Roe Versus Wade Overturned

[Sucumbio]

#HBC | Acrostic is it possible I'm missing the forest for the trees? That is... Reversing Roe while undoing every court precedent, decision, law etc.... Doing that is basically hitting reset and now States have to scramble to catch back up so this new normal (what a bunch of assholes for this timing) makes sense on par with the 60 percent plus Americans who currently have an opinion on abortion rights and leaning towards Yes (insofar as it should be an available medical choice under some or any circumstances). That's the forest. Should women be allowed to terminate their pregnancy... ergo does the growing life inside her deserve special protection that is codified in law.The landscape... The trees tho, The general walk up to a random person on the street and ask "should a 13 year old impregnated by her biological father be forced to give birth to the child?" Yes or no or I don't know. The trees keep cropping up in media reports as each State and Statute is challenged, reassessed, etc.

My need to ensure I'm properly assessing the issue from all angles is causing me to run into a lotta trees. It's so... Specific these what ifs. But anyway again thanks for the research cause medical law is definitely not my forte.

Alicorn wanna edit your topic title to "overturned" at this point or leave it for posterity?

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Sucumbio In effect, from what we have seen are that even with trigger states like Texas, they are choosing to play out the process and still allow abortion clinics to operate until full deliberations are settled on the matter. In other trigger states like Mississippi, there is going to be a roll out in terms of making abortion illegal in a week's time. However, a '98 pro-abortion ruling by the Mississippi Supreme Court in Pro-Choice Mississippi v. Fordice decision raises a legal counterprecedent to the 2007 pro-life decision that Mississippi was expecting to use as a fall back. Alabama, which was not even a trigger state had a 2019 law ruling out abortions that a judge upheld as the status quo and enacting a 99 year sentence on providers who commit abortion. In the existing language that is shared among many states per the HLPA, if you are in contention of doing an abortion then you can be charged with a Class A felony.

The issue with medical law is that the malpractice landscape is drastically changing. Physicians are unsure how to proceed in light of these new state by state regulations. Hospitals have their own compliance and legal review team advising the physicians on how they operate moving forward adding more red tape to existing systems. In states like Alabama there are only three abortion clinics in the entire state. Potentially due to many OBGYN providers who run abortion clinics finding themselves subject to harassment, revoking of licensure with subsequent reinstatement, and charged with defrauding Medicare/Medicaid. Perhaps it is a coincidence that these physicians have chosen to exercise the first amendment to share their thoughts and beliefs on abortion in a state where they feel has an underserved population that they are attempting to address.

Perhaps this is simply another format in which discussing matters like constitutionality and normative ethics is pointless, because many people have realized it's far easier to silence someone by stripping away their livelihood than by attempting to beat them in Ben Shapiro like internet discourse. In many ways it is analogous to the antiquity of the courts themselves being outpaced by modern science.

 

[Alicorn]

I read the Tennessee Human Life bill and it basically is just a nightmare and the fact that nothing short of an amendment is going to remove it really speaks to the sexism and desperation of the party that introduced the bill. And this doesn't just mean going to the doctor it means abortion induced by medicine too and by unborn child they mean.

(4) "Unborn child" means an individual living member of the species, homo sapiens, throughout the entire embryonic and fetal stages of the unborn child from fertilization until birth

 

[StoicPhantom]

Eh, maybe? I don't know about this, it seems logical an OBGYN would not only be well versed in surgical abortion procedure but its necessity to avoid deaths as was prevalent during pre-medicine era.

Referring to how the public in general can see the need for sex specific procedures and want them subsidized through some sort of public healthcare system but not necessarily abortion.

Eh, nah, a non sequitur. Getting pregnant isn't necessarily a lifestyle choice such as in cases of **** (and we're arguing from a platform of no exceptions except in medical emergency I'm assuming.)

Not all cases of abortion are of course, but that doesn't necessarily mean most abortion cases can't be considered as such. I would say those cases you mention are the exceptions, but the issue for most people isn't availability so much as applying restrictions.

Women's Sexual and Reproductive Health Services: Key Findings from the 2020 KFF Women's Health Survey | KFF

This brief presents new data from the KFF Women's Health Survey on coverage and use of reproductive and sexual health services among different subgroups of women ages 18 to 49.

www.kff.org

More than four in ten (44%) women have been worried they were pregnant when they did not want to be and the main reason was because they did not use birth control.

Over four in ten (44%) women have thought they were pregnant when they did not want to be, compared to one in four (27%) men who said this with regard to a partner (Figure 2). Nearly half (47%) of women and over half of men (57%) said it was because they did not use birth control. About a quarter of women (23%) and men (27%) said they or their partner had missed a pill or they had used their birth control incorrectly, 19% of women and 16% of men said their birth control failed like a condom breaking, and 18% of women and 22% of men weren’t sure the contraceptive method they were using worked.

one in seven (14%) report that they did not use contraception and are not trying to conceive

When asked about the reason for not using birth control, the number one reason was being worried about or disliking the side effects of birth control (29%), followed by not minding if they got pregnant (23%) and not wanting to use birth control (23%)

Given the rarity of medical emergencies and conception through ****, and the above data, it seems to me that most unwanted pregnancies are a result of irresponsible practices regarding sex. My research into this topic in general leads me to conclude that birth control failure is predominately through not using it altogether followed by using dubious methods such as timing menstrual cycles or using the pull out method.

Ah, you're tipping your hand. Again. It's not about how the woman got pregnant. It's about why they need to abort the pregnancy.

I'm going to shed my devil's advocacy and put my leftist hat back on for this one.

Yes, social responsibility is always going to play a part in society. I don't know how people can demand mask or vaccine mandates under penalty of people losing their jobs or access to necessities and turn around and say no one has a responsibility to themselves and society to take pregnancy prevention measures. The same people that demand pet owners spay and neuter their pets in order to prevent a population issue are often the same ones acting like demands for human pregnancy prevention is a unique attack on women.

There's been great effort both in this topic and in general to pretend that pregnancy just magically happens without any sort of agency on the part of those who get pregnant. The reality is that pregnancy is a result of many decisions and a particular process that requires a series of actions to happen. By the time conception occurs, there was plenty of time to halt the process and assess the risks of continuing unprotected sex. In other words, a series of deliberate decisions have to be made before conception can even occur.

I wasn't born yesterday. I know the cultural tendencies to be irresponsible with sex and I've seen with my own eyes the results. The people in my social circle who had unplanned pregnancies surprised no one. I'm not saying this in the sense of demanding retribution for sins, but in the sense that people need to understand their own capacity for foolish behavior for their own protection.

