Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

If someone is arguing from the perspective that women don’t know what they want or their feelings/motivations for the decision are irrelevant, than yes, the nuance is lacking regardless of ‘side’. In a human issue, if the ‘why’ isn’t even being discussed, side ceases to matter. It’s just ignorance at that point.

I'm talking across the spectrum, You like to claim nuance in the arguments that you are making, but I don't know if I have ever seen you cede it to the other side of the argument. Just my observation.

You have a few hundred posts here whereas I’ve been around almost twenty years, so your observation is a little lacking in sample size I guess.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

You are all over the place.

Based on your last sentence, you are OK if it has to be done by due date. If the mother says she doesn't want to on due date, then, its over.

Pretty black and white to me.

On the contrary, all of us who have expressed a negative view on Roe in this thread, are very grey, since we believe (most of us) that rape, incest, and the health of the mother can be an exception.

Who is black and white then? That's a fairly moderate view.

All over the place? Can you be more specific?

In the last sentence ‘have one’ refers to an abortion, not a child. Read it over and over again until that sinks in. Literally the paragraph before I clearly said I don’t support voluntary abortion after medically-designated viability - that’s minimum 12 weeks before due date dude.

Thanks for the clarification.

You are grey then. However, most of the other pro-choice posters aren't. They as you have read have stated or implied there shouldn't be any limits.

None of us on the right have said there shouldn't be NO abortions. We are grey. So no, its not us being part of the black and white group.

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

I'm talking across the spectrum, You like to claim nuance in the arguments that you are making, but I don't know if I have ever seen you cede it to the other side of the argument. Just my observation.

You have a few hundred posts here whereas I’ve been around almost twenty years, so your observation is a little lacking in sample size I guess.

I have been around for at least five years, I have seen plenty of your posts to make that observation.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

All over the place? Can you be more specific?

In the last sentence ‘have one’ refers to an abortion, not a child. Read it over and over again until that sinks in. Literally the paragraph before I clearly said I don’t support voluntary abortion after medically-designated viability - that’s minimum 12 weeks before due date dude.

Thanks for the clarification.

You are grey then. However, most of the other pro-choice posters aren't. They as you have read have stated or implied there shouldn't be any limits.

None of us on the right have said there shouldn't be NO abortions. We are grey. So no, its not us being part of the black and white group.

Sorry I don’t consider making the feelings or motivations of women irrelevant ‘grey’ - that was my whole point about the difference between how people live real life and making this a black/white thing.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Thanks for the clarification.

You are grey then. However, most of the other pro-choice posters aren't. They as you have read have stated or implied there shouldn't be any limits.

None of us on the right have said there shouldn't be NO abortions. We are grey. So no, its not us being part of the black and white group.

Sorry I don’t consider making the feelings or motivations of women irrelevant ‘grey’ - that was my whole point about the difference between how people live real life and making this a black/white thing.

Well, that's your prerogative. I also don't consider the lives of the innocent unborn irrelevant. We all have different viewpoints, even if we would like to dismiss the others as bad just because you might not like it.

I can think millions of things from the people who are in favor of unlimited on demand abortion, but I won't just dismiss them as bad people. Just people with different opinions. There was a time when we learned to be tolerant of different viewpoints and agree to disagree.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

You are all over the place.

Based on your last sentence, you are OK if it has to be done by due date. If the mother says she doesn't want to on due date, then, its over.

Pretty black and white to me.

On the contrary, all of us who have expressed a negative view on Roe in this thread, are very grey, since we believe (most of us) that rape, incest, and the health of the mother can be an exception.

Who is black and white then? That's a fairly moderate view.

All over the place? Can you be more specific?

In the last sentence ‘have one’ refers to an abortion, not a child. Read it over and over again until that sinks in. Literally the paragraph before I clearly said I don’t support voluntary abortion after medically-designated viability - that’s minimum 12 weeks before due date dude.

Thanks for the clarification.

