You know what is really funny. Insurrection is okay again.
Roe overturned. Be kind
- Thread starter Noodle
- Start date
What case? It will be a law passed by a state legislature. SC has spoken. States can go about their business in re abortion as they see fit.
It's not even about nuance. Protesting a ruling or a law you don't agree with isn't the same thing as trying to usurp a fairly elected president.
Why would you even suggest that? It's not that I'm offended by this or even trying to defend her. I've just never heard or seen anything to suggest she's promiscuous or anything like that. It just seemed weird to me, almost like you're saying "get a load of this woman I disagree with. She must be a hussey."
You're acting like abortion is being criminalized in the US.
It's still legal in the the vast majority of states and, in the ones that aren't, well, that's what Democracy looks like.
A discussion that has been put off for 50 years can now take place in the states - where it belongs.
Triggered or not, he has a point. All of those justices said those things in their confirmation hearings so they'd get confirmed. At the very least, it shows an extreme lack of integrity.
On the other side of that coin, it also shows a level of gullibility on behalf of our elected officials. Trump told anyone who'd listen that these justices were vetted to do what they did today.
What can you expect from one of the world’s most despicable cretins?
Well, there were some draconian anti-abortion laws in some states that were triggered by today's ruling. And there are some prominent politicians already calling for an out and out national ban of abortion.
So you‘re saying Kentucky can criminalize me spending Kentucky-earned dollars on gambling in Vegas because gambling is illegal in Kentucky?
I say such a law is unconstitutional.
he has no point. That dude has lost his ****ing mind!
I think you were responding to the wrong post/thread. Rush Limbaugh has been dead and buried for a good while now.
It's weird to me that tweeting exact quotes from supreme court justices saying they wouldn't do what they did today equals losing your mind.
Then let the locals vote on it.
Or don't you like democracy when it doesn't go the way you want?
Well-endowed barmaids aren’t chaste (in my limited experience).
Liberal girls from liberal schools aren’t chaste (in my limited experience).
And yes, I’m taking a shot at a political opponent I’d give crackers in bed.
Well, dudes on message boards typically don't have a lot of luck with women (in my limited experience), but I know that's not always true because I'm here and most certainly buck that trend
I can't click on the links for you.
In my last reply to you, I linked to an article where Mike Pence is calling for a national ban on abortion.
Yep, my Wife likes to remind me the consequences of pregnancy are much greater for a women than a man.
Heck, with working mothers these days the mother has the consequences of pregnancy plus sharing in the costs of raising the child.
There is nothing there from them saying they would not overturn. They are merely agreeing that Roe is precedent. It was. Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson were precedent at one point in time...until they weren't. Same thing just happened to Roe.
No link. I didn't realize Pence was on the Supreme Court? Why didn't someone tell me?!?!?!
I know this is sexist and all that. I'm from the Stone Age.
But just based on what you wrote, wouldn't you think women would be a little more careful about who they have sex with?
In the 'old days', there was a real fear of pregnancy and women were afraid of the consequences. Today, there's not the shame associated with an unwed pregnancy, but the onus is still on the woman, as you said.
I'm not saying women shouldn't have sex (I certainly tried my damndest to make sure they did), but with so many birth control options out there, wth are there so many unplanned pregnancies? I don't get it.
As do I.
But, if a state decides personhood begins at conception, what would stop them from writing a law that says as much and criminalizes the killing of that pre-natal person whether by abortion or other means?
blue letters = link. It's there.
Do you seriously think a national ban is completely off the table? I agree that it's probably ridiculous, but what about today's ruling suggests they couldn't take that step?
If women do not wish to get pregnant aren't there ways to prevent it? As much as it pains me to say it both my daughters were on birth control so such things do not happen. If women wish to not have any more children aren't there procedures they can have done to prevent it? I'm looking for solutions to how women can become safer while still getting their groove on.
Yes, with the ruling today, I can confidently say a national ban is completely off the table. The SC just ruled abortion is a state decision. Do you not realize that?
I didn't have any 'blue letters'. But evidently you missed my point that Pence is not a decision maker in this matter.
The SC merely said the issue is up to the citizens and their elected representatives. Did we stop electing Reps and Senators?
Edit to add: I don't think there will be a national ban b/c Congress is too lazy to do any f*cking work anyway.
True they do. However on an internet message, where you know what I meant, its not a big deal. Just argue the point.
