Roe vs. Wade. The US officials back to stone ages

[msommers]

Crazy that guns have more rights than women's uteruses in the US

[mr2mike]

Video is literally 15+ yrs old.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Roe v Wade was 1) Not a law and 2) Was incredibly awful jurisprudence.

It should never have been to begin with. There may have been an argument to have been made FOR the "right" to abortion, but RvW was not it, let alone the soul witness perjuring herself among other things that made it such a fucking horrendous abuse of judicial power.

The judiciary does not make law. The SCOTUS should not. You want a right in the USA, amend the constitution. Otherwise, admit your abortion of false equivalency democracy failed and play within the rules.

Correct take. RvW was shaky as hell from day 1, even RBG knew it was bad law. The Democrats had 50 years to try to get an actual law or amendment passed and thought it was a better idea to use abortion as a vote-getting boogeyman instead. They wrongly thought the Republicans were doing the same thing, whoops, turned out they actually had convictions above "get votes".

[Sentry]

Yeah zero sympathy when grandstanding blows up in someone's face. I wish there were an easy answer for americans, but they had 50 years to do something about it like you said.

In the interim, planned parenthood in red states can hand out bus tickets to blue states.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Look at this kertard already haha

https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/it-feels...wade-1.5962293

[Gman.45]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

he's also anti gay and anti contraception, so that tells me all i need to know... also this particular case has nothing to do with race.

I agree, I was going to say precisely that, that race has nothing to do with this - maybe I misunderstood your first comment, as it seemed to say that you thought it did. Thomas being anti gay marriage/contraception/abortion/etc and being black is evidence that this case goes beyond racial lines - what did you mean by your first comment, I understood it to mean that you placed the fault of this on old white men making the "rules" still, hence my response. If I misunderstood, my bad.


Does anyone else think that the Conservative/right in the USA is not thinking about this strategically? I mean it'd be a sure thing that a sizable majority of the woman getting abortions in the USA are on the left side of politics. Having them eliminate their potential offspring can only mean that the next generation will have far less leftist/liberals alive, n'est pas? Since politics frequently runs along family lines and tradition...

Isn't that a good thing in terms of voting power for the right? IMO they should be welcoming abortions on this basis alone.

[Sentry]

Their opinion is based on religion unfortunately. And also their two party system which means on every single given issue they must take the hard opposite stance of the other party, because reasons.

[finboy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Correct take. RvW was shaky as hell from day 1, even RBG knew it was bad law. The Democrats had 50 years to try to get an actual law or amendment passed and thought it was a better idea to use abortion as a vote-getting boogeyman instead. They wrongly thought the Republicans were doing the same thing, whoops, turned out they actually had convictions above "get votes".

Hell obama had a filibuster proof majority and still didn’t make a move on codifying roe v wade because ACA was more important to him. Democrats made a terrible miscalculation in thinking the republicans wouldn’t ever make a move, these are the results. RBG could have retired under obama, she didn’t, democrats could have pushed for anyone besides Hilary Clinton, they didn’t, there were lots of opportunities to take the win away from republicans and they underestimated their adversaries.

Democrats have to take their lumps for 2022, tell Biden to disappear and find new blood for 2024 if they want to start working towards a solution. Biden/Kamala/mayor Pete aren’t going to get them the numbers they need to make substantive change and inspire people to vote in a long lasting democratic senate/house majority to replace republican judges.

- - - Updated - - -

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I agree, I was going to say precisely that, that race has nothing to do with this - maybe I misunderstood your first comment, as it seemed to say that you thought it did. Thomas being anti gay marriage/contraception/abortion/etc and being black is evidence that this case goes beyond racial lines - what did you mean by your first comment, I understood it to mean that you placed the fault of this on old white men making the "rules" still, hence my response. If I misunderstood, my bad.


Does anyone else think that the Conservative/right in the USA is not thinking about this strategically? I mean it'd be a sure thing that a sizable majority of the woman getting abortions in the USA are on the left side of politics. Having them eliminate their potential offspring can only mean that the next generation will have far less leftist/liberals alive, n'est pas? Since politics frequently runs along family lines and tradition...

Isn't that a good thing in terms of voting power for the right? IMO they should be welcoming abortions on this basis alone.

Republicans are also enjoying a big swing in Latino votes moving towards the Republican Party as their social values closer align current offering.

[Buster]

Democrats figured out pretty quick what a woman is.

[finboy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Democrats figured out pretty quick what a woman is.

[Buster]

Does this take away the rights of the XY version of women as well as the XX version of women?

[zechs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Rights are inalienable.

Pre-viability abortion should be a right, ergo it should not require legislation to enumerate it.

State law restricting pre-viability abortion should be overturned based on (at least) the 9th amendment.

Please show, with facts, what a human is.

We should err on the side of saving lives.

I do agree with your stance, but even I question the arbitrariness of viability.

Babies will literally die without their mother, in or out of the womb.

And the stats don't lie about abortion, so I have a tough time possibly violating the potential of a human life being saved vs a hoe being able to get an abortion in the 3rd trimester.

There is an honest, mature discussion to be had here. Is all abortion bad? Nope. Should there be limits, possibly strict limits? There can be a discussion on this if people approach it from the perspective of privacy/freedom of personhood and not from emotion.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Please show, with facts, what a human is.

We should err on the side of saving lives.

I do agree with your stance, but even I question the arbitrariness of viability.

Babies will literally die without their mother, in or out of the womb.

And the stats don't lie about abortion, so I have a tough time possibly violating the potential of a human life being saved vs a hoe being able to get an abortion in the 3rd trimester.

There is an honest, mature discussion to be had here. Is all abortion bad? Nope. Should there be limits, possibly strict limits? There can be a discussion on this if people approach it from the perspective of privacy/freedom of personhood and not from emotion.

Let the adults talk.

[ZenOps]

So this is obviously the first step in the USA moving to a one child policy.

[finboy]

On a lighter note

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Hell obama had a filibuster proof majority and still didnÂ’t make a move on codifying roe v wade because ACA was more important to him.

Never had the votes for it. The only way the ACA got passed was by reaffirming the Hyde Amendment (which restricts what kind of abortions federal money can be used for) to bring the anti-choice Democrat senators on board.

[zechs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Let the adults talk.

Well why do you keep posting then?

As expected, you have zero ability to explain your position that a baby is not a human and therefore a human life should be killed for the 94% that do it simply because they couldn't be bothered to have the dude wrap it or the chick be on the pill

[ThePenIsMightier]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

As expected, you have zero ability to explain your position that...
... couldn't be bothered to have the dude wrap it or wear a condom.

Do you have the ability to explain the difference between "have the dude wrap it" and "wear a condom"?

[zechs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Do you have the ability to explain the difference between "have the dude wrap it" and "wear a condom"?

I was typing and got busy, came back and typed the last part. Meant be on the pill or have a dude wrap it.

[finboy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Never had the votes for it. The only way the ACA got passed was by reaffirming the Hyde Amendment (which restricts what kind of abortions federal money can be used for) to bring the anti-choice Democrat senators on board.

Either more Americans are pro-life than noted by the louder voices on Twitter OR more likely Americans want safe/legal/rare but have higher priorities than abortion in their vote decision process.

I don’t see this decision changing the 2022 mid terms nor the 2024 election, unless republicans go for a federal ban. On that note, I expect republicans will move for a national ban in an attempt to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.