You are grey then. However, most of the other pro-choice posters aren't. They as you have read have stated or implied there shouldn't be any limits.

None of us on the right have said there shouldn't be NO abortions. We are grey. So no, its not us being part of the black and white group.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Sorry I don’t consider making the feelings or motivations of women irrelevant ‘grey’ - that was my whole point about the difference between how people live real life and making this a black/white thing.

Well, that's your prerogative. I also don't consider the lives of the innocent unborn irrelevant. We all have different viewpoints, even if we would like to dismiss the others as bad just because you might not like it.

I can think millions of things from the people who are in favor of unlimited on demand abortion, but I won't just dismiss them as bad people. Just people with different opinions. There was a time when we learned to be tolerant of different viewpoints and agree to disagree.

I can’t ‘agree to disagree’ when people are trying to enforce that there’s only one correct way to live or make life decisions. Women have a hard enough life in most places without that shit.

It’s fine if people have feelings about the unborn, but until there is established consensus on when life begins, there is no basis for hard legislation/criminalization of that choice so long as its made with proper medical consultation.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Well, that's your prerogative. I also don't consider the lives of the innocent unborn irrelevant. We all have different viewpoints, even if we would like to dismiss the others as bad just because you might not like it.

I can think millions of things from the people who are in favor of unlimited on demand abortion, but I won't just dismiss them as bad people. Just people with different opinions. There was a time when we learned to be tolerant of different viewpoints and agree to disagree.

I can’t ‘agree to disagree’ when people are trying to enforce that there’s only one correct way to live or make life decisions. Women have a hard enough life in most places without that shit.

It’s fine if people have feelings about the unborn, but until there is established consensus on when life begins, there is no basis for hard legislation/criminalization of that choice so long as its made with proper medical consultation.

Your first sentence is very black/white.
Your last is pretty grey.

I don't know why its so hard to be consistent, the ones against Roe have been pretty consistent, pretty much for almost 50 years now.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

I can’t ‘agree to disagree’ when people are trying to enforce that there’s only one correct way to live or make life decisions. Women have a hard enough life in most places without that shit.

It’s fine if people have feelings about the unborn, but until there is established consensus on when life begins, there is no basis for hard legislation/criminalization of that choice so long as its made with proper medical consultation.

Your first sentence is very black/white.
Your last is pretty grey.

I don't know why its so hard to be consistent, the ones against Roe have been pretty consistent, pretty much for almost 50 years now.

Those two sentences are within the same larger context, and in relation to one another, are completely consistent. Since there is no medical/biological consensus that establishes a reason to restrict abortion more strictly than the viability criteria in Roe, there is no logical basis for limiting people's freedoms only based on feelings.

Roe set three important precedents: the beginning of life cannot be resolved in court with evidence of scientific consensus, abortion cannot be an unlimited exercise and states can reasonably regulate it, and regulations should take medical opinion on fetal viability into account.

bpatus297 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Attention Protestors....



https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ce-houses/

LOL You people murdered doctors, blew up clinics, and bombed the Olympics, never mind endless additional attempts on lives, perpetual harassment, and doxing of care providers and recipients. Tough to find a more violent group of people than the pro life crowd.

But go on tell us about peaceful protesting.

Those are not my people, I am against those acts, but could you imagine if a conservative said "you people"!?!? Could you imagine the outrage that would be had. BTW, this is rhetorical, I know you wont agree/

DIRECTFLT wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Attention Protestors....



https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ce-houses/

LOL You people murdered doctors, blew up clinics, and bombed the Olympics, never mind endless additional attempts on lives, perpetual harassment, and doxing of care providers and recipients. Tough to find a more violent group of people than the pro life crowd.

But go on tell us about peaceful protesting.

Senate passes bill to boost security for Supreme Court

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-con ... 5fc06540b6

The bipartisan bill, which passed by voice vote with no objections, did not provide additional funding, which could come later. But it aims to put the court on par with the executive and legislative branches, making certain the nine justices are provided security as some protesters have gathered outside their homes. The bill now moves to the House for its consideration.

