Roe Vs Wade Overturned

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-27-2022, 11:59 AM)Nately120 Wrote: I hear ya, it's just hard to have much confidence in the strength of any positions now. A president with 3 million fewer votes than his opponent won and appointed 3 SC justices who were instrumental in doing something that has an amount of bipartisan disdain rarely seen in this climate. 

I'd put on my tinfoil hat and wonder why overturning something both sides have anything close to agreement upon was so damn important. Add in that the Trump justices were blatantly lying about their intentions to do so and, well...hard not to assume we are sliding down a slope. 

Plus people can be pissed about this, but the GOP can still clean house in the midterms and further show that unlike Dee Snyder, we are gonna take it.  

The slippery slope argument keeps popping up in this discussion, for obvious reasons.  I have to say I find it amusing in the sense that many on the left routinely scoff at the slippery slope argument when it's applied to things they don't like, like gun rights.  I'm not accusing you of this, but it's an extremely prevalent attitude. 

[*Nately120*]

(06-27-2022, 12:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The slippery slope argument keeps popping up in this discussion, for obvious reasons.  I have to say I find it amusing in the sense that many on the left routinely scoff at the slippery slope argument when it's applied to things they don't like, like gun rights.  I'm not accusing you of this, but it's an extremely prevalent attitude. 

I acknowledge that in the left, but the real slope I see is how the system is tailored to benefit the GOP.  That's not even me lamenting that republicans have an  easier time winning so much as the republican label is so much of an "easy mode" that the party is becoming overly attractive for a apolitical opportunists. 

Itd be like the NFL giving AFC teams 3 downs and nfc teams 5 downs. Where there is one slope, there is another. 

Of course Burrow with 3 downs could beat the Cowboys with 5 down in the Superbowl, but you gotta feel for those other afc teams.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-27-2022, 12:26 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I acknowledge that in the left, but the real slope I see is how the system is tailored to benefit the GOP.  That's not even me lamenting that republicans have an  easier time winning so much as the republican label is so much of an "easy mode" that the party is becoming overly attractive for a apolitical opportunists. 

Itd be like the NFL giving AFC teams 3 downs and nfc teams 5 downs. Where there is one slope, there is another. 

Of course Burrow with 3 downs could beat the Cowboys with 5 down in the Superbowl, but you gotta feel for those other afc teams.  

The system is designed so that the minority can't be steamrolled by the majority.  This has benefited both parties, alternatively, throughout the nation's history.

[*Nately120*]

(06-27-2022, 12:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The system is designed so that the minority can't be steamrolled by the majority.  This has benefited both parties, alternatively, throughout the nation's history.

Perhaps we went a bit too far now that it could be argued the minority seems to have a taste for doing the steamrolling. 

[Belsnickel]

(06-27-2022, 12:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The slippery slope argument keeps popping up in this discussion, for obvious reasons.  I have to say I find it amusing in the sense that many on the left routinely scoff at the slippery slope argument when it's applied to things they don't like, like gun rights.  I'm not accusing you of this, but it's an extremely prevalent attitude. 

Ain't that the ***** truth. I am dealing with that with my wife right now. I get being unhappy about the case, but my wife has been allowing it to affect her far too much and it has a lot to do with the slippery slope arguments, some of which aren't even plausible. I tried to mention this a couple of times, yesterday, when she was having one of her moments about the case and she just wasn't having it. I am not even discussing the case with her anymore because the next words out of my mouth will be that she is being irrational and I know the shitstorm that will be coming my way, then.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-27-2022, 12:41 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Perhaps we went a bit too far now that it could be argued the minority seems to have a taste for doing the steamrolling. 

I'm sure that exact sentiment has been uttered many times throughout our nation's history.

(06-27-2022, 12:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Ain't that the ***** truth. I am dealing with that with my wife right now. I get being unhappy about the case, but my wife has been allowing it to affect her far too much and it has a lot to do with the slippery slope arguments, some of which aren't even plausible. I tried to mention this a couple of times, yesterday, when she was having one of her moments about the case and she just wasn't having it. I am not even discussing the case with her anymore because the next words out of my mouth will be that she is being irrational and I know the shitstorm that will be coming my way, then.

Yeah, my sister actually got upset with me this weekend while discussing this.  I literally couldn't tell you the last time this happened.  As to your last sentence, definitely a smart move on your part.  

[*Nately120*]

(06-27-2022, 12:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm sure that exact sentiment has been uttered many times throughout our nation's history.

Well the ol overton window shifting do far right probably makes defining who is really in the minority in regards to political leanings rather skewed. 