Women in particular have been given the freedom to make their own decisions and yet they frequently pick and choose when they indulge in society's urge to coddle and infantilize them. With freedom comes the responsibility to ensure their own safety. Demanding the freedom to control your sex life and then refusing to hedge against risk and expecting others to handle the consequences is just setting yourself up for failure.

The growing trend of pretending people are innocent little flowers that reality just randomly decides to BTFO for no reason is only going to be detrimental to people in the long run. It's especially bad with women, but society is increasingly demanded to absolve everyone of the responsibility and consequences of their actions. This is going to cause people to be ignorant of and ultimately unaccountable to the consequences of their actions and that is incredibly dangerous for a variety of reasons.

Religions and philosophies of yore spent lots of time and text warning of the human capacity for self-destruction. I fear we may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater in our arrogance in believing we have achieved "enlightenment", particularly in liberal circles. We must learn the lessons of those who came before us and learn from their mistakes or the cycle will continue.

So too, is there a societal component to this. Medical emergencies and **** are forces of nature and abortion should be available as a service for that reason. Condemning women to death for complications in a pregnancy they otherwise desired is indefensible. **** is a little more nuanced, but otherwise should be included. That doesn't mean we need abortion on demand, but there needs to be an option for life-threatening circumstances.

But we must also as individuals do our part in preventing the preventable. When I said a little responsibility could go a long way in making abortion irrelevant, I was referring to all of this. Most people are fine with making abortion available in the cases of medical emergencies and often ****. What they aren't fine with is unfettered access to it. Meaning that you could get abortion legal on a federal level if abortion advocates didn't take the most extreme possible position in terms of pro-choice.


And honestly, I'm tired of focusing on what are at most symptoms of a larger problem. Everywhere I go, someone is mentioning something about a socioeconomic component to all of these. Indeed, from homelessness to high crime rates, I'm told that poverty is a significant factor. Once we bring up lack of birth control usage in relation to abortion, someone somewhere is going to talk about how poor people can't afford birth control (while being silent about abstinence as a possibility).

Ok, so poverty is the root central issue that almost all others are merely a symptom caused by it. Great, this is what leftists have been screaming about for centuries. So why isn't it a central focus then? Why are the things that get people fighting each other in the streets ultimately symptoms or otherwise small parts of the problem? Or just things that plain don't affect a large amount of people?

The culture wars like guns vs abortions feel like Pepsi vs Cola. Actually, they are just that. Abortion and guns are necessary things, but only for a small amount of situations. And yet, they are treated as such important problems that we need to continue forcing the courts to subjugate the other side in order to have unfettered access or a total ban on these things.

Meanwhile, nobody realizes these despair industries are literal for-profit entities monetizing social dysfunctions. American brains have been so rotted by consumerism that they can only think of solutions to social problems as which corporation and how much they need to pay. And of course, spending all of their focuses, energies, donations, and activism to ensure that these despair industries are allowed to legally continue and even be subsidized by the government. Planned Parenthood is just as much of a racket as the NRA, but both sides of the culture war will continue to remain convinced of the innocence of their brand vs the evilness of the other brand.

We need cures and not treatments. The cheap effectiveness of birth control rather than the expensiveness of abortion. But there is no money in the cure and the profit motive for abortion providers (and their advocacy groups) is to continue to increase the number of abortions and make them more expensive. This goes for all of these despair industries, mind you. Anytime someone or something is making lots of money off of someone else's problems, they have a incentive to not only have those problems continue, but get even worse.


Bottom line, the Supreme Court cannot dictate social issues nor does it have any right to. Society has a responsibility to provide for its citizens and the citizens have a responsibility to not misuse and abuse that grace. Abortion can be solved with a combination of greater responsibility on the part of the individual to not put themselves in a position to need an abortion (pregnancy prevention) and society to provide a medical service for those who are afflicted by circumstances outside their control.

And can we please knock it off with the anti-natal sentiment that seems to be spreading in liberal circles? It starts to get really telling when people equate no longer being the center of their world with a literal death sentence. And how about taking a look at what your ancestors had to go through if you think raising children in a modern environment is so difficult even with climate change? If they had used the same logic, you wouldn't even be here in the first place. Not exactly helping the stereotype that there is a correlation with being self-centered and getting an abortion. You have families, friends, and community support structures to lean on. And if you don't, you should probably consider where you or society went wrong.

 

[Venus of the Desert Bloom]

i literally saw one of my Facebook friends make a post about praising overturning Roe vs Wade and how this is a giving glory to God and a win for Conservative America and, days later, criticize practices such as Medicare, Medicare, universal health care, food stamps, maternity leave, and welfare programs ass “they are bankrupting our country and encouraging people not to give jobs and live like unmotivated slobs.”

This is the rhetoric that is in play here. Allow kids to be born but throw them away when they become an inconvenience.

 

[Sucumbio]

Abortion as a method of birth control may seem irresponsible but it's really not if you consider morning after pills or the reality of bringing more people into the world.

Me and my now deceased ex had 2 abortions. The first because the she caught chickenpox and the fetus started to develop serious complications including missing limbs. Despite her mother's insight that God gave her that child (no, I did) and should "love it no matter what" we knew upending our lives to care for a child who for all intentions would suffer more than not, if even survive, was not the "responsible" CHOICE. The second was essentially our realizing we weren't going to be providing a loving environment because we no longer loved each other which is important. We have enough orphans and adoption needs without adding to it. We have enough people. Sexual intercourse is a need that while biologically speaking is about procreation, as humans with complex emotions and intellect sex is both an act and a means to an end (passing on genes). It's therefore misleading to say that there's a blanket Responsibility for all humans to first and foremost prevent unwanted pregnancy. It happens and there should be ways to deal with it that don't involve the birthing process or the social structure required to take care of the child once it pops out.

Obviously today's contraception methods are well intentioned and probably safer and more effective than say 100 years ago. But this misses the point. The law has to be all inclusive using language that provides for a course of action (or penalty) regardless of the circumstances that occurs. By drilling down to the super specific we Doom any woman in the future from options that they may (and society at large) could benefit from.

 

[Venus of the Desert Bloom]

I’m sorry to hear that, Succombio. Stories like this makes me cherish that I was blessed with two healthy daughters. But it also makes me want to defend them as much as I’m able to. I do understand the concept that life is sacred but, and by now I am echoing a lot of what people say, but we can’t use that rhetoric to enforce pregnancy of people and regulate a basic human instinct. “Don’t have sex” is like saying “Don’t take a shower ”. We take showers to keep clean; especially when we feel gross or had a workout. We have sex to feel close to people, invalidate ourselves, and, of course, the concept of procreation.

