Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 143

Thread: Leaked draft says that Supreme Court has voted to overturn Roe v Wade

  1. #41
    :popcorn: Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,264
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shazaam View Post
    No way. A gay person born in Alabama or whatever, or a redneck Hick breeder state - shouldn't have a shitty life just because the State would most likely vote against it.

    How dumb and stereotypical to just have a GLBT community in California and Vermont ((and a few other states)) and nowhere else. Pretty heartless and disgusting to treat people that way. Yeah of course some gays really are immoral and don't deserve any 'protection' - but when you think about the reality of what that would do to all the GLBT who don't deserve it, it's a pretty fucked up thing to advocate for.
    What does the plight of LGBTQ communities have to do with womens' rights?

  2. #42
    Averroes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    TIM
    ESI
    Posts
    897
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Fuck states' rights in instance like these. It’s only ever used as an excuse to justify regressive policies/depriving civil liberties
    Last edited by Averroes; 05-12-2022 at 02:23 PM.

  3. #43
    :popcorn: Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,264
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Averroes View Post
    Fuck states' rights in instance like these. It’s only ever used as an excuse to justify regressive policies/depriving civil liberties
    Finally, someone honest.

    The ironic thing is, the erosion of states' rights can be a slippery slope to further deprivation of civil liberties. If you are setting the standard that the federal government can override the will of an entire constituency within a state in the union, you are saying the federal government can do whatever it wants to the exclusion of the union's true wishes. That works both ways, buddy, and it is meant to be a safeguard against tyranny. We can't ignore that, or override it "this time" or even "just this once" because it satisfies our agendas. All it takes is one idea that you don't agree with to have the same logic applied, and you'll be crying foul.

    I don't know where you stand on marijuana legalization, but imagine if every President since states started legalizing it had said, "Hell no, not in this country!" and started arresting people in those states for opening legitimate marijuana businesses (which they could legally do if they chose to enforce federal law). Imagine the outcry, the backlash. Imagine how much more faith would be lost in the idea that America is the land of the free. Sure, we have a lot of problems, but saying "fuck states' rights" is not how they get fixed.
    Last edited by Capitalist Pig; 05-13-2022 at 12:43 AM.

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Oct 2021
    Location
    Australia
    TIM
    Likely EIE-H
    Posts
    118
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig
    What does the plight of LGBTQ communities have to do with womens' rights?
    Shazaam is just venting, no big deal.

  5. #45
    :popcorn: Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,264
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Manatroid92 View Post
    Shazaam is just venting, no big deal.
    Ah, thank you for the clarification.

    To @Shazaam I say, you should keep in mind the "State" doesn't vote for anything. The constituency, which is defined as the registered voting population, does. There's also nothing keeping people in these "redneck hick breeder states," you don't need a passport to cross state lines. Of course, if that answer is unacceptable, then getting registered to vote and involved in local, grassroots non-violent activism is a good way to go. Non-profit work and volunteering to support young LGBTQ youths growing up in these "hostile" environments might not be the solution needed, but it can be a good stop-gap to cover for what the state does not protect (whatever that may be). I don't want to get into a debate on LGBTQ rights, because that is not germaine to the abortion topic. However, I don't see how their rights have ever been infringed except by a culture shock of mixed acceptance and hate. There is nothing that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn't already protect against; namely, segregation and discrimination based on sex, race, gender, et al. If you want to discuss this rabbit hole further, we can start a new thread or request a mod to split our discussion.

  6. #46
    Poptart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    TIM
    Ignorant mass
    Posts
    1,857
    Mentioned
    146 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Posting this on Pinterest: “Easy DIY abortion project - with mason jars!”

    Attached Images Attached Images

  7. #47
    confident alpha male with big penis mysteryofdungeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2021
    Location
    xoxo
    Posts
    492
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poptart View Post
    Posting this on Pinterest: “Easy DIY abortion project - with mason jars!”

    Mason jars, very stylish!
    how to enlarge your dragon, click here

    Quote Originally Posted by End View Post
    get ready to get cucked
    Quote Originally Posted by roger557 View Post
    got this Socionics stuff caught by the balls

  8. #48
    confident alpha male with big penis mysteryofdungeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2021
    Location
    xoxo
    Posts
    492
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    In all this talk about abortion being banned in several states, I barely see any talk on how various birth control methods for women will skyrocket in popularity.
    how to enlarge your dragon, click here

    Quote Originally Posted by End View Post
    get ready to get cucked
    Quote Originally Posted by roger557 View Post
    got this Socionics stuff caught by the balls

  9. #49
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    7,006
    Mentioned
    415 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shazaam View Post
    KIM!!!



