DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus SC Rulings continued

Nice post.

Actually, it's even worse... it's all 3.

LMAO OK bro please tell me who I have voted for in my life. For some strange silly reason you keep insisting I'm a GOPer, even though I am not, and have said so over, over, and over again on the boards. You and many others on both sides like to insist somebody is a member of one party or another when they are not. Let me repeat this again and type slowly so you can understand. I am not a member of ANY party. I am like a slalom skier. Right on some subjects, and left on others. Some like abortion FAR right. Some like Social Social Security, medicare, medicaid, I'm far left. Many other subjects I'm pretty much down the middle or lean one way or the other.


Your losing it Portland. Once again I have posted on here many times that I am for many of the social programs the GOP is a against, and that I disagree with laws that ban abortion when the mothers life and health are involved as well as exceptions for rape and or incest.

Now for your last comments ROTFLMFAO yep it's all my fault. What's next are you going to say I am responsible for the Manson murders. Maybe it's my fault that Albert Fish, Boone Helm, Andrei Chikatilo, and Jeffrey Dahmer, killed and ate their victims.

I don’t have to see your ballot. You’ve openly claimed to be a one policy voter. Against abortion. You don’t get to claim being for social programs when we all know that only one side is against abortion. And that same side is against funding social programs. So if you’ve voted for the antiabortion candidates you’ve voted against those things you claim to be for. You don’t get to have it both ways.

This truly is one for Diam’s 1+ 1=2.

Funny many states have laws against murdering children in the womb. Punch a woman in the stomach and kill her baby in 38 states and you will get charged with murder. Take Alaska for example the punishment is "The law provides that a defendant convicted of murder in the second degree or murder of an unborn child shall be sentenced to a definite term of imprisonment of at least 10 years but no more than 99 years. The law does not apply to acts that cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during a legal abortion to which the pregnant woman consented or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf consented, or for which such consent is implied by law. Like I said 38 states. 29 of those States have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy "any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"


Oh I almost forgot. Breath in, breath out. Breath in, breath out. That's for reminding me.

LOL tell me buddy. Just what do you and Portland do to solve this problem. To turn the tables on Portland... Just how many of those kids has he adopted? and you know damn well I never blamed the rise of crime on Dems. Unlike way to many others around here I don't lump everybody into one group and blame them for all the countries problems.

*Hands Portland a box of q-tips*
Clean out your ears my friend. I voted for Trump the first time ONLY because I hated both candidates, and that's what my decision came down to. The one that at least had one idea I agree with. That was the only time abortion was the deciding factor in my vote. 1 time out of 11, and that was the Presidential election. Now since you want to act like Miss Cleo tell, me who did I vote for for U.S. senators and U.S. representatives? governor, lieutenant governor, general assembly, attorney general, auditor general, state treasurer. I mean come on of your going to claim you know who I voted for and why I voted for them lets see your list.

I’m done with you and this conversation. I find your stance gross. I have my personal reasons why I only see your stance as creating more undue suffering. I’m not going to go into it in this forum but the pre RvW laws brought a lifetime of suffering to my family.

Just know I’ll fight this garbage until the end so that more families don’t have to suffer as mine did/continues to do.

A couple of points:

You say it shouldn't be a man's decision but society has a whole benefits or is reduced by the decision. Also women don't get pregnant in a vacuum. I think this is another one of those very tricky to sort out things due to this. And when you say it not any mans (sic) decision do you mean individually (in specific abortion cases) or do you mean legally (from a court point of view) or do you mean in a "mankind" sort of way which includes all humans? I am trying to get clarity on your statement with this question.

As far as "rights granted from the government". Rights are not granted from the government, you either have the right or you don't. Some rights are protected in the US Constitution, some rights are protected in the various state constitutions or in relevant laws. Anything granted by the government is a privilege and can also be revoked by the government. An argument could be made that abortion was actually a privilege if it could be made illegal so easily. I do agree it is not a federally protected right, I am not entirely sure I agree it is a right (but I will always err on in that direction in regards to rights and freedoms). It does really make things tricky.

We have had an equality issue in this country. We haven't solved it completely but we are pretty far along on it, though at times people move the goal posts.

From my recollection you stated plainly that you voted Republican for president strictly based on the abortion issue. That you were a single issue voter when it came to president for the sole purpose of getting enough SCOTUS appointees to overturn Roe vs Wade.

The blaming dems for crtime statement I meant "they" in a general sense. It wasn't aimed at you directly. Sorry for the confusion. I should have made that clearer.

And in case you missed it, Portland nor myself are pro birth that wished to inflict our own moral, religious or personal beliefs on others. It is those such as yourself that demand pro birth be law. So it's only logical to point out that those who claim to be pro life aren't even stepping up to the plate now to help all of those children that need and deserve a home. If people are actually pro life and not just pro birth, they would be. They're not. If I was actually advocating forced birth I would certainly feel a sense of responsibility to step up to the plate. Either that or I would have to admit that I don't really care about them after they're born so long as they're born.

j/c

Mississippi lawmaker asked about a hypothetical 12-year-old child molested by a family member says they should have to carry that pregnancy to term

https://news.yahoo.com/mississippi-lawmaker-asked-hypothetical-12-024501527.html

People should be careful what they wish for. Oh, that's right, too late.

