[AdamB]

How about we just start thinking for ourselves, independently?

Us independents been doin' that for decades now!

[jedrider]

How about we just start thinking for ourselves, independently?

Well you have the prehistoric system where the chief decides and the even older system where the Mother decides, then the Church system where the priests decide and now the Capitalists system where the board and CEO decide. Throughout history most of us have most of the decisions made for us.

That's a good question: Who the 'fuck' is running this vaudeville show anyway???

[vtsnowedin]

How about we just start thinking for ourselves, independently?

Well you have the prehistoric system where the chief decides and the even older system where the Mother decides, then the Church system where the priests decide and now the Capitalists system where the board and CEO decide. Throughout history most of us have most of the decisions made for us.

That's a good question: Who the 'fuck' is running this vaudeville show anyway???

I don't know as it maters exactly who is calling the shots today. It is clear though that whoever it is needs to go and give someone with a lot clearer view of the reality a go at it.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Even if the Democrats could get a pro abortion law passed through the Senate ,which they cannot without ending the filibuster, it would be repealed as soon as the next GOP controlled congress was sworn in.
The best they can do is to keep the filibuster rule in place and use it next year to keep the GOP from passing a Nationwide pro life law to keep abortion legal in those states that want it.

Freedom of choice is not "pro abortion" no matter how much the far right wants to twist it.

Why shouldn't all women, including poor women living in certain states, have the right to choose what happens with their body, under medical supervision?

Oh, right. Because of a theological issue.

So should we also be forced to go to church X because the far right tends to be for Jesus and flag waving?

[vtsnowedin]

Freedom of choice is not "pro abortion" no matter how much the far right wants to twist it.

It most certainly is pro abortion as one must be allowed to choose to have one. .
But reguardless of that truth women should have that choice as it lets every woman chose not to have an abortion if she objects to it for her own reasons.
Some women in China do not have the choice to not have an abortion. Some refugees in Poland that were raped and impregnated by Russians do not have the choice of abortion offered to them.
Simple ,it is not.

[AdamB]

Why shouldn't all women, including poor women living in certain states, have the right to choose what happens with their body, under medical supervision?

They should, in a free country. But this is America. Licensed, background checked, fingerprinted, approved at both the federal and state level CCW carriers are so untrustworthy we can't enter a Federal post office. Freedom ain't always what is claimed.

[Plantagenet]

I wonder why the Ds don’t just pass a law legalizing abortion across the US. The Ds control the house and the Senate and the White House….they are responsible for writing and passing laws at the moment.

I wait for the Ds to do their job and pass a law to solve this problem once and for all.

Cheers!

[evilgenius]

Even if the Democrats could get a pro abortion law passed through the Senate ,which they cannot without ending the filibuster, it would be repealed as soon as the next GOP controlled congress was sworn in.
The best they can do is to keep the filibuster rule in place and use it next year to keep the GOP from passing a Nationwide pro life law to keep abortion legal in those states that want it.

Freedom of choice is not "pro abortion" no matter how much the far right wants to twist it.

Why shouldn't all women, including poor women living in certain states, have the right to choose what happens with their body, under medical supervision?

Oh, right. Because of a theological issue.

So should we also be forced to go to church X because the far right tends to be for Jesus and flag waving?

That is obviously the danger. Currently, we are talking about a difference in the perception of morality that they have to see resolved their way. They cannot discuss morality without every answer being theirs. Tomorrow, it could be exactly what you say. Because if women don't have rights, then nobody has rights. It's all just about who is stronger.

[vtsnowedin]

I wonder why the Ds don’t just pass a law legalizing abortion across the US. The Ds control the house and the Senate and the White House….they are responsible for writing and passing laws at the moment.

I wait for the Ds to do their job and pass a law to solve this problem once and for all.

Cheers!

See above about having to squash the filibuster to pass it with just 51 Senate votes. I'm sure they would pass it if they could and make it stick but they can't.

[Doly]

I wonder why the Ds don’t just pass a law legalizing abortion across the US.

I wonder why they seem unable to pass most laws that they say they want to pass.

[vtsnowedin]

I wonder why the Ds don’t just pass a law legalizing abortion across the US.

I wonder why they seem unable to pass most laws that they say they want to pass.

Aside from the filibuster issue discussed above there is the possibility of them passing some of these wishful thinking laws and then having the actual consequence of them become reality for the electorate which would turn them out of office for decades.
Some things are much easier to talk about then to actually do like open marriage and casual drug use.
The GOP has been accused of using the right to life movement in just such a way thinking that Roe v Wade would never get overturned. Now they may have to put up or shut up and they are beginning to take a real look at public sentiment for the first time in years.