It's about Judges... which actually IS a world of difference from all of the side issues you just enumerated.
Try to keep on topic about a story about Judges...

Clutch101 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

LOL You people murdered doctors, blew up clinics, and bombed the Olympics, never mind endless additional attempts on lives, perpetual harassment, and doxing of care providers and recipients. Tough to find a more violent group of people than the pro life crowd.

But go on tell us about peaceful protesting.

Senate passes bill to boost security for Supreme Court

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-con ... 5fc06540b6

The bipartisan bill, which passed by voice vote with no objections, did not provide additional funding, which could come later. But it aims to put the court on par with the executive and legislative branches, making certain the nine justices are provided security as some protesters have gathered outside their homes. The bill now moves to the House for its consideration.

It's about Judges... which actually IS a world of difference from all of the side issues you just enumerated.
Try to keep on topic about a story about Judges...

Yeah, c'mon Maverick. We're not talking about the doctors, nurses, clinic help, innocent bystanders blown to bits by the anti-abortion activists. You know, the "littler people" We're talking about judges, JUDGES! The beer drinking, handmaid tale followers who make decisions for us. Seriously, what is it about people from Texas? Lastly, DIRECTFLT, are you trying to take over ArchGuy1 shtick? Oh, when you're talking about the left and violence, yeah..
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... c-killers/

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Your first sentence is very black/white.
Your last is pretty grey.

I don't know why its so hard to be consistent, the ones against Roe have been pretty consistent, pretty much for almost 50 years now.

Those two sentences are within the same larger context, and in relation to one another, are completely consistent. Since there is no medical/biological consensus that establishes a reason to restrict abortion more strictly than the viability criteria in Roe, there is no logical basis for limiting people's freedoms only based on feelings.

Roe set three important precedents: the beginning of life cannot be resolved in court with evidence of scientific consensus, abortion cannot be an unlimited exercise and states can reasonably regulate it, and regulations should take medical opinion on fetal viability into account.

Ok, pretty soon, and very likely Roe is going to be overturned. Any legal argument will soon fade, Roe will be in the same league as Dred Scott.

Therefore, it will be a state issue, unless congress does something. But something tells me that even if Congress does something, it will fall to the states anyways. Even if Congress does something to appease either the left or right.

The obvious solution will be a constitutional amendment if you want this federally protected.

That's the discussion we are to have very soon.

MaverickM11 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

LOL You people murdered doctors, blew up clinics, and bombed the Olympics, never mind endless additional attempts on lives, perpetual harassment, and doxing of care providers and recipients. Tough to find a more violent group of people than the pro life crowd.

But go on tell us about peaceful protesting.

Those are not my people, I am against those acts, but could you imagine if a conservative said "you people"!?!? Could you imagine the outrage that would be had. BTW, this is rhetorical, I know you wont agree/

*You people* just started calling all LGBTQ people and supporters pedophiles, so you can stop with the righteous feigned anger and take a long hard look in the mirror.

Really? Care to show me where that is true of myself? Care to show links where conservatives are supporting pedophiles? I don't need to take a look in the mirror, I know what's in my heart of heart. Your "you people" and other lumping people you don't know into categories tells me everything I need to know about you.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

LOL You people murdered doctors, blew up clinics, and bombed the Olympics, never mind endless additional attempts on lives, perpetual harassment, and doxing of care providers and recipients. Tough to find a more violent group of people than the pro life crowd.

But go on tell us about peaceful protesting.

Senate passes bill to boost security for Supreme Court

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-con ... 5fc06540b6

The bipartisan bill, which passed by voice vote with no objections, did not provide additional funding, which could come later. But it aims to put the court on par with the executive and legislative branches, making certain the nine justices are provided security as some protesters have gathered outside their homes. The bill now moves to the House for its consideration.

It's about Judges... which actually IS a world of difference from all of the side issues you just enumerated.
Try to keep on topic about a story about Judges...

