Roe V. Wade to be Overturned - Page 58 - 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

#15235582
Drlee wrote:And how is it that the constitution is established and amended? oh yea. That would be states rights. :roll:

Only those articulated in the constitution and not some, like the absurd concept of "body integrity" that exist only in your wishful thinking.

And how do the people exercise their individual franchise?

Oh yea. Through the states. There are only two elected officials who are not a function of the rights of the states. they are the President and Vice President. And actually only one because we are not given the right to vote for a different vice president that the one the presidential candidates select.

How are SCOTUS members confirmed? Oh yea. Through the actions of representatives of the states.

And if the federal government decided to ban abortion completely, how could this be stopped? Oh yea. Through the actions of the state legislatures as the first representatives of the people.

It would be a very good idea for you and Rancid to take a government class. Just for fun.


Maybe you should take a class on legal logic, Drlee, because here you are clearly confusing the means (how the constitution is amended) with the justification (where does the authority for the amendment process/elections/etc. come from? Answer: The Constitution).

You should also take a government class yourself, because there you will learn that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land (this is literally THE FIRST THING you will learn there) and does not derive its authority from the states. State governments and rights exist only to the extent that the Constitution of the United States allows. Additionally, naturalized citizens (also service members and those holding elected office) are made to swear an oath of fealty to the Constitution of the United States, and not to the constitution of the state in which they reside.

Only those articulated in the constitution and not some, like the absurd concept of "body integrity" that exist only in your wishful thinking.


Yeah, you REALLY need to learn to take your own advice:

AMENDMENT IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Last edited by Saeko on 27 Jun 2022 06:37, edited 1 time in total.
#15235583
BlutoSays wrote:The justices are not acting as republican or democrat. They are acting in interpreting the law. That the two parties have moored themselves to one view or the other is an after effect.

Those that understand the Constitution are all about states rights. Decentralized power is paramount to a functioning society. it almost functions as a safety valve at this point. If you really don't like an aspect, you move to another state rather than having fewer options under a top-down form of government for every major issue. Of course, people can move overseas today. But that wasn't so easy in the framer's time.

The majority on the court are saying why is abortion left to nine people to decide for the whole country?

Would you be OK with the edict that every state MUST practice capital punishment for capital crimes?


"Inalienable Rights? Revolution? Pfffft... Just move, lol."

-George Washington

You don't have a fucking clue.
#15235585
Rancid wrote:If you've read my posts and understood them you wouldn't be saying this.


Bluto and the doc are the sad products of our underfunded education system.

Also @Drlee

like the absurd concept of "body integrity" that exist only in your wishful thinking.


AREN'T YOU A FUCKING MEDICAL DOCTOR!?!??!
#15235589
Rancid wrote:If you've read my posts and understood them you wouldn't be saying this.

I didn't say I'm against the concept of states rights. What I'm saying is, Republicans are hypocritical liars when they evoke that phrase. That is all.


Bingo.

@BlutoSays do you have anything to say about the fact that it was during the Reagan administration that the federal government passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act?
#15235594
Trying to look at this objectively...I think it does become problematic when such a matter of rights and life and death is decided by a small handful of unelected judges based on interpreting a constitution where there is nothing mentioned about abortion even remotely. So it would seem to me that elected officials acting on the people's behalf, whether federal or by state, should create a law, laws (federal, state, or whatever), or constitutional amendment etc. dealing with this issue, since it's so important.
#15235598
Why not tell us why it was necessary to change the law? Why don’t current laws automatically include unborn human entities?

While you’re at it, explain why the police aren’t called to investigate spontaneous abortions as unlawful killings.

I’m very heartened to see that more than a dozen companies will be paying for their staff to travel to another state to access abortion.

I’m sure others will follow suit.
#15235599
Igor Antunov wrote:If it's just a clump of cells why is it considered a double homicide when a pregnant woman and her baby is killed?
Image


If it's a person, then why can't you claim it as a dependent on your taxes? Or claim child support before birth? Or baptize it? Really activates the ol' almonds.
#15235612
Unthinking Majority wrote:Strawman, I never argued that.


Yes, you have.

You have specifically made the point that they had sex and are responsible for the life and death of the unborn child inside them.
#15235613
Drlee wrote:@BlutoSays makes a couple of very good points. They are:

The SCOTUS did not take away any rights that anyone already had. They simply said that this was largely a states rights issue. That simply means that each state is free to craft the law as they would like for their people. The law they craft will be tested in their state courts and in the next election. If, as so many on the progressive side would like us to believe, women are outraged and want some particular reproductive right, there are absolutely enough of them in every state to force these rights in the political process.


This tales away the right to abortion and control over one’s own body.

To pretend that Missississippi did not take away that right because NY did not is incorrect,

To put this another way, it is not the men who are impinging on a woman's right to choose, it is the women themselves who are. Women must remember that the pro-life movement is largely a woman's movement and that in the states with the most restrictive abortion laws, these laws are widely supported by the women of those states.