[JuanP]

Be smart! Get a Vasectomy and live child free. Abortions are not my problem since I will never need one because I am a sterile, child free man. My wife could need one if she had sex with another man, willingly or not, and got pregnant. If she wanted or needed an abortion, we would simply travel abroad. Canada? Europe? Uruguay? So many choices!

I can't believe humans are so primitive, backward, and retrograde that this is even a conflict in today's world. You people make me feel like we don't belong to the same species! A woman should be allowed to do as she pleases with HER body.

I just see this as another baby step in the USA's continued, accelerating decline. I wonder how it will affect November's elections. I feel for all the poor US women who will be forced to have unwanted biological offspring or get a dangerous, illegal abortion.

[Tanada]

Be smart! Get a Vasectomy and live child free. Abortions are not my problem since I will never need one because I am a sterile, child free man. My wife could need one if she had sex with another man, willingly or not, and got pregnant. If she wanted or needed an abortion, we would simply travel abroad. Canada? Europe? Uruguay? So many choices!

I can't believe humans are so primitive, backward, and retrograde that this is even a conflict in today's world. You people make me feel like we don't belong to the same species! A woman should be allowed to do as she pleases with HER body.

I just see this as another baby step in the USA's continued, accelerating decline. I wonder how it will affect November's elections. I feel for all the poor US women who will be forced to have unwanted biological offspring or get a dangerous, illegal abortion.

All the poor women where exactly? The big population states on both ocean coasts are all pro-abortion and will have the laws supporting the practice in place within days of an official SC decision placing it back in state control. The Anti-Abortion states are almost all low population flyover states where the Californians and New Yorker's think the men all sleep with sheep instead of women anyhow.

[evilgenius]

Be smart! Get a Vasectomy and live child free. Abortions are not my problem since I will never need one because I am a sterile, child free man. My wife could need one if she had sex with another man, willingly or not, and got pregnant. If she wanted or needed an abortion, we would simply travel abroad. Canada? Europe? Uruguay? So many choices!

I can't believe humans are so primitive, backward, and retrograde that this is even a conflict in today's world. You people make me feel like we don't belong to the same species! A woman should be allowed to do as she pleases with HER body.

I just see this as another baby step in the USA's continued, accelerating decline. I wonder how it will affect November's elections. I feel for all the poor US women who will be forced to have unwanted biological offspring or get a dangerous, illegal abortion.

Yes, because of something I've seen recently that confirms it. When abortions are illegal just as many abortions take place.

It's just that women are put into danger unnecessarily because of abortion being illegal. More women die, or suffer.

It's, obviously, a regulatory issue that is being stifled from being implemented, in those cases where it is illegal. How do you regulate the cleanliness or credentials of something that shouldn't exist in the first place? You can't regulate by denial.

The left should argue legally more from practical places like this, I think, as well. In their zeal they have gone off the deep end and are calling women "people who might get pregnant." I know that's a nod to the transgender battle, but it doesn't help actually.

It brings more ire upon the argument than expected, there being so much stored up anger in the country right now.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Be smart! Get a Vasectomy and live child free. Abortions are not my problem since I will never need one because I am a sterile, child free man. My wife could need one if she had sex with another man, willingly or not, and got pregnant. If she wanted or needed an abortion, we would simply travel abroad. Canada? Europe? Uruguay? So many choices!

I can't believe humans are so primitive, backward, and retrograde that this is even a conflict in today's world. You people make me feel like we don't belong to the same species! A woman should be allowed to do as she pleases with HER body.

I just see this as another baby step in the USA's continued, accelerating decline. I wonder how it will affect November's elections. I feel for all the poor US women who will be forced to have unwanted biological offspring or get a dangerous, illegal abortion.

All the poor women where exactly? The big population states on both ocean coasts are all pro-abortion and will have the laws supporting the practice in place within days of an official SC decision placing it back in state control. The Anti-Abortion states are almost all low population flyover states where the Californians and New Yorker's think the men all sleep with sheep instead of women anyhow.

So since when is Texas a low population state?

And let's not pretend they try hard to restrict abortions. For example:

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/03/01 ... eme-court/

Same thing with Florida, another high population state.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/health/20 ... n-florida/

Let's not pretend all anti-abortion states are like Mississippi.

https://www.nytimes.com/article/mississ ... n-law.html


In the US, it's more about the GOP trying to suppress peoples' rights because the far right claims to speak for God than about low population states, at the risk of pointing out the blatantly obvious. Funny how that group howls so loudly re hating Arabs, yet they share so much with their behavior re rights suppression.