ONE time and I told everybody why. Because both candidates sucked and I didn't want either one to be President. However one of them had to win, so I voted for the one that might save unborn babies. Jeez you guys act like that is the only reason I vote.
Now point out any other election in my lifetime where I voted for anybody based solely on one single issue.

Fight away bro. It's our right and I have never said you shouldn't fight for what you believe is right. Have a good day, and I'm sorry about your family member or Friend whichever it was.

As I said that was my recollection. If you'll also notice that's the only and single time I said that I recalled you saying you voted Republican for president. I didn't say what you think I said.

No problem about the confusion


Now about the personal beliefs. There are so any laws that restrict what we can do with our bodies that it's not funny. Yep you don't hear a peep about most of them from anybody. Abortion however winds must of us up one way or the other. Now if abortion was just about the mothers body I would agree with you guys/gals that disagree with me. However the difference in this situation is that a innocent, helpless baby is involved. You/i/others have no problem with laws that punish mothers for killing their kids after they are born. So why do you/I/ others have the right to force our beliefs on those mothers who don't see anything wrong with it?

BTW you know I don't agree with those who won't stand up for Children. Be they Dems, republicans, or independants, and I admit it seems like most of them are on the right, not the left. I have never denied that. However so many posters want to lump everybody into one group instead of taking everybody as individuals.

I don’t want your “sorry”. It holds no value from you as you continue to vote to heap the kind of grief and sorrow my family has felt for over 5 decades onto other families. Your attempt to absolve yourself by being “sorry” rings hollow.
Don’t bother addressing me again on this subject.

In non abortion news.

It looks like NY State is going to try and double down on stupid and is trying to introduce measures to keep its citizens from exercising the right to bear they were just told they had to allow.

They might even try to replace "good cause" with "good moral character"; subjective for subjective.

They are also wanting to expand "sensitive places" and a whole host of things the court already said "no" to. The upside is this could cause politicians in NY to lose qualified immunity which means people could sue the directly.

Should be interesting to watch.

It's never to late. The people of Mississippi can vote this guy out of office if they want to, and that's a good thing. Maybe this subject will wake folks up, and get them more involved in voting in guys/ladies who will make laws more their liking. ell I want Ohio's abortion laws as they stand today changed still. I don't agree with denying an abortion in the case of rape/incest.

Sounds like the shirts the sell at my local watering hole. "I'm not as think as you drunk I am"

Interesting statement
Admittedly I haven't tried very hard, but not coming up with many.
Making certain recreational drugs illegal is the only one. And that is illegal to protect people from the predatory nature of the drug dealer. Most don't know the addictive nature of these drugs until it is too late.

What other ones are you thinking of?

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I can't think of any other law about choices with medical care or a persons right to choose what medical care to get that you may be speaking about unless it involves an illegal medications.


Because that is "our belief". Many do not share that belief. And I can't see anyone forcing mothers that share our view being forced into getting abortions. They have the right not to get one. You and I have different beliefs than others. We have that right. However, I don't see it any different than gay marriage. If you don't like it or approve of it, don't get gay married. I break it down to this. Just because I see a fetus as an unborn baby does not give me the right to force my personal opinion on the matter upon others. Factually stated a fetus can not sustain its own life. While I may not agree with it, there is what is called the viability of a fetus. That is the point at which it can sustain its own life. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it but I also understand the concept of why some do.


I certainly do know that. But it's hard for me to hear people say "Well I agree with this part but not the other part". The fact of the matter is if you advocate anti-abortion there's a lot of trappings that surround that. States that refuse to make exceptions for incest and rape. States that will force children to now give birth. And as you said putting decisions in the hands of people who will not advocate properly caring for these children after they are born.

I was raised that "If you're in for an ounce, you're in for a pound". In this case I think that is quite appropriate. Sure, you get what you wanted but in that same package you're getting a lot of things you didn't want. When you advocate accepting or promoting something, you're also responsible for the repercussions that go along with it. It's too late to pick and choose afterwords.

The basic question is: Does the individual carrying (insert term of choice) have the right as an individual to terminate as a conscientious decision.

This is a fundamental question: Where do the rights of the individual end and that of the government to regulate begin?

I have made my position known previously that the only other person (individual) that may have an input with regard to this right would be the corresponding person (individual) that would be recognized at the biological parent. That is a broader interpretation than normally associated with the abortion subject, but I think that will come into discussion eventually. The answer is probably no, but could be yes.

