 

[fncceo]

Deranged is making a rape victim have her rapist's baby because you think a glob of cells is a person.

What is the percentage of abortions performed on rape victims?

 

[JoeB131]

What is the percentage of abortions performed on rape victims?

Less than 1%, but that's not the point, is it?

Once you've established that globby is a human being, then you can't kill him, no matter what.

We don't execute children for the crimes of their parents.

Let's take an even more radical example. Let's say a woman had sex with her husband the day before she was raped, but she didn't know who the father was. Should she be able to smother the baby when it's born and it's apparently the rapist's baby? Of course not.

But we are fine with aborting a rape-fetus because fetuses aren't really people.

 

[fncceo]

Once you've established that globby is a human being, then you can't kill him, no matter what.

In fact, more than half the US states currently have feticide laws that make the unlawful killing of a fetus equivalent to a homicide and a capital crime.

 

[JoeB131]

In fact, more than half the US states currently have feticide laws that make the unlawful killing of a fetus equivalent to a homicide and a capital crime.

Which are stupid laws... if you punch a pregnant woman on her way to the abortion clinic, did you commit murder or save her $300.00?

 

[22lcidw]

Less than 1%, but that's not the point, is it?

Once you've established that globby is a human being, then you can't kill him, no matter what.

We don't execute children for the crimes of their parents.

Let's take an even more radical example. Let's say a woman had sex with her husband the day before she was raped, but she didn't know who the father was. Should she be able to smother the baby when it's born and it's apparently the rapist's baby? Of course not.

But we are fine with aborting a rape-fetus because fetuses aren't really people.

All of those unmarried underage teenage girls that get pregnant are raped by the law. In the inner cities where are the fathers put into prison for it? And if they are underage, does that indict the mother?

 

[fncceo]

if you punch a pregnant woman on her way to the abortion clinic, di

If you punch a pregnant woman on her way anywhere you should be put down like a rabid dog.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Could a state make murder legal? By that could a state remove all laws that define "unlawful killing" and just let people kill each other without the Fed Govt having the power to step in?

The 14th Amendment is not intended to make the FedGov all powerful and the nanny boss of the states.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The 14th Amendment is not intended to make the FedGov all powerful and the nanny boss of the states.

I agree. You did not answer the question. Could a state remove all the laws from their books that pertain to any unlawful killing without the Fed Govt having the authority to step in, in your opinion?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Clearly the answer is for states to start seceding from our worthless tyrannical federal govt.

 

[scruffy]

.l
Deranged is making a rape victim have her rapist's baby because you think a glob of cells is a person.

No one does that, though.

You really are deranged.

You should seek help.

 

[Mac-7]

I don't really have an argument with this ruling per se, assuming it's the final argument. Abortion is not a fundamental component of our system, it's a specific outlying issue and appropriate for individual state jurisdiction.

The question, as always, will be in its application. And, right along the lines of the all-or-nothing politics in which we're mired, we're going to see states go too far. We've already seen it happen in Texas, with its insane, otherworldly, hyper-aggressive, blatantly punitive approach, and we know damn well that more is on the way.

As with virtually everything else, binary thinking and an unwillingness to collaborate is killing us, dividing us further. And it's very clear that many are just fine with that. This as much about getting the other guys as it is about anything else.

And, right along the lines of the all-or-nothing politics in which we're mired, we're going to see states go too far.

How far is too far?

This is not one of your cold split-the-difference issues

A baby in the womb is either human or it isnt

If its human it has a right to live

How do libs compromise that?

 

[marvin martian]

Less than 1%, but that's not the point, is it?

Once you've established that globby is a human being, then you can't kill him, no matter what.

We don't execute children for the crimes of their parents.

Let's take an even more radical example. Let's say a woman had sex with her husband the day before she was raped, but she didn't know who the father was. Should she be able to smother the baby when it's born and it's apparently the rapist's baby? Of course not.

But we are fine with aborting a rape-fetus because fetuses aren't really people.

You anti-science types are the reason this whole issue had to be taken up by the court. Your voodoo belief that a child is magically imbued with life only after it exits the birth canal is backwards, ignorant, and dangerous. You're the reason the court had to step in to stop the slaughter.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I agree. You did not answer the question. Could a state remove all the laws from their books that pertain to any unlawful killing without the Fed Govt having the authority to step in, in your opinion?

Under the current state of American Jurisprudence? No. FedGov would butt in.

As originally intended? Yes. A state could do all of that.

The intent of the FedGov was to regulate commerce, govern currency, and provide for a common defense.

 

[BS Filter]

You're dealing with Christian nationalist zealots here. Outright bans are their goal and they do not care how it happens, who it hurts or what it costs. We've known this from day one. It's no accident the right has harnessed this kind of fascist religiosity for every issue.

Oh, such drama. The facts are that some cases belong to the states. Simple.

 

[JoeB131]

No one does that, though.

You really are deranged.

You should seek help.

Except the laws being proposed have no rape of incest provisions... Or limited ones.

You anti-science types are the reason this whole issue had to be taken up by the court. Your voodoo belief that a child is magically imbued with life only after it exits the birth canal is backwards, ignorant, and dangerous. You're the reason the court had to step in to stop the slaughter.

the court took this up 50 years ago, and sensibly ruled these decisions are best made by a woman and her doctor.

The problem is they will still make those decisions... they just won't tell you about it.

 

[j-mac]

Which are stupid laws... if you punch a pregnant woman on her way to the abortion clinic, did you commit murder or save her $300.00?

In many states if you kill a pregnant woman and the baby dies, you are charged with 2 murders genius.