So we agree that rights are being taken away. The fact that many women support this does not change that.

Roe V. Wade was bad law. Every legal mind in the past 50 years has admitted it. More than the current law it was an act of judicial activism. What has been the negative effect of Roe V. Wade?

Well first of all it contained the seeds of its own defeat. By NOT asserting that a woman had an inalienable right to an abortion, it has single-handedly decided the makeup of the SCOTUS itself for 50 years. The ONLY litmus test of ANY SCOTUS candidate has been his/her stand on Roe.

Secondly it did NOT assert a woman's right to control her own body by giving her the right to an abortion. Indeed it said that she only had the prerogative to choose an abortion under some fairly narrow circumstances. Even the attempt in Casey to change the issue from one of privacy to one of liberty failed miserably.

NOW I WANT EVERYONE TO FUCKING PAY ATTENTION TO THIS:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke for 90 minutes at the Chicago Law School. All on the left raise your hand if you believe that RBG was all about gender equality and women's rights including reproductive rights. Good. 100% now lets move on.




HOLY SHIT BATMAN. Did I just hear her say that Roe was never about woman's choice? Well I think I did. But did we all just endure page after page of nonsense about 'body integrity' and other such nonsense that RBG pointed out years ago was NOT what Roe is about? And, blushing, is this not what I have been saying since my first post here. I guess I agree with RBG. And where did RGB see the answer to the issue CORRECTLY being played out? In the state legislatures? That is what she said. And wait. Didn't this decision throw it back to the states to sort out? What RBG holding back some of her cards? Nope. She went on to say:



POLICY? Yup. That is what she said.

But the court overturning a previous opinion is rare many here say. Is it? Well it is if you consider 230 times rare. For that is how many times the SCOTUS has reversed itself.

So Blutosays and RBG (and myself for what that is worth) all agree on this point: As Bluto said..."Let the states hash it out."

There is absolutely no doubt that RBG believed in a woman's right to choose:



But look look look. There has never been a ruling by the SCOTUS nor a law passed by congress that asserts a woman's right to choose. Not one. Not ever. And THAT is where the solution lies. Well the US Congress can't do it. So what does that mean? It means exactly what the SCOTUS just ruled. In the absence of a federal law or constitutional guarantee, the decision and ultimately the solution lies with the states.

So girls. Get to work locally. Don't look for your solution on CNN or Fox. Look for it on the local 6 o'clock news.


I ignored the rest of it because it seemed like sexism when I skimmed it.
#15235614
Pants-of-dog wrote:This tales away the right to abortion and control over one’s own body.

To pretend that Missississippi did not take away that right because NY did not is incorrect,



So we agree that rights are being taken away. The fact that many women support this does not change that.



I ignored the rest of it because it seemed like sexism when I skimmed it.



#15235616
wat0n wrote:
Right.

Bingo.

@BlutoSays do you have anything to say about the fact that it was during the Reagan administration that the federal government passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act?



I don't think anyone is arguing the fact what this ruling does is kick the question of abortion down to each individual state. It's understood this is a feature of how the US government works.

What our Republican/Conservative contingent on pofo do not get to do unless they are bold face hypocritical fuck heads (they are), is claim that they are all about states rights. Their history say otherwise. With respect to that, @Drlee/ @BlutoSays need to STFU. They know that's true, and they know all they've done is to try to strawman that point with the earlier point. No, you don't get to do that, that is a weaselly tactic.

Anyway, my state has already made their decision on abortion with a trigger ban which makes no exceptions, including rape. Law goes into effect in about 25 days or so.
#15235619
Saeko wrote:So he went from being objectively wrong to being objectively right? How is this bad, again?


Image
#15235625
Igor Antunov wrote:
If it's just a clump of cells why is it considered a double homicide when a pregnant woman and her baby is killed?



Because that law was created to sneak giving a fetus the personhood through the back door.

The law doesn't work like a teenager with personality problems, or at least, that's not how it is supposed to work.

Your frog is a racist meme.
Last edited by late on 27 Jun 2022 14:30, edited 1 time in total.
#15235639
Rancid wrote:There really needs to be like a 1 tweet/ 1 youtube video post limit a day on pofo or something.

These relatively new pofoers remind me of twitter/facebook/reddit users. This is why I don't use those platforms. Looks like it's getting imported to pofo. :hmm:

1 a day and 1 a post, you're the boss.
#15235641
@Mike12 Use the "Edit" feature and stop spamming multiple posts and dumbass videos. No one understands your arguments, because you are all over the place.
#15235643
Godstud wrote:@Mike12 Use the "Edit" feature and stop spamming multiple posts and dumbass videos. No one understands your arguments, because you are all over the place.

Um, you're like... The Edit Post feature has any "Delete Post" feature in it besides "Report Post"? So there's some "...." posts.
#15235651
@Rancid
What does this have to do with the fact Republicans are hypocrites on the states right position?