This isn’t an issue so much about the sanctity of life but of controlling people and regulating reproductive rights. They want to enforce the concept that “sex outside of marriage is evil” to population where 65% (give or take) identifies as some form of Christian. The rest is forced to accept rules bounded by a book that they either don’t follow or don’t recognize.

What gets me though is we are outlawing a practice that’s proven to be beneficial through a multiple of facets. Privileged and upper class families tends to have less kids while low upper class to middle class tends to have more kids than that while lower class have even more kids. Some of this has been attributed to a lack of education concerning family planning. Some of it is due to crime and family instability.

The people who benefitted from abortions aren’t the upper class but the middle to lower class who couldn’t afford to have a child and decided to go the route of an abortion. This is a country that has abysmal healthcare, childcare, mental healthcare, and a load of other problems and for them to outlaw something that could eventually save more lives is just ridiculous from my point of view.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

S StoicPhantom From now on can you lead your posts in with the last part of the last post rather than going on and on whether people have read the Alito position (argument from authority). You don't need to "win" these conversations. You don't need to "win" these conversations from a judicial law perspective. You especially don't need to "win" these conversations when the republicans have been increasing their foothold in every law school from Thomas Cooley to Yale with think tank organizations like the Federalist Society to gain a political advantage. They won when McConnell blocked Obama's supreme court nomination and RGB bit the dust. Conflating bipartisan political machinations with the idea of an intellectual judicial democracy is ideologically insincere when basically within the span of one week justice made rulings regarding gun control, abortion, and separation of church & state within the span of three days (Thursday, Friday, and Monday). The fact that the Justice who replaced Thurgood Marshall and prides himself on being an originalist makes a ruling on the basis of a prior Justice who ruled in favor of slavery ought to be a stain when a core tenant of justice was not established by a Justice, but by Martin Luther King Jr. who utilized Aquinas to touch upon concepts of human law, natural law, and eternal law. Dread Scott was established by the Supreme Court and course corrected by the legislative. Whereby in which our legislative is not able to operate on an ideologically sincere level of checks and balances because it has also been hijacked by bipartisan politics, special interest groups, and tit-for-tat political machinations (e.g. pork barrel legislation, log roll voting) well passed juiced on steroids.

A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law [i.e., a law not conducive to happiness]. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades the human personality is unjust.

The reason why we are pretending people are innocent little flowers is because we are all bystanders when it comes to calculated, swift, and judicial decisions like this that are intentionally manufactured to push us into conflict with the law and with each other. Since you touched upon financial disparity, when the banks received huge bailouts from the government we continued to see financial issues in the interim period like the HSBC money laundering scandal, the Libor Rate Rigging Scandal, and the Flash Crash of 2015 which all negatively impacted the public. However, the zeitgeist in 2015-2016 was not to hold these banks even more accountable, but to build a border wall and to prevent immigrants from coming into the country. The Big Short which was released in 2015 captured this sentiment gracefully. However, these despair industries are never held fully accountable because the American public has been systematically marginalized, gerymandered, and crippled to the extent where we are manipulated to prey on each other in order to survive.

I have a feeling in a few years people are going to be doing what they always do when the economy tanks. They will be blaming immigrants and poor people.

Donald Trump may have not gone through with building the wall, but in 2018 did roll back some serious Dodd Frank regulations which eased restrictions of banks from $50 billion to $250 billion in addition to loosening mortgage lending requirements. With the recent crash in major cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Etherium comes the understanding that this was related to the market being overleveraged and the fact that profits from stable coins were highly dependent on borrowing massive capital from hedge funds and big banks in order to leverage borrowed capital in hopes of making more in returns and still remaining solvent enough to handle transactions. These exchanges and labs were basically attempting to build a castle that was entirely made of sand. And yet when inflation is peaking and interest rates are hiked, it's not businesses that are willing to suffer the brunt of execution costs so they displace that on to people. Of which the marginalized are disproportionately affected. Maybe in another three to four years, women will become the scapegoat for our suffering much like the Mexicans were during a Trump speech when he made xenophobic remarks which he had to contextualize so he could still collect those votes.

The reason why I think you're abhorrent is because the tone of your writing makes it seem like you're looking down at the system like a diorama. You have this tonality in your posts that give me the impression that you're disgusted in current America, but you don't see yourself as being disgusting because you're above it all. Some lexicons that I noticed in this post alone such as, "American brains have been so rotted by consumerism", "Everywhere I go, someone is mentioning", "the culture wars", and "You have families, friends, and community support structures to lean on. And if you don't, you should probably consider where you or society went wrong" have been indicators to me that you'll never treat anything I or anyone else posts that has remote push back as being something of merit you would actually bother to consider. You have all the answers and you're just here to run the tables on us plebs who need to consider where we went wrong because you DESTROYED us with facts and logic.

I can confess that I am a disgusting person who has said terrible things, done terrible things, and have regretted a lot of actions to this day. I am also a person who has been a victim to terrible things since a young age that has made me come to terms and understand that survival and self-preservation are at the root of all decisions to the point in which we ought to consider them moral values in and of themselves. Your last statement regarding family, friends, and community support structures is an assumption that all of us have something you would consider to be support. But these support structures are questionable when you consider that in the US divorce rates are horrendous, people are by necessity pushing off children concerned about being unable to provide support to them, social media has hijacked social interactions, your friends are likely unable to meaningfully support you legally due to how laws are designed (subletting, strict job hiring, zip code to income), and community support structure being nonexistent with highly densely populated areas (e.g. inner city areas) suffering from disproportionately higher rates of crime and homelessness.

I do not believe I can have a civil conversation with you because I do not believe that you have any intention to gain insight from us. You are someone who has nailed down the matrix of America and have some neo-transcendental beliefs that are privy to you as the one. And as you might imagine, I'd much rather just lay in my own moral decadence with people who will feast on the pig trough with me if it means I can live to see tomorrow. And while we live in a zeitgeist where justice lags behind science, someone somewhere is 3D printing their own arsenal of AR-15s to make their point while we attempt to still try to slough through with discourse. In a sense there is a peace that even though I find you disgusting, that you as a fellow human will continue to live, act autonomously, and find your own meaning as the protagonist surviving in an America zombie apocalypse. I'm done here, I have a yummy human brain in the freezer that I need to consume to maintain my meager sentience.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Sucumbio That's awful and I'm sorry man. I probably wouldn't be here if my mom didn't abort her first child (anencephaly). Miscarriage is one of the hardest things to deal with as a couple, especially when you're determined to have and raise a kid together.