More democrats getting a moderate president while the minority on the right get starry eyed over authoritarian principles...maybe things were designed to gradually push us this far right and we're merely passengers on the train. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-27-2022, 12:54 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Well the ol overton window shifting do far right probably makes defining who is really in the minority in regards to political leanings rather skewed. 

More democrats getting a moderate president while the minority on the right get starry eyed over authoritarian principles...maybe things were designed to gradually push us this far right and we're merely passengers on the train. 

Think about the huge amount of social change that's occurred in the last twenty years, hell the last ten.  It's completely predictable that there would be a backlash against so much change happening in such a short time.  This is coupled with the inevitable overreach that occurs when one side feels ascendant.  The only question is how big is the backlash and how permanent the effects of it will be.

[*Nately120*]

(06-27-2022, 12:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Think about the huge amount of social change that's occurred in the last twenty years, hell the last ten.  It's completely predictable that there would be a backlash against so much change happening in such a short time.  This is coupled with the inevitable overreach that occurs when one side feels ascendant.  The only question is how big is the backlash and how permanent the effects of it will be.

Fair point, I just find the predictable backlash is being harnessed and implemented in rather deceptive and unhelpful ways. 

Our back and forth seems to be shifting further and further right, as well. I guess this is the right wing version of our country handing a presidency for life to FDR because the GOP was so unpopular. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-27-2022, 01:05 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Fair point, I just find the predictable backlash is being harnessed and implemented in rather deceptive and unhelpful ways. 

Our back and forth seems to be shifting further and further right, as well. I guess this is the right wing version of our country handing a presidency for life to FDR because the GOP was so unpopular. 

And I'd say that perception will vary wildly by where you reside.  I can tell you here in CA the push is still way to the left.

[*Nately120*]

(06-27-2022, 01:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And I'd say that perception will vary wildly by where you reside.  I can tell you here in CA the push is still way to the left.

I have more calmness regarding state by state basis stuff, particularly since I'm doing A ok in MAGA territory.  Well this county in PA, and all that.  I'm not putting a Fetterman sign in my yard. 

This goes back to the office of president becoming a bonerfide chimera of a position and the right Getting a bit too greedy on regards to how easy it should be for them to get that spot. 

[PDub80]

(06-27-2022, 11:59 AM)Nately120 Wrote: I hear ya, it's just hard to have much confidence in the strength of any positions now. A president with 3 million fewer votes than his opponent won and appointed 3 SC justices who were instrumental in doing something that has an amount of bipartisan disdain rarely seen in this climate. 

I'd put on my tinfoil hat and wonder why overturning something both sides have anything close to agreement upon was so damn important. Add in that the Trump justices were blatantly lying about their intentions to do so and, well...hard not to assume we are sliding down a slope. 

Plus people can be pissed about this, but the GOP can still clean house in the midterms and further show that unlike Dee Snyder, we are gonna take it.  

EDIT: 100% not banging on you with the below. I super respect people's political ideas. I think they are interesting, but don't necessarily define them... unless they are a lawmaker. In which case, then... yeah... that's fair. I tend to vote Republican, but a lot of the center leaning democrat initiatives are important to me. They make sense to fix.... same with the GOP.

Look, clearly you aren't a fan of the GOP, which is fine... I get that...  but that saltiness isn't going to further this discussion. The rules of an election are what they are. If the majority ruled.... well, let's be honest, the majority are stupid.... which is part of why the electoral college exists. It isn't a perfect system of government, I agree... But, at this point, anyone bitching about the Trump administration's results - not the man himself, but the results - while living with the results of the current one doesn't make sense to me. These political parties aren't sports teams where people should hold any kind of long term allegiance to them. They are human beings with real power over others. They either do well as a group, or they do not.

Not all Dem ideas are bad, not all GOP ideas are good... and certainly we can all agree that NONE OF THEM execute these ideas very well with any sort of consistency.

Hell, the KKK was entirely made up of Sothern Democrats during it's biggest time of influence and now the Democratic party is "for minorities". Which is another fascinating debate TO CIRCLE BACK TO ABORTION: More black babies were aborted in the city of New York in 2019 than were born - this statistic is perpetual, BTW. That happens in almost every year. Interesting way to, uh, help the black community..... by helping stall their population growth. In fact, NATION WIDE, since Roe v Wade was passed more than 40% of abortions are performed on black women, even though they are less than 15% of the population. < Wall Street Journal statistics, BTW. I didn't pull those from thin air.

My point is that not all Republicans are against abortion. Not all Democrats are for it. It is a matter of law based on 100s of years of laws. It is a silly way to continue to operate, IMO. Each of these issues are major enough to be based on what makes sense in 2022.. not 1787.

