(06-28-2022, 11:10 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Hope people who are for overturning Roe hate blow jobs. At this rate it'll be a few months before that gets banned in Red states, too (sodomy laws aren't just about butt stuff).

(06-28-2022, 01:53 PM)pally Wrote: WRONG!!!

I am arguing for the right of ALL Americans to have the basic right of body autonomy.  For me and other women to decide what is best for their health, lives, and future.  In other words, the same right men have

(06-28-2022, 10:41 AM)pally Wrote: The right to personal autonomy over one's body should not have to be spelled out in a country that claims its citizens are free.  It is an inherent right .   And is covered by the 9th amendment. The 10th does not supersede the 9th just because it is convenient. Gun rights are God given, according to those advocates.  How in the hell can the decisions concerning ones' own body be otherwise?

What's next...Uncle Sam choosing your tattoo? piercings?  maybe back to the days of forced sterilization of people deemed not qualified to be parents?  We know they want to regulate how and with whom you have sex.  Maybe they will go after timing and location.  Every Saturday, the woman must submit to the man in the bedroom only in the missionary position.  She is allowed to close her eyes and think of England during the act.

Every decision made by the Roberts court has been to place the individual above the need, wants, desires, or good of society...except this one.  A woman's right is overridden by a fetus that cannot exist on its own.  She becomes a broodmare with all the personal and financial implications that come with it.  She exists solely for the purpose of breeding.  

Abortion, BTW,  was LEGAL in all 13 states at the time of ratification of the Constitution.  It wasn't made illegal until the mid 19th century..thus it was not long standing policy at the time of Roe-v-Wade. Alito did a lot of cherry-picking to justify his personal RELIGIOUS beliefs based reversal

edit: newspaper opinion pieces do not qualify legal arguments

(06-27-2022, 05:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The interesting question is would pro-choice people accept a federal law legalizing abortion, but only in the first trimester?  Public support for abortion really drops off the cliff after the first trimester.

(06-28-2022, 01:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: Coincidentally one of the podcasts I listen to did a two-parter on the NRA from its early roots to now.


One of the interesting things brought up was how 2A was less about your right to own a weapon as much as training a militia that hadn't done so well during the war and needed to be prepared better.  Why?  Well some folks were afraid the slaves would get this CRAZY idea that ALL men were created equal and start an uprising of their own.

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002107670/historian-uncovers-the-racist-roots-of-the-2nd-amendment

https://law.rwu.edu/news/news-archive/bogus-slavery-and-2nd-amendment

So in essence while it was legal to have a gun there was concern that the federal government would interfere if slave states wanted to use their militia to enforce slavery.  Therefore the amendment was pushed by politicians looking to keep power in those states.

You know what else was legal when the constitution was written?

Abortion.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/scarlet-letters-getting-the-history-of-abortion-and-contraception-right/?fbclid=IwAR0m1RyscYXw1Z2KdttXciOnwdlZ7ek8aIEx1gv1FFgoAcSx66kqs0BbhwI

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10297561/

https://www.history.com/news/the-criminalization-of-abortion-began-as-a-business-tactic?fbclid=IwAR3_vVE75lj-hPX7cQjD998usggvpTfRKQXFgX4M_DHaRz6UJ_n63ghbPmk

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2173793?fbclid=IwAR2xIrFS4nqyMrWIqvFLjn_3KTi_RSyd1D7CYXE1l4kmIz5jp9ASAV5sUlQ

But there wasn't a group of people who were worried about the federal government getting involved with it so why even mention it?  I mean they didn't mention a lot of things because, why would they?

Let's face it, the whole thing is basically about white, male, land owners.  

But we went backwards in a lot of ways (which you'll see if you read any of the links) and that was usually about, surprisingly, while males wanting to keep power.  Weird, huh?

So now, in 2022, we go back 50 years because abortion "is not mentioned" in the constitution.

Fair enough.

"Good legal" thinking is just that.  It is based on a a true fact that the word is not used in the constitution, and therefore folks can ignore the damage such a decision does to the rights to millions of women.

Anyway, I'm not going to change anyone's opinions.  Just laying it out there that this is a damaging decision no matter how legal it was.