Venus of the Desert Bloom It's so completely true with regards to the healthcare system especially today. Hospitals across the nation are on low census. We've had to challenge this idea during COVID for patients that we can't just throw a tube down people in life or death scenarios like it's no big deal. People don't understand that if they are hypoxic that it becomes a systemic organ issue because your blood isn't providing the oxygenation that your body needs. And if we have to use sedatives, paralytics, NMBAs and all that jazz when your body is already in shock then your prognosis doesn't look good. Morale across the board has been terrible since Vaught. Are we healthcare heroes, are we playing cards, or are we going to jail for negligent homicide?

People think they understand medical emergencies, but they don't understand the emergent nature of a medical emergency. It's why mortality rate is so high in states that raise questions regarding medical practices or states with just abhorrent ways of practicing medicine. It's funny when people address it as an issue, it's not so funny when you see it in front of you. It's depressing how we can engage in a discourse like this and play around with the idea of maternal mortality rates on the rise because the people directly affected can't call us out on our insensitivity. At the end of the day if the rate goes up .01% I doubt it makes any difference to us, but for those woman they truly lost their autonomy to live the life they should be living, the ability to bear witness, and the potential to grasp tomorrow.

 

[Venus of the Desert Bloom]

Sort of off topic, but I took my kids to the park and there was a mom with a shirt that said “Abortion is murder” among other slogans on it. This same woman was complaining to another woman about “the little ****s” that we’re running around the park. There were some black children with squirt guns who were playing and she kept eyeballing them and complaining about their behavior under her breath. Again. Another shining example why they are dead set on protecting “the unborn” yet don’t care, criticize, abandon, insult, and reduce them to “little shots” when the kids don’t condone to their own expectations on what they think kids should act. They are previous angels before and shortly after birth but “little ****s” a few years later.

 

[StoicPhantom]

Abortion as a method of birth control may seem irresponsible but it's really not if you consider morning after pills or the reality of bringing more people into the world.

That seems like circular logic given that those aren't even necessary if you prevented the pregnancy with other forms of birth control.

The first because the she caught chickenpox and the fetus started to develop serious complications including missing limbs. Despite her mother's insight that God gave her that child (no, I did) and should "love it no matter what" we knew upending our lives to care for a child who for all intentions would suffer more than not, if even survive, was not the "responsible" CHOICE.

You're getting wires crossed here. I said I fully support abortion in cases like this.

Sexual intercourse is a need that while biologically speaking is about procreation, as humans with complex emotions and intellect sex is both an act and a means to an end (passing on genes). It's therefore misleading to say that there's a blanket Responsibility for all humans to first and foremost prevent unwanted pregnancy. It happens and there should be ways to deal with it that don't involve the birthing process or the social structure required to take care of the child once it pops out.

Just not this. I don't know how it is misleading to say people should be responsible for safe sex because they have sex. Yes, people have sex. That's why they should pick from the abundance of birth control options available to them that other countries aren't so privileged to have. Having options and deliberately not taking them is the issue.

The law has to be all inclusive using language that provides for a course of action (or penalty) regardless of the circumstances that occurs. By drilling down to the super specific we Doom any woman in the future from options that they may (and society at large) could benefit from.

If we can have nuances on murder when it comes to self-defense or not, I think we can allow for nuances when it comes to abortion.

S StoicPhantom From now on can you lead your posts in with the last part of the last post rather than going on and on whether people have read the Alito position (argument from authority). You don't need to "win" these conversations. You don't need to "win" these conversations from a judicial law perspective. You especially don't need to "win" these conversations when the republicans have been increasing their foothold in every law school from Thomas Cooley to Yale with think tank organizations like the Federalist Society to gain a political advantage.

I'm not trying to "win" lol. What you and others are saying is literally wrong. And not only is it wrong, it is detrimental to furthering your cause when people keep focusing their energies on the wrong target. I gave you a former constitutional lawyers article on the role of the Supreme Court as was decided centuries ago. You keep ignoring that to push a partisan conspiracy theory. For example:

They won when McConnell blocked Obama's supreme court nomination and RGB bit the dust. Conflating bipartisan political machinations with the idea of an intellectual judicial democracy is ideologically insincere when basically within the span of one week justice made rulings regarding gun control, abortion, and separation of church & state within the span of three days (Thursday, Friday, and Monday).

This is just completely wrong. Like, pretty much every last bit of it. And not only is it completely wrong, but this seems to be the popular sentiment among liberals right now.

If the Supreme Court wanted to ban abortion they could have easily done so anytime. All they would have had to do was rule that an unborn person had rights. The original ruling had the court concluding that no one has determined what life is and there hasn't been any legal precedent to considering the unborn as a person so it wasn't the their place to decide that. Allowing the states to determine when abortion can be outlawed by viability then came into play.

Even though Roe has now been overturned, I've yet to hear the SC determine whether the unborn have rights. The biggest thing they've done since the original ruling was to wash their hands of the matter entirely and return it back to the public. Thus there is no ban on abortion except in individual states and people need to quit pretending this was some egregious overreach when the SC is overturning their own ruling.

https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2020-07-10/unexpected-decisions-unlikely-alliances-mark-supreme-court-term

Roberts and the four liberal justices blocked the Trump administration from rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that shields nearly 700,000 young immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as minors from deportation, ruling that the termination violated federal administrative law. Roberts and Gorsuch also joined the liberal wing in a landmark ruling that civil rights law protects employees from discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

"We have come to expect that the court will act politically ... I think that's a mistaken impression based on a few hot-button cases."

Roberts extended that streak a week later when the court struck down Louisiana's abortion law that would have imposed further restrictions due to admitting privileges at a local hospital and could have left the state with just one abortion clinic. He centered the majority opinion on upholding precedent, citing the 2016 case that struck down a similar law in Texas. Roberts dissented in the Texas case and maintained that the 2016 case was wrongly decided, but he blocked the Louisiana law because of "stare decisis," the legal doctrine centered around ruling based on precedent.

So very partisan that not only did they usher in progressive milestones, but they actually protected abortion rights in Louisiana.

Guns you say? Do you mean that New York law that would give the government the ability to restrict concealed carry by requiring a "proper cause", AKA give the government a blank check as to who the Second Amendment can apply to? Er yeah, when exactly did it become trendy for liberals to demand the SC allow for discrimination, which I thought was supposed to be a big no-no? Both Alito and Kavanaugh stated that this ruling doesn't ban gun regulation as long as that regulation is "objectively administered", AKA actually applied evenly among the populace.

