(06-24-2022 10:59 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 10:53 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 10:46 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  And lest there be any doubt as to the next goals zealots have for this iteration of the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas makes it crystal clear -

Thomas wrote, “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”

Griswold = birth control
Lawrence = homosexual sex
Obergefell = same-sex marriage

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-bat...tq-rights/

Bet you there are some posters here who would like to see interracial marriage go back to the states.

Uncalled for and not needed for the TOPIC of this thread.

Why not?

The argument at the crux of the matter is that SCOTUS exceeded their authority and "legislated from the court" when it came to Roe v. Wade, right?

Doesn't that make other liberties SCOTUS has provided vulnerable? I.e. gay marriage, access to birth control, etc???

P.S. What's uncalled for is calling the nearly 1 in 4 women who have at some point in their life had abortion, "murders".

(06-24-2022 09:30 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  hahahahaha A few of the clown show ran down there will quick to scream and cry.

Did you have to show some of the most unattractive women in the US as a backdrop to the pro abortion crowd?

(06-24-2022 11:00 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 10:41 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 10:31 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 10:18 AM)HCJag Wrote:  There are certain cases where I believe abortion should be legal (rape, under 16, etc), but I don't see how anyone could support no limitations throughout the term. Hopefully the states can pass plans that are restrictive without the total ban.

Pretty much agree. I would like a consensus from the medical community of how many weeks to set the over/under on, and then completely ban it after that date except for those cases you mention. In those, I would still support it up until birth since you're likely dealing with traumatic emotional issues still.

Either way, I would ALWAYS counsel anyone to choose adoption first. But as I stated earlier, that process needs to be better on both fronts.

I think most states are going to converge on laws allowing abortion up to 15 weeks and will include provisions for rape and incest. Beyond that it will be illegal.

I don't think a lot of states will go to conception. Republicans are not monolithic on this issue. Even if the politicians are all one way, the rank and file of both parties have some with the opposite position. Its not really a left/right issue.

15 weeks gives them plenty of time to figure out they are pregnant. And with the large number of preganancies that spontaneously abort in the 1st 3 months, this is once the odds are better for the unborn child.

Politically they are different. However, I think the idea of a 15 week window will become standardized because it roughly includes the first trimester plus some weeks afterwards for the woman to figure out what she wants to do. I don't see any state wanting to allow unrestricted abortion through the entire term plus some hours after birth.

(06-24-2022 09:40 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Quote:
Of the 400,000 children in foster care, approximately 117,000 are waiting to be adopted.
https://www.adoptuskids.org/meet-the-chi...20adopted.

i like your reasoning here... there are too many kids in foster care already..so let's kill the new ones. why not just go into the foster care system, pick the kids who have been there the longest, and eliminate them? same result.. same morality

(06-24-2022 11:05 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 11:00 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 10:41 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 10:31 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 10:18 AM)HCJag Wrote:  There are certain cases where I believe abortion should be legal (rape, under 16, etc), but I don't see how anyone could support no limitations throughout the term. Hopefully the states can pass plans that are restrictive without the total ban.

Pretty much agree. I would like a consensus from the medical community of how many weeks to set the over/under on, and then completely ban it after that date except for those cases you mention. In those, I would still support it up until birth since you're likely dealing with traumatic emotional issues still.

Either way, I would ALWAYS counsel anyone to choose adoption first. But as I stated earlier, that process needs to be better on both fronts.

I think most states are going to converge on laws allowing abortion up to 15 weeks and will include provisions for rape and incest. Beyond that it will be illegal.

I don't think a lot of states will go to conception. Republicans are not monolithic on this issue. Even if the politicians are all one way, the rank and file of both parties have some with the opposite position. Its not really a left/right issue.

15 weeks gives them plenty of time to figure out they are pregnant. And with the large number of preganancies that spontaneously abort in the 1st 3 months, this is once the odds are better for the unborn child.

Politically they are different. However, I think the idea of a 15 week window will become standardized because it roughly includes the first trimester plus some weeks afterwards for the woman to figure out what she wants to do. I don't see any state wanting to allow unrestricted abortion through the entire term plus some hours after birth.

Well the Democrats in Virginia and Rhode Island were trying to do that.

My biggest fear with this ruling is that it puts Kevorkian Democrats in office.

(06-24-2022 10:46 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  And lest there be any doubt as to the next goals zealots have for this iteration of the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas makes it crystal clear -

Thomas wrote, “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”

Griswold = birth control
Lawrence = homosexual sex
Obergefell = same-sex marriage

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-bat...tq-rights/

Excellent!