The morbidly funny thing is the Supreme Court struck down a "buffer zone" around abortion clinics in 2014 which was instituted because of increased threats and violence from the right, up to and including murder and bombings. Protections for me--from peaceful protesters--but not for thee--from violent conservatives, as always.

Clutch101 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Senate passes bill to boost security for Supreme Court

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-con ... 5fc06540b6



It's about Judges... which actually IS a world of difference from all of the side issues you just enumerated.
Try to keep on topic about a story about Judges...

Yeah, c'mon Maverick. We're not talking about the doctors, nurses, clinic help, innocent bystanders blown to bits by the anti-abortion activists. You know, the "littler people" We're talking about judges, JUDGES! The beer drinking, handmaid tale followers who make decisions for us. Seriously, what is it about people from Texas? Lastly, DIRECTFLT, are you trying to take over ArchGuy1 shtick? Oh, when you're talking about the left and violence, yeah..
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... c-killers/

The people murdering doctors and blowing up clinics and passing laws to run over protesters are obviously very concerned about life.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Those two sentences are within the same larger context, and in relation to one another, are completely consistent. Since there is no medical/biological consensus that establishes a reason to restrict abortion more strictly than the viability criteria in Roe, there is no logical basis for limiting people's freedoms only based on feelings.

Roe set three important precedents: the beginning of life cannot be resolved in court with evidence of scientific consensus, abortion cannot be an unlimited exercise and states can reasonably regulate it, and regulations should take medical opinion on fetal viability into account.

Ok, pretty soon, and very likely Roe is going to be overturned. Any legal argument will soon fade, Roe will be in the same league as Dred Scott.

Therefore, it will be a state issue, unless congress does something. But something tells me that even if Congress does something, it will fall to the states anyways. Even if Congress does something to appease either the left or right.

The obvious solution will be a constitutional amendment if you want this federally protected.

That's the discussion we are to have very soon.

Yeah and that's this whole discussion basically - the overturn is BS because Roe has been politicized into something more than what it actually says. It says abortion is not unlimited and it says states can regulate it reasonably. Women have agency over the first stages of their pregnancies because of it, and changing that will be a massive rollback of their personal freedoms, with no evidence-based basis for doing so.

A constitutional amendment is out of the question in this day and age due to the 3/4 state lege ratification requirement.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Ok, pretty soon, and very likely Roe is going to be overturned. Any legal argument will soon fade, Roe will be in the same league as Dred Scott.

Therefore, it will be a state issue, unless congress does something. But something tells me that even if Congress does something, it will fall to the states anyways. Even if Congress does something to appease either the left or right.

The obvious solution will be a constitutional amendment if you want this federally protected.

That's the discussion we are to have very soon.

Yeah and that's this whole discussion basically - the overturn is BS because Roe has been politicized into something more than what it actually says. It says abortion is not unlimited and it says states can regulate it reasonably. Women have agency over the first stages of their pregnancies because of it, and changing that will be a massive rollback of their personal freedoms, with no evidence-based basis for doing so.

A constitutional amendment is out of the question in this day and age due to the 3/4 state lege ratification requirement.

Like I mentioned and you have seen. Abortion isn't a topic of people's concern. Its 2022, many many contraception methods exist for women, and also men. Abortion has been in a decline because of that in recent years.

Kent350787 wrote:

Clutch101 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

I just wonder what Medical insurance and health care will look like in the pro life states. Especially with bans on many drugs used to treat issues related to menstrual cycles.

See that’s the problem. People don’t read the “fine print” all they see is save the cells! They have no idea what kind of drain on the system this will take on their, yours and mine wallet. God help the southern states, as bad off as they are now I can just see us normal northern people having to help out even more.