Yes, women don't get pregnant in a vacuum. Sometimes they are raped, become pregnant through incest, experience the failure of birth control method. Sometime they spend a lot of money to become pregnant and then have to terminate the extra (insert term of choice) in order to assure their own life (and others) is not at risk. The person can make a poor decision, or be forced into a different decision because of unforeseen circumstances, such as the relationship changed once the pregnancy became known to the other. Sometimes the (insert term of choice) is not going to be healthy. Those are the few of the things that can happen.

At the most basic level as stated in the Declaration rights are inalienable. (Yes, I know that is not part of the constitution, but is an undeniable tenant of the subsequent formation of our constitution as stated in the preamble). When ascribed into the constitution this becomes the basis for all subsequent laws and regulations.

I will also point out again, the 9th amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." My position is that this is a right within certain limitations, not a privilege.

I believe at my very core that the Alito decision was flawed. You can't on one hand acknowledge that gravity of the subject of abortion which under consideration by the Supreme Court, then say in effect, nah, we will let the States figure it out. That is lame. That does not do anything to "insure domestic Tranquility". It is dismissive to those who believe that this is a right. I would have rather had a definitive rebuttal with some better logic, than the twisted logic and poor reasoning offered by the court.

Those who concurred with the Alito decision failed their constitutional duty at the most fundamental level.

I believe this subject will be revisited and wish for a better outcome.

I do not disagree about being revisited. I think it is almost certainty, political partisanship notwithstanding. This is the sort of debate that has so very many substiles that will make new and different questions for the court. Getting the issue back to the states is likely the right first step, after that the questions can be more incremental in approach. Roe was really broad ruling, this ruling corrected that, though it might be a step too far. I do think smaller steps would have been better.

As I predicted.

j/c...

More potential great news from this unbalanced and politically motivated SC.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/24/scotus-roe-wade-decision-what-happens-next

I can list a few real quick for you. Family emergency last night and we have both grandkids right now so I will only be around for a few minutes. (Didn't want folks to think I was ignoring them)

You mentioned drugs already. Hey it's people's bodies how dare the government tell us what we can and can't do. Wanna charge somebody 100 bucks for sex.... no can do,
Wanna walk around naked... hey it's your body.. but once again nope.
Wanna sell your kidney, or part of your liver.... also a no no.
Assisted suicide..... na not legal either.
Wanna drink and drive... naa not allowed either even if you drove home just fine.
Wanna smoke outside.... in some places that's illegal too. EVen if nobody is within 100 yards of you.
It's illegal to not wear a seatbelt. Hey it's my body what gives.

That's a few off the top of my head. I have not had time to try to look anything up. But I will this weekend.

Take it or don't. I'm still sorry that your hurting over whatever is going on. I meant it as a friend, and wasn't trying to absolve myself of anything. So yes I'm sorry that your feeling so much grief and sorrow.

Bite me… and don’t count me as a friend.

Disgusting...

Murica!

1st, hope everything turned out okay with the family emergency
2nd, I reiterate - interesting point
3rd, the libertarians would argue that all those things should be legal


Rebuttal to those examples:

The drinking and driving, the smoking around people, and the walking around naked are there to protect other people.
Drugs, seatbelt, assisted suicide are there to protect you, even if only from yourself.
The seatbelt is also a condition of a privilege.

The selling your kidney or part of your liver is an interesting one. People are certainly allowed to donate their kidney or part of their liver. This would be one I don't understand.


Counter question. You are clearly against abortion.
With the examples you gave, would you support those being legalized?
Do you think weed should be legalized? Cocaine? Heroin? Meth?
Should prostitution?
Should drunk driving be allowed?
Do you really want to see me walking around naked?
etc

I nearly fell into this trap earlier. GM has been baiting people ( in a nice way).... He's going to tell you abortion affects other people too (the 8 weeknold cluster of cells he calls a child)

As a pro-choice person, this clump of cells argument in the way it's been described here is the most deceiving, disgusting, beta argument ever. Have the testicular fortitude (I say this because it is primarily men on here) and accept what you are doing and promoting. You are willing to kill a human life based on your current situation. That's it...Nothing more and I accept the various reasons why a women want to kill human life. People using the guise of clump cells are justifying it to themselves to feel better in the political space.

I get there are circumstances regarding a pregnancy that should be taken into consideration and we should be sensitive to those situations. But we had someone on here not too long ago, an apparent healthcare professional, state....'well how do we know those clump of cells won't become a frog?'. Maybe the amphibian in question is incorrect but the point stands. These are, unfortunately, the views of some healthcare folks, they are not omniscient and can be driven by political motives as much as anyone.

Who are you to pass judgement over another person’s decision?

If you were not aware, most contraceptive works by not allowing an environment that will allow further development. That slope gets slippery real fast..

Good points
IUD and birth control pills are soon to be attacked.

Sperm has the potential to become a human. It is a live human cell.
Next masturbation becomes illegal.

Seems to me that the people who are pro-abortion are doing way more of passing judgement on another's decision. Some of these comments are outright gross.

Sperm in and of itself does not have the potential. This is a disingenuous argument at best.

Some religions do have things to say about it, but I don't care what they say.

LOl...pretty telling...oh well.