Roe V. Wade to be Overturned - Page 56 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15235509
BlutoSays wrote:Yes. Did you read the syllabus (much shorter than the actual decision - it's the first several pages)? If you don't agree with the outcome of the ruling, you can at least realize they had many good reasons for the decision they came to. It was backed up with plenty of case law.

The dissent is also in there. Both sides aired their views. But acting like this is just a power struggle is BS. Let the states hash it out for their individual populations.

But anytime the DNC doesn't get their way, it's like the end of the fucking world. Really? Is it the end of the world because you didn't get your way for the next 50 years on abortions? Are you barred from visiting another state? Did you really NOT get your way, or was life made just a little more difficult, but not the end of the world?


I'm more interested in reading their reasoning to be honest. If you have an opinion about Roe I think it's fair to read the entire ruling, same with this one.

I agree with you, having an abortion elsewhere is always possible. It's one of the good things about the federal system, the stakes are not as high as they are in an unitary state.
#15235519
Conservatives simply don't understand that, while some sins can be stopped by human beings (e.g. political oppression against a large group of people), others can only be stopped or judged by God.

Unfortunately abortion is of the latter kind, even if the conservatives are 100% right here.

And in trying to ban abortion, they are committing unnecessary political oppression against women across the country.

@BlutoSays let it be known that you are an Igor Antunov this time.
#15235522
"The former vice president’s about-face on the Hyde amendment is not the first time he has revised his position on abortion. A devout Roman Catholic who served for more than three decades in the Senate, Biden has long been personally opposed to abortion, and his record in Congress reflected his misgivings about the procedure.

As a first-term Senator from Delaware in 1974, the year after Roe v. Wade was decided, Biden said women should not have the “sole right to say what should happen to her body.” Decades later as vice president, he said the opposite, arguing in the 2012 vice presidential debate that lawmakers do not have “a right to tell other people that – women – they can’t control their body.” Similarly, in 1981, then-Sen.Biden voted for a constitutional amendment allowing states to overturn Roe v. Wade. The following year, he reversed his position and voted against the measure when it was held to a second vote."

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/w ... n-abortion
#15235527
@BlutoSays

Wow! The United States Supreme Court just declared that American women are no longer regular citizens but only second-class citizens. I wonder what's next on the Republican hit list? Free speech? Freedom of the Press? The right to assembly? Which constitutional rights will the Republicans take away next?
#15235530
Politics_Observer wrote:@BlutoSays

Wow! The United States Supreme Court just declared that American women are no longer regular citizens but only second-class citizens. I wonder what's next on the Republican hit list? Free speech? Freedom of the Press? The right to assembly? Which constitutional rights will the Republicans take away next?


REALLY? How did they declare that American women are no longer regular citizens but only second-class citizens??????
#15235531
BlutoSays wrote:"The former vice president’s about-face on the Hyde amendment is not the first time he has revised his position on abortion. A devout Roman Catholic who served for more than three decades in the Senate, Biden has long been personally opposed to abortion, and his record in Congress reflected his misgivings about the procedure.

As a first-term Senator from Delaware in 1974, the year after Roe v. Wade was decided, Biden said women should not have the “sole right to say what should happen to her body.” Decades later as vice president, he said the opposite, arguing in the 2012 vice presidential debate that lawmakers do not have “a right to tell other people that – women – they can’t control their body.” Similarly, in 1981, then-Sen.Biden voted for a constitutional amendment allowing states to overturn Roe v. Wade. The following year, he reversed his position and voted against the measure when it was held to a second vote."

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/w ... n-abortion


So he went from being objectively wrong to being objectively right? How is this bad, again?
#15235532
BlutoSays wrote:REALLY? How did they declare that American women are no longer regular citizens but only second-class citizens????


Because we no longer have the unalienable right of ownership and use of our own bodies. No person should have a claim to the organs of another, even if that person is a fetus (assuming fetuses are persons).
#15235533
Saeko wrote:So he went from being objectively wrong to being objectively right? How is this bad, again?


He went from doing what was politically convenient at the time to doing what was politically convenient at the time.

Enough of the fake outrage.
#15235534
Saeko wrote:Because we no longer have the unalienable right of ownership and use of our own bodies. No person should have a claim to the organs of another, even if that person is a fetus (assuming fetuses are persons).


