Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Lol

Why would i engage with a fool like you.

So you admit that you have no argument? That you are not up to the task of countering what I am saying? You are making yourself look like the fool. You are the fool

 

[eagle1462010]

So you admit that you have no argument? That you are not up to the task of countering what I am saying? You are making yourself look like the fool. You are the fool

I admit nothing but you are a waste of my time

 

[BackAgain]

That is quite an unhinged moronic rant kid. The last thing that I need is for you to educate me. I had my say about Aliti and your Lord Hale. They are both. despicable excuses for human beings as are you. It is all well documented. You are just throwing shit at the wall hoping something will slick. You can't gaslight me. I know what I know and I am confident in my beliefs, so just fuck off sonny boy

No no. You obviously need an education. Urgently. Your ignorance is astounding. But in addition, you are a loathsome piece of shit.

As for throwing shit, stop projecting. You are the one doing that by noting that the draft Alito decision does cite some historical Hale decisions and intentionally conflating that with his agreement for anything said by Hale. I realize that you’re a liar. I also see that you’re ignorant and rather plodding. But the purpose for the citation to the historical antecedents was obviously for a very different juridical purpose.

Maybe get an adult to help you with those “word” things. I fear you are beyond any help in your shitty lack of honesty.

 

[Indeependent]

So you admit that you have no argument? That you are not up to the task of countering what I am saying? You are making yourself look like the fool. You are the fool

Why would anybody have a discussion with a sexual pervert such as yourself?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Your lack of intelligence, sophistication, maturity

Says the juvenile delinquent who keeps telling me to go fuck myself. Yiu are a sick joke without a punch line

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I admit nothing but you are a waste of my time

You do not have to admit anything. Your lack of a valid counter argument speaks volumes about your failure

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No no. You obviously need an education. Urgently. Your ignorance is astounding. But in addition, you are a loathsome piece of shit.

As for throwing shit, stop projecting. You are the one doing that by noting that the draft Alito decision does cite some historical Hale decisions and intentionally conflating that with his agreement for anything said by Hale. I realize that you’re a liar. I also see that you’re ignorant and rather plodding. But the purpose for the citation to the historical antecedents was obviously for a very different juridical purpose.

Maybe get an adult to help you with those “word” things. I fear you are beyond any help in your shitty lack of honesty.

Gish Gallop !'

 

[BackAgain]

Says the juvenile delinquent who keeps telling me to go fuck myself. Yiu are a sick joke without a punch line

I’m not even middle aged anymore. And your opinion of my maturity means so little coming from a worthless troll hypocrite piece of shit like you. So, ya know. There’s that.

You still can’t defend you own point. We know why. You’re quite stupid and a determined dishonest propagandist.

 

[Indeependent]

I’m not even middle aged anymore. And your opinion of my maturity means so little coming from a worthless troll hypocrite piece of shit like you. So, ya know. There’s that.

You still can’t defend you own point. We know why. You’re quite stupid and a determined dishonest propagandist.

I’m not even middle aged anymore.

You got younger?!

 

[BackAgain]

I’m not even middle aged anymore.

You got younger?!

That would be wonderful!

 

[beagle9]

Yup. Same reason one is allowed to yell “fire” in a movie theater. Free speech doesn’t extend to everything, in every circumstance.

Correct, they are mixing apple's and oranges, but the two don't go together. They do this to skirt the law, but the law is supposed to be keen on them doing this, and they should be getting hauled into jail for pulling the crap they keep pulling.

 

[DudleySmith]

States have the right to make the laws for the residents of their states. That’s how it works.

So you think a state govt. has some right to legalize the murder of babies.

 

[surada]

In most states (including California), when a pregnant woman is murdered, the killer is charged with a double murder. However, when a woman wants to kill her baby by abortion, it's just a blob of flesh. Something doesn't smell right here.

You just can't figure that out?

 

[SweetSue92]

You just can't figure that out?

Yes apparently housing the baby in her own body gives the mother extra special rights to kill the baby. Not only that but your side calls this a "right"

 

[Lisa558]

So you think a state govt. has some right to legalize the murder of babies.

More so than the federal government.

But I‘m on your side. There is no way that we could ever get a national ban on abortion, so isn’t it better that instead of a federal law that FORCES all states to allow abortion, that we return the decision to the individuals in each state, and thus at least get some decent laws in half of them?

You are arguing to ban all abortions. That would never happen. The best we can hope for is to remove the edict that prohibits such a ban nationwide.

 

[BackAgain]

You just can't figure that out?

Worse yet; you can.

 

[DudleySmith]

More so than the federal government.

But I‘m on your side. There is no way that we could ever get a national ban on abortion, so isn’t it better that instead of a federal law that FORCES all states to allow abortion, that we return the decision to the individuals in each state, and thus at least get some decent laws in half of them?

You are arguing to ban all abortions. That would never happen. The best we can hope for is to remove the edict that prohibits such a ban nationwide.

I've already said several times I take the liberal view on abortions, i.e. in cases of rape, incest, and medical threats to the mother's life. This is not the same thng as murdering babies for the petty bourgeois crime of Inconvenience.

 

[Lisa558]

I've already said several times I take the liberal view on abortions, i.e. in cases of rape, incest, and medical threats to the mother's life. This is not the same thng as murdering babies for the petty bourgeois crime of Inconvenience.

But what are you going to do? The unfortunate fact is that we live in a country where about half the states are OK with a woman murdering her unborn child. At least when the SCOTUS lifts the ban that forces all states to allow these murders, the other half will at least show some compassion for a defenseless and innocent life. It’s better than what we have now.

 

[schmidlap]

... 50 year's ago the ruling was correct

Yes, given the fact that most Americans still approve of the compromise ruling of 50 years ago that has applied as established law since then, stare decisis is the conservative legal principle that pertains.

With women now being empowered by medical abortion via the internet and the mail, authoritarians' attempt to exert control over the personal matter and their draconian laws are ineffectual. The abortion rate is about the same in advanced nations with more personal liberty as in regressive ones where the State dictates:

... In countries where abortion is broadly legal, there are between 36 and 47 abortions performed annually per 1,000 women, ages 15 to 49. And what about in countries where abortions are prohibited altogether? "In these countries, there are between 31 and 51 abortions annually per 1,000 women, on average."​

​

... [R]estrictive abortion laws don't correlate with a lower abortion rate. Instead, those laws correlate with more unintended pregnancies, which ultimately leads to an abortion rate comparable to what's observed in countries where the procedure is accessible.​

​

That finding is consistent with several previous studies, including a large one published by the Guttmacher Institute in 2012, and covered by Goats and Soda in 2014.​

​

"Many studies have shown that making abortions illegal doesn't decline the number of abortions," Ana Langer, at Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, told NPR. "Once a procedure becomes illegal, the need is still there. Women will look for services, safe or unsafe, to terminate their pregnancy."​

​

Do restrictive abortion laws actually reduce abortion? A global map offers insights

Click to see how restrictive or liberal local abortion laws are — and to look at the rate of abortion. The data offers a sense of whether stricter abortion laws reduce the number of abortions.

www.npr.org

​

 

[HikerGuy83]

Throughout the debate, those opposed to abortion have shown a blatant hostility towards women and a callous disregard for their well being. I think that Alito, in his leaked opinion, said something about access to abortion- which has allowed women to plan families and pursue careers is not longer necessary because they have come so far. Yes they have, but is that a reason to revert to the barefoot and pregnant mentality?

I think you need to ask why Alito is even touching this.

If that statement were in his decision, I'd be as pissed at him as I get when I read Roe.

Women planning families is not the concern of the court.

Constitutionality is.