[*Nately120*]

(06-27-2022, 01:48 PM)PDub80 Wrote: Look, clearly you aren't a fan of the GOP, which is fine... I get that...  but that saltiness isn't going to further this discussion. The rules of an election are what they are. If the majority ruled.... well, let's be honest, the majority are stupid.... which is part of why the electoral college exists. It isn't a perfect system of government, I agree... But, at this point, anyone bitching about the Trump administration's results - not the man himself, but the results - while living with the results of the current one doesn't make sense to me. These political parties aren't sports teams where people should hold any kind of long term allegiance to them. They are human beings with real power over others. They either do well as a group, or they do not.

I just want to point out that I'm a libertarian who is disappointed both parties have agreed to eliminate any hope of a 3rd party having any effect or relevance since that whole Ross Perot wild card thing.  I'm bummed out because as I accepted that we won't get 3 parties, I'm also beginning to see an increased interest in further reducing our political choices to a guy who leans right versus a guy who leans further right.

My disdain for the GOP goes back to Reagan, but it's different in the sense that we are now seeing increasing legitimization of the reduction if not outright elimination of the democratic process and that just so happens to be via the side of the political coin that is able to win despite only having the minority of support because the majority is stupid and so on and so forth.

That's how I see it.  So even accepting that we need to have a set of rules where the minority can rule, the fact that the minority is choosing to go down the path is it is the issue.  Would I feel different if someone said that votes for Gary Johnson counted as 100,000 votes for Hillary or Trump?  Damn right, but that ain't so, so I don't.

So yea, I'm in the minority that is too minor to get those sweet minority benefits.  Ouch.

EDIT - And let me point out that in 2016 I enthusiastically voted for Johnson/Weld, two successful republican governors who were thrown aside for Trump.  So perhaps my saltiness isn't for concept of non-democrats being elected but for the climate the "easy road" political party has taken.  That's my two cents, and I could be wrong.  Hell I hope I'm wrong.  Tell me how things get less crazy....er, other then me just quitting my internet politics addition.  That's obvious. 

[Lucidus]

(06-27-2022, 11:18 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And here I was being nice and civil to you since your return.  But you just couldn't help yourself and had white knight a dude who got caught up in his own wording and refused to own it.  I explained his statement numerous times, and all I got was "nuh uh" in response.  Odd that you would defend that.  On second thought, no it isn't.

In an effort to illuminate why I came to my conclusion about you, let's revisit the origin of our exchange.

BFritz21 stated the following in post #78:

(06-25-2022, 02:50 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: "All men and women are CREATED EQUAL."

Men and women are CREATED when the sperm fertilizes the egg and the rest are just stages of development.

My response in post #80 attempted to show that his categorization of men and women was mistaken by using the word "people" to describe those who could and couldn't become pregnant, even emphasizing the word with italic. 

I then offered reasons as to why those two groups of people are not equal in terms of reproductive burden / ramifications and to demonstrate the obvious difference.

(06-25-2022, 03:31 PM)Lucidus Wrote: There are people who possess the biological means of becoming pregnant and people who do not.
These two groups are not "equal" in terms of the impact of this recent decision by the Court.

One isn't required to undergo physical, hormonal and emotional changes to bring forth life.
One isn't required to endure pain, severe discomfort or various medical issues to bring forth life.
One isn't required to potentially be forced against their will and autonomy to bring forth life. 

In your first response - post #85 and again in post #91 as shown - you went directly to an accusation of transphobia after looking at those examples, which seemed extremely disingenuous given what I had stated in the first 2 lines. It's as if you ignored that part because your assertion and following arguments would not have made sense had the full context been considered.

(06-25-2022, 04:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Excuse me, transphobe.  Men can absolutely have to deal with everything you just mentioned.  You should apologize for your bigoted statement immediately.

(06-25-2022, 06:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're not going to apologize for your transphobia, are you?

Later in post #117, you falsely asserted that my position was "in relation to men vs. women" which it clearly wasn't. In an attempt to rehabilitate your argument, you once again referenced to my original post, but this time omitted the first 2 lines, and instead focused only on the last 3 lines while re-stating your claim of transphobia.

(06-26-2022, 02:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have a hard time understanding how you could be confused.  I've been told, numerous times, that men can get pregnant, have periods, etc.

You stated, in relation to men vs. women that;

One isn't required to undergo physical, hormonal and emotional changes to bring forth life.

One isn't required to endure pain, severe discomfort or various medical issues to bring forth life.

One isn't required to potentially be forced against their will and autonomy to bring forth life. 

