DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus SC Rulings continued

It isn't laws against women.

The Supremes didn't say abortion was illegal. They just said it isn't a right granted under the Constitution.

jc

A picture is worth a thousand words:

You seem to get your feelings hurt really quickly for someone that doesn't care about feelings.

First thing, we have a Democratic Republic, we are not a "democracy". You only vote on the people who vote for you. In a democracy you vote on the issues.

Now let's talk about COTUS. It is there to limit the power of the government, not add to it. The federal government can't (shouldn't) just make up new stuff. Roe was poorly decided. It doesn't matter how you try to slice it, it was a bad decision no matter the outcome. The Justices that decided it decided a result and then made a path to it, end means scrutiny basically. The basic foundation of this bad decision comes from a "women's privacy with her doctor". That sounds all nice, but keep in mind you don't have an expectation of privacy if you are breaking the law. At the time abortion was illegal, thus discussing it was conspiracy to commit a crime, which is not protected speech nor is there an expectation of privacy. So the privacy argument in and of itself is invalid.


Now, what the Dobbs v Jackson says is that abortion is not an constitutionally protected right, which contradicts Roe (and Casey). It is not a constitutionally protected right. It is not listed in the constitution. You won't find it there. But that's ok, there's an amendment that covers that too, the tenth. What SCOTUS did was say it isn't covered therefore the federal government shouldn't be involved, especially at a constitutional level, but 10A says send it to the states and the people. That is not extremism, that is constitutional.

You rail against fascists almost daily, but do you understand what that really means? By trying to push more and more power into the hands of a central government so the left can solidify a dictatorial hold on the government you get there. A dictatorship is a dictatorship no matter the ideology.

I'm not a "Trumpian", whatever you think that means. I am about individual rights and keeping the government out of my business. Certain things are more important to me than others, but regardless I don't need people that don't know me, and don't understand what they are talking about to try and tell me how to live my life. I do just fine without the interference.

BTW, if you stop acting like a spoiled little marxist I will stop calling you a spoiled little marxist.

That one has been posted and it either makes things up or takes them completely out of context to make nice propaganda.

It is nice how you use a marginalized group to make fun of people. You know there is likely an "ist" word the left uses when people do that.

Prove your stance or shut up like a good troll.

You're starting to sound kinda like the article SuperBrown links and drops into the Cuckoo Dems thread.

He speaks the truth. The minority is ruling over the majority and we need to settle the big issues like abortion, gun laws, religion in public schools stuff with nationwide general elections when the federal law makers are deadlocked.

I did already...

The COTUS is a mechanism to help protect the minorities rights from the majority. Just because "everyone knows" or "its commonsense" doesn't make it right and does mean people should be subjected to political whims.

And SCOTUS just settled a great deal about gun laws. Now we just have to shake the tree and get it sorted. History, Text, Tradition. That's the benchmark.

And just wait until tomorrow.. that could be an even bigger ruling...

j/c...

Then we should settle it. Legislate and do it the right way this time.

But back to my point, the (non) clever nicknames and all caps only serve to point out that he's the ying to SuperBrown's yang.

Utter insanity.

And I know you to be the kind of person who means and stands behind what he says. But I ask you, how does that diminish the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of children in the foster care system now and those who claim they are "right to life" have done nothing to help solve the problem?

So we just force women to have children in the hopes that they will now fix the foster care system? It seems as if they should have fixed the foster care system first rather than force more children into it while having done nothing to address it. We both know we haven't really heard much talk about doing that and even if we did, we know how much we can trust the words of politicians.

I was taught that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In this case they've created something needing a pound of cure without setting up any prevention.

Their goal was only to force women to have babies. They achieved their goal. Don't expect anything more from them. Same as it ever was....