    Guys first @aixelsyd and now @Kim. Come on I have to be EII. All this time... headed for Delta Heaven all along.
    Aww <3 <3

    And I agree - protections of civil rights and against discrimination have to be federal. Otherwise, some states would be pretty quick to segregate water fountains again. The relationship between abortion rights and LGTQ+ rights is pretty obvious - abortion was first, gay marriage will be next.
    “Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
    ― Anais Nin

  10. #50
    Poptart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    TIM
    Ignorant mass
    Posts
    1,857
    Mentioned
    146 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    “Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”

  11. #51
    :popcorn: Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,264
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poptart View Post
    “Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
    Good. Get the government out of the bedroom. These things should never have been ruled upon in the first place, never even considered. Marriage is a romantic and spiritual union above anything else, what were gay couples really fighting for? A piece of paper from a government courthouse declaring their union, and the ability to switch their filing status on their tax forms? Is that how we're defining marriage these days? Worthless pieces of paper and joint tax filing? I get that there are incentives, but that is an issue with the tax code, not whether or not you're considered legally married or, what's the alternative? "Fake" married? Surely your ego is stronger than that.

    The bottom line is you're married because you say your married, and you go through whatever ritualistic process you believe is necessary to signify that union, you're not married because the government says you're married. That is a legal status which has no immediate consequences for your relationship or how much you and your partner love each other. Even the Church can't say if you're married or not, though they do (and are welcome to) define marriage however their clergy and congregation see fit. Just as gay people are free to exchange rings and tell everyone they are married if that is how they choose to live their life.

    By the way, pretty much every state has already taken their sodomy laws off the books by now. If they still exist, I'd be surprised, but there is no where in America right now where it is illegal to be gay. And if it is, then the question is how is it being enforced?

  12. #52
    Poptart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    TIM
    Ignorant mass
    Posts
    1,857
    Mentioned
    146 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poptart View Post
    “Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
    He conveniently forgot that Loving v. Virginia is also based on the due process clause lol.

  13. #53
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    2,877
    Mentioned
    124 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah let's take away people's rights, that's something we should definitely spend time and effort on

  14. #54
    :popcorn: Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,264
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    But no one's rights have been taken away, or are under threat of being taken away. Maybe there are a couple of states with trigger laws, but that is a matter for their voters and elected representatives to hash out. In the meantime, there are plenty of states - like the one I live in - which already have their own laws permitting abortion and nothing has effectively changed for millions of people.

    The federal government cannot and should not get involved in these matters. They should be limited to what is guaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Anything beyond that is overstepping the guard rails set forth by the founders of our great nation.

  15. #55
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    2,877
    Mentioned
    124 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig View Post
    But no one's rights have been taken away, or are under threat of being taken away. Maybe there are a couple of states with trigger laws, but that is a matter for their voters and elected representatives to hash out. In the meantime, there are plenty of states - like the one I live in - which already have their own laws permitting abortion and nothing has effectively changed for millions of people.

    The federal government cannot and should not get involved in these matters. They should be limited to what is guaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Anything beyond that is overstepping the guard rails set forth by the founders of our great nation.
    Let's come back in a year and see

  16. #56
    Poptart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    TIM
    Ignorant mass
    Posts
    1,857
    Mentioned
    146 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig View Post
    But no one's rights have been taken away, or are under threat of being taken away. Maybe there are a couple of states with trigger laws, but that is a matter for their voters and elected representatives to hash out. In the meantime, there are plenty of states - like the one I live in - which already have their own laws permitting abortion and nothing has effectively changed for millions of people.

    The federal government cannot and should not get involved in these matters. They should be limited to what is guaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Anything beyond that is overstepping the guard rails set forth by the founders of our great nation.

    Pre-Roe ban
    : Law enacted before 1973 and never removed
    Trigger ban: Law designed to be “triggered” and take effect automatically or by quick state action if Roe no longer applies
    Near-total ban: Law enacted after Roe to prohibit abortion under all or nearly all circumstances


    1. Alabama—Pre-Roe ban, Near-total ban, State constitution bars protection
    2. Arizona—Pre-Roe ban
    3. Arkansas—Pre-Roe ban, Trigger ban, Near-total ban
    4. Georgia—Six-week ban
    5. Idaho—Trigger ban, Six-week ban
    6. Iowa—Six-week ban
    7. Kentucky—Trigger ban, Six-week ban
    8. Louisiana—Trigger ban, Near-total ban, Six-week ban, State constitution bars protection
    9. Michigan—Pre-Roe ban
    10. Mississippi—Pre-Roe ban, Trigger ban, Six-week ban
    11. Missouri—Trigger ban, Eight-week ban
    12. North Dakota—Trigger ban, Six-week ban
    13. Ohio—Six-week ban
    14. Oklahoma—Pre-Roe ban, Trigger ban (effective November 1, 2021), Near-total ban, Six-week ban
    15. South Carolina—Six-week ban
    16. South Dakota—Trigger ban
    17. Tennessee—Trigger ban, Six-week ban, State constitution bars protection
    18. Texas—Pre-Roe ban, Trigger ban, Six-week ban
    19. Utah—Trigger ban, Near-total ban
    20. West Virginia—Pre-Roe ban, State constitution bars protection
    21. Wisconsin—Pre-Roe ban
    22. Wyoming—Trigger ban


