I am not against contraceptives. You don't consider fetuses alive or human i'm guessing so I don't think we'll see eye to eye.
Women are going to get an abortion anyway, you're just making more of them die along the way. Also if you're referring to this, the fetal heartbeat bill was unscientific bullshit:
'Fetal heartbeat' in abortion laws taps emotion, not science | AP News
'Heartbeat' Bills Get the Science of Fetal Heartbeats All Wrong | WIRED
We've already studied 3rd world countries where stuff like this happens. It's always a negative outcome.
Don't care about what people try to do illegally.
It's not legal.
Also, I'm telling you what you want just results in more dead mothers. Actual people. Not a clump of cells.
@sheevpalpamemes said:
I hope it's banned in every state.
I'd rather we not be like a 3rd world country and lowered QOL. We already have mediocre health care, we don't need it to be worse. This makes it worse.
There's enough data and studies on this for me to call you objectively wrong. You're basing your decisions off emotions not facts. We already had enough idiots basing things off of emotions not medical facts with Covid, and a lot of death due to it. We don't need more of this.
What QOL does an aborted fetus have? I mean it's over a half a million a year that are killed. Your data leaves out this.
Some certain righties on this forum are giddy about this...
Not sure why, aside from owning libs for a moment, this will likely come to bite them in the ass at the polls.
Like they give a damn.
Yeah with gerrymandering and the EC, it's not as difficult to vote for stuff that has a 2:1 or even 3:1 unpopularity.
What a convenient excuse to ignore the democratic process. Whenever something doesn't go the way you want, it can't possibly be because not enough people outside of the very loud minority support it... it has to be gerrymandering, and that evil EC that has existed in every election cycle for over 200 years. Btw, That EC is only going to work against you in a president election, currently Biden is in office and will be for nearly another 3 years. It's congress you need on your side, and congress is elected on a state by state level.
What a convenient excuse to ignore the democratic process
I never advocated for ignoring the democratic process. The GOP sure did though. Like the Republicans who tried to overturn the 2020 election. Or gerrymandering in general.
@eoten said:
Whenever something doesn't go the way you want, it can't possibly be because not enough people outside of the very loud minority support it... it has to be gerrymandering,
Straw-man. I never said that's always why they win. I just said it gives them more leeway and advantages, and it does. They are nationally a less popular party with less popular ideas, so those 2 things help. Also, not everyone is a 1 issue voter. Nor is this their most important issue. But all of that helps them get away with shitty unpopular ideas.
Roe has a majority support, with 2:1 to 3:1 margins over those who are against it. Overturning it is extremely unpopular. This is a fact. This is not a loud minority, you're just wrong on that.
@eoten said:
It's congress you need on your side, and congress is elected on a state by state level.
Straw-man. I never said EC for congress. The house is where gerrymandering aid comes in. Of course that's not the only reason they win, and I never said it was.
@eoten said:
You really need a civics class.
You're always wrong in legal threads, stop typing this. I didn't say anything wrong. The EC and Gerrymandering gives them advantages since they are nationally a less popular party with less popular ideas.
I can find data on this if you want.
The Electoral College gives the GOP a huge advantage, in one chart - Vox
The Electoral College’s enormous pro-Republican bias, in one chart - Vox
AP: Republicans Reaped Biggest Redistricting Edge in Decades | Ohio News | US News
Trying to overthrow election results. Voter suppression. Stacking the courts. This will be a very interesting couple of decade in the US. You guys might end up in a russian style "democracy".
Why does the government care so much about what we do to our bodies? Focus on other shit, will ya!
Well they don't. That's why SCOTUS is making the right decision in shooting it down. There's nothing in the constitution one way or another on the subject. This means by law how it is handled is entirely up to the states to decide unless congress creates a federal one, which they haven't. So by law, this is open for states to ban or allow as they see fit. As most people who are against them already live in states that would likely outlaw it, and people who are for them likely already live in states that would legalize it, there's really not that many people that are going to be effected.
Most of what you're listening to in media is nonsensical fearmongering in an election year. I mean, for Christ sake we have so-called elected leadership telling people their rights are being taken away, it's insurrection, the court is banning abortions. None of which is actually happening.
I'd go beyond abortion and make ending newborns legal in the first few minutes of life. If my baby was defective, I'd like to be able to put it to death immediately. Potential can't be quantified as anything real. A life is only as valuable as the memories the human has acquired. Newborns and fetuses can barely think. They barely have memories to lose.
Right to choose should have been made federal law. It shouldn't be left to the states, because people who are against abortion lose nothing by having it "enforced" upon them. Only poor people who want abortions and have to live in those states will lose. Which is how the Republicans want it.