A quote by Dave Barnhart, a traditional
Christian pastor:

"'The unborn" are a convenient group of people to
advocate for. They never make demands of you; they
are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated,
addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent
your condescension or complain that you are not
politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you
to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need
money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't
bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage
that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about
yourself without any work at creating or maintaining
relationships; and when they are born, you can forget
about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's
almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You
can love the unborn and advocate for them without
substantially challenging your own wealth, power,
or privilege, without reimagining social structures,
apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They
are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to
claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who
breathe.
Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor?
Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically
mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the
bus for the unborn“

What you state is a problem...stating that women are being forced to have babies is ridiculous. They are not forced to get pregnant...start there. Oh...and tag the man who brought his half to be held accountable.

Neither is gay marriage according to that ruling. I suppose you will stand behind them on that one too? You see, many things the constitution describe rights and freedoms that aren't aren't spelled out by name.

We will see the rights of many eroded but it will not impact people such as yourself so it's far more easy to rationalize and make excuses for. Then there are laws that made every attempt to protect that the right to choose my a woman were protected. And as much as people keep carrying on about "people can elect people in their state to change it". They seem to be choosing which elected officials that means. Because those in the congress and senate were also elected by people in their states...


And before anyone tries to confuse what fetal viability means...

fetal viability
The ability of a fetus to survive outside of the womb. Historically, a fetus was considered to be capable of living at the end of gestational week 20 when the mother had felt fetal movement (quickening) and the fetal heart tones could be auscultated with a fetoscope. In actuality, even with prompt and intensive neonatal support, a preterm fetus of less than 23 weeks' gestation has little chance of surviving outside of the womb.
See: viable

So what you in effect propose to support is that "if you're a woman" you only have certain rights depending on your geographic location. It sounds like a line from an infomercial. "Services and terms only apply to certain people in certain places".

That's been said for centuries. Yet it hasn't worked yet. You do realize you can't force a woman to have a baby unless she's already pregnant, right? You can start anywhere you like, but that won't change the reality of the situation.

I am going with either lazy or stupid even though I think it's both.


No we fix the foster care system because it needs fixing. Abortion or no Abortion. It's still screwed up and making kids suffer. But it will be even more important if Kids are being killed partly because of the system.



Were was that ounce of prevention when they women got preggers. (from both the mankid and the woman/girl?


Really, no I man really come on man. Personally your against abortion... WHY. IMO It's because you don't want to see innocent defenseless humans die. Right???

For the life of me I really can't understand why everybody, 9especially people who support abortion) and I mean everybody gets upset when a baby be it he/she is one day old, one week old, or 1 year old, yet they support slaughtering the baby a few months early are fine with it. To me that is insanity. Just like it is with millions of others. People keep blaming religion over, and over, and over, yet many folks who apose abortion are not even religious. Granted most of them are but for those who are not, why do those who support abortion seem to just blame it on religion 99 percent of the time?

They can't seem to grasp that those of us are feel EXACTLY like those who feel killing a 1 day old, 1 week old, 1 month old, or 1 year old is wrong. Just how would y'all feel if many people voted to approve the killing of children at any age. You would be lived, outraged, and peeved. Guess what that is EXACTLY how those of us those of us who hate abortion feel. But many of you want to bash us because we feel the same way you do. Now I dare you to take a full 30 seconds and actually FEEL what your feeling would be if you read about babies being killed by their mother (god know there are hundreds of stories out their) yet I have never ever heard any of you say well it's OK the woman shouldn't have to be saddled with that kid. NOPE you all condemn her. BUT if she does the exact same thing while that human is in the womb yep you claim THAT'S HER RIGHT. Sounds very, very Hippocratic to me.

And the USA federal government should have ZERO say in the matter.

GM… because we’re able to rationally understand that a cell clump isn’t a 1 year old child. You’re emotionally attached to a clump of cells by calling it a baby. That’s on you.

All these men making blanket statements about what is going on inside a women's body. Perhaps a little sensitivity training is in order. Women who have suffered a miscarriage or miscarriages might feel a quite a bit different about a "clump of cells" than some men do. It's okay to disagree on a the topic, but the sleaze that comes from some men who have never been pregnant or even tried to get pregnant is repugnant.

If a woman gets pregnant and is looking forward to having a child a miscarriage is devastating. The intent, desire is different.
If a woman gets pregnant and didn’t want it, a miscarriage is a blessing.

Same outcome. Two different reactions. This isn’t hard to understand.

All I have to say is the the clump of cells (fertilized egg) argument is a really slippery slope.

IUD's would be under question.
Contraception would be under question.
Invirtro fertilization would be under question.
Morning after pills would be under question.
Miscarriages would be under question.

And I have not thought too hard about this, but there are probably some that I have missed.

Frankly I hope there is enough common sense in the world to understand that there are probably times when a fertilized egg did not become a baby because that does happen.

OK the clump,of cells argument... Do you have the balls to walk up to a woman and tell her that the baby she miscarried was nothing but a clump of cells???. Come on say you would be fine with that then actually do that and film it so the rest of us can see you get slapped.

BTW way don't you explain to me why a fetus as you like to call them is described as

an unborn baby that develops and grows inside the uterus.

Whine and cry as much as you want a Fetus in considered HUMAN.


Just so everybody knows you support killing humans with no repercussions right?

Hardly.

Shut up. You are a troll. And I'm done with you. I don't believe a damn word you say. You are just another Trumpian. I've watched you go back and forth with Pit for a couple of months and now I see why he keeps after you. What a waste of time you are. Kick rocks, and don't think I'll respond to you again. You and yours like to cheat, steal, lie, and deny then call people names when they lash out. I'm no more a Marxist than Trump is. And yes, you are a fascist too.

And neither should the SCOTUS. Sadly in today's society if the government doesn't guarantee their rights, people will control their uterus. Even people and especially people that don't even have a uterus.

We shouldn't have to settle anything, it was settled for 50 years. Now stick your ying in your yang.

I am against abortion on a personal level. That's my belief system. But let me tell you what is also a part of my belief system. Not imposing my belief system, mainly invoked by my religious convictions, on others. I also do not believe a being that can not sustain its own life outside the womb can legally be called a baby by any legal standard no matter my personal beliefs to the contrary. So often times I don't allow "what I feel or believe" for me to use it as a reason to force other people or to inflict those beliefs and feelings on others.

You see, as much as I believe in my rights of freedom of religion, I also believe in the rights of others to have freedom from religion. And my religious convictions are most certainly the main driving point as to why I oppose abortion on a personal level.

Ok, Super Jr.

My point is that it might be kinder to be more sensitive about a women's fetus. Again, I am not saying to change your stance on abortion, but I know for a fact how miscarriages can emotionally affect women.

I just don't get the historical precedence angle to rights ingrained in the constitution.

By that logic, any civil rights (i.e. Brown versus Board of Education) should be overturned as well.

Constitutional originalism is dangerous reasoning.

Posting this again as you must have missed it or just not wanted to accept it’s basis in reality.

If a woman gets pregnant and is looking forward to having a child a miscarriage is devastating. The intent, desire is different. I can understand their pain.
If a woman gets pregnant and didn’t want it, a miscarriage is a blessing. I can understand their relief. Can you?

Same outcome. Two different reactions. This isn’t hard to understand.

Guess what Bro the Scotos does not control abortion now. The states do. So why are you complaining to them?????? Why are you not concentrating on States????

I call BS bro

Are you against killing one month old babies...... are you against killing 3 month old babies, how about killing 6 month old babies... I know you. Where you have drawn the line is at birth, that's where we disagree bro. I know you. I know you have a good heart, and that you care about other people. That is not even a question with me. Where we disagree is before the baby passes the birth canal.

It's easier to understand than 1+1

You support killing humans before they are born. It's simple. easy and everybody sees it. Just admit it and be done with it.