[Plantagenet]

SCOTUS rules that abortion is not a constitutional right, overturning Roe Vs. wade.

supreme-court-roe-v-wade-overturns-right-abortion

Riot Police are guarding the Supreme Court and the Congress tonight, to protect our government institutions from violent leftist insurrectionists in DC who have declared a "night of rage" and threaten violent riots over the Scotus ruling.


D insurrectionists are threatening violence in response to the SCOTUS ruling

-------------------------

Trump is already claiming credit for the SCOTUS ruling, since he appointed three new SCOTUS judges in four years, all of whom ruled against Roe V. Wade. We wouldn't have a conservative SCOTUS and we wouldn't have this ruling without Trump. But we also wouldn't have these judges and this ruling if not for the partisanship and stupidity of the Ds.

The blame for the new justices Trump put on the court must also include the Harry Reid and the D majority in the Senate when Obama was president, who decided to end the long-standing traditon that judges needed 60 votes to be confirmed. The Ds did this so Obama could appoint far left judges without needing a single R vote to get them seated. But when Rs came back into power they kept the new D rules and proceeded to confirm Trump's far right judges without a single D vote.

By politicizing the confirmation process and changing to a confirmation processes that only required 50 votes for judges while Obama was President, the Ds ended decades of bi-partisanship that produced mostly middle-of-the-road judges. Now the judiciary is composed of far left judges appointed when a D is president and far right judges appointed when an R is president.

Cheers!

[Doly]

But we also wouldn't have these judges and this ruling if not for the partisanship and stupidity of the Ds.

You mean, you wouldn't have a Supreme Court that has lost credibility as a Supreme Court if the USA had been aware as a country that the attitude that anything not expressly forbidden by law is allowed, including things that have the potential to screw with the highest decisions taken in the country. Most people in Europe are aware that there are things that are technically legal that shouldn't be done regardless, such as critical government institutions committing suicide or murdering each other. And that, supposing that such things happened (because over a long enough time, really bad ideas come to be put into practice), the most important thing is to reverse the damage at the first available opportunity by whichever means available, as opposed to pretending for as long as you possibly can that the damage will magically fix itself.

Basically, what you are saying is that the USA is a country that has no idea of how to be a country. It may not last long as a country, then.

[vtsnowedin]

But we also wouldn't have these judges and this ruling if not for the partisanship and stupidity of the Ds.

You mean, you wouldn't have a Supreme Court that has lost credibility as a Supreme Court if the USA had been aware as a country that the attitude that anything not expressly forbidden by law is allowed, including things that have the potential to screw with the highest decisions taken in the country. Most people in Europe are aware that there are things that are technically legal that shouldn't be done regardless, such as critical government institutions committing suicide or murdering each other. And that, supposing that such things happened (because over a long enough time, really bad ideas come to be put into practice), the most important thing is to reverse the damage at the first available opportunity by whichever means available, as opposed to pretending for as long as you possibly can that the damage will magically fix itself.

Basically, what you are saying is that the USA is a country that has no idea of how to be a country. It may not last long as a country, then.

On the contrary the founding fathers built on centuries of English common law ( If you murder someone you will be hanged etc.)and merely refined it to take a king out of the decision making process and making the people through Congress, the Supreme court and the president as chosen by the people the final authority.
While some people are running around or fainting with the vapors about this decision the real issues will get settled at the ballot box over the next two or three elections and the system is working just fine and as the founders intended.

[Plantagenet]

a Supreme Court that has lost credibility as a Supreme Court

Why do you imagine the Supreme court has lost credibility as a Supreme Court?

The job of the Supreme Court is to rule on the constitutionality of various laws in the USA, and thats exactly what they did.



Personally I don't agree with these latest SCOTUS ruling, but I don't agree with a lot of their rulings.

Basically, what you are saying is that the USA is a country that has no idea of how to be a country.

I said no such thing....that dumb idea came 100% from you.

You thought it up, you typed and you posted it. Its clearly entirely YOUR IDEA.

Try to be honest enough to take credit or blame for your own own ideas, rather then falsely ascribing them to other people.

Cheers!

[jedrider]

The court's opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, said that the Constitution does not mention abortion. Nor does the Constitution guarantee abortion rights via another right, the right to liberty.

The opinion rejected Roe's and Casey's argument that the constitutional right to liberty included an individual's right to privacy in choosing to have an abortion, in the same way that it protects other decisions concerning intimate sexual conduct, such as contraception and marriage. According to the opinion, abortion is "fundamentally different" because it destroys fetal life.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022 ... nsequences

Didn't read the entire article, but it is clear the Supreme Court desires a Handmaidens USA and whatever reason they give seems phony and divorced from any reasonable legal argument.

The Supreme Court is now just another anti-democratic institution controlling our lives.