Also pointing out, yet again, that making abortion illegal isn't the most effective means of reducing the abortion rate. It is most effective at crimalising women.

bpatus297 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Those are not my people, I am against those acts, but could you imagine if a conservative said "you people"!?!? Could you imagine the outrage that would be had. BTW, this is rhetorical, I know you wont agree/

*You people* just started calling all LGBTQ people and supporters pedophiles, so you can stop with the righteous feigned anger and take a long hard look in the mirror.

Really? Care to show me where that is true of myself? Care to show links where conservatives are supporting pedophiles? I don't need to take a look in the mirror, I know what's in my heart of heart. Your "you people" and other lumping people you don't know into categories tells me everything I need to know about you.

MaverickM11 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

*You people* just started calling all LGBTQ people and supporters pedophiles, so you can stop with the righteous feigned anger and take a long hard look in the mirror.

Really? Care to show me where that is true of myself? Care to show links where conservatives are supporting pedophiles? I don't need to take a look in the mirror, I know what's in my heart of heart. Your "you people" and other lumping people you don't know into categories tells me everything I need to know about you.

No one said anything about conservatives supporting pedophiles but rather labeling all LGBTQ people and supporters as pedophiles. It is wall to wall on Fox, conservative media, and GOP leadership.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Like I mentioned and you have seen. Abortion isn't a topic of people's concern. Its 2022, many many contraception methods exist for women, and also men. Abortion has been in a decline because of that in recent years.

This is a subject that we on the political right or political left like to argue about, but its not a real life issue that will all of the sudden roll us back to the dark ages. There are a lot of free, cheap and accessible solutions for those women that don't want to be pregnant.

Probably it was 50 years ago, but this issue is fading and once the ruling is announced I doubt anyone will really care. If Alabama prohibits, they will fly to CA, IL or NY to get one if that's what a woman truly wants.

bpatus297 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

No one said anything about conservatives supporting pedophiles but rather labeling all LGBTQ people and supporters as pedophiles. It is wall to wall on Fox, conservative media, and GOP leadership.

I haven't seen blanket statements from conservative media or GOP leadership like you claiming, I have seen individual idiots spouting off ignorant and hateful things, but nothing that suggests conservative media and GOP leadership support them. Again, links would be helpful. Sounds like a nice Dem talking point though.

MaverickM11 wrote:

LOL You people murdered doctors, blew up clinics, and bombed the Olympics, never mind endless additional attempts on lives, perpetual harassment, and doxing of care providers and recipients. Tough to find a more violent group of people than the pro life crowd.

But go on tell us about peaceful protesting.

victrola wrote:

I'm sick of the situation in this country where a small minority of narrow minded religious fanatics are able to impose their views on the rest of the country. I bet if you passed a national law allowing abortions in the first trimester and later in cases of rape, incest or, where the pregnant woman's life is in danger, it would receive the support of the vast majority of Americans. But no, we have to have a system where the majority is held hostage by the tyranny of a minority.

FlapOperator wrote:

First, why does it need to be a national law? If your vision does in fact reflect the "vast majority of Americans" it will be reflected in the vast majority of state legislatures.

bgm wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

First, why does it need to be a national law? If your vision does in fact reflect the "vast majority of Americans" it will be reflected in the vast majority of state legislatures.

This is unfortunately not true. Due to extreme gerrymandering and all sorts of voter restriction laws, the state legislatures will be vastly skewed towards the GOP.

FlapOperator wrote:

bgm wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

First, why does it need to be a national law? If your vision does in fact reflect the "vast majority of Americans" it will be reflected in the vast majority of state legislatures.

This is unfortunately not true. Due to extreme gerrymandering and all sorts of voter restriction laws, the state legislatures will be vastly skewed towards the GOP.

NY, IL and CA are functionally single party states, are they not? That's like 1 in 5 Americans right there.

At the end of the day, districts are approved by judiciary, are they not?

Voter laws are also subject to judicial review, are they not?

In an US style democracy, everyone is better served by these issues being legislative ones, versus judicial or executive ones. The US already has way too power invested in its executive.

casinterest wrote:

If you want to live in a cowardly theocracy where individual rights are trampled by religion, then go move to Saudi Arabia. Do not argue for "Individual state" laws that deny basic rights to human beings based on bad science and fake religions.