I'd go beyond abortion and make ending newborns legal in the first few minutes of life. If my baby was defective, I'd like to be able to put it to death immediately. Potential can't be quantified as anything real. A life is only as valuable as the memories the human has acquired. Newborns and fetuses can barely think. They barely have memories to lose.
Right to choose should have been made federal law. It shouldn't be left to the states, because people who are against abortion lose nothing by having it "enforced" upon them. Only poor people who want abortions and have to live in those states will lose. Which is how the Republicans want it.
Letting the people on a state decide is democracy in action not the federal government.
@zaryia said:
@eoten said:
What a convenient excuse to ignore the democratic process
I never advocated for ignoring the democratic process. The GOP sure did though. Like the Republicans who tried to overturn the 2020 election. Or gerrymandering in general.
@eoten said:
Whenever something doesn't go the way you want, it can't possibly be because not enough people outside of the very loud minority support it... it has to be gerrymandering,
Straw-man. I never said that's always why they win. I just said it gives them more leeway and advantages, and it does. They are nationally a less popular party with less popular ideas, so those 2 things help. Also, not everyone is a 1 issue voter. Nor is this their most important issue. But all of that helps them get away with shitty unpopular ideas.
Roe has a majority support, with 2:1 to 3:1 margins over those who are against it. Overturning it is extremely unpopular. This is a fact. This is not a loud minority, you're just wrong on that.
@eoten said:
It's congress you need on your side, and congress is elected on a state by state level.
Straw-man. I never said EC for congress. The house is where gerrymandering aid comes in. Of course that's not the only reason they win, and I never said it was.
@eoten said:
You really need a civics class.
You're always wrong in legal threads, stop typing this. I didn't say anything wrong. The EC and Gerrymandering gives them advantages since they are nationally a less popular party with less popular ideas.
I can find data on this if you want.
The Electoral College gives the GOP a huge advantage, in one chart - Vox
The Electoral College’s enormous pro-Republican bias, in one chart - Vox
AP: Republicans Reaped Biggest Redistricting Edge in Decades | Ohio News | US News
The Electoral College dose not let one section of the country control elections. If your policies are good they will win at the polls.
Why does the government care so much about what we do to our bodies? Focus on other shit, will ya!
Well they don't.
Between abortion and marijuana, Gaming-Planet is objectively correct on the government literally caring what we do about our bodies. Hell, it's even true when it comes to positive things like masks and vaccines. You just lied, and made a subjective essay to support that lie.
We have several state governments that even have trigger-law which instantly bans abortion once Roe gets overturned. 🤣 How is this not a government caring what we do with our own bodies. 🤷♀️
@eoten said:
Most of what you're listening to in media is nonsensical fearmongering in an election year.
Explain to me how Gaming-Planet's post was fearmongering when even you just said several states already ban or restrict abortion in one way or the other.....a lot of which is fairly recent. That's a government trying to control body.
You literally contradicted your own opinion in your own post. 🤦♂️
@eotensaid:
there's really not that many people that are going to be effected.
Uhh, TX had like a 50% drop in abortions. Those women had to seek other means, usually traveling out of State. Many of those States are next. A lot of people will be and already are effected lol.
How is this fearmongering for an election, the Republicans caused all of this and it's all true. None of your post made sense. Bewildering.
@JimB said:
@warm_gun said:
I'd go beyond abortion and make ending newborns legal in the first few minutes of life. If my baby was defective, I'd like to be able to put it to death immediately. Potential can't be quantified as anything real. A life is only as valuable as the memories the human has acquired. Newborns and fetuses can barely think. They barely have memories to lose.
Right to choose should have been made federal law. It shouldn't be left to the states, because people who are against abortion lose nothing by having it "enforced" upon them. Only poor people who want abortions and have to live in those states will lose. Which is how the Republicans want it.
Letting the people on a state decide is democracy in action not the federal government.
Should a state also decide on Loving (Interracial marriage), Obergefell (Gay marriage), and Griswold (Contraceptives)?
Why does the government care so much about what we do to our bodies? Focus on other shit, will ya!
Well they don't. That's why SCOTUS is making the right decision in shooting it down. There's nothing in the constitution one way or another on the subject. This means by law how it is handled is entirely up to the states to decide unless congress creates a federal one, which they haven't. So by law, this is open for states to ban or allow as they see fit. As most people who are against them already live in states that would likely outlaw it, and people who are for them likely already live in states that would legalize it, there's really not that many people that are going to be effected.