This is why we have the Supreme Court. To stop you guys from immolating yourselves in your narrow-minded pursuit to ban things you don't like. Imagine demanding the Supreme Court to legalize discrimination on constitutional rights and who they apply to. Instead of getting angry at the Supreme Court for doing their job, perhaps direct that anger towards your local government for not doing theirs.

Want an example?

Well, I could talk about how Progressive politician Jessica Cisneros has once again been defeated by Dem leadership-backed incumbent Henry Cuellar who continues to be referred to as a "moderate" Democrat despite being an openly anti-abortion candidate.

We could also talk about how Hilary Clinton chose anti-abortion Tim Kaine as her running mate in 2016.

There was that time when Joe Biden ****ed up Anita Hill's hearing and got Clarence Thomas confirmed.

But I think my favorite example is when Obama promised to codify Roe into law as a campaign promise only to turn around and tell everyone it isn't a top priority when he had a super majority. Imagine having the power to get any law passed unopposed and refusing to do literally anything.

Imagine lining up to vote for these guys again in two years to "punish" Republicans over abortion. Couldn't be me.

have been indicators to me that you'll never treat anything I or anyone else posts that has remote push back as being something of merit you would actually bother to consider.

I read everyone's posts and spend hours thinking about how I'm going to respond to them while doing other stuff. Even though, contrary to you guy's belief, you haven't actually offered any unique insights that I haven't seen hundreds of other times. That's more than can be said for others who continue to make assumptions and strawman my arguments even when I clearly state my positions.

In fact, in your rush to tell me how mean of a person I am that I refuse to listen to people I reply to, you seem to have difficulty with paying attention to my posts given that you keep posting largely irrelevant information that I already know. No, I did not need a lecture on things I've been preaching about for years on this board. In fact, we are largely in agreement on these things. I mean:

Your last statement regarding family, friends, and community support structures is an assumption that all of us have something you would consider to be support. But these support structures are questionable when you consider that in the US divorce rates are horrendous, people are by necessity pushing off children concerned about being unable to provide support to them, social media has hijacked social interactions, your friends are likely unable to meaningfully support you legally due to how laws are designed (subletting, strict job hiring, zip code to income), and community support structure being nonexistent with highly densely populated areas (e.g. inner city areas) suffering from disproportionately higher rates of crime and homelessness.

You can somehow read the bold and not understand the surrounding context where I said we should probably be focusing on why we lost these vital support structures and how to reclaim them, and instead are somehow pretending that I just assumed everyone has access to them. Why precisely is it that inner city areas are so rampant in crime and poverty? Is it perhaps because the city council would rather cover up and quarantine those areas instead of doing their job and managing the city? And who keeps voting to keep them in?

The reason why I think you're abhorrent is because the tone of your writing makes it seem like you're looking down at the system like a diorama.

What the actual **** does this or the rest of your diatribe towards me even mean? Is it wrong to try to approach this topic from an objective and unbiased view? Even though the rules of this board encourage one to do so? Even though I deliberately removed my own personal stake in this to play devil's advocate, do I really need to show my oppression credentials in order to be considered a valid member of this debate? Ben Shapiro? Really? Because I tried to use actual logic and facts from sources? Does he have a monopoly on using facts and logic now? Do I have to deliberately ignore reality so I'm not likened to him?

Do I have to reveal personal info such as being a product of a teen mother (no father) and that I was born with genetic diseases that have a major impact on my life in order to have a seat at the table? Will people like my post and tell me how sorry they are for how my life has gone? Or does that not count because I have the wrong opinion?

Are you desiring to know what it was like growing up without a diagnosis because of an incompetent healthcare system and being punished for not performing like other kids on the assumption that I was lazy and faking it by pretty much everyone in my life? Or being subjected in my adult life to jealousy and derisiveness because I got to live the high life on NEET bux because most people's idea of a woeful life is having to work a ****ty job they hate?

You ever stopped to wonder what it would be like to be ****ed right out of the gate by a force of nature you can't rally protests against? That you couldn't even blame bad karma on because you didn't even get a chance to accrue karma? And who exactly are we to blame for this here? My mother for being an unknown carrier for some of the diseases? Mother Nature for picking up the rest? Diseases so rare that most doctors will have never heard of them? And I still don't have a complete diagnosis of everything that afflicts me because doctors don't really want to deal with something they can't easily fit into their protocol.

For all the talk of choices and whether people should be forced to bear the consequences of their own actions, what happens if someone didn't get a choice in the first place? Could it perhaps be considered privileged to be able to **** up the life you take for granted? That just the mere concept of discussing choices as if they are applicable to everyone is more than a little idealistic? Let alone inventing rights in one's head that don't exist?

Perhaps it could be said that I am disgusted at America. Perhaps I get a little resentful when I watch people routinely **** up the healthy bodies and lives they take for granted and then tell me they shouldn't be considered responsible for themselves because the pleasure is just too good. Did you know that a 400 pound man used to only be seen at a freakshow? And that in a country where almost half the people are obese, that is a relatively common sight now?

Some people tell me that it comes from poor people in food deserts not being able to afford fruits and vegetables. Well golly gee willikers, someone should probably do something about that. Imagine not being able to afford vegetables. Who is responsible for this and why are they still allowed to lead? Does this also apply to the wealthy white women on them fashion magazines that we are supposed to call beautiful too? Though the funny thing is, when you bring thermodynamics into the equation, it turns out that what you eat doesn't matter as much as how many calories you intake vs burn. Is it really the McDonald's value meal or the liquid calories from the mocha-frappa-whatever-the-**** that people of all economic classes seem to be slinging around these days?

You mentioned that there Bitcoin. A friend of mine recently told me how he watched someone pass out when Bitcoin crashed after he took out a $30,000 loan to buy the top. Here I am scrimping and saving on my meager government gibs, but these guys are blowing their future on internet funny money without a second thought.

Social media, huh? I remember when Facebook first became a thing and Boomers scoffed at it as a waste of time when you should be doing something productive. Now they are never away from it while spewing some of the worst opinions you will ever hear with their real names. People keep telling me how much they hate this bird app thing, but when I broach the possibility of logging off, they seem to shrug and change the subject. I guess the dopamine hits from being liked and having the correct opinion is too good to pass up even when their receptors have long since fried and now they only feel pain.

Kind of weird how I can be both physically impaired for exercise and perpetually below the poverty line and don't have any of these problems. It's almost like when you have real problems, you don't need to add on fake ones. I don't doubt that we suffer under oppressive systems, but that doesn't mean most people won't **** up their lives in the absence of those systems anyways.


