Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Roe v Wade: US Supreme Court strikes down abortion rights


Still Waters

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Already seeing alot of stuff of social media of people offering their place for people to "visit" out of state. In states with loose abortion laws.

I imagine communities like that will be pretty common to get around some of the more restricted states

There's just something unsettling to me about that. Conjures up images of botched procdures in shady unkempt places. And truthfully that's all I think this reversal will accomplish. 

We have yet to learn that restrictions do not always equal protections. We need only look to the war on drugs to see the folly. 

Apples and oranges perhaps. But maybe there's some truth in it. Time will tell as it tends to do.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

The SCOTUS has overturned 233 now 234 of their prior rulings.

Then hear me out.... maybe, just MAYBE, they shouldn't have lied during their confirmation hearings when they said it was settled law and they had no intention of overturning it. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, HSlim said:

Then hear me out.... maybe, just MAYBE, they shouldn't have lied during their confirmation hearings when they said it was settled law and they had no intention of overturning it. 

Pretend they each had the intention of overturning RvW and had said so.  They all would still have been confirmed because the votes backing their confirmations were sufficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Pretend they each had the intention of overturning RvW and had said so.  They all would still have been confirmed because the votes backing their confirmations were sufficient.

Actually not necessarily.... Susan Collins has said that her decision hinged on their incoming justice's thoughts on Roe being settled and that she would not have voted to confirm if they had been honest.

Edited by HSlim
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

I'm pro choice but thank God abortion wasn't legal the year I was born.  My mother was 16, had I been conceived after RvW.............:whistle:

If you were never born, it wouldn't bother you. :tu:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, HSlim said:

Actually not necessarily.... Susan Collins has said that her decision hinged on their incoming justice's thoughts on Roe being settled and that she would not have voted to confirm if they had been honest.

And at the time it was settled because challenges were few and far between.  A case was brought and a ruling required.  I'm about half way through reading the opinion written by Alito and don't yet see any flaw in his arguments from a legal viewpoint.  Personally I have heard both sides of the aisle complain about the Supreme Court legislating from the bench and that not being their role.  RvW fits nicely into that category.  Now our elected officials who have in the past not had to give more than opinion on this issue will have to factually make it settled law by writing one and getting it through congress.  They need to do the same with marriage rights.  The congress is not supposed to defer it's job to the courts or to presidential decree. Their doing so has made things that some people assume are rights, in fact extremely vulnerable.  Again I need to stress to people, blame congress not the court.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, acute said:

If you were never born, it wouldn't bother you. :tu:

But I'm glad I'm here now.  I can wait to not be bothered by things when I'm dead now.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

And at the time it was settled because challenges were few and far between.  A case was brought and a ruling required.  I'm about half way through reading the opinion written by Alito and don't yet see any flaw in his arguments from a legal viewpoint.  Personally I have heard both sides of the aisle complain about the Supreme Court legislating from the bench and that not being their role.  RvW fits nicely into that category.  Now our elected officials who have in the past not had to give more than opinion on this issue will have to factually make it settled law by writing one and getting it through congress.  They need to do the same with marriage rights.  The congress is not supposed to defer it's job to the courts or to presidential decree. Their doing so has made things that that some people assume are rights, in fact extremely vulnerable.  

Agree, especially with Thomas suggesting that marriage rights and contraceptives need to be next. I find it very interesting that he's not bringing up interracial marriage

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, HSlim said:

Then hear me out.... maybe, just MAYBE, they shouldn't have lied during their confirmation hearings when they said it was settled law and they had no intention of overturning it. 

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/no-justices-barrett-gorsuch-and-kavanaugh-didn-t-say-they-wouldn-t-overturn-roe-v-wade-during-confirmation-hearings/ar-AAWVvxJ

Edited by Buzz_Light_Year
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HSlim said:

Agree, especially with Thomas suggesting that marriage rights and contraceptives need to be next. I find it very interesting that he's not bringing up interracial marriage

Hilariously, interracial marriage is protected by the 14th amendment (just like RvW supposedly was).  Searching through it I couldn't find any wording specific to marriage though, so.......:whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

Again I'm asking if anyone has bothered to read https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000180-874f-dd36-a38c-c74f98520000 so they may know what they are arguing for or against?  I doubt it.  I'm in the process now.

I hope you reached this part:

They’re definitely going after contraception and same sex relations next.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

A fetus isn't viable outside the body tell towards the end. 

Well said mate.

 

When the fetus can substantiate and support its own living process, it is an independent life.

Until then, it is an organ of the mother's body and as such, under the domain of her will and process.

 

Why don't fetuses have birth certificates, or social security numbers?  Because they aren't born yet and aren't viable life of their own right.  They are dependent organs of the mother's body.

End of story.

 

 

Edited by quiXilver
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I hope you reached this part:

They’re definitely going after contraception and same sex relations next.

Oh well, even your worst case scenario would only bring us up to date with the political position of Ukraine.

Edited by el midgetron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I hope you reached this part:

They’re definitely going after contraception and same sex relations next.

Yeah, I'm reading the actual document not an abridged version some numbnut decided to paste on Reddit

Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

 

 

 

 

How do you think people have rights in the first place? The right to vote, labour rights, minority rights, etc. By asking nicely? :lol:

Rights are born through blood and ashes. Of course there will be violence, and so there should be. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, el midgetron said:

Oh well, even your worst case scenario would only bring up up to date with the political position of Ukraine.

Thanks. I’ll be sure to tune in for more straw man arguments.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

Yeah, I'm reading the actual document not what some numbnut decided to paste on Reddit

He literally copy and pasted from the document. Ctrl+f is your friend.

Why would anyone trust the word of any of these religious fundamentalists anyway? They all lied about this on more than one occasion.

The US Supreme Court is done. The only bonus is that this is possibly the only thing that Republicans could have done to galvanise Democrat voters for November.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Of course there will be violence, and so there should be.

No.  There should not be.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

He literally copy and pasted from the document.

#1, prove it.

#2, context is given by what comes before and after statements.

  

2 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

The US Supreme Court is done.

#3, **** :lol:

Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, quiXilver said:

Well said mate.

When the fetus can substantiate and support its own living process, it is an independent life.

Until then, it is an organ of the mother's body and as such, under the domain of her will and process.

Why don't fetuses have birth certificates, or social security numbers?  Because they aren't born yet and aren't viable life of their own right.  They are dependent organs of the mother's body.

End of story.

Since when is “independence” a stipulation of what constitutes “life”? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

How do you think people have rights in the first place? The right to vote, labour rights, minority rights, etc. By asking nicely? :lol:

Rights are born through blood and ashes. Of course there will be violence, and so there should be. 

So, if antifa storms the Supreme Court and leaves a trail of “blood and ashes”, you are totally cool with that?

Edited by el midgetron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thread cleaned

Again, enough with the personal attacks and bickering please folks.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.