Most of what you're listening to in media is nonsensical fearmongering in an election year. I mean, for Christ sake we have so-called elected leadership telling people their rights are being taken away, it's insurrection, the court is banning abortions. None of which is actually happening.
Bull. They want to make it illegal to seek an abortion in a state that allows them. That has NOTHING to do with allowing a state to decide. It's about control.
Why does the government care so much about what we do to our bodies? Focus on other shit, will ya!
Well they don't. That's why SCOTUS is making the right decision in shooting it down. There's nothing in the constitution one way or another on the subject. This means by law how it is handled is entirely up to the states to decide unless congress creates a federal one, which they haven't. So by law, this is open for states to ban or allow as they see fit. As most people who are against them already live in states that would likely outlaw it, and people who are for them likely already live in states that would legalize it, there's really not that many people that are going to be effected.
Most of what you're listening to in media is nonsensical fearmongering in an election year. I mean, for Christ sake we have so-called elected leadership telling people their rights are being taken away, it's insurrection, the court is banning abortions. None of which is actually happening.
Eoten is right on this. Roe vs Wade just isn't constitutional. This was something that should have been handled and voted on by congress and they kicked it to the SC. Roe vs Wade is a hodgepodge of the 1st, 4th, and 14th amendment its really garbage and that's why so many have called for overturning it. There's nothing in the constitution to point to in regards of abortion. at least with guns we can look towards the 2nd amendment... and that's still been regulated and stripped to hell on a state by state basis anyway...
That being said this was a leaked draft.. its not the final decision and nothing has actually happened yet.
If people feel this strongly about making abortion a constitutional right, you need to actually get on your representatives to do something... its their job. They need to be the ones to make this happen. Even Ginsberg knew Roe vs Wade was weak on a constitutional basis and that eventually a better argument would need to take its place.
I don't feel strongly on either way on abortion. I understand the argument on both sides.
One side will see it as an attack on the unborn. Which is understandable considering we are killing them and they are human life.
One side will see it as an attack on woman. Which is understandable, without abortion as an option woman are forced to go through a pregnancy they don't want.
If I wanted to. I think I could make a good argument for either side on this topic.
But tbh I truly don't give a shit either way. Both sides are bad to a certain level. I think there needs to be compromise by both sides. But neither side wants to budge.
Opinion, not fact. And one a majority of Americans and many legal experts disagree with.
@sargentd said:
Eoten is right on this.
I would expect one of his fellow ultra right wing posters to say this. But, no, he's not right. He was wrong. Unless you think State Governments are not Governments, in which case you both disagree with basic English and civics.
@sargentd said:
why so many have called for overturning it.
By many you mean the vast minority, and primarily Evangelicals. Cool, lets be more 3rd world because of a fringe group! And they only started calling for it due to political reasons that can historically be linked back to partisan campaigns with vile intent. You were both conned and we can actually trace it back lol!
@sargentd said:
There's nothing in the constitution to point to in regards of abortion.
Flimsy logic. This goes for several other things as well. Should we also undo Loving, Obergefell, and Griswold? Oh boy, full Sharia here we come!
@sargentd said:
But tbh I truly don't give a shit either way. Both sides are bad to a certain level. I think there needs to be compromise by both sides
Both sides are bad on certain topics. But both sides won't work here on overturning Roe. Abortion bans, which would accelerate and multiply, only result in negatives. This kind of stuff is part of what makes 3rd world countries 3rd world. This opinion highly advances that, with several states ready to trigger ban ASAP. All the medical data shows this is bad. Every scientific study is against your notion of both sides here.
States pushing abortion bans have higher infant mortality rates (nbcnews.com)
And that's actual babies. Ugh. This is all just tribal politics.
You use NBC for a reference. They have no credibility.
The economics concerning abortion bans all point to it having near universal bad outcomes. We all know that proponents of forced birth won't be adding any additional support to these new mothers and children as the result of the SC ruling. Quit acting like you care about these 'unborn' babies or women, you'll be one of the first to tell them to f*ck off the moment they ask for help.
Opinion, not fact. And one a majority of Americans and many legal experts disagree with.
@sargentd said:
Eoten is right on this.
I would expect one of his fellow ultra right wing posters to say this. But, no, he's not right. He was wrong. Unless you think State Governments are not Governments, in which case you both disagree with basic English and civics.
@sargentd said:
why so many have called for overturning it.
By many you mean the vast minority, and primarily Evangelicals. Cool, lets be more 3rd world because of a fringe group! And they only started calling for it due to political reasons that can historically be linked back to partisan campaigns with vile intent. You were both conned and we can actually trace it back lol!
@sargentd said:
There's nothing in the constitution to point to in regards of abortion.