    States likely to pass severe restrictions or ban:

    1. Florida
    2. Indiana
    3. Montana
    4. Nebraska

  17. #57
    :popcorn: Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,264
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poptart View Post
    1. Alabama—Pre-Roe ban, Near-total ban, State constitution bars protection
    2. Arizona—Pre-Roe ban
    3. Arkansas—Pre-Roe ban, Trigger ban, Near-total ban
    4. Georgia—Six-week ban
    5. Idaho—Trigger ban, Six-week ban
    6. Iowa—Six-week ban
    7. Kentucky—Trigger ban, Six-week ban
    8. Louisiana—Trigger ban, Near-total ban, Six-week ban, State constitution bars protection
    9. Michigan—Pre-Roe ban
    10. Mississippi—Pre-Roe ban, Trigger ban, Six-week ban
    11. Missouri—Trigger ban, Eight-week ban
    12. North Dakota—Trigger ban, Six-week ban
    13. Ohio—Six-week ban
    14. Oklahoma—Pre-Roe ban, Trigger ban (effective November 1, 2021), Near-total ban, Six-week ban
    15. South Carolina—Six-week ban
    16. South Dakota—Trigger ban
    17. Tennessee—Trigger ban, Six-week ban, State constitution bars protection
    18. Texas—Pre-Roe ban, Trigger ban, Six-week ban
    19. Utah—Trigger ban, Near-total ban
    20. West Virginia—Pre-Roe ban, State constitution bars protection
    21. Wisconsin—Pre-Roe ban
    22. Wyoming—Trigger ban


    States likely to pass severe restrictions or ban:

    1. Florida
    2. Indiana
    3. Montana
    4. Nebraska
    Do 6-week bans really count? You can still get an early term abortion, ergo, abortion is still legal with certain restrictions, which there probably should be restrictions. Is late term the gold standard then? Because that's pretty disgusting, and seems a little late to be changing your mind about having a child. If there are any complications with the pregnancy, odds are they were discoverable long before you're reaching the latter trimesters. Carrying to term and adopting out seems a better choice at that stage.

  18. #58
    Poptart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    TIM
    Ignorant mass
    Posts
    1,857
    Mentioned
    146 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig View Post
    Do 6-week bans really count? You can still get an early term abortion, ergo, abortion is still legal with certain restrictions, which there probably should be restrictions. Is late term the gold standard then? Because that's pretty disgusting, and seems a little late to be changing your mind about having a child. If there are any complications with the pregnancy, odds are they were discoverable long before you're reaching the latter trimesters. Carrying to term and adopting out seems a better choice at that stage.
    "6 weeks pregnant" doesn't mean what you think. The count starts from the first day of your last period, not the date of conception. Most women do not find out that they're pregnant until after they've missed their period. A woman is technically considered over 4 weeks pregnant at this point. Furthermore, menstrual cycles can vary in length from month to month. 28 days is the average, but its completely normal to have a sequence of cycles with lengths 28, 30, 33, 27, etc, which means that a woman might not be alarmed until many days after her first missed period.

    Not coincidentally, states with 6 week bans on abortion have heavy regulations to limit the number of legal open clinics and create a shortage of available appointments. Before this case was brought to the supreme court, Mississippi had only one open abortion clinic in the entire state. As you might guess, that clinic was consistently fully booked two weeks out. States also have laws requiring women to attend a "counseling session", obtain multiple pelvic exams, or endure mandatory waiting periods before they're legally allowed to have the procedure. Basically they give you a minute to complete an obstacle course but start the timer at 50 seconds.

  19. #59
    Ксеркс, царь царей xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    7,731
    Mentioned
    196 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If pregnancy was something that happened to men (especially rich, conservative men), there would be an abortion clinic on every street corner. Outside of niche academic philosophy, there wouldn't be any sort of debate about the definition of life.

  20. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,530
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poptart View Post
    “Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
    Don't people have anything better to do?

  21. #61
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,530
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig View Post
    Good. Get the government out of the bedroom. These things should never have been ruled upon in the first place, never even considered. Marriage is a romantic and spiritual union above anything else, what were gay couples really fighting for? A piece of paper from a government courthouse declaring their union, and the ability to switch their filing status on their tax forms? Is that how we're defining marriage these days? Worthless pieces of paper and joint tax filing? I get that there are incentives, but that is an issue with the tax code, not whether or not you're considered legally married or, what's the alternative? "Fake" married? Surely your ego is stronger than that.