This is denying that there are, indeed, men who have to go through all of that.  If you have an issue with my response to your transphobia then kindly take it up with the transgendered community, I am merely echoing their statements on this subject.  Maybe you're not the ally you thought you were?

Perhaps revisiting the exchange will enlighten you as to why I came to my conclusion about your approach.

[Lucidus]

(06-27-2022, 09:30 AM)pally Wrote: If one does not have autonomy over one's own body then nothing else matters.  You are not a free person...your body belongs to somebody else.  I keep hearing about the rights of a child but nothing about the rights of the woman.  Its like she suddenly doesn't matter once she is pregnant even if that pregnancy is against her will or desire.  

Abortion rates have fallen steadily since about 1983.  They fall faster during Democratic presidencies, probably because the economy has been better during those times. 2 things have big impact on pregnancy rates...comprehensive school-based sex education that goes beyond abstinance and easy access to a variety of birth control methods.  Keep in mind that the same right-wing that wanted Roe-v-Wade overturned is going after sex education because they believe parents should do it. Most parents do a lousy job of it. They underestimate the power of teenage hormones.  They can teach morality...let educators deal with the facts. They are also going after several forms of birth control including the very effective IUD and the day-after pill.  They believe that even preventing the implantation of a zygote is abortion.

As I said earlier, abortion will never ever be legislated out of existence.  What they are legislated is the elimination of safe abortions for women who don't have the money or ability to travel.  78% of single mothers already live in poverty.  That number will grow. The number of children in poverty will grow exponentially.  Only 43% of women actually receive child support and even that is often inadequate.  Women will be leaving the workforce because of too expensive or unavailable child care.  

One of the nation's most prominent constitutional scholars, Laurence Tribe, had this to say about the Court's decision:

“It is a devastating blow to the implied right to privacy. And it’s a devastating blow to the idea that the Constitution was not frozen in the early 19th century. It’s no longer the Roberts Court. Its legacy is shattered and the institutional integrity of the Court is deeply undermined.”

[Bengalzona]

(06-27-2022, 11:20 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, I share some of those same concerns.  But, as I stated earlier Roe was on much shakier ground than other decisions, such as same sex marriage.  I suppose the cases they accept for their next term will tell us something in this regard.

Then again, if Clarence Thomas' commentary is to be taken at face value, same sex marriage is next on the proverbial chopping block.

[Dill]

(06-27-2022, 10:10 AM)pally Wrote: what other rights do the unborn possess?  If the mother miscarried there would not even be a death certificate because under most state laws a miscarried pregnancy isn't a person.  You can't take out life insurance on a fetus.  You can't collect child support on a fetus.  A person who kills a fetus while committing a crime will only be charged with its death after viability.  I can't get a deduction on my taxes because of a pregnancy.  Justice Alito said if a right isn't spelled out in the constitution it isn't a right.  Preborn personhood isn't in the constitution nor is it considered a historic norm.  

So tell me, what rights does this unborn have?

If the unborn are citizens with the full protection of the Constitution,

then they now have the right to open carry, in addition to freedom of speech and association.

They are also free from double jeopardy and cruel and unusual punishment. 

And each and everyone has a right to counsel and trial by jury. 

If they are already people, then they have these rights now.   

[Bengalzona]

(06-27-2022, 01:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And I'd say that perception will vary wildly by where you reside.  I can tell you here in CA the push is still way to the left.

Part of that push may because all of your voting Righties keep moving over here to AZ. Apparently the voting Lefties are content with CA as is (no surprise, eh).

Please take them back. It's bad enough that we have the literally bat-shit crazy retirees from Oregon and Washington moving out here (Left and Right).

Thanks, appreciate it!

[Lucidus]

(06-27-2022, 03:57 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Then again, if Clarence Thomas' commentary is to be taken at face value, same sex marriage is next on the proverbial chopping block.

As Mr. Tribe stated in reference to Judge Thomas' comments ---

“I think all of those invitations will be taken up with gusto by this court."


Extremely concerning, to say the least.

[PDub80]

(06-27-2022, 03:57 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Then again, if Clarence Thomas' commentary is to be taken at face value, same sex marriage is next on the proverbial chopping block.

Which is absurd to me. Declaration of independence, 1st thing: All Men Are Created Equal. /end of anything raking rights away from people who haven't done something illegal to prove they cannot function within the rules of society with all of those rights bestowed unto them.

In the eyes of the government of the entire US, there is no reasonable argument to be made where it's acceptable or reasonable to distinguish the need for a gay person's rights to be different than a straight person. It has nothing to do with privacy or rights if one's body... ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.