Flimsy logic. This goes for several other things as well. Should we also undo Loving, Obergefell, and Griswold? Oh boy, full Sharia here we come!
@sargentd said:
But tbh I truly don't give a shit either way. Both sides are bad to a certain level. I think there needs to be compromise by both sides
Both sides won't work here. Abortion bans only result in negatives, and is a 3rd world thing to do. This opinion highly advances that, with several states ready to trigger ban ASAP. All the medical data shows this is bad. Every scientific study is against your notion of both sides here.
Except there isn't anything in the constitution, which means by law, by the 10th amendment the right to regulate in one direction or the other falls to the states. Basic civics. It's not a rightwing viewpoint, it's the legal one. But for people like you there's little difference between the two, hence, rioting.
If it's a "vast majority" that wants abortions banned, then you have nothing to worry about. However, many of the people who call for the overturn of Roe v Wade are in favor of it being legal, but are simply honest enough to understand SCOTUS doesn't have the power to make it so, and that legislating from the bench is not something we want them to be doing.
You can whine all you want, say people are lying, call their logic flimsy and post all the polls you base all your decisions on, and it doesn't matter. It is the correct decision, whether you like it or not.
There's nothing in the constitution to point to in regards of abortion.
Flimsy logic. This goes for several other things as well. Should we also undo Loving, Obergefell, and Griswold? Oh boy, full Sharia here we come!
The argument that since it isn't enumerated, therefore it can't be a right, is some piss poor logic. That's exactly why we have the 9th amendment and 14th amendment. Are these assholes looking for an itemized list that we can't stray from?
There's nothing in the constitution to point to in regards of abortion.
Flimsy logic. This goes for several other things as well. Should we also undo Loving, Obergefell, and Griswold? Oh boy, full Sharia here we come!
The argument that since it isn't enumerated, therefore it can't be a right, is some piss poor logic. That's exactly why we have the 9th amendment and 14th amendment. Are these assholes looking for an itemized list that we can't stray from?
It's ridiculous.
that's why congress exists, make them do their jobs.
There's nothing in the constitution to point to in regards of abortion.
Flimsy logic. This goes for several other things as well. Should we also undo Loving, Obergefell, and Griswold? Oh boy, full Sharia here we come!
The argument that since it isn't enumerated, therefore it can't be a right, is some piss poor logic. That's exactly why we have the 9th amendment and 14th amendment. Are these assholes looking for an itemized list that we can't stray from?
It's ridiculous.
Yeah, because apparently you guys cannot understand how government is supposed to work. You don't learn that kind of stuff in school, they don't even teach it anymore, then you read a bunch of fake news blogs and get this idea of how things should be and conflate it with the basic legal structure of the US government. With a little education you would understand the simple fact that the courts do NOT make law. You may want them to, but they don't. And this is basically just whining because the rules aren't being bent so you can have it your way.
But for people like you there's little difference between the two, hence, rioting.
What do you mean, you guys were responsible for January 6th riots. You hated how the Democratic legal system worked. You couldn't understand even the most basics of civics and law. Yes you, I saw you peddling the 2020 lies.
@eoten said:
Except there isn't anything in the constitution, which means by law, by the 10th amendment the right to regulate in one direction or the other falls to the states. Basic civics. It's not a rightwing viewpoint, it's the legal one. But for people like you there's little difference between the two, hence, rioting.
If it's a "vast majority" that wants abortions banned, then you have nothing to worry about. However, many of the people who call for the overturn of Roe v Wade are in favor of it being legal, but are simply honest enough to understand SCOTUS doesn't have the power to make it so, and that legislating from the bench is not something we want them to be doing.
Straw-man. I never made these subjective legal claims. Disregarded and stricken out.
My actual claim and argument is abortion bans are objectively negative going by medical science and economics. 100% data and science driven. Nothing more nothing less. This ruling would (and already has) accelerate and allowed such bans. Hence said ruling is objectively negative going by all known information. FACTUALLY negative as it pertains to real life people. Literal. Not an arbitrary 23% legal opinion negative, which has no bearing on this reducing USA's QOL.
My second argument is that Gaming-Planet was objectively correct. Those states that are going to or already have banned abortion are attempting to control what people do with their bodies. Unless you consider State Governments as "not governments", in which case you should start over in 5th Grade social studies. His post was not wrong.
@eoten said:
It is the correct decision, whether you like it or not.
This is your opinion on a legal opinion that several legal experts disagree with. This includes two inconsistent Republican judges, who on multiple occasions signaled this would NOT be the correct decisions.
