Roe vs. Wade overturned

Scepticalscribe said:
@Herdfan: Abortion and Covid are two separate topics.

Now, we all (or, most of us) do have strong views on both topics (views that can - perhaps uncomfortably, squirmingly uncomfortably - straddle, where we all think the state should intervene on issues such as masks, and indeed, abortion), but they are two separate and distinct issues.

This European liberal (cough) is of the opinion that abortion should be legal as long as the woman in question needs this - trimesters be damned.

And yes, this European liberal is also of te view that the state should be able to determine where and when (and for how long) maskes need to be worn.

Do I contradict myself?

Well, yes), but might I also suggest (or recommend) that one read - or otherwise acquaint oneself with the wonderful writings of Walt Whitman....
Click to expand...
I was just discussing the abortion issue with a woman and she pointed out that a man can get a woman pregnant and walk away from the situation. A woman does not have that luxury.

I was reading another article about the disingenuous legal “reasons” being given by SCOTUS judges, saying that this issue of individual rights (abortion) should be left to the states. Meanwhile, in another case dealing with individual rights they heard last month, the same justices went the opposite way, indicating that gun regulations should NOT be left to the state. Let’s face it. They are 100% political, and all the legal opinions are just flowery language trying to cover up their ideological agendas.

The particulars of the case didn’t matter. Roe died when Trump became president… These justices are destroying the legitimacy of the Supreme Court in order to appease a shrinking minority of hardcore anti-abortion ideologues.
 
SuperMatt said:
I was just discussing the abortion issue with a woman and she pointed out that a man can get a woman pregnant and walk away from the situation. A woman does not have that luxury.
Click to expand...
Well, yes, colour me surprised.

In my undergrad days - yes, decades ago - I do recall receiving a moan (it would insult the concept of intelligence to dignify it with the description of an argument) from a male who - well, was attracted to me (as I was to him), but, who also felt (strongly, as is the way of males who "feel" such things) that condoms "inhibited his sensitivity" but who - as is so often the mad, sad, the way of such things - had a mad, irrational, (not his body, after all) distaste (and an equally mad desire to legislate for - hey, fetuses have feelings) for all things abortion.

Ugh.
 
SuperMatt said:
What does COVID have to do with abortion? And this is not an accurate portrayal of what is happening at land borders, but you know that.
Click to expand...
Scepticalscribe said:
@Herdfan: Abortion and Covid are two separate topics.
Click to expand...

Ummm........ Not really sure how to respond to this.

But I was simply answering this post.

Chew Toy McCoy said:
Which message is that? Defund the police/just punitively stop giving them money? Open borders? FREE STUFF? Even as somebody on the left even I can’t think of a Democrat message I received that wasn’t first ground through the right-wing propaganda machine.

But also the Democrats aren't doing themselves any favors by countering that spin with little more than a smug smirk, and as far as people not wed to the Democrat party it seems that words speak louder than actions.
Click to expand...
 
SuperMatt said:
I was reading another article about the disingenuous legal “reasons” being given by SCOTUS judges, saying that this issue of individual rights (abortion) should be left to the states. Meanwhile, in another case dealing with individual rights they heard last month, the same justices went the opposite way, indicating that gun regulations should NOT be left to the state. Let’s face it. They are 100% political, and all the legal opinions are just flowery language trying to cover up their ideological agendas.
Click to expand...

Although the 10th Amendment has been pretty much gutted by SCOTUS over the decades, guns are part of Federal Law and should be controlled by the Federal Government.
 
Chew Toy McCoy said:
I keep hearing that Republican politicians are being cowards when faced with the more extreme or ignorant elements of their base, but I’m starting to think maybe they are representing those people appropriately. There’s not some politician academy they have to graduate from before they can take office. There’s no law saying they have to be better or more diplomatic, amicable, intelligent, or informed than the people who voted them into office. If you took a group of 10 idiots and one of them is elected their leader that doesn’t mean that person isn’t also an idiot. They’re elected to promote and defend idiots, not to be completely different from them.
Click to expand...
Exactly, all of the reasonable and reputable Republicans retired or were flushed in the areas they represented a long time ago to be replaced by ignorant, anti-democratic, win at all costs sinister clowns like Jordon, Green, and a cast of 1000s (federal and state). Just look at all the characters wearing Rs, they are there precisely because of the base that elected them. They represent the majority of people who bothered to vote in their districts, and unfortunately the rural areas out number the cities in most States. And with most of the States hard core cheating- gerrymandering, without some sort of upheaval, liberal causes are a lost cause in this country. :oops:
 
Last edited:
SuperMatt said:
What does COVID have to do with abortion? And this is not an accurate portrayal of what is happening at land borders, but you know that.