I knew coming into this topic that I could beat everyone here in the oppression olympics and I haven't even revealed more than 20% of my power. But I wanted to come at this from a neutral perspective in order to explore all sides and further understanding on a topic I feel is very murky. And it also just feels like a cheap shot to play the victim. But as per usual, my good faith is once again trampled over and there is cheap shots abound.

So if you guys want to make this personal, we can. Just know that if you don't like my tone now, you should see me when I stop playing nice and the gloves come off. I am so goddamn tired of liberals using the unfortunate as a cover to indulge in their vices, so I'll be more than willing to go into detail of what I think of them and their self-centered ideology and I won't be pulling punches.

 

[Nah]

I don't think anybody has (or they shouldn't have) a problem with getting more people to engage in sex responsibly, expanded and easier access to contraceptives, and so on. At the very least, I don't and I indicated as such in my first post in this thread. But as I also said in that post, those things aren't going to happen. It's rather commonplace for Republicans to oppose all those things, and it's become more commonplace over the years amongst them to not even allow for exceptions for medical emergencies or **** too. And as has been stated already, when you give the Dems a majority, they just sit on it and do nothing with it while people make excuses for them--they've had their chances to make abortion a federal right, yet have squandered them. That's something that a lot of people still refuse to accept unfortunately, that we don't have a good guys party and a bad guys party....we just have one terrible party and their enablers who fail to do anything meaningful 99% of the time. There won't be any amendments to Constitution to make abortion a right, as that requires either both houses of Congress to propose and pass one in a 2/3 majority, or for 2/3 of the states to (in a special convention for the purpose of making a new amendment) do so, and the numbers obviously aren't there.

Roe was all we had, but now it's gone. And given the situation, what good could possibly come of the decision?

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

S StoicPhantom You're way too ideologically cemented for anything I write to have mutual value. The reality is that many posters here are touching on your points, but they refuse to quote or address you directly because they likely have the same instinct that directly gaining your attention is a hassle. It could also just be my toxic nature be misreading the room, however you mentioned previously that everywhere you go you seem to be dissatisfied with liberals or other demographics that I'm assuming don't share your point of view. I'm sorry to say but if you have an issue with these swaths of people, then why do you keep engaging with them?

I am honest enough to tell you that it's not ideologically worth it for me playing this game where you bring up Supreme Court Justice's being sincere and I bring up FEC vs. Ted Cruz with a 6-3 ruling in favor of Cruz with Cruz intentionally putting in $10,000 over the campaign contribution limit so he could push the case to court that campaign donations fall under first amendment rights. I am honest enough to admit that I liked rulings like NFIB vs OSHA when paired with Biden vs Missouri in how justices came to a nuanced ruling on vaccine mandates (despite the rationale not utilizing modern scientific research on coronavirus) and in the latter case there was a 5-4 ruling with Justices Kavanaugh & Roberts siding with Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer that healthcare workers taking care of Medicare/Medicaid patients should be vaccinated. I also am honest enough to admit that having this conversation is completely pointless to me because I know you have your own ideological beliefs on campaign contributions, vaccines, and the Supreme Court that won't change even if we went back and forth Googling cases and flexing how smart we are at intellectual intercourse. Therefore, to cut to the chase. It's pointless. And I hate doing pointless things. I hate pointless conversations. I hate pointless debate. If there was a 1% chance that I think my thoughts have meaning, I would go for it. But based on my intuition, it's completely and utterly pointless. I don't care about winning arguments. I don't need you to like me. And I don't need other people to like me. I don't even like myself. I do enjoy discourse, but not when the discourse is pointless.

If you feel like I'm getting too personal and mistreating you then I'm sorry. I'll put you back on block and hope no one accidentally direct quotes you again and curiosity gets the better of me. But just because I think you're disgusting doesn't mean you should take it too deeply because I'm rotten enough to my core that I can tell you unabashedly that I find no value in engaging in discourse with you because I do not like how you approach discourse and I don't think that discourse itself has any personal value to you outside of filling in a slot of time for you. Please take my commentary with a grain of salt. I am not a great master class debater or intellectual thinker so it's possible that I'm just running away before getting beaten down by a superior intellect. I don't know if I have native biases that could also be contributing to a biased view that I don't see any difference in your posting style from over three years ago, but again I could be again the one who is flawed here and am open to you writing about my hypocrisy. I just don't care enough to see it, read it, or engage with it.

I would like to think that given your tone in terms of dissatisfaction with liberals and ideological groups you feel run a counter narrative to your own that you maybe stop using platforms that encourage you to continue reading their hot takes. Maybe I'm getting too personal in bringing up this juxtaposition. Maybe you actually like running into people who challenge your own belief system, maybe you like getting upset? Who am I to assume that another person has sadomasochistic tendencies that they may be fully aware or unaware of or to hold them to a higher standard? I don't hold anyone to any standard, the world is simply too complex for me to firmly state that I adhere to any philosophy or political thought outside of the existentialist idea that life is meaningless, but does not necessitate that the meaning that we ascribe to it is meaningless as well. I do think though that there is a contribution to diversity when confident idealogues like you push ahead and blaze a path forward that we can all marvel.

 

[StoicPhantom]

If you feel like I'm getting too personal and mistreating you then I'm sorry. I'll put you back on block and hope no one accidentally direct quotes you again and curiosity gets the better of me. But just because I think you're disgusting doesn't mean you should take it too deeply because I'm rotten enough to my core that I can tell you unabashedly that I find no value in engaging in discourse with you because I do not like how you approach discourse and I don't think that discourse itself has any personal value to you outside of filling in a slot of time for you.

See, it's not that you insulted me that annoyed me, it's that you mischaracterized me and my arguments. You made quite a lot of assumptions about my intentions and my views based on hardly anything I said and what little you did include of what I actually said was only to tone police me. And you still missed what I was actually saying versus what you think I said. And not just what you think I said, but who I actually am and what I believe seems to be increasingly detached from who you think I am or what I believe.

An example would be that paragraph about our SC views. Other cases aren't relevant when my initial claim was that this overturning wasn't a deliberate attempt to ban abortion and that they were perfectly in the clear to overturn their own ruling. I laid out very clearly with objective evidence that if that was their intention they wouldn't half-ass it to the point where it is still legal in some states. That's not saying I agree with everything or that I think the SC is free from bias, that's saying that the specific cases I addressed had more mundane reasons behind them than partisan conspiracy theories.