Collins Suggests Gorsuch, Kavanaugh Misled Senate on Roe v. Wade Abortion Ruling - Bloomberg
But disregarded, and completely irrelevant to my claims which are entirely based off of medical science and economic science. Stick with your subjective legal analysis, I'll stick with my objective science facts. Don't conflate.
P.S. Do you side with the abortion bans that several red states have already and are going to be enacting? Do you prefer abortion bans? You are dodging this. We need to understand your actual stance on abortion bans. This is not just a subjective legal opinion thread. Your stance on the actual issue is unknown.
@sargentd said:
that's why congress exists, make them do their jobs.
So you support overturning of Loving, Obergefell, and Griswold as well? Just curious. You keep dodging a yes or no question.
The Electoral College dose not let one section of the country control elections. If your policies are good they will win at the polls.
My links show this is false, and it gives Republicans an edge,
The Electoral College gives the GOP a huge advantage, in one chart - Vox
The Electoral College’s enormous pro-Republican bias, in one chart - Vox
AP: Republicans Reaped Biggest Redistricting Edge in Decades | Ohio News | US News
Provide counter data.
Biden won in 2020 Obama won in 2008 Clinton won in 1992. The elections have been pretty evenly split. It is only a problem when the Democrats lose. Again if your policies are good you will win the electoral college if not you will lose. Right now the administration and the democrats are not focused on the problems of the American people and they are going to lose unless they change their focus.
States pushing abortion bans have higher infant mortality rates (nbcnews.com)
And that's actual babies. Ugh. This is all just tribal politics.
You use NBC for a reference. They have no credibility.
The economics concerning abortion bans all point to it having near universal bad outcomes. We all know that proponents of forced birth won't be adding any additional support to these new mothers and children as the result of the SC ruling. Quit acting like you care about these 'unborn' babies or women, you'll be one of the first to tell them to f*ck off the moment they ask for help.
It seems hypocritical that Democrats now care about women's lives when their actions are just the opposite. They have scuttled women's sports, and have a hard time calling a woman a woman or a mother. And their supreme court pick when ask to define what a woman is, she replied she is not a biologist. The Democrats are not consistant only political.
The Electoral College dose not let one section of the country control elections. If your policies are good they will win at the polls.
My links show this is false, and it gives Republicans an edge,
The Electoral College gives the GOP a huge advantage, in one chart - Vox
The Electoral College’s enormous pro-Republican bias, in one chart - Vox
AP: Republicans Reaped Biggest Redistricting Edge in Decades | Ohio News | US News
Provide counter data.
Biden won in 2020 Obama won in 2008 Clinton won in 1992. The elections have been pretty evenly split. It is only a problem when the Democrats lose. Again if your policies are good you will win the electoral college if not you will lose. Right now the administration and the democrats are not focused on the problems of the American people and they are going to lose unless they change their focus.
This is not a rebuttal to the 3 links of data I gave.
But for people like you there's little difference between the two, hence, rioting.
What do you mean, you guys were responsible for January 6th riots. You hated how the Democratic legal system worked. You couldn't understand even the most basics of civics and law. Yes you, I saw you peddling the 2020 lies.
@eoten said:
Except there isn't anything in the constitution, which means by law, by the 10th amendment the right to regulate in one direction or the other falls to the states. Basic civics. It's not a rightwing viewpoint, it's the legal one. But for people like you there's little difference between the two, hence, rioting.
If it's a "vast majority" that wants abortions banned, then you have nothing to worry about. However, many of the people who call for the overturn of Roe v Wade are in favor of it being legal, but are simply honest enough to understand SCOTUS doesn't have the power to make it so, and that legislating from the bench is not something we want them to be doing.
Straw-man. I never made these subjective legal claims. Disregarded and stricken out.
My actual claim and argument is abortion bans are objectively negative going by medical science and economics. 100% data and science driven. Nothing more nothing less. This ruling would (and already has) accelerate and allowed such bans. Hence said ruling is objectively negative going by all known information. FACTUALLY negative as it pertains to real life people. Literal. Not a 23% legal opinion negative, which has no bearing on this reducing USA's QOL.
My second argument is that Gaming-Planet was objectively correct. Those states that are going to or already have banned abortion are attempting to control what people do with their bodies. Unless you consider State Governments as "not governments", in which case you should start over in 5th Grade social studies. His post was not wrong.
@eoten said:
It is the correct decision, whether you like it or not.
This is your opinion on a legal opinion that several legal experts disagree with. Disregarded, and completely irrelevant to my claims which are entirely based off of medical science and economic science. Stick with your subjective legal analysis, I'll stick with my objective science facts. Don't conflate.