(06-28-2022, 02:59 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Yeah yeah... everything is those white male's fault. Nothing new here in bizzaro world. Bottom line, it's not in the Constitution, so it is not a Constitutional Right, and the decision is sent to the states to decide for themselves. If people want to make it a Constitutional Right, there is a process for amending the Constitution. Stamping your foot on the ground and shouting "But" is not the process, nor is assassinating Justices, breaking windows, rioting or any of the other crap going on. Meanwhile, abortion is still legal, no back alley clothes hanger abortions are going on, the vast majority are performed with a mail order 2 pill regimen, and the left continues to lie about it. 


And since you bring race into the issue, it is not lost on me that people support unfettered abortion when percentage wise the majority of abortions are by minorities. Must be more of that racism stuff going on, right? 

(06-28-2022, 01:53 PM)pally Wrote: WRONG!!!

I am arguing for the right of ALL Americans to have the basic right of body autonomy.  For me and other women to decide what is best for their health, lives, and future.  In other words, the same right men have

(06-28-2022, 02:59 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Yeah yeah... everything is those white male's fault. Nothing new here in bizzaro world. Bottom line, it's not in the Constitution, so it is not a Constitutional Right, and the decision is sent to the states to decide for themselves. If people want to make it a Constitutional Right, there is a process for amending the Constitution. Stamping your foot on the ground and shouting "But" is not the process, nor is assassinating Justices, breaking windows, rioting or any of the other crap going on. Meanwhile, abortion is still legal, no back alley clothes hanger abortions are going on, the vast majority are performed with a mail order 2 pill regimen, and the left continues to lie about it. 


And since you bring race into the issue, it is not lost on me that people support unfettered abortion when percentage wise the majority of abortions are by minorities. Must be more of that racism stuff going on, right? 

(06-28-2022, 03:28 PM)michaelsean Wrote: 40% of the justices who overturned Roe were not white males.

(06-28-2022, 03:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well I mean they WERE deeply flawed.  Especially by modern standards.

Heck even George Washington would ship his slaves out of PA periodically to avoid the law freeing them if they had residence for 6 consecutive months.

And that WAS the nature of the people who wrote that they were going to  " establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".  They were talking about themselves.  Not blacks or native americans or women.  


Stamping your feet and shouting "but" doesn't change any of that....or the argument that if it's not in the Constitution then it's not a right for everyone...just in the states that allow it.


If you believe our rights are given by some higher power than there shouldn't be any laws taking away those rights.


And nothing I said will change anything, from the perfectly legal decision made by the SC to you opinion.  But they are still facts and add more to the story.

(06-28-2022, 03:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yep.  Lies, damned lies and statistics...lol.

But we haven't even touched the religious aspect that may have helped "shape" the views of the justices.  

And I was only talking about why abortion would not have been in the constitution any more than the right to chop down trees.  No one thought anything of it.

(06-28-2022, 03:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well I mean they WERE deeply flawed.  Especially by modern standards.

Heck even George Washington would ship his slaves out of PA periodically to avoid the law freeing them if they had residence for 6 consecutive months.

And that WAS the nature of the people who wrote that they were going to  " establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".  They were talking about themselves.  Not blacks or native americans or women.  


Stamping your feet and shouting "but" doesn't change any of that....or the argument that if it's not in the Constitution then it's not a right for everyone...just in the states that allow it.


If you believe our rights are given by some higher power than there shouldn't be any laws taking away those rights.


And nothing I said will change anything, from the perfectly legal decision made by the SC to you opinion.  But they are still facts and add more to the story.

(06-28-2022, 04:46 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Am I the only one who thinks vaccines and pregnancy are two different things?

(06-28-2022, 04:46 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Am I the only one who thinks vaccines and pregnancy are two different things?

(06-28-2022, 04:46 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Am I the only one who thinks vaccines and pregnancy are two different things?

(06-28-2022, 05:40 PM)Dill Wrote: They would not be very different at all if the some government mandate required women to become pregnant.

(06-28-2022, 04:46 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Am I the only one who thinks vaccines and pregnancy are two different things?

(06-28-2022, 05:46 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Vaccine = an external substance emitted into the body to stop the spread of a contagion

Pregnancy = an internal substance expelled from the body, viewed by evangelicals as a person before it leaves the body and as an alien contagion after it exits

(06-28-2022, 05:58 PM)Lucidus Wrote: It's an extremely poor comparison that ignores that the fact that individuals retain their bodily autonomy during vaccine mandates.