Who says you don't have ownership of your own body? The court did NOT ban abortion. Roe was flawed. Individual states will make the decision.

You would take it all the way to infanticide just to prove a point. The "cause" pushed by NARAL, PP, and all the other "reproductive justice" organizations has become fucking disgusting.
#15235535
BlutoSays wrote:Who says you don't have ownership of your own body? The court did NOT ban abortion. Roe was flawed. Individual states will make the decision.


Individual states don't get to make the decision about whether or not I can own my own body. If they do, it's not a right, merely a privilege.

You would take it all the way to infanticide just to prove a point. The "cause" pushed by NARAL, PP, and all the other "reproductive justice" organizations has become fucking disgusting.


It is not murder to REFUSE to donate your blood/organs to someone who needs them. Fuck off with this infanticide bullshit.
#15235537
BlutoSays wrote:He went from doing what was politically convenient at the time to doing what was politically convenient at the time.

Enough of the fake outrage.


If it is politically convenient to do the right thing, then it should be done. How is this anything except an utterly incontrovertible truism?
#15235539
@BlutoSays

Saeko nails it when she stated this below Bluto. It's politically convenient for the right (ie Republicans) to have "states decide everything for everybody" because that means they can take away constitutional rights from anybody or groups of people who merely demand equal treatment but view such equal treatment as a threat to their power, status, and privilege. Federal protection of constitutional rights is essential to ensure such rights are not chipped away state by state.

Saeko wrote:Individual states don't get to make the decision about whether or not I can own my own body. If they do, it's not a right, merely a privilege.
#15235541
Politics_Observer wrote:@BlutoSays

Saeko nails it when she stated this below Bluto. It's politically convenient for the right (ie Republicans) to have "states decide everything for everybody" because that means they can take away constitutional rights from anybody or groups of people who merely demand equal treatment but view such equal treatment as a threat to their power, status, and privilege. Federal protection of constitutional rights is essential to ensure such rights are not chipped away state by state.


Just ask why @BlutoSays supports this. (not that I will accept his actions, but at least knowing why makes my rejection of his stance more justified)

Although I don't think he gives a darn if a Republican controlled government throws him into jail just because he looks bad to them, just to say.
#15235543
Politics_Observer wrote:@BlutoSays

Saeko nails it when she stated this below Bluto. It's politically convenient for the right (ie Republicans) to have "states decide everything for everybody" because that means they can take away constitutional rights from anybody or groups of people who merely demand equal treatment but view such equal treatment as a threat to their power, status, and privilege. Federal protection of constitutional rights is essential to ensure such rights are not chipped away state by state.

The right to an abortion shoved into every State. Keep at it. I GUESS.
Last edited by Mike12 on 27 Jun 2022 03:40, edited 1 time in total.
#15235545
Politics_Observer wrote:@BlutoSays

Saeko nails it when she stated this below Bluto. It's politically convenient for the right (ie Republicans) to have "states decide everything for everybody" because that means they can take away constitutional rights from anybody or groups of people who merely demand equal treatment but view such equal treatment as a threat to their power, status, and privilege. Federal protection of constitutional rights is essential to ensure such rights are not chipped away state by state.


Indeed. State's "rights" are only ever invoked when it comes time to destroy individual rights.
#15235546
Saeko wrote:Indeed. State's "rights" are only ever invoked when it comes time to destroy individual rights.

The United Nations found a way to give you your cd player. And keep at it with that one. accidental confiscations.
#15235550
SpecialOlympian wrote:Dude, we've read your creepy thoughts on how to ~court a traditional woman~ we all know this is just how you want to force a woman to stay with you because you have average income.


Bait but I'll bite.
Image
#15235551
Saeko wrote:Indeed. State's "rights" are only ever invoked when it comes time to destroy individual rights.

When would the Federal authority to violate states rights to make a legal situation be an individual right? Or, why is you in an individual State closer to the Federal District or the Federal Government than the State you're in with your rights? Thats the state cop, thats the governor approving the execution.
  • 1
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 92
Mar-a-lago raided by the FBI

Besides killing them, poisoning them, throwing th[…]

They're all shit in their own unique ways. I woul[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Weren't you begging for nuclear war Rancid? This […]

Many things should disqualify Biden to run for pr[…]