P.S. Do you side with the abortion bans that several red states have already and are going to be enacting? Do you prefer abortion bans? You are dodging this. We need to understand your actual stance on abortion bans. This is not just a subjective legal opinion thread. Your stance on the actual issue is unknown.
@sargentd said:
that's why congress exists, make them do their jobs.
So you support overturning of Loving, Obergefell, and Griswold as well? Just curious. You keep dodging a yes or no question.
It's a legal opinion a **** ton of legal experts agree with, including those in the highest seats of that position. You live and operate in an echo chamber, that isn't the reality of the case. SCOTUS doesn't make laws. Fact is fact. Now, go write your representatives, or don't. Either way whining about it, espousing your complete ignorance on the three branches of government is getting repetitive.
Your objections to abortion bans have nothing to do with their legality. It has nothing to do with courts, SCOTUS, or how government works. You have a very time differentiating between how you think the world should work, and how it actually does. This isn't about what you think of "medical science and economics." This is purely legal. "Medical science and economics" and people in those positions do not write or dictate law, that's not how democracies work either.
The job of the court is not to rule what they believe should exist or not exist, but enforce what is written as law as written and signed by congress, not by "medical science."
There's nothing in the constitution to point to in regards of abortion.
Flimsy logic. This goes for several other things as well. Should we also undo Loving, Obergefell, and Griswold? Oh boy, full Sharia here we come!
The argument that since it isn't enumerated, therefore it can't be a right, is some piss poor logic. That's exactly why we have the 9th amendment and 14th amendment. Are these assholes looking for an itemized list that we can't stray from?
It's ridiculous.
that's why congress exists, make them do their jobs.
Nice deflection from the point. But again, 'make Congress do their job' is ignoring we have a party that has abused the filibuster for the last decade. We have a minority party that is effectively holding any progress at bay. Guess what, you also support those door stops you're telling to do their jobs.
It's a legal opinion a **** ton of legal experts agree with, including those in the highest seats of that position.
And opposing the overturning of this precedent is also a legal opinion that a shit ton of legal experts agree with, including those in the highest seats of position. Even some who flip-flopped (Kavanaugh and Gorsuch). 🤦♂️ For something that the very justices you agree with not long ago changed their mind on, you're making way too many absolute statements.
@eoten said:
SCOTUS doesn't make laws. Fact is fact. Now, go write your representatives, or don't. Either way whining about it, espousing your complete ignorance on the three branches of government is getting repetitive.
I never made these claims.
@eoten said:
Your objections to abortion bans have nothing to do with their legality. It has nothing to do with courts, SCOTUS, or how government works. You have a very time differentiating between how you think the world should work, and how it actually does. This isn't about what you think of "medical science and economics." This is purely legal. "Medical science and economics" and people in those positions do not write or dictate law, that's not how democracies work either.
Because I'm not really having a legal debate as shown in my first post, that's way too subjective and everything you are writing we have several experts disagreeing with. Including SCOTUS justices. I never asked for your legal opinion that several experts disagree with when it comes to overturning legal precedent. Including Kavanaugh and Gorsuch not long ago.
Collins Suggests Gorsuch, Kavanaugh Misled Senate on Roe v. Wade Abortion Ruling - Bloomberg
I'm just letting you know since my first post that this type of legal OPINION has objectively negative impacts. I have been showing you this with studies. Nothing more nothing less. No one has been capable of refuting this claim. You copy and pasting the Federalist Society's legal opinion over and over on does not alter my scientific fact based argument.
@eoten said:
The job of the court is not to rule what they believe should exist or not exist,
Does that go for flip-flopping on legal precedent regarding Roe? 🤣
I can bring up the real world impacts of legal decisions. It isn't hard. It isn't off-topic. Your position on being for abortion bans, which I assume you are since you keep dodging, is objectively in the wrong as it pertains to reality.
What's funny about all this leak outraged is that this opinion isn't classified nor is it privileged in any matter that would make its dissemination a crime. At worse it would be an administration violation but even then whoever leaked it might be protected by federal whistle-blower laws specifically under the provision that protects people with matters that deal with the greater public health interest.
Objectively as others have stated restricting access to abortions services doesn't stop them, it just makes them more dangerous. The repeal of Roe v Wade will cause at least 13 states to automatically make all abortion services illegal in those states. Hence, the one provision of whistle blower protections is it should insolate administration punishment as far as employment concerns go. It could even now be argued that investigating the leak itself to identify the leak source would also be violating laws that protect whistle blowers.
There is also no criminal culpability in the dissemination of the opinions as I have said before it isn't classified and it doesn't contain any court ordered privileged protections.