Also, you’re just repeating (almost verbatim) a Steve Doocy question, so if you want an answer, search the web for a video of Psaki answering that exact question.

We have a thread for COVID stupidity already; please don’t dump that 💩 in here, thanks.
Click to expand...
Run-of-the-mill attempt to hijack a topic that is uncomfortable for him.
 
Herdfan said:
Although the 10th Amendment has been pretty much gutted by SCOTUS over the decades, guns are part of Federal Law and should be controlled by the Federal Government.
Click to expand...
It was a point of comparison to show that the court only cares about “States’ rights” when it comes to restricting the abortion rights of women. Gun rights was just the most recent case about states’ rights for this SCOTUS (1 month ago). I don’t want to get into the weeds on guns here. There are threads for that.
 
SuperMatt said:
It was a point of comparison to show that the court only cares about “States’ rights” when it comes to restricting the abortion rights of women.
Click to expand...
TBH I'm getting confused by the number of opinion pieces I've read about this topic and the more opinions I read the more turned off I get about the law, because it's such a subjective thing. As you're saying the states rights vs. federal debate is tiresome and has been contorted for short term gains. Why do people lack a consistent value system in this country?!
 
P_X said:
Why do people lack a consistent value system in this country?!
Click to expand...

People change, new people are born, old people die. Mores change.

Fifty years ago the LGBT movement would have been/was banished to dark alleys. Now is it mainstream. That would not have happened had the values of the populace and the populace itself not shifted.

In your case, interracial marriage was very much taboo fifty years ago, now it is barely noticed.
 
P_X said:
TBH I'm getting confused by the number of opinion pieces I've read about this topic and the more opinions I read the more turned off I get about the law, because it's such a subjective thing. As you're saying the states rights vs. federal debate is tiresome and has been contorted for short term gains. Why do people lack a consistent value system in this country?!
Click to expand...
For years, the GOP has promised their voters they will nominate Justices that will overturn Roe v Wade. Each of these nominated justices then goes before the Senate and lies their ass off, claiming they would *gasp* NEVER allow their personal feelings/beliefs interfere with the law. Now they have a 6-3 majority and will overturn it, just like they promised.

Here’s a really good piece by Linda Greenhouse, where she calls it what it is: gaslighting.

www.nytimes.com

Opinion | The Supreme Court Gaslights Its Way to the End of Roe (Published 2021)

The only question is, how will they explain it?
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

I will give the gaslighting prize to Justice Kavanaugh and his suggestion that the court should simply adopt a position of “neutrality” with respect to abortion. Abortion is a contentious issue with important interests on both sides, he said to Solicitor General Prelogar. “Why should this court be the arbiter rather than Congress, the state legislatures, state supreme courts, the people being able to resolve this?” he said. “And there will be different answers in Mississippi and New York, different answers in Alabama than California because they’re two different interests at stake and the people in those states might value those interests somewhat differently.”

Justice Kavanaugh painted a soothing description of a down-the-middle resolution, but Solicitor General Prelogar, for one, wasn’t fooled. “The nature of fundamental rights is that it’s not left up to state legislatures to decide whether to honor them or not,” she responded.
Click to expand...
 
Herdfan said:
...Fifty years ago the LGBT movement would have been/was banished to dark alleys. Now is it mainstream. That would not have happened had the values of the populace and the populace itself not shifted.

In your case, interracial marriage was very much taboo fifty years ago, now it is barely noticed.
Click to expand...

And if Roe v. Wade is in imminent danger of being reversed, so are those other rights. Popular values shifts don't carry the weight they used to. Based on what we're seeing now, I seriously wouldn't be surprised if ten or twenty years down the road another shift begins to "restore morals" to the US by making interracial marriage and LGBTQ self-identification and behavior illegal.
 
