DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Supreme Court Draft Overturning Roe vs Wade

I simply expected you had a basic grasp of the English language. Once again I overestimated you.

And I expected you know how to make cogent debate points that people don't need to fill in the blanks on. Again, you only want to debate the things that aren't part of the debate because you got your tighty whities bunched.

Enjoy your day, let me know when you actually have a point to make that isn't you pointing out you got treated like you think others need to be treated by you.

I'm willing to bet everyone on this board knew exactly what that post was saying. Even you. And if you didn't understand it, that's a you problem. As I said before, English seems to be a problem for you. I overestimated your ability to string sentences together to arrive at a cognitive thought process that any rational person would understand.


The message is clear for anyone not being obtuse. If you lack the ability to comprehend what this is saying, I'll be praying for you.

What are you talking about? Maybe you're reading too fast?

If the child hasn't been born yet then the mother can have an abortion. All of this is a personal matter. If you don't know this other stranger who's going to have an abortion, who are you to have a say in their life?

Their life is none of your business.

Haha, this has to be some sort of record, a rare occurrence seldom seen.

Women should just stop sleeping with republicans until they get it. It would be easy to do, just send every 12 year old girl for a week on an Amish farm. After they see 1883 in person, they won't want anything to do with backwards thinking.

Going to be a long year, but November is coming.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/05/how-the-leak-might-have-happened/

I think this is an interesting read on the situation.

watch my fellow liberals still not show up during the mid terms.

I don't appreciate anyone who compromises the court.

And even the radical left wing liberal RBG was not a fan of Row v Wade. She thought it was a bad decision, and felt that as it was ruled would be easy to overturn. She may have predicted the future.

I do hope all the justices stop considering the political portion of this and see the constitutional portion, which is that the Federal government over stepped on the original ruling and violated the 10th with it. A narrower ruling likely would have survived, and that was what RBG was stating.

If they can afford the gas and aren't too weak from skipping expensive groceries, they will be there.

I don't think it matters whether or not Democrat voters show up for the midterms.

It's a foregone conclusion, they don't have a chance. The economy is basically in shambles right now.

People see inflation, the gas prices, it's Joe Biden at the helm.

Umm no... RBG did not vote for restricting abortion. There are lots of memes out there on her comments. Now as far as a personal decision, it may have been a different matter.

https://time.com/4383778/ruth-bader-ginsburg-supreme-court-abortion-ruling/

Umm no, I did not say she voted to restrict them. She was very much in favor of abortion. She was not a fan of the ruling in Roe vs Wade

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html

In droves of millions.

AOC should put forth a stick your religion up your ass bill. Freedom to worship how you choose in the constitution, but forcing your religion on others is blatantly unconstitutional.

I feel like this:



Only voting for whatever rids us of this Trumpian crapfest. But that means a straight dem ticket, an people with no spine.



And that last one is right on point.

No idea who she is - hard to argue with what she actually says. I heard a good piece on NPR today - the lady was debunking the idea of what is covered in the Constitution and the opinion piece referring to abortion not being covered. She made a great point that basically "Women" and anything regards "Women" is omitted from the Constitution, the draft opinion is a crock.

Women were little more than chattel back then. Most were lucky to leave the farm house. This is what they want. Controlling their worlds, the entire lives of people they consider under them. I don't see how you vote republican if that's not how you think.

After hearing a couple of their convos this week, they will keep coming after basic commonly accepted rights for anything they were no0t 100% on board for. They forgot how to give and take, this is their season of taking. Next season they will all be lost to the ash heap of history. Good riddance. Voting blue is now critical for our democracy.

Well then How is anything our business? How is their life your business if somebody you don't know is a thief? a rapist, a serial killer? How is their life your business if they want to do drugs, or if they sell drugs? If their life is none of our business what's it to you if they stuff their 1 week old in a wood chipper? OH WAIT NOW that becomes YOUR business

They sure didn't show up in Ohio last week.

Finally you post something I agree with

Kids say the darndest things.....

RBG..."Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of."

Now thats not sayinging she didnt want to limit certain populations from growing as it was before her time on the court, but she implied that was society's goal at the time...which at the time was controlled by a Dem Senate and House. Populations we dont want too many of seems pretty darn racist to me.....but these are not tye droids you are looking for......

Not for nothing but George Carlin hit the nail on the head in a routine he did back in the 90's... Search for it.. It has profanity in it (like all Carlins routines) so it can't be posted here... But he gets to the point quickly.

He says, Conservatives care about a fetus, but once born they lose all interest in the child.. Evidence is that the cut programs meant to help youth.... Or at least attempt to cut those programs.

Then when they are 18, they like them again when they join the military.

Of course, Carlin is much funnier that I am... So the delivery is pretty cool

ohio can be considered red now. i dunno if there's enough of us left in the state to consider it purple.