And the irony is we know of Trump misappropriated 14 banker boxes full of highly classified materials and these same people outraged by the SCOTUS opinion leak don't make a peep about that. Doubly ironic since prior to even that they spent years outraged about Hilary's emails.
It's a legal opinion a **** ton of legal experts agree with, including those in the highest seats of that position.
And opposing the overturning of this precedent is also a legal opinion that a shit ton of legal experts agree with, including those in the highest seats of position. Even some who flip-flopped (Kavanaugh and Gorsuch). 🤦♂️ For something that the very justices you agree with not long ago changed their mind on, you're making way too many absolute statements.
@eoten said:
SCOTUS doesn't make laws. Fact is fact. Now, go write your representatives, or don't. Either way whining about it, espousing your complete ignorance on the three branches of government is getting repetitive.
I never made these claims.
@eoten said:
Your objections to abortion bans have nothing to do with their legality. It has nothing to do with courts, SCOTUS, or how government works. You have a very time differentiating between how you think the world should work, and how it actually does. This isn't about what you think of "medical science and economics." This is purely legal. "Medical science and economics" and people in those positions do not write or dictate law, that's not how democracies work either.
Because I'm not really having a legal debate as shown in my first post, that's way too subjective and everything you are writing we have several experts disagreeing with. Including SCOTUS justices. I never asked for your legal opinion that several experts disagree with when it comes to overturning legal precedent. Including Kavanaugh and Gorsuch not long ago.
Collins Suggests Gorsuch, Kavanaugh Misled Senate on Roe v. Wade Abortion Ruling - Bloomberg
I'm just letting you know since my first post that this type of legal OPINION has objectively negative impacts. I have been showing you this with studies. Nothing more nothing less. No one has been capable of refuting this claim. You copy and pasting the Federalist Society's legal opinion over and over on does not alter my scientific fact based argument.
@eoten said:
The job of the court is not to rule what they believe should exist or not exist,
Does that go for flip-flopping on legal precedent regarding Roe? 🤣
I can bring up the real world impacts of legal decisions. It isn't hard. It isn't off-topic. Your position on being for abortion bans, which I assume you are since you keep dodging, is objectively in the wrong as it pertains to reality.
You're not having a legal debate? But this is a legal issue.
And you say, objectively negative impacts? It's your opinion. You're wanting the court to bend the rules of what they are supposed to be doing to appease your feelings on the issue? It's not the judges you should be showing those studies to.
You're not having a legal debate? But this is a legal issue.
And I'm giving the real word implications of this legal opinion, and the following 3rd world Red State bans.
Problem?
@eoten said:
And you say, objectively negative impacts? It's your opinion.
That's not my opinion. 🤦♂️ It's a fact.
Study shows an abortion ban may lead to a 21% increase in pregnancy-related deaths | Colorado Arts and Sciences Magazine | University of Colorado Boulder
The negative health implications of restricting abortion access | News | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
You're not having a legal debate? But this is a legal issue.
And I'm giving the real word implications of this legal opinion, and the following 3rd world Red State bans.
Problem?
@eoten said:
And you say, objectively negative impacts? It's your opinion.
That's not my opinion. 🤦♂️ It's a fact.
Study shows an abortion ban may lead to a 21% increase in pregnancy-related deaths | Colorado Arts and Sciences Magazine | University of Colorado Boulder
The negative health implications of restricting abortion access | News | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
This sentence was literally just your opinion of someone else's opinion.
My argument is completely objective, based on science. Yours is completely subjective, based on right wing legal theory.
Your opinion, or any opinion on what you think is based on science has no legal bearing on whether or not something is permitted, or unpermitted by the constitution. What is so hard to grasp about this?
It's like whining that SCOTUS won't overstep their authority to make cigarettes illegal because you have some medical studies that say it causes harm. It's COMPLETELY irrelevant. Again, take a fucking civics class, learn a little about law.
The economics concerning abortion bans all point to it having near universal bad outcomes. We all know that proponents of forced birth won't be adding any additional support to these new mothers and children as the result of the SC ruling. Quit acting like you care about these 'unborn' babies or women, you'll be one of the first to tell them to f*ck off the moment they ask for help.
It seems hypocritical that Democrats now care about women's lives when their actions are just the opposite. They have scuttled women's sports, and have a hard time calling a woman a woman or a mother. And their supreme court pick when ask to define what a woman is, she replied she is not a biologist. The Democrats are not consistant only political.
There's no hypocrisy at all. You're just barking up the identify politics tree again. I would expect nothing less from scientifically illiterate fools like yourself.
It's pretty telling that his complaint is about Democrats not making their terminology and policies exclusive enough.