    The bottom line is you're married because you say your married, and you go through whatever ritualistic process you believe is necessary to signify that union, you're not married because the government says you're married. That is a legal status which has no immediate consequences for your relationship or how much you and your partner love each other. Even the Church can't say if you're married or not, though they do (and are welcome to) define marriage however their clergy and congregation see fit. Just as gay people are free to exchange rings and tell everyone they are married if that is how they choose to live their life.

    By the way, pretty much every state has already taken their sodomy laws off the books by now. If they still exist, I'd be surprised, but there is no where in America right now where it is illegal to be gay. And if it is, then the question is how is it being enforced?
    Lmao, glow harder, bro

  22. #62
    Ксеркс, царь царей xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    7,731
    Mentioned
    196 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This ruling could set precedent to limit bodily autonomy in other ways (vaccine mandates, social distancing, etc).

  23. #63
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    15,513
    Mentioned
    1481 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    This ruling could set precedent to limit bodily autonomy in other ways (vaccine mandates, social distancing, etc).
    I still say this is all about the subjugation of women by men who want to treat them as property.

  24. #64
    Uncle Ave ipbanned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Belgium
    TIM
    LSI-C
    Posts
    5,731
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    I still say this is all about the subjugation of women by men who want to treat them as property.
    I think it's a bit more complex than that, it's probably a number of motives, religious morality, constitutional originalism, and probably less about wanting to "own" women than it is not caring about women's health issues/being indifferent to it.

    I speak to everyone in the same way, whether he is the garbage man or the president of the university.

    ― Albert Einstein

  25. #65
    Uncle Ave ipbanned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Belgium
    TIM
    LSI-C
    Posts
    5,731
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig View Post
    But no one's rights have been taken away, or are under threat of being taken away. Maybe there are a couple of states with trigger laws, but that is a matter for their voters and elected representatives to hash out. In the meantime, there are plenty of states - like the one I live in - which already have their own laws permitting abortion and nothing has effectively changed for millions of people.

    The federal government cannot and should not get involved in these matters. They should be limited to what is guaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Anything beyond that is overstepping the guard rails set forth by the founders of our great nation.
    I understand what you're saying, but if a law has little to no impact either way (at least, on this matter) why is it good that it was overturned? Are you afraid of your federal government having the power to pass other decisions that would have more impact, and would override certain things in the Bill of Rights?

    I speak to everyone in the same way, whether he is the garbage man or the president of the university.

    ― Albert Einstein

  26. #66
    Uncle Ave ipbanned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Belgium
    TIM
    LSI-C
    Posts
    5,731
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    This ruling could set precedent to limit bodily autonomy in other ways (vaccine mandates, social distancing, etc).
    I doubt that. I think this ruling is in the mindset of "less government" that Cpig also argues for. Vaccine mandates and social distancing come from the opposite American political pole - more government.

    I speak to everyone in the same way, whether he is the garbage man or the president of the university.

    ― Albert Einstein

  27. #67
    Uncle Ave ipbanned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Belgium
    TIM
    LSI-C
    Posts
    5,731
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    If pregnancy was something that happened to men (especially rich, conservative men), there would be an abortion clinic on every street corner. Outside of niche academic philosophy, there wouldn't be any sort of debate about the definition of life.
    I agree with this, which is why I feel this is more an issue of indifference than genuine bad intentions in the sense Adam mentions (though maybe I am naive). It kinda gets to me when American liberals act like the "other side" is acting out of ill will (well, to be precise, they do sometimes, ie gerrymandering but that's more partisanship gone way too far than about any kind of political positions). I feel like liberals are always confused by the positions of conservatives, and in turn accuse them of acting out of evil, which is odd to me. That said, I'm not defending the ruling, but I also feel uncomfortable with the way political discourse has become so toxic due to these growing misunderstandings.

    I speak to everyone in the same way, whether he is the garbage man or the president of the university.

    ― Albert Einstein

  28. #68
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    15,513
    Mentioned
    1481 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ipbanned View Post
    I agree with this, which is why I feel this is more an issue of indifference than genuine bad intentions in the sense Adam mentions (though maybe I am naive). It kinda gets to me when American liberals act like the "other side" is acting out of ill will (well, to be precise, they do sometimes, ie gerrymandering but that's more partisanship gone way too far than about any kind of political positions). I feel like liberals are always confused by the positions of conservatives, and in turn accuse them of acting out of evil, which is odd to me. That said, I'm not defending the ruling, but I also feel uncomfortable with the way political discourse has become so toxic due to these growing misunderstandings.
    To a person who wants to treat other people as property, they don’t think that their attitudes are “bad intentions”. They think that their attitudes are restoring the universe to it’s rightful position, hence why you get so many references from them of “God’s will.”

    Remember, 98% of humans first decide what they believe, and then they find reasons which support their beliefs. Any reasons will do. They don’t have to actually make sense or be true.

    Other people’s differing opinions in these areas simply don’t matter, because they are “right”. In fact, people who disagree with them are not entitled to have opinions.