You indirectly attacked me under the guise of talking with another poster while bringing up irrelevant cases that had nothing to do with abortion. There are two things I really don't like people doing to me: 1. accusing me of saying, doing, or believing things I don't and 2. engaging in cowardly and weaselly behavior to avoid directly confronting me. Particularly when the defense after calling out that weaselly behavior is that I'm too intense or difficult to deal with as if standing up for yourself is a bad thing.

The straw that broke the camel's back and caused me to respond the way I did was when you said "You have all the answers and you're just here to run the tables on us plebs" and denigrated my sincerity. If I just wanted to beat on scrubs I would turn on Smash and play online. It takes far less time and I don't have to deal with it for days on end. I don't like bullying the weak because I'm not insecure.


You aren't the first person to characterize me as arrogant, stubborn, and looking down on others, and you won't be the last. You are in fact, not the first person to publicly accuse me of these things on this website. But there is a fundamental issue that you and others don't understand and that is as follows:

You are not the first person to make your argument. You are not the best person to make your argument. In fact, I have personally seen every argument here many times from people that are both smarter and dumber than any of you here. And I've seen the counterarguments. And counter counterarguments. In fact, I spend lots of time sampling lots of different arguments from all sorts of people, including you guys. And I then mull over what I heard and hold mock debates in my head while doing chores or other daily activities. I then form my own opinion and internalize it.

Because see, contrary to some people's belief, I do spend most of my time as an observer rather than a lecturer. I spend lots of time per day absorbing all sorts of information on a variety of topics and hearing a variety of opinions and debates. Not to win in debates, but simply for the sake of it. It's not a hobby you see, it's a lifestyle. One I've been living for decades.

It's not that I don't consider your argument, it's that I've already heard it many times. It's not that I skim your words to knock them down, I'm merely confirming that I've already heard them before. It's not that I'm too stubborn for your argument to change mine, it's that my argument has already been challenged and scrutinized by someone else. It's not that I look down on you, it's that we are simply not equals in this regard.


The problem with democratizing debate is that not every participant is on equal footing with others. Not to say that everyone involved can't occasionally have a flash of brilliance or a worthwhile contribution, but that it is rare for someone to do so consistently. The law of averages apply even here and there are some that put much more time in than others, but everyone seems to believe their opinion or voice needs to be heard nowadays, whether they spent any serious amount of time forming it or not.

Debates are not necessarily competitions, even if that's what they've devolved into now. Debates are ways to challenge and scrutinize each others arguments to see if they hold up to objectivity and reason or subjectivity when applicable. Not for the purpose of "winning", but to better foster understanding and potentially seeing new sides you haven't before because of your own biases resulting from your experiences not encompassing everything life has to offer.

How many times have you seen someone directly challenge a woman's autonomy? Probably not many, if any. That's something that there would not only be lots of social pressure and repercussions for daring to question it, but many would just plain not even think along those lines in the first place. And I might have changed at least one poster's perception on that.

That's what debate is useful for. It lets you see sides you might not have ever considered before. That doesn't mean you will end up agreeing with that in the end, but your opinion is now stronger and more rounded for it. But that also means you must contribute something new in order to be useful for the overall discourse. If when you look around a bit and you see many others voicing your opinion, that doesn't mean you're right, it means your voice isn't necessary.

This is where I come in. I usually don't pop in unless I see a flaw that isn't being addressed, a "correct" minority opinion needs reinforcing, or the discussion has devolved into an echo chamber of the same voices "liking" each other. If someone is already adequately handling those things, I don't see a need for my voice.

That might make me seem like I'm levitating above everyone or running the tables as you put it, but it actually is just a genuine desire to educate or provide a different perspective. It is rare to see a critique from the left largely because the left is effectively dead. It is frustrating to watch conservatives and liberals run the same tired scripted debates in circles all the time. I find that they are both surprised and ill-prepared to handle a genuine leftist perspective. That's why I debate with those groups, even if I find them aggravating, and not because I'm masochistic lol.


So the fundamental issue, and I'm addressing everyone who has ever called me arrogant or stubborn because they lost a debate, comes down to the fact that we are not equals. Not because I'm inherently superior, but because you didn't make the effort. I didn't learn from you because you didn't have anything new to offer. I didn't admit I was wrong because you didn't prove it. I didn't concede because your skills weren't adequate enough to make me. And ultimately, I'm not required to acknowledge an inferior argument or the defeat of a strawman.

The unfortunate thing about debate is that it isn't as clear-cut as a Smash battle. Even if the loser considers the winner's strategy to be unfair or dishonorable, the results screen doesn't lie. Debate however, requires a bare minimum for one to even understand that they've been beaten. By beaten, I mean they are unable to provide a robust counter to their opponent's argument. That doesn't mean that your opponent is correct, but that does mean you aren't good enough to prove it. If you find yourself unable to directly confront your opponent's argument, you've lost. No amount of mischaracterization, defeating strawmen, personal attacks, circlejerking, appealing to emotion, or demanding acknowledgement is going to change that.

If you think that makes me sound arrogant, your entitlement is showing. If you think I'm looking down on you, that's you projecting your insecurities on me. The people who educate me are well out of your league and above mine. Trust me when I say I know my place. You just need to learn yours. I'm not trying to be harsh, that's just objective reality.

If that bothers you, it really isn't my problem. I can't change your inadequacies, only you can. It's not my duty to coddle egos or paint an unrealistic view of reality. Debate, like any skill, is not egalitarian. If you want to be skilled, you must do the work and have the discipline to tame your ego. I'm not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I put in my time. And you need to do at least as much as I said I've done in order to make me learn from you.

And if you don't want to do that, you must understand that is why we are not equals.

Roe was all we had, but now it's gone. And given the situation, what good could possibly come of the decision?

I think there's still a pathway to getting abortion legalized federally, provided that liberals make some compromises. Most of the country might not be open to unrestricted abortion, but they are when it comes to things like medical emergencies and the like. The problem being that as per usual liberals take the most extreme position on their pet issues and refuse to compromise. If they'd drop their all or nothing approach, I think there is a good shot to getting abortion legalized at a federal level, restricted though it may be.

The only other roadblock will of course be the GOP themselves. But lets not forget that the Trump administration had a supermajority at the beginning and still couldn't get the Affordable Care Act repealed because their own constituents flooded town halls demanding they back off. That scared just enough Republicans for the GOP to fail on getting enough votes for the repeal. Proving that enough upward pressure can make even the GOP think twice about ignoring the will of the people.