Thomas Veil said:
And if Roe v. Wade is in imminent danger of being reversed, so are those other rights. Popular values shifts don't carry the weight they used to. Based on what we're seeing now, I seriously wouldn't be surprised if ten or twenty years down the road another shift begins to "restore morals" to the US by making interracial marriage and LGBTQ self-identification and behavior illegal.
Click to expand...
Gotta love the insinuation that mores “just changed” as if the civil rights marches never happened, or the gay rights movement was just a figment of our imagination.

Rights were earned through decades of fighting for them. That’s why it’s truly disgusting to see the Supreme Court go against the popular will and ban abortion because THEIR PERSONAL BELIEFS are that life begins at conception. Only 19% of people think abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. The right to abortion is overwhelmingly popular, and these extreme ideologues are about to overturn it.

This has NOTHING to do with mores or popular opinion and everything to do with the GOP out-maneuvering the Democrats with judicial nominees while also getting a bit of “luck” when some justices died at the perfect moment for the opportunistic McConnell. He has NO problem stepping over a dead body to get his way.
 
Thomas Veil said:
And if Roe v. Wade is in imminent danger of being reversed, so are those other rights. Popular values shifts don't carry the weight they used to. Based on what we're seeing now, I seriously wouldn't be surprised if ten or twenty years down the road another shift begins to "restore morals" to the US by making interracial marriage and LGBTQ self-identification and behavior illegal.
Click to expand...

Every 100 years there is a whole new set of people walking the planet.

But ask yourself this, what is the largest and fastest growing religion? And what do they think of LGBT rights?

SuperMatt said:
Gotta love the insinuation that mores “just changed” as if the civil rights marches never happened, or the gay rights movement was just a figment of our imagination.

Rights were earned through decades of fighting for them. That’s why it’s truly disgusting to see the Supreme Court go against the popular will and ban abortion because THEIR PERSONAL BELIEFS are that life begins at conception. Only 19% of people think abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, and only 32% think it should be illegal in SOME circumstances. The right to abortion is overwhelmingly popular, and these extreme ideologues are about to overturn it.

This has NOTHING to do with mores or popular opinion and everything to do with the GOP out-maneuvering the Democrats with judicial nominees while also getting a bit of “luck” when some justices died at the perfect moment for the opportunistic McConnell. He has NO problem stepping over a dead body to get his way.
Click to expand...

Then I have to ask, why is this even an issue for the courts?

Why didn't the Dems pass a federal law back in either 1993 with Clinton or 2009 with Obama? Clinton was close to 60 Senators and Obama had 60. Both had the House. This could have/should have been put to rest a long time ago.
 
To be fair, I didn't think that was insinuated. Pretty much everyone accepts that those movements, marches, etc., are what drove those values changes among US voters.

I agree 101% that it's disgusting that the expected SC ruling is going to go against what a solid majority of US citizens believe--not to mention stare decisis law. With Mitch McConnell acting as tenth justice.
 
Herdfan said:
Every 100 years there is a whole new set of people walking the planet.

But ask yourself this, what is the largest and fastest growing religion? And what do they think of LGBT rights?
Click to expand...
What foreigners think of those rights is irrelevant. As for Muslims in the United States, many of them are part of that majority that approves of keeping Roe v. Wade.

Herdfan said:
Why didn't the Dems pass a federal law back in either 1993 with Clinton or 2009 with Obama? Clinton was close to 60 Senators and Obama had 60. Both had the House. This could have/should have been put to rest a long time ago.
Click to expand...
Close to 60? The horseshoes analogy applies. 60? Even that is not a solid enough number to do the right thing, as Manchin and Sinema are proving even now.
 
Thomas Veil said:
And I'd have to ask for a source that proves that not even one Muslim in the US approves of abortion rights.
Click to expand...

I did your work for you:

www.pewforum.org

Religious Landscape Study

Explore the geographic distribution and demographics of America's major religious groups.
www.pewforum.org www.pewforum.org

SuperMatt said:
You never miss a chance to show off your anti-Muslim bigotry. Wake up to reality.

Majority of American Muslims Now Support Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual…

www.hrc.org www.hrc.org
Click to expand...

Reality is that is only in the US.
 
Back
Top