It's great to have conservatives on the court!!!

(06-24-2022 10:55 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 10:53 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 10:46 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  And lest there be any doubt as to the next goals zealots have for this iteration of the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas makes it crystal clear -

Thomas wrote, “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”

Griswold = birth control
Lawrence = homosexual sex
Obergefell = same-sex marriage

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-bat...tq-rights/

Bet you there are some posters here who would like to see interracial marriage go back to the states.

Yes I'm sure you're right, hmmm wonder why Justice Thomas didn't mention Loving v. Virginia?

His quote is taken out of context or misunderstood by the left. He is not saying he wants to necessarily overturn those rights, but rather evaluate the cases and rights through the correct lens, i.e. the privileges and immunities clause rather than the oxymoronic substantive due process case law that the court has created. He often writes concurring opinions discussing the privileges and immunities clause.

(06-24-2022 10:07 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  Go ask all the Roe supporters what it forbids and allows, 70 percent of them would have no idea.

The court is now neutral on abortion, as it should be. I’m pro choice.

Don't stress facts..go with feewings.

(06-24-2022 09:33 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  What happens next? Women will die. Others will be forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. Children will be born into households that cannot and do not want to take care of them.

Women with means will still be able to get to blue states to get the operation performed. This includes the mistresses and the daughters of prominent GOP donors and members of congress.

And lastly, hopefully this motivates the 2/3rds of Americans who did not want to see Roe v Wade overturned to show up to the polls. I still think the Dems are going to take a beating in November but this will definitely blunt it IMO.

Cry me a River. Satan surely has your best interests in mind. Continue down this path and see what awaits you in the life to come.

The prog filth are losing their shite

Thank you magnificent orange bastard

Starting to see out on the twitterphere protests being scheduled for this evening. Had to chuckle when the one here in Cincinnati is referred to as an “emergency” protest.

(06-24-2022 11:05 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 11:00 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 10:41 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 10:31 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 10:18 AM)HCJag Wrote:  There are certain cases where I believe abortion should be legal (rape, under 16, etc), but I don't see how anyone could support no limitations throughout the term. Hopefully the states can pass plans that are restrictive without the total ban.

Pretty much agree. I would like a consensus from the medical community of how many weeks to set the over/under on, and then completely ban it after that date except for those cases you mention. In those, I would still support it up until birth since you're likely dealing with traumatic emotional issues still.

Either way, I would ALWAYS counsel anyone to choose adoption first. But as I stated earlier, that process needs to be better on both fronts.

I think most states are going to converge on laws allowing abortion up to 15 weeks and will include provisions for rape and incest. Beyond that it will be illegal.

I don't think a lot of states will go to conception. Republicans are not monolithic on this issue. Even if the politicians are all one way, the rank and file of both parties have some with the opposite position. Its not really a left/right issue.

15 weeks gives them plenty of time to figure out they are pregnant. And with the large number of preganancies that spontaneously abort in the 1st 3 months, this is once the odds are better for the unborn child.

Politically they are different. However, I think the idea of a 15 week window will become standardized because it roughly includes the first trimester plus some weeks afterwards for the woman to figure out what she wants to do. I don't see any state wanting to allow unrestricted abortion through the entire term plus some hours after birth.

Many states as of today are banning it after SIX weeks. Down the road, don't be surprised to see it eliminated entirely.

(06-24-2022 11:07 AM)Oman Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 09:40 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Quote:
Of the 400,000 children in foster care, approximately 117,000 are waiting to be adopted.
https://www.adoptuskids.org/meet-the-chi...20adopted.

i like your reasoning here... there are too many kids in foster care already..so let's kill the new ones. why not just go into the foster care system, pick the kids who have been there the longest, and eliminate them? same result.. same morality

He's a ghoul.

They aren't sending their best and brightest talking points today.

(06-24-2022 11:09 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Starting to see out on the twitterphere protests being scheduled for this evening. Had to chuckle when the one here in Cincinnati is referred to as an “emergency” protest.

Cat sitter bidness is booming

(06-24-2022 11:10 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 11:05 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 11:00 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 10:41 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 10:31 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Pretty much agree. I would like a consensus from the medical community of how many weeks to set the over/under on, and then completely ban it after that date except for those cases you mention. In those, I would still support it up until birth since you're likely dealing with traumatic emotional issues still.