That was my point to you, and you side stepped it, lumped me with some other point and attacked that. You are the one that is full of shit here. That is, you just tried to straw man me.

Are you going to address how is it htat Republicans are actually for states rights given their history?


Here's the answer, they are not. They cherry pick "states rights" when it suites them.


OF COURSE THEY DO. They do it with guns all of the time. But Rancid and @Saeko please understand this:

There would be no republican party as a political force today if it had not carefully and calculatedly performed a miracle of states rights. By understanding that political power lies first in the states, they attacked and controlled the state legislatures while the democrats were blundering around worrying about a national agenda. (Still are.) That is why 27% of the voters control the majority of state legislatures and governorship. Seriously you two. Think about what that means. It means that, through gerrymandering they have made republican voter's individual votes more "powerful" than those of democrats. They can control seats in congress by making safe republican seats. They can control constitutional "progress" by preventing amendment. Why do you think the Equal Rights Amendment failed? Most importantly, why do you think that Trump got to appoint three archly conservative supreme court justices after losing the popular vote to Clinton by a whopping 2.9 million votes! And there is NOT ONE SINGLE FEDERAL ABORTION LAW. Every one of the trigger laws and others that will follow, come from the states.

The "old time" conservative movement was all about states rights. Republican candidate for president Barry Goldwater in 1964 famously said, "I do not seek to go to Washington to make government more efficient. I seek to go to Washington to make government smaller."

The problem is that neither of you truly understand a conservative agenda. We have become so entrenched in individual issues such as abortion and guns, that we fail to understand that there really are fundamental differences between conservatism and whatever you want to call democrats these days. (It is a moderate right party but lets not get in the weeds over that.) Conservatives do not necessarily believe that the most sacred ideas of "liberals" are correct. And they vote that way. The response by those liberals? Educate and persuade? Nope. Yell insults. That is all both sides do these days.

Understand that Republicans do not see the concentration of power in state legislatures as a bad thing. They see it as a good thing. They do not see the function of government as a homogenization of American thought. They do not believe in "one size fits all" government. They are fine with dry states, local control of schools and lowering taxes at the national level while raising them at the state level. A very telling comment by Goldwater illustrates one seminal divide between conservatives and liberal. Speaking of education he said:

“We have forgotten that purpose of education. Or better: we have forgotten for whom education is intended. The function of our schools is not to educate, or elevate society; but rather to educate individuals and equip them with the knowledge that will enable them to take care of society’s needs.”


This is in stark contrast with what most democrats would say the purpose of education is. So now, 60 years after this statement was made, we are shocked and appalled when Republicans want schools to teach STEM and not "Suzie has two mommies". It is utterly consistent with the message since Lincoln. Including the long forgotten time when the Republican party WAS the party of civil rights.

You two are angry. I am not. I have no problem with making individual citizens take charge of their government starting with the states.

Now I am going to tell you something that will really get up your collective noses. This decision and the one on guns may have saved the union. Why? Do not for a moment think that republicans and conservative independents are not deeply committed to their issues. You may not think that a fetus is a child but I can assure you that they do. You and I may "know" that gun control saves lives but they either do not believe that or do not care in service to the 2nd Amendment. By allowing regional differences on issues that are deeply inspiring and important to people of those regions we let the pressure off of the cooker.

So what the fuck. You can't easily get an abortion in Arizona and can carry a pistol at the grocery store. You can get an abortion in New York but can't carry the pistol. Both states are fine with this. That allows us to be a confederation of states rather than breaking apart. And trust me. We know from history that we can break apart and that the cost of reunification is a bloodbath. We do not need that. And we are stronger together than apart.

And finally. What does the overturn of Roe V. Wade really mean in the whole great scheme of things? Not much. It does not advance or retard the rights of women. They still have what they had before. They still have the right to assert their political will where they live and in doing so push that will up to the national level in concert with others. Will they do that? In some places they will and in some they won't. We have NEVER had a government dedicated to letting everyone do what they want to do, when and where they want to do it. We are a nation constrained by local laws; those laws moderated by the constitution of the states and ultimately the federal constitution.

Some women who want abortions will be inconvenienced. They will have to go to an adjoining state to get one. If they are poor that sucks but then it always sucks to be poor, doesn't it. And maybe, just maybe, if women in sufficient numbers want these laws to be overturned they will get to work and do it. If not. Oh well. That is the will of the people.
#15235653
Drlee wrote:[usermention=14245]

That is the will of the people.



Actually, there is a supermajority that favors some sort of abortion compromise, usually something close to Roe.

You missed other implications, the Right is authoritarian, and will grow increasingly violent. They want their dictator.
  • 1
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 93
Mar-a-lago raided by the FBI

@BlutoSays Well, hey, you know, let's just le[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

So, Coca Cola reported loss of cca 200M USD due t[…]

https://youtu.be/Hz1JWzyvv8A?t=310 https://youtu.[…]

The Madness of Groupthink

I’ve listened to Mattias Desmet on his mass format[…]