Though yeah, you are pretty much correct in everything else you said and that's why it'll be a long shot to say the least. But there is a path as long as people are willing to follow it. The reason why I entered this topic is to get liberals to understand other viewpoints and hopefully get them to realize they are on a self-destructive path. Unfortunately it looks like history is going to repeat itself and liberalism is going to get crushed both politically and culturally, but at least I can say I tried my very small part.


At the end of the day, we can't expect people to have unfettered access to this many pleasures and not be responsible to moderate them. Our brains are resilient to pain, but weak to pleasure. If people remain naive to the consequences of their actions, they will inevitably destroy themselves as we are seeing all across the Western world with obesity and the like. And others as we've seen with all the warring in pursuit of self-righteous idealism.

If liberalism can't get all this under control that leaves the door open for conservatism to swoop back in and remind us at how good they are at regulating us. And liberals are already making their argument for them by focusing too much on systemic ills while basically saying people can't or shouldn't be trusted to make their own decisions and be held responsible for the consequences. If they say that a populace can't be trusted to regulate themselves then they are saying that we need authoritarian systems to regulate us in our place. And conservatism does that much better.

 

[Sucumbio]

S StoicPhantom

"...overturning [Roe] wasn't a deliberate attempt to ban abortion."

I question this word choice. You don't think the SC decision was made on purpose? It did ban abortion in many states especially with trigger laws so...?

We can skip the part where we prove the consenting opinions are from Pro-Life Conservative or just Conservatives but either way it's done and shunted to states rights which will litigate... Forever, I'm guessing lol.

"And I might have changed at least one poster's perception on that."

You did.

"Stuff about stuff"

So like laws kinda have to be for the lowest common denominator. Abortion isn't new but doing it so women don't die from doing it wrong is important. Responsibility is a sliding scale of a multitude of factors. And yet across all walks the Whoops pregnancy happens because Life.

So....... The lowest common denominator is a state law (sigh) that says Life starts at "conception" (good luck parsing that lawyers of the world!) Therefore it is protected Human life and must be carried to term.

Or

The right to choose of a mother to abort her fetus shall not be infringed.

(I'm thinking Massachusetts will be one of the earlier states to codify abortion in their state constitution which is awesome cuz it's older than the US constitution by over a decade!)

Responsibility... Yeah I know safe sex is a must we haven't forgotten what AIDS was like. But I wasn't always responsible and I'm from "good stock" and "privileged" and just as dumb as **** like everyone else growing up. People f up. The law has to take that into account or it's not a good law, but instead a knee jerk reaction. We have lots of those on the books.

 

[Venus of the Desert Bloom]

I’m not as invested to sit here and try to craft a thought-provoking statement and engage in a meaningful debate because, truth be told, I’m super busy with three jobs currently plus preparing for my fourth and main job in the next few months. That doesn’t take into account I also have 2 kids and starting a side hustle. Any free time I have is taken not wanting to focus on the ills of the world and to focus on things that brings me joy and happiness. I don’t normally directly respond to people but would rather just throw out my own opinion and, more often than not, my own experiences based on people I come across since I have friends and family I both sides of the aisle and as a center-leftist, I get disgusted by both sides. Especially in this situation, I do not see either side looking to resolve it diplomatically. Calling our characteristics on both sides that people dislike, to me, is division. I would never say “those republicans” or “those facists” nor would I say “those liberals” or “those socialists” because that’s divisive language when you do that. I want unity and will try to treat both side with the respect that I feel like they deserve. Unless of course that are a raving, racist lunatic which I will (and have) tea off on. I do not respect anyone who shows an ounce of racism. That’s why I directly assaulted a group of “white lives matter” protestors and doxxed them to the community.

In regards to abortion though, my stance has always been that while the act of it can be deemed as immoral and abhorrent (snuffing our potential life); the pros of it far out weight the cons. Beyond my viewpoint of abortion being a form of population control (which is a good thing in my book), it can be used to improve woman’s health, prevent more unnecessary death, lessens the strain of social welfare, and many others.

Also, abstinence is laughable. You are basically saying that someone should go against their human instinct that helps promote social unity, closeness, and positivity. Engaging in sexual intercourse is engrained in our genetics and trying to prevent that based on, more often than not, religious doctrine is a form of enforced control. Birth control and contraceptives should be great elevated where as abstinence is just as archaic as “creative design” and “school prayer”. It’s the product of a (thankfully) bygone age.

 

[Sucumbio]

Btw...

I feel it's partly my fault for not being stricter in terms of how our discussion should not involve personal attacks aka ad hominem. I'm unfortunately probably guilty of doing it myself so for that I apologize. Going forward I think it's reasonable to continue this ongoing Women's Reproductive Rights discussion (yes, I think it's responsible to label it thus) without being punitive.

 

[Alicorn]

The GOP blocks bill Protecting Right to Travel for an abortion and this comes on the heels of a 10 year old getting assaulted and getting impregnated as a result of said attack.

 

[Sucumbio]

The GOP blocks bill Protecting Right to Travel for an abortion and this comes on the heels of a 10 year old getting assaulted and getting impregnated as a result of said attack.

I read about the 10yo pretty sick. Saw Nancy Pelosi with that insane grin announcing a bill that won't get past the Senate lol I'm like really? Ugh.

 

[Alicorn]

I have a lot of complaints about Nancy but seeing the Democrats actually pass these bills swiftly through the House shows how much control Nancy has over her party, mean while its the Senate that is holding the US back. Its the most dysfunctional body in congress. Which should tell the American people how important the Senate is.

 

[kiteinthesky]

The whole sad situation is a parable as to why we need a new legal system. The old Constitutional republic the Framers came up with has clearly been broken into pieces, and in ways they knew would happen, and it's led us down the path to utter disaster.

I'm honestly really afraid that there might be actual fighting in the streets over this after the mid-terms. I might make another thread explaining why in detail -- TL;DR there are other SC cases that are going to put voting rights on the chopping block this month, preventing the left from undoing the abortion bans or removing Republicans from power, and that's going to lead to things like a federal abortion ban if the Repubs win the mid-terms, along with rollbacks on women's and LGBTQ+ rights.

But overturning Roe vs. Wade really is the beginning of the end apparently.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Hegel's kind of amazing in how deep he accounted for the human condition to only remember things or believe in things local to themselves. There's really no point in fighting against the dialectic when people get into their own heads and form their own beliefs. At maximum they take into account the antithesis, but having them appreciate history as a dialectic is still grossly an unfathomable concept.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

This post was originally posted as a second post that was left intentionally incomplete. The whole situation is less so a parable of needing a completely new system and more so appreciating the madness of Mitch McConnell. It was a 1987 Joe Biden then at the time