Your opinion, or any opinion on what you think is based on science has no legal bearing on whether or not something is permitted, or unpermitted by the constitution. What is so hard to grasp about this?
Straw-man! I never said the data I am citing has direct legal bearing. I told you I am primarily discussing the science of this issue, not Alito's legal opinion which many experts disagree with. Rather the factual impacts of it. Also I linked no opinions, mostly just facts and data:
Study shows an abortion ban may lead to a 21% increase in pregnancy-related deaths | Colorado Arts and Sciences Magazine | University of Colorado Boulder
The negative health implications of restricting abortion access | News | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
Abortion bans and restrictions are objectively bad, and a 3rd world thing to do. Why can't you understand this, why do you run to a conservative legal opinions when I'm only discussing science?
This is deflection. If you don't want to talk about the science, don't respond to my posts. We're talking about different things, stop responding to me if it upsets you.
@eoten said:
Again, take a fucking civics class, learn a little about law.
Straw-man. I don't care about your subjective opinions on another person's legal opinion. I'm just talking about the facts and data regarding abortion restrictions that this helps accelerate.
P.S. Do you side with the abortion bans and restrictions? We should know your actual stance on abortion bans. This is not just a subjective legal opinion thread. For what reason would you dodge this for?
Study shows an abortion ban may lead to a 21% increase in pregnancy-related deaths | Colorado Arts and Sciences Magazine | University of Colorado Boulder
Not to butt in a copy-paste extravaganza, but your first link... a speculative analysis from a researcher isn't "fact" hence why the word "may" is literally in the title. lol
Study shows an abortion ban may lead to a 21% increase in pregnancy-related deaths | Colorado Arts and Sciences Magazine | University of Colorado Boulder
Not to butt in a copy-paste extravaganza, but your first link... a speculative analysis from a researcher isn't "fact" hence why the word "may" is literally in the title. lol
And your second link is a Q/A interview with a professor and her thoughts (opinions) on the issues at large.
The third link is discussing third world countries and unsafe techniques. Is the argument here then that people in the United States are going to go out of the country then to seek abortions? Um, okay...
The last link is a paper about how having children costs more than not having children. This is my shocked face as a father. :0 !!! I only read the abstract though, so perhaps I am off base.
Fascinating copy and paste mantra though. Mostly facts and data. lol
And your second link is a Q/A interview with a professor and her thoughts (opinions) on the issues at large.
The third link is discussing third world countries and unsafe techniques. Is the argument here then that people in the United States are going to go out of the country then to seek abortions? Um, okay...
The last link is a paper about how having children costs more than not having children. This is my shocked face as a father. :0 !!! I only read the abstract though, so perhaps I am off base.
Fascinating copy and paste mantra though. Mostly facts and data. lol
Your opinion, or any opinion on what you think is based on science has no legal bearing on whether or not something is permitted, or unpermitted by the constitution. What is so hard to grasp about this?
Straw-man! I never said the data I am citing has direct legal bearing. I told you I am primarily discussing the science of this issue, not Alito's legal opinion which many experts disagree with. Rather the factual impacts of it. Also I linked no opinions, mostly just facts and data:
Study shows an abortion ban may lead to a 21% increase in pregnancy-related deaths | Colorado Arts and Sciences Magazine | University of Colorado Boulder
The negative health implications of restricting abortion access | News | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
Abortion bans and restrictions are objectively bad, and a 3rd world thing to do. Why can't you understand this, why do you run to a conservative legal opinions when I'm only discussing science?
This is deflection. If you don't want to talk about the science, don't respond to my posts. We're talking about different things, stop responding to me if it upsets you.
@eoten said:
Again, take a fucking civics class, learn a little about law.
Straw-man. I don't care about your subjective opinions on another person's legal opinion. I'm just talking about the facts and data regarding abortion restrictions that this helps accelerate.
P.S. Do you side with the abortion bans and restrictions? We should know your actual stance on abortion bans. This is not just a subjective legal opinion thread. For what reason would you dodge this for?
Again, it doesn't matter what you think may be good or bad. What matters is what the law says can or cannot be done. There is no legal grounds for Roe v Wade to exist. This is absolutely a discussion about the legal aspects of it because the Supreme Court is by definition a legal body that deals solely in law. Not speculation, not feelings and opinions. Law. There is no other argument on the topic. If you want to argue the merits for or against abortion, that's completely unrelated, and frankly off topic to the alleged SCOTUS ruling.
The only person here deflecting is you because you don't understand enough about law or civics to actually engage in the legal discussion. All you can do is post links to where you get your ideas from, none of which have any relevancy to what is happening.
Log in to comment