    Test this yourself some time. If they are so interested in promoting “life”, ask them if they support unlimited child care for the poor, to prevent early and preventable childhood deaths?

    Just ask them. Get them to sign their name to a petition.



    My parents were staunch Republicans all their lives, although my LSE mother fully believed in women’s rights (because she felt the restrictions on women in her own life; no empathy required).
    They always railed against “those people” who took government handouts and “wouldn’t work.”
    When my father got eye surgery, his military benefits paid for it. He showed me the bill for $50,000 and gleefully told me “Not a penny! I didn’t have to pay a cent!”
    ”Dad”, I said, “isn’t that a free handout from the government? You always told us never to take government handouts. I think you should give that money back.”
    That shut him up pretty fast.

    In Conservative World, there are “the people who deserve whatever they can get”, and “the people who don’t deserve to have any rights”. I know. I lived with these assholes all my life.
    Last edited by Adam Strange; 06-25-2022 at 01:45 PM.

  29. #69
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,476
    Mentioned
    420 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Did Democrats do anything to protect abortion by an actual law any time they've had a majority since Roe? No. They've had much more important priorities, like giving $40 billion to Ukraine so more Ukrainians would die in an unwinnable war, and singing God Bless America after the SCOTUS ruling.

    So just remember how important it is to vote in November guys. It's super important that we only elect the people who do nothing for their base.

  30. #70
    :popcorn: Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,264
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poptart View Post
    "6 weeks pregnant" doesn't mean what you think. The count starts from the first day of your last period, not the date of conception. Most women do not find out that they're pregnant until after they've missed their period. A woman is technically considered over 4 weeks pregnant at this point. Furthermore, menstrual cycles can vary in length from month to month. 28 days is the average, but its completely normal to have a sequence of cycles with lengths 28, 30, 33, 27, etc, which means that a woman might not be alarmed until many days after her first missed period.

    Not coincidentally, states with 6 week bans on abortion have heavy regulations to limit the number of legal open clinics and create a shortage of available appointments. Before this case was brought to the supreme court, Mississippi had only one open abortion clinic in the entire state. As you might guess, that clinic was consistently fully booked two weeks out. States also have laws requiring women to attend a "counseling session", obtain multiple pelvic exams, or endure mandatory waiting periods before they're legally allowed to have the procedure. Basically they give you a minute to complete an obstacle course but start the timer at 50 seconds.
    Okay, but this isn't something that Roe v. Wade fixed, is it? Also, Roe v. Wade did not make mention of when or how abortions should be carried out. This does sound like typical bureaucratic incompetence, whether intentional or accidental, and I agree it is a problem. Again, this is a matter for the voters in that state to make noise about, and fire up the elected representatives who are in a position to do something about it. If necessary, sue the state for violating its own laws by creating barriers to accessibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by ipbanned View Post
    I understand what you're saying, but if a law has little to no impact either way (at least, on this matter) why is it good that it was overturned?
    Because it was a bad law.

    Quote Originally Posted by ipbanned View Post
    Are you afraid of your federal government having the power to pass other decisions that would have more impact, and would override certain things in the Bill of Rights?
    That could be an issue, sure. It's concerning to me when the federal government overrules the constituency in a state of the union. Imagine if the federal government decided to enforce the federal marijuana ban in states that have voted to legalize it, as opposed to their current policy of looking the other way. There would be a massive outcry from the public and state governments. Everyone would be crying tyranny, overreach, and states' rights would take front and center in the argument. The other problem I have is people who are okay with the feds having a heavy hand when it suits their agenda. They don't realize how this power can be used against them if we got another Trump in office and they decide to start pushing their own agenda, using all of these nice legal precedents laid out by "the good guys" before them. We have to be mindful of these things when we're championing our causes and think the government ought to do this or that.

  31. #71
    Uncle Ave ipbanned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Belgium
    TIM
    LSI-C
    Posts
    5,731
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    To a person who wants to treat other people as property, they don’t think that their attitudes are “bad intentions”. They think that their attitudes are restoring the universe to it’s rightful position, hence why you get so many references from them of “God’s will.”

    Remember, 98% of humans first decide what they believe, and then they find reasons which support their beliefs. Any reasons will do. They don’t have to actually make sense or be true.

    Other people’s differing opinions in these areas simply don’t matter, because they are “right”. In fact, people who disagree with them are not entitled to have opinions.

    Test this yourself some time. If they are so interested in promoting “life”, ask them if they support unlimited child care for the poor, to prevent early and preventable childhood deaths?

    Just ask them. Get them to sign their name to a petition.



    My parents were staunch Republicans all their lives, although my LSE mother fully believed in women’s rights (because she felt the restrictions on women in her own life; no empathy required).
    They always railed against “those people” who took government handouts and “wouldn’t work.”
    When my father got eye surgery, his military benefits paid for it. He showed me the bill for $50,000 and gleefully told me “Not a penny! I didn’t have to pay a cent!”
    ”Dad”, I said, “isn’t that a free handout from the government? You always told us never to take government handouts. I think you should give that money back.”
    That shut him up pretty fast.

