Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[Calypso Jones]

 

[Jarlaxle]

You are aware that abortion and adoption have nothing to do with each other, right? You do understand that she doesn't want to end abortion altogether, do you?

Are you aware that she understands there are medical reasons for abortion that don't involve vanity or convenience?

This kind of stupidity from you is quite new.

Just want to ask one more time, though:

You do understand that abortion and adoption have nothing in common with each other, right?

Apparently not.

If you are not intelligent enough to connect the dots between unwanted children and adoption, there is no point in continuing, you're not bright enough to interact with.

Of course, I've never quite understood misogynistic pricks like you, telling a woman in what manner she should have her kids. It's none of your damn business.

Well, yes, it is, considering that my money is taken to support them.

 

[Flash]

 

[Flash]

 

[Cecilie1200]

You are aware that abortion and adoption have nothing to do with each other, right? You do understand that she doesn't want to end abortion altogether, do you?

Are you aware that she understands there are medical reasons for abortion that don't involve vanity or convenience?

This kind of stupidity from you is quite new.

Just want to ask one more time, though:

You do understand that abortion and adoption have nothing in common with each other, right?

Apparently not.

You should read this. It explains so much about how otherwise intelligent, educated people willingly become morons when their ideology gets in the way.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That doesn't change the fact that 70% of Americans believe Roe versus Wade should stay in place. If the supreme Court does reverse their opinion about it, it will be the most unpopular decision ever. And then all the problems that Roe versus Wade will resurface again and the people will demand its return.

No one has to change that "fact", because it's not a fact. It's a highly biased interpretation of reality.

And if the Supreme Court reverses Roe v. Wade, it will be "unpopular" for exactly as long as it takes for people to see through your lies about what that means to what it ACTUALLY means. Very few people are really going to be incensed by, "You vote on it for yourselves", no matter how much you try to tell yourself that the vast majority of people are just dying for tyrannical rule.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, the people are not deciding. A slim majority of the entire nation wants to go against the Constitution, and a large minority of the entire nation want it to revert to states’ rights, as would be the correct decision.

As far as “if I don’t want an abortion, don’t have one,” that’s anither simplistic liberal statement I’ve heard before. If I think it’s wrong that someone robbed a neighbor‘s house, would you say “if you think it’s wrong to rob a neighbor’s house, don’t do it”?

Personally, I say, "If you don't want abortion restrictions, don't pass them."

Funny how their mindset never applies to anything else, though.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Read the 14th amendment to the constitution.

Read it many times, and I'm sure Lisa has, as well. Did you have a point to make, or did you just hope you could imply you did?

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, apparently, it’s the Republicans.

How is that "apparent"? Someone stopping you from voting in your state?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do you notice how it’s the men insisting on all states having to allow abortion, and insulting or instructing women? A BIG part of this is that the men like the idea that if they knock up a woman, she can just “get rid of it”?

I once had a pregnancy scare - about a week late, which never happened. When I told my boyfriend about it, he said “well, we’ll just get rid of it.” When I told him I couldn’t do that, he said if I decided to keep it, that I earned enough money and that he wouldn’t be involved in the support. Clearly, the guys like the idea that the woman get get rid of it, and they‘d be off the hook.

(End of story: period came a few days later, and I broke up with the louse due to his reaction.)

I find it amusing that he thought he got to declare whether or not he would be involved in the support.

On the other side of the scale, we have my husband. While he is not as vocal as I am on the pro-life side, I pity anyone who comes at him with, "No uterus, no opinion! You're not a woman, so this is none of your business!"

When he was in college, before we met (actually right around the time that I had my first child), he was engaged. His fiancee was also in college, and they planned to get married after they both graduated. His fiancee got pregnant, and they panicked, and they believed all the pro-abort lines about "their futures" and "blob of tissue" and no big deal, and they decided to get an abortion.

As it turned out, it WAS a big deal for both of them. Seems that killing the baby didn't erase the fact that he had existed, and it grew between them until neither of them could stand to look at each other, because the fact of the abortion was all they could see. They broke up, and my husband basically couldn't bring himself to date anyone, for fear that she might get pregnant and decide to abort his baby, and he would have no control over it. It wasn't until he met me and my daughter, who was living proof that I would not have an abortion no matter what the circumstances, that he felt safe to date again.

Fast forward 27 years. Our daughter is 32, and has given us grandchildren that my husband adores. And I know - because he's told me - that every time he looks at his daughter or grandchildren, some part of him inside is seeing his other child, who would have been about the same age, and the life he might have had, and the grandchildren he might have produced.

No, I wouldn't be the person who tries to tell him this issue is none of his business because he's a man. Not for a second.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The democrats established people have a "right to privacy"

Republicans want the government in everybodies bedroom.

No, the Democrats DECLARED that a universal, uncodified "right to privacy" existed. There's a difference.

And we have no interest in being in anyone's bedroom. Abortion clinics, on the other hand . . .

And if you're going to expect me to be embarrassed or ashamed about that, I sincerely invite you to hold your breath waiting.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is actually a good example of people like you only reading the headlines and not the story.

The 14th amendment said a lot (5 sections worth). You should read ALL of it.

Maybe you should try actually making your point and telling us what you think the 14th Amendment proves about it, instead of just vaguely trying to imply it and demanding that we go research and prove you right about whatever the fuck you're trying desperately not to say.