This talk about a "Baby" at the point of fertilization and "If the child is not born yet" - is deflection and religious mumbo jumbo.

It's a collections of cells.

No-one I know - ever - advocated for the termination of what would be considered a "Child".

But then we've all known this 'forever' - and I guess we know it won't stop, why would it? There isn't a credible argument so instead we have emotional blackmail on faulty premise as the basis of debate.

Looks like a baby to me, not a clump of cells.

Clutch your pearls.

Quite trying to give me a pearl necklace.

See - the truth is in between the two images that you and Portland posted. I accused posters of dishonest emotional blackmail, which is EXACTLY what your response was. Just the same as people whose anti-abortion argument revolves around 3rd trimester abortions .... which to my knowledge no-one anywhere is advocating for and certainly no-one I know of on this board.

A poster wrote about a new record for a 21 week old premature baby surviving. I think many would be happy to set a limit of 12-14 weeks. I'm sure some might think 16-18 weeks might be an appropriate limit.

Setting a limit at 6 weeks is a disgusting perversion of the current law - and setting at "conception" is just as asinine. Posting photos of fully formed fetus's in the womb with hair is not what the discussion is about. That might be YOUR interpretation, but you don't get to dictate to the rest of America what the law is. Neither should any religious based theology/belief.

j/c

As for the SCOTUS leak. The people who had the opportunity to view the leaked document is limited. All of those people know how the SCOTUS decisions are reached. A first draft is the very beginning of that process. From that point until the final decision is revealed, many changes can be included in the decision. The wording and what that decision does and does not do can often times change.

Now I'm not trying to say it was either a liberal or a conservative who leaked it. Here's what we do know. The final decision was expected to be made and released before their summer recess which begins in late June or early July every year. The final decision could have been released in May. This means the final decision would have been known at least four months in advance of the 2022 midterm election and up to five months regardless of any leak. As we can see it took less than 24 hours to get the pro choice voters motivated. Four months would have been plenty of time to get people worked up for the elections in November even if the leak had not have occurred. As sad as it is to say, many Americans have the attention span of a gnat. They'll just move on to the next hot button issue. So I'm not quite sure that having it leaked not long before the final decision was made public is much of, if any real advantage here.

So I don't see much if any advantage to this coming out a little earlier than it would have anyway for liberals. They would still have had months to use this as an election tool.

But let's look at what it does do. As was stated, first drafts often get reworded and the scope of what a decision covers can sometimes change. However, if there is a written record disclosed showing these members all agree in overturning Roe vs Wade, how much harder will it be for them to now change that opinion? Could the leak just as easily be an attempt to pigeon hole these justices in standing firm with that first draft? Because if they don't, Republicans will turn that into anyone who changes their mind or limits the scope of this first draft as traitors and baby killers.

I can't say whether it was a liberal or a conservative who leaked the document. What I am saying is that anyone claiming it could only have been a liberal hasn't really thought this through.

I've never been one who advocates women be given that choice in regards to late term abortions. Some of the bills I've seen written in states limits abortion at 15 weeks. I do not see that as unreasonable.

Your right i dont. But neither do you. Now it is the job of the supreme court to rule on it, so does that mean you wont cry about it if they rule against your wishes?

Do you mean "rule on it this time, again"? Because it's obvious from the original ruling 50 years ago, which has been upheld many times since then, that this is political. Trump said all throughout his campaign he would only nominate judge s that would overturn Roe vs Wade just to gain votes and use it as part of his political platfrom. You've even claimed the only reason you vote Republican is to overturn Roe vs Wade. This topic has been a political weapon form the very beginning. And nothing this SCOTUS does changes the fact Roe vs Wade has been the precedent for 50 years now. Changing it doesn't make it right.

And why would you expect from others what you have not expected from yourself? We've watched you carry on about abortion being legal for how long now? But now you expect something different from the other side?

It's been ruled on by the SC. It is settled law. And yet you fight it - so you want me to live by a different standard than you live your life by?

If that ruling gets changed - I can easily live with the decision and not "cry about it" if there is a solid reason for such a ruling. Based on the draft opinion - no such reasoning has been presented yet.

Where in the hell did I do that? Did I lie... nope.... did I blackmail anybody.... NOPE If you honestly believe that anything I posted was dishonest emotional blackmail then you have to honestly believe 1+1 = 8612.2

It's not about politics at all to me. Maybe it is to you. To me it's about slaughtering innocent babies.


Your wrong bro. I said thats why I voted for Trump. I also said I would have voted for Tim Ryan if I could in the last election.


Funny I have been saying that since 1973.


I expect others to do as I do don't kill babies. No more no less, and if you knew me long enough you would know that I have been carrying on about it since 1973.