    In Conservative World, there are “the people who deserve whatever they can get”, and “the people who don’t deserve to have any rights”. I know. I lived with these assholes all my life.
    I think you're generalizing alot here.

    First, when you say "treat women as property", it reminds me of the legal and social status of women in certain countries such as India, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, etc, where women's rights are clearly taken away from them and the intent of men to "own" women is not even hidden. But that isn't the case of American conservative men - generally speaking.

    Second, while I agree with you that many American conservatives have a "meritocratic" attitude towards poor people having access to many things they (the poor) need, I don't think this is the same as "seeing people as property". It's still shitty, but not the same.

    Also, for "these assholes", "rights" is often understood to mean negative rights, ie what the government can't stop you from doing - people who "deserve whatever they can get" are getting it because they are entrepeneurs (or seen that way) and this corresponds to the "American dream". The idea of the billionaire coming up from nothing is a myth of course (which doesn't mean that it never happens, by "myth" I mean something different than "fiction"), and poorer conservatives vote against their interests when they vote Republican or Libertarian (though that isn't to say they necessarily vote for their interests when they Democrat, either), hoping it will give them the freedom to become the next libertarian entreperneur (or something to that effect), which is actually very unlikely.

    I agree that people first attach themselves to an idea emotionally, then come up with reasons, in fact everyone does this and it's human. Usually, we find an idea attractive, then seek out reasons. But it can also be the opposite - we reason that a certain position is wrong or inconsistent and then find it repulsive. Also sometimes people need to see certain realities for themselves to become repelled by said realities. Seeing how employers treated employees shocked me out of my libertarian sentiments, for example. I don't think conservatives are worse than anyone else in this sense, they're human beings like you and me.

    I speak to everyone in the same way, whether he is the garbage man or the president of the university.

    ― Albert Einstein

  32. #72
    Poptart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    TIM
    Ignorant mass
    Posts
    1,857
    Mentioned
    146 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig View Post
    Okay, but this isn't something that Roe v. Wade fixed, is it? Also, Roe v. Wade did not make mention of when or how abortions should be carried out. This does sound like typical bureaucratic incompetence, whether intentional or accidental, and I agree it is a problem. Again, this is a matter for the voters in that state to make noise about, and fire up the elected representatives who are in a position to do something about it. If necessary, sue the state for violating its own laws by creating barriers to accessibility.
    - Last September, Texas became the first state to ban abortion at 6 weeks. Other states copied the Texas law once they realized the Supreme Court had signaled the overturning of Roe.

    - Roe v Wade (and PlannedParenthood v Casey) provided a framework for deciding when/how abortion is allowed. I’m surprised you didn’t know this, since you have some strong opinions about Roe.

    - You asked me if 6 week bans “really count”. I was answering that question. I feel like what you’re doing here is called “moving the goal posts”.

    - No offense but I’m not sure if you understand how pregnancy or abortion work. You would be very misinformed to think that 6 weeks is the cutoff for early abortions, or that late term abortions are the “gold standard”, or that women carry pregnancies to near full term and then go “Oops nvm I change my mind hehe ^_^”

  33. #73
    :popcorn: Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,264
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poptart View Post
    - Last September, Texas became the first state to ban abortion at 6 weeks. Other states copied the Texas law once they realized the Supreme Court had signaled the overturning of Roe.

    - Roe v Wade (and PlannedParenthood v Casey) provided a framework for deciding when/how abortion is allowed. I’m surprised you didn’t know this, since you have some strong opinions about Roe.
    I assumed, since states like Colorado already permit late term abortions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poptart View Post
    - You asked me if 6 week bans “really count”. I was answering that question. I feel like what you’re doing here is called “moving the goal posts”.
    Actually, I'm changing my mind and agreeing with you that it's a problem and is an effective ban on abortions without actually banning them. Do one or the other, don't toe the line.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poptart View Post
    - No offense but I’m not sure if you understand how pregnancy or abortion work. You would be very misinformed to think that 6 weeks is the cutoff for early abortions, or that late term abortions are the “gold standard”, or that women carry pregnancies to near full term and then go “Oops nvm I change my mind hehe ^_^”
    I'm probably just filling in blanks in my head and attributing them to your position, whether you have actually indicated those beliefs or not, and just not connecting my thoughts very well on paper. I'll rush less when writing responses from now on.

  34. #74
    Ксеркс, царь царей xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    7,731
    Mentioned
    196 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Amyl Nitrite stocks looking good right now.

  35. #75
    Poptart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    TIM
    Ignorant mass
    Posts
    1,857
    Mentioned
    146 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig View Post
    I assumed, since states like Colorado already permit late term abortions.