MaverickM11 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

No one said anything about conservatives supporting pedophiles but rather labeling all LGBTQ people and supporters as pedophiles. It is wall to wall on Fox, conservative media, and GOP leadership.

I haven't seen blanket statements from conservative media or GOP leadership like you claiming, I have seen individual idiots spouting off ignorant and hateful things, but nothing that suggests conservative media and GOP leadership support them. Again, links would be helpful. Sounds like a nice Dem talking point though.

You're either clueless or being intentionally obtuse.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... democrats/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... ry-twitter

https://thenevadaindependent.com/articl ... is-groomer

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/07/opin ... g-gay.html

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-ne ... -the-news/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... ?gnt-cfr=1

FlapOperator wrote:

At the end of the day, districts are approved by judiciary, are they not?

Voter laws are also subject to judicial review, are they not?

bpatus297 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

I haven't seen blanket statements from conservative media or GOP leadership like you claiming, I have seen individual idiots spouting off ignorant and hateful things, but nothing that suggests conservative media and GOP leadership support them. Again, links would be helpful. Sounds like a nice Dem talking point though.

You're either clueless or being intentionally obtuse.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... democrats/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... ry-twitter

https://thenevadaindependent.com/articl ... is-groomer

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/07/opin ... g-gay.html

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-ne ... -the-news/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... ?gnt-cfr=1

So some dumb idiotic comments from a couple cooks (MGT included) and opinion pieces equates to conservative media and the GOP leadership?

bgm wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

At the end of the day, districts are approved by judiciary, are they not?

Voter laws are also subject to judicial review, are they not?

Yes, but does the judicial review reflect the majority?

bpatus297 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

I haven't seen blanket statements from conservative media or GOP leadership like you claiming, I have seen individual idiots spouting off ignorant and hateful things, but nothing that suggests conservative media and GOP leadership support them. Again, links would be helpful. Sounds like a nice Dem talking point though.

You're either clueless or being intentionally obtuse.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... democrats/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... ry-twitter

https://thenevadaindependent.com/articl ... is-groomer

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/07/opin ... g-gay.html

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-ne ... -the-news/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... ?gnt-cfr=1

So some dumb idiotic comments from a couple cooks (MGT included) and opinion pieces equates to conservative media and the GOP leadership?

FlapOperator wrote:

bgm wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

At the end of the day, districts are approved by judiciary, are they not?

Voter laws are also subject to judicial review, are they not?

Yes, but does the judicial review reflect the majority?

Perhaps, as a political question.

But the system and the law isn't that the judiciary leads the discussion. Its that the legislators do the hard work of making a law.

Ideally, in a federal system, that is done as close to the effected populations as possible. North America is fascinating, because you can see a federal dominated process in Canada, and a somewhat balanced process in the US.

This leaked decision(as corrosive in and of itself) seems intended to punt the political decision back to the states.

As a person whose done Peace Studies work both academically and professionally, I have to laugh at the process, in a completely positive way.

skyservice_330 wrote:

No true Scotsman! You see, they aren't 'real' conservatives.

FlapOperator wrote:

victrola wrote:

I'm sick of the situation in this country where a small minority of narrow minded religious fanatics are able to impose their views on the rest of the country. I bet if you passed a national law allowing abortions in the first trimester and later in cases of rape, incest or, where the pregnant woman's life is in danger, it would receive the support of the vast majority of Americans. But no, we have to have a system where the majority is held hostage by the tyranny of a minority.

The reality is that this ruling is what allows your vision to be realized for a majority of Americans, but you decry it as anti-democratic.

First, why does it need to be a national law? If your vision does in fact reflect the "vast majority of Americans" it will be reflected in the vast majority of state legislatures.

Places like NY or CA will have a wildly permissive abortion criteria while places like Missouri or Texas will have one likely more restrictive than say, the European norm.

Second, the entire Constitution is pretty much designed to make governance hard while restricting the governance of the majority and protecting the rights of the minority. Luckily, there are tons of Westminster-style democracies where majority rules all the time. The US, by design isn't one.

FlapOperator wrote:

casinterest wrote:

If you want to live in a cowardly theocracy where individual rights are trampled by religion, then go move to Saudi Arabia. Do not argue for "Individual state" laws that deny basic rights to human beings based on bad science and fake religions.

Well, I guess the US voted for a Catholic President, and look what it got.

victrola wrote:

It is anti-democratic when a minority of religious fanatics want to dictate to a woman what she can do with her own body. So I take it you believe that a tyranny of the minority is superior to a tyranny of the majority. You are truly naive if you believe those gerrymandered state legislatures accurately represent the will of the majority. You people just can't be satisfied unless you are shoving your religious fanaticism down everyone else's throats. Get the hell out of our private lives.

casinterest wrote:

Thank you for pointing out your lack of understanding of the Separation of Church and State.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

I can think millions of things from the people who are in favor of unlimited on demand abortion, but I won't just dismiss them as bad people. Just people with different opinions. There was a time when we learned to be tolerant of different viewpoints and agree to disagree.

FlapOperator wrote:

bgm wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

First, why does it need to be a national law? If your vision does in fact reflect the "vast majority of Americans" it will be reflected in the vast majority of state legislatures.

This is unfortunately not true. Due to extreme gerrymandering and all sorts of voter restriction laws, the state legislatures will be vastly skewed towards the GOP.

NY, IL and CA are functionally single party states, are they not? That's like 1 in 5 Americans right there.

At the end of the day, districts are approved by judiciary, are they not?

Voter laws are also subject to judicial review, are they not?

In an US style democracy, everyone is better served by these issues being legislative ones, versus judicial or executive ones. The US already has way too power invested in its executive.

FlapOperator wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Thank you for pointing out your lack of understanding of the Separation of Church and State.

Point out where I'm wrong. Appreciate it!

FlapOperator wrote:

victrola wrote:

It is anti-democratic when a minority of religious fanatics want to dictate to a woman what she can do with her own body. So I take it you believe that a tyranny of the minority is superior to a tyranny of the majority. You are truly naive if you believe those gerrymandered state legislatures accurately represent the will of the majority. You people just can't be satisfied unless you are shoving your religious fanaticism down everyone else's throats. Get the hell out of our private lives.

Well, if this is your narrative, I don't what to tell you.

As I mentioned earlier, its completely possible to make a totally coherent ethical and moral position that abortion is wrong. Fixate on religion all you want, but its a completely reasonable point.

It's not a function of the moral desirability superiority of the tyranny over the rights of the minority per se, unless the left WANTS it to be.

Literally, if the current leaked SCOTUS decision drops tomorrow, no change will be immediate apparent to any woman, from the Arctic to the Belize border.

Yet, we are hyperventilating about it.

Here you are, willing to burn down both down for what? What is your plan for managing 400 million multilingual people?

FlapOperator wrote:

casinterest wrote:

If you want to live in a cowardly theocracy where individual rights are trampled by religion, then go move to Saudi Arabia. Do not argue for "Individual state" laws that deny basic rights to human beings based on bad science and fake religions.

Well, I guess the US voted for a Catholic President, and look what it got.

Pi7472000 wrote:

Hopefully we will see corporations leave extreme states that will ban abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned. I will make sure not to travel to states like Texas etc. that ban abortion and do not support the rights of women.

c933103 wrote:

Pi7472000 wrote:

Hopefully we will see corporations leave extreme states that will ban abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned. I will make sure not to travel to states like Texas etc. that ban abortion and do not support the rights of women.