Fail.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The right to privacy in an inalienable right, given to the people by the creator.

Which is so clear to see by your complete refusal to cite it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What about assisted suicide?

Another life is at stake, yet several states have said the government should honor their right to privacy in that instance.

What about it? You seem to think pointing out another vile mutation of the law somehow justifies this vile mutation of the law, but are once again being purposely vague about what point you think you've made.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The creator endowed every person with certain inalienable rights, as the declaration of independence laid out.

And the Constitution codified in Amendment 10
“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.”

Power to the people !!!

You're going to use the Tenth Amendment to justify trying to contradict and undermine the Tenth Amendment? Interesting strategy, but ultimately another fail.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The constitution originally gave to one group of "the people", the right to take the life, liberty or property of another group of "the people".

So such exercise by "the people" over something that isn't even a member of "the people". clearly has constitutional sanction.

You skipped right past the very long passages of the Constitution where it specified who could restrict or take those rights, how they could do it, and under what circumstances.

Maybe YOU should go back and read it.

 

[eagle1462010]

The creator endowed every person with certain inalienable rights, as the declaration of independence laid out.

And the Constitution codified in Amendment 10
“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.”

Power to the people !!!

Which creats 50 different experiments or countries within a country.

Abortion will not end if Roe v Wade is ovetturned. Almost half the states have no abortion bans at all. Nothing changes there. In mainly red states. Each state will decide whete they will dtaw the line on where life begins. Women who want abortions after that point will have to travel.

Under Roe v Wade States van legally have laws over the viability set in that case.

 

[forkup]

Oye. You’re clueless as to how our Constitution is set up. You, as a resident of one state, have no say as to how the voters in another state want to set up their state.

We are not one monolithic country, where when 47% of the country as a whole thinks one way, and 46% of the country thinks the other, and the 47% gets to decide the rules for each state.

I really wish they would go back to teaching CIvics in high school instead of far-left social justice. There is no mention of abortion in the Constitution, and thus it reverts to states rights.

I'm clueless about how the constitution is set up?
Lisa, you are treating as gospel an opinion that admits its reasoning doesn't apply universally to other unenumerated rights.

Issued by judges of 1 particular ideology. Placed in power by the expediency of refusing a hearing to a Scotus nominee put forth by the other party.(going against the spirit, if not the letter of the nomination process set forth in the constitution you claim to hold so dear) And in the face of several other rulings that upheld it.

 

[Lisa558]

I find it amusing that he thought he got to declare whether or not he would be involved in the support.

On the other side of the scale, we have my husband. While he is not as vocal as I am on the pro-life side, I pity anyone who comes at him with, "No uterus, no opinion! You're not a woman, so this is none of your business!"

When he was in college, before we met (actually right around the time that I had my first child), he was engaged. His fiancee was also in college, and they planned to get married after they both graduated. His fiancee got pregnant, and they panicked, and they believed all the pro-abort lines about "their futures" and "blob of tissue" and no big deal, and they decided to get an abortion.

As it turned out, it WAS a big deal for both of them. Seems that killing the baby didn't erase the fact that he had existed, and it grew between them until neither of them could stand to look at each other, because the fact of the abortion was all they could see. They broke up, and my husband basically couldn't bring himself to date anyone, for fear that she might get pregnant and decide to abort his baby, and he would have no control over it. It wasn't until he met me and my daughter, who was living proof that I would not have an abortion no matter what the circumstances, that he felt safe to date again.

Fast forward 27 years. Our daughter is 32, and has given us grandchildren that my husband adores. And I know - because he's told me - that every time he looks at his daughter or grandchildren, some part of him inside is seeing his other child, who would have been about the same age, and the life he might have had, and the grandchildren he might have produced.

No, I wouldn't be the person who tries to tell him this issue is none of his business because he's a man. Not for a second.

Thank you for sharing you story.

And yes. There are definitely many, many woman (as well as the would-have-been fathers) who think to themselves….my child would have turned two this month….my child would be in first grade this year…..my child would be driving around now….my child would be in college at this point….my child would be 25 now.…and 30 now….perhaps with her own children…and 35 now…..now 40…..now 50…for the rest of their lives.

 

[Lisa558]

I'm clueless about how the constitution is set up?
Lisa, you are treating as gospel an opinion that admits its reasoning doesn't apply universally to other unenumerated rights.

Issued by judges of 1 particular ideology. Placed in power by the expediency of refusing a hearing to a Scotus nominee put forth by the other party.(going against the spirit, if not the letter of the nomination process set forth in the constitution you claim to hold so dear) And in the face of several other rulings that upheld it.

The sad thing is that this should not even be debated at this point. The leaker should be punished, and the SCOTUS should, G-d willing, issue the same decision they would have had they not been threatened with violence and death if they don’t yield.

And yes, there are different ways to interpret the Constitution, or we never would have had the decision we did 50 years ago. Now it’s being reviewed, rightly so.

You have one interpretation….I have the other. Just as half the people think abortion is OK, and the other half don’t. In a country so evenly split, it seems quite arrogant for the liberals to demand that THEIR way be the law of the land in every state.

Again, I just hope the justices don’t change their opinion under pressure from leftists threatening violence.