    Actually, I'm changing my mind and agreeing with you that it's a problem and is an effective ban on abortions without actually banning them. Do one or the other, don't toe the line.

    I'm probably just filling in blanks in my head and attributing them to your position, whether you have actually indicated those beliefs or not, and just not connecting my thoughts very well on paper. I'll rush less when writing responses from now on.
    I don’t know the specifics on abortion in Colorado, but I can tell you that 90% of abortions occur within the first trimester (12 weeks or earlier). Only 1-2% of all abortions occur at 21 weeks or later.

    Fetal viability begins at 23-24 weeks (chance of survival is 56% at 23 weeks, and 70% at 24 weeks). Third trimester abortions are exceedingly rare. In fact, they are so uncommon that most abortions clinics don’t provide ‘late term’ abortions, even in states where it’s fully permitted.

    Some states allow late term abortions without restriction because the line between “non-lethal fetal anomaly” and “lethal fetal anomaly” can be blurry. For example, a woman discovered that her baby had an enlarged head with an enormous, fluid-filled cavity in its brain. The baby would have severe brain damage and require brain risky surgery before the age of 1, and the chances of survival past this age were low. Technically it’s a “non-lethal” condition. To have an abortion, the woman would need to be in a state (like yours) where late term abortions are fully permitted, no restrictions. This is still controversial, I get that. I’m just trying to explain why late term abortions are permitted without restrictions on fetal viability or health of the mother.

  36. #76
    Éminence grise mikemex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Third Planet
    TIM
    IEE-Ne
    Posts
    1,637
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig View Post
    Marriage is a romantic and spiritual union above anything else
    Excuse me? There is an obvious lack a historical / sociological perspective behind such opinions.

    Marriage is a legal institution that protects the family, specifically the children. It's meant to provide a stable environment for their growth and development. Although not really enforced by the community now, marriage used to be an unbreakable social bond, for the simple reason that you can't divorce your children.

    It's not a right for grown ups, but for the little ones.
    [] | NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)

    You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life.
    - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.

  37. #77
    End's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    TIM
    ILI-Ni sp/sx
    Posts
    1,634
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ouronis View Post
    Yeah let's take away people's rights, that's something we should definitely spend time and effort on
    When it's a truly moral issue your "rights" mean jack shit. I had to rebuke my own mother on this front. Rape victims ought to be able to abort the baby she said! I had to remind her that nobody gets to pick their family. None of us got to choose the how and why we got conceived in all meaningful respects. Even if the baby was conceived during a rape that baby had no say in that matter. The unborn are truly and undeniably innocent on any and all logically conceivable counts. Give that child up for adoption if you think that's the best course of action, but for the love of God respect their innocence and at least allow them some chance to live a good and healthy life...

    Quote Originally Posted by mysteryofdungeon View Post
    In all this talk about abortion being banned in several states, I barely see any talk on how various birth control methods for women will skyrocket in popularity.
    Good! It'd benefit a great deal of ignorant heathens to learn how periods actually work. Turns out you can rather effectively do "Family Planning" once you've figured out when the menstral cycle hits a given woman. You can literally go full libertine for 3 out of the 4 weeks of a month. Having to go "Monk/Nun Mode" for one of them isn't that hard folks.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    Did Democrats do anything to protect abortion by an actual law any time they've had a majority since Roe? No. They've had much more important priorities, like giving $40 billion to Ukraine so more Ukrainians would die in an unwinnable war, and singing God Bless America after the SCOTUS ruling.

    So just remember how important it is to vote in November guys. It's super important that we only elect the people who do nothing for their base.
    It really is quite refreshing to hear a supposed enemy work my own stance on this issue so agreeably. This must be why my own LII cousin likes me so much. Truly, you took the words right out of my mouth if I just so happened to agree with you on this front. That last sentence in particular. I can taste that sarcasm and I friggin' love it!

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    If pregnancy was something that happened to men (especially rich, conservative men), there would be an abortion clinic on every street corner. Outside of niche academic philosophy, there wouldn't be any sort of debate about the definition of life.
    I'd argue you're rather brainwashed in CRT given this rather... Simplistic view of your opposition. I may have given into fits of passion in the past but the core of my faith remains unshaken. I know I'm right and I'm more than willing to walk the walk on that front.

    No violence, no force. You will all come around to my views on truly critical moral issues eventually. Abortion is one such issue. I refuse to acknowledge a sacrifice to Moloch as moral in all cases. Hell, even the extreme case pans out. Ask any mother who isn't fucked up in the head or demonically possessed.

    Give her a binary choice. This is, without a shred of doubt, your child. It's either your kid or you. Whom do you choose?

    Show me a woman who sacrifices their own child to preserve their life over that of their child and I'll show you a woman that has either major psychological issues or is on the business end of the demonic...