Either way, I would ALWAYS counsel anyone to choose adoption first. But as I stated earlier, that process needs to be better on both fronts.

I think most states are going to converge on laws allowing abortion up to 15 weeks and will include provisions for rape and incest. Beyond that it will be illegal.

I don't think a lot of states will go to conception. Republicans are not monolithic on this issue. Even if the politicians are all one way, the rank and file of both parties have some with the opposite position. Its not really a left/right issue.

15 weeks gives them plenty of time to figure out they are pregnant. And with the large number of preganancies that spontaneously abort in the 1st 3 months, this is once the odds are better for the unborn child.

Politically they are different. However, I think the idea of a 15 week window will become standardized because it roughly includes the first trimester plus some weeks afterwards for the woman to figure out what she wants to do. I don't see any state wanting to allow unrestricted abortion through the entire term plus some hours after birth.

Many states as of today are banning it after SIX weeks. Down the road, don't be surprised to see it eliminated entirely.

Fine by me.

But I'm generally against snuffing out the life of inconvenient humans in utero.

Like I said, if it was puppies instead the left would lose their ever loving minds.

(06-24-2022 11:05 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 10:59 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 10:53 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 10:46 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  And lest there be any doubt as to the next goals zealots have for this iteration of the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas makes it crystal clear -

Thomas wrote, “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”

Griswold = birth control
Lawrence = homosexual sex
Obergefell = same-sex marriage

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-bat...tq-rights/

Bet you there are some posters here who would like to see interracial marriage go back to the states.

Uncalled for and not needed for the TOPIC of this thread.

Why not?

The argument at the crux of the matter is that SCOTUS exceeded their authority and "legislated from the court" when it came to Roe v. Wade, right?

Doesn't that make other liberties SCOTUS has provided vulnerable? I.e. gay marriage, access to birth control, etc???

P.S. What's uncalled for is calling the nearly 1 in 4 women who have at some point in their life had abortion, "murders".

If the court exceeded its authority on ANYTHING then it should be up for review.

The Constitution is very clear on what authority is granted to the federal government. Everything else is left to the states.

Courts shouldn't MAKE law. They should only rule on whether or not something is legal within the framework of the state or US constitutions.

(06-24-2022 11:05 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  P.S. What's uncalled for is calling the nearly 1 in 4 women who have at some point in their life had abortion, "murders".

What sanitized word salad would you call killing an unborn child? No matter how you try and put lipstick on a pig, it is still the same facts. Abortion means killing. Premeditated.

(06-24-2022 11:10 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 11:05 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 11:00 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 10:41 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 10:31 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Pretty much agree. I would like a consensus from the medical community of how many weeks to set the over/under on, and then completely ban it after that date except for those cases you mention. In those, I would still support it up until birth since you're likely dealing with traumatic emotional issues still.

Either way, I would ALWAYS counsel anyone to choose adoption first. But as I stated earlier, that process needs to be better on both fronts.

I think most states are going to converge on laws allowing abortion up to 15 weeks and will include provisions for rape and incest. Beyond that it will be illegal.

I don't think a lot of states will go to conception. Republicans are not monolithic on this issue. Even if the politicians are all one way, the rank and file of both parties have some with the opposite position. Its not really a left/right issue.

15 weeks gives them plenty of time to figure out they are pregnant. And with the large number of preganancies that spontaneously abort in the 1st 3 months, this is once the odds are better for the unborn child.

Politically they are different. However, I think the idea of a 15 week window will become standardized because it roughly includes the first trimester plus some weeks afterwards for the woman to figure out what she wants to do. I don't see any state wanting to allow unrestricted abortion through the entire term plus some hours after birth.

Many states as of today are banning it after SIX weeks. Down the road, don't be surprised to see it eliminated entirely.

The large majority of abortions are already performed before 6 weeks now.

No matter your stance the simple fact is this was never in the constitution and it was never intended to be by the founders.

You don't need to be a constitutional scholar or a first year law student to understand this. Not only is it not real, it would not even have occurred to them that women would desire such a right. That is how far away in intent they were from this.

That is the core truth many simple refuse to acknowledge. This whole thing has been a flat out lie and fantasy from the beginning.

(06-24-2022 11:15 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  The large majority of abortions are already performed before 6 weeks now.

Unless you're taking pregnancy tests often, you don't know you're pregnant until you miss your period.

By the time you miss your period, you are 4 weeks pregnant.