If they aren't leaving Middle East why would they leave Texas

Aaron747 wrote:

Remember companies only care about what employees can deliver. Kids and family are always congratulated of course, but the truth is that from a cost/ops perspective it would be ideal if the majority of employees did not have families.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

casinterest wrote:

If you want to live in a cowardly theocracy where individual rights are trampled by religion, then go move to Saudi Arabia. Do not argue for "Individual state" laws that deny basic rights to human beings based on bad science and fake religions.

Well, I guess the US voted for a Catholic President, and look what it got.

Here's a historical perspective on what then Catholic US Senator Biden had to say in 2006 to Judge Samuel Alito in his hearings to become a SCOTUS Judge. Senator Biden suggested to Alito that he would be in his rights to engineer the overturn of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, regardless of concerns for precedence - if he had the votes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=251C0pvYp-0

Fun stuff..

sierrakilo44 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Remember companies only care about what employees can deliver. Kids and family are always congratulated of course, but the truth is that from a cost/ops perspective it would be ideal if the majority of employees did not have families.

Does that lead the cynic in me to believe that’s the real reason why corporations are also very pro LGBT rights and encourage LGBT employment? No maternity or paternity leave, no wanting every holiday period off work, no leaving work early to pick up the kids from school?

PS fully aware LGBT couples have children too but proportionally less than heterosexual couples

DIRECTFLT wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

casinterest wrote:

If you want to live in a cowardly theocracy where individual rights are trampled by religion, then go move to Saudi Arabia. Do not argue for "Individual state" laws that deny basic rights to human beings based on bad science and fake religions.

Well, I guess the US voted for a Catholic President, and look what it got.

Here's a historical perspective on what then Catholic US Senator Biden had to say in 2006 to Judge Samuel Alito in his hearings to become a SCOTUS Judge. Senator Biden suggested to Alito that he would be in his rights to engineer the overturn of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, regardless of concerns for precedence - if he had the votes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=251C0pvYp-0

Fun stuff..

I am also concerned with the impact you could have on women’s
rights, and specifically, a woman’s right to choose. In the 33 years
since Roe was decided, there have been 38 occasions on which Roe
has been taken up by the Court. The Court has not only declined
to overrule Roe, but it has also explicitly reaffirmed its central
holding. In our private meeting, when we spoke about Roe and
precedent, you stated that you could not think of a case that has
been reviewed or challenged more than Roe. You also stated that
you believe that the Constitution does provide a right of privacy
and that you have a deep respect for precedent.
However, in 1985, you clearly stated that you believed Roe
should be overturned and that the Constitution does not protect a
woman’s right to choose. So despite voting to sustain Roe on the
Third Circuit, your opinions also raise questions about how you
might rule if not bound by precedent, and of course, obviously, I
would like to find that out

lean—in close cases, you lean to the state versus the individual.
Now, again, a lot of constitutional scholars would argue that is perfectly correct.
All I am suggesting is if I am right—and we will get a chance
to do this again—if I am right, that would be a change that will
occur, more than subtle, on the bench, on this Court, on a closely
divided Court, which would take it in a direction that I am not as
comfortable with as others may be.

Newark727 wrote:

Emphasis mine. Why is this? Well, we have a legal process that's supposed to curb the executive - impeachment - but it can't effectively be used, because the executive is going to be one of two political parties, and the executive's party is always going to have enough of the Senate to keep the two-thirds threshold for impeachment to succeed from ever being reached. And if the check can't actually be used in practice, what good is it? The judiciary has in practice usually chosen not to exercise its powers of review over voter suppressive laws and gerrymandered districts, insofar as it has them - after all, gerrymandering is a 200-year-old practice, and Jim Crow voter laws were decided as perfectly legal by the courts for generations. Legislatures can and do select members of the judicial branch who are their ideological allies, who will work to protect these anti-majoritarian practices. So again, if the check can't actually be used in practice, what good is it?

The systems supposed to protect the country from tyranny of the majority, and the ones designed to protect from tyranny of the minority, aren't necessarily equal in power or balanced effectively. And we're seeing that now.