  38. #78
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    2,877
    Mentioned
    124 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by End View Post
    When it's a truly moral issue your "rights" mean jack shit. I had to rebuke my own mother on this front. Rape victims ought to be able to abort the baby she said! I had to remind her that nobody gets to pick their family. None of us got to choose the how and why we got conceived in all meaningful respects. Even if the baby was conceived during a rape that baby had no say in that matter. The unborn are truly and undeniably innocent on any and all logically conceivable counts. Give that child up for adoption if you think that's the best course of action, but for the love of God respect their innocence and at least allow them some chance to live a good and healthy life...



    Good! It'd benefit a great deal of ignorant heathens to learn how periods actually work. Turns out you can rather effectively do "Family Planning" once you've figured out when the menstral cycle hits a given woman. You can literally go full libertine for 3 out of the 4 weeks of a month. Having to go "Monk/Nun Mode" for one of them isn't that hard folks.



    It really is quite refreshing to hear a supposed enemy work my own stance on this issue so agreeably. This must be why my own LII cousin likes me so much. Truly, you took the words right out of my mouth if I just so happened to agree with you on this front. That last sentence in particular. I can taste that sarcasm and I friggin' love it!



    I'd argue you're rather brainwashed in CRT given this rather... Simplistic view of your opposition. I may have given into fits of passion in the past but the core of my faith remains unshaken. I know I'm right and I'm more than willing to walk the walk on that front.

    No violence, no force. You will all come around to my views on truly critical moral issues eventually. Abortion is one such issue. I refuse to acknowledge a sacrifice to Moloch as moral in all cases. Hell, even the extreme case pans out. Ask any mother who isn't fucked up in the head or demonically possessed.

    Give her a binary choice. This is, without a shred of doubt, your child. It's either your kid or you. Whom do you choose?

    Show me a woman who sacrifices their own child to preserve their life over that of their child and I'll show you a woman that has either major psychological issues or is on the business end of the demonic...
    Babies also have no say in the matter if they are born without brains or live a stunted life because of their parents

  39. #79
    Ксеркс, царь царей xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    7,731
    Mentioned
    196 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by End View Post
    I'd argue you're rather brainwashed in CRT given this rather... Simplistic view of your opposition. I may have given into fits of passion in the past but the core of my faith remains unshaken. I know I'm right and I'm more than willing to walk the walk on that front.

    No violence, no force. You will all come around to my views on truly critical moral issues eventually. Abortion is one such issue. I refuse to acknowledge a sacrifice to Moloch as moral in all cases. Hell, even the extreme case pans out. Ask any mother who isn't fucked up in the head or demonically possessed.

    Give her a binary choice. This is, without a shred of doubt, your child. It's either your kid or you. Whom do you choose?

    Show me a woman who sacrifices their own child to preserve their life over that of their child and I'll show you a woman that has either major psychological issues or is on the business end of the demonic...
    I'm not brainwashed by CRT, barely understand it TBH, and don't see how it's relevant to this discussion.


    I couldn't tell you when life starts, and I don't know who's on the right side of history in this debate—that question is well above my pay grade. I'll even admit to feeling squeamish when seeing an image of an aborted fetus, as I imagine that most people would be, and prefer to live in a world where abortion wasn't necessary.

    But it's quite disingenuous to ignore the double standard here. If men could get pregnant, there'd be abortion clinics next to shops that sell Viagra. You'd find abortion clinic membership cards in the men's health aisle, being sold next to condoms.

    That's speculation, of course, but hardly unrealistic. When it comes to sex, it's only women's agency that's under constant scrutiny.
    Last edited by xerx; 06-26-2022 at 06:47 AM. Reason: .

  40. #80
    :popcorn: Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,264
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikemex View Post
    Excuse me? There is an obvious lack a historical / sociological perspective behind such opinions.

    Marriage is a legal institution that protects the family, specifically the children. It's meant to provide a stable environment for their growth and development. Although not really enforced by the community now, marriage used to be an unbreakable social bond, for the simple reason that you can't divorce your children.

    It's not a right for grown ups, but for the little ones.
    I tend to agree, actually, and is the only reason I would marry for myself. However, people make a big deal about having a "right" to marry when there was nothing stopping anyone before from just declaring they're married to their friends, family, and people they meet on the street. They don't even see it as something that must be ordained by a minister, it has to be a right granted by the government, whose only real interest in regulating marriages is for tax and revenue purposes. The state doesn't care if you have a kid or not, they're never even going to ask. There's probably something to be said for divorce law, and the proceedings surrounding that. I suppose a gay couple not having a right to marry would also entail no rights to alimony, and I don't know how this might differ from declaring a domestic partnership, but that's also not why people get married (unless they're gold diggers). So it's really confusing to me when people take laws about marriage for granted and ask "what about them?" instead of "who invited the government into my love life and personal affairs?"

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •